On the recordMarch 6, 2002
I wonder if I could respond to some questions that the Senator from Oklahoma, the minority whip, brought up because I certainly agree with his contention that these matters have not been addressed in a committee process. They are being addressed on the floor. As I indicated earlier in my opening statement, we have quite a responsibility before us to educate Members. I think the questions my friend from Oklahoma posed deserve consideration. I wonder if I could perhaps offer an explanation as to why the proposed route that has been supported by the State of Alaska is the preferred route. As my colleague knows, the concentration of capital necessary to build either route is going to be substantial, somewhere in the area of $15 to $20 billion. Clearly, the companies that are going to build this pipeline are interested in a return on their investment. I don't think my colleague is aware of the particulars associated with the northern route. It would require roughly 400 miles of pipeline at sea. If I can refer to the map, I think it is important to recognize that this is an area that is extraordinary because it runs roughly from Prudhoe Bay, where the gas has been discovered about 400 miles off the Arctic coast. This is an area that is only ice free about 40 days of the year. We are well above the Arctic Circle here. As a consequence, the technology is obviously achievable, but there is still a question of at what price.
Source
govinfo.gov




