IH7S
               ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
                        OF
PROPOSED  AND INTERIM FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                        OF
 THE OFFSHORE OIL  AND GAS PRODUCING  INDUSTRY
                       QUANTITY
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS7 AGENCY
               Economic Analysis Section
         Office of Water and Ha/ardous Materials
               Washington. D.C. 20460
                      \
                            \

-------
    This document will be available through  the  National
Technical Information Service. Springfield. \ irginia 22151.

-------
               ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
                      OF
PROPOSED AND INTERIM FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                      OF
  THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCING  INDUSTRY
                   report to

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Economic Analysis Section
    Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
            Washington, D.C.  20460
            Partial Fulfillment of
            Contract No. 68-01-1541
                    Task 20
                 July 31, 1975
                            nta, protection Agency
                  Environmental rru
                                              ...-y'ift'V

-------
                                PREFACE









     The attached document is a contractor's study prepared for the




Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,  Economic Analysis Section, of




the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA").  The purpose of the study




is to analyze the economic impact which could result from the applica-




tion of alternative effluent limitation guidelines and standards of




performance to be established under sections 304(b)  and 306 of the




Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.




     The study supplements the technical study  ("EPA Development Docu-




ment") supporting the issuance of international regulations under




sections 304(b) and 306.  The Development Document surveys existing and




potential waste treatment control methods and technology within parti-




cular industrial source categories and supports the proposal based upon




an analysis of the feasibility of these guidelines and standards in




accordance with the requirements of sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act.




Presented in the Development Document are the investment and operating




costs associated with various alternative control and treatment techno-




logies.  The attached document supplements  this analysis by estimating




the broader economic effects which might result from the required appli-




cations of various control methods and technologies.  This study




investigates the effect of alternative approaches in terms of product




price increases, effects upon employment and the continued viability of




affected plants, effects upon foreign trade and other competitive effects.




     The study has been prepared with the supervision and review of the




Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Economic Analysis Section of EPA.

-------
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. BOA




68-01-1541, Task Order No. 20, by Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge,




Massachusetts.  Work was completed as of July, 1975.




     This report is being released and circulated at approximately the




same time as publication in the Federal Register of a notice of interim




final and proposed rule making under sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act for




the subject point source category. The study is not an official EPA publica-




tion. It will be considered along with the information contained in the




Development Document and any comments received by EPA on either document




before or during proposed rule making proceedings necessary to establish




final regulations.  Prior to final promulgation of regulations, the




accompanying study shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court




proceeding only to the extent that it represents the views of the con-




tractor who studied the subject industry.  It cannot be cited, referenced,




or represented in any respect in any such proceeding as a statement of




EPA's views regarding the subject industry.

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
 I.     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                           1-1
 I.I.   SCOPE OF WORK                                               1-1
 1.2.   INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION                                        1-2
 1.3.   SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS                                      1-4
II.     CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS               II-1
       EXTRACTION INDUSTRY
II.1.   INDUSTRY STRUCTURE                                         II-1
       1.1.  Industry Definition                                  II-1
       1.2.  Offshore Oil and Gas Production                      II-l
       1.3.  Demand for Oil and Gas                               II-7
       1.4.  Oil and Gas Supply/Demand                            II-8
II.2.   CHARACTERIZATION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCING         11-21
       COMPANIES
II.3.   OIL AND GAS PRICING                                        11-30
       3.1.  Crude Oil Pricing                                    11-30
             •  The Role of Crude Prices in the Economic          11-30
                Impact Analysis
             •  Current Crude Oil Pricing Patterns                11-31
       3.2.  Pricing of Offshore Natural Gas at the Wellhead      11-41
             •  Introduction                                      11-41
             •  Regulation of Natural Gas Producers               11-47
             •  Nationwide Costs of Finding and Producing         11-51
                Non-Associated Gas
             •  Successful Wells Cost                             11-53
             •  Dry Holes                                         11-53
             •  Operating Expense                                 11-55
             •  Return on Investment                              11-55
             •  Some Conclusions                                  11-57

-------
II.4.   FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS                                  11-61
       4.1.  The Role of Financial Characteristics in the         11-61
             Economic Impact Analysis
       4.2.  Income Statements and Profitability                  11-62
       4.3.  Capital Requirements                                 11-71
       4.4.  Capital Structure                                    11-84
       4.5.  Cost of Capital                                      11-90
             »  Introduction                                      11-90
             •  Weighted Average Cost of Capital                  11-90
             •  Estimate of the Cost of Debt                      11-91
             •  Estimate of the Cost of Equity                    11-91
             •  Estimate of the Cost of Capital for the           11-93
                Petroleum Industry

III.     PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES                   III-l
III.l.   PROPOSED EPA REGULATIONS                                  III-l
III.2.   CURRENT REGULATIONS                                       III-8
        •  California State Waters                                III-9
        •  Alaska State Waters                                    III-9
        •  Louisiana State Waters                                 III-9
        •  Texas State Waters                                     III-9
III.3.   COST OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT SYSTEMS                       111-10

 IV.     IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY                              IV-1
 IV.1.   INTRODUCTION                                               IV-i
 IV.2.   GENERAL APPROACH                                           IV-3
        2.1.   Producers Absorb All Costs                           IV-3
        2.2.   Producers Pass On All Costs                           IV-7
 IV.3.   PRODUCTION  ECONOMICS                                       IV-8
        3.1.   The Bureau of  Mines  Model  Production Unit             IV-8
        3.2.   Operating Costs                                       IV-11
        3.4.   Investment Costs                                      IV-22

-------
                                                                  Page

IV.4.   AFTER TAX CASH FLOWS FOR EACH PRODUCTION UNIT              IV-24

IV.5.   NO ALLOWANCE FOR COSTS OF TRANSPORTING OIL AND GAS         IV-25
       ONSHORE

IV.6.   COMPUTER PROGRAM                                           IV-27



 V.    ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  BASE                                    V-l

 V.I.  INTRODUCTION                                                 V-l

 V.2.  GEOGRAPHICAL  SEGMENTATION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS            V-l
       PRODUCTION

 V.3.  SOURCE OF DATA AND  GENERALIZATION USED  IN THE ANALYSIS       V-4

       3.1.  Introduction                                           V-4

       3.2.  The Size and  Number of Production Units Present        V-5
             in Offshore Areas

       3.3.  Estimates of  the Annual Volumes of Oil, Gas,  and       V-9
             Water Produced  and Estimates of the Annual Pro-
             duction Decline Rates

       3.4.  Production Units in State Waters  and  Cook Inlet,       V-17
             Alaska


VI.     ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS                                     VI-1

VI.1.   SUMMARY                                                      VI-1

VI.2.   FEDERAL WATERS: BASE CASE RESULTS FOR OIL WELLS AND          VI-9
       GAS WELLS

       •  Federal Waters;  Sensitivity Tests by Changes in           VI-13
          Base Case Parameters

       •  Average Cost Increases for Oil and Gas, Federal Waters    VI-20

VI.3.   STATE WATERS:  BASE CASE RESULTS FOR OIL WELLS AND            VI-22
       GAS WELLS

       •  State Waters; Sensitivity Tests by Changes in Base        VI-28
          Case Parameters

       •  Likely Average Cost Increases for Oil and Gas,  State      VI-34
          Waters

-------
                                                                 Page

VI.4.  ALASKA, RESULTS OF A PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS           VI-36

VI.5.  CALIFORNIA                                                 VI-43

VI.6.  INFERRED IMPACT, EXISTING SOURCES IN THE GULF OF           VI-46
       MEXICO

VI.7.  INFERRED IMPACT, NEW SOURCES IN THE GULF OF                VI-50
       MEXICO

VI.8.  DIRECT ENERGY EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT EQUIPMENT         VI-55

VI.9.  ECONOMIC COST PER BARREL RECOVERED                         VI-59

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES

  No.                                                          Page
1-1         Summary of Economic Impacts, The Offshore        1-8 & 1-9
              Oil and Gas Extraction Industry
II-l        Crude Oil and Condensate Production,               II-4
              Total Offshore "State" and "Federal OCS"

II-2        Natural Gas Production, Total Offshore             II-5
              "State" and "Federal OCS"

II-3        Total United States and Outer Continental          II-6
              Shelf Production of Crude Oil and Condensate,
              and Natural Gas, Percentage of OCS Production
              of Total U.S. Production

II-4        U.S. Energy Demand by Primary Source - 1972        II-9
              and 1970

II-5        U.S. Energy Demand by Primary Source - 1985        11-13

II-6        U.S. Crude Oil Production - 1974 to 1985           11-15

II-7        Potential Rates of U.S. Oil Production             11-16

II-8        U.S. Natural Gas Supplies, 1972-1985               11-17

II-9        OCS Lease Acreage and Production, Through          11-22
              September 1971

11-10       Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., Docket No.    11-23 & 11-24
              C173-501, Joint Ownership of Federal Offshore
              Producing Leases

11-11       Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., Docket No.     11-25
              C173-501, Joint Ownership of State of
              Louisiana Petroleum Leases by Large Major
              Producers

11-12       Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., Docket No.     11-27
              C173-501, Major Interstate Gas Pipelines and
              Their Producing Affiliates

11-13       Participation by Interstate Pipeline Company       11-28
              Affiliates in Offshore Louisiana Federal Oil
              and Gas Lease Sale, September 12, 1972

-------
No.                                                           Page

 11-14       Participation by  Interstate  Pipeline  Company       11-29
               Affiliates  in Offshore Louisiana  Federal  Oil
               and Gas Lease Sale,  December  19,  1972

 11-15       Historical Posted Crude Oil  Prices                  11-32

 11-16       Representative Posted  Prices and Actual Costs      11-35
               Per Barrel  of Foreign Equity  Crudes and
               U.S. Crudes
 11-17       Delivered Prices of Foreign and Average            11-37
               Mix Domestic Crude

 11-18       Delivered Price of Foreign and Decontrolled        11-38
               Domestic Crudes

 11-19       Prices Received by Producers for Natural Gas       11-42
               Sales, 1966-1975

 11-20       Lower 48 State Net Reserve Additions, Inter-       11-43
               state vs. Intrastate

 11-21       Estimated New Long-Tera Contract Sales by Large    11-45
               Producers, 1970-1973, Offshore Federal Domain
               vs. All Areas

 11-22       Gas Exploratory Footage                            11-46

 11-23       Gas Development Footage                            11-46

 11-24       Estimated Nationwide Cost of Finding and           11-52
               Producing Non-Associated Gas

 11-25       Income Statement of Chase Group for 1971, 1972,    11-63
               and 1973

 11-26       Net Income After Tax and the Rate of Return on     11-67
               Equity of 22 U.S. Oil Companies  (1963-73)

 11-27       Rates of Return for Chase Group: 1971, 1972,  1973  11-68

 11-28       1973 Financial Figures for Offshore Producers     11-69

 11-29       Comparison of Capital Requirements Estimates:      11-72
               Total Dollars, Cumulative 1975-1985

 11-30       Estimates of Petroleum Industry Capital Require-   11-74
               ments

 11-31       Cash Flow of Chase Group for 1973                  11-76

-------
 No.

 11-32        Source and Use of Capital for Chase Group  in        11-77
              1973

 11-33        Estimated Capital and Exploration Expenditures      11-79
              of U.S. Oil Industry

 11-34        Estimated Capital and Exploration Expenditures      11-81

 11-35        Exploration and Development Expenditures in the     11-82
              U.S.: 1972 and 1973

 11-36       Typical  Yearly Capital  Expenditures  of Segments    11-83
               of the Oil Industry in the  U.S.

 11-37       Balance  Sheet of  Chase  Group,  1973,  1972,  1971     11-85

 11-38       Petroleum Industry Capitalization,  1972            11-86

 11-39       Example  of Calculation  of Cost of  Capital for      11-94
               1971-1974

 11-40       Oil Stock Prices                                    11-96
III-l        Applicability of Proposed Guidelines              III-3

III-2        Proposed Effluent Guidelines                      III-4

III-3      - Distribution of Effluent Samples from Exemplary   III-6
               Treatment Systems

III-4        Pollution Abatement Equipment Costs: Offshore     111-12
               Gulf of Mexico

III-5        Distribution of Different Treatment Tech-         HI-15
               nologies Currently Being Used Offshore
               Louisiana in Federal and State Waters

IV-1        Possible Alternative Outcomes of an  Investment      IV-4
              Analysis  in New Treatment Facilities  in 1977
              for a Production Unit in State Waters

IV-2        Sample Operating Costs                              IV-13 •
                                                                IV-15

IV-3        Calculation of Annual Production for the BOM        IV-18
              Model Production Unit, Assuming a 15% Annual
              Decline Rate

-------
No.                                                            Page

IV-4        Calculation of Operating Costs in $/B and          IV-19
              B/D per Completion
 V-l        Average Daily U.S. Offshore Oil and Lease           V-2
              Condensate Production in 1974

 V-2        Number of  Oil and Gas Platforms Considered          V-6
              and Total Number of Platforms Present  in
              Offshore Areas

 V-3        Gulf of Mexico, Federal Waters; Distribution of     V-8
              Multi-Well Oil and Gas  Producing Platforms
              Over Leaseblocks

 V-4        Louisiana  Federal Waters, Number of Oil  Pro-        V-10
              dueing Platforms Ranked by  Total Average Daily
              Water Production

 V-5        Louisiana  Federal Waters, Number of Gas  Pro-        V-ll
              ducing Platforms Ranked by  Total Average Daily
              Gas and  Daily Water Production

 V-6        Actual Production in 1973/1974 Compared  with the    V-16
              Production in 1973/1974 Implied by  the Use of
              Allowables in the Analysis

 V-7        Size Distribution of Production Units in Gulf  of    V-18
              Mexico Federal Waters and in Louisiana State
              Waters
VI-1        Range of Likely Impact in the Gulf of Mexico,       VI-3
              Federal and State Waters

VI-2        Range of Average Cost Increases in the Gulf of      VI-5
              Mexico, Federal and State Waters

VI-3        Federal Waters - Oil, Producers Absorb All Costs    VI-10

VI-4        Federal Waters - Gas, Producers Absorb All Costs    VI-12

VI-5        Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key            VI-14
            Variables - Oil

VI-6        Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key            VI-15
            Variables - Gas

-------
No.                                                            Page

VI-7        Range of Likely Impact in the Gulf of Mexico,       VI-19
              Federal Waters

VI-8        Range for Likely Average Cost Increases in          VI-21
              1977 for Producers in Federal Waters,
              Gulf of Mexico

VI-9        State Waters - Oil, Producers Absorb All Costs      VI-24

VI-10       State Waters - Gas, Producers Absorb All Costs      VI-25

VI-11       Reinjection Required in 1983, Range of Likely       VI-29
              Impact in Louisiana, State Waters

Vl-lla      No Reinjection Required in 1983, Range of           VI-30
              Likely Impact in Louisiana, State Waters

VI-12       Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key            VI-32
              Variables, State Waters, Reinjection Required,
              Oil

VI-13       Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key            VI-33
              Variables, State Waters, Reinjection Required,
              Gas, Producers Absorb All Costs

VI-14       Likely Average Cost Increase in 1977 and 1983       VI-35
              for Producers in State Waters

VI-15       1973 Statistics on Oil and Gas Fields Offshore      VI-37
              Alaska, Cook Inlet

VI-16       Alaska, Cook Inlet, Preliminary Estimate of         VI-39
              Likely Impact

VI-17       Alaska, Cook Inlet, Preliminary Estimates of        VI-41
              Likely Impact

VI-18       California; Platforms and Offshore Oil, Gas         VI-44
              and Water Production in 1973

VI-19       Total Inferred Impact for Existing Sources in       VI-47
              the Gulf of Mexico as Derived from the
              Measured Impact

VI-20       Total Inferred Impact for New Sources in the        VI-48
              Gulf of Mexico

VI-21       Total Inferred Impact for New Sources Offshore      VI-52
              U.S.A.

-------
No.                                                            Page
VI-22       Economic Cost per Barrel of Oil Recovered,          VI-61
              Federal Waters

VI-23       Economic Cost per Barrel of Oil Recovered,          Vl-62
              State Waters

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES

 No.                                                           Page


II-l         1977 U.S. Petroleum Supply and Demand              11-19
               Functions (Accelerated Development Scenario)

II-2         Non-Associated Gas Reserves Additions per          11-54
               Foot Drilled in Wells Productive of Gas and
               Condensate, United States Excluding Alaska,
               1947-1972

II-3A        New Contract Production                            11-60

II-3B        New Field Wildcats Drilled                         11-60

II-3C        New Contract Gas Price                             11-60

II-4         After Tax Return on Net Worth, Petroleum vs.       11-66
               Other Manufacturing Companies - 1960 to
               1970

IV-1         Lease Plat Showing Platforms, Wells, and Flow       IV-9
               Lines in Model

IV-2         Scheme of Production Platform A, Model of a         IV-10
               Gulf of Mexico Operation

IV-3         Operating Costs (in $/B) Versus Average             IV-20
               Completion Productivity

IV-4         Age Distribution on Platforms in Louisiana          IV-22
               Gulf Coast (Federal and State Waters)

IV-5         Total Investment in Production Unit as a            IV-23
               Function of Number of Platforms in Unit,
               Total Production Capacity of Unit

IV-6         Computer Flow Diagram,  Federal Waters               IV-28

IV-7         Computer Flow Diagram,  State Waters                 IV-29
 V-l         Percentage of Gas and Oil Producing Platforms       V-13
               with Daily Water Production Less Than or
               Equal to Water Production

-------
No.                                                         Page

VI-1        Sensitivity Tests, Gulf of Mexico,              VI-17
              Federal Waters

VI-2        Sensitivity Tests: Louisiana, State Waters;     VI-27
              Gulf of Mexico, Federal waters

VI-3        Power Requirements for Brine Treatment          VI-57
              Systems

-------
I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






I.I.  SCOPE OF WORK







     The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing interim




final effluent guidelines for the 1977 Best Practicable Technology Currently




Available and .proposed effluent guidelines for the 1983 Best Available Tech-




nology and the New Source Performance Standards for offshore oil and gas




production.  An economic impact analysis of the guidelines was performed by




Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL), under contract with the EPA and is reported




here.




     The economic impact analysis evaluated how many well completions would




be shut in rather than brought into compliance, the investment required by




the operators to come into compliance, and how much oil and gas production




would be foregone as a result of the guidelines.




     The impact analysis used costs of compliance developed by EPA and given




a general review by ADL.  The capability of the assumed treatment technologies




to meet the effluent standard and the availability of platform space for




installing the equipment has not been evaluated by ADL.




     Oil and gas is currently produced from three offshore U.S. areas:  the




Gulf of Mexico, California, and Alaska's Cook Inlet.  In 1973 the Gulf of




Mexico produced 74% of U.S. offshore oil and 97% of offshore gas.  California




produced 15% and 1%, respectively, and Alaska produced 11% and 2% of offshore




oil and gas.




     The economic impact analysis deals principally with the regulation's




effects in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is the area with the majority of production
                                 1-1

-------
and the area to experience the major impact.   Over 95% of the production




from offshore California leases appears to be in compliance at this time




with the 1983 treatment requirement.  The potential impact of the guidelines




on Cook Inlet production has not been possible to treat completely   because




of a lack of relevant data on the costs of production and the costs of treat-




ment and reinjection.  The potential impacts on Cook Inlet production have




been discussed qualitatively.






1.2.  INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
    Beginning in the late 1940's, oil and gas have been produced from fields




off the U.S. coast.  In 1973, 17% of total United States oil production and




17% of gas production was from offshore wells.  While there was a small fall-




off in offshore oil production in the early 1970's, the offshore areas are




generally regarded as an increasingly important source of oil and gas




production.




     Historically, offshore operations have been dominated by the larger oil




companies.  In 1971, 63% of offshore oil production was from wells owned by




individual majors and another 34% was from wells owned by groups of majors.




The Department of the Interior has encouraged the participation by smaller




firms in recent years and the predominance of the majors is declining.




     Revenues from offshore oil production amounted to $1.64 billion as




compared with total U.S. oil production revenues of $10.35 billion in 1973.




Revenues from offshore natural gas production were about $740 million in 1973.
                                   1-2

-------
    Prices of oil and gas are partially regulated.   Oil sold without




price regulations has a price approximately corresponding to the world




market, while regulated oil is sold at $5.25 per barrel.  Natural gas




sold in intrastate markets is selling at prices determined by supply and




demand; however, natural gas sold in interstate markets (the majority




of Gulf of Mexico production) is regulated to be $0.51 per thousand




cubic feet (MCF)).




    The prices of both oil and natural gas are a subject of strong




debate.  Serious proposals exist to deregulate both old oil and natural




gas in order to encourage more exploration and development of domestic




supplies.  On the other hand, major groups, such as segments of the




Congress, believe oil prices in particular are too high and more controls




should be imposed.  The economic impact analysis has tested a range of




potential prices since it is not possible to say with any certainty what




future price levels will be.




    The profitability of the oil industry has also been a subject of con-




siderable debate.  Historically, the industry has been about as profitable




as the average U.S. manufacturing sector.  However, a shadow of uncertainty




exists because of pending decisions by Government agencies on a number of




proposals which would vitally affect the industry.  Tax policies have




already been changed and may be changed again.  Decisions on price controls




and the excess profits taxes are not resolved.  The resolution of these




conflicting influences on the industry will be of far greater importance




to its profitability and financial structure than the proposed pollution




abatement regulations
                                  1-3

-------
1.3.  SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS






     Based upon the assumptions stated in the body of this report, the




major conclusions of the economic impact analysis of the proposed




effluent guidelines on offshore U.S. oil and gas production and the




producing companies can be summarized as follows.








1.  The capital investment required to bring wells producing in 1974 in




    the Gulf of Mexico into compliance will be approximately $64-145




    million in 1977 and $50-56 million in 1983  in 1974 dollars.  Addi-




    tional investment will be required for wells drilled in the Gulf after




    1974.







2.  Since almost all production from leases off the California  coast is




    now in compliance with the proposed regulations, additional required




    investments will likely be very small, if any.







3.  The required investment for bringing offshore Alaska production into




    compliance has not been determined.  The costs will be higher than




     in the  Gulf  of Mexico  on  a per  barrel  of water  treated basis.






4.   The  average  costs  including capital  recovery  of  producing  oil from wells




     completed  in or  prior  to  1974  in  the  Gulf of  Mexico will be increased




     by about 9-31  cents  per barrel  in federal waters  and  about 12-16  cents




     per  barrel  in  state  waters in  1977.  The  production cost increase




     in state waters  in 1983 will
                                   1-4

-------
   be  about  $.77-$1.08 per barrel. The costs of producing natural



    gas from gas wells in the Gulf will be increased by less  than one-half




    cent per MCF in federal  waters and state waters in 1977.   The estimated




    increase in production costs in 1983  will be  about one  cent  per MCF




    in state waters.  Production cost increases associated  with  California




    wells are expected to be negligible.











5.  For oil wells producing  in 1974 in the Gulf of Mexico,  and for which




    no price increases are possible,  the  effluent guidelines  will result




    in 14-28 million barrels of oil and lease condensate not  being ulti-




    mately produced, due primarily to shortened well life after  1983




    rather than well closures in 1977 or  1983.  The foregone  production




    represents 0.6% to 1.2%  of the total  remaining potential  production




    from the wells from 1977 to the end of their  economic life,  which may




    be beyond the year 2000, in the absence of  the guidelines.  Similarly,




    the foregone production  of non-associated and associated  natural gas




    will be 81 to 249 million MCF in the  absence  of price increases to




    recover the costs which  represent 03% to 1.0% of the total  potential




    production from 1977 on.






6.  There will be     no      closures of companies as a direct result




    of application of the guidelines.






7.  There will be no significant effects  on the profitability of the




    industry as a whole.   The profitability of  firms operating primarily




    in state waters might be affected.






                                 1-5

-------
 8.   The added estimated investment  in offshore  treatment  and  reinjection




     equipment for the Gulf  of  Mexico  represents approximately 0.2-0.4%




     of expected total industry capital investment  in offshore production




     ($48 billion) during the 1976-1983 period.   As such,  the  pollution




     abatement-related investment  should not  materially alter  investment




     plans of the industry.






 9.   The guidelines are not  expected to discourage  the exploration for or




     development of new oil  or  gas wells.   However, the total  lifetime




     production of the new wells will  be reduced.   The 0.6% to 1.2% re-




     duction in volume produced over the remaining  lifetime in the absence




     of price increases of existing  oil wells in the Gulf  of Mexico can




     be regarded as an upper limit to  the percentage reduction in total




     lifetime production of  oil from new wells.   It's an upper limit because




     the value of total lifetime production of the  wells producing in 1977




     is significantly larger than  their remaining lifetime production value




     as of 1977.  The 0.3% to 1.0% loss of remaining gas production can




     also be regarded as an  upper  limit for the  foregone gas production




     from new wells if price increases are not possible to recover the




     pollution abatement costs  for the same reason.







10.   U.S. crude oil prices are  now controlled (old oil) or move with the




     world oil price (new or released oil).  The higher production costs




     resulting from compliance  with  the proposed regulations may be re-




     coverable through allowed  increases in old  oil prices, though such  an




     allowance is not assured,  nor are the procedures for  allowing such




     an increase well established.  The higher production  costs associated
                                    1-6

-------
     with uncontrolled oil already priced competitively with imported oil




     will likely not be recovered through price increases directly resulting




     from the added pollution control cost.   The added operating costs of




     pollution control would result primarily in reduced revenues for the




     producer.






11.  The increases in the costs of producing interstate natural gas (the




     majority of Gulf of Mexico production)  will probably be substantially




     recovered by price increases approved by the FPC.  The procedure for




     allowing such cost recoveries is well established, though cumbersome,




     and the pattern of recent FPC decisions indicates that the FPC would




     rule favorably on price increases to recover increased operating costs




     as a result of new government regulations.






12.  The reduction in U.S. oil and gas production will be made up primarily




     by imports.  At $11 per barrel, the foregone oil production from wells




     producing in 1974 represents $154 to $306 million in oil purchases




     abroad which would not otherwise have been made over about 25 years.




     The lost gas production from 1974 wells would require purchases of




     $162-498 million of foreign natural gas at $2.00 per MCF also over




     about 25 years.  The required purchase of imported oil and gas




     assumes the foregone domestic production will not be replaced by coal,




     or nuclear power, and that U.S.  domestic  production will  not  equal




     U.S.  demand over the 25 year period.
                                   1-7

-------
                              TABLE 1-1
                       SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
             THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION INDUSTRY
                       (Portion of SIC 1311)
Industry Description
  Number of Platforms
  Number of Platforms
    Directly Discharging
  Number of Platforms with
    BPCTCA in Place
Costs (1974 Dollars)
(Gulf of Mexico wells producing
in 1974)
  Total for Industry
  Average per Platform
  Percent of Average Annual
    Investment in Offshore
    Production
Annual
  Total for Industry
  Average per Platform
  Percent of Sales
    Oil (Federal waters)
    Gas (Federal waters)
Expected Price Increases
(due to added pollution
control costs)
  Oil
  Gas
Platform Closures
(rather than invest in
abatement equipment)
Gulf of Mexico
   750
   510

   180
California
   14
    0

   14
          BPCTCA

       $64-145 million
       .11-.25 million
           1-2%
       $36-78 million
       $71-153 thousand

          1Z-3Z
           none
         < 0.5%
Alaska
  14
  14

  NA
           BATEA

         $50-56 million
         .09-.10 million
             0.7%
           $20 million
           $40 thousand
                                   none
                                   none
                                   none
                                   27
                                   1-8

-------
                          TABLE 1-1 (Con't)
                                  BPCTCA
                           BATEA
Foregone Production
(between 1977 and 2000)
(from wells producing in 1974)

  Oil
  Gas


Jobs Lost

Community Effects

Impact on Industry Growth

Balance of Payment Effects
(Over 25 years)
14-28 million bbl's
(0.6v%-1.2% of potential)

80-250 million MCF
(0.3%-1.0% of potential)

    none

    none

    none
 $316 to $804 million
none
none
                            none
SOURCE; Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                                     1-9

-------
II.  CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION INDUSTRY









II.1.  INDUSTRY STRUCTURE









1.1.  Industry Definition




     The activities of the oil and gas industry to be covered by the pro-




posed and interim final effluent limitation guidelines and the New Source




Performance Standards include production from offshore oil and gas wells.




     This report applies only to those offshore production facilities




physically attached to and an integral part of the production equipment.




Firms which are primarily engaged in contract exploration activities or




contract drilling of wells are not covered by the effluent guidelines.




The drilling and exploration activities of firms operating offshore wells




are also not covered by the regulations.







1.2.  Offshore Oil and Gas Production




     Following lease sales to interested parties, the first phase of off-




shore development begins with exploratory drilling from mobile drilling




rigs which are positioned over suitable geological features located pre-




viously by geophysical techniques.  The purposes of exploratory drilling




are to define the existence of oil and/or gas fields.  Results of explora-




tory drilling are used to establish a plan for the development of the




newly discovered accumulations.  Several or more wells may be drilled to




confirm or deny the presence of hydrocarbons on any given oil and gas




prospect.
                                   II-l

-------
     The second phase of offshore development begins with the installa-




tion of fixed platforms from which a number of wells are directionally




drilled to tap the hydrocarbon pools existing in the oil and gas field.




Offshore drilling procedures are much the same as drilling on land,




except that marine drilling requires special equipment and considerable




logistical support with resulting higher costs/foot drilled than on on-




shore prospects.






     The engineering, construction, and operation of fixed offshore




platforms has evolved gradually since the first well was drilled out of




sight of land off of the coast of Louisiana in 1947. As offshore development



activity has moved  into deeper waters and  increasingly  hostile  environments,




fixed  platforms  have become  extremely large,  self-contained  facilities which




can  support as many as 30  or  40  development wells.  As  the majority or all  of




the  development  wells from a  platform are  completed,  the  platform  begins




production of one or a combination of crude oil, natural  gas and gas  conden-




sate.   Formation water —  typically a salt brine — is  usually  produced in




conjunction with oil.






     Typically,  several producing platforms are linked by a pipeline




 gathering system to a centrally located production processing platform.




 If oil and gas are produced in association with each other  (a common case),




 the two are separated at the processing platform.   When only gas is pro-




 duced, it may require removal of associated water (dehydration).   Formation




 water produced with oil is separated and disposed of.
                                   II-2

-------
     The producing areas discussed in this report are located off the




coasts of Louisiana, Texas, California,  and Alaska.   Leases have also




been sold on acreage off Mississippi, Alabama,  and Florida, and produc-




tion is expected in these areas.  The offshore  areas are divided into




those in state waters within the three mile limit and those beyond the




three mile limit in Federal waters.   The Federal waters are called the




Outer Continental Shelf (DCS).






     Table  II-l  lists  the  historical  totals for offshore production of oil




and condensate.  Table  II-2 lists the natural gas production,  and Table II-3




compares  the  offshore  production with total U.S. production  of oil and gas.




     As shown in Table  II-3,  total oil production peaked in  1970 at 3.5




billion barrels  and declined  in 1973  to 3.4 billion barrels.   While the DCS




has  a large     potential  for new production, 1971 saw a peak  DCS production




of 419 million barrels  which  declined to  395 million barrels in 1973.  OCS




production  accounted for about  12% of total U.S. oil production for 1971,




1972, and 1973,  up from 4.4%  in 1964.  Total U.S. gas production only increased




 from 20.7  trillion cubic  feet  in 1969 to 22.9 trillion cubic  feet in 1973.




 The percent  of  OCS gas production increased from 9.4% to  14%  over the same




 period.







      In all of the  states  except Alaska,  where  there has been  a jurisdic-




tional dispute,  the relative  importance of the  producing areas has moved




from  the  state waters  to the  deeper  OCS waters.  Louisiana produced 429




million of  the 583 million barrels of total offshore oil production and 3.6




trillion  of the  3.9 trillion  cubic feet of offshore gas production.  Louisiana's




oil production is 87%  from OCS  waters, while 21% of California's is from the OCS.
                                  II-3

-------
                                 TABLE II-l
                     CRUDE OIL AND CONDENSATE PRODUCTION

                    TOTAL OFFSHORE "STATE" AND "FEDERAL CCS"
                           IN THOUSANDS OF BARRELS (M)
: : ALASKA
: Year :
PRIOR
1954
1955
1956
1957
1952
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Through
1973
SOURCE:
Barrels
(M)

_
_
_
-
—
_

_
_
_
6
30
2,650
15,937
52,530
60,887
70,007
66,152
63,749
61,715

393,663
Bureau
: Percent
: CALIFORNL4
: Barrels:
: State :OCS : (M) :

— —
^^ ••
_ _
_ —
_ —
_ —
— —
— —
-
_ _
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
of Mines,
H22,385
32,665
33,2^2
32,343
30,^61
28,363
26,737
28, 07l|
29,887
34,613
3S,346
40,526
42,772
53,29U
64,807
25,339
96,145
104,283
101,717
95,418
89,218

1,510,800
Percent
State
IOC
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
90
76
69
76
79

93
Alaska Scouting
:OCS

_
_
_
—
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
2
10
24
31
24
21

7
: LOUISIANA
: Barrels: Percent
: (M)
54,803
15,926
25,731
40,906
52,835
57,3Si
72,793
88,122
103,197
126,801
149,087
173,709
199,293
243,080
284,033
329,922
365,691
398,378
444,363
452,584
429,465

4,108,100
: State
98
79
y]|
73
70
57
51

32
29
30
29
27
23
23
20
IS
16
13
14
13

24
:OCS
2
21
26
C. 1
30
43
49
56
62
71
70
71
73
77
77
80
82
84
87
86
87

76
: TEXAS :
TOTAL
: Barrels-: Percent : Barrels
: (M)
_
10
156
140
2S6
470
4'J9
567
292
803
669
572
557
1,246
3,400
3,400
3,109
3,046
2,885
3,035
3,018

28,136
Service, Conservation Committee
: State
__
100
99
90
98
100
100
100
100
100
92
99
99
16
9
11
26
42
43
46

40
:OCS :
_
-
1
10
2
—
—
-
-
-
8
1
1
a
91
89
74
58
57
54

60 6,
of California,
(M)
477,188
Us, 601
59,139
73,394
83,652
86,214
100,079
116,763
133,376
162,217
188,102
214,819
242,652
300,270
368,177
471,191
525,232
575,714
615,117
614,786
583,416

040,699
: Percent
:state:ocs
100 -
93 7
89 11
SS lr>
81 19
71 29
6U 36
57 4^
52 48
45 5^
4l| So
43 57
\ f ~
Uo 60
37 fa
40 G()
43 57
ill |so
37 fa
32 r-p
33 67
32 68

46 54
, Louisiana State
Mineral Board, Louisiana Dept. of Conservation, Texas Railroad Commission.
Louisiana and Texas are estimated in part.

-------
                                                      TABLE II-2


                                              NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION
                                        TOTAL OFFSHORE "STATE" AND "FEDERAL  OCS"
                                            IN MILLIONS OF  CUBIC FEET (MMCF)
M
M
I
: : ALASKA
: Year
: :
Percent
: •' MMCF : State :OCS
PRIOR
19S4
1955
1956
1957
195S
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
iq6s
1969
1970
1971
19^2
1973
-
-
10
1,200
3,324
22,344
44,393
22,369
83,750
74,982
72,526
-
-
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
IOC -
100 -
: CALIFORNIA
• •
Percent
: LOUISIANA
• TEXAS *
: : Percent ' '•
: MMCF :State:OCS : MMCF :state
1,113
5,903
10,671
25,769
35,323
40,770
46,239
116,732
36,^65
31,326
71,225
60,4?4
44,830
37,581
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
100 -
99 1
94 6
33 17
71. 26
73 22
81 19
91,575
31,325
121,279
136,p27
160,472
233,967
329,230
402,333
453,431
53S,36l
706, ^5
733,47^
371,124
1,265,399
1,655,223
o oc;7 OGI
^-J^' ( t^-J*-
2,473,745
2,300,104
3,219,200
3,480,831
3,614,^92
7S
31
33
39
U9
45
37
33
31
23
20
21
26
24
34
31
26
19
18
17
15
:OCS
22
?
67
6l
51
55
63
67
69
77
20
79
74
76
66
69
7^
31
82
83
85
: TOTAL :
Percent : :
: MMCF : State
3,4UO
6,320
6,220
13,765
24,030
24,030
30,960
13,760
Ul, 230
30,960
30,960
27,520
59,259
127,473
154,631
240,212
264, '420
38^,245
156,772
15^,000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
29
22
29
47
5C
6^
6
6
:OCS
-
_
_
71
73
71
53
50
33
94
Q4
: MMCF :
91,675
24,765
123,159
143,407
174,237
253,047
353,360
440, 46l
473,144
640,312
763,274
249,757
939,424
1,373,197
1,337,752
2,321,331
2,344,676
3,213,113
3,^50,6^9
3,757,415
3,833,999
Percent :
State: OCS :
72
&
&
53
si
41
33
33
29
26
27
31
27
35
^
31
25
26
19
17
22
66
63
58
47
Ho
59
62
67
71
7^
73
69
77
6s
56
f
;>.-.
7^
r4
81
~ o
          Through
          1973   390,398
100
595,131   91  9  25,543,0^3   23  7^  1,803,577 48  52    28,332,189  2
                                                                                    73
          SOURCE:   Bureau of Mines, Alaska Scouting Service, Conservation Committee of California, Louisiana
                   State Mineral Board,  Louisiana Dept.  of Conservation, Texas Railroad Commission.
                   Louisiana and Texas are estimated in part.

-------
                                  TABLE II-3


        TOTAL UNITED STATES AND OUTER  CONTINENTAL  SHELF  PRODUCTION
               OF CRUDE OIL & CONDENSATE, AND NATURAL GAS
          PERCENTAGE OF OCS PRODUCTION OF TOTAL  U.  S. PRODUCTION
: Year
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
195S
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
l§64
1965
1966
196^
1962
1969
1970
)9'/l
1972
1973
SOURCE:
: CRUDE OIL AND
: ("Thousands
: Total U.S. :
2,357,022
2,314,988
2,484,422
2,617,223
2,6l6,901
2,448,987
2,574,590
2,574,933
2,621,758
2,676,189
2,752,723
2,726,822
2,348,514
3,027,763
3,215,7l|2
3,329,042
3,371,751
3,51^,450
3,453,914
3,455,000
3,356,000
CONDENSATE
of Bbls.)
Total r»"
1,151
3,3^
6,705
11,015
16,070
24,769
35,698
49,666
64,330

104^79
122,500
144,969
188,714
221,262
268,996
312,260
36o,646
418,549
411,886
394,730
Total United States Production -
PRODUCTION :
: OCS V. :
Q : of U.S. :
.05 £
.14
.27
.42
.61
l,''.l
1.39
1.93

3*35
7,.20
Z ,4o
5.09
6.23
6.90
8 „ OS
9.22
10.?-
12.12
ll.c:2
11.^6
. MINERALS YEARBOOK

(Million
Total U.S.
5,796 ..516

,-,'^C'' ,"^51
10,OCi,923
10,680^252
11, 030. :/-}S
11,61^,951
12,771,038
13,254,025
13,276,622
1^,666,^59
15 '162 143
16 i [039) 753
17,206,622
12,17:1,32':
I9»3?2»1{oo
20,692,240
21,920,642
22,493,000
27,532,000
?2,°00,000
and Mineral
GAS PRODUCTION
s of Cu.Ft, ) :
: Total OCS :
19,281
56,325
21,279

32,574
127,693
£07,156
273,034
'-18,280
^51,953
r:^,353
621,731
645,539
1,007,447
1,127,216
1,524,172

2 1*! 18,677
2,777,043
3,038,555
3,211,588
Industry Surveys,
:
OCS •>, :
of U.S.:
.24 f
.64
.86
.82
.77
I.l6
1.73
'- •. 1'i
2.40
3.26
3-S5
4.02
4.03
5.86
6.ri^
7.89
9.44
11.03
1 ? . 5 *>
13. "49
14. or
Bur. i. M
1973 Total  United  States Production data are  preliminary and  subject to change.
                                                                                         Mines.

-------
1.3.  Demand for Oil and Gas

     It is not the intention of this report to analyze in detail future

energy demand or supply for the U.S.  The report will draw from the work

of reputable sources to broadly sketch the likely demand for oil and gas

over the period of interest.  The estimates will then be used as the

background for estimating the impact of the proposed pollution control

requirements on the offshore and onshore industry.

     The principal conclusion coming from an examination of the U.S.

demand for crude oil and the available supply is that demand is and will

likely continue to exceed domestic production under most realistic

scenarios.  The total demand for crude oil has grown at about 4.5% per

year over the period 1965-1973.  This growth, combined with a slow

decline in U.S. production since 1970, has resulted in an increasing

reliance on imports of both crude oil and refined products.  Growth in

domestic refining capacity has been less than the growth in U.S. con-

sumption of refined products.  The difference has been made up by

importing products from foreign refineries; in 1973, product imports

approximated 17% of total product consumption and were also 46% of both

crude and product imports.

     Domestic gas production has historically approximated consumption

and domestic supplies have not been sufficient for several years.  As a

result, imports are expected to grow to over 10% of consumption by 1985.
 Project Independence Blueprint, Final Task Force Report-Finance, p. 66,
 FEA, November 1974.
                                  11-7

-------
Note that the growth in natural gas usage averaged about 6.5% per year




from 1965 through 1970.  Annual growth following 1970 has been about




2.5%.  U.S. production increased by about 1% per year from 1970 through




1973.  The difference has been made up by imports which accounted for




about 7% of consumption in 1974.







1.4.  Oil and Gas Supply/Demand




     Petroleum and natural gas are primarily consumed as fuels.  Prior




to 1973, these energy forms and others were relatively inexpensive in




the United States.  The combined effects of industry practices and




government tax and pricing measures served to keep energy prices low.




The measures encouraged gas consumption.




     In the last 25 years, there has been a shift from a significant




dependence on coal to meet the U.S. energy demand to a predominant depen-




dence on oil and natural gas.  Table II-4  lists the components of U.S.




energy demand for 1970 and 1972.  Oil was the primary source of 45.5% of




energy consumed in 1972.  Natural gas accounted for 32.3%.  In 1950, coal




accounted for 37% of U.S. energy consumption, but coal's share had fallen




to 18% in 1974.




     With energy prices low, energy consul Ttion has been regarded as




relatively price inelastic, particularly in the short run.  However, the




1973-1974 oil embargo, the rise in imported petroleum prices, and current




interest in energy conservation have highlighted the complex nature of




the energy demand function.  Energy consumption depends in a vital way




on a multitude of factors other than the short-run cost of producing the
                                   II-8

-------
                             TABLE II- 4
          U.S.  ENERGY  DEMAND BY PRIMARY SOURCE - 1972 and 1970
Energy  Form                       1972                       1970
Oil
  Quadrillion  Btu /year            32.8  (45.5%)              29.6  (44.1%)
  MM bbI/day                       16.5                      14.6
Gas
  Quadrillion  Btu /year            23.3   (32.3%)              22.0  (32.7%)
  Trillion  cubic feet/year         22.6                       21.4
Coal
  Quadrillion Btu/year             12.5   (17.2%)              12.7  (18.9%)
  MM Tons /year                    517                        532
Nuclear
  Quadrillion Btu /year            0.6    (0.8%)                0.2  (0.3%)

Hydro and Other
  Quadrillion Btu /year            2.9    (4.2%)                2.7  (4.0%)

Total
  Quadrillion Btu /year          72.1    (100%)               67.2  (100%)
SOURCE;   U.S. Bureau of Mines ,  cited in Project Independence Blueprint,
          Final  Task Force Report - Finance, p.  A-7, FEA, November 1974
                                  II-9

-------
energy.  Use of public transportation, living standards, building codes,




driving habits, land use planning, home heating habits, and industrial




processes are only a few of the factors affecting energy demand.  Many




of these factors are a reflection of the long-run price of energy but are




not readily changed in the short run.  It is also clear that political




considerations will be an important factor in determining both total




energy usage and the relative use of various energy forms.




     Prior to the embargo, total energy consumption was growing at 4.3%




per year.  This growth has since been reduced to 3.2% to 3.5% per year.




There was an actual decline of 2% in 1974, but there is no expectation




of a permanent decline trend in the foreseeable future.  The growth rate




may be temporarily or permanently lower, but there will be a continuing




and growing demand for new energy.




     In the case of petroleum, there is the potential for some substitu-




tion away from oil, such as the conversion of electric power plants to




coal.  There is also some potential for an absolute reduction in petro-




leum/energy usage in transportation; smaller cars and public transportation




at least present this possibility.  However, at best, the expectation  is




for growth in oil demand to be held very low but not to decline.  Since




1970, all of the growth in U.S. oil demand has been met by imported oil.




The Project Independence Report examined the potential  for reducing the




level of oil imports and concluded that if there were strong government




action to accelerate domestic production and conservation and if world




oil prices were $11 per barrel, it would be possible to end imports by




about  1985.  At lower prices and with  less vigorous government  action,




some level of  imports would still be required in 1985.
                                   11-10

-------
     The continuing flow of imported oil at least to 1985 at prices




likely to be well in excess of production costs of all but marginal




domestic production will prevent even relatively large increases in the




costs of domestic production from acting to reduce demand for the domes-




tic crude below domestic production capacity.  Either increases or




decreases in total U.S. petroleum demand will mean changes in the level




of imports, not the level of U.S. petroleum production.  This pattern




will be particularly true for wells which are now in production.  Some




individual wells which are now high cost producers will be made uneco-




nomical by the higher production cost resulting from pollution control




requirements.  Short of domestic discoveries of unprecedented magnitude




and productivity, the demand for domestically produced oil will continue




to be well in excess of U.S. production capacity.




     A similar situation is seen in the case of natural gas.  There is




long-term potential for some substitution away from gas, for example, to




nuclear power and coal for electric power generation.  Imports are not




yet as important a factor as in oil, since the volume is not as great.




     Unlike oil, interstate gas is usually sold under long-term contracts




at regulated prices,which at present are low relative to the costs of




developing new gas wells or of close substitutes like oil.  Interstate




natural gas prices were (1974) 1/3 to 1/4 of the price of fuel oil prices




per BTU in major natural gas consuming areas.  Since the price of natural




gas is presently well below the next most expensive substitute, it is




unlikely that even relatively large pollution control costs, by themselves,




would have the effect of shifting demand away from gas to substitute
                                   11-11

-------
products.  The overall demand for natural gas will thus not be reduced

below U.S. supply capacity.   However, the supply might be affected if

some individual wells were made uneconomical as a result of higher pol-

lution control costs.

     Many estimates have been made of the future demand and supply of

oil and gas.  For this study, the estimates made in the Project Indepen-

dence Blueprint Report, November 1974, have been used.  The report

presents a series of estimates under different sets of assumptions.  The

assumptions include different levels of government efforts to encourage

energy conservation, to accelerate domestic energy production, and the

level of OPEC  oil prices.  The report makes clear that there are both

choices and uncertainties.  The oil and gas estimates are used in this

report in that light.

     The report constructed a set of estimates for a "base case" and

"accelerated supply case" under both a $7 and $11 per barrel world oil

price.  Table II- 5 lists the estimated U.S. energy demand by form, with

imported oil reported separately.  The base case assumed that government

policy towards energy, and particularly petroleum production, will be

essentially unchanged.  Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) will

remain at about 2-3 million acres per year.  Government royalties for
 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, including Saudi Arabia,
 Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates,
 Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar, Ecuador and Gabon, which is an associate
 member.  The United Arab Emirates is a federation of Abu Dhabi, Dubai,
 Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al Quwain, Ras Al Khaimah and Fujairah.
                                    11-12

-------
                                 TABLE II-5
                  U.S. ENERGY  DEMAND  BY PRIMARY  SOURCE  -  1985




                               (Quadrillion  Btu's)
    Total
72.1
                                                      1985
Energy Form
U.S. Oil
Imported Oil
Gas
Coal
Hydro & Geo.
Nuclear
Synthetics
1972
22.4
11.7
22.1
12.5
2.9
0.6
$7
Base Case
23.1
24.8
23.8
19.9
4.8
12.5
Oil
Accelerated
30.5
17.1
24.7
17.7
4.8
14.7
$11
Base Case
31.3
6.5
24.8
22.9
4.8
12.5
Oil
Accelerated
38.0
0.0
25.5
20.7
4.8
14.7
109.1
109.6
102.9
104.2
SOURCE:    Project Independence  Report,  FEA,  November 1974,  p.  45
                                           11-13

-------
the leases would remain at one-sixth.   Natural gas for interstate sale




would be regulated at $0.89 per thousand cubic feet.   Under the "accele-




rated development" case, leasing would be increased to 10 million acres




per year, and royalties would be reduced to one-eighth.  Natural gas




price regulations would be ended, with prices rising to $1.75 per thousand




cubic feet by 1988.  Development would also be allowed in the Naval




petroleum reserves.




     The values in Table II-5  reflect FEA's estimate  (based on $7/bbl




crude) of long-term growth rate of U.S. energy consumption (3.1%/year).




At oil prices of $11 per barrel, the annual energy growth rate was esti-




mated to be 2.9%.  There is some shift away from oil to gas and coal,




but not a significant reduction in overall energy demand.  The projection




of such reductions from the historic growth rate of 4.3% are an important




uncertainty in the analysis.




     Table II-6  is a more detailed listing of U.S. oil production esti-




mates with the additional estimate of production levels if the world




price dropped to $4 per barrel.  In all cases, domestic production would




continue to decline out to 1977.  Table II-7  lists the estimated sources




of new U.S. oil production if the world oil price is $11 per barrel.




Offshore production amounts to 2.9 million barrels per day, or 19% of



the total U.S. production, under the "business as usual" (base case)




scenario in 1985.  New DCS production is 4.8 million barrels per day




(24%) under the accelerated development case.




     Table II-8  lists the estimated gas production assuming the $11 per




barrel world oil price and accelerated development.  The report saw very
                                    11-14

-------
                                  TABLE II-6


                    U.S. CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION - 1974 TO 1985
                            (millions barrels per day)


                            "Business as Usual" Case

World Price ($/bbl)          1974     1977     1980     1985

      4
      7
     11
       4
       7
      11
10.5
10.5
10.5
9.0
9.5
9.9
9.3
11.1
12.2
9.8
11.9
15.0
                            "Accelerated Development" Case
10.5
10.5
10.5
9.7
10.2
10.3
11.1
12.9
13.5
11.6
16.6
20.0
SOURCE:  Project Independence  Report,  FEA,  November 1974, p. 81
                                 II-15

-------
                                       TABLE II- 7
    Production Area
    Onshore - Lower 48 States
    - Conventional fie
      primary fields
    - New secondary
    - New tertiary
    - Natural gas liquids
    - Naval Petroleum
    Alaska
    - North Slope
    - Gulf of Mexico
    - California DCS
    - Atlantic DCS
4.   Heavy Crude and Tar Sands
POTENTIAL RATES OF U.S. OIL PRODUCTION



if barrels per day, at $11 per barrel world prices)

"Business
1974 As Usual"

:ates 8.9 9.1
i and new
6.4 3.4
2.4
1.8
; 2.0 1.5
:erve #1
0.2 3.0
2.5
icluding DCS) 0.2 0.5
ierve #4 - -
Cental Shelf 1.4 2.6
1.3 2.1
0.1 0.5
-
lands - 0.3
1985
(change)
(1.2)
(-3.0)
(2.4)
(1.8)
(-0.5)

(2.8)
(2.5)
(0.3)
^
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.4)

(0.3)

"Accelerated
Development"
9.9
3.5
2.4
2.3
1.6
0.2
5.3
2.5
0.8
2.0
4.3
2.5
1.3
0.5
0.5
(change)
(1.0)
(-2.9)
(2.4)
(2.3)
(-0.4)
(0.2)
(5.1)
(2.5)
(0.6)
(2.0)
(2.9)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.5)
(0.5)
    Total Potential Production
10.5
15.0
(4.5)
20.0
(9.5)
    SOURCE:   Project Independence Report, FEA, November 1974, p. 83
                                           11-16

-------
                              TABLE II-8


                 U.S. NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES, 1972-1985*

                  (trillions of cubic feet per year)



Source                            1972        1977       1980       1985



Lower 48 States,Onshore           19.4        16.7       17.4       15.5


Lower 48 States, Offshore          3.0         4.4        6.1        8.2


Alaska (except North Slope)        0.08        0.02       0.03       0.1


Naval Petroleum Reserve #4         0.0         0.0        0.0        0.8


North Slope                        0.0         0.0        0.8        2.5


Coal Conversion                    0.0         0.0        0.0        0.2
   TOTAL                          22.5        21.1       24.3       27.3
*
 Assumes $11 per barrel world oil prices and accelerated development scenario.



SOURCE;   Project Independence Report,  FEA, November  1974 , p. 48
                                  11-17

-------
limited potential for U.S.-produced gas to maintain its present  share




of energy consumption.  Offshore production is estimated to account for




31% of gas production in 1985 under an accelerated development assump-




tion, as compared with 13% in 1972.




     The essential conclusion from an examination of the supply and




demand forecasts for oil and gas out to 1985 is that even relatively




large increases in the cost of producing domestic crude and gas will not




result in a reduction of demand below the capacity of U.S. production at




$7 or $11 per barrel price levels.




     To illustrate the role of imports in the relationship between U.S.




oil supply and demand, Figure II-1A was constructed from the crude oil




supply and demand estimates in the Project Independence Report.  An




imports supply curve has been drawn showing that at $11 per barrel, at




least 5 MM bbl/day can be purchased but none can be purchased for less




than $11 per barrel.  With a supply/demand relationship as shown in




Figure II-l , a shift in the U.S.  supply curve as a result of an industry-




wide change in production economics, such as resulting from new pollution




control costs, will not change the intersection of the total U.S. supply




curve and the U.S. demand curve.   The  total quantity of oil consumed will




remain essentially unchanged, as would the price.  The difference between




total demand and available U.S. supply would be made up by imports.  Thus,




the demand for U.S. production at  the  equilibrium price of $11 per barrel




would remain both unchanged and greater than U.S. production  capacity  at




$11  per barrel.
                                    11-18

-------
  15 -

  14

  13

  12

  11


  10
   9
OJ*
£   8
I!
o
a
a
CO
O
.C
CO
                                         Total U.S. Petroleum
                                         Demand Curve
                                    U.S. Offshore Plus Onshore
                                    Supply Curve,
                                                               Total U.S. Crude Oil
                                                               Supply Curve
                                   6789

                                   Demand/Production
                                    (MM bbls/day)
                                          10
11
12   13
                                                                           14
                    15
                FIGURE 11-1    1977 U.S. PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND FUNCTIONS
                               (Accelerated Development  Scenario)
     SOURCE:   Drawn from projected  supply and demand values in  Oil:  Possible  Levels
               of Future  Production,  Project Independence Blueprint,  FEA, Nov.  1974
                                            11-19

-------
     Figure II-l  also shows the domestic supply curve to be almost ver-




tical above $9 per barrel.  Increasing prices from $9 to $11 per barrel




will increase total U.S. production by only a small amount in 1977, accor-




ding to the Blueprint estimate shown in the figure.  While a shift in the




U.S. supply curve as mentioned above will result in lower U.S. oil pro-




duction (to be made up by imports), the nearly vertical U.S. supply curve




suggests that the production losses will be small for production cost




increases as large as $2 per barrel.
                                  11-20

-------
II.2.  CHARACTERIZATION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCING COMPANIES






     Until the early 1970's, the vast majority of U.S.  offshore oil and




gas production came from wells owned and operated by the large integrated




oil companies.  The large "up front" costs of lease bonus payments and




the massive investments required for exploration, development, production,




and processing facilities tended to discourage all but the largest firms




from undertaking offshore projects.  Table II-9  shows the participation




of the major oil companies in offshore production in 1971; in that year,




the major integrated companies operating independently or in groups




accounted for 97% of DCS oil production.  Recent efforts have been made




by the Interior Department to allow more participation by smaller com-




panies.  Since 1971, there has been an increased participation by the




independents in acquiring offshore acreage.  For the three lease sales




of September and December 1972 and June 1973, single majors acquired 21%




of the acreage, groups of majors acquired 14%, single independents




acquired 17%, and groups of independents and majors acquired 47% of the




acreage.




     The companies attempting to acquire offshore acreage for oil and gas




development bid either independently or in groups for the right to develop




and produce the fields.  If a consortium of companies wins the bidding,




one of the firms will be responsible for drilling and operating the wells.




Table 11-10 lists, as an example, the ownership relationship of the firms




operating in Federal waters off Louisiana in 1973.  Table 11-11 lists




major oil companies and their partners owning leases in Louisiana state




waters the same year.
                                    11-21

-------
                              TABLE II-9

         PCS LEASE ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION, THROUGH SEPT.  1971




Lessee                               Acreage (%)     Production (%)




Individual Majors                       46                63

Groups of Majors                        35                34

Groups of Independents                  17                 2

Individual Independents                  2                 1
SOURCE:   U.S. Department of the Interior, reported in Outer Continental
         Shelf Policy Issues, p. 61, Committee on Interior and Insular
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, 1972
                                     11-22

-------
                       TABLE II-1Q
—LOUISIANA UNO & EXPLORATION  CO., DOCKET NO CI73-501, JOINT OWNERSHIP OF FEDERAL
                     OFFSHORE PRODUCING LEASES
Number
Company
Thi majors:
Amerada-Hess 	


Atlantic-Rich field 	






Cities Service 	





Continental 	









Getty 	











Gulf 	




Marathon 	




Mobil 	








Ptiilhps 	





Shell 	
Chevron 	



Amoco 	








Exxon 	
Sun 	






Texaco 	
Union Oil 	



Number of Independently of joint
leases owned Major partners ventures >

	 15 0 Marathon 	
Signal 	
Louisiana Land 	
	 94 3 Cities 	
Getty 	
Continental 	
Tenneco ' 	
Standard Oil of California
(Chevron) 	
El Paso» 	
	 101 1 Atlantic 	
Getty 	
Continental 	
Mobil 	
Tenneco' 	
Standard Oil of California
(Chevron).
	 119 1 Atlantic 	
Cities 	
Getty 	
Mobil 	
Tenneco' 	
Standard Oil of California
(Chevron).
Superior 	
Transocean 	
Southern Natural' 	
	 100 2 Atlantic 	
Cities 	
Continental 	
Mobil 	
Tenneco' 	
Standard Oil of California
(Chevron).
Phillips 	
Superior 	
Transocean 	
Southern Natural' 	
Allied Chemical 	
	 51 34 Mobil 	
Standard Oil of New Jersey
(Exxon).
Phillips... 	
Kerr-McGee 	
	 18 0 Amerada 	
Signal 	
Louisiana Land 	
Union 	
Sun 	
52 6 Continental 	
	 Cities 	 	
Getty 	
Gulf 	
Standard Oil of California
(Chevron).
Standard Oil of New Jersey
(Exxon).
Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco).
Pennzoil' 	
16 3 Kerr-McGee 	
Gulf 	
Getty 	 	 	
Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco).
Sun 	
Southern Natural' 	 	
Allied Chemical 	
68 64 Standard Oil of California
(Chevron).
105 86 Mobil 	
Getty 	
Atlantic 	
Cities.. 	
Continental 	
60 3 Texaco 	
Union 	
Southern Natural' 	
Mobil 	
Kerr-McGee 	 	 	
Superior 	
Tenneco' 	 	 	 	 	
Phillips 	 	 	
Pennzoil' 	
Texas Eastern ' 	
52 43 Gulf 	
' " Mobil 	
19 0 Burmah 	
Murphy 	 	
Kerr-McGee 	
Union... 	 -
Phillips 	
Marathon 	 	 	
Cabot. 	
Diamond Shamrock 	 	
AnadarKo' 	
55 16 Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco)
Tenneco' 	
37 18 Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco).
Marathon 	
Superior — 	
Sun 	
Texas Eastern' 	

M
14
14
85
83
87
4

2
2
85
93
91
2
?
2
87
91
87
19
8
2

2
2
2
83
93
87
8
4
3

3
2
2
2
3
7
6

4
2
13
13
13
5
3
19
8
8
7
5

4

4
2
7
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
5
j
2
2
2
29
12
8
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
6
4
11
10
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2»
9
12
4
3
2
                            11-23

-------
                         TABLE II-1Q  (Con't)
            -LOUISIANA LAND & EXPLORATION CO, DOCKET NO  CI73-501, JOINT OWNERSHIP OF FEDERAL.
                          OFFSHORE PRODUCING LEASES—Continued




Number of Independently
Company
Selected medium sized firms.
Tenneco 0[\'' 	






Kerr-McGee 	


Caoot Corp - 	 - 	 - - 	 - - -

PennzoiU 	 	
Consolidated- 	 .. 	



Columbia Gas * 	 - 	



Texas Gas1 	



Forest Oil 	 	 	



Murphy-Ocean 	

Burmah 	 	

Signal 	 	 	


Louisiana Land & Exploration.


Superior 	


Transocean 	 _ 	



Hunt 	


Ashland 	 	


Southern Natural > 	

Allied Chemical 	

Anadarko' 	 : 	 	

Diamond Shamrock. 	 	

Texas Eastern! 	 _ 	

El Paso' 	 	 	
Placid 	 	 	 	 	


leases

51






29


12

9
33



33



28



34



32

23

15


14


21


14



17


7


15

3

3

4

2

2
15


owned

24






0


0

1
0



0



0



0



1

0

1


0


10


0



3


0


0

0

0

0

0

0
0


Major partners

Texaco, 	
Continental
Cities 	 	 	
Consolidated > 	 	 	
Columbia Gas ! . 	

Forest 	
Phillips 	 	 	
Cabot 	 	 - 	
Soutnerr Na: : 	 . . 	
Sun ..- . . - 	 	 . .
Kerr-McGee 	
S'andard 0.1 ot Indiana 	
Columbia Gas - .
Texas Gas Transmission-...
Forest 	 ......
Tenneco ;. 	 	 	 	
Conso'idated :
Texas Gas • 	
Forest. 	 - 	 	 .- 	
Tenneco * 	 	 . 	
Consolidated ' 	 	 	
Columbia Gas - 	
Forest 	 	 	
Tenneco' 	
Consolidated ' 	
Columbia Gas ' 	
Texas Gas' 	 	
Tenneco1 	
Sun 	
Burmah 	
Sun 	 	
Murphy- Ocean 	
Amerada 	
Marathon 	
Louisiana Land - 	
Amerada 	 	 	
Marathon
Signal 	
Standard Oil ot 1 ndiana (Amoco).
Union 	 	
Transocean 	
Superior 	
Hunt 	 	
Placid... 	 	
Ashland 	 	 	
Transocean 	 	 	 	
Placid 	 	
Ashland 	
Transocean 	
Hunt 	 	
Placid 	
S'andard Oil of Indiana (Amoco).
Kerr-McGee 	
Getty 	 	 	
Phillips. 	 	 	
Sun 	
Diamond Shamrock 	
Sun 	
Anadarko : 	
Standard Oil of 1 ndiara (Amoco).
Union 	 	 	 	
Atlantic 	
Transocean 	
Hunt 	 	 	
Ashland
Number
of joint
venturts i
—
9
t
7
e
6
(
6

12
1
3
12
4
26
25
26
6
26
27
33
6
25
26
23
6
2«
37
26
1
10
21
11
21
14
13
14
14
13
14
4
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
7
7
I
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
7
9
7
       ' Mav add to more than total number of leases v*hen 3 or more firms participate in mdtvidua1 joint ventures.
       : This company or an affiliate is a major interstate gas pipeline
SOU1CE:   U.S. Dept.  of  the  Interior, cited  in  Market  Performance
           and CoiiVpeuition in the Petroleum  Industry,  p.  iito,
           Committee  on Interior  and  Insular  Affairs,  U.S.  Senate,  1974
                                 11-24

-------
                                   TABLE 11-11
                         ..—LOUISIANA LAND & EXPLORATION CO., DOCKET NO. CI73-501
              JOINT OWNERSHIP OF STATE OF LOUISIANA PETROLEUM LEASES BY LARGE MAJOR PRODUCERS
Company, major partners, and jointly held
leases.
Amerada-Hess.
Phillips
Amoco
Sohio 	
Atlantic-Richfield
Cities
Continental 	
Getty

Marathon
Texaco
Tenneco 	
Amoco
Chevron 	
Sohio
Cities Service
Atlantic

Getty

Continental.
Atlantic
Cities
Getty
Mobil 	


Sun
Tenneco 	
Gulf
Getty.
Gulf
Atlantic
Cities
Continental
Exxon

Tenneco 	

Mobil

Shell
Texaco 	
Gulf
Getty
Sohio
Shell


Chevron 	



Sun
Phillips

Marathon.
Atlantic

Mobil
Continental

Gulf
Sun


Getty

Phillips:
Sun
Amoco
Gulf
Shell.
Gulf 	


U.S. Dept. of the
and Competition in
State
Number
36
10
2
27
28
26
10
7
4
4
3
. ... 2
2
27
27
31
2
28
27
27
. .. 16
13
11
11
3
3
51
26
31
27
27
4
- -. 4
4
3
3
2
2
62
51
13
12
7
6
6
5
5
3
3
2
2
7
3
16
8
5
4
4
3
3
2
36
7
3
2
12
8

Company, major partners, and jointly
leases-


Texaco
Getty
Chevron
Shell ... .. 	
Gulf


Atlantic
Amoco
Texaco . . .. 	
Continental 	 	 	

Mobil
Gulf
Shell
Sun

Exxon 	
Getty
Atlantic
Phillips
Union 	
Exxon
Gulf
Getty
Continental 	 	 	 	


Shell 	
Amoco
Chevron
Mobil 	
Cities 	

Sohio:
Gulf
Getty 	
Atlantic

Sun-
Continent 1 	
Phillips

Mobil
Getty
Gulf

Union 	 	 	 -.
Tenneco.

Gulf 	
Atlantic
Getty 	


Mobil
Sun
Texaco

Gulf 	 	 	
Shell
Mobil
Atlantic
Chevron . - -
Getty

Union Oil.
Atlantic 	 	 	
Amoco
Sun 	 . 	 	
Exxon 	 	 	
Texaco

Interior, cited in Market
the Petroleum Industry,
held State
Number
5
5
5
	 2
	 8
6
3
3
.. . 3
	 11
	 11
10
8
7
5
5
. . 5
4
4
3
3
	 3
62
	 27
	 13
11
	 5
	 5
4
3
	 2
	 2
2
13
4
2
2
. . . 11
7
5
4
3
3
	 3
	 	 3
	 5
5
	 5
4
4
3
. . .. 3
3
3
11
11
6
5
4
4
	 3
2
2
	 	 10
3
	 3
	 2
2

Performance
p. 1167, Comm
SOURCE:

           on Interior and  Insular Affairs,  U.S.  Senate, 1974
                                          H-25

-------
     Besides the major integrated oil companies,  the largest group of




offshore participants are the interstate gas pipeline companies.




Tables 11-12, 11-13, and 11-14 list the major pipeline operators  and




show their 1972 participation in the lease bidding.   In the December 19,




1972, bidding on Federal OCS acreage off Louisiana,  pipeline companies




participated in 51.7% of the successful bids and paid 19.5% of the bonuses.




     On February 21, 1975, the Interior Department published a proposed




regulation in the Federal Register that no companies producing more than




1.6 million barrels a day of crude oil, natural gas (equivalent), and




natural gas liquids could jointly bid with other such companies on OCS




leases.  The intent of the regulation is to further reduce the dominance




of the major oil companies in offshore production.
                                   11-26

-------
                                      TABLE   II-12
                  -LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLORATION CO., DOCKET NO. C173-501—MAJOR INTERSTATE GAS F.PELINES
                                         AND THEIR PRODUCING AFFILIATES


              Interstate pipeline companies     Exploration, development, and producing affiliates


          Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co	 Arkla Exploration Co.
          Cities Service Gas Co	,... Cities Service Oil Co., Cities Service Gas Resources Co , Hydrocarbon Products-
                                           CD., Inc
          Colorado Interstate Gu Co	 Coastal States Gas Producing Co , LO-VACA Gathering Co , Colorado Oil and Gu
                                           Corp., Nueces Industrial Gas Co.
          Columbia Gas Transmission Corp	 Columbia Gas Development Corp
          Consolidated Gas Supply Corp	 CNG Producing Co.
          Ei Paso Natural Gas Co	 Odessa Natural Gasoline Co , Odessa Natural Corp, Trebol Drilling Co , PecosCo.
          Florida Gas Transmission Co	 Florida Gas Exploration Co.
          Lone Star Gas Co	 Lone Star Producing Co
          Michigan Wisconsin Gas Co	_ American Natural Gas Production Co.
          Natural Gas Pipeline Co. ol America... Harper Oil Co.
          Northern Natural Gas Co	 (Produces under its own name )
          Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co	Anadarko Production Co., Pan Eastern Exploration Co . Panhandle Westerr Gas
                                           Co.
          Southern Natural Gas Co	SONAT Exploration Co., The Offshore Co
          Tennessee Gas Transmission Co	 Tenneco Oil Co.
          Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co..	 Tenneco Exploration, Ltd., Tenneco Offshore Co, Inc, Tenneco West, Inc.
          Texas Eastern Transmission Corp	 La Gloria Oil and Gas Co , Texas Eastern Gas Supply Co , Texas Eastern Ma roc.
                                           Inc., Texas Eastern Exploration Co , Texas Eastern Oil Co.
          Texas Gas Transmission Corp	 Texas Gas Exploration Corp.
          Transcontinental das Pipeline Corp	 Transcontinental Production Co., Trans-Gulf Transmission Corp.
          Transwestern Pipeline Co '	 Transwestern, Inc., Transwestern Gas Supply Co
          Trunkhne Gas Co.J	
          United Gas Pipeline Co	 Pennzoil Producing Co., Pennzoil Petroleums, Ltd , Pennzoil Louisiana & Texts
                                           Offshore, Inc., Pennzoil Offshore Gas Operator, Inc.


            1 Subsidiary of Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.
            1 Subsidiary of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co.
SOURCE:    U.S.  Dept.  of   the  Interior,   cited  in  Market  Performance
               and  Competition  in  the  Petroleum  Industry,  p.   1170,
               Committee  on  Interior  and  Insular  Affairs,  U.S.   Senate
               1974
                                                   11-27

-------
                          TABLE 11-13
      -PARTICIPATION BY INTERSTATE PIPELINE COMPANY AFFILIATES IN OFFSHORE LOUISIANA FEDERAL
                    OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE, SEPT  12, 1972
Successful
bids (number
Interstate pipeline affiliation/bidding group of leases)
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp . Texas Eastern Exploration
Co ' Amoco Production Co , Union Oil Co of California
Cities Service Gas Co.' Cities Service Oil Co ,< Tenneco Oil Co ,'
Continental Oil Co , Getty Oil Co
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co Tenneco Oil Co ,' Cities Service Oil
Co ,' Texaco, Inc , Continental Oil Co
United Gas Pipe Line Co . Pennzoil Offshore Gas Operators,1 Penn-
zoil L i T. Offshore. Inc ,1 Gulf Oil Corp Mobil Oil Corp 	
United Gas Pipe Line Co Pennzoil Offshore Gas Operators,1 Penn-
zoil L & T. Offshore. Inc ,' Mesa Petroleum Co , Burmah Oil
Dev Inc Canadian Occidental Ca Inc
Florida Gas Transmission Co Florida Gas Explor Co ,' Shell Oil
Co., Sabine Explor Corp , Drillamex. Inc , Kirby Petroleum Co.,
Royal Gorge Co American Independent Oil Co
Consolidated Gas Supply Corp.. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp ,'
Aztec Oil and Gas Co 	 	 	 ---
Total pipeline affiliates' successful bids 	


21
2
4
4
1
1
1
33
53.2
Pi pel lot
Bonuses paid affiliates'
by pipeline percent rt
affiliate bonuses paid
(dollars) (range)
19,523.520
1,993,685
6,568,143
30,039,200
4,532,792
747.600
191,925
63, 5%, 865 	
10.8

24-36
33-34
33-50
7-U
IS
12
„•*

_
 i Corporate affiliate of interstate pipeline company.
 Source. Bid recap sheets. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, oil and gas lease sale, ofirtort
Louisiana, Sept. 12, 1972.
cited  in  Market Performance  and Competition  in  the
Petroleum Industry, p.   1170,  Committee on  Interior
and  Insular  Affairs,  U.S.  Senate,  1974
                                   11-28

-------
                                      TABLE  11-14
           -PARTICIPATION  BY INTERSTATE PIPELINE COMPANY AFFILIATES IN OFFSHORE LOUISIANA
                         FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE, DEC. 19, 1972
     Interstate pipeline affiliation/bidding group
              Bonuses paid
  Successful      by pipeline
bids (number         affiliate
   of leases)        (dollars)
                        Pipeline
                       affiliates'
                       percent of
                    bonuses paid
                         (range)
Columbia Gas Transmission Co	
    Columbia Gas Development Corp.'
    Forest Oil Corp.
    Energy Ventures, Inc.
Consolidated Gas Supply Corp	_	
    CNG Producing Co.1
    Amoco Production Co.
    The NW Mutual Life Ins. Co.
Cities Service Gas Co	
    Cities Service Oil Co.1
    Getty Oil Co.
    Continental Oil Co.
    Atlantic Richfield Co.
Southern Natural Gas Co	
    Sonat— Exploration Co.1
    The Offshore Co.
    Midwest Oil Co.
    Newmont Oil Co.
    Southland Royalty Co.
    Samedan Offshore Co.
    Champlin Petroleum Co.
Trans Continental Gas Pipe Line Corp	
    Trans-Continental Prod. Co.]
    Shell Oil Co.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp	
    Texas  Eastern Exploration Co.1
    Louisiana Land and Explor. Co.
    Signal Oil & Gas Co.
    Marathon Oil Co.
United Gas Pipe Line Co	
    PennzoM  Offshore Gas Operators >
    Pennzoi! L.  I T. Offshore, Inc.1
    Mobil Oil Corp.
    Chevron Oil Co.
    Texas  Production Co.
United Gas Pipe Line Co	
    Pennzoil Offshore Gas Operators >
    Pennzoil L.  & T. Offshore, Inc.'
    Mesa Petroleum Co.
    Burmah Oil Dev., Inc.
    Texas  Production Co.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co	
    Tenntco Exploration, Inc.1
    Texaco, I nc.

     Total—pipeline affiliates' successful bids.

     Percent of total successful bids	
         16
       80,015,311



       24,321,180



       47, 453, 678




 1       7, 038, 899







13      53, 418, 570


 6      20,582,750




 3      15, 501, 506





 1      20,903,880





 6      55,147, 808
        60    324,383, 582
       51.7
                     19.5
   40



25-34



25-50




   28








19-25


14-33




 7-27






 7-27






   50
  1 Corporate affiliate of interstate pipeline company.
  Source' Bid recap sheets. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Lease Sale—Offshore
Louisiana—December 19, 1972

cited  in  Market  Performance  and  Competition  in  the

Petroleum  Industry,  p.  1171,  Committee   on  Interior

and  Insular  Affairs,  U.S.   Senate,   1974
                                           H-29

-------
II.3.  OIL AND GAS PRICING




3.1.  Crude Oil Pricing




     The Role of Crude Prices in the Economic Impact Analysis




     The price of crude oil and the factors and processes which determine




its price have undergone dramatic changes in the last few years.  While




oil from different fields has distinct physical and chemical properties,




it can be characterized by and large as a world commodity product.  As




such, its price should be subject to the movements of world supply and




demand.  However, the political implications of crude prices and crude




sources have strongly distorted prices even before the recent embargo.




    The price which operators of domestic oil wells can receive for their




crude is a critical element in determining the impact of the proposed




effluent limitation guidelines.  At sufficiently high prices, there would




simply be no potential for the pollution control costs making an exist-




ing well unprofitable.  Yet the uncertainty about U.S. crude prices over




the period when the guidelines will become effective, 1977-1983, is an




unresolvable unknown.




    At present (January 1975), prices for U.S. "old" crude are frozen at




$5.25 per barrel while "new", released, and stripper well crude prices




are uncontrolled.  However, there is a major public policy debate in pro-




gress concerning the pricing of domestic crude.  The argument is being




made that all price controls should be removed in order to accelerate the




development of domestic oil resources.  Since new oil is already deregulated,




the removal of controls from old oil would have the effect of providing




additional capital to the oil companies to undertake new exploration and
                                  II-30

-------
 production.  The argument on the other side is that there are already




 ample  incentives for new exploration and development, that oil companies




 could  not effectively spend the added funds, and that the only effect of




 deregulation would be to raise the price of petroleum products to consumers.




 This debate is further complicated by serious proposals to impose excess




 profits taxes, and break off the marketing segments of the producing com-




 panies .




    Most offshore and onshore production to which the effluent guidelines




 would  apply are now price controlled.  Deregulation would increase these




 prices to the level of imported crude.  This impact analysis cannot even




 speculate whether deregulation will occur.  The limit of the analysis is




 a statement about the impact of the proposed standards on production if




 they occur after crude oil prices have been deregulated.  Recent tax




 legislation has effectively ended the depletion allowance for large pro-




 ducers.  This change in tax policy has been included in the impact analysis,




 but other possible changes in tax policies or industry structure are beyond




 the scope of this analysis, though they could have an important influence on




 the industry.




     Current Crude Oil Pricing Patterns




     Domestic crude oil prices have fluctuated very little for 18 of the past




 20 years.   The years 1973 and 1974 broke this pattern.  In 1955,  a barrel of




 crude oil sold for $2.77.   By 1971, the price for the same barrel had risen




 to $3.10.   However, in 1973 most domestic crude prices had risen to $5.25 per




barrel and would probably have been higher except for a formula worked out by




 the Federal Energy Agency (FEA)  which imposed regulations on crude prices.




Table 11-15 lists crude prices for various sources for the last five years.







                                 II-31

-------
            TABLE 11-15
HISTORICAL POSTED CRUDE OIL PRICES
CRUDE
Arab light
Iran light
Kuwa i t
Abu Dhabi Murban
Iraq Basrah
Qatar Dukhan
Iraq Kirkuk
Libya
Nigeria
Sumatra light**
Venezuela Tia Juana (31°)**
Venezuela Oficina**
Louisiana
East Texas
West Texas sour
*Year's highest price given
1970
1 80
1-79
1.59
1.88
1.72
1.93
2.41
2.53
2.42
1.70
2.193
2.339
3.69
3 60
3.23
1971
2.285
2.274
2.187
2.341
2.259
2.387
3.211
3.447
3.212
2.21
2.722
2.782
3.69
3.60
3.29
1972
2.479
2.467
2.373
2.540
2.451
2.590
3.402
3.673
3.446
2.260
2.722
2.782
3.69
3.60
3.29
1973
5.036
5.254
4.82
5.944
4.978
5.737
7.10
9.061
8.339
6.00
7.762
8.004
5.29
5.20
5.29
1974*
11.651
11.875
11.545
12.636
11.672
12.414
15.768
14.691
10.80
14.356
14.876
5.29
5.20
5.29
, 1974 price effective Jan. 1.
-"''Official selling price for Sumatra, reference
all others are posted prices. Kirkuk priced
prices are representative postings for crude
SOURCE: Oil and Gas Journal


price for Venezuela ,
at Mediterranean; U.S.
oil.



                     11-32

-------
     FEA price regulations are directed at each of  the four levels of the




domestic petroleum marketing chain.   As a result of current FEA regulations,




there exists a two-tiered wellhead pricing system for domestic crude.




"Old" oil is price controlled at $5.25 per barrel;  however, the price of




new, released and stripper well crude is free to rise and fall with market




fluctuations.




     Domestically produced oil which is not price controlled is the amount




of oil produced per well per producing property in excess of the crude pro-




duced in the corresponding month of 1972 (the excess is termed "new" oil),




an amount of oil equal to "new" oil (this equivalent amount is termed




"released" oil), and all oil produced from any lease whose average daily




production for the preceding calendar year didn't exceed 10 barrels per well.




     For an example of new and released oil, assume that in March of 1972 a




property with 12 wells was producing 240 barrels of oil per day, or a daily




average of 20 barrels per well.  If in March of 1974 the same property produced




a daily average of 264 barrels  from the  same 12 wells, or  22 barrels per




well, each well would be producing 2 barrels of new crude, 2 barrels of re-




leased crude and 18 barrels of old crude.  If,  because of some occurrence such




as water flooding on-nearby properties, the daily production per well on the




example property rose to 45 barrels per day in March of 1974, each well would




be producing 25 barrels of new crude and 20 barrels of released crude per day




and no old crude.
                                     11-33

-------
     By the end of 1974 the composition of total domestic crude was ap-




proximately 60% old and 40% new,  released and stripper well crude.   Actual




prices for domestic crude oil under the FEA categories are now $5.25 per




barrel for "old" oil and are over $11.00 per barrel for "new" oil.   The




weighted average of old and new prices is about $7.50.  If price controls




remain in effect, the average will rise as unregulated oil becomes  a larger




proportion of total production.




     Current U.S. concern with foreign, particularly Middle Eastern, oil




prices is that the prices are very high.  Until  1973, the reverse was  true.




As the cost of exploration, development, and production rose in the U.S.,




American oil companies developed fields abroad where the production costs




were much lower than in the U.S.




     By the latter half of the 1960's, the Middle Eastern countries had




become more sophisticated in dealings with the large companies.  An organi-




zation called the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was




formed to specifically negotiate better deals for the member countries.  A




double price system was effectively set up when the members of OPEC announced




they were going to guarantee their income by posting a price per barrel




that would be used to figure their royalty no matter what the real price




of crude oil was.  That announcement was the beginning of political pricing.




The posted price became effective in the latter half of the 1960's with each




country posting separate prices.  The other price of the double price system,




the real price, has historically been below posted price.  Table 11-16  lists




representative posted and actual prices.
                                 11-34

-------
                            TABLE 11-16
         REPRESENTATIVE  POSTED PRICES AND ACTUAL COSTS

       'PER  BARREL OF FOREIGN EQUITY CRUDES AND U.S.  CRUPE

Algeria
Canada
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Libya
Nigeria
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
U.A. Emirates
Venezuela
U.S. Old Oil
U.S. New Oil
U.S. Composite**
Imported Composite
Total Composite
'Includes transportation
Posted Price
$16.21
6.68
11.87
11.67
11.54
15.76
14.69
12.01
11.65
12.63
14.87
- ...
- _ .
- _ -
_ _ .
- - .
**Domestic o
                                              Aclnal Cost*
SOURCE:   Platts Price News, June 26,  1974
                                                 11.08
                                                 9.35
                                                 9.23
                                                 9.12
                                                 10.95
                                                 10.26
                                                 9.70
                                                 9.20
                                                 9.82
                                                 10.95
                                                 5.25
                                                 10.20
                                                 7.15
                                                 10.42
                                                 8.01
                                    11-35

-------
       The movement upwards of the posted price of crude oil forced the




real price of crude oil up in order to pay the royalty and still produce




a profit.  In the world market, oil is traded almost as a commodity, and




the price moves up and down according to demand.  The effect of the rise




in price of foreign crude oil on the price of domestic crude oil has been




considerable.  Early in the 1950's, the United States Government set up




an allowable policy on crude oil imports.  The purpose was partly to protect




the domestic industry from competition from cheap foreign imports (parti-




cularly independents and non-foreign oil-producing companies, as this seg-




ment of the industry was in an over-production situation), partly to pre-




vent long-range dependence on foreign oil, and partly to use as a lever




against the oil industry to prevent price increases.  The whole allowable




system was predicated upon foreign oil being cheaper than domestic oil.




     The situation has now reversed itself.  Foreign oil is now more ex-




pensive  than domestic oil.  However, even though the production costs of




most domestic oil is far below the price of imported oil, production cannot




meet demand.




     The cost of crude includes a wellhead price plus tarrifs, plus cost




of delivery to a refinery.  Tables 11-17 and 11-18 list crude price and trans-




portation costs to U.S. refining areas from several producing areas.  Table




11-17 lists the costs for the average mix of new and old U.S. oil and typical




foreign oil.  The U.S. oil has a strong  competitive advantage in both the crude




price and the transportation costs.  This advantage has actually grown  in




recent months as foreign prices have increased faster than  the average  U.S.




price because of price controls.   Table  11-18  compares U.S.  new oil with
                                    11-36

-------
                                    TABLE 11-17


                         DELIVERED PRICES OF FOREIGN AND
                          AVERAGED. .  MIX DOMESTIC  CRUDE
West Texas
Sour 32'
*$7.38
$7.38
0.95
$8.33
0.25
$7.63
0.41
$7.79
U.S.
J Sour Ventura
0.20
}$7.33
Arabian TiaJuana
Light 34' Light 31°
$10.46 $11.10
0.18 0.18
$10.64 $11.28
I'HILAUtLPHIA 	 '
1.40 0.34
$12.04 $11.62
U.S. GULF COAST
1.39 0.32
$12.03 $11.60
CHICAGO
1.58 0.51
$12.22 $11.79
WEST COAST (LOS ANGE
28°
1.16 0.73
$11.80 $12.01
S. Louisiana
Light 37°
*$7.63
$7.63
0.85
$8.48
0.25
17.88
0.32
$7.95
Lt!>)
Canadian
Sweet 39°
t$12.15
0.18
$12.33


0.50
$12.83

Nigerian
Light 34"
$11.75
0.18
$11.93
0.72
$12.65
0.83
$12.76
1.02
$12.95

        F.o.b.  Price
        License Fee
        Sub-total

        Transportation
        Delivered  Price

        Transportation
        Delivered Price

        Transportation
        Delivered Price
        Transportation
        Delivered  Price
        *Average of price-controlled and free market prices. tAllows for currency exchange differ-
        entials and includes $5.20 Canadian export tax. \Average f.o.b. price $7.13.
a.
  Average  mix of  60-40  price  controlled and de-controlled
  domestic crudes.


Note:   Transportation is computed on AFRA  basis,  with  Arabian
        light trans-shipped via Curacao.
SOURCE:   Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, December  9, 1974
                                          11-37

-------
                                         TABLE  11-18
                          DELIVERED  PRICE OF FOREIGN AND
                            DECONTROLLED  DOMESTIC CRUDES
              F.o.b. Price
              License  Fee
              Sub-total

              Transportation
              Delivered Price

              Transportation
              Delivered Price

              Transportation
              Delivered Price
              Transportation
              Delivered Price
              *For price  control
              and includes $5.20
West Texas
Sour 3 2°
»$10.89
$10.89
0.95
$11.84
0.25
$11.14
0.41
$11.30
Arabian
Light 34°
$10.46
0.18
Tia Juana
Light 31°
$11.10
0.18
$10.64 $11.28
0.97 0.31
$11.61 $11.59
0.96
$11.60
.P COAST
0.29
$11.57
LHICAUU "
1.15 0.48
$11.79 $11.76
S. Louisiana
Light 37°
*$11.14
$11.14
0.85
$11.99
0.25
$11.39
0.32
$11.46
Canadian
S»-eft39°
t$12.15
0.18
$12.33


0.50
$12.83
Nigerian
Light 34'
$11.75
0.18
$11.93
064
$12.57
0.73
$12.66
0.92
$12.85
 \Sour Ventura 28°
       0.20       0.54      0.68
    *$10.83     $11.18     $11.96
•exempt,  free  market crude. tAllows for currency
Canadian export tax. JFree market f.o.b. price $10.
exchange differentials
63.
Note:   Transportation costs  are  on  a spot basis.
SOURCE:   Petroleum  Intelligence  Weekly,  December  9,  1974
                                            11-38

-------
minimum foreign oil prices.  One sees in the table that the price of the

new oil has risen to just about the same price as the foreign oil when trans-

portation costs are taken  into consideration.

     While this impact analysis will not attempt to specify crude prices

over the period of interest, the subject has been considered by reputable

analysts.  The Project Independence study considered crude prices ranging

fr.om     $4 to $11 per barrel.  Since Arab prices are now established

for political reasons as well as economic, their prices could be reduced

conceivably to the $4 level again,though it is unlikely.  However, if crude

prices  were allowed to seek a level reflecting world supply and demand,

the Blueprint Report estimated that the long-term price would be about

$7 per barrel in 1973 dollars (almost $8 per barrel in 1974 dollars).

Former Secretary of the Treasury Schultz testified in February 1974:

     It is reasonable to assume that after about 3 to 5 years,
     and allowing for some inflation, if the price of oil
     increases by about 50% from mid-1973 levels, to around
     $7 per barrel, sufficient domestic oil supplies should
     flow to satisfy about 85-90% of our demands.

     Accordingly, we have for planning purposes  estimated  that
     the "long-term supply price1' is about $7 per barrel.
     But the $7 per barrel figure is an estimate and the
     ultimate figure may be somewhat more or somewhat less.

     While the $7 per barrel may be approximately the supply/demand equilibrium

price, the prices at the two ends of the spectrum are probably more relevant

as prices which may actually be seen.  As was noted above, about 60% of

current production is frozen at $5.25 per barrel.  The President has

proposed to remove these price controls, subject to

Congressional  approval  as  provided  by  the  Emergency  Petroleum Allocation
  Windfall" or Excess Profits Tax, Committee on Ways and Means,
 U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 135, 1974.
                                    11-39

-------
Act.  On the other hand,there is a strong move in Congress to reimpose price





controls more generally on the economy rather than relaxing them.




     If old crude prices  are decontrolled, the resultant change in per barrel




revenues to the oil companies may not be equal to the increase in crude




prices.  The combination of excise taxes on imports and the excess profits tax




as proposed by the President could result in an added net income of only  $0.89




per barrel in pre-tax (corporate tax) revenues to the companies , based on




an  analysis of the total tax and deregulation package which was reported  in Platt




News of Jan. 20, 1975. This analysis showed  that the weighted  average U.S.




domestic price less severance tax was  $6.97  based on price-less-tax levels  of




$10.23 for new oil and $4.88 for old oil  (39% to 61% ratio). If deregulated, U.S.




crude prices will rise to $14 per barrel, slightly less than the landed price of




foreign crude (including the proposed $3 excise tax).   The taxes  on the




domestic crude would  include:  $2 excise tax; 7% severance tax on the




$12; and $3.30 windfall profits tax.   The net revenue to the firm would then




be $7.86 per barrel,  an increase of $0.89 over present revenues.    There  is




of course no way to know at this point whether all, part, or none of the package




will be enacted.




    The following analysis of potential oil production losses as a result




of the proposed effluent  guidelines has used $5.25  and $11.00 crude prices




to test the range of  potential impacts.  They are intended to be represen-




tative of the price range producers could have experienced at the end of 1974.
                                   H-40

-------
3.2.  Pricing of Offshore Natural Gas at the Wellhead




     Introduction




     The price of natural gas is set at the time of production according




to its entry into either the intra- or interstate markets.  Intrastate




prices are not regulated and respond freely to the fluctuation of supply




and demand.  Interstate prices are controlled by the Federal Power Com-




mission which has jurisdiction over gas produced in federal offshore




areas, gas produced and sold across state lines and gas moving through




any segment of an interstate pipeline system.




     Prior  to 1973, the new, long-term contract prices received by




natural gas producers for intra- and interstate sales were not signifi-




cantly different.  However, in late 1973, prices for intrastate gas began




to rise to levels occasionally tripling the fixed prices of interstate




gas, and in 1974 intrastate prices were in the range of $1.95 per thousand




cubic feet  (MCF), roughly four times greater than the interstate price




of $0.51 per MCF (see Table 11-19).  A consequence of the price disparity




has been the extreme shift to intrastate markets of the commitments of




natural gas reserve additions as early as 1969.




     If it is assumed that all of the new reserves reported by AGA not




committed to the interstate pipelines are being committed to the intra-




state gas market, it appears that the intrastate market may well have





captured 99% of  the 1970 net U.S. reserve additions, 30% of the 1971 net




reserve additions, 100% of the 1972 net additions, and 82% of the 1973




net reserve additions (see Table 11-20).
                                   11-41

-------
                       TABLE  11-19
              Prices Received by Producers Cm
           Natural  Gas Sales. 1966-1975
           (cents per thousand cubic feet)


                                            V w
                            New            (ni'.f
             Average     Long-Term        Cn-.ii
            \\ellhead      tntevstatc       lntt..-.tate
             Prices        Contracts       Con"jcis

              15.7          17.7          15 t-ii! 5
              16.0          1R.8          15.(-)-)6
              16.4          19.6          16.1 20 2
              16.7          19.9          1-M 21 5
              17.1          22.3          1R5-230
              18.2          24.8          20.t-2o2
              18.6          35.!          23.5-^11.0
              21.6          40.3            25 -1 25
              26.7          43-51           125-195
              35.0                         17; 110
S.MII.V i  i o-ter Associates: I'.S. Bureau of Mines. \,ii',ral
         (,a<  -\nnual. l')73: l-'ederal Power Commi^i'in;
         I.Mison Assxiciates: and Arthur D. Little, In...
                             11-42

-------
                                TABLE 11-20
                                LOWER 48 STATE
                            NET RESERVE ADDITIONS
                         INTERSTATE VS . INTRASTATE
Year
  Total Net AC/A.
Reserve Additions
       Tcf
  Net Interstate
Reserve Additions
    (Form  15)
Tcf       Percent
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1S73
20.1
21.2
19.2
21.1
12.0
8.3
11.1
9.4
9.4
6.5
10.7
13.3
14.1
14.8
9.5
6.0
0.1
1.9
(0.2)
1.2
53
63
73
70
79
72
1
20
0
18
Inferred Intrastate
Reserve Additions
Tcf       Percent
                                                                            1
9.4
7.9
5.1
6.3
2.5
2.3
11.0
7.5
9.6
5.3
47
37
27
30
21
28
99
80
100
82
   Derived by as:.u:ning that intrastate reserve additions  are  equal to the
   difference between total AGA reserve  additions and the reserve additions
   committed to the interstate market.
SOURCE:   "The Oil  and Gas Compact Bulletin", December 1974
                                   11-43

-------
     Prior to 1970, there were sufficient domestic supplies of gas; how-




ever, beginning in 1970, onshore gas procurement became difficult for the




interstate market.  In 1970, the interstate pipelines procured 75% of




their long-term new gas from onshore sources; in 1971, the percentage




dropped to 54%; in 1972, it dropped to 41%; and in 1973, it dropped to




33%  (Table 11-21 ) .




     The increased dependence of interstate pipelines on offshore pur-




chases, or the inability of the interstate pipelines to buy gas onshore,




appears to be attributable to the FPC rate structure which makes it dif-




ficult for the interstate pipelines to compete for new supplies.




     Because offshore areas are the most expensive to develop, offshore




gas exploratory footage has declined since 1970 (see Table 11-22).  Since




1970 the percentage of footage of offshore development drilling relative




to total U.S. gas development footage has also declined (see Table 11-23).




     While all natural gas produced in Federal waters is by definition




interstate gas, the gas produced in state waters can be either inter- or




intrastate depending on its transmission pipeline and the location of its




purchaser.  Gas from Federal waters is 85% of the total natural gas pro-




duced in the Gulf of Mexico.  Fourteen percent of the Gulf production is




from Louisiana state waters and the majority of this production also is




from older wells under interstate contracts.  The Texas state waters pro-




duction is primarily dedicated to plants in Texas and is intrastate gas,




but it is only 0.3% of total offshore natural gas production.




     Because natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico is primarily interstate




gas, the economic impact analysis has focused on interstate gas prices




as controlled by the FPC.




                                   11-44

-------
                              TABLE  11-21
                     ESTIMATED NEW LONG-TERM CON TRACT
                      SALES ]>Y  LARGE PRODUCERS 1970-1973
                    OFFSHORE FEDERAL DOMAIN vs.  ALL AREAS
                                  (Million Mcf)*

Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
All Area1
Sales
302.6
453.7
47-1.3
330.3
Sales
Offshore2
73.3
207.7
279.4
221.1
Offshore
Percent ^
24.2
45.8
58.9
66.9
                                                            Sales        Onshore
                                                          Onshrce        Percent
                                                            229.3           75.8
                                                            246.0           54.2
                                                            194.9           41.1
                                                            109.2           33.1

  * Figures  derived  from  applications filed with the Commission for new  long-term
    sales certificates .
    FPC pricing areas  and California (Federal  domain)
    Federal  domain r.rc.is  offshore Louisiana, Texas and California.
SOURCE:   "The Oil and Gas Compact Bulletin",  December  1974
                                       11-45

-------
                                       TABLE  11-22
      1970
      1971
      1972
      1973
      1974 (1st half)
    Total U. S. Gas
  Exploratory Footage
     (million feet)

          3.7
          3.3
          4.6
          6.2
          3.8
     Offshore Gas
  Exploratory Footage
     (million feet)

          .26
          .41
          .14
          .17
          .08
    Offshore
  as Percentage
     of total

       7.0
      12.4
       3.0
       2.7
       2.1
      * All figures  taken from  the latest publication of "Gas Supply Indicators
        Office  of Economics,  issued October  25, 1974.
                                                            by the FPC
      Gas development footage shows the same pattern.  In 1971, offshore development footage was
8.8 percent of the national total.  This dropped to 7.8 percent 
-------
     Regulation of Natural Gas Producers

     In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Phillips Petroleum Co. versus

Wisconsin that the Federal Power Commission was responsible not only for the

regulation of the interstate pipeline companies but also for the regulation

of sales to those pipeline companies by natural gas producers in the field.

There had been up to this point a major controversy concerning the language

and intent of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 with respect to sales by producers.

When this Supreme Court decision was followed by an unsuccessful attempt to

exempt producers from regulation through Congressional legislation,

the  Federal Power Commission began to grapple with the problem of how to

actually carry out its charge.

     The first efforts involved attempts to determine for each producer his

costs of production, capital, etc. in order to apply the rather traditional

formula of rate of return regulation.  In this framework, the producer would

be allowed to charge a price for his gas which would cover his costs of pro-

duction (including depreciation) and grant a return on his capital which would

be sufficient for him to cover his "cost of capital."
 This summary is based on the history of FPC natural gas producer regulations
 as detailed in Breyer and MacAvoy, Energy Regulation by the Federal Power
 Commission, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1974.
                                   11-47

-------
     There were several very difficult problems in implementing this regu-




latory scheme.   For one, gas and oil are found together about 25% of the time,




but oil is not regulated.  Thus, there are joint costs of exploration and pro-




duction which can by no existent economic theory be unambiguously assigned to




gas as opposed to oil.  The same problem exists with allocating capital to gas




and oil.  Besides this, to determine an appropriate cost of capital, one might




look at the rates of return in comparable companies in comparable industries.




Unfortunately for the FPC, such comparable companies were not to be found.  The




final problem, however, was simply the enormity of the process.  From 1954 to




1960 the FPC completed only ten out of nearly 3,000 cases before them.  In 1960,




therefore, a new approach was decided upon — the area rate concept.  The FPC




divided the Southwest into five regions and determined to set prices on a 2 tier




system — one price for gas on old contracts and a higher price for gas on new




contracts.  The intent was to minimize windfall profits on already committed




gas while not unduly restricting future investment in gas exploration and




development.  Because the decisions in the area rate proceedings were still




years away, the FPC decided to  control prices during the interim through  a two-




sided policy:   (1) the  producers would be compelled to refund  to the pipeline




companies  (and ultimately the consumers) any revenues made in  excess of  those




which would have been made at the price yet to be determined by  the Commission;




and  (2)  new contracts  had to be approved by the FPC.  The effectiveness  of




these deterrents to price increases is exemplified by  the essentially constant




price of gas through  the  1960's while  the area rate proceedings were  going on.
                                   11-48

-------
The first area rate proceeding to be completed was the one for the Permian


Basin of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico.  Prices were set at 16.5C/MCF,


only slightly higher than the 1960 rate.  The initial decision of the Commission


in Southeast Louisiana was also issued in late 1968, but revisions, court cases,


and so forth dragged the "final" decision out to 1971.   This decision was note-


worthy in thafc the procedures of the FPC were again dropped and in their place


the FPC substituted its acceptance of a "settlement" between the producers,


distributors, and other customers at about 2&C/MCF  (new gas).

                        2
     MacAvoy and Breyer , as well as many other economists/critics of the FPC,


have detailed the flaws in the FPC price setting schemes.  For one thing, there


was an inherent bias in the cost estimates determined during the proceedings


because of the interim price ceilings.  Producers would not attempt to produce


gas which would cost more than they could charge for it.  The more risky ven-


tures were not attempted.  Thus, the interim prices  (at 1960 level) determined


producers' costs which determined final ceiling prices at little more than  the


1960 level.  The additional unexpected result was that the relative price of gas


to final consumers stayed so low during the  '60's that a great deal of demand


was generated which would have gone to oil or coal  had gas prices been allowed


to rise.  At the same time, the low price discouraged investment in exploration


and development so that well drilling and subsequent discoveries fell well  below


production until in the early 1970's production could not keep up with demand.
 46 FPC 86  Opinion 598.
2
 MacAvoy,  P. and  S. Breyer, ibid.
                                  11-49

-------
The clamor over curtailments and other elements of the energy crisis brought


pressure on the FPC to review again its ceiling price decisions.


     The FPC this time went one step further in simplifying its procedures:


it adopted in June 1974 a uniform national rate for wellhead prices on new


gas (produced after January 1, 1973).   The new prices set were 42C/MCF  (plus


taxes, royalties, etc. as applicable).  In addition, in a notice of proposed

           o
rulemaking , the FPC proposed that "small producers" would be allowed to


charge a price 50% higher than the larger producers, in order to  allow  them

to stay competitive with the larger  producers.





     Then  in December 1974, the uniform national rate was increased to 50£/

                                                                     3
MCF retroactive to June 21, 1974, subject to 1C/MCF annual increases .   This


increase   was primarily the result of  the FPC's decision to use the discounted


cash flow  (DCF) methodology for calculating producers' return on  investment,


a method they had  previously declined  to use.


     Before discussing  the  cost determinations which resulted in  the 42C/MCF


and then the 50C/MCF price  ceiling,  one comment is  in order.  If  it appears


that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness and instability in these


decisions, it is because  there is.   The FPC has been charged by the courts  to


set "just  and reasonable  rates", but it has also been allowed to  use whatever
1 FPC  Opinion 699,  21  June 1974.

2
  FPC  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  9 September 1974.


3 FPC  Opinion 699H,  4  December 1974.
                                  11-50

-------
methods it deems reasonable to do so.  No unambiguous "formula" has




been determined for this purpose.  The methods chosen, then, attempt




to determine actual costs within a "zone of reasonableness"  and to




base ceiling prices on this estimated range.  But because both the




costs to the producers and the methodology for combining these costs




have repeatedly changed, the rate structure has undergone several




major changes in the last ten years.






     Nationwide Costs of Finding and Producing Non-Associated Gas




     In Table 11-24 are displayed eight different estimates used by




the FPC in June 1974 for the costs of various factors involved in the




production of natural gas.  The only difference between the pairs




(c) and (d) and (e) and (f) is the assumed investment life  (9 and 10.5




years respectively).  Columns (g) and (h) are based on different




estimates of the expected productivity (in MCF/ft drilled) of future




drilling.  As will be seen below, this is by far the most important




variable in these cost determinations.
"""FPC Opinion 699.
                                  11-51

-------
                                                     TABLE  11-24
 Docket No. R-389-B
.me
 No.
 1.

 2.

 3.

 4.
 5.

 6.

 7.

 8.
 9.

10.

LI.
Lla.
12.

13.

14,
15.

16.

17.
           Cost Component
 Productivity Assumption (mcf/ft)

Successful Wells

Recorap. & Deeper Drilling

Lease Acquisitions

Other Production Facilities
    Subtotal

Dry Holes

Other Exploration

Exploration Overhead
    Subtotal

Operating Expense

Return @ 157. & 9 years
Return @ 157. & 10^5 years
Return on Working Capital

Net Liquid Credit

R'/Mlatory Expense
    Subtotal

Royalty @ 167.

Total (? 14.73 psia
ed Nationwide Cost of Finding
oducing Non-Associated Gas
(14.73 psia)
(Cents Per Mcf)
Update
Low
559
4.93
.20
3.32
1.11
'975S
3.27
2.27
.71
5725
3.10
12.77
1.00
(3.89)
.20
2F79~?
5.52
34.51
Update
W-
485
5.68
.20
3.83
1.28
10.99
3.77
2.62
.82
772T
3.10
14.70
1.14
(3.89)
.20
33.45
6.37
39.82
Revised
Update
Low
(e)
559
4.93
.20
3.32
1.11
9T56"
3.27
2.27
.71
572T
3.10
14.90
1.00
(3.89)
.20
3T7TI
5.93
37.05
Revised
Update
Hish
(£)
485
5.68
.20
3.83
1.28
10.99
3.77
2.62
.82
772T
3.10
17.15
1.14
(3.89)
.20
35.90
6.84
42.74
10 Year
Estimate
(8)
552
4.99
.20
3.36
1.13
9TF8"
3.32
2.30
.72
F73T
3.10
15.09
1.01
(3.89)
.20
31.33
6.01
37.54
4 Year
Estimate
(HI
336
8.20
.20
5.13
1.85
15.38
5.45
3.68
1.16
10.29
3.10
24.07
1.51
(3.89)
.20
50". 66
9.65
60.31
    SOURCE:  FPC  Opinion 699

-------
     Successful Wells Cost


     The successful wells cost was determined by taking the average cost of

drilling (in this case, the 1972 Joint Association Survey ; and dividing it

by the expected productivity of successful wells in MCF/ft drilled.  A great

deal of controversy was involved in determining the productivity, as it is

the single most important factor in determining total costs. Figure  II-2 presents

a history of the productivity from 1947 to 1972.  As can be seen, there is a

tremendous variance in this curve, though since the mid-60's the trend has

been steadily downward.  In the face of a great deal of conflicting evidence

presented by industry analysts, public utility associations, etc., the FPC

decided that a "zone of reasonableness" was between 485 and 559 MCF/ft drilled

for the productivity.  From this and the JAS figures, a successful wells cost

between 4.93 and 5.68C/MCF was decided upon.(See columns (e) and (f) of Table

 11-24.)  Pew differing opinions were expressed to the FPC

concerning  other costs involved in setting up production in successful wells

(items 2, 3, and 4).  Line 5 is a total of these costs (1-4).


     Dry Holes


     An allowance was made for exploration and drilling costs associated with un-

successful wells or "dry holes".  Factors which account for differences in the costs

of successful and unsuccessful wells,  their relative numbers,  etc.  were included in

the determination of lines 6,  7,  8,  and their total (line 9) in Table 11-24.
 Joint Association Survey of the U.S. Oil and Gas Producing Industry; API,
 IPAA, MCOGA; 1972.
                                  II-53

-------
                        FIGURE II- 2
      NON-ASSOCIATED GAS RESERVES  ADDITIONS PER  FOOT  DRILLED
             IN  WELLS PRODUCTIVE  OF GAS AND CONDENSATE
           UNITED STATES EXCLUDING ALASKA, 1947  -  1972
Mcf/f'
  800
  700
  600
   500
   400
   300
   200
           47 48  50   52   54   56   58  60   62   64
66  68   70  72
    SOURCE:   Federal Power Commission, Opinion 699
                                  11-54

-------
     Operating Expense





     Operating expense, an item not argued about by the respondents, was




determined to be 3.1C/MCF.






     Return on Investment





     Historically, several points of controversy have surrounded this item.




First, what is the base on which it is determined?  Producers have argued  that




their investment in exploration which results in dry holes should be counted




equally with their successful well costs in the determination of their rate




base.  The FPC in June 1974 disagreed, citing the "value to the public of  the




services they perform is measured by the quantity and character of the




natural gas they produce, and not by the resources they have expended in its




search ..."   In December 1974, however, the FPC decided to include a dry




hole cost in their new discounted cash flow (DCF) approach.




     The rate of return was set by the FPC as 15%, the upper end of the




"zone of reasonableness" of 12% to 15% they determined to be applicable for




natural gas producers.  The investment life was set to be 9 years based on an




18 year depletion time.  In addition, a lag period of 1.5 years was added  to




account for the time between lease acquisition and the commencement of actual




production.




     The total return in the June 1974 decision was then calculated by multi-




plying the production costs (line 5, Table 11-24) by the rate of return (15%)
  FPC versus Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 US 591, 649.
                                  11-55

-------
and the investment life (10.5 years) to get a range of 14.9 and 17.15C/MCF




(line lla).




     In addition to the factors discussed above, the unargued items in lines




12, 13, 14, and 16   were added to come up with a total (line 17) which ranged




between 37.05C and 42.74C/MCF.  The FPC,  in order to encourage exploration




and development investment, decided to set the price ceiling at the upper




edge of this range with a small (lc/year) escalation to account for future




cost increases.




     The one remaining point of contention concerned whether Federal income




taxes were an acceptable cost item.  The FPC took the stance that a blanket




nationwide figure would not be adequate for this item because "the complex




nature of the Federal tax laws negate any simple calculation of a Federal tax




liability and require consideration of the producer's tax returns in order to




consider the timing relationships between investment expenditure, the ex-




pensing  of intangible drilling costs, and jurisdictional sales."    The FPC




decided, therefore, not to include this item at all in its cost computations.




     In December 1974 the FPC revised its earlier methodology by using a dis-




counted cash flow approach.  This approach led to a range of between 48c and




52C/MCF for the "economic cost" of natural gas, including a 15% DCF rate of




return to the producer.  Thus, the value of 50C/MCF was decided upon with




       increments to be added yearly.
  FPC Opinion 699
                                   11-56

-------
     Some Conclusions

     The FPC is under considerable continuing pressure from economists,

industry spokesmen, and Congressional critics to revamp its price setting

policies to effect further deregulation of natural gas producers in order

to cope with the growing demand and slackening production of natural gas.

It well recognizes the decline in the late 60's and early 70's of explora-

tion and development activities brought about by an abnormally low relative

price for gas and is attempting to rectify the situation while yet carrying

out its Congressional and judicially affirmed mandate to keep price at a

"just and reasonable rate."  The trend in FPC regulation has definitely been

in the direction, however, of a  phased deregulation  over a number of years.

     In the cost determinations the FPC has made in the past, there has been a
concerted effort to account fairly for the costs that are actually incurred in

producing natural gas.  On the basis of previous FPC opinions in this regard,

it appears that additional costs due to equipment required by law would be

included by the FPC in line 4 (other production facilities), and would,

therefore, be passed on to the pipeline company (and to the ultimate consumer)

in the form of higher prices.  This opinion is supported by a conversation

with Lundy Wright, Chief of Producer and Pipeline Rights Division of the FPC  ,

who made it clear, however, that it was the Commissioners and not himself who

made such decisions.  Assistant General Counsel Robert W. Purdue of the FPC
            2
agreed also  , pointing out that under FPC Order No. 481 (18 CFR 2.76),
 1
  Personal conversation, 8 November 1974.
 2
  Personal conversation, 15 November 1974.
                                  11-57

-------
producers may file for relief from special costs such as this.  He gave




as a current example the case of the Sun Oil Company in the Hugoton field




in Oklahoma which has been granted price increases to account for the




added costs of reinjection wells drilled in compliance with Oklahoma




standards on salt water disposal.  He suggested that in many cases the




state regulations may be more stringent than what the EPA will propose.




Thus, he expressed confidence that the FPC would grant special allowances




on legitimate additional required equipment costs.




     The one question which remains is whether the FPC would continue




to grant relief to individual producers according to Order No. 481 or




whether they would adjust the nationwide ceiling prices to account for




these added costs.  In addition to these special allowances, the FPC has




recognized that the costs of small producers are often both higher and




more difficult to bear than those of the larger producers.  As stated




earlier, the FPC's intention is to allow small producers to charge a




50% higher rate for new contract gas.  It is true, therefore, that the




small producers are more protected against increasing costs due to new




required equipment than if they were limited by the 50c ceiling.  Whether




this will be sufficient without special relief via Order 481 will depend




on the individual case, though from a superficial view, it appears that




they would certainly be protected by both these factors.
                                  11-58

-------
     Figures II-3A, B, & C  show the histories of new contract production, new

field wildcat drillings,  and new contract price for offshore Louisiana gas.

One can clearly see that the price of gas remained essentially at or below

the 1960 level throughout the entire decade of the 60's.  During that time,

new field wildcats (and the resulting discoveries) peaked out and then fell

to two-thirds of their highest (1966) point.  New contract production rose

steadily until it peaked in 1968 and fell sharply in 1970 as reserves con-

tinued to decline and producers were forced to curtail previously contracted

sales to interstate pipeline companies.  As new contract price rose sharply

during the first years of the 70's, new contract production and new field

wildcats rose dramatically as well.    These graphs indicate that the price

level is an important factor in investment in exploration and production  of

natural gas in the 1970's.
  Unfortunately, these production increases on new contracts have not been
  sufficient to keep curtailments of production on older contracts  from
  occurring.  According to FPC News Release No. 20849, these curtailments
  amounted to over 218 billion cubic feet from September 73 to September 74
  and are expected to rise to 266 billion cubic feet between September 74
  and September 75.

-------
  RCF
  230
  260 .
  240
  220
  200
  180
  160
  140
  120
  100
   30 4
   60
   40
   20
 WELLS
 New Contract
   Production
                                                                            FIGURE 11-3 A
  360
  330
  300
  270
  240
  210
  180
  150
  120
   90
   60 4
   30
$/MCF
New Field Wildcats Drilled
                                                                               FIGURE II-3B
   18
                                  New Contract Gas Price
        1960  61
      SOURCE:  Foster Associates, Washington, D^C^and MIT Energy Lab, Cambridge, Mass.

-------
II.4.   FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS









4.1.  The Role of Financial Characteristics in the Economic Impact Analysis




     The oil and gas production industry has many unusual financial




characteristics reflective of the risks of the business,  its special tax




status, and its special cash flow patterns.  In examining the financial




characteristics as part of this economic impact analysis, three issues




are important:






     •  Are firms in the industry constrained in their access to the




        required capital for pollution control so they may be forced




        to close by the proposed effluent guidelines?





     •  What are the profitability levels and patterns in the industry




        and will they be changed by the pollution control requirements?





     •  What is the cost of capital for the industry?






     These issues are addressed in the following section.  In the earlier




characterization of firms in the industry, the predominance of the major




oil companies in offshore operations was noted.  The examination of the




financial characteristics of offshore operations thus primarily concerns




the impact of the capital costs of pollution control on capital budgets




of the major oil companies and the proper definition of the cost of




capital for these investments.
                                  11-61

-------
4.2.  Income Statements and Profitability




     The profitability of the oil and gas industry is a subject of heated




debate between the industry and its critics and within the Congress.




High profitability is argued by the industry to be necessary to




compensate for low profitability in earlier years and to generate funds




for finding and developing new reserves and building new processing facilities.




Price controls, proposed "windfall profits" taxes, and the recent end of




depletion allowances are expressions of widespread belief that the industry's




profits are or will be excessive.




     The Chase Manhattan Bank publishes a compilation of the financial reports




of 30 major oil and gas companies, including four foreign companies called the




Chase Group.  These firms account for 71% of total U.S. crude oil production




and 83% of Gulf DCS production.  Table 11-25 displays the total income state-




ments for the Chase Group from their worldwide operations for 1971, 1972, and




1973.  The Group's net income on revenues was 8.7%'in 1973,  6.5% in 1972, and




7.4% in 1971.  The portion of net earnings attributed to operations in the U.S.




were 35.4% in 1973, 53.4% in 1972, and 48% in 1971.





      The  interpretation  of  oil industry  profitability  has been particularly




controversial  because  of several  important tax privileges.   Provisions  such




as the  percentage depletion allowance, foreign tax credits,  and  the expensing




of intangible  drilling costs are  argued  to have led in the  past  to an under-




stating of  true  industry profitability.  The magnitude  of  these allowances are




discussed later.   But  in understanding the industry and the impact of added




costs of  operations  such as pollution control  costs, one must appreciate the




 industry's very  unusual  situation,  particularly regarding U.S. operations.   At




present,  the per barrel  revenues which a company receives for oil is largely
                                    11-62

-------
                                      TABLE_11-25
            INCOME STATEMENT OF CHASE GROUP FOR 1971, 1972, AND 1973

                                               1973          1972          1971
                                             ($ million)   ($ million)   ($ million)

Gross Operating Revenue                        130,948       104,159       95,104
Non-Operating Revenue                            2,961         2,119        2,756
  Total Revenue                                133,909       106,278       97,860
Operating Costs & Expenses               .       90,298        74,413       68,805
Taxes - Other than Income Taxes                  6,241         5,138        4,413
Write-Offs (incl. depreciation & depletion)      8,345         7,514        7,079
Interest Expenses                                2,008         1,774        1,597
Other Charges                                 	3_7_      	22^      	23
  Total Deductions                             106.929        88.861       81,917
Net Income before Income Taxes                  26,980        17,417       15,943
Estimated Income Taxes                          14,889        10,301        8,409
Income Applicable to Minority Interests       	413      	256          265
  Net Income (a)                                11,678  (b)     6,860        7,269
(a)  Includes earnings from operations outside U.S.: 1973-$7,544 million;
     1972-$3,204 million; 1971-$3,779 million.
(b)  Excludes $84 million of extraordinary gains primarily from the sale
     of assets.
SOURCE:  "Financial Analysis of a Group of Petroleum Companies, 1972 and 1973,"
         The Chase Manhattan Bank
                                       11-63

-------
unrelated to either the cost of producing the oil or the demand for oil.




"Old" U.S. oil is price controlled at $5.25 per barrel and "new", uncon-




trolled oil is floating above the OPEC established world price because




of U.S. tariffs on imported oil.  If old oil were decontrolled, as has




been proposed, its price would rise to the world level or above as well.




While there is a wide variation in the cost of producing oil, in fact




most current U.S. production has been operating at cost levels low enough




to make $5.25 prices profitable.  Further price rises will make produc-




tion economical in higher cost wells, but it will also mean substantial




increases in profits for most wells now producing at $5.25 prices, about




60% of U.S. production.  The level of profitability actually experienced




by the industry will be determined to a significant degree by Federal tax




policies.  The issue with which the Congress, FEA, the Treasury Department




and the industry have been contending is what profit level is needed to




provide a fair return on the industry's investment and thereby provide a




necessary incentive for expanding domestic production.  After that pro-




fitability level is determined, if it can be, profits will probably be




fixed by controlling prices and/or the additional profits will be taxed




away.  The central point is that profitability for the industry, parti-




cularly the larger companies, will be determined more by Federal tax and




pricing policies than the economics of production.  Until the specific




policies and regulations are established, there will be a considerable




uncertainty (perceived risk) on the part of the companies and investors




as to the industry's future.
                                  11-64

-------
     The currently existing tax laws have encouraged the oil companies to




spend funds generated by current operations on exploration and development of




new wells.  Most of these expenditures can be charged against revenues rather




than capitalized.  The level of spending is such that U.S. tax liabilities




will be very small or zero.  In addition, the after tax profit on net worth




has been kept generally in line with other  industries,  so  the industry




will continue to have access to equity markets.  Figure II-4  shows  the return




on net worth of the petroleum industry and other manufacturing industries over




the last 13 years.




     Table  11-26  lists a  compilation of  net income after  tax and  the  rate of




return on equity for 22 U.S. oil companies for the years 1963 through 1973.




Table  11-27  lists  the  rates of  return by various measures  for the Chase  Group  for




1971, 1972, and 1973.




     A survey was  conducted of  the net incomes and cash flow of the signifi-




cant offshore producers.  Table  11-28 displays these values  for 1973.




     The concept of oil industry profitability being set by  government tax




policy is reflected in the windfall profits tax proposals  by former President




Nixon and President Ford.  In testimony by former Secretary of the Treasury,




George Shultz, on  February 4, 1974, before the House Ways  and Means Committee,




the rationale advanced for a windfall profits  tax was that the $9.50 per  barrel




price of U.S. new  oil  (at that  time) was substantially in  excess of the  price




necessary to satisfactorily increase U.S. oil production.
                                   11-65

-------
         18

         16

         14

         12

         10

         8
                                           FIGURE 11-4
                                  AFTER TAX RETURN ON NET WORTH

                  PETROLEUM VS. OTHER MANUFACTURING COMPANIES - 1960 TO 1970
                                            (Percentages)
                                                            18

                                                            16

                                                            14

                                                            12

                                                            10

                                                            8
                I
                      OTHER MANUFACTURING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
         1960  '61   '62    '63   '64   '65   '66   '67   '68    '69    '70    '71    '72    '73
SOURCE;   "Energy Memo," January 1975,  First National  City  Bank, NY

-------
                                                       TABLE 11-26
Net income after tax and the rate of return on equity of 22 U.S. oil companies (1963-73)

Company
Amerada Hesst
Ashl.md
•Atlantic Richfield
'Cities Service
Clark . .
-Continental , . .
•Exxon Corp 	
Getty 	
•Guilt .. .
'•Kerr-McCeet 	
Marathon ....
•Mobil 	
r/urphy 	
Phillips 	
»Shell 	
SVelly
• Standard of Calif.
••Standard (InrJ) . ,
S'inrJard '(Ohio) . .
•Sun
oTeraco
•Union of Calif. .
Totals
M.ijiir.y as of Sept
Source: Compiled
F.xchnnge

, 	 1973 	 «
Net %
income return*
. 1518 235
933 173
. . 270 2 89
.. 1356 98
30 5 29 9
2427 140
.. 2,4400 185
.. 1350 88
.. 7600 140
58 8 108
. 1294 152
, . 8428 157
536 244
. .. 2304 121
3327 109
440 75
8-136 !44
... 5!!2 124
74 1 66
2300 123
. ,. 1,2924 250
.. 1802 106
9,087.3 15.1

	 	 1372 	 , , 	 1971 	 , , 	 1970 	 ,
Net Net Net
income % Income % income %
462 8.3 1333 240 114.0 25.7
680 135 405 88 520 11.7
1925 65 210.5 7.3 209.5. 7.5
991 69 1045 7.7 1186 89
83 98 36 4.7 108 140
1702 104 1401 9.1 1603 10.7
1,5318 125 1,5166 131 1,3095 120
761 52 1201 8.5 1032 7.8
4470 8.3 551.0 102 5500 104
506 101 407 108 35.9 103
798 102 887 117 865 118
5742 109 5408 109 482.7 10.4
143 76 11.1 62 93 65
1484 81 1323 76 132.3 7.8
2605 89 244.5 87 2372 86
376 68 383 70 36.1 7.0
547.1 105 511 1 104 4548 98
3747 100 3406 9.6 3140 93
597 5.6 588 57 644 63
1547 88 151.6 89 1391 84
8890 12.4 9039 134 8220 13.1
1219 76 1147 7.4 114.5 7.6
5,951.7 9.7 6.0073 102 5.556.7 104

. 	 1969
Net
income
865
569
2301
1272
130
1464
1,24? 6
1058
6106
336
894
45G5
62
1278
291 2
384
4538
3210
5! 9
1523
7698
1389
5.5-19 9
. 30, 1971 tlnill ycnrs income estimated on llic tmis of income reported for
by Office of Tax Analysis, Department of Treasury, from Stand ml and 1
Commission (io Q Porms^ cited in Windfall or Excess

	 	
237
133
8.5
100
187
98
123
83
121
103
12 1
104
4.5
7.7
109
77
103
100
53
94
131
9.5
10.9

, 	 1963 	 ,
Ne!
income %
898 198
536 146
1058 78
1213 99
12.1 204
1500 106
1,2767 130
983 83
6266 132
354 120
833 127
430.7 10.3
73 54
1299 80
312.1 123
403 8.5
4518 107
3095 101
701 130
164.4 10.9
8196 145
1498 109
5.5394 11.8

	 	 1967 	 ,
Net
income %
768 222
484 155
1300 10.2
1278 109
115 234
136.1 10.1
1,1550 123
1182 10.5
5G83 12.9
321 115
739 123
385 4 98
82 62
1640 11.0
284.9 13.8
420 93
4094 103
280 9 96
671 145
1562 152
7544 148
1450 11.2
5.1756 12.0
i"
/ — 1966— r- Ne(
. Net , income
inrrjmc % ' 	 	
— ^n~rrri w
/ J J tt. O I ?c O
450 176 i5?
1135 9.4 SU'
1201 110 10°6
9.6 24'.2> qjU
1156 103 p
1,090, HI,'-0?,}
923 9.0 I',?,?
5018 12.3 ^
330 12.9; H\
Do 8 1 L O H o^n i
356 1 9.5 IV •"" '
81 7.6 I." ,2J}
1334 10 3 \. i^n
2552 13.4 1
370 88fr -jnlo
4012 10.8 fir 2 19 3
2559 9.1 j' "JJ
569 13 3 i HI
100 6 108: ,°^
61? 1 15 Oj ,,5 o
13-12 ll.Z .
i


%
222
155
81
10.2
278
119
146
11.3
9.1
6 1
88
12.7
101
Ihc fir'l 9 inonllis of 1973.
. , . , _ 	 .quarterly financial
'ours s Iiiiiiislri.il .Survey, Moody s Industrial Manual,
Profits Tax, Committee on Ways and Means,
_..
, 	 1964 	 ,
Ne!
income %
594 230
237 140
471 73
84 5 91
2.1 89
1001 111
1,0505 126
430 56
3951 1!0
20 1 147
694 11 g
2942 88
43 49
1150 93
1982 123
257 71
3453 105
194.9 75
438 120
68 5 88
5774 146
92.9 14 7
3,846.9 108
St.ilCincnU dlcil

, 	 1953
Net
income
524
18!
4-1.0
775
15
87.4
1,0195
-130
3714
1SS
49 1
2719
48
1031
1759
242
3?? !
183 1
33.9
6! 2
5'!/6
552
3.5797

o/
22 ;
il 1
70
86
66
10.5
123
6 !
153
102
8S
57
89
120
70
105
73
1! 1
8 1
99
11.0
wiili the Sccmiiy
     U.S. House of Representatives, 1974.
   Leading offshore producers accounting for 90.6% of total oil production in  the  Gulf of Mexico.

-------
                                       TABLE 11-27
                  RATES OF RETURN FOR CHASE GROUP: 1971, 1972, 1973

                                                  1973           1972          1971
                                                 ($ million)    ($ million)   ($ million

1) Average Borrowed & Invested Capital  (a)       101,010       94,912         89,912
   Earnings  (b)                                   14,099         8,889         9,086
     Return                                        14.0%         9.4%         10.I?
2) Average Invested Capital  (c)                   75,546       71,730         67,849
   Earnings  (d)                                   11,678         6,860         7,269
     Return                                        15.8%         9.7%         10.7%
3) Average Total Assets                          141,297       128,552        119,962
   Earnings  (e)                                   12,091         7,116         7,534
     Return                                         8.6%         5.5%           6.3%
4) Average Gross Fixed Assets                    139,649       132,545        126,109
   Gross Operating Profit  (f)                     34,409       24,608         21,885
     Return                                        24.6%         18.6%         17.4%
   (a)  Includes long-term debt, preferred  stock, common  stock,  surplus  and  equity  of
       minority interests.
   (b)  Represents net income plus interest charges  and income applicable  to minority
       interests.
   (c)  Includes preferred stock, common stock and surplus.
   (d)  Represents net income.
   (e)  Represents net income plus income applicable to minority interests.
   (f)  Represents gross operating revenue  less operating costs  and  expenses and
       taxes - other than income taxes.
   SOURCE;  "Financial Analysis of a Group of Petroleum Companies,  1972,  1973,"
            Chase Manhattan Bank
                                           11-68

-------
                                                 TABLE  11-28
Shell Oil Co.
Continental
Exxon Co.
Chevron  (subsidiary  of  SOCAL)3
Gulf Oil Corp.
Arco
Union Oil of Calif.
Texaco Inc.
Placid Oil Co.  (1972)
Kerr-McGee
ODECO^
Mobil Oil Corp.
Pennzoil
Signal (subsidiary of Burmah)
Tenneco
Amoco (subsidiary of Standard of
Forest
Southern Natural Gas
Citgo
Sun Oil
Superior
1973 FINANCIAL FIGURES FOR OFFSHORE PRODUCERS1
(millions of


Assets
6,836
3,690
25,079
8,650
10,074
5,964
2,909
14,761
162
867
284
10,690
2,001
227.2
5,230
Indiana)6 7,018
291
891
2,659
3,690
660
dollars)


Revenues
4,884
4,510
28,508
7,762
10,007
3,983
2,962
11,835
70
728
89
12,756
1,062
277.1
3,910
6,468
33
453
2,034.6
2,286
173


Net
Income
333
243
2,443
844
800
270
180
1,292
15(approx
63
19
849
84
13.5
230
511
-.037
54
146.9
230
34

Depletion
Plus
Depreciation
442
230
1,136
406
610
256
269
551
. ) NA
54
16
493
103
-4.72
223
448
16
40
114.2
228
30
   Cash Flow
from Depr + Depl
  -1- Not Income
      775
      473
    3,579
    1,250
    1,410
      526
      449
    1,843
       NA
      117
       35
      I-* / 'i
     , J'-ii.
      137
        8.8
      453
      959
       16
       94
      261.1
      458
       64
 1.  Listed  in  descending  order  of offshore production  (bbl/day)
 2.  Includes intangible development expense.
 3.  Chevron Oil  (which conducts offshore production) is owned by Standard Oil of Calif, which  are  presented  here.
 4.  Primarily  offshore contract drilling company, owned 51% by Murphy Oil; its offshore production for  its own
    account resulted  in revenues of $15.2 million and a net loss before extraordinary  income and income taxes
    of  $5.6 million.
 5.  Tot^l operations; Tenneco's oil operations accounted for 17% of operating revenues +  32% of income  before  taxes.
 6.  Figures are  for Standard Oil of Indiana which owns Amoco.
 Source:   Annual  reports;  Dun &  Bradstreet; phone conversations with oil companies.

-------
     Secretary Shultz's reasoning was that $7 per barrel of  oil provides

sufficient profits to oil companies both to return an adequate profit on

current investments and to encourage and allow investments in new pro-

duction sufficient to substantially reduce U.S.  dependence on imported

oil.

     An analysis of President Ford's proposed windfall tax on crude

prices by Plants Oilgram (January 20, 1975) concluded that the tax com-

bined with deregulation of old oil prices would iucie^se the average

price of domestic oil from $6.97 to $7.86 per barrel,    .e rationale

behind this price level was that "original government calculations

reportedly showed a real oil price of between $7-8/bbl which provides

all the incentives needed at this time for production and development

activities, including enhanced recovery projects."

     The conclusion one should draw from this is that the U.S. Government

is attempting to decide what is the "correct" level of profits for the

oil industry and attempting to write its tax laws so as to bring about

this level of profits.  The objective seems to be to keep profits high,

perhaps higher than in 1973 but not let them get "too high."

     For the major companies and for the industry as a whole, profita-

bility should continue to be strong for the next few years.   It is possible

that market conditions or government actions could change the picture,

but changes in these areas will probably not affect profitability in the

short run sufficiently for pollution control costs to be of significance

to overall production.  The greatest potential danger from changes in the

current tax structure and the pollution control requirements is that

investments in future production will be curtailed.
  "Windfall" or Excess Profits Tax,  U.S.  House Committee on Ways and Means,
  1974,  p.  135.

                                 11-70

-------
4.3.  Capital Requirements





     The oil and gas industry will  have  to make  investments  in new  exploration,




development, and production well in excess of historic yearly levels in order




to accelerate domestic production.  These higher levels of capital expenditures




raise the question of whether the industry will have access to the financing




necessary to achieve the goals of increased domestic production.   This issue




was examined by the FEA and Arthur D. Little, Inc., in the Project Indepen-




dence Report.  As part of an analysis of the economic impact on the industry




of the proposed effluent limitation guidelines, one must consider whether the




added capital required for pollution control is of sufficient magnitude to




approach     capital availability limitations for the industry as a whole or




for individual firms.




     The FEA's analysis of the financial availability issue for the energy




industries covered two main points,  among others. Since World War II, 20 to




25 percent of total yearly business fixed investments have gone to the energy




sectors.  If the same percentage continued over the 11 year period 1975 to 1985,




between $379 and $474 billion (in 1973 dollars) would be available for invest-




ment in the energy industries.  FEA's estimate of the total investment required




under an "Accelerated Supply" scenario was $454 billion, including investments




in projects to come on line after 1985.  The breakdown of investments by




industry is shown in Table  11-29- This estimate did not include  outlays in the




petroleum industry which are expensed for tax purposes such as intangible




drilling and exploratory overhead costs nor did  it  include  lease  bonuses.




 They would amount  to about $107.4 billion, according  to  FEA.   For an energy
                                  11-71

-------
                                TABLE  11-29
       Comparison of Capital  Requirements  Estimates  :   Total  Dollars
                           Cumulative 1975 -  1985
                         (Billions of 1973 Dollars)
                                                  FEA
                                               Accelerated
                                             Supply(Without
                      NPC     NAE    ADL    Work in  Progress)
                                     ADL
                                     M
Oil and Gas           133
(including refining)
Coal                    8
Synthetic Fuels        10
Nuclear                 7
Electric Power Plants 137
(excluding nuclear)
Electric Transmission  42
Transportation         43
Other (f)
     Total            380
                              149

                               18
                               19
                               93
                               53

                              125
                              457
122

  6
  6
 84
 43

 90
 43
  8
396
                                                  (d)
 80.3
 10.6
   .6
105.3
 50.5

 92.1
 25.5(e)
  2.2
367
    FEA
Accelerated
  Supply

    98.4

    11.9
       .6
   138.5
    60.3

   116.2
    25.5(e)
     2.2
   454
(a)U.S.  Energy Outlook, a summary report of the National  Petroleum Council,
Washington, D.C., December 1972 (Average of four supply cases)
(b)  U.S.  Energy Prospects, An Engineering Viewpoint,  National  Academy of
Engineering, Washington, D.C., 1974
(c)  Arthur D.  Little estimates based upon an energy conservation scenario
(d)  Assumes that imported oil price is $ll/8_.   This column is  considered
roughly comparable to the NPC, NAE, and ADL estimates  with  the  exception of
oil and gas capital.  The FEA estimates for oil, gas and refining do not
include lease bonus payments, and outlays that are expensed for tax purposes
(dry hole, intangible  drilling and exploratory overhead costs);  in order
to make the FEA oil and gas figures comparable to the other estimates,
$107.4 billion should be added to the FEA oil and gas  estimates.   Work in
progress consists of investment spending made prior to 1985 for new plant
and equipment which will not come on line until after 1985
(e)  Does not include investments required for tanker fleets, but does include
$5.5 billion targeted for Trans-Alaska oil pipeline
(f)  Solar, Geothermal, Municipal Waste Treatment Plants, and Shale Oil
SOURCE:   Project Independence  Report, p. 282, FEA,  November 1974
                                  11-72

-------
conservation scenario, the total capital requirements were estimated to




be $396 billion, including expensable outlays.  The conclusion was




drawn by the report that, as a whole, the energy industries would have




access to adequate capital, assuming a simple continuation of their




past share of investment funds.




     For the oil and gas industry, including refining, FEA estimated




that $98 billion would be required over the 11 year period for the




Accelerated Supply case.  Table 11-30 shows these estimates plus the




expensed items.  FEA believes this level of investment can be entirely




financed from internal funds with additional funds available for pro-




jects outside the oil and gas industry.




     This conclusion is disputed by many inside and outside the oil




industry.  One of the major exceptions that is made to the FEA analysis




is the treatment of lease bonuses.  In Table 11-29, FEA has not included




$34.1 billion that FEA expected to be paid for lease bonuses from 1975




to 1985.  Moreover, this value is probably too low since payments in




1974 were $5.0 billion and are projected by the Oil and Gas Journal to




be $5.5 billion in 1975 (February 1975).
                                   11-73

-------
                               TABLE 11-30
            Estimates of Petroleum Industry Capital  Requirements
                         (Billions of 1973 Dollars)
                                1975 to 1985

                                                                    FEA
                                        FEA                     Accelerated
                                     Accelerated                Supply
                                     Supply                     Adjusted
                                     Without Work-              for Work-
                                     in-Progress                in-Progress

Oil & Gas  (1)                           80.3                       98.4
Oil & Gas Capital
  Outlays That
  Are Expensed   (2)                      73.3                       73.3
Transportation:
  Oil & Product
  Pipelines                             11.9                       11.9
Gas Transmission                          5.5                        5.5
Lease Bonus Payments                     34.1                       34.1

     TOTAL                             $205.1                     $223.2
TTJIncludes:  Oil, Natural Gas, and Refinery Output Numbers.
(2)   Includes:  Dry hole, intangible drilling, and exploratory overhead costs.
SOURCE;  Project  Independence Report,  p.  290, FEA, November 1974
                                    11-74

-------
     If the $34.1 billion lease bonus payments of Table 11-30 are added




into the total capital requirements in Table 11-29,  the FEA Accelerated




Supply estimate rises to $488.1 billion.  Geological and geophysical




expenses can add another $5 to $8 billion in capital requirements over




the period.  The $493-496 billion is beyond the range of $379-474 billion




which FEA estimated would be available from traditional financing patterns




for the energy industries.




     A definitive analysis of capital requirements or capital availability




for the oil and gas industry is beyond the scope of this study.   For the




purposes of this analysis, one should note FEA's conclusion, but it




should be used with caution.




     The Chase analysis of 30 major oil companies cited earlier compiled




the sources and uses of funds by the companies.  Table 11-31 lists the




sources of cash earnings for 1973.  Thirty-nine percent of the cash flow




is from various capital recovery mechanisms such as depreciation and




depletion.  Table 11-32 lists all of the sources of capital and their




disposition for the year.  The effective end of depletion allowances




for the large oil and gas companies has reportedly had a major impact on




cash generation for the companies.  Industry-wide data, such as for the




Chase Group, is not yet available for the first quarter of 1975; however,




reports by individual firms have identified the end of the depletion




allowance as having a major effect on cash generation.
                                  11-75

-------
                              TABLE 11-31
                 CASH FLOW OF CHASE GROUP  FOR 1973
                                             $ millions
Net income

Write-offs (incl.  depreciation
            and depletion;

Other non-cash charges (net)
11,678     (55%)

 8,345     (39%)


 1,207      (6%)
   Total Cash  Flow
21,230    (100%)
SOURCE:  "Financial Analysis of a Group of Petroleum Companies, 1973",
         The Chase Manhattan Bank
                                    11-76

-------
                              TABLE 11-32

           SOURCE AND USE OF CAPITAL FOR CHASE GROUP IN 1973

                                             $ million        (%)
Funds Available From:
  Cash flow                                   21,230         (73.4)
  Long-term debt issued                        4,381         (15.2)
  Preferred and common stock issued              432          (1-5)
  Sales of assets and other transactions       2,867          (9.9)
    Total                                     28,910        (100.0)

Funds Used For:
  Capital expenditures                        14,637         (50.6)
  Investments and advances                       382          (1.3)
  Dividends to company shareholders            3,965         (13.7)
  Dividends to minority interests                157          (0.6)
  Long-term debt repaid                        3,698         (12.8)
  Preferred and common stock retired         	570          (2.0)
    Total                                     23,409         (81.0)

Change in Working Capital                      5,501         (19.0)
SOURCE:  "Financial Analysis of a Group of Petroleum Companies, 1973",
         The Chase Manhattan Bank
                                 11-77

-------
     Looking ahead to the next ten years, one sees conflicting currents.




Higher crude and natural gas prices have allowed large increases in




profits per barrel.  On the other hand, the high prices will dampen




demand and also raise public concern about excess oil company profits.




One must also consider that 1973 and 1974 saw foreign operations gene-




rating the largest earnings.  This, combined with price controls and




excess profits taxes in the U.S., may discourage investment in U.S.




operations rather than even a continuation of historic patterns.




     As has now been said several times, it is very difficult to project




profitability or capital expenditures patterns for the industry over an




extended period of time, given the economic and political uncertainties




of the next few years.  While it is probably inaccurate to simply pro-




ject trends from the last ten years into the next ten, it is equally




wrong to extrapolate the trends of the last year or two which saw the




devaluation of -the dollar and large inventory profits.  The Oil and Gas




Journal collects capital expenditure statistics each year from 150 firms




which are then proportionately projected to the whole industry on the




basis of the companies' portion of total industry crude production.




Table 11-33 lists the results for 1972, 1973, and 1974 plus a projection




for 1975.  The Journal does not make a clear distinction between




expenditures which companies capitalize and those they do not.  The




drilling and exploration expenditures probably include significant funds




which are normally expensed by the companies.
                                  11-78

-------
                                   TABLE 11-33
ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND
EXPLORATION
EXPENDITURES
OF U.S. OIL
INDUSTRY
(1972-1975)

Exploration and Production
Drilling and Exploration
Production
OCS lease bonus
Total
Other Expenditures
Refining
Petrochemicals
Marketing
Natural Gas Pipelines
Crude Products Pipelines
Other Transportation
Miscellaneous
Total
1975
(budgeted)
($ million)
8,034.0
2,104.1
5,500.0
15,138.1
3,127.8
1,643.1
1,106.0
988.0
2,318.0
240.4
1,684.0
11,106.9
1974
(estimated)
($ million)
7,657.0
2,005.5
5,024.0
14,686.5
1,974.7
816.3
780.7
541.0
1,096.0
148.7
1,073.3
6,430.7
1973
($ million)
6,660.8
1,734.8
3,082.0
11,477.6
1,103.8
269.1
914.5
600.0
150.0
152.9
646.9
3,837.2
1972
($ million)
5,717.6
942.4
2,258.8
8,918.8
946.6
300.6
1,148.9
578.0
94.0
175.0
570.0
3,813.1
Total Expenditures
26,245.4
21,117.2    15,314.8
12,731.9
SOURCE:   Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 3, 1975
                                       11-79

-------
     As a comparison, Chase publishes a survey entitled "Capital




Investments of the World Petroleum Industry" each year.  The most




recent year covered is 1973.  Table 11-34 lists the capital expen-




ditures for the U.S. and for the world for 1962 through 1973.




Table 11-35 is a breakdown of exploration and development expen-




ditures in the U.S. for 1972 and 1973.




     Chase lists in Table 11-34  the sum from Table II-35 of expen-




ditures for lease acquisition, producing wells, and dry holes.  The




remaining items were not counted as being capitalized.  This pattern




may not always hold true, particularly for dry holes and geological




and geophysical expenses.




     The estimates of expenditures by the Journal and by Chase are




significantly different for the exploration and production categories.




However, they give general guidance as to the level of expenditures




one should use as a point of comparison with the pollution control




capital expenditures.  Table 11-36 lists the general comparison values




which can be used in the impact analysis.




     There are three points one should conclude from this discussion




of oil industry financial resources:






     •  The profitability of the oil industry, its tax liability, and




        its ability to finance itself are critically dependent on




        government policy and actions.  Powerful political groups




        are keenly interested in changing government policies to make




        the industry more or less profitable.  These influences are
                                11-80

-------
                                                                TABLE  II- 34

                                            ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND EXPLORATION EXPENDITURES
                                                                  1967
                                                     1968
                                                                                       1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
 I
oo
 WORLD
 Crude Oil and Natural Gas
 Natural  Gas Liquids Plants
 Pipe Lines.
 Tankers
 Refineries
 Chemical Plants
 Marketing ....
 Other
   Total Capital Expenditures
   Geological & Geophysical
    Expense & Lease Rentals .
   COMB/NED

 UNITED STATES
 Crude Oil and Natural Gas
 Natural Gas Liquids Plants.
 Pipe Lines
 Tjnkers
 Refineries
Chemical Plants
Marketing	
Other   ...   .        '  '
   Total Capita/ Expenditures
   Geological & Geophysical
   Expense & Lease Rentals .
  COMBINED
Million Dollars
5,595
405
860
1,255
2,585
1,565
2,705
605
15,575
1,190
16,765
3,750
275
360
40
775
825
1,250
375
7,650
615
8,265
6,875
585
1,080
1,650
2,950
1,480
2,665
615
17,900
1,330
19,230
4,675
250
425
50
800
650
1,150
350
8,350
715
9,065
7,075
465
910
2,050
3,210
1,310
2,805
550
13,375
1,380
19,755
4,525
225
300
100
950
575
1,250
250
8,175
725
8,900
6,650
580
850
2,575
4,000
1,525
3,220
725
20,125
1,340
21,465
4,1 10
225
450
100
1,075
550
1,450
265
8,225
665
8,890
6,520
695
1,200
2,875
4,755
1,535
3,380
840
21,800
1 ,395
23,195
3,185
200
550
125
1,050
500
1,350
290
7,250
715
7,965
9, 590
515
1,230
3,775
4,955
1,350
2,825
710
24,950
1,540
26,490
5,740
1/5
300
125
900
450
1,100
260
9,050
740
9,790
12,415
510
1,230
6,550
4,865
1,175
2,480
770
29,995
1,700
31,695
7,290
150
450
100
1,050
425
850
325
10,640
850
1 1 ,490
                      SOURCE:
         "Capital  Investments of  the World  Petroleum  Industry,  1973," Chase Manhattan Bank

-------
                          TABLE 11-35


          EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES

          	IN THE U.S.: 1972 AND 1973
                             1973              1972
                           ($ million)       ($ million)
Expenditure
Lease acquisition

   Onshore                   500               200

   Offshore                3,100             2,275

Producing wells            2,705             2,330

Dry holes                    985               935

Geological and geophysical
   expense                   675               575

Lease rentals                175               165


   Total                   8,140             6,480
SOURCE;  "Capital Investments in the World Petroleum
         Industry, 1973", Chase Manhattan Bank
                            11-82

-------
                      TABLE 11-36

          TYPICAL YEARLY CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

      OF SEGMENTS OF THE OIL INDUSTRY IN THE U.S.
Offshore Oil and Gas Production       $6-$7 billion per year
Onshore Oil and Gas Production
 $3-$4 billion per year
Other Capital Expenditures
(refineries, pipelines,
marketing, etc.)
 $6-$7 billion per year
     Total
$14-$18 billion per year
SOURCE:  Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                            11-83

-------
        far more important to the overall profitability and access to




        capital of the industry than the proposed pollution control




        standards.






     •  While FEA has said that the industry can reasonably be expected




        to finance itself, knowledgeable people have questioned the




        conclusion, and it should be used here with caution.






     •  Over the period 1977-1983, the oil and gas industry will make




        capital investments of approximately $6-$7 billion per year on




        the exploration, development, and production of offshore oil




        and gas.  Total industry capital investment during the period




        will be about $14-$18 billion per year.






4.4.  Capital Structure




     The petroleum industry has historically depended primarily on




internally generated funds rather than borrowed capital.  Table 11-37




is the balance sheet for the Chase Group for 1971, 1972, and 1973.




Long-term debt plus deferred credits and minority interests makes up




22%-23% of total capitalization for the three years and is about 40% of




the value of equity.  The portion of total capitalization which is longer-




term debt has been gradually rising since 1964, when it was about 13%.




Although long-term  lease arrangements and production payments do not




appear on the balance sheet, they are sources of additional capital.




If they were regarded as debt, the Group's debt in relation to capital




employed would have been 33% in 1973 and 22% in 1964.  Table 11-38 lists
                                  11-84

-------
                                                        TABLE II- 37
oo
(M
Assets
Current Assets
Investments and Advances
Property, Plant and Equipment (a)
Other Assets
  Total Assets
Liabilities and Net Worth
Current Liabilities
Long-Term Debt
Deferred Credits
Other Reserves
Minority Interests
Net Worth:
     Preferred Stock
     Common Stock
     Capital Surplus
     Earnings Reinvested in Business
        Shareholders'  Equity
     Total Liabilities and Net Worth
? CHASE GROUP, 1973, 1972, 1971
12/31/73

($ million)
56,149
10,386
79,613
4,268
150,416
36,502
22,727
5,711
2,821
3,274
315
10,455
8,597 -
60,014
79,381
150,416
37.3%
6.9
52.9
2.9
100.0
24.2
15.1
3.8
1.9
2.2
0.2
7.0
5.7
39.9
52.8
100.0
12/31/72

($ million)
42,686
10,266
75,097
4,134
132,183
28,540
21,858
4,587
2,411
3,031
404
10,511
9,061
51,780
71,756
1J2,183
32.3%
7.8
56.8
3.1
100.0
21.6
16.5
3.5
1.8
2.3
0.3
7.9
6.9
39.2
54.3
100.0
12/31/71

($ million)
39,586
9,900
71,740
3,673
124,899
25,656
20,523
3,804
2,078
2,941
429
10,530
8,800
50,138
69,897
124,899
31.7%
7.9
57.4
3.0
100.0
20.5
16.4
3.0
1.7
2.4
0.3
8.4
7.1
40.2
56.0
100.0
           (a) After deducting accumulated reserves of $64,060 million in 1973, $60,530 million in 1972,
               and $58,562 million in 1971.
           SOURCE:   "Financial Analysis of a Group of Petroleum Companies, 1973, 1972",
                      The Chase Manhattan Bank

-------
                           TABT1' 11-38

             PETROLEUM INDUSTRY CAPITALIZATION,  1972
                                         CAPITAL STRUCTURE
                                    I)ebt     Equity  0' her L

        Penn zo i 1 - Co .                55.6%    35,7 %     8 . 77.
        Apco Oil Corp.              44.0      54,9      1.1
        Amerada- Hess  Corp.          44.1      55.2       .7
        Ashland Oil,  Inc.            :-'. 1      53.4     10.5
        Atlantic Richfield Co.        . />      77,3      1.3
        Bel co Petroleum Corp.      40,, !      59.7
        British Petroleum  Co.      37 .       ^9.8      .\1
        Cities Service              27.9       ':: . 3      2.8
        Clark Oil  and Refining     34.7      •    0      4.3
        C otnmo awe a 1 1 h  0 i L           44.2      4 -.        9,0
        Covirinent-al Oil            28.6      0'   '      4.7
        Fxxon Cory.                 17.0      }"   ..      3,4
        Gen. Am. Oil  of: Texas         .5      99.'"
        G.- l:ty Oi 1  Co .                6,3      8«» . .-     • >. 2
         " f'

          Corp.               25.5
CM If Oil  C mad a             18.7
Holmerich and Payne         48,0
Impcri.riL  Oil, Ltd,          !4»b
                                              5'
        L'-uis- 'n,:>  land and Ex p. I.    '30,5     o'  j
        Marathon Oil Co,            ?8,8      '  . 1":
        M o s a  I • e t r o 1 e LHP              c, 8,5     41. i       . 4
»       Mob i 1 0 i 1  Cor p „              16,8     7 9 .9      3.3
        Mv::plv/03l Corp,            '» 3 . Q     42.1     22,9
        0 c c- i d cntal Pe t r o 1 euro        5 4 . 0     4 4 „ 7      1 , 3
        Pacific Petroleums Ltd.     32,4     (•,;.
 *       Phillips  Petroleum Co,      iN » o     6o,v/      2,4
        Quak o r S t a t e 0 i 1            25, ->     6 ^ .       f-- , 2.
        Royal Dutch Petroleum       20,4     68. h     U.O
»       Snell Oil  Co.               26.0     1', .''."
        Shell Transport and Trad,   2 1 . ?:     66,''     11,8
•       Ske 1 i y Oil Co .              11. 1     8 P- . ' .=
*       Standard  Oil (Calif,;       16,5     83,1.
•       Standard  Oil (Ind.)         20,7     73,9      5.4
        Standard  Oil (Ohio)         2.6.9     68, 8      V,3
®       Sun Oil Co,                 22.8     69,8      7.4
*       Superior  Oil Co.            22.3     77.7
        Tesoro  Petroleum            24 . 8     71.7      3,5
Texaco,  Inc.                13.9      73.
Union Oil of Calif.         26.3      68.2
United Refining Co.         36.9      63.1
                                                  2    12.9
        Average                     28.4      66.8     6,5

1.   Includes:  Preferred Stock,  Deferred  Taxes,  and Minority Interest.
•   Leading offshore producers (representing 92.2% of total offshore production)
SOURCE:  "Value Line", cited in  Opinion 699, Appendix E, Federal Power
        Commission, 1974
                              11-86

-------
 the debt and equity percentages for 41 petroleum companies for 1972.




 On the average, equity accounts for 66.8% of total capitalization. One




 also sees in Table 11-37 the predominance of retained earnings in net




 worth.  About 75% of shareholders' equity is retained earnings.  In




 1964, the retained earnings were 62% of equity.




       Although the ratio of long-term debt to equity has been rising




 to its present level of about 28%, it is below what one would reasonably




 expect to be an upper limit of debt capacity for a profitable industry.



 Each year Dun's Review publishes financial ratios for 71 categories of




 manufacturing firms.   For 1973, the average of the ratios of total debt




 to net tangible worth for these firms was 103%.  For the Chase Group of




 petroleum companies,  the comparable ratio was about 78%.  The concept of




 an "upper limit" is an abstraction referring to a range which is viewed




 as meeting some set of criteria by the banking and investment community




 and applicable to a particular industry.   A firm which takes on signifi-




 cantly more debt than other firms in its  industry exposes its debtors to




 higher risks than other firms in the industry.   With such a high debt




 portion of its capital structure, a company may face higher interest rates,




                   , problems of raising equity or possibly the non-availa-



 bility of funds.




       In  1973,  the  Chase  Group  had  long-term  debt  of  $22.7  billion.   In




 comparison,  the Group's working capital was $19.6  billion and  their  net




 fixed assets were $79.6 billion.  Total net assets were  $79.1  billion.




 The ratio of debt to total capitalization is  .47 as compared with about




 .6  as characteristic of manufacturing industries.  One can also look




at the interest coverage by before tax income.  The calculation is before




tax income plus interest payments divided  by the interest payments.




From the creditor's viewpoint, this ratio  indicates how much the interest





                                  11-87

-------
 payments  he  is  owed are covered by earnings.  In 1972, which was the




 lowest  recent profit  year,  the interest coverage ratio was 10.7.  In




 1973, the ratio was 14.5.   If long-term lease arrangements and produc-




 tion payments are regarded  as debt,  the Chase Group's debt in relation




 to  capital employed would have been  33% in 1973.  While the precise




 figures are  not reported by Chase, the interest coverage would fall to




 9.3 in  1973  if  the lease payments and production payments are regarded




 as  yearly payment obligations similar to interest with an equal claim




 on  revenues.




      On  the basis of their capital  structure, the larger oil companies




 must be regarded as financially strong.  Though hard to quantify, the




 companies seem  to have the  capacity  for undertaking additional debt in




 the coming years.  Whether  this capacity will be sufficient along with




 other capital sources to meet the industry's needs or national energy




 goals is  open to some question and beyond the intent of this brief




 discussion.




      The role  of the industry financial analysis in this economic -impact




 study is  to  characterize the financial condition of the industry and report




 reputable estimates of the capital burden which the industry is likely




 to  experience in the absence of the pollution abatement requirements.




Given the financial condition and the other capital demands, this report




 should indicate whether the magnitude of capital expenditures required




by  the effluent guidelines will significantly distort the total industry




capital demands or its financial condition.
                                 11-88

-------
      The oil industry now is in relatively strong financial condition.




It anticipates making capital investments between now and 1983 far in




excess of the investments required for compliance with the effluent




guidelines.  Thus, the investments in offshore water treatment and




reinjection equipment cannot be regarded by themselves as being of




importance to the financial strength or the required capital investment




burden of the industry between 1975 and 1983.




      Statements about the relative importance of a proposed regulation




on one activity of an industry neglect the cumulative effects of other




regulations, inflation rates, materials and labor costs, etc.  When




judging the impact of the effluent guidelines, one is at best making




qualitative judgments about their importance relative to the total




capital demands on the industry at the same time.
                                   11-89

-------
 4.5.  Cost of Capital




     Introduction




     One objective of a business organization is to maximize the market value




 of the firm's equity.  When evaluating investments with this objective one can




 use the firm's cost of capital as a means of ranking investment alternatives.




 The cost of capital is the rate of return on investment projects which leaves




 unchanged the market price of the firm's stock.  The cost of capital can b-




 employed in a number of ways: 1) an investment project is accepted if its




 net-present value is positive when cash flows are discounted at the cost-of-




 capital rate; or 2) a project is accepted if its internal rate of return is




 greater than the cost of capital.  Thus, the cost of capital represents a




 cut-off rate for the allocation of capital to investment projects.




     The cost of capital is one of the most difficult and controversial topics




 in finance.  There is wide disagreement, both in practice and in the financial




 literature, about how to calculate a firm's cost of capital.




     Weighted Average Cost of Capital




     There are a number of alternative sources of financing available to a




 firm; they include long-term debt, preferred stock, common stock, and retained




 earnings.   If more than one type is present in the capital structure of the




 firm, the weighted average cost of capital reflects the interdependencies among




 the individual costs.  For example, an increase in the proportion of debt




 financing will cause an increase in the risk borne by the common shareholder.




The shareholder will then require a higher rate of return, implying a higher




cost of equity.




     As indicated in Table 11-38, preferred stock does not represent a very




high proportion of the capital structure of the leading offshore producers.
                                       11-90

-------
Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the weighted average cost of capital
will consist of a factor for the cost of debt and a factor for the cost of
equity.
     The mathematical expression generally used to calculate the weighted
average cost of capital is as follows:
where:     C  = weighted average cost of capital
           S  = market value of the firm's stock
           B  = market value of the firm's debt
           V  = market value of the firm
           k  = cost of equity
           k, = cost of debt
            d
           t  = marginal tax rate of the firm.
     Estimate of the Cost of Debt
     Approximating a firm's cost of debt is a fairly straightforward matter.
Assuming that recent bond issues are representative of the firm's normal
current and expected future debt costs, the cost of this recently acquired
debt can satisfactorily be used as a surrogate for k, in the cost of capital
calculations.  Recent petroleum bond issues (rated AAA to A) have had yields
ranging from 9.0% to 9.5%.  In this analysis, 9.5% is used as the cost of
debt financing.
     Because the range in bond yields is so small, a separate cost of debt has
not been calculated for each firm in this sample of the petroleum industry.
     Estimate of the Cost of Equity
     Calculation of the cost of equity is the controversial element in a cost
of capital analysis.  There are several methods which one can use.   The cost
of equity is the rate of return which investors require on their money if they
                                    11-91

-------
 are  to  buy  a  stock.




      One method  ±s  to calculate the actual rates of return achieved by  share-




 holders in  the past, on  the assumption  that past rates of return are  an accurate




 indication  of shareholder expectations.  The principal weakness of this approach




 lies in this  very assumption.  Given the increased uncertainties about  oil




 prices, taxation, and regulation, the risk factors of the petroleum industry may




 seem to be  changing, causing a corresponding change in expected rates of return.




 Thus, this  method did not seem appropriate for this analysis.




      A  second method involves deriving  the cost of equity from expectations




 about future  dividends.  This method is similar to the first one, but it




 involves a  much  longer time horizon.  The principal difficulty in this  approach




 is estimating future dividends.  For a number of oil companies, the dividend




 payout  ratio  has decreased from 54% in  1969 to about 40% in 1973 and  about 30%




 in 1974.  Recent financial data show that for the first quarter of the  years 1968-1975,




 profits as  a  percent of gross operating revenue have been steadily decreasing,




 with the exception of 1973 and 1974.  In 1975, this percent was a record low.




 Thus, due to  the difficulty of estimating future dividends, this method  was




 not used.




     A third method, which seemed most appropriate, involves calculation of a




 risk-adjusted rate of return.   By owning a portfolio of stocks, an investor




 can partially eliminate the risk involved in owning one stock.  That risk which




 cannot be  diversified away is  the covariance of the stock with the total market.




This covariance is known as the firm's "beta" (@).   For example, if a firm's




 stock has  a beta of 1.0, when  the total market moves up or down by 10%,  this




stock also moves up or down by 10%.   If the beta were 0.5, the stock would move




up or down by 5%.  The beta of a stock is a substantially complete measurement
                                     11-92

-------
 of investment risk; stocks which have higher betas have higher costs of equity.




 The cost of equity can be determined by using the following relations:











 where:     k  = cost of equity




            r  = risk-free rate; usually the U.S. Treasury Bill rate




            r  = total market return
             m



            @  = beta of the stock.





      The risk-adjusted method was used to calculate the cost of equity to be




 used in the economic impact analysis.  The approach seemed most appropriate




 because it measures the risk of an investment while eliminating instability in




 individual stock prices.   The risk-free rate has varied from 4.35% in 1971 to




 7.01% in 1974.   The total market return from 1928 to 1965 averaged 9.3%.   The




 market return ranged from 10.9% in 1971 to 18.2% in 3974.  Using the beta for each




 company and the appropriate values for the risk-free rate and the market  return,




 the cost of equity was calculated for different investment periods from 1971 to 1974.




      Estimate of the Cost of Capital for the Petroleum Industry




      Given the range in the cost of equity for each firm and a cost of debt of




 9.5%, a weighted average cost of capital was calculated.  To arrive at an




 estimate of the cost of capital for the industry, several weighting methods




 were considered:  weighting by total assets, total market value,  total revenues,




•"and offshore production (barrels/day).  The arithmetic mean was also calculated.




 The estimated industry cost of the capital ranges from a low of 10.4% to  a high of




 14.4%,  with an  average of  12.4%. See Table 11-39 for an example of the calculations.)




 Several oil companies  contacted during this  analysis indicated that they  currently




 consider their  cost of equity to  be about 15%,  implying a cost of capital of




 approximately 12%.   Thus,  an industry cost of  capital of about 12% seems




 reasonable.
                                      11-93

-------
                                TABLE II- 39
         EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF COST OF  CAPITAL FOR 1971-19741

                                   2                                     •
Firm                   Average Beta     Cost of Equity    Cost of Capital
                                            ( % )
Atlantic Richfield         1.10              13.9              11.8
Cities Service              .90              12.5              10.0
Continental Oil            1.10              13.9              10.6
Exxon Corp.                 .95              12.8              11.0
Gulf Oil Corp.              .90              12.5              10.1
Kerr-McGee Corp.           1.05              13.6              10.6
Mobil Oil Corp.             .95              12.8              11.0
Pennzoil Co.               1.35              15.7               8.3
Shell Oil Co.               .95              12.8              10.7
Standard Oil (Calif.)      1.05              13.6              12.1
Standard Oil (Ind.)         .85              12.1               9.9
Sun Oil Co.                 .70              11.1               8.8
Texaco, Inc.                .95              1-2.8              10.0
Union Oil of Calif.        1.10              13.9              10.7
  During this period, the U«S. Treasury Bill rate averaged 6.05%, and
  the market return averaged 13.2%.
2
  Source,  Value Line.
  Cost of  debt is assumed to be 9.5%.   Capital structure taken from
  Table 11-38.
                                      11-94

-------
      Several words  of  caution about  the  cost  of  capital  for  an  industry should




 be added at  this  point.   Although  12% may be  an  appropriate  general  measure  of




 the cost of  capital of the  petroleum industry, each  company  has a  different




 capital  structure and  amount  of  risk associated  with it.   The cost of  capital




 for the  individual  firms  ranges  from 8.3% to  16.0%.   Rather  than saying that




 the cost of  capital of the  industry  is about  12.0%,  it may be more appropriate




 to state that  the cost of capital  in the industry  ranges  from 8.3% to  16.0%.




      Furthermore, interest  rates and stock prices  have fluctuated  widely in  the




 past 24  months.   As shown in  Table 11-40, common shares  of many of the off-




 shore producers had a  price three  to seven times earnings  on December  31,  1974;




 however,  this  P/E ratio fluctuated greatly during  the year.




      In  addition, the  gap between  internally  generated funds and needed capital




 investments  has widened considerably.  Although  gross revenues  grew  at an




 average  rate of 19.2%  between 1969 and 1974,  available cash  flow grew  by only




 14.7%.   In 1974,  while revenues increased nearly 75% from  1973,  cash flow  rose




 by  only  31%.   As  a  result,  the petroleum industry  must increasingly  resort to




 outside  financing.   This  trend is  already evident.   Between  1967 and 1972, the




 industry's ratio  of  long-term debt to total invested capital (long-term debt,




 preferred stock, and common stock) has risen  from  0.18 to  0.28.  It  is




 expected to  rise  to  0.30  in the near future.  Thus,  one might also expect a




 rise  in the  cost of  equity and the cost  of capital for the industry.    Traditional




 financial theory implies  that the  cost of capital  is  not independent of  such




 changes in the capital structure.  If the industry has not yet reached  the debt




 limit, the increase in the cost of equity will be offset by  the use  of  cheaper




debt funds,  resulting in a lower over-all cost of capital.  However,
                                    11-95

-------
TABLE 11-40
Oil Stock Prices
Atlantic Richfield
Cities Service
Continental Oil
Exxon Corp.
Forest Oil Corp.
Gulf Oil Corp.
Kerr-McGee Corp.
Mobil Oil Corp.
ODECO (private?)
Pennzoil
Phillips Petroleum
Placid Oil Co. (private?)
Shell Oil Co.
Signal
Shelly Oil Co.
Southern Natural Gas — merged
into Southern Natural
Resources, Inc.
Standard Oil (Calif.)
Standard Oil (Ind.)
Sun Oil Co.
Superior Oil Co.
Texaco , Inc .
Union Oil (Calif.)
Tenneco
High
113 3/4
62 1/4
58 1/2
99 3/4
11 1/8
25 1/4
92 1/2
56 1/2

30 1/2
71 3/8

72 7/8
22 3/4
73
5/73
55 1/2
36 5/8
45 7/8
61 3/4
304
32 7/8
56 3/4
24 3/4
Low
73
32 3/4
29
54 7/8
(Bid)
16
47 1/8
30 5/8

12 3/4
31 5/8

30 1/4
12 3/4
44 1/4
27 1/8
20 1/8
39 7/8
33 3/4
134
20
27 1/4
16 3/4

12/31/74
P/E Ratio Closing
11
5
5
5
11
3
16
3

5
7

6
2
7
7
3
6
4
15
3
4
6
90
42 1/4
44
63 1/8
1/2 (Asked)
17 1/4
71
36 1/4

16 7/8
41 1/2

46
13 1/4
55 1/2
41 7/8
21 3/4
42 1/2
35 3/8
L72
20 7/8
38 1/2
23 L/4
      11-96

-------
the industry is moving beyond the "optimal" capital structure,  the cost of




capital will rise.   furthermore, given the fact that interest rates have




been unusually high in 1973 and 1974, one might expect a decline in the cost




of debt in the near future and a rise later.








     The cost of capital has been used in this report to help evaluate whether




firms will make the required investment to come into compliance with the




proposed produced water treatment and reinjection requirements.  The revenue




stream resulting from making the investment and keeping the well in production




has been discounted at the rate of the cost of capital.  If the net present value




of the investment in the treatment equipment is positive, the assumption has




been made that the firm will make the investment rather than close in the well.




If the industry cost of capital lies in the 10.4% to 12.0% range, theoretically,




more firms will be able to make the investment.  If the industry cost of capital




lies in the 12.0% to 14.6% range, fewer firms can be expected to make the




investment.




     While 12% seems to be a realistic cost of capital value, the impact




analysis has used 12%, 15%, and 20% to test the sensitivity of the results to




different assumed or actual cost of capital values.  The high end of the range




has been chosen so that any possible errors in the analysis will be on the




conservative side.   A high cost of capital places the greatest burden on




justification of investments which have a long time horizon.
                                   11-97

-------
III.  PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES



III.l.  PROPOSED EPA REGULATIONS


     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a set of

effluent limitation guidelines for the offshore oil and gas production

industry.  There are three sets of proposed effluent guidelines:


     1.  The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently

         Available (BPCTCA) (1977 implementation)


     2.  The Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

         (BATEA) (1983 implementation)


     3.  The New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)

         (1977 implementation)


     In November 1974, the EPA issued the Draft Development Document for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.  This report presented

an initial recommended set of guidelines based largely on a report  by

Brown and Root, Inc., for the Offshore Operators Committee, an association

of companies operating offshore oil and gas wells.
 Determination of Beat Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
 To Remove Oil from Water Produced with Oil and Gas, March 1974.
                                  III-l

-------
     Based upon a preliminary economic impact assessment among other




factors, the initial guidelines were modified to the form reported here.




Table III-l lists the applicability of the guidelines to "new" and




"existing" sources of effluent discharge.  Over 30 wells may produce to




one offshore platform.  In most producing areas, the produced formation




water from the wells is now separated from the oil and gas, treated and




discharged to the ocean.  Several producing platforms ran pipe their




production to one processing platform which discharges the formation




water after treatment.  Each of the discharges from a platform is a




point source under the guidelines.  In addition to the discharge of




produced formation water, the rain water runoff and sanitary waste must




be collected and treated on each platform.  For these discharges, each




platform is a point source.




     Table III-2  lists the proposed guideline requirements.  The guide-




lines separate the offshore producing areas into what are called the




state and Federal waters.  This is the jurisdictional distinction between




those oil and gas fields whose development and operations are the respon-




sibility of the contiguous states, as opposed to the U.S. Geological




Survey.  The EPA has adopted the state and USGS jurisdiction boundary  to




sub-categorize the offshore producing areas.  The state and Federal waters




boundary is approximately three miles from the shoreline.




     In 1977, the BPCTCA guidelines will require the formation water pro-




duced from offshore wells in both state and Federal waters to be  treated




such that for any consecutive 30 days the averages of daily effluent




samples (four per day) will not exceed 48 parts per million (ppm) of oil




and grease 95% of the time.  In 1983, the BATEA guideline requires
                                  III-2

-------
                                                    TABLE  III-l
I
u>
         Wells  Producing
         Prior  to  1977
Wells Beginning
Production in
1977 and later
APPLICABILITY

Guideline
Average of Daily
Effluent Values
for 30 Days Not
to Exceed^
Guideline
Average of Daily
OF PROPOSED GUIDELINES
1977
Federal
Waters
BPCTCA1
48 ppm

NSPS3
30 ppm

State
Waters
BPCTCA
48 ppm

NSPS
30 ppm
1983
Federal State
Waters Waters
2
BATEA BATEA
30 ppm no discharge

NSPS BATEA
30 ppm no discharge
                                 Effluent Values
                                 for  30 Days  Not
                                 to Exceed^
         1.   BPCTCA  is  the  Best Practicable Control Technology  Currently Available  guideline.

         2.   BATEA is the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable  guideline.

         3.   NSPS is the New  Source Performance Standard guideline.
         4.   During  any consecutive 30 days,  the  daily  averages of  four  effluent samples shall not exceed
              the specified  value  95%  of  the  time.
          SOURCE:   Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                            TABLE  II1-2
                    PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
Guideline
                              Oil and Grease Limitations
                                           Average of daily
                                           values for 30
 Maximum
for one day
  ppnP
consecutive days
shall not exceed^
      ppm
Residual
Chlorine
 ppm
BPCTCA

  state waters

    produced water
    deck drainage
    sanitary waste
  federal waters

    produced water
    deck drainage
    sanitary waste

BATEA

  state waters

    produced water
    deck drainage
    sanitary waste

  federal waters

    produced water
    deck drainage
    sanitary waste

NSPS

  state waters
    produced water
    deck drainage
    sanitary waste
  federal waters

    produced water
    deck drainage
    sanitary waste
   72
   72
   NA
   72
   72
   NA
   52
   NA
   52
   52
   NA
   52
   NA
   52
   52
   NA
      48
      48
      NA
      48
      48
      NA
        no discharge
        no discharge
      30
      NA
      30
      30
      NA
      30
      NA
      30
      30
      NA
  NA
  NA
   1
  NA
  NA
   1
  NA
  NA
   1
  NA
  NA
   1
  NA
  NA
   1
  NA
  NA
   1
NOTE:

1.  There shall be no discharge of free oil to the surface waters.
2.  There shall be no discharge of floating solids as a result of sanitary
      waste discharge.
3.  ppm  (parts per million) is equivalent to a. milligrams per liter
      (mg/1) concentration.
4.  During the 30 days, 95%  of the daily averages must not exceed the
      ppm standard.
SOURCE;  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                 111-4

-------
platforms in state waters to end all discharge of produced formation




water.  The water can be piped ashore or reinjected into a subsea forma-




tion.  In Federal waters, the BATEA requires that for any consecutive




30 days  the averages of daily effluent samples not exceed 30 ppm 95% of




the time.  The guidelines also require daily maximums, as shown on




Table III-2.




    In addition to the BPCTCA and the BATEA guidelines, the EPA is pro-




posing a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) guideline applicable to




all new wells in both state and Federal waters which is identical in its




requirements to the BATEA guidelines except that its applicability begins




in 1977.




    New wells beginning production in state and Federal waters between




1977 and 1983 will have to comply with the NSPS guidelines.  By 1983, all




wells in state waters, new and existing, will have to go to reinjection




of formation water.  The new wells in Federal waters will continue to




have to meet the BATEA and NSPS requirements.




    The EPA used the survey from the Brown & Root report of effluent




quality for different treatment systems now operating in the Gulf of




Mexico and similar data from other sources to identify an "exemplary"




abatement system.  From the effluent samples the EPA structured a dis-




tribution of sample results from the exemplary treatment systems, as




shown in Table III-3 .  While the Agency believes treatment systems will




produce effluent streams with a long-term average of 27 ppin of oil and




grease, the guideline is written in terms of the maximum value that 95%




of the averages of daily samples can have in any 30 days (48 ppm in 1977




and 30 ppm in 1983) and the maximum of 95% of the sample values during




any one day (72 ppm in 1977 and 52 ppm in 1983).







                                 III-5

-------
                                         TABLE III-3

                  DISTRIBUTION OF EFFLUENT SAMPLES FROM EXEMPLARY TREATMENT SYSTEMS


                    Long-Term             Maximum for Averages                 Maximum of
Guidelines          Average            of Daily Values During 30 Days     Values During One Day


1977                 27 ppm              48 ppm (95% of Daily Averages)     72 ppm (95% of Daily Samples)
BPCTCA                                   57 ppm (99% of Daily Averages)     85 ppm (99% of Daily Samples)


1983                 27 ppm              30 ppm (95% of Daily Averages)     52 ppm (95% of Daily Samples)
BATEA
SOURCE:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
    This exemplary system was identified in the EPA's Draft Development




Document, but the guideline specifies the effluent quality the system




can achieve, not the system itself.  If an offshore operator can achieve




the effluent standard with a less expensive treatment system, he is free




to do so.




    The treatment system costs presented by EPA and updated by ADL are




the costs of installing and operating the exemplary system.  Based upon




their analysis, the EPA has concluded that the exemplary treatment tech-




nology, separation by coalescence using flow equalization and dissolved




gas flotation, should be both the 1977 BPCTCA treatment system and the




1983 BATEA  treatment system.  The effluent limitations are specified




differently under the assumption that between 1977 and 1983 the operators




will be able to increase the performance of their facilities.  This




assumption  implies that the costs of complying with the 1977 and 1983




treatment requirements are identical.  The operator in Federal waters




who installs the equipment in compliance with the 1977 standard has no




further capital cost as a result of the 1983 requirement.  In state




waters, the operators will have to go to reinjection in 1983.
                                  III-7

-------
III.2.   CURRENT REGULATIONS

     Offshore oil and gas operations are currently regulated by the con-
tiguous state in state waters and by the USGS in Federal waters.
     The applicable USGS regulations for the Federal waters in the Gulf
of Mexico are the following:

          Wastewater disposal systems shall be designed and main-
     tained to reduce the oil content of the disposed water to an
     average of not more than 50 ppm. . .  On one day each mon." a, four
     effluent samples shall be taken within a 24 hour period and
     determination shall be made on the temperature, suspended
     solids, settleable solids, pH, total oil content, and volumes
     of sample obtained... No effluent containing an excess of oil
     of 100 ppm of total oil content shall be discharged into the
     Gulf of Mexico.
                    (PCS Orders 1 and 2, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
                     USGS, 1969, pp. 8-6)

     The applicable USGS regulations for the Pacific region are slightly
different:

          (a)  Water discharged shall not create conditions which
     will adversely affect the public health or the use of the waters
     for the propagation of aquatic life, recreation, navigation, or
     other legitimate uses.

          (b)  Wastewater disposal systems shall be designed and
     maintained to reduce the oil content of the disposed water to
     not more than 50 ppm... On one day each month, the effluent
     shall be sampled hourly for 8 hours and the following deter-
     minations shall be made on the composite sample:  suspended
     solids, settleable solids, pH, total oil and grease content,
     and volume of sample obtained.  Also, the temperature of each
     hourly sample shall be recorded.

-------
     California State Waters
     The California regulations applicable to offshore water disposal
from offshore oil and gas production are water quality regulations, as
opposed to uniform effluent quality regulations.   The Regional Water
Quality Control Boards have the responsibility to establish rules to
protect underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation and domestic
purposes and the "best interests of the neighboring property owners and
the public"  (California Laws for Conservation of Petroleum and Gas, 1973,
Resources Agency of California, Sacramento, Calif., 1973, p. 15).
     Since many of the offshore producing areas are near public beaches
and recreation areas, the effluent standards which have been issued for
the platforms required treatment to 20 ppm long-term average of oil and
grease before discharge.  Rather than treat to this level, most producers
are reinjecting their formation water.

     Alaska  State Waters
     Specific information has not been obtained on the Alaska state
requirements for offshore formation water disposal.

     Louisiana State Waters
     Louisiana regulations of the offshore oil and gas platforms  require
effluent  to  be treated to a long-term average of 30 ppm of  oil and  grease.

     Texas State Waters
     The  Texas regulations of offshore oil and gas platforms call for  the
issuance  of  permits  for each platform based on the potential impact  of
the effluent on the  local water quality.  Many of  the permits which have
been issued  have set the long-term average of oil and grease content  in
the effluent stream  as 25 ppm.
                                  III-9

-------
III.3.  COST OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT SYSTEMS


    The investment and operating costs which are used in the economic

impact analysis were prepared by the EPA based upon the previously

referenced Brown & Root report.  The EPA estimates, as presented in

their Draft Development Document , added to the Brown & Root costs the

additional costs of desanders and filters based on manufacturers' quotes

with an allowance for installation costs for system capacities of:

    •  200 bbls/day of processed water

    •  1,000 bbls/day of processed water

    •  5,000 bbls/day of processed water

   *•  10,000 bbls/day of processed water

    •  40,000 bbls/day of processed water

The cost estimates were reviewed by ADL for consistency with the Brown

& Root estimates.  Further, to allow for inflation between 1973 and 1974,

ADL multiplied the costs of all the treatment equipment by 1.24 using a

Nelson inflation index indicating an inflation of 24% for Miscellaneous

Equipment during that period.  Estimates of operating costs had been made

as a percentage of the capital costs based on percentages specified in

the Brown & Root report.  Consequently, operating costs were inflated by

24% as well.
 EPA, October 1974:   Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations
 Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas
 Extraction Point Source Category.
                                   111-10

-------
    The treatment systems considered to be the Best Practicable Control

Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA) were the following:


    •  Separation by coalescence, using flow equalization (surge

       tanks), desanders and flotation, then discharge to surface water.


    •  Separation using flow equalization (surge tank), desanders and

       filters with disposal by shallow well injection.


    The EPA Draft Development Document presented energy requirements in

terms of annual costs only.  To present these requirements in terms of

annual natural gas requirements, ADL calculated the horsepower require-

ments for the treatment equipment using Brown & Root's estimates and

expressed these horsepower requirements in terms of-MCF natural gas

equivalent.  Horsepower requirements and resulting natural gas require-

ments for reinjection were calculated as well, using EPA's assumed average

depth for injection wells of 3,000 feet.

    The derivation of these horsepower requirements are discussed in

Section 8, "Direct Energy Effectiveness of Treatment Equipment", of

Chapter VI.  The energy costs were calculated for diesel oil at $10

per barrel and for gas at $0.50 per MCF.   Comparing these costs shows

that energy costs will be about 3.5 times higher if diesel oil is used.

Throughout the analysis, the natural gas-based energy costs  were used.

Table III- 4   summarizes the abatement costs.
 In terms of BTU equivalents:  1 bbl of diesel oil = 6 MCF natural gas,
 which @ $0.50/MCF would cost $3 or about 3.5 times less than 1 barrel
 diesel oil of $10, when using end-1974 prices.
                                III-ll

-------
                                         TABLE II1-4
                 POLLUTION ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT COSTS: OFFSHORE GULF OF MEXICO

                               (thousands of 1974 dollars per year)
                         (Energy costs based on natural gas @ $0.50/MCF)
                                                                              Treatment  '
                                                                 Treatment0''  and Shallow  Shallow Well
X3)
Treatment Technology Type

Maximum Capacity: 200 B/D
Inv. Costs:  No extra space req'd.
             Extra deck or platform (1)
Operating Costs
Energy Costs (2)

Max. Capacity: 1000 B/D
Inv. Costs: No extra space req'd.
            Extra deek or platform
Operating Costs
Energy Costs

Maximum Capacity: 5000 B/D
Inv. Costs: No extra space req'd.
            Extra deck or platform
Operating Costs
Energy Costs

Maximum Capacity: 10,000 B/D
Inv. Costs:  No extra space req'd.
             Extra deek or platform
Operating Costs
Energy Costs

Maximum Capacity: 40,000 B/D
Inv. Costs: No extra space req'd.
            Extra deek or platform
Operating Costs
Energy Costs

  'Extra deck space up to 1000 sq. ft.; extra platform space for area requirements larger than 1000 sq. ft.

    Energy costs based on natural gas @ 0.50/MCF.  ^BPCTCA in state & Federal waters. ^BATEA in  state  waters.
    SOURCE:     Brown & Root Inc., additions E.P.A. updating and inflation adjustment by ADL.
using Flota-
tion Unit
64.0
108.0
7.94
negl.
155.0
219.0
10.9
0.03
162.0
253.0
15.16
0.32
255.0
2016.0
23.97
0.63
555.0
2372.0
51.13
1.3
Well In-
jection
439.0
496.0
34.7
1.2
474.0
536.0
36.8
5.89
559.0
642.0
49.45
29.45
698.0
2445.0
64.65
58.9
1894.0
3876.0
111.05
117.8
Injection
Only
358.0
404.0
34.7
1.2
384.0
435.0
36.8
5.86
488.0
599.0
49.45
29.29
593.0
2340.0
64.65
58.6
1670.0
3340.0
111.05
117.2

-------
    The EPA's estimates of the cost of drilling and equipping a 3,000


foot injection well in 1973 in the Gulf of Mexico were based on the


average cost of $200,000 for drilling and equipping an oil well in that


depth range.


    These costs increased from 1973 to 1974 by 35.6% according to a


report by the Independent Petroleum Association of America's (IPAA) Cost

                2
Study Committee.   Using the IPAA index, the average cost of drilling and


equipping a 3,000 foot well was escalated to be $270,000 by ADL.  The


maximum reinjection capacity of these wells was assumed to be 10,000


bbls/day based on the Brown & Root report.  A 40,000 bbls/day reinjection


plant then would require four wells.


    Estimates of the cost of the platform deck area required for addi-


tional treatment and injection facilities in the EPA report were also


based on Brown & Root's estimates.  These estimates are applicable if an


additional deck is required because of a lack of space on the existing


platform and for situations where a new platform would be needed.  Extra


space requirements exceeding 1,000 square feet were assumed by Brown &


Root to require a separate additional platform.


    The economic impact analysis has assumed that all offshore production


units would need to install the additional treatment systems discussed


above.   In reality, some production units will have treatment systems


capable of meeting the 1977 treatment standards.  The EPA has made an
 Joint Association Survey of the U.S. Oil and Gas Producing Industry,
 Section I, Drilling Costs, 1973, American Petroleum Association, Feb. 1975.


2World Oil. Feb. 15, 1975.
                                  111-13

-------
estimate of which types of technology are currently being used for treat-




ment of formation water produced in Louisiana Federal and state waters




(see Table III-5 ).  According to their estimates, 24% of all the forma-




tion water produced in that offshore area is presently treated by flota-




tion systems, considered to be the "best practicable".  It can also be




expected that not all of the other systems will have to be replaced by




flotation systems.  Some of these systems, given favorable conditions,




will be able to meet the standards without any additional treatment




equipment.  Other systems will require modification at a lesser cost




than the investment costs used in the impact analysis.  It was not pos-




sible, however, to allow for all these factors in the analysis.




    Therefore, the results of the analysis of the possible impact by the




new treatment standards in 1977 should be considered to present a high




cost estimate.
                                    111-14

-------
                                TABLE  II1-5

             Distribution of Different Treatment Technologies

                  Currently Being Used Offshore Louisiana

                        in Federal and State Waters
Treatment
Technology
Pits and Sumps

Tanks

Plate

Flotation*

Filters
              (2)
                           Volume  of
                         Formation Water
                          As  %  of  Total
              % of Treated
% Needing    Formation Water
New Units   Needing New Units
32%
27%
9%
24%
8%
95%
90%
100%
0%
100%
30.4%
24.3%
9.0%
.0%
8.0%
                                  100%
                                                               71.7%
 (1)
    <
 (2)'
 Source:   by  communication with the  EPA.
I
 Onshore  treatment  of  offshore produced formation water.
   Considered to be Best practicable technology.
                                     111-15

-------
IV.	IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY




IV.1.    INTRODUCTION




         This chapter describes the methodology whereby the economic impact




of requiring added offshore water treatment equipment and reinjection




facilities is assessed.  As discussed in Chapter III, these




facilities are expected to be required to meet the EPA treatment standards




for 1977 and 1983 on offshore oil and gas producing installations.




         Given the estimates of investment and operating costs for these




treatment and reinjection facilities discussed in the previous chapter,




and the estimates of the production economics prepared by ADL for the




offshore areas under analysis, the potential impact of these proposed




standards was evaluated in terms of:




         •  the loss of potential production due to premature abandon-




            ment of production units in 1977 and 1983.




         •  the loss of potential production due to a decrease in




            producing life of wells because of increased operating




            costs.




         •  the total capital required for investment in treatment




            and reinjection facilities.




         •  the average increase in costs per Bbl or MCF produced




            resulting from additional investment and operating costs.




         In order to cope with the uncertainty associated with various




factors in the analysis, "best estimates" of average values were made




and then tested to determine the effects on results of possible values around




this average by varying one parameter at a time.  The results of the
                                   IV-1

-------
analysis are presented as a range of possible values rather than as point




estimates.




         It was not attempted to present future trends in costs and prices




for the period considered.  However, the results of the analysis do




allow one to deduce how the estimated impact will change when costs




and prices will change relative to the levels assumed for the analysis




using 1974 cost levels and a range of prices.
                                   IV-2

-------
IV.2.   GENERAL APPROACH

2.1.   Producers Absorb All Costs

         If he has to absorb all additional investment and operating costs

in 1977 the operator of a production unit    in Federal waters which

does not conform to the new standard will have to evaluate the following

alternatives:

         •  He can shut the operations of his production unit, or

         •  He can invest in treatment facilities required for

            compliance with the 1977 standards.

         The operator's decision to abandon his production unit or to

invest in these treatment facilities will likely be based on an estimate

as to whether or not production over the unit's remaining life will pay

for the investment.  The estimate of the remaining producing life of the

unit will be based on a comparison of operating costs per unit produced

with revenue per unit produced.

         The operator of a production unit in state waters in 1977 will

be faced with a larger number of possible decisions.  He will have to

evaluate the following alternatives:   (Table IV-1)

         •  He can shut down the operations of his production unit, or

         •  He can invest in facilities  required for  compliance with

            1977 standards and  delay until 1983 his decision whether

            to invest in reinjection   facilities, or

         •  He can invest in reinjection facilities immediately.
     A production unit consists of one or more platforms  each  accommo-
     dating gas and/or oil production from generally  5-20 wells, which  is
     treated to separate the oil, water,and gas before oil and/or gas
     are transported to shore by  pipeline.
                                    IV-3

-------
                                  TABLE  IV-1

            Possible Alternative Outcomes of an Investment Analysis

                in New Treatment Facilities in 1977 for a

                       Production Unit in State Waters
Possible Outcome Of
Investment Analysis
         Action In
      Year Of Required Investment

   1977                        1983
Remaining production
will not pay for any
additional investment.

Remaining producing
life falls short of
1983.

Remaining production
will pay out invest-
ment in treatment
facilities only.

It is cheaper to
invest first in
treatment facil-
ities and then
in additional
injection facil-
ities.

It is cheaper to invest
in reinjection facilities
immediately.
Shut-in
Invest in treatment
Invest in treatment
No investment required
No investment required
     Shut-in
Invest in treatment
Invest in reinjection
Invest in reinjection     No investment  required
                                        IV-4

-------
         To determine which alternative he should choose, the operator




will first have to establish whether and to what extent the remaining




producing life of the production unit will extend beyond 1983.




         If the producing life does indeed extend beyond 1983, the operator




will then have to compare the net present values of the following cash




flows:




         •  First, the cash flow resulting from an investment in 1977




            followed by another investment in 1983 and extending




            over the producing life, where the producing life has




            been estimated allowing for additional operating costs,




            first for the new treatment facilities and later in 1983




            for the injection facilities;




         •  Second, the cash flow resulting from an investment in




            1977 in reinjection facilities and extending over the




            estimated remaining producing life, which will be




            shorter because of the additional operating  costs for




            the injection facilities.
                                   IV-5

-------
         He will choose that alternative  which produces the highest net present




value of after-tax cash flow  less the net present values of investments required.




         If the expected producing life of the production unit falls short of




1983, the operator will simply decide whether to invest in facilities,  which




are required to comply with the 1977 standards.  He can be expected to  shut




down his production unit in 1977 if he concludes that the investment in the




least expensive type of equipment, which will meet the EPA standards, will not




be paid for by the present value of after-tax revenues from the unit's




expected remaining production.




         He will have to shut down in 1983 thereby foregoing some potential




production if his analysis shows that the producing life will indeed extend




beyond 1983, but that only the less expensive investment in treatment facilities,




required for compliance with 1977 standards, will be paid for.




         The analysis which is presented on the following pages is based on




the assumption that all operators of production .units in state waters will appply




the above rationale in 1977 when deciding how to comply with the new standards.




The analysis then evaluates the loss of potential oil production, which can be




expected from:




         •  Immediate platform shut-downs in 1977 in state and federal




            waters,




         •  Platform shut-downs in 1983 in state waters and




         •  A decrease in the producing life of those platforms in




            state and federal waters which will not be shut down in 1977 or




            1983, but whose ultimate productive lifetime will be foreshortened




            by increased operating costs.
                                         IV-6

-------
               The analysis, using the decision rules described above,  represents




      a simplification of what may happen in reality.  In the first place,  many




      individual operators have economic criteria different from the criteria




      described above.  In the second place, the decision to shut down  a produc-




      tion unit in a field will also have to consider the effect that the shut-




      down may have on production from other units in the field, since  shutdown




      of a unit    can be expected to change the field's production character-




      istics.




      2.2.  Producers Pass On All Costs




               It might well be that producers in federal waters will be able to




      pass on some of the additional costs for treatment and reinjection facilities




      by increasing their prices for oil and gas.  Therefore a likely range




      of the increase in average cost per Bbl or MCF produced, was calculated




      assuming the following:






         •  Producers would like to recover their investment  in facilities,




            including a return on that investment within  15 years.




         •  The cost increase should reflect the increase in  average after




            tax cost levels over a period of fifteen years, allowing for




            increases in depreciation  charges.




         The calculations used projections of aggregated  oil  and  gas production




for the period of 15 years following 1977 and 1983 plus estimates of total




investment required in treatment and reinjection facilities,  thus disregarding




differences between individual operators and individual production units.
                                         IV-7

-------
 IV.3.  PRODUCTION ECONOMICS






         The operating costs and investment costs used in the analysis were




derived from the estimates made for a model unit described in the Bureau of




Mines (BOM) Information Circular IC-8557.  This model, as mentioned  in the BOM




report, was intended to show "... the costs involved in exploring, acquiring,




developing, producing and abandoning a typical production unit in the Gulf of




Mexico."  As such it presented a basis for estimating the investment and




operating costs of such a typical unit, which then was tested with the industry




and adjusted to allow for differences between the BOM model production unit  and




the actual production units which were considered in this analysis.




3.1.   The Bureau of Mines Model Production Unit




          The model production unit consisted  of  three platforms, one main




platform with 12 wells, where most of  the processing  of oil, water and gas is




done and two satellite platforms each  with 8 wells, where  the processing is




limited to two-stage separation (See Figure IV-2).
                                      IV-8

-------
    LEGEND





   • Oil wtll, dual
    6o» and 0,1



    Plotform
                                 :»
                              44-^1
       Plofform 8
'*  *^
    6i  i ' '
    v».vV
                              ,0
                              *'' >'
                                                                       o
                                                                   Platform B
                                                                    Platform A
                                                               8  Oil pipclint — *-
                                                                           p
                                                                           -
                                                             I

                                                      pipeline   I

                                                             I
                                                                         To >al«i
FIGURE IV-1      Lease Plat Showing Platforms, Wells, and Flow Lines in Model.
SOURCE:  Bureau  of Mines Circular  1C 8557/1972
                                            IV-9

-------
                                   DI
                   jo  neajng
031X3^ JO j|nrj D JO
UOIpnpOJJ JO 9UJ3L|D5
                          Z~AI
                                                                  O

-------
         Most of the wells have more than one completion and as a result, a




total of 45 completions are producing oil and gas in the years of peak




production.  The processing equipment on the platforms is sized to handle oil




and condensate production of 10,000 B/D and a peak gas production of 48 million




cubic feet/day.




         Processing on the main platform consists of:  three-phase separation




of natural gas, condensate and water; dehydration of the gas to sales




specification; water treatment and disposal; storage and transfer of oil




(See Figure  IV-2).   Note that the treatment technologies, which are considered




in this analysis have to be added to this processing equipment.




3.2.  Operating Costs




         Annual operating costs calculated in the BOM model consisted of the




following items:




         Direct Costs




         •  labor costs,




         •  supervision,




         •  payroll overhead,




         0  food expense,




         •  labor transport costs,




         o  surface equipment maintenance,




         •  workover expense,




         •  radio and telephone costs.




         Interest and Fixed Costs




         •  administration and general overhead,




         •  insurance.






                                           IV-11

-------
         The estimates of these cost elements,  expressed in 1974 dollars,  are




shown in Table  IV-2.    They differ considerably from BOM estimated costs  due




to changes in operating procedures and inflation.




Operating Costs Per Unit Produced Per Completion




         The estimates of annual operating costs had to be put on a common




basis before they could be applied to the production units considered in the




analysis.




         For analytical purposes, the average daily productivity per producing




completion at each stage of the producing life of the production unit was




chosen because the data base specified productivity by completion and not  by




well.
                                          IV-12

-------
                                      TABLE IV-2


                                SAMPLE OPERATING COSTS
                         3 Platforms, 28 Wells,  45 Completions

                      Assuming shifts of 7 days on and 7 days off
DIRECT COSTS

1.  LABOR

    Contract Labor

         1 Cook, 6.50 $/hr. x 12 h/d x 365                     $28,470
         1 Cook's Helper  6.00 x 12 x 365                       26,280
         1 Gang Leaderman  8.00 x 12 x 365                      35,040
         2 Roustabouts  6.50 x 12 x 365                         56,940
         1 Pumper  8.00 x 12 x 365                              35,040
         1 Electrician-Mechanic  12.50 x 12 x 365               54,750
    Sub-Total Contract (Overhead Included)                    $236,520

    Company Labor

         2 Plant Operators @ $16,000/yr                        $32,000
         Vacation Relief  3 wk/man x 6 x 16,000                  1,846
                                           52
    Sub-Total Plant Operators                                  $33,846

    TOTAL LABOR                                                                $270,366

2.  SUPERVISION

         1  Foreman @ $20,000/yr                               $20,000
         Vacation Relief  3 wk x 20,000                          1,154
                                   52
    TOTAL SUPERVISION                                                          $ 21,154

3.  PAYROLL OVERHEAD

         $33,846 + $21,154 x .25                                               $ 13,750

4.  FOOD EXPENSE

         15 $/d x 9 x 1.15  (15% for special labor crews) x 365                 $ 56,666

5.  TRANSPORTATION—Labor, Equipment & Supplies
    Assumes company has no adjacent or close-by field operations

    Boats

         1/2 Shore to Field, combination personnel & supply
             475 $/d x 365                             '       $86,687
         1/2 Standby and Field transportation boat
             450 $/d x 365                                      82,125

    Sub-Total Boats                                           $168,812
    Source:  ADL estimates based on information from industry sources.
                                             IV-13

-------
                                     TABLE  IV-2  -  Continued



    Helicopter—To assure availability and reduce cost, helicopters are contracted
                on a monthly basis.

          Schedule:  6 hrs/wk for  crew changes x 52 = 312 hr/yr
                    4 hrs/day  for transportation  of special crews x 1.5 days/wk
                      x  52 = 312  hr/yr

          Special  Crews:  Contract personnel, wireline, machinery maintenance,
                         equipment modifications, painting, etc.  Also flights
                         for hauling small equipment and parts  for repair.

          Monthly  Avg. -  312^_312 = 52 hr/mo


          Base Rental  1/2 x 8,500 $/mo x 12 =                   $51,000

                      52 hr/mo x  $60 x 12 =                     37.440

    Sub-Total Helicopter                                       $88,440

    TOTAL TRANSPORTATION                                                       $257,252

 6.  SURFACE  EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

    0.05  x $2,419,800  (Production equipment cost)                              $120,990

 7.  OPERATING  SUPPLIES

    0.20  x $120,990                                                             $ 24,198

 8.  WORKOVER EXPENSE                                                            $410,000

    Over  life  of  field:

          15  Major Workovers  @  500,000  =    $7,500,000
          20  Minor Workovers  @  10,000          200,000
          $25,000/yr wireline work x 20 yr      500,000
                                            $8,200,000


                     =$410,000/yr
 9.  RADIO & TELEPHONE                                                          $ 10.335

10.  TOTAL DIRECT COSTS                                                       $1,184,711




     Source:  ADL estimates based on information from industry sources.
                                           IV-14

-------
                                   TABLE IV-2  -  Continued


INDIRECT COSTS

11.  ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL OVERHEAD

          .40 x (Co. Plant Operators + Line 2 and 7)

          .40 x (33,846 + 21,154 + 24,198)
          .40 x 79,360 =                                                        $  31,744


FIXED COSTS

12   INSURANCE

          283,500 (footage) x $1.41/ft + $221,665 (all risk)                    $621,400
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS, ANNUAL
(Excluding Depreciation)                                                      $1,837,855
     Source:  ADL estimates based on information from industry sources.
                                                IV-15

-------
         Total operating costs in a given year for a production unit with the




same number of completions as the model unit but with twice the average daily




productivity per completion will not be much different from the total operating




costs of the model unit.  The only item which might be somewhat higher is




surface equipment maintenance (See Table IV-2).




         If production unit has twice the number of completions, however,




operating costs can be expected to be much higher.  Insurance and workover




expense, which (Table IV-2)   together make up 56% of the operating costs,




would be twice as high and more labor will be required to operate the larger




number of wells.




         Therefore in the analysis a linear relationship was used between the




number of completions and total operating costs for a production unit implying




that with twice the number of completion on a production unit operating costs




would be twice as high regardless the average completion productivity.  As a




result operating costs per unit produced were assumed to be inversely related




with completion productivity, implying that a production units' per barrel or MCF




production costs would be twice as high, if average completion productivity




would be half and that per barrel or MCF production costs would be half as high




if completion productivity would be twice that of another production unit.




         In order to establish the functional relationship between operating




costs per unit produced and completion productivity over time, a production




profile was calculated for the BOM model unit.
                                          IV-16

-------
         For these calculations it was assumed that the production profile




of each completion had a plateau of level production during  the  first  four




years of the completion's life and declined at 15% per year  during   the




remaining life.  This differed considerably from  the production  assumption




made in the BOM information ciruclar  in  1972 wherein it was  assumed  that the




annual decline rate was close to 6% a year.  This difference in  decline  rate




can be explained by the fact that  since  1972 allowables have increased to the




extent that completions in  federal waters  in 1975 are  produced at their




Maximum Efficient Rates.






          The annual production resulting from these calculations is  shown in




Table IV-3.  Given the number of producing completions, total annual




production and total annual operating costs,  the operating cost per barrel




produced and average completion productivity was calculated as shown  in




Table IV-4.  The relationship between cost per  barrel produced and average




completion productivity is shown in Figure IV-3.   The functional  relationship




as shown in Figure IV-3 between operating costs per barrel produced and




average completion productivity was used throughout the analysis.




          Levels of operating costs per completion for  gas producing  units




were assumed to be the same.  Operating costs per completion within state




waters were estimated to be 10% lower on the average then  operating costs with-




in federal waters, reflecting lower transportation costs  for personnel  and




materials.
                                         IV-17

-------
                               TABLE  IV-3
Calculation of Annual Production
for the BOM Model
Assuming a
No. of Compl. 9
Initial B/D 152
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
499.3
499.3
499.3
499.3
424.4
360.7
306.6
260.6
221.5
188.3
160.0
136.0
115.6
98.3
83.6
71.0
60.4
51.3
43.6
37.1
31.5
26.8
22.8
19.3
16.4
14.0
13
210
Production Unit,
15% Annual Decline Rate
8
240
6
182
4
154
Hi)
3
91
2
102
Annual Production Thousand bls/yr
996.4
996.4 700.8
996.4 700.8 398.6
996.4
847.0
720.0
612.0
520.1
442.1
375.8
319.4
271.5
230.8
196.2
166.7
141.7
120.5
102.4
87,0
74.0
62.9
53.5
45.4
38.6
32.8
700.8
700.8
595.7
506.3
430.4
365.8
310.9
264.3
224.7
190.9
162.3
138.0
117.3
99.7
84.7
72.0
61.2
52.0
44.2
37.5
32.0
27.2
398.6
398.6
398.6
338.8
288.0
245.0
208.1
176.8
150.3
127.8
108.6
92.3
78.5
66.7
56.7
48.2
40.9
34.8
29.6
25.2
21.4
18.2
224.8
224.8
224.8
224.8
191.1
162.4
138.1
117.4
99.8
84.8
72.1
61.3
52.1
44.3
37.6
32.0
27.2
23.1
19.6
16.7
14.2
12.1

99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
84.7
72.0
61.2
52.0
44.2
37.6
31.9
27.1
23.1
19.6
16.7
14.2
12.0
10.2
8.7
7.4
6.3


75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
63.7
54.2
46.1
39.2
33.3
28.3
24.0
20.4
17.4
14.8
12.6
10.7
9.1
7.7
6.6
5.6
Total
499.3
1495.8
2196.6
2595.2
2745.1
2631.6
2430.3
2117.2
1825.8
1563.2
1328.7
1129.4
960.0
816.0
693.6
589.5
501.1
426.0
362.1
307.7
261.6
222.3
189.0
160.6
136.5
116.2
(1)  Number of completions and their initial productivity were
    obtained from the BOM Model production unit discussed in
    1C 8557/1972.
                                       IV-18

-------
                                 TABLE IV-4
Year
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
Calculation of Operating Costs in $/B and
B/D per Completion
B/Yr $/Yr
thousand bis thousand US$ $/B
499.3 367.6 .74
1495.8 898.5 .60
2196.6 1225.2 .56
2595.2 1470.2 .57
2745.1 1633.6 .59
2631.6 1756.1 .67
2430.3 1837.8 .76
2117.2 18.
1825.8
1563.2
1328.7
1129.4
960.0
816.0
693.6
589.5
501.1
426.0
362.1
307.7
261.6
222.3
189.0
160.6
37.8 .87
1.01
1.17
1.38
1.63
1.91
2.25
2.65
3.12
3.67
4.31
5.07
5.97
7.02
8.27
9.72
11.44
136.5 T 13.46

B/Comp.
152
186
200
237
209
180
155
129
111
95
81
69
58
50
42
36
30
26
22
19
16
13
11
10
8
  (1)
     Bis/completion
                                        IV-19

-------
                         FIGURE    iy-3
              Operating Costs (in $/B) Versus
              Average Completion Productivity
20
40
60   80   100
200
400
600
1000
           Average Completion Productivity (B/D)  —• < \ >
                               IV-20

-------
3.3.  Investment Costs





          Estimates of investment costs, which were required for the calculation




of depreciation charges, were again derive^ from the BOM model.  In this case




the costs were not updated to allow for inflationary trends between 1969 and




1974 because most (about 75%) of existing platforms in the Louisiana OCS area




(See Figure IV-4) are more than five years old and because we want to know what




the past actual costs were for depreciation purposes.




          Figure IV-5 shows what estimates were used for investment costs for




production units which consisted respectively of 1 platform, 2 platforms or




3 platforms.  Allowance was made in these estimates for an increase in costs




with an increasing maximum capacity of the processing equipment.




          In the calculation of depreciation charges corrections were made to




allow for the fact that the production units considered in the analysis




differed in size from the model production unit and that part of the investment




had already been depreciated over the past life of these units.
                                            IV- 21

-------
    // Platforms
AGE DISTRIBUTION ON PLATFORMS IN LOUISIANA GULF COAST (Federal and State Waters)
Note:  1974 total based on statistics for first 6 months of 1974.
 52
 48  ._  •_  . -
 44
 40
 36
 30
 28
N3
 20  — 	r
  16
  12
    1935  1937   1939   1947  1943   1945  1947 1949   1951

                                     Source:   ADL
                      953   1955  1957  199  1961  1963   1965  1967

-------
"7   —••
                     10
20
30
                                            IV-23

-------
IV.4.   AFTER TAX CASH FLOWS  FOR  EACH PRODUCTION UNIT



        The annual after-tax cash flows, which were needed for the present




value analysis of the investments required for the new water treatment




and/or injection facilities,  were calculated in the following manner:




        In the case that taxable income was positive:




        Annual after-tax cash flows  = gross revenue - royalty payments -




                                       operating costs - taxes
      In the case that  taxable income was  zero or negative:




      Annual after tax  cash flows  =  gross  revenue - royalty  payments -




                                    operating costs.




      •    Gross  Revenue =  Annual Production of Oil x Wellhead Price +




                          Annual Production of Gas x FPC Gas Ceiling




                          Price (50C/MCF)




      •    Royalties     =  16.7% of Gross Revenues




      •    Operating costs  were calculated  as described  in the previous




                          section




      •    Taxes          =48%  of Taxable Income
                                      IV-24

-------
      •   Taxable Income= Gross Revenues - Royalties - Operating Costs -




                          Depreciation




      •   Annual depreciation charges were calculated using the unit of




                          production method  (1)









IV.5   NO ALLOWANCE FOR COSTS  OF TRANSPORTING OIL AND GAS ONSHORE



       The impact analysis was performed,  assuming a wellhead  price for oil as




well as for gas.   This assumption  can be criticized as being artificial in the




case of oil, where the producing company usually co-owns and co-operates  the




pipeline to the point of sale  onshore,  thus incurring additional costs.




       It was not possible to  find a cost  formula which would  reflect the




considerable differences in transportation charges for the different production




units.  These differences are  the  result of differences in distances, different




volumes transported and use of one pipeline for several production units.  Also,




it was felt that  the pipeline  costs would  not play an important role in the




decision of an operator to continue to produce a certain production unit  or not.
(1)   The unit of production method requires estimates of the  total cumulative




     production, QCUM, over the life of the production unit and  calculates  an




     annual depreciation factor, DEPF, by dividing total investment,  TI,  by this




     cumulative production:




                          DEPF = TI/QCUM




     Annual depreciation charges, DCHARGE, are  then  calculated  by  multiplication




     of the annual production, Q  , by this factor:




                         DCHARGE = DEPF^' Q
                                     IV-2 5

-------
 Since most pipelinesusually transport the production of more than one production




 unit.




       The wellhead price used in the analysis therefore should be considered




as representing the price which the operator would get at the point of sale




decreased by the transportation costs between the production unit and that




point of sale.




       The results of the impact analysis have been tested for their sensi-




tivity to changes in this "wellhead" price.  Given the range — from $5.25 to




$11.00 — over which this "wellhead" price was changed in these sensitivity




tests, it can be assumed that any error by not allowing  for a transportation




charge in the base case price of $7.50 lays well within  the range of results




obtained by these sensitivity tests.
                                     IV-26

-------
IV.6.   COMPUTER PROGRAM




       A computer program was developed to facilitate the calculations for




the numerous cases which needed to be evaluated.




       The same program could be used for the impact analysis in state




waters and federal waters, in spite of a considerable difference in the




complexity- of the analysis required for those areas.




       The general flow diagram presenting the different steps in the




calculations required for the federal waters and state waters are shown in




Figure  IV-6  and Figure IV- 7  respectively.  The program first reads the




data for a leaseblock, which consist of information on:




       •  the number of producing completions




       •  the number of platforms




       o  the total daily production of (1) oil, associated  gas  and  water



          or  (2) gas, condensate and water.




Then the economic life is calculated for that leaseblock, using a parameter




value for the annual decline rate and the future crude oil or gas price.




       The operating cost function, described in the previous pages, is




used to calculate the average annual per-barrel (or per-MCF) operating




cost, which then is used to determine the number of years over which the produc-




tion will decline until these per-barrel operating costs equate the going




"price" per barrel of crude or per MCF of gas.




       Annual production volumes of oil and gas in 1977 are projected and




the average capacity for water treatment facilities on the production units




in the leaseblock are calculated.   Based on that capacity estimate,  invest-




ment costs and annual operating costs are estimated for these treatment




systems.
                                   IV-27

-------
READ
INPUT
DATA
                                                                    FIGURE  IV-6
                                                             Computer Flow Diagram
                                                                  Federal Waters
                      NEXT LEASE BLOCK 1974  DATA
                     CALC.  NUMBER OF PROD.  UNITS
                     CALC.  ECONOMIC LIFE WITHOUT
                         ADD.  OPERATING COSTS
OIL
AND
GAS
PROD.
IN
1977
                     CALC.  CAPACITY REQUIRED FOR
                        WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
                      CALC.  CAPITAL AND ANNUAL
                OPERATING COSTS FOR TREATMENT SYSTEM
                       CALC.  ECONOMIC LIFE WITH
                         ADD. OPERATING COSTS
                            FOR THIS YEAR:
                   CALC.  PROD., AFTER TAX CASHFLOW
                   WITH AND WITHOUT TREATMENT COSTS
                       CALC.  LOSS IN AFTER TAX
                CASHFLOW DUE  TO ADDED OPERATING COSTS
                    FOR YEAR OF INVESTMENT (1977):
                        CALC. PV (AT* CASHFLOW)
                        END OF PRODUCING LIFE?
|R THIS YEAR CALC.
 OIL, GAS, WATER PROD.
 GROSS REVENUE FROM SALES
 ROYALTY PAYMENTS
 WORKING INTEREST ( = 2 - 3)
 OPERATING COSTS
 DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE
 TAXABLE INCOME  (=4-5-6)
 FEDERAL INCOME TAXES (FIT)
 AFTER TAX INCOME (=7-8)
                                                             0.  AFTER TAX CASHFLOW
                                                                                      4-5-8)
CALC. LOSS IN
POT. PROD. DUE
TO ABANDONMENT
IN 1977
NO

[
PV (AT CASHFLOW)
LARGER THAN INVESTMENT?
YES ^

CALC. LOSS IN POT. PROD.
DUE TO DECREASE IN PROD.
LIFE
.1
 STORE INFO. ON
LOSS IN POT. PROD.
NUMBER OF COMPLE-
TIONS ABANDONED
   STORE INFO.  ON INVESTMENT,
      LOSS IN POT.  PROD.,
     LOSS IN AT CASHFLOW.
                                                                 *AT=  After  Tax
                                              IV-28

-------
                                                            FIGURE  IV-7
                                                  Computer  Flow Diagram
                                                         State Waters
     NEXT LL/CL bl-
        197« DATA
  CAIC. ECONOMIC LITE ML
WITHOUT ADD. OPERATING CCSTS
                                         INVEST IN  TREATMENT
                                          EOUIPMENT IN 1977
              IN 1977
    •EXHJECTION IN 1983
                                         CALC. FOR  1977:
                                      HPVO • FV I AT  CASHFLOW»
                                            PV (INVESTMENT)
one.
»FV1

- PV
TV
TO* 1977:
[AT C&SKrtOWl-
(IUVZSTMEVT)
     THEATXEST 1^ 19
CALC.
•TO -

FV
PV
FOR 1917:
(AT CASHFLOW! -
(IJIVESTKENT!
    tcaaicnm IN 19T7
CALC.
BPV3 - PV
PV
FOR 1977:
(AT CASHFLQW1-
(INVESTKEVT)
  SELTCT THE STPJ-.TLCV WIT
      THE HICItEST fcPV
  Will. OEVCSTKT.T BE PJLED FOR?
           WV/0?
    CALC. FOR THIS
     LEASE BLOCK:

LOSS IN  POT. PROD.  DUE
TO fc&ANOONMEHT I«  1977
          STKAZECY 3'
           STBATECY 27
      CALCW>TE:
 I. LOSS  in POT. PROD.
   CLE TO DECPEASE IN
   PROD. LIFE.
 2. LOSS  IM AT*CASHFLOW
   DUE TO ADD. OPERATING
   COSTS.
 3. INVESTMENT IN 1977

   STOKE 1. 2, And 3
       CALCULATE:
 l. LOSS ir; POT. ?ROD.
   DIE TO SFCREASE IN

 2. LOiS If* AT CASHFLOW
   DUE TO ADD. OPERATING
   COSTS.
 3. INVCSTRCNT IN 1977

   STORE I. 3, and )
      ISTUATECY 1?  I
       CALCULATE:
   lOf.S f;  POT. PROD.
   OL'E TO Cr CRKASC IN
   P«OO. LIFE.
   LOSS IN  AT CASHFLOW
   DUE TO A.OO. OPFRATINC
   COSTS.
   INVLST«C*JT IN 1977
   STcnr i. 2. «nd l
  ^ I ALL Ll.^c!^
    I FRJWT On< I'T IftMI.. s   I
              1
"AT- After T«*

-------
       Adding the annual treatment cost to existing operating cost levels




the economic life of the leaseblock is again calculated and the decrease in




that economic life by the added operating costs is established.




       To determine whether the investment will be paid for by the remaining




production the annual after tax cashflow is calculated for each of the




remaining years post 1977.  If the present value of that after tax cash




flow happens to be smaller than the investment required in 1977, then the




loss in potential production due to early abandonment of the leaseblocks'




production units is calculated.  Otherwise the loss in potential production




due to a decrease in the leaseblocks' producing life is calculated and is




stored together with the information on the required investment.  When all




leaseblocks have been analyzed, output tables are printed out which show the




total annual production foregone for all leaseblocks by either early




abandonments in 1977 or by decreases in the producing life, plus information




on the total investment required in 1977.




       For state waters the analysis performed by the program is




more complicated because of the reinjection requirement in 1983.  Using




the same criteria as in federal waters, three possible investment strategies




are evaluated and compared.




       First, however, it is determined whether the producing life of the




leaseblock extends beyond 1983.  If this turns out not to be the case, then




the investment in treatment in 1977 is evaluated in exactly the same manner




as described above for federal waters.




       If the producing life of the leaseblock extends beyond 1983, then




the after tax cashflows of the following three strategies are calculated




(See  Figure  IV-8):
                                         IV-30

-------
        •  Investment in treatment systems  in  1977  and  in reinjection




           system in 1983  (Strategy 1)




        •  Investment in treatment system in 1977  and abandonment in




           1983  (Strategy  2)




        •  Investment in reinjection  in 1977  (Strategy 3).







        Having calculated the investment requirements and present values of net




after tax cash flows for these three different  strategies, the strategy with the




highest net present value is selected.  For that strategy the loss in potential




production is calculated and stored together with the investment for 1977




and 1983.




        When all leaseblocks have been evaluated in this manner, the following




information is printed out:




        •  Total annual loss in potential production of oil and associated




           gas and condensate by either early abandonments in 1977 and 1983




           or by the decrease in producing life of production units.




        •  Cumulative total of potential production lost.




        •  Annual potential production and cumulative total potential




           production.




        •  Maximum annual water production and  cumulative total water




           production.




        •  Total investment in 1977 and 1983.




        •  Percentage of total investment in 1977 in reinjection facilities.




        •  Average annual operating costs per barrel or per MCF produced




           and average addition to operating costs per unit produced due to




           treatment and/or reinjection.




        The period covered  in the analysis  extended up  to the  year  2000.





                                       IV-31

-------
V.	ANALYSIS OF THE DATA BASE




V.I.    INTRODUCTION




        In the following sections    the available data are analyzed to




justify certain generalizations which were made for the impact analysis




applying the methodology described in the previous chapter.




V.2..    GEOGRAPHICAL SEGMENTATION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION




        Offshore oil and gas production  is located in three




geographical areas:  California, Alaska's Cook Inlet and the Gulf of




Mexico.  (See Table V-l.)




        The potential impact on California offshore oil and gas production




has not been analyzed in this study since an estimated 95% of the brine




produced offshore is thought to be reinjected as required by the 1983




standard.  The potential impact for bringing the remaining 5% in compliance




is considered to be small.




        Cook Inlet crude/condensate production was 11.5% of total U.S.




offshore crude and condensate production and 1.7% of total U.S. onshore and




offshore production in 1974.  Gas production in Cook Inlet was only 1.7%




of total offshore and 0.3% of total U.S. production.  None of the




approximately 13.6 million barrels of water produced annually in Cook




Inlet is reinjected at present.  At present most of the water from 14




oil producing platforms is piped ashore for processing and discharge




into the Inlet.
                                   V-l

-------
                                  TABLE V-l
                        Average Daily U.S.  Offshore
                     Oil and Lease CondeRsate  Production

                                in 1974 (1)
                      Federal
State
Total
                     Oil   Gas     Oil   Gas     Oil   G*-
                    MB/D  MMCF/D  MB/D  MMCF/D  MB/D  !^MCF/D
% of U.S. % or U.S.
Offshore  Total (2)
Oil  Gas  Oil   Gas
California
Alaska
Louisiana
Texas
Total
47
0
938
4
989
15
0
9122
439
9576
177
153
13
1
344
68
200
1485
258
2011
224
153
951
5
1333
83
200
10607
697
11587
                                                              16.8  0.7  2.5   0.1

                                                              11.5  1.7  1.7   0.3
                                                              71.3 91.5 10.7  17.7
                                                               0.4  6.1  0.06  1.2
                                                              100. 100. 14.96 19.3
(1)   Source:   "Outer Continental Shelf Statistics,  1953-1974",
              U.S.  Department of the Interior, Geological Survey-
              Conservation Division, June  1975.

(2)   Total average  daily production in the U.S. in 1974 was 8849 MB/D oil and
     lease condensate and 60,000 MMCF/D gas.
                                     V-2

-------
         The Gulf of Mexico is the area of greatest offshore oil and gas




production.   Offshore Louisiana and Texas produced 72% of the U.S. offshore




total oil and condensate and 11% of total U.S. onshore and offshore oil and




condensate production in 1974.   Total gas production was 92% of U.S. offshore




and 18% of total U.S. onshore and offshore production.  Gulf waters are




further divided into the operations conducted in state waters (out to the




three mile limit) and those conducted in Federal waters.  Texas state and




Federal waters account for,0.7% of total Gulf crude oil and condensate




production and 4.2% of gas production with about half of the oil and all




of the gas coming from the Federal domain.  Louisiana state and Federal




waters account for more than 99% of total Gulf crude/condensate production




and about 94% of total Gulf gas.  Eighty-seven percent of the Louisiana oil




and 85% of the gas is from Federal waters.




         The division between Gulf state and Federal waters is germane to the




impact analysis because E.P.A.'s proposed regulations discern between




production from state and Federal waters.
                                     V-3

-------
 V.3	SOURCE OF DATA AND GENERALIZATIONS USED IN THE ANALYSIS
 3.1.  Introduction
         ADL does not have access to proprietary production and cost data
 for all production units in offshore areas.   Thus it became necessary to
 make several generalizations before the available data  could be used for the
 analysis.
         The data sources available for the purpose of the analysis were the
following:
         •  "Approved Maximum Efficient Rates for Reservoirs and Maximum
            Production Rates for Well Completions," October 1974; the
            United States Department of the Interior,  Geological Sruvey,
            Conservation Division, Gulf of Mexico Area O.C.S.
         •  "Summary Production Report of Oil, Gas, Water by O.C.S. Leases
            and State Leases with U.S.G.S. Participation in Units from
            Monthly Report of Operations  (9-152) for Producing Leases,
            June 1974;" United States Department of the Interior, Geological
            Survey, Conservation Division, Gulf of Mexico Area - O.C.S.
         •  "Offshore Petroleum Studies.  Composition of the Offshore United
            States Petroleum Industry and Estimation of Costs of Producing
            Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico;" Bureau of Mines Information
            Circular IC-8557, 1972.
         •  "Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations, Guidelines
            and New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas
            Extraction Point Source Category;"  United States Environmental
            Protection Agency, October 1974.
                                      V-4

-------
         •  A list with multi-well platforms in the OCS area of the Gulf of




            Mexico obtained from the Offshore Oil Scouts Association,




            New  Orleans,  Louisiana.




         •  "Statistical Report for the Year 1973,"  State of Alaska Department




            of Natural Resources,  Division of Oil and Gas, Anchorage, Alaska.




         •  "Production and Proration Order;" State of Louisiana,  Department of




            Conservation, New Orleans,  Louisiana, December 20, 1974.




         o  Personal Communication with EPA and oil industry sources.




Based on this information, estimates were made of:




         •  The size and number of production units present in offshore areas,




         •  The annual volumes of  oil,  gas and water produced from each of




            these production units and the decline rates of the annual




            production,




  3.2    The Size and Number of Production Units Present in Offshore Areas




         Table V-2 shows the numbers  of platforms which were considered in




the analysis as compared with the  actual number of platforms present in 1974




in the federal and state waters of the  Gulf  of Mexico  and in the state waters




of Alaska.  The sample of platforms used to  estimate the possible impact in




the federal waters of the Gulf of  Mexico was so large  (>90%) that it can




safely be assumed that the results of the impact  analysis based on that sample




apply to the total population of platforms in the  federal waters.






          In leaseblocks with more than one  platform,  it was necessary to make an




 assumption of how these platforms were divided over various production units.




 Some  production units consist of  more  than  one platform and in such cases one




 platform will be the main processing platform where all the oil,  water and




 gas produced  by the  other platforms  will be separated and treated.   It is
                                      V-5

-------
                                  TABLE V-2
            Number of Oil and Gas Platforms Considered and Total

              Number of Platforms Present in Offshore Areas
                                               State and Federal Waters
Louisiana
Texas
Gulf of Mexico
California
Alaska

Actual
Considered
Actual
Considered
Actual
Considered
Actual
Considered
Actual
Considered
Multi Well
644
581
23
20
667
601
22
none
14
14
Single Well
1858
1216
115
none
1973
1216
none
none
none
none
   Based on 1973 data for Alaska and 1974 data for California and the
   Gulf of Mexico.
                                      V-6

-------
assumed that for such multi-platform production units the additional water




treatment facilities required in 1977 will be located on these main processing




platforms as well.




         The number of applications for discharge permits filed by offshore




operators with the EPA provides an indication of the actual number of treatment




facilities in the Gulf of Mexico federal waters.  By October, 1974 there had




been 327 applications for the Louisiana O.C.S. area. Based









on the distribution shown in Table V-3 and since there is no reason to assume




that operators in different lease blocks will or even can combine platforms




for water treatment or reinjection purposes, it was assumed that typical




production units consist of one platform.  The effect of assuming that a




production unit consisted of three platforms was also evaluated.
                                        V-7

-------
                                    TABLE V-3


                      Gulf of Mexico, Federal Waters   ,

                                                                  (2)
        Distribution of Multi-Well Oil and Gas Producing Platforms


                              Over Leaseblocks
                                                     Type cf Platform
Number of Platforms

   per Leaseblock




         1


         2


         3


         4


         5


         6


         7


         8


         9





Total Platforms
                                                    Oil
                Gas
Number of Platforms
in Each Category:
111
44
25
14
7
6
2
2
1
112
18
3
1
none
none
none
none
none
440
601
(1)
   Including Louisiana and Texas federal waters.
(2)
   Platforms considered in the analysis - Refer to Table III-3.
                                        V-8

-------
 3.3	Estimates of the  Annual  Volumes of Oil, Gas and Water Produced and

        Estimates of the  Annual  Production Decline Rates



         For the Gulf of Mexico area information was available on total volumes



of oil, gas, condensate and water produced in each leaseblock    for the month



of June 1974.  Tables  V-4  and V-5   were developed from this information to obtain



an idea of the distribution of different water/oil and water/gas ratios for



existing platforms in the Gulf of Mexico federal waters.  The tables show



how the number of platforms with daily oil or gas production in a given range



are distributed over various ranges of water produced with that oil or gas.  The



ranges for gas and oil production respectively have been chosen to be the same

                                (2)
on a thermal equivalence basis,    so as to allow comparison of the distribution



of water oil ratios for oil producing platforms with the water gas ratios of



gas producing platforms.



         Figure V-l, which   shows the cumulative distributions of oil, gas,



and water production from oil and gas producing platforms, suggests


the following conclusions:



         •  Total gas production per platform is consistently higher than


            total oil production per platform, if measured on a Btu


            equivalent basis.  Of the total of 199 gas producing platforms



            in a sample,  99 or 49.8% had a production of more than


            12,000 MCF/D  (= 2000 B/d).
   Source:  USGS, Summary Report of Oil, Gas, Water by DCS Leases and

            State Leases for Producing Leases, June 1974.


(2)
   1 Bbl crude oil - 5850 cu. ft. natural gas in terms of Btu equivalents.
                                       V-9

-------
                                            TABLE V-4
                                Louisiana Federal Waters
Number of Oil Producing Platforms Ranked by
Total Average
Average
Daily Oil
Production
per Plat-
form (B/D)
0-
20-
50-
100-
200-
500- 1,
1,000- 2,
2,000- 5,
5,000-10,
10,000-15,
15,000-20,
TOTAL
% of Total
Average
0- 20-
20 50
20 2
50
100 7 1
200 9 3
500 16 7
000 9 5
000 10 13
000 10 6
000 3
000 1
000
67 35
15.2 7.9
Daily
50-
100
1


2
1
4
5
1
4


18
4.1
Daily Oil and Total Daily Water Production
Water Production per Platform (B/D)
100- 200- 500- 1,000- 2,000- 5,000-
200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
1
1 1
2 2
112 2
7 11 4 2 1
15 18 6 11
39 26 31 16 5 2
13 9 23 16 23 5
2 12 9
1
5
84 68 68 48 40 8
19.1 15.5 15.5 10.9 9.1 1.8
(1)
10,000-
15,000 Total
4
2
12
20
49
59
147
106
4 34
2
5
4 440
0.9
Cum.
% of
Total
0.9
1.4
4.1
8.6
19,7
33.1
66.6
90.7
98-4
98-9


100%
Cumulative       23.1 27.2  46.3  61.8  77.3   88.2   97.3    99.1




(1)   Sources:   U.S.G.S.  Conservation Division,  Gulf of Mexico Area,  O.C.S.:




               1.   Approved Maximum Production  Rates for Well Completions,  October 1,  1974




               2.   Summary Production Report of Oil, Gas, Water by O.C.S.  Leases,  June 1974




               Oil Scouts Association:




                   Platforms in O.C.S. Leases,  June 1974






                                               V-10

-------
                                            TABLE V-5
Louisiana Federal Waters
Number of Gas Producing Platforms Ranked by ,--,-,
Total Average
Average
Daily Gas
Production
per Platform
(MCF/day)
0-120
120-300
300-600
600-1200
1200-3000
3000-6000
6000-12,000
12,000-30,000
30,000-60,000
60,000-90,000
90,000-120,000
120,000-180,000
180,000-240,000
> 240, 000
TOTAL
% of Total
Cumulative


0-
20
3
4
1
1
17
24
20
24
9
5
1
2
1

112
56.4

Average

20- 50-
50 100
1

1
1
1 2
4 1
3 3
4 4
5 3
1

1


20 15
10.1 7.5
66.5 74
Daily Gas and Daily Water Production v~"'
Daily Water Production per Platform (E/D)

100- 200- 500- 1000- 2000-
200 500 1000 2000 5000


2 1

2
1 1
1311
3 10 3 1
34 111
2122

1 1
1 1
1
12 23 863
6.0 11.5 4.0 3.0 1.5
80 91.5 95.5 98


Total
4
4
5
2
22
31
32
49
27
13
1
5
3
1
199



Cum.
% of
Total
2
4
6.5
7.5
18.5
34.1
50.2
74.9
38.5
95.
95.5
98.
99.5


100%

(1)   Sources:   U.S.G.S.  Conservation Division,  Gulf  of  Mexico Area,  O.C.S.:




               1.   Approved  Maximum Production  Rates for  Well Completions,  October 1,  1974




               2.   Summary Production Report  of Oil, Gas,  Water  by O.C.S. Leases,  June 1974




               Oil  Scouts Association:




                   Platforms in  O.C.S.  Leases,  June  1974







                                               V-ll

-------
•  Of a total of 440 oil producing platforms,  only 147  or 33.4%




   had a hydrocarbon production of more than 2000 B/D.   About  4.5%




   of the gas producing platforms had a production larger than




   120,000 MCF/D equivalent to 20,000 B/D which was the upper  limit




   for the size of oil producing platforms in the sample.




9  Total water production on gas producing platforms is significantly




   smaller than total water production on oil producing platforms.




   About 75% of the gas producing platforms in the sample had  less




   than 100 B/D of water production, compared, on the same basis,




   with not more than 28% of the oil producing platforms.  Not more




   than 4.5% of gas producing platforms have water production higher




   than 1000 B/D compared with approximately 22.5% of the oil producing




   platforms.




•  Maximum water/oil or water/gas ratios are significantly higher




   for oil producing platforms than for gas producing platforms.






   Not more than 12  (6%) of a total of 199 gas producing platforms




   have water/gas ratios greater than or equal to one when measured




   on a barrel equivalent basis  (6000 cu. ft. gas + 1 bbl equivalent




   oil) compared with 97 (22%) of the oil producing platforms.
                               V-12

-------

i-m
iz-iu

-------
         For the analyses it was necessary to estimate what     size

treatment and reinjection capacities would be required on different sized

production units.  This required an estimate   of  the amount of water which

could be expected to be produced together with the oil and gas of a given

field.  For this purpose it was assumed that reservoirs included in the data

base for the Gulf of Mexico area are without exception water drive reservoirs.

The formation pressure in a field with a water drive stays approximately level during

the life of the field (except where permeability is low and producing rates high)

while the formation pressure of other types of drive mechanisms (e.g. solution

gas drive, gas cap drive), decrease with relative uniformity over the life of a

field.

         Given the fact that the reservoir pressure has to overcome the pressure

differentials resulting from the weight of the fluid column in the production

tubing plus the resistance to flow in the reservoir, production tubing and

surface lines^ the amount of formation water produced during any time

interval on the field's life can be assumed never to exceed the amount

of oil, corrected for the difference in gravity between oil and water.

Therefore, for the analysis it was assumed that for a given production unit

the capacity of treatment and reinjection facilities would be sufficient to

accommodate volumes of water equal to the "total volume of  oil and water processed

in 1974, corrected for the difference in  gravity between oil and water.
   Most fields in the Gulf of Mexico have a combination  of  gas cap  and water
   drive.  As a result end of life water production for  production units can be
   expected to be lower than implied by the assumption of a uniform water drive.
                                       V-14

-------
         In the case of gas fields, based on the statistics shown in Table III-6,




it was assumed that the water/gas ratio of barrels of water per MCF of gas




produced would never exceed 0.16 and that the maximum capacity for a given




water treatment facility on a platform would not exceed 5000 bbls/day of water.




         In the absence of information on actual decline curves experienced on




production units in the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska offshore a uniform 'exponential




decline rate was assumed, implying that the annual oil or gas production would




decrease by the same percentage in each consecutive period.  The results of the




impact were tested to changes in the value of these decline rates, which were




assumed to be  15% per year for oil producing facilities and 12% per year for




gas producing facilities.




         The approximate volume of annual production in 1974 for each completion




for oil wells and gas wells was obtained from the allowable schedules for the




Gulf of Mexico federal and state waters.  For various reasons, such as well




shut-ins for workover purposes or  for observation, the allowed production can




be less than the actual production during a given year.




         Actual oil production and gas production for the Gulf of Mexico area




during 1974 and 1973, respectively, was therefore compared with  the implied




production used in the analysis.   Table  V-6  shows  that the use of allowables




in the case of oil resulted in a production estimate about 25% higher than the




actual production in 1974.  In the case of  gas  the use of allowables  resulted




in an estimated production not more than  0.5% different  from the actual




production.  A possible explanation for the much  larger  difference between




actual and implied production for  oil  in  1974 may lie in the fact that  implied




production in federal waters was based on  the use of Maximum Efficient  Rates
                                      V-15

-------
f
Federal waters
            (4
State waters
Gulf of Mexico
                    (3)
                    (5)
                                                          TABLE V-6
                                         Actual Production in 1973/1974 Compared with
                                         the Production in 1973/1974 Implied by the
                                             Use of Allowables in the Analysis

Actual
Oil and
Lease
Condensate

874
216
1090
1974 Product ion '^
Implied
Conden-
Oil sate Total
(in thousand B/D)
957 32 989
253 27 280
1269
(2)
1973 Product ion ^ '
Actual Implied
Gas and Gas Oil
Oil Well Well Well
Gas Gas Gas

-------
while 1974 production was still based on Maximum Production Rates.


  3.4    Production Units in State Waters
         For the Gulf of Mexico state waters,  information was available only


on the number of producing completions by company for each individual pool or


field.  A considerable number of these fields  produce oil, water and gas into


onshore facilities, where these fluids are separated and treated.   It was assumed


that the additional treatment equipment would  be sized to process  the water


produced from these clusters of completions operated by one company.  Most of


these clusters were relatively small (Table V-7).  The size range  for treat-


ment systems assumed to be required in state waters can therefore  be expected


not to be much different from the actual range of required sizes.



3.5 Production Units in Cook Inlet, Alaska	


         For Alaska, data was available on oil,  gas and water production for


each completion on the fourteen oil producing  platforms in Cook Inlet. This


data is discussed in Section VI.4 where the impact analysis for Alaska is


discussed.
  rate^hiT Ef"Cient Rate for a Completion is defined  to  be  that  production
  rate which can be sustained during at least six months  without  causing
  lasting damage in the production characteristics of a reservoir.


  The  Maximum Production Rate is set for resource conservation  purposes  and
  as such usually lower than the Maximum Efficient Rate.
                                      V-17

-------
                                 TABLE V-7

               Size Distribution of Production Units in

                Gulf of Mexico Federal Waters    and in

               	Louisiana State Waters	


                    Federal Waters                     State Waters
Number of          	
Completions        Oil           Gas/2'              Oil           Gas/

   0-2              96           40                  17            12
   2-4             104           42                   67
   4-6             103           28                  21              7
   6-8              66           13                   24
   8-10             44           14                   21
  10-12             12            7                   02
  12-14             12            5                   30
  14-16             15            2                   01
  16-18              64                   01
  18-20              72                   22
  20-25             11            6                   32
  25-30              0                                02
  30-35              1                                02
  35-40              0                                11
  40-50              0                                3
  50-60              0                                1
  60-70              0                                0
  70-80              0                                1
     80                                               1
   Including Louisiana and Texas  federal waters

 (2)
   Nonassociated gas

 Source:  Production  and Proration  Order, Louisiana Dept. of Conservation,
         and U.S.G.S.  Conservation Div.
                                       V-18

-------
VI.     ECONOMIC  IMPACT ANALYSIS







VI.1.   SUMMARY







        The following chapter presents the results of the impact analysis




obtained using the methodology as explained in the previous chapter.  The




analysis was first done for what will be called "base cases" developed




separately for the Louisiana state waters and the Gulf of Mexico federal




waters using best estimates for important parameters such as prices for oil




and gas, annual production decline rates, the cost of capital and using




assumptions of the most likely configuration of production units in terms




of number of platforms per unit and       space availability for




additional treatment and reinjection equipment.




        This analysis measured the impact by investment and operating costs




for additional water treatment equipment expected to be required on oil and




gas production units in state and federal waters in 1977 to comply with new




water pollution standards and the impact of costs for additional water




reinjection facilities expected to be required in 1983 in state waters.  The




impact was measured in terms of:




        •  The loss in potential production if oil and gas producers




           have to absorb the investment and operating costs for the treat-




           ment and reinjection facilities.




        •  The total investment required for treatment and reinjection




           facilities in 1977 and 1983 respectively.
                                     VI -1

-------
         •  The total number of completions which would be abandoned in




            1977 and 1983 because some production units will not be able to




            pay for the additional investment with the remaining




            production.  Price increases are assumed not to occur.




         •  The average increase in the costs per unit produced.




The analysis considered, oil and gas production in Louisiana state waters




and the Gulf of Mexico federal waters using 1974 data for existing production




units.




         The results of these analyses are summarized in Tables VI-1 and VI-2.




If operators of oil and gas producing units existing in 1974, will have to




absorb all of the treatment costs and operating costs required for treatment




and reinjection facilities, then it can be expected that for units producing




in 1974:




         •  In the Gulf of Mexico,  14.0 to 27.8 million barrels of potential




            remaining production of oil and lease condensate will be lost




            or 0.6 to 1.2% of total potential production in 1977 and 81.4




            to 249.4 million MCF nonassociated and associated gas representing




            0.3 to 1.0% of total potential remaining production in 1977



            from oil and gas producing units existing in 1974.
                                     VI-2

-------
                             TABLE VI-1
                      Producers Absorb All Costs
             Range of Likely Impact in the Gulf of Mexico
             	Federal and State Waters	
                            (1974 dollars)
Federal Waters  (No Reinjection Required)
Loss in Potential Prod., oil (2)   0.5 - 1.0%        8.5 - 17.5 MMB
                         gas (3)   0.3 - 0.85%       60 - 158 MM MCF
Total Invest. Required, 1977                        45 - 125 MM $
                        1983                        N A
Total Completions Aban. 1977      less than 0.3%    2-8

State Waters
Loss in Potential Prod., oil (2)   1.2-2.1%        5.5 - 10.3 MMB
                         gas (3)   0.4  -  1.5%       21.4 - 91.4 MM MCF
Total Invest. Required, 1977                       18.8 - 19.7 MM $
                        1983                       49.7 - 56.4 MM $
Total Completions Aban. 1977      <  0.2%            1-2
                        1983      3.5 - 6.2%       42 - 75
Total Federal and State
Loss in Potential Prod., oil (2)   0.6 - 1.2%        14.0 - 27.8 MMB
                         gas (3)   0.3 - 1.0%        81.4 - 249.4 MM MCF
Total Investment Req.,  1977                        63.8 - 144.7 MM $
                        1983                        49.7 - 56.4 MM $
Total Completions Aban. 1977      < 0.2%            3-10
                        1983      0.9  -  1.5%        42 - 75
   State waters do not include Texas state waters, which represent less  than
   1% of total oil production in state waters and less than 0.25% of total
   oil production in federal waters.
(2)
   Including lease condensate
(3)Including associated gas           SOURCE:  Arthur D- Little, Inc., estimates

                                     VI-3

-------
        •  Total investment requirements, in 1974 dollars,  will be




           between $63.8 to $144.7 million by 1977 and between $49.7 to




           $56.4 million by 1983.




        •  The number of completions abandoned in 1977 will be less




           than 0.2% of total producing completions in 1976 or 1977 and




           the total number of completions abandoned in state waters in 1983




           will be between 0.9% to 1.5% of the completions  producing in 1982.




Operators will not necessarily have to absorb all of these  costs.  Therefore




it was calculated what the average increase in costs per barrel or MCF




produced might be, which producers would like to pass on.  The results of




these calculations are shown in Table Vl-2:




        •  For oil produced in federal waters, average cost increases in




           1977 will likely be between 9.0 to 31.2c per barrel and




           between 11.6 and 16. 3c  per barrel for oil produced in state




           waters to allow producers to cover investment and operating




           costs for treatment facilities over a fifteen year period.
                                     VI-4

-------
                                       TABLE VI - 2
              (1)   Range  of  Average  Cost  Increases  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico
                                 Federal  and  State  Waters

                                      (1974 Dollars)
                                                  Oil Wells                 Gas Wells
                                              1977         1983          1977          1983
Federal Waters                                  (in  C/Bbl)                  (in C/MCF)

Cost  Increase                             9.0 _ ^1.2    N/A          .14 _ 0.92      N/A


State Waters

Cost  Increase                            11.6 -16.3  77.3-107.9  0.41 -0.57  2.41  - 3.31


                (2) Economic Cost per Average Barrel of Oil  Recovered


                                             	Oil Wells                Gas Wells
Federal Waters                               1977         1983          1977          1983

EC. Cost per Bbl Recovered  ($/Bbl)       94    2382       N/A      42     4511      N/A
   •

State Waters

EC. Cost per Bbl Recovered  ($/Bbl)       36  -  1237  371 -  8321  133 -  2984    808  - 17741
SOURCE:   Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                                              VI-5

-------
        •  For oil produced in state wateis average cost  increases  in

           1983 will be about 77.3 to 107.9c per barrel, allowing producers

           to  recover  investment  and  operating  costs for  reinjaction

           facilities  over a fifteen-year period.



        •  For gas produced in federal waters,  average cost  increases  in

           1977 will be about  0-14 to 0.92C per MCF and in state waters

           they will be'about 0.41 to 0.57C per MCF, allowing recovery over a

           period of 15 years investment and operating costs for treatment

           facilities  installed in 1977.



        •  For gas produced in state waters, average cost increases in 1983 will

           likely be 2.41  to 3.31C per MCF, allowing recovery of investment

           and operating costs for reinjection facilities installed in 1983.



As mentioned above, the data base used for the analysis consisted of wells

reported to be producing in 1974 and as such represented only a part of the

wells which will be affected by the new regulations in 1977 and in 1983.


    To give a rough indication of potential impact of the guidelines on new

wells in the Gulf of Mexico, USGS  estimates of reserves
    Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources
    in the United States,"  Geological Survey circular 725.
                                  VI- 6

-------
were used and the results of the analysis were extrapolated on a unit of




reserves basis.




         The same was done with estimates of the category of undiscovered




recoverable resources in the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore areas




as estimated by the U.S.G.S. to obtain at least an indication of the potential




impact on the oil and gas wells and platforms expected to be installed later




than 1977.  The results show that for new sources the loss in potential produc-




tion might be as high as .35 billion bbls of oil and 1.75 billion MCF of gas if  price




increases are  not allowed.  Investment might be as high as 1.92 billion dollars




(see Table VI-17). These high  estimates of losses in potential production  from





recoverable resources are equivalent to about 75% of 1974 offshore oil production




and to about 15% of 1974 offshore gas production.  The losses will not occur




during any single year but rather during a period of about 50 years starting




somewhere between 1990 and 2000.  The additional investment required will also




be made over a period of at least 30 years following 1977, rather than




having to be made in any one single year.




      Since                  some oil which otherwise would be discharged will be




recovered through the additional treatment required in 1977,this treatment




can be considered as another way to produce oil.   It is shown in Section VI-10
                                       VI-7

-------
m
of this chapter that the treatment technology considered to be BPCTCA^ on



the average recovers more energy than it consumes.  However, in terms of



economic cost per barrel recovered, it can be considered as, at best, a rather



 larginal investment if the objective would only be to produce more barrels of


oil at an earlier point in time.



         •  For oil wells the average economic cost    per barrel recovered



            in 1977 for treatment facilities will be somewhere between $36



            to $2382 mainly depending on the amount of water treated during


            that period.




         •  For gas wells the economic cost per barrel recovered in 1977



            will be somewhere between $42 and $4511.
         Reinjection systems to be installed in state waters in 1983 are


not part of the treatment systems proper.  If it is assumed, however, that



these systems will have to be paid for by the oil which is recovered through


treatment then, as shown in Table Vl-2, the economic cost per barrel recovered



for oil wells will be between $371 and $8321 and for gas wells between $808


and $17741.



         As mentioned earlier, cost data which would allow a rigorous analysis of


the potential impact on offshore oil and gas production in Cook Inlet in Alaska


were not available.  A preliminary estimate of the potential impact has been made



assuming that costs for oil and gas production and required treatment and re-



injection in Cook Inlet will be from three to six times higher than the ones



used in the impact analysis for the Gulf of Mexico.  The results of this estimate



are discussed in Section VI-12.
   Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available.

 (2)
   The average cost per barrel recovered over a 15-year period allowing for a

   return on investment of 12% to 20% and after tax operating costs.



                                   VI-8

-------
VI.2.  FEDERAL WATERS: BASE CASE RESULTS FOR OIL WELLS AND GAS WELLS





          The computer program,  discussed in the previous chapter,  was used to




estimate the impact of the new treatment regulations on existing oil and gas




producing facilities in the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico.  Base case




parameter values and assumptions consisted of the following:




          •  Oil and gas wellhead prices of $7.50/Bbl and $0.50/MCF respectively.




          •  Annual decline rates of 15%/yr for oil and 12%/yr for gas.




          •  Production units consist of one platform.




          •  All platforms will require additional treatment equipment in 1977,




             consisting of surge  tank and flotation unit.




          •  All platforms will have enough space to accommodate this additional




             equipment.




The results of the analysis for oil wells are shown in Table VI-3.




          Only.one oil producing platform with one producing completion would




likely be abandoned in 1977 resulting in a loss of potential production not more




than 36.4 MB or less than 0.3% of the total 14.0 MMB of oil production foregone.




The annual volumes of potential production lost through immediate abandonment




In  1977 are shown in the column under the heading "Production Loss By Platform




Shut-ins in 1977."  Most of the potential oil production loss, 13.98 MMB or




99.7% of the total of 14.0 MMB, will be by a decrease in the producing lives of




completions.




          The annual volumes of potential production lost by this decrease in the




producing life of completions is shown in the column under the heading "By




Decrease in Producing Life."  The number of completions abandoned annually shown




in  the column under the heading "Abandonments."




          In addition to the loss of potential oil production of 14.0 MMB, 40.3




MM  MCF of associated gas has been estimated to be lost as well.  These losses in




                                         VI-9

-------
                                       TABLE VI-3
                                 Federal Waters -  Oil
                               Producers Absorb All Costs
         Year
Production Loss
by Platform Shut-
ins in 1977
  (barrels)	
                                                'Production Loss
                                                by decrease in
                                                Producing life
                                                   (barrels)
               Completion
              Ab an d onmen t s
         1977
          1 9 a n
          19 HI
          19B?
          19H1
          1901
          1 9 b CJ
         19H9
         I99n
         1991
         199?
         1993
         1991
          1997
          199«
          1990
          2001
          2 H 0 9.
          2003
          2001
          2005
          200*

         TOTAL
                            « " fc 6'
           n-
           n,
           n.
           n«
           n .
           n •
           n '
           n ,
           n •
           i «
           n«
           n •
           n-
           p .
           n .
           n .
           n .
           n ,
           n .
           n-
           n ,
           n .
           n •
           n .
                                         n.
                                         n,
                                         n.
                                     6 1 7 P .
                                     2 '/!>
                                     H h
1 9 v n o rt
19471 A
1 8 y t> « n
 1 3. 1 U «
 7R77P
 1
                     1.
                     0-
                     D.
                     1 .
                     U.
                    39.
                    94.
                    12-
                   10U.
                   20 /.
                   26.5,
                   243
                                                                           231
 130.
 1 1 0 .
  47.
  A3,
  3U,
   1-
   3-
   U.
   4
   Cl

2690
Total Equipment  Investment in 1977:  $63.9 million
Fraction of  Investment Made in Reinj.  in 1977:  .0000
Total Equipment  Investment in 1983:  0
Platforms Immediately Abandoned:  1
Total Oil Production Foregone:  1A.O million Bbls
Total Associated Gas Foregone:  40.3 million MCF
Completion Lost before 1977:  4.
Production Lost before 1977:  .054 million barrels
                                   SOURCE: Arthur D. Little,  Inc.,
                                           estimates
                                           VI-10

-------
potential production of oil and associated gas will amount to about .88% of




estimated recoverable oil reserves in 1977 and 1.12% of associated gas reserves.




Total investment required for additional equipment in 1977 will be 63.9 MM $.










        Table VI-4 shows the base case results for the gas wells in federal waters.




Early abandonments in 1977 will result in a loss of potential gas production of




513.8 M MCF or less than .7% of a total of 75.4 MM MCF of non-associated gas.




          About 74.9 MM MCF of non-associated gas, or 99.3% of the total loss




in potential production, will be through a decrease in the producing lives of well




completions.  It is estimated that together with the loss of a total of 75.4 MM MCF




of non-associated gas about 1.1 MMB of condensate will be foregone.




          Total gas production foregone will be about 0.5% of estimated recoverable




reserves in 1977 and total condensate production foregone will be about 0.67% of




estimated reserves.  Total investment requirements in 1977 will be 23.5 MM$.




Given the small number of early abandonments in 1977 it can be expected that the




new regulations will have no effect on the employment situation related with




oil and gas production in federal waters.
                                       VI-11

-------
                                        TABLE  VI-4
                                   Federal  Waters - Gas
                                Producers Absorb All Costs
 Year

 19/7
 197H
 1970
 1990
 1991
 199?
-1
 199*
 1997
 2000
 2001
 200 4
 2001
TOTAL
Production Loss
by Platform Shut-
ins in 1977
   (MCF) _
      f 9 M -I •
      f;6/;J1 -
      -12377-
           n ,
           n ,
           n •
           n»
           n .
           n •
           n .
           n •
           n .
           n.
           n ,
           n ,
           n .
           0 i
           0 ,
           n
           n
           H
Production Loss
by Platform Shut-
ins in 1983
   (MCF)	
        "i ,
         i t
        n t
        n .
        f ,
        n.
        n,
        , J •
        n,
        n.
Production Loss
by decrease in
Producing Life
    (MCF)	

  --"T7-
    n,
    r.,
    n.
                                              7 .' ?
                                          4 V 4 4 / 1 ^
                                           5 P 3 3 4 -1

                                         ' 
-------
       Federal Waters; Sensitivity Tests by Changes in Base Case Parameters




           The base  case results were tested for their sensitivity to changes in




 the  following parameters and assumptions:




           •  Changes  in the "wellhead" price for oil, ranging from  $5.25 to




             $11.00/Bbl, and for gas, ranging from $0.30 to $0.75 per MCF.




           •  Changes  in the annual decline rate, ranging from 12% to 18% for oil




             and  from 9% to 15% for gas.




           •  Changes  in the cost of capital, ranging from  12% to 25% for oil -




             as well  as for gas producers.




           •  Assuming that extra space would be added on to existing platforms




             either by an extra deck or by an additional platform if extra space




             requirements exceeded 1000 square feet.




           •  Assuming that production units consisted of clusters of 3  platforms




             rather than 1 platform units.




The results of  these sensitivity tests produced  the following  conclusions (see




Tables VI-5 and VI-6):




           •  The  estimated impact  in  terms of percentage loss of total  potential




             production is most sensitive to changes in the price parameter.




             For  oil  this estimate ranged from a high 1.06% to  a low 0.56% of




             potential production  lost, assuming "wellhead" prices  of  $5.25  and $11.00




             per  barrel respectively.




             For  gas  this estimate ranged from a high 0.98% to  a low 0.29%,  assuming




             wellhead prices of $0.30 and $0.75 per MCF respectively.




           •  The  estimated impact  in  terms of total investment  required is very




             sensitive to changes  in  the assumptions about whether  extra space will




             have to  be provided by an extra deck  or extra platform and whether typical
                                      VI-13

-------
                                     TABLE VI-5
                  Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key Variables
Varied
Parameter

Price



Decline
Rate

Cost of
Capital


Extra Space
Required
3 Platform
Unit
(1974 dollars)
Federal waters; no reinjection required; oil
Producers Absorb All Costs
% Loss of Total Number of
Potential Investment Completions
Value

$ 5.25
*$ 7.50
$ 9.00
$11.00
12%

18%
15%

20%
25%




Production
Oil
1.06
0.88
0.73
0.56
0.66

0.94
0.88

0.88
0.88
0.89

0.80

Gas
1.38
1.12
0.94
0.77
0.95

1.24
1.12

1.12
1.12
1.13

1.03

(in
1977
63.70
63.86
63.86
63.99
64.88

62.78
63.86

63.86
63.86
120.41

40.87

MM$) Abandoned
1983 Total 1977 1983
NA 3 NA
1
5
3
1

2
1

1
1
3

1

Number of
Producing
Completions
End 1976
2690
2690
2694
2694
2690

2690
2690

2690
2690
2690

2690

*Base Case:  1 Platform Unit
             Equipment Technology C
             Price                   $7.50
             Decline Rate            15%/year
             Cost of Capital         12%/year
 SOURCE:  Arthur D.  Little,  Inc.,  estimates
                                                VI-14

-------
                                   TABLE VI-6
                  Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key Variables
Varied
Parameter
(1974 dollars)
Federal waters; no reinjection required; gas
Producers Absorb All Costs
% Loss of Total Number of
Potential Investment Completions
Value Production (in MM$) .Abandoned
Gas
Price

$ 0.30 0.
*$ 0.50 0.
$ 0.75 0.
98
50
29
Oil
1.
0.
0.
10
67
32
1977 1983 Total 1977 198:
23.
23.
23.
31 NA
50
61
1
1
3
Number of
; Producing
Completions
3 End 1976
971
971
971
$ 1.00 NA
Decline
Rate
Cost of
Capital

Extra Space
Required
3 Platform
Unit
9% 0.
15% 0.
15% 0.
20% 0.
25% 0.
0.
0.
17
65
51
51
51
50
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
41
75
67
67
67
67
67
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
35.
5.
74
30
51
51
51
60
5
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
971
971
971
971
971
971
971
*Base Case:  1 Platform Unit
             Equipment Technology C
             Price                   $0.50
             Decline Rate            12%/year
             Cost of Capital         12%/year
 SOURCE:  Arthur D. Little,  Inc., estimates
                                             VI-15

-------
   production units consist of clur :ers of more than on<_ platform.





    If production units were assumed  to consist of one platform which



   will require an extra deck or an extra platform,  when total




   space requirements for the treatment facilities exceed 1000 square




   feet, then investment costs for oil producing facilities will almost




   double to $120 million and investment costs for gas producing




   facilities will increase by about 50% to $35 million.









   On the other hand, if we assume that typical production units




   consist of three platforms rather than one, then total investment




   requirements for oil producing units will be 50% of the base case




   value or $40 million and total investment requirements for gas




   producing units will be 25% of the base case value or $5.5 million.









•  The number of early abandonments in 1977 remains very small




   despite changes in parameters; less than 0.2% of the total




   number of producing completions in 1977 for oil producing units




   and less than 0.3% for gas producing units.






•  The results of the impact analysis are not very sensitive to




   changes in the cost of capital.  No significant change in the




   results occurred even  when the cost of capital was 25%.
                              VI-16

-------
 Ll-lA.
T-IA  3HI10I.1

-------
        The results of these sensitivity tests are also shown in Figure VI-1-




It is shown in this figure that the percentage loss in potential production




of nonassociated gas is consistently lower than the loss in potential oil




production.  Also, it does appear that the percentage loss of potential gas




production will not become much less than 0.20% when the wellhead price is




increased and not much more than 0.75% when the decline rate is increased.




The fact that present-day intrastate prices are already higher.than $1 per MCF




indicates that it can reasonably be expected that not much gas will be sold




in 1977 at $0.35 per MCF.  The range in which the actual percentage loss in




potential production probably will be is therefore 0.20% to 0.75%.




        Using the same reasoning, but choosing $5.25 as the lower limit for




the expected price in 1974, the probable range for the percentage loss in oil




production was taken to be between 0.50% and 1.00%.




        Summarizing for the federal waters, the results of the impact analysis




amount to the following (See Table VI-7):




        •  Loss in potential gas production from both gas and oil wells




           will be between 8.5 and 17.5 million barrels, (no price increases)




        •  Loss in potential gas production from both gas and oil wells




           will be between 60-158 million MCF. (no price increases)




        •  Total investment required in  1977 in terms of 1974 dollars,




           will amount to between 45 and 125 million dollars.





        •  Between 2-8 completions will  have to be abandoned in 1977.
                                       VI-18

-------
                                TABLE VI-7
               Range of Likely Impact in  the Gulf of Mexico
                              Federal  Waters
                               (1974 dollars)
Oil Wells
Loss  in Potential Prod.,     oil
                         ass.  gas
Completions Abandoned  in    1977
Investment Required  in     1977
0.5 - 1.0%     or_     8 - 16 MMB
                      22 - 44 MM MCF
less than 0.2%
1-5
40 - 100 MM $
 Gas Wells
 Loss  in Potential  Prod.,     gas        0.2  -  0.75%    or
                        condensate
 Completions Abandoned  in    1977
 Investment Required  in     1977
 Total  Loss  in Potential      oil
       Prod.
 Total  Investment  Req.  in   1977

Total Completions Aban.  in  1977
                            1983
less than 0.3%
38 - 114 MM MCF
0.5 - 1.5 MMB
1-3
5 - 25 MM $

8.5 - 17.5 MMB
60 - 158 MM MCF

45 - 125 MM $

2-8
(1)
    Assuming producers absorb all costs.
SOURCE:  Arthur D. Little,  Inc., estimates
                                        VI-19

-------
        Average Cost Increases for Oil and Gas, Federal Waters


     It might well be that producers in federal waters can pass on some of


the additional costs for treatment facilities by increasing the price for oil


and gas in 1977.  Therefore, the range was calculated of these average cost


increases separately for oil and gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico Federal


waters.

                                                                  i

     First, assuming that producers would like to have a return on their


investment within 15 years, cumulative production of oil and gas was calculated


for the 15-year period starting in 1977.  (See Table VI-8.)


     Second, using the low and high estimate of the likely investment requirement


for oil producing facilities and the corresponding annual operating cost


estimates, the average per-barrel capital charge (Item 5), the per-barrel


operating cost (Item 7), and per-barrel depreciation charge (Item 8) could be


calculated.


     Third, the net after tax increase in per-barrel operating costs was


calculated using a tax rate of 0.5 (Item 9).


     The estimated average cost increase was then found by adding the after


tax capital charge and the increase in after-tax operating costs.


     The capital charge was calculated assuming a 12% and 20% capital cost


to indicate how sensitive the cost estimate was to this particular parameter.


     The results show that a price increase for oil in 1977 would have to be

                   £                                    *•
between 3.7 and 9.6 per barrel and between 0.06 and O^O^per MCF for gas


if producers are  to recover the treatment facilities operating and invest-


ment costs including a return on that investment.
                                       VI-20

-------
                                   TABLE VI -8
                Range for Likely Average Cost  Increases  in  1977
                                 for  Producers  in
                        Federal Waters, Gulf of  Mexico
(1974 dollars)
n 1977(1)
n 1991(1)
ion (15 years) ^
MM $)

Oil Wells
1977
252.6
23.8
1296.5
40 - 100

Gas Wells
1977
1850.6
305.8
11328.5
5-25
 4.  Investment (MM $)
 5.  Cap.  Charge per Bbl (MCF)
     (4 x 2.80)/ 3
 6.  Add Ann. Op. Costs (MM $)
 7.  Add Op. Costs per Bbl    (MCF)
     (6 x 15)/ 3
 8.  Add Dep. Charge per Bbl  (MCF)
     (4/1)   (C/B)
 9.  Add After Tax per Bbl (MCF)
     Op. Cost
     0.5 x (7-8)
10.  Cost  Increase
     (5 + 9)
     (assuming 12% Capital Cost)

11.  Cost  Increase
     (assuming 20% Capital Cost)
8.8 -21.5 C/B
3.4 - 8.6
9.0 -22.0
                                                              0.13  - 0.63   C/MCF
                                             3.9 - 9.9  c/B     0.06  -  0.28   c/MCF
                                             3.1 -  7.7  C/B     0.04  -  0.22   C/MCF
                                             0.2 - 0.5  C/B     0.01  -  0.03   C/MCF
                                                               0.14  -  0.66   C/MCF
                                            12.7 -31.2 C/B    0.19  -  0.92   C/MCF
    (1)
       In MMB or MM MCF
SOURCE;   Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                                       VI-21

-------
VI.3.  STATE WATERS: BASE CASE RESULTS FOR OIL WELLS AND GAS tfaLLS





        The impact of treatment requirements in 1977 and reinjaction




requirements in 1983 in state waters was estimated for offshore Louisiana




using the computer program described in the previous chapter.  The base




case parameters used were the same as for the impact analysis for federal




waters.




        In the previous chapter it was explained that no data were available




on platforms in Louisiana state waters.  Therefore, it was assumed that




production units consisted of clusters of completions reported to be operated




by one company in the fields, which were considered.  Also it was assumed




that, if treatment of produced oil, gas and water took place on a platform,




adequate space would be available to accommodate additional treatment equip-




ment.  If treatment would have to be done on land, then space availability




would not be a limiting factor.




        Table V-7 indicates that this assumption may have introduced some




bias towards large treatment facilities, if production units within




state waters are distributed similarly as in federal waters.




        Data on water,  associated gas and condensate production were not




available on a lease-by-lease basis as for federal waters.   Therefore, averages




had to be used obtained by using gross production data for the area.




        Based on these gross production data, an oil/water ratio of .70,




a gas/oil ratio of .95 MCF associated gas per Bbl of oil, and a condensate/




gas ratio  or .011  Bbl of condensate per MCF of nonassociated gas was used in the




analysis.
                                      VI-22

-------
        Table VI-9 and VI-10 shows the results for oil and gas wells in the




state waters respectively.   For oil,  these results show that:






        •  With no price increases, total loss in potential production will amount




           to 6.87 million barrels of oil and 6.53 million MCF of associated gas;




           less than  0.35% of  this total will be due  to early abandonments in 1977,




           about  7% due to early  abandonments in 1983, and the rest or 92.65%




           will be due to a  shortening of the producing life of completions.





        •  Total equipment investment will be $13.5 million in 1977 and




           $37.7 million in 1983 or a total of $51.2 million.





        •  Early abandonments in 1977 will be 2 completions or less than




           0.3% of total producing completions in 1977 and 53 in 1983 or




           about 6.5% of the 1977 total.







        •  All operators will prefer to wait until 1983 before investing  in




           reinjection facilities rather than to invest in reinjection




           facilities in 1977.







 Table VI-10  shows  the results  of  gas wells  from which it  can  be concluded




 that:




        •  A total of 60.4 million MCF of gas and 0.68 million barrels of




           condensate will be  lost, of which  3.1 million MCF or 5.1% will




           be lost due to early abandonments  in 1983  and  57.3 million MCF




           or 94.9% due to a decrease in producing lives  of completions




            if no  price increases  are  possible.
                                      VI-23

-------
                                      TABLE VI-9
                                  State Waters - Oil
                              Producers Absorb All Costs
Year

 1977
 3.97ft
 1979
 1981
 198?
 I9b3
 19(34
 1935
 198*
 1987
 196*
 I99n
 1991
 199?
 1991
 1995
 199*
 1997
 1999
 2 0 0 n
 20Q 1
 2003
 2004
 2006

TOTAL
           Production Loss
           by Platform Shut-
           ins in 1977
             (barrels) _


                  1292?,
                   K294,
                   23H?,
                       p.
                       0,
                       n,
                       n,
                       (i,
                       0 .
                       n.
                       0,
                       n,
                       n»
                       n,
                       Hi
                       n,
                       n,
                       n,
                       n •
                       n,
                       n,
                       n,
                       n,
                       n ,
                       n,
                       P,
                       n,
                       n,
                       n,
                       n,
Production Loss
by
ins































Platform Shut-
in 1983
(barrels)
0,
Oi
0,
0,
C'»
p.
134306.
114536.
72290,
4U069,
34Clbfl,
2»9bO,
22244,
12148.
62HB,
2672,
0.
n«
n,
n,
n,
o.
0,
L',
n,
0.
0,
n.
n»
Ct
Production Loss
by decrease in
producing life
(barrels)
o,
n,
n,
n.
n,
0.
151180.
44/64,
libllfi.
11^22,
37537,
334^39,
2441U2,
1496V7,
!Q?lb4?,
1012427,
711207,
.359340,
592366,
352096,
1096J.4,
119436,
357933,
.5256*6,
148464,
1261V1,
^3637.
n.
0,
n,
 Completion
Abandonments

     2,
     0,
     Q.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     53.
     0,
    40.
     0,
     4,
    53,
    14,
    If),
   160,
   101,
   lib,
    AQ,
    76,
    14,
     0,
    10.
    46,
    22,
     0,
     U,
     u.
     Q.
     U,
     c,
                                                    6378367,
Total Equipment Investment in 1977:  $13.47 million
Fraction of Investment  made in Reinj.  in 1977:  .0000
Total Equipment Investment in 1983:  $37.74 million
Platforms immediately abandoned:  2
Total Oil Production Foregone:  6.87 million Bbls
Total Associated Gas Production Foregone:  6.53 million MCF
Completion Lost before  1977:  0.
Production Lost before  1977:  0.        SOURCE:   Arthur D. Little,  Inc.,  estimates
                                        VI-24

-------
                                       TABLE VI-10
                                   State Waters  -  Gas
                               Producers Absorb  All  Costs
Year
 1977
 197«
 1979
 1981
 1984
 1987
 193"
 1930
 199.1
 199?
 1994
 1997
 199"
 1990
 200n
 2nt)1
 20U?
 2003
 20 U4
            Production Loss
            by Platform Shut-
            ins in 1977
               (MCF)	
                       n.
                       n.

                       n .
Production Loss
by Platform Shut-
ins in 1983
   (MCF)	
         ij
         n
1.
n ,
n,
P .
n ,
p .
4 6 2 f.]^ D. •
410613 ,
35/»l?.
Ji'iBon.
2 7 / 0 9 4 .
> •} 3 H 4 3 ,
Production Loss
by decrease in
producing life
  (MCF)	

     P,
     r*
     r .
     P ,

     n .
                                                             n .
                                                      ?339?.in.
                       n.
                       i.                 n.
                       p,.                 n •
                       n .                 n ,
                       P )                  j a
                       1,                 n ,
                       ~] i                 "i .
                       "I ,                 •! ,
TOTAL                  n,          3r/'3/>/?.

Total Equipment Investment in 1977:   $5.87 million
Fraction of Investment made in Reinj.  in 1977:  .0000
Total Equipment Investment in 1983:   $16.4 million
Platforms Immediately Abandoned:   0
Total Gas Production Foregone:   60.4  million MCF
Total Oil Production Foregone:   .682  million barrels
Completion Lost Before 1977:   3.
Production Lost Before 1977:   0.31 million MCF
                                                      '; 2 n 2 1 V 5.
                                                      7271*77.
                     1.-4"5409 5.
                       7 rt 5 ti 6 .
                     1 () "*. 5 1 j 1 .
                     1 1^93 M,
                     1 *> ^ 3 > / 1 .

                     1 i 'i 6 n i 7 ,

                     ? 7 £ , I 5 o '•» .
 Completion
Abandonments
       0.
       0.
       0.
       u.
       0.
       'j f
       6 ,
       o.
       o.
       G.
       0 .
       4 .
      10-
      13.
      1».
      20.
      ft'j.
      66.
      43.
       U.
      2V,
       0.
      11.
       7 .
       "I
       U *
      11.
      16.
       0 •
                                                                                  422
                                                 SOURCE:   Arthur D. Little,  Inc.,  estimate
                                            VI-25

-------
        •  Investment in treatment equipment in 1977 will be $5.87 million




           and investment in reinjection facilities in 1983 will be $16.39




           million amounting to a total investment of $22.26 million.




        •  There will be no early abandonments in 1977 and not more than




           6 in 1983 or 1.4% of completions producing in 1977.









It appears that a substantial number of oil completions will be producing




close to the economic limit in 1983, resulting in early abandonment of 53




of a total of 786 still producing in 1982.  Given the fact that these




completions otherwise would have been phased out over a period of ten years,




it can be expected that the reassignment of personnel directly involved




in the production operations of these wells might pose a problem.  This




especially if   the completions  were    part of one company's operations




rather than being part of several companies' operations.




        In the worst case this might even lead to lay-offs.  Using one man




for every two completions as a rough, direct employment indicator about




27 people could be affected  by early abandonments  of  oil completions in



1983.
                                      VI-26

-------
                                        FIGURE VI-2
                                       1
          t
           *
                          I
                       -in Prirp
     ^__Los,s  in  potential	|_
     Production
Cfianjges in Cost
                          ol . Capital
                    1 Loss
                      Prod

                 UCtlOH;
                                    t
                                                       .Changes tin ..I
                                                 y
                                                 Production
^oss in Potential,
-Sensitivity Tests
 LuuTJ
 -Gaif bf Mex
       ase p
'DLeiikci ',
bf Me-:
Lco^ — Eedorai.
irametfers:
                                                                          j" r! _____ - _
                                                            (A)  Gas  (
                                                                I
                                                    Price!
                                                    Decline.Rate
                                                            ^7.50- J--$er
                                                             ,  151-1  12%
                                                             Cap
                                                       Ltal
(H
                         -1255-
                                                          5SQC13
                                                           rcui
                                                                   .   :
                                                                              me.,
              st of
           Capitc
                                            VI-27

-------
          State Waters; Sensitivity Tes-._s by Changes in Base Case Parameters.
        Sensitivity tests for state waters were made by changes in the




following parameters:




        •  Changes in the "wellhead" price for oil, ranging from $5.25 to




           $11.00/bbl and for gas, ranging from $0.30 to $1.00 per MCF.





        •  Changes in the cost of capital, ranging from 12% to 25% for oil as




           well as for gas producers.





        •  Changes in the annual decline rate ranging from 12% to 18% per




           year for oil and 9% to 15% per year for gas.





The results of these tests are shown in Table VI-12and Table VI-13 for oil




and gas respectively and the changes in impact in terms of a percentage loss




in potential production have been graphed as shown in Figure VI-2.




Table VI-11 summarizes the results of the impact analysis for Louisiana state




waters presenting the ranges within which the different impacts measured




are likely to fall as indicated by the results of the sensitivity tests:





        *  The loss in potential production will be between 1.25 to 2.25%




           or 5.2 to 9.4 million barrels of oil and 5.0-9.0 million MCF




           associated gas from oil wells.  For gas wells the loss will be




           0.3% to 1.5% or 16.4 to 82.4 million MCF and 0.25-0.93 million




           barrels of condensate if no price increases are assumed for oil or gas.




        •  Completion abandonments in 1977 will amount to between 1 to 2




           of a total 1213 producing oil and gas completions in 1977 and




           to between 42 and 75 of a total of 1211 producing oil and gas




           completions producing in 1983.




        •  Total investment requirements will be between $18.8 and $19.7




           million in 1977 and between $49.7 and $56.4 million in 1983.
                                     VI-28

-------
                                TABLE VI-11
                       Reinjection Required in 1983
                    Range of Likely Impact in Louisiana
                    	State Waters   '	
                               (1974 dollars)

Oil Wells
Loss in Potential Prod.,    oil       1.25 - 2.25%          5.2 - 9.4 MMB
                         ass. gas                           5.0 - 9.0 MM MCF
Completions Abandoned in   1977       less than 0.3%        1-2
                      in   1983       5.0 - 8.4%            40 - 66
Investment Required in     1977                             13.0 - 13.8 MM $
                           1983                             34.5 - 38.9 MM $

Gas Wells
Loss in Potential Prod.,    gas       0.3 - 1.5%            16.4 - 82.4 MM MCF
                        condensate                          0.25 - 0.93 MME
Completions Abandoned in   1977                             0
                      in   1983       0.5-2.1%            2-9
Investment Required   in   1977                             5.82 - 5.92 MM $
                           1983                             15.2 - 17.5 MM $
Total Loss in Potential Prod., oil                           5.45  -  10.33 MMB
                               gas                           21.4  -  91.4 MM MCF
Total Investment Req. in  - 1977                              18.8  -  19.7 MM $
                           1983                              49.7  -  56.4 MM $
Total Completions Aban. in 1977                              1-2
                           1983                              42  -  75
   Assuming producers absorb all costs,
 SOURCE;   Arthur !••.  Little,  Inc.,  ccii-^t
                                       VI-29

-------
                                TABLE Vl-lla
                      No Reinjection Required in 1983
                    Range of Likely Impact in Louisiana
                    	State Waters   	
                              (1974 dollars)

Oil Wells
Loss in Potential Prod.,    oil      0.6-1.1%             2.7-4.4 MMB
                         aSS- gaS                           2.6 - 4.2 MM MCF
Completions Abandoned in   1977      less than 0.3%         1-2
                      in   1983                             NA
Investment Required in     1977                             13.0 - 13.8 MM $
                           1983                             NA

Gas Wells
Loss in Potential Prod.,    gas      0.16-0.8%            9.1 - 42.2 MM MCF
                        condensate                          0.1 -  0.5 MMB
Completions Abandoned in   1977
                      in   1983                             NA
Investment Required   in   1977                             5.82  - 5.92 MM  $
                           _1983	NA
Total Loss in Potential Prod., oil                          2.8  - 4.9 MMB
                               Sas                          11.7  - 46.4 MM  MCF
Total Investment Req. in   1977                             18.82 -  19.72 MM  $
                           1983                             NA
Total Completions  Aban.  in 1977                             1_2
                           1983                             NA
    Assuming producers  absorb  all costs.
 SOURCE:  Arthur D.  Little,  Inc.,  estimates
                                        VI-30

-------
         To show what difference it would make in terms of potential




loss in production, investment requirements and early abandonments, an




impact analysis for state waters was also done assuming that no reinjec-




tion would be required as of 1983.  The results in Table Vl-lla show




that:




         •  The loss in potential oil and gas production will be




            about half of what will occur when reinjection is




            required in 1983.




         •  Investment requirements in 1977 will be the same, but




            total investment requirements will be about 25% of the




            total required in 1977 and in 1983 if reinjection in




            1983 is required.




         •  Completion abandonments will be negligible.
                                 VI-31

-------
                                     TABLE VI-12
                  Sensitivity of Results to Changes in Key Variable;.
Varied
Parameter
Price


Decline
Rate

Cost of
Capital

Extra Space
Required
3 Platform
Unit
Value
$ 5.25
*$ 7.50
$ 9.00
$11.00
12%
18%
15%
20%
25%


(1974 dollars)
State waters; reinjection required; nil
Producers Absorb All Costs
% Loss of Total Number of
Potential Investment Completions
Production (in MM$) Abandoned
Oil
2.38
1.64
1.40
1.33
1.19
1.83
1.64
1.64
1.64
NA
NA
Gas
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.


38
64
40
33
19
83
64
64
64


1977
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.


37
47
47
47
85
09
47
47
47


1983
35.
37.
37.
38.
40.
34.
37.
37.
37.


73
74
74
88
24
43
74
74
74


Total 197 •
49.10 I
51.21 2
51.21 2
52.35 2
54.09 2
47.52 2
51.21 2
51.21 2
51.21 2


1983
66
53
53
40
40
66
53
53
53


Number of
Producing
Completion;
End 1976
786
788
788
788
788
788
788
788
788


*Base Case:   1 Platform Unit
             Equipment Technology C
             Price                   $7.50
             Decline Rate            15%/year
             Cost of Capital         12%/year
SOURCE;  Arthur D. Little,  Inc., estimates
                                               VI-32

-------
                                   TABLE VI-13

                  Sensitivity  of  Results  to  Changes  in Key Variables
Varied
Parameter

Price



Decline
Rate

Cost of
Capital


Extra Space
Required
3 Platform
Unit
Value

$ 0.30
*$ 0.50
$ 0.75
$ 1.00
9%

15%
15%

20%
25%




(1974 dollars)
State waters; reinjecticn required; gas
Producers Absorb All Costs
% Loss of Total Number of
Potential Investment Completions
Production (in MM$) Abandoned
Gas
1.76
1.10
0.58
0.41
0.71

1.34
1.10

1.10
1.10
NA

NA

Oil
1.76
1.10
0.58
0.41
0.70

1.34
1.10

1.10
1.10




1977
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.

5.
5.

5.
5.




87
87
87
87
92

82
87

87
87




1983
15.27
16.39
17.11
17.47
17.18

15.20
16.39

16.39
16.39




Total
21.
22.
22.
23.
23.

21.
22.

22.
22.




14
26
98
05
10

02
26

26
26




1977
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0




1983
9
6
4
2
4

11
6

6
6




Number of
Producing
Completions
End 1976
425
425
425
425
425

425
425

425
425




*Base Case:   1 Platform Unit
             Equipment Technology C
             Price                   $0.50
             Decline Rate            12%/year
             Cost of Capital         12%/year
 SOURCE:  Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                                            VI-33

-------
         Likely Average Cost Increases for Oil and Gas, State Waters
                                    ~       '3   - 1-L_L1_   -



         As explained in Section VI-4, producers might be able to pass on




the additional costs they have to incur to comply with the new water




treatment regulations.




         Therefore, an estimate was made of the average cost increase for




oil and gas which can be expected to result in state waters in 1977 and 1983




and which producers would like to pass on.  For the calculations, it




was assumed that producers would like to recover investment costs includ-




ing a return on that investment and after tax operating costs over a period




of 15 years following the investment.




         The cost increase to be expected will then be the sum of the




average per barrel capital charge and the average per barrel net increase




in operating costs.  These calculations are shown in Table VI-14.  The




results show that oil prices would have to be increased by 11.6
-------
5.
6.
7.
                                        TABLE VI-14

                      Likely Average Cost Increase in 1977 and 1983
                                      for Producers in
                                       State Waters
 1.   Production in 1977/1983
 2.   Production in
 3.   Cum.  Productic
 4.   Investment (MM $)
     Cap.  Charge (i
     Add.  Op. Costs ($/yr)
     Add.  Op. Costs (6x1
     Add.  Dep. Charge (4/3)
(1974 dollars)


7/1983(1)
1 1 / 1 Q Q7
15 years) (1)

2.8 )/3
7yr)
. x 15) /3
(4/3)
Oil
1977
66.7
6.3
342.3
13.5
11.0 C/B
1.2
5.2 C/B
3.9 C/B
Wells
1983
25.0
0.8
137.1
35.0
71.5 C/B
3.4
37.2 C/B
25.5 C/B
Gas Wells
1977
689.2
112.6
4228.4
5.8
0<38 C/MCF 2.
0.55
0.20 C/MCF 1.
0.14 C/MCF 0.

1983
320.0
40.2
2051.9
15.5
13 C/MCF
1.82
33 C/MCF
76 C/MCF
 9.  Add After Tax Op. Cost
     0.5 x (7-8)
10.  Cost   Increase
     (Assuming 12% Annual Cap. Change)
11.  Cost   Increase
     (Assuming 20% Annual Cap. Cb •--  ,e)
                                           0.6 C/B     5.8  C/B    0.03  C/MCF    0.28 C/MCF
                                          11.6 C/B   77.3  C/B    0.41  C/MCF    2.41  C/MCF
                                          16.3 C/B  107.9  C/B    0.57  C/MCF   3.31 C/MCF
 (1)
    In MMB or MM MCF
  SOURCE;   Arthur D.  Little,  Inc., estimates
                                              VI-35

-------
VI.4.   ALASKA,  RESULTS OF A PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS




          The production and treatment economics developed for the Gulf of Mexico




could not be applied to present offshore production in Alaska.




          Industry sources indicated that operating cost levels are three-to-




six-times higher than the operating cost level used for the Gulf of Mexico analysis.




Investment levels can also be expected to be much higher given the harsher climate




under which construction has to take place and longer distances from major supply




centers.




          The most important production statistics for the four oil fields and




one gas field producing in the Cook Inlet are summarized in Table VI-15.  Water




production in each of the four oil producing fields is not sufficient to fulfill




the needs for the pressure maintenance programs by water injection in those fields.




          The seawater which is used for this purpose is chemically incompatible




with the produced formation water, which precludes the use of a mixture of these




types of water for reinjection purposes.     Therefore, only seawater is used for




reinjection purposes, even though the high solids content of this water necessitates




costly filtering before the water can be injected.  Separation of produced fluids




and water treatment on the platform is limited to free water knockout.  All other




treatment is done onshore by four large water treatment plants, one for each field.




One of these plants is judged by the EPA to be capable of meeting 1977 treatment




standards without any additional investment.  All three others would require




additional equipment or equipment modifications, the economics of which were not




available.If the volumes  of produced formation water  increase  to meet  the  total




reinjection  requirements  by  1983,  the  use of produced  formation water  for  pressure
(1)  Information obtained through discussions with EPA representatives
                                        VI-36

-------
                                   TABLE VI- 15
                     1973 Statistics on Oil and Gas Fields

                         Offshore Alaska, Cook Inlet
Field Name
Granite Point
McArthur River
Middle Ground
  Shoal
Trading Bay
Average Production

Number of
Platforms
3


3


4



3



Number of
Completions
9
7
9
19
23
12
7
10
11
6
8
31
5

Oil
(B/D)
6,139
3,307
3,613
38,650
42,982
24,771
3,350
7,291
11,409
5,681
2,164
15,168
4,105
in 1973
Gas
(MCF/D)
5,368
3,812
3,199
9,614
16,200
7,429
1,512
3,807
5,292
2,182
601
7,637
1,157

Water
(B/D)
14
54
202
4,028
5,689
7,806
202
854
4,488
2,521
1,993
3,917
5,118
                         Water
                       Re injected
                       Field Total
                         (in B/D)

                         26,122
                        154,463
                         55,950
                         35,358
North Cook
 Inlet (Gas)
0   117,011
Source:   "Statistical Report  1973," State of Alaska Department of
          Resources, Division of Oil and Gas.
                                       VI-37

-------
lintenance might be the economically most attractive way  to comply with  the
'injection requirement.   In that case, no investment in reinjection  facilities
Lght be necessary in 1983.  However, if  this is not the case, then investment
i reinjection facilities  for produced formation waters would be necessary  in
•83 either on the platform itself or onshore next to the  existing treatment plants.
   Cost estimates of these solutions were not available.  Therefore,  to indicate
i which range the impact  from new regulations can reasonably by expected to fall,
'o cases were evaluated,  both using estimates of operating and investment  costs
>r treatment and reinjection facilities  of three and six  times the costs used
r the Gulf of Mexico.  The two cases differed in that the first case  assumed the
eatment and reinjection  facilities would be placed on the platforms and the
cond case assumed they would be placed  onshore near the  present treatment facilities
   The results of this preliminary analysis of the first case are shown on
ble VI-16 and can be summarized as the  following:
    •    If no investment in reinjection facilities would be required in 1983,
         and assuming that producers would have to absorb all costs,  then:
            Loss in potential production would range between 0.8 and  1.9%
            or 2.2 to 5.1 million barrels of oil and between 0.9 and  2.1%
            or 2.4 to 5.0 million MCF of associated gas.
         -  No early abandonments would occur in 1977.
         -  Total required investment would range from $12.6 to $25.1 million.
    •    If it is assumed that producers would be able to pass on all costs
         through ft T>rrire increase, calculated in the same wav as discussed in
         Sections VI-2.3 and VI-3.3
         -  The required price increase in 1977 in terms of 1974 dollars would
            be between 14£  per barrel and 28£   per barrel, assuming a 12% cost
            of capital and between 21c  per barrel and 42c   per barrel, assuming
            a 20% cost of capital.

                                          VI-38

-------
                                    TABLE VI-1-6
                                Alaska, Cook Inlet
                      Preliminary Estimate  of Likely Impact (3)

                                  (1974 dollars)	
1.  Assuming Producers Absorb All Costs
Potential Prod. Oil (MMB)
        Ass. Gas (MM MCF)

Loss in Pot. Prod. (MMB)
                 (MM MCF)

% Loss in Pot. Prod:  Oil
                 Ass. Gas

Early Abandonments, 1977
                    1983
Investment Required, 1977
   (in MM$)          1983
                                No Reinjection Req.
                                3x
                                  (1)
                                          6x
                                            (1)
                                                        Reinjection Req.
                                                                           (4)
3x
  (1)
6x
  (1)
280
261
2.2
2.4
0.8
0.9
0
NA
12.6
NA
263
242
5.1
5.0
1.9
2.1
0
NA
25.1
NA
280
261
6.8
7.0
2.4
2.7
0
8 (= 5%)
12.6
35.0
263
242
14.7
16.7
5.6
6.9
0
54 (= 34%)
25.1
54.7
2.  Increases  in Average Cost per Unit  Produced
(2)
Average Cost Increase Oil
Cost of Capital 12%, 1977
1983
Cost of Capital 20%, 1977
1983
in c/I
14
NA
21
NA
5
28
NA
42
NA

14
46.0
21
167
in C/B
28
71.0
42
313
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 (4)
3 x:  Assuming all operating and investment costs are 3 x as high as  in  the
      Gulf of Mexico.
6 x:  Assuming all operating and investment costs are 6 x as high as  in  the
      Gulf of Mexico.
Based on a calculation of the per-barrel after tax operating costs plus  invest-
ment costs including a return on that investment over a period of 15  years.

Assuming treatment facilities will be put on each of fourteen oil production
platforms.

Assuming that reinjection facilities on platforms will be necessary in
addition to existing injection plants used for pressure maintenance.
   SOURCE;  Arthur  D.  Little,  Inc.,  estimates

                                           VI-39

-------
     •    If investment reinjection in facilities would be required in 1983


          and assuming that producers would absorb all costs, then:


          -  Loss in potential production would range between 2.4 and 5.6%


             or 6.8 and 14.7 million barrels of oil and between ?.7 and 6.9%


             or 7.0 and 16.7 million MCF of associated gas.


          -  Early abandonments in 1983 would be between 8 and 54 or between


             5% and 34% of total producing completions in 1977.


          -  Total investment required would be between $12.6 and $25.1


             million in 1977 and between $35.0 and $54.7 million in 1983.


     •    If it is assumed that producers would be  able  to  pass  on  all  costs  as price


          increases and that they would calculate these price increases as


          described in Sections VI-2.3  and  VI-3.3,  then:


          -  The required price increase would be 6.3C to 11.4c per barrel


             in 1977 and 46
-------
                                   TABLE VI- 17

                               Alaska,  Cook Inlet

                     Preliminary Estimates of  Likely Impact (3)
(1974 dollars)
1. Assuming Producers Absorb All Costs
No Reinjection Req.
Potential Prod. Oil (MMB)
Ass. Gas (MM MCF)
Loss in Pot. Prod. (MMB)
(MM MCF)
% Loss in Pot. Prod: Oil
Ass. Gas
Early Abandonments, 1977
1983
Investment Required, 1977
(in MMS) 1983
2. Increases in Averaee Cost
Average Cost Increase ^
Cost of Capital 12%, 1977
1983
Cost of Capital 20%, 1977
1983
3x(1)
280
261
2.0
2.2
0.7
0.8
0
NA
7.7
NA
ner Un
9
NA
13
NA
, (1)
6x
263
242
5.0
4.9
1.9
2.0
0
NA
15.5
NA
it; Produpprl
in C/B
17
NA
26
NA
Rein
3x(1)
280
261
3.6
4.1
1.3
1.6
0
0
7.7
25.7
9
81
13
127
jection Req. (4)
6x(1)
•263
242
11.1
12.2
4.2
5.0
0
44.0
15.4
43.1
in c/B
17
157
26
247
   3  x:   Assuming  all operating and  investment  costs  are  3  x  as  high  as  in  the
         Gulf  of Mexico.
   6  x:   Assuming  all operating and  investment  costs  are  6  x  as  high  as  in  the
         Gulf  of Mexico.
P)
 "Assuming  producers pass  on  the  per-barrel  after  tax  operating costs plus invest-
   mpnr-  costs  including  a return on  that  investment over  a  period  of  15  yeirs.

  Assuming  treatment and reinjection  facilities  onshore  -  one  for each  of  four
  oil producing fields.
(4)
   Assuming reinjection facilities will be necessary in addition to existing
   injection plants for pressure maintenance purposes.      SOURCE:  Arthur D.  Little,  Inc.
                                          VI-41

-------
    No early abandonments would occur in 1977.




 -  Total required investment would range from $7.7 to $15.4 million.




 If it is assumed that producers would pass on all costs through a price




 increase, then:




    The required price increase in 1977 in terms of 1974 dollars would




    be between 3.8c per barrel and 7.6
-------
VI.5.   CALIFORNIA

        There are 14 producing platforms off of California, nine in state

waters and five in Federal waters.  In addition, there are seven man-made

islands on which wells are producing offshore in state waters. (See Table VI-18),

        All of the produced formation water from offshore facilities on state

and Federal leases is sent ashore for processing and disposal.  The formation

water produced from facilities in Federal waters four to five miles offshore

is piped ashore, treated and returned to the platforms for reinjection.  Of

the nine platforms in state waters, four have their production piped to one

onshore processing facility and the other five to five separate processing

plants.

        Most formation water is reinjected for pressure maintenace,  A small

portion is treated onshore and pumped into the ocean; while accurate data

is not available, the percentage of offshore produced formation water dis-

carded into the ocean has been estimated at 3.9% of total produced brine

in 1974.    The 1974 brine production was 293.3 million barrels.  If the same

percentage tage is applied *••   "'73, the volume of formation water discarded

is 10.9 million barrels.  In addition to the brine from offshore production,

about 16 million barrels of formation water from onshore wells is discarded into

the ocean.     This is about 2.3% of total onshore water       produced with oil

and gas in the coastal basins.
   Estimate made by Mr. John Hardoin, California Division of Oil and Gas,
   Long Beach.
                                      VI-43

-------
                               TABLE VI-18

                California; Platforms  and  Offshore  Oil,

                       Gas and Watep Production

                              in  1973
Number of Platforms

Oil production MMB

Associated Gas MM MCF

Non Associated Gas MM MCF

Water Associated MMB with Oil

Water Associated MMB with Gas
                                         State Waters

                                           9 + 7(2)
                                          70.5

                                          20.9

                                           9.7

                                         266.0

                                           0.5
Federal Waters

      5

     18.8

      9.1

      0.0

     12.2

      0.0
(1)
(2)
Source:  "Oil, Gas and Geothermal Production Statistics, 1973."
         Resources Agency of California, Vol. 59, No. 2.

9 Platforms and 7 man-made islands.
                                   VI-44

-------
     California has enacted a brine disposal requirement that is more




restrictive than the proposed Federal effluent guidelines for 1977.




California regulations require water to be discharged in the ocean to be




treated to 20 parts per million (ppm) long-term average of oil and




grease.  The Federal requirements are a 27 ppm long-term average. Unlike




the produced formation water from the Gulf of Mexico, the California




formation water has far lower salinity and is typically less saline than




the sea water.





     The proposed  EPA  1977 effluent guidelines do not appear  to  impose  an




additional burden  on California offshore  production.  The California  state




requirement  resulted in Phillips  shutting in  and removing one  platform  and




Texaco  stopping production on  two others  in 1973 when the requirements  went




into effect.
                               VI-45

-------
VI.6.  INFERRED IMPACT, EXISTING SOURCES IN 'IdE GULF OF MEXICO




          The estimates of the total impact in federal and state waters was



Dased on units already producing in 1974   It can be expected that by 1977



quite a few additional wells will have been drilled.  Therefore, the total



number of, what the EPA considers to be  'existing sources,"    will be larger



than the number of production units considered in the earlier analysis.



          To obtain an idea of how much this actual number of  existing



sources  will differ from the number of sources considered, tue total  reserves


       (2)
implied    by the analysis was compared with the sum of demonstrated and


                                                           (3)
inferred reserves as defined and estimated by the U.S.G.S.



          The underlying assumption was that demonstrated and



inferred reserves will be produced by wells existing in 1974 and wells to be



drilled until 1977 in federal waters and existing wells plus wells drilled until




1983 in state waters.



          Assuming that the relative number of wells in federal and state



waters would remain the same and assuming that the measured impacts would be



extrapolated on a unit of reserves basis an estimate was made of the



total impact for these existing sources.



          The results of this calculation using the assumptions for the



base case are shown in Table VI-  19 and Table VI-20.
    Source" in this context should be understood to mean point source of

    discharged water.


(2)
   Implied reserves consisted of the total potential production of all com-

   pletions considered.



    Geological estimates of undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources in

    the United States,"  Geological Survey circular 725, 1975.
                                       VI-46

-------
                                      TABLE VI-19
                     Total Inferred Impact for Existing Sources in
                           the Gulf of Mexico as Derived from
                                   the Measured Impact
Producers Absorb All
(1974 dollars)
Recoverable
Reserves
Oil Gas
MMB MM MCF
Costs
Potential
Prod. Lost
Oil
MMB
Gas
MM MCF
Required
Invest-
ment
MM $
Gulf of Mexico, Oil Wells
   Federal, measured impact
   Implied reserves
   State, measured  impact
   Implied reserves
   Total measured impact
   Total implied res.
   U.S.G.S. reserves
                     (2)&(4)
                                   1590

                                    419

                                   2233
                                   4612
                                          3600
                                           398
   Inferred total impact (lx(3:2)) =
Gulf of Mexico, Gas Wells
   Federal, measured impact
   Implied reserves                 162
   State, measured impact
   Implied reserves                  62
   Total measured impact
   Total implied res.
   U.S.G.S. reserves
   Inferred total impact (5x(7 :6)) =
   Total Gulf of Mexico (4+8) =
                                             14743

                                              5471

                                             24212
                                            102834
                                                   14.0
                                                    6.9
                                                      43.:
                                                               40.3
6.5
         63.9
51.2
                                                   20.9     46.8     115.1
                                                            96.6     237.7
                                                        1.1      75.4       23.5
                                                    0.7     60.4      22.3
                                                    1.8    135.4      45.8
                                                        7.6     575.1      194.5
                                                       50.8     671.7      432.3
 (1)
 (2)

 (3)
 (4)
Including condensate produced with nonassociated gas.
Source:  "Geological estimates of undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources
          in the United States,"  Geological Survey circular 725, 1975.
Including associated and dissolved gas to be produced with oil.
Including Demonstrated and Inferred Reserves.

 SOURCE:   Arthur D.  Little, Inc., estimates
                                        VI-47

-------
                                        i AE: ^  vi-2
                             il  1   lirs. d Impact  for New Sou1ee -
                                Produrerf Absorb  An 1  Cr-ets
                                       (J974  dollars)
Cul'  of  Me oil  an.-  -.:..
             in  the  United States,"   Geological Sui -ey  circulc-.r 725,  1^7-,
(3)
   Including associated an-:  , '--solved  gas to be produced with oil.

 SOURCE: Arthur  D.  Little, Inc.,  estimates
                                               VI-48

-------
          According to these results, loss in potential oil production,




including lease condensate, will be 50.8 million bbls and loss in potential gas




production, including associated gas, will be 671.7 million MCF; total invest-




ment requirements in 1977 and 1983 will amount to $432.2 million.




          Given the gross assumptions which were made in deriving these




numbers, they should be regarded to be no more than a very rough estimate,




which might be off by as much as a hundred percent.
                                       VI-

-------
VI.7.  INFERRED IMPACT, NEW SOURCES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO


          The earlier  sections  of  this  chapter have presented  estimates


 of  foregone production from wells existing in 1974 and  the  required  invest-


 ments  in treatment  and reinjection facilities for these wells resulting


 from the application  of the effluent limitations guidelines.   As  explained


 in Chapter  III, the EPA is also proposing a New Source  Performance Standard


 (NSPS) guideline  applicable to all new wells in both  state  and Federal


waters which is identical in its  requirements to the  1983 guidelines  for wells


which were  already  producing prior to  1977 except that  it becomes applicable


 in 1977.  This implies that     new wells in state waters as  of 1977    v/ill


be required to reinject all produced formation water  and new wells in federal


waters must comply with the BATEA/NSPS requirements in 1977.





         A  rough worst  case estimate can be made of the foregone production


resulting from the application of  the NSPS requirements to wells beginning


production  in 1977 and  thereafter. The majority of these new wells are


expected to be in federal waters, not state waters.   To simplify the


estimating process, which is crude at best,  the assumption has been made


that all new wells after 1977 will be in federal waters, which implies that


there will be no reinjection requirement for  these wells.


         The U.S.  Geological Survey has published estimates of the total


recoverable resources  from the U.S. given existing production technology.
' 11
   "Geological estimates of undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources
   in the United States"  Geological Survey Circular 725, 1975.
                                   VI- 50

-------
Table VI-21 lists the resource estimates for the offshore areas.   The




estimates can be regarded as an approximate estimate of the total life-




time production from all new offshore oil and gas wells in the futuie.




As production technology and the relative cost of other energy sources




change in the future the volumes of oil and gas which may ultimately




be produced from U.S. offshore wells can also change.  However, the U.S.




G.S. resource estimates at least provide one basis from which the long




term production losses resulting from the proposed regulations can be




estimated.




         The earlier analysis of potential production losses from the




application of BPCTCA and BATEA requirements to wells in federal waters




which were producing in 1974 showed that 0.5% to 1.0% of their remaining




lifetime oil production and 0.2% to 0.75% of their remaining lifetime




production of gas would be lost if prices could not be increased to




recover the pollution control costs.  Table VI-20 lists the projected




 production losses  if these  percentages are applied  to the U.S.G.S.




 resource values.




          Using  this estimating proceedure  as demonstrated in Table VI-19




 for new sources in the  Gulf of Mexico, the projected loss in potential




 production is  25 to 70  million barrels of  oil and 144 to 558 million




 MCF of gas.  These losses would be stratched out over the entire period




 of  offshore U.S. production beyond 1977.   Most  of the potential  losses




 would  not occur until after the year 2000.




        The estimate of total investment was made in a similar way as




demonstrated in Table VT-20.  First, investment required  for  future oil
                                  VI- 51

-------
                                        TABLE  VI-21


                         Total Inferred Impact for New Sources

                         	Offshore U.S.A. 1^	

                                    (1974 dollars)
                               Producers Absorb All Costs
                                                ( ,    Potential ( .            .
                                  Rec. Resources\ '    Prod. Lost^ ;    Required^  }
                                    Oil      Gas      Oil      Gas    Investment
                                  Billion  Billion  Billion  Billion  Billion
                                    Bis      MCF      Bis      MCF       $	


Gulf of Mexico                   5.4-8.0  18.0-91.0  .03-.07 .14-.56  .13-.41

Alaska                           3.0-31.0  8.0-80.0  .03-.25 .10-1.04 .12-1.35

Atlantic Coast                   2.0-4.0   5.-14.0   .02-.03 .06-.15  .08-.16

Pacific Coast                    2.0-5.0   2.0-6.0   .01-.07 .05-.14  .08-.19


Total                                                .08-.35 .30-1.75 .33-1.92

                                                     .11-.38 .65-1.89 .53-2.12
   Based on base case results for the impact analysis for old sources and as such
   presenting a lower limit for the estimated impact for new sources.

   Source:
   "Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources
    in the United States,"  Geological Survey circular 725, 1975.
    The  low and  high  estimates  have been made  at  the 95%  and  5%  confidence levels
    respectively.
    Source:   Arthur D. Little,  Inc. calculations  based  on U.S.G.S.  estimates  of
             recoverable resource.

 (3)
    Expected to  occur over  a  period of about 50 years starting between  1990 and  2000.

 (4)
    Expected to  be required over  a period of at least 25  years following 1977.


 SOURCE;  Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                                           VI- 52

-------
and gas producing wells in each area considered was estimated multiplying




the estimated investment requirement per unit of estimated remaining




reserves in 1977 for wells producing in 1974 by the total estimates of




total recoverable oil and gas resources respectively.  The total invest-




ment requirement shown in Table VI-21 was     obtained by summing these




estimates obtained for oil and gas resources.




         In addition to the uncertainty about the resource values them-




selves, there are several potential errors from simply multiplying the




percentage loss from 1974 wells times the resource estimates.  The




percentages are the portion of the remaining life after 1977 of the




wells existing in 1974.




         All of these wells have been producing prior to 1974.  This




implies that the estimated percentage loss of remaining production in




1977 is considerably higher than it would have been  if this percentage




would have been calculated using the total lifetime  production of these




wells.




         As a result,  the estimated loss in  potential production for




new wells, which has  ,tan derived by multiplying this percentage




obtained for 1974 wells with  the estimated total lifetime production




for new wells (i.e. estimated  total recoverable resources), should be




too high.




         For the same  reasons  the investment estimates for new sources




derived by using investment requirements per unit of potential production




of wells producing in  1974 might be too high.




         On the other  hand, this upward bias in estimated loss in potential




production may be mitigated by the fact that much of the new production
                                  VI- 53

-------
will be from wells in areas with higher production costs such as Alaska




and the Atlantic.  It can be expected that the cost of compliance per




well or unit of production in these areas will be higher than was




assumed in the Gulf of Mexico  analysis which will result in higher




losses of potential production.




         The relative weight of these opposing biases is not known.




However, they do suggest the approximate nature of the estimates.
                                   VI-54

-------
VI.8.  DIRECT ENERGY EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT EQUIPMENT







     The following analysis has assumed that EPA1s estimate that a




long-term average of 27 ppm of effluent hydrocarbon concentration is




achievable    with the application of the BPCTCA regulation.  See




Chapter III for a discussion of the analysis behind the assumptions.




     The average hydrocarbon influent concentration of all units




considered by Brown & Root  was 196 ppm.  Based on this information,




an average of 169 ppm (mg oil per liter of water treated) to be




recovered by treatment of produced formation waters will be used in




this analysis of the direct energy effectiveness of treatment equipment,




     This 169 ppm of recoverable crude oil corresponds with 2.02 bbl




of oil recovered per 10,000 bbls of water treated.
 Brown & Root report, page IV-8.
                                 VI-55

-------
           Figure  VI -3  taken  from  the  Brown  & Root report shows the horse-

 powers  required as  a function of treatment capacity  for treatment by flotation

 and treatment  by  coalescence, respectively.  Based on these graphs, the

 horsepower requirements for flotation  equipment used in the following analysis

 will be 1 HP/344  barrels water  treated.   Treatment by gravity  separation using

 pits or tanks  has a negligible  energy  requirement.

           To inject 1 bbl/day of water at 1  psi pump pressure, 1.7 x 10  HP

 pump power is  required.

           Assuming  that 80% of  the total  installed pump capacity will be used,

 one will need  2.125 10   HP installed  pump capacity  for each barrel of water

 reinjected at  a discharge pressure of  1 psi.

           Assuming  a 3000 foot  deep reinjection well and knowing that the

 overburden pressure decreased by the hydrostatic is  about 0.5  psi/foot, we know

 that  the  maximum  discharge pressure cannot exceed 1500 psi.  Using 1300 psi as the

 maximum injection pressure at the  pump (1300 x 2.125 10~ ) or  .0276 HP will

 have  to be installed  for each daily barrel of water  to be reinjected.

           A daily volume of 1000 barrels per day will thus require 27.6 HP of

 installed  pump power.

           One HP delivered during one day is equivalent to .061 MCF of natural

 gas or to  .0101 barrels of diesel oil.

          Assuming a conversion efficiency of 20%,  5 x .061 =  .305 MCF/day

natural gas or 5 x  .0101 = .0505 bbls/day diesel oil will be required for each

HP-day.
  'Approximately:   1 bbl diesel oil   =     6000 Btu
                    1 bbl crude oil    -     5850 Btu
                    1 MCF natural gas  -     1000 Btu
                                        VI-56

-------
                         FIGURE  VI-3

                        POWER REQUIREKZ'ITS

                   FOR BRINE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
         1201-
         100
          80
 z
 UJ
 a:  i-
 l-H  0)

 cr  6
 UJ  Q-
 0£  (1)
    01
 a:  i.
 ui  o
 60
          40
          20
                       Flotation
                                          Loose Media Coalescer
                     10,000     20,000     30,000

                                 BRINE CAPACITY (BPD)
                                             40,000
50,000
NOTES:  1.


       2.
                   Flotation power requirements are based on an induced gas
                   flotation device and includes power for operating  motors.
                   Loose  media coalescer power requirements are based on
                   power  for influent, flush, and flush water disposal pumps.
OFFSHORE OPERATORS
        COMMITTEE
                                  VI-57

-------
          Direct energy effectiveness, as used here, is the ratio of number




of barrels of crude oil recovered by treatment over number of barrels of diesel




oil equivalent required by the treatment (and reinjection) equipment.




          Using these values it is estimated that by treatment with flotation




units, on the average, 1 barrel of diesel oil equivalent will have to be




consumed for treatment of 6850 barrels of water to recover 1.4 barrels of crude




oil.




          When treated formation waters are reinjected, then only .13 barrels




of crude oil will be recovered for each barrel of diesel oil required for




treatment plus reinjection of 719 barrels of water.




          In terms of natural gas the requirement would be for 1 MCF natural




gas to recover 0.23 barrel of crude oil from 1141 barrels of treated formation




water.  However, 1 MCF natural gas will only treat and reinject 120 barrels of




formation water from which .022 barrels of crude oil will be recovered.



          This analysis estimates the total energy recovery from the BPCTCA




treatment system.  The analysis is not intended to represent the incremental




energy recovery from the application of the BPCTCA guidelines.   The platforms




in federal waters presently are under a 50 ppm long-term average requirement




of the USGS.  Thus, the incremental oil recovery resulting from compliance




with the BPCTCA requirement is 23 ppm per barrel of formation water treated.
                                       VI-58

-------
,VI.9.  ECONOMIC COST PER BARREL RECOVERED

          Given the fact, shown in the previous section, that on the average

the  treatment equipment expected to be installed in 1977 will recover more

energy than it consumes, it was of interest to consider the economic cost

of the average additional barrel recovered by the BPCTCA facilities.(See Table VI-22

and  Table VI- 23.)  For the calculation of this economic cost it was assumed

that producers would expect to recover their investment plus a return on

that investment over a period of 15 years in addition to net after tax operating

costs incurred for the treatment equipment during that same period.

          An estimate of maximum and minimum number of barrels of oil

recovered during the 15 years considered was made.

          The minimum estimate was based on the average water/oil and water/gas

ratio in 1974 of all platforms considered, assuming that this ratio would not

increase during the next 18 years.

          The maximum estimate was obtained assuming that platforms would

produce the maximum amount of water considered to be possible based on the

engineering considerations and analysis of actual water/oil and water/gas

ratios as discussed in the previous chapter.

          Minimum and maximum amount of oil recovered was calculated using the

average recovery factor of 2 barrels of oil per 10,000 barrels of water

treated as derived in the previous section.

          Using investment and operating cost estimates developed in previous

sections, the capital charge and total increase in after tax operating costs
   Economic cost is supposed to mean the average cost per barrel recovered
   allowing for the additional operating and investment costs which have to
   be incurred for recovery equipment.
                                       VI-59

-------
for the 15-year period could be calculated.  The sum  of these  two cost




items divided by the total number of barrels recovered during the 15 years




resulted in the estimate of minimum and maximum economic cost per barrel of




oil recovered (See Table VI- 22  and Table VI-23  ).  The results show that:




     •    For federal waters the economic cost per barrel recovered by




          treatment of produced formation water will range from $94 to $2382




          for oil producing units and from $42 to $4511 for gas producing




          units.




     •    For state waters the economic cost per barrel recovered will




          range from $36 to $1237 for oil producing units and from $133 to




          $2984 for gas producing units.









Reinjection is not really part of the treatment installation but it could be




argued that the barrels of oil recovered by treatment should also pay for the




additional costs incurred for reinjection in state waters starting in 1983.




Therefore, the economic cost per barrel recovered was also calculated for




reinjection facilities, which may be required in 1983.  The range of $371 to




$8321 for oil producing facilities and $808 to $17741 for gas producing




facilities (see Table VI-19) derived as the economic cost per barrel of oil




recovered for treatment and reinjection installations, shows that the




reinjection requirement increases the economic cost by about a factor of nine.
                                       Vl-60

-------
                                        TABLE VI -
                         Economic Cost per Barrel of Oil Recovered
Federal Waters
(1974 Dollars)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Cumulative Production (15 yrs . ) (MMB/MM
(a)
Minimum^ Water Production (MMB)
Minimum Oil Recovered (MB)
Maximum Water Production (MMB)
Maximum Oil Recovered (MB)
Investment (MM$)
Capital Charge (6x 2.8)(MM$)
Added Op. Costs (15 yrs.)(MM$)
Added Dep. Charge (15 yrs.)(MM$)
Net Increase in Op. Cost (8-9) (MM$)
Oil
1977
MCF) 1296. 5
648.3
129.7
6555.9
1311.0
40
112.0
51
40
11
Wells
1983
N/A
- 100
- 280
- 129
- 100
- 29
Gas
1977
11328.5
85.0
17.0
1891.9
378.4
5
14.0
6.8
5
1.8
Wells
1983
N/A
- 25
- 70
-31.7
- 25
- 6.7
11.  Minimum EC. Cost per Bbl Recovered
      ((741Q)/5)($/B)

12.  Maximum EC. Cost per Bbl Recovered
      ((7+10)/3)($/B)

13.  EC.  Cost Range ($/B Recovered)
                                             94


                                           2382

                                             94  - 2382
  42


4511

  42  - 4511
 (a)

 (b)
Assuming 0.5 Bbl water per Bbl of oil and  .0075 Bbl water per MCF  gas  in 1977,

Assuming (oil prod. + water prod./.7) = constant and  .167 Bbl water  per
gas in 1977.
     SOURCE:   Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
                                           VI-61

-------
                                      '  AdLE  \ I  -2j

                        Economic Cost rcr_ Bai :el  01  Oil  Recovered
                                       v-tate
                                      (1974 Do Liars
      DATE DUE
    Cumulative Production  (15 yrs.)
       (MMB or MM MCF)

           (a)
 >..  Minimum    Water Production  (MMB)

 3.  Minimum Oil Recovered  (MB)

    Maximum    Water Production  (MMB)

    Maximum Oil Recovered  (MB)

 r>.  Investment  (MM$)

 7.  Capital Charge  (6x  2.80)  (MM$)

 8.  Added Op. Costs  (15 yrs.)(MM$)

 9.  Added Dep. Charge  (15  yrs.)(MM$)

Jl-_ _Net Increase in Op. Costs
       U.-5-X (3-9)  (MM$)

 1.  EC. Cost per Bbl Recovered  ($/B)
                                                  Oil Wells
                                                                  Gas Wells
1977
342.3
171.2
34.2
5882.0
1176
13.5
37.8
18
13.5
1983
137.1
68.6
13.7
1537.0
307
35
98
51
35
1977
4228.4
31.7
6,3
/06.0
141
5.8
16.3
8.3
5.8
1983
2051.9
15.4
3.1
342.0
68
15.5
43.5
27
15.5
                                              4.5
16
2.5
11.5
                                        36  -  1237  371 - 8321 133 - 2984  808 - 17741
 (a)
 (b)
Assuming 0.5 Bbl water per Bbl of oil  and  .0075  Bbl water per MCF gas in 1977.


Assuming (oil prod. + water prod./.7)  =  constant and .167 Bbl water per Bbl MCF
gas in 1977.
     SOURCE;   Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates
            U,-.  dn-^oumenU!  Election Agen«
            pv -ion  V. U'orary              ---"
            230 South  Dearborn  Street  ,
            Chicrgo, Illinois  60bu4
                                                    VI-62

-------