Page images
PDF
EPUB

We tried to make it very clear in connection with my bill that among other things we are trying to correct the inability to deal with the situation beyond 25 feet on either side and in addition, of course, we do provide for common carrier rights to protect, particularly the independent oil operator and other independent gas operators and so on.

Now, what I want to ask you is this:

Do you favor the pipeline going through Canada as opposed to going through Alaska? What is the position of the Sierra Club?

Mr. Evans. Our basic position all the way through this, Mr. Chairman, has been that at the present time in the present state of technology, the route proposed and the methods proposed for the pipeline across Alaska are obviously environmentally disastrous from all standpoints. What we would like to have as an alternative is to have a fair study of other less environmentally damaging methods.

The CHAIRMAN. In the meantime, we have all these tankers coming in from abroad and one-fourth of our oil reserves up there and the longer we delay the more it impairs our dollar, the balance of payments, and the more costly it is going to be for the American consumer.

Mr. Evans. We do not think it is necessary to get it out by tearing up the North the way the pipeline will do. The CHAIRMAN. How would you get the oil out of Alaska!

Mr. Evans. In my office about 2 months ago, in Seattle, came a corporation which other witnesses will speak about which demonstrated a way of getting it out without a pipeline. Here is an example that I would strongly urge your committee to stress.

The CHAIRMAN. What I am leading up to is, of course, in order to move the oil from the field it is going to have to go across public lands and a 25 foot right-of-way on each side makes it impossible to do that.

How would you get the oil out of the fields ? That is what I am getting at. If you go through Canada you have to have this legislation, how are you going to get it out of the field physically?

Mr. Evans. The first thing I have to say is that I do not think we have this urgency to get it out, we have some time.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me tell you what the problem is. Last year we imported 27 percent of all oil from abroad. This year it is 35 and by the end of this this decade it will be 60 percent. I am trying to get a solution to this problem and how are we going to move that oil without an inordinate delay!

Mr. Evans. Remember, we have a minimum of 4 years if we started building the pipeline tomorrow. We are talking about 2 billion barrels a day at the maximum of Alaskan oil, this is only a drop in the bucket compared to what we are going to import. I would like to come back, if I could, and state that we have technology now, if that is the problem.

The pipeline companies say they have to build a pipeline with this kind of method, with this kind of road, and this right-of-way. I think others will point out to you that other technology exists. I want to stress that our position has never been that the oil should not ever come out of Alaska. Our position as a responsible environmental group has to be to point out to you the environmental damage that will happen by this method.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if it is not going to move overland, it will come down by tanker of some kind. Now, we have a group saying you should not use tankers. That is, if you go by tanker, you create the possibility of damage. This is what makes this problem very difficult when we are honestly trying in this committee-in connection with the energy crisis trying to find a way that will be environmentally acceptable to solve this energy problem.

You know, I have great respect for the views of the Sierra Club, with which I am in agreement most of the time, but this poses, I think, a real problem. How you are going to move it out of those fields. Even to get it out aboard ship, you have to go over public land.

Without that authority, I do not see how you can do anything.

Anyway, the other point that you mention about the giveawayand I agree with you—the fact that companies can go over public lands without paying a fee is wrong. We propose in this legislation to correct that, if you recall. Isn't that long overdue! At the present time all you have to do is apply, I think, to the Secretary to get a permit to go over Federal lands. You do not have to pay a dime. Maybe you

. have to pay a filing fee—I do not know what that is—50 cents. I think that is wrong and we propose to correct that in this legislation.

Mr. Evans. We hope the fees, if something like this ever becomes law, are certainly adequate and not typical of some others in our past experience.

But that is not the only aspect of the giveaway. There is great danger to other public resources. I note there are some indemnity provisions in the present legislation. One of the problems we have with the road that the pipeline companies say they want is that it will open up the Brooks Range and other places on the way to the oil fields. How are we going to indemnify for that?

The CHAIRMAX. You know I am working on some legislation to set aside—we set aside 80 million acres and those areas have to be identified, and I want to see them preserved. But what I am getting at is something very simple. Unless you say that the oil should not be moved, you do need authority, on the basis of the circuit court's opinion, to move that oil whether it is by tanker up there or by way of Canada; there is no way legally. I have been away from the practice of law for a long time, but I think it is pretty clear that it would be a tresnass if you go beyond 25 feet.

This is the crucial issue. No matter how you face it, there is no way in which you can move that oil even aboard tankers because there is Federal land through this whole area, and you would be in violation. So we have to resolve the courts judgment in that case, which this committee, by the way, made it very clear. The staff was in touch with the Department and itnerested parties 2 or 3 years ago and warned there were legal questions concerning the limitation of 25 feet op each side of the right-of-way.

I would make the other observation, too, when the 25-foot limitation was put in, technology was at a different 'threshold back in the 1920's than what it is now. One of the things we are looking at in order to save land is to have larger rights-of-way in which you can concentrate a larger energy load over that right-of-way. So you do not have a whole series of lines going in every direction.

I think one of the most important conservation measures to protect public lands and protect areas of great importance is that we do a better job of trying to take a powerline, for example, to concentrate the amount of energy moving into a more limited space. This can only come, as you know, through research and development and through better technology. But it is better to have a wider right-of-way than 25 feet than to have 10 of them at 25 feet. That is what I am trying to get at, and criss-crossing and messing up the whole landscape.

Mr. Evans. I know how much all of this concerns you. I heard you give a very forceful speech the other day on the whole subject of energy. On the subject of corridors, I think maybe we are putting the cart before the horse. The system proposed by your bill seems to be that we are going to wait for applications from certain companies, and then decide. Also, we hope if something is done with this legislation, certainly the provisions should be strengthened and tightened up for corridors. If I recall the words now, it just says, “where practical."

We think again this gets back to the discretionary aspect we are talking about.

I would like to touch on tankers briefly, if I can. I have been a resident of Puget Sound for a long time, and so have you. You are probably aware of the Honeywell Corp. computer studies which predicted three to four tanker disasters if oil tanker continues to increase at the present rate. It, of course, assumes Alaska tanker traffic. I think you have a special problem when you have fisheries and other resources along the whole northwest coast. This is one of the things that really bothers us about the present route of the tanker lines.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think the tankers should be going into Puget Sound but we do have legislation pending for outloading of oil on the coastal areas of the country. But you see, we have to make a choice here. It seems to me, with all of this oil coming in, the studies show your biggest pollution in the ocean occurs from oil tankers operating on the high seas.

Second is the ditching of crankcase oil. What I am saying is that if we are going to depend more and more on imports, and we can't idly discount this field, we are talking conservatively of 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska.

I think that is an accurate conservative estimate. The total reserve last year was 40 billion; I notice the latest is down to 36 or 37 billion barrels, total U.S. reserves.

All I am trying to say is here we are sitting up here in a responsible way trying to deal with the energy problem and we are confronted with a situation where these tankers are going to come into all of these places. How are they going to get the oil in?

For instance, on the east coast, 80 percent of all of the oil consumed on the east coast is imported. Now, the curve is straight on up, imports. That is tankers—this, I think, is the problem that we face. I want you to know where we are sitting—the buck stops here. It is in that context that we are trying to resolve this problem and, as you know, I have insisted that the National Environmental Policy Act must be adhered to. We made that clear in the bill.

This does not in any way denegate the requirements of NEPA and I want to see that the requirements of NEPA are adhered to.

I appreciate having your comments, and I know how you feel about it, and I wanted you to know how I feel about the problem we are facing trying to come up with some responsible answers.

Mr. Evans. I do appreciate how you feel about it and I hope that the committee can keep in mind that other technologies may be available that do not require such a large right-of-way, even for this size pipeline. Other witnesses will talk to that later.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is another solution that is more environmentally acceptable, but I want to point out that you would not even be able to implement that unless you passed legislation that makes it possible to move the oil from those fields to a boat or whatever it may be, even by airplane. I know they looked at that in one proposal, to move it out by tanker. We are talking about the very large types of airplane tankers.

Well, before yielding may I state that Senator Stevens was here and he did have to leave to attend an Interior Appropriations subcommittee meeting of which he is a member and he regretted that he could not stay on to participate.

Senator Bartlett.
Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Evans, you favor a smaller right-of-way rather than a larger right-of-way, if you had to have one

had to have one or the other for a pipeline, is that correct?

Mr. Evans. Are you speaking now in terms of just pipeline?
Senator BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. Evans. I think that we would favor whatever right-of-way is required and only that amount for the most sophisticated and environmentally acceptable technology available. If we had a fair and unbiased analysis of this, I think we would find

a there is a much more sophisticated technology available currently or soon to be developed.

Senator BARTLETT. In other words, you do not believe the pipeline companies, are they lying to you?

Mr. Evans. I do not know them personally, I could not say whether they were lying. I would say, I think, for various reasons they have not considered other technology that is available.

Senator BARTLETT. What have they said that is not true?

Mr. Evans. I do not know. All I know is that I have seen presentations of other kinds of technology that takes less right-of-way than they say.

Senator BARTLETT. It seems to me when I use a road on my farm, I keep using the same paths and I developed some ruts with the wheels and so on. So if I confined myself to the right-of-way I tear it up rather than making different paths in feeding the cattle. What worries me with the very small right-of-way and heavy equipment, there will not be room to turn around on a 25-foot right-of-way.

Is it not going to tear up the environment more and the land if it is confined as compared to if it is wider, so that a more sensible choice could be used of moving the equipment, rather than going right back in and tearing up the land more than otherwise would be necessary

93–145 0—73pt. 22

Mr. Evans. A well put question. If I understand it, it is more desirable to confine rights-of-way by whatever means to one specific place rather than many different places?

Senator BARTLETT. No; the point I am making is that I think it is better to have more room so you do not tear it up as much. If you are confined to a very small area, my observation is just the opposite, that you very definitely will tear it up.

But if you have more opportunity of choice of paths for moving vehicles, and you do not think at least with present technology as I know it, and I do not know much about laying pipelines, but I know it takes a lot of equipment that goes along the right-of-way and trucks bringing up pipe and equipment and so on, that there needs to be space.

It would seem to me and I was asking you what you favor. I think by favoring a very narrow-well, you did not answer the question, as to whether you favor a narrow or wider right-of-way. At least you did not answer it in that context. How do you feel about it? Are you more interested in just confining the work area or are you interested in trying to give some choices to those who are constructing the line to perhaps tear up the land less ?

Mr. Evans. I think I understand you better now and I will try to give you a more direct answer. First, keep in mind that a large work area in the fragile Alaska tundra will cause much more severe environmental problems than a similar area in, say, Texas. .

Then I come back to the specific comment made in 1920 which as my statement pointed out was not a hasty decision, but was carefully thought out. What they wanted to avoid then by setting a narrower right-of-way was to a giveaway of the public land of the various resources in various context.

The feeling in Congress at that time and I submit it is still valid, if companies wanted larger rights-of-way for various reasons they could rights-of-way being talked about now could still fit in with that limicome back. I think we can demonstrate that many or most of the rights-of-way being talked about now could still fit in with that limitation.

Where you get an extra large one, such as this one, we do have a larger resource at stake. The pipeline as we know, does not end thereat Valdez-it goes 2,000 more miles down the coast of North America. These are tradeoffs that we hope the Congress in its wisdom would not delegate to the Secretary of the Interior.

To give you a more specific answer, I think the present right-of-way for a pipeline is probably sufficient.

Senator BARTLETT. Let me remark, certainly you chose not to answer the question

Mr. Evans. I just did. I think the present right-of-way for pipelines is sufficient. If we need something larger, then let Congress make a decision because generally public resources of the kind we are talking about will be at stake and I think this is something properly for Congress to decide.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Evans.

The Chair wishes to announce that we will have five consecutive rollcalls back to back, there are 10 minutes on each rollcall so the com

« PreviousContinue »