Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525534
label
Ford Press Releases - Energy, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525534
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Energy, 1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Alaska
Legislation
Petroleum
Pipelines
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525534
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-08-31
month
8
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-07-01
month
7
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
be45db0d05f23fd2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D7, folder "Ford Press Releases - Energy,
1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D7 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
000
-
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
93rd Congress
July 31, 1973
First Session
Statment No. 17
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 9130,
THE TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE AUTHORIZATION
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 9130,
amending Section 23 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to clarify the types
of rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines which can be granted, and to
authorize the trans-Alaska Pipeline.
If the Nation's crippling fuel shortage is to be alleviated and
growing energy requirements met, domestic sources of oil and gas must be
developed and the delivery of such fuels facilitated.
The largest known oil reserve in North America--estimated to exceed
ten billion barrels--was discovered in 1968 at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Although
private industry stands ready to construct the trans-Alaska pipeline and
develop this reserve, litigation concerning environmental matters and rights-
of-way limitations and debate over the means and route of delivery have pre-
vented utilization of this tremendous national asset.
After full consideration of economic, environmental and national
security factors, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has reported
H.R. 9130, providing greater width limitations for oil and gas pipeline
(OVER)
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
- 2 -
rights-of-way and authorizing construction, without further delay, of
a trans-Alaska pipeline to transport oil from the Prudhoe Bay field to
Valdez, Alaska, for subsequent shipment by sea-going tanker to the West
Coast for further distribution.
Title I of the bill establishes a comprehensive and modernized
national policy and procedure for granting of oil and gas pipeline rights-
of-way across public lands. Existing statutory restrictions of area and
usage are inadequate to permit the expeditious construction of the trans-
Alaska and other oil and gas pipelines.
H.R. 9130 seeks to provide that economic and security benefits of
the pipeline are not realized at the expense of environmental values.
We must minimize erosion, restore and revegetate the land and protect
fish and wildlife. In addition the bill seeks to avoid further time-
consuming and costly judicial review. The findings of the environmental
impact study previously conducted by the Secretary of Interior and sub-
sequent lititgation are held to be conclusive.
In view of growing energy demands, the probability of construction
of a trans-Canada oil pipeline to supplement the trans-Alaska project is
recognized. H.R. 9130 directs the further investigation of the feasibility
of the trans-Canada facility and authorizes future U.S.-Canada negotiations
to enable such construction.
The trans-Alaska pipeline will make a significant contribution to
our Nation's economic well being and our security. The House Republican
Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 9130, the trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization.
House Galleries + Fifth District
0
OFFICE COPY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY--
August 2, 1973
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford on the floor of the House of
Representatives regarding the Alaska pipeline.
MR. SPEAKER, this is a debate in which we can get to the hub
or the matter in a hurry. There is no fuzziness here. The issues
are clear. And the agreement among us is far more important than
the matters in dispute.
I know of no member of Congress who believes that the vast
ocean of oil beneath the North Slope of Alaska should stay in the
ground. We are all agreed that we should pipe that oil to the
Lower 48 states -- and most of us, I believe, think we should do
that as quickly as possible.
The only questions at issue are whether the proposed
Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System, called T A P S, should be delayed
while a proposed Trans-Canada Pipeline is explored, and whether
the Interior Department has satisfied the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act with regard to TAPS.
Let us examine the Trans-Canada Pipeline issue first. Is
the proposed Trans-Canada Pipeline a viable alternative to TAPS?
Going the route of the proposed Trans-Canada Pipeline would
pose a delay of perhaps six to seven years in getting Alaskan oil
to the Lower 48, assuming that all of the obstacles involved could
be surmounted.
But before I even cite the various difficulties inherent in
going the Trans-Canadian route, let me emphasize that the Canadians
have not even shown any particular interest in the Trans-Canadian
Pipeline carrying oil from Alaska to the Lower 48.
As Edward Cowan of the New York Times put it in an article
last Sunday, July 29: "Ottawa has not decided that it really wants
an oil pipeline running up the Mackenzie River Valley. Such a
venture would have an inflationary impact on Canada. There also
would be environmental dangers."
(more)
Page 2
Cowan continued: "Ottawa has been playing a double game.
It has taken pains to oppose the trans-Alaska route because of
widespread fears in Canada that the tanker shuttle between Valdez,
Alaska, and Puget Sound sooner or later will produce an accident
that could pollute the waters and indented shores of British Columbia.
But being against TAPS is one thing and being four-square in favor
of a Mackenzie route is another. Ottawa has had many opportunities
to let Congress and the American public know that it is keen for
Mackenzie. It has not done so."
Cowan concludes: "Perhaps Ottawa thinks it can stall the
trans-Alaska pipeline just as it has stalled for three years or more
on revising the auto-trade agreement with Washington."
To say that Canada is willing to receive an application for
an oil pipeline from the companies that would build it is not the
same thing as getting the Canadian government to approve an agreement
covering such points as access to the oil pipeline for Canadian oil,
the extent of Canadian ownership of the pipeline, who would control
it, and what the future export taxes would be.
In 1970, Washington proposed to Canada an agreement that
would have covered a pipeline and would have increased the energy
interchange between the U. S. and Canada. According to Julius Katz,
the State Department's assistant secretary for International
Resources and Food Policy, the Canadians were "unreceptive" and
"at every point those efforts (on the part of the United States)
were rebuffed. "
The facts are that Ottawa is simply eager to halt a
trans-Alaska pipeline. If we dumped the trans-Alaska pipeline in
favor of a mythical trans-Canadian pipeline, I think we would be
making a tragic mistake.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is
possible to negotiate an agreement with Ottawa covering a
trans-Canadian pipeline. A decision to abandon the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline in favor of a Trans-Canadian Pipeline could delay the
delivery of Alaskan oil to the Lower 48 by as much as seven years
beyond the three years it would take to build a Trans-Alaska
Pipeline.
If construction began on a Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 1974, we
would have Alaskan oil moving to market in the West Coast Region
by 1977. An oil pipeline across Canada would. not go into service
before 1982 to 1984.
(more)
Page 3
If the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline is operational by 1977, a
natural gas pipeline across Canada can be feeding clean fuel to
Midwestern homes and factories by 1980. On the other hand, a
Trans-Canada oil pipeline would delay completion of the gas pipeline
until 1985 to 1987.
Why would there be so great a delay if we sought to build
an oil pipeline across Canada? There are many reasons.
-- We would have to negotiate an agreement with Canada
regarding construction and operation of the oil pipeline.
-- An entity or entities would have to be formed to finance,
design, build and operate the oil line -- and financing could well
be difficult since a Canadian oil line would cost approximately
$7 billion as compared with $3.6 billion for the Alaska oil line.
-- A detailed route study would have to be made. Technical
design data would have to be compiled to provide the basis for
U.S. -Canadian consultation concerning route selection and design.
-- A detailed project description of the oil line and
associated facilities would have to be prepared.
-- Applications would have to be made to the Department of
the Interior for rights-of-way across the U. S. public lands
involved in Alaska and in the Midwest where the pipeline would
enter the U. S. from Canada.
--- The Department of Interior would have to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
-- Canadian native land claims would have to be settled --
and this is most important. This is a crucial issue that cannot
be brushed aside by proponents of a trans-Canadian route. Last
May, Canadian Indians won the first round in what will surely be
a lengthy court battle with Canadian federal authorities for control
of 400,000 square miles of land in the Mackenzie Valley. The court
imposed a temporary land freeze on the 400,000 square miles. By
contrast, similar claims in Alaska have already been settled by
the Congress.
-- Application would have to be made to the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Canada, and public
hearings would have to be held. This application would have to be
(more)
Page 4
accompanied by a detailed social and environmental impact
statement.
-- If this environmental impact statement won approval, then
application would have to be made to the National Energy Board of
Canada and more public hearings held. The Canadian Cabinet would
have to approve the action of the Energy Board in certificating
the oil line.
-- Rights-of-way would have to be obtained to cross privately
owned lands; equipment and materials would have to be lined up;
detailed design of the pipeline would have to be carried out; and
roads necessary for construction of the oil line would have to be
built.
-- Last, but by no means least, any litigation with respect
to the Canadian oil line would have to be resolved.
All of these are valid reasons to expect lengthy delays if
Congress were to seek to build a Canadian oil line.
And there is one other factor that should be considered -- a
factor that is important to the Midwest. An oil line through
Alaska and a gas line through Canada can be built simultaneously --
and would be built simultaneously. That kind of scheduling would
not be possible if both the oil and gas line were to go through
Canada.
For a midwesterner, the strongest argument in favor of an
oil line from Alaska through Canada is that it would serve the
midwest.
In that connection, let's look at some supply and demand
figures.
The Department of Interior estimates that by 1980 the demand
for crude oil on the West Coast will be 3.13 million barrels a day,
and in the Midwest it will be 6.2 million barrels per day. By 1980
the deficit in the West Coast Region will be 2.065 million barrels
a day and in the Midwest Region it will be 4.884 million barrels.
The Midwest has traditionally been a crude oil deficit area,
and this deficit has been met by imports of surplus production from
the Gulf Coast Region via existing transportation facilities.
In 1970, for instance, the net flow of crude oil from the
(more)
Page 5
Gulf Coast Region to the Midwest was 1.918 million barrels a day.
By 1980, it is projected at 4.071 million barrels.
The West Coast, which does not have inter-district
transportation facilities comparable with those entering the Midwest,
will have to depend largely upon foreign sources to make up its
deficit. Thus, by 1980, minus North Slope oil, the West Coast
Region would be dependent upon Middle East sources for approximately
1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day -- more than one-third the
demand in that district. The Midwest, however, would be dependent
upon foreign sources for only 20 per cent of its demand -- and, in
the past, has obtained almost all of its foreign requirements from
Canada.
We are all, of course, deeply concerned about the environmental
aspects of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Is the Trans-Canadian oil
line environmentally superior? In my judgment, the two proposed
oil lines are environmentally comparable.
While the TAPS line would be 789 miles long, the
Trans-Canadian oil line would traverse some 3,200 miles. The
entire length of the TAPS line involves northern wildlife habitat.
However, the trans-Canadian line includes 1,700 miles of such
country. The TAPS line would cross 525 miles of permafrost; the
trans-Canadian line, 1,200. The TAPS line would involve one major
river crossing -- the Yukon; the trans-Canadian line, 12 major
river crossings.
Environmentalists are understandably concerned about the TAPS
line. But there is no question that every possible environmental
safeguard would be taken. More than half of the line would be
buried seven to 10 feet underground. Where the line is scheduled
to be above ground or elevated, ramps and underpasses would be
built SO animals such as the caribou could pass through. Where
river crossings are involved, the line would be buried at least
five feet below each stream bed and encased in several inches of
concrete as insulation for the warm oil inside. Special
fast-growing grass would be planted as cover for the pipeline route
once the line was laid.
In addition, the TAPS line has been designed to be safe
from the most severe earthquake ever recorded in Alaska; the line
would be elevated over all unprotected permafrost; and the entire
line would be monitored every minute of every day to detect any
possible oil spillage. In the unlikely event of a break or rupture
(more)
Page 6
in the 48-inch line, the entire line could be shut down in less
than six minutes.
Environmentalists are justifiably concerned about the
possibility of oil spills as tankers transport Trans-Alaska Pipeline
oil from the Alaskan port of Valdez to the West Coast. However,
the project emphasizes a new tanker program involving segregated
ballast systems, sophisticated navigational equipment. U. S. Flag
tankers, and strict controls. Stringent operational procedures to
avoid collisions coupled with requirements for deballasting ships at
Valdez and the use of new ships built with the latest structural
designs will virtually eliminate any oil losses at sea.
Let me make one last point with regard to the national
security aspects of the pipeline question. I am convinced the
national security interests of the United States would be jeopardized
if we go the Trans-Canadian route instead of trans-Alaska. The
President's Task Force on Oil Import Control has pointed out that
dependence on the Middle East for more than 10 per cent of our oil
needs is dangerous. Oil dependence now exceeds this level and will
increase until we get the Alaskan oil. It would take at least six
years longer for a Trans-Canadian oil line to be operational than
it would for the TAPS line. This additional delay in getting North
Slope oil to the Lower 48 states would greatly imperil the national
security of the United States.
I have no objection to a study focused on construction of a
Trans-Canadian oil pipeline. But it should not delay the TAPS
project. In the final analysis, we need the TAPS line, a
trans-Canada gas pipeline and an eventual trans-Canada oil pipeline
from the Arctic once additional oil is found.
We can no longer permit sectional interests and the actions
of special interest groups to delay the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. We
should go ahead with it now. That is why I favor passage of
H.R. 9130 without amendment. In my opinion, the Department of
Interior has satisfied the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act with regard to the TAPS project and Congress should
preclude further judicial review of the impact statement filed by
the Interior Department. The six-volume TAPS Environmental Impact
Statement required over two years and thousands of man-hours to
prepare. It is nearly 3,000 pages long. All of the judges who
voted on the adequacy of the Impact Statement held that it complies
with NEPA. There is no question here of a precedent. The
congressional declaration that the TAPS Environmental Impact
(more)
Page 7
Statement satisfies the NEPA requirements should not be viewed as
a precedent. It is simply a finding by Congress which meets a
crisis situation.
I should also add at this point that all of the bills filed
by the gentleman from Illinois (John B. Anderson), a proponent of
the trans-Canadian oil line, provide for a waiver of the NEPA
requirement at the end of the proposed trans-Canadian study period.
I would ask: If a waiver is in order then, why not now?
Let us then move ahead with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. No
longer should the will of the American people be frustrated. We
need the Alaska pipeline, and we need it now.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY-
August 2, 1973
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford on the floor of the House of
Representatives regarding the Alaska pipeline.
MR. SPEAKER, this is a debate in which we can get to the hub
or the matter in a hurry. There is no fuzziness here. The issues
are clear. And the agreement among us is far more important than
the matters in dispute.
I know of no member of Congress who believes that the vast
ocean of oil beneath the North Slope of Alaska should stay in the
ground. We are all agreed that we should pipe that oil to the
Lower 48 states -- and most of us, I believe, think we should do
that as quickly as possible.
The only questions at issue are whether the proposed
Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System, called T A P S, should be delayed
while a proposed Trans-Canada Pipeline is explored, and whether
the Interior Department has satisfied the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act with regard to TAPS.
Let us examine the Trans-Canada Pipeline issue first. Is
the proposed Trans-Canada Pipeline a viable alternative to TAPS?
Going the route of the proposed Trans-Canada Pipeline would
pose a delay of perhaps six to seven years in getting Alaskan oil
to the Lower 48, assuming that all of the obstacles involved could
be surmounted.
But before I even cite the various difficulties inherent in
going the Trans-Canadian route, let me emphasize that the Canadians
have not even shown any particular interest in the Trans-Canadian
Pipeline carrying oil from Alaska to the Lower 48.
As Edward Cowan of the New York Times put it in an article
last Sunday, July 29: "Ottawa has not decided that it really wants
an oil pipeline running up the Mackenzie River Valley. Such a
venture would have an inflationary impact on Canada. There also
would be environmental dangers."
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 2
Cowan continued: "Ottawa has been playing a double game.
It has taken pains to oppose the trans-Alaska route because of
widespread fears in Canada that the tanker shuttle between Valdez,
Alaska, and Puget Sound sooner or later will produce an accident
that could pollute the waters and indented shores of British Columbia.
But being against TAPS is one thing and being four-square in favor
of a Mackenzie route is another. Ottawa has had many opportunities
to let Congress and the American public know that it is keen for
Mackenzie. It has not done so."
Cowan concludes: "Perhaps Ottawa thinks it can stall the
trans-Alaska pipeline just as it has stalled for three years or more
on revising the auto-trade agreement with Washington.' "
To say that Canada is willing to receive an application for
an oil pipeline from the companies that would build it is not the
same thing as getting the Canadian government to approve an agreement
covering such points as access to the oil pipeline for Canadian oil,
the extent of Canadian ownership of the pipeline, who would control
it, and what the future export taxes would be.
In 1970, Washington proposed to Canada an agreement that
would have covered a pipeline and would have increased the energy
interchange between the U. S. and Canada. According to Julius Katz,
the State Department's assistant secretary for International
Resources and Food Policy, the Canadians were "unreceptive" and
"at every point those efforts (on the part of the United States)
were rebuffed."
The facts are that Ottawa is simply eager to halt a
trans-Alaska pipeline. If we dumped the trans-Alaska pipeline in
favor of a mythical trans-Canadian pipeline, I think we would be
making a tragic mistake.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is
possible to negotiate an agreement with Ottawa covering a
trans-Canadian pipeline. A decision to abandon the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline in favor of a Trans-Canadian Pipeline could delay the
delivery of Alaskan oil to the Lower 48 by as much as seven years
beyond the three years it would take to build a Trans-Alaska
Pipeline.
If construction began on a Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 1974, we
would have Alaskan oil moving to market in the West Coast Region
by 1977. An oil pipeline across Canada would. not go into service
before 1982 to 1984.
(more)
Page 3
If the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline is operational by 1977, a
natural gas pipeline across Canada can be feeding clean fuel to
Midwestern homes and factories by 1980. On the other hand, a
Trans-Canada oil pipeline would delay completion of the gas pipeline
until 1985 to 1987.
Why would there be so great a delay if we sought to build
an oil pipeline across Canada? There are many reasons.
-- We would have to negotiate an agreement with Canada
regarding construction and operation of the oil pipeline.
-- An entity or entities would have to be formed to finance,
design, build and operate the oil line -- and financing could well
be difficult since a Canadian oil line would cost approximately
$7 billion as compared with $3.6 billion for the Alaska oil line.
-- A detailed route study would have to be made. Technical
design data would have to be compiled to provide the basis for
U.S.-Canadian consultation concerning route selection and design.
-- A detailed project description of the oil line and
associated facilities would have to be prepared.
-- Applications would have to be made to the Department of
the Interior for rights-of-way across the U. S. public lands
involved in Alaska and in the Midwest where the pipeline would
enter the U. S. from Canada.
-- The Department of Interior would have to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
-- Canadian native land claims would have to be settled --
and this is most important. This is a crucial issue that cannot
be brushed aside by proponents of a trans-Canadian route. Last
May, Canadian Indians won the first round in what will surely be
a lengthy court battle with Canadian federal authorities for control
of 400,000 square miles of land in the Mackenzie Valley. The court
imposed a temporary land freeze on the 400,000 square miles. By
contrast, similar claims in Alaska have already been settled by
the Congress.
-- Application would have to be made to the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Canada, and public
hearings would have to be held. This application would have to be
(more)
Page 4
accompanied by a detailed social and environmental impact
statement.
-- If this environmental impact statement won approval, then
application would have to be made to the National Energy Board of
Canada and more public hearings held. The Canadian Cabinet would
have to approve the action of the Energy Board in certificating
the oil line.
-- Rights-of-way would have to be obtained to cross privately
owned lands; equipment and materials would have to be lined up;
detailed design of the pipeline would have to be carried out; and
roads necessary for construction of the oil line would have to be
built.
-- Last, but by no means least, any litigation with respect
to the Canadian oil line would have to be resolved.
All of these are valid reasons to expect lengthy delays if
Congress were to seek to build a Canadian oil line.
And there is one other factor that should be considered -- a
factor that is important to the Midwest. An oil line through
Alaska and a gas line through Canada can be built simultaneously --
and would be built simultaneously. That kind of scheduling would
not be possible if both the oil and gas line were to go through
Canada.
For a midwesterner, the strongest argument in favor of an
oil line from Alaska through Canada is that it would serve the
midwest.
In that connection, let's look at some supply and demand
figures.
The Department of Interior estimates that by 1980 the demand
for crude oil on the West Coast will be 3.13 million barrels a day,
and in the Midwest it will be 6.2 million barrels per day. By 1980
the deficit in the West Coast Region will be 2.065 million barrels
a day and in the Midwest Region it will be 4.884 million barrels.
The Midwest has traditionally been a crude oil deficit area,
and this deficit has been met by imports of surplus production from
the Gulf Coast Region via existing transportation facilities.
In 1970, for instance, the net flow of crude oil from the
(more)
Page 5
Gulf Coast Region to the Midwest was 1.918 million barrels a day.
By 1980, it is projected at 4.071 million barrels.
The West Coast, which does not have inter-district
transportation facilities comparable with those entering the Midwest,
will have to depend largely upon foreign sources to make up its
deficit. Thus, by 1980, minus North Slope oil, the West Coast
Region would be dependent upon Middle East sources for approximately
1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day -- more than one-third the
demand in that district. The Midwest, however, would be dependent
upon foreign sources for only 20 per cent of its demand -- and, in
the past, has obtained almost all of its foreign requirements from
Canada.
We are all, of course, deeply concerned about the environmental
aspects of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Is the Trans-Canadian oil
line environmentally superior? In my judgment, the two proposed
oil lines are environmentally comparable.
While the TAPS line would be 789 miles long, the
Trans-Canadian oil line would traverse some 3,200 miles. The
entire length of the TAPS line involves northern wildlife habitat.
However, the trans-Canadian line includes 1,700 miles of such
country. The TAPS line would cross 525 miles of permafrost; the
trans-Canadian line, 1,200. The TAPS line would involve one major
river crossing -- the Yukon; the trans-Canadian line, 12 major
river crossings.
Environmentalists are understandably concerned about the TAPS
line. But there is no question that every possible environmental
safeguard would be taken. More than half of the line would be
buried seven to 10 feet underground. Where the line is scheduled
to be above ground or elevated, ramps and underpasses would be
built so animals such as the caribou could pass through. Where
river crossings are involved, the line would be buried at least
five feet below each stream bed and encased in several inches of
concrete as insulation for the warm oil inside. Special
fast-growing grass would be planted as cover for the pipeline route
once the line was laid.
In addition, the TAPS line has been designed to be safe
from the most severe earthquake ever recorded in Alaska; the line
would be elevated over all unprotected permafrost; and the entire
line would be monitored every minute of every day to detect any
possible oil spillage. In the unlikely event of a break or rupture
(more)
Page 6
in the 48-inch line, the entire line could be shut down in less
than six minutes.
Environmentalists are justifiably concerned about the
possibility of oil spills as tankers transport Trans-Alaska Pipeline
oil from the Alaskan port of Valdez to the West Coast. However,
the project emphasizes a new tanker program involving segregated
ballast systems, sophisticated navigational equipment. U. S. Flag
tankers, and strict controls. Stringent operational procedures to
avoid collisions coupled with requirements for deballasting ships at
Valdez and the use of new ships built with the latest structural
designs will virtually eliminate any oil losses at sea.
Let me make one last point with regard to the national
security aspects of the pipeline question. I am convinced the
national security interests of the United States would be jeopardized
if we go the Trans-Canadian route instead of trans-Alaska. The
President's Task Force on Oil Import Control has pointed out that
dependence on the Middle East for more than 10 per cent of our oil
needs is dangerous. Oil dependence now exceeds this level and will
increase until we get the Alaskan oil. It would take at least six
years longer for a Trans-Canadian oil line to be operational than
it would for the TAPS line. This additional delay in getting North
Slope oil to the Lower 48 states would greatly imperil the national
security of the United States.
I have no objection to a study focused on construction of a
Trans-Canadian oil pipeline. But it should not delay the TAPS
project. In the final analysis, we need the TAPS line, a
trans-Canada gas pipeline and an eventual trans-Canada oil pipeline
from the Arctic once additional oil is found.
We can no longer permit sectional interests and the actions
of special interest groups to delay the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. We
should go ahead with it now. That is why I favor passage of
H.R. 9130 without amendment. In my opinion, the Department of
Interior has satisfied the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act with regard to the TAPS project and Congress should
preclude further judicial review of the impact statement filed by
the Interior Department. The six-volume TAPS Environmental Impact
Statement required over two years and thousands of man-hours to
prepare. It is nearly 3,000 pages long. All of the judges who
voted on the adequacy of the Impact Statement held that it complies
with NEPA. There is no question here of a precedent. The
congressional declaration that the TAPS Environmental Impact
(more)
Page 7
Statement satisfies the NEPA requirements should not be viewed as
a precedent. It is simply a finding by Congress which meets a
crisis situation.
I should also add at this point that all of the bills filed
by the gentleman from Illinois (John B. Anderson), a proponent of
the trans-Canadian oil line, provide for a waiver of the NEPA
requirement at the end of the proposed trans-Canadian study period.
I would ask: If a waiver is in order then, why not now?
Let us then move ahead with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. No
longer should the will of the American people be frustrated. We
need the Alaska pipeline, and we need it now.
# # #