[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Page 18039]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION FOR DEFENSE DISTRICT 5

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Now, Mr. President, I would like to turn quickly to a 
Department of Energy proposal to construct a new petroleum product 
reserve on the west coast. We call this PADD 5, short for Petroleum 
Administration for Defense District 5. PADD 5 is important because it 
consumes 17 percent of the Nation's gasoline, 13 percent of its diesel 
fuel, and 30 percent of its jet fuel.
  At the same time, PADD 5 is geographically isolated, according to the 
Energy Information Administration. The approximately 30 refineries 
operating on the west coast are responsible for supplying nearly all of 
its petroleum products.
  The argument for a product reserve is relatively straightforward. 
Because PADD 5 is separated from the rest of the country by the Rocky 
Mountains and from the world by the Pacific Ocean, a stockpile of 
refined fuel should be established. That is the argument that is out 
there. I don't oppose a study of this concept, but I can see the 
pitfalls out there. PADD 5 imports over 1 million barrels of crude oil 
and petroleum products each day, suggesting that it really is not cut 
off from the world in the first place. And bear in mind the size of the 
district that we are talking about. Any stockpile would have to be 
really enormous to have significant impact.
  Finally, would Federal gasoline reserves supplement or replace 
commercial stocks? That is a question that needs to be asked.
  So perhaps the solution is not a refined product reserve at all but 
instead a return to basics, and that basic is crude oil. After all, 
there are reasons we chose crude oil instead of the products when we 
first created the Reserve. By and large, that rationale hasn't changed. 
First, oil is better suited, chemically and economically, for long-term 
storage underground, we don't have seasonal specifications on oil as we 
do on gasoline, and oil can be processed into an array of products 
while gasoline cannot.
  Very quickly, taking this back to Alaska, a gasoline reserve on the 
west coast of any size would be small potatoes when compared to the 
incredible resource base we have in Alaska. For decades now, tankers 
have shipped North Slope crude to the line of refineries that stretch 
from Anacortes, WA, down to Los Angeles. Drivers up and down the coast 
fuel their cars with gasoline that is refined from this Alaskan oil 
every day.
  Alaska North Slope crude oil is chemically similar to the kinds of 
oil stored in the SPR. In fact, according to the Department of Energy, 
over 30 million barrels of Alaskan oil have been stored in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. West coast refineries are optimized to run 
Alaskan crude. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is only pumping about 
500,000 barrels per day, down from 2 million barrels per day at its 
peak. So there is plenty of room in our already built, already 
operating pipeline. The problem is--and you have heard me say this 
before--the Federal Government controls some 60 percent of the land in 
our State. More than 10 billion barrels of oil are buried under our 
onshore Federal lands alone, to say nothing of what is held in our 
offshore waters but remain almost universally inaccessible to American 
explorers and producers. That includes about 10 billion barrels in the 
nonwilderness portion of ANWR, where we are asking for permission to 
develop 2,000 acres or 0.01 percent of the surface of the refuge. That 
is all we are asking to access. Beyond our ANWR resources, we have at 
least another 900 million barrels in our National Petroleum Reserve, 
which is an area that is specifically reserved for development. The 
estimate on the 900 million barrels there is that it is likely far too 
low.
  For the record, I would add that Alaskans overwhelmingly support 
development of both of these areas. More than 70 percent of Alaskans 
want development, understanding the significant economic benefits it 
will bring and the strong record of environmental stewardship we have 
in the State.
  We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to develop our 
resources in order to create jobs, generate revenues, and bolster our 
Nation's security and competitiveness. By doing this, we can actually 
address not just one but two threats: First, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
is just one-third full; in large part because of the anti-energy 
decisions made by this administration and the west coast is more 
vulnerable to supply disruptions as a result of falling production.
  You think about a crisis situation in the Middle East. The west coast 
will need more oil. Its refineries are ready to run Alaskan crude and 
Alaskans are ready to ship it, but there is nothing to ship because the 
oil is still in the ground and there is no way to transport it from the 
North Slope to the terminals along the southern coast of the State.
  I am not talking about keeping our oil in pristine condition, never 
to be used. Energy is not fine china that you keep up on a shelf. The 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not a petroleum preserve. Our strategic 
stocks, barrels ready to go, should rarely be tapped, but Alaskan 
resources are already part of the daily life of Californians, 
Hawaiians. The resource must be accessible, though, but first they need 
to be accessed.
  Opening Alaska's resources now would ensure that more oil is 
transported through TAPS. A healthy pipeline would ensure that oil can 
be shipped from Alaska to fuel the west coast refineries when they need 
it and help ensure that energy remains affordable for the west coast.
  Instead of constructing an entirely new product reserve, as some are 
contemplating, perhaps what we should do is preserve the infrastructure 
we have already built and leverage it to boost our energy security. Why 
would we want to build a reserve when you can prevent a shortage in the 
first place by letting a State that wants to produce oil go ahead and 
produce the oil? To me that is sound, strategic thinking. That would be 
a policy that benefits us instead of simply costing more money that we 
don't have. That is the kind of thinking that I believe our Nation and 
our future generations should have.

                          ____________________