ANWR hearing goes into overtime

Brouhaha rages in D.C. as Markey defends absence at Kaktovik hearing

Steve Sutherlin

Petroleum News Associate Editor

U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources hearing in Kaktovik April 5 on oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ran overtime as local residents turned out to support responsible development in the refuge, attendees said. Kaktovik is the only settlement in the refuge’s 1002 area, which was set aside for its oil potential when ANWR was formed in 1980.

The meeting, originally scheduled for 90 minutes, ballooned to several hours to accommodate testimony, and for committee members to hear the concerns of nearly 100 local residents in attendance, according to Tara Sweeney, special assistant for rural affairs to Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski.

The committee heard testimony on H.R. 39, which would open the refuge to exploration, and H.R. 770, a bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would impose a Wilderness designation on ANWR.

Although Markey’s office selected who would testify against drilling in the 1002 area, Markey did not attend the hearing, Sweeney said.

An Inupiat Eskimo raised on the North Slope, Sweeney said she was proud of the eloquent arguments from locals that illustrated the importance of oil development, and its resulting economic benefits, to the residents of the area.

Sweeney said North Slope residents were disappointed Markey chose not to attend the hearing since almost half the population of the village showed up.

“There was great regret for Markey not being there,” Sweeney said.

Markey requested hearing

“Had he decided to show up to the hearing he requested, he would have heard that the people of Alaska’s North Slope overwhelmingly support responsible exploration,” Pombo said in an April 8 statement.

Pombo proposed the Kaktovik meeting to get a local perspective on the issue of oil development in ANWR -- and to fulfill Markey’s request, conveyed in a March 10 letter, for a hearing on H.R. 770, Pombo said in a March 12 letter to Markey.

But Markey said in a March 20 letter that a hearing on H.R. 770 would be meaningless after the committee marked up H.R. 39. On April 2, the committee voted 27-17 to retain a provision in H.R. 39 to authorize exploration and development of oil and gas in the 1002 area of ANWR, and it voted 32-14 in favor of the bill.

Markey also questioned the use of military equipment to visit Kaktovik in light of war in Iraq.

“In order to travel to Kaktovik for a weekend field hearing, I am told that a military plane, military equipment and military personnel would be required,” Markey said. “As important as it is to accord wilderness status to the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge, I do not feel it would be appropriate to ask the military to divert its attention from the war to make it possible to take testimony on an issue which has already been decided by the committee.”

Absence ripped

“Mr. Markey’s argument long ago ceased to stand on its own dignity. When I was here as a staff member in the eighties, he made the same complaints; 20 years later, he still hasn’t visited ANWR, and we still don’t have an energy policy,” Rehberg said.

Markey said at an April 8 press conference that he doesn't have to actually visit an environmental preserve to know that it is valuable and should be protected. He vowed to continue the fight to close the 1002 area to exploration. He and Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., said they would offer an amendment to strip ANWR drilling language from H.R.39 on April 9, the day the bill was scheduled for a floor vote.

Gov. Murkowski said in a statement that it was interesting that Markey decided not to attend a hearing on his own bill.

“It was my hope that he would have made the 3,000 mile plus journey to hear what the residents of Kaktovik have to say about development on their lands, especially because his bill would force a subsistence lifestyle on them,” Murkowski said. “I know they too looked forward to sharing their views on the fate of their land with Mr. Markey.”

Markey bill too restrictive?

“(Markey) also would have heard Debbie Miller, a witness handpicked by the Democrats to support the Markey bill, testify that she would urge Mr. Markey to change some of his wilderness provisions she found too restrictive,” Pombo said.

Miller, of the Alaska Wilderness League, was concerned that the bill would interfere with subsistence use of the refuge by restricting the ability of local Natives to use motorized vehicles, except upon the 92,000 acres owned by the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. within the refuge, Sweeney said.

Sweeney said Markey’s other witness on the bill, Robert Thompson, an Inupiat Eskimo wilderness guide in Kaktovik, said he relied on snowmobiles to guide his hunts.

Miller and Thompson both testified against allowing oil and gas drilling in the coastal plain. l

Smith: Kaktovik wants voice in development

Patricia Jones

Petroleum News Contributing Writer

That’s according to Carl Michael Smith, assistant secretary of fossil energy in the U.S. Department of Energy, after hearing sworn testimony April 5 from Kaktovik residents regarding drilling plans for the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“I think the citizens of that community are very much like citizens in my home state of Oklahoma. They look forward to participating in that economic opportunity … to having that economic opportunity that development can provide,” Smith told Petroleum News April 8. “I think that was the bottom line, the consensus of the testimony.”

The April 5 congressional hearing in Kaktovik was the assistant secretary’s first trip to that village, the only community located within ANWR’s coastal plain.

Several witnesses gave sworn testimony during the nearly four-hour long hearing, Smith said. “The testimony was well received and articulately delivered.”

Congressional members listening to testimony asked numerous questions of residents, he added. Development appears to be “… compatible with their way of life. They seem very much in favor of it.”

Three main points were made by many of the residents who testified, Smith said.

“They certainly favor oil and gas development if it is done in a safe and environmentally protected way, and if they can be involved in the process,” Smith said. “They want to make sure they have a voice in the development and proceedings.”

While he refrained from characterizing lawmakers’ reactions to the Kaktovik testimony, Smith said it appeared from the subsequent congressional comments that they “were very impressed. I think it did make a difference,” he said. “That’s why that, many times, Congress holds field hearings.”