Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 118 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 118 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9440-S9443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OIL CRISIS

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had a series of discussions with
my colleagues on the energy crisis in this country.
I think it is fair to make a broad statement relative to the crisis.
The crisis is real. We have seen it in our gasoline prices. We saw it
last week when oil hit an all-time high of $37 a barrel--the highest in
10 years. And now we are busy blaming each other for the crisis.
I think it is fair to say that our friends across the aisle have
taken credit for the economy because it occurred during the last 7
years. I also think it is fair that our colleagues take credit for the
energy crisis that has occurred because they have been here for the
last 7 years.
I have talked about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, what I consider
the insignificance of the drawdown, and the signal that it sends to
OPEC that, indeed, we are vulnerable at 58-percent dependence on
imported oil. That sends a message that we are willing to go into our
savings account.
What did we get out of that? We got about a 3- to 4-day supply of
heating oil. That is all. We use about a million barrels of heating oil
a day during the winter. That has to be taken out of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in crude form--30 million barrels--and transferred to
the refineries which are already operating at capacity because we
haven't had any new refineries built in this country in the last 15 to
20 years.
This is not the answer.
I am going to talk a little bit about one of the answers that should
be considered by this body and has been considered before. In fact, in
1995, the issue of opening up that small area of the Coastal Plain,
known as ANWR, came before this body. We supported it. The President
vetoed it. If we had taken the action to override that veto of the
President, or if the President had supported us, we would know what is
in this small area of the Coastal Plain. When I say ``small area,'' I
implore my colleagues to reflect on the realities.
Here is Alaska--one-fifth the size of the United States. If you
overlay Alaska on the map of the United States, it runs from Canada to
Mexico, and Florida to California. The Aleutian Islands go thousands of
miles further. There is a very small area near the Canadian border.
When I say ``small,'' I mean small in relationship to Alaska with 365
million acres.
But here we have ANWR in a little different proportion. This is where
I would implore Members to understand realities. This is 19 million
acres. This is the size of the State of South Carolina.
A few of the experts around here have never been there and are never
going to go there in spite of our efforts to get them to go up and take
a look.
Congress took responsible action. In this area, they created a refuge
of 9 million acres in permanent status. They made another withdrawal--
only they put it in a wilderness in permanent status with 78.5 million
acres, leaving what three called the 1002 area, which is 1\1/2\ million
acres.
That is this Coastal Plain. That is what we are talking about.
This general area up here--Kaktovik--is a little Eskimo village in
the middle of ANWR.
They say this is the ``Serengeti.'' There is a village in it. There
are radar sites in it. To suggest it has never been touched is
misleading.
Think for a moment. Much has been made of the crude oil prices
dropping $2 a barrel when the President tapped the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and released 30 million barrels of oil.
While I believe the price drop will only be temporary, I ask my
fellow Senators what the price of crude oil would be today if the
President had not vetoed opening up ANWR 6 years ago. It would have
been at least $10 less because we would have had another million-
barrel-a-day supply on hand.

What would prices be if OPEC and the world knew that potentially 1 to
2 million barrels a day of new oil was coming out of the ANWR Coastal
Plain, and not only for 3 or 4 or 15 days, but for decades?

[[Page S9441]]

Let me try to belie the myth of what is in ANWR in relationship to
Prudhoe Bay. This area of Prudhoe Bay has been supplying this Nation
with nearly 25 percent of its crude oil for almost two decades--2\1/2\
decades.
We built an 800-mile pipeline with the capacity of over 2 million
barrels. Today, that pipeline is flowing at 1 million barrels with the
decline of Prudhoe Bay.
You might not like oil fields but Prudhoe Bay is the finest oil field
in the world, bar none. I defy anybody to go up there and compare it
with other oil fields. The environmental sensitivity is unique because
we have to live by rules and regulations.
The point I want to make is when Prudhoe Bay was developed and this
pipeline was built at a cost of roughly $6.5 billion to nearly $7
billion, the estimate of what we would get out of the oil field was 9
billion barrels.
Here we are 23 or 24 years later, and we have gotten over 12 billion
barrels. It is still pumping at better than 1 million barrels a day.
The estimates up here range from a low of 5.7 billion to a high of 16
billion barrels--16 billion barrels. What does that equate to? It is
kind of in the eye of the beholder. Some say it would be a 200-day
supply--a 200-day supply of America's oil needs. They are basing their
estimates on old data of 3.2 billion barrels in ANWR, ignoring the most
recent estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey that there is a 5
percent chance of 16 billion barrels--that is at the high end with a
mean estimate of 10.3 billion barrels. That is the average. For the
sake of conversation, we might as well say a 10.3 billion barrel
average.
Under this argument, Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in the United
States, has only a 600-day supply. That is assuming all oil stops
flowing from all other places, and we have no other source of oil other
than Alaska. So those arguments don't hold water.
But the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club say it is only a 200-
day supply. It is only this, or it is only that; and using that logic,
the SPR is only a 15-day supply, in theory.
Let's make sure we keep this discussion where it belongs.
To give you some idea, in this 1002 area, in comparison to an eastern
seaboard State, let's take the State of Vermont, and say that there are
absolutely no other sources for oil in the entire Coastal Plain. If
this 1002 area was designated to fulfill Vermont's needs, that 200-day
supply is enough to heat homes and run equipment all over Vermont for
the next 197 years. So don't tell me that is insignificant. For New
Hampshire, for example, it would be 107 years.
The U.S. Geological Survey says that it would replace all of our
imports from Saudi Arabia for 11 years.
If it contains the maximum estimate of recoverable oil, it would
replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 30 years.
If the Arctic Coastal Plain could produce just 600,000 barrels a day,
the most conservative estimate--more likely it would produce 2 million
barrels a day--the area would be among the top 13 countries in the
world; just this area in terms of crude oil production.
At 2 million barrels a day, the Coastal Plain of ANWR itself would be
among the top eight oil-producing nations in the world. I am sick and
tired of hearing irresponsible statements from the environmental groups
that are lying to the American people.

We had a little discussion the other day on the floor. One of my
colleagues from Illinois said he ran into a CEO of a major oil company
of Chicago--he didn't identify who he was--and asked him how important
ANWR was to the future of the petroleum industry. The man from the
company said from his point of view it was nonsense, there are plenty
of sources of oil in the United States that are not environmentally
dangerous.
Where? Where? We can't drill off the Pacific coast. We can't drill
off the Atlantic coast. We can't drill offshore. We can only drill down
in the gulf, and now the Vice President wants to cancel leases down
there.
He further said he believes, and the man from Illinois agreed, we
don't have to turn to a wildlife refuge to start drilling oil in the
Arctic nor do we have to drill offshore.
If we are not going to drill offshore, where are we going to drill?
They won't let drilling occur in the Overthrust Belt. Mr. President, 64
percent has been ruled out--Wyoming, Colorado, Montana--to any
exploration.
The idea that these people don't identify where we are going to
drill, but are just opposed to it, is absolutely irresponsible. As a
consequence of not knowing whether we have this oil or not, we are not
doing a responsible thing in addressing whether we can count on this as
another Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
I have a presentation that I hope will catch some of the attention of
Members because there is an old saying from some of the environmental
groups: For Heaven's sake, there is 95 percent of the coastal plain
that is already open for oil and gas development.
Here is a picture of the coastal plain. It is important that the
public understand this: 95 percent is not open. Here is Canada. Here is
the ANWR area, 19 million acres, the coastal plain. This area is not
open. It is open in this general area. Then we have the National
Petroleum Reserve. This area is closed --this little bit of white area.
From Barrow to Point Hope is closed. I repeat, 95 percent isn't open.
The Administration prides itself on saying we have been responsible
in opening up areas of the National Petroleum Reserve, which is an old
naval petroleum reserve. A reserve is there for an emergency. We don't
know what is there. The areas that the oil company wanted to go in and
bid Federal leases, the Department of Interior wouldn't make available.
They made a few, it is a promising start, but let's open up a petroleum
reserve and find out whether we have the petroleum there. They won't do
that. They won't support us in opening up ANWR.
Only 14 percent of Alaska's coastal lands are open to oil and gas
exploration. Those are facts. I defy the environmental community, the
Sierra Club, or the Wilderness Society to counter those statements. The
breakdown: Prudhoe region, 14 percent; ANWR coastal plain, 11 percent;
ANWR wilderness, 5 percent; naval petroleum, 52 percent; and Western
North Slope, State, native private land, 18 percent. Ninety-five
percent is not open.
I am looking at ``The Scoop on Oil,'' Community News Line, Scripps
News Service, written obviously by the environmental community. It says
``And yet oil spills in Prudhoe Bay average 500 a year.''
They don't amount to 500 spills a year. They amount to 17,000 spills
a year--I see that has the attention of the Presiding Officer--because
in Prudhoe Bay they don't mention they have to report all spills of any
nonnaturally occurring substance, whether a spill of fresh water, a
half cup of lubricating oil, or a more significant spill. The vast
majority of spills at Prudhoe Bay have been fresh and salt water use in
conditioning on the ice roads and pads--not of chemicals or oil.
In 1993, the worst year in the past decade for spills at Prudhoe Bay,
there were 160 reported spills involving nearly 60,000 gallons of
material but only 2 spills involving oil. Those are the facts. And all
10 gallons went into secondary containment structures and were easily
cleaned.
Prudhoe Bay is the cleanest industrial zone in America. America
should understand this. What the environmental community has done is
found a cause, a cause for membership dollars. Our energy policy today
in this country is directed not by our energy needs but by the
direction of the environmental community. They accept no responsibility
for the pickle we are in with this energy crisis. This administration
has not fostered any domestic exploration program of any magnitude in
this country, as I have indicated, whether it be the Overthrust Belt or
elsewhere. They have limited excess activity to the Gulf of Mexico.
They have prohibited exploration in the high Arctic, as I have
indicated.
They have moved off oil and said: No more nuclear; we won't address
nuclear waste. My good friend from Nevada and I have had spirited
debate, but we are not expanding nuclear energy because we cannot
address what to do with the waste. Twenty percent of our power comes
from nuclear. We have not built a new coal-fired plant since the mid-
1990s. You cannot get a permit. We are talking of taking down hydro
dams because of the environmentalists, but

[[Page S9442]]

there is a tradeoff, as the occupant of the Chair from Oregon knows--
putting the traffic off the barges on to the highways. There is a
tradeoff.
If we take no hydro, no coal, no nuclear, no more imports of oil,
where does it go? It goes to natural gas. What about natural gas, the
cleanest fuel? Ten months ago, it was $2.16 per 1,000 cubic feet;
deliveries in November of $5.42--more than double. Where are we going
for energy? We are going to natural gas. That is the next train wreck
coming in this country. It will be severe. Fifty percent of the homes
in this country heat by natural gas--56 million homes. Heating bills
are going to be 40-percent higher in the Midwest this winter. We have a
different problem on the east coast where we don't have natural gas.
The train wreck is coming.
When I hear these ludicrous statements, this thing is garbage, it is
totally inaccurate. It says:

The oil industry's definition of ``environmentally
sensitive'' also differs quite radically from yours and mine.
How can thousands of caribou, polar grizzly bear, eagles,
birds and other species who survive in what has been dubbed
``America's Serengeti''. . . .

If you haven't been up there, this coastal plain is pretty much the
same all over. It is beautiful, it is unique. But it has some activity
with the villages and the radar sites, and you wouldn't know where you
were along this coastal plain because it is all the same.
They talk about dozens of oil fields. They say the road and pipelines
would stop the movement of wildlife from one part of the habitat to
another, toxic waste would leak. Let me show something about the
wildlife up here: This is Prudhoe Bay, and this is the wildlife. These
are not stuffed dummies, these are live caribou. They are wandering
around because nobody is shooting them. Nobody is running them down
with snow machines. This is Prudhoe Bay. We can do this in other areas
of Alaska.
According to the Wilderness Society, rivers, streambeds, key habitat
for wildlife, will be stripped by millions of tons of gravel roads. Let
me show a little bit about the technology today because it is
different. America should wake up and recognize this. This is a drill
pad in the Arctic today. There are no gravel roads. We have ice and
snow 9 months of the year. This is an ice road. That is the well.
Let me show the same place in the summertime, during the short
summer, which is 2\1/2\ months or thereabouts. This is after moving the
rig. There is the Christmas tree; there is the tundra. Do you see any
marks? Do you see any gravel roads? Do you see pipelines? No, we have
the technology, we can do it right. We could if the environmental
community would meet its responsibilities. As we look for sources of
energy, particularly oil, do we want to get it from the rain forests of
Colombia where nobody gives a rat's concern about the environment? They
just want the oil and to get it at any price, lay a pipeline anywhere.
Do you want to do it right here at home? I think it is time to come
to grips with these folks and ask them to stand behind their
assertions. They talk about millions of piles of gravel. We don't have
to do that anymore. They are talking about the living quarters of
thousands of workers and air pollution and death for the stunning
animals. They talk about the polar bear. The polar bear don't den on
land, they den on the ice.
I could go right down the list and state what is wrong with this
thing. It is irresponsible. They finish by saying it is a 90-day supply
of oil. That is just not accurate. It is not factual. The reality is,
if given the opportunity, we can turn this country around, keep these
jobs home.
I am going to tell you, one of the problems, of course, is with our
refining capacity because we are going to have to increase that. The
assertion is that some of these refineries were closed prior to the
Clinton-Gore administration. That is fine. But what have we done to
increase the refining capacity? Refining capacity has increased by less
than 1 percent while demand has increased 14 percent in this country.
What are the causes of price hikes? Let's go to EPA. We have nine
geographical regions in this country that require reformulated gas. I
am not going to question the merits of that, but I can tell you the
same gas in Springfield, IL, can't be used in Chicago. It costs more.
Is it necessary? I don't know, but it costs more because you have to
batch it.
We have talked about President Clinton's veto of ANWR 6 years ago,
and what it would do. We are addressing the national security of this
country as we look at depleting our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It
amazes me that nobody is upset about our increased dependence on oil
from Iraq, 750,000 barrels a day. Saddam Hussein finishes every speech:
``Death to Israel.'' If there was ever a threat to Israel's national
security, it is Saddam Hussein. He is developing a missile capability,
biological capability--what is it for? Well, it is not for good things.
As a consequence of that, we are seeing our Nation's increased
reliance on crude oil and refined product, increased vulnerability to
supply interruptions, and we are pulling down our reserves, and the
administration says it is doing something about it. But I would like to
know what. It vetoed ANWR, the opening of ANWR. It says we will get a
little bit out of SPR. It says we have a problem here, we have a
problem there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, here are the Iraqi oil exports into the
United States. They have gone up. Let me show some more charts because
pictures are worth a thousand words. People say we have to concern
ourselves with the issue of the porcupine caribou herd. This is ANWR,
Canada. This is the Demster Highway. These are oil wells drilled in
Canada. These in the light color were drilled. They didn't find any
oil, but this is the route of the caribou. They have gone through this
area. They cross the Demster Highway with no problem at all. The
caribou calve--where do they calve? Sometimes they calve in ANWR,
sometimes they do not. We are not going to have any oil development in
the summertime in the calving area.
This is what it is like over in Iraq. This is what it was like during
the Persian Gulf war. There we are trying to clean up the mess caused
by Saddam Hussein. That is the guy we are helping to support today, now
with biological capabilities.
There are a couple of more points I wish to make. Talk about
compatibility, here is something I think is fairly compatible. This
shows a couple of guys out for a walk--3 bears. Why are they walking on
the pipeline? The pipeline is warm. This is in the Prudhoe Bay oil
field. Nobody is shooting those guys. They are happy. They walk over.
I can remember 15 years ago when they said: You build that pipeline
and you are going to cut the State in half. The caribou, the moose will
never go over from the other side. It just did not happen. It will not
happen because these guys are compatible with the environment, as long
as you don't harm them, chase them, run them down and so forth.
We have a lot of things going here, given the opportunity. If these
Members would go back, if you will, to your environmental critics and
say: What do you suggest? Can American technology overcome, if you
will, our environmental obligation? Can we open up this area safely? Do
we have the science and technology? There is nothing to suggest that we
do not have that capability.
This is where we are getting our oil from now, with no environmental
conscience about how they are getting it out of the ground. That is
irresponsible on their part.
I am going to leave you with one thought. Here are the people with
whom I am concerned. Those are the people who live in my State. This is
in a small village. These are the kids walking down the street. It is
snowing, it is cold, it is tough. It is a tough environment.
One of my friends, Oliver Leavitt, spoke about life in Barrow. That
is at the top of the world, right up here. You can't go any further
north or you fall off the top. He said I could come to the DIA school
to keep warm because the first thing I did every morning was go out on
the beach and pick up the driftwood. Of course, there are no trees. The
driftwood has to come down the river.

[[Page S9443]]

Jacob Adams said:

I love life in the Arctic but it's harsh, expensive, and
for many, short. My people want decent homes, electricity and
education. We do not want to be undisturbed. Undisturbed
means abandoned. It means sod huts and deprivation.

The native people of the Coastal Plain are asking for the same right
of the Audubon Society of Louisiana, the same right this administration
itself is supporting in the Russian Arctic Circle, and the same right
the Gwich'ins had in 1984 when they offered to lease their lands.
The oil companies should have bought it. There just wasn't any oil
there.
I recognize the public policy debate about this issue is complex and
will involve issues at the heart of the extreme environmental agenda
which is driving our energy policy. It certainly is not relieving it.
At the same time, I think the issue can be framed simply as: Is it
better to give the Inupiat people, the people of the Arctic, this
right?
These people live up here. This is an Eskimo village. There is the
village. Do you want to give them the right, while promoting a strong
domestic energy policy that safeguards our environment and our national
security, rather than rely on the likes of Saddam Hussein to supply the
energy?
The answer in my mind is clear, as well as in the minds of the
Alaskans.

____________________