[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S115-S116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
  S. 49. A bill to provide a leasing program within the Coastal Plain, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to once again open a small 
portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil 
and gas development. I am introducing the bill because, now more than 
ever, new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my state's 
future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security.
  It has been known for more than nearly 4 decades that the 1.5 million 
acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the northern one-
eleventh of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are the most 
prospective lands in North America for a major conventional oil and gas 
discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this 
part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the 
coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--has a mean likelihood of 
containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 
16 billion barrels of oil. Even the relatively recent major finds in 
North Dakota's Bakken field and the recent estimates of shale oil in 
Texas' Wolfcamp formation pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold 
over three times more conventional oil than any other onshore energy 
deposit in North America.
  In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that 
the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain 
almost as much oil. However, early this decade the U.S. Geological 
Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23 million acre 
reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion 
barrels as forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 
million barrels--a dramatic downward revision. While I still believe 
oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development 
of satellite fields must be allowed to occur, the revised forecast 
means that opening a small area on shore to the east on the coastal 
plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national 
security interests.
  That is especially the case given that President Obama late last year 
closed almost all of Alaska's outer continental shelf oil and gas 
deposits to future exploration and development. That makes production 
of onshore deposits even more vital for Alaska's economic future, and 
for the Nation's long-term energy security.
  America once received more than 10 percent of its daily domestic oil 
production from fields in Alaska. You heard correctly, production 
already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and has for nearly 40 years. We have 
successfully balanced resource development with environmental 
protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those 
endeavors are not mutually exclusive.
  Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope 
production has declined for years and now accounts for just under 5 
percent of the Nation's daily production. It is now forecast to decline 
further to levels next decade that will threaten the continued 
operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would 
shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate 
Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our 
energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world, 
especially once oil shale production peaks in the Lower 48 States.

[[Page S116]]

  Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no 
matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial 
amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce at 
home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment 
levels, and the world's environment will be. To help meet future demand 
both here in America and throughout the rest of the world, and to help 
avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of supply disruptions, we 
need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online, as 
soon as possible.
  ANWR development will provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. 
Let's examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 
10 billion barrels, at even today's $50 per barrel price, means that 
there is half a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this 
small area in northern Alaska--and even more when prices rebound. That 
is half a trillion taxable dollars, and it is difficult to calculate or 
even fathom the corporate and payoll taxes that this would generate for 
our treasury. But we do know that there are hundreds of billions of 
dollars in pure Federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of 
the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current 
law allows.
  As our Nation grapples with a huge budget deficit, nearly $20 
trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize new 
energy development, it is folly for America to further delay new 
onshore oil development from Alaska. The question is no longer, 
``Should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``Can we afford not 
to?''
  I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to 
development in this region. The outgoing administration has attempted 
to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal 
plain--proposing to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness--
but also has proposed to impede oil and even natural gas development 
from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort 
and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it 
ignores the Nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact 
that Arctic oil production can proceed without any significant 
environmental impact. Our development has coexisted productively with 
polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other 
form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my 
legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, 
extended reach drilling, three- and four-dimensional seismic testing, 
and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan 
energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the 
environment.
  For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the 
coastal plain of ANWR to development. At the same time, I am again 
focusing and narrowing that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 
1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, 
pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be impacted. 
For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is roughly the size of National 
Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the state 
of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map.
  Limiting development to such a small area is important. It will help 
guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural 
state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar 
bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent 
environmental standards.
  The bill, named the Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act, AOGPA, which 
is being cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan, 
also includes guaranteed finding to mitigate any impacts in the region, 
and guarantees that the Federal Government will receive half of all 
revenues generated.
  For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR 
development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in 
the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is 
possible to develop oil and gas from the coastal plain with little or 
no impact on the area and its wildlife.
  At this time of unsustainable debt, and an unstable global 
environment, we need to pursue domestic development opportunities more 
than ever. My ANWR bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own 
energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-
friendly way. I hope this Congress, given the new administration that 
will soon take office, will have the common sense to allow America to 
help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is 
critical to my state and the Nation as a whole. And with this in mind, 
I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will 
show why such development should occur, why it must occur, and how it 
can benefit our Nation at a time when we need the domestic jobs and 
energy security that ANWR will produce.
                                 ______