Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Intensive Industry for Alaska Volume 3 - Background Data 1978Energy Intensive Industry for Alaska Volume Ill; Background Data September 1978 Prepared for Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development and the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract 300A 01123 Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Pacific Northwest Laboratory Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by <3 Battelle Memorial Institute d d » ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRY FOR ALASKA VOLUME III BACKGROUND DATA Institute of Social and Economic Research » Anchorage * Fairbanks * Juneau and Kent Miller » September 1978 Prepared for the Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the Department of Energy under Contract 300A 01123 Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richiand, Washington 99352 PREFACE This volume is the third in a series evaluating "Energy Intensive Industry for Alaska". Previous volumes are: Volume I A. Alaskan Cost Factors B. Market Factors C. Survey of Energy Intensive Industry Volume II A. Primary Aluminum as a Case Study B. Social and Economic Impacts C. State Management Options Volume III summarizes background information on the State covering community objectives, available infrastructure, and possible future economic growth. The volume closes with catalogs of energy, mineral, and renewable natural resources on which industrial development may be based. Volume III was prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, O. Scott Goldsmith, principal investigator, and Kent Miller. Energy Intensive Industry for Alaska Volume III: Background Data Table of Contents Preface A. Community Objectives B. Catalog of Alaskan Institutional Infrastructure C. Catalog of Alaskan Physical Infrastructure D. The Future Growth of the Alaskan Economy and Internal Energy Requirements E. Catalog of Energy Resources F. Catalog of Mineral Natural Resources G. Agriculture, Fisheries, and Timber Resources A. COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES A.1. Summary This portion of the study will assess what patterns of social and economic development Alaskans want. The two main sets of indicators used to determine this are recent public opinion surveys and announced state policy. These data do not reflect community objectives concerning energy- intensive industries as a group. However, they do specifically address the petroleum industry and suggest other development options as well. Three major public opinion surveys have been made in Alaska since early 1976. The first of these was the Alaska Public Forum which, during 1976, conducted an extensive program of local and regional public meetings supplemented by a questionnaire which was also widely distributed by mail and newspaper. The Public Forum placed heavy emphasis on participants’ preferences on potential alternative uses of state oil and gas royalty and tax revenues. The Alaska State Senate in 1977 conducted a "Personal Hearing-in-the-Home Program," which somewhat overlapped the Forum in its emphasis on uses of state oil and gas funds but helped to qualify cer- tain Public Forum responses. The Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, in late 1977 and early 1978, contracted for a sur- vey called Public Opinion Regarding Commerce and Economic Development in Alaska. This survey added to the overall scope of the Alaska Public Forum and Personal Hearing-in-the-Home surveys. The three surveys above received responses from nearly 5,000 Alaskan residents over 18 years of age. This sample includes about 20 percent of Alaska's adult population and, therefore, is a comparatively large sample. These surveys emphasize the following main concerns of the partici- pants regarding industrial development and related subjects: 1. Renewable Resource Industries Development of renewable resource industries was the use of state oil and gas revenues most strongly preferred by Forum participants. Use of state land for this purpose also was favored in the Forum. These preferences were also indicated in the Personal Hearing-in-the-Home Program, in which loans for renewable resources development, agricultural develop- ment, and hydroelectric and geothermal power development were the first, second, and fourth-ranked priorities indicated for Permanent Fund earnings. 2. Industry in General The Forum and the Hearing-in-the-Home Program also received positive responses in regard to industrial development in general. However, this response was minor compared with support indicated for renewable resource industries; speci- fic support for state loans for mining and mineral develop- Ment was quite modest, while there was a negative response toward loans to petroleum and petrochemical industries. The Department of Commerce and Economic Development "Public Opinion ..." survey indicated strong support for incentives to business to locate in Alaska and ever stronger approval for the Alyeska pipeline and the proposed development of an Alaskan petrochemical industry. : 3. State Finances The forum indicated a strong public preference for both saving of oil and gas royalty revenue and its investment in industry. These two objectives are considered compatible because careful investment in industrial firms' securities can be a secure and profitable method of saving. The Hearing- in-the-Home Program indicated somewhat similar preferences but emphasized that the Permanent Fund's principal should be invested more conservatively than its earnings. Although the question of subsidies to industry was not raised in either the Forum or the Hearing-in-the-Home survey, it is believed that the strong emphasis on savings and perpetual income would rule out most subsidy schemes. 4. Environment and. Lifestyle Values Forum participants indicated only minor support for environ- mental preservation as a primary objective in managing Alaska's land. The Public Opinion ... survey indicated a strong feel- ing that the "quality of life" is better in Alaska than Out- side and that many people are attracted to Alaska by the environment. However, the Public Opinion ... survey parti- cipants believe that Alaska's resources can be extracted without "unacceptable environmental damage" and indicate that if it were necessary to choose between maintaining the existing environment and creating more jobs, they would choose the jobs at the environment's expense. A large majority of the Public Opinion ... survey partici- pants oppose the d-2 lands bill; however, it is not clear whether this represents opposition to federal dictation of land use policy, or rather a specific bias against wilder- ness reservations. S. Employment Participants in the Forum and the Public Opinion ... survey indicated strong support for state initiatives to increase employment for Alaskans and, as noted above, place employment over preserving the environment on their scale of values. However, a substantial majority of the Public Opinion ... survey participants rejected the concept that it is the state's responsibility to maintain a business climate which will pro- vide jobs per se. 6. Planning Public Opinion ... survey participants expressed strong sup- port for planning, including statewide planning and zoning as a means of controlling the impacts of development. In addition to the above surveys, a Growth Policy Symposium was held in late 1974 at the University of Alaska. This symposium dis- cussed growth management alternatives, tools for its implementation, and impediments to effective growth management. This symposium anti- cipated the need to define the key objectives of growth management in terms of the alternative objectives of maximum growth, moderate con- trolled growth, or minimum growth, with corresponding use or develop- ment of regulatory institutions and policy. However, the symposium also suggested that the state would be unable to effectively control growth motivated by external demand for Alaska's resources. State policy on industrial development has been best defined relat- ing to disposition of royalty oil and gas. The basic policy for state disposition of royalty oil and gas is defined by a statute which specifies disposition in "ways calculated to promote private economic growth consis- tent with applicable environmental standards and public fiscal stability." The outgrowth of this statute is a set of policies established by the Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board. These policies specify that royalty oil and gas shall be disposed of at fair market value and that preference will be given to purchases for in-state uses and other uses capable of maximizing "net benefits to the state," including eco- nomic, social, and environmental considerations. These policies have governed the Royalty Board's request for proposals from firms which would establish refineries and petrochemical plants in Alaska as a condition to purchases of Prudhoe Bay royalty oil. In respect to the coal industry, Governor Hammond and Commissioners Hubbard and LeResche have announced preliminary policy guidelines similar to those for royalty oil. In the cases of royalty oil-related industries, the state has offered administrative cooperation to firms proposing to benefit the state by establishing production facilities in Alaska, with their corresponding contributions to the local tax base and employment. In the case of the coal industry, the state has taken a favorable attitude to coal production for export and local utility use. The state's policy is closely consis- tent with the above survey participants’ preferences. It can be inferred that Alaskan opinion and state policy regarding other energy intensive industries may be similar to those expressed above, although each industry has its own advantages and disadvantages. Based on the survey responses, it is expected that an energy intensive industry relying on hydroelectric power would receive a better response from renewable resources enthusiasts than if fossil fuel were the power source, although environmental sen- sitivities may severely restrict the amount of hydropower which can be developed for industrial uses. Although coal is not a renewable resource, several Alaskan coal fields are large enough that their depletion would require several hundred years of large-scale mining; this could satisfy the objective of stabilizing the economy over the very long run. It remains to establish whether or not Alaskans's objectives for economic development and related state policy are consistent with the state's expected fiscal position in the 1980s. Due to the state's annual earning and spending of oil and gas royalties, severance taxes and other revenues, it is probable that no individual or industrial firm in Alaska now contributes as much in taxes as its proportional share of state spending. Barring a radical change in state fiscal policy, this con- dition may force a reversal in Alaskans’ currently favorable attitudes toward growth and development. A.2. Alaska Growth Policy Council--Alaska Public Forum The Alaska Growth Policy Council is a public body organized under the Office of the Governor; the Council has the objective of providing the state administration with a broad sample of Alaskan citizens' opin- ions on issues concerning growth of Alaska's population and economy. The Alaska Public Forum is a major activity of the Council which, during fis- cal years (FY) 1977 and 1978, has held numerous statewide public meetings and has conducted a survey of Alaskans’ concerns regarding land use, community development, and uses of the state's financial resources. During FY 1977, the Forum received responses from 3,700 Alaskans who either attended a public meeting in one of 60 locations statewide or returned a questionnaire. Of these persons, over 50 percent were in professional-technical or white collar occupations, and about two-thirds were residents of Alaska for more than ten years. The issues raised by the Forum were in the form of seven main ques- tions; these questions and the distribution of responses received for each are as follows: 1.A. How should the Permanent Fund Money be Invested? a. Save it 26% b. Loan it to communities 14% c. Loan it for industrial development 10% d. Loan it to develop renewable resource industries 36% e. Loan it to individuals % £. Other (miscellaneous bonds and loans, or other methods of saving; health education and welfare issues) 5% These responses outline a strong preference for investing the Perman- ent Fund money, presumably both principal and earnings, in ways which would either produce reasonable cash income to the Fund and/or which would stimulate economic development in renewable resource industries. It is believed that responses to items a, c, and d, above, are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although they represent differing priorities of persons responding. For example, item a, "save it," is explained in the questionnaire to mean placement of Fund money in bank savings accounts, government bonds, and presumably other well-rated secu- rities, including those of private firms but not necessarily those offered by Alaskan banks, governments, and private firms. This item has the ob- jective of realizing secure and profitable investments for the Fund, even if the investments themselves have no impact on Alaska. Both itemc, "loan it for industrial development," and item d, "loan it to develop A-8 renewable resource industries," would favor loans to industry in Alaska, emphasizing development of the state's Scciouy) eather than security and earnings, as the highest priority for the Fund. Item d is more restric- tive than item c, however, emphasizing those industries which would not decline over the very long run as a result of resource depletion. The above items a, c, and d were favored by 72 percent of the Forum's respon- dents, leading to the conclusion that a very large percentage of the Forum respondents would favor investment of a portion of the Fund's money in, say, investment grade securities of a firm proposing to estab- lish a wood products mill or fish processing plant in Alaska. Similarly, items a and b, which together were ranked first by 40 percent of the Forum respondents, are not mutually exclusive and, therefore, it could be expected that a Fund investment in well-rated bonds of an Alaska municipality would also receive substantial support. 1.B. How Should the State Use Its New Oil and Gas Money? (All revenues except those invested in Permanent Fund) a. Use it for tax cuts for Alaskans 30% b. Use it for cash payments to Alaskans 6% c. Use it for community revenue sharing and community grants 12% d. Use it for more state services 5% e. Save it by increasing the Permanent Fund 13% £. Loan it to communities 4% g- Loan it for industrial development 5% h. Loan it to develop renewable resource industries 21% i. Loan it to individuals 3% j. Other a A-9 Like the responses reviewed under Question 1.A. above, each of the item responses to Question 1.B. expresses a distinct priority for use of oil and gas revenues; however, several of the items have compatible priorities, enabling them to be categorized. These responses fall into three main categories; the first and most heavily supported is savings and industrial development, represented by items e, g, and h, which received 39 percent. The second consists of items a and b which favor a cash dividend to Alaskans either via tax cuts or direct cash payments, which received 36 percent. The third category, consisting of items c, d, and f, favors expansion of public sector facilities and services; and this received 21 percent. 2. What Area of Human Needs Do You Feel Requires Most Attention? a. Alcoholism 12% b. Care of children 7% ce. Education 31% d. Programs for the elderly 7% e. Employment 23% f. Health care 9% g. Housing 5% h. Other (law enforcement; improvement of lifestyle; status of women) 6% It is not clear to what extent the responses to this question reflect the general ranking of respondents' priorities for continuing maintenance and development of state programs versus major expansion and addition. Of particular interest in the present context is the relatively low re- sponses on employment in the southwest and north regions, which suffer the most chronic unemployment. It is believed that the strong interest in employment is a corollary of the interest in industrial development expressed in Questions 1.A. and 1.B., above, suggesting that the concensus indicated in that item should be qualified somewhat by emphasis on rela- A-10 tively labor-intensive industries. Although the responses. indicate substantial interest in employment, the majority of responses to this question emphasize provision of social services. care for the elderly, are areas of major state involvement, and high quality services at the present time, it may be inferred that higher priorities for improvement are expressed in the areas of alcoholism and child care, where the present level of state involvement is relatively low. Because some of the services outlined, such as education and 3. How Should Public School Construction Be Financed in Both Organized and Unorganized Boroughs? a. 100 percent state. funding through an increase in the state income tax 100 percent state funding from a statewide sales tax Local property taxes throughout the state and supplemental funding where needed Continue the present system which provides for property taxes plus supplemental state funding in organized boroughs and 100 percent state funding in un- organized boroughs Other (sale of resources; local participation) A-11 Although the preferred means of achieving a high level of state funding for education are diverse, 62 percent of the respondents favored state funding of 93 percent (the present rate) or more of total educa- tion cost. Item c is considered mainly to reflect a general interest in obtaining some revenue contribution from residents of unorganized boroughs, who now receive 100 percent state-funded education, without making a local contribution equivalent to that of residents of organized boroughs and home rule cities. 4. What Should Be the Primary Objective for Managing Alaska's Land? a.. To raise revenues for the state 6% b. To provide land for people's needs 38% c. To promote renewable resources development 25% d. To promote industrial growth and development 8% e. To preserve the natural environment 19% £. Other (land for homesites, homesteading; preserve renewable resources) 2% The responses to this question indicate the strongest preference for providing land for people's needs, defined by workshop participants primarily as land for individual ownership, for example, in the form of homesites, and: land for personal use, available for subsistence hunting and fishing, for example. “this preference doubtless reflects the scarcity of land available to private ownership in populated areas of the state and also may reflect concern that competing uses of open land may infringe on traditional elements of the Alaskan lifestyle. To the extent that land availability for individual ownership is pre- ferred, some conflict exists with item e, "preserving the natural A-12 environment." However, to the extent that "people's needs" include the preservation of land for traditional wilderness uses, this item is con- sistent with item e, provided that preserving the natural environment is not construed as excluding most human uses. Again, in the responses to this question, 33 percent preferred uses of state land either to promote renewable resources development (25 per- cent) or to promote industrial development (8 percent). 5. What Should Be the State's Policy on Future Oil and Gas Lease Sales? a. It should sell leases as fast as possible to bring in a lot of money immediately _ 2% b. It should sell leases at a constant pace to assure a steady income for a long period of time 58% c. It should lease when the state needs large sums of money to meet public needs 8% d. + should do no further leasing and make the best use of present income 18% e. Other (more research into environmental and social impacts) 14% The responses to this question (58 percent) were heavily weighted in favor of "selling leases at a constant pace to assure a steady income for a long period of time." This item implies that "constant pacing" and "steady income" are consistent with one another. In practice, the state has held lease sales at a regular pace, but the resulting income has varied widely from the Prudhoe Bay bonanza, in 1969, to the negative income from A-13 the Kachemak Bay leases which the state repurchased in 1976. It is pos- sible that one major new sale of state leases may take place in the Beau- fort Sea in late 1979. Beyond the Beaufort sale, the value of cil pros- pects on state lands is highly speculative. Therefore, if future leasing is to contribute to "steady income," the Beaufort leasing should be deferred until after 1985, enabling this field to come into production in the late 1980s, when the value of Prudhoe production will begin declining. An important secondary priority expressed in responses to this ques- tion was either to have the state do no further leasing (18 percent) or to conduct further studies of environmental and social impacts of leasing, and presumably related oil industry development, prior to leasing (14 per- cent). It is possible that extensive pre-lease studies of environmental impacts such as the one now beginning for the Beaufort Sea will partially satisfy this latter item. In all, the responses to this question reflect a preference for a deliberate leasing policy which, in the public view, may tend to miti- gate the boom and bust impacts of oil industry development. 6. What is the Best Use of the State's Royalty Oil and Gas? a. The state should sell its royalties to make money 16% b. The state should use its royalty oil and gas primarily for promoting industrial develop- ment in the state 21% A-14 c. The state should provide in-state residential use of royalty oil and gas 45% d. Other (different combinations of the above options) 18% The respondents to this question placed the highest priority on state provision of royalty oil and gas for residential uses. Presumably, the gas consumers would not trade their present supply of Cook Inlet gas for Prudhoe Bay royalty gas, because the former is much cheaper; their concern is that in the future, supplies of gas sufficient for residential needs should be protected from export. The current stat- utes governing royalty oil and gas sales provide for this. The secondary priorities favored by the respondents were sales to make money (16 percent) and sales for the promotion of industry (21 per- cent). It is not clear to what extent, if any, proponents of sales for industrial and residential uses also favor the state's maximizing price of the gas sold. 7. What Other Important State Problems Do You Feel Should Be Considered? This was not a multiple choice question; it received a response which partly overlapped the six previous questions, which probably at- tests to the relevance of these questions. Popular concerns expressed in this context were as follows: A-15 a. Renewable resources, including fisheries, forestry, agri- culture, recreational lands, subsistence, fish and game management b. Government, including size, growth, cost, inefficiency, local control, accountability, decentralization, im- provement of rural utilities c. Land for community expansion, homesites, subsistence, parks, and recreation d. Transportation, improvement of ferry service, airline competition, airport and highway improvements, rail commuter service e. Population and economic growth, including growth concerns, taxes, cost of government, new wealth, unemployment Ff. Alternate energy sources, including wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and geothermal energy alternatives g. Health and social services; alcoholism, the elderly, housing, employment, welfare reform h. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); fears of adverse social and environmental impacts i. Crime, including stricter penalties, more police, election of judges, judicial reform, bush law enfercement j. Capitol move issues These responses reemphasize Alaskan's concern for preservation and development of renewable resources and the desire for increased avail- ability of land. However, growth-related impacts, including population, crime, and environmental deterioration, are also a concern indicated in several categories of response. The other area of priority stressed in this section is the desire for increased social services. A-16 A.3. Alaska State Senate--Permanent Fund Committee A.3.a. Personal Hearing-in-the-Home Program+ This program was conducted in 1977 to assist the Senate in develop- ing legislation governing the Permanent Fund, specifically for the manage- ment and investment of the fund's principal and interest income. The "Hearing-in-the-Home Program" conducted 400 interviews through- out the state, obtaining a sample set of responses in all regions, although for statistical reasons the rural sample was proportionally somewhat larger than rural population would have warranted. The principal emphasis of the "Hearing-in-the-Home Program" was placed on 22 options which were ranked by the participants according to relative desirability. The responses on these options were qualified by the expression of a strong preference that Permanent Fund principal should be placed in bank accounts and high-grade securities, with only the interest from those investments to be used for state loan programs. The 22 options for program development and their ranking are listed on the following table. z Prepared by Dittman Research Associates, Anchorage, Alaska. A-17 ALASKA STATE SENATE PERMANENT FUND COMMITTEE HEARING IN THE HOME PROGRAM, 1977 Net Percent Positive Response in Favor Loans for renewable resource development (fisheries and timber) 56.5 Loans for farming and agricultural development $2.2 Loans for senior citizen housing programs 47.6 Loans for large-scale electrical power development (hydro-electric/geothermal) 41.6 Loans for small business development 40.6 Loans to students for vocational and academic training following high school 31.4 Investment and reinvestment in high-grade securities 27.8 Loans for purchase, construction, and remodeling of homes 26.5 Loans to communities for capital improvements (buildings, streets, etc.) 18.6 Loans for small-scale electrical power development c (solar/wind) 14.4 Loans for mining and mineral development 13.6 Add to General Fund, then reduce income taxes for individuals Loans for child-care facility development No nwo Negative Response Loans for petrochemical industry development Pay-off Alaska's bonded indebtedness Loans for petroleum exploration and development Continually deposit in savings account Loans for tourism industry development -1 ' . 1 romwrFrN . oWODwW Cash distributions in the form of dividends and revenue-sharing to Alaskan residents - 30.4 Cash distributions in the form of grants and shared-revenue for Alaskan communities - 33.0 Add to General Fund, then reduce state taxes for business and corporations - 48.4 Add to General Fund to be used as Governor and Legislature determine - 83.6 Source: Alaska State Senate, Permanent Fund Committee, "Hearing in the Home Program," prepared by Dittman Research Associates, Anchorage, Alaska. The highest priorities were assigned to state loans for renewable rescurce development and farming and agricultural development. Other industrial loan options which were ranked high were loans for large- scale electrical power and loans to small business. While loans to mining and mineral development received net support, they were not heavily favored as were the above options. Loans for home purchases also received a substantial positive re- sponse. Although loans for senior citizen housing programs were highly ranked, followed by loans to students, public works and child care faci- lity options were not heavily favored. The response in favor of reducing taxes for individuals was negligible. On the negative side, "Hearing in the Home" participants were strongly opposed to depositing Permanent Fund income into the General Fund with lesser, but still substantial, opposition to cash distributions to individuals and communities. Among the economic development options, loans for petrochemical industry development, petroleum exploration and development, and tourism industry development all received negative responses. A-19 A.4. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development ——— ee A.4.a. Public Opinion Regarding Commerce and Economic Development in Alaska This survey was completed in January 1978; it is based on a broad set of questions concerning economic development and land use planning in Alaska. The research firm conducting the study interviewed 792 Alas- kan residents, selected in approximate proportion to the population of Barrow, Nome, Bethel, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan. This survey indicates a moderately favorable attitude toward "more development" in general, indicating a statewide average of 4.6 on a scale of 7 favoring more development. However, a majority (51 percent) feel that "big development" takes control of the community out of the hands of its residents, and there is a small plurality (42 percent)? of opinion that the state is "moving too fast" and "needs to slow down and look things over a little longer." On the other hand, survey participants were more strongly in favor of two specific big industrial development projects. A large majority (75 percent) believes that the Alyeska pipeline has created more benefits than "disturbances" in the community. A similar majority (72 percent) favors development of an Alaskan petrochemical industry. Prepared by Dittman Research Associates, Anchorage, Alaska. Syany responses are grouped as "strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree;" plurality represents an excess of those agreeing or disagreeing less than 50 percent, without consideration of those indicating neither. A-20 In regard to the environment, a substantial majority (68 percent) feel that the "quality of life" is better in Alaska, and a small plu- vality (43 percent) feel that the main reason people come to Alaska is to enjoy the natural environment. However, a plurality (43 percent) of the participants also feel that the quality of life does not decrease as industrial development increases, and a large majority (86 percent) believes that Alaska's resources can be extracted or harvested without "unacceptable environmental damage." A majority (61 percent) feels that Alaska needs more jobs, and a majority (54 percent) also believes that if there is a choice between creating more jobs and preserving the natural environment, that job creation should come first. The survey indicates that the participants have a high regard for planning, in general terms; a majority (54 percent) feel that planning is not incompatible with growth, and substantial majorities (66 percent), except in Barrow, Nome, and Bethel, believe the state should begin a. statewide land use or zoning policy to establish areas where develop- ment may occur. On the other hand, large majorities (67 percent) in all areas oppose the U.S. House d-2 lands bill. Certainly, this is partly due to the strong feeling, expressed in responses to another question in this survey, that the federal government has too much con- trol over the lives of Alaskans. However, it is also possible that the negative reaction to the d-2 bill also represents a specific dis- like of wilderness area planning in itself and, therefore, may reflect A-21 some conflict between the concept of planning versus the exercise of planning powers. A majority (61 percent) of the participants in all areas, except Barrow, Nome and Bethel, favor incentives to businesses to locate in Alaska and, specifically, to encourage tourism; however, a majority (66 percent) opposes the notion that the state has a responsibility for providing jobs. Survey participants indicated that they would place the highest priority on hydroelectric resources (46 percent) among Alaska's energy alternatives, with coal (20 percent) a distant second choice. A very large majority (80 percent) favors state promotion of energy research and development, and a plurality believes that government agencies should develop hydropower, leaving fossil fuel resources to private enterprise (47 percent). Although this survey appears to develop a coherent view of Alaskans' public opinion regarding commerce and economic development, one of the survey questions, presumably asked in order to test the participants' knowledge, produced a disconcerting response: only 11 per- cent of the survey participants could identify within 10 percent the percentage of total state income which is obtained from oil and gas royalties, severance taxes, and property taxes (61 percent). This knowledge is extremely important in evaluating state policy alterna- tives in regard to economic development and population growth; apart A-22 from oil industry contributions, Alaska's comparatively large complex of public facilities and services are not adequately supported by taxes on individuals and businesses. A.5. University of Alaska--Alaska Growth Policy Symposium In December 1974, a symposium on growth policy issues was held at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The symposium was attended by legis- lators, community leaders, planning officials, and business community representatives. The symposium addressed and anticipated some of the principal growth policy issues facing Alaska, as follows: A.5.a. Growth Management Alternatives Growth advocates are represented as favoring a planning policy which "encourages, assists, and accommodates growth," while seeking to maximize community benefits from any type of growth which occurs. A more moderate approach would differentiate economically and socially desirable versus undesirable growth patterns and would encourage the former, especially via provision of infrastructure, while discouraging the latter. Advocates of minimum growth would seek to restrict all types of growth as much as possible, without reference to specific benefits which selective encouragement of growth might contribute. A-23 A.5.b. Growth Management Tools It was argued that existing institutions could be used to control the scale of growth and its impacts by means of land classification, transportation planning, environmental standards, and business regula- tion, as well as via taxation and public spending. In particular, it was suggested that the state could limit growth by means of saving reve- nues from oil and gas royalties, severance taxes, and other petroleum industry revenues. This step would defer and moderate the growth impacts of heavy state spending of those revenues as they are received. It was also proposed that staged leasing of state oil and gas lands could be used to spread out petroleum industry growth impacts over time. A.5.c. Impediments to Growth Management Although the symposium generated many positive suggestions on growth management, some participants doubted that the state could administer a comprehensive and effective growth management program. It was argued that community support for specific local development projects could often overcome a general policy of limiting growth, even when a broad concensus favoring limited growth existed in the state as a whole. This would be particularly true in the case of local public works projects, for example, and also to some extent of industrial development projects perceived as offering increased local employment and demand for trade and services. Further, it was suggested that in Alaska at the present time a growth momentum has been initiated by the petroleum industry and by the massive public spending which it has enabled. This momentum and resulting growth A-24 impacts will be difficult to retard by the action of Alaskan agencies. Beyond the present stage of oil industry development, it is unlikely that the state can resist oil industry expansion in Alaska during a period of national energy shortage--and, in fact, leasing of a substantial portion of Alaska's prospective oil lands, including the Outer Continental Shelf and the National Petroleum Reserve, is beyond state control. It is also considered unlikely that Alaskan legislators will be able to forgo the political opportunity to continue spending state oil revenues at a rapid, and growth inducing pace. A.5.d. Industrial Growth Management Participants in the symposium suggested that selective encouragement of industry could be provided by means of subsidies to industries which offered substantial benefits to the state's economy. On the other hand, it was noted that industrial growth may not necessarily reduce unemploy- ment in the state as a whole or in the affected community, because the availability of jobs in Alaska typically induces in-migration of greater numbers of job seekers. The symposium did not reach a concensus on whether or not a statewide growth policy should be implemented; however, it did conclude first that not all growth could be controlled by means of state policy, but that some growth, particularly that induced by state spending, was readily control- lable with existing institutions. A-25 A.6. Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board--Royalty Oil and Gas Sales The Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board is governed by statutes which specify that Alaskan royalty oil and gas, whether taken in value or in kind, shail be disposed of in "ways calculated to promote private economic growth consistent with applicable environmental standards and public fiscal stability."* Accordingly, the Royalty Board has announced a policy concerning gas and oil dispositions which includes the following items: 1. The Royalty Oil and Gas Board shall recommend disposition of royalty oil and gas (through in-value taking, in-kind taking, sales, and sales conditions) in such a manner to maximize net benefits to the State. These net benefits include not only price, but also the various economic, social, and environmental ramifications, including employment, local training, Alaskan ownership, secondary effects, tax base, and many other factors. 2. The baseline price for any royalty oil or gas sale shall not be less than the price that would be received for that oil or gas if taken "in-value." 3. Preference will be given first to existing in-state faci- lities with no alternate sources of oil or gas, and second to those who will construct new in-state facilities or expand existing in-state facilities. 4. A portion of royalty oil will be withheld from long-term commitment in order to meet anticipated future small local demands. 5. With the exception of small sales to public utilities, sales will be for specified volumes or proportions of pro- duction, constant throughout the year, rather than for flexi- ble volume "options" to be called by the purchaser. y Alaska Statutes, Public Lands 38.06.010, Ch. 06. Salaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, Policy Statement, May 5-6, 1977. 6. Sales of royalty oil and gas for in-state processing will attempt to insure that products for in-state use are priced at the lowest possible price, within the limits of the general net benefit policy and the pricing policy. 7. Products produced from royalty oil and exported from the State must be surplus to the State's domestic and industrial product needs. 8. In general, royalty oil and gas will be disposed of in long-term contracts, rather than in "piece lots" as may be done by a private-sector trader or dealer. This policy reflects the state's interest in the following: 1. Realizing a fair market price for sales of state royalty oil and gas. 2. Ensuring an adequate source of supply of petroleum fuels and feedstocks to Alaskan consumers. 3. Minimizing cost of petroleum products sold in Alaska, con- sistent with 1, above. 4, Maximizing "net benefits" of the petroleum industry to the state, including price received by the state and a full range of other community impacts. The first three of these points are very straightforward; however, the last point, relating to maximizing net benefits to the state, re- quires definition of both the social, economic, and environmental benefits and costs of a royalty oil or gas disposition alternative. The alter- native most commonly visualized is the development of industry; this was the focus of Governor Jay S. Hammond's remarks to the Royalty Board in early May 1977, as follows: A-27 "It is becoming clear that our royalty oil and gas provide not only a very valuable liquid asset, but also an extremely valuable lever, which, if we act intelligently, we may use to encourage the types of industry we all want in the state. These are the industries that employ resident Alaskans, that are clean and not polluting, that return to the people of the state more in taxes and other benefits than they take from us in increased public services, state payrolls, crime, social problems, etc. These certainly are industries that will provide a clear net benefit to Alaskans, when all economic, social, environmental, and other factors are taken into ac- count, and these are the industries that we should use our royalty oil and gas to encourage." A.7. State Administration Attitudes Toward Coal and Petrochemicals The Hammond administration has articulated a position toward the coal industry similar to that taken in regard to royalty oil and gas. At a conference entitled "Alaskan Coal and the Pacific," held in Juneau during September 1977, Governor Hammond indicated that the state is seek- ing a "fair return" for its energy resources and will try to ensure that Alaska's resources and their refined products are made available in Alaska at a reasonable cost. This goal was echoed by Commissioner of Natural Resources, Robert E. LeResche, who indicated that the state would delib- erate individual industrial development proposals with a view toward en- suring "sound development." This approach is similar to the one articu- lated by the Royalty Oil and Gas Development Board. A-28 Both Commissioner LeResche and Commissioner of Commerce and Economic Development H. Phillip Hubbard indicated that the state would offer a "cookbook approach" to industrial development in Alaska. That is, the state would prepare site selection criteria and offer guidance through the regulatory structure. A.8. Additional Sources of Information on Community Attitudes Toward Development The foregoing has dealt with attitudes toward development on a state- wide basis only. Because of the prohibitive cost, no comprehensive survey has been done which measures attitudes toward development on a community or regional basis for the state as a whole. Thus, to assess regional attitudes toward development, it is necessary to draw upon a variety of disparate sources. In order to provide some information on attitudes toward development on a community level, several sources of information were consulted. Representative communities, notably Ketchikan, Haines, Valdez, and Seward, were contacted by telephone. A ae by the Anchorage Urban Observatory provided information on attitudes toward development in the Kenai Penin- sula communities of Kenai, Seldovia, Soldotna, Homer, and Seward. An extensive public opinion survey recently completed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research provided information on the Fairbanks com- munity. Several comprehensive development plans were surveyed to attempt to discern development attitudes in Yakutat, Cordova, and Sand Point. This section closes with a brief review of activities of the Native Re- gional Corporations. No large-scale industrial developments are being considered in these communities save petrochemical development in Fairbanks and a vefinery in Valdez. Tourism, fish processing, oil and gas development, and municipal projects, such as port improvements, water and sewer systems, are the immediate concerns of these communities. The studies by the Institute and the Urban Observatory contain at- titudinal information from individuals and represent the best available assessment of personal feelings in the communities covered. The telephone interviews reflect the attitude of municipal management and, thus, may not be as representative of the community as a whole. The following table presents the types of projects mentioned or discussed in the course of this survey. It is interesting that the projects which might be considered large- scale are all related directly or indirectly to the production of oil and gas. Industries which would not be considered energy-intensive, but rather "penewable resource," drew the most response. Fishing, fish processing, and tourism were most often mentioned. Fairbanks Haines Valdez Seward Ketchikan Kenai Seldovia Soldotna Homer Yakutat Cordova Sandpoint Unalaska DEVELOPMENTS DISCUSSED FOR ALASKAN COMMUNITIES Fish and Municipal Oil and Gas Refinery Petrochemical Processing Timber Tourism Projects xX X x xX X x xX xX X x xX x xX xX xX x xX x x x x xX x xX X xX Xx xX X x x xX xX x X x xX xX xX O€-V A-31 The potential development of a petrochemical facility in Fairbanks using natural gas or natural gas liquids as a feedstock has received much discussion, particularly since the post-pipeline lull in the Fairbanks economy has developed. To assess public opinion regarding petrochemicals and attitudes toward public involvement in stimulating its development in Fairbanks, a survey was undertaken by the Borough. The basic result of the survey can be summed up in the following quotation: The results indicate that most Fairbanks residents would like to encourage petrochemical development as long as it does not cost much to do so. The public believes that the Borough should pursue such inexpensive activities as inviting companies to make proposals and providing them with information. However, the majority of Fairbanks residents does not support such pos- sible economic incentives as tax breaks, the sale of municipal revenue bonds to help finance development, or the sale of state royalty gas at less than full value. The lack of support for these incentives appears to reflect the fact that most resi- dents do not expect petrochemical development to make Fair- banks a better place to live. Roughly, a third of the popu- lation does expect petrochemical development to make Fairbanks a better place to live, and we repeatedly find that about a third of the population support incentives which involve some sacrifices .6 The Kenai Peninsula Borough consists of five communities with dis- tinct attitudes toward development. This was indicated through a survey of these five communities by the Anchorage Urban Observatory. 8 john A. Kruse, Fairbanks Petrochemical Study, Fairbanks: ISER, 1978, p. 10. A-32 In summarizing the results of that study, it appears that petro- chemical development is viewed most favorably by Kenai, although Seward is interested in any type of development. In other communities, petro- chemicals are viewed as less desirable. Commercial fishing and processing are high priority activities and all communities are interested in develop- ment in this area. The following quotes are particularly relevant: © In answering a question which suggests the possibility of oil development and asks respondents which of several develop- ment options they would support, Seldovia and Homer are least supportive and Kenai most supportive. Soldotna and Seward are in-between. All of the communities except Seldovia and Homer support the idea of supply bases...7 We made one other attempt to capture expectations of respondents regarding the expectations of respondents regarding Outer Continental Shelf development. We asked what were the three best things and the three worst things they thought might accompany OCS development. In all of the communities, the most commen hopes and fears were uniform. People mainly hoped that OCS development would result in wider employment opportunities and a boost for the local economies. Fears about OCS develop- ment were mainly concentrated on environmental issues and pol- lution, the potential damage to the fishing industry and the concommitants of population growth. 8 ‘ In conjunction with the Yakutat development plan, a socio-economic survey was undertaken. The significant findings of that study were as follows: (a) only 32 percent of that community feels that oil/gas industry is compatible with fishing and timber (which already exist) Hayden G. Green, A Profile of Five Kenai Peninsula Towns, Anchorage, Anchorage Urban Observatory, 1977, p. 24. Sipid., p. 27. A-33 (b) only 32 percent of that community think Liquid Natural Gas plant is good, and (c) the community is not prepared to handle onshore develop- ment of oil and gas. ..-like most Alaskan areas with economies heavily based in fishing and fish processing and supplemented by tourism, employment in Yakutat does show a high degree of seasonal variation. ... / Reflecting the increased prosperity of Yakutat, secondary employment has shown a significant increase since 1970, parti- cularly in the trade and local government sectors. ...On the debit side, employment in the wood products industry is pres- ently at a low level.9 The primary concern of respondents to the telephone inquiry was unemployment. Respondents indicated that Haines is suffering about 50 percent unemployment; Valdez, 24.1 percent; and Seward, about 30 per- cent; and public opinion is presumed tc reflect concern about this. In Haines, the city manager said that any development that proposes to provide or increase jobs is welcomed. There are some outspoken envi- ronmentalists, but their anti-development protests are tempered by the need for jobs and economic security. In Valdez, the city manager said that whole families are out of work and the community is excited by the prospect of jobs in the refinery. There is concern about the environment, but the political climate is such that no one can be callous about such things. Therefore, there is a lot Sataska Consultants, Inc., Yakutat Comprehensive Development Plan, Anchorage, 1976, pp. 55-57. A-34 of careful planning going into the refinery for that reason. The unemploy- ment rate definitely affects the response of the community. In Seward, the city manager feels that the city has suffered a de- pressed economy ever since the earthquake and that the community is resent- ful that they did not receive any aid to rebuild. Therefore, they are pretty determined and independent. The can toyaent rate is high, but a lot of this is because of the seasonal nature of fishing and shipping. The community is interested in development on their own terms and have documented steady and fantastic (80 percent) support for port development. In Ketchikan, the community feels a need for diversification. The town has always depended on fishing and logging or lumber mill operation. There is a decline in these two activities and the community is aware cf the fact that they need to diversify to continue. Tourism is becoming more acceptable to the public, and they are involved in community improve-~ ments to encourage tourists. A review of the investment activities of the Alaska Native regional corporations indicates that, with one notable exception, those corpora- tions have not become involved in the development of energy-intensive industries. The exception is the participation of six of the corpora- tions in the Alpetco proposal to build a petrochemical facility to process Alaska's royalty share of the North Slope Crude. Involved in this under- taking, through the firm Alaska Consolidated Shipping, are the Aleut, Bris- tol Bay, Calista, Chugach, Cook Inlet, and Koniag Regional Corporations. A-35 In general, the corporations have interest in the purchase of exist- ing investments, development of the resource potential of their lands and water, and construction activities. The following is a general and brief iist of activities of the Native corporations: Bering Straits Aleut Ahtna Chugach Koniag Cook Inlet Bristol Bay Calista Arctic Slope - ready-mix concrete, leasing and equipment companies, Alaska Truck Transport, Central Construction Company, Anchorage Trailer Sales, Fairbanks Plaza Hotel - marine transportation, seafood processing, crab trawling, Anchorage office buildings, Matanuska Sand and Gravel - pipeline operations and maintenance, construc- tion, hotel, minerals exploration - pipeline operations and maintenance, Anchorage shopping mall, OCS supply bases, natural re- source exploration - OCS support facilities, Shelikof Net Company, Kodiak commercial real estate, natural re- source exploration, fisheries - Anchorage office building and hotels, construction ~- Anchorage hotel, petroleum exploration, hard rock mineral exploration, Peter Pan Seafoods - Anchorage hotel, residential subdivision, technical consulting, trailer court, crab trawler - petroleum exploration, support work on explora- tion activity, hotels and office buildings, construction, catering A-36 Doyon - hotel in Hawaii, road maintenance, oil and gas exploration, hard rock mineral explora- tion, surveying Nana - hotel, pipeline security, construction, catering, oilfield services Sealaska - office building, timber, fishing Bibliography a. y 12. Alaska Consultants, Inc. Cordova Comprehensive Development Plan. Anchorage: ----, 1976. - Yakutat Comprehensive Development Plan. Anchorage: ----, 1976. Alaska Department of Commerce. "Public Opinion Regarding Commerce and Economic Development in Alaska," prepared by Dittman Research Associates, January 1978. Alaska Office of the Governor, Alaska Growth Policy Council. "The Alaska Public Forum Year-End Report," September 1977. Alaska State Senate, Permanent Fund Committee. "Results of the Personal Hearing-in-the-Home Program, concerning the Alaska Permanent Fund, prepared by Dittman Research Associates, December 1977. Green, Hayden G. A Profile of Five Kenai Peninsula Towns. Anchorage: Anchorage Urban Observatory, 1977. Institute of Social and Economic Research. "Alaska Growth Policy-- A Discussion of Issues," 1975. Keuse, John A. Fairbanks Petrochemical Study. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Fairbanks, 1978. McKinney, Virginia. "Native Firms Again Facing Land Issues," Alaska Industry, July 1977. Tryck, Nyman and Hayes. City of Sandpoint - Recommended Community Development Plan. Anchorage: ----, 1977. - City of Unalaska - Recommended Community Development Plan. Anchorage: ----, 1977. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. "Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project" - Draft Final Report, prepared by Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development. B. Catalog of Alaskan institutional Infrastructure This chapter contains a catalog of the existing institutional infra- structure in Alaska at the state and local levels. The portion concerned with state infrastructure includes, first, a catalog of those state departments and the divisions within those depart- ments which have an impact on development. The departments with a major .Pole in policy development and implementation in the area of development are the Office of the Governor, the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, the Department of Natural Resources, and to a lesser extent, the Department of Revenue. Recent state publications have analyzed the roles of the various state departments in the determination and implementation of state energy policy.t The roles of the departments in regard to energy matters appear to correspond closely with those in the area of development. Next in the catalog is a list of development-related permit require- ments as well as the state department which is the permit issuer. This is followed by a listing of existing state taxes and tax rates. Office of the Governor, Division of Policy Development and Planning. "State Energy Administration--An Analysis of State Roles and Responsibilities in Energy Matters," undated, and Alaska State Legislature, Legislative Af- fairs Agency, "Memorandum on National Energy Policy and State Energy Ob- jectives," by Richard G. Haggart, July 14, 1977. B-2 For local government, a listing is presented of the communities in each region within each category of government, both in boroughs and in the unorganized borough. The government powers of each are identified as well as existing tax structure and rates. Finally, important libraries within the state are identified as well as the types of material they contain. The most important characteristics relevant to the role of the Alaskan infrastructure in the implementation of any policy with respect to energy intensive industry derive from the age aad size of the insti- tutions and the magnitude of the problems which they must address. Alaska has been a state for less than 20 years, had a very small popula- tion when it became a state in 1959, and continues to have the smallest population of any state except Wyoming. This means that many of the in- stitutions in Alaska are relatively new and absolutely very small in terms of personnel. This has both positive and negative implications. The positive are, first, that Alaska has the opportunity to build institutions on models developed over a long period of time in other states or countries. There is an opportunity to adopt structures and techniques which have proven themselves elsewhere. Second, the relatively young age of some institu- tions makes them relatively malleable and capable of adapting to change. Third, their small size should facilitate the flow of information among parts of the government. B-3 On the negative side, the small size and young age of Alaskan in- stitutions results in an incomplete and often overlapping and competing definition of roles and responsibilities. Second, some agencies are severely understaffed for the problems which they must address. This is complicated by the fact that Alaska is growing rapidly, the structure of the economy is changing, the composition of the population is evolving, the resources of the state have a national interest component, and the resulting policy questions become very complex. . The rapid popu- lation growth results in a rapid turnover rate in the state with the result that individuals often have inexperience in dealing with problems having a uniquely Alaskan dimension. The growth and change in the population make it difficult to assess the needs of the populous. This problem is compounded by the lack of quality information. on historic patterns of behavior, population and em- ployment characteristics, etc., for the state or its varied regions. The characteristics of Alaskan institutions and their ability to adequately respond to the problems associated with growth and development are questions which require detailed analysis, beyond the scope of this study. It is important to be aware of the basic dimensions of the prob- lem when attempting to develop strategies for development, however. Of all Alaskan institutions involved in energy and development questions, several appear to be of primary importance in terms of B-& present and future policy formation and implementation. At least two of these are just now in the process of becoming organized. The first is the Alaska Permanent Fund. This fund, created by a constitutional amendment, will receive at least 25 percent of the royalty and bonus income from crude oil and natural gas sales on state lands. The amount of money in the fund has been conservatively estimated at over $3 billion by the 1990s. The constitutional amendment which established the fund stipulated that investments from the fund be made only in income producing ventures. Motivations behind the formation of the fund were many and not entirely consistent with one another. Primary among these included the idea of creating a trust account for Alaskans to use when petroleum revenues decline, a device to postpone state government expenditures, and a de- vice to diversify the economy and wean the state, by judicious investments, away from overbalanced dependence upon the petroleum industry. Legislation implementing the fund is presently being formulated, but it seems clear that at least a portion will be used for investing in in- dustrial development within the state. Depending upon what types of ac- tivities the fund will be allowed to invest in and what criteria will be used to judge among projects which satisfy the basic criterion of being income producing, this fund may play a major role in implementation of any energy intensive industry policy. As an adjunct to the Permanent Fund, a smaller fund has also been established which receives contributions from oil and gas royalties at a vate of 5 percent annually. This fund, the renewable resources develop- ment fund, is specifically mandated with investment in renewable resources within the state. The constitutionality of this fund is presently being questioned. If it is determined to be constitutional, then it will be an important source of funds for the development of renewable resources. Since a definition of a renewable resource is dependent upon a time dimen- sion, the potential exists, at least, for inclusion of a broad category of industries, including hydroelectric power, under the list of industries eligible to receive assistance under this program. The other institution newly organized is the Alaska Power Authority, located within the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Created to facilitate the development of electric generating capacity in the form of both hydroelectric and fossil fuel generating capacity, it is not clear how its role will evolve in relation to the Permanent Fund and the Southeast Water resources fund in state government as well as the Corps of Engineers, the Rural Electrification Association, and the Alaska Power Administration in the federal government. Of primary importance among existing institutions at the state level with respect to energy intensive industrial development are the legislature and the activities surrounding the Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board. The state legislature takes a primary role in the implementation of policy with respect to development issues in the state because of either potential state financial involvement or state ownership of a portion of the resources involved. The Department of Natural Resources is charged with policy development and implementation for the disposition of state natural resources for the maximum benefit of residents. Atten- tion focuses on the Royalty Advisory Board in its role as the body which must approve oil and gas royalty sales, but the setting of the terms of the leases of state resources is another equally important function of this department. Policy decisions and implementation in Alaska must take place within the framework of federal institutions engaged in energy policy formation and implementation. Because of the relative importance of energy as a national concern and Alaska's position as a potential supplier of a large percentage of the nation's energy requirements, the Congress is assuming a large role in Alaskan energy-related matters. This will assure that a national perspective is directly incorporated into many important decisions related to Alaskan energy. Among existing institutions, two are of central importance. The Army Corps of Engineers is involved in the development of a large hydro- electric facility on the Susitna River in Southcentral Alaska. Financing for this large project, which would require about 15 years to complete, has not been assured from either the federal or state government. This situation creates a large degree of uncertainty in energy planning for the railbelt area of the state. B-7 The Department of Energy is the newly created amalgamation of exist- ing federal agencies, bureaus, and commissions which have primarily an energy focus. Its success as a vehicle for the implementation of the evolving federal energy policy is uncertain in the short run because of the organizational problems resulting from the creation of this depart- ment. Among those agencies in the new Department of Energy which will likely be most important in terms of defining the potential for future development of energy intensive industries are those associated with the production and transportation of energy resources. A more detailed discussion of particular state and federal agencies is postponed until the Phase V portion of this study in which specific development criteria are discussed as well as policy alternatives to attain the desired type of development. In the private sector, the banking system is the most important component of the institutional infrastructure. This sector has grown rapidly in recent years. A summary of the recent level of activity is shown in the following table. Table B.1. ALASKA BANKS COMPARATIVE STATEMENT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1977 (million $) Assets cash and due from banks 215.6 securities 399.1 federal funds loans and discounts 1,228.7 premises and equipment 81.3 other assets 39.1 total assets 1,963.8 Liabilities demand deposits 731.4 time and savings deposits 953.0 total deposits 1,684.3 (public fund included in total deposits) 372.3 other liabilities 121.0 total liabilities 1,805.4 Capital Accounts capital notes and debentures tok common stock 42.2 surplus 67.5 undivided profits 39.6 reserve for contingency 2.0 total capital accounts 158.4 Source: State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Develop- ment, Division cf Banking, Securities, Small Loans, and Cor- porations. Comparative Statement, quarterly. Institutional Infrastructure ALASKA STATE GOVERNMENT Catalog UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT Department/Division Relevant Functions Office of the Governor - State executive Division of Policy Development - Assists Governor and state departments in planning and Planning and achieving coordinated policies and programs - Clearinghouse for federal programs - (Growth Policy Council) provides for public input into state policy development process Division of Budget and Management ~- Budget preparation and fiscal control Other Units - International Fisheries and External Affairs Department of Commerce and Economic - Regulate most of state's industry and business Development i - Promote balanced economic development and growth of the state Division of Banking, Securities, - Regulates financial institutions and securities Small Loans and Corporations activities - Administers filing office for all corporations doing business in Alaska Division of Occupational Licensing - Licenses professionals through exam boards Division of Business Loans - Provides long-term, low-interest loans to local small businesses and commercial fishermen UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Department/Division Division of Insurance - Division of Economic Enterprise - Section of Weights and Measures - Alaska Transportation Commission - Alaska Public Utilities Commission - Alaska Pipeline Commission - ON DEVELOPMENT (continued) Relevant Functions Regulates insurance companies and brokers doing business in the state Promotes orderly growth of the Alaska economy Provides economic support to entrepreneurs or to communities for economic development Provides data and research services concerning economic activities Insures accurate commercial weighing and measuring devices and practices Enforces vehicle weight limits Provides safety inspections on trucks Regulates transportation in the state including air, motor freight, bus, and ferry (exc. state ferry system) Regulates all aspects of public utilities in the state including electrical telecommunications, water, steam, sewer, gas transmission and distribution, certain petroleum pipelines and garbage and refuse collection. Advocates an adequate gas and oil pipeline transmission system Ensures nondiscriminatory, efficient, economical oil and gas pipeline transmission at reasonable rates when in the public interest UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Department/Division Alaska Power Authority - Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Community and Rural - Development Department of Environmental Conservation - Department of Fish and Game - ON DEVELOPMENT (continued) Relevant Functions Created to develop and construct hydroelectric and fossil fuel generating projects Promotes the expansion of the economic base in rural communities through the infusion of seed funds for capital projects Creation of permanent, full-time unsubsidized employ- ment in rural communities Protects and enhances Alaska's natural and man-inade environment, while permitting the wise use of resources Regulates water supplies, solid waste disposal sites, development projects, oil handling facilities, etc., to limit environmental degradation Administers state program for the management, con- servation, and development of the commercial fishing, sport fishing, and game resources. UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT (continued) Department/Division Relevant Functions Department of Labor Employment Security Division - Administers unemployment insurance, manpower programs Occupational Safety and Health - Develops and administers an occupational safety and Division health program to assure that employers provide safe and healthful employment and places of employment for the state workforce Workmen's Compensation Division - Administers Workmen's Compensation settlements and iP records all work injuries Wage and Hour Division - Enforces wage and overtime standards - Determines prevailing wage rates under public contracts - Enforces child labor law, equal pay for women, return transportation of employees, and resident hire on public contracts and oil and gas leases Department of Law - Provides legal counsel for the state - Represents the state in all civil actions - Prosecutes violations of state law UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Department/Division Department of Natural Resources - Division of Agriculture - Division of Land and Water Management - Division of Oil and Gas Conservation - ON DEVELOPMENT (continued) Relevant Functions Administers the state program for the conservation and development of natural resources, except for fish and game Marketing and promotion of Alaska agriculture Administers agricultural revolving loan fund and various incentive programs (Lands Section) Manages state lands (Minerals Section) Issues and administers oil and gas leases, coal permits and leases, mining permits and leases, and other mineral use permits or leases for state lands (Forestry Section) Protects all forests; prepares and administers timber contracts for all state-grant, state-trust, and certain borough lands (Water Resources Section) Manages the state program for tidal, submerged, and shore lands (Cadastral Engineering Section) Surveys boundaries and maintains official state land records Issues permits for oil and gas wells Prepares oil and gas revenue projections Regulates oil field activities and equipment UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Department/Division Division of Geological and Geophysical - Surveys Department of Public Safety Division of State Troopers - Fire Prevention Division - (Fire Marshal) Division of Motor Vehicles - Department of Revenue - ON DEVELOPMENT (continued) Relevant Functions Mineral exploration and investigation Resource inventories Public assays General law enforcement Enforces fire safety regulations through inspections and plan reviews Investigates fires Responsible for registration and titling of motor vehicles Issues drivers' licenses Determines, administers, and enforces state tax system Proper custody and investment of state funds UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Department/Division Department of Transportation and Public - Facilities (formerly Departments of Highways and Public Works) ON DEVELOPMENT (continued) Relevant Functions Constructs, maintains, and operates all state highways, roads, bridges, traffic signs and signals, including local service roads and trails Plans and implements programs for establishment and improvement of airport and terminal facilities and operates more than 200 airports throughout the state, including Anchorage and Fairbanks Interna- tional Airports Coordinates all state capital improvement projects Operates the Marine Highway ferry network Coordinates and implements small harbor improve- Ment projects ALASKA STATE GOVERNMENT Issuing Department and Type Environmental Conservation Fish and Game Institutional Infrastructure Catalog DEVELOPMENT RELATED PERMITS Permit Title Waste Water Disposal Solid Waste Disposal Air Emissions Pesticides Surface Oiling Open Burning Anadromous Fish Protection Critical Habitat Areas State Game Refuge Land Use Required For: Disposal of solid or liquid waste material onto land or water except domestic sewage. Establishment, modification, or operation of a solid waste disposal facility. Operation of a facility capable of emitting quantities of pollutants injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property. Application of any pesticide or broadcast chemical. Discharge of oil, asphalt, bitumen, or similar onto land. Open burning of oils, oily waters, asphalt, tars, and similar wasted materials. Construction of hydraulic project, or use or change of natural flow of a specified water course, or use of excavating or log dragging equipment in the specified water course. Use, lease, or other disposal of land within Fish and Game critical habitat areas. Use, lease, or other disposal of real property in state game refuges. DEVELOPMENT RELATED PERMITS (continued) Issuing Department and_ Type Permit Title : Required For: Highways (Now Transportation and Public Facilities) 10. Encroachment Construction, placement, change or maintenance of an encroachment across or along a highway. 11. Utility Construction, placement, change, or maintenance of an electric transmission, telephone, or tele- graph line, pole line, railway, ditch, sewer, water, heat or gas main, flume, or other struc- ture along or across a highway. 12. Driveway Construction of driveways or any work along right-of-way. 13. Overweight-Oversize Operation of an overweight or oversize vehicle on a highway. Natural Resources (Parks and Recreation) Special Land Use Permits 14. Investigation and Collection Investigate or collect historic, prehistoric, or archeological resources of the state. 15. State Park Incompatible Uses Incompatible uses (e.g. mineral exploration, cutting of timber) of public lands within a state park, 16. Access Routes Access route across state park land or water to privately owned property within a state park. Natural Resources (Oil and Gas) Drilling Permits 17. Drilling Drilling or deepening of any well for oil and gas. 18. Drilling Deviation A well operator to intentionally deviate from the vertical. Issuing Department and Type Regulatory Orders Plan of Operation Coal Conservation 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30, 31. DEVELOPMENT RELATED PERMITS (continued) Permit Title Well Spacing Notice of Abandonment Plugging Procedure Well Marker Water Wells Temporary Abandonment Location Cleanup Multiple Completion of Wells Commingling of Production Earthen Reservoirs Disposal of Brine and Other Wastes Additional Recovery Methods Development Work Required For: Deviation from well spacing regulations. Plugging and abandoning wells. Deviation from plugging procedure set up in the regulations. Waiver of well marker requirements. A well to be used as a fresh water well, Temporary abandonment of a well. Deviation from cleanup regulations. Placing a well into multiple production, Commingling in one well bore of production from two or more wells. Storing oil in earthen pits. Disposal of salt water. Any method of pressure maintenance or methods of additional recovery used other than primary re- covery techniques. Development work on coal deposits on state lands. Issuing Department and Type DEVELOPMENT RELATED PERMITS (continued) Permit Title Natural Resources (Lands and Waters) Leasing of Lands Tide and Submerged Lands Water Use Timber 32. 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40, 41. Right-of-Way or Easement Special Land Use Tidelands Permit Tideland Right-of-Way and/or Easement Limited Personal Use Permit To Appropriate Water Dam Construction Preferred Use Application Use of Timber and Materials Authorization for Trans- portation Facilities Required For: Roads, trails, pipelines, drill sites, log storage, etc. Uses of state lands not otherwise provided for. Improvement or use of state-owned tidelands or for personal use of materials. Secondary roads, trails, pipelines, drill sites, log storage, etc., for purpose of recovering minerals from adjacent lands under lease. For a limited quantity of materials for personal use which shall not be sold. Appropriation of otherwise wnappropriated waters of the state. Construction of a dam to appropriate water. For appropriation of water as a holder of a preferred used status. Acquisition of gravel, sand, and rock used by a purchaser in connection with a sale of timber. Use of tidelands under state jurisdiction that are necessary for dumping, sorting, storage, and rafting of timber cut from state sales. Issuing Department and Type Material Sales Mineral Leasing Offshore Permits Millsites 42, 43, 44, 45. 46. 47, 48, 49, DEVELOPMENT RELATED PERMITS (continued) Permit Title Special Material Use Permit Noncompetitive Procedures Coal Prospecting Sodium Leasing Method Potassium Leasing Method Geothermal Resources Leasing Method Tide and Submerged Lands Surface Use Required For: For uses not otherwise provided for; not to exceed one year, Noncompetitive leases for a mineral on state lands. Prospecting or exploration work necessary to determine the existence of coal deposits in an unclaimed and undeveloped area. Prospecting on lands not known to contain valuable deposits of sodium; issued non- competitively. Prospecting on lands not known tc contain valuable deposits of potassium; issued non- competitively. Prospecting on lands not classified as geothermal resources areas; issued noncompetitively. Exclusive right to prospect for minerals in or on tide and submerged lands. Millsite and for tailings removal. Issuing Department and Type Forest Protection 50. Miscellaneous Land Use Sl. 52. 53, 54, 55. 56. DEVELOPMENT RELATED PERMITS (continued) Permit Title Burning Permit Operations on State Land Subleases of State Land Right-of-Way Abandonment/Reduction or Service Impairment of Pipeline Right-of-Way Leases Preservation of Archeo- logical Resources Required For: Burning of any materials in designated areas during the fire season. Use of explosives, hydraulic prospecting, or mining equipment and/or methods; drilling to more than 300 feet and activities which are determined to risk harm to lands with scenic, historic, archeological, scientific, biological, recreational, or special resource value. Subleasing or assignment of state-leased land. Roads, etc., for recovering minerals from adjacent lands under lease. Abandonment, reduction, or impairment of service of any portion of a pipeline that is on state land. Pipeline right-of-way on state land. Projects that might adversely affect archeo- logical sites or remains. ALASKA STATE GOVERNMENT Tax - Income Tax a. Individual Proprietorship and Partnership b. Corporation - Business License a. Fee b. Tax - School Tax - Corporation Franchise Tax a. Domestic b. Foreign STATE TAXES Rates 3-14.5 percent of taxable income 5.4 percent of tax- able income plus 4.0 percent surtax on income over $50,000 $25/year 1/2 percent of gross receipts between $20-100,000 1/4 percent of over $100,000 $10 per person/year $50/year $100/year Institutional Infrastructure Catalog Remarks Similar to Federal income tax. Similar to Federal tax, except 1963 rates are used, Capitation tax. Corporations only. Must also post tax liability bond (Twice estimated quarterly tax, but not less than $1,000), Tax - State Fisheries Tax a. b. Salmon Canneries Other Shore Based Processors Floating Cold Storage/ Freezer Ships - Mining License Tax STATE TAXES (continued) Rates 3 percent of value of raw fish 1-2 percent of value of product 4 percent of raw product 3 percent of net income between $40-50,000 5 percent between $50- 100,000 7 percent over $100,000 Remarks Substitute for business license tax in fishing industry, Deductions permitted on depletion al- lowance, but not on royalties New mining operations (except sand and gravel) are exempt for first 345 years of production, - Taxes on Oil and Gas (in addition to royalties on state lands - 12% percent) a. Production Tax 1) Wellhead price greater than $2.65/bbl. 2) Wellhead price less than $2.65/bbl. 5 percent on lst 300 bbls; 6 percent on next 700 bbls; 8 percent on re- mainder §.16875 on lst 300 bbls; $.2025 on next 700 bbls; $.2700 on remainder Rates based on average daily well production for the calendar month. Discovery royalties (12% percent) are deductible from this tax. Tax - Taxes on Oil and Gas (continued) b. Cc. Regulation and Conservation Tax Property Tax - Motor Fuel Tax a. Gasoline, by use 1) Motor vehicles on public highways 2) Off public roads on con- struction, farming, mining, logging, etc. 3) Propulsion of boats or watercraft 4) Other purposes (e.g. electrical plants) Aviation Fuel STATE TAXES (continued) Rates $ .125/bbl. 20 mills on full value (Jan. 1) of property used for exploration, production, or trans- portation of gas or unrefined oil 8 cents/gallon 2 cents/gallon 4 cents/gallon 2 cents/gallon 2- 4 cents/gallon Remarks On all removed or sold from each lease or property in the state. Provision is made for sharing these revenues with municipalities. Municipality and state require separate filing of tax returns. Stove oil and heating fuels are not subject to this tax. Tax STATE TAXES (continued) - Transportation Fees a. Motor Freight Truck Fees Rates (over 4,000 lbs. gross unladen weight) 1) Contractors, private carriers 2) Rental or common carriers Motor Vehicle Tax Commercial Air Carrier Aircraft Registration Fee International Airport Fees 1) Landing fees 2) Transit Parking Fees 3) Fuel Flowage Fees $25/year $35/yr.-under 12,000 lbs. $55/yr,-12,001-18,000 lbs. $75/yr.-over 18,000 lbs. $35/yr.-under 4,000 lbs. $60/yr.-4,000-12,000 lbs. $110/yr.-12,001-18,000 lbs. $160/yr.-over 18,000 lbs. $25-under 4,000 lbs. $50-4,001-7,899 lbs. $100-7,900-12,499 lbs. $150-12,500-26,999 lbs. $300-27,000-49,999 lbs. $400-50,000-74,999 lbs. $600-over 75,000 lbs. 30¢/1,000 lbs. $2/day-under 6,000 lbs. 15¢/1000 lbs/day-over 6,000 2.3¢/gal. - fuel 5¢/gal. - oil Remarks Excludes truck trailers but includes truck tractors and buses. Vehicles used exclusively for newspapers or periodicals, or by a farmer when transporting his own products or supplies, are exempt. Apply to trailing equipment; are ap- plicable to each unit of combination equipment. Based on certificated (FAA) gross takeoff weight of each aircraft utilized in intrastate commerce. Fairbanks and Anchorage International Airports For aircraft over 6,000 lbs. lbs. Tax - Miscellaneous Taxes a. Tobacco Tax Alcoholic Beverage Excise Tax Insurance Gross Premium Tax 1) Out-of-State Companies 2) Alaska Based Companies Coin Operated Device Tax Electrical Power or Telephone Cooperatives Tax Inheritance Tax STATE TAXES (continued) Rates $50/year plus 4 mills/cigarette 25¢/gal. - malt liquor 60¢/gal. - wine $4/gal. - distilled 3 percent of gross premium 1 percent of gross premiums- Title Insurance Companies -75 percent of gross premiums- Ocean Marine Companies 6 percent of net premiums- hospital/medical assns. 14s percent of gross premiums- all other companies $48 per device 1 percent of gross revenue for first 5 years, 2 percent thereafter Based at the maximum credit allowed for state tax on federal estate return Remarks Paid by each distributor or wholesaler. Paid by each brewer or whole- saler. All Alaska companies are exempt from Premium Tax for first five years. Class I devices only permitted, Institutional Infrastructure LOCAL GOVERNMENT Catalog ORGANIZED BOROUGHS A. General Description Powers: Tax assessment and collection; education on an areawide (including cities) basis; all but third class (Haines) must have planning and zoning on an areawide basis. Additional Cities in Borough Name and Powers Location-Region Area (sq. mi.) Population Class (areawide) name class population I and VI - North Slope 12,614 Home Home Rule Barrow ist 2,307 (Northwest (88,281) Rule Powers Anaktuvuk = 2nd 150 and Interior) Pass Kaktovik 2nd 137 Nuigsut 2nd 152 Point Hope 2nd 384 Wainwright 2nd 357 II (Southwest) - Bristol Bay 1,147 2nd Fire and None --- --- (1,200) Police III (Southeast) - Haines 1,980 3rd None Haines lst 1,366 (2,620) - Juneau City 19,193 Home Home Rule None --- --- and Borough Rule Powers (3,100) : : : Home - Ketchikan 11,262 2nd Airports Ketchikan 7,770 GQ Rule ateway (1,250) Saxman 2nd 272 : . Home Home Rule - Sitka City 7,100 Rule Powers None --- --- and Borough (2,900) ORGANIZED BOROUGHS (continued) B, Taxes (City and Borough) 1976 Tax Rates City or Property Tax Retail Sales Location-Region Borough (Service Area) Millage Rate Tax Rate Percent I and VI - North Slope 10.30 0-3 (Northwest Barrow, Wainwright and Interior) Point Hope 10.30 3 Other Areas 10.30 None II (Southwest) - Bristol Bay 14.00 - 15.50 3 (So. Naknek) 15.50 3 Other Areas 14.00 3 III (Southeast) - Haines 7.60 - 15.33 1-4 Haines 15.33 4 Other Areas 7.60 zl - Juneau City 14.08 - 15.36 1-3 and Borough (Juneau) 15.36 3 (Douglas) 14.41 3 Other Areas 14.08 - 15.04 as - Ketchikan 9.60 - 21.40 1,.5-4 Gateway Ketchikan 21.40 4 (Shoreline) 10.82 15 Other Areas 9.60 LS - Sitka City 5.00 4 and Borough ORGANIZED BOROUGHS (continued) Additional Cities in Borough Name and Powers Location-Region Area (sq. mi.) Population Class (areawide) name class population IV (Southcentral) - Kenai Peninsula 19,407 ‘2nd Air Pollution Kenai Home Rule 5,223 (14,697) Seward Home Rule 1,823 Homer lst 1,538 Seldovia Ist 612 Soldotna Ist 1,800 Kachemak 2nd nbanl - Kodiak Island 7,901 2nd Health and Kodiak Home Rule 4,960 (5,400) Hospital Akhiok 2nd 102 Larsen Bay 2nd 80 Old Harbor 2nd 327 Ouzinkie 2nd 173 Port Lions 2nd 227 - Matanuska- 14,606 2nd None Palmer Home Rule 1,643 Susitna Hous ton 2nd 375 (20,544) Wasilla 2nd 1,566 V (Anchorage ) - Municipality of 175,603 Home Health, None --- --- Anchorage (City Rule Sewers, and Borough) Dog Control, (1,884) Air Pollution, Transportation VII (Fairbanks) - Fairbanks 60,227 2nd Flood Control, Fairbanks oe 30,462 North Star Dog Control, (7,500) Hospital and North Home 461 Library, Air Pole Rule Pollution Location-Region IV (Southcentral) ORGANIZED BOROUGHS (continued) Borough - Kenai Peninsula ~ Kodiak Island - Matanuska-Susitna City or (Service Area) Seldovia Homer Kenai Seward Soldotna Kachemak Other Areas Kodiak Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Port Lions Ouzinkie Other Areas Palmer Houston Wasilla Other Areas 1976 Tax Rates Property Tax Millage Rate Retail Sales Tax Rate Percent 5.00 - 25.00 21.50 19.00 21.20 25.00 15.20 9.00 5,00 - 8.80 7.23 - 16.33 16.33 7.23 7.23 7.23 - 9.82 8.00 - 13.00 13.00 8.00 8.90 8.00 - 10.00 2-5 anFfwitl NON FD Location-Region V (Anchorage) VI (Fairbanks) ORGANIZED BOROUGHS (continued) Borough City or (Service Area) - Municipality of Anchorage - Fairbanks North Star (Anchorage-01) (Spendard ) (Anchorage-12) Other Areas Fairbanks North Pole Other Areas 1976 Tax Rates Property Tax Millage Rate Retail Sales Tax Rate Percent 11.75 - 20.44 20.44 20.34 19.31 11.75 - 16.58 6.30 - 16.30 16,30 12.10 6.30 - 9.30 None None None None None 2-5 c Institutional Infrastructure LOCAL GOVERNMENT Catalog CITIES IN THE UNORGANIZED BOROUGH A. First Class and Home Rule Cities (Must have planning, platting, zoning, taxation, and education functions) 1976 Tax Rates Property Tax Retail Sales Location-Region City Class Population Millage Rate Tax Rate Percent I (Northwest) Nome lst 2,585 17.90 3 . Selawik lst 521 None 3 II (Southwest) Dillingham lst 1,176 18.50 3 King Cove lst 379 10.00 2 St. Marys ist 415 None None Unalaska lst 510 17.50) al III (Southeast) Craig lst 467 11.00 3 Hoonah lst 848 None 3 Hydaburg 1st 384 None 3 Kake ist 679 None 3 Klawock 1st 281 None 2 Metlakatla % Oo: * * Pelican lst 169 14.50 a} Petersburg HR 2,126 12.00 5 Skagway ist 858 18.00 3 Wrangell HR Sea 6.450 - 12.900 5 Yakutat ast 442 20.00 2 “Organized under Federal law Location-Region IV (Southcentral) VI (Interior) CITIES IN THE UNORGANIZED BOROUGH (continued) Property Tax 1976 Tax Rates Retail Sales City Class Population Millage Rate Tax Rate Percent Cordova HR 2,406 18.50 4 Valdez HR 8,253 8.118 - 10.000 4 Galena ist 631 None 3 Nenana 1st 493 10.00 2 B. Second Class Cities (May have planning, platting, and zoning functions) Location-Region I (Northwest) 1976 Sales Tax City Population Rate Percent Ambler 217, 2. Brevig Mission 120 3 Buckland 172 2 Deering 100 3 Diomede 90 0 Elim 205 2 Gambell 412 ? Golovin 118 ? Kiana 314 0 Kivalina 208 2 Kobuk 60 ? Kotzebue 2,431 3 City Koyuk Noorvik St. Michael Savoonga Shaktoolik Shishmaref Shungnak Stebbins Teller Unalakleet Wales White Mountain Population 160 527 206 414 160 320 182 334 219 632 109 103 1976 Sales Tax Rate Percent NNN ND Dv 0 I 0 Vw Location-Region II (Southwest) CITIES IN THE UNORGANIZED BOROUGH (continued) City Akiachak Akiak Akolmiut Alakanuk Aleknagik Aniak Anvik Atinautluak Bethel Chefornak Chevak Chuathbaluk City of St. Paul Clark's Point Diomede Eek Ekwok Emmonak Fortuna Ledge Goodnews Bay Grayling Holy Cross Hooper Bay Kotlik Koyukuk Kwethluk Lower Kalskag Manokotak Population 371 186 608 526 227 323 87 114 3,004 182 447 119 456 938 930 95) 109 524 200 248 167 212 590 284 124 415 195 225 1976 Sales Tax Rate Percent VV VO WwW on ow Cw wv RrPrwo WN ~~ VNC moO w+ City McGrath Mekoryuk Mountain Village Napakiak Napaskiak New Stuyahok Newhalen Newtok Nightmute Nikolai Nondalton Pilot Station Platinum Port Heiden Quinhagak Russian Mission Sand Point Scammon Bay Shageluk Sheldon Point Togiak Toksook Bay Tuluksak Tununak Upper Kalskag Population 296 192 513 276 210 230 89 124 123 120 226 301 65 89 395 150 528 215 169 136 419 317 202 291 164 1976 Sales Tax Rate Percent noo VON W orwv oO Vow n vVoon nN NWN DY Location-Region III (Southeast) IV (Southcentral) VI (Interior) VII (Fairbanks) CITIES IN THE UNORGANIZED BOROUGH (continued) City Population Angoon 437 Kasaan 38 Kupreanof 42 Whittier 292 Allakaket 164 Anderson 470 Eagle* 178 Fort Yukon 637 Hughes 98 Huslia 207 Delta Junction 892 = “Eagle was the only second class city in the unorganized borough to have a property tax in 1976 (3.0 millage rate). 1976 Sales Tax Rate Percent we oon oO *wwo ow It had no sales tax. City Population Port Alexander Tenakee Springs Kaltag Koyukuk Nulato Ruby Tanana $1 109 240 124 331 148 499 1976 Sales Tax Rate Percent on Vow oO ~ Institutional Infrastructure Catalog RELEVANT LIBRARIES AND DATA CENTERS Location and Center Anchorage University of Alaska Library Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center Alaska Health Sciences Information Center Alaska Resources Library (U.S. Department of Interior regional library) U.S. Geological Survey, Public Inquiries Office Collection Type Second largest research collection in state (approximately 290,000 books and government documents ) Published and unpublished information on Alaskan resources and natural systems Cold weather human physiology, medicine, and Arctic environmental health problems Emphasis on published environmental informa- tion about Alaska Sells Geological Survey publications and maps and maintains an extensive collection of past publications RELEVANT LIBRARIES AND DATA CENTERS (continued) Location and Center Fairbanks University of Alaska Elmer E. Rasmusson Library Geophysical Institute Institute of Marine Science Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Unit Juneau Alaska State Library Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory Library, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center Collection Type More than 500,000 books and public documents. Developing a union list of serials of major libraries in Alaska. Publishes monthly Bibliography of Alaskana ERTS/Landsat, U-2 imagery; climatic data Marine sciences reprint file with computerized index. Unpublished data on Alaskan waters Worldwide wildlife research papers with emphasis on Alaska Has approximately 90,000 books and government documents. Publishes the Alaska Library Net- work Resource Directory, Alaskana Project In-depth collection of oceanographic and fisheries biology information Collection on Alaskan mining and mineral re- sources. Publications and maps available RELEVANT LIBRARIES AND DATA CENTERS (continued) Location and Center Barrow Naval Arctic Research Laboratory Library Outside Alaska Arctic Institute of North America (Calgary, Alberta) Boreal Institute of Northern Studies (Edmonton, Alberta) U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Library (Hanover, N.H.)- Ohio State University, Institute of Polar Studies (Columbus, Ohio) U.S. Geological Survey, Technical Data Unit, Alaska Geology Branch (Menlo Park, California) University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute (Seattle, Washington) U.S. Forest Service, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington (Seattle) Collection Type Articles and reports by researchers--many never published. Arctic materials in many languages, subjects, and formats Concentrates on northern circumpolar area Reports research on physics and mechanics of cold regions materials and engineering Mainly physical and biological sciences Field and research files. Alaskan Mineral Resource Assessment Program, a ten-year project begun in 1974 Data on Alaskan salmon fisheries Pacific Coast Forest Research Information Network DATA SOURCES Institutional Infrastructure Catalog Alaska State Government SEE Units with Significant Impact on Development Alaska State Department of Education, Division of State Libraries and Museum. Alaska Blue Book 1977, 1977. Development Related Permits Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board. "Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas: In-State Use--A Developer's Guide" (Draft Report), 1977. State Taxes Alaska State Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. "Establishing a Business in Alaska,"' December 1976. Local Government General Information, Powers Arctic Environmental Information Data Center, University of Alaska. Alaska Regional Profiles. Prepared for Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission, 1974-1977, 6 vol. Population Alaska State Department of Community and Regional Affairs. "Organized Boroughs and Cities" (map), January 1, 1977. Tax Rates Alaska State Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Alaska Taxable 1976, January 1977. Relevant Libraries and Data Centers Hickock, David M. "Storage, Transfer and Usage of Alaskan Environmental Information," Arctic Bulletin, pp. 189-193. C. ALASKA PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE C.1l. Region I. Northwest The region is characterized by an extremely low level of infrastruc- tural development. The most highly developed community in the region, Nome, has very limited facilities of any kind and very little "industrial- type" development. The transportation network in the region is very poor and there are no developed surface links to other areas of the state. The only road network of any appreciable size consists of a few relatively short roads radiating from Nome to nearby smaller communities. Numerous highway and pipeline corridors have been proposed to link the region to other areas, however. Several proposed corridors would also accommodate extensions of the Alaska Railroad into the Nome-Kotzebue areas and an extensive electrical transmission grid tying the region to the Fairbanks area. (See map of the regions at end of section.) Marine transportation to coastal areas of the region is (1) infrequent because of seas frozen much of the year and (2) expensive because of dis- tance from major ports and extremely shallow waters offshore. Shallow draft lightering craft must be utilized to transport cargo to docks or beaches from ocean vessels anchored as much as 40 or 50 miles offshore (e.g. Kotzebue). Lightering services to Kotzebue, for instance, have been estimated to make up one-quarter of the total shipping costs from Seattie.+ Nome has the best port facilities in the region but is also darctic Environmental Information Data Center, 1976, Northwest Region Volume, p. 233. C-2 the most expensive single port in the state to maintain, requiring exten- sive dredging for lighterage vessels and small boats. 2 A recent prelim- inary study? of 29 potential port sites indicated that Point Hope and Kivalina offered some potential to accommodate freighters and tankers with special ice-breaking capabilities. Nome, however, appears to have the best potential in the region for improved on-shore facilities, al- though Teller is a better choice as an offshore terminal. The region is served by regular ocean freight service on an infre- quent basis. Lightering companies service many smaller communities along the coast and up the Noatak and Kobuk Rivers from Nome and Kotzebue on a demand basis when ice conditions allow. Heavy reliance is placed on the annual visits of the Bureau of Indian Affairs freighter, the North Star III. Because of the limited surface transportation network, the region is highly dependent on air transportation. There are well-developed trunk airport facilities at Nome, Kotzebue, and Barrow along with numerous lesser facilities throughout the region. In comparison with the rest of the state, however, the density in terms of airports per unit of land area is somewhat low, and there are very few developed seaplane ports. In addition to civilian facilities, there are numerous military airports in the region servicing DEW line stations. 2 Institute of Social and Economic Research, September 1976, p. 138. 3Engineering Computer Opteconomics, Inc., 1977. While a large number of communities in the region have local tele- phone service, the communications system must still be considered rudi- mentary. A new network of earth stations (satellite) installed in the region has vastly improved communications links with the rest of the state and outside areas and extended linkages to peripheral areas in the region. New microwave linkages have also been created. With the exception of the Barrow utility utilizing natural gas, all electrical utilities in the region rely solely on oil-fired diesel generators. C.2. Region II. Southwest The level of infrastructural development in this region is very low, and many of the characteristics of Region I are also applicable to this region. There are notable differences, however, that account for a slightly higher level of development in this region: (1) Commercial fishing activities and concomitant processing plants have provided a significant industrial base to parts of the region (e.g. Bethel, Dilling- ham, the Aleutians). (2) Large navigable rivers (e.g. Yukon, Kuskokwim) provide good links to the interior of the region and to the rest of the state. (3) While much of the coastal waters are shallow, there are several actual or potential deepwater ports in the region (e.g. Bethel and numerous locations in the Aleutians). No roads exist in the region except for short links between closely neighboring towns or villages or from towns to airports or waterfront Arctic Environmental Information Data Center, 1976, Northwest Region Volume, pp. 240-242. landings. No railroad or significant pipeline linkages exist in the region. Several highway and pipeline corridors have been proposed for the region to link mainland communities (including the Alaska Peninsula) to the Northwest and Interior Regions of the state. An Alaska Peninsula corridor has also been recommended for an electrical transmission line. No provision was made for an extension of the railroad into the region by the Bureau of Land Management's 1974 preliminary corridor study.° In addition to annual visits of the BIA freighter North Star III, regular marine freight service is available to many coastal towns and villages in the region. Lightering services are generally required to transfer supplies from freighter to shore, except at the deepwater ports at Bethel (65 miles up the Kuskokwim River) and at several places in the Aleutians. Nash Harbor on Nunivak Island and Kuskokwim Bay have potential as deepwater ports as do Stepovak Bay and Chignik (and to a lesser extent Amber and Puale Bays). The latter also offer the advantage of being in the "essentially ice-free zone."'6 There is a significant amount of commercial freight service on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Ocean vessels cannot enter the Yukon, but shallow draft vessels and barges serve it on a regular basis (during the ice-free summer months) from St. Michael on the west and Nenana. (Alaska Railroad transshipment point) on the east. Marine Highway ferry systems Sus. Bureau of Land Management, October 1974, pp. 10-15. Sengineering Computer Opteconomics, Inc., 1977. for the river have been proposed.’ The Kuskokwim, which is navigable by ocean-going vessels up to Bethel, is served by two commercial car- riers as far as 465 miles upriver, beyond McGrath. A canal connecting the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers above Bethel has been proposed. ® Other rivers in the region are also served on a demand basis by lightering services in Dillingham. As in Region I, deficiencies in the existing transportation system make the area very dependent on air transport. World War II and the Cold War that followed left a heritage of large airstrips in the Aleutians. The civilian airport at Cold Bay is one of the state's three international class airports (Anchorage and Fairbanks are the others) and is utilized by transcontinental air carriers as a refueling stop. There are also very good trunk airports at Amchitka and at McGrath, Bethel, and King Salmon on the mainland. Numerous other trunk and secondary airports and seaplane ports are scattered throughout the region. Communications systems are very underdeveloped. The larger communi- ties have local telephone service (many military-operated), but the area in general is very dependent on "bush telephones" or other radiotelephone services. New satellite earth stations have improved service tremendously, but many communities remain unlinked or poorly linked to other areas of the region or outside. All electrical utilities are small and rely ex- clusively on diesel generators. Tnstitute of Social and Economic Research, September 1976, p. 170. 8y.s. Bureau of Land Management, October 1974. C.3. Region III. Southeast The region is unique in that it has attained a relatively high level of development with virtually no land transportation linkages. Highly developed marine and air transportation systems have compensated somewhat for the isolation of the region as a whole and of individual communities within. Development in the region includes a fair amount of industrial activity based almost exclusively on the processing of renewable resources (fish and timber). Some local road systems are fairly well developed, but road linkages between communities and to outside areas are few; vehicular traffic is dependent on the Marine Highway ferry network. The Haines, Highway con- nects that community to the Alaska Highway and the White Pass and Yukon Railway provides vehicle ferry service between Skagway and Whitehorse. A highway link between Skagway and Whitehorse is also scheduled for com- pletion next year. The small community of Hyder is also connected to British Columbia highways, but because of the community's isolation from the rest of the region, the connection is of little significance. The narrow gauge White Pass and Yukon Railway (Skagway-Whitehorse) is owned by Canadian interests and serves as a primary supply route and mineral export carrier for the Yukon Territory, operating in conjunction with container ships from Vancouver. Skagway is a duty-free port for goods in transit.? The railroad also operates a small pipeline (4") for °Institute of Social and Economic Research, September 1976. C-7 diesel fuel and heating oil between Skagway and Whitehorse. In addition, there is a petroleum products pipeline (8") built by the military and abandoned several years ago that runs from Haines to the military bases around Fairbanks. Numerous proposals have been made at one time or another to link various major Southeast communities with each other and with the Canadian road network. 2° No plans have been made for construction in the immediate future! and no corridors for these purposes were recommended by BLM's 1974 corridor study .12 A corridor for an electrical grid linking these communities was proposed, however. The region is highly dependent on marine transportation systems and is generally well served from Seattle and Prince Rupert (B.C.) by com- mercial freight carriers and by the state-owned Marine Highway ferry system. There are numerous well-developed, ice-free port facilities throughout the region. The air transportation system is well developed also with good trunk airports and regular jet service at all the major communities. Developed facilities for seaplanes are particularly numerous. 10. , 3 aes For example: Joint Federal Land Use Planning Commission, 1975, p- 595. 1lalaska State Department of Highways and Department of Public Works, January 1977. 12y,5, Bureau of Land Management, October 1974, pp. 10-15. Juneau and Ketchikan, the major population centers, function as the hubs of the marine and air transportation networks. 19 Intraregional communications and links with outside areas are fairly well developed. New microwave systems have been installed by RCA which provide good communications between regional eemhate tes and to the main satellite earth station near Juneau. This station is supplemented Us Most com- by smaller earth stations in Tenakee Springs and Yakutat. munities in the region have regular local and long distance telephone service, but several are still dependent on "bush phones" or other radiotelephone systems. The region's utilities rely heavily on hydro- electric generation supplemented by diesel generators. C.4. Regions IV and V. Southcentral and Anchorage Relative to the rest of the state, Anchorage and the surrounding Southcentral Region have a very high level of infrastructural develop- ment. Most larger communities are linked by good roads (and/or ferry) and by a highly developed communications system. There are numerous large deepwater ports and the areas are well served by commercial marine freight services. The Alaska Railroad and a well-developed air trans- portation system are also important to the area. arctic Environmental Information Data Center, 1976. Southeast Region Volume, p. 201. l4tpid., pp. 207-209. Cc-9 Most of the paved highways in the state pass through these regions, including: (1) The George Parks Highway which provides a very direct route between Anchorage and Fairbanks via McKinley Park; (2) The Richardson Highway which links Valdez and Fairbanks via the Alaska Highway from Delta Junction; (3) The Glenn Highway which connects Anchorage to the Rich- ardson Highway and proceeds northeast ("Anchorage Cut- Off") to the Alaska Highway; and (4) The Seward and Sterling Highways which provide access from Anchorage to Portage, Seward, Soldotna, Kenai, and Homer. The unpaved Denali Highway, which used to provide the only road ac- cess to Mt. McKinley, connects the new Parks Highway with the Richardson Highway. Other unpaved highways include the Edgerton Highway connecting Chitina and McCarthy to the Richardson Highway, and the Copper River High- way leading from Cordova to a dead end in the Copper River area. The latter may eventually link up with the Richardson Highway. There are also local road networks of varying complexity in and around Southcentral Region communities and, of course, there is a fairly highly developed urban network in the Anchorage erea. Several historical attempts at railroad construction were made in the region, and a 195 mile railroad was operating up into the 1930s between Cordova and the Kennicott copper mine.?° The Alaska Railroad 5 Institute of Social and Economic Research, September 1976, p. 78. c-10 is the only one currently in operation. It connects Fairbanks and near- by Eilson Air Force Base to Anchorage (via McKinley Park) and ports at Seward and Whittier. It has spurs to the Healy coal mining area and to Palmer (agriculture) and also interfaces with Yukon River barge traffic at Nenana. Railbarges from Whittier interface with Canadian (via Prince Rupert) or other U.S. (via Portland or Seattle) railroads. It also connects with the Marine Highway ferry network at Seward and at Whittier. The only land access to Whittier is by train, and special trains carry passengers and private vehicles from Anchorage and Portage to that port. There are several large oil and gas pipelines in the region in addition to the well-known new Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. Two pipelines run from the Kenai area up to Anchorage: (1) a pipeline from the Kenai fields providing natural gas for local consumption in the Anchorage area (an extension feeder line is also proposed for this system); and (2) a petroleum products line from Nikiski refinery to a storage and distribution terminal at the port of Anchorage. There is also a military pipeline from Whittier to Anchorage military facilities used to supply fuel to these bases from the Whittier terminal. Several crude oil collector lines also exist, feeding offshore terminals from the Kenai and Cook Inlet oil fields. Proposed corridors in the 1974 BLM study do not include any expan- sion of the railroad system in the region but do envision an expanded C-11 electrical transmission grid from Valdez to Big Delta. The corridor study does provide for pipelines along existing highway routes and into Western Upper Cook Inlet. Proposed corridors would allow highway ex- pansion into western Cook Inlet, completion of the Copper River Highway, and a road to the McGrath area from the Anchorage area. 16 Marine Highway ferry service, while not as extensive as in the Southeast, is fairly well developed, providing links between communities on Prince William Sound and also between Seward, Homer and Seldovia, and Kodiak Island. Commercial marine freight services, especially at Anchor- age and Whittier, are frequent and extensive. There are several deep- water ports, three of which have rail connections, and three major crude oil terminals at Valdez, Nikiski (near Kenai), and Drift River (West Cook Inlet). There are also numerous small harbors, especially in Cook Inlet and on Kodiak Island. Several>sites on Kodiak and (to a lesser extent) one on the upper Alaska Peninsula (Kamishak Bay) have good potential for development of large-scale port facilities. Anchorage International Airport, of course, has great importance as the focus of much of the air travel within and to the state, and also serves as a stopover for many international flights between Europe and Asia. There are also two large general aviation airports in the city: 1655. Bureau of Land Management, October 1974, pp. 10-15. C-12 Merrill Field and Lake Hood (seaplanes). Within the Southcentral Region, there are very good trunk airports at Kodiak, Gulkana, Cordova, and Kenai. In addition, there are numerous trunk and secondary airports throughout the region. While communications services in general are very good, there are still many small communities in the Southcentral Region that have no telephone service other than "bush phones" or other radiotelephone link- ages. These communities are generally not located on the highway or ferry networks. The Anchorage area, however, is the communications center for the state, and the RCA earthstation located in Talkeetna is the pri- mary communications carrier for long distance telecommunications and television transmission for the entire state. This region is unique in that most electrical generation is fueled by natural gas. Hydroelectric power is of minor importance, and some small, local utilities depend heavily on diesel generation. C.5. Region VI. Interior The region as a whole is relatively undeveloped with small, scattered settlements (all less than 1,000 population). Development of petroleum resources on the region's Arctic coast and the new TAPS pipeline through the region have had a major impact, however. The Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway pass through a small portion of the region and several gravel roads link a few of the region's communities to other areas of C-13 the state. There is a minor amount of "industrial" type development in the railbelt area. Rivers, particularly the Yukon, still play an import- ant role as a transportation link for many communities in the region. The focal point for river traffic in the state is at Nenana, where rail shipments are transferred to river barges. The Steese and Elliott Highways provide access from Fairbanks to Circle, Manley Hot Springs, and to the TAPS haul road to Prudhoe Bay. The TAPS road is now open for public use to the Yukon River; when or if public use of the remaining road, which is state-owned, will be allowed is currently at issue.27 The Taylor Highway connects Eagle to the Alaska Highway and to the road to Dawson City (Y.T.). Except for some small sections, all these highways are unpaved and closed in the winter. The George Parks Highway (between Anchorage and Fairbanks and parallel to the vailroad) is a paved, all-weather road. Numerous transportation corridors for the region have been proposed. Many of those recommended by the BLM's corridor study? would accommodate pipelines (and associated roads) to transport North Slope petroleum and natural gas resources. Corridors that could accommodate an expansion of the rail and road network from Southcentral Alaska through the Interior Region into the Northwest were also recommended. Proposals to extend the railroad to the North Slope have been made, but costs appear to be 17 Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, 1977. 1851s, Bureau of Land Management, October 1974. C-14 19 prohibitive. A relatively small extension of the railroad to the Yukon River has also been proposed. A location on the Yukon, replacing Nenana (on the Tanana River) as the main rail/barge interface, could provide two additional months of river service since the Tanana is frozen that much longer each year than the Yukon. 2° The only marine facility of any consequence in the region, at Prud- hoe Bay, handled a considerable amount of barge traffic during pipeline construction.21 As is the case with all Alaska Arctic ports, however, extremely shallow drafts and short ice-free periods severely limit the potential for marine transportation. River transportation, on the other hand, especially on the Yukon and Tanana Rivers, was very important in the early development of the state and is still a very important component of the region's transportation system. The most important barge services operate from the railroad transshipment terminal at Nenana and serve the Yukon River on a regular basis via the Tanana River. About 80 percent of the traffic on the Yukon River was accounted for by shipments to the Air Force base at Galena from Nenana.2? There is some freight service to as far upstream as Fort Yukon and some service up the Porcupine River when 19tnstitute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, September 1976, p. 83. 20rnid., p. 83. 2iiaid., pp. 134-135. erp rath png! c-15 water levels allow. Similarly, freight traffic on the Koyokuk River is possible as far as Bettles during high water periods. While much of the river system in the Interior is navigable by shallow draft river craft, ice conditions limit traffic to the summer months. Because of the lack of roads, the seasonality of river transporta- tion, and the general isolation of most communities, air transportation is very important to the region. As would be expected, considering the small size of communities in the region, airports are generally small gravel or dirt strips. There is a very good airport at Galena (also utilized by the Air Force) which is the only paved field in the region. There are numerous good, but unpaved, fields including several that were created for the construction of the pipeline. Regular telephone service is available to most communities in the railbelt, to many along the Yukon River, and to several elsewhere in the region. In general, however, communication systems in the region are poorly developed, and many communities have no services at all and must rely entirely on "bush phones." Electrical utilities in the region are all small and exclusively dependent on diesel generators. C-15 C.6. Region VII. Fairbanks Next to the Anchorage area, this region is the most highly developed in the state. Fairbanks is the state's second largest city and is the commercial and service center for the northern and interior areas of the state. The region straddles the Alaska Highway from Canada and access to much of the region is fairly good. Development is concentrated in Fairbanks and surrounding communities (e.g. North Pole), however. The region is well served by the state's highway network, notably the Alaska, Richardson, and Pars Highways. A portion of the Glenn High- way ("Tok Cutoff") also passes through the region, connecting the Alaska and Richardson Highways and providing a shorter route to Anchorage from the Alaska Highway. Several unpaved, seasonal highways also link smaller outlying communities to the primary road network: 1) Taylor Highway to Eagle and the road to Dawson City; 2) Steese Highway to Circle; 3) Elliott Highway to Manley Hot Springs and the TAPS haul road; and 4) a road to Nabesna from the Glenn Highway. The Alaska Railroad connecting Fairbanks and Eilson Air Force Base to Anchorage, Whittier, and Seward is an important link to the region. Expansion of the railroad system through the region to eventually link with the Canadian rail system has been proposed. 7? River traffic is relatively unimportant in the region; there is some traffic along the Tanana, and the Chena River is sometimes navigable by small draft boats. 23, Ibid., p. 82. C-17 In addition to the newly constructed TAPS oil pipeline (and feeder and delivery lines to the North Pole refinery) and the proposed gas pipe- line from Prudhoe Bay through Canada, there are two military lines that are no longer utilized: There is an abandoned 4" line, unsupported and surface laid that was built for the military in the 1940s. There is also an 8" products line built for the military in 1953 that links Haines with the military installations near Fairbanks. The latter line also has in- termediate storage at Tok. The 1974 corridor study recommends that corridors be reserved for pipelines and electrical transmission grids along the railbelt and Alaska Highway. Provision for expansion of the electrical grid to Rampart was also made, although the Rampart hydroelectric project is not considered probable at this point.2+ The region is well served by telecommunications and electrical utility networks. The region is unique in that most of its electrical production is produced from coal (from the Usibelli mines at Healy). Atul. Bureau of Land Management, October 1974. C-18 C.7. Projections of Physical Infrastructure It is difficult to speculate about the direction and timing of future infrastructure development in the state. Existing facilities will continue to be upgraded, but the construction of significant new infrastructure will in most cases be closely associated with specific, large development projects. Exceptions would occur in those cases where an existing need can be identified, such as the Skagway to Whithorse road. It is possible, of course, that the development of infrastructure would precede the demand for that infrastructure. Two possible areas where this could occur would be in the extension of the Alaska railroad and in the construction of hydroelectric power plants in Southeast Alaska. These projects are being discussed, but their outcomes are by no means certain. Projecting beyond this would be pure speculation. C=19 Figure C.1. ALASKA MAP REGIONS Interior Physical Infrastructure Northwest Region (I) _ LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog I. Major Roads Length (miles) Surface Remarks All roads are maintained in summer only. Nome-Teller Road 152 gravel Nome-Council Road 32 now gravel Passable to Safety Bay only; total (75 total) route will be repaired by 1982. Nome-Taylor Read Sine gravel Passable to Kougarok only. (Kougarok Road) Note: A road to Nome from the TAP Haul Road via Bettles ("Western Access Road") was proposed by the Alaska Department of Highways. II. Railroads Route Length (miles) Remarks a There are no operating railroads in the Northwest Region. III. Pipelines (petroleum & gas) Type Diameter Length "Daily Remarks Cin.) (miles) Cap. Barrow Fields to Barrow gas 6 5) --- U.S. Government owned; transports gas from fields south of Barrow to city. Physical Infrastructure Northwest Region (continued) LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog IV. Proposed Land Corridors Mode BLM Approx. Elect. No, Name Length Direction Hwy. RR Pipe Trans. Remarks 1 Lisburne-Koyuk 375 N-S X xX X 2 Pet 4, South 300 N-S x xX X From Wainwright 3 Lower Kobuk Valley 125 E-W X xX xX 4 Prospect-Lost River 550 E-W xX xX xX xX Interior Region to . Nome-Kotzebue area 5 Seward Peninsula, 275 E-W xX xX So. Coast 6 Pet 4, East 250 E-W X Xx 11. Koyuk/Kamishak Bay 650 N-S X xX Nome area to lower (gen. ) , Cook Inlet Physical Infrastructure Northwest Region (I) WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog I, Marine Transportation Facilities and Services A. Existing Types of Service Communities Regular Freight Service Nome (shallow draft dock and lighters) Kotzebue BIA Ship and Lightering Services Barrow Teller Brevig (once/year) Mission Deering Diomede Elim Gambell Kivalina Koyuk Point Hope Savoonga Shaktoolik Shishmaref Stebbins Unalakleet Wainwright Wales White Mt., and others on demand BR. Selected Potential Port Sites (29 statewide) Ice Zone and Port Name Suitability Rank (costs/ton) exposed single onshore offshore point mooring 1. Multiyear ice (4 statewide) Kivalina 4 2 5 Point Hope ! 2 1 4 Point Lay 3 4 10 Kotzebue not suitable 3 8 Physical Infrastructure Northwest Region (continued WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog Ice Zone and Port Name Suitability Rank (costs/ton) exposed single onshore offshore point mooring 2. Annual ice (10 statewide) Nome 3 6 6 Golovin Bay (Cape Darby) 4 not suitable not suitable Pastol Bay/St. Michael 5 not suitable not suitable Teller 6 5) 3 Note: Separate rankings for each ice zone were made, except for exposed single point mooring which combines both ice zones (n=14). II. Major Navigable Rivers Navigable Range Draft Limitations Existing Services Colville Limits unknown Skiffs with negligible --- drafts Noatak From mouth to: (a) 18 miles below (a) shallow draft barges On demand by lightering Noatak Village services based in (b) Noatak Village (b) shallow draft boats Kotzebue Kobuk From mouth to: : (a) Ambler (a) 3 ft. controlling ~ On demand by lightering depth services based in (b) Kobuk Village (b) 2 ft. controlling Kotzebue (210 miles) depth AIR TRANSPORTATION Aids* Physical Infrastructure Catalog Remarks Unattended Unattended Unattended Jnattended Unattended FAA Unlisted Northwest Region (1) Airports No. Type 15 Trunk or International Airports Runway Length Radio Name CEE) Runway Surface ee ee eee ene Kotzebue 5,999 Asphalt A Kiana (Baker Mem. ) 4,000 Gravel c Lost River #1 3,650 Gravel C Nome City - 6,000 Asphalt A Nome : 3,200 Gravel Cc Moses Point 4,623 Asphalt A Unalakleet 6,000 Gravel A Savoonga 4,000 Gravel Cc Gambell Municipality 4,500 Asphalt c Point Hope 2,400 Gravel Cc Barrow 6,500 Asphalt A Knifeblade Ridge 3,600 Gravel A Umiat 5,384 Gravel B Anaktuvuk Pass 44430 Gravel c West Kuparuk 5,033 Gravel Cc 73 Secondary Airports 2 Seaplane Ports 4 Heliports 14 Military Airports * 4 — Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system B - Non-directional radio beacon Cc - None Northwest Region (I) Communities by Highest Level of Available Service No. 32 Telephone System Ambler Point Hope Buckland Selawik Deering Shungnak Kiana Brevig Mission Kivalina Diomede Kotzebue Elim Noatak Gambell Noorvik Golovin 1 "Bush Phone" 2 Other Radiotelephone Linkages TELECOMMUNICATIONS Koyuk Moses Point Nome St. Michael Savoonga Shaktoolik Shishmaref Stebbins Physical Infrastructure Catalog Teller Unalakleet Wales White Mountain Barrow Cape Lisburne Point Lay Wainwright ' Northwest Region (1) Selected Communities Barrow Kotzebue Nome Physical Infrastructure COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Catalog, Population Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Acres % Vac, Acres % Vac. 2,307 subsistence, : government 2 100 None 11/74 Flat, undrained, permafrost to 500 ft., piling necessary. 2,431 subsistence, 0 -- ? No land in city government zoned for indus- trial purposes. 2,585 transportation, 2,560 70 14 100 11/75 commerce, sq. mi. government center Physical Infrastructure Northwest Region (1) ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Catalog, I. Utilities (1976 data) Location Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Diesel Gas Steam Generation Total Hydro (GEC) Turbine Turbine Million KWH Fuels Barrow (BU&EC) (Arctic ares) 5,15 1.15 4.00 8.32 Gas, Oil Elim (AVEC) 0.21 0.21; 0.27 Oil Gambell (AVEC) 0.18 0.18 0.31 Oil Kiana (AVEC) 0.65 0.65 0.61 Oil Kivalina (AVEC) 0.16 0.16 0.26 Oil Kotzebue (KtEA) 3.42 3.42 : 8.37 oil Koyuk (AVEC) 0.15 (Orel!) Onl, Oil Noatak (AVEC) 0.15 0.15 0.23 Oil Nome (NLEP) 4,34 4.34 13.59 Oil Noorvik (AVEC) , 0.30 0.30 0.60 oil Point Hope (AVEC thru 9/23/76) 0.21 0.21 0.10 Oil St. Michael (AVEC) 0.05 0.05 0.24 Oil Savoonga (AVEC) 0.45 0.45 0.44 oil Selawik (AVEC) 0.35 0.35 0.68 Oil Shaktoolik (AVEC) 0.10 0.10 0.13 Oil Shishmaref (AVEC) 0.41 0.41 0.34 Oil Shungnak (AVEC) 0.41 0.41 0.20 Oil Stebbins (AVEC) 0.15 0-15 0.24 Oil Teller (TePC)* 0.08 0.08 0.17 Oil Unalakleet (MEA) 1.05 1.05 1.69 Oil Wales (AVEC) 0.26 0.26 0.09 Oil Total, Northwest Region 18.20 14.20 4.00 37.00 Gas Generation 8.3 ————————— Diesel Generation 28.7 ©1970 data Total 37.0 Northwest Region (continued) ELECTRICAL II. Military (FY 1976 data) U.S. Air Force*# Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) Diesel 1,970 5,648 Gas Turbine --~ — Total 1,970 5,648 rr CAPACITY AND GENERATION USN and USCG Total Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) --- --- 1,970 5,648 3,000 10,000 3,000 10,000 3,000 10,000 4,970 15,648 Fuels Oil Gas “"50 percent of capacity and generation shown for APA's Arctic/Northwest region assumed to be in Interior Region. Physical Infrastructure Southwest Region (II) LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog I. Major Roads Length (miles) Surface Remarks There are no major roads in the region. There are short roads from towns to airports or waterfront landings and several small links between neighboring towns or villages. Most notable of these links are: 1) Ophir to Sterling Landing 2) King Salmon to Naknek 3) Dillingham and Kanakanak to Aleknagik Note: A road to McGrath ("McGrath Highway") from the George Parks Highway north of McKinley Park has been proposed. II. Railroads Route Length (miles) Remarks pn There are no operating railroads in the Southwest Region. III. Pipelines (petroleum & gas) Type Diameter Length Daily Remarks (in. ) (miles) Cap. There are currently no major pipelines in the Southwest Region. Southwest Region (continued) Iv. Proposed Land Corridors BLM No. aA) 13 16 17 18 35 Name Koyuk-Kamishak Bay Bethel-Rex Port Alsworth-Copper Bristol Bay Pipeline Alaska Peninsula Rainy Pass Physical Infrastructure LAND TRANSPORTATION _ Catalog Mode Approx. Elect. Length Direction Hwy. RR Pipe Trans. Remarks 650 N-S xX . xX Cook Inlet to (gen. ) Nome area 500 | NE-SW x X ; To Interior Region 80 E-W x xX Lake Iliamna area 150-200 N-S xX Across Kvichak Bay 500 NE-SW xX xX x 2291 NW-SE xX Link Anchorage and McGrath areas . Physical Infrastructure Southwest: Region (IT) WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog, I. Marine Transportation Facilities and Services A. Existing Types of Service Communities Regular Freight Service Lightering Required shallow draft dock Napakiak Naknek beach lightering Dillingham Platinum No Lightering Bethel Sand Point Unalaska Dutch Harbor Captain's Bay Adak B. Selected Potential Port Sites (29 statewide) Ice Zone and Port Name Suitability Rank (costs/ton) exposed single onshore offshore point mooring 1. Annual ice (10 statewide) Kuskokwim Bay (Cape Newenham) al a 1 Nash Harbor 2 2 2 Goodnews Bay 7 not suitable not suitable Nushagak Bay 8 3 6 Scammon Bay 9 not suitable not suitable Kvichak Bay . 10 4 ; 7 Note: Onshore and offshore rankings are for annual ice ports (n=10); rankings for exposed single point mooring are for combined annual ice and multiyear ice zones (n=14). Southwest Region (continued) Note: II. WATER TRANSPORTATION 2. Essentially ice free (15 statewide) Stepovak Bay Chignik Amber Bay/Aniakchak Bay Puale Bay Wide Bay Cold Bay Becharof/Kanatak facilities and minimal dredging. Major Navigable Rivers Kuskokwim Navigable Range (a) to Bethel (65 miles from mouth) (b) 65 miles past McGrath (465 miles from mouth total) (a) (b) Physical Infrastructure Catalog Maximum Ship Size 250,000 250,000 140,000 140,000 90,000 40,000 15,000 Maximum ship size is that which could be accommodated with onshore Draft Limitations 18 foot ocean going vessels shallow draft (4 foot) vessels DWT DWT DWT DWT DWT DWT DWT Existing Services Served by 2 regular carriers, one operating from Bethel to McGrath, the other from Bethel to area above McGrath up to Nikolai. Also served on demand by lightering services based in Bethel. Southwest Region (continued) WATER TRANSPORTATION II. Major Navigable Rivers (continued) Nushagak Kuichak Yukon Navigable Range From mouth (Dillingham) to Nunachuak (about 100 miles) (a) from mouth to Alaganak (a) River (22 mi.) (b) remainder to Lake Iliamna (28 mi.) (a) from mouth to Stevens Village (Interior Reg.) (b) Stevens Village to Fort Yukon (c) Fort Yukon to Whitehorse, Y.T. Draft Limitations Small vessels of 2s ft. draft vessels of 10 ft. draft craft of 2-4 ft. depending on stage of river 7 £t. draft vessel 3-5 ft. draft shallow draft vessels Physical Infrastructure Catalop, Existing Services On demand by lightering services based in Dillingham. On demand by lightering services based in Dillingham. Served from mouth to Marshall by carrier based in St. Michael. Served from Marshall to Rampart (Interior Region) by carrier (Yutana Barge Lines) based in Nenana at Alaska R.R. trans- shipment point (twice monthly service to Anvik). Upper River is served by Fort Yukon based carrier, Note: Canal proposed between Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers near Bethel (approximately 30-50 miles long) would allow cross navigation between these two river systems. Physical Infrastructure Southwest Region (II) : AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No. Type 27 Trunk or International Airports Runway Length Radio Name Tee) Runway Surface Nav, Aids* Remarks Farewell 5,000 Gravel B Flat 4,100 Gravel Cc Anvik 3,650 Dirt C McGrath 5,619 Asphalt A é Holy Cross 3,550 Gravel Cc Aniak 5,000 Gravel A Bethel 6,400 Asphalt A Hooper Bay 4,000 Asphalt C Mekoryuk Municipality 3,550 Gravel. B Platinum 4,068 Gravel B Red Devil 4,000 . Gravel c St. Mary's 5,000 Gravel B Dillingham 5,000 Gravel A Iliamna 5,000 Gravel B King Salmon 85525 Asphalt A Kulik Lake 4,600 Gravel/Dirt 2 FAA Unlisted Ugashik Bay 5,500 Gravel ] CG Unattended Painter Creek #4 5,000 Gravel 2 FAA Unlisted Port Heiden 7,500 Gravel B Cold Bay 10,128 Asphalt A International Airpor "A - Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system B - Non-directional radio beacon C - None Physical Infrastructure Southwest Region (continued) ~ AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No, Type Trunk or International Airports (continued) Runway Length Radio Name GE) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks Amchitka 9,100 Asphalt C Closed to Public Umnak 8,070 Gravel Cc Unattended North Shore 8,450 Gravel c Unattended King Cove 4,000 Gravel Cc Unattended St. Paul Island Seo) Gravel B Unattended Sand Point Municipality 3,800 Gravel B Unattended Dutch Harbor 4, 300° Gravel A Unattended 114 Secondary Airports 31 Seaplane Ports 4 Heliports 14 Military Airports Physical Infrastructure Southwest Region (II) TELECOMMUNICATIONS Catalog Communities by Highest Level of Available Service No. 19 Telephone System Aniak Nondalton Nikolski* Bethel Sparrevohn (Mil. ) Dutch Harbor* McGrath Tatalina (Mil.) Sand Point* King Salmon Adak (Mil. ) Naknek Shemya (Mil. ) Dillingham Attu (Mil. ) Tliamna Cold Bay. (Mil.) Kanakanak Driftwood Bay (Mil. ) 69 "Bush Phone" 12 Other Radiotelephone Linkages “Local Servi ce Only Physical Infrastructure OMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPM c Southwest Region (II) DSTEIs ina eatsiog Population . Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks Neeeee eee eee eee a ee ee nn ee eee a ee IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Selected Communities Acres _% Vac. Acres % Vac. Unalaska 510 fishing/ 2 ? 12/75 "Ample" (?) fish process. land available, Bethel 3,004 government, 10.2 100 0 -- 11/74 Outside unavail- transport. center able, pending Native selection. Dillingham 1,176 fishing/ ? ? 11/74 "Excellent" (?) fish process. sites available. Physical Infrastructure Southwest Region (II) ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Catalog I. Utilities (1976 data) Location Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Diesel Gas Steam Generation Total Hydro (Ic) Turbine Turbine Million KWH Fuels Alakanuk (AVEC) 0.35 0.35 0.45 Oil Anvik (AVEC) 0.10 0.10 0.09 oil Chevak (AVEC) 0.36 0.36 0.52 Oil Emmonak (AVEC) 0.65 0.65 0.76 Oil Grayling (AVEC) 0.12 0,12 On15 Oil Holy Cross (AVEC) 0.17 0.17 0.24 Oil Hooper Bay (AVEC) 0.57 0.57 0,90 Oil Marshall (Fortuna Ledge)(AVFC) 0.10 0.10 0.16 Oil Mt. Village (AVEC) - 0.65 0.65 0.80 Oil Pilot Station (AVEC) 0.11 0.11 0.19 Oil St. Marys, Pitkas Point, & Andreafski (AVEC) 0.70 0.70 1.49 Oil Scammon Bay (AVEC) 0.12 0.12 0.18 oil Shageluk (AVEC) . 0.15 0.15 0.14 oil Aniak (APC) 0.40 0.40 0.55 Oil Bethel (BUC) 10.00 10.00 10.00 Oil Cold Bay (NP&E) 1.50 1.50 2.78 Oil Dillingham & Aleknagik (NEC) 2.90 2,90 4.69 oil Eek (AVEC) 0.21 0.21 0.24 Oil Goodnews Bay (AVEC) 0.15 0.15 0.19 Oil Kalskag & Lower Kalskag (AVEC) 0.22 0,22 0.31 Oil Manokotak (COM) 0.16 0.16 0.20 Oil McGrath (MGLEP) 0.78 0.78 1.93 Oil Mekoryuk (Nunavak Is.) (AVEC) 0.20 0.20 | 0.30 Oil Physical Infri Southwest Region (continued) ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Catal structure I. Utilities (1976 data) (continued) Location Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Diesel Gas Steam Generation Total Hydro (Ic) Turbine Turbine Million KWH Fuels Naknek (NEA) 1.55 155) Si22 Oil Egegik (NEA) 0.14 0.14 0.16 Oil New Stuyahok (AVEC) 0.26 0.26 0.11 Oil Nunapitchuk & Kasigluk (AVEC) 0.45 O.45 0.49 oil Quinhagak (AVEC) 0.31 0.31 0.23 Oil Togiak (AVEC) 0.38 0.38 0.44 Oil Toksook Bay (AVEC) 0.68 0.68 0.45 Oil Tununak (AVEC) Onr5 OS OR 7, Oil Unalaska (COU)* 0.60 0.60 0.66 Oil Total, Southwest Region 27.55 21555 35.47 (All diesel generation) “1971 data II. Military (FY 1976 data) U.S. Air Force USN and USCG . Total Fuels Cap. (KW) Gen. _(MWH) Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) Diesel 32,410 80,506 18,400 56,000 50,810 136 ,506 Oil Southeast Region (III) I. Major Roads Through Roads Haines Highway (Rt. 7) Hyder-Stewart (B.C.) Road Skagway-Carcross (B.C.) Road Local. Roads Ketchikan N. Tongass Hwy. S. Tongass Hwy. Metlakatla/Annette Airport Road Prince of Wales Hollis-Craig Hwy. l Big Salt/Thorne Bay Rds. Wrangell-Zimovia Highway Petersburg Mitkof Hwy. Three Lakes Road Physical Infrastructure LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog Length (miles) Surface Remarks 42 to Canada paved’ Connects with Alaska Highway (159 total) in Alaska via Klukwan 2.3 total gravel Connects to Cassiar Highway and (AK & B.C.) Yellowhead Highway (B.C.) 60 total gravel To be completed 1978; will con- (AK € B.C.) nect to existing road to Alaska Highway 18.4 15.2 paved 12.9 8.3 paved 7.4 paved 30.4 gravel Via Klawock 35.1 gravel 11.2 6.5 paved 34.3 . 17.5 paved 21.0 gravel Southeast Region (continued) I. Major Roads (continued) Local Roads (continued) Sitka Halibut Point Road Sawmill Creek Road Harbor Mountain Road Juneau . Egan Dr./Glacier Hwy. Thane Rd. Douglas/N. Douglas Hwy. Haines Mud Bay Rd, Lutak Rd. Skagway-Dyea Road ’ TI. Railroads White Pass and Yukon R.R. (narrow gauge) | Physical Infrastructure LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalor Length (miles) Surface Remarks 7.8 7.2 paved 7.6 5.5 paved 45.9 dirt 40.7 33.1 paved 5.6 paved 15,4 paved 8.2 paved 10.0 3.6 paved 8.3 gravel Route Length (miles) Remarks Skagway 110.7 Primary supply route for Yukon to Whitehorse Territory. Container service from freighter. Duty- free transit port for Canadian goods. Passenger and private vehicle transport service. Interface with Alaska Ferry System (Skagway) and Alaska Highway (Whitehorse). Privately owned. . Physical Infrastructure Southeast Region (continued) LAND TRANSPORTATION ca taloein Iil. Pipelines (petroleum & gas) Type Diameter Length Daily i Remarks Gia) (miles) Cap. Skagway to Whitehorse petroleum 4 110 --- Built in 1940's for products military reasons and rehabilitated in 1972-73. Carries diesel fuel and heating oils only. Now owned by White Pass and Yukon Corp. (R.R.). Haines to Fairbanks petroleum 8 626 300,000 Abandoned. Built for products gallons military in 1953. Inter- mediate storage at Tok. IV. Proposed Land Corridors Mode BLM Approx. Elect. No. Name Length Direction Hwy. RR Pipe Trans. Remarks a ag eee ar TOOT UCONN CENCE LSA eNO HAPIRL TET seep POPE 39 Haines 50 NW-SE Exist. bxdst. Abandoned pipeline 4O SE Power Grid 550 NW-SE X Physical Infrastructure WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog Southeast Region (III) I. Marine Transportation Facilities and Services A. Existing Port Facilities Regular Services Deepwater Shallow Draft Ferry Van/ Other Port Dock Service Container Freight Juneau xX xX xX x Ketchikan xX x X x Sitka xX xX xX xX Haines X xX xX xX Skagway xX x x x Petersburg X xX x X Wrangell x Xx Xx xX Metlakatla/Annette X x x Hoonah X xX X Kake x X xX Hollis x Xx Angoon xX xX Pelican x x X Elfin Cove X Gustavus X xX Yakutat X Port Alexander x Taku Harbor xX Hyder x Point Baker X Klawock X xX Craig xX x Hydaburg x x Physical Infrastructure Southeast Region (continued) WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog B. Selected Potential Port Sites (29 statewide) Essentially ice free zone (15 statewide) Port Maximum Displacement Yakutat 140,000 DWT Note: Maximum displacement is that which could be accommodated with onshore facilities and minimal dredging. II. Major Navigable Rivers Navigable Range Draft Limitations Existing Services Stikine Mouth (near Wrangell) to Shallow-draft, flat bot- --- Telegraph, B.C., tom river boats (165 miles) May 1 - OctapLS: Alsek Extent undetermined Shallow and braided --- Nav. Aids* Physical Infrastructure Catalog Remarks Unattended Closed Nights Unattended Southeast Region (III) AIR TRANSPORTATION Airports No. Type 14 Trunk or International Airports Runway Length Radio Name (EE) Runway Surface re Annette Island 7,493 Asphalt A Gustavus 5,000 Asphalt B Haines Municipality 4,602 Gravel/asphalt B Juneau Municipality 8,456 Asphalt A Ketchikan Municipality 7,500 Asphalt A Petersburg 6,000 Gravel A Sitka 6,500 Asphalt A Skagway Municipality 3, 300 Asphalt Treat. c Wrangell 6,000 Asphalt A Yakutat Tigi. Concrete A Icy Bay 3,700 Gravel c 18 Secondary Airports 98 Seaplane Ports 14 Heliports A - Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system B - Non-directional radio beacon C - None Southeast Region (III) TELECOMMUNICATIONS Communities by Highest Level of Available Service No. 28 Telephone System Haines Pennock Island Klukwan Port Higgins Juneau/ Douglas Saxman Ketchikan Ward Cove Clover Pass Sitka Herring Cove Mt. Edgecumbe Mountain Point Angoon Mud Bay Annette 6 "Bush Phone" 1 Other Radiotelephone Linkages Craig Gustavus Hoonah Kake Kupreanof Metlakatla Pelican Petersburg Physical Infrastructure Catalog Scow Bay Skagway Wrangell Yakutat Physical Infrastructure Southeast Region (III) COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Catalcr Population . Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Selected Communities Acres % Vac. Acres % Vac. Craig 467 fishing/ 1200(?) 100 Extensive 2/75 City was to re- wood: products ceive 1200 acres of land. Haines 1,366 wood products, -- -- -- -- 9/75 fishing, tourism, crafts Hoonah 848 fishing 200(?) 100 -- -- 2/75 City owns 200 acres of undeveloped land, Juneau 19,193% government 140 70 500 Extensive 6/76 In-town = inside , central service area Ketchikan 7,770 fishing/ 15 25 25 30 11/75 One of S.E.'s major wood products industrial centers. Metlakatla 1,051 fishing/ Sie?) ? -- -- 11/74 Up to 10,000 acres wood products (now) can be developed. Petersburg 2,126 fishing/ 45 - 30 ©Extensive -- 11/75 logging Sitka 7,100% wood products, 159, 65 -- -- 11/75 fishing, fish process., tourism *City and Borough Physical Infrastructure Southeast Region (continued) COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT _ Catalog Population . Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Selected Communities Acres _% Vac. Acres % Vac. Skagway 858 transportation Limited Very little 12/75 Wrangell. 3,152 fishing/ > 40 100 11/75 . City owns 40 un- wood products developed acres. Southeast Region (III) I. Utilities (1976 data) Location Angoon (AVEC/T-HREA) Craig (APET) Haines (HLEP) Hoonah (T-HREA) Hydaburg (APT) Juneau Area: (AELEP) (GHEA) (APA) Juneau Area Total Kake (T-HREA) Kasaan (T-HREA) Ketchikan’ (KPU) Klawock (T-HREA) Klukwan (T-HREA) Metlakatla (MP&L) Pelican (PUC) Petersburg (PMP&L) Skagway (AP&T) Sitka (SED) Tenakee Springs Wrangell (WMLEP) Yakutat (YPI) Total, Southeast Region “II, Military (All installations leased to private industry) ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Total 0.58 0.53 4.42 1.00 0.24 (23.62) (2.50) (47,16) 73.30 1,00 0.00 23.17 1.75 0.38 6.00 1.20 5.70 1.53 9.10 Hydro (7.90) (47.16) 55.10 11.30 3.00 0.50 2.00 0.38 6.00 78.20 Diesel (Ic) 0.58 0.53 4.42 1.00 0.24 (S272) ae (2.50) 18.20 1.00 0.00 11.87 1.75 0.38 3.00 0.70 3.70 Tears) 3.10 oa) oad, NNO ao ao 61.50 Turbine Physical Infrastructure Catalog Steam Generation Turbine Million KWH Fuels 0.65 Oil 1.52 oil 8.58 oil 2500) oil 0.83 Oil (51.57) Oil (0.99) Oil 111.00 2.20 Oil 0.00 Oil 79.33 oil 2519) Oil 0.38 Oil DOs LY Oil 2.06 Oil 18.10 Oil 5.38 Oil 40.56 Oil 0.20 Oil gS Oil 3.95 Oil 305.80 Diesel Generation 61.8 Hydro Generation 244.0 Total 305.8 Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (IV_and V) I. Major Roads George Parks Highway (Rt. 3) Glenn Highway (Rt. 1) incl. "Anchorage cutoff" Richardson Highway (Rt. 4) Denali Highway (Rt. 8) Edgerton Highway Copper River Highway (Rt. 10) Seward Highway (Rts. 1 and 9) Physical Infrastructure LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog Length (miles) Surface Remarks 358,5 paved Anchorage to Fairbanks with spurs to Talkeetna, Petersville, Goose Bay and bypass Glenn Highway via Hatcher Pass Road and Palmer/ Fishback Road. 328 paved Anchorage to Tok (Alaska Highway). Mileage includes 14 miles shared with Richardson Highway (Glenallen to Gakona). 266 paved Valdez to Delta Junction (Alaska Highway). 135 21.2 paved Cantwell (George Parks Highway) to Paxson (Richardson Highway). Closed in winter. 33 19 paved To Chitina from Richardson Highway (+ 63 extension) with a 63 mile extension to McCarthy. 70 gravel From Cordova to Copper River area; 27 miles in good condition. Pro- posed connection with Richardson Hwy. 127 paved Anchorage to Seward. Spurs to Hope and Portage Glacier. Rt. 1 until Sterling Highway turnoff. Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (continued) I. Major Roads (continued) Sterling Highway (Rt. 1) Nabesna Road Seldovia Road. Kodiak Chiniak Rd. Pasagshak Rd. Anton Larsen Bay Rd. Saltery Cove Rd. Anchorage II. Railroads Alaska R.R. (standard gauge) LAND TRANSPORTATION Length (miles) Surface Physical Infrastructure Catalog Remarks fd 155 paved Seward Highway to Hope and 20 miles beyond, with spurs to Kenai and Nikishka and several loop roads in Kenai/Soldotna area. Sa. 5 gravel Glenn Highway to Nabesna 35 (approx. ) gravel/dirt Part is logging road. Via Jacka- loff to eastside of Kenai Peninsula. 47.6 6.8 paved 16.4 gravel 11.6 gravel 19.0 dirt 4-wheel drive. -- paved The municipality has a very highly developed urban network. Route Length (miles) Remarks Seward/Whittier 581 Interfaces with freighters and to Fairbanks/ railcar barges from Vancouver and Eilson AFB via Anchorage Prince Rupert, B.C. (Canadian R.R.), Seattle and Portland at Whittier and Seward. Interfaces with Alaska Ferry System at Whittier and with Yutana barge lines at Nenana serving Yukon and Tanana Rivers, Spurs to Palmer (agriculture) and Suntrana (coal fields). U.S, Government owned. Physical Infrastructure Southcentral and Anchorage LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog Regions (continued) III. Pipelines (petroleum & gas) Type Diameter Length Daily Remarks (in. ) (miles) Cap. Whittier to Anchorage petroleum --- 60 --- Military. Used to supply products fuel to military bases in Anchorage. Kenai Gas Field to gas 12 85 70 MMCF Privately owned by Anchor- Anchorage age Gas Co. serving utili- ties in Anchorage. Nikiski to Port of petroleum 10 69 40,000 Completed, 1976. Privately Anchorage products barrels owned by Nikiski Alaska Pipeline Company. Cook Inlet Crude Line petroleum --- --- --- Local. Transports Cook Inlet crude oil to Drift River offshore terminal. Kenai Crude Line petroleum --- --- --- Local. Transports Kenai crude oil to refineries and Nikiski offshore terminal. Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) petroleum 48 798 2,000,000 Privately owned. Trans- (Prudhoe Bay to Valdez) barrels ports crude oil to Valdez for shipment. Southcentral and Anchorage Physical Infrastructure Regions (continued) LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog IV. Proposed Land Corridors Mode BLM Approx. Elect. No. Name Length Direction Hwy. RR Pipe Trans. Remarks eee 12 Anchorage-Homer 180 NE-SW : xX Existing Highway Power Grid nearly parallel 29 Railbelt 600 N-S Exist.Exist. X xX Seward to Fairbanks Power Grid 30 Upper Cook Inlet 245 NE-SW xX X x 31 Glenn Highway 140 NE-SW Exist. xX 33 Big Delta-Valdez 290 N-S Exist. Exist. x 34. Copper Valley 30 N-S xX xX 35 Rainy Pass 225 NW-SE x To McGrath area Southcentral and Anchorage Note: Il. Regions (continued) WATER TRANSPORTATION B. Selected Potential Port Sites (29 statewide) Essentially ice free zone (15 statewide) Port Ugak Bay (Kodiak) Old Harbor (Kodiak) Kamishak Bay Kustatan Iliamna Bay Icy Bay/Controller Bay Katalla Bay Major Navigable Rivers Copper Susitna (and Yentna) To be accommodated with onshore facilities Navigable Range Short transits From mouth to Yentna River (20 miles) and Maximum Ship Size 250,000 250,000 140,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 and minimal dredging. Draft Limitations Skiffs, runabouts Shallow draft, flat bot- tom riverboats up Yentna River, 65 miles DWT DWT DWT DWT DWT DWT DWT Physical Infrastructure Catalog Existing Services Southcentral and Anchorage Physical Infrastructure Regions (IV and V) WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog I. Marine Transportation Facilities and Services A. Existing Port Facilities Regular Services Deepwater Shallow Draft Ferry Van/ Other Port Dock ‘Service Container Freight Anchorage xX . xX xX (Ferry and Railship service via Alaska R.R. from Whittier) Cordova xX xX X xX Valdez xX xX X xX Kodiak X xX X xX Homer xX X X Seward x X xX x Whittier x Xx Railcar/barge Seldovia X x x Port Lions x xX x King Cove xX x Drift River offshore term. xX Nikiski offshore term. (2) x x Ninilchik xX xX Port Williams x x Port Graham X X Old Harbor xX X Karluk xX x Iliamna Bay xX x am Physical Infrastructure Southcentral Region (IV) AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No. Type 23 Trunk or International Airports ‘ Runway Length . Radio Name (Et) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks Kodiak 7,500 Asphalt A Old Harbor 7,000 Gravel c Closed McCarthy #2 4,250 Gravel/Dirt C Unattended May Creek 4,300 Gravel/Dirt c Unattended Chisana 4,200 Gravel. @ Unattended Chitina 3,550 Gravel c Unattended Gakona 3,720 Gravel/Dirt 2 FAA Unlisted Gulkana 5,200 Asphalt A Summit 4,980 Gravel ? FAA Unlisted Middleton Island 5,070 Gravel A Seward 4,750 Gravel c Valdez 4,450 Gravel c Chaix Hills 4,200 Gravel ? Cordova-M.13 7,499 Asphalt A Trading Bay 4,500 Gravel/Dirt ? FAA Unlisted So. Gasline 3,705) Gravel Cc Unattended Kenai Municipality 7,500 Asphalt A Drift River 4,300 Gravel ? FAA Unlisted Talkeetna 4,040 Gravel B Skwetna 3,500 Gravel B Unattended Owe - Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system - Non-directional radio beacon - None Physical Infrastructure Southcentral Region (continued) AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No. Type Trunk or International Airports (continued) Runway Length Radio Name (ft) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks Willow 3,400 Gravel Cc Unattended Palmer Municipality 3,750 Asphalt Treat. Cc Soldotna 4,972 Asphalt iC Note: Creation of a new trunk airport at a yet unknown site near the new state capital is planned. 103 Secondary Airports 72 Seaplane Ports 12 Heliports 5 Military Airports Physical Infrastructure Anchorage Region (V) AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No. Type 3 Trunk or International Airports Runway Length Radio Name * (ft) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks 5a ee ih a Anchorage International 10,900 Asphalt ; A Radar Merrill Field 4,000 Asphalt c (Anchorage ) Birchwood 4,000 Gravel Cc 12 Secondary Airports 2 Seaplane Ports 7 Heliports 3 Military Airports “A - Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system B - Non-directional radio beacon Cc - None Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (IV, V) TELECOMMUNICATIONS Communities by Highest Level of Available Service No. 20 Telephone System . Anchorage Area Willow Cordova Kodiak Homer Glenallen Port Lions Kenai Valdez Big Lake Moose Pass Whittier Eska-Sutton Ninilchik Palmer Seldovia Talkeetna Soldotna Wasilla Seward 9 "Bush Phone" 12 Other Radiotelephone Linkages Physical Infrastructure Catalog Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (IV and V) Selected Communities Anchorage Cordova Homer Kenai Kodiak Palmer Seldovia Seward *Entire Municipality Physical Infrastructure COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Catalog Population . Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Acres _% Vac. Acres % Vac. 175,603* commercial center, 1800 26 3100 78 9/75 "In-town" = old oil, finance, city boundaries. government , transportation 2,406 fishing/ At least 9 acres -- -- 6/76 Existing indus- fish process. available trial park. 1,538 fishing, trade, 600 95 Extensive 95 6/77 In-town = Homer tourism Spit. 5,223 petroleum, 350 50 Extensive -- 11/74 petrochemicals 4,960 fishing/ None -- 10 100 6/76 fish process. 1,643 agricultural 120 78 Extensive -- 11/75 Outside-unzoned related and undeveloped. 612 fishing, 19 50 Extensive -- 12/75 lumber, tourism 1,823 transportation, 20 70 2) -- 11/74 timber, fish process. Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (continued) Selected Communities Soldotna Wasilla Whittier Valdez COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Physical Infrastructure Catalog Population Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Acres _% Vac. Acres % Vac. 1,800 government/ 60 80 Extensive -- 2/77 construction 1,566 trade center Extensive -- Extensive -- 2/77 292 transportation, 974 25) -- -- 12/75 Land is relatively tourism expensive. 8,253 trans-Alaska 3000 90 -- -- 12/75 pipeline Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (IV and V) I. Utilities (1976 data) Physical Infrastructure ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Location Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Diesel Gas Steam Total Hydro (ic) Turbine Turbine Anchorage-Cook Inlet Systems: (AMLEP ) 121.10 2:20 118.90 (CEA) 345.50 15.00 316.00 14.50 (APA) 30.00 30.00 English Bay (HEA) 0.10 0.10 Homer 6 Kenai (HEA) 0.30 0.30 Standby, leased to CEA Port Graham (HEA) 0,20 0.20 Seldovia (HEA) 1.50 1.50 Seward (SES) 5.50 5.50 Standby Talkeetna (MEA) 0.60 0.60 Standby Anchorage-Cook Inlet 504,80 45.00 10.40 | 434,90 14.50 Other Southcentral Utility Systems: Chistochina (CTP) 0.05 0.05 Cordova (CPU) 8.00 8.00 Glennallen (CVEA) - 7.64 7.64 Kodiak-Port Lions (KdEA) 25.90 25.90 Old Harbor (AVEC) (pals 0.15 Paxson Lodge (PLI) 0.28 0.28 Valdez (CVEA) 10.10 10.10 asnak SEGHor eds Ete 556.90 45.00 62.60 434.90 14.50 Southcentral Gas Generation Fuel Oi1 Generation Turbine Diesel Hydro Generation Total Catalog Generation Million KWH 444.90 1,054.50 118.00 0.10 0.00 0.30 0.07 1.50 0.00 1,619.40 0.40 13.30 13.30 49.60 0.20 0.80 26.00 1,723.00 1,473.8 0.2 105.6 143.4 1,723.0 Fuels Gas Gas Oil oil Oil Oil oil oil Oil oil Oil Oil Oil oil Southcentral and Anchorage Regions (continued) II, Military (FY 1976 data) U.S. Air Force Cap.(KW) Gen. (MWH) ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Diesel 2,200 55 Steam 22,500 96,006 Total 24,700 96,061 SFY 1975 data U.S. Army USN and USCG Cap.(KW) Gen. (MWH) Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) 7,226 All Standby 2,000 50% 18,000 40,000 4,000 of] 23,831 25,226 40,000 6,000 23,831% Total Fuel Cap.(KW) Gen. (MWH) 11,426 105 Oil 44,500 159,837 Gas 55,926 159,942 Interior Region (VI) I, Note: iajor Roads George Parks Highway (Rt. 3) Steese Highway (Rt. 6) Elliott. Highway (Rt. 2) TAP Haul Road Taylor Highway (Rt. 5) Dawson City Cutoff LAND TRANSPORTATION Length (miles) 358.5 162 156 416 164 13.9 to Canada Surface paved gravel 44 paved gravel 9 paved gravel gravel gravel Two major roads were proposed by the Alaska Department of Highways: Physical Infrastructure Catalog Remarks Fairbanks to Anchorage with spurs to Anderson/Clear and Kantishna (McKinley Park road--limited access). Fairbanks to Circle and Circle Hot Springs Road. (8 miles long) Partially closed in winter. Fox (Steese Hwy.) to Manley Hot Springs (and to TAP Haul Road). Partially closed in winter. Livengood (Elliott Hwy.) to Prud- hoe Bay. 56 miles to Yukon River open, 360 miles north of river closed to public. Tetlin Junction (Alaska Hwy.) to Eagle (and to Dawson City cutoff). Closed in winter. Taylor Highway (Jack Wade Junction) to Dawson City, Y.T. (81.2 mi.) and to Dempster Highway and Klondike Loop Highway. Closed in winter. (1) "McGrath Highway" from the George Parks Highway north of McKinley Park to McGrath. (2) "Western Access Road" from TAP Haul Road to Nome via Bettles. Physical Infrastructure Interior Region (continued) LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog II. Railroads - Route Length (miles) Remarks Alaska R.R. Seward/Whittier 581 Interfaces with freighters and (standard gauge) to Fairbanks/ with trainships/barges from Eilson AFB Prince Rupert (Canadian R.R.), via Anchorage Seattle and Portland at Whittier and Seward. Interfaces with Alaska Ferry System at Whittier and with Yutana barge lines at Nenana serving Yukon and Tanana Rivers. Spurs to Palmer (agri- culture) and Suntrana (coal fields). U.S. Government owned. III. Pipelines (petroleum & gas) Type Diameter Length - Daily Remarks (in. ) (miles) Cap. Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) petroleum 48 798 2,000,000 Privately owned. Trans- (Prudhoe Bay to Valdez) barrels ports crude oil to Valdez for shipment. Note: The proposed Alcan gas pipeline would parallel the TAP system from Prudhoe Bay to Fairbanks and then follow the Alaska Highway into Canadd. (1800 miles total--731 in Alaska.) IV. Interior Region (continued) Catalog Proposed Land Corridors Mode BLM Approx, Elect. No. Name Length Direction Hwy. Pipe Trans. Remarks 4 Prospect-Lost River 550 E-W xX x To Nome/Kotzebue area 13 Bethel-Rex 500 SW-NE xX x 14 Kantishna Spur 25 SW-NE X Alt. to McKinley Park Rd. 45 Allakaket-Nenana 250 NW-SE Prospect-Lost River Corridor to Nenana 20 Porcupine-Flats 160 SW-NE x Parallels Yukon River to Canada 21 Beaufort Sea Offshore 200 E-W x xX | 22 Arctic Game Range- 200 E-W x Parallel Triplet Foothills | 23 Arctic Game Range- 200 E-W x X } Shoreland 24 Arctic Game Range- 300 “NW-SE x X Boundary 25. Prudhoe-Fort Yukon 400 NW-SE X xX 26 Prudhoe-Yukon River 320 N-S Exist. Exist. 29 Railbelt and Power Grid 600 N-S Exist. Exist. X Seward to Fairbanks 32. Circle-Eagle 130° NW-SE xX X 33 Big Delta-Valdez 290 N-S x 36 Chandalar 200 NW-SE 4 x 37 Unalakleet 80 NE-SW x LAND TRANSPORTATION Physical Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure Interior Region (VI) WATER TRANSPORTATION Catalog I, Marine Transportation Facilities and Services e@ Prudhoe Bay has the only marine transportation facility in the Region, a shallow draft dock. Large shipments have been made by tug and barge for oilfield and pipeline development activities. e No locations in this Region were considered in the study of 29 selected port sites in the state. II. Major Navigable Rivers Navigable Range Draft Limitations Existing Services Yukon (a) from mouth (South- (a) 7 ft. draft vessels Served from Marshall (Southwest west Reg.) to Stevens Reg.) to Rampart by carrier Village (Yutana Barge Lines) based in Nenana at Alaska R.R. trans- (b) Stevens Village to (b) 3-5 ft. draft shipment point. Upper River Fort Yukon is served by Fort Yukon based carrier. Service frequency: (c) Fort Yukon to Lake (c) shallow draft vessels twice monthly-Anvik and Tanana; Bennet, B.C. three times a season-Stevens Village; twice a season-Manley Hot Springs, Ruby, Galena; five times a season-Fort Yukon. Lower river from Marshall is served by carrier based in St. Michael. Koyukuk (a) from mouth to Alla- 3 feet --- y kaket during normal high river flow (b) to Bettles during occasional higher flows Interior Region (continued) II. Major Navigable Rivers Tanana Porcupine WATER TRANSPORTATION Navigable Range (a) from mouth to Nenana (b) to Chena River (Fairbanks Reg.) Navigable to Old Crow, Y.T., during spring runoff and fall rain floods Draft Limitations (a) shallow-draft, flat bottom riverboats (b) smaller river craft 3 ft. draft Physical Infrastructure Catalog Existing Services Served by Yutana Barge Lines from Nenana (railhead). Served on demand and when possible by Yukon River carrier based in Fort Yukon. a "A - Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system Physical Infrastructure B - Non-directional radio beacon C - None Interior Region (VI) AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No. Type 24 Trunk or International Airports Runway Length Radio Name Ge) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks Sagwon 5,825 Gravel GC Prudhoe Bay 5,500 Gravel B Deadhorse §,000 Gravel A Kad River 5,640 Gravel C Unattended Pingo 6,000 Gravel ? FAA Unlisted West Kavik 5,200. Gravel 2 FAA Unlisted Kavik River 5,918 Gravel ? FAA Unlisted Chandalar Lake 4,500 Gravel B Unattended Dietrich Camp 5,200 Gravel Gc Coal Creek 4,000 Gravel ? FAA Unlisted Circle Hot Springs 4,050 Gravel c McKinley Park 5,000 Gravel Cc Unattended Minchumina 4,600 Gravel B Stampede 4,300 Gravel c Unattended Hog River 4,200 Gravel/Dirt 2? FAA Unlisted Wien Arctic Village 4,450 Gravel c Unattended Beaver 4,150 Gravel c Unattended Bettles 5,199 Gravel A Fort Yukon 5,019 Gravel A Galena 6,665 Asphalt A Physical Infrastructure Interior Region (continued) AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalog Airports No. Type Trunk or International Airports (continued) Runway Length Radio Name i Cot) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks ‘Hughes Municipality 4,600 Gravel A Nenana Municipality 6,256 Gravel A Tanana 4,374 Gravel A Venetie 4,400 Dirt Cc 71 Secondary Airports 5 Seaplane Ports 3 Heliports 7 Military Airports Physical Infrastructure Interior Region (VI) TELECOMMUNICATIONS Catalog Communities by Highest Level of Available Service No. 14 Telephone System Galena Cantwell Tanana Healy Bettles/Evansville Minto Birch Creek Nenana Chalkyitsik Deadhorse Fort Yukon Kaktovik Venetie Anderson 15 "Bush Phone" 0 Other Radiotelephone Linkages Physical Infrastructure Interior Region (VI) COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Catalog Population Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks Selected Communities IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Acres % Vac. Acres % Vac. With the exception of pipeline related development and some moderate "industrial type" development along the railroad, communities in this region are very undeveloped. Incorporated communities in the Region are: Kaltag, Nulato, Koyukuk, Galena, Ruby, Nenana, Andersen, Huslia, Hughes, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Fort Yukon, and Eagle. All of these communities had considerably less than one thousand population in 1977. Physical Infrastructure Interior Region (VI) ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION i Catalog I. Utilities (1976 data) Location Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Diesel Gas Steam Generation Total Hydro (Ic) Turbine Turbine Million KWH Fuels Bettles (BLEP) 0.60 0.60 0.98 Oil Ft. Yukon (FYU) 1.28 1.28 7 Oil Huslia (AVEC) 0523 (On23 0.18 Oil Kaltag (AVEC) . 0.15 On5) 0.17 Oil Lake Minchumina (SS) Oss 0.13 0.19 Oil. Manley Hot Springs (MuC)> 0.10 0.10 0.18 Oil Minto (AVEC) 0.21 0.21: 0.20 oil Nulato (AVEC) 0.55 0.55 0.74 oil Tanana (TPC)© 1.00 1.00 1.66 Oil Total, Interior Region 4.25 4.25 Sf/, ; (All diesel generation) II, Military (FY 1976 data) Total (U.S. Air Force only) Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) Fuel Diesel 14,2604 24 ,u5yd Oil Steam 22,500° 86 ,623° Coal Total 31,760 111,077 91971 data big7y data ©1973 data ds percent of capacity and generation shown for APA's "Arctic/Northwest" region assumed to be in Interior Region. Based on 1974 data for Clear Air Force Base, generation data adjusted to reflect 1976 totals. Fairbanks Region (VII) I. Major Roads Alaska Highway (Rt. 2) Richardson Highway (Rt. 4) Glenn Highway (Rt. 1) incl. "Anchorage cutoff" George Parks Highway (Rt. 3) Taylor Highway (Rt. 5) Steese Highway (Rt. 6) Elliott Highway (Rt. 2) Chena Hot Springs Road Nabesna Road Fairbanks Physical Infrastructure LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog Length (miles) Surface Remarks 298.7 to Canada paved Dawson Creek, B.C. to Fairbanks. (1,520 total) in Alaska 266 paved Delta Junction (Alaska Highway) to Valdez. 328 paved Tok to Anchorage. Mileage includes 14 miles shared with Richardson Highway (Glenallen to Gakona). 358.5 paved Fairbanks to Anchorage via Mt. McKinley Park. 161 gravel Tetlin Junction (Alaska Highway) to Eagle (and to Dawson City cutoff). 162 gravel Fairbanks to Circle and Circle Hot 44 paved Springs Road. Partially closed in winter, 156 gravel Fox (Steese Hwy.) to Manley Hot 9 paved Springs (and to TAP Haul Road). Partially closed in winter. 58 gravel Steese Highway to Chena Hot 26 paved Springs. Open all year. 51,5 gravel Glenn Highway ("'Anch. cutoff") to Nabesna, -- paved The city and surrounding area have a highly developed urban network. Physical Infrastructure Catalog Remarks Fairbanks Region (continued) LAND TRANSPORTATION II. Railroads Route Length (miles) Alaska R.R. Seward/Whittier (standard gauge) to Fairbanks/ Eilson AFB via Anchorage Interfaces with freighters and rail- car barges from Prince Rupert (Canadian R.R.) and Vancouver, B.C., Seattle and Portland at Whittier and Seward. Interfaces with Alaska Ferry System at Whittier and with Yutana barge lines at Nenana serving Yukon and Tanana Rivers. Spurs to Palmer (agriculture) and Suntrana (coal fields). U.S. Government owned. III. Pipelines (petroleum & gas) Type Diameter Length Daily Remarks (in.) (miles) Cap. Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) petroleum 48 798 2,000,000 Privately owned. Transports (Prudhoe Bay to Valdez) barrels crude oil to Valdez for shipment. Haines to Fairbanks petroleum 8 626 300,000 Abandoned. Built for mili- products gallons tary in 1953. Intermediate storage at Tok. Whitehorse to Fairbanks petroleum 4 --- --- Abandoned. Built for mili- products tary to Ladd AFB (now Ft. Wainwright) in 1940's. Unsupported and surface ; laid. North Pole Refinery crude products - 6" 2.3 --- Local lines. ~ 6" Note: The proposed Alcan gas pipeline would follow the TAP system from Prudhoe Bay to Fairbanks and then follow the Alaska Highway and existing Haines/Fairbanks line into Canada. (1800 miles total--731 in Alaska.) Physical Infrastructure Fairbanks Region (continued) LAND TRANSPORTATION Catalog IV, Proposed Land Corridors BLM No. 27 29 “Note: Mode Approx, Elect. Name Length Direction Hwy. RR Pipe Trans. Remarks Rampart-Canada 375 xX * xX xX Existing Highway and pipe. Fairbanks-Canada Railbelt and 600 Exist. Exist. X xX Seward to Fairbanks Power Grid Proposals have been made for an extension of the Alaska Railroad through the Tanana Valley to serve agricultural development and perhaps connect with Canadian railways. The corridor study does not include this possibility. » Fairbanks Region (VII) WATER TRANSPORTATION I, Marine Transportation Facilities and Services The region is land-locked and has no marine facilities. II. Major Navigable Rivers Draft Limitations Navigable Range Tanana (a) from mouth at Tanana (a) shallow-draft, flat- on the Yukon River to bottom riverboats Nenana (Interior Reg.) (b) to Chena River (Fair- (b) smaller river craft banks) (201 mi. total) Chena Most of river 4 ft. draft at high water Physical Infrastructure Catalog, Existing Services Served by Yutana Barge Lines from Nenana (railhead). Physical Infrastructure Fairbanks Region (VII) AIR TRANSPORTATION Catalop Airports No. Type 5 Trunk or International Airports Runway Length Radio Name meet) Runway Surface Nav. Aids* Remarks Fairbanks International 10,300 Asphalt A Metro Field 4,600 Gravel (@ (Fairbanks) Phillips (Fairbanks) 3,340 Asphalt S Northway 7,000 Asphalt A Tanacross 5,100. Asphalt CG Unattended 32 Secondary Airports 2 Seaplane Ports 3 Heliports 6 Military Airports 1 A- Instrument landing system, distance measuring equipment and/or directional navigational system B - Non-directional radio beacon C ~ None Physical Infrastructure Fairbanks Region (VII) TELECOMMUNICATIONS Catalog Communities by Highest Level of Available Service No. 9 Telephone System Fairbanks Area Delta Junction Donnelly Dot Lake Ester Northway Tanacross Tetlin Tok 0 "Bush Phone" 0 Other Radiotelephone Linkages Physical Infrastructure Fairbanks Region (VII) COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Catalog Population i Date of (1977) Major Industries Industrial Site Availability Survey Remarks RS a IN-TOWN OUTSIDE Selected Communities . Acres _% Vac. Acres % Vac. Delta Junction 892 service, trade, > 100 100 Several -- 6/77 agriculture developing hundred Fairbanks 30,462 transportation, 960 35 6,680 70 11/74 trade center Fairbanks Region (VII) I. Utilities (1976 data) Location Fairbanks Area: (FMU) (GVEA ) Fairbanks Area Total Dot Lake (DLE)* Northway (NP&L)** Tok (AP&T) Total, Fairbanks Region “1975 data 1974 data ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION Utility Installed Nameplate Capacity - MW Diesel Gas Steam Total Hydro (Ic) Turbine Turbine (67.75) (8.25) (31.00) (28.50) (154.46) (23.89) (105.60) (25.00) 222.20 32.10 136.60 53.50 0.10 0.10 0.48 0.48 2.28 2.28 225,06 34.96 136.60 53.50 Coal Generation Total Physical Infrastructure . Catalog Generation Million KWH Fuels (139.00) (321.00) 459.90 Oil, Coal 0.19 oil 0.11 Oil 3.84 Oil Hou, O4 "318.3 Fuel Oil Generation Steam 5.0 Turbine 118.5 Diesel 2262 145.7 464.0 Fairbanks Region (continued) II, Military (FY 1976 data) U.S. Air Force Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) Diesel --- --- Steam 15,000 54,892 Total 15,000 54,892 ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND GENERATION U.S. Army Total Cap. (KW) Gen, (MWH) Cap. (KW) Gen. (MWH) 9,000 14,000 9,000 14,000 25,500 50,000 40,500 104,892 34,500 64,000 49,500 118,892 Fuel Oil Coal DATA SOURCES: Physical Infrastructure Catalog Much of the data contained in the Physical Infrastructure Catalog is derived from two publications: Alaska Regional Profiles (Arctic En- vironmental Information Data Center) and the Census of Alaska Transporta- tion (Institute of Social and Economic Research). Other data sources were examined and utilized extensively, however. Sources of specific data sets are indicated in the table below; source numbers refer to the numbered bibliography following the table. Data Set Source No. Major Roads existing 3 future 8 Railroads 16 Pipelines primary source 16 proposed Alcan pipeline 6 supplementary sources Ts9 Proposed Land Corridors 18 Marine Transportation Facilities and Services existing ferry stops 5) other (primary source) 16 (supplementary source) Seeer ee ero potential port sites 10 Major Navigable Rivers primary source 16 supplementary source OSes serLe. Airports type, location, runway length, and surface 4, 9 radio navigation aids, remarks akal future trunk airports Synaly) Telecommunications 3 Community Industrial Development population 7 other ak Electrical Capacity and Generation 19 Bibliography 1. 10. il. 12. 13. 14. Alaska State Department of Commerce and Economic Development. "Community Profiles," various dates. Alaska State Department of Community and Regional Affairs. "Organized Boroughs and Cities" (map), Jan. 1, 1977. Alaska State Department of Highways and Department of Public Works, Aviation and Marine Transportation Divisions. "Six Year Transportation Construction Program," January 1977. Alaska State Department of Public Works, Aviation Division. "Native Land Claims Airport Sort" (computer printout), August 23, 1977. Alaska State Department of Public Works, Marine Highways Division. 1977 summer schedule. Alaska State Office of Pipeline Coordinator. "Preliminary As- sessment of Three Competing Gas Line Proposals in Alaska," September 1976. Alaska State Pipeline Commission. "Report," 1976. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, The Milepost. 1977. Arctic Environmental Information Data Center, University of Alaska. Alaska Regional Profiles. Prepared for Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission, August 1977. Engineering Computer Opteconomies, Inc., "Final Report to the Federal Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska on Potential Port Site Assessment." Presented to the Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission, August 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. "Flight Information Publication Supplement, Alaska," effective 11 Aug 77 to 6 Oct 77. Federal Aviation Administration. "Ten Year Plan, 1979-1988," July 1977. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. Resources of Alaska--A Regional Summary, 1975. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission, "Surface Water Resources and Development: Inventories," 1974, 6 vol. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. "Transportation, Communications and Utilities: Inventories," 1974, 6 vol. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. "Census of Alaska Transportation."" Prepared for U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, September 1976. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. "Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995." Prepared for Alaska House Finance Committee, August 1976. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. "Multimodal Transportation and Utility Corridor Systems in Alaska--A Pre- liminary Conceptual Analysis," October 1974. U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Power Administration. "Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1960-1976." D. THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE ALASKAN ECONOMY AND INTERNAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS D.1. The Present Structure of the Alaskan Economy The present structure of the Alaskan economy is best reflected by the pattern of employment which for 1976 is shown in Table D.1. The year 1976 is not altogether typical because of the large impact that construction of the Alyeska oil pipeline has had on employment; but in another sense, it is a reflection of an underlying cyclical pattern of economic activity in the state. Historically, Alaska has experienced several booms associated respectively with furs, gold, copper, World War II, and the Korean war. After each boom, a substantial decline in economic activity occurred because none of the booms was sustainable. The state is currently in the midst of another boom--this one associated with oil and gas development. Referring to Table D.1, the largest employers in the state in 1976 were government (net of military personnel), contract construction, ser- vices, and trade, in that order. Contract construction accounted for such a large portion of total employment, because nearly 50 percent of the 30 thousand workers were pipeline construction related. Of the basic industries, the federal government is the largest with 17.9 thousand civilian and approximately 25 thousand military employees. Total federal employment in Alaska has declined absolutely since state- hood because of a significant reduction in the level of the military Table D.1l. ALASKAN 1976 EMPLOYMENT PATTERN Civilian Resident Labor Force TOTAL Total Unemployment Percent of Labor Force (CPS basis) Total Employment CPS basis (Total Employment BLS basis) Non-agricultural Wage and Salary Employment by Place of Work TOTAL Mining Metal Mining Oil and Gas Other Mining Contract Construction Manufacturing Food Processing Logging-Lumber & Pulp Other Manufacturing Transportation-Communication and Public Utilities Trucking & Warehousing Water Transportation Air Transportation Other Transportation Comm. & Public Utilities Trade Wholesale Retail Gen. Merchandise & Apparel Food Stores Auto & Service Stations Eating & Drinking Places Other Retail Finance-Insurance & Real Estate Services Hotels, Motels, & Lodges Personal Services Business Services Medical Services Other Services Government Federal State Local Miscellaneous & Unclassified Annual Average 158,000 13,000 8.2 145,000 (178,700) 171,100 4,000 200 3,600 200 30,200 10,300 5,100 3,200 2,000 15,800 3,200 1,300 4,700 1,900 4,700 27,600 6,100 21,500 4,300 3,000 2,900 6,400 4,900 7,100 27,700 3,200 3900 8,700 5,000 9,900 47,200 17,900 14,100 15,200 1,200 Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Alaska Labor Force Estimates by Area, 1976. presence. The postwar peak occurred in the early 1950s when military employment was 50 thousand and civilian approximately 16 thousand. At that time, federal employment accounted for 60 percent of total state employment. Federal civilian employment has increased slightly since statehood but not enough to offset the military decline. As a result, the federal government accounted for 21 percent of Alaskan employment in 1976 (measured on a base comparable to the early post-war estimates). Manufacturing is primarily a basic industry in Alaska and consists mainly of seafood processing and lumber and pulp manufacture. Employ- ment in this sector was 10.3 thousand in 1976. Since statehood, employ- ment in this sector has approximately doubled, reflecting growth of 5 per- cent annually. In 1976 manufacturing accounted for 6 percent of non- agricultural wages and salary employment, compared with over 10 percent in 1960. The mining sector consists primarily of the oil and gas industry. Of 4,000 employees in 1976, only 400--or 10 percent--were engaged in metal and other mining areas. Of total non-agricultural wage and salary employment, mining is 2.3 percent. The sector has experienced rapid growth since statehood, increasing at approximately 9 percent annually from a 1960 level of 1.1 thousand. The agriculture-forestry-fisheries sector of the economy comprises the other basic industries. A portion of the employment in this sector is reflected in the small miscellaneous category in Table D.1, but a large portion is not included explicitly because their jobs are not covered by the state unemployment insurance program. Total miscellaneous employment and the self-employed was estimated to be 8.9 thousand in 1976. This component of employment appears to be remaining fairly con- stant over time. In 1960 it was 10.2 thousand. Thus as a percentage of employment, it has declined from 15 percent in 1960 to 5 percent in 1976. Trade and services are the largest non-basic components of the eco- nomy in terms of employment. Together, they accounted for employment of 55.3 thousand in 1976 which was 32 percent of total non-agricultural wage and salary employment. These sectors have significantly increased their share of employment since statehood. In 1960 they accounted for 23 per- cent of employment, and ten years earlier in 1950, they were only 19 per- cent of employment. Since 1960 these sectors combined have grown at an annual rate of nearly 9.5 percent. Finance-insurance and real estate has also grown rapidly from 400 in 1950 to 1,400 in 1960 and 7,100 in 1976. For the period since state- hood, this is a 10.5 percent annual growth rate. The contract construction sector shows much cyclical variation from year to year because of its dependence upon not only the general level of economic activity but also the specific activities in the basic sectors, such as oil and gas and the federal government. In 1976 it stood at its peak level of 30.2 thousand employees, nearly four times its level three years earlier in 1973. The large increase, of course, is primarily at- tributable to construction of the Alyeska pipeline. Interestingly, the growth in employment in this sector before the advent of pipeline con- struction was very gradual. In 1950, 6.3 thousand were employed in construction, while in 1960 the figure was 5.9 thousand and in 1970, 6.9 thousand. This masks significant year-to-year variation within that twenty- year period. The twenty-year high occurred in 1951 during the Korean War when 11.5 thousand were employed. This level of activity moderated in the late 1950s, and in the early 1960s annual average employment fell to the 4 thousand level. State and local government employment combine to account for 29.3 thousand jobs, which is over 17 percent of the total. This in itself is a large and significant percentage, as it indicates the piv- otal position of government in the structure of the economy. If federal government employment, including military, is added to state and local, it is seen that approximately 72.2 thousand jobs are direct government, nearly 37 percent. This large percentage is less than it had been in previous years when the military presence was larger and the private economy smaller, but it indicates a continuing dependence of the economy on government. D-6 In contrast to federal employment, state and local government has been increasing rapidly, particularly since statehood. In 1960 combined state and local government employment was 7.1 thousand. The annual growth rate between 1960 and the present has been over 9 percent. Continuing to look at Table D.1, it is evident that there is a sig- ificant difference between non-agricultural wage and salary employment by place of work, which in 1976 was 171.1 thousand, and total employment measured on a labor force basis which is adjusted for multiple job hold- ings, place of residence, and as indicated above, the self-employed. The total employment figure computed on the CPS (Current Population Survey) basis is adjusted for non-residents and indicates a significant number of jobs in Alaska held by members of the labor force not resident in Alaska according to the CPS definition.1 Finally, Table D.1 presents an estimate of the unemployment rate in 1976 of 8.2 percent. This is a higher rate than the national average but actually quite low for Alaska. Recognizing that the methodology for calculation of the unemployment rate has changed at least twice since 1950, the published rate has been less than that in 1976 only once since statehood and only five times since 1950. T a One cannot infer that the simple difference between wage and salary employment and total employment on a CPS basis is the number of non- residents with Alaskan jobs. As noted in the text, there are several factors which make up this difference, and in addition the CPS basis involves the application of a survey methodology devised at the national level to the Alaskan situation. As such, it may be subject to substan- tial error. The statewide annual average employment figures presented in Table D.1 abstract from two important factors in the Alaskan economy. The first is that there still exists, as historically it always has, some seasonality in employment, particularly in certain sectors of the economy. In 1976 peak employment occurred in August when 192.5 thousand were employed. In contrast, in January of that year, 143.7 thousand were employed, only 78 percent of the peak. The second factor overlooked is that there is significant variation among regions of the state in terms of employment patterns and unemploy- ment rates. Anchorage, for example, is the center for the distributive industries and has thus enjoyed the most rapid and stable growth in the state in recent years. With respect to unemployment, the Department of Labor estimates of annual unemployment rates in 1976 by Census division ranged from a low of 4.8 percent in the Barrow-North Slope Division (which includes Prudhoe Bay) to a high of 44.4 percent in Angoon in the Southeast.” 2) Alaska Department of Labor, Alaska Labor Force Estimates by Area, 1976, pp. 19-23. D-8 D.2. Variables Affecting Future Economic Growth The amount of growth which the state will experience in future years is dependent upon a large number of factors independent of the level of energy intensive industrial activity which may locate in Alaska. Unfor- tunately, for a planning time frame of 20 years, it is not possible to do much more precise than speculate upon the nature and extent of these factors. The range of speculation for these factors can range from no new activity to quite substantial activity. In this section, each is briefly discussed. D.2.a. Petroleum Development Much of the growth the state has experienced in the 1960s is a direct or indirect result of petroleum development in the state. Pe- troleum remains the most viable growth industry in the state because of both the high probability of additional economic resources being dis- covered and their assured marketability. The amount and timing of activity is dependent upon decisions in both the private and public sectars. The oil companies themselves will explore and develop those prospects which they calculate to have the highest potential profit, and they analyze prospects from a world-wide perspective. Alaska must thus compete with areas much closer to markets. In spite of this, the industry is continuing to show a strong interest in the state because of the possibility of very large discoveries. Native corporations are also important in a determination of the future D-9 level of petroleum development. They are anxious to develop the potential of the resources which have come into their ownership as a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Exploration and development of some petroleum prospects in the interior of the state is dependent upon Native corporation interest. More important than Native corporations are the two other large landowners in Alaska--the state and the federal government. Decisions of when and where to lease by state and federal interests will be most important in determining how rapidly the industry grows in the state. The federal government has the leading role as the owner of the Outer Continental Shelf lands surrounding the state, for it is on these lands that the estimates of unknown reserves are the largest. Although the preliminary results from the exploratory effort in the Gulf of Alaska have not been encouraging, the potential remains high for large dis- coveries there and in areas not yet leased. The state has somewhat less flexibility in its leasing schedule, because it must partially work around the federal schedule. However, in the short run, the best prospects for future commercial production are on state lands adjacent to the Prudhoe Bay field and in the nearby Beaufort Sea area. This is reflected in a large amount of interest in the joint federal-state Beaufort Sea lease sale now scheduled for late in 1979. D-10 D.2.b. Petroleum Revenues State, and to a lesser extent local, government is heavily supported by petroleum revenues. It is projected that aa the 1980s from 40 to 50 percent of total state revenues will come directly from the petroleum industry in the form of royalties, severance taxes, income taxes, and petroleum property taxes. Local government is primarily dependent upon the local property tax, the sales tax, and state transfers. Only a few communities directly gain petroleum revenues through the petroleum property tax, but all partake indirectly through transfers from state government. Because of this large share of total tax revenues, the ability of state and local government to expand to meet the needs of Alaskans will be dependent upon the future level of these revenues. The growth of the state's economy, in turn, is a function of the level of state and local government spending, particularly because these sectors of the economy are relatively large. The level of future petroleum revenues is extremely difficult to project with any degree of certainty. It is basically a function of the tax rates, production, and the wellhead value of the oil or gas. This latter is the most difficult to determine because it, in turn, is dependent upon the price at the market of the petroleum product, the market at which it is sold, and the costs of delivery to market. D-11 D.2.c. Government Activity Since government at all levels forms such a large portion of the total employment of the Alaskan economy, changes in government employment have an important effect on overall growth. State government activity is dependent not only on the amount of revenues available but also upon de- cisions concerning how to spend and when. A decision to invest in a new state capital implies a very large amount of construction activity, while alternatively an increase in social programs would have a very dif- ferent impact. The receipt of petroleum revenues follows the time pat- tern of petroleum production which need not bear a close relation to the timing of needs to be met with state expenditures. Thus, the state has available to it the option of a large degree of flexibility in the timing of expenditures. Local government is somewhat more restricted than is the state because of both a smoother flow of revenues and a more narrowly defined set of functions to be performed. However, there is a potential for substantial increase in local government activity in the more rural parts of the state. Federal government in the state has remained fairly constant in recent years in terms of employment. Particularly because the military is such a large portion of this, it is difficult to project future levels with any confidence. Nevertheless, their larger numbers make them an im- portant variable in the future of the state's economy. D=-12 D.2.d. Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Mining These industries form the set of alternatives to petroleum and aooeeiae for development of the basic (export) sector of the economy. Since statehood, these industries have experienced little growth, but there is now renewed interest in these industries for a variety of rea- sons. Most important among these are the disposition of d-2 lands, the 200-mile limit, growth of the petroleum industry, and the establishment of the Permanent Fund. The disposition of federal lands potentially available for inclusion into categories restricted to development will set upper limits on the potential future development of the forestry and mineral sectors of the economy. The 200-mile limit permits the possibility of significant in- creases in the Alaskan harvest of many fish species with the possibility of related development in fish processing. The rapid growth of the petro- leum industry has brought on a reaction to the effect that the economy has become too dependent upon one industry, particularly in terms of state revenues, but also generally in terms of cyclical movements of the econo- my in response to levels of activity in a single industry. The Permanent Fund, created from petroleum revenues, provides a means by which the state can impact the development of these basic sectors. D-13 D.3. Basic Economic Projections of the Alaskan Economy to 2000 As indicated from the previous discussion, the future growth of the Alaskan economy is dependent upon a number of factors which can be only very broadly estimated. Differences of opinion among experts can lead to substantial differences in assumptions about these factors. These differences, in turn, will lead to large differences in the projec- tians. The projection in this section must be viewed with this in mind. D.3.a.1. petroleum related activity Petroleum exploration and development occurs in the Prudhoe Bay area, Beaufort Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Lower Cook Inlet. Production, however, is confined to the Prudhoe Bay and Cook Inlet areas, and this forms the basis for the estimation of petroleum revenues. These reve- nues are calculated on the basis of existing tax rates and wellhead prices which rise in response to a 5 percent annual increase in the refinery price for oil. The gas pipeline is constructed along the Alcan Highway route with work beginning in 1979. Twenty-five percent of petroleum revenue royalties are put into the state Permanent Fund. 3a more detailed description of this base case is to be found in Scott Goldsmith et al, The Permanent Fund and the Growth of the Alaskan Economy: Selected Studies, a Report for the State of Alaska House Special Committee on the Alaska Permanent Fund, Institute of Social and Economic Research, December 15, 1977, part I. D-14 D.3.a.2. state government The tax structure is unchanged from present rates and schedules. Government spending is difficult to project because revenues will not be increasing in a smooth fashion from year to year so that expenditures could be projected as a function of available revenues. Petroleum reve- nues will build up in the state treasury in the 1980s, accumulating in the General and Permanent Funds. Later these balances will begin to be drawn down when petroleum revenue contributions begin to decline. The pattern of expenditures, given this flow of revenues, is subject to much legislative and administrative discretion. In this projection, state expenditures are related basically to population, prices, and personal income and increase with an increase in any of these factors. Expenditures, however, are also a function of available revenues. They increase if the change in revenues noi year to year is positive and decrease if it is negative. The permanent fund investment policy is to place all of its funds in high-grade securities outside of Alaska. A renewable resources de- velopment fund invests 5 percent of petroleum royalties and bonuses in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors of the economy. D.3.a.3. other basic activities As a result of this investment activity, the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors of the economy grow rapidly at a rate in excess of that experienced since statehood. The manufacturing sector grows D-15 more modestly, at the same rate as historically, in terms of employment. Federal government employment remains constant at its present level. Finally, the state capital move to Willow is not explicitly included in the analysis, nor are other large-scale exogenous projects such as Sus- itna hydroelectric. D.3.b. Projections’ Based upon these assumptions, projections of the basic economic aggregates are shown in Table D.2. trong growth in population, employ- ment, and personal income are projected for the period. Growth in popu- lation and employment are both near 4 percent annually on average. A large part of the growth of the economy is attributable to the increase in personal income. This income, when spent in Alaska, creates a demand for goods and services. State government variables are shown in Tables D.3 and D.4. Table D.3 shows the largest categories of state revenues. Petroleum revenues are seen to reflect the production pattern of oil from Prudhoe Bay. Total taxes (not including petroleum taxes) rise steadily from year to year with personal income taxes accounting for the majority. Permanent Fund interest is a significant revenue generator as is General Fund interest in early years. Total revenues, since they are so closely related to petroleum revenues, actually decline when petroleum revenues significantly fall off. In later years, they regain their momentum. y Ibid., pp. I-33 to I-46. D-16 Table D.2. ALASKA ECONOMIC PROJECTION AGGREGATE VARIABLES - POP EM99 - PL 1977 : ‘398.119 187,208 3285.73 1978 408.062 191.888 3594.31 1979 424,052 200.283 40246.79_ | 1930 462,78 224.712 4985.49 1981 491.785 238.31 5673.73 1982 503.883 238.914 5955.3 1933 522,713 245,693 6485.93 1934 548.771 258.315 7277.32 1985 | : 578.034 272.908 8217.38 1986 607.547 287,054 9218.44 1987 637.625 301,211 10301.5 1988 655.748 306.01 11032. 1939 673.047 311.021 11968.2 | 390 _ 690.893 317,014 12674.2 1991 707.392 . 323.982 13646.1 ! 1992 717.546 323.525 14256. 1993 757.177 347.974 16349.4 1994 774.579 353.958 17526.3 1995 831.901. 390,574 20691.5 1995 862.405 404,375 22546.5 1997, -- -- = 942.288 455-239 27259-4 1978 "989.263 477.972 30198.7 POP - Population (thousand) EM99 - Employment (thousand) PI - Personal income (million $) Source: Scott Goldsmith et al, The Permanent Fund and the Growth of the Alaskan Economy: Selected Studies, a Report for the State of Alaska House Special Committee on the Alaska Permanent Fund by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, December 15, US77.) | Part |i. L977 1973 1979 2-3 Po tH ND WO WG NO WO OO 03 GOING Ul both RO 1 1 a a i i a 2 ~ 02 NO LPP4 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 LP97 1978 ee sO GS oS RP9YS - RTIS - IPF1l - Source: ALASKA ECONOMIC PROJECTION REPOS 460.73 462.14 7997.32 1116.65 1260.02 1447.84 1670.42 LOPS FL 2113.23 2138.19 1943.15 1700.13 1465.55 1264.76 1090.65 941.39 813.29 700.86 604,4 509.41 428.74 354.45 D-17 Table D.3. STATE REVENUES RT?3 242.323 237.225 263.753 313,845 375-011 402.359 419.635 4634223 518.478 SS? 2571 611.677 655.846 692.3578 732.368 732,228 825.16 905.355 1030.83 1160.04 1357.37 1569.17 1879.21 RTIS 120.229 116.828 139,074 175.067 216,522 231.09? 244,34 279.34 321.55 570.053 693,003 678.293 775.642 891.527 1042.13 1228.07 1445.4 IFFL QO. 0.1638° 4.3463 12.989 22.924 33.779 46,316 60,581 75+671 32906 111.541 127.48? 41.293 153.033 163.02 171.509 178.7335 134,903 190.155 174.68 198.449 201.864 Total direct petroleum revenues (million $) RT98 - Total taxes (million $) Personal income tax (million $) Permanent fund earnings (million $) RINS - General fund earnings (million $) RGF99S1 - Total general fund revenues (million $) RINS 28.376. 34.159 27.596 33.704 48,918 53.514 71.809 89.479 113.237 132.453 139,775 125.559 LOL.996 71.805 35.247 RGF9OPSt 1095.04 | 1051.79 ' 1349.68 1735.39 2008.02 2253356 2520.9 | 2918.2 3179.88 | 3334.23! 3308.47) 3211.28 3090.5 2998.4 2936.85. 2884.4 | 2940.98 3070.39. . $256.21 j 3518.94; 3827.84: 4288.46. Scott Goldsmith et al, The Permanent Fund and the Growth of the Alaskan Economy: Selected Studies, a Report for the State of Alaska House Special Committee on the Alaska Permanent Fund by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, December 15, 1977. Part I. ‘ 1977. 1?73° L977. 19390 1931 1982 1983 19784 1985 1984 1987 i738 1789 i??d LOG: 1992 1993 1994 LoS: 1994 1997 1993 =H, . x D-18 Table D.4, ALASKA ECONOMIC PROJECTION FISCAL VARIABLES aa E?9S (1099.65. 1271.17 1367.89 1647.18 -1969.55 2206.67 2414.42 - 2728.13 3088.81 3468.5 3851.13 3895.14 3562.5 3819.25 3758.95 3439.93 3841.41 3717.23 $423.4? 4569.42 5623.67 5925.32 SAYS Os oO. Ors QO. 242.885 423.55 544.315 686.081 7S? 6735 S05 .205 1085.56 729.633 1562.25 1330.16 3614.52 ~ GFBAL 369.319 459.938 561.4685 781,953 975-231 1176.82 1491.32 1887.28 2207.55 2329.59 2092.65 1699.94 1196.74 604.453 ~45.786 -498 6753 -1360.17 -1987. -3157.49 -4209 96 -6010.79 -7547.85 E99S - Total state expenditures (million $) SAVS - Reduction from desired expenditure level (million $) GFBAL - General fund balance (million $) EXCAP - Capital expenditures (million $) EXCUR - current expenditures (million $) EXCAP 290. 330. 3574854 395-225 464.391 924,122 364.053 617.4579 687.4535 748.933 857.133 878,324 820.1535 711.3825 337.542 369.458 272.873 EXCUR 809.547 941.17 1008.02 1250.96 1505.16 1682.55 1850.37 2110.45 2401.18 2699.54 2973.9? 3018.81 3042.35 3107.43 320.41 3069.53 3588.52 3628.7 4423.59 4569.42 Source: Scott Goldsmith et al, The Permanent Fund and the Growth of the Alaskan Economy: Selected Studies, a Report for the State of Alaska House Special Committee on the Alaska Permanent Fund by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, December 15, 1977. Part I. D-19 Table D.4 shows that this projection actually requires a supplementary income source for the state to be feasible. This is indicated by the sub- stantial negative balance of the General Fund projected for the latter part of the period. This supplementary income source would be in the form of a tax increase, the discovery of additional economically recover- able petroleum on state lands, the appearance of significant alternative sources of revenues, or a reduction in service levels for state govern- ment. Even though the General Fund balance is negative in this projec- tion, the level of total state expenditures is not able to increase each year. Substantial reductions from the desired level of state expendi- tures are required. In spite of this, the level of capital expenditures falls off in the early 1990s in order that operating expenditures can continue to increase to meet immediate needs. The Permanent Fund in this simulation has grown to be nearly $3 billion. This projection indicates that if the basic sectors of the economy continue to grow, the economy will grow rapidly. A potential constraint on the growth of the state government sector exists, however, in the fact that such a large part of state government is financed by petroleum reve- nues. If actual petroleum revenues should turn out to be on the low side of present projections, as are the estimates used in this analysis, the state government sector may be forced to grow at a much slower rate than ‘the economy in total for many years. D-20 D.4. Present Alaskan Energy Requirements The pattern of 1976 Alaska energy consumption is shown in summary form in Table D.5. A diagrammatical representation of Alaskan energy flows is shown in Figure D.1. Detailed consumption figures by consumer and type of fuel are given in Table D.6 and D.7, measured in commodity units and heating units, respectively.° Consumption of energy in Alaska is low by national standards because of the small size of the population and is low also in relation to energy produced. Instate consumption in 1976 was 217 trillion btu's, which is approximately equivalent to 39 million barrels of oil--slightly more than two days consumption of petroleum by the whole nation. In contrast, the production of crude oil in Alaska in 1976 was approximately 67 million barrels. Looking first at consumption by type of fuel, it is seen that petro- leum liquids account for the majority of energy consumed in the state at 58.9 percent. Natural gas is next in order of importance at 34.4 percent, followed by coal at 4.8 percent and waterpower at 1.9 percent. Electricity is not a primary energy resource and, thus, is not separately calculated. The largest industrial users of natural gas are essentially exporters in the form of LNG and ammonia-urea. These users' requirements are not in- cluded in Table D.5 but are represented in D.6 and D.7. Peeaee Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska 1976-2000," prepared for Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board and the 1978 Alaska State Legislature by Institute of Social and Economic Research, January 1978. Table D.5. 1976 ALASKA ENERGY BALANCE IN HEAT UNITS CONDENSED VERSION Trillions of BTUs (% of total instate consumption“) Use Transportation Heating and Miscellaneous Total Final Consumption Electricity Conversion Total Gross Consumption Petroleum Processing” Total Instate Consumption* “Excludes reinjection Source: Scott Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska: 1976-2000," prepared for Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board and the 1978 Alaska State Legislature by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, January 1978, RESOURCE Petroleum Natural Liquids Gas Coal Waterpower Electricity Total 92.95 --- --- --- --- 92.95 (42.8) (42.8) 21.23 72k 2.94 --- 13.43 54.81 (9.8) (7.9) (1.4) (6.2) (25).3) 114.18 iyo} 2a 2.94 --- 13.43 147.76 (52.6) (7.9) (1.4) (6.2) (68.1) se 7 29.99 7.38 4.10 - 13.43 41,75 (6.3) (13.8) (3.4) (1.9) (- 6.2) (19.2) 127.89 »47,19 10,32 4,10 --- 189.51 (58.9) (21.8) (4,8) (1.9) (87.4) --- 27.44 --- --- --- 27.44 (12.6) (12.6) 127.89 74.63 10.32 4,10 --- 216.95 (58.9) (34.4) (4.8) (1.9) (100.0) Te-@ HYDROELECTRIC . ; : . - ~ 44 Electrical 55 THEE rE 43.5 PoCEEEEEEREEE HE Eee LOST ENERGY}: ‘NATURAL GAS Generalion Tr rt: hy \ a fll BR 99 278.3 FE seas wa Residential & = 45.4 Commercial adustrial & 37.0 = Militor PETROLEUM 44 ; PEE 255 LIQUIDS | AH USED ENERGY fom 10iro E oa oltiti/ E08 i ransportalion 3.0 qe 3 | | 93.0 ? 23 ‘ . So I Ss [_) Trillions of BTU's Source: Scott Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption Figure D.1, in Alaska: 1976-2000," prepared for Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board and the 1978 NET ALASKA ENERGY BALANCE FOR 1976 Alaska State Legislature by the Institute of Social ; and Economic Research, January 1978. Table D.6. 1976 ALASKA ENERGY BALANCE IN COMMODITY UNITS Petroleum Liquids (1000 barrels) Water Power Jet Fuel/ Natural Gas Coal (million Use Gasoline Kerosene Distillates Residuals LPG = Total (1000 MCF) (1000 tons) HP hours) Transportation civilian 4,836 5,514 3,919 - -- 14,269 -- -- -- military 144 2,057 182 == a 2,383 oat ox = total 4,980 7,571 4,101 -- -- 16,652 Heating & Misc. . ; civillan -- 12 2,937 289 210 3,448 13,356 3 -- 3,294, military -- - Su 172 -- 226 3,448 170 -- Su ay total -- 12 2,992 461 210 3,674 16,804 173 -- 3,635 Total civilian 4,836 5,526 6,856 239 210 17,717 13,356 -- -- 3,394 military 144 2,057 236 172 -- 5,599 3,448 -- -- $42 total 4,980 7,583 7,092 461- 210 20,326 16,804 -- -- 3,926 Electrical Ceneration civiilan -- -- 1,773 175 - 1,948 27,129 263 $21 (3,394) military -- -- 392 -- -- 392 2,155 171 -- total -- -- 2,165 175 -- 2,340 29,284 3K 521 civilian 4,836 §,526 8,629 464 210 19,665 40,485 266 521 -- milicary ly 2,057 628 aa -- 3,001 5,603 o41 ==! total 4,960 7,583 9,257 636 210 22,666 46,088 €07 $21 -- Extraction and 2 Processing Uses -- -- =< oo ~- ~~ 137,880 es a or TOTAL EXCRGY USE 4,980 7,583 9,257 636 210 22,666 183,968 607 $21 -- (jet fuel- 7,871) 4 -- =< -- -- -- -- 87,765 -- -- -- *rotal electricity delivered to final consumers, including space heating. 2oata available for natural gas only. 26,798 MMCF production related; 111,082 MMCF reinjected. 3 2 Data available for natural gas only. 4 63,509 MCF = LNG; 24,256 MMCF = Ammonia/Urea, Source: See Table D.5 €2-G Use Sisal Cor Transportation civilian military total Heating € Misc. civilian military total motion Total civilian military total Electrical Generation civilian military total Total Gross Consumption ivilian military total Extraction and Pyoc ing, Uses TOTAL ENERGY USE Exoorts Table D.7. 1976 ALASKA ENERGY BALANCE IN HEAT UNITS (Billions of BTUs) Petroleum Liquids Gasoline 25,379 756 26,135 25,379 7156 26,135 26,135 Jet Fuel/ Natural © Total Gas Water 3 Kerosene Distillates Residuals LPG Total Gas & Liquids Coal Power Electricity Total Energy 31,264 22,828 -- -- 79,471 -- 79,471 -- -- -- 79,471 11,663 1,060 -- -- 13,479 -- 13,479 -- - -- 13,879 42,928 23,888 -- -- 92,951 -- $2,951 -- -- -- 92,952 68 17,108 1,817 842 19,835 13,677 33,512 $l -- 11,580 45,153 -- 315 1,081 -- 1,396 3,531 4,927 2,890 -- 1,849 9,C66 68 17,423 2,898 842 21,231 17,207 38,438 2,941 -- 13,430 54,699 31,332 39,936 1,817 842 99,306 13,677 112,983 $l -- 11,589 174,614 c 11,663 1,375 1,081 -- 14,875 3,531 18,406 2,890 -- 1,849 20,145 42,996 41,311 2,898 842 114,162 17,207 131,389 2,941 -- 13,430 157,769 ~ -- 10,328 1,100 -- 11,428 27,780 39,208 4,471 4,101 (11,580) ~~ 2,283 -- a 2,283 2,207 4,490 2,907 -- (1,849) -- 12,611 1,100 -- 3,711 29,987 43,697 7,378 4,101 (23,430) 31,332 50,254 2,917 842 110,734 41,457 152,191 4,522 4,101 -- 160, @24 11,663 3,658 1,081 -- 17,158 5,737 22,895 5,797 -- -- 22,652 42,995 $3,922 3,998 642 127,893 47,194 175,086 10,319 4,101 -- 163,595 = “- -- o- -- 141,109" 1,189 _ -- ia Lui, ise 42,996 53,922 3,999 842 127,893 188,383 316,277 10,319 4,101 -- 330,597° 89,871 Loe 4 27,441 production related; 113,748 for reinjection, 2. ahaa higher than Table I.1 because of inclusion of natural gas use for repressuring. Horsepowcr hours converted to bty's on the basis of fuel replacenent value of water power at national average of 10,600 btu/kwh. Source: See Table D.5. D-25 The bulk of petroleum liquids, in the form of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel, was consumed in the transportation sector privately, by industry, and by the military. In 1976 Alyeska construction activity was at its peak, and this is reflected in the energy use figures most significantly in the transportation sector. Distillate consumption, in particular, is much larger than it would normally be. Distillate use was significant in space heating, but less was consumed for this function than in transportation. The remaining major use of distillate, and to a lesser extent residual fuel oil, was in the generation of electricity. This use ranked third in terms of barrels of fuel oil used in the state, behind transportation and space heating. About 1 percent of petroleum liquid consumption was in the form of LPG which was used for space heating and other residential needs. Natural gas final consumption was primarily for space heating and related domestic and commercial needs, such as cooking and water heating. These uses of gas accounted for 7.9 percent of total consumption and was almost equivalent, in btu terms, to distillate use for space heating and related needs. More important than space heating in terms of natural gas consumption was electricity generation. Natural gas use in this category accounted for 13.8 percent of total energy consumed and slightly more than half of all fuels used for electricity generation. Industrial use of natural gas was more important in terms of quantity than space heating and electric utility use. Petroleum production-related D-26 consumption, net of reinjection, consumed 12.6 percent of total energy, somewhat less than use for energy conversion. Reinjection of gas to maintain pressure in the oil reservoirs of Cook Inlet was a much larger use of gas, as can be seen from Table D.6. More than four times as much gas is used for reinjection purposes as is used for other production- related activities, but this gas is not considered to be consumed because a large percentage of it will be recoverable after the oil in the reser- voirs is depleted. Large quantities of natural gas are supplied to two export industries. These will be discussed in more detail below. Coal is used primarily in electricity conversion, although some is used for space heating directly and some indirectly through the production of steam. Waterpower accounts for 1.9 percent of total energy use in the state, all of which is for the generation of electricity. Looking next at consumption by type of use, transportation is clearly the largest user of all fuels with 42.8 percent of the total. Other final uses, which are primarily space heating and electricity consumption, ac- count for another 25.3 percent. Conversion of energy to electricity account for 19.2 percent of energy use in the state. This is the energy which is lost in conversion from primary fuel to electricity. Petroleum processing accounts for the remaining 12.6 percent. D-27 It is interesting that the generation of electricity requires 25.4 percent of the energy consumed in the state, while the output of the electricity sector is only 6.2 percent of total use. Final consumers, which account for 68.1 percent of use, obtain their direct consumption primarily in the form of liquid petroleum. Over 77 per- cent of direct final consumption is in the form of liquid petroleum. Na- tural gas is the next largest category, with 12 percent of final consump- tion. Electricity accounts for only 3 percent and coal, 2 percent. The regional distribution of 1976 energy consumption is shown in Table D.8. From this table, it can be seen that there are significant differences in the pattern of energy consumption by region and that total consumption is concentrated in the more populous railbelt portions of the state. There is a certain amount of arbitrariness involved in a regional breakdown such as this, because the data does not allow one to completely identify the point of consumption for all fuels. The pattern which emerges from the regional distribution is, however, clear. The rural parts of the state consume relatively large quantities of distillate and residual fuels because of electric power and space heating requirements. Jet fuel consumption is centered around Anchorage and Fairbanks with smaller quantities in outlying regions. Gasoline consumption is concentrated in the railbelt area. II. III. Iv. VI. VII. Northwest Southwest Southeast Southcentral Anchorage Interior Fairbanks Unallocated TOTAL Table D.8. Petroleum Liquids (thousand barrels) distillates gasoline jet fuel &@ residual* LPG** 71 59 231 -- 148 123 665 4 408 254 22. 21 766 1,451 1,507 26 2,364 4,885 609 140 35 30 901 2 1,188 770 1,228 nL? == = 3,630 a 4,980 7,571 9,893 210 *Total distillate = 9,257 thousand bbls; total residual = 636 thousand barrels. and electrical generation use is distributed regionally. *tDistribution is based on author's estimates. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF 1976 ALASKAN GROSS ENERGY CONSUMPTION Natural Gas Coal Water Power (thousand (thousand (million MCF) tons) HP hours) 832 pl au = axe 329 29,764 -- 162 37,214 a 32 5,077 79 -- -- 526 -- — 3 eat 72,887 607 521) Note: 12M barrels of kerosene used for heating not shown (unallocated) Source: January 1978. Scott Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska: 1976-2000," prepared for Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board and the 1978 Alaska State Legislature by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, Equivalent to 825 thousand MCF of natural gas. Only transportation ec-a D-29 Natural gas consumption occurs in the regions where it is produced. The majority is consumed in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula. Smaller quantities are consumed at Prudhoe Bay and Barrow. Coal consumption is concentrated in the Fairbanks region where it is used for electricity generation. The majority of waterpower is in Southeast Alaska, although there are also dams which serve the Southcentral and Anchorage electricity markets. Two final tables provide additional insight into the pattern of energy consumption in Alaska. Table D.9 shows the 1976 regional pabtera of electricity generation by type of fuel used and also by type of user. Utilities generated about 65 percent of the electricity in the state in 1976. Industry was the second largest, with 21 percent. The military generated about 14 percent. All users consumed large amounts of natural gas, with utilities apparently most dependent upon the fuel source, al- though they were the only user to make use of hydropower. Industry used the largest amount of fuel oil, and utilities consumed the majority of the coal. Table D.10 shows the use of natural gas by region and use in 1976. The majority of the gas was consumed or processed in the Southcentral part of the state, including Anchorage. Reinjection was the largest use of gas, followed by export of LNG. The generation of electric Table D.9. DE30 1976 ALASKA ELECTRICITY USE WITH FUEL INPUT REQUIREMENTS (physical units) OUTPUT IuvuTs Gross Generat Fuel Oil Natural Gas Coal Water Power MAP REGION 1000 (1090 bbls) (1000 MCF) (1000 tons) (1000 tH) I, Northwest utility 37.0 60 135 -- <= industry 25.6 66 -- -- -- military 15.6 il 163 -- — total 78.3 137 2393 -- -- “II. Southwest utility 35.8 79 ~~ an a industry 14.9 338 -- -- -- military 136.5 265 -- -- total 187.2 361 -- -- -- III. Southeast utility 305.8 123 -- -- 244 industry 327.3 671 -- — oo military -- So = a total 633.1 794 -- -- 244 IV. Southcentral utility 361.8 1s 2,051 - 120 industry 288.4 190 3,142 -- -- military 23.9 61 -- == =a total 674.1 445 $,193 -- i20 Vv. Anchorage utility 1,361.2 - 20,138 -- 24 industry _- - -- -- -- military 136.1 -- 1,992 total 1,497.3 -- 22,1390 24 VI. Interior utility 6.0 15 -- -- -- industry 139.2 69 1,663 -- -- military 116.1 57 -- 79 -- total 261.2 141 1,653 79 == VIL. Fairbants utility 464.3 408 -- 252 -- industry 26.7 33 -- 11 ao military 113.9 18 33 total 604.9 4ou 356 TOTALS utility 2,571.3 879 22,324 252 387 industry 822.2 1,059 4 ,805- Ly -- military $42.1 332 2,155 i771 -- GRAND TOTAL 3,936.1 2,340 29,284 435 337 Source: Scott Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska: 1976-2000," prepared for Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Board and the 1978 Alaska State Legislature by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, January 1978. Utility MAP REGION Sales I. Northwest 76 II. Southwest -- (no gas used) III, Southeast -- (no gas used) IV. Southcentral 1,628 V. Anchorage 11,652 VI. Interior -- VII. Fairbanks -- (no gas used) TOTAL 13,356 Miscellaneous Military Use 16 3,448 Not utilized for electrical generation. Table D.10. 1976 NATURAL GAS USE (Thousand MCF) Electric Petroleum EXPORTS Power Production Total Alaska Amonia Generation Related* Consumption Reinjection Urea LNG 298 4u2 832 -- = = 5,193 22,943 29,764 111,082 24,256 63,509 22,130 -- 37,214 -- -- -- 1,663 3,414 SS OAL -- = = 29,284 26,798 72,887 111,082 24,256 63,509 Note: Total gas usage has been reduced by 825 MMCF to reflect inclusion of LPG (equivalent to 210 bbls.) with liquid petroleum fuels to avoid double counting. Source: Scott Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska: 1976-2000," prepared for Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board and the 1978 Alaska State Legislature by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, January 1978, It is assumed that state LPG imports and exports balance. power, uses related to petroleum production, and production of ammonia- urea were next in order of importance. D.5. Variables Affecting Future Energy Demand A large number of factors will affect the future requirements for energy resources in Alaska. It should be noted that consumption of energy in some categories is effectively beyond the control of the state. The areas where this is particularly true are in military consump- tion and consumption of jet fuel by international aviation. These two uses consumed perhaps 20 percent of the energy used in Alaska in 1976. It is likely that they will decline in importance in future years but still account for a significant amount of consumption. Direct military use is dependent upon policies of the federal government with respect to defense matters and thus outside state control. Consumption of jet fuel for international aviation is largely dependent upon the growth of international aviation in the Pacific and Polar regions. The majority of the uses of energy is dependent upon economic and demographic factors within the state. Population is the most important- variable for projection purposes, because it is easiest to identify with energy consumption. More important than population in terms of the sen- sitivity of projections is the level of energy consumption per capita. D-33 This, in turn, is dependent upon incomes and prices. Higher incomes result in increased consumption, some of which involves the use of energy. The relative price of energy and of the different types of energy are important in determining the level of energy consumption and its form relative to other goods. Unfortunately, for Alaska it is not possible to statistically relate either personal income or energy prices to energy consumption in a meaningful way because of the lack of historical data series on these variables. As a result, the impact of these factors must be accounted for in an informal fashion. Also affecting consumption of energy per capita and its change over time, as well as the choices available to consumers and states, is govern- ment regulation directed toward conservation of energy and consumption of certain types of energy. For example, the program to increase the effi- ciency of gasoline consumption in automobiles will reverse the historical trend of declining miles traveled per gallon of gasoline consumed, and this will affect per capita gasoline consumption in a substantial way. Federal regulation affecting the choice of fuels seems at present to be most evident in the emphasis on using coal rather than either natural gas or petroleum liquids in electricity generation. Since such a large percentage of Alaska electricity is generated by natural gas which has historically been much less costly and more convenient than oil or coal, actual restrictions on the use of natural gas in the future may have a large impact on energy requirements in the state. D.6. Projected Energy Requirements to 2000 Alaskan energy requirements have been projected to the year 2000 in a report recently prepared for the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Develop- ment Advisory Board. ® The basic projection is liberal in its allowance for growth in population and in consumption per capita. The reason for this approach is that it is better from a policy point of view to over- estimate instate consumption rather than underestimate. This projection seems reasonable to use in this analysis also. The economic assumptions underlying these energy use projections are essentially identical to those presented in the previous section on economic growth. The only substantial difference is that a slower rate of increase in state government expenditures is projected with a result- ing somewhat slower increase in the rate of overall growth of the economy. Transportation fuel use patterns are assumed to follow historical patterns with growth in gasoline and distillate consumption more closely related to population than that of jet fuel. Space heating consumption is related to population also, but the type of fuel used is dependent upon the alternatives locally available. Unfortunately, a viable choice exists only in the Anchorage and Southcentral regions where natural gas is available at an attractive price in competition with fuel oil and electricity. In this part of the state, the projection incorporates the historical trend toward an increasing percentage of space heating 6 Ibid. D-35 provided by natural gas. In other major parts of the state, the historical mode split among fuel types is maintained. Projecting electricity demand is more difficult because of the greater uncertainty concerning the future modal split, particularly in the railbelt area. For simplicity, the existing modal split is assumed to continue outside the railbelt area. In the railbelt, there is a con- tinuation of past trends through 1984, which is as far into the future as the major utilities have plans for new generating facilities. After that time, further capacity increases may be either coal-fired or generated by hydroelectric power. Existing gas units in the Anchorage area are gradually converted to peaking after that time. The average heat rates for electricity generation decline in the railbelt through 1985. Projection of large industrial uses of energy are a major question of this study and thus only existing and already planned facility require- ments are included. For natural gas, these consist primarily of use in the LNG facility exporting to Japan, in the production of ammonia-urea, and in uses related to the production and transportation of oil and gas. For petroleum liquids, transportation is the largest component. Table D.11 incorporates these assumptions and two sets of assump- tions regarding future electricity generation in the railbelt. In the first case, coal is the generation mode for all new electric generating Case I. - petroleum liquids (million barrels of erude oil equivalent) D-36 Table D.1l. PROJECTED ALASKAN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Coal for Railbelt - natural gas (billion cubic feet) - coal (million tons) - hydroelectric (million horsepower) Case II. 1976 1980 22.1 28.5 164.9 232.0 607 -618 521 543 Hydroelectric for Railbelt - petroleum liquids - natural gas - coal - hydroelectric Source: See text. 22.1 28.5 164.9 232.0 -607 618 521 S43 1985 35.2 250.0 1.904 683 35.2 250.0 1.904 633 1990 46.9 238.4 3.851 7693 46.9 228.1 1.904 4942 1995 60.8 250.3 5.495 862 60.8 232.0 1.904 9100 2000 81.2 267.2 8.833 1026 81.2 267.2 4,214 9264 D-37 facilities in the railbelt after 1984.7 In the second case, the Corps of Engineers’ Susitna project becomes available, the first phase by 1990 and the second by 1995. These facilities provide 3.100 and 3.020 million MWH, respectively, to the railbelt and replace both coal and gas turbines in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. New coal facilities are postponed and use of gas turbines in Anchorage is reduced temporarily as the hydroelectric power is phased in. The result is a set of projections which is extremely tentative. This is because the phasing in of a large hydroelectric project will affect the overall generation mix of the system in a complex way, requir- ing a detailed analysis of all existing units in the system as well as the system load. The hydroelectric projection using the simple assump- tions stated above results in the elimination of expansion of coal faci- lities over a ten-year period, but it is possible that the parameters of the system would be such that natural gas use would decline more rapidly during the time when hydroelectric power is coming on line, and this could lead to an increase in coal use. The projections indicate a strong growth in the use of energy in Alaska in the future based upon large population increases and increasing use of energy per capita. Use of petroleum liquids will increase at about 6 percent annually, while over the entire period, gas use will in- crease more slowly because of the phase-out of electricity generation by ‘This is equivalent to the base case projection in Goldsmith and Lane, op. cit. D-38 utilities and the absence of significant expansion of industrial uses of gas after 1980. The growth rates of coal and hydroelectric power are dependent upon the choice of mode for new electricity generation in the railbelt. If coal is the choice, its use will begin to expand rapid- ly after 1980 and reach a level where demand is 5 million tons per year sometime in the 1990s. Additions to hydroelectric power generation would be confined to the Southeast. If, on the other hand, hydroelectric power became available in the railbelt area, hydroelectric power use in the state in 2000 could be eight to ten times larger than otherwise. Growth in the use of coal would be halted until near the year 2000, when the full capacity of the Susitna hydroelectric project would be utilized. The projections are sensitive to the assumptions regarding the rate of growth in population and growth in energy consumption per capita. In general, this effect is stronger for the use per capita assumptions and indicates the uncertainty surrounding the impact of pricing and other policies to restrict the use of energy. The sensitivity to these factors is more noticable in use of petroleum liquids and electricity consumption (and thus coal and hydroelectric power) than in use of natural gas. This is because such a large portion of natural gas use is industrial and thus not affected by population change or general policies affecting per capita consumption. D-39 D.7. Calculation of Net Energy Available The calculation of net energy available for energy intensive in- dustrial development in Alaska requires a comparison of basic energy requirements with energy available. As indicated in a previous section, the demand for energy in future years for presently identified require- ments is subject to a large degree of uncertainty, and this uncertainty is partially the result of uncertainty regarding the energy supply itself. This is because the economy of the state is heavily dependent upon the energy extraction industry, particularly oil and gas. As a result, a large supply of energy available to the state as a result of strong activity in the energy extraction sector will lead to rapid economic growth. The increased demand which results from this economic growth is small in comparison to the increased energy potentially available, however, so that for purposes of this analysis, the basic energy require- ments of the state can be assumed to be independent of the level of energy extraction development. Projections of the energy available for meeting Alaskan requirements are much more difficult to develop because of uncertainty regarding the individual deposits in Alaska and the market conditions where these resources will compete. It is possible to indicate in a very general way, however, that the probable available energy through the year 2000 will greatly exceed basic instate requirements. D-40 The supply of petroleum liquids in 2000 from existing proved reserves from Prudhoe Bay and Cook Inlet appears to be the same order of magnitude as instate requirements. The excess of supply over demand would be much larger in interim years when demand is less and Prudhoe Bay is operating at peak capacity. The balance between supply and demand for petroleum products is not particularly meaningful since the market for such products is essentially world-wide and a large percentage of existing consumption is imported from outside the state in spite of the fact that present supply exceeds present demand (Table D.12). The natural gas balance in gross terms indicates a significant net surplus available for the state in 2000, but this is based upon the er- roneous assumption that all Prudhoe Bay gas would be available for in- state use. It is more reasonable to concentrate on the Cook Inlet gas market, since that is the primary point of consumption in the state and continuing gas availability there must depend upon the availability of supplies in Cook Inlet. Analysis indicates that, based upon existing reserves in the Cook Inlet area, there may be 1,833 billion cubic feet of gas available be- tween the present and 2000.8 This, however, does not take into considera- tion requirements after the year 2000. Continued consumption at the rate calculated for 2000 would exhaust this cushion in about seven years, in 2007. Thus, there does not appear to be a surplus of gas in Cook Inlet 8 a Goldsmith and Lane, op. cit., p. IV-6. ALASKA NET ENERGY BALANCE IN 2000 Available Supply Annual Demand from Existing Sources - petroleum liquids 81.2 70 - 125+ (million barrels of oil equivalent) - natural gas 267.2 730 - 912+ (billion cubic feet) - coal (high use case) 8.833 much greater volume (million tons) (1,500 million tons strippable reserves in Beluga field alone)? - hydroelectric 6.882 additional sites recently evaluated (high use case) 7 9.09 (million mega-watt hours) Scott Goldsmith and Tom Lane, "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska, 1976-2000," prepared for the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Board, 1978, Chapter III. 2Department of the Interior, Office of Coal Research, "The Potential for Developing Alaskan Coals for Clean Export Fuels," by Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, 1974, p. 2. Arlon Tussing et al. Electric Power in Alaska 1976-1995, report prepared for State of Alaska, House Finance Committee, 1976, pp. 5-21. D-42 for new developments unless there are significant increases in proven reserves or reductions in existing uses. Coal production is presently occurring at Healy in the Alaska Range. A significant increase in demand for coal for electric power generation would most likely result in the opening of the Beluga field west of Cook Inlet. The recoverable reserves of this field are not known but have been estimated at 1,500 million tons. ? This is sufficient to support a mine of 15 million a year for 100 years. In addition, the level of pro- duction at Healy can be increased. The energy balance for hydroelectric power is very site-specific because ‘of the lack of interconnections among most generating facilities in the state. An analysis by community is not possible because this would require doing an electric generation power balance for each site. In general, however, it can be seen that even with development of Susitna and moderate hydroelectric development in the Southeast, there will still be sites available for development if they can be developed economically to support projected load increases. °Department of the Interior, Office of Coal Research, "The Potential for Developing Alaskan Coals for Clean Export Fuels," by Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, 1974, p. 2. Biblicgraphy le Alaska Department of Labor, Alaska Labor Force Estimates by Area, annual. Goldsmith, Scott and Lane, Tom. "Oil and Gas Consumption in Alaska 1276-2000." A report for the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Develop- ment Advisory Board and the 1978 Alaska State Legislature, by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, January 1978. Goldsmith, Scott, et al. The Permanent Fund and the Growth of the Alaskan Economy: Selected Studies. A report to the State of Alaska House Special Committee on the Alaska Permanent Fund by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, December 15, LOTT. Tussing, Arlon, et al. Electric Power in Alaske 1976-1995. A report to the State of Alaska, House Finance Committee by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1976. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Coal Research, "The Potential for Developing Alaskan Coals for Clean Export Fuels," by Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, 1974. E. CATALOG OF ENERGY RESOURCES This section contains a catalog of energy resources of the state of Alaska. The catalog is arranged by type of resource and by region of the state as defined by the Institute of Social and Economic Research MAP project. (See map of these regions at the end of Section C.) Information on each occurance includes the resource classification, quantity, quality, and evaluation of development potential. The resources covered include oil, gas, coal, hydropower, oil shale, geothermal, and wind. Energy development scenarios have been developed by others and are not duplicated in this catalog.t Such an exercise is understandably speculative because of the many variables involved in the analysis. Other energy resources besides those cataloged occur in Alaska. Uranium deposits are scattered throughout Alaska in the Interior, South- east, and Northwest regions. Uranium has been produced at Kendrick Bay in the Ketchikan area where the potential for further uranium development of this 10,000 ton deposit of 1 percent U303 is very high. Information on other deposits is scarce, making quantity and quality estimates dif- ficult. Promise for uranium development is shown in 78.9 million acres of low-lying areas in Alaska. However, most of these lands are areas of prime habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. tron example, see U.S. Energy Research and Development Administra- tion, "Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project--Draft" pre- pared by Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977. E-2 Mining in Alaska would be open pit operations with solvent extrac- tion mills. Enrichment plarts could be constructed in areas with abundant and inexpensive coal or other fuels and adequate water supplies. Solar energy potential in Alaska is confined at present to applica- tions for water and space heating on an individual basis. In winter, the low incidence of radiation of the sun reduces its potential when the need is greatest. Costly energy storage capacity would be necessary to store solar energy for winter use in Alaska. Solar development is highly un- likely in Alaska for this reason and because the daily solar zenith angle is quite variable. A low zenith angle causes a higher percentage of all incoming solar radiation to be reflected and that which is ab- sorbed is distributed over a larger area due to the curvature of the earth.” Tidal energy petential in Alaska, with technology breakthroughs in ‘tidal electric equipment, could be very high. However, the capabilities of available and proven equipment and the availability of alternative modes of generation make hydroelectric potential from tides in Alaska appear dim, with possibly one exception. Kootznahoo Sound on the west side of Admiralty Island near the village of Angoon could be technically and economically feasible for hydroelectric generation from tides to meet the load requirements of the Angoon area. Other than this one exception, ?arlon Tussing et al. Electric Power in Alaska: 1976-1995, prepared for the House Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1976. most tide races are not located close enough to communities to warrant interest in them as an alternative to existing generation systems, given today's technology and proven equipment. Future sites with potential, however, would include the tide races of the Southeast region, Cook Inlet, the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and Prince William Sound. Tide races range from the massive currents and bores of the Turnagain Arm to smaller fiord passage type "salt-chucks" in the Southeast. ° 3 Ibid. , Catalor of Energy Resources IL OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location —— Northwest (I) Estimates of oil and gas . reserves in Alaska, both ONSHORE onshore and offshore vary 8 4O5 considerably. Estimates North Slope Basin Undiscovered 7,75 billion 75,000 barrels, High to Very High"? have been reduced by the (Speculative) barrels per cubic mile U.S.G.S., and recent un- 8 4,5 successful drillings in the Kotzebue Basin Undiscovered +30 billion 50,000 barrels, Moderate to High"? Gulf of Alaska may lead to (Selawik)§ barreis® per cubic mile further reductions in esti- 1 8 8 cone 4,5 mates. As of 1975, the Yukon-Koyukuk Basin Undiscovered 1.15 billion . $0,000 barrels Low to Moderate’ USGS estimated total onshore barrels® per cubic mile® oil reserves in Alaska at 9 9 , . «4,5 9.94% billion barrels mea- North Slope Basin Inferred 3.14 piiiion 0.4 Margina} High to Very High"? sured, .013 billion barrels barrels Probability indicated, 6.1 billion bar- 9 . . 4,5 rels inferred, and between Undiscovered 2-8.8 billion 0.4 Marginay, High to Very High”? 6-19 billion barrels undis- barrels Probability covered yet recoverable. Kotzebue Basin Undiscovered? Negligible? --- Moderate to High #95 Total offshore oil reserve (Selawik) : . estimates in Alaska are given 9 . 9 ; 4,5 as..150 billion barrels mea- Yukon-Koyukuk Basin Undiscovered 0-.133 billion 25 Marginal Low to Moderate’? sured, 0,10 billion barrels barrels? Probability? inferred, and 3-31 billion : barrels undiscovered.” For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. IL (Continued) . Catalor of Energy Resources REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Natural gas onshore reserves are given as 31.722 trillicn cubic feet measured, 14.7 inferred, and 16-57 trillion cubic feet undiscovered. ® As of 1975, the State of Alaska, Department of Natu- ral Resources, estimated total onshore oil reserves in Alaska at 25.3 billion barrels undiscovered, and offshore reserves at 50.1 billion barrels undiscovered, Onshore gas estimates are 85.1 trillion cubic feet un- discovered and offshore gas reserves are estimated at 295.3 trillion cubic feet undiscovered, Discovered but not produced oil reserves are given as 10.5 billion barrels and discovered but not pro- duced gas reserve estimates are given as 29.7 trillion OCCURRENCE RESCURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ! CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE Region/Lecation Northwest (continued) OFFSHORE Chukchi Province® Undiscovered® 6.6 billion 50,000 barrels Moderate to High barrel1s® per cubic mile® Hope Province® Undiscovered® 1.8 billion 75,000 barrels Moderate to High’ barrels per cubic mile Kotzebue Basin® Undiscovered? +39 billion 75,000 barrels High* barreis® per cubic mile Chukchi Province? Undiscovered? 0-18.1 billion .65 average marginal Moderate to High" barrels? probability Hope Province? Undiscovered? 0-0.6 billion +30 Marginal Moderate to High barrels? Probability? | Southwest (II) | ONSHORE i Holitna Basin® Undiscovered® 202 billion 30,000 barrels, Moderate cubic feet.10 i barrels® per cubic mile | i Minchumina Basin® Undiscovered® +06 billion 30,000 barrels Moderate? barrels® per cubic mile® For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. f £ Resources IL (Continued) Catalog of Enerpy Resource OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR. IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Southwest (continued) The American Gas Association aie il | has estimated that proved gas ONSHORE reserves in Alaska are 31.45 8 8 4s trillion cubic feet. The Bristol Bay Basin Undiscovered .o4 billign 50,000 barrels High’’ American Petroleum Institute : barrels per cubic mile estimates proved vil reserves in Alaska to be 10.096 bil- Yukon-Koyukuk Province® Undiscovered® 1.15 billion 50,000 barrels Low to Moderatet»5 lion barrels.9 barrels per cubic mile® The estimates given by the Bethel Basin® Undiscovered® 1.3 billion 50,000 barrels Moderate to High? U.S.G.S, and the Department barrels per cubic mile of Natural Resources were by basin and province. Tor our Yukon-Koyukuk Province? Undiscovered? 0-.133 billion +24 marginal Low to Moderate *?> purposes, we needed oil and . barrels? probability? gas reserve estimates by re- gions in order to use the Bristol Bay Province? Undiscovered? 0-0.7 billion «40 marginal High» data as input for the MAP barrels? probability? econometric model. Most basins and provinces fell within a Alaska Peninsula Province? Undiscovered? 0-1.1 billion +40 marginal Moderate to Hight>5 specific MAP region; however, barrels? probability? some did not. Those basins OFFSHORE and provinces which overlapped the MAP regions were divided Bering Sea Province® Undiscoverea® 27.4 billion 75,000 barrels Moderate? as follows: The North Slope barrels® per cubic mile® basin was divided 50 percent i as being in the Northwest MAP Bering Sea Subregion? Undiscovered? 0-11.69 billion 43 average Moderate region and 50 percent in the barrels For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. marginal probability Interior region. OIL (Continued) OCCURRENCE Region/Location Southeast (III) Southcentral (IV). ONSHORE Cook Inlet Basin® Copper River Basin® Gulf of Alaska Province® Cook Inlet Subprovince? RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Undiscovered® Undiscovered® Undiscovered® Measured? Indicated? Inferred? Undiscovered? QUANTITY +93 billion barrels® +16 billion barrels8 +94 billion barre1s8 «262 billion barrels? +012 billion barrels? +162 billion barrels? 0.2-0.8 billion barrels? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GRADE. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR IMPORTANCE Catalog of Energy Rcsources REMARKS AND SPECIAL ClARACTERISTICS 115,000 barrels per cubic mile® 30,000 barrels per cubic mile’ 50,000 barrels per cubic mile? High to Very High4»5 Moderate Moderate to High »5 High to Very High'#»5 High to Very High'ts5 High to Very High'»>5 High to Very High'>5 The Yukon-Koyukuk basin was divided 33 percent into the Northwest, Southwest, and Interior MAP regions, respec- tively. The Middle Tanana basin was divided 50 percent into the Interior region and 50 percent into the Fairbanks region. The reserve estinates for Gulf of Alaska Southeast were included in the estimates for Gulf of Alaska Southcentral, since the Southeast estimates were negligible. U.S.G.S. es- timates for measured oil re- serves in the North Slope Lasin were included entirely in the Interior region as Prudhoe Bay reserve estimates. The 27.193 gas reserve estimate for the North Slope Basin was divided as .193 trillion cubic feet into the Northwest region and 27.0 trillion cubic fcet into the Interior region as Prudhoe Bay reserves. : Catalog of Energy Resources IL (Continued) E 2 OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPNENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND . CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY . GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Southcentral (continued) When it was necessary to total probabilities, barrels ONSHORE per cubic mill or MCF per barrel estimates, the aver- Copper River Subprovince? Undiscovered? 0-0.16 billion .30 marginal Moderate" age was used as the estimate barrels probability? in the tables. Marginal prob- 9 is abilities are the probabilities Gulf of Alaska Subprovince Undiscovered? 0.1-0.5 billion --- High to Very High'ts5 of finding some oil; i.e., of barrels? finding at least something. 2 Kodiak Subprovince® Undiscovered? Negligible? . --- High" : Onshore estimates of recover- able oil resources for the OFFSHORE Yukon-Koyukuk basins given by ; . the Department of Natural Re- Cook Inlet Basin® Undiscovered® 1.6 billion 115,000 barrels High" sources ave higher than those barrels8 per cubic mile® given by the U.S.G.S. Cnshore . gas estimates are also lover Gulf of Alaska Province® Undiscovered® 7.2 billion 100,000 barrels High* for the U.S.G.S. for the In- barrels® per cubic mile terior basins and the Gulf of Alaska. However, offshore Kodiak Island Province® Undiscoverea® 2.4 billion 75,000 barrels High" U.S.G.S. gas reserve estimates barrels® per cubic mile® , are higher for the Chukchi and 9 Beaufort Sea Provinces. Depart- Cook Inlet Province Measured? +212 billion oon High" ment of Natural Resources off- barrels shore gas reserve estimates are . higher than those for the U.S.G.S. Indicated? 028 billion = High" for the Bering Sea and Gulf of barrels? Alaska Provinces. For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. IL (Continued) OCCURRENCE Region/Location Southcentral (continued) OFFSHORE Cook Inlet Province? Eastern Gulf of Alaska Province? Kodiak-Shumagin Province? Anchorage (V) Interior (VI) ONSHORE Middle Tenana Basin® Yukon-Kandik Basin® RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Inferred? Undiscovered? Undiscovered? Undiscovered? Undiscovered® Undiscovered® QUANTITY +131 billion barrels” 0.5-2.3 billion barrels? 0-4.4 billion barrels? 0-1.35 billion barrels? +04 billion barrels 1.67 billion barrels® For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog, Footnotes follow catalog. GRADE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR IMPORTANCE Catalor of Enerpy Resources REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS «70 marginal probability? 30 average marginal probability? 30,000 barrels per cubic nile® 37,500 barrels per cubic nile® High* High* High" High’ Low Low to High't»> Offshore estimates of re- coverable oil reserves are much lower for the U.S.6.S. for the Bering Sea Province. Otherwise, the figures scom to be in fair agreement.?! The potential for oil and gas resources development in Alask1 is dependent upon many uncertainties, such as world and U.S. oil and gas prices, the amount of undiscovered reserves and the rates ‘of discovery, the economics of field exploration and de- velopment--including taxes, costs of production, avail- ability of labor. and supplies; technology, access to re- sources and other infrastruc- ture facilities--including pipelines, port facilities, tankers, refineries, and other handling and proces- sing capacities. The unre- solved status of the er~ ship of Alaskan lands and offshore boundary disputes is also a potential obstacle to petroleum development in Alaska. IL (Continued) OCCURRENCE RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Region/Location QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL KS AND ARACTERISTICS SPECIAL Cil Interior (continued) ONSHORE North Slope Basin® Undiscovered® Yukon-Koyukuk Province® Undiscovered? North Slope Basin? Measured? Inferred? Undiscovered? Yukon-Porcupine Undiscovered? Province Yukon-Koyukuk Province? ‘Undiscovered? Interior Lowlands Undiscovered? . Province? 7.75 billion barrels® 1.15 billion barrels® 10.05 billion barrels 3.14 billion barrels 2.0-8.8 billion barrels? 0-0.40 billion barrels? 0-.133 billion barrels? Negligible? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. 75,000 barrels per cubic mile 50,000 barrels per cubic mile® +30 marginal probability? +25 marginal probability? High to Low to High to High to High to Very High?® Moderate Very High'»5 Very High'#»5 Very Hig! 4, pies Low to High't»5 Low to Moderate’’ Low 4 5 § The development of Prudhoe Bay,on the other hand, has encouraged further explora- tion in the area and has stimulated the construction of a refinery near Fairbanks. The opening up of the North Slope has also made the Beaufort Sea province a prime crea for leasing by both the state and federal governments, 11 IL (Continued) Catalog of Energy Resources OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Locaticn Interior (continued) OFFSHORE Beaufort Sea Province® Undiscovered® 2.7 billion 75,000 barrels High* barrels® per cubic mile® Beaufort Sea Province? . Undiscovered? 0-7.6 billion -75 marginal Hight barrels? probability? Fairbanks (VII) CNSHORE Middle Tanana Basin® Undiscovered® -04 billion 30,000 barrels Low barrels per cubic mile® OFFSHORE one e --- --- For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GAS OCCURRENCE Region/Location Northwest (1) ONSHORE North Slope Basin® Kotzebue Basin (Selawik)® Yukon-Koyukuk Basin® North Slope Basin? Kotzebue Basin (Selawik)? Yukon-Koyukuk Basin? RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Undiscovered® Undiscovered® Undiscovered? Measured? Inferred? Undiscovered? Undiscovered? Undiscovered? QUANTITY 20.93 trillion cubic feet8 1.83 trillign cubic feet 3.09 trillion cubic feet® +193 trillion cubic feet? 6.5 trillion cubic feet? 4,65-23,5 tril- lion cubic feet? Negligible? 0-.5 trillion cubic feet? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GRADE 2.7 MCF per barre18 6.1 MCF 8 per barrel 2.7 MCF 8 per barrel’ 60 marginal probability? 40 marginal, probability DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR IMPORTANCE Catalop of Energy Resources REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS High to Very High »5 Moderate to High'»>5 Low to Moderate +> High to Very High'?® High to Very High't+> High to Very High4 +5 Moderate to High4»5 Low to Moderate’?® Catalor of Energy Resources AS (Continued) SESE eee eee cet OCCURRENCE RESOURCE . DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Northwest (continued) OFFSHORE Chukchi Province® Undiscovered® 33 trillion 5.0 MCF 8 Moderate to High" cubic feet® per barrel Hope Province® Undiscovered8 10.98 trillion 6.1 MCF Moderate to High* cubic feet® per barrel 8 ; » Kotzebue Basin® Undiscovered® ; 2.38 trillion , 6.1 MCF High* cubic feet® per barre1® Chukchi Province? Undiscovered? 0-49.5 trillion .65 marginal Moderate to Hight»5 cubic feet9 probability Hope Province? Undiscovered? 0-3,3 trillion 50 marginal Moderate to High? cubic feet? probability? Southwest (II) ONSHORE Holitna Basin® Undiscovered® +12 trillion 6.1 MCF Moderate cubic feet® per barrel Minchumina Basin® Undiscovered® +37 trillion 6.1 MCF Moderate cubic feet® per parre1® For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. em ee rN SR A a NS RS GAS (Continued) OCCURRENCE Region/Location Southwest (continued) ONSHORE Bristol Bay Basin® Yukon-Koyukuk Province® Bethel Basin® Yukon-Koyukuk Province? Bristol Bay Province? Alaska Peninsula Province? OFFSHORE Bering Sea Province® Bering Sea Province? RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Undiscovered® Undiscovered® Undiscovered® Undiscovered® Undiscovered? Undiscovered? Undiscovered® Undiscovered? QUANTITY $.73 trillion cubic feet® 3.09 trillion cubic feet® 3.51 trillion cubic feet® 0-.133 trillion cubic feet? 0-0.7 trillion cubic feet? 0-1.1 trillion cubic feet? 167.14 trillion cubic feet® 0~26,0 trillion cubic feet? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Catalog of Energy Resources REMARKS AN SPECIAL CHARACTE, GRADE OR IMPORTANCE 6.1 MCP High'?5 per barrel 2.7 MCF per barre18 2.7 MCF per barre1® 225 marginal, probability +40 marginal probability? +40 marginal probability? 6.1 MCF per barre18 «475 average marginal probability? Low to Moderate4»5 Moderate to High't»5 Low to Moderate?»® High» Moderate to High» Moderate Moderate D RISTICS Catalos of Enerpy Resources GAS (Continued) OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACT Region/Location e Southeast (III) --- --- one coe Southcentral (IV) ONSHORE Cook Inlet Basin® Undiscovered® 5.67 trillion 6.1 MCF High to Very High't?5 : cubic feet® per, barrel Copper River Basin® Undiscovered® .98 trillion : 6.1 MCF Moderates cubic feet® per barre1® Gulf of Alaska Province® Undiscovered® 5.73 trillion « 6.1 MCF Moderate to High4»5 . cubic feet® per barre1® Cook Inlet Subprovince? Measured? 4.463 trillion --- High to Very High» cubic feet? Inferred? 2.066 trillion -—- High to Very High*»5 cubic feet? Undiscovered? 0.7-2,8 trillion =e High to Very Hight» cubic feet? Copper River Subprovince? Undiscovered? 0-0.8 trillion -40 marginal Moderate cubic feet? probability? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. a GAS (Continued) Catalog of Energy Resources OCCURREN RESOURCE ; DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Regicn/Location Southcentral (continued) ONSHORE Gulf of Alagka Undiscovered? 0.2-0.8 trillion --- High to Very High*»5 Subprovince cubic feet? Kodiak Subprovince? Undiscovered? Negligible == High’ OFFSHORE Cook Inlet Basin® Undiscovered® 9.76 trillion 6.1 MCF High cubic feet® per barre1® Gulf of Alaska Province® Undiscovered® 43,92 trillign 6.1 MCF High" cubic feet per barre18 Kodiak Island Province® Undiscovered® . 14.64 trillion 6.41 MCF High cubic feet® per barre18 Cook Inlet Province? Measured? 1.561 trillion --- Hight cubic feet? Inferred? 0.722 trillion --- High" cubic feet Undiscovered? 1.0-4.5 trillion --- : High® cubic feet? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog, Catalog of Enerry Resources GAS (Continued) fee eeeer oer erent areca toes OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Southcentral (continued) OFFSHORE Eastern Gulf of Undiscovered? 0-13.0 trillion +70 marginal High’ Alaska Province? cubic feet? probability? Kodiak-Shumagin Province? Undiscovered? 0-4,0 trillion - +30 average High S cubic feet? marginal probability? Anchorage (V) : --- --- : --- --- Interior (VI) ; ONSHORE Middle Tanana Basin® Undiscovered? +245 trillion 6.1 MCF Low cubic feet® per barre1® Yukon-Kandik Basin® Undiscovered’ 9,61 trillion : 6.1 MCF Low to High'+5 cubic feet8 per barre18 North Slope Basin® Undiscovered® 20.93 trillign 2.7 MCF _ High to Very High'»5 cubic feet per barre1§ Yukon-Koyukuk Province® Undiscovered® 3.09 trillion 2.7 MCF Low t> Moderz celt5 cubic feet® per barre18 For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. AS (Continued) “GRADE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR IMPORTANCE Catalog of Enerp, REWARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OCCURRENCE RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY Region/Location Interior (continued ONSHORE North Slope Basin? ‘Measured? 27.0 trillion cubic feet? Inferred? 12.590 trillion ; cubic feet? Undiscovered? 7,0-25.0 trillion cubic feet? Yukon~Porcupine Undiscovered? 0-2.0 trillion Province : cubic feet? Yukon-Koyukuk Province? Undiscovered? . 0-0.50 trillion cubic feet? Interior Lowlands Undiscovered? 0-0.70 trillion Province cubic feet? OFFSHORE Beaufort Sea Province® Undiscovered® 13.5 trillion cubic feet Beaufort Sea Province? Undiscovered? 0-19.3 trillion cubic feet? For explanation of terms, consult notes following Footnotes follow catalog. catalog. 60 average marginal probability? ++30 marginal probability? ~40 marginal probability? .35 marginal probability? 5.0 MCF per barrei® +75 marginal probability? High to Very Hig! pied High to Very High't»5 High to Very Hig! nits dS Low to High'»5 Low to Moderate ’?5 Low't High High* Catalog of Enersy Resources GAS (Continued) OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CKARACTERIS7TICS Region/Location Fairbanks (VII) ONSHORE Middle Tanana Basin® Undiscovered? +245 trillion 6.1 MCF - Low! cubic feet® per barre18 OFFSHORE --- --- --- te For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. , Catalog of Encrry Resources ions COAL OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Regicn/Location Northwest (I) Resources, when appropriate, 2,6 2 are classified according to e North of the Brooks Range Inferred“? 19,292 million Bituminous 6 Low to 5,4 the level of information in an area extending along short tons“? BTU 9,300-13,450 Very High”? available. Measured re- the front of the mountains O source estimates are those from Cape Lisburne eastward Inferred?® 100,905 mi}lion Subbituminous~ 6 Low to 5 for which the quantity is to longitude 145°, north to short tons? BTU 7,700-11,900 Very High oe computed based on the re- latitude 70°, west to the 6 sults of detailed examina- Meade River, and porth to Hypothetical 1,700,000 million Bituminous and Low to tion reports. The estimates the Arctic Coast. short tons Subbituminous® 6 Very Highd»4 are computed from dime) BTU 7,700-13,450 revealed by drill holes, out- croppings, seepages, trenches and/or mine workings. Indicated resource esti- mates are based partly on Southwest (II) specific measurements and partly on the projection of e@ Herendeen Bay Coal Fiel Hypothetica1® 2,900 million Bituminous® Low to Moderate? visible data within a reason- Between Herendegn Bay short tons® BTU 11,150-12,420° able area of the geologic and Port Moller evidence. Inferred resource 5,6 . 6 5 estimates are computed on e Chignik Coal Field? Hypothetical 240 million Bituminous an Low to Moderate the basis of a broad know- Northwest of Chignik Bay short tons® Subbituminous ledge of the geologic char- 5,6 6 BTU Unknown® 5 acter of a region and for e Unga Island Coal Field~’ Hypothetical 150 nilliop Lignite® 6 Low to Moderate which a few specific mea- Northeast part of Unga Is. : short tons BTU Unknown surements are availeble. For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. COAL (Continued) OCCURRENCE Region/Location — Southeast (IIT) Southcentral (IV) @ Matanuska Coal Fields>6 Northeast of Palmer? Susitna Coal Fields®*® Beluga Riyer Area (west of Anchorage )°+5 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Measured or Indicated® Inferred® Hypothetica1® Measured, Inferred, o Indicated Inferred® Hypothetica1® Measured or Indicated \ QUANTITY 47 million short tons §2 million short tons® 149 million short tons 137 million short tons 7,800 million short tons® 26,900 millign short tons 2,400 million short tons For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GRADE Semianthracite to anthracite® BTU 10,800-14,130° Bituminous® 6 BTU 10,390-13,190 | Bituminous? BTU 10,390-13,190° Subbituminous to Lignite® BTU 7,160-8,890° DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR IMPORTANCE Low Low Low High ‘High High to to to to to to to High® High® High® High® Very High? Very High? Very High® Catalog of Energy Resources RENARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Undiscovered, hypotheti- cal, or speculative re- source values are esti- mates based on a broad knowledge of the geologic character of a region. Total recoverable coal resources in Alaska are estimated at 132.9 billion tons. Hypothetical (un- discovered coal) resources are estimated at 1.9 tril- lion tons.} About 85 per- cent of the recoverable coal resources are subbi- tuminous and lignite coals, and 90 percent of the re- coverable reserves occur in the Northwest region (Region 1).? Many regions of Alaska contain signifi- cant amounts of coal; how- ever, insufficient data exists to determine the extent of these reserves. COAL (Continued) , Catalop of Fnerpy Resource: st tary bases OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Southcentral (continued) The Nenana and Matanuska fields have been the Susitna Coal Pields>*® Measured, 2,395 millign Subbituminoys High to Very High® productive. The Matan- Yenta River Area (west Inferred, o: short tons and Lignite uska field produced 7.5 of Talkeetna)?® Indicated BTU 7,160-8,890° million tons of bituminous coal between 1916 and 1969, Since 1969, the field has e Kenai Coal Fie1d9® Measured 300 million Subbituminous High? not produced any signifi- Kenai Peninsula or Indicated® short tons” - cant amounts since iis and Lignite® es principal users, the Anch- Nypothetica1® 2,400 million High orage power plants, con- short tons® Bru 6,550-8,600° verted from coal to natural ; gas. The Nenana field hes Neasured, 3/8 million Subbituminoys High® produced 16.5 million tors Inferred, oF short tons? and Lignite of subbituminous coal large- Indicated’ BTU 6,550-8,600° ly for use in electric fen- erating plants in Fairbanks Kenai Peninsula Offshore® Hypothetica1® 130,000 million Subbituminous Unknown and for nearby mi short tons® and Lignite The areas considered to Lave BYU Unknown the greatest potential for 516 6 ie future development are the e Bering Piver Coal Field™’ Hypothetical 3,000 million Bituminous and Low to Moderate” Susitna, Matanuska, and short tons® For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Anthracite® BTU 9,070-15,020° Nenana fields, These de- posits are close to rail transportation and tide- water? COAL (Continued) OCCURRENCE Region/Location Eouthcentral (continued) e Broad Pass Coal Fie1d®»® Headwaters of the Chulitna River (west of Delta)9s® Anchorage (V) Interior (VI) @ Nenana Coal Tie1d??® Between headwaters of Wood River and the Kantishna River (southwest of Fairbanks )°9® RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Measured or Indicated® Hypothetical® Measured, Inferred, or Indicated Measured or Indicated Hypothetical Measured, indicated, or, Inferred? . Catalog of Enerpy Resources DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACT Alaskan coal fields are widely distributed, low 64 million Subbituminous Low to Moderate? in sulfur content and short tons® 110 million short tons® 64 million short tons® 2,018 million short tons? 8,680 million short tons® 6,938 milljon short tons For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. BTU 7,615-9,415° Subbituminous BTU 7,815-9,415° Subbituminous and lignite.2 6 BTU 7,815-9,415 Subbituminous 6 BTU 7,590-9,430 Subbituminous 6 BTU 7,590-9,430 Subbituminous and lignite? BTU 7,590-9,430° Low to Moderate® Low to Noderate® High to Very High® High to Very High® High to Very High? high in water; all of which make a clean fuel for the western U.S. and Japan a viable possibility.’ The future of coal mining in Alaska is cependent on many variables, including the demand for heat end Power and populaticn in- erveases. Therinal power plants near mines could be constructed to f£ sh electricity to urban areas, and chemical plants could be constructed to manufacture’ synthetic fuels ani chemical products.” In particular, the Susitna field (Heluga- Yenta area) is considered an important resource alter- native for electric power generation in the South- central and Anchorage regions of the state. COAL (Continued) OCCURRENCE Region/Location Interior (continued) e Eagle Coal Fie1d?*® Northwest of Eagle5»6 e@ Nation River Coal Fie1a>+6 Along Yukon River between Tanana and Rampart~? Yukon River Coal Fie1d>+® Along Yukon River begween Tanana and Rampart”? Fairbanks (VII) e Jarvis Creek Coal Fie1a>*® Near Black Rapids and Donnelly? , Catalors of Energy Resources sources Hydrau- RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REKARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS A 1974 study by the 5 Stanford Research In- Hypothetica1® 100 million Subbituminous Low to Moderate stitute concluded that short tons BTU Unknown® the development of the Beluga field was "poten- Hypothetica1® 50 million Bituminous Low to Moderate? tially ecoyomically short tons® BTU Unknown feasible." The proportion of the energy Hypothetica1® 50 million Bituminous and Low to Moderate? market that coal will re- short tons® Subbituminous® tain will depend larrely BTU Unknown on the relative costs of producing competing of energy. Strip mining has replaced underground mining in Alaske. Measured 5.9 million Subbituminous Unknown lic giants are used to thaw or Indicated® short tons® BTU 7,815-9,415© and remove the permanently frozen overburden. Inferred 7.5 million Subbituminous Unknown short tons® BTU 7,615-9,415° Hypothetical 17.8 million Subbituminous Unknown short tons® BTU 7,815-9,415© Measured, _ 76 million Subbituminous Unknown Indicated, or short tons and lignite? Inferred” BTU 7,815-9,415" For explanaticn of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes foliow catalog. OIL SHALE OCCURRENCE Region/Location RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Northwest (I) National Petroleum Reserve-4 Kiligwa River Area* Etivluk River Area? Southwest (II) Southeast (III) Southcentral (IV) Anchorage (V) For explanation of terms, consult Footnotes follow catalog. notes following QUANTITY 9.39 billion barrels 1.519 billion catalog. barrels? GRADE 6.7-146 gallons per ton 60 gallons per ton 6.7-146 gallons i per ton 60 gallons per ton DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR IMPORTANCE Catalop of Enerry Resources wD SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Alaska oil shale deposits that are rich in oil trace metals could industry in the m sible locations, ke» due to the high cost of mining and processing the remoteness fron a of the deposits, conmercial processing of oil s > is not likely in the n future. Oil shales of commercial in terest need to yield Setween 25 to 65 gallons of oil per ton. Techniques used to re- cover hydrocarbons from oil shale such as the in situ process are considered im- mature and costly technologies when compared to oil and coal refining processes. A break- through in oil shale process- ing would make the rich oil shale ores located near the trans-Alaska pipeline econo- mically feasible. trract acces=- 4 Catalog of Enerrsy Resources OIL SHALE (Continued) OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REWARKS AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Interior (VI) Colville River, --- 1,09 billion 6.7-146 gallons Low+ East Arctic, and barrels? per ton4 Eagle River areas?» 60 gallons per tont Fairbanks (VII) --- --- --- earn For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Catalog of Energy Resources GEOTHERMAL OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL REMARKS AN CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL CHARACT Region/Location Northwest (I) Alaska has approxi ; 5,12 12 5 100 thermal sprin Various”? --- 7 Geothermal 100-160°C Low to Moderate more than 40 recently Development Areas active volcanoes. Two 1l Hot Spring Sites" major Lands of yeothermal otential exist in Alaska. Pilgrim Springs? Springs!? 7 Geothermal 100-160°C22 Gooal? The "pims of fire" band Development Areas+ which extends along the Aleutian Chain to the Valdez Kobuk Site near Springs22 4 Hot Springs}? 100-160°C?? Attractive?? area and into the Southeast Shungnak2? i i areas. Another bund stretches across central Alaska between Southwest (II) 64 and 66 degrees North la- i 5,12 4g titude.+ Eighty-eight vol- Various”? --- 19 Geothermal -—- Low to Very High"? eanic calderas have been Development Areas identified in Alaska and 34 Thermal Springs 2 2@ hot water conv ion sys- je oe "19 a 12 tems, four each above 150°C 1 eyser Spring Basin Springs --- --- Good and 24 each above SO°C to 150°C. Very High> The major geothermal systems in Alaska am ot water, gc0- Okmok Caldera}? Caldera}? --- “+ Very High pressurized re irs and Good1l2 hot dry rock s No apor-dom e BS pre- Unalaska Sitel? Reservoirl2 --- --- Very HighS ia parareiaanae feeds ther- Attractivel2 * mal springs have been de- veloped commercially such as . the Pell Island and Baranof For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Island Springs in Southeastern Footnotes follow catalog. Alaska. GEOTHERNAL (Continued) Catalop of Enerpy Resources For explanation of terms, consult Footnotes follow catalog. notes following catalog. OCCURRENCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL RE! > AND CLASSIFICATION QUANTITY GRADE OR IMPORTANCE SPECIAL C Region/Location Southeast (III) Geothermal potential is 5.12 high in Alaska for many Various?» “<= 1 Geothermal As High As Low to High't»5 sites with adjacent settle- Development Areas? 170°¢12 ments, such as in the Scuth- 20 Thermal Springs? east, Southcentral, and Northwest nen onal ed The Stikine River Site Springs --- As High As Low to High'»5 Aleutian sites are not so Chief Shake's Hot Springs? Reservoirs)? 1709c12 Attractive economically feacible due to their remoten ind the high cost of long ranre Southcentral (IV) power tranzmission.t>4 Large initial capital ex- Wrangell Mountain Area5»12 rae 2 Geothermal Areas? a High to Very High +512 penditures and the uncer- 2 Thermal Springs2? tainty ef locating the re- quired volume of hot water work against geothermal Anchorege (V) --- --- --- --- development 912 Pozentic uses of geothermal re include elect powe : Interior (VI) tion, space heating, recres- tion, agriculture, refrigera- Various®»12 --- 13 Geothermal Areas}? 100-160°C2? Low to High »5 Sa ea processing, ete,** Fairbanks (VIT) --- 2 Geothermal Areas?? —_100-160°C12 Low to High» OCCURRENCE Region/Location RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION _—_—_——— Northwest (1) Cape Thompson? Point Hope? Cape Lisbyrne? Barrow? Koyuk? Moses Point? Nome? Northeast capet Tin city Kotzebue? For explanation of terms, consult notes following c Footnotes follow catalog. ae eres a RE OEE UE RR PONIES Sree eat Oo aN of “AneatnntnU nneerenntene eeten enn hyena mere 1 penne eee Near-Surface Near Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface winat Wind? Wind? Wind? Wind? Wind? Wind? Wind? Wind? Wind? atalog. YEARLY MEAN SPEED (KNOTS) PERCENT OF TIME BELOW 7 KNOTS PERCENT OF TIME ABOVE 21 KNOTS Catalog of Energy Resources SP Alaska has many regions with high average wind speeds, especially along its coast. Coastal areas are also popu- lated with numerous villapes and towns which would benefit from wind power development. Wind energy development in Alaska, however, will likely require public financial sup- port to move past the demen- stration preject level. & joint federal-state-local concerted effort ained at wind energy development in Alaska would combine the maximum financial and tech- nical resources needed to as- certain the feasibility of wind generation in certain remote areas.* A very large wind generation (150-200 KW) would be needed to produce the equivalent electrical output of the averape-sized diesel generators now used by many small Alaska utilities. WIND (Continued) OCCURRENCE Regicn/Location Southwest (IT) Aleutian Islands? Shenya? a: Amchitka Adak? Nikotski? Ft. Glen? Driftwood Bay? Dutch Harbor? Cape Sarichef* St. Paul! RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Near-Surface Winat Wind? Winat wind? Winat Wina? Wind? Wind? Wina? Wind? YEARLY MEAN SPEED (KNOTS) 16.21 13.07 18.3 9.21 13.14 22.91 10.94 --- 14.02 2u.52 13.67 = 0.3" 41.24 9.62 39.87 43,72 24.07 16.02 6.9 For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. PERCENT OF TIME BELOW 7 KNOTS PERCENT OF TIME ABOVE 21 KNOTS Catalop_ of Enerey Reso REMARKS SPECIAL CHARACTER.’STICS The largest electric utility turbine units in the state are over 200 tines the scale of the largest wind generators proposed by ERDA and NASA.* In areas where the wind does not blow all the time, either energy storage or the inter- connection of wind generators to an alternative cl system is required. 7 storage capacity is very costly for large wind gen- erator systems and cost pro- hibitive for small ones, as well as technically inpra ticar.t Technological break- throughs in either enerry storage or wind peneration systems would make most of the Alaskan coastal regicns economically and technically feasible areas for wind energy development. Catalog of Enerpy Fesources WIND (Continued) OCCURRENCE RESQURCE YEARLY NEAN PERCENT OF TIME PERCENT OF TIME REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION SPEED (KNOTS) BE).OW 7 KNOTS ABOVE 21 KNOTS SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location Southwest (continued) The quantity of wind avail- . 1 able in different regions Alaska Pennisula of Alaska with high average 4 4 1 1 1 wind speeds is given in the Cold Bay Near-Surface Wind 14.9 12.0 24.0 tables. However, mean speeds 1 sat 1 are not the only considera- Port Moller Near-Surface Wind 8.9 --- --= tion in determining the 1 1 1 practicality of wind genera- Port Heiden Near-Surface Wind 12.8 —= —- tors; the quality of the wt 4 7 wind must also be considered, Ugaskik Near-Surface Wind _ Unknown cD = i.e., the velocity by per- 1 eat 1 cent of total time for each King Salmon Near-Surface Wind 9.6 --- -- locality determines the amount of extractable wind 1 energy. Small wind genera- Kuskokwim Bay Area tors have a minimum threshold 1 wat 1 wind velocity level below Cape Newenhan Near-Surface Wind 9.8 -- soo which they will not operate. a oat 1 Thus, the quality of the wind-- Cape Romanzof Near-Surface Wind 11.7 --- <= the time percentage wind dis- 1 “4 1 tributions for sclected lo- Bethel Near-Surface Wind 11.2 oom ro calities--is given in the 1 c 1 1 tables. McGrath Near-Surface Wind 4.3 .ocer s-- For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Catalor of Energy Resources WIND (Continued) OCCURR' NCE RESOURCE YEARLY MEAN PERCENT OF TIME PERCENT OF TIME ° REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION SPEED (KNOTS) BELOW 7 KNOTS ABOVE 21 KNOTS SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location enn nnn nnn SU EI ynnIn a gIIIn SSSI SNIESRE I UNSIENERSE RESEND Southeast (IIT) Annette Island* Near-Surface Wind! 9.52 --- --- Juneau? Near-Surface Wind+ aut aed , a Yakutat? Near-Surface Wind? 7.07 --- --- Southcentral (IV) Cordovat Near-Surface Wind? yout --- ee Middleton Island? Near-Surface Wind? 11.92 --- --- Kodiak? Near-Surface Wind? 8.97 a — Anchorage (V) --- --- --- ae Interior (VI) Kaktovik? Near-Surface Wind? 11,22 --- --- For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Catalog of Enerpy Resources WIND (continued) OCCURRMNCE RESOURCE YEARLY MEAN PERCENT OF TIME PERCENT OF TIME ° REMARKS AND CLASSIFICATION SPEED (KNOTS) BELOW 7 KNOTS ABOVE 21 KNOTS SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Region/Location ep Fairbanks (VI) Fairbanks Near-Surface Wind? 4.at -- oe For explanation of terms, consult notes ‘following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. 2) Laskan Hydroelectric Powerrites with Industrial Potential I. Northwest Agashahok II. Southwest Holy Cross Crooked Creek Lake Iliamna Total III. Southeast. Yukon-Yaiya Stikine Total Average Avorage Continuous Cost River Heacé. ea Power Index Romarks (ECR) (vw) (pax KW) Noatak a32 7500 93 1.€0 Fossibly useful power source for mining in Kobuk R. basin Yukon 94 160000 2400 1.60 Remote location, navigable river, anadxomous fishery Kuskokwim 352 32400 1070 1.00 Navigable river, anadromous fishery, extreme inundation Kvichak 114 14600 156 2.20 Anadromous fishery, unique environmental features 2625 Yukon 1913 13500 24001 0.60 International project, major diversion impacts down river, substantial inundation Stikine 291 45000 1130 1.80 International reservoir, major commercial fishery 3530 Alaskan Hydroelectric Powersites with Industrial Potention cont. Average Average Continuous Cost Region/Site River Head Runoff Power Index Remarks . (EE) (ac. ft. 000) (MW) (per KW) Iv. Southcentral Devil's Canyon Susitna 575 6716 784 1.00 Excellent location, minimal Watana Susitna 660 5905 impacts Lane Susitna 169 7500 120 1.60 Possible inundation of existing intrastructure Gold Susitna 189 1327, 130 2.60 ou Le Chakachamna Chakachatna 793 2460 183 e120) Yentna Yentna 82 12750 Talachulitna Skwentna 124 4500 mee 2200 Million Dollar Copper 89 38000 220 2.80 Major commercial fishery Cleave Copper 165 28000 410 2.60 Major commercial fishery Wood Canyon Copper 950 26700 2500 0.60 Major commercial fishery Total 4506 Vv. Anchorage None a —- ary — ae VI. Interior Woodchopper Yukon 300 57600 1620 1.00 Remote location navigable river, intl. reservoir Rampant Yukon 412 86000 3620 0.40 Remote location, navigable river, extreme inundation Ruby Yukon 72 109000 730 0.80 Remote location, navigable river, anadromous fishery Alaskan Hydroelectric Powersites with Industrial Potential cont. Average ° Average Continuous Cost Region/Site River Head Runoff Power Index Remarks (fe) (ac. ft. 000) (MW) (per KW) VI. cont. Porcupine Porcupine 313 9100 265 1.00 Remote location, navigable river, intl. reservoir Kanuti Koyukuk 166 11900 184 2.40 Remote location, navigable river, anadromous fishery Dulbi Koyukuk 68 19200 122 2.80 Remote location, navigable river, anadromous fishery Total 6541 VII. Fairbanks Big Delta Tanana 99 12500 13 3.20 High project cost Johnson Tanana 149 7830 105 3.20 High project cost Total 218 GRAND TOTAL 27513 1) Development would reduce generation at Woodchopper, Rampart, Ruby, Holy Cross Source: Federal Power Commission, "Alaska Power Survey", 1976 Bibliography i. 10. ae) Institute of Social and Economic Research (University of Alaska) "Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995." Report to the Alaska Legislature, House Finance Committee, August 1976. Barnes, Farrell F. "Coal Resources of Alaska." U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1242-3, 1967. U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, "Mineral and Water Resources of Alaska." Report prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.0., 1964. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. "Minerals, Energy, and Geology: Resource Inventories." Resource Planning Team, 1974. Bottage, Robert. "Alaska's Energy and Mineral Potential 1975." U.S. Bureau of Mines, Juneau, 1975. McGee, D.L. and O'Connor, K.M. "Mineral Resources of Alaska and the Impact of Federal Land on Their Availability--Coal." Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Open File Report 5, 1975. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Coal Research. "The Potential for Developing Alaskan Coals for Clean Export Fuels." Report No. 108, 1974. Dobey, P.L.; Klein, R.M.; Lyle, W.M. and O'Connor, K.M. "Energy and Mineral Resources of Alaska--Oil and Gas." Alaska Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Alaska Open File Report 50, 1974. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. "Geological Esti- mates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the U.S." Geological Survey Circular 725, 1975. Morehouse, Tom. "Petroleum Development in Alaska." Alaska Review of Business and Economic Conditions, University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research, March 1977. Miller, Dr. Betty M. (USGS Program Chief, Senior Author of USGS Circular 725) Personal correspondence with Ronald Crowe, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. 2 13. 14. 5 16. Bottage, R.G. and Rosenbruch, J.C. \"Economic Potential of Three Sites in Alaska." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Circular 8692, 1975. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the U.S." USGS Circular 726, 1975. Selkregg, L.L. Alaska Regional Profiles. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, 6 volumes, various dates. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Power Commission, 1976 Alaska Power Survey, 1976. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. "Alaska Re- gional Energy Resources Planning Project--Draft," prepared by Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977. F. ALASKA MINERAL RESOURCE CATALOG F.1. Introduction and Conclusions For each mineral which occurs in Alaska, data has been compiled on its location, quantity and quality of deposit, and potential for development. The catalog has been developed using existing data sources of the state and federal governments. There is a particularly large degree of uncertainty surrounding the future potential for natural resource development in Alaska because of three factors: institutional, informational, and economic. As of this writing, the cuestion of "d-2" lands has not been resolved, thus creat- ing uncertainty regarding what federal lands in Alaska will be available for mineral development. For a large portion of the state, detailed geological data does not exist, making it difficult to predict mineral occurrences. These problems are in addition to the normal uncertainties associated with the economics of mineral development manifested in produc- tion costs and market price. Thus, the catalog cannot provide a prediction of future developments. One can identify mineral resources with a higher potential for develop- ment, however. Based upon a number of reports covering a considerable period of time, the most likely minerals for development are copper, iron ore, molybdenum, mercury, and limestone. B=2 ua F.2. Alaska Mining Industry The popular conception of Alaska as being a "storehouse of mineral wealth" can be put into perspective by examining 1975 Alaska mineral production shown in Table F.1. Table F.1. 1975 VOLUME AND VALUE OF ALASKA MINERAL PRODUCTION Value Commodity (million $) Volume petroleum (million barrels) 360.4 70 sand and gravel (million short tens) 33.4 135 natural gas (million MCF) 100.0 67 gold (troy ounce) : 2.9 75750 other@ 27.3 coal (million short tons)? 7.8 oye, stone (million short tons)© 1357) 6.0 net others 6.6 TOTAL 524.1 a A . Includes stone, coal, gem stones, lead, silver, barite, mercury, natural gas liquids, platinum group metals, tin and uranium. Pauthor's estimate. e Actual 1973 figures, taken from U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Yearbook 1973, Vol. II, U.S.G.P.0., p. Su. Source: State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Develop- ment, The Alaskan Economy: Year End Performance Report 1976, 1977, p. 37. Petroleum products provided the majority of value and building materials--sand and gravel and stone accounted for most of the rest. The value of non-energy and non-construction material mineral was less than two percent of the total and less than $10 million. It is obvious that there is no substantial mining industry in the state at the present time. And thus the availability of mineral natural resources in the future is contingent upon the development of deposits. The present level of activity in metal mining is lower than any time since U.S. acquisition, except for the 1870s. Over the years in excess of $1.24 billion worth of metals, 97 percent of which was gold and copper, has been extracted. Gold was. the first metal to be mined in quantity in placer deposits and lode operations in the 1870s and 1880s. The gold rushes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries throughout the interior of Alaska resulted in large production levels and the discovery and extraction of other minerals as well. Copper mining began in the southeast, but the largest discovery was at Kennecott in the Wrangell Mountains where production began in 1911. Silver, lead, and tin were also mined during this period. tus. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Mineral and Water Resources of Alaska." Report prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (Washington, D.C.; G.P.0., 1975), p. 9. World War I resulted in some production of strategic materials, including tungsten, antimony, chromium, and mercury as well as increased demands for other minerals. During the war years and the decade of the twenties, the value of copper mined exceeded that of gold, but world eco- nomic conditions resulted in the closure of the major copper mines and increased gold production in the 1930s. Platinum also was produced be- ginning in the 1930s. World War II changed the composition of the mining industry as labor shortages, increasing costs, defense priorities, and finally an Executive Order closed all gold mines. Demand for strategic materials saw new production of chromium, asbestos, tungsten, antimony, tin, and mercury. The war also brought the first significant demand for building materiais, including sand and gravel. The same pattern occurred during the Korean War with declines in strategic metals production and expanded gold production in the inter- vening years of the late 1940s. Since the mid-1950s, production of strategic minerals and gold has declined and the increase in the price of gold has been the only significant positive factor in the Alaska mining industry. Even this cursory review of the Alaska mining industry highlights one important factor relating to mineral production in the state. It is extremely sensitive to economic and also political conditions in the United States and the world. Thus, it is extremely difficult to project with any certainty future levels of activity in the industry or with respect to individual minerals. F.3. Descri n_of the Catalog There is no shortage of publications on the mineral resources of Alaska. Significant watersheds such as statehood and the disposition of d-2 lands seem to generate vast numbers of reports and compilations of information on Alaska's mineral resources and potential. The vast majority of this information is of very marginal value to the general analyst. The information falls into two general categories. On the one hand are the highly technical and usually site-specific reports of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Mineral Industry Research Institute, and cthers. The information contained in such reports is valuable to the technical researcher interested in a particular area or a particular mineral and who is able to assess the economic feasibility of development based upon purely technical descriptions of deposits. This source of information, much of it unpublished but available to the public, is the basic informa- tion on mineral potential in the state. At the other extreme are general resource maps of the state which show general areas where minerals are present or are potentially present. The value of these maps is that they provide a land use planner with information about general locations of minerals. Neither type of resource inventory provides information to the general analyst in an easily retrievable form about the general picture of mineral resources in the state. The present catalog attempts to fill that need by providing basic information on all Alaskan minerals in an easily read- able format. The basic sources of information used in the compilation of the catalog are primarily the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commis- sion reports which, in turn, relied heavily upon earlier U.S.G.S. reports on placer and lode mining in Alaska and an earlier report to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs by the U.S.G.S. and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources. It was found that many other recent studies relied very heavily on these sources. Their shortcomings lay in the method of presentation of material, and the catalog attempts to improve upon their efforts in that respect. The basic data upon which the catalog is based is extremely limited and usually inadequate to evaluate the potential for resource development. Reliable examination reports are often available on 5 percent or less of the identified mineral deposits. Parts of the state have not been geo- logically mapped and much of the state has not been examined by geologists. As a result, many mineral deposits are yet to be located, and the quantity and quality of a large percentage of identified deposits has yet to be determined. The latter occurs partially only as a direct result of development of the resource, but in many cases in Alaska, even preliminary information is not available. ay 1 “nN F.4. Factors Affecting Future Mining Activity Of the many factors affecting «he future of mining activity in the state, three seem to be of primary importance: lack of basic data on resource potential, land ownershiz, economic considerations. As indicated above, there are large gaps in our knowledge of what resources exist in Alaska and their quantity and quality. Incomplete information is a prob- lem everywhere but is a more important factor in Alaska, because there may be a higher probability of the ¢iscovery of a large deposit in Alaska than elsewhere. Whether the discovery would lead to production is a question of economics, however. Institutional constraints help to determine the pattern of the mining industry in Alaska. Receiving the most attention currently is the question of the ¢d-2 lands. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) included a section which called for the selection of federal lands in Alaska to be included in national interest catezories (national parks, national forests) and within these classifications, constraints would be placed upon the types of activity allowable. Preliminary studies conducted by the Federal- State Land Use-Planning Commission tend to minimize the impact on the mining industry in the state of these restrictions.2 The general points are the following: 1) On only a small portion oF d-2 lands would mining be prohibited. 2 : John V. Krutella and Sterling Brubaker. "Alaska National Interest Land Withdrawals and Their Opportunity Costs." Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission for Alaska, Commission Study #10, February 1976, pp- 32-40. F-8 2) Known or suspected mineral values on d-2 lands are concentrated in a few areas and few commodities, the most important mineral being copper. 3) A more important constraint on mining activity is the absence of infrastructure. This argument only applies to known resources. But to the extent that the pattern of resources yet to be discovered follows that of known re- sources, the future resources which would be unavailable for development because of the d-2 restrictions would be small. Economic considerations can be discussed in terms of market price of output and costs of production. When there is reasonable assurance that over an extended period of time the former exceeds the latter, production is economically feasible. In recent times, this condition has generally not been the case for Alaskan minerals. A discussion of probable market prices for Alaskan minerals is beyond the scope cf this discussion, be- cause it involves speculation on a whole range of issues from international political questions to the evolution of resource saving technological change. It is sufficient to note that historically the real prices of many mineral resources have been constant or declined so that the assump- tion of increasing scarcity driving up prices is not one which can be ap- plied across the board to Alaskan minerals. With respect to the cost of production in Alaska, it is clear that this factor, in conjunction with large distances from market, primarily accounts for the absence of significant mining activity at the present time. Mining costs in Alaska exceed those in the contiguous United States Wj ‘ oO by a larger margin than the Anchorage Consumer Price Index would indicate, primarily because of the remote location of mine sites and because of the absence of infrastructure to support mining operations. The fact that in recent years the Anchorage CPI has been falling relative to the U.S. average is no indication that the costs of mining have been relatively reduced or will fall relatively in the future as the population of Alaska increases and transportation capabilities improve. This is because the cost of mining is based upon the best available techniques, which change over time as technology changes. Technological change may operate to reduce the cost of mining in Alaska, leave it un- ’ changed, or raise it relative to mining in other areas of the U.S. and world. This is because technological change in mining is not directed only or primarily at the problems of inaccessible deposits. In addition, any technological change which decreases costs but is neutral in its impact on all potential operations will benefit marginal mineral deposits closer to market than those in Alaska. An interesting example of this is presented in a recent study which estimates the cost in 1973 dollars and under 1973 conditions of producing copper and silver from the Kennicott copper mine, assuming the deposits were then newly discovered. In spite of the high grade of the copper ore, this operation which was highly profitable in the early part of this cen- tury would have required a subsidy to be profitable in 1973.° This R. P. Maloney and R. G. Bottge, "Estimated Costs to Produce Copper at Kennicott, Alaska." U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information Circular #8602, Washington: G.P.0., 1973. F-10 indicates that technological change and changes in relative costs of in- puts can work against the mining operation at a distance from market even if it is of premium quality. F.5. Future Development For the purposes of this study, it would be desirable to provide a listing of resources which would be developed over the next 25 years which would include the size and timing of the operation. The list would also distinguish between those development projects which would require "low cost" energy and those projects which feasibly would be in- dependent of the price of energy. The former category would be further divided into those resources which would be developed for the export market independent of other resources and those which would be developed in con- junction with the development of other Alaskan resources. Examples of developments which have been suggested that might occur independent of the price of energy as an input to production would be mining of molybdenum, copper, or iron ore with minimum Alaskan processing. A project which has been suggested in the presence of "cheap energy" would be iron ore refining. An example of the final category would be the mining of a metal to be used as an alloy element in an electrometalurigical proc- ess, such as chromium. BaLE Unfertunately, such a list is impossible to produce because of the market uncertainties involved and the lack of information and time with which to develop such a list. The catalog does not provide that kind of information but rather only gives a hint of what might be available. It is important to distinguish between a resource and reserves. The former is a measure of the amount of material in the ground as determined by some physical technique or estimation procedure. The latter is that sub- set of resources which is estimated to be economically recoverable under existing conditions of costs and prices. Alaska has a large amount of resources but few reserves. This problem has not prevented individuals from coming forward and projecting or predicting mineral resource development in Alaska under given conditions. At best, these efforts are thwarted by the complexities of the markets for the resources and, at worst, are merely expressions of wishful thinking by those intensely interested in Alaskan development through industrialization. Projects which do materialize may, in fact, be those least expected or predictable because of the desire of the group developing the project to avoid arousing interest in the area prematurely. Rather than develop another projection or borrow one from previous work, this section will conclude by simply reviewing the efforts of others to see if a consensus develops. Alvi B02 m Kaufman of the Bureau of Mines in 1967 declared that the min- erals with =the most development promise in Alaska were iron ore, copper, : s : nee antimony, mercury, nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, chromium, and tin. In 1951 Richard Lund of Battelle Memorial Institute felt that the best pote 1) mtial mineral operations at that time were as follows: Beneficiation of iron ore from near Kasaan in Southeast ay & Alaska. 2) Zeneficiation and perhaps smelting of Klukwan iron ores in Southeast Alaska. 3) Eeneficiation and perhaps smelting of Snettisham iron ores in Southeast Alaska. 4) Mining, milling, and possible smelting of Ruby Creek copper deposits in Northwest Alaska. 5) Mining and milling of Sumdum copper deposits in South- east Alaska. 6) Mercury mining in Xuskokwim River area of Southwest alaska. 7) Limestone production at Sutton for cement for Anchorage. 8) Limestone production at Dall Island in Southeast Alaska for shipment to the Pacific Northwest. 9) Coking coal from 3ering River in Southcentral Alaska. 4 Alvin Kaufman, "Foreign Markets for Alaska's Minerals." Paper presentec at Alaska Minerals Conference, 1967, mimeograph. 5SRichard Lund, "Future of the Alaska Mineral Industry," Mining Engineering, Vol. 13, #12, December 1961, p. 1351. F-13 The following year, a report to Alaska by Arthur D. Little identified a fairly; similar list. Limestone and coking coal were not on their list. A 1970 study for the Public Land Law Review Commission discussed the po- tentials for copper, mercury, gold, and nickel. ! Most recently, the Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission presented a list of potential minerals which included antimony, asbestos, chromium, iron, nickel, platinum, titanium, copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, tin, tungsten, lead, zinc, barite, mercury, and Fluorites. 8 None of the projects which since statehood has been identified as a higher potential opportunity has, in fact, been developed, except for the mining of barite in Southeast mess and increased gold mining in the Fairbanks area and on the Seward Peninsula. In addition, substantial exploration development of the Klukwan and Snettisham iron ore deposits has taken place; similar exploration and preliminary development has occurrec at the Lost River (Seward Peninsula) fluorites prospect, the Kobuk copper prospect, the Beluga (Cook Inlet) coal field, and a molyb- denum prospect near Ketchikan. Thus, although there is substantial in- terest in Alaskan minerals, a cautious view for the future of the mining Sanehun D. Little, Alaska's Mineral Resources as a Base for Industrial Development. Report to the State of Alaska, 1962. Tpudlic Law Reveiw Commission, Federal Land Laws and Policies in Alaska: Volume V, Appendices, by Center for Resource Policy Studies and Programs, School of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, May 1969, p. 73. Ssoint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission, "The d-2 Book, Lands of National Interest in Alaska." Anchorage, May 1977. F-14 industry is warranted. The minerals with the most likely potential for development remain fairly constant over time because they are the largest, highest in quality, and most accessible. Economic feasibility, however, depends not only upon these factors but also upon the position of Alaskan prospects in relation to all others. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog ANTIMONY OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southwest Region Unknown Unknown Inadequately explored or 4 developed.» Mines could Kuskokwim Bay Subregion! High be open pit or very high grade underground operations. Due to abundant reserves Yukon Region abroad, which can be mined 4 less expensively than in Tanana Subregion High Alaska, future production 4.2 4 100 F of ant imony in Alaska looks Kantishna Area’ Very High short tons High poor, | 10,000 Fairbanks Area’ Very High? short tons Low? Koyukuk Subregion! High? Unknown Unknown Northwest Region Unknown Unknown Norton Sound Subregion High? Bendeleben Mountains? Very Hight For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. 3 Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog ASBESTOS OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOS1T DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region Unknown Mines would probably be 2 2 open pit operations. On- Admiralty Island? High Low site milling is required 2 2 and surface transportation Lemesurier Island High Unknown would be needed. At least 100 acres needed for tailings and settling ponds. Some Northwest Region Unknown problem with possible air and water pollution from Kotzebue Sound Subregion High? waste fibre.3 Only the 2 1 2 Cosmos Hills deposit appears Cosmos Hills Very High High to have economic potential.? Jad 2) eae ete. ade Hills Very High High For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog, Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. BARIUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region High? Gooat Mines could be open pit or 2 2 high grade underground opera- Castle Island Very High 30-50,000 tons? Unknown tions. Surface transportation needed for milled product. Lime Point? Very High? 5,000 tons? High? Product is used in Alaska to make heavy drilling muds. Extraction in Southeast is Yukon Region Unknown Unknown from below the mean high tide 4 4 line.? Known deposits are Koyukuk Subregion High small, so a sizeable operation is impossible." The Castle Island and Lime Point deposits Northwest Region Unknown Unknown are well situated for economic 1 1 production. 2 Norton Sound Subregion High Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalor BERYLLIUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Northwest Region i All of the known deposits 1 of beryllium occur in the Norton Sound Subregion High western part of the Seward 1.2 1.2 2 Peninsula. Lost River Area”? Very High”? 1,960,000 18-29% Be short tons? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog CHROMIUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location ———-_-_-_---———— SEES Southcentral Region Mines would likely be open pit operations ,3 Average Cook Inlet Subregion eater 24% Cro03 grade of some ores could be 1 76,000 a increased by sorting out, Red Mountain? High Long Tons~ 20% Cro03 barren layers of dunite. 2 World reserves of chromite Claim Point High? 268,000 18% Cro0, are large and the small size Long Tons2 of known deposits in Alaska makes extensive development Yukon Region ; Unknown Unknown unlikely. Central Yukon Subregion! High? Koyukuk Subregion? High! Northwest Region Unknown Unknown al 1 Kotzebue Sound Subregion High For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog COPPER OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF ¢ GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region High? Mines would be open pit or - large underground operations. Prince of Wales Island Very High? Surface access required in ; 2 2 3 9 many areas.° Kasaan Peninsula Very High 1,500,000 % Cu . short tons? Sundum* High? 30,000,000, «34 to, The deposit appears to be 4 1 short tons 1.03% Cu located under the edge of the Brady Glacier High Unknown Unknown Sundum Glacier. The most likely investment opportunities for developing known copper de- Southcentral Region Unknown Unknown posits are the Sundum and Ruby Creek deposits.’ Cook Inlet Subregion High? 1 1 Large scale production in Alaska Cantwell Area Very High will make the construction of / smelters economically feasible. Gulf of Alaska Subregion High! 5 1 2 Resources may be augmented by Prince William Sound* Very High 6,560,000 1% Cu exploration.’ Higher grade and/ 2 4 short tons” or bigger deposits than those Chitna River Area Very High Unknown Unknown now known must be found to make 1 Alaska a major factor in the Kodiak Subregion High Unknown Unknown mineral industry in the future." For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. COPPER (Continued) OCCURRENCE Division Location Southwest Region Bristol Bay Subregion Illiumna Lake Area’ l Kasna Creek! Yukon Region Tanana Subregion Nabesna River Area Orange Hill? Koyukuk Subregion Upper Yukon Subregion? DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL High High? 4 Very High . A. Very High High? High? Non-Energy Mineral as Resources Catalor SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Unknown Unknown More extensive examinations are necessary .4 Reviews show no fabulous < 1% cul "Kennecotts" awaiting develop- ment in Alaska. The high cost < 13 cul of labor and supplies, difficult terrain, lack of roads and short season make exploration and de- velopment difficult.” Unknown Unknown 200,000,000 0.4% Cu” short tons? Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. COPPER (Continued) OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Division Location Northwest Region Kotzebue Sound Subregion! Hight Ruby Creek4 High? Norton Sound Subregion? High? Arctic Region Colviile Subregion! High? East Arctic Subregion! High? Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Transportation will be difficult, but the Kobuk River could be dredged to the Sound for heavy transport." 100,000,000 1.2 to short tons? 1.6% Cus Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog FLUORINE OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Northwest Region Open pit mines with on- site milling of ore is Norton Sound Subregion likely. Surface trans-, 2 4 portation would be needed. Lost River Mine Very High 2,000,000 tons? 50% F2 Only large operations would be economically fea- sible due to infrastructure costs.° Fluorite can be economically recovered as a by-product only at the Lost River tin mine in Alaska.“ For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog GARNET OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region Unknown _ The garnets of this deposit rn have excellent physical Garnet Creek Area? 12,000 tons? 5%* characteristics for use as abrasives.” For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GOLD OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Division Location Southeast Regiont High? Juneau Area Hight Chichagof Area Hight Southcentral Region Kodiak Subregion High? Chignik Bay Area? Very High? Cook Inlet Subregion High? Cantwell Area? Very High? Gulf of Alaska Subregion High? Southwest Region Kuskokwim Bay Subregion High? Shotgun Creek Area! Very High? SIZE OF DEPOSIT Unknown Unknown Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GRADE OF DEPOSIT Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Unknown Unknown Unknown Resource estimates for gold lodes are highly speculative. Besides the southeast region, the Fairbanks and Cook Inlet areas have been the principal lode gold mining areas. The Big Hurrah mine on the Seward Peninsula has also been very productive. Ninty-five percent of gold placer production has come from interior Alaska. Placer gold has accounted in the past for about one-half of the total mineral production in Alaska. Unexploited placer de- posits are at least equal in quantity and grade to those that have been mined. Production has declined due to increased mining costs rather than the ex- haustion of deposits.” Mines could be open pit, placer, or high grade underground opera- tions. Alaska has had a high. proportion of gold mines compared to the other states. GOLD (Continued) OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF POTENTIAL DEPOSIT Division Location Southwest Region (Continued) Bristol Bay Subregion High? Port Heiden Area! Very High? Aleutian Subregion Unga Island! Very High? Yukon Region Unknown Lower Yukon Subregion High? Central Yukon Subregion High? Koyukuk Subregion Hight Wild River Areal Very High? Upper Yukon Subregion High? Chandalar Aveat Very High? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog GRADE OF REMARKS AND DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Unknown Non-Energy Nincral Resources Catalog GOLD (Continued) OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Yukon Region (Continued) Tanana Subregion High* Fairbanks Areat Very High? Horsfeld Area? Very High? Northwest Region Unknown Unknown Norton Sound Subregion High? 1 ai Nome Area Very High Kotzebue Sound Subregion? High For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. GRAPHITE OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF POTENTIAL DEPOSIT EPOSIT Division Location Northwest Region Norton Sound Subregion High? 300,000 tons? 10%2 Kigluaik Mountains? High 65,000 tons2 52,2 For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS There is economic potential. for developing a large amount of graphite from the high- grade deposits on the Seward Peninsula. 2 Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog GYPSUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF - REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southcentral Region Low" Deposits of gypsum in Alaska are scarce and of low quality.’ Cook Inlet Subregion Lime and gypsum materials may 2 2 not be able to bear transporta- Sheep Mountain 658,800 tons 25-30%2 tion costs to outside markets.’ For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Fnergy Mineral Resources Catalog IRON OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region Hight The most likely investment fi opportunities are the titan- 500 million 12% Fe iferous low-grade iron deposits Klukwan Areat Very High? long tons * at Klukwan, Port Snettisham and Several bil- 15-20% Fe? Union Bay. Columbia Iron Mining lion long tons? Company, a U.S. steel subsidiary, holds the rights to the Klukwan Union Bay? Very High? One billion deposit. The deposit is near y ° ‘i long tons?>4 18-20% Fe2?4 deep water so as to permit the use of ocean vessels for surface Snettisham Peninsula” Very High? 500 million, transportation. Dredging, hydrau- long tons2>" 15-20% Fe? lic, or other low-cost mining Prince of Wales Island methods are essential for success- ful exploitation. The W.S. Moore Company controls the Port Snett- isham deposit which is adjacent to 60 feet of water, thus per- Southcentral Region Unknown mitting direct loading of ore carriers. The deposit may require 2 Kasaan Peninsula Very Hight Low Cook Iniet Subregion? High? Low? underground mining. The Union Bay deposit is controlled jointly by W.S. Moore Co. and U.S. Steel Arctic Region Unknown Unknown Corp., and its cost and conposi- tion picture is similar to these East Arctic Subregion! Hight of Klukwan and Port Snettisham.? Site milling is generally required and inexpensive surface transporta- For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. tion is necessary. Some of the Footnotes follow catalog. deposits are magnetic which re- duces milling costs .° Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog LEAD OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region Mines could be high grade underground, placer, or Groundhog, Basin? Very High? Several hundred 1.0% Pb? open pit operations. On- thousand tons? site milling and surface access for transportation are Glacier Basin? Very Hight Many hundred 1.0% Pb2 needed.3 Deposits are small thousand tons? and low grade. Unless large high grade deposits can be Lucky Boy Claim? Unknown 7,000 tons? 1.0% Pb? found, a competitive Alaskan > 2 operation is unlikely. Pro- Mahony Creek Area Unknown 2,500 tons 6-7% Pb2 duction since 1950 has been negligible.’ Explorations Hyder Area? Very High? Unknown Unknown have been inadequate, and it is anticipated that future examinations will reveal ad- Southcentral Region ditional discoveries throughout 1 4 Southeast Sears and elsewhere Cook Inlet Subregion High Unknown Low in Alaska.“ The outlook for lead is not good unless the 1 1 4 Cantwell Area Very High Unknown Low minerals with which lead is associated as a byproduct can be increased in production. ? Southwest Region Kuskokwim Bay Subregion? High? Unknown Low" For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog, LEAD (Continued) Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location i Yukon Region Tanana Subregion High? Unknown Low!! Kantishna Area Very Hight Unknown Low't Central Yukon Subregion! Hight Unknown Low! Koyukuk Subvepion! Hight Unknown Low’ Upper Yukon Subregion? High? Unknown Low’ Northwest Region Kotzebue Subregion High? Unknown Unknown Candle hrea! Very High Unknown Unknown Norton Sound Subregion High? Unknown Unknown Bendeleben Mountains Very Hight Unknown Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Fnergy Mineral Resources Catalor For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. LIMESTONE OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region The most readily acces- 2 2 2 2 sible deposits occur in Dall Island Very High 553,000,000 tons* 96-97.6% Cuco 3% Southeast Alaska of almost 2 9 2 2 any desirable purity for Long Island Very High 432,000,000 tons 96% CuC04 various metallurgical, chemical, and cement uses. Wadleigh Island? High? 40,000,000 tons? 97.44% cuco,” High grade deposits suit- 2 2 2 2 able for cement and indus- Prince of Wales Island High 77,000,000 tons~ 95.5-97.6% Cuco . trial use are abundant and 2 2 2 2 widespread throughout Alaska. Shrubby Island High 30,000,000 tons* 94,6-95.48% Cucod, The railbelt and Southeast 2 9 2 coastal regions contain com- Kuiu Island High 25,000,000 tons? 94.6% cuco, mercially important quanti- 2 2 2 ties. Matanuska Valley coal Haines Area High 100,000,000 tons 96.7% cuco , and natural gas from Anchorage can be used to develop the Southcentral region deposits. Southcentral Region The construction of a hydro- 2 electric dam'in this region Cook Inlet Subregion High would require large quan- 2 2 2 2 tities of cement. Kings River Area Very High Inexhaustible 97.58% CuCO, Foggy Pass Area? High? 212,000,000 tons? 97-98% cuco,” Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog MAGANESE OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT . SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Arctic Region East Arctic Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mincral Resources Catalog, REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS MERCURY OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT Division Location Southwest Region Unknown, 2 but small“ Kuskokwim Bay Subregion High? Sleetmute Area Very High?" : High* White Mountain Area Very High?» Unknown Bristol Bay Subregion? Hight Unknown, Unknown but small? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Southwest Alaska is one of the major quicksilver prov- inces in North America. The major deposits are in the Sleetmute Area with Red Devil mine the major producer. De- posits are small and probable reserves are not known. Transportation in the area is expensive and a deterrent to development. 2 Several foreign sources have high grade mercury with cheaper transportation and labor costs, and the price of mercury must increase and/or costs must decrease to improve the Alaska picture. On-site retort processes are required. Retort product could be flown out. The mercury deposits in the Kuskokwim Bay area are likely investment opportunities.4 MOLYBDENUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Division Location Southeast Region Shakan Area’ High 2 | ele Baker Island High Yukon Region Tanana Subregion Orange Wii? Very High? Northwest Region Kotzebue Sound Subregion? High 1 Norton Sound Subregion High SIZE OF DEPOSIT 100,000,000 short tons? 100,000,000 short tons 200,000,000 short tons* Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes foliow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalop -95% MoO +02% Mo* GRADE OF REMARKS AND DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS The largest deposit is at Orange Hill and is under 2 2 2 7 2 27% Mod, 2 Unknown Copper deposits. Few de- posits have been prospected in detail.” Mine would open pit and on-site milling, would be required with sur- face transportation for the resulting, concentrate. Demand for molybdenum will grow significantly. Small, low-grade depos ececur Alaska. High-grade con trate at a competitive price is needed to attract investors. NICKEL OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEFOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region Mines would be open pit or 2 1 5 2 high grade underground op- Bohemia Basin High 18,300,000 tons” .5% Ni erations. On-site milling 2 1 9 9 is required and concentrate Mirror Harbor High 8,000 tons 1.54% Ni 2 could be flown out, but sur- 13,500 tons 16-.2% Ni face transportation may be 2 1 9 2 needed.? None of the known Snipe Bay High 430,000 tons 43% Ni occurrences presents an eco- 2 1 2 2 nomically feasible opportunity Funter Bay High 560,000 tons, 45% Ni F for investment. Canada has a 5,000,000 tons 1.0% Ni large nickel industry operation. The outlook for production is Southcentral Region Unknown’ Unknown only fair. . rou wipes High? Cook Inlet Subregion? High? Gulf of Alaska Subregion! High? Northwest Region Unknown Unknown Kotzebue Sound Subregion? High? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog PHOSPHATE OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Division Location Arctic Region East Arctic Subregion ee . 2, eee, Canning River Area High Colville Subregion Tiglukpuk Creek Area? High? Kuna River Area” Low? SIZE OF DEPOSIT GPADE OF DEPOSIT Non-Energy Mineral Resources Ca talor REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Substantial Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Other than the Kuna River deposit, phosphate rock deposits are of sufficient grade to be of economic in- terest. ‘The best deposits are in the Tiglukpuk Creek region. Additional study is necessary to determine ton- nage estimates.“ Non-Energy Mineral. Resources Catalog Footnotes follow catalog. PLATINUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region Unknown Low? The Goodnews Bay Mining 2 Company has been producing Lituya Bay High? the only platinum in the United States since 1938. No other promising reserves Southcentral Region Unknown Low? are known to exist. All Alaskan production has been Kodiak Subregion! High? from placer deposits at Good- 1 1 news Bay which has now closed Cook Inlet Subregion High down. An increase in the 1 price of platinum is neces- Gulf of Alaska Subregion High? sary to encourage mining of the product. Most platinum resources come from South Southwest Region Africa, fhe U.R., and the U.S.S.R. Kuskokwim Bay Subregion Soodnews Bay Area” Very Hight Small? Low? Northwest Region Unknown Low? Norton Sound Subregion? High? Kotzebue Sound Subregion? High? eee ee ere ee eee eee For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Non-Enery, Resources Tanana Subregion High! 2 Kantishna Area Very High? Moderate? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. SILVER OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region High! Small to Low? No silver deposits known Moderate? in Alaska contain bonanza Hyder Area? Very Hight amounts.? Because silver is largely a byproduct of gold dredging operations, Southcentral Region Small to. Low? its production has heen de- Moderate* clining with that of gold. Gulf of Alaska Subregion High? No deposits are known of commercially exploitable Chitna River Area* Very High? size and/or grade. Silver production will continue as Cook Inlet Subregion! High! a bypreduct of other metals production."! Mines may be 2 open pit or underpround; sur- Southwest Region Small to Low face transportation is not Moderate? essential since high grade Kuskokwim Bay Subregion* High? mill concentrate may be flown out. As a byproduct of other 9 metals, however, silver pro- Yukon Region Small to Low duction would require surface transportation. In Alaska, silver is frequently win a principal preduct.~ Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog SILVER (Continued) OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division | Location Yukon Region (continued) Central Yukon Subregion! High? Koyukuk Subregion? High? Northwest Region Small to Low? 1 Moderate Kotzebue Sound Subregion High a 2 Rete Omilak Area Very High Norton Sound Subregion! High? Koyuk River Area” Very High? For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Nen-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog SULPHER OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southwest Region The deposit at Stepovak Hay is of a low prade and un- Aleutian Subregion known quantity and appears D 2 2 to be of little economic Stepovak Bay Area” Low Unknown 5-20% interest. The other deposits 2 2 32 could have economic potential, Akun Island 18-200,000 tons” 22.8-55.5% since they are abundant and of 2 2 9 sufficient grade. The depesits Unalaska Island 9,000 Rouen 605% are all direct precipitations 24,000 tons 25%% from sulfurous volcanic emane- 2 tions.? Supplies of sulfur Little Sitkin Island? 200,000 tons Unknown are ample in the U.S. to meet present foreseeable needs.’ For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. TIN OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT Division Location Southwest Region Kuskokwim Bay Subregion? Hight Unknown Unknown Bristol Bay Subregion High? Unknown Unknown Yukon Region Lower Yukon Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown Central Yukon Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown Koyukuk Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown Upper Yukon Subregion! High? Unknown Unknown Northwest Region Norton Sound Subregion High? Lost River Area? Very High? 2,600 short tons 1.3% Sn? 15,450 short tons? 1.0% Sn? 18,700 short tons? .2-.75% Sn? Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Known Alaskan tin deposits are small in number and size. However, the deposits are the only significant tin resources known in the United States and contain well over half of all U.S. tin reserves.2°° The large consumption of tin in the U.S., coupled with com- petitive prices, would no doubt encourage increased investinent in developing Alaskan tin de- posits." Most production has come from placer deposits and the Lost River area contains the largest and richest re- serves.’ A high-grade ore or mill concentrate could be flown out.3 4 HNon-fnergy Mineral Resources TIN (Continued) OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT Division Location Northwest Region (continued) 2 Tar Mountain? High? Few thousand tons Unknown Potato Mountain* High? Few thousand tons? Unknown Cape Mountain? High? Few thousand tons? Unknown Kotzebue Sound Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown Arctic Region East Arctic Subregion! High? Unknown Unknown For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Fnergy Mineral Resources Catalor, TITANIUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location Southeast Region . Titanium would be placer mined from beach sand de- posits or open pit from 2 lode deposits. The Bureau Klukwan Area Very Hight Unknown 3.91% TI05? of Mines has not assessed any high grade deposits.° No titanium has been pro- duced in Alaska.? Snettisham Peninsula? High? Unknown 2.6-5% Tid,” For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. TU; 4 GSTEN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE Division Location Southeast Region o 1 Hyder Area Low Northwest Region Norton Sound Subregion High 9 Lost River Area‘ Very Hight Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalor, REMARKS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS SIZE OF GRADE OF DEPOSIT DEPOSIT ° 2 Unknown 1% WO, 63,350 units 2 6% WO,” (20 lb. to a short ton)? 193,000 units »5% WO 130,000 units For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. ' ‘ Small quantities of tungsten have been produced in the Fairbanks and Ilyder areas. The small deposits are un- likely investment opportunitics without premium prices .‘b>? Mines would require on-site 7 milling and surface transpertation. Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalogs, URANIUM OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS’ AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location _ OO OO eee Southeast Region Uranium has been produced in Alaska at Kendrick Bay Ross-Adams Mine Area” very High! 10,000 tons* 1% U303" in the Ketchikan area, Information on deposits is scarce, making estimates of Yukon Region quantity and quality diffi- cult. Mines and concentrat- Koyukuk Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown ing mills are large instal- lations that require surface transportation. 78.9 million Northwest Region acres of low-lying areas in Alaska show promise for ura- Kotzebue Sound Subregion? High? Unknown Unknown nium development. Uranium 1 4 potential of_t&n occurs in Norton Sound Subregion High Unknown Unknown areas of prime habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Mining in Alaska would be open pit with solvent extraction mills. An enrichment plant could be constructed in an area with an abundance of inexpensive coal or other fuel and adequate water supply. For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. Non-Energy Hineral. Resources Catal.or, ZINC OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT SIZE OF _ GRADE OF REMARKS AND POTENTIAL DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Division Location | Southeast Region ; Known zinc deposits are 2 4 2 small and of low-grade. Groundhog Basin Very High Several nn 2.5-8% Zn Output since 1950 has been , - thousand tons 4 negligible. It is reeson- Glacier Basin Very High Many hundred 1.6% Zn able to expect additional thousand tons? discoveries in the future 2 Several million tons? Low with further exploration. Many regions are unexplored.” Tracy Arm? Unknown 40,000 tons? 3,2% zn? Zinc has greater economic 2 / A 5 2 potential than lead. The Moth Bay” Unknown 100,000 tons” 7.5% Zn minerals often occur together. 3,600 tons~ 2.0% Zn? If high-grade deposits are ne 2 2 found and a competitive price Lucky Boy Claim Unknown 1,500 tons 3.0% Zn is present, then a lead and/ 7,000 tons 0.3% Zn? or zine operation would be 2 2 , 2 likely.! Mines would be open Mahoney Creek Unknown 2,500 tons 28% Zn pit or large high-grade under- ground operations. Cn-site milling is recuired, and low- Southcentral Region grade concentrate requires aa 4 2,4 surface transportation. High- Cook Inlet Subregion High Small Low”? grade concentrates could be 1 ee 4 2.4 flown out.° The smelter on Cantwell Area Very High Small Low"? the Pacific Coast makes the outlook for zinc production appear dim./ For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. ZINC (Continued) OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Division Location Yukon Region Tanana Subregion High? Kantishna Area’ Very High? Koyukuk Subregion? Hight Upper Yukon Subregion? High? Northwest Region Norton Sound Subregion High? Koyuk River Area? Very High? Kotzebue Sound Subregion! High? Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog SIZE OF GRADE OF REMARKS AND DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS smal Low??'# Small Low2 > Small" Low2>4 Small" Low2?"t small Low? * sma’ Low??t small" Low? >t For explanation of terms, consult notes following catalog. Footnotes follow catalog. ‘ NOTES TO: Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog Minerals The minerals listed in the tables are those of state or national interest and are the same minerals as those inventoried by the resource planning team of the Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission (JFSLUPC) in its 1974 report on minerals, energy, and geology of Alaska and the 1976 study of the Office cf Technology Assessment. Locations The locations of the minerals listed in the tables are divided into regions, subregions, and specific location sites based upon the JFSLUPC. These figures are shown on the accompanying map (figure F.1). Specific sites are given only for those minerals with very high development po- tential. The six regions dividing Alaska are: the Southeast, South- central, Southwest, Yukon, Northwest, and Arctic regions. Subregions are as follows: 1) for the Southeast region: there are no subregions; 2) for the Southcentral region: Kodiak-Shelikof, Cook Inlet, and Gulf of Alaska; 3) for the Southwest region: Kuskokwim Bay, Bristol Bay and Aleutian; 4) for the Yukon region: Lower Yukon, Central Yukon, Koyukuk, Upper Yukon, Tanana, and Upper Yukon-Canada; 5) for the Northwest region: Kotzebue Sound and Norton Sound; and 6) for the Arctic region: West Arctic, Colville, and East Arctic. The regions do not entirely correspond to the MAP regions used elsewhere in this study but funding limitations prevented the conversion of the eral resource map to the MAP basis. Development Potential Potential mineral development areas are classified as very high, high, moderate, or low potential. Very high potential refers to an area with mines currently producing or an area that was under production in the past with remaining reserves with high development potential. High development potential refers to an area with known mineral deposits and favorable geology and geophysical and geochemical data for mining. Very high and high po- tential development deposits are listed in the tables. These evaluations are taken primarily from the JFSLUPC Resource Planning Team reports. Other Information Size and grade of deposit information es well as remarks and special characteristics information is derived from the following sources: 1. 1974 Inventory Report on minerals, energy, and geology by the Resource Planning Team of the Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. 2a "Mineral and Water Resources of Alaska," Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 1964. 3. "The D-2 Book: Lands of National Interest in Alaska," May 1977. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Com- mission. yy "Alaska's Mineral Resource s 43 a Base for Industrial Development," Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1962. "Foreign Markets for Alaska's Minerals," paper presented by Alvin Kaufman, Bureau of Mines at the Alaska Minerals Conference, University of Alaska, May, 1967. "Alaska's Energy and Mineral Potential 1975," by R. Bottge, U. S. Bureau of Miners, Juneau, Alaska. The Land Resources of Alaska, by Hugh Johnson and Harold Jorgenson, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1963. Figure F.1. Regions Used in Non-Energy Mineral Resources Catalog REGIONS AND SUBREGIONS 1. ARCTIC 1.1 West Arctic 1.2 Colville 1.3East Arctic 2. NORTHWEST 2.1 Kotzebue Sound 2.2Norton Sound « YUKON 3.1 Lower Yukon 3.2 Central Yukon 3.3 Koyukuk 3.4 Upper Yukon 3.5 Tanana 3.6 Upper Yukon-Canada . SOUTHWEST 4.1 Kuskokwim Bay 4.2Bristol Bay 4.3Aleutian » SOUTH-CENTRAL 5.1 Kodiak-Shelikof 5.2Cook Inlet 5.3Gulf of Alaska + SOUTHEAST me ve we 1. East et Cresnenn ae Wet of Groene 1SUAROS 4 = . To pane ay rg INDEX MAP OY ALASKA 453 o wD MO Ro Mee eee source: Joint Federal--State Land Use Planning Commission. Bibliography i. 10. ll. 12. 13. Alaska State Department of Natural Resources. "Resource Assessment of Current Alaska d-2 Proposals." August 1977. Arthur D. Little. "Alaska's Mineral Resources as a Base for Industrial Development." Report to the State of Alaska, February 1962. Berg, Henry and Cobb, Edward. '"Metalliferous Lode Deposits of Alaska." U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin #1246, U.S.G.P.0., 1967. Bottge, Robert. "Alaska's Energy and Mineral Potential, 1975." U.S. Bureau of Mines, Juneau, 1975. Bottge, Robert. "Impact of Natural Gas Pipeline on Mineral and Energy Development in Alaska." U.S. Bureau of Mines, Open File Report 20-75, 1975. Cobb, Edward. "Placer Deposits of Alaska." U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1374, U.S.G.P.0., 1973. Consad Research Corporation. "Alaska Natural Resource Profiles and Inventories." Report prepared for Federal Railroad Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1975. Grybeck, Donald et al. "Cost of Exploration for Metallic Minerals in Alaska." Mineral Industry Research Laboratory Report #34, University of Alaska, March 1976. Hawley, C.C. "Mineral Belts and Districts, Prospective Regions and Land Status in Alaska." A report prepared in cooperation with the Mapmakers, June 1973. Johnson, Hugh and Jorgenson, Harold. The Land Resources of Alaska. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1963. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. "Minerals, Energy, and Geology: Resource Inventories." Resource Plan- ning Team, 1974. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. "Resources for Alaska: A Regional Summary." Resource Planning Team, June 1975. Joint Federal-State Land-Use Planning Commission. The d-2 Book, Lands of National Interest in Alaska." May 1977. 14. ae Tes 18. 19. 20. 21. aes 23. 24. Alvin. "Foreign Markets for Alaska's Minerals." vals Conference, May 1967. Paper - “Alaska National Interest y Costs." Federal-State Ste wals and Their Opportur laska, Commission Study #10, u ing Commission for A 7 6. February 19 Lund, Richard. "Future of the Alaskan Mineral Industry." Mining Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 12, December 1961, p. 1351. Maloney, R.P. and Bottge, 2.G. "Estimated Costs to Produce Copper at Kennicott, Alaska." U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information Cir- cular #8602, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.0., 1973. "Mineral Industry North of the Yukon Basin in Alaska." Mineral Industry Research Laboratory Report #29, University of Alaska, September 1973. Public Law Review Commission. "Federal Land Laws and Policies in Alaska: Volume V: Appendices." By Center for Resource Policy Studies and Programs, School of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, May 1969. Tuck, Bradford H. "Land Use Planning, The d-2 Lands, and Alaska Resources: Some Economic Considerations." Federai-State Land- Use Planning Commission for Alaska, Commission Study #22, August 1977 3 1 = Vie U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.0., annual. U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works. "The Market for Rampart Power, Yukon River, Alaska." U.S.G.P.0., 1962. U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Mineral and Water Resources of Alaska." Report prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.?.0., 1964, U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "An Assess- ment of Mineral Resources in Alaska." Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Hines, and Bureau of Land Manage- ment, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.0., July 1974. G. AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES, AND TIMBER RESOURCES G.l. Agriculture The history of agriculture in Alaska is unique. In early territorial days there was little concentrated agriculture in Alaska and the U.S. Cen- sus of 1900 lists only 12 farms. In 1935, a national program of welfare- relief brought farm colonists to Alaska, where they were settled on forty- acre tracts. By 1939, there were 623 farms in Alaska; however, many of these farmers had no previous farming or management experience and agri- cultural efforts declined in subsequent years. According to the 1953 Census of Agriculture, 888,000 acres in Alaska was "land in farms." However, this figure includes grazing lease land which accounts for 90 percent of that acreage. A comparison of agricul- tural land in 1960 and 1976 is shown in Table G.1. Table G.l. AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ALASKA, 1960 AND 1976 1g60° 1976? 1977° Acres in Farms (including grazing leases) 888 ,000 1,600,000 - Acres in crops 10,680 7,117 6,000 Acres in seeded or native grasses 8,700 11,900 12,300 Number of farms 367 300 - Number of persons 8,900 - “Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research. Industries of Alaska. University of Alaska, College, 1966. alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Alaska Agricultural Statistics. Palmer, Alaska, 1977, p. 10. anchorage Times, March 7, 1978. Most farms in Alaska have been developed in a single generation from raw forest land. Development of such land is an expensive venture and that fact, combined with difficult climactic problems and competing demands on farmland, has served to limit agricultural development. The average size of Alaskan farms, not including grazing leases, is about 185 acres, which is too small for large-scale, low-cost farming. Agricultural production is somewhat restricted. The principal grain crop is barley, with silage and hay second in importance. A comparison of agricultural commodities is show in Table G.2 for several years. This table indicates a steady decline in agricultural production, except for hay. Table G.3 shows that the value of production has not fallen to the same extent as production, although the total is quite small. Agriculture in Alaska can be divided into two categories: land in crops, including hay; and land in grazing, with concommitant differences in geographic location. Land in crops is primarily in the Tanana and Matanuska Valleys and the Kenai Peninsula. Land in grazing leases is on the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and the Aleutian Islands. The distribution of agriculture land in Table G.1 indicates that there is little or no development of new farm lands for crops or hay. The high cost of clearing and preparing land is a restricting factor. Land is no longer available by homesteading and, until the d-2 lands decision is made and Native land claims and state claims settled, there G3 Table G.2. ALASKAN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES 1960 1965 1970 1975 1976 1977 oats, CWT. x 10°, 252) 13.4 T2 5.4 3.8 - barley, CWT x 10 3 42.0 32.3 22.3 33.6 32.2 - silage, TONS x 10 20.2 21.7 13.6 15.2 11.2 - hay, TONS x 10° 3 10.5 8.8 9.4 21.4 18.6 20.6 potatoes, CWT x 10 131.4 $131.0 106.8 108.7 91.0 - cabbage, cagrots etc. CWL x. 71.0 20.2 14.5 15.9 16.3 17.6 a eggs. doz. x 108 529.8 766.7 417.0 425.0 500.0 - milk, lbs, x 10 3 20.4 20.7 18.6 16.8 16.0 16.5 livestock”, lbs. x 10 SiS) 1146 1223 959 979 rs ee Poultry, beef, pork, mutton. Source: Alaska Crop and Livestock Report Service, Alaska Agricultural Statistics, p. 4. Table G.3. ESTIMATED VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN ALASKA BY SELECTED TYPE OF PRODUCT (value to farmer in thousands of dollars) 1960 1965 1970 1975 1976 milk 2,395 2,053 2,083 2,017 2,888 potatoes 723 756 705 1,304 =1,001 eggs 464 590 348 425 570 hay 772 528 705 2,782 2,325 silage 411 412 245 532 391 grain 315 190 117 331 291 vegetables (not including potatoes) 198 197 255 390 419 beef 144 323 502 410 608 reindeer 180 230 300 308 n.a. other meat gu 128 128 148 137 will be little development of agricultural lands for crops. A notable exception is the state-sponsored program to develop barley production in the Delta area. Land in grazing lease has increased markedly. .These lands have been leased from the federal government through the Bureau of Land Management. This practice is phasing out, however. As land title has passed into state or Native corporation ownership, the BLM grazing leases are either terminated or renegotiated with the state. The state policy on grazing leases is much different from that of the BLM, and these differences make leasing a much more costly procedure. A com- parison of leasing is shown in Table G.4. Table G.4. GRAZING LEASE COMPARISON BLM State Length of Lease - 3 years 5 years Cost - -1 - .001 ¢/acre 10 ¢ acre also per no. of animals Lease offering - Negotiated individually offered for bid Restrictions - None red meat production grazing only, no residence or other activities bidder qualifications Source: Conversation with John Wiles, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands. G-5 With these changes in policy, grazing leases do not offer the same opportunistic advantages which could be negotiated casually as in the past. The economic feasibility of expanding Alaska agriculture is largely dependent on world need for Alaskan products. Except for milk, Alaskan products receive very little processing after harvesting. Meat and eggs reach the market rapidly. Development of food processing plants such as freezing or freeze drying have not been successful; canning processes for vegetable crops have never been exploited. New methods, such as extensively controlled environment (greenhouses) or feed lot operations, do not appear to be economically feasible because of the high initial investment and operational cost. It is in these areas of forced growing, processing, storing, and transporting that agriculture would require large quantities of energy, but such expansion into these areas is not readily foreseeable. G.2. Fisheries The history of the fishing industry in Alaska is fascinating in every respect. The people who participate are a colorful and independent group. They are dedicated to the industry in a way that is exemplified by the saying "fishing is in the blood" or "fishing is a disease." The methods of fishing, both old and new, are ingenious and interesting. G-6 Salmon is the one fish of continuing interest--more abundant in the past, but always important to the industry. Commercially, salmon are caught relatively close to shore by three methods: gill netting, purse seining, and trolling. Gill netting catches salmon by physically ensnar- ing the fish in the meshes of a net. Seining catches salmon by enclosing fish in a floating fence of net which becomes a giant bag by "pursing." Trolling catches salmon on hooks which are lowered into the water and towed through it. At one time, fish were "trapped" in the mouths of streams, but this method was prohibited in the 1950s. Subsistence salmon fishing is allowed by permit, and all methods of catching are used, includ- ing fish traps on inland streams and fish wheels. Halibut, once called "holly butt," is also important in the history of Alaskan fishing. Halibut grow slowly and live to very old ages, 40 to 60 years. Expansion of commercial fishing has depleted halibut stocks, especially those grounds conveniently close to shore. Historically, Indian fishermen would follow the ebbing tide to its extreme and set poles in the sea bed with a line attached to the upper end of the pole. The line ended in a large complex hook. Halibut followed the flooding tide, were caught, and retrieved on the next ebb tide. Commercial fishing for halibut occurs much further out from shore and at great depths. The gear is called a long line, and it is laid along the ocean floor. At intervals on the long line, a short line (gangion) with a hook is fastened. Regulation of halibut fishing, both season and area, is controlled by an international agreement, through the International Halibut Commission. Shell fishing is a relatively new fishery in Alaska and the crab fishery is the most glamorous, lucrative, and expensive part of it. Shrimp are caught commercially in very large, funnel-shaped nets which are towed along the ocean floor. Hanging from the lower edge of the net is a chain, called a tickler chain, which drags the bottom and stirs up shrimp and a variety of small bottomfish which are funneled into the net. This is called trawling or dragging. Shrimp (and prawns) are also caught commercially in "pots," which are cages or traps made of steel framing and wire, fiber, or plastic webbing. The pots have a "door" through which the shrimp can enter but cannot leave. Initially, king crab were fished by trawling, but this methed is now prohibited. Commercial crab fishing is done with "pots." The size of the "door" is changed, depending on which kind of crab is being sought. Scallops are fished with hydraulic dredges, and clams are taken by hand (shovel). Historically, ced fish and herring were important resources. Cod fish were taken by lines and some pot fishing; herring were usually netted. Both resources have been heavily fished and are relatively depleted now. The history of processing indicates many changes and ever increas- ing sophistication. Once, the only methods of preserving fish were by smoking or drying. Sun and air-dried fish were stored in containers G-8 he such as seal stomaches. (Early commercial processing relied on salting barrels.) The development of for preserving and storing vast quantities of fish, and this stimulated commercial fisheries, especially salmon fisheries. Fisheries and, therefore, canneries processing were seasonal, and most processing labor was imported frem Washington and other West Coast states for the "season," about one-hundred days. With the development of shell fishing in the fall and winter, processing be- came even more important and nearly full-time. Fish processing technology has become more sophisticated over the years. The salteries of the early days were labor-intensive, but once canning was introduced, processing became more and more energy-intensive. Early canneries were operated by steam, the steam being generated by coal or oil in large boilers. The steam powered line shafts from which, by belts and pulleys, all machinery in the canning line and machine shops was operated. Steam also cooked the canned product in large retorts and heated the canneries and living quarters. Diesel-generated electricity was later introduced, first D.C. and then A.C. The advent of electricity made the line shaft obsolete, for each machine now has its own electric motor. Electricity also made it possible to use refrigeration and freez- ing equipment, so that now much of the product is frozen and marketed in that condition. In general, salmon and some shrimp are canned. Crab, some shrimp, and all other fish are frozen. In general, processing is becoming more and more energy-intensive, and what labor is involved is relatively unskilled. G-9 Fishing techniques have evolved over time. In early days, sailboats were employed. Large ships were "mother" ships and fishermen were put out alone in dories to hand line for halibut and cod. Now the size of salmon boats is limited by law, but this limitation does not apply to other fisheries. The size of boats has been increasing steadily, and this leads to requirements for more power to move the boat and operate the gear. Shrimp boats were once 85 feet long with a single trawl; now they are 100 feet or more and frequently sport the double outriggers of a double trawler. Crab boats were previously about 85-90 feet with a power block and a holding tank. Now they are 120-130 feet with sophis- ticated electronic navigational equipment, circulating pumps for the holding tanks, walk-in freezers, mercury vapor and quartz lights for night fishing, variable pitch propellers, and bow thrusters. Some new boats are prepared to fish crab in season and trawl in off-season. Foreign fishing has relied on large, mother-ship processors with fleets of smaller catcher boats. The United States attempted to engage in this large-scale fishing with two very large ships (one in the Atlan- tic and one in the Pacific) intended to trawl and process the catch while on the high seas. These original efforts were unsuccessful for a number of reasons but subsequently resulted in an increasing number of floating processors, converted from ships originally built for military or transport use. There are also a number of boats equipped to fish crab, to cook and freeze sections on board, and to deliver the frozen product to the dock. G-10 The fisheries of Alaska continue to be productive and profitable. A combination of high catch end high price made 1976 a record year, in- volving $151 million in value to fishermen and $308 million at wholesale. The 1977 figures will, in all probability, exceed that because the salmon catch exceeded the predicted harvest of 34.7 million by 14 million fora record of 49 million fish.- Table G.5 shows the catch and value of fish in Alaska in recent years. In 1975, the number of fishermen licensed in Alaska was 21,8650, of which 5,796 were non-resident. The total of licensed vessels for the same year was 11,630. There would be an increase in both fishermen and vessels in 1976 and 1977, but only in fisheries other than salmon because of Limited Entry. There were 9,947 persons involved in processing in 1975, . eS 5 S a 2 the last year for which data is available. There are several factors which affect the future of the fishing industry. Salmon fisheries are regulated very closely by the Limited Entry program, which will prohibit expansion of the number of fishermen or boats. There is, however, an effort on the part of the Alaska Fish and Game Department to develop salmon hatcheries and nurseries in order to enhance the salmon industry for commercial and sport purposes. This talaska Magazine, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, February 1978, p. 24. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, The Alaska Economy, Vol. 5, No. 2, Mid-year 1977, p. 27. Table G.5. TOTAL ALASKA FISHERIES CATCH AND VALUE TO FISHERMEN 1960-1976 (catch in millions of pounds, value in thousands of dollars) Salmon Shellfish Other Fish Total Year pounds value pounds value pounds value pounds value 1960 207i: 33,574 42.1 3,138 109.3 5222 358.5 40,934 1965 274.8 48,274 15729 14,509 58.2 7,299 490.5 70,083 P » 1970 346.5 67,975 E52 es 20,525 35.0 8,997 553.6 97,497 as 1975 137.6 §5,302 246.9 Sonera 52.8 14,357 437.3 124,931 1976) 243.7 103,769 317.3 N.A. N.A N.A. N.A. N.A. 19770, 257.9 315.9 N.A. N.A N.A. N.A. N.A. 1978 330.4 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. “preliminary estimated “predicted i Source: Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska 1975 Catch and Production Commercial Fisheries Statistics, 1975. G-12 program is relatively new. (It has just encountered serious problems ca with a virus disease which made it necessary to destroy large stocks of fish). This does not affect fish on the high seas. The effect of the 200-mile limit imposed on foreign fishing efforts cannot be assessed yet as to the effect on Alaska fishing. Public opinion anticipates an increase in numbers of fish and shellfish of all kinds harvested by American fishermen for American markets. There will still be foreign fishing within the 200-mile limit by means of appro- priate licensing and, in addition, there will be deliveries to foreign buyers by American fishermen. As a precedent for this, there have been successful sea trials of a joint Soviet-U.S. Hake fishing ventures. but not in Alaskan waters. The 200-mile limit provides an opportunity for the development of new fisheries in Alaskan waters, particularly the so-called bottomfish (hake, pollock and cod). Until March 1977, these resources were ex- clusively foreign, but now American concerns are showing interest in 4,5,6 trawling and processing bottomfish. New fishing grounds are being explored as bigger boats range farther and farther into the Bering Sea and eventually into the Chukchi and Beaufort areas. Spishermen's News, Vol. 33, No. 19, p. 1. 4thid, p. 26. anchorage Daily News, March 10, 1978, p. 1. Sinia, March 11, 1978. G-13 In summary, fishing is presently a growing industry. There is an increasing interest in on-the-spot processing and on partial processing to allow transportation of products long distances. Larger boats and more extensive processing will require more energy in the future. G.3. Timber Alaska has two distinctly different types of forests: the coastal forest which is an extension of the Pacific Northwest/British Columbia rain forest, and the interior forest which is primarily wooded areas along the lower slopes of river valleys in the interior. About 140 mil- lion acres of the state are forested. The coastal forests extend along Alaska's coastline for about one- thousand miles from the southern border to Kodiak Island. Most of the coastal forests are in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. Wes- tern hemlock is the predominant species, about 61 percent of the stand; it is a variety wood, good for flooring and pulping stock. Sitka spruce is 34 percent of the standing forest and it, too, is a good all-purpose wood.” An estimated 22.5 million acres of coastal forest are estimated to contain 5.8 million acres of commercial timber land with a wood volume of 36 billion cubic feet.© Toe, Industries of Alaska, ISEGR, College, 1966, p. 24. 8 pederal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska, "The D-2 Book" - Lands of National Interest in Alaska, JFSLUPC, Anchorage, May 1977, p- 65. The best interior forests are found in the interior river valleys such as the Copper, Matanuska, Kuskokwim, and Tanana. Interior forests are primarily white spruce, birch, aspen, and eee poplar. Spruce and birch are suitable for pulp production. The interior forests have been repeatedly ravaged by fire, and it is estimated that 80 percent of the original forests have been burned over in the last 60 years.? Of the 117.7 million acres of interior forests, 22.5 million acres are com- mercial timber land with a volume of 14.2 billion cubic feet.° There are no records of timber cut in Alaska prior to 1909, but probably very little cutting was done in that early period except for local use. Between 1909 and 1950, a few sawmills were established for local use, but only since 1950 has a viable timber industry developed in Southeastern Alaska. Two pulp mills in Ketchikan and Sitka provided impetus to the development of large-scale logging. Several sawmill operations--at Wrangell, Haines, and Tyonek--developed to supply cants and chips. The interior forests have not been commercially utilized on a large scale, although in 1965 there were 30 small sawmills producing rough green lumber or house ogs..* There has been very little use of Alaskan lumber in Alaska for two reasons: (1) local markets are widely scattered geographically and (2) local production cannot compete economically with imported lumber ipia. 10 Ibid., p. 65. Mindustries of Alaska, p. 26. G-15 products. Most of Alaskan forest products are exported to foreign markets-—-primarily Japan, but also Mexico, Columbia, and India--as pulp, cants, or logs.1? There are export restrictions which do not allow the sale of cut logs from national land to foreign countries. Thus, most timber is rough cut into "cants" and pulp or chips for the foreign mar- ket.29 Foreign marketing has been enhanced by the fact that transporta- tion of lumber products has been the responsibility of the buyer and the export/sale is concluded at the dock in Alaska. The growth of timber industry in Alaska is impressive. The statistics are shown in Table G.6. The value of the wood product industry in Alaska in terms of employ- ment and export is shown in Table G.7. This does not include domestic sales or utilization within Alaska. Expansion of the lumber industry will be dependent on world market conditions. Japan is the major market for forest products now. Accord- ing to a Forest Service official, the Japanese market is presently glutted with American and Soviet lumber. This is said to be the reason that some Alaskan mills are temporarily closed." t2in3a., p. 25. 134 Rc. Massie and R.C. Haring, the Forest Economy of Haines, Alaska, ISEGR, Fairbanks, 1966, pp. 42, 43, 55, 73. 14te1ephone conversation with Ken Kilbourne, February 28, 1978. Year 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 LOTS 1976 Source: 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 L975 1976 Source: VOLUME OF TIMBER HARVESTED 1950-1976 (in thousands of board National Forest Lands 59,961 218 ,766 351,109 4Ok 498 560,975 413,000 472,800 State Lands 210 24,161 53,568 33,500 41,700 IN ALASKA Other 12,396 12,348 14,181 3,241 41,648 22,150 7,200 Total 72,357 231,114 365,500 431,900 656,191 468,750 521,700 Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, The Alaska Economy - Mid-Year Performance Report, 1977, p. 25. Table G.7. VALUE OF WOOD PRODUCT INDUSTRY Employment 1000 persons) WNNN N oO @O oO Ow Ww NFO Salaries 36.711 37.799 40.887 49.843 63.268 63.234 (million $) Export Value (million $) Pulp 31.416 29.386 eS ae7, 46.037 30.880 100.187 65.290 87.738 55.091 76.857 66.919 72.841 Log & Lumber Total 60.802 81.184 131.067 153.028 131.948 139.760 Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, The Alaska Economy - Mid-Year Performance Report, 1977, p. 25. G-17 Presently, finished lumber from the Lower 48 is cheaper than the same product milled in Alaska. This has restricted the development of lumber finishing plants such as sawmills, drying kilns, veneer and ply- wood plants, and pressed wood plants (chipboard/particle board). Lumber finishing processes use energy, primarily in the forms of electricity and heat. The development of finishing plants would probably initially use electricity either from existing utilities or from diesel generators. It has been pointed out that a drying kiln should be self- sufficient if operated in conjunction with a sawmill by using sawdust and chips for fuel. In Alaska, there is oniy one kiln in operation and it is in Anchorage. Much of the lumber industry in Southeastern Alaska operates under the advantage of water transportation and logging facilities which are also water-borne. It is often possible, after cutting, to skid logs to water using floating spars anchored offshore. Thus, the need for logging roads and log hauling equipment = been minimized. Expansion of the timber industry would probably occur in areas less accessible to water, necessitating a significant increase in fuel requirements for transportation. ipsa. Bibliography 10. ll. 12. Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Alaska Agricultural tatistics. Palmer, Alaska, 1977. Alaska Magazine, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, February 1978. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. The Alaska Economy, Vol. 5, No. 2, Mid-year 1977. State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. Alaska 1975 Catch and Production, Commercial Fishery Statistics, 1975. Anchorage Daily News, March 10, 1978. Anchorage Times, March 7, 1978. Fishermen's News, Vol. 33, No. 19. Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research. Industries of Alaska, 1566. Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska, "The D-2 Book" - Lands of National Interest in Alaska, Anchorage, May 1977. Kilbourne, Ken, U.S. Forest Service, interview. Massie, M.R.C., and Haring, R.C. The Forest Economy of Haines, Alaska. Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research, 1966. Wiles, John, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands, interview.