[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
V? 7@ dy ALASKA REGiONAL ENER RESOURCES. PLANNN ,PROJ'CT--PHASF. I V.S3 F L ALASKA-S ENER6'RESO ICES. UP FINDINGS AND P@NALYSIS tit FINAL P.EPVFIT r Property. f: CSt Libr@ ry a P N 'A R P COASTP. L Znpq E- INFORMATION CENTER OCTOUER 197.7. U nE@4PTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA a ef Enorw vt@d COAS79i "RVICES CENTER 0) FS 2@34 SOU ON AVENUE 2 53 D@ @3 n_A K OM I --t*i+A R L E S T GN sc 29405-2413 pivowed for: D@v@t ;ion of FiWionv' 4@@iv!'tnti of 'Vad Stop E20) HD rvs o r r. f T 9502 U53 A43 1977 13867 CZIC COLLECTION FOREWORD This two volume Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project report represents the first statewide assessment of five of Alaska's energy resources. Volume 2 consists of energy resource inventories for oil and gas, coal, hydroelectric and uranium. Volume 1 presents the findings and analysis of the major elements affecting energy development in Alaska: Alaska: the resource sites which may develop between now and the year 2000, land tenure problems affecting energy development, alternative technologies and environmental concerns resulting from development. Since beginning Phase 2 of this effort, August 2, 1976, many significant icant events have occurred such as passage of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, changes in offshore federal lease sale schedules, decisions on the route for the gas pipeline from Prudhoc Bay, and release of additional open file reports on Alaska's resources. Therefore, the reader must recognize that information and data about Alaska's resources, operations and issues are continually being supplemented and modified. Reports such as this become dated before they are published and distributed. Since this report is based to a great extent upon scientific, geological, and engineering work done by others, the reader is urged to obtain the original documents for greater detail. The report does not attempt to establish state, federal or Native Corporation policy, but does provide information that may assist policy makers. COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER W. McConkey / D. Lane / C. Quindan / M. Kahn / G. Rutledge DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED relt ;p I S 7' 1""! 'ALASKA REGIONS R4 P i"'.1 eu:j(@ p WL Z-10 U 11 @E tj@ Of S.):131 :v of All,ka, AW, 1@@ 7 N T F 0,Ft - 4@'NORTHWEST 6011@ f @.rSOUTHWEGT 16 F(PL 4 IL \A@ U a SO\) C, 0 V c AS IKA SW epf Ala@ka D-sion of Energy A7 @@, 761* 's. 14g. i4A- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report has benefited from contributions and input supplied by staff members from several state and federal agencies, Native corporations, utilities, libraries, industrial corporations, national laboratories, and consultants. A number but not all, of the energy experts who assisted us are listed by name in various chapters of the text. Without the help of the many people who contributed, this report would not have been possible. It is hoped that all who assisted will also find this report useful. The authors wish to express special thanks to Margee Fitzpatrick and the other secretarial staff members of the division who assisted in the preparation of this report, name1y, Lynette Abbott, Pat Aubrey, Carla Grubbs, Nancy Knowlton, and Donna Silva. Carole Bennett and Randall Montbriand did an excellent job on the difficult task of proofing and correcting the report. Also, funding from the Departmentof Energy (formerly Energy Research and Development Administration) acknowledged and appreciated. The assistance of Dr. Paul Gerhardt, Division of Regional Assessments, in the direction of the early stages of this project was especially helpful as well as his continued interest in the progress of the study. iii CONTENTS (volume I) Page Disclaimer Foreword i Acknowledgements iii Contents v List of figures vi List of Tables viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Summary: Alaska's Energy Resources 3 Chapter 3 The Political, Social , Economic, and Physical Environment of Alaska Energy Development 15 Chapter 4 Recoverable Fossil Fuels 51 Chapter 5 Non-Fossil Fuel Resources 123 Chapter 6 Alaska Energy Needs and Opportunities l91 Chapter 7 Energy Development Scenarios 205 Chapter 8 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 221 Chapter 9 Plans for Additional Study 235 Appendix A Approximate Conversion Factors for Crude Oil A-1 British Thermal Unit Heat Values A-2 Heating Values of Selected Solids A-3 Selected Conversion Factors A-4 Appendix B Libraries in Alaska with Energy Information B-1 Appendix C Key Alaskan Annotated Bibliographies C-1 Appendix D Petroleum Drilling in Alaska (1977) D-1 Appendix E Revenue Sources of the State of Alaska Actual Collections (1976) E-1 Appendix F Methodological Notes F-1 Appendix G Copies of Letters and Attachments Requesting Assistance in the Assessment of Future Alaska Energy Resource Development G-1 v L4 SO LIST OF FrdURES.: Number Page 2-1 Key Energy-R.esources in Alaska 8 3 -1 -gioh Census,Divisions by Alaska Rc 3@2- Alaska Native Villages and, Native Regions 33 4-1 Onshore Oil'and Gas Trovirces 53 4-2 Profile of. the. Continental Margin Showin 9 Generalized State of Alaska Federal and Undetermined- J,ur.i-sd.ic t 'ions @4-3 Al s to tin ntal' Terrace 58.. A aska n e ...Of f shof.e' Oil and. Gals, Provinces 59 4-5 Known 67. ...Oi 1. and Gas Exploration Ac. t iv i ty 197.6,@ 4@-6 North Cook Inlet Oi1 Field Development. History 69 4-7 The Ocean Ranger, an Offshore Semi-Subi,-iersibld, 74 Dril-ling Rig 4-8 'The Spark Platform 76 4@91 1 Anatomy of the Pipeline' 80 4-10 Cost of Fue. ls. to US Electric Utility Industry 82 4- 1111 E xampl,es of Natural. Gas lces. 8A 4-12 Coal Fields'(Rank) �2 4@13 Coal Mining Type Equipment Loader 99 4-14 Dal! Sheep Grazing 110 5-1 Hydroelectric Resources 133 5-2 Concrete Arch Dams.and Spillways 136 5@3 Filldams 137 Watana Project, State.Development Concrete' Arch Dam 138 V1 :7 LI.Sf OF@ MURES kont.) Number Pa ge 5-5- Uranium Sites Ranked ^by Experts 150, .5-6 The Nuclear Fue 1 Cycle, 153.. 5-7 Vertical Cross Sect'ion of Ay C pi At Uranium Depo s i t 155 5-8 Ui anium Exploration Source: NPC, 103: 51 158 5-9 Histoilcdl. U 0 Exchange Value for Immediate .318 Del ivery, 1968-76 5-@- 10 Wind Turbine Characteristics (Rotortype) 5m-ll Methods tolUse Wind Energy .1.83 6@1, Historic Alaskan 0-1 consumption 1972-1975 t .6-2 Historic A I a skap .,Na tur al G as. Consumption.: 1972-1975 6-3 Al-aska State Energy Balance-1975 @194 'Pro s 6 4 jected Ala ka Oil Demand to. 1'995 195- 6-5 Mocierate Projected Alaskan Natural Gas-Demand t o 1995 6-6 Utility System Power Requirement,-IM-2000 Ele ctricit Y Require' ments 203 7-1 Alaska Regions 212 d. Z vii L T OF TABLES IS Number. Pa'ge. '2-1 Summary o.f. Energy Resource Estimates: Crude _0i Natural- Gas Coal Hydropower, Ur an ium 4 -2 2 Energy Resources in Alaska, .USA, the World 9 q Alaska a nd TSA Oil and Gas Production, Estimated 'Reser ves and @stimat e8 Resources Alaska Coal Resources Com p ar e d. with the USA and the World 2-5 Hydroelectric P ot e n t ia I in Alalska.j USA, World 2-6 Ura n ium Resources and Demand d. in Alaska, USA, .."0. r 1. 13 .3 1.' Payments, from Ala.sk' Nat @ve Fund to, the, 12 Reg i ana Corporations 36 3 -"2. Distributio 'N ti'ves, n.of 4.3:.@ 7 'Mi I I ion Acres o f lan to a Al.aska Native Claims, Settlement Act 38 -i E@timat Undiscovered 4. e of Alaska,onsbore Recoverable Resources..@ 4-2 -Oil and Gas Site,Ranking (Onshore) 54 4@3 Estimates of Alaska Offshore Undiscovered -rable Resources Recovc 61 -4 4. Oil and,.Cas Site Ranking (Offshore) .63 4-5 Status. of Cook Inle:t Ar6a.Gas'Reserves 68 Oil & Gas Lease Fees. . 4-6 85 4-7 Coal Sites Ranking 93 0 ous Feedstock4 .4-8 Equivalent Chemical Formulas:,f r,Vari* and Liquid Hydrocarbon products, 10,4 Typical Analyses of Solvent Refined Coal 4-10 Costs, of Coal'Ttansportaticn Out9ide Compared I," th Alaska 113 Vill LIST OF TABLES:(Cont.) Number Page 4-111 '[email protected]:lng P,ermit', & Lease Fees Capacity and Cost of Key Hydroelecmic Projects 125 5-2 Hydroelectric:sit4-s Screening 5-3 Additional Hydroelectric Sites Identified by Experts- 132 Recent Alaskan Hydroelectric Pr oj e c.t Co s,i Analysis, .141 5@5 Uranium Site Ranking 147:. 5-6 Uranium,Ylining iftaim.Fees 161 5-7- Selected Alaskan Wind Power Sites, J77 5-8 Characteristics,of, Energy Storage. Technology 184 6-1 Energy $ourceE r Ete tric Power! 201 to c 6-2 Electricity Requireiments in Anchorage and South- Central, Alaska 8-1 The Order of Alaska Energy Areas Considered Most Likely to Undergo.Enerzy Development From Now To 2000 213 9-! Compreheii.sive Energy Planning Elements 237 Ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This first-year report of the Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project includes a compilation of availabel information on many of the renewable and the non-renewable energy resources in Alaska, including oil and gas, coal, hydroelectric power and uranium. Potential future energy sites have been screened and ranked according to likelihood for development between now and the year 2000. The various energy development operations such as exploration, recovery, storage, transportation processing and use have also been addressed.* The authors of this report do not consider the material it contains to be the "last word" on Alaska energy. Rather, the purpose is to present the readers with an overview of Alaska's energy resources (and related subjects) in the late 1970's and the best available evidence on the direction development of those resources may take prior to the turn of the century. To the best of our knowledge, no other such catalogue of Alaska's energy resources and related information exists in one document. As one attempts to analyze the probable pattern of energy development and produc- tion in Alaska, it becomes necessary to give close attention not only to the State's abundant energy resources, but also to such interrelated issues as social, economic, technological, conservation, governmental, and environmental considerations. All of these issues, complex enough in themselves, are further complicated by a number of land tenure problems in Alaska with respect to both surface and sub- surface property rights. Native, State and Federal land claims are still several years from settlement, creating considerable uncertainty regarding the course of development in large areas of the state. In addition, important international offshore boundary negotiations with Canada and the Soviet Union have not been completed. Environmental issues will continue to be of major concern in Alaska because of special climatic conditions, abundant and varied wildlife, and unparalleled scenery, some of which is easily disturbed and difficult to reclaim. Advanced technology has played a significant role in energy recovery and transpor- tation in Alaska. The world's largest privately-funded construction project, the trans-Alaska oil pipeline is in operation. Oil and gas platforms in Cook Inlet, frequently exposed to high winds, ice and strong currents (a combination of con- ditions not found elsewhere in the world), have a long history of successful pro- duction. Additional technological advances, such as solution mining and fluidized bed heat transfer mechanism may enable future energy resource development not now possible. The Alaska Energy Planning Project is a multi-year planning effort funded by the Energy Research and Development Administration (now part of the U.S. Department of Energy). This report, the first of five, represents a significant start toward identifying and planning for Alaska's energy needs and energy opportunities. It also illustrates the potential role Alaska can play in meeting the country's energy needs. *Although some elements of the methodology used in this study are mentioned in the body of the report, Appendix F provides greater detail on several methodological issues encountered in the course of the study. 1 L A Second-year efforts (Phase 2) will emphasize coal and hydroelectric development, conservation of non-renewable resources, and technological and environmental issues. Conversion and reclamation, energy alternatives and social and economic impact assessment methodologies will also be considered. The energy resources inventory will be expanded and updated. Phases 3, 4, and 5 will continue an evaluation of various combinations of energy planning elements. A major goal of the project is to enable users of this type of information, both private and public, to complete their related tasks more efficiently. Rural community leaders will be able to better determine the energy options available for their areas. The information will assist local and state policy makers in developing appropriate responses to energy issues that continue to grow in number and complexity. Federal officials will be able to determine, in a more quantitative fashion, the role Alaska can play in the national energy program. Others, whether private citizens, planners, utility managers or representatives of other fields affected by energy developments, also will find the information to be of value. 2 CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY: ALASKA'S ENERGY RESOURCES One fact is certain: Alaska is the storehouse of the nation's energy resources. Estimates of the State's resources are very large. However, an analysis of these estimates reveals that neither the actual extent nor the location of the State's oil and gas, coal, hydropower or uranium is fully known. Experts don't agree on the methods used to appraise the State's energy resources, the nclature of the State's petroleum provinces and coal fields, or their configurations. The number and locations of potentially developable hydropower sites remains uncertain and there is only slight agreement on where new discoveries of petroleum resosurces are most likely to be found. Resource estimates vary widely (Table 2-1). Most of the disagreement stems from the frontier character of Alaska's energy resource exploration and development. There isn't as much information on Alaska's resources as there is on resources elsewhere in the United States. This is due, for the most part, to a lack of geologic field work needed to adequately investigate them in the State. Some energy resources, however, are better known than others. Of the energy minerals, least know is Alaka's uranium potential--although this is in the process of changing. A federally funded uranium assessment is presently underway in an effort to discover additional deposits of this high value commodity. Probably best known is the distribution of Alaska's coal, although the quantity remains uncertain. Locations are known because of the visible occurrences of coal along and . Least known is probably Alaska's oil and gas potential, especially offshore. To know whether petroleum is present, drilling must be done, and drilling has not been as extensive in Alaska as elsewhere in the U.S.'s petroleum provinces. Hydropower potential, especially the larger sites--2,500 kilowatts of continuous power and larger--has long been known in Alaska, although it is scarcely tapped. So inventory at all is available for the smaller sites. Uranium Resource estimates have been made by Klein for the State of Alaska, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys in 1975; and by ERDA in 1976. At this time Alaska has no known identified reserves of uranium. Undiscovered resource estimates vary widely from 1,000 tons to 205,000 tons of uranium. There is prsently no production of uranium in Alaska. Oil & Gas Estimates of crude oil and natural gas resources, prepared in 1975 for Alaska by the State of Alaska, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) as well as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--the resource divisions of both the State and the Federal government-are widely divergent, both as to extent and location of furture discoveries. 3 Table 2-1 WMMARY OF ENERGY . RISOURCE.EST IMATES. CRUDE OIL, NATURAL,GAS, COAL, HYDROPOWER, URANIUM aSkA Potential klent @ lied Addi t io' . .1 1 . I 11@ 1' To uil I Resources Rescitirces, J: . ' ' ' I I , ---7- - @ - - - - --- - -7'---- F, e I I I... , I' ?d t' IVC. r Lj < I P .10.@ 17.139. 2 6. 1 fs@,R' 75 43 327 85.93 t 431! j rrf! q I6.76B (f)i 11 icin% f:I, [email protected] 27.726 -'35.:64 - nrc I I I ons, of tiar@el,,,) 15@23 50-0 50.09 'Titural Ga,, "W"'bre A rif 4 -o inri"* [email protected] 4M74 71.25. 380 51 120-524 -410.2 p ki) oi or c,horL! 4 G. 991 32.25 95. 11 79.241 85.18 t r I i 1 1 oft of cut-'If- "ett) f f % ho rf. 2;1183 AY.233 -295.321 o r" of cubwr feet) 39.000-295.3@ -'Q %13 ur-@hcr@, S, ot f Ovlre 0.139 0.141 A-7 4.8 1.85 -5 ri 11 inn,%. @J viort.@ tons) 4 Potential Jundeveloned Hy4ropower 't,';Mion kilowatt houirs) 193,785 4 206 '06 of short t o tis o e r Fa co' rS t i t e - r, f - ti e - ar 0ar-1 ;okjrce@, of resourcb estim, -32 percent of remaining in-t. e@ Ctuije o? I (aliove), drO 30. hQr6und.,oil Estimates are -1 Di.v,i,, [email protected] 0 i, Geological & Geophysic ]-.'Su a rveys and the U.S... Geological r vc@ Rin ou rc v Group, "."fluril 9fteImia n y a re -Fs E s t i nki'te s te% (am ercprit o f 'rwa i,@ i ng i n- thc-9i ound y a s "u:' tfic' sla (if Al-i 0 d Gvoloqical. & Gco;-hy,Ocal St trvoys and the U.IS'. ;(@Ii Siirivc- -cp Grotto. t'e@ou!' on* fit'o V-1 .11 e 1-0!0 nt,@rce tit of roi- wining, i-n-vie-growid c0a I !I, "pi .".1 k. ritt of (.o.3 )i" in uT1dt!rqr'1ut1d willing; 6 ':!.d, PO-910 percent k recovered if,. si,wmn. iro, trC-w thf@ St@tp of [email protected], bivision of Geoldgicd'i &GcophvsicAl:'. ,,I -i e'v dr@d Ow fj. "'wolul0ca) surv@y' r,! ni kin: fac'tor unknown. P re I i m i nary. tim tc-, are f r -,p S tate of Alask a,. om t I 'Git();)hy%ical :i r-ocy., Orch D!-@(,Inpme Adniiiiistration. r, b IGwn I;q i ca 1 u I'm"reyj Rest! n 'w Oil The State DGGS's estimate of Alaska's total recoverable crude oil (onshore and offshore, identified and undiscovered) is 85.93 billion barrels, or nearly twice as much as the Geologic Surveys' estimates of 43.327 billion barrels of oil. Identified oil reserves, onshore and offshore, are estimated at 10.5 billion barrels by the State DGGS. The United States' Geological Survey estimate of identified reserves is 17.139 billion barrels. Here the U.S. Geological Surveys estimate of the total identified oil reserves (measured, indicated and inferred) is nearly 1 and 2/3 times the State DGGS' estimate. Total undiscovered oil resources are estimated at 75.43 billion barrels by the State DGGS. The United States Geological Survey estimates these at 26.188 billion barrels, thus the State DGGS estimate is nearly 3 times the United State Geological Survey's estimate for undiscovered, hypothetical and speculative oil resources for Alaska, onshore and offshore. Oil production is presently taking place onshore and offshore in Upper Cook Inlet in the Southcentral Region; and near Barrow and at Prudhoe Bay in the Arctic Region. Two refineries are located at North Kenai, on the eastern shore of Upper Cook Inlet, which process some of the crude from nearby produc- tion. Tankers transport the bulk of the region's production to refineries outside of the State. Another refinery at North Pole in the Interior Region began processing a small amount of Prudhoe Bay's crude oil late in 1977, but most of the slope's production is being transported to refineries outside the State. The oil moves via the trans-Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe Bay 800 miles south to Valdez, which has an excellent deep-water, ice-free port in the Southcentral Region. Tankers transport the oil from Valdez (the southern pipeline terminus) to the west coast and the Gulf of Mexico for processing and marketing in the U.S. Gas Estimates made by the State Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys and the United States Geological Survey are as divergent for natural gas as they are for oil. Totalling the estimates of identified recoverable reserves and undiscovered recoverable resources, onshore and offshore, results in an estimate of total recoverable resources, onshore and offshore of Alaska. The State DGGS estimates the total recoverable gas resources to be 410.2 trillion cubic feet and the United States Geological Survey estimates them to be 120.524 trillion cubic feet. The State DGGS's estimate is over 3 1/3 times the United States Geological Survey's estimate. Widely divergent estimates such as these point out the frontier character of the State and the need for exten- sive exploration drilling. 5 The State D.G.G.S. estimates the identified recoverable natural gas resources, onshore and offshore, at 29.7 trillion cubic feet, while the United States Geological Survey estimates the identified resources to be 49.274 trillion cubic feet or 1 and 2/3 times the State D.G.G.S's estimates. For undiscovered recoverable resources, the State D.G.G.S estimates specu- lative natural gas resources, onshore and offshore, of Alaska at 380.5 trillion cubic feet. Estimates by the United States Geological Survey place these at 71.25 trillion cubic feet, making the State D.G.G.S. estimates over 5 1/3 times those of the United States Geological Surveys'. Natural gas is being produced onshore and offshore in Upper Cook Inlet in the Southcentral Region where it is distributed to industrial, commercial and residential consumers in Anchorage and Kenai. Liquified natural gas (LNG) for export to Japan and petrochemicals (ammonia and urea) for export to several locations are produced at North Kenai. Natural gas is also "rented" for reinjection purposes (and stored) to improve the oil recovery of the Swanson River Oil Field located about 20 miles northeast of the Kenai Gas Field where the gas is produced. Natural gas is also being produced at Barrow, in the Arctic Region, for local village use. Other large natural gas production from Prudhoe Bay awaits construction of the gas pipeline. The proposed gas pipeline is expected to generally follow the trans-Alaska oil pipeline route and the Alcan highway route from Alaska through Canada to the midwest USA. Coal Alaska's coal resources are not well defined geologically and no current comprehensive estimates of coal resources for Alaska are presently available. The most recent is Coal Resources of Alaska by Farrell F. Barnes, a summary prepared of existing estimates for the United States Geological Survey in 1967. Barnes' compiled estimates include only identified resources; Alaska's hypothetical and speculative coal--the undiscovered resources--weren't included in his 1967 report. In an effort to bring the State estimates more up-to-date, recent investigations of a few of Alaska's coal districts have been combined with Barnes' estimates. (Barnes' work was used when recent estimates were lacking.) Unfortunately this method gives a somewhat uneven picture of Alaska's coal resources, especially as to estimates of undiscovered coal. The latter are not presently available on a statewide basis. Although all six regions of Alaska have coal deposits, estimates are only available for some beds in the Arctic, Interior, and South Central regions. The estimates that are available point out that most of Alaska's coal deposits are subbituminous. Subbituminous coals are the most widely distributed in areas and the largest in volume (tonnage). Huge lignite and bituminous deposits are also present, the latter with coking properties, at several locations. Small amounts of anthracite and semiantracite coal also occur at various locations in the State. Alaska coal deposits are low in sulfur. Oil well hole data have revealed substantial quantities of coal are located deep, at 10,000 feet depths, or so, indicating a need to explore in-site recovery methods for these deposits. 6 Total coal resources, that is, a total of identified and undiscovered coal, onshore and offshore, are estimated to range form 1.85 to 5 trillion short tons. Total undiscovered coal resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated to range from 1,719,346.8 - 4,849,946.8 million short tons. Major coal production is presently underway at only one location in Alaska, the Usibelli Coal Mine, a surface operation in the Interior Region. Coal is shipped via the Alaska Railroad to Fairbanks and is burned both there and at the mine-mouth plant to produce some of the electric power produced by local utilities, the military, and the University of Alaska. Small quantities of coal are also still consumed for local residential-commercial use. Hydroelectric Throughout the years, several inventories of Alaska's hydropower potential have been prepared by federal agencies, principally the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of engineers, Geological Survey, and Federal Power Commission. No estimates prepare by the Alaska Territorial or State government before 1977 are known. The Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development compiled a listing of 379 names of Alaska's developed and potential hydro sites in 1977; however, some sites have different names for the same site; many have no estimates of energy and conflicting or alternate sites have not been estimated for this preliminary inventory. Recently, estimates of Alaska's hydroelectric potential were prepared by the Alaska Power Administration (formerly the United States Bureau of Reclamation). Their 1977 hydropower inventory provides estimates of the hydropower potential with development cost indexes for 252 undeveloped hydro sites in Alaska. APA judges there are about 2,000 sites in the State which they have reviewed. Most of these were eliminated because of obvious physical limitations. This inventory of 252 sites shows 212,963 million kilowatt hours per year of potential energy in Alaska, reduced due to conflicting and alternate sites by 19.178 million kilowatt hours which results in a net total of 193,785 million kilowatt hours for Alaska. Although additional sites are known to exist in all regions of Alaska, no estimates for these have been made. In addition, the estimates given do not include tidal power nor complete estimates of smaller waterways which might have the potential of producing less than 2,500 kilowatts of power. The 193,785 million kwh per year does include a number of these smaller sites, however. Alaska's installed generating capacity at the end of 1976 was approximately 1.4 million kilowatts, with hydroelectric plants providing about 10 percent of the electric power generation needs of the State. Hydroelectric power projects have been developed in two Alaska regions: the Southeast region and the Southcentral region. 7 :4 ALASKA, U. S.. AND WORLD,ENERGY RESOURCES: A-COMPARISON While. the numbers cited.in the, previous section are,impressive, additi' onal perspective. can -be gained by compar,ing them.to resource estimates for the U.S.'and the World. Alaska CoVers 16.2t. @of.the land area of the U. S. :and. has -only 0..15%. of', the population... As:, &an be @seen in Figure 2@-l and irf@ Table 2-.2 Alaska's store of energy res-.@,jrce potential is disproportionately ''large.. Further details, of this' comparison are given in'the remaining pages of Chapter_2. Land:Mass (16.2%) Oil,,Measured Reserves, Onshore @32.05%) Gas, Measur2d Reserves,_ Onshore (.15.771"o) sourc CoalRe es (39 to 63%) T7 Hydroelectric Potential (26%) Population (0-15%) 50 60' 70 100 % 10 .20 .,30. 40@ 80.1 90 'Percent. Resource. in -Alaska compared with U9A Figure 2-11 Key Energy Resources in Alaska __7 @7 Table 2-2 ENERGY RESOURCES IN 4L ASKA,:USA,THE WORLD AlaSka USA wo rld Population (1970 cen@us)*, 302,173' 203,211 926 4 019,000 ooo Percentage.- Alaska :0. 1 .5% 0. 0075%@ 'Land Mass @:(sq.'mi 1 es,) 585j412@ 3, 61 'Pe 122 196,988,000 r.centage, Alaska 0.30% Sedimentary Rock Area (Onshore,sq. miles 2 252,000 P @5,49,900 Not 'available@.@, e.rcentage.-.Alaska Sedimentary Rock Area (Offshore, sq. mi'les) @l 8,200 551 600, Not available: Percentage ' A'aska a',57i671' Coal Resourc es**,. (Trillion' Short Tons) 4. 86: 4. 9 9 .4-76 7. 89, -36 21.49 28. Percentage Alaska 394' to 634' 10 10 to 23% 'Hydroelectric Potential (MWh) 176,290 145 675 133,838@ 9,@802*,420,000 Percentage MaLka' 26% 2 Uranium Peserves (Thousand Short Tons)- 267 1066 ...PercEntage Alaska 0% ON I Om I s Onshore Undi S@overed Recoverable Resour ces (Billions of Barrels)@ 19 37'-81 146t, available Alaska .16% to 22% @Oil; Off sho're Undiscover ed Recoverable Resources .(Billions of.Barrels) 3 31, 1110.49@ ava. Percentage - Alaska i I able 30%@to M' @Oil, Onshore @ieasurpd Reserves' t Bi 1. I:i rjs of Bar'rels) 9.944 Piercentag6'- Alaska Not availabIe 32.051- o i-l., Offshore Measured R e -' erves (Billions of Barrels) .0.150 -3.220 -Not a va'i I a b I Percentage Alaska e 4.66" 9 F TabI6 2-2 (Continued) ENERGY RESOURCESIN ALASKA, USAJHE WORLD M ask" USA. a 14arld r Total -Oil (Onshore.& Offshore) 1460sured Reserve's ABillions of*Bd@rel-s) 10.094 .34.25 599***11. 1 0 Percentage Alaska. M47% 1.69% Na tura, I Gas, Onshore Undiscovered Recoverable Resources'. (TH 11 ions of Cu-bi c feet): 16 57 2,6 4 506 Not@ available Alaska- 6%., fl% @.A :Natu'ral,Gas, Offshore rces, Undiscove'red Recoverable Resou V. (Trillion cubic feet) 80 4,21 1,8 1 Not:al.vailablle..- Percentage Alask Al M 44% Natural Gas, Onshore MeasuredReserves @(Trillions of cubic feet) 201 176 Not av all able 311.722 Fercentage Alaska 15.77" ZI Gas, Offshore Measure d Reserves (Trillions of cu.bi:c feet.) 0.145 35.9556,@ Not availabl'e. Percentage - Alaska '0. 40%' Total Gas, (Onshore & Off s-hore): Mea@ured Reserves, 237 11 2,304, (Tri I I ions af. cubir- fe6,0 31.86.7 -32 Percentage - Alaska 13. 44%@ 1.38% Almanac and Book of Facts f 1977) pages 231, 228. 414,1)17; 180 and 763. See test for method used to obtain 4416 ei 'Business'Week .1 Juie 2 7. 197 7) Additior,al,Sources: See text pages.1 1-14 for additional sources 3nd amsumPtions informaticn. Same source I.--r State, USA and World'were used wherev of possible for calculate percentages, except for'coal vOtere numbers 6wre modi hed to rrif Iwz: findings of th's it ud@ NPTE: Moredetail on cornplex dAfinitions, which haw changed.with t!me. of reselives and resouic" for the Vert')US "rqy.resources is qwer@ in the tax;. Br;ef!y, reserws represent that part of the resource vvhich can be produced:e-@on icaft OT V_ VAth pxiiting technology - and resources @nclude the total re;our e fim!udmg reservei) hel wwed'to be present. @c 10. 2'. _h Alaska's Oil and Gas Resources Compared with the USA and the World Note from Table 2-3 that Alaska has produced only a small amount (less than 0.2 percent) of oil and gas onshore as compared with the entire USA as of December 31, 1974; however, in the future based upon measured reserves, Alaska is in a position to supply the USA with 32 percent of the oil that is produced onshore. As for offshore, Alaska may supply the USA with somewhere between 33 to 63 percent of the oil (29 to 44 percent natural gas) that is produced based upon undiscovered recoverable resources. These percentages are very impressive when one considers that the population in Alaska is less than 0.2 percent of that of the USA. Note that all of these percentages in Table 2-3 are based upon the same soruce. With respect to a comparison with the world, Alaska has 0.30% of the land mass but 1.69% of the total oil (onshore and offshore) measured reserves, which is a significant amount of the world's energy. Table 2-3 ALASKA AND USA OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, ESTIMATED RESERVES AND ESTIMATED RESOURCES Alaska Percent As Compared with the USA Oil Natural Gas Onshore Offshore Onshore Offshore Cumulative Production 0.15% 7.48% 0.11% 1.24% Measured Reserves 32.05% 4.66% 15.77% 0.40% Undiscovered Recoverable Resources (Range) 16-22% 33-63% 6-11% 19-44% Sources: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 725 (1975) 11 Alaska's Coal Resources Compared with the USA and the World While it would be better to compare 1977 Alaska values with USA and World 1977 values from the same source, this was not possible. Instead the USA and World coal resources were modified to reflect the increase in the Alaska values. As a result of the method used, the percentages shown (Table 2-4) must be considered very approximate; nevertheless, the magnitude of the coal resources (not reserves) in Alaska is significant when compared with both the USA (37-63 percent) and the World (9-20 percent). Also, some of the coal in Alaska is very low in sulfur (i.e., 0.2 weight percent as compared with western USA coal at about 0.6 percent which is considered low). Table 2-4 ALASKA COAL RESOURCES COMPARED WITH THE USA AND THE WORLD Trillion Short Tons* Percent, Alaska Paper 820** This Report Alaska 0.3 1.86-4.99 USA 3.2 4.76-7.89*** 39%-63% World 16.8 18.36-21.49*** 10%-23% *Total of Identified and Undiscovered Coal remaining in the ground. **United States Mineral Resources Geological Survey Professional Paper 820 (1973). ***USA and World Resources modified to reflect update in Alaska numbers. (Must be considered approximate, since depth used to obtain Alaska coal resources may be somewhat different than the 6,000 feet used in Paper 820.) Alaska's Hydroelectric Resources Compared with the USA and the World The magnitude of the power potential (MWh) in Alaska is about 26 percent of that of the USA and about 2 percent of that of the World (see Table 2-5). The potential is somewhat better than the percent of land area in Alaska as compared with that of the USA (i.e., 16 percent). Less than one percent of the hydroelectric potential in Alaska has been harnessed as compared with about 39 percent for the USA and 13 percent for the world. Table 2-5 HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL IN ALASKA, USA, WORLD Total Potential Production, MWh Percent, Alaska Alaska 176,290,145* USA 675,133,838* 26% World 9,802,420,000** 2% *Hydroelectric Power Resources of U.S. Developed and Undeveloped, Federal Power Commission, P. 43, January 1, 1976 page XII; this report gives 193,785,000 MWh for Alaska for potential undeveloped hydropower. The larger figure includes a number of projects excluded from the FPC listing by reason of economics. **Energy Perspectives II, U.S. Department of the Interio (June, 1976) page 39. 12 Alaska's Uranium Resources Compared with the USA and the World The uranium reserves in the USA are 25 percent of the world's (see Table 2-6). Note that the demand for uranium by the year 2000 is much greater than the nation's total resources, which helps explain the very active exploration now underway in the USA, especially in Alaska. The current official uranium reserves in Alaska are zero and the percent of uranium resources in Alaska as compared with the USA is less than 0.3 percent which is strangely low since Alaska has 16 percent land area. However, if major exploration efforts now underway are successful (and many believe this will be the case), Alaska will again contribute to the uranium energy needs of the nation. Table 2-6 URANIUM RESOURCES AND DEMAND IN ALASKA, USA, WORLD (Thousand Short Tons Uranium) Reserves Total Demand By Resoruces Year 2000 Alaska 0 1* 0 USA 267 356 523-1200 World 1066 1864 1359-3207 *State of Alaska unpublished report gives 243,000 tons of U3O8 which is equivalent to about 206 thousand short tons U. Source: Mineral Facts and Problems, Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (1975) pages 1182 and 1196. 13 CHAPTER 3 THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF ALASKA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Some readers will be relatively unfamiliar with the physical, social, economic and political characteristics of the State of Alaska. For them, we have provided some background on the State and on potential problems associated with energy development. CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter begins with a brief geographic description of the principal characteristics of the State's six major Regions, including the topography, climate, poluation and energy resources. Next is a discussion of some of the important political issues associated with energy development in the State, including land ownership problems, relationships between the Federal and State governments and branches of government. This is followed by a section summarizing the social and economic impacts of large energy developments in a state where infrastructure is often slight or non- existent (especially near promising energy resources), the residents of villages depend, to varying degrees, on a subsistence lifestyle. A fourth section discusses the impact of the Alaska Native claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the expected impacts of the so-called Udall "d-2" land bill proposal, and the numerous forces which favor or oppose energy development. The final section addresses a number of major environmental issues associated with the development of Alaska's energy resources. ALASKA GEOGRAPHY Throughout this report, the State of Alaska is divided into six Reions based on the University of Alaska's Man-in-the-Arctic Program (MAP) regions, which comprise one or more whole census divisions. The original MAP regions have been modified here, due to the inclusion of the North Slope Borough which now constitutes a whole census division. The primary boundaries determining these Regions closely approximate major physical boundaries, such as major drainages. Each Region tends to differ quite distinctly from the other five in its general characteristics. The boundaries of the following Regions and the census divisions which comprise them, are shown on the next page (map, figure 3-1): 1. The Artic Region 4. The Southwest Region 2. The Northwest Region 5. The Southcentral Region 3. The Interior Region 6. The Southeast Region 15 BLA -Aim IR h A LA. A 0 R T If vt f 6 7 J-1 u"I tt X14 I" A kl I .4 ',0 A f^*#@ 0 V. The Arctic Region The Arctic Region consists of the entire North Slope borough which is comprised of one whole census divison (the Barrow North Slope Division) and encompasses most of the drainage of all the rivers in the State flowing north from teh divide of the Brooks Range into the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas of the Arctic Ocean. The area stretches more than 600 miles from teh Canadian border west to Cape Lisborne on the Chukchi Sea, and nearly 230 miles from Point Barrow (the northernmost point in the U.S.), to the south line of the North Slope Borough, the approximate of the Brooks Range. The total land area is approximatley 88,280 square miles, larger than the State of Idaho. It is the least populated region of the State, retaining two percent of the State's population. More than half of the residents live in the village of Barrow. The overwhelming majority of the population are and many still l semi- subs tence lives as and fishermen. As provided in the Land Claims Act, Natives in the Arctic Region are shareholders in the Arctic Slope Regional Corportation. The climate of the Region is unique in the United States. Average temperatures are cold, and persistently strong winds blow over the northern half of the area. Although the lowlands are generally marshy, in the summertime consisting primarily of treeless tundra, precipitation is extremely low, generally averaging 6 inches or less during the year. Tempertures are usually extreme, with lows of -50 to -60 degrees Fahren- heit, and highs of 15 to degrees Fahrenheit. Nightime tempertatures below freezing are not uncommon in midsummer. The Arctic Ocean to the north remains frozen throughout the summer; even in August there is only 20-40 miles of water between the northern coast and the Arctic ice pack. In some summers, the ice pack barely recedes from shore. The "Land of the Midnight Sun" and the "Moon Moon", the Arctic Region has a period of aprroximately three months when the sun never dips below the horizon in the summer, and conversely, never rises above the horizon for two months in the winter. The entire Region is within the zone of continuous permafrost, with permafrost in some areas as much as 1,300 feet thick. The energy resources of the Arctic Region are as impressive as the of its climate and topography. The region contains three major on-shore and three major off-shore oil provinces, all of which are considered to have excellent potential for oil and gas development. Some estimates show the Arctic Region may ultimately produce some 19 percent or even 80 percent of the State's oil, placing the region's undiscovered recoverable crude oil resources as high as 33 to 35 billion barrels. Future finds of natural gas are estimated to be 22 to 73 percent of the State's potential, with estimates for the Arctic ranging between 93 and 111 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic has high-grade bituminous and lower-grade subbituminous coal located in one of the world's largest coal fields extending 17 almost 300 miles inland from the shores of the Chukchi Sea. The offshore extent is unknown. The major portion of the field onshore varies in width from 25 to 100 miles, and much of it lies within the borders of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA). Identified coal resources (measured, indicated and inferred) are estimated at almost 123 billion short tons with about one sixth of the total being bituminous--some with coking properties--and the remaining deposits subbituminous and lignite coals. Undiscovered coal resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated at 223 billion to 3.353 trillion short tons. Total resources (identified and undiscovered) are estimated at almost 346 billion to 3.475 trillion short tons--representing between 18% and 70% of the State's coal. Anthracite and semi-anthracite coals are also found near Cape Lisburne in the westernmost part of the region but no estimates have been made for these deposits. Other energy resources, including oil shale are known to exist in substan- -tial quantities and some geologists suggest uranium may also be discovered in the Region. Arctic Alaska is not favorable for geothermal or hydro- electric development--for the latter, the inventory studies did not find any sites with the necessary combinations of head, water supply, damsites, and reservoir potential, that would indicate potentially feasible hydro projects in this Region. A recent inventory of potential hydroelectric sites shows only three sites with an aggregate of 1,073 million kwh and these are in the higher priced index groups. The wind however is viable as a potential alternate energy source. Major features of the Arctic Region which are significant to energy development are the giant Prudhoe Bay oil field located between two major Federal land withdrawals: the 23.1 million acre NPRA and the 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range both administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. In the former area, an intensive oil and gas exploration program is presently underway; in the latter no energy exploration is presently allowed, although certain areas are thought to be among the best for future petroleum production in the state. The Trans-Alaska oil pipeline haul road, built to transport men and material to construct the pipeline, is the only road into the Arctic from outside the region. It has become a subject of some controversy over whether it should be opened to travelers or not. Current proposals call for limited use. The Trans-Alaska oil pipeline, built at an esti- mated cost of $7.7 billion is to be followed soon by a major gas pipe- 1ine. The gas line will generally follow the same route as the oil pipeline through the Arctic Region. The Northwest Region This Region generally includes the drainages of the Noatak and Kobuk Rivers and the Seward Peninsula as well as the 100 mile long St. Lawrence Island. It is bounded by the North Slope Borough line, approximating 18 the Noatak River on the north; the Nulato Hills, Purcell Mountains, and Endicott Mountains on the south and east and the Chukchi and Bering Seas on the west. The Northwest Region consists of two whole census divisions: Nome and Kobuk. The terrain is mostly rolling hills and lowlands. The coast is very irregular, dominated by Kotzebue Sound to the north and Norton Sound to the south, with the large and mineral-rich Seward Penin- sula extending into the Bering Straits, between. The closest point in the United States to the U.S.S.R. is Alaska's Little Diomede Island, centered in the Bering Straits, and separtated by only two and one half miles of water from the Soviet Union's Big Diomede Island. The climate inland tends to be continental, with substantial temperature extremes from winter to summer. The annual rainfall is less than 10 inches. The coastal climate is transitional in charactr, with less extreme temperatures and somewhat more precipitation. Wind levels, particularly along the coast, tend to be high. The population, predomi- nately Inupiat Eskimo, is small--about 3 percent of the State's popula- tion. Subsistence fishing and hunting are major activities of the Native people, who are shareholders in either the Nana Regional Corpora- tion, centering around Kotzebue, or the Bering Straits Native Corp., centering around Nome. Since there are no roads connecting to other areas in the State, regional transportation is predominately by air and water. Energy resources in the Northwest Region have not been fully explored, but indications are that fossil fuel resources in this region are not as large as elsewhere in the State. No estimate of identified oil or gas resources is available for the region; however, future finds of oil and gas are thought to represent a maximum of eight or nine percent of the State's total recoverable oil and gas resources. Estimates of undiscovered recoverable crude oil vary from 0.7 to 6.8 billion barrels. Some estimates for onshore oil range between 0.05 and 1.8 billion barrels; and for offshore oil discoveries range between 0.7 and 4.9 billion barrels. Total undiscovered natural gas resources are estimated at 2.0 to 36.0 trillion cubic feet, of which an estimated 0.3 to 5.9 trillion cubic feet are expected to be found onshore and an estimated 1.7 to 30.1 trillion cubic feet are expected to be found offshore. Although coal is known to be present near Unalakleet, on the Seward Peninsula and along the Kobuk River, no estimates of coal resources have been made for the Northwest Region. The Region, however, is considered to be one of the most promising areas in the State for uranium discoveries: the Seward Peninsula and Selawik areas appearing to be especially favor- able geologically. Hydropower development potential for the Region is not very good when compared to other Regions. This area is similar to the Interior Region with the hydro potential being only on the main stem of the rivers. Similarly, the runoff is relatively low. However, 11 undeveloped sites, 19 5 of them lower priced sites, have a total of 3,177 million kwh in the Region. Geothermal resources are large and one of the three areas in the State designated a "Known Geothermal Area" is located north of Nome on the Seward Peninsula. There are numerous geothermal suface indications at several locations: on St. Lawrence Island; near the Village of St. Michael; on the Seward Peninsula and the area west of the Zane Hills, for example. The Interior Region The largest, in land area, of Alaska's six regions, the Interior Region extends from the Nulato Hills on the west to the Canadian Border and is bounded on the north by the North Slope Borough line which approximates the continental divide, and on the south by the north line of the Matanuska- Susitna Borough, the Alaska Range and the Wrangell Mountains. This Region consists of four whole census divisions: Yukon-Koyukuk, Upper Yukon, Fairbanks and Southeast Fairbanks. The dominate feature of this Region is the Yukon River, which drains its land area. About 17 percent of the state's populatin resides in the Interior Region in communities ranging in size from small, primarily Athabascan Indian villages along the Yukon River and its tributaries, to the Fairbanks metropolitan area. Interior Indians are shareholders in Doyon Ltd., the Native Regional Corporation which centers on Fairbanks. Due to the whole census division constraints of the Regions, eight other Doyon Ltd. member villages (four each along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers) extend into the Southwest Region. The non-Native population tends to be concen- trated in Fairbanks and other communities in the Fairbanks-North Star Borough. Except for communities along the Alaska-Canadian (ALCAN) Highway and the railbelt, stretching south to Anchorage, much of the Interior Region has no road system. Nearly all the small communities, however, have an airstrip to accommodate the many bush planes that serve them and all interior villages are located on rivers or lakes. The residents use small boats extensively for intra-village travel during the summer and snowmachines and dog teams during the winter. The climate of the Interior tends to have the greatest extremes in the state. It has recorded both Alaska'a all-time high temperature (100 degrees Fahrenheit), and the all-time low (minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit). The Region has soil suitable for agriculture, but rainfall patterns tend to be somewhat unfavorable. Heaviest rains occur late in the growing season when crops are maturing, rather than earlier in the season during rapid growth periods. Winds in the region are generally light. The topography varies from relatively flat, well-forested lowland areas along the Yukon River to rugged hills and mountains in the north and south. Much of the lowland area is swampy in the summertime with under- lying permafrost. The highest mountains of the Alaska Range, including Mount McKinley (the highest point in the United States at 20,320 feet) are located in the Region along the southerly boundary. 20 No estimates of identified oil and gas resources are available. Estimated potential oil and gas resources are thought to be low compared with estimates of petroleum believed to exist in other regions in the State. The Interior Region is estimated to have approximately four percent of the state's potential oil and gas. Estimates of undiscovered oil range between 0.2 and 3.7 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered recoverable gas is estimated at 1.0 to 15.4 trillion cubic feet. Coal reserves are significant, with several fields and outcrop occurrences. Remaining identified coal resources (measured, indicated and inferred) are estimated at 5.4 to 7.0 billion short tons. Remaining undiscovered resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated at 8.9 billion short tons. Total coal resources are estimated at 14.3 - 15.0 billion short tons. The Region contains the only major working coal mine in the state (at Usibelli, about 120 miles south of Fairbanks) which produces over 700,000 tons of coal annually. Coal is burned at the Golden Valley Electric Association mine-mouth plant and also shipped by the Alaska Rainroad to Fairbanks and vincinity. Most of the coal is used to produce electricity but some is still used for residential space heating. Although the Region contains the largest potential hydroelectric resource in the United States, in the Yukon River, hydropower development potential is not favorable because of environmental problems. The Interior Region has at least 48 sites totalling about 93,885 million kWh including the huge Ramparts site. Reportedly no sites have yet been developed for electrical power production in the Interior. Except for main stem developments, there aren't any good sites north of the Alaska Range. The northern slope of the Alaskan Range is too steep and lacks storage sites. There are only a few sites that can be physically developed in the Yukon Basin. According to the Alaska Power Administration, the total number of the better sites numbers only four on the main stem of the river, and six on the tributaries. Uranium potential in the area is not well-defined at this time, but is considered to be relatively high. The Region also has sizable geothermal resources: especially notable are the many hot springs in the Region located in a belt trending east-west through the center of the Region. The Southwest Region This Region is the second largest area in the state and the most varied in topography and climate. It contains the hugh delta created by the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, and extends southwestward to include the shores of Bristol Bay, and the Alaska Peninsula. It includes St. Matthews, Nunivak and the Pribilof Islands. This region contains the following six whole census divisions: Kuskokwim, Wade Hampton, Bethel, Bristol Bay, Bristol Bay Borough, and Aleutian Islands. 21 A predominately coastal area, it tends to have a more narrow range of temperatures than further inland due to the moderating effects of the Bering Sea and the North Pacific Ocean; it is often cloudy and has substantial rainfall. Uplands tend to be heavily forested, while the lowland areas of the two major rivers are wet tundra. Probably 40 to 50 percent of the delta area is lake surface, providing critical waterfowl habit, but making land transportation virtually impossible during the summer. The Aleutian Island chain extends 1,100 miles and consists of more than 50 islands separating the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. Both the westernmost point in the United States, Amatignak Island (179 10' W), and the easternmost point in the United States, Pochnoi Point (179 46' E) are located in the Aleutian Islands. The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures, considerable rainfall and frequent fogs. The population of the Region is small, with about seven percent of the State's population, almost entirely Native in origin. It consists of Yupik Eskimos, most of whom are shareholders in the Calista Corporation, centering on Bethel--and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, centering on Dillingham; Aleuts, shareholders in The Aleut Corporation; and the Athabascan Indians who live inland along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers (an area which includes shareholders of Doyon, Ltd.). Subsistence hunting and fishing, and commercial fishing and seafood processing, especially in Bristol Bay and along the Aleutian Chain, are the economic mainstays of the Region. There are no roads connecting the Southwest Region to the rest of the State, so all interregional travel is by air or water. The Southwest's energy resource potential is unrealized at this time, but may become extremely significant, especially for oil and gas discover- ies. Among the State's most promising petroleum provinces are located offshore in Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea. They are controversial for development, however, because of the possibility of conflicts with the fisheries. No Estimates of identifed oil or gas reserves are available for the Region. Undiscovered oil resources (hypothetical and speculative) onshore, are estimated variously at 0.4 to 3.4 billion barrels; and offshore are estimated at 2.4 to 25.3 billion barrels. Total recoverable crude oil resources (undiscovered, onshore and offshore are substantial and are estimated at 2.9 to 28.6 billion barrels for the Southwest Region. Estimates of undiscovered recoverable natural gas (hypothetical and speculative) onshore, vary from 1.5 to 12.3 trillion cubic feet; and offshore vary from 6.0 to 154.1 trillion cubic feet. Recoverable natural gas resources (undiscovered, onshore and offshore) are estimated to total 7.4 to 166.4 trillion cubic feet. The wide differences in oil and gas estimates reflects the lack of drilling information. Coal deposits, some of high quality, are found on the Alaska Peninsula and in the Aleutians. However, no estimates of identified coal resources are available for the region. Remaining undiscovered coal is estimated at 3290 million short tons. 22 At least 23 undeveloped hydropower sites have been identifed in this Region with the potential of producing a total of 26,473 million kilowatt hours of energy. No inventory of smaller sites, sites capable of produc- ing under 2,500 kw of continous power, has been made. A very large geothermal potential exists in the Southwest due to the many volcanoes and other surface indications known and two areas designated "known Geothermal Areas" (KGRA's) are located on Umnak Island in the Aleutians. Uranium investigations indicate some potential may be present. The Region has an excellent wind power potential as there are strong winds in all seasons especially along the Aleutian Islands. The Southcentral Region The Southcentral Region includes all of the land draining to the Gulf of Alaska including Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound. It includes the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Municiality of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough and consists of seven whole census divisions: Kodiak, Kenai-Cook Inlet, Seward, Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna, Valdez-Chitna-Whittier, and Cordova-McCarthy. Characterized by rugged, mountainous terrain, with the important excep- tions of the lowlands bordering Cook Inlet, the lower Susitna Valley and the Copper River Plateau, this Region includes some of the highest mountains and the largest glaciers in the United States. The Region is one of the great Tectonic activity, with frequent earthquakes and a number of major volcanoes. More than half of the land area in the Region is contained in the drainage basins of two rivers, the Susitna (which empties into Cook Inlet) and the Copper (which drains the are between the Talkeetna and Wrangell Mountains). The coastline of the Southcentral Region is roughly 11,500 miles long and includes 25 to 30 percent of Alaska's shoreline. This coast is the most complex in the States, includ- ing several ice fields, the island and fjord complex of Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet and the fjords of the Kenai Peninsula. The climate is almost as varied as the topography, ranging from the relatively moderate, rainy marine climate of Kodiak Island and the eastern gulf coast to the more extreme dryer continental climates inland. The Southcentral Region is the most populated are in Alaska containing more than 59 percent of the State's population, primarily concentrated in the Anchorage metropolitan area and along the railbelt of the Alaska Railroad. The population is predominately non-Native throughout the Region, but several Native groups are represented. Athabasean Indian, Eskimo and Aleuts and a very few Eyak Indians. Alaska Natives are shareholders in four Regional Corportations which represent the aboriginals which had traditional use and occupancy to land areas in the Southcentral Region: Koniag, Inc., representing the people living in the Kodiak Islands; Cook Inlet Region, Inc., representing the people living in the area bordering Cook Inlet; Chugach Natives, Inc., representing the people living in the Prince William Sound and the eastern Gulf of Alaska 23 areas; and Ahtna, Inc. representing the people living in the Copper River area. Anchorage is the largest commercial and distribution center of the Region, and of the State. The Southcentral Region contains most of the major ports in the State, including the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline terminus at Valdez. It is also served by a system of primary and secondary highways, the Alaska railroad, the marine highway ferry system and has several small boat basins. It has the largest international airport in the State (at Anchorage) as well as several other airports serving the smaller communities. Economic activities in the Region are varied, including a substantial fishing and fish processing industry, the farming area of the Matanuska Valley and a major govenment sector, including two large military installations. The headquarters for most of the energy-related industries in the State, and the great majority of petroleum refining and petrochemi- cal manufacturing in Alaska are located here. Energy resource potential is also quite varied. Oil and gas are being recovered from Upper Cook Inlet, and federal oil and gas leases were sold in October of 1977 for Outer Continental Shelf lands in Lower Cook Inlet. The Southcentral Region is thought to have 8 to 11 percent of the State's recoverable oil potential. Total identified recoverable oil reserves are conservatively estimated at 0.8 billion barrels, almost equally divided between onshore and offshore deposits. Undiscovered oil resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated at 3.6 to 10.234 billion barrels, or more, of which 0.7 to 1.7 are estimated for onshore areas and 2.1 to 8.1 billion barrels are estimated for offshore areas. Identified recoverable natural gas reserves (measured, indicated and inferred) are estimated at 3.7 to 8.8 trillion cubic feet, representing 22 to 45 percent of the State's know gas. Undiscovered recoverable gas resources (hypothetical and speculative, onshore and offshore) are estimated at 7.1 to 59.4 trillion cubic feet with substantially more gas expected to be found offshore than onshore. Total resources (identified and undiscovered, onshore and offshore) are estimated at 16.0 to 63.076 trillion cubic feet representing 13 to 15 percent of the State's gas potential. There are several coal fields in the Region, principally the Susitna- Cook Inlet-Kenai and Matanuska Fields centering on Upper Cook Inlet as well as the Bering River Field near Cordova. Identified remaining coal resources (measured, indicated and inferred) are estimated at 10.66 billion short tons; and undiscovered reamaing resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated at almost 1.5 trillion short tons--second only to the Arctic Region's coal resources. Development of the Beluga Coal Field, near Tyonek is in the early planning stages. 24 Also in the early plannign stages is a major hydroelectric power project on the Susitna River which will produce about 1,600 MW of power and will serve the entire railbelt area. Coventional hydropower potential is substantial, with an estimated 52,137 million kwh of undeveloped hydropower potential in 107 sites, 23 of which are considered by the Alaska Power Administration to be lower priced sites. However, there are very few sites in the Southcentral areas as attractive for smaller hydropower development as those in the Southeast Region. Away from the coast, there is much lighter runoff and less steep topography. Farther inland where there are damsites on the larger rivers having larger flows, there are several significant, large power potentials, such as those on the Copper River and Susitna River. Tidal power potential at Cook Inlet is among the most promising in the United States, comparing favorably with Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine, whose tidal range is among the highest in North America. The geothermal potential is considerable, particularly in the Wrangell Mountains to the east, and the Aleutian range in the west. Discoveries of uranium are thought to be very likely and opportunities are excellent for harnessing the wind along coastal areas, islands and mountain passes in the South- central Region. The Southeast Region The Southeast Region, sometimes called the Panhandle, is a narrow strip stretching nearly 600 miles from Cape Fairweather on the north to Dixon Entrance on the south along the Canada-Alaska border. The Region is the smallest in the State (42,000 square miles), and about 40 percent of the total land area is on large islands immediately off the mainland. The Region has a moderate marine climate with extremely heavy rainfall in many portions. The terrain is generally rugged and mountainous, with numerous glaciers, and the slopes of the mountains are heavily forested. The Southeast Region contains about 12 percent of the State's populations; the largest population center is Juneau, the State's capital city. Land surface transportation is very limited due to the mountainous terrain. Ferries of the Alaska Marine Highway System provide service between most of the population centers. Population is predominately non-Native, but there are substantial populations of Tlingit and Haida Indians, who are shareholders in the Sealaska Corporation. Economic activity in the Region is dominated by government employment, fishing, and fish processing, and lumbering and forest products manufacturing. Almost the entire land area of the Southeast Region is in the Tongass National Forest. Energy resources consist of at least two hundred potential hydroelectric sites of which 60 sites having 17,051 million Kwh of developable power have recently been inventoried by the Alaska Power Administration. Hydroelectric power has been developed in the Region with most of the major communities using some hydropower, with further development planned. Southeast has an abundance of relatively attractive, small hydroelectric potentials, most involving small drainage basins. High ranoff rates for the Region enhance opportunities for hydro development. 25 A significant uranium potential exists here. The only uraium ever mined in Alaska was discovered on Prince of Wales Island at Bokan Mountain, and prospects are considered good for further finds nearby. Fossil fuel reserves in Southeast Alaska are considered to be slight. No identified oil or gas estimates are available for the Region, however, undiscovered recoverable oil is estimated at 0.6 to 2.9 billion barrels, representing less than 4 percent of the State's oil. Undiscovered recoverable gas is estimated at 1.5 to 17.7 trillion cubic feet, representing less than 5 percent of the state's potentially recoverable gas. Although numerous occurrences of coal are known, no coal resource estimates are available for the Region. LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT Knowledge of the history and present status of land ownership and land use management policies in Alaska is essential to understanding many of the issues associated with energy development in the State. Of the 367.8 million acres of Alaska's uplands, 88 percent are owned by State and Federal governments. Ultimately, when State selections are completed, 60 percent are expected to remain in Federal ownership, while 28 percent of the total will be owned by the State. Approximately 10 percent will be held privately by the 12 for-profit Alaska Native Regional Corporations, their associated 200 village corporations, and individual Natives. Another one percent will be owned separately by the Native Village Corporations, which elected to retain their former Indian Reservations in-lieu of the benefits of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Only about one percent will be in other private hands. Clearly, the policies of the State and Federal governments, and of the Native corpora- tions, will govern the future course of energy development in the State. Federal Ownership and Policies All federal lands in Alaska have either been withdrawn as reserves for particular purposes, withdrawn for Native selection, or withdrawn for classification. Public domain lands in Alaska are currently closed to entry under public land laws except for about 60 million acres of D-1 lands which are open to staking under the hard rock mining laws and the 20 million acres in the nation's forests which ae also open to staking. Until 1959 when Alaska became the 49th state, about 99 percent of Alaska was federally owned. Some of the federal landholdings were administered by the U.S. Forest Service, which managed the Tongass and Chugach National Forests; the Park Service, which operated Mt. McKinley National Park and Glacier Bay, Kaimai, and Sitka National Monuments; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which managed a number of small wildlife refuges and the Kenai National Moose Range; and the military, which maintained major defense installations and Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (now National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska). Eighty percent of the federal lands were under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. These lands were, and are, the major part of the nation's public domain. Since 26 Statehood, the unreserved public domain in Alaska has been reduced by the creation, in 1960, of the 8.9-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range. As the result of these withdrawals from unreserved public domain lands, Alaska today has 11 percent (by acreage) of all national forests, 25 percent of all national parks, and over 70 percent of all lands reserved for national wildlife ranges and refuges. State Lands With the admission of Alaska as the 49th state, Congress was confronted with how this vast territory with its small population and remoteness from the centers of trade and commerce could become a viable member of the Union. It was believed by most that the development of such a new state must come from its natural resources. To give it a resource base, Congress provided in the 1958 Statehood Act that 102.5 million acres of general grant lands from the "vacant, unappropriated and unreserved" lands of Alaska could be selected by the new state within 25 years. Alaska was also entitled to University and Mental Health Lands granted before Statehood, to 400,000 acres from the public domain, and to another 400,000 acres from the national forests for community development and recreation. Alaska also gained title to submerged offshore lands to the limits of the territorial sea and submerged lands of inland navigable lakes and streams. To date nearly 72 million acres have been selected. The remaining entitlement must be chosen by 1984. While the State has never formally articulated a policy for land selections, it is clear from the pattern that has emerged that three principal objectives have been emphasized: (1) provision of lands to meet existing and future settlement needs; (2) control of lands along major highway corridors; and (3) selection of lands with high potential for natural resource development. Inasmuch as the remaining State entitlement may be selected almost entirely from unreserved federal public domain, the designation of new "d-2" national interest lands, diminish state selection opportunities. However, Alaska economic development can proceed independently of federally- owned resources and federal resource disposal policies if other federal actions do not unduly inhibit development on State and Native lands, and if the remaining 33 to 36 million acres (depending on federal and Native action) of State entitlement can be selected. Revenues fro petroleum development on State-selected lands are already a major source of revenue for the State, and are expected to remain so for many years to come. Private Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Alaska Native corporations have selected lands which have traditionally been used by them near villages along the coast and major rivers, and lands they have identified for their commercial resource values. Land entitlements of approximately 200 village corporations will encompass 22 million acres. 27 It should be underscored that once fee simple title is transferred, these lands will be privately owned by these for-profit Native corpora- tions and not held in any kind of reservation status. Although stock cannot be sold until 1991, these corporations may divest themselves of land and interests in land at any time after transfer of title. Corporate land may also be distributed among individual stockholders. Several corporations have exercised selection rights on potential oil- bearing land or on other lands where the presence of timber and metallic and industrial minerals are known or suspected. In the event of a major oil discovery, not only would the owning corporation be benefited, but monies derived would be distributed among the State's entire Native population through the revenue-sharing provisions of Section (70 (i) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The designation of new national interest lands in alaska could affect the economic viability of Alaska Natives in two ways: (1) the location and management designations of some national interest lands may restrict the transport of resources from Native lands to market; and (2) some management designations may inhibit availability of fish and wildlife resources to meet subsistence needs of Alaska Natives and other rural residents. While many lands have been selected by Native corporations because of their importance to subsistence, the range over which fish and wildlife are taken extends well beyond those lands that will be in private ownership. Federal and State Land-Use Policies and Energy Development The major issue associated with the ownership patterns of Alaska lands is land-use policy. Up until Statehood, and for some time thereafter, the great bulk of public lands in Alaska were in the so-called "public domain". That is, they were not reserved for special uses, nor were particular development activities proscribed. In fact, the mining laws established during the 19th century gave considerable advantage to those who wished to develop fuel and mineral resources on public lands. The major exceptions, which involved only a small percentage of Alaska's lands, were the national parks such as Mt. McKinley and Glacier Bay National Monument. Almost all of the federal land in Southeast Alaska was contained in the Tongass National Forest, but land-use policies on national forest lands emphasize multipel use and do not represent a serious impediment to development. Since that time, however, there has been a substantial shift in emphasis with regard to public land-use policy, with increasing emphasis on the preservation of lands in their natural state. This has been essentially true of federal lands in Alaska, viewed by many as America's last great wilderness and last opportunity to protect sigificant tracts of land from development for mineral and other resources. Much of this policy orientation was developed prior to the oil embargo of 1973-1974 and the ensuing energy crisis. Suddenly, the potential for 28 development of fossil fuel reserves in Alaska became a matter of consider- able national priority along with wilderness preservation. The pull and tug of national priorities now has created a situation in which (as expressed recently by Alaska's governor) Alaska is "called upon at once to be the oil barrel for America and national park for the world". The problems inherent in these conflicting goals are best illustrated by Congressional bill HR 39, sponsored by Congressman Morris Udall of Arizona. Under the terms of the Udall bill, 146.6 million acres of federal lands would be withdrawn to various categories of reserve status, including national parks, wildlife refuges, national forest lands, and wild and scenic rivers, with the bulk of the lands falling into the first two categories. The principal orientation of the Udall bill is that the national interest is best served by reducing development of these federal lands to an absolute miniumum in order to preserve their natural quality for future generations. While the objectives of the Udall bill are desirable in principal, its passage intact could have some serious consequences for future energy development in the State. One of the major problems is that such a large proportion of the potential energy resources, particu- larly oil and gas, are still unexplored. It is not known precisely where the resources are located, and what transportation corridors may be required to recover them economically. Thus, placement of one-third or more of Alaska's land area in land-use categories which seriously restrict or preclude resource development before full knowledge of the possible trade-offs among land uses are know, could have a serious impact on the nation as a whole. For example, it is known that there are high quality coals on the Alaska Peninsula, at Herendeen Bay and Chignik, which may be of considerable value in the near future. Under the Udall bill, these coal beds could not be developed. Similarly, some of the greatest potential oil and gas reserves in the State lie offshore in the Chukchi Sea at the northwest corner of the State. A natural transportation corridor for this oil and gas, when developed, would be around the western edge of the Brooks Range. Current selections under the Udall bill, however, would block such a corridor. Those same selec- tions, particularly the Selawik lowlands, are believed to be an area with considerable uranium potential. The implications of a measure that would preclude development on such a large proportion of Alaska's lands are clearly a matter of national concern. At least an alternative to HR 39 has been proposed in the Senate, with the support of Alaska's Governor, its Congressmen, and one of its two Senators. This is Senate bill S1987, the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. It would take a more moderate course in classifying Alaska's land, and would therefore not preclude future development. Similar potential problems arise in the classification of Alaska State lands. At the present time, however, the State's plans do not appear to involve as lareg a proportion of acreage in restricted classifications. In fact, as noted above, one of the objectives of State land selections 29 has been to acquire tracts where developable resources are believed to be present, with the ultimate objective of encouraging development for the benefit of the State, accompanied by adequate enviromental safeguards. Thus, it appears at this time that the State's land use management policies have less potential for creating im to development than do federal policies. Finally, of lesser but still significant importance, are the management policies of the Native Corporations. The rights to all Native lands are owned by the Native Regional Corporations under the terms of ANCSA (except individual Native allotments, where the is retained by the United States; the village corporations that their former Indian Reservations will also own the In general, the village corporations selected lands which were sites of village subsistence hunting, fishing, and There may be some reluctance on the part of the villages to encourage the develop- ment of these subsurface resources. It is expected, however, that development of the subsurface generally will be approved by the Village corporations where such development can be accomplished without serious disruption of traditional subsistence Regional corporations able to lands on their own behalf, however, tended to select on the basis of natural resource potential with a view toward future development. Here it is expected that the earliest and most significant Native land resource development will occur. SOCAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND ENVIROMENTAL ISSUES This phase of the Alaska regional energy resources planning project is not intended to provide a detailed analysis of the above issues. the purpose is to identify the more important issues and to prepare a plan for their future analysis. Such plans have already been prepared as part of Phase 2 of this project, and are discussed further in Chapter 9. Nevertheless, in the context of describing the major issues confront- ing energy development in the State of Alaska, some discussion of social, economic, political and enviromental issues is necessary. In dealing with the major social and economic impacts of development there is frequently a tendency to search either for effects which are generally beneficial or which tend to be harmful to the and society. In fact, of course, it is rare for impacts to be either all good or all bad. We hop to examine both sides of the through- out our current and future in this area. State and Local Government Revenues and Services The impact on State and local government revenues and services the major blades of development. Energy development and associated industrial development can State government from a variety of soruces, including oil and gas 30 property taxes, royalities, investment earnings on the sale or use of state resources, and oil and gas production severance taxes (see appendix E). The discovery of oil and gas reserves on the Kenai Peninsula, and later at Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope, has drastically transformed the the State government. One of the immediate problems associated with this revenue flow is the nature of its source. The substantial revenues from lease sales and royalties at Prudhoe Bau are all based on resources, which have a life expectancy. Given an estimated maximum flow of 2 million barrels of crude a day and an estimated Prudhoe Bay of less than 10 billion barrels, these reserves could be exhausted in 13 years. Althoug it may be that either additonal oil and gas reserves will be found. It must be recognized that Prudhoe Bay is even by worldwide , and may not approch the of the present field. When the oil and gas is gone, that source of revenue will also end. Recognizing this as a major issue facing the State (how to utilize this temporary revenue flow in the best interests of its citizens), a "Permanent was aproved by the during the 1976 general election. The State administrative has continuing dialog throughout Alaska in an effort to provide facts on the issue of oil and gas revenues and to and direction from Alaska on the best use of the money. have not received large royalty (although this may change, and have depended primarily on property taxes and, in some taxes to generate revenue flows. State law has of to impose oil and gas property taxes oil and gas exploration and production and pipeline . may levy and collect oil and property taxes, but only at the village as it taxes other within its boundaries, and the actual assessment of the properties is made by the State. The State also depends on this tax the State Oil and Gas Property Tax provided nearly 12 of the State's unrestricted revenues. Alaska municipalities the Oil Exploration, Production, and Pipeline Transporta- tion Property Tax ( ) the North Slope Borough. Borough, Kenai Peninsula of Anchorage, City of Kenai, City of Soldoina, and . the City of is expected to impse the . In additon, local govenment officals may not have the expertise to with large scale energy development activities planned . looming negative impacts and to energy development, the Alaska Depart- of Community and Regional Affaris, funded by the State and Federal governments, has provided technical assistance to several communities 31 such as Yakutat, Kodiak, Valez, Delta Junctin, North Pole, Fairbanks, Cordova and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, all communities faced with large scale energy developments. Communities along the coast may qualify for special assistance as provided by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Coastal Energy Impact Program of 1976, which provide financial assistance in the form of grants and loans to coastal states and local communities affected by energy facilities which are or will be located on the coast. The program will: (1) aid coastal states and local communities to finance public facilities and services needed in an energy site area; and (2) help protect or restore coastal environmental and recreational resources when other funds for such purposes are unavailable. ISSUES OF THE ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS Associated with the issues of State and local govenment are the economic political, social and environmental issues of the Native Corporations as energy development proceeds. Changing conditions brought on by the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) are partially responsible for the pace of Alaska's energy resource development. Many of the issues relate to land ownership and managemnent and, in one way or another, to ANCSA. Some are temporary problems that may be resolved very shortly; others are expected to take much longer. Because energy resource production is tied to the land, it is necessary to understand the problems affecting Alaska Natives, who are destined to own about 11 percent of the lands within Alaska's boundaries. Further, the well capitalized Native corporations are expected to play an increas- ingly important part in energy resource development. Settlement: Land and Money The Claims Act, signed into law December 18, 1971, amended January 2, 1976, was designed to provide 40 million acres and about one billion dollars to Alaska's Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts, by distributing the land and money to Native regional and village corporations. In addition, village corporations which elected to retain their Indian reservations are to receive fee title to 3.7 million acres, bringing the total to 43.7 million acres of land. Twelve for-profit regional corporations formed under ANCSA and their 203 associated village corporations (see Figure 3-2) are receiving land and cash settlements under the Claims Act. (Many of these village corpora- tions recently merged for business reasons--reportedly numbering about 180 at last count.) Additional village corporations are still waiting approval for ANCSA benefits. A 13th regional corporation, composed of eligible Natives living outside the State will receive no land settlement. Eligibility for village and group participation in ANCSA has not been finally certified by the U.S. Department of the Interior; however, 32 LEGEND NATIVEVILLAGE NATIVE R EGION Arctic Slope Repotyal COrP Nana Re ' ,78/ N, Corp 7.111.1 1 . . . ....... ... Id: ...... N, rp . ... ...... nV ............ Atria 4 Nallve@ Chi,93ch cdfi.sta Corp- Blistol By, Native Konlag 111c Jl- JP C/- 3-2 Alaska Native Villages & Nati e Regions @Sources: Alaska Petroleum & Industrial Directory 19.77/78; University 0!,Ala5ka, Institute of Social.& Economic Research. twelve Native villages in the Bering Straits, Cook Inlet and Koniag Regions; and up to 31 Native groups from all regions except Aleut, Arctic Slope and NANA regions were as of August 2, 1977, still pending certification of eligibility by the Secretary of the Interior. Each of the villages pending certification is eligible for entitlements of 69,120 acres; and each group is eligible for entitlements of 320 acres per individual up to a maximumof 7,680 acres per group. To a varying extent, each of the corporations has substantial potential wealth in lands they will receive under ANCSA. The 12 Alaska regional corportations will receive the subsurface estate of their associated village corporations' lands. Six village corporations, in Bering Straits and Doyon regions (representing four Indian Reservations) have voted to retain their former reservations in-lieu of other ANCSA benefits and are to receive approximately 3.7 million acres of fee simple land; that is both surface and subsurface estates. The corporations are: Elim Native Corporation, Neets'ai Corporation (Arctic Village), Venetie Native Corporation, Savoonga and Gambell Native Corporation (St. Lawrence Island), and Tetlin Native Corporation. Individual Natives benefit as shareholders in the Native corporations, but cannot sell their shares of stock until 1991 (20 years after passage of ANCSA) and they enjoy certain tax advantages, paying no taxes on their stock until 1991. The corporations, similarly, are not taxed on their lands unless they sell or develop the resources before 1991; however, corporate profits are not exempt from taxation. All Native corporations are free to sell all or any part of their lands at any time, but none are known to be contemplating this. Leasing is preferred by the Native corporations at this time. Misunderstanding of Claims Both the money and land settlement are widely misunderstood. Even many Alaskans think each Native will receive his or her proportional share of the billion dollars and 40 million acres. With over 77,000 Alaska Natives enrolled (and the enrollment has been reopened since this figure was published), had the settlement been on an individual basis rather than going to the corporations, each Native would be expected to receive about $13,000 and 500 acres of land. But this is not how the money and land are being distributed. To date each "At-large" Native shareholder (member of a regional corporation, not enrolled to a village) has received about $2,250 in cash payments and each Village shareholder, (member of reghional corporation and village corporation) has received about $410, since the Act passed in 1971. No further distribution to individual shareholders will be made from the Alaska Native Fund. The Land and money capitalize corporations and are managed for the individual Alaska Native shareholders. 34 Profit-Making Corporations and Non-Profit Associations Misinformation about the settlement has caused serious problems for the Natives. While the regional corporations were established to be essen- tially the same as any other well-capitalized, land-based corporations, many Alaskans, including some Natives, think the Native corporations should be spending their money to correct the social problem of the people: control alcoholism, improve health, education and welfare, build free houses, improve transportation, and so forth. The trust responsi- bility of the regional corporations is to all shareholders (i.e., those enrolled to and living in the villages and the "at-large" shareholders), and for the most part prohibits such activity. Shareholders could be living anywhere, including outside Alaska or in foreign countries, and would not benefit from their share of corporate funds spent on social improvements for villagers. For each profit-making Native regional corporation therefore, there is a non-profit Native regional association counterpart. These associations receive federal, State, and private funds and grants, and provide some health, education and social services to the people within their regions. However, government agencies at all levels continue to provide most services for native peoples. These Associations, of course, are not involved in management of the lands and resources. Money Distribution The Act provides for the establishment of the Alaska Native Fund in the United State's Treasury which will distribute money to the regional and village corporations and their shareholders based upon the number of shareholders enrolled in each regional corporation (Table 3-1). Philosophically, these monies represent additonal lands which would otherwise have been returned to Native ownership and control, but were not. O $462,500,000 in varying annual amounts for the eleven years subse- quent to December 18, 1971. O A maximum of $500,000,000 in mineral royalties from minerals owned by the State of Alaska and the federal govenment (chiefly based on oil and gas). The annual amount to be received and the period over which it is to be received is indeterminable. The money received by Native regional corporations from the Alaska Native Fund must be distributed as follows: O 10% to individual shareholders for five years expiring December 18, 1976. O 45% to village corporations and non-village residents for five years until December 18, 1976 and 50% thereafter; and 35 p q Table 3-1 PAv;v1ENTS FROM THE ALASKA NATIVE FUND TO THE .2 REGIONAL CORPORATIONS AS OF SEPT. 30,1977 NATIVE. REGIONAL D .ISTRIBWED,@ CORPORATION 'AS 0 F 9/30 177 AHTNA 8 ALEUT., 0 YAW m 10 14,391,355.4 A, ARCTIC SLOPE,. 17 263,083.60. 4 7 .30,19821 @BE RING STRAITS BRISTOL BAY .60,053 215.0Z CALISTA um, =- 13=1 @l CHUGACH 8',866,178.62 r COO!', INLET 27 531,214.87' DOYON 41,347,623.35 KONIAG 4,610,1143.61 :NANA' m 2.117 SEALASKA on &g@I& MOM, 7,1,606,04 -4 THIRTEENTR 12 207,151.29@ 25 :30: -35 40 - 45 55 'Go @.6r, 70 :0 10 .15 20 50 148;813,3152-49@ Sourm'7ho Alaska Native Minagemerif.Report" Vol@ 6,.Numbor 39, Oct. 15,1977. TOTAL O 45% to be retained by the regional corporation for five years until December 18, 1976 and 50% thereafter. Money for the Four Listed Villages and Villages Retaining Their Former Indian Reserves Each of the four Native Corporations formed to select and manage native lands for Juneau, Sitka, Kodiak and Kenai was granted $250,000; the six villages, Elim, Savoonga, Gambell, Tetlin, Venetie and Arctic Village, which elected to retain their former Indian Reservations (Elim, St. Lawrence Island, Tetlin and Venetie), were granted $100,000 each under terms of the Native Claims Omnibus Act P.L. 94-204 of January 2, 1976. Land Distribution Most land selections were made by December 13, 1974 and were 99 percent completed by December 18, 1975 (four years after ANCSA's passage). Table 3-2 shows a tabulation of lands the Native corporations will eventually receive from federal and State lands. Land Transfer Problems Lack of conveyance is the major deterrent to mineral and energy develop- ment on Native lands. As of July 15, 1977, slightly over 10 percent of a total of 43.7 million acres of land had been transferred (4.44 million acres) to the Native corporations by the Bureau of Land Management, leading to charges by Native leaders that the value of the Native settlement was eroded, cost- ing the corporations millions of dollars in lost economic opportunities. 37 Table 3-2 DISTR]BUTION OF *33 MILLION ACRES-OF LAND TO NATIVES: ALASKXNATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT'ACT 22 million acres: The village corporations are.to own only the surface' estate to-lands they selected. Their d;rthe r Ownership does'not Include the minerals below the groun ights to the,minerals--the subsurface. estate gent.,rally belongs to regional c@.,rporAtions. 'This ls..tiue f.o r '@i 1. 22.. million,acres selected' except in@NaVal Petroleum Reserve.#4 and-Nation I Wildlife refu s. a., ge + Once villap -ts to individuals es obtain title tc their lands,,.they must transfer., some trar -Native,_some to 3r and some to munici.pal, state or federal Native,or non ganizat Ions,, gov.,erninents. and-can retain the remainder., 16 mil:lion. a These lan hei-r cres: ds were selected by regional cor'porations@on the basis of@ land area within t regic@ns, rather than.population. Under: o:'coinplicAted land-loss formula,_ihese.lands were- chosen by those 11.,'regional corporations@ which@had small enrollm6nts but large areas-within their boundaries. Owing to the. earlier Tlingit-Itaida.settleinent,,,t.he, southeastern'region was not among the :corporations eligibl-e 'for this provision. Only six' regions share in millio acres: .1thtna, Arctic Slopej Chugach, Cook Inlet Doyon and NANA.@@: this, sixteen, n 00 million acre et. aside for. -gr n 0 2 million ac res: The remaining,two s were s a 'It s@of title of Jan6s t special. Native ized in the n6n-..Na tI ive cities of Sitka,, Kenai,- @Kodiak, and corporations organ Juneau (which had been historic Native places); for grants to groups of :Natives or @ to . + .,individual Natives residing aw6y ..f:ron villages; for, Native, all6tments which+were:claimed before' the passage,of the Act; and for [email protected],anei:histor. c. sites. 40 m4llion,acres: Total entitlement for all categories, except for villagd corporations,electing to. retain their former Indian Reservations. W A pproximatel 3,.7 million.atres: Where,v-illages on revoked reserve voted- ta,acquire title @t :their' former reserves they; 0 _q ot only to its surface, but also to its mineral obtain fee simple titl,e n s. T'hey forego.. however, other benefits tin der the Act. The vi iges of,Gnmbell, Savoonga@,Venetle@, Arctic- Village Tetlin and Flim elected to retain their reservat ions in lieu of 6ther,jand and money benef,its in the Set tlc@ment Act. Approximately 43.7'.mill1on,acres: Tutal lands to be conveyed to. Alaska Natives." Easment Issues The major block to the passage of title is the so-called "easement ques- tion". So many easements and transportation corridors (for energy, fuel, natural resources, and related facilities) have been proposed that seven of the Native regional corporations filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior to prevent establishment of easements across their lands. The seven regions are: Calista, Chugach, Cook Inlet, Doyon, Koniag, NANA and Sealaska. The Department of the Interior has refused to convey lands subject to easements until the question is settled. Major disagreement is centered on the resources corridors and the continuous shoreline easements extending 25 feet above mean high tide along much of the 33,000 mile coastline of the State; there is also unhappiness with the linear easements for recreation purposes on rivers and streams since wording of ANCSA does not give the Secretary of the Interior authority to reserve easements for this purpose, in the view of the Natives. Since nearly all Native villages in Alaska are located on waterways, the Native corporations feel their most valuable and productive village lands are being taken away from them under the guise of "easements". The Natives won the first round in the dispute in Federal District Court but this decision is expected to be appealed. The lawsuit claimed that the Secretary of the Interior erred in not publishing the easement guidelines as required under the Administrative Procedures Act and, further, that he exceeded his authority relative to the easement provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in the published easement guidelines. The guidelines can be found in Secretarial Order (S.O.), No. 2982 (local public easments), dated February 5, 1976, and in S.O. 2987 (transportaion of energy, fuel, natural resources easments), date March 3, 1976. S.O. No. 2987 established policy for reserving a blanket easement "for the transportation of energy, fuel and natural resources which are the property of the United States or which are intended for delviery to the United States, or which are produced by the United States" (emphasis added); this appears to preclude the use of such easements by interests other than the United States government. Some observers speculate that this S.O. is intended to provide for transporting federally-owned resources (oil and natural gas) through a federally owned pipeline. The local easements Secretarial Order, S.O. 2982, does not deal with interregional pipeline problems. Mineral corridors include easements for roads, railroads, oil and gas pipelines, and slurry pipelines that would be built primarily to facilitate the transportation of minerals. Payment for Easements Most of the village and Regional corporations are willing to provide easements if they are paid for in the manner other private land is 39 acquired. The Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission has studied the easement question and has suggested that, for interregional easements, the cost of easement acquisition would be very small, perhaps about 1/10 of one percent of the project cost for a major development. Arctic Slope's Land Transfer Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which never strongly opposed easements across their lands as have the other regions, has completed easement negotiations with the Secretary of Interior. Interim Conveyance (I.C.) No. 76 to cover more than 3 million acres of land was expected when over 50 protests were filed by individual oil and gas lease appli- cants. These applications date from the 1966-68 period, before the "big land freeze" which stopped the transfer of land claimed by Natives until Congress could act upon the claims. The application was overruled, and ASRC has received conveyance to the land to which it is entitled (over 4 million acres). It is the first Regional corporation to have received substantially all the land it is entitled to have. The Arctic Slope Region is considered to have the greatest potential for oil, natural gas and coal development of any of the regions. Although Arctic Slope is prohibited by terms of the Act from getting title to the mineral estate of Naval Petroleum Reserve #4 (now called the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska), the Region has received "in-lieu" subsurface estate from elsewhere within the Region, which also has high crude oil, natural gas and coal resources. Koniag Region Negotiates Easement Model Koniag, a participant in the easement law suit against the Secretary of the Interior, has also been negotiating with the Department of the Interior to get interim conveyance to their lands. The results of the settlement announced November 13, 1976, may be the model for all other regions. The suit affects every region, even those that are not party to the easement suit. The Department of Interior does not want to negotiate differently for all Regions. The Court, of course, will decide on the merits of the easement case, and will probably modify any negotiations between the regions and the Secretary. Lawsuits however, are subject to considerable time delays and no timetable for the final adjudication of the case is available at this writing. In the meantime, the Natives hope to get interim conveyance to their lands through the Koniag settlement model. The agreement between Koniag and the Department of the Interior provides a mechanism for processing land selections in the region, and affecting conveyance of the land despite pending court challenges. Exploration Activity on Native Lands While private corporations are clearly more interested in working with private land owners (particularly large scale landowners like the regional 40 Corporations) rather than the state or the federal government-- development, that is, drilling and production--cannot take place until the Natives actually have their land transferred to them by the U.S Department of the Interior. By the end of 1976 eight of the twelve Native regional corporations had entered into exploration and leasing agreements with seven major oil companies, seven regions had agreements with six mining companies (joint ventures or consortiums counting as one company each). However, develop- ment activity was sharply restricted because of lack of land ownership. Drilling Prohibited Without Land Ownership No drilling can take place on Native-selected land without a lease, and the BLM cannot issue a lease to drill. Drilling activity on Native lands is therefore restricted to the land that has been transferred to the Natives by: (1) interim conveyance or (2) patent. The Natives are not supposed to issue a lease until they own the land. Until such time as a land transfer takes place, no drilling is to be done. Doyon, Ltd., the regional corporation of Interior Alaska's Athabascan Indians, has received an interim conveyance to their lands in the Kandik Basin of the Yukon--Porcupine Province near the Canadian border and has been drilling exploratory wells for oil and gas. Land Trades In December of 1975, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. entered into a complicated land trade with the State (Division of Lands) and the federal government (Department of the Interqior). It was approved both by Congress and the State legislature, and after lengthy litigation on State constitutional grounds, was finally resolved in the region's favor by the U.S. Supreme Court. The State has made land trades of patented lands with Native corporations (Cook Inlet Region) and others and more exchanges are expected, particu- larly in Doyon's region. This is being done in an effort to consolidate lands and improve land management. Regions with regional selections are first required to choose from lands withdrawn for the villages but not selected by the villages, in an checkerboard pattern (the odd townships, odd ranges, even townships and even ranges of the rectangular survey system). If this acreage was inadequate regional deficiency land was set aside by the Secretary of Interior for selection. In Doyon region the checkerboard pattern is the rule, m. king land more difficult to manage than compact and contiguous tracts would be. Both the Natives and the State will be trying to improves their land base: the Natives to secure improved realty, timber, energy and mineral 41 resources and the State to secure more of everything, including park land and fish and wildlife habitat. Agreements to exchange may be made prior to the Natives actually receiving interim conveyance. Land trades can also be made with the Department of the Interior (DOI) or with other Native corporations. Energy Resources on Native Lands The Cook Inlet trade was brought about because of the scarcity of produc- tive lands for regional selection in Southcentral Alaska's railbelt (where 51% or more of the population lives). Cook Inlet received valuable oil, natural gas, and coal lands in exchange for their land selection rights under ANCSA. Cook Inlet will receive five townships of State land on the Kenai Peninsula; the areas have coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium potential; up to 9.6 townships of the subsurface estate (oil, gas and coal by in situ gasification only) in the Kenai National Moose Range on the Kenai Peninsula; 13.5 townships having high-value coal potential, as well as oil and natural gas potential in the Beluga area; 1.2 townships of State lands in the Matanuska-Susitan Valley--of which 0.2 townships are in the Chickaloon area of the Matanuska Coal Fields; as well as other valuable lands in the region amounting to 26 townships or 599,040 acres. (Note: one township equals 23,040 acres.) The surface estate of the 9.6 townships of subsurface estate in the Kenai National Moose Range (part of the National Wildlife Refuge System), will be managed by the federal government. The management agreement for mineral development is very restrictive. The Kenai Moose Range is well endowed with oil, natural gas, and coal deposits as well as moose, but the agreement with Cook Inlet Region restricts the development opportuni- ties of minerals by the Region. Over half of the region's estimated land entitlement of 55.6 townships is to be made outside the region with the consent of other affected Native regions and villages. One township of coal lands near Healy (outside the region) has been identified for selection based high coal resource values. Revenues received by the region for development of the energy values. Revenues received by the region for development of the Native regional corporations pursuant to Section (7)(i) of ANCSA, as explained below. Mandatory Distribution of Revenues to Other Regions A major deterrant to energy resource development on Native lands, besides the limited amount of land conveyed so far, will likely arise from Section (7)(i) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This section (commonly referred to as the "70-30 split" provision) requires that 70% of all revenues received by each regional corporation from timber and development of the subsurface estate must be divided each year among all 42 12 regions according to the number of Natives enrolled in each region. This provision was made in an effort to level the effects of the unequal value of resources between regions. Because of the large size of their regions relative to the Native popula- tion, only six regions had the option of selecting lands for their resource value: Athna, Incorporated Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Chugach Natives, Inc. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Doyon, Ltd. NANA Regional Corporation These six regions share 16 million acres of fee simple land. Some of these regions have shown an unwillingness to share what some observers consider to be a disproportionate share of their revenues with the other regions; others of them carge the term "revenues" is unclear and must be defined. Several lawsuits have ensued over various aspects of the (7)(i) provisions. Native Regions' Subsurface Rights to Village Land All twelve regional corporations, both those that have fee simple land rights and those that do not, receive title to the subsurface estate in the 22 million acres of lands selected by their associated villages (except for the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska and National Wild- life Refuges, where in-lieu subsurface land elsewhere is available to the regions). In these cases of severed estates where the Native village corporations own the surface estate and the Native regional corporations own the subsurface estate, some of the problems are being resolved in federal courts; e.g., whether gravel is a surface or subsurface material and what constitutes the village boundaries relative to the village "veto power" on development. The Settlement Act provides, "that the right to explore, develop, or remove minerals from the subsurface estate in the lands within the boundaries of the Native village shall be subject to the consent of the village corpora- tion". This "veto power" of the village corporations over regional corporation's development plans is viewed as a threat to development by many of the regions. Some village corporations are expected to withhold approval to the regional corporations who want to develop the village subsurface estate. Resistance to development near villages is expected for a variety of reasons: (1) development could conflict with subsistence lifestyles; (2) development could conflict with the village's surface development plans; and (3) the impacts on the villages caused by develop- ment may not be worth the small revenues returned to village corporations under Section (7)(i). Maintaining their subsistence lifestyle is considered especially important for many villages. Usually, the more remote the village the more likely that residents will view development nearby as harmful. For example, two-thirds of Doyon's villages not presently connected to the road system want no road connection to Fairbanks. Many villagers want roads 43 ~0 ~qg~e ~a~g ~qR~a ad ~s brine, ~t~:~n~v~o~ql~e~v~e~@~r ~x ~e ~r~z~e~-~,~@,~" ~-~@~'~3~, ~v~o-~@~t ~l~l~q@ I -a ~@~qO~u ~@~'~V~r~m~- ~q4~c~qp~c~@~.-~.~q4~ ~k~'~!~P~@ for ~O~u~a~@~0~4~i~!~ ~q7~11 ~C~- S ~e~, ~t ~E ~r ~f~, ~f A" ~t ~t ~r~d ~t~:~o ~t I ~w~z~l ~C~@~7~1 ~f~'~.~@ ~Q~n~. ~ql~a~n~qd~v~i ~i~c~ql~v~qc~f~-~r~'~ql ~qt~;~y ~q!~'~s ~v~c~-~v ~'~.~a~4~-~4~r~'~4 ~v~f ~r ~b ~0 At it ~t~v ~qf~i~l~c~@ A ~f~t~l~n~"~e~r~4~'~.~1 ~i~l~np I ~i~c~z~i~t I on ~W~~1 ~qh ~h~r ~Z~'~@ ~f ~'~r~. :;,a ~4~:~' L~p ~e~'~@~- ~s~o~a ~f ~t~F~'~~& ~f ~1~@~7 ~M ~t ~0~. ~t ~P~s and ~qm~o~qi~l~r~qy ~t~qh~@ ~i~- ~y~w ~f~l~q@~c ~4 a ~T~@ ~f~, ~'~X~t t ~r~. ~c~o r p o r ~o~4 ~t ~i ~i a ~t ~t ~c~,~l ~t ~e~v~, ~t ~4 1 ~'~qJ I ~4 e ~o~4~- ~g, ~f~;~@~O~@ ~i~j ~%~'~.4~q1 ~C ~U ~qi ~Z ~t ~f~T I ~f ~e ~C~;~*~!~'~@ I ~V~. ~f~k ~r~qt~e ~, ~'~-~'~.~!- ~J~l~c~t~i ~c ~e ~t ~e~.~q4 ~v I n~. t~- ~c~: ~S~a ~qlv~v ~c~f~t~f~,~@~(~" ~o~' ~@~f~i ~V~@~- I ~w ~4 A ~C ~r ~V~A ~t~t~s ~&~;~4~v~%~k~l~r~@ ~t ~h~.~3 &-I ~f 1 ~'~0 ~f~ ~c~!~@~' ~t~z~;~n -~p-~0~q0~6~1~f~6~:~4~. ~@~A~l~t ~t r ~n ~v r r ~o ~t ~4~- ~N~Z ~nv- -~q ~-~.~-~v t ~t ~f ~(~7 1; ~t 1-"(. ~'~1~q0 ~1 A~l~h ~r~, ~u ~z ~~.~7 ~1~@~. ~r ~'~u ~6; ~1~0~4~, ~f ~r ~q1~q1~. ~'~qd ~b~v ~1 ~v ~1 ~d A 1 ~1 ~1~: ~o~u ~u ~T -A ~& ~r ~f ~c~v ~t ~1~. I I ~qc~. ~-~-~:~@~n~l a ~qf ~0 ~0 ~1~. ~z ~~@~r ~l~i ~e~l ~1 ~qw~l t ~f ~T ~f~f a ~c I ~r~@ A~s~z -~4 ~m I ~v~e *1 ~q;~-~-~,~4 ~r~. ~@~f~-~- ~-~6 ~t~q-~, ~e ~-~v ~c~t~@~j ~v ~t ~'~5 ~V-~6 ~P- ~0 ~6 ~s~@.~* ~W- ~e? -AV. I ~r~, A' ~:~1 ~p ~F~I~K ~4~- ~!~'~-~V I ~~v -I A ~qN~qa -I ~qv ~qi ~qn~q4~qi ~q- ~qF~q@ ~qr ~qC~q4 ~qv~qc~qi~qx~, ~q1~q@ ~0 ~~m it go. IF ~'~q@~qY~qp~o~r~qa ~4q%~; ~.~4~. ~qk~qo~qt~4qw~'~r ~A~qg. ~q"~.~qZ~v~q@~l "so ~qw~qh ~q1~2q4~0q"~, all ~2p~52;3200;28;28q.~ ~0 ~1~4 wall. ~M~.~, `A ~C~% ~4qO~v~w ~r ~v ~-~4~1~qt~; ~qi~l~q"~qt~-~qi ~-~qf ~%~qw ~d~r~0q*~A~4 I ~W~-~a~t ~t~% ~V ~4~b~4 Tea ~0 ~0qm~s~qo ~8qA~o ~..n~qd ~%~i~i~k~qt~q4r ~qf~-~t~i~-~4~qi~qi ~W~A~6q4. ~c ~i or. ~i~qr~m' ~qi~i~i~qi~. ~q4~q@~A~qi ~qR~qA~'~M~' ~i~, #A.. ~'~qf~: ~q4~.~q4~" ~qb up ~'~4~b As' #'*tat ~W.~&~I ~qA~g~o~qw ~V~q@ ~@~4~1~qV~q@ CIS A ~L~I~qI ~1~4 A~. ~-~q4~0 I ~i~v~q@~' ~-~d~W~@ I ~l~o~e~' ~41~1 -~1~1~q1~q1 ~A.~4qM ~t AV ~(~9~1~0 Ar~C t ~0 ~1~4q4 ~a~qp~o~w~-r~o~qd -that. ~- ~qa~r ~e~q4~6q" ~qS~c~r~o~- ~qk~qm~r~,~, ~:~q1~q4 ~t ~2 1 a t~A~p~qi~-4 ~%F' ~'~q*~W~& ~q1~, ~'~qA~l ~qj~*~qj4~r~f~j~6 ~-~%~qA~qi~qi~r~i~qf~qt~, ~w~o ~0~7. ~. ~:~-~- ~, ~'~' ~2~1 ~-~*~1~2q4 ~, ~qt 1 ~0~-~4 ~-~4~0 Act. ~i~o~qt~* ~s~f~8qj Nit ~.~0 ~qi~6q4~a~f~t ~q1~, ~*~q1~4~qW ~qi~k~* ~v~q@~qe~r ~q1~q4~q4~8q4 -fir ~-~.~q1 ~i~w~: ~2qm~qa ~qs ~qt ~qi~q1~q4~*~4~2~6~q4~-~6qA~q* ~0q0~1~q@~m~% ~q1~q111 ~qLA ~q1~2q4 ~q7 ~2qV If ~4~q4~q1~6q"~q;~q4 ~2q0A6~1 J~q;~P Veit ~qs~qp~qV~c~. ~S~.~. ~m ~0 ~q1~q*~4 it ~q4~q;1~q@~8q6 ~@~A .;*I ~qw~qi~ql ~qm ~1 ~i~b~-~4~qi ~qt~b -~2qT~A~. r~6q"~qw~. ~qf~qv~v~- ~0qc~qh~qw~8q1~f~J~4 ~8q*~qt~qA ~q3 ~qt~,~q* I ~4~qi ~qC~-~q7 ~qt~q&~8qO~qi ~. ~A~qL~.~A~. ~. ~. ~'.~,~1~. ~-~.~, ~. ~.~.~-~. ~.~.~,~:~.~, ~.~. ~4~0~9~4~4~-~'~qV~' ~*~,~4~6~A ~V~A~q~w~4q0~k~4q" Jr. ~q*~W~qf ~qI~L 4~j via ~O~A~q6~1~8q4 ~t~*~qw ~qi~qi ~0qf~0qt~:~q@~I~. ~#~q%~qf~qt~*~. ~q*~,~d~V~8q4 ~0. ~4q4~#~qj ~L~V 4~L ~@~W~&~. ~qj.~16~q0 ~q#~q~qo ~y~.~* ~e~qf ~t~qb~o ~q4~,~*~q0 ~qi~0qA I ~4qY~@~bt~o~r~q@~r~x~2qp~l~qc~; ~q4 ~q4 ~0q"~t~o~-~.~4~qt *I ~q4~qw ~-~8qO~v~o `~v ~%~W ~t *'.I ~1~P ~q_~6q"~t~qN ~q" ~q.~q. ~0q~~q1~q%~q. ~qm~8qa~q* ~q*~qt~8qw~6qw~qr to ~q1~6qW ~q'~qW~00q*~qP~16q4~q. ~4qt~8q%~qO A ~q*~8qW Of ~16q"~q'~qF~q1 .. ~qW~q-~qf ~12qA~8qV~q7~28q4 ~qV~q%~qL~qV~qP~8qW~qC~0q@~64q@~4q; ~qe~qf~q. waters; these areas were charged against the State's 104 million acre entitlement, probably wrongly, since the beds of navigable waters were granted to the State outright at the moment of Statehood. A streamlined approach to the navigable waters issue has emerged: the interior Department is considering the option of conveying title to the corporations of most water bottoms without charging this acreage against their entitlements, provided the State and Native Corporations agree. Observers see agreement as generally the case. Minerals Reserved to the United States On much Alaska land patented under the federal homestead, small tract, trade and manufacturing, and homesite laws after 1956, some or all of the subsurface estate was reserved to the United States: (1) all minerals, including coals; (2) oil and gas; and (3) all fissionable materials (later repealed). The State of Alaska has also been granted patents under the Statehood Act to only these specific reserved interests (less than the full subsurface estate), yet charged as if it were the full fee title. The State also has issued third-party permits and leases to these interests. The Natives possibly can select the United States reserved interests to fill their entitlement of "in-lieu" subsurface to replace National Wildlife Refuge lands not available to them, but they would receive less than the full subsurface estate. Additions to the Four National Systems - D-2 Lands-(National Interest Lands) The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act also includes Section 17(d) (2) commonly called "d-2", which allows the Secretary of the Interior to set aside up to 80 million acres of land for more if Congress so decides) for study and possible addition to the "Four National Systems": National Wildlife System, National Forests, National Parks, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Congressional hearings were held throughout Alaska during the summer of 1977, where discussion centered around two new proposals: the (Rep. Morris) Udall d-2 proposal, predominately a wilderness proposal for 146.6 million acres; and the Alaska Concensus proposal, a multiple- use plan for shared federal-state management of about half a 97-million- acre proposal. Until the November 1976 presidential election, the Nixon Administration's d-2 proposal was the frontrunner. With the change in administration (and the Secretary of the Interior) the issue has been opened up for more debate. The d-2 question has polarized the environmentalists and the developers in Alaska since the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. Miners, Native Corporations, and other growth-oriented groups (including some State and federal agencies) concerned about the future growth of Alaska, are firmly opposed to passage of any d-2 legislation that will lock-up millions of acres of lands they see as valuable. Conservation groups, preservationists, and other environmental interests 46 (again including some State and federal agencies) are concerned about maintaining the environmental quality and preserving areas with unique wildlife and scenic grandeur for future generations. They firmly support locking up those same millions of acres of land. Almost everyone agrees that certain special areas in the State should obviously be set aside as federal parks, forest, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers. Their wildlife and scenic values are clearly of national significance and few people challenge this national need. However, three major land-use issues have recurred throughout the numerous d-2 meetings and discussions. The first is centered on wildlife, particu- larly with respect to meeting the needs of rural Alaskans, and whether the federal government or the State should manage the taking of fish and game in the d-2 areas. Currently, the State is responsible for the management of resident fish and wildlife species, except where preempted by federal law (as under the Marine Mammal Protection Act), or where hunting is prohibited (as it is in Mr. McKinley National Park). States have traditionally had primary control over wildlife within their borders, and federal management of subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping on the d-2 lands could disrupt this authority. The second issue arises because d-2 lands extend across regions where there is virtually no ground transportation system, and future transpor- tation needs are uncertain. Some of the natural transportation routes which go through mountain passes or along rivers, for example, are located in areas that deserve the high level of enduring protection that might be provided by a park or wildlife refuge. However, consideration also must be given to the possible future needs for surface transportation in rural Alaska. Exploration and development of minerals such as copper, chrome, and nickel to name a few of the possible minerals, is the third major land use issue. Despite the exclusion of many highly mineralized areas from d-2 study areas, some mineralized lands are included within or nearly surrounded by the proposed national parks and wildlife refuges. In some instances, their development may be of national interest in the future. There are many other issues which will affect the management and use of these d-2 lands. For example: o Important lowlands, natural transportatoin corridors, and essential wildlife habitat virtally related to the federal lands and the values they contain are, or will be, in State or private ownership. o Many of the rivers proposed for the Wild and Scenic Rivers System run through areas of State and Native ownership. 47 o Approximately half of Alaska's coastline will remain in federal ownership, yet the tidelands and subsurface of the ocean within three miles of these coastal areas are in State ownership. State decisions about these areas will have an extensive impact upon adjoining lands. o The legal and regulatory relationships of federal and State governments often will be overlapping. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The environmental issues associated with resource development are invaria- bly stated in terms of trade-offs between the quality of land, water, and air and the development process. One fortunate tendency is to view all the changes of the natural environment as unfavorable to it. While often true (there is no known benefit from the silting and leaching associated with strip mining, for example), it is not necessarily true that all alterations of the environment associated with resource develo- ment are automatically harmful. Offshore oil platforms for example, provide a form of man-made reef which often increases local fish popula- tions and thereby the commercial and sport fisheries. lntelligent logging practices can increase the mammal and bird habitat in forested areas since these animals require the low growing bushes and plants which first appear after logging is completed. Similarly, the rights- of way for power lines are often among the best wildlife habitats. Thus, all discussions of environmen impacts must be tempered by the knowledge that alteration of the environment is not always harmful to all concerned and that energy development is not a process which automatically creates vast wastelands of raw rock and poisoned water and air. Oil and Gas The seriousness of many of the environmental impacts associated with energy development, cannot be minimized. Since the potential impacts vary considerably from resource to resource, each of the energy resources considered in the study raises its own set of environmental issues. Major concerns of onshore and offshore oil and gas development for example, are oil spills. These spills can be especially dangerous offshore, where cleanup and control of the effects are especially diffi- cult. A major spill could be disastrous, for example, in the midst of the salmon runs in Bristol Bay, and even onshore the effects could be very serious in the midst of a major water fowl nesting area. There is the ever present danger of large spills onshore and offshore at collec- tion points and along overseas transportation routes. The high seas which frequently occur in Alaskan waters, combined with the ruggedness and isolation of the Alaskan coastline, make the possibility of such a disaster seem especially acute. Additional offshore oil development impacts include the leakage of chemicals, drilling wastes, and foreign substances into surrounding waters. 0nshore, oil and gas development tends to open previously inaccessible wilderness areas when access roads 48 and airstrips are constructed. Additional impacts on the local ecology are created by construction and drilling camps and along pipelines and other transportaton corridors. Coal: Surface coal mining, the most likely form of coal recovery in Alaska, is view as having some of the most serious impacts on the environment. Not only must substantial acreage be cleared and overbudren set aside, but the process creates a great deal of dust and potential fouling of nearby waters with run-off. In addition, the transport demands of surface coal operations are large generally involving rail lines or heavy truck routes. Litter also tends to be prevalent, creating additonal environmental impacts. Finally, there are the environmental problems associated with the burning of coal as fuel. One of the major problems with the use of coal as a fuel, the oxides of sulfur produced, is minimized in Alaska due to the low sulfur content of Alaskan coals. Nevertheless, the quantity of ash and other combustion by-products produced can be voluminous. Hydropower: Hydroelectric power, which has so many advantages in terms of air quality and renewability, has a number of serious environmental issues associated with its production. Dams and the result of flooding of large areas are essentially irreversible products of hydroelectric power development. No certain way has yet been found to eliminate the impact of dams on andromodous fish. Thousands of acres of river bottom for wildlife habitat are often lost due to flooding, to be replaced by frequently sterile reservoir systems. In addition, the construction of hydroelectric facilities requires a large labor force working over a protracted period. Cement plants may be required close to construction sites, with their additional environmental impacts. Finally, the considerable seismic activity characteristic of much of Alaska represents a continaul danger of dam collapse, with the concomitant damage caused by an enormous and unpredictable flood. Uranium: Many of the problems associated with uranium development are similar to those associated with the development of coal. The favored mining method is surface mining. There can be radiation hazards in subsurface mines, and the ecological effects associated with surface mining are similar to those for the surface mining of coal. In addition, there is the possible local effect of increased radiation hazard as uranium ore is exposed during the mining process. Finally, if uranium is found in small proportions in the ores, primary processing in Alaska (an economic requirement), could create its own environmental burden, including tailings and other waste material and a substantial demand for electric power and water. 49 THE MODELING OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS As noted earlier, one of the major tasks facing this project in succeed- ing phases is the detailed analysis of social, economic, political, and and environmental issues associated with expected energy developments in the state. Also, it is expected that such development will stimulate addi- tional industrial development, which can be said to be a direct outcome of energy development. It is relatively easy to determine the general nature of the issues and impacts associated with different types of energy development. A thorough analysis of these questions, however requires some methodology to generate quantitative measures of such variable as labor force requirements, energy demand, material demands, and potential pollutants. When these quantities are known it is possible to put quantitative measures on the development impacts. Fortunately, by the time these analyses are begun a model estimating these types of measures will be available to the project team. At the present time, the Division of Economic Enterprise of the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development is building a policy planning model which estimates the four basic measures mentioned above for a number of basic industries that presently exist or are likely to be developed in Alaska. The labor requirements component of the model is especially important since it will not only estimate gross labor, but will also provide consider- able detail on the skill levels requited. Energy and material demands are obviously of considerable importance. They represent secondary development impacts which may otherwise be difficult to capture in an analysis which concentrates on energy developments alone. In many cases, these requirements for energy and material may generate indus- trial growth which has a more severe impact on the State's economy and environment than the energy development itself. The need for quantita- tive measures of pollutant production on an industry basis is obvious but is not always otherwise available. The model thus will provide a more systemic method of analyzing environmental impact than otherwise might be possible. 50 CHAPTER 4 RECOVERABLE FOSSIL FUELS OIL AND GAS Recoverable Resource Sites (Onshore) At present, there are only three onshore petroleum provinces in the State that, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), have measured reserves of oil and gas.* These are Cook Inlet, the Northern Foothills, and the Arctic Coastal Plain at Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay is by far the largest deposit, with measured reserves in 1975 of 9.967 billion barrels of recover- able oil and 27.193 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. Measured reserves for Cook Inlet (onshore) and the Northern Foothills are of much smaller magnitude, consisting of 0.262 billion barrels or oil and 4.463 trillion cubic feet of gas at Cook Inlet, and 0.08 billion barrels of oil and 0.315 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Northern Foothills (see Tables 2-5 through 2-8 in Volume 2, Chapter 2). There is, however, considerable expectation that oil and gas will be found onshore in other sites in the State. Currently, there are fourteen onshore petroleum provinces in Alaska. The undiscovered recoverable resources, loca- tions, approximate boundaries, and ranking of these provinces are shown on Table 4-1 and in Figure 4-1. Since relatively little of the exploratory drilling in Alaska, so far, has occurred in areas other than the Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska Peninsula, and in Cook Inlet, the evidence of the potential reserves contained in the other 12 onshore provinces is based primarily on what is known of their geology. Estimates based on this evidence have been compiled by the USGS and are given in Volume 2. To secure the best and most recent available information on oil and gas, we asked several experts in the field to give us their impressions of the likelihood and probable timing of development in the various provinces. The experts questioned about onshore oil and gas sites were: Patrick Dobey, Petroleum Manager Frank B. Chmelik, Manager Department of Natural Resources Alaska Office Division of Minerals and Energy Tetra Tech. Inc. Management 909 West 8th Avenue, Suite 101 323 East 4th Avenue, McKay Annex Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Irene Ryan, Consulting Geologist Jerry Kreitner Box 84 Star Route A Energy Development Analyst Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Federal-State Land Use Planning (907) 344-3189 Commission 733 West Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 *Measured reserves are that part of the identified resource which can be economically extracted using existing technology. The amount is estimaed from geologic evidence supported directly by engineering measurement. 51 IWO r Table 4-1 ESTIMATES OF ALASKA ONSHORE UNDISCO E RESOURCES VERED RECOVERABL OIL GAS _T@i 11 ion of Barre.1s) --(-Tri I I ONSHORE PETROUUM Pf r?OMICES s i n Cubic Feet) 0, L, Area@ Marg. 1/ 3/ Marg, I/ Stat..3/ '!am, e @'(sql mi.) ProG. Range 21 flea n Prob. Rang.e-2/- Mean Arctic Coastal Plain 25,570 1.0 7.0 25'.0: 13.51@ 10 10.0, 6.48 1.0 Northern Foothills: 29,495 :1 .0 4 2 1.10, 6. .84 2.3 '15.0 7.1, Southern Foothi'ls and 40,260 OA 0 0.6@ 0 '1 2 0.3 .0 2.U Brooks Range - Selawik. Lowlands. 4,520- NegI Negl Ne9l. t4egl . Yukoo-Porcupine' 20,430 0.3 0 D. 4 0.1 0.3 0 2.0 0.39- Yukon4oy 64i735 ukuk 0.95 0 0.4 2.29%. 0.07 0.4 0 1.5, Interior Lowlands Z3,610 Ne9l. Negl. 0 0.7 0.31 0.35 PQ Bri stol Bay Tertiiry, 9,00 0.4 -7 0 0.7 0.16 0. 0: 2.4 2.@8 0 2. 0_4 A I a s k a Peninsula 14,531, 0.4 0 1.1 0:. 24 0.4 .1 Cook.Inl-t 6 .,275 0 %0.2 0.8 0.44 1 . Q '0.7 .2.8 1.53 Copper R i ver 5 Q,90 0.3 0 0.16 0.04 0.4 0 0.8 0.22 Gulf of Alaska Tertiary 4,510 1.0 .0 '1711. :0.44@ 0.1 0.51 0,27 .'21 0.8 Kodiak Tertiary _770 --- Negl. @Iegl-., NeqI ',Neg] j '..Southeastern.Al k 350 1`1eg I Negl. NegI,. Neg! . as a l/ The.marginal probability: the fractional probabili: ty@between 0 and :1 that some cortrne'r c i a I di*scovery will be'L M'ade i n :the province;.based on a concensus of USGS. sources. ity L 21 Th L low ValUo of the range is, the quantity as,soctated with a 15, probabil that-there. is.at. least: this amount; The* hiah value is the quantity With a 5",,probability that there is a least,this zmou'nt-..@- -3/ '51tatistical. mean: rhean of the probabi I i,ty distribution used for the range, Plultipli,ed by the mairgi'nalL probabil ty.. The raw mean of the probability di.stribution can be derivod by dividinq the value s@hown by the marginal probability. 0, OOOIL Ne@ligibl Less, than 0.001 bLi Ilion @barrels of oil or tr I ]'ion c:jbic feet of gas.. Sour cc United tiat.e% GL ogical Survey; Unpublished data for Circular 725., "Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Pecoverablq.Ciil and Gau Ro5ources on the U:S." (1975) d LEGEND a: MANKP PROVINCE @A tic o,de, of p,oduci,n P6 L H.E.R.WFOO ILLS Oy@ SOL H fIN FO\ THILL N. IN A JI)s -LA K "U (81COpPEI m q -0 RIVER NV ASK", OV,G\JLF A @21 C06K T INL,ET, 9'. BRISTOL BAy TEnTIAR T. 161 q '7N q FiqUre 4-1 Onshore Oil & GasProvinces e of Alaski, Division of Energy & Power Development 1977: END fOV IN fu DGGS Staff Gil Mull, Geologist Department of Natural Resources Exploration and Strategies Division of Geological and ONPRA (Office of National Petroleum Geophyhsical Survey Reserves in Alaska) 3001 Porcupine Drive 2525 C Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Thomas E. Kelly, Consultant Robert Sanders, Geologist Earth Sciences Federal Energy Administration 700 H Street Federal Building; 605 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 The results of the oil and gas site screening are in Table 4-2 and Figure 4-1 which give the ranking (i.e., prediction of the future order of produc- tion) of the oil and gas province as well as location, timing, and selected excerpts from comments by the experts. Also included are the size of the province and an estimate of the undiscovered recoverable oil (billions of barrels) and gas (trillions of cubic feet) (Ref: 4-1). Of the provinces listed, two of them (Arctic Coastal Plain and Cook Inlet) have recovery operations already underway; therefore, the remaining part of these two provinces were ranked along with the other provinces. As might be expected, these experts generally considered expansion of oil and gas development on the Arctic Coastal Plain and in Cook Inlet to be the most likely event in the immediate future. Atlantic Richfield's recently announced plans for drilling in another formation near Prudhoe Bay supports this theory. Exxon's discoveries at Flaxman Island and Point Thompson are also from a different formation than Prudhoe. ARCO presently has plans for two exploratory and two development wells in the Kuparuk River region. The drilling, to be done this winter, is the initial step by the firm to determine the oil potential in the Kuparuk River formation, located approximately 30 miles west of the ARCO side of the Prudhoe Bay field. The formation overlays the Sadlerochit formation, which is the source of oil now being produced by ARCO and British Petroleum at Prudhoe. Preliminary estimates show the Kuparuk's oil-bearing stratum to be rather thin, which may discourage immediate recovery. Should recovery be economical, ARCO's long-range plans presently under study include four drill sites, 32 wells, and a flow station, involving a total estimated cost of $220 million. Other areas considered most likely to be developed are in the Northern and Southern Foothills petroleum provinces, broad bands lying south of the Arctic Coastal Plain on the northern slope of the Brooks Range. A relatively large group of six provinces is considered to be substantially more speculative in terms of likelihood, timing, and probable scale of development. Almost every expert had a different favorite among this group, with opinions varying widely on rankings and timing. Considerably more 54 b Table 4-2 OIL & GAS SITE RANKING (ONSHORE), pr6diction'of ftiliure order of production) Rdnki ng of Undiscovered Recoverable.-.' Prov i nce Area Mi2 OIL GAS Timing Excerpts f rom (Region) (Volume 10) toiw@nts, by Experts @7 b bilfiiins b Is. cu. f L Ran Range ge .1) ARCTIC COASTAL 25.00: ,3.0,- 10.0 7.0 25.0 1980 "North of Oar@r@owr Arch best prospect; Close ..PLAIN (75,712) 1993 enou gh to 6@e Prudhoe Bay'Infrastructure.' (Arct-ic) atstablished..production; Large structure at Marsh Ueek@!" "Kubaruk and Llsbu'rne pools may be produrpd_ @s oil prices,ris@." r kiive.progra m of,explorat an 99, ft in several areas." -7 .0. COOK INLET 2 @0.8 6.7 '1980- "May be explored-fo s 2.8 rga (Sotitlicentrall (13,100) 1940 - :"'Good gas putential by expanding known f ields.." "Fair to qaod.' pruspects to.be'drilled in 1977 3), HORTHER4 FOOT- 29,495 1.0 6.4 23 15.0 BIRO- "Good Cretac 116.ous play in western part; o- (133,350) 200041. duction establiOed.-- HILLS (,Arctic) .,Oi Iin deep.:p#t of basio; drilling costs high, structure not encouragi rt q; polfticll problems in wililifo range." "Exploration 6 n nd6way o' @good prospect.' 4) SOUTHERN FOOT- 40.2160 0 1.2 0 7.0 19BO-, "Gas po'teotfal HILLS, (183.570) 2000t. "Most prohmWng.0f any are&a ne.' -t this tit (Arctic) "Native controlled lands near pipe'line; 5) YUKON-PORCUPINE 20.480 0 0.4 -:2.0 ... -, - I (interior) (48,190) Possible production'on Canadian 'Side will keep interest." "First was Pot encouraging, lack of known reservoirs and source rocks." "Prospective area under expluratian." 6) BRISTOL BAY 0 0.7 0 2.4 1990- "Native interest will push exploration; TERTIARY (13.480) 1995 Occurrence of oil seeps in surrounding (Southwest.), , areas." 'No encouraqing,.resuits to date; volcanics.' ."TeF-tinq so' far f4s 6ee, discouraqing@ Pro- babli will.noi produce,. @111itzla c"nr,'e for oiisjor'd is cover i es.., 7) YUKON-KOYUk1'UK 64.735 0 OA_ 0 1.5 1Wi JI'LllioVe@_ ivo/bbl oi the ared@- ('@outhwest) 100.000), ... ...... .. "Bethel Basin. probably only productive area. Many volcanici@imwestern portion; liiqhly@ frdctured A JnJu'rdted cretaccous mdrine sedim "Area around Delta has a chance: Most of- area not @eoloyicd1Iy.encouraqinq." Big disappointment,,:,but big area to, ex- plere." 8) COPPER RIVER 5.090, 0 0416 0 0.8 1985- "Gas. some oil. cheap to.find; five years (So9th@entral) (5,020) Never should hve'discovery. a "Nati e interests push,development; v Have been gas discoveries." "Excessive volcanics iii eastern Part of ba - s JIn; Possibly-very shallow gas. "Geology very poor No reservoirs.@' 55, % q j j able 4.2 (Untim led) OIL &.GAS SITE RANKING (ONSHORE),:- 0 (Prediction of future order of 'producti 'n) F@ankinq of Undiscovered -Az 2- Proviuce,@ Area Mi I OIL AS -lim-in Excerpts from colmlents :by Experts Iii, lions bb I s. I r i I I i on cu;ft. Ran ge. t 9) ALASKA PENINSULA, 14 531' 1 a 2.0 'Native intpresiwill pusileiploration; Oc. (southwest) currence &f rwl.secps in.surrounding areas.," ecour,@qffq results to date; Volcanics.' :Geoloq, P,7'o r L i W& ch4@x*ce -4 os- major discoveries. 10) IUTERIOR LOWLANDS. 23,610 Neql'. 0.7 1990- 'Shallow 4-@Ps deposits, only for local con- (interior), (4'170) , Never sumpti on.' I tii -ri!Bry section (5,000 feet, max. Y onmet : -rY P@Dr rg)tkr)tld :VL . . .... Little M4@XE@ icir-major discovery." 11) SE LAWIK.L ,OWLA ND S . A. 510 Ileg'. S... at e Aeasir @q qbs@ wrie oil "Di ser-ps @,4 (@@c cuts i de 6f Seward Pen'.11- (Nortimest) t "Fair pms;,;@cts, but apL to be s ma 11. "M;,y@be, but foo torden up. 12) GULF Of ALASKA,- 4.510 'T D.S 0. 2 0.8 1990- ver -"Best 'str&ctures under glacier; very little (Southcentr&I y (I 2,G00)., tic success "Structu, re tao c".1plex; Results o, f testi ng all negarie;" 't t I e for cLmiiercial discoverics.' 13) KODIAK TLIMARY 770 Ne9l. Neg I . (SOUOICerktral) "Ter t (600) liary si:r,tion oo thin." '1:ot enough L'dsin onshore - "Little cii@vce for major discoveries." 14). SOUTHEAST(RN 350 rieg I . tie 9 1 2000 f "Marg inal; Gccasibnal dri)-)i ng. ALASKA, (Southeast) E: Getito(ly. -at all proper for orl and gds.' "Littl-? ct;a,.c-e for maj o r disc,@veries." Details of these resource esti matLs by U.S. Department of the Geological' Surve-e. are :Iven in 2; where production is alrea-il underway in a-province (i'- P. Arctic Coastal Pl,ain, ar.@, @nlet), the.renaining part of. the proyi.nce was rankeld. :56 % concensus, however, was expressed on the last four provinces, in which, for various reasons (usually geology), development is considered unlikely. The rankings on Table 4-2 thus reveal four groupings of provinces: (1) most certain (Cook Inlet, Arctic Coastal Plain); (2) highly probable (Northern and Southern Foothills); (3) probable, but with mixed opinions (six provinces); and (4) the very unlikely (Selawik, Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak and Southeast). Recoverable Resource Sites (Offshore) Lands offshore of Alaska, the Continental Margin, are part of the submerged extension of the North American Continent. They consist of the gently- sloping lands under the coastal waters called the Continental Shelf, the more steeply dipping Continental Slope, and the Continental Rise which extends from the base of the Continental Slope to the abyssal ocean floor (Figure 4-2, 4-3). Jurisdiction over Alaska's continental shelf is divided between the federal government and the State of Alaska. The State owns the tidelands plus the three nautical mile coastal strip of the continental shelf; the United States owns the submerged lands seaward of the State's lands called the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to the 200 meter water depth. Management of the energy and mineral resources in the area under State jurisdiction (roughly estimated to be in excess of 20 million acres) is the responsibility of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. OCS lands under federal jurisdic- tion are estimated to be in excess of 200 million acres out to a water depth of 200 meters, and are the responsibility of the United State Department of the Interior. No agreement has been reached on the exact line separating the two jurisdictions, causing potential dispute and litigation between the State of ALaska and the federal government. The fact that the federal-State boundary and the outer limit of OCS are still not resolved may delay the sale of leases in many offshore oil and gas provinces. Additional delays in some areas may also occur due to questions regarding the continental margin boundaries between the United States an other countries. Most of the international offshore boundaries have not been determined between the United States and Canada, affecting potential lease sales in the most easterly part of the Beaufort province and, less importantly, the Southeast petroleum province. Much of the offshore boundary between the United States and the USSR also is undetermined, affecting the future lease sales of the Chukchi, Hope, and Navarin petroleum provinces. Although some questions remain on the precise boundaries of Alaska's offshore lands, there is little doubt about their enormous resources. Thirteen sedi- mentary basins (or provinces), having potentially valuable petroleum deposits (shown in Figure 4-4), have been identified offshore of Alaska's coast within the continental shelf. Except for an occasional Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) well for off-structure exploration, Cook Inlet 57 WAA Mie-.ft PA T'JA 4xvn.ft U*' o 60L,69 4 &A je, im R@. 3- rl. Al g 7 V4C@; 4C. AN @of 7-1 ~0 ~4~ ~ ~qM~ ~~ ~ ~2p~616;432;20;48q1~ ~b~qt~-~qt lit I's ~qy ~f~qi~qb~v~l~qt~qb~j~q@~,~* at ~qC~.~4~j~qj~0qT~;~,~q4~qF~:~;~. ~q7~. The ~8q4~0q4~-~or~m ~qb~4 ~qr~W~qO ~t~6qw ~'~1~1~:~8q4 ~O~l~qm~r~a~ql ~qi~4qd~8qa~- Cox ~4~q44~' 'At ~v~e ad. ~f ~qr~1~qw~'~' or a be-on, -&-hair ~-~8qw~q" ~qb~qf ~qi~0~qm Itoo ~s~qf~qw~-~t~qi ~q;~P~f ~.~qC~qi ~d ~r~e~-~j~u~o ~k~f~t~l~q@~v~e~:~a~c ~7~.~1 ..%Ant ~- ~2qW~-~i~qi~o~t~qt~q7~- ~*~qr~d~" ~4qo~q4 ~- ~t~o~r~a. ~C~'~s. ~V~,~* ~T ~qi~0qf~o~c~r ~qt ~qO~qO~qQ ~.~.~qi~. beast ~-~.~2qQ~A -A ~t ~4~@~. ~q4~*~q1~1 ~qd Ink. ~qh~a~ql~qt~t~*- ~q4 ~qr~6q= ~q0 ~~q4 ~q?~A~-~A ~qi ~1 ~I~N~4 ~P~A~b ~'t~- ~&~q0 ~'~0qW~t~$~q#~A~4~%~1~C~X~- ~qf~#~&~8q" ~2q4~r~ql~qi~ql~qi~a~qg VIA ~- ~1~q1~-~f is ~-~O~qi~qj ~A~*~q;~t ~'~0q0~q4~qt ~. ~- ~q(-~q4~qp~t ~.~0~~2~*~0 oat,*:; 4~4~-~q4~z~.~q4 ~:~qx~4~e~t~qt~e~qe~.,~'~. I ~t~qw ~f~i~r~v ~1~.~0~4~A~A~. -a ~q@~S~i~q* At of ~qt ~6qOr~qi~'~&'~A ~q~qp~- "I ~qf~c~q; ~qs~c~i~qd ~O~6qC~qI~t~'~j~qi ~4qa~6qnr~qw~e~ql~qt ~n ~- to ~G~.~C ~f ~f~A~&~V e~.. ~e~s~b~qi~q;~ql I ~qf ~" ~-~, ~t ~6qk~,~-` ~. ~, ~-~q1~6qf~6ql~i~qt ~ql~z~q@ ~'~4~4~q4 ~qh~qo~;~.~.~- ~ql~qo~:~"~' ~qt~qh~q" argot ~qi~r~;~q6 ~n~z~' r .~4~qi ~r ~i I ~t~qj ~<~q1~2q*~*~e~qt~qT~q* t~qh~qi tit ~6qV ~4~f~0qw ~q$~4 ~-~q1~*~q6~q* ~qx~qv~.~q% **A. I I a ~i~r~o~t ~q1~.~4~q1 ~U~qf ~6q0~4q* ~qt~-~%~. ~q1~'~%~P~-~qj~j~q~O~j~qt ~*~q1 %bowl I ~d ~qi ~qi~o~u~r ~.~C~qM ~O~q;~4qx~o~qi~qt ~. ~. ~. ~.. ~.~.. ~8q:~.~q! ~_~'~, ~qt ~qJ~.~" ~q4~'~s~,~@~j~V~i~r~r~o~w~.~q4 ~f~l~:~#~4~0~.~v~v~Q ~qI~r~s ~V~qN~qI~4qV~I~qi~-~c~a~u ~qt~qw ~qp~s~qv~2q4~qw ~s~i~,~q4 ~o~c~4~q4~qw~qm~qi~8q4~qi~qt~qy~- ~W~q1~.~q1~qb~: ~t Ing ~-~,~v~6 ~0q6~p~e~ar~qv~e~o~. a ~q@~qi~v ~"~qi ~'~qi~qi ~q1 ~.~q4 ~q@~q!~qw ?a ~2p~~ ~- ~-~qC ~4~q4~. ~qA-~q1 ~4~0q4~, ~*~7 ~r~-~4~t~!~"~A~r~v~w~T ~l~b~:~s I~q it... ~f~t~.~l~qi~l~qi~s~ql~qA owl I ~qt If. ~A~4 ~l~b~#~4~-~A~. ~qm~p~@~q4 -arts. ~q4 ~w~f~*~.~% I ~f ~4~F ~qi ~qZ~. ~qf ~qy Owl VY,IVA I -At, A"@A A 0 5@fOigf, U-%04SC0VL A t 0 P% COVE RAS% E, LS4 >URCL Olt CAS r 11 1.1m CuMc fcet) Pt 1 1 L'A P-40@i tm: I, v 5 t-A t. 3 y Wan p 0 116 0 Cz I @0 0 19.5 0 11.4 4.41 .0 1 0 30,. 0 11.3 0 0,6 0 0. Cla 0 7.11 0'..6 0- 2.0 0. cs 0 S. 0 64 0A 0 0,36 3 0 4.8. 0.93 Puc 0 _0 13.4 1, 1001 Mthl) mi 1.0 O's 3 1. 30 'G I T 39 0. t 4.4 0.7 O@ 13.0 1,i k' Iv, r r loqr Is" nb .4 -0 1. 1 0. 43 CIA 0 pw I f lidid 0 2s U.0`4 0-W, c"m t .dt, . f $-@t 4 111 t y a 1 04 1 0 -t A;6 'r j v-:i@ t t k4 PA I t a*,saclited ttah A _9'9,probibili,ty'@ thatAtlerv. Is at 4d..t this amiu6t.. I he 1_;@ t tia t t ht-re I I a t I C,@ i t tLIS vz@u n t . qN tt@p Aw t I t, mA 1PI lej t)y the iaj i-, inal prcbabll+t The rzw a*an of the xvlm or III-it ljht iA t 1 'n u ed for (he ptt, (4ft b@q dic 1, 1 ICj b -1 41 1 a I,n-) It tt_,v v t I tit 1% -1 by, trio, P@Arqlro'l j.1 @_A b I I I't 1.11601 tArrels of *117cs, OJK_@l trilltuo (Vet or-'WLS -geas In gathering the latest information on offshore oil and gas operations, those who assisted with the onshore portion also provided material on activity in coastal waters. Each of the participating experts was supplied with the area of the province and the range of the estimated undiscovered recoverable oil (in billion barrels of oil) and gas (in trillions of cubic feet) and the OCS lease schedule, published by BLM in January 1977. The expert was requested to provide rankings of the order in which he expected development to occur in the different provinces, as well as likely dates of development. Relevant comments on such development were also sought. (A copy of materials sent to each expert is found in the Appendix.) The BLM/OCS schedule of lease actions was revised subsequent to the request for informational screening. The most recently announced OCS schedule (August 23, 1977) calls for a total of 15 sales throughout the U.S., to be held from 1979 through 1981. The three year program is described by Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus as one which "will allow the states to participate in the leasing process, will call on all regions of the country to help mee domestic energy needs, and will balance energy potential with environmental cost". Five of the sales will be for Alaska coastal areas, five are in the Atlantic, three are in the Gulf of Alaska, and two are in California waters. Following the October, 1977, sale for lower Cook Inlet, no sales are planned until December, 1979, when a joint federal-State sale in the Beaufort Sea is scheduled. A second male in the Gulf of Alaska (where exploration so far has been unsuccessful) will be held in June, 1980. ALso to occur in 1980 (October) is a rescheduled Kodiak area sale, initially set for November, 1977. The last two Alaska sales in the three-year program are a second Cook Inlet offering (March, 1981) and a Norton Sound lease sale (December, 1981). Several areas previously included in Alaska's OCS program were withdrawn from consideratoin at the urging of State officials. Sales in the St. George BAsin and in Bristol Bay, both marine sanctuaries, were postponed pending further study. Drilling in the Chukchi Sea, Norton Basin, and the Beaufort Sea ice pack were removed from consideration due to what officials described as "the lack of technological developments" needed to work safely in those (ice prevalent) areas". The results of the oil and gas (offshore) screening are on the next tow pages in Table 4-4. As the estimates in the table reveal, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent of offshore reserves. Nevertheless, with technology already proved in the North Sea, upper Cook Inlet and elsewhere (see section on technology), oil and/or gas appear to be potentially recover- able from most of these areas if discoved in sufficient quantity*. The *Due to the high costs of recovery in native offshore locations, discovery itself is not sufficient to guarantee development. For example, company sources indicate that an oil field in the Gulf of Alaska must be expected to yield 100-150 million barrels before devlopment platforms would be built. This figure would, of course, change over time depending on the relative rates of growth of oil prices and construction cots. 62 Tab!e 44, OIL@& GAS SITE RANKING (OFFSHORE) ;Pr ed ic ti,on:of future order of production) Ranking of.' Undiscover,ed Recoverable* "Area Mi Excerpts from Comments; 3 in erts (Region)%. (Volume Mi -OIL GAS Tim g' by Exp 'billio ris bb1s. trillion:cu.ft. Range Bange A) C06K*INLET. b.5 - 2.3 1.0 4.5 1981- "Interestin (S@ouihceihtea I Q6,239) 1995 "If the sa 14 oei; More known of this area than others; Infrastructure and and technology a ailablei" '@Estabhshed production in Upper.Cook and Jurassic oil @seeps- Good structure.". Good potential if sale is held." 0- 0- 13 @O 1980- '!May b' too broken up 'EASTERN GULF@,.@ 14,3 54 4.4 e OF. A LASX A, (29,133)'. 1995. "Production five years after' (S66.thcentral) discovery, no infrastructure." "Moderate-potential; Ifcur- rent developm ent successful will be in production in five to: ten, years.." "Results poor to date, but area is most promising." 3) BtAUFORTSEA 16,251 .''0 7.6 0- 19.3 1982- "Production at hand,; State (Arctic), J48,620) 1992 and Fecieral both want developmeiit;.Infrastructure complete good geologic, control.". "Geology very good: Cost and tkhntczk.l problems are foirmid ble." KODIAK 15296 0 0 1983- "Interest ng_ I'll (southcentral) IWO+ "Oroduction five years a ter -'No inf discovery; rasteucture,@ St 6 r nq fishing protests," "Thin.tertiiiry section.',' very I politi-, cal obstacles remain unkno-Am. 6J 9 0-2.5 0-5.4 1990- terestirig torne." -Hf -V prt -sure af (Soull, 1 (36.,352) 191j5 _,av zinst devOot-.)Tent by conserva- Itionist's and,fi@heries pw1ple.". Th: k ruar c est te 'V@secxton in T -rnan y oc, vo'canics, WcCess so fat on@hore- Political probiems are great, lim;n r 'GeblociCl v@lry favol able foe source b@@t for hydro- carbons." .63 Table 4-4 (Continued) CIL &'GAS SITE. RANKING (OFFSHORE) (Prediction of, future order of prodwion) :Ranking of 2 -Undiscovered Recoveribble* q.: iProvince:@ Area Mi, Excerpts from Comments 3 (Region) (Volume Mi OIL GAS Timifi by Experts 9, billions bb s on cu.ft. 1. trilli Range Ran ge 16,768, 0-2.19 0-2.8 199 0-,., "Infr astrupture:probl ems 61) NORTON (Northwest) (14,077) 2000+ diff icult. "Gas seep in Norton Sound tertiary..". reported by NOAA; Thick "Too many unknowns." 7 'CENTRAL -0.-30.0 1985- "!,'Drilli barely ) 38,215 6-11.9 ng technology CHUKCHI (95,691) 2000+- adequate.@for ice operations." 'Too many u s (Arctic) nknowns@ beep 6retziceous p lays,'mzy not be econornical 8Y NORTH 22,880' 0--6.2 0 -19.5 1985-.: ."Distant.@ after 1985.," CHUKCHI R mmen ts are .(4.2,231) 2000+ emaining co (Arctic), identical to. Central Chukchi. "Wry high potential - will be delayed by technological probfems associated with, exploration.un.der ice-pack.", 9) I'l 0 P E ?2,671 0.0.6 0-3.3 1990-. "After Norton, one to three (42i231) years.". (Northwest) 2000+ "Infrastructure problems, difficult.- Negligible potentia . Good chance for'tertiary production.'.' 10) ZEMCHUG 65478 0 '.5.1 0--13.0 1935-1 ,"There. is serious doubt if ST. GEORGE a 166:097), 20.00+ this ' rea will ever be drilied, (Southwest) Produces 3% of the world to0l.fish catch, "No information.',' .11) SHUMAGINSHELF 0-0.25 0-0.5 1995,i, "Interesting." (Southwest) (29,615) 200014- "Relatively un.knovvn area." 6.4.8 1985 "Too many unknowns." 0- 1.9 12 NAVAMN 19. 7414 2000:t "Verylittle known; ProbabIV r6any bas-Jts and volcanic @ediments als.ru,mored by. st.,rat .1 test 131, St. f,,`IATTHE1.1J1- 19.510 Ne9l. Negl. 1985- "'Oil.pr Iteneeds to be high; H, A L L (5,255) ever Nortgri.needs to be devel. oped irst. :,.,N1ume.r6u's volcanic sed" jr@jic*nls and ba@lts on Nelson and Nun'vak I siamis, Ner Lms th@jn 0.001 hMion barrels. "Too many unknownsr e1a,1% nii 1.1 1"irk, mianlict t.V U.,S@ Dtpaf tnippl ol ;he Interior, GeoiN-cal,Survey. we'giv.Mt.-Volume 2 Rank I Uj n"Ifeac".* unoerway in a wovifice Nwe@ i@j iewT,. wi i,1,04 lp4u, v, e ell IT ''cook Iniii). ol vhr,viiqw@!@ca was tanked, 64 @J: real question is when such discovery and development will occur, particularly in view of recent federal lease schedule revisions. As can be seen, timing estimates and comments by the experts we queried tend to be in relatively close agreement among the four most highly-rated provinces and among the several provinces ranked lowest. Frequent disagreement occurred, however, in the estimated rankings and timing estimates for the remaining half of the provinces in the middle. This disagreement was reflected in their comments as well. Looking at what the future may hold for the areas now under consideratoin for development, it appears that the undiscovered reserves of oil and gas on Alaska offshore lands are potentially large and recoverable. Precisely where and when recovery will occur is uncertain. Further devlopment will almost certainly occur in Cook Inlet and in the Beaufort Sea, since both provinces are associated with proven onshore and/or offshore reserves. Central and North Chukchi also appear to be strong candidates, while the Eastern Gulf of Alaska remains questionable pending further results of exploratory drilling. (See Appendix D.) CURRENT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT Exploration Drilling for oil and natural gas on the North Slope in the Arctic region is taking place east and west of Prudhoe Bay and inland, southwest of the Prudhoe Bay field, as well as along the coast in the National Petroleum Reserve, ALaska (NPRA). Husky Oil NPR Operations, Inc., a subsidiary of Husky Oil Corporation, is in the second year of a five-year contract for exploring the huge federal petroleum reserve adjacent to Prudhoe Bay. On June 1, 1977, the reserve changed both its name (to NPRA) and management from the U.S. Navy to the Department of Interior. The Bureau of Land Management now has surface management authority, and the USGS is controlling subsurface activity. The reserve covers 23 milliion acres; an area the size of Indiana. The oil and gas exploration program is the most ambitious ever undertaken on the North Slope. The 1977 seismic exploration program employed five 40-man crews and covered 2,830 line miles, the largest single onshore effort ever in North America in a single season. Discovery of a gas well about 10 miles east of Barrow, with a potential 7 million cubic feet per day flow rate, was announced February 17, 1977, by the Navy, thereby assuring a continued gas supply for the community of Barrow. About halfway between Barrow and Prudhoe Bay two wells (Cape Halkett drilled in 1975, and East Teshepuk Lake in 1976) were found to be non-commercial with only a small showing of gas. If a commercial field is found later, Congress will decide whether it is to be for production. In 1976, the FEA recoverable resources in the reserve were estimated at 5 billion barrels of oil and 14.3 trillion cubic feet of gas. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) was not allowed to obtain title (under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) to the subsurface of its village lands here, but will receive in-lieu mineral estate elsewhere in the region. However, the four villages of Wainwright, Atkasook, Barrow, and Nuiqsut do 65 have surface lands of 460,800 acres, most of which are in the Petroleum Reserve. Another major area of exploration in the next few years will be for publicly- owned oil and natural gas reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaska. Alaska's OCS is equivalent in size to the State (586,000 square miles), but only certain areas, nominated for their potential oil and gas values, have been designated in the scheduled lease sales. The first sale was conducted in April 1976 by the Bureau of Land Management for the Eastern Gulf area in the Gulf of Alaska. The lower Cook Inlet lease sale originally scheduled for February, 1977, was rescheduled for October 1977. Five other sales are to be held through 1981. While the Eastern Gulf of Alaska initially appeared to be a prime candidate for development, exploratory drilling so far has been discouraging. After more than a year of drilling, no commercial shows of oil or gas have been reported. Lower Cook Inlet appears also to be a likely candidate, and there is consider- able confidence that oil and gas will be found there before 1980. The semi- submersible Ocean Ranger recently completed a COST well 42 miles southwest of Homer. There is drilling presently going on in the upper Cook Inlet basin. One well, in the Swanson River oil field, is being drilled in an effort to learn more about the structure of the lower Cook Inlet for OCS bidding. Several companies have expressed interest in portions of the Beaufort Sea. Comments from industry, as requested by the Department of Interior (June 1977), will give additional information regarding industry's plans. A major concern of the oil industry is the announced plan by the Department of Interior to enter into government-funded exploratory drilling. Figure 4-5 locates known oil and gas exploration activity during 1976. Recovery (Production) In addition to exploration activity in the State, major production facilities have been in operation in Cook Inlet for over a decade, with both onshore and off-shore activity. Table 4-5 and Figure 4-6 summarize natural gas and oil production in Cook Inlet. Collier Carbon and Chemical Corporation recently completed expansion of its Kenai ammonia/urea plant at a cost of approximately $230 million, doubling its capacity, to make it the largest nitrogen fertilizer complex on the West Coast. Pacific Alaska LNG Company is awaiting licensing approval from the Federal Power Commission for construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on the Kenai. The West Coast market is scheduled to begin receiving 80.3 BCF/ year in 1982, and an additional 80.3 BCF/year in 1984. The Phillips-Marathon LNG operation has been supplying Tokyo electricity and gas companies since 1969, and has no immediate plans for expansion. Should deregulation of natural gas occur, however, production may be increased from the present 61.9 BCF/year to 73 BCF/year beginning in 1978. 66 -q- M@:, ion, @.ftm, Z 0 on Yukon 7 Division Kobuk Division t r Yukon Koyukuk L Division Fairbanks Nurne Division 11 Soull-ira Fairbanks -t. V Caldez hitina Wade f-, Whillier Im Matanuika - Susitna - Haines Division lamplon UskoL.% im. Divisior ; , Division .4 Division' k dova - t) I vi S i Oil Cot -Ij Mccarilly Juneau. Division'. Co Division _r Inlet Division Division. ay - 'Bris'.01 Bav Anchorage Division Y uta:ly, Division 4 i- ision S."ard Division Sitka A 9cion, 01 nny r Borough Division r .'Wian Petersburg Prince, of. Wales Division I- @@-cdiak an /i Division, Ketchik Aleutian 1,14ndi . Outer Ketchikan Division Division, (Part) '2!1 Aleutian Islaiwilt Division Ira,,) SCALE So 0 too 200 MILES Figure 4. 5. Known OH and Pas Exploration Activity, 1976 a k A@ j -5 TABLE 4 J STATUS OF COOK INLET AREA GAS RESERVES JANUARY 1977. Estimated Estimated Uncommiiiied Esiimalecl Estimated Remaining Reierves [email protected] Production' Reserves Reserves 19 1/1/77 1/11/77 1/1/75 75 1976 BCF4 Rernarks2,4.6. Field BCFl BCF2 BCF3 BCr@ Producing . 800 144.7 5 wells, I st ut in Contracts: 456 BcF, Pacific Alaska LNG, 7.0 11@3 Beluga 818 (700)6 V3 BCF Chugack.Electric; 7jocal; Shell,AFtCO. 2174 692 33 wells, 1shut in Union, ARCO, Marathon, Shell. Kenai .2331 77.2 79.4 834 North Cook 1,456 45,6 wells Phillips, supplies LNG plant 45.1 1365 Sterlin, 7,00 Negligible Negligible 20 ells, 1 shut in Union, Marathon. proquction difficulties reported 200 0 w Beaver Cleek 400 0.2: 0.2 400 .2ob 2.Wells, 1st:ut in 200 BCF contracted.to'Pacific Alaska LNG; Marathon, Union j McArthur River .793 8.0 6.8 778 @?13 5 wells, I shut in 87 BCF contracted to Pacific Alas .ka LNG: IARCO, Marathon, Union, Amoco, Phillips, Skell);7socal Nicolai Creek 50 Negligible 'Negligible 60 50 3 wells, 2 shut in Texaco 5767 2833 Shut In -.00 Albert Kaloa N.A. 0 0 N. A. N.A. 1 well, shut in -Amoco, @.RCO, Phillips, Socal % Birch Hill 20 0 0 20 20 1well, shut in Socal, APCO. Union, Marathon @0 80 Fills Creek 80 80 well; shut in 0 5, 1W 11, shut in Socal, ARCO Ivan River _5 0. 5 a Lewis River N;A. 0 0 N. A. N.A. Iwell, shut in Cities Se vi--a N, Middleground 125 0 0 125 125 11 Well, shut in Mobil ? F North,FQrk 20 0 a 20 20 1Well,' shut in Socal, ARCO, Sun Oil Moquakie o 5 $ ut in,. 173 .0 173 173' 2 well h d ijUt i Swanson River 300 0 (14.0)3 314 314 6 wells, s n Socal, ARCO, Union, Marathon; pressure mainte- nance by,injection of Kernai Gas-field-, d West Foreland .120 -0 0 120 120 11,well, shut in Amoco, ARCO,IPtViIIiPs,':SkcIIy nrot :0 100 West Fork 100 o i ; 100 3'wells shu in rporati6 ARCO, Belco. Petroleum Co Texas, Halbouty,AK Grand Total 6724 3790 I.. D.P. Bla ko, "Natural Gas Fields,- Cook Inlet Basin. Alaska". U.S. Bureau of Mines, Open File Report 35-74,JI974) 2.@State of Alaska, Department of NaturO Resourc6, Division of Oil and Gas, Statistical Ieport for the Year 1975. 3. Personal CornoWnication, J. Miller, Jartuary 31, 1977, Division of Oil,and Gas 4, Summary of Gas SalesContracts, Cook Inlet Area, March 15, 1976, Division of,Oil wid Gas Total from Field Original Recoverable Reserves 5. R Lservoir pressure maint enan cc wilh,Kenzii Field Gas lnjqctio n -6. Lower value from and Gas'AvailabililV", Royalty Oil and Gas Board, undated report 1976, Source: Aliskon North Slope Royatty'Natur6l Gas (Draft), Battelle, Pacific Norihvvest,Laborjto@ries March, 1977, Z N ,p 191@7 1958 1954 1961 .963 1964 1965 1966 1967 @B 1969 '1910 1971, 1972. 196 .............. .T 1973 104 1975 50 000 25006- OIL DISCOVERY SWANSON RIVER FIELD 0 50,000 DILLO N BAKER SHELL "C" OIL SHEL% 23,000. STATE DISCOVERY L -A MGM E St SALE 0 IMM a M M M M Wo M 0 a 0 0.0 EM 0 M1 M 0, DEC. 1996 MIDDLE GROUND SH.OAL FIELD- 50.00_ SPARK MONOPCID ARCOA -25 9()() OIL DISCOVERY .0 TRAD.ING BAY FIELD 7 50.000 'ANN ANITE GR POINT- BROCE 25,000 OIL 01 1 Y\@ STATE, SCOVERY LEASE' EXPLORATION *Emma U. 11110 1210 0 w 9 < SALE DRILLING IN GRANITETOINT FIELD DEC. 1961 PROGRESS i25,000 -100,000 . 75,(= GRAYLING_'@ Y V L KING ViRRI) 0. 2560 L DISCO IER@l om Ea 0 IM EM 22 Iffo Ea is E&M M IM McARTHUR RIVER FIELD. t I A 957 1958 1@t59-. 1960 1%1, 1%2 1%3 16164 196 1966 1967 1968, 1960 1970 1971, 1972' 1973 1974, 1975 1 76 Figu,re 4-6 North Cook Inlet 041 Field Development History Source: State of Alaska, Department of Netuial Aesource$@ Division of.Minerals and Energy Management. An analysis of Future e Petroleum Development of the Alaskan OCS, Lower Cook Inlet -,ve 9 - I I I . W mGer 1 76.. q @ARCO @A@@ The great interest in Prudhoe Bay oil was recently highlighted by several proposals submitted to the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, requesting purchase of the State's Prudhoe Bay royalty oil. Royalty oil is the one-eight share of Prudhoe Bay production which, under terms of State oil leases, is owned by the State of Alaska. The State's 12.5 percent portion will total approximately 150,000 barrels per day (BPD) when the Trans- Alaska oil pipeline reaches full production of 1.2 millioin BPD (now scheduled for mid-1978). The State has the option of taking its oil "in kind" for sale to third parties or the wellhead value in cash. A total of 11 companies or joint ventures expressed interest in buying the oil from the state and sub- mitted preliminary proposals to the Royalty Board for consideration. The Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System wants oil for power generatoin; and new refinery at North Pole and Tesoro Alaska's Nikiski facility repeated earlier interest in purchasing a portion of the oil for local refining. Tesoro also submitted a proposal, later withdrawn, involving possible expansion. Five groups submitted comprehensive offers; many within the industry expect the Board to recommend one of the five for purchase of the oil. All contracts must receive the approval of the Alaska Legislature. Alaska Petrochemical Co. ALPETCO is considered by many to have the "best shot" for the royalty oil. The firm proposes a $1.5 billion fuel and petrochemical facility that would utilize 150,000 barrels of crude per day. Ownership includes the Alaska Interstate Company, Barbour Oil Company, and Alaska Con- solidated Shipping, the latter a joint venture of six Alaska Native regional corporations and Sea-train Lines, Inc. A second major proposal has been offered by Alaska Petroleum Company. APC would build a $400 million integrated refinery and petrochemical complex with a daily capacity of 150,000 barrels. The company is a subsidiary of Coastal States Gas Corporation of Houston. Energy Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of U.S. International Energy Co. of Salt Lake City, would build a refinery-petrochemical facility for processing of 150,000 BPD. Alaska Oil and Chemical Company (AOCCO) proposed a 100,000 BPD facility esti- mated to cost $950,000. AOCCO, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Guam Oil and Refinery Company of Dallas, describes their project as "a consortium effort, consisting of chemical companies, oil refineries, merchants and Native Alaskan investors." The fifth detailed proposal was submitted by the H. J. Kaiser Co. of Oakland, California for "a number of substantial companies." The firms have since been identified as Kaiser Aluminum and Chemcial Co., Southern California Edison, Dow Chemical Co., Pacific Resources, Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and Sealaska, a Native regional corporation. 70 The name of the representative company is Alaskan Petrofining Corporation. It plans a $1.25 billion integrated fuel-petrochemical complex, with a 250,000 BPD processing capacity. Two firms, Pacific Resources, Inc., and Commercial Realty Co., turned in less-detailed bids. PRI, a large marketer in the Pacific basin operating out of Honolulu, has since joined with Alaska Petrofining. Commercial Realty, a Los Angeles company involved in oil land and oil purchasing and trading, proposes a topping plant having initial crude oil requirements of about 50,000 BPD. Included among the criteria to be used by the Board in evaluating the proposals are guarantees of jobs for Alaskans and lower Alaskan product costs. Following analysis of the proposals, the Royalty Board will make recommendations to the Alaska State Legislature which must concur with the Board's position before the sale is finalized. Transportation System Receipt of crude oil from Alaska's North Slope at the tanker terminal in Valdez, July 1977, marked the successful completion of the largest privately-financed construction project in history. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) will not, however, reach its maximum 1.2 million barrels per day capacity until mid- 1978, due to the destruction of the pump house at Pump STation #8, following an explosion three weeks after start-up. The design capacity of the TAPS is 2 million barrels per day. The pipeline has had a profound effect not only on Alaska's economy but on the very fabric of the Alaskan way of life. It is not within the scope of this study to describe the project in detail or to attempt to evaluate all of its effects on Alaska. Chapter 3 has, however, addressed the social and economic issues associated with the pipeline construction and their relationship to future energy development in the State. (Hundreds of articles and reports have been written about the project, and some of these are referenced in the bibliography in Volume 2.) Another major energy transportation question was recently answered when President Carter selected the Alcan proposal to move North Slope natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to the Lower 48. Three major companies and routes competed for the authority to build the line: 1) Alaskan Arctic Gas Company, the first firm to enter the competition, planned a route eastward from Alaska's North Slope to the gas field of the MacKenzie River Delta in Canada, then south to U.S. midwest markets. Canada's rejection of Arctic's northern Yukon routing made it a two-way race between the other two companies. 2) El Paso Alaska Company proposed to follow the existing oil pipeline corridor with a liquifaction facility constructed at Gravina Point not far from the Valdez tanker terminal on Prince William Sound. LNG was to be transported by tanker to markets on the West Coast and elsewhere. 71 ~0 ~~~6 ~.~q6~0q4~q1 ~g~8q4~i j ~c ~4~q*~qt~i ~q4 ~4~i~4~m~W~qm ~L~qA~-~q1~1~0~.~1~p~. ~4qw~q"~.~.~0q4~c~a At ~l~b -#!&I CC." ~4qm ~2q"~.~4~0 ~J~L~I~C~L ~o~u ~4q4~, ~;~q0~* ~qZ ~q4 ~,~6q4"~A~r~v ~4qO~W~ ~qk ~4~1~: ~;~b~q ~t~qh ~q4 I' -A ~4~4 LAW~: ~f ~3~4~. ~r~x ~t ~-~v~qu~; ~k~,~*~A ~l~j~r~4~A~q* ~'~1~0~4 ~04~6~q4~t~h VAL~!~' ~0 ~0 1 ~I~r~qA~t~, ~4. ~s~qm~-~t~* ~8qA~;~,~qj~r 4~1 -too IV. awl ~. .~4~0qk~-~qi ~qi~q@~qi~z~r~* ~n~qk~ql~qk ~4q4 ~f~L ~e~x~*~v ~qW~A~I~r~, ~qW~. ~q4~*~,~, ~'~qg~r~qi at ~qf~6~s ~,~4~x~v~'~s~.~. ~qi~-~q@~8qv~q?~.~qA~qi~. ~-~2qo~-~qk~q5~,~& ~-~.~8q4 ~r~v~q*~qi ~qr~i "~2qM~r 1 ~q4~, ~'~0~q4~-~P~8q4~4~.~.~, ~qi~0q4~qj~, is ~~q1 ~@~A ~1 ~qY~4qk`~,~.~q" ~v~t~t ~b~w ~4 ~t~. ~x~, I ~l~qu~r~q;~qi ~c ~- ~q1~4~q%~q6~qr~r~i~q: ~* ~qk~: ~, ` ~.~. ~q~W~qm ~O~P I. ~v~h~d ~q4~q4 ~q4~q@~1 ~q@~f~t ~.~q4~c~u~ql ~qP~q*~4qW ~v~r~a~qv~*~,~A~,~*~,~r ~4~qt too ~- ~qC~f~%~,~:~qm~q@~r ~0qv~t ~'~*~qA-~1~O~L~F ~0 ~r~.~- r ~qp~i~qi~' ~8q#~,~c~q ~1~. ~'~qI~~d~qr~. ~e~l 'a -Pei ~r~o~ql~qd~- ~G~. ~qf~a r ~qf~r~qi~c~i~i~.~: life&_ '~E~. ~4 ~4~c~@ Vol ~q4~0~0~' ~6 ~4q"~t~r~o t ~c~qv~qi~qf~.~'~. ~v~r a ~q1~1~@ ~o~qu ~P~c~q4~qy~qph~qyx~-~ql~q@~;~s~ql ~qi-~4~W~I~V~qI~I.~qV~, ~a~qw~c, ~O~v~q$~4~qf~qt~qm~, ~4~"~U~r~q" ~qt~v~.~qm in ~i~qr ~qh ~7 ~s~ql~qt.~$ ~q1 -~.~-~qA~l~qy~. -ter ~8qV~--~6q"~X~qi~t A I ~o~a to ~q"~,~i~, %to, At* ~i~0~qi he, ~_~qW~t~V~-~V~qj~q*~- A*.. ~qO~4qM ~-~q00 ~9~0~* ~qVnt~+~q1~- ~~q3 ~0q4~1~b~. ~6qe~qA~s If ~6qv~qt ~qt~q?~0q) ~qZ~q-~qb~qa~q. -p~qr~q4~q%~qL~qb~qr~q1~qc~q-~q*~qd~q*~q-~q-~q'~q6~q(~q-.~q@~4qm ~8qe~2qv~q.. ~qI~8qp~qs~4q; ~12qA~8qv~8qi~6qi~80qi ~6qj ~4qi~2qi~80qi~2qi -Or ~8qi~ql~qr~qe ~q.~6q1 ~0qi~q4~q, A,"' ~q.~4q1~qr~q, d~qr~8qi~0ql ~q'~qS~4qM~q-~q1 ~qI~qS~q1~q.~q4 I ~q: -A- ~4q*~0q@ ~8q-~q, ~4q- ~0qp ~q'~q.~2qf~2qt~qu~4qi~6qk ~q" ~qv~qx~qv~q%~qs~q.~q-~qn~q.~8qJ~qP4~q. a ~q- - t, ~q. ~20q0~q4~q, ~qn~qn Tee-, ~00qL~q-~8qi~qr~q, in ~6q@~40q@~q.~0qt~qp~8qg ~q- ~q%~q. 'I ~qn~qi~ql~qu ~2qi~8qn~4qi~ql~8qt~qo ~qC.~4q@~6qJ ..Pro ~q1~q:~4qy ~0 ~~~. ~~7~ ~.~:~7~, ~qm~m~qm ~-~4 ~;~.~A~R~qw~4qV ~qOF~-~8qM~.~q4~4~q4~q4~%~. ~.~8q4~o~2qv~4q"~qm~v~, ~X~* w ~qz~'~0q"~. At.~" It' Of ~@~L~* ~4~-~1~C ~4.A~i ~4~4~w~; ~.~"~t~" ~'~% ~qw~s~q: ~V~W~4 ~R ~;~1 its~, ~4~U~q*~' at ~4q6~,~*~q4~-~1 J ~V`~0q4 ~q4~- ~. ~q"~2q4~. A ~q*~4q0~qv~v~p~4~:~4~q" 'It 4~4~1 #A ~i~r ~q*~w~L ~;80qN ~qi ~2qf `;"I ~S~-~4qV I- ~4~-~.~4~2~4~r~. ~qa~qi~.~-~6q4~1~qi~-~qi~-~.~0qV~-~. -~4 ~1~8q4 ~R~V~t~k~'~A~P 'Ad. ~:t "A ~16 ~A'~d .~.~:~.~;4~t~4 ~4q0 ~q"~'~; ~qf~0~qf ~r ~q4~2q4~@ ~y~j ~i~q6~*~q1~q1~-~w~w~-~1~4~q4~6q4~- ~3~1~1~0~#~-~6q4~q4~0q4~. ~.~6~0~4q4-~q1~1~qf ~1~q1 ~A~A~A~4 ~T~v~i~qa ~j~q@~:~. ~t ~qW~; ~-~w~*~6~v~,~& ~qt ~2q44 ~q4~k~r ~'~k ~- A ~qi~qc~qi~- $A ~qL 'I ~4~k ~4~-~-~t t ~-~j~qW ~qf A ~t 4~qk ",I ~f~t~j ~t ~. 4~0 4~% ~j ~*~-~-~J~@ ~-~O~qV ~q4 ~1~r. ~W~, IF ~4~L I ~-~.~*~K4~-~c~m~q# ~'~A~q*~a~qf~- ~.~0~.~2q0 ~*~,~-~$~qL~. ~6~2q1~4 ~qU~w~qi~A~i `~P~s~c~t ~0. of ~4q4~1 ~t~'~T 14 ~L~r~. Art ~qJ~4q4 ~. ~v~. ~#~tr it ~-t~qA~ql ~V~@ 1 ~*~0~q4~4 to. ~, ~'~0~" ~pe ~p~qt ~0qu~t ~q*~r ~-~a~r~i~qw~s~- ~W~q1~0q0~6q4~-~O~w~6q"~.~r~.~. ~qi a- ~r~o~p~w~o ~qV~I~L ~t a imp ~.~q4 ~t ~"~qt ~L ~qw~o~. ~g~r ~2p~p~~~~~ 0~q4.~q1 ~'~qj:~*~'-4~d~q1~.~4~C4 ~2q6~qy~, ~6q*~2q0~q1~q;~1~@~1 ~S~q;~,~qi~4qw~y. ~q4~qf It ~r~;~q@~..~- ~w . ~i~r~;~qd~' ~f.~0 it tiff ~t~qv ad ~qt ~qm~o~4~s~"~.~1~.~8q4~o~w ~w~qf~-~!~@ I ~-~1~8q0~6~r~qA ~q1~'~. ~v~V~q1~q1~0 ~q4~,~r ~4t ~- to ~9~0~h~a~r~r~A~qh~qt~. it ~2p~~ at low M.- 71111411mll P FR @M TO _0 5 Zmp PIT jL 4� ,rn%, ORR ;NNK 11MM, AI A @@-Mw xPOR6 -0 o- m X';@a A` N- kW -21M V M M MM t, in4 0 @ ri, A RM's NZ4 z @,K & R&Mlo Ae A, z j W M @M_ on, AMA- AP, N-0, ti, OR MM- ow fVA"RO E n El, NEW "N Or, _g m N- 2 Z-0 -Op ? -jg 'A Y@ .3 _Q 10- mg% JC@I g N @,G A @,H Y '04-nv'. I, R, M, AA IN w- i�_i X, O-W- 2@. '. @@ @a - -- ` N- - M- sun -s Iffil5E tp@@ 'm ---, e, F4g -war -w EN AM gr 'y W N_ iA en .1, al M_, W L go, v "151, MR# g ggig JOIN R Wm%ig ga; Rl,@ MAN RJRM ONO ig -7 (aw 7g nmwl M _g 10 M 1-Z _N 45 4 7 Ra-wf, ;.m f c el T `Verllmnan,@ Ail@mt@c RKhfeMd.CornDanv 74 ~0 ~~~ Un~ ..... ..... ~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~2p~~~~p~ ~o~k~' ~Z I A ~.~.~Y~: ~4 -A ~6q0~5~'~.~6qA~ql~qv~qi~s~qi~8qu~- Ale. milk A~6~q4~. ~g ~A~qw~t ~o~qf~i~m~n~qi.~ql ~1~b~. ~9~k~:~*~* ~qj~k~q@~0q" ~1~8q*~q1 4~qW ~qt~8q# ~'~O~tW~qW~- ~W~St~6qi~'~A~' ~4~*~A~qS~q4~q ~-~.~q1 ~t~v~. ~P~.~4~m~r a. ~4~%~.~. ~qJ~3~4 ~A~@t~'~qj ~1~q@~qb ~- IS ':I ~X~4 `~@~i~qj ~q4~-~4~k~'~q;~qO~*~-~V ~6 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~- ~.~1~4~. ~w~qw~-~d ~r~o ~1~4~4~ ~'~&~q1 ~.~!~t 4~qP -to ~qi~8q4~q@ I ~4~t~. ~r~q4~qm ~qt ~v~. A ~1p~ ~qN~A~, ~1~4~r~a ~1 ~f ~- a ~0 ~8qx~r~qw ~- ~0~.~1~% ~- ~V~q44~,~S~q4 ~4~8q4 ~qe ~0~q". -~q6~-~1 ~'~o ~w~"~qi CA, ~0-~4~, omit ~qI~m~i~qt~-~qA~-~4~4qw ~W~A~.~q1~@~,~v~s~" ~-~O~T ~"~0qf~qf~qo~ql I' ~C~.~I~.~. ~8qo~qw~. ~q4 !-Oft ~-~Z ~t ~.~.~v~a .&Nook%. -~-. . . . ~4~1~4~1 1~0 ~l~b ~v ~d~qi~, ~4~qi~4~q4~A~. ~qw~qi~r ~r ~qw~0~v ~+~0 ~qi~.~,~O~qi -low. ~q4~4~0~k~s~qk~v~, ~qC~o~, ~q4~. ~t ~qt~qi~q@ ~% ~4~1t~. ~qj ~4~& ~f ~qX ~qL~'~t' ~-~4q*~i~q%~or~u ~'~q(~.~8qW~q4 4~1 ~qW~q4~'~f. ~q4~*~4~;~k ~qb~#~C~A~u~w~e~'~-~o ~8q0~1~q@~qs ~.~1~q%~o~r~ql ~r~,~qt ~qh ~v~4q*~v r ~;~,~i 0~q0 ~-~-~qf~a~6qC~qr~a~r~e~qw ate. its ~"~4qv~h~*~,~f~,~qq ~qf~qi~4q4~qc~.~q:~w~2q"~q@~d~.. ate. ~'~r ~8q4~.~q1~'~qs~qf~o~r~s~qi~qv~qi~l~'~* rob ~qE~A~-~I~qi~A~q@~qm ~q1~q4 ~qt.~qf ~o~qm In of ~q1~2q4 ~t ~V~, ~r~, *<A"% ~8qu~qi ~A~ql (of a ~- ~J~qk~0q@~q!~qf -oil for! a. ~!~q@~0q"~v ~qi~qv ~qe ~q1~.~q6~qm~a~, ~4 ~2q4~*~qvt~l~@~* ~- ~6q0 low ~qA~q1~q4~4~qA~qA~'. ~8q%~W ~qf~l: ~4~qt ~0~0q0~q*~'~I~qp ~C~*~qb I A~-~0 ~8~0 ~o~* ~0 ~o ~2qi~qi~s~cb ~-~qwt~v~i~qf~.~,4~q0~q@~p~vt~6q4 it ~1~.~q1~1~4q4 ~f~qw~w~qt~1~6qk~.~q~&~s~A~r ~qA~qr~6qQ~[~q4~-~f~qi ~;~,~@~-~qA~q) ~C~' is", 1~9 ~'~qy ~q4~o~r~. d~qt~-~,~q1~q1~q1~q1~a~qg ~ql~8qk ~qf~l~, ~2qs~a~i~qi ~q*~6 ~4q4~. ~'~qC~. ~qb~u ~qk ~q4 ~qot~qh~*~' ~1~0q4 ~q(~q0~6~2qC. :-UPS ~qh~q@~L~qi ~- ~2q6~0~4~qM~. ~.~0~0 -to ~-~%~qm~u~qt~qd~, ~qe~a~%g~qi~qi~.~-~qt~6qk~o t a ~'~4qM ~q4~'~u~4qv~&~A4 ~1~q0 `~q0 ~'~2qTn~q% ~qi I I -fled ~4~qi ~q0~e~qpu~6qf~6qt~it~'~.~4q1~0~a~,~"~i~, ~e~q4~t~6qj ~r ~r~e~, ~t~qi~2q@ Lon ~qr~4q*~C~8qA the ~qin~ql~*~q@~.~@t ~qw~ev~; r~q4~qo ~qS to ~qt~qo~.~-~.~q1~1~-~0~0~t~qs~q~. ~1~0qA ~q11~4~.~, ~t~qo~e~.~qw~a~s~ql ~2q*~qm ~4q4~a Me- ~A~'~qb ~O~qv~i t~.~,.~. 'knot a;-. ~9~4~4 ~2qU. ~L~-~3 ~-~q1~,~qi~w -~qT~qO~.-~qf~qt ~;~0~" ~4 ~1~-~-~r~e~e~, ~i ~J~s ~I~qL .,CA-. be. ~t~w~q6~. to ~qf ~q&~4 ~r ~q4~t rat that- ~-t~qi~v~qo~. ~-~qC~qh~8qA~C~6qM ~qS~e~qh ~- ~qh~a~o ~:~6qU~Z~q;~P~-~6q0~q4~-~qi~f~t ~q1I ~ar~t~qd ..RAJ% ~q:~qe~qn~qe~qr~qv~qe ~6qV~ql~qld~q'~qr ~q.'~qr-~qm~q'~qe-~q4~q,:~q'cr~qs~6q*~q-~q* ~qv t I pap.. ~qm~qA- ~2qh~4q0~8q1~6qder~04q*~8qd~q;-:-T~4qh~6qi ~q0. ~q4~6q;~qj~2q@ ~q- I~q. ~q..~q. ~q.~q. ~q. t~q. ~qC. ~q, I.. fir ~20qpr~qev~qe~16qp I ~08q4~q.~q1 ~2q@~q(~qk ~qe~2qi~0qk~qn~0qi~0qt~ql~qed ~q-~2qi~q'~qn~q"A.~8qh~qo~q' cc r -~q%c~qcu~qt ~0qv~8qi 1~8q1 '."Dow ~0qb ~6qf ~q- in ~qs~0qi ~qt~q,~q4~qk ~q-11 a ~q.~q-S~qub~qs~q'~qe~q.~qa~q. ~8qi~8qr~qe~0qt~qa~8qt~q'~qI~qn~32qt ~qe~qx~8qp~qet~4ql~qi~6qm~qe~qe ~q-~2qi~qn~qv~qa~8ql I ~qv ~q-~8qt~qe~ql~qp~qu~6qi~qt ~q-~68q4~q,~q@ I b~qo ~2q1~0q4 ~0qW~0qA~q, t ~04qM c h ~4q4~qq~q. ~6q1~q. ~0qk ~6qd~q, .~6qt ~0qo ~6qfe~q,~q- ~6qf Brag-It t~4qh~12qM~2ql- "June I ~q4 ~~qA q p PR -w MA 05@, mm' ON - WMAN "Wirl 9 AN 1'.g oZ '5 7@r@7 F-14 .1 VN, R 17 A R R ,il@- . .-FT 0 INS i MO Ig A- .4ev @InL V01'. -oig V-n ,tr OrS 0 M @,--,Md NX K"A q4- 0, ggm- RRV --Koz 0, M q-'A, @Z a@ - Z"-OG -`gAll Tm, W, V-,,7 I'm @--, ? VM& oa _4 1@@ 4 WAS AM -R, 4Arl W, r, 0.@@4AWq q --M N 67 'vOgg" V @g -1,A wmm@kg Q r Al, 43 6. KID in 4A Off%hote 0:1 Produclion Facifitv. Cook Infe, AU,;Aa T, Iman, Allan -c-Atch fP@Iql Cqmt@.,ny 76 7 d Enhanced Recovery When the natural flow of oil has diminished, additional oil may be recovered from the reservoir through the use of enhanced recovery techniques called secondary and tertiary recovery (References 4-4, 4-5, 4-6). A common method of secondary recovery is water flooding--the pumping of water down selected wells in the field to force up oil in other wells in the field. This tech- nique has been used in all stages of the productive life of a reservoir to extend potential production. Injection of several barrels of water for each additional barrel of oil recovered is common. In offshore Cook Inlet, water flooding is currently used for secondary recovery. The Cook Inlet water is filtered, the particulate matter is removed, and the water is injected into the reservoir. Pump discharge pressure of about 2500 to 6000 pounds per square inch, is needed to inject water into reservoirs at depths of approximately 8500 feet to 11,500 feet. With water flooding, the amount of oil recovery increases to approximately 30-45% from a non-flooding recovery rate of 15-18%. Enhanced oil recovery can also consist of repressurizing a reservoir by gas injection. Onshore at Swanson River, high pressure gas in injected in order to get better recovery of the oil. Normally the oil recovery would be approximately 18%; by utilizing gas injection it is increased to approxi- mately 48%. The high pressure gas will then be used in later years as a fuel source. Some tertiary recovery techniques are: polymer flooding, CO2 injection, and thermal processes. In polymer flooding a high molecular weight polymer is dissolved into water and injected into the reservoir. The polymer increases the viscosity of the water closer to that of oil. The result is a better sweep of the oil as the water passes through the oil reservoir. Surfactants are chemicals that act very much like soap when added to water. Injected into reservoirs, they help to wash the oil from the surface of the rock. The CO2 injection process lowers the viscosity of the oil and increase its mobility. Preliminary finds indicate that greater than 90% of the original oil in some fields might be removed by this process. Thermal techniques use heat to thin the crude oil for easy recovery. Heat is most often provided by injecting steam into the reservoir, but in-situ (in- place) combustion of part of the oil has also been used in some locations. There is little need for in-situ heating for the Alaskan oils because they are not the heavy visco type of oil that one would find in, say, California, so this technique has not been used and there are no plans to use it in the future. Once an oil field has been in production for a number of years and is then shut down and the equipment moved, tertiary recovery is seldom viable; it should be planned toward the final production of an oil field. In Alaska, where wells have already been abandoned, it will be difficult, if not impos- sible, to apply tertiary treatment. There is no tertiary recovery underway and no plans for tertiary recovery at this time in Alaska. 77 Processing Once the crude oil has been obtained, its ultimate destination is a facility for converting it into end-products. Crude may be a mixture of more than a thousand different hydrocarbons, together with trace quantities of compounds such as sulfur and nitrogen. The crude is first separated by distillation into fractoins selected on the basis of their boiling point. The relative volume of each fraction is deter- mined by the type of crude used. Since the relative values of each fraction produced by merely separating the crude may not conform to the relative market demand for each fraction, some of the separation products are con- verted into products having a greater demand by splitting, uniting or rearranging the original molecules. Processes used in a refinery to accomplish the above conversions include distillation, sulfur removal, cracking and reforming. Each refinery design is a unique combination of types and capacities of these processes. The feedstock for refineries is crude oil. There is a limited range of crudes that a particular refinery can process efficiently. Thus, early in the design of a new refinery, an effort is made to insure that feedstocks will be sufficient to allow efficient refinery operations for a maximum length of time. The important feedstock characteristics are density, sulfur content, and the quantities of other impurities such as nitrogen and salts. If an appropriate feedstock is not available from a single source, differenct crudes are blended to obtain the desired characteristics. Considerable processing of Cook Inlet oil and gas is done in Alaska. The Tesoro refinery at Cook Inlet has a "reforming" unit which permits the pro- duction of motor gasoline as well as jet, diesel, and other fuel oils. These products are transported by pipeline, barge, railway tank car, and trucks to terminals at Kenai, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Valdez. The company has more than 70 service stations in southcentral and interior Alaska. The oil that is fed to the Tesoro refinery cases from the State of Alaska (about 25,000 BPD) and Indonesia (about 15,000 BPD). The Kenai gas field has 7 sites with 4 single wells (4 strings) and 16 duals (32 strings), with a total of 20 wells varying in depth from 4,237 feet to 10,092 feet. Some of the gas is piped to the Swanson oil field for storage for later use or repressurization, and about 20 billion cu. ft. per year goes to the Collier Carbon and Chemical's amsonia and urea plant near Kenai. The first petrochemical plant in Alaska started operation in July 1960, and was a fertilizer complex costing about $60 million. The ammonia plant is owned by Collier, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Union Oil of California. The urea plan is jointly owned by Collier and Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co., Inc. The plant uses air, water, and about 20 BCF of methane gas from the Kenai gas field to produce ammonia and about 350,000 tons of urea pellets per year. The Alaskan Refinery (Standard) at Kenai, Alaska, uses the oil from both the Swanson River field and the offshore platforms (5 to 22 miles away) to produce jet fuels, diesel, and furnace fuels, distillate fuel oil, and asphalt. 73 The $10 million refinery went on-stream in 1963, and another $1 million in new equipment was added in 1967, which included asphalt production facilities. On November 5, 1969, the tanker "Polar Alaska" docked at Yokohama, Japan, and discharged the first commercial shipment of LNG ever exported from North America. The Phillips Petroleum Company used cryogenic technology to design and operate the liquefied natural gas plant at Kenai, Alaska. The cost of the plant was $38 million (1969). The high-purity gas comes from the wells of the most northern platforms in upper Cook Inlet. Japan uses the gas for gas turbines to produce electricity. The plant has a production capacity of 185 million CFPD. A small refinery has been in operation at Prudhoe Bay since October 1969, and is designed to produce diesel fuel and gasoline for local use. The crude capacity of the plant is 13,000 BPD; production is about 2,600 BPD of useable products. The residue goes into the Tap line. Gas from the first stage of the three-phase production separators is dehydrated in a conditioning plant and used as fuel for the refinery, power generation, and heating for the Atlantic Richfield/Exxon Operations Center. A small amount of Prudhoe crude (about 20,000 BPD) is shipped through a 3 mile, eight inch diameter line to Energy Company of Alaska's North Pole refin- ery near Fairbanks. The new custom refinery facility, which began production in September 1977, is scheduled to refine annually approximately 100 million gallons of heating/diesel fuel #1 and #2 (30 and 25 million gallons, respec- tively). JP-U (30 million gallons) and custom turbine fuel (20 million gallons). Direct sales will be to government, utility, and heavy industrial customers in the Fairbanks, Nenana, Delta and Tok areas. Transportation Discussions of movement of large quantities of Alaskan oil inevitably lead to the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline (Figure 4-9). On June 20, 1977, North Slope crude flowed into Pump Station One (PS1) on its way to the Valdez marine terminal 800 miles to the south. To get there, it crossed three major mountain ranges and several hundred streams and survived an explosion that destroyed the pump house at PS8. Originally scheduled to reach a daily throughput of 1.2 million barrels by September, the line is now expected to reach that total in mid-1978 when the ilities at PS8 are rebuilt. During its anticipated 25 to 30 year peak period, the pipeline will carry an estimated 9.6 billion barrels of oil to Valdez for shipment to lower 48 refineries. An informative schematic of the pipeline, is shown on the following page. 79 -Anatomy of the i elin pp 4.4 6, 7, 4" 17 co, 41 ...... ... ... . ..... ..... 5:-@ 4; P: q tw s Figuie 4 91 An@tomy ofilhe Pit*line "OufCC, NJtiuflDl GQOW.VAc.Novvrntx)i 1-316 Use In Alaska, where the cost of gas has been comparatively low in some areas, gas turbines have been used for base load electrical generation. Gas turbines are installations in which either gas or oil is fired in a turbine which drives a generator. Simple cycle units release exhaust combustion gases directly into the atmosphere. Units, using a regenerative cycle, channel the hot exhaust gases through a heat exchanger, which transfers some of the waste heat in the exhaust to the combustion air, raising the overall efficiency of the unit above that of the simple cycle. Simple cycle gas turbine efficiencies range from 12,000 to 16,000 Btu/kwh, depending upon size, and regenerative cycle gas turbine efficiencies are between 9,500 and 13,500 Btu/kwh. The efficiency of gas turbines is sensitive to inlet air temperature; that is, the lower the temperature, the higher a given unit's power output. with the cold weather in Alaska, an appreciable increase in efficiency is noted. Diesel generating units are internal combustion diesel engines directly con- nected to an alternating generator. These units are built as an integral whole and may be mounted on skids for transport to their place of use. Five hundred kw and larger power plants with good operation and maintenance procedures can approach efficiencies of 13 kwh/gallon, or 10,800 Btu/kwh, which is competitive with larger steam plants. Remotely-located, 75 to 250 kw diesels may have efficiencies as low as 7 kwh/gallon or 20,000 Btu/kwh. (Ref. 4-7) The use of diesel generating units to produce electricity in rural communities of Alaska presents some problems; e.g., lack of trained operators and readily- available replacements parts. Since, in many rural communities. delivery of the oil is made only from about mid-June to mid-October, larger fuel storage capacity is needed. Similar problems face users of petroleum products for home heating. Limited facilities for safely storing enough fuel to last throughout the winter exist in nearly all rural communities. COST ISSUES The cost of fuels to the U.S. electric utility industry has increased by many factors since 1968. As seen in Figure 4-10 on the next page, the cost of oil has multiplied by more than five times. This increase made development of Prudhoe Bay economical. In view of the July 1977 ICC approval of a $4.91 per barrel tariff for movement of ARCO oil through the line, a $2-$3/barrel fuel cost figure would yield a poor return. The tariff amounts to .61 cents per barrel per mile. By comparison, the 70- mile pipeline from Nikiski to Anchorage has a tariff of .69 cents, or one cent per mile per barrel for transportation. 81 q 12 2.00 1.80 10 .1.70 1.60 1-50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90. 00 .0.80 0.70 4,1 Closd 0.60 Compofille'' 0.50'r d0.40 OJO - Compoati co 0.20 E 0.10 U308 '19150 52 '54, '56 '58 '60 '62 '64 'W '68 !?D '72, j,'74 -78 '51 '53 '55 '57 '59 '61 03 '65 '67 '69 '71 '73 75 Figu're 4-10 Cos.tof Fuds to US Electric Uti!ity lriclustrN@@ Source: Elpaltca! World, November 1. 1975 82 The Trans-Alaska oil pipeline tariff issue is not settled. The initial tariffs filed by pipeline owners ranges as high as $6.44 per barrel. To add to the confusion, the oil companies now have new grounds for requesting new rates. Pipeline production will not exceed 800,000 barrels per day until mid-1978, due to the loss of pump station 8. This has reduced the throughput by one-third. To Alaska, the cost of moving oil and gas is very important, because the higher the tariff charges (which represent the cost for getting crude oil from the North Slope to Valdez) the lower the wellhead value. A lower well- head price for the oil means the State collects less in production taxes and receives less money for its one-eighth royalty share of the North Slope production. The wellhead price is calculated by working backwards from the refinery. Assume North Slope oil will sell for $13.70 per barrel at the refinery. If it costs 70 cents to ship the oil from Valdez to a West Coast refinery, the value of the oil at Valdez is $13.00 per barrel. If the tariff charged for moving the oil to Valdez from Prudhoe Bay is $6, the wellhead value at Prudhoe Bay is $7. If the tariff is $6.40, the wellhead value would be $6.60. That would be the figure the State would use to base its taxation on, and it is also the price the State would receive for its one-eighth share of the oil. State officials estimate that for each cent increase in the pipeline tariff, Alaska State revenues fall by $1 million per year. As for natural gas in Alaska, Figure 4-11 shows why electrical costs in Anchorage are so low at this time. The discovery of Cook Inlet area natural gas a few years ago, coupled with municipal long-range contracts, provide many in the Anchorage area with very low costs for electricity, hot water, and space heating as compared with the rest of the nation. In time, federal government regulations may limit the use of natural gas; combined with dimin- ishing supplies, this will likely start closing the gap between Anchorage and the rest of the nation. The various fees, rentals, bonuses, and royalty charges for oil and gas exploration and production on State lands are given in Table 4-6. EXTERNAL MARKET ISSUES As in the case of social, economic, political and environmental issues, this phase of the project does not attempt a detailed analysis on the impacts of markets external to the State on energy development. It is, however, still important to analyze some of the principal issues regarding these markets for several of Alaska's energy resources. In many respects, analysis of the potential impact of external markets on Alaska oil and gas has been greatly simplified by the constraints imposed by law and regulation. With the exception of liquid natural gas already being shipped to Japan, no Alaska oil or gas may be sold abroad. Thus, the only external market is the remainder of the United States. Analysis of that market is circumscribed by the fact that the wellhead prices for both crude 83 F RECENT ALGERIAN. 3.50- IMPORTS. Z r PRICE'IN COMPET T 0 3.ob I I N WITH #2 FUEL O[L. FROM $13/BBL CRUDE 2.50 U- 2@00 7 PRESIDEN,"S REGULATION PROPOSAL (WELL HEAD) 0 FPC REGULATED WELL HEAD PRICE 1.00 .(NEW, GAS) @0.50 AVERAGE TOTAL U.S. WELL HEAD VALUE REAL$ ALASKA 0 77 70 71 72 73 -74 75 Figure 4-11 Examples of Natural Gas Prices Source: Courtesy of Battelfe Northvwst Laboratories (1977). &4 'A Table 4-6 OIL AND GAS LEASE FEES ON STATE LANDS FeES, kental.s, @Permi t, Lease or. Claim. Bcnuses and @oyalties Area (Acre@L . Term (years C.omments Non-C oatipeti ti ve Lease @$20 filing fee P [A s50lt/. 2,560, 5 "years plu Is acre/year rental plus $no T e rm applies only prior for extetision of -t @year extensior. to production of oil erm. After Production, royalty After pro.duct-jon, and gas. .,of no less that 121;1!, in-kind term is li.fe of, U1 of f i.e (Oil & gas) or in-value@ Id. (money,) of production. amount. Competitive (onshore Bid bonus plLis $1/acre/yea r- 2 1.560 onshor e) 10 years wi th no Term appli'es only-prior or Off@,hore) Lease rental. After p roduc@jon, or.5,760 (off extension (except to production of oil I no less than 121-4Z royalty shore) Cook.*Inlet - No and gas. in-kind,(oil 9a S ) ov in- less -than 5. years. value (money) of roduction and no more t P han amount. 10 years.) After is production, term life of field. Aorce: State of Alaska.Departmerit of Natural Resu:-rces. Division of Miner6ls,ancl Energy Management, March 1977 b oil and natural gas presently are regulated by the Federal Energy Administra- tion and the Federal Power Commission, respectively. At the present time, the market price for North Slope oil delivered to lower 48 ports is determined by the price of imported oil; transportation costs are so high that the wellhead value of the oil is below current FEA ceilings. The major question associated with the U.S. market for Alaska's oil is where it will ultimately go. Alaska crude is produced in excess of current West Coast demands, primarily because the refining capacity is not geared to the relatively heavy, high sulfur product being shipped from Prudhoe Bay. As the capacity of the pipeline increases, much of the oil will be shipped through the Panama Canal to the Gulf or East Coasts. Eventually, perhaps within 5 to 8 years, it is expected that pipeline facilities will be available to trans- port Alaskan oil east of the Rockies, either to the "Northern Tier" states, to the Gulf Coast or both. Although FEA price regulation does not affect North Slope oil development, it could have considerable impact on oil development in Cook Inlet. Transporta- tion costs are substantially lower, and wellhead price ceilings could come into effect. The wellhead price of natural gas from Alaska's North Slope is yet to be determined by the FPC. A decision is expected soon, now that the route of the pipeline has been selected. FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDS 1) Improved technology for clean-up for both onshore and offshore oil spills in Alaska is needed. 2) Techniques used in other industries, especially nuclear, to assure verba- tim compliance of operation procedures are needed on the pipeline and on offshore platforms in order to reduce oil spills. 3) More information is required on enhanced recovery techniques for oil and gas for Alaskan conditions. Additional information is also needed on technology of ocean floor completions to replace platforms in Artic off- shore areas. 4) To date, the potential for "used oil" recycling is a little examined method of conserving energy. 5) Social, economic, and environmental impact statements of a petrochemical plant in Alaska are needed. 86 Alaska Oil and Gas Resources Key Contracts Donald P. Blasko Tom Marshall, Chief Petroleum Geologist Petroleum Engineer State of Alaska Alaska Field Operations Center Department of Natural Resources Anchorage Office Division of Oil and Gas Conservation United States Bureau of Mines 3001 Porcupine Street Suite 100, Professional Center Bldg. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 221 E Northern Lights Blvd. (907) 279-1433 or 274-8602 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 265-5206 Bob McMullen Area Geologist Patrick Dobey United States Geological Survey Petroleum Manager Conservation Division State of Alaska 800 A Street Department of Natural Resources Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Division of Minerals and Energy (907) 278-3571 Management MacKay Anex, 323 E. 4th Avenue Gil Mull Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Geologist (907) 274-8542 Exploration and Strategies ONPRA George Gryc, Chief United States Geological Survey ONPRA 345 Middlefield Road United States Geological Survey Menlo Park, California 94025 345 Middlefield Road (415) 323-8111 Menlo Park, California 94025 (415) 323-8111, ext. 2214 Robert B. Sanders, Geologist U.S. Department of Energy Hoyle Hamilton 605 West 4th Avenue Chief Petroleum Engineer Room G-11, Federal Office Bldg. State of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Department of Natural Resources (907) 265-5361 Division of Oil and Gas Conservation 3001 Porcupine Street DGGS Staff Anchorage, Alaska 99501 State of Alaska (907) 279-9565 Department of Natural Resources Div. of Geological & Geophysical Jerry D. Kreitner Surveys Energy Development Analyst 3001 Porcupine Street Federal State Land Use Planning Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Commission (907) 272-8602 733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Rodney Smith, Geologist (907) 279-9565 United States Geological Survey Conservation Division Irene Ryan 800 A Street Consulting Geologist Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Box 84, Star Route A (907) 278-3571 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 (907) 344-3189 87 Alaska Oil and Gas Resources Key Contacts (Cont.) Thomas E. Kelly, Consultant Elmore Holerman, Jr. Earth Sciences Resident Manager 700 H Street Waste-to-Oil Experimental Facility Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Bechtel Corporation 2300 Liberty Street Frank B. Chmelik, Manager Albany, Oregon 97312 Alaska Office (503) 926-0940 Tetra Tech, Inc. 909 West 9th Avenue C.W. Wilson, Area Foreman Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Producing Department Chevron U.S.A. Joe Jones, Conservation Manager Swanson River Oil Field U.S. Department of the Interior P.O. Box 529 Geological Survey Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Conservation Division (907) 283-4551 P.O. Box 259 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 George E. Day Manager, Alaskan Refinery and Pipe Lines Ward H. Swift Manufacturing Department Associate Manager Chevron U.S.A. Water & Land Resources Department Alaskan Refinery P.O. Drawer "F" Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab. Kenai, Alaska 99611 Richland, Washington 99352 (907) 776-8161 (509) 946-2229 Cary G. Vlahovich Community Services Representative Becky S. Pfanner Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Public Relations Representative 1835 South Bragaw Street (99504) Atlantic Richfield Company P.O. Box 4-Z (99509) Public Affairs Division Anchorage, Alaska P.O. Box 360 (907) 265-8325 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telex: 090-25-127 (907) 277-5637 J.R. Williamson, Operations Supervisor Loyd M. Hodson Exploration & Production Department General Manager Production Division Alaska Village Electric Phillips Petroleum Company Co-operative, Inc. Kenai LNG Plant 999 E. Tudor Road Drawer 66 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Kenai, Alaska 99611 (907) 277-6632 (907) 776-8166 R.D. Grimm, President George L. Ford Chief Executive Officer Plant Manager Intermountain Gas Company Collier Carbon & Chemical Corp. 555 So. Cole Road Kenai, Alaska 99611 Boise, Idaho 83705 (208) 375-1361 88 Alaska Oil and Gas Resources Key Contacts (Cont.) Katharine Varnes, Geologist Mike Holland Frances Lennartz, Cartographer El Paso Natural Gas Resources Appraisal Group 716 West 4th Avenue Branch of Oil & Gas Resources Anchorage, Alaska U.S. Geological Survey (907) 279-6501 Denver Federal Center Mail Stop 971 Bob Hoekzema, Geologist Denver, Colorado 80225 State of Alaska, Division of (303) 234-5235 Minerals & Energy Management Department of Natural Resources John D Amundsen Mackay Annex, 323 E. 4th Avenue Operations Technician Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Alaska District (907) 274-8542 Union Oil Company of California Union Oil and Gas Division Glen Jackson P.O. Box 7600 Tesoro Refinery Kenai, Alaska 99611 P.O. Box 3691 (907) 283-7505 Kenai, Alaska 99611 (907) 776-8191 K.W. Lewis, Dist. Production Supervisor E. R. "Rod" Bouchard South Alaska District North Pole Refinery Atlantic Richfield Company Energy Company of Alaska No. American Producing Division. Box 5028 P.O. Box 1400 North Pole, Alaska 99705 Kenai, Alaska 99611 (907) 488-2741 (907) 283-7147 C.R. Knowles, Jr. District Drilling Superintendent South Alaska District Atlantic Richfield Company North American Producing Division P.O. Box 360 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 (907) 277-5637 Tom Schoder Natural Resources Specialist Bureau of Land Management 555 Cordova Bldg. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 James V. Coan, Pet 4 Coordinator Bureau of Land Management State Office 555 Cordova Bldg. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 89 Oil & Gas References 4-1 U.S. Department of the Interior. Division of Geological Survey. "Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the United States." Circular 725. 1975. 4-2 U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. Final Environmental Impact State- ment - OCS Proposed Oil & Gas Leasing in the NORTHERN GULF OF ALASKA, OCS Sale #39 - four volumes. 1976. 4-3 Knowles, C.R. (Atlantic Richfield Co., Anchorage, Alaska) and Schuh, F. J. (Atlantic Richfield Co., Dallas, Texas). Drilling Operations in the Gulf of Alaska. Paper presented at the 1977 Annual Meeting Production Department, American Institute, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Houston, Texas, 4-6, April 1977. 4-4 U.S. Energy and Development Administration. Management Plan For Enhanced Oil Recovery. Appendices, February 1977. 4-5 U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Division of Oil, Gas and Shale, in cooperation with the University of Tulsa and the Oil & Gas Journal. Proceedings of a Symposium on Enhanced Oil & Gas Recovery. Volume 1 - Oil; Volume 2 - Gas. Camelot Inn, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 4-6 Tetra Tech, Inc. Navy Energy and Natural Resourcer Research and Develop- ment Office. Energy Fact Book - 1976. Virginia : Tetra Tech, Inc., 1976. 4-7 Alaska, University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995. August 1976. 90 COAL Recoverable Resources By Site Alaska's potential coal resources are enormous but are widely dispersed throughout the State and vary considerably in quality and potential recover- ability. Deposits are known to exist in Southcentral and Southwest Alaska from the Bering River region to the Aleutian Islands. In the Interior, deposits are known to exist in a dozen locations, ranging from near the Canadian border to the Alaska Range southwest of Fairbanks. The largest deposits are found on the North Slope, extending eastward in a broad bend from the shores of the Chukchi Sea through and beyond the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. In evaluating the potential recoverability of these resources, experts were requested to rank 12 coal fields in terms of likelihood of development prior to the year 2000, and to estimate when development might occur. The coal fields analyzed are shown on the accompanying map (Figure 4-12). In addition, each expert (listed below) was asked to identify other areas in the state which may be of development interest: James Callahan Ernest N. Wolff U.S. Department of the Interior Mineral Industry Research Div. of Geological Surveys Laboratory Box 2373 University of Alaska Casper, Wyoming 82602 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Robert B. Sanders, Geologist DGGS Staff Federal Energy Administration State of Alaska Federal Building, C-11 Dept. of Natural Resources 605 W. Fourth Avenue Div. of Geological & Geophysical Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Surveys 3001 Porcupine Street Robert G. Bottge, Mining Engineer Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Alaska Field Operation Center U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Mines P.O. Box 550 Juneau, Alaska 99802 The rankings of the coal fields are given in Table 4-7, which begins on the following page. This table also includes the magnitude and quality of the coal resources, as well as selected excerpts from comments by the experts. In evaluating the responses to our request, we found general concensus among the experts that three areas in the state would almost certainly be developed or developed further before year 2000. These were, in order of timing: the Nenana field, Susitna field and the Jarvis Creek field. In addition, several of the experts were impressed with the possibility of development in the Matanuska field and at Herendeen Bay and/or Chignik on the Alaska Peninsula. Agreement on these fields, however, was not as strong. Those consulted 91 t IW'I- IfW Ir'. !44 tj C lo It LEGEND (1/1 K cill fRANK)' FIELD. Qf futwe. order cl prodwcoon ok+HERN AILASKA OIELDS .18 Z> n", VL IELr' jjjNENANA.fj @Aq@%L f@' - 01. OVER SS FIELD OAD PA rr A'FiEL c I ELO F t2l SU SI'TNA -A' %1j pet". (fi: J E L K t 6)cHI'GNIK FIE LO 46 (51HERENDEEN SAIr rIjEL q? C IF ISLAND' FIIELD C C20 J th!":ak ALASKA 4e Mo _j [ LEGEN f,IANK 'o IDE LD .p Figure 4-12 Coal FieldS. State of. Alaska, Division of Energy & Poy4er Development 1977 Table 4-7 COAL SITES RANKING (Prediction of Future Order of Production) RANKING OF COAL ESTIMATED COALRANK AND FIELD TIMING QUALITY (Region) (By Experts) (Millions Of Short Tons) EXCERPTS FROM COMMENTS BY EXPERTS 1) NENANA Now Subbituminous and Lignite "Already producing 700,000 tons' year." (Interior) (6938)*** "The proven reserves exceed 120 million tons with (Note Private communications an equal inferred reserves in the area near Healy. from Cleland Conwell "all The resource is certainly several billion tons, reports rank Nenana coals the coals are thick. No. 1 seam may reach 100 feet as lignite. All of the more in thickness. The coal is subbituminous B, with recent analysis and all of a calorific value of about 8,200 Btu and this, the work I have done rank with distance from tidewater does not have an the coal at least subbitumi immediate chance for export; there is a chance to nous C") expand production in this field. The Golden Valley Electric Association states they would like to have a 150 megawatt power plant on the line by 1985 (updated to 1983 recently). The serious draw- back in the Nenana field is the EPA regulation of nondeterioration air quality within 60 miles of a national park." 2) SUSITNA 1980- Subbituminous and Lignite This area is No. 1 for potential development of a (Southcentral) 1985 (2395)*** large (5 million ton/year) mine. (Chuitna-Beluga area). The Susitna field is relatively unexplored. Coals within the field are probably subbituminous B, although they may rank up to high volatile bituminous C. One known seam 25 feet thick does have a calorific value of 9,000 Btu. The major deterrent to develop- ment in the area is the vegetation coverage which makes exploration difficult. Other deterrents are probable high faults, steeply dipping beds, environ- mental considerations, and the general social political problems that would be associated with the development in this particular area. The Beluga Coal field has active leases, but the low rank of coal, and cost of a port facility are deterrents to development. "A small mine for export is hard to justify because of very high harbor construction cost, a minimum of 5 million tons per year may be necessary for export" comment by Benno Patsch, Place-Amex, as part of document review process. A major mine-mouth power plant will be built if the Susitna project continues, a smaller mine may be working for export. The Susitna Coal Field is based on coals in three geologic formations deposited over a long time span hence the great variation in rank and properties between the older Beluga Coals and the much younger coals of the northern part ofthe Kenai. The older, higher rank coals do occur in the Northern Kenai, but only at depth. 3) JARVIS CREEK 1985- Subbituminous and Lignite Eventually will be product in conjunction with (Interior) 2000+ (76)*** coals. New small group will start drilling shortly - has been mined in past 10 years. Perhaps local markets. The Jarvis Creek field is small and probably stripping reserves will not exceed 60 million tons. Total resource, of course, is several times this but not of major significance in compared with other coal fields in the state. The coal is subbituminous B, calorific value approximately 8,200 Btu. There is one possible development in this field: A local group has been drilling and exploring the field at the present time with a consideration of a mine mouth power plant, possibly 50 megawatts, which would supply power to two or three pumping stations along the pipeline and backfeed power to Golden Valley Electric Assoc. 93 ~0 j -7 (Continued) Table 4 COAL SITES RANKING* (Prediction-of Futu re Order of Production) RA~NK~I~N~'~r, ~q6~7 COAL ESTIMATED FIELD COALRANK AND ~Q~UA~.NT~ITY- _(Region) '~qJ~q@~6q@~qEx e~j~t~r (Mill ions of short Tons) ~V E EXCERPTS ~F~R~' ~1~W C~O~?~t~2p~T~qS ~BXPERTS ~.4) MATANUSKA Bituminous (~137~q)*~-* ~m (~S~uuthc~en~qtral.) Area will require underground ~i~ni~h~g at high costs.. Pr~oducti~on~,will be est b~l~ish~6~d only if si~gnif~i~' cant local industry is established~. ~Ian~no~t open cut - could go unde r~q@rourd if~'~ec~on ~o~m~i~c~s permit. Good coal. Strictly, cost Possibility between no~w an~d~ye~ar.2000. Not enough coal use around P~al~r~:er. Owner Paul flooded in~~197~0 - 1971 min ~T~h~e ~M~atan~u~s~k-~i field prLoduced~~q@~oa~l for ~0 ~9 ~re~at number of yea--. (~un~ti~l~~1967) ~. There m~a ybe ~1~0~0-~mi~ll~j~O~4 tons Of ~c~0~a' left for strip mining and a ~@~Io~s~si~b~le resource of ~r~.~,erely a ~'bil~]~i~o~n tons.. The ~a~@~,t~l~p ~1~1~ou~rta~in seam is of~a c~okin~q~2p~p~it~qy which would bring a premium pric~e~"o~l~l ~-r~ket. ~'Th~e railroad., th~e ~m- still maintains ri~qght~-~of~@~wa I into the field. There ~y- is a. better~lth~an average chance that t~qh~i~qs~,f~i~1p~p~p~1p~ ~c~@ ~Li ld ~.~6~e placed back into production this century i~ra~s~m~ich as a washed product would ~be produced. With exception of local ~"~s~n~@~Pi~n~q~," I foresee a] ~ro s tno futu~'re. Hi~g~h~gr~aded to the ruination of the field.. The C~hic~qka~ql~o~dnar~qea has some Possibilities. 5) H~E~P~E~NDEE~N ~2AY ~qFn~suf f ~i ~qc i er~@~qt ~D~a t~a I ~a~:~n s~2p~e~sti~n g the Herend~e~i~n Bay fie~l~a ~S~o ~u ~t ~twe ~s ~t~q) be dropped arJ th~e entire r~6~g~i~ori~1~u~m~oed ~i~nt~o,th~e Chi~q~nik f~irld because ~qthe. coals are found in t~k~~e coal 'member of the ~C~h~ig~n~ik formation. There are no ~6~'~r~i~ab~le reserve in ~- the field al~qihou~qh~@ t~qh~e resource may be as high as 20. billion tons. T~he~'c~oa beds vary greatly in thickness and there is a great deal of ir~r~e~g~blarity,~l~b~oth par~al lei and transverse t~o ~@t~he beds. The ash con- tent is high, production ~-~~)f t~he coals would re~ouir~e washing. however, a ~w~d~S~h ~@~I~r~o~@~uCt would he a hi~g~h-q~t~i~a~l~it~y~ steaming coal (plus ~12~,~O~D~D ~Ft~u) a~nd the coals are ra~r~ked as high, v~o~;atile bituminous ~S. For export m~arket,~inC~l~udin~g West Coast, US~A~@ 6) CH~IG~qN~IK ~1990+~ ~Insuficie~nt Data ~qL~ac~k~*D~ata - D~r~SS~i~bly ~si~r~)~n~ific~an~t ~p~r~.~_~,~d~ucti~on if a ~9 (Southwest) ~ pod r~e~s~ou~r~-~,~e base can be established. Important only for local use. Possibly ~deve~l~op~"d by I~N~a ~t i v~-~2~s for local ~L use and limited export. ~7 ~1~j~NGA ~1~9~9~0~-~, Insufficient Data ~'~N~nt significant small: resource ~6a~q@ eof ~q(~S~O~U~L~h~w~e~st~q) 1~9~@~5 lignite coal. ~Im~D~ortant only for local. use. The ~U~n~ga ~Is~ql~a~q@d field ~qJs 'very small. ~@The coals ~h~a~v~L both a hjgh~~r~@~o~i~sture and high Ash content; are either lignite or no higher grade than Sub~bitu~q' minous calorific value ~l~css than ~8 1 would conclude there~~a~r~e no ~i~r~r~:~e~G~iate ~p~r~o~s~@~.ect~s for ~deve~lopir~.~) this, coal field. Possibly dev~e~l~o~v~ed ~by Natives f~~or local use and ~l~.im~ited export. ~u 8), ~@~qUT~j~j~.~[~ ~R~@~j ALASKA 19~9~0~+~ Bitu~,~@i~n~o ~S' Very lar~Fe potential production but o~q0y when ~q(~'~19~,292). (Arc t i_ ~Subb~i tumi nou~s price bec~6~m~e~s significantly higher. and ~L~i~~9nite (100 ~-~.905) Depends on coking coal. situation ~7 beds n~o~f 1~6TAL ~0qF~I~qT~q6~. ~19 7~) ~20 feet thick. Area handi-~' all thin some 8~o capped by lack of knowledge. Identified, ~q(~1~~2~0~"~)~0~q6~q) The N~Grth~ern Alaska Coal Fields are grea~,t~. Hypothetical- (1~15~,00~0~'~-3 700.~0~00) There is one USG~S report that I ~be~l~; ~e give, a Speculative. ~q(110~.0~00~-~1~q:0~0~0~,0~0~0) theoretical resource of Over 3 trillion tons; TOTAL ~0qF3 4 5 ~. ~0 ~0 ~0 ~-~_4 ~,~q6~. In-~g~enera~l, t~he coals are of fair quality. There ~qa~q,e excellent ~qst~qt~qa~qr~qn~qi~qn~qg coals in this ~qo~qr 3~q4~q" bi~q'~q,~qIion~q.~.t~qo 4.7~q+~ (tr~qi~qA~qlo~qn area. ~qIn'~qadditi~qon~q, inthe w~qestern~q,regi~qon. ~q- tons) there are known cok~qinq c~~qe~qa~qls~. A~qlthou~qgh,this resource is large by any standard ~4qy~qou wish to use. (Note: The above ~08qM,~q197 tons the inhospitable climate, Native land ~qc~ql~qa~ql~q,~qm~qs~q, ~4qi~qd~qen w~q@r~qe reported as I~q. tified environmental and transportation ~q@~q11~w~qll~ql combine r~qe~qs~qource~qs~q@ in USGS Bulletin 1242 to delay any ~qi~qa~q,~qg~qe scale development in the ~qB~8q(1~q9~qG~q?~4q); bu~qt the 345 billion to area; Historically ~qthe village of Barrow and 4~q.7~q+ trillion tons were reported., Wainwright used c~qo~qal~qas_a~q@f~que~q.~q]~q;~q,~qTh~qere are ~q-~q;-es~. in "Focus a~qr potential re~q;~qou~qt ~q. several reasons why ~q1.~12q6not ~qb~qe~q%~qlieve this practice ~qr~q5~q'. T~qa~qi~ql~ql~qe ..on Coal ur will be revived. However. when ~2qyou consider t~qhe ~q3~qnr~ql W~q. P. ~qBr~qn~q,~q;~q9~qP. ~qp. ~q2~q26.) economics. coal would be certainly- amuch cheaper 94 ~0 ~~ Table" 4-7 ~q(~qC~nr~i tin~L~i~ed) COAL SITES RANKING' (Prediction ~of Future Order of Production) RANKING OF COAL ESTIMATED. COAL RANK AND FIELD, TIMING QUANTITY~q- ~q(R~e~9~i~o~n) (By Experts) (Mi I I icns of Short Tons) EXCERPTS FROM CO~M~.MENTS~~BY EXPERTS ~ NORTH~ER~U A ALASKA See previous page and amore dependable fuel than oil. Here is .(~c~o~nt i ~r~u~ed) one consideration for you - 1 have discussed the possibility .it various times with ~BP and ARCO, there have been Canad~ian~deve~l~0q4~;~.~i~ent~s related to transportation coal ~i~n a slurry with oil a~s~-a carrying liquid.. Therefore, it is not i~nc~o~nc~q0v~able that coal could be mined and transported through the p~ip~e~line-~@aft~er the peak oil production~'in thearea has passed. BERING RIVER 2~C~OO~+ Insufficient Data Very c~o~m~p~lex geology - product~io~n~wi~l~l require more (~S~ou~qth~centr~a~i) effective means of ~i~n~in~i n~g. Good coal but t~uo broken up ~w struct~u~re~~qJu~st impossible. will never ~9 ~-~.s~.~@ Rea o anyplace... Pipe dre~ar ~.1 good coal but botched up. bed~s~cannot follow. Japanese looked at it. ~b~ut no. The Bering River field coals grade tr ~om lignite through, anthracite, depending on the amount ~o~f~~old~ing and faulting the coal beds have been subjected to. Th~i~~s~2 fact makes projection of~~o~a~,~l beds very difficu~lt~1p~ wo~uld:~be unfavorable in attempting ~qto mining pl~an~@ Possible te~st~'ar~ea fo~r ~Bor ~u~lic~,~op~e~rati~on or e hole ~hydra as a pilot of in-situ techniques testing. EAGLE 2~0~00~+~- Insufficient Data ~N~qot significant lacks data only a few ~c~o~a; out crops (Interior) known. No ~way not even local use 4 ft. th~ic~knes ~m~a~x~1 mum ~Th~e~q1d~qg~le field is an inter~i~o-f~i~el~i~~. It is notat -trans the present time at least, close to c~or d~ors and there is little present demand for the coal within the im~med ate area. The coal i~s ~su~bbitumin~ous B, c~a.~lor~'~,fic value is ap~proxir~ra~:e~ly ~8,000 Btu. 1)) KENAI ~4qno~o~+ ~Su~t~)~bitum~in~aus and Anticipate production along Deep Creek- but, more in (S~outhcentr~a~l) Lignite ~q(3~1~8~q)*~1p~ ~t~h~~A ~sourth Kenai. Coal only about 6 ft. thick, operations at ~P~o~,~ner until ~r~"id~ile 196~0~'~s~@ Do not believe ~Yen~ai coal is t~he same as ~Belu~qa~, not a ~qood Btu, ~not as thick. The ~K~en~i~i c~Dals rank from li~cn~i~'t~e to ~subb~itum~in6u~s ~8~, ~h~i~q~h ~r~r~oist~u~r~qe and h~i~qh ash content. T~he resource appears very ~l~ar~qe~, but the actual r~es~erv~e~s~1p~p~p~ery small.. Consolidation Coal has a pr~o~s~o~ect~i~ve permit ~in~th~e area and~r~nay dev~el~,,p a sizeable reserve. The ~di~@~adv~a~nt~a~qg~e of the coal is quality, and the ~s~ea~m~s (2 to~'7 feet) . The ~ad~,~anta~g~e of the f~ield.t~h~qat is-very close to ~t~id~,~@~- water and it would not be as expensive to c~on~str~o~,~:t ~s~,on the west ~s ~e a mo~)ra~ge facility ~. id of the Cook In~i~et. Land claims and ~en~y~-~iron~n~en~t~a~l fac~t~ors:could production from 'the, field for a great ~ru~qt~.~b~er of years. ~W~it~h~,~e~xc~eptio~n of ~H~o~a~ter subsistence use,. there, is little hope. ~2) BROAD PASS ~Sub~b~it~i~o~n~nou~s and Lignite ~qN~ot s~i~gri~f~icantly small resource, base Pf. lignite coal. (Southcentr~a~l) No way,-: low ~qr~ad~e. Broad Pass coals are hear surface. withi~-~i e ~a~sy access ~c~qo~a I s r~a to t~h~o Alaska ~Rail~r~oa d. Unf~ortu~@~,~ately tne nk as lig~iite to'~subbit m~in~ou~s ~B~, ~j~it~h a~-calor~ific~:val~ue of ~u less than ~8,000 Btu. A serious deterrent t~o d~e~v~el~op~.~T~,~@_~nt of t~he field i- its' close relationship to McKinley National Park. Where~qpr~qoduct~qion is already underway in a field (i.e. N~qenana), the remaining part of the field was ranked. -t~qo-da~8qte coal d~qet~qail~q@invent~qory has no or. example, Gary Player, Con~qsult~qin Geologist An up ~qt~~q.~q@~.e~qen completed. F~q, f~qor~0qth~qe Bureau of ~qflin~qe~qs, reports ~00qQ~qan. 5~q. ~q19.77). thick ~qcoa~qi -beds (at lea~qst~,120 feet) near Farewell (Interior).- "The important conclusion to ~q@e reached from these fragmentary but related bits of data is that coal- r~qe~q.~q@~qo~qurc~qts i~qn the interior lowlands north ~qof the Alaska ~0qRan~qqe~q, ~qmay be en~qor~qr~qi~qbus." ~q'dd~qiti~qf .~qa~ql information in No~q.: 51 u~qs~qcs ~qG~qu~q,~q,~q@~qe~2qtin ~q(~q.12~q4~q2~q1-~qB ~0qQ~q'~q9~q67) page ~q6~q9~q: ~qr ~q41a~qs~qka Open F i e ~qP~qeport~q,~ql Table. I 95 r generally were in agreement that the other coal fields in the state are not likely to be under significant development prior to the year 2000. Although all were agreed that the Northern Alaska fields had enormous resources, they also felt that the cost of recovery, and particularly, the cost of trans- portation to market, would probably slow development to well beyond the year 2000. Several other areas were classified as having coal which would be difficult to recover economically before the year 2000. The reasons for these conclusions are discussed further below. Among the areas considered almost certain to be developed, the Beluga district of the Susitna field is by far the largest. The total Susitna field covers almost 6,000 square miles, and is estimated to contain 400 to 700 million tons of coal recoverable by strip mining with modern technology. The coal varies somewhat in quality, ranging from subbituminous to lignite. Beluga coals are among the higher grades in the field, and are of subbituminous quality, with heating values ranging between 6,300 and 8,900 Btu's per pound, as received, but 9,400 Btu dried to 10 percent moisture. The other major coal field almost certain to be developed further is the Nenana field southeast of Fairbanks along the north flank of the Alaska Range. Extract- able reserves of coal in this field are estimated at 95 million tons. The coal is subbituminous in quality and low in sulfur, with heating values ranging from 7600 to 9400 Btu's per pound. Recoverability of this coal is already well- proven. The Usibelli mine has been operating in the Nenana field for nearly forty years, supplying coal to Fairbanks, the University of Alaska, and military facilities in the area. Operations in the Nenana Field are expected to expand over the next 20 years to supply the increased demand for electric power in the Fairbanks area. The third coal field that may be developed is Jarvis Creek, which lies east of the Nenana field on the north flank of the Alaska Range, close to the Alaska pipeline route. Its location is the one reason for its potential development. Coal from Jarvis Creek could be used to generate power for the pumps along the pipeline, particularly those required to lift the oil over the Alaska Range. The field is quite small, containing only minor reserves of potentially recover- able coal. Much of the coal is in steeply-dipping beds, which may lead them- selves to in-situ (in-place) gasification (see Technology section). The coal is of subbituminous quality with heating values ranging from 7800 to 9400 Btu's per pound. The Matanuska coal field, although not highly ranked by the experts, did impress some as a possible site for coal recovery before the year 2000. The coals are of higher quality than those described above, ranging from bituminous to semi- anthracite. The sulfur content is low, and heating values range from 10,400 to 14,000 Btu's per pound, approaching the range of high grade coking coal. Reserves are not large, however, and there is some concern regarding the economic feasibility of recovering the coal. The final areas given some chance for development before the year 2000 are Chignik and Herendeen on the Alaska Peninsula. These two fields may in fact be part of one larger field, although there is some disagreement on this point. The quantity of coal is not large, but the quality is bituminous grade with 96 heating values ranging from 9600 to 12,400 Btu's per pound. Sulfur content is somewhat higher than other Alaskan coals, ranging up to 2.3% for some Chignik coal. The potential for development at Chignik and Herendeen derives primarily from the quality of the coal and its ready access to a deep-water port. Remaining areas in the state, as noted earlier, were generally considered by the experts to have little chance for development prior to the year 2000. Reasons for this vary from area to area. The northern Alaska fields represent an enormous resource. Development in the area, however, is seriusly handi- capped by the logistics of transporting the coal to market Ref. 4-8). Deep water ports along the coast of northern Alaska are virtually non-existent, and as the Alaska pipeline has demonstrated, surface transport is extremely costly. Other possibilities do exist, however, for future coal development in northern Alaska. Some coal might be mined for electric power generation and/or heating for some of the villages on the North Slope and for oil and gas recovery activities. In addition, there is a possibility that in the future, North Slope coal could be finely ground and transported through the Alaska pipeline in a slurry mixed with petroleum. This would have the additional bonus of extending the life of the petroleum fields, the pipeline, and activities at Valdez. Some have suggested that the feasibility of a petrochemical industry in northern Alaska should be examined. Problems with most of the remaining fields are due largely to the geology of the coal deposits. In the Kenai, for example, the deposits are generally thin, and thus do not lend themselves to economical surface mining. In the Bering River area, there are numerous small deposits of very high quality coal, but, the coal seams are so broken up and scattered that economical mining is not considered feasible. The Eagle coal field has many of the same geological. problems as Kenai, and is also very remote. The Unga lsland field is small, and the coal is of low quality. Broad Pass is low grade, and the close proximity to National Parks would discourage development. In addition to the original set of 12 coal fields described above, two of our experts each mentioned one additional field with significant potential. One is the Kobuk River field in central Alaska, which could be used to supply power for possible copper development in the area, provided adequate coal reserves are confirmed. Exploration for copper is now underway, and the area is thought to have very significant potential. The other field is a discovery on the Tonzona River west of Mount McKinley National Park, which is believed to be large, with a coal section up to 120 feet thick, including noncoal partings up to 10 feet thick. (Ref. 4-9.) APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY Recovery About half the nation's coal is produced by surface mining from seams lying fairly close to the earth's surface. The earth and rock above the coal seam are scraped off and placed to one side to be later back filled; the exposed coal is broken up and removed. 97 Alaska's one producing coal mine (at Usibelli) is a surface mine. At one time, water was used to remove overburden at Usibelli. The overburden is now stripped by a load-haul method; i.e., the overburden is shot and then loaded into trucks with front-end loaders. Crawler tractors then grade the over- burden to the desired shape, the surface is planted with seeds and the land is restored to productive use. Machines used in surface mining in other areas range in size from trucks, bulldozers and front-end loaders to gigantic power shovels and draglines which are the largest mobile land machines in the world. The big shovels and draglines lay the seam bare so it can be loaded by small shovels. The biggest dragline currently available picks up 180 cubic yards in each bite. Usibelli is currently using front-end loaders with a capacity of 10 yards. However, plans have been finalized to use a dragline (see Figure 4-13), with a capacity of 33 cubic yards. Equipment designs feature mechanical, rather than hydraulic fluid, technology sometimes in cold climates because of the obvious potential of fluids freezing. In addition to more traditional mining methods, it is also possible to recover coal by in-situ (in-place) gasification. Beneficiation Coal is often prepared, or beneficiated, before being used. Beneficiation, which may be done at (or near) the mine or at the point of use, consists of any or all of the following steps: 1. Crushing and screening to a desired maximum size. 2. Cleaning to remove dust and noncoal materials. 3. Drying to prepare the coal for shipping or use. At the Usibelli Coal Mine the coal is crushed and screened to 4 inch minus. About 10-15% of the coal is washed depending upon customer specifications which vary from customer to customer. Storage Coal may be stored in large or small quantities, and at little or no cost. It can be stockpiled indoors or out, under water or on any surface. Whether a few tons or millions of tons are to be stored, there are methods of doing the job correctly. Spontaneous Combustion Coals vary a great deal in their natural tendency to absorb oxygen. The tendency is relatively low for bituminous coals and extremely low for anthracite. The tendency is higher for coals of high bed-moisture content. 98 fir 71'i .7 aR v-! 4 gpll .lza W N :4. zt, _2 Figure 4-13- Co I M*ninq TV a I Pe Equipment;, Loader and Hau!er (above), Dragline Welow). Source. Bucyrus-Erie, Pocatello, Idaho 99. high oxygen content and high volatile content, all of which characterize the low-rank coals. The reaction between coal and oxygen is considered to double for each 15 degrees F. If the temperature of the coal is 60 degrees F., and is raised to 90 degrees F., the rate at which oxygen unites with coal increases four times. Spontaneous heating is caused by coal uniting with oxygen; it is the same as the burning process in the furnace except that it proceeds at a much lower rate. When adequate attention has been paid to the building and thorough compaction of a stockpile, spontaneous combustion is practically eliminated since oxygen is not as available for chemical reaction. Oxidation is then reduced and heating value does not deteriorate as rapidly (i.e., about .1% per year rather than greater than 1% per year). Transportation Coal moves to market by at least 6 methods - rail, barge, ship, truck, conveyor and pipeline - or by combinations of two or more. Rail: In Alaska, much of the coal mined currently moves to market by rail (i.e., Usibelli to Fairbanks). The rail cost (1976) of 4.6 per ton-mile is some- what greater than in the Lower 48. There has been some talk of unit trains in Alaska, but thus far no plans have been made to initiate the service. Occasionally the train from Usibelli moves only coal, which is described as a "trainload" shipment. Slurry Pipelines: Slurry pipelines, carrying a mixture of water and ground coal, may be very important to Alaska in the future as a mechanism to transport coal. Oil, rather than water for the transporting fluid, is considered "very feasible and very desirous, but it would take quite a bit of oil."* Mixing pulverized materials with water to form a slurry, then pumping it through a pipeline, is not new. The technology has become well-developed and proven since the first patent for pumping coal and water was issued in 1891. The industry was firmly established in 1957 when the 108-mile Con- solidation Coal line began operation in Ohio and the 72-mile American Gilsonite line was initiated in Utah. The Black Mesa Pipeline in Arizona is the world's largest slurry operation. The pipeline has been carrying coal from the Black Mesa Mine to a power plant at the southern tip of Nevada since 1970. Its record of better than 99% availability has confirmed the efficiency and reliability of slurry technology. By their nature, slurry systems are capital intensive and highly automated. Therefore, once the pipelines are installed, approximately 70% of operations *Robert Jacques, "Focus on Alaska's Coal," 1975, page 108. 100 costs related to capital investment are fixed. Only the remaining 30% related to labor, electric power and supplies are variable and thus subject to inflation. For this reason, operating costs are relatively stable over long periods. Slurry pipelines have problems other than economic. Not only must a water source and dewatering implications be addressed, but the ability to use the power of eminent domain for right-of-way has not been settled. Belt/Barge: In the future, near tidewater in Alaska, the conveyor belt/barge transporta- tion system may be of interest. The greatly-increased capacity of barge- type vessels has encouraged movement of large quantities of coal by this means, a common transportation practice in the Lower 48. Towboats of improved power and design move such clusters of coal cargo along inland waterways at low cost. One system in western Kentucky utilizes the world's longest single conveyor belt - a 10 mile stretch. The covered belt is designed to carry about 140,000 tons of coal in a week from two new mines to a barge loading dock on the Ohio River. River tows take the coal to a new power plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority near Clarksville, Tennessee (Ref. 4-10). Trucks: In Alaska, trucks are the prime method of moving coal from the mine to the rail points and to a mine-mouth electric generating station. Also, the roads are better in the winter at Usibelli and, with less friction, the coal trucks actually operate more efficiently. Off-highway trucks, capable of hauling over 200 tons of coal, are currently used in some "lower 48" mines although the largest at the Usibelli mine is 50 tons. Transmission: In Alaska, the Healy power plant is located near the Usibelli mine and supplies electricity to Golden Valley Electric for distribution in the Fairbanks area over 100 miles away. Thus, the energy from coal is transported by an electrical transmission line. Use Electricity from Coal Using Current Technology: About 62% of all of the coal mined in the United States today, from both underground and surface mines, is burned in coal-fired boilers installed in "power plants." (Ref. 4-11) The old method for burning coal on grates has given way to the practice of burning pulverized (powdered) coal which is b1own into the boiler furnace of a modern steam generating plant at rates as high as 330 tons per hour for the largest units. (However, the rates in Alaska are much lower. For example, the aly plant has a maxi- mum rate of 20 tons per hour, using two 10 ton pulverizers, for this 25 megawatt facility.) 101 In some boiler furnaces, about 50% of the ash in the coal goes up the stack with the hot combustion gases; however, electrostatic precipitators collect most of the fly ash in the stack effluent. The other 50% falls to the floor of the chamber and is drawn off, sometimes as a molten slag. The tempera- ture of the inside of the modern steam boiler usually reaches 3000 degrees F. The walls and ceiling of the boiler furnace are lined with hundreds of tubes; the floor is reserved for ash collection. Through these "tubes," whose temperature is directly affected by the flames nearby, water is pumped and steam is thereby produced. The steam issues from the boiler at pressures commonly as high as 3500 pounds per square inch and at a temperature of 1000 degrees F. The steam is led into a steam turbine where, entering through nozzles, it impinges on row upon row of turbine blades, causing the turbine to spin at 3,600 revolutions per minute. The shaft of the turbine is con- nected to the rotor of the generator and, as the turbine spins, so does the rotor and electricity is generated. As a rough estimate, it takes about four to five million tons of coal per year to supply a 1000 MW plant. In Alaska, the entire electrical production from coal is less than 200 MW so that the in-state use of coal is less than one million tons per year at this time. The Usibelli Coal Mine supplies a mine-mouth plant near Usibelli and the fuel for several power plants in the Fairbanks area. Renewed interest in coal-fired boilers has been shown recently in the Anchorage area. Electricity from Coal Using Gas Turbine Technology: Interest has been expressed by a Fairbanks utility in a 32 MW coal-fired combustion turbine concept which has some of the characteristics of a natural gas fired combustion turbine. Coal is very finely ground (5 micron) in a mill and is exhausted to a coal combustor. Low pressure air exhausted from the turbine at elevated tempera- tures is used to burn the finally pulverized coal in the combustor. The hot products of combustion exiting the combustor traverse a heat exchanger, heat the compressed turbine operating air, and are discharged at a lower tempera- ture. Atmospheric air is drawn into the compressor and is compressed to discharge pressure. Compressed air traverses a heat exchanger wherein it is heated to turbine inlet temperature. Hot compressed air is expanded through expansion turbines to low pressure, driving the air compressor and the load. One should note that while the components (i.e., combustor, the heat exchanger and the gas turbine) have been tested with years of production experience, the entire system does not have any operating history as a unit. At least one company is in the process of marketing these coal-fired combustion tur- bine power systems from 2 MW to 32 MW in size. 102 Electricity from Coal using Advance Technology: Since commercialization of such advance technology as magnetohydrodynamic generators (Ref. 4-12) and fluidized bed combustors is not expected for the next few years, the Alaska role will probably be one of following the advance of the technology or perhaps participation in a demonstration unit at a later date. Liquids from Coal: Using coal to produce a synthetic liquid fuel is not new. The Berguis process was used in 11 of Germany's World War II synthetic fuel plants, which were jointly responsible for producing 90% of the aviation fuel demand during the peak of the Luftwaffe activity. After the war, synthetic fuel plants in Geramny were shut down. The type of liquid fuel that can be produced from coal depends on the coal and the process. The Berguis process and the Fisher-Tropsch process are the chief "old" techniques. The new processes are in various stages, from laboratory-scale experiments to pilot-plant construction. From the viewpoint of the chemist, one merely needs to take coal* (CH0.9), with some impurities of sulfur, nitrogen ash and moisture, and add hydrogen to get liquid hydrocarbons. For example, jet fuel is CH2 and gasoline is CH2.1. (See Table 4-8). The coal formula shows that each atom of carbon in coal has almost one atom of hydrogen. To obtain jet fuel and/or gasoline, hydrogen must be a little more than doubled and changed in molecular configuration by some method. All liquification and gasification processes are variations (by temperature, pressure catalysts) in the way of adding extra hydrogen to carbon atoms. The actual complexity of the known techniques for producing a liquid hydro- carbon from coal can be gained by a brief description of the Berguis process. Berguis Process: The coal is first dried in an inert-gas atmosphere, to prevent any pre0 process burning, and then ground to a power. The dried, powdered coal is mixed with a "pasting oil" (a recycled product of the process itself) and a catalyst. The resulting liquid, containing some 40% coal, is mixed with a hydrogen-rich gas, and pumped into a three-stage preheater where the temperature is raised to 800 degrees F. From the preheater the hot liquid moves to a series of reactor chambers, vertical pipes three feet in diameter and 60 feet high. It is in these reactors, at a temperature near 900 degrees F. and at a pressure of 10,000 pounds per square inch (psi), that the combination of carbon and hydrogen, called "hydrogenationi," is accomplished. *Actually coal is not a uniform substance. It consists of ulmified and carbonized remains of ancient vegetation and no two coals are the same in every respect. 103 q TaLle 4.8 EQUIVALENT CHEM ICALFORMULAS FOR VARIOUS FEEDSTOckS AND LIQUID HYDROCARBON PRODUCfS Fe ed Stocks Aituminous Coal CH 0 + Ash + Moisture 0 9 6.00.02NO.01 Sub-bituminous Coal CH 0' S N +A h + Moisture 9 2 0-.001, 0.9.62..@@ Coal Derived Syncrude (11-Coal) CH 0 S N 1.@ 0.02 0.001 OAO@l Paraffin Crude Oil. CH 2.0 Naphtbe'ne Crude Oil CH 1.6NO.01SO.003 Products Gasoline CH 2.1 Jet F-uel CH 2.. Light Fuel Oil CH 1.8 Heavy Fu el Oil @CH S- 0.002 Source: Energy Fact Book,@ TT-A-642-76-7211, Tetra Tech, Inc..; February 1976. The products from the reactors are roughly separated by reducing pressure in steps, which allows the products with the lowest boiling points to be removed first, then the "heavier" ones in succession. In this way a gas, a liquid called "middle oil," and a sludge-like residue are recovered. Coal Liquefaction Objectives: The objectives of the federal government's Liquefaction Program are: 1. To develop and demonstrate, in cooperation with industry by 1982-1985, second generation technology necessary for construction of commercial scale plants for coal liquefaction processes. 2. To convert domestic coal to environmentally acceptable, economically competitive substitutes for petroleum-derived liquid boiler fuels, trans- portation fuels, distillate fuels and chemicals. 3. To perform laboratory studies and process development of third generation liquefaction processes. With the huge low sulfur coal resources that exist in Alaska, success of objective number two could mean that Alaska may become a significant source of liquid fuel for centuries both for in-State use and for export. Solvent Refined Coal: In the Solvet Refined Coal (SRC) process, crushed coal is slurried with a hydrogen donor solvent and exposed to 1,000 psi and 800 degrees F. in a hydro- gen atmosphere. Under these conditions the coal dissolves into the solvent and picks up hydrogen. The solution is filtered, removing most of the ash and some undissolved coal. The remainder is a liquid containing solvent, dissolved coal, and a light oil--a product of the reaction of coal with hydrogen. In a vacuum-flash operation the pressure of the mixture is reduced quickly, the solvent boils off, and the material is left solidified at about 350 degrees F. The solid has a considerably lower ash and sulfur content than the original coal. A variety of other products result as well, including fuel oils and high-BTU gas. To manufacture a predominantly liquid product, an additional hydrogenation step is necessary. The results of some recent experiments on a high sulfur coal and a western low sulfur coal at the SRC pilot plant in Wilsonville, Alabama, are given in Table 4-9 (Ref. 4-13). Since Beluga area coal has a sulfur content of only 0.2 percent by weight, but contain relatively high ash, the advantage of solvent refined products would be in a very low ash clean boiler fuel for power generation near population centers. A preliminary analysis of the potential for developing Alaskan coals for clean export fuels indicates that "these synthetic fuels may compete favorably with other clean fuels at current prices" (Ref. 4-14). However, a later report indicates "the cost of solvent refined products will probably be significantly more expensive than alternate fuels" (Ref. 4-15). 105 j Table 4-9 TYPICAL. ANA LYSIS OF SOLVENTREFINED COAL Illinois Feed Wyoming. Coal UeFore r _Tf t -er Af to betore State 11 iinois Illinois Wyomi ng Wyom i n 9 S.eam '10 - C No. 6 M i ne ..Rcland@Smith Roland-Smith Monterey f, lo n tere'y "elle Ayr Bel.1 eAy Company tlont@rey U r 110 1-nterey. Amax C Amax Coal' oal P rox ima te Anal ba S:@s 1.1 t 1/1. Vol a ti 16 f4a t tn r 44,.04 7 7; T i xed Carbon 5@'16 % Ash '18.07 -48.2 27@3: 10.15 0.1 7.77 0.1, Moisture G.22 flea ti n,g Value@ Ztu/lb- 6 36 12,215 11.107- @15,900 Ul tima te Analysis, wtv Carbon '64.80 3 .1. @67.95 Hydrogen 30.4 Ni',rogen 5.39 - 6.0. 4. 94' L20 1'.9 Chlorine LOG 1.7 0.07 Sulfur 6.01 d 4.25 0.8 :'Ash O.G2 10.15 M Oxygen 7..7-17 0.1 14.14 4.1 17.65 4. 1'. S ulfur Forms, Pyritic' d. 1.14 0.01 Sul.fate 0.19 0.01 1 :0.03 0.00 Organic 2.92 0.75@ 0.53 0.11 'Melti:ng Point:.- Degrees: F. 3.00 .335@ 'S urce: Everett LHuffman. Operation,, 3t 0 the Wilsonville sFic p;iot Plant, @,,:-eeding.of Third Annual Internaiional Conference Gasificatior, and Liquefaction, Urlive(sitY Of Pittsburga. 'Pittsb rgh. August 3-5, 19M on Coal F Here again, research underway in the Lower 48 is significant to Alaska because solvent-refined coal products could someday be important to the economy of Alaska. Gasification of Coal In-Situ: Gasification of coal in-situ (in original place) is not a new idea. It was suggested in technical literature in England in 1868, and in Russia by D. I. Mendeleyev in 1888; experiments in both countries were initiated before World War I. In the 1930's the Soviet Union resumed work and, after World War I, other European countries initiated experiments. Following World War II, major field tests were run in England, the Soviet Union and in the United States at Gorgas, Alabama, between 1946 and 1958. Soviet Union development, however, was extensive, and in the 1950's it encompassed industrial uses. Three coal gasification plants are now operating in Russia for electric power generation; one of these is in a steeply-dipping bed. Gasification of coal in-situ generally involves converting underground coal to gaseous fuels by first selecting a suitable coal bed and then preparing it by providing needed holes and casing, increased permeability, and linkage between holes. The next steps are installing surface facilities (including instrumentation), recovering the valuable (and volatile) material, initiating underground combustion, introducing process air or oxygen, and finally, withdrawing and processing the product gases. Four different field experiments are already underway in the U.S.; three by ERDA and one by industry. One project, being conducted by ERDA's Laramie Energy Research Center (LERC) in the Hanna Basin of Wyoming, is primarily aimed at moderately thick, slightly dipping, subbituminous coal beds. A second ERDA project is being conducted by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL), in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and is designed to exploit very thick beds found quite deep.* The ERDA project being conducted by Morgantown Energy Research Center (MERC) in West Virginia is designed to exploit thick coal beds found throughout much of the eastern United States. The Texas Utilities Company has a project to gasify some lignite beds in east Texas. None of these four active developments involves steeply-dipping coal beds. In-Situ Gasification of Coal (Steeply-Dipping Bed): The technical information on the Steeply Dipping Bed (SDB) Concept (which follows) is of interest in Alaska because such beds are found in the state. Slant holes are drilled through the coal bed at a slight angle to the dip. A channel is formed in the coal connecting the lower ends of the slant holes by the most economical method applicable to the particular coal bed (i.e., directional drilling, hydrofracture, electrolinking, countercurrent burning, etc.). Depending on subsidence considerations, local geological *With the numerous and thick beds below the water in Cook Inlet, the results of the Powder River basin research will be of special interest to Alaska (Ref. 4-16). 107 factors and drilling costs, injection holes can be drilled either vertically or slanted underneath the coal bed for a portion of the way. Gasification is initiated at the bottom of each input hole and proceeds along the horizontal channel and up the exhaust holes. Product gases are withdrawn through the slant holes in the coal bed midway between the injection holes. If the produc- tion wells are uncased near the lower end, some reducing reactions may occur on the surface of these uncased exhaust holes in the coal bed. As the coal above and along the horizontal hole burns away, the fire zone advances updip. Ash and any portion of the roof which may fall collects in the space below and behind the fire zone. Thus, the burning coal face is kept free of ash accumulation and the air flow is maintained in contact with the burning coal. Some degree of induced fracturing of the coal may be required. Local condi- tions such as dip angle of the bed, depth involved, type of overburden, and coal properties (e.g., permeability), plus drilling and casing costs, would dictate the specific drilling pattern. The Soviets have demonstrated in-situ coal gasification on a large scale. Their systems, both flat-lying and steeply dipping beds, were successful technically, however little is known about the economic feasibility (Ref. 4-17). Gas from Coal (Low and High Btu): In the early coal-gas plants, coal was first heated in a closed tank, using an external source of heat. When the desired temperature was reached, steam was piped into the tank and a reaction took place. The resulting "gas" was a mixture of carbon monoxide with some hydrogen, some nitrogen, a little carbon dioxide, a little methane, and a small amount of other volatile ingredients from the coal. The heating value of this gas ran as low as 100 Btu per cubic foot, or in the best cases by modifying conditions, as high as 550 Btu per cubic foot. (Natural gas runs about 1,000 Btu per cubic foot). The first of a new generation of gas-from-coal plants that will be built in the next few years will utilize the techniques and proven processes already on hand, such as the Lurgi system. Lurgi gasifiers have been in use for several years around the world. Gas from the Lurgi gasifier will have to undergo an additional processing called "methanation" to bring the Btu value up to the 950 to 1,000 range. In the meantime, a number of new "advanced" processes are being developed. These new concepts, some of which are already in the pilot-plant stage, attempt to produce a high-quality synthetic gas from coal. In general, this group of processes attempt, each in a slightly different manner, to utilize higher temperatures and higher pressures, not to mention new pressure containers and high-temperatures-resistant alloys, to attain high efficiencies and reliable performance. Synthane: An example of a Btu gasification effort is the synthane process (Ref. 4-18). In this procedure, coal sized to pass through a 200-mesh screen is mixed with steam and oxygen in a pretreatment pressure vessel at 1,000 psi at 108 800 degrees F. In this pretreatment state the coal is partially oxidized and volatile matter is driven off. The coal and gases from the pretreater are introduced at the top of the gasifier, and additional steam and oxygen are introduced at the bottom. Partial combustion of the coal increases the temperature of this process to 1,800 degrees F. After the coal passes through the fluidized bed portion of the gasification vessel it exits as char at the bottom. The char is then burned to produce steam for the pretreater and gasifier. The raw gas is cleaned of tars, char, and water and then undergoes a shift conversion. Following those operations, the gas is bubbled through hot carbon- ate to remove carbon dioxide and sulfur and is then menthanated. The Synthane process achieves a high Btu raw gas output with a relatively simple high pressure gasification system. However, all the coal entering the gasifier is not burned, and the remaining high sulfur char must be burned for process heat. The role Alaska will play in the near term will probably be one of keeping informed on the federal government-supported programs--both the high Btu gasification research and the low Btu gasification projects. Reclamation In addition to the visual pollution and water erosion problems associated with surface mining, another major concern is the particulates generated by wind erosion. Dust generated during production generally comes from dry roads and is suppressed with water. The mine site problems may be solved by revegetation, leaving reclaimed surface land as attractive and productive as it was before mining. At a coal conference in Fairbanks, Joe Usibelli, owner of Usibelli Coal Mine, was asked to discuss his reclamation experiences on his mine in interior Alaska. He stated: "We have gone back into areas where we have mined since 1918 and we have something growing on all of that now. We use an aircraft to broadcast a seed mixture, which varies from year to year, but is very complex, and a lot of fertilizer. And if your timing is right and you use the right fertilizer and the right seed, you can get four feet of top growth in a year. We're getting grass primarily - grasses and legumes. We have alfalfa growing down there now that has an estimated 20-foot tap root. So we think it is highly successful as others, but we have not had any areas that were total failures. And it is just that simple. You just throw out some seed and fertilizer. That's just the way that Ma Nature does it if you think about it." (Ref. 4-16) The success of the Usibelli reclamation project is shown in Figure 4-14 where Dall Sheep are shown grazing on reclaimed land. 109 @A 4, I J 4W Z 13 gz JE. 1 VIO W % V wik ,M@ NN'e W E5 xm nn W MW V Ix 1,11 N E -N W, I lit 6 4j@l - M'V@, x PRZ t % uu%,..V.3"P-9 7M, 54, -A4AO d, iF RM 09,- W - Q0 A .-Irv 5" ,x @A @i Lf, , , I T 01:B1 VI 17@5 z w vv,- r, WE 4M, VjI . .........v - ----- ON, fL, Ago,e 0 At 11@'U U,x W. MI ": MW o ag zp$ N M., g "ANi "N g, XV, w a, Off* eW 'A' 4F" A _@@M .-4 ;@ , I A @%,jqwj@- !@ Lnu N pw @.Z 01 K 51- Ov, @i At ;TV %4RNT L fl,1'14__@K FA--@ i, -mv @g Ai q @%,QQ- WPM K., % s IMV; 1 14.1 N Cv INI 5 Owl. Jq Figure 4-14 Dahl Sheep Grazing on Reclaimed L Irid at Usibelli v WIN Coal Mine, Alaska. I n: Nu M C. R Charles P. Boddy, Usibelli Coal Mine, CURRENT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT Plans are currently underway for expansion or development of three of Alaska's coal fields: the Beluga district of Susitna field; the Nenana field, and Jarvis Creek field. In all three cases, however, current plans are still preliminary and subject to change. In the Nenana field the Usibelli operation expects to increase production over the next several years, primarily to provide additional fuel for the Golden Valley Electric Association. They have already committed to buy a large dragline which will greatly facilitate their ability to clear over- burden. The 2000-ton excavator will remove 33 cubic yards of material per scoop aided by a boom that is 325 feet in length. According to Usibelli superintendent Ed Poor, the boom is a limiting factor: "If we could use a shorter one our bucket could be much larger than the 33 yards we now have." The dragline will be powered by electricity and will require seven to eight megawatts to operate. Poor expects the unit to be in use by August 1978. The general feeling among those consulted is that the Usibelli operation could be operating at twice its annual production of 700,000 tons per year within the next five to ten years. The Golden Valley Electric Association states that they would like to have a 150 megawatt power plant on line by 1985 using coal as the power source. The only potential deterrent to this development is the Environmental Protectioin Agency regulation on the non- deterioration of air quality within 60 miles of a national park (in this case, Mr. McKinley). Production plans at the Jarvis Creek field are still very tentative at this time. There is interest on the part of a local group to install a 50 megawatt, mine-mouth power plant in the Jarvis Creek field to supply power to two or three pumping stations along the pipeline and to back-feed power to the Golden Valley Electric Association. Another important development currently under consideration is for the Beluga district near Cook Inlet. The major moving force of this development is Placer Amex Inc., which is interested in developing the field for power generation for the Anchorage area or shipment to the U.S. West Coast. Contracts have been made with all West Coast utilities from the San Diego Electric Utility in the south to several Washington State private and public utility districts. It is believed that a minimum shipment of 5 million tons per year is required to make the Beluga operations economic and competitive. Given the numbers currently under discussion, one or two large customers would probably be sufficient to move plans forward rapidly. Some Japanese pur- chasers have expressed interest in Beluga coal for steam electric plants. In addition to the probability of export of Beluga coal to the Lower 48, there is also some discussion of the possibility of an aluminum smelter and a sponge iron processing operation in the Beluga area. Both would be powered by electricity generated at a Beluga mine mouth power plant. 111 COST ISSUES A comparison of the cost of coal (since 1950) with the cost of oil, gas and uranium to the U.S. electric utilities, is given in Figure 4-10 under the Oil and Gas section of this chapter. If one does his own truck transportation from the Usibelli Coal Mine near Fairbanks, the cost of coal is only $10 per ton (1976); however, a major issue with respect to Alaskan coal is the cost and availability of transportation. Even when interior railway transportation is available the cost is very high; 4.6 per ton mile (1976). (See comparison of transportation in Table 4-10.) Since the energy in 2.83 barrels of crude oil is the same as the energy in a ton of Usibelli subbituminous coal, a transportation cost is calculated of about 1.6 per barrel (energy equivalent) per mile which can be compared with the transportation cost of pipeline oil in Alaska, i.e. about 1 per barrel per mile for the small Nikiski pipeline and about 0.6 per mile for the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Longer distances and high volumes of coal movement would bring lower prices per ton-mile. The transportation economics of coal resources of the Northern Slope coal fields have been studied by Clark (Ref. 4-19). The report concludes: "If the coal must support the entire transportation system cost, the transportation of coal from the North Slope of Alaska to Japan appears to be economically feasible only from easily mined areas which are close to an ocean shipping port. In the case of the transportation cost sharing by other users, or by government subsidization, the prospects of the northern coal exploitation would be enhanced." One recent report by Hennagin (Ref. 4-20) evaluates the mining and trans- portation costs of the Beluga coal deposits. The assumption taken for these cost calculations are: (1) the surface mine site is 15 miles from tidewater; (2) the coal is mined, washed, slurried and transported by pipeline to tide- water where it is loaded on ships as a settled marine slurry; and (3) the coal is shipped to northern Washington, reslurried and pumped off the ship to dewatering facilities. The conclusion was "...Beluga coals may become an economical energy source in the not too distant future." One cost issue of great importance to Alaska is the cost of a sulfur scrubber. One report estimated that the generation cost of electricity will be increased by about 18% as a result of the addition of a scrubber (Ref. 4-21). With the low concentration of sulfur in Alaska coals, air standards can be met without this expense.* An excellent overview on the complex subject of flue- gas desulfurization is given by Hollinden and Wells (Ref. 4-22). The economics of solvent refined coal has been evaluated by Chastain (Ref. 4-23). The 30-year levelized energy cost in mills/kwh were determined for 18 case studies. The conclusion was: *Recent Clean Air Act (1977) Amendments apparently will place serious limi- tations in the economic use of Alaska's low sulfur coal. 112 MAM. j Table 4-10 COSTS OF.COAL TRANSPORTATION OUTSIDE COMPARED WITH-ALASKA (1972 Estima tes) Type Distance Assumed, cost -Mile Per Ton (mi-I es)@ (cent. per ton-mi I e) Unit Traiw 0.7. Conventi onal Tra fn 300 1.3 Usibelli to Fairbanks 115 (Alaska) , 2.9 River Barge 0.3 Slurry Pipeline 273, 0.:6 Trucki ng c -Conveyors 5 7.6 information-added to "Energ Alternatives" for comoarison. Notte that the cost per ton/mile. by train iwAl-aska (@..9 c en t s is ove r:@. tw i ce. that-in the Lower 4 U' ( 1 3 ce-.nts) . R (1976) Jnform',ationjor Al*: k& ecent updated as @(4.6 cents), indicates that t' h i:s very hiqh,,. unf vorab I e ratio a still exi-ts., S-rce: Energy Alternatives:, A Comoarative Analysis. Science and Public. Policy P' f 6kiaho May. 1975. rograrn. University o rn L "In view of the apparent technical and economic attractiveness of using solvent refined coal as a utility boiler fuel, it appears that every effort should be made to move this technology toward commercialization so that it will be available to play a part in supplying future energy needs." The various fees, rentals, bonuses, and royalties charges for coal explor- ation and production on State lands are given in Table 4-11. EXTERNAL MARKET ISSUES There are two major potential export markets for Alaskan coal: The U.S. West Coast and Japan. The U.S. market is more favorable at the present time, given the government policy of forcing conversion of all oil-or-gas-powered electrical generating systems to coal. The Japanese currently are purchasing large quantities of coking coal from Australia to supplement their own domestic supplies; however, Japan could turn to Alaska as a supply source for steam coal in the future. All discussions of a project to supply coal to Japan have been tentative so far. A product of particular interest to the Japanese would be high grade steaming or coking coal. The closest available source of such coals in Alaska are the Herendeen Bay/Chignik areas on the Alaska peninsula and, possibly the Matanuska field near Cook Inlet. The former field is small, undeveloped and may be tied up in federal selections u in fed for "national interest lands". The coals would have to be developed by under- ground methods and would have to be washed to reduce ash. Thus, neither of these developments appears to be very likely in the near future. Analysis of the West Coast market for Beluga coal is only just beginning, with studies being performed by Stanford Research Institute, Battelle Institute and some private companies. Work is still preliminary and further work will be done by this project team in the second phase of the project. Since rail transportation is higher in cost than water transport for equal distance, it is believedv at present that the transportation cost comparisons between Beluga and Rocky Mountain coals are close. Until complete research is performed, however, it is difficult to determine whether there is a net cost advantage of Alaska coal to West Coast users, considering all cost. Also, ocean shipping costs are less escalable over time than rail shipping costs. Long term shipping contracts can be written for ocean transportation, but not so for rail transportation. Ocean transportation is one factor that is advantageous for Beluga coal in San Diego Gas and Electric's consideration of a major coal fired facility in Baja California across the Mexican border. The Mexican government appears to consider potential pollution problems bearable given the opportunities for employment such a facility would create in Mexico, as well as providing extra electric power for a water desalination plant which is needed in Baja. Additional potential users of Beluga coal appear to be utilities in Washington and Oregon, with possible plant sites at or near existing port facilities on the Columbia River. Again, water-borne transport would have a noticeable advantage over existing rail links. 114 b Table 4-11 COAL PROSPECTIN9 PERMIT LEASE-FEES March 1977 Commen .'Permit,.Lease Fees, Rentals, Bonuses and Area (acres) Term y ar') e s ts 1 or Royalties-, or C aim Pros'pecti ng @$2.0 filing fee',plus,$20 fo r @5120 2-year p us permitte@,.can permit, extension of term 2 Year exten,_ prove fiorkable de-' s I on nosi ts of @toal ''.prospecting perrii t .can. e@con b verted to. coal lease. Lease $20 filing.fee pl us@ 25@/acre So much of the Indeterminate Rentals and royal@- for firstyear.5U/acre for land as can be ties are reviewed -5 years; $1.00/acre for proven to con- 2 at least ev@ ry 2o 6 and all succeeding years tain workable years or more fre- or royalty if producing,, depos i t1s of quently'as Commis-. (va -ious amounts) rang,ing coal sioner of State De- from@5@, to 30@ per ton partment of Natural Resources mayde- cide.:,I%yalties- to be no:'.1 ess than. 5@, per ton. State can't cancel coal lease without taking it to, court. 7 J. Sourc6:' "Regulations and Statutes Pertaining to Coal and Other, Leasable Minerals on Alaska Lands as Contnined in tho Alaska Admnistrative. Coal and the Alaska Statutes". State ofWaska, Department,olf Natural Resources, Division of Lands, September 19?5. Reprinted Sept. 1976. In conclusion, it appears that external market issues associated with coal development in Alaska are extremely important. Although Alaska can use its own coal successfully for electric power generation, the Alaskan market is small but still significant. Considerable attention should be given to to in state and export markets in future phases of this project. FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDS With the substantial coal export possibilities that exist in Alaska, much information is needed in order to assure growth that is both economically and environmentally sound. A number of these requirements are listed below: 1. Market studies of the Columbia River basin to the new seaport at Lewiston, Idaho, as well as Pacific Rim countries should be intensi- fied, not only for raw coal, but for processed coal (high Btu) and solvent refined coal products. 2. More information is needed on Alaska's relevant environmental issues and their impact on coal development. 3. The various land tenure issues that might affect Alaska coal development need to be catalogued. 4. Information on reclamation in Alaska is currently limited to the Usibelli area and, more recently, the seeding program long the pipeline. More information is needed for other areas of the State that have different climate and soil conditions. 5. Sulfur scrubber technology and costs are needed for Alaska's very low sulfur coals. National regulations may require scrubbers even if air standards for sulfur emissions can be met. The advantages of using Alaskan low sulfur coal in fluidized bed burners and magneto-hydrodynamic plants should be determined. 6. Since a strong interest in a coal-fired combustion turbine has been noted in Alaska, more information is needed on the operating history of grinding coal to a 5 micron size and burning it in a combustor. Information is especially needed on the operating history of the heat exchanger, as well as on the operation of all components as a single system. 7. A review needs to be made of all coal recovery, storage, transportation, processing and generation technologies; those that are applicable to the Alaskan environment should be identified. 8. Information is required on the relative costs of different technological solutions to the problems of recovering, transporting, and generating electrical power using Alaskan coal, with special attention to the significant advantage associated with the low sulfur content. 9. Coal research underway in the Lower 48 is frequently not directly appli- cable to the Alaskan low sulfur, high moisture coal. For example, 116 solvent refined coal yields products (liquids and solids) very low in sulfur and ash and more economic to transport,which are very important to Alaska. Eastern coals and Wyoming coals have been solvent refined. and analyzed in a plant in Alabama (Southern Service Company, Inc.), but not Alaskan coals. Samples of Alaskan coals should be sent to Alabama (or to the SRC pilot plant Ft. Lewis near Tacoma Washington) for refining and analysis, with special attention to obtaining technology suited for Alaskan coals. An operating temperature, pressure or ata- lyst modification, or perhaps an equipment design change emphasising ash removal might be applicable to Alaskan coals. Alaska is so close to a major coal export situation that a technological breakthrough could pay dividends to the State long after Prudhoe Bay oil is gone. 10) For the long term, the feasibility of an Arctic petrochemical industry based on coal for electricity, spaceheating, process heating and as the raw material for various synthetic chemicals should be examined. 11) The low-volatile, high energy content, bituminous coals on the Lisburne Penninsula should be studied for possible local use. 12) More geologic field work needs to be done to identify coal fields their aerial extent, quality of the coals and a better estimate of the actual reserves. Our biggest lack is a good information base. 117 d COAL KEY CONTACTS Carl H. Marra Jim Callahan Land Manager U.S. Department of the Interior Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Division of Geological Surveys 1211 West 27th Avenue Box 2373 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Casper, Wyoming 82602 (907) 274-8638 William S. Ginn Robert Sanders, Geologist President U.S. Department of Energy Combustion Turbine Power, Inc. Federal Building, C-11 405 GSB Building 605 W. Fourth Avenue 1 Belmont Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Bala-Cynwyd, PA 19004 (215) 667-3590 M. C. Titus Ross Schaff, Don McGee & William Lyle Consultant Geologists 805 West Glenn Drive Department of Natural Resources Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Div. of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (602) 944-3935 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 J. D. Barnes A. J. (Jim) Movius Vice President Senior Engineer Marketing R & M Consultants Combustion Turbine Power, Inc. P.O. Box 2630 405 GSB Building 3550 Geraghty Avenue 1 Belmont Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Bala-Cynwyd, PA 19004 (907) 452-1655 (214) 667-3590 Hugh J. Matheson Cleland Conwell Vice President Exploration Mining Engineer Placer Amex Inc. Department of Natural Resources One California Building Division of Geological & Geophysical Suite 2500 Surveys San Francisco, CA 94111 Box 80007 (415) 986-0740 College, Alaska 99701 C. E. McFarland Marco A. Pignalberi Vice President Executive Assistant to the President Placer Amex Inc. Alaska International Industries One California Building P. O. Box 60029 Suite 2500 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 San Francisco, CA 94111 (907) 452-7171 (415) 986-0740 118 Gary F. Player Benno J.G. Patsch Geologist Placer Amex Inc. Arctic Environmental Information One California Building and Data Center Suite 2500 707 A Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (415) 986-0740 (907) 279-4523 P. D. Rao Associate Professor of Coal Technology Mineral Industry Research Laboratory University of Alaska Fairbanks, Calaska 99701 (907) 479-7135 Irvin L. Tailleur & William Brosge Geologist U.S. Geological Survey Alaskan Geology Branch 345 Middlefield Road Mail Stop 17 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 323-8111 Joseph E. Usibelli President Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Usibelli, Alaska 99787 (907) 683-2226 Robert Warfield Mining Engineer United States Bureau of Mines Alaska Field Operations Center P.O. Box 550 Juneau, Alaska 99802 (907) 364-2111 Ernest N. Wolff Director Mineral Industry Research Laboratory University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 479-7135 Robert Bottge Mining Engineer U.S. Bureau of Mines Alaska Field Operation Center P.O. Box 550 Juneau, Alaska 99082 (907) 364-2111 119 COAL References 4-8 Kaiser Engineers. Phase I: Technical and Economic Feasibility of Surface Mining Coal Deposits on the North Slopes of Alaska. Report No. 76-91-RE Kaiser Engineers prepared for U.S. Bureau of Mines, Colorado. 1976. 4-9 Player, Gary F. The Little Tonzona Coal Bed Near Farewell, Alaska-- An Important Extension of the Coal Fields North of the Alaska Range. Alaska: Gary Player Ventures, January 1977. 4-10 National Coal Association. Coal Facts. Washington, D.C.: National Coal Association, 1974-1975. 4-11 "Electricity From Coal". Energy Perspectives Number 4, Battelle Energy Program, November 1971. 4-12 Tetra Tech, Inc. Navy Energy and Natural Resources Research and Develop- ment Office. Energy Fact Book--1976. Virginia: Tetra Tech, Inc., 1976. 4-13 Everett L. Huffman. Operations at the Wilsonville SRC Pilot Plant. Proceedings of Third Annual International Conference on Coal Gasification and Liquefaction. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 3-5, 1976. 4-14 "The Potential for Developing Alaskan Coals for Clean Export Fuel". Work Performed by Stanford Research Institute for Office of Coal Research Phase 1. December 1974. 4-15 Stanford Research Institute. Clean Energy from Alaskan Coals. FE-1516-2 Final Report. January 1976. 4-16 Rao, P. Dharma and Wolff, Ernest N. Focus of Alaska's Coal 1975. Pro- ceedings of the Conference held at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. October 15-17, 1975. 4-17 D. R. Stephens and S. K. Madsen. LLL in-situ Coal Gasification Program. Annual Report Fiscal Year 1976, Lawrence Livremore Laboratory, February 2, 1977. 4-18 Tetra Tech, Inc. Energy from Coal. Virginia: Tetra Tech prepared for Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA 76-67), 1976. 4-19 Alaska, University of Alaska, Mineral Industry Research Laboratory. Transportation Economics of Coal Resources of Northern Slope Coal Field, Alaska, by Paul R. Clark. M.I.R.L. Report No. 31, 1973. 4-20 Hennagin, Brian David. Cook Inlet Coal: Economics of Mining and Marine Slurry Transport. Washington: University of Washington, 1977. 120 COAL References (Continued) 4-21 Fast, E., and Rutledge Gene P. Analysis of the Economics of Coal Versus Nuclear for a Power Plant Near Boise, Idaho. Idaho: Office of Nuclear Energy Development, 1976. 4-22 Hollinden, G. A., and Wells, W. L. Flue Gas Desulfurization. Tennessee: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1976. 4-23 Chastin, Richard H. The Economics of Solvent Refined Coal. Alabama: Southern Company Services, Inc., 1976. 121 CHAPTER 5 NON-FOSSIL FUEL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION In addition to the large reserves of fossil fuels described in the previous chapter, Alaska has a substantial potential for development of a wide variety of non-fossil fuels. Because so much of Alaska's mountain terrain is exposed to a marine or transitional climate, the hydroelectric potential of the State is enormous. Many areas around the State, including both sedimentary and hard rock zones, are considered to have substantial potential for uranium development, although exploration has only just begun. Alaska's position astride one of the most active tectomic zones in the world creates considerable potential for geothermal energy. Much of Alaska's coastline and some inland areas are exposed to winds in excess of 10 knots throughout the year creating a major opportunity for the development of wind-generated electric power for remote areas. Daily tides running over 30 feet along the Southcentral coast create still another possible energy resource. Not all of these energy resources, of course, are likely to be developed simultaneously over the next 20 to 25 years. We have tended to concentrate our attention primarily on those resources which are likely to be most sig- nificant in the next two decades. Nevertheless, Alaska has the opportunity to develop a diversity of non-fossil energy resources, many of them renew- able, in years to come. 123 (PU pi B L K G HYDRO RECOVERABLE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION BY SITE Alaska's untapped hydroelectric power resources far exceed those of any other state in the U.S. Along an arc extending from Southeast Alaska to the Alaska Peninsula in the Southwest, moisture-laden marine air strikes mountain ranges on or near the coast. The result is thousands of rivers and streams which flow at high speed to the sea. Interior mountain ranges in the Yukon water- shed provide additional hydroelectric potential. Relatively little of this potential has been utilized so far. Only about 12% (1975) of the State's electricity needs comes from hydropower. Existing hydroelectric sites of 2.5 megawatts or greater are listed below: Site (Megawatts of Community Serviced Hydropower Site Installed Capacity Anchorage Cooper Lake 15 Eklutna 30 Juneau Snettisham (Speel 47.2 River) Annex Creek 2.8 Salmon Creek 2.8 Sitka Blue Lake Dam 6.0 Ketchikan Beaver Falls 5.2 Ketchikan 4.2 Metlakatla Purple Lake 3.0 Inventories have been made of additional potential hydroelectric sites of all sizes as discussed and documented in Volume 2. For example, the Alaska Power Administration, in a 1968 study, determined that there were 76 lower-priced hydroelectric sites of 2.5 megawatts and larger which could generate a total of 170 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity. This list resulted from a review of 2,000 sites in the state where hydropower could be produced. To limit our analysis to a reasonable number of potentially recoverable sites, we began by concentrating our attention on the 39 undeveloped hydro sites that had been recently (August 1976) identified and analyzed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska. These sites and their probable size and cost* are shown in Table 5-1 (Ref. 5-1) *The Alaska Power Administration advises that: (1) in its view, the cost data presented in this table are misleading, particularly with respect to several of the smaller projects on the list which, based on previous evaluations, would be much more costly to develop then the Upper Susitna Project for which ISER has doubled or tripled costs determined in a thorough feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers; and (2) based on demands, additional projects such as Wood Canyon, Yukon-Taiya, Woodchopper, and Chackachama should be considered at "potentially recoverable sites" in context of the present study. 124 7able .5.1' ,Capacity'and Cost of Ke YHOr3elcairic Projects r 'Capacity (KW) Energy 'Total Cm p! tm 1 Cc 's 'For Region/AreaIPro'Ject n s ta I I e d Prime Prin@, )-4' Instailti kv,' Ancho revi-FaIrbanks', a x-Itna rroject St Watan4 792,000 353 , SBO 3,rgg,903 2,297,IM 6 ij93 2 @901 DevI 1' fz Canyon 776.000 34A, . 7.50 3 0 20' 6: 6 134 106 I r , I I .. - @, I - 5:90 TotAl 1,568.000 698,6iq 6,119.998 3,531,800 S,D@5 .-.252 Southcent ial-Anchorap@ Fal rbanlrs@ror @ova, % Valdez-d. , -I,oaUen Teb,,y Lak@-. 6 3% 150 2r;,j I 14 @,000 Power Crc6'. 12,000 3,725 32.631 3.1%17, st,@cp 'Fivcr Lak 967 Cs 4.000 2,540 22.210 : @ I@fi 530 Vo, Na-, cr,@r k 5.000 2.550 22.136 3:070 15 -,7 794 b Solo@n rulch 12,000 4.41.0 38,877 19.972' 4,4SI8 1.664 Total 97,000 43,405 380,210 Kenni, P(.1ron-.-ula N,?Me joan Lake 40,000 21,000 @5.555 139 Snow ;IIvr 60,000 31,901) '279,000 57 70!i- I.Bog 462 Bradley Lake 125,000 51 400 41,1.V0 'Total 719 225, 1006 104 )(,,o 913,00 Kodidk Terr--r i @a, x Q 26,000 7 63.250, 40.370 51591 2.'018 sout%cnat Me t 1 nkA c I a Futple@ Like Pchahilitation 1 400 400 17,520 fias@]@r.Lake 4Obo' .1,134 2.635- 2.0013 .16"JOG 6,830 1,4 15 1,701 Total 5,400 2.400 34,500 YO t@hj V.In upper11.1,or67 Lake 16-ooo. 4'. 7()O@ 4 117 1 S-nn L.1k,I I. 9 035 .12.2 903 15.000 7,,00 17 Grace LAkf 20.000 (joo ',9,351 - 3:0 Tota L@ .45.000 23,800 202,672 1.961 PetF-'rF-bur;,,-Wranr cll Anita AniIta and Y-ink 1,@kes 4,000 2,100 19,396 2.796-. 8.0,00 3.820 Ji's"O 9,12R Vi.-ginia La;:e "'0 3.0n 2r"760 11 1183 Swurir.,! Lake 4,030 2,4CO 7.1 6A 4,174 2 @357 ..Puth E--,kc- , ..16,000 7,9SO C--3:Cro 1 1,731 1.01) L,V, I xp,nlri@)n 2,socl 1100 3,04 2@,351 2,93q 11.140 ,0, 11 OCIO. 15.000 5.100 27.955 1,530 n,000 La k e 21,135 t92 total 0 .000 9. no. 79@7jr, @22,310 1,239 105.500 51.700 453,503 d 125 % 4 Table 5-1 (continued) Prime 2, C@Pacity (kw) 1 .. Installed Enerry Tota.C Capital Cost per (MWH) _ccoc$). Prir@e KW installed KW 2 Southeast (contl,ued) Juneau Sne t t I shan F?4) ans ton 1 27,300, il,75a 103.000 5fict El Sham Fxpnnslan IL '18 607 22,000 1,B71 sis 1 162,997 16,000 860 5 265.997 OtAl 27jO00 30 36 :3&.000 t.251 Sitkit Lake ITS-.a 3.060 11,790 15.6eo 3.665 .047 1 Creen L.-,ke 57-, 816 14 000 6.600 18,050 2 1,289 Lake DlAna 735 10.000@ 4,585 40,1165 9,70@ 1: 117 970 tit I k 16,000 8,000 18,750. 2,321 1.172 -your Falls Lake 6.000 3,000 26,260 A, 265 711 1,417, Carbon L;.kL q" f)00 6,830 59;@ 113,260 8,11 1.067 2 Tak-jtz Lake 20.030 10.000 2,330 67.600 26.600 To r al 21 660, 87,UCO, 40,605 31'7.453 ti.ined Unna "-d Lake 9.000 4,640 40,640 10@435 2.249 L Goat Lake 9 4,45c. 38,982 9. 2:13 Total Region 1,016 2617.900 157.040 .@Northwcst Una I.& lee t Asw1k River 14,000 .6,800 5915"D 19.725 1@409 Southwegr Di 11 Inphnft Lake rIvA 2,500 1 i240 10,623 6.690 2.676, Bethel 5. 3@95 Kloaralik River 36,00 -22 @2 069 0 18,200. 15-3 Tot a 1, 33,500 19,440 170:0'112 74.483 .4,09.3 'rot A I Region 1.910,000, 653.555 7,477,11i2 ST A nVIDE TOTM, 2,250 40o 1,037.635 9.093,197 ----------- "'Inst,allp'd capacity" is t he total. ci fcapacities as shown,on the nameplates of Similar 'kinds of apparatus such as generating units, turbines :or Other 1 r, a station.or's stefa. I t, equipment y Js also-des@rihed as t!-.,2 "d si I i tyl-I 1.filr_ C e Vn, limit of the facf @pacity". is based or the "loi,,,est water, avail able over'a number of years, i.e., the hydroelectric power avail-able from a Dlant on a co nu u basis, under 1 the.most adverse hydraulic cohditions- nti 0 A.1 I C o.s t s we re based, upon 1976 construction rates' Source: Electric Powe 'r in Alaska,1976-1995, Institute of Social and E.conomic Nesearch. IUriyersity of Alask Ia, Alask ,a. August, 1976- 126, Electricity consumption in the State in 1976 was approximately 3 1/2 billion kwh, with projected consumption estimated to reach 10 to 22 billion kwh/year by 1995 (Ref. 5-1) and 15 to 58** billion kwh/year by 2000 (Ref. 5-2). The resource obviously is in excess of Alaska's needs for the foreseeable future. In this context, the term "recoverable" resource taken on a new meaning, since what is technically and/or economically feasible is far beyond the range of in- State demand well into the twenty-first century. To assist us in rankin hydroelectric sites and in predicting where hydro- electric generation may occur before the year 2000, a number of recognized authorities were consulted. While 39 projects were used as a starting base, the communication to the experts carefully noted that they were not limited to these 39 projects and were requested to add any that they felt would be appropriate. Many potential site locations were added by the participants. Specific sites expected to have capacities of less than 2.5 megawatts were included. Experts who participated in this analysis were as follows: James V. Williamson, Assistant Manager George R. Robertson (and staff) Western Design Office Colonel, Corps of Engineers R. W. Beck and Associates District Engineer 200 Tower Building Department of the Army Seattle, Washington 98101 Alaska District (206) 622-5000 P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Carl Steeby, Consulting Engineer Robert Cross, Administrator Retherford Associates Alaska Power Administration 6927 Old Seward Highway Box 50 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dale Rusnell, Chief Power Development Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development Div. of Energy and Power Development 7th Floor, Mackay Building 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 **This 58 billion includes possible energy intensive industry plus National Defense System plus utilities but ISER report inclued only utilities. "The list is our assessment of those projects which may or may not be developed prior to the year 2000. Had you asked my opinion of those projects which would be on line prior to the turn of the century, the listing would change considerably. Obviously, the future of hydro- electric development in Alaska is dependent upon a number of ever changing variables. The answer is not simply that of economics. There are many projects which we believe to be economically feasible. However, political and environmental considerations, or financial constraints may preclude development of these projects. The present d-2 land proposals before Congress could have a profound effect on projects which may otherwise be quite feasible. In addition, it is essential to keep in mind that the present national commitment to solving our energy problems may indeed spawn energy alternatives not only to thermal gener- ation but to hydroelectric as well. This was certainly the case with the Bradley Lake hydro project which looked very promising before the natural gas discoveries in lower Cook Inlet." "The listing of 39 hydro projects obtained from the 1976 Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) study does not consider the load demand of a specific area. For instance, there are nine projects listed which could provide energy for the Petersburg-Wrangell area and yet the energy growth rate of the area is not sufficient to require even a quarter of the energy potential of these sites prior to the year 2000. Consequently, our conclusion would be that at least seven of those projects would not be developed within the duration of this century. In addition to your list, we have added some other projects which may have potential for development." "I must summarize that there is sufficient hydropower potential within Alaska to satisfy our energy needs for a considerable number of decades. At least 700 potential sites have been previously identified. Realiza- tion of this resource, however, is dependent on a number of elements over which we have little control." Of the 39 projects listed in Table 5-1, ten were eliminated because not one single expert thought that these projects would be developed for electrical generation before year 2000. For all ten projects listed below there was either insufficient demand and/or the need for long, expensive transmission lines to a small load center: Capacity (kilowatts) Hydro Power Site Community Served Installed Prime Tebay Lakes Cordova 64,000 30,150 Anita Lake Wrangell 4,000 2,100 Ruth Lake Petersburg 16,000 7,950 Scenery Lake Petersburg 18,000 9,100 Lake Irina Sitka 3,000 1,290 Lake Diana Sitka 10,000 4,585 Milk Lake Sitka 16,000 8,000 Four Falls Lake Sitka 6,000 3,000 Carbon Lake Sitka 18,000 6,830 Anvik River Unalakleet 14,000 6,800 128 Continuing with the process of elimination, an additional seven projects were determined to be highly unlikely for production of electricity before the year 2000 because better hydroelectric options are available in the area under consideration, insufficient demand was predicted, or other reasons. Of the seven projects listed, only one of five experts felt that electrical production might occur before the year 2000: Hydro Power Site Community Served Installed Prime Sheep River Lakes Cordova 4,000 2,540 No Name Creek Fairbanks 5,000 2,550 Nellie Juan Lake Seward 40,000 21,000 Snow River Seward 60,000 31,900 Anita and Kunk Lakes Petersburg/Wrangell 8,000 3,830 Cascade Creek II Petersburg/Wrangell 36,000 17,900 Snettisham Expansion II Juneau --- 18,607 The remaining 22 projects were grouped according to the number of experts who believed development would occur before the year 2000, then further ranked based on the comments of the experts. The results of these rankings, along with a sampling of their comments, are shown in Table 5-2. (A number of additional hydroelectric sites were identified by three of the experts participating in the screening process as potential development sites before year 2000. Those projects are listed in Table 5-3). The hydroelectric projects listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 are shown on the map in Figure 5-1. CURRENT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT The State of Alaska has been involved in the development of hydroelectric projects through its Water Resources Revolving Loan Fund (WRRLF) since fiscal year 1977. The first loan ($450,000) was approved in October 1976, for feasibility investigations and to prepare the documentation required for Federal Power Commission (FPC) licensing for the Green Lake Project near Sitka. Recently, the Legislature approved an additional $1.6 million loan for the initial engineering design and construction of the Green Lake project during fiscal year 1978. Additional loan applications are pending for: Petersburg ($900,000), for the expansion and repair of the Blind Slough Project. Juneau ($500,000), to upgrade and automate their electrical distribu- tion system. Ketchikan ($420,000), for feasibility investigations and FPC licensing documentation for Upper Mahoney Lake, Swan Lake and Grace Lake, with major interest in Swan Lake. Kodiak ($420,000), for Terror Lake. Petersburg and Wrangell ($420,000), for a beasibility study of the possibility of using some lakes (Sunrise, Virginia and Thomas Bay) between the two communities and constructing a power intertie. ble 5-2 HYDROtLECTRI SI TESSCREENING Earliest & Latest Esti- Proj ect Decade mate, c (Lo' ation) for -Develop Region Yes ment ExcerOts from Comments by Exper ts 1. 'Bradley Lake 5, :125 1980-20,00, "Could be exclusively.for Kenai or (Kenai) p -ct interconne ion with Anchorage." Southceritral 2@. Watana 5 792'., _19aO-2000 "Onl app r' t. si y a en ngle project,on n (Susi.t a) the@Susitnd P,.'--er which:is, econd Southcentral ..mically feasible by. itself Devil's Canyon 5 126 .19804000 "Economically,'I easible only yin (Susitna) conjunction with other upstream Southcentral development.@ 4.' Solomon Gulch 4@ 12 -e of.the. better:sites in Valdez 1980-1990 "On (Valdez) area" Southcentral "Awaiting.FPCLiscense" 5. Lake Grace 4 ..20 197071490 I'Ketchikan load growth may require (Ketchikan) this expensive project.", 'Southeastern 6. Green Lake:; .4 1980-2000- Insuffic, "Green'.' Lent demand. (Sitka) Lake should supply Sitka: power Southeastern needs to yea.r2000.1 7.1. Snettisham 4 1980-20.00@ "Future increase in f uel. may make 'Expansion I @electric h a e tviable and..requiie (Juneau)., "Not accelerated coustruction." Southeastern if Ca ital moved.'@ p 4 -14, 1970-1990 .8., Purple Lake nsignificant amount of energy Rehabilitation (Metlakatla) Southeaste rn Goat Lake 3 9 19,80, "Best alternative for Skagway." (Skag-ay) "Only alternative. to thermal, but. Southeastern demand may be insuffitient." 10. Terrcr take 3 20 1980-1990 ITThe only a pparent alternative "in (Kodiak): Kodiak to high cost thermal Southcentrai.. ration gene Hassler Lake 3 4 1080-2000 "Constru t'on sh'ould-follow closely.., c I Southeastern f ater completioh.of Chester Lake.,'.' 130, Table 5-2 (Coritinued) 'HYDROE LECTR IC SITES SCR EEN I NG Earliest & Latest Esti-. 'Project (L6 mate. Decade cati6n),, for Develop-, Region Yes (MW). ment. Excerpts f tom Commeiits by :Experts 124 Swan Lake 15 1980-1990 Load.growth may require this expen- (Ketchikan) project." .,Southeaste rn -7 '13. Upper Mahoney, 3. 2 1980-2000, "Perfectly valid' profpct,' but not -'Lake. as attracti' veas Swan"and, Grace. (Ketchikan) Southeastern TAkati Lake '3 20 1990-w2000 "Perh aps following Green Lake. Southeastern 15.,@ Cascade Creek 1 3 @15 "Actually believe Cascade Creek Petersburg-Wrangell) 'will be developed, in single stage Southeastern 16.' Virginia Lake 3 6 @1980-12000 "Seriously question merit.", "If (Petersburlg-Wiangell) damand dictates." Southeastern 3 4 "Presently being considered." 17- Sunrise Lake 1980 (Petersbd.tg-Wrangell) Southeastern economics" :"Ekp nsive, 18., Lake Elva 2 1980 "Question e (Dillingham). but the only alternative to these 1., :J Southwestern 19.@ Kisaralik River. .2 36 1980 "May be good project1to replace (Bethel) thermal in Bethel re a ea,. Southwestern. "Quest ion ecollimic S. ?0. Unnamed Lake 2 9 1980 "The only alter' tiv@ 'to. ermal in na e th' Ofaines) the.area, but demand may_be..@ Southeastern, insufficient." Crystal Lake 2 2.5 198G-1990 "Presently being considered. Exp ansion "Petersbu rg has rejected the pro- :(Petersburg-Wrangell) 'posed expansion of Crystal Lake. Southeastern@ !2. Power Creek 2 12 1980-iggo "Dif f icult slope ztability (Cordov'a) problems. Southcentral Table 5@3 'ADDITIONAL HYDROELECTRIC SITES IDENTIFIED BY EXPERTS Project Timing Comments* 23._ Chester Lake 1970's,: Definite project r4pprt nearly (Annette Isl;-.nd completed, 24. Black Bear. L ',.ke* 19861s, Preliminary appr aisal scheduled' (Prince' of.Wales Is.).-. .1977. To s erve Klawock Hydaburg. 25. Reynolds Creek -lgqols P reliminafy appraisal scheduled. (Prince of Wales)" 1977. 2b, Tazi ina Ri 1980!'S Prelimi na y a Ippraisal sche ul d, p ver 51 e .(Southwest) 27. Chackachama 3166 19.9101,s- Would follow, Susitnd development. (Southcentral) ._28.- Crescent Lake 41 1990 Is Could tie in with Chackachama (we ,st of.Cook Inlet) location. ow Solomon Cu c 29. Mineral Creek 1990's Could foil 1 h (Valdez) To serve Valdez. 30. Goat Creek. 20 1980's. Could fill long range ene rgy growth': (Petersburg for Petersburg-Wra,ngell area. Wrangell) 31. Crescent Lake 980's Ener-: for Seward maybe, however, (Seward) lake is being'used for recreation. May conflict., .32@ Grant Lake 1980's To -serve S,6wArd.' (Seward) 33 West Creek. 19801's To' serve Skagway. (Skagway) .*Onb expert reports a strong indication that either Wood,Canyon, Yukan@-Tiay,a or Woodchopper will be needed and justified by Lhe year 2000. Ariother..suggests Lowe . River could beasmall run-of-the-riv,er project.. **Projects are small about 2.,5 to 10 megawatts. @p HYDRO-ELECTRI C R ESOURCES 9 KEY HYDROELECTRIC SITES (391 ANALYZED BY ISER (AUG. v @\ 19,76) SENT TO 'C III EXPERTS TO RANK SITES CONSIDERED MOST LIKELY FOR V. [email protected] DEVELOPMENT BY EXPERTS PRIOR TO ..7 YEAR 2000, GREATER THAN 2.5 MW T C (BASED UN ISER LIST) 'ARC ADDITIONAL SITES (NOT ON I@ER LIST). sucorsTEo 8Y.ONE OR TWO EXPERTS FOR POSSIBLr DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO 'NVV YEAR.2000. GREATER THAN 2.5 @Mw 0 DEVELOPED SITES GREATER TH AN 2.5 MW w @00 ef C, sw. Del V, cr c 7@ 4c 'tL -__j 5-1 -Hydro-Electric ResourceSL State ofWaska, Division of Energy 00vmr C)evelopment, 1977. The State of Alaska is also very interested in the hydroelectric potential of the Susitna River. The Federal Water Resource Development Act gives the Army Coprs of Engineers statutory authority to study the feasibility of the Susitna Project up to $25 million. A unique section of the Act allows State financing of the project, although the Corps does the work. There are several concepts for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The Corps of Engineers concept has two stages. The first stage requires the construction of an 810-ft. earth-fill dam near Watana Creek about 46 miles upstream from the Gold Creek station of the Alaska Railroad. Installed capacity would be 792 megawatts. The second stage would consist of a 635 foot concrete thin-arch dam at Devil Canyon, 15 miles upstream from Gold Creek. The installed capacity would be 776 MW, thereby giving a total installed-megawatt capacity of 1,568 MW. The power would be transmitted to Anchorage using a 345 KV double circuit line and to Fairbanks via a 230 KV single circuit line. The Kaiser concept of the Susitna Project involves three stages. The first is an 800-ft. concrete faced, rock-filled dam about 20 miles upsteam from Gold Creek. Installed capacity would be 700 MW. The second stage would consist of an 185-ft. rock fill dam near Portage Creek, 12 miles upstream from Gold Creek, with a 600-ft. rock-filled dam below Vee Canyon, about 65 miles above Gold Creek. The installed capacity of stage three would be 445 MW, yielding a total capacity for this concept of 1,308 MW. Power would be transmitted to Anchorage via a 230 KV double circuit line and to Fairbanks via a 230 KV single circuit line. A third proposal, offered by the Harza Engineering Company, involves four stages - the initial (Watana) stage would yield an installed capacity of 500 MW. The second, Devil Canyon, phsae would have 600 MW of installed capacity. The third stage - Vee, Denali - would add installed capacity of 400 MW to the project. The fourth or "ultimate" stage would double the total initial instal- led capacity to 3,000 MW. According to Harza Vice President Richard Harza, the project "should be of a size compatible with the anticipated growth and the repayment capacity of the Railbelt utility companies. No dependence should be placed on special loads". In terms of its size and cost, and of its effects on the most heavily populated part of Alaska, the Susitna Project is extremely important. On June 16, 1977, the Alaska Power Authority (APA) agreed to award $100,000 to the Coprs of Engineers for a "Plan of Study" and to fund jointly with the Division of Energy and Power Development, an analysis of energy economics in the Railbelt corri- dor along the Alaska Railroad right-of-way between Anchorage and Fairbanks, at a total budget not to exceed $70,000. APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY The era of great dams was initiated in 1936 with the construction of the Hoover Dam. It represented a bold concept challenging advanced technology available at the time. It was 20 years before any higher dams were completed. Leader- ship shifted to Switzerland, then to Italy, Canada, India and to Colombia. Today, 40 years later, still higher dams are under construction in the Soviet Union and Mexico (Ref. 5-3). 134 Leadership in the construction of unusually large and important dams moves from country to country, with no claim for the monopoly in technology by any one country. Dam technology has also advanced with regard to materials and type of dam. In the earlier structures, materials locally available were placed by hand or horse-drawn scrapers. Later, as mechanized draglines and bulldozers appeared on the scene, larger and larger quantities were used. The engineers involved in the Hoover Dam solved the technical problems assoc- iated with the use of mass concrete. The rise in the cost of cement and labor soon resulted in the decline in popularity of massive gravity concrete structures but concrete remains the ideal material for thin arch dams (Fig. 5-2). Outside of Alaska, dams are now smaller, on the average, with 77% being between 15-30 meters high, 21% being 30-100 meters high, and only 2% above 100 meters. Of the dams being built, more than half are for water conservation and supply, and 20% for municipal water supply. Only 5% are for hydroelectric and pump storage schemes. While there is a download trend in dam building in the United States as a whole, it is quite possible that in Alaska the trend will be just the opposite. As shown in the screening of hydroelectric sites, it was noted that the experts felt that over 20 hydroelectric sites might be built for electrical energy generation in Alaska between now and year 2000. In the United States, approximately 100 new dams are being constructed annually. Of these, 98% are of the earth and rock-fill embankment types (see Figure 5-3). Only 2% of the dams are constructed with concrete. However, in Alaska there is a special interest in the possible design of a thin arch con- crete dam for the Susitna Project. The major advantage of thinness is the economy, resulting from the reduced quantity of concrete needed (Figure 5-4). The first prestressed, arched dam in the United States was built at Nambe Falls, located in the New Mexico highlands approximately 25 miles north of the capital city of Santa Fe; the structure uses technology of possible interest to Alaska. A unique method of prestressing the arch dam to reduce the tensile stresses involved embedding flatjacks (manufactured by Freyssinet Company, France) within the mass of the dam and inflating them (400 lbs./sq. in.) to obtain the required prestress loading. The final design configuration was an arch dam with a thin, double curvature structure. (Ref. 5-4) Once water is stored behind a dam it can be released at controlled intervals through conduits called penstocks or power intakes. The conduits direct the stored water to turbines where the force exerted by the water on the turbine blades drives the turbines, which in turn drive generators to product electricity. So, a hydroelectric project harnesses the potential energy of a river's gravita- tional fall. Today's technology is adequate for projects now under consideration in Alaska and any likely near-future technological breakthrough would involve only minor refinement of existing technology. A very serious problem has been encountered with respect to the transmission of electrical power in Alaska. Transmission lines for the Snettisham project near Juneau were originally constructed on Salsbury Ridge. Winds in excess of 200 mph have been recorded on the Ridge; also, heavy icing was a severe problem. 135 Alm i r K a b. i r (.K.a rad S. Mossyrock Figure 5-2 Concrete Arch Dams and Spillwalvs Source: Harza Engineering Company 136 q -7 2. Guil Dam, Earth & Rock P 10. Cerron Grande V,. Gavin Fly Ash 0, .30 0 ioo meters feet Impervious Fill Figure 5-3 Fil IDams Source: Eartl,,fill andR Mill Darrs, Harza Engineering Company oc q 1.37 % p EL@ 050 D I) t'L4, ORI 4 RAISr NTTIAL HICHER, DAM 1950 LUI. 1850 +1 INITIAL LOWER DIAM 2 C) ITI., LT" -77 2;@\ Figurp SA Watana Project.State Development Concrete Arch Dam: Source. Harza Engineering Company 138 si Even before the lines were completed the towers on the Ridge suffered wind r damage and then, shortly after they came on line, three towers collapsed. Juneau was forced to rely on other energy sources from February 1974 to September 1974. The situation was so severe that it was necessary to relocate the transmission lines to a lower elevation. Even with relocation, problems are still Significant. On April 7, 1976 power was interrupted again and inspecton revealed an avalanche had toppled a tower about 5 miles from the power plant. While the Salsbury Ridge problem was basically an engineering design error, not an inadequacy of current technology it should be noted that electrical transmission of energy in Alaska rduires special attention. Advances in transmission technology represent a key element in the possible development of major Alaska dydroelectric power. It has been proposed by responsible scientists, for example, that it may be possible to transmit power over long distances by use of satellite. If, indeed, this form of transmission does become technologically feasible it could solve in-State transmission problems and perhaps make Alaska a major electricity exporter. However, satellite transmission technology is far beyond use in Alaska during this century, the time period of this report. There is another method by which hydroelectric energy can be transmitted, namely in the form of an industrial, finished product, for example, aluminum. As the availability of electricity becomes increasingly scarce in the Lower 48, energy intensive industries are expected to examine the possibility of using Alaska hydroelectric resources in the near future. COST ISSUES Many years ago dams were built throughout the Tennessee Valley for flood control, financed to a great extent by federal government funding. The electrical energy generated and recreation values were considered by-products. As a result, the Tennessee Valley r esidents enjoyed very low hydroelectric costs. Other watersheds, such as the Columbia River Basin, also enjoyed low government interest rates and multiple use (i.e., irrigation flood control etc.), and again, hydroelectric energy was considered "cheap" energy and indeed, to the consumer - the farmer, the industrialist, the homeowner - the electrical power bills were very low. If a dam is built today for hydropower only, the cost of the energy will be very high even though the "fuel" is "free" and operating costs are reasonable. The ftont end capital costs are extremely large. As for cost est imates for future hydroelectric sites in Alaska both small and large - one thing is certain: namely, a lack of agreement on published cost estimates. The hydroeiectric costs in, Table 5-1 are from a recent publication Electric Power in Alaska 1975-1995, published in August 1976; however, the Alaska Power Administration and others sharply disagree with some of these published estimates. Perhaps the only conclusion is to be very skeptical of hydroelectric cost estimates. 139 Nevertheless a recent tabulation has been made of estimated Alaskan hydro- electric project costs for ten projects which are given in in Table 5-4. Note that the estimates range from 21.1 to 42.0 mills per kilowatt hour for Upper Susitna and the estimates for the nine smaller hydro projects range from 35 mills to over 100 mills per kilowatt hour. In summary, there are three major costs associated with electrical energy production in general: (1) fixed costs resulting from capital outlay; (2) operation and maintenance costs; and (3) fuel costs. For hydroelectric_ projects, fuel costs are zero operation and maintenance costs are low, but the capital outlay costs are very great. FURTHER INORMATION NEEDS Hydroelectric poweR represents a major, alternative to oil and gas as an energy source. Although hydroelectric, power does not represent a potential Alaska energy export to the rest Of the United States at this time increased avail- ability and use of hydroelect ric power in Alaska can assist thqe rest of the nation in meeting energy substitution goals. Additional information is needed in several areas for the hydropower option: 1. To what extent can hydroelectric energy rep lace the present and projected energy use of natural gas, oil and coal? Significant examples include energy pumps for oil pipelines and gas pipelines, the wood products industry, and the petrochemical industry. Also, more information is needed in the potential of hydroelectric energy for transportation use and electric heat. 2. To what degree can the Alaska use of hydropower for major energy-intensive industries lessen the energy crunch in the Lower 48? 3. Upper Susitna is in a class by itself--a very large new source of hydro energy. The State and the Congress of the United States have determined that the project has sufficient merit to proceed with detailed design, engineering, and environmental studies. The informational need is to pursue the detailed studies, including all factors that bear on the decision, and decide in three or four years whether or not to construct the project. 4- An inventory is needed of potential hydroelectric power sites selection on the basis of community needs and opportunities. This listing should in- clude small (10 to 2,500 kilowatt) hydro sites, small hydro sites with exceptionally high-head, and low-head ydro sites. 5. Site specific information is needed for selected projects that have a good chance for construction. Land tenure, environmental concern, appli- cable technology and regulatory problems shoudl be addressed. 6. How applicable are small hydroelectric units for Alaskan use; are they technologically feaible? What special problems are presented by the widely varying cold climates?. 140 v, RECENT ALASKAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COSTANALYSIS Average Plant Installed EnerUy @IkLpayment inflation on Total Ra to RAt. Capacity Mi 11 ion Interest Period- Lill. Cost Price Mills/ sumed Date $ million Basv $1KW Evil MW n1l - Ra te Years As pata Source and Remarks Upper Susitna 1,568 65,1300 6-5/8 50 yr. none. 198E. 1,576 Jan 75 1,005@ 21.1 Southeentral Rallbelt Area. Alas@a )er (aftLr each. @Iqqo Susitna River Basin Interim Fe .3i Ity (powerplant -83&88. Report, Corps of Engineers, pages G C@sts include transmission to Anchorage (is built 7.0 5% 2,736 1986 42.0 and Farbanks., Inflated costs are from 61990 Bradley Lake Power Market, Analysis, Mote; From Corps of Engineers Plan.of Study dated September 28, 1977, total project Review Draft, August 1977,. 'Alaska Power at $2.1 billion,. September 1977 price base.) - Administration. P.radley Lake, 70 307 6-5/8 5.0 yr none i985 137 Jan 75 1,*957 35. 0 Bradley.Lake ProjeZt Pow@[email protected]@naly.isl Near Homer 7.0) 50'yr (5%) (49.7) Reviow Draft August 1977,!Alaska Power (Two Plans) 118 311 16-5/8 50 yr. none 170 Jan 75 1,508 44.5 Administration pagen 1, 46, .& 47. The (7.0), 50 yr (5%) (63.2) 7 0 111 4 plan inclildes,transmission costs tc -timate Kenai (Note: Corps. of Engineers cost cL for.a revised Bradley Lzlke plan is now_ & Homer@ The 118,MW plan has addi- being prcparL@.) tional ' costs for the larger powerplant and Additional transmiss@on to Anchor 1 age. Gre6ii Lake 16.5 64.9 5.0 @o yr 7% 1981 38.6 Jan 77 2,338 47.6 Green Lake Fvaluation,Report, Jun ,e 1977, Near S@tka less 41 yr To Jan 79 R. W_B6ck & Associates. Costs include. construc- transmission,to Blue Lake and upgrading tion period the line between'Blu-., Lake and Sitka. Day, Near Petersburg Ini@Aal. Phase 20.2 70.8 5.0 40 yr 1983 .75. 0 Jan 80 3,754. Thomas Day Prr@ iejct Ap2r is "OV __q.L ates.. CosLt in@ 1975_R. W. Beck & Associ (Note: Capacity of second phase development would be more economical than first phase. -clude submarine and overhead transmission to Petersburg Wranaell. -Inflation costs assumed to vary fro 12% to 71. M, between 1975 anA 1980.. -J,-in 77' 'yr 9f"13 5 -149 9.!. J i,- Lk@@ IT).LL-2 V@ ginia,La o_ 1210 4:r@ 5.0' 5 4, ._@OL _L t qj@@ 0t.' Aug. Near Wranqell 1977, R. W. Buck & A@;.ioiatun, Coutn in- b cl@id(!n,44 milea of overlmnd and un4crwater .traristra2sirin to Petersburg and Wrangell. Anita r Kunk 8.6 28.7 5.0 50 yr, 7% 1983 49.1 Jan 77 5,710 123 a- Vir2inia Utke Pro)ect Appraisal Report, Aug., Near.Wrangell 1(@77, R. W. Beck & Associates- Includes 54.4,miles of overhearl and -indervater transmission to interconnect the two power. houses and PeterLhurq and Wrangell. Sunrise Lake 4.0 13.5 5.0 50 yr 7% M3 2.1.7 Jan 77 5,665 118.9 Virjinia L,ktt Uro)ject. Appr3isal Report, Aug. 1977, R. W. lle@-k 6; Associates. Includes 46.3'miles of overhead and underwater transmissi on to interctnnect Petersburg And Wr,tngc@ll. Swan LakL; 7,,ke,Grace, 'and Mahoney Lake Mahoney Lake 10.0., 49.7 5..0 50 yr 7% 1983 31.3 Jan 77 3, 130 45.0, Near Kettehikan Hydro@IeLtric'Aj?praisal Ri!port; ijune 1977,@,_ -Includes tians @h. W. Beck & AssoCiateS..:.. rds-on to Ketchikan, 83.7 Jan 77 .3,135-,57 'La Lake Grace 26.7 165.2 .5. 0' @50 yr 7% 1983 Lake, ke Grace and Mahoney Lake: Near Ketchikan, Lzdro(,Acctric@ Appr8 i s, a I Pepor t, June 1977, R. W. B, & Al@,@oci:,tes. Includes trans- nisgfon to Xj rhikan. 64.4 .1an 77 2@927 53.0 Swan L,1kc, Lake L;race, and Mahor�@L@r@e Swan Lake 22.0 7',. .1983, ;...Near Ketchikan 11, droel6ctric A iraisai 'Ppport, June 1977, R. W. Beck I @Assocjates. includes trans- mission to Fetch 4 kan. :@Du rce: Letter from Robert Cross, Departmen i of.Energy, Alaska Power Administration to Gene Rutledge, Division of Engrgy and Power Development (October 3.1, 1977). p 4, d 7. A compilation of hydropower costs, including a cost comparison with other enery options for applicable communities would be desirable. Usually the smaller and mote remote the community, the more costly the energy. 8. More information is required on the interface between small hydroelectric units and diesel systems. 9. When will technology involving transmission of electricity by satellite be available for use in Alaska? 10. What are the engineering feasibility and costs of tidal power projects for Southcentral Alaska (follow-up to the 1977 Stone and Webster study and other recent work on the harnessing of Alaska's tides)? Tidaal power could contribute to a mix of power-generating sources for the Railbelt, an area projected to have the greatest population growth through the year 2000. 11. More information is needed concerning the water content of the show in various Alaskan watersheds. The applicability of telemetered profiling isotopic snow gauges should be examined. 142 REFERENCES 5-1 Electric Power in Alaska 1976-1996, Institute of Social and Economic. Research, Uni versity of Alaska. August 1976. 5-2 Alaska Power survey, Report of the Executive Advisory Committee to the Federal Power Commission, December 1974. 5-3 Water Power and Dam Construction, February, 1976. p.17. 5-4 "First Prestressed Arch Dam in the United States", Water Power and Dam Construction, J. Legas, Feb. 1976. p. 21 143 HYDROELECTRIC KEY CONTACTS Archie A. Stone Eric Yould Executive Vice President Hydraulic Engineer Engineering U.S. Army Corp of Engineers International Engineering Company, Inc. Alaska District 220 Montgomery Street P.O. Box 7002 San Francisco CA 94104 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 (415) 544-1401 (907) 752-3224 Philip Perdichizzi Col. George R. Robertson Vice President Distric Engineer TAMS 2000 Port Road U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Anchorage, Alaska 99501 P.O. Box 7002 -6619 (907) 274-6619 Anchorge Alaska 99510 (907) 7522605/279-1132 Thomas F. Broady, Jr. Consulting Associate Dale W. Rusnell Robert W. Retherford Assoc. Chief Consulting Engineers Power Development P.O. Box 6410 Division of Energy & Power Dev. Anchorage, Alaska 99502 7th Floor, Mackay Building (907) 344-2585 338 Denali Anchorage, Alaska 99501 J. I. Mills (907) 276-0508 Engineering Specialist EG&G LtC. Vernelle T. Smith P.O. Box 1625 Deputy District Engineer Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (208) 522-4400, ext. 362 Alaska District P.O. Box 7002 Jesse L. Colbert Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Area Hydraulic Engineer (907) 752-5233/279-1132 U.S. Geological Survey Conservation Division P.O. Box 2967 Portland, Oregon 97208 (503) 234-4796 Robert J. Cross Chief Project Development Division Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 (907) 586-7405 144 URANIUM RECOVERABLE RESOURCE SITES To date, there has been only one uranium deposit rich enough to mind discovered in Alaska. This mine was located 35 miles southwest of Katchikan near Bokan Mountain on Prince of Wales Island. The mine produced approximately 1,000 tons of U308(Yellowcake) between 1957 and 1971. For more information on the history of production of uranium in Alaska, refer to Volume 2 Uranium Resources Inventory. About 20 sedimentary basins in Alaska have been identified as having uranium potential, but information on actual uranium concentrations in these basins is very scarce. Evaluation of recoverable uranium sites consists primarily of estimating where, among the potential uranium sites, discoveries of economically recoverable ore are Most likely to occur. These estimates are complicated somewhat by the definition of "economically recoverable". The Bokan Mountain deposit was small, but was high grade enough to justify shipping the raw ore to the Lower 48, for processing. Such a find, however, is relatively unusal. More comonly, uranium is found in much lower concentrations, but sufficient quantity to build contentrating facilitie's nearby. Transportation problems in Alaska are complicated by the almost complete lack of any transportation infra- structure in many of the more inland remote areas. A discovery may have to be very large to justify the substantial capital expenditures required to remove and concentrate the ore. Ranking/predicting uranium sites where ore production could occur before year 2000 was done with the assistance of several experts: Warren I. Finch, Chief Charles C. Hawley Branch of Uranium and Thoriumn Resources C. C. Hawley and Associates, Inc. Geological Survev Anchorage, Alaska U.S. Department of the Interior Denver, Colorado Robert B. Forbes Senior Geological Consultant William D. Collins Chief Geologist Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Wyoming Mineral Corporation Fairbanks, Alaska, 3900 So. Wadsworth, Lakewood, Colo.. 80235 DGGS Staff Alaska State Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys P.O. Box 80007 College, Alaska 99701 The results of the predictions are given in Table5-5 and Figure 5-5. While, comments are shown in the table on a site by site basis, a number of interesting general comments are given below: "The best thing you could do would be to state that Alaska's uranium potential is not determined, and cannot be determined unless prospect- ing activity continues on most of Alaska's land." "The ranking of such provinces has to be a somewhat arbitrary and subjective process. My decisions are all based on 30 years of 145 experience in Alaska geology, including field work in many of the areas on the list." "The Geological Survey deals with assessment of quantities and quality (grade) of uranium resources that might be discovered in a given region We are knowledgeable about geologic factors- reqlated with undiscovered uranium resource Your survey question- naire has only two questions, and they are about the production a capability of the named region, i.e. , ranking of the most probable order of production and estimating when production is most likely to take place. These two things do not depend solely on geologic. factors." "Of the 12 areas listed, Bokan Mountain is the most favorable f or finding uranium ore, and the Seward Peninsula is second. The sedimentary features of Cook Inlet Basin lack some important aspects to make it a favorable region for uranium exploration, whereas Copper River Basin seems more favorable. The other regions are too poorly known to me to make any judgments." The The consensus was that the Southeastern area, exspecially Bokan Mountain and other, other dikes, plutons and mineralized wall rocks on Prince of Wales Island, appeared to be the most likely location for a recoverable uranium discovery in the immediate future. Only three of the experts were willing to estimate how soon recovery would occur in any of the sites, but all were in substantial agreement that uranium recovery was likely to occur in that area during the 1980's. The second area considered most promising by the experts questioned was the Seward Peninsula. Exploration teams have discovered radioactive anomalies on the Peninsula. However, no actual discovery of commercial grade has been announced. The three experts willing to estimate the time period during which uranium recovery might begin on the Seward Peninsula were in some disagreement. Two suggested as early as the 1980-85 period, while the other thought that the early 199o's might be more probable. The third area rated highly by the experts, and very close to the Sewar Peninsula, was the Selawik area. The eploration situation there is similar to that on the Seward Peninsula with discoveries of anomalously radioactive rock but no actual ore-grade deposits known as yet. The three ex perts who set time periods for development suggested that it might occur in the mid-to- late 1990's. Experts comments were virtually identical to those on the Seward Penisula, and the two areas were frequently lumped. together. Areas beyond the three considered most likely for development were viewed quite differently by various experts The Cook Inlet area, especially near Beluga Lake, has received considerable attention from Wyoming Minerals Company, a subsidiary of Westinghouse, which have been drilling in the area. One expert ranked this area as the third most likely to be developed, two others as seventh and ninth most likely. Interior Lowlands was also ranked third by one expert. Two of the experts suggested other areas not listed on the original screening list: namely Zane Hills, Yukon-Porcupine, and the Alaska Range. While these three areas were not ranked higher than the top three just discussed they were considerably higher than the lower seven sites. 146 Table 5-5 -URANIUM SITE RANKING Uranium Site -comments @y Expert jg6gio:n) Timing Excerpts from. s: and favorable geology at several 1) SOUTHEAST 'ALASKA 1980. 2000+@ P ro x ty to a known deposit Including'Bokan localities seem to offer good dossibilities for sma 1. 1 deposits Mtn. (Southeast) similar to Bokan Mountain."' "Exploration is in very. early stages.j, whether or,not an prod,Uction will ensue is very problematical 'is conti nu@. "Only.uranium production in Alaska--exploration Sokan: I ng@; good chance for:another small mine in, near future. "'Intermittent small pmduction. (a few thOLIS nd tons) by leasers and. and small operators."@ "NEW U reserve.reportedly discover d durin 1977 by, undergro nd _e 9 u drilling in the.Ross-Adams Mineat Bokan,Mtn. by Standard Metals, Detai not available 2) SEWARD 1.980 1992 "A lot of exploration stil'.1 to be done; whether or not deposits will (Northwest) be operateddepends on grade of:or' found.;" S e "A number of granitic. bodies are: abnormally. radioacti:ve suggestin 9 a uranium province." :SELAWIK-1. 1990 2000 "Favorable-geology and radioactive anomelli.es are wides@pread in' - (Northwest) g.ranites but no signifi.cant dis Icov.eries yet "A lot of. exploration still to. bet done;. whether or@nol deposits will be operated depends on grades of ore found." 4) COOK INLET 1985 9.97 "Basi.n has favorable rock types, but no uranium has been encountered in the regio'n;.ERDA,report@'due soon e done. Vlot of exploration: st.ill to b 5) INTERIOR LOWLANDS 1985 2000+ "Including a very large portion of'central Alaska;, recent. surveys by_ USBM, -and Industry greatly 0 (I n.te ri o r i ncreases- the outlook.@ f ir*,,this@ @area.. I'Explora-ion isJn v' eey early stages; whether,@ not any produc,ti6h... will ensue. is,, very -problematical'."' "See USBM open-file report :130-77 by James e C.' Barker and Karen Clautic.e Anomalous Uranium Concentrations-in Artisian 'Springs and Stream Sediments inthe Mount Prindle Area, AK. (caused a staking rush in S!@ptember 1977); big claim staking during 1977 in Mel6zi:tna quadrangle for U, especially around Kokrine Hills."' b Jw: Table 5-5 (Continued) URANIUM SITE RANKING d Uranium Si te .(Regioln) Timing Excerpts from Comments Experts 6) ZANE HILLS 1990 1995 t.Si te a-'ded t rigin 1'... -1ist by u'e exp 00 a screeni,ng ri ert. (Interior) YUKON-FLATS 1985 2000+ "Unexplored, but possibility for sedimentary uranium deposits con' (Interior) sidered fairto poor. ages; whether or not any @p "Exploration i s. in very early st rocuction will ensue is very probTlemat tul Yukon- Porcupine added to I ist by,two, experts. 8)..ALASKA RANGE 1990 1995, Site added -to original '.screening list by two experts. (interior) "Uranium assays from the Purkeypile prospect. in the eastcirn Alaska Range among the best [email protected].."' 9) ARCTIC SLOPE. 1990 - 2000 "Little information, but some encouragement was reported-by a.cursory-' - .(Arctic) investigation by industry." "Exploration is in very early stages; whether or notany duction@ 00 _pro will ensue is very problematical." 10) EAGLE 1995@ - 2000+ :"Favorable rock types, but-limited-exploration has not been .,(Interior) encouraging. "Exploration is i-n very early --stages - whether or not:any production.' will ensue is very,problematical'." 11) GULF 'COAST, 1990 2000+ "Geology fairly well, known, and suggest s me' t 0 1. 'poten ial but drilling (Southcentral),@ by petroleum companies has@ not:: produced any shows.. Explorationjs in. very, early. stages; whe'ther or'not any:production e will ensue is v ry' prqO ematical." i ty, of 12) COPPER' RIVER BASIN 1990 2000+ .,,"Investigations. by the.State Geolo.gi.cal Survey and the Llnivers -Geop nder ERDA contract (Southcentral Al as ka hysical Institute), u s -produced negative@ results." is i .n. very. early stages; whether or not any production- - wi 11 ensue is. very probl emati'cal bc Ta b.1 e 5-5 Uranium Site Ranking :(Conti nued) Uranium Site (Region) Ji mi ng Excerpt f rom Comments by Experts .131) BRISTOL BAY 1995 2060+@ "No information; basins' may havO.so -tial for sedimentary ome poten: (Southwest)' urani.um." "Exploration is:.in very early stages ;.-.whether or not-any production: will ensue is very probl emati cal." 141-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM 1995 2000+ "Information not available and explorati on would be difficult.' DELTA !'Exploration is in very early stages;@Whether or not,any production. ('Squthwe's,t) will ensue is very problematical." N7 fjj if )l 11' LEGEND (PANK)" sITE Oll *Prediction of furw@ 7 order of -ptoduvion v ((j) ;@tje HILL$ I, (UKOI 0- V"Y I K @G L 'am Qb A, O.T 0 /I,-- SEWARO LA ly INSU R wi@ V" 4- 0 21 C1\01 I,\ 1111GULF \0' A 6: ALASRN lb6 7 Figure 5.5, Unnium Sites Ranked by-Ex ks PC State of, Alaska. Divi@ion of Energy & Power De.vefopment, 1977 A CURRENT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT The only known plans at present are for continued exploration. A substantial number of companies, including Portland General, Eleectric, Union Carbide, Cotter Corp., Standard Metals, Exxon, Wyoming Minerals and two German Firms, Urangesellschaft USA Inc. And Uranerz, USA Inc. are known to be exploring in various sites in the State. Also, Research Associates of Alaska (Fairbanks) is conducting a drillirig program in the Alaska Range, which includes uranium objectives. Considerable interest in Uranium has been noted by a number of the Alaska Native Corporations. In addition, ERDA (now DOE) has a major uranium province defini- tion project underway in Alaska as part of the National Uranium Resource Evalua- tion (NURE). Bendix Corporation has the contract to manage the DOE program which includes Alaska and the Lower 48 Bendix coontracts, airborne radiometric surveys, geologic and other studies as required. Los Alamos Laboratories has the mission to conduct hydrogeochemical surveys in the State. The University of Alaska Geophysical Institute has completed surface studies of anmomalies uncovered in the topper River Basin by the Texas Instruments surveys. A major milestone of the NURE program will be the publication of a comprehensive report in 1981. In the interim,, updated uranium reserve and potential resource statistics will be published yearly. More information on the NURE program is given in Volume 2, Uranium Resources Inventory. The U.S Bureau of Mines discovery of anomalous radioactivity near Mt. Prindle in the Circle quadrangel last summer created a small uranium claim staking rush. Also, a number of claims were staked by various industrial groups in the Melozitna quadrangle during 1977 which suggests some uranium potential in this area. The U.S. Geological Survey had three active projects dealing with uranium in 1977. These included detailed mapping and petrologic studies of the Bokan Mountain area in southeastern Alaska, a study of the tertiary rocks in the Cook Inlet and Copper River Basins in terms of their suitability for uranium deposits, and a reconnaissance study of potential hardrock uranium provinces in western Alaska. Work on these three projects will continue in 1978. 151 APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY The nuclear fuel cycle involves several complex steps (see Figure 5-6); however only a few of these steps are of serious interest to Alaska Nuclear Power Plants in Alaska While some interest has been expressed in a nuclear power plant reactor for commercial use in Alaska, it is unlikely that such a power plant woudl be in operation before the year 2000 because of the long lead time and the competi- tion such a plant would get from hydro and coal energy. Alaska did have a nuclear power plant at Fort Greely; however, operations were discontinued March 13, 1972. This 20.2 megawatt (thermal) facility was fueled by highly enriched uranium oxide and water was used as both the moderator and coolano. Nuclear Enrichment Plant Approximately 1.85 billion years ago uranium in the earth's crust contained about 97% of the isotope U-238 and about 3% of the isotope U-235 . With this relatively high proportion of the fissionable isotope U-235, it was possible for nature to have its own nuclear chain reaction. Recent discoveries by French scientists in Gabon Africa indicate that a nuclear chain reaction indeed occurred and lasted for over 100,000 years. Today, due to the difference in hal-lives of the two uranium isotopes, radioactive decay has reduced the concentration of the isotope U-35 to only 0.7 percentan enrichment which is not adequate for commercial nuclear power plants that are currently designed in the United States. Present designs call for an enrichmment of interestingly enough, approximately 3 percent. (However some early research and plutonium production reactors used 0.7 percent, i.e. natural uranium, for test reactors and other uses. Enrichments of 93 percent have been and now being used.) In the early days of atomic energy development, three enrichment plants constructed to supply military needs. Today, these three plants still exist, but are used primarily for the production of nuclear fuels for commercial power plants. power plants. As it stands today, the capacity of all the enrichment plants in the United States has been sold. Future estimates indicate that a major expanson of enrichment facilities will be needed by mid-1980 to su stain growth in our nuclear power industry. Our three present plants are located near Oak Ridge Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. These plant's use a process known as gaseous ,diffusion which, in simple terms, pumps a gas, UF6, through a filter in order to achieve separation. The plants cost approximately a billion dollars each and require about 2 0 0 0 MW of power for the pumps. Enrichment it Alaska Some preliminary discussions were held concerning the possibility of an enrichment plant in Alaska since the diffusion process would require an enormous amount of energy and Alaska has abundant energy resources. Also the end product, enrichment uranium, can be easily transported with very little cost. However, a follow-up study was never concluded. 152 URANIUM MINES CONVERSION ENRICHING & MILLS ONVERSION7 TO UF C TO- FUEL PLUTONIUM FIECOvE-RED URANIUM .40 REACTOR F REPROCESSING WASTE STOnAGE BY-PRODUCT . F:gure 5-6 The Nu6lear Fue;-Cycl tource; lThe @uclear Industry; USAEC@Rep6r% Wash. 1174-73, p@ 14, Dec. 1973. Since the difusion process is so energy intensive, a close look is being taken, on a national level, at the centrifuge process which requires much less energy. The centrifuge process utilizes the principle of the cream sepator. Alaska has not addressed the problem and/or opportunities associated with a centrifuge plant in this State. Solution Mining Uranium ore has been mined in Alaska before and the potential for mining in the future is considerable. A technology that may be special interest to Alaska is solution mining. Most people associate the word "mining" with either large holes sunk into the ground or large excavations resulting, in masses of waste rock around the mine site. Soution mining process involves neither of these. The solution mining technique was developed to take advantage of extracting underground deposits that would be uneconomical to remove by conventional mining methods. Figure 5-7 shows a typical uranium roll front which exists in a sandstone layer of the earth's crust. A typical solution mining test pattern of injection and production wells might occupy a piece of ground no Largqer than an acre. Four-inch wells are sunk from 200 to 400 feet; three wells (injection wells) form a triangle with 40-foot sides. In additon, there is one centrally-located porduction well. Three wells around the perimeter of the test pattern serve as monitors for movement of the leaching reagents. To start production, a solution of bicarbonates and hydrogen peroxide is injected at relatively low pressure into the upper sandstone layer. Because the minelized zone consists of one-third void space and is open to flow, the body of water underground moves horizontaly and theinjected leach solution dissolves the uranium, which is pumped out of the production well. The pumping technique involves creation of an equilibrium pressure within the entire volume of the well field so that water does not leak into it; at the same time the dissolved uranium cannot leave the field. Thus, there is a hydraulic balance and the leaching solution is confined to the immediate area of the field. Flow rates are about 30 gallons per minute for small testing rigs to 800 gallons per minute for apqoduction plant of mediumI size. The leaching solution pumped from the ground is sripped of its uranium by chemical reaction in to exchange columns commonly used in the chemical processing industry. Tests indicate that at least 70 percent of the uranium is recovered. The solution is carried to aprecipitation tank where the end product, yellowcake (amonium diuranate), is a separated chemically. The yelowcake is hauled off-site to a drying plant before shipment to fuel manu- facturers for the remaining processes. 154 P PUNIPING, UNIPING INJECTI 0 N, WELL WE L VVE L L GROU,ND LEVEL -SH.@LC- OR WUWTOA To@ l(CiDNIFINIING LAYER)," tV E L L SCR E EN DIRECTION' OF NO SCREEN SANDSTONE R F L OW GROUNDWATE AQUIFER %NELL SCREEN N i U.1, I* C SHALE OR FAUDSYONE CONIFfNING LAYER VERTICAL CROS'S SECTION OF TYPICAL RANIUMDEPOSIT IROLL FRONT) Figure 5-7r, Vertical Cros's Section of Tv Pical Uranium Depos;t (Roll Front) Sou rce We-sti r'Icuse E lec tric Corp or ation Urahi urn Solution:IMining, aboo Met (crnYright 11975)@ Ll . Some features of the solution mining technique are:. Small acreage is required, only about the size of the ore body. Chemicals used are low level, commonly known carbonates and bicarbonates; reconstitted leaching solutions are harmless to humans or livestock, and could even be used as dilute fertilizer IV for agriculture. There is virtually no processing wate; therefore, no tailings disposal area required. The process is environmentally acceptable. At the en of work all structures are removed; piping is cut below ground level and cemented. Thus, in one growing season the site returns to its original apprearance and use. There is, no waste disposal to streams. All processing involves only solutions or slurries, thus, elimin- ating the possibility of radioactive solids (dust) to the air. Currently Westinghouse is developing sites in Wyoming and Texas; one site in Texas will be a full-scale production demonstration plant. Other areas are being evaluated for operational sites. Solution mining can only be used in permeable terrains, e.g. secondary deposits in sandstones and conglomerates and primary deposits such as Bokan could not be recovered using this technique.raniu Open Pit Mining Open pit uranium mining techniques are quite similar to the surface coal mining techniques, the main differences being that they may be deeper than surface mines and do not cover as wide an area. In open pit mining in the Lower 48, each truckload of uranium ore is graded and checked for radioactivity as it leaves the mine, after which the ore deposited at one of the stockpiles near the mine. By separating the ore into grades it can be fed into the processing mill in a more economical and efficient manner. (Ref. 5-5.) With respect to activity in Alaska a small amount of uranium was open pit mined at Bokan Mountain in the Southeast region (see Volume 2, Uranium Resources Inventory for ore information). However, the ore was trucked downhill and barged to the Lower 48 for processing without any separation into grades. Underground Mining Underground uranium mining techniques are also quite similar to underground coal mining, the difference being related to the size of the seam and ventila- tion systems. Uranium ore has no set or definite pattern of occurrence, so many adaptations of routine coal mining techniques are required. Both the equipment and mining operations must be easily moved from one site to another, as the seam at any one site may be mined rapidly. 156 Following the 1957 open pit mining in Alaska, underground mining occurred in 1963-64 and then again in the 1968-72 period at Bokan Mountain. (Refer to Volume 2, Uranium Resources Inventory, for more information.) Exploration Much searching and exploration is necessary before any attempt is made to mine for uranium. in Alaska at the present time there is considerable exploration activity underway. Initial investigations include the collection and review of available data and reports, as well as a study of aerial photo- graphs for selected areas. This preliminary work helps idntify uranium, host rocks. In the case of uranium ore, radioactivity adis in its detection. Instruments that measure the radiation emitted as the radioactive elements decay are the: l)_Geigercounter;2) scintillation counter; and 3)gamma-ray spectrometer. All three types of instruments may be designed in small hand units or larger carborne or airborne units. All three types of instruments are used to probe exploration drill holes. The Geiger counter detects both gamma-rays and beta particles (electrons), or gamma-rays only. A scintillation counter counts only gamma-rays, is more sensitive, and can be made to respond faster than the Geiger counter. The gamma-ray spectrometer, which has been developed in recent years, distin- guishes between uranium, thorium, and the radioactive isotope potassium-40 by measuring gamma radiations at particular energy levels. With this instru- ment, the contents of uranium, thorium, and potassium can be measured in a few minutes at an outcrop, or it may be used to survey large areas from an airplane. Radioactivity is effectively masked by water or vegetation and this poses a special problem in Alaska due to the muskeg and water-saturated tundra that is on top of many of Alaska's sedimentary basins. Another way to explore fo ruranium is to analyze the uranium concentrations in lake and stream waters and sediments from selected sites. The water samples are analyzed by fluorometry and sediment samples by delayed neutron counting or chemical methods. The results of a hydrogeochemical survey for uranium in the waters and sediments of the Susitna River basin was comleted by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. (LASL) and released April 15,1977. TheLASL study is part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation which includes the development and compilation of geologic and other infrmation with which to assess the magnitude and distribution of uranium resources and determine areas favorable for the occurrence of uranium in the United States. The final step in the exploration for uranium is of course, the actual drilling into the ore deposit which is usually done with rotary or pneumatic equipiment. This makes possible two final assessments: scintillometer measurements at various depths and geochemical testing and analysis of material brought to the surface. The total information obtained determines the uranium concentration at various depths. (For the various steps involved in uranium exploration, see Figure 5-8.) *ERDA News release, No. 77-38, April 15, 1977. 4s 4 p STEP COMMENTS Development working Creative Stage geological hypoth.6'sis Select #sing, geograph prom' ic Limiting Factors vestigation areas for 3 lCollect and reviewi 4 Months PRELIMINARY lovailn data INVESTIGATIONS b ospeci Ln @Define prospect 2 Mon'ths Conduct initial drilling; 'Minimum land acquisifion No prospect :Prospect. confirmedl L 5 [Completq land or lea'Se acquisition 2 Months 6 lCon I explor tion 1 Year rij lyc" I in program No discovery DETAILED [FSCOV er GEOLOGICAL STUDIES Y 7 Evaluate 2 Months Hold, I a @67 PCs i t, i o n 8 DETAILED Conduct detailed xploration Years drilling program PHYS-ICAL E XPL ORATION Figure 5-8 Uranium Exploration Sorne of a Ion 'time in Alaska !hese.steps may requir. r Source: ERergy Alternativcs: A Coi ,npaotive Analysis by the Science and Public Policy Program, University o!,Oklahome, Norman. 'Oklahoma, May, 1975. D @en fi Cond Mi ni M 158 COST ISSUES The increase in the cost of uranium oxide since 1973 has been huge over 600% ce (Figure 5-9; Ref. 5-6) The reason for this degree of increase is not exactly known, but several related ituations are of -interest. Uranium as well as oil, gas, and coal, represents energy. Oil costs have increased many fold since l973 (see Figure 4-10). To what extent the cost of the British thermal unit- Btu) in uranium are merely following the Btu cost of oil is difficult to determine. It is clear that the break in the curve representing a sharp rise in the cost of uranium did not occur until well after the break in the curve for oil, gas and coal. The uranium cost issue was further complicated on September 8, 1975, when. Westinghouse Electric Corporation announced its claim of Legal Exuse, Section on 2-615 of the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code, from commitments to deliver upwards of 70 million pounds of yellowcake to its uranium-buying customers and des- cribed the U308 shortfall as unforeseen difficult situation". Section 2-615 is known as the "commercial impracticability" clause. As one might expect, the utility customers sued to compel Westinghouse to meet contractual uranium supply commitments. (Ref. 5-7) In May of 1977, at a meeting of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the claim was made that there is not going to be a uranium shortage because uranium stocks are tied up in unwanted enrichment (a nuclear processing step prior to fuel manufacture for the nuclear reactors) contracts. Also, if the enrichment needs were directed to actual plant needs, rather than overblown estimates for which there is no need becasuse the world projections of nuclear power capacity additions are constantly being reduced, there would be adequate supplies (Ref. 5-8). Adding to the complex supply-demand situation, it was recently annonced that the U.S. reserves of uranium must be nearly doubled in the next 13 years to meet the demand resulting from President Carter's decision to abandon the breeder reactor program. This means that the presently identified reserves of 600,000 tons of uranium must be icreased by another 400,000 to 500,000 tons, according to Charles D. Masters, Chief of the USGS Office of Energy Resources, in a report to a USGS uranium-thorium reseach and resource conference in Golden, Colorado Ref.5-9). Other factors relaing to uranium demand are: increased exploration restric- tions proposed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and the suspension of most Canadian deliveries, sending non-U.S. buyers into the U..S. market. There are some who believe that "uranium needs in this century appear capable of being met from resources producible at less than $20/lb." This view was given by Vince Taylor in a paper entitled "The Myth of Uranium Scarcity" (Ref. 5-10). Taylor suggests that spot market prices of $40/lb. greatly ovverstates the real present price for uranium and that cost-saving technological improve- ments in uranium mining and milling techniques are likely to be instituted. p p 40 40 35 35 o b 30 30 25@ @o 25 0 0 CL Cr 20. 20 U.1 - a. < 15 15 b 10 5 -,5 A 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 YEAR OF DELIVERY NOTE, Th, hquie'h,s t,@ ep, -xi,"od f'o!" the NUEXCO thiv .p.,@. N.. 107@ June 301 1977, hy speC'aI4)e"IWsIo'I Figure.5-9 HistoricalU30 8Exchange Value for Immediate Delivery 1968-1976, 160 At any rate, whether the market will demand $40/lb. or $20/lb, either value is much greater than the $6/lb. paid in l972. The Carter Administration's announced nuclear power goals and the degree to which they are achieved will have a substantial impact on the future uranium demand in the United States. The current announced goal 380,000 MWe in oper- ation by the year 2000. Of this total 44,000 MWe are presently in opeation and 146,000 are on order or under construction for a total of 190,000 MWe or half of the Administration's goal. Assuming the time cycle from plant order to commercial operation is 10 years, completion of an additional 190,000 MWe by 2000 will require an average ordering rate of 14,000 MWe per year between 1978 and 1990 (Ref. 5-2). How- ever, at the present time, utilities are not ordering nuclear units. Net orders since 1974 (new orders less cancellations) have been essentially zero because of declining load growth projections, licensing and other regulatory delays, and envirorimental resistance. In 1970, exploration represnted about 13 percent of the total cost of yellow- cake (U308). In turn, the yellowcake represented only 6 percent of the total mills per kilowatt-hour nuclear electric generation cost that year (Ref. 5-5). While there are no plans at this time to construct a nuclear power plant in Alaska, a comparison of the costs with coal are of interest. The calculations (Ref. 5-11) for a plant to start operation in 1984 in Boise, Idaho, give 33. 2 mills/kwh for a coal plant without Scrubber, 35.1 for a nuclear plant, and 39.2 for a coal plant, with scrubber. To get nuclear costs this low, the plants must be large (about 1,000 megawatts); somewhat large for Alaska at this time. The fees, rentals, bonuses and royalty charges for uranium resource exploration and production on State 1ands is given in Table 5-6. _Taqble 5-6 URANIUM MINING CLAIM FEES March 1977 Permit Lease or Claim fees. Rentals, Bonuses, Area (Acres) Term (years) adn Royaltites paid to the State Mining Claim No (but claimant must to annual Up to 40 acres. Indetermainant Claim (locatable minerals) assessment work on the claim of in force as long as $200/year per claim) the annual assessment statement is filed each year Mining Lease Annual rental not determined as Yet. (uplands) Source: State of Alaska. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals and and Energy Management, March 1977 EXTERNAL MARKET ISSUES External market issues relating to uranium development in Alaska are extremely difficult to evaluate at this time, primarily because there is so little knowledge of the nature and extent of Alaska's uranium resources. The current qmarket price of uranium is very highby historical standards, generating substantial incentives for exploration and development. This pride incentive could be changed, however, by several developments. One is the discovery elsewhere of alternative supplies of such magnitude as to greatly reduce the current market price. Given the extent of uranium exploration already completed in the Lower' 8 and elsewhere in the world, however, this does not appear likely in the immediate future. Another major potential impact is the anti-nuclear movement. Although the success of this movement has so far been limited, it is always posible that reservations regarding the safety of nuclear power could be dramatically enhanced by a nuclear accident in the United States or abroad.. A radical reduction in the nuclear power development program in the United States could seriously depress the market price of uranium ore. Still a third contingency is the fate 6f the fast-breeder reactor program. At the present time, it is federal policy to slow development of fast-breeder reactors and the production of plutonium as an alternative fuel. the lack of a plutonium alternative for nuclear power production will tend to keep the price of uranium high; any acceleration of nuclea rpower development will lead to further price increased. in addition, there is also a potential foreign market for Alaska uranium. At the present time there is no specific restriction on the export of uranium ore, although a substantial export program might cause some concern in Congress. The present and immediate future market for uranium in the U.S. and abroad, is probably sufficient to maintain the market price in the face of substantil Alaska production. The major question that remains is whether or not uranium resources of sufficient quality will be found to allow such production. FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDS 1) More nformation is needed on the technology for the extraction of uranium from seawater. Japan has expressed interest in a plant that will recover process that (reportedly) uses titanic acid as an absorbent. Ion exchange technology should be evaluated for possible Alaska use, especially for the Cook Inlet area. 2) Cost information on a medium size nuclear plant (about- 600-900 megawatts) should be obtained in order to compare with coal and/or hydro costs in the 1985-1995 time frame. 3) The possible investment and employment opportunites associated with a centrifuge uranium enrichment plant should be evaluated, 4) The future role that Alaska may play in thorium production, especially as a by-product, should be examined. 5) Up-to-date information is needed on success and/or problems of uranium solution mining. 6) Catalog environmental problems aassociated with production of uranium in Alaska. 162 URANIUM KEY CONTACTS C. C. Hawley Jule Anderson C. C. Hawley and Associates, Inc. Senior Geologist Consulting Economic Geologists, Bendix Field Engineering Corp Box 78D, Star Route A Federal Building, Room 52 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Anchorage, Aklaska 99501 (907) 344-6114 (907) 265-5420 R. J Warchola Gil Eakins Project Geologist Geologist Exploration and Mining Divisiion State of Alaska.. Wyoming Mineral Corporation Department of Natural Resources 1216 16th Street West Div. of Geological Geophysical Suite 22 Surveys Billings, Montana 59102 Box 80007 (406) 248-3119 College, Alaska 99708 (907) 479-7606 Robert Forbes Geological Consultant Thomas P. Miller Geophysical Institute Geologist in Charge University of Alaska Branch of A1askan Geology Fairbanks, Alaska, 99701 U.S. Geological Survey 1209.Orca Street William D. Collins Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Chief Geologist (907) 272-8228 Wyoming Mineral Corporation 3900 So. Wadsworth Lakewood, Colo. 80235 (303) 988-8530 Warren Finch Supervisor Geologist Branch of Uranium & Thorium Resources U.S. Deparqment of the Interior Division of Ceological Surveys Building 25, Mail Stop 916 Federal center Denver, Colorado 80225 Wayne Roberts U.S. Department of Energy Federal Building 600 W. 4th Anchorage, Alaska (907) 265-5421 163 REFERENCES 5-5 Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis by the Science and Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma May, 1975. 5-6 Monthly Report to the Nuclear Industry No. 107, Nuexco, June 30, 1977. 5-7 Nucleonics Week, Volume 18, No. $, January 27, 1977. 5-8 Nucleonics Week, Volume 18, No. 19, May 12, 1977. 5-9 Nucleonics Week, Volume 18, No. 18, May 5, 1977. 5-10 Nucleonics Week, Volume 18, No. 20, May 19, 1977. 5-11 Analysis of the Economics of Coal versus Nuclear for a Power Plant Near Boise, Idaho, Rutledge, Gene P. and E. Fast, Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission, March 1976. 164 GEOTHERMAL RECOVERABLE RESOURCE SITES The Alaskan geothermal resource sites are identified below as a function of temperature and those most likely for recovery are given special attention. Because of Alaska's position astride the shifting edges of two of the earth's major tectonic plates, the geothermal potential is great. The two major Alaskan volanic regions are the Aleutian Chain and the Wrangell Mountains. The two major Alaska volcanic regions Are the Aleutian Chain and the Wrangell Mountains. Hot Igneous Systems (Magma) (>650C) There were 88 Volcanic calderas reported in Alaska prior to 1975 (Ref. 5-12). These Volcanic systems are identified as a function of area, location compo- sition at last eruption, age, size, and solidification state (Ref. 5-13). of these 88 locations, the heat content has been identified for 16, with values running as high as 345 x 10 18 calories for Mt. Emmons. Mt. Drum in the Wrangell Mountains has an estimate of 230 X 10 18 calories. Mt. Edgeeumbe 144 x 1018 calories, but no estimates for Mt. St. Agustine which has seen very recent activity. (For comparison - 3 X 10 18 calories represents enough energy for a 100 MWe plant, to operate for 100 years.) Because of the technical problems of heat transfer, it is unlikely that energy from these igneous systems will be utilized to any extent prior to the year 2000 even though research and deveelopment is warranted. Two previously unreported Volcanoes in the Aleutian volcanic arc were found during the summer of 1975 (Ref. 5-14). The first discovered was Mt. Kialaguik on the Alaska Peninsula. The other volcano, named Hayes Volcano, is At the foot of Mt. Gerdine, 150 km west of Anchorage and about 9.0 km north of Mt. Spurr, which had been considered the easternmost volcano in the 2,600 km-long Aleutian volcanic arc. Hot Dry Rocks (<6500C) This type of resource is abundant in Alaska, but no quantative inventory is available. While research is well underway in the Lower 48 on the hot dry rock conept, there is little likelihood that energy will be recovered in Alaska from hot dry rocks prior to the year 2000. Geopressured-Geothermal Systems (15 to 300C) It is possible to get energy three ways from a geopressured-geothermal system where fluid pressures may vary from 3,000 to 14,000 psig: (1) high pressure water is applied directly to a water turbine to generate electricity; (2) methane gas, which is in solution, can be extracted as a valuabl. natural gas energy resource; and (3) the water, which is still hot, can be either flashed or passed through an organic fluid heat exchanger for the generation of more electricity. 165 Not too much is known about geopressured-geothermal systems in Alaska, most of the work to date has centered around the Gulf of Mexico, where much know- ledge has been gained from the many holes that have been drilled. It is possible that this energy resource will be identified in the Gulf of Alaska, as well as other offshore and onshore Alaskan locations during the next few years as drilling gets underway. Vapor-Dominated Systems (240C) A vapor-dominated geothermal system produced commercial power in Lardello Italy, in.1904. However, since that time, only two other locations have generated electrical power from such a system - the Geysers in California and a field in Matsukawa, Japan. These systems are somewhat 1ike a pressure cooker, water boils at depths under an impermeable caprock. Only two other vapor-dominated systems have been identified in the entire United States - Mt. Lassen National Park, California, and Mud Volcano System at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. While there are not known vapor-dominated systems in Alaska, increased explora- tion may uncover such a system in the future. Water-Dominated Systems (>150 C) (High Temperature) Hot water systems are dominated by circulating liquid which transfers heat and largely controls subsurface pressure. The geologic structure of vapor- dominated and water-dominated reservoirs are the same. The reservoirs differ basically in the amount of fluid present in the reservoir. There have been four hot water convection systems with indicated subsurface temperatures about l50C identified in Alaska. A tabulation is given below (Ref. 5-12): Location Heat Content (Calories) Geyser Bight 0.9x 10 18 0.3 X 10 18 Hot Springs Cove Shakes Springs, 0.2 x10 18 Hot Springs Bay 0.2 x 10 18 Hot Springs Bay With temperatures this great, all four locations can be candidates for elec- trical energy generation as well as space heating. Geyser Bighthas an electrical potential of 30 megawatt centuries and Hot Springs Cove, 8 mega- watt centuries (Ref., 5-12). Water Dominated Systems (90 C - 150 C) There are 24 identified hot water convection systems with indicated subsurface temperatures from 90'C to 150'C. Geothermal sites in this temperature range are discussed further in Current Plans for Development. At a temperature below 150'C, it is difficult to generate economic electrical power but these 166 temperatures are most suitable for efficient direct heat applicaitons and con- stitute a major geothermal resource of the United States as such. These 24 systems are listed according to name, location temperatures, and reservoir size, and heat content in the U.S. Geological Survey's Circular 726 (Ref. 5-12). Water-Dominated Systems (Ambient - 90 C) This low temperature heat resource can be used for direct applications such as space heating, agricultural needs, and recreation. Of the approximately 95 known Alaskan thermal springs (Ref. 5-13), about 71 are in the temperature range ambient to 90 C. The many known surface indications of this low temperature geothermal water are a significant energy resource in Alaska. Normal Gradient System From any surface location on earth, if a hole is dug deep enough, a geothermal resource will belocated. A normal heat gradient is about 3 C per 100 meters below the earths surface. Some heat gradients as high as 15 to 18 C per 100 meters have been observed in geothermal areas. Economical extraction of the heat from a normal heat gradient location depends upon the cost of competing forms of energy in addition to the cost of the geo- thermal development. With electrical energy costs as high as 300 mills/kwn in 48 villages in Alaska, close attention to a normal gradient goethermal resource is warranted. Such a study is now underway by the Alaskan office of Pacific- Sierra Research Corporation. This company is investigating the economics of normal gradient hydrothermal resources of Alaska or non-electrical, multiple- use applications in Barrow, Kiana, Huslia, Nikolski, Wrangell, and Nome. Drilling in an expected normal gradient location, the definite possibility exists that the gradient may be above normal in Alaska and there is even the possibility of a repeat of the Hungarian experience - discovery of oil and gas during geothermal exploration. CURRENT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT A number of hot springs in Alaska have been used in the past for space heating and recreation.. These and other uses of Alaskan thermal springs was given special attention at the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Confer- ence field in Anchorage, Alaska, July, 7-8, 1975 (Ref. 5-13). Since that con- ference, geothermal consultant and Alaskan resident William Ogle-has traveled extensively throughout the state to visit Alaskan hot springs. He has written several excellent reports (Ref. 5-15 - 5-18), which include a brief descrip- tion of the resources, their present utilization, and numerous color photo- grraphs of the following sites: 1) Bailey Hot S prings (Lat. 55 59 N, - Long. 131 39.5 'W) 2) Bell Island Hot Springs (Lat. 55 56 N, long. 131 34 'W) 3) Chief Shakers Hot Springs (Lat. 56 44 'N, Long. 132 30 'W) 4) Manley Hot Springs (Lat. 64 00 'N, Long. 150 38 'W) 167 5) Melozitna Hot Springs )Lat. 65 08 'N, Long. 154 40 'W) 6) Circle Hot Springs (Lat. 65 29 'N, Long. 144 38 'W) 7) Clear Creek Hot Springs (Lat. 64 51 'N, Long. 164 55 "w) 8) Pilgrim Hot Springs (Lat. 65 06 'N, Long. 164 55 'W) 9) Serpentine Hot Springs (Lat. 65 51 'N, Long. 164 55 'W) 10) Hot Springs Cove (Lat. 53 15 'N, Long. 168 22 'W) 11) Ophir Hot Springs (Lat. 61 12.1 'N, Long. 159 51.5 'W) 12) Geyser Bight (Lat. 53 12.6 'N, Long 168 27 'W) Some of the trips were in connection with the selection of a site for the possible installation of small binary geothermal electric generating plant. However, no such installation is planned in the immediate future. Several of the eothqermal hot springs sites in Alaska are expanding the use of the springs for space heating and recreational use, however, the total kilowatts involved will be very small compared with total energy used in Alaska. The primary objective of an aquaculture study that is underway is to survey Alaskan thermal springs and to determine those which may be feasble for a fish hatchery. The general decline in salmon abundance in Alaska is of great concern, and hatcheries and artificial progation could Play key roles in restoration efforts. This study is administered by the Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development. As of July 1977, the "Bailey/Bell Island area appears to have the most promis- ing thermal spring sites for hatchery development, and has been recommended for further evaluation. APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY Technology of heat transfer for geothermal systems covers a wide range of data and information, since temperatures from ambient to greater than 650 C are involved, and since applications include both space heating and electrical generation. Hot Igneous Systems (Magma) (>650 C) The economic removal of heat from molten igneous magma systems is expected to be difficult. However, it is also difficult to remove the heat from the reacting plasma and fusion blanket of a fusion reactor. Considerable work is underway on fusion beat transfer and the technology dedeveloped may have some applicability to geothermal energy extraction. For example a report entitled The Fusion Program and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Ref. 5-19) says "the advantages of the fluidized bed technology should be applied directly to fusion blanket design. These advantages include relatively uniform temperature distribution, high heat transfer rates between the fluid and the particles of the bed, and high heat transfer rates between the in-bed heat exchangers and the bed itself. One can envision a fusion blanket design based on a bed...of particles fluidized by relatively low velocity flow helium. The bed would be capable of removing heat from the first wall (volumetric heating. Monthly Progress Report, William C. McConkey, Division of E nergy and Power Development to ERDA (EY-76-C-06-1624), July 26, 1977. 168 of 10-20 watts/cm 3/sec and surface heating of 10-20 watts/cm 2 /sec) without requiring a high pressure coolant there. Heat exchangers in the bed would then remove the heat from the bed to the primary coolant." Alaskan resource specialists are commicating with fluidized bed scientists from Idaho regarding the use oftechnology of this type in or near one of the 88 volcanic calderas in the S tate. Fluidized beds have unique features that make them attractive for applications involving heat and mass transfer in solids, gas, and liquid system The basic mode of fluidization is the flow of a fluid either gas or liquid upward through a bed of solids at velocities which suspend the solids in the fluid. Quicksand is an example of a naturally occurring fluidized bed in which water flows upward through sand particles and suspends the sand. The entire mixture of solids and fluids behaves as a fluid and has properties characteristic of fluids. The suspended solids move about vigorously in the fluid andprovide a very effective means of mass and heat transfer in the system. Uniform temperature and precise temperature control are readily obtainable in fluid- ized beds. Also, the solids frequently and randomly collide with solid sur- faces located within the containing vessel and the wall of the vessel. Stag- nant films of fluid at the solid boundaries are therefore disrupted and the resulting resistance to heat transfer is reduced several-fold. Because they have no moving parts. fluidized bed systems are easily adapatable to systems requiring low maintenance and remote operations. Hot Dry Rocks (<650 C) The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory has been actively investigating the potential for, and proglems associated with, extracting geothermal energy in those parts of the United States that contain dry, hot rock at moderate depths. In the Los Alamos concep, a man-made geothermal reservoir would be formed by drilling into an identified region of suitable hot rock, and then creating within the rock a very large surgace area for heat transfer by use of large- scale hydraulic-fracturing techniques. After a circulation loop is formed by drilling a second hole into the top of the fractured region, the heat con- tained in this reservoir would be brought to the surface by the buoyant cir- culation of water. The water in the loop would be kep liquid by pressuriza- tion at the surface, thereby increasing the rate of heat transport up the withdrawal hole compared to that possible with steam. While this technology is of interest to Alaska, it is unlikely that it will be applied in Alaska prior to the year 2000. Geopressure-Geothermal Systems A recent (July 1976) Louisiana Energy report gives a suggested geopressure system that extracts energy from a geopressure-geothermal resource by three methods. An excerpt of this report describes the process: "First, h igh pressure water arriving in the well head at the surface is applied directly to a water turbine to generate electricity. Second. methane gas is removed from the saturated water by high and low pressure separators, one before and the other after the pressure has been applied to the water turbine. The electricity, or it can be used to heat the well water even higher for the third process. Third, the water, still at 260 F, is passed through a freon boiler which generates freon "steam" to run a gas turbine, gener- ating more electricity. The freon is then cooled, liquefied, and recir- culated to the boiler. Water leaving the boiler is disposed of in shallow, normally-pressured sands or in the Gulf of its bays." Research underway within and near the Gulf of Mexico should be followed closely for possible applicaiaton to areas in Alaska which might have this resource. Vapr-Dominated Systems (240 C) Since this geothermal energy source has not been identified in Alaska, tech- nology for "dry" steam geothermal energy is of little local interest at this time. Water-Dominated Systems (>150 C) One method of using intermediate temperature geothermal water to generate electrical power is to flash it to steam, separate the steam from the liquid and then use the steam to drive "conventional" steam turbines. One must determine for a given site the advantages and disadvantages of flashing once, versus twice, versus severala times. These calculations have been made by Dr. Tal Neill (Ref. 5-20) for the geothermal power plant under consideration in Raft River, Idaho. The maximum trubine work from two flash stages (20.1 X 10 6 Btu/hr or 5.9 Mw's) is significantly higher than that obtainable from a single flash state (15.4 X 10 6 Btu/hr or 4.5 Mw'S). Neill suggests that optimizing the three stage system would produce more than 22 X 10 6 Btu/hr or 6.4 Mw's, a gain which would prob- ably not be economic. However, one would need to offset the expense of a third flash in terms of capital outlay versus the additionalevergy gained. Going from one flash to two will result in a gain of 4.7 X 10 6 Btu/hr, but from two flashes to three only an estimated 1.9 X 10 6 Btu/hr is gained, making additional piping and turbine components more difficult to justify. The use of a binary power cycle has been suggested as perhaps the best method to generate power from geothermal heat sources. Such cycles generally involve the direct transfer of heat between the hot geothermal water and an organic working fluid. The major advantages of such a power cycle are the minimum handling of the geothermal water and the smaller turbines required with the organic vapors. One of the first questions to arise when considering a binary power cycle is which working fluid is bast. There is a surprising variety of organic and other fluids which have the required thermodynamic properties such as cirtical temperature, cirtical pressure and vapor pressure. Other properties such as toxicity, flammability, chemical compatability, thermal stability, and cost also determine the choice of the working fluid. Some of these fluids are freon-21, freon-211, propane, ammonia, supercritical freon-12, supercritical propane, isobutene, and supercritical isobutese. 170 A number of calculations on the potential output from several working fluids and power cycle concepts have been made by Neill (Ref. 5-21): however, energy output is only one factor that is used by the engineers to determine the fluid to be used. Water-Dominated Systems (90 C - 150 C) For the produ tion of electricity, the technology described in the previous. section on water dominated systems above 150 C would be applicable for the production of electricity. However, a rule of thumb says that for every 20% drop in operating tempeature range fromthe source to the "sink" (the con- denser) temperature, the power plant and energy supply system (well and pipe- line) costs will increase 50%. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain economic electrical power at temperatures below 150 C, considering present technology and the price of competing electrical generation. COST ISSUES Many paper studies have been done on the costs of generating electrical energy from geothermal systems, but few are based on actual operating experience. If geothermal fluidds can be usesd in a dirct manner, such as home heating and swimming pool use, the economics are frequently very favorable, since costly electricalgenerating equipment is not necessary. In water-dominated systems at temperature greater than 150 C, only four loca- tions in the world have cost information based on electrical generating exper- ience. These locations, with costs in 1972 dollars, are tabulated below (Ref. 5-22): Location Mills/Kwh Wairakei, New Zealand 5.1 Namafjall, Iceland 2.5 to 3.5 Pauzhetsk, USSR 7.2 Cerro Prieto, Mexico 4.1 to 4.9 At and near 150 C it is difficult to generate economic electricity; neverthe- less, research is underway at this time at Raft River, Idaho, in an effort to obtain cost information in this temperature range. While it is difficult to get economic energy from geothermal hot waters by electrical generation, the situation with respect to using the energy fro non- electrical generation is more favorable. Geothermal hot water is used to pasturize milk in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and to heat 170 homes in Boise, Idaho. Several hot springs in Alaska are used for recreation and space heating use. Such use supports the view that with the rising cost of fuels, the use of many geothermal sites may become increasingly viable. A number of people have addressed the subject of heothermal cost issues. Bloomster published an article in July 1976, "Economic Analysis of Geothermal Energy" (Ref. 5-23). Witner determined the "Costs of Alternative Sources of Electricity" including geothermal energy also in Jyly 1976 (Ref. 5-24). In Alaska, calculations have been made for the Anchorage area for both a 10 MW and a 25 MW "steam-geo-turbine" project. Busbar costs of 16.98 mills/kwh and 12.45 mills/kwh, respectively, were calculated. Also, costs wre calcu- lated for a geothermal binary hot water plant for a 10 MW and a 25 NW plant and busbar costs of 25.38 mills/kwh and 19.19 mill/kwh, respectively, were calculated (Ref. 5-25). These costs calculations must be viewd with great care since Alaska has had no operating experience with electrical generating geothermal systems of this type. FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDS 1. Alaska, as well as most locations throughout the U.S., needs more explor- ation in order to dtermine, in a quantitive manner, the energy in Alaska's geothermal resources (aquifers, basins, etc.) A Megawatt Reservoir Assessment (MRA)program needs to be implemented. Whether a site will support a 10 megawatt plant for 20 years or a 1,000 megawatt plant for 100 years must be know before a utility can commit capital outlay funds for construction. 2. Geothermal aquifer pressures follow a lunar pattern (recent Raft River measurements) and research needs to be considered on evaluating the possiblity that these pressure measurements could assist in earthquake prediction. Perhaps such pressure measurements during a tremor could assist in the MRA study. 3. Building having forced air systems can be directly converted to geother- mal heating by installing a new hot water coil in existing ductwork. More of this type of information is needed. More practical information on geo- thermal space heating design for Alaskan locations is needed. (State and federal office buildings in Boise, Idaho are being designed to use geo- thermal water for space heating. The estimated savings are $200,000 per year in fossil fuel costs equivalent to 16,000 barrels of oil per year. 4. More information is needed on the potential advantage of geothermal water on agricultural crops in Alaska. Increased crop yields, length of growing season, uptake of heothermal water minerals, and quality of produce need to be measured. An inventory of agricultural lands that might benefit from geothermal energy needs to be completed. Agriculture-geothermal experiments underway at Malta, Idaho need to be evaluated for Alaskan use. In a similar manner, more information is needed on the potential for geothermal energy to improve aquaculture production. 5. According to a louisiana energy report, pressure in excess of 9,000 lbs per square inch exists in underground hot waer reservois along the coast of Louisiana; such a fluid, when expelled at the surface, would "produce the equivalent energy of a theoretical waterfall 4 miles high." Alaska needs more information on geopressured-geothermal resources. 6. More information is also needed on the advantages and disadvantages of a binary system vs. multiple flash steam systems for electrical power production as the technology relates to the Alaska situation. 172 7. The State needs additional data on construction materials for piping, valves, and pumps associated with the movement of geothermal fluids for space heating, recreations, agricultural, and aquacultural use, with special attention to the Alaskan environment. 8. More information is needed on fluidized bed technology, as this relates to possible use in the economic transfer of the heat from Alaska's volcanoes. 9. The State of Hawaii has a long-range objective to "develop techniques, materials and components for the recovery of useful energy from molten maga." Alaska should consider working with Hawaii and scientists from the National Laboratories on the fluid bed concept. ALASKA GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES KEY CONTACTS William, Ogle Consultant 3801 West 44th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 (907) 277-7285 Charles E. BrockwaY, P.E. Assistant Research Professor Dept. of Civil Engineering Snake River Research Center University of Idaho Kimberly, Idaho 83341 (208) 423-5582 E. S. Grimmett Associate Scientist Allied Chemical 550 Second Street idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 (208) 522-4400, ext 3339 Johhn B. Burnham Program Director Regional Assessment Programs Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Battelle Boulevard Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 946-2476 C. J. Phillips Nome, Alaska 99762 Pat Kirkwood Principal Investigator Pacific Alaska Research 4510 Internnational Airport Road Anchorage Alaska 99503 (907) 243-1942 174 GEOTHERMAL REferences 5-12 U.S. Department of the Interior. Devision of Geological Survey. Assessment of the Geothermal Resources of the United States, by D. E. White and D. L. Williams, Survey Circular 726, 1975. 5-13 University of Alaska, Geophysical Insitutue and The Alaska Energy Office, Office of the Governor. Geothermal and Wind Power Alternate Engergy Sources for Alaska, Proceedings of the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference held in Anchorage, Alaska, July 8-9, 1975. 5-14 U.S. Department of the Interior. Divison of Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska: Accomplishment During 1975, Circular 733. 1976. 5-15 Ogle, William E. Report of a Visit to Ophir Hot Springs (White Bear Lodge). September 1976. 5-16 Ogle, William E. Report of a Visit to a Number of Alaskan Hot Springs to Aid in the Selection of a Site for the Possible Installation of a Small Binary Geothermal Electric Genereating Plant. July 1976. 5-17 Ogle, William E. Baranof - An example of Hot Springs' Originated Geothermal space Heating in Alaska. May 1976. 5-18 Ogle, William E. Report of a Visit to Bell Island Hot Springs. May 1976. 5-19 Conn, Robert W. The fusion Program and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Idaho: Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission, October 1974. 5-20 Neill, D. T. and Roustaiyan, Saeed. Study of Multiflash Steam Systems for Geothermal Use. Report to the Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission. Idaho: October 23, 1975. 5-21 Neill, D. T. Organic Fluid Turbines and Power Cycles. Final report to the Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission. Idaho: October 23, 1975. 5-22 Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma. Energy Alternatives: a Comparative Analysis. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office. May 1975. 5-23 Bloomster, C. H. Economic Analysis of Geothermal Energy. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Washington . July 1976. 5-24 Witner, Jeffrey G. Costs of Alternative Sources of Electricity. Stanford Research Institute, Palo Alto. California. July 1976. 5-25 university of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Electric Power in Alaska 1976-1995, August 1976. 175 WIND WIND RECOVERABLE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION BY SITE Wind is the movement of the atmosphere in a pair of gigantic loops. One loop is in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern hemisphere. The basic flow is along the surface of the earth from the polar regions to the tropics. Here the flow is heated and rises and then returns at high altitude toward the poles where it cools, sinks, and returns again along the surface to the tropics, completing the cycle (Ref. 5-26) Cool air from the Arctic flows southwest and meets the warmer moist air moving north. The air accumulates, this time at the earth's surface where it is forced upward by temperature gradient effect. This air mass divides in the upper atmosphere, part flowing north and part south. This zone of upward moving air varies between 50 and 60 degrees latitude and provides the condi- tions for storms that form in the northern and western Pacific Ocean and move eastward to the south of theAleutian Island chain into the Gulf of Alaska (Ref. 5-27) The earth's atmosphere is broken into numerous high and low pressure cells. The speed of moving air is related to the difference in pressure over a given distance; the greater the pressure difference, the greater the wind speed. With the world surface estimated at 1.965 X 10 8 mi. 2 (or 5.10 X 10 14 m 2) and the wind energy (up to 1,100 meters of the atmosphere) at 1130 X 10 2 watts, the Alaska portion is 3.6 X 10 6 megawatts taking Alaska as 0.30% of the earth's total area. If one assumes that 1/1000 of the kinetic energy in the air above Alaska could be extracted by windmills, a "practical annual mean wind power potential of Alaska is about 3,400 megawatts" (Ref. 5-28) Coastal regions lin Alaska typically have high average wind, as do islands and mountain passes. However, mean wind speeds are only one consideration in determining the practicability of wind-generated power. The entire wind regime, velocity by percent of total time and other considerations, determine the extractable wind energy. Time percentages and wind distribution must be inventoried before the real practicability of wind power sites can be deter- mined. Nevertheless, since many of Alaska's small, remote communities lie in high wind areas, wind power does represent a local energy source of con- siderable economic and social potential. Table 5-7 gives the location and speed of several Alaskan wind poer sites. 176 Table 5-7 SELECTED ALASKAN WIND POWER SITES Yearly Mean S@eed Site Region Knots* Miles per hour 18 3 21. 0 Amchitka Island Southwest st Sou@hwe 14,.9 17. 1 Cold Bay '14..9 Tin City 17.1 Northwest 12.8 14'.7 1iort Heiden Southwest b .12. 6 Kotzebue Northwest 10.9 Nome rthwest @@9.5 No Interior 9. 3. Big Delta, T 4 8.*5- :Juneau Southeastern 7.0 Yakutat Southeastern 6.6.. 7.6 .,Valdez Southcentral 4.6 5.3 Anchorage Southcentral (Merrill Field) 5.7 6.6 Anchorage Southcentral@-.. (Elmendorf AFB) 6.6 7.6 Sitka Southeastern 4.3 4.9 Fairbanks Interior *Knot is,a unit of speed of onenautical mile (6,076.10 feet) an hour; one statute mile is 5,28Q feet. Sou rc e Geothermal Evie:gy and Wind Power-Alter.nIate Energ@r Sources for Alaska, University of Alaska. Geophysical Instituteand the State.of Alaska Energy OffiM July, 1975, p. 78-79. .@177 CURRENT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT The present applications for wind power are primarily areas where conventional power is not availabble; e.g. remote cabins, mountain top communications installations, or rural homesites where cost of powerlines is expensive. While there is little market for home use in urban areas, William Barnes, Jr., pro- prietor of Windlite Alaska, does have a windmill in his backyard in Anchorage that lights his home. Three locations in Alaska are getting special attention with respect to windpower: Ugashik and NElson Lagoon, located on the northern coast of the Alaska Oeninsula in the Southwest region; and kotzebue in the Northwest Region. Ugashik The Ugashik windmill, erected 100 miles southwest of Naknek, was constructed under the direction of Dr. Tunis Wentink, Jr., of the University of Alaska through a grant from the Energy Research and Development Administration. The unit was destroyed in 1975 as a result of the failure of a safety system and high winds. A replacement was shipped to Alaska, but no installation date has been established. Nelson Lagoon Nelson Lagoon, a fishing village located 100 miles northeast of Cold Bay, has 12 homes, a community center and a school, all of which receive their elec- tricity from two 75 kw diesel generators. In February 1977, the Division of Energy and Power Development funded the installation of an electrical distribution system that connected two diesel generators (originally used by the school) with all the homes in the village. Prior to the hookip, individual diesel generators were used. The Division then purchased a 20 kw Grumman wind system, which was tied into the grid (via a synchronous inverter) in October 1977. If additional funding is obtained, a second wind generator will be purchased. ERDA is providing support to the project through the funding of a data logger and assisting with analysis of the data collected. The nelson Lagoon work is a demonstration project with two primary goals: 1) determine the technical feasibility of using wind generators in remote Alaskan villages; and 2) identify their economic viability. Additional information on the Nelson Lagoon activity is available in two recent reports (Ref. 5-20 and 5-30), which contain general requirements for installa- tion and data on currently manufactured wind-powered generator equipment. 178 Kotzebue The Division of Energy and Power Development, under contract with the University of Alaska, is also financing the installation of a 2 kw Dunlite wind generator at the new community collge building at Kotzebue. A synchronous inverter was installed with the generator and both units were in operation in October 1977. The emphasis of the project is to develop an operation and maintenance curriculum for Alaska Natives to help them utilize wind generators in their communities. Other Uses The national Weather Service recently purchased two wind generators to test for possible use with their remote automatic weather observing stations. Tests were conducted near McHugh Creek, just south of Anchorage. According to NWS facilities maintenance supervisor Sigfred Johnson, high and turbulent winds "blew them to pieces". A French model, the Aero-watt, was replaced bythe com- pany, and Johnson plans to reinstall it and raise the blocks to a height of 30 feet to avoid the turbulence encountered at a 10-foot altitude. Johnson hopes to come up with a system to replace solar panels at some of the northern- most stations. Wind generators such as the Aero-watt, would furnish a 3 to 4 amp trickle current to charge the batteries that power the remote instruments. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. has also purchased some wind generators to provide backup power for communications along the pipeline. An increasing number of Alaska residents, particularly in more remote areas, are finding units such as the Dunlite to be a practical means of meeting their basic electrical needs. APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY Man has long recognized and utilized the energy in the wind. Windmills were known in China and Japan as early as 2000 B.C. and have been in common use for at least 700 years in parts of Europe; wind energy systems were in wide use in the western Wunited States until about 1950. Some are still to be found in rural areas, pumping water into stock anks or generating electricity for individual farm houses. Some people feel that, had the windmills in the rural communities bee installed higher with more energy available at the greater wind velocities, the accestance of wind energy in rural America would have been much greater. During the period from 1935 to 1955 a number of large experimental wind-powered generators were constructed. Most of these units were located in Europe; the Smith-Putnam unit at Grandpa's Knob, Vermont, was the only U.S. effort. On October 19, 1941, this unit was the first ever to feed wind-generated power syn- chronously into a utility power grid. Rated at 1250 kw in a 30-mile per hour wind, it was operated on an experimental basis for 1100 hours over a four and one-half year period. Put out of commission by a blade failure in March 1945, the project was discontinued for economic reasons. 179 Windmill Designs: Horizontal and Vertical Axis Z, The many patterns of wind. turbines fall'into two basic concepts: horizontal axis designs and Vert cal axis designs. The horizontal axis designs include,.- the oldest, most common types, and:ge,nerally have.been themost comprehensively studied, whereas the vertical axis design dates only from around 1930 and,has @not been studied as thoroughl Horizontal axis turbines are typified by.the @y. American farm wind turbine.commonly.used.to.pump water in the, western. United, States@ The 'Dutch four-armed.windmill was used, to pump water and for'light industrial purposes in the Netherlands. The modern propeller designs with two or th ee bladps are commonly used on small generator svsteT,n:s. Recent large-'scale- experimental@power generation systems have used propellerdesigns-a.1most exclusively (see figure 5-10)., All three types of'horizonta.1 axis designs require some means of keeping the ,.turbine oriented into.the wind, the most frequent device being a tail or vane. Another system uses a small auxiliary horizontal-axis turbine (fantail), mounted perpendicular to the primary turbine and geared to drive the primary turbine -itself out of the.wind. By coning-the blades -into the wind whiledriving, the turbine can be made.@to track downwind without the use of.a,vane.* Vertical a@,is turbines do not require orientation to the wind because they are omni-direccional, with the axis of rotation perpendicular to the wind regard- less of the wind's direction. This amni-directional characteristic and a. capability of.delivering power directly to ground level are their-primary assets. Figure 5-10 presents the Darrieus and the Savonius or S-Rotor. No vertical axis wind turbine has yet been applied to large-scale or commercial projects although the Savonius rotor hPs been used as an ocean current meter and for hand-held anemometers. Although the Darrieus rotor is notcurrently self-starting, it has been combined with the Savonius rotor,in experiments at Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to become self-starting. Regardless of the configuration, all rotors.share some common design problems; they must endure certain stresses-and forces induced during operation.' Resonance and vibratory forces may be minimized by careful design,engineering of.tbe rotor driven machinery: -and supporting- stru.cture, 'but aer6d-9,ftIftftc, and inertial@ forces mustbe. cotintered by strength and rigidity., Aerodynamic loads are generated by the nonuniformity of wind speed. The mean axial wind component generates thrustforces which deflect the blades downwind (forced coning) and varia- tions in wind speed induce variations in the angle of coningi(flapping). Gradients in axial Velcoity (primarily vertical due to the boundary layer effect) tend to -tit, disk with respect, to the.-sh,aft, contributing to flapp.ing,andaggravating resonance problems at certain rotor speeds. Uneven loading of the blades also induces twistingstresses,in the.blades. Velocity components perpendicular to the rotor axis produce disk tilting and high harmonic loadings. Wind Speed and Power The essenta] quantity of interest is the energy flux in watts per unit area measured. normal to the wi:id direction. This is a power-.density,,and can be 180 Horizontal Axis Vertical Axi s q FARM s High,torque, low rpm, h i 91h :lc. se high weight/power output,ratio. Must be,turned, para,1 1 eI to h i gh winds for DArIRIEUS ROTM protection. Patented in 1931 (L16S.o ard.France), C Currently und r stud at N.ati ri'al, Y Aeronautical establishment, Ottawa,- Canada; AEC's Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M.; and NASA' s Langley$ VA. Labord'L--ories. DUTCH High torque, low rpm, inefficient blade de,sign. Fabric cover may be fit removed from arms for protection in high winds. q S-ROTOR Patented in 19.'.'9 U.S. -and Finland)-kv S.J. Savonius. NIODFRN PRoPELLER Currently used as an ocean curre@nt meter. 'Other applications shown feasible d Developmental alternatives not fully Lowtorque,high rmp,, efficient blade investigated. design. Three-blade units generally limited to smaller applications. Two- blade units-of 200-feet diameter are. feasible. Variable pitched biades allow speed regulation, feathering for protection. Figure 5- 10 -a Characteristics (Rotortype) Wind Turbir. Source; Energy Fact Book 1976. Tetra-Tech, Inc. Feb., 1976. -181 reported in watts per square meter ( ). The energy flux is the maximum power that can be obtained by any device of any design whatsoever. Thus, it is the basis for all efficiency calculations. The power-density is given by (Ref. 5-31). If "p" is the air density in grams per cubic centimeter, and "v" is the wind speed in meters per secnd, the "p" will be in Kw/ > The density will vary with altitude and with barometric pressure. Note that upon doubling the windspeed the power increased by a factor of eight. Electricity Schemes Although in the earliest applications of wind energy there was direct mechanical coupling of the wind turbine to the driven machinery or water pump, such applications place severe limitations on site solection and system configura- tion and are of listed potential today. Consequently, all current large-scale experimented systems are designed to generate electricity. There are several different methods by which wind energy can be utilized to make electricity, Six schemes are presented in Figure 5-11. Energy Storage When wind-generated power is used to supplement a power grid, the energy-storage problem is reduced to the existing fuel storage problems; but in a self- suffiicent wind-power system, excess energy must be stored when available aned retrieved during periods of insufficient wind. The characteristics of several technical options are given in Table 5-8. COST ISSUEES With the cost of power so high in the rural areas of Alaska, wind energy stands a good chance of satisfying an increasing share of the electrical and non- electrical energy. The major competitionof wind energy will be dieasel generators, but with the skyrocketing cost of crude oil, wind energy is becoming more attractive and may be economic in some area of Alaska in the near future. Wind Fast "Paper" Calculations Jeffery Witner of the Stanford Research Institute calculates the cost of from wind energy conversion system in a fuel-waver code based on attiltires involving 1.5 kw wind generator (Ref. 5-32). This system designed for an 18-mph mean wind speed, would reach rated (1.5 MW) output at a wind speed of 25 mph. The wind constains would have a 180-foot diamter, two blade rotor. The blades would be of a composite. The generator would be counted on top of a steel trust tower. Sixty-cycle AC over at 4 kw would be generated. 182 0C. OUTPUT i UO A,:. @j L ou I @1'1 I A N I P f rll'i Ne y @-E ACOVIpu?, V A Z;' L I UNt I zo; f L (IA V All f 0 tm + L T A I @.UN T.jv@ F,qwye t' to ut. wtro Ercrgv ov 44 4 octrica, Q@qfqy q r AV, Ifloo It 1976. 7 ol 111; T .0", 1 A't- F.0"o 1--417.3 Table 5-8 CHARACTERISTICS OF ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY Characteristics Technoloqy Typical Economic Earliest Storage Remarks Module Commercial Efficency (Mwe) Availability (%) Batteries 1 1975-82 70-80 Proven Technology Flywheels 1 1985 70-90 Hydrogen/Fuel 1 1985 40-60 Storage option for Cells Hydrogen Compressed-Air 10 (30 MwH) 1982 70-80 High-Grade Thermal (Adiabatic) Compressed-Air 10 1975 NA Required Fuel (Isothermal) Pumped hydro 100 (?) 1975 70-75 Special Situations Supercondructing 500 1995 90 Magnets Source: Energy Fact Book 1976 Terra Tech, Inc. Feb 1976 The cost of power was estimated to be from 17 to 30 mills/kwh for the time period 1985 to 1995. The capital cost investment was assumed to be $500/kw in 1985 and $450/kw in 1995. Even if the above costs are doubled in Alaska during that time frame, the costs look very attractive for wind energy in remote areas of Alaska. Wind Energy Costs in Alaska Very little information is availabel concerning wind energy costs in Alask. Some calculations have been made for certain Alaskan areas which indicates that a wind energy system "would require 5.9 years to pay off through fuel oil savings" (Ref. 5-29). One should also note that: (1) the oil saved could be used elsewhere, and (2) wind is replenishable. Once operating experience is gained on the wind energy system at nelson Lagoon, some cost numbers can be developed 184 FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDS 1. Wind velocities must be obtained for the site under consideration. Data should be obtained for at least a year and maximum wind velocities must be determined. Therefore, Alaska needs more site-oriented wind infor- mation for those locations where a current (or possible future) interest exists for wind power. 2. The cost of wind energy needs to be determined for various site-specific locations based upon actual operating experience. 3. Once a wind-powered generator (WPG) has been selected, it is necessry to obtain appropriate interfaace equipment for the utility grid. More information from actual operating experience is needed on such equipment. Examples of interface equipment that may be required to parallel an AC generator (i.e., Dunlite or Grumman) with a utility distributing system are: (1) rectifier network; (2) voltage regulator; (3) input filter/inter- face circuits; (4) synchronous inverter; (5) output filter/interface cir- cuits; (6) overcurrent protection; (7) metering; and (8) automatic disconnect. 4. More data is also needed on detailed methods of storing wind energy. Of special interest is the dissociation of water and the storage of energy as hydrogen. 185 ALASKA WIND RESOURCES KEY CONTACTS Robert Swanson William C. McConkey S&S Electric, Inc. Director P.O. Box 4-2439 Division of Energy and Power Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Development (907) 344-0022 Department of Commerce and Economic Development Ken Spieser 338 Denali St. 7th Floor MacKay Grumman Energy Systems .Bldg. 4175 Veterans Memorial Highway Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 272-0527 Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 (516) 575-6205 John Kuller Boeing Computer Services, Inc Western District P.O. Box 24346 Seattle, Washington 98124 (206) 773-8683 Gerald V. Neubert Associate Director for Planning Department of Facilities Planning and Construction University of Alaska Room #2, Bunnell Building Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 479-7591 John E. Nickles Associate Director of Constructio n of the Director of Construction Office University of Alaska Box 95502 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 William A. Barnes Windlite Alaska Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska (907) 272-2205 Dr. Tunis Wentink, Jr. Professor of Physics Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 479-7607 186 REFERENCES 5-26 Energy Fact Book 1976, Terra Tech, Inc., TT-A-642-76-211, Feb. 1976, Page XVIII-1. 5-27 Alaska Regional Profiles, Southcentral Region, Lydia Selkregg, University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 5-28 Geothermal Energy and Wind Power - Alternate Energy Sources for Alaska. University of Alaska. Geophysical Institute and the Alaska Energy Office. Proceedings fo theGeothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference held in Anchorage, Alaska, July 8-9, 1975. 5-29 Wind Power Demonstration Programs for Alask aEnergy Office,e Phase I Report, Boeing Engineering and Construction, Nov. 15, 1976. 5-30 Supplemental Wind Powered Electrical Generation for Selected Alaskan Communities, Final Report, Phase II, Boeing Computer Services, Inc., June 1977. 5-31 Project Aquilo, A Wind Inventroy Survey in Southern Idaho, Robert G. Nisle, Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission. 5-32 Costs of Alternative Sources of Electricity, Jeffrey G. Witner, Stanford Research Institute, July 1976. 187 ADDITIONAL ENERGY RESOURCEES There are a number of energy resources in Alaska in additon to the oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, uranium, heothermal and wind resources already discussed. These additional energy resources include tides, wood, peat, the sun, oil shale, the thermal gradients in the ocean and, of special importance from a conserva- tion vieewpoint, refuse and waste heat. With so many energy issues, operations, and resources that needed to be addressed in Phse I of this study, it is not possible to treat these resourcees in any detail. Nevertheless, a brief discussion of tidal and wood energy follows. Tidal Power The principle tidal power sites under consideration are in the Cook Inlet basin and at Angoon in southeastern Alaska. Inlet tides at Anchorage have a mean range of 26.7 feet and are even higher at the north end of the Knik Arm of the Inlet. The long-term potential for tidalpower development of Cook Inlet, or which Knik Arm is but a small segment, is estimated to be 8,560 megawatts. The Knik Arm is of special interest since there is a possibility that a corssing will be constructed from Anchorage to Willow, which was selected to be the new capitol site by the voters of Alaska on November 2, 1976. Estimates of Wilson and Swales (1972) indicate 685 MW of power can be obtained at Knik Arm. A similar situation exists at Turnagain Arm, where outer continental shel development will cause pressure for improved trans- portation to the Kenai Peninsual, resulting in the possible combination of a crossing with tidal energy installations. Turnagain has a power potential twice that of Knik. The division of Energy and Power Development is intent upon obtaining funds to develop a Knik Arm and/or a Turnagain Arm crossing design that will permit the leater installation of tidal energy units as the demad justifies. Whether or not this design willb e chosen is not known, but it is very important that such a design be considered so that future tidal energy will not be lost by default. The high cost of retrofitting dictates that consideration for tidal energy facilities at Knik, and Turnagain Arms be addressed prior to construc- tion of any corssing. Wood Interior Alaska has about 100 million acres that are forested; of this amount, 21 percent is classified as commercial. The forested area of Coastal Alaska is about 13 million acres, about 50 percent of which is classified as commerical. The volume of wood harvested in Alaska from lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the State was 510,000,000 board feet in 1976, according to the year-end report of The Alaska Economy. Since wood has about 10 to 11,000 Btu's per pound, wood is a large energy resource in Alaska. 188 Not only are wood products made in Ketchikar and Sitka, but the wood waste is used both for industrial process heat and to make electricity in steram boilers. Indeed, several megawatts are generated in the State. The wood waste in Coastal Alaska has a high moisture content and, therefore, oil is added in order to get combustion. Recent fluidized bed technology bhas been used to burn wood wastes in northern Idaho and it is possible now to burn wood with a moisture content as high as 62%. 189 CHAPTER 6 ALASKA ENERGY NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES The emphasis of the preceding chapters has been on Alaska's future as an energy-producting state. Given the potential extent of Alaska's recoverable fossil and non-fossil fuels and their importance to the entire nation, this emphasis is understandable. It is also important to recognize the needs and opportunities of Alaska as an energy consumer. Alaska is increasing its annual oil and gas comsuption. A comparison of 1975 United States and Alaska consumption indicates that petroleum and naturala gas comprise a higher percentage of the total energy demand inAlaska than in the U.S. as a whole: Percent of Total Demand United States Alaska Petroleum Liquids 47.0 58.0 Natural Gas 28.0 34.0 Coal 19.0 6.0 Hydroelectric 4.0 2.0 Nuclear Power 1.8 0.6 Miscellaneous 0.2 0.0* (*Not measured) The most recent total energy demand estimates for oil and gas are contained in Energy REport 3-77, Historic and Projected Demand for Oil and Gas in Alaska: 1972-1995, prepared by the Alaska Division of Minerals and Energy Management (DMEM). The above table illustrates Alaska's heavy dependence on oil and gas. It does not, however, show that Alaskans have been increasing their consumptionof oil and gas at an average rate of 10 percent per year since 1972. compared to a nation-wide average annual increase of two percent. Alaska per capita consump- tion in 1975 was approximately seven gallons of petroleum products per day during the same period, Americans as a whole used about 4 gallons per day. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present an historical comparison of Alaskan oil and gas comsumption between 1972 and 1976. Residential and commerical demand rose over 11 percent per year (1.64 to 2.19 million barrels of oil equivalent (MBOE), and industrial use of natural gas rose almost 10 percent per year (5.68 to 7.45 MBOW). Total non-electric oil and gas comsumption increased from 22.07 MBOE in 1972 to 30.31 MBOE in 1975, a four-year increase of 37 percent. Figure 6-3 dramatically points out the dominance of the transportation sector in the consumption of energy. The 1975 Alaska State energy mix is as follow: 191 Transportatoin 38.4% Electric Generation 21.6% Residential and Commercial 20.1% Industrial and Military 19.9 TOTAL 100.0% Figure 6-4 presents three oil demand projections to 1990 prepared by DMEM. If the moderate growth curve is chosen, total oil demand in the State will increase from 22.4 MBOE in 1975 to 42.5 MBOE in 1985 to 63.9 MBOE in 1995. This represents an average growth rate of over eight percent per year. Natural gas demand, as shown in Figure 6-5 would increase at an average annual rate of 8.5% from 81.1 billion Cubic Feet (BCF) in 1975 to 219.2 BCF annual consumption in 20 years. 192 T.i; i I Historic Alaskan W cimsump-ior), 1972-1975 SOlJrCP - S%zle I .of Airska Zlead,tMilm of N.)wrrif Helou,ce$. Of M-e,'n-4 ar) Eper@ry Mw-'am-emem F(Coor 13-77, !Ctjl :574 v t I Ficure 6.2 Historic Afaskan Natural Gas Cc'ns,umption: 1972.@-1975 Siam of t! P-pa'Iment Of Natural Reicx,rc.as. D-vlsi@r, Of Mile,all and Energy Md,;j7t!n,en-... Reppri 3.7-7.. 193 r RAW-*& k4_ urj[Ts@ T fl I k%"a. q 120 200 tit 160 t% 1 0 q 0 lation, i C Popu 1975 100 1985 1990 1995 "epresents. Sol Id L i,n e k Historic Daltd '[email protected].'Pr.-,)jec ied A.fi3@kaln Na lural Gas D c m and to 1995 r, e of Aiai@,a, O@rwtmemt PI !,Ialutal Rcso-jrcos@ Division of Minerals jn6 Ena,gV NI anagement. Repori,3-7 7. 196_. OPPORTUNITIES Most of this chapter has been centered on meeting present and future energy needs as determined through various growth and economic development trends. With such abundant resources, however, many opportunities exist for develop- ing Alaskan energy resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible, and ensuring that Alaskans receive adequate energy and power at the least cost. Alaska's abundant energy potential provides three significant opportunities. The first is to improve the standard of living through adequate energy avail- ability; the second is to provide employment opportunities for Alaskans; the thrid is to provide for the State's finanacial needs. Alaska's largest cities, i.e. Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Homer, Kodiak, Valdez, Cordova, as well as many smaller villages, are located near hydro and/or coal field sites. Each of these has the serious potential for clean and relatively inexpensive all-electric cities. With the use of wind, geothermal energy, and fuel cells many rural villages have similar opportunities. Alaska, with its energy resources alone, or combined with its many other natural resources has several opportunities to diversify its economy. The State is rich in minerals, fertile soils, fisheries and timber, as well as in coal, oil, gas, and water. The potential development of these industries as well as energy intensive industries provide Alaskans with a favorable employment and economic future. Finally, if managed carefully, all of these can mean a full financial reward to the State and its people. The future is promising if these resources and monie are managed carefully. 197 ENERGY NEEDS, ELECTRICAL Statewide electrical demand projections have been prepared by two organiza- tions: the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) of the University of Alaska and the Alaska Power Administration (APA) of the U.S. Department of Interior. APA's future electrical deman estimates contained inthe Alaska Power Survey of 1974, are shown on Figure 6-6, Superimposed upon this projection are the estimates developed by ISER in their 1976 report, Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995. As can be seen, there is a wide spread between the low range and high range predictions after 1985, but prior to that both estimates are fairly close. Due to the wide range of growth options which exist in Alaska, demand projections beyond 1985 vary greatly. Table 6-1 gives electrical power pro- duction as a function of the Regions of the State and the resources for calendar year 1975. Table 6-2 and Figure 607 present current and future electricity demand by Region through 1995 using the accelerated economic scenario with lowest and highest projections. The energy mix in the State for electrical production is estimated at: oil, 20 percent; natural gas, about 50 percent; coal, approximately 18 percent; and hydroelectric power, 12 percent. Rural areas rely almost exclusively on diesel fuel to power their electric generators, although natural gas is used in Barrow, the State's northern-most communiyt. The Anchorage and Kenai areas in the Southcentral Region have been blessed with inexpensive and abundant natural gas for electrical power generation; however, expiration of long-term contracts, limited uncommitted reserves, possible deregulation of natural gas, and bans on additional natural gas generation systems indicate that a change in this situation within the next few years. In the Interior, the Fairbanks vincinity power needs are met by coal-fired steam plants; the coal is supplied from the Usibelli Coal Mine near Healy and by a mine-mouth plant at the mine itself. Back-up diesel systems help meet peak demand in the area. It is difficult to predict the electrical energy mix for the year 2000. Studies in progress to determine the extent to which remote areas will be able to use alternate energy sources such as wind, geothermal, solar, and small low-head hydro will help. In larger communities, the locataion will, in large part, dictate the alter- natives. Fairbanks, for example, is surrounded with options with its proxim- ity to a large active coal mine, to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, to the future North Slope natural gas line, and to a possible major hydroelectric project on the Upper Susitna River. Anchorage and the Southcentral Region's future power alternatives include some continued use of natural gas, coal-fired plants using Beluga Coal, the Upper Susitna Dam hydropower project and harnessing of the tidal power of Cook Inlet. With the Railbelt area (the heavily-populated areas of the Southcentra and Interior REgiona) expected to account for over 90 percent of the State's total electrical energy usage by 1995, special focus and immediate attention must be given to determine the future supplies which will meet this energy demand. Geothermal energy may also hold some potential in the Interior Region (Mt. Drum and Mt. Wrangell areas) and in the South- central Region (Mt. Spurr, Mt. Iliama, Mt. REdoubt and Mt. St. Augustine). 198 in contrast to the majority of states in the Lower 48 most regions of Alaska are fortunate to have one or more Alt ernatives available.to meet' ..present And future energy demand. There exists either fossil fuel s6b- ...stitut.ion choices or other alternative, even rqnewable, energy resources. 0 The ability of Alaska It meet these, needs will depend, to a large degree, on.the ability to identify and analyze the options available and to prepare. a.program for.controlled- and orderly development of the State's energy resources. 199 40,000 30,000- W X 20,000 7 W a. p Z* 0 10,0 q@ p I _7 7 C 5,000 - W Mi I w 4,000 10 3,00 Uj Q ?-'000 W z HIS TORIC U PROJECTED 1,000 1974 1 a s k:a Power Survey Uj pg. 4 19T6 El ectri cPower, in Ka pg. 977 Enerqy.:Consumptj on in Alaska, .09. 28 .400L 1960 1970 1980 YCAD Figure 6--6 Utility System Power RequirIemeri6: 1960-2000 200 Table 6-1 ENERGYSOURC ES FOR ELECTRIC POWE R Alaska Utility and National befense Sys tem, Calendar Year 1975 E -S t i ma ted Power Production, Million kiqh -7 rom Natural@ 'F ro,"a Hydro of State Oil Gas coal Power@: Totzl Percant Southea@t .194. 296' io Southcentral 1426 163 1685. 50: (Interior)' L55 512. 6671 23 Yukon, Balance Of State 230 4 230:, Total 583 1430 512 857 28.78 Percent. 20' :;0 13 12. 100 So:ljrce: Alaska PoAer Adminiszra*:011. April 26,197 7.. 2.04 4 Table 6-2 p ELECTRICITY REQUIREMENTS IN ALASKA Anchorage and Southcentral Alaska Ca p a.c i t y Tot al tnergy Growth Rate Year Require d (MW) (Mi 11 ion KWH 11 (Annual Percent OW low 1.04 'high 1974 261 261. A. 1149 11,49 tk 9 C) 6523 9. 4@ @5 702.... 13,04 1995 1672 4 It 2 7004 18 141 9.0 14 Fairbanks Region -Cap:acity Total Eve rgy Growth Rate Y ea r Require& (mW) Om I I I 10 n (Annua I Percent) low JOW. hi 11 1 1..1 low h ' 197 4. 76 )l6 319 319 19185 144, 2 9@ 7. 6 O@2 12 4 4 5. q-,- 13 1.2, 1.993. "260 6 7 7 loss 2843 6.0 li.o Southeast Alaska Capacity Total Energy th Growl. Rate Year Pequired (MW) : - - _ KW H (Annual P e ecle n t 1. ow low ELL - 19?4 48 48 :2 15 215, 1985 93 112 417 .505, .6.2 8.0 141 184 634 827 5.3 Northwest and Southwest Regions ty Capac Total Energy Growth Rate Y ea r R e qu i i- e d M W1 (Million KMO (A'.1nu a I Percent) 0 W h'i w 1974 8 8 3,11 31- 1985 9 21 3-6 86@ 1'. 3 9.7 10 11 44 127, 6.9 Source: Elecir;c Poy@mlr in Alaska, 197Cl 995. Institute of Si3e-eal zlnd Economic Research. Universi y t 01 A!sska. August 1976@ 202 41 Plus Flural @IjGjj PIo Southeast S ESTIMATES of.us I'ziatianks Aflchclra@gc- Southcentral 15000 NJ rri@ 0 2, LJ 100ou q- Pitts Flural' LOW Pitts soutt le@t%[ ES7 IMATES Pfu, Fj;rt);3"kS 0 9 Anchcr@ge@& Southcerilfill 1914 1990 )995 2000 2005 YEAR F-4jure 6-7 El@,c Source: li (,tr,c Povoor In A;,%% of 50(j,11 tiful flos ewch. UnNfl.6ty ol A!'l, I, a, Aujoit 197G.. 4 CHAPTER 7 ENERGY DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The purpose of this chapter is to provide scenarios of the most probable course of Alaska's energy resources development through the year 2000. Primary attention is given to the major resources: oil, gas, coal, uranium, and hydroelectric power. The necessity these scenarios are speculative, involving a number of assump- tions regarding further resource discoveries, development ocsts, market prices, and related events. In effect, they are a "best guess" based on the knowledge gained by the project team thus far in the study. These scenarios willb e subject to consideraable change as they are overtaken by events in the future: but once they are established, and their assumptions made explicit, their modification to accommodate events as they occur is a relatively simple process. Thus, the scenarios become a type of a bseline against which to measure future circumstances and their implications for energy development in the State. The scenarios themselves are done on a Regional basis, primarily because there are frequent interactionsl between resource development in a given area. There are six scenarios, one for each of the major geographic (and political) subdivision of the State. A brief chronology has been pre- pared of the events which seem most likely tooccur in view of the information available at this time. In addition, the scenarios are based on a number of assumptions relating to each of the major resources. These assumptions are discussed in detail before the six Regional chronologies are described. In preparing the chronologies, no attempt was made to identify every possible outcome, or to date events with great precision. Only the broad outlines of the major elements of future energy development are depicted. SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Onshore and Offshore Oil And Gas The assumptions made regarding the background for development of onshore and offshore oil and gas in Alaska include the following: 1( Imported crude oil prices will remain high and continue to rise, but the rate of price increase will probably not exceed the general rate of inflation in the U.S. 2) FEderal controls on the wellhead prices of oil and gas will probably ease, and will have a minimal effect on exploration for, and further development of Alaska oil and gas. ("Old oil in Cook Inlet is one exception.) 3) The ban on further exports of U.S. petroleum and gas will remain in effect. 205 AA 4) One or more oil pipelines will be built to transport Alaskan crude oil across the lower 48 states, and will be in operation by 1985 or sooner. 5) A natural gas pipeline along the Alcan Highway route will be operating before 1985. 6) Environmental considerations will limit development in certain sensitive areas, such as those in or near major fisheries and wildlife refuges. 7) The use of oil and gas as a feedstock for a petrochemical faciltiy or refinery will occur within Alaska. 8) The State's leasing policies will be promulgated on schedule in order to permit orderly and responsible leasing of State lands with appropri- ate envoronmental safeguards. The rationale behind most of these assumptions is straightforward. Imminent collapse of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countires (OPEC) cartel is not predicted, but neither is it believed that OP{EC's control over prices is absolute. The present price level has already led to increased petroleum exploration and development in non-OPEC nations, and will continue to do so. Many of the OPEC nations have found that their exports are falling below expectations, generating some strain within the cartel. Further attempts to increase crude oil prices more rapidly than the overall price level would further increase incentives for non-OPEC oil to come on stream, and for importing nations to resort to increasinly stringent measures to stem the outflow of petrodollars. As part of the process of attempting to diminish reliance on OPEC, the U.S. government is trying to find politically palatable ways of increasing domestic production. This must lead to decreased restraint on wellhead prices of oil and gas, particularly oil and gas which result from new exploration, Alaska already has been treated as a special case due to the high cost of exploration and development; there is every reason to expect this policy to continue, thus minimizing the impact of federal con- trols on Alaskan wellhead prices. A continued ban on further U.S. exports of oil and gas is entirely consistent with this policy of incrasing U.S. self-sufficiency. The environmentalproblems associated with energy development in certain parts of the State are extremely serious. Examples are numerous. Oil and gas is thought to lie beneath the waters of Bristol Bay. But, at the same time, Bristol Bay is host to one of the largest red salmon runs in the world. Similarly, the Navarin-Zemchug-St. George petroleum provinces are thought to have substantial oil and gas resources; the area is also reported to supply about three percent of the world's bottomfish. The potentiala con- flict between these two resources is obvious. Similar problems are associ- ated with a number of wildlife refuges, especially the Arctic Wildlife Refuge inthe northeast corner of the State on the shores of the Beaufort Sea. 206 The assumption regarding the State leasing policies requires little explan- ation. The State is in the process of establishing its leasing policies right now, and there is no reason to believe that there willb e any sig- nificant delays in publishing these policies in the future. Assumptions for Coal Development The assumption on which the scenarios for coal development are based are largely site-specific. This is because different circumstances apply to development at each of the major coal fields at which development is likely to occur. These major sites are the Beluga district of the Susitna, and the Healy River district of the Nenana field, and Jarvis Creek Field. The assumptions for each are as follows: Beluga 1) National Energy Policy will continue to emphasize conversion to coal for electric power generation and other industrial uses. 2) Construction of the Upper Susitna project will not be started before 1982 or 1983, and the project will not be generating power before 1990. 3) Natural gas prices in the Cook Inlet will continue to rise, increasing demand for alternate power sources. 4) Placer-Amex and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. will continue to favor develop- ment of Beluga. 5) The state government will continue to favor orderly and environmentally- sound coal development. 6) Markets will be assured with one or more West Coast utilities. 7) Coalfreight rates from east of the Rockies to the West Coast will not be subsidized to reduce the delivered cost of Rocky Mountain coals. 207 The core of these assumptions is that there willbe a for Beluga coal on the West Coast of the United States during the . In additon, there willb e a smaller, but gor Beluga coal in the upper Cook Inlet region. So far, all evidence points to the of these assumptions. The other major of assumptions involving Amex, Inc., the Cook Inlet , and the state government, if that these major landholders want to develop the coal and state will be to the project sufficient to impede its development. Nenana The major market for Nenma coal, primarily from the will continue to be the Valley Electric Association. This utility is expected to expand its coal-fired generating facilities over the next two decades, both to serve the immediate Fairbank area and to provide the "railbelt intertion" which is expected to be developed inthe next 10-13 years in connection with the Sunitna Dam hydroelectric project. it such a dam were not built, an to still based on coal-fired generation plants at Boluga (serving Upper Cook Inlet and of mostly the Fairbanks area). An additional source of potential power in the Fairbanks area is mineral development. Although Alaska's minerals have only begun to be explored, the projected appears to be enourmous. Much of this development can be expected to be centered in the Fairbanks area. Jarvis Creek The only assumptions required for Jarvis Creek development is that the project is sufficiently sound economically to obtain and that there are no environmental or political issures of efficient to stop the project. In addition, the number of are scheduled to be increased inorder to increase the of of oil from the North Slope. This would further the stability of the Jarvis Creek project. Finally, there expects to be of agricultural development and population growth in the area. this includes Jarvis Creek. There could be a demand for if large- irrigation is required for the agriculture development. Hydroelectric Power Assumptions Hydroelectric power development is the state from the upper River project. four apply to all of these various projects. They are as follows: 1) oil and gas will remain , and will to discourage their for electric power generations. 2) The state government will continue to and environmonically souond hydroelectric power development. ~0 ~0qX~q@ ~qp~4~qt~qi~v~c~' ~qt ~-~d a ~qi~r~b Irk ~l~b~*~O~U a rid ~a~t~.~,~k~. -fir ~I~r A ~&~4~1 ~- ~@~qv~v lit ~r~v~.~.~. ~W a A ~7~4 ~W~N~Q ~4~,~@~-~q4~0 ~4~b~qt I ~l~qi~l~A A ~'~,~2qW~p~. i~f~f ~a~k ~4~, ~p~a ~qv~o~r~e A ~f I ~q4~'~.~v~f~t~.~. ~S~.~O~f~t~s I ~r~4ql ~'~t ~4~7 ~0qN~6qA~. I ~q4~2~k to ~qs ~4 ~qi~l ~-~t~i ~% -~.~q4 ~@~X~N &I ~qV~-~4~&~*~1 .&I ~U ~qi~g it ~.~-~v .~1 ~4_~1 ~F~^ ~t~f~f~t ~qA~'~T ".1 ~.~q3 ft ~'~W ~'~L ~0q4~f~, ~*~s ~?~L ~-~&~Z~W~4 ~r ~.~6~!~4~L ~i~f~-~i~'4~1~- ~V~v~v~@~%~;~A~t ~r~@~" ~-~V I ~-k~- ~2~1 ~P~.~, ~r~. ~A~qW~, ~O~qS~S~.~O~.~, ~f~o~@~,~W~r~r ~4~d~t~i~f~-~w~i~qi ~f ~8qA~J ~%~P I., ~4~p ~T ~- ~4 ~w~ql a ~r~j~i~b ~L~v~r~- ~qX ~qR~. ~q4~.~; ~4~"~1~0~1~, 1 ~, ~.~@~L~.~q4 A ~qt~4q4~qi ~qi~.~-~l~- ~1~q@ ~4ql~l~i~w ~!~.~k~l~t ~4 a .~,.~1~6~.~, ~, ~qt ft ~v~a ~r~qm~r~p~.~j~r~- ~'~0~. ILA" ~7 ~v ~p~w ~h~d~' ~O~qy~% 'a ~*~.~m ~4 ~, I ~, ~, ~j~. ~;~-~n~w~-~;~t ~9 ~*~1 ~4~i ~- ~f~*~.~P~,~ql ~v~r~'~: ~Z~, ~w ~q~,~. ~u~t~s ~A~-~C ~q ~qf~q-~q0 ~qs~q.~q4~qf ~q. ~q. .~2q1~q. ft ~ql~2qw~q-~q4 ~q1 a ''I ~qv~q- ~q.~q. ~q@ `~qJ~q: . ~qC~q-~ql~qb~q, ~q0 A. ~qt~qA~ql ~qd~qs~q. ~q;~q!~4q6. Miscellaneous Scenario Assumptions In addition to the specific sets of assumptions for the major energy resources likely to be developed in Alaska before the year 2000, there are a number of assumptions to be applied to other potential energy sources. These incluse the following" 1) There will continue to be strong interest in Alaska in alternatives to refined petroleum products as the basic power source in smaller commun- ities in the State. The alternatives being given serious consideration include wind power, geothermal energy, and small-scale hydroelectric power. 2) Energy demand inthe State will continue to grow rapidly as a result of population growth, increasing incomes, and growth in extractive industries such as minerals, forest products and fisheries. 3) Energy sources such as geothermal energy and waste heat will continue to be experimented with as a means of improving and expanding basic Alaskan industries such as fish hatcheries and agriculture. 210 SCENARIOS We have prepared six basic chronologies, one for each of the six major divisions of the State: the Arctic Region, the Northwest, the Interior, the Southwest, the Southcentral and the Southeast. The boundaries of these Regions are shown on the accompaning map (Figure 7-1). Within each scenario, we have divided the years between the present and the year 2000 into four major time periods: 1977-1980, 1981-1985, 1986-1990, and 1991- 2000. For each of these time periods area described the major energy developments and other related events which current information indicates are likely to occur. The Arctic Region Events in the Arctic Region between the present and the year 2000 cana be expected to be dominated by the exploration for, and development of, oil and gas resources. The three onshore Arctic oil and gas provinces (the Arctic Coastal Plain and the Southern and Northern Foothills) contain the largest potential undiscovered onshore resources in the State. Similarly, the Beaufort Sea and the Central and North Chukchi provinces also are believed to contain the largest undiscovered potential offshore resources. As noted earlier, exploration and development in these areas is not without problems. Unresolved borders with the USSR and Canada, boundary questions between State and federal lands, and d-2 land withdrawals may slow development. We have assumed that the incentives for Arctic oil and gas development are sufficiently powerful to lead to an orderly resolution of these problems. Nevertheless, these issues could have significant impacts on our scenario for the Arctic Region, and are noted where they occur. Our scenario for the Arctic Region is as follow: 1977-1980 The trans-Alaska oil pipeline which bean flowing in June 1977 starts pumping 1.2 million barrels of oil per day by mid-1978. Exploration in the Arctic Coastal Plain and the Northern Foot- hills continues, particularly in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA). Oil and gas exploration begins offshore in the Beaufort Sea on federal and State lands. Uranium exploration uner the National Uranium REsource Evalua- tion (NURE) Program begins in 1978 and continues into the 1980's. 1981-1985 Oil and gas development continues, with expansion of develop- ment of the Arctic Coastal Plain and with new development in the Northern and Southern Foothills and in the Beaufort Sea. Exploration begins in Central and Northern Chukchi offshore provinces. All of this exploration will tend to be close to shore due to the potential boundary problems with the USSR. (This element of the scenario may be altered by the d-2 withdrawals. See below). 1tA 6C" 1 1 w@ 344 40, :4 7 C .... ...... is C C k CT@11, A @j (All I R 0 of'? D N, J SOUTHV!E T '@T SOQ A SO\31 %A@ BPI r f" t v 9 A r q V lop ;A %p f A S K A i q .So .1 It, 'A I IP t4H" FitjLlrie 7,11 Alaska. RegiOlls Source: Univarsity,of Aloska, instimi) of Social & Economic research Offshore boundary with Canada extending into the Arctic Ocean will be determined. Experimental work will begin on wind-powered generation of electricity for isolated Arctic communities. The Alcan gas pipeline will be completed. 1986-1990 Onshore and offshore development and exploration continue. Discoveries are made in the two Chukchi offshore provinces and onshore in the western portions of the Arctic Coastal Plain and the northern and Southern Foothills. Construction begins on transportation facilities to linkup with the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. The route chosen will depend on the existance of d-2 transportation easements near the northwest coast and the extent of development north of the Brooks Range between the west coast and Prudhoe Bay. The border problems with the Soviet Union will be resolved and oil and gas exploration and development will proceed offshore in the Chukchi Sea. Construction of wind-powered generators for isolated commun- ities will begin. 1991-2000 All of the above oil and gas developments will continue, along with completion of an oil and gas transportation network. Experimentation will begin on oil-coal slurries, using Arctic coals from districts west of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. As noted above, the present plan for d-2 withdrawals has a potential serious impact on the scenario for oil and gas development (and later, coal develop- ment) in the Arctic Region. Under current d-2 proposals, a broad band extend- ing virtually across the entire State at the latitude of the Brooks Range and slightly to the south, will be included in the national parks, national wild- life refuges and wild and scenic rivers systems. The only current exception is the corridor for the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. With the possible excep- tion of the Selawik Lowlands, east of Kotzebue Sound, none of this area is expected to contain much oil or gas. However, development in the northwest portions of the Arctic and offshore in the Chukchi Sea can be seriously affected because of the lack of a transportation corridor west of the Brooks Range through the Selawik Lowlands. This route is by far the more economical route to follow, unless there is substantial oil and gas development running across the Arctic Coastal Plains and Brooks Range foothills between the cur- rent pipeline and the West Coast. Inother words, if a utility corridor is allowed near the West Coast to skirt the Brooks Range, explorationa dn devel- opment are very likely to proceed rapidly offshore on the Chukchi Sea and onshore south and west of Barrow. If such a corridor is not permitted, then there is a greater likelihood that development will proceed more slowly, tending to concentrate on areas closer to the current pipeline route before 213 developing the more westerly portions of the Region. Since the offshore provinces in the Chukchi Sea appear to be among the most promising of any in the State, the latter course of development could be a costly one in the long run. The Northwest Region This Region of the State does not appear likely to experience energy devel- opment on the scale of the Arctic Region. Current geological information suggests that there is very little fossil fuel potential in this portion of the State. The oil and gas provinces in the Northwest are considered among the least likely to experience significant development. Coas is also not evident in large quanities. On the other hand, the Northwest Region could contain a major energy transportation corridor, with oil and gas pipelines (and possibly a coal slurry pipeline) running through the region toward the Interior from the western portion of the Arctic Region. The most import- ant potential energy development is this region appears to be uranium. At present, both ERDA and private companies consider the Seward Peninsula as one of the most promising areas in the State for uranium development. Another area located in the Northwest Region with some uranium promise is the Selawik Lowlands. Development in this area appears likely to be pre- cluded by d-2 slections, however. Finally, the area contains considerable quantities of geothermal energy, some of which may be developed for local use or as a power source for uranium development and pipeline pumping stations. Because of the uncertainties associated with uranium discovery and the d-2 slections, a scenario for the northwest Region is necessarily more tenta- tive than for almost any other region in the State. The scenario we expect, however, is as follow: 1977-1980 Uranium exploration continues. Evaluation of Northwest Region geothermal resources continues. Exploration and evaluation of teh potential development of other minerals in the Northwest Region continues. 1981-2000 The scenario for theNorthwest Region for this 20-year period depends almost entirely on two contingencies. The first is that uranium is discovered in economically-recoverable quantities, and the second is that transportation easements are allowed through d-2 lands east of Kotzebue Sound. If neither of these events occurs, energy development in this Region will probably consist of little more than the instal- lation of some wind-powered generating facilities and the development of geothermal energy for space heating in a few small communities. If, however, both of the above occur, then the Northwest will contain one of the major energy transportation corridors in the State, including oil and gas pipelines and, ultimately, a coal slurry pipeline running east of Kotzebue Sound. In addition, or alternatively, there may be one or more ports developed on Norton Sound to transport 214 oil, gas, coal and/or uranium (either raw or semi-refined) to the Lower 48. A major uranium find on the Seward Peninsula would also lead to the construction of a major uranium refin- ing facility, probably near a potential port facility on Norton Sound. Interior Because of its central location, the Interior Region automatically becomes a focal point of energy transportation corridors. The trans-Alaska oil pipe- line is only the beginning. Construction willbe underway in 1979 or 1980 on a gas pipeline (Alcan) crossing into Canada at the eastern border of the region. Assuming easements in the Northwest on d-2 lands, an additional transporta- tion corridor running east and west through the region will probably occur south of the Brooks Range, linking up with the north-south corridor, north of Fairbanks. In addition, the Interior contains all or part of three oil and gas provinces (Yukon-Porcupine, part of Interior Lowlands, and part of Yukon-Koyukuk), substantial coal reserves (particularly in the foothills of the Alaska Range), geothermal resources, and a small amount of hydro- electric potential (excluding such massive projects as damming of major rivers). Energy resource development is likely to be an important compon- ent of the future of the Alaskan Interior. The scenario we currently envision for the Interior is as follows: 1977-1980 The Alaska Oil pipeline reaches 1.2 million barrels per day capacity by 1978. The Energy Company of Alaska refinery at North Pole expands its operation in 1978. Expansion of the Usibelli coal operation in the Nenana field begins, and plans get underway for development of the Jarvis Creek field. Evaulation of Little Tonzona coal continues. Exploration for oil and gas continues, particularly in the Yukon-Porcupine province, and possbily in Yukon-Koyukuk. Planning for the Susitna hydroelectric project gets underway (this project is located in the Southcenteral Region, but is ultimately planned to serve Fairbanks and other railbelt communities inthe Interior). Some experimental analysis and demonstration of waste heat as an energy source will begin. 215 1981-1985 Exploration for oil and gas continues with probable develop- ment of discoveries close to the pipeline route. The gas pipeline is constructed either along and Alcan route or directly south to Cordova. Further industiral development occurs inthe Fiarbanks area to utilize oil and gas as raw materials, particularly gas. A major component of this development may involve the production of fertilizers for agricultural development of the Interior, and for the reclamation of coal mine sites. Further potential coal development in the Interior for local power generation in more remote areas will be eamined, particularly by means of in-situ gasificatin. Research will bein on the possible exploitation of geothermal energy for small communities in the Interior, particularly those uses related to development of parks and other recrea- tional areas for tourism. 1986-1990 Exploration and development of the two Yukon oil provinces will continue with development of Yukon-Kuskokwim, dependent on a transportation corridor west of the Brooks Range through d-2 lands. If the transportation easement through d-2 lands is granted, construction will begin on a pipeline running west of the Brooks Range then south. Development of Interior timber may begin, generating its own energy requirements through the burning of wood wastes. 1991-2000 All of the above developments will continue in the 21st Century. It must be reemphasized that any scenario ofr the Interior depends heavily on two decisions still pending. One is the question of transportation corridor easements through d-2 lands, and the other is the route finally selected for Alaska's gas pipeline. D-2 transportation easements are required in order to achieve development of the potential oil and gas resources of the western portiono f the Arctic Region, both onshore and offshore. If such pipelines are built, the development of the Yukon- Kuskokwim is likely to occur much sooner. The choice of the Alcan gas pipeline route determines the scale and location of impacts on the eastern portion of the Interior. Any industry utilizing natural gas as a feedstock is more likely to locate in the Fairbanks area with the gas pipeline turn- ing east from Fairbanks toward Canada. 216 Southwest Region The primary source of major energy development in this Region willbe offshore oil and gas. The Region has some coal resources with potiential, particularly in the Herendeen Bay-Chignik area, but current d-2 proposals could preclude development of these fields. Other coal development may be possible, however. On a more local level, there is considerable likelihood of development of wind power and geothermal energy for small communities on the Alaskan Peninsula and the Aleutian Islands. The prospects for the Southwest appear to be as follows: 1977-1980 Exploration for oil and gas on-shore continues by the Bristol Bay Native Corporation. Wind power and geothermal research and development and evalua- tion continue. Evaluation of Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian coal continues. 1981-1985 Exploration for oil and gas on-shore and off-shore continue. If discoveries are made, a gathering point and transhipment port willb e developed on the Alaska Oeninsula or one of the Aleutian Islands. Controversy over off-shore exploration for oil and gas in the Bristol Bay area probably prevents development in this province, unless confidence in the technology of blow-out and spill prevention increases substantially. Some development of small hydroelectric power for local use begins. 1986-1990 Given the high probability of some oil and gas discovery off- shore, as well as on-shore, port development for oil and gas shipment will be completed during this time period. Shipment of some coal for export begins if port facilities for oil and gas development are in place. 1991-2000 Occurrences in this decade depend entirely on the results of oil and gas exploration and development during the 1980's. If sufficient finds are made to allow significant development, this area may become a satellite growth center dependent on oil and gas, and to some extent coal. Southcenteral Region The southcental Region is the most heavily-populated in the State of Alaska, containing the Municipality of Anchorage, a substantial stretch of the railbelt in the Matanuska-Susitna Valleys between Anchorage and Fairbanks, and the relatively heavily-populated (for Alaska) Kenai Peninsula. The Region also contains a substantial amount of energy resources including: oil and gas, 217 coal, hydropower, wind power, some uranium potential, potential geothermal energy sites, and several potential tidal power locations on Cook Inlet. The combinationof this resource base and a large and growing population base virtually guarantees that energy development will proceed more rapidly in this Region than in any other in the State, with the possible exception of the Arctic. The probable course of this development is as follows: 1977-1980 Exploration and development for oil and gas begin in Lower Cook Inlet, both onshore and offshore. Exploration offshore continues in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. Development plans for the Beluga Coal District of the Susitna Coal Field continue. Initial feasibility studies for the susitna Power Project are completed. 1981-1985 Additional oil and gas development proceeds in lower Cook Inlet. Either significant oil and gas finds are made offshore in the Gulf of Alaska, or the province is essentially abandoned. An additional petrochemical facility and/or refineries will go on-stream if oil and gas finds are made. Initial construction begins on the upper Susitna hydroelectric project. Infrastructure is completed for the development of the Beluga Coal Field, including a road to the West Coast of Cook Inlet, port facilities designed to handle coal, a mine-mouth power plant, and transmission lines around the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet. Preliminary analysis performed on developing the potential geothermal power in the region. Further analysis will be performed on the possibilities of in-situ gasification of coal beds in the Cook Inlet area, especially nar the new capitol site at Willow. 1986-1990 Generation of power begins at the mine-mouth power plant at Beluga. Shipment of coal to the West Coast begins reaching full production early in this period. The railbelt power tie-line connecting the Interior and South- central is completed. 218 Construction continues on the Susitna hydroelectric project, with some power coming on-stream in 1990 or shortly thereafter. Investigation begins of the possibilities of harnessing tidal power coupled with a vehicular causeway across the Knik Arm. Development of industrial sites for the refining of aluminum and sponge iron, using the abundant electrical power, begins. Other industrial development and population growth continue in The Cook Inlet sub-region, with some additional development in the Valdez and Cordova areas. 1991-2000 All of the developments described above continue or are completed. The southeast Region The southeast is characterized by a scarcity of fossil fuel energy resources. There is very little coal in recoverable quantities, and prospects for oil and gas development are considered to be among the least-promising in the State. The Southeast, however, does have substantial hydroelectrick potential because of the enormous rainfall and the steep gradient created by the coastal mountain. In addition, the Southeast is the site of the one uranium mine in the State that has yielded commercial quantities and prospects are considered very good for further commercial discoveries. There is also some geothermal potential inthe Southeast. Thus, scenarios for the Southeast consist primarily of the development of energy resources to serveother industries in the Southeast, rather than energy exploration, recovery and transportation being a mojor driving force inthe region's economy. Energy development scenarios for the Southeast are as follows: 1977-1980 Uranium exploration continues. Study is continued, and Federal Power Commission licenses are sought for the hydroelectric projects for KEtchikan, Juneau, Petersburg and Wrangell, (See Current Plans for Development of Hydroelectric Power, Chapter 5). 1981-1985 Construction begins on hydroelectric projects for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg-Wrangell and Sitka. Expanson of Juneau hydroelectric power is postponed ude to capitol move. Uranium development depends entirely on uranium finds, none of which are known to be pending at this time. 1986-1990 Construction is completed on the hydroelectric sites described above. Additional hydroelectric planning is continued (all of these hydroelectric sites are small). Some uranium is undoubtedly found, but development depends on the size of the find and the quality of the ore. Geothermal research continues. 219 1991-2000 All of the above continue. Because of the lack of major energy resources for export (with the possible exception of uranium(, the scenario for energy development in these later years depends almost exclusively on other non-energy related elements, particularly forestry and fisheries products and minerals development. 220 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Alaska Regional Energy Planning Project report is the first of five planned reports funded by the EnergyResearch and Development Administration (now the Department of Energy) and administered by the Alaska Divisionof Energy and Power Development (DEPD). This report sets the stage for a five-year project that will eventually address all the energy resources inAlaska: oil and gas, coal, hydro- electric, uranium, heothermal, wind, tides, wood, solar energy, oil shale, peat ant other energy resources including waste heat. The five-year affort will ot only identify all of the numerous energy resource sites in the state that are significant, but will also address the energy operations from exploration to the decommissioning of the energy facility and/or the reclamation of distrubed land. Other energy operations given attention are recovery, storage, transportation,processing and use of the energy resources. An attempt is underway to analyze the various energy issures (economic, social, environmental, governmental, conservational and technological) as functions of each energy operation and many of the energy sites. Since energy issues related to each resource arenumerous and complex, and available funding and time finite, an effective planning effort must limit itself to an analysis of energy sites and operations most likely to be developed. While this first year report gives considerable information on Native land issues, economic, social, environmental, governmental, conservational and technological issues, the major thrust has been toward an inventory of the key energy resources: oil and gas, coal, hydroelectric power and uranium, followed by a screening and ranking of the site considered most likely for development between now and the year 2000. Energy Resources and Energy Areas Alaska's energy resources are vast and can play a major role in helping to meet the nation's future energy needs. Alaska has 0.2% of the nation's population, 16.2% of the land mass, 32% of the onshore measured oil reserves, 16% of the onshore measured natural gas reserves, 37% to 63% of the coal resources and 26% of the hydroelectric potential. Large differences in Federal and State energy resource estimates are due, in part, to limited, inadequate, and sometimes unavailable data. Reliable resource data are small and generally restricted to the few areas where extensive development or exploration have taken place. Given the size of Alaska, the uniqueness of its physical and political geography, and the highly variable conditions facing energy development in different parts of the State, it has been useful throughout this study to 221 ~0 Lee ~q44~q4~A ~9 ~4 ~qV~, ~z~w ~C~0~1~3 ~J~qW~4~6. ~8qM~"~I~S ~0~4~q@~0q*~I~4qf~4qt~g ~W ~q9~-~0~q0 1 ~W ~4~6~*~qA~q"~0qr~qy If- ~6q4~0 ~'~q@~4q@~j~j ~qc I~. I ~r~, it ~6~4q"~4 ~4~Y~A~L t he, ~1~1~q"t~'~. ~qX~. ~t~of ~4~qi ~-~0 .4 ~q4~a~qt h ~qi~1~0qW ~4qQ ~c ~O~L ~qh~*~4 aft* ~q6~qy~" ~t~'~s~e ~qr~qc ~'~.~. ~1. ~Q~;~4~qP~S~A~qV ~qL~q@` Ali ~-~4~4q4 ~1. ~qt~qh~' %.its ~- %#A ~6 tip" &A ~qA~-~C~- ~1~q4 ~e~-~0 ~V A,' ~f 4 ~9 ~q1~A ~T a ~V~* ~4~; t~q!~w ~q;~q@~c ~0. ~qt~. ~qi~v ~4~: ~!~4~. ~-~-~t ~qb~w~q" ~w ~v ~qt ~1~6q4 ~'~6qO~qA ~0~q4 ~4 to ~it a.. ~0qf~q%~q~v A ~r~' ~q0~'~a~d ~r ~r~i ~qr ~6~, ~a'~n-. ~.~#~8q4 ~q1~4~4q4 4~$~T~qj~OA fa' ~qi~'~qd con ~8~q1 ~r~8q4 ~.~.~qr~o~:~r ~q6~t~;~e~b~qt~qi~qw~, ~qI~'~a~r ~q4~!~w~*~0~qr~v~S~* ~0~q1 ~4~t~w~4~l~a~t ~qi~1~;~1~V~L~4qU~,~qt~4~qw~-~8~.~1~%~1~-~4 No ~6~,~0~9~Z ~d~* ~j ~7~.~&~q14~. to ~*~q*~A~4q4 ~4 ~q1 ~qt~0qW~q: ~q1~q2~'. ~8qV ~q4~qt ~q3~:~4~D ~t. L ~qi~b ~0q6~L ~qt~or A Into' AV ~q6~qi~qt~-~:~q4~-~M~qd ~q4~X~L~qp~qi~o~r~d~f~qi~-~0q" ~0~-~4q4~r~i~qw.~- ~0~4q4~W ~76qS~I Ask ~f~e ~I~L~84~1~k I ~m~a ~0_~0~q4 ~1~6qH ~4~:~4~0 It., ~- ~q0 ~E~q:~;~b~t ~v ~t Is ~I~r ~o~q" ~- ~q1~-~6 ~qt~$~8q4 ~'~r ~I~q-~M~Y~4q4~4 ~qt ~4~r~S ~V~. ~8qU ~0qK ~r~L of Smog I ~0qA~qi ~q?~r~4~Ad~1~%~qq~v~.~' ~q9~q4~v~@ ~a~4~qv~qs ~c~2q4~o~f ~qc~a~l~-~q*~*~q@ I as: ~qt~qw~-~0~4~4 ~qr~t~L ~q1~-~v~e I ~e~.~q;~N~q& ~.~2 lid ~0 ~t~qA ~qh~-~J, ~'~qC~qh~e ~q4~4~-~I~r ~4~4~*~q1~4~4~-~t~qt~o~a~. ~@~,~O~e~qf~qt~-~q4~, ~I~R ~i~o~qk~v~, ~q;~x~qt~qx~8qM~6~r~q1~,~qy~-~,~, ~qr~o~t~8qk~qi~'~qm at. ~e~v ~o~q4 a~t ~C~. ~q1~q@~0q@ in 4 ~1~q@~q4 ~q1~-~4qw~q4~4qu~!~q@~-~q4~4~2q4~q%~qA ~qF. ~qt ~f ~'~qj~* ~;~r~0~_~f~q0~-~-~A~t ~I~.~S~0~6~4~q4 ~-~ql~"~qd~e~n~qt ~qff~A~.~0q4~q4~. A~AL ~*11. ~c~-~ax~*~b~o~i~qr~v. ~8qV~r~6qA at -Or ~~ ~r~e e~4 ~-~1 ~4~. ~f~-~w~4~,~,~:~iw~o A ~.~1 ~.~1 ~q1~q" ~q4~'~s ~I~r~r~s~k 1 ~*~9 at ~,~4~q2.~q1~4~" ~*~t~v ~qt~qu~m~,~%~q:~2q4 ~0q*~t~. ~nt it ~L~e~qd ~q4~T ~W~0~q4 ~I~t~qA ~qf~0~qp~r~i~c~qi~r~o~b~t ~m~i~r~. ~qr~e~qf~qt ~t~o~.~.~'~a~"~qJ ~.~0~. ~"~*~~b ~V~-~0q3~qZ ~-~2q4 T~qh~o Arctic -~r~qv~* ~1* ~1~4~F ~4~qj~qi~q;~a~. ~@~qw~qm~r~r~. ~0~,~j~. ~0 ~%4~p oil if ~qf ~qi ~&~.~Y~,~q or "At ~qT ~16 ~~ ~I~L ~b~qt~e ~f~* -Ira ~t~6qM~qo~qd -*.to ~q*~q0~4q4 ~qf~2q" ~q.~q0 ~:~q;~qF~,~q.~q*~' ~q0 Iwo ~8qR~q*~q?~00q" ~0qi~qx ~q-~q7~0qi ~qr ~4qi~40q4 ~q1~8q4~q4 1 &toes., ~q4 ~q"A~qM~q4~q@~04q4 IN ~2q4~8q4 Oft of ~q.~4q4 ~2qv~qo~qt ~q1~0q4 ~6qjA ~4qJ~q@~q% ~q*~0qJ~q-~q0~16q4 ~q4~q-~q4 ~qX~q. ~q9~q:~q1~6q4 ~q1~q0~qe~qw~qt ~qw ~q-~q.~q4~q4 ~qi~ql~qe~q'~q. ~q1~q1~q' ~qZ h~qa~qv ..Of ~2qv~qor ~qr~q, ~qw~qh ~q0 ~qO~q.~q.~q'~qD ~qt~qw ~q6~q-~qm~qa ~qe I ~q*~qq A: 44, -W! io extent is unknown. The major portion of the field onshore varies in width from 25 to 100 miles, with much of it lying within the borders of NPRA. Identified coal resources in the Arctic Region exceed 122 billion short tons, all onshore. One sixth of the deposit is bituminous -- some with coking properties -- and the remaining beds are subbituminous and lignite coals. Undiscovered coal resources, onshore and offshore )limited to the area within the three nautical mile limit in the Chukchi Sea), are estimated at 346 billion to 3.5 trillion short tons -- representing somewhere between 18 and 69 percent of the State's remaining coal. Although anthracite and somianthracite coals are found in the Lisburne Field (Point Hope) on the westernmost part of the Arctic, no estimates have been made for these deposits. Other energy resources include sub-economic oil shale desposits and some geologists suggest uranium may be discovered in the region. Arctic Alaska is not favorable for geothermal or hydroelectric development. A statewide waterpower inventory did not find any hydro sites with the necessary combinations of head, water supply, damsites and reservoir potential that would indicate potentially feasible hydro projects for the Arctic. Although three sites, totalling 1,073 million kwh were found, all are in the higher priced index groups. The wind, which blows strong and persistent in the northern half of the region, is a potential renewable energy resource which might be harnessed. Northwest Region Centering around Kotzebue andNome, theNorthwest Region has approximately three percent of the State's population, made up predominately of Inupiat Eskimo people. No oil or gas discoveries have been made inthe Region and estimates for future finds are modest. Estimates of undiscovered recoverable oil vary from 0.7 to 6.8 billion barrels, representing an estimated two to eight percent of the total crude oil expected to be recovered onshore and offshore of Alaska. Estimates of potential natural gas deposits range from 2.0 to 36.0 trillion cubic feet, representing two to nine percent of the State's potentially recoverable gas, onshore and offshore. Of these, the largest oil and gas deposits are expected to be found offshore. The coal areas in this Region are generally calssified as occurrences and little is known about the extent of the resource and no known coal resource estimates are available for the Region. However, coal outcrops are known to exist along the Kobuk River in at least six locations, on the Seward Peninsula along at least four streamcusts and at two sites near Unalakleet. Future discoveries of uranium resources on the Seward Peninsula and in the Selawik area are thought to be very favorable. Several locations with exceptionally high radioactivity have been found inthe Northwest Region. 224 As in the other northern regions of the State, hydroelectric potential is not good, primarily because of a realtively low runoff and the hydro sites being located only on the main stem of rivers. A total of 11 undeveloped sites with 3,177 million kilowatt hours of potential have been identified. Five of these are considered as lower priced sites by the Alaska Power Administration. Geothermal resources are abundant. Many geothermal springs are found in the area near the village of St. Michael, on St. Lawrence Island, on the Seward Peninsula, and in the Purcell Mountains. Pilgrim Hot Springs north of Nome on the Seward Peninsula is one of three "Known Geothermal Resource Areas" (KGRA's) in the State. Interior Region Approximately 17 percent of the State's population lives inthe Interior Region. Communities range in size from small, primarily Athabascan Indian villages along the Yukon River and its tributaries to the Fairbanks metropolitan area. Because no commerical discoveries of oil or gas have been found in the Interior Region, no estimates of identified resources are available. Potential recoverable oil resources are considered small when compared with estimates for other regions in the State. Estimates vary from 0.2 to 3.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil, representing 0.4 to 4.3 percent of the State's total oil resources, onshore and offshore. Estimates of natural gas resources vary widely from 1.0 to 15.4 trillion cubic feet, representing anywhere from 1.2 to 13.8 percent of the State's total onshore gas and 0.8 to 3.8 percent of the State's total onshore and offshore natural gas. Some crude oil from the Arctic Region is refined at North Pole, near Fairbanks transported by the Trans-Alaska pipeline, which is routed through the Region. Coal resources in the Interior Region are significant (albeit small compared to the Arctic and Southcentral Regions) with several coal fields and outcrop occurrences. Remaining identified coal resources (measured, indicated and inferred) are estimated 5.4 to 7.0 billion short tons, representing 3.9 to 5 percent of teh State's total remaining identified coal resources. Total undiscovered remaining resources are estimated at 9 billion short tons, representing less than one percent of teh State's total undiscovered remaining resources. Total remaining coal resources (identified and undiscovered) are estimated at 14.3 to 15.9 billion shor tons or less than one percent of the State's total remaining coal resources. The state's only major producing coal mine is located inthe Interior Region at Usibelli, about 120 rail miles south of Fairbanks. Production from the surface mining operation -- about 724,000 short tons in 1976 -- is from the Healy District of the Nenana Coal Field and is used primarily to produce electricity for Fairbanks and vicinity. Although the Yukon River is the largest potential hydroelectric resource in the United States, hydropower development is not favorable due predominately 225 to serious potential environmental problems associated with development. The Interior Regiona, with at least 48 undeveloped sites totaling 93,885 million kwh includes Rampart at 34,200 million kwh, Kaltag at 13100 million kwh, and Woodchopper at 14,200 million kwh of firm energy. The three sites noted contain 66 percent of the Region's hydro potential. Except for main stem developments, such as the sites listed above, there are no good potential water power sites north of the Alaska Rrange. Northern slopes of the Alaska Range are too steep and lack storage capacity. According to the Alaska Power Administration, only a few sites can be physically developed inthe Yukon Basin: four on the main stem of the Yukon River and six on its tributaries. No known hydro- electric sites have been developed in the Interior Region. Uranium potential in the area is not well-defined at this time, but is considered to be relatively high. The Region also has sizable geothermal resources: especially notable are the many hot springs inthe Region located in a belt trending reast-west through the center of the Region. Southwest Region Almost entirely Native in origin, the southwest Region has about seven percent of the State's population. It consists of Yupik Eskimos living in villages surrounding and including Bethel and Dillingham, Aleuts living in villages scattered along the Aleutian Islands and Athabascan Indians who live inland in villages along the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. By far the largest number of small villages inAlaska are located in the Southwest Region. Oil and gas resources, thought to be very large inthe Region, are untapped at this time. Offshore petroleum privinces in Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea are among Alaska's most promising for future petroleum discoveries, however, because of a potential negative environmental impact on the fisheries, development may pose serious problems. Because no oil and gas discoveries have been made, no estimates of identified oil or gas reserves are availabel for the Region. However, unidscovered recoverable oil resources, onshore and offshore, have been estimated at 2.9 to 28.6 billion barrels, representing a range of 6.6 to 33.3 percent of the total recoverable oil resources of the State. By far, the largest deposits of oil an gas are expected to be found offshore. Unidscovered recoverable gas resources, onshore and offshore, are estimated at 7.4 to 166.4 trillion cubic feet, representing from 6.2 to 40.6 percent of the State's potential recoverable gas. Marked differences in estimates, especially noteworthy in this Region, are due to the absence of exploatory drilling data. Deposits of lignite, subbituminous and bituminous coals are scattered through- out the Region. Coal fields are located on Unga Island and at herendeen Bay and Chignik and thre are occurrences at Littel Tonzona, Etolin Straits and in the lower Kuksokwim and lower Yukon River Basins. Although no known estimates of identified resources are available, undiscovered remaining coal resources have been estimated at 3290 million short tons, representing less than one percent of the toal remaining coal resources, identified and undiscovered, of the State. Due to its small population and therefore low electric power demand, the Southwest Region has not been studied intensively for its 226 waterpower potential. At least 23 undeveloped hydroelectric sites have been identified in this region, however, with the potential of producing a total of 26,462 million kilowatt hours of energy, including the huge Holy Cross site, at 12,300 million kwh. No inventory of smaller sites, those capable of producing under 2,500 kw of continous power, has been made for this region. A very large geothermal potential exists in the Southwest Region due to the many volcanoes and hot springs. Two of the three areas designated "Known Geothermal Resource Area" (KRGA's) in Alaska are located on Umnak Island in the Aleutians. Uranium investigations indicate some potential may be present. The Region has an excellent wind power potential as there are strong winds in all seasons especially along the Aleutian Islands. Southcentral Region Containing more than 59 percent of the State's population, the Southcentral Region's inhabitants are concentrated in the Municipality of Anchorage --the State's largest incorporated communiyt-- and in settlements along the railbelt of the Alaska Railroad as well as the coastal communities centering around the cities of Kodiak, Kenai, Soldotna, Seldovia, Seward, Homer, Valdez, Cordova, and Glennallen. The population is predominately non-native, but several native groups are represented, including Athabascan Indian, Eskimo, Aleuts and a very few Eyak Indians. The headquarters for most of the energy-related industries in the State, two of the three petroleum refineries and all the petrochemical manufacturing in Alaska, and the terinous of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline are located in the Southcentral Region. Oil and gas are being recovered onshore and offshore of the upper Cook Inlet area and federal oil and gas leases have been sold for OuterContinental Shelf lands in lower Cook Inlet and along the Eastern Gulf of Alaska where exploratory drilling is underway. Total identified recoverable oil reserves are conservatively estimated at 0.8 billion barrels, almost equally divided between onshore and offshore deposits. Undiscovered oil resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated at 3.6 to 10.0 billion barrels, or more, of which 0.7 to 1.7 billion barrels are estimated for onshore areas and 2.1 to 8.1 billion barrels are estimated for offshore area. The southcentral Region is thought to have eight to 11 percent of the State's recoverable oil potential. identified recoverable natural gas reserves (measured, indicated and inferred, onshore and offshore) are estimated at 3.7 to 8.8 trillion cubic feet, representing 12 to 17 percent of the State's know gas. Undiscovered recoverable gas resources (hypothetical and speculative, onshore and off- shore) are estimated at 7.1 to 59.4 tirllion cubic feet with substantially more gas expected to be found offshore than onshore. Total gas resources (identified and unidscovered, onshore and offshore) are estimated at 16 to 63 trillion cubic feet representing 13 to 15 percent of the State's total onshore and offshore gas potential. 227 There are several coal fields in the Region, principally the Susitna - Cook Inlet - Kenai fields, Matanuska Field, and Broad Pass Field, all centering on Upper Cook Inlet, as well as the Bering River field near Cordova. Identified remaining coal resources (measured, indicated and inferred) are estimated at 10.7 billion short tons. Undiscovered remaining resources (hypothetical and speculative) are estimated t 1.484 trillion short tons. Total remaining coal resources, estimated at 1.495 trillion short tons, represent from 29 to 79 per cent of the State's total remaining coal resources, identified and undiscovered. Development of the Beluga Coal field , near Tyonek, is in the early planning stages. Also in the early planning stages is a major hydroelectric power project on the Susitna River which will produce about 1,600 MW of power and will serve the entire railbelt area and over 80 percent of the State's population. Two existing hydroelectric projects are located in the Region at Eklutna and Cooper Lake. Coventional hydropower potential is substantial, with an estimated 52,137 million kwh of undeveloped hydropower potential in 107 sites, 23 of which are considered by the Alaska Power Administration to be lower priced sites. Away from the coast, there is much lighter runoff and less steep topography. Farther inland where there are damsites on the bigger rivers having larger flows, there are several significant, power potentials, such as those on the Copper River and Susitna River. Tidal power potential at Cook Inlet is among the most promising in the United States, and could serve the electrical needs of the entire Southcentral Region in years to come. The geothermal potential is considerable, particularly in the Wrangell Mountains to the east, and the Aleutian range in the west. There are several dormant and active volcanoes in the area, but geothermal springs are limited in number. Discoveries of uranium are thought to be very likely and opportunitues are excellent for harnesing the wind along coastal areas, islands and mountain passes in the Southcentral Region. Southeast Region Approximately 12 percent of the State's populationlive in the Southeast Region. Although the population is predominately non-native, a substantial number of Tlingit andHaida Indians as well as some Tsimshian Indians are residents. The largest population center is Juneau, the State's capital city. There are no overland road connections between any of the Regions's major cities, Juneau, haines, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell or Ketchikan. Petroleum resources in Southeast are thought to be small. No known oil and gas reserve estimates are available. However, undiscovered recoverable oil is estimated at 0.6 to 2.9 billion barrels. undiscovered recoverable gas is estimated at 1.5 to 17.7 trillion cubic feet. This represents less than five percent of the State's total potentially recoverable oil and gas identified and undiscovered, onshore and offshore. 228 Although several occurrences of coal are known, such as on the mainland between Icy and Yakutat Bays, on Admiralty Island at Kootznahoo Inlet and Murder Cove, on Prince of Wales Island at Kasaan Bay, on Kupreanof Island at Hamilton Bay and on Kuiu Island at Port Camden, no resource estimates are available. Most of the coals are lignite, but previously mined beds of bituminous coal are found at Kootznahoo Inlet. The most significant of the Region's energy resources is the hydroelectric potential. Over two hundred potential hydro sites have been identified. Sixty sites inventoried by the Alaska Power Administration could produce 17,051 million kilowatt hours of energy. Potential small hydroelectirc sites are numerous due to the existance of many small drainage basins with high runoff rates. Most major communities are using hydropower and further development is planned. Possessing the only uranium actually mined in the State, at Bokan Mountain, the region has significant uranium potential and prospects are considered good for further finds nearby. The geothermal potential is substantial, especially on Chichago Island and on the mainaldn along the Stikine River and northeast of Bell Hot Springs. Other geothermal occurrences are known at Lituya Bay, Prince of Wales-Kos- ciusko islands and Zarembo Island. Wind resources along the rugged, unsheltered portions of the coastline are significant. Key Energy Issues Alaska has a mix and abundance of energy resources that are very large compared with other states. However, a resource is one thing; the devel- opment of that resource is quite another. The uncertainty of Alaska's land tenure has, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on energy development. Alaska natives are awaiting title from the federal government to most of the 44 million acres of land slected to settle their aboriginal claims. The state of Alaska is seeking title to the remainins 30-33 million acres of lands selected to fulfill its 104 million acre Statehood entitlement, and the State's organized Boroughs, which are similar to counties elsewhere in the U.S., have filed suits to get title conveyed to 10 percent of teh State lands that are within their borders. The Federal government is seeking to settle the D-2 lands issue--affecting as much as 147 million acres of Alaska land -- to dtermine which lands will be set aside for additon to or creation of the nation's forests, parks, wildlife refuges and wild and scenic rivers in Alaska. Land ease- ments and energy corridor decisions alone can make or break Alaska as an energy source for the nation. Large energy development is dependent upon a major market. With such a small population within the State, the large energy markets are predomi- nantly out-of-state andmnay miles removed from Alaska. In addition to added transportation costs resulting from large distances to market, Alaska also has very high construction costs and high facility operation and main- tenance costs. Economic issues in Alaska are different from the Lower 48 and must be approached accordinly. For example, an energy resource development considered large in the Lower 48 may actually be much too small to be economically viable in Alaska. Just like other items, the cost of social services delivered to Alaska's citizens is extremely high. With a population widely scattered over a huge rugged land dmass, transporation and, therefore, food and materials prices are the highes in the nation. Yet most residents of these remote rural communities are probably the least able to afford these high costs because of the absence of a viable economic base in their communities. Of all the States, only in Alaska is the hunting of whales a serious international food issue; only in Alaska are "honey buckets" a current human sewage disposal method; and only in Alaska does the socio-educational scenario exist which could produce the "Molly Hootch case", a class- action suite to bring secondary educational services to even the smallest, most remote village. Further, climatological condidtions such as excessive amounts of winter darkness have contributed tothe growth of crime, alcoholism and suicide. Of important social concern is the future lifestyle options of Alaskans, expeically the Natives. The Alaskan Natives are likely to play a very important role in any major energy development because of their large land holdings as a result of the Native Claims Settlement Act. Native Corporations are very interested in obtaining revenue from their energy resources to increase the standard of living of their stockholders. Many of the Natives have enjoyed a lifestyle of subsistence hunting and fishing with little outside interference. Energy development within or near their lands will tend to affect, for better or worse, their lifestyle. Possible cultrual impacts and the need for different socoal servicees must be examined before energy development is undertaken in many parts oa Alaska. Transportation remains a critical element governing the ability of Alaska's energy resources to compete with those of the Lower 48. Exploration, re- covery and production costs are all dependent on the transportation systems required to carry out those activities. For example, existence of an oil or gas pipeline from Northern Alaska to Lower 48 markets enhances the feasibility of additional exploration in other northern parts of the State. Similarly, the lack of such transportation systems may preclude recovery of all but the largest finds. In our planning efforts, the enhancement of our environment, the abundance of wildfife, and the social betterment and increase in the standard of living of Alaskans are goals as important as the development of economic feasibility of energy resource recovery. Careful and detailed planning is necessary as energy producers address themselves to the issues which energy resource development generates. 230 RECOMMENDATIONS Expansion of Surface and Sub-Surface Exploration Activities As shown earlier in this report, some energy resource estimates vary widely. Actual known or proven reserves are small compared to what is believed to be the energy potential of the State. Alaska is still a frontier state, but there is little doubt that large quantities of oil, gas, coal and uranium await discovery in onshore and offshore area. in recent years, however, Alaska Statehood and Native land claims selections have been made based on limited energy resource data. Additionally, with- drawal of millions of acres fo "D-2" land may soon be initiated by Congress also based on a limited energy resource data base. A major increase in energy resource exploration (surface and sub-surface_ should be initiated immediately. Without adequate knowledge of the mag- nitude, quality and location of Alaska's energy resources, these issues and other critical energy related development questions cannot be pro- perly addressed by governmental and private decision makers. Technology for Large-Scale Energy Operations Technological advances have been especially important to Alaska in energy recovery as illustrated by construction of oil and gas platforms in Cook Inlet and in transportation by the completion of the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Attention must now be given to technologies which could either extend the recovery life of a specific resource site or would enable development in areas which are otherwise marginal or uneconomic. For example, declining oil production in Cook Inlet will soon make some platforms uneconomical to operate. The utiliation of advanced (secondary and tertiary) recovery methods for oil and gas will be needed in the near future. Modifications to the solvent refined coals (SRC) process should be examined to dtermine optimum temperature, pressure and catalyst for processing Alaska's low sulfur coal with the goal of high Btu products with very low ash content. In-situ coal gasification advances and fluidized bed tech- nology as a heat transfer mechanism for both geothermal and coal energy should be examined. Alternate Energy Systems for Rural Communities Remote rural communities throughout Alaska pose special problems. Many of these villages have the highest per capita energy costs in the nation, yet their residents have subsistence lifestyles and are often below the poverty income level. 231 An inventory of the inergy resources near these villages should be con- ducted. Wind and hydro and, particularly, resources that can be burned such as coal, peat, wood, garbage,and sewage should be inventoried. Tech- nologies to match the resources should be evaluated (i.e., small hydro systems where adequate flow and head exists and small fluidized units for space heat and waste disposal of combustible materials(. The pos- sible use of fuel cells, heat pumps and wind systems need to be examined on a community-by-community basis. Waste heat recovery potential should also be analyzed. Planning As Alaska's energy resources are inventoried and primary energy develo- pment sites are identified, the collectionof economic, social and environ- mental baseline data should be initiated immediately. Also, impact analyses must be undertaken at an early date. It is crucial that all future energy development activities in Alaska take place with adquate understanding of the probable short and long term impacts specific development will bring. Land and environmental issues alone make progress on the path from recovery to transportation a major challenge. The results of site specific as well as regional planning efforts must provide users with a full understanding of key decision points in the developmental process including the impli- cations of alternative decisions. Energy Needs Three markets for Alaskan energy exit -- foreign, the Lower 48 and in-State. Because of the abundance of our energy resources, there appears to be no reason, at this time, why both needs cannot be met. Inorder to meet the long term needs of Alaska, it is recommended that at- tention be given to providing a balanced energy mix within each region with emphasis on the use of alternative energy sources such as hydro, heothermal, tidal and wind. In the Cook Inlet areas, for example, coal, hydroelectrick and tial energy could possibly meet even the highest demand projections. It is also recognized that Alaska will be called upon to help solve the current energy crisis. It is recommended that Alaska do its share in meet- ing the energy demands of the nation and use the opportunity to alleviate some of our own problems such as unemployment and to expand our economic base. Subsequent energy development must be carried out in such a manner that growth is controlled and reasonable and the Alaskan lifestyle is retained and enchanced. Good planning, assessment of impacts, and governmental and private cooperation are important aspects of the transfer of Alaskan energy to the Lower 48. The foreign part of the Pacific Rim may be a future market for Alaskan coals. It is recommended that Alaska address the potential for shipment of coal to Japan, Korea and Australia. 232 Conservation and Renewable Resources As elsewhere in the country, Alaskans must also develop a conservation ethic in their energy use. Opportunities for cogeneration and waste heat utilization should be identified for both new structures and retrofit of older facilites. Construction of energy-efficient buildings in all sectors should be ensured. The abundance of renewable energy resources sets Alaska apart from her sister states. Small and low-head hydro power, wind and geothermal energy, parti- cularly, should be given immediate attention as possible alternative energy sources. This assessment should also include the potential conversion or expansion of existing systems as well as the planning of new facilities. 233 CHAPTER 9 PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY Preliminary conclusions reached in Phase one of the Alaska Regional Energy Resource Planning Project reveal that more information on Alaska energy resources is urgently needed in order to properly plan for the energy needs of Alaska and the nation. Purpose and Objectives of Additional Study One of the purposes of the Alaska Regional Energy Resource Planning Prpject is to collect, assemble, and evaluate data and information on alternative Alaskan energy resource development operations, and on a wide variety of issues related to that development. More specifically, the objectives of the project are to: 1) identify Alaska's recoverable energy resources and relate the resources estimates to Alaska's energy needs in order to meet the requirements of the general welfare of the people of Alaska and the commerical and industrial life of the State, with the regard for the portection of the environment and the conservation of natural resources. 2) Collect appropriate information that identifies the energy opportunities of the State of Alaska with respect tomeeting national energy requirements. 3) Collect appropriate information that identifies Alaska energy opportunities associated with in-State processing of energy resources. 4) Examine and evaluate new technologies to reduce waste, foster recycling, upgrade the environment, increase efficiency and encourage conserva;tion practices. 5) Determine programs, policies, and strategies for Alaskan energy development which will take into account environmental, economic, and social costs. 6) Recommend appropriate policy measures and actions to State and national officials that will further the above ofjectives. The users of this project will be many. FEderal agencies may use the information as part of their required annual progress report to the Congress. The division of Energy and Power Development will use the results in planning the support for the Alaska Power Authority and in supporting economic development activities within the State. Electrical utilities may use the reports to determine the potential feasibility of alternate energy sources and technology options for electrical energy production. universities may use the reports as input for courses on energy and for research. Industry may examine the reports for significant conservation and environmental benefits resulting from identified technologies. Financial institutions may use the results in their portfolio planning. Many groups and individuals will 235 ~0 ~1p~444;396;32;32q, T~qb~qi~- ~qi~i~q:~4qw r~o~4~c~4qb I~qt~a~qk~qi~qm~.~. ~qt if Saba* ~i~g~. ~W~1 ~qs ~q4 ~qAv~0qu~0q" ~4~s~. ~4qV~&~S~a~.~.~. ~1~q"~q!~4q+~4 ~qt~q4~h~o ~q@ ~qq~.~q;~I ~W~q4 ~v I" ~'~"~'~' ~, ~, ~W~, ~6~q" ~q4~, ~qt~qv~q~4q" ~0~4- Wad~. -A ~W~m~a~m a ~qI~qw~f~j~s~g~' ~i~q6~m~' w~i~o~v -'A a" ~q*~2q4 ~qt~q*~.~.~. ~4~,~"~- ~4~r ~*~M~4~. it". ~4~1~q;~%~qg~qs ...or ~qh~.~q;~6~t~qi~4~qi~qi~A~q9~, A". to ~A~@~qX~s~qi ~*~qf~qt~qt~. ~qt plow ~x~4~qb~w ~0~0q4 4~7~A. ~TA~2qM~qi ~A~L~qj~W -We ~3~q1~. ~N~A~, If ~C~, *All ~i~0qkA ~A4~2~4~q1 A ~t~f~qM~qM If. ~q&~S~qP~O~l~e~t ~W~i~qM~O~V4~1~q"~&~4~f~, ~0~, ~qf~-~q1~4~9~' .~4~q1 ~q4~1~4~q@~q" ~qI~:~v ~8q4~qi~l~2q"~qk~% ~qi:~i~qw ~0qf ~A~v~w~n ~qv~f~-~q7~i~-~v~t Art~* ~z ~k~qj~, ~O~2qw~" ~qI~m~ql~qe~qt~o~w~qe~4q" am ~t~q4~qw I it! ~.4~qi ~Ir~4 and, ~q4 ~q9 ~qt aft ~8qAI ~4~qi~qi tot ~qv~0qn ~-~-~qf~qt~e ~4~0~q*~4~- ~'~F~,~*~. ~.~,~e~.~q%~q"~-4 ~g I ~qW.~S~. 4~r~p~] ~k~w~a~v~i~qt ~q4~4~2 ~O~S~qW~4~, ~k~. ~q2~A. ~8q4~r~.~-~*~8q4 ~!~.~4~p~o~i~d~2q"~qt~, ~q%~&~q9~q;~F~f~t~-~4~qs ~qA~qA~q% all. ~qb~qf ~q-~q4 ILI a a lo a i6 -1A IP 19-i 16 6 ie@ Because these separate but related efforts tie in closely with the work being conducted in the Alaska Energy Resources Planning Project, their findings will be included to meet our objective of identifying, in a preliminary winner, the completion of a Beluga Coal market analysis. Preliminary Social and Economic Impact Assessment of the Beluga Coal Field During the pst year, under the Pacific Northwest Regional Assessment Program. PSL-Seattle has developed a methodology for assessing the social impacts of energy related development using quality of social life indication. A cooperative effort between PNL and DEPD will be implemented to validate the methodology and to utilize the same model in identifying social impacts associated with future development of the Beluga Coal Field in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 2) Alaska Coal Development Analysis A major policy objective of the present Administration and the Congress is to maximize the use of the Nation's coal reserves, substituting coal for increasinly source oil and gas. Given the lack of coal close to the major population centers of teh West Coast and the enormous reserves of low sulfur coal potentially available in Alaska, a careful examination of the possible shipment of Alaskan coal to the U.S. West Coast, as well as use within Alaska, needs to be undertaken. The objective of this task is to plan for the timely and environmentally acceptable recovery and transportation of large quantities of Alaskan coal. 3) Alaskan Hydroelectric Power Development Hydroelectric power, like coal, represents a major alternative to oil and gas as an energy source. Although hydroelectric power does not represent a potential Alaska energy export tothe rest of the United States at this time, increased availability and use of hytdroelectric power to Alaska can assist the rest of the Nation in meeting energy substitution goals. First: the extent that hydroelectric power can be used to subsutitute for oil and gas consumption in Alaska, thereby releasing more oil and gas for export: second, the availability of suitable and abundant hydroelectric power in Alaska which could lend to the situation of electric power intensive industries, such as aluminum, the Alaska thereby learing the demands on electric power generation in the Lower 48: finally, fromteh point of view of quality of life in Alaska the potential development of hydroelectric power on al smaller scale would make it possible for many communities in less populated areas in the the costs of their power. The objective planning that is necessary for greater utilization of hydropower in Alaska. 238 4) Alaska Energy Alternatives At present, most small communities and remote villages in the State of Alaska are dependent upon, at great cost, gasoline and diesel operated generating units for electric power. Fuel oil in various forms, all very expensive, is also a major energy source for home heating. The welfare and quality of life of these communities would be vastly improved if lower cost alternatives for providing these energy needs can be proved to be technically and economically viable. The objective is to determine alternate energy options that merit consideration for installation in a given area. Windpower, fuel cells, very small hydro- electric generating units and low temperature geothermal energy for home space heating will be studied. 5) Energy Waste utilization, Conservation and Conversion The major objectives of the national energy policy are to do the necessary planning in order to conserve energy, to better tuilize waste energy and to convert oil and gas use to coal and renewable energy resource use. Study will include the potential for capturing and utilizing waste heat generated by a number of major energy users in the State, such as the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, the North Kenai petroleum complex, the State's electric utilites (especially in Anchorage and Fairbanks), and the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative's 48 generating sites. Another area to be examined is the potential for utilizing the wood waste generated by Alaska's forest industries as a potential energy source, not only for the industries themselves, but also for the com- munities associated with these industries. Petroleum conservation and conversion is a third topic in this area which requires close examina- tion. The trans-Alaska oil pipeline uses a substantial quantity of the oil transported as the energy source for pumping stations. This will also be the case with the Alcan gas pipeline unless measures are taken to utilize alternative energy sources, such as hydroelectric power, enabling more of the product to reach its final destination. To release more oil and gas into the Lower 48, it is important to sift more of the power suppliers in the State to hydroelectric power and coal. Thus, this area of analysis is closely intertwined with the hydroelectric and coat studies described in other tasks. The principal area of analysis under this topic will be the technology of oil and gas pipe- line transportation and the potential for conversion to alternatiave energy resources. 6) Extension and Update of the Preliminary Alaska Energy Resources Inventory An up-to-date inventory of Alaska's energy resources has been one of the principal objectives of this project. It is vital that the inventory be contiually expanded and updated to fill in any gaps and to accom- modate new data as they become available. The objective, therefore, is to identify and document Alaska's potentially recoverable energy resources. The emphasis will be on coal, hydropower, geothermal energy, wind, waste heat and wood. 7) Government Regulations and Procedures for Energy Development A major objective of national energy policy nationwide is, wherever possible, to disign a procedure leading to sound energy development. This procedure includes relations between federal, state and local policiees and regulations; jurisdictional, land tenure and ownership matters; and political interactions between different levesl of government. In order to provide for the smoothest possible path to rational economic development, it is vital to catalogue and describe all of the different decision points which might arise out of these different policies, regulations and ownerships. The objective is to list and identify problem areas in the federal, State and local permits, licenses and written approvals required for various coal and hydropower development operations on public and private lands in Alaska. 8) Planning and Reporting The essential objective of this task is to satisfy the need for informa- tion exchange arising out of this project. The analysis and findings of the project team must be made readily available to other government agencies and to the public; various reports and plans will be published to this end. Other Study Plans Subsequent phases of the energy resource planning project include Phase Tow, to be completed in October 1978 and Ohases three through Five, set of r1979 through 1981. Phse Two will emphasize coal, hydroelectric and waste heat energy. The detailed work plan for Phases three and Four will be developed each spring and will reflect the knowledge gained in the previous phases. Phase Five will give special attention to the capsulization of the final Alaska Energy Resource Assessment Report. 240 APPENDICES NONNI, d APPENDIX A [email protected] CONVERSION FA CTORS FOR CRUDE@OIL w IN.TO Kiloliters 1.000 1,000 Long Short Memc .(Cubic Gallons Gailon"' Torii Tons 'Tons Barrel's Meters) s* flmp:i WS1 MULTIPLY B Y FRO-04 %ittr:c Torts . . . . ... . . 0.9114 1.102 7.33 .116. 0.256 0.308 Long: Tons 1.016 1.120 7.45 1.18 0.261 0.313 S@oft 7 ons .907 0,893 1 6. 65 1'.05 0.233 Barrels . . . 0 136 0.134 0 150 1 0.195 0.035 0.042 Kiloliters (cubic meters) 0.663 6,849 0.951 6@29 0.220 01264 1.000 Gallons.ilmperial),: 3,91 183 4.29 28@6 4.55 1.000 Galions 1U.S.1 325 3.19 158 218 3.79 0.833 'Basecs on world average giavirV (excluding natural gas hq@,dsl. Source: Energy Fact Book, Tetra Tech, TT-A-642-76-211 IF e 1)., 1976) q. - A- 1 p* j BRITISH THERfIAL UNIT HEAT VAL' UES* b Re Crude An- alturru- Natural Distill4tj s-dual' Petroleum fhfa Ile nous Gas-Dry FuelIOil Fuel.Oil c FtetL, t.-es (42 Gal. Coal C'Jal 11606 (42 Gal. 44 @ G@j_ Barrell (Sho I Tonl IShort Tonl-_ C.. Ft.) 0 arrel) Barrel) - Crude Petroleum 42 Gal- 8bl. equals 0-M 0. ZZ? 5.6o4 0.996 0, 923 Anihrnite Coal Short-Ton equals 4.379 24.541 4.3@ 1 4.04 0'_ .6 ::tZ Bituminous Coal and Short Ton equals 11@517 ..1.031 25. 14 4.498 4A67 6 5-=: Lignite Naturil Gal - Dry 1000 Cu. Ft. equals 0.178 0.1541 0.040 6.178 0.165 0. Z-r;z Distillate Fuel Oil 42 Gal. Bbl. equals .1.004 0.229 5.626 0.90 1.4*2@ Residual Fuel Oil 42 Gal. Bbl. equals 1.084 01248 01240 6.074 1.079 Liquef4d Petroleum 42 Gal. 8bl. efluals 0.692 0:158 0.153 Gas 3.875 0.613t) 0.638 *&T.U. Hek Values As Used 1000S 5.800 25,400 26,200 1,035 5.825 6.287 Other Refined Products' B.T.U. Values (1000s): Gasoline 5,248, Kerosine 5,670; Lubricants .6 064.8; Nii 5,537.3;1 Asphalt 6.636; Mis cellaneous 5.796; Natural Gasoline 4,1620 Per 42 Gaiion Barrel. Source: Annual Statistical, Review, Petroleum Industry Statistics, 19154-1973, API, Sept-W4. J. ED SOLIDS', HEAT I NG... VALUE'S. OF SELECT NP PROK... BTU PER SOL I D' LB. AS%RECEIVED coa -e) 13,000 Anthracite, 5% moistui, Bituminous A, ('6 m oJ s t.u re 9 7 00 Sub-,B.i tumi nous :A,.:, (18,,,,o. moisture, Lignitle Brown .C6al@ 3.9 'mois.turc) 7,200 r 91000 Peat (d 'y) Wo,od Pi ne (dry), 11 @010 0 Bagasse (sugar cane residue). 8 500., Cow Dung (dry) 4jO00 Source: Stone & Webster Chart SELECTEb CONVERSION FACTORS To Convert Mu'ltiply. From- to By ------------ r r e T., GI 10 n' a 42 Qu 6 rt 168 BTU Kilowatt-Ho' u r 3 18' .000,29 0. Horsepower Ki.1 ow a tt .:.Numb'er of Men .745702@ Eqiu v- 5 K i I o w&t t Watt 1000 Xi I ov.1a t,t-, H o u r BTU 3412.874 Lumen 'Watt .00147, Mete.r Feet 3 2*30833@ Cent tim6,ter .100 p Micron MillfOnth of Inch 39.37 Centimeter 01 .00 Watt@ BTU/Hour, 3.'41.2& K i I owa t t .001 Also: C 6 n t i g r a.d e Degree x I - 8 + 32) Fahr enh i t Degr e e Fahrenheit D:e g r 5 ee (-32) x .5- -entigrade b C gree A-4 FB APPENDIX B Libraries iqn Alaska with Energy Resource Information ANCHORAGE Alaska District, U. S. Corps of Southcentral Regional Resource Center Engineers Library (micro-film) 650 International Airport Road P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 John Stamm Ph: 276-4524 Barbara Berg, Ph: 752-4910 U.S. Department of Interior Alaska Resources Library Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Library U.S. Department of Interior 800 "A" Street 733 West Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska. 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Irma Nelson Ph. 279-4578 Martha Shepard Ph: 265-5477 U.S. Geological Survey Library Southcentral Region Coordinator Public Inquiries Office 3211 Providence Drive 508 West 2nd Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Katherine Laiblin Ph: 272-5522 M. Erwin Ph: 277-0577 Z. J. Loussac Public Library U.S. Naval Petroleum Reserve 427 "F" Street Calais Office Center Anchorage, Alaska 99501 3201 "C" Street Dorothy Shaver Ph: 272-2538 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 J. Bickerton Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center University of Alaska, Anchorage Library University of Alaska 3211 Providence Drive 707 "A" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 N. Lesh, Asst. Dir. Technical Serv. P. Brommelsiek Ph: 279-4523 Ph: 272-5522 British Petroleum Alaska, Inc., Elmendorf Air Force Base Library 3111 "C" Street Elmendorf Air Force Base Anchorage Alaska 99506 P.O. Box 4-1379 Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Jeane Moore Ph: 752-4287 C. A. Petty Ph: 279-0644 BARROW cities Service Mineral Corp. 1016 West 6th Ave., Suite 420 Naval Arctic Reseach Laboratory Library Anchorage, Alaska 99501 University of Alaska D. Stevens-Dist. Geologist Barrow,, Alaska 99723 Ph: 272-9441 Marge Benser Mobil Exploratory Library FAIRBANKS 3300. "C" Street Pouch 7-003 Alaska Geology Research Library Anchorage, Alaska 99510 University of Alaska P. Hopkins Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Alaska State Library Northern Region Coordinator Elmer E. Rasmuson Library University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mary Matthews Ph: 479-7422 JUNEAU Alaska Division of State Libraries State Office Building, 8th Floor Pouch G Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone 465-2910 Alaska Power Administration Library P. 0. Box 55 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Darlene Edwards Bureau of Mines Library P. 0. Box 550 Juneau, Alaska 99802 M. Mattson. Ph: 364-2111 Source: Alaska Library Directory, 1977 Alaska State Library, Pouch G, Juneau Alaska 99811, Phone: 465-2910; and Alaska Library, Association, a State-Federal program under the Library Service and Construction Act, P.L. 91-600. B-2 APPENDIX C KEY ALASKAN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES TITLE: ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALASKA & THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL LAND POLICIES ON THEIR AVAILABILITY. OIL & GAS. PART I. AUTHORS: Robert M. Klein, William M. Lyle, Patrick L. Dobey, and Kristina M. O'Connor. ORGANIZATION: State of Alaska, Department of natural Resources SIZE OF REPORT: 24 pages DATE: June 1974 ANNOTATION: The estimates given in this report differ from the estimates given in the USGS report, which is given in detail in another appendix in this volume. These estimates, given by theDivision of Geological and Geophysical Survey, are believed to be the only documented State estimates in existence. In Part II of this report, an attempt was made to document the affect of previous and proposed public land withdrawals on the oil and gas potential land in Alaska. This part of the report contains several multicolored overlays and identifies the sedimentary basins. However, becasue of the rapidly changing situation with respect to D-2 Lands and Congressional action, Part II is out of date even though it is only three years old. TITLE: HISTORIC AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR OIL AND GAS IN ALASKA 1972-1995. (Energy Report 3-77) AUTHOR: Kristina O'Connor ORGANIZATION: State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources SIZE OF REPORT: 49 pages DATE: April 1977 ANNOTATION: The report includes: (1) the historic oil and natural gas consump- tion from 1972 through 1975 (only data through 1975 was available--data from 1976 will be availabel soon and may be compiles for a mid-year report); (2) the projected demand for oil and natural gas to 1995 (high- growth, moderate-growth, and low-growth projections are made); and (3) an addendum tabulating existing oil and gas fields and resources in Alaska. Two tables have palstic overlays; however, the tables are dif- ficult to understand without carefully studying the text. Note the recent publication date, which makes the report very timely. ~0 ~VI ~4qr~4~'~- ~z ~qT~6qw ~q*~0qW~.~qT~qP Is dam A~qX~qI lip. ~6qv ~0qM ~I~'~8qT~. ~q4~1~q8 ~.~4qO~q@~f~q~l~- ~x~l~k~4~i~m~- ~-~a~qi~0qw~qe~a~d 'Lim ~q@~4~4~. ~6 ~qt~qv~qw~0q@ ~2qUi~qf ~v~w~-~q to." C~q* ~qi~2~qw~-~4q4~qw~0qj~q4~a~qA~q$ ~c~o~~o~qt. lot too ~qi~o~v 4~1.~1~0 ~i~s ~qf ~q%W ~-~6~-~4 ~4qA~ql~ql~"~qO~&~I -~qC~qt~A~qt~f ~0 ~q9 A ~O~P~4 ~q4~-4~1~q0. ~q"~0~q". ~1~qF~, ~V~q:~f~q.A ~2qt~qa~0qi I ~q,it ~qo~qx ~qt It~q. ~8q1 ~qW~q* ~qm~4q4~0qa~qw~8q-~q'~q. La~q. ~0 ~4qU~4qm Am ~qg~4qk~q4 ~.~q4~q#~8q" ~q1 at! ~4~1~9~1 mom ~m i~L~.~qk~;~4~& *A *A**". ~'44 ~4~0~*~4 US~0q" ~4~: All ~-~t~-~I ~4 ~q4~4~q"~q4~4 ~4qA~0q*~A .~.~q0~P~,~"~*~qm~4~-~q4~q4 ~+ ~4~%~4. 1"*. ~0~4 ~o~v~4q" IF. ~v~t~2q"~.~q@ I~qp ~P~. ~o~qo too ~q0~q4~q* ~4~A ~3~@ A, I ~qt~w~*~- Ott* ~qr ~q9~6q4~q" ~16qP~q4~q0~6q" ~ql~qi~q- it fit ~q1~q6. ~2qA.~0q4~6q7~4q7 ~qW~qN~q. ~0 ~qt~qw~8qn~qi ~qf~qt~0q"~qW~qo It ~q~~4~2q4~q% ~#~,~q@~qi tip'" ~qi~qf~qt~a~ql to ~-~P~@~qq A~q&~^ ~qf~.~q4 Yap ~qU~0~4~4~. ~d ~0~q4~q1 ~qJ~%~qw~qj ~4~1~0~A ~-~W~qf~qt~.~.~4~0~q0 ~V~'~qM~.~V~P~A~O~' SAW~. ~8qW~O~4q&~A~. ~qW~%~q3~q4~q@~0qa~-~' ~q@~qw~l ~q4~i~qk:~qV~*~qw~' ~qV~q~, tit ~qi~qi~* ~qA~qA~'~0qU~8qt~0q*_~qC~*~l~' ~qO~8qW. ~A~q1~6q4~2q4~6qA ~qt~8qw~a~6qr~.~q? ~qf~0qw ~0qU~-~4qV~8qA~qC~.~- ~0qU~0qA ~0qp~.. -POO ~q@~0~8q4 ~q%~.~qt~qw~t ~q3~,~0~4~.~6q0 ~4~.~q4. ~4~*~4~0 ~q1~4~qw ~*~q4 ~*~8q4 A%# ~q"~d ~qt~q*~*~t ~4q%~qM ~I~l~q~l~q~~. ~0 ~* -if ~4~q@~4 ~-~qt~A~l~f~t~qj~-~qt~*~: ~2q*~t ~*.~4~0~v~o ~N~. .~4~5 Up ~q".~.~qW~A~q4~q* ~qt~*~* I ~qq~*~A~4q&d~v..~-~A~2q4~. ~-~4q4~w~-*a~- ~q~,~q"~qA ~q4 ~ql~o~.~r ~*~*~8q4~'~qA~.6~0qr ~qJ~qA ~qt~4~,~l ~f~S~q4 ~4~b~*~& far I" ~qf~e~6q" ~.~9~, ~-~qA~q~l~q@~qk ~A~q4~1~q?~* All ~q@~2qV~0qx ~qi.~q: ~q*~qt~t~qj~! Of ~qA~q@~q; ~qv~qp ~qv ~0q*~q%~q.~qv ~q3~q1 ~q4~q4 ~0 ~.~r~qt~a~8q" ~8qS~ql~o~qp~qw I ~A~L~'~. ~qO~t ~qt~v~i~8qW~qi~qr ~c~qa~f~t~8q"~.~q1 I ~qc ~q@~l~qk~q* -,wit.* A ~qAp~a~n ~n~qa ~c ~q4 be ~-~o~qt~i~o~qd~qI~qj .~.~qp~qr &or -AUX, ~"~.~q1~q4~q7~q3~q1 ~- ~8q"'~V~A~4q0~.~1 ~qh~V~qi~c~qi~qi~,~'~, ~l~6qW~o~"~qt.~8qW ~qT ~8qW~qm~a~qt p~or ~4qW~.~q41~: ~4q6~qW A~0qW ~8qU ~4qP~4qU~qL ~0qW~h~a ~r~w~.~4~'~6qU~qO~. ~*~m4 ~.~1~h~q~p 'raft a ~qk~o~. a ~qi4~0qW~- ~6qWt ~w~qf~qt~qt~e~qh ~i ~A~qa~v~-~q@~s~* I ~0~0~' A~qi~q4~'~s~k~a '~qi~qi ~q7~*~q4~q4~4q"~qm~qk~8qk tin- ~-~%~'~4qk~qi~o~qt~0q4 ~w ~-.~2q0 Is-. ~'~S ~ql~v~@~- ~,~4~L~:~,~'~A~qO~.~4~r~.~v~c~8q* ~O~v~e~r~-~k ~qA~8qR~4qW~q4~qc~ql ~qX~1~1~q1~6qC~. COAL A ~4qU~.~4qW~4qN~- ~qS~8qW~4qU ~2q*~qr AAA:-" ~6qO~qw~. ~qT~8q"~.~q1~-~4qs~4qh A~2qr~T~. MRS ~J ~qA~A~k~qt~*~qA~qV~' ~q9~2q" ~q1~4~0~0~8q"~- 1~4~0~q$. .. ... ~qt~qc~2q* rev ~12q*~q4~q4~q0~q"~4q4 ~q6~16q0~q.~0q4~qa~4qt ~4q4~16q*~04q" ~q0 ~6q4~q@~8q4 $A 'I TITLE: COAL RESOURCES OF ALASKA - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1242-B AUTHOR: Farrell F. Barnes ORGANIZATION: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey SIZE OF REPORT: 36 pages with a plate (in pocket) showing distribution of coal-bearing rocks. DATE: 1967 ANNOTATION: Even today, a decade after publication of this report, Barnes's work is considered the best inventory available in coal resources of Alaska. Other reports have supplemented his work, but no report has replaced it. The major problem with informa'tion on coal resources in Alaska is that still so little is known, and much more exploration, including drilling, needs to be done. TITLE: ALASKA POWER SURVEY - 1974 AUTHORS: Committee of 27 members plus assistance from their staffs ORGANIZATION: Federal Power Commission SIZE OF REPORT: Five bound volumes 1 Report of Executive Advisory Committee 2 Economic Analysis and load projection 3 Resources & Electir Power Genereation 4 Coordinated Systems Development & Imterconnection 5 Environmental Consideration & Consumer Affairs DATE: 1976 ANNOTATION: This report is one of the most important reference documents on energy in Alaska. House, Administrator of the Alaska Power Administration, served as chairman of the Executive Advisory Committee for the Federal Power Commision Alaska Power Survey. While A.P.A. staff contributed to a significant manner to this report. A major balance was obatined by input from the other 26 committee members who represented utility, state, military, natives, and other federal organ- izations. TITLE: ELECTRIC POWER IN ALASKA 1976 - 1995 AUTHORS: The institute of Portal & Economic Research, University of Alaska. in cooperation with Miller, Robert W. Retherford Associates, adn Associates, Inc. and National Economic Research Associated, Inc. ORGANIATION: A report for the House Fianance Committee, second Session, Ninth Legislature, State of Alaska SIZE OF REPORT: Eight chapters with appendices DATE: August 1976 ANNOTATION: This report contains a wealth of information on electric power in Alaska. With input from so many different sources, it is sometimes difficult to readily locate disired information. A number of people believe that the projected electricity requirements in this document are too conservative--even the high rrange of the estimates are considered too low. The projected future costs of power (mills per kwh) must be used with great care. Nevertheless, anyone interested in energy in Alaska, i.e. demand, technology, energy resources, and financing will find this compilation a readable reference. TITLE: ALASKA ELECTRIC POWER STATISTICS - 1960-1975 AUTHORS: Staff of Alaska Power Administration ORGANIZATION: United States Department of the Interior - Alaska Power Administration SIZE OF REPORT: 45 pages DATE: July 1976 ANNOTATION: This report is the fourth in a series of electric power data summaries compiled by the Alaska Power Administration. A later report covering statistics through the spring of 1977 will be issued soon. This very useful report gives installed capacity, generation data, transmission systems, and market data including typical monthly residen- tial electric bills. The report is not limited to hydroelectric energy. TITLE: INVESTIGATION OF ALASKA'S URANIUM POTENTIAL AUTHORS: Gilbert R. Eakins & Robert B. Forbes ORGANIZATION: State of Alaska Department of natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (published under ERDA contract in 1975) SIZE OF REPORT: Part 1 331 pages: Part 2 41 pages DATE: 1976 ANNOTATOIN: An exhaustive literature search revealed six regions that offer encouragement for the possibility of a uranium find in Alaska and three areas that may be favorable for the presence of uranium. Part 1 of the report places emphasis on nonmarine sedimentary rocks in structural basins. Part 2 gives a scale map of the felsic rocks in Alaska with accompanying analytical data and age determinations. This report is a must for those seeking uranium in Alaska. TITLE: GEOTHERMAL ENERGY AND WIND POWER.....ALTERNATE ENERGY SOUCES FOR ALASKA AUTHORS: Prepared by Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska and Alaska Energy Office, William C. McConkey, Director and edited by Robert B. Forbes. ORGANIZATION: Supported by National Science Foundation SIZE OF REPORT: 144 pages plus 7 appendices DATE: July 8-9, 1975 ANNOTATION: This report is based upon the preceedings of the Alaskan Geothermal and Wind Power Resources Planning Conference held in Anchorage in July 1975. Alaska's geothermal and wind energy potential is given excellent treatment. The report contains a section on recommendations for future action. This very valuable reference document has one drawback--it is sometimes difficult to find needed information because of the manner in which the material is grouped. TITLE: "THE D-2 BOOK," LANDS OF NATIONAL INTEREST IN ALASKA AUTHORS: Not identified ORGANIZATION: Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska SIZE OF REPORT: 190 pages DATE: May 1977 ANNOTATION: The Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission acts as an advisory body to both governments. One of their duties is to make recom- mendations concerning areas planned for permanent reservation in Federal ownership. While it is a valuable general reference document on energy and land, the exact purpose of this report was not clearly identified. It apparently gives background information leading up to the Commission recommendations. The report has 37 excellent maps and charts. This publication has been distributed in limited quantities, but an illus- trated version will be available in a few months. C8 TITLE: ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES AUTHORS: Prepared by Lidia L. Selkregg ORANIZATION: The Joint Federal-State Land Use Commission of Alaska SIZE OF REPORT: 18" X 15" and about 1" thick (separate profile for each region (6) DATE: Comission formed in 1971, profiles still being updated. ANNOTATION: The following six Regionals each have a profile publication: Arctic, Northwest, Southcentral, Southeast, Southwest, and Yukon. Cover- age is given in each Region to both the natural environment and to the man-made environment. The natural environment includes: climate, totp- graphy, geology, water, soils, and the biotic communities and marine environment. The man-made environment includes: the people, the land, and the services. These popular and informative regional profiles with outstanding maps, photographs, and artwork are publications in a class all their own. TITLE: ALASKA NATIVE LAND CLAIMS AUTHORS: Robert D. Arnold assisted by a staff of eight with Foreword by Emil Notti. ORGANIZATION: The Alaska Native Foundation SIZE OF REPORT: A bound book of 348 pages DATE: 1976 ANNOTATION: The book is much broader than the topic of the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement itself. The 1971 Act, Public Law 92-203, 92nd Congress, H.R. 10367 are the events around which the book is organized. For one who needs to understand the complex land settlements concerning the Natives in Alaska, this book will be of great assistance, but remem- ber that the land claims in Alaska are still years from settlement. APPENDIXD 4 DRILLING1N ALASKA (1977) 41 PETROLEU1 pi Location Contractor Dri I ler J Cobk.Inlet Amodo Parker Dri 1:1 i ng- North Slope, Arco Rowan.Drill.ing North Slope Arco, Rowan Drilling Cook-lnlet@ A Parker Drilling' rdo North .. Sl ope Arco Parker Or illing Lower Cook Inlet A:rco -ODECO/Ocman Ranger (Strat Test). Horth, Slo pe SP Alaska Nabors Drilling Swanson River C IhIevron :Brinkerhoff Ori 1 ling A@ Gulf of Alaska Exxon ''Alaskam. Star North Slope, Exxon Loffland Brothers. 0 ri 1 li n'U"..@ Gulf,of Alaska Gulf Oi Aleutian.Key Gulf of Alaska Shell Oi 1 Sedco 706 708 @,odiak OCS Sun Oil Sedco (StrAt Test) Gulf of Alaska Texaco ODECO/ Ocean Bount Texaco North Slope Chal .1 enger._.Cr n Cook@ Inlet Union Oil Parker Drilling b 41 d APPENDIX E REVENUE SOURCES OF THE STATE OF ALASKA Actual Collections 1976 mi !-I i on) Oil Reserves taxes. 223.1 (scheduled to expire December 31,.1977) Individual Income Taxes. 146.2 0i 1, & Gas Property.Taxes -2 Royalti-es.on the Sale..&.Use of State Resources 43.3 ment. Earning on the Sale,@or Use of State .31.7 -Invest S' Resources .1orgorate-Income Taxes 31 .1 Oi 11 Ga,@ Producti on: Seve'rance Taxes 2n .0 Highway Fuel Taxes 20.2 Alaska Business,Licenses Ferry Systems Sout'heast 14.0, Motor Vehicle Titles & Registrations 10.8 Al cohol ic Beverages Taxes 71. 9 All. Others 51.1 .709.8 Total Unrestricted.Revenues @,Source: State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Revenue -Sources FY 1-976- 1978, compiled by,P esearch Section, Juneau, January 9.7 7@@ APPENDIX F METHODOLOGICAL NOTES Resource Inventories Several methodological considerations were important to the development of the energy resource inventories. One of the most important was the decision to attempt, as much as possible, to go beyond the most recent published data avail- able on Alaska's energy resources. This decision proved to be invaluable with respect to two of the major resource categories; oil and gas, and hydroelec- tric resources. A major problem with muchof the published data on oil and gas resources in the State of Alaska was the lack of geographical detail. Resource estimates by the United States GeologicalSurvey (USGS), in particular, were highly aggregated and were given only for major regions of the State. The State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources estimates also were aggregated, but on a different basis than Federal estimates. To put estimates by State and Federal authorities on comparable bases, it was necessary to obtain unpublished materials. This was done in the case of USGS data by obtaining unpublished tabulations by petroleum province that were used to generate the aggregate numbers published in USGS Circular 725. In addition, copies of USGS maps depicting their most recent estimates of the boundaries of the State's onshore and offshore petroleum provincees wre obtained. These boundary definitions are generally considered to be the best that are currtenly available. In case of hydroelectric power, it was necessary to go beyond the most recently published inventories of potential resource sites. In 1968, the Alaska Power Administration *APA) identified 76 potential sites for hydro- electric power development, with a h eavy emphasis on larger sites located near major potential load areas. In 1976, the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska identified 39 major sites, only ten of which were also on the APA list. Neither of these inventories, however, recognized the growing need in Alaska for hydroelectric power development in smaller load zones, particularly areas in the more remote parts of the State. By going back to older inventories prepared in the 1950s and early 1960s by the Bureau of Reclamatoin (now the Alaska Power Administration), the United States GeologicalSurvey (USGS), the U.S. Forest Service, and the licensing of applications of the Federal Power Commission, other sites, including smaller sites suitable for those more remote potential load zones were identified. Although many of the latter sites are not immediately economically viable, an inventory that did not include them would have been biased and incomplete. Another major component of the resources inventory was the compilationof the data on a regional basis. The State of Alaska is so large, and varies so widely inits geographic, climatic, social, and economic characteristics, inventories by a subdivision other than the State as a whole was necessary. To determine the appropriate regional basis for the inventories, the study team consulted with the State of Alaska, Office of theGovernor, Divison of Policy Development and Planning (DPDP) early in the study. At that time, DPDP was in the process of establishing six geographical subdivisions as the basic planning regions for the state. These regionsl are a slightly modified verson of the regions used in the University of Alaska's Man-in-the-Arctic Program, developed prior to the North Slope Borough's incorporation as a local government unit. The modification consists primarily of making the regional boundaries consistent with Census division boundaries, which follow local government boundaries. A prime benefit of the use of these particular boundaries is that all of this resource data is now available to State and Federal planners on the same basis as most other regionalized planning data. A minor methodological problem associated withthe resources inventories was the establishment of a consistent nomenclature including spelling for Alaska place names. Many of these place names have changed over the years. In some cases, when using older data sources, the place names given differed from current usage. All place name disputes were resolved by using the most recent edition of "The Dictionary of Alaska Place Names." Finally, information on energy resources obtained from published and unpub- lished sources frequently was supplemented by visits by project team members to a number of the resource sites. These site vivits were invaluable because the project team was able, on many occasions, to obtain the latest and best information available from individuals working directly with a particular resource in the field. In addition, the study team learned the names of other key contact persons. Indentification of Potential Development Sites A major concern of the study team was to develop an appropriate methodology for determining the resource sites in Alaska that are most likely to be devel- oped before the year 2000, and to obtain some estimate of the timing of such development. In view of the study team's lack of previous expertise in most of the resources involved, it was determined to take advantage of the best available expert opinion for each of the resources. Initially, the study team attempted to obtain information on the likelihood and timing of resource development through informal telephone contacts with a small number of known experts on each of the energy resources. It was quickly found, however, that there was considerable difficulty in obtaining consistent impressions from different experts via the telephoe and that individuals tended to have considerable knowledge on a resource in a particular area of the State, but less expertise with respect to that resource elsewhere. Thus, it was decided that a questionnaire of survey form was required that could be sent to many individuals known to be knowledgeable on a given resource in Alaska. The actual format of the questionnaire varied from resource to resource, but generally consisted of a list of known or most likely resource sites broadly defined (such as oil and gas provinces or coal F2 fields). The experts on a given resource were requested to rank the resource sities in order of most probable development, and to give estimates of the timing of such development. In addition, each expert (except for coal) was requested to explain the degree of his familiarity or expertise in each of the resource sites listed. Finally, in the case of coal, uranium, and hydroelect- trick power, the experts were asked to supply the names of any additional sites, beyond those supplied to them, that they considered to be particularly likely prospects for development, and when such development might occur. Experts were usually selected from Federal or State agencies because of the concern for vested interest that industry people might be subject to. (See question- naries at the end of this section.) The response to our questionnaires was generally excellent, and included many comments in addition to the rankings and estimated dates of development. (Summaries of these comments are included in chapters 4 and 5 of Volume I.) In evaluating the returned questionnaires, however, the study team found considerable variation in experts' expectations regarding the probability and timing of development at different sites. To obtain concensus rankings, the most weight was usually given to the opinions of those who considered them- selves to be most expert on particular resource sites. Inconsistent informa- tion was usually ignored when the expert considered that he was not particu- larly qualified to comment on a given site. In the case of hydroelectric power, the problem was complicated by the fact that several sites were often given for a patricular load zone, but could not all be developed. That is, the resource sites in question were often mutually exlusive. In this case, the sites were ranked on the basis of the number of experts who agreed that a site was likely to be developed. Other Methodological Considerations A note of importance is the study team's reliance on responses to the first draft of this report. The draft was circulated to all the experts who assisted during the project and to many other interested parties. The comments by these individuals as incorporated into the text greatly enhanced the quality of the final report. Clearly this report could not have been made without their help - see Key Contacts in both Volumes 1 and 2. The lists of oil and gas provinces for onshore and offshore oil and gas were accompanied by maps showing their locations. In addition, oil and gas experts received a copy of the prospective outer continental shelf (OCS) lease schedule as of January 1977, and a map showing the areas scheduled for the sale. ~0 ~r~qk~. ~i~i~4 ~4qV~8qv ~4~L ~4q4~1 1- Coe ~4~1. ~4~.~j~, ~3~9. - ~- ~4~;~qi~.~* ~qf~z~l~i ~W~q_ at ~8qA~:~l~qa we ~O~X ~i ~6~q*~2q4~;~F ~I~'~A~'~1~:~1~0 ~-~.~I~r~qO~l~p ~z`~-~qt~k~i~i~; ~t~-~qY- ~qf~q4~f ~!~A~qw ~3~1~?~,~t~t~qt pro ~P~-~4~w ~i~b ~-~f~l ~O~L ~-~.~4 ~-~@ ~-~e ~- ~-~.~. ~- ~q0~.~- ~t ~qv~s ~m~t ~l~y ~4~1 ~F~q* ~2q4~w~qv~rj~r.~,~@~c ~.~0~qi ~.~0~0 A", ~qi~t~qi~qi~qi ~qt~q~qi~,~.~'~@~V~qi ~i~m ~m~A~ql ~t~. ~.~0~q1 ~-~-~@~l~a~l~qf ~qJ~qA ~g~j~o~qs~qt~.~r ~*~q:~4~A ~qI~0qm VA tat ~w~w~' be ~r~j~@ IV~% ~4~0~, ..,A- ~-~0q0~* 'Art% ~E~u ~l~p~q4 ~g~, a ~qv A -Over ~4~qb ~q1~4~" ~q6~qi ~qt ~. ~.~q1 ~q*~qi~2q* ~0qv ~1~1~.~q4~"~qh I ~qm ~'~qi~;~qt~qi~o~l~ql~w~qi~qO~. ~qO~'~e~qt~r~qa ~r~qv ~4~L All ~q7~.~1~.~q"~, IMP. 0~q1~q. ~qt~04q*~q;~q.~q'~2qV ~qe.~q- ~q'.~4qj~q.~2q)~4qJ~qe~4qS~q. ~0q5~q. ~q- ~4qV~qv ~qr~6qy A ~qr ~0qt ~q0 ~qr~6qw~q'~q. ~4qm~qi~0qj ~qr ~qo~0qi~56qO~4qS~4qS~q" 'IS ~qM~qn~0qO~q- ~8qQ~q.~2qf~q- t~4qhe~q"be~2qf~0qt ~qc ~6qt~4qf~q, ~qV~8qh~6qe- ~6qACC~2qm~q-~4q0~q;~qin n~q. ~0qy ~00qM. S ~0qt~q.. We ~0qLa~4qKe ~8qA~68qt~0q@~40qo~q':J~4qoe~q'~0qi~12q4 ~2qE~q.~qT~36q%~qr~q.~qi~ql~0qy~q.~q, ~0qP~4q6~4q@.~4qOuf~64q*e.s 9 AI -c A AX t, 3 f !itq t4c ... .. ..... ... db Ir 41-.Yo,,4r r, t @@of, v n @,y@ I p, I,k D 0 Cr S Alk AA! A c 1C A F P@ A I vl*,@l 4') V C 0, p I3@clv,m 'J Vf", @k s -2'r 52:%lien. A 3 -0, cc @r@m S@ M Cc 4,w ALASKA. OUTER CONTMENTAL SHE LF Areas Under Considefoti,on For,leasing !,g Wwlulc of V $ALT Iv A,,q aQ '4& L air -4-4 @A -f wd S'atcs 1.) 01,1111c.,. Itmor. 'Of f c. Cj 0 f t Al A s 4A si, I c.,@ a 14 (#&torn A 10 h. 4 t % S. Sri tl f-W, r.1.1 a Nt t 6 t M-P M. M...: M.: M. low, Allicill of hc 11 U Illwd State's Dcpall I I tlcl l0r 11 x 1. @11 RN Il Of f Cl@ Of v, s I C' c i, 14 L4 % 0 A I jjjjj dot, niled St -(Illellf o aies D c- I the 111(crior, M "FRVIA 2 7. 0 f f i. c c Icc'. i,'e s o u r c ki '%pp T'ad I CI iwp a ztj O's 1. .91 !Sco.c ft4 Re c v 0a tO c Arcii Va -3 t, 3) , t . I I r,04.t t 74141 lir@'t.fl -M )Irc or P,10@iAcii %4's f Cb 6*, IT IA @t 22.'e!3 42.231 0 is, )IJ5 (6.33 )4.4 0 11.9, 3 0.3 $46 so t, t on 0 0 19 Q 7 )0.54 0.4 ?U t th@- .18 11 IV 0 0 0 hi I 46.0@@ 36,C52 0 0 0 :4.1 )0.71 "0 S 0,- 1. 0 0 0 ).0,)& 0.3 .9 i Ip 26,239 0.354 c-.029 i O.Q. 0.5- 7.3 joslolA C,If-ol A I '51 3 5. "5;. 0 5 7 )0.73 0.4 0 0.25 '61, IN 0 o 0,0@1 blIflom tor,014 V'. b. Un I i ed Smies Depar(mcill ol'the hllerior@ C.LMA)CICA1. N1,101% At'it, 2- ((I 0 'f @cc of Finergy Fe , sou rc e, f". Br-Inch of bil and Cas Hessources - 'Souf c.,e App ra isa I Croup I C- j, Z C) 0 0. t! 7, A I j 2S 2 6 1 r @Qr r I 62 12, a 0 1 C4 3 T., 0 0 s A I it ry I.bp "D 1 770 L CD 0 A 50 0 0 0 ti 14 t 1 0 q 01 1:@ tom lio 0f f 0 v i Ik )7, lz4/ The Un i ',!,d Q s @,,l V, Cd i t c ()It i rwn ta 1 1 f bo u n k1,i r i th:pt Stales ccnccrimi. t@j;s lc h,i r'L are fur nrpns@s of ijju Cn. on1y_,)nJ,0.) nu@ oec:qss -ily, say @JMF -lip NO or ViCUS 0 f tho Un i e,d S W, i0l's' Q w L h rCspect to the houn, d'a y ALA!@KA OPFSHx_@;-,7 TIE 31ON17 "M IN d .1D 703 'It( J 7 1S E T 11cs s@ -in -.4 1 141 r 4-7, IN PF: @US KA nz! S TOL IF T c ? A LAS? ICIA I% % NO RTHERN AU\SI<A N ARCTIC COASTAL PLAI RE -GION 1 ALASI<A ONSHORE @R r 1 -Wll i I L F -V n --- - I II ' " - OOT)i I LL w AIM, PAOOKS RANG '4r @4, Y Oll-PORCUPINE UK r,Sr-LAWIK LCYAlilln o' ql-MMS ts IN'TERIOR Lu,' The United. States ha snDt res6lved 1 W;th, concerned. The. I i n-2s on tl :continen lurie otiier COPPER RIVER tal Shelf boull" States charL are,forpurposes of i'llus Yu,'C,'I- VI), f stration 1\ It GULF OF ALASKA ERTIARY-@ IN on I y and do not nece-,5,1rily rffl ect the po.s4t;onj or vievs of the United State.s w it h respect to the boundary i nvo I ved A-7 Coo INLET 'A ENTR AL b, ALASK I R ljJ f 0 L > i A LITHEA KA - SO STER ALA@ A PAISTOL PAY TERTI KOD I AK TERTIARY ALASKA PENINSULA c 0 SOUTHERN ALASKA @@OER' I A A U\S KA STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & JAY S HAMMOND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOVENOR DIVISION OF ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT 4TH FLOOR MACKAY BLDG 338 DENALI STREET ANCHORAGE AK 99501 May 6, 1977 Dear Because you are a recognized authority on Alaska's coal resources, we are asking you to assist us in rankin (predicting) the future order of production by coal field, of Alaska's potentially recoverable coal resources, before and after the year 2000. We need your analysis for use in our Regional Energy Resouce Planning Project. You are one of the few experts to whom we are asking this request. We ask that you number the coal fields according to the most probable order of production (your best guess); that is, when the coal will be mined; provide your estimate of when mining is most likely to take place; and that you list your reasons under "comments". We also recognize that not all experts are knowledgeable about all coal fields, so we have provided a place for you to indicate this. Some information on quantity and quality of Alaska coal is attached even though it is not recent (1967) data. Additoinal up-to-date information would be appreciated. Of the coal fields identified, one of them (nenana) has significant mining operations currently underway. We are fully aware that the information we are requesting is very subjective and highly speculative in nature, but your best guess is one of the best we can think of. Please return the form by May 17 to our office. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dee Lane Gene Rutledge Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project Attached: 1) Survey form - two pages 2) Excerpts from Coal Resources in Alaska by F. F. Barnes (1967) 3) Maps (2) md, 1. of2 SURVEY OF ALASKAN COALEXPERTS' RANKING.O.F 'PRODUCTION OF POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE COAL RESOURCES BEFORE AND AFTER THE YEAR 2000 Degree Rankil TinlingY aj o rCo,a IFields Expert-3/ 4 Comments- Matanu*ska, Field, @Kenai Field' Bering River Field Chignik Field Herendeen Bay Field Unga. Is] and Fiel& z ot ef SURVEY-OF 'ALASKAN COAL EXPERTS. RANKING OF PRODUCTION OF:POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE COAL RESOURCES R THE:YEAR 2000 BEFORE AND AFTE Degree 3/ 4/-. Rank l/. 2/ Expert Comments "Timing - Major Co.a 1. Fields Northern Alaska Fields Eagle Field Jarvis Creek Fi4ld Nenana' Field, -Broad.Pass Field Susitna I/ You r ranking.of the most probable order of production, i, 6. 1:22,,3, etc.) 2/ Your estimate of when-p .roduction is most likely to takeplace (i.e. by Name 1980-85,:1985-903@ 1.990-95,1995-2000, after.2000) .3/ Indicate degree.of your knowledge on each oil and gas province 7 V-very IJ tl e' knowledgeable, A-average, O-mlittle'or n Pk.nowl edge.. Your reasons for ranking and timing C,010pany. or Agency Please return to Alaska Reqional, Energy Resource Planning Jeam Division of -Energy & Power Development, 7ih floor MacKay.Bldg.,',338 Denali - St. Anchorage Phone n u in be r Alaska @99501 Attn:, Rutledge or,Dee Lane Phone:' 272-0257 or 279:-6832 Amm im -.00 blu NA TO ECONOMIC: G E 0 1.. 0 G Y@ 0 iiiiiable thickileS3 are cNpo-'ed at -eral poinizi; the U, 5 sm %sjz.,j perlill:- -K-116-11 coal fidd., colit:lining three filfle ...,fjf Collside able extvilt: r the 'Rerin" J'@i0l' FIC11d, %1-16dl colitains 1)(?(I:; of Ili-L01-1,011k. coal but I'S 410 @T I'll A: t I I r:1 I Icowplvx tll;l.tjt Inavi-fut, I)c [email protected])jc, to 111' 4 0(lit'r Flu-ther- more. tho ill 1.11)4. al-V lailiwil to he incolliplete for @_N% eral of the h,ted. :i@ inklicM.ed in the of individwil "0A fl,@Mk in tilt, 7 For eximple. t hcAiLm c giveo for I T? F F F f 1w ["!,it-v fll@tri,@y of dw Kvii-ii fi,,41 Ic-.1-1.0lan 100..@rjuare. ri" w! -i of"llio T.,0-v::irv vu1t-.af-va puol,abk- mitlot-Lun bv coal-lx:iri . . . .. . . . . .. .I M co:11 f*0,1.@; if) ro@ k'and thok, foi- tile no,thera-:Ui4z, niol Slisitila I clll(le oil]v fhe \villi;@l @pccifiml Of wideiv spact-A out- 7 cl(T@; @,i,P:inired @jv mw I, I r--cr aiv:fs that -if-(, prob:iI Iv co:il 1,eiring. m V. . . . . . . ... . . . . -01'k :1110 MV liecded before 111(@. tot:11 cmd 1-eno;ll,en of lhc@e 'inconmlevviv -hnovni rfrc;is (.-Ili Le 9L lo 13 1; 1 t t, 1.1 el'AWItt 1. m Z5,: tz CO.@J. FIELDS OF .1ALXr 5 7C jj@ Crl@d (1ep04;T-; are %viilv]v ill m"'Iny p;l 11 r) f Ala--lm (p]. v 0) M:li?l1V ;I! CTYT;11.11011@ @11111 Terz;.iry rok-1;i. rw a w of Ime P.1 lc,voic :1 -0. 0 'I'lic !:f iliv, StMe ocf-ii r Ili 111"': of. @i mi@ n -i hei-n ),lit ilm(le Ilatek. known ol tj - . __ __ -1 6 - - . z - - , . - - _ v Slope iltoi-t1i ft1jc Brriok@, R e(2) cuntral Al;l;!@:I. indililin'-, t1w impurt;lllt Nell.llia co:11 I'lelit (lit t'he 11(will ffink of Hit-, Ala@%a Raw-'k. awl -otlerc(l riopm iTn-- of cfm'l liv:i@-in ro-]@., :7: t aiofl-@ the I likon 1"iver -in-I zoii,.e (if itz m.,ijor. frilwtarie.,;. oil the K(A)l1k River. an(l on th-_@ Seiv:ird tile, Cook Inlet- v Z lz@ I Su@itlm ivzlim. the Brna(l P@@S@;. j_ KvIl.1; (fol fi,dil-: 14 11 le a ka Penin@@ll 1:1, 1 I'd Id i n I 10 11 rv I!, lvc i I L U Lho i @Ield mill illillol. 'cnal Io'.J'ti@@ to nl@!@ jnaild@,llid ::111d nli tile @Fi 1 X Z on tllf -ch Al@sandfll At I ipd;tLm@ -vl-;hpd on The follox_ 71 a Eacl,l.of thcA1isL-,m coal fi(-1,1: .4 F_ Ilc:l;ioli,S 0 of or"-6, d v F 1`11.70!; 1,(Ie@ of, an(l of Ill, 1;;I( u.; Coal :111d 5. z .. ) - ave o@ivoll In InY.:- t :t:!"1 7'. A11:11 @ez-.of wo@,, of thi:, @alllplerz (if z F lj!.io!' 7n t i vv 1:1104, G.. YXSV'IY dO EMUaOS311 WOO. V TABLE 5.-E.96mated Original remireei; of 874bbitUtitt'nous.coaland liptile inellaaka [In millions of abort tons) Measured resources Didicated resourom In reff ed resoureas Tetal rtiourcab Coal field and district 0-. erburden Bert tbickness Red tHckn(Wrr f3ed thickness Bad thickmess0 (feet) (feet) ir@tj, I(feet) (ffft) Total Total Total Total 5-10 >III >102 5-10, >10 2 @P!' 5-10 @4-5 10 >10 Northern AKkw 0 UtuLok ltwer. .......... 0- 1. 0 8.2 to621.2 70.. 41. M. 7725.81W749.4 21A. 3747. 1. 060. 7 1, L 54.5 . . 181.7054.3 @ 1. 7! ...... .IM, 0 . ...... .... ..... -- - -------- -------- (w 3. (s X) ------- ------ ---- -- ----- ------ --- ---- -------- (4. :91@. 160. 1,,, A4. IX. 5! ........ P@Q. 0 'Ill. 1UP -'Q.. -'vw- .I I. K3ohk Test W@ll I.-.- ... ...... ...... 71.@ 300 %, -4,'11, Ili 14, UNO, 11 @ ,430CIO. 81@' C@'@ f,25, 971. P43 @AO'8. - 7 899' Kuk River ------ ----- ------ ------ - .9 213-,62AI 4 1A. I 1-.1..I. @@iO 1511.7 V-5. 11, 4,57-7 t@- 1. ON! - ....: 4 4. 2 0 9411 2 G; 34.5 K u&ua River (Veard ijay). -, , 144@ 2 .96 7Vi.,0 ...... 011. (1 1----- -----*. - IK- @-', 1. 35113 MeAe Ri-r. ........ 1 W4. 5. 150. 8fi, PA. 5"?23 0-., Ow -0 120@ S402. 0Y@7. 1. 010. 0j: Mewle Test Well I @ ...... ...... 14. .10111.023,4,11.0 3@: SM.. 1, Q'4r 2S. 23. 93i, 030 400. 6 36's I k pikl'uk, R iver ....... ...... "A' -A iK1. 4 -151 dla". 0S@;9. 079. 0152.7 @36.8 90, 4 -4-1-1, 019 ------ - ---- --- @! -: ..... 3111 0! lr@3' 51C, 3111" 1. ----- -------- 0; ..... 614:0 ........ ..... IN. @3@ tv wl ... ......I------ ------ .59. st 117. U. I I-,. o; -------- 17@3. 5 44,6 2ez. 3 Titahik Tc-qt Weil I ...... 17. Q 0 7-Iii- CoMile Ri@er --------------- 431.5 7.4. 5; ........7(K'@ 990,7 4,- ...... ...... 166. 2 5!A:,@J@'.' 7n@2 -34.5. 1. 0NI.-2. i"I - ------i----- -- .... ........ 794 .5, 1 024@0 1.920.0 3'. 'g4.!, 1, (1-14. 01 1. 91@0. 03, 738. 5n 0 K@-3. (w 9 .. ...... ...... ..... (16. V-------- - I Oo. 0 -----I - -----u-; .... .........Il1mi.9 Unliat Test Wc.U 0-3. OCAI ...... ----- ------ ------ 1.41 1DIA@ ------- ....... '191.1 @202.5 --- 20F2.50 TrAL .......... -------- (1- 1. orki ...... ------ --- - 42 540. 0;1 .1. Q4.. 9,C4.51 6,WLO; 1.709@0 ISATS 3 30. 184- &;@3.2: 9. 076@ Al 6) '@ 1. ...... ....... ---- ------ ------ ....... ....... -'0. 041.311@.. l..'OJ. I. II.."&7i 1' 9. 'G (A 4' 3,RX 5t7l 2. Z)- 0 .- .. 130..')l 213-@j 4t4 0 3:0 - ----- 1. _-- --l -- ..... .. .... 444 .. I------ -,2. 4' 120 853A 0 7. '3 q YJ ...... .. ;374.07@2 1: 14.6-'0:5!- .41','.b,49jr.0j 77. A7 3 Total northem Al&;ka-. .......... ..... 4'1@3 MOA 617.2 1.609.4 b2,OMF,! W. .195. 9516. 3 .3 1, 0;.q &M. 0 100, Vz. 3 Nenama coal field: It- (7t,vk 0-1. Mo ---t 70.8 10 313 51 2301,9 31-- 70.71. Ua. 6 Tatlaiiiii. rl;@k---- ----------- i .4 117.4 .31.2 8,11 -,A-: 01: 1 I i 12. 9! 150. 41 194.3 1, oc(-2. ml ------ ------ I-- -11.41 74.0, 7,@. 4 .4. 0; r, 4, . ....... 201.0 WCdod Ri'er-: ..... ....... '2 "40. Oi 241:01 8.01 .40. C@ 21A. 0 15 @......... ....... .... 0i (012 ------- 15. 0 OW-3. . .... ...... ...... ......118.0 - -------- !-------- --- ........ ------ -8. U........ is. 0 Cal@firnla Creek -------------- 0- 1. M):----- 4.0 2.0 6.0 -2 ;.. 2(y3.6 233. 6 12@ 3.60.6 317. 379.91-,381.6 5-'5.61 619.6 1, O(K@?. 4) 01 .....:- ------ ----- ------- IC. G 07,0 11.0 121013-1. 0j @..... 12.0 1`7 013@1'G Lignite Creek ... -------------- 0-1, NXI ----- 1&0 .25C..6 O@01. '325 G1.419.0 29. 0279A 1,04301.2 3m. 3. all 9- .6--1 3M.31 N. 032. Zi 2. FI f"'O ------ ------ __ _.!@_ :::r,0@4.%, 0,465 0 3 052 0' 2.1 G. 09L 3.0 M ID 6M. 07 'A. 0, ft@ 3. 000 ...... ...... .. ------ ---- - .... I i; -- ... .... &@7. 03.17.0 ------- Ili 1. 03'-'7. 0 300. 0 1.0 Healy. Creek ------------ 30MO. U3, 6@4 61 1,14.2 14 1.2 @...... brr. 7"1. 7 I -2, O(K-1 21. 02.4 M@ 4--------- Z2. r,4.4 031 ...I------ 27CO 274.0 ...... .1.0A- ------- 23 4 .4 411. 2, L\)L)-3 OCIO ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 245.0 245.0 ........ .0 87 811O.S. :.,3.. MS. 9 Savage River ................. 6-1: ow .... ...... ..... ...... ...... .... . ........ ..... .. ...... 12.0 ........ .u. 0! ------ 12 ... ....... L.I. 0 Total.-@ ----------------- L (M -----135.0 55-1-6 w.6 14,, !, 1.739.5 t. W, 0 95.." W'6 1, ml'0737- 95.5 mu. 13, 8m., 41@ "M. 6 00-)-,2, W-) -- ...... 274. 0274.0 ...... ^4. f162"A 1 5SI. 3.0 wy. 41 WA T i3. u110' 4 1,M4.4 1. "7. 8 2. WO-3, e)q ...... .... .... ...... ...... I&C 245.0 2F@3 -------- 23.0 414.8 43' . bl.41659.6 700. @3 Total Nenana field -------- 35. '66.ti W11.6 12.511.5 2,70W)- 93.5 768- 02.510.1 '3,V@. 61 QS.5 Q91. 55@ MA.2 ------------- ------ f" 1XIS 2 Janis Creek coad field .......... O-l' 000 ...... ---- ------ --- -a i5.1 ...... 5.9, 45.0 ------- ...... 45:8 .6.1 -------- '4 11 oa@-. G00 ----- ------ ------ ----- .. ...... ....... ------- 25. Fj ........ 21:1,16....... ........ .25 1 Total Jarvis Creek beld ..... .. 4---------- ----- .... ... .* ------- 6.9 ..0.6 71. 4 M liroad Pass cod field: l1road Pass .................... I O-I'M)...... ..... . ...... .. 0.3 -------- 0.3 ------ -63,3 ------ 613 ------- a F6 CcetcUo Creek .... -6.,3 .3 ........ ...... 0.3 @-I ow ----- ------ ------ ...... . ......... ...... ...... DA 0.3 63.3._._ 63,3 0.3 F13 63 M Tolad l1wad Pass flell-- . ....... ----- - 0.6 Susi!@ac(.J.neld: 48.6 27,: 9MA .27.9 M. 9 Ri,er .......... ------ O@- 1. ----- ------ ------ ------ 19. ..... .. ..... ........ ......... 19.4 8: I ftj `@.,an., 16,er --------- 0- 1. ------ ------ --- . ...... 6. 61 2. 5Ila. If 12113. 0-------- -------- ------- ---------- 1, 2-11 113. "1 0 Muga River... ...... (11. (k ----- ------ ------ ------ IA 44'6199.11........ ........ .. m..... ......... I'A +4: r, ivs'@ I"Iv' .: I> Capps Gl@ipr district-. a ------ 0- 1. Ok1( ...... :..-. . ...... ...... .. W, y4M. SI ........ ........ ...... ---- --- S.9 3@0i. 9 4al. 8 Cbwma llti-r .. ............. 0- 0111) ----- ----- ------ k.3. 25.5 0S. 71. 540. le 323 51. 41.kS. 7 1. L46. 5 -------- ------ - ------- 3'1 6.3 ........ 0. 4 lica,11 south.est of Tyonek... 3.11 6.3 ... 9.41 .... --- ------- --... .... Tot,! S@Itn3 field --------- ............ 61.81 9'.". 4, 2,211,1 2,1V1,-. ------ ...... ...... 61, 1, Ol, 4@15. 5! 2.394+7 Xen&I coal field (Homer district).. 0- 1. OWOO ---- C4- 21 54, 0 264-21 54. DI 1 .2 Total Alaska. --------------- 0- 1, DOU, __ 35.0 552.6 587A 70, 44,0,59@2 5.4W6 0; 217. 1 3.18A.7 19.6CA.6 9,V24-1 R. CLIO. 2. 7. Nk: 5*25, 748 rI 2a, 4 -'4 51A -,? 11 3 -4 45 hil9 2:" 11:- -.4+0 174.0 ..... 24A &.17.0 56 1. Oj I m.1 2.453A 5.Wit.9 1,2 .,41'3, @l SA '@.ImS 210@ 111 15, t, '@981. 1448 120@ I " '@ 7.4184@ 0D.111 8021 '1 1, '1:@: 114om @>W 3,:: I'l im"". S!49m 0C. 9,47. 3 Gnwd Dial .... ....... --- ---------- ...... 26. 6 9. 41 W. '21 6,364.2i 7.02S.8@0,234. In. l43.41N5.I28.QjIO1..8O6.4 16, 0-13. 5@3:'3. 6 r 35. 0881.61 9178 -17 01 d C TABLE G-ftange in c@ mp silinPd hraii -alue -c A askan coals 000a ngt of representalit C "as reei-iv, [On A- basisl C_ Moiswn W.'alil Yked Aiih Sulfur le .I - . 0 Location Sourecorsumples Rank or cow :iafter It-fing 'ahle (Btu),, Norlbi,rn Alaska liee;ow r .(:nr, h, Muif Beaurort dis?rIct-, ----------- 06terop@ ....... 6.- . I . _Kukpowrok Rt,rr ... .... ....... --------- 31 O@ 5. -A. 9 -41). 147. 8-'& 04 1t. 6 V do --------- G@ 8- 10. 9 @1. 4-35:65 --------- ....... . ... '0 KNAik an,l ---------- --------- _____do_ ------ --------- 5-15 0 0. 2-32 1, gin 12. ggo ------- 1. 7- 6,-1 33. 1 -'37. 4V,. 9_@7. 1) 11,3- 7: 4 611,100-13 1140 1Z11k !Wd KI'ma. Rivm M 2 re S vad,s tn(ji Jkpiklaik Ili r -----------------_ -t;. 7 -40. ,- 4 _'. 5 2. 3-@P S .3 8, 9: ni 0 Onterop.,....... 14A 33. 5,47.3 .4*ii 0. 3 3 0 .......... 9.9 32. f@35. 37 7-49. 9 6_4-20' --rio Bit ;!notls :1 4 -1,1 .0 2- .8 7.70)-10, 72 COMIle River--- --- --------- - V@. 8 13A () m ---------- 13: 7@ 319.S 2. 6-24. 3 .3- .7 10. Vcl,-13. 450 0 .7 Central %J:jsk@j 1jej:jon: --- do --------- SI @4 KObr-k 41; [email protected] IL,S. 23. 4 .3- .7 S. 4,@@ 9, 31io - ......... 10 mt!lmirtcus Kt)%":k*ljk River (Traryi@ -av Dar) --------------- _: :i:i:, .10.5 2Q. 0 .7 C, Ct@i@agu ("reek do 10 ............... 4.5 34. 2 .4 I ifw dwilp_ _ --- ivnil P 1. 3 12.il ------ 3 8 34. 'd P, 2 7. 1 it I-Anvik disir; @ :1. Wi. (Yukon Hire r) ... ........ t t 11; 825 Ral"pati dis@rl, t ( Dre-,, mine) .1 --------L11. 11, 24. S-410-@5 49: 0o 3. 5-= t; Eul-Cirt j- dwrict; A0 ------- - .- .6 ........... - ------- Y. 5 4(L 137. 4 13.(, ---------- -------- Wnsi,inet.u Creek-_- --- ----- ------ Outcrop ----- ---- S1lW.i1'lll!inm.si4 Nation )- 11.1-13.5 42. 13.7 3.). 7-44.2 '2 3.1 -.3 1@i,ir ----------------- ------- N1 ille d1linp ......... 1111mlim"I * - 6 .2 ----_------- Nen.na @oaj .@ju!,j @ .............. 1: 4 40 0 3.0 3.0 .13 '55 6 M itle ------- ------ -- - ----- -itu 17. 8_1z, @ 1 _v.@) 27. 1 - @5 3 3.5-13. -? 1- .3- Wterop ---------- __.da. 11. 7 32. -, @ 1. --, 'I - . 570- 9 430 Jarvis Cre@k coal fl,,Iul ------:------- @_do ------------ .... do --------- 20 -42. it 6. 3. 3-15. 0 . J@- .4 F,. 3@!; @ I i;. 3@5 Inlet 'Vion: ()- cook -@Zusitna it, 2.0 35- 1-43. 41_4_1 - 35..3 5.2-13.1 .3-1.4 7. @;B- 9, If 5 Broad Pass c,,:j.jje!ej: ",HoCr- k*dikrict. .......... ------ %fine -------- --- do.... S. 7-1 S.@ S 32.0 43.4 213. .3- C, 11 MAO 800 Susitoa co., tjejd@ . . . c and trench- 21. S-:i4_5I- 2:3 Il-7 Urnife.-2. -32 do., !r'- 1-9 [email protected]'lAi 2.0-14.2 IfOilva Lake district. -------- -- 3@. 9 -3.. G I - 7. @@I- : @,4 lin.ad Pjss district ------ - Tunn I crop -------:....... ,nous ---- 19. _2s. ----------- -briil ho! 3 1 9S-34. 6 13. 3-:30. 5 ....... 690 N1a%lw:s` .... do --------------- : ' '1 -4.4 3r. Lit(l. St:.simadistriet .... .... -------- Mill,_ ................ .....( I iti's .2 Ontcrop,__ -, JO ---- ----------- 17-4 20. 3 31. G-12. 53,;. 9.2-13.5 .4 9.160- 9. 210 q Wfsbbon 11mji't'iet ------- - ------- 14-1 3 .4 S@ 460 2. 7- S. C dWriet --------------- ------ -- B itilmirlous.. . - 3!. 6-4 1, 63@. 40 4.4- "1. 7 -1.0 do --------- ...... .. .2 10 390-13. 1 Do A nthractte Ridge district ....... da......... 4. 1 1 .3. S- 2 -1 Q@9. I -z5.,S-19.5 Q - -rop-_: ......... .I--- (, .4711. .0 ........ 547. 4-7@. 4 2.4-17.2 .6- .7 it 3,lo- 4 210 __do ------ ---------- :3. 1 - b. 7 6. 6-10. 5f, 4. @4 -., .2 .7 - 13' 425 KCl!tlicOA1f1e!d Mornerdivrict)_ .............. 116 7@ (W-T 4) -1.20 ...1 1. @! @7 31.1 0 All ........ 24.1-33. 7 0 .2- .4 MO - t. WK)@ > 1-imlile. 1 30, 4 3LS-41.3 ;4.5-30_3 ------- ---- ---- 3.8-11S. 7 .11- .2 6.f.40- --40 ;s ---- 30. Z;__35. 1@ 1. 2-4 1. J9. 1 - 12. 1 .3- .4 8.380- 9. Ov. Alaska Peninsq:. !,epioa: llcrend,:en lftLV COa! field ...... ............... Tunnel -_------------ Bitilmil'.us z Outcrop ------- 32. 1-13. fS 4R, 8 -51. 47.1 -!I.C, @3- .4 11, 26C@-Jj. 790 Vora Nand c:,%1 fiold.__ ..... ....... - do -------- ---------- . ................ 4, 2- 6: 7 35. 21,3A. 62:,jj OL 3. U I `. a .4- .11 11 150- Chm"lk V(I:il field., --------- iellite ... ;_ ------- 23. 3 2.5.4 12.420 M, .111 ine, or prosrp-ct.. . 5,810 0 Sat] :,sf I -ion: -10.8 '27.2- 34.3 21i. 2 I h, M %Usk It, SA) 39."5 4* 14 9-25 3 .7-2.3 9.640@1 1. 240 C: li,mig fit @ er l;oal field ------------ %line _.do ---------- 1. 0- SA 13.1-17.,,- ' = do-, withr 461 0-111m 1 2'1-18 0 1.6-3.4 11, OCO-IS. 00() 0 Semi, a itc_ 2- 9- 6 1) W A-13. 060.3-76. 1 41@ 9-2.@ 2 OlitcrO ----------- f-4. 9 1".3.50 r, S,, 13. 115 1.@, .4 1 57. 7 -1.4 10. 440-14,8(10 A,% -------------_ __7 1:11 9.4 .. do - -------------- 1, Anthracite: ----- 5-C 11 15. fi'llj koor7mllioo hill"t 3 0- 8 3 5, 0 -13.3 C6@ O-S2. 52,1-20.5 kAdmiralty. T.1,!ind,--, ------- Mille ----------------- bituall"Oll -------- 3.8- 6.4 A 3-35. 236. 3-.'i9. 621. 4-23. 0 930- 10.630 Cn G-18 A Kus OK C4- R S T 0 HER 4NO 4A. TA Irl. 1, 0 ev@ 1,'@ rcl el" E Lt Ai@ C, 'jv F I E FIM Lo 1@12 -@PA I 7@;7- G-20 STATE OF ALASKA JAY S HAMMOND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & GOVERNOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENERGY & POWER DEVELOPMENT 7TH FLOOR MACKAY BLDG 338 DENALI STREET ANCHORAGE AK 99501 May 20, 1977 Dear Because you are a recognized authority on Alaska's hydroelectric resources, we are asking you to assist us in rankin (predicting) the hydroelectric sites where electrical generation may occur, before the year 2000. We need your analysis for use in our Regional Energy Resource Planning Project. You are one of the Few experts to who we are making this request. Please complete the attached Form 1. Your comments will be most welcome. We decided to use the 39 potential hydroelectric projects identified in Table 5.1 of the report "Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995" by the Institute of Socal and Economic Rresearch (August 1976) as a starting base. (See page 5-15 to 5-36 and appendix H). However, do not be limited by these 39 projects, add any that you think are appropriate. We are interested in the small (less than lmw) hydroelectric potential in Alaska and low head hydro (including tidees), but this request for you to complete this Form 1 does not include these resources. We are fully aware that the information we are requesting is subjective and speculative in nature, but your best guess is the best we can think of. Please return the form by May 26th to our office. You may retain the accompanying materials. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dee Lane Gene Rutledge Alaska Regional Energy Resource Planning Project Attached: 1) Excerpts from "Electrical Power in Alaska, 1976-1995" (ISER) August 1976 Pages 5-20 and 5-21 2) Form 1 Hydroelectric Sites - Estimated Dates of Electrical Generation G21 5. j" CAPACITY AND COST Or, KEY, HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS Capacity (KW). Energy'@@.'-, Total capital Cost Fer' Reg!C2@Area/Project Installed Pr I'm 6 ("1'"10 (COOS), Prime K-i In& taille! i Anc oiage-Fairbanks Susitna.Project Fatana 000 353,880 .3,099,969 2,,.297,700 6,493. '2,901 D%;vills Canyon 776,000 344,751 3.0200.010@ 1.234'.IM, 3,580 1.595 Total@@ 1,568,000 698,630 6,11'9,998, @3:1.531 .600 5,055 2,252 Southcentral-@Anchorage- Fairbanks-Cordova-.'@ Valdez-Glennallen Tebziy Lakes 64,000 30.150 2611,114 Power.Creek 12,000 3,725. 32.631 967 Sheep Kiver Lakes 4,000 2,540 .1,610 .3,117 NO'Name.Creek. 22,250 @6,59O. 1 2,587 11;648 5,000, 2.550 22,338- 3,970 .1,557 794 4,4 Solomon Gulch 11.000 '40 38,877 19,972 4,4�8 T otal 97,000 43,405 380,210 Ke@ai ?cnin-sula Fellie.Juan Lake 4()'000 21,000, 104,000 45,5'5, -279,06 2, 1 r,.g 1,139 @now River 60,000 31,900 0 57,705 1,809 962 Bradley 'Lake 125,000 51.."00 450,000 89.8135 1, 748 711 Total 225,000 104,300 913,000 Kodiak Terror Jake 20,000 63.250 40.370 5,591 2fole Southeast Metlakatla Purpli!' Lake Rchnhi litation 1.400 400 Fasrler Lake 4,000 1"134 2 835 2,000 1 6.,,630 3:415 1,70i Total 2,400 34i5QO Yetchikan Upper Mihoney Lake 10,000 700 41,172, 9@,035 1,922 Swan Lake 15,000 7,706 67,500 903. Lake Grace 20,000, 11"000 327'. 9 8 0 4.283 2,199 39,, 3 5 1 3,577 1.960 Total '45.000 23,800 ;102.672 Pete rr Anita 4,000. 2,100 16,396 8.71 , 2,796.. 1,466 Ani culd Kl:nk. .,-;Jkes 8,000 3.821 33,550 .9,120 2 283 1,10 L3ke 6,00:) 3;on 26,280 Si--arlse Lake 4 0 2,357 1,178 00 2, 1, C 0 '21,02.4 J:'j t h La k c 16,000 4 '17 4 1.739,. 1 04 3 1" 2 1 '1 69,6fD -13':, 38 1: 460 CrYft,11 !.,ke E-;-nsion 21."00 50,; Cancade Creek 1 15,000 ll'coa- 1.760 Ca!,cad,@ Creek 11 5,'100 44, 7B 1 22,955 4,501 11530 S 'LaRe 36.0co 17.@00 1-,G.672 2j,335 l.i92 - $93 cerery 18,000 9, no 179,716 22.310 2,452., Total 105,500 51,780 453,583@ All. cos's. calculated based on construction beginning early 1976. G-22 Prime. d Y.W Energy Capi'tal Cost Per* Capacity Tot Installed Prime. K "r-f (000s) Prime 'Cd. installed KW Region/Area/Project Southeaat (continued) Juneau 58. 103,000 71 Snettisham Expansion 1 27 000 11 , 7! 22.000 1,8 --- 1 18,607 162,997 16.000 860 Snettisham Expansion I 27 18.00Q 1,251 Total 000 30,365 2.' 5 - 19917 Sitka 7 1,222 Lake Iiina 3,UOO :710 15,680 3,665 94@ I its Green Lake 14,000 6 600 571,S16 18,050 2. 735, 10 000 4,585 .40,165 9,705 2 Lake Diana 1,172 Milk Lake 16:ooo 8,000 70,0@O 18,750 1 3 1 7 1.1 four Falls Lake 6,000 3,000 26.280 4.265. 1,417 1.067 13 ,83 19,200 2,Pl; 18,000 6,830 1 Carbon'L 1,330 67, F, cio 16,600 2,660 Takitz Lake 20,000 10,000 Total 87,000 40,605 Halnea Unnamed Lake 9,000 4,640 40.640 10,435 2.249 1.159 [email protected] Coat Lake 9,000 4,450 38.9a2 9.1410 2'.'OS4 1.016 Total Region 287.900 157,0sO Northwest: Walakleet '90, 1,409 An7vik Kiver 14,000 6.800 .59,56a 19,725 20 Southwest Dillinghim .10.820 Lake Elva 2,500 1,240 6,690 5.395 2.67b. Bethel Kisaralik JUver 36,006 18,200L 25-3,222 74,485 4.0@3 .2-060 Total 38,@00 19,440 170, 1042 Total: Region 1,910,000 853,555 7,477,142 STATEWIDE TOTAL 2,250,400 1,037,635 9,0.93,187, FORM I page 1 of 4 fs lectric Si-tes Estimated Date of Elect Hyd roe s rical GenerWon Note: Please refer to a'ttached Ta bTe 5. 1 for Location, Capacity and Costs D -you think that Estimated Decade you o COMIMENTS PROJECT Electrical Generation think Electrica j@ occur before. the Production may occur eat- 2000? y (YES OR 110) Watana 2. Devil's Canyon 3. Tebay L-akes Power Creek G). 5 Sheep River L 6. No Name, Creek 7.1 Solomon Gulch 8. 'Nellie Juantake 9. Snow River 10. Bradley. Lake :11. Terror Lake -1,21. Pu rpI e lake' Rehabil- itation FIRM 1 page 2 of 4 Hydrgelectric Sites Estimated Dates of Electrical Generation Note: Plebse refer to,attached Table 5.1 for Location, Capacity and Costs Do you think that Estimated Decaje. PROJECT Electrical Generation you think.Elec-. COMMENTS may occur before the trical Production yeaY 2,000? aay.occur? (YES OR NO) 13. [lass I er Lake 14. Upper Mahoney,Lake 15. Swan Lake 16.' Lake Grace 17. , Anita 18.. Anita and Kunk Lakes- Virginia I.ake 20. Sunrise Lake. 21.:. Ruth Lake, 22 Crystal Lake Expansion 23 Cascade Creek I page 3 of 4 FORM 1 Hydroelectric Sites Estimated Dates of Electrical Generation Note: Pleas2.refer to attached.Table 5.1 for Location, Ca acity and Costs P Do you think that Estimated Decade, PROJECT Electr.i6al' Generation COMMENTS you think Electrical -oduction may occur? Jjay occur before. the Pi year 2000?' (YES OR NO) 24, Cascade Creek 11 25. Scene:v Lake 26. Snettisham Expan- sion I 27. Snettisham Expan- s or) 11 28. Lake Irina -4 29. Green Lake 30. Lake Di ana 31. Milk Lake 3@. Four Fal Is Lake 33. Carbon Lake Lake _41, age 4 of 4 FORM 1 p i!ydroclectrit Si tes Estimated Dates of Electrical Gereration Note: Please refer t oattached Table 5.1 for Location, Cap@cJty 'and -Costs Do you think that Estimated De 'PROJECT cade Electrical Generation you think Elec-, COMMENTS occur before the trical Production year 2000? ma occur? LY_ (YES.OR NO) 35. Unnamed Lake. 36 Goat Lake' 37.- Unalakl,eE!t .38. Lake Elva C) 39. Ki saral A River 40. OTH CR 41. OTHER 42. OTHER 43. OTHER 44. OTHER 45 OTHER 46. .-OTHER STATE OF ALASKA JAY S HAMMOND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & GOVERNOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENERGY & POWER DEVELOPMENT 7TH FLOOR MACKAY BLDG 338 DENALI STREET ANCHORAGE AK 99501 June 15, 1977 Dear Because you are a recognized authority on Alaska's uranium resources, we are asking you to assist us in ranking (predicting) the future order of production of Alaska's potentially recoverable uranium resources, before and after the year 2000. We need your analysis for use in our Regional Energy Resource Planning Project. You are one of the few experts to who we are making this request. We ask that you number the uranium sites according to the most pro- bable order of production (your best guess); that is, when uranium will be mined and trasported from the site; provideyour estimate of when recovery is most likely to take place; and that you list your reasons under "comments". We also recognize that not all experts are knowledgeable about all areas, se we have provided a place for you to indicate this. To our knowledge, of the areas identified, only Bokan Mountain has recovered uranium. We are fully aware that the information we are requesting is very sub- jective and highly speculative in nature, but your best guess is one of the best we can think of. Please return this form by June 23. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dee Lane Gene Rutledge Alaska Regional Energy Resource Planning Project DL: GR/dss Enclosure G28 Survey of Alaskan Uranim Expert-q -ion of Potentially Recoverable U@anium Resources, Panking.of,ProducL -ter the Year 2000- Before &Af 3/ 4/ Uraniun Site Degree Caments Pink V ng E@,w-rt Bokan Mountain other Southeast Alaska S&Aurd Peninsula Basin Cook Inlet L) Arctic pe, Eagle Basin Copper River Yukon Flats Ilukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Gulf Coast inbarior Low-Ands ..................... j SI viey of Maskan Uranium E'-.T_@erts R7 1,,q of Productior" of Potentially Recoverable Uraniun Rot3ources: Tc--rorc & After the Y( @ar 2000 21 3/ Tirrang Uranitzi Sito, D2qrec Corm.nt's fxix-,rt Bristol Ray Selawik Area Other Otlier Other Obier 0 lather 1/- Your ranking of the most.probable orderof productionL(i.e. 2j,3. etc Ncm)c ik 'ely Your osUirwate of wh-n production is ake j lace (i.e 1980 rrost to t, p 198045, 1985-90, 1990 95, 1995-2000). Indicate degree Lof your knowledge on each- uraniun site V -very knailedgeable , Title e& A avera 0 littleL or n-- 4/ Ycur reasons for ranking and timin-9- Carpany or Agency Please return to Alaska.Regional Energ' Resource Planning Team.- Division of Energy and Povx-@r D--velopm-nt., 7th Floor KacEay Bldg., 338 Denali @tL. Anchorage, AK 99501L :Attn.- Gene Ru.tledge or Dee Lane Plione:.272-0527 or 279-6832 Phon--- .qwb,_r I II i 3 6668 14105 9529 @