    [Senate Hearing 115-491]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-491

                       POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-
      WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
                                WILDLIFE REFUGE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       to

      RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE POTENTIAL FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
       DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-WILDERNESS PORTION OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
    WILDLIFE REFUGE, KNOWN AS THE ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, TO RAISE
     SUFFICIENT REVENUE PURSUANT TO THE SENATE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS
                          INCLUDED IN H. CON. RES. 71.

                                   ----------

                                NOVEMBER 2, 2017

                                   ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

         POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR
             COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-491

                       POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-
      WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
                                WILDLIFE REFUGE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       to

      RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE POTENTIAL FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
       DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-WILDERNESS PORTION OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
    WILDLIFE REFUGE, KNOWN AS THE ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, TO RAISE
     SUFFICIENT REVENUE PURSUANT TO THE SENATE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS
                          INCLUDED IN H. CON. RES. 71.

                                   __________

                                 NOVEMBER 2, 2017

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                 ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     27-436                WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada

                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
                     Kellie Donnelly, Deputy Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
                                Policy Director
              Chuck Kleeschulte, Senior Professional Staff Member
                    Annie Hoefler, Professional Staff Member
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Sullivan, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Senator from Alaska...................    10
    Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Congressman from Alaska..................    20
    Walker, Hon. Bill, Governor, State of Alaska.....................    22
    Mallott, Hon. Byron, Lieutenant Governor, State of Alaska........    32
    Sheehan, Greg, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
      Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.......................    41
    Alexander, Sam, Tribal Member, Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal
      Government.....................................................    46
    Rexford, Matthew, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of
      Kaktovik, Alaska...............................................    51
    Schutt, Aaron, President and Chief Executive Officer, Doyon,
      Limited........................................................    88
    Epstein, Lois N., Engineer and Arctic Program Director, The
      Wilderness Society.............................................   105
    Glenn, Richard K., Executive Vice President for Lands and Natural
      Resources, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation...................   118
    Pourchot, Pat, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the
      Interior for Alaska Affairs, Anchorage.........................   128
    Cronin, Dr. Matthew A., Biologist and Former Research Professor,
      Animal Genetics, University of Alaska Fairbanks................   134

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Acton-Bond, Brandon:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   443
    Agnew, Shauna:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   444
    Agni, Steve:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   445
    Airport Equipment Rentals, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   446
    Alaska Chamber:
        Letter for the Record........................................   448
    Alaska Forest Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   449
    Alaska Miners Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   450
    Alaska State Senate:
        Letter for the Record........................................   451
    Alaska Trucking Association:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   455
    Alexander, Sam:
        Opening Statement............................................    46
        Written Testimony............................................    48
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   320
    Allison, Matti:
        Letter for the Record........................................   456
    Ancel, Nadine:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   457
    Anderson, Jeremy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   458
    Anello, Marie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   459
    Arvin, Ron:
        Letter for the Record........................................   460
    Avery, Janis:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   461
    Babcock, Tuckerman:
        Letter for the Record........................................   462
    Baggen, Corella (Cory):
        Letter for the Record........................................   463
    Bailey, R.V.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   464
    Baker, Frank:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   465
    Baker, Jeff:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   466
    Banks, Dale:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   467
    Barber, Patti:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   468
    Barkdull, Scott A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   469
    Barrows, Rebecca:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   470
    Barth, Bryan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   471
    Basham, Charlotte:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   472
    Beaudreau, Lisa:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   473
    Beck, Ashley Joy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   474
    Beck, Michael:
        Letter for the Record........................................   475
    Bell, Elaine:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   477
    Bell, Mike:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   478
    Belle, Jennifer:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   479
    Bell-Jones, Jenny:
        Letter for the Record........................................   480
    Beltz, Randy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   481
    Benkley, Joanne:
        Letter for the Record........................................   483
    Bennett, Cole:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   484
    Bergstrom, Frank:
        Letter for the Record........................................   485
    Berry, Joshua:
        Letter for the Record........................................   486
    Bezenek, Clay:
        Letter for the Record........................................   487
    Birch, Hon. Chris:
        Letter for the Record........................................   488
    Birkenhead, Jennifer:
        Letter for the Record........................................   489
    Bischoff, Valerie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   490
    Bitney, John W.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   491
    Bixler, Sara C.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   492
    Blais-Gestrich, Maureen:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   493
    Bogue, Renee:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   494
    Boldrick, Zach:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   495
    Bond, Marc:
        Letter for the Record........................................   496
    Boutin, Tomas:
        Letter for the Record........................................   497
    Bowler, Bruce and Judy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   498
    Box, Deryl:
        Letter for the Record........................................   499
    Boyd, Michael:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   500
    Brado, Becca:
        Letter for the Record........................................   501
    Branch, K.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   502
    Brandenburg, Kim A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   503
    Brice, Sam Robert:
        Letter for the Record........................................   505
    Briggs, Christopher:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   506
    Brooker, Greg:
        Letter for the Record........................................   507
    Brooks, Wiley:
        Letter for the Record........................................   508
    Brower, Jr., Hon. Harry K.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   509
    Brown, Sr., Arthur L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   511
    Brown, Hamilton:
        Letter for the Record........................................   512
    Brown, Linda (Lou):
        Letter for the Record........................................   513
    Brown, Michelle:
        Letter for the Record........................................   514
    Brown, Russ and Jennifer:
        Letter for the Record........................................   515
    Brown, Thor:
        Letter for the Record........................................   516
    Brown, Zach:
        Letter for the Record........................................   517
    Brumfield, Gawain:
        Letter for the Record........................................   518
    Brunton, John and Jackie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   519
    Buch, Lauren:
        Letter for the Record........................................   520
    Buhler, Brian:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   521
    Bumbaugh, Scott:
        Letter for the Record........................................   522
    Burcham, Janet:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   523
    Burton, Sean:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   524
    Bussell, Hon. Charlie and Vicki:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   525
    Buthman, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   526
    Cali, Suzanne:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   527
    Calloway, Roger:
        Letter for the Record........................................   528
    Campbell, Liz:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   529
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Chart titled ``2,000-Acre Oil & Gas Development Scenario--
          Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain''..............................     9
    Capps, Robby:
        Letter for the Record........................................   530
    Cash, Barbara L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   531
    Cash, Larry S.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   532
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
        Sullivan slide titled ``Alaska North Slope Reduced
          Footprint''................................................    64
        Sullivan slide titled ``Alaska As A Global Leader''..........    66
    Cassidy, Kevin:
        Letter for the Record........................................   533
    Castleton, Ken:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   534
    Cazort, James:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   535
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America:
        Letter for the Record........................................   536
    Chan, Jenny:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   537
    Chandler, Jr., Frank S.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   538
    Chapin, Bonnie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   540
    Chapman, Barbara:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   541
    Chenault, Hon. Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................   542
    Christensen, Reed B.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   544
    Christenson, Gary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   545
    Christenson, Robb:
        Letter for the Record........................................   546
    Chugach Alaska Corporation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   547
    Ciriaco, Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................   548
    Clark, Christine:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   549
    Clark, Todd:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   550
    Clary, Glenn:
        Letter for the Record........................................   551
    Classick, Jr., Dave:
        Letter for the Record........................................   552
    Coastal Helicopters, Inc.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   553
    Cohen, Susie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   554
    Cole, Eric W.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   555
    Collinge, John:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   556
    Connelly, Steve and Carol:
        Letter for the Record........................................   557
    Conover, Karen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   558
    Consumer Energy Alliance--AK:
        Letter for the Record........................................   559
    Cook Inlet Region, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   561
    Coons, Mike:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   563
    Cooper, Scott:
        Letter for the Record........................................   564
    Corbett, Sally:
        Letter for the Record........................................   565
    Cowan, Tim:
        Letter for the Record........................................   566
    Crapuchettes, Sara:
        Letter for the Record........................................   567
    Crawford, Craig:
        Letter for the Record........................................   568
    Crewdson, James ``Jay'':
        Comment for the Record.......................................   570
    Cronin, Dr. Matthew A.:
        Opening Statement............................................   134
        Written Testimony............................................   136
    Crosby, Lance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   571
    Crum, Joey:
        Letter for the Record........................................   572
    Cruz, Dave:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   573
    Dacey, Florence:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   574
    Danby, Dr. Jennifer:
        Letter for the Record........................................   575
    Dark, Alx:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   576
    Darsey, Jack:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   577
    Davis, Dr. Bonnie D.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   578
    Davis, Regina:
        Letter for the Record........................................   579
    Davison, Jen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   580
    Debenham, Shaun T.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   581
    Deering, Sydney E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   582
    DeHaven, Tony:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   583
    DeMocker, Mary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   584
    Derkevorkian, Richard:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   585
    DeWitt, Denny:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   586
    Dickerson, Julianne:
        Letter for the Record........................................   587
    Dickson, Robert J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   588
    Didier, Sydne:
        Letter for the Record........................................   589
    Dieckgraeff, Tammy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   590
    Digel, Jace R.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   591
    Diltz, Hope:
        Letter for the Record........................................   592
    DiPaula, Mary:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   593
    Dippolito, Theresa:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   594
    Dixon, Jr., Gary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   595
    Donley, Hon. Dave:
        Letter for the Record........................................   596
    Donley, Jamie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   597
    Doyon Shareholders:
        Letter for the Record to the Board of Directors of Doyon,
          Limited dated 10/31/17.....................................   598
        Doyon, Limited Board Resolution No. 95-45....................   604
    Dubofsky, Megan Fredericks:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   605
    Dunham, Diane:
        Letter for the Record........................................   606
    Dunn, Lara:
        Letter for the Record........................................   607
    Durham, Dana:
        Letter for the Record........................................   608
    Durling, Kevin:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   609
    Eaton, Benjamin:
        Letter for the Record........................................   610
    Eby, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   611
    Edwards, Rebecca Hartman:
        Letter for the Record........................................   612
    English, Candice:
        Letter for the Record........................................   613
    Ensworth, Rebecca:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   614
    Epstein, Lois N.:
        Opening Statement............................................   105
        Written Testimony............................................   107
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   329
    Erickson, Greg:
        Letter for the Record........................................   615
    Erkmann, John:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   616
    Fabrello, Dan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   617
    Fagnani, Laurie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   618
    Fagnani, Matthew:
        Letter for the Record........................................   619
    Fall, Michael J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   621
    Fantozzi, David Scott:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   623
    Faulkner, Glen:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   624
    Fernandez, Louis:
        Letter for the Record........................................   625
    Ferris, Michael S.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   626
    Fink, Patricia and Siegfried:
        Letter for the Record........................................   627
    Fiscus, Ron (Maureen, Ronnie, Alex, Riley):
        Letter for the Record........................................   628
    Fletcher, Todd I.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   629
    Flippo, Craig P.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   630
    Flynn, Jenith:
        Letter for the Record........................................   631
    Ford, Wyche:
        Letter for the Record........................................   632
    Foster, John Wm.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   633
    Fox, Parke:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   634
    Foy, Susan Farris:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   635
    Fradley, Dennis and Patricia:
        Letter for the Record........................................   636
    Frasca, Cheryl:
        Letter for the Record........................................   637
    Fread, Beth:
        Letter for the Record........................................   638
    Freeman, Christina:
        Letter for the Record........................................   639
    Freund, Kate:
        Letter for the Record........................................   640
    Friends of Animals:
        Letter for the Record........................................   641
    Friese, Paul:
        Letter for the Record........................................   643
    Frost, Dr. John D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   645
    Gabbard, Erin:
        Letter for the Record........................................   646
    Gallagher, George and Peggy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   647
    Garnett, Tonya:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   648
    Garvin, Richard H.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   649
    Gath, Jessica:
        Letter for the Record........................................   650
    Gee, Edward:
        Letter for the Record........................................   651
    Gee, Tamara:
        Letter for the Record........................................   652
    Geraghty, Michael C.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   653
    Gerondale, Chad D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   654
    Gies, Wade:
        Letter for the Record........................................   655
    Giessel, Richard:
        Letter for the Record........................................   656
    Gitzen, Rebecca:
        Letter for the Record........................................   657
    Glenn, Jaci:
        Letter for the Record........................................   658
    Glenn, Richard K.:
        Opening Statement............................................   118
        Chart titled ``2,000-Acre Oil & Gas Development Scenario--
          Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain''..............................   120
        Written Testimony............................................   123
    Glowa, Tristan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   660
    Gohr, Ed:
        Letter for the Record........................................   661
    Goldberg, Joe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   662
    Gonnason, Dr. Jeff:
        Letter for the Record........................................   663
    Gordon, Daniel:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   664
    Gothard, Kirk:
        Letter for the Record........................................   665
    Grabacki, Stephen T.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   666
    Gray, Kent:
        Letter for the Record........................................   667
    (The) Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................   668
    Green, Richard:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   670
    Greenway, Randy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   671
    Griffith, Fred and Allison:
        Letter for the Record........................................   672
    Grummett, John:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   673
    Gurny, Nancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   674
    Haase, Don:
        Letter for the Record........................................   675
    Haley, E. Phil:
        Letter for the Record........................................   676
    Hall, Peter:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   677
    Halpern, Lisa:
        Letter for the Record........................................   678
    Ham, Patricia:
        Letter for the Record........................................   679
    Hanley, Alyce:
        Letter for the Record........................................   680
    Hannah, Douglas:
        Letter for the Record........................................   681
    Hannum, David:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   682
    Harkins, Edie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   683
    Hart, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   684
    Hartley, Joe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   685
    Hartman, David H.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   686
    Hartman, Linda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   687
    Harvey, Garrett:
        Letter for the Record........................................   688
    Hass, Mary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   689
    Hasty, Shannon:
        Letter for the Record........................................   690
    Hayden, Scott:
        Letter for the Record........................................   691
    Hayssen, Virginia:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   692
    Helfer, Rebeca:
        Letter for the Record........................................   693
    Helie, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   694
    Helinski, Rich J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   695
    Helms, Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................   696
    Hendrix, Tom:
        Letter for the Record........................................   698
    Henri, Joe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   699
    Henry, Cynthia:
        Letter for the Record........................................   700
    Herrell, Michael:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   701
    Heston, Dave:
        Letter for the Record........................................   702
    Hickel, Johanna ``Josie'':
        Letter for the Record........................................   703
    Hickman, Steve:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   704
    Hill, Jim:
        Letter for the Record........................................   705
    Hinton, Jennifer:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   706
    Hirst-Hermans, Terry:
        Letter for the Record........................................   707
    Hiscock, Bruce:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   708
    Hollis, Harold:
        Letter for the Record........................................   709
    Honowitz, Samantha:
        Letter for the Record........................................   710
    Hooton, Larry:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   711
    Horton, Barbara A.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   712
    Hosford, Kathy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   713
    Howard, Terry:
        Letter for the Record........................................   714
    Howdeshell, Jacob:
        Letter for the Record........................................   715
    Hughes, Andy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   716
    Hughes, Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................   717
    Hughes, Richard A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   718
    Hughes, Susan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   719
    Humphrey, Amanda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   720
    Humphrey, Lowell:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   721
    Hutchison, Christine:
        Letter for the Record........................................   722
    Hutchison, Garry:
        Letter for the Record........................................   723
    Hyman, Joan K.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   724
    International Union of Operating Engineers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   725
    Isaacson, Doug:
        Letter for the Record........................................   727
    Iverson, Pete:
        Letter for the Record........................................   728
    James, Christopher:
        Letter for the Record........................................   729
    Jardell, Kevin:
        Letter for the Record........................................   730
    Jeffress, Bill:
        Letter for the Record........................................   731
    Jenkins, Roger:
        Letter for the Record........................................   732
    Jimmerson, Mark:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   733
    Joans, Laura:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   734
    Joels, Barbara J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   735
    Johnson, Dave:
        Letter for the Record........................................   736
    Johnson, Judd:
        Letter for the Record........................................   737
    Johnson, Lana:
        Letter for the Record........................................   738
    Johnson, Mitch:
        Letter for the Record........................................   739
    Jolly, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   740
    Jolly, Matt:
        Letter for the Record........................................   741
    Jonas, Jenna:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   742
    Jones, Katie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   746
    Jordan, Jennifer M.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   747
    Jordan, R. Glen:
        Letter for the Record dated 11/14/17.........................   748
        Letter for the Record dated 11/15/17.........................   749
    Jordan, Ronald:
        Letter for the Record........................................   750
    Jumps, Satonya:
        Letter for the Record........................................   751
    Jungwirth, Scott:
        Letter for the Record........................................   752
    Kahler, Shawn:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   753
    Kane, William D. and Carol G.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   754
    Kaplan, Miranda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   755
    Karnos, Nick:
        Letter for the Record........................................   756
    Karraker, Mary J.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   757
    Keller, Jennifer:
        Letter for the Record........................................   758
    Kelly, Judy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   759
    Kelly, Hon. Pete:
        Letter for the Record........................................   760
    Kelty, Holly:
        Letter for the Record........................................   761
    Kennedy, Chris:
        Letter for the Record........................................   762
    Kennedy, Wenda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   763
    Kilroy, Colleen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   764
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Chart titled ``2,000-Acre Oil & Gas Development Scenario--
          Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain''..............................   290
    King, Carrie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   765
    King, Janet A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   766
    Kirch, Marian:
        Letter for the Record........................................   767
    Kirkpatrick, Dennis M.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   768
    Kloc, Emily:
        Letter for the Record........................................   769
    Knight, Rebecca:
        Letter for the Record........................................   770
    Knutson, Doug:
        Letter for the Record........................................   771
    Koon, Lori:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   772
    Kopp, Monica:
        Letter for the Record........................................   773
    Kowalke, Randall and Karen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   774
    Kreig, Lee Ann:
        Letter for the Record........................................   775
    Kreig, Ray:
        Letter for the Record........................................   776
    Kreitzer, Annette:
        Letter for the Record........................................   777
    Kremers, Carolyn:
        Letter for the Record........................................   778
    Kriel, Linda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   785
    L'Heureux, Tristan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   786
    La Porte, Nathan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   787
    Lagerstam, Kristen:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   788
    Lakey, Kay:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   789
    Lampert, Jake:
        Letter for the Record........................................   790
    Lane, Adrian and Marilyn:
        Letter for the Record........................................   791
    Laner, Morgan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   792
    Lash, Michael A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   793
    Lasher, Fred:
        Letter for the Record........................................   794
    Latto, Robert G.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   795
    Lawrence, Connie Dolan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   796
    Leaves, Willow:
        Letter for the Record........................................   797
    Leight, William:
        Letter for the Record........................................   798
    Leman, Loren:
        Letter for the Record........................................   799
    Levine, Dr. David W.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   800
    Lewis, Steve:
        Letter for the Record........................................   802
    Liebing, Michael V.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   803
    Linder, Matthew:
        Letter for the Record........................................   805
    Lipsman, Josh:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   806
    Liston, Donn:
        Letter for the Record........................................   807
    Liu, Dr. Sharon L.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   808
    Lloyd, Tamara:
        Letter for the Record........................................   809
    Loewenstein, Kate:
        Letter for the Record........................................   810
    Long, Kodi:
        Letter for the Record........................................   811
    Lovdahl, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   812
    Lowry, Shawn D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   813
    Lundquist, Peter and Denise:
        Letter for the Record........................................   814
    MacKinnon, Neil:
        Letter for the Record........................................   815
    Mallon, Teresa:
        Letter for the Record........................................   816
    Mallott, Hon. Byron:
        Opening Statement............................................    32
        Written Testimony............................................    34
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   305
    Malloy, Sharon:
        Letter for the Record........................................   817
    Maloney, Tom:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   818
    Mangino, Jennifer:
        Letter for the Record........................................   819
    Manuel, Joni:
        Letter for the Record........................................   820
    Manuel, Paul:
        Letter for the Record........................................   821
    Mao, Julie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   822
    Marchetti, Joe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   823
    Marinucci, Sally V.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   824
    Marken, Erica:
        Letter for the Record........................................   825
    Markward, Anne:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   826
    Markwood, Cheryl:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   827
    Marquiss, Lisa:
        Letter for the Record........................................   828
    Marshall, Philip and Janet L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   829
    Martin, Lauren:
        Letter for the Record........................................   830
    Martin, Susannah:
        Letter for the Record........................................   831
    Martinsons, Alex:
        Letter for the Record........................................   832
    Matteson, Barry:
        Letter for the Record........................................   833
    Mavis, Jodie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   834
    May-Ross, Dr. Pamela:
        Letter for the Record........................................   835
    McClain, Anna:
        Letter for the Record........................................   836
    McCloskey, Cynthia:
        Letter for the Record........................................   837
    McCormick, Carol:
        Letter for the Record........................................   838
    McCormick, Casey:
        Letter for the Record........................................   839
    McCrummen, Hugh D. ``Dan'':
        Letter for the Record........................................   840
    McDaniel, Robert:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   841
    McDonnell, Dr. Andrew:
        Letter for the Record........................................   842
    McElroy, Lilly:
        Letter for the Record........................................   843
    McKenzie, Connie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   844
    McKenzie, Lee:
        Letter for the Record........................................   845
    McLean, Garrett:
        Letter for the Record........................................   846
    McMullen, Craig:
        Letter for the Record........................................   847
    McMullin, Vicki:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   849
    McQuality, Stefanie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   850
    McQueary, Frank E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   852
    McQueen, Curtis J.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   853
    Meldrum, Samantha:
        Letter for the Record........................................   854
    Melton, Matt:
        Letter for the Record........................................   856
    Merrick II, A.J. ``Joey'':
        Letter for the Record........................................   858
    Merrick, Keith:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   859
    Michelsohn, Karen Kassik:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   860
    Micklin, Philip:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   861
    Miller, Dale:
        Letter for the Record........................................   862
    Miller, Greg:
        Letter for the Record........................................   863
    Miller, Jeff D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   864
    Miller, Michael D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   865
    Millett, Hon. Charisse:
        Letter for the Record........................................   866
    Mills, Andy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   868
    Milton, Sharon:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   869
    Mitchell, Faye (and Michael Herrell):
        Comment for the Record.......................................   870
    Mitchell, Faye:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   871
    Moller, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   872
    Moore, Alison:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   873
    Moore, Cortney:
        Letter for the Record........................................   874
    Moore, Dorothy Anna:
        Letter for the Record........................................   875
    Moore, Marcus:
        Letter for the Record........................................   876
    Moore, Samuel A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   877
    Moore, Dr. Seneca:
        Letter for the Record........................................   878
    Morris, Julie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   879
    Morris, Mark:
        Letter for the Record........................................   880
    Mountcastle, Gene:
        Letter for the Record........................................   881
    Mulholland, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   882
    Mulholland, Kristi:
        Letter for the Record........................................   883
    Munsell, Barry R.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   884
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Chart titled ``1002 Area--Small Area, Big Potential''........     2
        Chart titled ``Alaska North Slope Reduced Footprint''........     5
    Myers, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   885
    Myers-Lewis, Pamela:
        Letter for the Record........................................   886
    Nadel, Marcy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   887
    Nees, David:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   888
    Nelson, Daniel:
        Letter for the Record........................................   889
    Nelson, Daria:
        Letter for the Record........................................   890
    Nelson, Lori:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   891
    Nelson, Margaret:
        Letter for the Record........................................   892
    Nelson, Mark:
        Letter for the Record........................................   893
    Nelson, Meghan L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   894
    Nelson, Zak:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   895
    Neuerburg, Drew:
        Letter for the Record........................................   896
    Noethlich, Tony:
        Letter for the Record........................................   897
    Noling, Will:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   898
    O'Bannon, Allen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   899
    O'Connell, Kathleen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   900
    O'Connor, Christine:
        Letter for the Record........................................   901
    O'Donnell, Anne Stewart:
        Letter for the Record........................................   902
    Okamoto, Margaret:
        Letter for the Record........................................   903
    Oliva, Stacy A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   904
    Opheim, Chris R. and Kathleen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   905
    Orenstein, Dr. Myrna:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   906
    Ota, Yuko:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   907
    O'Toole, Michael J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   908
    Ozuru, Yasuhiro:
        Letter for the Record........................................   909
    Pachak, Mark:
        Letter for the Record........................................   910
    Page, Jay D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   911
    Pappalardo, Tom:
        Letter for the Record........................................   912
    Parsons, Carol:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   913
    Patrick, Judy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   914
    Payne, Suzanne:
        Letter for the Record........................................   915
    Pease, Mary Ann:
        Letter for the Record........................................   916
    Peloza, Amy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   917
    Penney, Henry:
        Letter for the Record........................................   919
    Pennington, Stanley W.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   920
    Perkins, Dr. Robert A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   921
    Peter, Darcy L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   922
    Petro, Andy and Rachael:
        Letter for the Record........................................   925
    Phillips, Gail:
        Letter for the Record........................................   926
    Pichler, Ron:
        Letter for the Record........................................   927
    Pitcairn, Jeremy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   928
    Place, Ronald:
        Letter for the Record........................................   929
    Plaquet, Jim and Jan:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   930
    Plevin-Foust, Mimi:
        Letter for the Record........................................   932
    Pohland, Don:
        Letter for the Record........................................   933
    Post, Steve:
        Letter for the Record........................................   934
    Pourchot, Pat:
        Opening Statement............................................   128
        Written Testimony............................................   130
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   390
    Ralston, General Joseph W.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   936
    Raynolds, Martha:
        Letter for the Record........................................   940
    Reber, Sheldon J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   941
    Reed, Ashley:
        Letter for the Record........................................   942
    Reed, Everett and Carol:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   943
    Reese, Mark:
        Letter for the Record........................................   944
    Reeve, Forrest:
        Letter for the Record........................................   945
    Reeve, Renee Limoge:
        Letter for the Record........................................   946
    Reh, Jesse:
        Letter for the Record........................................   947
    Rexford, Matthew:
        Opening Statement............................................    51
        Written Testimony............................................    53
    Rice, Donald E. ``Buck'':
        Letter for the Record........................................   948
    Rich, Chris:
        Letter for the Record........................................   949
    Riggs, Joe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   950
    Rodkewich, Jacqueline:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   951
    Rodman, Bruce E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   952
    Rose, Patrick:
        Letter for the Record........................................   953
    Rosen, Molly:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   954
    Ross, Jean:
        Letter for the Record........................................   955
    Ruedrich, Randy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   956
    Ruge, Greg:
        Letter for the Record........................................   957
    Rush, R.T.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   958
    Rutkowski, Gregory:
        Letter for the Record........................................   959
    Rybus, Greta:
        Letter for the Record........................................   960
    Ryser, Lori:
        Letter for the Record........................................   961
    Sadeh, Shamu Fenyvesi:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   962
    Samson, Michael:
        Letter for the Record........................................   963
    Sanfacon, Keith:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   964
    Santa Claus:
        Letter for the Record........................................   965
    Satre, Mike, Sarah and Miriam:
        Letter for the Record........................................   966
    Saunders, Cyndi:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   967
    Sauvageau, Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................   968
    Schaefer, Jill:
        Letter for the Record........................................   969
    Schok, Dan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   971
    Schok, Jr., Genevieve:
        Letter for the Record........................................   972
    Schutt, Aaron:
        Opening Statement............................................    88
        Figure 1. Minimizing Footprint Through Technology............    90
        Figure 2. Penta-Lateral Well Drilled by Doyon Rig 142........    92
        Figure 3. Doyon Rig 26 Horizontal Reach......................    94
        Figure 4. Doyon Rig 141 Exploration in NPRA..................    96
        Written Testimony............................................    98
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   325
    Schutte, Gage:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   973
    Schutte, Kathy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   974
    Schutte, Steve:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   975
    Schwab, Christina D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   976
    Schwartz, Eve:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   977
    Schwemmer, Hank:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   978
    Securing America's Future Energy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   979
    Sedor, John M.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   983
    Seitchik, Paula:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   984
    Seymour, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   985
    Sheehan, Greg:
        Opening Statement............................................    41
        Written Testimony............................................    43
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   312
    Sheppard, Stormie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   986
    Sherman, Susan:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   987
    Shively, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   988
    Shults, Kelly J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   989
    Siller, Janna Berger:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   990
    Silver, Keith:
        Letter for the Record........................................   991
    Simpson, Paulette:
        Letter for the Record........................................   992
    Simpson, William L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   993
    Sims, Mary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   994
    Sisters of Mercy--NY:
        Letter for the Record........................................   995
    Sisters of Mercy--PA:
        Letter for the Record........................................   998
    Skipper, Steven and Kim:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1000
    Skoglund, David:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1001
    Slivka, Alex:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1002
    Sloan, Amber:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1003
    Smedley II, Dennis L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1004
    Smith, Beverly:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1005
    Smith, Ian:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1006
    Smith, Ron E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1007
    Snowden, Brad:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1008
    Snyder, Judy:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1009
    Soffa, Laurel M.:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1010
    Solie, Rick:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1011
    Sorkin, Dr. Suzanne:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1012
    Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1013
    Spickler, Scott:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1014
    Spraggon, Wanda:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1015
    Sprinkle, Sue:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1016
    Sproul, Chad:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1017
    Stapleton, Jr., Robert E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1018
    Stedman, Carol:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1019
    Steiner, Kimberly:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1020
    Stern, Rebecca:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1021
    Stevens, William H.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1022
    Stewart, Scott A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1023
    Stinson, Bob:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1024
    Strait, Steve:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1025
    Strand, Scott:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1026
    Strange, Karen:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1027
    Studard, Kristen:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1028
    Sullivan, Hon. Dan:
        Opening Statement............................................    10
        Slide titled ``Alaska As A Global Leader''...................    12
        Slide titled ``Point Thomson''...............................    13
        Slide titled ``Energy Independence & Foreign Relations''.....    14
        Slide titled ``New Technology''..............................    15
        Article by Clifford Krauss for The New York Times dated 10/
          29/17, titled ``Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a
          Foreign Policy Tool''......................................    17
    Sullivan, William:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1029
    Sumpter, Jasah:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1030
    Swartz, Jerram:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1031
    Swoffer, Gary:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1032
    Tarr, Christina:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1033
    Tarver, Karen J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1034
    Tauriainen, Kay:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1035
    Tauriainen, Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1036
    Tauriainen, Ray and Sue:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1037
    Teal, Louise:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1038
    Thodos, Diane and Christine:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1039
    Thompson, Craig:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1040
    Thornton, Jessica:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1041
    Tidwell, Crystal:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1042
    Tilton, Hon. Cathy and Wilson, Hon. Tammie:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1043
    Tornai, Mark:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1046
    Treadwell, Mead:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1047
    Tucker, Daniel J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1048
    Tuckness, Barbara Huff:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1049
    Tuckness, George:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1050
    Tupou, Jacqueline:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1051
    Turner, Darlene J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1052
    Turner, Jeff:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1053
    Udelhoven, James:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1054
    Udelhoven, Sandra:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1055
    United Tribes of Bristol Bay:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1056
    Vance, Archie S.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1057
    Vierra, Scott:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1058
    Vinas, Jayson:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1060
    Vincelette, Todd:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1061
    Wahl, Julie K.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1063
    Wald, Hannah:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1064
    Walker, Hon. Bill:
        Opening Statement............................................    22
        Written Testimony............................................    24
    Wall, Robert:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1065
    Ward, Jason:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1066
    Waterman, Nancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1067
    Watson, Dr. Kelly:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1068
    Weber, Jim:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1069
    Weedman, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1070
    Weinberg, Melodi:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1071
    Wellman, Gabrielle:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1072
    Wheeler, John E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1073
    White, Debbie:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1074
    White, Kenneth:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1075
    Wilkes, Tiffany J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1076
    Williams, Ryan:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1077
    Williams, Tom:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1078
    Wilson, Curt:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1079
    Winkler, Kurt:
        Comment for the Record.......................................  1080
    Winzenburg, Clint:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1081
    Wise, Karyn:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1082
    Wise, Michael:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1083
    Wodkowski, Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1084
    Wolff, Lee Ann:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1085
    Yockey, Kenneth:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1086
    York, Julia:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1087
    Young, Hon. Don:
        Opening Statement............................................    20
    Yukon, Office of the Premier:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1088
    Zaruba, Thomas T.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1090
    Zimmerman, Tom V.:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1091
    Zins, Ryan:
        Letter for the Record........................................  1092

                       POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-
      WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
                                WILDLIFE REFUGE

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are meeting this morning to consider opening a very
    small portion of Alaska's 1002 Area to responsible energy
    development to meet the $1 billion budget reconciliation
    instruction that our Committee received last week.
        The 1002 Area covers 1.57 million acres of land in
    northeast Alaska within the non-wilderness portion--will you
    bring it over here, Sean?--of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge (ANWR), and I think it is important to put this in
    context in terms of the areas that we are talking about.
        ANWR itself is 19 million acres--approximately the size of
    South Carolina. The non-wilderness area, this 1002 Area, is 1.5
    million acres--approximately the size of Delaware. The area
    here is designated as wilderness, federal wilderness, 8 million
    acres there.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. So when we are talking about ANWR itself, I
    think it is important to recognize that there are parts of ANWR
    that are designated as wilderness, and there are parts of ANWR,
    the 1002 Area, that have been specifically designated for
    consideration for oil and gas exploration.
        So again, I want to be clear--the 1002 Area is not federal
    wilderness. Congress recognized the value of ANWR when it
    designated more than seven million acres as the Mollie Beattie
    Wilderness--this area here. That is an area that is protected
    and will not, and cannot, be touched.
        The Coastal Plain, again, is separate from the wilderness
    in ANWR. It is about the size of Delaware, again, in a refuge
    the size of the State of South Carolina.
        So again, the areas that we are talking about are
    significant, and what Alaskans are asking for is to develop
    just 2,000 federal acres within it, about one ten-thousandth of
    ANWR.
        We should also understand that if we open the 1002 Area,
    the economic benefits will be substantial, our national
    security will be strengthened, and the environmental impacts
    will be minimal.
        For starters, we will create thousands of new jobs and
    those jobs will pay the types of wages that support families
    and put our kids through colleges. We will also generate
    substantial revenue for every level of government, tens of
    billions of dollars over the life of the fields.
        Now there has been some discussion out there as to whether
    or not we can meet our $1 billion instruction. The answer to
    that is a simple yes. And I would remind the Committee that the
    first 10 years are just the start. This is the smallest part
    here, of a 40-year period where responsible production raises
    billions of dollars in revenues for our country every year.
        The Congressional Research Service has estimated that the
    Federal treasury could, depending on oil prices and the amount
    of resources that are ultimately produced--and we all put that
    in a caveat there--but it could raise anywhere from $48.3
    billion on the low end to $296.8 billion over 30 years.
        And bear in mind, that is new wealth and prosperity. New
    wealth. It will not be created, not redirected or repurposed
    like so much of what we deal with. Those revenues will directly
    reduce our debt, while simultaneously creating the growth
    conditions needed to reduce it on a greater scale.
        Opening the 1002 Area will help to keep energy affordable.
    Here in the Lower 48 we have somewhat forgotten what it feels
    like to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Prices are moderate
    right now, we recognize that, but we also know they do not
    necessarily stay that way. So we need to be taking steps to
    plan for the long-term and we need to do that now, not in 10
    years, to keep energy prices affordable.
        A number of experts are already pointing to the warning
    signs. The International Energy Agency (IEA) found that,
    ``Global oil supply could struggle to keep pace with demand
    after 2020, risking a sharp increase in prices, unless new
    projects are approved soon.''
        Now some are going to argue that we are doing just fine, we
    are producing more, we are even exporting some, so we can turn
    our attention to other matters. But I think that that is a
    mistake.
        We are projected to remain a significant net importer well
    into the future. And setting aside some of the shorter-term
    concerns that I have just mentioned, even the more cautious
    forecast from the EIA, the Energy Information Administration,
    projects that oil prices will be back above $100 per barrel by
    the year 2040.
        I think it is also misleading to suggest that all of the
    benefits of opening the 1002 Area will happen all at once or
    all in the near-term. We know that is not true. We will see the
    benefit for decades, not just over the ten-year budget window.
        We talk a lot about where we were back in 1995, when the
    Congress had passed ANWR and President Clinton at that time
    vetoed the effort to open the 1002 Area. 1995. Think about
    where we would have been had that action not taken place. We
    would not have seen as dramatic a run-up in oil prices in the
    mid-2000s. States like California would not be importing so
    much of their oil from abroad, but that is exactly what has
    happened as supply from Alaska has declined.
        There is no question that opening the 1002 Area is
    important for our state and our national economy. And we can be
    just as confident that the new technologies that are in place
    and are still coming online will ensure that responsible
    development does not harm the environment.
        Between the 1970s and today, the surface footprint of
    Arctic development has decreased by about 80 percent and
    several of our witnesses this morning will speak directly to
    that. But put in context, what was once a 65-acre pad now takes
    about 12 acres or less.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Then, below ground, the extended reach
    drilling from a single pad will grow to an area of 125 square
    miles by 2020. So just in a few years here, and again, we will
    have Mr. Schutt speak to that, but that is an increase of more
    than 4,000 percent since we began oil exploration and
    production in the 1970s.
        Now development in the Arctic has always raised concerns
    about wildlife and the environment, and appropriately so. But I
    would remind everyone here this morning, because Alaskans have
    been so careful with development, fears of impacts to our
    wildlife and our land have repeatedly been proven wrong. Most
    of our roads are now built from ice and melt in the summertime,
    leaving no impact on the tundra. Developers follow thousands of
    regulatory requirements, best practices, and mitigation
    measures. We inventory and we assess wildlife and we study
    their habitat so that we avoid any sensitive places.
        We always talk about the caribou. The Central Arctic
    Caribou herd, which lives year-round in and around Prudhoe Bay,
    increased from 3,000 animals in 1969, just prior to
    development, to 5,000 when development began in earnest in 1974
    and was at about 22,000 animals just this last year. It is now
    more than seven times larger than when development began.
        Now it also may surprise some to learn that we are
    developing energy just outside of ANWR, at Point Thomson, a
    point that my colleague Senator Sullivan knows very, very well,
    but this is located on state land just two miles from the
    border of the 1002 Area. That project at Point Thomson is being
    carried out responsibly. It is not harming the wildlife that
    cross the invisible western boundary of that Refuge, again,
    defying the claims we hear about possible harm.
        For over 40 years now Alaskans have repeatedly proven that
    we can develop safely and responsibly and development in the
    1002 Area will be no different. We will not harm the caribou
    who move through the area; we will not harm the polar bears,
    whose dens can be protected; the snow geese, whose nesting
    areas can be safeguarded; or, any of the other birds and
    wildlife that visit the Coastal Plain in the summer. We are
    sensitive to the habitat in the region and care for it, and
    Alaskans understand this. This is why more than 70 percent of
    us have supported opening the 1002 Area to responsible
    development.
        We are also acutely aware that our state needs this, and we
    will hear this from our Governor. Right now we have the highest
    unemployment rate in the country, we have massive budget
    deficits that are projected to last for quite a while, and our
    Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the economic backbone of our
    state, is just one-quarter full.
        We know full well that opening the 1002 Area is not an
    immediate cure. But we also know that it is something that we
    have to do today, because the benefits of development will take
    time to be fully realized. It is like the old saying, we say it
    a lot around here, ``The best time to plant a tree was 20 years
    ago. The second-best time is now.'' We need to take that first
    step today so that we can realize the benefits going forward.
        I was born in Alaska. My husband and I have raised our boys
    there and I hope that they lead long and healthy lives in a
    place that is so beautiful and so gorgeous that it sometimes
    takes your breath away.
        What I know is that no one cares more for Alaska than those
    of us who live and work and raise our families there. We love
    our state. We respect the land. We would never risk its future
    for the sake of development. But we also realize that is not
    the case here.
        The 1002 Area was created by a Congressional compromise. We
    always knew its future would require another one, and today
    Alaskans are offering just that. We are not asking to develop
    all of the 1002 Area, but instead we are asking for 2,000
    acres, or about one ten-thousandth of the Refuge. We have
    waited nearly 40 years for the right technologies to come along
    so that the footprint of development is small enough to ensure
    that the environment continues to be respected and will not be
    harmed.
        This is not a choice between energy and the environment. We
    are past that. What we have today is a great lineup of
    witnesses to help our Committee understand that.
        We have our entire Alaska delegation with us, our Governor,
    our Congressman, our Senator, we have our Lieutenant Governor,
    and we have a number of Alaskans who actually live up on the
    North Slope.
        I thank all of our witnesses for being here this morning. I
    look forward to an excellent and informative hearing.
        Senator Cantwell, I turn to you and welcome your remarks.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I welcome the
    Governor and our colleagues to today's discussion.
        But I should start this by saying this hearing is a great
    departure from the strong, working relationship that Senator
    Murkowski and I have set to work together on an energy agenda
    that will move our country forward.
        It is too bad that we are not using our resources this
    morning to force our House colleagues to reconsider the very
    important bill that included over 100 different priorities to
    move our country forward on everything from cybersecurity to
    energy efficiency.
        I also do not support the makeup of today's panels and the
    fact that our two colleagues who do not support opening up the
    Arctic Wildlife Refuge, who have carried the bill this
    legislative session and last legislative session, Senator
    Markey and Senator Bennet, were not allowed to be part of this
    panel.
        I also believe that we should have had more witnesses from
    Indian Country that represent not just the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act Corporations. Yes, corporations are charged with
    economic development, but individual tribal members as we have
    seen throughout Alaska and throughout the United States of
    America do not support this kind of development because they
    believe in the wildlife nature that God has given us, and that
    we are stewards of Mother Earth. So I thank them for that. I
    thank them for their strong spiritual beliefs--thank you.
        We are here today because someone has come up with a
    ludicrous idea that we can pass a tax reform bill that raises
    the deficit, increases our taxes, and that we will take a
    sliver out of a wildlife refuge to do it. I almost want to call
    this ``Caribou for Millionaires'' because it is the most
    ridiculous idea I have ever heard as it relates to meeting the
    tax reform agenda.
        So no, I do not like the setup of these three panels. I am
    always glad to hear from the Governor and I am always glad to
    hear from our colleagues, but our other colleagues should have
    had their voices heard and Indian Country should have been
    better represented.
        We have no bill before us today. We have no bill and there
    is a proposed markup for next Wednesday. When will we see that
    language? When will we have any idea about this process?
        I am disturbed and I could go in a direction of saying that
    we don't have to worry because some of the press reports are,
    from Bloomberg News and others, that ``The Coastal Arctic
    Refuge does not have any promising oil-bearing rock
    formations,'' a former BP petroleum analyst said, ``There is
    not great interest in developing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge,''
    and ``There are safer bets.'' So one could have the attitude
    that there are, particularly with the Trump Administration's
    desire--I am not sure where in the United States of America
    they do not want to drill. But with their 1.7 billion acres
    they want on the Outer Continental Shelf and many other places
    in America, I find it hard to believe that there will be the
    economic incentive to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. But
    why put a big X on top of something that has been so unique to
    the United States of America?
        When I recently researched why we got to this point and
    heard some of the first people that made their case to the
    Eisenhower Administration, quoting from their reports, ``We all
    knew that it must be preserved as an original fragment of our
    past. The last opportunity to protect part of this continent as
    it once was.'' Why? Because as other people said, ``It was a
    spiritual place, an Arctic Wildlife Refuge.'' The fact that
    they also said it was an area that had been left undisturbed by
    man, that it was the last laboratory in which plants, animals
    and where they live, as they have always lived, is preserved.
    So this is why we got to this point, and this is what is unique
    about it, and this is why, from the Eisenhower Administration
    to today, we have fought to protect it.
        Is Alaska's economy a great concern to us as a nation? Yes.
    Do we in the Pacific Northwest--I think one of the first things
    I said to the Chairwoman when we started a discussion is, let's
    talk about why the natural gas pipeline in Alaska hasn't been
    built because it has a bigger economic impact than this.
        So there are issues in which we need to be mindful about
    the energy economy moving forward, but this idea is not new and
    it is not better. There is nothing that has changed here. There
    is no new science that says we do not have to worry about this
    wildlife and there is no new science that says that the oil
    development will take up a smaller footprint.
        This map that we will get to everyone basically shows that
    the development will take up a significant portion of the
    Refuge, the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 219 miles of
    power transmission lines and so on and so forth.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cantwell. So the notion that wildlife can exist in
    this unique environment in the same way with this development
    is just wrong.
        I look forward to hearing from Secretary Perry on this,
    because I sent him a letter yesterday asking him how they can
    exist together. We will look forward to seeing how he answers
    that.
        I also point out that the uniqueness of this area has led
    to an international agreement. The caribou population is so
    unique, so specific, and so special that we have entered into
    an agreement with Canada on it. That is because they want to
    protect this population of caribou as well.
        The notion that we should move forward on a wrongheaded
    idea because all of a sudden people want some revenue for a tax
    bill and move forward today on something when we don't even
    know what we are moving forward on in language, is just not the
    way I think we should be proceeding.
        I hope that we will have a chance, our colleagues, to ask
    our witnesses questions about this, but be assured that even
    though we do not agree with this process or the process of
    trying to get 51 votes to change the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge, we are never stopping. We are never stopping in trying
    to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its
    uniqueness and working with the indigenous people who also
    support that idea.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        We have several panels this morning and I appreciate not
    only our delegation being here but all the Alaskans and the
    visitors that have joined us this morning.
        A very distinguished panel will be led off by our colleague
    here, Senator Sullivan. He will be followed by the Congressman
    for all Alaska, Congressman Young, who has represented us in
    the House of Representatives for 45 years, going on 46. And the
    panel will be rounded out by our Governor. Governor Walker has
    been in office now for three years, is a life-long resident and
    has great leadership. I appreciate you being here as well,
    Governor.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. And an Independent, Senator.
        The Chairman. That is true. He is an Independent. Okay, we
    do not talk about the political affiliations here of anybody--
    --
        [Laughter.]
        ----but that is noted for the record.
        Senator Sullivan, if you would like to lead off with the
    welcome, please.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Chairman Murkowski,
    Ranking Member Cantwell, all of my colleagues, for the
    opportunity to say a few words on this very important issue for
    our country.
        Now many in this room have claimed to be protectors of
    Alaska's environment. But with all due respect to my colleagues
    here today, there are three people in Congress who care more
    about Alaska's environment than anyone else in the entire body:
    Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young, and myself.
        The fundamental disconnect in the discussion of the 1002
    Area is that the debate has not kept up with Alaska's high
    standards, the highest in the world, and I'll talk about that
    and advancements in technology. So with all due respect to the
    Ranking Member, a lot has changed, a lot has changed.
        Responsibly developing the 1002 Area is truly a win-win-win
    for our country: it will create jobs, it will help grow the
    economy, increase energy security for Americans and, very
    importantly, it will help protect the global environment and
    strengthen our national security. It is these last two points I
    would like to emphasize in my remarks this morning.
        Madam Chair, as you know, Alaska has the highest
    environmental standards regarding responsible Arctic resource
    development of any place in the world. I was in charge of these
    standards as Alaska's Commissioner of the Department of Natural
    Resources, and I can tell you, whether it is what we call ``no
    impact'' exploration or specific requirements related to our
    incredible species like the polar bear or caribou, or mandating
    use of the best available technology, we have a 50-year record
    of responsible resource development in our state.
        Let me just give you one example of ``no impact''
    exploration. As the Chair noted, on the North Slope of Alaska
    we only allow for exploration activities during the winter
    months. Companies are required to build ice roads across the
    tundra, ice pads where they put their equipment and drill rigs,
    and you can see examples in some of the slides I've provided,
    and they have to leave before the winter ends.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. The ice pads and roads literally melt and
    have zero impact on the tundra. The only thing left is a small
    capped well and that is just one example of Alaska's very high,
    mandated standards.
        As the Chair pointed out, we have used these standards,
    very recently, in the past four years on the Coastal Plain in
    the same ecosystem of the 1002 Area that is being debated right
    now with the development of the Point Thomson project. There is
    a slide that you can take a look at. See how close that is to
    the 1002 Area. There was literally minimal impact or no impact
    on the environment and wildlife. The footprint, as you can see
    from the slides, is very, very small and it is producing energy
    right now.
        Madam Chair, here is the big issue that those in Congress
    who want to shut down resource development in Alaska never
    acknowledge. When you disallow investment in Alaska, the place
    with the highest standards on the environment in the world, you
    do not end up protecting the global environment. What you do is
    you end up driving capital and investment to jurisdictions with
    much less environmental standards or, in some cases, no
    environmental standards--countries like Nigeria and Venezuela
    and Iran and Russia, many of which are also our geo-political
    foes.
        This brings me to my second point, producing more energy
    responsibly--oil, natural gas, renewables--and making the
    United States, again, the world's energy superpower will
    dramatically strengthen our national security.
        As some of you know, I served in the Marine Corps for 24
    years. I have also served as a U.S. Assistant Secretary of
    State, whose portfolio included energy security issues, global
    energy security issues, and I have seen how energy can be used
    as a tool for good, productive diplomacy but also can be used
    for troublesome power grabs by our nation's foes.
        We do not have to import energy. When we do not have to
    import energy from countries that do not like us or, better
    yet, when we can export American energy to our allies like
    Japan or Korea or even to countries like China, this helps our
    national security and foreign policy.
        I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and we have heard
    from military and civilian leaders from our country, Democrats
    and Republicans, from Secretary Ash Carter to Secretary Mattis,
    consistently state that producing more energy strengthens our
    national security. And I know my friends, Senator King and
    Senator Hirono, have heard these comments consistently on the
    Armed Services Committee as well. But it is not just American
    officials who recognize this, the Russians know this as well.
        Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record a recent
    New York Times article, just from a few days ago, October 29,
    titled, ``Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a Foreign
    Policy Tool.''
        The Chairman. We will include that as part of the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. The first sentence of that story reads,
    ``Russia is increasingly wielding oil as a geopolitical tool
    spreading its influence around the world and challenging the
    interests of the United States.''
        Let me end with an anecdote of a meeting I was just in last
    year at the Halifax International Security Forum with Senator
    McCain. We were meeting with a senior level, Russian dissident
    and we asked him at the end of the meeting, ``What more can we
    do as a country to push back against the Putin regime?'' He
    looked at us and said, ``The number one thing you can do, the
    number one thing you can do, is produce more American energy.''
        Opening the 1002 Area using the highest environmental
    standards in the world and the most advanced technology will
    produce more American energy for the betterment of our country.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Congressman Young, you have been through a few ANWR
    debates. We welcome your comments this morning.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG,
                      U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM ALASKA

        Representative Young. Are you sure of that?
        Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing, and Ranking
    Member Cantwell and the rest of the members of the Senate, I
    don't feel too comfortable on the Senate side. I need a
    flashlight most of the time because sometimes it's pretty dark
    over here.
        I am one of the few people, there's only one left in the
    Congress, that went through this battle 45 years ago, actually
    42 years ago. Now this 1002 Area, I have to go through the
    history of it, was created by Senator Jackson, Senator
    Magnuson, and Senator Stevens when the Senators were really
    knowledgeable about what goes on. We recognized this area at
    that time and about the valuable oil and why we had the 1002
    Area.
        As you mentioned, I believe the ANWR is about 19 million
    acres of land. The 1002 footprint will probably be--I can't
    really say what size it is. But I represent Alaska. [Inks a dot
    on his nose.] You see anything different with my nose right
    now? This is--I am Alaska--one tenth of one tenth a percent
    that we're talking about disturbance.
        The map that the Ranking Member showed was actually drawn
    up by the Sierra Club. That bothers me. That's old information.
        This little dot on my nose, I weigh 225 pounds, and this
    little dot is what we're talking about, the 1002 Area. It has
    the potential of probably around--early estimates were 10
    billion barrels, now the estimates are probably around 20
    billion barrels of oil.
        Senator Sullivan brought it up, this is an issue of
    national security, national security. It is the one weapon
    Russia is wielding. We can have the security for the nation as
    a whole.
        And I was interested to hear about the caribou. You're
    going to hear a lot of nonsense stories later on in the day.
        Interested in Canada? The Ambassador sent out a letter
    about it opposing ANWR. Did we say anything when they drilled
    270 wells right in the area for the caribou? Two hundred
    seventy wells were drilled in this caribou herd's area where
    they cross every year. They built a 400-mile road right across
    the caribou area too. Did we say anything then?
        This is not about--it's not about the environment or the
    caribou, it's about economics.
        I'm ashamed of Canada right now because they're wielding an
    emotional issue that most people don't know what they're
    talking about nor have they been there, nor seen it, or
    understand the caribou herd.
        That's one thing that bothers me probably the most of all
    about the legislative process. What used to be, as I mentioned,
    Warren Magnuson and Senator Jackson worked together, when the
    states were affected we didn't get involved in the shipyards
    and certain members' districts about how they were mis-
    manufacturing a ship. We didn't do that. But we have people
    going and saying this is a great environmental area. Maybe I'll
    find out how many of you have gone up there from the Senate
    side.
        But let's think about national security. I run every two
    years--I'm not one of you guys, every six years--and I've
    supported this and fought for it 13 times. Thirteen times I've
    moved it out of the House and it has died on the Senate side,
    all but once, and President Clinton vetoed it because he said
    it wouldn't relieve the embargo we had that quickly.
        But think about that a moment. If we are to be energy
    sufficient, to control the international incidences that can be
    faced, we need ANWR. The Congress recognized it when we passed
    the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
    Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnuson, Mo Udall, and John Seiberling
    all agreed to this provision because they knew the value of
    that oil and the value to this nation.
        Now we're fighting the same battle again because of the
    ignorance and misinformation from those that wouldst not have
    any resources developed at all, not only in Alaska, we're easy
    to pick on because of the three-person delegation, but the
    nation as a whole to make us less strong, to make us a second-
    rate nation. That's what a lot of you wish to do.
        Now, as a House member, I'm going to pass this again and I
    hope you have the courage to do what's right for this nation--
    what's good for Alaska, what's good for the nation, and good
    for all the people in the future.
        Madam Chairman, I do thank you for having this hearing. And
    I will remember and remind you, look at that little blue dot on
    my nose. That is the 1002 Area.
        I don't think it changed my appearance very much because
    the Coastal Plain is not that pristine area you see in the
    propaganda that's purveyed by all the environmental groups.
    It's a flat terrain that, in fact, was set aside by this
    Congress and the Washington Senators for the development, not
    the preservation.
        I yield.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for being
    here.
        Governor Walker, welcome.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BILL WALKER, GOVERNOR,
                            STATE OF ALASKA

        Governor Walker. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Cantwell. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
        I am the Governor of Alaska. I am non-partisan. I am--I
    have a goal as the Governor that future generations will be
    able to have the same benefits growing up in Alaska that I had
    growing up in Alaska. Born in the territory--Lieutenant
    Governor Mallott, also born in the territory--we've seen many
    changes in our state and many for the good.
        Alaska is different. Resource development is in our DNA.
    We've done that long before statehood. We'll continue to do
    that. That's how we earn--it was 90 percent of our income--now
    70 percent of our income from resource development. We've done
    it for a long time. We do it right. We're careful in what we
    do. We're very vigilant of the environment.
        I remember well when we became a state. It was a day we
    celebrated. We made a--the deal we made was the Statehood
    Compact that said that Alaska, we cannot sell the resources in
    the ground. We have to live off of them. We have to live off
    the royalties of them. That's how we fund our state. That was
    the deal then. We accepted that deal. But what we didn't
    understand and didn't realize is that we may not be able to
    have access to resources responsibly developed, to live off
    those resources. That was the deal. All I'm asking for is that
    we get the deal that we made in 1959 under the Statehood
    Compact.
        The great compromise that was made under ANILCA was that
    the 1002 was set aside for future development. That's what the
    deal was. All we're asking for is the benefit of the deal that
    was made long ago.
        This has become something that I have lived with as an
    Alaskan resident all my life, and now I'm dealing with it as
    the Governor of Alaska in many ways which I'll get to.
        The Trans-Alaska oil pipeline. The only thing wrong with
    the oil pipeline is it's three-quarters empty. Three-quarters
    empty sitting next to, miles away, from the most prolific area
    of hydrocarbons you can imagine, ten billion barrels.
        You know, this is not about money. This is not about who
    gets what money in Alaska. This is about a future. This is
    about an economy. This is about the young people that want a
    decent education.
        I want to thank the Committee members that came into a
    field hearing in Bethel and went on to a location in
    Oscarville. You saw a part of Alaska that many have not seen,
    and I thank you very much for doing that. I'm a big believer in
    seeing first-hand what Alaska looks like.
        We are a vast state, as we all know. We have, we own, as
    the State of Alaska, 242 airports. The reason we do that is
    because 80 percent of our communities do not have roads. When
    we talk about infrastructure, upgrading infrastructure, we
    don't have enough infrastructure to upgrade.
        You know, I sat in a listening circle in Utqiagvik a few
    years back and one of the elders said to me, he said--I was not
    Governor--he said, ``Mr. Walker, my goal as a grandfather is to
    see one of my grandchildren flush a toilet in their village.''
        The infrastructure that we need needs to be paid for out of
    the, with the resources. That was the deal we made with
    Congress when we became a state. We need the benefits of that
    bargain, and we need it now.
        As I came into office it was a $1.6 billion deficit that
    quickly drew to $3.7 billion deficit per year. I've had to do
    things I hope no future Governor ever has to do. We've had to
    make some very, very difficult decisions. I've had to say no to
    some very good requests for help for funding. We have had to
    close facilities across the state, lay off thousands of people.
    We have reduced the budget by $1.7 billion. That's a tough
    thing to do in a couple years. That hurts.
        Public safety. Alaskans don't feel safe right now, because
    we've gone too far in that direction. We're having a special
    session, right now as we speak, to bring that safety back.
        I signed recently, earlier this week, a climate change
    administrative order. We have stood up a climate change team.
    You know, we address both in Alaska. We are looking at climate
    change. Climate change has impacted Alaska. There's no question
    about it. We're looking at having to relocate as many as 12 of
    our villages. I've been to Kivalina. I've seen that island
    becoming a smaller island, but we cannot do it without the
    resources, the financial resources to do it. I don't see it
    coming from Washington to relocate 12 villages. So we need to
    look at how can we bring in the revenue. The only way we can do
    it is to live off our resources.
        Alaska is unique that the beauty above ground is
    unparalleled. The beauty below the ground is unparalleled as
    well. The beauty below the ground is our resources that we need
    to develop responsibly.
        As a Governor, I can tell you that the support in the
    Alaska legislature has been 90 percent. Last year was the last
    resolution passed, 90 percent in support of this. Please,
    please, let us develop our resources responsibly so we can fund
    our state. We can make Alaskans feel safe. We can fund our
    education, fund our health services. Our health services are
    the highest in the nation by multiples. Please let us have the
    benefit of the bargain that we made in 1959 with this body.
        Thank you very much for your time today.
        [The prepared statement of Governor Walker follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Governor, Senator, Congressman, thank you
    for, not only your testimony here this morning, but putting it
    into perspective from a historical perspective, from a defense
    perspective, from a resource perspective. It adds great value
    to the conversation, and we certainly appreciate it.
        I know, Congressman, it is a long way over to the House
    side, so we will let you get back as we move to our second
    panel, but I want to thank each of you.
        Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair, could I----
        Representative Young. Thank you, Madam Chair, but I'm glad
    to see so many of my colleagues up there on this side, all
    served with me.
        The Chairman. It is not so bad on the Senate side.
        Representative Young. Everybody but Abraham Lincoln served
    with me----
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair, could I ask the Governor a
    quick question?
        The Chairman. We were not prepared to do questions, but if
    it is very quick, I think we can get to it.
        Senator Cantwell. We don't get a chance to talk to him that
    often and certainly appreciate chances that we do.
        The Chairman. Certainly.
        Senator Cantwell. Part of this idea is traveling with a
    package of legislation moving through the House that gets rid
    of our local sales deductions. Washington and Alaska are unique
    in that we don't have an income tax and we get to deduct.
        Are you supportive of that concept? In addition, there are
    some who thought that they would package this legislation up
    with another try at health care where they would go back to
    block granting Medicaid. Are you supportive of those concepts
    as part of a package just to get ANWR opened up?
        Governor Walker. Senator Cantwell, I have certainly looked
    at the package and I will evaluate the package in its entirety.
    I've not been through it as thorough as I'd like to because
    I've been getting ready for this hearing today, obviously.
        You know, we look at that as us, as a part of that, part of
    the solution on the deficit, revenues from Alaska because the
    royalties will be shared equally between the Federal Government
    and the State of Alaska. So we see that, certainly, as if
    there's interest in reducing the federal deficit, I'm certainly
    interested in reducing the state deficit. That's what my focus
    is today.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I would--we will get you
    information, but our analysis is that Alaskans will pay about a
    $1,100 to $1,400 tax increase and individuals a $900 increase
    under that sales tax deduction idea.
        I think it is a bad idea for our state and your state and,
    certainly, I hope no one around here takes the bait on block
    granting Medicaid just to open up ANWR.
        Thank you for being here, Governor.
        Governor Walker. We will do all we can to open up ANWR.
    Thank you.
        Senator Cassidy. Madam Chair, just for point of fact.
        The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Health care reform is not part of this.
    Block granting Medicaid is not part of this. It can be a
    disinformation campaign put out there to obscure the truth. We
    will come back to health care reform, but that should not be
    spoken of here as if it is germane to the argument. That is
    misleading to the American people.
        The Chairman. We do have somewhat limited jurisdiction here
    in the Energy Committee. Our instruction is to find $1 billion,
    and as we mentioned repeatedly, we have that opportunity within
    the 1002 Area of Alaska.
        Governor, Senator, Congressman, thank you for being here
    this morning.
        Let's call up the second panel, please. As you are getting
    seated, I will provide brief introductions.
        We have heard from our Governor, Governor Walker. His
    Lieutenant Governor and partner is our Lieutenant Governor,
    Byron Mallott. The Lieutenant Governor is a leader of great
    renown in our state, an Alaskan Native leader hailing from
    Yakutat, and has had an opportunity to appear before our
    Committee on numerous occasions. We welcome him back.
        His testimony will be followed by Mr. Greg Sheehan. Greg is
    the Principal Deputy Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    at the Department of the Interior. It is good to have you
    before the Committee.
        Mr. Samuel Alexander has joined us, and we welcome him as a
    Tribal Member from the Gwich'in Tribal Government. Thank you
    for being here this morning and traveling such a long distance.
        Mr. Matthew Rexford is the Tribal Administrator in the
    Native Village of Kaktovik, the one community, the one village
    within the 1002 Area. It is good to have you here, Matthew.
        Lieutenant Governor, if you would like to lead off this
    morning.
        We have asked you to try to limit your comments to about
    five minutes. Your full statements will be incorporated as part
    of the record. After the conclusion of your testimony, we will
    have an opportunity to ask specific questions of each of you.
        Lieutenant Governor, thank you again for traveling the long
    distance and, again, for being before the Committee. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON MALLOTT, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF
                                 ALASKA

        Lieutenant Governor Mallott. Thank you, Madam Chairman,
    Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee.
        The statement of Governor Walker in the record details the
    reasons, clearly, that the State of Alaska supports the issue
    before the Committee: that the need for development is clear,
    that the need for the revenue is clear, that the availability
    of revenue should development take place, will be real.
        I want to focus my remarks, briefly, on the history of, as
    also has been spoken to, the ANWR issue.
        I was here as a young staffer during the development of the
    Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), ANILCA, and
    ultimately the federal classifications in Alaska flowed from
    ANCSA.
        In section (d)(2) of that Act there were bargains made that
    were made very clear to Alaska which from time to time I had
    the opportunity to help develop and which, in practice, I saw
    go away. In my home village of Yakutat, I saw preserve areas
    created in the St. Elias National Park in which we were
    promised, as Native residents, as Native subsistence users, as
    folks who lived in that area for centuries, were promised that
    we could use that area into the future. They were carved out
    for that purpose. And I saw camps that my family owned and
    others in our community used for generations, burned down by
    the National Park Service, regardless of what had been promised
    to us by this Congress.
        I see in ANWR, the 1002 Area being an area in which the
    Congress made a promise to Alaska and to our country that we
    would develop those resources should they be able to be done
    safely, should they meet the market tests, should they be able
    to be brought to market.
        We see a complete infrastructure on the North Slope of our
    state with a pipeline to market. As the Governor said, that is
    now at only 25 percent of capacity. We see Point Thomson
    literally on the border of the 1002 Area with the
    infrastructure to allow the minimal impact in the 1002 Area for
    exploration and even development made possible without any
    further significant impact on the environment.
        We see the ability to deal with our national security
    requirements which Alaska is very concerned about as we look to
    certain neighbors of our state, our unique global national
    security location.
        We see the need for our people. Alaska is the one state
    that makes use of our fish and game and plant resources as the
    highest priority for food security among all the uses of our
    resources. It's called subsistence. It is our highest public
    policy use.
        And as resources become scarce, as they cycle through the
    life cycles of resources, we make sure that our people who
    depend on those resources for their livelihood, for their life
    ways, for food security, are the ones that have the ultimate
    access to those resources. No other state does that.
        My wife, my children are Athabascan. They're Koyukon, not
    Gwich'in, but I came to this office largely on the basis that I
    have fought for my entire life, the life ways, the desire, the
    aspirations of Alaska's native peoples and I will continue to
    do so with every breath that I have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
        Mr. Sheehan, welcome to the Committee.

    STATEMENT OF GREG SHEEHAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH
          & WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's testimony on resource development
    in Alaska's 1002 Area. The 1002 Area is contained within the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        I am Greg Sheehan, Principal Deputy Director of the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service. I've spoken to many people about
    this issue including our dedicated and highly professional
    staff in Alaska. I appreciate the passion that surrounds every
    aspect of this issue.
        The debate before us is a significant policy question that
    Congress anticipated decades ago and one we are addressing
    today. The roots of this hearing date back to 1980 when the
    Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, was
    signed into law. That law expanded the existing Arctic National
    Wildlife Range to 19.3 million acres and renamed it the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge.
        ANILCA made great strides to enhance long-term conservation
    of fish and wildlife resources in the Refuge. The law also set
    aside a part of the Refuge, the 1002 Area, for potential
    development of oil and gas reserves.
        ANILCA designated eight million acres of the original range
    as wilderness requiring the area to be managed in accordance
    with the Wilderness Act.
        ANILCA also added the Refuge purposes including
    conservation of fish and wildlife populations, fulfilment of
    international agreements, providing for continued subsistence
    uses by rural residents, and ensuring water quality and
    quantity within the Refuge, as well as defining the 1002 Area
    within the Refuge.
        Section 1002 of ANILCA provides for the continuing
    assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the Coastal
    Plain of the Arctic Refuge. It also provides for the analysis
    of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development and
    production and authorizes exploratory activity within the
    Coastal Plain. Research, observation, and exploratory
    activities have been occurring on an ongoing basis since the
    passage of ANILCA.
        In section 1003 of ANILCA, Congress statutorily deferred a
    decision regarding future management of the 1.5 million area
    Coastal Plain in recognition of the area's natural resource
    potential. Specifically, section 1003 states, ``. . . no
    leasing or other development leading to production of oil and
    gas . . . shall be undertaken until authorized by an Act of
    Congress.''
        Since the passage of ANILCA, a number of key steps were
    taken by the Department related to the 1002 Area's unique
    status. In an assessment completed and sent to Congress in
    1987, the Secretary of the Interior recommended that Congress
    consider leasing the 1002 Area for oil and gas. Since 1987, the
    U.S. Geological Survey has conducted a number of assessments of
    the resources in the 1002 Area. Their most recent economic
    analysis, published in 2009, determined that there is a mean
    estimate of 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil with 80 to
    90 percent of that volume being economically recoverable at $42
    per barrel. Consistent with ANILCA, the services continued to
    inventory, monitor, and assess the fish, wildlife, and natural
    resources within the 1002 Area so that current data is
    available to inform future activity.
        In 1988, the Arctic Refuge's initial Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan recognized the Coastal Plain as a critical
    calving area for the Porcupine Caribou herd which is an
    important subsistence use for Alaska Native peoples. Other
    important wildlife species including polar bear, migratory
    birds, and several fish species, inhabit the 1002 Area. At the
    Fish and Wildlife Service we're committed to ensuring the
    health of all species as Congress provides direction on future
    uses of this area.
        Last spring, Secretary Zinke visited the North Slope with
    Chairman Murkowski and a bipartisan Senate delegation. He
    signed a Secretarial Order that requires the U.S. Geological
    Survey to update its resource assessment for the 1002 Area.
    This includes collection and consideration of new geological
    and geophysical data as well as the potential for reprocessing
    existing data. The Secretarial Order does not modify any
    environmental or regulatory requirements for energy
    development. This evaluation is consistent with the scope and
    intent of ANILCA and will provide the Department's
    understanding of resources within the 1002 Area.
        The Administration's FY'18 budget proposes oil and gas
    leasing in the 1002 Area, and we support Congress' effort to
    open the area for production. If leasing is authorized by
    Congress, the Administration believes it will bolster our
    nation's energy independence and national security, provide
    economic opportunity for Alaskans, and provide much needed
    revenue to both the State of Alaska and the Federal Government.
    Should that authorization be enacted, the Department will
    follow applicable environmental review requirements in the law
    to ensure that development of the area is conducted
    responsibly.
        Chairman Murkowski, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
    on behalf of the Department on this issue and look forward to
    answering any questions you and the members of the Committee
    may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sheehan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sheehan, for being here on
    behalf of the Department.
        Mr. Alexander, welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF SAM ALEXANDER, TRIBAL MEMBER, GWICHYAA ZHEE
                       GWICH'IN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT

        Mr. Alexander. Vanh gwinzii, Shoozhri' Sam Alexander
    oozhii, Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ih5ifif, gaa Tanan gwihch'ii.
    Shiyeghan naifif Clarence ts'a' Ginny Alexander gaavoozhri',
    Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ginlifif.
        Good morning, my name is Sam Alexander. I am from Fort
    Yukon, Alaska, but I live in Fairbanks. My parents are Clarence
    and Ginny Alexander from Fort Yukon.
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and fellow
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    speak with you about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        Today I am here to talk with you about why my people, the
    Gwich'in Nation, adamantly oppose the opening of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge. As a graduate of West Point and as a
    prior U.S. Army Special Forces Officer, my people have asked me
    to speak because I have walked in two worlds: your world and
    the Gwich'in world.
        So why do we oppose the opening of the Refuge to drilling?
    At the heart of the issue is freedom. The freedom for us to
    continue to exist as indigenous people, to exist as Gwich'in.
        What does it mean to be Gwich'in? The word Gwich'in means
    people of a place and for tens of thousands of years our place
    has been the land now known as Northeastern Alaska and Western
    Canada. To be Gwich'in is to be connected to the land. To be
    Gwich'in is to believe that the land and the animals on it are
    owed our deepest respect. In that regard, it is our duty as
    Gwich'in to protect the land and animals. We as Gwich'in see
    the desire to open up the Refuge as an attack on us and on the
    Porcupine Caribou herd on which we depend.
        Like many Gwich'in, I served in the U.S. military. As a
    Green Beret, I deployed to Iraq to ``free the oppressed.''
    Little did I realize that I'd come home to find my own people's
    freedom under attack.
        When we advocate for our traditional ways, we are sometimes
    viewed with derision, as if we were trying to fight the
    unstoppable advance of ``progress.'' But we take the long view
    and we embrace our traditional ways because they have served us
    well for millennia.
        Even people down here have started to embrace our ways. You
    see it in renewed interest in diets free of processed food,
    what we would call our traditional diet.
        Science now tells us that walking amongst the natural world
    is good for your brain. You don't have to tell a Gwich'in
    person that. In fact, when someone is looking unhealthy, we say
    ``Nanakat gwats'i'hindii.'' Go to your land. We say that
    because we know that the land will heal you.
        The land is essential to our way of life; it provides us
    sustenance and we view it as sacred. The caribou come from a
    place we call ``Izhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit,'' the sacred
    place where life begins, and these very grounds are being
    threatened by oil development. A study by the National Research
    Council outlines how drilling on the North Slope has already
    disrupted the migration and behavior of caribou.
        This brings us to the issue of food security. What is food
    security? According to the United States Department of
    Agriculture, food security means access by all people at all
    times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food
    insecurity is defined as a household-level economic and social
    condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. What
    is adequate food? For Gwich'in, the only real adequate food is
    food that comes from the land--caribou, moose, salmon. We have
    a hard time eating your ``health food.'' As a cadet at West
    Point, I tried following a ``healthy diet'' full of fruits and
    vegetables and it was disastrous. I found out years later that
    I couldn't eat tomatoes, apples, and a whole host of other
    ``healthy foods.'' Over the thousands of years of calling the
    Arctic home, we had adapted to a largely animal-based diet. It
    wasn't until I started eating more traditional Gwich'in food
    did I start to feel healthy again.
        The opening of the Refuge to oil development and subsequent
    decline of the Porcupine Caribou herd will limit our access to
    traditional, healthy food and push us from food security into
    the realm of food insecurity. No amount of money can replicate
    our healthy traditional diet. No amount of money can replicate
    our ways. Tell me how replacing caribou with highly processed
    foods is going to be better for us. It will not. If we had to
    rely on our stores for food, we'd be looking at a steady diet
    of SPAM, macaroni and cheese and other shelf-stable delicacies,
    often at four or five times the price of what you find in the
    Lower 48.
        And to what end are you opening up the Refuge? To what end
    will you destroy our way of life? You aren't addressing climate
    change, which has been stressing our other food sources as well
    as stressing the caribou. You aren't addressing our nation's
    growing deficit; in fact, opening the Refuge represents a drop
    in the bucket of our budget ills. You aren't even addressing
    energy security. As a former Special Forces Officer, I fail to
    see how opening the Refuge at a time when we are already a net
    exporter of energy provides us any geopolitical advantage. We
    are hard-pressed to understand your reasoning behind opening
    the Refuge.
        So I will leave you this. The late Traditional Chief Moses
    Sam of Arctic Village once said when describing his upbringing
    on the land, ``I was never hungry, it was a rich life.'' We
    Gwich'in live a rich life. We live a rich life because of our
    connection to the land and to the Porcupine Caribou herd.
        Money can't buy our wealth, but the reckless pursuit of
    money can take it away. And for that, we will never stop
    fighting to protect the Porcupine Caribou herd and our way of
    life.
        Thank you for your time.
        Mahsi' choo.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mahsi' choo. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Rexford, welcome to the Committee.

      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW REXFORD, TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIVE
                      VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK, ALASKA

        Mr. Rexford. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to speak
    to you today.
        My name is Matthew Rexford, and I serve as the Tribal
    Administrator for the Native Village of Kaktovik (NVK). I am
    also the President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC).
    Both NVK and KIC serve as members of the Voice of the Arctic
    Inupiat (VOICE) along with 18 other North Slope communities and
    entities.
        I was raised and live in Kaktovik, Alaska, located inside
    the 1002 Area of ANWR. All of the organizations I previously
    mentioned--NVK, KIC, and VOICE--support oil and gas development
    there.
        Approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands in and around
    the community are owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,
    our Village Corporation. These lands are within and are then
    surrounded by ANWR. We are an island in the middle of the
    largest wildlife refuge in America.
        Much of that land is also the ancestral home of the
    Inupiat. Our people are the indigenous inhabitants of the
    region and have used the resources it has blessed us with for
    more than 10,000 years. While many refer to the controversial
    section of ANWR as the 1002 Area, this is the home of the
    Kaktovikmuit, the people of Kaktovik.
        The bowhead whale, caribou, Dall sheep, musk oxen and the
    fish of the region are a vital food source to the Kaktovikmuit.
    Another of those natural resources is oil and gas and lots of
    it. We rely on the bounty of the land and find sustenance
    within ANWR.
        Since the mid-1980s, our people have fought unsuccessfully
    to open our homelands to responsible exploration and
    development. At the same time, Lower 48 lawmakers and special
    interest groups in the country have waged war on the idea,
    citing the disruption of wildlife and the pristine Arctic
    environment.
        The Kaktovikmuit and the Arctic Inupiat will not become
    conservation refugees. We do not approve of efforts to turn our
    homeland into one giant national park, which literally
    guarantees us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced
    subsistence and no hope for the future of our people. We are
    already being impacted by restrictions of access to the federal
    lands for subsistence purposes.
        As ANWR debates occur, the views of the Kaktovikmuit are
    often left out. In fact, that is precisely why the leadership
    of the Arctic Slope region created VOICE in 2015. We were tired
    of outsiders living thousands of miles away, speaking on our
    behalf and driving Arctic policy decisions that directly affect
    us and our communities.
        My fellow Inupiat and I firmly believe in a social license
    to operate, and perhaps no other potential project in the
    history of America has called for such a blessing from local
    indigenous peoples more than this one. We Inupiat have the
    benefit of decades of experience working with the oil and gas
    industry to implement stringent regulations to protect the
    lands through best management practices and the industry
    consistently has lived up to our standards. We know development
    in ANWR can be done safely because it's already being done
    safely, all over the Arctic. We think that now is the time to
    open ANWR to measured exploration and development for the
    benefit of our community, all of Alaska, and the nation.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rexford follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Rexford, thank you, and thank you to each
    of you on the panel here this morning.
        We will now begin with a round of questions, five minutes
    to each member here.
        Mr. Rexford, I want to begin with you, if I may, and I do
    so because I believe that you are right in your statement that
    so often the voice of the people who actually live within the
    1002 Area, the area that we are speaking about today, are often
    either not heard or just overwhelmed by outside voices.
        I think people are often surprised when they realize that
    there is a village within the 1002 Area, that there are people
    who live there, that the community of Kaktovik, you fly into
    and there is an airstrip there, that you have a school for your
    children. You have a community hall. You have a store where, I
    think, most who go in are shocked and horrified by the prices.
    But you live and work and raise your families within the 1002
    Area.
        I think oftentimes I go back to the map that I showed
    initially. This is an area the size of, ANWR is an area the
    size of the State of South Carolina. The 1002 Area is an area
    the size of Delaware. But there is one village in Delaware and
    that village of Kaktovik is home to you and your family and to
    others.
        Can you provide for the Committee a little bit of the
    expectation that the people of Kaktovik might have from the
    development of the 1002 Area? Again, we are talking about a
    small, small piece. You have seen development at Point Thomson,
    which is just 45 miles from the village of Kaktovik. If you
    could put it in context, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Rexford. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski.
        Yes, the benefits to the community of Kaktovik will be a
    lot because the North Slope Borough has a tax base and that is
    our regional municipal borough who taxes industry and that
    provides the infrastructure that has provided so much to our
    communities. It provided us roads, houses, schools, clinics,
    and to be able to flush our toilets.
        And so, yes, the benefits, we've seen the benefits and we
    do not want to go backward. We do not want to hinder the
    economy of the North Slope Borough.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Matthew.
        I remind people that your kids, what you are hoping for for
    your children is no different than mine or anybody else. You
    want them to be well educated. You want them to have a good
    future.
        Lieutenant Governor, I would like to ask you a question.
    You have spoken very passionately here, as you have in other
    forums, about subsistence and the identity that it is to our
    Alaska Native people throughout our state, whether you are up
    north in the 1002 Area or down in Yakutat in your home
    community. Many will say that a subsistence lifestyle and an
    opportunity to access the 1002 Area are not consistent, that
    there is an inconsistency here, that it cannot be done. Why do
    you believe that ANWR development within the 1002 Area can
    occur without negatively impacting the Porcupine Caribou herd
    or the Native subsistence way of life?
        Mr. Mallott. In the some 40 years of development of the
    Arctic for oil and gas production, the resources have been most
    stable and have grown and waned as their biological cycles
    determine, particularly the caribou resource has grown. It has
    moved, generally, as it always has in that region.
        The impact of development has been carefully managed and
    constrained. The management by Alaska of both the petroleum
    resource and the renewable natural resources, particularly fish
    and game, has been, as Senator Sullivan, a former Commissioner
    of Natural Resources of our state and Attorney General of our
    state has emphasized, has been of the highest order. The
    priority for subsistence use of our fish and game resources is
    the highest statutory priority in our state.
        As I indicated, it is something that I personally have
    fought for my entire life. And whether it is the Gwich'in, the
    Inuit, the Tlingit, or any other rural user group of our
    natural resources, the State of Alaska has that management and
    that responsibility as its highest priority and we will
    continue to fight for it.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Mr. Alexander, thank you for your service
    to our country and thank you for articulating what I think so
    many people know, or a lot of people know intuitively, that our
    great outdoors provide great relief. It is one of the reasons
    why our veterans have been so outspoken against this
    Administration's wrongheaded policies, whether it is tacking on
    park fees or trying to run over the Antiquities Act, whatever
    it is. I so appreciate our veterans being so supportive of
    making sure we have a place to fish and hunt and recreate. So
    thank you for that.
        I just would point out for the record, I think there have
    been something like 640 oil spills in Alaska's North Slope
    since 1995, including 13 spills of over 10,000 gallons. Since
    2009, thousands of gallons of oil have spilled in the North
    Slope as a result of those operations, including, in 2000 when
    British Petroleum was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and
    criminal penalties because they had illegally disposed of
    hazardous waste containing benzene and other toxic chemicals.
    And in 2011, BP Exploration Alaska was ordered to pay $25
    million in civil penalties for spilling an estimated 213,000
    gallons of crude oil from its pipelines onto the North Slope.
        So we know what happens. We know what happens. The notion
    that people think that this is commensurate is, I think, not
    supported by the science, but we will find out what the
    Secretary says.
        On the Gwich'in and the caribou population, you talked
    about the migration impacts and I know that we have seen some
    changes in that caribou population. What is the biggest concern
    here in the development? That the migration will move out of
    the reach of subsistence for the Gwich'in people, or could you
    explain what it is that we are so concerned about?
        Mr. Alexander. You know, it's interesting when you're down
    here in the states and you want to go get some food, you go to
    the store and you grab you some beef and it costs you maybe
    $4.00 a pound or something like that. You want to get something
    organic, nice and tasty and healthy for you, it's going to cost
    you about $10, $15 a pound.
        As Gwich'in we recognize that we already have that tasty
    organic caribou running around up there. It plays a big part of
    our diet. And so, what we're concerned with is that, you know,
    we call this place, ``lizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit,'' a
    sacred place where life begins. This is where the Porcupine
    Caribou herd calve. This is it, folks. This is the only spot
    that they have their calving. And we're concerned that you have
    any type of disruption in that calving ground, it's not that
    they're going to move elsewhere, it's that they're not going to
    exist.
        If you take a look at the boundaries of the Gwich'in Nation
    it follows the path of the caribou. So when people talk about,
    you know, us being not in the 1002 Area, that's, you know,
    true, in one sense, but in the other sense, we speak for the
    caribou. That's why we're here. We're their voice.
        And they live in that 1002 Area. That's where their babies
    are born, alright? That's where their children come from. And
    it's our responsibility to ensure that they have a safe place
    to do that, to calve. And it's our responsibility to future
    generations of Gwich'in people to ensure that we maintain our
    livelihood which is tied to the caribou. So very important for
    us.
        Senator Cantwell. And have we seen changes in that
    population closer to the area to where drilling has happened?
        Mr. Alexander. You know, people always bring the Central
    herd and they talk about how the numbers have grown. They said,
    there's more caribou there.
        Well, more of something doesn't mean healthier of
    something, alright? Let's keep that in mind. There's Americans,
    we're a lot more now, aren't we? It doesn't mean we're a lot
    healthier. So, let's keep that in mind.
        In terms of the impact, though. We do see an impact. The
    caribou, they are scared of the development. They run away from
    that stuff. They don't want to be out there.
        In fact, when we go hunting, you might not know this, but
    caribou actually have scouts. They have scouts that go up in
    the front. And when the scouts come into trouble, the rest of
    the herd moves. Alright? So we always tell our people, you
    leave those scouts alone. You let them go ahead and you let the
    main herd go by. So the impact that it's going to have is a
    real impact.
        And we also haven't addressed the impact of climate change
    and that's impacting the caribou's land as well as there's more
    brush than there has ever been in the past. They've had to
    change where they go, alright?
        This climate change is real. I just left Fairbanks and
    there's no snow on the ground. When I was a kid, it'd be 30
    below by the time it's Halloween. It was 30 degrees when I
    left. And that has a real impact on the caribou as well. When
    it ices over they have a harder time getting to their food. So
    I'm hoping to see that this body recognizes that.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        I want to add my support for the opening up of the Coastal
    Plain region of ANWR to responsible energy development. This
    proposal makes sense on a number of levels.
        From an economic perspective, opening up this small, remote
    area will provide potentially billions of dollars in federal
    revenues alone over the next few decades which could be used to
    chip away at our staggering budget deficits that we are facing.
    And new development will be a boon, certainly, for Alaska, a
    state that is struggling with high unemployment and with its
    own budget shortfalls.
        Opening up the Coastal Plain also makes sense from an
    environmental perspective. Energy development in the United
    States meets some of the most rigorous environmental standards
    in the entire world. This is especially true in Alaska where
    responsible energy production has occurred for decades without
    undue harm to the surrounding environment, including polar bear
    and caribou habitats.
        Much of the credit for this environmental record of
    responsibility should go to recent technological innovations.
    For example, thanks to modern drilling methods developers can
    access hundreds of miles of oil, of subsurface oil, while
    occupying just a few acres of surface land. As companies
    continue to innovate, the environmental and financial cost of
    energy development will fall even further.
        But perhaps the biggest, single reason why I support the
    opening of the Coastal Plain is because it is widely supported
    by the people of Alaska, and particularly the Inupiat, who
    actually live in that part of the Refuge. I am a strong
    believer that local input should play an outsized role in land
    management issues. People living in, on, and near the land in
    question should have the most significant say in it. The people
    closest to the land deserve to have their voices heard and
    deserve to have their wishes respected.
        Coming from the State of Utah where the Federal Government
    owns nearly two-thirds of the land, I fully understand the
    frustrations of Alaskans whose lives and whose livelihoods are
    subject, almost constantly, to the whims and wishes of well-
    connected interest groups, regulators, and politicians in
    Washington, DC, thousands of miles from where the people
    connected to the land, themselves, live.
        Mr. Rexford, in your testimony you articulated these
    frustrations very clearly, very passionately, and eloquently.
    Can you talk about the importance that we should take into
    account, the importance of incorporating local knowledge and
    input in major land decisions, including decisions like the
    ones that we are discussing today?
        Mr. Rexford. Yes, thank you, Senator Lee.
        So, we--I am sorry, can you repeat that question?
        Senator Lee. Yes.
        Can you just talk to us a little bit about the importance
    of taking into account local knowledge, input, local sentiment,
    the sentiment of people immediately affected by the land on
    making decisions like these?
        Mr. Rexford. Yes, thank you.
        I would have to say that also the, what brought about the
    technological advances was the participation of the local
    government on the North Slope and their stringent rules and
    conditions and stipulations that they put in place to ensure
    that this is done right.
        And living in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is
    troublesome in the sense that we have limited access to our
    lands, to the mountains, during the summer season. We cannot
    travel over the tundra without disturbing or harming the tundra
    because it is wetland. But throughout most of the year, it's
    frozen and we use snow machines to go to the areas where we
    need to find what we are looking for.
        Senator Lee. So you experience the land differently. You
    have a deeper familiarity with it than say, somebody in
    Washington, DC, would have and that has an impact on the way
    you view it and on the way it should be managed?
        Mr. Rexford. Yes, very much so.
        And we care deeply about the caribou, about the polar bear,
    about the whales, more than anything else because that is what
    gives us our livelihoods. We are a strong, subsistence
    community and much of what is caught, if we have an
    overabundance it's traditional knowledge to share that
    abundance with first the elders and those who cannot provide
    for themselves.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Alexander, I want to thank you for
    being with us here today. I had a chance to visit the North
    Slope, places like Deadhorse, to see a number of the
    developments that have occurred there in the Prudhoe Bay area,
    and to visit the Refuge as well and to go to places like Arctic
    Village.
        I was struck by the connection, the language and the
    cultural connections with the Navajo people in the Southwest.
    That really surprised me.
        And in listening to everyone here today, what really struck
    me was the way you talked about this place and how different it
    was from the way my colleagues talked about this place or the
    way the gentlemen from the Department of the Interior talked
    about this place.
        They talked about the 1002 Area. They talked about ANWR.
    ANWR, to me, sounds like a Middle Eastern country covered in
    sand where we should just develop lots of oil and gas. They
    don't talk about a Refuge.
        You said this is the sacred place where life begins. Can
    you talk a little bit more about how your people talk about
    this place?
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
        Our people think of this place as the heart, you know. We
    think of ``lizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit'' as the heart of
    the Refuge. Okay? This is the heart of the Refuge.
        And you know, it was interesting earlier our Congressman
    talked about how it was just a little dot on his nose. And I
    thought that was funny because, you know, if I were to say to
    you, you want to do something about that dot on your nose,
    let's go ahead and have open heart surgery. You'd probably
    think, well, that's not a good idea. Right? That's not a good
    idea.
        And so, when we talk about the Refuge, we talk about the
    land. It is tied to our language and our understanding of the
    world. And you know, the ``vadzaih,'' the caribou, we are
    connected to them and we recognize that.
        You know, we talk about, I hear this talk about development
    all the time. We need to develop this, we need to develop that.
    What I think we need is a little bit of understanding of the
    sustainability of the life that we live as Gwich'in, alright?
        We're not asking. We're not sitting here asking for
    anything. We're not saying we need hospitals. We need schools.
    We need all these things. We're not saying give us money. What
    we're saying is let us live as Gwich'in because we already
    recognize the wealth that we have as people. And there's
    nothing that you can give us. But we recognize it's something
    that can be taken away from us. And so, when we talk about the
    land, when we talk about the caribou, it's in reverence to
    them.
        And you know, I keep hearing well, the locals, let's hear
    what the locals have to say about the 1002 Area. You know who
    the locals are? They're caribou. Those are the locals that
    don't have a voice and that's why we're here as Gwich'in.
        Senator Heinrich. One of the things that really struck me
    about that geography was how the Arctic Plain, where the
    caribou calve, is the flat place. To the West is, frankly, an
    industrial zone. You can say how--you can say birds nest on
    every drilling rig, but it doesn't look like that when you are
    there.
        Then to the South and to the East are mountains, and this
    is the place where the caribou flow like a river. And this is
    the spring. And if you lose the spring, you lose the whole
    river, don't you?
        Mr. Alexander. Absolutely because, you know, I think
    there's this idea that with development, you know, you're only
    going to maybe harm part of the herd or maybe they'll just move
    over a little bit. There's not that option for them. There's
    not that option.
        And so, we're talking about the destruction of the herd and
    irreparable damage to our culture, to people that have been
    living there for tens of thousands of years. And when I say,
    tens of thousands of years, I'm not just making up numbers.
    There's a place called Bluefish Cave in the Yukon Territory.
    It's the oldest known human campsite in North America, and
    that's Gwich'in territory.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Thank you all for being here.
        I am from Louisiana and, believe it or not, even though
    your average temperature in July is probably colder than my
    average temperature in December, there are a lot of
    similarities between the states.
        We obviously have a lot of oil and gas development. One of
    the reasons that I think this is such a positive thing is that
    there are so many folks in our state who did not go to college,
    good people who make good incomes because they are able to work
    in the oil and gas industry and actually make a product which
    the rest of the world wants and which is economically
    beneficial for that family. It is about economic opportunity
    for these folks.
        But I can also apply what we do in Louisiana to some of the
    stuff that we see here. Everybody discusses responsible oil and
    gas development with a limited footprint and I can say that in
    the Gulf of Mexico that technology has progressed so that you
    can dynamically drill going from a central point far out and
    then tying back, therefore limiting the pad, if you will, so
    the subsea is tiebacks or similar to what is here.
        And I look at that because if you look at what Senator
    Sullivan gave us: it took a 65-acre gravel pad in 1970 to do
    three square miles of drilling; a 12-acre gravel pad in 2016 to
    do 55 square miles; and now, for future extended-reach
    drilling, it will take a 12-acre gravel pad to do 125 square
    miles.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        That is very similar to what we are currently doing in the
    Gulf of Mexico where once you have the rig, you go far out and
    then tie back in a way which minimizes impact. So I will say
    that.
        I understand there is currently a project in Alaska that
    has an extended drilling well of 35,000 feet, again, that can
    reach 125 square miles. So it is not just the Gulf of Mexico,
    it is also in Alaska.
        Mr. Lieutenant Governor, we actually have empiric evidence
    though of everything we are discussing. Since the drilling has
    begun in Prudhoe Bay, not far from the 1002 Area, how has
    development affected the area and how have these technological
    advances that we have spoken of, if you will, modified that
    impact?
        Mr. Mallott. The technological capacity, as you've just
    described, is working on the North Slope. The ability to reduce
    the footprint, the ability to reach out is taking place as we
    speak. There has been no impact on the 1002 Area simply because
    that is the issue before us today, to allow that potential to
    be tapped.
        There have been comments about spills and other negative
    consequences of a massive, decades-long development on the
    North Slope producing billions of barrels of oil. And what I
    can say to that is that technology has, again, allowed us to be
    aggressively responsive, that the regulatory regime has
    changed, will continue to evolve and the technology has grown.
    Our ability to respond to difficulty has grown. The ability to
    maintain the habitat, literally the ecosystems, has been
    aggressively managed and issues responded to.
        And that is, of course, part of the emphasis of our
    testimony today is to say that we can deal both with the need
    for the development, the production of the petroleum resource,
    to manage the future of the renewable resources----
        Senator Cassidy. Let me just mention, because I am about to
    run out of seconds.
        Just to reiterate your point or to emphasize your point
    from the picture about your way to do responsible drilling--
    Senator Sullivan gave this out----
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. ----and it shows ice pads being used for
    this rig and when it thaws you see no roads, you see no pads
    because they are ice pads and ice roads and they all melt away.
    And the only thing left is an 8x8-foot well house that remains
    for future development, but nothing else is seen. So you all
    have done a very nice job of preserving the ecosystem without
    trace, except for an 8x8-foot well house.
        Mr. Mallott. That is exactly right.
        Senator Cassidy. I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for the conversation today.
        I would like to start with Mr. Sheehan.
        Mr. Sheehan, you have an extensive background in
    conservation and 25 years in Utah. Nevada appreciates it. It is
    our neighbor to the east, and I have spent a lot of time in
    southern Utah, beautiful country. I know you have been there
    for 25 years with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, that
    is correct? And the Director at some point in time in the last
    five years?
        Mr. Sheehan. I was the Director for the past five years,
    yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. That is great.
        Can I ask you this? My understanding of the 1980 law and
    the purpose of the Refuge states four things: to conserve fish
    and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural
    diversity; to fulfill the international treaty obligations of
    the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their
    habitats; to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes one
    and two, the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by
    local residents; and to ensure water quality and necessary
    water quantity within the Refuge. Are those purposes still true
    today?
        Mr. Sheehan. Excuse me, yes, absolutely. Those are still
    being fulfilled.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Then can you explain to me how, if we are to open it up to
    oil and gas drilling, that is compatible with those purposes?
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, thank you, Senator.
        As part of the 1980 ANILCA law that you referenced, it
    certainly established criteria to manage the Refuge area by and
    that's still being fulfilled.
        But when you talk about compatibility in the 1997 Wildlife
    Refuge Act, it says, ``Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill
    the mission of the system as well as the specific purpose for
    which that refuge was established.'' And at the time that that
    refuge was established, sections 1002 and 1003 of ANILCA
    created an avenue for the discussion of exploratory work and
    potentially drilling down in the future, under section 1003. So
    at this point the Department of the Interior and the President
    and Secretary are committed to honoring the desires of the
    state, honoring the desires of the need for energy independence
    and still fulfilling the law of ANILCA which provided
    opportunity under that very law, that you mentioned, to perform
    these types of activities.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So there is no compatibility standard
    that you have to look at? You feel it is in the law that you
    have the authority to come in and listen to the locals. This is
    what they want, so this is what you are going to do. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Certainly we strive to make every action
    compatible, as best we can within that area.
        As has been mentioned multiple times today, that's a 19.5-
    million-acre area within the boundaries of the Refuge, about
    1.5 million of that are in the 1002 Area. If this body of
    Congress elects to allow for the development of oil and gas
    resources in that area, we'll work to ensure compatibility of
    that use with other existing uses----
        Senator Cortez Masto. So is your position today that you,
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, does not have a position?
    You are just going to really do whatever we in Congress say you
    should be doing? So you are not here advocating one way or the
    other?
        Mr. Sheehan. No, Senator. I'm saying that the compatibility
    of that Refuge will be determined, as I mentioned, with the
    specific purposes for which that Refuge was established.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Is it different than what I just
    identified previously?
        Mr. Sheehan. It is those four elements you mentioned.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Mr. Sheehan. But it's certainly also the potential
    exploration and development of other uses as we've heard from
    multiple members here today.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, thank you.
        Let me just turn to Lieutenant Governor Mallott. Thank you
    so much for joining us today.
        We have been instructed to raise $1 billion in this
    Committee as part of Fiscal Year '18 budget in order to pay for
    $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy. I do not see how
    opening the Refuge to oil and gas leasing will come close to
    raising that $1 billion, but I am here to understand the
    numbers and understand why many think it can. Can you explain
    that math to me or do you have an understanding of that at all?
        Mr. Mallott. I have a general understanding. I've seen the
    materials. I've seen the analysis. It seems very clear that
    with the prospective development and the already existing
    analysis of the size of the reserve or reserves that very
    significant revenue can accrue to both the federal and the
    state governments.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think it is going to be $1
    billion to the Federal Government to cover that?
        Mr. Mallott. It will. I believe it will be many multiples
    of that number, yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Based on the numbers that you have
    seen?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. I appreciate that.
        I notice my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Lieutenant Governor, it is a pleasure to see you. When
    Governor Walker testified a little earlier, he mentioned a
    bipartisan group of us who have been to Bethel and then to
    Oscarville. I had a chance to do that. And then I was with
    Senator Murkowski again this spring and had an opportunity to
    visit Pump Station 1 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in
    Deadhorse. It is my understanding that the throughput on the
    pipeline peaked in the late '80s, which is what the Governor
    had talked about, and since then it has declined to about 25
    percent of the pipeline capacity.
        Could you explain the importance of the pipeline to
    Alaska's economy and why it is so important to maximize the
    throughput on that pipeline?
        Mr. Mallott. The pipeline is at 25 percent of its capacity.
    The need to continue to utilize it and its full capacity is
    clear when we look at the national security interests of our
    nation, when we look at the revenue needs of our state, when we
    look at the revenue needs of our nation and the impact on the
    economy of our state, the impact on the economy of our nation,
    are each very clear.
        The opportunity to allow our nation and our state to have
    revenue, not just to meet the full range of existing budgetary
    needs, but to be responsive to a changing climate, particularly
    in our state, is very real and must be addressed and if not by
    our nation, then by our state, which we are fully prepared to
    do. But it requires resources, fiscal resources, in order to do
    so.
        I want to emphasize once again, that our national security
    interest is critical, that we, in Alaska, sometimes feel fairly
    vulnerable. We are in a geopolitical area where modest capacity
    of destructive force that we can be a target.
        We know that a changing Arctic is changing the security
    interests of each of the nations involved. Those are open
    questions as we speak. And the need for our nation and our
    state to have security is very significant.
        We also support and believe that with that kind of national
    security interest being responded to, that the full range of
    interest that allow us to live reasonable, responsible, good
    lives, create a society for our state, are significantly tied
    in with the pipeline and its ability to deliver petroleum to
    our nation and to our world.
        Senator Barrasso. I agree. That is essentially the same
    assessment that I had, having been to the locations and
    obviously being from an energy state in Wyoming, the similar
    concerns and similar needs that we have for a nation, in terms
    of energy security, energy independence, and now as President
    Trump says, energy dominance, in terms of the geopolitical
    threats that we face from around the world, as you so
    appropriately stated.
        I have one other follow-up question. Given the close
    proximity of the Coastal Plain area to the Trans-Alaska
    Pipeline System and other development in Prudhoe Bay, do you
    believe that there are some opportunities to conduct some
    coordinated mitigation projects that could, in fact, actually
    improve existing wildlife habitat?
        Mr. Mallott. I believe so, yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        Mr. Mallott. The North Slope Borough has a very robust
    resource management program. The State of Alaska and our Fish
    and Wildlife Management and our Natural Resource Department and
    our Department of Environmental Conservation will work as hard
    as we can in order to both maintain and, where opportunities
    present, to grow the full range of fish and wildlife and other
    natural resources on those lands.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes.
        Mr. Sheehan, do you have anything that you might want to
    add to that in terms of opportunities to conduct some of these
    mitigation projects and, in fact, improve existing wildlife
    habitat?
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, thank you, Senator.
        Certainly, I think there's work that is going on throughout
    those areas now for mitigation, but there's also a lot of
    research going on up there.
        Our U.S. Geological Survey is doing work and we're trying
    to learn, not just simply about how to mitigate, but how to use
    best practices to avoid conflicts, to avoid challenges that
    could exist from the introduction of oil and gas so that if we
    do have this type of work done down the road, that it's done
    responsibly and as best it can be with the wildlife resources.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have a series of somewhat technical questions that I
    think are important in evaluating this. I do not see any
    witnesses that can strictly address them. I am afraid, Mr.
    Sheehan, you are the nearest I have so you are going to get the
    questions.
        Mr. Sheehan. Okay, I'll give it a try.
        Senator King. Hopefully, eventually, we will be able to get
    this.
        The first question is, as I understand this proposed
    legislation which we have not seen yet, that the House bill
    talks about a 2,000-acre limitation and I have heard that
    mentioned. Senator Sullivan has mentioned that. Is that a
    contiguous 2,000 acres within this 1.5 million acres or is that
    12 acres here and 10 acres over there? Do you know what that
    2,000 acres means?
        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator.
        I'm going to have to defer that question because I've not
    seen any language so I can't respond to that. I don't know----
        Senator King. Well, I think that is an important question
    because it was presented to me as the size of Dulles airport,
    which is fine if it's just one place, but I think what it means
    is it is scattered all over the place and if you add it all
    together it is 2,000 acres.
        Second question. Do you know how many wells are
    contemplated in this development?
        Mr. Sheehan. Again, I think that depends on what's passed
    by the body of this Congress if, in fact, an action is passed
    because that could stipulate which area of this could be
    developed, potentially all of it, potentially some part of it.
        So I think until we have a better sense of that I can't
    really respond to how many wells might be----
        Senator King. Again, if we are being told that there are
    ten billion barrels here, then we have to do--if that is what
    people are representing is what we are after, it seems to me we
    have to do some calculations about what that implies.
        My back-of-the-envelope, and it is always dangerous to turn
    me loose with a calculator, is we are talking several thousand
    wells to produce ten billion barrels over ten years. Again, I
    think it is an important question to assess the impact. Are we
    talking ten wells, a hundred wells, or a thousand wells?
        Third question. Any idea how this oil is going to get out
    from all these wells? How does it get anywhere?
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, again, I suspect that the most likely
    method of moving that would be via pipelines, but that's how
    most of that oil is moved now----
        Senator King. We are not only talking about these 12 acre
    pads, but now we are talking about pipelines and, presumably,
    roads to get to these various places.
        Any ideas on the cost of extraction in this region? What we
    are talking about is whether this is $50 barrel oil or $40 or
    $60?
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, the analysis done by the U.S. Geological
    Survey said it's economically recoverable at $42 a barrel. And
    when they define economically recoverable they say that there
    would be a 12 percent profitability factor, if you will, or 12
    percent margin on that. So that's the price point that was done
    in analysis in 2009. And certainly, oil prices, a little higher
    than that today, but it's hard to say what they could be in
    many years.
        Senator King. Well, I understand that you are a resource
    guy and you are from the Department of the Interior, not an oil
    and gas guy, but it does bother me that you are representing
    the Administration today telling us that this is an okay deal
    without knowing the answers to my questions.
        I do not see how you can say this looks fine unless you
    know how many wells, how many miles of pipeline, or where they
    will be located. I mean, we are being asked to make an
    assessment here of essentially economic benefit versus
    environmental risk, but I do not see how you can make that
    evaluation without knowing the answers to those questions that
    I have raised.
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, thank you again, Senator.
        You know, without having a full set of legislation, knowing
    what that direction is to us, it would be hard for myself or
    even an oil and gas expert to answer all of those questions,
    but what I will say is that, you know, there are difficult
    choices to make here----
        Senator King. I agree with that, but I want to know what
    choices I am making. I don't want to make choices where I don't
    understand what the impacts are going to be. That is all I am
    suggesting.
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, and what I would say today is that we
    support responsible development in whatever form or fashion
    that that best occurs in and we know more about what that
    footprint of that area looks like and what technologies are
    best available, if and when this effort takes place, which
    could be many years from now before drilling took place. I
    expect that there will be evolving technologies between now and
    then just as we've seen many in the last eight or nine years.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I hope that if we are talking about marking up
    legislation, that we will have the materials and the data
    necessary to answer the questions that I have raised.
        I do not see how we can possibly make this decision without
    answering the fundamental question of how many wells are we
    talking about? How many miles of pipeline? We just cannot make
    that trade-off without having that data. I respectfully request
    that we have an opportunity to explore that data before we are
    asked to mark up a bill.
        The Chairman. Senator King, I do hope that you are going to
    be able to stick around for the second panel because I think
    that we will have an opportunity to get into some more of the
    specifics, but again, recognizing----
        Senator King. Yes.
        The Chairman. ----recognizing that in terms of what may
    actually be produced, again, depends on a lot of variables that
    we are going to make assumptions on, but again, I think you
    will get more of the specifics with some of the folks that we--
    --
        Senator King. I hope so. I looked down the list and did not
    see anyone that I thought would be responsive to those
    particular questions.
        Senator Cantwell. I think, Madam Chair, too, my colleagues
    and I feel very strongly that we want to see something and
    understand it before we vote on it. So it is hard to believe
    that that would take place by next Wednesday.
        The Chairman. We are certainly not going to be voting on
    anything that we do not have in front of us. This is an
    opportunity for us to----
        Senator Cantwell. And to understand the impact on the
    Interior Department. That is the issue. My colleague is saying
    he wants to understand from experts what that impact is.
        The Chairman. Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to
    hear about the 1002 Area, something that this Committee has not
    had an opportunity to do in about seven years now.
        Let's go to Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Cantwell.
        I know it is a long flight from Alaska to Washington, DC.
    Thank you for making that journey.
        I must tell you as a Montanan, somebody who respects the
    voice of the states and the voice of the people who live in
    those states, I am struck, deeply struck, by the fact we have
    had both U.S. Senators from the State of Alaska, their lone
    Congressman, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, 90 percent
    of the Alaska legislature and 70 percent of Alaskans when
    polled on this issue support moving forward, as we are
    proposing to do with drilling in the 1002.
        I just think it is a bit arrogant for Washington, DC, folks
    who are long ways away from Alaska to be in some way dictating
    the future of what Alaskans want to do and being contrary, some
    here in this body, and your voice should count in this city.
    And to this Senator, it does. Thank you for making the journey.
        In my home state, like Alaskans and those from Colorado, we
    have a blend of protecting the environment as well as
    responsibly developing our natural resources. This is a Senator
    who spent August backpacking 70 miles in the wilderness with my
    wife, over two weekends. A credit to my wife for carrying all
    that weight too. She is tough.
        But I cherish those kind of outdoor experiences. I cherish
    the ability to fly fish, to hunt, to backpack, to climb
    mountains. This is in no way an either/or kind of proposition.
    This is truly a both/and situation.
        I saw that same blend, that passion for the outdoors, for
    the incredible landscapes in Alaska when I had the opportunity
    to see the North Slope in May, in fact, with the Chairman of
    this Committee. And I am just struck. Alaska is an amazing
    place, truly beautiful. But I know the frustrations of Alaskans
    that say, we want to be able to define our future and not have
    Washington, DC, do it for us.
        Mr. Sheehan, as I stated earlier, protecting the
    environment is a value that both Montanans and Alaskans share.
    As an outdoorsman, I am particularly interested in caribou. I
    have never hunted caribou, but it would be on my bucket list.
    As the agency that manages our wildlife, the agency that
    manages our wildlife, Mr. Sheehan, do you believe that
    production in the 1002 Area can have minimal impact on the
    local caribou herds?
        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        You know, I guess I'd harken back to my time, was brought
    up by the good Senator from Nevada, about serving as the State
    Director in Utah where we, too, there built great populations
    of large ungulates, deer, elk, moose and commercially had
    energy development within many of those same areas. You've seen
    that both in Colorado and Montana, as has been pointed out.
        These efforts to go into these fragile landscapes can be
    done. They can be done successfully. Yes. Do our employees have
    concerns about doing this in a very careful manner? Certainly,
    they do. But we have wildlife challenges throughout America
    that we're challenged with every day, not only the federal U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, who I'm honored to serve among the
    great employees there, but all of the states.
        And as we look at all of the challenges that exist in
    America, whether that's oil and gas development, wind energy,
    solar and all the other opportunities that are there for
    developing energy, all of those have impacts of wildlife
    resources and fishery resources.
        But I'll say this, if this Congress directs us that way we
    use the best science, the best technologies and other
    strategies such as timing that we've heard much about today and
    reduced footprint, to make sure that that has the least amount
    of impact on the native wildlife species.
        Senator Daines. I want to talk to Lieutenant Governor
    Mallott.
        We have a vibrant outdoor economy like Alaska does. We have
    millions of acres of public lands, of wilderness. Alaska has, I
    understand, over 56 million acres of wilderness, about 15
    percent of the total acres, and hundreds of millions of
    additional acres of federal lands, totaling around 60 percent.
    Some is suitable for hiking, some for snowmobiling, some should
    be left as wilderness. But some is suitable for timber
    production, others for mining, oil, or gas exploration.
        Do you believe that we are taking a balanced approach by
    opening up the 1002 Area to production allowing Alaska and all
    Americans to benefit from the revenue and security generated
    from this land?
        Mr. Mallott. Thank you, Senator.
        I will just emphasize once again that I was with the Alaska
    Federation of Natives when ANILCA was being developed. I was
    with the Native community as a leader in the development of
    ANCSA which is the precedent act to ANILCA.
        The effort at balance was among the most important
    considerations in the development of the Alaska National
    Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which ultimately
    gained the approval of such giants of conservation as
    Congressman Mo Udall, the Secretary of the Interior at the time
    from Idaho, the range of conservation interests and other
    interests across our nation and within Alaska. It was a grand
    bargain that was dealing with immense millions of acres, 160
    million acres of land in our state went into the federal
    classifications in our state.
        Within those classifications there were----
        Senator Daines. I do not have a lot of time, I will insert
    myself here.
        Mr. Mallott. Right.
        Senator Daines. Do you think we are taking a balanced
    approach?
        Mr. Mallott. Absolutely.
        Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Mallott. You mean when I'm responding I'm using your
    time? Wow, I didn't know that, sorry.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. It was probably better that I interrupt you
    than the Chairman from your state, so . . .
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Lieutenant Governor, thank you.
        Senator Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am very, very concerned about the direction of where this
    is going, and one of the reasons I did not support the budget
    resolution was because of the provision that would assume $1
    billion coming from opening ANWR. I appreciate the Ranking
    Member's opening comments and other colleagues that have
    expressed concerns. But when we talk about listening to people
    from Alaska, we certainly want to do that. I wish we had more
    diversity here in terms of viewpoints from Alaska. That would
    be more helpful.
        I remember in 2010 I traveled with Senator Begich to Alaska
    to attend a field hearing on the impact of climate change on
    Alaska, and we saw what was happening in terms of the snow
    melting, really quite astounding to see the impacts of climate
    change on our Arctic. On that trip, I had an opportunity to
    visit the Tutusix Bay and to meet with the Native Americans
    there in the far Southwest part of Alaska which has become a
    center of alternative energy investments. I was so impressed
    with the very tall large wind turbines, and was particularly
    happy to find out that some of the component parts were
    actually manufactured in Michigan. So I felt an immediate
    connection with what the tribe was doing and how the vision of
    moving to types of energy that would actually be so much better
    for Alaska in terms of what is happening because of the
    changing climate.
        And then I had the opportunity to meet with the tribal
    elders of Newtok to discuss what was happening for them, the
    importance of preserving local language and culture and the
    fact that they are going to have to be evacuated. I don't know
    if that has fully happened yet, Lieutenant Governor, but I know
    at the time we were walking on boards. Water was seeping up.
    The whole community, the whole village was going to have to be
    moved because of the water that was coming in and going to
    engulf the community as a result of the permafrost melting. And
    we saw directly what was happening.
        This is deeply concerning to me that we are not embracing
    what I saw in terms of new opportunities with types of
    alternative fuel that would actually, it would seem to me,
    benefit the quality of life of people in Alaska.
        But as we sit here today to discuss opening ANWR to oil
    drilling, even with no evidence that drilling in these areas
    will increase U.S. energy security and real questions about
    whether allowing drilling will help the federal budget at all,
    it feels very much like a political exercise as opposed to
    looking to the future and what is needed for the people of
    Alaska, as well as preserving this pristine area.
        Mr. Alexander, I know you have spoken a little bit about
    this, but could you help me better understand real world
    consequences of allowing drilling in ANWR and talk a little bit
    more about important cultural and tribal perspectives about
    what it would mean, from your standpoint, to allow for new
    drilling in these pristine lands?
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
        You know, when we think about the real-world consequences
    of drilling it goes back to the protection, you know, of our
    way of life as Gwich'in people.
        There's a story about how, you know, long ago we had to
    rely on the caribou and the closeness of our relationship is
    such that we even say that there's a little bit of caribou
    heart in us and a little bit of human heart in the caribou.
        And so, this impact is a real impact. And it's funny to me
    because I don't quite understand. We kept talking about
    economic development and I hear this a lot as an excuse to be
    going in and drilling.
        Economic development. Economic development. What does that
    actually mean? I think that's not a recognition that the
    subsistence economy is a real thing. It's not a recognition
    that, you know, I find it hard to understand, like, why would
    somebody, why would a Gwich'in person want to work a 40 hour a
    week job making money so they could turn around and go buy
    organic food? How does that make sense to anybody? Why would
    you do that? So I'm going to go work harder so then I could buy
    food of lower quality, like, how does that make sense? That
    doesn't make sense to me. That's why we're just perplexed as to
    what you say when you're talking about progress. Is progress
    like eating Spam? Is that progress? I don't think so.
        You know, here down in the states when you want to talk
    status, people talk about going to, you know, talking about
    going to Whole Foods and eating organic food. That's status.
    Alright? You're saying oh, it's important because it's
    important for our health to eat this healthy food.
        So what is all this drilling for? So that we can have money
    to do what? To live like Gwich'in? We already live like
    Gwich'in. We're not trying to change anything in that regard. I
    think you could learn a lot by seeing how we live. You could
    learn a lot because we're not chasing our tails up there.
        And so, you know, going back to the tribal perspective. The
    tribal perspective is that it is our responsibility and our
    duty to take care of the land and take care of the animals
    because they've taken care of us for thousands of years,
    thousands of years.
        And you know, you're going to hear Alaska Native
    Corporations representatives coming up here and talk about
    responsible development too. And I just want to make it clear
    while I have the time to do such. The Alaska Native
    Corporations are not tribes. They are not tribes. They do not
    have a traditional language. Their purpose is profit.
        Our purpose as Gwich'in is to protect our traditional way
    of life and to live that traditional way of life in an
    honorable way. And so, our elders told us when you go up there
    you do it in a good way. You do it in a good way. And that good
    way is to be respectful.
        I have a peer over here. You know he's from the North
    Slope. And we respect their food security. Whenever there's any
    issue of drilling in the Arctic Ocean, we know that the Inupiat
    don't want drilling in the Arctic Ocean because it will impact
    the whales. It will impact the sea life and they know that and
    they're worried about that. So they don't want it. And we stand
    beside them and we say we recognize your right to exist as
    indigenous people and we recognize that you have a right to
    food security. And we stand beside you when you do such.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I realize my time is up. I
    have further questions, but I will submit them for the record.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
        Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today. I realize and recognize, as
    Senator Daines did, this is a long ways to travel. So thank you
    very much for being here.
        Mr. Sheehan, a couple questions for you that came up, I
    think, during some of the other questions.
        When Congress moves forward, as we are today, if there is a
    lease plan developed for the 1002 Area, environmental laws do
    not change, they are not waived. They remain the same as they
    are today. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, that's correct, Senator.
        Senator Gardner. And there would be a leasing plan that
    would be developed with public input. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely. There'd be full environmental
    impact reviews.
        Senator Gardner. And there are environmental reviews? Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely.
        Senator Gardner. And there is an analysis of how this would
    impact the environment. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. Does that change as a result of the 1002
    process?
        Mr. Sheehan. No, there's nothing in that process that would
    allow for changing any of those environmental considerations or
    rules.
        Senator Gardner. Will this area be going into production
    the day after Congress passes legislation?
        Mr. Sheehan. We would expect that probably lease sales,
    perhaps two, would occur four to five years from now with
    drilling being potentially as far out as seven to ten years.
        Senator Gardner. So seven to ten years.
        Litigation? Do you get sued or does this waive lawsuits?
        Mr. Sheehan. This doesn't waive lawsuits, but certainly we
    don't like lawsuits any more than anyone else does.
        Senator Gardner. So there is going to be--yes.
        I guess what I am saying is that the process of
    environmental protection, environmental reviews, environmental
    analysis does not change one iota. Correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. That's true. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        Lieutenant Governor, the Governor's opening statement and
    your extensive written testimony lay out some of the history of
    the founding of Alaska, the laws that led us to the current
    situation, and your experience working with the oil and gas
    industry. I have a couple questions for you.
        Alaska was brought into the Union as a state with the
    understanding that it would be allowed to responsibly develop
    the resources available to it. Is that correct, yes or no?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. When the compromise legislation, the
    Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, was passed in
    1980, it expanded what was then known as the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge, by almost nine million acres to create what we
    now know as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, excuse me,
    previous, the Range, now the Refuge. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. That bill doubled the size of the National
    Park System, doubled the size of the National Refuge System and
    tripled the amount of federal land designated as wilderness. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. That same bill, which massively expanded
    conservation protections for many areas of the state, also
    specifically set aside the Coastal Plain, or 1002 lands, for
    the scientific evaluation of its petroleum development,
    potential environmental qualities, and the possibility of safe
    development. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. And the studies conducted by the
    Department of the Interior led them to recommend Congress adopt
    a full oil and gas leasing program for the 1002 Area. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. Does the United States consume more oil
    today than it produces?
        Mr. Mallott. It does. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. So we still import oil today. I think that
    has been talked about.
        Is it fair to say that not all of the countries we import
    oil from share the same values as the United States?
        Mr. Mallott. Absolutely.
        Senator Gardner. And I think production of domestic energy
    allows us greater leverage over those nations that we import
    oil from.
        Does it make any sense that we would tie the hands of the
    State of Alaska, the hands of her people, when we have the
    opportunity to responsibly and sustainably develop a resource
    that will increase national security of the United States and
    the prosperity of your state? Does it make any sense to tie
    your hands?
        Mr. Mallott. It does not.
        Senator Gardner. And so, based on your experience, I think,
    and these answers, this is not a situation where there is
    something new being proposed by Congress. It is actually
    something that Congress set forward to allow.
        Mr. Sheehan, it was mentioned, your experience in the State
    of Utah, in the wildlife work, in particular. I think 25 years
    in Utah, is that correct, as a conservation specialist?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. And the last five years, prior to your
    appointment, you were running the State of Utah's Division of
    Wildlife Resources. You oversaw a significant increase in mule
    deer production. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sheehan. That's true.
        Senator Gardner. Utah has a heck of a lot of energy
    production, is that right?
        Mr. Sheehan. In certain areas of the state, yes.
        Senator Gardner. How do you balance that? How did you
    actually grow a population when you have that development? How
    do you balance that?
        Mr. Sheehan. Well, I think the key to balancing any of that
    work is to try to avoid and minimize footprints the best we
    can.
        Our biologists and team members there work with those
    development companies to look at siting locations and have
    tried to develop those areas in the most responsible way they
    can to minimize impact to wildlife numbers and I think we've
    seen some good success with those efforts.
        Senator Gardner. Based on your professional experience
    then, can we responsibly develop the resources that Congress
    has put in agreement with the State of Alaska and minimize
    impact to wildlife and other parts of the ecosystem?
        Mr. Sheehan. Certainly I believe that if that's developed
    there can be similar efforts to minimize the impacts to
    wildlife in that 1002 Area.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        My time is expired, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        We will next go to Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        One argument that we often hear from my friends across the
    aisle is that we need to open more federal land to drilling,
    and in Alaska, but if you look at the facts it is simply not
    true that the big oil companies like access to public lands,
    especially in Alaska.
        Of the more than one million acres of federal land under
    lease for oil and gas drilling in Alaska, only about 17,000 are
    actually being drilled on by the end of Fiscal Year 2016,
    17,000 out of one million. Maybe that is why the pipeline is
    only operating at 25 percent of capacity. And the Trump
    Administration just announced that it would lease another ten
    million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. They
    announced this in December. Simply put, there is no shortage of
    federal oil and gas leases in Alaska. It is not even close.
        I don't know why it is necessary to open a pristine natural
    area like this Refuge. Why the Refuge?
        And speaking to Senator King's questions that Mr. Sheehan
    could not answer, I just think that if my colleagues across the
    aisle think that drilling in this Refuge is such a good idea,
    we should have hearings. We should do this as regular order and
    not do this on the quick and cheap because of a tax plan.
        Mr. Alexander, I would like to read you a quote from my
    good friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, and get your
    response.
        Senator Wellstone fought for more than a decade to preserve
    the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and for the rights of the
    Gwich'in people. Sorry if I pronounced it wrong. He said of
    your people, and I quote, ``They are fighting for their most
    fundamental right to exist as an indigenous people who are an
    integral part of the landscape of the unique ecology of this
    region. We cannot condemn the Gwich'in as a people. We must
    respect their right for survival.''
        You have spoken eloquently to this. I do have some other
    questions, but doesn't it seem strange to all of us, to me it
    does anyway, that we are talking about you as--and by the way,
    thank you for your service in our military. But we are talking
    about changing the habitat and the way of life for these
    indigenous peoples to get $1 billion worth of resources, a lot
    of which is to address climate change. Can you just talk to the
    irony here or your feelings on it?
        Mr. Alexander. That's absolutely correct, Senator, and
    thank you for your words.
        It is absolutely astounding that we want to--you know, when
    I was in the Army we used to call it a self-licking ice cream
    cone. And this is really what this has become where we are
    trying to drill more oil, pump out more pollutants, to address
    climate change and the impact that it has. And that is just
    insanity to me. And that's insanity to the Gwich'in people. We
    don't understand that. And so, you know, perhaps my colleagues
    here can explain it, but I can't understand it.
        Senator Franken. Lieutenant Governor, you know that the
    impact of climate change on your state, that your state is
    warming twice as fast as the rest of the country.
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Franken. And this means coastal erosion and loss of
    sea ice and melting permafrost. I hear that part of the reason
    for drilling in this area, when there is going to be over 11
    million other acres available to drill, is to address
    mitigation for climate change. Drilling for oil in the last
    pristine Arctic ecosystem on the continent while climate change
    is having a disproportionate impact on the region seems, to me,
    kind of ironic.
        As you have made clear, Lieutenant Governor, climate change
    has deeply impacted your constituents. I think we need to curb
    emissions and provide support to communities to help them adapt
    to climate change, but not by drilling in the habitat of the
    food source for an indigenous people. Do you disagree that
    there is some irony here?
        The Chairman. Lieutenant Governor, the Senator's time is
    expired, but I will allow you an opportunity to answer the
    question because it is an important one.
        Mr. Mallott. I disagree. We need to continue to evolve our
    petroleum-based economy as we also seek to be responsive to our
    climate change reality. Nobody knows that better than we do. We
    live with it every single day.
        It will take decades for us to withdraw from reliance on a
    petroleum-based economy. And for us, in the meantime, to rely
    on sources other than our own raises national security issues.
    It raises economic issues. It raises issues that impact us in
    Alaska very directly.
        The resources that the development of the Coastal Plain can
    bring to Alaska will allow us to have fiscal resources to meet
    rapidly changing climate circumstances. Otherwise, we have no
    real ability to respond. The national government must
    ultimately also respond.
        I do not believe there is an irony when the ecosystem that
    we are discussing is already in place to allow the most
    minimal, going forward, impact on the Arctic Coastal Plain of
    any oil development. I do not think it is ironic----
        Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
        I think we are going to have a vote, two votes at noon, and
    there are several of our colleagues who have been here. I would
    like them--I know our Lieutenant Governor here has been over
    time. I hope that we can get a short summation here----
        The Chairman. We----
        Senator Cantwell. ----so that we can move on.
        Mr. Mallott. Sure.
        I disagree that it is ironic. I think it is a national
    interest. It is in Alaska's interest. It is in the world's
    interest that we allow this kind of development to take place,
    that it has the most minimal impact that we can see and that it
    allows us to be responsive to a climate change future that we
    must address.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This hearing is in the context of the Republican tax and
    budget plan singling out this Committee to come up with $1
    billion of revenue savings over the next decade.
        The Committee has until November 13th to come up with this
    amount. So this hearing is all a piece to support the
    Republican budget and tax proposal that cuts $1.5 trillion from
    Medicare and Medicaid and imposes massive reductions in funds
    for education and affordable housing, among other things, all
    to benefit huge corporations and the wealthy. So we therefore
    should resist the urge to compartmentalize what we are doing in
    this Committee as disconnected from a larger picture. The
    larger picture being the Republican tax and budget plan.
        So here we are. The decades-long debate over the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge is a highly controversial issue that
    has come to represent a fight between protecting pristine
    ecosystems and continuing our reliance on fossil fuels. And we
    should not be considering whether to exploit national treasures
    like the Arctic Refuge to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
        Instead, we should be discussing how to raise royalties
    from companies already drilling and mining on public lands so
    that taxpayers get a fair deal, reduce overly generous revenue
    sharing payments from offshore oil drilling and limit the
    ability of companies to flare natural gas so that resources
    from public lands are not wasted.
        I want to ask Mr. Sheehan a question. Does the Trump
    Administration support drilling in ANWR?
        Mr. Sheehan. Yes, they do.
        Senator Hirono. Okay.
        Is that why there is an August 11 memo from U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Acting Director James Kurth instructing the agency's
    Alaska Regional Director to update a rule that had to do with
    exploratory drilling between 1984 and 1986 and lifting these
    calendar constraints so that more applications can be submitted
    to approve drilling? That is where we are heading, right? In
    spite of the fact that it is Congress that gets to make the
    ultimate decision as to whether or not drilling is appropriate
    in ANWR.
        Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator.
        First of all, the document you referred to and those
    surrounding documents were not any part of a rule that's been
    publicly released yet, but I will say this. If in fact this
    body of Congress wants to contemplate the development of oil
    and gas in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge, it should be done with the best science, the most
    current science available and that involves probably the most
    current level of exploration using the most modern
    technologies.
        That original research that was done, was done in the early
    1980s and that was----
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Sheehan, do you think this Committee
    can come up with all of that by November 13th?
        Mr. Sheehan. I don't believe that, in my opinion, this
    Committee has asked to have all that research work done. I
    believe that should the body of Congress pass it, we want to
    make a best-informed decision to our public of what and where
    and when that could look like and to industry who may be
    interested in pursuing bidding on that one.
        Senator Hirono. We agree with that. That is why I am really
    glad that Senator King raised some very specific questions to
    you which you could not answer.
        It really has to do with--you know what, Mr. Lieutenant
    Governor, you said that we should proceed in a way that has the
    most minimal impact. And, of course, that is the crux of the
    debate as to what kind of impact drilling in ANWR will have.
    There are people on one side of the debate that say this is
    going to have a terribly detrimental impact on the environment
    and, as so eloquently put by Mr. Alexander, that it would
    impact their way of life.
        By the way, Mr. Alexander, I'm really glad that you came
    and testified because I believe that as Native peoples you
    share certain common perspectives as the Native Hawaiians do
    and that is a very strong, spiritual, economic, if you want to
    economize it, connection to the land. I think it is really
    important to the Gwich'in Tribe, which covers a very large part
    of the area that we are talking about, as well in Canada. I am
    really grateful for your testimony.
        That is why the debate has continued because there has been
    a huge discussion as to how minimal the impact of drilling
    would be, and there are those who believe that it will not,
    indeed, be minimal.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Sanders.
        Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Madam Chair, my guess is that historians in years to come
    will look back at hearings like this and they will ask, what
    were they thinking about? What world were they living in? Why
    didn't they see what was going on all around them?
        All over this planet today we are seeing nations, including
    our own, ravaged by the impact of climate change. And
    meanwhile, while climate change is doing horrendous damage to
    peoples all over the world, we have hearings like this that
    talk about more oil exploration, more dependency on fossil
    fuels when the evidence is overwhelming that this country
    should lead the world in transforming our energy system away
    from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energies.
        And it is especially surprising that in a beautiful state
    like Alaska, which has been hit so hard by climate change, that
    you are not leading the world, leading this country in telling
    us the damage that has been done and the need to move away from
    fossil fuel.
        Right now, according to NASA, the first six months of 2017
    were almost a full degree hotter than any year since records
    started being kept in 1880. This is unbelievable. The duration
    and strength of hurricanes--and I just came back from Puerto
    Rico--have increased by 50 percent. 2017 is already one of the
    worst wildfire seasons on record.
        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that
    the average global sea levels have already risen by about three
    millimeters annually since the early 1990s and coastal cities
    all over our country and the world are in danger of being
    flooded. And here we are talking about more dependency on
    fossil fuels. More destruction of the planet. What world are we
    living in? What are you going to say to your children and your
    grandchildren?
        Meanwhile, there is a revolution taking place in
    sustainable energy. We are seeing the price of solar and wind
    plummeting. We are seeing massive corporate investments, not in
    oil, not in gas, by the way, but in sustainable energy. The
    solar sector today employs more people than Apple, Google and
    Facebook combined.
        So I have a simple question. I do understand, Mr. Sheehan,
    that your boss, the President, told us during the campaign that
    climate change was a hoax. Right? It was a hoax. Briefly, Mr.
    Sheehan, is climate change a hoax or is it real?
        Mr. Sheehan. No, Senator Sanders, certainly I believe that
    climate change is real. I believe we can see it from areas from
    Alaska to many other areas.
        But what I do believe is that as we look at these
    alternative forms of energy that are coming online, and you
    don't have to look far around this country to see new wind
    energy and solar operations popping up all over the place, but
    they still represent a very small part of the energy in this
    country.
        Senator Sanders. That is right. That is right.
        But my question to you is why is the Trump Administration
    not recognizing that reality, investing heavily in trying to
    move us in that direction rather than encouraging more oil and
    gas exploration?
        Mr. Sheehan. I think they are encouraging those other
    energy sources but I think that they're also trying to be
    forward looking to say, what do we need ten years from now for
    oil in this country?
        Senator Sanders. You think that the Trump Administration is
    encouraging, is investing, is urging us forward in wind and
    solar? Is that what you are saying for the record?
        Mr. Sheehan. I haven't seen a back-stepping in those
    particular sorts of energy mechanisms, so----
        Senator Sanders. Really?
        Well then, I think you should examine what your
    Administration is doing.
        Let me ask the Lieutenant Governor, very briefly, that at a
    time when your state, perhaps--and it's a beautiful state. My
    God, it is the last natural wilderness that we have. Don't you
    think that Alaska should be leading our country in terms of
    transforming our energy system away from the products that have
    caused the problems that are impacting your state?
        Mr. Mallott. Absolutely. We feel it every single day. We
    know it.
        We have investment in alternative energy. We need to
    continue to do so. There were references to wind power. If you
    look at wind power and other alternative forms of energy, we
    are making those investments. We need to make more, but we also
    know that we cannot flip a switch, and that's not a pun, and
    turn off our reliance on----
        Senator Sanders. But we will never flip that switch as long
    we continue investing in oil and gas.
        Let me ask one last question, Madam Chair, if I may?
        Let me ask Mr. Alexander----
        The Chairman. Senator Sanders, you are out of time. We do
    have one more panel, and we do have votes coming up at noon.
        Senator Cantwell. Let him just finish. We went three
    minutes over on two of our colleagues over here. Let him just
    ask the question.
        The Chairman. If it is a quick question.
        Senator Sanders. It is a quick question.
        The Chairman. Quick question.
        Senator Sanders. I have just one, Mr. Alexander, to
    summarize briefly the impact that this drilling will have on
    his people's way of life.
        Mr. Alexander. Senator Sanders, we believe that drilling in
    ``lizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit'' will devastate us as a
    people. And it will absolutely devastate us as a people because
    you're talking about 80 percent of the diet of the Gwich'in
    people being vadzaih, that Porcupine Caribou herd.
        And so, our connection to that is so strong that you're
    talking about just an absolute change in the way we live as
    people and, you know, what about the next generation? Will they
    ever even have the opportunity to learn how to hunt caribou and
    to respect it? I don't know. And I'm hoping that you here today
    will protect that.
        Senator Sanders. Good. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sanders.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Madam Chairman, thank you.
        I want to thank all of you for being here and you can see
    this is quite divisive, if you will, but the bottom line is we
    live in the real world. We do not live in a fantasy world and
    we cannot pick and choose what we would rather have. Really, we
    are a country that depends on almost 20 billion barrels of oil
    a day. Those are the facts. And we imported oil from 70
    countries last year. That is a fact.
        I come from the State of West Virginia and it is a state
    that believes, really, in an all-in energy policy. It never
    hesitated once when this country needed the coal that made the
    steel that built the guns and ships that did everything for
    this country. You know, our people work and work hard. They
    will continue to.
        Governor Walker, I thank you for being here. Lieutenant
    Governor Mallott, I want you to know you are not the only
    Democrat here that believes in an all-in energy policy and
    supports ANWR and doing it in a responsible way.
        I also know that I voted against the budget because I
    thought the budget was just a gimmick to get to a budget
    reconciliation which took all of us out of the process.
    Democrats cannot participate, have not participated in the
    budget process right now for overall tax reform which the
    country needs.
        But with that being said, I also realize that there is
    going to be more fossil used in the world than ever before. All
    we can do is find different technologies and different
    abilities to use it until we find a technology or a new
    industry that will provide a cleaner energy, if it is going to
    be fusion or some other form, in the near future.
        But right now, the world is using more coal and we are
    using more oil. I look at the dependency that we have, and when
    you start looking at the security of our nation, the less
    dependent that we are on foreign oil, the better we are
    strategically and the stronger we are as a nation.
        I also noticed that Point Thomson, for the last three
    years, the Coastal Plain has already been exporting and is in
    development. I think that is being done in an environmentally
    sound way, a balance between the environment and the economy up
    there. It is within the same ecosystem as 1002.
        I understand, Mr. Alexander, and everyone, depending on
    what side you are on, there has to be a balance here. I don't
    know why we cannot find that balance, why it is always either
    one side or the other, why we are divided as a nation, why we
    are divided as a people. It always comes down to what side are
    you on? I have had people ask me, so, what are your politics? I
    said, you ought to ask what is my purpose of being in the
    process, the political process. You should care less whether we
    are Democrats or Republicans.
        I want a country that is strong, and a country can only be
    strong if we are energy independent. That is a fact of life.
    And if you want to set the technology standards of the rest of
    the world, you better develop them right here.
        For the last eight years under the previous Administration,
    we never developed or basically spent anything on research
    trying to find better ways of using coal and oil and natural
    gas in a much cleaner way. With that being said, people say
    they want all renewables. I said, fine. Tell me what five hours
    of the day you want your energy. Tell me what five hours of the
    day you want your refrigerator or your heat or your air
    conditioner to work because that is really what you are going
    to get. And I think, Mr. Sheehan, you related to that.
        But if you could briefly, Mr. Mallott, speak on--do you
    believe there is a balance, I mean, I don't think that you all
    will be representing the great State of Alaska thinking you are
    encroaching and changing the lives of your citizens there. Or
    have you just basically thrown caution to the wind?
        Mr. Mallott. We need balance.
        First let me say very quickly, I'm a Tlingit Indian. And
    when people ask me to be brief, I'm doing my damnedest.
        [Laughter.]
        But we need balance. We need to build a future in which
    renewable energy sustains our children. It is an absolute high
    priority that Alaska recognizes its responsibility for and
    will, at every juncture possible, take----
        Senator Manchin. Is Alaska developing clean energy with
    renewables the way you all are----
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Manchin. ----the way you are extracting----
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Senator Manchin. ----basically, the resources of----
        Mr. Mallott. We have a long way to go.
        Senator Manchin. Okay.
        Mr. Mallott. We have invested and continue to invest in
    alternative energy as a high priority.
        Senator Manchin. Mr. Alexander, is there a balance to be
    found here where we can preserve the way of life of your
    wonderful people but also have energy independence, if we can,
    and use the resources that we have? Do you think that is
    possible?
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Manchin. Have you made overtures toward that, that
    you are trying to find the balance and it has been rejected?
        Mr. Alexander. Senator, what I would say is this, is why is
    the balance being put on the back of my people?
        Senator Manchin. Okay. I am just saying----
        Mr. Alexander. And I'm answering your question, Senator----
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Alexander. ----why is the balance being put on the back
    of my people? Because if you take a look at the North Slope
    there is plenty of other places to drill as has been mentioned
    earlier, plenty of other places. So that's the balance. You
    have NPR-A you can drill in. We don't need to drill in the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        Senator Manchin. Can I ask a real quick question then, for
    the Lieutenant Governor there? Have you all looked at different
    areas to support trying to find that balance but protecting
    their rights?
        Mr. Mallott. Absolutely.
        And with a pipeline, the reality being three-quarters empty
    with all of the existing areas of exploration and development
    and more coming on with recent discoveries, we still are a long
    way from being responsive to current national energy needs and
    we need to continue to find the ability to achieve national
    security, safety in energy, and we need the access to the 1002
    Coastal Plain in order to achieve that.
        Senator Manchin. Let me just say that my time is up and
    thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Those of us who come from extraction states have done the
    heavy lifting. West Virginia has been heavy lifting for a long,
    long time and we continue. Our way of life, also, has been
    infringed upon. We think we can do things better but also find
    a balance. And all we are asking for is some tolerance here. We
    try to find alternatives so that we can respect your people and
    your way of life and also balance the energy that we need to
    keep this country strong. I think that is a responsibility.
        There is nobody in West Virginia that wants to drink dirty
    water or breathe dirty air, the same as Alaska.
        So if anyone thinks from the public leaders, and all of you
    are supporting doing more, as far as an energy resource, energy
    production in the most scientific way or the most advanced way
    that you possibly can.
        I know the footprints as far as horizontal drilling. We
    have reduced the footprint in West Virginia. We have been
    blessed with a lot of shale gas, and it is unbelievable. We
    know we can do it much better, much cleaner, much more
    environmentally friendly.
        I would urge all of you to try to find that pathway
    forward, try to find that balance.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Manchin, thank you.
        I appreciate the focus on balance. That is what we try to
    do around here.
        I spent a lot of time last night reading everyone's written
    testimony, and I was struck by a comment that you had included,
    Lieutenant Governor, in saying just these words: ``We have
    achieved this balance. It is time to permit the exploration and
    development. The state has demonstrated that wildlife and
    environmental protection can be achieved through 50 years of
    development and progress on the North Slope.''
        I think it is important to remember that what we are
    seeking to do in the 1002 is not something that has not been
    done in the North Slope. We have 40 years plus of a track
    record up there, 40 years of ensuring that the caribou continue
    to move through, that the polar bear are protected, that the
    snow geese are protected, that the mitigation that we talk
    about has been addressed.
        At the same time we have been leading, not only the country
    but the world, when it comes to our innovation and our
    pioneering with microgrids. I talk about it a lot here in this
    Committee.
        So much to be proud of there from Alaska's perspective, and
    I know that each of you, as you have provided testimony here
    today, have contributed to this conversation in a very
    important and a substantive way.
        Our votes have started. We have two of them.
        It would be my intention to thank this panel. Thank you for
    your time. This is a long time to be sitting and fielding
    questions, so we appreciate that.
        We will take a recess, and it is my intention that we will
    resume the hearing at 12:30 with the second panel.
        Again, thank you to each of you.
        The rest can all take a stretch break, and we will be back
    at 12:30.
        [RECESS]
        The Chairman. Welcome back, everyone. I am sorry for the
    extra ten-minute delay, but we have finished at least this
    tranche of voting and hopefully we will have an opportunity to
    get through this last panel with an opportunity for questions
    and conclude the hearing before we have another round of votes.
    That is the hope here.
        This second panel is perhaps more of our technical panel.
    We have several witnesses present to help answer questions
    about modern development on the North Slope and what it might
    look like in the future.
        Joining us today is Mr. Aaron Schutt. Aaron is the
    President and CEO of Doyon, Limited. Thank you for being here.
    You also brought your son with you which is a great educational
    opportunity for him, and we appreciate you both being here.
        Lois Epstein is with us. Lois has been before the Committee
    before. We welcome her back. She is the Arctic Program Director
    for the Wilderness Society.
        Following Ms. Epstein, we will have Mr. Richard Glenn, also
    a frequent flyer here to the Energy Committee. He is the
    Executive Vice President for Land and Natural Resources with
    the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. It is good to have you
    back, Richard.
        Pat Pourchot is known to many Alaskans and many here in
    Washington, DC. He is the former Special Assistant for Alaska
    Affairs at the Department of the Interior during the previous
    Administration. Welcome back, Pat.
        Last on our panel is Dr. Matthew Cronin. He is a biologist.
    He is a former research professor at the University of Alaska,
    Fairbanks. Some of us know him as ``the caribou man,'' but
    certainly one that is well-versed in the biology of many of
    these issues that we have been discussing.
        So thank you all for traveling the distance to be here
    today. Thank you, not only for your contributions for the
    hearing, but also for the good work that you do in your
    respective areas.
        Aaron, if you would like to lead the panel off with your
    comments. Again, please try to stick to five minutes if you
    can. Your full statements will be incorporated as part of the
    record, and then we will have an opportunity for questions.
        Welcome.

               STATEMENT OF AARON SCHUTT, PRESIDENT AND
                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DOYON, LIMITED

        Mr. Schutt. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the
    Committee. Do'eent'aa? It's a very great opportunity to be here
    to testify today.
        I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Doyon,
    Limited. I am Koyukon Athabascan, a Tanana Tribal Member, and a
    Doyon shareholder.
        Doyon is one of the 13 Native Regional Corporations
    established by Congress under the terms of the Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Act and the southern portion of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge lies within our region. Doyon supports
    the opening of the ANWR Coastal Plain to oil and gas
    development if it can be shown to be consistent with the
    protection of the Porcupine Caribou herd.
        The Gwich'in people, many of whom are Doyon shareholders,
    some here today, rely on that herd for subsistence and cultural
    survival. And we encourage the United States Government to
    offer the Gwich'in a role in co-management of the Porcupine
    Caribou herd, whether or not it opens ANWR to oil and gas
    development.
        Today, I want to focus my testimony on one of our wholly
    owned subsidiaries that operates in the oil and gas industry,
    it's Doyon Drilling. We operate on the North Slope with eight
    of the most unique and advanced rigs in the industry, and
    they're designed especially for the Arctic. Doyon Drilling has
    led the industry in innovation and adoption of new technology
    over its 40 years of existence. We're proud of that leadership
    role as it fits within our corporate value of a commitment to
    employee safety and sound environmental practices.
        When Congress last debated opening ANWR to oil and gas
    development in 2005, supporters made many arguments about the
    use of new technology and how it would minimize the impact on
    ANWR. Since then, a lot of these claims have borne out in the
    industry, and we're going to share some of them today.
        A couple are directional, extended reach, multi-lateral
    drilling techniques that have been developed and perfected in
    that timeframe. Those techniques allow wells to be drilled in
    all directions from a well pad, kind of like spokes on a
    bicycle wheel.
        Directional drilling has been around since the 1970s but at
    that time it did not allow the reach that we can now. And so,
    you could drill a couple square miles around a pad. And I've
    got a figure here that's been shown before in the hearing
    today.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        You can see a couple, three square miles using technology
    from the 1970s. And fast forward to the one on the far right, a
    12-acre pad where a drill rig can reach out and cover 125
    square miles. That means that you can space pads in modern
    development up to 10 miles apart and that there's little to no
    surface impact between those pads. That's a fairly dramatic
    shift in technology in that time period.
        And I'd like to say that the impact of those technological
    changes are not theoretical. I've got another graphic coming up
    here.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Doyon's Rig 142 just recently completed a penta-lateral
    well in the Kuparuk field on Alaska's North Slope. That's five
    production wells drilled from a single surface wellbore. Each
    of those penta-lateral wells is now producing from different
    reservoir sands through three different fault blocks. The total
    drill length of the five wells is over 39,000 feet; 28,000 feet
    of that, I understand, is in the production zone.
        If Doyon's client had developed these same resources 20
    years ago, it likely would have required probably three drill
    pads and multiple wells on each of those pads to access the
    same resources we were able to access from a single surface
    location.
        Doyon is currently building an extended reach drilling
    rig--also referenced earlier in the hearing, it's Rig 26--that
    will be able to reach out even further. That's the 35,000
    horizontal feet that was mentioned by several people earlier
    today. And that's the capability that allows us to reach out
    for the full 125 square miles from a single surface well pad.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        For perspective of those here in the room, Rig 26 will be
    able to drill from here on Capitol Hill and hit a target the
    size of certainly this room at the National Harbor Resort and
    Convention Center on the Potomac River that's six and a half
    miles away.
        Rig 26 is being developed to allow our client to develop
    known, but currently untapped, oil resources from existing
    surface infrastructure. In other words, our client won't have
    to build new pads, roads, or pipelines on the surface to
    produce known oil reserves.
        And the changes in the technology have allowed smaller well
    pads on the North Slope and they're up to 70 percent smaller
    and there are 70 to 80 percent fewer pads since Prudhoe Bay was
    developed in the 1970s.
        And so, what that looks like is a 19,000-acre footprint
    goes down to just a few hundred acres to develop the Alpine
    Field on the Western side.
        Finally, this has also been referenced. The impact of
    exploration on the environment is very minimal. The difference
    between exploration and production, you can see here, a
    location in the NPR-A with our Rig 141. And then we've got the
    summer version of the same location. Senator Sullivan mentioned
    this before where there's almost no lasting surface impact from
    exploration.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I wanted to close my testimony here by saying how important
    oil and gas is to the economy of the state and to our company.
    We obviously have a large presence in the Alaska oil and gas
    economy. It was developed because it was the available economy
    to us as an ANCSA corporation in the 1970s with the development
    of Prudhoe Bay.
        We're very proud that we employ hundreds of our Alaska
    Native shareholders and we do it in an environmentally safe way
    and the protection of our employees is paramount, but to also
    provide income to our shareholders. A single drill rig, for
    example, could have a salary impact of $4 million for our
    Alaska Native shareholders per year on those rigs. Those
    numbers are not theoretical either. That's the reality we've
    had for many years times the number of rigs we have working.
        So in short, Madam Chairwoman, we're very proud to be here
    today. We're supportive of opening ANWR, but only if we can
    assure ourselves of the protection of the Porcupine Caribou
    herd, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schutt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Schutt, thank you very much, and we
    appreciate the visuals as well.
        Let's next go to Ms. Epstein. Welcome.

       STATEMENT OF LOIS N. EPSTEIN, ENGINEER AND ARCTIC PROGRAM
                    DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

        Ms. Epstein. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski and
    also, though she's not here, to Ranking Member Cantwell,
    Senator King and other members of the Committee, for inviting
    me to testify at this important hearing on a critical, national
    public lands issue.
        My name is Lois Epstein, and I am the Arctic Program
    Director for The Wilderness Society and my home is in
    Anchorage. Our organization's scientists began working in this
    region of the Arctic in the 1930s and, as an Alaska-licensed
    engineer, I am proud to be part of that legacy.
        The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a vast wilderness
    landscape of tundra plains, boreal forests, dramatic mountain
    peaks, and coastal lagoons along the nation's wildest northern
    edge. There is no other place like it in America.
        For thousands of years the area has been home to Gwich'in
    and Inupiat communities and has sustained them. It provides
    vital habitat for more than 45 species of mammals including one
    of Alaska's largest caribou herds, polar and grizzly bears,
    wolves, Dall sheep and over 160 species of birds who migrate
    from the Refuge to breed there from all 50 states.
        The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of our nation's
    National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1.5-million-acre Coastal
    Plain is widely recognized as the biological heart of the
    Refuge. The Coastal Plain is as important to our nation's
    natural heritage as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon where we
    don't choose to drill.
        Now, contrast this pristine wild place with oil and gas
    exploration and production which is complicated and messy and a
    lot has not changed over the years to make it less so. Even the
    most well-financed operators have blowouts and spills.
        Just this year BP had a production well blowout due to
    thawing permafrost, and international well kill specialists had
    to fly in to prevent a safety disaster. This week the state is
    looking at all wells with similar designs because they are
    concerned for the potential for additional blowouts.
        In 2012, Rexall had an exploratory well blowout on the
    North Slope that spewed roughly 42,000 gallons of drilling
    muds. It took a month to plug that well because frigid
    temperatures prevented work on many days.
        According to the state's spill database which I looked at
    this week, there have been 121 crude oil spills on the North
    Slope during the past five years, or approximately two per
    month. A 2010 state study showed almost five spills each year
    on the North Slope over a thousand gallons, and I think it's
    important to recognize they're not all small spills.
        Oil development infrastructure would sprawl over vast parts
    of the Coastal Plain and not be confined to 2,000 acres, as
    some have said. The 2,000-acre calculation does not include
    roads, gravel mines or pipelines, except for the limited places
    where their support posts touch the ground.
        There also would be year-round air pollution and noise from
    generators, trucks, aircraft and processing facilities, long-
    distance pipelines and gravel roads that could deter some
    caribou from crossing and cost them energy and wastes from
    drilling operations and living quarters that require disposal.
        Directional or extended reach drilling, which is not a new
    technology, will have these same impacts. Directional drilling
    reduces only one concern and that is pad size. Roads and
    airstrips are still needed, pipelines are still required and
    pollution, industrial noise, and toxic spills are still
    inevitable.
        Because of higher costs due to longer wells, directional
    drilling may or may not be used by industry for exploratory
    drilling. As discussed at the May 10, 2011, hearing in this
    Committee, oil companies actually prefer not to use directional
    drilling for exploratory wells because doing so provides less
    technical information about subsurface conditions.
        Directional drilling rhetoric is, in some respects, a
    Trojan horse for access to the entire Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain for oil production. Neither the 2,000-acre provision nor
    directional drilling would prevent the entire Coastal Plain
    from becoming industrialized.
        And Arctic Refuge drilling is not needed. Trans-Alaska oil
    pipeline flow is up six percent during the past three years and
    the Alaska Department of Natural Resources expects the
    pipeline's throughput to continue increasing through the late
    2020s. And I have a figure--Figure 2 in my testimony shows
    that.
        Significant new discoveries not on federally-protected
    lands, including in the National Petroleum Reserve, will
    increase production and this new technology that we've heard
    about is also very useful in existing oil fields to increase
    production.
        Notably, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not necessary to
    ensure that the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline remains viable for
    decades.
        The most recent CBO report on Arctic Refuge leasing was
    issued with limited documentation in February 2012. The report
    estimates $5 billion in bonus bids for Coastal Plain leases
    split between the state and federal governments. Crude oil
    prices were approximately twice as high in 2012 as they are
    now, making Arctic Refuge drilling significantly less
    attractive today and for the foreseeable future. It is highly
    unlikely revenue and bonus bids on Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
    leases will come anywhere close to CBO's or other's estimates.
    Since 2000, the average North Slope onshore bid has been just
    $34 an acre.
        In summary, conclusion of Arctic--inclusion of the Arctic
    Refuge in the budget is less about meeting revenue targets and
    more about approving a controversial, problematic measure to
    open the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain to oil development without
    the possibility of a filibuster. It would be a black mark for
    Alaska and this Congress with future generations to
    industrialize and essentially destroy such a unique place.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this unique and
    important region. I am happy to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Epstein follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Epstein.
        Mr. Glenn, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR
     LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION

        Mr. Glenn. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Committee members.
    I'm happy to see that the other half of the Arctic Coalition of
    America is here. So thank you for staying for the hearing,
    Senator King.
        My name is Richard Glenn. I'm the Vice President of Lands
    for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). It's an
    Alaska Native Corporation created by Congress in 1971. It's
    headquartered on the North Slope and it includes villages such
    that extend from the west to the east in the Arctic region of
    Alaska from Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk,
    Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk Pass. North Slope
    village residents there have always depended upon subsistence
    resources from the land, the rivers, and the ocean.
        I'm a tribal member. Mr. Schutt is a tribal member. Matthew
    Rexford who spoke before me is a tribal member. Our Lieutenant
    Governor is a tribal member, and I was particularly stung by
    the Ranking Member's comments that said she didn't see tribal
    members. Maybe she just didn't find enough tribal members that
    agree with her position. I hope that you hear from all of the
    tribal members of the State of Alaska, the majority of whom
    support safe, responsible exploration and development in ANWR.
        I'm also not here to debate the sacredness of the land on
    either side of the Brooks Range, the north or the south. For
    us, all the lands are sacred. They contain the bones of our
    ancestors. And I'm not talking about ancient people. I'm
    talking about people in living memory. We didn't start burying
    our dead until around the 1920s. So my great grandparents were
    the first generation of folks who were buried right after the
    flu epidemics swept through the region. Before those days the
    tradition was to leave the residence, however temporary it was,
    where the person died. So ancient sod houses, up until the
    early 1900s carry the bones of our people. And some of my
    ancestors' bones, my grandmother's, my grandfather's
    grandmother, are in Prudhoe Bay. Others are scattered along the
    Coastal Plain from the Canadian border to Point Hope.
        Our people are named after the places. The places are named
    after the people. Some of it is state land, some of it is
    federal land, some of it is native-owned land, but it's all
    equally sacred.
        Yet, we depend on that land for development. We depend upon
    that land for food. And I don't wish to trivialize anyone's
    dependence on the resources because ours is equally as
    important.
        ASRC, as a corporation, owns a piece of this heritage,
    92,000 acres of land on the Coastal Plain of ANWR, along with
    Matthew Rexford's Village Corporation, the Kaktovik Inupiat
    Corporation. These lands hold resource potential for oil and
    gas development.
        I'm a geologist by training. I help drill and develop
    natural resources on the North Slope. I know the practices
    related to drilling, and I've seen the evolution over the past
    50 years and 30 or so years of my own professional life from
    really simple drilling, cementing, and production to the ornate
    and efficient diagrams that you've seen here on the posters
    that Mr. Schutt presented so effectively. The reduced footprint
    is real. Hundreds of square miles drained by tens of acres of
    development.
        Senator King asked how many wells are we talking about? How
    much surface impact? We have real world answers to those
    questions. They're here at the table. They're here in the
    audience.
        In the west end of today's exploration on the Colville
    River Delta and just to the west, where the Native folks from
    another village 100 miles from Kaktovik also own some resource
    potential. Five hundred wells have been drilled down to depths
    around 8-9,000 feet and radiating outward as far as five or six
    miles.
        On these 500 wells, production wells, injector wells,
    they're done from four basic, central facilities for drilling,
    covering maybe 300 acres of land. So now we're talking real
    world examples, real world numbers of wells for at its peak
    hundreds of thousands of barrels per day in production. That's
    the kind of development that we envision moving into the
    Coastal Plain of ANWR.
        This is a cartoon. This diagram shows dramatic
    exaggerations. If you'd follow the scale of this map, the dots
    themselves are two miles across each. The well symbols
    themselves are three miles high. The pipelines, if they're
    shown, as they've shown on this map, that pipeline, it would be
    a quarter mile wide. This is not realistic. If you want to see
    realistic development, look at realistic numbers, go to the
    areas of modern exploration and development.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       And yet, one thing we learned in production is production
    declines. It starts at a peak and begins a decline. And the
    lion in the room on Alaska production is Prudhoe Bay. The
    Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River oil fields were super giant oil
    fields and we're on the shoulders of their decline and the new
    discoveries, as significant as they are and as thankful as I am
    that they have been discovered, they can't match the slope of
    the decline. They only change its slope. It's still a decline.
        Meanwhile, 92,000 acres and the million or so acres of the
    Coastal Plain of ANWR, set aside just for its energy potential,
    lies fallow and we can't even test their potential unless
    Congress acts.
        We think that the Alaska Native landowners of Kaktovik and
    the folks from the Arctic Slope region cannot realize their
    right to economic self-determination if Congress fails to lift
    the prohibition on safe and responsible exploration and
    development of the Coastal Plain. So Congress needs to act.
        My organization was an agreement made between Congress and
    the tribes of Alaska. We didn't ask for it. In fact, we fought
    against it, but we're living with the results. And so, in our
    region we have a braided relationship of municipalities,
    tribes, and ANCSA corporations. We're all welded together,
    braided together, like a rope. So you can't separate tribe from
    corporation and you can't separate our mother's languages from
    the language of discourse we're using here today. I could speak
    in the language of my mother and it would be gibberish to you
    and, frankly, disrespectful to everybody.
        The only indigenous people that should be listened to the
    loudest are the folks from Kaktovik. And today's hearing to me
    shows there's a lack of attention paid to them. Listen to what
    they're saying. They need an economy. They need development in
    their area. They want to have the freedom to do what the rest
    of the country seemingly takes for granted. We're talking about
    reliable power and water and schools and the ability to use
    sanitation that keeps their kids healthy. I strongly recommend
    that the Committee look at the testimony of the folks from the
    village of Kaktovik.
        If you look at the tribal folks from throughout Alaska, we
    don't agree 100 percent, but the majority do agree. We believe
    that wildlife and development can coexist. They already do
    today. In fact, we're collaring caribou that are calving in the
    area of current development around Prudhoe Bay and the Kuparuk
    River. This is the Central Arctic Caribou herd.
        The Alaska Fish and Game, U.S. BLM, and North Slope Borough
    Wildlife biologists are collaring caribou that are calving in
    the area of infrastructure and then migrating South to Arctic
    Village to be hunted by our Gwich'in neighbors to the south. So
    we already are hunting caribou who are calving in areas of
    development. I've had the honor of taking some of you on tours
    of North Slope development. We see caribou there underneath
    pipelines, sometimes underneath facilities like man camps and
    hotels. And when they're trying to get away from summer
    mosquitos, caribou will go anywhere. They'll be laying down
    right on the tundra next to the buses that are taking the
    codels through the area. The caribou aren't afraid.
        The Chairman. Richard, we are going to have to ask you to
    wrap up.
        Mr. Glenn. The caribou aren't afraid because they're not
    being hunted. They're not being hunted there. So the wildlife
    and infrastructure can coexist.
        We speak in favor of a safe and expeditious opening of the
    1002 Area. It will be good for our region, our state, and our
    country.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, and hopefully we will have an
    opportunity to ask more so that you can continue.
        Pat--Mr. Pourchot, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF PAT POURCHOT, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
        SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR ALASKA AFFAIRS, ANCHORAGE

        Mr. Pourchot. Chairman Murkowski, Members of the Committee,
    thank you for the privilege to testify today on the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge.
        Today I am testifying as a retired public servant and a
    private citizen. My past ``lives'' over 45 years in Alaska have
    included serving in the Alaska State Legislature, as
    Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
    work for the Alaska Federation of Natives and Audubon Alaska,
    and most recently, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the
    Interior for Alaska Affairs. I would confess from the onset
    that I have worked for politicians and organizations that have
    favored drilling in the Arctic Refuge and for those that have
    opposed exploration and development. Since my participation as
    a Congressional staffer in the passage of the Alaska National
    Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, 40 years ago, I
    have witnessed the decades of debate on the issue of permitting
    oil and gas leasing and development in the Refuge.
        As an Alaskan, I appreciate the economic benefits that
    might accrue from oil development in the Refuge. But I have
    come to the conclusion that the last piece of America's Arctic
    is more appropriately left as wilderness as a far more valuable
    legacy for future generations.
        I have had the opportunity to hike the mountains and float
    wild rivers in the Refuge, to observe herds of caribou on the
    Coastal Plain, witness dozens of polar bear on the Beaufort Sea
    coast and fly over thousands of snow geese gathering on the
    Coastal Plain of the Refuge. There can be no denying that the
    Arctic Refuge is one of the most special and spectacular places
    on the planet.
        America's Arctic Coastal Plain stretches over 600 miles
    from the Canadian border westward to the Chukchi Sea. Most of
    this area is available for oil and gas development. In the
    Central Arctic, oil development on state lands surrounding
    Prudhoe Bay sprawls for over 100 miles along the Beaufort Sea
    coast. Further west, leasing and development are proceeding in
    the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. And now
    it is proposed to explore and develop the last remaining part
    of the Arctic Coastal Plain, our national heritage.
        Some argue that the 1.5 million acres of Coastal Plain
    proposed for development in the Refuge represents only a small
    fraction of the Refuge and development would not significantly
    impact the overall Refuge, but the narrow Coastal Plain is the
    biological and ecological ``heart'' of the Refuge. The Coastal
    Plain is an integral component of the Refuge's ecosystem and
    provides key habitat for calving and migrating caribou,
    waterfowl, nesting shorebirds, and denning sites for polar
    bear.
        The resources report called for in section 1002 of ANILCA,
    issued in 1987, found that the ``1002 Area is the most
    biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife
    and is the center of wildlife activity.''
        And why are we proposing to develop the last remaining part
    of the Arctic Coastal Plain? Are we at war and need more oil
    for our nation's security? Have we run out of oil, gas, and
    gasoline for our homes and cars? Do we really think that
    leasing revenues will significantly help our federal and state
    budgets? The answer is clearly no, to all these questions. And
    the answer should be no to the question of allowing oil and gas
    development in the Refuge.
        I was greatly moved by the documentary, ``The National
    Parks: America's Best Idea.'' In the late 1950s a dedicated
    group of Fairbanks residents, including the Fairbanks Garden
    Club, had a ``best idea'' to protect wild public lands spanning
    the Brooks Range in the northeast corner of Alaska. In 1960 the
    nine-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range was created
    under a land order by Secretary of the Interior Seaton for the
    purpose of ``preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and
    recreational values.'' This ``great idea'' was renewed in 1980
    with the passage of ANILCA in which the Range was expanded and
    renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Its purposes were
    laid out in statute ``to conserve fish and wildlife populations
    and habitats in their natural diversity.''
        Ken Burns' documentary vividly demonstrates how the heroes
    of our nation's history are those who had the foresight to
    protect and defend America's cultural and natural treasures for
    the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. Those folks of
    Fairbanks helped protect something of preeminent value to the
    nation, a generation ago, for those of us today. Conversely,
    history and our children will not honor those that would deface
    one of America's most treasured landscapes. The Arctic Refuge
    should be the very last place we allow oil development.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pourchot follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Pat.
        Dr. Cronin, welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF DR. MATTHEW A. CRONIN, BIOLOGIST AND FORMER
       RESEARCH PROFESSOR, ANIMAL GENETICS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
                               FAIRBANKS

        Dr. Cronin. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, Senator King and
    Committee for allowing me to testify. I'm Matt Cronin, and I'm
    a biologist. And today I'll speak mostly about caribou and oil
    fields and the science.
        The science is large. The literature on the science is very
    large, and I'll provide a brief summary here orally and in my
    written testimony there's many citations to scientific papers.
        This summer I was lucky enough to watch Senator King at the
    symposium on the impacts of an ice diminishing Arctic. I
    watched it online. Senator Murkowski, you gave comments at the
    symposium. And Senator King said something very insightful to
    me as a scientist. He said, ``We can't make good policy without
    good data.'' And then he said, ``Give us the science in a way
    we can understand it and absorb,'' and that nothing could be
    more important. So I understand that as non-scientists you need
    scientists to tell you things in a way you can understand.
    There's two problems. One is the science. The literature is
    very large. And the other is separating the actual data and
    science from interpretation. And that's our job as scientists
    is to clearly differentiate those.
        I feel it's my duty to inform all of Congress and all the
    American people of the science and then policy will come from
    that. Science doesn't make policy, it informs policy. And that
    was a major point of Senator King's comments at that symposium
    that I really appreciated.
        With regard to caribou in the oil fields, there's many
    references in my written testimony and within the references,
    many references.
        I'll hit on a few key points. First, there is impacts to
    individuals and then there's impacts to populations, an
    important concept with regard to the North Slope caribou herds.
    Herds are not the same as populations, as we typically speak
    about them in biology. Herds you define by calving areas. The
    population, all four North Slope herds, to some extent, are the
    same population. There's immigration between them. There's
    overlap on winter ranges. So the herd censuses are good in
    terms of quantifying the numbers of animals calving in the
    area, but the population is much more dynamic and affected by
    many factors.
        The studies have shown some level of displacement of
    calving cows from roads, but it's not unequivocal. In the case
    of those studies, 44 percent of the calves observed were within
    the first four kilometers of the roads which was the area
    claimed to be displacement. And then a replicate study showed
    most of the calves, the higher density, was within the first
    kilometer. The point is the literature is not clear cut. Calves
    don't always avoid oil field infrastructure, the cows having
    the calves. In the summer, the caribou use the oil fields quite
    extensively, as Mr. Glenn said. They go up on the pads and
    under pipelines for insect relief. The caribou herds themselves
    are quite dynamic. If you look at the charts in my written
    testimony which are the graphs of the populations, the Central
    Arctic, the Porcupine, Teshekpuk, and Western Arctic herds,
    you'll see dramatic variation over time. And natural
    populations in general, and caribou in particular, have very
    large population fluctuations naturally due to many things,
    winter conditions, predation, and immigration and emigration,
    as I mentioned.
        So the biology is complex and the literature is large. The
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game stated in a newsletter last
    year, ``The impact of oil infrastructure on the Central Arctic
    herd is also being considered in a recent decline, but is not
    thought to be contributing to the decline since the herd grew
    substantially during peak oil development.''
        Several of the papers that I co-authored address this point
    up through the early 2000s and it's important to look at the
    original literature and the references therein.
        I believe that the status of caribou in the North Slope oil
    fields has been good. They continue to use the oil field areas
    as habitat. The herd has grown substantially since the oil
    fields were developed.
        As the oil fields were developed, new technologies and
    insights resulted in the much smaller area of development and
    mitigation measures such as elevating pipelines, separating
    pipelines from roads, have been implemented that have helped a
    lot with passage through the oil fields.
        I think oil and gas development in the 1002 Area can be
    done with limited impacts by using proven mitigation measures.
    I believe it can be done with minimum impacts to caribou as
    long as mitigation measures are implemented.
        One, of course, because calving is a main concern, is very
    simple. You simply limit activities during the calving period.
    You limit traffic. You limit aircraft. You limit noise and you
    get local knowledge to help you manage in the local area.
        I've also done research on polar bears and other Arctic
    animals that I'd be happy to provide information if anyone is
    interested. And feel free to ask questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Cronin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Cronin.
        Thank you to each of you for your testimony here this
    afternoon. We will now have an opportunity for some questions.
        It was stated by my Ranking Member at the outset of the
    Committee that in her view things have not changed, not much
    has changed. And you know, I think some of the arguments
    against ANWR, that is true. Those arguments are still the same
    that many of us recall from a long time ago.
        But what I have heard today is a recognition that we really
    have seen change in the seven years since this Committee has
    last considered the prospect for the 1002 Area. The technology,
    as Mr. Schutt outlined, has changed considerably.
        But I also think that the data, the science, the research
    that has been collected over the 40-some-odd years that we have
    been operating up North can better inform us. And you mentioned
    mitigation, Dr. Cronin, you mentioned those technologies. Mr.
    Glenn, you speak of the caribou and the fact that the caribou
    are around the camps. They are on the roads. They are not
    deterred by manmade activities. Now we recognize that that is
    not while they are calving. That is clearly a more sensitive
    time.
        But I would like a little more discussion here, just in
    terms of how we are utilizing the science that we have
    collected to be better stewards of the wildlife, the infrared
    that is being used to detect polar bears in a den and how we
    are avoiding contact or disturbance and again, some of the
    other mitigation measures.
        The proposal was made that perhaps there might be some form
    of co-management of caribou if we are to move forward with the
    1002 Area. I would like to open up that discussion, if I may.
    Let's start off with you, Richard.
        Mr. Glenn. Thank you for the question, Senator Murkowski.
        As Dr. Cronin stated, the issue of timing comes out
    strongest and the exploration, of course, of the Coastal Plain,
    would happen in the winter which is not a calving season. And
    so, there's already----
        The Chairman. Before you move on, I think it is important
    for colleagues to understand when we talk about exploration in
    Alaska in the wintertime, it is not because we like to be out
    in the cold and the dark.
        Mr. Glenn. Right.
        The Chairman. It is because we are required to do
    exploration during this period. If you might address that as
    well.
        Mr. Glenn. The Navy began exploring for oil and gas on the
    North Slope in the 1940s and they discovered very quickly that
    the summertime which is when a lot of exploration happens in
    warmer climates, is not the time to try to move about on the
    tundra because everything you do that needs heavy equipment
    gouges itself into the thawed-out surface.
        And so, over a few short years of learning the hard way,
    the industry tailored its practices to operate in the winter
    when the ground is frozen so that even if there was no snow
    cover and no ice road, for example, the tundra kind of protects
    itself by being in a frozen state. That's just the general
    paradigm of exploration the way that it exists today.
        Flash forward to today. In addition to those hard lessons
    learned, they developed ways to explore with seismic and
    drilling on ice roads and ice pads that further insulate the
    surface from the harmful effects of summertime disturbance of
    the tundra. So the calendar already dictates that the machinery
    is going to be around when the animals are less likely to be
    there.
        Now my upbringing is from the central part of the Arctic
    Slope where sometimes caribou are around year-round. I've
    hunted--in fact, those of us who live from Fairbanks northward,
    we're caribou connoisseurs. We know when the marrow changes
    flavor. We know when the fur is the best. We can tell the
    difference between pregnant and non-pregnant cows, for example.
    And calving is a special time. And if you're a caribou hunter
    you know that a mother caribou that's already carrying a calf
    inside her, she wants to lay down. And she'll lay down anywhere
    as long as she's not being threatened by something. And it's
    the pregnant caribou that shows the least, I don't know. Dr.
    Cronin might know better than me, but I've hunted a lot of
    caribou and when they run away from you, the pregnant cows are
    the ones that still stay laying on the ground or for some
    reason run away and come back. And so, the nature of a caribou
    carrying her calf is different than regular caribou behavior.
    All of that is this May/June timeframe when all of the
    exploration tools should be out of the theater.
        Once development happens, if development happens, the
    facilities and the pipelines are constructed to minimize their
    effects. The pipelines are elevated so caribou can walk
    unimpeded underneath the pipelines. And the facilities are
    concentrated under small, focused pads. There's a lot of stuff
    happening on one piece of gravel, and the caribou are free to
    do whatever they need to do on the undisturbed tundra that
    surrounds the pads.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I am over my time.
        Let's go to Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Dr. Cronin, it is intimidating that you cite my own words.
    Literally, scores of people watched that presentation online.
        [Laughter.]
        So let me go back to some of the questions that I asked
    before and, Mr. Schutt, maybe you can answer this. I think I
    have discerned the answer. It is not 2,000 contiguous acres, is
    that correct? It is 2,000 acres made up of lots of little
    pieces.
        Mr. Schutt. It would certainly not be 2,000 contiguous
    acres.
        Senator King. So, the drilling is not limited to one 2,000-
    acre square in this large area?
        Mr. Schutt. I have to say I've never seen the geology. It's
    not publicly available to people like me. But the size of oil
    fields is many thousands of acres or hundreds of thousands of
    acres, if you're talking about billions of barrels of potential
    oil and to recovery that there would certainly be several small
    pads, maybe one or two medium-sized pads. We're talking 10-acre
    drill sites or 12-acre drill sites and maybe a few central
    drill pads that are a couple hundred acres that have the----
        Senator King. But there would have to be, I presume, to get
    the oil out, there would have to be pipelines, right, from each
    pad, each drill site?
        Mr. Schutt. For sure you have to have a way to transport
    from the drill sites to some central location.
        Senator King. And the way to transport is a pipeline.
        Mr. Schutt. Yes, sir.
        Senator King. That would be easier to say than a way to
    transport.
        So we are talking about a pipeline. In terms of the 2,000
    acres we are only talking about the feed of the pipeline. Is
    that correct, not the shadow of the pipeline that is above the
    ground?
        Mr. Schutt. I don't know that part, but I heard that for
    the first time today.
        Senator King. And how many wells would you be talking about
    in an area like this? Someone mentioned 500 wells. Is that--
    what are we talking about here?
        My calculation was a couple thousand to get out ten billion
    barrels over ten years.
        Any----
        Mr. Schutt. I'm not the right person to answer that.
        Senator King. Do you know what the production is of that,
    of your well, 1H-102, the one you had the chart on?
        Mr. Schutt. That well was finished in the last month, so I
    don't have production data. It's not my well either, it's our
    client's well. We drilled it for them.
        Senator King. So give me a production for a typical well
    that you have in service.
        Mr. Schutt. Again, we drill a lot of wells for our clients,
    and I'm not the one to ask. There's a huge range. Some of the
    wells we drill are not production wells. They're injectors or
    other types of wells.
        Senator King. Well, you see what I am trying to get at here
    is how many wells are we talking about in this space? Is it 10,
    100, 1,000, 2,000?
        Mr. Schutt. It would be hundreds over time to develop a
    billion-barrel field, if that's what's there. If it's much
    smaller, it could be 50 wells.
        Senator King. Okay.
        I would point out, Mr. Glenn, you characterized this as a
    cartoon. This shows 50 wells, and I don't take much from the
    size of the little well thing, but that only shows 50 wells.
        If we are talking about 100 or 500, you are talking about a
    lot more dots on this map. Is that correct?
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Schutt. Senator King, we can drill 50 wells from a 10-
    acre drill pad.
        Senator King. Okay, so you are considering a multiple, the
    chart, that you are calling those separate wells? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Schutt. I'm not----
        Senator King. You are saying each line is a separate well,
    that those--I am just trying to understand this.
        Mr. Schutt. Which chart?
        Senator King. You have one drill pad. The picture you put
    up of the--you said you can do ten laterals.
        Mr. Schutt. That was a penta-lateral well.
        Senator King. Right, which is five.
        Mr. Schutt. Which means there are five production wellbores
    off of one single surface location.
        Senator King. Right.
        Mr. Schutt. Each single well off of the surface.
        Senator King. So each one of those you would call a well
    even though there is only one surface?
        Mr. Schutt. That's correct.
        Senator King. Five.
        Mr. Schutt. Technically for those in the industry, those
    are five wells. Yes, sir.
        Senator King. Well, I think it is important as we work
    through this to try to understand if we are talking about ten
    billion barrels over some period of time, what is the period of
    time and what does that imply in terms of the number of wells
    and how many penta-laterals are there? I am trying to determine
    what we are really talking about here on the face of the Earth.
    And that is what I am searching for. I think you answered my
    question. The calving period is the spring or the summer?
        Dr. Cronin. Yes, sir. The end of May and first few weeks of
    June.
        Senator King. Another question, I guess Mr. Schutt, you are
    the guy to try to answer this.
        Is there anything special about this 1002 Area in terms of
    oil and gas? There is this--I looked on the map that Senator
    Sullivan gave us and there is this huge area that is set aside
    for oil and gas drilling, much larger than this area. Do we
    have indications that this is an extraordinarily rich area that
    we are talking about, this part of ANWR?
        Mr. Schutt. Senator, I'm probably not the expert you need
    on that question. Although, certainly the outcrops of the
    sandstone reservoirs that are producing at Prudhoe Bay and the
    source rocks that caused the oil to be at Prudhoe Bay are
    similar or the same.
        Senator King. What I am getting at is we are talking about
    a special area here that has been set aside for a long time,
    and we are saying we need to drill here. And what I am trying
    to determine is, is this area particularly productive or could
    we not drill in some of the other areas that are literally
    called the oil and gas drilling area?
        Mr. Schutt. I'm going to start with a slight aside,
    Senator.
        Senator King. Yes.
        Mr. Schutt. I've heard people refer to a special area which
    I do not want to minimize at all, but many areas of Alaska are
    special. Those of us who grew up in different parts of Alaska
    call our own section of Alaska, God's Country, without
    minimizing the fact that all of Alaska is God's Country.
        Senator King. You are incorrect on that. My town in Maine
    is truly God's Country.
        [Laughter.]
        I know exactly--I take your point though, thank you.
        Mr. Schutt. With regard to the question about oil
    prospectivity, there is a difference between what the USGS says
    about the NPR-A and the likely fields you might find there
    through exploration and the scale of what might be available in
    the 1002 Area and they're orders of magnitude different.
        Senator King. I think that is important for us to know.
    Thank you.
        Dr. Cronin. Yeah, Senator King, I was just going to add
    that I think USGS would be a good source for very specific
    information on the resources that they predict either in the
    1002 or the NPR-A.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. I am going to defer to my colleague who
    has been here waiting.
        The Chairman. Okay. Alright.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. We will next turn to Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Let me just follow up on the line of questioning from
    Senator King, because I am now getting a little confused.
        So if I understand this correctly, section 1002 we are
    looking at is opening up the Coastal Plain for drilling and
    that is 1.57 million acres. Is that true? So I am--and that is
    yes? Your understanding? Yes. So I am confused as to where the
    2,000 acre limitation comes from. I think this is referring to
    a House Energy bill, H.R. 6, which is not before us, and so I
    am not sure what all of that means. But I do want to get a
    better understanding if we are talking about drilling in 1.57
    million acres, which is the Coastal Plain. I do want to get a
    better understanding of how many pads we are talking about. How
    many drill pads?
        And I think, from my perspective, it would help to have a
    better understanding in the NPR-A. How many drill pads are
    there right now and how many more potentially can you--how much
    more drilling can occur there at the NPR-A and why isn't that
    occurring instead of opening up the Coastal Plain? And I will
    open that up to whomever we want to start with, please.
        Ms. Epstein. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I work both on the NPR-A as well as the Arctic Refuge. And
    in the NPR-A, historically, there have been both high numbers
    in terms of how much likely oil and lower numbers more
    recently.
        But now there is a reassessment going on and there have
    been some new discoveries. That's why I made the point that, in
    fact, the slope of the oil going through the Trans-Alaska
    pipeline is going up. There are new discoveries and there are
    new ways of getting into existing reserves that are increasing,
    which is good. It's good for Alaska. I'm an Alaskan. I think
    that's good. Drill in less sensitive areas as you both are
    referring to.
        USGS is looking at the NPR-A right now, and there's a lot
    of activity around that in terms of coming up with a new
    estimate which may actually show quite a bit. There's not much
    data for the Arctic Refuge right now.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        There is potential still to--we are waiting for the data
    for the NPR-A to make that determination.
        How many drill pads are there now?
        Ms. Epstein. There's the CD-5 one and there--Conoco
    Phillips is working on Greater Mooses Tooth, a new project and
    then they have a new discovery that's just beginning the
    permitting process in the Willow Area, but it could be quite
    large. They're trying to delineate that.
        And one more very quick point. We had quite a bit of
    discussion about balance on the last panel and the fact that
    the North Slope is a large landscape and the points you're
    making about drilling in the NPR-A, we think that really does
    represent balance. That's where some areas are open for
    development. Some areas are not because they are quite
    sensitive. Certainly, there's a lot going on in the state lands
    right now and that's also considered by us and others, less
    sensitive. And that's fully appropriate.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        And then just to get a better understanding--and thank you
    for the graphs because that helps really, kind of, put it in
    perspective, what we are talking about.
        If I understood correctly, each pad has the potential of
    having more than one drill hole or whatever you want to call
    it, right? And then from that drill hole comes the various
    wells and there could be more, four to five or six wells from
    just one borehole. Is that correct?
        Mr. Schutt. You're asking very technical questions, and I
    don't have any technical----
        Senator Cortez Masto. I am just going off your graphs. So
    that is what it looked like to me.
        Mr. Schutt. That's one.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        And so, each drill pad--and so, you talk about the size of
    your drill pads and over the course of time with new
    technology, they decreased in their footprint. And it looks
    like from 65 acres now to potentially 12 acres.
        So how many of those boreholes could potentially come from
    a 12-acre pad? And if you don't--you may not technically be
    able to answer that, and I will figure out another way to get
    that answered. I am just curious if you know.
        Mr. Schutt. I sound like a lawyer here, but it depends, but
    you can assume from a 12-acre pad that dozens of surface
    boreholes can be drilled and then, if appropriate, multi-
    laterals out of those that would count as additional wells.
        So, you know, somewhere between 10 and 100, depending on
    the appropriateness of the design, just as a rough ballpark.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Please go ahead if you have any comments.
        Mr. Glenn. Thank you. You gave half of the answer that I
    was going to give, but also it probably helps to put in
    perspective the order of events.
        If the Coastal Plain is open to exploration, seismic
    exploration starts and it comes and it goes away. And then
    targets are established. And then exploration drilling occurs
    on ice pads, and the rules about drilling exploration wells are
    to plug and abandon it when you're done, cut the casing below
    the surface so it disappears when you're done with exploration.
        In the event of discovery, then you move into the paradigm
    that you're talking about with pads on the ground and radiating
    outward from the reservoir as discussed by Aaron.
        So there's things that have to happen. Exploration should
    occur everywhere and then we should make reasonable decisions
    about development when it happens. So there are two different
    aspects to drilling, exploration then development.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Thank you very much. I notice my time is up, I appreciate
    that, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am going to go back to this chart again because while it
    may be just, you know, effectively it is just an illustration.
    But having some experience with development in the Permian
    Basin and the San Juan Basin, and having seen the development
    around Prudhoe Bay, I would just note for my colleagues that
    with, at least the ungulates that I am familiar with, like mule
    deer and antelope, it is not the well pads that typically are
    the substantial part of the disturbance and which can impede
    the movement of wildlife. It is everything that comes with
    those well pads: it's the roads, it's the gravel mines, it's
    the electrical transmission, it's the pipelines. And the more
    linear barriers you put in the face of any sort of migration,
    the less likely that migration is to occur.
        So rather than look at an illustration, I would just
    suggest, maybe, all of us or our staff can do a little search
    on Google Earth and go look at what Prudhoe Bay looks like,
    having flown over that because, you know, it is not the well
    pads that got my attention. It is all those other linear
    obstacles to migration.
        I have a question for Ms. Epstein. One of my frustrations
    with this process is that we are doing this through budget
    reconciliation and in the context of a budget bill, rather than
    a regular legislative process. I assume we are doing that
    because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pass this
    as stand-alone legislation and get 60 votes for it.
        But one of the requirements of that budget process is that
    we produce $1 billion of new revenue over the next two years. A
    new report out this week casts some serious doubt on whether
    that is realistic.
        Can you walk us through some numbers and talk about what
    would be necessary, in particular, in terms of reasonable bonus
    bids because that is the most likely income to come in, in the
    first ten years, and whether or not we could hit that target or
    not, or what a realistic estimate might be?
        Ms. Epstein. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        I would say that I share your frustration about the speed
    of this process and the inability to get all the information
    that decision-makers need, the Senate needs, to make a
    responsible decision.
        Just as an example, I have--my colleague, a senior
    ecologist, has quite a number of responses to Dr. Cronin's
    testimony that I think would be very beneficial and we will
    submit that to the Committee. And that would be important so
    that you would have a full picture of the actual nature of the
    caribou development and relationship, as well as polar bears.
        Senator Heinrich. You have to add that to the record.
        Ms. Epstein. Yes, thank you. In terms of directly answering
    your question, I can partly answer.
        With the price of oil being what it is now, in the $50 a
    barrel range, Alaska is not terribly attractive in new areas to
    oil companies and, at the same time, we have lots of shale oil
    development in the Lower 48 that is more inexpensive. So the
    idea that they would pay extra and go for bonus bids to be sure
    they had a piece of this very controversial area that a lot of
    companies would actually even shy away from is unlikely.
        I just participated in a National Academy of Sciences oil-
    related committee on Thursday and Friday and I talked to some
    of my industry colleagues about the Arctic Refuge. And one
    comment I heard was that if this was likely to be as
    productive, you know, there would have been a lot more
    activity, more wells previously.
        Senator Heinrich. My calculations are that it would have to
    be a little over $1,300 an acre in terms of bonus bids which is
    about six times that historical average.
        Ms. Epstein. Right.
        Senator Heinrich. I don't have a ton of time left. I guess
    I will just end with this.
        I guess we have to come up with $1 billion, but we produce
    a lot of oil and gas in the State of New Mexico. There are some
    places we will never, ever drill: the Valle Vidal or the Bosque
    del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. I think we need to be
    careful about what doors we are opening today because we will
    not be able to undo this once a substantial reserve is found.
        And to find that $1 billion, I would never advocate mining
    for uranium in the Grand Canyon or doing geothermal resources
    in Yellowstone, and having been to the Refuge, it is a wildlife
    refuge. That is why it is called the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge. It is not a petroleum reserve and we should remember
    that.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski and
    Ranking Member Cantwell, for convening this very important
    conversation.
        I also want to thank our witnesses who traveled far to join
    us for today's hearing.
        One of my priorities in the Senate is working to expand
    economic opportunity for working families in Illinois and
    across the nation. I know that every state faces unique
    challenges when it comes to supporting existing industries and
    creating new jobs, and I recognize how important the oil
    industry has been to the Chairwoman's home State of Alaska.
        However, when it comes to dramatically expanding oil
    extraction operations in areas like the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge, I have serious questions concerning the
    potential for catastrophic incidents that could inflict
    irreparable harm. If the tragedy of Deepwater Horizon should
    teach us anything, it is that difficult and tough questions
    must be addressed before approving any massive expansion of
    drilling operations. For when we are discussing oil extraction
    at the scale and vision in this Republican budget, it is not a
    matter of if an oil spill will occur, but rather a matter of
    when and how bad will it be.
        We have heard a lot about advances in directionally
    drilling today. Setting aside the engineering jargon, Ms.
    Epstein can you explain in plain English if it is more
    dangerous to drill in the Arctic and why?
        Ms. Epstein. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        The Arctic is remote. There aren't a lot of additional
    resources if there are problems. Those have to be brought in,
    flown in. That has happened when we've had a blowout. Just this
    last spring, BP, a well resource company, had something
    unexpected happen, the permafrost around an old well, so you
    think that they knew what was going on was fine. And that
    resulted, not in an enormous oil spill, but quite a serious
    safety situation which is of concern to operators and their
    employees. Absolutely.
        So we have had situations where it is frigid and cold, and
    you can't work then. So you need a lot of very specific Arctic
    expertise. It is, very much, an area where you need to know
    what you're doing.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I understand that the State of Alaska completed a report in
    November 2010 which reviewed over 6,000 North Slope spills from
    1995 to 2009. Analysis of this report indicates there was an
    oil spill of 1,000 gallons of oil or more nearly every two
    months from 1995 to 2009.
        Ms. Epstein, when the oil spills and we have to clean it
    up, again, is the oil spill cleanup more challenging in the
    Arctic compared with drilling on land elsewhere? And if oil
    spilled in the area of debate today, what would the effects of
    that spill be?
        Ms. Epstein. Thank you for that question.
        It would depend a bit about the time of year. If you had an
    oil spill in winter and it landed just on frozen tundra you
    might be able to clean it up quickly. If you had a spill that
    ended up in a waterway, however, and flowed into the, say the
    Colville River and onward into the Beaufort Sea--tremendous
    impacts to the ecosystem. These are fragile areas. The water is
    only flowing some of the year so that's when all the biology,
    all the activities take place. It would be quite damaging.
        Senator Duckworth. Is there new legislation we could
    consider that would make drilling in the Arctic safer and less
    prone to spills?
        Ms. Epstein. The best we could do is tweak it.
        We're going to have spills. We're going to have--it's a
    complicated industry, hard to be on top of everything all the
    time. At the same time, companies are trying to minimize costs.
    So it's very tough. We can't prevent spills. There's no
    evidence that--I don't think you'd find anyone from the
    industry that said, that can say we will stop all spills.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Mr. Alexander, I just want to start off by saying that the
    Alaskan First Peoples are some of the--have served our United
    States military at rates per capita far greater than so many of
    our other population and with extreme courage and dedication
    and just want to thank all of the representatives of the First
    Peoples here today for that.
        Mr. Alexander, is your community alone in its concerns or
    are your fears shared by other tribes? Can you please remind us
    what the stakes are if your people can no longer depend on
    caribou and subsistence hunting?
        The Chairman. Senator?
        Senator Duckworth. Oh, I am sorry.
        The Chairman. Mr. Alexander was part of the first panel.
        Senator Duckworth. Oh, sorry.
        The Chairman. He is not with us. Perhaps you can ask that
    question of him after the hearing, but I apologize for that.
        Senator Duckworth. No worries. Thank you.
        With that, I yield back. I only have 16 seconds anyway.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Let's go to Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. I would yield to Senator Franken.
        The Chairman. Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you to the Ranking Member and the
    Chair.
        Dr. Cronin, in your research looking at caribou populations
    you found that they were not significantly impacted by the
    presence of an oil field road, is that correct?
        Dr. Cronin. Yes.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        For this research did you ever receive any funding from oil
    companies?
        Dr. Cronin. Yes.
        Senator Franken. Okay.
        Do you think receiving funding from oil companies could
    bias the outcomes of your research?
        Dr. Cronin. No, sir.
        Senator Franken. Did you ever consider that the same oil
    companies that funded your research would use your work as
    justification for drilling and that might have been a
    motivation of theirs?
        Dr. Cronin. Well, first of all, the data we used in--
    probably the paper you're talking about is a 2004 paper with
    Noel as the Senior Author. We used the Alaska State Department
    of Fish and Game data in addition to the data collected by our
    group.
        The oil industry funded studies, sometimes as a requirement
    for permits or for stipulations for operating after the permits
    were granted, and they wanted to get pre- and post-development
    data in some cases or in other words, in other cases, just
    post-development to, in this case, look at the distribution of
    caribou.
        So whether it was used to justify future drilling, it was
    always done with the intent of publishing in peer-reviewed
    scientific literature, which we did, and all the references
    that I gave in my written testimony are such.
        Senator Franken. Okay, well the manuscript says it was
    developed with support from Exxon Mobil and BP Exploration. Is
    that right?
        Dr. Cronin. Well, depending which paper, sure.
        Senator Franken. Okay.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Epstein, could you talk about why this Refuge was
    preserved in the first place? What are the distinguishing
    factors that make the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain different
    from other areas on the Arctic Coastal Plain, and why does that
    matter?
        Ms. Epstein. Yes, thank you, Senator Franken.
        One important characteristic is the Coastal Plain there is
    very narrow compared to further West where the Prudhoe Bay
    field is and that means that the area that the caribou go to
    birth their calves is smaller. There aren't alternatives and
    they go there because they receive insect relief and they also
    are able to avoid predators. They can see them coming, in other
    words. Beyond that, it is an intact ecosystem with the full
    range of species. It's a national treasure in a lot of ways
    that many refer to as America's Serengeti.
        I, myself, was there just once, not related to work. I was
    there recreationally, and I did see enormous numbers of caribou
    and really felt that I saw one of the world's great migrations
    happening that I felt very privileged to see. And there are few
    special places like that in the world. It was quite beautiful.
    I included a personal photo in my testimony.
        Thank you.
        Senator Franken. Well, you are right. The Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge is home to many unique plant and animal
    species, including critical habitat for the polar bear which is
    listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and, of
    course, for the Porcupine Caribou that is essential, as we
    heard from the last panel, to the Gwich'in people.
        Mr. Pourchot, as climate change continues to affect Alaska,
    how important will pristine areas like the Arctic Refuge be to
    wildlife and to indigenous people?
        Mr. Pourchot. Thank you, Senator.
        I think we heard from the other panel that climate change
    is very real and very dramatic in the further you move north,
    particularly on the North Slope of Alaska.
        And I think, again, other panelists have described climate
    change impacts on many things, of human life and wildlife. And
    I think that in the areas that Ms. Epstein has described for
    the Coastal Plain is, for example, a very finite calving area.
    The effects of climate change on that, you know, could be
    substantial.
        And I think the answer, if there is one to your question,
    is really, we don't really know. And I think that's one of the
    issues surrounding this debate is in the absence of knowing
    things as science or fact or what the impacts may be. I think
    that argues for a cautionary approach.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, Mr. Pourchot, I definitely agree. I
    find the debate that we have had so far interesting just
    because when I think of Alaska, I think of its great beauty
    and, you know, I think of John Muir and his exploration of the
    glaciers at Glacier Bay that made it popular and what it is
    today. Yet those glaciers are receding. I don't know if anybody
    is ready to put up a sign saying cruise ships don't bother
    anymore because I am pretty sure Alaska still wants them to
    come, but yet, that is what we are continuing to threaten here
    by continuing to proceed.
        You are undermining not only this wildlife refuge, but you
    are undermining a very important way of life that is even
    larger than just the wildlife refuge. To me, I hold that dear
    but then again, those are very important elements of the
    northwest economy. Just because I represent the State of
    Washington I guarantee you, Patty Murray and I do not get to
    decide what happens at Mount Rainier National Park just because
    it is in our state. We do not get to decide that. And so, when
    federal land is designated, yes, we have a lot of discussion
    with a lot of locals, but no, you do not get to make the
    decision just because you represent that state.
        So I wanted to ask you, there has been so much discussion
    about whether this wildlife refuge, in its purpose that it was
    created for, can coexist with oil development on the Refuge.
    Can it, yes or no?
        Mr. Pourchot. I would answer no and, as I said in my
    testimony, when you look at the purposes in statute that
    establish the Refuge that included wildlife in their natural
    diversity, that references to wilderness. Similar, the
    Executive Order establishing the range, the predecessor of the
    Refuge in 1960, talks about those same sorts of values in
    outstanding resources.
        When you look at the 1987 report that was authorized by
    Congress for the 1002 Area, very emphatic references to
    wilderness resources, to wildlife resources. Those were also
    brought out in the more recent Comprehensive Conservation Plan,
    CCP, that was just completed for the Refuge in 2015 after four
    years of effort to look at the new science, look at management
    options, look at the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge
    Administration Act and they reiterated again it was very
    important those natural resources, particularly wildlife and
    wilderness, that were really exemplified by the Refuge. And
    that recommendation which, it was interesting that Deputy
    Director Sheehan did not mention, was for recommendation for
    wilderness designation for the Coastal Plain of the Refuge.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes, a nice way to say about his
    testimony was that he was very selective.
        But we have sent a letter to the Secretary and this should
    be clear. We should just get a yes or no answer from him about
    the purposes.
        You gave me one today and the answer is no, and I think
    that is what any scientist would tell you.
        So what I object to, besides the sham process that we have
    been going through here to hurry this through with 51 votes, is
    that it just ought to be clear. If people want to open the
    Arctic Wildlife Refuge, you should just admit you are going to
    destroy the wildlife refuge.
        You can't sit here and tell our colleagues and try to deny
    it by stacking a hearing and not giving us information and not
    having the scientists, that somehow that is not the case,
    because it is.
        So you can decide you don't want the Refuge. I disagree. I
    think it is one of the most unbelievable things that we have on
    Planet Earth, not just in the United States, on Planet Earth.
    It is that intact. And what we are going to learn from it and
    continue to preserve from our heritage and our past and the
    wildlife that is there is just unbelievable.
        People spend thousands of dollars to go to the Serengeti in
    Africa to look at it. Did anybody in Alaska ever think that in
    the near future, as the Arctic ice continues to melt that there
    wouldn't be people who would want to come up and visit it in a
    more recreational environment? To me, it is well worth
    preserving.
        So we will see what happens when the Secretary answers our
    letter, but you can't have both and that is what scientists are
    going to tell us. And so people should just choose if they want
    to drill or they want to destroy, drill and destroy.
        I would preserve because, as I've said before, I guarantee
    you we are all going to be gone in the future and it is going
    to be whether this great pristine place continues to give the
    next generation such a great, unbelievable look at what has
    existed on our planet before.
        And I agree with the Gwich'in people that it is spiritual.
    It is spiritual, and we should preserve it.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Well, we clearly disagree that this is an
    either/or proposition. It absolutely is not.
        And for those of us who call Alaska home, to suggest that
    we would despoil our environment for short-term gain, I think,
    is offensive. As an Alaskan, I am offended by that.
        I respect every Alaskan's opinion. I respect the fact that
    there are those who come from a different homeland than I
    might, being born down in the southeast, but I respect their
    views and opinions.
        I think we recognize that as Alaskans we have options and
    our options, I think it would be at the beginning of the day
    and the end of the day, we all want to get to the same place,
    that we have an economy that will allow us to stay in the most
    amazing place. And whether your home is Utqiagvik or Kaktovik
    or Ketchikan, we want to be able to remain there, but you have
    to have the ability to stay there. And when you live in a cold
    place, you need to be able to have the means to keep warm.
        I think about Matthew Rexford's family and the generations
    that came before him, just one generation prior, it was a life
    and a lifestyle that was pretty harsh and pretty difficult and
    literally trying to find firewood that would come down the
    river to keep the family home warm.
        And so, again, as we think about the choices that we have
    as Alaskans, we have always been in this place. We have always
    been in a place where we are resource rich with a small
    population. Our costs are high. But the effort to make sure
    that we can continue to remain in this amazing place has to be
    one where we work to find the balance, where we ensure that we
    have the level of food security.
        If you are from Fort Yukon or Kaktovik, you are going to
    rely on the caribou or the whale and probably will for
    generations to come, as long as we care for the land and the
    waters. And this is our challenge. This is our charge.
        I do not think any one of us wishes to be the one that says
    that we allowed rape, pillage, and ruin on our land for short-
    term gain. That is not what this is about.
        I think people forget that for 40 years now, 40 plus years,
    we have been exploring. We have been producing. We have been
    giving revenue and jobs and opportunity to Alaskans and to the
    country. And we have done so in a way that everybody still
    wants to come to Alaska. Those cruise ships and people want to
    come to Alaska. So if we have ignored our environment, that
    certainly is not apparent.
        And so, we do require the highest standards, I believe, in
    the country; I believe, in the world. And we do that for good
    reason because when the exploration winter period is over we do
    not want to see the tracks on the tundra if the winter trail
    led to a place that was not going to be productive.
        We are making sure that we are using our smarts and our
    intelligence and all that we have to develop the technologies
    that make some of these questions hard to answer. How can you
    predict how many pads we are going to need?
        Forty years ago, the pad in Prudhoe was pretty significant
    and remains today; but nobody, nobody is talking about building
    another Prudhoe because we believe that even with Prudhoe-like
    resources, our technology will allow us to access this in a way
    that is more consistent with our respect for the environment.
    To be able to shrink that footprint, to be able to do so much
    more with a smaller area and to recognize what that delivers to
    us. So we do not know how many pads. We are not sure how many
    wells necessarily because the technology is evolving every
    single day.
        To look, Aaron, at the diagram and to hear your testimony
    that you have one series of wells that is just in production
    now, one month ago, but knowing that by 2020, what you will be
    able to access will be so much more than what you have been,
    what you have put in place today, this is where the technology
    is taking us.
        We talk about the shale revolution here in the Lower 48 and
    what that has done to allow us a level of energy independence
    that we never thought possible. It is not because that resource
    just materialized overnight in places where it was not, it was
    always there but we just use our smarts and our technology to
    allow us to access it better and more efficiently. That is what
    we are doing. That is what we are proving out in Alaska.
        And Senator Heinrich challenged us all. Go to Google Earth
    and take a look at Prudhoe Bay. Yes, Prudhoe Bay is up there.
    It is still a 65-acre pad. It is. But that is technology from
    40 years ago. That is what it looked like 40 years ago. That is
    like telling you to stick with the same phone we were using 40
    years ago and compare it to what we are using today.
        The statement was made that nothing has changed with the
    ANWR debate, and I disagree so, so, so strongly with that. The
    technology has changed. Our ability to access and understand
    the science and the data and the research that we know and the
    effort that we are making, led by Alaskans who care to not only
    protect the environment, but to protect the animals, the
    wildlife, the waterfowl.
        Richard, your family has been up on the North Slope for
    generations and on your mother's side for hundreds, if not
    thousands of years. I bet you still feel awe and wonderment
    when you see those caribou come through, thousands at a time.
    It is amazing. It is magical, and it is spiritual. And our
    challenge, our challenge, is to allow that to continue, not
    only for the benefit of the caribou, but for the people who
    live there. I just feel like so much of this discussion has
    taken place in the absence of those who live there.
        And so, I was actually going to ask more questions, but I
    think we have probably taken as much time as was important to
    lay the record down here today. I do hope that colleagues
    recognize this is not an effort to do some secret maneuver in a
    back room. If that were the case, we would not have had a
    public hearing for five hours, televised, for all the world to
    see. If that were the case, we would not have an open markup,
    like we will. None has been scheduled yet, but we will have
    that. And we will have an opportunity to weigh in as lawmakers
    on whether or not we should keep that commitment, the
    commitment that the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor
    reminded us of, that commitment that when this 1002 Area, when
    this Area was specifically set aside for the opportunity to
    pursue exploration and development of our oil and gas
    potential, provided that certain conditions were met and the
    Congress approves.
        Well, we have gone through this battle many times, as
    Congressman Young reminded us, 12 times. I believe that we are
    at that place that the Lieutenant Governor has reminded us,
    that we are at that place where we have met that balance in
    that our technology is allowing us to do things that were once
    just unimaginable. You could not even imagine being able to
    drill down here at the center of the Capitol and be able to
    reach an area out by the National Harbor. This is not drilling
    rhetoric as has been suggested. This is not theoretical. This
    is actual application. We are making it happen.
        I think that is what our colleagues need to appreciate and
    to recognize is that change has happened for the better
    allowing us to be able to be more responsible as we access our
    resources, but to do so in a way that allows not only for the
    jobs and opportunity for Alaskans but to address the national
    security issues that Senator Sullivan has raised, to address
    the environmental concerns, to address our energy security
    needs, and to do so in a manner that allows us, as the United
    States, to lead, not only leading with access to a resource
    that we want, but leading in a way that allows for our
    innovation, our really pioneering in an area, is recognized.
        So I thank those of you who have joined us. I want to
    acknowledge you, Governor Walker, for remaining through the
    duration of this hearing. And the Lieutenant Governor, I think,
    making sure that this conversation is heard loud and heard
    clearly, enables us, as Alaskans, to speak with even greater
    voice and greater clarity.
        So I thank you for your time.
        With that, ladies and gentlemen, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    November 1, 2017

    Dear Member of Congress:

    The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a part of God's creation
    that stands alone in its wilderness, ecological integrity, and
    beauty. This sacred landscape is also home of the Gwich'in, a
    Alaska native people who depend upon the Porcupine caribou herd
    for their daily subsistence. The possibility of oil exploration
    in the Refuge jeopardizes the ecological integrity of the
    Refuge and the way of life of the Gwich'in people.

    The exploitation of fossil fuels in the Refuge will contribute
    to climate change and threaten the ten thousand year-old
    traditions that the Gwich'in people depend upon to survive. The
    faith community's decades long commitment to protecting the
    Arctic Refuge is inspired by our dedication to defending all of
    God's creation, including the fundamental rights of the
    Gwich'in people.

    As members of the faith community, we ask you to grant the
    Arctic Refuge the strongest possible protection and keep
    drilling in the Arctic Refuge out of the budget process. It is
    our hope that you will join us in recognizing that such a
    precious gift deserves our best efforts at stewardship and
    preservation by doing all that you can to safeguard the
    renowned and sacred wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge for current and future generations.

    Sincerely,

    Sister Janet Korn
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Mary Ann Binsack
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Deirdre Hetzler
    Roman Catholic
    Fairport, NY

    Barbara Kozlowski
    Sisters of Mercy
    Buffalo, NY

    Norine Truax, RSM
    Sisters of Mercy
    Buffalo, NY

    M. Grimes
    Sisters of Mercy
    Hamburg, NY

    Sister Mary Schimscheiner
    Sisters of Mercy
    Buffalo, NY

    Sister Kathy Sisson
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Laurie Orman
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Mary Ellen Twist
    Sisters of Mercy
    Buffalo, NY

    Sister Nancy Whitley, RSM
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Deacon William Coffey
    Roman Catholic
    Macedon, NY

    Kathy Pease
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    William Irwin
    Roman Catholic
    Elmira, NY

    Sister Nancy O'Brien
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sheila Geraghty
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Miriam Nugent
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Joan Sherry, RSM
    Sisters of Mercy
    Orchard Park, NY

    Sister Margaret Deegan
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Susan Cain
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Sally Maloney
    Sisters of Mercy
    Buffalo, NY

    Sister Lucetta Sercu
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Sister Marilyn Williams, RSM
    Sisters of Mercy
    Rochester, NY

    Patricia Bell
    Sisters of Mercy
    Webster, NY

    Sister Cristel Mejia
    Sisters of Mercy
    Buffalo, NY

    November 1, 2017

    Dear Member of Congress:

    The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a part of God's creation
    that stands alone in its wilderness, ecological integrity, and
    beauty. This sacred landscape is also home of the Gwich'in, a
    Alaska native people who depend upon the Porcupine caribou herd
    for their daily subsistence. The possibility of oil exploration
    in the Refuge jeopardizes the ecological integrity of the
    Refuge and the way of life of the Gwich'in people.

    The exploitation of fossil fuels in the Refuge will contribute
    to climate change and threaten the ten thousand year-old
    traditions that the Gwich'in people depend upon to survive. The
    faith community's decades long commitment to protecting the
    Arctic Refuge is inspired by our dedication to defending all of
    God's creation, including the fundamental rights of the
    Gwich'in people.

    As members of the faith community, we ask you to grant the
    Arctic Refuge the strongest possible protection and keep
    drilling in the Arctic Refuge out of the budget process. It is
    our hope that you will join us in recognizing that such a
    precious gift deserves our best efforts at stewardship and
    preservation by doing all that you can to safeguard the
    renowned and sacred wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge for current and future generations.

    Sincerely,

    Sister Kathleen Ann, RSM
    Sisters of Mercy
    Erie, PA

    Elsie Heaney
    Daylesford Abbey
    Paoli, PA

    Sister Placidus McDonald
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Andrea Likovich
    Sisters of St. Francis
    Aston, PA

    Sister Bridget McNamara
    Sisters of St. Francis
    Reading, PA

    Sister Susan Fitzpatrick
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Rita Harasiuk
    Institute of the Sisters
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Phyllis Thompson
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Maria Zamberlan
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Mary Felice Duska
    Sisters of Mercy
    Erie, PA

    Sister Kathi Sweeney
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Malachy O'Neill
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Bonnie Heh
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Georgine Scarpino
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Natalie Rossi
    Sisters of Mercy
    Erie, PA

    Sister Patricia Hespelein
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Marie Immacule Dana
    Sisters of Mercy
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Sister Rita Panciera
    Sisters of Mercy
    Erie, PA

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]