RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT BY BUREAU OF MINES, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Question 1: Please furnish a breakdown of research and development programs in the field of pollution abatement, including funding. Answer: The following table shows a further breakdown of Bureau of Mines research and development programs in the field of pollution abatement. For the case of air pollution, a breakdown of funds used directly on pollution abatement projects is given back to 1956. This constitutes funds transferred by the Public Health Service to the Bureau of Mines for specific projects on the subject. The Bureau of Mines budget structure is not such as to make possible a similar breakdown for conservation or health and safety appropriations, except for the years 1966 and 1967. For the most part, directly appropriated funds for conservation or for health and safety have resulted in pollution abatement as well as conservation of natural resources. For the fiscal years 1966 and 1967, Bureau appropriated funds having air pollution implication are given. In years prior to 1966, the funding of projects having air pollution connotation would doubtless be similar, but somewhat less, than that shown for 1966. The figures given for waste disposal are those expended under the provisions of the Waste Disposal Act of 1965.

As in the case of air pollution, a number of Bureau research programs on the conservation and development of natural resources contributed toward the elimination of waste materials. However, the exact dollar value of these programs cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy. The same difficulty occurs in connection with the Bureau's work on acid mine drainage. A small program-approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per year-has been in progress for many years. While the results of this work have been gratifying, the size of the program has been entirely too small to provide sufficient information for a reasonable solution to the problem. A number of other multipurpose research programs by the Bureau contribute toward the abatement of environmental pollution. For example, the mine fire control program is basically designed to conserve natural resources and to prevent subsidence. However, the fumes from the fires may contribute materially to the air pollution problem. While over $8 million will be available in fiscal year 1967 for these purposes under provisions of the Mine Fire Control Act and the Appalachian Regional Development Act, it is impossible to say what portion of this amount should be considered as contributing to air pollution abatement. Another example of this type of effort is the program on mine area restoration. While pollution abatement is not the basic purpose for this research, it does decrease acid mine drainage in many areas and prevents pollution of soil and water by silt.

68-240-66—vol. II- -13

1 Bureau of Mines program funds expended on projects contributing to pollution abatement. Does not include funds received from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for demonstration work on acid mine drainage control. It is expected these will total approximately $450,000 for fiscal year 1967.

It is expected that Public Health Service will transfer $759,000 to the Bureau of Mines for air pollution research for fiscal year 1967.

Question 2: Do you believe that your current and near-term program for research and development is adequate? What additional effort do you believe is required?

Answer: As stated during the hearings, we estimate that the Bureau's efforts in abatement of air pollution at the source should be expanded by a factor of approximately five over that which was available in 1966. We believe that a program of this size would be sufficient to provide industry and Government with much needed technologic information on the handling and use of fossil fuels, without the resulting contamination of the atmosphere. If contract authority should become available to the Bureau for research contracts with universities, nonprofit organizations, and industry, even more funds could be used to advantage. This should provide a well-balanced program for the development of economically feasible methods for control of pollution at the source. Without doubt, research on solid wastes will have to be expanded beyond the present fund limitations if the solutions for the many complicated problems are to be achieved. However, since this program is relatively new, it is difficult to anticipate the percentage increase which may be required inside of the next 2 or 3 years. The greatly expanded efforts on mine drainage work which is being performed in cooperation with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is just getting underway. While funds for this work will doubtless have to be increased inside the near future, it is, again, difficult or impossible to make a realistic estimate of the increase in funds which will be needed.

Question 3: Has the inability to contract with universities and industry hindered your program?

Answer: Inability to supplement Bureau of Mines research programs with research contracts to universities and private firms has hindered some of our pollution abatement programs. However, this problem will be much more serious in the future if some of the additional funds requested become available for use by the Bureau, without at the same time being given authority to contract out some of the research.

Question 4: What is the extent of coordination between the Bureau of Mines and other agencies and to what extent does the Bureau maintain contact with overseas programs in other countries?

Answer: As stated during the hearings, the Bureau of Mines has an excellent working relationship with the Japanese and maintains close contact with work being done in Britain, Germany, and other European countries. For the most part, the Bureau of Mines research program on pollution abatement is markedly different than other Interior agencies with the exception of water pollution. In the field of air pollution, the Bureau has assumed primary responsibility in the Department's efforts. Periodic meetings with representatives of other agencies in the Department tend to keep them aware of progress in the field and needs for increased efforts. These contacts will be maintained to insure that there will be no overlapping of efforts among the various agencies. As stated previously, there is a close working relationship between scientists in the Bureau of Mines and those in the Division of Air Pollution, Public Health Service. Since that organization has primary responsibility for the overall Federal program, there would seem to be little need for further coordination with other departments. Additionally, Bureau scientists keep in touch with programs of other departments through interdepartmental-type committees. The Bureau of Mines work on acid mine drainage is unique to the mining industry, and the problem is of little or no interest to most other departments. Its recently expanded work is done in close cooperation with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the Geological Survey, and State and local water pollution control organizations. Generally, solid waste disposal research and development is coordinated with the corresponding work in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. For the most part, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 clearly defines the areas of responsibility of the two departments, and no difficulties are anticipated.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT BY P. N. GAMMELGARD, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Question 1: Concerning the eventual exhaustion of petroleum, what are your views on a policy which would reserve liquid fossil fuels for use as chemical raw materials and depend more on coal, coal gasification products, and nuclear energy for heat, electric power, and transportation?

Answer: In 1961, a special National Fuels and Energy Study Group was established by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to make a thorough evaluation of our Nation's fuels and energy resources. The motive for such an evaluation was a fear, expressed in some quarters, that this Nation may be in danger of running out of oil and natural gas, and that end-use controls were therefore needed to conserve these assets.

But after roughly 10 months of exhaustive analysis, the study group submitted its report to the Senate committee and, in effect, rejected any policy of end-use controls. The study group called the "wasting asset" argument for end-use controls irrelevant because total energy supplies are far in excess of anticipated needs for a long time to come. They further stated that "the fundamental cost of strict acceptance of the doctrine of controlled end-use would seem to be a broad range of cumbersome policies that in an economic sense would probably misallocate resources." One of the key points made in the report was that "competition among fuels has been a factor in making America an energy-intensive economy *** Such competition provides the product-fuels in this case-at the least cost to the public." Prior to publication of the study group's report, representative groups having an interest in fuels and energy policy were asked to submit statements to be included in the report. The consumer's right to select the product he wants, and the right of private business to compete fairly in supplying these products has and should continue to be the foundation of this Nation's policy toward business.

The adequacy of our liquid petroleum reserves has been examined time and again. Prophets of doom have been predicting for more than half a century that our reserves of this vital resource would be gone by 1925, then by 1941, and then 1962. But, year after year, oil exploration and development have increased, with the result that today our Nation's reserves of crude oil and natural gas liquids are a great deal higher than when pessimists were predicting their complete exhaustion.

Reserves fall into two principal categories-proved and ultimate. Proved reserves of oil and natural gas liquids now stand at over 39 billion barrels. These are the minimum reserves recoverable from existing fields, under present economic and operating conditions. They are our current working inventory underground which can be counted on as confidently over a period of time as money in the bank.

Ultimate reserves, on the other hand, represent the total volume of liquid petroleum which experts estimate will eventually be produced in this country. Just last year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that approximately 1 trillion barrels of crude oil and 75 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may eventually be found in this country through exploration. How much of this total will actually prove to be economically recoverable remains to be seen, but the Geological Survey estimates that at least 40 percent will eventually be brought to the surface. Thus, with liquid hydrocarbon production running at about 3.2 billion barrels per year, it is apparent why the Interior Department in their "An Appraisal of the Petroleum Industry of the United States," issued in January 1965 stated that "on the basis of these cold figures, it would appear that the United States is in no danger of running out of oil for many years.'

Of course, in addition to conventional crude oil and natural gas liquid reserves, the shale deposits in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming will undoubtedly one day supplement our present sources of petroleum hydrocarbons. Experts currently estimate that the oil shale deposits in the United States represent a total of 2 trillion barrels of oil in place. And, besides these shale deposits, there are also the tar sand reserves in Canada which may contain an additional 600 billion barrels of petroleum energy.

While it is true that oil and natural gas are important sources of chemical raw materials, it should be pointed out that their manufac ture is not being jeopardized by the continued consumption of liquid petroleum as a fuel. Currently, some 80 billion pounds of petrochemicals are being produced in this country-about 35 percent of the total organic chemicals manufactured in the United States. But the manufacture of these petrochemicals requires less than 5 percent of the crude oil we currently refine.

The remainder of our refined crude is primarily turned into fuel, both for heating and transportation. These are areas where petroleum has thus far proved to be the most economic and efficient fuel. Coal has already lost much of the residential heating and transportation markets-having been replaced by gas and oil. And as for atomic energy, AEC experts themselves admit that nuclear power cannot effectively and economically compete with petroleum as a fuel in motor vehicles or aircraft, or in the heating field-safety factors, the necessity of protective shields, and expense seem to rule out these markets for nuclear power. Just this past June, as a matter of fact, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, had the following to say when addressing a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers:

Nuclear energy will be used increasingly for those purposes to which it is best suited-the large-scale production of electricity. Other energy sources will find their growing uses in those areas to which they are best suited.

Thus, it seems apparent that liquid hydrocarbons will continue to be the prime supplier of our Nation's energy, as well as the raw material from which much of our organic chemicals are derived. Reserves appear adequate to meet both needs for many, many years to

come.

Experience indicates that competition among fuels has stimulated the increased use of energy in this country and thus our economic