development in terms of what is happening in the Santa Barbara Channel or in the Louisiana Gulf?

Secretary NEHMER. Let us hope not, Mr. Carey, but the risk is certainly there.

Mr. CAREY. Would you say domestic oil production industry-I am not condemning it but has it been a sizable contributor to the nationwide pollution program in terms of its input into the atmosphere of refinery gases and others, and as yet we have no conservation fund nor commitment by that industry of a mandatory or voluntary nature to do something about its contribution to pollution of the environment on a national basis?

Secretary NEHMER. I am just not familiar, I am sorry, with this aspect of the problem, Mr. Carey. I would be glad to look into it and file a note with the committee.

Mr. CAREY. Perhaps a penny a barrel or perhaps a half-cent a barrel at the wellhead, the origin, might not be a bad way to get together a little fund to clean up the atmosphere and contribute also to cleaning up the smog over the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco and New York, that is occasioned by the use of the finished product at the end of the exhaust pipe in the automobile.

Secretary NEHMER. I am in just no position to comment on the feasibility of that concept.

Mr. CAREY. I am just bouncing these off the table for anybody who wants to listen to them.

Secretary NEHMER. We have noted them.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, do the members of the Oil Policy Committee feel that the Oil Policy Committee is bound by the recommendations of the task force?

Secretary NEHMER. Is your question directed to the five people who signed the task force report?

Mr. MCCLURE. I am just wondering whether the Oil Policy Committee is going to start from this report and develop policy from there, or whether they are going to start making their own decisions with only due regard to the recommendations of the task force.

Secretary NEHMER. I can say, Mr. McClure, as far as we are concerned in our Department, we would not be bound by this part of the report, but rather by the end of the report, by the separate report, without any question.

Mr. McCLURE. Thank you very much. I think that answers my question.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. EDMONDSON. If not, I want to thank you, Mr. Nehmer, for your very fine presentation. Thank you for bringing to the committee some very helpful staff assistants to participate in the hearing this morning. Secretary Dole, I really believe if you can be available at 2 o'clock, we can get permission to convene this afternoon.

Subject to that being granted, the subcommittee will be recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. EDMONDSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our witness this afternoon is the Assistant Secretary for Mineral Resources of the Department of Interior, Hollis M. Dole.

Mr. Secretary, will you come forward and take the chair, and identify any of your staff who are with you here today and who may be assisting with your presentation.

STATEMENT OF HON. HOLLIS M. DOLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY WILSON LAIRD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OIL AND GAS; J. J. SIMMONS III, ADMINISTRATOR OF OIL IMPORT ADMINISTRATION; AND HENRY RUBIN, STAFF ASSISTANT TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Mr. DOLE. With your permission, I would like to have Dr. Wilson Laird, Director of our Office of Oil and Gas, sit here on my right, and Mr. J. J. Simmons III, who is Director of our Oil Import Administration sit here on my left, and Mr. Henry Rubin, who is a staff assistant in my office, I would like to have here for reference purposes.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Very fine.

Mr. Secretary, most of these people you have with you are known to this committee, but for the purpose of the record I would appreciate it if you would do the same thing that we have had other witnesses do, and that is supply a brief biographical sketch on each of the individuals who participate with you in the presentation here today for the record.

Mr. DOLE. That will be done, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, sir. Without objection those sketches when we receive them will be made a part of the record. (The information follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF WILSON M. LAIRD

Wilson Morrow Laird, Director, Office of Oil and Gas, Department of the Interior, was born in Erie, Pa., March 4, 1915; educated in the schools of Erie and McKean, Pa. B.A. (cum laude), Muskingum College 1936; M.A., University of North Carolina 1938; Ph.D., University of Cincinnati 1942; D.Sc. (hon.) Muskingum College 1964. Experience includes geologist with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey seasons of 1936, 1937 and 1940. Graduate assistant, University of North Carolina 1936-38. Graduate assistant, University of Cincinnati 1938-40. Assistant professor, University of North Dakota 1940-42. Associate professor 1942-46. Full professor 1946–69. Acting State geologist, North Dakota Geological Survey, February 1941 to July 1941. State Geologist 1941-1969. Consulting geologist with Carter Oil Co. (now Humble Oil and Refining) 1948 season; Continental Oil Co. 1949 season; Beers and Heroy 1950 season. Geologist with the United States Geological Survey seasons 1944-45. Professional geological work has been done in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Montana, Canada, Germany, Turkey and Alaska. Supervisor of oil and gas in North Dakota 1941-69; technical advisor to the North Dakota State Water Commission 1945–69. On August 18, 1969 he was appointed Director of the Interior Department's Office of Oil and Gas, which serves as a channel of communication between the Federal Government and the petroleum industry and oil producing states. It also has a key role in oil and gas defense planning. Honors include President's Award of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (with L. L. Sloss) 1948; President of the Association of American State Geologists 1950; President of the North Dakota Acad

emy of Science 1952; Fellow of the Geological Society of America. Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geoligists, the Paleontological Society, the North Dakota Academy of Science, the Association of American State Geologists, of Sigma Xi, The National Association of Geology Teachers, the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, the American Association of University Professors. Listed in Who's Who in America, American Men of Science, Who's Who in the Midwest, Who's Who in Commerce and Industry. Dr. Laird is married, has three sons and a daughter.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOSEPH JACOB SIMMONS III

Title: Administrator, Oil Import Administration, Department of the Interior. Age: 44, born March 26, 1925, in Muskogee, Okla. Address: Home: 1540 Geranium St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20012 829-4039. Office: Room 6637, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. 343-6951. Education: 1942-41-Civil Engineering, University of Detroit, 1946-47-Civil Engineering, University of Detroit, 194749-B.S. Geological Engineering, St. Louis University. Previous experience: 1949-61-Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, Geologist, Simmons Royalty Company, Muskogee, Oklahoma. 1957-61-Insurance Executive-Agency Owner, Simmons Insurance Agency, Muskogee, Okla. 1961-62-Regional Defense Oil & Gas Specialist, Department of the Interior, Office of Oil and Gas, Battle Creek, Michigan. 1962-66-Domestic Petroleum Production Specialist, Department of the Interior, Office of Oil and Gas, Washington, D.C. 1966-68-Assistant Director, Office of Oil and Gas, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1968-69Deputy Administrator, Oil Import Administration, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1969-present-Administrator, Oil Import Administration, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Military service: 1944-46-Sergeant, U.S. Army Air Force, overseas duty. Family data: Married to the former Bernice Miller, five children.

Other: Publications: 1963-"Plain Facts About Oil," U.S. Department of the Interior, Government Printing Office. 1967-"Vulnerability of Natural Gas Utility Systems to Nuclear Attack," San Jose, California, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1968 "Vulnerability of Natural Gas Utility Systems to Nuclear Attack," Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S. Department of the Interior. Special awards: 1963-Special Act of Service Award-U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1968-Outstanding Performance Award-U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1968-Alumni Merit Award-St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri. Professional associations: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Society of Petroleum Engineers of the AIME, Tulsa Geological Society, Registered Professional Engineer-State of Oklahoma.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, as you are well aware, the current oil import program and the discussions by the Cabinet Task Force on Oil Import Controls have been extensively reported for the past several months. The administration has not yet reached a final decision on the task force submission.

The arguments have been conveniently summarized in the task force's report, published February 20, which you have all read, at least in part. Accordingly, in my statement this morning, I shall try, insofar as possible, to avoid repeating arguments and positions with which you are all familiar. Instead, I would like to offer some observations which we in the Interior Department think are most pertinent on certain aspects of our energy supply. This necessarily includes discussions on foreign and domestic scenes, and the relationship of energy to our Nation's economic growth and national security.

Attached to the text of my statement is a preliminary analysis of energy requirements of the United States projected to 1985, which was recently developed by the Bureau of Mines. A superficial look

strongly over the 15-year period between 1970 and 1985, and that oil and natural gas will still be by far the largest component in the energy needs by 1985.

When one attempts to determine the gross requirements for fuels during this period, however, he emerges with a set of figures that are almost incomprehensibly large. In the coming 15 years the economy of the United States will require 100 billion barrels of oil; 420 trillion cubic feet of gas; and more than 10 billion tons of coal.

To provide some basis for comparison, this is more oil than was consumed in the United States from the beginning of the oil industry in 1859, through the end of 1967. It is more-by 80 trillion cubic feet— than all the natural gas our Nation has consumed in all its history. It is more coal than has been mined in the United States since the end of the Second World War.

I state these requirements with the expectation that they will somehow be supplied. To the extent that demand in one or more of these fuel categories cannot be supplied, demand for other energy sources (including electricity generated by nuclear and hydropower) will be proportionately higher, or the rate of our economic growth will be proportionately less.

I have used these seemingly extravagant terms to emphasize a crucial point: Namely, that unless we take prompt and substantial action, we shall pass from a period of energy sufficiency into a period of general energy insufficiency. There is a general recognition among knowledgeable people that at presently indicated rates of discovery, it is highly unlikely that our gas supply will be able to keep up with the demand over the next several years, and I testified to this effect before the Senate Subcommittee on Minerals and Fuels last November.

But it is not only gas that is in dwindling supply: In 5 years out of the past nine, we have failed to replace as much oil as we withdrew from our proved reserves. We are uncomfortably close to the limits of our capacity to generate electricity.

For the past 2 years, we have consumed and exported more coal than we mined, with the result that electric powerplants are now operating with a 70-day supply of coal instead of the 90-day supply they customarily maintain.

Yet the impending reductions in energy supply is an economic condition, not a physical one. The fact is that we have enormous resources of hydrocarbon fuels-solid, liquid, and gaseous-that are available to us any time we care to undertake the cost and effort to find, extract, and produce them. The case of coal illustrates the paradox of the condition of economic scarcity coexisting with a condition of physical abundance. With a thousand-year supply of coal in sight, we are short of coal in 1970 because, for various reasons, economic incentives have not been sufficient to bring the required volumes to market.

We know exactly where the coal is; we know with a high degree of reliability just how much of it exists; but we simply have not been willing to create enough capacity to get it out of the ground.

The case of oil shale is in many respects similar to that of coal. The marlstone deposits of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have been identified and located. Their potential exceeds the proved petroleum re

because we have chosen to use fuels whose technology we understand better.

The situation regarding oil and gas differs from that of coal and oil shale only in degree, not in kind. The difference is that the bulk of the oil and gas resources of the United States have not as yet been identified and located. Yet they exist, as surely as do the resources of coal and oil shale. The Potential Gas Committee-a group of eminent petroleum scientists and engineers in whose judgment I have great confidence estimates that not less than 1,227 trillion cubic feet of gas remain to be discovered in the United States-260 trillion cubic feet in existing fields, and another 335 trillion cubic feet in known producing provinces.

The U.S. Geological Survey has published estimates of undiscovered crude oil in place exceeding 2 trillion barrels within the United States and its continental shelves out of the 200-meter isobath.

I am saying here that this condition of energy scarcity we appear to be entering is not the true reflection of our natural resources availability. It is more a matter of economic choice. The remedy is also a matter of economic choice, as I shall attempt to demonstrate later in my testimony.

On a number of occasions the most recent being last week-the Government of the United States has gone to extraordinary lengths to forestall a threatened stoppage of rail transportation service. It did so because it is perfectly clear to everyone that the total failure of rail transportation would be a national disaster.

We can draw an analogy here between this threatened transportation stoppage and a total breakdown in our oil supply. Such a failure of oil supply would not just be a stoppage of rail transportation; it would halt the movement of all aircraft, all trucks and buses, all privately owned automobiles, all barges, boats, and ships.

Through its impact on transportation, it would virtually shut down all industry, including electric power generation, and tens of millions of people would be without heat in their homes. Our Armed Forces would be immobilized, and our economy would descend into utter chaos. Short of a nuclear attack, I cannot imagine a worse contingency than the complete stoppage of the flow of oil in the United States.

This is admittedly the worst case, and it obviously cannot happen as long as there is a substantial and economic incentive for producing oil in the United States. But I think it is clear that even a partial cutoff of oil can produce extremely difficult and dangerous consequences for our country. It follows that the security or reliability of our oil supply is worth a very high price indeed. It is nothing to be trifled with, or carelessly bargained away.

Yet I see the security of our oil supply-and by extension, the security of our country-as the central issue before us today.

We can buy oil abroad cheaply, and neglect the development of our own petroleum resources at home, and hope that we can somehow always obtain our needs from sources that are not under our control.

Or we can pay a higher price, force the development of our domestic resources-not only of oil and gas, but of synthetic liquid and gaseous fuels and know that regardless of events in other parts of the world,