ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OIL
AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
PROGRESS REVIEW, MAY 22, 1975
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES
-------
ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OIL
AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
PROGRESS REVIEW, MAY 22, 1975
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Prepared by:
Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC.
44 MATTIf SUUf • CAMiMlK.i, MASSAt HUSH1* tUHS
-------
ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
INTRODUCTION 1-1
1-DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 1-1
2-FACILITIES ASSUMPTIONS 2-1
REFINERIES 2-2
GAS PROCESSING 2-6
TRANSPORT FACILITIES 2-13
3-ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY 3-1
DESIGN OF THE ECONOMETRIC MODEL 3-1
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL 3-5
4-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY 4-1
A-AIR POLLUTION METHODOLOGY 4-1
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS 4-1
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH 4-3
B-WATER POLLUTION METHODOLOGY 4-21
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS 4-21
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH 4-21
C-LAND USE METHODOLOGY 4-30
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS 4-30
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH 4-31
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC.
«4 ftiAtm timr • camcriuu. masmchwiis miii
-------
INTRODUCTION
As an important step in determining the economic and environmental
impacts of oil and gas development in Alaska, we have developed numer-
ous assumptions about Alaskan oil and gas development itself, which
details the timing and size of oil and gas exploration, development,
and production in various potential oil and gas areas in Alaska, and
about the range of facilities that will be required to transport,
process, and distribute the oil and gas estimates under these various
development situations. In addition, because both development of oil
and gas and construction and operation of facilities can be expected
to impact on Alaska, we have developed specific methodologies (i.e.,
techniques) for measuring their economic - primary and secondary -
and environmental - air quality, water quality, land-use patterns,
wildlife, and vegetation - impacts. (The interrelationships of these
assumptions and methodologies are shown in Exhibit I.) Each of these
four elements is discussed in turn in this document.
I -1
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES. INC.
Muunutiuti • Cammiidu maywhumus 'iit»
-------
1 - DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
The Alaskan oil and gas development assumptions have been submitted
previously,* and will not be discussed here in detail. However, as a
result of comments received since original revisions were made March 30,
1975, the development assumptions will be revised again before we
develop our estimates of the economic and environmental impacts of the
development scenarios.** These revisions in the development assumptions
will probably include spacing assumptions, number of development wells
per platform, development, wells per barrel of reserves, and average
well production rates.
See "Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oil and Gas Develop-
ment in Alaska," Revised March 30, 1975.
A revised set o£ assumptions will be presented-in our next progress
review.
1-1
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATfS. INC.
44 IRMIII Villi! • CAMMlDU MAtW M»A» lis fiv: t«
-------
Exhibit 1-1.
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
Development Assumptions
Facilities Assumptions
Economic Impact Methodology
lit
Environmental Impact Methodology c
Comparison with
Current Profiles
-------
2 ~ FACILITIES 'ASSUMPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
As oil and gas development takes place in Alaska, much of the
secondary socioeconomic and environmental impacts will be associated
with facilities designed to transport or process the oil and gas. In
order to estimate the magnitude of these impacts, it is necessary to
gauge the likely timing, size, and location of related oil and gas facilities.
This document discusses these facilities assumptions for the
three major types of facilities that will be required as a result of
oil and gas development:
• Refineries
• Gas processing and liquefaction plants
• Transportation systems.
Finally, a series of maps are included showing the locations and
sizes of facilities for each development alternative.
RESOURCE PlANNINtt ASSOClATl*. INC
44 • (AMMUIU. MiUMfMIAlTh OMil
-------
REFINERIES
Introduction
Concurrent with the production or use of petroleum, refineries
are needed to convert crude oil into its constituent products. How-
ever, it is not necessary that crude oil be refined in the area where
it is produced, nor that it be refined in the area in which it is
consumed. In fact, the decision to locate a refinery in a particular
area is based on a complex series of market, economic, political, and
land use criteria. It is the purpose of this discussion to present
the refinery assumptions to be analyzed in this study, including
assumptions about the timing, size, location, and characteristics of
Alaskan refineries. As the discussion will point out, two types of
refineries are considered: relatively small refineries built pri-
marily to serve local needs, and large integrated refineries (200,000
barrels per day) producing chiefly for export from the state.*
Development Assumptions
As of early 1975, two refineries have been built on the Kenai
Peninsula in the Cook Inlet area of the state to supply the local
market for refined products in Alaska. These two refineries are
limited by product pipeline to serving Anchorage, the major popula-
tion center oi the state. Although by continental U.S. standards,
these plants are relatively small (with crude capacity of 22,000 and
38,000 BPD, respectively),** their output is adequate for most of the
state's petroleum needs. The completion of a recently announced
expansion at the larger plant is expected to increase motor gasoline
capacity and make Alaska self-sufficient in refined products for the
next few years. As Alaskan demand increases, these two plants are
expected to expand to meet the needs.
Apart from these two refineries, a third "local" refinery has been
proposed for the Fairbanks area adjacent to the TAPS route. If tenta-
tive plans for this small (15,000 BPD) refinery are implemented, the
plant would probably supply refined products to the interior areas of
the state and grow only as rapidly as demand for petroleum products
grows. Demand would probably not exceed the capacity of the plant
before the mid-1980's.
A third type of refinery, small (1,250 to 4,800 BPD) "topping"
plants will be built to supply fuel for exploration and production
operations. Since these plants are likely to be located at the
producing field, they are considered part of the primary produc-
tion facilities, and are not discussed here.
International Petroleum Encyclopedia 1974, Petroleum Publishing
Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1974.
2-2
Rf&OURCf PLANNING ASSfX IATIS INC
U IIOIII tlflft • (.AMflUHJ OJ1M
-------
The two small refineries on the Kenai Peninsula are part of the
base case developed in the present study. The base case reflects the
level of development already completed or in progress on the North
Slope, the Alyeska Pipeline, and the Upper Cook Inlet. We will also
assume the third refinery as part of the base case, since its existence
depends on the flow of North Slope crude through the Alyeska Pipeline.
Currently, no large refineries have been built or planned for con-
struction in Alaska. Howeves, the construction of a large, integrated
fefinery at some location in the state could be possible, depending
on three requirements: the need for greater and shifting product demand
patterns; the need for an available, suitable refinery site; and the
need for an available source of crude oil.
Product demand. Two elements may point up the need for
a large Alaska refinery. First, the demand for petroleum
products in Pad V would have to be larger than the current
or planned refinery capacities on the West Coast. Second,
the patterns of consumption of petroleum products would
have to change, especially in the Pacific Northwest.
Product demand in District V is projected to reach 2.9 to
3.3 million barrels per day by 1980.* Current refinery
capacity in the district is approximately 2.6 million EPD.
Certainly by the late 1980's substantial new capacity
will have to be added to meet West Coast demands for
petroleum products.
Historically, the West Coast demand for gasoline has been
significantly higher relative to other products than in
other sections of the country. However, the reduced
availability of natural gas for nationwide industrial
use may cause a shift of industrial fuel use from natural
gas to fuel oil in the Pacific Northwest. If this does
occur, either the large refineries on the West Coast would
be forced to increase their capacity to produce fuel oil,
or fuel oil would have to be shipped in from another source
on the coast. Since all the relatively large refineries
(75,000 + BPD)' in District V are high-conversion types
(Nelson Complexity Factor of 7~10) designed to "maximize"
gasoline production, new fractionation facilities would
have to be added.
However, if the demand for distillates and fuel oil grows
more rapidly in the Pacific Northwest than in California,
and if difficulties are experienced in locating West Coast
refineries, a fuel-oil hydroskimming refinery in Alaska
might supply fuel oil and distillates to the Washington/
Oregon area, while selling naphtha and some distillates
in California.
Oil and Gas Journal, 12/23/74, p. 12, based on a staff report
of the Senate Interior Committee.
2-3
R1SOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC
— Mtlllf 1IJWJ « C4MWUU, (V>H
-------
The type of refinery which might be built in Alaska would
then differ substantially from the typical plant in the ,
contiguous 48 states. Whereas a West Coast refinery
might produce roughly ,45 percent gasoline and 15 percent
residual oils, the hydroskimming plant envisioned in
Alaska would have an almost opposite mix, because of the
trend toward higher fuel-type production. A likely product
mix might be:
Naphtha 15-20%
Middle Distillates 30-35%
Residual Oil 40%
Other 10%
The refinery, if it is built, would probably be a large one,
on the order of 200,000 barrels per day, in order to help
alleviate the 300,000 to 700,000 barrel per day West Coast
capacity shortfall pointed out earlier.
Availability of a suitable site. Assuming that a large
coastal refinery was built, it would likely be located
near the highest producing areas and in a relatively
moderate climate, i.e., along the Gulf of Alaska. While
the eastern section of the Gulf of Alaska, offshore from
Yakutat and Cape Yakataga, appears to have the highest
oil-bearing potenital,* the onshore areas are remote and
lack the infrastructure required to support a large plant.
v j-h good oil potential lie offshore from ¦
frpCV^ ^ ^Seward peninsulajpnd' Kodiak Island'. O ftlieseareaslf" Sewara
' / /is the more iixely refinery location, probably the best Dn
the entire Gulf coast.
As a potential refinery site (if oil is discovered within
reasonable proximity), Seward has several advantages over
rvh,hmr.. Inrai-ipns The most important advantage is that the
City of Sewarcjjfras an infrastructure capable of absorbing
the increased social and economic activity resulting from
the operation of a plant employing a large number of workers.
An additional 'favorable aspect is that a refinery built nn
Resurrection Bay near the city would have road access to
Anchorage and other areas of the state. Its proximity tD the
population center of Alaska would increase access to goods
and services for the plant and the employees. Unlike the
TAPS terminal at Valdez, a Seward/Resurrection Bay site would
have relatively clear access to open seas in the Gulf of
Alaska, thus minimizing the risk of oil spill from an
accident at sea.
£5-00 rJ^S
I «
u
Oil and Gas Journal, 10/11/73, p. 38.
2-4
RfSOUKt E PLANNING ASSOCIAIfS, INC.
*4 UK AI III MKIM • (.AMBRIIK.t. M
-------
>11
y
Any site along the rim of the Gulf of Alaska raises the
spector of damage caused by seismic activity. In the
Seward area the risk of earthquake damage is relatively,
low compared to other sitps. Few geologic faults exist Ln
the vicinity and the rock base in the area is not as
unstable during an earthquake as in the area around Cook
Inlet and Anchorage.
Availability of crude oil. We have assumed that this
refinery would process Gulf of Alaska crude should reserves
be developed th^re. The proximity of possible offshore
production locations to Seward makes Gulf crude an attrac-
tive supply source. However, it is possible that other
sources (e.g., NPR-4, Prudhoe) could supply crude to this
potential refinery or that another site could be developed.
The exact outcome would depend on development timing, size
of oil finds, transportation routes chosen, and availability
of refinery sitesT~""lIfH!>9
-------
GAS PROCESSING AND LIQUEFACTION
Introduction
As oil reserves are developed in Alaska, it is highly likely that
gas will be produced and marketed also. It is the purpose of this dis-
cussion to present assumptions concerning the size, characteristics,
location, and timing of gas processing plants and gas liquefaction plants
associated with natural gas production.
Development Assumptions
It has been assumed that natural g/fc facilities will be associated
primarily with four development scenarios: the development of natural
gas reserves on the North Slope; the^Gulf of Alaska development; Southern
Cook Inlet development and NPR-4 jfcasi).* Each.of these will be discussed
in turn below, along with assumptions for standard facilities for the
Gulf and Cook Inlet cases.
North Slope. The Federal Power Commission (FPC) currently has
under- consideration the El Paso Natural Gas Company's request
for a permit to build a trans-Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe
Bay to the Gravina Peninsula in Prince William Sound.** The
plan calls for a natural.gas liquefaction plant to be built
with the following major characteristics:
• Eight refrigeration/compression modules of approximately
380 million standard cubic feet per day (SCFD) capacity
• Four 550,000-barrel insulated storage tanks
« Buildings for administration, maintenance shops, warehouse
space, process control, and cafeteria
• Two berths-, each capable of handling LNG carriers of up to
165/000-cubic-meters' capacity
• Approximately 1200 acres of land: 395 acres for the
plant, 55 acres for support facilities (e.g., housing, heli-
port) , and 750 acres for a green belt around the.plant.
We eu:e assuming that other potential areas are too small to be mar-
keted (e.g. Bering) or would use the facilities associated with
these four available scenarios
A second submission, that by Arctic Natural Gas, is also under con-
sideration, and it is unclear at the time which is likely to be cho-
sen. However, because it seems likely that the El Paso development
would have "the greatest impact on the Alaskan economy and environ-
ment at the impact sites since the proposed pipeline and associ-
ated facilities are entirely within Alaska, we have chosen the
El Paso Case to show the maximum impacts.
2-6
RtSOURCE PLANNING ASSOCI^TCS, INC.
44 ItAIIH Mill I • CMtllKK^ MASSAC MIT.I ! IS IS
-------
Gulf of Alaska. Unlike the El Paso development case, where
comprehensive development plans have been submitted, the cha-
racteristics of gas processing and liquefaction associated with
prospective Gulf of Alaska -development are not known. Therefore,
assumptions must be made concerning possible gas composition
and "typical" size facilities.
Natural gas compositions vary among different reservoirs, but
for this analysis gag is assumed to have the following composi-
tion:
Hydrogen sulphide and other
sulphur compounds
Carbon dioxide
Water
Extractable liquids (ethane
through normal penetane)
Nitrogen and other inerts
Condensate
Methane
Source: RPA estimates
1%
1%
10-20 lbs/million cubic feet
12%
.75%
34 barrels/million cubic feet
85%
Based on this, approximate composition, the steps required at
a typical processing plant include hydrogen sulphide removal,
dehydration (may be done on offshore platforms or islands),
and separation and reinjection of condensates (may be done off-
shore for OCS production). A typical plant is assumed to be a-
ble to'process up to 500 million cubic feet of gas per day.
Larger plants may be- required for any one field, but it is
assumed that this typical plant would be the "building block"
module for them..
For each plant of this size constructed in Alaska, the estima-
ted employment is 50 persons. This figure is qualitatively
weighted to reflect both the higher employment required for
self-sufficient staffing in Alaska and the expected increased
productivity between now and 1980.
Since gas processing does not involve extensive process equip-
ment, the land requirement projected for each module is modest,
approximately 20 acres. About half this land would be for di-
rect plant use while the remainder would exist as a buffer zone.
2-7
RfSOURCf PLANNING ASSOCIATE. INC.
m id Mm i •
-------
In addition to gas processing facilities, gas liquefaction
facilities will be a key element of the supply system for
nearly all gas produced in Alaska. Natural gas liquefied in
Alaska will be loaded on LNG carriers for regasification and
use in the rest of continental U.S. We will assume that a
typical liquefaction plant will be either 1 or 2 billion SCFD
capacity, with the characteristics shown in Exhibit 2-1.
These typical gas prbcessing plants and LNG plant characteris-
tics will be used in the impact analyses for the Gulf of Alas-
ka and Southern Cook Inlet. The remaining discussion focuses
on the number and location of each facility.
The amount of gas resources in the Gulf of Alaska will remain
unloiown until exploratory drilling takes place, but the poten-
tial is very high. The Gulf of Alaska might be expected to con-
tain up to 40 trillion cubic feet. Assuming a 20-year-life
from the time significant oil and gas production develops in
1985, the production rate of gas should average approximately
5-6 billion CFD.
The pattern of gas development is assumed to parallel that of
oil in the Gulf, with gas being discovered in six major fields
extending westward from Yakutat to Kodiak Island. Each dis-
covery would include 5-10 trillion cubic feet of gas, and gas
processing plants would be built at adjacent onshore areas.
Since there is no large local use of the gas, it is assumed
that natural gas will be liquefied for transport by sea.
Gas in the Gvjlf of Alaska will probably be processed and li-
quefied in plants relatively close to the producing fields.
The geographic separation and widely separate development
schedules will probably result in a number of separate facili-
ties being built on the coast or on islands. Each plant will
contaih both processing and liquefaction stages.
The assumed sequence, location, and estimated size of six.pro-
cessing facilities - corresponding to the six major fields -
in the Gulf area are shown in Exhibit 2-2. In these areas,
the offshore gas production would be piped 100 miles or less to
an onshore processing/liquefaction plant. The sole exception
to-this is the area south of Montague and Hinchinbrook Islands
which are part of Chugach National Forest. Assuming that a
plant could not be built on either island, a sea floor gather-
ing system would connect to a 100-mile pipeline around Monta-
gue Island to Cape Junken.
The gas plants at the locations listed in Exhibit 2-2 are as-
sumed. to consist of gas processing plant "modules" of 500-mil-
2-8
RESOURCE PIANNINH ASSOCIATE. INC
4* IIAI III 41IM I • (. AM0IHR4, MA\VU IUAII ft Wt U
-------
lion-cubic-feet-per-day capacity and an appropriate number of
liquefaction modules of 1 or 2 billion cubic feet per day.
2-9
HI SOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATE, INC
44 BIMIII Wtlir • (AMBIIIMJ, UASSM>'nr.MI% OJItf
-------
Exhibit 2-1
Model LNG Plants
One-bi1lion-cubic-feet-per-day capacity
© Carbon dioxide gas removal facilities (50 ppm or less)
• Dessicators for dehydrating the gas
• Refrigeration and compression equipment for converting
treated gas to LNG - 2 modules with capacities of 500
million SCFD each
9 Two 400,000 bbl double-walled insulated tanks
• Vapor recovery system for LNG storage tanks and loading
equipment, and inert gas (N^) purge and blanketing system
• Power plant - gas turbine driven with diesel engines for
emergency backup
• Air fractionation, equipment for production of nitrogen
• Buildings to house administrative offices, maintenance
shops, warehouse, control house, and cafeteria
• On-site housing for 50 workers and a recreation facility
• Two berths, each capable^of handling a 135 MDWT LNG carrier
(approximately 165,000 M cargo)
Two-billion-cubic-feet-per-day capacity
Die facilities for these plants will be the same as those of 1-
billion-cubic-feet-per-day capacity except for the following:
• Four 400,000 bbl insulated storage tanks will be required
• Four refrigeration/compression modules of 500 million
SCFD will be required.
Land requirements for these two plant sizes will be approximately
400 acres and 600 acres respectively of which approximately half will
be used as a green belt.
Source: RPA estimates
2-10
RESOURCE PLANNING A!»SnriAllS. INC
44 NAIIII MRU I • (AMMIIMJ MAWM IBIVI I In 0/ 'Jl
-------
Exhibit 2-2
Gas Processing and LNG Plants in
the Gulf of Alaska
Plant Location
Yakutat
Cape Yakataga (Cape
Suckling to Icy Bay
area)
Kodiak (or Marmot)
Island
Sitkalidak Island
Production Rate
1.5-2.0 billion SCFD
1.5-2.0 billion SCFD
1.0-2.0 billion SCFD
1.0-2.0 billion SCFD
Probable Date of
Initial Production
1985
1987
1985-95
1985-95
Cape Junken (offshore 0.5-1.5 billion SCFD 1990-95
production south of
Montague and
Hinchinbrook Islands)
Seward Area (Resur- 0.5-1.5 billion SCFD 1990-95
rection Bay or Day
Harbor)
2-11
RESOURCE PLANNING AWiCIMIS. INC
«« Mllll • u/114
-------
Southern Cook Inlet Development Scenario. The processing/LNG
facilities in the Southern Cook Inlet area are assumed to-be
built on the land near Anchor Point. Since the estimated re-
serves of gas in Southern Cook Inlet (12 trillion cubic feet)
are of the same magnitude as in some of the larger basins of
the Gulf of Alaska and since a similar uncertainly exists with
regard to gas composition, the assumed facilities are the same,
but for total capacity ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 billion SCFD.
NPR-4 (fast) Development Scenario. The assumed gas products
in this scenario are approximately twice that of the El Paso
Development Scenario at peak production years ranging up to
3.6 billion cubic feet per day by 1985. We assume that an
additional natural gas pipeline will be built, parallelling
the TAPS route, to the Valdez area and terminating at an LNG
facility twice the size and with the same facilities assumed
for the El Paso Scenario.*
* * * *
In summary then, four development scenarios are expected to include
natural-gas_processing and liquefaction, facilities. The El Paso develop-
ment scenario, the Southern Cook Inlet development scenario and the NPR-4
(fast) development scenario are assumed to include one plant site each,
while the Gulf of Alaska development scenario would result in six plants
scattered through the Gulf.
* NPR-4 (slow) is not assumed to have natural gas production until
1990 and beyond.
2-12
RISOURCt PLANNING ASSOCIATCS. INC
44 MM III MRU I • (AMtllllM HIM I It tl/l M
-------
TRANSPORT FACILITIES
A key part of any delivery system is the facilities used to trans-
port the product or commodity frpm its source to its point of use.
In Alaska where, with the exception of Cook Inlet, enormous known and
potential reserves of oil and gas are remote from markets, the trans-
portation network is especially significant.
In this study the term ".transportation facilities" refers to those
means by which oil and gas are moved from a producing area to the point
at which they leave Alaska by tanker, LNG carrier, or pipeline. More
specifically, facilities such as tanker terminals, offshore tanker
loading sites, and pipelines are described for anticipated oil and gas
development.
Tanker Terminals
The large quantity of oil flowing,^r'om>Tta.a^f3*"to the West Coast
will require construction of crude oil terminals' in Alaska. The base
case scenario, includes the existing terminalS i/ Upper Cook Inlet and
the new one at Valdez, but if the/production .^>tential of Alaska is
borne out, several more terminals";may be required. In describing the
impacts of a tanker terminal it shooidrlSe noted that the facility
includes storage tanks, pumps, vapor recovery systems, buildings,
ballast tanks, power plants, and berths. All of these are essential
parts of a terminal operation.
The analysis of the impacts associated with these facilities is
dependent on their anticipated location and size. Therefore, to pro-
vide a basis for analysis of the various scenarios, the probable loca-
tion of new terminal facilities has to be identified. Beginning with
the known site at Valdez, and building on the probable location of
major oil finds in Alaska, the terminal facilities are discussed below.
Valdez/Prince William Sound; After a delay of several years
in the construction of the TAPS pipeline system, work has
recently begun on the pipeline and the Valdez terminal.
Consistent with the schedule of crude oil production
increases on the North Slope, the terminal facilities will
be completed in three phases to handle 0.6 million, 1.2
million, and 2.0 million barrels per day, respectively.
At the completion of Phase I, projected for 1977, the terminal
will consist of the following facilities:
• Buildings for offices, control, and maintenance
• Tank vapor recovery unit
• Power plant
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES. INC.
*4 MA mi iUttl • CAMMIOU. WAViM-HUiim U/llfl
-------
« Three berths (one floating, two fixed)
• Fourteen 500,000-barrel crude tanks
• Fire fighting equipment.
In the' succeeding phases of construction, facilities will be
added to meet the needs of the higher pipeline throughput. These
are:
o
Phase II • Eight 500,000-barrel crude oil tanks
• One fixed berth
Phase III • Ten 500,000-barrel tanks
e One berth.
According to the flow schedule for the TAPS line, completion of Phases
II and III is expected by 1978 and 1980, respectively.
Cook Inlet: The Southern Cook Inlet is assumed to be
capable of producing 300,000 barrels of oil per day by 1986, peaking ,
at 520,000 BPD in 1993. If this development occurs as expected, an
additional.crude terminal will be built on the Kenai Peninsula adjacent
to the producing areas, perhaps near Anchor Point, at the end of
Kachemak Bay.
Facilities there would include:
© Buildings for offices, control, and maintenance
• Tank vapor recovery unit
• Power plant
• Two berths .
® Seven 500,000-barrel crude tanks
• Fire fighting equipment.
Kotzebue and Norton Sounds/Bristol Bay. North of the Aleutian
Island chain the existence of pack ice is fairly common. As described
in a subsequent section dealing with pipelines, it is unlikely that
technology will become available to permit year-round tanker operation
in the Bering Sea. Even if tankers, such as the ESSO Manhattan, were
fitted or.designed with special hulls, ice movements would undoubtedly
2-14
RISOURCT PLANNING ASSOCIATtS. INC.
44 MAIlll Vltur • (AMBtKX.t MASSAC HUM IIS (I'll#
-------
damage any kind of berth fixed on a single' point mooring'device now
known. Consequently, we believe that a second major crude oil pipe-
line will probably be required to deliver oil from Kotzebue and Norton
Sounds to the ice-free Gulf of Alaska, (see pipeline discussion below).
After examininq topoqraphic and seismic maDS of the areas at
which a pipeline from western Alaska might terminate, it was deter-
mined that Kamishak °Bay would be a highly likely terminal site. Other
alternate sites are certainly feasible, but for the sake of estimating
the impacts from'terminal development and operation we believe it is
adequate to assume the construction of a terminal at Chenik. Almost
¦.any other site on the western edge of Cook Inlet would have essentially .
the same impacts.
Using the potential oil production estimates developed for each
scenario, the terminal facility would have to be ready for operation
by about 1985, when oil produced at Bristol Bay, Norton Sound, and
Kuskokwim Bay would be available. Oil reserves developed a year
earlier in Kotzebue Sound will also be ready for transport to the
terminal. Estimated producing rates by 1985 are expected to be 200
thousand barrels per day (MBPD) from Bristol Bay, 700 MBPD from Norton/ '
Kuskokwim, and 170 MBPD.from Kotzebue; by 1990 the rates are.expected
to be 1,100- MBPD, 1,7.00 MBPD, and 160 MBPD, respectively. Consequently,
the terminal facilities anticipated here must have a capacity of about
1,100 MBPD by 1985 and about 3,000 MBPD by 1990.
To achieve this capacity the terminal would have the following
facilities:
« Buildings for offices, control, and maintenance
• Tank vapor recovery unit
0 Power plant
• Four berths initially, and eight by 1990, each capable of
serving, tankers of up to 250 MDWT
• Twenty 500,000-barrel tanks initially and fifty tanks by
1990
• Fire fighting equipment.
Gulf of Al'aska Offshore Tanker Loading. Onshore tanker terminal, sites
are feasible especially around Cape Uakutage for the Gulf of Alaska.
However, offshore loading of tankers seems more likely for the reasons
described in the following paragraphs.
2-15
KISOURCT PLANNING ASSOCIATES. INC.
44 HKMUI MNIII • i M»V.A( HIJMI IS H.'tlfl
-------
The technology for loading tankers directly from offshore fields is
available, and is now bding refined in the North Sea- The use of single
point mooring buoys with floating oil storage is occurring with more
frequency in open seas around the world. Considering the current large
oversupply of tankers, especially in the 90-160 MDWT range, the use of a
moored tanker as floating storage is quite feasible at the moment. Use
of large concrete or steel storage tanks is being tried off the Norwegian
coast. Other developments include the experimental installation of new
sea-floor-producing equipment by Exxon in the Gulf of Mexico, which
eliminates the need for production platforms once a development well has
been completed.
Using a system with a single point mooring (SPM), loading rates of
300,000 BPD are readily attainable. So, for an area capable of pro-
ducing 1 million barrels per day, 4 SPM's are assumed for installation.
Since power for the operations and required facilities for maintaining
the operations are an integral part of the floating storage (a tanker
or specifically designed structure), very few onshore facilities would likely
be required. Essentially there would be only:
9 A dock for loading small craft to supply the personnel on the
offshore facility
• A storage area for keeping spare parts, especially loading
hoses and tie-down lines
• Housing for onshore personnel.
Since gas will probably be produced with the oil, it is very.likely
that the onshore support facility will be adjacent to a gas processing
and liquefaction plant, rather than being built as a small, isolated
facility.
Pipelines
In estimating the impacts of various facilities on Alaska, pipe-
lines have the most diverse effects. During construction large areas may
be temporarily disturbed by construction and supply activities. Once the
pipe is in place, however, the immediate land impacts are relatively
small. Then the potential for oil spills from breakage, and more subtle
effects such as inhibiting wildlife movement are more important.
There are likely to be several pipelines in Alaska in addition to
the TAPS line. Looking at the potential producing areas of the state,
possible pipelines which should be considered in addition to the TAPS
line are:
2-16
RESOURCE MANNING ASSOC! A IIS, INf
*4 MA 111, t Slid 1 • (AMUllHJ KIASSA4 IflMl l\ iu« M
-------
1. The El Paso trans-Alaska gas line, or the alternative gas line
from Prudhoe Bay to the MacKenzie River delta in Canada
2. A line from NPR-4 gathering centers to the origin of the TAPS
line
3. Another long pipeline from western Alaska producing areas to
the ice-free Southern Cook Inlet
4. A connecting line from the Chuckchi Sea west of NPR-4 to
the Prudhoe Bay TAPS origin
5. A second TAPS pipeline parallel to the first
6. A pipeline from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to TAPS.
7. A second natural gas pipeline through the TAPS corridor from
NPR-4.
The justification for considering these pipeline routes is as follows:
1. Gas from the Prudhoe "Bay formation is economically transportable
to markets in the other continental states. Thus one of the
two routes will be accepted by the FPC. We assume that the El
Paso route will be approved* since this assumption would show
maximum impacts.
2. A second TAPS system will probably be required to transport oil
from NPR-4, while oil from the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, arid
Arctic Wildlife Refuge areas is used to fill the first pipeline
as production declines at Prudhoe Bay.
3. Individual pipelines for oil from Kotzebue and Norton Sounds
are probably uneconomical and tanker operations are not fea-
sible year-round to those areas. Consequently, a single pipe-
line supporting' both those two areas as well as Kuskokwim Bay
and even Bristol Bay is a more likely alternative.
4. Oil from the Chukchi Sea and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge could
be transported to southern Alaska via the TAPS route, requiring
pipelines to reach Prudhoe Bay. An alternative, though less
likely, route would be a northern extension to the Kotzebue-
Bristol pipeline described above.
5. Large natural gas production is assumed for the NPR-4 (fast)
alternate. Since the El Paso route is economical at half the
assumed volume of NPR-4(fast) a second gas pipeline (though
slightly larger) would be attractive.
2-17
RtSnilRCE PlANNINCi AiSOOAItS. ISC
44 HA1III MBIIt ~ I AMMI1NJ. \U1VAI IM/MtlS 0/irf
-------
All of the pipelines described above, except for the pipelines serving
the western areas, would make use of the TAPS line or the TAPS corridor.
This western pipeline, then, deserves some further discussion. The
optimistic estimates of oil production in the western coastal area of
Alaska indicate production rates of less than 1.2 million barrels per
day by 1985, but as much as 3 million BPD by 1990. None of the remote
potential areas (Kotzebue and Norton Sounds or Kuskokwim Bay) is large
enough by itself to warrant a TAPS-sized pipeline stretching to a
feasible tanker terminal on the southern coast of the state. However,
in aggregate the production rate would be more than adequate to
support a pipeline network connecting all potential producing areas.
Starting at Kotzebue Sound (Baldwin Peninsula) with medium-
sized pipe (perhaps 36" diameter), the pipe size would increase to 48"
for the eastern stretch from Bristol Bay to Cook Inlet. Along the
route, as oil from other areas flowed into the line, the pipe size
required "downstream" would be larger or flow rate would have to be
increased.
An alternative development considering the ptoential of Bristol
Bay alone would provide a separate pipeline connecting Bristol Bay
producing areas with a Gulf of.Alaska/Cook Inlet terminal. Though
this would be feasible, accommodating the incremental flow from
Kotzebue, .Norton, and Kuskokwin would encourage a single very large
pipe section. Furthermore, the difficulty of obtaining individual
construction permits would inctease the likelihood of a combined-
flow pipeline for oil from Bristol Bay and from the more northwesterly
areas.
Should such a pipeline be built it would probably stretch about
650 miles from Kotzebue on Kotzebue Sound to Kamishak in Cook Inlet.
Connecting segments of about 200 miles and 75 miles would bring oil
from Kushokwim and Bristol Bay, respectively.
******
The following maps show the assumed location of refineries, gas
processing and xiquefaction facilities, and transportation facilities
(i.e., tanker terminals, offshore tanker loading facilities and pipe-
lines) for each cumulative development scenario.
*> — 1 O
«. AW
RfSOURCt PLANNING ASSOCIATES. INC
-------
KEY TO EXHIBITS
Refinery (small)
Refinery (large integrated)
Pipeline (minor)
Pipeline (major)
Tanker Terminal
Offshore Tanker Loading Point
LNG Plant
Gas Processing/LNG Plant
2-19
-------
Exhibit 2-3
2-20
-------
Exhibit 2-4
/
\
\
\
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
2-21
-------
Exhibit 2-5
\
\
\
\
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
2-22
-------
Exhibit 2-6
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
-------
Exhibit 2-7
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
2-24
-------
Exhibit 2-8
i
~
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
Beaufort Sea offshore
-------
Exhibit 2-9
~
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
Beaufort Sea offshore
NPR#.4-slow
2-?6
-------
Exhibit 2-10
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
Beaufort Sea offshore
NPR#4-slow
Kotzebue Sound
2-71
-------
Exhibit 2-11
Upper Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay Oil
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
Beaufort Sea offshore
NPR#4-slow
Kotzebue Sound
Bristol Bay
2-28
-------
Exhibit 2-12
Other private development-Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
Beaufort Sea offshore
Kotzebue Sound
Bristol
NPR #4-fast
-------
Exhibit 2-13
?
-------
Exhibit 2-14
Kotzebue Sound
Bristol
NPR #4-fast
Bering Sea - Basin
-hukchi Sea
-------
Exhibit 2-15
Inlet
Bay
Upper
Other private development - Prudhoe
Southern Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Gas- - El Paso
Gulf of Alaska offshore
Beaufort Sea offshore
Kotzebue Sound
Bristol
NPR #4-fast
Bering Sea - Basin
Chukchi Sea
Arctic Wildlife Refuge
2-32.
-------
3 - ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY
To translate oil and gas development and related facilities assumptions
into forecasts of primary and secondary economic impacts on Alaska, we
have developed a methodology that involves using an econometric model.
Consequently, we first discuss the model itself before proceeding to a
detailed discussion of how we will apply the model to project primary
and secondary economic impacts.
DESIGN OF THE
ECONOMETRIC MODEL
The econometric model we propose to use was developed originally
by the Human Resources Planning Institute (HRPI) for the Man in the
Arctic program at the Institute of Social, Economic, and Government
Research (ISEGR). Originally, the model was used to project the impact
of trans-Alaskan pipeline construction on the Alaskan economy.* Since
that time, the model has been refined and updated by HRPI under contract
to the United States Department of Labor.** It is this second version
that we have incorporated in this study.
We selected this particular model for its credibility - it has
been used before by the Alaskan government and interested parties to
forecast the impact of oil and gas development - and for its level of
detail - it is one of the most detailed econometric descriptions ever
developed on a subnational basis, breaking down the Alaskan economy
into 16 employment categories and 2 unemployment categories.*** In
addition, we believed it would be more cost effective than designing a
new economic model that would necessarily be smaller, less complex,
and less accurate.
The model developed by HRPI is an economic base model. An
economic base model assumes a regional (state) economy is composed of
two parts: (1) one part is export oriented (exogenous demand) and
exists solely as a result of the region's natural resources or of
* See Alaskan Pipeline Report, ISEGR, University of Alaska, 1973.
** A much more detailed description than the one presented here can
be found in Manpower and Employment Impact of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline, Vol. II, Technical Report, Human Resources Planning
Institute and Urban and Rural Systems Associates, November, 1974.
*** Apparently the model, loses little statistical significance in
going to this level of detail. The R are all 0.9 or above.
3-1
RESOURCE PLANNING ^StXTIArrV INC
m uaiiii linn • iwatn>u M4svu.iuN(hiuiu
-------
decisions made outside the region; the components of this segment of
the economy are called basic industries (e.g., federal defense spending
or oil.and gas extraction), when the industry predominantly does not serve
local needs; and (2) another part that caters primarily to local needs
(endogenous demand) and rises and falls with the size and structure of
the basic industries; the components of this segment are termed nonbasic
industries (e.g., wholesale trade, retail trade, and services).
The HKPI model conside'rs six basic industries, six nonbasic industries,
and two industries that are usually nonbasic but for purposes of analysis
are considered to have both basic and nonbasic characteristics. (See
Exhibit 3-1.) The basic industries, since they are assumed to respond
to exogenous demand, are forecast independent of and outside the model.
For example, their employment forecasts are based on forecasts for the
entire national industry in which they operate (e.g.., fish processing
is viewed within the national fish industry) and estimates of informed
Alaskan industry sources. Forecasts for nonbasic industries are based
on levels of employment in the basic industries, other nonbasic indus-
tries, and related social variables (state and local expenditures,
population,•unemployment).
The model operates on a calendar-quarter-by-calendar-quarter
basis, using last quarter's results and seasonality factors to project
current-quarter results.* The sequence of steps in the model is shown
in Exhibit. 3-2. Starting with initial values for the variables and
with basic industry forecasts, nonbasic industry employment is forecast.
Next, unemployment and civilian work force projections are developed.
Finally, total population is calculated from military population fore-
casts and dependency ratios. From that point, the model cycles to the
next time period.
To operate this model, two sets of assumptions are needed.
1. Employment forecasts for the basic industries.
For each of the basic industries, we have used the HRPI
employment forecasts through 1980, extending them on the
basis of our own estimates, through 1990. (Exhibit 3-3 shows
the forecasts used.)
2. Mathematical relationships for the nonbasic industries.
The mathematical relationships developed by HRPI to forecast
the nonbasic industries were based on historical data from
1961 to the present. The relationships that were developed
by means of regression analysis were chosen on the basis of
"goodness of fit" and economic sense. The interrelation-
For our purposes an annual model would be sufficient. However,
due to the availability of the HRPI model, we will calculate
quarterly results and present them in em annualized format.
3-2
RESOURCE PIANNINC ASSOCIATES. INC
44 HAf fit Htm • CAMMnKil. MAS>ACIIUM I IS O.'IU
-------
Exhibit 3-1
ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF THE ALASKAN ECONOMY
Basic Industries
Communications and
Utilities
Mining
Petroleum
Other
Manufacturing
Federal Government
Native Services
Military
Combination
Industries
Construction
Pipeline
Other
Transportation
Pipeline
Other Construc-
tion
Nonbasic Industries
State and Local Government
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Services
FIRE*
Noncategorized**
* Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
** Includes Agriculture.
3-3
RESOURCt PIANNINC ASSOCIAlrS. INC*.
44 ItATIlt MR1|I . CAMftllXJ. MA\VU fJLM(IN (i.'l 14
-------
ixhibit 3-2
ALASKA STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT MODEL
3-4
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCMlrS, INC
44 Burnt uaiir • umiiiou sMiuunniiis ivih
-------
ships of each nonbasic industry forecast with other nonbasic
industries and with basic industries are shown in Exhibit 3-4.
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL
To gauge the impact on the Alaskan economy of no further oil and
gas development, we will of course apply the HRPI model to the situa-
tion that exists in this study. To this end, we will discuss: (1) the
interface between the HRPI model and the development scenarios selected
for this effort; (2) the development assumptions that will interface
With the HRPI model; and (3) how the results of the statewide model
will be disaggregated to the regional level.
HRPI Model/Development Scenario Interface
The model, as constructed, forecasts state employment in the absence
of future oil and gas development. But with future oil and gas develop-
ment, these base forecasts must be adjusted to account for more employees
that were planned for under the base assumptions. For example, the model
assumes contract construction employment is based on population, federal
government employment, and seasonal factors. The construction of an oil
pipeline, however, is considered to be incremental construction employ-
ment, over and above that required to satisfy normal requirements - and
these additional construction workers do have an effect -.e.g., in terms
of construction supplies and services - and spending multipliers - on
the economy. These effects would have to be simulated by adding, in
the appropriate time periods, this exogenous extimate of pipeline construc-
tion. (See Exhibit 3-5 for an illustration of the technique.) The model
would then use this adjusted estimate of construction employment as an
independent variable in calculating the secondary effects on the non-
basic industries.
This technique will be used to simulate the effects of each state
of petroleum, gas, and facilities development and operation. First,
for each development scenario, the number of incremental employees in
each industrial category will be aggregated for each calendar quarter.
Next, the number of incremental employees will be added to the forecasted
equation used for that industry. Lastly, the model will be run to cal-
culate the effects of this incremental activity on the nonbasic industries.
Exhibit 3-6 shows the stages of petroleum development for which employment
estimates have been made, (see below) as well as the designation of the
industry in the model to which these incremental employees will be added.
Development-Scenario Employment Assumptions
To carry out the above procedure, it is necessary to develop
employment assumptions for!
3-5
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC
44 MA I tit itllil • CAMUIHUl. MAMMIIUUIIV I'lN
-------
Exhibit 3-3
BASIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS, SELECTED YEARS
Industry 1973
Mining* 2400
Communications and
Utilities 3600
Federal Employment 17200
Manufacturing 8400
Native Services 50
TAPS Operation
and Maintenance
Military 27000
1980
2900
3900
17700
10700
575
450
27000
1985
3200
4000
17900
12450
700
450
27000
1990
3400
4200
18200
14200
825
450
27000
Source: 1973-1980 HRPI Estimates
1981-1990 RPA Estimates
Indicator base case activity.
3-6
RESOURCE PLANNING ASMlCIAlf, INC.
44 ItHIU irilll . (AMB1IIH4 11t Oill|
-------
NON-BASIC INDUSTRY EQUATIONS FROM STEP-WISE REGRESSION PROGRAM
UNEMPLOYMENT
P. - -. 951 c= 654 .47
"i Jo 1 : L 1972: IV
D- = 41 DW= 1.68
-3395. 8 + 4283. IS! + £934.8S2 * 1 507.9S3 + .0(5021 34 TEMP
*(-3.9) (10.4) (4.1) (1.1) (4.2)
-21445.4 DELT + .5766:3 UNEK-1 + BOOM
(-4.1) (5.P)
STATE a LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ft - =. 933 a~1206. 63
1 361 :1 -»¦ 1972 :.IV
D,- = 45 DVi= . 35
-11373.1 +
(-5.7)
06069255 PLES + 36.0793 STEX
(6.0) (3.7)
Jd
I
-J
TRANSPORTATION
R2+.356 c=217.99
1 961 :L 1-972 : IV
DF-33 DW=1.42
RETAIL TRADE
R-= .-9G0 c ='388.99
1 351:1 - 1 972 : IV
D F = 40 DVJ- i 85
SERVICES
R- =.995 c = 203.9
1961 :! -* 1972:1V
DF= 40 DW=1.;19
WHOLESALE TRADE
R-=.331 o=98.70
1 361 :1 1 372: IV
DF = 42 DW - l . 3
+684.8 + 237.4S1
(1.5) (1.3)
16.4S2 + 643.8S3 + . 162967 CONS + . 71346(5 MING
(-0.1) (1.6) (2.7) (9.5)
+.174706 MFRG + .256229 STLO ¦
(1.9) (5.9)
-12039.8 + 1220.6S1 + 1487.0S2
-3.0) (2.7) (2.1)
87.39 TIME + 0/M
(-4.8)
352.6S3 + .362468 MFRG
(-0.4) (2,2)
+ . 180501 MING + .06451 3 POPL-1 + 15.1 TIME
(1.6) (3.3) (0.45)
-1 926.3 + 783.3S1 + 482.2S2 - 280. 1S3 - 49.27 TIME •+ .64438 RETL
(-4.8) (4.6) (C.7) (-1.7) (-3.6) (7.0)
+ .15094 CONS + .34271 STLO + NASR
(3.2) (7.2)
-217.7 <- 134.6S1 + 61 .7S2 + 32.0S3 + . 143852 'MING + .235687 RETL
(-3.3) (3.3) ("!.5J (0.8) (5.4) (26.7)
w
&
&
H-
<+
U>
I
Abbreviated variable names are explained in Table 1-3
-------
SUMMARY OF REGRESSION RESULTS (continued)
CONSTRUCTION (TOTAL)
f»2= 348 5'5 5 . 75
1961:1 - 197 2 :1V
DF=*2 DU=1.16
-14067.6 - 1415.3S1 + 1046.3S2 + 2719.0S3 +
(-6.9)
(-5.
a j
(3.9)
(10.4)
034313 P'-ES
(9.8)
+ .59379 FEDL + PIPE
(4.2)
FII.'WE, INSURANCE,
REAL ESTATE
R2- . 957 o'=l 27 . 68
1951 :1 + 1 972 : IV
D F = 4DW = 0.8S
- 3 7 4 ^.7 +
(-11.6)
423.SSI + 399.3S2
\
)
(2.5)
i 74.1 S3
(-•0.7)
2297^3
(4.1 )
COMU
+ .107405 MFflG
(2.0)
.01 6999 POPL-1
(3.4)
.NGH-CATEGORI ZED +971 7.0 - 903.2S1 + 649- 1 S2 + 2538.9S3 + 2481.6 DU1165
.834 a=625.03 (35.0) (-3.5) (2.5) (9.9) (7.5)
¦561 :I - 1-97-2 : IV
DF=42 DW=.60 +56.81 TIME
IS.6)
*cigures in ( ) under the coefficients are T.values.
Variables without T values were not applicable to the historic period 1960-72, and
thus exogenous to the regression analysis
Variable abbreviations are explained in Table 3
-------
Ex. 3-4 (Continued)
VARIABLE ABBREVIATION LIST
1.
BOOM
Unemployed "boomers"
2.
COMU
Communications and Utilities
3.
CO MS
Constructi on
4 .
DELT
(TEMP - TEMP (-1) )/TEMP (-1)
5.
DEPH
Ratio of Civilian Population to
Civilian Work Force
6.
DUM65
Dummy Variable = 1 in 1965, = 0 in
all other years
7.
FEOL
Federal Government
8.
FIRE
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
9.
MFRG
Manufacturi ng
10.
MING
Mining
11.
MPOP
Military Population
12.
NASR
Native Services
13.
NONC
Non-categorized
14.
0/M
Pipeline Operation and Maintenance-
15.
PIPE
Pipeline Construction
15.
PLES
POPL-1 less PIPE
17.
POPL
Total Population
18.
RETL
Retail Trade
19.
SI
Seasonal Dummy Function for Quarter 1
20.
S2
i) ii it ii ii 2
21.
S3
ii ii H it ¦( 2
22.
SERV
Serv i ces
23.
STEX-
State Expenditures (million 1970 dollars)
24.
STLO
State and Local Government
25.
TEMP
Total Employment
26.
TIME
Quarterly Counter (Starts in Qt. 1 of. 1960)
27.
TPOP
Total Population
28.
TRAN
Transportation
29.
UN ELI
Unemployed
30.
W HO L
Wholesale Trade
31.
WORK
Total Civilian Work Force
Note: Lagged values, which use the value for the preceding
quarter, have abbreviations followed by -1, e.g.,
PO PL- 1 , TEMP-1, UtlEM-1.
-------
HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INPUT DATA
Industry
Construction
Base Case
Pipeline A
Pipeline B
Pipeline C
New Total
Scenario
Construction
Employment
FOR USE IN MODEL
EMPLOYMENT FORECAST
Calendar Quarter
I II III IV I II III IV I II ... . etc
20 20 20 30 30 30
15 15 15 15
10 10 10
30 25 25
15
10 10 10
5
25
20 20
35 55 55
55
55
40
30
tstc.
-------
Exhibit 3-6
MODEL - SCENARIO INTEGRATION
Employment Estimate
for;
Development
Exploration
Development
Production
Processing
Refining
Construction
Operation
Gas Processing and
Liquefaction
Construction
Operation
Pipeline
Construction
Operation and Maintenance
Terminal
Construction
Operation and Maintenance
Is added
Exogenously to
This Model
Category:
Mining
Mining
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Construction
Manufacturing
Construction
Transportation
Construction
Wholesale Trade
3-11
RESOURCC PLANNING ASSOCIATE, INC
44 WAflU ITItir • CAMillUU, MASWHlNlIb OilU
-------
• Exploration
• Development
e Production
» Transportation
© Processing
• Terminal storage
Each of these sets of assumptions is spelled out in the sections that
follow.
Exploration. The oil and gas exploration process involves
the operation of seismic exploration vessels and exploratory
drilling rigs. As many as 10 seismic exploration vessels
may be active in an offshore area at one time, depending
oh the expanse of the area. These vessels generally carry
a crew of 30 and occasionally dock onshore. In addition,
we have assumed the crew members of these vessels would pro-
bably reside in an onshore location, convenient to the region
in which exploratory activity is taking place, for the duration
of their employment.
Exploratory drilling rigs, which can drill an average of
four wells per year, are moved into an outer continental
shelf (OCS) area after seismic exploration has indicated the
presence of oil or gas. From our previous work with the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) we have assumed that each rig
will employ a crew of approximately 50 persons at one time.*
We have also assumed rig crews would rotate on a 14-days-on/
7>-days-off schedule. And we have assumed that approximately
100 persons would be employed in onshore support operations
for each exploratory rig.**
DevelopmentWe assumed that platforms used for development
drilling and production of Alaska oil and gas will most
likely be fabricated elsewhere (e.g., Japan or West Coast),
and thus will not affect employment in Alaska. However,
the actual drilling of development wells will involve a
specialized crew some of whom will be temporarily employed
for specific purposes (e.g., electricians, mechanics).
The crew would include geologists, engineers, and other specialized
labor (e.g., contract welders).
Onshore personnel would include dock workers and other dockside
support, helicopter pilots, and supply personnel.
3-12
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOC IATE. INC
44 UAIIK mill • LAMNUXf UtMHmrMlls UJlil
-------
Specifically, we assumed that approximately 50 personnel
will be employed on a development platform at one time,
while 100 people will be required onshore to support
offshore development occuring on one platform. Three
to four years is the length of time usually required to
drill the maximum number of wells (24-32) a platform
can support.
Production. The typical production platform can support
24 wells, each of which requires approximately four per-
spnnel, offshore and onshore, for operation and mainten-
ance.* However, few people are utilized on the platform
at any one time; rather, onshore and transportation support
service personnel comprise a larger percentage of the total
work force than in exploration, delineation, or development.
Platform personnel include a monitor to control the equip-
ment, electricians and mechanics to service periodically
the specialized equipment on the platform, general
maintenance staff to perform painting and repair tasks,
and special crews to rebore the wells periodically.
Transportation.
- Oil pipeline - offshore. Pipelines are normally used
to transport oil produced offshore to shipment points.
It is assumed that pipelines will be used more exten-
sively in Alaska than in other offshore-production
areas because of the greater distances and more unfav-
orable weather conditions. As a result, we have fur-
ther-assumed, from research of industry sources
conducted for our study for the CEQ, that 750 workers
will be employed for 3-4 years for construction of
each 100 miles of a required 36-inch underwater oil
pipeline.
- Oil pipeline - onshore: Pipelines will also be
needed to transport oil produced from wells onshore
and from onshore recovery areas to accessible terminal
locations or processing center:?. According to the
Department of Interior's Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and
Volume II: Technical Report of Human Resources Planning
Institute's Manpower and Employment Impact of TAPS,
the construction manpower schedule of an 800-mile on-
shore oil pipeline would be: Year 1 - 6,200 (average
Assuming current technology; advanced technology, expected in
the near future, would reduce manpower requirements to 75 by
1985 and to 60 by 2000.
3-13
RtSCHJRa PLANNING ASSOCIATE, INC.
44 MAIIL1 SUM I ~ (AfctMllXJ, MM&ACHlAlllk
-------
annual employment); Year 2 - 10,600; and Year 3 - 9,100.
The pipeline would be constructed in 13 spreads, varying
from 60 miles to 100 miles each. Each spread would
require 600-800 construction personnel. Operation and
maintenance of the completed pipeline would require approx-
imately 206 men at one permanent camp and several
employees at each of the 12 pump stations located at
intervals along the pipeline.
Using TAPS as typical of onshore pipelines in Alaska,
we assumed that each 100 miles of 48-inch onshore
pipeline will require an average of 775 construction
employees in the first year of construction, 1,325
the second year, and 1,150 in the third year. Opera-
tion and maintenance per pipeline will require 25 employees
in a permanent camp, along with eight on-line employees
for each 100 miles of pipe.
- Gas pipeline. In the El Paso Federal Power Commission
(FPC) submission, gas will be transported across Alaska
from inaccessible producing areas to shipment or pro-
cessing locations. Construction of the 810-mile pipeline
necessary to transport this gas, as proposed by the El
Paso Alaska Company, will require 5 years. The construc-
tion schedule, according to the Application of El Paso
Alaska Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity, will be: Year 1 - 1,300 (average annual
employment); Year 2 - 3,075; Year 3 - 3,375; Year 4 -
1,500; and Year 5 - 1,138. Operation and maintenance of
the pipeline, when completed, will require 22 super-
visors and technical personnel; 138 persons on duty at
one time, including two men at each of 12 meter stations
and one man in charge of dispatching and control; and
37 persons off duty - for a total of 197 employees.
Support services (e.g., administrative) will require
71 persons per year for the life of the pipeline.
Shorter Alaskan pipelines (e.g., the proposed Arctic
Gas pipeline) will involve considerably less employ-
ment. Depending on the approved route, which could
vary from 195 miles to 300 miles across the northeastern
region of Alaska, construction could take 1-2 years,
and annual average employment could vary from 500 to
700 persons. Operation and maintenance of a pipeline this
size could require approximately 46 persons - 39 at the
3-14
RrSOUKCt PLANNING ASSOCIATE!,. INC.
«4 UAIIll mill • I AAMflXJ, IfUMIU (UIM
-------
production location and 7 in administrative positions
in Anchorage.*
Using the El Paso submission as a typical onshore
gas pipeline, we assumed each 100-mile segment of
onshore gas pipeline will require an average of
165 construction employees in the first year of
construction, 385 in the second year, 420 in the
third, 185 in the fourth, and 140 in the fifth.
Operation will require in excess of 22 supervisors for
the total pipeline and 22 operations and maintenance
personnel for each 100-mile segment.
Processing.
- Refining. In our work for the CEQ, we selected a
model refinery of 200,000 barrels per day for pur-
poses of analysis. The Facilities Task Force Report
of the Federal Energy Administration's Project Indepen-
dence Blueprint concludes that construction of a
plant of this size would take 33 months and require
average annual employment of 3,000 construction workers.
We have assumed that operation and maintenance of this
facility would initially involve approximately 700 persons
per year, decreasinq to 540 bv 1985 and to 400 bv 2000.
- Gas processing. Gas-processing plants will be
required if gas is to be used in Alaska. Therefore,
assuming a processing plant of 450 MMCFPD throughput
capacity, about 120 construction personnel would be
required for approximately 24 months.** Operation
and maintenance of a processing plant this size would
involve 55 employees initially, declining to 26 by
2000.
- Gas - LNG. LNG plants will be needed if gas is to
be transported to distant markets. Therefore, using
the LNG plant (3,030 MMSCFPSD output) proposed in con-
junction with the El Paso pipeline as a model, we have
assumed a 5-year construction schedule, as follows:
Year 1 - 120 (average annual employment); Year 2 -
* See Arctic Gas Environmental Report, 1974, and Manpower and Employ-
ment Impact of TAPS, Human Resources Planning Institute, 1974
** See Facilities Task Force Report, Project Independence Blueprint,
Federal Energy Administration, 1974.
3-15
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIAIfS. INC.
«• wuif • OMiin* i. mav»ai ru u/iia
-------
2,225; Year 3 - 4,375; Year 4 - 2,675; Year 5 - 700.
On completion of the plant, annual employment
is anticipated to be 272 for operation and maintenance
and 37 for support.
Terminal storage.
- Oil. Onshore marine terminals will be required in
Alaska to handle the shipment of oil and gas produced
in the state to other markets. The terminal at
the conclusion of the TAPS pipeline (1.2 MMBOPD) which
we would use as a model will require 2 years for construction,
during which time, annual employment will run 400-500.
- Gas. The marine terminal associated with the El
Paso pipeline and LNG plant (3,030 MMSCFPSD output) is
expected to be constructed in 3 years. It is antici-
pated that the average annual employment requirements
for construction will be: Year 1 - 30; Year 2-95;
and Year 3 - 120. Operation and maintenance of the
terminal will be handled by personnel employed by the
associated LNG plant and carrier fleet. Support of
the terminal activity will involve 36 persons.
The proposed LNG carrier fleet will consist of 11
ships, each with a capacity of 165,000 cubic meters.
Each carrier will be equipped with 10 officers and 25
crew; a total carrier fleet crew of 578 is anticipated
(double the on-duty crew of 385) to allow for crew
rotation, vacations, leaves, and personnel turnover. We
will assume that 15 percent of the crew will reside in
Alaska. Administrative support of the fleet is expected
to total 58 persons."
Disaggregation of Results to Regional Level
The HRPI model, as developed, shows employment and changes in
employment for the state as a whole. It can disaggregate this total
to seven regions** by using each region's historical proportion of
the state total. We believe this disaggregation, while reasonable
for small changes in employment resulting from oil and gas develop-
ment, is not adequate for the much larger employment changes, especially
when they occur in remote areas, to be examined in this study. For
Application of the El Paso Alaska Company for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity. 1974.
These seven regions are generally aggregates of Alaskan Election
District.
3-16
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOTIAIfS. I\C
*» HUHI mill • < AMBKHX4 MAViM HlMl I* XMI*
-------
example, a large influx of development personnel to Kotzebue would
generate a demand for secondary development. With the HRPI model,
this demand would be proportioned to all economic activity.
To cope with this "inaccuracy," we have altered the HRPI model
somewhat. Specifically, for each industry in the model and for each
election district, we evaluated what fraction of incremental state
economic activity resulting from incremental direct oil and gas activity
is likely to result in the local area. (For example, if oil develop-
ment in Kotzebue should result in a need for 200 additional service
workers in the state as a whole, we would estimate what fraction of
that 200 would occur in Kotzebue and what fraction would occur in
the rest of the state.) To do this, we examined the structure of
employment in each of the industries used in the model. Next, looking
at the current characteristics of an election district economy, popula-
tion size, access, and climate, we estimated which subindustries could
be considered purely local for that area and which are likely to be
supplied from outside. The results of this judgmental analysis are
shown in Exhibit 3-7. After calculating the local incremental activity
for each election district, the remainder was assumed to be spread
among the other election districts in proportion to their historical
shares of state employment in that industry.
3-17
RESOURCl PUNNING A5SOCIAHS. INC.
*• 11*1 fit SIRIM . I MUltU, MAMUSIUIIV IVIll
-------
Exhibit 3-7
EXHIBIT 3-7 IS CURRENTLY BEING REVISED AND WILL
BE"AVAILABLE MAY 22.
3-18
RFSOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES. INC.
ItAItU Mllll • LAMUlmj IfiMMS OJIIt
-------
4 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY
Of necessity, the overall methodology to measure the environmental
impacts of the development and facilities assumptions had to be geared
to each of the three major impact areas - air, water, and land. Con-
sequently, each of the resulting methodologies is detailed in turn in
this chapter.
A - AIR POLLUTION METHODOLOGY
This paper discusses'the methodology to be used in estimating the
air pollution impacts of oil and gas development in Alaska. In accor-
dance with the study's objectives, the methodology focuses on projecting
these impacts in discrete areas, of impact sites, that are expected
to experience secondary and induced economic activity as a result of
oil and gas development.
The discussion first outlines the conceptual approach to the
analysis, followed by the methodology for implementing the approach.
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
Ideally, air pollution is measured in terms of concentrations of
a particular contaminant in the ambient environment.* These concen-
trations come about as a result of a complex interaction of pollutant
emissions (also called loadings or residuals), topography, climatic
conditions, and the passage of time. To reflect adequately all of these
interacting parameters usually requires development and analysis of an
atmospheric dispersion model, a mathematical description of these
factors on a local basis. However, as such a model is beyond the scope
of this study, it has therefore been necessary to adopt an approach
that focuses on changes in air pollution emissions and their likely
effects on current ambient air quality.
Four cases are recognized in this approach (see Exhibit 4-1):
• Case 1: Current air pollution concentrations are above
air quality standards and projected pollution emissions
are above current emission levels. In this case we
could say with reasonable confidence that the area will
continue to not meet air quality standards.
~Concentration would usually be measured in terms of weight of con-
tamination per unit volume of air (e.g., grams per cubic meter) or
weight of contaminant per weight of air (e.g., parts per million).
Emissions are measured in wieight per unit time (e.g., tons per year).
4-1
RFSttlMCE* I1ANNINC A5»S< K.IAI I V INC.
WMAtlll • lAMBxnxJ IfllSI IIS 11J I LB
-------
Exhibit 4-1
COMBINATIONS FOR AIR POLLUTION ANALYSIS
Projected emission
above current emission
Case 4
Current concentration
below standards
Case 2
Case 1
Current concentration
above standards
Case 3
Projected emission
less than current
emission
4-?
-------
• Case 2: Current air pollution concentrations are below
air quality standards and projected pollution emissions
are below current emission levels. In this case we could say
with reasonable confidence that the area will continue to
meet air quality standards.
® Case 3: Current air pollution concentrations are above
air quality standards but projected emissions are expected
to be below current emission levels. In this case, it is
not possible to determine whether or not air quality will
improve to meet.air quality standards, unless the magnitude
of the change is substantial.
• Case 4: Current air pollution concentrations are below air
quality standards but projected emissions are expected to
exceed current levels. In this case, it is also not possible
to determine whether or not air quality will degrade so that
air quality standards are not met, unless the magnitude of
the change is substantial.
To carry out our analytic approach, then, data collection is needed
for current ambient air quality, ambient air standards, current pollutant
emissions, and future pollutant emissions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH
In the following discussion, current data requirements are pre-
sented, followed by a description of the-methodology for projecting
future pollutant emissions.
Data Requirements
Current ambient concentrations. Estimates of ambient air
quality data in Alaska will be based on Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) data provided for 1973 by the agency's
National Aerometric Data Bank. Concentrations of particulates,
sulfur oxide (SO ) , nitrous oxide (NO ) , carbon nmoxide (CO) ,
and hydrocarbon ^HC) will be comparedXwith State Air Pollution
Control Regulations to determine whether current air quality
is in compliance with present standards. Those areas where
concentrations are presently in excess of standards will be
highlighted.
Current standards. Exhibit 4-2 enumerates the State Ambient
Air Quality Standards for five parameters — particulates,
SO , WO , HC, and CO.
x x
Current emissions. Based on the EPA's National Emissions
Data System for Alaska, loadings of particulates, oxides of
sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide
RESOURCE PLANNINC. ASSOCIATES. INC.
44 M4ITU Willi « UWIIimj
-------
Exhibit 4-2
ALASKA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Annual Geometric/
Arithmetic Mean
Average Maximum Not To Be
Exceeded More Than Once Per Year
Particulates 60 microgr/m
SO
NO
HC
CO
60 microgr/m
100 microgr/m"
150 microgr/m
(24 hour period)
260 microgr/m"*
(24 hour period)
1300 microgr/m^
(3 hour period)
160 microgr/m
(3 hour period)
10 milligr/m
(8 hour period)
40 milligr/m'*
(1 hour period)
Source: Alaska Air Pollution Control Regulations, Alaska Administrative
Code, Title 18, Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50, Air
Quality Control, effective May 1972, amended November 1972.
-------
front point and area source polluters are documented for each
election district surrounding our impact sites. The most
recent available data for both stationary and mobile sources
were recorded in 1972-73. Data are available for combustion,
industrial processes, transportation, solid waste disposal,
and miscellaneous sources- The National Emissions Data System
also provides an annual statistical summary for each election
district which includes, for example, units of fuel consumed
for combusion by sector, gallons of fuel types consumed by
transportation vehicle category, and solid waste tonnage
burned by sector. We have correlated these statistics with
emission data to project emissions for each sector - industrial,
transportation, etc.
Projection of Future Emissions
Utilizing the current emission data as well as projected population
and economic growth for each of our impact sites, estimates will be made
of future emissions for the years 1980, 1985, and 1990, for the following
major categories:
Residential. Primary sources of pollutant emissions in the
residential sector arise from home heating activities, and
reflect primarily the distribution of fuels used for space
and water heating. To project air pollutant emissions from
residential sources, we identified current emissions and current
number of housing units in each election district surrounding
the impact sites (see Exhibit 4-3). We then calculated average
emissions per housing unit. (See Exhibit 4-4.) These emissions
ratios will be multiplied by the number of housing units pre-
dicted by the economic methodology to yield total future
emissions per year.
Commercial-institutional. A technique similar to that used
in the residential emissions projection will be used to fore-
cast the emissions from commercial-institutional sources
since both categories have similar emission characteristics.
However, it was felt that total employment in the trade, services,
and government sectors would represent the best indicator
of activity in this sector. Exhibit 4-5 shows pollutant
emissions per employee that will be used in each of the election
district and impact site projections, while Exhibit 4-6 shows
the basic data.
Industrial. For purposes of this study, industry has been
divided into primary oil and gas-related industry (e.g., refining
and gas processing) and all other industry (e.g., total com-
bined fuel combustion and industrial process).
4-5
RiVXRCt PLANNING ASv ICIArrS. INC.
*• u»r,i • lAMtaiiNj mvism m m vm
-------
Exhibit 4-3
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL EMISSIONS, 1972-1973
Pollutants Emitted Per Housing Unit
(tons)
Current Number
Election
of Occupied
District
Housing Units
Partic.
so*
NOv
HCV
COv
Anchorage
42,110
.003
.006
.008
.001
.003
Barrow
358
.011
.008
.078
.008
.020
Bethel
1,173
.031
.019
.017
.021
.022
Cordova-
McCarthy
602
.005
.015
.007
.002
.003
Fairbanks
14,212
.026
.026
.009
.022
.090
Kobuk
615
.081
.028
.039
.062
.063
Nome
934
.037
.022
.020
.027
.028
Seward
733
.012
.014
.018
.008
.010
Valdez-Chit-
ina-Whittier
938
.004
.011
.006
.001
.002
Yakutat-
Skagway
728
.011
.012
.008
.007
.007
Source: Derived from Exhibit 4-4.
4-6
-------
Exhibit 4-4
Annual Residential Pollutant Loadings by Election District, 1972-1973
(tons)
Pollutant
Electiofr^^
District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Current
Number of
Housing Units
Anchorage
128
246
343
61
123
42,110
Barrow
4
3
28
3
7
358
Bethel
36
22
20
25
26
1,173
Cordova-
McCarthy
3
9
4
1
2
602
Fairbanks
364
373
128
317
1,274
14,212
Kobuk
SO .
17
24
38
39
615
Nome
35
21
19
25
26
934
Seward
9
10
13
6
7
733
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
4
10
6
1
2
938
Yakutat-
Skagway
8
9
6
5
5
728
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Emissions Data Systeia
4-7
-------
Exhibit 4-5
Commercial Pollutants per Employee, 1972-73
Election
District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Anchorage
.009
.015
.049
.003
.006
Barrow
.012
.022
.046
.003
.003
Bethel
.007
.009
.014
.018
.001
Cordova-
McCarthy
.008
.023
.037
.003
.003
Fairbanks
.095
.061
.057
.005
.014
Kobuk
.106
.035
.032
.004
.013
Nome
.008
.014
.031
.002
.002
Seward
.012
.020
.078
.004
.010
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
.006
.017
.022
.001
.001
Yakutat-
Skagway
.004
.006
.014
.001
.001
Source: Derived from Exhibit
4-8
-------
Exhibit 4-6
Total Pollutants from Commerical-Institutional Sources
Per Election District, 1972-73
(ton)
Election
District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Employment
Trade, gov't,service
Anchorage
309
535
1,776
102
201
36,059
Barrow
8
15
31
2
2
677
Bethel
12
15
22
29
2
1,605
Cordova-
McCarthy
3
8
13
1
1
355
Fairbanks
1,167
750
698
64
168
12,228
KObuk
88
29
26
3
11
825
Nome
8
15
32
2
2
1,035
Seward
6
10
40
2
5
512
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
4
12
15
1
1
693
Yakutat-
Skagway
3
5
11
1
1
778
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Emissions Data System
4-9
-------
Primary oil and gas industries.
Refinery: A standard plant with daily capacity of
200,000 barrels has been chosen for all analytical
purposes in this study. Annual air pollution loadings
for this facility, a complex integrated refinery
using sour crude, have been estimated as follows:
REFINERY EMISSIONS „
Emissions Tons/
Pollutant* Plant Year
Particulates 1591
SO 3739
x
NO 4362
x
Hydrocarbons 11408
CO 330
Gas processing: This category includes gas processing
plants and, where applicable, liquefaction. Pollutant
loadings have been estimated for each process in a faci-
lity of 500 million CFD capacity.** A factor of '10 per-
cent was considered for shutdown of operations.
GAS PROCESSING EMISSIONS
Emissions tfons/Plant Year
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
H2S Removal
5.5
0.2
36.5
12.0
0.1
NGL Separation
52.0
1.7
343.0
115.0
1.1
Liquefaction (LNG)
0.0
0.0
40275.0
0.0
0.0
LPG Trucks
44.7
93.1
1268.3
126.8
772.0
Total
102.2
95.0
50922.8
253.8
773.2
10% Shutdown
10.2
9.5
5092.3
25.4
77.3
02.0
85.5
45830.5
228.4
695.9
Note: Large NOy emissions due to use of natural gas as plant fuel.
*Radian Corporation Technical Notes on Refinery Pollutants, preli-
minary estimates only, may need revision.
**Hittmann Associates, Inc., Environmental Impacts, Efficiency, and
Cost of Energy Supply and End Use, September 1973, Table 25.
4-10
ftr$Ol'RCI PLANNING. ASbOCIAflS. INC.
** M » I *t I VM»' * < » MASS V >U s4*:s l ;¦ II
-------
The total number of plants included for each process
(refinery and gas processing) under each scenario (allowing
for size variance) will be multiplied by emissions per.
standard plant to project primary related industry
pollutant loadings.
All other Industries. Pollutant emissions from other
industrial sources arise from both fuel combustion and
process emissions. To project future emissions from these
sources, a methodology will be used that is analogous
to that used for the residential analysis and the commercial-
institutional analysis. Specifically, current emissions
per industrial employee have been calculated. This ratio,
times the projected number of industrial employees in each
election district, will be used to determine all other
industrial emissions. Exhibit 4-7 presents the ratios to
be used, while Exhibit 4-8 displays the base data.
Transportation. Two categories of transportation sources
will be considered in this methodology:
• Diesel land vehicles (e.g., heavy, off highway and rail).
To project future emissions, we will calculate emissions
per employee using total employment in the trade,
services, and government sectors. This .ratio will be
multiplied by the projected number of employees in
these sectors for each election district to estimate
future emissions from diesel land vehicles. Exhibit
4-9 displays the ratios that will be used, while Exhibit
4-10 includes the base data.
• Other transportation sources, including gasoline land
vehicles (e.g., light, heavy, off highway, rail);
aircraft (e.g., military, civilian); and vessels (e.g.,
diesel fuel, gasoline). To project potential emissions
from other transportation sources, a similar methodology
will be used; however, the emission projections will
be based on current emissions per capita and projected
population in each election district. Exhibit 4-11
shows the ratios which will be employed, and Exhibit
4-12 illustrates the base data used.
Solid waste. Emissions recorded in 1972-73 from solid waste
disposal activities resulted primarily from open burning and
on-site incineration at residential, commercial, and industrial
locations. Emissions due to municipal incineration were recorded
only for. Fairbanks. The more current 1973 Alaska Solid Waste
Management Regulations state, as a major goal, that."solid
waste shall be collected, processed and .disposed in order to
control, prevent and abate pollution of the air." However,
4-11
RESOURCE PLANNING -SS^JCIAItN. INC.
44 UAI III Mttt I • t AMPRIIH I, MA-»VU IH*M >l > WtIA
-------
Exhibit 4-7
Annual Industrial Emissions Per Employee
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Anchorage
.518
1.778
1.848
.031
.073
Barrow *
Bethel *
.627
Cordova
.160
1.863
.531
.023
.023
Fairbanks
23.532
4.976
9.624
.640
1.276
Kobiik*
.167
.333
.667
.083
Nome
71.795
Seward
Valdez *
.200
.300
.700
Yakutat-*
Sfoagway
.034
* Either no current industry or data withheld to avoid disclosures.
A weighted average of Anchorage-Cordova will be used.
Source: Derived from Exhibit 4-8.
4-12
-------
Exhibit 4-8
Annual Industrial Emissions Per Election District
Particulates
Election
District
Combus-
tion
Total
(Including
Process)
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Employment
(Manufacturing)
Anchorage
234
674
2,311
2,402
40
95
1,300
Barrow
0
Bethel
32
51
Cordova-
McCarthy
28
28
326
93
4
4
175
Fairbanks
1,778
5,883
1,244
2,406
160
319
250
Kobuk
2
1
dm
4
8
—
1
12
Nome
2,800
39
Seward
75
Valdez-Chit
Whittier
ina-
2
2
3
7
10
Yakutat-
Sakgway
10
296
Note: In the case of certain election districts, either there is no current
industry or data were withheld to avoid disclosures.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Emissions Data System.
4-13
-------
Exhibit 4-9
Emissions Per Employee from
Diesel Land Vehicles
Election District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
X
CO
X
Anchorage
.006
.009
.076
.013
.030
Barrow
.006
.006
.068
.007
.021
Bethel
.006
.006
.067
.007
.019
Cordova
.008
.008
.082
.008
.025
Fairbanks
.013
.023
.175
.037
.066
Kobuk
.007
.007
.081
.008
.024
Nome
.008
.008
.084
.009
.024
Seward
.041
.086
.578
.139
.199
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
.006
.006
.072
.007
.022
Yakutat-
Skagway
.004
.004
.042
.004
.013
Source: Derived from Exhibit 4-8
4-14
-------
Exhibit 4-10
Total Emissions Diesel Land Vehicles
Election District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
X
CO
X
Employment (Tradet
Gov't., Services
Anchorage
220
317
2742
477
1073
36,059
Barrow
4
4
46
5
14
677
Bethel
9
9
107
11
31
1,605
Cordova
3
3
29
3
9
355
Fairbanks
159
287
2142
454
804
12,228
Kobuk
6
6
67
7
20
825
Nome
8
8
87
9
25
1,035
Seward
21
44
296
71
102
512
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
4
4
50
5
15
693
Yakutat-
Skagway
3
3
33
3
10
778
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Emissions Data System.
4-15
-------
Exhibit 4-11
Emissions Per Capita from all Transportation Sources
(Excluding Diesel Land Vehicles)
Election District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
X
CO
X
Anchorage
.007
.002
.035
.076
.565
Barrow
.002
.001
.018
.049
.525
Bethel
.002
.001
.016
.042
.456
Cordova
.004
.003
.031
.057
.483
Fairbanks
.005
.002
.026
.062
.482
Kobuk
.003
.001
.019
.049
.478
Nome
.005
.003
.035
.085
.623
Seward
.003
.002
.030
.048
.397
Valdez-Chitina-
Whi ttipr
.006
.005
.056
.074
.506
Yakutat-
Skagway
.003
.001
.019
.038
.335
Source: Derived from Exhibit 4-12
4-16
-------
Exhibit 4-12
Total Emission - Transportation Sources
(Excluding Diesel Land Vehicles)
Election District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Population
Anchorage
1,033.
340
5,173
11,437
84,736
149,911
Barrow
4
2
38
100
1,082
2,059
Bethel
10
5
101
260
2,826
6,192
Cordova
7
5
58
108
913
1,889
Fairbanks
308
94
1,470
3,512
27,152
56,278
Kobuk
10
3
63
164
1,603
3,351
Nome
21
13
154
377
2,768
4,445
Seward
8
4
71
115
943
2,376
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
18
15
178
232
1,594
3,151
Yakutat-
Skagway
7
2
49
98
866
2,586
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Emissions Data System.
4-17
-------
Exhibit 4-13
Emissions from Residential Solid Waste Disposal
(Tons Per Year)
Election District
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Population
Anchorage*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
149,911
Barrow
22
1
7
43
125
2,059
Bethel
24
1
9
45
128
6,192
Cordova
6
—
2
11
30
1,889
Fairbanks
359
20
118
718
2,057
56,278
Kbbuk
34
2
11
69
1SG
3,351
Nome
46
3
15
93
266
4,445
Seward*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,376
Valdez-Chitina-
Whittier
9
1
3
17
47
3,15.1
Yakutat-
Skagway
2
—
—
6
18
2,586
* Data were not available for Anchorage or Seward; therefore, the per
capita emissions esimated for Fairbanks will be used for these two election
districts.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Data System.
4-18
-------
the law also specifies that:
e Single-family and duplex residences are- allowed to
dispose of solid waste generated on-premise.
• Incinerator facilities having a total rated capacity
of less than 200 pounds of solid waste per hour are
allowed to operate without permit.
• Particulate matter emitted from all incinerators
installed on or after July 1, 1972, may not exceed
on the basis of a cubic foot of exhaust gas
- 0.3 grains for incinerators less than or equal
to 200 pounds per hour rated capacity
- 0.2 grains for incinerators larger.than 200 but
equal to or less than 1000 pounds per hour rated
capacity
- 0.1 grains for incinerators larger than 1000
pounds per hour rated capacity.
e Open burning on a landfill is prohibited.
Oiie can conclude that emissions from preexisting incinerators
and residential emissions will continue. The effect of tne
tighter emission limitations on new incineration is not known,
but we feel it will serve to deter new incinerator facilities.
Also, as preexisting incinerators become obsolete, the reduction
in emissions from their source could be counterbalanced by more
incinerators in single- and 2-family homes. Considering all
these effects, we propose to estimate future emissions as con-
stant at current emissions levels. The current and future emis-
sion levels are shown in Exhibit 4-13.
Electric utilities. To project emissions from electric utilities,
the last major source of air pollutant emissions, a 3-step
process will be employed.
Pirst, the fuel most likely to be used by electric utilities
will be identified. This will involve an analysis of current
fuel use and capacity (e.g., coal fired), as well as a deter-
mination of the likelihood of oil and gas becoming available as
a fuel.
Second, average electricity use per capita will be multiplied
by total number of residents to obtain total generation.
Last, the emissions from this generation will be calculated
using the emission rates of Exhibit 4-14.
4-19
MSOURCE PLANNING A-NSOCIArfS, INC.
44 HO IU Mint • «.
-------
Exhibit 4-14
Emissions from Electric Power Generation
(tons / 10*2 Btu)
FUEL
Partic.
SO
X
NO
X
HC
X
CO
X
Oil
27.2
320.0
357.0
6.8
.1
Gas
7.3
.3
191.0
2.0
.2
Coal
43.9
323.0
394.0
6.6
21.9
(tons / 108 kwh)
Oil
79.7
937.6
1046.0
19.9
.3
Gas
21.4
.9
559.6
5.86
.6
Coal
128.6
946.4
1154.4
19.3
64.2
1012 Btu = 2.93x10® Kwh
Source: Hittman Associates, Environmental Impacts, Efficiency,
and Cost of Energy Supply and End Use, Table 26.
4-20
-------
B - WATER POLLUTION METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the methodology employed to estimate the
impacts on water quality that could result from additional oil and
gas development in Alaska. In accordance with the study goals, the
methodology focuses on sources that could potentially impact water
quality, including primary related oil and gas industries, other
industries, and population growth.
The discussion first states the conceptual approach to the
analysis, followed by the methodology for implementing the approach.
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
In formulating our approach to the analysis, we examined various
techniques of forecasting water quality impacts. From this examina-
tion, we have concluded that an exact, quantitative approach is not
feasible within the scope of this study because current water quality
data (e.g., color, PH, dissolved oxyqen) are not easilv related to
point-source emissions data (e.g., tons of effluent per year), and
data on location and relative size of point-source emissions in
Alaska are scarce. Moreover, projections of future water quality
in a particular watercourse depends on the timing, location, and
size of emission sources, which would necessitate a detailed flow
model.
In view of .these problems, we have designed a methodology that
will allow a qualitative determination of water quality impacts.
This methodology is based on the identification of current water
quality at each of the impact sites, end a judgemental assessment of
whether or not future water quality may exceed or drop below standards.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH
Data Collection
Water quality data, obtained from the Region X Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Data Systems Branch, provided a summary of available
historical data representing recordings from both EPA and USGS moni-
toring stations at sites throughout the state. Based on these EPA data,
tables for water resources have been composed, indicating the measure-
ments of nine parameters at stations adjacent to those locations
chosen for review in this study. (See Exhibit 4-15 for an example of
the data.) As not all stations recorded the same number of parameters,
certain significant parameters were selected for these tables to pro-
vide an overall indication of water quality. The significance of the
parameters that were chosen and activities that influence parameter
concentrations are presented in Exhibit 4-16. Furthermore, compari-
sons will be made between the water quality standards of the State of
Alaska, listed in Exhibit 4-17 and the actual parajiieter recordings at
each station. Those parameter measurements that appear to be in excess
of state standards will be so indicated on the tables.
4-21
KCSOl/KCf VLANMINt I AV,< in In y |\-(
-------
Sitei Seward
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Station
Temp
<°C)
Turbidity
(Jackson
Turbidity
Units)
Color
Conductivity
E«
(Standard
Units)
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
SeJinreiiC
(Cubic. Feet/
Second)
Oxygen
SlLH
(nwr/1)
(Tons/Day)
Concentration
Discharge
(Units)
(Micromho)
(m
-------
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Description
Turbidity May be caused by a wide variety of sus-
pended materials ^ rock particles pro-
duced by the grinding action of a
glacier, topsoil washed to receiving
streamsr and. organic and inorganic
domestic an'd industrial wastewater
added to rivers.
Significance
Measurement of sanitary significance - consumers
are wary of high-turbidity, cloudy waters;
filitration is more difficult and costly with
increased turbidity) and the killing of
pathogenic organisms by disinfectant may be
considerably hindered.
Color Results from the presence of colloidal
vegetable and organic extracts; industrial
wastes resistant to biological destruction;
and pulping and textile wastewater disposal
into natural watercourses.
Moat .colored waters .are not considered toxic.
However,: consumers are reluctant to drink
water not aesthetically acceptable,
pH An expression of the intensity of the acid
or alkaline condition of a solution and
the hydrogen-ion activity, industrial
wastes contain organic and mineral acids,
the latter resulting, primarily from the
metallurgical industry and abandoned
mine drainage.
A factor which must be considered in chemical
coagulation, disinfection, and corrosion
control.
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
Solids
Determines whether biological changes are
brought about by aerobic or anaerobic
organisms - the former produce innocuous
and the latter obnoxious end products.
Favorable DO levels will support fish and
other aquatic organisms in a healthy condition.
Primarily inorganic salts, small amounts
of organic matters, and dissolved gases.
Increased levels from discharge of oil
fields, diversion of streams, and deepen-
ing of channels.
Measurement is the basis of the BOD test, thus
the foundation of the most important determination
used to evaluate the pollutional strength of
sewages and industrial wastes.
Suitability of water for domestic use is
indicated. Waters with high solids content
can be disruptive to human disgestion.
-------
Parameter
Description
Suspended
Sediment
Undissolved colloidal and suspended
matter. Sludges, silt, mining gravel
from industrial operations may increase
the load of finely divided, chemically
inert materials carried by waters.
Stream Flow
Measurement of the rate of discharge,
representing the speed with which a
volume of 1 cubic foot passes a given
point during 1 second.
Temperature
Increases result from waste heat dis-
posal, impounding of river waters,
reduction of stream flow, and removal
of forest canopies
to
t »
!S
= C
= 3
• >
!l
*¦ >
IS
i n
il
Significance
Causes turbidity and reduces light pene-
tration, restricting photosynthetic acti-
vity of plants and animal's vision and
feeding habits.
Indicates the discharge that occurs in a
natural channel.
Changes in temperature decrease distri-
bution and abundance of aquatic animals.
I
M
C*
I
to
-------
Exhibit 4-17
ALASKA. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS*
Parameter
Temperature
Stream Flow
Turbidity
Color
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Sediment
Measurement
o
Below 60 F
NA
Less than 5 JTU
True color less than 15
color units
NA
Greater than 75% saturation
or 5 mg/1
Between 6.5 and 8.5
Total dissolved solids
from all sources may not
exceed 500 mg/1
Below normally detectable
amounts
* - Alaska Water Quality Standards, Alaska Administrative Code,
Title 18, Environ. Conserva., Chapter 70, effective
October 1972. (For drinking, culinary and food processing
without the need for treatment other than simple disinfection
or removal of naturally present impurities.)
4-25
RCSOUKO f'lANNINfi AbMHIAIIS, INC.
44 MAllLI Mtlll < tAMHUNJ MAV.JHI IH ftl 11S |I.» I Ifl
-------
Application of the Approach
As noted earlier, it is not'feasible to conduct quantitative
impact analysis to assess the changes in water quality that may
occur due to population and subsequent industrial growth. Rather, it
will be possible only to analyze from available data the current quality
of the water resources related to each impact area, and then to assess
qualitatively the likely impact of additional effluents resulting from
community and industrial growth. Therefore, analysis similar to that
described for air pollution will be conducted. For example, although
current water quality within an area may be in compliance with state
standards, projected growth might cause a significant increase in
effluents. If this were the case, parameter concentrations might
increase so that their levels change significantly. If, on the other
hand, projected growth were not expected to be significant, additional
water pollution loadings might not affect the level of water quality
significantly.
Water quality could be affected by the activities of primary
related oil and gas industries and other industries. An increase in
the state's population could also affect water quality. The potential
impacts from the changes are discussed below.
• Primary related industrial activities. According to the
EPA's 1974 National Water Quality Inventory, the number of
petroleum-related industrial surface water dischargers in
Alaska, is as follows.
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY WATER DISCHARGES
Industry
Major
Dischargers
Minor
Dischargers
Oil and Gas Mining
7
11
Petroleum and Coal Products
2
1
Misc. Transportation
(pipelines)
2
Totals 11
12
Additional oil and gas development will.involve construction
of new facilities, which will be discharging wastes into sur-
face receiving waters. An estimate will be made of the number
of facilities expected .to be developed under each scenario,
and these facilities will be classified as minor and major
petrc>leum-related industrial dischargers. Furthermore, waste-
4-26
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATE. INC
44 HAllli MRItt • (AMUIIH4 MW\M MiAl * 1%
-------
water permist will be required from the state for opera-
tion of these facilities. Alaska water quality standards
require secondary treatment for all sewage and industrial
wastes unless engineering studies approved by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation and, where inter-
state waters are affected, concurred in by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, show that water quality standards
can be met with primary treatment. The state standards
also require primary treatment, or its equivalent, as the
minimum acceptable.
Exploration and development drilling will influence marine
water quality to some degree because of the disposal of
drilling mud and cuttings. Oil spills are.also a potential
causal factor of water pollution.
Refinery effluents must also be considered. The data avail-
able on water pollution loadings from refineries do not fit
the water quality parameters chosen for the study (with the
exception of suspended solids). Nevertheless, estimates
of annual loadings (in tons) from a 200,000 barrel per day
refinery, where BA indicates "best available (advanced)
treatment" and BP "best practical (secondary) treatment"
cure:
ASSUMED WATER POLLUTION LOADINGS
200 MBPD REFINERY
Tons Per Year
Suspended
Plant BOD COD Solids Phenol Sulfide Ammonia
BA BP BA BP BA BP BA BP BA BP BA BP
Refinery 46 548 365 2281 46 548 0 18 0 9 9 180
Source: RPA estimates based on industry sources, the Roy Weston
report, and Radian Corporation technical reports on
refinery effluents. Preliminary estimate only.
Gas processing facility effluents will also be a. factor to con-
sider. However, the available data indicates that the water
quality impacts of gas processing facilities are very small.*
• Other Industrial Activities. The 1974 National Water Quality
Inventory cites a total of 108 minor and 16 major discharging
facilities (point sources) in Alaska in categories other than
petroleum-related industries. These facilities are listed
below.
See, for example, Environmental Impacts, Efficiency, and Costs of
Energy Supply and End Use, Hittman Associates, 1973.
4-27
RFSOURCE NANNINCi ASSOriMK INC
M MMItl Mtttl •
-------
MAJOR NON-OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRIAL WATER POLLUTION DISCHARGES
Industry Major Minor
Meat Products 2
Seafood Products 14 78
Lumber and Wood Products 3
Paper and Allied Products 2
Chemicals and Allied Products 2
Electric and Gas Utilities 8
Water and Sanitary Services 1
Wholesale and Retail Trade 4
Government 1
Nonclassifiable 9
Totals 16 108
An estimate will be made of the incremental increase in num-
ber of facilities in each category that may result under
each scenario.
• Population Growth. Alaska currently operates 38 municipal
waste treatment facilities to process residential waste.
These facilities have been subdivided according to level of
treatment by the 1974 National Water Quality Inventory as
follows:
Alaska Municipal Facilities by Treatment Level
Treatment Level Number
None 4
Primary 8
Secondary
Adequate 0
4-28
-RfSOUKCC PLANNING ASSOCIATIS. INC.
*4 Mllll • ( AMUUM ¦! IklASVM HIM 11> O.'l It
-------
Treatment Level Number
Inadequate 1
Unclassified 25
Tertiary 0
Total 38
Any additional facilities constructed to serve new population
growth in the state will be required to comply with the
treatment specifications of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. An estimate will be made of the effect
new residents in each area would have on the need for addi-
tional municipal waste treatment plants.
4-25
RISOURCE TLANNINC. ASSOOATIS. INC.
44 atAlllt Mllll • CAtURIIX I fclASNAi lUfMHt IO.K
-------
C - LAND USE METHODOLOGY
The methodology to be used in measuring the land impacts of oil and
gas development in Alaska consists of: determing the present amount
of developed land in each impact area; estimating the amount of land in
each area that can be developed without constraint? and projecting the
acreage required in each area under each scenario. Final analysis
will involve determining whether sufficient land will be available at
each site for the land requirements of each development alternative.
The discussion first outlines the conceptual approach to the analy-
sis, followed by the detailed methodology for implementing the approach.
APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
In our approach to the analysis of land use impacts of oil and gas
development, we would classify land use into two categories:
Developed land. Developed land is all land currently in use or
being developed, including:
- Residential land - single-family houses and mobile
homes, multi-family houses and apartments, boarding
houses and dormitories.
- Commercial and industrial land - retail and wholesale
establishments, warehouses, office and other service
buildings, land used for light and heavy manufacturing,
and oil and gas related activities.
- Other developed land - public and quasi-public insti-
tutional buildings (e.g., schools, churches, hospitals),
transportation (e.g., railroads, streets, airports,
highways), and public open spaces (e.g., urban parks and
recreational areas), excluding national and state park
areas.
Undeveloped land. Although "undeveloped land" clearly implies land
that is not, as yet, developed, it is not synonymous with.all land
available for development, as certain constraints render various areas
inappropriate for development for example:
- Unavailable land because of existing use, planned use,
or environmental constraints
4-30
KSOUKff PLACING ASSOCfATfS. INC
m aiAim sriMi • CAMiinx^. u^wiiKsim o.mm
-------
. Existing and planned national, state, and local
parks, reserves, and wildlife refuges, government,
utility, and institutionally owned land are
considered unavailable. Where known, planned
recreation and conservation areas, including
outstanding beauty spots, are also considered
unavailable.
Areas of impeundment or zoned areas adverse to
industrial use are considered unavailable.
. All wetlands are considered unsuitable because
of their unique wildlife supporting capacity and
extreme ecological vulnerability. Principal
elements of water resources systems, rivers and
lakes, river banks to 300 feet, selected watersheds,
aquifers, aquifer recharge areas, and floodplains
are also considered unsuitable for development.
As these areas are difficult to quantify, only a
rough estimate of their extent has been made.
- Unsuitable land because of locational constraints
. Water supply land should be reserved for municipal
drinking supply and private withdrawals, and is
inadequate for industry.
Land inaccessible to transportation networks is
considered unsuitable.
Subtracting these developable but unavailable lands from the
undeveloped land total produces, of course, the actual amount of
undeveloped but developable land.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROACH
Implementing this approach will involve two steps: (1) collecting
necessary data; and (2) applying the approach - as discussed in turn
below:
Data Collection
A land use survey has been sent to the office of the city manager
at each site considered to be a location where potential impacts could
occur. The survey has also been sent to the planning departments of the
various boroughs incorporating the impact locations, and to the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands, which is
currently involved in conducting surveys on similar land classifications.
Data on current land use, as well as the amount of undeveloped land, are
4-31
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIAirs, INC.
44 MAMl! SU1I1 • CAMJRrtKJ. MASVMHIfUIIS OJII0
-------
available for each impact area. For example, the survey completed by
the land officer in Valdez is presented in Exhibit 4-18.
From the information collected, • maps will be prepared indicating
areas of present development as well as areas suitable for potential
location of industrial and other activities. Where no data have been
provided on suitability of land for development, reasonable estimates
will be made on the basis of geographical and environmental considerations.
Application of the Approach
Projections will be made for 1980, 1985, and 1990 of the acreage
required for each development scenario for: (1) primary related
industries; (2) other industrial and commercial activities; (3) residential
land requirements; (4) other developed land projections. Each of these
land-use requirements is examined below.
Primary related industries. Onshore oil and gas field acreage,
where adjacent to an impact locality, will be derived for each develop-
ment alternative. Land requirement ratios (acreage required per speci-
fied unit capacity) have been developed for each primary activity, with
consideration for required production capability, storage capacity, and
expansion needs. Exhibit 4-19 shows ratios to be used.
4-32
RCSOURCF PLANNINC A<*( W.IATIS. INC
•4 VtAtril Mfllll • v«i,M|Up.nlM>'lul
-------
Exhibit 4-18
LAND USP SUMMARY (ACUTW)
Valdez
Town
Limits
Currently Developed Laml
Residential use:
(single family housc.r, mobile homes,
nrnlti-family he-uses, apartmouts,'
boarding houses, dormitorier.)
Coiane.rclal and Industrial use;
(retail and wholesale establishments,
warehouses, office b'jildings and
other services, light and heavy
manufacturing)
Other uses;
(public end qvasi -public insti-
tutional buildings (e.g., schools,
churches, hospitals) transportation
avenues (e.g., railroads, streets,
hictfi'/ays and airports) public opf-n
spaces (e.g., urban parks and
recreational areas)
Total Acreage
Undeveloped Land
Total
Unavailable land due to environnentel
constraints:
• existing and projected ur.is,
planned federal, state and
local park:, recreation and
conservation areas, reserves
and refunds, utility nn-l
•institutionally- owed l?.nds
• zoning restrictions
• ecological constraints—
wetland:; and principal elements
of water resources systems
(e.g., rivers, lakes, water-
sheds,' aquifers, floodplnins)
Land unsvttablc for development du'j
to locatlcial cori::tT..ints such as:
• water sujply—should bo
reserved for ir.unieipui drinking
supply a I'd private withdrawals;
inadequate for industry
• inaccessible to transrortotion
networks
31?tal roiaainii-.g drvoipc.-.i'le lan.!
Undeveloped land being planned
206.5
1,400
215
2,821.5* (*Approximately 1000 acres
currently being developed
are scheduled to be completed
during 1975.)
0
12,500
1,500
S r\ *n
I ±SJ f uu
4-3 j
-------
LAND USE PATIOS FOR
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
Acreage Storage
Facility of plant Requirement
Refineries
200 MBPD 1200 80
25 MBPD 170 10
Gas
Processing
Facility
(500 million
cubic feet/day) 10
LNG
Facility
1 Billion
cubic feet/day 400 (included in
plant acreage)
2 Billion
cubic feet/day 600
Terminals 900
Source: CEQ and RPA, OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental Assessment
and El Paso Alaska Co., Application for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity.
4-34
RESOURCE PLANNING ASWJCIATIS. INC.
4* UAflll 111(11 • CAMIimU MAWAfMUMItS
-------
Other industrial and commercial activities. To project other
industrial and commercial land requirements, we have chosen .commercial
and industrial employment as a measure of activity. Current land
required per employee has been calculated (see 4-20) and will be used
for projection purposes.
4-35
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATE, INC
«« ¦¦Aim mini • camuiih'4. mv>vwhusmin iuiu
-------
INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL LAND USE
E} t
Current Employment
Impact
Area
Current Commercial
and Industrial Acreage
(trade, services,
government,
manufacturing)
Current Land Use (acres)
per commercial and
industrial employee
Anchorage
(Borough)
8063
36,159
.223
Barrow
(City)
10
455
.022
Bethel
(Greater
area)
320
640
.500
Cordova
data not available
695
Fairbanks
(metropolitaj
area)
1868
12,290
.152
Kotzebue
(City)
5
698
.007
Nome
data expected by 5/12
867
Seward
(City)
176
690
.255
Valdez
(City)
1400
309
4.53
Yakutat
(City)
20
45
.444
*Community Profiles, Alaska Department of Economic Development
-------
Residential construction land requirement. Residential construc-
tion land requirements will be projected by: (1) translating population
forecasts obtained through economic methodology into numbers of housing
units needed; and (2) assuming each projected housing unit will require
the same amount of land current housing units do. This total figure
would represent the upper limit of the amount of residential land.
However, to establish a range of required residential land
requirements, it will also be necessary to assume total current land
requirements as the lower limit of total land requirements. The current
ratios of land per residential housing unit for each impact area are
shown in Exhibit 4-21.
4-37
RESOURCE MANNING ASSOCIAUS. INC
44 •¦Allll SIKIII • < «.wun«4, MAVwM O.'IU
-------
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
I it
Impact
Area
Current
Residential Acreaqe
Current no.
of housinq units
Current Land Use (acres)
per housing unit
Anchorage
(Borough)
32,026
43,430
.737
Barrow
(City)
60
401
.150
Bethel
(Greater area)
960
1,610
.596
Cordova
data not available
Fairbanks
(Metropolitan
area)
2,554
12,590
.203
Kotzebue
(City)
435
311
1.399
Nome
data expected by 5/12
Seward
(City)
426
563
.757
Valdez
(City)
207
329
.629
Yakutat
(City)
50
68
.735
~estimates based on ratio of persons per housing unit for each election district from 1970 Census of
Housing and current population.
4-48
-------
Other developed land projections. A straight-line projection
for other developed land use will be made, based on the ratio of current
other developed land use per capita. This is believed to be the most
reasonable methodology, as many intangible elements affect the land set
aside by communities for recreational and other public or quasi-public
uses. The ratios to be used are presented in Exhibit 4-22.
Finally, Exhibit 4-23 represents the form of the land use summary
for each location and for each development scenario. Two summaries will
be prepared for each location for each development scenario: one
summary to indicate acreage requirements, and the other to indicate
percentage of total land required for each land classification category.
RfSOURCE PLANNING ASSfX.'IAHS, INC
44 M*ll1| Wtfll ¦ (.auMKM lit Oil U
-------
vlTHL^ wJViuJ JSL
E it
Impact
Area
Current Other
Developed Land
Current
Population
Current other developed
land use
(acres per capita
Anchorage
(Borough)
9,648
154,610
.063
Barrow
(City)
32
2,307
.014
Bethel
(Greater area)
1,280
8,500
1.275
Cordova
data in the mail to RPA
Fairbanks
(Metropolitan
area)
10,093
49,856
.202
Kotzebue
(City)
875
1,696
.516
Nome
data expected by 5/12
Seward
(City)
38
1,823
.021
Valdez
(City)
215
1,106
.194
Yakutat
40
240
.167
-------
Exhibit 4-23
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Development Scenario)
(Location)
1980 1985 1990
Land Use Current Base Devel Base Devel.. Base Devel.
Classification Development Case Scenario Case Scenario Case Scenario
DEVELOPED LAND
Commercial/
Industrial
Primary
Other Industrial
and Commercial
Residential
Other Developed
Land Projections
UNDEVELOPED LAND
Unavailable/
Unsuitable
------- |