the experience in those fields? Have you had the same dramatic recovery?

Mr. MURRAY. The South Ward field I mentioned to you, where the wells were producing 211⁄2 barrels, there they used fresh water, injected it in and got some of those 212-barrel wells back up to as high as 600 barrels per day, sir. So water, we usually use salt water, but when it is not available-we have salt water in Texas more often than we have fresh water-but either will work.

Mr. SAYLOR. And it is heated to a temperature just below boiling when it is inserted in the rock?

Mr. MURRAY. No, sir, in most of these water floods, we could not heat the water at all, sir. You may be thinking of some of the-in the more spectacular in California, what they call the huff and puff steam injection, which has done much to try to help California become a producing State rather than an oil-deficit State.

Mr. SAYLOR. I want to commend you on an outstanding statement. Mr. MURRAY. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think the subcommittee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. The Chairman is over getting permission to sit.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I am not sure I can be back at 2 o'clock, but I want to commend Mr. Murray. You use the kind of language, Mr. Murray, that the Congressman from Kansas can understand.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that a copy of Mr. Murray's testimony be sent to General Lincoln, with a covering letter requesting his comments.

Mr. EDMONDSON. That is an excellent suggestion. I hope we will get General Lincoln to read all of this testimony, because I think it has been tremendously instructive to us, and I have a feeling that they might learn something over in those departments if they read this testimony.

Mr. KAZEN. I think that is very appropriate, Mr. Chairman, because if I recall the testimony, they said they did not have a petroleum engineer on the entire task force or the staff.

Mr. SKUBITZ. You would not get Mr. Lincoln to read all the testimony. I suggest that we at least get his comments on Mr. Murray's testimony.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, may I say something tactfully, cautiously. There are no strings here on me to say whatever my conscience dictates. I am not paid by these associations that I represent, and I told them in the first place, my zeal for national welfare and conservation far exceeded by interest in the producing. But I am not so presumptious as to say these are my views.

I have checked with some of the vastly more authoritative sources, they have staff, they have brilliant people, and they use language that is a little above my head, but they are not for some reason in a position to come and say this is a fact.

Now, am I saying it discreetly? I am not at liberty to say, do not blame me, here are these I decry that these more authoritative sources have been quiet, but I have not found anyone who said, "Bill, you are wrong." I plead with them, look, I don't want to plead for a scarcity to help the industry. I couldn't care less. If less really exists, is it right? They say yes.

Then I say why haven't you been saying it, because you can speak with more authority.

I do not want to have an answer to that and I am being a little indiscreet, but I simply want to say this is not me speaking, I believe it, certainly, and all I would ask General Lincoln or any others, to keep an open mind long enough to subpoena or somehow get the people who really ought to know this picture.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, sir. I agree with you.

The subcommittee will be in recess until 2 this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. EDMONDSON. The subcommittee will resume sitting.

The gentleman from Wyoming is recognized for questions of Mr. Murray.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. MURRAY, JR., PRESIDENT, TIPRO, REPRESENTING LIAISON COMMITTEE OF COOPERATING OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATIONS—Resumed

Mr. WOLD. Mr. Murray, I want to welcome you to this committee. I would like to say that I wish we had more of the input that you have given today on that Task Force Import Study.

When I asked General Lincoln as to what sort of engineering advice their committee had had, he said that they had the Bureau of Mines and the engineering talent of the Department of the Interior available. But it would appear to me they did not use what they had available to the extent that many of us would like to have seen. And I do hope it may be possible on the Oil Policy Committee to bring some engineering expertise that was so obviously missing in the first committee study.

I have only one question. You mention the problem that you foresee from a national security point of view with respect to impending shortages of domestic oil and gas supplies. I wonder if you have any comments on what parts you think the coal and oil shale resources might have as a supplement in the years ahead.

Mr. MURRAY. Congressman, first may I express my humble and deep appreciation for those remarks. If I could presumptiously speak for engineers generally, I would ask that our collective views be weighed, and pretty generally when we are certainly working together on a problem, we do not come out very far apart. But we are a little negligent about thrusting forward to get the data before the public.

So if I am wrong, I think other engineers could show me or I could show other engineers if they are wrong, if we would just have the spotlight of searching open-minded inquiry on this matter. That is my gravest concern, that men far more brilliant than any of us engineers are, but they just do not have the experience in this particular complex. Thank you for those remarks.

Now, I am deeply concerned about the adequacy of the energy for the long-range future. Those associations that I represent would

somewhat optimistically and prejudicially, perhaps, like me to say if you just turn them loose, give them the incentive, they will find all of the oil they need. But I do not believe that.

All I say is that greater freedom from crippling legislation. regulation, they will do much better in keeping our Nation more self-sufficient. But I do not think we will ever attain again the selfsufficiency. That is a tough statement to make because it is unpopular. Therefore, to speak first to oil shale. I have long been of the opinion that oil shale will be ultimately a predominant source of liquid fuel for this Nation. You perhaps know better than I the fantastic reserves that theoretically are available in the offshore departments. More than all of the conventional oil of the world and a good portion of them. are in your State, Colorado, and Utah.

I have for many years been saying ultimately oil shale, but it is not practical yet, I am afraid it is in favor of conventional liquid oil. But I have been studying more and more the possibilities of oil shale. I have been increasingly concerned about ever being able to find all of the oil that we will need.

If regressive, I would talk about the chances of saving civilization is going to require many things. One is a manifold increase in the world consumption of energy, and if there is a chance of saving civilization within our lifetime. And when we begin to equate the energy needs of the world against the world oil reserves, they become quite small.

There is a recent U.S. Government commission on-I am embarrassed, I cannot recall the title of it-who recently made a report saying oil and natural gas are too valuable to burn, we must save them for raw materials, to save civilization. Now, I would have to agree with that on the long-range approach, but we have not got anything to turn to right now for our liquid fuel and we are not yet ready to use them for synthetic food and fiber production in the quantities that we ultimately will require.

This is a long way of saying that oil shale can be one of the salvations of this Nation in producing liquid oil. And I do believe that breakthrough could be soon forthcoming.

If I am asked to predict on the basis of what is being done, then the prospects are not there. The plant is closed down. There has been no further research. The major corporations that seemingly have expertise in oil shale have sort of lost interest. But I do believe we are pretty close to some technological breakthrough and that oil shale could become in the not too distant future competitive with regularly produced oil without a Government subsidy, but just given an even break in the situation.

Now, it cannot become competitive if we adopt the philosophy of the task force and deliberately try to bring about a reduction in the price. But left alone, with the price at its levels and the price it will be required to furnish incentives for continued investment and development of crude oil, I think there will be developed a shale oil interest. That is responsive to your question on shale oil and coal. I feel that the others are so much more expert than I am in coal. We have gotten greater energy reserves in coal, but I question the practicality for a good many years of converting coal to motor fuel. Coal ought to be burned for heating, for power generation, for those purposes, and we

will use oil from petroleum and oil from shale for combustible engines and mobile use.

Mr. WOLD. I presume when you say you do not think we will ever become self-sufficient again, you are basing that on a consideration of competitive worldwide fuel costs, rather than our ability?

Would you agree if we were willing to pay the price, we could be self-sufficient?

In other words, if you are willing to go to $5 a barrel or $6 a barrel, this would bring some of these other resources into the ball park that you are talking about? Is that right or not?

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir. Of course, I am trying to be realistic. I hope they will not ruin the industry for very meager consumer saving that I do not think would be long lasting. On the other hand, I am not so naive as to assume you are going to give immediately any great increase to the domestic industry.

Therefore, within the conditions that I would foresee as being reasonably possible to attain, I do not think the country will again become self-sufficient from its own domestic petroleum reserve, but to the extent that we can-now, the task force report acknowledges that, but also assumes that we are going to continue to increase the domestic reserves, increase production in this Nation, even on $2-a-barrel oil in 1980.

It is my view that even at the current conditions, we are going downhill. I hate to say that, but that is my view.

So I would agree as long as it is available and security is not too greatly impaired, we will supplement the foreign sources. But as the task force says, the extent to which we become dependent, particularly on Arabian bloc nation oil, they imply that is insecure because they want to limit it to 10 percent. I would be pretty happy just for the country's welfare if I could be guaranteed we always have all of the oil liquid we need and never take more than 10 percent in North Africa and the Middle East.

I do not think it is realistic. We do not have the reserves in Venezuela. They have some illusions there like we have in the United States. Canadian oil was moving in great quantities until some recent cutbacks, but on the other hand, Canada is importing Middle East oil and if we are going to worry about their security we have to look at their net position and the fact they are willing to send us their oil while they buy Middle East does not help the security standpoint.

Again, I do not propose to be an expert on the North Slope but I have talked with the men who are the best experts and they say this is a truly great sign. But we cannot look upon it as in any means answering the problem.

So forgive me, I wish I could have said it more briefly. No, sir, I do not see immediate self-sufficiency from domestic crude oil. I say a continuing, a necessary and continuing, virile aggressive domestic petroleum industry, I hope that will be a developing synthetic fuel industry, particularly from oil shale.

I hope there will be an aggresive, technological development in coal. My first judgment is we will use coal for other purposes and gas and fuel oil used now where coal could do as well, we could save oil for gasoline and agriculture, et cetera.

Thank you.

Mr. WOLD. That is all I have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Murray. We are delighted to have you with us.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Does the gentleman from Texas have any questions?

Mr. KAZEN. None, Mr. Chairman, except that I appreciate the testimony of the witness. I think he is one of the most learned men in this field in the United States, and it is a pleasure for us to have you before us, Mr. Murray, and we appreciate your testimony. Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate the comments that you have offered to us today. I recall this morning that you indicated that the domestic petroleum industry probably would not be in a position today to respond to a national or international shortage, as was the case in 1967 when the Suez was closed under difficulties that were encountered there.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. Am I correct in understanding that we probably do not have the reserves in this country today relative to our domestic consumptions that perhaps we had in the past?

Mr. MURRAY. No, we do not have, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. It would seem to me both of those points might be a very good argument for increasing the flow of imports into the United States, since we apparently do not seem to be in a position to match, or hardly are in a position to match, the domestic needs of American economy in the future. We do not have the reserves, the proven reserves today, and we probably do not have the ability to respond to a domestic or international crisis to the same extent as we had in past years.

Mr. MURRAY. That reasoning-and it is rather difficult without a good bit of understanding and discussion to answer-that reasoning that if we do not have the reserves-now I use two terms, reserve means barrels of recoverable oil in the ground and reserve production capacity, or as the task force uses surplus producing capacity, meaning available producing capacity, are two things.

I like it to be official. I do not like to open up and call it wise. We were not willing to do that in World War II because we did not know how long the war would last. We did not care about wasting, but if we opened up today we might be deprived of what we had to have tomorrow. So we would rather do it a little more gradually and make it last longer.

So the question, you are correct, I do not feel that we have any appreciable net efficient reserve producing capacity in the Nation. Also our reserve ratio, our recoverable reserves to annual consumption is steadily declining. So the argument can be made, why, therefore, should we not import all of the foreign oil we can get while we can get it, and save our own reserves for the time when we will not have access to the foreign oil.

Mr. RUPPE. Or perhaps utilize them at a constant rate.

Mr. MURRAY. Correct.

Now, the answer to that argument that is given is that if you do not produce currently, you do not generate income for the industry,