[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.

                          ____________________