HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA573·K OunCES LTBRARY
US.D T.OF I ~TERIOR
Alaska Economic Projections
for Estimating Electricity
Requirements for the Railbelt
Volume IX
S.Goldsmith
E.Porter
Institute of Social and Economic Research
Anchorage -Fairbanks -"Juneau,Alaska
September 1982
Prepared for the Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor's Policy Review Committee
under Contrad 2311204417
Banelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
LECAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Battelle as an account of sponsored
research activities.either Sponsor nor Battelle nor any person acting
on behalf of either:
MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION,EXPRESS OR
IMPUED,with respect to the accuracy,completeness,or usefulness of
the information contained in this report,or that the use of any informa-
tion,apparatus,process,or composition disclosed in this report may not
infringe privately owned rights;or
Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of,or for damages result-
ing from the use of,any information,apparatus,process,or composition
disclosed in this report.
,]
~.
i;qr
~Ii.
'{'
~j
~~
~'t(
~
~
li
I ',,'.:~':J ,;
ALI~;~,T{{.1'r",OUnCES LTBRARY
D.D.L';~"-T.OF L\'T2RIOR
'/I-
;
"7 CIL(c·.J
k....>
~1 '1
1,,,,'i,,'
\''}/)
D ':J ;)
ALASKA ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR
ESTIMATING ELECTRICITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE RAILBELT
Volume IX
S.Goldsmith
E.Porter
Institute of Social and EcoGomic Research
Anchorage -Fairbanks -Juneau,Alaska
September 1982
Prepared for the Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor's Policy Review Committee
under Contract 2311204417
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland,Washington 99352
W":lr'b "!Ill
PROLOGUE:THE EFFECT OF LOWER OIL PRICES
At the time the employment and population estimates in this document were
done (August 1981),they reflected the main body of expert opinion concerning
future world petroleum prices.As late as December 1981,the Alaska Petroleum
Revenue Division (APRD)was projecting that the weighted average price of
Prudhoe Bay type crude oil would increase from $32.38 per barrel in FY 1982 to
$117.56 in FY 1998--about an 8.4%nominal rate of increase or (given 7%
inflation)about a 1.4%real price increase per year.This was within the
range of increase of 1%to 3%per year assumed in this study.The dramatic
collapse of world oil prices in January through March of 1982 reduced nominal
crude prices by between $4 and $6 per barrel,dividing oil analysts into two
schools of thought--those foreseeing a stabilization of prices at about $25
per barrel and those forecasting further declines to as little as $15 per
barrel.
Even without substantial economic recovery in the United States and
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)economies,the
OPEC market price appears to have stabilized at $32 to $34 per barrel.The
prospects for the longer run are much less clear.Industry sources now are
forecasting real price increases for the 1980s ranging from minus 3.3%in
constant 1982 dollars to plus 2.8%,with low-probability political crises
resulting in possibly higher rates of increase (Oil and Gas Journal,May 17,
1982).In any event,the most recent (March 1982)forecast of the APRD for
the weighted average price of Prudhoe Bay type crudes between 1982 and 1998 is
an increase from $29.84 per barrel in FY 1982 to $87.95 per barrel in FY 1998
or about 7.0%per year (0%above our assumed 7%inflation).The netback
wellhead price was assumed by APRD to increase annually at about 8.1%in
nominal dollars (1.1%above inflation)due to changes in markets and the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)oil pipeline tariff.
The new lower starting point for oil prices and slower rate of increase
now being forecast have resulted in much lower State of Alaska revenues than
v.ere assumed in this study.The difference between the March and December
forecasts ranges from minus 8.0%for FY 1982 to minus 61.3%for 1998.The
difference could actually be even more profound since oil exploration activity
iii
~I
i'
and pipeline construction could well be deferred or cancelled at the lower
prices.In Alaska,this has been reflected in a slowing down of North Slope
field operations and in the now-indefinite delay of the Alaska Highway (ANGTS)
gas pipeline.The Alaska economy,which is heavily dependent on oil field
activity and state spending,could be expected to grow at a much slower rate
at the lower oil prices represented by the new forecast.Moreover,because
oil and natural gas prices would not rise as rapidly,the incentives for
conservation of oil and gas and for fuel switching into electricity by
consumers would be much reduced,possibly further reducing electricity demand.
The original estimates of economic and population growth in this study
were done using the Alaska economic models of the University of Alaska
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER).To estimate the effect of
the state's revised oil price projections,a series of calculations were done
without benefit of the model to determine whether the low-case government
expenditures assumed in the study could be maintained with the revised (lower)
state revenue projections.To do these calculations the following assumptions
were made:
•The ISER low-case economy,population,and government expenditures
forecasts would apply.
•Petroleum revenues available to spend equal severance taxes plus 75%
of royalties.Alaska Petroleum Revenue Division forecasts were used.
•General Fund revenues equal available petroleum revenues,plus
earnings of the General Fund and Permanent Fund,plus "other
unrestricted'~revenues:other taxes,licenses,fees,permits,
rents,intergovernmental receipts,investments,and miscellaneous.
State Department of Revenue forecasts were used to FY 1984,then
simply increased with inflation."Other unrestricted"revenues are
forecast to be about $728 million in FY 1985.
•The average balance in both the General Fund and Permanent Fund
earns 10%per year throughout the forecast period.
Table 1 summarizes the results of our comparison between new revenues and old
expenditures of 1990,given those assumptions.The state is shown to be
running deficits after FY 1985.
iv
The state of Alaska cannot legally run the deficits shown in Table 1 for
the years after 1985;consequently,the level of expenditures by state
government would have to be lower than that shown in the low case.This would
reduce employment and population below that shown in the low-case forecast
used in the study.
TABLE 1.Alaska Revised State Revenues and Low Case Expenditures
(million $)
Production Tax (Million $)Genera 1 Fund
Plus 75%of Genera 1 Fu nd Expend itu res Average General
FY Royalties Total Revenues(a)(Low Case)Fu nd Ba 1ance
1982 2717.0 4292.5 3238.5 2481.1
1983 1932.0 2941.5 3539.2 1863.3
1984 2315.9 3113.4 3893.8 1090.5
1985 2695.0 3797.7 4322.9 539.8
1986 3130.8 4267.8 4913 .4 -120.5
1987 3665.5 4889.9 5517.5 -627.6
1988 3759.8 5134.8 5907.3 -772.5
1989 4243.5 5708.1 6306.7 -598.6
1990 4294.8 5893.8 6789.5 -895.7
(a)May not correspond to Department of Revenue estimates because of
differences in assumptions concerning General Fund expenditures (affecting
the size of the balance),rate of return on General and Permanent Fund,
and growth in non-petroleum production revenues.
To estimate the likely size of the change,we altered the moderate and
low-case forecasts by reducing government employment to 40 thousand persons in
the Railbelt in the years 1990 to 2000 (compared to 72 thousand in the
moderate case and 62 thousand in the low case).We proportionately reduced
statewide government employment and re-estimated the size of the Railbelt and
statewide economies for the moderate and low cases.Table 2 summarizes these
results for the Railbelt.
v
b =41 ..+
P "dO "._--",,"_..,••.•-."C-:~~§l.S&&8£,"-,
TABLE 2.Revised Year 2000 Forecast of Railbelt Employment and Population
(thousands of persons)
Rev ised Government Revised Revised Previous
Government Basic Plus Tota 1 Total Total
Employment Employment Basic Employmend a )Population(b)Population(C)
<Moderate 40.0 56.5 96.5 178.5 385.6 484
~.
Low 40.0 39.0 79.0 146.2 315.7 405
(a)Based on the low-case ratio of total employment to basic plus government employment equal to
1.85.
(b)Based on the low-case ratio of population to employment of 2.16.
(c)See Figure 3.3 in Volume I.
..
Without actually going through the simulations in the ISER econometric
model,it is not possible to say whether slashing government employment as was
done in these calculations would actually balance the state budget.However,
if government employment in the Railbelt in 1990 were reduced to 40 thousand
and the study's low case government spending of $72,726 per worker for 1990
were maintained,General Fund expenditures would be about $4.5 billion in
1990.This about equals petroleum revenues shown in Table 1 for 1990 and
shows a substantial current General Fund surplus to take case of inflation in
the 1990s.It thus appears that at the level of population and employment
shown in Table 2,the budget of the State of Alaska would be in rough balance.
Table 2 results indicate that reduced oil prices,through their effects
on state governr~nt spending alone could trim Railbelt population by 80 to 100
thousand persons by the end of the century.This would delay the date when
new electric generating facilities might be required by about 10 years.For
example,population of the Railbelt would reach the vicinity of 400 thousand
persons in the moderate case in about the year 2000 to 2005,instead of 1990.
September 1982
vii
..
PREFACE
This analysis,performed by the University of Alaska,Institute of Social
and Economic Research,was funded under a subcontract to Battelle,Pacific
Northwest Laboratories as a component of their study entitled liThe Railbelt
Electric Power Alternatives Study."The study,consisting of seventeen
reports (listed below)~was undertaken to analyze the economics of various
methods of meeting the electric power requirements for the Railbelt portion of
Alaska in the coming decades.The study was administered by the Office of the
Governor,Division of Policy Development and Planning.
The primary purpose of the subcontract with the Institute of Social and
Economic Research was to provide the study with documented projections of
economic activity for a twenty-year planning period.The results of that work
are reported in this document,Volume IX of the series.All the projections
were done using the Man-in-the-Arctic Program (MAP)econometric model of the
Alaskan economy,which is extensively described in a separate document
published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research.
The projections describe the different growth paths that the Alaskan
economy may take during the next twenty years.Each projection assumes
certain developments occur in the private sector and a certain state
government response to the demands and pressures put upon it by its
overwhelming reliance on petroleum revenues to finance government.
The assumptions used in the projections have been chosen by a consensus
of interested experts coordinated by Battelle with the approval of the
Governor's Policy Review Committee.The Institute provided the initial
suggestions for the particular elements to be included in the assumptions,but
the ultimate decision for inclusion was made by Battelle.
As the projections are presented in this report,they are descriptions of
what the Alaskan economy may look like in the future,but none are predictions
of what will occur.It is left to other elements of the study to interpret
these results in light of all factors relevant to the determination of the
most cost-effective methods of providing electric power to the Railbelt.
October 1981
ix
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
Volume VI
Volume VII
RAILBELT ELECTRIC POWER ALTERNATIVES STUDY
Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study:Evaluation of
Railbelt Electric Energy Plans
Selection of Electric Energy Generation Alternatives for
Consideration in Railbelt Electric Energy Plans
-Executive Summary -Candidate Electric Energy Technologies for
Future Application in the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Candidate Electric Energy Technologies for Future Application
in the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Preliminary Railbelt Electric Energy Plans
EXisting Generating Facilities and Planned Additions for the
Railbelt Region of Alaska
-Fossil Fuel Availability and Price Forecasts for the Railbelt
Region of Alaska
Volume VIII -Railbelt Electricity Demand (RED)Model Specifications
Appendix -Red Model User's Guide
Volume IX -Alaska Economic Projections for Estimating Electricity
Requirements for the Railbelt
Volume X -Community I~eeting Public Input for the Railbelt Electric Power
Alternatives Study
Volume XI -Over/Under (AREEP Version)Model User's Manual
Volume XII Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Power Plant Alternatives for the
Railbelt Region of Alaska
Volume XIII -Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plant Alternative for
the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Volume XIV Chakachamna Hydroelectric Alternative for the Railbelt Region
of Alaska
Volume XV Browne Hydroelectric Alternative for the Railbelt Region of
Alaska
Volume XVI -Wind Energy Alternative for the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Volume XVII -Coal-Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Plant Alternative for
the Railbelt Region of Alaska
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
I.Economic Projections for Alaska and the Railbelt 1
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Base Case (Moderate-Moderate)
The Low Case (Low-Low). .
The High Case (High-High)
The Industrialization Case
Two Sensitivity Cases
1
12
18
24
31
l.
2.
The Fiscal Crisis Case
The Super High Case
31
38
F.Summary 42
II.Comparison of Current Projections with Earlier Work 47
A.
B.
C.
D.
Comparison of Results
New Initial Values
Scenario Changes
Model Changes
47
53
54
60
III.Summary of Appendix Material
Appendix A.Economic and Policy Scenarios for
Railbelt Electric Power Study
Appendix B.Assumptions Used to Calculate OCS Employment
Appendix C.Description of the Household Formation Model
Appendix D.MAP Model Wage Rate Specification
Appendix E.MAP Model Migration Specification
Appendix F.Regionalization Model
Appendix G.Stochastic Equation Estimation Results
xi
...b --._
67
I.Economic Projections for Alaska and the Railbelt
I.A.The Base Case (Moderate-Moderate)
The base case assumes moderate growth in basic sector economic
activity and moderate growth in state government expenditures.These
factors combine to produce the aggregate statewide population projec-
tions shown in Table 1.1.
The general pattern of growth reflected in these figures is for a
decade of growth in the 1980s similar to that of the 1970s followed by
a decade of slightly slower but more stable growth.The cyclical
growth in the 1980s is attributable to the simultaneous construction
of several large construction projects.These result in a rapid
employment and population buildup,followed by a few years of slack
activity as the economy "fills in."The assumptions underlying this
and all other projections are detailed in an appendix to this report.
Population increases from 400 thousand in 1980 to 562 thousand in
1990 and 675 thousand by 2000.Employment grows from 206 thousand in
1980 to 299 thousand in 1990 and 352 thousand in 2000.
A description of the structure of the economy projected in the
moderate-moderate case is shown in Table 1.2 which shows the distribu-
tion of total employment by three categories.Over time,the propor-
tion of employment that is government related falls,while private
sector employment grows.The proportion of employment defined as
basic increases from 23 percent to 25 percent.Support sector employ-
ment growth is more rapid.It increases from 39 percent to 43 percent.
Some of the important characteristics of the population are
highlighted in Table 1.3.Both the military and Native segments of
the population decline as a proportion of the total over time.This
is the result of the substantial net positive migration which augments
population by 107 thousand over the twenty-year projection period .
....,-----~--
r~:;r·,.."';::'.!}...(;c·J.-:-:r-.~r-=')C?-·c::C:():0 C:::}..7"Q-..r.....cc CD :),0..::c 0'-.-:-:~:>~r-.~r'..·.r'···.~"~t."'O c.....C'=C?..0'"c::0 ~-:-:-:-:":-i ~c:(:-":)..G'"G'":::::0',0',0 ::::::0 ::::::0 ()c:++..~~~~~~~~(~oco~(~O~~~~~~~'-'-(lJeou
I::
~
I::+JoI::
-..-I QJ l-I
~~~
.....0
:i ..........
Q..o.,CIlo e QJ
l::l-.;..;:IiZ
4-14-11::o 0 '..-1
r-....".0 '-.0 ~
c""-r-:-;r·".:",o ;:--.J :~:.:::0
:."".J i.:'1 CO C·,;
t·:;-=::r r:1 t·;.~r·....
• +•+
C;-..'.0
f·....1.:1
'.-0 r.-.~c>-·::::=~C
:..:.,::::~~~..-(:;0 ...
~-:;t<;c·~L;1 L1 M ::.~?'<::r<:J
~0-.~:::'=--:~~t·J ('.~~C·~:,--.1.
~::):0-.::::::::~::;:,,:):C::::::::0 0 0 :".:::
(:-.,~:....Go,·;....f':;CD ",."3
~t·:")~..~.c (?--:.;..:c·J.c:......-...-,......,...._"
".:)--:~.i·:-.='..'.:._.~...:_:.:~C;-.·f;~:;o:~;"-0 . ,..-:'J C·~G'""-0 1·:;.•
, .'. ';~"l-:.:"::)...:)-:}"C::G··C::C::C~......:-:C·~(".J t·r-;':::r-Lr::
'••;:'01 ('.J.:'.;::--'·1 C,;'c·~r"~:-...~1'=::C·.l r-lw,l 1"'1'::r':;rJ r-:-::~.:;r-l)r<::r':;~.(;
0··
Z
0--.
:.:,::
c
L"}CO CO c'~'..:..:LrJ C:-"rjJ .____t·J.t:;u;r.....c::(:-::r-:):.;o::'/.""-iJ C',l (). .::,).--:--:~~~c·J
~"'~~~O~~~~00~~~~_.··....,..O~~OOC
.>..
~c·J.......:
r-.~(,.J C,;'("'~
o C::0 0
II II II
U
0"I1::l-.
1::l-.0000iZ
O::E::H
1::l-.;..;:I1::l-.
oC,;)C,;)
.:.L-j G',..
..~":'"'""'!••••.•
:•...:.:::'.'r··:...
.,;(:')'::t '.-,
CO .~.~.
r-~~... .;":""'=-:::]-G··'_.__:.1.':>.~~..r·:;[':"J r·:-;:)...(..""-?-=-;1':;
L"'::G··L"':::>f ....~.n ~':::,:'.:.;:::::~-:~:;'0:-:-{:C")".0 r··...~0'"r··..CO
.~........::}-.
c
2
,
Table 1.2.Distribution of Total Employment
Moderate-Moderate Case
:H •j'ii"i
E::(ii::;~:',.[(i [i'/i 13 '~~'•E:;.j E::r·ii-·!~::;"[j····i
J ':?b()o '>::::;9~:.::().3lS:'O.~22(?
:i.':;':·U.l
:i,9::::::.:.::
J.-:::;:::;?;
.i,::'t:;::,
.1..:?a ~~:.~
().;.3"/'9
0":':'::.;'i;;'
().~:'::;,:::,9
0.):':::;)'{~,
0.;.::::;::;"
(),.:.:")::::~·4
O~:;)B9
().;.::5"79
0.37:1.
o t ::~:4::2
0 ....?:'::)'.:,:,!
o ~~:.~:;'{...:+
o •:~::,'5:1.
:\.•...r".....
I.j .;.,.::'~..),:~I
..........."'1
I....'.,..,':.{::./
~L 0:.:.:'E ,S
:i.':?d'7
().;....:~;';?3
o .~~:~;~.;.:I ~:5
().33·'i·
0 ....:.:~:·41-E:,
0,:::.:)'::.::
().~.2 ~::j (?
J .;:,E;3 ().;.:;'~.()6 0:.3~.:.:.i3 ()..~.:.::l~.:I.
:L :.:.::~3 ~.:;(),.";'~.:!.)'o (.:?~:;l·4 ().....~::~3 ':.;.:'
:/.':.;.:'':?()
.i.:.;.:':?:i.
Cf .~,·::l·:i.:I-
().~':'~.t :::~:;
o (.3<"~:5
().;.:3:.':';:::.:.:.
o .~.::'::':'~.··;l
I,).'..~~::.:'.~~::,'
.i.':,::.:::.:.:.:-:J ~..~;.J .1.()\.:.'::;:..;:~.:::.::<)v .~.'.::.•.:;.'.~;'
.i."..:.,'?~::.
J :7 ..~.:..::~
.!.,i '::,:';'.!
C...)··:l:r.,;'::,
.....",.,,
I~.•I .;.J:.:.J .
o ,~.':'~..L ~:::
()t :::::.::~':;:'
()to :3:3~5
...................
I,)_,..:)..::-,,:~,
o ~.::.".::::':;.~:.;
(:...::...::.:~.::;:,
"'..'.'.::.:.:...::;.':,;:0
J.":::.':.:}.::)c'.,..~::,:.:,.i.I..}.:•••J ..~:'
....
\.j ~...:::.~".::'
.1.",:.,';--.'(.t .:./~..::.:::.-:::;().;.::::?\::1 0,,:,.'::'.;.1
1,::,:0 ':;.:-;::l,().:...:~~.:.:.:::.:.:.;().;.:,'::;::~~~:.:.;.'.',1::'
I /
J ~?.:?.:?().;.·4 :..:~;..•..-..r·..1
I')'J>..:')..:::.1.".····,1···~.).~...:.....l
..:••I...'"'..1 I,,)(>'i -4:3~':::().;.:':::;.i.E ()\.::.:.::~.~~i :L
Proportion of Local Serving Employment
Proportion of Government Employment
=Proportion of Basic Employment
EMSP.EM =
EMG9.EM =
EMNS.EM
3
Table 1.3.Components of Population
Moderate-Moderate Case
(thousands)
FUF FLFD':?
,,"-.....•."
,'.t'!\':••:.\,}~~.:)
:.~~.:-~:.~;0 :L
~:).~·4 ()~:~
4.;.0<:';{;.:'
~5 +:I.,.;':~t:.:.:r
.:?~I::';••;~4
12.~O(.;J~}
-"6-:-~?4
...,,?0)
.-......"0"••",
....'to:;;-:1'().;~)/
~::~:::~.:-~:~1 ·4
?().:-·404
,"~.!..~.••..•,",
::;J.-:-"':i..,.:7
\:)~t ~2 ::)::?
<:)~:~;i·~:}~:.~t~
F::~.~•::;?4 :1.
C)J.:i..,1.?:1
4
POP =Population
POPC =Civilian Population
NATTOT =Native Population
MIGNET =Net Migration
PLFD9 =Potential Domestic Labor Force
.j.~?8()
:l.SJ i::;:L
1 ~?B ~;.~
17'Bi~'
:L i?i:j/
The potential domestic labor force grows from 250 thousand to
420 thousand.
The number of households and their distribution by type are shown
in Table 1.4.Although the number of total households does not double
over the twenty-year projection period,growth in civilian non-Native
households is rapid enough to more than double their total in twenty
years.The number of Native households doubles in twenty years.
The number of households grows more rapidly than the population
because of a fall in the average size of the household.This is
traced in Table 1.5,which shows the average household size in Alaska
falling from 3.086 in 1980 to 2.657 in 2000.A description of the
methods and assumptions of the household projections is presented in
an appendix to this report.(The average household size multiplied by
the number of households will be slightly less than population because
of people living in group quarters.)
Average household size varies considerably by status of the head
of household as well as the rate at which household-size diminishes.
Native households are much larger than either civilian non-Native
households or military households.
Table 1.6 shows the aggregate state fiscal variables to be con-
sistent with the overall growth projected in the moderate-moderate
case.Revenues exceed expenditures consistently until the final year,
and the permanent fund and general fund balances increase accordingly.
5
Table 1.4.Households,Moderate-Moderate Case
(thousands)
:I.:.;:::::;.;:')
.i.':~:a'7
1 '?af::)
.f.':.~-':?(.i
1..:.:)':;;..i.
.i.~)(?~:.::
.i.:.~:::":1
.i..:.:.:':;:".::;
:i.':.:.:":;.:'.:.::
.i.')':;;';3
.i.(?':,;;(;:'
2()O()
HH
.I.~:'.<).•,(.'02
.r ....."','.'.~....,'..."
.I..:~I ..:'\.i::~t..}"~'
.i.~~:?.:.~:'j :':7 4
:1.,:::,::::;.~::;1:::'
:I.,::::6 ,.':;;E~?;
.....
...."·,)e·,;;,
...::_.::'.:',.'..•.l ~:.,_.::'
CHH
103 y 68/)
.i.OS (-·:S3:::~
,........')"',
.1.'I.:j .....'+C)J.....I
:I.4:1..·4'~~'/
:1.4)'.1':)''7-
1,·{·'i-!.6?6
.,.f r:;"":"I::",r.D.;..;.,._r ..•)....1
/·iHH
14.3~:.)2
:1.·4.3~:5:?
:I.4.::)~::i.~~
14.3:::i2
:I.-4 •::)~:.i :;::
.I.4.3~5:?
j\IHH
19 •.:?1
.,:~...-.:.:.,/
HH =Households
CHH =Civilian Non-Native Households
MHH =Military Households
NHH =Native Households
6
1"ci.'~:!IIt
if
!
Table 1.5.Average Alaska Household Size
Moderate-Moderate Case
;,~~.~f:::;'::~::i
:~.~~:::~:;..~::~;
B.1"1r-j
:I.':;:'B ()
:1.::.;'~8:i.
:l.':;:':::5::~
:!.':;:';::::3
.1.!o:;:'B4
1 ~?E:.:.:j
i 9E::6
:1.9 E ~i'
:1.:~;.E:~;~~
.L 1-l ~.:)-'.~~
.i,::~.~:'r••..'
.i,:.;:'':~).!.
..-,c',.
.~.~;..'-',:/._",:'
"."".:,'••<.:.:;:::.;,:..
J.'~.''7 C·
.:.::'-'.:"';::'
.i.':?')~.~:.
..:'.::c;()('
HHi:;IZE;:j\l
"::~.0)6~?!,:5
..:'~\"~::.i ~~.;(?
.<+i.·4'7'~5
l::..:..4 :.~::;:":::;
::":}+3",74
,::},.::'i.l.)'
4 .~;.~~;-::'J.
·4 ~...~.~0 ~:~
·4 ~.J.~::i <:~
,·;·f ~.1 ().:::l
..~.~.C':.:5 /
,~:~,.;.<~',>:L
'.:'.;.".:·"C).j
:?;"';':.L :;:.
:~~;~,I::~~:';:::
::::;.:.(:~:..::.(:;;
~~~;".':7 ~::~:;'i·
:.3 t'"?.:;..r.
:::::;.~.::')':~:'':::;
:3 ,'.(::;~:.~:...'
_.::1.;."i.:'.::;
HH:::)IZEC
::~~(.B::~':.;:'
:2 .~;:~;::2 -4
~:~~~:~:~~:i.
:~:.::.,1:)·4:1.
2 "."~::~-4 \':)
:~~~v ~:j :i.~:)
::~~-:r ::.:.1)'..;~
;?oJ>:7·4 t:;
:~~.~~?~l.~~:~
~~:.:{o ~:)':;:'~:.~
.:?:...:~;(:;~~:~
::::,.6/{·.l.
2,-6:1.9
.~~:.;.~:.~i -;i ?
.::'::~.~:;",7 :7
..:.:.;.~.).:.:r (::l
::~:',':.::.;:':::;l~.
.;.....1.I.J...
"'~:.;.....;.',:::
HHE;IZEi'''-j
~::.~.~6:3 ~~5
~~:.;\~)::~~~)
::~~...6 ~:)~:)
~~~;)\:>::~~5
~~.;..::)::~:~5
;.:~~i:::~:3 ~:5
~:.~l',~::r:3 ~:r
.::.~v li :":)~:5
::.~.;.{~::}~~;
::?(.6:.:j~:;
.::.~\'.~:'J ::}~5
:::~.1-.::i :.~~;:::;
.:?.}{::I:':::;~:S
::.~~.:.=,~':I ::::;~:.:i
:~~::.;.:::;':::::~:5
:::::~r:::,:3~)
~:.:~oJ>(-;;::~;~:5
.:;.~.:.(::.:.5 :5
:::.::.;.::s :::~;~:5
.::.::.:.IS :."::;:~.~:.i
:::.::.:(::.?:~~~i
HHE}IZE
::1 J;OB6
~5.,()I'~)
:3 -eo ()1~~4
:",+():.:5 :3
3~04
:3 ~0·41
:3 _,03:1.
2t9~;~B
~:.~~o 9 (;)
,.'\.....'.y ~...
",,'.~"7 ••::'.",:•
2,,9
::~.;,B '7 ):~~
;.~~v ~::~~;~•.:;:
~~.;.~:~:?-4
~~~~~3 ().I.
;.:.~.~'7~?:7
2 +'7 ::;.;4
~::.~4 ~::":3 1
~~.:.~;'():7
:;.=:~~r:::r ;:3 :~:.~
~~::.:-6 ~~~;~7
HHSIZE =Household Size
HHSIZEN =Native Household Size
HHSIZEC =Civilian Non-Native Household Size
HHSIZEM =Military Household Size
7
Table 1.6.State Fiscal Variables
Moderate-Moderate Case
(million $)
E·:,.I·ii·j
F'FB(ll...GF~B{11 ...
2244.29 .1.4021:1.2 483 t 2 1549.1
3375~~~~3 238:1,.69 1760~5 .1.440+
49:1.6.46 323E~~56 4076.29 8()2.:I.:i.4
5999~61 3582.56 6209.62 1()E~5tE~3
67'97~58 4033.22 8J.22.34 :1.937.4:'
2()8:;.~~~f4 .1.33E;9~9 25:L08~6 673S7t5
2();~~~6~;'.i.h~E~:;.8~7 26395~8 ;'2()6~~~,2
1.~~:3;5~3 .l0043+6 2()79f~+~~~4(S439+9
~()326~4 :1..!.():i.f;~5 2230215 5~l244~
30Ei:l.t55 4556.82 9~~23+93 376().62
9278+g~2 5410.38 :lj.328~8 6:1.23+77
'L()~~48+9 6319~2:l :1.2664~E~93:~7~49
.:..~.:..L ..'?.:?~.(.'?:L :~:.;.;.F:·4·t 3 ;::;;1 \:).;-~5 J ',:';;..:~};.:.::H.;.';)
1.:.::;.;?;:::;.1 ..:.:1.~:.:':':~~~:.~;·4 .:.::~j~?.L ~j ()B ':?.;.6 :1.r::",:it ~:~2 .:.:1.
:i.3(:'74~;3 79()8~3:E 1642()~3 246:i.'7 t 2
16682.8566.23 17830.4 3:1.328.9
2 ()00
8
:i.'/')::.;0
1 ':?':;':;::j
.,,"~,"',..~.
J.'x .::)\]
J t?C4
:i.'/;30
J 9 ::::.f
:I.'~;,a~:.
=General Fund Revenues=General Fund Expenditures=Permanent Fund Balance=General Fund Balance
REVGF
EXGF
PFBAL
GFBAL
The statewide moderate-moderate economic projections are disag-
gregated in Table 1.7 to show the values for the railbelt defined as
the following Census Divisions:
Anchorage
Matanuska-Susitna
Kenai-Cook Inlet
Seward
Fairbanks
Southeast Fairbanks
Valdez-Chitina-wnittier
In this projection,the railbelt share of state population and employ-
ment remains relatively stable over time.
The final table in this section (Table 1.8)presents three vari-
ables used to monitor the credibility of the economic projections.
The ratio of civilian employment to population increases in the late
1980s and then falls in the early 1990s.This reflects the rapid
population growth from in-migration in the late 1980s.The subsequent
decline in this ratio does not return it to its former value,indicat-
ing that employment as a proportion of the population is continuing
its historical trend upward.
The ratio of the Alaskan to the average U.S.price level is
projected to decline over time.This is also consistent with the
historical trend in the relationship.
The ratio of real personal income per capita in Alaska and the
United States is likewise projected to decline over time in a return
to the long-standing historical relationship.This trend is reversed
in the mid-1980s,the years of very large construction activity.
9
Table 1.7.Railbelt Projection Values
Moderate-Moderate Case
G.,F:B
.L ::'".::::",'
. .....'?.:~,
,:....-.
•1..:-'':.-/
-....;:)
":....':.'
.-,:.'",:...•.'".":
;~~d '.::;,:.:~::.":~:-4
,',....,.,.,.",,.;.;...-:_);../.1..,,1.
<.;...:.;...::,•./.1.
.!.;.~;•:S :.":".:')
:i.),,~;....:~:i.~~
...:..:.:,....,,::••1..1.
l::.;:::,_..,:::,..:::,:i.
~SB .~~:~.:;;J
l}()~.li:;l
~5 ~:~+:5 J.~::i
!5 S .,:~:.::',7 ~5
.".".~,",..~.r::j.Ci (10 .~.}~•.)••::-
P.RB =Population
M.RB =Total Employment
B.RB =Basic Employment
G.RB =Government Employment
S.RB =Support Employment
10
Table 1.8.'Projection Monitoring Values
Moderate-Moderate Case
Ii.HI'i
Ei:~1:(F'I.CFI F'I '::i •F I U
.1-(?~3 ()
.i.':;)f::~1
.i..~:)a 4:'~:
""',!,,"~;~:"
1••/.;.....··c (J \.,1
()~.·4·':';;:
()i--.;{..:?:.":")
!7'J.I••\./~I
.i.t37
:t.353
1 ~\()~:~(::i
:L.~09~3
.L .;.1.\:i :.:'
.L -:07'E::.3
.1.::,;:::::::.•:~.
(),;..,;:}~?'?
()oj-~5 ()"4
.l .:.:?S ~~~·4
1 ;..:.~)1 :::j
:i.•.i..1.3
:L .;..I..:;.~~;.:
:i.':.:.:':J :.:~.I
:i.".7'~:5~::.
:i.':,;:-~:5 ';.:.:
:i ~:.:.~::~':::'
()<.::)J.~?
(){.~:~~~.:.:.(::.
~){.~~);;.:::;.
G .;~:~j .~?£~
.:···f.t 0}..;')
:L .;..~;.~~?~~:i
l ~.~:~~~:j :1.
.,'..'.-.1..;...::..-:-:-....:.
:r..;..:.:.::<>':;:'
:l..:.::.:.:~?J.
1 •;.~::.i..i
.1..;..L ~}.~::
1 ':.:.::;::;':;.:=
.:.';.:.:.':.~.::()
()~~.~~i';?
()?:~;1i
.~"',.',.r..;..!!:'...~
,1 ,
.:..;••••::..~j'....
.'.......
.1..:."."'';;;'.•J
J..;.<)..:'::....:.::
J ':,:,:":.:,:':1.=).:.~.~~()':,:,::J -:.~~~~::;..;~..i..;...).~:.::E;
:L (?':.;.::?().;.:,:.:.;<>..:.~.:L ..~?~.~~;::3 :L .:.~)(:,.::'
.L '?='l?:.~~().:.~:.:j ()::.:.:::L ,;~:.::::.:.::";':~G ,~.'::;:';:::~_.:~.
;.:.:}9 ..:~.i..,.!.:.~:)i.).1.:i.~.::.:::!.'.?:1:.../.~'?.i.
.l.t.~.:::?~::;o .:.~~5 :i.;~::.:.:()<?I;)+::l C:l
.:..:?'?:::.()~~::;:i..;..:.:.::():I.V .i-.:;:::~'j
.i.;;:S:;'
.L './'::1 ~:::;
.r.~.;}~;!:~;'
'~";:()()()
().;.:::;():i.
o .:.~5 f):~::
().:.~::t (}:~=:
()~.:.::.i ().-:"{.
:1..,.L:?;.::.
j,.,.I.:::::::.:.::
I .t-~-~
.1.~.!./~)
1.164
(.i<.~{.~::':;
..............
!"').~x ....'..:..
(),::;.;.~::.:.~
'".'.;'-;-..t.C)
11
Civilian Employment/Civilian Population
Alaska Price Level/U.S.Average Price Level
Alaska Per Capita Real Personal Income/U.S.Per
Capita Real Personal Income
ER =
RPI.CPI =
PIA.PIU =
Ii
~
it
1;
;:
I:
Ii
I
II
r
~L=----.,_
I.B.The Low Case (Low-Low)
Tables 1.9 through 1.13 present the results of the low case
projection.This case assumes low growth in basic sector activity in
the private economy and growth in state government spending at a rate
which maintains the initial real per capita level.
Aggregate growth resulting from this case (Table 1.9)is much
lower than in the moderate case.Growth is rapid in the mid-1980s
during construction of the gas pipeline but slows considerably in the
decade of the 1990s,during which population growth is about 50 thou-
sand.Even more striking is the fact that employment peaks in 1987
just as pipeline construction is concluding and does not regain that
level again until twelve years later in 1999.During this period,
out-migration must be occurring as natural increase in the"resident
population generates larger yearly increases in the labor force than
jobs provided by the economy.
This same pattern is observed in the railbelt (Table 1.10).
Population growth is slow in the 1990s after a period of rapid
increases in the 1980s primarily due to pipeline construction.
Employment declines after 1987 and only recovers its previous peak in
1998.
Table 1.11 shows that the employment mix or the structure of the
economy as measured by employment remains more influenced by govern-
ment in this case in spite of slower growth in government spending.
This results from the associated slow growth in private sector basic
activities and the continuing strong presence of the federal
government.
The number of households displays annual growth with a spurt in
the mid-1980s (Table 1.12).Average household size falls in the same
general pattern as the base case.
12
"'4
',_.-'.:li1 ::;'.i ~<:
:.;,:-',:,-:...::;i"·.J ....j G··:::::
::"=1 ;_:;Ci :_'i L=1 C"1 c::_:;
c.~C1 :-::.~~.::':··1 ::.~.!1",..:["'oj
c~'=J ...c:...(:':'}''':::'..(:....C ...;,::..{:O~)~~)~~~~~·~i"~)~_.~.~..~.~!J~:~U~_~O)CG
!.,J ::...~"·0 =-=1 C::(:):';":..~..;,)-~.G'":~:.!~:....:_:.::_:......,.r·..:G:::C::OJ .~
Q):..:.,!i·..~:f.d :-(.:-;0--......j 0:::.:"..{:-··G C..:.'-i',.j .~C::C:1
G~~~~~~~..~·G~J~(~~a ..~GJr~J"o
:..:..:
~+~00-
OOC;OC:OC~OC~C::"CO~D000C)C:OO"~):--:-~:--:-~:-:;:::::::::c::"':::..-.'-{:C'::..;'.G·,:.:)r·.':':C,,!r-..:;'w'."
~J~J~J~~:--~~~~~"O~·~·~..~~Gjm,o~t~
CJc;'}CJ
""Ctrl""C
~::3:0
:::tl1O""C
""CIOn
\I II \I
o
t-<o ""C
~""l
I 0t-<t....o I'll
~n
('1'n ~.
QI 0
CIl i:l
I'll
<:
C>.....
I::
I'll
CIl
...(:
....,::..
c~.......'1 0-..C"(.:;
.....1 ..·..1 j 0::c;:..:..~
.•..;C:,J.~-...0 .....j r·.)
::';'~1-:'!r.}~
"·0 ~!::.:.0'"c::...t:.:.C::G·,:.,...:
"'C:··c ...c c::c::::::c::C~C7:C::C7:
CO e.G ._....C:.....j .....j r,;.~r·..j ~(;.~c:
'''[J 0··r·..;::':"i ::'=1 (:.1,-..0 r·..)err
.....1 ?.j ::':1 ~:--..0 ~0'"j co :-:.
:)-.-..0 j "-..j
to...;~r·.,;t·.,;t·.)t·..)t·..)~:--:--:-:.:-:..:......:.--.:.:-:..
~;....;.-...0 0'"J.:::.r·J 0 OJ .....j ::.~~(I·J.G·).G·~(:.~
CD co :-:-c......W ~..::.-.a::r·.]-..0 j :..:,;~G-~c::
:..;-.l U1 W 0.......1 ::':1 t!1 :::;:til t:"i .1 L!1 "-0 0::~..,,::
G-i r·.J 0'-.r·..)CD ~0).....j 0 ...J',.::.G")r·J :";'l :"..1 CC.... .
_~....~....,j 0"t.~r·.,;C!'..{).,L:'1 '-..j
G-~'--0 c:t =1 C>r·..)-..:.):-:-c:....~.::...~:.-:.·...c S::._._.G'":--...;:.:.~:..:.....!0-.,
o-··-..o~G·J.:-~
l:-;::c ()'!t·.)0 .....j Z).C1 0'-,'..(:_i:;;'.....j C::C';
+.~<-~*
. .....
OC::C::C~OOC::C~···G·,,(:
~;-:.:-:-:-:-0 ~c::::::...[:-..:::
(;...i r·J :-t·..;"<J .:::.~::'=1 r-
CJc;'}CJ
""l ""l ""l
000
~~~
('1'('1'('1'
::r::r::r
~.0 0
i:l~~
:::tltrl""C
I'll 3 0
QI'ti'ti
..........1::o .....
""C '<QI
I'll 3 ('1'
""l I'll ....
i:l 0
n('1'i:lQI
'ti....
('1'
C>
;.::
~:-:-~:-:..~:-:-~~~oooco:-~~~~~o v
••••••••••••••+.r-.:
OOOOOOOOO~~~~~OOOOOO~
:-:":-:"~~OOOOCJ-..o~~N~mmN~~~~
:-:..~~-..o-..o~~~m ~N~-..o~~~OO~
_______________________________1_
r[1
i
Table 1.10.Railbelt Projection Values
Low-Low Case
F~B (.L.i...
F.,F:B
...,.....~0'".....
/t~\.t;./";}
E ()(a ~?;:.::,;:::,i
;::)1 {o ():5 ~:)
;::::J -:-.::;.(~:::;.
!58 -i ::}S:i.
60ft ~.~:j ();;::;
6:!..,:1.04
(;):!.,~/4 :.~.:i
t:):!..:.:3:i.:J.
c·!:f.+1.'7·4
•·.r •••.,",'".:::r.l•.;./.Co ·~i\.
••'\.••...•.•...···e ..
..:':~..j ~i,.1 /i::.
40.:1.;;~G
36.'?:f.:':;
::}.:::.+~3·4
~'+0 f 'i ~.:::3
:~;~5 +:5~?:1.
~3!5 +:~)():i.
-:.'~":'1..:j \)+..:>~..:••,::..~.",l'.....,''l..J'J..it r~J ~_.:}tj r:J:
.LE:::::.,/1
:i.?::!;.,.:::.;;':.:::J.
:i./"":1.,:i.3:.'5
:i.5()...·4()~~;
:i.~:56 ~7t:~2(S
:l.B:l..1c';l:5
:L f:~~~~.:.:4.(+if
1::30~943
l ~:~G .:.:1.,5~5
1·4l(>;;?69
3'7~~::i .;.ooe
AOCr +1:~:;~5
2f~~).~9~~:4
;.~S~l ..1 ~3 {:'i
3:3 t:?{o ()~j :..~:;
::)~:)?+~~;7
3 -:::.:.:}~::)B ~]
3 ,:~:~:~~.\;)B :i.
14
:1.S·:'':;::{)
J.S·;l ':;;':1.
r'o ~'.....;:\l ti :1••/
1 ':?EJ"7
J.S·:'::J S
P.RB =Population
M.RB =Total Employment
B.RE =Basic Employment
G.RB =Government Employment
S.RB =Support Employment
Table 1.11.Distribution of Employment
Low-Low Case
B .I_L
E;'·j~:;;::'.[i"i E::i'·jG9.Ei"i Ei'·1NS.I:::l-1
l':;;'DO
:I.':?G:I.
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
:i.':?B"7
:L <?E::::~
·'r~;~(·'~707
1990
1991
:i..:;.~.:;}::.::
:i.'?':.~I ::~;
1 ')(?·4
!r',,''',,·:,.I.'7 -;.,..•.1
:1.':;·;'':.:·:'6
:1.(?':.;.:'~-;...
.I.:.:.:.(.~.:'E
J ':)':,i(?
:?O()O
0.393
0.38
0.369
0.371
0.381
{)~J(T':~j
O.}3''7'(;·)
o ~3::?d
().~::<.:l.~'::~
0.)·4:1.',:·:·1
()~.:;':;.:i.2
t:)",'.~.:L :l.
o ~,..;.~~J 1
(),.·4:1 :::)
r..'..1 •••••(j •":f .I...~,
O.,4:i.-::":-
0""::i:l:::::
0 ...l{.:~:::i.
o ~t;'~,::.:.=:ll·
().)i:~:::.::)'
0.)l:~3
O.3Ell
O.3E18
o f-~~':?~5
0.388
0.379
()~3~:;4
0.339
o •3~:;3
..,··Vi.:",...
\)to \:)\••1 D
{).~3~56
.•..'-."
I.)~."OJ (::'
o +::~;6:1.
<)~36:L
()~3~)9
o +::::;~:5 B
o .):3 ~.:5 ~:5
o y ::::::~:5 ~:)
o to :3~::.i
0,,:'::;47
O.:':')·44
().3'4
I~~~)I
(j."O
0.231
0.239
0.241
0.24
()0)::?~:.:.;2
o to 2{;)2
0*:2 it ':;'
()~2~:29
o +;.~:::.~6
o ~:::.::~:.:::3
()':0 ::.:.:::::.::s}
()~.?:::.~~3
o ~:::.~::3.'7'
()f-:~:2 ';:'
()+~:~::;.~'"7)
o -:-2:::.~·?
o.2~:::':,:i
o 0):::.~:::.~9
0.,:?~.::':)
0.;2:2':"
EMSP.EM =Proportion of Local Serving Employment
EMG9.EM =Proportion of Government Employment
EMNS.EM =Proportion of Basic Employment
15
•
Table 1.12.Statewide Household Characteristics
Low-Low Case
:H .1...1...
.I.~~in()
:1.':1'i;)1
J ::.':,:?
HH
:i.::?:;':}.;.()0 :2
J :::'.:'',:?~(;;'0 .4
.,:..-,:,'
.I.~:!..::'.~.!.c:'....
I.;':).7.,::.:.'::.::
:I ..;::.:,":0"O)'::.,~
1...:....:;:',3:.":·;
:'::'.":.;::;
i'....-··
HI-1:;:)I ZE
3 \.OB6
~.'5vO·7·2
3"y ()~~;l :::.~
:'5 .~0 -4 c':-
::::::(0 O:,:}.l.
:~~::-i .9 J ,~~
~~.:.~c;G ~:.j
.............,..._:.:~.....tJ :.'."J
F'[)F'CiG
18 ~60'7
It:i-:-CI /4
:i.':;:',.::)-4'7
:L "?::';33
f.').,/}:::.:9
I.':,;:-"::::::::;'7
:L .;;:../~:L ..:::.
:/.':.::';.(;.E::?;
f.'::.:',.E::i.:::j
:i.':7'"':,:.:/f ',7
HH =
HHSIZE =
POPGQ =
Households
Household Size
Population in Group Quarters
16
Table 1.13.State Fiscal Variables
Low-Low Case
E·:.,LI...
':'::·:'::;:0
i..::'1:;:1
:l.';?~3:::.::
.1.'.~.;'.:::;:."::::
.i.::.::::::..:)
:i.:,:.:·::::::.:.:.i
i.':;h(,
i.'.::'::;)';':'
.i.::;':::::b
.1.-:.:·:'d'7'
1.,:,;.'::.:.~)
:.:.:'I.
.1 ':::')::.:.'.
.!.:.•..:)
.1.':,:::).:::.
.i.',:-..~7 .,)
'::.
.1..:::
...c'
;.,..'~.
.i.
,'."'''''."\.>
F~:I::.t.)GF'
::}~?li :.~~'.~E:~)
:3 3 ',7 ::)+~:.~j .;~.)
4'11.1..:7(.
~.~j ,?(::B \\(~.):;'f
{:)7 )'9 .,.~;5 .:s
:3 0 ::5 :..:~:t ::5 2
::.;'::.~.~3 .il ~',:.:.,~.:.:;
:L Ofj()(",'.;.3
:l.::::::i.,S~~'::';'6
:i.,.;'{.().L 3":":)
.1...o:}',i!)',:';.•;;.::
,",',.1
.!{:;.'.::0 !..}I;.~+J.
J ",:,:.'?:";':;.().:.:'::,
J :;:::(:':,()",:./'~
.J.':.::.:.'::;,..:,:,;.:.::<.:'::::
"i..:.:.)~.:.:.;i:')'.:.:r .;.IS
:1.(.~.:'(:').,:~~:.:~:.;..1.
:i.':.:)~...:.;(;·:':3 '.'::.:j
.L (,:.:·l:}:"S:.::.i .;.
.L ':;.:::L '7 (>\.':.;.::
.i.E~:7::;~.:.~j ,,)\.t~:~
E:>:C-)I:'
J.·402\~12
::.~:3 8:l.(.\~}./
:..:~::?::~;E ,.·4 f~
::!.~:5 :;~'7'v :I.E~
:3 E:(?:.:~:~E:~:.~i
..:l3 ~:.:~::2 \\9 :1.
if'i:L;:;"4~:5
~::.;~::i :L '.:.:.,-;..Il (~,
~:5 ':;':'().)'\\:..:~;.<'::.
.;S:?::O':;:,.)':L
(:')"7 .~:::':?.~..::}~.:.~.;
~:.:'3 :~?~:.~;.:.,:.:.::.:?
'.:.:!';.:':i.'::.:'•.:.:.'.<;~.
t::,,::~,:L :L .:'~:::'-:::.
::,;.:'J '/.;.:.'.:.n·,::}
:L Ci I)():L .;.1.
:1.1)':';:L L •.,,::
.I.:L ~:;;:3 ::,;.::':;:::;
i..:,:,:::.:.;~:,;::::::.':';
:1.·..::·1.3:1.,.2
J ~~.:;...~~().i..:.~~.)
FFb(:lL.
,":}B3 Y o?
:1.'..";,r 6 ()~~;.;
·4 0 '.:7,:::,{.~?9
(~'j 2 0 .:?.:-I:::'~.:.~
(:~J .:.:.~::.:.~\\:.:~:,4
':;.:<~:::~:.:::'::;.:-':;'~:3
::.1 3 ::.:::~:~~::~,
J."':':,:)64 "G
:L :~.::;:::;:.1..:":':,.~~,:.~i
J ~::;()'..;,:'J .~:~:.::
~i.(::'<;":)4 '.\
:L /·.:·:'c,,,·~.;':i:
:i.(;.:j '::)0:)•
:?('1 :.~~;:,'.~;F~{.c:'
::?:r.';},..~.()V':;';'
:2 3 ::,:.::,::~,::.:.::v ,·S
.?·4 .,:~.:....;.:.;:'(0 ~:.:'
.:.:.::',:i ::~;:,;.:'...:~,~:."~:;
..:::(:j .:::..::.'......;,"::'
.~:.::',7 ~:,~;,\':;.)'.:.S
~'::d .';;';::::(::0 '.'f::;
GF·B(II...
:J.;54(i.:l
:1.440,.
:?','?.:.l~·:3 ,:;;'
:L:I..L:3 .:.6:?
.?()E:6 \0 (:.:1.
.,+:l.:I :'.:;.,6:.::;
(:'::;):."::)::?~()·4
:l.0 ~:~n::;".~'?
:J.::';'3:':';-:L ,..;':!
2 ::?.,::~:::.:~~:~::.;.:..:~;
.:~.:~9 ::?':?7',~:~.::
..:...','",.i'~',,.::'(:)1.".,1 ~.
,{~,~:~;:l.:3 :~~.::1.
::.~!:.::;':?:'5}'<.(-::,
,~:):?',7 ";':~.0 .:.~:.:.;
.,:.:.,.J.()()~.:5 .~::~~
?;:::;~'.:;:i.:,;:-\.,;::r
H~.:.";(,jb;:::;.:.I:::'
':;,:'{):.:.~.i ::.:.::';;.:'.:•.::.~
(?i{.(:';,..;'{.:I..:.:::.~
~?.)':::.:::.".:,i:i.:.:~:j
REVGF =
EXGF =
PFBAL =
GFBAL =
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
Permanent Fund Balance
General Fund Balance
17
Finally,Table I.13 shows the primary state fiscal variables in
this case.State government runs a surplus throughout.Consequently,
the general fund balance grows at a rapid rate and reaches $97 billion
in nominal dollars by the year 2000.
I.C.The High Case (High-High)
Tables 1.14 through I.18 present the results of the high projec-
tion case.This case combines an assumption of high growth in the
basic sectors of the private economy with high growth in state govern-
ment spending.The result is rapid growth of the economy and popula-
tion throughout the projection period.
The aggregate results shown in Table I.14 indicate the cumulative
effect of rapid growth rates.Population growth at 4 percent annually
results in a population of 884 thousand by 2000.Employment growth at
4.5 percent annually results in 497 thousand by 2000.The associated
growth in personal income is sustained throughout the period.
Under this high growth scenario,the railbelt growth is rela-
tively more rapid than that of the state as a whole.Table I.15 shows
the results for the railbelt.Population growth occurs at 4.1 percent
annually,while employment growth is again 4.5 percent.In marked
contrast to the low case,the growth does not stop in the 1990s.It
is more rapid in the decade of the 1980s due to the simultaneous
construction of several large proj ects,but there is no appreciable
pause as the decade of the 1980s ends.
Table I.16 shows how the structure of the economy evolves in this
high growth case.Both government spending and basic private sector
activity are increasing rapidly in this case,but private sector
growth on net grows faster.As a result,the proportion of employment
classified as government falls from 38 percent in 1980 to 30 percent
in 2000,and basic sector employment grows from 23 percent to 28 per-
cent,almost matching government.
~--------------
18
61 .'-','_.'
....j
:::',G cr-·(:1 :-::c..~:.
.;:~;-'i"'~:·..C G·,
0-:-.-:::-=.....j ...._.::":"1 r·.~::,.:.:...:):-::::
co .....j
-..;-.·..n ...:)'.:'"":..{:"·0 ·..C ·~u ...::;c:...[:<••(:-.{:..{:-··n '''0 '-.:)--.I..:·"C ...::;'oN '.'.''."_'••.••CO '.'.''_'.'..;.:;'-'.'.....j :';":.:..:;:-.::.:~r·o.:C::...·0 ............j C'"C:1
.....j .....~....j :-='":.;.
.......Co~G·.~::::::en C~C·.l
..i:;:.::"=1 .....j .....j '-.0 C1 C'".....j ·....1 ....::;~.r.J ~_:..)j~
~.C:"1 ..i:;...t·..::0-.,"·0 ~:::.C,:D'".....:-:-'
....j ...:):.:"i<;j j ::':1
.....j
C;)C;)C;)
"'O~"'O
H::l:O
::0\.0"'0
"'0\.0(j
II II II
OC)C)OOOC)C:OC0~C~(:~OC)C~C:O"D
W&~&~W~~w~~~·.~~GJGJ~~O·~~~~~~.
w~~~WG~~::'~~~~.~J ...~G,~~~~~~~
"·0
.....j t·..::::';'.;
;"•..':(;.~f.>~::~..0..:---;"~:~r·.,;'.j
!"'.~:--:-0"-.~c::CO r·..):':"G..i
;-:.t=1
l~(;.;,
~..~
:-':':-':'OOC::OO:-...:.r-:-:-:-:--:.:-...:.:--:-:-..:.
• • +++ +
c::-..tJ ....c::""<"J ....,;)-..0 :-:-:--C:0 :::)C-:C:
~-..c -..0 OJ C=1 -..0 c::c::~v;'t·...::--:-c::;-.:.co 'c'}0--.C...t·..)~-..0 ::'=1 ~t·..).....1 0'..
~~~~~~~·~~~l~~~m'j~~
r·.j ::"=1 -..0 ['>"~•..::
0 ..G..C:~r·.j
:-:.0::CD c)t=1
~..
o c::c:c::c::c::C::C';c::::;C::0 :--
r·.~i ::.:.~::'>.;~r·.J:--r·...:.i:::-0··::':"~
...+ • +
(:::OOOOC::O
r-:-:--OC:=C:::-:-:-:'
r-0::-..0 :_11 r·J
~.~.J -t.::..r.::-J'.;...~~:.:-i :";'':G..~..:..;L:-~c.~:.;..;c:)r·.)1".j j.....::!....::r,.~:i"'~:
"·G :..:.;0··lr;t:..j r·..:::-~'..(:"~::;_:_:....i G··:j".1:::·t<::..:_:=-'1 !:.:.~t·.~::-c::
(.j r·..)0··~.1 ~'.1 CD G··.....j .....j '.'.':>~c..~:_:~C..:"1 (:;:.....-~".J :--:.:-G··;
r~)~~~~~~j G·~·~;~C w~w·~
~~~~&~:-..~(~~C~0~·~·~~~~.
r<:O·l=1 t.=1 W :-:-
G..i :......:.-..0 ::.:.~..;.)~.::';'.1 .......,:"J 0'....'::..~:)"r·.)co t .~:"',j co :--td C1
t:'i =-:'1 --~~:,,)-~:.;-;'G-~r·..::r·J r·J r·..;
-.0 t>~CD G·J.-..c '.j W 0 ..
t:'i '-.c").....j .....j
0::t.:j '0 t..>.l
'-"-.......,.........
.....j :--:-0··
H
;:lno
S
(lI
;1>;1>;1>
='='=';:l =';:l
I:I:I:
II>II>II>...............
C;)C;)C;)
'"l 1"1 '"l
000
~~~("'t("'t("'t
::r;:r;:r
1-"0 0
='1-+>1-+>
::o~"'O
(lI S 0
11>'0'0
..........1:o .....
"'0 '<II>
(lI S ("'t
'"l (lI 1-'-
='0(j("'t='
II>
'0
1-"("'t
II>
__________________________1_
,
F:r:.HH
Table 1.15.Railbelt Projection Values
High-High Case
19E."5
.j ~....;'~,"',.I.::.0::;,'1
.i.;~~:'O
.L 79:L
.,_,.
.1.'r 'r ,..
1.9':;;b
.i.,?i;:.;;
F',h:B
···.···Y···T ,',...,'
••:)\:~,,/0;.{:)~).::>
61:.:':;,.:1.(,9
i'i ,.Fi E·;
:~::";i:1 .:.1::::;';.:'
~::.CI '::;..;...~.I .\':.
.................,'..::'..:~I C)~.'x'.-:.:.()
2)'t ·466
::?B ->'7'():.~.~
:3::2v:r.C;'7
'7"7 '7"';"::".,',.\\I ::•.,•.'
.....,"....,"t,u.;./t:.
~;.~.;?+';.;I~:f.9
~:5 1":1 .:-~:5 6 ~:.)
~.."....-,.....
l:~)./.;.(::../,:)
·:;·;'.i..,4::::7
::5fi+)'58
~~;B~.:i.:l.B
6S.:1:1./1·
7 i?79l
ci':I.,:,5()·4
l.l.O.2d9
:L :I.:i.,:':;d .;:':,
:i..?';;;,.:::.1.'7
P.RB =Population
M.RB =Total Employment
B.RB =Basic Employment
G.RB =Government Employment
S.RB =Support Employment
20
.,
Table 1.16.Distribution of Employment
High-High Case
B.HH
:1.'780
::.'?BJ
:i.':?B)
1 '~.!E:·5
.I.')~f:j 4
J.(~:'~:5 ~:i
J ~.;}86
:i.'))::37
J.'?:::J::3
J :;~.I~:;':;'
.I.':,;:-':,;:-0
J ':.;;.c..:':I.
.I.i;)'7'.:~~
J.';.?9~3
.1.:';:-':)·4
.i..:.;)9 ~.~:;
J ':?96
j ':.;)~?)'
:i.,:;:r':)H
J .:.:.:'I:?':,;:"
~.~()(>\)
[,··j:3;::·•Ei"j
O+39:~
0.):~;)'B
O.3/;[i
()..367
()+:::;?::~~
0.,3G4
o ~\:;):~~~~j
0.,.:.:~;:33
o .;.l~.
o y 4()':?
().~.,:~.!.:1.
0.;...·l.f.:L
()•":;.:i."1-
().;.:::;.J .\~:.
().)":'~.J ':;)
().",....;.:1.(S
().),.;':;..i.~::
o .:.....:.~:.:~,~.~:
()(0 ..:~:.::.:.::··:"t
o .;.l~i..:.?)'
<>~.,~~..~.:.::H
[i"iGC;.[iv ;
""'""7-'~}.:-..:}0"/
.........0 1::.~I +..j •._,__-,
o ~3::36
0 ....:376
')-."~'11'..:':1 (~~\~
().3:3~)
O.,:3:l.'i
O+33'~::~
G -,-..,....,
j (0 ~,j ...:')/
0,,33:2
().,.:':)::.::6
0.324
o .,:':~;:i.E~
0,,3:1.'7'
0.3:1.2
0.;.30'~;
().~::::::0 E:
o ~:~~;()4
o v ~:::{)~.::
()v ~:.::()':;;'
()~:~:.::I::.:'~:5
[i'iNS.[i'"i
0.231
O~~~36
()~~~~·4 t:)
0.)::57
(),.~?,:l:l.
O.~~~f.l:l.
O(o~~91:S
o ~.~.::?~3
()+;'~64
0<.::2 ~::;'::;'
()•2 .::':.:;
()-:-?/jl~.
0.;·::2.:·);J
0.)2(~:,·.:,:··
0.,::.:.~·7
I".•••.••••,..
I..}:';.
()~:::.~·7 ./~
o .:-~.~.;::.;.,/~
0 ....2?":l
o (0 :~~~';.:.'·4
o-:-~?'?{)
~
EMSP.E~l =Proportion of Local Serving Employment
EMG9.EM =Proportion of Government Employment
E~rnS.EM =Proportion of Basic Employment
21
Table 1.17.Statewide Household Characteristics
High-High Case
VJ
p"HH
HH i-iH:::1I~~,[
,:;:::1 ,,':},::';:;
:::,;':1."(:"i.7
~:~().;.~;.:'0 6
:I.tJ.'57:1.
:l.B ->':.;.:'~.~.:.i '.?
:L (.:;v 6B (?
:?()"~5 .::':~~:;.
:I.)'-:-(;.~~:5 9
1 B ,;.:::.~,::'j::'
:I.7.'7':';;:L
3 v 0 ~7:.;~2
3 .;(j ~.:.:.;:":j
}"O::.:.::~5
2,;.':':;-(?3
•••••.'~I ,"
••~,oCr t....'.;')(~j
3 ~()!.:)'7
J ':l,::.=:"',7':,\:=i,
.I.6 ::.~.::.;.~::.;::;:.,\~~
J ',:.:.1 .;?.;.~.~~i d :':::
1.3,,:;,,::1.:1.:3
.:?()()()
:i.',:,:":;1:3
:L ':.:)':,;·:'·4
.i.':.:':';j:':.:.:.;
.i.';;;";,:,;'(;.
22
J ':,7'd4
.I.':,)b',':,;
:I.,);::::(')
.I.'::,:'H7
!.";;'bG
:i,:,::'::::,',.:;'
:i.':,:,:'':;-()
I ,",n"
..'J D.!.
=Households=Household Size
=Population in Group Quarters
HH
HHSIZE
POPGQ
Table 1.18.State Fiscal Variables
High-High Case
F~.HH
i.':.;);=::;()
.1 ':,;.:'1~:):i.
,',,".'"
.i..~.c·..::.
,I.~';:::',::'
.\...'.,."'1'
.i.:.;.:';:::;:.:".;
.i ':?:;:::C':l
~i.':;·;';3 '.:.:'
1.(?EF:
.J ..:.:.;';:::~9
;'".;.:'".)(J
.L
'?"..
.'".'
'..;.
?
.1...'x
.;::,.::;,....
.'...'
.J.'7 ..•.••...
..:".1..:.,</!.)
F<E::(.)GF·
:~.~;.~~i~.~~:;y (:;,4
:3 :.:~.;?{:)+':7'9
4 ()::2 (...,1 :,~'j
6 ()()':?(.::?(~':.
.;~:.~~~J :~:;+~::.;.;:':.
d:i.J :J.~(::'~:.::
::.:):.:);::::()t ~:5 ~:.::
.I.J ()(),.:.:.,y ?
.i.;':':'.?::.:.::.;"::•.;.6
.i.~.:5 ":':}()',:?+/:1
:i.'.:.:'.i .:.:.::.:~,.,,::.
J .;.;.;..:.:.::':::;...~~<.'::::
::?I,):::~;:::;;~:::.:.J
.:.:.::::.:.::..:":~,:::.:3 <.:.:.:'
"',":""',.'.",..'
..;:.~::,~;:...1."'-j'y .;::,
.:.:.:::.~':;.i.,:.::::.'.'.i .,.)'
.:;'::.::.:::..:'.i c~,.,
.:.:::::.:.:.<>.~:'i:;..~":l
,..::.;,~'.::::?:.:':,...~
::.:.:.1.):':.~·7 0:':').:.::~;
J ':':':".::",::;:.0::,.(::.
j::XGF~
:l.40:~.13
2 3 ;::~J..;.\~)7
324:1..,?:::l
3640.24
4 J ~:::::~<-:::_~:3
4 ~:~l:~'.7 .;.-4 '.;'
6 0 ":l (?\'(;)E;
;'/:.4:1.•:i.:'.'j
G/:...;~:.::,;;-:-:..:~;(:}
::.:·::·4 ...::...~.:.,\\:L ..:~l
:i.O:L ;::::f:)~~~J
::':i.:I.':?:3 .,.:I.
1 ::.:.::()':.~.:',,:';..;.~:.:.i
J ~·S :.:.=.;:~~::()\\;?
:I.:;'{.':?~.:.:.;(;.-:-,,;'~.
1.:·:·:,~3::?:.:.=.;\\:::.::
J ::;:::;!3 ::..'.7
2 :i.:i.l~.().;.(':~
::2 :.::~7 ()2 .;..~:'
.~~::/:'...:;.',7 ':.~'\\':.:.:.
.~.:.~:r '7 ()(I ~.{::'
F'F'B(:·,I...
4D3.:?
:r.7 ..~,O~:5
..;'~.0 )'(,.;.~.:~(?
.:5 :::.~0 'i +.;~:'::.~::
:3 :L ):::.~'lo :":~;-4
t:?E:2:3 .;.':;.):.:~:
1 :I.:::;:~:.::B -:.:3
12664.8
13862.7
15287.1
16843.3
1:::l542.6
~.:.::():3 :.':~;::.:.::.:.{::.
:?;.;~:i."'~-4 •~.::;
.:.:.~:.':)':;;';.~::::::;-;.-4
~?~.~~;:.:.:;::::~:.:).:.::.~
~:.::'7 :L 0 ..;'::.~.4
:~:.:::::::.\'~.G';';;-.:.:L
:::':::,;:'·)'::?:.:.:.i.;.:3
:":'~()f:::':':;:i..:.l~.
:.':·:;:LH:?:i..:..::.::
GF'E:'::'1 L.
:I.~'.;49":I.
J..4 l{.().;.
~:~()2 <-:;5?~~:.;
:l.():.'::;::J .;.::.:.::()
.i.',:.:.'~.'.:.i ::?~.~:~';,:.'
:':):..:~)l ~.::.i ~.';':}:.::::
~~:.;J .-.~.1 .;.?;:::~
7:1.)':1."':;"'.7
.L ()Ci r.::;t ,;.::~
l·t :~;:::::';:'•..,::.
:L '::.:'':?c:''.::'~:I.
2 (S ~'::~~:...;:,;:-.~~'.=j
:.:~;3 ~:~;.:::'1 .;..I.
l:;.(),~:~t ':;.:':::.::~.G
4,:;':;·)6)'.:I.
!.'5:l.'::'1.0.,,~:,
~:.:.i :..:~;H ':.:.'..:':~.:.::.:.,
~.~~;::~:;..;;~.::.'::~'::;.;.'7
..;.~~'~,\'/'.>'~:~,.1
4::?..;·::·.:::,d ,':~:I
........................,
..:)i.)D (::'..::'<.....
REVGF =
EXGF =
PFBAL =
GFBAL =
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
Permanent Fund Balance
General Fund Balance
23
i _
Growth in the number of households occurs at 4.9 percent annually
over the twenty-year period (Table I.17).As with the other cases,
this reflects a decreasing average household size as well as popula-
tion growth.Average household size falls over time in the same
pattern as the other cases.
The state fiscal variable projections are reported in Table 1.18.
The rapid growth in government spending has not exhausted the finan-
cial resources of the state,but by the end of the 1990s,the growth
in expenditures has surpassed that of revenues.The general fund
balance peaks in nominal dollars in 1996 at $53.9 billion but falls
off rapidly in subsequent years.It is clear that if this projection
were to continue for three more years,the general fund would be
completely depleted.
I.D.The Industrialization Case
This case is equivalent to the base case (moderate-moderate)with
the addition of a series of industrial developments in the private
sector predicated upon the availability of electric power in quanti-
ties and at a price which makes a railbelt location attractive.The
industrial developments which we assume are as follows:
1.Natural gas-based petrochemical production:This deve-
lopment occurs in the late 1980s and early 1990s.It
is patterned after the Dow-Shell proposal phase 1 and
phase 2 project descriptions consisting of ethylene
plants and the production of ethylene derivatives.
2.Beluga coal development for export and synthetic fuel
production:This development occurs in the mid-1980s,
and production eventually reaches 11 million tons
annually.
3.Aluminum smelting:This development occurs in the early
1990s.Production is 180,000 tons annually.
4.Synthetic fuels production:Development of this facil-
ity occurs in the late 1980s.Input is 7.3 million
tons of Beluga coal annually to produce methanol.
5.Local serving manufacturing:Manufacturing to serve the
Alaska market grows over time to equal 5 percent of
total manufacturing.
4
.,I
i
I
The results of the projection are presented in Tables 1.19
through 1.23.Growth is more rapid with industrialization,primarily
as the result of the steady growth in the manufacturing sector for
local requirements.Table 1.19 shows population to be 35 thousand
higher than the base case in 1990 and 72 thousand higher in 2000.
Employment growth is more rapid by a comparable proportion.
In this industrialization case,growth is more concentrated in
the railbelt.Analysis of the growth in railbelt employment and
population from Table 1.20 indicates that the railbelt proportions of
both of these variables increase over time.The railbelt proportion
of population grows from 71.3 to 73.6 percent,and that of employment
grows from 67 to 69.5 percent.
The structure of employment,shown in Table 1.21,reflects a more
rapid growth in basic sector employment than the base case and a
resulting decline in the relative importance of the government sector.
The number of households and average household size shows the
same pattern as the other cases (Table 1.22).
The industrialization case state fiscal variables (Table 1.23)
show the government spending more to provide services to the addi-
tional population with the result that the general fund balance shows
a peak in 1998 at $64 billion in current dollars and subsequently
begins to decline.
25 ALASl{A [''''SO (}~CEc:.;LP:~"RARY
U.S.DEPT.OF 11'iTEHIOR
QJeou
d
H
00 ()....
C".~(".~
00::::=::~=-:)
r::;C...·L;r-.~.~
r-r::CO C·~r,-.J.......
r..··.L-J '·0 r.....:":;:
:.,:>~.......::000......cor.....co--..:t-=10'0c....0 ..••4o'"..'CO(.:::c:::~OO.......:r<::-..o-..oo--"C-:-ir.......-::t !'.Qo-.--:n ...a-0-a-C"0 0--
-:-:.~L"1 ::~.r....r~0'"r.......
0----'()f".J.
:::;=-:-:~:::-::.::~Cr-,0 :::::0 ...·C.;=....
-:::r 0-..-:-""l La::t·~:~:_;...:}ir;L;;::.~.. .
C:=Ln .......:::;. ."·0 :_=.::.....::::C:--.C-.~
r··...0",=>J.:":'"r:-:;,.:.:...::::;;···C ...:-:C)(~.~;
co r-.~<:t'r-.~~0 0'"OOo:-l=-':::-:.+ • •
..'::r'':::r 1.;"':=
:..:.:..
CO :'....f"..
-·G --;::;-7 L"":::.1.:"::::".0 r··..1,.:-).~f·...~.~C::.=:-,,:.--:---:0"-,;::-..::0 ('lo.•.•
::::::--:C·J ;.;~<::!'":"'..:::::--:(""~(".~("'.J.~"S ~":'""j -:o:".t ":"''';--L:J L-.!'..(1 r.....:.:.;:::::
C',1 C·.i C·)'C)r"~r"~r:')i'-:'J 1'<::f-:~:;..:-:;r-:;:':-'~.:-::;.~:f·:",;;.-:;:';i'ry r'~;~
::~r...~..()C'0..'.,
·O~·~·.~~~~OG~J~N~~~~ro~~N~
~~~t00 ..t<::N~t~~ro~r·'C~100~~1~
~~ootrym·~~·~OOG~~..~~~~~~~~
~~D~~~~~L1~r'ffiON~~~N~~~~
~~~--:. .-:-:('".~:...~r.-.~r"~r.-.~t·:'"")r-:;rr.:.~~
.,::.-
II II II
0'1
~O'I
0::<::'-;
~~~
"II "
U
O'I~
~O'I~
O~H
~~~...
~~~
G...0
G'"::::
C;--·(::
r·;,
'::"',r "7 :...:..::.....~':::r <::1~
••.:}":::?'"Ln
.....:.....:--::..~...........--=...........;-:--:--:~
26
:'J.:
~
C::C';'G'"...::;r·..."';:::c~".0 CO t··..r····.("..j 0",C·.;.:;-;-GJ ~-:::..:::0 :....".0
r····."·0
::0 1"~;":1,"':::'r ""'=-:_:_1 ._....;":)C·;'. . ..C·.;-:-::•.~
G'":::~'._.'.......C::C:::'~::::::::~::~:::::=:::.-:c:::::>
0'1......
F~B Ti··j
Table 1.20.Railbelt Projection Values
Industrialization Case
.I.';:'f~O
.J.'=)(;;;1
:1.7':32
:I.';';:-;33
.1.'?S4
.~to,,....r.:"
.1.'"C)..J
:L =:?E6
J.9B?
.1.';?::3d
:1.;?i::,'?
J ':,f S·;·~)
.L .:?:.).L
.1.,;;:.,;.:::.::
:i..:;;c>'~':~;
.i.)':;:-..:1·
.I.,;,:,::':;.;'~:.:.;
.1.'?';).::';.
:/.':.:·:''.:.;·)7
J ':~'9:3
.1.9 ':;'(?
~:.::()O ()
F'•F~B
2B~:i t·4:i.'7
2(?:L.442
:'?}()3 .~2():I.
3:1.6.(l'")':'2
:3:::~3 ~6S.:'?
:3 {::I :J.40 b 0 ~:}
'3 'i .2 ~~7 .:::.
4 0 ~.~:.i ~n :.~;?
4;?O ~')B~.:5
4 ;.:::.~~./..:'~.0 :i.
l:l·:.:~;1 .:.;:.::':,;::':;'
·4 ";1·::~;\..E;r:~?
,.;':}/;.:::;:....(:rl:':,::.:.
4 .;"::,0 +0 :.?::~.:.J
·4 6 (.:},~()J.:i.
l';':7r:?~.7:L6
..·l (.:.>::;.::i·().•;":!.d
~~:.;()~.~~....o:S 6 :?
.:-5 1 ':;f ::?::"~.
:~j ::~;-4 ~.:.~:;()..:'~.
~::j·4 ':""::;::::'):1.
i';i •F~B
:1.38.64
142.507
148.611
:1.56.651
167.1
:LF:6 v :1.:'::::3
2 ())'~?.-:::.~:5
::::I.~5 ~~5r.:,6
::.:::::.:::~.~~':?::5 3
;:.;;?:i.•)''.7 ;.:.~
.~:.:.:~':~..:.:;.:.t.)'.?'":;.:'
:2.:?r;~....~::::?(,
.:'.~.:?>'•:::;./.)
.?3 ::}.~(.:::i \~)
2 :3 ~::'_)::?'::''.7
2 ,4.L y :2 ():~,:'
::~::l~.',:7 .~:..:~)..::}8
::.:.:::.:.:.;·4.;...::;.{:')':?
."./,.
....::(~:'.J..:..:.'.1 .1.
::.:.::',7 ().:.:..:~;()·4
::.:.~.).;::~~u()(~
F.:•F~B
::~~/".,~528
:~8 +"j?9
31.9G3
3~.~;~~?:36
39.,302
-4 6 y ~"5 ()~~.~
:.:.:.;:.:5 .~:1.:3 ~::;
~.:5 ~~;.~:.:)(:,:~
~::;~:.:;~~:5 S ~5
~.:):5 ,\4 ::;I~)
:.:.:j·4 ~~.:5 8 ~:.:;
5E~.,623
57t63
58.95:1.
(::,0.'7:1.
.::',~~.~.;.'.?B '7
(~:I ::5 y :i.';,~3
,~::'~?.:.';.~'?;.~:
'·'1 r<,./i,.J ..~C).I.
'.:.:':3 .~"'j/1 9
)")1 ~291
G.F~B
~::j2.76
!.:.'j~'j.:I.9:1.
~5?~?'?
59 v ()2'-:"
C)()•·4·4 ;;.~
(:i:l.,.3(,:1.
64 ~f~B
)'()•()(~.~5
7:1..:1.42
70.~E~6~:5
69.;.9S:'3
'.:.:!().:.2':;::':.~)
'.:.:!1 ..'·4··:·~·(:)
)'1.,l~:~B
)I:L ....,::.~':~;':.+
?:~~.~:::.~IS ~:)
)'::.~.;.9 (.:.:.~.:.:;
'.:.:.1 :':~;....'::}:::.~j
).~.:.:;.)0 :':~:1
?~:.:;.,-:;;:..:~:;.;?
:??.,O':??
~1.F,:B
~:.:.;d ;.~:5 ~:.:;::.::
~:jB ~:336
~:j B •E.:'::;;t}
<:)::2 .~:3 ;:::~(~:.
6,-'.;.:·::)~:.:;;:5
.•••,'.,~···.1
....C~'!o :.....
i:ii'.;/3.1
~:)':;)~rr'\?B
\?~:')(.;?::6
9::·:'•4~";.1.
I:.;;':::~+-:~~;
':?':;.l.,3:1.
.:)~:)~::.:.,..:.!,3
:1.02 -;-9:1.)'
:i.03.d6?:
:L (),S ~:L ~5 '.:,:!
:I.0:)(?•:J.~:.:;':::
:I.:i.;?.;.~.::.;)':.:.:.;
1 :i.~.~:.;.:.:?~'.:;'.:.'
:1.::.:.::0,...)46
:J.:::24.,.'<:f:J.6
P.RB =Population
M.RB =Total Employment
B.RB =Basic Employment
G.RB =Government Employment
S.RB =Support Employment
27
Table 1.21.Distribution of Employment
Industrialization Case
B.I [v'j
EhSF'.Eri E i"'j GS'•E:jv'i Ehi·,iS.Ef-'i
1 ':;"fjO
:i ':;;'tll
J S'~~;::~
19E13
:J.9i34
1985
1.':;:'t;/
1 ':;"::::B
:1.';:.::::9
1'"7'90
2()OO
o y 3';':-'8
O~3c:,6
O~36B.......,.......
lv/.:.\:)./·';t
(),,41?
.....\.......,
'\).>..~{.I.,)./
()->..:"~()(:)
o .~.,:+:i."'~~
()"..:~.J :~)
<).:.:::;·l '7
0+37"j>
0.3D3
.....~,-:....'~)+\;:.Ci/
......~....,"'}
~)t ..:-J//
().36'?
......
~)<-..;••:}(;)
..............,'
'.}(0 ..:...:'i ti
O.3:J.3
~,..:."·el~)••'",,:)I,,'
0.247
()<-2 ~5 ~:.:;
o .~:.2?/,1.
1\.-,r::-r::'~/••',:"J ".J
"','''1'''''1~../t .~'.:I ..
.....-),'r:"~}.)0 .:..·••O..:..J
().)',::'2
I
EHSP.EM =Proportion of Local Serving Employment
EMG9.EM =Proportion of Government Employment
EMNS.EM =Proportion of Basic Employment
28
Table 1.22.Statewide Household Characteristics
Industrialization Case
Ei ,.T /"l
:I.(?:30
:I.':?f3:1.
:1.S-~~:$:~
1 '=1:'(;):;)
:J.'}E4
:r.'):~;~5
.f.(?G6
.I.':?B:?
Hi--!
.i.;.~~l~.~.<>0 ~:.~
:I.?b";:;;:::::)'
:l.3··:~·.;.:i.()':::.
:I.';1·Co.J ::::::':~:
:i.,)7 v ":';':.::':r.
1'.".;:::',.f;;;...{:r.
I"',.,.",.•••..I.,/.<.~.;.f.••j ......~•
.1 E :i ..;.....~(..1.1.
HH~:;J:/i::
:;)+0 ::::.\~)
::!;"0 "/-4
:3 t (),:)!.:i
3,;.O!5!.::.;
:..:~;.},)l~.":'f
~:~:.:.()···f '7
3.041
:.:::~<)()(?
F'C)F'CJ Cl
:1.7.'79:1.
1?•'7::14
:J.~::~\~:?~:jB
lEi ':-~5:.34
1:::;:,.F:?:i.
1':;'~~::;23
:~2 0 t ::.~J S>
:~o ~:~)',?{,
:L .:.:};::::f3 .1,:::'....
.."I
..L ;?~.';?')'.~.:.=.i ."".'::.~~()\\.\'.};'(~)
,····,...'n.J.'7'D"7
.i.'::,:'':p ()
i.':.?'I;::i.
i ':;:(;:')
.i.:.;.:':;:'~'~':;
.I.(;:":"::-4
.:.'::.;''~;:l ~:.~;
.1.9':,;:'~S
.I.'~:'')'.:,:!
.1.':;~(?G
.1.S)(??
:::.::O()O
:i.':;,:".:?.'..::.:....;:,:.)
J ':;:':::'""i.~:.:.,..;.~
::'r ::",1 ~:::";.,:~'"::'
.....:.'_,-'f ::.~"H;::::
;.~:.I.':::.v '.!<'(:!
......~'?.~.:;:",:;::;'',':~
.':.)(;;..f.....,-;.'
::0 (::~".j,C)
..:::··:·:.·.·.1 •.=•.;.,••••;-
J.~::~~j ::::,',....;..j ~'.::
.:?,;"::';.~::.;.7)'~.?
::.:.::':.:':~~.::':':'.:.;:~~;:.'::::
.:?.;.')41
::,,::,;':?:I.
!,•••
.':...:..;::'c··...1
:?~':?:,~·.i ••:~.
.~:.::.:.C:;?\.:.:'
:::.::.:;:::;Cll~,
.::.::.:.·.?f::;
.:.?"-:;':.:.:;~.:5
;.:.~"'~7 :':~;.:.~
::?,~":':"(j)'
::.:.::~..:::':::3:::.::
.~:.::.',.:;,:~~(:;
::?().;.:.:.~;:i.:;,
::.:.~(),;.:=".i ,:.~.';':-'
.::'::0 ..\';.:"::;":.;.:'
;.:'::CI .;.E;,.;·~,';?
.~:,:1 :.0 ::~~..;"~.
;':'::i.v 1.':~:-:i
.?:1..j .,':}();::::
.:::~:1.,..C:r ~.::~.:"::'
.:?.i..:.'i :::~;'.7
:::::2,.,'':':1)1.
2 ~:.:.:.;.~:5 ()6
?:::)"b:i.·4
HH =
HHSIZE =
POPGQ =
Households
Household Size
Population in Group Quarters
29
Table 1.23.State Fiscal Variables
Industrialization Case
f:,Ih
LJFE:(:1 1...
.i.':::::::;.,:;.
::::.;:~,.;',./.,"'...'....'
.1.:;,:;:::,,,?
.1 ',;'.;":",,
l.:~:.(,;.:'.i.
i,e:;::.:'::
i.,.':?..:~.
L ....","
2244.39 14()2.:L2 4~~~3~2 j.549~1
3376+26 23E~:L.69 :L760.5 ].440~
49:1.8,03 3239+47 4076~29 ~3()2.766
6()03~32 3594.65 6209t62 1078.J.
(~E~04+46 4()6:1.•46 E~:i.22t34 1908~37
a095+~34 462().65 9823.93 36~~~:I.t98
93.L3.3 5559.87 11328.8 593()•.5J.
:L()E~94+9 6667.54 :L2664~8 E~82:1.83
:1.2225.7298~6f~J.3E~:I.(S+5 .i.2~96.4
:!.4007.:1.;~34()+69 :L~()E;9+6 L·::r<E~9i8
20171.7 11852.1 22302.5 49329.1
2()()6~~~~6 .i.7~~~4:I.i:l.2;~6E~+9 6h~.i.~IA4
:;.94(~2.4 :1.97~~;()+5 2E~633~4 c)2198.7
REVGF =
EXGF =
PFBAL =
GFBAL =
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
Permanent Fund Balance
General Fund Balance
30
_____________________________l __
I.E.Two Sensitivity Cases
I.E.l.The Fiscal Crisis Case
Recent events confirm the hypothesis that state government spend-
ing may increase as a function of the availability of revenues and
that projections of petroleum-based revenues may turn out to have been
too optimistic.In the foregoing cases,government spending growth
has been tied to demand factors--prices of government purchases,
population,and income.The temptation to spend all available reve-
nues immediately was not considered.In addition,petroleum revenues
were generally projected to be adequate to fund whatever growth of
government spending chosen--at least until 2000.This was in spite of
the fact that in some cases,a continuation of the projections for
several more years would show the state exhausting all of its accumu-
lated balances in the general fund.
To examine the situation which may arise in future years if state
government spending follows closely,the flow of revenues,and reve-
nues peak in the late 1980s,a special fiscal crisis case projection
was done.The essential difference between this case and the base
case is that a massive capital expenditure program in the 1980s and
early 1990s is stimulated by the availability of general fund bal-
ances,and revenues from the development of petroleum resources in the
1990s are much less than anticipated in the base case.
The nature of the revised fiscal situation is shown in Table 1.24.
Capital expenditure (EXCAP)growth is rapid until a peak of $5 billion
is reached in 1990.Subsequently,it falls off to a floor of
$200 million.Because of this,the general fund balance never accumu-
lates more than $5.3 billion and is exhausted in 1996.Because of
this,operating expenditures must stop growing in 1997 because they
have also been partially financed out of accumulated general fund
balances.(Revenues still exceed expenditures only because the reve-
nue measure includes mandatory contributions to the permanent fund.)
31
Table 1.24.State Fiscal Variables
Fiscal Crisis Case
F:.i
i:;·:F!j(:"F E::.·'-CJF F'F f:(:L.GFI,':"'1...C\CJF'~:;LYC(iF'
I,,I 1.":',:':':::.":::,:."..',',.;.~/..(::.:'::::':;,.',~'.''.:.::.;,
:::.,.";.-:.\;.()::.:')."i.'.?(:')'.,4:.\:i.(){,;.:'I.)(:~,~..:.:.::
..;,1.,.1 ':;,..','.1 ,::.~'"i "::'~/Cl .;.(>,:".:;f::},4 :.;;:a".
I .n:I ;'.:.'.;/i ...-;...:::i../.:.I.):,'~~j ~/~:~:r..','1-.;~::j
:I.:I."7:?;,,43
~:~49;?B4
349::).1 :I.
B i:~~:.~~(::.::,:?'/
1 :::.;::)~:5 {o ;,:?~':}
;.:~OO •
;.:,:()O t>
~3 <S 0 ~:.~j)::~;{:i
~::.i .I.~;5 y
{::\OO +
~'::)(?'::.)~,~}.:~~::)
4:':~lE~+1 ~::;
44:t::)tB6
·4 t:??,'::,~.4 ~~;
-4 ~::;~:.~~::j •~:J (~)
2340.()5
1259+06
200~
2()O+
.,"',..".'"...,,:)..-.::'(~>to (~)..:)
::_~9 :?~::i ~:;)(~)
)1 I:?I:~'~1:::_y ~~,:j ~.:i
B .\~~·4 :I.~0 ~.;':j
6:L22.48
6645 •.L6
/'356.46
~:5:30·.?....:I./
.I.0 t:)O <,'.-:'.~?~,;,::".:'::OO t
)'~:5 B ~.~::.",/'7 ::;.~i~.9 .1.\-9 9
1.j49~:I.:I,2()9~9
i.440~:1.684.
:3 :~:{~ir ::?(.9 :::.~
:3 0 G:":).~"/~:~
:.:~;.,?B ()\.··4
4682.07 5609.:1.:1.
4806.~:'):I.
2347.6 32cSOt:L
36591():l 4()70.7:1.
4642~39 4929.57
.1.483~59 2944.28
237;1.83 9()29.28
:L:L76t73 9758.77
94+7~~~9 10475~7
0.164 10995.7
0.016 :1.0908.2
0.012 109:1.9.4
0.19:1.:1.0931.6
J 1:-:)G')'7 .;.:.~:.;
:i.G():,5 ~:,:i .;.:,:.~
J ~?::.:.::~;.:,i ~:3 .~'/
;:.::{;'j :I.,;'{-'.7 .,.:?
:i.~:.:.;.:?:,::~'.:.:',;.'::.~
;.:.::i~,';.~~n:3 ~
:I.';::.:,',;J;:':;:',.:;:'
2153E~t5
I""'!I::"'~'r~'
~~(J ...I~)t ..,)
;?',7 :..:~:i.;.:,::y ~::,i
::.?()/}3 B ~::.:,~
.:.:.::~:~;H .I.B v :2
J ::?(.·4 :.~.~.;','-4
J ~?.;~.';':~:.3 ,;.
.I..~?}'~..~~:3 «~.:)
1 ,~.:.:B ~;l b .>)'
1;?D}'(),:.4
1 .~:.~.::.'::.":){::'.:.~:5
:1.2599.3
.1.2:1.60.9
:l.22~1.2
:1.:1..,.:':':',('),:,:<:
:I..:,::::37,').:'U
:I.::.~:1.::,;;,;;:,.:.)'I.,::,::?(/-'::'"
,',;..~','(:)3 :i ,'·ll.),:'.:.:.J ::,::.,::;.::::':_:~r '....~,
:~;~~~;~{~~:;\~3~~;(:~~.1.4 :l.;'t)~j~~
J :.:::;.::.':,;),.::;~,,,:,~,
;'1;:;:;.';\;.::.:.(:':'."::./:.:;3.:,:.::,;.d'/~':J -:?':,:'"~:)J.?~'.:.;
t :..:~).;::.:L !::,;-;.G
.I.~':')Ci <)')'.:.',7
'I :":'~:':i.')'.~:'':.\
.i\;:;EJ.I).;.:.;:;:
.I.::\'':':''::,0 'f B
:I.:?/:,.I.;.:.::,4
:1,::;:::~::~::I.,.
i.l.,,~,'I.'.:.".:',.;;,'.,>..:~.::::.;.d (:';.t ::?1 ';.;,;'6 .}'/
:!..I,7;'5~.I,:L()63~~4 :[J297'~7
:i.::~.(.:::~:::::;~{~.)
.I .:.:,:'.~::;().<".:\~l)
.I.::.:,:0 n()~.?.:.H
1 ....,'::
I "/db
··..c·
I.',•
i.....:-!..
t "?f:j ':?
1.(/9::.:'
I,'.i ;'{'"",,
I.'?':':,:'i)
i,:::',/l}
'::"".,'
J ':;;'~?ei
,I.';,:/~:.:'~':'I
.I.,/':)::?
i.';,;.:'I;,:,'!,:.:j
.I qt;?6
:i.;:!;j~?
,i.(.:.:~;.:'()
i.{:;q:l.
.i ";:;:;~:,;j
.'.:.(:1 I.}()
W
N
REVGF =General Fund Revenues (including permanent fund contributions)
EXGF =General Fund Expenditures PFBAL =Permanent Fund Balance
GFBAL =General Fund Balance EXOPS =State Operating Expenditures
EXCAP =State Capital Expenditures
i <'i
The capital expenditure boom created by state spending is reflec-
ted in a boom in construction employment (Table 1.25).It rises from
12 thousand in 1980 to almost 46 thousand in 1990,only to fall again
almost as precipitously in the 1990s to 17 thousand by 2000.The
growth and subsequent cutbacks in government operations spending is
also reflected in state and local government employment.It falls
from a peak of 72 thousand in 1991 to 51 thousand in 2000.
The effect of this drawn-out boom-bust cycle on the aggregate
economy is shown in Table 1.26.Population and employment growth are
both much more rapid than in the base case in the 1980s.In the
1990s,however,growth ceases.Employment falls from a peak of
355 thousand in 1990 to 303 thousand in 2000.The boom was the result
of government spending,and a bust results from the elimination of
that spending.Population peaks in the early 1990s and falls slowly
through the decade to close out in 2000 at about the same level it had
in 1990.
The substantial drop in employment opportunities in the 1990s and
the maintenance of a constant population level is reflected in a
decline in the civilian employment rate (Table 1.27).This is a
reflection of the fact that out-migration of job seekers from Alaska
is occurring among the young,mobile population with few dependents.
This leaves behind a population with a large proportion of dependents.
This is the reverse of the situation encountered during the boom in
the 1980s when in-migration of workers with a small average number of
dependents causes the civilian employment rate to grow to over
55 percent.
Finally,the railbel t proj ection values for this case are shown
in Table 1.28.During the state capital spending-induced boom,the
railbelt share of population and employment grows;but in the 1990s,
its share returns to the proportion it had in the early 1980s.
33
Table 1.25.Employment Patterns
Fiscal Crisis Case
:L 9B()
1 :;.:':;.:''J
:1.';,.:":.:,;'.!.
1 ~::.::~.():t ?
:t:3 \'~:.:'J ::!::
..::.:::.1 "c:·'.:',;.:;
.1 •.'.:...:.:.:..t.
i;.::~':I ~.',:.:.1 ():l.
~:~.i 0 .>E ();::::
~::~().:.:.:~;:L ..::;.
"'j .••.,',',.r/Lt .~::"::•..;.~.L
.:.;..i.,.:::;:I.;.:~
.',',···.····r.···.{:;...;+','..::=.•:},.::•
nlCN =Construction Employment
Et-1GA =State and Local Government Employment
34
Table 1.26.Aggregate Projection Values
Fiscal Crisis Case
FUi·;'C!•FUI:;'r:::j.j ':;:0 ':)G ,.E::I-/';1'';';:-F'I G ,.F'1 f~F'C
w
V1
.1 ':.?;:::;1:)
.I.':.':::L
.I.';.)H:::.::
i.':~·:':3 :.:';
:i.':/E ..·{·
I.':):3 ~..i
....,"".'
')..:::":::.
1 :.:::::;.::'
I.{,?,:::;::::;
./'.;",:::,'/
.1.'..,,:'i..'
1 ':.;::.:.i.
i ,;''):.:::
.J.:;:':):.:':;
J .:?':.)....~
::,:.'.~'":'...
1996
.L997
J998
1999
)000
:'i·1.::J (,.;.4~::)·.:,:·'
.).I..!,.OJ';;·:'
"~':.?.:.:'.:.::.:.::.::?~;)
.::~:....;C·.;,···l·/~·()
':1 /:'I.·.~;(.{::'.:;)3
~·.~i<>;:::;"E::..
,........',
....I ...·'.!..::.\,}...
:....;.::.,,;',.~.:,~;.~.~}
!'.:.,;':.:,:'(i ~_~~;
'::",.1 ',..
,,~:.:..:')"q (.1'
,:':):.:-~>'.;../d(:')
{.)::::;H \':L i:~:,-:"
(:':0 :3 n .;.::~:'()I.
.'.•,."":'1'"':::'':'{\/.:.,:~'...'
/':.-:)'.;.:'.~'./()'7
(:.~:':~;H ,.B ,:?{;;.
.:';'!:::;c:o "':?::.:,~:1.
{,:.:;;···l ":?;n)'
(:...::'':~,.;.(')~:~
..':.,:',:;(.~.:;;t)1
(),<;.:"H ~:.:;
J (.().~.:.::(:')
1 v ()J9
:I.:.(,I ~:.:.;/~
:i.'.'():::::..:{.
J ,.<>,,/...:}
J .:.'::.+:32
J i ()....~;::::
.i ;."..'").
L U.",
i.,(,~)./
.I.:.OJ3
1 ..U():I.
.i.;.C'O:l.
.1.~.C.I ,~:.,:,'::;
(),~':,;:-':.;).:)
0.:-';;.l(?':?
o ,~~?r:.:.:r)'
o v (?,)()
(),\(?';~~)~?
1'\v "J"~:)':.;:
206v2:1.4
212.9
222.14.1.
239·177
~:.::··:l 0:":)i'HG
:~:.::',:7 U -:'.~:.::'.//)
......."I ••/.,,••,
,:}l...'/.:.,.:)~)/'
~':);,:.::(;)':.•..1 ':.:.!'..:
:'S :,-:':;(?.~:I.~'.~;
:?'.\.~-;.:.'.;.:::.::()
:":'.;:...;/~"'/I~:).L
:3 ~~:.i /~~I)().::.:~
34(,,.';;).S/
:'::)..':~0 '.:~.;:::::C?
::~:'.)::.~;':-':;}..::;,(,ii
::::;)~.:.:'"(~.)~?::.::
::::;)3 +(~)J:I.
3:1..)'v16)'
:.':::,:I.()"(~'l 1 :-:>
:::)0 (;..;.:?(:~1
30?-:''/4':?
:1..0:1.~'.):·:;:'4?vO~?
.I.•O:.':\~:.::610:::::.3
1 "0 ::l ~':)(:.i.Y'~::j:3 f 2 ~:..;
1v077 8247.~9
:l.v()32 9232.51
.1.•.1.27 .1.2026.3
:1..104 :1.4948.4
1 (.06:.5 J ():':~:B/)f
:I."O':~G :I.·/10::.:i,,3
:1.~();~4 .1.847904
1.•022 )()347f6
o Y 9 ';.;'''B ::.~1 D~.~.:;~:5 •:I.
()~.:?.,:.:.'':)./~~::~:::9 6 f ::.~
O~.·9H;?:?··;·lJB1.(j'
()~(?:::::./~:.~~::j 9 -4 ()(-~:~
()+98:1.27607t4
()o9i~~2 29355.
()~98 31204~3
0.979 33242.4
o Y 9n<~):3~~~.i·.?OB f::)
()~<;'b ():":')n·4 ():::)+)'
O~(?(1{?
:1..019
:1..017
1.05
:I..0?2
:I.•11:1.
:i.•0':?2
o t 9<'/4
o (-!)~56
o •<)G~:.:j
:I..00;:;
0.991
0.9'73
O.9·7B
0.992
0.988
O.9f37
0.988
0.991
0,997
()•':;"I:;:'<),
POP =
EM99 =
PI =
Population
Total Employment
Personal Income
G.POP =
G.EM99 =
G.PIRPC =
Annual Growth of Population
Annual Growth of Employment
Annual Growth in Real Per Capita Income
Table 1.27.Employment Rate and Household Size Pattern
Fiscal Crisis Case
T·:·:~.C:
.............,,0••.
..:.',{../.:~)'7
>..~./':;:
...........,.....
.".~.;.t:i .1.'':--
•••••,",.'••1
~:),"I.,}A.:..I.
••oy ,''\,~;•••••
.:')';'i.)..:.;.t:i
..........."
••::.-')t..)j .•::;
:3 ,,0':·:'::.:.::
.•~•••••~.t ..,
t..}:.~;~~.)t)
-.
1:,:=..;.:::.1 .-:-:-':::1
36
,t'"••••••-.-·····.f
!~.:ro ';"
:.:::':::;'7
Civilian Employment Divided by Civilian Population
Average Household Size
ER =
HHS1ZE =
Railbelt Projection Values
Fiscal Crisis Case
Table 1.28.
1;;~E'i.;.C:c;
'?E;l)
1 ··.:..t:;.1.
~.::::=::::...;,
.J./'••.'..:••
;::):::::~3
.;:;::;l~
.•:;"{~f ~.)
..:.:~::j ::~
.;.:':':';3'.:7
.;'::.;;::;;:::;
'..'...
:::-~::'r··
.?..•.
',:--~:~~
.:::.:.~.l:;.
.i,....':;.:'~.:,i
",'.:..c:·
'.;.~.~..~
....::;)
.\.''..:
F:.:.i'::':E.;
:.:~::::::.::;'..::::::..:~~.-:".:-
~.~~;.:'().:.;.~~':;:
:.~~(.:l.(.J.=5 ~?.....,..~,......,..~~.~
'.:~.,:::I:..•:.;.'\.::.J."";"
:::::30·,-;)96
:.:~:;I:·:'::;::.;.E;
:.:.~;E:~.;.;..:.'~.:';.~.~~
l:f,:i.::.:.::"~.::i9 I:::'
,',.
..:.:..:·~i.j .;.C::..::.t:;
..::~/}J .;.'7 .-::;.:::~
,..~;.~~~.~::.~',_,-~.:~~r
4 ~.~:;::'::.;.)'~.;.:'E
~:7 :.~~!~~::.;-2 ';.:;E:
..:':~:.~o.;./~.r:;~;.::':::-
..(~~....l ':::~.;,'..:~~.L :~':'
ii,~~,:6 .:..~:~:.~.?f;:~
..{!~:',~··..j·.4 E
"..;.·...·.L .;.';':(;:=./
"';',,).f.:'::;"/:0:':;
/;:.:.·.i .i....:·..'C,·.:·:'
,~~..",..
':i'I.L (.C.·;..c
i'"1 ,.F:T:3
J.:.3 f::~.·4 ::.i'B
:1.if:l..:.::);::;::)
J·4~?\..
:L~~)9 ....4()l4
J.(~:~£}..,.',7 ~:S .~~:
:L ~::;',7 .;.:~i ..:.:t 1":::,
::.:?<)',:.:1 ,'1>0 ':.:.:'i{.
:::.::::.~::::}.;.:L .:;:::.::
::.:.~:..:~~:::.::.;.~?:::~4
~:.:::.J?.:.~::~E 6
~:.~,..:;.~~~:~.1 ~~~)'7
.~~:.:{.G ~.:::.".?.i
~~::,,':::~~~;~...::'c:'.;+
.:.:.::::~:L .;.:i..::.::2
:~::::"7 .;..l./{.=:-::.
.:.~.~2 1 .:.:;:~:~j :L
2 J 7'.:.c·~~_:1.
::.~:~i.:L .~......i 3
.:.::..)~:.:.,~.(?~":':;:5
.:.:.:.<>~~:i .;.;.:.:::i..,::~
.::::(:':::.::.;.f)/:.:~.:
:8 y F:E{
::.::'7 .:-~.:.~0 :.":}
~.~~S (>::5 9 :3
~.~)1....()<:j ~7
~~;:?~.~:5 :,~;
:.:>?.~.~3 (}·4
.-:'~.,:.::..;.6 l {.r::':.
:.:.:i .-:':~\.'/'()'7
:.:59~.·406
/j :i....~:)0 :.:::;
(:')J .;,::}l~.:i.
6.-f+-:..i.'7E~
.,.'..·.····1~:~)J,';c .-i:+~:}....
:j ~.'.)...~::~:~:·4
~::;:::~:;.:-:1.~.~'.;
:.::;.1..,()/::::;:
..;.~.:;.:.~.~.:.~r:r..-::}
.-.:;.{~:•.;.~:r:.:.~:••::)
......,....,
....;-~;;;.:.C...::.,~:)
,~:;.:..S .~.)'~:;'(;
..::~:."::::.:.':?:.=.:.;;::'~
..,,~.'..
"'i ,..;.~•.l.Co ..:':;
G.F~B
~:5 ;.:.~~.~:.,(:)
~5·4 \\6t13
~~.i :::,1 .>~~~2 4
58.717
61t:[73
60.95j.
{~;:5 ~:~:().:?
?Otl~;-:L
'7 :~~.;0 ~}:=3 ~:?
";;':.~~~:..:~;()'.?
...,....'"\'.'\.'.
/••:':,o!-••:')'••.-t .,:+
;':'~:~.'i ()::~;:.:=;
'7 ~::;v ::":':,i~::.=.;
"'!"'T ••.,.••~.....
/:::.~......:':'..::',:.:
.?:L .:~::.:·~i·7
?C:<,)1
C')~;:~.E 5·,;':;,
)::~.{:).;.<~::?
':::.':::.~.(>.:?:::.~
{::':::~:.;':~)7 ~:~:
,:'~':I .:.:.::.;.2 2 ~::i
s ~.F;.~fj
~:5:::~~:5 1 :.:;
:'5:~5 ~079
~:5B <'~~5EB
6 2:;.:.~:::l~b
li :=:;.;.::::~::.;.-::?
::,:.'.~:?.}':.;)E~
B ',7 ~.(j~:)3
~.7'::~::~.::>i ~.~5
9 B ~.;.~:~A·:.":.;.....:.....,1 ()3 ....~~:..::1 ".-
:L 0 ;.:5 .;.':~;:~;~~J
3.\):.:5 <':1.B
i ()~:;~.~::;'~?,..:;
:t ()~~),.?.(,
J.():':).:.9 ~::;of.
:1.():r..;.'.:.:::.:::'.~.;:
:L {)()~.:7 .:?':.;:
9 '9 .:.~'::)~.:.::....:.~
.::.)E ~...i.:L '7
':.;.:''.?,~:.~~:;E:~;:~:I
I:.:':{::I v ..;+\:)':::'
11
II
I]
P.RB =
M.RB =
B.RB =
G.RB =
S .RB -=
Population
Tota~Employment
Basic Employment
Government Employment
Support Employment
37
I.E.2.The Super High Case (Extreme High)
It is possible that industrialization,as defined by the projects
included in the industrialization projection,may accompany the high
case proj ection.The economic activity associated with 'this possi-
bility is projected in the super high (extreme high)case.Since the
high case includes petrochemical development and Beluga coal produc-
tion,the elements of the super high case in addition to the high case
scenario are as follows:
1.Petrochemical development.This
described by the Dow-Shell report.
is phase II as
2.Synthetic fuel production from Beluga coal.
3.Aluminum smelting.
4.Local serving manufacturing growth to account for
5 percent of total employment.
The addition of these projects and especially the assumption of
rapid growth in local serving manufacturing has the effect of stimu-
lating rapid growth of the economy.Analysis of the results shown in
Table 1.29 indicates an annual growth rate in population of 4.3 per-
cent and of employment of 4.9 percent annually.
The railbelt projection values are shown in Table 1.30.They
reflect the same trend as in the high scenario of increased concentra-
tion of population and employment in the railbelt.
The state fiscal results are presented in Table 1.31.Government
spending to provide support to the increased population has reduced
the general fund balance.It remains positive,but it is clear that
if the proj ection were to continue for two additional years,the
general fund balance of the state would become negative.
38
l
!
iL
Table 1.29.State Aggregate Projection Values
Super High Case
(.;,.::,H
;.I.jj::C!\.F'Ci?Fi·j:::·::G.[i'F;':".;"F'T G.F'Jf(F'C
:1..0:::;4 333(':':1..B
:I.-;.OJ?:·~;7::.~~?6 ~9
:I.v ()3 ~?::.:.~l{.6 0 4 •2
:1..032 4:1.302.7
:1..037 46:1.08.8
:J.•():~~::.:
o.9~~:;7
:1..006
:1.•0:1.G
1.034
1.045
:1..109
:1..:1.06
0.993
0.98B
:1..003
1.008
1.007
:I.•
1.01
1.0:1.2
1.005
1.009
:1..008
:1..01
:1..0:1.1
)'0 ~::j 2 ~..:':~B
,l •••,•••••••••:'.•",".I./~-..r ~:)\}.:.,:';'
1 (~;I ()()(;:.y ~:5
8146.59
9539.9:1.
:1.23:1.2.7
J -:.O(·:·)i:::
1 \~O~:59
J::I..~?'J
.I.•1 i{~:.:
.i.~.O()4
1 t 0 ~.~5 ::.~
:1.1()28 27276.7
:L~()24 29924t4
.1.t()49 :1.E~499~3
:1..029 20098.:1.
J.026 22:1.39.:1.
:1..016 5375.63
:1..033 613:1..96
:1.•()33 ~~:L293.2
:l~()36 573()OI>5
:1..038 64:1.98 •
3 \S ~~;.i ~.-:'}.~.::.:::.::
>:~?~~,:.;I>::.:.;::.:.::I?
J )'(:')~..1,·7,··{·
,,;'::.J 9 v :'.:.;:',~;~:.:.i
i:~()(.:),~~:)J :I.
.j .'.::-.:,:'.:.::~:::')I':f
~:::().:?1 l+)'~.~~.;
3':?:::::.;.::'.::/)'.7
~".".i ::-;4 •':.:'6 )'
44').,)'4U
i:i ()A'l (.~:.;:::.:;.)'
.,.{~'::)3 .;..)'~.:.::
;.~~J 4 I>..::~.()~5
.•:~-':,?',:?-}.~?:i.G
~.~,:.;J ~".:,;"..I./:1 ?
:.-:,:;::.;::,.:.,::,H.i.
:..:~;G:::.;'j ./?~._~;
··:1 B J .:.3 .,?~.~:.;
:':'~·-·;·f;-:.:'::;0:::::
:::.::~':':;G .~U (?3
,~:.~~.~_;~'.:).:.1 :':~:~.:.:.;
~i.,(t ::.:.:~':.'-i'
J ~..:)':.;:.:'"
I ,.
J .:-():.:::.~:!.
J ...()....~::.:,;
J (.():..:~:-::::;
.I..0 ..·1.1.
:I .O:."::;;{i
.L ,'...~..:,~:i .:~
I ,.."....~..I.I ......
:I..~():j ~,~:.;
o .:.r;.:·:'H:'.~;
.I.•()::;.I.
1..,0:;';;,\
1 <();:;:.:'\
1 .U ,',:':~~;
1 .;.()3 (:)
:I..;.()~':::;::..;
:I..,()'.':;)'
1 ,.O;·;·if
1 .".1:.:.1 ::",i :,-.~
':.:.':.':')/;.{.::,",::/))'
.;.J .1 .:.:..:~;(?C
',7 .I.:':':;~.H ~_'.:.;<?
/}0 l)(./:~.~·.:.i )'
.~.::..:.~;;.J U ()
r''.I'"',"',.~.
-..J.L " "....,.",::0
',:.:.,~.:.:.;'.:.:'oW':.'.:.i ~'5 ::?
\.)():I.\.·4 ':?
,::')(:')r::.;.(,':t:.":"::(/
';_~.:~.:)".::.,9.·:{.
.,::0 ,...1 :.'
H",7 I.).:./)i{.:.:~;
{I (?(>~.D 4 4
...•••!••..••,.j.:
"I ••1.",":.,J,.'
C')1.).1 ).'~.....;C
.):':'~..;-:;.~.)'0 ~:::;
.:,'j ._~.E,t·()?::I.
.;::,}u ,.:::ld
<:::.i..:,:,::.~')'.;:'7
/H)',:I.44
H4:::::{.:';'::3-··l
j ':::;,,
L :?H::?
i':),;:::J
I 9 ':?~7
i.\.:.:'I':~~)
i (.;:.\?<>
"~;.:f;;~:.I
J ·:.)9H
.I.':.)d".:·:'
i,,),)J
J ':;.:"?,:?
I q':::",':;
.i :.:':')":i
.::".)I.j ()
,i.';.:··'H<?
:1 ':.~:;H.~::.
I r",,"',r",.1.'7 'X '7
.i.(?';.;)~.:.:.i
,I C:'::;;,:::.
:I.q,;?/)
1 (?GH
w
'"
POP =
EM99 =
PI =
Population
Total Employment
Personal Income
G.POP
G.EM99
G.PIRPC
=Annual Growth of Population
=Annual Growth of Employment
=Annual Growth in Real Per Capita Income
·::....c
..::'.'::
..
!-,,;::"',
t···.···':.....:c:;\.1••.••1 ••::.
,:;a <.,:i .1•.•::'
...,....'.....,')';-'
,'......'~,....,',-:::1 :.•~.;...i.j c~.i{_
.:>~j '::.",.~~~.;.!
40
-.::'.1.....}',":5n"':~
..:.'.........;.•:.c:''.:1 -•.,l
'0_··..•.',_.•..::::::;;.•":.....';:~:.d
.~:",:"~'".'
•...:c;..:;·i.',:".•;.:
~••••••0..~.....,
.•..;.\}t:)~.::::;,.::..t.
{~"..~j ',.::.'-'j ;
Table 1.30.Railbelt Projection Values
Super High Case
...../"
-.
,....;...
I'',',!
,"......~:..
"l ':"~>.."
.t.'?::..'(}
.L -,,:..';:::i ".::"
P.RB =Population
M.RB =Total Employment
B.RB =Basic Employment
G.RB =Government Employment
S.RB =Support Employment
Table 1.31.State Fiscal Variables
Super High Case
41
State General Fund Revenues
State General Fund Expenditures
Permanent Fund Balance
General Fund Balance
:r.9 ~:5 l:;.~:j .:.6
1037~45
174E~•.l3
3302.57
5114tO:l.
:1.·4l~.();}
B02 0}'?::~:
'7 0 ';?::}\.S'~~)
':;.:'~::~~;~~:~~.0 ~:~
4 ~::~1 :5 ,··'f .;.:3
;.:~;:~j ':'::.B ~:;.;.{.
:i.!.5·4 ~)(.:L
............,/.
'\y ..::1 1.):::5 ~',).:-",.1
1·4~=;2::?-:~3
-4 .,::~.:':')()0 .;.
:..~)~~~:t ":':"?.:-)'
....","."',',....~
,:~l ....~\,}..::'~.,).;.....
i3 F B (~:'t L.
:.7,f~)':::::.::').:.
./};::::.::;.IS :::.;..::~
.,':~'-:;7'.;';':,.:p .;.
.:~~0 :.:~:Cl ().;..1.
:1.~52 (:~:7 .:.1
:L B:::.;..;~~~~~<:)
..:"{.B ~:~;+:::.~
..;l ():7 15 'lo :::.~':;;~
:I.::7 0:"::1 ().J.~:j
~:::.~~:()9 ~.~::'~:.:
2 '::,.'/:~:.::.::.;.)~'5
J {::'E:·4 ::~:.~~'::~
E~:i..::.~;,~~::)..:t
9 ;::i ~:.~:3 -:s:·~3
;:::;::i ,.:,::;';',.:J.
:l.::.~~(::''~:1·4 ~~:j
:i,:::=;:3 I::;::.~.:.'.?
:I.l ~.:}~:~~B.:.f3
2 ()::::;:':3 ::~:~i-<:)
P F I·:·:(',L.
2~71(·4.~,,·1
:,:';():::;:'::;:1..,4
.:~;:L a ,::.~;.':';.:::
••••-••~.,A,'",••>
::.~..:.~,i..~.;.....1'(.....J
,~:.:3 ':.:.:::.:.::;::~-:--4
:?:.:~;:.::.;~:~~=5 .;.::~.::
·4 ~:::~::.;i::;+·4·::::
·~~·:i '7:::;.}~:~B
'.?)'()\':~;-:-:.:.:;{:;
:J ~?:::::;:;)~.::.::..:.:,1
:~.~:~;B.L i'6~?
::s ':~:',\:;.~:.:.:.:.·..1:?
E:)(GF
{'::.()'.:."1 ().:.S:'1::1
:i:.::r:?:i ,.t:...·t
t ..;~~()::.~.~:I.::~;
:.:~;;::;':1 :1,,.':;;?
1.:;:..::{~::~..?~.~?
:1.:i...;:;.';?;.~~~..:~::
.i <>3 '/:i..,:L
1 ::~~.;::.·4;J ~.~~~i
:i ..;~.():::';.·~t .:.?;
..~.••....,.'r,.•.•,
,..::.::....~:..J.~..,~.;.:.:.
.i.:.:!.::;i.:'.:;.,.';:'
?::::;<...:::.:{:':,...~::::
?:L~.:.:.;".?..;":;..;.6
::.:.::..::;.::.;.::::~{:':...../;.
:!.?~~~;:7 ':;~.:.;;:;;
2 :'.~?.i·f ~5 ,"?
.:?~:~B?.;.:?'7
~..:~)~:;';;':?y ;?::~:
L::::;;:::;..:...'
(:':.:;;::.!.:.:.1 (.;?E;
........'.'....,'"t:;.L .i.l ..:.~..-:.~....::
...."~~'"...."..•....;~--'7 ......:\}.;••:~).,.
......,.
.·.·c,·:c·.;:
60:1.().;.:.:':::::::
:!":':';::;::::.:.:.H.}B
J :.~:.i .,:~.~:2 ~::;.;.3
.~:...:~.,.:~':?~:).:-(:.:=
.:).;.;.::;··.r .:::.
.~•••1..',••,r ••••';.~•.t
:L ',7 :L .,;~~f::...)'
:!.;;.:?4 .I..,;:-;
1 J.C=:I.-:;:'~~~~;
::.:..:;'.•;:.~.~~:~v /
F;~f::'t.}t:;r:'
.:.:.::C!.:?~.:':;:.).;-",::
::...:~;?l:;.H /;..:.~....:
.\'.::()();::)3 ....::::
:::.:.:i.=:?~:::i:::''.'::.:.::
",:.•';','l (,)
••.••y
?
=.-:~.-;.~:.
Ei .,.~:;H
:L ~:}::;.:;:L
.I..::)'?;.:.::
.i.':."(::'
."
.i.::.:::;I:~.
.l..;...;.•..:::
.i.'t;:::;d
.!~>a ':.~.:'
~L ,:;,~.~~:~:t
i '::·:.3',7
:;.',.;.:':::::,::::
:1.::,;:=;:::;~.~:.;
i ':.;.:';::~::~;
.!.-.;--(:§~.}
:i.':.~,:'k:);.:~
.i.-:/b .";'~.
..-::'-)\)\/
REVGF =
EXGF
PFBAL =
GFBAL =
I.F.Summary
The final three tables (Tables 1.32, 1.33,and 1.34)summarize
the statewide population,employment,and household proj ections for
the four basic projections presented in this chapter.
42
f
I
j
;
1
Table 1.32.Summary of Four Projections
Population
(thousands)
PDP -ENDOGENOUS
19H()
!,··•.···,.r
.1.:7 D.L
.L :.;:E.?
,I.';'':::;'.::'
.•••J .••,.
..:""'..:
.1.:.::.:::;,::':,
.J.',.n /
.l ":I:.::~l7::
,j :;:'H :.;
./,,::.;:.:-,::,
.L '7 "::
......,,-
L ::....
.i.:'.::,:'/
'"
.i.'....•:::.
i.::
.~::\..'':)
f,•i...i...
·40()~.it~:S/
·4l0<.H()'?1
-4 ;;.::(:~..~0 ,,:~.2
..:::.::~~.::".:.6 2 ::~;
...~~:.'.:.;.:.~::~.~.:.:.:.....;:L
..~'.?::.;}.:.;::;.:.c·
:.~~;Ct :?~.I.)():":')
~.:~;:i.:':~:.~:.::;0 :,3
:::;J .l ,"·::·:L ':;:
~:';,1.:.':';:.j :".'~.j
:.::;.J."::..,,)'7 ..··1
::.;i ",<.'::.
~:5 .i.,::').:...;.~,:::;,3
.........,••,•••,'1
.:.".1 ..::•.1..;.'.i.
....1.<..;::....·.::'C'.·::.
I.,::,.:..'".:":...!',:.'
~:~;:.:~;:::'.:.'."~,1 .L 'r
..:.:.'...:'.;....:;.,",·...l~3·,·)
~~:.;~.::;C.'..".:/I::.
..~·.l ....l"".:.'..1.'::'6
\..!().••~.'.'.,:.'.,~"",..../
E:;"(ii·;
·4 0 ()~";'f ~:.~;?
ll·:i.:2 ~.2:':;:'~::j
.-::~.:~:~~~~:::.::~.~;:t.
444 ~·4 ':;:2
...:;.{;':.:.":">,~:~:.::"7 ";'~.
.,<~;:.:;:H -:.J :.:~;.i.
::,:i:::::I.,.:/3::;}
:~j ··::t·:.~.!~.~'::;().\'~.
:,:~;..·f ::.:''.'(~;,c':;;
:.~~r :.~j ':::;.;.::.:.:.)d
.:::...:::~....~;:.:~;E:~
••.1 .....':.(.'":'••:').:.:.:
::.".1 ./'•./..:~;.;:":'...;.
~:.:.;::::;':::;.~C'::'.:.~.
!.~5 ::;':::....:.~:.;,,:.:~:..~;
(,:.::.';~::i .;.,.,.'':j .::~.
(:)..::..i..I.""...:0
·5 ..::'..~-.;.!:::;.i.:;.:
(':,..:~(:'::.;,d :.;:::;:
.'.'":..;~).;";;'i.j '.::::..;'..:;'
c ......::;....i C:',)
I:i .,.'i:i"j
"::;'0 0 .~4 ~::j )'
..:~.1 .:~~.;6 l \~)
-4 :::7'(.~.~(::.
.,.:~.~.:~(~:'~\:;:..::);:~:
...~~6 :::,1 y (~(~,:~:.:
;.~j 0 6 .:..,:!..:.;;..:.~.:~
;::.;4 ,?•,~;.I.:::i
!.::.;':~:I {;).;.:?..;·t <:':!
~:))':3?904
::.:;G'7 .~:3 ::?~:.:.;
r::'r"','''''
...,1 'J'/'~:)
,;::.:i.}"/:1.'.:;
(,l 9 .:.':::1:::;::~.:.::
':i ~'::)::.::~.:....:.::':;.:.::~
0:':')••.~..:':;'{.:~~i :L
A:.~:;d .:..~:?;:;:.':;:'
(::')':..:~~.;.':.:}
.S ')1 .:~:'::~.~..,it
/Ob<-J.··:i·
'7 .?)'.,:;:,"~'i·"f
'''-'.",..'"',..•.,...,...."·f C).;.c'...~..:;:.
P.HH
-<lOO.4~)/'
4:t.1t~~~~?:i.
4 :~:~:.::\....;l '7
·4AE}~~5G4
·4 ;:'::~~<-(:'>::::::~~:
:3 :I.~5 (.f:~:1.::::
5 (:'!:::::~f.~,::':,4
~~)r,~/~49':;.'
(..:~~t)(.-4 )'::.:.'
.;~;,4 ()~..j.:1.';.~"
.::;,:::1 .::0 -;..::;~.:;:-6
':::l}1.-lo )';::::~:.:.;
t::':;o :.?)y .::·:,n ':.:.:.
/'.J.()~().•:.:').
~:.:.:..s:~~:.;..,}'/?
....:.':.~:;:;:'....':;).~?~::i
.:.:'b ().~,"':"..::\{;•••,'j"
~::;<.~,c'~:::..::.::.,:1.
e 3 <)(0 i:.i{../;.
S ~:.:;{:').:.:.~:;')':::)
f3 ;::).<~.:.·4 ~3 ~::;
B.LL
B.t1I'1
B.1M
B.HR
=Low-Low Projection=Moderate-Moderate Projection=Industrialization Projection=High-High Projection
43
Table 1.33.Summary of Four Projections
Employment
(thousands)
;:.;.;.:...L•.J::.•I"j.j
........~I ...,.:i C:t.L 'J /
.:;.'.:':;:.:\.,:;'
"'1 ()J '.-'.:~.1 u":"f
~::.:,::.:.1..:....J ...:
"',···.r···
..:'.:::...)':..!.!...::.
•"',f'-..:~../~.:~-;.'::~•...~.~.....,
\."::....:'."......t:;",,;.
",'::;:)....
;.:.::,.;::.'.'....\/.i
..::......1..;.'?::-";,-
..::.{".','.:.:',}.i
;;:::::.i .::....(:;.,..,:
....,'".
..::.......:::.'.'Cj.t.,i.
44
Low-Low Projection
Moderate-Moderate Projection
Industrialization Projection
High-High Projection
;:;·:·'::·:·b
';:;;,-:::.~~:.
l..,"~.''....
.i .""'....
~.•••..•••. I
.L '?'J'.t
B.LL =
B.MM =
B.1M
B.HR
''!,I
Table I.34.Summary of Four Projections
Households
(thousands)
to'1 f··f _..DE~j::'I i\1 I T I C)r~
L~·:Et)
.:':::'C"j.i...'\_.~.1.
L ':.:.:'E:;::.:.::
:L ::.;~-E ::)'
.i.~;:.:l::~i.:}
L'r'i:i;)
.i.:j.:';:::'.::j
i.':;'>;3'/
.1.(/:::::;3
.;S;';::;;':,:':
'.~;:..:.;:.:)
.i.''::'/:l.
':;~''~:.::~:~:
::;~".;.:'..::;
"y"-:/:)
-....-":.:':)
..'::.;..:.:.;/
::.:.::';;.:';::::
':....,•...
...\:',,~'.j
E;~.L.i...
:f ::?4 ~()O.~;?
:1.~:~::~"?.:-~~)()·4
!.:..:~:3 ·i :L;:::;?
,••••••,!"'r .-',
j ...::'./.;./',\.::
.L ·4 :::~.:.()'7 ~.:.:
1 :5~?.;.:i.0::;(~}
1 .::~::~:{.1 :.:):.~)
"L ':~:.~5 -;.~::}()E
:i.(:':,'7 .;.()::.?B
.I.0:::":;,:--:.";':;.J =::':,
,'.I'<>.;.::.:.:'E;~)
.f .......:";..L .,:::
.i.',:.:":".:.;.:.··::f.6:?
j..!b .;."'~'t:).-.::~
-r.;::~;:L -i".:::.~:.:.':..:~
..~.,~:~:"-~'.'.:;.:-;::'l:.
.1.t:~~;G ';'l:}/:.7
.L t••;.:",:,::.:.,:;::::.:.:~.:.,
.i.';.:·;',S .:../.\::.:..~;
;;.:~<.):.).;.2 1 6
:;2 ,::J{-.,.,;+i.:.?
B •r'iH
J.,:~.~·4 .;.0 ()::~~
1 .~:E:7 :3 .:~:B
.'.../......,"'".-,-.'.I.,.:~J ~j .;.t:'t./-"'::.
J :::~;':;.:'~~:i ~:)A·
~~.l~.<5 o!o ::.:.~()':.;:1
1 ~:5 .:)<~";'~.~~~i 1
J 6::'=)y t::·;2~-::'
.f •••••••••,...,••••.t .~'.;.)~...J./':::;
:1.'7 ;::~+.:~~.~}l:~'
.L i::;3 <;'5.1.c:.:-
.i.,j.:::•.;.':.:.;'::::::':::;
::.'::)::.:::.:.:!.:L '.:,:.1
:~.':p {::I .:.::.~::.3 '.7
...-:.(j t•.:'.;..:/i::~,/
:~:;~t)6 +3 ~':;.:.:~;
;:~t J .;.~?9?
::?:I.)'~.~?:;.::2
::,?:}·4 .~~.::;~::~~3
..\••~•.r .
",:,..:';.,j,(0 I.)~•...:)
2 ~'::::E~.:.:':~):1.:L
;.::~4.::.:.~.:.'.~.:.l :.~:i ~:5
Ii.11'1
:i.:::.;:-4 .:-()()::~::
:r.::.:.::E.):;~;D?
,I •••~.0..r .".•'J.-.J i.{-.~.I.~.l a:J
1 J.{.().)J.~:;:.3
.,~."'1 .'.r"./.i•.(.~.....';lo .':;\~·:.I .1.
:l.~.:.~i ':,;).:.E .~.:~:l.
:1.:;:'4,·0'7·<:;·
.I.~:~J .:.";':}0 :t.
JE?..·ll
:i.9 ~:.:~.;.:7 :::.~~:5
:l.9S,.:1.74
2 0 ~:~~.~.:i.I::)~:;
~:~::0 9 oJ-'.:?'E;d
::.:.:::i.().:.t)·4':';:
:::.::::?.~..:~.:-2 9 :.:~
.~.:.;:::.:.::'::.:'.:.:L :.:-::~:.:.,
:;.~:::;6 \~'7 1 (~
:~~~...;t:5 'r 0 (~~..;~:
.::.::;:5 ~:j 1 "·i,:3 ::.:.:
.~~~6~?.~'7 '.7 ~:.:.~
~.:.::'.:?::.:.::y :.:S ~.:5 :,:)
l:~.,HH
.I.:;.:·4 ~.0 0 :~:
1 ;:'B.0.::::a
1.3';l-.,:L J.a
1 ..q.().~(::.;:::::::.~
1·4 ~:~.:.'7 .~;'B
:1.6:2.,~.'i::';4
J.?1 Sf ...:5 ~3 ~:~;
J.':;.)0 "6 :..:~;':2
?O()'i-~?::'4
::.::0 ':;.~~.0 ()9
••••••1.·.•....1 ".oL~·.1.(::-~.'f .1.....:.
~~~~,~.:.If:}\.~.::.;i::.:::::
;.:.~:-;·4 .;.t :::~;..;:;.
::::··:t ~:::~,;.~..:"{.";~t
:?:5 ::.::~l::i ~~~£::;
:::.~':~:I~).)~5 1 E
~:?'.7 l~'i :l.£:~E;
.::~~::;6 .:.()2
::;.~...,;,r ::?...'.?::.:.::::.:.::
:3 :L ()'i ::';;4 ~5
3 ~.:.:~:3 ~,E~?:.::i
B.LL =Low-Low Projection
B.l1M =Hoderate-Noderate Projection
B.IH =Industrialization Projection
B.HR =High-High Projection
45
II.Comparison of Current Projections with Earlier Work
In this section,we analyze the factors responsible for the
differences in the economic proj ections reported in this study and
those :presented in the earlier study entitled Electric Power Consump-
tion for the Railbelt:A Projection of Requirements (Institute of
Social and Economic Research,June 1980).We begin the section with a
short comparison of the results of the two studies.
II.A.Comparison of Results
Table 11.1 compares the moderate-moderate scenario (moderate
economic growth and moderate state expenditure growth)statewide
projections of population (POP),employment (EM99),and number of
households (HH)taken from the 1980 study with those developed for the
current study.The differences between the two studies for this
moderate-moderate case are relatively small.The new projection
begins slightly lower,is somewhat larger in the middle of the period,
and ends again slightly lower.
This pattern is primarily the result of two factors.First,the
new projection begins in 1980 with the actual values experienced in
that year which are lower than had been predicted,and this slightly
lower starting point for the projections carries forward to reduce the
values in all years proportionately.Second,the starting dates for
several of the large economic projects have been postponed several
years,and their combined impact on population and employment is
experienced toward the end of the 1980s rather than the beginning.
Although the values for population,employment,and households
are lower in 2000 in the new projections,the growth rates over the
period from 1980 to 2000 are higher for population and households than
previously.Table 11.2 shows that in the new moderate-moderate case,
the annual growth rates of the three variables are 3.48 percent for
households,2.64 percent for population,and 2.70 percent for
employment.
47
r
Table 11.1.Comparison of Old and New Economic Projections:
The Moderate-Moderate Case
Population (000)
:i.:::'H:i.
.',..,....,...,
i,)'C;'''''
.i.·::U:::)
."',
'~•',7''..'
,"',,",""
.":';':::
..::~(I ";'.~\'..;.~~J'.:s
~:}J ~~~;~0 E:.:::.
,'","',..J t..}\)+I,}.-;.~
~:j ():."::::.;.(.;;....:;-;,:.:.
,•••t \
.,).1....{..;..:::',~>.\':.
,..."'."....,-~.
.":J ,:;'.1..;...:).L ":)
.,-,.,-,",
':::'C ...,".-..1...........
B.hl'i
·}(::'3,::;:·;:'4
/1 i I:),..i ~.::.i :L
:~:,3:L ,'.?33
,".•••,,I I "'/••~.{:),,:::.L ~.L .....,:"j
"":1.3.<S:l.tl
....1 (~)+'2 S ,.:.:.,
~..~:)1 ~-<l B::.:.::
""3'/.,43:1.
_\,"'-;:'1"-'::'
.i.D·;...:!.~.I ....'
....:l.6.:l.C)·;:'
NES.GM =
B.~1M =
B.NN ER =
1980 Railbelt Study
Current Study
Difference Between Old and New Projections
48
r 'f.\:3 ;.:i~':;::
T'::;('::.:.~:,.;~:
f~:;:::~0 \\f :;":"::;:~::
~:::I~;r .~t~·T2~:
!~,..![....1 •~,r
.~.::~~;~t··~.~:{)~:';
~:.::t.:\0 v :~~';(){:;
"I",f "or:.':::::?~
~:)/l.T"..'';...'...'"
..../..t.T
,c•••i.,.'.••'.f
0.48
NA
NA
NA
-8.494
-1.091
--0.88
-3.809
-7.545
-0.317
-13.421
-10.517
-11.513
-11.813
-12.676
NA
NA
NA
183.519
175.175
168.926
196.237
128.328
:L33.803
200.98~'
B.MM
192.117
146.209
157.451
238.311
217.922
50
164.996
124.253
125.534
.l62.082
135.625
170.017
142.297
152.975
HH -DEFINITION
Number of Households (000)
Table 11.1.(continued)
1994
.i998
1978
1986
-··"n~\~~)\)~}
1980
1982
:l993
199:1.
:L999
:i.99cS
:L9E~5
1979
1987
1981
1939
1984
1977
:[993
Table 11.2.Annual Average Growth Rates in
Economic Projection Variables a
(percent)
Households
Population
Employment
1980 Railbelt Study
3.42
2.57
2.90
Current Study
3.48
2.64
2.70
aCalculated between 1980 and 2000.
The moderate-moderate case is the only one which is directly
comparable between the two studies.The other cases analyzed in
detail in the 1980 Railbelt study were low and high economic growth,
respectively,combined with moderate state government spending.In
the current study,low and high economic growth cases are analyzed,
but they are combined with low and high state government spending
growth,respectively,to produce a wider "fan"of projection values.
Nevertheless,the projection values in 2000 for the low-low and high-
high cases in the old and current studies are available and are pre-
sented in Table 11.3.The fan is consistently lower in newer projec-
tions.The difference is quite small,however,and consistent across
both cases primarily reflecting the downward revision of the initial
model values for 1980.
The regional allocation of statewide economic activity to the
railbelt is practically identical between the old and the new projec-
tions.A slightly larger proportion of the state's population is
allocated to the railbelt in the new projection,but the variation in
that proportion over time is consistent between the old and new
studies.
51
Table 11.3.Comparison of Year 2000 Values
for Former and Current
Extreme Projection Cases
(thousands)
1980 Railbelt Study Current 'Study
Low-Low Scenario
Table 11.4.Proportion of State Population
in the Railbelt
Table 11.4 indicates this by showing the proportion of the population
allocated to the railbelt in the moderate-moderate case in each study.
884
497
324
565
275
204
71.70
71.25
Current Study
908
510
343
574
288
211
52
67.45
67.45
1980 Railbelt Study
2000
1980
Population
Employment
Households
Population
Employment
Households
High-High Scenario
As a consequence of these two offsetting changes between the old
and new studies--slightly lower statewide projections but slightly
higher proportion allocated to the railbelt--the resultant economic
projections for the railbelt are quite similar to those published in
1980.Table 11.5 compares the railbelt projection values for the
moderate-moderate case.These numbers reflect a slightly larger
initial proportion of economic activity allocated to the railbelt
throughout the projection period in the new study.In addition,the
differences in 1990 reflect the change in assumptions about the timing
of large project activity.
Table 11.5.Moderate-Moderate Case Economic Projections
for the Railbelt
(thousand)
Population
1980
1990
2000
Employment
1980
1990
2000
1980 Railbelt Study
284.4
370.4
472.6
134.3
173.0
231.3
Current Study
285.3
398.0
483.7
138.5
200.1
237.8
II.B.New Initial Values
The new projections start in 1980 (rather than in 1977)using
actual values or close approximations of values for that year for all
variables.These values are somewhat lower,particularly for popula-
tion and households,than had been previously predicted.For example,
the actual value from the 1980 Census is now used for population
rather than the predicted value of 421 thousand.The value for house-
holds for 1980 in the projections is still an estimate because the
53
1980 Census result for this variable is not yet available.Likewis~,
final employment totals for 1980 have not yet been published,but
estimates based upon data for the first three-quarters are possible
and have been utilized.
assumptions,this has resulted in the addition of new categories of
expenditures as well as a higher initial base for future growth in
expenditures.
Table 11.6 provides a brief description,by project or sector of
the economy,of input scenario assumption changes for the moderate-
moderate case.Several projects have been delayed,most notably the
Northwest Gas Pipeline,petroleum refinery,and the Pacific Alaska LNG
II.C.Scenario Changes
The input scenario assumptions describing both economic activity
levels and state government activity levels have been completely
revised and updated since the 1980 railbelt study.For the economic
assumptions,this has resulted in the addition or deletion of specific
projects,changes in the timing of particular projects,and changes in
For the state government
level of petroleum-related activity has
Local-serving manufacturing employment is now assumed to
The generalproject.
increased.
the employment requirements of projects.
expand more rapidly.The base for calculating the growth of state
government spending is higher.
The result of these changes for the economic assumptions of the
moderate case,as well as similar types of changes for the low and
high cases are shown in Table 11.7.Exogenous employment projections
are higher in the current study than in the 1980 railbelt study.
Comparisons of employment in agriculture-forestry-fisheries and in
manufacturing cannot be made due to differences in model structure
between the two studies.
54
Table 11.6.Description of Revised Scenario Assumptions
for the Moderate-Moderate Case
Project or Sector 1981 Study
1.Trans-Alaska Pipeline
2.Northwest Gas Pipeline
3.Prudhoe Bay Petroleum
Production
4.Upper Cook Inlet Petroleum
Production
5.Development of National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska
6.Outer Continental Shelf
Petroleum Production
7.Petroleum Refinery
8.Pacific Alaska LNG Project
9.Beluga Coal Production
10.Other Mining
55
No Change
Delayed to become operational
in 1987
Across-the-board increase in
activity beginning in 1981
No change
Leasing begins in 1982 with
eventual discovery and
development of 5 commercial
fields representing 1.85
billion barrels of oil and
3.73 billion cubic feet of gas
About 6.7 billion barrels of
recoverable oil and 16.4
trillion cubic feet of gas
are discovered and developed
from the following lease areas
(year of initial lease):
Beaufort 1 (1979)
Cook Inlet (1981)
Beaufort 2 (1983)
Navarin Basin 1 (1984)
Chukchi 1 (1985)
Chukchi 2 (1989)
100,000 barrels per day refinery
(reduced from 150,000)con-
structed between 1983 and
1985 (delayed one year)
Delayed one year
Development begins in 1985,and
production eventually reaches
4.4 million tons per year
Other mining employment grows at
1%annually
Table 11.6.(continued)
Project or Sector 1981 Study
11.Agriculture No change
12.Fisheries/Food Processing No change
13.Forestry/Lumber and Pulp No change
and Paper Manufacture
14.Other Manufacturing Employment grows to equal 2%
of total employment
15.Federal Government No change
16.Tourism Tourism employment grows at
4%annually
17.State Government Growth in real per capita expen-
ditures at same rates as real
per capita income based upon
higher FY 1982 budget.
56
Table 1I.7.Comparison of Old and New Exogenous
Employment Assumptions
Low Case
LES.b!-i
EMGF EeDNX ErIP9 ErlT9X
t.<•I.L
:1',77 42.f.l3:1 ~).3 ·4.6 1"...,
GiGF [eDNX EMF'9 EMT9X 1978 ·42.B::~5 o•:5.~)62 1 •~.:;
1979 43.0.09 4.827 1 •~:)
j ~f'HI)41.320 0.09 6.377 1.53;3 19BO 43.2 ()•0<1 ~).075 .1.•~;
17fJ.1 41.4111 O.4(H 7.11~'j :I.•~;(;9 :l9B1 43.4 O.~.~9 ~;.it,;3 1.5
I..:?;.:;:")41.308 1 •()1 'I 7.~3~.)B 1.6 1982 43.6 ;!.n8~j 7.322 1 •~:;
Inu '11,:')',9 1,763 7.441 1 •~;B8 1983 43.7 7.823 8.0'7'6 1 •~J
I.(r'U4 4:1..6'/3.:l.i,9 6.461 1 •~:j ~~:j :I.',a4 43.B 7.038 7.6.24 1.~;
.I.qi-J'~;4J./13:'.:?JlJ~:.~b.b??1 •~.:;,4 :I 98~;43.":1.563 5.13·1 1 •~.~
I.~'bD 41.U74 1.1.•()~'.;(;'6.',4',:1..546 1906 '14.o •5.097 1 •'7
V1 I -:,.'d?41.967 l)•~:j~):i 7.070 1 •66~_:;:l9f.17 ·14 .1 o •5.073 :1.7
--.J I ';'HH 42.06 :1.30:1 7.34 1.6:";8 1 ',OB "l"'l •2 ().5.034 1.7
I \.H'T'4?:I.~::.i4 O.bO 7.::.~?:'!l.b::.!'?198',44.3 o •"1.2~:;1."7
/~,.\j -4 :'.~•:.!"1 n 0.664 7.307 1.619 1990 +4.4 O.~).OI1 :1.7
q(;,.I.4::'.343 ().~:j64 7.:~43 1.619 1991 "1"1 •~.)O.4.',',1."I'
':~':.,..)42.4:5f:l 0.61.1.7.::'1:,9 J.619 1'7'92 '1'1.6 O."I.(,6r.;1.7,,.
'/':7''j <I ;.:.~:j3·1 {).~::j27 7.~'32 1.6:L "1'193 44.7 O.'1.'7'49 :1.7
'.';"/4 4:·,~.bJ ().26,,1 7.34 1.619 1 '7",4 44.8 O.4.9~11:l 1.7
';':',':'.j -4 ::::•):'~6 o ..1'n 1.31:lB 1.<'>19 1 ',9:')44."O.'1.908 1.7
,/1;/(-,4~.~.n;·'3 O.OH4 7.34:1.1.619 J °196 4~:;•o.4.BBn 1../
':,'9 ?,,)2.(l::.::1 ().:I.3::~/.30/1.619 1 ',97 "1 ~:;• 1 O.4.1:l6fl .L.?
';"?O 4:':>•()1.S'O •.1.:-i:~7.203 :L.619 l',9B 4:::;.:2 o.4.8·lfl i./'
.I '/'1'1 4:·',.1:1 7 O.O~)"7.21:l1 1.619 1999 45.3 O.4.8:'9 1.?
~"~dOO 43.216 o •0 lFJ 7.278 1.619 2000 "1~)• 4 O.4.81 1.7
B.LL =New Scenario EMGF =Federal Government Employment
ECONX =Exogenous Construction Employment
LES.GM =Old Scenario EMP9 =Mining Employment
EMT9X =Exogenous Transportation Employment
=,_'W~~'"&LL .&-T~_!!ttR~,.~'AI'ti~,:~~:;:::;:;:;;;;;;~3 _",,~..__b~£"'gf!-4""",q;;:;;;;;¥z:a1i4f#!C·-'~--.c-'~T _~?E'''!''_'''",,"_
Table II.7.(continued)
Moderate Case
dEG.Gi1
EI-!GF ECONX I:t-lf'9 [hl'/X
F'•111-1
:I.(jl//42.B31 ~'j •:1 II.(,1 ...•
EHrJF FCDNX Ertf'9 EP1T'1X I'?/B "12.025 O.~.j.~:"Jb2 .1.:.",
1';'/9 43.(i.,)9 4.f:':·.~/1 •~.ii.~J'no 4:1 •;',;'B ().()9 I,.-lOB 1.:J33 1';00 ,\3.~,O.O'l ~..; • 1 ~3 '}1.•~:j
I"HI ·11.·1 J n 1.()i;'2 7.112 1.~j't9 1 'iB:1 '13.-1 0.714 ~·i.317 L .:;
":"'H,..:O ..1.1.•~JOH .I.•b::.~6 /.34 1.6 1 '7'U:!43.6 4.33~~'j 7.713 J ..~~j :.)~...,
I';"';:;41.~.j9(;3.:5(~)6 /.632 1.641 l'i'B3 43./9.BB9 8.477 .I..:',,36
I "\'·1 -1 J •{,':;:'j.432 (.~.92 1..6';2 19B4 43.B 9.JB3 B.(Jed.1 •~.'jb
j':;'U:",ItJ •/H2 l~).Bl~:.:j 7.T76 J.(/BB 19B:".:;43.,;.2.35:3 ~).423 L•~'j ~"'7
I iT'~jn 4.1 •H"I'~l :l.3.0:j6 "7.60::.:;I.B69 :I.C,\8b 44.J.027 ~).'77 '1 ::_~•J H:-.'
I 'ffl.'4.1.i".,,\{,/,H.~:.}a 7.744 2.0'13 :I'1Bi'44 •.1.1.13'1 b.3,~')6 :'.:.3.1.8
.I."HH 4::.~.0,:')::>.;:'10 7.73 2.2 1 '?flU 44.2 J.•.I.38 6.6::.}~~;l.31U1I',iN 4:.'.1.;j·l J.2~:.)(?n.:1.::.~2 2.331 190'1 '14.:3 I.OG::>6.747 :~.3'l<,00 I ';",'(l 4 ::.:•;.~~4 n 3.329 B.n~::;6 2.t)b '14.4 0.4fl:!6.~',37 ;>.3311'7''tO1'?'i I .o1.:.?•~':)A~.:)3.4'1 .L O.O;'j 2.'137 1991 44.~5 1.90';6.~'j:":)B 2.?:.·j9.I.(.:ril'.....'42.4~;)n ::!•.669 :l.O.4tl7 2.761 19';>2 44.6 ).~'.):1.9 6.f:j'19 :'.~•~..j·1 qI.C/'/,:)~12.~:.:j34 1.906 :l.O.il.1.:!.n :1.9'7'3 4-1.7 2.70:L 7.;·:61 2.62.LI"'j'·1 42.6:.~::'.47:3 :l.O.fl::'::'2.7:~~2 1 '1'7'4 ,14 .U 1.0U·1 B.Oflc;'2.b6GI.(~.'')~',';~12./21.2.31:3 .L 1 .O:"ifl 2.72?.199~j 44.9 O.~5()l 8.1~j 1.2./'O::'=;I.?(/t;4:·~.n23 2.19:~:;1:1..431 2.722 1.9'7'6 45.o.2~)2 8.2'19 2.B76
L'1'i''"il~?.(")2.1.2 ....1~:;7 11.7:34 2.7:~2 19'17 45.:1.0.152 8.16:J 2.716
:i ~;:'f'U 43.019 I.•;~:;9:.?12.0;"j 2./'22 1998 4~.:.).2 ().305 8.007 2.662
.l.?q?43.117 1 ,::.~c;~.)12.426 2.7:~2 1 C;'(,',4~j.:3 ()•'I 8.0·1::'2.~"j'~·'b
...?OOO 43.216 1.472 12.4~j'1 2."l2::.~2000 4~j.4 ().~)~1::;8.()~.)4 2.:~'7]
B.MM
MES.GM
New Scenario
Old Scenario
EMGF =
ECONX =
EMP9
EMT9X
Federal Government Employment
Exogenous Construction Employment
Mining Employment
Exogenous Transportation Employment
Table 11.7.(continued)
High Case
HES.CiM
EMGF ECONX EtiF'9 ElH9Xf..HII
1't'77 42.B3:l ~:.)•3 "'1.6 J......,
FiliiI'LCONX [1'11"9 EhT'IX 1 'iii:!42.825 o.::).~)b2 1..:::j
J 9'79 43.O.or,.4.827 1.•~jI.'Y';.:);,,}<H .4l7 O.J 6.~.J99 J.•~)33 :l900 "13.2 0.24 5.163 1 •~.:;
t ?H"l .ill •~:'j '?D ()•~:,.I./'.2l~:·j J.•~;34 J'il'll.43.4 O.7fl9 5.:564 1.JI.',;),"'41./l'll .I.•~::j,4 7.423 :l •:',';6'1 1 ?E~2 43.6 3.?6 7.7B4 1.•:j2~jIi,'H,,)41,.96:";4.30:'\7.701 J..6::i9 19B3 4:'~.B 1 J..213';'8,69:.,1 •:~jH2
I ','H·1 42 •.I.~·.12 7.:1 4 7.06',1.7:1.7 19E4 43.9 14.480 8.-II.1.644I.C:.j:,,,-1:'.:\-1 :l4.7:,'7 )'.?/':r J.904 "I.s'n:':;44.J.0.963 6.O~i 1 1 •8~.)~jI.7'f;>u 42 t ::."j3 ::'J .477 B.B43 2.417 :l'iB6 44.3 8.372 6.~j99 2.481l.{j'G/4:~.722 :l4.844 ',.929 2.93'1 1.<?n/44.5 ~5.4~j8 7.2~j9 2.~):~'i8I':;.'\:::H 42.S':l6 n.31:13 12.3',3.l'l3l'l .I "'GB -44.7 2.933 7.<"99 2.c;.'~~9(J1
'13,1:1 ;:::6.224 :I.:'~.624 4.3134 19B9 4·1.'T'2.749 8.40J :'.!.6621.0 I.(.r"Li,'
I ~~.':j"(i 4:".3:l :,;•I.J :l6.0f'::l 4.~jl.)(f 1 'NG 4~;.:L :.1.SB-l 9.8G~:)2.744
I 'i \'1 "1 j •~:';1 4.743 16.777 4.B26 19';>:[4:'\.3 6.293 /0.601 2.972I','q::,43.71::>6.707 16.B7B 4.722 1992 45.5 6.701 l:L •:'61 3.291Ir,'(;j":')43.'i,I,6 4.',16 1.'7.::;J.6 4.0'12 19'13 4:';.8 6.21'9 1:l.91l 3.397I.(":,:;".)44.1 ::':!3.(;'Hb :1.',1.~.)35 ~\.16:'~:l994 46.4.1.58 12.?49 3.?22JI,'~/:'.1 ·1 <j.::\3 ~;.103 20.:L ~;.O44 .I.9(1:j 46.::>':5 .193 :l3.::'<13 3.776I.?i/6 44.:,\4 3.',93 20.726 ~;.09 19'j!(j 46.4 ,3.436 13.1'108 :3.90 J1'1'/.7 44.?~:,2 ::'.681 2:'~.027 ~j.09 1997 46.6 :3.:/0:l 13.966 3.9B6l'in1 44,'16(:):!.067 22.1 13 ~:i,09 1998 46.8 2.66 :l4.::~~'i9 3.'f:l.3[9';\9 "l~:j f .lfJ3 0.0:'\4 23.05 ~j.0'1 1 ',','I 47.0.714 14.6~.':3.796:'O')()4:";.40:/:/.34::\22.8(/4 5.09 2000 47.3 0.798 :l4.639 3.7~\1
B.HH =New Scenario EMGF =Federal Government Employment
ECONX =Exogenous Construction Employment
HES.GM =Old Scenario EMP9 =Mining Employment
EMT9X =Exogenous Transportation Employment
II.D.Model Changes
A large number of changes to the structure of the MAP econometric
model and the regionalization procedure have been incorporated into
this study.These changes are designed to improve the ability of the
models to describe the economy and its response to change.The
changes are described briefly in this section,and then the effect of
the changes is assessed.
Stochastic equations.All of the stochastic equations in the
economic component of the model as well as a majority of the equations
in the other model components have been reestimated incorporating data
for 1978 and 1979.These new equations,the resulting coefficients,
and the accompanying statistics are presented in an appendix to this
report.
In general,the relationships represented by the equations proved
to be relatively stable with the addition of two new data points
covering the post-Alyeska pipeline "soft"years of the Alaskan economy.
The major exception to this is in the set of equations which deter-
mines wage rates by industry.
What has happened is that for the first time,a time series is
available covering all phases of the maj or economic event of the
1970s--Alyeska pipeline construction.Thus,we can now more
accurately assign explanatory power for wage rates between direct
pipeline construction activity and other activity within the economy.
The new results reflect an increase in the proportion of the annual
change in the real wage rate explained by direct pipeline construction
activity.The implication of this is that the long-run general respon-
siveness of real wage rates as reflected by the model is somewhat
reduced.This leads to a reduction in projection results when other
factors are held constant.This change is analyzed in more detail in
an appendix to this study.
60
In addition to adding two data points to most stochastic equa-
tions,the specification of some equations has been changed.These
specification changes are designed to better represent the relation-
ship between the independent variables and the dependent variable.
Tourism.The tourism industry is now explicitly identified
within the model,whereas it was previously only implicit.Implicit
treatment of the industry did not introduce major problems in model
projections as long as tourism was projected to grow at about the same
rate as the overall economy.
The primary reason for not explicitly treating the tourism indus-
try has been a lack of any reliable employment or output data for the
industry in time series form.This is because tourism is a component
of several industries,primarily transportation,services,and trade,
but the proportion of each of these industries which supports tourism
actively is difficult to separate out from other demands for industry
output.
It is important to treat tourism explicitly in two instances.
First,for impact analysis,the implicit treatment of tourism results
in an overestimate of the economic impact of projects and policies
since some of the calculated impact is really a change in tourism
activity.Second,when projection scenarios require different assump-
tions about the growth of the tourism industry which is one of the
basic sectors of the economy,it is necessary to treat tourism
explici tly.
Tourism is explicitly treated in the current version of the model
by netting out a portion of activity in the transportation,services,
and trade industries and reassigning that activity to tourism.This
tourism activity is a function of the number of tourists who visit the
state.The analysis underlying this model change is described in
detail in a working paper prepared for the Alaskan Outer Continental
Shelf Office of the Bureau of Land Management,entitled Improvements
to Specification of the MAP Model (November 1981).
61
Fisheries.In the past,data on the number of Alaskan fishermen
has not been available in a form comparable to employment data for
other industries.A comparable time series for Alaskan fishermen has
recently been compiled by George Rogers and published in Measuring the
Socioeconomic Impacts of Alaska's Fisheries (ISER,1980).
The previous method of dealing with the fishing industry was to
treat it primarily as a component of proprietary employment with a
small portion as wage and salary employment in the agriculture-
forestry-fishery sector.Since proprietary employment is a function
of total employment,the fishing industry generally grew at the same
rate as the overall economy.
Now economic activity in the fishing industry is independent of
other proprietary income or employment.It is specified as a part of
the economic scenario and is added to nonfishery proprieLary employ-
ment to yield total proprietary employment.The analysis underlying
this change is described in detail in the working paper Improvements
to Specification of the MAP Model.
Manufacturing.Previously,manufacturing was treated exogenously
as a single industry.Employment and output were specified in the
economic scenarios.In recognition of the fact that there is a small
but identifiable local-serving component of the manufacturing industry
wi thin the state,manufacturing is now divided into exogenous and
local-serving components.
The local-serving component of manufacturing is now a function of
overall local Alaskan demand.The exogenous component of manufactur-
ing is also divided into two parts.One part,cons isting of all
current exogenous manufacturing in lumber,pulp and paper,and food
processing,is defined as regular-wage manufacturing.The other part
is defined as premium-wage manufacturing and is des igned to accom-
modate manufacturing employment additions at substantially higher wage
rates than the current industry average.Examples of such industries
would be petrochemicals or large-scale petroleum refining.
62
Construction.The construction industry has always been sepa-
rated into exogenous and local-serving components.Furthermore,
exogenous construction is of two types.The first involves premium-
wage,remote-site,enclave-type employment,while the latter involves
employment at the normal construction wage in urbanized parts of the
economy.
In addition to earning different annual average wage rates due to
special skill differences as well as hours worked,the two types of
exogenous construction employment have different effects on the
economy in other ways.Specifically,the disposable income associated
with premium wage construction employment has a different effect on
aggregate demand than other sources of income.
In past versions of the model,exogenous construction employment
has also had a positive effect on real wage rates,reflecting the fact
that this employment was associated with labor market tightness.In
the current version of the model,only premium-wage construction
employment has this effect.It is assumed that regular-wage exogenous
construction employment by itself does not directly affect the lever
of real wages in other industries.
State Expenditures.In this analysis,as in the 1980 Railbelt
Study,state government expenditures are programmed to grow in a way
which reflects different elasticities of real per capita expenditures
to real per capita income.In the previous version of the model,the
definition of real per capita income included all income and all
population.As a result,during periods of substantial high-wage,
temporary construction employment which would increase the level of
real per capita personl income substantially above the long-term
trend,state government expenditures would rise rapidly and essen-
tially ratchet upward.
This result does not appear consistent with the historical pat-
tern of growth of state expenditures which appears to follow a trend
63
more closely and to ratchet upward when state revenues increase at an
unexpectedly rapid rate.Consequently,in the current version of the
model,the definition of real personal income used to drive growth of
government spending excludes premium wage enclave-type construction-
related income.This is consistent with the idea that a portion of
that income and population are only in the state temporarily.
Household Formation.The household formation model has been
recalibrated based upon recent national trends and fragmentary non-
census data for Alaska.Data from the 1980 Census with which to do a
full recalibration is not yet available.The changes made and current
model structure are described in an appendix to this report.
The Components of State Government Spending.Since the formula-
tion of the model to do the projections for the 1980 Railbelt Study,
state government spending has expanded much more rapidly than had
previously been anticipated.The growth in government employment,
however,has not kept pace.Rather,what has happened is that a large
portion of the additional expenditures has gone into new or expanded
programs which do not require a lot of labor.These include transfers
to individuals,expanded tax assistance programs for local government,
subsidies for certain activities like home purchase,special capital
project funds,and wage increases for employees.
These structural changes are reflected in the current version of
the model.The specific assumptions surrounding these new programs
are described in more detail in the appendix in which the economic and
policy scenario assumptions are discussed.
Effect of Model Changes.It has not been possible to compare the
model version used in the 1980 Railbelt Study with the current version
of the model used in this study.This is because -changes in the
structure of the model make it impossible to use exactly the same
economic and policy scenario assumptions in each model.For example,
in the old version of the model,tourism and fisheries employment were
64
not specified while in the new version of the model,they are exogen-
ously determined ..On the other hand,manufacturing employment now has
a local-serving component while previously it was all exogenous.It
is particularly difficult to force comparability between the two
models in the state government sector.
Nevertheless,some exploratory testing was done to compare the
two models by running both with the same input scenario as much as
possible.The newer version of the model results in substantially
lower projection values than the older version of the model.If we
look at employment,it appears that about half of the difference is
the result of differences in starting values (1980)and different
levels of government spending.The rest of the difference apparently
is due to the new coefficient values in the wage rate equations.
65
III.Summary of Appendix Material
The appendixes to this report are technical documents which will
only interest the specialist.They describe various model elements
and studies of the structure of particular model elements in an effort
to document as completely as possible the work done under this project.
Brief summaries of each appendix follow.
III.A.Economic and Policy Scenarios for
Railbelt Electric Power Study
All the assumptions about economic activity and state government
spending behavior used in the proj ections are laid out in detail.
III.B.Assumptions Used to Calculate OCS Employment
Development of petroleum resources of the Outer Continental Shelf
is an important element of the development scenarios.This paper
describes in detail how the assumptions about discoveries are con-
verted into assumptions about employment which can be used to project
economic activity.
III.C.Description of the Household Formation Model
The household formation model was revised for this study.The
parameter values were adjusted to reflect the trend toward smaller
average household size observed since 1970.The assumptions used to
project a continuing decline in average household size in future years
are presented and defended.
III.D.MAP Model Wage Rate Specification
The form of the equations used to determine the wage rates in the
MAP model is described.Historical patterns of wage rate movements in
Alaska and the United States are reviewed to support the form of the
equations chosen.The results of several simulation tasks are pre-
sented which test the sensitivity of the projection results to changes
in coefficient values and projected national trends.The projections
67
r
are insensitive to coefficient variation but exhibit sensitivity to
the projected growth rate in the real wage in the United States.
III.E.MAP Model Migration Specification
The method used in the MAP model to project migration is
described.Test results are presented which indicate the stability of
the projections to this formulation.Simulation test results are
presented which test the sensitivity of projection results to changes
in coefficient values and projected national trends.The model is not
sensitive to the projected growth rate of real per capita income in
the United States.It is sensitive to a change in the coefficient of
the migration equation determining the migration response to a change
of employment in Alaska.The projection results in such a test are
not reasonable,however,because the proportion of the total popula-
tion employed rises too high (reduction in coefficient value)or falls
too low (increase in coefficient value).
III.F.Regionalization Model
A new method was developed for allocating statewide economic
activity to the railbelt-for this study.It is based upon a sound
theoretical framework which reflects the idea that railbelt economic
growth is determined not only by activity occurring within the rail-
belt but also by activity which occurs outside the railbelt.This is
because the railbelt forms the economic support center for the entire
state.
III.G.Stochastic Equation Estimation Results
Most equations of the MAP model using coefficients which are
statistically estimated have been re-estimated incorporating data from
the most recent years.The statistics for these equations are pre-
sented in this final appendix.
68
r
7
xarrlS H3MOd JIHIJ~1~I1~a1IVH
HOd SOIHVN~JS XJI10d aNV JIWONOJ~
Contents
I.Introduction
II.The Economic Assumptions
A-l
A-2
A.
B.
Overview .
Special Project Assumptions.
A-2
A-3
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline .
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System
Prudhoe Bay Petroleum Production
Upper Cook Inlet Petroleum Production.
Development of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska
Outer Continental Shelf Development
Alaska Oil Company Refinery (Formerly ALPETCO).
Pacific Alaska LNG .
Petrochemical Development.
Beluga-Chuitna Coal Production
U.S.Borax Mining Development
Aluminum Smelting
Synthetic Fuels Development
State Capital Move
A-6
A-9
A-12
A-15
A-18
A-24
A-40
A-43
A-46
A-51
A-56
A-59
A-62
A-65
C.Industry Assumptions .A-68
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Other Mining Activity
Agriculture
Fisheries/Food Processing.
Forestry/Lumber,Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
Other Manufacturing.
Federal Government
Tourism.
A-68
A-75
A-82
A-89
A-94
A-95
A-102
D.Summary A-102
III.The Fiscal Policy Assumptions A-113
1I
I
I
I.Introduction
The forecasting of future economic activity requires the use of a
methodology which adequately captures the inherent uncertainty char-
acteristic of events and policies critical to the shaping of such
future development.The approach used in this study involves con-
struction of a set of scenarios,each consisting of a consistent set
of explicit assumptions concerning the variables treated as exogenous
by the forecasting model.Collectively,these scenarios span what we
consider to be a plausible range of future development patterns,
although no single scenario is to be interpreted as a best guess of
such development.This report describes in detail the scenarios to be
utilized in the study.
Each scenario combines two general categories of assumptions--
those concerned with the level of employment in the sectors of the
Alaskan economy treated as exogenous by the MAP model and those con-
cerned with policy choices which will be made by state government.
These two categories of assumptions,which will be described as
"economic"assumptions and policy assumptions,are described fully in
the following two sections.
A-I
II.The Economic Assumptions
A.OVERVIEW
Five sets of economic assumptions were developed.The first
three sets of assumptions correspond to a range of economic activity
whose occurrence depends largely on factors other than the avail-
ability of Susitna hydropower.These three scenarios--the high,
moderate,and low cases--are updated versions of the three economic
scenarios presented by the Institute of Social and Economic Research
(ISER)to the State of Alaska House Power Alternatives Study Committee
(see Goldsmith and Huskey,1980)in May of 1980.The fourth scenario,
which will be called the industrialization scenario,consists of the
addition of several major industrial projects in the railbelt region,
at least several of which may be contingent on the availability of
low-cost hydropower.
A fifth scenario,which will be called the "extreme"high case,
consists of all activities in the basic high-growth case as well as
those included in the industrialization scenario and,consequently,
may be interpreted as a somewhat extreme upper bound on activity
likely to occur during the forecast period.
These scenarios consist of two general types of assumptions--
those concerned with employment generated by specific projects affect-
ing several industries simultaneously and those concerning the
development of several exogenous industries in the Alaskan economy.
Part B proceeds to describe the special project assumptions.Part C
then turns to the industry-wide assumptions.
B.SPECIAL PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
Widely differing special projects with major implications for
future Alaskan development have been proposed by a variety of federal
and state agencies and private developers.Each project generates
direct employment in one or more of the sectors of the Alaskan economy
A-2
i
i
I
I
treated as exogenous by the MAP forecasting model.These sectors are
manufacturing,mining,and parts of the construction and transporta-
tion sectors.This section examines the direct employment generated
by each of the maj or proj ects either currently in operation or pro-
posed,the sectoral composition of such employment,and its location
in the state.
Each of the tables prefixed by "s"on the following pages pre-
sents a breakdown of statewide exogenous employment by sector,as
shown in Table 1.Each table prefixed by an "R"presents the loca-
tiona 1 breakdown of such exogenous employment by region,with the
regions given in Figure 1 and Table 2.Generally,the regions cor-
respond to census divisions,with two exceptions.Region ~6 corres-
ponds to a combination of the Bristol Bay and Bristol Bay Borough
Census Divisions,and Region 11 corresponds to the eight census
divisions of Southeast Alaska.
TABLE 1.
Code
EMP9
ECONXI
ECONX2
EMMXl
EMMX2
EMT9X
EMA9
EMPROF
EMGF
EMPLOYMENT SECTOR CODES
Sector
Mining
High Wage Construction
Average Wage Construction
High Wage Manufacturing
Average Wage Manufacturing
Transportation
Agriculture and Forestry Employment
Fish Harvesting
Federal Government
A-3
(\\)
--
Centr.,1 cities of SMSA's with fewer thana50,000 inh<lbit.,n:~
Fcirb<lnks (¢f::J)
FIGURE 1
Census Divisions
~Sl<lnd<lrd Metropolitan St<lti51ic.,1 Arc."(SMSA's)
0Southe<lSl F.,irb<lnk,(1.4)
~:::i;;1~cordOV"'~~~~Y(~)_~-H"ine~-
--..>\\<.~~)~Juneau\\S~U',~~.,.._Angoon
I Skagwa,.6 \c f \ \Valdez·Y't t ~...Bmlol Bay .r . ,a~u a '(;;--:>!~.r:~CMI~'"(1.<O~\\~~;f~"')
'(/.'f<>.......r\~. .Whllller I Silk.,~,)t'~':l<;t~"\~'O{jU!:AfJ AnC;lor<lge (CS'Z.)•~".~\:~t\'"./I l~\:~Bristol Bay BOt(lu~h \Seward (1.,)~\'
Kenai.Cook '"le:(It.)»Prince of Wales
_- ----- - -KelChik<ln
•~4~':Odiak L~Aleutian hlands (parI)I~_Outer Ketchj':an
(.IS)~(qi,).e:.tJ Co ---
•11 ~o 0 'l:/.tJd>--~
~..
I"
'1
A:c'J';an I.sland~(part)
(01)~<J,Ci...,
o or:'..r?~
CI
~
I
·1>
.1 p;.,......,_.~~_.."._---
-,
TABLE 2.REGIONAL IDENTIFIERS
Code Region
~1
~2
~4
~S
~6
~8
~9
11
Aleutian Islands CD
Anchorage CD
Barrow/North Slope CD
Bethel CD
Bristol Bay,includes:
Cordova/McCarthy CD
Fairbanks CD
Southeast,includes:
Bristol Bay CD
Bristol Bay Borough CD
Angoon CD
Haines CD
Juneau CD
Ketchikan CD
Outer Ketchikan CD
Prince of Wales CD
Sitka CD
Skagway-Yakutat CD
Wrangell-Petersburg CD
12 Kenai/Cook Inlet CD
14 Kobuk CD
15 Kodiak CD
16 Kuskokwim CD
17 Matanuska/Susitna CD
18 Nome CD
21 Seward CD
24 Southeast Fairbanks CD
25 Upper Yukon CD
26 Valdez/Chitina/Whittier CD
27 Wade Hampton CD
29 Yukon/Koyukuk CD
A-S
p--------------------r
1.Trans-Alaska Pipeline (Alyeska)
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Service (TAPS)employment through 1977
included only the exogenous construction employment engaged in the
initial construction of the pipeline.After completion in 1977,
employment has been of two types.First,there is additional con-
struction of four pump stations (see Oil and Gas Journal,2/25/80,p.
72),and second,there is exogenous transportation sector employment
associated with operation of the line.These employment schedules are
given in Tables S-l and R-l and are common to all five economic
scenarios.
A-6
TABLE S-l.STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
TAPS PROJECT
-ALL CASES -
TAP.XXX
ECONX1 EMT9X MTOT
1980 0.09 1.5 1.59
1981 0.09 1.5 1.59
1982 0.09 1.5 1.59
1983 O.1.5 1.5
1984 O.1.5 1.5
1985 O.1.5 1.5
1986 O.1.5 1.5
1987 O.1.5 1.5
1988 O.1.5 1.5
1989 O.1.5 1.5
1990 O.1.5 1.5
1991 O.1.5 1.5
1992 O.1.5 1.5
1993 O.1.5 1.5
1994 O.1.5 1.5
1995 O.1.5 1.5
1996 O.1.5 1.5
1997 O.1.5 1.5
1998 O.1.5 1.5
1999 O.1.5 1.5
2000 O.1.5 1.5
SOURCE:Construction estimate based on assumed installation of four pump
stations adding capacity of .15 mmbd each,from Beaufort OCS
Development Scenarios,Dames and Moore,1978.
Operations employment from Alaska Economic Trends,Alaska Dept.
of Labor,October 1978.
A-7
----------------------............
TABLE R-l.REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT
TAPS PROJECT
-ALL CASES -
TAP.XXX
604 B09 624 B26 B29 MTOTR
1980 0.474 0.169 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.59
1981 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.642 1.59
1982 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.406 0.552 1.59
1983 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1984 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1985 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1986 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1987 0.47-4 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1988 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1989 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1990 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1991 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1992 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1993 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1994 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1995 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1996 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1997 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1998 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
1999 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
2000 0.474 0.079 0.079 0.316 0.552 1.5
A-8
2.Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System
In December 1980,the Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company received
rights of way for the Alaskan portion of a 4,800-mile pipeline to
transport natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to the United States West Coast
and Midwest (see Oil and Gas Journal,12/8/80,p.50).Construction
of the 741-mile Alaskan portion of the line and an accompanying gas
conditioning plant on the North Slope is expected to get underway in
1981 and to be operational by 1987.Construction employment is
expected to peak at 10,589 in 1986,falling to a long-term employment
of 319 persons in transportation and petroleum sector employment,as
shown in Tables S-2 and R-2.These assumptions are common to all five
economic scenarios.
A-9
Table S-2.Statewide Employment By Sector
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System
-All Cases -
NWG.MG1
EMP9 ECONX1 EMT9X MTOT
1980 O.O.O.O.
1981 O.0.217 O.0.217
1982 O.0.217 O.0.217
1983 O.0.563 O.0.563
1984 O.2.435 O.2.435
1985 O.7.103 O.7.103
1986 0.16 10.589 O.10.749
1987 0.2 6.074 0.119 6.393
1988 0.2 0.468 0.119 0.787
1989 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1990 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1991 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1992 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1993 0.2 O.O.119 0.319
1994 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1995 0.2 O.O.119 0.319
1996 0.2 O.O.119 0.319
1997 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1998 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
1999 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
2000 0.2 O.0.119 0.319
SOURCE:~1.Nogford and S.Goldsmith,"The Relationship Between the
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and State and Local Government
Expenditures,"Institute of Social and Economic Research,
1980.
A-10
t
Table R-2.Regional Distribution of Employment
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System
-All Cases -
NWG.MG1
B04 B09 B24 B25 MTOTR
1980 O.O.o.O.O.
1981 0.046 0.069 0.037 0.065 0.217
1982 0.046 0.069 0.037 0.065 0.217
1983 0.209 0.225 0.047 0.082 0.563
1984 0.787 0.741 0.33 0.577 2.435
1985 2.207 1.637 1.185 2.074 7.103
1986 2.997 2.062 2.069 3.621 10.749
1987 1.663 1.491 1.191 2.048 6.393
1988 0.331 0.145 0.126 0.185 0.787
1989 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1990 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1991 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1992 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1993 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1994 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1995 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1996 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1997 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1998 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
1999 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
2000 0.228 0.008 0.043 0.04 0.319
A-ll
3.Prudhoe Bay Petroleum Production
Prudhoe Bay developments include employment associated with
primary recovery operations from the Sadlerochit formation,secondary
recovery (using water flooding)of that formation,new developments of
the Kuparuk formation west of Prudhoe Bay,and the permanent work
force of Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)and British Petroleum (BP)
at the main Prudhoe base headquarters,and a variety of exploration
efforts outside of the Sadlerochit and Kuparuk areas.The key assump-
tions serving as the basis for the employment forecasts are the
following:
•Seven rigs (4 Sohio,3 ARCO)continue development drilling
at a rate of 14 wells per year per rig through 1983 (based
on estimated activity in Oil and Gas Journal,2/25/80,p.
88).
•The proposed Prudhoe water flooding project begins in 1981
and is completed by 1985,adding approximately 1 billion
barrels of recoverable reserves to Prudhoe.Construction
employment peaks at over 1,000 in 1983,and operations
employment adds 300 to the permanent Prudhoe work force
(Corps of Engineers,1980).
•The Kuparuk formation west of Prudhoe is developed.Produc-
tion at a rate of 60,000 bbls.per day begins in 1982,
rising to 120,000 bbls.per day by 1984 (Oil and Gas Journal,
4/2/79).
•Permanent ARCO and BP employment on the North Slope rises
from 1,000 in 1977 to 1,667 in 1983,remaining constant
thereafter (based on Prudhoe Bay Case Study,OCS Program
Technical Report No.4).
•Ten additional rigs are active in exploration and develop-
ment outside of the Sadlerochit and Kuparuk areas.
The resulting employment forecast for Prudhoe Bay,which again is
common to all economic scenarios,is presented in Tables S-3 and R-3.
A-12
......_-
Table S-3.Statewide Employment By Sector
Prudhoe Bay Petroleum Production
-All Cases -
PRB.081
EMP9 ECONX2 MTOT
1980 2.369 O.2.369
1981 2.907 0.035 2.942
1982 3.018 0.491 3.509
1983 3.129 1.065 4.194
1984 2.202 0.484 2.686
1985 2.502 0.05 2.552
1986 2.502 O.2.502
1987 2.502 O.2.502
1988 2.502 O.2.502
1989 2.502 O.2.502
1990 2.502 O.2.502
1991 2.502 O.2.502
1992 2.502 O.2.502
1993 2.502 O.2.502
1994 2.502 O.2.502
1995 2.502 O.2.502
1996 2.502 O.2.502
1997 2.502 O.2.502
1998 2.502 O.2.502
1999 2.502 O.2.502
2000 2.502 O.2.502
SOURCE:Construction employment is that associated with Prudhoe water-
flood project,from U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Final EIS,
Prudhoe Bay Oilfield Waterflood Project,pp.2-60.For mining
employment sources,see text.
A-13
Table R-3.Regional Distribution of Employment
Prudhoe Bay Petroleum Production
-All Cases -
PRB.081
B04 MTOTR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-14
2.369
2.942
3.509
4.194
2.686
2.552
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.369
2.942
3.509
4.194
2.686
2.552
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
-...L
4.Upper Cook Inlet Petroleum Production
Petroleum sector employment in the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Divi-
sion was 778 in 1979 (4 quarter average employment,taken from Alaska
Department of Labor,Statistical Quarterly,1979 issues),consisting
of exploration,development,and production associated with the Kenai
oil and gas fields.Currently,the 120,000 barrels per day output of
oil is expected to decline drastically over the forecast period,
possibly as fast as 15-20 percent per year.The decline may be par-
tially slowed,however,by a possible redrilling program being con-
sidered by the operators (see Oil and Gas Journal,2/4/80,p.36);and
in any case,the prospects for gas development are brighter than those
for oil.Gas production is likely to expand from its current 5,000
MMCF per day once the LNG facility proposed by Pacific Lighting and
Pacific Gas and Electric (see below)are constructed even without any
substantial new discoveries.It is assumed that these increases,
coupled with continued exploration activity and possible enhanced
recovery of oil,will be adequate to maintain Upper Cook Inlet petro-
leum employment at its 1978 level throughout the forecast period,as
shown in Table S-4 and R-4.This employment forecast is common to all
economic scenarios.
A-IS
Table S-4.Statewide Employment By Sector
Upper Cook Inlet Petroleum Production
-All Cases -
UPC.011
EMP9 MTOT
1980 0.778 0.778
1981 0.778 0.778
1982 0.778 0.778
1983 0.778 0.778
1984 0.778 0.778
1985 0.778 0.778
1986 0.778 0.778
1987 0.778 0.778
1988 0.778 0.778
1989 0.778 0.778
1990 0.778 0.778
1991 0.778 0.778
1992 0.778 0.778
1993 0.778 0.778
1994 0.778 0.778
1995 0.778 0.778
1996 0.778 0.778
1997 0.778 0.778
1998 0.778 0.778
1999 0.778 0.778
2000 0.778 0.778
A-16
Table R-4.Regional Distribution of Employment
Upper Cook Inlet Petroleum Production
-All Cases -
UPC .011
812 MTOTR
~
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-17
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
0.778
5.Development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A)
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (previously NPR-4)has
been the target of publicly sponsored exploration for oil and gas
since World War II,first by the Navy and later by the Interior
Department.The first exploration program began in 1944 and ended in
1953,after discovery of nine oil and gas fields,all but one being
noncommercial (the largest gas field,the Barrow gas field,currently
produces for local consumption).In 1974 Congress directed the Navy
to resume exploration,eventually transferring the program to the
Department of Interior in 1977.To date,this most recent exploration
program has produced 22 dry holes and several test wells planned or in
progress (Oil and Gas Journal,12/8/80,p.36).
Nonetheless,USGS estimates that NPR-A can be expected to contain
5.96 billion barrels of oil in place and 11.3 trillion cubic feet of
gas,about 26 percent of which is likely to be recoverable.A study
of alternative methods for development of the reserve was completed in
1979 by Interior (see Final Report of the 105(b)Economic and Policy
Analysis,12/15/79).In late 1980,Congress passed legislation
requiring that the reserve be opened to private leasing by 1982 (Oil
and Gas Journal,12/8/80).Interior has issued a call for nominations
and has scheduled the first sale on December 16,1981 (Oil and Gas
Journal,September 21,1981).
In the high and extreme high scenarios,it is assumed that
leasing begins as planned late this year.Traditional bonus bidding
with fixed royalties is the leasing method,as described in Management
Plan 2 of the Interior 105 (b)study.Five commercial fields are
discovered and developed,representing 1.85 billion barrels of oil and
3.73 trillion cubic feet of gas,as in the mean scenario of the 105(b)
study.Construction associated with the development includes
525 miles of pipeline.Construction employment peaks at about 1,000
following each of the several discoveries.Petroleum sector employ-
ment averages 460/year,and pipeline operation adds 137 to the trans-
portation sector work force,as shown in Tables S-5a and R-5a.
A-18
~.
Table S-Sa.Statewide Employment By Sector
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
NPR.HGH
!:MP9 ECONX2 EMT9X MTOT
1980 O.O.o.O.
1981 O. O.o.O.
1982 O.0.075 O.0.075
1983 O.0.075 O.0.075
1984 0.088 0.363 O.0.451
1985 0.176 0.987 O.1.163
1986 0.23 1.099 O.1.329
1987 0.443 0.765 O.1.208
1988 0.354 0.314 0.107 0.775
1989 0.374 0.541 0.137 1.052
1990 0.354 1.092 0.137 1.583
1991 0.408 1.174 0.137 1.719
1992 0.533 0.765 0.137 1.435
1993 0.444 0.314 0.137 0.895
1994 0.464 0.541 0.137 1 .142
1995 0.444 1.092 0.137 1.673
1996 0.498 1.174 0.137 1.809
1997 0.623 0.765 0.137 1.525
1998 0.534 0.314 0.137 0.985
19£9 0.554 0.541 0.137 1.232
2000 0.534 1.092 0.137 1.763
SOURCE:See text.
A-19
Table R-Sa.Regional Distribution of Employment
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
NPR.HGH
802 B04 MTOTR
1980 O.O.O.
1981 O.O.O.
1982 O.0.075 0.075
1983 O.0.075 0.075
1984 0.009 0.442 0.451
1985 0.018 1.145 1.163
1986 0.023 1.306 1.329
1987 0.044 1.164 1.208
1988 0.035 0.74 0.775
1989 0.037 1.015 1.052
1990 0.035 1.548 1.583
1991 0.041 1.678 L 719
1992 0.053 1.382 1.435
1993 0.044 0.851 0.895
1994 0.046 1.096 1.142
1995 0.044 1.629 1.673
1996 0.05 1.759 1.809
1997 0.062 1.463 1.525
1998 0.053 0.932 0.985
1999 0.055 1.177 1.232
2000 0.053 1 .71 1.763
A-20
...
In the moderate and the industrialization scenarios,it is
assumed that the same level of resources are eventually discovered,
but at a far slower rate.Again,leasing begins in late 1981,but
employment reaches only half the levels assumed in the high scenario,
as shown in Tables S-5b and R-5b.
In the low scenario,private leasing again occurs in 1981,but
the ensuing development consists only of a string of unsuccessful
exploratory wells.In this case,the only employment generated is
that associated with exploratory drilling,which simply replaces
employment lost in phasing out the public program ending in 1981 so
that there is no net increase in exogenous petroleum employment.
A-21
Table S-Sb.Statewide Employment By Sector
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
NPR.MOO
EMP9 ECONX2 EMT9X MTOT
1980 O.O.o.O.
1981 O.o.o.O.
1982 O.0.038 o.0.038
1983 o.0.038 o.0.038
1984 0.044 0.132 o.0.176
1985 0.088 0.494 O.0.582
1986 O.115 0.55 O.0.665
1987 0.222 0.383 O.0.605
1988 0.177 0.157 0.054 0.388
1989 0.187 0.271 0.069 0.527
1990 0.177 0.546 0.069 0.792
1991 0.204 0.587 0.069 0.86
1992 0.267 0.383 0.069 0.719
1993 0.222 0.157 0.069 0.448
1994 0.232 0.271 0.069 0.572
1995 0.222 0.546 0.069 0.837
1996 0.249 0.587 0.069 0.905
1997 0.312 0.383 0.069 0.764
1998 0.267 0.157 0.069 0.493
1999 0.277 0.271 0.069 0.617
2000 0.267 0.546 0.069 0.882
A-22
Table R-5b.Regional Distribution of Employment
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
NPR.MDD
B02 B04 MTDTR
1980 O. O.O.
1981 O.O.O.
1982 O.0.038 0.038
1983 O.0.038 0.038'
1984 0.004 0.172 0.176
1985 0.009 0.573 0.582
1986 0.012 0.653 0.665
1987 0.022 0.583 0.605
1988 0.018 0.37 0.388
1989 0.019 0.508 0.527
1990 0.018 0.774 0.792
1991 0.02 0.84 0.86
1992 0.027 0.692 0.719
1993 0.022 0.426 0.448
1994 0.023 0.549 0.572
1995 0.022 0.815 0.837
1996 0.025 0.88 0.905
1997 0.031 0.733 0.764
1998 0.027 0.466 0.493
1999 0.028 0.589 0.617
2000 0.027 0.855 0.882
A-23
6.Outer Continental Shelf Development
USGS estimates that between 7 and 32 billion barrels of recover-
able oil and between 30 and 97 trillion cubic feet of recoverable
natural gas will eventually be discovered in the offshore areas sur-
rounding Alaska (Oil and Gas Journal,3/17/80,p.85).The expected
levels of discoveries and the associated 5-95 percent confidence
intervals for those discoveries are distributed by area as follows:
Location
Oil
(billion barrels)
Gas
(trillion cubic feet)
Gulf of Alaska
Kodiak
Lower Cook Inlet
N.Aleutian Shelf
St.George
Navarim
Norton
Hope
Chukchi
Beaufort
S.Aleutian Shelf
95%
o
o
<0.1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Mean
0.1
0.23
0.5
0.2
1.6
3.8
0.3
0.13
6.4
4.3
0.04
5%
0.7
1.1
1.5
1.0
5.8
U.8
1.3
0.6
14.5
10.4
0.2
95%
o
o
0.4
o
o
o
o
o
o
4.1
o
Mean
0.4
0.69
1.5
0.8
6.2
14.2
1.2
0.86
19.8
16.5
0.08
5%
1.9
3.5
3.3
3.2
15.7
38.3
3.8
3.3
38.8
32.0
0.5
In order to exploit these resources,the Department of Interior
in 1976 extended the federal OCS oil and gas leasing program to
Alaska.Since 1976,four sales have already occurred,as follows:
Sale Location Date
46 Gulf of Alaska 1976
CI Lower Cook Inlet 1977
BF Beaufort Sea 1979
55 Gulf of Alaska 1980
A-24 ~
},___________________~l__
High Case OCS Development
Year of Sale Location Discoveries
Oil Gas
(BBO)(TCFG)
1976 Gulf of Alaska 0 0
1977 Cook Inlet 0 0
1979 Beaufort 1.9 4.75
1980 Gulf of Alaska 0.45 1.25
1981 Cook Inlet 0.67 1.173
1982 Bering-Norton 0.38 1.2
1982 St.George 2.16 6.12
1983 Beaufort 1.3 3.25
1983 Kodiak 0.332 0.581
1983 N.Aleutian 0.332 0.581
1984 Navarin 2.16 6.12
1985 Chukchi 1.9 4.75
1985 Hope 0.5 0.37
1986 Beaufort 0.8 1.6
1987 Navarin 2.16 6.12
1988 Chukchi 1.9 4.75
1989 Navarin 0 0
1990 Chukchi 1.9 4.75
Total 18.844 47.365
USGS Mean 17.56 62.15
The employment generated by this level of OCS development is
presented in Tables S-6a and R-6a.1 Petroleum sector employment peaks
at over 11,000 in 1999;and construction,at nearly 3,300 in 1995.
Exogenous transportation employment reaches over 3,100 by the late
1990s as manufacturing reaches 80.
lSee Appendix B for a description of the method used to derive
employment estimates from discoveries.
A-25
Table S-6a.Statewide Employment By Sector
OCS Development
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
OCS,HGH
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 NlTOT
1980 0,209 o.0,06 0.033 o.0.302
1981 0.223 O.0.018 0.034 o.0.275
1982 0.255 O.131 0.086 0.069 o.0.541
1983 0,361 0.018 0.086 0.159 o.0.624
1984 0.494 0.154 0.099 0,217 O.0.964
1985 0.717 0.261 0.24 0,404 O.1,622
1986 1.19 0.685 1.74 0.84 O.4.455
1987 1.645 1.716 1.492 1.127 O.5.98
1988 2,981 1.744 0.182 1.919 O.6,826
1989 4.12 2.407 0.23 2.435 O.9.192
1990 5.193 1.876 0.432 2.62 0,08 10.201
1991 5.775 1.063 1.126 2.877 0.08 10.921
1992 5.571 1.848 3.044 2.773 0.08 13.316
1993 6.117 1,139 2.613 2.923 0.08 12.872
1994 8.033 0.873 1.772 3.214 0.08 13.972
1995 8.533 0.619 2,672 3,095 0,08 14.999
1996 9.019 o.2.019 3.141 0,08 14.259
1997 10.107 O.1.766 3.141 0.08 15.094
1998 10.193 o.1.603 3.141 0.08 15.017
1999 11.018 O.0163 3.141 0.08 14.402
2000 10.789 o.0.103 3.141 0.08 14.113
SOURCE:See text.
A-26
Table R-6a.Regional Distribution of Employment
OCS Development
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
OCS.HGH
BOl B02 B04 Bll B12 B14
1980 O.0.021 0.167 O.0.114 O.
1981 O.0.022 0.111 0.058 0.084 O.
1982 O.0.025 0.126 0.116 0.274 O.
1983 0.151 0.036 0.126 0.116 0.117 O.
1984 0.323 0.049 0.139 0.139 0;117 O.
1985 0.631 0.072 0.324 0.055 0.151 O.
1986 0.794 0.119 2.095 0.093 0.766 0.037
1987 2.109 0.164 2.005 0.265 0.88 0.036
1988 2.725 0.298 1.589 0.284 0.757 0.042
1989 3.97 0.412 1.617 0.406 0.771 0.042
1990 3.76 0.519 1.811 0.407 0.813 0.026
1991 3.484 0.577 2.484 0.416 0.755 0.006
1992 3.883 0.557 4.467 0.305 0.755 0.064
1993 3.717 0.612 4.219 0.316 0.755 0.378
1994 3.962 0.803 4.628 0.318 0.755 0.377
1995 3.733 0.853 5.907 0.321 0.755 0.413
1996 3.364 0.902 5.808 0.321 0.755 0.427
1997 3.42 1.011 6.532 0.321 0.755 0.37
1998 3.484 1.019 6.366 0.321 0.755 0.377
1999 3.456 1 102 5.688 0.321 0.755 0.377
2000 3.429 1.079 5.443 0.321 0.755 0.374
B15 B18 B27 MTOTR
1980 O.O.O.0.302
1981 O.O. O.0.275
1982 O.O. O.0.541
1983 O.0.079 O.0.624
1984 0.071 0.126 O.0.964
1985 0.1 0.214 0.075 1.622
1986 0.114 0.311 0.126 4.455
1987 0.133 0.159 0.228 5.98
1988 0.445 0.334 0.352 6.826
1989 0.474 0.498 1.9.192
1990 0.431 1.207 1.226 10.201
1991 0.442 1.184 1.572 10.921
1992 0.39 0.914 1.981 13.316
1993 0.403 0.724 1.747 12.872
1994 0.403 0.697 2.028 13.972
1995 0.403 0.778 1.835 14.999
1996 0.403 0.778 1.5 14.259
1997 0.403 0.778 1.504 15.094
1998 0.403 0.778 1.514 15.017
1999 0.403 0.778 1.522 14.402
2000 0.403 0.778 1.531 14.113
A-27
SOURCE FOR EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
HIGH CASE OCS DEVELOPMENT
9.1983 Kodiak
10.1983 N.Aleutian
Year
1.1976
2.1977
3.1979
4.1980
5.1981
6.1982
7.1982
8.1983
11.1984
12.1985
Location
Gulf of Alaska
Cook Inlet
Beaufort
Gulf of Alaska
Cook Inlet
Bering-Norton
St.George
Beaufort
Navarin
Chukchi
}
Source
Activity associated with this sale has
terminated.
Exploration employment estimates from
Alaska OCS Office as estimated for
Sale 60 EIS.
Alaska OCS Studies Technical Report 18,
Beaufort Sea Petroleum Development
Scenarios:Economic and Demographic
Impacts,Table 3.2,p.80.
Moderate Case,Eastern Gulf of Alaska
Sale 55 Final EIS.
From Lower Cook Inlet Statewide and
Regional Population and Economic
Systems Impact Analysis,Table 3,
p.7.
Low Case from Bering-Norton Petroleum
Development Scenarios Economic and
Demographic Analysis,Table 24,
p.140.
Moderate Case Scenarios as received from
the Alaska OCS Office for St.George
Sale 70 OCS Study.
Adapted from Moderate Find Scenario,
Alaska OCS Studies Technical Report 18,
Beaufort and Demographic Impacts,
Table 3.8,p.89.
Both adapted from Low Case,Lower Cook
Inlet Statewide and Regional Popu-
lation and Economic Systems Impact
Analysis.
Adapted from case described in (7).
Adapted from case described in (3).
A-28
SOURCE FOR EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
HIGH CASE OCS DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
Year
13.1985
14.1986
15.1987
16.1988
17 .1989
18.1990
Location
Hope
Beaufort
Navarin
Chukchi
Navarin
Chukchi
Source
Based on Low Case Scenario received from
Alaska OCS Office describing develop-
ment of Western Beaufort Sea (Sale 71).
Adapted from Low Find Case,OCS Studies
Technical Report 18,Beaufort Sea
Petroleum Development Scenarios:
Economic and Demographic Impacts,
Table 3.6,p.86.
Adapted from Moderate Find Scenario
developed by Alaska OCS Office for
study of development in St.George
Basin after Sale 70.
Adapted from case described in (3).
Exploration Only Scenario adapted from
Low Discovery Scenario developed by
Alaska OCS Office for Study of St.
George OCS Sale 70 Development.
Adapted from case described in (3).
A-29
In the moderate and industrialization scenarios,it is assumed
that lease sales are held as scheduled until 1985 but that the results
of exploration are more discouraging than in the high case,resulting
in fewer post-1985 sales than in the high case.About 6.7 billion
barrels of recoverable oil and 16.4 tri Ilion cubic feet of gas are
discovered on properties leased in such sales,as shown below:
Moderate and Industrialization Case
OCS Development
1976 Gulf of Alaska
1977 Cook Inlet
1979 Beaufort Sea
1980 Gulf of Alaska
1981 Cook Inlet
1982 Bering Norton
1982 St.George
1983 Beaufort Sea
1983 Kodiak
1983 N.Aleutian
1984 Navarin
1985 Chukchi
1985 Hope
1988 Navarin
1989 Chukchi
Year of Sale Location Discoveries
Oil Gas
(BBO)(TCFG)
0 0
0 0
1.3 3.25
0 0
0.332 0.581
0 0
0 0
0.8 1.6
0 0
0 0
2.16 6.12
1.3 3.25
0 0
0 0
0.8 1.6
Total 6.692 16.401
A-30
The employment generated by this level of OCS development is
presented in Tables S-6b and R-6b.Petroleum sector employment
reaches over 4,400 by 1999;construction peaks at over 2,100 in 1991;
and transportation employment reaches about 900.
,
t_________________L
Table S-6b.Statewide Employment By Sector
OCS Development
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
OCS.MOD
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X MTOT
1980 0.09 o.O.0.033 0.123
1981 0.224 O.o.0.099 0.323
1982 0.309 0.028 0.012 0.1 0.449
1983 0.458 O.0.052 O.141 0.651
1984 0.596 0.005 0.03 0.192 0.823
1985 0.675 0.071 0.122 0.488 1.356
1986 0.683 0.205 0.242 0.369 1.499
1987 0.642 0.238 0.735 0.434 2.049
1988 0.639 0.195 1.298 0.487 2.619
1989 0.986 1.165 0.873 0.603 3.627
1990 1.486 1.075 0.858 0.879 4.298
1991 2.409 0.873 1.2~1.104 5.666
1992 2.747 0.619 0.917 0.928 5.211
1993 2.981 O.0.999 0.897 4.877
1994 3.046 O.1.452 0.889 5.387
1995 3.255 O.1.017 0.889 5.161
1996 3.564 O.0.858 0.889 5.311
1997 3.767 O.1.324 0.889 5.98
1998 4.091 O.0.685 0.889 5.665
1999 4.419 O.0.274 0.889 5.582
2000 4.419 O.0.176 0.889 5.484
SOURCE:See text.
A-31
Table R-6b.Regional Distribution of Employment
OCS Development
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
oeS.MOD
801 802 804 811 812 814
1980 O.0.009 O.O.O.114 O.
1981 O.0.022 O.0.216 0.084 O.
1982 O.0.031 0.088 0.216 O.114 O.
1983 O.114 0.046 0.143 0 ..165 0.1 O.
1984 0.213 0.06 0.196 0.036 O.114 O.
1985 0.467 0.067 0.283 O.0.133 O.
1986 0.328 '0.068 0.389 O.0.445 0.038
1987 0.322 0.064 0.829 O.0.474 0.086
1988 0.277 0.064 1.522 O.0.431 0.048
1989 0.908 0.099 1 .271 O.0.442 O.
1990 1.011 0.149 1.737 O.0.39 O.
1991 1.304 0.241 2.415 O.0.403 O.
1992 1 .1 0.275 2.333 O.0.403 O.
1993 0.759 0.298 2.659 O.0.403 O.
1994 0.756 0.305 3.166 O.0.403 O.
1995 0.783 0.325 2.866 O.0.403 O.
1996 0.765 0.356 3.021 O.0.403 O.
1997 0.747 0.377 3.705 O.0.403 O.
1998 0.73 0.409 3.392 O.0.403 O.
1999 0.756 0.442 3.224 O.0.403 O.
2000 0.783 0.442 3.072 O.0.403 O.
815 818 827 MTOTR
1980 O.O.O.0.123
1981 O.O.O.0.323
1982 O.O.O.0.449
1983 0.046 0.038 O.0.651
1984 0.118 0.086 O.0.823
1985 0.281 0.048 0.075 1.356
1986 0.105 O.0.126 1.499
1987 0.046 O.0.228 2.049
1988 O.O.0.277 2.619
1989 O.O.0.908 3.627
1990 O.O.1 .011 4.298
1991 O.O.1.304 5.666
1992 O.O.1 . 1 5.211
1993 O.O.0.759 4.877
1994 O.O.0.756 5.387
1995 O.O.0.783 5.161
1996 O.O.0.765 5.311
1997 O.O.0.747 5.98
1998 O.O.0.73 5.665
1999 O.O.0.756 5.582
2000 O.O.0.783 5.484
A-32
SOURCE FOR EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
MODERATE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION CASES
OCS DEVELOPMENT
Year
1.1976
2.1977
3.1979
4.1980
5.1981
6.1982
7.1982
Loca·tion
Gulf of Alaska
Cook Inlet
Beaufort Sea
Gulf of Alaska
Cook Inlet
Bering Norton
St.George
Source
Activity associated with this sale has
terminated.
Same as (2)in High Case.
Alaska OCS Studies Technical Report 18,
Moderate Find Scenario,Table 3.8,
p.89.
Exploration Only Scenario from Northern
Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development
Scenarios:Economic and Demographic
Impacts,OCS Technical Report 34,
Table 58,p.187.
Low Scenario from Lower Cook Inlet
Statewide and Regional Population
and Economic Systems Impact Analysis,
Table 2,p.6.
Exploration Only Scenario,Bering-Norton
Petroleum Development Scenario:Eco-
nomic and Demographic Impacts Analysis,
Table 23,p.139.
Low Scenario provided by Alaska OCS Office
for study of Sale 70.
8.1983
9.1983
10.1983
11.1984
12.1985
Beaufort Sea
Kodiak
N.Aleutian
Navarin
Chukchi
}
Low Find Scenario in OCS Technical Report
18,Beaufort Sea Petroleum Development
Scenario:Economic and Demographic
Impacts,Table 3.6,p.86.
Exploration Only Scenarios from scenarios
provided by Alaska OCS Office for study
of Sale 46.See 95 Percent Scenario
Exploratory Phase.
Adapted from source described in (15)of
High Case.
Adapted from source in (8)in High Case.
A-33
SOURCE FOR EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
MODERATE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION CASES
OCS DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
Year Location Source
13.1985 Hope Adapted from Exploration Only Scenario
in Bering-Norton Petroleum Develop-
ment Scenario:Economic and Demo-
graphic Analysis,Table 23,p.139.
14.1988 Navarin Adapted from source described in (17)of
High Case.
15.1989 Chukchi Adapted from same source as (8).
A-34
------------------------_\
p
In the low scenario,the areas of lowest resource potential are
dropped entirely from the lease schedule,and discoveries are limited
to the Beaufort Sea.No sales are held after 1985.The schedule and
corresponding discoveries are as follows:
Low Case OCS Development
Year of Sale Location Discoveries
1976
1977
1979
1980
1981
1983
1984
1985
Oil Gas
(BBO)(TCFG)
Gulf of Alaska 0 0
Cook Inlet 0 0
Beaufort Sea 0.5 0.875
Gulf of Alaska 0 0
Cook Inlet 0 0
Beaufort Sea 0.5 0.875
Navarin 0 0
Chukchi 0 0--
Total 1.0 1.75
Except for the Beaufort Sea,employment in this case consists
solely of activities associated with exploration.As shown in
Tables S-6c and R-6c,petroleum sector employment peaks at nearly 770
in 1995;construction,at 833 in 1988;and transportation peaks at 100
in 1983 before falling back to zero by 1990.
A-35
Table S-6e.Statewide Employment By Sector
DCS Development
-Low Case -
oeS.LOIII
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X "lTOT
1980 0.09 O.O.0.033 0.123
1981 0.29 O.0.062 0.099 0.451
1982 0.422 0.028 0.188 0.1 0.738
1983 0.394 O.0.135 0.088 0.617
1984 0.341 O.0.25 0.05 0.641
1985 0.257 O.0.212 0.04 0.509
1986 0.369 O.0.47 0.046 0.885
1987 0.458 O.0.479 0.046 0.983
1988 0.72 O.0.833 0.039 1.592
1989 0.652 O.0.68 0.008 1.34
1990 0.687 O.0.664 O.1.351
1991 0.623 O.0.564 O.1.187
1992 0.649 O.0.61.1 o.1.26
1993 07 O.0.527 O.1.227
1994 0.72 O.0.264 O.0.984
1995 0.768 O.0.191 O.0.959
1996 0.721 O.0.084 O.0.805
1997 0.687 O.0.132 O.0.819
1998 0.663 O.0.132 O.0.795
1999 0.661 O.0.059 O.0.72
2000 0.658 O.0.018 O.0.676
SOURCE:See text.
A-36
Table R-6c.Regional Distribution of Employment
OCS Development
-Low Case -
oeS.LOW
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
B01 B02 B04 611 612 627
O.0.009 O.O.0.114 O.
O.0.029 0.121 0.216 0.084 O.
O.0.042 0.365 0.216 O.114 O.
O.0.039 0.312 0.165 0.101 O.
O.0.034 0.457 0.036 0.114 O.
0.034 0.026 0.331 O.0.084 0.034
0.047 0.037 0.71 O.0.043 0.047
0.055 0.046 0.826 O.O.0.055
0.049 0.072 1.422 O.O.0.049
0.024 0.065 1.227 O.O.0.024
O.0.069 1.282 O.O.O.
O.0.062 1.125 O.O.O.
O.0.065 1.195 O.O.O.
O.0.07 1.157 O.O.O.
O.0.072 0.912 O.O.O.
O.0.077 0.882 O.O.O.
O.0.072 0.733 O.O.O.
O.0.069 0.75 O.O.O.
O.0.066 0.729 O.O.O.
O.0.066 0.654 O.O.O.
O.0.066 0.61 O.O.O.
MToTR
0.123
0.451
0.738
0.617
0.641
0.509
0.885
0.983
1.592
1.34
1.351
1.187
1.26
1.227
0.984
0.959
0.805
0.819
0.795
0.72
0.676
A-37
p
SOURCE FOR EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
LOW CASE OCS DEVELOPMENT
p
Year
1.1976
2.1977
3.1979
4.1980
5.1981
6.1983
7.1984
8.1985
Location
Gulf of Alaska
Cook Inlet
Beaufort Sea
Gulf of Alaska
Cook Inlet
Beaufort Sea
Navarin
Chukchi
Source
Activity associated with this sale has
terminated.
Same as (2)in High Case.
Low Find Scenario in Beaufort Sea Draft
EIS,Table III.C.2.3,p.238.
Exploration Only Scenario from Northern
Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development
Scenario:Economic and Demographic
Impacts Technical Report 34,
Table 58,p.187.
Adapted from source described in (2)
in High Case.
Adapted from source cited in (3).
Adapted from source described in (7)
in Moderate Case.
Exploration Only Scenario adapted from
Minimum Case in Beaufort Sea Draft
EIS,Table III.C.2-3,Exploration
Employment Only.
A-38 l-
1
7.Alaska Oil Company Refinery (Formerly ALPETCO)
In 1978 the State of Alaska awarded Alaska Petrochemical Company
a 27-year contract to purchase up to 150,000 BPD of state-owned
royalty oil to build and operate a petrochemical complex at Valdez.
Revision of the original proposal to a 150,000 BPD refinery complex,
combined with ALPETCO's difficulty in financing the revised proj ect,
caused the state to cut the amount of royalty oil to 75,000 BPD and to
require that a 100,000 BPD refinery be designed by 1981 and opera-
tional by 1986 as conditions of the contract (Oil and Gas Journal,
6/23/80,p.97).
This year,further financing difficulties initially led to an
announcement of the plan's abandonment (Oil and Gas Journal,June 8,
1981).However,in a more recent proposal to the state for purchase
of 1982 royalty oil,AOC announced that it has revived its plans to
construct a 100,000 bpd refinery at Valdez (Oil and Gas Journal,
September 28,1981).
In the moderate,high,extreme high,and industrialization sce-
narios,it is assumed that the 100,000 bpd facility is constructed,
beginning in 1983,and is operational by 1986,generating direct
employment as shown in Tables S-7 and R-7.
In the low scenario,it is assumed that no refinery is
constructed.
A-39
Table S-7.Statewide Employment By Sector
Alaska Oil Company
-High Case -
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
ALP.100
ECONX2 EMMX1 MTOT
1980 O.O.O.
1981 O.O.O.
1982 O.O. O.
1983 0.752 O.0.752
1984 0.752 O.0.752
1985 0.752 O.0.752
1986 O.0.386 0.386
1987 O.0.386 0.386
1988 O.0.,386 0.386
1989 O.0.386 0.386
1990 O.0.386 0.386
1991 O.0.386 0.386
1992 O.0.386 0.386
1993 O.0.386 0.386
1994 O.0.386 0.386
1995 O.0.386 0.386
1996 O.0.386 0.386
1997 O.0.386 0.386
1998 O.0.386 0.386
1999 O.0.386 0.386
2000 O.0.386 0.386
SOURCE:Assumes construction of a 100,000 bpd refinery with manpower
requirements two-thirds of those required for the 150,000 bpd
facility described in EPA,Draft EIS,Alaska Petrochemical
Company Refining and Petrochemical Facility,Valdez,Alaska,
1979,p.42.
A-40
Table R-7.Regional Distribution of Employment
Alaska Oil Company
-High Case -
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
ALP.100
626 MTOTR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-41
o.
O.
O.
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
O.
O.
O.
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
0.386
8.Pacific Alaska LNG
Pacific Alaska LNG Associates,a partnership consisting of
Pacific Lighting Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company,has
proposed an LNG facility on the Kenai Peninsula at Nikiski to liquify
gas from various natural gas fields in Cook Inlet (see above).The
project calls for construction of a 300-mile pipeline gathering sys-
tern,a 400 nuncf per day liquefaction plant,and a loading dock.
Approval of the plan was granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Conunission in August 1979.Construction is expected to begin in 1983.
In the high,extreme high,moderate,and industrialization sce-
narios,construction begins in 1983 with employment peaking at 1,323
in 1985,becoming operational in 1987,employing a permanent work
force of 100,as shown in Tables 8-8 and R-8.
In the low scenario,it is assumed that the plant is not con-
structed due to lawsuits in California over the vaporization plant
proposed for receiving the Alaska LNG.
A-42
>
Table S-8.Statewide Employment By Sector
Pacific Alaska LNG Project
-High Case -
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
PAL.EIS
ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 MTOT
1980 O. O.O.O.
1981 O. O.O.O.
1982 0.146 O.O.0.146
1983 0.844 O. O.0.844
1984 1.323 O.O.1.323
1985 0.42 O. O.0.42
1986 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1987 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1988 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1989 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1990 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1991 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1992 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1993 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1994 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1995 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1996 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1997 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1998 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
1999 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
2000 O.0.04 0.06 0.1
SOu~CE:Construction employment estimates based on letter to Alaska
Department of Natural Resources from Southern California Gas
dated March 17,1978.Other employment estimates from Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,Western LNG Project:Final EIS,
1978.
A-43
Table R-8.Regional Distribution of Employment
Pacific Alaska LNG Project
-High Case -
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
PAL.EIS
612 MTOTR
...
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-44
o.
O.
0.146
0.844
1.323
0.42
0.1
0.1
O.l'
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.
O.
0.146
0.844
1.323
0.42
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
9.Petrochemical Development
In the spring of 1980,the State of Alaska issued a call for
proposals to build a world-scale petrochemical plant in Alaska using
natural gas liquids (NGL)from Prudhoe Bay (Oil and Gas Journal,
5/5/80).After six proposals were submitted in June (Oil and Gas
Journal,6/23/80),the state selected a group headed by Dow Chemical
Company and Shell Chemical Company to conduct feasibility studies of a
petrochemical plant in the state.Dow has proposed a plant to produce
polyethylene,ethylene glycol,ethyl benzene,styrene,cumene,propy-
lene,butanol,and other products from the 230,000 BPD of NGL which
will be produced once the Northwest gas line becomes operational and
Prudhoe gas is produced for sale (Oil and Gas Journal,9/8/80).
However,the State of Alaska has only a one-eighth royalty inter-
est in the NGL produced.The major owners are Exxon,Arco,and Sohio.
Since studies indicate that a large proportion of the NGL will be
required to make a plant economical,the final decision on what type,
if any,plant will be constructed is presently uncertain even if a
plant is determined to be feasible.Exxon has authorized its own
study of alternatives,and the Dow/Shell feasibility study will not be
completed until late this year.Consequently,estimation of future
development is quite speculative.
Employment estimates were developed based on preliminary results
of the Dow/Shell feasibility study as presented in monthly progress
reports to the state.Currently,Dow/Shell sees the development as a
two-stage process,the first involving construction of a natural gas
liquids pipeline between Prudhoe and either Fairbanks or a tidewater
location,as well as development of a plant and marine terminal
facility,and the second involving an expansion of Phase I capacity.
In the high case,it is assumed that only Phase I capacity is
developed,generating employment as shown in Tables S-9a and R-9a.
In both the industrialization and extreme high cases,both phases are
completed,generating direct employment as shown in Table S-9b and
R-9b.
A-45
Table S-9a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Petrochemical Development
-High Case -
PTC.DW2
EMP9 ECDNX2 MTOT
1980 o.o.o.
1981 o.O.o.
1982 o.O.o.
1983 o.O.o.
1984 o.0.409 0.409
1985 o.2.001 2.001
1986 o.5.2a4 5.284
1987 o.3.747 3.747
1988 1.14 4.875 6.015
1989 1.14 1.987 3.127
1990 2.28 1.177 3.457
1991 2.28 ~.868 5.148
1992 2.28 1.027 3.307
1993 3 23 O.3..23
1994 3.23 O.3.23
1995 3.23 O.3.23
1996 3.23 O.3.23
1997 3.23 O.3 23
1998 3.23 O.3.23
1999 3.23 O.3.23
2000 3.23 O.3.23
SOu~CE:See text.
A-46
p
L
Table R-9a.Regional Distribution of Employment
Petrochemical Development
-High Case -
PTC.OW2
804 809 824 826 829 MTOTR
1980 o.O.o.o.o.O.
1981 O.o.o.o.o.O.
1982 O.o.o.o.o.o.
1983 O.o.o.o.o.O.
1984 0.054 0.07 0.011 0.266 0.008 0.409
1985 0.292 0.326 0.062 1.279 0.042 2.001
1986 0.846 0.822 0.184 3.306 0.126 5.284
1987 0.436 0.669 0.087 2.496 0.059 3.747
1988 0.86 0.763 0.19 4.073 0.129 6.015
1989 0.244 0.395 0.049 2.406 0.033 3.127
1990 0.308 0.215 0.07 2.816 0.048 3.457
1991 0.603 0.465 0.135 3.853 0.092 5.148
1992 0.222 0.225 0.048 2.779 0.033 3.307
1993 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
1994 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
1995 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
1996 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
1997 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
1998 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
1999 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
2000 0.182 0.03 0.045 2.943 0.03 3.23
A-47
Table S-9b.Statewide Employment By Sector
Petrochemical Development
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
PTC.DW1
F.MP9 ECONX2 MTOT
1980 o. o.
o.
1981 o.o.o.
1982 o.o.o.
1983 o.o.o.
1984 o.0.409 0.409
1985 o.2.001 2.001
1986 o.5.284 5.284
1987 o.3.747 3.747
1988 1.14 4.875 6.015
1989 1 .14 1.746 2.886
1990 2.28 o.2.28
1991 2.28 Q..2.28
1992 2.28 o.2.28
1993 2.28 o.2.28
1994 2.28 o.2.28
1995 2.28 O.2.28
1996 228 o.2.28
1997 2.28 o.2.28
1998 2.28 o.2.28
1999 2.28 o.2.28
2000 2.28 o.2.28
SOURCE:See text.
A-48
p
l \
Table R-9b.Regional Distribution of Employment
Petrochemical Development
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
PTC.DW1
804 B09 B24 B26 829 MTOTR
1980 O.O.o.O.O.O.
1981 O.O.o.O.O.O.
1982 O.O.O.O.O.O.
1983 O.O.o.O.o.O.
1984 0.054 0.07 0.011 0.266 0.008 0.409
1985 0.292 0.326 0.062 1.279 0.042 2.001
1986 0.846 0.822 0.184 3.306 0.126 5.284
1987 0.436 0.669 0.087 2.496 0.059 3.747
1988 0.86 0.763 0.19 4.073 0.129 6.015
1989 0.212 0.354 0.032 2.26 0.028 2.886
1990 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1991 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1992 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1993 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1994 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1995 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1996 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1997 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1998 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
1999 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
2000 0.137 0.023 0.033 2.064 0.023 2.28
A-49
10.Beluga-Chuitna Coal Production
USGS has long recognized the potential economic significance of a
large number of beds of subbituminous coal on the west side of Cook
Inlet near Tyonek (see USGS,Coal Resources of Alaska,1967).Recent-
ly,several alternative proposals for developing the Beluga-Chuitna
fields for export to Japan or other Pacific rim locations have been
considered (see Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Beluga Coal Field Deve-
lopment:Social Effects and Management Alternatives,1979,and Bechtel,
Preliminary Feasibility Study:Coal Export Program,Chuitna River Field,
Alaska,1980).In addition,a feasibility study is currently underway
to examine the potential for use of such coal in the production of
synthetic fuels (see below).
In the high scenario and the extreme high scenario as well as the
industrialization scenario,it is assumed that an ll-million-ton-per-
year operation is developed in the Beluga-Chuitna area for export or
use as input to a synthetic fuel production process.Construction
employment peaks at 400 in 1984,and the mine becomes operational in
1986,requiring a labor force of 765 (80 percent in mining,20 percent
in transportation)as shown in Tables S-lOa and R-lOa.
In the moderate case,a more modest export program is implemented
on a slower timetable.Production begins in 1989 and eventually
reaches 4.4 tons per year.Construction begins in 1985,with peak
employment of 400 in 1987.Operations employment is 524 distributed
80 percent in mining and 20 percent in transportation,as shown in
Tables S-lOb and R-lOb.
No coal development is assumed to occur in the low case.
A-50
r
Table S-10a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Beluga-Chuitna Coal Production
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
-Industrialization Case -
BCl.11T
FMP9 ECONX2 EMT9X MTOT
1980 O.O. O. O.
1981 O.O.O.O.
1982 O.0.3 O.0.3
1983 O.0.6 O.0.6
1984 O.0.8 O.0.8
1985 O.0.7 O.0.7
1986 0.306 0.4 0.077 0.783
1987 0.612 0.2 0.153 0.965
1988 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1989 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1990 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1991 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1992 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1993 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1994 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1995 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1996 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1997 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1998 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
1999 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
2000 0.612 O.0.153 0.765
SOURCE:Construction employment based on Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories,Beluga Coal Field Development:Social Effects
and Management Alternatives,1979.Other employment based
on Bechtel,Preliminary Feasibility Study:Coal Export Pro-
gram,Chuitna River Field,Alaska,1980.
A-51
-p
Table R-IOa.Regional Distribution of Employment
Beluga Chuitna Coal Production
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
-Industrialization Case -
Bel.11T
B12 MTOTR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-52
o.
O.
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.783
0.965
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
o.
O.
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.783
0.965
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
0.765
-,i
Table S-lOb.Statewide Employment By Sector
Beluga-Chuitna Coal Production
-Moderate Case -
BCL.04T
EMP9 ECONX2 EMT9X MTOT
1980 O.O.O.O.
1981 O.O.O.O.
1982 O.O.O.O.
1983 O.O.O.O.
1984 O.O.O.O.
1985 O.0.15 O.0.15
1986 O.0.3 O.0.3
1987 O.0.4 O.0.4
1988 O.0.35 O.0.35
1989 O.0.2 O.0.2
1990 0.21 0.1 0.053 0.363
1991 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1992 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1993 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1994 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1995 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1996 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1997 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1998 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
1999 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
2000 0.419 O.0.105 0.524
SOURCE:Pacific Northwest Laboratories,op.cit.,and Bechtel,op.cit.
A-53
Table R-IOb.Regional Distribution of Employment
Beluga-Chuitna Coal Production
-Moderate Case -
BCL.04T
~B12 MTOTR
11~
1980 o.o.h:
I 1981 O.O.
1982 O.O.~1983 O.O.~
I 1984 O. O.!~1985 0.15 0.15•1986 0.3 0.31j
I 1987 0.4 0.4
1988 0.35 0.35
1989 0.2 0.2
1990 0.363 0.363~1991 0.524-0.524!~1992 0.524 0.524~1993 0.524 0.524~;1 1994 0.524 0.524!1995 0.524 0.524,
1996 0.524 0.524
1997 0.524 0.524
1998 0.524 0.524
1999 0.524 0.524
2000 0.524 0.524
A-54
11.U.S.Borax Mining Development
U.S.Borax holds claim to a large molybdenum discovery near
Ketchikan.In the high and extreme high scenarios,it is assumed that
this deposit will be developed quickly.Mining employment begins in
la te 1980,reaching a long-term level of 440 by 1993,as shown in
Tables S-ll and R-ll.In the moderate and low scenarios,as well as
the industrialization case,no development is assumed.
A-55
Table S-ll.Statewide Employment By Sector
Molybdenum Mining
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
BXM.EIS
EMP9 MTOT
1980 0.04 0.04
1981 0.04 0.04
1982 0.04 0.04
1983 0.04 0.04
1984 0.04 0.04
1985 0.07 0.07
1986 0.07 0.07
1987 0.07 0.07
1988 0.07 0.07
1989 0.07 0.07
1990 0.24 0.24
1991 0.24 •0.24
1992 0.34 0.34
1993 0.44 0.44
1994 0.44 0.44
1995 0.44 0.44
1996 0.44 0.44
1997 0.44 0.44
1998 0.44 0.44
1999 0.44 0.44
2000 0.44 0.44
SOURCE:U.S.D.A.Forest Service,E1S:U.S.Borax Mining Access Road
for Quartz Hill Proposal,1977.
A-56
p
Table R-II.Regional Distribution of Employment
Molybdenum Mining
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
BXM.EIS
B 11 MTOTR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-57
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.24'
0.24
0.34
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.24
0.24
0.34
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
12.Aluminum Smelting
One possible effect of the availability of low-cost hydropower on
Alaska would be the attraction of energy intensive industries to the
state.Recent studies have examined the potential of low-cost hydro-
power for attraction of such industries to the state (see,for
example,Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Energy Intensive Industries for
Alaska,1978).Of all industries generally examined for such poten-
tial,the primary aluminum industry generally emerges as the most
likely to succeed in Alaska.
In the industrialization and extreme high scenarios,it is
assumed that a 180,000-ton-per-year aluminum smelter is developed in
the Railbelt area,with construction beginning in 1990.The plant is
operational by 1992.Construction employment peaks at 1,126 in 1991,
and operations employment reaches its long-term level of 800 by 1992,
as shown in Tables S-12 and R-12.
No such development is assumed in any of the other scenarios.
A-58
Table S-12.Statewide Employment By Sector
Aluminum Smelting
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
ASM.ALX
ECONX2 EMMXl MTOT
1980 O.O. O.
1981 O.O.O.
1982 O.O. O.
1983 O.O.O.
1984 O.O.O.
1985 O.O.O.
1986 O.O. O.
1987 O.O. O.
1988 O.O. O.
1989 O.O.O.
1990 0.414 O.0.414
1991 1.126 0.083 1.209
1992 0.327 0.705 1.032
1993 O.0.8 0.8
1994 O.0.8 0.8
1995 O.0.8 0.8
1996 O.0.8 0.8
1997 O.0.8 0.8
1998 O.0.8 0.8
1999 O.0.8 0.8
2000 O.0.8 0.8
SOURCE:Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,Energy Intensive
Industry for Alaska,Volume II:Case Analysis,p.2.21,
Table C.l.
A-59
Table R-12.Regional Distribution of Employment
Aluminum Smelting
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
ASM,ALX
817 MTOTR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0,
o.
0.414 •
1.209
1.032
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
A-60
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0,
o.
0.414
1.209
1.032
0.8
0.8
0,8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0,8
0.8
13.Synthetic Fuels Development
Together with Placer Arnex,Inc.,of California,the Cook Inlet
Regional Corporation has begun to investigate the feasibility of con-
structing a $1.6 billion synthetic fuels plant on Cook Inlet,using
coal from its Beluga field coal leases (see above).The plant would
consume about 7.3 million tons of coal annually (Anchorage Daily News,
4/26/80)and produce 54,000 barrels of methanol per day,using tech-
nology demonstrated in about 20 methanol conversion facilities outside
of the United States.The companies were awarded a grant in August
1980 from the Department of Energy to conduct a $3.8 million feasi-
bility study for the plant,which is not expected to be complete until
late 1981.Consequently,employment estimates are highly speculative.
In the industrialization scenario,it is assumed that the syn-
thetic fuels plant is constructed in conjunction with the 11 million
ton/year Beluga mining development,with the 7.3 million tons required
by the plant used on site to produce methanol for export to the West
Coast.
Construction begins in 1986,and the plant is operational by
1990,employing a full-time work force of 200 persons.
No synthetic fuels development is included in any of the other
scenarios.
A-61
Table 8-13.Statewide Employment By Sector
Synthetic Fuels Development
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
SFD.PAX
ECONX2 EMMX1 MTOT
1980 O.O.O.
1981 O.O.O.
1982 O.O.O.
1983 O.O.O.
1984 O.O. O.
1985 O.O.O.
1986 0.5 O.0.5
1987 0.5 O.0.5
1988 0.5 O.0.5
1989 0.5 0.1 0.6
1990 O.q.2 0.2
1991 O.0.2 0.2
19"12 O.0.2 0.2
1993 O.0.2 0.2
1994 O.0.2 0.2
1995 O.0.2 0.2
1996 O.0.2 0.2
1997 O.0.2 0.2
1998 O.0.2 0.2
1999 O.0.2 0.2
2000 O.0.2 02
SOURCE:Construction estimates assume 2,000 man-years for plant con-
struction.Operations employment estimates based on informal
conversations with Placer Amex officials.Includes only syn-
fuels plant operations employment,not mining employment
(which is included above as part of Beluga coal development).
A-62
p
Table R-13.Regional Distribution of Employment
Synthetic Fuels Development
-Industrialization Case -
-Extreme High Case -
SFO.PAX
B12 MTOTR
1980 O.O.
1981 O.O.
1982 O.O.
1983 O.O.
1984 O.O.
1985 O.O.
1986 0.5 0.5
1987 0.5 0.5
1988 0.5 0.5
1989 0.6 0.6
1990 0.2 0.2
1991 0.2 0.2
1992 0.2 0.2
1993 0.2 0.2
1994 0.2 0.2
1995 0.2 0.2
1996 0.2 0.2
1997 0.2 0.2
1998 0.2 0.2
1999 0.2 0.2
2000 0.2 0.2
A-63
14.State Capital Move
Alaskan voters in a referendum in 1974 elected to move the state
capital from its current site in Juneau to a new site subsequently
chosen at Willow,on the railbelt.
In the high and extreme high scenarios,it is assumed that this
move begins in 1983.It is a full move involving the relocation of
some 2,750 state employees,completed in 1996.As shown in Tables
S-14 and R-14,construction employment peaks at 1,560 in 1990.
In the low,moderate,and industrialization scenarios,it is
assumed that no capital move is successfully funded so that state
government remains in Juneau.
A-64
Table S-14.Statewide Employment By Sector
Capital Move
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
CAP.SCS
ECONX2 MTOT
1980 O. O.
1981 O.O.
1982 O. O.
1983 0.85 0.85
1984 0.65 0.65
1985 1.16 1.16
1986 1.11 1 . 11
1987 0.7 0.7
1988 0.65 0.65
1989 1.15 1.15
1990 1.56 1.56
1991 1.23 1.23
1992 0.98 0.98
1993 0.7 0.7
1994 0.65 0.65
1995 0.65 0.65
1996 0.65 0.65
1997 O.O.
1998 O.O.
1999 O.O.
2000 O.O.
SOURCE:M.Scott,Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population,1965-
2025:A Base Study and Projections,1979,High Scenario.
A-65
Table R-14.Regional Distribution of Employment
Capital Move
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
CAP.SCS
B17 MTOTR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A-66
o.
o.
O.
0.85
0.65
1.16
1.11
0.7
0.65
1.15
1.56
1.23
0.98
0.7
0.65
0.65
0.65
O.
O.
o.
o.
o.
o.
O.
0.85
0.65-
1.16
1.11
0.7
0.65
1 .15
1.56
1.23
0.98
0.7
0.65
0.65
0.65
O.
O.
O.
O.
~'
ilIIilII L
C.INDUSTRY ASSUMPTIONS
In addition to the project-specific assumptions described above,
other portions of the exogenous sectors are affected by trends and
events which must be anticipated,although they are not as directly
traceable to specific development projects.These sectors include the
following:the portion of mining sector employment not accounted for
by the above projects,which will be called "other mining";the agri-
culture,forestry,and fisheries industries in their entirety;and the
residual component of manufacturing employment not accounted for by
specific projects or by activities associated with fisheries (i.e.,
food processing)or forestry (i.e.,pulp and paper manufacturing).
The final exogenous component of employment is federal government
sector employment.We turn now to a discussion of the assumptions
used to describe developments in these sectors.
1.Other Mining Activity
In 1979,total mining sector employment in Alaska was 5,773,of
which 5,354 was in oil and gas.Of this,2,633 was accounted for by
proj ects discussed above.The residual,or 3,140,is classified as
"other mining."It consists of administrative personnel in Anchorage
associated with minerals industries,a variety of petroleum explora-
tion activities on the North Slope and elsewhere not broken down by
project (i.e.,the Husky operation in NPR-A,various drilling contrac-
tors on state and Native lands,seismic work being conducted offshore
prior to OCS lease sales,etc.),and hardrock mining activities.
In the high and extreme high scenarios,it is assumed that such
employment increases at a 2 percent annual rate from its current
level.In both the moderate and industrialization scenarios,it is
assumed that such employment increases at 1 percent annually.In the
low scenario,such employment is assumed to maintain its 1979 level,
as shown in Tables S-15 and R-15.
A-67
Table S-15a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Other Mining
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
OMN.08H
EMP9 MTDT
1980 3.203 3.203
1981 3.267 3.267
1982 3.332 3.332
1983 3.399 3.399
1984 3.467 3.467
1985 3.536 3.536
1986 3.607 3.607
1987 3.679 3.679
1988 3.753 3.753
1989 3.828 3.828
1990 3.904 3.904
1991 3.982 3.982
1992 4.062 4.06.2
1993 4.143 4.143
1994 4.226 4.226
1995 4.311 4.311
1996 4.397 4.397
1997 4.485 4.485
1998 4.574 4.574
1999 4.666 4.666
2000 4.759 4.759
SOURCE:See text.
A-68
Table R-lSa.Regional Distribution of Employment
Other Mining
-High Case
Extreme High Case
OMN.08H
001 802 804 805 808 B09
1980 o 015 2.015 0.813 0.004 o 053 0.033
1981 0.016 2.056 0.829 0.004 0.054 0.033
1982 0.016 2.097 o 846 0.004 0.055 0.034
1983 o 016 2.139 0.863 0.004 0.056 0.035
1984 o 017 2.181 0.88 0.005 0.058 0.035
1985 0.017 2.225 0.897 0.005 0.059 0.036
1986 0.017 2.269 0.915 0.005 0.06 0.037
1987 0.018 2.315 0.934 0.005 0.061 0.03B
1988 0.018 2.361 o 952 0.005 0.062 0.038
1989 O.OlB 2.408 0.971 0.005 0.064 0.039
1990 0.019 2.457 0.991 0.005 0.065 0.04
1991 0.019 2.506 1.011 0.005 0.066 0.041
1992 0.019 2.556 1.031 0.005 0.067 0.041
1993 0.02 2.607 1.052 0.005 0.069 0.042
1994 0.02 2.659 1.073 0.005 0.07 0.043
1995 0.021 2.712 1.094 0.006 0.072 0.044
1996 0.021 2.766 1.116 0.006 0.073 0.045
1997 0.022 2.B22 1.13B 0.006 0.074 0.046
1998 0.022 2.878 1.161 0.006 0.076 0.047
1999 0.022 2.936 1.184 0.006 0.077 0.048
2000 0.023 2.995 1.20B 0.006 0.079 0.049
Bll B14 B16 B17 B18 B21
1980 0.04 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.099 o 017
1981 0.041 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.101 0.018
1982 0.041 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.103 O.OlB
1983 0.042 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.105 0.018
1984 0.043 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.107 0.019
1985 0.044 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.109 0.019
1986 0.045 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.111 0.019
19B7 0.046 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.114 0.02
1988 0.047 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.1'6 0.02
1989 0.047 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.118 0.021
1990 0.048 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.121 0.021
1991 0.049 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.123 0.022
1992 0.05 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.126 0.022
1993 0.051 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.128 0.022
1994 0.052 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.131 0.023
1995 0.053 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.133 0.023
1996 0.055 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.136 0.024
1997 0.056 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.139 0.024
1998 0.057 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.141 0.025
1999 0.058 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.144 0.025
2000 0.059 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.147 0.026
825 B26 B29 IolTOTR
1980 0.01 0.004 0.09 3.203
1981 0.01 0.004 0.091 3.267
1982 0.011 0.004 0.093 3.332
1983 0.011 0.004 0.095 3.399
1984 0.011 0.005 0.097 3.467
1985 0.011 0.005 0.099 3.536
I )0.012 0.005 0.101 3.607
1 0.012 0.005 0.103 3.679
1988 0.012 0.005 0.105 3.753
1989 0.012 0.005 0.107 3.828
1990 0.012 0.005 0.109 3.904
1991 0.013 0.005 O.112 3.982
1992 0.013 0.005 0.114 4.062
1993 0.013 0.005 0.116 4.143
1994 0.014 0.005 O.118 4.226
1995 0.014 0.006 0.121 4.311
1996 0.014 0.006 0.123 4.397
1997 0.014 0.006 0.1:16 4.485
1998 0.015 0.006 0.1:18 4.574
1999 0.015 0.006
0.131 4.666
:1000 0.015 0.006 0.133 4.759
A-69
Table S-lSb.Statewide Employment By Sector
Other Mining
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
OMNoEPH
EMP9 MTOT
1980 3.171 3.171
1981 3.203 3.203
1982 3.235 3.235
1983 3.267 3.267
1984 3.3 3.3
1985 3.333 3.333
1986 3.367 3.367
1987 3.4 3.4
1988 3.434 3.434
1989 3.469 3.469
1990 3.503 3.503
1991 3.538 3.538
1992 3.574 3.574
1993 3.609 3.609
1994 3.645 3.645
1995 3.682 3.682
1996 3.719 3.719
1997 3.756 3.756
1998 3.793 3.793
1999 3.831 3.831
2000 3.869 3.869
SOL~CE:See text.
A-70
>b
Table R-15b.Regional Distribution of Employment
Other Mining
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
OMN.EPH
801 802 804 805 808 809 811 814
1980 0.015 1.995 0.805 0.004 0.053 0.032 0.039 0.002
1981 0.015 2.015 0.813 0.004 0.053 0.033 0.04 0.002
1982 0.016 2.035 0.821 0.004 0.054 0.033 0.04 0.002
1983 0.016 2.056 0.829 0.004 0.054 0.033 0.041 0.002
1984 0.016 2.076 0.838 0.004 0.055 0.034 0.041 0.002
1985 0.016 2.097 0.846 0.004 0.055 0.034 0.041 0.002
1986 0.016 2.119 0.855 0.004 0.056 0.034 0.042 0.002
1987 0.016 2.139 0.863 0.004 0.056 0.035 0.042 0.002
1988 0.016 2.161 0.872 0.004 0.057 0.035 0.043 0.002
1989 0.017 2.183 0.88 0.005 0.058 0.035 0.043 0.002
1990 0.017 2.204 0.889 0.005 0.058 0.036 0.043 0.002
1991 0.017 2.226 0.898 0.005 0.059 0.036 0.044 0.002
1992 0.017 2.249 0.907 0.005 0.059 0.036 0.044 0.002
1993 0.017 2.271 0.916 0.005 0.06 0.037 0.045 0.002
1994 0.017 2.293 0.925 0.005 0.061 0.037 0.045 0.002
1995 0.018 2.317 0.934 0.005 0.061 0.038 0.046 0.002
1996 0.018 2.34 0.944 0.005 0.062 0.038 0.046 0.002
1997 0.018 2.363 0.953 0.005 0 ..062 0.038 0.047 0.002
1998 0.018 2.387 0.963 0.005 0.063 0.039 0.047 0.002
1999 0.018 2.41 0.972 0.005 0.064 0.039 0.048 0.002
2000 0.019 2.434 0.982 0.005 0.064 0.039 0.048 0.002
816 817 818 821 825 826 829 MTOTR
1980 0.004 0.003 0.098 0.017 0.01 0.004 0.089 3.171
1981 0.004 0.003 0.099 0.017 0.01 0.004 0.09 3.203
1982 0.004 0.003 O.1 0.017 0.01 0.004 0.091 3.235
1983 0.004 0.003 0.101 0.018 0.01 0.004 0.091 3.267
1984 0.004 0.003 0.102 0.018 0.011 0.004 0.092 3.3
1985 0.004 0.003 0.103 0.018 0.011 0.004 0.093 3.333
1986 0.004 0.003 0.104 0.018 0.011 0.004 0.094 3.367
1987 0.004 0.003 0.105 0.018 0.011 0.004 0.095 3.4
1988 0.004 0.003 0.106 0.019 0.011 0.004 0.096 3.434
1989 0.005 0.003 0.107 0.019 0.011 0.005 0.097 3.469
1990 0.005 0.004 0.108 0.019 0.011 0.005 0.098 3.503
1991 0.005 0.004 0.109 0.019 0.011 0.005 0.099 3.538
1992 0.005 0.004 0.11 0.019 0.011 0.005 0.1 3.574
1993 0.005 0.004 0.112 0.019 0.012 0.005 0.101 3.609
1994 0.005 0.004 O.113 0.02 0.012 0.005 0.102 3.645
1995 0.005 0.004 O.114 0.02 0.012 0.005 0.103 3.682
1996 0.005 0.004 O.115 0.02 0.012 0.005 0.104 3.719
1997 0.005 0.004 0.116 0.02 0.012 0.005
0.105 3.756
1998 0.005 0.004 0.117 0.02 0.012 0.005
0.106 3.793
1999 0.005 0.004 0.118 0.021 0.012 0.005 0.107 3.831
2000 0.005 0.004 0.12 0.021 0.012 0.005 0.108 3.869
A-71
Table S-15c.Statewide Employment By Sector
Other Mining
-Low Case -
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
SOURCE:See text.
EMP9
3.140
3.140
MTOT
3.140
3.140
•
A-72
Table R-lSc.Regional Distribution of Employment
Other Mining
-Low Case -
0"'''1.EPN
601 602 604 B05 608 609
1980 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1981 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1982 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1983 o 015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1984 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1985 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1986 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1987 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1988 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1989 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1990 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1991 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1992 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1993 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
'994 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1995 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1996 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1997 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1998 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
1999 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
2000 0.015 1.976 0.797 0.004 0.052 0.032
Bl1 614 B16 611'B18 621
1980 0.039 0002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1981 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1982 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1983 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
'984.0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
'985 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1986 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1987 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1988 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1989 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1990 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1991 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1992 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1993 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1994 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1995 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1996 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1997 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1998 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
1999 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
2000 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.097 0.017
825 626 829 "'TOTR
1980 0.01 0.004 o 088 3.14
1981 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1982 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1983 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1984 0.01 0.004 0.088
3.14
1985 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
;';j 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1988 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1989 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
'990 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1991 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1992 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1993 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1994 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1995 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1996 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1997 0.01 0.004 0.088
3.14
1998 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
1999 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
2000 0.01 0.004 0.088 3.14
A-73
-
2.Agriculture
The assumptions used for the agriculture sector are based on
scenarios developed by Michael Scott in Southcentral Alaska's Economy
and Population,1965-2025:A Base Study and Projections,1979.
In the high and extreme high scenarios,favorable state and
federal policies combine with favorable market conditions to produce
maj or agricultural developments in Alaska,with employment reaching
4,600 by the year 2000.
In both the moderate and industrialization scenarios,either less
favorable market conditions or restrictive land policies lower growth
in agriculture,with employment reaching only 1,037 by the year 2000.
The low scenario represents a "worst case"for agriculture deve-
lopment.Due either to restrictive state and federal policies or to
unfavorable market conditions,agriculture begins a long period of
decline,eventually disappearing by 1992.
These assumptions are presented in Tables S-16 and R-16.
t
L.......iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiii •
A
.-.
74
•L
Table S-16a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Agricul ture
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
AGR.SCH
EMA9 MTOT
SOURCE:See text.
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0.178
0.178
0.166
0.214
0.27
0.31
0.338
0.376
0.468
0.59
0.784 •
1.014
1.314
1.712
2.122
2.406
2.706
3.104
3.528
4.018
4.608
A-75
0.178
0.178
0.166
0.214
0.27
0.31
0.338
0.376
0.468
0.59
0.784
1.014
1.314
1.712
2.122
2.406
2.706
3.104
3.528
4.018
4.608
Table R-16a.Regional Distribution of Employment
Agriculture
-High Case -
-Extr~me High Case -
AGR.SCH
B01 B09 B12 B17 MTOTR
1980 0.013 0.044 0.008 0.113 0.178
1981 0.013 0.044 0.008 0.113 0.178
1982 0.013 0.04 0.008 0.105 0.166
1983 0.013 0.054 0.008 0.139 0.214
1984 0.013 0.069 0.008 0.18 0.27
1985 0.013 0.08 0.008 0.209 0.31
1986 0.013 0.088 0.008 0.229 0.338
1987 0.013 0.099 0.008 0.256 0.376
1988 0.013 0.124 0.008 0.323 0.468
1989 0.013 0.158 0.008 0.411 0.59
1990 0.013 0.212 0'.008 0.551 0.784
1991 0.013 0.276 0.008 0.717 1.014
1992 0.013 0.36 0.008 0.933 1.314
1993 0.013 0.47 0.008 1.221 1.712
1994 0.013 0.584 0.008 1.517 2.122
1995 0.013 0.663 0.008 1.722 2.406
1996 0.013 0.747 0.008 1.938 2.706
1997 0.013 0.857 0.008 2.226 3.104
1998 0.013 0.975 0.008 2.532 3.528
1999 0.013 1.112 0.008 2.885 4.018
2000 0.013 1.276 0.008 3.311 4.608
A-76
....'11I1__
Table S-16b.Statewide Employment By Sector
Agriculture
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
AGR.SCM
EMA9 MTOT
1980 0.178 0.178
1981 0.178 0.178
1982 0.166 0.166
1983 0.204 0.204
1984 0.228 0.228
1985 0.252 0.252
1986 0.276 0.276
1987 0.3 0.3
1988 0.357 0.357
1989 0.413 0.413
1990 0.47 0.47
1991 0.527 0.527
1992 0.583 0.583
1993 0.64 0.64
1994 0.697 0.697
1995 0.753 0.753
1996 0.81 0.81
1997 0.867 0.867
1998 0.923 0.923
1999 0.98 0.98
2000 1.037 1.037
A-77
•
Table R-16b.Regional Distribution of Employment
Agriculture
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
AGR.SCM
B01 B09 612 617 MTOTR
1980 0.013 0.044 0.008 O.113 0.178
1981 0.013 0.044 0.008 O.113 0.178
1982 0.013 0.04 0.008 0.105 0.166
1983 0.013 0.051 0.008 0.132 0.204
1984 0.013 0.058 0.008 0.149 0.228
1985 0.013 0.064 0.008 0.167 0.252
1986 0.013 0.071 0.008 0.184 0.276
1987 0.013 0.078 0.008 0.201 0.3
1988 0.013 0.093 0.008 0.243 0.357
1989 0.013 0.109 0.008 0.283 0.413
1990 0.013 0.125 0.008 0.324 0.47
1991 0.013 0.141 0.608 0.365 0.527
1992 0.013 0.156 0.008 0.406 0.583
1993 0.013 0.172 0.008 0.447 0.64
1994 0.013 0.188 0.008 0.488 0.697
1995 0.013 0.204 0.008 0.528 0.753
1996 0.013 0.219 0.008 0.57 0.81
1997 0.013 0.235 0.008 0.611 0.867
1998 0.013 0.251 0.008 0.651 0.923
1999 0.013 0.267 0.008 0.692 0.98
2000 0.013 0.283 0.008 0.733 1.037
A-78
-======.....iiiiiiiiiiiii .lllllt--
Table S-16c.Statewide Employment By Sector
Agriculture
-Low Case -
AGRoSCL
EMA9 MTOT
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0.178
0.178
0.166
0.156
0.156
0.128
0.126
0.096
0.076
0.058
0.046
0.032 •
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
A-79
0.178
0.178
0.166
0.156
0.156
0.128
0.126
0.096
0.076
0.058
0.046
0.032
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
Table R-16c.Regional Distribution of Employment
Agriculture
-Low Case -
AGRoSCL
B01 B09 B12 B17 MTOTR
1980 00012 0.044 0.007 0.114 0.178
1981 0.012 00044 0.007 00114 0.178
1982 0.011 0.041 0.007 0.107 0.166
1983 0.011 0.039 0.007 0.1 0 ..156
1984 0.011 0.039 0.007 0.1 0.156
1985 0.009 ·0.032 0.005 0.082 0.128
1986 0.009 0.031 0.005 0.081 0.126
1987 0.007 0.024 0.004
0.062 0.096
1988 0.005 0.019 0.003 0.049 0.076
1989 0.004 0.014 0.002 0.037 0.058
1990 0.003 0.011 '0.002 0.03 0.046
1991 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.021 00032
1992 O.O.O.O.O.
1993 O.o.o.o.O.
1994 O.O.O.O.O.
1995 O.O.o.O.o.
1996 O.O.O.o.O.
1997 O.O.O.O.O.
1998 o.o.o.o.o.
1999 O.O.O.O.O.
2000 o.O.O.O.O.
I
I
J
i
.........A-.80 l
3.Fisheries/Food Processing
In all cases,existing fisheries harvesting employment remains
constant throughout the forecast period at its current level of about
6,363.2
In the high and extreme high scenarios,major expansion of
bottomfishing occurs,with 100 percent replacement of the foreign
fishing effort within the 200-mile limit by the year 2000.Total
fisheries harvesting and processing employment rises to 17,489 by the
year 2000,as shown in Tables S-17a and R-17a.
In both the moderate and industrialization cases,a more moderate
expansion of bottomfishing replaces 50 percent of the foreign fishing
effort within the 200-mile limit by the year 2000.Total employment
reaches 16,483,as shown in Tables S-17b and R-17b.
In the low scenario,no bottomfishing development occurs.Total
employment remains at 13,486,as shown in Tables S-17c and R-17c.
(In all cases,food processing employment increases in the same
proportion as fisheries employment.This assumes that any increase in
the productivity of fisheries can be matched by corresponding
increases in food processing productivity.)
2Based on projection to 1980 of estimates presented in G.Rogers,
Measuring the Socioeconomic Impacts of Alaska's Fisheries,ISER,4/80.
A-81
Table S-17a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Fisheries/Food Processing
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
FFPoRGH
ECONX2 EMMX2 EMPROF MTOT
1980 0.15 70462 6.666 14.278
1981 0.15 70598 6.787 14.535
1982 0.15 70734 60909 140793
1983 0.15 7.869 7.029 15.048
1984 0.15 8.005 70 151 150306
1985 0.15 8.141 7.272 150563
1986 0.15 8.208 7.332 15.69
1987 0.15 8.276 7.393 15.819
1988 0.15 8.334 7.445 15.929
1989 0015 8.412 7.514 16.076
1990 0015 8.48 70575 160205
1991 0.15 80548 7.636 16.334
1992 0.15 8.615 7.696 16.461
1993 0.15 8.683 7.757 16.59
1994 0.15 8.751 7.817 16.718
1995 0.15 8.819 7.878 16.847
1996 0.15 8.887 7.939 16.976
1997 0.15 80955 8.17.104
1998 0.15 9.022 8.059 17 .231
1999 0.15 9.09 8.12 17036
2000 0.15 9.158 80 181 17.489
A-82
Table R-17a.Regional Distribution of Employment
Fisheries/Food Processing
-High Case -
Extreme High Case
FFP.RGH
BOI B02 B05 B06 B08 811
1980 2.314 0.5t2 0.285 1.724 0.763 3.8'8
1981 2.356 0.521 0.291 1.755 0.777 3.887
1982 2.397 0.531 0.296 1.786 0.79 3.956
'983 2.438 0.54 0.301 1.817 0.804 4.025
'984 2.48 0.549 0.306 1.848 0.818 4.094
'985 2.521 0.558 0.311 1.87'9 0.832 4 163
'986 2.542 0.562 0.314 1.894 0.838 4.197
'987 2.562 0.567 0.316 1.91 0.845 4.231
1988 2.58 0.57\0.319 1.923 0.·851 4.26'
'989 2.604 0.576 0.322 1.94\0.859 4.3
1990 2.625 0.58 ,0.324 ,.957 0.866 4.335
1991 2.645 0.585 0.327 1.972 0.873 4.369
'992 2.666 0.59 0.329 1.988 0.88 4.403
'993 2.687 0.594 o 332 2.003 0.887 4.438
1994 2.707 0.599 0.334 2.019 0.894 4.472
1995 2.728 0.604 o 337 2.034 0.901 4.507
'996 2.749 0.608 0.34 2.05 0.907 4.541
1997 2.77 0.613 0.342 2.065 0.914 4.576
1998 2.79 0.617 0.345 2.081 0.921 4.61
1999 2.811 0.622 0.347 2.096 0.928 4.644
2000 2.832 0.626 0.35 2.112 0.935 4.679
.
B12 B14 B15 B16 B18 821
1980 1.326 0.045 3.079 0.005 0.057 0.062
'981 1.35 0.045 3 .•35 0.005 0.058 0.063
1982 1.374 0.046 3.'9 0.005 0.059 0.064
1983 1.397 0.047 3.246 0.005 0.06 0.065
1984 1.42'0.048 3.301 0.005 0.06t 0.067
1985 1.445 0.049 3.357 0005 0.062 0.068
1986 1.457 0.049 3.384 0.005 0.062 0.068
1987 1.469 0.05 3.412 0.005 0.063 0.069
'988 1.479 0.05 3 435 0.005 0.063 0.069
1989 1 _493 0.05 3.467 0.005 0.064 0.07
1990 1.505 0.051 3.495 0.005 0.064 0.07
'991 1.517 0.051 3.523 0.005 0.065 0.071
1992 1.529 0.052 3.55 0.005 0.065 0.072
1993 1.541 0.052 3.578 0.005 0.066 0.072
1994 1.552 0.052 3.606 0.005 0.066 0.073
1995 1.564 0.053 3.633 0.006 0.067 0.073
1996 1.576 0.053 3.661 0.006 0.067 0.074
1997 1.588 0.054 3.689 0.006 0.068 0.074
1998 1.6 0.054 3.716 0.006 0.069 0.075
'999 1.612 0.054 3.744 0.006 0.069 0.076
2000 1.624 0.055 3.772 0.006 0.07 0.076
B26 B27 "HOTR
1980 0.056 0.232 14.278
1981 0.057 0.237 14.535
1982 0.058 0.241 14.793
1983 0.059 0.245 15.048
1984 0.06 0.249 15.306
1985 0.061 0.253 15.563
1 )0.061 0.256 '5.69
\'-0.062 0.258 15.819
1988 0.062 0.259 15.929
1989 0.063 0.262 16.076
1990 0.063 0.264 '6.205
1991 0.064 0.266 \6.334
\992 0.064 0.268 16.461
'993 o 065 0.27 16.589
'994 0.065 0.272 16.718
1995 0.066 0.274 16.847
1996 0.066 0.277 16.976
'997 0.067 0.279 '7.104
1998 0.067 0.28''7.231
1999 0.068 0.283 17.36
2000 0.068 0.285 17.489
A-83
Table S-17b.Statewide Employment By Sector
Fisheries/Food Processing
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
FFP.RGM
ECONX2 EMMX2 EMPROF MTOT
1980 00 7.462 6.666 14.128
1981 0.75 7.53 60727 15.007
1982 0.75 7.598 6.787 15.135
1983 0.75 7.666 6.848 15.264
1984 0.75 7.734 6.909 15.393
1985 0.75 7.801 6.969 15.52
1986 0.75 7.835 6.999 15.584
1987 0.75 7.869 7.029 15.648
1988 0.75 7.903 7.06 15.713
1989 0.75 7.937 7.09 15.777
1990 0.75 7.971 7.12 15.841
1991 0.75 8.005 7.151 15.906
1992 0.75 8.039 7.181 15.97
1993 0.75 8.073 7.212 16.035
1994 0.75 8.107 7.242 16.099
1995 0.75 8.141 7.272 16.163
1996 0.75 8.174 7.302 16.226
1997 0.75 8.208 7.332 16.29
1998 0.75 8.242 7.363 16.355
1999 0.75 8.276 7.393 16.419
2000 0.75 8.31 7.423 16.483
A-84
Table R-17b.Regional Distribution of Employment
Fisheries/Food Processing
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
FFP.RGM
BOl B02 B05 B06 B08 Bll B12 B14
1980 2.277 0.502 0.2B3 1.70B 0.758 3.787 1.312 0.045
19B1 2.481 0.557 0.296 1.803 0.79 3.979 1.391 0.045
1982 2.502 0.562 0.298 1.818 0.797 4.013 1.403 0.045
1983 2.523 0.566 0.301 1.834 0.804 4.048 1.415 0.046
1984 2.544 0.571 0.303 1.849 0.811 4.082 1.427 0.046
1985 2.564 0.575 0.306 1.865 0.818 4.116 1.439 0.047
1986 2.574 0.578 0.307 1.872 0.821 4.133 1.445 0.047
1987 2.585 0.58 0.309 1.88 0.824 4.151 1.451 0.047
1988 2.595 0.582 0.31 1.888 0.828 4.168 1.457 0.047
1989 2.605 0.585 0.311 1.896 0.831 4.185 1.463 0.048
1990 2.616 0.587 0.312 1.904 0.835 4.202 1.469 0.048
1991 2.626 0.589 0.314 1 .911 0.838 4.22 1.474 0.048
1992 2.637 0.591 0.315 1.919 0.842 4.237 1.48 0.048
1993 2.647 0.594 0.316 1.927 0.845 4.254 1.486 0.048
1994 2.657 0.596 0.318 1.935 0.849 4.271 1.492 0.049
1995 2.668 0.598 0.319 1.942 0.852 4.289 1.498 0.049
1996 2.678 0.601 0.32 1.95 0.855 4.305 1.504 0.049
1997 2.688 0.603 0.321 1.958 0.859 4.323 1.51 0.049
1998 2.699 0.605 0.323 1.966 0.862 4.34 1.516 0.049
1999 2.709 0.607 0.324 1.973 0.866 4.357 1.522 0.05
2000 2.719 0.61 0.325 1.981 0.869 4.374 1.528 0.05
B15 B16 B18 B21 B26 B27 "'TOTR
1980 3.046 0.005 0.057 0.062 0.055 0.231 14.128
1981 3.242 0.005 0.057 0.063 0.058 0.241 15.007
1982 3.27 0.005 0.058 0.063 0.059 0.243 15.135
1983 3.297 0.005 0.058 0.064 0.059 0.245 15.264
1984 3.325 0.005 0.059 0.064 0.06 0.247 15.393
1985 3.352 0.005 0.059 0.065 0.06 0.249 15.52
1986 3.366 0.005 0.059 0.065 0.06 0.25 15.584
1987 3.38 0.005 0.06 0.065 0.061 0.251 15.648
1988 3.394 0.005 0.06 0.066 0.061 0.252 15.713
1989 3.408 0.005 0.06 0.066 0.061 0.253 15.777
1990 3.422 0.005 0.061 0.066 0.061 0.254 15.841
1991 3.436 0.005 0.061 0.067 0.062 0.256 15.906
1992 3.45 0.005 0.061 0.067 0.062 0.257 15.97
1993 3.463 0.005 0.061 0.067 0.062 0.258 16.035
1994 3.477 0.005 0.062 0.067 0.062 0.259 16.099
1995 3.491 0.005 0.062 0.068 0.063 0.26 16.163
1996 3.505 0.005 0.062 0.068 0.063 0.261 16.226
1997 3.519 0.005 0.062 0.068 0.063 0.262 16.29
1998 3.532 0.005 0.063 0.068 0.063 0.263 16.355
1999 3.546 0.005 0.063 0.069 0.064 0.264 16.419
2000 3.56 0.005 0.063 0.069 0.064 0.265 16.483
A-8S
Table S-17c.Statewide Employment By Sector
Fisheries/Food Processing
-Low Case -
FFP.RGL
ECONX2 EMMX2 EMPROF MTOT
1980 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1981 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1982 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1983 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1984 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1985 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1986 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1987 O.7 123 6.363 13.486
1988 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1989 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1990 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1991 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1992 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1993 O.7 123 6.363 13.486
1994 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1995 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1996 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1997 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1998 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
1999 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
2000 O.7.123 6.363 13.486
A-86
-.-------------------------------..t--
Table R-17c.Regional Distribution of Employment
Fisheries/Food Processing
-Low Case -
FFP .RGL
BOt B02 B05 B06 B08 811
'980 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
'9Bl 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.6'5
1982 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1983 2 174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1984 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 o 723 3.615
1985 ~.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1986 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
'987 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1988 2 174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
'989 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1990 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1991 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1992 2.174 0.479 0.271 ,.63 0.723 3.615
'993 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
'994 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1995 2'.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1996 2.'74 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1997 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
1998 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
'999 2.174 0.479 0.271 1.63 0.723 3.615
2000 2.174 0.479 .0.27 \1.63 0.723 3.6'5
812 814 815 816 .818 821
1980 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1981 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'982 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1983 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1984 1.253 0.043 2.907 0004 0.054 0.059
1985 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'986 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1987 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1988 '.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1989 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'990 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'991 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
\992 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1993 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1994 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'995 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1996 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
1997 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'998 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
'999 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 0.059
2000 1.253 0.043 2.907 0.004 0.054 '0.059
826 827 MTOTR
'980 0.053 0.22 13.486
1981 0.053 0.22 13.486
1982 0.053 0.22 13.486
1983 0.053 0.22 '3.486
1984 0.053 0.22 13.486
1985 0.053 0.22 13.486,
I 0.053 0.22 13.486
I.,0.053 0.22 13.486
1988 0.053 0.22 13.486
1989 0.053 0.22 '3.48619900.053 0.22 13.486
1991 0.053 0.22 13.486
'992 0.053 0.22 13.486
'993 0.053 0.22 13.486
1994 0.053 0.22 13.486
1995 0.053 0.22 13.486
'996 0.053 0.22 13.486
'997 0.053 0.22 13.486
1998 0.053 0.22 13.486
1999 0.053 0.22 '3.486
2000 0.053 0.22 13.486
A-87
4.Forestry/Lumber,Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
In 1979,the Alaskan timber industry harvested approximately
500 million board feet of lumber.Employment in this industry is
divided between two sectors of the economy.A small portion of
employment (about 23 persons)is classified as forestry.The remain-
der falls into manufacturing (3,221 in 1979).
In the high and extreme high scenarios,the output of timber
rises to 1.3 billion board feet by the year 2000,representing a near
doubling of historical growth of output in the industry.Assuming no
increase in the productivity of labor in timber,the manufacturing
employment component of the industry grows to 8,375 by the year 2000,
while forestry grows to 60,as shown in Tables S-18a and R18a.
In the moderate,low,and industrialization scenarios,timber
output rises to 960 million board feet by the year 2000,implying a
rise in manufacturing employment to 6,184,and forestry to 44,as
shown in Tables S-18b and R-18b.The rate of growth in output in this
case is approximately equal to the historical growth in the industry.
A-88
..""1>I"
__________________________n_.
Table S-18a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Forestry/Lumber,Pulp,and Paper
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
FLP.SCH
EMA9 EMMX2 MTOT
1980 0.024 3.371 3.395
1981 0.025 3.528 3.553
1982 0.026 3.692 3.718
1983 0.028 3.864 3.892
1984 0.029 4.044 4.073
1985 0.03 4.232 4.262
1986 0.032 4.429 4.461
1987 0.033 4.635 4.668
1988 0.035 4.851 4.886
1989 0.036 5.077 5.113
1990 0.038 5.313 5.351
1991 0.04 5.561 5.601
1992 0.042 5.819 5.861
1993 0.043 6.09 6.133
1994 0.046 6.374 6.42
1995 0.048 6.671 6.719
1996 0.05 6.981 7.031
1997 0.052 7.306 7.358
1998 0.055 7.646 7.701
1999 0.057 8.002 8.059
2000 0.06 8.375 8.435
SOURCE:See text.
A-89
Table R-18a.Regional Distribution of Employment
Forestry/Lumber,Pulp,and Paper
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
FLP.SCH
B02 B08 B09 Bll B12 B15
1980 0.137 0.092 0.045 2.276 0.15 0.192
1981 0.144 0.096 0.047 2.382 0.157 0.201
1982 0.15 0.1 0.049 2.492 0.164 0.21
1983 0.157 0.105 0.052 2.609 0.172 0.22
1984 0.165 O.11 0.054 2.73 0.18 0.23
1985 0.172 O.115 0.057 2.857 0.188 0.241
1986 0.18 0.12 0.059 2.99 0.197 0.252
1987 0.189 0.126 0.062 3.129 0.206 0.264
1988 0.197 0.132 0.065 3.275 0.215 0.276
1989 0.207 0.138 0.068 3.427 0.225 0.289.
1990 0.216 0.144 0.071 3.587 0.236 0.302
1991 0.226 0.151 0.074 3.754 0.247 0.316
1992 0.237 0.158 0.078 3.929 0.258 0.331
1993 0.248 0.166 0.082 4.111 0.27 0.347
1994 0.259 0.173 0.085 4.303 0.283 0.363
1995 0.271 O.181 0.089 4.504 0.296 0.38
1996 0.284 0.19 0.094 4.713 0.31 0.397
1997 0.297 0.199 0.098 4.932 0.324 0.416
1998 0.311 0.208 0.102 5.162 0.34 0.435
1999 0.326 0.218 0.107 5.402 0.355 0.455
2000 0.341 0.228 O.112 5.654 0.372 0.477
B21 MTOTR
1980 0.504 3.395
1981 0.527 3.553
1982 0.552 3.718
1983 0.578 3.892
1984 0.604 4.073
1985 0.632 4.262
1986 0.662 4.461
1987 0.693 4.668
1988 0.725 4.886
1989 0.759 5.113
1990 0.794 5.351
1991 0.831 5.601
1992 .0.87 5.861
1993 0.91 6.133
1994 0.953 6.42
1995 0.997 6.719
1996 1.043 7.031
1997 1.092 7.358
1998 1.143 7.701
1999 1.196 8.059
2000 1.252 8.435
A-90
t
Table S-lBb.Statewide Employment By Sector
Forestry/Lumber,Pulp,and Paper
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
-Low Case -
FLP.SCM
EMA9 EMMX2 MTOT
1980 0.024 3.322 3.346
1981 0.024 3.426 3.45
1982 0.025 3.534 3.559
1983 0.026 3.645 3.671
1984 0.027 3.759 3.786
1985 0.028 3.877 3.905
1986 0.029 3.999 4.028
1987 0.029 4.124 4.153
1988 0.03 4.253 4.:283
1989 0.031 4.387 4.418
1990 0.032 4.5:24 4.556.
1991 0.033 4.666 4.699
199:2 0.034 4.813 4.847
1993 0.035 4.964 4.999
1994 0.037 5.119 5.156
1995 0.038 5.:28 5.318
1996 0.039 5.446 5.485
1997 0.04 5.617 5.657
1998 0.041 5.793 5.834
1999 0.043 5.974 6.017
2000 0.044 6.184 6.228
A-91
Table R-l8b.Regional Distribution of Employment
Forestry/Lumber,Pulp,and Paper
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case
-Low Case -
FLP.SCM
B02 B08 B09 B11 812 B15 B21 MTOTR
1980 0.135 0.09 0.045 2.243 0.148 0.189 0.497 3.346
1981 0.139 0.093 0.046 2.313 0.152 0.195 0.512 3.45
1982 0.144 0.096 0.047 2.386 0.157 0.201 0.528 3.559
1983 0.148 0.099 0.049 2.461 0.162 0.207 0.545 3.671
1984 0.153 0.102 0.05 2.538 0.167 0.214 0.562 3.786
1985 0.158 0.105 0.052 2.618 0.172 0.221 0.58 3.905
1986 0.163 0.109 0.054 2.7 0.178 0.228 0.598 4.028
1987 0.168 0,112 0.055 2.784 0.183 0.235 0.616 4.153
1988 0.173 O.116 0.057 2.871 0.189 0.242 0.636 4.283
1989 0.178 0.119 0.059 2.961 0.195 0.25 0.656 4.418
1990 0.184 0.123 0.061 3.054 0.201 0.257 0.676 4.556
1991 0.19 0.127 0.062 3.15 0.207 0.265 0.697 4.699
1992 0.196 0.131 0.064 3.249 0.214 0.274 0.719 4.847
1993 0.202 0.135 0.066 3.351 0.22 0.282 0.742 4.999
1994 0.208 0.139 0.069 3.456 0.227 0.291 0.765 5.156
1995 0.215 0.144 0.071 3.565 0.235 0.3 0.789 5.318
1996 0.222 0.148 0.073 3.677 0.242 0.31 0.814 5.485
1997 0.229 0.153 0.075 3.792 0.249 0.32 0.839 5.657
1998 0.236 0.158 0.078 3.911 0.257 0.33 0.866 5.834
1999 0.243 0.162 0.08 4.033 0.265 0.34 0.893 6.017
2000 0.252 0.168 0.083
4.175 0.275 0.352 0.924 6.2:28
A-92
_________________________________b.h__
1.346
l.45
3.559
3.671
3.786
3.905
~.028
~.153
~.283
~.418
4.556
4,699
4.847
4.999
5.156
5.318
5.485
5.657
5.834
6.017
6.228
5.Other Manufacturing
Exogenous manufacturing employment presented thus far consists of
special project employment,timber employment,and food processing
employment.The residual,composed of 2,356 persons in 1979,or about
1.4 percent of total employment,produces a variety of manufactured
products primarily for Alaskan consumption.One interpretation of
this residual component is then as the "local serving"component of
manufacturing.
Under this interpretation,other manufacturing may be interpreted
as endogenous,and the question arises as to how the endogenous rela-
tionship should be specified in the MAP model.
Research done at the University of Washington in the early 1970s
by Ullman,Dacey,and Brodsky (see The Economic Base of American
Cities,1971)suggests that there is a minimum percentage of employ-
ment required in regions to serve local needs and that this percentage
rises with the population of the region.That is,as the region
becomes larger,its minimum requirements become a larger share of
total employment so that larger areas are more self-contained,or
autonomous.
They estimate that the minimum manufacturing requirement in
cities of 10,000 to 12,500 is 1.5 percent of total employment but that
for cities of 100,000 to 150,000,this requirement rises to 5 percent;
however,for areas as large as a million persons,the proportion only
rises to 6.8 percent.
In the high scenario,it is assumed that increased population
concentration raises the local serving manufacturing requirement to
3 percent.In the moderate scenario,the proportion rises to 2 per-
cent from its current 1.4 percent;and in the low scenario,the share
remains 1.4 percent of total employment.In the industrialization and
extreme high scenarios,it is assumed that this effect is most pro-
nounced,raising the required share to 5 percent of total employment.
A-93
,....-_.
6.Federal Government
Federal government has always played a dominant role in Alaskan
employment.In recent years,however,such employment has been stable
as decreasing military employment has been offset by rising civilian
employment.
In all scenarios,federal military employment remains constant at
existing levels,as shown in Tables S-19 and R-19.In the low,mod-
erate,and industrialization scenarios,federal civilian employment
grows at its historical rate of 0.5 percent annually,as shown in
Tables S-20b and R-20b.In the high case,this growth rate doubles to
1 percent annually,as shown in Tables S-20a and R-20a.
A-94
......._----------------------------------------------_.~
Table S-19.Statewide Employment By Sector
Active-Duty Military
-All Cases -
GFM.EPM
EMGF MTOT
1980 23.323 23.323
1981 23.323 23.323
1982 23.323 23.323
1983 23.323 23.323
1984 23.323 23.323
1985 23.323 23.323
1986 23.323 23.323
1987 23.323 23.323
1988 23.323 23.323
1989 23.323 23.323
1990 23.323 23.323
1991 23.323 23.323
1992 23.323 23.323
1993 23.323 23.323
1994 23.323 23.323
1995 23.323 23.323
1996 23.323 23.323
1997 23.323 23.323
1998 23.323 23.323
1999 23.323 23.323
2000 23.323 23.323
SOURCE:Current value from Alaska Department of Labor,assumed
constant thereafter.
A-95
Table R-19.Regional Distribution of Employment
Active-Duty Military
-All Cases
GFM.EPN
GOl G02 G04 G05 G06 G08 G09 Gll
1980 2.176 II .864 0.016 0.014 O.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1981 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 O.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1982 2.176 11.864 0.016 0014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1983 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1984 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1985 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1986 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1987 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1988 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1989 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1990 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1991 2.176 11 864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1992 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1993 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.0'4 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1994 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.0'4 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1995 2.176 11.864 0.016 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1996 2.176 1 1.864 0.0'6 0.0'4 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1997 2.'76 ".864 0.016 0.0'4 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1998 2.'76 11.864 0.016 0.0'4 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
1999 2.'76 ".864 0.0'6 0.014 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
2000 2.176 l'.864 0.016 0.0'4 0.369 0.054 5.579 0.686
G12 G,4'G15 GI6 G17.G18 G21 G24
1980 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1981 0.056 0.0'6 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1982 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1983 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1984 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 O.'47 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1985 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1986 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1987 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1988 0.056 0.0'6 0.89'0.054 O.'47 0.042 O.O'~0.849
1989 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1990 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1991 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1992 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1993 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1994 0.056 0.0'6 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014
0.849
1995 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
'996 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849
1997 0.056 0.0'6 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1998 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
1999 0.056 0.016 0.89'0.054 0.147 0.042 0.0'4 0.849
2000 0.056 0.016 0.891 0.054 0.147 0.042 0.014 0.849 .
G25 G26 G27 G29 "'TOTR
1980 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.4'3 23.323
1981 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.4'3 23.323
1982 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.4'3 23.323
'983 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.413 23.323
1984 0.028 0.042 0.014·0.413 23.323
1985 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.4'3 23.323
IF 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.4'3 23.32~
1~0.028 0.042 0.014 0.413 23.32'-
1988 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.4'3 23.323
1989 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.413 23.323
1990 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.413 23.323
1991 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.413 23.323
1992 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.4'3 23.323
'993 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.4'3 23.323
'994 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.4'3 23.323
'995 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.413 23.323
1996 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.413 23.323
1997 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.4'3 23.323
1998 0.028 0.042 0.0'4 0.4'3 23.323
1999 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.4'3 23.323
2000 0.028 0.042 0.014 0.413 23.323
A-96 't:'..
L
Table S-20a.Statewide Employment By Sector
Federal Civilian
-High Case -
-Extreme High Case -
GFC.EPH
EMGF MTOT
1980 18.094 18.094
1981 18.275 18.275
1982 18.458 18.458
1983 18.642 18.642
1984 18.829 18.829
1985 19.017 19.017
1986 19.207 19.207
1987 19.399 19.399
1988 19.593 19.593
1989 19.789 19.789
1990 19.987 19.987
1991 20.187 20.187
1992 20.389 20.389
1993 20.593 20.593
1994 20.799 20.799
1995 21.007 21.007
1996 21.217 21.217
1997 21.429 21.429
1998 21.643 21.643
1999 21.86 21.86
2000 22.078 22.078
SOURCE:1979 value from Alaska Department of Labor,Statistical
Quarterly;thereafter,see text for assumptions.
A-97
•
GFC.EPH
Table R-20a.Regional Distribution of Employment
Federal Civilian
-High Case
Extreme High Case
'990
,981
'982
1983
'98"
'98S
1986
'987
1988
1989
'990
1991
1992
'993
'994
1995
1996
1997
1998
'iggg
2000
,gao
'981
1982
'983
198'
'985
'986
1987
1988
'989
1990
'99'
1992
1993
'994
'99~
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
,9S0
'981
'982
1983
198'
1985,
1988
1989
'990
1991
'992
'993
'994
'995
1996
1997
1998
'999
2000
GO'G02 G04 G05 Gee GOa
0 709 9.8043 o.25 0 .,.o.'90 o.0'6
0 716 9.942 o.252 0 •18 0 '96 0.0:17
0 720 to.041 0 255 o.023 o.197 0.0:]7
o.7"to.14 t 0 257 o..27 0 199 0.037
0 738 10 2.3 0 26 o.0"o.20'0.038
0 70S to.345 0 262 o.'35 o.20'0.038
o.753 to 4.9 o.265 o.00 0 206 0.038
0 76 '0.553 0 268 0 000 0 208 0.039
o.768 '0,659 0 27 o.449 0 21 0.039
o.776 to '765 0 27'0 '53 0.212 0.04
o.783 1D.873 0 276 0 '58 0.214 0.04
o.791 10 982 o.279 0 462 o 2'6 o O.
o.799 "092 0 28 • 0
467 0 "8 0.04'
0 B07 t 1.202 o.280 0 072 0.22 0.0"
o.B'5 11.:],..o.2B7 0 076 0.223 0.0.2
0 8"t 1.4'8 0 29 o.08 I 0.225 0.0.2
0 832 11.542 0 29'0 oB6 0.227 0.0"2
O.S"1 1.657 0 296 0 091 0.229 0.0"3
o S ..S 11 77.o.299 0 096 0 232 0.043
0.857 ".892 o.'02 o.501 0.23"0.0....
0.S65 12.011 o.'05 o.506 0.236 0.0....
G09 GI1 G12 G..G'5 G'6
2.3.2 02B o.lOS 0.25 0 28B 0.078
2.363 2.'53 o.106 0.252 o.29'0.079
2.3B7 2 077 o.107 0.255 0 293 0.079
2.41 2.502 0 lOB O.:;:57 o.296 0.08
2.43~2.527 0 109 0.26 0 299 0.OS1
2."59 2.552 o.11 0.262 0 '02 0.082
2,4S4 2 57B o.'"~0.265 o.'OS 0.OB3
2.508 2 .603 o.",0.268 o.'OB 0.083
2.533 2 629 o."0 0.27 o."2 o OB.
2.S59 2 656 o."5 0.273 o."5 0.OS5
2.S8..2.6B2 0 116 0.276 0 3lB 0.OB6
2.61 2 .709 o.117 0.279 0 12 •0,087
2.636 2 736 o.liB 0.2S1 0.324 O.OBB
2.663 2 760 o."9 0.2S.0.327 0.089
:1.689 2.79'0.121 0.287 0.33'0.089
2.716 2 819 0.122 0.29 0.334 0.09
2.7.3 2 .8 ..7 0.123 0.293 0.337 0.091
2.771 2 B76 O.'24 0.296 0.3.'0.092
2.798 2 90S 0.126 0.299 0.3".0.093
2.826 2 930 0 127 0.'02 0.3.8 0.09"
2.855 2 963 0 128 0.305 0.35'0.095
G17 G18 G21 G20 G25 G26
0.098 o.179 0.069 o."B 0.034 0.045
0.099 o.18'0.069 o.302 0.035 0.046
0.1 0.183 0.07 o.3.5 0.035 0.046
0.101 0.185 0.071 o.309 0.035 0.047
o.'02 0.186 0.072 o.352 0.036 0.047
0.103 0.1B8 0.072 o.356 0.0'6 0.0.8
0.10"0.19 0.073 0 359 o.oc 0.0.8
0.105 0.192 0.074 o.36'0.0~0.048
0.106 0.194 0.0".o.'66 0.037 0.049
0.107 0.196 0.075 0 37 0.038 0.049
0 'OB 0.198 0.076 0.374 0.038 0.05
0.109 0.2 0.077 0.337 0.038 0.05
0.1'0.202 0.077 0 3B'0.039 0.051
O.it 1 0.20"0.07B 0.385 0.039 0.051
O."2 0,206 0.079 0.389 0.04 0.052
0 ."0.20B 0.08 0.393 0.04 0.053
0.115 0.21 0.081 0.397 0.04 0.OS3
0.116 0.212 0.081 0.401 0.041 0.054
0.117 0.214 0.082 0.405 0.041 0.054
0.118 0.216 0.OS3 0.409 0.042 0.055
0.119 0.219 0.084 0.4 t3 0.042 0.055
'9ao
'981
,982
1983
\984
1985
1986
'987
1988
1989
1990
,99 t
,992
'993
1994
199!)
~g96
'997
19~8
19'39
)000
G27 G29 JlnOTA
o."6 0 26'lB.090
O."7 O.26'18 275
o.13B 0 266 'B.45B
o.'0 O.'6B 'B 642
o.10'0 271 'B B29
o.143 0 270 '9 .017
O.140 O.~7"'9 .207
o.14'o.279 '9 .399
0 147 o.2B''9 59'
0 '.8 O.'B5 '9 'B9
0 '5 o.'BB '9 987
0 IS'o.291 'o.'87
O.1S3 0 29'20 389
O.ISO 0 297 20 593
0 156 C 3 '0.799
O.ISB O.302 21.007
0 1S9 0 306 ,,217
O.161 0 309 21."'9
O.162 0 312 21 643
0 '64 0 ,,5 "8!i9
0 '66 O."B 22.O'B A-98
---IIIIIIII'b__
Table S-20b.Statewide Employment By Sector
Federal Civilian
-Moderate Case -
-Industrialization Case -
-Low Case -
GFC.EPM
EMGF MTOT
1980 18.005 18.005
1981 18.095 18.095
1982 18.185 18.185
1983 18.276 18.276
1984 18.367 18.367
1985 18.459 18.459
1986 18.551 18.551
1987 18.644 18.644
1988 18.737 18.737
1989 18.831 18.831
1990 18.925 18.925
1991 19.02 19.02
1992 19.115 19.1'15
1993 19.211 19.211
1994 19.307 19.307
1995 19.403 19.403
1996 19.5 19.5
1997 19.598 19.598
1998 19.696 19.696
1999 19.794 19.794
2000 19.893 19.893
SOURCE:See text.
A-99
.-------------------~..,..
Table R-20b.Regional Distribution of Employment
Federal Civilian
-Moderate Case --Industrialization Case-Low Case -
GFC.EPM
GOI G02 G04 G05 G06 Goa G09 GlI
1980 0.7Qe 9.794 0.248 0.4'2 O.193 0.036 2.328 2.4'6
1981 0.709 9.843 0.25 0.414 0 194 0.036 2.34 2.428
1982 0.713 9 893 0.25'0.4'6 O.'95 0.036 2.35'2A4
1983 0.7'6 9.942 0.252 0.4'9 O.'96 0.037 2.363 2.453
1984 0.72 9.992 0.253 0.42'0.197 0.037 2.375 2.465
1985 0.724 '0.042 0.255 0.423 O.'98 0.037 2.387 2.477
1986 0.727 10.092 0.256 0.425 0.199 0.037 2.399 2.49
'987 0.73''0.142 0.257 0.427 O.'99 0.037 2.4',2.502
'988 0.735 10.193 0.259 0.429 0.2 0.037 2.423 2.515
1989 0.738 '0.244 0.26 0.431 0.20'0.038 2.435 2 527
'990 0.742 '0.295 0.26'0.433 0.203 0.038 2.447 2.54
1991 0.746 10.347 0.262 0.436 0.204 0.038 2.459 2 552
1992 0.749 10.399 0.264 0.438 0.205 0.038 2.472 2.565
1993 0.753 10.451 0.265 0.44 0.206 0.038
2.484 2.578
1994 0.757 '0.503 0.266 0.442 0.207 0.039 2.496 2.59'
1995 0.76'10.555 0.268 0.444 0.208 0.039 2.509 2.604
'996 0.764 10.608 0.269 0.447 0.209 0.039 2.521 2.617
1997 0.768 '0.661 0.27 0.449 0.21 0.039 2 534 2.63
1998 0.772 10.714 0.272 0.451 0.211 0.039 2.547 2.643
,999 0.776 10.768 0.273 0.453 0.212 0.04 2.559 2.656
2000 0.78 '0.822 0.275 0.456 0.213 0.04 2.572 2.67
G12 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 G21 G24
'980 0.104 0.248 0.286 0.077 0 097 0.178 0.068 0.337
1981 O.'05 0.25 0.288 0.078 0.098 O.'79 0.069 0.338
1982 0.105 0.25'0.289 0.078 0.098 O.'8 0.069 0.34
,983 0.106 0.252 0.291 0.079 0.099 0.181 0.069 0.342
1984 0.107 0.253 0.292 0.079 0.099 0.182 0.07 0.343
1985 O.'07 0.255 0.294 0.079 O.,0.183 0.07 0.345
1986 0.108 0.256 0.295 0.08 0.1 O.'84 0.07 0.347
1987 O.'08 0.257 0.296 0.08 O.'01 0.185 0.07'0.349
1988 0.109 0.259
0.298 0.081 0.101 0.186 0.071 0.35
~989 0.109 0.26 0.299 0.08'0.102 O.'86 0.072 0.352
'990 0.11 0.26'0.301 0.081 0.102 0.187 0.072 0.354
199'0.11 0.262 0.302 0.082 0.103 0.188 0.072 0.356
1992 O.,11 0.264 0.304 0.082 0.103 0.189 0.073 0.357 ~
1993 0.1 tl 0.265 0.305 0.083 0.104 0.19 0.073 0.359 ~'994 0.112 0.266 0.307 0.083 0.104 0.191 0.073 0.361
1995 0.113 0.268 0.309 0.083 0.105 0.192 0.074 0.363 E:
'996 0.113 0.269 0.31 0.084 0.105 0.193 0.074 0.365 ~'997 0."4 0.27 0.312 0.084 O.'06 0.194 0.074 0.366
1998 0.114 0.272 0.313 0.085 0.106 0.195 0.075 0.368 r;-
1999 0.115 0.273 0.315 0.085 0.107 0.196 0.075 0.37 ~"
2000 0.115 0.275 0.316 0.086 0.107 0.197 0.076 0.372 .~
i
G25 G26 G27 G29 ",rOTA I19800.034 0.045 0.135 0.259 '8.004
1981 0.034 0.045 0.136 0.261 18.094 i'982 0.035 0.045 0.136 0.262 18.185
1983 0.035 0.046 0.137
0.263 18.276 F
'984 0.035 0.046 0.138 0.264 '8.367 I'985 0.035 0.046 0.138 0.266 18.459
1 )0.035 0.046 O.'39 0.267 18.55 ~,0.035 0.047 O.'4 0.268 18.64 I;
1988 0.036 0.047 0.141 0.27 '8.737
1989 0.036 0.047 0.141 0.271 18.831
'990 0.036 0.047 0.142 0.273 18.925
199'0.036 0.048 0.143 0.274 19.02
'992 0.036 0.048 O.'43 0.275 '9.115
1993 0.037 0.048 0.144 0.277 19.21
1994 0.037 0.048 0.145 0.278 19..306
1995 0.037 0.049 0.146 0.279 19.403
1996 0.037 0.049 0.146 0.28'19.5
1997 0.037 0.049 0.147 0.282 19.598
1998 0.037 0.049 0.148 0.284 19.695
1999 0.038 0.049 0.148 0.285 19.794
2000 0.038 0.05 0.149 0.286 19.893
A-100
7.Tourism
Recent changes in the specification of the MAP model have been
made to net out those portions of transportation,trade,and service
sector employment generated by tourist activity in the state.Such
estimates are now generated in forecasts as a function of an exoge-
nously forecast estimate of total tourists visiting Alaska during the
forecast period.In 1979,the Alaska Division of Tourism estimated
that 505,400 tourists visited the state.
In the high and extreme high cases,it is assumed that the number
of visitors continues to grow at a constant annual rate of 6 percent,
reaching over 1.7 million persons annually by the year 2000.In the
moderate and industrialization -cases,constant growth of 4 percent
annually raises the number of visitors to 1.1 million by the end of
the forecast period.In the low case,the number of visitors grows at
2 percent annually to over 760,000 by the year 2000.
D.SUMMARY
The following tables summarize the exogenous employment assump-
tions for each of the five scenarios.
A-IOI
Table S-21.Statewide Employment By Sector
-Extreme High Case -
EPSPH
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 EMMX2
1980 6 599 0.09 0.21 1.533 O.10.833
1981 7.215 0.307 0.203 1.534 O.11.126
1982 7.423 0.438 1.102 1.569 O.11.426
1983 7.707 0.581 3.724 1.659 O.11 .733
1984 7.069 2.589 4.551 1.717 O.12.049
1985 7.779 7.364 7.363 1.904 O.12.373
1986 8.843 11.274 10.703 2.417 0.386 12.637
1987 9.929 7.79 7.554 2.939 0.446 12.911
1988 12.39 2.212 6.671 3.838 0.446 13.185
1989 13.624 2.407 4.558 4.384 0.546 13.489
1990 16.063 1.876 4.825 4.569 0.726 13.793
1991 16.777 1.063 7.674 4.826 0.809 14.109
1992 16.878 1.848 6.293 4.722 1.431 14.434
1993 18.466 1.139 3.777 4.872 1.526 14.773
1994 20.485 0.873 3.113 5.163 1.526 15.125
1995 21.05 0.619 4.564 5.044 1.526 15.49
1996 21 .676 O.3.993 5.09 1.526 15.868
1997 22.977 O.2.681 5.09 1.526 16.261
1998 23.063 O.2.067 5.09 1.526 16.668
1999 24.O.0.854 5.09 1.526 17.092
2000 23.844 O.1.345 5.09 1.526 17.533
EMA9 EMPROF E"1GF "1TOT
1980 0.202 6.666 41.417 67.55
1981 0.203 6.787 41.598 68.973
1982 0.192 6.909 41 .781 70.84
1983 0.242 7.029 41.965 74.641
1984 0.299 7.151 42.152 77.576
1985 0.34 7.272 42.34 86.736
1986 0.37 7.332 42.53 96.492
1987 0.409 7.393 42.722 92.093
1988 0.503 7.445 42.916 89.606
1989 0.626 7.514 43.112 90.26
1990 0.822 7.575 43.31 93.559
1991 1.054 7.636 43.51 97.458
1992 1.356 7.696 43.712 98.37
1993 1.755 7.757 43.916 97.98
1994 2.168 7.817 44.122 100.392
1995 2.454 7.878 44.33 102.954
1996 2.756 7.939 44.54 103.387
1997 3.156 8.44.752 104.442
1998 3.583 8.059 44.966 105.023
1999 4.075 8.12 45.183 105.939
2000 4.668 8.181 45.401 107.588
A-102
;,
Table R-21.Regional Distribution of Employment
-Extreme High Case -
EPSPH
R01 R02 oc.R05 006 008
1980 5.'228 24.393 ..089 o 718 '2.286 0.997
1981 5 277 24.549 ...67 0.727 :2.:3 19 1.0t?
'982 5 326 24 708 S.346 0.737 '2.352 1.037
'983 5.525 24.877 6 214 0.746 :2.385 ,056
t98.5 '4'25 06 5.738 0.756 '2 ..18 1.077
1985 6 10"25.254 8.17 0.765 '2 45 t 1.097
1986 6.295 25.467 "..'6 o 772 '2.468 1.H,
1987 7 639 25.697 9 461 o 779 '2.486 ,.12!5
1988 8 28 25 986 7 734 0.786 '2.SOt t.'38
1989 9 558 26.27 7 34 o 794 '2 52',154
1990 9 376 26.546 8.153 o 80t '2 539 1 '69
1991 9.129 26.782 9 275 0.808 '2.557 '.184
1992 9.557 26 949 '0 603 o 8'5 '2 57 ..1.2
1993 9.42 27.172 9.807 o 823 '2.592 ,.'2'6
1994 9 69 ..27 546 10.485 083 2 61 ,.232
1995 9 494 27.777 ''2.322 o 838 '2.628 t.249
1996 9.155 28 017 ,'2.378 o 845 '2.645 t 266
1997 9.:24 28.327 '2.83 t o 853 2 663 1 284
1998 9 333 28.518 '2.159 0.86 2 681 ,302
1999 9 335 28.796 11.753 0.868 2 699 t.32
2000 9.338 28.969 '2 067 0.876 2.717 1 339
009 0"012 R14 015 016
1980 8.:209 9.287 2.536 0.313 4.45 0.14
1981 8.:214 9.545 2.539 o 316 4.~17 0.141
'982 8.:237 9.808 3 061 o 3'9 4.58!i 0.142
1983 8.433 10.019 3.382 0.323 4.653 0.143
1984 9.062 10.258 4.313 o 3:26 4 793 0.144
1985 to 253 10.426 4 759 0.33 4.89 0.145
1986 1 t .2'10.658 5 076 o 37 4 946 o 146
1987 10.525 11.03 ~074 o 372 5.008 0.147
1988 9.327 11.:251 4.77:2 0.381 5 359 0.148
1989 8,885 11.59:2 4.912 o 385 5 438 0.149
1990 8 788 11.985 4.577 0.372 5 437 O.'5
t99 ,9,132 12.223 4 543 0.354 5 493 0.15'
'992 9.006 12.449 4.567 o 4'6 5.486 o 15:2
1993 8.953 12.806 4.592 0.733 5 546 o 153
1994 9 098 13.063 4 618 o 735 5 593 o 154
1995 9.:209 13.33 4.644 o 775 5 64'o 155
1996 9.3:24 13.603 4.671 o 79:2 5.69 0.156
'997 9.468 13.886 4 699 o 738 '5.739 0.157
1998 9.619 14.18 4.727 o 749 5 789 O.,5a
1999 9.789 14.484 4.756 0.752 5 84'O.'59
2000 9.987 14.801 4.786 0.753 5 893 O.'6
017 018 02 ,024 025 026
1980 0.361 0.377 0.666 1.266 0.073 0.463
1981 0.362 0.382
0.691 1.307 0.138 0.465
1982 0.355 0.386 0.71a 1.31 0.139 0.556
1983 1.24 0.47 0.746 1.324 0.156 1.22
1984 1.082 0.522 0.775 ,.62'0.652 1.487
1985 1.622 0.616 0.805 2.53 ,2 149 2.502
1"~1.593 0.717 0.837 3.54 3.69-4.164
1 )1.212 0.569 0.869 2.569 2.l:i:3.355
1988 1.229 0.749 0.903 1.61 0.262 4.933
1989 1.818 0.919 0.939 1.39 0.118 3.267
1990 2.784 ,632 0.976 1.415 0.118 3.678
1991 3.416 t.6,4 1.014 1 483 0.119 4.717
1992 3.207 t.349 1.055 "4 0.12 3.644
1993 :2.983 1.164 1.097 1.401 0.1:2 3.B09
1994 3 23 ,.'4:2 , .141 1.405 '0.1:21 3.81
1995 3 436 ,.:2:29 1.187 1,409 0.122 3.8"
1996 3.654 1.234 '.236 1 413 0.122 3.812
1997 3.293 1.239 t.286 1.417 0.123 3.813
1998 3.6 1.245 1.339 1.4:2 1 O.':24 3.815
1999 3 955 1.25 1.394 1.425 0.124 3.816
'000 4.382 1.256 1.451 , .4~9 0.1:25 3.817
R27 029 MTOTR
19BO 0.382 1.315 '57.55
198'0.388 ,.409 68 973
'982 o 393 1.324 70.B4
1983 0,399 1.328 74 64
'984 0.404 '.341 77.576
t9B5 0.485 ,38 86.735
tge6 0.54 ,468 96.492
'987 a 645 1 406 92.093
1988 0.773 1 48 t 89 606
,989 '.4:24 ,39 90.26
\990 '.654 1.41 93 559
1991 2 004 t 459 97 458
1992 2 4'6 1.405 98.369
1993 2 '86 t 407 97 98
1994 2.471 '.413 100.392
1995 2 28 t 1 418 '02.954
1996 ,95 1.423 103 387
1997 I 957 1 429 '04 442
1998 1 971 1 435 '05.023
,999 ,983 1.44 105 939
'000 I 995 1 446 107 588
A-103
----------
..-.,....
Table S-22.Statewide Employment By Sector
-High Case -
EPHGH
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 ENlMX2
1980 6.599 0.09 0.21 1.533 O.10.833
1981 7.215 0.307 0.203 1.534 O.11.126
1982 7.423 0.438 1.102 1.569 O.11 <426
1983 7 707 0.581 3.724 1659 O.11 .733
1984 7.069 2.589 4.551 1.717 O.12.049
1985 7.779 7.364 7.363 1.904 O.12.373
1986 8843 11.274 10.203 2.417 0.386 12.637
1987 9.929 7.79 7.054 2.939 0.446 12.911
1988 12.39 2.212 6.171 3.838 0.446 13.185
1989 13.624 2.407 3.817 4.384 0.446 13.489
1990 16.063 1.876 3.234 4.569 0.526 13.793
1991 16.777 1.063 3.68 4.826 0.526 14.109
1992 16.878 1.848 4.939 4.722 0.526 14.434
1993 17.516 1.139 3.777 4.872 0.526 14.773
1994 19.535 0.873 3.113 5.163 0.526 15.125
1995 20.1 0.619 4.564 5.044 0.526 15.49
1996 20.726 O.3.993 5.09 0.526 15.868
1997 22.027 O.2.681 5.09 0.526 16.261
1998 22.113 O.2.067 5.09 0.526 16.668
1999 23.05 O.0.854 5.09 0.526 17.092
2000 22.894 O.1.345 5.09 0.526 17.533
EMA9 EMPROF EMGF NlTOT
1980 0.202 6.666 41.417 67.55
1981 0.203 6.787 41.598 68.973
1982 0.192 6.909 41.781 70.84
1983 0.242 7.029 41 .965 74.641
1984 0.299 7.151 42.152 77.576
1985 0.34 7.272 42.34 86.736
1986 0.37 7.332 42.53 95.992
1987 0.409 7.393 42.722 91.593
1988 0.503 7.445 42.916 89.106
1989 0.626 7.514 43.112 89.419
1990 0.822 7.575 43.31 91.768
1991 1.054 7.636 43.51 93.181
1992 1.356 7.696 43.712 96.111
1993 1.755 7.757 43.916 96.03
1994 2.168 7.817 44.122 98.442
1995 2.454 7.878 44.33 101.004
1996 2.756 7.939 44.54 101.437
1997 3.156 8.44.752 102.492
1998 3.583 8.059 44.966 103.073
1999 4.075 8.12 45.183 103.99
2000 4.668 8.181 45.401 105.638
A-104
_________________________1__
EPHGH
Table R-22.Regional Distribution of Employment
-High Case -
00'002 00'005 006 008
1980 5.228 24.393 4 089 0.718 2.2BB 0.997
1981 !5.277 24 549 •67 0.727 :2.319 ,,0"
1982 5.326 24.708 5.346 0.737 :2.352 ,037
1983 5.S25 24.877 6.'2 14 0.746 2.385 ,.056
'984 5.747 25.06 5.738 o 756 2.418 t .077
1985 6.104 25.254 B.n 0.765 2.45',,097
1986 6.295 25 467 11 416 0.772 2.468 L 111
1987 7.639 25.697 9.461 0.779 :2.486 t 125
1988 8.28 25 986 7.734 0.786 :2.SOt t '38
1989 9.558 26.27 7.30B 0.794 '2.52 t t.154
1990 9.376 26 S46 7 982 o 80t :2 539 t '69
1991 9 129 26.782 8 809 0.808 :2.557 ,'8'
'992 9.557 26.949 to.518 0,atS :2.574 1.2
'993 9.042 27.172 9.762 0.823 :2.592 t.216
1994 9.694 27.546 to.44 0.83 :2.6 t 1.232
1995 9.494 27.777 12 277 o 838 :2.628 1.249
1996 9.155 28.017 12.333 0.845 :2 .645 1.266
1997 9.24 28.327 12.786 o 853 2.663 1.284
1998 9.333 28.518 12.114 o 86 2.681 I 302
1999 9.335 28.796 11 708 0.868 2.699 l.32
2000 9.338 28.969 12.022 0.876 2.717 1.339
009 0"012 0"0'5 016
1980 8.209 9 287 2.536 0.313 •••0.14
,981 8.214 9 545 2.539 0,316 4 517 0.141
'982 8.237 9.808 3 061 0.319 4,585 O.,42
1983 8.433 10.019 3.382 o 323 4 653 0.143
'984 9.062 10.258 4.313 0.326 4.793 0.144
1985 10.253 10 426 4.759 0.33 •89 0.145
1986 11.21 10.65S 4 576 0.37 4.946 O.'46
1987 10.525 1 t .03 4.574 o 372 5.008 0.147
1988 9.327 1 t.25 1 4.272 0.381 5 359 O.,...S
1989 8.844 11.592 4.312 0.385 5 436 O.'49
1990 8.596 1 t .985 4.377 0.372 5.437 0.15
1991 8.69 12.223 4,343 0.354 5 493 0.1S1
1992 8.804 12 449 4.367 0.416 5 486 0.152
1993 8.946 12.806 4 392 0,733 5 546 0.153
1994 9.091 13.063 4 418 0.735 5 593 0.154
1995 9.202 13.33 4.444 0.775 5.641 0.155
1996 9.317 13.603 4.47 t 0.792 5.69 0.156
1997 9.461 13.886 4.499 0.738 5.739 0.157
1998 9.612 14.18 4.527 0.749 5.789 0.158
1999 9.782 14.484 4.556 0.752 5.841 0.159
2000 9.98 14.801 4.586 0.753 5.893 O.'6
017 0'8 021 0"025 028
1980 0.38t 0.377 0.666 1.266 0.073 0.463
1981 o 362 0.382 0.691 1.307 0.138 0.465
1982 0.355 0.386 0.718 l.31 0.139 0.556
1983 1.24 0.47 0.746 1.324 0.156 1.22
1984 1.082 0.522 0.775 1.621 0.652 1.487
1985 1.622 0.616 0.805 2.531 2.149 2.S02
~1.593 0.717 0.837 3.54 3.69-,4 164
I 1.212 0.569 0.869 2.569 2.1.3.355
1988 1.229 0.749 0.903 1.61 0.262 4.933
1989 1.818 0.919 0.939 1.373 0.118 3.121
1990 2.37 1 632 0.976 1.378 0.118 2.926
1991 2.207 1.614 1.014 1 381 0.119 2.928
1992 2.175 1.349 1.055 1.385 0.12 2.929
'993 2.183 1.164 1.097 1.389 0.12 2.93
1994 2.043 1.142 1.14 t 1.393 0.121 2.931
1995 2.636 1.229 1.187 1.397 0.122 2.932
1996 2.854 1 234 1.236 1.401 0.122 2.933
1997 2.493 1.239 1.286 1.405 0.123 2.934
1998 2.8 1.245 1 339 1.409 0.124 2 936
1999 3.'55 1.25 1.394 1.413 0.124 2 937
2000 3.582 1.256 1 451 '-417 0.125 2.938
027 029 ~TOTR
'980 0.382 1.315 67.5S
1981 o 388 1.409 68.973
1982 0.393 1.324 70.84
1983 0.399 1.328 74.64
1984 0.404 1.341 77.576
1985 o 485 1.38 86 735
1986 o 5'1.468 95.992
1987 0.645 1.406 91 S93
1988 0.773 1.481 89.106
1989 '.424 1.385 89 419
1990 1.654 1.385 9'768
1991 2.004 ,39 93 18 I
1992 2 0416 I 395 96 11
1993 2.'86 ,.96.03
'994 2.471 ,406 98 442
'995 2.281 1.4 1 I 101.004
'996 ,.95 1 416 lot 437
1997 1.957 1 ""22 102 492
1998 1 971 1.4'8 103 073
1999 I 983 1 4:l3 '03.989
>000 1.995 ,""39 '05 638
A-lOS
h
Table S-23.Statewide Employment By Sector
-Moderate Case -
EPMDD
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 EMMX2
1980 6.408 0.09 O.1.533 O.10.784
1981 7.112 0.307 0.785 1.599 O.10.956
1982 7.34 0.335 1.291 1.6 O.11.132
1983 7.632 0.563 2.803 1.641 O.11.311
1984 6.92 2.44 2.992 1.692 O.11.493
1985 7.376 7.174 3.641 1.988 O.11.678
1986 7.605 10.794 2.262 1.869 0.386 11 .834
1987 7.744 6.312 2.268 2.093 0.446 11 .993
1988 7.73 0.663 2.555 2.2 0.446 12.156
1989 8.122 1.165 2.094 2.331 0.446 12.324
1990 8.856 1.075 2.254 2.66 0.446 12.495
1991 10.05 0.873 2.617 2.937 0.446 12.671
1992 10.487 0.619 2.05 2.761 0.446 12.852
1993 10.711 O.1.906 2.73 0.446 13.037
1994 10.822 O.2.473 2.722 0.446 13.226
1995 11.058 O.2.313 2.722 0.446 13.421
1996 11.431 O.2.195 2.722 0.446 13.62
1997 11.734 O.2.457 2.722 0.446 13.825
1998 12.05 0 1.592 2.722 0.446 14.035
1999 12.426 O.1.295 2.722 0.446 14.25
2000 12.454 O.1.472 2.722 0.446 14.494
EMA9 EMPROF EMGF MTOT
1980 0.202 6.666 41.328 67.01
1981 0.202 6.727 41.418 69.105
1982 0.191 6.787 41.508 70.184
1983 0.23 6.848 41.599 72.627
1984 0.255 6.909 41.69 74.391
1985 0.28 6.969 41.782 80.888
1986 0.305 6.999 41.874 83.928
1987 0.329 7.029 41.967 80.182
1988 0.387 7.06 42.06 75.257
1989 0.444 7.09 42.154 76.17
1990 0.502 7.12 42.248 77.657
1991 0.56 7.151 42.343 79.648
1992 0.617 7.181 42.438 79.451
1993 0.675 7.212 42.534 79.25
1994 0.734 7.242 42.63 80.295
1995 0.791 7.272 42.726 80.749
1996 0.849 7.302 42.823 81.388
1997 0.907 7.332 42.921 82.344
1998 0.964 7.363 43.019 82.19
1999 1.023 7.393 43.117 82.672
2000 1.081 7.423 43.216 83.308
A-106
Table R-23.
£?...oo
Regional Distribution of Employment
-Moderate Case
00'002 .""005 ooe 008
1980 5.187 2 •.,],]913 O.'7 ,.2.269 o 99
198t S.39~'4 .....2 of 54'0.728 :2.365 t .026
1982 5.4 '9 2.5:29 5.243 0.733 :2.38 t 1.037
1983 5 558 2 •.623 6.156 o 738 :2.398 t .0.'
,g84 5.681 24.721 S .•22 o '.2 2.414 ,.058
'985 5 9.'•.813 7.206 0.747 :2 431 1 069
1986 5.835 2 •.895 8.142 o 75 :2.439 1 076
'987 5.843 2 •.98 '7.187 o 7~4 2.·U8 1.08.
1988 5.812 25 055 6.346 0.757 :2 457 ,.092
1989 6.457 25 172 6.14 o 76':2.466 ,,
1990 6.57S 25 301 6.882 0.764 :2 .75 ,.'07
199'6 881 2S .•78 '7 635 o 768 :2.483 ,."6
1992 6 692 25 •'7 "'6 0.77 ,:2 .492 1.12.
1993 6 365 25 702 '7.486 0.775 :2.SOt 1.132
1994 6.377 25.793 8 127 0.778 2 51 1.14 1
1995 6 .••8 25.897 8.103 0.782 :2.5'9 1 ,.9
1996 6."t5 26 Ot6 8.334 0.786 :2.527 \.158
1997 6.4"26.128 8 882 0.789 2 536 1.167
1998 6.408 26 242 8,313 0.793 2 545 I."6
1999 6.449 26.363 8.279 o 796 2 5~4 I '85
2000 6.49 26 451 8.404 0.8 2 563 1.195
009 ...•'2 0 ..0'5 0'6
1980 8.196 9.171 2.52 0.31 I 4 412 0.14
1981 8.189 9 661 2.575 0.313 •615 0.14
1982 8.199 9.781 2.622 0.315 •651 O.'.,
1983 8,379 9.852 2.77 0.316 4.732 O.,.,
1984 8.915 9.847 3.5 0.318 4.84 0.142
1985 9.832 9.938 4.166 0.32 5 039 O.142
1986 10.277 10.05 J.736 o 3.4 884 0.143
1987 9.727 10 164 3.558 0.409 4.848 0.143
1988 8 4.,10 282 3.477 0.372 4.825 0'.144
1989 8.304 10 "02 3.351 0.326 4.848 O.,....
1990 8.334 10.525 3.47"0.327 4.871 0.145
1991 8.364 10.691 3.66'0.329 4.895 0.145
1992 8.395 10.781 J.674 0.33 4.918 0.146
1993 8.425 10.913 J.687 0.332 4.942 0.146
1994 8.456 11.049 3.701 0.333 4.967 0.146
1995 8.487 11.189 3."..0.335 4.991 0.147
1996 8.51B ".331 3.728 0.337 5.016 0.147
1997 8.549 n .477 3.742 O.:138 5.041 0.148
1998 8.58 ".626 3.757 0.34 5.066 0.148
1999 8.611 ".78 3.771 0.341 5.092 0.149
2000 8.6"3 t 1.952 3.7B7 0.3.3 5.119 0.149
0"0'8 021 0,.025 028
t980 0.361 o 37'5 0.658 1.265 o 072 o 463
1981 0.38'0.377 0.679 1.303 0.138 0."65
19B2 0.353 o 38 0.692 1.305 0.138 o 556
1983 0.38t 0.42 0.71 1.317 0.155 '-219
198"0.399 0.471 0.728 1.601 o 65 1.22
1985 0.4"0.435 0.746 2.458 2.148 1.22,j 0.435 0.389 0.766 3.344 3.69"0.855,0.452 0.391 0.785 2.468 2.12 0.856
1988 0.494 0.394 0.805 1.404 0.26 0.856
1989 0.53'5 0.396 0.826 1.323 0.'15 0.857
1990 0.577 0.398 0.847 1.32'5 0.115 0.857
1991 0.618 O .•0.869 1.327 0.115 0.8!J8
1992 0.659 o 403 0.892 1.328 O.t 16 0.8SB
1993 0.701 0.405 0.915 l.33 0.116 0.859
1994 o 743 0.407 0.94 t.332 0.116 o 859
1995 0.784 0.41 0.964 1.334 0.117 0.86
1996 0.826 0.412 0.99 1.336 0.117 0.86
1997 o 867 0.414 1 Ot6 1.337 0.117 0.861
199B o 908 0.417 1.044 t.339 0."8 o 861
1999 0.95 0.419 1.072 1.34 t o 118 0.862
2000 0.992 0.422 t.l04 1.343 0.118 0.863
027 029 IIIlTCTR
1980 0.38 1.313 67.01
1981 0.:191 1.405 69.105
1982 0.393 1.317 70.'84
1983 0.396 1.319 72.627
1984 0.399 1.322 74 391
1985 0.477 1.:124 80.888
1986 0.529 1.326 83 92B
1987 o 633 1.328 80.'81
1988 o 684 I 331 75.257
1989 1.316 1.333
76 n
1990 1 422 1.335 77.657
1991 1.716 1 338 79 648
,992 1.514 1.34 79 451
1993 ,.174 1.343 79.25
1994 I 174 1 345 80 294
1995 1.203 1.347 80.749
1996 I.'86 1.35 8 t 388
1997 1.17 t .352 82 344
1998 1.155 ,:155 82.19
1999 t.183 '.357 82 672
2000 1.212 •3.83 308
A-I07
Table S-24.Statewide Employment By Sector
-Industrialization Case -
EPINO
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 EMMX2
1980 6.408 0.09 O.1.533 O.10.784
1981 7.112 0.307 0.785 1.599 O.10.956
1982 7.34 0.335 1.591 1.6 O.11.132
1983 7.632 0.563 3.403 1.641 O.11.311
1984 6.92 2.44 4.201 1.692 O.11.493
1985 7.376 7.174 6.192 1.988 O.11.678
1986 7.911 10.794 8.146 1.946 0.386 11.834
1987 8.356 6.312 6.315 2.246 0.446 11.993
1988 9.482 0.663 7.58 2.353 0 ..446 12.156
1989 9.874 1.165 4.381 2.484 0.546 12.324
1990 11 .538 1.075 3.745 2.76 0.646 12.495
1991 12..523 0.873 6.611 2.985 0.729 12.671
1992 12.96 0.619 3.404 2.809 1.351 12.852
1993 14.134 O.1,906 2.778 1.446 13.037
1994 14.245 O.2.473 2.77 1.446 13.226
1995 14.481 O.2.313 2.77 1.446 13,421
1996 14.854 O.2.195 2.77 1.446 13.62
1997 15.157 0,2.457 2.77 1.446 13.825
1998 15.473 O.1.592 2.77 1.446 14.035
1999 15.849 O.1.295 2.77 1.446 14.25
2000 15.877 O.1.472 2.77 1.446 14.494
[MA9 EMPROF EMGF MTOT
1980 0.202 6.666 41.328 67.01
1981 0.202 6.727 41.418 69.105
1982 O.191 6.787 41.508 70.484
1983 0.23 6.848 41.599 73.227
1984 0.255 6.909 41.69 75.6
1985 0.28 6.969 41.782 83.439
1986 0.305 6.999 41.874 90.195
1987 0.329 7.029 41.967 84.994
1988 0.387 7.06 42.06 82.187
1989 0.444 7.09 42.154 80.462
1990 0.502 7.12 42.248 82.13
1991 0.56 7.151 42.343 86.446
1992 0.617 7.181 42.438 84.231
1993 0.675 7.212 42.534 83.721
1994 0.734 7.242 42.63 84.766
1995 0.791 7.272 42.726 85.22
1996 0.849 7.302 42.823 85.859
1997 0.907 7.332 42.921 86.815
1998 0.964 7.363 43.019 86.661
1999 1.023 7.393 43.117 87.143
2000 1.081 7.423 43.216 87.779
A-lOS
---------------------------h--
Table R-24.Regional Distribution of Employment
Industrialization Case -
EPlNO
ROt R02 R04 R05 R06 R08
1980 5.187 24.3 :3.913 0.714 :2.269 0.99
198'5.395 24 ..42 '.541 0.128 :2.365 1.026
1982 5.4'9 24 529 5.243 0.733 2.381 1.031
1963 5.558 24.623 6 156 0.738 2.398 ,.047
1984 5.68 ~2".721 5 476 O.'42 :2."'"t .056
1985 5.96 2".813 '7 498 0.747 :2 431 ,.069
1986 5.835 2".895 8.988 O.7S :2.439 t 076
1987 5.843 24.98 '7.623 0.754 :2 .....8 t OS4
1988 5.812 2S 055 '7.'06 0.757 :2.451 ,.092
1989 6.457 25.172 6.384 o 761 :2.466 ...
1990 6.575 25.301 7 '9 0.764 2.475 •107
'99'6.881 25 478 8,238 0.768 :2.483 1.116
1992 6.692 25 6 '7 638 ,0.771 :2.492 1 12"
1993 6.365 25.702 '7.668 0.775 :2.SOt 1 132
199"6.377 25.793 8 309 0.778 :2.51 1.'4'
1~95 6.4'8 25 897 8,285 o 782 :2 519 1.'49
1996 6.415 26.016 8.516 0.786 :2.527 1.158
1991 6.4 t 1 26.128 9 06"0.789 2.536 1 167
1998 6 ...08 26.1"2 8."95 0.793 2.5"5 •.76
1999 6 .....9 26.363 8 "6'0.796 2.55"1.185
2000 6."9 26.451 8 586 0.8 2.563 1.195
R09 Rtt Rt2 RU R,5 R'6
1980 8.196 9.171 2.52 0.311 ..."'2 0.1"
1981 8.189 9 661 2.575 0.313 ...615 O.,..
1982 8.'99 9.781 2.922 0.315 ".651 0.14.
1983 8.379 9.852 3.37 0.316 ..732 0.1'"
'98"8.985 9 8 ..7 4.3 0.318 4 64 0.142
1985 10.'58 9.93$..7t6 0.32 5 039 0.142
'986 11.099 '0.05 ".719 0.36 ..88"0.14 \
1987 '0.396 10.'6"..623 a 409 ..8"8 0.143
1988 9.t74 '0.282 ".392 0.372 ...825 a ,....
1989 8.699 10."02 4.516 0.326 ...8"8 0.144
'990 8.5"9 10.525 4 .076 0.327 ".871 0.145
'991 8.829 10.651 ...'02 0.329 ..895 0.145
'992 8.62 '0.781 4."5 0.33 ...9'8 0.146
'993 8."55 10.913 ".128 0.332 ".942 0.146
'99"8.486 ,1.0"9 4-.142 0.333 ".961 0.1"6
1995 8.511 ,1.189 4.'55 0.335 ".99'0.147
1996 8.5"8 11.331 ...169 0.337 5.016 0.147
1997 8.579 11...77 ...'83 0.338 5.0'"0.148
1998 8.61 t,.626 ...'98 0.34 5.066 0.148
1999 8.6"1 ,t.18 ".2'2 0.3'"5.092 0.1"9
2000 8.6"73 ,1.952 4.228 0.3"3 5.119 0.149
R,7 Rt8 R21 R24 R25 R28
1980 0.361 0.315 a 658 1.265 0.072 0."63
1981 0.361 0.377 a 675 '.303 O.'38 0."65
1982 0.353 0.38 0.692 1.305 0.138 0.556
1983 0.381 0.42 0.1 ,1.317 0.155 1.219
'98"0.399 0."71 0.728 1.612 0.65 1."86
1985 0.417 a "35 0.7"6 2 52 2 "'8 2.499
J 0.435 0.369 0.766 3.528 3 6~...'61
0.452 0.391 0.785 2.555 2 . 1~3.352
1988 a 494 0.394 0.805 1.59"0.26 ...92~
1989 0.535 0.396 0.826 1.372 0.1'5 J.263
1990 0.991 0.398 0.8"7 '.395 0.1'5 J.673
'991 1 827 o 4 O.B69 1."62 O.1'5 4.711
1992 1 691 0."03 0.892 1.376 0.116 3.837
1993 1.SO,0."05 0.9'5 1.375 0.116 3.802
199"1.5"3 o "07 0.9"1.377 O."6 3.802
1995 1.58"0.'"0.96"'.379 0.117 3.803
1996 1.626 O.",2 0.99 1.381 0.117 3.803
1997 1 667 0."'"1.016 f •382 O.117 3.804
1998 t.708 o 417 1.0....1.38"0.118 3 .804
1999 '.75 0.419 1.072 1.386 0.118 3.80S
2000 '.792 0.422 1.'04 1.388 0.118 3.806
R27 R29 MTOTR
'980 o 3.,313 67.01
'981 o 391 1.405 69.'as
'982 0.393 1.317 70.48"
1983 0.396 1 319 73 227
'984 0.399 1.33 75.6
'9B5 0.477 1.366 83 ...39
~9a6 0.529 1 452 90.'95
'C;87 0.633 1.387 B4 993
'988 0.684 ,46 82.187
'989 1.316 ,366 80 "62
1990 1.422 1 383 81.13
'991 1.716 1.43 86 .....6
1992 1.514 1.373 84 231
1993 1.l74 1 373 83 721
1994 ..74 1.375 84.765
1995 1.203 ,977 85.22
1996 1.186 1.38 85.859
,'397 1.17 ,382 86 8'5
'998 1.155 '.385 86 661
1999 ,'83 1.387 87 "'3
'000 1 2 t2 '.39 87.779
A-109
Table S-25.Statewide Employment By Sector
-Low Case -
EPLOW
EMP9 ECONX1 ECONX2 EMT9X EMMX1 EMMX2
1980 6.377 0.09 O.1.533 O.10.445
1981 7.115 0.307 0.097 1.599 O.10.549
1982 7.358 0.335 0.679 1.6 O.10,657
1983 7.441 0.563 1.2 1.588 O.10,768
1984 6.461 2.435 0.734 1.55 O.10,882
1985 6.677 7.103 0.262 1.54 O.11 .
1986 6.949 10.589 0.47 1.546 O.11.122
1987 7.078 6.074 0.479 1.665 O.1 1.247
1988 7.34 0.468 0.833 1.658 O.11 ,376
1989 7.272 O.0.68 1.627 O.11.5 1
1990 7.307 O.0.664 1 ..619 O.11.647
1991 7.243 O.0.564 1.619 O.11.789
1992 7.269 O.0.611 1.619 O.i 1 .936
1993 7.32 O.0.527 1.6 19 O.12.087
1994 7.34 0,0.264 1.619 O.12.242
1995 7.388 O.0,191 1.619 O.12.403
1996 7.341 O.0.084 1.619 O.12.569
1997 7.307 O.0.132 1.619 O.12.74
1998 7.283 O.0.132 1.619 O.12.916
1999 7.281 O.0.059 1.619 O.13,097
2000 7.278 O.0.018 1.619 O.13.307
EMA9 EMPROF EMGF MTOT
1980 0.202 6.363 41 .328 66.338
1981 0.202 6.363 41.418 67,65
1982 0.191 6.363 41.508 68.691
1983 0.182 6.363 41.599 69,704
1984 0,183 6.363 41.69 70.298
1985 0.156 6.363 41.782 74.883
1986 0.155 6.363 41.874 79.068
1987 0,125 6.363 41.967 74.998
1988 0.106 6.363 42.06 70.204
1989 0.089 6.363 42.154 69.695
1990 0.078 6.363 42.248 69.926
1991 0.065 6.363 42.343 69.986
1992 0.034 6.363 42.438 70.27
1993 0.035 6.363 42.534 70.484
1994 0.037 6.363 42.63 70.495
1995 0.038 6.363 42.726 70.728
1996 0.039 6.363 42.823 70.838
1997 0.04 6.363 42.921 71 .122
1998 0.041 6.363 43.019 71 .373
1999 0.043 6.363 43.117 71.579
2000 0.044 6.363 43.216 71.845
A-110
______________________________liliiii:'111
1
--
EFLO'"
Table R-25.Regional Distribution of Employment
-Low Case -
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
'987
1988
'989
1990
199'
'992
'993
1994
1995
'996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1980
'9Bl
1982
''383
'984
1985
1986
1987
1981!!
1989
1990
'991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1980
1981
1982
'983
1984
1985,
I
1988
1989
1990
1991
199'2
1993
19904
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
'990
1991
'992
1993
1994
1995
1996
~997
~998
1999
'000
001 002 00'005 ooe 008
5 083 2~.25&3 90S 0.101 2.191 0.955
5 067 24 33'4.646 0.703 2.192 0.958
5 089 24.398 5 459 0.705 2.193 0.961
5 092 2~04~9 6.255 0.70T 2.'9~0.965
5 096 24.498 5.471 0.709 2.195 0.968
5 131 24.545 6 632 0.71'2.19.0_971
5 148 24 611 7.753 07U 2.'97 0.975
5.'58 24 675 6 536 0.716 2.198 0.978
5 '54 24.758 5 801 o 718 2.199 0.982
5.131 2~.807 5 50~0.72 2.2 0.986
5.',~4 868 S 561 o 722 2 20.0.99
5."3 24 918 5 404 0.724 2.202 0.99"
5.114 24 979 5.476 o 7'6 2.203 0.998
5 118 25 042 5 0439 0.729 2.2004 ,.002
5.122 25.'03 5.196 o 731 2 205 1.007
5.'26 25.166 5 161 0.733 2.206 1.011
5.'29 25.22 ,5 0'9 0.735 2.207 1.016
5.133 25.278 5 038 0.737 2.208 1.021
5.137 25.336 5 018 0.74 2.21 1.026
5 141 25 397 4 944 Q.742 2 211 1.031
5.145 25 "59 4.902 0.7404 2.2'2 1.037
009 ."0"0,.015 016
8.19fi 8 998 :2 .46 0.309 4 274 0.14
8 t88 9.296 2.436 0.311 4.28 t O.I.
8.199 9.381 2.471 0.312 4.289 0.14
8.365 9 417 2.462 0.313 4.296 0.141
8.895 9 378 2 048 f 0.3104 '"304 0.141
9.797 9.434 2.456 0.316 4.31::2 0.142
10.235 9.529 :2.421 0.3.7 4 321 0.142
9.671 9 625 2.382 0.318 4.329 0.142
8.333 9'725 :2 388 0.319 4.338 o."3
8.206 9'828 :2.393 0.321 4.347 O.'43
8 217 9 933 2.399 0.322 4.357 O.,44
8.228 '0.041 2 '06 a 323 4.366 0.144
8 234 to.'53 :2 4'1 0.325 •376 0.144
8.248 10 268 2.419 0.326 4.386 O.,45
8.263 10.386 2.4'26 0.327 4.397 0.145
8.277 '0.508 2.434 0.329 4."'07 0.146
8.292 10.633 :2.442 0.33 4.4'8 0.146
8.307 '0.76'2."'5 0.331 4.43 0.146
8.322 to.893 2.458 0.333 4 44'0.147
8.337 11.029 :2.467 0.334 4.453 O.u7
8.353 "'.'S04 2 477 0.335 4.466 o.us
017 .'8 0"0,.025 .26
0.362 0.371 0.655 1.265 O.072 0.046
0.362 0.372 0.671 1.303 o t37 0.46
0.355 0.373 0.687 1.305 0.138 0.55
0.3049 0.3704 0.70.1.3t7 0.155 0.461
0.349 0.375 0.722 1.60'0.65 0.46.
0.332 0.376 0.74 2.458 2.'47 0.461
0.331 0.377 0.758 3.344 3.6'"0.46'
0.312 0.378 0.777 2.468 2.1-0.462
0.3 0.379 0.797 1.404 O.'59 0.0462
0.289 0.38 0.8t7 1.323 0.1'4 0.462
0.282 0.38 0.838 t.325 0.114 a 462
O.'273 0.38t 0.86 ,.327 0.114 0.463
0.'253 o 382 0.882 1.328 0.114 o 463
O.'254 0.383 0.905 1.33 0.115 0.463
0.'254 O.~84 0.929 1.332 0.115 0.463
0.255 0.385 0.953 t 334 0.'15 0.464
0.255 0.386 0.978 1.336 O.t 15 O .•604
0.256 0.387 1.004 1.337 0."5 0.464
O.'256 o 388 1.03'1.339 0.''5 0.464
O.'257 o 389 1.058 1.341 0.110 0.465
0.257 0.39 I O.t.343 0.116 0.465
027 029 acTonl
0.369 1 312 66 337
0.37 ,403 67.649
0.37 ,t.3'S 68 69'
0.371 1.316 69.704
o 372 1 317 70.298
0.407 ,319 74 88:'
a 421 1.32 79,068
0.43 1 32 I 74 998
o 424 1.323 70 204
a 399 1 324 69 695
0.376 1.3'5 69 9'6
o 377 1 327 69.986
o 378 1.3'8 70.27
a 379 1 329 70 484
0.379 1.331 70.494
o 3.1 332 70.728
O.J81 1 334 70.836
O.J81 1 335 71 121
o 382 I 336 7,37'2
a 383 I J38 71 579
a 384 1 3J9 71.845
A-Ill
III.The Fiscal Policy Assumptions
Virtually all past work done using the MAP forecasting model as
well as work by other forecasters confirms the central role that state
government fiscal policy will play in shaping the pattern of future
economic development in Alaska.State expenditures not only determine
direct government employment but also affect all endogenous sectors of
the economy through expenditures on goods and services and capital
improvements.The state fiscal scenarios described in this section
attempt to cover the range of plausible state fiscal behavior.
Two factors affect our ability to project the course of future
state fiscal policy.First,since the onset of petroleum production
from Prudhoe Bay,state royalty and severance taxes and other
resource-based revenues have overtaken expenditures and are expected
to continue to increase over a substantial portion of the forecast
period.Secondly,the establishment of the Permanent Fund and recent
tax repeals and grant programs constrain the use of certain petroleum
revenues.These recent changes limit the usefulness of past fiscal
behavior as a guide to forecasting the future.
In this study,three separate scenarios describe state fiscal
behavior.The assumptions determining the growth of state expendi-
tures are similar to those used in the May 1980 Electric Power Consump-
tion for the Railbelt Study.Growth is defined in terms of real per
capita government expenditures.
Between 1970 and 1972,real per capita expenditures grew at
almost 24 percent annually in response to the $900 million bonus
payment received for leases at Prudhoe Bay in 1969.After 1972,the
rate of growth dropped to .5 percent annually.In these three sce-
narios,the growth of real per capita state expenditures is determined
by its relationship to real per capita income.In the low response
case,it is assumed that the level of real per capita expenditures
stays constant throughout the forecast period,implying that real per
A-1l2
capita expenditures decline as a fraction of real per capita income.
The moderate response case assumes that real per capita expenditures
grow at the same rate as real per capita income so that real per
capita expenditures maintain a constant share of real per capita
income.In the high response scenario,real per capita expenditures
grow at 1.5 times the rate of real per capita income,thus increasing
as a proportion of real per capita income.
Real per capita income is defined to exclude the income and
population directly associated with premium-wage,enclave-type con-
struction projects which can drive up average real per capita income
in the short run quite dramatically,although only temporarily.
These growth rates apply to both operating and capital expendi-
tures beginning with the approximate base levels established by the
1982 budget.There are four uses of state funds which are not covered
by the normal operating and capital programs.Debt service is a
function of the level of past capital budgets and interest rates.It
is a growing but small increment to expenditures.
The three other components are independent of the choice of
scenario.They have the same value in the low,moderate,and high
case.First,beginning with the 1981 fiscal year,a large expansion
of government subsidies for such things as housing and businesses was
initiated through subsidized loan programs.These programs are
assumed to remain constant in real per capita terms.Second,begin-
ning in 1982,a special capital projects account is funded at
$250 million annually for a period of ten years.This account is in
addition to the regular capital budget,and it terminates in 1992.
Third,permanent fund contributions of two types occur.Twenty-
five percent of royal ties and lease bonuses from state lands auto-
matically go into the permanent fund.In addition,we assume that,
following the example set by the 1980 and 1981 legislatures,supple-
mentary contributions are made into the fund for several years in the
early 1980s.These supplementary contributions terminate in 1987.
A-l13
The values assumed for these variables in all three fiscal behavior
scenarios are shown in Table 26.
Permanent fund earnings are all deposited in the state general
fund.A transfer program is instituted in 1981 along the lines,but
not modeled after,the permanent fund distribution program currently
under consideration by the U.S.Supreme Court.Initially funded at
$130 million,it grows to maintain a constant per capita level.This
program,shown in Table 27,is a part of the state operating budget
and not in addition to it.
Government revenues will vary between the projections because of
different levels of tax collections generated by different levels of
economic activity.The petroleum-revenue projections used in this
study and summarized in Table 28 are derived from the June 1981
Petroleum Production Revenue Forecast of the Alaska Department of
Revenue and estimates made by the authors for revenues,reservoirs,
and years not covered in that document.
There has been no attempt to restrain the growth of expenditures
in these three fiscal behavior scenarios in response to revenue limi-
tations.The situation is summarized by the two major funds of state
government--the general fund and the permanent fund.Table 29 shows
the annual balance in each fund in the moderate-moderate projection.
Both funds show substantial balances at the end of the proj ection
period.It is noteworthy,however,that the general fund balance in
nominal dollars has peaked in 1999,and in real dollars,both the
general fund and permanent fund balances peaked in the mid-1990s.
A-1l4
...-...l __
Table 26.State Government Disbursements Common
to All Three Fiscal Behavior Scenarios
(million $)
EXSUBS EXSPCAP PFCONX PFCON
"':';.~)t.)","
I.)
":...:..'~.1..........'
.J....;.:.j .....~'::;'.l.
.:;:.':,:'().1.:.':::I.
J ~::.~~;:~':).;.();::::
L)l ()1 .;.:5 '::}
i.~504.;.B';;;'
.:;:,::.:.::,).;.:.~
J <)()·4 .'.:....;:.':::
.I.:':),3(,.
:L:l.~5:t.1J7:2
.1.·;·3':.:'":,.~?:::::
.I.'):1.;:',7?
.f.::~i ():.-s .>:?.;?
:I.::.:.~:.:=.i ~~~i ~:5 ':?
1330.71
1410.12
L47??1
1496.11
::?.1.:":~3 T 33
;.:.:::":~:i.:.5 (.7 '7'
1366.:L
.1.287.16
1173,16
()"
().;.
I••..'.:.
,.)..
I•..'
()./
1••/
\)
1•./.;•
1••1.
:...i .,.
()~.
(,
':.:}I.:>().~
':::I;'~""0 +
3()()~
':.;.:'~)0.;.
J ::iC"),
.i.d,)()~
:J.::.?(::.()~
....i I••)..
f.•:.'
I,,).,.
I.......:
J../.;.
c·
(),\
~.}..
:~)
\)..
".).;.
().;.
:·..l ().:.
;.:.::~.:.~;~)
:~~::~'.:;(),.
./,)U ,.
....::..~.;~).;.
;',,::~=5 ':..1 .;.
.~?......;().;.
.~:.::......;()
..::,,.)".).'",..';,
.:.'..:.':..
::~;~:.~;d .~6 ::::;::::;
':~'.~'.:~:}~.:.:::.::;,':.:'
~..'..'
/(16.;:.~~;.L
'.:,:.''::):.:'...~)';.;.:,)
~::.;I.)~:.:.:.\'E:..~.:.,{]
;::::(,,:,:,::.:..i,d·{;·
(:,.i.:,~.;'\.)'':.:.:'~.:5
I,I,.)',.:.,.).....
i.',-.::::.".:'.L :.:5
.I.;.
.1.r.:....I J ,..i..:;.~
.f.::?'::':.L ',':.:~;".:';.'
.L C I,}.....'.....1 /.;.
.1.'.•.•':::''7 ./~::;S
•••d ••·::~..:~::.i.
.,::,r'.,!..;..:.:''..;.•~.:.
.i.'~)i:)7
'I ::~c:'....,.1 .."••••,..,'
~!,.:;.:r C~::~
:i.':?::::~:::;
J ';?E()
:i.L:?C J
:i.:::':::;';?
J '~;.;'d (:')
:l.':,;:-f::~.:5
:1.':.:.:'":;:':i.
.!.',:."";:.~.
:i.':.::U?
.i.:.:.:':,;:-:~::
::::':::',::,I...'..'....
.1.~.;)(.;.:'()
:I.~:.;'I,.:.::":.;
.i .;,):;.1 :::)
.i.':.::"::'.)
:l.':.:.:.':;:;:;::
:"~;:(.f ',,)()
:L ':.:;'))'
EXSUBS =
EXSPCAP =
PFCONX =
PFCON =
subsidies
special capital account
supplementary permanent fund deposits
total permanent fund deposits
A-llS
Table 27.The State Transfer Program Initiated in 1981
Common to All Three Fiscal Behavior Scenarios
(million $)
:.:::"'~'.i.'~::::(,".
...:;.....,....;",;).f
i'"..,••,·...Ie,·:::•.;...::.....1 .....
...','....".':,:::;r.:>....
A-1l6
t
Table 28.Total Petroleum Revenues for the Three
Economic Activity Scenarios
(million $)
RP9S -DEFINITION
E·;•i..I...J:3 .,j"i j"j b.HH
:I.':?:::;:()
:l.~:.;.);:::~:i.
:L .:?:::;:.:.:.~
1.(:,:'H:':\;
\.':.:':'i::;·4
J ,:.~.:.;::::~.:.:.i
J ';,:,:';::~/:'
.i.'..~.'t)./
:L ':?Hf::
J ()r:·:.';·
.r i··,.···.,".1.'.~'"'.:,'I..••i
;.9'~.i.
1~92
:1.993
1.994
1995
:I.':;;'';)(,
:i.C,:'.::.:.~:,:'
1.'~.:',:.:;.::::;
:I.',7:.:,:::1..0::.::
~::::():.':~;(:'),.(;·::·4
..:'{.:i.:::):~.::~~.:.:~0:::.
S()29~~4
55(~7.2:i.
66:!.9~()7
:::'·'t(:,':?-:-/:-:i.
;3 :.:.~;f:;::::;,",~.~:.;:::':;
~.;):,:.:.;('1 (.,.:L':'
"I.(:';3·~:!·'7 ,.:.:.:;
.1.J .i.',.:.:";.:',.,.;',
.1.J ;::;,.::')(:').:.,:)
'::'',:.:'::".;":";
:..::.:.::·:,:.·.·.i::::;·4
:1.2:.~·.;d:L .:.":1
.!..i.':;.:',.;:;.0:::'.:..:":'
.I..i.:.::;:.:.:,::.::;.:.6
:1 ()..;".;.::.:.:~':,;}(.
::.;:..~'.:.;-:.;.::(::',",()::
:I.'72.o;:~:1./'):1..i~:.::
_~I~MY"-'A "Y"~"Y"",-.;
~\)\jb+/~~~)~/+;~1
4:l32+72 4:L34i72
5030+42 5033~2}
5598.61 5603~~;;
6623.78 663:ly~~,;,
7427.63 ;'473+69
f3 .::.).:;,~,~::~;,4 ;::).::')':.;.:''~'f \':I.
s;~,~:~,..l9 ~:.:=j 1 :I.0 r::J .r.~.•>'.}.:'.;
:I.<>':?()~?"-..~I:~;':L ;?:..:::;::.:.::..:::..;..::':,
,i.:i,456~4 j.j309~.i .
:i.246~3~2 :1.j()53tS
.l3()32.;.7 .i,5~2~?~;
.i.:,3 '.:.:\.:::.~:).;.::,:~:L {;')',:?::.:.:::i..;.
:i.:.:;.:::':1.:L ':.:I.:i.(,').;,':,~.~'.i:l."
.;.34~6~9 :I,~762~4
:i.2~~;.;S4t:i.:1,469:1,+9
1 :::,::i ~".:,;::.:.;.;.J :L :.":':::.·...i :.....;(':.:....).
.!.:i.:.?:'t ...',?:1..:,:,::.;':;.;::~;::.?~.
B.LL =
B.rIM =
B.HH =
:1.':.:.,".:';'';.;;
:~:.::()()(.'
Low Case
Moderate Case
High Case
E:'.:·:',,:::·..:·::"!•.J /
,.';..,'~,:.';,()'..;,:'
A-1l7
:L <)::::::':;.::(,.:.:;;;'
':,;.:r ~...,;:.:.:,;\,:)':.::,:.:::.3
J .;::::;:':,;}".:'
:l.():.:::;;~:::,::'::~,..<;.
--_._----
.....'"1 •~."••~.;.'••.J
.'::.~::;.:.
.1."'.'..',."/.;.'....
.',.....;.'x..::,"::
•••J .:•
","'..'".le;·
.::i <.:;..,'../
...:.1
: '..f ,'.•."~..i.
I.'...':::::~.)',::.
.L :..;::~\I)
31.~,,:.:.:·.,-I J.,.;.
","','.'..;.....(').i....
I·'"
.".:.,').1....."."":.
1 :.:.;:,•.::.••:1.
.....:.."
....,,'.';:;r'r:'Hi...
Annual State Fund Balances in the
Moderate-Moderate Projection
A-US
.1.
.L
.i.·"'...•.
.1.....",
;:t."
.1.
,"-
J.":""::":::'
.l .:;:::::-..
i.,::::.,
•1.:y.::;
........
.i.'?(:',.i.
Table 29.
state general fund halancc
permanent fund balance
GfBAL
PFBAL
>
The expenditure rules in these three fiscal behavior scenarios do
not reflect the spending limit initiative passed during the special
session of the 1981 legislature.This spending limit has not yet been
approved by the voters,and it is not clear how it would affect expen-
diture patterns.In all three cases,however,the above expenditure
rules imply a considerable degree of fiscal restraint in state spend-
ing,resulting in the accumulation of substantial permanent and
general fund balances by the end of the forecast period.
However,should the legislature fail to exhibit such restraint,a
quite different sceqario could develop in which all "surplus"revenues
ar~spent as accrued,thus reinforcing the expected mid-1980s boom,
only to be followed by a fiscal crisis throughout the 1990s as petro-
leum revenues drop in the face of rising expenditures.Consequently,
an alternative scenario,termed the fiscal crisis scenario,was
developed to be contrasted with the previous three cases.
In the fiscal crisis scenario,all of the economic scenario
assumptions of the moderate case are maintained,but several varia-
tions on the policy scenarios are introduced.First,on the revenue
side,the Petroleum Production Revenue Forecast of the October 1981
Alaska Department of Revenue was introduced.However,any additional
revenues from developments not included in the Revenue Department
forecast which had been included in the moderate case are omitted from
the fiscal crisis case.This represents a somewhat more pessimistic
assumption as to the location of other North Slope development
activity (namely placing it outside of state jurisdiction on federal
properties offshore).These revenue assumptions are presented in
Table 30 in comparison with similar assumptions from the moderate
case.Second,on the expenditure side,operating expenditures are
initially assumed to follow the same rule as in the moderate case,
with real per capita operating expenditures rising (or falling)at the
same rate as real per capita income.Capital expenditures,on the
other hand,are determined entirely by revenue availability.Specifi-
cally,such expenditures are assumed to equal 90 percent of any
A-1l9
Table 30.Total Petroleum Revenues
Fiscal Crisis and Moderate Scenarios
PP9S -DEFINITION
E:.t'1t'1 E:.CC
,..,
19::::0
19::::1
19::::2
19:::::~:
19::::4
19::::5
1'3::::6
1'3::::7
1 9 ~::::::
19:::9
19'jO
1991
1992
19'3:::
1994
1'3'35
19'j6
1'3'37
1'39::::
1'~'~9
2(1)0
B.MM =Moderate Case
B.CC =Fiscal Crisis Case
1721.02
3036.74
41:~:2.72
5030.42
5':,9::::.61
74E?63
--1--4::~tl ~.:'::'
9549.51
10907.4
11456.4
1246;:::.;:.'
1:::(132.7
13766.2
1 :::'j 11 • 1
13456.9
1 c::::t,4.1
12155.1
11::11.7
1 0~:'36.9
A-120
1661.::2
354::::•
4::::19.76
4::::42.:::7
5E,'~5.05
6647.27
9400.3
10549.:::
1 0::20.f,
9919.:::7
10,:-::7.
1 005f,.5
9316.::::'3
'3'30::::.27
9932.04
,
t
I
I
accumulated general fund balance in the previous .year.Such behavior
prompts a surge in capital expenditures throughout the late 1980s,as
shown in Table 31.By 1990,such expenditures have peaked at nearly
5 billion dollars and begin to fall with the exhaustion of petroleum
revenues.By 1997,such expenditures are curtailed as the general
fund balance is exhausted,and capital expenditures thereafter are
limited to 200 million dollars annually,financed by bond issues.The
exhaustion of the general fund,however,prohibits expansion of oper-
ating expenditures,which are thereafter limited to those expenditures
which may be financed out of available current revenues,as shown in
Table 31.
A-121
ro~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'~~'·D~I·D~Dl·D~~D~i~~D~D~D~~D~DI·D~~D~D
C,~D~I'~ID~D'~~D~D'~I·DOOI»rooooooolnoo~IOO
'=,'·DOO~~~~I~ro~OI·DOO~~~~W~~O
...;)
tl>
0'
I-'
(1)
W.....
M
~
'0
(1)
'"r:IP
1-"0..
til 1-"
n 1"1'
III l=
1-'t1
(1)ntll
t1
1-"tl>
til P
1-"0..
til
'"r:IUll=n ~
(1)0..
~
tl>to
t1 tl>
1-"I-'o III
~n
(1)
til
~
I~)(-:-
m
m
)::
(--:1
I'
~
..:.:~
o
~
(/1
(71
"~
I'r
UI rl)Ul -'.J
Ul
PJ UI UI P-,-.,J P-,UI rt'-'.J -..J -'.J P)U1 -..J
~~ru~~~roa~~-~-~~-ru~~
~OOl·DI~cr~I~OO"""'~""'"OO~
.......~www..J:..~..J:..~wro ............................
.......WC,~~JIXIWI~~IJ~~..J:..~O~~
~~~OO~OOaaOO~~~OO~OO~~
OOOO'~~~':0roC,'~~roru'~~~'OOQO~D
•••II
~,=,~I~WOO~IXI~~OOrocr~~~D
;~,~I~'0cr··~'~I~I~~·~W~W ro
~D W
rororororororo--------~~JIJ~..J:..I~lru .......CI~OO~~~wroo~~~w.......~
W-~OO~~~roaOO~~ru-~~oo~~~~~
.........J:..'~.......~~'~'~~Jl~DWro~D'.DoW .......~~~~1 ~
~~JWln'~'~'~OO(Il~~,·D~~~OO..J:..OO~ow r.
I-l-............................
Q'~OO·~~~IOO~~JI~,I~~~~~rororo..............
~~~~~~a~~w~-~~oru~~ro~ro,_.)-,=,',,(,-"J Ul r,_'~(T'.U1 ~ru ,=.ru -"J ':r',~',(i .=.((I .=,
.......1.£1 I))1_11 '".11 ((I :.,(1 I-l-IJ",1)\Ul rl)I.J)~.D .=1 ,=.~.......'=1 ..J:..1.,(1
-aa-~~oo~~~~-owo~~~~_
I~"""''''''''~I~I~WWRI .......~~~D .......~D~~
-ro~~~~
-roruww~~~~wro--rurorurorow~-~~~~W~~~OO-~~W
QClo·~~~~JWc,ro~~~I·D'fll~OO~Q~~
'~O'~O~D'~~~~~I~i~IOOI~rol~roru,~~~. .
II II II II
'"OC")MM
'"r:I'"r:I:><:><b:ltoon
:t>:t>'"O:t>t-<t-<Ul'"O
'"OC")on
(1)(1)'0 tl>
t1 P (1)'0
3 (1)t1 1-"
tl>t1 tl>1"1'
P tl>rT tl>
(1)I-'1-"I-'
P P
rT '"r:IOQ M
l=~
'"r:I P M'O
l=0..~(1)
P '0 P
0..to (1)0..
tl>P 1-'.
to 1-'0..1"1'
tl>tl>1-"l=
I-'P rT t1
tl>n l=(1)
P (1)t1 tiln(1)
(1)til
:r
I-'
N
N
1NawX01dH3 SJO 31Y1GJ1VJ 01 G3SG SNOI1dHnSSY
II x1puaddy
I.Introduction
This appendix describes in fuller detail the assumptions underlying
the direct DeS employment estimates presented in the text.In Part II,
the major determinants of direct DeS employment in Alaska are examined.
Part III then presents the detailed development assumptions for each of
the ten DeS areas scheduled for leasing.
II.Determinants of Direct DeS Employment in Alaska
The direct employment generated by Federal DeS development in Alaska
will depend on three factors:
•the technology of exploration and production used to
find and develop Des resources
•the rate at which DeS properties are offered for lease
by the Federal government
•the rate and size of resource discoveries on such
properties
This section examines the relationship of each of these factors to the
employment estimates presented in Part III.
A.Technology of DeS Development
The development of DeS oil and gas resources occurs in a series of
stages:the exploration phase,the development phase,and the production
phase.While these phases will typically overlap,each consists of a
distinctive set of activities which generate direct employment.
B-1
1.Exploration
Exploration activity typically will begin prior to the sale,as
potential bidders (and the government)attempt to identify potential oil
and gas leasing structures.These activities,which may consist of
seismic surveys,bottom sampling,core drilling,or off-structure deep
stratigraphic drilling,are typically conducted by specialized crews on
various types of vessels,which move on to other areas upon completion
of short-term assignments,resulting in little,if any,onshore direct
employment.In the estimates presented below,such activity is not
included explicitly in any of the direct employment estimates.
While the geophysical techniques described are capable of locating
prospective oil-and gas-bearing structures,no technique short of drilling
into such structures is currently capable of establishing the existence
of recoverable oil and/or gas or of delineating the extent of such resources.
Thus,the next stage of exploration consists of actual drilling into the
prospective structures by winning bidders after the lease sale.The
onset of exploratory drilling marks the beginning of significant direct
employment generation in Alaska.
The technology used in exploratory drilling may involve one of
several possible alternatives.Three methods are commonly in use:drill
ships,semisubmersible drilling rigs,and jackup rigs.
Drill ships are self-propelled vessels with one or more drilling
rigs located directly on the deck of the vessel.Drilling is accomplished
B-2
________________________IIIIIIi~--
Lng
~ces .
ed
by positioning the vehicle over the drill site,while the vessel is held
in position by either a system of anchors and chains or a dynamic posi-
tioning system consisting of a series of propellers and thrusters activated
by sensors defecting any vessel movement.While drill ships may be used
in deep waters (over 400 feet),they are subject to the greatest degree
of platform movement due to wave action and are thus subject to the great-
est risk of breaking the drill string during periods of rough weather.
The semisubmersible drilling rig is also a floating platform,but it
is designed specifically for rough weather.Movements due to wave forces
are reduced by locating the major buoyant members of the structure beneath
the surface of the water.The platform is supported by steel columns
attached to these large underwater hulls.It is positioned either by a
mooring system or a dynamic positioning system and may be used in water
depths from 150 to over 2,000 feet.
Jackup rigs consist of floating platforms attached to vertically
moveable legs which can be extended to the ocean floor,thus lifting the
platform out of the water and making it a bottom-standing rig.While
this eliminates the problems of motion and positioning characteristic
of floating rigs,it imposes a rather severe limitation on the depth of
water in which the jackup may be used.Current designs are limited to
water depths of 350 feet.
B-3
Such techniques as drill ships,semisubmersibles,and jackups are
of limited usefulness in ice-infested waters such as those which may be
1encounteredinNorthernAlaskaandsomeWesternAlaskawaters.In
such waters,drilling may be limited to the ice-free period,using drill
ships or semis.Alternatively,other techniques pioneered in areas such
as the Canadian Beaufort may extend the drilling season.Five such
techniques have been developed.
First,in some limited applications,directional drilling from on-
shore to reach offshore targets may be possible,although this is not
expected to have much application in Alaska.
A technique currently in common use in the southern Canadian Beau-
fort Sea involves drilling from artificial islands.Such islands are
generally limited to shallow waters (less than 50 feet)and are con-
structed from locally available materials such as gravel,sand,or silt.
Alternatively,an island may be constructed of ice by thickening the
existing ice sheet to produce a grounded ice island.Such an island
was constructed in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea by Union Oil in 8 feet of
water in 1976.
Third,ballasted barges may be used to construct a drilling plat-
form under such conditions by floating a barge to the drill site and
lMuch of the discussion on ice technologies is based on Dames and
Moore,"Alaska OCS Studies Program Norton Basin OCS Lease Sale No.57
Petroleum Development Scenarios,"Appendix C,"Petroleum Technology
and Production."
B-4
sinking it to the ocean floor.Again,the technique is limited to very
shallow water (5 to 17 feet).
Fourth,in areas of land-fast ice,drilling has been done from the
ice itself.This has been done in deep waters in the Canadian Arctic
islands but is not expected to be feasible in Alaska.
Finally,ice-strengthened drill ships have been used successfully
in the Canadian Beaufort.Such drill ships permit drilling in deeper
waters than can be accomplished using artificial islands,but they are
limited to minimum depths of over 66 feet.
Employment generated during the exploratory drilling phase will
consist of drilling personnel as well as support personnel to construct
and/or operate onshore supply bases and to supply boats and helicopters
to shuttle supplies and personnel to the drill site.
The onshore economic and social effects of the exploratory drilling
phase of OCS operations will depend largely on the number and type of
offshore rigs being utilized.Because of the specialized and transitory
nature of exploration activity,much of the personnel employed in such
drilling will be experienced personnel from outside Alaska rather than
local residents.Some local residents,however,will be hired for such
operations,and other migrants to the area may take up residence in Alaska,
with the extent of this impact dependent upon the technology employed.
Drill ships are likely to have permanent crews and are likely to require
B-5
£
relatively little local labor,while jackups and semis will require
relatively more.Any of the rigs,however,will require substantial
amounts of support activity,performed by largely resident labor.
2.Field Development and Production
Once oil and gas deposits have been demonstrated and delineated by
exploratory drilling,a series of activities are begun to bring the field
into production.The specific activities involved in this phase and their
sequence depend on the production technology utilized.The technologies
currently available include both fixed platform systems and subsea pro-
duction systems.
Fixed platforms include both drilling and production equipment on a
platform mounted on a structure which rests on the ocean floor.While
most conventional fixed platforms consists of steel truss structures
attached to the ocean floor by pilings,the rought seas commonly encountered
in the North Sea have led to the development of new platforms constructed
primarily of concrete and held in place by their own weight,which may
range up to a quarter of a million tons.Because of the dynamic response
of fixed platforms to turbulent wave motion,it is generally felt that
such systems will be limited to waters well under 1,000 feet in depth.
Subsea completions,currently in limited use,involve technologies
which permit production in much deeper waters by drilling the production
well from a mobile rig,then placing the wellhead and production equipment
on the ocean floor.While this eliminates the vulnerability of the system
B-6
r
red
t
m
to turbulent seas,it obviously limits accessibility to the system to
divers,diving bells,and remote-controlled robots.
The sequence of activities for fixed platforms begins with the
fabrication of the permanent platform onshore.For steel platforms,
large numbers of skilled personnel are required for fabrication,pri-
marily welders.The fabrication of concrete platforms is also highly
labor intensive,though requiring relatively fewer skilled workers.
Once the platform is completed,it must be transported to the production
site and installed at a permanent location.Inasmuch as decks and
producing equipment must be installed on steel platforms after placement
at the site,while concrete platforms are completed onshore,the instal-
lation crews for steel platforms will be relatively larger.In the
scenarios presented below,all fabrication of platforms is assumed to be
done outside of Alaska.Only installation employment is generated in
Alaska.
Once permanent platforms are installed,production drilling begins.
After reaching the maximum number of production wells supportable by a
single platform,the drilling personnel will move on,leaving a small
contingent for workover operations.As production commences on the plat-
form,crews will be required for monitoring the performance of each well
and controlling and maintaining the production equipment.These crews
will remain throughout the productive life of the field.In addition,
supply bases and boats will be required for both the drilling and pro-
duction activities offshore.
B-7
For subsea completions,the sequence of activities is somewhat dif-
ferent in that drilling precedes the installation of production equipment.
Drilling occurs from mobile rigs such as those used for exploratory dril-
ling.The production equipment is installed on the well by a highly
specialized and mobile crew and requires relatively little manpower for
either maintenance or monitoring after installation.
3.Treatment,Storage,and Transportation
After production,oil and gas resources must be treated and trans-
ported to storage areas,then finally transported to market.The nature
of facilities required in this stage of development will depend on a
large number of site-specific features such as distance to land,ocean
depth,port availability,and rates of resource production.Treatment
facilities could range from facilities simply to separate produced oil,
gas,and water to oil refineries and/or LNG plants.Storage and/or trans-
fer facilities may be located either onshore or offshore,connected to
producing wells by systems of gathering lines and offshore pipelines.
Direct employment requirements during this phase involve both the
construction and operation of facilities required at each particular site.
The proportion of this labor who are or become Alaskan residents will
depend on the type of facility required.Offshore terminals and/or
pipelines will require specialized construction crews largely composed
of nonresident labor.Operations personnel,inasmuch as they will be
employed for long periods extending throughout the production life of
the field,will represent a largely resident workforce.
B-8
B.Resource Occurrence
A major determinant of the level of OCS employment in Alaska,and
the most significant determinant of long-term OCS employment,is the
quantity of recoverable resources eventually discovered on the OCS.
Ten areas surrounding Alaska,shown in Figure B-1,are under con-
sideration for OCS leasing (see below).USGS has estimated undiscovered
recoverable resources l in each of these areas as follows:
Oil Gas
Location (Billion Barrels)(Trillion Cubic Feet)
95%2 Mean 5%3 95%2 Mean 5%3
Gulf of Alaska 0 0.1 0.7 0 0.4 1.9
Cook Inlet 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 3.3
Beaufort Sea 0 4.3 10.4 4.1 16.5 32.0
Norton Basin 0 0.3 1.3 0 1.2 3.8
St.George Basin 0 1.6 5.8 0 6.2 15.7
Kodiak 0 0.23 1.1 0 0.69 3.5
N.Aleutian Shelf 0 0.2 1.0 0 0.8 3.2
Navarin Basin 0 3.8 11.8 0 14.2 38.3
Chukchi Sea 0 6.4 14.5 0 19.8 38.8
Hope Basin 0 0.13 0.6 0 0.86 3.3
Total of 10 Areas4 7 17.56 32 30 62.15 97
lSee Oil and Gas Journal,3/17/80,p.85.
2There is a 95 percent probability that at least this amount of
recoverable resources will be discovered.
3There is a 5 percent probability that at least this amount of
recoverable resources will be discovered.
4 0nly the means of the individual areas are additive,not the
5 percent and 95 percent levels,so that column does not sum to total.
B-9
i
\
\
QI."l
'1
GULF OF ALASKA
\
KODIAK
"~",
/~//"'~-,
Sj -f,--....~
GtoRe /'.
/E:84.)tt\!
/-~I /r_
~
150 '\156 162 """168 l14 ""180 174 162 156 150 1'44 138'1'32 1'26 1'20
7/)</N /"I I..-l--~\"/\
//AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION',SEA'I
~<FOR ~EASING;(,/ /---."11'1,-.v-
'~//--"//
~/
~~// /~-""-I-~<...\,.\Q'.>'
So 1"",
~.
Ss!I '~
o
NORTH
/ALEUTIAN/ I SHELF
I 's~,_"l ,/,/...,j,L.';'\'\..;OJ
JII"'~;r~j;""'~A-'"f -",."",,,~,,,,,;,,,~,""~""'f:.'~~~~-'-"~"""'''''''''~,.,""'i%ZSZL ,M';\ii!Jf'J',~"""'~".'",<"'C'".4,"'"'~~,,,~,,~-"~,~,~.~-~-,~,~,-~,-~~-"•~~.~."c~,~-~.~~,.~"-,,!,,,!,,,"'"
Q.
as
:E..
~J.2 The actual amount of resources recovered from these areas,however,
~
~
<:>
.r>
<.0
.r>
'"<.0
'"""
""
:>
o
/
...
CD-C-
Q)
~--o-C
Q)
E-...
as
Q.
Q)
C
!I (I)
:::>
.-\1~l
~'g
Hr:.
is likely to be substantially lower than this for several reasons.First,
for environmental or technical reasons,not all of the acreage in each
area will be leased.Second,even if these resources are discovered,
unless they occur in sufficiently close proximity to each other or to
transport facilities,they may not be produced.Third,in some of the
areas in northern and western coastal waters,the estimates are contingent
on the availability of technology as yet unproved.
In the high scenario,it is assumed that discoveries of recoverable
resources eventually reach 18.8 billion barrels of oil and 47.4 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.These discoveries are reasonably consistent
with USGS mean estimates,as shown above .
In the moderate scenario,only 6.7 billion barrels of oil and
16.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are discovered.This may be
interpreted as due to a low level of actual resource occurrence and/or
to some combination of wide dispersion of discoveries,environmental
constraints,or technical problems.
In the low scenario,these factors combine in an even more serious
limitation of discoveries to 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.75 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.
B-ll
C.The OCS Leasing Schedule
A major determinant of OCS-related employment in Alaska will be the
rate at which the federal government chooses to open the Outer Continental
Shelf to development.In the development scenarios used in this report,
the proposed five-year schedule of leasing prepared by the Secretary of
Interior in 1980 provides the point of reference for assumptions regarding
the rate of OCS leasing.The schedule,shown in Figure B-2,describes
the pattern of proposed OCS lease sales through 1985.Most likely,
future sales will be held after 1985,with the schedule at least partially
dependent on the results of pre-1985 leasing.
In the high case,it is assumed that all of the planned sales before
1985 are in fact held on schedule and that three additional sales in the
areas of greatest resource potential (Beaufort Sea,Navarin,and Chukchi)
are held between 1985 and 1990.
In the moderate and industrialization scenarios,it is assumed that
all planned pre-1985 sales are held on schedule,but that less encourag-
ing rates of discovery of recoverable resources result in fewer post-1985
sales.Two such sales are held after 1985 in the Navarin Basin and the
Chukchi Sea.
In the low scenario,only the areas of greatest resource potential
(Beaufort Sea,Navarin,and Chukchi)are leased between now and 1985,
and no sales are held thereafter.
B-12
______________________________________________l _
'<()Q t-'
PROPOSED FINAL OCS OIL &GAS LEASING SCHEDULE MARCH 1980
...~..._-
198519801981,1982 1983.__,_1~4 .',''.,.
PROPOSEO SALE AR.EA PR~:~:ED J F MIA M J JIA S °NIO JTfclM A MTJJA'SO"NIU j r M A M jl AS ON O¥,A M J J A S GiN D ~MijiJ1Ai~o:OIN ul''1M"M ,'.,"',
A62 Guif of MeXICO 9/80 F p Sc RN S,! 'I 'r-+-+-++.+-----J ._.
~~Gulf oiAiiSka "10180 F P SC'R NS I ...:~t-HTt +1-r'..•r _r
62 Guif of Mexico 11/80 F P Sc R N S "I;••.r :
53 Central N.Calif.5/81 E H F P Sc R N,'S 1 ,l-lt-iT 0,t----.--L~G~...~._
1 R .I ,...',.\'!If.r,y I
RS-l ........s"_6J!1t-'"1+-n-n-i J',",-;..c~'"H d .
A66 Guif of Mexico 7/81 E H F P,Sc RNS T'++t-+~0 ~.--'..::.-;.__+!.
56 South Allantic ._~sr-,,8!_-,E H Fdp
,\:N S,,':t +-.",':"1,,'H-~:_'.2)1 +.:_" .~o Co~~~!L .E H~+--P1--~~NS -f----f--t .-rt-'i t-j +l-f~-.•~....,-t '
66 Gun 01 MeXICO 10/81 I E H F I P Sc R ~S -+f-+-.'I',,,-fl-'_'--f-'--~',h 1 ""_ •I rt-f--~-E"F P SeRN'S''i,I.'~i+~•...
67 Gun of Mexico 3/82 c1 D T 'E H F P ~c R NS ..I I;r-t ~__t:f ••
RS~Reoffering Sale 5/82 1 I i RN S I --:-1 +'f-tr'1 -+-+-~+.-+--t-+iT ....+--"1 'S I '68SouthernCal~~_6/82D_iT".E H F P CRsNS I -t--t-I t-t-I.+--t o -
t
•+.•1 ••__
-69 Gun of Mexico 8/82 eDT , E H ,F I P CRN S.f-'I _-+.I Ii!,._••_~7 N~r10n~_.9/82 T +,I -t !--E.~F P SC:NS !,I --l-++'~1 ~,i !I ,~_~_
52 North Atlantic ._)~_!_T_1 _---l:r E1-l H L -:-:.F PeR:S f--I ,",-t.tfH-l~c-it--~+,I I ...r •
70 SI.George Basin 12/82 T ,'T 'E H FPc R NS ,...f--ill .tWit'+,~ttL +.-!-+..t-•_.•~__
71 Beaufort Sea 2/83 T .E H F P ~c RNS I,!",+-t-'-+.+~+-+-+-.;._
__7~~u~of Mexico 3/83 C DJT E H f P Sc RNS i I +~-t-_I h-++~_.':'--t---l-+-++.~~_,
61 Kodiak 4/83 I e -l-~_TIE H F P Sc RN ~~-l-t j-I--+---+----t---J---i--+h j ~.•~.• ,
73Calif0riii3 5/83 H-,'J~r D1,_-+I r !---t---t-E H F ,P scR N ~tC'--t 4-~-;1ft;t .,.I 1 ri r r •••__
RS·3 Reoffering Sale 6/83 'H J!'I c-l-i·+t J!~~~+t-+-.-++-J ..L,-_t -t --I J.T --.,-
74 Gun of Mexico __~/83 t"i e l~T:E H F l~L~~!S11 ---l--_.L~:~~-;---,-,~~1 _
-is No:A~Utii,"Sheif_~83 e 0 I IT :"I ~I I EI H 1F 1pi I\RN SI I ++-t 4 +l 'I.
76 Mid-Atlantic 11/83 i 'eI D,:'T I E H 'F'p!I'c R N,SI i L ILL ,l-----i-I r-'-.'~i."..__
78 So.Atlantic 1/84 c-+-'ie ,D I.'-+1--+-,i E.,H1-+-~IP ~c R,N S _+-Ti--~~-+r--'•
79 Gun of Mexico -318L ~Ll t+r _p ;L~-4t+:"i _+-~+-p l.-ri-+-T +_I ,E,~H~.J+tP ;Sc R~~~_.,:ljH ,!.,.
RS-4 Reoffering Sale 4/84 -~t ~-l-t+-t-HH-t-d t 'l',i ~I LJJ r I !1-rT t ~l-m-t f+-I ;RtsNl~+:~+-'"-j-~'•t •~-~--++-..
80Calilornia 6/84 L,!,:_,t'+-','"t1 lei ID ~IT J i 4t-l'4 +[Itt;'~+4 ~t-f+-Pi ICjR1Nt,St_+-.f---t--.----.t-!.4.·,-.-----------I :r 'I t-t r I li-~,-TTl"I I'I E H F P''S'RNS1 :'
81 Gu"of Mexico 7~L r-.l+-r+-..:r t-+-t-LL -'1 ~-:-~t--'L+tJ~t---+-+-tl:-T+--J t--l-:CI 'II SI '!-,-.t +t
82 North Atlantic 10184 'I'I I " : '1...L 1 I ,II I e I DI I i TTl f'I t+I -+-E'I HI ,",-f~PI "ClR~N ~.0
_..i-"t;;rt!r I t 1 +'I E'HI'F+--PP'S RNS83NavarinBaSin12/84 I I 1 :I ,,e,D !T I !, ':·c ..~_~I •
8_4GUlfOI,M,~XiCO ,-,-,1I8~l,-+",_~".l,ITf,,+I-t,'_I-+-t,,;,'-+,i t,'~,,'1+",,-+,':)I,Lr-+,I;HJfI,,""-r·FffiI~-+t-+="e+,~,.!l,Hllllii"i\,~-,I,EE~.,~--+"'-~F,,Pt,PT,s~'~R·~:·,S~,t,','14 85 ChUkCh~~-~!~~---i--.~:--;1-+t l+--+..L+_+--+l~j ~+~1-l--jJ '-t-+--t-mr -n-t+:-+-~"-+-!-+.f'"S-~---rR+N-S'"....
1iS-5 Reoffenne_.~4-Jt .t.-f-i-I I+-'''T-~,.i ~-L.-i--l.'-+!.fl'j _~LL I ',-LL-+-L:;ljr+-;-'~~is;;j :.."
86 Hope Basin !i /85 !1 I :I :I IIi I.'.i .C I ID 1 Til i I I Til i .:E',,i HI I ,,F I PiC RNS
to
I
t-'
W
C·CaU for Nominations
o.Nominations Due
T.Tentative Tract Selection
E·Oralt Environmental Statement
H.Pubic Hearing
f .final Environmenlal Statement
P.Proposed Notice ot Sale
Sc .State Comments Oue
R ,Energy Review
N-Notice of Sale
S.Sale
l4The holding 01 Ihe Chukchi Sale at thIS lime IS con''"genl upon a reasonable
assumptIOn that lechnology Will be available lor exploratIOn and development
01 lhe Itacts ,"cluded '"lhe sale.
FIGURE B-2
III.oes Development Scenarios
A.Gulf of Alaska
In the high scenario.it is assumed that 0.45 billion barrels of
oil and 1.25 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased
in 1980.Employment peaks at 440 in 1989.falling to a long-term level
of about 350 by 1993.as shown in Table B-1.
In the moderate and low cases.exploration of tracts leased in 1980
results in no commercial discoveries.and the tracts are abandoned by
1985,as shown in Table B-2.
B-14
TABLE B-1.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS:GULF OF ALASKA 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECDNX EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
1980 o.o.o.o.o.
1981 0.045 o.0.017 o.0.062
19:=:2 0.09 o.0.035 o.0.125
19:=:3 0.09 o.o.0:~:5 o.0.125
1984 0.083 0.038 0.026 O.0.147
1 13':::5 0.038 0.012 0.009 o.0.05'3
1986 o.0.0'33 O.O.0.093
1987 0.09 0.0'38 0.086 o.0.274
1988 0.179 0.037 O.0:=:6 o.0.302
1989 0.34 o.O.1 o.0.44
1990 O.~:33 o.0.107 o.0.44
1 '391 0.343 O.0.107 o.0.45
19'312 0.2'32 o.0.042 o.0.334
1993 0.305 o.0.042 o.O.34?
1994 0.307 o.0.042 O.0.349
1 1:;'95 0.31 O.0.042 o.0.352
1 '396 0.31 o.0.04E:O.0.352
1 qc~'7
..0.31 o.0.042 O.0.352
_'....I
1998 0.31 O.0.042 o.o.::::52
1999 0.31 O.0.042 O.0.352
2000 0.31 O.0.042 O.0.352
KEY:EMP9 =Petroleum
ECONX =Construction
EMT9X =Transportation
EMMX =Manufacturing
1Assumes two lease sales,in 1976 and 1980.Activity associated
with the 1976 sale has ended with no commercial discoveries.The 1980
sale is assumed to result in commercial discoveries of 0.45 BBO and
1.25 TCFG.Employment estimates taken from moderate case scenario
described in Eastern Gulf of Alaska Sale 55 Final ElS.
B-15
TABLE B-2.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,GULF OF ALASKA l
MODERATE CASE
LOW CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECDNX EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
1980 O.O.O.O.O.
19E:1 0.149 O.0.082 O.0.231
1982 0.149 O.0.082 O.0.231
1983 0.114 O.O.OE.2 O.0.176
1-:a84 0.021 O.0.017 O.o.lns
1985 o.O.o.o.O.
19E:6 O.O.o.o.o.
1987 O.O.o.o.O.
19::::8 O.O.o.o.o.
~qoq o.o.o.o.o."-"'-I -'
1990 o.O.o.o.o.
1991 O.O.o.o.O.
1 qq'-'O.o.o.o.o...,0 ..c
1993 O.O.o.o.O.
1994 O.O.o.o.O.
1995 O.O.o.o.o.
1996 o.O.o.o.o.
l qq7 O.O.o.o.o.."...I
1998 O.o.o.o.O.
1999 O.o.o.o.o.
2000 O.O.o.o.o.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes two lease sales,in 1976 and 1980.Activity associated
with the 1976 sale has terminated with no co~~ercial discoveries.No
commercial discoveries result from the 1980 sale.Employment consists
solely of exploration activity,estimated as described in the "explora-
tion only"scenario presented in Huskey and Nebesky,Northern Gulf of
Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Impacts,
OCS Technical Report 34,Table 58,p.187.
B-16
-------------------------------------------_...,.'--
B.Cook Inlet
In the high case,it is assumed that 0.67 billion barrels of oil
and 1.173 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on tracts leased this
year (1981).Direct employment peaks at over 900 in 1987,before falling
to a long-term level of about 800 in 1991,as shown in Table B-3.
In the moderate case,acreage leased in 1981 yields .332 billion
barrels of recoverable oil and 0.581 trillion cubic feet of recoverable
gas.Employment peaks at about 500 in 1987,falling to a long-term level
of 428 in 1991,as shown in Table B-4.
In the low case,no commercial discoveries result from exploration
of tracts leased in 1981,and tracts are abandoned in 1987,as shown in
Table B-5.
B-17
-
TABLE B-3.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,COOK INLET 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON~<EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
0.09 O.0.033 O.0.123
1'380 0.017 o.O.0'32
19:=:1 0.075 O.0.286
0.121 0.13i O.034 o.
1982 O.0.036 O.O.126
1983 0.0'3
0.036 o.0.126
1984 0.0'3 O.0.1590.027 O.
1985 0.084 0.048 0.7870.208 n .::oqq 0.28 O.
1986 _•L.......0.9160.425 O.
19:37 O.:358 0.133 0.7940.369 O.0.425 O.
1988 O.0.425 O.0.81
t '389 (1.3:::5 0.8540.411 O.0.443 o.
1990 O.0.366 o.0.798
1991 0.432 Om798o.0.366 O.
19'32 0.432 0.7'38
0.432 o.0.366 O.
19'33 O.0.366 O.0.798
19'34 O.4~:2 0.7980.432 O.0.366 O.
1995 0.366 o.0.798
191;&':_0.432 O.0.798O.O.~:E,6 O.
1997 O.4~:2 0.366 O.0.798
19138 0.432 o.0.7980.366 O.
191~13 0.432 O.0.7980.432 o.0.366 O.
2000
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes two lease sales,in 1977 and 1981.The 1977 sale results
in no commercial discoveries,but the 1981 sale results in discovery of
0.67 BBO and 1.173 TCFG.Employment estimates for the 1977 sale consist
of exploration only.Employment estimates for the 1981 sale are taken
from a development scenario described in ISER,Lower Cook Inlet Statewide
and Regional Population and Economic Systems Impact Analysis,Table 3,p.7.
B-18
't
7.
TABLE B-4.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,COOK INLET 1
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECON:X:EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
19:=:0 0.09 O.0.033 o.0.123
19:=:1 0.075 o.0.017 o.0.092
1982 0.07E.0.028 0.018 O.0.122
1'3183 0.083 O.0.025 O.0.108
1984 0.09 O.(I.03~:O.0.123
1 '3::::5 0.076 0.048 0.017 O.0.141
1986 0.143 O.15 0.166 O.0.459
1987 0.218 0.061 0.217 O.0.496
19::::8 0.238 O.0.217 O.0.455
19::::13 0.25 O.0.217 O.0.467
1990 0.182 O.0.22':.O.0.408
1991 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1 q,~.;:.0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428_••'L..
1993 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1994 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1995 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1996 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
l,~q7 0 ..25 O.0.178 O.0.428."."f
11~9c:0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1999 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
2000 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes two lease sales,in 1977 and 1981.The 1977 sale results
in no commercial discoveries,but the 1981 sale results in discovery of
0.332 BBO and 0.581 TCFG.Employment estimates for the 1977 sale consist
of exploration only.Employment estimates for the 1~8l sale are taken
from a developsent scenario described in ISER,Lower Cook Inlet Statewide
and Regional Population and Economic Systems Impact Analysis,Table 2,
p.6.
B-19
TABLE B-5.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,COOK INLET 1
LOW CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECON>c:EMT9~<EMM>c:TOTAL
1'~80 O.09 o.o.03~:o.o.123
19:=:1 o.075 o.O.017 O.o.092
1982 o.07E,o.028 o.018 o.o.122
1983 O.08:3 O.O.026 o.o.10'3
19:=:4 o.09 o.o.033 o.O.123
1985 o.075 O.O.017 o.o.0'~2
1986 o.1):]8 O.o.009 O.o.047
1 '3:::7 o.o.O.O.O.
19:=:8 O.O.o.o.O.
1 S.:::9 o.o.O.O.O.
1990 o.O.o.O.o.
19'~1 o.O.o.O.o.
1 Cl'~·-'O.o.O.o.o.
." ."c.
199:3 o.o.O.o.o.
1994 O.O.o.O.O.
1995 O.O.O.o.O.
19'3E.o.o.o.O.o.
1997 o.O.O.O.O.
1998 o.o.O.o.o.
1999 O.o.o.O.o.
2000 o.O.O.O.o.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes two lease sales,in 1977 and 1981,each followed by explora-
tion activity but no commercial discoveries.Exploration employment
estimated by Alaska oes Office for study of Lower Cook Inlet oes Sale 60.
B-20---------.t
c.Beaufort Se&
In the high scenario,it is assumed that two additional lease sales
are held in the Beaufort Sea in 1983 and 1986.Acreage leased in the 1979
sale yields discoveries of 1.9 billion barrels of oil and 4.74 trillion
cubic feet of gas.Discoveries from 1983 leased acreage total 1.3 bil-
lion barrels of oil and 3.25 trillion cubic feet of gas.The 1986 sale
results in discoveries of 0.8 billion barrles of oil and 1.6 trillion
cubic feet of gas.Total discoveries amount to 4 billion barrels of oil
and 9.6 trillion cubic feet of gas.Employment peaks at over 3,300 in
1994,falling to about 2,640 by the end of the forecast period,as shown
in Table B-6.
In the moderate case,acreage leased in 1979 yields discoveries of
1.3 billion barrels of oil and 3.25 trillion cubic feet of gas.A second
sale in 1983 adds 0.8 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 trillion cubic feet
of gas,bringing total discoveries to 2.1 billion barrels of oil and
4.85 trillion cubic feet of gas.Employment peaks at over 2,200 in 1991
but falls to under 1,500 by the year 2000,as shown in Table B-7.
In the low case,1 billion barrels of oil and 1.75 trillion cubic
feet of gas are assumed,half discovered on acreage leased in 1979 and
half on acreage leased in 1983.Employment peaks at over 1,200 in 1993,
falling to less than 700 by the year 2000,as shown in Table B-8.
B-2l
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
)'
,;:..
!
0.179
0.13
0.121
1.955
1.941
0.13
0.143
0.267
1.549
1.462
1.E.34
2.:::02
2.059
2.515
2.402
3.045
3.02
2.7E.3
2.853
2.641
TOTALEMP9ECON>:;EMT9:X:EMM:X:
19:=:0 o.119 o.06 o.O.
19:31 O.liB O.018 O.O.
19:::2 O.044 O.086 o.O.
19:::::3 o.044 O.086 o.O.
1984 o.044 o.099 o.O.
19::::5 o.027 0.24 o.O.
1986 0.275 1.68 o.O.
1'3:::7 0.467 1.474 o.o.
19::::8 1.453 o.096 O.o.
19:=:9 1 •:~:78 o.084 o.O.
1'~9 [I 1.319 0.315 O.Q,~.
1991 1.:319 0.74 O.O.
1992 1.243 1.272 o.O.
19'::-3 1.396 1.006 O.O.
1994 1.887 1.441 O.O.
1995 2.145 O.I~O.O.
1996 2.668 0.352 O.O.
1 t~':.a7 =-'-..,C'o.0:=:8 o.o.L...b I "_I
19':":=:2.E,:=:2 o.171 o.o.
1'~99 2.654 o.14:::o.o.
2000 -.C'C'.-.o.0:3:::o.O.Co II ,,-I_I~.
TABLE B-6.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,BEAUFORT SEAl
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes three lease sales--in 1979,1983,and 1986--resulting in
total commercial discoveries of 4.0 BBO and 9.6 TCFG.Discoveries asso-
ciated with the first sale total 1.9 BBO and 4.75 TCFG;those associated
with the second are 1.3 BBO and 3.25 TCFG;and those with the third are
0.8 BBO and 1.6 TCFG.Employment estimates associated with the 1979,
1983,and 1986 sales correspond to the High Find Scenario,the Moderate
Find Scenario,and the Low Find Scenario,respectively,as presented in
Alaska oes Studies Technical Report 18,Beaufort Sea.Petroleum Develop-
ment Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Impacts,Tables 3.2,3.8,and
3.6,respectively.
B-22
---------------------------,+...-
TABLE B-7.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMEN~S,BEAUFORT SEA l
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'?ECON>o:EMT9X EMM:X:TOTAL
19::::0 O.O.o.O.O.
19:31 O.O.O.O.O.
19:32 O.0::::4 0.012 O.O.0.096
19::::3 o.101 0.052 O.O.0.153
19::::4 0.185 0.03 O.O.0.215
1 '51:::5 0.179 0.122 O.O.0.:301
19::::6 0.163 0.242 O.O.0.405
1987 0.104 0.735 O.O.(I.8~:';a
1988 0.165 1.286 O.O.1.451
1 13:=:9 0.341 0.821 O.O.1.162
1990 0.792 0.828 O.O.1.62
1 ':;'91 1.082 1.158 O.O.2.24
l Qq =-1.41 0.675 O.O.2.0:=:5..'.."J.-
199::::1.74 0.264 O.O.2.004
1994 1.74 0.166 O.O.1.906
1 '395 1.713 O.19E,O.O.1.909
199E,1.E.ll 0.03 O.O.1.641
1 '::.'::."?1.564 O.1 t,E,O.O.1.7~:...." I
1998 1.513:=:O.01 O.O.1.t,08
1'399 1.5:38 O.01 O.O.1.548
2000 1.478 O.01 O.O.1.4:'::8
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes two lease sales,in 1979 and 1983,resulting in total com-
mercial discoveries of 2.1 BBO and 4.85 TCFG.The 1979 sale results in
discoveries of 1.3 BBO and 3.25 TCFG.Employment estimates for this sale
are take~from Alaska OCS Studies Technical Report 18,Beaufort Sea Petro-
leum Development Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Impacts,Moderate
Find Scenario,Table 3.8,p.89.The 1983 sale results in discoveries
of 0.8 BBO and 1.6 TCFG.Emp 1 0yment estimates are also from Alaska OCS
Studies Technical Report 18,Low Find Scenario,Table 3.6,p.86.
B-23
--
TABLE B-3.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,BEAUFORT SEAl
LOW CASE
(thousands of persons)
19:::0
19:::1
19:=:2
19:=:3
19:::4
1985
1986
1 1387
1'3:=:8
1989
19'31 (I
19'31
1 13&92
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1999
2000
~..
[
•t
f~.
EMF'9 ECDN~<EMT9><EMMX TOTAL
o. o.o.o.o.
o.066 o.062 o.o. o.128
o.1 '=."?O.1:=:8 o.O.O.~:B5JI
O.197 O.135 O.O.O.3~:2 I0.23 0.25 o.o.0.48 ~.
o.132 0.212 o.o.0.344 !.0.267 0.47 o.O.O.7~:7
0.32 0.417 o.o.0.737 I.0.458 0.645 o.o.1.103
0.411 0.545 O.o.0.956 f
0.457 0.414 o.o.O~871
0.557 0.414 o.O.OE971
0.616 0.461 o.o.1-on
0.7 0.527 o.O.1 -:'-:'7IIIL....,I-I
0.72 0.264 o. o.0.9:::4
O.7E.8 o.191 O.o.0.959
0.721 O.0:::4 o. o.0.805
I).E,:::7 O.1 :~:2 o.O.0.81'3
0.663 o.1 ~.~.(I.O•0.795..;..c.
0.661 O.059 O.O.01172
I).E.5:=:O.018 o.o.O.E·76
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes two lease sales,in 1979 and 1983,resulting in total dis-
coveries of 1.0 BBO and 1.75 TCFG,half on acreage leased in the first
sale,half in the second.Employment estimates for each sale taken from
scenario described in Beaufort Sea Draft EIS,Table III.C.2.3,p.238.
B-24
t,
----------------------~--
::
:'
:'
:l-
7'
",
:0-'
~
:0
1
1
7'-(
4
31
=--'
'3
5
6
D.Norton Basin
In the high case,it is assumed that 0.38 billion barrels of oil
and 1.2 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased in
the scheduled 1982 sale.Employment peaks at about 1,300 in 1990 before
falling to a long-term level of about 850 by 1995,as shown in Table B-9.
In the moderate case,acreage leased in the scheduled 1982 sale
results in no commercial discoveries.Employment in exploration peaks
at 92 in 1984,before the tracts are abandoned in 1986,as shown in
Table B-10.
In the low scenario,no sale occurs in the Norton Basin.
B-25
TABLE B-9.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,NORTON BASIN 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECONX EMT9X EMM;:'<TOTAL
1980 o.o.O.O.O.1981 o.o.O.o.O.1982 o.o.O.O.o.
1983 o.053 O.O.031 O.o.0:::4
1984 o.083 o.005 O.04E,o.o.134
1985 O.116 o.011 o.09'3 o.0.22E.
19:::6 O.168 o.011 O.149 o.0.328
1 1387 o.OE.3 O.052 O.05 O.O.165
1"~:=:8 o.08 o.124 O.1~:8 o.0.342
1'3::::9 o.195 o.lCi~O.131 O.0.518JI.-
1990 1.116 o.01 O.113 O.08 1.319
1991 1.136 O.o.0:::2 O.08 1.298
1992 0.8:36 O.o.0:::2 O.08 0.998
199:3 0.625 o.o.0:::2 o.08 0.787
1994 0.595 o.o.0:::2 O.08 O~757
1995 0.685 O.o.O::~2 o.08 0.847
19'36 0.685 o.o.0:::2 o.08 O.:=:47
1997'0.6:::5 o.o.0:::2 o.08 0.847
1998 O.E.:35 o.O.082 o.08 0.847
1999 O.E.:::5 o.o.0:::2 O.08 0.847
2000 0.6:::5 o.O.082 o.08 0.847
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes a single lease sale held in 1982,resulting in commercial
discoveries totaling 0.38 BBO and 1.2 TCFG.Employment estimates from
.3cenario described in Porter,"Bering-Norton Petroleum Development
Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Analysis,Table 24,p.140.
;:a
B-26 I
----------_....~-
TABLE B-10.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,NORTON BASIN 1
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECON~:EMT9~:EMM~:TOTAL
1980 o.o.o.o.o.
1981 O.o.o.o.o.
1982 o.O.o..O.o.
:4 19:::3 0.026 o.0.015 o.0.041
:4 1'=-':=:4 0.056 0.005 0.031 O.0.O'=-'2
:6 1985 0.03 0.005 0.016 o.0.051
:8 1986 o.O.O.O.O.
c-198?o.o.o.o.O.•...J
·2 19:38 O.o.O.O.o.
8 1989 O.O.O.O.O.
.~19'30 O.o.o.o.O.
18 1991 O.O.O.o.O.
18 l,~q'-'o.o.O.O.O..._,C.
)7 1993 O.o.O.O.o....--1994 O.o.O.O.O.'.,,-
~?1995 o.O.O.O.O.
~7'1996 o.o.O.O.O.
~7 1997'o.o.o.O.O.
~7 1'::-9:::O.O.O.O.O.
~7 1 1:;&1:;&':;-o.O.O.O.o.
~7 2000 O.O.O.O.o.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes a single lease sale held in 1982,followed by exploration
but no commercial discoveries.Employment estimates from "exploration
only"scenario described in Porter,"Bering-Norton Petroleum Development
Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Analysis,"Table 23,p.139.
B-27
-,._-
E.St.George Basin
In the high case.it is assumed that 2.16 billion barrels of oil
and 6.12 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on tracts leased in
the scheduled 1982 sale.Employment peaks at nearly 2.600 in 1989.
eventually falling to a long-term level of about 1.600.as shown in
Table B-ll.
In the moderate case.it is assumed that exploration following the
planned 1982 sale results in no commercial discoveries.Exploration
employment peaks at over 100 before the tracts are abandoned in 1988.
as shown in Table B-12.
In the low case.no sale is held in the St.George Basin.
I
B-28 i
______________________________l.,__
TABLE B-11.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,ST.GEORGE BASIN 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECOt~:=c:EMT9>C:EMM:=C:TOTAL
19:30 o.O.o.O.o.
19S1 O.O.O.o.o.
1982 O.O.o. o.O.
19:3~:0.084 O.OlS 0.057 o.0.159
19:=:4 0.118 0.055 0.091 O.0.264
1985 0.136 0.172 0.lEio2 O.0.47
1986 0.122 0.19 0.254 O.0.566
19:37 0.244 1.165 o.~:E,3 o.1.772
1'3:=:8 0.263 1.075 0.616 o.1.954
19:=:13 0.826 0.873 0.88 o.2.579
1990 0.859 0.619 0.711 o.2.189
1991 0.843 o.0.711 o.1.554
1 t=t.=.':.0.891 O.0.711 O.1.E,02.."_"L....
1993 0.951 o.0.711 o.1.662
1994 0.911 o.0.711 o.1.t,22
1995 0.871 O.0.711 o.1.5:=:2
1996 O.:=:3:3 o.0.711 o.1.544
1997 0.891 o.0.711 O.1.E,02
1998 o.'3'51 O.0.711 O.1.662
1999 0.'3'11 o.0.711 o.1.622
2000 0.871 o.0.711 O.1.5:=:2
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes a single lease sale held in 1982,resulting in discovery
of 2.16 BBO and 6.12 TCFG.Employment estimates from "Moderate Find"
scenario developed by Alaska OCS Office for study of St.George OCS
Sale 70.
B-29
TABLE B-12.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,ST.GEORGE BASIN l
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECONX EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
19:=:0 O.O.O.o.O.
19:=:1 O.O.O.O.o.
19:::2 O.O.O.O.o.
19:::~:O.05 O.O.023 O.O.073
1984 O.064 O.O.037 O.O.101
1 1;':=:5 O.072 O.O.046 O.O.118
1986 O.065 O.O.O~:13 O.o.104
]9:::7 O.044 O.O.008 O.O.052
19:::8 O.O.O.O.O.
19:39 O."J.O.O.O.
1990 O.O.O.O.
1991 o.O.O.O.
1 CICIo:.o.O.o.O._0 _'L..
1 ,;..;,~:O.O.O.O.
1994 O.O.O.O.
1995 O.O.O.O.
199E.O.O.O.O.
1997 o.O.O.O.
199:::O.O.O.O.
1999 O.O.O.O.
2000 O.O.o.o.o.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssurnes a single lease sale held in 1982,resulting in no commercial
discoveries.Employment estimates associated with exploration activity
only,as estimated by Alaska OCS Office for study of St.George OCS
Sale 70,Low Scenario.
B-30
--------------------------\t---
:W3
)l
.c·,....
:14
52
F.·Kodiak
In the high case,it is assumed that 0.332 billion barrels of oil
and 0.581 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased
in the scheduled 1983 sale.Employment peaks at nearly 500 in 1989
before falling to a long-term level of about 430,as shown in Table B-13.
In the moderate case,exploration following the scheduled 1983 sale
results in no commercial discoveries.Exploration employment peaks at
nearly 300 in 1985 (see Table B-14),before the tracts are abandoned in
1988.
In the low case,no Kodiak sale is held.
B-3l
---------~--------_._~._-----------_.._---
G.North Aleutian Shelf
In the high case,it is assumed that 0.332 billion barrels of oil
and 0.581 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased in
the scheduled 1983 sale.Employment peaks at nearly 500 in 1989 before
falling to a long-term level of about 430,as shown in Table B-15.
In the moderate case,exploration following the scheduled 1983 sale
results in no commercial discoveries.Exploration employment peaks at
nearly 300 in 1985,before the tracts are abandoned in 1988,as shown
in Table B-16.
In the low case,no North Aleutian Shelf sale is held.
B-32
TABLE B-13.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,KODIAK 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON:X:EMT9:X:EMM>C:TOTAL
1980 o.o.O.O.o.
1981 o.O.O.O.o.
1982 o.o.O.O.O.
1983 o.o.O.o.O.
1984 0.038 0.028 0.009 o.0.075
1985 1).083 O.0.025 o.0.108
1986 0.09 o.o.O~:3 o.0.123
1987 0.076 0.048 0.017 o.O.141
1988 0.143 0.15 0.166 O.0.459
t989 0.218 0.061 0.217 O.0.496
1990 O.2~:~=:o.0.217 o.0.455
1991 0.25 O.0.217 O.0.467
1992 0.182 o.0.226 o.(1.40:3
199:3 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1994 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1995 0.25 o.0.178 O.0.428
199E.0.25 O.0.178 o.0.428
1 Ci'~7 0.25 o.0.178 o.0.428JJI
1 1;'1:--8 0.25 o.0.178 O.0.428
1999 0.25 o.0.178 O.0.428
2000 0.25 o.0.178 O.0.428
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assu~es a single lease sale held in 1983,resulting in commercial
discovery of 0.332 BBO and 0.581 TCFG.Environmental conditions assumed
to be similar to Lower Cook Inlet.Employment estimates adapted from
Low Find Scenario used in Lower Cook Inlet Statewide and Regional Popu-
lation and ECOr.0~ic Systems Impact Analysis.
B-33
TABLE B-14.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,KODIAK l
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECOWC:EMT9X EMM~:TOTAL
19:::0 o.o.o.o.o.
19:=:1 o.o.o.o.o.
19:=:2 o.o.o.o.o.
1 -3:=:3 o.042 o.o.OOt:o.o.05
19:::4 O.09 o.O.037 o.O.127
19:=:5 O.117 O.o.176 o.0.293
19:::6 O.0:::4 O.O.029 o.O.113
11?~:7 O.042 O.O.OO:=:O.o.05
t 9::::8 o.O.o.O.O.
.l ':'!:39 o.o.o.O.O.
1990 O.O.O.o.O.
1991 o.O.O.O.O.
1 qq-=,o.o.O.O.O._"_.l.-
t ql~:i O.O.O.O.O.
1994 o.O.O.O.O.
1qg~O.O.o.O.O.
1996 O.o. o. o.o.
1 ,~q7 o•O.o.O.o.•"..' I
1 139:3 o.O.O.O.o.
1999 O.O.o.o.o.
2000 o.O.o.o.O.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes a single lease sale held in 1983,resulting in no commer-
cial discoveries.Employment estimates are exploration employment esti-
mates used by Alaska OCS Office in study of Kodiak Sale 46.
B-34
_____________________________t.'_
TABLE B-15.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON><EMT9:X:EMMX TOTAL
19:30 o.o. o.o.o.
19:31 o.o.o.o.o.
11~:=:2 O.o.o.o.o.
19:3:3 o.O.O.O.O.
19:::4 0.038 0.0;::8 O.(10'3'o.0.075
19:=:5 0.08:3 O.0.025 O.0.108
19:::::6 O.0';'O.I).O~:3 O.0.123
1'::"=1"7 0.076 0.048 0.017 (I.o.141..'_L I
19:::::::::0.143 0.15 0.166 o.0.459
1 '~89 0.218 I).OE.l 0.217 o.0.496
1990 0.238 O.0.217 O.0.455
1991 0.25 o.0.217 O.0.467
14'~"-'0.182 o.O.22E.o.0.408_"0"Co
l qq"-:-0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428-"-'._'
1994-0.25 O.O.17<::o.0.428
1995 0.25 o.0.178 O.0.428
19'3'6 0.25 O.O.178 O.0.42:::
11~'~'7 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428JJI
19'3':3 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
1 ,~,~,~0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428-'-'..
2000 0.25 O.0.178 O.0.428
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes a single lease sale held in 1983,resulting in commercial
discoveries of 0.332 BBO and 0.581 TCFG.Employment estimates adapted
from scenario used in study of Lower Cook Inlet Sale 60,presented in
Lower Cook Inlet Statewide and Regional Population and Economic Systems
Impact Analysis.
B-35
.--,...'",
TABLE B-16.DIRECT EMPLOY}lliNT REQUIREMENTS,NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF 1
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON>c:EMT9:X:EMM>c:TOTAL
19E:O o.O.o.O.O.
19:31 o. o.O.O.O.
19:=:2 O.O.O.O.O.
19:::3 o.042 o.O.OOE:o.0.05
19::::4 0.09 O.O.037 O.0.127
19:~:5 o.117 O.0.176 o.11 .-,q.j...c-,,-,
19E:6 0.0::::4 O.0.029 O.0.113
19:=:7 o.042 o.o.008 O.0.05
19::::8 o.O.O.o.O.
19::::9 o.O.O.o.O.
1990 o.o.O.O.O.
1991 O.O.O.O.O.
1992 O.O.o.o.O.
1993 O.(I.O.O.O.
1994 O.O.O.O.O.
1995 O.O.O.O.O.
1996 O.O.O.O.o.
1 q'~7 o.O.o.O.O._' _'I
1qq:~O.O.O.o.O.
1·~·~·~O.o.O.o.o.
2000 O.o.O.O.O.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1 Assumes a single lease sale held in 1983,resulting in no commercial
discoveries.Employment consists of exploration activity only,on a scale
similar to that estimated by Alaska OCS Office for study of Kodiak Sale 46.
B-36
;,
H.Navarin Basin
In the high scenario,it is assumed that three sales--in 1984, 1987,
and 1989--result in discoveries totaling 4.32 billion barrels of oil and
12.24 trillion cubic feet of gas,half on acreage leased in 1984 and
half on acreage leased in 1987.The 1989 sale results in no commercial
discoveries.Employment peaks at over 4,200 in 1994,before falling to
a long-term level of about 3,200,as shown in Table B-17.
In the moderate scenario,2.16 billion barrels of oil and 6.12.tril-
lion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased in the scheduled
1984 sale.A second sale is held in 1988,followed by exploration but
no further commercial discoveries.Employment peaks at nearly 2,700 in
1991,before falling to a long-term level of about 1,600,as shown in
Table B-18.
In the low case,the scheduled 1984 sale is held,but the subsequent
exploration effort yields no commercial discoveries.Exploration employ-
ment reaches over 100 persons until the tracts are abandoned in 1990,as
shown in Table B-19.
B-37
TABLE B-17.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,NAVARIN BASIN l
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECON:><:EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
1980 o.O.o.O.O.
1981 o.O.O.o.o.
19:::2 o.O.O.O.O.
1983 O.O.O.o.O.
1984 o.O.o.O.O.
19:=:5 O.084 O.018 O.057 O.o.159
198E,o.118 o.055 O.091 O.0.264
11~:37 o.1:36 O.172 o.162 O.0.47
19:=:8 0.206 0.208 0.311 O.OD725
1989 O.:=:62 1.22 0.454 O.~.1}~:6c..
1990 0.449 1.247 0.801 O.2~497
1991 1.012 1.063 1.171 O.311246
1 Q"=I"='1-175 1.7:::4 1.12 o.4.079-".."~
1993 1.171 1.075 1.3E.tS O.~:.E.12
1'3194 1.761 O.:=:73 1.599 o.4.233
1995 1.:=:1 0.E,19 1.422 O.~:.:::51
1 '~·3E.1.754 O.1.422 O..:.176~,.
1 '~q"1.?E.2 O.1.422 o.-:.If:4_'~.I ,_I.
1998 1.784 o.1.422 o.:;:s20E.
1999 1.:=:02 o.1.422 o.~:.224
2000 1 .-,.-,~,O.1.422 o.~:.244..c·c.c.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes three lease sales--in 1984,1987,and 1989--resulting in
co:ercial discoveries totaling 4.32 BBO and 12.24 TCFG.Environmental
conditions are assumed to be similar to those in the St.George Basin.
The first and second sale each results in discovery of 2.16 BBO and
6.12 TCFG.Employment estimates for these sales are adapted from
estimates used by the Alaska OCS Office in the study of OCS Sale 70,
St.George Basin,Moderate Find Scenario.Estimates of employment for
the third sale,which results in no commercial discoveries,include
exploration employment from the Low Find Scenario used in the Sale 70
study.
B-38
TABLE B-18.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,NAVARIN BASIN 1
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON><EMT9X EMM}<:TOTAL
1980 o.o.o.o.o.
1981 o.O.o.o.o.
19:=:2 o.O.o.o.O.
1983 O.O.o.O.o.
19::::4 O.O.o.o.o.
1985 0.084 0.018 0.057 o.0.159
1986 0.118 0.055 0.091 o.0.264
1987 0.136 0.172 0.162 o.0.47
198:::0.122 O.19 0.254 O.0.5E.6
19::::9 0.294 1.165 o.~::::E,o.1.845
1990 ()"':'.:.'7 1.075 0.653 o.2.055-•,-I~'
1991 0.898 0.873 0.926 o.2.E.97
1992 0.924 0.619 0.75 o.2.293
1993 0.S:=:7 o.0.719 O.1.E.OE.
1994 O.:::91 O.0.711 o.1.602
1995 0.951 O.0.711 O.1.6E.2
1996 0.911 O.0.711 O.1.':·22
1997 0.:=:71 o.0.711 o.1.582
1998 I)II 8:;::=:O.0.711 o.1.544
1999 0.891 o.0.711 o.1.602
2000 0.951 o.0.711 o.1.662
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes two lease sales,one in 1984 and the second in 1988.The
first results in discovery of 2.16 BBO and 6.12 TCFG,while the second
results in no commercial discoveries.Environmental conditions are
assumed to be similar to the St.George Basin.Emplo)~.ent estimates for
the first sale are adapted from estimates used by the Alaska OCS Office
for analysis of Moderate Find Scenario for the study of OCS Sale 70,St.
George Basin.Estimates for the second sale include exploration employ-
ment from the Low Find Scenario used in the same study.
B-39
.,..,
TABLE B-19.DIRECT EMPLO'{MENT REQUIREHENTS,NAVARIN BASIN 1
LOW CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMF'9 ECDN::':EMT9X EMM::';TOTAL
1 '31:::0 O.O.O.o.o.19:'::1 o.O.o.O.o.
11;'~:2 O.O.O.o.O.1'3:'::3 O.o.O.o.o.
1984 O.o.o.O.O.19:'::5 o.05 o.o.023 o.O.073198E.o.OE.4 O.o.0:37 o.o.1 I)1
19:::::7 o.072 o.o.046 o.o.118
1 ';':=:8 o.065 O.O.039 o.o.104
11~~:::9 O.044 o.o.008 o.O.052
1990 O.O.o.O.o.
1991 O.o.o.O.00
19'32 00 ".O.o.O.1 qa:::O.o.O.O.o.
1'3194 o.O.o.O.O.
1995 o.O.O.o.O.
1996 O.O.O.O.O.1 qC."7 o.o.o.O.o.wi'..'I
1998 o.o.O.o.O.
1999 O.O.o.O.o.
2000 O.O.O.O.O.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes a single lease sale held in 1984,followed by exploration
but no commercial discoveries.Exploration employment estimates based
on scenario developed by Alaska OCS Office for OCS Sale 70 in the St.
George Basin.
B-40
---------------------------------'.'---
I.Chukchi Sea
In the high scenario,it is assumed that 5.7 billion barrels of oil
and 14.25 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered,divided equally
between acreage leased in 1985,1988,and 1990.Employment peaks at
nearly 4,300 in 1997,falling to about 3,400 by the year 2000,as shown
in Table B-20.
In the moderate scenario,2.1 billion barrels of oil and 4.85 trillion
cubic feet of gas are discovered.Of this,1.3 billion barrels of oil
and 3.25 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased in
the scheduled 1985 sale,the remainder is discovered on acreage leased
in a 1989 sale.Employment peaks at over 2,200 in 1997,falling to less
than 2,000 by the end of the forecast period,as shown in Table B-2l.
In the low case,the 1985 sale is followed by an unsuccessful explora-
tion program.Exploration employment peaks at nearly 400 by 1988,but all
tracts are abandoned by 1993,as shown in Table B-22.
B-4l
TABLE B-20.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIRffi1ENTS,CHUKCHI SEAl
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON><EMT9X EMMX TOTAL
1'3180 o.o.o.o.O.
1981 O.o.o.o.o.
19:=:2 O.o.o.O.O.
19:=:3 o.O.O.O.O.
1984 o.O.O.o.o.
19:=:5 0.OE.6 O.o.O.0.066
19:::6 O.119 0.06 o.O.0.179
1'387 0.103 0.018 O.o.0.121
19::::=:O.11 0.086 O.o.0.196
11~:=;9 o.163 o.146 O.o.0.309
1990 0.213 0.117 O.O.0.33
1991 0.19 O.~:86 O.o.0.576
l QQ -:>(I.~::38 1.772 O.O.2.11J_""-
1993 0.,~::=:8 1.607 O.O.1.995
1994 1.2:=:6 o.~:~:1 o.o.1.617
113"~5 1.45 1.772 o.o.3 .:.....oj
...II ....c'-
1996 1.542 1.E.67 O.o.3.209
1 Q'::'''2.E.21 1.678 O.O.4.299.."..I
1998 2.61 1.432 O.O.4.042
1999 ~:.4:=:5 0.015 O.o.3.5
2000 3.~::=:o.015 O.O.3.:;:95
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes three lease sales--in 1985,1988,and 1990--resulting in
total discoveries of 5.7 BBO and 14.25 TCFG.Environmental factors
assumed similar to the Bedufort Sea.Each sale results in equal dis-
coveries of 1.9 BBO and 4.75 TCFG.Employment associated with each sale
is taken from Alaska OCS Studies Technical Report 18,Beaufort Sea Petro-
leum Development Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Impacts,High Find
Scenario,Table 3.2,p.80.
B-42
TABLE B-21.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,CHUKCHI SEAl
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECDNX EMT9:X:EMMX TOTAL
19:=:0 O.O.O.O.O.1981 O.O.O.O.O.1982 O.O.O.O.O.1983 O.O.O.O.O.19:;::4 O.O.O.O.O.1985 O.O.O.O.O.1986 O.O.O.O.O.1 ;;':::7 O.O.O.O.O.19:=::::O.0:=:4 0.012 O.O.0.0961';":::"3 O.101 0.052 O.O.0.15319';'I)0.185 0.03 O.O.0.21519910.179 0.122 O.O.0.30119920.163 0.242 O.O.0.40519930.104 O.7~:5 O.O.(I.:=:~:'~1994 0.165 1.28':.O.O.1.45119950.341 0.821 O.O.1.16219960.792 0.828 O.O.1.62199?1.0c:2 1.158 O.O.2.2419981.41 0.675 O.O.2.0:=:519991.74 0.264 O.O.2.00420001.74 O.lE,E.O.O.1.90E,
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssmnes two lease sales,in 1985 and 1989,resulting in discovery
of 2.1 BBO and 4.85 TCFG.Of this,1.3 BBO and 3.25 TCFG are discovered
on acreage leased in 1985.Environmental conditions are assumed similar
to the Beaufort Sea,and employment estimates for the 1985 sale are taken
from Alaska OCS Stucies Technical Report 18,Beaufort Sea Petroleum
Development Scenarios,Economic and Demographic Impacts,Moderate Find
Scenario,Table 3.8,p.89.The 1989 sale results in discovery of an
additional 0.8 BBO and 1.6 TCFG.Employment estimates adapted from Low
Find Scenario in Alaska OCS Studies Technical Report 18,Table 3.6,p.86.
B-43
TABLE B-22.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,CHUKCHI SEAl
LOW CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON>c:EMT9X EMM>c:TOTAL
19:=:0 o.o.o.o.o.
1981 o.o.o.o.o.
19:=:2 o.O.o.o.o.
1 '3Ic::=:o.o.o.o.o.
1984 o.o.o.o.O.
1985 o.o.O.o.o.
19:::6 O.o.o.o.O.
1987 o.066 o.062 O.O.o.128
19:=:8 o.1 '317 o.1 :=:8 o.O.0.385
t '3:=:9 O.197 O.135 o.o.o.3~:2
1990 0.23 0.25 o.O.0.48
1991 O.066 o.15 o.O.0.216
1992 o.0:3::::O.15 o. o.o.183
1993 o.O.o.o. o.
1994 O.o.O.o.o.
1995 o.o. o.o.o.
1 'j9E,o.o.O.O.o.
1997 o.o.o.o.o.
l'3I l j8 o. o. o. o.O.
19'j'j o.o.o. o.O.
2000 O.o.O.o.o.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assu~es a single lease sale in 1985,followed by exploration with
no commercial discoveries.Environmental conditions likely to be similar
to those in the Beaufort Sea.Employment estimates adapted from explora-
tion phase emp1o~ent in Beaufort Sea Draft EIS,Table III.C.2-3.
B-44
________________________..L.t _iii
J.Hope Basin
In the high case,it is assumed that 0.5 billion barrels of oil and
0.37 trillion cubic feet of gas are discovered on acreage leased in the
proposed 1985 sale.Employment peaks at nearly 460 in 1996 before falling
to about 400 in the year 2000,as shown in Table B-23.
In the moderate case,exploration following the proposed 1985 sale
results in no commercial discoveries.Exploration employment reaches
over 90 persons in 1987 (see Table B-24),but tracts are abandoned by
1989.
In the low case,no sale occurs in the Hope Basin.
B-45
TABLE B-23.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,HOPE BASIN 1
HIGH CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON>c:EMT9::-:EMM::-;TOTAL
19:::0 o.o.o.o.o.
19::;:1 o.o.o.o.O.
19::;:2 o.o.o.o.O.
19:=:3 o.o.O.o.O.
19:=:4 o.o.o.o.o.
1985 O.o.o.o.o.
19:=:6 o.0.037 o.O.0.0:'::71Q'='7 0.032 o.O.007 o.0.039-"I_II
t 9:=::=:0.035 o.O.011 o.O.046
19:::9 O.0:'::5 O.O.011 o.0.046
1990 O.017 o.o.011 o.0.028
1991 O.O.0.006 o.0.006
1992 o.0.064 o.o.o.064
1913~:0.349 0.064 O.O.0.413
1994 011 :354 O.0.058 O.0.412
11~135 0.33 o.o.116 O.0.446
1996 0.2 '35 o.0.162 o.0.457
lqq~0.231 O.o.162 O.O.:39:3J_"(
199:::0.239 o.0.162 o.0.401
1999 o.2~:9 o.o.162 o.0.401
2000 O.2:~:6 o.O.162 O.O.~:'~8
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
1Assumes discovery of 0.5 BBO and 0.37 TCFG from acreage leased in
1985.Employment estimates taken from scenario used in examining effects
of Beaufort Sea Sale 71,Low Case,as estimated by the Alaska oes Office.
Environmental conditions in the Hope Basin are likely to be similar to
Lhose in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea.
B-46
----------------------------b..--
TABLE B-24.DIRECT EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS,HOPE BASIN l
MODERATE CASE
(thousands of persons)
EMP9 ECON;<:EMT9;X:EMM>c:TOTAL
19:::::0 o.o.o.o.O.19:=::1 o.o.o.o.o.
1"3:32 O.O.O.O.O.
19::::3 O.O.O.O.o.19:::::4 O.o.O.o.O.
19:=:5 O.O.o.O.O.19::::6 0.026 O.0.015 O.0.041
19:::7 0.056 0.005 0.031 O.0.092
19::::=:0.03 0.005 0.016 o.0.05119:=:1;'O.o.O.O.o.
19'30 O.O.o.o.O.1 ';'91 o.O.O.O.O.1 Q'~-'o.O.o.O.o._"_"c.
1993 O.O.O.o.O.1994 o.o.O.O.O.
1995 O.O.O.O.O.1 '396 O.O.O.O.O.1 C/':'''O.O.O.O.O••"_"t
1998 O.o.O.O.O.1999 O.O.O.O.O.
2000 O.O.O.O.O.
See Table B-1 for key to variables.
lAssumes a single lease sale in 1985,resulting in no commercial
discoveries of oil or gas.Exploration technology assumed similar to
that used in the Norton Basin.Employment estimates adapted from
"E:-:ploration Only"Scenario in Porter,Bering-Norton Petroleum Develop-
ffient Scenarios:Economic and Demographic Analysis,Table 23,p.139.
B-47
IV.Summary
The levels of resource development assumed in each of the three OCS
development scenarios may be summarized as follows:
Oil (BBO)Gas (TCFG)
Area Low Moderate High Low Moderate High
Gulf of Alaska 0 0 .45 0 0 1.25
Cook Inlet 0 .332 .67 0 .581 1.173
Beaufort Sea 1.0 2.1 4.0 1.75 4.85 9.6
Norton Basin 0 0 .38 0 0 1.2
St.George Basin 0 0 2.16 0 0 6.12
Kodiak 0 0 .332 0 0 .581
N.Aleutian Shelf 0 0 .332 0 0 .581
Navarin Basin 0 2.16 4.32 0 6.12 12.24
Chukchi Sea 0 2.1 5.7 0 4.85 14.25
Hope Basin 0 0 .5 0 0 .37
Total 1.0 6.692 18.844 1.75 16.401 47.365
In the high case,employment reaches nearly 15,100 persons at its
peak in 1997,falling to 14,100 by the end of the forecast period,as
shown in Table B-25.By the year 2000,over 77 percent of the employment
is occurring in four of the ten areas:the Beaufort Sea (19 percent),the
St.George Basin (11 percent),the Navarin Basin (23 percent),and the
Chukchi Sea (24 percent).
In the moderate case,direct employment reaches nearly 6,000 at its
peak in 1997,falling only to about 5,500 by the end of the period,as
shown in Table B-26.This employment is even more concentrated,with over
92 percent of the activity by the year 2000 occurring in three areas:the
B-48
TABLE B-25.DIRECT OCS EMPLOYMENT,ALL AREAS
HIGH CASE
Year Construction Minin&Transportation Manufacturing
1980 60 209 33
1981 18 223 34
1982 217 255 69
•1983 104 361 159~1984 253 494 217
1985 501 717 404,I13
1986 2,425 1,190 840
1987 3,208 1,645 1,127
1988 1,926 2,981 1,919
1989 2,637 4,120 2,435
11 •1990 2,308 5,193 2,620 80
\1 -1991 2,189 5,775 2,877 80
1992 4,892 5,571 2,773 80
1993 3,752 6,117 2,923 80
1994 2,645 8,033 3,214
)5 I 1995 3,291 8,533 3,095
1996 2,019 9,019 3,141
1997 1,766 10,107 3,141
1998 1,603 10,193 3,141
1999 163 11,018 3,141
2000 103 10,789 3,141 80
IIt
Ie
rer
le
B-49
-_........_-----------------------~
TABLE B-26.DIRECT OCS EMPLOYMENT.ALL AREAS
MODERATE CASE
Year Construction Mining Transportation
1980 0 90 33
1981 0 224 99
1982 40 309 100
1983 52 458 141
1984 35 596 192
1985 193 675 488
1986 447 683 369
1987 973 642 434
1988 1.493 639 487
1989 2.038 986 603
1990 1.933 1.486 879
1991 2.153 2.409 1.104
1992 1.536 2.747 928
1993 999 2.981 897
1994 1.452 3.046 889
1995 1.017 3.255 889
1996 858 3.564 889
1997 1.324 3.767 889
1998 685 4.091 889
1999 274 4.419 889
2000 176 4.419 889
B-50
f
tII
i
r,
Beaufort Sea (27 percent),the Navarin Basin (30 percent),and the Chuk-
chi Sea (35 percent).
In the low case,total direct employment peaks at nearly 1,600 in
1988,as shown in Table B-27.By 1993,all of this activity is limited
to the Beaufort Sea.
B-5l
TABLE B-27.DIRECT OCS EMPLOYMENT,ALL AREAS
LOW CASE
t
[
Year Construction Mining Transportation i~
1980 0 90 33 j::,
1981 62 290 99
1982 216 422 100
1983 135 394 88
1984 250 341 50
1985 212 257 40 .~
t
~
1986 470 369 46 ~~
1987 479 458 46 i!o
t
1988 833 720 39 I19896806528
1990 664 687 a E~f;
1i:r,
1991 564 623 0 .,
tf
1992 611 649 i
1993 527 700 Ii
1994 264 720 i
1995 191 768 ¥
t
1996 84 721
1997 132 687
1998 132 663
1999 59 661
2000 18 658 0
B-52
___________________________....A_.
~3aow NOIIVWROd O~OH3SnOH 3HI dO NOlIdIHJS30
J xwuaddV
I.Model Description
The primary unit on which projections of residential energy con-
sumption are based is the household.A household is a living unit of
one of two types:a family or an individual or group of individuals.
not related.who are living as a unit.
The population projections determine the number of households in
the state.The number of households is a function of both the level
of population and its age-sex distribution.The age-sex distribution
of the population is important because the rate at which people form
households differs across age-sex cohorts.The model described below
accounts for both of these influences of population on household
formation.
The household formation model is an accounting model which depends
on a set of assumptions about the age-sex cohort-specific rates of house-
hold formation and changes in those rates.The model is based on the
assumption that the social.economic.and life-cycle factors which
determine the formation of households can be described by a set of house-
hold formation rates.Household formation rates describe the probability
that a person in a particular cohort is a household head.
The model requires input from the MAP population model in the form
of the projected size and age-sex distribution of the population.The
C-l
----------------------
total number of households in the state (HH)is equal to the number of
households summed across age and sex cohorts.
(1)HH H HH ..
ij lJ
The total number of households in sex cohort i and age cohort j
(HH ..)describes the number of households with household head or primarylJ
individual in the ith sex and jth age cohort.This total is,in turn,
composed of three components:th~number of civilian non-Native house-
holds in cohort ij (CHH ..),the number of Native households in cohort ijlJ
(NHH ..),and the number of military households in cohort ij (MHH ..).
lJ lJ
(2)HH ..lJ CHH ..+NHH ..+MHH ..lJ lJ lJ
The number of civilian and Native households in each cohort is a
function of the population and household formation rate for the cohort.
The number of households in any cohort equals the cohort-specific house-
hold formation rate (HHR ..for civilian non-Natives and NHHR ..for
lJ lJ
Natives)multiplied by the cohort population (CNNP ..for civilian non-lJ
Natives and NATP ..for Natives)net of the proportion of the populationlJ
in group quarters (CPGQ ..for civilian non-Natives and NPGQ ..for Natives).
lJ lJ
(3)
(4)
CHH ..
lJ
NHH ..lJ
(CNNP .,*(1 -CPGQ ..)*HHR ..lJ lJ lJ
(NATP ..*(1 -NPGQ ..)*NHHR ..lJ lJ lJ
C-2______________________________l _
The cohort distribution of military households is assumed to remain
constant throughout the projection period.The number of military house-
holds (MHH ..)equals the number in1J
of 1970 military population in the
1970 .1970 (MHH..)t1mes1J
state (MILPCT).
the percentage
(5)MHH ..1J MHH 1970 *MILPCTij
The household formation rates have changed historically and are
expected to continue to vary.The household formation rates are assumed
to change at a constant yearly rate (CHHR ..for civilian non-Natives1J
and NCHHR ..for Natives).Thus,the household formation rate in any1J
year equals the rate in the previous year times the rate of change.
(6)
(7)
HHR ..=HHR ..(-1)*CHHR ..1J 1J 1J
NHHR ..=NHHR ..(-1)*NCHHR ..1J 1J 1J
The model also calculates Native and civilian non-Native and total
population in group quarters,as well as average household size for
Natives,civilian non-Natives,military population,and total population.
ij
(8)
(9)
NPGQ
CPGQ
Zl:(NPGQ ..*NATP ..). .1J 1J1J
L:L:(CNNP..*CPGQ ..)1J 1J
C-3
---------------------
(10)POPGQ = =NPGQ +CPGQ +MILPCT *MPGQ
(11)HHSIZEN =(NATTOT -NPGQ)ILL NHH ... .1J1J
ij
(12)
(13)
(14)
HHSIZEC =
HHSIZEM =
HHSIZE =
(CNNTOT -CPGQ)/LL CHH ..
1J
(MILPCT *[AFTOT +MDTOT -MPGQ])/LL MHH ... .1J1J
(POP -POPGQ)/HH
C-4
1
I
i____________________________L.__
II.Model Parameter Assumptions
The model was initially calibrated using the 1970 Census as a
benchmark.The civilian non-Native and Native household formation rates
were calculated from the statewide census data after netting out popula-
tion in group quarters.These parameter values are shown in Table C.l.
The civilian non-Native and Native population proportions in group
quarters,also derived from the census,are assumed to remain a constant
proportion of each cohort over the projection period.These are shown
in Table C.2.
Military households are taken directly from the 1970 Census and are
shown in Table C.3.The age-sex distribution of military households is
assumed to remain constant over time and to increase or decrease propor-
tionately as total military population changes.The proportion in group
quarters also remains the same constant proportion of total military as
it was in 1970.
The parameters determining the rates of change of household formation
rates are discussed in the next section.
The appearance of the 1980 Census provided an opportunity to recali-
brate the model.At the time of this writing,this has not been possible
because only the population count is available.On the assumption that
C-s
"_..-~...
TABLE C.1.1970 ALASKA CIVILIAN POPULATION
HOUSEHOLD FORMATION RATES (HHR ..)
1J
NON-NATIVE NATIVE
Male Female Male Female
0 - 1 0 0 0 0
1 -5 0 0 0 0
5 -9 0 0 0 0
LE
10 -14 .001 .001 .003 0
15 -19 .040 .018 .017 .006
20 -24 .583 .107 .238 .069
25 -29 .900 .109 .576 .082
30 -34 .933 .117 .746 .095
35 -39 .955 .126 .881 .119
40 -44 .962 .133 .894 .120
45 -49 .963 .148 .907 .139
50 -54 .964 .164 .922 .149
55 -59 .956 .207 .947 .296
60 -64 .956 .245 .926 .313
65 +.885 .320 .816 .385
Average .537 .079 .326 .064
.197 .315
Statewide
Average .288
Item:
U.S.Average .322
SOURCE:Bureau of the Census.1970 Census of Population Detailed
Characteristics:Alaska.1972.Table 153.
C-6
SOl
________________________v...~._
TABLE C.2.ALASKA CIVILIAN POPULATION
IN GROUP QUARTERS.1970
Non-Native Native
Male Female Male Female
Age Number Percenta Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1-4 98 .0082 52 .0045 58 .0171 37 .01l0
5-9 73 .0058 45 .0037 101 .0253 105 .0273
10-14 73 .0064 45 .0041 101 .0257 105 .0283
15-19 325 .0291 244 .0026 157 .0419 99 .0275
20-24 655 .0488 214 .0182 329 .1013 69 .02ll
25-29 290 .0159 39 .0026 130 .0503 8 .0030
30-34 174 .01ll 20 .0014 67 .0333 24 .01l4
35-39 210 .0186 7 .0007 68 .0413 53 .0318
40-44 218 .0247 19 .0023 69 .0492 19 .0137
45-49 194 .0262 40 .0059 62 .0513 15 .0129
50-54 ll5 .0177 19 .0033 36 .0353 16 .0229
55-59 84 .0150 10 .0020 34 .0400 21 .0258
60-64 93 .02ll 22 .0026 28 .0412 19 .0279
65 +184 .0278 123 .0196 31 .0177 42 .0269
Total 2.786 -899 -1.271 -632
aEquals percent of total population in corresponding age group.
Item:Total 1970 military population in barracks was 16.711.of which 16.257
were male and 454 were female.
SOURCE:U.S.Department of Commerce.Bureau of the Census."Census of the
Population.1970.Detailed Characteristics.Alaska."Series PC(l)-03.
June 1972.
C-7
TABLE C.3.MILITARY HOUSEHOLDS IN 1970
Age of Head Male Female
0 -14 0 0
15 -19 202 8
20 -24 4,132 48
25 -29 3,059 29
30 -34 2,430 33
35 -39 2,558 31
40 -44 1,090 17
45 -49 408 5
50 -54 237 6
55 -59 36 2
60 -64 5 3
65 +13 0
Total 14,170 182
SOURCE:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,Census of
Population,1970.
C-8
the percent change in the average household size has been the same in
Alaska as in the United States,however,a 1980 estimate of aggregate
average household size for Alaska of approximately 3.06 can be calculated.l
This downward adjustment of average household size for 1980 can
be converted into an aggregate household formation rate for the popula-
tion and the individual household formation rates adjusted upward pro-
portionately to provide a calibration based upon an estimate of 1980
average household size.The household formation rates after this adjust-
ment are shown in Table C.4.These values result in an estimate of
1980 households which does not differ greatly from that obtained using
the 1970 values adjusted by the assumed 1970-to-1980 growth rates in the
original model.The adjusted household formation rates differ very little
from those used previously.Thus,most of the change in the aggregate
household formation rate in Alaska between 1970 and 1980 is attributed
to a shift in the age-sex-race composition of the population toward
groups with relatively higher individual household formation rates.
1(2.78/3.14)*3.50 =3.10 for 1979 and by extrapolation 3.06 for
1980.See Tables C.5 and C.8 of text.Since average household size
is the reciprocal of household formation rate,the 1980 average house-
hold formation rate is 1/3.06 =.327.
C-9
---_.-_..-~IIIIIlII ~~"'
TABLE C.4.ESTIMATED 1980 ALASKA CIVILIAN
POPULATION HOUSEHOLD FORMATION RATES (HHR ..)a
1J
Non-Native Native
Male Female Male Female
0 -14 .001 .009 .003 0
15 -19 .040 .026 .017 .018
20 -24 .583 .117 .238 .081
25 -29 .900 .121 .576 .092
30 -34 .933 .129 .746 .103
35 -39 .955 .135 .881 .126
40 -44 .962 .140 .894 .126
45 -49 .963 .154 .907 .144
50 -54 .964 .169 .922 .153
55 -59 .956 .213 .947 .302
60 -64 .956 .250 .926 .318
65 +.855 .328 .816 .393
Average .586 .105 .351 .081
.354 .216
.327
a For calibration purposes,the upward adjustment of house-
hold formation rates was applied to female Native and non-Native
households only.The household formation rates for Native and
non-Native males are identical to those obtained from the 1970
Census.The male household formation rates were not recalibrated
because their 1970 levels were relatively high and because
national and statewide data suggest that during the 1970s,a
large portion of the upward shift in the overall rate of house-
hold formation occurred in households with female heads.
C-10
III.Projecting Alaskan Households in the Future
III.A.National Trends
The relationship between population and the number of households
does not remain constant over time.Table C.S shows historical trends
in the size and composition of households in the United States since
1940.Average household size has declined steadily since World War II,
primarily as a result of the increase in the proportion of "primary
individual"households.The average size of families actually increased
after the war until the mid-1960s because of the "baby boom,"but this
was more than compensated for by the fact that the average household
size of "primary individual"households has fallen dramatically from,
1.94 to 1.19 in 1979.
Somewhat more detail on recent historical trends is provided by
Table C.6 which focuses on the composition of households in the last
ten years.Total households increased by 22 percent over that period in
contrast to an increase in population of 7.6 percent.Family households
increased by 11.7 percent while nonfamily households grew 66 percent.
Part of the decline in average household size for families can be
attributed to the relative growth of one-parent households and families
with no children less than 18 years of age.All categories of nonfamily
households grew rapidly,but those with more than one member grew most
rapidly at 140 percent.This category includes both couples living to-
gether and groups of unrelated individuals sharing households.
C-ll
TABLE C.5.HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF HOUSEHOLDS
IN THE UNITED STATES
Primary Families Primary Individuals
Average
Household Average Percent of Average Percent of
Households Size Number Family Size Households Number Family Size Households
--
1940 3.67 3.76
50 43,554 3.37 38,838 3.54 89.2 4,716 1.94 10.8
55 47,874 3.33 41,732 3.59 87.2 6,142 1.61 12.8
60 52,799 3.33 44,905 3.67 85.0 7,895 1.40 15.0
0
I 65 57,436 3.29 47,838 3.70 83.3 9,598 1.28 16.7I-'
N 70 63,401 3.14 51,456 3.58 81.2 11,945 1.25 18.8
75 71,120 2.94 55,563 3.42 78.1 15,557 1.23 21.9
79 77,330 2.78 57,498 3.34 74.4 19,831 1.19 25.6
Note:"Households,"Primary Families "Number,"and Primary Individuals "Number"are in thousands.
SOURCES:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,Statistical Abstract,1979.
U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports,
Population Estimates and Projections,Series P-25,No.805,May 1979.
U.s.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports,
Household and Family Characteristics:March 1979,Series P-20,No.352,July 1980.
"";'+",}~'rf:'f~~~~~:~;;t9o¥t1Wk'0';{<"~;"'''r''.~,j~'~:"t'~I'!f:~~:""4'~M';1f~~m,~~,.f.~/Wli~""'.'_!"'_'
TABLE C.6.U.S.HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
IN THE MOST RECENT DECADE
1979 1970
Percent Growth
Millions Percent Millions Percent 1970 to 1979
Total 77.33 100 63.401 100 22.0
Family Households 57.498 74.4 51.456 81.2 11.7
Married Couple 47.662 61.6 44.728 70.5 6.6
No children <18 23.157 29.9 19.196 30.3 20.6
Children <18 24.505 31.7 25.532 40.3 -4.0
(")
I One-Parent Household 5.631 7.3 3.199 5.0 76.0I-'
W Lone Mother with Children 5.075 6.6 2.858 4.5 77 .6
Lone Father with Children .556 0.7 .341 0.5 63.0
Other Family Households 4.205 5.4 3.529 5.6 19.2
Nonfami1y Households 19.831 25.6 11.945 18.8 66.0
Persons Living Alone 17.201 22.2 10.851 17.1 58.5
Men 6.464 8.4 3.532 5.6 83.0
Women 10.738 13.9 7.319 11.5 46.7
Other Nonfamily Households 2.630 3.4 1.094 1.7 140.4
SOURCE:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports,Household
and Family Characteristics:March 1979,Series P-20,No.352,July 1980.
The dominant factors which underlie these trends are the increased
life expectancy of people,which has increased the proportion of older-
couple family households,and more importantly the aging of the post-
war baby boom population which is now entering the primary household
formation years both in and out of families.
These trends can be projected forward nationally to predict the
number of households in the future under different sets of assumptions
of population (I,II,III)and household formation rates (A,B,C,D).
Table C.7 shows the most recent Department of Commerce projections
using a detailed model which tracks present households into the future.
These projections all assume a continued reduction of average house-
hold size during the next fifteen years.A control projection,K,is
presented to show the impact of declining household formation rates.
The K projection assumes no change in household formation rates so that
the increase in the number of households is entirely attributable to an
increase in population.
For high rates of population growth (primarily due to natural
increase),the average household size in 1995 would vary between 2.46
and 2.72.For low rates of population increase (fewer births and more
deaths),average household size is projected to decline to between 2.21
and 2.44.Conversion of these trends in household size into annual rates
of change yields a range of from -01.5 percent annually for the high
population growth case to -.1 percent for the low population growth case.
C-14
___________________________Vtr __
TABLE C.7.PROJECTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION IN 1995
Dept.of a
Commerce Average
Projection Household Family Nonfamily
Series Households Size Households Percent Households Percent
77,330 2.78 57,498 74.4 19,831 25.6
A I 107,528 2.46 72,709 67.6 34,819 32.4
II 2.31
III 2.21
n B I 103,856 2.55 72,234 69.4 31,622 30.6I
f-'II 2.39
U1 III 2.28
C I 104,194 2.54 70,715 67.8 33,479 32.2
II 2.38
III 2.28
D I 97,180 2.72 71,590 73.5 25,590 26.5
II 2.55
III 2.44
K 94,192 71,424 75.8 22,768
a For definition of terms,see text.
SOURCE:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports,
Projection of the Number of Households and Families,1979 to 1995,Series P-25,
No.805,May 1979.
r
III.B.Alaskan Trends
Turning to Alaska,the data is not so complete,but some trends can
be identified.Table C.8 shows the growth in the number of households
since 1950 and their composition.Several similarities and contrasts
with the national trends are in evidence.Unfortunately,the 1976 data
is based on a sample taken in an unrepresentative year.Briefly,they
are as follows:
Similarities
•Average household size has fallen since 1970.
•Average family size has fallen.
•The importance of female family heads has increased
dramatically.
Contrasts
•The proportion of family households has not declined.
(The statistics for 1976 are from an unusual year and
may not signify a trend.)
•The average household size for nonfamily households has
not declined.(The statistics for 1976 are from an
unusual year and may not signify a trend.)
•In 1950 the average household size was below the national
average,but since 1960 it has exceeded the national
average by a substantial amount.
Table C.9 further indicates that the post-war "baby boom"was felt in
Alaska.The ratio of children to mothers grew from 1950 to 1960 and
subsequently has fallen.
Average household size estimates from surveys conducted in Anchorage
and Fairbanks in the mid-1970s confirm the declining trend in average
household size.Estimates of 3.27 to 3.32 for Anchorage for 1975 and
C-16 I----------------------------~--
TABLE C.8.ALASKA HISTORICAL HOUSEHOLD STATISTICS
All Householdsa Primary Family Households a Primary Individual Households a
Average Average Aver;lge
Persons HH Size*Husbandl Male Female All HH Size'"Male Female All BH Size'"
Households in HH (2)1 (1)Households Wife Head Head Persons (9)1 (5)Households Head Head Persons (15)/(12)---
(%)(%)
1950b 31,047 100,779 3.25 NA 21,788 NA NA NA NA NA •NA NA NA NA
n
I 1960 b
I-'57,250 199,982 3.49 46,261 (80.8)42,750 NA NA 184,385 3.99 10,989 (19.2)NA NA 15,597 1.42
--..J
1960 c 57,250 200,418 3.50 46,613 (81.4)43,172 1,235 2,706 185,655 3.98 10,637 (18.6)7,804 2,833 14,763 1.39
1970 d r-"----.
79,054 278,039 3.52 66,034 (83.5)61,697 4,067 258,469 3.91 13,025 (16.5)8,674 4,351 19,570 1.5
1970 c ,
74,739 278,145 3.49 66,670 (83.6)60,380 2,233 4,057 258,640 3.88 13,069 (16.4)8,654 4,415 19,505 1.49
1976 e 104,000 339,000 3.26 82,000 (78.8)70,000 2,000 8,000 298,000 3.71 22,000 (21.2)14,000 9,000 41.000
1977 f 118,000
1978 g 119,000 79,000
*Person per household
See following page for table notes.
C-18
,..~..
Notes:Table C.8.
a.By definition,Primary Families (PF)and Primary Individuals
(PI)sum to total households.
b.u.S.Census of Population,1960,General Population
Characteristics PC(l)3B,Table 19,p.3-26,May 1961.
c.u.s.Census of Population,Detailed Characteristics
PC(l)D3,Alaska,Table 153,p.3-246,June 1972.
d.U.S.Census of Population,General Characteristics
PC(l)B3,Table 22,p.3-43,September 1971.
e.Current Population Reports,Population Characteristics,
Series P-20,No.334,January 1979,Table 4,p.24.
f.U.S.Department of Commerce,Current Population Reports,
Population Estimates and Projections,P-25,No.725.
g.U.S.Department of Commerce,Statistical Abstract,
Table 65,p.48,1980.
~
fi,,,
i---------------------------------,.
TABLE C.9.HISTORICAL COMPOSITION OF ALASKAN FAMILIES
1950 1960 1970 1976
Household Heads --46,261 66,670 82,000
Wife of Head 21,788 42,750 60,084 70,000
*Own Ch ild <18 34,095 82,256 112,821 122,000
Other Relative 9,303 13,118 19,065 24,000
*Own child <20
SOURCE:1950,1960,1970 from U.S.Census.
1976 from U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,
Demographic,Social,and Economic Profile of the States:
Spring 1976,Series P-20,No.334,January 1979.
C-19
---------------------------------------
3.18 for 1977 have been published by the Anchorage Urban Observatory.
An estimate of 2.9 for 1976 for Fairbanks has been published by ISER.
Further comparison of Alaska with other states reveals that in 1976
the average household size in Alaska of 3.26 was third highest in the
nation after Hawaii (3.45)and Utah (3.27).Fourteen states had average
household sizes in excess of 3.00.Those states with the smallest size
were Washington,D.C.(2.55)and Florida (2.69).2
Finally,it is possible to compare the age-sex-specific household
formation rates in Alaska with those in the United States as a whole.
Table C.10 compares the civilian household formation rates in Alaska
with those of the United States as a whole by age,sex,and race.As
expected,the average household formation rate for Alaskan Natives is
considerably less than that of the population as a whole.The average
household formation rate for civilian non-Native males exceeded the national
average while that for females was less than the national average.
Converting these to average household size yields Table C.ll,which
shows that in 1970 the average household size for civilian non-Native
Alaskans was marginally above the U.S.average and that the large average
household size for Natives brought the statewide average up to its high
level.
2 U.S.Department of Commerce,BoC Demographic,Social and Economic
Profile of the States:Spring 1976 Series P-20,No.334,January 1979,
p.24.
C-20
-------------------------_.....~--
TABLE C.10.COMPARISON OF 1970 ALASKA AND
U.S.HOUSEHOLD FORMATION RATES
Alaska United States
Natives Civilian/Non-Natives Total
Male
<5 0 0 0
5 - 9 0 0 0
10 -14 .003 .001 .002
15 -19 .017 .040 .038
20 -24 .238 .583 .520
25 -29 .576 .900 .828
30 -34 .746 .933 .904
35 -39 .881 .955 .926
40 -44 .827 .962 .935
45 -49 .879 .960 .944
50 -54 .922 .964 .948
55 -59 .947 .956 .951
60 -64 .926 .956 .948
65 +.816 .885 .908
Average .326 .537 .527
:>na1 I Female
<5 0 0 0
5 - 9 0 0 0
10 -14 0 .001 .001
15 -19 .006 .018 .014
20 -24 .069 .107 .098
25 -29 .056 .109 .114
30 -34 .095 .097 .118
35 -39 .119 .093 .124
e •40 -44 .120 .133 .136
45 -49 .139 .148 .152
50 -54 .149 .164 .184
55 -59 .296 .207 .233
60 -64 .313 .245 .302
65 +.386 .320 .452
Average .064 .079 .131
SOURCE:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,
1970 Census of Po£u1ation.
C-21
TABLE C.ll.1970 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Alaska
Native
Civilian Non-Native
Total Civilian
U.S.Average
5.08
3.18
3.47
3.14
C-22
SOURCE:Calculated from United States Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census,1970 Census of Population.
I
I________________________________IIIIl\.t _
III.C.Projections
Although there are some apparent differences between the patterns
of household formation in the United States overall and for civilian
non-Native Alaskans in the aggregate,the rates are quite similar.
There was,in 1970,a smaller proportion of nonfamily households in
Alaska,but average household size exceeded the national average.The
probability of being a household head was less for a civilian non-
Native Alaska female than in the United States,but in contrast,some-
what higher for males.Alaska should differ from future national trends
due to a smaller-than-average population of retired people,which should
reduce the rate of household formation,and a growth in population
because of in-migration (rather than births),which should increase the
rate of household formation.(This does not necessarily imply,however,
a reduction in average household size.)
We project that the differences in the levels of household formation
rates in the United States and Alaska will remain but that both will
trend upward.Consequently,the annual rates of change of the household
formation rates for civilian non-Natives have been calculated to be
consistent with the most recent projections compiled by the Bureau of
the Census in Projection of the Number of Households and Families 1979
to 1995,published in 1979.The B series was chosen as the middle case.
Trends in the Native household formation rates are more difficult
to project because of the rapid social and economic changes occurring
in the Native community.We assume that urbanization of the Native
C-23
,..f'i
community will continue and,with it,a trend in household formation
rates similar to that in the nation as a whole.Thus,the same rate of
change in household formation rates is applied to the Native population.
The rates of change are shown in Table C.12.
C-24
"i______________________....u,__
TABLE C.12.YEARLY PERCENT CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLD
FORMATION RATE (CHHR ..)
~J
NON-NATIVE NATIVE
Male Fema1e a Male Fema1e a
0-1 0 0 0 0
1 - 5 0 0 0 0
5 - 9 0 0 0 0
10 -14 1.002 1.045 1.002 1.045
15 -19 1.002 1.045 1.002 1.045
20 -24 1.002 1.045 1.002 1.045
25 -29 1.000 1.055 1.000 1.055
30 -34 1.001 1.050 1.001 1.050
35 -39 1.000 1.037 1.000 1.037
40 -44 1.000 1.037 1.000 1.037
45 -49 1.001 1.022 1.001 1.022
50 -54 1.001 1.022 1.001 1.022
55 -59 1.001 1.000 1.001 1.000
60 -64 1.001 1.000 1.001 1.000
65 +1.001 1.000 1.001 1.000
~e have increased the estimates for females in age groups 25-29
through 50-54 by one percentage point from the previous analysis in
Electric Power Reguirements for the Rai1be1t to reflect the more rapid
growth in female household formation in Alaska.
SOURCE:Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports Series P-25,
No.805,Projections of the Number of Households and Families,
1979 to 1995,May 1979.
C-25
IV.Regionalization Procedure
The regionalization model produces a projection of total regional
population since lack of data precludes generating an age-sex population
distribution by region.The regional projection of households is based
upon the regional share of population.It is adjusted,however,by the
ratio of household size statewide to household size in the region of
interest.
This ratio is derived from the data on average household sizes
shown in Table C.13 and taken from the 1970 Census.For example,in
1970 average household sizes for railbelt and nonrailbelt divisions of
the state were 3.39 and 3.80,respectively,while the statewide average
was 3.50.Thus,the estimate of railbelt households is determined by
the following equation:
HH (railbelt)POP (railbelt)* [3.50HH(state)*POP (state)3.39
C-26
f,t
¥>
~"
~
-------------------------------~--
TABLE C.13.ALASKA REGIONAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE DATA FOR 1970
Average
Household
Population Households Size
In-Group
Census Total Quarters In Households Total Family Non-Family
Division
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Aleutian Islands 8,057 3,339 41 4,718 59 1,225 1,099 90 126 10 3.85
Anchorage 124,542 5,897 5 118,645 95 34,988 29,688 85 5,300 15 3.39
Angoon 503 8 2 495 98 134 89 66 45 34 3.69
Barrow 2,663 95 4 2,568 96 463 418 90 45 10 5.55
n Bethel 7,579 108 1 7,471 99 1,435 1,258 88 177 12 5.21I
N
-....J
Bristol Bay Br.1,147 411 36 736 64 192 153 80 39 20 3.83
Bristol Bay Div.3,485 50 1 3,435 99 724 616 85 108 15 4.74
Cordova-McCarthy 1,857 83 4 1,774 96 591 421 71 170 29 3.00
Fairbanks 45,864 6,761 15 39,103 85 11,590 9,877 85 1,713 15 3.37
Haines 1,504 35 2 1,469 98 424 366 86 58 14 3.46
Juneau 13,556 212 2 13,344 98 4,223 3,261 77 962 23 3.16
Kenai-Cook Inlet 14,250 396 3 13,854 97 3,889 3,298 85 591 15 3.56
Ketchikan 10,041 239 2 9,802 98 3,006 2,405 80 601 20 3.26
Kobuk 4,434 172 4 4,262 96 814 718 88 96 12 5.24
Kodiak 9,409 978 10 8,431 90 2,384 2,019 85 365 15 3.54
Kuskokwim 2,306 255 11 2,051 89 463 362 78 101 22 4.43
Matanuska-Susitna 6,509 255 4 6,254 96 1,841 1,469 80 372 20 3.40
Nome 5,749 215 4 5,534 96 1,209 999 83 210 17 4.58
Outer Ketchikan 1,676 53 3 1,623 97 391 339 87 52 13 4.15
Prince of Wales 2,106 159 8 1,947 92 560 423 76 137 24 3.48
TABLE C.13.ALASKA REGIONAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE DATA FOR 1970 (continued)
Average
Household
Population Households Size
In-Group
Census Total Quarters In Households Total Family Non-Family
Division
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Seward 2,336 141 6 2,195 94 722 563 78 159 22 3.04
Sitka 6,109 266 4 5,843 96 1,767 1,349 76 418 24 3.31
Skagway-Yakutat 2,157 33 2 2,124 98 607 481 79 126 21 3.50
S.E.Fairbanks 4,179 621 15 3,558 85 1,027 908 88 119 12 3.46
(")Upper Yukon 1,684 384 23 1,300 77 338 244 72 94 28 3.85I
Nco Va1dez-Chitina-
Whittier 3,098 172 6 2,926 94 921 684 74 237 26 3.18
Wade Hampton 3,917 255 7 3,662 93 643 570 89 73 11 5.70
Wrange11-
Petersburg 4,913 42 1 4,871 99 1,473 1,168 79 305 21 3.31
Yukon-Koyukuk 4,752 708 15 4,044 85 1,015 789 78 226 22 3.98
SOURCE:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,1970 Population PC(1)-B3.
-....,t.l..$_,1\*v·.....,.",.~''''·",.,..,.''''."'''''..·"..·,,...·..''''..·.·,''~'''''7."..,''
v.Sensitivity Analysis
The most important set of parameters within the household model is
the vector of rates of change of the household formation rates.For a
given population distribution by age and sex,the household formation
rates at any point in time determine the number of households.Thus,
in the simplest sense,the number of households is very sensitive to
how these rates of change vary,and a different vector of rates of
change which increases the household formation rates by 10 percent would
obviously increase the number of households by 10 percent also.
The historical trend and national projections all indicate that a
continued reduction in average household size is the most reasonable
assumption to adopt for the future.The question then becomes what
are the practical limits of the range of household size.On the one
hand,if the Native and non-Native proportion of the population remained
unchanged,the average household size might not fall appreciably.At
the other extreme,the average household size could not logically be
expected to be less than the size required for there to be at least
one employed person per household.In other words,the number of
households must always be less than employment.
In reality,the number of households will likely always remain
considerably below the level of employment if we assume that marriage
is a viable institution,that the trend toward two working spouses in
a family is not reversed,and that families continue to have children.
C-29
---------------
A hypothetical smallest average household size in 2005 might be as shown
in Table C.14 if it is further assumed that Alaskan Native household
formation rates were to become equivalent to civilian non-Natives.
Table C.14 is not a projection,but rather a display of the implications,
in terms of types of households,of a very low average household size.
It also displays the implication of various average work force partici-
pants per household.
On the basis of Table C.14,reasonableness suggests that a lower
bound on average household size would be no less than 2.25 and that for
a given level of employment,the number of households could be no
greater than 1/1.25 times employment.
Table C.15 shows the result of applying these upper and lower bounds
3totheprojectionsdoneforthe1979railbeltstudy.There are two
principal conclusions that can be drawn from Table C.15.
1.The possible variation in the number of households for
a given population is considerable for a twenty-year
projection.For the moderate case,the range of house-
holds in 2000 within the arbitrarily defined upper and
lower bounds is from 228.9 thousand to 311.2 thousand.
Assuming 137.8 thousand households in 1980,this implies
an increase in the number of households of from 91.1 to
173.4 thousand or an annual growth rate between 2.6 and
4.2 percent.
2.The projected values are well within the range bracketed
by the smallest possible household size and the continua-
tion of the current household size.
3Results using the revised model are not significantly different.
C-30
________________________It__
TABLE C.14.COMPOSITION OF THE SMALLEST FEASIBLE
AVERAGE ALASKAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN 2005
Proportion Minimum Likely Average
of Total Average Employees
Household TYEe (%)Household Size Per Household
Family 60 2.758 1.5
Married Couples 40 3 1.75
with children 20 4 1.75
no children 20 2 1.75
One-Parent &Other 20 2.275 1
mother &children 9 2.5 1
father &children 2 2.5 1
other families 9 2 1
Non-Family 40 1.25 1.25
persons alone 30 1 1
other 10 2 2
s I
Total 100 2.155 1.4
C-3l
--
TABLE C.15.IMPLICATIONS'FOR NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN 2000
OF APPLYING LOWER AND UPPER REASONABLE BOUNDS
Additional Annual
Households Growth Rate
Population Employment Households 1980-2000 in Households
LOW PROJECTION 635.6 332.3
Upper Bound 1 282.5 144.7 3.7
Upper Bound 2 265.8 128 3.3
Projected Value 234.7 96.9 2.7
Lower Bound 207.8 70 2.1
MODERATE PROJECTION 700.1 371.5
(J
I
VJ Upper Bound 1 311.2 173.4 4.2N
Upper Bound 2 297.2 159.4 3.9
Projected Value 260.5 122.7 3.2
Lower Bound 228.9 91.1 2.6
HIGH PROJECTION 831.0 454.6
Upper Bound 1 369.3 231.5 5.1
Upper Bound 2 363.7 225.9 5.0
Projected Value 312.5 174.7 4.2
Lower Bound 271.7 133.9 3.5
Upper Bound 1 -based on household formation rate of 1/2.25
Upper Bound 2 -based on househo1d-to-emp1oyment ratio of 1/1.25
Lower Bound -based on household formation rate in 1980 of 1/3.06 =.327
~""f-"'''''~>",,~:'''''--_'','~i''~J''''':!~-l!'''''f""'''''~~''';'''W''lt'!''I'~~~""~,;~il-~,.~:iliX:filiJI"'·_',lt;•.A,tI!i4 ,-.c;;Ifii§4l,-¢il'lN4it".;.8#!i'ii*_!J1I%f£il'A4llJi¥!F~h8,**,Hkt.#';jij¥iji#¥!@!I&\i!'-.ill',~~~~j
VI.Potential Further Development
of the Household Formation Model
An ideal model for projecting households would involve the use
of large amounts of microdata which is not available on a statewide or
regional basis in Alaska.If it were available,a Markow model would
be the appropriate form for the model.
The known number of households at the beginning of the projection
period would be divided by important characteristics into separate
categories.These characteristics would include both the type of house-
hold (family,nonfamily),composition of household (number of adults,
number of children,etc.),social characteristics of head (age,sex),
and economic characteristics of household (income,employment).
The probability of a household's changing size in any category or
dissolving will differ for each category because of these different
characteristics.Some of these changes will result in additions to the
number of households.The Markow model would trace these changes over
time,and total population would be the number of households multiplied
by average household size in each category.
The probabilities of various events for a household which would
change its size or affect its existence would be related to economic
variables such as income and employment as well as to social trends.
Migration will change the number of households in the different categories.
C-33
It is easy to see that such a model,although elegant and internally
consistent,is not,in most cases,practical to implement on a regional
b . 4aS1S.
A second-best solution to the problem of incorporating economic
variables in the determination of household formation rates would be to
make the household formation rates for each age-sex-race cohort variables
in the model rather than parameters.The household formation rates
would be a function of a set of income and employment variables generated
by the model.Because of the lack of any time series on household
formation rates in Alaska,such an approach would require use of a
national cross-sectional analysis to estimate the functional relation-
ship between economic variables and household formation rates.Because
it would be difficult to adequately control for the specific character-
istics of Alaskan household formation,such as the impact of migration
and the particular employment mix within Alaskan industries,such an
approach would have limited value.5
Note that the household formation model is indirectly a function of
economic characteristics because it is related to the age-sex structure
of the population which is partially migration determined and which,in
turn,is a function of economic variables.
4For example,the ELFOR model developed by Battelle Columbus Labs
for ERDA in April 1980 for electricity load forecasting employs the
same technique as is used in the MAP model.
5 For an attempt to do this,see S.Caldwell,W.Greene,T.Mount,
and S.Saltzman,"Forecasting Regional Energy Demand with Linked Macro-
Micro Models,"Papers of the Regional Science Association 1145.
C-34
~t
----------------------------------'-'---
NOILVJI~IJ~dS ~LVM ~9VM 1~aOH dVH
a x1=P u ;JddV
I.Introduction
One critical element of any economic model of the Alaskan economy
is the determination of the level and growth rate of personal income.
Personal income is a major determinant of aggregate economic activity
because it determines the demand for locally consumed goods and
services.
Wages and salaries is the largest component of personal income
and,thus,the most important in its determination.In Alaska,the
proportion of personal income which is wages and salaries is much
higher than the national average,l~rgely because of the young average
age of the population.Younger people tend to have fewer income-
earning assets than older people.
II.Wages and Salaries Determination in MAP Model
For each of the twelve industries in the MAP model,total wages
and salaries is the product of the wage rate and the level of employ-
ment,both measured in average annual terms.For a given level of
employment,the wage rate determines total wages and salaries.
The specification of the wage rate equations reflects the fact
that wage rate levels are jointly determined by conditions in national
labor markets and local labor markets.National labor markets are
important because the labor supply is mobile and will migrate to where
job opportunities are best.This has the tendency of equilibrating
wage levels in different geographic regions (after taking account of
cost of living differentials).This equilibrating process is not
instantaneous,however;and,thus,excess labor demand in the short
run can drive up wage rates in regions that are growing rapidly.The
opposi~e can happen in regions with excess labor supply although a
number of institutional constraints prevent wage rates from being as
flexible on the down side.
D-I
The typical equation has the following specification:
LOG (WR**/RPI)=a + b *LOG (WEUS/USCPI)+ c *LOG (l+EXEMRAT)
+ d *LOG (l+EXEMRAT(-l))+ e *LOG (1+EXEMRAT(-2))
where WR";-;':=average annual wage rate for industry ;"..,':
RPI =Alaskan relative price index
WEUS =average weekly earnings of nonagricultural wage
and salary employees in the United States
USCPI =U.S.consumer price index
EXEMRAT =the ratio of extraordinary employment to total
employment in Alaska (extraordinary employment
is large-project construction employment which
significantly increases labor demand in the
short run)
This equation says that the real wage rate in each industry in
Alaska is a function of the real wage rate in the United States in all
industries and of the tightness of the local labor market in the
current year as well as in past years.
The coefficients have the following interpretations:
a is the basic level of the real wage in Alaska in industry ,b':
independent of any significant variation in the real wage
level in the United States or tightness in the local labor
market.(The value of the national labor market term
WEUS/USCPI is approximately one,which results in a logged
value close to zero.)
b is the elasticity of the response of the local real wage in
industry ,';-;':to a change in the average real wage (produc-
tivity level)in the United States.As such,it is a com-
posite of three types of change as follows:
D-2
~real Alaskan annual wage in industry **
~real US average weekly wage across all industries =
2))~real Alaskan annual wage in industry
~real US annual wage in industry **
,';-:.'::
x
~real US annual wage in industry **
~real US annual wage across all industries x
.n
1
.e
...r~
e
r
n
j
~real US annual wage across all industries
~real US average weekly wage across all industries
The coefficient b would equal one only if all three components of
change over time equaled one.This would imply that any changes in
the average real wage in the United States would be represented by
identical percentage increases in the real wage rates in all Alaskan
industries.
c is the elasticity of the real wage rate to local labor market
conditions reflected by the proportion of special skilled
labor component of labor.The upward pressure on wages this
reflects may operate with a lag and enter some of the equa-
tions with the current and two previous years'values.
During periods when there is no unusual labor demand pres-
sure,these terms become zero.A negative coefficient on a
lagged value suggests that tight markets in successive years
are rapidly self-correcting in some industries.
The wage rate in special projects construction is treated dif-
ferently than that of regular construction employment.The regular
construction wage is augmented by a fixed proportion to reflect the
longer hours and higher proportion of overtime pay associated with
such employment.This adjustment is less to take account of a labor
market supply constraint than to adjust to the particular conditions
associated with those types of construction jobs.
D-3
III.Historical Pattern of Wage Rate Growth
in Alaska and the United States
Figure D-1 shows the historical relationship between the average
annual Alaskan wage and the U.S.wage.The ratio is relatively con-
stant throughout the 1960s and early 1970s.In the mid-1970s,there
is a significant increase in the ratio,corresponding to the oil pipe-
line construction years.After pipeline construction,the ratio falls
although it is still above the prepipeline construction level.
Figure D-1 also shows the ratio after adjusting for differential
growth in the cost of living in Alaska and in the United States.An
upward trend in the ratio is attributable to the fact that the cost of
living in Alaska relative to the rest of the United States was
increasing more slowly in the early 1970s,and this more than compen-
sates for the decline in nominal relative wage rates.
If the change over time in the ratio of Alaskan-to-U.S.wage rate
is estimated using regression analysis over this historical period,
the average growth rate is 1.27 percent annually for the nominal ratio
and 1.65 percent for the cost-of-living-adjusted ratio.This confirms
that the annual wage rate in Alaska is growing more rapidly than in
the United States although the positive effects of the pipeline con-
struction period may be causing some upward bias in the calculated
growth rates.
Figure D-2 confirms that the aggregate pattern also is reflected
in individual industries.Some wage rates are more sensitive than
others to local labor market conditions,and the pattern of response
also varies by industry.
Table D-1 compares the growth in wage rates by industry with the
growth in the wage rate in the aggregate.In the first column,the
growth in the ratio of particular Alaskan industries to the U.S.
average is calculated;and in the second column,the ratio of the
D-4
----------------------~_.
FIGURE D-l.RATIO OF ALASKAN TO U.S.AVERAGE
ANNUAL WAGE RATE
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
Ratio
I.E
1.4
1.2
a T I , I I I 1 I I I I I I I I f I I I
(,/41.(.~(.'1 ~"""U'''1 70 71 71.7!>7't 75 7(,77 7(/7'7
Note:Ratio of Alaska average annual wage to U.S.average weekly wage x 50
D-5
Ratio
3.4
3.2 i
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
FIGURE D-2.RATIO OF ALASKAN
TO U.S.AVERAGE ANNUAL
WAGE RATE
(Nominal Wages)
D-6
!~_____________________i.it_
'(;
cade
19
'V
TABLE D-1.INDUSTRY GROWTH RATES RELATIVE TO THE
AVERAGE FOR THE UNITED STATES
Alaskaa United Statesb
Total 1.27 0
Mining 1.39 1.43
Construction 1.94 .32
Transportation 1.67 1.13Communications/Public Utilities -.29
Services 1.68 .40
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate .90 -.41
Retail Trade -.07 -.70
Wholesale Trade -.06 .04
Manufacturing -.17 .43
a The growth rate of the ratio of average annual earnings in
Alaska in industry **to average weekly U.S.earnings in total
(WR**/WEUS).
b The growth rate of the ratio of average weekly U.S.earnings
in industry **to average weekly U.S.earnings in total.
particular U.S.industries to the U.S.average is calculated.Thus,
for example,the differential between the Alaskan wage in mining and
the average U.S.wage grew at the rate of 1.39 percent per year.In
the United States as a whole,it grew slightly more rapidly at
1.43 percent annually.
Table D-1 suggests that a large part of the differential growth
rates among industries in Alaska can be attributed to differential
growth rates nationally.Since the second column represents the rela-
tive growth rates of wage rates nationally,any differences between
the two columns for an industry represent the differential Alaskan
growth.This differential is the change in Alaskan industry wage
D-7.
---------------------------------
D-8
------------,...--~
f
f
I
rates independent of national trends in the industry.Factors which
could account for this differential would include relative differences
in the hours or weeks worked in Alaska,relative cost of living dif-
ferences,changes in the mix of industry,or changes in average skill
levels.
In all industries except finance/insurance/real estate,which in
Alaska has grown more rapidly than its national counterpart,and manu-
facturing,which has grown more slowly than its national counterpart,
a portion of the differential growth rate in the Alaskan wage appears
to be the result of national trends in relative wage rates.
Construction and services are the two industries where growth in
average wage rates has substantially exceeded the national average.
The difference in construction can be largely attributed to the high
wages paid to oil pipeline construction employees.Netting them out
would reduce the observed growth rate.A similar phenomenon can be
attributed to the service sector which,after construction,showed the
most substantial increase in average wage rates relative to the U.S.
average during the oil pipeline construction years.Like construc-
tion,the post-pipeline ratios (WR;h'<'/WEUS)have remained above the
long-term trend,but the differential for services is less.
In finance/insurance/real estate,there has been a moderate post-
pipeline bulge in wage rates which mayor may not represent a real
structural change in the industry.Manufacturing in Alaska is a
relatively small group of activities not representative of the U.S.
manufacturing as a whole,and thus it is not reasonable to compare
wage rate growth of the two.
In conclusion,wage rates in different industries have grown at
different rates historically.This is true both for Alaska and the
United States.These growth rates can be related to the average for
all industries and,thus,justify the use of the all-industry average
~
t
!
--------------------------_.~._.
for projection pur;-poses.In general,Alaskan wage rate growth by
industry follows the national pattern with exceptions that can be
readily explained.
IV.Evaluation of Alaskan Wage Rate Equations
Details on the statistical properties of the wage rate equations
appear in Appendix G.In general,the statistical properties of the
equations are quite good.The corrected R2 value ranges between .8
and .96;the F tests are all significant (F(4/14)=5.04 for a 99 per-
cent confidence interval);the standard errors of the regressions are
small;and the T-tests are,with few exceptions,significant.For
nineteen observations and three explanatory variables,the 95 percent
confidence test of positive autocorrelation is a Durban-Watson value
of .97 or less.The test is inconclusive if it is between .97 and
1.68.The COND(X)variable tests for multicollinearity which does not
appear to be present in these equations.
The stability of the wage rate equations has been investigated by
varying the time period over which the regression parameters were cal-
culated.Table D-2 reports the results of this exercise.The inter-
cept term (a)is generally unaffected by the historical period chosen
for the regressions.The elasticity of local wage rates to changes in
national rates (b)does exhibit some variation with the time frame
chosen for the regressions.The elasticities appear to be declining
as new data points become available.These elasticities should be
stabilizing now that the majority of the effects of the oil pipeline
on the economy have worked themselves out.The sensitivity of projec-
tions with respect to these elasticities,however,should be
investigated.
D-9
TABLE D-2.SENSITIVITY OF WAGE RATE PARAMETER
VALUES TO REGRESSION TIME PERIOD
Parameter
Elasticity to
Intercept National Wage Rates
Industry 62-77 61-78 61-79 62-77 61-78 61-79
Construction 4.63 4.63 4.63 1.90 1.85 1.80
Mining 4.51 4.51 4.51 2.97 2.82 2.70
Trade 3.95 3.95 3.94 .52 .51 .45
Finance/Insurance/
Real Estate 3.95 3.95 3.96 1.72 1.74 1.63
Transportation 4.11 4.11 4.11 1.66 1.57 1.47
Services 3.83 3.83 3.84 .98 1.01 .81
State and Local
Government 4.03 4.03 4.04 2.40 2.29 2.20
To test the overall stability of the set of equations specifying
the Alaskan wage rates,we first examined the simulated relationship
between the Alaskan real wage and the U.S.real wage in a preliminary
version of the model.The real wage in Alaska grows in the twenty-
year period from 1980 to 2000 from $5,728 (1967 U.S.dollars is the
base)to $7,661.This is an average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent.
Over the same period,the u.S.average real wage is exogenously set at
an average annual growth rate of .7 percent.Thus,the Alaska real
wage grows at twice the rate for the United States in this scenario.
This is attributable to the increasing proportion of employment in
relatively fast wage rate growth industries.This differential growth
rate does not destabilize the projections.Whereas,in 1980,the
ratio of the Alaska-U.S.average real wage is 1.133,in 2000 it is
1.350.This is because,although the growth rates are appreciably
different,they are both relatively small.
D-10
--------------------_.......-
To test the sensitivity of projection results to changes in the
coefficients measuring the elasticity of wage rates to changes in the
U.S.average wage rate (b),a special simulation was done in which
these coefficient values were reduced by one standard error.The
result was a surprisingly small difference in the real wage rate and
population after a twenty-year period.Table D-3 shows the results of
this test in comparison to a base case.In 2000,population is
5.8 thousand lower in the test,and the real wage is 1.3 percent
lower.The robustness of the model to this sensitivity test is
reassuring,given the uncertainty about whether all the effects of oil
pipeline construction on wage rates have shown up in the data.
A second sensitivity test was performed and is also reported in
Table D-3.This test investigated the sensitivity of the model simu-
lation results to the growth rate in the real wage in the United
States.To test this,the proj ection growth rate for this variable
was reduced from .7 to .5 percent annually (WEUSjUSCPI).The resul-
tant change in the 2000 population from the base case was 32 thousand,
while the reduction in the real Alaskan wage rate was 5.2 percent.
This test suggests that the projection value for the growth of the
real wage rate in the United States should be chosen with care.
Historically,the growth of this variable,which is a measure of
the productivity growth of the U.S.labor force,has not been smooth.
The average annual growth rate over the past twenty years has been
.5 percent,approximately equal to the value chosen for the sensi-
tivity test.Within that twenty-year time frame,however,there was a
decade of rapid growth in the 1960s when the average weekly wage
adjusted for cost of living increases grew from $92 to $107.This was
followed by a decade of stagnation during the 1970s,when the real
wage fell.In 1979,it was $101.Thus,it is difficult to project
wi th confidence a growth rate for the real wage rate in the United
States based upon the historical data.This must remain as one of the
components of the simulation process which is subject to irreducible
uncertainty.
D-ll
TABLE D-3.SENSITIVITY TESTS OF MAP WAGE RATE EQUATIONS
Test of
Test of u.S.Wage
Elasticity Rate Growth
POPULATION Base Case Sensitivity Sensitivity
1 '?'BO 399.456 399.456 399.456
1981 408.131 408.613 408.131
1982 420.961 422.099 420.961
1983 448.902 450.425 448.902
1984 484.3;22 486.224 484.322
1985 485.173 487.214 485.08~'i
1986 494.811 496.948 'l94.473
1 iT'S 7 50:'.'.;.152 507.159 504.172
:1.988 ~"'j16.149 5:1.7.972 514.309
1989 52::'~.(">'9 52·4.551 520.041
1990 529.522 530.784 52~5.28~~1 (»91 542.48 543.367 536.6291qc,..,557t24 557.68'7 549 •55~:5•,I ')'A-
1.993 574.0,-:'5 574.771 564.955
1994 590 +:3~;2 ~"'j8'7.667 5"78.073
199~5 60~i +:396 604.03 590.4521OC'L 620.069 617.99 602.344I1"-I
1.'1 <7'I'(;;34.:~;()1 631.632 61.3.702
19'1'8 649.378 645.631 6~:.?~:)+1 9
:l '7'9 'i'66~5.;283 660.563 6~5·7 +:~65
20()O ,S82.49 676.689 (;'50.444
REAL WAGE RATE
r
:I.';'::1 ()
1 (;'81
1 ';'82
19D4
:I.(?S:'.'.i
1 ')lab
1.':iE17
19f.1B
1 ...)..···c'.?C)7
1.'lo:"JO
1991
:I.7'92
197'3
19'7'4
:I.?·?"):.~:i
:I.(;:'96
J.~i9?
...,.1 '-)i.)
:::i7213.4
572:1..)'
6:lEl4.1.~)
7438.:l.B
6'Y'i39.;'9
6/'15.71
6~;O?~02
66:1.8.)'8
6tJ24.7
6·76:7.~55
7L~7.7
7132.::>3
7:1.72.,'i6
7300 .,~3:5
741~:~(-9~:'
D-12
5758.87
5761.74
6223.34
6863.~j7
7470.91
7009.69
672~5.09
6::-;08.79
6444.04
6541.49
6~:;98 ~\~
C)796 ~5~)
6931.27
l'08:;~.'"7'8
7079.94
71:1.3.04
"7 J.~"'i,~).07
7336.0:::
5"7:28.4
5721.7
6:l84.1~'i
6B::.~6 <-""/2
·74:38.:1.8
(;.6(S4 +:3:2
6433.('":08
.L ";<"1:;''''1''1'"\r::''::l ":l ,.J,~•(:l ,J
,:)434.0tl
6474.;'54
66::.)4.01
6"7"70.38
6'7'04.83
6 17}0 ::~.::~<:)1
6927.[13
..?:I.,S:.:.::.::::9
V.Conclusion
In general,the wage rate equations are well-specified and
robust.They must continue to be monitored as new observations become
available to see how the elasticities with respect to the U.S.wage
rate change.This may also require fine tuning of the lag structure
on the variable for tightness in the local labor market.
The growth rate of the real wage rate in the United States is an
important variable in the determination of the growth of the Alaskan
economy.This variable must be constantly monitored,and projections
of its future value must continue to be critically evaluated.
D-13
---~~~~--~~~~~~~---~~~-------------------
NOIIVJldIJadS NOIIVHDIW laaow dVW
a xwuaddV
I.Introduction
Population change is the sum of two components--natural increase
and net migration.Natural increase is a relatively stable component
of population change since it is a stable function of age-sex-race-
specific fertility and mortality rates which may change over time,but
only gradually.
Net migration is,in contrast,quite volatile and can change from
a large,positive value to a large,negative value from year to year.
For purposes of long-run projections,these year-to-year fluctuations
are not as important -as the overall trends in migratory flows.
Between one-third and one-half of the population increase in the 1970s
was the result of net positive migration.
Population is important because it is a factor in the demand for
many goods and services such as state and local government and housing
independent of the other major determinant of demand--personal income.
II.Specification of Net Migration in the MAP Model
Net migration is determined by the following equation:
MIGNET =a +b *[~CNN -~CONX1]+c *ECONX1 +d *
YDNNRPC(-l)/DIRPU(-l)
where MIGNET =net migration
~CNN =annual change in level of civilian non-Native
employment
~CONX1 =annual change in level of remote special
project construction employment
YDNNRPC(-l)=Alaska non-Native real disposable personal
income per capita lagged one year
DIRPU(-l)=real disposable personal income per capita in
United States lagged one year
E-l
This specification of the net migration equation reflects the
fact that the primary determinates of net migration are changing
employment opportunities and regional variations in relative income.!
Net migration is the sum of gross in-migration and gross out-migration.
The composition of net migration is determined by allocating the total
into the various age and sex cohorts of the population.
The coefficients in the net migration equation have the following
interpretations:
a is the level of net migration which would occur in a year if
there were no change in the number of jobs in the economy
and if real per capita income in Alaska relative to the rest
of the United States were not a variable in the determina-
tion of migration.This coefficient is negative,reflecting
the fact that if there are no new jobs generated in the
economy in a year,then because the labor force is increas-
ing because of the effects of natural increase,some people
in the labor force will migrate elsewhere to look for
employment.
b is the marginal increase in the level of net migration from an
increase in the number of jobs in the economy.This coef-
ficient is positive and may have a value less than or
greater than unity.
c is interpreted in the same way as b,except that it applies to
jobs created on special large construction projects.
!For a more detailed discussion of this,see Scott Goldsmith,
"Important Economic Relationships in the Alaskan Macroeconomy,"
unpublished paper,1978.
E-2___________________________Ih__
d is the increment to net migration which is the result of real
per capita income differentials between Alaska and the rest
of the U.S.regions.If there is no differential,then a +
d can be interpreted as the level of net migration which
would occur in a year when no new jobs were created in the
economy.This coefficient is positive.
This specification is best understood by reference to Figure E-1
which depicts the form of the net migration equation currently in use
in the MAP model.Net migration is represented along the vertical
axis;and employment growth,along the horizontal axis.A different
relationship exists between these variables for each level of real per
capita disposable income in Alaska relative to the United States.
Line A represents the relationship if the real per capita disposable
personal income of Alaskan non-Natives is the same as in the rest of
the United States.Line B represents the case where the Alaskan real
disposable per capita non-Native income is 20 percent above the United
States.Line A is representative of equilibrium conditions between
Alaskan and U.S.labor markets,while line B is representative of boom
conditions when wages and salaries in Alaska have been temporarily
driven up by supply constraints in the labor market or because of high
wages paid on certain construction projects.
The various lines represent the positive relationship between the
growth of employment and net migration as well as the positive rela-
tionship between Alaskan real income and net in-migration.They also
allow us to see the relationship between the marginal migration
response and the average migration response.
Point X represents a situation in a year of income parity.
Employment growth is 3 thousand;and net in-migration,about 1 thou-
sand.The slope of the line is about one,indicating that the
marginal net in-migration for each new job is one.On average,how-
ever,each job created has generated net in-migration of .33 persons.
The migration effect of job creation could be decomposed into two
E-3
(000)
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
-,
NET
OUT-In GRAT I ON
(000)
+B.
9 I /Alaska Real Per Capita Income
20%Above U.s."<j
H
Alaska-U.S.Real Per Capita
()
c:::
Income Pari tv ~
~,//
~
INET~
~.
IN-MIGRATION H
()
(000)~~
H
o~
31 / /
Z 0'
t::l
~tr1
,or:-'c:::
:,J>Z
1-3~
1-11-3
0
Z
trJ ,J //3 (;q n.I
~
-'f
*'*"'",4 1P'I46iI •.....,1 ·'''''..,__""~~r~~_.~_•..~_...,,_.._",~~~.,,,,_._...,.....,,~",._...••_•...~...
separate parts.To the left of Y,new jobs are filled by current
residents who,in the absence of the new employment opportunities,
would have out-migrated to look elsewhere for jobs.Those new jobs to
the right of Yare filled by new migrants.
If in a given year no new jobs are created,there would be net
out-migration of about 2 thousand people (point Z).If Y new jobs
were created,there would be neither in-migration nor out-migration.
Growth in the resident labor force would take all the new jobs.Each
new job in excess of Y generates in-migration of one person on aver-
age,including those who get jobs,their dependents,and those who are
unemployed.
Another way to see the relationship between employment growth and
migration in this equation is by means of Table E-1.It shows that at
higher rates of job creation,the average net migration is higher.
Also at low positive levels of job creation,there is out-migration.
TABLE E-1.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB CREATION AND
NET MIGRATION IN THE MAP MODEL
(Hypothetical Example)
Job Creation in
One Year Net Migration Net Migrants for
(thousand)(thousand)Each Job Created
12 10 .83
9 7 .78
6 4 .67
3 1 .33
2 0 0
1 - 1 - 1
0 - 2
- 1 - 3
- 3
- 3 - 5
-1.67
- 6 - 8 -1.33
E-5
III.Evaluation of Migration Equation
The model currently uses the following equation:
1:MIG T - A+B*( Er~GR0- ( ECON X( 1) - ECON X( - 1) ) )
+C'*RELINC+D*O.EQ+E*(ECONX(1 )-ECONX(-1))
CRSQ =0.98167
SSR =89.050
NOB =17
RANGE =
RSQ =
SER =
COEF
A
B
C
o
E
NOVAR =5
1961 TO 1977
0.98625
2.7241
VALUE
-7.83466
0.96122
5.24092
3.53277
1.86136
ST ER
6.13773
0.17220
8.67252
1.92752
0.25082
F(4/12)=215.191
DW(O)=2.08
COND(X)=25.95
T-STAT
-1.27648
5.58211
0.60431
1.83280
7.42118
For simulation,the parameter values on the income and employment
terms are adjusted to account for the fact that the historical data
includes the Alaska Natives;whereas,the simulation data does not.
In addition,the intercept is adjusted to improve its performance in
simulation.The statistical tests for this equation are generally
good except for the relative income term.This coefficient has the
correct sign but is not statistically significant.The variables have
been two period averaged in order to reduce the possibility of posi-
tive autocorrelation.The variable EQ is a dummy to account for the
earthquake years.
E-6
rI
I
i,
III.Evaluation of Migration Equation
The model currently uses the following equation:
1:MIG T - A+B*(Er~GR0- (ECON X(1)- ECON X(- 1) ) )
+C'*RELINC+D*O.EQ+E*(ECONX(1 )-ECONX(-l))
NOB =17
RANGE =
RSQ =
SER =
COEF
NOVAR =5
1961 TO 1977
0.98625
2.7241
VALUE
CRSQ =0.98167
SSR =89.050
ST ER
F(4/12)=215.191
OH(O)=2.08
CONO(X)=25.95
T-STAT
A
B
C
o
E
-7.83466
0.96122
5.24092
3.53277
1.86136
6.13773
0.17220
8.67252
1.92752
0.25082
-1.27648
5.58211
0.60431
1 .83280
7.42118
For simulation,the parameter values on the income and employment
terms are adjusted to account for the fact that the historical data
includes the Alaska Natives;whereas,the simulation data does not.
In addition,the intercept is adjusted to improve its performance in
simulation.The statistical tests for this equation are generally
good except for the relative income term.This coefficient has the
correct sign but is not statistically significant.The variables have
been two period averaged in order to reduce the possibility of posi-
tive autocorrelation.The variable EQ is a dummy to account for the
earthquake years.
E-6
1
Recent analysis of this equation has concentrated on the incor-
poration of new data points into parameter estimation and upon
improvement of the specification.The current formulation of the net
migration equation differs from the formulation reported in the MAP
documentation prepared in 1979 in both the intercept and slope coef-
ficient values as well as the fact that it separates employment change
into two components.
The data &eries used in the equation is the subject of an ongoing
analysis because of data revisions in the natural increase,personal
income,and net migration series.No changes have been incorporated
into the model yet based upon the revised data.At the same time,
additional data points are being considered for addition to the para-
meter estimation.The preliminary results of this analysis show that
with the addition of new data points,the positive significant rela-
tionship between employment and net migration does not change.
The historical series on migration between the 1970 and 1980
census years has come into question since the publication of the 1980
census population figure.Since this figure is lower than had pre-
viously been estimated,net migration figures for some years after
1970 were overestimated.It is likely that the majority of the error
in the migration series occurred in 1978 and 1979,the years of slack
economic activity after construction of the oil pipeline,although
1977 net migration may also be overestimated.Rather than utilizing
obviously incorrect data in an updated migration equation,the current
version of the model uses data only through 1977.When a corrected
version of net migration becomes available,this equation will be
updated.
It is interesting to note that the coefficient values on regular
employment growth and project construction employment growth,although
significant,change their relative sizes as more data points are added.
As more of the post-pipeline data enters into the estimation of the
equation,the net migration impact of a regular employee increases,
E-7
TII
t
and the impact of a special project construction employee decreases.
The coefficient on regular employees approaches the value calculated
before the inclusion of the pipeline years.However,because of the
high correlation between changes in the level of regular and special
construction project employment,the variation in the sizes of these
coefficients largely cancel one another out in simulation and impact
analysis.
The most important test for the net migration equation specifica-
tion is how it performs in simulation.In a base case simulation
similar to the moderate case in the electric power study,the perfor-
mance of the net migration equation was monitored by tracking the
relationship between employment and population.Table E-2 shows that
as the population grows from 399 thousand in 1980 to 682 thousand in
2000,the employment rate rises from 51.6 percent of the population to
53.5 percent,an increase of almost 4 percent (the ratio of civilian
employment to civilian population).This increase reflects either
that the labor force participation rate is increasing over time or
that the unemployment rate is declining,or both.This is the result
of changes both within the economy and different characteristics of
new migrants who are more likely to be employed than the resident
population.
We can also calculate a variable similar to the labor force par-
ticipation rate.The labor force participation rate is defined as
civilian employed plus unemployed divided by the civilian population
aged 16 and over.We have no proj ections of the unemployed,but a
variable which should move similar to labor force participation is
defined as total civilian jobs divided by the civilian population
between the ages of 15 and 64 (EC/(ADULTS-POPM)).In this simulation,
the 1980 work force proportion is 79.7 percent,and it grows to
81.7 percent in 2000.
Another important variable for monitoring the migration equation
is the ratio between the average real per capita disposable personal
E-8
TABLE E-2.TRACKING TEST FOR NET MIGRATION
I
I~
!
I
I
1~1
I
1tJ
-
1980
:L'/81
1.982
1983
1 'i84
1 '7'83
l'1:::l6
1 'i87
19:38
1 'i89
1990
1991
j oq'?. I 1_
1993
1 'i94
19?5
1 <7'96
1 ';;'9;'
"I C:'C)'::i.L i ,.\..}
1 S;'7''7'
::000
Population
399.4;36
408.131
420.961
448.902
·484 +:?;~.~2
4,35.1.73
494.811.
~;'J5 +152
51.6.:l4'7'
r:".-,"'j 0 r-,....J.~......I 7
5::9 t ~:i:2:~
5·42.48
557.24
5'7-4 t 865
59C1 +3~S2
6(J5 e-3':?6
h:20.069
c'.i34.~S()1
649.3?i3
6.~)5.~.~83
,:')S ~2 •·4 7'
Employment/
Population
0.516
0.512
0.509
0.519
0.~534
0.529
o +~~32
O.:529
0.528
0.523
0.52
o•:'521
0.523
o.~)27
0.529
0.531.
0.531
O.5~52
()+332
O.~~33
0.535
£-9
Non-Native Real
Per Capita Disposal
Personal Income Alaska/
United States
1..075
1.031
1.145
1.209
1.302
1.218
1.161
1.095
1 •0~38
1..042
1.024
1.031
1.032
1.035
1.0:!.5
1.001
0.985
0.974
0.966
0.96
0.954
income in Alaska and in the United States.This variable is also
shown in Table E-2.This ratio remains relatively stable.It rises
in the mid-1980s 1n response to gas pipeline construction employment
and subsequently declines back toward one.In the latter years,it
drops below one as it had been historically until 1975.This has a
slight negative effect on the level of net migration.A lower popula-
tion or higher employment-to-population ratio would bring this income
ratio back to one through feedback effects in the model.
The results 1n Table E-2 indicate that the migration equation
does not generate an unstable situation either in the labor market or
with respect to relative income in Alaska.It is necessary,however,
to compare the trends in the values for these indicators (employment
rate and relative real income)generated by model simulation with
historical trends and independently projected trends to ascertain
whether the simulation results are,in fact,plausible as well as
stable.
Nationally,the labor force participation rate has been increas-
ing since World War II.Table E-3 shows that the participation rate
has increased from 59.2 percent in 1960 to 62.7 percent in 1978.This
is the combined result of a number of trends of which the most sig-
nificant is an increase in the labor force participation rate for
white females from 36 percent in 1960 to 48.8 percent in 1978.
Counterbalancing this trend has been a decline in the rates for both
white and nonwhite males.Some of the change in the aggregate parti-
cipation rate is also due to the change in the demographic mix of the
population over time.
This trend can be observed in the historical data on employment
and population for Alaska.Civilian employment as a proportion of
civilian population increased from 37.4 percent in 1970 to 47.2 per-
cent in 1979.Part of the increase can be attributed to a demographic
shift in the population,but it is primarily the result of an increase
in labor force participation.
E-10
TABLE E-3.COMPOSITION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR FORCE
No.645.LABOR FORCE AND PARTICIPATION RATES,BY RACE,SEX,AND AGE:1960 TO 1978
(persona 16 years old and over.Labor force data are annual averages of monthly figures.Includes Armed Forces.
Rates are based on total population of each specified group as of July and represent proportion of each speci·
fied group In labor force.See also Hillloriral Slati3tiCl,Colonial Tim..to 1970,series D 29-41)
TOTAL LABOR FORCE (millions)PARTICIPATION RUES (percent)
BACE,SEX,AND IAOE1960 1965 1970 1915 1976 1977 1978 1960 1965 1970 1975 197&1977 l!I18
------------I--------------
TotaL ______72.1 77.2 85.9 94.8 96.9 99.5 102.5 59.2 1Ill.8 60.3 60.9 61.2 &1.8 62.7--------------'-----------------Whlte._.__________64.2 68.6 76.4 83.9 lIS.7 87.9 90.2 58.8 58.5 60.2 61.1 61.5 6Z.1 62.9Male____________44.1 45.9 48.8 51.6 52.2 53.1 53.9 82.6 80.4 79.7 78.1 77.9 78.0 78.0Female__________20.1 22.8 27.5 32.3 33.5 34.8 36.3 36.0 37.7 42.0 45.4 46.3 47.4 48.8
Black and other___7.9 8.6 9.5 10.9 11.3 11.7 12.4 63.0 62.1 61.1 58.8 59.1 59.5 6UMale.__•_______•4.8 5.1 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.7 SO.1 77.4 74.7 70.4 69.7 69.8 70.SFemale__•_______3.1 3.5 4.0 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.7 47.2 48.1 48.9 48.7 49.7 SO.5 52.8
Male..___•___•___•48.9 SO.9 64.3 57.7 58.4 59.5 60.5 82.4 80.1 79.2 77.3 76.9 77.0 7T.~
UH9 years __•___3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 58.6 55.7 57.5 60.2 60.3 61.8 62.7
llH7 years.___1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 45.9 44.1 46.7 48.5 48.4 SO.O 5U
•18-19 years.___1.8 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 73.1 68.3 68.8 n.l 72.1 73.5 74.0
20-24 yean_.___•4.9 5.9 7.4 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 88.9 86.2 85.1 84.6 85.2 85.3 85.125--34 years ______10.9 10.7 12.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 15.9 96.4 96.0 95.0 114.2 94.2 94.2 90
35--44 years_.__._11.5 11.5 10.8 10.6 10.7 10.9 11.3 96.4 96.2 95.7 94.8 94.6 94.9 ~.6
45--64 years ______9.6 10.1 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.2 10.2 94.3 94.3 9Z.9 91.1 90.6 90.3 00.4
55--64 years _____•6.4 6.8 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 lIS.2 83.2 81.5 74.8 73.5 73.0 7U
65 yr.and over__2.4 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 32.2 26.9 25.8 20.8 19.4 19.3 19.1
Female.___________23.2 26.2 31.6 37.1 38.5 40.1 42.0 37.1 3d.8 42.8 43.7 46.8 47.8 4U
llH9 years._.___2.1 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.5 39.1 37.7 43.7 49.0 49.8 51.3 53.8
16-17 years_.__.8 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 28.6 27.5 34.6 40.0 40.6 41.9 45.%
18-19 years.___1.3 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 51.0 48.6 53.4 58.1 58.9 60.4 62.2
20-24 years._____2.6 3.4 4.9 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.9 46.1 49.7 57.5 63.9 65.0 66.4 611.2
25--34,·ears._____4.2 4.3 5.7 8.5 9.2 9.9 10.6 35.8 38.5 44.8 54.3 56.9
5ll.2 62.0
35--44 years.__•••5.3 5.7 6.0 6.5 6.8 7.2 7.6 43.1 45.9 SO.9 55.6 57.6 59.4 61.3
45--54 years ______5.2 5.7 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.8 49.3 50.5 54.0 54.3 64.6 55.5 56.~
M-64 years._____3.0 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 36.7 40.6 42.5 40.6 40.7 40.6 41.1
65 yr.and over..1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 10.5 9.5 9.2 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.8
Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics,Special Labor Force Report•.
SOURCE:Statistical Abstract
E-ll
un c4.._
The labor force participation rate in Alaska appears to be sub-
stantially above the national average.In 1978,for example,the
aggregate labor force participation rate was 63.2 percent for the
United States.The rate for males was 77.9 percent and 50.0 percent
for females.The comparable figures for Alaska were 71.4,81.1,and
62.4 percent.2 The relatively high labor force participation rates in
Alaska,in spite of low participation rates for Native Alaskans,is
attributable partially to the age structure of the population and
partially to the mix of employment opportunities in the state.As
Table E-4 shows,40 percent of total employees in 1977 were women,and
they were heavily concentrated in government,services,finance/
insurance/real estate,and in retail trade.These are large indus-
tries in Alaska;thus,the opportunity exists in Alaska for a large
labor force participation rate for females.
Because the Alaskan labor force participation rate is above the
national average and has been rapidly increasing in recent years,it
is unlikely that it will continue to increase substantially above what
it is presently.Recall that in 1980 the ratio of civilian jobs to
civilian popoulation between 15 and 64 years was 79.7 percent.
Increasing integration of the Native community into the market economy
will increase the Native labor force participation rate over time,but
since the Native population is only a small component of total popu-
lation,a large increase in the Native labor participation rate will
have a relatively small impact on the aggregate participation rate.
On the other hand,it is not likely that the participation rate will
fall.An important factor operating to maintain a high participation
rate is the age-sex structure of the population which will continue to
be heavily weighted toward those cohorts with the highest participa-
tion rates.
E-12
2S tat istical Abstract,1979,Table 646,Civilian Labor Force and
Participation Rates.
I
I
f
I..;..-----------------------------~--
,~.
TABLE E-4.WOMEN EMPLOYEES IN NON-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES
No.660.WO:'dEN EMPLOYEES IN NONAGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES:1970 TO 1977
[Annual avprages of monthly f1gurtlS]
1910 1916 1977
~
Percent of-Percent of-Pereent of-
I~DUSTRY GROUP I Num-l Num-Num-ber Indus-Total ber Indus-Total ber IndWl'Total
(1,000)try employ·(1,000)try employ'(1,000)try employ-
group ment group ment group ment
-------------------------
TOlaL ________________________126.060 37 37 31.498 40 49 32.!194 40 40------------
Manufacturing______________________5,436 28 8 5,590 29 7 5,816 30 7
Dun\ble goods ______________•____._2.278 20 3 2,446 22 3 2.612 23 3
N~ndurable goods_________________3,158 39 4 3.144 40 4 3,204 40 4
MlDlng __________•_____--------------37 6 (Z)58 7 (Z)65 8 (Z)
Contract construction_--------------177 5 (Z)245 7 (Z)268 7 (Z)
Transportation and public utllities__953 21 1 986 22 1 1,036 23 1
Wholesale trade_______•_______------877 23 1 1,039 24 1 1,079 25 1
Retall trade __________•____----------5,120 46 7 6,365 47 8.6,5'tJ7 47 8
Finance.Insurance,and real estate.__1,907 52 3 2,377 55 3 2,523 56 3
Services __________...______------------6,222 54 9 8,184 56 10 8,&18 56 11
Government_________.-__-------••--5,331 42 8 6,656 45 8 6,961 4il 8
Z Less than .5 percent.
Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics,E",plOVMenl and Earning.,monthly.
SOURCE:Statistical Abstract,1979,Table 660.
The ratio of Alaskan to U.S.real disposable personal income per
capita has been rising historically.Part of the explanation for this
is the relatively rapid growth of the civilian non-Native population,
and part is attributable to growth of the employment rate of the popu-
lation.The high incomes during the pipeline construction years
caused a temporary distortion of the ratio.It seems reasonable to
project that the ratio of real incomes will remain in the vicinity of
one in future years.
The sensitivity of the net migration equation has been analyzed
in two ways.First,the coefficient values for both regular employ-
ment and special project employment were reduced by 25 percent (con-
siderably more than one standard error).This is a worst-case sen-
sitivity analysis because although different model specifications
yield different values for these coefficients,there is generally an
E-13
inverse relationship between them.The results of this sensitivity
analysis are shown in Table E-5 where a base-case value,sensitivity-
case value,and difference are displayed for population and the ratio
of employment-to-population.(The base case here is a relatively slow
growth scenario.)
Reduction in the response of migration to population by 25 per-
cent results in a change in the simulation value for population which
is cumulative over time.The migration response is damped,and popu-
lation growth slows.The difference by 1990 is only 11 thousand,but
by 2000 it is 47 thousand.
Analysis of the employment-to-population ratio shows that the
lower rate of population growth associated with the dampened-migration-
response case may be inconsistent with the employment growth simul-
taneously occurring in the simulation.The employment-to-population
ratio climbs to 56 percent from its value in 1980 of 50.9 percent.
Given the already high ratio of employment to population in the state,
it is not likely to grow another 10 percent in the next twenty years.
Thus,although the simulation results are sensitive to the coef-
ficient values for the net migration equation,the plausibility of the
results can be tested by observing the movement of the employment-to-
population ratio over the simulation range.
A second sensitivity test was conducted to examine the effect on
the simulation results of variation in the growth rate of real dispos-
able per capita personal income in the United States.The exogenously
projected growth rate was increased by 25 percent to 2.5 percent
annually,which is the historical rate over the last twenty years.
The results are shown in Table E-6.Increasing the rate of
growth of income in the United States reduces the relative attractive-
ness of Alaska and,thus,net in-migration,but the change is modest.
The model proved to be insensitive to variation in this exogenous
variable.
E-14
TABLE E-5.WORSE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF NET MIGRATION
EQUATION TO PARAMETER VALUE CHANGES
I
POPULATION
1980
1.913:L
1 ~f:3':;'~
J'i'E:3
.L '~':3·1
:L '~}~3 ~~.=.i
1.913 ,oS
:I.~)tl7
19F::8
1989
1990
1.991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1.997
19~E:
1.999
20()()
EHPLOYMENTjPOPULATION
Base Case
399.4~56
412.679
4:':,)2.16
431.
430.(;.'74
·i ::>/'•::OJ 13
445.297
4~H .1'58
4~i8.341
466.727
47~5.979
4r:l6.1.42
4';>"7.179
~)OB.874
~5~~:i..31~~
~'j34.~'j7:1.
~:=j48+61"7
~~j63.i)('J 1.
~)l9 v 036
~::;I)~5 •5 ~:.;2
r.':o12.ti34
Sensitivity
Case
3''J9.456
411.258
419.804
427.413
427.833
43~5.661
440.12
445.\~32
451.1.67
457.922
465.211.
41'3.087
4t!1.512
490.334
499.618
509.41.1
519.688
530.473
541.648
5~i3.4:22
~565.6:34
Difference
O.
-1.4~:~1.
~~I~~-~.~~o
-3.587
-3.141
-3.918
-5.1.77
-,!).126
-7.1.74
-8.805
-1.0.768
-1.3.055
-l5+6t.:'~7
-J 8 •~"i3'7
--.21.6'7'4
-25.16
-,,28.929
-:n.01.8
-2>7 ~3B8
--4:~.:l.3
-,47.::.::01
£-15
~ote:Coefficients on change in employment variables reduced 25 percent .
"j
j
t
I
......L
:l.(?DO
:L ''7'Ci .I.
:L 9G;2
:L ':1'::;::3
:I.')'(,:l4
:I.9t~5
:I.(,;:'[:6
.L '?t:::/
1988
:1.989
1990
1991
1992
:1.993
:1.994
:1.995
1996
J 9(.;·:'7
I.s·:',~):::::
:I.9':,;'(,;:'
::?<><:J 0
0.509 O.~;O9 O.
0.50'7 0.509 O.()O~2
i).i)';>;:]0.:301 0.003
0;,4'7'7 ().~:j02 Ov()()~.'5
0.495 0.499 0.004
0.494 0.499 ()C'()O~:5
o y l}~;·'·4 o •~5 ~~r.I',,
\).:-1...J~jl~
()->....~.(?:.3 O.~5 ~,.........'
t),~\)I,)~,,::•
0.4'7'3 .....r:".-.~'."._,u •~.J U·;.I\.)~,I /
0+4(})4 o +~:'=';O2 o ~()()~'3
O ..4?6 ".I';~'..'O.OJI,)•,:J \}(:>
()+•.f:}'';'S}0.5J O(o()l::~:
()i'~;02.O.:::;1~5 0.0:1.3
o (0 ~:;O~)....r::····)O.O:l.~:)\}....!..:..
()(r~508 ()+:~;::.::~.3 ",,...,-..\,t y ',.•'••/
,~""1 '"O.~:j31.O.~0 J (.r'\}•,'.'!,.::
0.'516 ,...r:--.......()•0 ::::::1.U.,~),:ll
O;,~::j19 ()~54:':)O.~()~?3
(),.~5 ;.~.~:3 (I .:-~.~:j -4 ::~o ~O::.:~6
o '"~:.~i ;.~~?O.~~j~:54 o ~O?t~
()..~.:.:j 3 "r.,"'-.)."l)..:)C .,)....I~j
TABLE E-6.SENSITIVITY OF NET MIGRATION EQUATION
TO INCREASE IN GROWTH RATE OF
REAL INCOMES OUTSIDE ALASKA
POPULATION
1""!
I
1 S·;)'9
1 '?\~13
:I.':?H4
19;::::7
.I.'7'::;l (1
.1.990
.I.)':.'}.I.
1 (?92
.I.c;':;':3
I.()?4
.I.':)')'.?
:I.(';:-'::;':3
.I.')':;.;":)
.:~()()()
Base Case
40?')31
-4 1 .:?"6 .)'';'
42.~2.J6
43.1..
·430,.974
43)',~':ie
"'~~4 ~5 <-::.~(?~:.:'
-4 ~~)1 ~'.:,:.'~.:5 ~3
4 ::):3 .,:.3 .il·1
46.:':,.,")'::!.)'
~.'52.1.•:3.1.::.:,:
~'.'.i 3 4 .,:.:'.;'.?:I.
E-16
Sensitivity
Case
.~:~::~.~,~:t ,;.2 1 ~:)
4 ~.~~j:l..:.~~:;',7 B
<:}::::::.'J •1 ~?ci'
.::~':,~'~:'.i .,')1 .;:)
Difference
I..}.~
"-0.0.1.7
....()v O~:i2
"-0,:I.I:::
....0.,.:3:1.)'
....0 ,.·4(:·:':1.
",.
._.•.).~/l~j ~'.)
.....L .,::.:~(;.'l
.....I.,.,-';.1.
..-.'".......:.-
roo.;'()
;::~OC'1 ,.(,
2:()()\.0
100'0
TOO ....O
T ()O \~0
TOO"0
TOO"O
.:.()
+()
CI;)Ud.1C1JJ1=U
.\:::~:.~!':'::(0 0
(,.:::~:~~(0 0
~;';~(::~;~;.:.0
!Ti;';;'("
t.'T(;';;,;,()
T';;;'0
s:·o~~;'0
/.t;.t.,·(0 0
~~~6t'·O
f6t'·O
t",~,t,•.)
t",~,t:-'0
~;';;(:,t;,,0
i:',,S to'•0
~3 ,:';.t.~.<.()
{.~'.0 !:~(.0
,'::l I;;;"0
S:':/,l:.r •0
ClseJ
Al 1=lI.n 1=SUdS
Ll-a
.E~~(0 0
l?~!~~;f 0
E:0 ~~':~<.0
~~;:0 ~~~;(0 0
7,'(',f"•(')
~...~....:1 ,"
/:.6V'O
b6t,,·0
ft.lt:"O
f:t.:,V "()
t>(;')t,.;,0
~~~{1 \:.1 ~.0
l.,6 l"•()
~:~6t ..+O
6 ()~':;:(0 ()
2:T~~~~()
:'i,:/t"•0
~.;~/.t.=--,.0
()OO?
6(':·(,T
9(,6 T
~~~~(;':,(~:'T
f:6(':-T
(~l f::T
Tci(:iT
066T
6~:l6 T
~3t:6 T
Sl El f.;,T
~;;;e,::.\T
t"::3,~:-T
(:::::l,:;",T
T ~3,~:-T
OB6T
(:,/,6 T
~:l!(;,1"
l.l.6 T
NOIIV1GdOd/lNlRX01dW3
IV.Conclusion
Net migration is difficult to model accurately because the time
series is calculated as a residual,and population itself is only an
estimate in non-Census years.The approach taken in the ~~p model is
to try to use that portion of the historical data which is relatively
accurate to econometrically specify a relationship between net migra-
tion,the growth of employment opportunities,and relative income.
The current specification works reasonably well.Work continues on
refining the model equation.This work centers on two areas.The
first is analysis of the underlying data for accuracy.The second is
equation respecification to explicit~y treat the unemployment rate and
the change in the size of the Alaskan potential labor force,and to
define more accurately the relationship between large construction f
projects and net migration.I
i
f
f
E-18
13GOW NOI!VZI1VNOI~~
!
t
___________________________.~III!__
",~
"w
I.Introduction
This appendix presents in general outline form the structure of a
new regional model being developed to replace the Man-in-the-Arctic
Program (MAP)r~gional model in the Susitna Electric Power Study
application.
In developing this model,several major objectives have been
addressed.These objectives are the following:
•that the structure be simple and generalizable
•that the parameters be specified in terms with clear,
intuitive meaning
•that the regions be disaggregated to census division
levels
•that the model be sufficiently flexible to be tied
easily to the MAP statewide model.
This appendix is organized as follows:Part II examines in
~
detail the structure of the model.Part III presents estimates of the
model parameters.
II.Structure of the Model
A.Overview
The model consists of two components as shown in Figure F-l.
Given an exogenous estimate of statewide employment,by sector (pro-
vided from a corresponding state model run),and vectors of basic and
government employment in each of the twenty regions shown in
Figure F-2,the employment component of the model generates estimates
of support and total employment in each of the twenty regions.The
population component accepts these estimates along with exogenous
F-l
•
REG I ONAL IZATIO~
MODEL
POPULATION
COMPONENT
BETA(t)
GAM~1A (t)
MAP STATEWIDE
~10 DE L
l
----t
<I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I[p;]I
I I
I I
I\-.J---_
Figure F-l.SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF
REGIONAL MODEL CDMOD
1-------1----
I llr
I
I 01PLOYMENT
I CO~1PONENT-
I -..
I 1
F-2
I________________________'.t __
.P-l>-taz
Q\)
Sitka
~Standard Mctropolitan Statistical ArC;JS (SMSA's)
Figure F-2
Census Divisions
Cer.tral cities of SMSA's with fewer thano50,000 inhabitan:s
I
I
g
F~irbanks (09)
Aleutian 1~land5 (part)(')0
(GH)~e=>
~,.ttl ~0 0 '''i)./}C::='
~;
\
c---'---_
~
Kodiak
(IS)
t4.
~
Bri~:ol Say
J'Y/,ob.'\r\.~_,~d~7~~
•Bd"o'.~v '£0""'2
I)'-~
/1:c'J:;"n 151 and~(partl
(tS I)
-;"->,<)tl..,
C.~..t?~t'>
'"rj
Iw
estimates of statewide population (also from the statewide model)to
generate regional population estimates.
B.The Employment Component
Each of the twenty regions is disaggregated into three types of
employment:basic,government,and support.Basic employment consists
of all sectors or portions of sectors treated as exogenous in the
state model:agriculture,forestry,fisheries,manufacturing,mining,
construction,and a portion of transportation.Government consists of
federal civilian and military employees as well as state and local
employees.Support includes all other employment.
The structure of the employment model is as follows:
Define:S ..=Support sector employment in region i serving
1.J region j
B.=Basic sector employment in region i.
1.
G.=Government sector employment in region 1..
1.
M.=Total employment in region i.
1.
Ci .•=Proportion of region j support requirements
1.J supplied by region i.
b.=Support employment required per unit of total
J employment in region j.
Total employment in each of n regions is written:
S11 +S12 ++S +Bl +Gl =MlIn
(1)S21 +S22 ++S2n +B2 +G2 =M2
=Mn
F-4
Total support sector requirements within each region may be written:
5 n + 5 21 ++ 5 nl =blM l
(2)5 12 + 5 22 ++ 5 n2 =b 2 M2
51 +52 +.. . + 5n n nn =b Mn n
But 5 ..=a ..b.M.,so that system (1)may be rewritten:
1J 1J J J
(1')
allblM l + a 12b 2M2 +
a 21b l Ml + a 22b 2 M2 +
+alnbnMn + Bl + Gl = Ml
+ a 2nb n Mn + B2 + G2 = M2
a lblM l +a 2b2M2 + . . . +a b M + B + G =n n nn n n n n
Mn
or,in matrix notation,
A =[a ..b.)
1J J
M =[M.)1
AM+B+G=M where B =[B.]1
G =[G.)1
If the A matrix were known,then total employment is calculated as a
linear function of basic and government employment,or
By incorporating known regional
F-5
M =[I -A)-1 [B +G)
Of course,we do not know A.
(3)
data with a single simplifying assumption and a behavioral hypothesis
describing the allocation of interregional support demands,however,
it is possible to estimate A for a point in time,say 1979.
.~
ij
%\.~
Ii
'4,
1
...J._-------
-------------------------------------
Known Regional Data.Regional employment for 1979 was available
from the Alaska Department of Labor publications,specifically Statis-
tical Quarterly and Alaska Economic Trends.The breakdown of such
employment by basic,government,and support sectors is shown in
Table F-l for 1979.
A Simplifying Assumption.Since the major concern of the regional
model is to capture the effect of support sector demands which are
supplied in regions other than the one giving rise to such demands,
rather than to examine the effects of differential support demands
across regions,it seems plausible,or at least not overly restric-
tive,to impose the condition that
(4)b l - b --2-=b n
B +G=b=(l-)M
That is,a unit of total employment,wherever it occurs in the state,
is assumed to give rise to the same support sector requirements.The
difference between regions,then,is solely the difference in the
locations from which these demands will be supplied.
This assumption has the obvious disadvantage that it neglects
real interregional differences in demand for support sector services.
However,it also has several advantages which may more than compensate
for this shortcoming.Most obviously,it reduces our estimation
problem by n-l parameters.More importantly,it is extremely valuable
as a tool for maintaining consistency with the statewide MAP model,
both in a static and a dynamic sense.Currently,a unit of basic
sector employment in the state model has the same static employment
impact regardless of its location in the state.Regionally varying
b.'s would produce differing total statewide static impacts by loca-
J
tion,thus being inconsistent with the state model.Furthermore,the
introduction of b exogenously provides a valuable tool for maintaining
dynamic consistency between the models.By letting b vary with time
so as to reflect the corresponding state run,we both force the
F-6
,~
TABLE F-l.EMPLOYMENT COMPOSITION,1979
Support Basic l Government 2 Total
Region (S.)(B.)(G.)(M.
1.1.1.1.
~--
~l Aleutian Islands 377 2,463 3,264 6,104
~2 Anchorage 45,404 13 ,828 34,009 93,241
04 Barrow/North Slope 594 3,467 1,514 5,575
05 Bethel 1,917 420 1,360 3,697
~6 Bris tol Bay;~839 1,778 1,197 3,814
~8 Cordova/McCarthy 403 1,005 344 1,752
09 Fairbanks 11,191 3,584 12,801 27,576
11 Southeast Alaska**9,475 9,284 11,081 29,840
12 Kenai/Cook Inlet 2,819 3,564 1,481 7,864
14 Kobuk 402 114 935 1,451
15 Kodiak 1,644 3,631 2,051 7,326
16 Kuskokwim 123 13 435 571
17 Matanuska/Susitna 1,505 560 1,345 3,410
18 Nome 1,083 298 980 2,361
21 Seward 433 709 390 1,532
24 Southeast Fairbanks 240 149 1,636 2,025
25 Upper Yukon 99 25 302 426
26 Valdez/Chitina/Whittier 715 678 927 2,320
27 Wade Hampton 208 236 595 1,039
29 Yukon/Koyukuk 506 807 1,208 2,521
ST Statewide 79,977 46,613 77 ,855 204,445
*Includes Bristol Bay and Bristol Bay Borough Census Divisions.
**Includes the following Census Divisions:Angoon,Haines,Juneau,
Ketchikan,Outer Ketchikan,Prince of Wales,Sitka,Skagway-Yakutat,
and Wrangell-Petersburg.
lMining,manufacturing,construction,agriculture-forestry-fisheries,
and miscellaneous.
2Federal,state,and local government.
F-7
"..4 _
A matrix to vary over time to reflect the same degree of structural
change represented by the state model and force the employment totals
to replicate the statewide results.
A Behavioral Hypothesis.The major reason that not all support
sector requirements are supplied internally from that region is that
it would be more costly to do so than to secure those services from a
different region.It is only natural,then,that the cost of supply
should be the maj or determining factor in deciding on which other
regions to supply the requirements.Such costs as transportation,
communication,etc.are generally expected to increase with distance
and to decrease with the size of the support sector source of the
region.Specifically,we will assume that such costs are:
(5)c ..
1J
R ..
=k ~M.
1
where c ..
1J
R ..1J
M.
1
k
=cost of supplying a unit of
support service to region j
from region i
=distance*between regions i
and j
=total employment of region i
an arbitrary constant
and are as presented in Table F-2 for k =1000.
The total costs of interregional service provision are then:
(6)
n n
eLL
j=l i=l
C ..S ..1J 1J
We hypothesize that the S ..'s actually chosen in any given time period
1J
are chosen in such a way as to minimize the costs of providing the
required services observed in region j from each of the sources of
such supply i.
*Air fares were used as a proxy for distance since straight line
distances fail to capture the structure of statewide transportation
and communications networks.
F-8
~TABLE F-2.ASSUMED COSTS OF INTERREGIONAL SERVICE PROVISION
~and Region
jl2 114 jl5 jl6 ~8 ~9 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 21 24 25 26 27 29SupplyReg~jll
III Aleutian Islands 0 33 52 45 23 57 42 47 36 48 41 40 37 48 37 48 47 40 47 44
112 Anchorage 2 0 1 1 1 *I 1 *1 1 **1 ..'(1 1 *1 I
114 Barrow/North Slope 57 20 0 33 30 26 15 36 22 29 29 22 24 29 24 25 20 28 38 24
115 Bethel 75 20 50 0 35 29 28 43 25 36 33 32 25 25 26 44 37 32 8 38
116 Bri stol Bay 37 15 45 34 0 23 28 37 19 39 13 26 20 39 20 38 37 26 36 33
116 Cordova/l1cCarthy 199 16 83 61 50 0 47 38 29 70 46 43 30 70 31 68 66 13 64 57
119 Fairbanks 9 2 3 4 4 3 0 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 5 2
11 Southeast Alaska 10 3 7 5 5 2 3 0 3 6 4 4 4 6 4 5 4 3 6 5
12 Kenai/Cook Inlet 28 2 16 12 9 6 9 13 0 14 8 6 5 14 5 13 13 6 IJ II
~14 Kobuk 203 63 112 92 101 65 57 122 75 0 96 76 76 26 78 97 79 93 72 34
I 15 Kodiak 34 7 22 17 7 11 11 18 9 19 0 13 9 19 10 19 16 13 20 16
'"16 Kuskokwim 433 77 215 207 175 133
74 228 109 194 161 0 112 123 116 177 131 154 256 49
17 l1atanuska/Susitna 65 6 39 26 22 15 21 31 11 33 20 19 0 33 12 32 30 19 30 26
16 Nome 125 39 69 39 62 52 35 75 46 17 59 30 47 0 48 60 49 57 27 21
21 Seward 147 14 89 63 51 35 48 70 26 74 46 43 27 74 0 72 69 43 67 59
24 S.E.Fairbanks 144 43 69 60 71 59 29 79 52 70 67 50 53 70 54 0 45 65 63 54
25 Upper Yukon 674 197 268 319 329 272 77 315 239 270 310 176 244 270 249 216 0 300 385 197
26 Valdez/Chitina/
Whittier 106 19 68 51 43 10 41 38 27 58 40 38 28 58 28 57 55 0 54 48
27 Wade Hampton 273 78 204 27 132 109 126 161 95 101 144 141 97 62 99 163 158 120 0 110
29 Yukon Koyukuk 107 27 52 56 49 40 20 61 34 20 46 11 35 20 36 44 33 44 45 0
,.Indicates C..<0.5.
1J
Estimating the Interregional Interaction Matrix.The hypothesis
of (c)and the condition of (b)imply that our observed 1979 data
represented the solution to a constrained minimization problem of the
form:
n n
Min L L C ..S ..
j=l i=l 1J 1J
ST S11 +S12 ++S2n =M79 -B79 -G79
1 1 1
S21 +S22 + +S2n =M79 -B79 -G79
2 2 2
S +Sn2 ++S =M79 _ B
79 -G79
nl nn n n n
(7)
b 79 M79
S11 +S21 + +S =nl 1
S12 +S22 + +Sn2 =b 79 M79
2
S ..>0
1J
"If!i ,j
F-IO
79 79 .Note that 5 ..=CJ.••b M.,so that problem (7)may be reformulated 1n
1J 1J J
terms of decision variables with a far more intuitive meaning than the
5 ..'s,namely the CJ.••'s.The reformulated problem is then:1J 1J
Min b 79 n
l
j=l
n
l
i=l
79C..CJ.••M.
1J 1J J
79
5T 79 79
•CJ.M79 /M 79 =N1 I b 79CJ.ll +CJ.12 M2 IM l +.
ln n 1 ~9
M1
79
79 79
•CJ.M79 /M 79 =N2 I b 79CJ.21 Ml 1M2 +CJ.22 + .
2n n 2 ~9
M2
79
(7')CJ.M79 /M79 +CJ.M79 /M79 +..CJ.=Nn I b 79
nl 1 n n2 2 n nn ~9
Mn
CJ.ll +CJ.21 +.. +CJ.nl =1
CJ.12 +CJ.22 +.. +CJ.n2 =1
CJ.l +CJ.2 +.. . +CJ.n n nn =1
where
CJ.••>01J
N?9 =M?9
1 1
V i,j
B79
i G79
i
which,assuming that a feasible solution exists,can be solved using a
standard linear programming routine.
F-ll
--~
a rna trix which we
Each entry,a ..,repre-
1.J
in region j supplied fromrequirementssupportshareofthe
The solution,a set of nxn a ..'s,comprises
1.J
will call the regional interaction matrix.
sents
region 1..Each of the columns,therefore,must sum to unity.Thus,a
quick glance down each column provides a subjective test of the
plausibility of the matrix.~priori,one would expect nonzero
entries in all of the diagonal elements and along the rows of the
regional support centers (Bethel,Fairbanks,Nome,)and probably along
the entire row corresponding to Anchorage,which is a statewide sup-
port center.
Swnmary.Once the regional interaction matrix has been deter-
mined for a single year,say 1979,then this together with b 79 deter-
mines fully the A matrix which existed in 1979.For projections to a
future period t,we will assume that the interregional interaction
matrix remains stable,but that b changes in the regional model as it
does in a corresponding run of the statewide model.
employment is estimated in year t as
Therefore,
(8)M(t)=[I -A(t)]-l [B(t)+G(t)]
where A(t)79=bet)[a ..]
1.J
3.The Population Component
Currently,the population model is specified as independent of
the employment model.We can define:
R ..=Residents from region i working in region j
1.J
~..=Proportion of employees working in region j residing
1.J in region i
R.=Resident employment in region i
1
P.=Population in region i
1.
d.=Dependents per employee in region i
1.
F-12 .
Total resident employment in the regions may be written as:
(9)
R 11 +R12 +
R21 + R22 +
+Rln =RI
+ R2n =R2
Rnl + Rn2 + .. + R =Rnnn
or,since R ..=~..M.,as
1J 1J J
~IIMl +~12M2 +. +~lnMn =RI
(9 ')~2IMI +~22M2 ++~2nMn =R2
~nIMI +~n2M2 +. +~M =Rnnn n
...
Total resident population may then be written:
(l+dl)~IIMl +(l+dl)~12M2 +...+(l+dl)~lnMn =PI
(10)(l+d2)~21Ml +(l+d2)~22M2 +...+(l+d2)~2nMn =P2
(1+d )~IMI +(l+d )~2M2 +...+(l+d)~M =Pn n n n n nn n n
or in matrix notation
(11)QM =P where Q =[(l +d . )~..]
1 1J
M =[M.]
1
P =[P.]
1
Now,the interregional structure of nonresident employment is captured
in the Q matrix,called the location matrix,which is unknown and must
be estimated.
F-13
Generally,there are three properties which this matrix should
ideally satisfy.First,it would be desirable that such a structure
reflect differential dependency rates across regions (d.~d.).
~J
Second,it should reflect independence of extra-regional employment
changes.That is,if employment does not change in region i,popula-
tion should not change in region i.Third,it should be cons istent
with the state model.Unfortunately,it is impossible to satisfy all
three properties simultaneously.
The first and second property may be satisfied by assuming that
employees reside in the region of their employment.If such is the
case,then the interregional location matrix,composed of the t3 ..'s,
~J
is the identity matrix,and system (9)implies that
(12)d.P.I=~-
~M.
~
(i =1,...,n)
so that Q is a diagonal matrix which can be estimated using 1979 data.
Unfortunately,this procedure cannot be made consistent with the
statewide model since total population impacts of changes in the
scenarios will be dependent on the location of employment as well as
its magnitude,while it is currently independent of location in the
statewide model.
By adjusting the d.'s over time,so that
~
(13)
L M~
~a (t)
where aCt)=statewide population-to-employment ratio,we can force
consistency with the state model,but at a cost of giving up the
independence of extra-regional employment change property.Now,a
change in employment in region j 1 i will change the adjustment factor
in (13),thus changing total population in region i even if employment
does not change in region i.
F-14
Consistency with the state model and independence of extra-
regional employment changes may be achieved by requiring that all d.'s
1
are equal to the statewide average,but this fails to satisfy the
first property and is inconsistent with an identity location matrix.
If we are willing to abandon the first property,the problem may be
solved in much the same way as was the problem posed in estimating the
parameters of the employment component,by solving the following
linear programming problem:
n n
Min L L
j=l i=l
C ..R ..1J 1J
798TRll+ R12 + . . . + Rln = R 1
R21 + R22 + . . . + Rnn =R79
2
(14)R 1 + R +.· + R
= R
79
n n2 nn n
Rll + R21 + .· + Rnl =(1+d 79 )M~9
R12 + R22 + .· + Rn2 =(1+d 79 )M;9
.....oill
R l + R2 +.. . + Rn n nn =(l+d 79 ) M
79
n
F-15
or alternately,since R ..=(l+d 79 )~..M~9
1.J 1.J 1.
n n
Min (l+d 79 )l l 79C..~..M.
1.J 1.J J
j=l i=l
A M +A M + +A M =P2 /(1+d 79 )~21 1 ~22 2 ...~2n n
(14 t )
~ll +~21 + . . . +~nl = 1
~12 +~22 + . . . +~n2 = 1
~ln +~2n + . . . +~nn = 1
The current version of the model adopts the second of these three
alternate procedures,using an identity location matrix and adjusting
the d.'s over time as described by equation (13).1.
F-16
,
.........
While such a procedure has the obvious advantage of simplicity,
it has several serious drawbacks.First,as mentioned earlier,such a
specifica tion necessarily will produce population impacts in regions
where no employment changes have occurred,as a consequence of the
adjustment factor in equation (13).The operation of this factor
gives the model the property that growing regions will attract popula-
tion from (relatively)stagnant regions.However,within the con-
straints of the limited scope of this project,it was felt that such a
drawback was less serious than those associated with the available
alternatives.Furthermore,there are several reasons to believe that
this effect is likely to not be a serious shortcoming of the model.
First,the population drawn from stagnant regions is quite small and
is generally offset by induced increases in government employment
which are always more widely dispersed than initial changes in basic
employment.More importantly,however,the direction of the effect
will always be the same as a real effect--interregional migration,
which has been neglected entirely.Thus,the drain may actually
offset,at least in a small way,a known estimation error.Nonethe-
less,the population estimation procedure must be regarded as gener-
ally much weaker than the employment component described earlier,and
it needs to be improved with further research.
III.Parameters of the Model
A.The Regional Employment Interaction Matrix
The 1979 [a ..J matrix estimated by the linear programming routine
1J
for the problem described in Part II is presented in Table F-3.Note
that the pattern is as would have been expected.All diagonal terms
are nonzero,with the larger support centers being self-sufficient
(having diagonal entries of 1).Anchorage and Fairbanks appear to be
the only significant support centers,with Anchorage supplying most
regions and Fairbanks supplying Kuskokwim,Upper Yukon,and Yukon-
Koyukuk.Two local support centers emerge,with Bethel supporting
Wade Hampton and Nome supporting Kobuk.
F-17
TABLE F-3.EMPLOYMENT INTERACTION MATRIX,1979
Demand Region
Supply Region ~l ~2 ~4 ~5 ~6 ~8 ~9 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 21 24 25 26 27 29
~l Aleutian Islands .16
~2 Anchorage .84 1..73 .44 .41 .19 .08 .01 .43 .28 .7 .21 .25
~4 Barrow .27
~5 Bethel l..49
~6 Bristol Bay .56
~8 Cordova/McCarthy .59
~9 Fairbanks l..45 .41 .24
11 Southeast Alaska .81
12 Kenai/Cook Inlet .92
~14 Kobuk .71
I......15 Kodiak .57co
16 Kuskokwim .55
17 Matanuska/Susitna l.
18 Nome .28 1.
21 Seward .72
24 S.E.Fairbanks .3
25 Upper Yukon .59
26 Valdez/Chitina/Whittier .79
27 Wade Hampton .51
29 Yukon Koyukuk .51
,,
1
J
l~-~,~
_.~
B.Employment Location Matrix
As discussed above in Part II,the regional employment location
matrix will,in this application,be assumed to be the identity
matrix.
C.Population/Employment Ratio Vector
The vector of population-to-employment ratios for 1979 is pre-
sented in Table F-4.
TABLE F-4.POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT RATIOS,1979
Population/
Region Population Employment Employment
-
~l Aleutian Islands 7,030 6,104 1.15
~2 Anchorage 177 ,981 93,241 1.91
~4 Barrow/North Slope 4,771 5,575 0.86
~5 Bethel 9,739 3,697 2.63
~6 Bristol Bay 5,204 3,814 1.36
~8 Cordova/McCarthy 2,475 1,752 1.41
~9 Fairbanks 54,000 27,576 1.96
11 Southeast Alaska 51,319 29,840 1.72
12 Kenai/Cook Inlet 23,244 7,864 2.96
14 Kobuk 4,695 1,451 3.24
15 Kodiak 9,956 7,326 1.36
16 Kuskokwim 2,941 571 5.15
17 Matanuska/Susitna 18,910 3,410 5.55
18 Nome 6,755 2,361 2.06
21 Seward 3,152 1,532 2.06
24 S.E.Fairbanks 5,507 2,025 2.72
25 Upper Yukon 1,482 426 3.48
26 Valdez/Chitina/Whittier 7,013 2,320 3.02
27 Wade Hampton 4,853 1,039 4.67
29 Yukon Koyukuk 5,325 2,521 2.11
ST Statewide 406,352 204,445 1.99
F-19
IV.Railbelt/Nonrailbelt Interactions
By rearranging the rows and columns of the regional employment
interaction matrix,it is possible to isolate the seven census divi-
sions of the railbelt and examine its linkages to the rest of the
state.The seven rows corresponding to the railbelt are presented in
Table F-S.
Note from the table that the railbelt,taken as a whole,is
self-sufficient (i.e.,the column sums within the railbelt partition
all equal 1).Therefore,the railbelt itself exerts no support sector
demands on the rest of the state.
TABLE F-S.RAILBELT PARTITION OF THE [a .. ]MATRIX
1.J
Demand Region
Supply Region ~2 ~9 12 17 21 24 26
~2 Anchorage l..08 .28 .7 .21
~9 Fairbanks l.
12 Kenai/Cook Inlet .92
17 Matanuska/Susitna l.
21 Seward .72
24 S.E.Fairbanks .3
26 Valdez/Chitina/Whittier .79
Thus,we might rewrite the regional employment interaction
matrix,treating the railbelt partition as a single region,supplying
all of its support sector demands but having demands put on it from
the rest of the state as shown in Table F-6.
F-20
....,,«,,«<<""<""""C<",""<,.,.,'"'~""~"_"";""~-'I._""'.i2~"'~~""~#~~~~~Ht<aHirl N&itrl'*¥-lJt!rAA~~fi";ii9.1U*iRirt@®ffjhirtftiJf.Kneer t ad
TABLE F-6.RAILBELT/NON-RAILBELT INTERACTIONS
Demand Region
Supply Region RB ~l ~4 ~5 ~6 ~8 11 14 15 16 18 25 27 29
RB Railbelt l..86 .23 .44 .41 .19 .29 .43 .45 .41 .49 .49
~l Aleutian Islands .14
~4 Barrow .27
~5 Bethel l.
~6 Bristol Bay .56
~8 Cordova/McCarthy .59
11 Southeast Alaska .81
14 Kobuk .71
"':I 15 Kodiak .57I
N
I-'
16 Kuskokwim .55
18 Nome 1.
25 Upper Yukon .59
27 Wade Hampton .51
29 Yukon Koyukuk .51
The structure can then be summarized as follows:The railbelt is
itself self-sufficient,imposing no support demands on the rest of the
state and,furthermore,is the exclusive source of external supply to
all nonrailbelt regions,except Bethel and Nome which appear self-
sufficient.
F-22
S11rrS3E NOllVWllS3 NOllVrr03 JllSVHJ01S
D x"]:puaddV
T-~;:-;G :..;...:_:7j z r·.jt·..)~."~0 ~cr,:D 0 r.:C-J n UJ ;ry ::D Z :-:-.!Z D ~r.:~Z ?:D ::D ;:::0 i'i1 m D i=:J""!1 :...:.;l-j G fi1 ::D ;;;:;Z ~""::;":"";;::tt:D ""!1 G".lnH"f71 n 0-",::-<0:...:..:,-H .-Q"....."......-:~-...".......~~0 ":;J'J......0 t.~....:J "..~'-1 [.)0,."0 '-.J -<:l n0,.0 r·.,;n t=i OJ 0-!CD CO Z r·.)~G-4 '-'-r-'-!-'-0 t.1 -1 '-'D Li1 ".....Z....... .c 0 c +0 ..-',0'J 0 ::>:I;-n 0 c i!~0 r !-'--,..,t·..)J>~.';-:.t"':l '--0 tt1 :-:-71 n~.
co 0 rr1 'J H *-.0 :-:;
-<:l t·..):.n n '-C '1 H n
G'1 A::~''';-'(f;G ;";'1 ::>
h :.Jl !71 to 7.l ~''':+
;;;:;::J:i (;"J r,
::>;):;::i
g ~"n"~"tt1;:
W *"t.=i "
0 "......-0 f!1 ·r·J rr1......
(;;::"'1 .3:r,"0"-"~..................
W 0 -1 r:1 r..~-0 ...(;"1 '-C .~
'1 ".....!~--0
".....-1 f!1 '-.J -0'-'",--
t.~~f'!1 0 ~~0 :-:..i 0-I-'"
~GJ ...,.,t:..i 0 .-:-m 0 w +~."
!-'-W h)"----'1 7.l r·.]G.J f71......
f!1 ~t.:'i ~::s::
3:-0
.....3 -0
-.::r-'-
I-'""..,.
~:;I
:E:---~=1 .....
---~~:E r,
~..0 -1 0 "-r,:--
......:-:.0 ....;-0 -l 0 "-"-
0 ..~:.n 0-*...........r·.J
;-:..0--1 Ii *::..~0-r.J)!-'-
W '-.J D ?J 0 :--!ii
W -<:l -{H :-:.co D
hJ -.0 t·,):--:.~-{""W ~c~
L:'1
(}'!'<:i
t·,)0
:-:.(,J.-<:l
r...:,
OJ .....j
n w 0
0 G en
z 0
t:1 Z
~x x
"H
"-
,.....:-
~
t.=1
W 'j
:-
>
;-..
~ux><
.-'
it
o
xo
0-.
C".~
f'.~0-..
o
0-.
CO
1'.....r"~
+0
("'.~u::;;'1
C?'--U u"1
~!r......
0'--
L:i::-:-:
-c
::>0
ai-~z ,.-.;0'--
-:-:~f<::....::;~m
c>...0-..:::::
~.
00
~zw·-.;o
o <I:(f"J LiJ
Z W:::u-;:,;;o
~o
COO
...:')~~
~-.:t··;
":""""l :::::;
toe;!.....
C:---;:".J
t<::0-..
t:)~
-c::r ii1
'-.0 '-.0
G-2
~zu><x
z
Ot.3
in
OJ
co
~co r,
MO'--
o
M
~.:;r;.J
in ()::;....:
Qo-.Li.l
<0 L;
o~
::".~
<I
::>0
....:)(.~["oJ.
:~.....0 ....c:
00
::OZO:.::::::=:....:..::n wz0::.:~to
.-~
W
<I
::>
L;-;-;-!
M ~:::
I
()0
('",1 f'....
rom
'00m...;:;
;
I
I
I
I
r"..;-...0.'ii1
~r...:'i
J).
.......j[..J
0<:
:Do
~::D
-..0
g ;--...0 D
r·.)c
0-+
iT;--o
5 ~J
0 .......1
:,;-.!:)-.
.....1 "u;G -.0
;.:;~r·.)
Al =.r.::::::
g ,.
...
o "'0 ""0(")r·.,;""0(:;~r·.,;"l :-.:.,.b.....J ZW-iOen::::J:::D Zr:1 ::'0 2::-0..-.":::;z tt:
c
<:
D
o0:-
:D t.=!
f-11 0
0........j
~-;r.-.!.....l 1.....j j=:;[i J>
o C:r...
00
O~,,-:;co
-..:~......j
.....t.'l
t-j G C"""J en ::D :::D Z r·.)cc co ;.-:f!l (n :i>:_;0 ..~'-'f71 ~::;:!~:.:!Xi c::ttE :Do ;::..:;++::,.f':1 :::--:-,......::--0 ;--:0 0 G::,.....c::...;.)""0("3 iT;r·.J ....:J 0 ..3::--0 .......j ,......""T1,--0 (;.~Z ,.....,.0 u.~t.:1 ~0c0C
-..0 t·J :Do :Do "::en .::.r ,.....;ry
0 ro --.0 n
c~0 m .......j n co
-..0 c}c;-;G -,Q 1-'-
t.-;:J:i t·..)::!~,..;c.:;+:;::rJ
"co
:~1-'-",.....ttl
,~
tTl r.,-..0 r·.,)0 0.....
!;;::.~..G)
.,--.,-,-i rr1 -..0..........
!-'-C~i '0 X
hJ 0-f!!r_.......1 X.....r·.)!.>~;!J h)~~Q...,......".0 l--t.....
'l tii
".0 '.1 --;....I-e e-!.:J
'-J..J OJ -i
::,.~~''';J>
:--:--t·..)-i
0 0
c,
""
-l:>-r)..
~w...~
'J
CD vJ
(.~C --;
oo-.I
~-.0 (r)
::'t-:r·J -i
c~-.0 :D
!-'--..0 -ic:::C
-...:-:-0'
OJ 'j
"..c)~
'l
x
ono
'-'z
t:l
x
:-.:.
e-'-'oo'
t..:..:GJ
.4 -..0
0~
________________________'liIIIb--
xxQ
Zo
'-0 *_1
!)-.
0-
<:'
~
(".J .,..;
p...~~
c-.r-:;~
MOJ~o <:t r.....
t;')~uJ...
(".~(".~~
I
o
0"'":3
LL.;":i
u;'::.f
~C?'..
+.-..
::z::
X
X
1"'1
~~(".J.
<:to
"-(;~
('l-."LW
+!'<::
O~
l·J f·.....~r......~(..~o ,~t"1
OOlr:
o
t"1
CO t"..(c......0
~i
0[-·...--,''-
f'~r......t~
..
..-.'-"
'....'"-
!)-.h ~n
':}r·J f'....
0-..:}-..'---'
u:::"':'-:.
<r:
::>0
::-,;;:r);.-~
r-.J .-~tf.:
(,>...U tG
H r.......
<I.-,
'.J'
+
oe:0
0-..OJ 0
i.D:::...w
('".~u;c
O~O
1.:;C".~r.....
W
::DL!:::,.----........
~~;
-..0 '..0 u;:)."c......c::
+<r:
:~<::~
"'-'...-..'-~_..
.~::'.-0 -'.(;=-'!_~f ';
;X:Z c·.--,'
:-=...-:.:.:-...,:...-."'~_.,.~.,
G-4
""oQr·o,;r·,;~-;t-:i n ;:-J £;1 ;JJ ::D Z.....J .....1 '.,'-'!i1 V.!D '-'G)(;;.G·J ..~.:.:::w z tr.l0::G I:,.:,0::::r:i ::"!l '-'"-.c0,-,'-'..~0 ".0 ...')~-0--~'-1 :-.:.'-'"0 :z---,,-,h)..t;:.-~a~~c '-'Ct.i1 :--:.r·.,;D :Do
'-.!;....;..::.r 1--=-71"..
OJ t.:'i -4 C -<:l
t·.,)-.c toil fTi '-.!ii
".0 --0 -.c to n -.c
tJ)::D &J
:::0 ,~.
:::::;
::
"
&i
:-:-
~,~,0 ~,~,
~....,.'-,'''''.....::"11 Ul .
0 0 0 -!f11 .....')
r·..;w '-.l .CD,
0 .::.......m 0 f-q
-.c ;->h)~t·.:;-~,:,."'.'0--;-:.....t,..)
(]i
J>
+
r
o
0'--0
0 ...
m-...o
!-<:l
O'-.l
00"_.n iio::~Z~40DCJ>;-:.:::0
-.c
'-1 H
::':1 n....cJ
tn;;]&J
;V l:;-;
%)
O....c)-..0r·..:;'0 0-..
c
r.r;
CJ>r~.~n-;.;;,..:.;OJ ::£i C:::"=1 li1 r..~fil~:.;J>"'71cocoO!...~0
'-1 h)0-.
'-1;-:.....O)m-..o
000
t.~~~
.....c en r·.,jot.:s r·o)
0-...i r·J
:J'J ~'J co...
~W;-:.
en OJ r·J
'.!CO:J..i..':>w ....
OalO
'.::,,-...
,;-.,.t·..;
O~
o
'..0
t·..)
..p.
nooz
b
+n
CO
t1
!:t1
*ro
GJ
X
X,,;
z
-l-.c
.,
t·,)i W
'-J v~~. . .
t=1 -4 (}icoc):-:-
roo-.c
=:::.1'"1'1
E:~
..-..t·..)
. 0 '-:
o
OJ
W c.~o-.c
.b
X
X
x
!!
.'
xCiZo
i.t;U
o
.........g
r.......
+..........'"'0T""'i~
....-.3
!..LC
co I."';;
f-CO in<:,oJ CO
}-....t-t:<:rv,~CO
Z
?0-
X
X....-.
u
u
r.:;
C
---...
toC")0::~.f"j
",:"J r·~.-.-u;-0"'-.,.....,""'"L;j Ci}....:J-"".r.....,c:--!(".j·0"-W f-.,-;0'''''-""..~tn
°0-.......::~...".
~..r·u"1
..
H
c;
(,:1 cz:
(".~.-.-::r)
0"-w u;::c ~
H i'.Ul u;f.....
c"-:::3 OJ ~
~~-..i -:-i ,,'"<:<:-:-l 'v::>0 ::>.+
0 !--:-:~0zr.-.;.OJ
-:-:r-:-.:"·0
-.0 r....~n
0",[?o.0
~.·0 ""'"---0-..":;
H ill ;:..
r..:;-<:I iJ:i
~Z !3 :.L :::t-;~;
C <I c.n UJ c "·0 '.-0
Z .-~.-.":)~:c!CJ ~:'-'-'-'-
G-6
i.-j ~-.i c-;~-j nt.1 C1 (.~::.~::'=1~~'.~~~~==;:..;::CI>!-'-::":'100 O~.~.
.....1000'1
0..r·.J r·.,;~OJ
0··r·..;0 00
(.=---(,11 0 r·.J ~
Li CG (",1 'C 0
-e":.:..C:-:OOJ:>
of.• • • •
:-:-ooow
~t·.)~0 :--
t.:j C;"..J f_:'i ~
r·,J C C:-'·~::":'E
t.11 :-:--..0 :-:-co
~~:-:-"'.1 t·.j. . . . .
'-.0 r·~W W (:oJ
r-:-0}~'.J -..0 r·..)
:-:.~~'-C t·..)tn 0,t!1 t.!1 co
C
:Do
"._'C:Z tt'!....f"T1 ..r,..;"-G ".0~r·..::0 ..cc ..<:;;-.:.C-·t·.)Z
CC
D
co c~
t.:"i •
~"'c::
Q,0
0,"'J
G·:0
t:!':":1
<:---
~,~
c'-.:.
o
oz
x
t·.)><XG:zCO
n·
x;:::
+
+
L-'J~-J t-j r;~;r-;0'"0'"0 ..:"-·0..::0 CD CG CD 0:;01 i.::..
O·...JOC''iJ·. . ..
tNo..vJ~Q-..
o r":l ::".'1 t'1 .."
OJ W '0 r·.J mo0~·C....i....J
· . ..~
OWC-;C'l
)O··~~~~
0 ..CO :-.:.OJ t~
W OJ t.!1 ~~
't:iO~t.~O
• •<0 + •
0'"0 ..0-..r...:.t·~
~'.J U1 c...~hJo'J t·..)0 'Jc...cr.0...co C
'-C (~co r·..)UJ
:..~
C
:Do
~n A::~Z,...en D Ci:.:;;::G :z ~::::....f71 ..-..co...,.:-.:.GJ -..(;-..nCo:OJ 0 ...J:;;......1 ~
'-0-10
OC
:Do
!-'-7.1,.'
G;:::D l:'i
~_::-=;
~
r·.)
:-0r·..)•
Co -..c
oeo
t;~.t:>
0.."
W
C1""l'1
2 .......
.......~
0'-.
'"'.......
t>J
'.J t<!co
Cr'l
+
('}1
::"'Jn-..ooz
C1
·x
'"'
xx
:Do
+
:..;
...,..,--.'.......
11II,1..__
6r()6!~;·i'~
£:<::!:.:~<:>(':';•<:;-
££££6'£
OI£19'~~,
£~OZO·~-
LV I ('"I...../...,:)-..~
9l££O'O
996l0'0
99~ZO'0
OZ£OO'O
6~89~'~
:::1:::1 .L!;;
£1980'0
£0890'0-
91961'0
~oo£t'o
O£££~·ZZ-
:::Ifl"'/Vij
]on:::r
(xoc:J
JOUJ
HOGJ
Iv'OU:J
,::1 J CJ:J
~~JS
=nSd
-J8NVd
6T =aON
~.:9 •'1:'I:-eX)QNCJ ,0£'1
,.89£'11£
-(O)Ma
-(~It~)d
<::9,1l''I:ot"
Lt.£66'O
=dSS £8££'£
...n!:l~:I::)1'1:(;;66'()
61.~6 T CJJ 'I:(;)6l
!;,;::::~:I V1'1 CJ 1'1
(Z-)dXlda*:::IOBJfCJ-ldXlda*a08J+dXIda*J08J+CZ-)d£Ida*a08J+V08J =IJXX :99Z
lE:69 L.'~;;
01 <::66'(~..-
BBfl:9+E
6 9 0 !:;;~:'!,;;
~:!.8<::'r '9·..·
..ll;:llS-1
tg9Z0'0
z~!.£o·O
£!..~£O'O
98££0·0
6I!.£!.'~
~EI'.1.~3
Z6Z£l'O
96TlI'0-
'I:££ZI'O
lIIBT'O
OI8L.Z'6l-
::1 Wll;:I()
J9LJ
Q9!..J
J91J
U9:J
V91..J
,::/:::10::1
ctJ
Io
-USdJ Z!66'O
6161 01 'l:96t
£=dvnON
60 '.9 L..•.(X)(INCl::J .::,;£.t
OI..B·~'::;~(~T
=(O)Ma
-(~l/~)J
/:!:It,•9ft.:
t'9.!dl'0
::::~:J !;;!;)!;:~Z;()6 t t.y =~3S
=USd
-J8NVd
6t =eON
(Z-)d£IdU*39lJ+(I-)d£IdU*U9I..J+dXldUtJ9I..J+d£IdU*S9I..J+V9I..J =61NUXX :6£Z
P 11M'.-.A:-.Z r·.J...:-,U1 ::"'=1 ~r.r.:y '-'G-J :...:!~;:...;n tJ .~-~_:::0 Zr·.J >.-~...._:,<...tt::(,.:1 ·....1 .....1 .....j .....-1 0 r1 en J:>0-~J>:...:..:r·..;r·.,;r"';r·.,J f71 .~_:~Z ~H U :;:-.~:~J:>..,..,c::'-'..:.fr1 n..,-.,-."-0 0 ::~~,c):...:;~"-"--+'-r·.)---..~~:_,~:...;)X ++:-:.(-.J 0 ..x r·J ....:;-.0.....j G..1 '-IJ 0'"....:::0'"::0 Z ~"'0 ::"E1 ~,-.(:..;~--;:-:h)~.:...~z..C :~C ~,0 0 ;...:.0-...0'-'t,i1 ....,:'J J>:D "<:0 <:::+..++
..:0-r ~;;I]0 0 0 CO J>:D0--.0 ..~-.0 n .....1 ~'-'"..::..r !-'";:::;
~0 f!1 '-J !i OJ :-:-....,.:".::...r1 ""<"J C -0r·.)(~G)~)"<"3 !...J r·.';:';',l tn ~..J m '-J Htr;..,..,t·..):D .....1 vi c...·0 (;;-0--'?J r..:"'::-}-en ?::.t:>D c-;::J r..r.:
::t.:'i c:;:r·.)n~::*,-..
0 ~.c'a'-'
tD W .0 ~,0 ~.~.....1 ~.
'-''-'"~;-:.;-.:.-i +CD ---++....(r)........!-,
......1 '-'"---fTl 0 0 0 ~--;+".0:..;.~'-'
'<J f-'o f71 ~r-..::3::-:-0 ~t.=i r·o';-.0t:.;'.J ..,.,'-'"co ':J ~...),,--.t·.)..;)m \..~.t:>-0'm sx:'<:!-<:l .......:'..>J r..:.:e--?::0 0'
t·.,)0--.co Vi .....1
I
I-
I
G'..C~
r·.)~
b:;
~.-..
.-..:-=-
0"-
'-'"~
:"-..j
H '-'
o..
~'J
t.!1 ..
.....j
.::...
eN
r·Jr;0
..'
I
I-"
Gl'::';-:'~... .
OJ .....j t·J '0
'J W::'=1 ~co o-~0-.-<:l
O'C......bO
b-~COO
!::1=1
~--..-..w
0""-
'-'"~
t·.)~
c~:-:.
~")
o..
noo
'-<'_0
x
o
xx'-..1
.....j
t·.)
~I
Ir
___________________1__
x+,m
Q
*
x
Q
Zo
x
Q
Z
C
::
R
3
(J:i
I
ocoo-.not'J
~<'Q f'-..~r-.~~
-e::-M ~~O·:::
~m-n~·,·~o
r",,"JQJO~M·.. ....
try I:"~)<'J C".~)i)ft')··
><
.......Iiu;
~,-.,:'0~......
......3
ll-A
i".CO 0 0--
i:,,)O~C::
i'(..:Jro"i)-..O
!"-n t<).,...;
o-.o-nm....
(\i"t'':-0 M
1 ~~
rocco
O-:-i
G'J ~
::0 f',.
f'.('"oJ
+-0..
'-.0 0
o l..:"1 ~r"1mu;0--...y
i'.,..-;!",>i'
0--0:-:t-:"";~
1<::~-:-:-:-:
.'~L:-
w
(;';::::::
r·~
i'--=:-o ~..r
r'tJ
0-.....
•C·J
00--
Cl'
....:J ~."..f'~j
C-..:::-..~
z
0-.
:'>(
><.
c
*w
><
('".~C c::00 c;:
!·
•......9
()r,0 ~;0 r.-.~
CO ~u:..-..i f'...i,:'1
('".J it.:-:;:r !:;C 0:;
:.:;:.....:J -:::r 'G ':-!it::
t<;O--:0-:-40
"'1"'CO ".0 r-....~-~r.....("'oJ.0 DJ r-.~(".~
!fJ -=:-.,...;.,.....;r,-f'..
0:;r-.J (",.J rc;~~
('.~.~0 000..~
!""-1 C";0 0 :.:;:0
c;.:Ct::..~......
~:.;;
r"~0
'i)c>
C:-..OJ
C,...
->~
...c G·...r··...
Q'-.c···:;..
Q-.'-''.;.'
H r.....c,)",
iL.,..-;
<r
::>0
co
><><
C]
cou
*
..:...w
~Z G .-....
o <T U::~
z e::::cc '~'.'
o
.:-"....-:-.:::~-..-";.~~.:o:r
CO rjJ OJ CC:CC::..:...
('..;
".0 '.c"J -...0 ...(;
G :....;:...):....;
G-IO
-11-~G f-;~;~-j ::;;....~/.:>..t,...::::.~~.~~,..~e.-:r""J ::r f11 I>.........:.~.0:::;::.::..-::.:::::c..·i ~OO~~W :.;.......
oo~r·.jo
1-'-~?0'-~'"
",0':>-00-
;-:.~:oOO
'.l w r·.,)0 0
<:
J>
C
iT1
Q .."-0 -...0:--'-.00'-::O ....p ;-:.C···...c}Z'-G--iO
'-'<:
J>
~;:ry
'J i!G-::("";.....")
~,r;:::::t.:'i
+nn~...~~
~D
tj -:-*C1~~
f!1 ~n r:1
a '*-...=-~'-'x 0-
io~..)
()1 J
.....j ··1
...:.(.....j
c
~::;:...·c:~·o0-..:~:.;0",.....j -!0c<:
D
;--A:!
....J g
r.f},rJ ·..(i
:..f);!]r·.)
J).
-~
o
":;
-.;..:
z
0---:--':'
I-t ..,)
c::C=1r·.}co
a··
D
-!
-.c t·.)
::'.:1 C
00
r·.)':"}
~r·..;
......j ..;..>
-..0 S-:.
:Xl h'::
:.C~
+n
c
Dazx
c:=oo..
,:.,
:--0 ..
.....".-':-
"*G:E ~
;ry ~n tt!
z *lj
t·.)
0'-.
.:>-wrrr
+on(.:j
oz
~
t·.,)'0
.....j '0
~~
-{
!
t..,f)
-i
....
t:.Ii !-!i ~0...(]1
()},j hJ -...c OJ
C::CO 0-...t:>0
~'OOG)"O
;-.":'0 0 t·.,)W
~'J
0'...~;
:-0.t!1 '0 ::'=1
oc.~o.:::,.-..o..
OC~O'JO:
:-.:.:-.:.O .......j:--
r·.J .....J~:-:-O
!~tn ·.....1 CO ~
Qo-..t1 :-=1 0:0
x
""r1ozx
wc
ooo I
I
133:INTREC =CEX1+CEX2*CEXOPS-RTSL)
NOVAR =2
1971 TO 1979
0.91348 CRSO -
NOB =9
RANGE =
RSQ =
SER =
CUE~F
6 ..f3~~~79
WI LLJ E
Sf:iF~....
0.90:1.:1.2
3~~6.34:5
8T ER
FCI./"!):"
DWCO):::
T-~lTtlT
7::~.903
1.82 COND(X)-4.9ci
o
I......
N
CEXl
CEX2
-,2.17:1.34
O.:/.07:1.Cl
:::i.13730:::;
0.0:1.::~4?
-·0.3\~96f.1
8.::.)9f.lCI9
"."'~).....)",,'-..LOG(RTCS:/.)=CRTCSA+CRTCSB*LOGCEM991)
NOB =19
RANGE =
RSQ =
SER =
CCJEF
NOVAR =2
1961 TO :/.979
0.96114 eRSQ -
0.2154 SSR =
VALUE
().9~:)GC::.'i
o.'709
SiT Er~
Fel/17)-
DW(O)=
T··f.iTAT
4:;~O.429
1.52 CONDeX)-36.i'<S
CF~rCb()
CF<TCf:in
-16.80270
3.82653
o.<,()D9:~i
0.:1.£1662
---:1.8.40::)70
;w.~.)0430
-------~------
:.;::;::J>G (;'1 ~.r~:Z ;-.001T1tG:D-O t.:'!f!1 Ai D Z W""!1 :..;,:::;:r:1 "rn!-"at.:J G"j00....'-'-£0 ".0 -.0 OJt..i ...-,0-GJu~...oJ t.:'l (J)co 0-£.0 0 0 t.~-1 0<:a <:H
0 '<")'-'-D D
~,'.l -.0 r r-:;:0 Dco:;;.~:-:-C ..;)+
u~0 ..CO rrl '.!H ttl
'.i ti1 !-"G'J c;-.0 '*to :;:0 UJ r
~eJ)0
~G}
H .,..,.
g :::
~t!).Q
v~to
0 ,....,..,.'.i .,..,.."'-''-''-'....to W .-<
~.0 .-,-1 r:l -.0'-'....-
G-J '-'0-j -<J .;-
en ~r:1 ,...,'.i ~I:..;..;'-',-
CD c;:,~:;:0 t··)t·.,)'*G·,r·.,)0-0-0
"t.!'J
C1 I]
£.,..,.
0-.,..,.h)
;--:.'0 h)-:0 .......
I '-'r-:-
W ~"tn t·.,,)
~::"=1 co -1 H '-'en 0-.-0 D
'.i (;.~t.:;-1 g
OJ 0 -0 t·.)
!-"t·.)
::.0 t~
('':1
t·.,).
Ul
toJc;0
0
Z
!::t
X
""
p
0"-r.......c.'"Q}~~.~xo
......
co.-..
'0
-:--:~
'-'3
i.i..,Ci
-0 £':"1
l-in -v
<!c:~r·~
i-0"-0--
(:"?f',.0...
:-.,..;~
i
QZo
(".~
-0.
~
("'.~
:;
"
,...,.H
....-:;
+."'""
~...-
'-'3
1 ••-.
~>-':.
~if)
l-'Y~U1
<r:Cr-r.....
:-~0"-
r..r-;M CD,.
!-C p..
*
><
u
~-:::r
M t-;
-..c:::+
.-0o!r.:o
r~
c
(.;;~
(-oJ ~e:'1
Q-..U tonf'....
0-..
.'~:.:...~
<!
:::>0
o l-f"
Z r.....'-.0
(:::'-0 ....::=
r'-f··...."=T
0-..-<::L'J
~..
0 ~
-'g
::-::;:
C
!I:ZC~o <I G,,)1...ll
Z Li::W:::::'G
C".~~
-..o~
~o
Of'....
....0 Mmm
".Q -:-i
...J...Jx><
G-14
xw
u
r...........(".~
c i.::
0"-U r~;
!i f"-
0"-
0-.r -:-:
~..
00
o
~ZG~
..'\'".::'U1 UJ..~:...:.-;..:,...u::
...:;~
.....-1-0
f'..r-.~
(0 0
~<)::0
if)0
roc')C··i
-:-:0
!
-----------------------------'fIIIIII-t-;r;n -C:~i ~;::ry Z ~~-'f!1 fT1 r:1 ~.u:;I>0 ....:;;.:n ()if;Ai ;t)Z r->-:X X i11 ;z:z:-~ttl ::...~0"1 '""0 fi1 r..n :r.....0 "-0"-:-:~~r-""T1 0 X ><iii ;:)~Z tt1 c::0--.0--.0--.f!1 H r r -,..,G1.....,r;~!>~:--!i !!rr1 gr·j ::'-'-fTi ttl :D-o::Z Ii ~:-:-:r..~......r:1 ;-.:.t.:'l f!1'-';-~:-:-.b ~,.......,'-'Xl '-!f71 "·0 -.c ~~.~..,.«Ct-."0--.'-l ....0 ':"JWr·..)~,-...c)to..);:::.....1 ';C~0::'-'~m "!.l:>.l:>Z -ry OJ ..<J t:;G.J r·,J 0 .l:>-;0 .....,..;>.0-.Z Htt-J ~·<:0 <:0 0 r·o';-i 0e--{;0 !>!><:0 <:nf!1 m 0 ~;-..;.::z:~0 t·.,)!>!>fi1,
i j .....'-.0 r·.)0--.r ~7.i ><
0 0 ~
,.,...'-l Ii "0 C=1 C -.c 1-
:.:
.z,.~0 r.:....:)v t.~to.]fT1 'j g :-:-
rf:;::;t>i 0 ::..,:;0--.(rj n -V I>
~rf.!:::to ::::::t·..;.;-
::w ......tn G~_o
!!!Z)fTi
;.-:..:--:.&J H ;-:.n X..·-....::g r
0::Xl CO .~
~.z,.t·..)~-g r·J tt1'-'CD -{;G.J 0 0 0:;-:;<-:-
'.l 0 W r.;;t.=1 .n 0 '-l 0 0 ::::
:--:.'-...!W -i f1'1 -..0 f71 ..U;0 .H
f!1 i!1 fT1 i W X ~t:-~-i .,j G-.i'-',I !m 0 ~~0 ~-...c)e-,,
0 0 0 ............1 W 0-(;..i W i!1 ,-t·.)-,".0
.z,..z,..:.Q-.:Do ,-..e--.;ry 0 0-:-:.
'-'+~.....j C>-.
G
f!1>:
~
i .
'=:\-n e-
I S ......tt!'=:\."
I I t·..)"*~......
tn w r..J -i 0 '-,t1 ~,:-.:.
i ..·'-'.....'-!0-...0 -i 0 "
i
t-:.'-...!OJ u"'J t.'i ~..I '-'~
tli .::.."-i H 'j 0 (;-;&wi,Xl .....;-:.I>0 0::t~-1 "'-'::
:w &.i "--.~!0 .....O~D.::.....J to..):-:.-+-..;>.r·.J -1 H
n (..'1 '-!to.]
"f1l
W :-:.X t·..)
'-'-,-CO,
e-c......::.
n ('1i
W *.::.i:;1 -.0
n ~"D CO
0 H n ::n
z w 0
!::!;:::Z......'=:\
X .......>:
""::
""D ":~
0v
;-:.
CO :--:-
W,,-J .
<:>r..:'i
CO
~f',0;:-..Q)("".J ..(",.JxooL1
'¢
~
t<;O
t:"")'<;.
U:-'......
'J'
0::GO U:::'(j ~....~f'-,1"'1....0 (;.....U1 (....i f',i:")0 .-~0 ii1~C......f-:"'1 ......0 t:1 ,-;W 0 r-...0-.f-(:-.,"",
CD -<or r"te1'-'.t:?(fJ :,.r;S~..~0.r,0;:-~,.....OJ ..('.:G-::·1<-...;-J''"'-....
0;:-W 0 0:;!l1 0 I
il.M I
UJ t"1::*g ~HC;!":)l!
:..:.:.OJ
-'C'"'-C··J .OJ ,~
r..,.:'")o-J~.;;r,'-'-0-W (;-;.....-,-D LiJ r-.~.-J
~;.......
!j'f',L!J u')!.:;U C"":-:;{JJ 0 "-0!)-.:::0 0 --"r-...i!J ~n-::.-J .-.0 t-J <I Q>.-.,-;'-'-,...,-'
I --:.J.;<J:<!0 in t<;~.....;...1 Q>.r-...::>0 ::>....-'<I <I M -.~0 ~!'<)r"0 ><::>Q ::>""0 0 ,...,L:J C !--:-:e:........-. 0r-.~f','.-0 G Z ~-.c....::;0-..f'..f"·J ....:J n-C'-.0'"..J ::'0 w....:.~;,...,!)-.(.:-....~;"-'.~-::--!~••J'
co r.::;0 oc::r-....ff;co -:-:
<!~:3 -:-:::
..W :~..f'.~::-'.~·c ~r..::;;..,L -'~g L:.i ::g t.rJ i'<;~Z c=G:::LJj ><><0 w.....I
0 <I U';W '-'L:J ~!~Q::Z c::L L.:.i ><><z '"'-Ct:.U~::_':--::_~::::;0 <I G";W 0 L:J L:J:~..~2.:.-~.OJ v;c...::'-'-:-..;'-'
:-:0
CD C'.~
<I "'0 'c'J
?-,-;!"
t:'"::r,-.0
!••
1-.,-;~
1M
....
t'!".i ~4'J
f'.'
,-...g
,<:;
~..-..
.......0
o:-i .......
---"'3
LLCt
{'".~
...1
X
W
x
G-16
0::0:;~:D00
'::'0-
'10
'1 ('ii
:--:-0::
tn ::..)1
c!'-tn
o r·,J
C
:D,.....
:
....f1l H•0(.0 l--".to..-..0 ""'4')C~t.=1 C.....'.j W ;-.JOC
:D
ii
'-00
'J 0(10
•-V
W ::...~
>.r,-......~::...~
'"
o
G1
tG,,
z
to
C-::G~"""Df1'1fT1"'·1 "',.j:"'::'0. .
':::"0r......i 0
~..J :;.
'<"}'1
C:j --<j
...~..~...)
r·..;r....:
o ..,.:.:,.o:~~-..c '..0~.:~0"-.;.-:.'J ~·...1r·.J .....j Z:-.:.---iO
OC
:D
~~....:::
tr.:r-.:'<")r..n ;:::t·..)
o
~••)0(10
~-..0
'j ~~
O~
0:·.;::.
.::.
-:;-p
'-"
CO .--..--l......
I
0-.::.'nu,
:....'oc:""'c"')--l
t.~tJ1 Do
'1 ~--i
0 '1
~:,
£.......-.;-.:.
0"'-......~
'Jg........
o
GOo
x
!-'-
......~0 -.Ii
••I
00 r..n
~.J ~-{
.-.<)~.:D-
O t:l -io......J
....J
.::.t·J
CO
-V
o
x......
t·,)r·J
"j '--1'-J 0..;..;
~II.b ,__
0 0i,£1 f',.('.~(:'oJxC<
Zoc::-u
CO
o
":"'-i "-
f'..::D
«~~
f'..~-
0.....
o<:r
t<J 0
f-l:1 '0
<J:'0 0-
f-<>r r,
v;!n 1"";
I ....
f-1.:"')'0
r·~
0'-0":1
M~me
0'-.,....;
t.r;0.. ....................,....,
C;zo
C r..J
00-
r-....
'"~
M~
....0 r--.....
o
"~:
.......0
':"""'i ......"
""'3
!.LCc
r.....
~'-.0r.....~.....
(.l"..M
0'-..
•'-.0
0-'
Qo-..O
'<"J 0
COM
Of'.
1''O
...........
~,~
MO.. ..
00
w
*
u
CJ
W
G"1 U::
(",.J :L :J;o!....)m
H CO
.0-t,:-;
~'J "0 0--.....::;r......G·...
0 ..0--.~
~~...
::U ..::
c:::
iJ:.;ZCCL
__<I:(.:)Lw
Z CL .-....:;.:f..J
"'-0 ~"f)
'.0 0-n-..t""Jor.....
(,.J c·~
LiJUJw...:..~
U :_,
G-18
-..{)
""
our..:";
("'·Jr......~-..a c."_.
0--.Cl<...c;-..
~..;10 +
00
;!L!J "..
f...J
-:--of ~')
""-;'0..................,....,
~~
!:"1 ....::;
00
<[~
'..0 ".0
61-~n r.:;:::...,..,Z l-r;r,r tn ..,..,...,..,2:.....';v.t '.':..:..._''.'"'T':;::f!1 tn 31-",",:::-r:0 !;!tr)I>Ci C;~'-'r:-;f!1 f'T1 ;z::;::Z tt:0-·fi"1 rr1 f71 .,:.=::::;.:-.:::tti t~tn ::"=1 ...,..,G'..:-4 >.:;GJ.-'ttl :>-m ::tt:J>n H f71 H....::~v n :--:-""lJ"'0 fT1 -D rr1C:"'".;0 :--:.C::;Q......~~~..,..,++:-:-Z'.'~"-.i)-D :::t·,)"',0 ....";::...(;".0 C"-(J";'j -D C-,tn".0 !..~h3 ;)...:0-r·..)en ~,z "c....:-=-Z "::0 0 CD .....0 0 :--.:.~.....0<:a <:G <:0 <:nt.:'i ;-:.:Do D -r:Cb ..:::.Do Do v""'J t·.,;;~:-:-:?:i iii 0--.OJ r ~'J iii.t·.,)CD -"'0 ::..n G-~OJ '--D ..:::.(:-J :-:-rr;CD ::Do r"':i 0-m OJ ::DoW0u"1 n 0 +-0 '-J rJ::n 0 +:.;."1 :::::r.J n (;;~t·...;n
:::=J ::.r;-ry :::J u'1 '"1J
D f11 ~iiigt.r;B ..:::.
;:tt1 ..tt1
**-fl1 m-ry z"'".0 0 v ",","'"..t-,.J 0 ::D......................+G::..:::...v;....::'.'1 '1 ..U)
0 !-".......-0 0 ..:::.-1 ..-0:-:.0 ..~..)-0 ~..:::.,....:;....-C'f1l ..:::.w r·J t!1 fT1 0 W0·...CD ,_:~:--~co A:::"=1 CDr....~G-~t.r'i '00
..a .....,j
O...u
-00-....")~
0'::'
ttl
-{
Do
-1
~""!1
~-...
".-...~
0 ...........
.........;-:.
noo
x
::
t·...)..
::..~!
W W -i....I
....J W ::.n
t·.,)G..f -{
:....:.CD Do..:::.Ct,-{
",",t·..)...-
t:1'l
£---
,-..;....;.
0'
'-'"-
o
OJ t·.,)oeo
::0
0-.
oonooz
~
x
!
!
I
J
co !'.'v .,...++e·J Mx.-......
Zoou
"Hi'...
~.;-...
""'0
~....",
,~:3
ll..Q
-<)0
i-'03 M
<r:CO ~
i-(".J CD
:-:J ~COo~
I
>-~;oJ
M
x
i".
<;t"
c-..~
~ro
+
o
-=-!.....--.
""0+."-'"
......3
u-'>"=i
~o
-..0 uJ
M'O
O~
0'--=
~':--i M ~f\i 1'.
0 0-W:::r,0 r.....0 u:::C"-("o~
t<J M L:J (""oJ ::."r.....0 ltl ("'o~--n
CO ~f'-0 c..~~(.;.".0
0-+i-i:1 0 0-+1-."".......-.....
u;+u;rf..:++w .-.v u;.+
j"J')C <;t"0 t.:':~<:).,...,0 0
t:"1 i-
W W
"*"*III !i I:l.:<H
r·o~n 0-::
W c;U1 c;
u..tn Lr::Ci...u;u:.
U '.J 0:::r..n U ("o~~.;",;;
+.-..U !..n ~~+C u :..n en CO......
<l:H CO Lt1 r--...u;<!g CO W C"-O
r-oJ 0 ..::J '.J -:-:0-0--f'..0-
W ,'J --'...J M 0-W .-J ":""'i ,~If;"'-"'--'u...<r:<!:0-"J D-oC <l:'"u;u ::>c ::>u ::>'-':::>
0 !-!;'J C 0 0 i-r ......0 0
li Z 0-0-::Z :.;..;.J if'.J ~;<:J.'r-.~i'-f'.~
(,:-;'iJ CC t<;tn '..;J 0-...
GJ 0-0-.-(:,'J ::,.....S.....c;-...
v','++1--'++
,"J C ~,"J .-...-.."'-'-',,~
l.!J :::......U1 c......
~'"""U--'::..
~~LW ....C ~~~:..:...:....<r::I;
~'-'-t'.~.~!;..::::0"-0-..
f"0;:Xi Z :3 .",.,W ~LW -'~Z G l:-.W :...:..:.LU'-'-c::0 <r r.:~LW '-'-L.!..~0 C (J):::'-''-'-::
Z ,"J ,'J U (J ~Z ,--.",.,U}CJ r....J'-'-~:_:.:-'u...'-'-
G-20
t
iC=1 ~:--:-()co~w r·..)co 0'-.;-:.
.....j 0 r·..J
O.i:>-'J
00::C::
=--=1 0 0 ..
0::~0-..
r..,,~r·.j r·..;
c.~0 ~
0-...'-D I)..
'Y."J t.:l '-0v.:0 ...r·J
r·.J ~J::.
c:r>rcm
n ~::...~0 ..-...(:C--.0"t·..)Ulc."0 ZQ--i0OC:r>
(1";::-::-..0
G;~::~
0)0 OJ
CD ......j
:-.:.~
c:=.......
"-":---
r·.)n ........
G .....j
o
""
:r>
-;-
t
w+
xw+-
C)
+
Hu..
uo ,
'-'
*~or-...
c,)
+
o
o
x
o
'-..0
0::('oJ
!,",="";C;
0;
r......LW
·Mol1
r'".~
i!r....
(.:-'"
:>0
'--0 ~.n 0::"':-
0--.r.....~~
..-.."-'.-'-''-"
::W
C
f..)
o 0'..~.~(.:-..o C!'~...;0 .....
r<)r<';0 COo~0 (;0...
Q'...OJ I.'.J (;;
•~•+
i.i"1 r-:,.~t·~
ir;
~;
0·...('.~~0
~m ::'.J ir.:
:.-.~':'"'i !..:"')-..0
~....-:;i r......",0
o r·~u;if::
+•'"..
00::::--.r·:;
~-s CD ~:;r·:;
r......('"oJ t;;~.j
~CO ....c r......
!.:;7 r-.~"7
~
-:::r c::-:-:~
<I:~C):~
:::~0 0:::;:'r..·.r-...i·.....f·.....
CJ :_::_:L~
G-22
x+oo
o
u
+
<!
:-:
o
."
x
~
Zo
-:-i .-..
""....0
f-tJ ----3
MO
O!
.r-t;
Ow;
c-.~
!i r,
0'-
.~
c ~~..~z r"'~....:'J
.•~1".:'--::J
.....:;:..:,;.~
Q ..f.....::::::
0-·
;:u...:....
!-
r.,f;
o
'-'
o c.....('".~c"
0(;-.·M e:.....
MMCmo~~::>0'--c:,.",m f'.~L:"1
.....+..u;--;,.~c-.~
t;")
;--=1
0-.("oJ M C
-..(:CO (,.J ~;
('".J +.~;....0
+..~)f'."0
C C·~ir;i:-j
.,+
..........-.....-......-..""-"'"-"",_.......
o C~0'--n
r:"";CO '-.(:t:1'
r·.....C··~;';"1 (".~
~CD 0...[,.;r.....
it;-:::r ::,.~~
c ~:~;.=c
"".t ~i ~~-::::-r......f·.....r-.....f'...
U :_1 CJ f_1
!.
I
I,
(j r;C1 i~:..;'j ....,j ....J .......j .....JcoCD0")!::")CDPidrJt::j J>Ul OJ;',~-<:;.m~::CO~~0::...0 t.=i 'joJrfJ"0'-t>.i.W ··J·......,iU1CD
w ~(..;~0
:-~'.J ~:-:-0
CD 'C ~~".)C~
c~..::,.m~c.....
t=1 'i ··...1 -..a '-l
0-
-..:;
I-:"t·.::;;-..t.::;.J 0'
OJ -to..~]~0-.ttl
!.;..J ~0'-.:--0.W
W OJ C)('}1 --')
,.:;;.'1 ....j CC 0
o ;·..1 ~CO 0
c
-~
u;..?:';D Z!i"'i fn :I;:.0::::D :;:;Z !'J:!:::.:C>....::;::'0..<J :_:.:ZG<:J>;-:.;1}-..:;'-1 H::.n ;:-.:-..0;ry r.f;
:;J
171 ....j
jQ-..
0'1
0J C~
0)
m
~..)
r.:c)
oz.....
'-'
-+
>(
;::
t··}
Ct·,oG,:....
CD
J).
-+
o
::.n.......
c
;:,r;
r.:
Q
-+
....j
*r
o
Q
f!l
X
:-:C)::;:::
C=1 C!'-C·,·~~Ct-.
C::C}C(:"'0 0-..:
t<;C~:.::..r·.,;
r·.J ;::-j :--C}f·.J
::..:-:i··.J er..i b (:.~
c.~0 r·..;w 0
~Lr:0::···C:l 0
-l.,
!::;rr1 ..o ...C!"'{=c:~L;.0··.....j CD ;-;.~-::-:,:::;<:J>
:;
il
!)-.
o
z
:-.'-'
><
o
-}-
-+
x
~'.:..,..:
!J.,.I..-...~!Zz
-0
I,ttl
*
J>
-l
-+
loS
-
~
0806£'9~
992JO'~
O£J£v'£J
1.\vI .1.!:>-J
£££~O'O
63V8~'O
9tO£~'O
~1:J ..l.!3
tJ96J'J
90£Zv't
!v660'£
In''''':){)
::J6GJ
H6i:~:j
!:.:-'(~)UJ
.::IJU::J
~~:JS
~OS~
-38NV~
6t ~aON
~;;El~6v -(X)ONOJ 9£'J
8VO'~09
=(O)MO
-(9t/~)j
~O-J£90'£=
~££86'O -
~ss 8£vO'0
OS~J £6986'0
6/6Y OJ Y96T
£=~V~ON
Cld~)801*J68J+(IdJSn/sn3M)801*a68J+V68J =(J8~M)QOl i OU(':
.q
N
I
CCl
00/8£+£
v££8S't
O~9£2'£T
009£0'££9-
..l.~;I..l.S··'·J
I('//·:·"'nt...>.J I •••i_.~_.....
t.,..;:~:~:':~/..('::0}0
~~::::~;;;?1 '0
1:~~'::<j'()0 ~0
~:IJ .1.8
£V8£6'O
V£9£V'O
618£9'Y
£69S6~£
3n'''/l:;J()
J{~:;J
(I(:::HJ
f'I:::::D~:)
1:)(:';~]]
.::I]OJ
6L61 OJ 1961
V =~V~ON
OO~£:....(X)I]f\.IOJ
£i:;'I:'OD
'/:£'t -(O)MU
-(£t/£)~
£O-JZL9'l =~SS
Y£6(6'0 =OS~J
()('::i::()•()
9 ::':";T t.r <,:~,~0
=~JS
~US~
-J8NV~
6t =SON
«1-)lV~WJXJ+t)801*JZ8J+(JV~W3X3+T)G01*aZ8J+(IdJSn/snJM)801*a~8J+V28J =(Id~/I~~M)801 :H9Z
=
.....~-.:·0 t·.J ~.u.~.1 c."r.~.1 CD
:--:-'1 ~
0 .........j ~
c C C.:
+,-,--.'r·.,;
~~-..0 ~
r·..;t..:'1 .....1
~~'-1
'<"}
-..0 CD 0 ..
0-.00
......j CO
-..0 -..0 r·.}
~-..")0
::"=1 0 :0
<:
:..;;
::.n ".,:z.:.....J>C::.~::2::ttl":::1:::::...!J "·0J;;.c:~C ........;0 ::-:'.C)2:;.;-..--,!-0<::D:--;D
.....1 11
,-",G --0
:::0 ......
-..00
CG 9
fTi "'.0
""
CDrJr·.}
oz-.
><
::
...·.1
'-.0
c::..:':
.,:"..;
:D+
[.J
C
;,,;:;
+
~..)
G
:.;',,:C~:;:-:;.'-.l::...;::";':,'..0.._.r·,_:t·...;f·.:;:;:::.;c::.....j .....J 0 0....a c::0::.....Jo~ow...·J:.D .....Jc...·
CD ('..J ~0::
"8:C::C::C::
r·.)r.~0 C.:
:"-i:.;..;,.:-."
....:::0-..
.;::.j"••;
r·.)
o
'-0 -...0 c-~:-:..
~~(Do
£...=1 CD c~W
..<)..,>.:;..ro 0
o ::..~'-0 0
<::D
:.;;
-4,.::n
:;f7i ._:::-.:.::.~:_::.,::-:.-..c r·.)z0..-4 0OC:Do~:::::
f";'l r-.:".0
(,;1 ::D
r_:G1
......j
;...~:0
G~•
f!1 ...(:
c,
Cl
:..:":........
J>+
"',.(:
t·.)
=".
-i-m
X
:I>
+
'.•r:::
*~.o
G)
::.:;
:.:
i-,,'-'i-<Ixx+w+!.;)o ,.......".0U+oo oo.<>
i-
+
x
Q
Zo
~u
(0
C'-
~.......
~"c
~<;"'-'"
..-3
LLC:
i-
i-u:,,
i-
Ote1~OoC'·~u;~
t'-;:r,0'--~.-:;
CD "'0 0 COu;t:1 '-.0 0...
"').{..
"':;-.0 .,...,.,....;
o
x
UJ
+
c:::--a
....l
'*
+
roo:"'";
Ci
Zo
('".J (I
r-:;
C".~
-:-;........
~..0
rc;....'"
:..-.:...:...,:.--:
•
o t<')~0
?---"0 (,.J tt,-::t
<!t'<1 !""....0",~-:;}--cc -..0 ::~0::
v;t:-.:rl"";'0 c--.
i
~<"':;'C .,-f .,..;
o
~
~M<:::"t'0
-:-:0"--00
()MCC~
~C ~u1o('.~-:::r .~. .
0000
Lci ~CO <::"~tr;
::::rc;COri~
--J r-.~(.>..(".J 0'--
<c ~C'".~r.......0::
::>+...
c:=;-~oo
~t-r;
::::>r-:;
'-";-
0-U u;
ii r,
0-
fr::~
<I
0'"
+
<I
*
OJ 'c::t -:-i ~;
r<;CD ~'T
l'~0'--r-.~i)-.
-:--:C".~r,0::
~•+•
~~<;~!"'f";
~c....O!.::;.:
Ot1;OJ~
~0 ~u;o r-.~-:;r ~.....,..
0000
i-
..~u..
Li.J
Li"")c·~
L"1 :::)
OJi
"='r:-;
or(')
::::::
-:-:-:-;"-G
".0 r-.~r-:-;
0-U U,
g i'.
0-
e::::o:--:
<!:
:::>0
u
o
Hu....~
'-'-
o"'0 "0 ....:J ".0
U !_:!_:CJ
o
I
_______________.G-.2.6 .J_
~
236:LOG(WRP9/RPI)=C53A+C53D*D61.76fC53B*lOGCWEUS/USCPI)+C53C*LOG(1+EXEMRAT)
1~.~4.~5B6
NOB =19
RANGE ~
RSQ =
SER =
NOVAR =4
1961 TO 1979
0.96136 CRSQ =0.95363
0.0456 SSR =3.118E-02
F(3115)-
DW(O)=1.51'CCH'-J[leX)...::;j.[lO
GJ
I
tv
-.j
COEF
C53A
C53D
C53B
C53C
VAL.UE
4.78486
-0.27971
2.80945
3.78888
tIT EF~
0.02894
0.02961
0.25871
0.40181
'·····8T I:~I T
165.36500
-9.44531
10.85930
9.42957
272:LOGCWRS9/RPI)=C86A+C86B*LOGCWEUS/USCPI)+C86C*LOG(1+EXEMRAT)+C86D*L.OGe1+EXEMRAT(-1»
SSF~::::;.~.4::5\~i[····()~!.
NOB =19
RANGE =
RSQ =
SER =
COEF
NOVAR =4
1961 TO 1979
0.95015 eRSO -
o (.()40~::j
V{IL.l.JE
D.(?40:!'""i'
ST ER
F(3/15)-
DWeO)=
T-[:;TfiT
95.2S>::!.
1.::.~:1.CONI)ex)3.()()·
C86A
C86B
C86C
C86D
3.133/>91
().B8b13(S
3 ..336c!f.>
2.[16;360
0.01115
0.22415
0.49247
0.49576
344.1.ell 00
3.9:::i6:50
6 ~'7/~:;j3~:5
~5.?·7622
..;:------------_.-----.
wx><
Ui
..J
*CJ
-'
Go
+
x
o
·.......0
~......,.
......,.3
LLO
'"0-..r·~
f"~0
"'0 :
O'--W
•(.1'0."
o~m
..~~'-'-c
::>0
0 ;-c....
-/-:----:0....-
..~-..,;
.~-=r,,-i":-;
0-...r;;.....-......-.,..,
0 ()
c:-...
.,...;::
ii W H ;j
i".!J
~c!Z c::u::o <!:to L:J
Z fr:a::en
o ~~,r;0 !'.o t<;:::;:r......CD
(i"---:-!-:-:o-e::r
....-i w"J CO (0 t-f )
~C".~L"1 r......(",.J
...• •0(10 •
-..0 co r.....C>-:--[
or,.r ~I
..iJ r......"-::r 0··l--=1co~"J CG -:-:r':"'J
0-.0 ..-:-t 0:::C·~r-.J r";C::-:-:CD
::.;:0 r·J u;~;...
ooc::oo
'..0 "'::r ~...-:-::-::;'C'r r....e;..."7 ~:
.,.(:.•.-G ...:)"·0 '-.0
"'1"J "·0 .,.:}"·0 ",0
C1 :.J :::..-::_::_:
G-28
,-------1-.
,-.G n,-'-'-~0",-:"J ···S !"!1!J:!::>~<o r·.J :Do~r...::r-0-.m c
c.~;-0.f7]
~-.o
00
...!.!:!
0;-:.~
~o
ro~f!1r·,]w ~~:
~t·..)
6Z-~..';.....\~Z co~.'fT1 tf"J :I>0 r...~;:-::..;!;,.:;7:i ::D Z CG:::D ~Z :r=:,.;'.:)-.a ~!:.r::3;0 a .i:,..:.;G"..i ~::1 ;z::.-~Z tt1'-':;:::::tt :'>...,..,G:i,.r-Oo ~:fT1 :1;-:.0 r-...::;G'";H ,-000'-0 G):-:.!71 °00-.0 ,:'J n .~f11"",.1 -.0 C:-..~:-:-'-4')".0 ~;;-.;.~r·o)if;~(0 0-,t:!-.0 en z ~~t.r'i t·..)(f)......1 -1 0 -.0 ::.~.~z ~0 <'-'-~::0 ~0 '-'Do g <0 <,-;:::r·.,;;.;.~J>J>!!
'0 n :--:--.c r :-:-~r.o g ;.......;::G-.i '--..0 n0;n 0 -.0 r·...;......1 ,..,..,CD 0-,.,..(n ;:i)t·.)I:lo 0 ...::.,:'!G"J n 0 '=:1..,.,m +tn ...,..,r·J D"'.'"','~c-;,._.z:.::+H ;..."-'ng-.0 H 0,
0::tti i1 C!
*l:JJ'1 r-'*,
'1 0 0 r-eo ..G:i C:.:,..,.....0'-"'-"i11 -.c ...0;
---
..G!""''-"i -..0 fTi ,...r·,J -:..""'''J ""''----,~X G~0 r~co m'---t·..)::'ii 0 n,0 ..iT!.t>~X
0-..'1J 0 ,...~ro
"):"..1 0'-"
v;r·~U"'..t·..)-ry
::,n
'J ;....:......
w'-.j
-.0'1
t·..)t-..i
OJ t·.)
""''"'-"'-"
0'-
x
G-J r·o';
G~.---l,,
m w u1
.;:;.t-...~-i
'j t·.J J>
OJ ~-i
0 0
!:j-n
~.-.:--=-0'""-'"~
-.....J
t..!i ;.-:.
OJ:-='
x
r.r.;in mL""1(".~.,.;r--~~i!::"X XC;Z "-0 z........u 0--......
t:J r-:;--t"1 -..
t<';"'.0
it;r-...~0 0i·....'iJ OJ
~.,.;a 0 .
H f-a 0 0 0 <:><Z 0 ('\i ::i-'"r-.."f-r-....0 <L ...·0 ~<;::r-....U;~u"J f;i--if)~.,.;........!.r-.t:~i''iJ"'-........i-tr;::'\i \~..--rl I ~"'-0 1-rl ~:3 ,
~'-~(,,".ju-.-.......:3 !-.
!.L ~
r.;;
(J;ii.,
t.!-r1'"J 0:-:co 00-'<::r .-..-i',0-X r,r-t::w'-'-)(.-c -~Lti .,...;<-.,t w ~co fr::c::r [-..1W10...~r-,......,......~r-·~U1 <:>0'.":,;.;f-!'<')---(;J 1'.~Kl <::r-."CJ ...-:oj).0 0-.f--~........-......0 --,,~.............i .0 u;-----1 '*0 ---........--'.J*crt~=:l..::i H <:1"c-.~::.,...;::U (3 U g+tn u::+!3<r:r".~~:.;;<C u;::r::c;0 u :..n M -..t:;:r::".J ::!::.:"')(",.J H OJ W co !"0 ~0 u r.n r-..0-..U c...-0--.~.,...;"0::Ltl 0 "'0fr::~,CD .,...;,
U r..>-.-J 0-::"'.J.....H <L <.I:r-.~CG ~.,...,,:'~c---..::>0 ::>H <L <Z r-..0-0 !-~........:>0 ::>'-'<::r z c....0 ........i-f'.("oJ 0::n !"'.,i ~'..(:~Z ~'.....r--....w 'C ---~;r.,;";t·~c·~OJ'.-~::')0.,.(,.".~w ~~r-....GO;L:.J .,...;.:r:c>-.0--:-;
C ........L:J ~.--!!J 0-0 ---'_.,0 -:-;g r~0--.J 0 ~..
:;L:J :~..~r~LL.<I ~..LW :~..~~z 0 ..-Lr.i !..J ;'~r~L:...'-'--
-.0 0 <L OJ ~0 j'.~(-.J ::Q Z c;::::::UJ ~~co :2:f:L ~U)CJ .-0 ~:.-:<1:U)L!.l 0 .,-,~
r.n z l .'~:_:~;U U'-'--
G-30
$
GG~j-:.00::?:ZttiD
'c-=~
~.....:::
oro
Lli ~
CD r·.J
00
0:-..:.
r·..:;vJ
~....-::
WO
;-:''0
'-11 -()
OCh
'l (..-I
'j 0
00
C
:Drc:m
-{
i
..~o ".0 ".0•...:.3 ::D 0'..tn "'0 r·..)co r·,)z(~~-{0OC
:D
,-,'...
(,]1 :...:...:
0..t:..i1,,--.
o.
co~
r·...=t.:;c.....
o
o
x
oz
oz
..,r:
o ....J
W 0'-.
W Cl
WW
CO (,..;
00.
r ..r ........,---~-.c
i
C......~
Ul0.
lrt 0 ..
C......'.1
'-J'-J
0--·'1
00
C
:D-
r-,
00+.......o --<"J ".0Co"'--..c C...·r·.)c...t·..:::....:..0 Z
OC
:D
~(;-;
;.w
0'--
t.!1 C::
0 ..4-
rr1'C
I ....8
t.n ..:.>
~r·..;
'.0
-.0
..,0o
Z
t:1
x
ro
Ii
r:-j
~'Jo
D
:D-+n
t·.,)o
ro
Q
1..,;;
,-,
'-'-
u
"::
o ,......
x
ou
'C
i'
o ul
.,..;(,,~
rc-;G---
CO j"'<";c....
·0o
o f"':;!J1
C
::>0
z ..~~{:;
r\i "'.i t<;
"':"-i.....
00
..LlJnn
00
it)r-.J
-qo~
CO ::>
COW
~("'.~
r-.~?<;
r'-("'.~
=::;:co
r·~:..:,;
C'".~r-=-;
00
c'O
-ri<;j
-..oM
("1 i'
lD ("oJ.
"0 '-.0
:-J.::..-:
G-32
:.,:"'::
o
Go
u
+
o
iix
C CJ
0-m
f'..O
~t~
""
"'0
~"'-'"
,~3:
!..LO
~
00
00'..
":;
c U U)
fr::-:-:
<r
::>0o!-..G'-
Z L;".0
l·J :~L-';
'0 Q..c~c..C:o...-:-;
..-....-..
'''-'".-
H LlJ ..;:
~Z C':;fr:o C U)~
"........,.
~~
~~co":""'!
1'0
ttl te:i
t-:'J 0::
M ~:;
L:'1 (".~
~c
co
(",.J ;:'".J
i'-ri
C"-J ~
C to;
0,...,
r......r,
u ''-:'
..~0
mo
r·..)0
CDW
~:-.:.
00
++
00
;-.-'-0--
c"':o
Co,c-.
~'-1
C
J>r
(J)
-l
c~0..~0-..0-..0~-.oc-.~'-1 ro')m to')zr·.:;-1 0OC
J>
co ii(n G 0
l.,;;;iJ r·J
r·J
-0
0-..0
....').
m'O
I-()
0'-1
r·.J 0c-.
"*roo
o...,..,
0."
...
.....1 :--:-
CO Co>..-1
!
;-:.c-.(I)
~:--:--1
~0-..:I>
~:--:--i
0 °
~11
£......
,.....r-:-
0"
-..-~
""
t·.)c-.
r·.,):-:.
°
m
GO
'-J
x
t