Drainage pierces ANWR in Alaska study scenario

Survey and exploration activity on state lands immediately to the west of ANWR includes six wells within three miles and 19 wells within about 30 miles of the refuge boundary and at least two announced discoveries of potentially commercial hydrocarbons (Fig. 1).

USGS 1998 assessment

The USGS divided its assessment area into four sectors.

Land status was classified as "federal" jurisdiction (the 1002 Area, less ASRC lands) and "non-federal" (state offshore lands, plus ASRC mineral inholdings in the 1002 Area). A geological distinction was made along the Marsh Creek anticline, separating "undeformed" (horizontal) formations to the north and west, and "deformed" (folded and fragmented) formations to the south and east. The anticline crosses the band of state offshore lands near the village of Kaktovik.

The USGS classification scheme allocates about one-third of the total acreage in the northwest corner of ANWR to the undeformed sector and the remaining two-thirds, including most of the ASRC lands, to the deformed sector. Table 1 summarizes the USGS assessments of total technically recoverable crude-oil volumes, and volumes in accumulations of 256 million bbl or more, in each of the four sectors of the study area.

Relative attractiveness

The undeformed sector, which accounts for only 33.7% of the study area but 85.3% of the estimated recoverable oil, contains the more attractive exploration targets.

The USGS expected 9.6 large (256 million bbl or more technically recoverable) crude-oil accumulations to exist in the undeformed sector: about one for every 23,000 sq miles. In contrast, USGS expected only 2.6 million bbl in the much larger deformed sector: about one for every 395,000 sq miles. Likewise, the mean expected volume of recoverable oil per unit area in the undeformed sector is almost nine times the volume of oil expected in an equivalent area within the deformed sector. The USGS did not report a significant difference in mean size or distribution of sizes of oil accumulations.

The expected concentrations of oil do not differ significantly between the federal and non-federal parts of the undeformed sector, as measured by either the expected number of accumulations per unit area or the volumes of recoverable oil per unit area. Moreover, because the existing stock of geophysical and geological information is much richer on the nonfederal than on the federal part of the USGS study area, we infer that:

• Independently of their legal status, the undeformed sectors contain the more promising exploration targets for oil. (The April 1999 USGS Open File Report discloses that the deformed area is substantially more prospective for gas than for oil);
• This assessment is more reliable for the nonfederal (i.e., state offshore) part of the undeformed sector than for the federal, because of the richer geophysical information base and because of the existence of two test wells on the undeformed portion of the offshore state strip;
• Within the federal (i.e., ANWR) part of the undeformed sector, the USGS assessment is most reliable in the northwesterly corner-the Canning River Delta.
• On balance, the most attractive petroleum exploration targets in the entire study area are likely to be the Canning Delta and its immediate vicinity, both within and outside ANWR.

Apparent USGS pessimism

The USGS assessed the expected volume of "technically recoverable" resources in the total study area at 10.3 billion bbl, with a 95% probability the actual value is at least 5.7 billion bbl and a 5% probability that it is 16.0 billion bbl or more. Of the expected 10.3 billion bbl technically recoverable, moreover, only 6.8 billion bbl are expected to be found in accumulations containing at least 512 million bbl, deemed the "minimum commercially recoverable field size."

More notably yet, the USGS estimates that no crude oil from the study area would be "economically recoverable" at a West Coast crude-oil market price of $15/bbl or less (1996 dollars) and that only 3.3 billion of the 10.3 billion bbl technically recoverable would be economically recoverable at a price of $20.

After averaging about $11 in 1998, reported West Coast prices for Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil fell to $9 in early 1999, rebounding to about $16 in mid-May. Some analysts, including Philip Verleger, expect even higher prices over the next year or so,² and there are also those who still anticipate the imminent onset of the steep price rises which were widely predicted in the late 1970s and early 1980s.³ Nevertheless, we are not aware of any mainstream forecasting authorities that now anticipate long-term delivered prices for ANS crude oil greater than $15.

Taken at face value, the USGS assessment implies only a small probability that any crude oil resources at all will be developed, or produced from or immediately offshore of the ANWR 1002 Area. In particular, the study seems to rule out the discovery of "Prudhoe-size" accumulations of economically recoverable crude oil, i.e., ultimate reserves on the order of, say, 10 billion bbl. Combined with the probable geographic distribution of crude-oil accumulations within the study area, the USGS assessment implies that that little or no commercially recoverable crude oil will be found and developed on ASRC acreage or elsewhere in the deformed sector.

Countervailing considerations

Even in the face of these adverse implications of the recent USGS assessment, we conclude that some development of petroleum resources in or near ANWR is at least a plausible outlook. We base this on the following observations:

The scenarios

We have constructed five scenarios representing successively greater extents of development. They are cumulative, each adding to the previous scenario. Figs. 2 through 6 show the areas of development under each scenario.

Scenario 1 - Drainage of pools underlying the ANWR border

We anticipate that industry will continue to extend and interpolate exploration, development, and production in the Central Arctic on the same pattern that has prevailed since the mid-1980s.^4-6

In Year 1 of our story, petroleum development commences in the vicinity of the Canning River Delta on state onshore acreage immediately west of ANWR, and on state offshore acreage immediately north of ANWR.

Activity outside ANWR involves 5-acre offshore island drill pads and a three-phase undersea pipeline along the Arctic barrier islands that constitute the inner state-federal jurisdictional. This pipeline will connect the drillsites to a processing center either on Flaxman Island or onshore state lands west of the Staines River. These facilities will be constructed and equipped entirely without support from, of alteration of, the onshore surface of ANWR.

In this scenario, several oil and gas accumulations straddle the boundary between ANWR and state offshore or onshore acreage (Fig. 2). These accumulations are initially developed exclusively from wells on state leases, but wells drilled on state acreage outside the refuge boundaries are expected to drain pools that extend under it.

In Year 3 of our story, Congress authorizes limited petroleum-related surface activity within ANWR in connection with "drainage" sales along the refuge boundaries, for the purpose of protecting the federal royalty interest in oil and gas occurring in such pools. Actual development and production under this provision would occur only in the extreme northwest corner of ANWR-essentially within the Canning River Delta as shown on Fig. 2. Two additional borderline accumulations are developed from wells on the Canning River Delta within ANWR.

Scenario 2 - Leasing of ASRC holdings and the Canning Delta

Scenario 2 continues this hypothetical chain of events and extends the scope of development. In Year 5, Congress permits renewed seismic exploration, followed by onshore oil and gas leasing, exploration and development drilling, attendant onshore surface activity (including construction), and production of hydrocarbons, on the following additional portions of the 1002 Area:

• The remainder of the Canning River Delta;
• Mineral inholdings of the ASRC;
• Intervening ANWR acreage north of 70? N. Lat., such as along Camden Bay; plus
• Any additional acreage that is prospectively subject to drainage either from nonfederal acreage or federal acreage in the preceding categories (Fig. 3).

This policy permits development on the best oil and gas prospects while avoiding the most sensitive core caribou calving grounds. In this scenario, oil from developments in the eastern part of the 1002 Area is transported from the area through an offshore pipeline.

Scenario 3 - Roads and onshore facilities

This is a variation of Scenario 2 with more extensive onshore development. Leasing and development still occur in the Canning River Delta, on ASRC mineral inholdings, and on lands north of 70 N., but instead of temporary ice roads and an offshore pipeline, onshore facilities are developed. The scenario (Fig. 4) assumes that the legislation authorizing development of ASRC lands also authorizes:

1. An onshore oil and gas pipeline corridor east to west across the 1002 Area;
2. A parallel year-round highway extending from the eastern fields and Kaktovik, to the western boundary of ANWR (connecting with petroleum transport facilities and the North Slope haul road, respectively, near Prudhoe Bay);
3. A state-owned jet-capable regional airport near Kaktovik; and
4. Associated Kaktovik Inupiat Corp.-owned industrial, commercial and transient-accommodation facilities adjacent to the airport.

These developments are not motivated by technical or economic necessity or preferences of the operators. Rather, we assume these facilities are chosen and sited to serve regional social and economic objectives, as well as to allay concerns about the marine environment.

Scenario 4 - Gas commercialization and leasing throughout the 1002 Area

In Scenarios 1 through 3, any natural gas discovered in the course of oil exploration and development not used on ANS leases continued to be reinjected or (in the case of nonassociated gas) shut in. However, Scenario 4 (Fig. 5) assumes that, in Year 5, ANS gas producers, other private investors, the State of Alaska, and ASRC agree upon a "commercialization" system and associated financial arrangements for natural gas produced at Prudhoe Bay and other accumulations in the Central Arctic. To capture potential economies of scale, this system would be designed to gather natural gas produced from Point Thomson and other sources east of Prudhoe Bay, including ANWR and perhaps as far east as Canada`s Mackenzie Delta. Accordingly, Scenario 4 involves development and commercial production of natural gas in the ANWR study area, chiefly in the disturbed sector south and east of Kaktovik.

New legislation in Year 10 permits the search for and production of smaller, more elusive, and previously sub-marginal oil and gas accumulations throughout the 1002 Area. This added activity would occur under the assumption that, and only after such time as:

• Virtually the entire stock of "technically recoverable" oil and gas in pools of 64 million bbl or more within the 1002 Area and the adjacent state offshore acreage is capable of being extracted profitably, even if expected energy prices remained materially below those that prevailed during the 1990s; and
• Demonstrated advances in petroleum development and production technique are capable of reducing incremental surface disturbance and artificial cover, and other predictable environmental impacts attendant on this process, to levels deemed compatible with the refuge, and are otherwise politically acceptable.

Extrapolation of technical progress in North Slope hydrocarbons exploration since 1977 suggests that the combined impact of advances in remote sensing, geophysical analysis, three dimension imaging, directional drilling, recovery, transport, hydrocarbons processing, and construction techniques is likely to imply a reduction of the minimum commercial field size to no more than 32 million bbl of oil equivalent. This is consistent with variable production costs of no more than $1/bbl (oil) and no more than 25 cents/MMBtu (gas). For the remainder of the study period we assume that the entire stock of "technically recoverable" oil and gas within the 1002 Area and the adjacent state offshore acreage can be discovered and economically produced even if energy-price expectations and actual prices are materially below those of the 1990s; and the incremental surface disturbance, artificial cover, and surface or atmospheric waste discharges associated with this process would be negligible.

Scenario 5 - Maximum extent of development

This scenario is the same as Scenario 4, except that the spatial impacts modeled are the full extent of the 1002 area, including the southeast uplands where oil and gas prospects are least likely (Fig. 6).

References

1. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-040098, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998.
2. Crow, Patrick, Bullish on Oil, OGJ, May 3, 1999, p. 52.
3. Campbell, Colin, and Jean Laherrere, The end of cheap oil, Scientific American, March 1998.
4. Alaskan North Slope operators shift focus from stemming decline to hiking production, OGJ, Aug. 24, 1998, p. 20.
5. North Slope`s exploration revival targeting satellites near giants, OGJ, Aug. 31, 1998, p. 18.
6. The changing oil industry: Will it affect oil prices?, University of Alaska-Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Fiscal Policy Papers, May 1999.

The Authors

Arlon R. Tussing has been affiliated with the University of Alaska as professor of economics and in other positions since 1965 and is president of ARTA Inc., economic consultants. He has been chief economist of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and served on numerous public boards and commissions in the U.S. and Canada. He is co-author with OGJ Editor Bob Tippee of The Natural Gas Industry: Evolution, Structure and Economics (PennWell Books, 1984 and 1995). Tussing is a graduate of the University of Chicago, holds a PhD degree in economics from the University of Washington, and lives on Mercer Island, Wash.

Sharman Haley has 15 years of experience in public policy analysis and consulting in Alaska on a wide range of topics, most recently focusing on rural development. She holds a doctorate in economics from the University of California Berkeley, 1994. She is assistant professor at the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage.