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
4526496
label
American Gas Association, Washington, DC, May 17, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526496
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
American Gas Association, Washington, DC, May 17, 1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Alaska
Energy policy
Natural gas
Petroleum
Pipelines
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526496
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-05-31
month
5
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-05-01
month
5
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7e744b4c45549dc5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "American Gas Association,
Washington, DC, May 17, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON HILTON
HOTEL, 9:40 A.M. THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1973.
FOR THE LAST QUARTER OF A CENTURY
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PLAGUED BY
MANY PROBLEMS -- WORLD WAR 11, KOREA AND
VIETNAM; RACIAL STRIFE AND POLITICAL
UPHEAVAL; BALANCE OF PAYMENTS AND WORLD
MONETARY DISLOCATIONS, STRIKES, INFLATION;
AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGY ISSUES.
IN SPITE OF ALL OF OUR TROUBLES
WE HAVE IMPROVED OUR STANDARD OF LIVING
AND THE UNITED STATES HAS GROWN AT AN
UNPRECEDENTED RATE.
WE NOW ARE MOVING THROUGH A
PERIOD WHEN SOME AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO
HALT THE WHEELS OF PROGRESS. THEY WOULD
LIKE TO STOP ALL GROWTH.
-2-
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT MANY
OF OUR PROBLEMS ARE A RESULT OF GROWTH.
BUT IN A FREE-ENTERPRISE DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY, GROWTH IS ESSENTIAL.
THE GREATER THE GROWTH, THE
GREATER THE PROBLEMS OF CONTROL. BUT THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT GROWTH SHOULD BE HALTED.
THE UNITED STATES' DRAMATIC
GROWTH HAS BEEN DUE IN PART TO ITS
TREMENDOUS ABUNDANCE OF RAW MATERIALS.
OUR RECENT GROWTH TO THE STATUS OF A MAJOR
WORLD POWER HAS BEEN DUE, TO A LARGE EXTENT,
TO OUR HUGE ENERGY RESOURCES.
AS LONG AS WE CAN PROVIDE OUR OWN
ENERGY SUPPLIES OR HAVE SECURE SUPPLIES
AVAILABLE AT A REASONABLE PRICE, WE CAN
EXPECT GROWTH IN OUR ECONOMY. IF WE BECOME
DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN SUPPLIES, WE CAN
-3-
EXPECT CURTAILMENT IN OUR GROWTH, SINCE IT
WILL BE SUBJECT TO POLITICAL FORCES BEYOND
OUR CONTROL -- RADICAL FORCES.
IN RECENT YEARS OUR ABILITY TO
DEVELOP ENERGY SUPPLIES HAS BEEN SO
HAMPERED BY GOVERNMENT, ECOLOGICAL AND
TAX INTERESTS THAT U.S. SUPPLIES OF ENERGY
ARE BEING CONSUMED AT A MUCH FASTER RATE
THAN THEY ARE BEING DEVELOPED.
WE IN THE UNITED STATES THEREFORE
MAY BE ON THE VERGE OF A MAJOR CATASTROPHE --
LACK OF SECURE ENERGY RESOURCES TO OPERATE
OUR VAST INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND OUR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND TO HEAT OUR
HOMES.
WE DO NOT LACK THE RESOURCES, BUT
WE HAVE LACKED SUFFICIENT INCENTIVE FOR
THEIR DEVELOPMENT -- AND THAT SITUATION
-4-
MUST BE CHANGED, AND QUICKLY.
WE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE
THE CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
MUST ACT DECISIVELY TO END THE ENERGY
CRISIS -- WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
STRENGTHENING AND MODERATING OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED.
WE HAVE REACHED THE PEAK OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DEMANDS OF THE
ECONOMY FOR ENERGY AND THE NEED TO PROTECT
THE ENVIRONMENT -- AND THIS CONFLICT MUST
BE RESOLVED.
AN EXPANDING ECONOMY IS CLEARLY
NECESSARY IF WE ARE TO SOLVE OUR DOMESTIC
PROBLEMS AND PROVIDE JOBS AND INCOME FOR
OUR CITIZENS.
-5-
OUR NATIONAL ENERGY DEMANDS HAVE
EXPANDED BY 4.8 PER CENT PER YEAR IN ORDER
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A HEALTHY ECONOMY.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE BECOME MORE AND
MORE CONSCIOUS OF THE NEED TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AND TO PRESERVE OUR NATIONAL
RESOURCES BEFORE OUR AIR BECOMES
UNBREATHABLE AND OUR WATER INCAPABLE OF
SUPPORTING LIFE.
IT IS ON THE ISSUE OF ENERGY THAT
WE ARE GOING TO MEET OUR FIRST REALLY
DIFFICULT TEST OF ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMMODATE
CONFLICTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
NEEDS.
IN THIS CONNECTION, IT STRIKES ME
THAT THOSE OF YOU IN THE NATURAL GAS
INDUSTRY HAVE A STORY TO TELL. DON'T
ASSUME THAT THE MAN ON THE STREET KNOWS
-6-
GAS IS THE CLEANEST BURNING FUEL BEING
PRODUCED TODAY. TELL AMERICANS AGAIN AND
AGAIN THAT GAS IS RELATIVELY POLLUTION-FREE.
UNDERSCORE THE FACT THAT NATURAL GAS DOES
NOT POLLUTE WATER, DOES NOT PERMANENTLY
SCAR OUR LANDSCAPES AND OFFERS THE BEST HOPE
FOR ALLEVIATING AIR POLLUTION.
WHEN AMERICANS TALK ABOUT THE
ALASKA OIL PIPELINE, HOW MANY OF THEM
REALIZE THAT TREMENDOUS RESERVES OF NATURAL
GAS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN ALASKA IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE OIL THERE? HOW MANY
AMERICANS KNOW THAT THIS NATURAL GAS CANNOT
BE TAKEN OUT UNTIL THE OIL IS BEING
PRODUCED? HOW MANY PEOPLE KNOW THAT A
CONSORTIUM OF ENERGY COMPANIES ARE
FINALIZING PLANS TO BUILD A NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE FROM ALASKA THROUGH CANADA TO
-7-
THE LOWER 48 STATES? HOW MANY AMERICANS
HAVE ANY IDEA THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ALASKA PIPELINE IS AN ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP
IN BRINGING THE VAST GAS SUPPLIES OF THE
ALASKA NORTH SLOPE TO CONSUMERS IN THE
LOWER 48 STATES? AND HOW MANY PEOPLE
REALIZE THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS PIPELINE
THROUGH CANADA TO THE LOWER 48 STATES CANNOT
PROCEED UNTIL THE ALASKA OIL LINE IS LAID?
TO ME IT IS SHOCKING THAT WE
DISCOVERED OIL AND GAS IN HUGE QUANTITIES
IN ALASKA BACK IN FEBRUARY 1968 AND WE'RE
STILL JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW TO MOVE IT
FROM THERE TO HERE.
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND EITHER, THE
CURRENT TALK ABOUT BUILDING AN OIL LINE
THROUGH CANADA INSTEAD OF THROUGH ALASKA.
-8-
TO ME THIS KIND OF TALK JUST DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE.
A TRANS-CANADIAN LINE WOULD TAKE
ABOUT FIVE MORE YEARS TO BUILD THAN A
TRANS-ALASKA LINE. IT WOULD BE UNDER THE
CONTROL OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. AND THE
POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE WOULD
BE JUST AS GREAT IF NOT GREATER.
LOOKING AT THIS MATTER FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF BRINGING ALASKAN GAS TO
THE LOWER 48 STATES, GAS WOULD FLOW TO THE
LOWER 48 STATES BY ABOUT 1978 IF THE OIL
LINE WERE BUILT THROUGH ALASKA. BUT IF
THE OIL LINE IS CONSTRUCTED THROUGH CANADA,
THE GAS LINE WOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE
MID-1980's OR BEYOND. AND I AM TOLD BY
YOUR EXPERTS THAT THE COST OF THE GAS THEN
WOULD BE INCREASED SO SIGNIFICANTLY AS TO
-9-
CAST DOUBT ON THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF
THE ENTIRE UNDERTAKING.
I SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANS-ALASKA
PIPELINE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE.
AS YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE DELAYS
IN DEVELOPING THE ALASKAN OIL AND GAS
SUPPLIES HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOME
ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
RECENTLY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT CONFIRMED A DECISION THAT UNDER
EXISTING LAW NO PIPELINE COULD BE CONSTRUCTED
ACROSS ALASKA WITH A RIGHT OF WAY GREATER
THAN 54 FEET IN WIDTH. SINCE IT IS
CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO HAVE A MINIMUM
RIGHT OF WAY OF 100 FEET FOR EARTH-MOVING
AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, THIS
COURT DECISION EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS ANY
-10-
PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE TIME BEING.
THIS DUMPED THE ALASKAN PIPELINE
CONTROVERSY RIGHT INTO THE LAPS DE
CONGRESS, WHERE EXPANDED RIGHT-OF-WAY
LEGISLATION NOW IS BEING CONSIDERED.
I CAN REPORT TO YOU THIS MORNING
THAT ALASKAN PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
LEGISLATION WILL PROBABLY REACH THE HOUSE
FLOOR IN LATE JUNE OR EARLY JULY -- THE
SOONER THE BETTER.
CITIZENS OF ALASKA ARE ANXIOUS
TO DEVELOP THEIR GREAT OIL AND GAS
RESOURCES IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE ALASKAN
ECONOMY.
GOVERNMENT ECONOMISTS ARE ANXIOUS
TO INCREASE THIS SOURCE OF AMERICAN
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, ESTIMATED AT 25 PER CENT
OF OUR AMERICAN OIL SUPPLY, IN ORDER TO
-11-
PROTECT BOTH THE AMERICAN OIL INDUSTRY AND
THE AMERICAN CONSUMER AGAINST THE
UNWARRANTED PRICE INCREASES WHICH FOREIGN
PRODUCERS MIGHT OTHERWISE IMPOSE.
FINALLY, IMPROVEMENT OF THE
AMERICAN ECONOMY ITSELF IS DEPENDENT UPON
EXPLOITING THIS DOMESTIC SOURCE OF OIL
AND GAS. BY DEVELOPING THIS DOMESTIC
SUPPLY, THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AND OTHER
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CAN BE HELD IN LINE.
OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY CAN BE STABILIZED --
AND THE FIGHT AGAINST INFLATION CAN BE
REINFORCED.
I AM FROM MICHIGAN. I WOULD
LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ALASKAN PIPELINE
CONTROVERSY IS OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO
CITIZENS OF MID-AMERICA WHERE THE PINCH OF
-12-
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SHORTAGES IS BEING
EXPERIENCED TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN
ELSEWHERE IN THE NATION. THERE ARE THOSE
WHO SAY TO ME THAT ALASKAN OIL FLOWING
THROUGH AN ALASKAN RATHER THAN A CANADIAN
PIPELINE WILL GO PRIMARILY TO THE WEST
COAST. MY ANSWER IS THAT CONSTRUCTION OF
AN ALASKAN PIPELINE WILL BENEFIT THE ENTIRE
ECONOMY AND WILL BRING THE MIDWEST
ADDITIONAL NATURAL GAS MANY YEARS SOONER
THAN WOULD A TRANS-CANADIAN OIL LINE.
I THINK THE NEED TO BRING ALASKAN
GAS TO THE MIDWEST AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED FOR TOO LONG.
AS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHO
HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THE TRANS-ALASKAN
PIPELINE, IT IS TIME THEY TOOK PROPER NOTICE
OF THE TREMENDOUS CLEAN AIR BENEFITS WHICH
-13-
THE VAST ALASKAN NATURAL GAS RESERVES HOLD
FOR OUR CROWDED METROPOLITAN AREAS.
TO THIS POINT I HAVE TOUCHED ON
ONLY PART OF THE ENERGY PROBLEM AND ONLY
PART OF THE SOLUTION.
LET ME NOW SKETCH FOR YOU IN
BROAD OUTLINE THE COURSE OF ACTION I BELIEVE
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD FOLLOW TO DEAL
WITH THE ENERGY CRISIS.
1. WE SHOULD ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO PULL TOGETHER THE
FRAGMENTED STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES
AND BUREAUS NOW DEALING WITH ALL NATURAL
RESOURCES.
2. WE SHOULD ESTABLISH AND
ENFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALL
ENERGY DEVELOPING AND CONSUMING INDUSTRIES,
-14-
WITH THESE STANDARDS TO BE MODIFIED WHEN
JUSTIFIED. FLEXIBILITY SEEMS DESIRABLE TO
MEET UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS.
3. WE SHOULD DEVELOP ALL
CURRENTLY KNOWN OIL AND GAS RESOURCES TO
THE MAXIMUM EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. WE SHOULD
BUILD THE ALASKAN OIL PIPELINE AND A NATURAL
GAS LINE FROM ALASKA THROUGH CANADA
,
INCREASE LEASE SALES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
AND THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OF THE
U.S. AND ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA
WATERS, AND ALLOW FOR THE IMPORT OF
MATERIALS THAT CAN BE CONVERTED TO GAS.
4. WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE DOMESTIC
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
5. WE SHOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVES
FOR THE DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENT OF
-15-
NON-HISTORIC SOURCES OF ENERGY, PRODUCING
LIQUID AND GASEOUS FUELS FROM OIL SHALE,
COAL AND TAR SANDS AND DEVELOPING NUCLEAR
STIMULATION WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN TO BE
ADVANTAGEOUS.
AS YOU KNOW, THE FASTEST AND MOST
EASILY ACCESSIBLE SOURCE OF MAJOR NEW
NATURAL GAS IS THE OFFSHORE AREAS OF THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. IN RESPONSE TO
A DIRECTIVE FROM THE PRESIDENT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR HAS TENTATIVELY
SCHEDULED TWO MAJOR LEASE SALES EACH YEAR
THROUGH 1975 IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND
OFF THE PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC COASTS. THE
ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL GAS RESERVES UNDER
THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF COULD SUPPLY
THE NATION'S GAS NEEDS FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS.
THERE IS NO POINT IN MY RECITING
-16-
FACTS YOU ALREADY KNOW. I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE THE POINT, HOWEVER, THAT THE FUSS BEING
MADE OVER THE USE OF NUCLEAR POWER TO
RELEASE THE GAS LOCKED IN THE ROCK
FORMATIONS IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION IS
RIDICULOUS. AS YOU ARE AWARE, TWO
EXPERIMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONDUCTED IN
NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO AND BOTH INDUSTRY
AND THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ARE
MONITORING THE RESULTS OF THE EXISTING WELLS.
THE AEC HAS SHOWN THAT RADIOACTIVITY
ASSOCIATED WITH GAS PRODUCED FROM
NUCLEAR-ST IMULATED WELLS IS EXTREMELY LOW
AND WELL WITHIN ESTABLISHED LIMITS. AT
THE SAME TIME, THE FACT THAT AN ESTIMATED
300 TRILLION CUBIC FEET OF GAS ARE LOCKED
IN THIS RELATIVEL IMPERMEABLE ROCK DEMANDS
THAT WE ACT.
-17-
AND NOW -- AS LADY GODIVA SAID
TO HER HORSE AT THE END OF HER RIDE -- WE
COME TO THE CLOSE (CLOTHES).
WE CAN MEET OUR ENERGY NEEDS AND
PROVIDE FOR THE GROWTH VITAL TO OUR
WELL-BEING, BUT IT WILL TAKE BOLD AND
IMAGINATIVE STEPS AS WELL AS A CONCERTED
EFFORT AND A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PROBLEM BY ALL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AS I SAID EARLIER, THOSE OF YOU
IN THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY HAVE A STORY
TO TELL. THE NATURAL GAS MAN IS MR. CLEAN,
AND THAT'S AN ENVIABLE TITLE IN THIS AGE
OF ECOLOGY.
THE NATION AND THE WORLD NEED BOTH
A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT AND INCREASED ENERGY.
RESOLVING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE
REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT BE EASY, BUT IT
-18-
CAN BE DONE. WE FACE A CHALLENGE TO OUR
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, OUR LONGTERM
GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE PLANNING AND OUR
IMAGINATIONS.
THIS IS AN ISSUE WHICH DEMANDS
THE PARTICIPATION OF EVERY RESPONSIBLE
SEGMENT IN OUR SOCIETY. THIS INCLUDES
BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT, WORKING TOGETHER
TO FIND THE PROPER SOLUTIONS. WE KNOW WHAT
THE PROBLEMS ARE. IT'S TIME FOR US TO ACT.
END : :
Distribution: 25 copies w/F only
MOFFICE COPY
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL
9:40 a.m. THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1973
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
For the last quarter of a century the American people have been plagued by
many problems -- World War II, Korea and Vietnam; racial strife and political
upheaval; balance of payments and world monetary dislocations; strikes, inflation;
and environmental and ecology issues.
In spite of all of our troubles we have improved our standard of living and
the United States has grown at an unprecedented rate.
We now are moving through a period when some Americans would like to halt
the wheels of progress. They would like to stop all growth.
There is no question that many of our problems are a result of growth. But
in a free-enterprise democratic society, growth is essential.
The greater the growth, the greater the problems of control. But this does
not mean that growth should be halted.
The United States' dramatic growth has been due in part to its tremendous
abundance of raw materials. Our recent growth to the status of a major world power
has been due, to a large extent, to our huge energy resources.
As long as we can provide our own energy supplies or have secure supplies
available at a reasonable price, we can expect growth in our economy. If we become
dependent on foreign supplies, we can expect curtailment in our growth, since it
will be subject to political forces beyond our control -- radical forces.
In recent years our ability to develop energy supplies has been so hampered
by government, ecological and tax interests that U.S. supplies of energy are being
consumed at a much faster rate than they are being developed.
We in the United States therefore may be on the verge of a major
catastrophe -- lack of secure energy resources to operate our vast industrial
complex and our transportation systems and to heat our homes.
We do not lack the resources, but we have lacked sufficient incentive for
their development -- and that situation must be changed, and quickly.
We have reached a point where the Congress and Administration officials must
(more)
Page 2
act decisively to end the energy crisis while at the same time strengthening
and moderating our environmental requirements in the best interests of all concerned.
We have reached the peak of conflict between the demands of the economy for
energy and the need to protect the environment -- and this conflict must be resolved.
An expanding economy is clearly necessary if we are to solve our domestic
problems and provide jobs and income for our citizens.
Our national energy demands have expanded by 4.8 per cent per year in order
to meet the needs of a healthy economy. At the same time, we have become more and
more conscious of the need to protect the environment and to preserve our national
resources before our air becomes unbreathable and our water incapable of supporting
life.
It is on the issue of energy that we are going to meet our first really
difficult test of attempting to accommodate conflicting environmental and economic
needs.
In this connection, it strikes me that those of you in the natural gas
industry have a story to tell. Don't assume that the man on the street knows gas
is the cleanest burning fuel being produced today. Tell Americans again and again
that gas is relatively pollution-free. Underscore the fact that natural gas does
not pollute water, does not permanently scar our landscapes and offers the best
hope for alleviating air pollution.
When Americans talk about the Alaska oil pipeline, how many of them realize
that tremendous reserves of natural gas have been discovered in Alaska in conjunction
with the oil there? How many Americans know that this natural gas cannot be taken
out until the oil is being produced? How many people know that a consortium of energ
companies are finalizing plans to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska through
Canada to the Lower 48 States? How many Americans have any idea that construction
of the Alaska pipeline is an essential first step in bringing the vast gas supplies
of the Alaska North Slope to consumers in the Lower 48 States? And how many
people realize that construction of a gas pipeline through Canada to the Lower 48
States cannot proceed until the Alaska oil line is laid?
To me it is shocking that we discovered oil and gas in huge quantities in
Alaska back in February 1968 and we're still just talking about how to move it
from there to here.
(more)
Page 3
I cannot understand, either, the current talk about building an oil line
through Canada instead of through Alaska. To me this kind of talk just doesn't
make sense.
A trans-Canadian line would take about five more years to build than a
trans-Alaska line. It would be under the control of a foreign government. And the
potential for environmental damage would be just as great if not greater.
Looking at this matter from the standpoint of bringing Alaskan gas to the
Lower 48 States, gas would flow to the Lower 48 States by about 1978 if the oil
line were built through Alaska. But if the oil line is constructed through Canada,
the gas line would be delayed until the mid-1980's or beyond. And I am told by your
experts that the cost of the gas then would be increased so significantly as to cast
doubt on the economic feasibility of the entire undertaking.
I support legislation which would permit construction of the trans-Alaska
pipeline at the earliest possible date.
As you know, most of the delays in developing the Alaskan oil and gas
supplies have been caused by some environmentalists.
Recently the United States Supreme Court confirmed a decision that under
existing law no pipeline could be constructed across Alaska with a right of way
greater than 54 feet in width. Since it is considered necessary to have a minimum
right of way of 100 feet for earth-moving and other construction equipment, this
court decision effectively blocks any pipeline development for the time being.
This dumped the Alaskan pipeline controversy right into the laps of Congress,
where expanded right-of-way legislation now is being considered.
I can report to you this morning that Alaskan pipeline right-of-way
legislation will probably reach the House floor in late June or early July -- the
sooner the better.
Citizens of Alaska are anxious to develop their great oil and gas resources
in order to enhance the Alaskan economy.
Government economists are anxious to increase this source of American
petroleum products, estimated at 25 per cent of our American oil supply, in order
to protect both the American oil industry and the American consumer against the
unwarranted price increases which foreign producers might otherwise impose.
Finally, improvement of the American economy itself is dependent upon
exploiting this domestic source of oil and gas. Fy developing this domestic supply,
(more)
Page 4
the price of gasoline and other petroleum products can be held in line. Our
national economy can be stabilized -- and the fight against inflation can be
reinforced.
I am from Michigan. I would like to point out that the Alaskan pipeline
controversy is of special interest to citizens of mid-America where the pinch of
oil and natural gas shortages is being experienced to a greater extent than else-
where in the nation. There are those who say to me that Alaskan oil flowing through
an Alaskan rather than a Canadian pipeline will go primarily to the West Coast.
My answer is that construction of an Alaskan pipeline will benefit the entire
additional
economy and will bring the Midwest/natural gas many years sooner than would a
trans-Canadian oil line.
I think the need to bring Alaskan gas to the Midwest as quickly as possible
has been overlooked for too long.
As for the environmentalists who have been fighting the trans-Alaskan
pipeline, it is time they took proper notice of the tremendous clean air benefits
which the vast Alaskan natural gas reserves hold for our crowded metropolitan areas.
To this point I have touched on only part of the energy problem and only part
of the solution.
Let me now sketch for you in broad outline the course of action I believe
the United States should follow to deal with the energy crisis.
1. We should establish a Department of Natural Resources to pull together
the fragmented structure of the federal agencies and bureaus now dealing with all
natural resources.
2. We should establish and enforce environmental standards for all energy
developing and consuming industries, with these standards to be modified when
justified. Flexibility seems desirable to meet unexpected problems.
3. We should develop all currently known oil and gas resources to the
maximum extent consistent with environmental considerations. We should build the
Alaskan oil pipeline and a natural gas line from Alaska through Canada, increase
lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Outer Continental Shelf of the U.S. and
allow development in California waters, and allow for the import of materials that
can be converted to gas.
4. We should encourage domestic oil and gas exploration and development.
(more)
Page 5
5. We should provide incentives for the domestic development of
non-historic sources of energy, producing liquid and gaseous fuels from oil shale,
coal and tar sands and developing nuclear stimulation where it can be shown to be
advantageous.
As you know, the fastest and most easily accessible source of major new
natural gas is the offshore areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. In response to
& directive from the President, the Department of Interior has tentatively
scheduled two major lease sales each year through 1975 in the Gulf of Mexico and off
the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. The additional potential gas reserves under the
Outer Continental Shelf could supply the nation's gas needs for another 10 years.
There is no point in my reciting facts you already know. I would like to
make the point, however, that the fuss being made over the use of nuclear power
to release the gas locked in the rock formations in the Rocky Mountain region is
ridiculous. As you are aware, two experiments have already been conducted in
New Mexico and Colorado and both industry and the Atomic Energy Commission are
monitoring the results of the existing wells.
The AEC has shown that radioactivity associated with gas produced from
nuclear-stimulated wells is extremely low and well within established limits. At
the same time, the fact that an extimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas are locked
in this relatively impermeable rock demands that we act.
And now -- as Lady Godiva said to her horse at the end of her ride -- we
come to the close (clothes).
We can meet our energy needs and provide for the growth vital to our
well-being, but it will take bold and imaginative steps as well as a concerted
effort and a complete understanding of the problem by all of the American people.
As I said earlier, those of you in the natural gas industry have a story to
tell. The natural gas man is Mr. Clean, and that's an enviable title in this age
of ecology.
The nation and the world need both a clean environment and increased energy.
Resolving the conflict between these requirements will not be easy, but it can be
done. We face a challenge to our scientific research, our longterm governmental and
private planning and our imaginations.
This is an issue which demands the participation of every responsible segment
in our society. This includes business and government, working together to find
the proper solutions. We know what the problems are. It's time for us to act.
###
25 copies with Ford only
OFFICE COPY
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL
9:40 a.m. THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1973
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
For the last quarter of a century the American people have been plagued by
many problems -- World War II, Korea and Vietnam; racial strife and political
upheaval; balance of payments and world monetary dislocations; strikes, inflation;
and environmental and ecology issues.
In spite of all of our troubles we have improved our standard of living and
the United States has grown at an unprecedented rate.
We now are moving through a period when some Americans would like to halt
the wheels of progress. They would like to stop all growth.
There is no question that many of our problems are a result of growth. But
in a free-enterprise democratic society, growth is essential.
The greater the growth, the greater the problems of control. But this does
not mean that growth should be halted.
The United States' dramatic growth has been due in part to its tremendous
abundance of raw materials. Our recent growth to the status of a major world power
has been due, to a large extent, to our huge energy resources.
As long as we can provide our own energy supplies or have secure supplies
available at a reasonable price, we can expect growth in our economy. If we become
dependent on foreign supplies, we can expect curtailment in our growth, since it
will be subject to political forces beyond our control -- radical forces.
In recent years our ability to develop energy supplies has been so hampered
by government, ecological and tax interests that U.S. supplies of energy are being
consumed at a much faster rate than they are being developed.
We in the United States therefore may be on the verge of a major
catastrophe -- lack of secure energy resources to operate our vast industrial
complex and our transportation systems and to heat our homes.
We do not lack the resources, but we have lacked sufficient incentive for
their development -- and that situation must be changed, and quickly.
We have reached a point where the Congress and Administration officials must
:
(more)
Page 2
act decisively to end the energy crisis -- while at the same time strengthening
and moderating our environmental requirements in the best interests of all concerned.
We have reached the peak of conflict between the demands of the economy for
energy and the need to protect the environment -- and this conflict must be resolved.
An expanding economy is clearly necessary if we are to solve our domestic
problems and provide jobs and income for our citizens.
Our national energy demands have expanded by 4.8 per cent per year in order
to meet the needs of a healthy economy. At the same time, we have become more and
more conscious of the need to protect the environment and to preserve our national
resources before our air becomes unbreathable and our water incapable of supporting
life.
It is on the issue of energy that we are going to meet our first really
difficult test of attempting to accommodate conflicting environmental and economic
needs.
In this connection, it strikes me that those of you in the natural gas
industry have a story to tell. Don't assume that the man on the street knows gas
is the cleanest burning fuel being produced today. Tell Americans again and again
that gas is relatively pollution-free. Underscore the fact that natural gas does
not pollute water, does not permanently scar our landscapes and offers the best
hope for alleviating air pollution.
When Americans talk about the Alaska oil pipeline, how many of them realize
that tremendous reserves of natural gas have been discovered in Alaska in conjunction
with the oil there? How many Americans know that this natural gas cannot be taken
out until the oil is being produced? How many people know that a consortium of energ
companies are finalizing plans to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska through
Canada to the Lower 48 States? How many Americans have any idea that construction
of the Alaska pipeline is an essential first step in bringing the vast gas supplies
of the Alaska North Slope to consumers in the Lower 48 States? And how many
people realize that construction of a gas pipeline through Canada to the Lower 48
States cannot proceed until the Alaska oil line is laid?
To me it is shocking that we discovered oil and gas in huge quantities in
Alaska back in February 1968 and we're still just talking about how to move it
from there to here.
(more)
Page 3
I cannot understand, either, the current talk about building an oil line
through Canada instead of through Alaska. To me this kind of talk just doesn't
make sense.
A trans-Canadian line would take about five more years to build than a
trans-Alaska line. It would be under the control of a foreign government. And the
potential for environmental damage would be just as great if not greater.
Looking at this matter from the standpoint of bringing Alaskan gas to the
Lower 48 States, gas would flow to the Lower 48 States by about 1978 if the oil
line were built through Alaska. But if the oil line is constructed through Canada,
the gas line would be delayed until the mid-1980's or beyond. And I am told by your
experts that the cost of the gas then would be increased so significantly as to cast
doubt on the economic feasibility of the entire undertaking.
I support legislation which would permit construction of the trans-Alaska
pipeline at the earliest possible date.
As you know, most of the delays in developing the Alaskan oil and gas
supplies have been caused by some environmentalists.
Recently the United States Supreme Court confirmed a decision that under
existing law no pipeline could be constructed across Alaska with a right of way
greater than 54 feet in width. Since it is considered necessary to have a minimum
right of way of 100 feet for earth-moving and other construction equipment, this
court decision effectively blocks any pipeline development for the time being.
This dumped the Alaskan pipeline controversy right into the laps of Congress,
where expanded right-of-way legislation now is being considered.
I can report to you this morning that Alaskan pipeline right-of-way
legislation will probably reach the House floor in late June or early July -- the
sooner the better.
Citizens of Alaska are anxious to develop their great oil and gas resources
in order to enhance the Alaskan economy.
Government economists are anxious to increase this source of American
petroleum products, estimated at 25 per cent of our American oil supply, in order
to protect both the American oil industry and the American consumer against the
unwarranted price increases which foreign producers might otherwise impose.
Finally, improvement of the American economy itself is dependent upon
exploiting this domestic source of oil and gas. Fy developing this domestic supply,
(more)
Page 4
the price of gasoline and other petroleum products can be held in line. Our
national economy can be stabilized -- and the fight against inflation can be
reinforced.
I am from Michigan. I would like to point out that the Alaskan pipeline
controversy is of special interest to citizens of mid-America where the pinch of
oil and natural gas shortages is being experienced to a greater extent than else-
where in the nation. There are those who say to me that Alaskan oil flowing through
an Alaskan rather than a Canadian pipeline will go primarily to the West Coast.
My answer is that construction of an Alaskan pipeline will benefit the entire
additional
economy and will bring the Midwest/natural gas many years sooner than would a
trans-Canadian oil line.
I think the need to bring Alaskan gas to the Midwest as quickly as possible
has been overlooked for too long.
As for the environmentalists who have been fighting the trans-Alaskan
pipeline, it is time they took proper notice of the tremendous clean air benefits
which the vast Alaskan natural gas reserves hold for our crowded metropolitan areas.
To this point I have touched on only part of the energy problem and only part
of the solution.
Let me now sketch for you in broad outline the course of action I believe
the United States should follow to deal with the energy crisis.
1. We should establish a Department of Natural Resources to pull together
the fragmented structure of the federal agencies and bureaus now dealing with all
natural resources.
2. We should establish and enforce environmental standards for all energy
developing and consuming industries, with these standards to be modified when
justified. Flexibility seems desirable to meet unexpected problems.
3. We should develop all currently known oil and gas resources to the
maximum extent consistent with environmental considerations. We should build the
Alaskan oil pipeline and a natural gas line from Alaska through Canada, increase
lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Outer Continental Shelf of the U.S. and
allow development in California waters, and allow for the import of materials that
can be converted to gas.
4. We should encourage domestic oil and gas exploration and development.
(more)
Page 5
5. We should provide incentives for the domestic development of
non-historic sources of energy, producing liquid and gaseous fuels from oil shale,
coal and tar sands and developing nuclear stimulation where it can be shown to be
advantageous.
As you know, the fastest and most easily accessible source of major new
natural gas is the offshore areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. In response to
& directive from the President, the Department of Interior has tentatively
scheduled two major lease sales each year through 1975 in the Gulf of Mexico and off
the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. The additional potential gas reserves under the
Outer Continental Shelf could supply the nation's gas needs for another 10 years.
There is no point in my reciting facts you already know. I would like to
make the point, however, that the fuss being made over the use of nuclear power
to release the gas locked in the rock formations in the Rocky Mountain region is
ridiculous. As you are aware, two experiments have already been conducted in
New Mexico and Colorado and both industry and the Atomic Energy Commission are
monitoring the results of the existing wells.
The AEC has shown that radioactivity associated with gas produced from
nuclear-stimulated wells is extremely low and well within established limits. At
the same time, the fact that an extimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas are locked
in this relatively impermeable rock demands that we act.
And now -- as Lady Godiva said to her horse at the end of her ride -- we
come to the close (clothes).
We can meet our energy needs and provide for the growth vital to our
well-being, but it will take bold and imaginative steps as well as a concerted
effort and a complete understanding of the problem by all of the American people.
As I said earlier, those of you in the natural gas industry have a story to
tell. The natural gas man is Mr. Clean, and that's an enviable title in this age
of ecology.
The nation and the world need both a clean environment and increased energy.
Resolving the conflict between these requirements will not be easy, but it can be
done. We face a challenge to our scientific research, our longterm governmental and
private planning and our imaginations.
This is an issue which demands the participation of every responsible segment
in our society. This includes business and government, working together to find
the proper solutions. We know what the problems are. It's time for us to act.
###