- 37 -
testimony herein, as late as 1997 no Alaska regulations
specifically covered Prudhoe Bay fieldwide DRR obligations of
the oil companies. He testified as follows:
Question. So in June of 1994, your Deputy
Commissioner said there was no established policy on
DRR and in June of 1997 you said there is no fixed
policy on DRR but now you are claiming on the
witness stand that there is, is that correct?
Answer. I’m not claiming there is a policy. I am
claiming there’s an expectation. We do not have a
policy written in regulation about lease closure and
how we go about lease closure. This has been a
general concern of the industry that goes well
beyond this case, and the purpose of my memorandum
to the staff was to continue work that had begun
earlier on such a policy.
However, we have certainly in the lease and, I
think, in a variety of other arenas stated our
expectations of the industry, and I think those
expectations show very high standards in terms of
environmental cleanup.
Question. But those expectations are not stated in any
regulation or official ruling, is that correct?
Answer. That is correct.
The 1979 joint Federal-State commission that studied
Alaska land use issues and that concluded that development
activities in the North Slope should not irreversibly damage
the environment and that the environment should be “capable”
of restoration upon completion of development activities
imposed no fixed and definite DRR obligations on Exxon. An
“expectation” of and the “capability” of restoration do not
necessarily require restoration.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011