Robert L. Smith---3 to disregard the noise of a pumping station read a plaque, and try to reconstruct in their imagination what the original scene must have looked like. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a great national treasure. Unfortunately, due to its great remoteness, we fail to react with the same good common sense that would come naturally if development were proposed for one of our well known and beloved National Parks in the Lower 48. Can anyone name a single National Park where we could install 100 miles of oil pipeline, 280 miles of roads, 11 oil production facilities, 4 airstrips, 60 permanent drill pads, 15 borrow sites for gravel, and 25 major stream crossings without destroying the natural beauty of the Park? Would the people of New York believe for one moment that we could drop such a complex into the Adirondacks just north of Lake Placid "in a careful and environmentally sound manner" as the Secretary of the Interior claims can be done in the Arctic Refuge? If such a proposal were made for Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades, or Glacier National Park, the true import of the plan would be clear immediately: it is a proposal to sacrifice an irreplaceable national treasure for a few months supply of oil. It impresses me as especially foolish and short-sighted that a great nation such as ours should propose to sacrifice such a area at precisely the time when we are making so little real effort to conserve energy. I believe that the Senate Committee has already had ample testimony on this Robert L. Smith---4 issue. Much more energy could be saved by conservation measures than we could ever hope to gain from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. As a private citizen who is not an energy expert I would like only to report my own personal experience to you. Recently I had to make a decision about retaining my old gas-guzzling automobile or buy a new one. My old vehicle is a three ton, four wheel drive truck that gets 15 miles per gallon at best, and tends to average about 12 miles per gallon overall. Certainly there was a temptation to keep it: it is big, roomy, and feels safe due to its massive weight. I am a skier, and it is convenient to have such a vehicle that can plow through 18 inches of snow. Like many other Americans, I could think of many reasons why I should keep and repair my beloved old gas-guzzler. I decided instead to purchase a new, light four wheel drive car that is getting 25 to 27 miles to the gallon in its fuel consumption. As I made my decision, I heard no appeals from our national leadership pleading with our citizens to conserve oil. There is absolutely no sigificant effort to make Americans aware that waste of petroleum is not a victimless crime: we are in fact all victims of this thirst for petroleum. Perhaps we would feel more embarassment if we were about to cap the Old Faithful geyser and drain off the hot water for heat. Simply because the Arctic Refuge is far off and remote, we don't have to face the fact that we are beginning to destroy our natural heritage to satisfy our thirst for oil. As I drive down our New York State Thruway these days, I am Robert L. Smith---5 flabbergasted at the number of vehicles that roar past me doing 65 to 70 miles per hour. Many of these vehicles also are, of course, fuel inefficient relics of the 1970's: lumbering old station wagons, rusty pick-ups, big four wheel drive Broncos, Blazers, and Scouts with oversize tires. We are energy big spenders, just like a private citizen big spender who is selling the family heirlooms to pay off credit card bills run up in high price restaurants. Our citizens are being badly misled by the campaign to picture the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain as an American Saudi Arabia. In the proposed legislation before you, S.1217, it is stated: "reports prepared by the Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and private groups clearly indicate that the public lands within the Coastal Plain constitute the most outstanding oil and gas prospect in the United States, onshore or offshore, with potential reserves in place estimated to be from 4.8 to 29.4 billion barrels of crude oil." This rosy forecast glosses over the details found in the Department of Interior's Final Report and Arctic Coastal Plain Resource Assessment of April 1987. No one in the current administration is highlighting the more unpleasant facts contained in the same report: that there is only a 198 chance that there will be any economically recoverable oil under the Coastal Plain, that it's potential contribution to total U.S. oil demand will never be more than 4% (based on the mean conditional recoverable oil estimate of 3.2 billion barrels), that by the year 2010 we will be importing more Robert L. Smith---6 than half of the oil we consume and that oil from the Refuge would reduce this dependence by a mere 4.9 percent. Having seen the Refuge with my own eyes, I am appalled that we are considering the sacrifice of a unique wilderness for such trivial, temporary, and misleading short-term economic advantage. Finally, since there has been much discussion of the impact of development on the Porcupine Caribou Herd, I would like to comment on my own observations in this regard. When our small group of backpackers encountered two caribou cows and their calves, the animals appeared extremely nervous and uncomfortable in our presence even at a distance of a quarter of a mile. They rapidly left the area and vanished out of sight. My own observations thus lead me to believe that the conclusion of the majority of caribou biologists is precisely correct: development in the core calving area of the herd will mean displacement of the animals to inferior habitat. It is ironic, in my opinion, that the Buffalo, an animal which we have exterminated from most of its historic range by hunting and development, is today the symbol of our Department of Interior. I urge that we not inflict the same fate on the Porcupine Caribou Herd and its wilderness homeland. S.1217 should be rejected. The 1002 Coastal Plain area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should receive complete wilderness protection as an inviolable wildlife sanctuary. Submitted by: Robert L. Smith, 4 Bonticouview Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561 Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I recommend that you contact Senator Wyche Fowler who did that same 10 day backpack up the Hula Hula River to the Brooks Range and got wet. And as you know, there ain't no way to get dry once you get wet. And he thought he was going to die, but in any event- [Laughter.] Mr. SMITH. It is pretty cool up there even in July. Senator BUMPERS. He still thinks it was the greatest experience he ever had in his life. He lost about 10 pounds. And it is a remarkable sight. We were up there, and I tried to talk him out of doing it because he had never done it before. And you know, you don't gather firewood up there to dry your clothes out at night. But in any event, I was interested in the experience you had and the way you described it. Gentlemen, thank you all very much for being with us today. Senator BUMPERS. Our next panel is Christopher Flavin, Senior Researcher, Worldwatch Institute; Cynthia Wilson, Friends of the Earth; John Helfrich, Sierra Club, Champaign, Illinois; Stephen McCarthy, Portland, Oregon. Is it Flavin? Mr. Flavin? Senator BUMPERS. Please feel free to proceed, Mr. Flavin. Go ahead. STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN, SENIOR RESEARCHER, WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE Mr. FLAVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to testify here today. I am concerned that much of the Nation's media and perhaps some members of this body are beginning to believe that the proposal by the Secretary of the Interior to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration is a solution to the country's energy problems. I will argue that this plan is in fact a dangerous diversion from the more effctive energy policy initiatives that are now needed. The Department of the Interior's own figures show that there is only a 19-percent chance that economically exploitable oil will be found in the refuge and that the mid-range estimate of available. oil comes to only 3.2 billion barrels. During the 30 years of the field, average production would come to about 290,000 per day or 1.8 percent of U.S. oil consumption. This is a significant amount of oil, but its development would at best delay by less than 1 year the major energy adjustment the United States must make during the coming decades. It is worth noting that in 1986 alone U.S. oil imports rose by a million barrels per day or over three times the projected contribution if exploitable oil should be found in the refuge. Further increases in U.S. oil imports are, as the Department of the Interior points out, almost guaranteed in the years ahead. |