[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11984-S11985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MURKOSWKI:
  S. 2589. A bill to provide for the collection and interpretation of 
state of the art, non-intrusive 3-dimensional seismic data on certain 
federal lands in Alasks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


         legislation authorizing 3-d seismic testing in alaska

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
ensure that when Congress looks at ways to reduce the United States' 
dependence on foreign oil, it does so with the best science available.
  The legislation I introduce today would require the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic testing on the Arctic 
Coastal Plain of Alaska.
  This testing leaves no footprint. In fact, just last year the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service allowed such testing to be done in the Kenai 
National Wildlife Refuge, declaring such testing would have no 
significant impact.
  It would have even less impact on the frozen tundra in ANWR.
  It is also a possibility that the oil industry would be willing to 
share in the cost of such testing. Let's at least find out what kind of 
resource we are talking about.
  Mr. President, I think it is important that we look at some of the 
history of his area and the testing that has occurred there.
  In May of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that a mean 
of 7.7 billion barrels of producible oil may reside in the 1002 Area of 
the Arctic Oil Reserve.
  This estimate was in stark contrast to a declaration by Secretary 
Babbitt in 1995 when he pronounced the Arctic Oil Reserve's oil 
possibilities to be about 898 million barrels.
  In the interest of looking at this amazing leap in the estimate of 
the AOR's producible oil, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee last week, and invited the U.S. Geological 
Survey to participate.
  Three things rang clear at that hearing:
  First, while these estimates were the highest ever and proved the 
1002 area of the AOR has the greatest potential of securing our 
Nation's energy needs--they were extremely conservative.
  For instance, these estimates were based on a minimum economic field 
size of 512 million barrels. When in practice the minimum economic 
field size in Alaska is much lower than that. Consider the following 
examples of current economic fields in Alaska:
  Northstar: 145 mm/bb (With a sub-sea pipeline) is deemed economic. 
Badami: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Liberty: 120 mm/bb is deemed 
economic. Sourdough: 100+ mm/bb (adjacent to Aor) is deemed economic.
  The second fact that rang clear is while these new estimates show a 
clearer picture of the Western portion of the AOR, much remains unclear 
about the oil and gas potential of the massive structures present in 
the Eastern portion.
  The USGS has slightly downgraded the potential of the Eastern portion 
because they do not have similar data that was available to them on the 
Western portion.
  Third, technology has increased so dramatically that we can now 
extract greater amounts of oil from wells with far less impact on the 
environment at a cost of 30 percent less than 10 years ago.
  Consider this, Mr. President: In June of 1994, Amerada Hess concluded 
the Northstar field in Alaska was uneconomic because development would 
exceed $1.2 billion and eventually sold the field to BP.
  Today, BP expects to begin production of that field's 145 million 
barrels of reserves in 2000. Estimated development costs: $350 
million--a 70 percent reduction from just 4 years ago!
  Mr. President, all these factors point toward the logical conclusion 
that underlying the 1.5 million-acre oil reserve in Alaska lies greater 
reserves than recently estimated, and we need to confirm them with 
better science.
  Dr. Thomas J. Casadevall, acting director of the USGS, was very clear 
in his explanation that if the newer three dimensional (3-D) seismic 
data were available from the Arctic Oil Reserve, their high May 
estimates of producible oil could increase significantly.
  Casadevall explained that their new estimates, while supported by 
sound science and peer review, were still based on 2-D seismic tests 
done more than a decade ago.
  Kenneth A. Boyd, director, Division of Oil and Gas of the Alaska 
Department of Natural Resources, likened the advance of the new testing 
to the difference between an x-ray and a CAT-scan.
  He said the available information from 2-D seismic as opposed to 3-D 
seismic is that the former produces a line of data while the latter 
produces a cube of data. The cube can be turned

[[Page S11985]]

and examined from all sides and the geologic information proves 
invaluable for exploration.
  This data has revolutionized exploration and development of the North 
Slope of Alaska. Modern 3-D data provides enhanced and incredibly 
accurate imaging of potential subsurface reservoirs.
  This in turn reduces exploration and development risk, reduces the 
number of drilled wells, and in turn reduces both overall costs and 
environmental impacts.
  Of course there is little pressure to allow testing or exploration of 
the Coastal Plain with gas prices at a 30-year low. However, the 
Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in 10 
years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. It 
would take that same 10-year period to develop any oil production in 
AOR.
  It seems prudent to plan ahead to protect our future energy security.
  If the Nation were to be crunched in an energy crisis--like the Gulf 
war that would require the speedup of development; that development 
could impact the environment negatively because it would not have the 
benefit of thoughtful planning.
  I believe it is as criminal as stealing gold to refuse to acknowledge 
the potential for producible oil in the Coastal Plain of the AOR. If we 
don't know what the resource is, how can we protect it or make an 
informed decision about the use of the area?
  And how can those in this administration or the environmental 
community argue it is a bad idea to seek a greater understanding of 
these public lands? Particularly, when the Congress set aside the area 
under a special designation for future Congresses to determine whether 
it contains the quantities of oil that, if produced, would 
significantly enhance our national energy security.
  Mr. President, this legislation will also better enable the Secretary 
of the Interior to protect the Federal petroleum resources underlying 
the Coastal Plain. However, without knowing what those Federal 
resources are however, there is no way to protect them.
  Just last year a major oil discovery was announced on State lands 
immediately adjacent to the federal border. Production from this well 
could drain portions of the federal reserve without adequate 
compensation to the federal treasury.
  The Secretary has an obligation to protect the Federal resource 
underlying ANWR and this legislation will provide him the tools to do 
so.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that this 
bill is being pushed by those of us in Congress who believe that if you 
are to make a decision about the best use of our public lands that you 
should do so with the benefit of the best available science.
  It is not, as Secretary Babbitt has suggested, an effort being pushed 
by the petroleum industry.
                                 ______