ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

OIL AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

PART II

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Melcher (chairman) presiding.

Mr. MELCHER. The committee will come to order. We will continue with the hearings on H.R. 1893, H.R. 4651, and related bills.

We have a new bill assigned to the committee, H.R. 7851, to provide for a study of the availability of a route for a trans-Canadian oil pipeline to transmit petroleum from the North Slope of Alaska to the continental United States and for other purposes.

Without objection, I will make that bill a part of the record at this point.

Hearing no objection, so ordered. [H.R. 7851 follows:]

[ocr errors]

[H.R. 7851, 93d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide for a study of the availability of a route for a trans-Canada oll pipeline to transmit petroleum from the North Slope of Alaska to the continental United States, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Act of 1973."

FINDINGS

SEC. 2. The Congress hereby finds that

(a) Energy sources are in short supply and the Congress should act to hasten the recovery of underground petroleum reserves on the North Slope of Alaska;

(b) the principal alternative routes for constructing a transmission system for such recovery are a proposed trans-Alaska pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez and thence by oceangoing tanker to the West Coast of the United States, or a pipeline from the North Slope through northeastern Alaska and thence through Canada to the midwest area of the United States;

(c) the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez has already been the subject of thorough and intensive study;

(d) the trans-Canada route for the pipeline should be thoroughly and objectively reviewed also, and diplomatic problems arising from the adoption of such a route should be identified and clarified; and

(e) a comparison of the studies of both routes should thoroughly consider and examine the environmental effects, economic costs, and national security aspects of both routes.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 3. Because congressional action will be required before any delivery system for North Slope oil and natural gas can be constructed, the Congress hereby seeks to obtain sufficient information about the availability of an allland trans-Alaska-Canada utility corridor to to enable it to resolve a matter of national importance and to approve a delivery system for North Slope oil and natural gas which would best serve the overall national interest.

ASSESSMENT STUDY

SEC. 4. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Comptroller") is authorized and directed to conduct a thorough study of an overland pipeline route from the North Slope across northeastern Alaska and through Canada to the midwest section of the United States for recovering and delivering to the continental United States petroleum reserves located on the North Slope of Alaska. In addition, the Comptroller shall make an objective comparison study of the trans-Canada pipeline route with the trans-Alaska pipeline route, including marine transport to the continental United States.

(b) The Comptroller shall report his findings and conclusions, based on the studies authorized by this section, to the Congress, and shall file a final report, based on such study, with the Congress by January 1, 1974, or by the end of the one hundred and eighty-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. In conducting the comparison study authorized by the last sentence of subsection (a), giving equal consideration to the environmental impact, economic cost, and national security aspects of the two principal alternative routes, the Comptroller shall

(1) Identify and define those market areas in the continental United States that are expected to experience the greatest immediate and longrange demand for petroleum; and

(2) determine whether an Alaskan oil pipeline-oceangoing tanker system or an overland Canadian pipeline system is the better system of delivery for such North Slope petroleum in order to meet the demand for such petroleum.

(c) In conducting the studies authorized by this section the Comptroller shall enter into such contracts with the National Academy of Sciences, and such other persons, institutions, or agencies as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(d) The Comptroller is authorized to secure from any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government any information he deems necessary to earry out his functions under this Act. Upon request of the Comptroller, the head of any Federal department, agency, or instrumentality is authorized (1) to furnish the Comptroller such information as may be necessary for carrying out his functions to the extent it is available to or procurable by such department, agency, or instrumentality and (2) to detail to temporary duty with the Comptroller, on a reimbursable basis, such personnel within his administrative jurisdiction as the Comptroller requests, each such detail to be without the loss of seniority, pay, or other employee status.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA

SEC. 5. The Secretary of the Interior, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, and such other Federal officials as may be appropriate, are authorized and directed to enter into negotiations with the Government of Canada to determine the feasibility and availability of a right-of-way across Canadian territory for the construction and operation of transmission facilities for the petroleum reserves on the North Slope of Alaska. The Secretary and such other Federal officials shall report the results of their negotiations to the Congress and to the Comptroller no later than November 1, 1973, or by the end of the four-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

FILING OF REPORTS

SEC. 6. All reports required by this Act to be filed with the Congress shall be filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.

GRANTING OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY

SEC. 7. Notwithstanding any other law, rule of law, or any order or decision of any court, no order or rule of the Secretary of the Interior, or of any other Federal agency or officer of the United States, granting a right-of-way, easement, or special land use permit, respecting any Federal land, for the construction and operation of a pipeline for the transmission of petroleum from the North Slope in Alaska shall take effect until after January 1, 1974, or until after the end of the one hundred and eighty-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. As soon as practicable after the end of the sixty-day period (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and days on which either House is not in session) beginning on the day the Comptroller files his final report, the Secretary of the Interior shall, according to applicable provisions of law, upon application grant such rights-of-way or easements, and issue such special land use permits, with respect to any Federal land, as may be necessary to construct, operate, and maintain a petroleum transmission system along the route determined by the Comptroller, as a result of the study authorized and directed by section 4 of this Act, to be the better of the two principal alternative routes, unless the Congress, during such period adopts a concurrent resolution, according to the procedure specified in section 8, disapproving such route. If the Congress does adopt such a resolution within such sixty-day period, then the Secretary shall, according to applicable provisions of law, upon application, grant such easements or rights-of-way, and issue such special land use permits, with respect to any Federal land, as may be necessary to construct, operate, and maintain a petroleum transmission system along the other principal alternative route studied by the Comptroller under section 4 of this Act. All such rights-of-way, easements, or special land use permits, issued by the Secretary as provided in this section, may be granted or issued for such width as the Secretary of the Interior determines necessary and without regard to the provisions of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185).

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON PETROLEUM TRANSMISSION

SEC. 8. (a) This section is enacted by Congress

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions described by this section; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) With full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

(b) For the purpose of this Act, "resolution" means only a concurrent resolution, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: "That the Congress disapproves the route for the development of a transmission method for the delivery of North Slope petroleum described as follows:

the blank space therein being appropriately filled; but does not include a concurrent resolution which specifies more than one plan.

(c) A resolution with respect to a petroleum transmission plan shall be referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, or the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the Senate, by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be.

(d) If the committee to which a resolution with respect to a petroleum transmission plan has been referred has not reported it at the end of ten calendar days after its introduction, it is in order to move either to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution or to discharge the committee from further consideration of any other resolution with respect to the petroleum transmission plan which has been referred to the committee.

(e) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring the resolution, is highly privileged (except that it may not be made after the committee has reported a resolution with respect to the same plan), and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than one hour, to be divided equally

between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.

(f) If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, the motion may not be renewed, nor may another motion to discharge the committee be made with respect to any other resolution with respect to the same plan.

(g) When the committee has reported, or has discharged from further consideration of, a resolution with respect to a petroleum transmission plan, it is at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by when the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.

(h) Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not more than ten hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate is not debatable. An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.

(i) Motions to postpone, made with respect to the discharge from committee, or the consideration of, a resolution with respect to a petroleum transmission plan, and motions to proceed to the consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate.

(j) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution with respect to a petroleum transmission plan shall be decided without debate.

Mr. MELCHER. We have had a request from Carl E. Bagge, president of the National Coal Association, asking that the attached statement by Mr. Bagge be made a part of the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

[The documents follow:]

STATEMENT BY CARL E. BAGGE, PRESIDENT, National Coal
ASSOCIATION

My name is Carl E. Bagge. I am the president of the National Coal Association, which represents the major coal producing and coal sales companies of the nation. The coal industry welcomes the opportunity to present its views on the proposed removal of the 50-foot right-of-way restriction to permit the timely construction of the Alaskan pipeline.

The National Coal Association supports legislation which will permit the timely construction of the Alaskan pipeline. For the reasons set forth, we believe this to be in the national interest and consistent with the long-standing position of the National Coal Association that the fullest development of America's indigenous energy resources should be an urgent national priority.

This position might seem at odds with the mandate of the National Coal Association-to promote coal. However, we believe that careful analysis fully justifies our decision to support legislation to permit the transporting of domestic oil and natural gas across public lands. In addition to the indigenous resource argument cited above, this issue is vital to the coal industry because coal is the future feedstock for both oil and pipeline gas.

Our dependence on foreign energy is already growing at an alarming degree. During 1972 the U.S. imported more than 25% of its total national petroleum demand. Much of this total was in the form of residual fuel oil, a direct competitor of coal in the utility, industrial and commercial markets.

The impact of these imports has been devastating upon the coal industry. Coal has lost major markets along the East Coast to foreign residual oil and has, for all practical purposes, ceased to be a major competitive factor there. Now the impact of foreign oil is reaching inland and is threatening the very existence of large segments of the nation's coal industry.

Environmental standards have been the major cause of the acceleration in foreign oil imports. Stringent sulfur limitations have excluded coal from many of its traditional markets. In the absence of adequate pollution control technol

ogy the only viable alternative has been oil-imported oil. Still more stringent sulfur limitations scheduled to go into effect between now and 1975 will tend to accelerate the trend toward imported oil. Moreover, the uncertainty surrounding surface mining creates an additional impetus for increasing oil imports.

The cost of our increasing dependence on imported oil is considerable. From a balance of payments standpoint alone about $4 billion went into foreign treasuries during 1972, a major threat to international monetary stability. More significant, however, was the decline in America's ability to expand its indigenous fuel capability to meet domestic demands. As domestic capability atrophied, the nation moved further along the road to foreign fuel dependence. Our future energy situation will be more critical unless there is a major shift in national energy policy and a conscious decision to develop indigenous resources. Predictions by others indicate that imported oil may exceed 50% of our total oil consumption by 1985. Imported liquid natural gas from both North Africa and the Soviet Union is a distinct threat to the viability of our domestic energy base. The shift from Western Hemishere oil sources to the Mid-East poses significant diplomatic and military questions. Finally, the magnitude of our balance of payments potential problems looms in catastrophic proportions. This could amount to more than $30 billion by 1985.

The alternative is indigenous resource development. We must maximize our coal, oil, natural gas, and oil shale resources. We must, as a nation, commit ourselves to such development within the context of environmental quality.

Alaskan oil is one such indigenous resource. It is available, and although it will not, by itself, solve our long-term petroleum supply problem it nonetheless is a major new domestic reserve. Naturally, it is a competitor of coal and we must be prepared to meet it in the market place. It is domestic competition, however, and the alternative-more foreign oil-is a circumstance we believe is clearly not in the public interest.

Our basic concern here is the recent decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which has blocked the timely development of an essential domestic energy resource. The thrust of that action clearly at odds with the best interests of energy consumers, the nation's fuel industries, their employees, and we believe, the nation at large.

The action of the court in this case is directly parallel to similar actions taken against the energy industries in recent years. For example, there is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court a lower court ruling which, if upheld, would prevent the construction and operation of coal fired power plants.

Combined with other events, such as the non-degradation suit now before the Supreme Court, the Alaskan oil pipeline decision could severely cripple America's indigenous energy resource base. As the members of this committee are well aware, such a series of events would place this country in a subservient role to foreign fuel suppliers, thereby subjecting the security of our energy supply to the whims of foreign nations, and the uncertainties of international politics.

In many respects, coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, oil shale, and water power are inextricably intertwined as part of the energy base upon which America must grow

That is why we are here today in support of legislative efforts to permit the timely construction of the Alaskan pipeline.

For the record we have attached a statement by the associations representing America's major fuel interests. This statement sets forth the elements which we feel should be included in a unified energy program.

This was done because the associations involved recognized a mutual interest in indigenous resource development even though we must and should compete for our individual shares of America's energy market.

We agree with and urge passage of legislation which would allow the use of sufficient land to permit the construction, operation, and maintenance of new pipelines across federal lands. Such construction and operation should be within the context of proper environmental safeguards. We do not profess to be experts in what those safeguards should be, nor can we suggest to you what must be done to protect the environment in the instance of the pipeline under discussion. We do believe, however, that narrowly construed width restrictions do not justify forestalling the development of needed energy distribution systems.

Coal, like all other forms of energy which have the potential to be transported by pipeline, must concern itself with the apparent initial intent of this

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »