[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 29632-29633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS ARE RAISED BY THE MERGER OF ARCO WITH 
                                BP AMOCO

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 10, 1999

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a number of questions have been raised by 
the proposed acquisition of ARCO by BP Amoco. Mega-mergers are always 
matters of considerable concern because of their potential economic and 
business impacts. In this case, however, there are serious 
environmental questions that need to be considered seriously. ARCO is a 
major participant in Alaskan oil exploration and recovery, and the 
merged company will have enormous influence in that region. For this 
reason, it is important that we consider the environmental impacts of 
this merger.
  Mr. Speaker, the record of BP Amoco in Bolivia, for example, causes 
me to have very grave reservations about this merger and its impact in 
Alaska. Pan-American Energy, a South American subsidiary of BP Amoco, 
is allegedly responsible for contaminating the drinking water supply of 
a rural Bolivian town. The consistent failure of BP Amoco to deal with 
this relatively small issue in Bolivia raises serious questions in my 
mind about the firm's environmental sensitivity.
  Mr. Speaker, these environmental concerns are serious and deserve our 
careful consideration. I would like to call the attention of my 
colleagues to an excellent op-ed by Mr. Adam Kolton, the Arctic 
Campaign Director of the Alaska Wilderness League, which focuses on the 
negative environmental implications of BP Amoco-ARCO merger. I insert 
the text of Mr. Kolton's article in the Record, and I urge my 
colleagues to give it careful attention.

As BP Amoco and ARCO Merger Nears, Future of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge 
                             Is Endangered

                            (By Adam Kolton)

  BP Amoco's pending acquisition of ARCO will give the newly-merged 
company an enormous presence in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
and an opportunity to preserve that ecologically fragile coastal plain 
for future generations.
  As the merger negotiations proceed, so should worldwide public 
scrutiny of BP Amoco's plans for oil exploration in the refuge. The 
Arctic Refuge is the only conservation area in the United States that 
safeguards a complete range of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. It is 
home to more than 200 species of wildlife, including the largest 
international migratory caribou herd in the world, denning polar bears, 
rare musk oxen, and hundreds of thousands of migratory birds. The 
refuge is an international treasure.
  It is no secret that BP Amoco is lobbying hard to drill in the 
coastal plain, and it's certain

[[Page 29633]]

that such drilling will seriously harm the environment in that 
environmentally fragile area.
  More drilling for oil in Alaska is one of the oil industry's 
priorities. Both BP Amoco and ARCO are members of Arctic Power, a lobby 
group supported by the oil industry and the state government of Alaska. 
Arctic Power has only one agenda item--to lobby Congress to open up the 
coastal plain for oil and gas drilling.
  BP Amoco's acquisition of ARCO is before The United States Federal 
Trade Commission. It is our hope that BP Amoco's poor environmental 
record will be considered as the merger approval process proceeds. 
Better still, BP Amoco could avoid great embarrassment, and set an 
example as an international environmental leader, by canceling its 
dangerous plans to drill for oil on the coastal plain.
  Such drilling would scar the coastal plain for decades. One need look 
no further than Prudhoe Bay, the area to the west of the refuge and 
starting point for the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Development at 
Prudhoe Bay has permanently altered more than 400 square miles of 
pristine wilderness. The area is now one of the world's largest 
industrial complexes with more than 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines 
and thousands of acres of industrial facilities. In 1997 alone, about 
500 oil spills occurred at this site, involving 80,000 gallons of oil, 
diesel fuel, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid, produced 
water and other materials.
  Does Alaska need more of this type of environmental degradation? 
Opening the coastal plain to drilling will result in more of the same.


                   The BP Amoco Environmental Record

  In Alaska and throughout the world, BP Amoco is not what its 
advertisements proclaim. Recent drilling activities in Bolivia resulted 
in serious water contamination. BP Amoco's drilling subcontractor there 
refused to continue work, as he became aware of BP Amoco's disregard 
for the water supply when drilling for oil in South America.
  BP Amoco this year pled guilty to a felony charge of dumping 
hazardous waste in Prudhoe Bay, and was fined $22 million. Doyon 
Drilling, a BP subcontractor, was recently fined $3 million after being 
found guilty of illegally injecting hazardous waste back into the 
groundwater at the company's Endicott Field along Alaska's North Slope. 
The hazardous waste eventually reached the surface and contaminated the 
surrounding Beaufort Sea. The company pleaded to 15 misdemeanor counts 
of violating conditions of the federal Clean Water Act, and was placed 
on probation for five years for ordering workers to dump thousands of 
gallons of toxic waste into unprotected well shafts.
  The BP Amoco merger would effectively end competition for oil on the 
North Slope of Alaska. BP Amoco/ARCO would effectively control 74 
percent of all Alaska oil activities, 72 percent of the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline, and all North Slope oil extraction. Should a company with an 
abysmal environmental record have undue control over the one of the 
world's greatest natural treasures, Alaska?
  We think not. The record speaks for itself, and the future of an 
internationally significant environmental refuge is at stake.

                          ____________________