« PreviousContinue »
RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS FEDERAL LANDS:
UNITED STATES SENATE
JUL 2 1973
S. 970 UN VIS
A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
OF THE COUNTRY
MAY 2, 3, 1973
Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs .
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman ALAN BIBLE, Nevada
PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK CHURCH, Idaho
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming LEE METCALF, Montana
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, JR., Louisiana JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota
JAMES A. MCCLURE, Idaho
DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
Egan, Hon. William A., Governor of the State of Alaska.-
Brackett, William W., vice president and general counsel, Arctic Gas,
letter to Senator Jackson, dated April 30, 1973----
RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS FEDERAL LANDS: TRANSPORTATION OF ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE OIL
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1973
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m. in room 3110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Henry M. Jackson, presiding.
Present: Senators Jackson (presiding), Fannin, Haskell, Bartlett, McClure, Hansen, Johnston, Hatfield, and Buckley.
Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director, and William J. Van Ness, chief counsel.
Chairman JACKSON. The committee will come to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN
This is the first of 2 days of hearings on the transportation of oil from Alaska's North Slope to markets in the lower 48 States.
There are two contrasting points of view on this subject. The first is that Prudhoe Bay oil should be moved by pipeline to Valdez and then shipped by tanker to west coast markets. This position has the support of the administration, the State of Alaska and the companies that own the North Slope reserves.
The second point of view is that Prudhoe Bay oil should be moved overland by pipeline through Canada to Midwest markets. This position has the support of a number of conservation organizations and some Members of Congress from Midwestern States.
The major purpose of the hearings is to identify and to review the important issues of public policy presented by these two points of view and to determine their relationship to the national interest and to resolving the critical energy shortages we face.
It is my personal judgment that the trans-Alaska pipeline better serves the national interest for one major reason. That reason is timing
The main issue presented is whether the Congress is willing to incur a delay in bringing North Slope oil to markets of at least 3 years, and possibly much longer, to work out all of the arrangements necessary to building an overland pipeline across Canada.
There is, in fact, no assurance that the required agreements to build a pipeline across Canadian territory could be worked out within any reasonable timeframe.
The potential for delay in connection with a trans-Canadian oil pipeline is immense.
First, no group has yet formally proposed to build a trans-Canadian oil pipeline.