Testimony of Carl Portman, Deputy Director, Before US Fish & Wildlife Service Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
May 4, 2010
Washington, D.C.

Good afternoon. My name is Carl Portman, Deputy Director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska. I am a life-long Alaskan, raised in Fairbanks and I currently live in Anchorage. I have been involved with the issue of the Coastal Plain of ANWR, also known as the 1002 area, since the ANILCA compromise of 1980 and I am here today to remind the agency of the promises and compromises that were made to the State of Alaska over 30 years ago.

RDC is an Alaskan business association comprised of individuals and companies from Alaska's resource development sectors.

Today, I am advocating for the State of Alaska’s and, indeed, our nation’s interests in recommending the 1002 area of ANWR be opened to responsible oil and gas exploration and development, as was recommended by the Department of Interior and Congress in the 80s and 90s. RDC is strongly opposed to new federal Wilderness designations in ANWR and the mere implication of such consideration is inconsistent with promises that were made in ANILCA.

We strongly support the Obama administration’s goal to decrease dependence on oil by sharply increasing renewable energy production. However, it is still projected that fossil fuels will account for over 65% of this nation’s energy consumption in 2025. Where will this oil come from? New oil production is required until we fully transition to new energy sources decades from now.

The 1002 area was excluded from ANWR’s Wilderness designation in a compromise struck under the 1980 Alaska Lands Act. In exchange, Congress doubled the size of the Refuge and designated eight million acres outside the 1002 area as Wilderness. In recognizing the 1002 area’s enormous oil and gas potential, Congress mandated a study of its petroleum resources, as well as its environmental values. In 1987, the Department of the Interior concluded that oil development would have minimal impact and recommended the 1002 area, which accounts for eight percent of the refuge, be opened.

A federal Wilderness designation over the 1002 area would forever place off-limits North America’s most prolific onshore oil and gas prospect and would mean abandoning the 1980 compromise. This is unacceptable.

Alaska already contains 58 million acres of federal Wilderness. This is larger than New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire combined. In fact, my state accounts for over half of America’s federal Wilderness areas. We don’t need more Wilderness in Alaska. We are sufficiently protected. What we do need is more economic opportunities and if the 1002 area is opened, not one acre of federal Wilderness would be disturbed.

With advances in technology, it is possible to develop the 1002 area’s energy reserves while directly utilizing only a fraction of the area. This can be accomplished without significant disturbance to wildlife. In fact, wildlife populations have grown or remained stable in other areas of the North Slope where oil development is already occurring. At Prudhoe Bay, the central arctic caribou population has grown from 5,000 animals in 1970 to more then 66,000 animals today. Development and wildlife do co-exist in Alaska.

78 percent of Alaskans statewide strongly support exploration and development in the 1002 area of ANWR. Local residents and the Inupiat people who actually live adjacent to the 1002 area overwhelmingly support development.

Oil development in the 1002 area would provide a safe and secure source of oil for the nation for decades. It would create thousands of jobs throughout the country. And, it would refill the Alaska pipeline, existing infrastructure that is currently operating at only 1/3rd of its capacity. It would also enhance the prospects of a gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Lower 48.

Finally, given recent events in the Gulf of Mexico, opponents of offshore oil and gas development are calling for an end to new exploration and development pretty much everywhere. They are seizing on this national tragedy to rally against possible future development, not just offshore in the OCS, but onshore in the 1002 area, despite the fact there are significantly different characteristics between onshore and offshore development. I ask, if we don’t drill here in America, where will we drill?

In conclusion, the 1002 area of ANWR should not only continue to be excluded from Wilderness designation, but it should be opened up to responsible onshore oil and gas exploration and development. My state’s economy depends on it.

We can have oil and gas development in a very small area of ANWR while maintaining the special values of the refuge.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.