If the Americans came back and said to us look, we've had second thoughts on that trans-Alaska pipeline, we would like to take you up on your willingness to entertain an application about the oilline through the Mackenzie route, I think the interests of the west coast, of Canada, would dictate that the government of Canada would enable that kind of application to go ahead.

This is a representative sampling. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the Canadian Government has done literally everything it can to promote a pipeline application short of making the firm promise in advance that it will approve an application regardless of the applicant's willingness to abide by conditions respecting the environment or other matters which the Government considers necessary-a commitment that obviously neither a Canadian nor a U.S. Government could ever make.

The affirmative attitude of the Canadian Government is also reflected in statements on specific Canadian requirements for the pipeline. These conflict with assertions by spokesmen for the administration and others who have urged that conditions which would be imposed, particularly regarding shares for Canadian throughput in the pipeline and financial participation in the venture, make the Canadian alternative impractical or undesirable.

I would like to make one point with respect to the delay factor regarding the Canadian group. That is it is widely assumed, in fact, virtually certain there will be a gasline through Canada. All of these problems will have to be solved for a gas pipeline. When we hear the administration talk about a gas pipeline, we hear nothing about optimism.

I ask you to ask yourselves and them why is the situation so different with a Canadian oil pipeline than it will be with a Canadian gas pipeline?

In fact, I submit that the situation isn't so different. The Canadian Government from the time that oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay to the present day has consistently indicated its favorable attitude toward an oil pipeline through Canada.

Estimates as recent as last month confirmed that and that statement was read into the record by Senator Bayh this morning.

There are other statements in my prepared text which I won't go into. I would like to focus on only one and this is a specific statement that was made several years ago which never has been contradicted and which deals with an issue that has been raised which the oil companies and the administration place a great deal of weight on.

This is the question of shared crude oil. The administration insisted that 50 percent of the oil pipeline will be reserved. As I say, there is no documentation to this. To the contrary let me read you what then Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources Greene said about this:

I can't believe that any serious concern would be expressed in the United States with the reliability of an agreement between our two countries under which Canada, for its part of the bargain, would undertake to insure the uninterruptability of the flow of Alaskan oil down a Canadian land bridge line equivalent in volume to any flow which could be put through the TAPS line. Speech to Vancouver B.C. Men's Club, officially released by the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources.

The point here is that that issue and other issues which have been focused on is at the bare minimum negotiable with the Canadian Gov

ernment and the point is that this Government and the Canadian Government have never engaged in a series of discussions on this issue.

Those long overdue negotiations would be required by the Mondale bill and could take place given the Canadian Government's favorable attitude toward this project within an acceptable timeframe and they could provide the answers Congress deserves to have before it makes a choice.

Finally, turning to the question of delay again from the Canadian side or the time difference between the possibility of the two pipelines, even without the prospect of comparing the litigation and comparing the legislation the Canadian line could from this end be approved and put into operation sooner.

The estimate of time, simple construction time is being narrowed. Senator FANNIN. I am sorry to interrupt, there is another vote and we will recess for a few minutes until we can go over and vote.

Perhaps some of the other Senators will come in very shortly. [Recess.]

Senator HATFIELD [presiding]. The committee will resume its hearing.

At this time we will ask Mr. Dienelt to proceed.

Mr. DIENELT. What I would like to do is summarize briefly what I consider to be the most important part of my remarks and then turn the matter over to the panel of experts that we have here and let them give their statements and then answer any questions which the members of the committee might have.

I was stating the position of my three clients in the litigation over the trans-Alaska line and that position is that they are not opposed to the development of North Slope oil and gas. They believe that there is a better way than the trans-Alaska pipeline to do it, probably that better way is with a Canadian common corridor. That we haven't got enough information or perhaps to be more precise, we haven't had an adequate, independent, and objective study on the common corridor.

We support the bill introduced by Senator Mondale and others because it would provide for such an unbiased study in an acceptable timeframe and we believe that in the end of such a study Congress should make a choice between the alternatives.

When a proper study has been prepared and Congress has acted, and in making this statement I want to particularly address the question that Senator McClure addressed earlier this morning regarding time.

It is my legal judgment that there would be no basis for further litigation on environmental issues under NEPA any more than there will be under the rights-of-way provision which is the basis of the current injunction and which is the subject of bills for amendment

now.

The study which is required by the bill would presumably fill the spirit of NEPA by providing a basis for an informed choice. By providing for the first time an unbiased, thorough document.

At the end of the study and after Congress has made a decision, I would advise my clients that they should not pursue further litigation. I personally believe that if an adequate study such as is provided by the bill were made and if it confirmed the superiority of the Canadian corridor, my clients would support Congress's decision to approve the Canadian route.

Before turning the matter over to the experts, I would like to compare that scenario with what would happen if this matter goes back to the court.

It is going to be at least a year. No lawyer involved in the litigation estimates less. That may be a very conservative estimate for one reason. The only way you can justify that estimate is on the assumption that the environmentalists lose. They haven't lost yet. I believe we can win.

If we do win what will happen is that the Interior Department will be required to do the very kind of study that is provided for by this bill. The result of all that will be much more delay. The result of all that would be, as a practical matter, we have the situation where today if we proceeded with the Canadian alternative and with the Mondale bill, it very probably could be built before the trans-Alaska pipeline would be built.

That is the choice that we believe is before Congress and that we believe Congress should make. The reasons that we believe the Canadian pipeline will prove superior and the Canadian alternative will prove superior, I think, will be shown to you by the experts so I would like to turn it over to them and start with Mr. Stoel, who will deal with national security.

[The full statement of Mr. Dienelt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. DIENELT ON BEHALF OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS ON MEASURES RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL AND GAS RESOURCES FROM THE NORTH SLOPE OF ALASKA, MAY 2, 1973

I. Introduction

With

My name is John Dienelt. I am one of the attorneys who represent The Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. and the Friends of the Earth in the litigation challenging the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline. me are four experts who have investigated various aspects of the TAPS proposal and the alternative all-land pipeline route through Canada. They are Thomas Stoel, who is a former staff member of the President's Oil Import Quota Task Force in addition to being one of plaintiffs' attorneys in the litigation; Dr. Charles Cicchetti, Professor of Economics at the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Myrick Freeman, Professor of Economics at Bowdoin College; and Dr. Robert Curry, Professor of Environmental Geology at the University of Montana. are pleased to accept the Committee's invitation to present testimony on S.970, S.993, and S.1565.

We

I will begin by stating the position of The Wilderness Society, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. and Friends of the Earth on development of North Slope oil and gas and on

the bills which are the subject of this hearing. In the course of the pipeline litigation, I have had occasion to study the public statements of the Canadian government on the acceptability of a pipeline through Canada and to explore the availability of information on proposed gas and oil pipelines from Canadian sources. I will, therefore, also discuss those

subjects.

The experts will compare various aspects of the TransAlaska Pipeline and the Canadian alternative. Mr. Stoel will deal with national security issues; Dr. Cicchetti and Dr. Freeman will deal with economic and consumer questions; and Dr. Curry will focus on environmental considerations.

One expert whose testimony we would like to present to the Committee is unavailable today. He is the distinguished marine biologist Dr. Richard Warner, Professor at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, who is at the present engaged in an extensive field research project off the coast of Florida. We request permission to submit his expert testimony for the record at a later date. That testimony will deal with the very significant oil pollution issues raised by the marine transport portion of the Trans-Alaska pipeline proposal.