The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA810[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I . b.d r L [ c c [ [ E [ r~ L= l f '· Technical Memorandum 2 Beaufort Sea Statewide and Regional Population And Economic Systems Impact Analysis Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office by Lee Huskey Wi 11 Nebesky Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska December 12, 1978 Beaufort E.I.S. 6!61 ,(f!W 6 (;' t.Lt.S:<A RESOURCES LIBRARY U.S. Department of the In . te.l:ior [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r 1-u r L E c c [ [ E [ L [ INTRODUCTION In order to capture the important dimensions of uncertainty surrounding oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea, the development patterns implied by three alternative discovery scenarios were examined and contrasted with the moderate base case described in Working Paper #1. In addition, the high and low Beaufort scenarios are examined with respect to the high and low base cases in order to bracket the extremes of OCS impact and to test the sensitivity of the impacts to the base case. OCS development in the Beaufort will lead to changes in those factors which have previously been isolated as important causes of growth-- exogenous employment, personal income, and state expenditures. The change in these factors will be responsible for changes in employment, population, the state's fiscal position and the regional distribution of growth. These changes are the economic impacts of OCS development. This paper will explore the impacts in terms of both the magnitude of change and the process of economic growth. We will examine the impact of each of the three separate development scenarios. The impacts will differ, since the scenarios vary in terms of their primary employment impact as well as in the revenues received by the state. Impacts are estimated by making separate runs of the MAP model which include alternate scenario assumptions; comparing these runs to the non-Beaufort base case, the impacts are isolated. The most import- ant assumption made in this type of model is that the economy responds to employment and revenues generated by Beaufort OCS development as it ,:dd to similar changes in the past. This implicit assumption underlies ;~st uses of econometric models to project the future; for small, margir changes like those assumed for the Beaufort, this assumption is nc~ unreasonable. The approach which will be taken in the following analysis is to attempt to answer five questions concerning the changes which result from OCS development in each scenario. Answers to these questions will provide a description of the economic impact of this development. The questions are as follows: 1. How is the growth of each of the aggregate indicators affected by OCS development? These indicators include employ- ment, population, personal income, and state expenditures. 2. What are the significant causes of the changes of these indicators? The questions will attempt to assess the impor- tance of exogenous employment changes and changes in state spending on growth. 3. How do the additional revenues change the fiscal picture of the state? This question will examine whether the OCS development leads to increased services and what its effect is on fund balances. 4. Does the composition of the change in employment differ from the base case? This question will examine whether the OCS development support observed base case trends in struc- tural change. 5. What are the regional effects of these changes? This question will examine the changes in employment and population, which result in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the North Slope be- cause of OCS development. 2 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 1: 1-~ l_j [J 0 [ c ~~ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r 1~ r L [ c C E c L r , L L The Development Scenarios Three Beaufort development scenarios were provided by the Alaska OCS Office of the Bureau of Land Management. These scenarios included the following assumptions for each scenario: production of oil and gas, employment, capital costs, and operating costs. ·These assumptions were used to generate assumptions about direct employment and state revenues which result from Beaufort development. ASSUMPTIONS COMMON TO ALL SCENARIOS Six assumptions are incorporated into each development scenario. First, it is assumed that discoveries will be half within state waters and half within federal waters. Production and offshore capital facilities are distributed in this same manner. Second, it is assumed that a conventional scheme of bonus bidding will be used to lease the tracts. The total bonus is assumed to be $100 million, half of which goes to the state. The state royalty rate of 12.5 percent is assumed for production from state tracts. Third, it is assumed that discoveries of oil and gas on state-owned properties will be subject to state production taxes at current rates. Fourth, it is assumed that oil and gas production from the Beaufort is transported via the TAPS and ALCAN pipeline rather than by new pipe- lines or alternate modes. 3 Fifth, the wellhead value of Beaufort OCS oil and gas is assumed to equal the Prudhoe wellhead minus transport cost. This OCS to TAPS transport cost was estimated to be between $50-$95 per barrel for oil and $10-$20 per MCF for gas. Real 1978 costs of $.60 per barrel for oil and $.15 per barrel for gas were assumed. Sixth, 75 percent of the investment costs of platforms and onshore facilities were assumed to be tangibles subject to property tax, while 25 percent of the well costs were assumed to be tangibles. SCENARIO SPECIFIC ASSUMPTION Three Beaufort development scenarios are examined; high, moderate, and low development cases. Tables 1-7 provide information about production, employment, and revenues associated with each scenario. High Case. Peak production in the high scenario is 91 million barrels of oil and 68 billion cubic feet of gas which begins in 1992 and lasts for five years before production begins to fall. Exploration begins in 1981 and development in 1986 as in all cases, and production begins in 1989. The peak employ- ment occurs during development with 761 construction employees and 583 mining employees. Total revenues reach a peak of $269.66 million in 1997. Moderate Case. Production reaches its peak in 1992 in the moderate case at 65 million barrels of oil and 41 billion cubic feet of gas. Oil production is almost 40 percent of the peak high case production. Exploration begins in 1981 and reaches a peak of 479 in 1984. Peak employment for the scenario is reached in 1989 during the development phase with 1,082 employees. This is 20 percent less than in the high case. Employment in 2000 is 394. Revenues peak at $157.8 million in 1997. Low Case. Peak production is less than half the peak pro- duction in the high case. Peak employment occurs during development in 1989 at 740. This is about 55 percent of the high case peak employment. By 2000 low case employment 4 n [ [ n [ [ r u n L [J D c E [ [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r 6 r L [ c 0 c [ E L (' L [ TABLE 1. BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. SCENARIO PRODUCTION-ASSUMPTIONS High Case Moderate Case Oil Gas Oil Gas (mill ion (billion (million {billion bbls) cf) bbls) cf) 1989 45 34 15 11 1990 75 56 40 30 1991 90 68 54 41 1992 91 68 55 41 1993 91 68 55 41 1994 91 68 55 41 1995 91 68 54 41 1996 91 68 53 40 1997 89 67 52 39 1998 82 62 48 36 1999 70 53 43 32 2000 60 45 38 29 SOURCE: BLM-Alaska OCS Office 5 Low Case Oil Gas (mill ion (billion bbls) cf). 11 8 27 20 35 26 43 32 43 32 43 32 43 32 41 31 39 29 36 27 32 24 28 21 TABLE 2. BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. BEAUFORT HIGH SCENARIO EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS Regional Total North Slope Mining Construction Mining Construction 1981 67 49 59 45 1982 198 198 174 180 1983 198 247 174 225 1984 232 247 204 225 1985 67 99 57 90 1986 70 403 64 366 1987 148 642 138 584 1988 321 810 282 737 1989 583 761 524 692 1990 710 254 642 231 1991 758 254 693 231 1992 748 127 686 115 1993 681 254 623 231 1994 647 254 591 231 1995 . 616 127 560 115 1996 572 36 519 33 1997 551 0 498 0 1998 547 0 494 0 1999 548 0 494 0 2000 542 0 488 0 SOURCE: BLM-A1aska OCS Office 6 Distribution Anchorage Mining 8 24 24 28 10 10 10 39 59 68 65 62 58 56 56 53 53 53 54 54 Fairbanks Construction 4 18 22 22 9 37 58 73 69 23 23 12 23 23 12 3 0 0 0 0 n [ n [ [ [ [ D r I ' Lo n L [ c 0 c [ [ [ f' L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r~ L [ c [ [ [ [ f' L r L [ 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE 3. BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. BEAUFORT HIGH SCENARIO DIRECT REVENUE EFFECTS (millions of nominal dollars) . 3 Property4 Corporate 5 Bonus 1 Royalties2 Production Tax Tax Income Tax 50 . 31 .44 .70 .71 .82 3.78 9.21 16.71 ""'-r 1")0 ;)f.t..O 31.68 24.88 11 1::1 ,. . ..,. 66.39 54.76 28.60 15.14 83.70 70.31 32.35 18.58 88.68 74.49 34.72 19.53 93.17 78.25 38.43 20.55 97.75 82.11 42.18 21.29 102. 57 86.16 44.34 19.72 107.66 90.43 45.13 20.63 11 0. 60 92.90 45.23 20.93 106.99 89.86 45.2i 17.25 95.86 80.52 45.04 14.17 85.87 72.13 44.73 9.99 1BLM-Alaska OCS Office 2Royalties estimated at 12.5 percent of total wellhead value 3Production tax equals 12 percent of the nonroya1ty portion of total wellhead value 4Tax at 20 mills of petroleum property value 5corporate income tax at 9.4 percent of taxable petroleum income 7 Total 50 0 .31 .44 .70 .71 .82 3.78 9.21 16.71 OR ~&; -'""". 'tJ- 164.89 204.94 217.42 230.40 243.33 252.79 263.85 269.66 nr-n. "', L::>!:J • .ll 235.59 212.72 TABLE 4. BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. BEAUFORT MODERATE SCENARIO EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS Regional DistrE ;.ion Total North Slope Anc";srage Mining Construction Mining Construction r; __ ,_ing 1981 67 49 59 45 8 1982 198 198 174 180 24 1983 198 247 174 225 24 1984 232 247 204 225 28 1985 67 99 57 90 10 1986 112 304 102 276 10 1987 276 333 266 303 10 1988 479 466 458 424 21 1989 616 466 580 424 36 lOOf'l 595 155 553 141 42 IJJ\.1 1991 524 155 486 141 38 1992 503 77 466 70 37 1993 432 155 399 141 33 1994 535 155 402 141 33 1995 438 77 405 70 33 1996 440 22 407 20 33 1997 417 0 385 0 32 1998 393 0 361 0 32 1999 393 0 361 0 32 2000 394 0 362 0 32 SOURCE: BLM-A1aska OCS Office 8 Fairbanks Construction 4 18 22 22 9 28 30 42 42 14 14 7 14 14 7 2 0 0 0 0 [ [ n u n n [J [J [J r I l LJ n u D 0 c R b.i [ [ L r~ L L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I bd r L [ c c c [ [ [ f' ~ [ 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 l999 2000 Bonus 1 50 TABLE 5. BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. BEAUFORT MODERATE SCENARIO DIRECT REVENUE EFFECTS {millions of nominal dollars) Royalties 2 Production 3 Property4 Tax Tax • 31 .44 .70 . 71 .82 3.03 6. 21 11 n1 I I .VI 12.39 10.41 .. ,. ""'"' IO.t:::t::: 35.42 29.76 18.49 50.24 38.58 20.69 53.59 45.01 22.06 56.30 47.28 24.18 59.07 49.62 26.37 60.95 51.20 27.60 62.76 52.71 28.03 64.60 54.27 28.00 62.58 52.57 27.81 58.80 49.39 27.50 54.47 45.76 27.08 1BLM-Alaska OCS Office Corporate 5 Income Tax .43 6.92 9.91 10.53 11.16 11.64 9.89 10.91 10.97 9.89 7.77 5.63 2Royalties estimated at 12.5 percent of total wellhead value 3Production tax equals 12 percent of the nonroyalty portion of total wellhead value 4Tax at 20 mills of petroleum property value 5corporate income tax at 9.4 percent of taxable petroleum income 9 Total 50 0 .31 .44 .70 • 71 .82 3.03 6.21 11 n1 I I • VI 39.45 90.59 119.42 131 . 19 138.92 146.70 149.64 154.41 157.84 152.85 143.46 132.94 TABLE 6. Total Mining Construction 1981 67 49 1982 198 198 1983 198 247 1984 232 247 1985 67 99 1986 70 281 1987 123 331 1988 228 395 1989 345 395 1990 ')07 1 ')? ..JU/ I..JL.. 1991 434 132 1992 388 66 1993 355 132 1994 333 132 1995 334 59 1996 333 18 1997 332 0 1998 330 0 1999 327 0 2000 325 0 SOURCE: BLM-Alaska OCS Office BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. BEAUFORT LOW SCENARIO EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS Regional North SloEe Mining Construction 59 45 174 180 174 225 204 225 57 90 60 255 113 301 211 359 319 359 358 l?n I '-V 402 120 360 60 329 120 307 120 308 54 307 16 306 0 304 0 301 0 299 0 10 Distribution Anchorage Mining 8 24 24 28 10 10 10 17 26 29 32 28 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Fairbanks Construction 4 18 22 22 9 26 30 36 36 12 12 6 12 12 5 2 0 0 0 0 ' n c n n n c [J 0 r I . LJ n u c 0 D [ [ c [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r b r L [ c D c [ [ [ J 6 [ 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE 7. BEAUFORT SEA E.I.S. BEAUFORT MINIMUM SCENARIO DIRECT REVENUE EFFECTS {millions of nominal dollars) Production3 . 4 5 Bonus 1 Royalties 2 Property Corporate Tax Tax Income Tax 50 .31 .44 .70 .71 .48 2.01 4.75 8.92 9.09 7.63 13.29 .42 25.90 21.75 15.05 4.97 35.23 29.60 16.77 6.96 45.43 38.16 17.58 9.64 47.73 40.09 19.04 10.97 50.07 42.06 20.43 10.60 52.53 44.12 20.92 10.46 52.70 44.27 20.37 10.71 52.50 44.09 19.70 9.92 50.92 42.77 18.89 9.28 47.49 39.89 17.94 7.94 43.49 36.53 16.82 6.41 1BLM-A1aska OCS Office 2Royalties est-imated at 12.5 percent of total wellhead value 3Production tax equals 12 percent of the nonroyalty portion of total wellhead value 4Tax at 20 mills of petroleum property value 5corporate income tax at 9.4 percent of taxable petroleum income 11 Total 50 0 .31 .44 .70 .71 .48 2.01 4.75 8.92 30.43 67.67 88.56 110.81 117.83 123.16 128.03 128.05 126.21 121.86 113.26 103.25 is 325, which is 82 percent of the intermediate case. Peak revenues from this production are $128.1 million in 1996. The impacts from each of these scenarios will depend on the effect of their direct employment and the increased state expenditures which result from the increased revenues. Moderate Case Impacts This section will describe in detail the jmpacts of the moderate Beaufort development scenario. The impacts wilT be measured against the moderate Lower Cook base case. We will examine both the magnitudes and important structural changes associated with Beaufort development. THE STATE Employment Table 8 compares the growth of total employment in the base case to employment growth with Beaufort development. Total employment is 6,704 or 2 percent greater by 2000. The major impacts occur after the begin- ning of development in 1987. When Beaufort direct employment is at its peak in 1989, the employment impact is 6,649 or 2.5 percent greater. The level of impact remains relatively constant after production begins. The increases caused by state expenditures and the expansion of the economy just counteract the falling Beaufort employment. The growth rate is only slightly higher with Beaufort development; employment grows at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent compared to 2.95 percent in the base case. The other dimension of employment impact concerns the effect of Beaufort development on the structure of the economy. Table 9 compares the struc- ture of the economy in each case as described by the distribution of 12 [ [ c [ c [ [ 0 r I : u r L [J 0 D [ [ E L r , L L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r L r L [ c 0 [ [ [ [ TABLE 8. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO (thousands of employees) EM99 -ENDOGENOUS LCOOI"\N LCt·i. HFN LCI··i. BHLER 197D 1979 1.980 1981. 1982 1.'?84 19:35 :1.986 1 S:·8~:-· 1988 1.989 1.?90 1.97'1 :l rt '? ~) 1. ~·'7'4 :1. 99::.; :l '7'9/' 199E: 1. 7'99 2000 :1.90. 2271 195 + 5~~·9 203 ·) 6~~s:· ;! :l. f.>,) 8:;~~ 233. 4~~:1. 2:?>7~797 232.601. 22>-~l + !:it13 ~~~:SfJ. 54Sj 24-6 ~ :L~~j:J. 2 ~:_:; 4· • ~} 6 ~:5 263.69/ 2~7 :~. ().c~!-:!. ::~-/"7. ti27 2B·4 .124· 290. '1'3 · 2·:;-u. 064 ~~()l) (· f~t.) J 31~.'i.;~>7J 32{:. v SJOf; 3 ~) ~~· ~ ::.~ -4 t) ::5 -·~-·::; + :.":) 9 3 3t:)0. ~=>t~ 1 LCOOKM = base case 190.227 :L95.599 203.703 21/'.282 . 2:.~4. B07 239.683 235t24 236.085 ~~ .l~ 0 • t.) /' :~ 2-4i3 ~ 9:32 270 + 3--:f.:'j ~27f:~ ~ f~~):) 2(~.-!:},) C'J82 2Si() + !:;3\~> 2~:i7 o) 33s:r :~04. 664 ::=) 1 :3; + !5 ·:·:, :3 LCM.BFM = Beaufort development case LCM.BFM ER = impact of Beaufort development 13 o. o. 0.074 0. ~+09 1.376 3..887 2.638 1.5()2 2.1.2~~ I") •7C:••"") .... _.,L}.._·_ ~:; ~ 02[-~ 6.649 6,BJ.2 c ... ~ 7()3 ? v ~:.; () :.:: . f.>. 7~='5 6.704 Ei"ISPF' l978 1.9/'9 l 'li:l() l9t1:!. l982 L ~:}83 l9B4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 .l990 1991 199.2 1993 199·-l •oo=-.... , ..J 1996 1997 1999 1999 .zooo TABLE 9. IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO EMG'i'P ~-DEFJ:NITICJN EMNSF' -DEFINITION -DEF'INIT:CON LCOOI\M LCN.BFM LCCJCJI\t-1 LCt1. DFH 0.:555 0. ~~!55 :L97B 0 + -4.:1. 2 0.412 197H 0 + :~66 0. 3<!>6 :L lf"/9 o.:~<?B· 0.3?B 1.979 0.382 0. ~)EJ2 l 'i'BO 0.3'?9 () t :~79 l9f:l0 0.392 0 ~1(0'') l.9HJ. 0.3t'>~) 0 + ::)64 l.9B1 .. \.J, .... j_<J82 o.:34c'> ().:54!'.) :l9B2 0.40~~ 0.404 0.403 0.404 19H3 () • ~~ !'.5:1. 0. 2i49 :1.9m~ ().4 0.40:1. :1.984 0. ~)f.> 7 0. 36!7i l.984 0.406 0.406 19fJ~) 0. ~~~'iB 0 t :~~)8 1985 0.41.4 0.415 1986 0.347 0.346 1.986 0.422 ().424 19 cl'7 0.34 (). :5:~7 :l987 0. 4:~9 (). 4:~2 1.9Bf:l 0. :~3::S 0. :52 1i :1.9!3B 0. 4:56 0.44 :1.9B9 (). :~~?.'1 0. ~5~!2 :t.9H9 0. 44:5 0. 44~) :l9<i() <>. :~:u 0 • 3 :l.f:l :l 1?90 0.448 0. ·l~".i :l9'/1. 0 • :5:1. El 0. 3:1.6 199:1. 0.454 0. 4!:)(., i<;?<J2 0.312 o.:3:t 1<?9:~ 0.46:1. 0 • .116~~ :1.99::5: 0. ~50~5 (). ~~()2 :1.993 0.467 0.469 :1.994 0.298 ().296 1994 0. •l75 0.47/' :l '19~5 0. ~.~9 0.288 :L99!~i 0.•182 0.484 :1.996 o. 2Er3 0.2B 1996 0.439 0.491 199/' 0. 27.5 0.274 1997 0.496 0.4?8 199Ei 0.26B 0.267 :l 1?9El 0.503 0.505 :1.999 <> .. 261 0.2~"59 :l 1?99 0.51 0.512 2000 0 t 2~)4 0 '')"~'') • A' .. "-),.:... 20()() EMSPP = percent of total employment in transportation-communications-utilities, trade, finance, and service EMG9P = percent of total employment in government LCOOKM 0.234 0. 2:~6 0.2:~9 0.243 0.25:i. 0.246 0. =~3:-> 0.236 0. 2:~9 0. 2:')8 0. 2:·>8 0.237 0.236 0. :~34 0.235 0. 2:?5 0. 2:,::; 0. ~!:,~:; 0.236 0. 2:~6 0. 2:56 0. =~~56 0. ~!:~6 EMNSP = percent of total employment in mining, manufacturing, agriculture-forestry-fisheries, and construction LCOOKM = base case LCM.BFM = Beaufort development case ~:I l... -~--' LCM.BFM 0.234 0.236 0.239 0. 2i~4 0.251 0.2·17 0.234 0.236 0.24 0.239 0. ~!39 0.238 0.236 0.234 0.235 0.235 0.235 0. =~35 0.235 o. 23~) 0 ">'7•' t .:.. .. .J~I 0. 23<!> 0.236 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I '=' r~ L [ c [j c [ r: L [ [ employment between three sectors: 1) the basic sector: mining, manufactur- ing, agriculture-forestry-fisheries, construction; 2) the support sector: transportation-communications-public utilities, trade, finance, and service industries; 3) the government sector: military, federal, and state and local government employment. Beaufort OCS development causes no significant change in the structure of the economy, and ·serves to reinforce the trend twoard an increased importance of the support sector. Population The population impact is ·similar to the employment impact. By 2000 Alaska's population is 17,163 or 2.2 percent greater with Beaufort development. The growth rates differ only slightly between the Beau- fort and base cases. With Beaufort development, population grows at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent between 1978 and 2000, compared to 2.7 percent in the base case. The pattern of migration is similar to the base case; the most important difference occurs in the peak Beaufort emnlovment vears of 1988 and 1989 when net miaration is resoectivelv ·--. -.., ------.., . - --------- -..., . - 3,343 and 2,580 larger than in the base case. (See Table 10.) Personal Income Since wages and salaries are an important component of personal income, the impact of Beaufort development on personal income could be expected to be similar to the employment impact. Personal income is $662.8 million higher in 2000 because of Beaufort development. This is 2.1 percent higher than in the base case. Growth.during the projection period averages 15 :1.978 1.979 :1.9BO :1.9131 1982 :L 98~5 1.984 1985 :1.9B6 :L987 1988 1989 :l990 1.99:L :!.992 :L 99:·5 :1.9 174 199~) ;t<;~Jf.> :1.997 1 1r9B 197'9 200() TABLE 10. POPULATION IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Popul at.i on (thousands)_ I...CDOI\i~l LC!'i.BFM I...Crl. BFN .... EF< 4 ::?. :~ • "/ f.) ~:~ 4 ~: ::.~ + '7 (., f:l o. 433. o~:i6 4:3::~. O~.'ici o. 4l0. 4/'('/, 44.?. !::)~:~1 0. :1. () :1. 470.:1.44 4"/0., 70B () • ~5 6 ~'.'j 4?!3. /'~:i3 ~) () () + ·:~> :i' l> l + ~~· ~~:3 51.2.Bl6 5:I.~.'i.663 2.B47 :::i1:5. 129 ~:i:J. 7 + 279 4 .1!'5 520.43:1. 523.4:54 3.003 529.915 533.921. 4.006 544. :l94 5 ~1 (:\ • 3 :~> :1. ~5. :1. ::w 5 ~) S.,' + ~) \l' l} 5t:>D. 233 0.639 5'76.78!'5 ~i8B. 2Di> :1. :1. • ~'.i() :1. ~59~:). 007 f.,O~.'i. ~5B7 :1. ;! • ~5!:~ 60~5 ~ ~J4~:) 6:1.~->.::.~9·4 :1. ::) ~ ~5 ~:) cd 9. 34 632. '.?::)B :1. :·:) 4 ~} ~;> ~:~ <S3::) {, ·4lf.) (:·~ ·4 i' ~ ::.~ :;1 :·:~ :1. ~:) ~ r~ ~:s ·7 648. ()4 :1. 662..6:1.? :1.4.)5'71.> 664. a;~;7 6BO. o;:5<r 1 ~=.:; + ~! () ::?. l> ~~ ~~~ • ~3 :~ <f 69'31. 049 :1. ,'.J + :7 ~.:! 702. 4!:; '7:1.f:l. 71.>'7 :1.6. 3:1."/ "/' ::! ::! + :1. !=.) !:.) 7~~D. ~.'i39 :1.6.304 7 i~ Al + ~:j ~;! :~~ 76:1.. 0'74 :1.6.~5!':i2 766. ~'i:l~~ 7€l3.67f.> :1. '7 • :1. f.l 3 = base case LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM ER = Beaufort development case = impact of Beaufort development Net L. c o CJ 1\ rl 197t! -:~. ~363 :1. C'/79 2. 9,~,9 :L ~JBO /' ~ 07' 1. <?B :l 15.:!.~.~:1. 1 ('\l')~) • ., f.,o.:.. 20. !:'i69 1.o:t~n 5.329 :1. <;'134 -8.495 :l9i33 -·:1.. 042 1986 1.296 :1.</B? 6. :1.4:1. :L9BD 7 • :1.:1. 7 :1. <;'87' 8 + 7:1.8 :1. 99() 7.494 :l Sl!J l ~1.003 :1.992 4.392 :1.993 4.9'79 19('}4 ~). 409 1 (19::; 7. 46:3 :1. <-;s:-6 7. 90 :l :1.99'? lO.~H7 :1. '7'9(] 9. ~57::) :1.9'7'9 u .. s:· ~'j :woo :1.:1..202 ~ L. ..... J Migration (thousands} LCM. BFi"l u:r-1. rwrLEF~ "·2. B63 o. 2. 96~=> o. 7 .:1. I' 0.101 1~).581 0.46 2:1..906 1.337 6. :L8 0.851 ·-7.29'7 1 .• 199 -2.336 --1.294 2.20B 0.912 7.:1.'5 1..009 :1.0. 46 :~. 343 :1.1.298 2.58 8.2 0.706 4. :5El6 0. 3El4 4.o;:51 -0.341 5.077 0.09B ::).77fl 0.36f1 -· "•"r , .• I+ /.,h:'! 0. 27~! 9. ot.>::5 :1..:1.64 9. ~:)26 --0. 7<,'J:f. 9.296 -0.2'79 LL. 792 -0 .1~}8 1:1 .• 499 0.297 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ f' L r L [ c [J [ [ [ [ L 10.6 percent per year which is only slightly faster than the annual average_growth of 10.5 percent in the base case. The importance of the high wage Beaufort employment can be seen since personal income peaks in 1984 and 1989 when Beaufort emp 1 oyment peaks·. ·. The increase in personal income is an unbiased increase in welfare only if the increase is greater than the increase in population and prices. Table 11 compares the real per capita personal income between these cases. Real per capita income measures the average resident•s command over goods and services. The greatest difference between the two cases occurs in 1989 when real per capita incomes are almost $94 greater because of Beaufort development; this is also the year of peak Beaufort employment. After 1989 the difference declines as Beaufort employment becomes a less important part of total employment. By 2000 real per capita per- sonal income is only $13.40 greater than in the base case. The State Fiscal Position The development of the Beaufort OCS affects the state fiscal position in two ways. First, Beaufort development increases state revenues because of taxes and royalties earned from production on state lands. Secondly, Beaufort development will increase state expenditures. State expenditures will increase to maintain existing service levels or to expand service levels. Increases in population and prices lead to increased expendi- tures to maintain service levels. Increases in real per capita incomes lead to increases in expenditures to meet increased demands for services. 17 :L ~>78 :L979 :1.980 1981 :1.982 1983 :1.984 1985 1986 1987 :L9B8 19m, 1990 199:l 1992 :1.993 :1.994 199!:) 1 1196 :L9~J'7 199El 1999 2000 TABLE 11. INCOME IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Personal Income (millions of nominal dollars) LCDDI\11 LC:rl. BFM LCt·1 ~ BFM,_Ff=~ 3::wc; ~ 98 ~~!:i09. 98 o. 392S.' + ::s<J~!9 + o. 4!'5B~). 4 45B:?. ~) 2.098 !5:390. 94 54013.01 :1.7. 074 6457 + :l8 6~):1.9.2 62.02 6932. 5f.l 702~.'i. 66 93.07B 6676.57 67El'7 .16 :1.10.~)94." 7071.61 7129.43 57.828. 7a83.18 '7955.34 72.1.68· 8f:l06. 87 ~l96:l.29 1~:5·4. 4;!~~ 9B!:'i4. 96 iO:J.49.6 294. 60!) l09~.)2.2 :L:I.3n'i. 4 423.:1.48 1210:1 .• 2 1249:1 .• 3i3';'. 809 1310~'i. 7 1~5474. 7 36'7'.023 1428fL6 :l•1644 • :L =5 ~::; ~:5 I) ~5 ~=s ;;,\ :1.56/'~:'i.B 16052.:1. ~5l~;. ~)::)2 1. 722:L. 9 176~56.7 ·4 :·:) 4 t )' 4 f., 190:1.0.:1. 1. 948() + ::~ 4/'().()CJ4 21.020.3 2:1.621. f., 5 r,\ ~:~ • 3 ::~ t~ ;~33:1.2. :3 23B5~5. 2 ~'i40.9:1. 25804. 26326.El ~'i22. D2B 28610.2 29HH3 • ~i 5?B .2Ti' 3:1.f.>9~'5.4 ~523~.'i8 + :l 662. 77~:) = base case LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM ER = Beaufort development case = impact of Beaufort development 19'7Et :1. 9'7S> :L980 :1.9B1 19i:l2 198:?! 1984 1. 98:::; 198{:. 1. 987 :1. '7'BB :l989 1.990 :1. 9CJ:I. :1.992 :1. 99~5 :1.994 :1. 99~i 1. 'l96 :1.997 :1.990 :1.999 2000 ' CJ Real Per Capita Personal Income LCOCJI\t1 3633.32 ·:3764.:1.7 :~960. 57 421.2 + :1.2 4!520. 2 :l 4513.95 426~5. 4 430~). 94 442~5. 48 455"7. :37 47oo. n·i 4B3!3.3 4 11t>:~.c>6 ~303:2. O~i ~)137.~~1. !'5 :~~)() • 2 9 !:) ~5 -;· () ~ ~::; !5 ~) !:"J () ~5 • (;) ~'i64B. 64 ::5BO :1. • 2~:~ 59~)0. :1.9 .!d.07.16 6262.24 LCM.lWM 3b33.32 ~~'764 .17 39ld .6 4220.28 4544.9 454~5. 36 4~~03. 07 4::ua.<Ja 4450.14 46()0. ~~5 4777.6 4931. 8·4 ~'i033. 04 ~)091. 6~~ 5:J.B2 • 2~5 5291.43 541.2.:1.1? 5~)41.1.2 ~)[,95. 72 5024.:1.2 5964.5:1. ll1:1.9.ll3 6275. 6=5 ,.-----, ' ' "------------_J LCM.BFM_ER o. o. 1 .• 02/' 8.16 24.684 31.41 39.668 1.3.047 24.66 42.977 76.B~52 9~5. 539 69.379 ~58. 777 4~5.016 ·4:1. .145 4:1..641 -zt 1!:'" r.:-J') _., ,'j...Jt'-1.:..1 47.074 22.895 14.316 1.2.469 :1.~5.395 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I ' ._. [' L [ c 0 c [ c L J' L L State revenues from Beaufort development provide additional pressure to increase expenditures as they lead to increases in the general fund bal- ances. Beaufort development affects state expenditures in all of these ways. State Revenues Revenues increase because of additional petroleum revenues and because the increased economic activity increases the endogenously generated revenues such as income taxes. Table 12 illustrates the effect on revenues of Beaufort development. Total revenues are $302.9 million greater than in the base case by 2000. At this time, petroleum revenues account for 44 percent of this increase. At their peak in 1997, additional petroleum revenues account for 55.5 percent of the additional revenues. Prior to production in 1988, petroleum revenues are responsible for 32.3 percent of total additional revenues. Expenditures Table 13 shows the impact on state expenditures of Beaufort development. By 2000 state expenditures are 1.9 percent greater than the base case. The difference between the cases grows continually throughout the pro- jection period; the impact is reduced only in 1986 as a result of the drop in Beaufort employment in 1985. Prior to production in 1988, Beaufort expenditures are only .9 percent greater than in the base case. With Beaufort development, expenditures grow at an average annual rate of 9.48 percent which is only slightly greater than the 9.39 percent 19 1 177t~ 19"79 l980 :l 9f.l:L 1982 1983 1984 1985 1.986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1.992 1.993 1994 19n"i :L996 199/' 1998 1999 2000 N 0 TABLE 12. STATE REVENUE IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO General Fund Revenues (millions of nominal dollars) LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM_ER :1.01:~.44 1336.4 :1.579 + lJ5 1 90~~ + 16 =~27!:5 .1 2567.25 3:1.50.:1.8 3545.48 369~3 + 75 :~908. /'2 4U.8~08 4318~41 4:346./'6 4431. + 4;! 4600.3B 4/'93. ~~2 4936.55 5on5. 93 ~)268 + 06 · ~54El7 • 7:1. ~5728 +~59 !:5~;>94.3t 6280.96 1.013.44 :l.~~f36 + 4 1!58~5. :1. 1907.82 ~!282. 3J 2577.98 3:l63 + 38 355'7.7 3708.62 3927 + ~) 4:L~'i2.:L5 4:39:'5 ~ f.l:L 4483.14 4600.96 47B7.46 49~~6. 61 ~) :L ~59+ ~:;:3 ~:531.6.B 5!530. !12 5772 .-:3~5 6017 + 8~:) 62B7.37 6583.05 = base case o. !':iO • :3.645 4.661. 7'.211. :L0.728 1.3.2 12.867 1.9.:1.8 :~4.0/' 75. :·598 :L36 • ~:)83 169.~547 Hl7 .Of:l6 203.293 ~~::.~;! + 9fJ 240.f:l67 ;!f;2. 7f.>{> ;.~D4.621. ::.~f:l9. 4:~7 293.062 302.891. LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM ER = Beaufort development case = impact of Beaufort development 1978 :1.'979 :19BO 1.9():1. J9B2 J. 9!:1:3 :1. !)-'i:)4 :L 9El6 1.9H7 1. 9Elf:l J989 :1.990 :L~?91 1. 992 :1.993 :1. ~~94 :1.995 :1.996 199'7 1. 9 1ttl :L999 2()00 Total Petroleum Revenues (millions of nominal dollars) LCOOI·a·t LCM.BFM LCM.J::IFM_ER 450.1 450.1 o. 795.3 8·15 + 3 50. :1. OOt}. :1. 1004.:1. o. :L 2!:53. fJ 1.254.1.1 0.31 1.5()<;'. 6 1510.04 (). 44 :1.67!3.3 3.679. 0.7 217'B.2 217El.91 0.71 2472.6 247'3.42 0.82 2464.8 2467.8:5 :~. 03 2496.6 2~W2.8:l 6.2:L 251~)+6 2526.<!>1 11 .• O:L 25 :J.f:l • 6 25~)8. o;s :~9. 45 234B.9 2439.49 90.59 ;.~ ;! ~) ~3 • 1. 2372. !::i2 1 :t 9 + 4=~ 'l''ll::' A ~ .:_.A".. ... J I t \.,) 2385.79 :1.31.19 226a. 2406.92 :1.:~8 + 92 22:1.6.B 23c'l:~. ~) 146.7 21!:5.2.~:~ 230:~ + 44 :J.49.l·4 ::.~ :1. ::.~ '1 + ~) 228:1.. 91. :l.~~i4 + .tl:l ::.~11 ~5. ~) 2273. :~4 :i.57. 84 ::?.:I.OB • 4 :~261 • :~~) :r. ~'j::! + 85 2:1.:1.2. 3 2255.76 1.43.46 21.1.4.:L 2247.04 1.32.94 ----- .. rr-: 197B 1977' 19El0 1981 1982 1.983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990' 199 :L :L992 1993 1994 1995 Total ·c-::-1 r~n TABLE 13. STATE EXPENDITURE IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO State Expenditures {mi 11 ions of nominal dollars) LCCJCJI\M I...Cfvl. BFrl LC 11 • B F ~i...J:J~ I ... CDOI\M . 1311.1.~5 :I.:H:L.:t.3 o. :1. 9/'El 13~57'. :1.9 :1.4:1.4.71. 14:1.4.71. o. :1. 9'7~} :1.355.36 :1.557.72 :L~5c,o. 96 ... ,.. ,..) ,. .. ~) + .... ~.., :1.9BO :1.34!'5. 46 17(:,7.66 :L769.72 2. 0!:)2 :l9El :1. :1.301.1.7 20:1.7.26 2023.44 6.HH 1. CJtl;~ :1.41.2 + 08 2:~;~6. f.l6 2343.15 :J.6.2!:J8. 1. 9 EJ:'5 :l!):J.5.0f:l 2516. 2539.2:1. 23.209 1984 1606.ti9 26~34 + 26 2674.68 20.42 :1. 9El!:) :l61.6.:l9 2944.72 2n'i3.64 n. 9:1.9 :1. S' at, 16!53~1:5 3273. 4'7 3:285.:1.4 11..67:1. :L98? 1.6~:>:3 + S'~) 3628. 9~:) 3662.39 33. 46~~ :1.9HO :1.73:1.. 3998.7:1. 4062.04 63.331 :L 90!? :L766.48 43<~>5. 8tS 4464. :5:L 98 + 4!::i3 :1. 9<";-'() :J.7<?0.B 4690.56 479:3.9:1. :1.03 .34tl :1.99:1. 1. 80:1 .• 26 4996.24 510~"5.27 :1.09 ., o:.t7 :1.992 1796 ':33 53!56. 54 5472. '7 :L{6.:L~52 :1. <;' ~cy :;:; :1.794. 06 5766. ~:i7 5894.48 :l2'7.9:l4 :1.994 :1. '790. ::?./' 61s>6.n5 6~~45. 28 :1.4B. ~)27 :1. 9)-'!:'i 1794.66 _,! 2 z q_ -~ ---·-· ... 67::>0. 7 6869.02 :1.38 + :~:1.6 :1.99(-, :J.BOB.O:I. 1997 1998 1999 2000 N _. 731.9.4:1. 74f.~5.04 16~). 625 7975.18 8:L:57. 36 :L62.:L'76 8672.29 8831.93 15!J.64:l 9442 + 1.4 9617.09 l74.957 = base case LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM ER = Beaufort development case = impact of Beaufort dE~vel opment :1.99'7 :J.f.l2:1.. 4:1. :J.9S'fl :J.D3<?.0:1. :1.991" 1.8~:;:r.. :r. 7 2000 :1.86~).!53 -~ J Real Per Capita State Expenditures LCM.BFM 1:~57.19 1.355.36 :L348. ·.1381..08 :1.4:L0.7 1515.9~) 1c!l09. 88 1620.3 :L 652 + 2~) 1.6EJ6.47 1'723. 99 176:1..3.4 1798.B 1.8:L1.44 :1. 8()6. 6~) :1.8()4.02 1. 806. El :1. 1.804.9 :1.009.5 :LB27.57 18~t:5.57 Hl5:L. 67 1865.:1.5 ,. LCM.BFtLER o. o. 2. 5:58 -0.09:L -1.381 0.872 ~~. 292 4 + 1.13 -0.877 -7.481 -7. O:L4 -~). 343 8.004 10.1.87 1.0 + 32:1. 9.956 8.538 :1.0.236 1..4B9 6.1.61. 4. ~.)56 0.496 -0.377 growth rate in the base case. The level of service as measured by real per capita expenditures remains close to the base case level. Fund Balance Since Beaufort development increases both revenues and expenditures, its effect on the fund balances will depend on the relative increases on revenues and expenditures. Table 14 shows that the effect of Beaufort development is to increase the fund balance. By 2000 the fund balance is $1.5 billion or 16.2 percent greater than in the base case. The only difference in the state•s fiscal position is magnitude. The fund balance peaks in 1995, which is the same year it peaks in the base case. After 1995 the fund balance is dravm down. The larger fund balance means that interest from the fund will also be larger. In 2000 extra interest is $92.6 million greater than in the base case. This interest is a revenue which reduces the expenditure impact of Beaufort development. Table 15 explains the difference in the fund balances. The difference between revenues and expenditures remains larger in the Beaufort case throughout the period. The other measure of the state•s fiscal position is the ratio of state expenditures to personal income, which is not significantly different than in the base case. Beaufort development reinforces the trend toward a more normal relation between state govern- ment and the economy. 22 IJ n [ u [ [ c n I ' 6 fl f----: L c 0 D c [ f' b L ) , 197El :1. '?7<1 19BO l'i'BJ. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1.986 1987 1.988 1989 1990 1.991. 1992 i<i93 :Ls>94 1. 99~:5 1. 9<?6 :1.997 1.99B 1999 2000 r ..,_, ·'·..) TABLE 14. FUND BALANCE IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Total Fund Balances (millions of nominal dollars) J ... CDCJI"\1'1 I..:Crl. ElF rl J...C~1. DF~i .. _EF~ 62:'.'i + 748 6::.~:~;. '?41:1 o. ~12:3.148· f:~ ;"} ~=~ • :f. /.~ f.~ !'.'iO ~ :L:l-44.96 l.1..9iS • ~i2 !'.):1.. 5~'i9 :L 622. 9 :l :1.6/'7 ·l ~'if.l ~)-4 + 662 227::.~ .1:3 23~::9 + :l9 ~'i?.05:1. 2964.4:1. 301.9.23 !:'i4.8:l4 4085 + t}8 4:1.:~4.67 49.1.91 5504 + ~17 5549.49 44.922 {,f355 + ::~(~ 6905.74 ~)(). 4 6 :L 8:1.52.06 821.2.63 60. !)/'4 9:366 + ~)7 94~54 + 8:3 6tl. 2~'i4 10·474. 4 10567. 92.64(] 11:502.8 1:1.452.8 150.0:1.2 1:L9~B. 121'71. ;?,37. 988 1.2468.9 :1. 2fJ()9. ~:5 l~ () ~ () ·? :J.2B96. n :1. 334<;'. 7 4 !) ::.~ + 9 ~':) ·4 1:~:1.26.,2 :1.370:1. + 8 ~57 !:5 ~ C-' 4C~ :L31.3:LJ. 13f3:~2. 2 6ii'9. 03~) :1.2D7'4. 9 :1.:~742. 3 04?.434 :1.2394.8 :L :~ ~-5 ~"J () + <J<)~'j. :lf:l4 :l.:l.!:'i9B.4 :J.274f:~. f:l l:l.~.'i0.46 :1.0498.5 11El09.7 ;l 3 :I.:L • :1. !'."i 90!'56. 37 l0525.4 :1.468. S'? = base case LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM ER = Beaufort development case = impact of Beaufort development :i.e,'/[! 19?9 :1. <?D() :1.90:1. :J.?D2 19B::> J.9D4 :1.9B6 .i. 9::;? :J.9an :J. 1?D9 :1.990 :1. 9 7' :!. .. 99? 1 ';:,' '? E: :1. 9'7'!? 2000 Total Interest from the Fund (millions of nominal dollars) LCOOKM LCM.BFM LCM.BFM_ER 46. 95~l 46 + 9!:54 o. 44.047 44.047 o. ~)~3 ~ ~~32 f.d .• B94 3.562 O:J..4B4 05.:1.56 3. 6) 72 J.:L~5.642 119.531 3.889 1.i~d. .868 165+9~~!:) 4.057 2J.J..:J.92 21.~5.0<;'1 3.9 . 2<?0. Ti'B 294.2tn 3. 50 c) :~91. :~3'} 394. ~.546 :1.20'7 4!:17. J.!5~} 490. /'~B 3.595 !'579. :1.79 5B:~. 4i3 :1. 4.302 665. 4~'j'j' 670.297 4 + i3 ... -; 744.2/' 750.833 6 + ~)63 E~():3 ~ 4~59 ELl 4 • 0~}3 10.623 04tl. /2 86!'5. 564 :1.6.fl44 BD"'.:3G 91 :l. 4~Sf.l 24 ~ 0~)8 <;>:tEl~ ·49::! 9::-;o. !:'i2 :~2. 02B 9 :·~~ ~:5 + ~~) tJ ·4 97f.l. 375 40 + 6~,~~ 9 :·:) "/' ~ ~:.~ ;'I /~ 9fl{~ + 679 4S'. 40~5 92:1. ~ 6 ·:,~.,. 9B :1 .• ~'i6 J. ~=i9.D7:1. OG/'. f"?t~ 9!'.'iB. 069 ;;-o-> ~~9.cf f:l33. U. 7. <;>:L4.36 8J..243 n'i7. 224 849.787 9:?. .. 5C,il 1978 ~979 1980 198:1. 19fl2 :1983 1984 1985 1986 1-987 1988 1989 1990 :1.991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 :1.998 1999 2000 -.. ·--.. -- LCOOKM LCM.BFM TABLE 15. FISCAL POSITION IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO General Fund Revenues Minus General Fund Expenditures (millions of nominal dollars} LCOOKM LCM.DFM h-44. B52 --44. B!52 :t 97.4 24'7.4 ~~21.B:I.2· :~2~'). ~)'7 J 477.954 4iH. 057 649.2:19 65:1.~617 692.28 690 + 0~~4 1:1.21.07 "11:1.5.44 1419.1 14:1.4.83 1350.71 :1 :5!56 + 25 1296.79 :1. :~06. S' 1214.52 1222.2 1107.79 :1:1.32.19 828.392 88!5. 7!'S6 630.275 7 :lf:l + 25 535.874 637.973 427.902 ~5-40 + 746 229 + :167 :~!52~ OB2 6.957 :1.30.:~44 -2~58 + 254 --i39. 855 -500.094 -352.344 -796.398 -c!,41. :t J? -:1.099.86 h-939. HI -1442. 1A -:1284.3 . -----------· -----·--·-·--------- = base case = Beaufort development case ... :1.978 :1.979 1980 1. 98 :L 1982 :1.983 1984 1985 1.986 1987 :L 988 1989 1990 199:1. 199~~ :L 9 <jl ~? 1994 :1.995 19<?6 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total State Expenditures as a Percentage of Personal Income LCOOKM LCM.BFM 0.302 0.302 0.29 0.29 0.274 0 + 275· 0.264 0.264 0.252 0.25 0.27 0.269 0.304 0.302 0.301 0.301 0.297 0.296 0.297 0.292 0.295 0.289 0.293" 0.287 0.291 0.288 0.29 0.288 0.284 0.283 0.278 0.270 0.273 ().272 o.:M7 0 + ~!66 0.262 0.26 0. =~57 ()+~!57 0.253 o.:~53 0.248 ().248 0.244 0.243 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r-. I - ~ [ [ [ [ L L [ REGIONAL EFFECTS OF BEAUFORT DEVELOPMENT Tables 16 through 19 describe the impact of Beaufort OCS development on population and employment in the North Slope, Southcentral, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. Anchorage, North Slope, and Fairbanks are affected directly by Beaufort development. OCS development in the Beaufort impacts the regional economies by increasing exogenous employment, personal income, and state expenditures. Each region will be influenced differently by these growth factors. The location of exogenous employ- ment, distribution of state expenditures, the size of the local economies, and the region's interaction with other regions will determine the regional impact. OCS development will not change the process of the distribution of growth~ and the regional impacts will be determined by them. North Slope Region The population and employment impacts on the North Slope do not show a smooth increase throughout the projection period as at the state level. This is because of the enclave nature of Beaufort development. Enclave development limits the interaction with the local economy and the secon- dary effects of development. Because of this, direct employment in- creases in the Beaufort are responsible for the major impacts. The population and employment impact peak in 1989, the year of peak Beaufort employment. Beaufort employment accounts for approximately 75 percent of both the employment and the population impact. By 2000 the level of Beaufort employment has fallen to 362 which accounts for 65.8 percent of the total employment impact and 56.7 percent of the population impact. :L 1/?B :1.979 :I.S.'El() :L 9B:I. 1982 1983 1984 :l985 1986 1S1 87 1988 1989 1990 1991. 1992 1993 1994 1995 :1.996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE 16. NORTH SLOPE IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Population (thousands). r.:r~Lrl F~r~ 1... n rl RRLM RRLBM RRLBM ER 7. l ~.'i~'i /'. :i.~)!) 7.::)()1 7.:301. 7 + ~5<~)8 ·;;. ~)69 ''"' I' .. I'''M I + ,:).:J i:l /'.6El2 0.023 B. 4~59 7. 85:3 8.371 7.176 7.749 7.359 7.601 7 + i~!:i3 7.964 7 ~ ~579 8. ~536 7. t)!:)7 f~ + f.J;! 7.7:1.7 9. 06~5 7. 7<!,3 B./'65 7.D81 8. B7:~ 7.966 8./'!:!9 7.963 8.'?86 7.972 8.803 8.062 f:1.823 f:l. :1.4 8.062 8.236 8.902 n.:u fJ.946 8.402 ~>.035 B. ~"i34 9.173 = base case = Beaufort case = Beaufort impact F\ Fi: 1... B n .... C r:: o. o. 0.002 0. 12!3 0.436 0.5:1.0 0. !57:5 0 ~ 24~~ o.~H1. 0 ~ '7~)7 •I ~ 16~) .I. 1.:346 1.002 0. 9(?2 0. B;.~3 O~f.l:~·4 0.832 0.76:1. () ~ '72::~ 0.666 0.636 0.633 0 .• 638 :l97D :f. ~>7~> :1. 9tl() :1.7'!3:1. :I. 9f!2 :1.903 :1. 9(l4 :l9El;::; :1. 98i!l l9f.l7 :1.988 :1.9B9 :1.990 :1. 97' :1. :1. 1.~'92 :1. 99 ::; :1.9(;>4 :1. 9'/:5 :1. 7"~\;,'() :1. 9'?::' :1.99G :1. ~)9•:_:,1 2()00 Employment (thousands) r~ F~ L l·i F~l:;:t..rm Fml...f.li'LEF\ 4. 46:~ 4.463 o. 4. !:58:l 4.581 o. 4.828 4.829 0.002 4.84 4.975 0.134 r::--vr.:-l \..} •• -~~}(:> 5.826 0.469 5.099 5.648 0.549 4. 20:1. 4.794 0.593 ,:l y :25 4.486 0.235 4.253 4.763 0.51. ·4. :~f.> ~3 5.128 ().765 4.45 5.644 1.194 4.505 5.891 1..386 ,~~ "!34=-~ ~). 552 1.01 4.6:1.~5 5.599 0. 98<!1 4+t.)l}:1 5. 4!':i3 ().'?9 4.6:1.9 5.401. 0./'82 4. 60~5 ~.'i. ~586 0. 78~5 4.673 5. ~~7 4 0.70:L •1 + 746 ~5.~S9<,:.; 0.652 4.G4:L ~'j. 428 0.58'7 4.?26 !'5.4'7<!1 0~55 !:s '" ()::) r::· 1::0"7 ... , ,,J + .... 1, I 0.547 !'.'i. :1. 4!:'i 5.(.,<;'!) 0. 5~) [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I - L> ~ L [ c D E [ [ L [ Southcentral Region Southcentral has the smallest percentage impact of any of the four regions examined. The impacts are totally indirect since no Beaufort activity takes place· in this region. By 2000 population is 1.6 percent higher and employment is 1.1 percent higher than the base case because of Beau- fort development. The growth rates have increased slightly from 1.61 per- cent to 1.68 percent per year for population and from 2.49 percent to 2.54 percent per year for employment. Anchorage Region Anchorage has served as a headquarters for petroleum and petroleum support firms. Because of this past relation; it is assumed that increased petro- leum activity will lead to increased mining headquarters employment in Anchorage. Anchorage growth will also be influenced by the administra- tive and distributive role it fills for the state. Total employment in Anchorage is 3,489 greater than in the base case by 2000; this is a 2.0 percent increase. Population is 9,792 or 2.4 percent greater by 2000 because of Beaufort development by 2000. Development of the Beaufort OCS increases the growth rate of employment from 3.53 percent in the base case to 3.63 percent per year and of population from 3.38 percent to 3.49 percent per year. By 2000 over one-half of the statewide population and employment impacts occur in Anchorage. Fairbanks Region The construction employment used for Beaufort development is assumed to have headquarters in Fairbanks; this provides a direct link between the 27 :1.<178 1.979 l<rBO 198:1. :1.9El2 J c;s:~ 1.984 1985 1986 l987 :1.9B8 1989 :1.990 :L 991 :1.992 :1. ~..,9~:} :1. !"JCl4 1995 1996 1997 1998 :1.999 2000 N co TABLE 17. SOUTHCENTRAL. IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Population (thousands) r~HL.M 5a. :36:'.'i :39 t 406 6:1..'1:3~)' 64.443 <:!,5. 387 64 + 4~)~) t;::'i.84 66.304 66.818 6"7.521. 68.722 70. 09:~i 71. ~529 7:1.. :1.49 72.:1.16 73. :1.17 n'i.4B5 76.772 78.236 79. ~"594 8:t. 2~-:;5 82.942 5fL 3f.>:~i ~'j9. 406 6:1..';'49 64.462 64. ::)7 :L 66.077 66. ~i7 67.06 67.73 69.:1.11 70.679 72 + 4:39 72. :l04 "73.144 74.:1./'!'.) 7:'5.359 '76.67 78.:1.42 79.564 f.l(). 9:1.:1. 82.541 84.244 RRLM RRLBM RRLBM ER = base case = Beaufort case = Beaufort impact F~F~I...BM .... EI:;: o. o. o.o:L4 o.O:l9 (). 0!'52 (). :1.:1.6 0.265 0.242 (). 20'? 0.3(;19 0. ~)E) .if (). 9:1. :1 .• 028 :1.. 059 :I..OB7 :1..1.84 :1.. 36'? 1..32B :1. + 3:1.7 :L. 2Bf.> :1..302 197f:l 1.979 :1.9BO 1. 90:1. :1.9B2 :L s> s~:~ :1.'184 :1.9t~~) J 1/86 1.987 J.98U :1.989 19~:>() :L 7'9 :1. 1. 99 ;~ :1. 99::s :1.1?94 :1. 99~) 1. 9'?6 1.99B 1.999 :woo Employment (thousands) r~I:;:LM I~F~LDM 22. ~564 ·22.364 23.281 23.20:1. 24.97 ~~4. 979 2cS. B78 26.893 27.969 28.01.1. 27.226 27.3 27.58 27.724 27.861 27. 9/'5 28 t ~!;!·4 :~a. 3;~5 28.798 28.B83 29. ~592 29. 79~5 ~50. :5 30.807 :H .376 :H.B21. 3:L.34B 3:1 .• 777 3:1..91.6 :~2. 343 ··• '1 r:!• '") '~)~t ... J,:.. 32.936 ~53. :I.B3 33.595 33. 9:,:3 34. :r75 34 .-?o::) 35.246 :s ~5 • 6 :1. /' :~c,. or:J3 36. 4~"-5:1. 36.866 ~~7. 438 37. s:~B ~)!3. 429 :58. !:13:"3 ---··-- r----l L" ·--....J RRLBM_ER o. o. 0.009 o.o:r.~5 0.042 0.074 . 0.144 o.:L15 0.101 0.085 0.2()1 0.307 0.445 () t Al29 0.427 0.4:1.6 0.4:1.2· 0. 44~5 0.54 0.466 (). 43~i 0.401 0.404 1 S.'7B :1.9/'9 1.9!30 198:1. 1.982 :1.9B:~ 1984 1.985 198<.S 1987 1.988 1989 1990 1991. 1992 1.993 1994 1995 1.996 :1.99/' 1.998 1.999 2000 N 1.0 TABLE 18. ANCHORAGE IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Population (thousands) rmLM 1=~r~r...D~1 F( F~ 1 ... D i'i ... E 1:~ :1.93.217 1.9:5.217 :1. 9B • 97e, :1. 9B. 976 207.2:1.8 207. 2f.>~.) 219.408 219. 7:m 234. 92!5 2:36.00 244.1.23 245.794 244.244 246.577 248.686 250.291 255.043 257.229 263.3.:!,4 26<~>.412 272.233 277.288 202.0'73 28!3. Bo:; 291.515 298 + ~i42 27'9. 831 307.21.3 30fJ.244 31!5.683 :517.262 324.947 326.513 334 • .:!,97 337.173 345.678 348.265 357.544 360.901 370.002 37~5. ~i59 3B2.7~i1 387.'732 397 d :1.!:) 40:1 .• 184 4:1,0.9'76 . ---·-------·· RRLM RRLBM RRLBM ER = base case = Beaufort case = Beaufort impact o. o. 0.04'1 0.33 :1. .15!'5 :1 .• 6 71. ~~. 32):3 1 .• 605 2 .:l86 ~~ + 049 ~i. O:':i!) 6. 7:3 7.027 7.382 7.43? 7 + 68!::i 8 .1El4 B. 50~) 9. 27<J 9.:LO:I. 9.192 9.3!34 9.792 1978 :1.979 :l.'ltW :1.9f:l:l. :1.982 :l <JB3 :1. 9i34 :1. <?85 :1.986 :J.<i07 :1.9B8 1.989 1990 1:991. :1.992 :l <?93 :1.994 :1. 99~5 :1.996 :1.·:;>'?7 .!.?·=;.![) :1. '7'99 Employment {thousands) f::RLN f<RLDM tl8.516 88.516 <?3 .• 381 91.38:L 9~) + 656 95 •. 691 1.02.231 102.426 11.0.059 110.71.8 113.358 114.271 LL :1.. 847 113.14 :L:L3.1.~j6 :L13.886 1:1.5.874 11.6.9 1.20. 335 121.759 1. 25 + 097 127.684 1.30.418 133.EJ94 1 ::)5. 22 138.757 1.3B.B18 142.391 :L42.c,s4 146.083 1.46. 949 15(). 364 :1.5:1 .• :~96 154.975 :L~'56.Bl 160.4,.S4 162.456 16>6.~)44 1. 69. :L ~55 172.87!? :l'7:'L613 179.2f:l3 J.B::'l.099 186.7'74 :L89.965 193.8:1A F\RLBN •• EF~ o. o. 0.035 0. 194 0.659 0.913 1..293 0.73 1.027 1.424 2.587 3.476 3.537 3.573 3.4 3.4:L6 :~+58 3.654 4 + 088 . 3. 7•l4 3.67 3.675 3.849 -·-- :r. <;·;s JS>79 :1.?80 :l 9B1 1. 7'82 :1.?83 1. 9!:14 :L9B5 198<':) 19!37 :l9B8 1989 1990 :L99:L 1992 :1.993 1994 :1. 9(i)!5 1996 :L 99/' 1.998 1.999 2000 w 0 RRLM RRLBM RRLBM ER TABLE 19. FAIRBANKS IMPACT BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO Population (thousandst F~F::LN F:F:LB~·i r:: r:: 1... B N .... E r:: 5'7.[:126 !57. G26 o. 60.:1.9 60 • :1. r; o. 63.:l/'2 6:3. :1. tl7 0. 0:1.4 68 + 42!5 68.49? 0.072 '78.464 78.7:l:l. 0.24/' El:~. 374 El2. 7l1:l 0.407 7B.:I. 78. '747 O.cS47 79.734 DO.:LB'7 0.453 82. :L/.>2 82.799 0. 6:~7 8~). 564 06. ·1~.)3 0.89 89. 07=5 90.!:576 1. !50:) 92.777 94. 79!5 2.. 0:1. G 96 .:l9~5 98+342 ~.~ + :l·4 <f 9(J. 049 101.383 ~! ~ 32)·4 :1.01.95(, :1.04. :~Ol1 ,.... •. , r.:-'") ,.·:. + ~)..J~ :1.04.97:1. :1.07.44 ~~ •. 4~7 :1.08.:1.:1.4 :1.:1. 0 • T'i' 2 ,.) ·· 1::-r\ .... + (.),.)0 :1. ll • ~]!52 :1.1. 4. ~)2!'5 ;,~ + -;J '7 ~3 u.!'5. 4n5 :1. :l 8 • ~:i 4 :1. 3. 04~) 1.19./'5:1. :1.22. n:i6 ~5. OO!:'i :l23.894 :L26.9~) 3.056 128.!:i97 131.7:3'1 :5.:1.42 133.:305 :l.~:~l>.62:1. ~5.3:1.6 -·-------···· = base case = Beaufort case = Beaufort impact Employment (thousands) :1.97!:1 1.979 :1.980 :1.981 1. 7'El2 :1.'7'04 :1.9B5 :L986 :l987 1.9138 :L989 :L990 1. 991. :1.992 :1. ~~93 :1.994 :LSJS>~) :r. 996 :1.997 :1.9?0 :1.9'7''7' ::.~ () () 0 RF~U1 3:1..292 32.1.49 :3:~. 432 36. ~)82 42.669 43.874 :~9. 39 39. f.>07 40. 4:~5 41..922 4~~. 496 4~5. 255 46.819 47 + 1'/97 49. 2~59 !50. ~)9 ~)2. 002 53. 76~~ ~)~). ~)7 :1. ~) /'. /'2)<5 ::'i 9 • n1:1. (,,2. 2 64. ~.)98 ------------ RF~Lnt·i 31.292 32.:1.49 33.444 36.629 42 • El29 44.:1.24 39.772 39. f:l35 40. 7~l4 42.341 44.264 . 46. ~~97 47.91.4 49 .:1. ~~ 50.~H6 51 .• 68~5 5~5. 1. ~)~) !:)4. 946 56. 90~i 5f.l. 9~)7 c>0.9B:l 6~5. 40=5 65.873 ·-------· ---· Fo:F\LIH·LER o. o. 0.012 0.047 0.16 0.25 (). 382 0.228 0.309 0.419 0.768 1 .• 042 1.095 1.122 1.077 1.093 1. • 1. 53 :L. :1.83 1. • :~34 1..221 1 ,., ..... 1:203 1.. ;!75 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I ' - I= L [ c c [ [ [ Fairbanks economy and Beaufort development. Fairbanks also grows as a result of its regional center role. Employment is 1,275 greater in 2000 because of Beaufort development; this is 2.0 percent greater than in the base case. Beaufort development does not prevent the post-ALCAN decrease in employment in 1984. Population also experiences impacts which gener- ally rise throughout the period. Population is 3,316 or 2~5 percent larger in 2000 because of Beaufort development. The Impact of Alternate Beaufort Scenarios To account for the uncertainty involved in OCS development, three alter- native Beaufort scenarios were developed. These scenarios were discussed above. This section will report on the impacts of these scenarios on the Alaskan economy. The impacts will be discussed in terms of four dimen- sions: population, employment, state expenditures, and the fund balance. The major difference between the impacts is one of magnitude; the other dimensions of impact are similar. (Details of these can be found in Appendix A.) Tables 20 through 23 describe each of these major dimensions. POPULATION Population in the high development scenario is 24,093 greater than the base case in 2000; this is a 3.1 percent increase over the base. In the low development scenario, population in 2000 is only 13,658 or 1.8 percent greater than the base case by 2000. Year 2000 population impact in the high case is 40.0 percent greater than in the moderate case, while the low case is 20.4 percent less than the moderate case. Although there is 31 1978 1979 1980 ). 9!11 1982 1983 1984 19G5 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1.99~) 1.994 :L 99~) :l996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE 20. POPULATION IMPACTS BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE AND BEAUFORT LOW -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO (thousands) LCOOKi'1 LCN~ l:WH LCN. BFI·LER LCN.BFL 4::!2.768 -4.::!2. :768 o. 422.768 433.056 4:~:~ + 056 (). 433. O~'i..S 447.479 447.58:1. 0.101 447.;581 470. 1A4 470.708 0.5.65 470.70£.1 498i753 500.676 1. 92:~ ~)00.676 512.016 515.663 ~:!vB47 51~)+ 663 513.129 5:i.7.279 .t;. + 15 517.279 52().431 52:~+ 43-4 3~003 523 + -4:-')4 5;~9. s>:J.s 534. :H4 4. 397' 533. !5?6 544.194 550.i22 5.928 548.203 559. ~=;9.<f 569.:1.74 9. 5(l 56~)+ (,,.4:5 57c>. 785 ~)90. ()to1·'1~ :t 3 • .::.~64 5f.l4 .1.>•14 593.007 608.293 15. ~!8~) c>01. 694 60!). 943 623.68 :1.7.?37 6>15. 99B 619.~54 638.147 18.806 629.617 63:~ + 416 6>~)3. 924 20.!509 644.486 648.041 669.7()9 2:1. .. 668 6~5S>. ~.:;7~! 664 + 8~)7 6(1;7 + 204 22 +~~if/' 676.794 682.329 704. 21.671 694.249 702..45 --I. l"'.l'"t.ol /.·!'+. ~Jt) J. ,., .r .1 .. 7 •f .,· •• L t Cl ,:> .1. ..,., A c~o-J / .r .... , t ... 1 ., 1 722.155 744.:L56 22.001 734.662 744.522 767.579 23.05"7 757.568 766.513 790.606 24 + 09:~ 78().171 LCOOKM = base case LCM.BFH = Beaufort high case LCM.BFH ER = Beaufort high impacts LCM.BFL = Beaufort low case LCM.BFL ER = Beaufort low impacts 32 LCM.BFL-ER o. o. o.:LO~ 0.565 1.923 2.B47 4.1.5 3.003 3. 6c>1 4.01 6.049 7.859 8.687 1.0.054 10.277 11.07 1 :L. ~:i3:1. LL. 937 11.92 12.14C;; ·12.~i07 1:5.046 13.658 c c [j n ·o [ [ [J n ~ p LJ c 0 D c [ c [ I: L~ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c r I ' bjj E c c D b [ c [ c [ a large difference in the low and high case population impacts, the growth rates differ only slightly, 2.89 percent per year in the high case compared to 2.82 percent per year in the low case. EMPLOYMENT The employment impact is similar to the population impact. Employment in the high scenario case is 9,787, or 2.7 percent, greater by 2000 than in the base case. By 2000 employment is only 1.5 percent greater with the low Beaufort development scenario than in the base case. The high case employment impact is 46 percent greater than the moderate case, while the low case is 17.2 percent less. As in population, the growth rates diffei only slightly, being 3.1 percent per year in the high case and 3.0 percent per year in the low. EXPENDITURES In both the high and low scenarios, state expenditures exhibit the same pattern as in the moderate case. By 2000 expenditures are $284.1 million greater in the high case than in the base. This compares to a $146.9 mil- lion difference in the low scenario. This expenditure impact is 62.4 per- cent greater than the moderate case for the high scenario and 83.9 percent of the moderate case for the low. FUND BALANCE The impact on the fund balance of these scenarios depends on the relative difference between revenues and expenditures. The revenues in the higher 33 1.970 :1.979 1980 l98:l 1982 1983 1984 198!5 1986 1987 1988 19(:19 :1.990 :1.991 1992 :!.993 l994 :1. 99~) 1.996 J 9<?/' i99f:i 19?9 20()() TABLE 21. EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK IWLET MODERATE AND BEAUFORT LOW -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO (thousands) LCOOI\r'l LCM.BFH LCM.BFH-EH LCI·t. DFL 190.227 190.227 o. 190. 22"7 195.599 19~i.599 o. l9!:5 + 599 20~5.629 203.703 0.074 203 + "703 216.8"72 21/'.282 0.409 21.7 + 2E12 2~~:~ + 4:1:1. 2~54 + 807 1. • 3? c'1 2:H.80"7 237.797 239.683 1.8B7 2~~9 + 683 2~52. 60:!. ;!3~5 + 2·4 2.638 2:35.24 234 +!:iS:~ 236.085 1.502 236. 08~.'j 23t~. ~:jl.}<)-' 240.96:?i 2 + 41:-) 240.4:1.7 246. :!.5:1. 249.419 3.269 240.13 ~~~j4. :~(~)~:; ::! ~=j '7' • 9 2 ;,~ 5 + ~5~)(.j 2~'i7 + 608 26~) + C)97 27 :L + ~:}72 ?.6n5 ;!l>7 + ~>i:~ 2:?::.:. 04:1. 2B0.463 B • 42~~ 276.53f:l 277 + f.l27 '1 C) ~7 ~,~ C\ ':l .... \.,,1 ~ •... J 'l .. _ 9. !'56-4 ::~8~} + 2B4. 12·<"1· ::.:<;>~5 + /' 6 9.636 2f.ll,:>.OB4 :;~<?C• + 9~) 30:1. '"), I • ··~..:-tJ 10. 29~) 296.212 29fJ. Oc14 30G .l;Oa 10.5-44 ~~ 0 ~) + :3 ri' ::.~ 306+G6:1. 31.7.274 l0.4J.3 31.2. H19 3:1.;:'i.SJ7:1. ~52:5 + 398 0 .IJ.'")"7 / . . ~~.:.; 32:l.02:2 326.90B :~3~:-;. ~3(1·4 s. s>r:.:·:> 3:~l t 9()9 33"7 + 246 3·4t)~].6\ji t~. s:·~~:~ ~)·4.~~ v ::5:~ j_ 3-4S' + :)c;·3 3~iB. 737 9.344 ~554. C:\8 J. 360.981 :>70. /'i)8 9.7G? 366.534 LCOOKM :: base case LCM.BFH :: Beaufort high case LCM.BFH ER :: Beaufort high impacts LCM.BFL :: Beaufort low case LCM.BFL ER :: Beaufort low impacts 34 LCM.BFL-ER o. o. 0.074 0.409 :L + ~576 1 .• 887 "") I_.,,, .:.. • o .. ')o 1.502 :1..868 1.979 :L2l~3 4.283 4.498 5 + 1. 73 4.96 5 + 2ti2 t:"j~3:?t:: ~j. 3:~ s;· 5. ()~=) 1. c:--..Jt 5.01-"~5 5.288 r::-r~·.::--;r ..J + ...J -.J..J D n D c [j c I c D n I i bd H LJ D 0 D c D c [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 1.978 [ 1979 1980 1981 [ 1. 7'82 198:~ 1.984 1985 r 1986 I ' 1987 bj 1.988 [J 1989 L 1990 :1.991 [ 1992 1993 1994 c 1995 1996 1997 ., nr\M J.770• u 1999 .2000 c [ [ [ L [ LCOOKM LCM.BFH TABLE 22. STATE EXPENDITURE IMPACTS BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE AND BEAUFORT LOW -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO (millions of nominal dollars) LCOOI<t-1 131.1.1.3 1414.71 1557.72 176/'.66 2017.26 2326.86 2516. 2654.26 2944.72 3273.47 3628.93 3998.71 4365.86 4690. t)6 4996.24 5356.54 5766.57 6196.75 67~~(). 7 7319.41 ~M-,L":" •I M /7/...J+.J.O 8672.29 9442.14 LCM.BFH 1311.13 1414.71 1560.96 1769.72 2023.44 2343.15 2539.21 2674.68 2953.64 3288.94 3669.96 4069.03 4501.82 4841.14 5177.83 5557.69 5993.31 6450 + 9:~ 6958.32 7540.15 0'")"•1 AO o.·:..vJ. + .... ,w 8921.4 9726.25 = base case = Beaufort high case LCM.BnLER 0+ . o. 3.25 2.052 6.181 16.288 23.209 2(). 4::~ 8.919 15.474 41 .• 026 70.322 135.957 1.50.582 181.59 201.145 226.742 254.172 227. (S2!::; 220. 7:~8 22l>. ::}05 249.1.09 284.109 LCM.BFL 1311.:1.3 141.4v71 1560.96 1769.72 2023.44 2343.15 2539.21 267·<l.c>B 295~5. 54 3281.51 :~650. 54 40:~6.71 4430.35 4762.54 5084.51 54~"54. 95 5875.6>7 631.9.69 6840.27 7 4-30. 8B 0"C)"}" ""~ ILIV l '-1 + v .. J 8802.91 95~l9. 04 LCM.BFH ER = Beaufort high impacts LCM.BFL = Beaufort low case LCM.BFL ER = Beaufort low impacts 35 LCU.BFL-ER o •. o. 3.25 2.052 6.181 16.288 . 23.209 20t42 8 •. 81.4 8.039 21.608 38.()05 64.492 71.977 88.273 98.402 109.1.02 122.937 . 109.574 111.465 1 1 7 o-r. 7 ....... , . """'"'', 130.61.7 146.898 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 19B6 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ·1995 1996 1997 199B 1000 ... , , , 2000 TABLE 23. FUND BALANCE IMPACTS BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE AND BEAUFORT LOW -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO (millions of nominal dollars) LCOOKM -LCM.BFH LCM.BFH-ER LCM. :ElFL 625.748 625.748 o. 625.748 823.148 87~5 + :1.48 !:-iO. 873.148 1144. 9_6 119<S.52 51.5t"'i9 1196.!'52 1.622.91 1677.58 54.662 1677.58 2272.13 2329.19 57. ()6 :1. 2329.19 2964.41 3019.23 54.8:1.4 30:1.9 + 23 40fl5.48 4134.67 49.191 41:~4. 67' 5504.57 5549. 4S.' 44.922 5549.15 685~3 .28 6907.08 51.801 6903. 9!:) 8152.06 82j,{)t 09 64.027 8209.82 9366.57 ·9~t40 + 96 7·4. 39:r. 9432.84 10474.4 106~)(). 5 176.168 10~)65.2 11302.8 11596.9 294.16 11441.9 :1.19:~3. 12387.8 454.777 1.2142.4 12468.9 1.3090.5 621.613 127c>6.3 12896.8 136~19. 9 80~:). 055 :1.3290.4 13:l26.2 141.22 + 2 99~'j. 988 l:~C:.22. 1313:-l .1. 14329.6 1196.43 13735.5 12~l94.9 14331.9 1437. 07' 13620. l.2394.8 14098.9 1704.08 13249.7 11598.4 13~377. 9 1979.5:1. 12~i86.7 10498~~~ 12742~2 2243.64 11617.4 9056.37 11548.1 2491.7 10300.5 LCOOKM = base case LCM.BFH = Beaufort high case LCM.BFH ER = Beaufort high impacts LCM.BFL = Beaufort low case LCM.BFL ER = Beaufort low impacts 36 LCM.BFL-ER o. 50. 51.559 54.662 57 .06"1 54.814 49.1 <J :1. 4&1. 582 48.676 57.766 66.262 90.793 139.168 209.355 297.395 393.594 49!:-i. 875 602.375 725. l~'i6 8!:)4. 883 98B.273 111B.f37 1244.13 I I I I I I I D 0 D D [] n c [J n I i bod 0 LJ 0 0 0 c 0 c [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I - ~· [' L [ c D c [ c [ [ [ Beaufort cases provide a greater increase in revenues than expenditures. The larger the development, the larger is the year 2000 fund balance. The fund balance in 2000 is $2.49 billion greater than the base in the high case, $1.47 billion greater in the moderate case, and $1.24 billion greater in the low case. By 2000 the fund balance has peaked in all cases and has begun to be drawn down. The Cumulative Impacts of Beaufort OCS Development An interesting question concerning this analysis is how dependent are the above impacts on the base case on which they are based. This section describes a test of the sensitivity of the impacts to the base case. Two additional scenarios were run which combined the high Beaufort and high Lower Cook scenarios for a high case and the low Beaufort and low Lower Cook scenarios for a low case. The impact of Beaufort development in each of these cases is assessed in terms of the major dimensions of population, employment, state expenditures, and fund balances. This approach also allows us to estimate a range of possible impacts. Tables 24 and 25 describe the impact of the high and low cases. By com- paring the impacts to the high and low Beaufort cases with the moderate Lower Cook scenario, it can be seen that, at least within the range of these base cases, the impacts are independent of the base case. By 2000 the low case population impact is within 8 percent of the low case with moderate Lower Cook development. Comparing these same cases, we can see that the employment impact is within 2.2 percent between the cases. The 37 w co 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 :1.991 :1.992 1993 1994 1995 :1.996 1997 1. S'98 :t999' 2000 -~------··--·-.. .•... ·-··· ·--- LCOOKL L.BLOW L.BLOW ER TABLE :24. IMPACT ON AGGREGATE INDICATORS BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET HIGH SCENARIO Population (thousands) LCCHJI\L L .I3LmJ 1... BUHLEr~ 422.83 422.f.l3 o. 431.71 43:t. 7:t o. 444.03 444.131 0.101 464.456 465.025 0.569 492.762 494.694 1.932 506.556 509.417 2. 8.!>2 506.252 5:1.0. 494 4.242 5:1.2.9:1.7 516.023 ~:~~106 521.748 . ~j~~5 + ~559 ~S.D1:1. 5~36 .328 540.489 4. :1.6 551.561 !:)57. 77!:) 6.2:1.4 !568.712 576. 7/tl El. 065 584.516 594.39:1. 9. 8/'~) ~'i96. 971 608.8:1.8 1.:1 .• B4/ 609.79:1. .~21.92:1. 12. :1.:3 623.167 636.761. 13. 59~5 6:}7. 2:1.5 651.5(:16 14.) ==~7=~ 653. 4~~5 667.906 l4~472 c>70.146 684.058 :1.3.9:1.:1. 689. 65~:) 703.273 :1.3.1.>:1.9 708.714 722.433 1.3.7:1.9 730.388 744. ~i4~) :1.4 • :t !:'i 5 7 !'.H • f.A 7 7~6. 4()2 "14. 76 = Lower Cook Inlet low scenario base case = Beaufort low scenario case = Beaufort low scenario impacts :1.97B :l S'79 ·:L9tl0 198:l 1982 1903 1 S.'B4 19B~5 19B6 :1.987 :1.9HB 198!)> :1. 11'90 1. 99 :L 1. <J92 :1.993 :1.994 1.996 :1.997 :t99G 1999 2000 Total Employment (thousands) LCOCJKL 1 !;.>() + 273 :1.94. 59~~ 20:1..229 2:1.3.175 229.954 234.428 ;.~29.01.3 230.856 L. BLOtJ i90.273 :1.94.593 20 :L. 304 213.588 231.335 . 236.321 231.7:1. 232. 39!;' 234.659 236.596 242.788 244.826 251.081 254.405 260.554 264.939 268.741 274.054 274.325 280.668 280.364 286.415 286.875 293.614 293.782 300.672 . ~".)0::? • :~36 ____ -· __ . ~OB • .87 4 311~146 316.932 321.839 327.171 L. BLCHLEI~ o. o. 0.074 0.413 1.381 1.892 2.698 1.543 1.936 2.038 3.325 4.385 5.313 6.344 6.051 6.738 6.889 _6. 538 5.786 5.333 ~-->::u .912 :343.762 35~j. 03 ·337. :1.39 5. 228 349.:1.51 5.389 --,;; 't'; 704 ___ ··-_____ 5. 6 7 4 '· 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 :1.984 1985 1986 1987 1.988 1989 1990 1991 :!.'992 1993 .1994 ~ 1995· .'1996 ;~: 1997 .:.~ ~'1998 :·. \'1. 999 2000 TABLE 24 (Continued) Total Expenditures (millions of nominal dol'lars) LCOOI"\L L...BLQl.J L. BI...OW __ ER :1.3:1.1.1~5 131.1.13 o. :1.4:1.4. 7:1. :1.41.4.7l o. 1!:!49.0:1. :L 5 ~5 2 • :~~ ~:5 3.241 1i'42.~H 1744. 3'7 2.058 :L 982. ~18 1988.67 6.288 2300. 2316.48 16.478 2500.96 25:~-4. ~s 1 23.542 2634.•B 26~5~3. :L~) 20.715 2921.96 2930.9 8.934 32~)0. 56 3258.69 8.13 3613.4~".! 363~). 52 22.096 ~~98!:-i. B6 40~~4. 24 38.378 4348.55 4414.~)8 66.027 4669.21 4754. ~j2 85.305 4966.6)7 50/'6.06 109.391 5~~21 + 24 5433.B:L 112.566 ~)724. 08 58~34 + 03 129.945 6148.09 6~!96. 87 148.777 {,674.02 68()2.04 128.016 7 ~.~ ·!5 :~ • (., ~5 T572. 0:1. 118.379 7901.:1.9 80:L8.78 117.594 8~)f.l9. ~~2 87:1.8.51. .. 129.191 9~547. 52 .9494 + 9 147.379 . -------.. ---------.. LCOOKL L. BLOW L.BLOW ER = Lower Cook In1et 1ow scenario base case = Beaufort low scenario case = Beaufort low scenario impacts 197El 1.979 :1. 9!.10 :1.9B:I. :1.9G2 :1. 9B~:) :l9B4 :1. 9f:l~'i :1. s:·B6 :1.9!37 1988 niD9 1.990 1991. :1 q("\':l . ; '! ..... :1.993 :1.994 :1.995 :1.996 :1. <;>97 :1. 7'98 :L 99<? 2000 Fund Balance (millions of nominal dollars) LCOOI\L L. E!LO~J L. BLOlLEF~ 625.803 625.803 o. f:l22. Of.,t,, 872.066 r:w • 114~).91. 1197.48 ~H • 564 :1.634.43 :1.689.1. 54.667 2300.7 2357. t,,9 ~'j6. 997 :·5006. ~):I. 306:L.14 !:'i4. 626 4:1.33.3f.) 4182.23 48.871 ~)~)59+ 3f.l !:'i6()3. 68 44.301. c>9Hl. 28 6966.87 •lf:l. 59 El~!~~3 +57 8281. ~35 !:57 • 9Ti' <;'441. 9;.~ 9508.48 66. ~"j~i9 :1. 0!)~50. 7 10642.:1. 9:1 .• 35~3 1:l38:L.2 115:~2.2 140.965 :l~!.O:l4.:1. 12221.2 207.()86 l ::!5~)5 + 5 12841.t.) 28<5. 0?8 1::!990. 3.~5367.9 377.852 :1.~")~~2/'. B 1:~700.0 472~969 :l3244.3 13812.5 568.18 l30:1.7.:l :1.~~69€1.4 6Bl .. 293 :1.2;:)29. '7 13~53~) + 3 so~:'i. 6!:'i2 U.746.9 12683. ~) 93.:S. !::i51. :1.066:1.. 1.1726.1. 106!':i.02 923~5 + 62 1.0420.9 1.18/'. 24 .. ----------.. _____ ... -----------·-· -· 1978 1979 1980 1981. 1982 1983 :l984 1985 :1.986 1987 1988 :1.989 1990 1991 1992 1S.'93 1994 1995 :L996 19'7'7 1998 1.999 2000 TABLE 25. IMPACT ON AGGREGATE INDICATORS BEAUFORT EIS BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET HIGH SCENARIO Population (thousands) LCOCll\1-1 L..BHI L.BHI ... Er~ LCOOKH L.BHI L.BHI ER 422.83 422.83 o. 431.71 431.71 o. 444.03 444 •. 131 0.101 466.924 467 •. 49 0.566 494.607 496.~'i51 1.943 517.489 520.37 2.8H1. 524.765 528. El32 4.066 535.24 ~.)38. 429 ~~ .1B9 543.1.13 547.396 /) r)8":~ ( ·I • .... '· 556+267 562 .• 208 ::; • 94:1. 570.73 ~5BO ·• :1. :1. 9.:579 5EH3. :t 98 60:1. .• 229 :1.:).03:1. 605.056 619.997 :1.4.S·'4:L 6:L 9.149 f.>36.486 17.~536 63:3.6:1.9 .... 65:1 .• 98 :l.B.36:L 648.853 668.8:1.9 1.9.966 (,64. 519 6tl~). ~56~'i 2:1..04? 682.4()2 704. :1.0:~ 21.70:1. 70<>. BB4 /'22. :1.~'5'7 :~ :t • ;.~ ~:) :5 722.:1. 743.439 2:1..339 742.911 7t,4.6l~'j 2:1.. /'04 766.4H~5 7f:l9.226 22.:74:1. 789. 7=54 81.3.46~) 2 ~·5 4 ;i' :3 :L = Lower Cook Inlet high scenario base case = Beaufort high scenario case = Beaufort high scenario impacts Total Employment (thousands) LCCJOKH L...f.lHJ J ••• rmr_Er~ 17'70 l. 90 + 273 . 190.273 o. 1.979 1 s>4. t-:;9:~ 194.593 o. 19ao ;,!() 1. • 229 201.:304 0.074 :1. 9f.l1. ~~:L5. 2:L5. 41 0.41 1 c:.c:•'1 IUA:.. 231.073 232. 44~1 1.371 1983 242.131 244.015 1.884 1984 241.427 243.97 2.544 19'85 244.521 246. 1 !:)~! 1.631 1. 98.!, 246~233 248.548 2.315 198? 2!'52.341 255.636 :1.296 :1. '18f:l 2~ss>~4l.9 26~l. 862 5.442 1.989 26B.627 27(!',. :1.92 7. 5,-!>5 :1.990 277. :1.~19 2El5 • .t~()4 8.264 :1.99:1. 283.478 ~~92. 872 9 + :194 19~}2 2S)O. 23 299.693 9.462 :1. 99::) ~!97. t'54 307.621 10.()fJ1 1.994 30~5 + 074 3:1.~) • 37B :l (). :H>~'). 1. 9n:; 3:1.4.289 324.472 10 d.83 :1.996 3;~3. '?7 333.092 9 4 ::>:~2 :l997 :S35 .J4 344.082 8.942 1.99B 345.915 354.789 8.875 :1.999 ~5!58 •. 568 367.846 9.278 2000 370.688 380.379 9.691 ---·------- 1978 1979 1980 1981 :1.982 19B3 l9B4 1985 1906 1.987 ~ 1.980 ~ :1.989 1990 :1. s=-9 :t 1992 199~~ :1.994 :L 99~) :1.996 1. 9'?7 :L 9S'8 1 (199 2000 TABLE 25 (Continued) Total Expenditures (millions of nominal dol'Jars) LCCHJI\H ·L.F.!HI 1.... I<HI __ EF~ 131.1.13 1.311.13 o. :1.4:1.4. 7:1. :1. 4 :t 4 • 7 :1. o. 1549.01 1 r"r.~.-, ">"'' ..J~ ... + ,.· ...... ) 3.24:1. :t 742. 3:t :1.744.37 2.05B 1.999.31 2005.5'7 6.261 2317.48 23~54. 0:1. 1.6. 533 ~.~566. 42 2509. !3:L ~~3. 09 2756 .c> 2'7!3:1.. 42 24.82 30:1.7 .1. 7 3031.06 13.885 3301.:1.7 ~~3:1. 9. 82 :1.8. 6'~j6 36:~2. 78 367~'i.f.>7 42. 88~:i 4004.46 4076.6 72 ·) :1.43 43(~0. 6 4515.82 :L3~5.219 471.8.~54 4870. :;!:~ :1.!):1.. 69!:'i !:"i0:~8 .1.9 52~~() f ():~~ 18:1 .• 832 5409.8B 561:1 .• 5~5 20:1.. 64tl ~i829. :~3 605~5. 82 226.496 6;.!69. 4~'i ,)~:5:~:~. 7:~ 253. 2/"7· 68:t2.2H 704 :L. 6~3 229. ~:54EI 74:1.J·.~~if:l 763B.4:1. ::?.26. 83,-s El080. 2~3 83:1.~i.48 ~?.3~5 t 22~'5 8792.09 9049.76 ::~~57. 66D '1'5f:l0. O~"i 98'72.43 292. 37!'.) LCOOKH L.BHI L.BHI ER = Lower Cook Inlet high scenario base case = Beaufort high scenario case . -= Beaufort high scenario impacts 1978 1979 19BO 1 <;' l3:1. 1S'B2 :L 90:3 19i34 19!3!'.5 1.906 jQP7 • 1 \..II 1.9B8 1989 1990 199:1. 1.992 1.993 1.994 1. 99~.) :1.996 1997 19(18 1.999 ;~ooo Fund Balance (millions of nominal dollars) L.COCJI\H L.:F.tHI L.F.!HI_Ef~ 625.803 625.803 o. 822.066 872.066 50. 1145.91 1197.48 51..564 1.636.87 1691. • ~i:?i 54 t 66L} 2~~9~). 49 2352.5 !~i'7. 011 :3001 .• 43 ~-1056. 05 ~:i4. 624 411.1 .• 71 4160.7 48.9fJ8 549:3.96 5534.77 40.8:1.2 6B20. 21. 686:~ + 03 42.812 B116.7'7 8167.47 50.699 9346.27' 9403.42 ~)7.152 10470.6 1 0l>2~5. 2 1~)4.574 11.~~:1.3.9 1158~5. ~) 269.547 1:1. 9~.)5. f.> :1.23Bl. 4 42!'.). 766 :1.2499.:1. 13087.5 588 ~ :3EI3 1.29:32.4 1.3697.4 7 6!5. 0!'51 1.3:1.66. 6 141:t9.7 95:'5. 086 1::s:1. 78.2 :1.4326.() 1:1.4!3 .64 :1.294!). B 1~l32B. 7 1~5B2. 8~) '1. 2 4 !:)~5. 14093.8 1640.77 1:1.665. 4 13569.9 1904.46 1. 0!57 f.>. 4 :1.2732d. 2155.68 9147.31 1.:1.537 d. 23B9.7$ ·----... ·-~-···-·-_ ... -. -· high cases are similarly related with the year 2000 employment i ct within 1.0 percent, and the population impact within 1.5 percent. Those variables describing the fiscal position of the state ai c show extremely close impacts. By 2000 FUND is $2.5 billion greatc than the base case with a moderate Lower Cook and a high Beaufort. This is only 4.3 percent greater than the increased fund balance with a high Lower Cook and high Beaufort. The low Beaufort cases differ by only 4.8 percent in 2000. The year 2000 state expenditures impact differs by only .3 percent in the high case and 2.9 percent in the low case. These differences are well within the confidence limits of the MAP model. These similar impacts illustrate the limited sensitivity of the impacts to the base case. Analyzing these impact cases also allows us to place limits on the Beaufort impact. Employment impacts should range between 5,500 and 9,800. Population impacts will be between 14,000 and 24,000. The Sensitivity of the Results to the State Expenditure Rule An assumption about the growth of state government expenditures was made in the base case. This is a speculative expenditure rule, since there is little evidence to support the choice of any particular rule. This section will examine the effect of this rule on the impacts of Beaufort development. This sensitivity of the results will be examined by compar- ing the impacts of Beaufort development scenarios with a moderate Lower 42 [ [ n [ [ [ [ [] r' I ' "'=' 0 L c c D [ c [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c G 6 b [ [ E L [ Cook scenario base case to the same case when state expenditures are constrained to equal their base case levels. Increased state expenditures is one of the major possible causes of impact from Beaufort development. One way to examine the proportion of impact which results from this factor is to examine what would happen ·. to the major variables if state expenditures remained as in the base case. The section allows us to see in some sense the direct impact of Beaufort development and the proportion of impact caused by state expen- diture increases. Tables 26 and 27 show the three Beaufort impacts (with moderate Lower Cook) when state expenditures are constrained to the base levels; by comparing these to the unconstrained impacts, we can assess the effect of the spending rule. Increased state expenditures are responsible for 33 percent of the population impact in the high case, 29.2 percent in the moderate case, and 29.4 percent in the low case in 2000. State expenditures are responsible for 39.2 percent of the employment impact by 2000 in the high case, 35.1 percent in the moderate, and 35.1 percent in the low case. Close to one-third of the employment and population impacts of Beaufort OCS. development are a result of state expenditures increasing in accordance with our assumed spending rule. 43 1978 19'79 :L~>f.l(). 1 s>~H :1.9B2 19fJ3 :1.9B4 :1.9B5 :JJ~B6 l.9f:!7 1.98B 19fJ9 :1.990 :1.991 :1.992 :1.993 1994 :1.995 1. 99f.> 1997 :1.998 1999 2000 Population TABLE 26. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS BEAUFORT EIS NO STATE EXPENDITURE RESPONSE (thousands)_ Total Employment (thousands) XI... • BH •.. E.f~ XI.... Bt-i ... EH XL. BL ... EF~ XI.... BH ... Er:~ XL. BM ... EI:~ XL. J::n. __ EJ:~ o. o. o. 1. 9'/' tl o. o. o. (); o. 1979 o. o. o. o. o. :1.9DO o. o. 0.477 0.477 0.477 :1. 9 f:l:l. (). 3~)2 0.352 l·.62 1.62 1..62 :1. ~~f:i2 :1 .• 1.67 1.1.67 2.:1.24 2.1.24 2.124 l <JD~~ :1 .• 3!32 1. + :3B2 3.037 :~. 037 3.0:-57 1 ('\<:>I.\ .. r ..,;., i 1 • ElO~"i 1.B85 :1..9:1.9 :J •• s>J9 L~J19 1985 0.828 0.828 3.68 ~5. 288 2. 94~.'i 1 <(86 2.055 1. 7.!>4 ~).047 4. ~5G9 3.38 19El7 2.802 2.414 7.97:1. 7. ~:)().~) ~5.:1.0:1. :1. 9Cf:l 4. ~)7 4.239 1. ().f.> i'6· 9.219 6. '~Hl 1.9D? 6 + 0~!4 5.20:1. 1.0.94:1. 9. Hl~.) c). 4~;!:5 :1. ~;>90 ~5. !'576 4. ~ C>~5:~ :1.2. 82:1. 9. 73!'.) :; • 5~'4 :t<;>SJ:I. 6.4f:l:l. 4.649 12. 92~5 9.568 ")' ~ 338 :1. ~~92 6.029 4 .:1. 79 :1.4.:1.18 9 • ri2· 7.9:1.'7 :t9·:')~~ 1.> • ~:; 2 4.2:1.4 :1.4. 4~)6 :1.0. 33 B.02'7 :1.994 6.421 4.:109 :1.4. 64:1. 10.682 0.312 3.995 6.:1.08 4.27 :1.4 .32:1. 12. :1.67 B.344 1.~?96 ~:; + ~)22 5 .1.48 1.4.4()~:) 1 :1. • 2 :=s ::; t:J.~.)f.>6 :1. 99'7 ~'j. 328 4.:1.~54 14. 83'7 ·:f. :1 .• •142 8 + 8~3::·) 1.99!:1 ~"i. 4:3a 4 .:1. 02 :t5.478 11.68 9.254 1999 5 + 70~) . 4.137 :1.6. :1.03 .:1. ::~. 1. ~59 9.649 2000 ti + 9!:'i3 4. 35~~ -···-·--·-· XL.BH ER = impact of Beaufort high scenario with expenditures equal to base case levels XL.BM-ER = impact of Beaufort mode~rate scenario with expenditures equal to base case levels XL.BL-ER = impact of Beaufort low scenario with expenditures equal to base case levels o. o. o. (). 3~)2 1. • 1. 6 7 :1 .• 3B2 1.8fJ5 0.828 1.511 1.7 2.732 3.43 3.107 :·5. 699 3.2:1.8 :3.4'76 ·:1.~5B4 :1.331 ~s. 177 :~.1.~~6 3. 29~~ 3. 44:~ :~. 6()2 . -. -··-·• r-TI lrJ r"J CJ L ... ,.J l .. J c=J L .. _J [ __ j CIJ C:=J C:=J [-----:J L...-.. J ~ L ...... -1 L.J r---t '-··-.... .J l .. J L .. _J [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r L c L [ B c b [ [ E L [ TABLE 27. FUND BALANCE IMPACTS BEAUFORT EIS NO STATE EXPENDITURE RESPONSE (millions of nominal dollars) XL.BH ER = impact of Beaufort high scenario with expenditures equal to base case levels XL.BM ER = impact of Beaufort moderate scenario with expenditures equal to base case levels XL.BL ER = impact of Beaufort low scenario with expenditures equal to base case levels 45 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The impact of Beaufort development can be assessed in terms of the five questions raised in the first section of this paper.· The answers to these questions should uncover the major dimensions of Beaufort impact. As measured by its impact on the aggregate indicators, Beaufort OCS development should have a relatively small impact on the state's economy. Beaufort development will result in a population impact of 24,000 by 2000 in the highest impact case; this impact occurs over approximately twenty years. This is relatively insignificant compared to the 100,000 increase in population that Alaska experienced between 1970 and 1975. Depending on the size of discovery, the population impacts should range between 14,000 and.24,000 in 2000; while the employment impacts should be between 5,500 and 9,800. The most important causes of growth associated with Beaufort development are increases in exogenous employment and increases in state expenditures. Each of these is dominant in different periods of the analysis. The importance of Beaufort OCS employment is greater during the exploration and development stages. In the moderate case, Beaufort employment accounts for 16.3 percent of the employment impact. By 2000 Beaufort employment accounts for only 5.9 percent of the employment impact. State expenditures become important after state revenues increase. By 2000 state expenditures are responsible for approximately one-third of the employment and popula- tion impacts. 46 c c [] c [ n u [ -, __ ; n I ~-~ D i • '-.J [J D D c u c [ I' l~ [ [ r [ [ [ [ [ [ r: I " ........ E c c [j 6 [ c L L t The impact of Beaufort OCS development on the state•s fiscal position is primarily one of magnitudes. The revenue impact of Beaufort is greater than the expenditure impact throughout the projection perio~, so the fund balance is greater at the end of the projection period than in the base case. This does not change two trends observed in the base case. By 2000 the fund balance has peaked and is beginning to be_drawn down as expenditures are met out of the fund balance. Beaufort development . has not eliminated the cyclical effects of petroleum-dependent revenues. The reduction of dependence on state expenditures, as measured by the ratio of state expenditures to personal income, which was found in the base case is reinforced by Beaufort development. The economy grows faster than state expenditures . Beaufort development reinforces the structural change found in the base case. Over the projection period, the support sector continues to grow in importance. The largest impact of Beaufort OCS development occurs in Anchorage which has over half of the impact. This reinforces the base case concentration of employment and population in Anchorage. The major impacts on the North Slope, which has the largest direct effect, occur in the enclave sector. The assumed limited interaction between Beaufort development and the local economy is responsible for this minimal impact. 47 Appendix A Detail Scenarios This appendix provides the detailed information on each scenario which is not available in the text. The data is arranged by scenario. The data dictionary which is included provides the key to interpreting the data. D 0 c 0 D D 0 0 r: I l '--' [J 0 0 c [] c L r L..., [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I ·' ---~ c L [ c [J c [ c L [-~ _-:2 L VARIABLE DICTIONARY Regions When variable is followed by Ri, denotes regional variable: Variables POP MIG NET EM99 EMSPP EMG9P EMNSP PI PIRC. E99S E99SRPC REVGF RP9S FUND RINS SIMP EXBITES RPI EMlEX EMS4 EMS5 EMRR EMGR Rl = North Slope R4 = Southcentral R5 = Anchorage R7 = Fairbanks = population (thousands) = net migration (thousands) = total employment (thousands) = employment percent in transportation-communication-utilities, service, trade, finance = employment percent in government = employment percent in mining, manufacturing, construction, agriculture-forestry-fisheries = personal income (millions of nominal dollars) = real per capita income = total state government expenditures (millions of nominal dollars) = real per capita state expenditures = total general fund revenues (millions of nominal dollars) = total petroleum revenues (millions of nominal dollars) = total fund balance (millions of nominal dollars) = fund interest (millions of nominal dollars) = general fund revenues minus general fund expenditures (millions of nominal dollars) = = = = = = ·- state expenditures as a percent of personal income relative price index (1957 = 100) mining and exogenous construction employment (thousands) transportation-communication-utilities, construction employment (thousands) trade, service, finance employment (thousands) manufacturing, agriculture-forestry-fisheries employment (thousands) government employment (thousands) Variable Dictionary (continued) Cases LCOOKH = Lower Cook High Scenario Base Case LCOOKM = Lower Cook Moderate Scenario Base Case LCOOKL = Lower Cook Low Scenario Base Case L.BHI = Beaufort High -Lower Cook High Scenario L.BLOW = Beaufort Low -Lower Cook Low Scenario LCM.BFH = Beaufort High -Lower Cook Moderate Scenario LCM.BFM = Beaufort Moderate -Lower Cook Moderate Scenario LCM.BFL = Beaufort Low -Lower Cook Moderate Scenario c [ n n LJ [ 0 n l j ~ p L r u 0 D c c 0 E [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c c t 6 [ L L [ BEAUFORT MODERATE -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO 1978 1979 :L980 J.981 1982 1983 .1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1.99:i. :1.992 1993 :i.994 1995 RRLBN 1996 1997 1.998 1.999 19/'8 1 q-··q '/' :i. '7-BO 198:1. l9i:12 1 <;·8::> 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1.991 1992 199~-'l 1994 1995 1996 1.997 1998 1.999 20()0 EtHEXR5 EHS4F"\5 EMS5R5 1.33 1.366 1. :~66 1.397 1.41.4 1.422 1.426 1.408 1.407 1.408 1.419 1.434 -.o 1. ~-1~ f~41.5- 1. 43fT 1.43l 1.431. _h1.31..____ ---1.. + 498-- :L • ~l3 1.4:3 J..43 EH1.EXR7 0. 24~) 0.243 0.243 1. 53·4 4.352 4.182 0.487 0. 25;~ 0.271 0.273 0.285 0.285 0.257 0.253 0.249 0.257 0.257 0.25 0.257 0.243 0.243 0.243 0.243 1.2.1.83 12.751. 13. 6•l6 14.886 16.429 17.016 16.753 17.156 17.946 18.862 19.915 21.019 21 .• 894 22.509 23 + :1.66 24 + 01. 27.3.4~> 28 ... 1-4(~ 29.738 3:1..26B 32. 7:!.~~ EMS4F\7 5.14 5.3139 5.776 6.08? 6.693 7.093 7.2l4 7.447 7.774 8.158 8·.577 9.02 9.381 9.628 9.888 10.217 10.~)6 10.979 11.434 11.933 12.414 12.992 13.58? 37.627 39.ni4 43 + ·46~) •17. 934 53.531 55.016 53.459 54.269 56.652 60.011 63.96 68.033 71.016 73. 31:t 75.858 78.952 82.1.91 86.088 90.299 94.689 99. ()"75 1.04 + 32 109.301 E~':S5R7 9.119 9.799 10.8:1.3 12.064 14.5~.54 15.192 14. O:"i:l. 14.351 15.107 16.181 1.7.408 18.67 19.633 20.38 21.21 22.:1.91 ::~3 + 228 24.471 25. 79~7 27.189 28.57 30.223 31.902 EMG9R5 2.109 ~!. 249 2.38 2.555 2.692 2.856 3.01 3.173 3.354 3.537 3.723 3. 90.9 4.108 4.303 4.525 4. 74~) ~·. 953 5.194 c:· -,r-,1""\ ;,..} . / ...::...:: 5 y 97'7 EMF..:RR7 0.49 0.526 0.563 0 .. 601 ().635 o. 687' 0.703 0.741 0.788 0.834 0.876 0.924 0.968 1.036 1.081 1.1.31 1..1.94 1.256 1+326 1.37 1. i}39 J..512 :~:; .107 :14 ~892 34.733 35.456 36~181. 37.227 37.969 37.416 36.953 37.225 .. 37.733 38.414 39.0~14 39.445 39. 4t~8 39.463 39.522 39.6:i.4 39 + 7~~3 39. 9~i4. 40.:1.26 40.29 40 .A<t6 Ei'"iG9fO 16.265 16.125 1.6.003 it>.283 16.564 16.985 17' .292 17.034 16.802 16.891. 1.7.088 17.365 17.626 17.779 17.782 :1.7.756 :t7.767 17.795 17.834 17.919 17.982 18.043 18.123 n c [J [J n (' L c u r I ' L.c; n L c 0 D c [ c [ r- .'"'"""' [ [ RRL:BN [ Eii:i.EXRl Ei'iS4Rl. ENS5R1. El·if~J=~F\ 1 ENG9R1 19/B 1.951 0.8 0.69~i (). 0 + 99~1 [ 1979 2. 0{)2 0 .. 84t.)• 0.709 o. 0.997 1980 2.11 0.92B 0.736 o. 1.008 :l981 2.061 1.029 0.761 o. 1.076 [ 1982 2.592 1.24 0.829 o. 1.135 1983 2.369 1.253 0.781 o. 1.245 1984 1.702 1.091 0 .. 67'1 o. 1.304 [ 1985 1.461 1.091 0.674 o. 1.258 1986 1.666 1.17 0.7 o. 1.234 1987 1.881 1.266 0.732 o. 1.27~ 1988 2.193 1.393 0.778 o. 1.323 [ 1989 2.301 1 .. 463 0.802 o. 1..385 1990 1 C"•C~ 1..425 0.81 o. 1.436 + .,._, 1991 J. • ~i3::~ --1.453 0 + 81.3 o. 1~462 L 1992 1.805 1.463 o.ao6 o. l.A73 1993 ·1 + 73 1 .. 495 0 + 80~1 o. 1.476 1994 1. t>B 1.534 0.813 o .. 1.485 [ 19~>5 1.612 1. ~579 O.C21 o. 1 • ..C:::-94 1996 1 y t~-4--~-1.633 0.83:1. 0+ 1 r:-ri-;' •... J WI 1 ~i97 j 1!:" '")"--1.694 0 .. 842 o. 1.524 i • + ,.J ... -..J :l99Ei 1 r.:· /)., 1. /'~5E$ 0.£352 o. 1. 541 . v ~J"" ..;_ r 1.?99 1. ~)03 1.84 o.B72 o. 1.556 I =~()(}() i. ~)06 1 ~ •)2(.> (). f~7·2 o. ·I :::"7_,. L< J., • ,..J, ..:: i I [ L ~~~F\LBH [ E 1"1 1 DG=: 4 . EN~14F\If H'IS~5r~4 E~·iF:F~F\4 ENG9R4 1. ~.!78 o. 7/'5 3. :!. ::-;:3 8. 4~::;3 ~L3ll 5.742 c :J. 9/''J 1.078 3.275 8.B43 A.537 5. ,~92 :1.~~'8() 1. 73:i. 3.541 C) AC'' 4. 731. _5. 58:'5 , •. oo :l98 :l 2.402 3. (~5 1.0.083 i} + 87 5.797 [ 1.9:32 ~-~+57f:~ -4.Cl/7 J0.466 ~'i. OJ8 5. s~9.l} 1983 1. ~j8 . ...,. ('\ , ......, 1.0.3f.i ~j. ::!o ;.~ 6.321 '"'"').7tJ/ :l984 1. 25'7 3.974 10.637 5.4 6.594 1985 1.241. 4.065 1.0.823 5 + 5~58 6.449 c 1986 l.22l 4. 1. 76 11.061 5. /'~'5·1 6.298 1.987 1.118 4.266 11..402 5.904 6.381 1.988 1.159 4.395 l:l. 822 6.103 6.54 [ 1989 1.194 4. ~'i4 .12.3 6.266 6.748 1990 1.229 4.675 12+74 / r::-6.948 Ot.J 1991 ~ 4.644 12.916 6.66 7.09 [ 1992 4.718 13 .. 222 6.869 7 .10'? 1993 0.779 4~81!:-j 13.~374 7. ()·43 7.113 1994 0.779 "t.915 13 .. 943 7.252 7 .1•l r 1995 0. Z?!l 5.04 14.4 7.479 7.17 1996 ~1.6'"": 5.176 1.4.B87 7 + "724 7.22 ...._. 1997 -7'7 5.321 15.368 7.954 7.289 :l998 ().779 ~) + -452 :1.5.fJHl 8.172 7.357 r 1. 9'7' 9 0.779 5.617 16.~588 [1 .. 439 7.419 b 2000 0.779 5.786 16.968 8.659 7.492 .. --:. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c r I -L.. p L [ c E t c [ [ [ [ ·. BEAUFORT LOW -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO n ENG9F' -DEFINITION ~·l LCOOI\i'i LCN.DFL l : LJ 1978 0.412 0.4:1.2 .. 1979 o.::s9a Q.398 [j :1.980 0.379 0.379 1981 0.365 0.364 1982 0.346 0.345 c 1983 0.351 0.349 1984 0.367 0.365 1985 0.358· 0.358 [J 1986 0.347 0.346 1987 0.34 0.338 1988 0.333 0.33 1989 0.327 0.324 c 1990 0.321 0.319 1991 0.318 0.316 1992 0.312 0.31 [i 1993 0.305 0.303 1994 0.298 0.296 1995 0.29 0.289 c 1996 0.283 0.282 1997 0.275 0.274 ' 1998 0.268 0.267 f' 1999 0.26:1. 0.259 I i 2000 0. 25lt 0.253 LJ ~ EMSF'P -DEFINITION !_" LCOOKM LCM.BFL u 1978 0.355 0.355 1979 0.366 o. 3c>6 0 1980 0.382 0. 38::! 1.981. 0 ~ ~~92 0 .. :~92 1 '?C) 'J 0.403 0.404 # "-'- :1. 98~5 0.403 0.404 c 1984 0.4 0.401 1985 0.406 0 .. 406 1.986 0.414 0.·415 E 1987 0.422 0.423 1988 0.429 0.431 1989 0.436 0.439 [J ~ 1.990 0.443 0. 44~5 1991 0.448 0.45 1992 0.454 0.455 [ 1993 0.461 0.463 1994 0.467. 0.469 1995 0.475 0.476 1996 0.482 I L 0.483 I 1997 0.489 o.49:L I 199tl 0.496 0.497 1999 0.503 0.505 [ 2000 0 .~51 0.5:1.2 bd [ [ [ [ r [ [ [ [ I . 'L;i c c c c [ 1:978 1 S'79 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.998 1.999 2000 E~'l99 -ENDOGENOUS LCOOJ\M LCr'i. BFL LCM. f.!FL_Ef~ 190.227' 190.227 o. 195.599 :1. 9~; + 599 o. 203.629 203. 70:'S 0.074 2:1.6.872 217.282 0.409 233.431 234.807 1.376 237.797 239 .l,83 1.887 232.601 235.24 2.638 234.583 236.085 1.502 238.549 240.417 1.868 246.151 248.13 1.979 254.365 257.608 3.243 263.697 267.98 4.283 272.041 276.538 4.498 2/'7 .827 283. 5.173 28·4 .124 289.084 4.S?6 290.93 296.21.2 5.282 298. 0{,4 303.392 5.328 306.861 312.1.89 5.329 315.971 321.022 5.051 326.90B 3~51.. 909 5. 337 .24<!'1 342.321 5.075 ·.ca Q • ·~ Q "-l: ....,. . , ......... -354.681 5.288 360.981. 366.5:54 . 5.553 EHNSP -· DEFINITION LCOOKM LCI··i. BFL 1.978 0. 23li. 0.234 197S1 0.236 0. 23~:, 19BO 0.239 0.239 1981 0.243 0. 2.ct4 1982 o.25:i. 0.251 1983 o. 2·46 0.247 1.984 0. 2~~3 0.234 1985 0.236 0.236 1986 0.239 0.24 1987 0.238 0.239 1988 0.238 0.239 1989 0.237 0.238 1990 0. 2:-)6 0.236 19.91 0.234 0.235 1992 0.235 0.235 1993 0.235 0.235 1994 0.235 0.235 1995 0.235 0.235 1996 0.236 0.235 1997 0.236 0.235 1998 0.236 0.236 1999 0. 2:36 0.236 2000 0.236 0.236 [ PI --ENDOGENOUS [ LCOCJKM LC~i. BFI ... LCi··'i. BFL_EH [ 1978 3509.98 3509.98 o. 1979 3929. 3929. o. 1980 4585.4 4587.5 2.098 [ 1981 5390.94 5408.01 17.074 1.982 6457.18 651.9.2 62.02 1983 6932.58 7025.66 93.078 [ ·1984 6676.57 6787.16 110.594 1985 7071.61 7129.43 57.828 1986 7883.18 7940.91 57.73 1987 8806.87 89U .• 92 105. 05:l [ 198B 9854.96 10036. 181.047 1989 1.0952.2 11223.6 271.371 1.990 12101.2 12362+~~ 26() + 984 [ :1.991 13105.7 13402.9 297.223 19<;'2 :L4288.6 145~~!:=; + :; 296.922 1993 15675.8 1 r..:-Qcr· 0 322.039 .,.J,,/+.0 c 1994 17~~2:t.9 17580.1. 358.148 :L 99:5 190:1.0.,1. 1937"7. 6 367.516 199() 21020.3 2139;!.C) :~64 + 29:~ :1.99/' 233:1.~~. 3 23695.3 383.012 r 1.998 2~)t3()4 + 26:~:53 + 6 .cl29. 59f3 u 1999 28610.2 29102.:1. .ft9:l .. 852 200() 3169~).4 3:;~:~5t} ~ 6 561-.234 [ --· ··--·· ... --·. PIF~PC -ENDOGENOUS [ LCOOI"\t·i LCN.BFL LCH. BFL-EF~ c :l978 3c):~3. 32 3633.32 o. 1979 3764.17 3764.17 o. 1980 391.>0. 5/' 3961 + l.> 1.027 198:!. A ':l 1 ':l . ·J ':l ~12::~(). 28 8. :!.6 ·-l,;_•'" ...... ·- [ 1982 4520.21 4~)44. 9 24.6B4 :l983 4513. 9~5 4~)-45 + :~.!_\ 31.41 1984 4263.4 430~5 + 07 37'. 66B b 1985 430~j. 94 43lB.9H 13.047 1986 4425 ... 18 4444.66 19.172 1987 4557.37 4585.04 27.672 [ 1988 4700.75 4746.31 45.559 1989 4838.3 4896.81 58.508 1990 4963. 6tl 5008.1 44.441 l991 5032.85 5081.83 48.98 L 1992 5137.21 5175.25 38.035 -1993 5250.29 5288.35 38.062 1994 5370.55 5406.33 35.785 [ 1995 5505.6 5534. o;5 28.457 1996 "5648.64 5668.83 20.184 1997 5801.23 581.7.43 16.203 [ 1998 5950.19 596~; +59 15.398 1999 6107~16 6122.81 15.645 2000 6262.24 6278. 4:~ 16.187 t FUND --ENDOGENOUS c L..COOKI1 LCrf. BFL LCt·f. BFL_Ef~ n 1978 62:'.'i. 74fJ. 625 t 7Al8 o. 1979 823 .. 1.48 873.148 50. 1980 11-44.96 1196.52 51. ~)59 n 1.981 1622.91 1677.58 54.662 :1.982 227.2. :1.3 2329.19 57.061 ·1983 2964.41 3019.23 54.814 c 1984 4085.48 4134.67 49.191 1985 5504.57 5549.15 44.582 1986 6855.28 6903.95 48.676 n 1987 8152.06 8209.82 57.766 1988 9366.57 9432.84 66.262 1989 1047·4. 4 10565.2 90.793 1990 11302.8 11.441.9 139.168 [ 199:t 1:1.933. 121.42.4 209 + 35~) 1992 124!.>8. 9 127!.HSt3 297 .39~)· 1.993 12896.8 13290.4 393.594 c 1994 1312c>.2 13622. 495.875 1995 :1.31.33.1 13735.5 602 + :?75 1996 1289·4 + 9 13620. 725.156 D 1997 1239.c1. 8 13249.7 854.883 1998 :1.15S>B.4 12586.7 98B.273 :1.999 10498.5 11.61.7.4 11.1B.87 n 2000 905c>. 37 10300.5 1244. :L3 LJ F~INS --DEFJNITIOi'-l D LCOOKt·'i LCM.BFL LCr'l• BFL_ER 1. 9/'8 46 + 95•1 46.954 o. [j :1.</79 44.047 44.047 (). 1980 .-.. '"""""~,,. 61. 89•1 3 +56;~ .;:, 0 • .:) .:) .:.. 1981 81. 4B-4 85.156 3.672 D 1982 115.642 119.531 3.889 i 9E$~5 .,.;.r l"'~'-r_) .LO.J.tOOO 1 L. 1::; C) ':> C:: .J. \.1-..J + , ,._,_, 4~057 1984 2U .• 192 215.091 3.9 c :1. 98~.=; 290.778 294.283 :~ + 506 1986 391 • :?:59 394.522 3. :1.8~) 1987 487 + 1~58 At90 + 628 3.47 c :J.98B 579.179 583.285 4 .. 106 1989 665.457 670.158 4.701 1990 744.27 750.699 6.429 1991 803.459 813.308 9.848 u 1992 848.72 86:~. 525 14.805 1.993 887.38 908 .. 40:j 21.025 1994 91.8.492 946.31 27.818 c 1 <i9~i 935.684 970.724 35.04 1996 937.274 979~835 42.561 :1.997 921.69· 972. 91:l 51.22:1. L 1998 887.774 948.142 60.368 :1.9'7'9 833.:1.17 S'02. 886> 69.769 2000 757.224 8:~6.194 78.97 [ · . • ·.!-·. L 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1.986 1987 198B •JOQO ""' , .. ..~ , 1990 19~'1 1992 1994 19S>5 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 RF'I -ENDOGENOUS LCOOKM 228. 5C•8 241.028 258.728 272.22 286.429 299.4fJ3 305.1.95 :H5 • 5.:S4 336.1.49 3!:"j5 .1.03 374. 63~5 392~46 4:l:l..,1.l~.'i 42$' T 751 449.034 47:1.. :o;-::,5 4Si4 ~ B3:.'i 519. ~542 c-.t., r::-·~·o7 :..J ·~ .... J + ,J ~,:> ./ 572.()"7·4 660.31.i LCM.BFL 228.508 241.02B 258.721. 272.228 286.483 299.742 304.91!:-i 315 .. 365 334.837 373.816 392+032 410.25 428.155 ~l47. 622 469.384 49:.'>. 009 ~)17.373 54~). 569 570. 598.574 627.419 65:3.539 LCH.BFL-ER o. o. -0.007 0.007 0.054 --0.281 -0 .. 199 --1.312 -O.~"i49 -0 .. 819 -0 + ~l29 -0.865 -1.596 -L462 -·1. + 982 -1 .. 82c> -1.969 --2.019 -2.074 -1.943 -1.8:1.1 •• _, • ., •J ""J.t//.1. [J D f] c [l [ c D n LJ 0 LJ c 0 D [J [ c L [ L [ SIMP -DEFINITION r LCOOKM LCt1. BFL 1978 -44.852 -44.852 [ 1979 197.4 24"/.4 1980 32:1 .• 812 323.371 1981 477.954 481.057 [ 1982 649.219 651.617 1983 692.28 690.034 1984 1121.07 1115.44 1985 1419.1 1414.49 [ 1986 .1350.71 1354.81 1987 1296.79 1305.88 1988 1214.52 1223.01 [ 1989 1107.79 1132.32 1990 828.392 876.769 1991 630.275 700.463 1992 535.B74 623.9:1. [ 1993 427.902 524.102 1994 229.3.57 33l.648 1995 6.957 11.3.457 [ 1996 -·2:~8. 2!54 -115.473 1997 -~)()0. 094 -370.367 1998 --796.398 -663v008 r 1999 -1099.86 -969v266 2000 -1442.14 -13:1.6. BB u E EX BITES -DEFINITIOI'·l [ LCDOi\H L.Ci··i. BFL c 1 <,'7B o.:w2 0.302 l ~->79 0.29 0.29 1.9BO 0.274 0.275 [ 1981. 0.264 0.264 1982 0 '")r.~'") 0.25 + .:_,.)..,:.. 1983 0.27 0.269 1984 0.304 0.302 c 1985 0.301 0.301 1986 0.297 ().296 1987 0.297 0.294 [ 1988 0.295 0.291. 1989 0.293 0.289 1990 0.291 0.289 c 1991 0.29 0.288 1992 0.284 0.283 1993 0.278 0.2?8 L 199sl 0.273 0.273 1995 0.267 0.267 1996 .o. 262 0.262 1997 0.257 0.257 r 1998 0.253 0.252 -~ 1999 0.248 0.247 2000 0.244 0 t 2sl3 L 1978 1979 1980 1.981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1.991 1992 1.99:~ 1994 19'/~) 1996 199? 199B 1.999 2000 POPR4 -DEFINITION F~I~U1 58+ =~65 59.406 61.935 64.443 65. ~587 64.455 65.84 66.304 66.818 67.521 68.722 70.095 71. ~)29 71.149 72.116 73.117 74.272 75 .48~) 7(S. 772 78.236 79. !'594 !3 :L + 2~)~j f:.l2.942 EM99R4 -DEFINITION RI~LBL 58. 36~) 59.406 61..949 64.462 65.439 64.571. 66.077 66.57 67.058 67.696 69.015 70.49 72. :l~.'i 7 J.. D!"-57 72.901. 7:3. 94!'.) 75.129 76.424 7"7.724 79.198 80. ::'i61 83.96 J! 9ZH _______ _ 22. ::)6._.4_, -· _ --~!2 ._~U>4 1.979 19HO 19C~1 1982 1983 1.984 1985 1986 1987 198S 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199El 1999 2000 23.281 23.281 24.97 24.979 27.969 27.226 27.58 27.861 28.224 28.?98 29.592 30.!:) 31.37c> 31. =~48 31.91.6 3~~. 52 3:-s. 183 33.933 34.705 35.617 :-s6.431 37.4:58 38.429 28. OLl 27.3 27.724 27.975 28.3Hl 28.852 29.717 30.682 31.659 31.668 32.247 32.86 33.52 34.294 35. 04~) 35.945 36.75 37.761 38.764 o. o. 0.()14 o.o:l9 0.052 0.116 0.237 0.265 0.239 0 t176 I 0. 29:-s 0.394 0.621 0+708 0.785 0.828 0.857 (). 9:".~9 0. 9~52 0.962 0.967 0.98B 1.018 o. (). 0.009 o.o:L:J 0.042 ().074 ·o.144 0.115 0.095 0.053 0.125 0.181. 0.283 0.32 0.331 0.3-43. 0.338 ().361. 0.34 0.328 0.319 0.323 ().335 c n n u D [j c D n I ' L...J c 0 0 c [ c [ [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r u E [ c E c L c l L L POPRl -DEFINITION RF~LBL ·' -··---· 1978 -... ..:.. . ·-· :;~\;._.,: 7 .• J p5 :< ·-.~''· :--;·. 1 5.~ 197'1' 7.301 7.30:L 1980' 7.568 7.569 1981 7.558 7.682 19El2 8.023 8.459 1983 7.853 8.3.71 1984· 7.176 7. 749 .. 1985 7.359 7.601 1986 7.453 7.886 1987 7.579 8.142 1988 7.657 8 ··428 1.989 '7. 7l7 8.636 1990 ·. 7.763 8.463 19·91. 7.881 8.639 199:-~ 7.966 8.611 1993 7. 9!.~3 8. tl46 1994 7.972 8. 6:~4 199~) 8.062 .8.65::; :l97'6 fl. 1. 4 8.685 1997 8 ,.,-.' • .,_,::,o B.762 1998 s.:H 8. 8:34 1000 8 .. 402 8. 9::!5 .1. I I I 2000 8. 5:~4 9.0t>:l EM99R1 DEFINITION RRLM F.:F.:LBL. l978 ·.4.46:~ 4. 46:~ 1979 4.5fH 4.58:l 1980 A1. 828 4.B29 1981 4.84 4. 9?!:'i 1982 ~). 3:jt) 5.826 1 ('\(\"';;" • 1 \..1\.J 5.09'? 5. t,48 1984 4. 201. 4 t 79A1 1985 4.25 4. ~l86 1986 4.253 4. 6El2 l987 4.363 4.922 19"88 4.45 5.225 1989 4. 50!:) 5.434 1990 4.542 5.234 1991 4.613 5. =~~59 1992 4.663 !:) • 27~:; 1993 4.619 5.267 1994 4.603 5.222 199~7i 4.673 5+213 1.996 4.746 5.23 1997 4.84:1. 5.301 1998 4.926 5. 38~! 199'? 5.03 ~j. 485 :~()()0 5 .1·45 ~j. 6 I . . 0. . :;.J o. 0.002 0 .125. 0.436 · 0.5HI 0.573 0.242 0.433 0.563 0.771 0.919 0.701 .0.75D 0.645 (). 68:~ o. 6c>2 0. 59~) 0. 54~i 0.52l> ().5~~·4 0.524 0. :5~~7 F~RLBL-"EF~ o. o. 0.002 0 .l:i4 0.469 0.549 0. 59~5 0. 2:~5 0.429 0.559 0.775 0.93 0+692 0.745 0.61.2 0.648 0.61.9 0.54 0.484 0.46 0 + 45f., ().456 (). 45:7i n F'OPF<7 -DEFINITION c f\F~LN RFU.BL.. FmLBL-EF~ 1978 57~ 82.!> 57.826 o. n 1979 60.19 60.19 o. 1.980 63.172 63.187 0.014 1981 68.425 68.497 0.072 n 1982 78.464 78+711 0.247 1983 82.374 82.781 0.407 1984 78.1 78.747 0.647 [J 1985 79.734 80.187 0.453 1986 82.162 82.737 0.575 1987 85.564 86.245 0.682 n 1988 89.073 90.112 1. 03<7' 1989 92.777 94 + 15:1. 1.373 1990 96.:t93 97.678 1.486 . 1991 99.049 100.818 1.769 u 1992 101..956 103.?72 1.816 1993 104.~-i71 106.959 1. + 988 1994 1.08.1.14 110.224 2.11. D 1995 111.752 1.13.924 2.172 1996 115.495 1.17.6n-s 2.18 1997 119.751 122.003 2. 2~5~~ n 19';>B 1.23.894 126~252 2.358 I ., 00\.) ·• '">O c.:o-:: 1 ".{ ., -1"10'") 2.495 .._; ... , , , ,.J •.. ·.\,;) ...... , , , ... """ .... ,,-, ...... 2000 133.305 13!'.). !J56 2.651. [l L EM99FO -DEFINITION c RF\LM RFU.BL RJ:;:LBL_.EF;: _:1,9.78 :u .292 31. :?9:~ o. 0 1979 32.149 32 + :1.49 o. -1 ~.-\.1'\. -... -,. A •• ,.,.., .. ,. .. , -'1 A A A J\. •I ''\ .L70V "'i .. :). "'t".::. "'").._"). "'t•t"'t v. \J J • .::. t981. 3c;. ~w2 :16 + 629 0.047 D 1982 42.669 42.829 0.16 198:~ 43.874 4-4. 124 0.25 1984 39.39 39.772 0.382 [J 1985 39.607 :~9. 835 0.228 1986 40.435 40.7()8 0 .2?:~ 1987 41.922 42.221 0.299 [ 1988 43.496 43.994 0.498 1989 45.255 45.927 0.673 1990 46.819 47.545 0.726 1991 41'.997 48.85 0.853 0 1992 49.239 50.078 0.84 1993 50.59 51.495 0.905 1994 52.002 52.93B 0.935 L 1995 53. 76~5 54. 70·4 0.941 1996 55.571 56.471 0.9 1997 57.736 58. <!>41 0.905 [ 1998 59.781 60.71::=; 0. 93~t 1999 62.2 63.l.89 0.989 2000 64.598 65.655 1.057 [ [ POPR5 -DEFINITION [ F~RU1 FmLBL FmLBL-ER 1978 1.93.217 :L93.217 o. [ 1979 198.976 198.976 (). 1980 20/'.23.8 20/' + 26!:'j ().047 1981 219.408 219.738 0.33 [ 1982 2:~4. 92!:'i 236.08 1.155 1983 2~l4 .123 245.794 1.671 1984 244.244 246.577 2.333 [ 1985 248.686 250.291 1.605 1986 255.043 257.02 1.977 1987 263.364 265.743 2.38 [ 1988 272.233 275.761 3.528 1989 282.073 286.685 4.612 1990 291. ~:H~"'i 296.389 4·. B7~) 1991. 299. 8~~1 305.416 5.584 [ 1 ~1 9=-~ 30E~. ;!·4·4 313.9~.)3 5.709 19'73 3J.i'.262 323.421 t) .159 197'4 326. ~H:~ 3:~2. 99~) 6.482 c 199~) :~37 .1. 73 :34:5.832 6.659 1996 348. 26~5 354v'll3 6.648 1997 :3t:.o. 901 367. 7U. 6.809 r 199B :~7:~. ~55'1 380.628 7. 06(? 199'.? 38/'. 7::)2 39!5. j, 63 7.43:1. I i .2000 ~~ 401. + :li:14 408.999 7t8l.5 r L .,,., E;.i99'/'h~~:J JJI::.J .. .l.rJ.I. 1 .I. UN us• [ F\!~LN r~m.:BL RF~LBL_EH :L97B E~f:~~~S1i> 88.516 o. c 19/'9 91 .3f.H 9:l.3::l1 o. 1980 ~J~).6~56 ~~!:j.Cj9.l n "17'"' v "~, · . .J .... J i9B:I. 102.231. 102.426 0.19-4 c 1982 110.0~39 1J.0.7l8 0. t.59 198:~ 113.358 1.1.4.271 0.'?1~5 19fJ4 :1.1.1.847 l1:>.l4 1.293 c 1985 1:1.~5.1.56 1:1.3.886 0.73 1986 115.G74 116.773 0.9 1987 120.335 121 .~~5:1. 1.01.6 1988 125.097 126.766 1.669 [ 1989 130.418 132.662 2.244 1990 135.22 137. ~56 2.34 199:1. 138.818 141.523 2.705 [ 1992 1.42.684 145.31 2.626 199:~ 146.949 149.7{>7 2.818 1994 151. 39c> 154.285 2.889 l 1995 156.8:L 159.706 2.896 1996 l62.45t') 165.227 2.77 1997 :1.69.135 17:1 .• 913 2.778 1998 17~i.id3 178.472 2.859 [ 1999 183 + ()9'1 18i>.113 3.015 2000 189.965 193.151 3.186 L [ [ c [ [ [ [ [ r u h L [ G b c [ c L [ [ 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 J.97E:~ :1.979 i980 1981 1982 198:~ 1.984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 RRLBL EM1EXFU 1.951 2.002 2.11 2.-061 2.592 ·2.369 1.702 1.461 1.603 1.726 1.882 1..975 1.736 1. 79·1 1.69 1..64 1.565 1..501 1 • 4t'!3 l + ·447 1.446 1.444 1. .• 444 i:'? H :i. r:: X ti: 4 0~775 :L.07B "" -.J-y ·• .1+/..JJ. 2.402 2.578 1 .. 58 1 .. 259 1.241 :L .. 221 1 .. 118 1.159 1.194 1.229 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 0.779 EHS4R:l 0.8 o. s~l6 0.928 1.029 1.24 1.253 1.091 1.091 1.158 1.235 1.327 1.387 1.:569 1.411 1.43 1.47 l. ~"503 1.546 1 ~ ~596 1.665 1.736 :i .• fJ1tS 3.275 . -"T ~ .... •f ..:Ji+U'"l.L 3.85 4.07 3.967 .3 .974 4.065 4.176 4.261 11+ 384 4.52"1 ·4.651 4.629 4.70·4 4.804 4.903 5.026 5.145 5.3 5.435 5.606 5.775 EMS5R1 0.695 0.709 0.736 0.761 0.829 0.781 0.691 0.674 0.693 0.715 0.743 0.763 0.781 o. "793 0.79 0.796 Ov798 0.805 0.813 (). 828 0.842 0.862 8.843 0 ,;\01 . -'. -l'~U 10.083 10.466 10.38 10.637 10.823 11.056 11.38 11.775 12.232 12.663 1.2.872 13.18 13.54 13.906 14.358 14.781 15.301 15.767 16.352 16.934 EHJ:;;HR1 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. 4.537 4.87 5.018 5.202 5. ~558 ~j. 754 5.904 6.103 6.266 6 c.- t'-J 6.66 6. 867' 7. 04"3 7.252 7.479 7.724 7.954 8.172 8.439 8.659 ENG9R1 0.995 0.997 1 .. 008 1.076 1.135 1.245 1.304 1.258 1.234 1 .. 269 1.315 1.369 1.417 l ... l46 1.461 1.467 1.Jl7B 1. 48:7 1.499 1.515 1. 53;! 1.55 1.568 5.742 5.692 5~585 5.797 5.994 6.321 6.594 6.449 6.298 6.379 6.528 6.722 6.905 7 .04~) 7.077 7.089 7 .1.19 7.15 7.196 7.256 7.323 .7.397 7.473 0 F'OF' -ENDOGENOUS n LCOOI\M LC~1. BFH LCt1 ~ BFI·LEH 1978 422 + 7(>8 422~768 o. [J 1979 433.056 433.056 o. 1900 447.479 447. ~)81 0.101 1981 470.144 470.708 0.565 c 1982 498.753 500.676 1.923 1983 512.816 515.663 2.847 1984 513.129 517.279 4.15 c 1985 520.431 523.434 3.003 1986 529.915 534.31.4 4.399 1987 544.194 550.122 5.928 1988 559.594 569.174 9.58 n 1989 576.785 590.049 1.~5.264 1990 ~i93. 007 600.293 15.286 1. 99 :l c>O!:'i. 943 6;~3. 68 1.7.737 c 1992 61.9.:14 638.147 18.806 1 oo-x I I ._, 633.416 653.924 20.509 1.994 648.041 669.709 2l..66B D 1995 664.B57 687.204 ~!2. 347 1996 l>82 + ~~~!9 704. 21.671 19';>7 702 + 4~5 '724.0BJ. 21.631 n 1998 722.1.55 744 + 1.~)6 22.001 :i999 7 44. 5:-~:-~ 767~579 23~057 I .._j 2000 766. ~)13 790.606 24.093 tv\, c~ t-ls \ n LJ LCOCJKI1 LCi'-1 .. BFH LCN. BFI-LEF\ 1.978 --2. fJC,:5 -2.863 o. c 1.979 2.96'? 2.969 o. 1980 7.07 7 .1. 7 0.101 D 198:1. 1~).121 l.~i.58:l 0.46 1982 20.569 2:1.. 906 1.337 1.983 ·=--'? ,., ("\ ' ~ n 1\ oc:·r ;:J•,:i..::.7 Cl + .~o v. \.1'\J.&. 1984 -8.495 -i' .297 1.199 B 1985 -1.042 -2.336 -1.294 1986 1.296 2.6 1.304 1987 6.141 7.533 1.392 c 1988 7.117 10.581 3.464 1989 ·a.718 12.086 3.368 1990 7.494 9.08 1.586 C 19.91 4.003 5 .. 971 1.968 1992 4.392 4.92 0.528 1993 4.979 6 .1.38 1.16 1994 5.409 c>.OO:L 0.592 c 1995 7.463 7.571 0.107 1996 7.901 6.67 -1.23 1997 10.317 9.786 -0.531 L 1.998 9.575 9.494 -0.082 1999 11.95 12.568 0.618 2000 11.202 11..785 0.583 [ L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r u E [ c C c [ G L [ [ BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET MODERATE SCENARIO 0 SMS\>~ LCDCJI\M I. l:l1. DFH c l978 0.355 0.355 [J 1979 0. :~66 0.366 1980 0 .. 382 0.382 . 1981 0.392' 0.:592 n 1982 o •• ·w:~ 0 .. 404 1983 0.403 0.404 1984 0.4 0.401 [j 1985 0.406 0.406 1986 0.414 0.415 1987 0.422 0.424 n 1988 0.429 0.432 1989 0.436 0.44 1.990 0.443 0.446 1991 0.448 0.451 n 1992 0.454 0.457 u 1993 O.A61 0.464 1994 0.467 0.47 D 1995 0.475 0.478 1996 0.482 0.484 1997 0.489 0.491 n 1998 0.496 0~49B 1999 0 +50:-) 0 +50.!> u 2000 0 .5:l 0.512 I D I EMNSF' -DEFINITION I ! 0 LCOOI\M LCii.nFH i 1978 0.234 0.234 0 1979 0.236 Ov236 19BO 0.239 0.239 1981 0.243 0.244 D 1982 0.251 0.251 1983 0.246 0.247 1984 0.233 0.234 1985 0.236 0.236 [J 1986 0.239 0.24 1987 0.238 0.24 1988 0.238 0.24 c 1989 0.237 0.238 1990 0.236 0.237 1991 0.234 0.235 D 1992 0.235 0.235 1993 0.235 0.235 1994 0.235 0.235 L 1995 0.235 0.235 1996 0.236 () + 235 1997 0.236 0.235 1998 0.236 0.235 r-, 1999 0.236 0. 2:~5 6 2000 0.236 0.235 [ [ EM99 -ENDOGENOUS [ LCODKM LCN.BFH LCt1. !WI--LER [ 1.978 190.227 190.227 o. 1979 195.599 195.599 o. 1.980 203.629 203.703 0.074 1981. 216.872 217.282 0.409 [ 1.982 233.431 234 .. 807 1.376 1983 237.797 239.683 1.887 1984 232.601 235.24 2.638 [ 1985 234.583 236.085 1.502 1986 238.549 240.963 2.413 1987 246.151 249.419 3.269 [ 1988 254.365 25<7'. 922 5.556 1989 263.697 271.372 7.675 1990 272.041 280.463 8.423 1991. 277.827 2Ef7 + 392 9.564 [ 1992 284.124 293.76 9 • tS36 1.993 290.93 30:1 .• 226 1.0.295 1994 298.064 30tl.608 1.0.544 [ 1995 306.861 317.274 1 (). 4:1.3 1996 315.971 325.398 9.427 1997 326v908 335.894 8.986 r 1998 337.246 346.169 8.923 1999 349.393 358. 7:~7 9.344 u 2000 360.981 370.768 9.787 E EHG9P -DEFINITION c LCOOI\l·i LC~!. BFH c 1978 0.412 0.412 1979 0.398 0.398 1980 0.379 0.379 G :1.981 o.:~6~; 0.364 1982 0.346 0.345 1983 0.35:L 0.349 1984 0.367 0.365 c 1985 0.358 0.358 -1.986 0.347 0.345 1987 0.34 0 .. 336 [ 1988. 0.333 0.328 1989 0.327 0.321. 1990 0.321 0.317 [ 1991 0.318 0.314 1992 0.312 0.308 1993 0.305 0. 301. 1994 0.298 0.295 L 1995 0.29 0.288 1996 0.283 0.281 1997 0.275 0. 27 ~l [ 199B 0.268 0.267 1999 0.261 0.259 2000 0. 25·4 0.252 t [ [ PI •.. ENDOGENOUS LCOOKH LCM.BFH LCh. BFI-LEF\ [ 1978 3509.98 3509.98 o. 1979 3929. 3929. o. 1980 4585.4 4587.5 2.098 [ 1981 5390.94 5408.01 17.074 1982 {,457 .18 6519.2 62.02 1983 6932.58 7025.66 93.078 [ 1984 6676.57 6787.16 110.594 1985 7071.61 7129.43 57.828 1986 7883.18 7973.36 90.18 [ 1987 8806.87 9001.1 194.23 1988 9854.96 10188.5 333.52 1.989 10952.2 1144~L8 491.602 1990 12101.2 12596.9 495.676 [ 1991 13105.7 13656.8 551.137 1992 1.4288.6 14863.9 575.301 1993 1~:i675.8 1631.3.3 637.50B [ 1994 17221.9 17927.6 705.633 1995 19010.1 19?23.4 713.297 1996 21.02[~ + 3 21681.6 653.297 r 1997 23312.3 23965.6 653.316 1998 25f:l04. 26530.5 726.53:l LJ 1999 '")C) .1. ·t l\ ,., 29462.9 sr.::? ., ., ·== ~o."-'-'\..1 .1. v • ._ ....,,._ .. ; ...... , [ 2000 31695.4 32671.1 97~) + 766 [ PIF~PC -ENDOGENOUS LCOOI\M LCt'i. HFH LCN. f:FI·LH;: 0 197B 3633.32 3633.32 o. 1979 3764.1? 3764~17 o. l 1980 3960.57 39[>1. 6 1. 027 1981 4212. 1.2 422(). 28 8 .1.6 1.982 4520.21 4544.9 24.684 c 19K~ 4513.95 4545.36 31..41 1984 4:~63 + 4 4303.07 39. 6<.SB 1985 4305.94 4318.98 1:->.047 1986 4425.48 4457.27 31.785 [ 1.987 4557.37 4612.98 55.605 1988 4700.75 4788.18 87.43 1989 4838.3 4949.49 111.191 c 1990 4963 .. 66 5054.34 90.68 1991. 5032.85 5127.35 9~l + 496 1992 5137.21 5218.59 81.379 L 1993 5250 .. 29 5331.91 81..621 19S>': 5370 "~~i5 5447.66 7? + 1.1.3 1995 55()~j + 6 5566.2 60. 60~) r ~, 1996 5648.64 5685.4 36.758 L 1997 5801+23 5826.85 2~5. 621 1998 5950.1.9 5973.21 23.023 I I 1999 6107.16 6132.14 24.98 I L 2000 , ,.., L. ,., ,.) ~ 6287 tl)2 (:>.·-".),;..f. ... .~., 25 •37 ~'(~ RES~RCES U"R~RY , .. .-........ -.. v -,., \. U.S. Departm of tb& .IJ:Jimior n Fv~D t~J LCOOI<M LCM.BFH LCN. BFt·LER 1978 625.748 625.748 o. fJ 1979 B23,.148 873.148 50. 1980 1.144.96 1196.52 51.559 r~ 1981. 1622.91 1677.58 54.662 I. 1982 2272.13 2329.1.9 ~'i7 .061 '~ 1983 2964.41 3019.23 54.814 1984 4085.48 4134.67 49.191 0 1985 5504.57 5549.49 44.922 1986 6855.28 6907.08 51.801 1987 8152.06 8216.09 64.027 1988 9366.57 9440.96 74.391 1989 10474.4 10650.5 176.168 :1.990 11302.8 11596.9 294.16 n 1991 11933. 12387.8 454.777 1992 12-468.9 13090.5 621.613 1993 12896.8 13699.9 803.055 1994 1.3126.2 14122.2 99!:). 988 1995 1:H33 .1. 14329.6 1196.43 1996 12894.9 14331.9 1.437.07 1997 12394.8 14098.9 1704.08 0 1998 11598.4 13577.9 1979.51 1999 10498.5 12742.2 2243.64 2000 9056.37 11548.1 2491.7 fl [_) F\INS -· DEFINITION LCOOKH LCM.BFH LCi'1. X::!FI·LEH u 19'/fJ '~l) + ~?5·4 46.954 o. 1979 44.047 4~1. 047 o. 0 1980 ~)8. 332 61.89L~ 3.562 1981 81.484 85.156 3.672 :i.982 11.5.642 119.531 3.889 B 1983 161 .. 868 165.925 4.057 1984 211.192 215.091 :1.9 1985 290.778 294.283 3.506 c 1986 391.339 394.546 3.207 3.689 ' 1987 487.158 490.847 1988 579.179 583.723 4.544 1989 665.457 670.727 5.27 c 1990 744.27 756.711 12.441 1991 803.459 824.243 20.783 1992 8·48. 72 880.85:1. 32.131. c 1993 887.38 931.3 43.92 1994 918.492 975.23 56.738 1995 935.684 1006.05 70.365 [ 1996 937.274 1021.8 84. 52ft 1997 921.69 1023.19 10:1 .• 504 1998 887.774 1008.11 120.33~~ [ 1999 8~~:5 ~ 11.7 972.864 139.747 :woo 757.224 915.579 158.355 L [ [ F:EVGF -DEFINI THiN LCODI\N LCi'1• DFH LCi'·i. BFI-LEH [ 197B 101.3.44 1013.44 o. 1979 13~56 + 4 1386.4 so. 198() 1579.45 1583.l. 3.645 [ 198:1. 1. 90~5 .1c> 3.907.82 4.661 1982 22.75.1 2282.31 7.211 1983 2567.25 2577.98 10.728 [ 1984 3150.18 3163.38 13.2 1985 3545.48 3557.7 12.227 1986 3695.75 3709.96 14.211 [ 1987 3908.72 3933.09 24.367 1988 4118.08 4161.21 43.129 198$' 4318.41. 44Ti'. 27 158.852 1990 4346.76 4570.55 223.797 [ 1991 44:H .42 4709.43 278.012 1992 4600.38 4900.15 307.773 1993 4793.32 5132.04 338 .. 727 [ 1994 4936.55 5308.13 371.578 1995 5075.93 5478.~)8 402.453 1996 5268.06 5697.43 429.375 r 1997 5487.71 5938.3:1. 450.602 1.998 ~572B + 39 6192.29 ~u~3.895 u 1999 5994+31 t'>465 + 83 471.52 2000 6280.96 '-.. L c:· 'I ·• 01<.)~1 + ..:...l 484.254 [ c F\P9S --DEFINITION LCOOI\r··l LCi'i. :BFH LCN. Br-~l-LEF: c 1978 450.1 4~")0.1 o. 1979 795. ~) o..tr.:· -, 5lJ ~ 0 .J+ ~~ -t nn·r, ·I J"'\r..•l'l ., of ,\.""' ...... ·I A .1.70\J .J. \IV"t + J. ..L \/V ... ";' + ..L V+ G 1981 1253.8 1254.11 0.31 1982 1509.6 1510.()4 0.44 1983 1678.3 1679. 0 •. 7 c 1984 2178.2 2178.91 0 • .71 1985 2472.6 2473 ~ A12 0.82 1986 2464.8 2468.58 3.78 [ 1987 2496.6 2505.81 9.21 1988 2515.6 2532.31. 16.71 1989 2518.6 2636.95 11.8.35 1990 2348.9 2513.75 164.85 c 1991 2253.1 2·158 ~ 04 204.94 1992 2254.6 2472.02 217.42 1993 2268. 2498.4 230.4 L 1994 2216.8 2459.52 242.72 199:i 2152.8 240~). 59 252.79 1.996 2127.5 239 :l. 3~) 263. 8~i [ 1997 21.15.5 238~) .16 2c>9. 66 1998 2108.4 2367.71 259.31 1999 211.2~:) 234/' ~ BSJ 235.59 2000 2114.:1. 232l). 82 212.72 t RF'I -ENDOGENOUS LCOO!\N 1978 228.508 1979 241 .. 028 1980 258.728 19tH 272.22 1982 286.429 1983 299.483 1984 305.:1.95 1985 :u5.564 1986 336.149 1987 355 .10:~ 1988 374.635 1989 392.46 1990 41:L.11!::1 1991 ·429. 75:l 1992 449.084 1993 471.365 1994 494.835 1995 5:1.9.342 1996 5-45. !:jf:)7 1997 572.074 1998 600.51B 19S:•9 L"")O ,..>-x u.,:../ • ~._.....J 2000 660.311 LCN.BFH LCi1. BFI-LER 228 .. 508 o. 241 .. 028 o. 258.721 -0.007 272.228 0.007 286 • .cl83 0.054 299 .. 742 0 '""~-Q ... ,;;. .... J .I 304.915 -0.281 ~51~)v36~) -0 .. 1.99 :~3~+ + 791. -1.359 354.691 ·-o. 411 373.84 -0~796 391.846 -0.615 4()S' v /'25 -1.3G9 ·127. 067 -2.684 446.33 -2.753 467.875 -3.491. -49J.,) 38::j -3.449 c:··· r::· t-il. ,_JJ . .J ~ \J~ I -3.70G 5l~:i.. ~7()~) -~~. 885 56f3 y 033 -4 .. 041 5<;i6 ~ 86:~ -:~ ~ 6:)~) ,l... ':)t::;. <~r.=;.l, -3~275 ..._.. -"-._, T I "'•" ._, 657.2:36 -3.074 c iJ 0 [l u [J D r: I , L..J rJ LJ 0 0 B b D c L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I ' .__. c L [ c E c [ c L L L s:c{V\\"> LCOOKM LCM.BFH .. -· . --·· ... ~ ·------··--·· 1978 -44.852 -44.852 1979 197 ·"'~ 247.4 1980 321.812 323.371. 1981 477.954· 481.057 1982 649.219 651.617 I 1983 692.28 690.034 I 1984 1121.07 1115.~l4 .I 1985 1419.1 1414.83 1986 1350.71 1357.59 1987 1296.79 1309.01 1988 1214.52 . 1224.88 ... _ ... 1989 1107.79_ 1209 .. 57 1990 828.392 946 + 386 .~·~:· 1991 630.275 790.894 1992 535.874 702.707 1993 427.902 609.344 .. ... 422 .. 301 .. . . 1994 229.367 . ·. 1995 6.957 .. 207.395 1996 -238.25~l 2.395 1997 -500.094 -233.086 1998 -796._398 -520.9"73 1999 -1099.86 -835.73 2000 -1442.14 -1194.09 .. .. ~ EXBITES -DEFINITION LCOOKM LCr1. BFH 1978 0.302 0.302 1979 0.29 0.29 .;; 1980 0.274 0.275 '1981 0.264 0.264 -. ·~-1982 0.252 0.25 .. 1983 0.27· 0.269 :· .... 1984 0.304 _0.302 .:: .. ·. 1985 ·. 0.301 0.301 1986 . 0.297 0.295 1987 0+297 ':' 0.292 l988 0.295 0.288 1989 0.293 0.286 1990 ., . . · . 0.291 .. 0.288 ... . 1991:.:. 0'.29 .. 0.287 . · 1992 o·.284 .0.283 .·. 1993 0+278 ·~-0. 277 1994 0.273 0.273 1995 0.267 0.267 1.996 0.262-.. 0.263 1997 0.257 0.258 1998 0.253 0.253 1999 0.248 0.248 2000 0.244 0.244 c F'OPf'~4 -DEFINITION c RRU''I RI~LBH RI~LI:HLER 1978 58.365 58. 3t'l5 o. [J 19.79 59. 40(, 59.406 o. 1980 61.935 .. 61.949 0.014 1981 64 .. 443 64. 4ll2 0.019. c 1982 65.387 65.439 0.052 198:.) 64.455 64.571 0.116 -1984-65.84 66.077 0.237 1985 .66.304 66.57 0.265 1986 66.818 67.072 0.254 1987 67.521 67.709 0.188 1988 68.722 69~085 0.3(.,3 1989 70.095 70. 69~) o.6 1990 71..529 72.5?8 1.048 1991 71 + 1.49 71 .• 97 0.821. 0 1.9<i2 72.1:ll) 73.481 1. 36~j 199:~ 73.117 74. 64·4 1.527 199·4 74.272 .75.856 1.584 0 l.995 75.485 77. ;~~~4 1.74B . 1996 76.772 77 + 7~55 0.963 1997 78.236 7'1. 92 14684 1998 79. sc;•4 81.364 :1..77 1999 8l..2!:i~5 83.032 1.777 200() 82 + 94:~ 8•1. 77 1.B28 -··----··- EM99H4 -· In::F!Nl TION c f~RU·I RF~LBH F~F:Lf.lH_.El:( I 1978 2;! + 3l)4 2:~ + ~}t>4 o .. i 0 2:5 y 281. o .. I 1979 2~~ ~ 2El 1. I 1'7~10 '">A _ c>··_;'-.' 2·4 ~ 97•::; 0+{)09 I ,.;.. -·· . , , :l <ff~l 26.878 2l> ~ ~1}'3 0.015 :1.982 27.96'? 28.011 o~o42 1983 27.226 27.3 0.0'74 1 (i84 27. 5[~ 27.724 0.144 c 198~5 2'7~861 27.975 0. 1.15 1986 28.224 28.33B ().11.4 1987 28.798 28.875 o;o76 1988 29.592 29.783 0.192 r~ 1989 30.5 30.822 0.322 u . 1990 31.376 31 + 91l. 0.535 1991 :n .348 31.715 0.367 D 199::! 31.91.6 32 + 5!:'i1 0 + 63~5 1993 ~-..., !:':") 33. ;!()3 0.684 ,)A-• ;:..s .. .._ 1994 33. H1~5 33.864 0.681 [ 1995 33.933 34 + (.)5!5 0.722 1996 34.705 34. 92~'i 0.219 1997 35 .. 61.7 36.2Hl 0.6 \~ __ jj~9~_t _____ -36 !.4.ql ___ . -~_z_.t_038 ___ . 0.608 -Ot598 1999 37.43B 38.036 2000 38. 427' 39. 04·4 0.6151 tJ I [ [ F'OF'R1 -DEFINITION RRLH J:;:HLBH f~I:;:LBH •• EFi: [ 1.978 7.155 7.1.~)5 o. 1979 7.301 7.301 o. [ 1980 7.568 7. ~i69 0.002 1981 7.55B 7.682 0.125 1982 8.023 ·8. 459 0.436 1.983 7.853 8.371 0.518 [ 1984 7.176 7.749 0.573 1985 7.359 7.601 0.242 1986 7.453 8.032 0.579 [ l987 7.579 8.539 0.96 1.988 7. c157 9.019 1..362 1. 98<J 7.71.7 9. :.S5El 1.641 [ 1.9<;'0 7.76:~ 9. 03:1 1 .• 271 199:1. 7.8€!1 9.828 j c,,, -·· •• 7 • / 1992 7.966 9.206 :1 .• 23'1' 1993 7. ~.,'63 9. 25'7" :i.. 296 [ 1994 7.972 9.249 1.277· 1.99~) 8. 0{j2 9.1.Tl :l.t115 1. 9~J c:, 8.14 9.<J6J. 1..821 r 1997 B. 2:51.1 .. 9 .159 0.923 ~.}9.B .. P .. • :{l . . .. 9.209 ·,-:().899 I -:· -· :·· -~'· ':...-~ -... ........ ---1999 f:~ ~ .t;O~! 9. 3()9 0.907 E· 2000 f:l.~.'i:54 9.445 0. 911. [ Et199H1 --DEFINITION RRUi Rl~LBH Fi:fi:LBH •• EFi: c .:1.978 ·4 '"4-f.>2) 4 + 4-63 o~ :i.979 ·4 • ~)t~ l 4. ~j8:J. (). :t 9f:~O .·1 C>,.)C• /, t)·") t' ·{) ,·""\ t\ '') "\' ~ l.J A'-\,} .. \ •• \,J .. · .• ~ v ~ '\.',,.-_ 5 198:l .. 1_. + fi4 ·1· 975 0 ,I-¥ A + .L ~} ..:~ iOC:I'":I I~ ••¥:::• (. ~).8;~(~) 0.469 ' .,..] t ~">'"JCi . , \...·~ . 1<?83 5.,09~.) 5. 6~l8 0. ~549 [ :1.984 4.20:1. 4.794 0.593 j C' '"' •~ -<l • 2~:) 4.486 ·~ + 235 .'TO .. I 19B6 4. 2~53 4. 83~~ 0 •cr.• • '-J<.) [ 1987 4.363 ~). 33 0.967 198£! 4.45 c~ o·rc:· 1.:186 .. ltOu'-1 1989 4.50!5 6.181 1 •. 676 1990 4.542 5. €113 1.27 [ 1991 4. 6:!.:1 {>. 593 1 .• 9G -1992 4 • <:'163 5.864 1.20:1. 1993 4.<:',19 ~:). 866 l .• ~!-4 ;i' l 1994 4 + 60:~ 5.81:1. 1.209 1995 4.673 ~).69~:) 1.022 199c> ·'l. 746 6 r::-,"'\r.:· 1. 77':/ t...IO::..J [ 1997 4.041 ~). 636 o. 79:5 :1.998 4 t ~.i26 5. c'>8~) 0.759 1999 5v03 5.791 0.761 2000 ~'i.145 5.903 0.757 [ F'OF'R7 -DEFINITION E:F:Ui 1978 57.026 1.979 60.19 1980 r.~:~. 172 1981 68.425 -1982 78.464 1983 82.374 1984 78.1 1985 79.734 1986 B2.162 :1.987 B5.564 1988 89.073 1989 92.777 1. 7'90 96. 1. 7'3 i99J. 99.()49 1992 lO:l.~>56 :1. 99~} 104.97:i. 199·4 1.08.:1.:i.4 1 s~·9~=; :1.1.1 • 7~i2 :L996 :l1.5. 4S:'5 1997 119.751 :1. '19B 1.23.B94 :i. 999 12f:?..~)97 20()0 13:?>. ~~)O!::i EM99R7 -DEFINITION :1.97B 1. s~'79 :1. <?SO 1.9EU 1.982 :1.983 19B4 1.98~i 1986 1987 :1.988 1989 :i.S)90 1.991 1992 :L993 1994 199~-'i 1996 :31 + ;!·~J:;_~ 32.:1.49 3~). 432 36v582 42.ci6'7' 43.G74 39.39 39.607 40.435 41.922 43.496 41::" "')r:"'J::" '-J • .-~.;:J..J ·46.819 ,.17. ~J97 49.239 50.59 5~! I 002 5~) ~ /'63 5~). 571 f~F.:LBH 57.f:l26 60.19 63.187 t'1S • 497 78.711 82.781 78.7~17 80.187 82.863 86.585 90~717 95.063 <yfJ. /'B2 :l0.2.27tl 105 • .279 :l.OB.!:'i79 :L 1.2. 043 l15o~78:3 iJ<;->.856 123. 70:'i 127.861 132.922 :1.37. 918 Fi:f~LDH 31.29.2 32 + 1.·4't 3~3 ~ 444 :5 c> t ,!> :~ ~' ·4~~. 82Si 44.:1.24 39 + /':;'2 ~1(1' + 8:?;5 40.789 42.4J.~";j 44.3-42 46.443 48.168 49.51.8 50.869 ~j2.318 !:i3. 835 5t"'i. 589 57.274 1997 57.736 59.37 HRLf.iH_Ef=~ o. o. ().01.4 0.072 0.247 0.·407 0.647 0.453 0.701. 1.02l 1. [,44 r) '") •::\ 1 ~-. ... ,.._a..)\:> ~. c:·c~l"' ·~•..J07 -·· .,,.,.7 ""~ ............. , -I *'X~/J. ,_,} + ....,,,~..._ .• 3.ci08 ..... 0"'")("'1 ,;) + 7 ,.· .. 7 J(l ' () :~ 1. 4. :?> f.d. 3. (),)~)4- 3.968 1 ..... '") , ~. + ,::. •• _ ... J .t~.i)l~! I:;:F:LBH_Er.;: o •. o. i ' ! 0.047 0. 1 C'1 ') '"') r::· u + ~~.·_,.) 0 + :;)E~2 0+228 0.354 o.A92 0.846 1.:1.891 1.349: 1.521. 1.63 .i 9'?1B __________ P5~· 7.GJ ________ 6J.-~~6~l._ . 1 + 728; 1. 832 ; 1.826 1. 702~ 1.634 1..584 1. 728 . 1.a5 1 1999 62.2 63.928 2000 64.598 66.44i3 I n c rJ [j fl [ _ _j [J [} n \ : L....l p u [j 0 D r '-' c c [ l ·L [ [ POPR~5 -DEFINITION [ F.:RU··i F~RLBH F.: F.: L. DI·L E F~ 1978 193.21.? 1.93.2:1.7 o. [ 1979 1.98.976 198+976 o. 1.980 207 .2H} 207'.265 ·o.0Al7 1981 219 (• 408 219.738 0.33 i I 1982 234.925 236.08 1.155 [ 1983 244.123 245.794 1.671 198~~. 244.244 246.577 2.333 1985 248.686 250.291 1.605 ' [ 1986 255.043 2:j7. 463 2. -4:~ 198"/ 263" ~~cS/.l 266v958 ~~. 594 J.9B8 27~.~ + 23=~; 278. ~). 767 [ 1987! 28::! y 073 289.983 7.9:!. j f' Cl" ::.~7'1. !5l~i 300.195 8.68 • 7 ') v 19S.' 1 299. !3~51 3:i. (). 2~}~) 10.~l04 :l992 30£~ +:~,(ttl 31!3.901 J.0.6~'i7 c 1993 3l i' ~ 2c!>:~ 32f:3 + \~).<1;.~ 11.38 :J.99J;\ 3:~(:~. ~:j l =5 338. 7~)4 12.241 :i. ':;? f:"~5 :~:~7 .1. 7:) ~~·4S>. 6ii7 12.~51.4 r 1 ~j<i.:.; 3i~8 ~ ::!6~) 36:1.. 32:1. 13.0~i5 ., <;-(:)7 360~90:i. 37~:) t ::~(>2 12.361. u . , , " :i.99i:1 373. 5!:59 385 + E37 :!.2.31l. [ :i.999 ~587. 732 400.867 1.3.135 ~~000 40l. Hl4 4:1.4.S>66 1:). 782 [ EM99R5 -DEFINITION c RFi:l.M RF~L.BH f~f.~LBJ-LE!:~ 19/'E: 88.516 8<J.51f.> o. :!. =7'7'7 {") ·t 7 Cl ·I 9:t.~:r~:!. o~ ·; .r. + .... J \.J .1. r 1~~·B() s)r::· l""l <;·5.6<?l. o. o:s~) ... J + \.,) ... ) ~.) u 1'1f:U 102.23:1. 1 G·:~ + -42(, 0.1?4 1982 :1.10. 0~59 :1.10.71B 0.659 c :1 t:-.o·:-Jl3.35tl 114.271 0.91~'.1) . 7 \..1~ 1 ~.) i.~ ~=~· 1:1.:1 .• 84"7 113.14 :1 .• 293 :i.985 113.1!:-16 11.3.886 0.73 [ 1986 U.5.874 117.043 1.167' J. 987 :1.20. ~5~1~5 122.01 1.i>7!:; 1. ?·Bt~ :1.25 + 097 127.<?88 2.891 c 19B9 :L:?O • .-'H8 134.453 4. 03~) 1 s·~·<) :1 ·:r. '"" '') '") 139.624 4.404 • ,..) ... } + ,.._....:... • QC'!·I :l38. fl18 143. 9:?6 5.1.1E~ .1. ' 1 ••• 19'1'2 14~~.~.)~3-4 147.827 5.143 L 1 oq-·· 146.949 152.4 5.45:1. I ' .. ~ :i.99.ti 151 • :~~>l, 157 • 10~) ;::; • 709 - 199!:-j 156.81 162.463 5.653 [ :L9S1 ~S 162. 4!56 167. 90~i-5.44/. :t r; !i? 169.1:}~.) 174.152 5.01/' :1.9S>8 :tn).613 18(). ~"549 ... ,:1. 9:~6 ·f \;• <J c_: 18:~ + •'J99 188.404 ~'i .. :."?()Ci L olo I ' I 2000 1. t} <;> + •;\~'> 5 19:). ~)f.~ :.J 5. ci04 c F~RLBH n EM1EXf~5 ENS4H5 ENS~5R5 Et·mrm5 EHG9R5 1978 1. 3:~ 12.183 37.1.>27 2 + 10'i 35.107 fJ 1979 1.366 12.751 39.954 2.249 34.892 1980 1.366 13.646 43.465 2.38 34.733 n 1981 1.397 14.886 47.934 2.555 35.456 1982 1.414 16.429 53.531 2.692 36.181 1983 1.422 17.016 55.016 2.856 37.227 1984 1.426 16.753 53.459 3.01 37.969 r1 J 1985 1.408 17.156 54.269 3.173 37.41:6 1986 1.418 17.964 56.757 3.354 36.955 1987 1.408 18.889 60.1.97 3.537 37.239 I' 1988 1.437 1.9.941 64.1.46 3.723 37.772 u 1989 1.457 21.093 68.426 3.909 38.455 1990 1.466 22.064 71.601 4.108 39.14 I' 1991 1.315 22.787 74.475 4.303 39.609 1992 1.46 23.475 7il. 996 4.525 39 + 75i) L_i 1993 1.456 24.37 80.295 4.745 39.783 1994 1. 45:~ 25 ~ ~~67 82) + :'i46 4.953 39. 89~1 n 1995 1.454 26.31 87 .32·4 5.194 40.00? L_J 1996 1 • 23::! 27 + 32~3 91.203 5,) ~152 40.082 1997 1.451 28.643 95.449 5 + 72::: 40.21 n 1998 1.451 29.961 99.935 5 ~ 97<1 40. 30•} f : I i L_J 1999 1.452 31..551 105.386 6.251 40.54 2000 1.452 33.017 11.0.432 b.522 40.777 '' LJ RRLBH. 0 El'll EX F~ 7 ENS4F.:7 Er·!S5FO EHF~RF:7 EMG9R7 :l.97B 0. ~~4:"5 5.1.4 9.11.9 0.45"? 16.26~; c 1.979 0.243 ~:;. 3B9 9.7'"99 0.·1S) 16.125 J. '7" [~0 ·''-,., .l\ -:!' r::· -7-~ ·' ·I /""' c~ ·t -:r l"l t=:"") .:. 16. o~J3 ,._, .. .,·:. "~·.;:. ,_} '!). / /0 ..1.\1-0o~J.i.'\o} v '+ 'I.J ..... _, 198:1. 1..534 6.087 1.2.064 0.563 16.283 B 1982 4 +:~52 6.t'l93 14.554 0.601 16.564 1983 4.182 7.093 1.5.192 0.635 16 + 98!:i 1984 0.487 7.214 14.051. 0.687 17.292 c :l985 0.252 7.447 14.351. 0.703 . 17 + 03·1 1986 0.282 7.779 15.13 o.74:L 16.803 1.987 0.301. s. 158 :1.6.218 0.788 16.898 [ :L988 0.316 8.575 17.44 0.834 17.:1.06 1989 0.312 9.033 1fL 754 0.876 17.384 1990 0 .266 .. 9.44 19.784 ().924 17 .l>65 1991. 0.239 9.705 20.689 0.968 17.852 c 1992 0.255 :1.0. 005 21.532 1.036 ;1.7.904 1993 0.266 10.347 22.552 1.081 17.899 1991~ 0 .26.6 10.697 23.608 1 .1.3 :1. 17.935 c 1995 0. 2~)5 11 .1:1. 24.82 1.194 17.971 1996 0.209 11.478 26.087 1.256 17.99 1997 0.243 12.008 27.42 1.326 18.034 L 1998 0.243 12.491 28.799 1.37 18.061 1.999 0.243 13.098 30. ~536 1.439 18.154 2000 0.243 13.703 32. 2·4;2 1 r.:· ., ~) 18.248 • ..J .... .~o·- L [ [ RF:LBH EMlEXI-\:1 Ei'1S4R1 EMS5F:1. ENi~l=<r~ 1. EriG9F\1 [ 1970 1.951 o.a 0.695 o. 0.995 1979 2.002 0.046 0.709 o. 0.997 [ 1980 2.1.1. 0.928 0.736 o. 1.008 1981 2.061 1'.029 0.761 o. 1.076 1982 2.592 1.2.tl 0.829 o. 1.135 [ 1983 2.369 1.253 0.781 o. 1.245 1984 1.702 1.091 0.691. o. 1.304 1985 1.46i 1.091 0.674 o. 1.258 1986 1.732 1.18 0 .. 706 o. 1.234 [ 1987 2.034 1.298 0. 7«t9 o. l.275 :l988 2.331. 1.426 0. 7~J5 o. 1.33 1989 2.5l~5 1.!:i12 0.828 o. 1.392 [ i 99() 2 .12~~ 1 ~ 4"73 0.833 o. :1..448 .:. S:·9 j_ 2.464 1.615 O.f.l95 o. :1..476 .i.9{T2 2.07 :!. .!::144 0.844 o. 1.505 [ 1_ :; ·;; 3 2.044 1.584 0. E~~3=5 o~ 1.5 ::. '·) :_;· ... } 1 • 9f:d. 1 .. 619 (). 8~)4 () . 1.509 .:. ·:..: :;; ::s 1.813 i.b46 0~853 o~ :l.519 ·. _:· .. _..--·=·) 2.092 1. 84!~ 0~931 o. 1.529 r : ";'"-:.:-!" 1.638 1.744 () + 86:~ o .. 1 + 5~54 ..... L •. ·t ·r·:·. 1. 63~) 1.fJ05 0.874 o. 1+556 -~ '?· ·;.:-:. 1.636 1..89:1. (). 89~) o. 1.571 r ....... ' .... : .. , :L • 6~52 1.9T7 0.91!:) o. 1 + ~j89 L u f~F~Lf:H El"i:I.EXF~-4 EN::;-41:~4 Et,tS5i=<:4 L::: r1 F: r~ F;: -<~. DH.'i9FU} [ J. 9~7(~ 0.775 ·~ ., ~· -· ,!; ~ ...... ~ .;) El ~ 4~i3 ..c'} .; :5 ~~~ 1 r.:--_...., LJ. ") ~~+I *-'~ 19'79 :1..078 3. 27~·i B.843 4. ~)37 ~i. 6S)2 c 1980 1.731 3.541 9.486 4.731 5.585 1981 2.402 3.85 10.083 4.87 5.797 1982 2.578 4.07 10~466 5.018 5.994 c 1983 1.58 3.967 10.38 5;. 2()2 6.321 3.984 1..259 3 • 97sl 1() .. 637 5.4 6.594 198~:i 1.24:1. 4. ()65 10<>823 5.558 6,4-49 1986 1.23 4.178 11.068 5.754 6.299 [ 1987 1.118 4.264 11 *39!5 5.904 6 .. 38:3 1988 1.159 4.391 11.811 6.103 6.546 1989 1.194 4.54 12.307 6.266 6.758 [ 1990 1.229 4.695 12.785 6.5 6.965 1991 0.7 4.637 12.891 6.6t. 7.127 1992 0.779 4.754 13.324 6.869 7.15 L 1993 0.779 4.859 13.703 7.043 7.:1.89 1994 0.778 4.958 14.067 7.252 7.;u3 1995 0.779 5.083 14.52~) 7.479 7.247 L 1996 0.661 5.121 :1.4. 702 7.?24 7.294 1997 0.779 5.339 15.425 7.954 7.329 1998 0.779 5.478 15.905 8.172 7.41 1999 0.779 5.647 16.486 8.439 7.47 t 2000 0.779 5.818 17.07:1. 8 .. (!)~i9 7.547 D F'OP --ENDOGENOUS fj LCOOI<H L.BHI L. BHI-Ef~ 1978 422.83 422.B3 o. n 1979 431.71 431.71 o. 1980 444 .. 03 444.131 0.1.01 .u 1981 466.924 467.49 0.566 1982 494.607 496.551 1.943 1983 517.489 520.37 2.881 r ... 1984 ~_24. 765 !';28.832 4.066 u 1985 535.24 538.429 3.189 1986 543.113 547.396 4.283 1987 556.267 562.208 5.941 r' 1.988 570.73 5B0.1l 9.379 L 1989 588.l9B 601.22S> 13.0:H 1990 605.056 619.997 14.941 n 1991 619.149 c1:56 .486 17.336 1992 633.619 651.98 1.8.361 1993 648.853 668. f.ll. 9 1.9.966 D 1994 66-4.519 68!:) ~ ~jt'>~) 21.047 1995 682.402 704 + 10:~ 21.701 1.996 700.8B4 722.137 :-.!1. :~53 1997 722. j_ 743.439 21.339 r1 t 1 1998 7-42.911 764~615 21. 70~l LJ 1999 766.485 7f.l9.226 22.741 2000 789.734 813.465 2:!,.731 rl I ! ' u NIGI\!ET -ENDOGENOUS 0 LCOOI<H L.BHI L. BHI--EF~ D 1978 -2.B01 -2.B01 o. ., 0"7(1 i r::~c:> ·I r: c:: C) r. .S. ~ F I .I .•.... J ..J~.I .1 ••.... J....J'-' ...,. . 1980 5.02 :i + 1.21. 0.101 B 1981 15.-482 1:'i.94t} 0. 4t>2 1982 19. 75~} 2:l d :l l. +:~55 1983 14.288 1~5.152 0.864 n 1984 -1·. 747 -0. 66E! 1..079 1985 1.659 0.639 --1 + 02 1986 -0.877 o. 11.8 0.995 u 1987 .. 1.5C> 6.085 1 + 52·4 1988 5.804 9.055 3.251 1989 8.685 12.03 3.3~15 c 1990 7. 8:57' 9.31.Sl 1.482 1991 4.865 6.79 1. 92!:-i 1992 5.147 5.643 0.497 1993 5.801 6.878 1.077 L 1994 6.094 6.623 0.529 1995 8.157 8.258. 0 ._10J. 1996 8.~)1.8 7.534 -0.984 f' 199/' 11.006 10.-611 -0.395 L 1998 10 .. 258 !Od.72 -0.086 1999 12.716 13.3:l7 0.6 L 2000 11.994 12.537 0.542 [ [ c [ c- [ [ c r u [ c D G b l c [ f-·--- i BEAUFORT HIGH -LOWER COOK INLET HIGH SCENARIO .C EMG9P -IIEFINIT I ON c LCOOI'\H L.BHI 1978 0.412 0.412 [j 1979 0.4 o.4 1980 0.383 0.383 1981 0.365 0.365 1982 0 + ;:-)47 0.345 1983 0.344 0.342 1984 0.355 0.353 1985 0.351 0.351 1986 0.344 0.343 ·. 1987 0.338 0.335 1988 0.33 0.326 1989 0.323 0.318 1990 0 .. 3l7 0.31·4 1991 0.314 0.311 1992 0.308 0.305 1993 0.301 0.298 1994 0.294 0.292 0 .1.995 0.286 0.284 :1.996 0.279 0.278 1.997 0.271 0.27 1998 0.265 0.263 n 1999 0.257 0~256 2000 0.25 0.249 n u EriNSP -DEFINITION c LCOOJ<H ·L. BHI 1978 0.234 0. 2:{4 c 1979 0 .;!35 0" 23:.:'1 1980 0. 2:17' 0 ~ =~3f1 1.98:1. 0.243 0.244 rl 1982 0.25 0 .. 251 .. J 1.983 0.249 0.25 1984 0.237 0.238 [l 1985 0.237 0.237 1986 0.239 0.2·1 1987 0.239 0.24 c 1988 0.239 0.24 1989 0.238 0.239 1990 0.237 0.238 1991 0.235 0.236 c 1992 0.235 0.235 1993 0.235 0.235 1994 0.235 0.235 [ 1995 0.235 0.235 1996 0.236 0.235 1997 0.236 0.235 [ 1998 0.236 0.235 1999 0.236 0.235 = 2000 0.236 0.235 L . [ [ El-!99 -· ENDOGENOUS L.COOI\1-1 L.BHI L... BHI . ..I:J~ [ 1978 190.273 190.2"73 o. 1979 194.5'?3 194.59:~ o. [ 1980 201.229 201.304 0.074 I 1981 215. 215.41 0.41 I I 1982 231.073 232.444 1.371 1983 242.131 244.015 1.884 [ 1984 241.427 243.97 2.544 1985 244.521 246.152 1.631 1986 246.233 248.548 2.315 [ 1987 252.341 255~636 3.296 1988 259.419 2c'l4.f:l62 5.442 1989 268.627 276 .l ~'2 _, r.:"' , L- /.;;Jo~) [ 19'?0 277.139 285.404 8.264 1991 283.478 292.872 9 y 3·~.tt 1992 290.23 29'1.693 9.462 199:3 29/' ¥ 5·4 :-f07 + 621 10.08:1. C 1994 305.074 :H~) .,378 ~I.•J ~ 3()3 1995 314.-289 324.472 10.183 199<S 32~5. 77 33::) + 092 9·. 32~! r 1997 335~1.4 344.082 8.942 u 199B 345.9:1.~) 3::'i4 .. 789 8.875 1999 35B. 5ll8 367.B46 9 ... 278 [ 2000 :~7(). 688 380.379 9.69l c Ei"iSPF' .... DEFINITION ·L.COOI"<H l.. .. BHI c j Q7C"• • , i' \,.) ()'"~55~) . (),;:;~~55 1979 0 + 3i>~; ,, ...... , I""" 'v' ¥ ~..1.} C.\ .::J D 19tl0 0.38 () • ::) i:~ 1. c;·s:t 0.391 () + :;<;~j~~ 1982 0. ~l03 0.403 c 198:~ 0.407 0.408 1984 0.4()8 0.409 1985 0.411 0.412 1986 0.417 0.417 [ 1987· 0.424 0.426 1988 0.431 o.-434 1989 o.-439 0.442 c 1.990 0.445 0.448 1991. 0.451 0.454 1992 0.457 0.46 L 1993 0.464 0.·467 1994 0.47 0.473 1 S.'95 0.478 0.481 1.996 0.485 0.487 [ 1997 0.493 0.49!':'j 1998 0.499 0.501 1999 0.507 0.509 t 2000 0.513 0.516 197f .. ~ 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1.988 1989 1990 1.99:1. 1992 1. 99~';) 1. 99·4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1.978 1.<?79 1.980 :l.981 198~~ 198:~ 1984 198!":-i 1. ~)~:16 19B/' 19El8 1989 1.990 1991 1992 199~5 1994 199~5 1.996 1997 :1.9~')B 1999 2000 E99G -·· ENDfJGENOU~3 LCDOI'\1-1 131.1 + :1.3 14:1.4~71 1549.()1 1742*31 1999.31 2317.48 2566.42 27~i6 + 6 3017.17 3301.17 4004.46 43BO • c> 47:1.[) + :)4 ::i409 + 88 5t:;2S'. ~53 6269 + 4~) c>~H2. 28 74:L:I. ~58 8080.25 8792 + 0'? 9~5BO. 0~) E99SRPC -DEFINITION f ... CDDI\H L3~)0. 64 13?3.16 1404.92 l.4S1!:'i. 36 1587.01 1.62'?. ~5 J.6t·3 + 09 1691.33 1716.1.4 1748.24 1 T/0. 61.> 1781.47 1777.66 1776.:·0 1. 780 +f.; 1777.21. 1"789.92 1802.66 :LU1.9.71. :1.8:-.H + 26 1. 84~) .. 34 1 .... BHI 1311. + 13 1.41"L71 1.5~52 + 25 1744.37 2005.57 2334.01 2589.51 278:1. •"t2 3031.06 331.9.82 36n).6"7 407c>. 6 487(). 2:} 5220.02 561:1. ~ !:'}3 6055.82 7041.63 7638+41. 8315.48 9049.76 98"72. 43 L.BHI 1373.0D 140:). ::=i:!. 1496.38 1590.58 1. 63!:) ·> 63 1.663.47 1685.3 1711.41 1744.06 17fJ7 + 0·4 179<7 • ..-u 1.B00.4B 1800.1.9 1804 • !JJ. 1804 .ll 1. 807. 7!:'i 1816.34 l.829.fJ6 18:~9. !:'i7 1.854.24 o. o. 3.241 2.05B 6.261. 16.533 23.09 1.3.885 ltJ.l,56 42~BB5 72.14~5 1:~5. 2:L 9 1. ;:=j 1. • 6 95 1.81.8:3'2 201.6-48 226.496 2!5~~. 277 229.348 226.836 2:'>5 .223 2::-;·7. 66E~ 2~"P\;.~ ~ 375 o. Oo --(). 08 --:1.. 395 1.028 3.566 6. 33C', 0.379 -6 + 02:3 -4.732 -4.188 16.381 17.935 22.815 23.82 24.3 26.901 :1.7. 82'? 13.677 10. :lA'/ 8.31 8.901 [ [ c n n [ c c r I ' ......., n L c D D 0 [ [ l L L [ [ PI -ENDOGENOUS LCOOI\H L.BHI L. HHI_Er~ c 1978 3511.53 351:1..53 o. 1979 38<14 ~ 95 3894.95 o. 1980 4484. 4t) 4486.54 2.086 [ 1981. 5317.07 5334.16 17.098 1982 6409.74 6472.7 62.957 1983 7151.24 7244.54 93.293 [ 1984 7197.9 7303.1 105.203 1985 7531.45 7590.48 59.039 1986 8170.99 8255.23 84.238 [ 1987 8983.81 9168.14 184.332 1988 10020.7 :1.0342.7 321.969 1989 11:1.55.6 11627.9 472.344 [ 1990 12364.8 12845.5 480.648 1991' 13437.1. 1.3970.7 533.547 1992 14679.6 15237.9 558. :-s79 1993 :1.6122.4 1.6739.4 616.977 c 1994 1772!3. 7 18407~ 681..285 1995 :L 9575. ~) 20267.1 691.629 1996 21661.5 22307.3 645.793 r 1997 24027. 24679.1. 652.094 I i 1998 26611.1 27330.3 719.266 Lj 1999 ;! 't ~:-i2 ~=-} + 9 .30369.5 840.6()9 .-... 2000 3273B.7 33697.7 959.062 I . L [ F' I f::F'C -ENDOGENOUS LCDOI\H L.BHI L.BHI_Ef~ c 1S!?Ei 3634.39 3634.39 o. 1979 374:1..57 3741.57 o. E 17fl0 39:1.0.16 39 :l.:l • 2 :l 1.044 1981 4190.41 4:t 98 • c)8 8.266 1982 450·1. 4529.52 25.516 c 1983 4614.23 4644. ~54 30.309 1984 4450.98 4485.86 34.879 1985 4451.5 4463.64 12.137 1986 4503.91 4530.54 26.633 [ 1987 4602.79 4654.15 51.359 1988 4733.78 4815.52 81.742 1.989 4870.25 4974.59 104.34 0 1990 4997.86 5083.39 85.527 1991 5073.2 51.61.77 88.562 1992 5179.46 5255.84 76.375 [ 1993 5293.91 5370. 76.094 1994 541.4.42 5486.07 71.645 1995 5549.14 5605. 7:-s 56.594 1996 5691.53 5726.81 35.281 [ 1997 5843.98 5868.48 24.5 1998 5792.9/.1 6014.21 21.254 1999 61.50.53 61.73.37 22.84 [ 2000 6306.29 6329.2 22.902 1978 1. '?79 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 19Sl0 1.991 1992 1993 1994 199~'i 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 FUND -ENDOGENOU~ LCDOKH '625.803 822.066 1145 .. 91 1.636.87 2295 .. 49 3001.43 4111.71 5493.96 6820.21 8116.77 93-46.27 10470.6 1:l313.c;' :1.1955.6 12499.1 12932.4 13166. c• 13178.2 12945.8 12-453 + 1166~5.4 10576.4 9:1.47.31 RINS -DEFINITION 19/'8 1979 1.980 1 ~>81 1982 1983 1984 1.985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1S,92 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LCODKH 46.954 44. O~H 58.256 ~~ ·r . r::;•::; ·r .... , .......... , ..... , ... 1.1.6.619 163.503 213.783 292.614 390 .. 596 484.7()4 576.709 664.035 744.009 804.242 850.303 889.493 920.981 938.514 940.429 925.257 891.852 837.811 762 .. 677 625 .. 80:::; 872.066 1197.48 169:L. 53 3056.05 4160.7 5534.77 6863.03 8167.47 9403.42 10625.2 1.1583.~) 1.2:581.4 13087.5 136'~7 .4 14119.7 14326.8 14:128.7 1.4093.8 13569.<;-' 12732~:L 11. !:)37. 1. ~+4. 05:l 61. 8Hl 120.50H 167.556 217.669 296.1.06 393.516 487.763 580.32 668.098 754.938 823.302 880.404 931.087 975.059 1005.88 1021.61 1022.96 1.007. 75 972.304 914.875 L. DHL.EF\ o. 50. 51.564 54.664 57.011 54. c)2~l 48.988 40.812 42.812 50~699 57+ 152 1.54. ti74 269.547 425.766 588.::~83 765.051. 953.086 1148.64 1382.85 1640.77 1.904.46 2155.68 2389.75 o. o. 3.562 3.672 3.8!:19 4.053 3.886 3.492 2.919 3.059 3.611 4.063 10.929 19.061 30.1 41.594 54.077 67.362 81.179 97.708 115.90:1. 134.493 152.198 ·. c '· [ n c [j n c c n I : bd [ D D 0 c c c [ [ [ [ [ f<[l,.iGF -· DEF-INITION LCODKH L.BHI L. BHJ._Ef~ [ 1.978 101.3.49 1013.~W o. 1 7'77' 1:~35 + 25 138!"~i. 2!:'i 50. 1.980 1574.58 1578~22 3.645 [ 1981 1. 895. 9·1 1900.6 4.661. 1982 2269.7 2276.91 7.213 1983 2573. 2583.79 10.79 [ 1984 3178.96 3192.07 13.112 1985 3589.96 3602.15 12.184 .1986 3731.59 3745.47 13.879 [ 1987 3932.25 3955.58 23.336 1988 4135 + !"i4 4176.96 41.414 1989 43:~7 .59 4494.22 156.629 1990 4371.32 4~)92.18 220.859 [ 1991 4463 + 3~5 4738.36 275.027 1992 4639.96 4944.3 304.34 1993 4840. :I.D !"i175. ()9 334.91 C 1994 4990.67 5357.72 367 .()51 j Qc..\c:a 5:l37.84 5535.21 397.375 • ' ' ...J 1996 5338.64 5763.22 424.57B r 1997 55C:.f~. 28 6015. 446.71.9 1998 5820.93 6280.63 459.695 u 1999 6100.84 656C>. 7"1 465.89B 2000 6404. :->B 6881.73 477.352 [ F~r:·9 f.) --DEFINITION c LCODKH L.F.!HI L. DI·H_EF~ j n-•r' 450. :i. 4!~j() + :1. o. . 7/ C) c j •:,' -;• (;a 795.3 845.3 50. . " , , 1980 1004·. 1 100-4.1 o. ·IOO·l l25:3+f~ 12~)4. :!. :l o~~H ••• ; \.1 .1. E 1982 :1.509 .. 6 1510.04 0.44 198~~ 1678.~5 1679. 0.7 1.984 2178.2 2178.91 0.71. c l985 2472.6 2473.42 0.82 1986 2464.8 2468.58 3.78 1987 2-496.6 2505 + fJ:t 9.21 [ 1988 2515.6 2532.31 16~71 1 <;•89 2518.6 2636~95 1:1.8.35 1990 2348.9 2513.75 164.85 1991 2253.l 2458.04 204.94 c 19'7>2 2254. i> 2472.02 217.4·2 1993 2;!68. 2498.4 230.4 1994 2216.8 2459.52 242.72 L 1995 21.52.8 240!:-i.59 252."79 j_9CJ6 2127.5 2391. 3~5 263.85 1997 21.15.5 2385.16 269.66 r 1998 2108.4 2:~67.71 2::i9. :11 199'7' 2112.3 2347.89 235.59 6 200() 2:1.1fJ.:l 2326.82 :~12 i 72 L Rf'I: LCOOKH 19/'B 228.!:-jOB :1.979 241.:1.33 1.980 25E~. ~~8l> 198:t 271.742 1982 28'?.719 1983 29CJ.481 1984 308.:1.65 1985 31.6.1 1986 334.036 1987 350.879 1988 370.898 1989 389.42 1990 408.887 1991 42/'. 79';.-!. 1992 447. 2'7'8 1993 469.363 1994 492 +f.> 56 199~) 5:1.6. 952 1996 543.0:1.7 1 <)>97 569.375 19<;>8 .,.q-; -·,')-· .... 1,/t/v .... ~ 1999 626+38 2000 65~;'. =~7 L.BHI 228.508 241. :1.33 25(j + :~79 2/'1.?49 287.776 29<;'.741. 307.854 3:1.~). B2~i 332.871 :{50.381 370.23 388.775 407.58 4 '") c-'> .. , -• . 4..,,.).,:..~/ 44·4 y tS82 466.074 489 + ~106 51::L 487 539.406 565.667 ~'i94. 327 623~331 654.5:!.3 L.BHI_E:R o. o. -0.00? 0.007 o .• 057 o. 2l> --0.31 -0.27:1. -1..:1.65 -0 + ~198 -0.668 --0.6-46 -1..307 --2.~55~5 -2.615 -3.289 -3.249 -3. 46~3 -3.6U. --:1.709 -:~. 37~5 -3.()49 -':>. ~~r::;·7 .,._'I" ....... ~-" c n 0 n 0 D c 0 n I ! '-' n u 0 0 6 0 c c [ [ L [ [ SIMP -·· DEFINITION LCOOKH L.BHI [ 1978 -44.79"7 -44.797 1979 196.26:5 246.263 [ 1980 323.848 =~2~'i.4l2 "1981 490.952 494.052 1982 658.619 660.966 1983 705. 94~1 703.556 [ 1984 1110.29 1104.65 1985 1382.25 1374.08 1986 1326.26 1328~26 [ 1987 1296.56 1304.45 1988 1229.-49 1235 + 9~) 1989 ll24.37 122:1.. /'9 [ 1990 843. ~:H)l 958.275 1991 641.711 797.93 1.992 ~54:1 .. 441 706. 0~j9 1993 433.27 609.937 [ 1 9"7'.4 ,.,-... .... ,.,~ 422~285 ...:..~"-{. ,;:.. .... J 199~) 11. ~)9 207.141 1996 -232.37:1. 1.84 r 1997 -·~192. f~() l -2:34.879 I 199B -··'787. ~'i9B --~)2~5. 902 IL__J l999 --:l0tl9. 01 -83:7 ~ 793 r 20()0 -142?.:1. -1. 1 9~). ()/: L [ E:"' ~\ \" ~ '.:... LCOCJKH L. BHJ: c 197B o.~5o.t 0.301 j_f"J7? 0.292 C• v ~~9~~ l 9~:;() 0. ;~-7~> (). ~~ /'S=- [j :1. !j [:) :1. 0.264 0.264 1982 0. 2~):1. 0 ~ ;!:5 1983 0.261 0.26 [ 1.984 0.287 0.2f.l6 1985 0 + 29~5 0.294 1986 0.294 0.293 [ 1~~87 0.293 0.289 1988 0.29 0.284 1989 ·0.288 0.281 1990 0.285 0.283 c 1991 0.284 0.282 1992 0.279 0.278 1993 0.273 0 .27"3 l 1994 0.268 0.26B 1995 0.262 0 '") , _, • ··-0~ 1996 0.257 0.258 r· • 1997 0.252 0.253 I 1998 0.248 0. 24~) 6 1999 0.243 0.244 2000 0.239 0.24 [ 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 l991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.998 1999 2000 F'DPf\4 DEFINITION 58.417 58.62 60.122 63.326 65.832 68.109 70.946 70.882 70.353 70.648 71.651 73.001 74.458 74.136 75.:1.81 76.264 77.47"7 /'8. 75·4 80.086 81.6 82.995 84.701 86.42 EM99R4 -DEFINITION 1.978 19"7'? 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 198:-i 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 RRLH 22.385 22.t~9~:5 24.071 26.404 28.1.49 29.242. 30+555 :-so. 346 29.96 30.256 30.889 31.766 32.643 32.645 33.247 33.887 34.57 35.345 36.131 37.061 37.886 38.911 39.915 F~r~:BH 58.417 58.62 60.135 63.346 65.891 68.245 71.216 71.194 70.598 70.87 72.0.34 73.628 75 .. 524 74.988 76.567 77.802 79.071 80.505 81.094 83.32 84.795 86.!:i11 88.274 FmBH 22 .. 385 ~>'"> c•Q-._ • ._ + 0, ""'") 24.08 26.419 28.19~1 29.322 30.706 30.484 30.062 30.348 31.086 32.HH 33.3.88 33.028 .33.895 34.58 35.263. 36.074 36.377 37.684 38.515 39.53:L 40.549 F:F:BH __ ER o. o. 0.014 0.019 0.06 0.137 0.269 0.312 0.245 0.221 0.382 0.627 1 • 066.) 0.852 1.386 1 .• 538 1.594 1.751. 1.008 1+72 1..8 1.81 1.854 RHBI·LEF;: o. o. 0.009 0.01~5 0.044 0.08 0.:1.51 0.138 ().102 0.092 0.198 0. 33!:i 0.544 0.383 0.648 0.693 0.69 0.729 0.247 0.624 0.629 0.62 0.634 I i I -. [ c n I ' 6~ D c 0 0 0 c c [ L [ [ [ f'OF'RJ. -DEFII··-!ITION F:RLH r=~RBH HHDH __ EF~ [ 1978 7.155 7 ~ :L55 o. 1.979 7.306 7.306 o. [ 3.980 7.567 7.569 0.002 1981 7. 53,!, 7.66 0 + 12~1 1982 7.937 8.368 0.43 1983 7.825 8.34 0.515 [ 1984 7.189 7.763 0.574 1985 7.447 7.69 0.243 1986 7.544 8.123 0.579 [ 1987 7.662 8.63 0.967 3.988 7.728 9.098 1.37 1989 7.79 9 + 4·42 1.652 [ 1990 7.841 9.117 1.277 1991 7.97 9.936 1.966 1992 8.067 9.315 1.248 1993 8.072 9.379 1.306 c 1994 8.089 9.376 1.287 199~) 8.18B 9.311 1.123 1996 8.27-4 10. 1.2~'5 1.851 n 1997 8.378 9.312 0.934 l ' 1998 B.459 9.369 0.91 LJ i999 8. 5=19 9.477 0.918 [ 2000 8.701 9.623 (). 922 Ef-i9(PR:I. -· DEFINITION [ F~HLH RF~Bl-1 F:F::GH __ [i~ c 197B 4.463 4t'fl;2) o .. 1979 4. 56S} 4.569 (). 1980 4.797 4.799 0 .. 002 0 1981 4.80'7 4.943 0.1:-):1 1982 5-. 2EJ6 5.75 0.464 1983 5.136 5.688 0.552 1984 4.297 4.899 0.602 c 1985 4.383 4.627 0.244 1986 4.36 4.948 0 + :-:588 1987 4.448 5.428 .0.98 c 1988 4.514 5.91. 1 .• 396 1989 4.565 6.253 1.687 1990 4.60-4 5.881 1.277 c 1991 4.684 6.c',78 1.995 1992 4.7·11 5.95 1.209 . 1993 4.703 5.959 1.256 1994 4.692 ·5.91. 1.218 E 1995 4.769 5.798 1..029 1996 4.847 6.65 1.803 1997 4.948 5.752 0.804 L 1998 5.039 5.806 0.768 1999 5.15 5. 9::! 0.77 2000 5.274 6.04 0.766 [ D POPR? DEFINITION RRLI-I F<I~BH F<Fl:BH_ .. EF< c 1978 57.829 ~57+ 829 o. [J 1979 c>O. 066 60. o6c., o. 1980 62.646 62.861 0.014 19£H 68.114• 68.188 0.074 1982 77.689 77 .• 937 0.248 n 1983 82.566 82.964 0.397 1984 79.523 80.098 0.575 1985 81.618 82.079 0.46 jl 1986 83.808 84.449 0.641 I " 1987 87.096 88.057 0.961 1988 90.512 92.039 1.528 n 1.989 94.31 96.458 2.149 1990 97.876 100.328 2.452 Lj 1991 101.()1 104.033 3.024 [ ·1992 104.137 107.298 3.161 1993 107.401 1:1.0.821 3.42 1994 1.10.778 114.496 3.719 1995 11•l. 65 118.482 3.833 u 1996 1:l8 + 625 122.754 4.129 1997 123.135 126.966 ::~.831 1998 127.543 131.~589 3.847 r 1999 132.532 136.723 4.191 I 2000 137.565 1~12. 036 .. A •-, ol I~J •t•"t/.L c EM99FO -DEFINITION RF~LH RR:BH RRBH_ER D 1978 31.297 31.297 o. 0 1979 32.032 32.032 o. 1980 33.143 33.156 0.012 1981 36.328 36.376 0.048 1982 42.134 '42.292 0.158 0 .·,. .. 1983 44.278 44.52 .. : .. 0.242 1984 40.571 ·A0.91 0.339 1985 41.049 41.288·. 0.239 c 1986 41.544 41.862 0.317 1987 42.807 .43.276 0.469 ----1988 44.204 44.994 ().79 [ . ---1989 45.955 47.081 1-.126 1990 47.562 48.847 1.285 .1991 48.865 50.297 1.431 ·-1992 50.2 51.758 1.558 c 1993 51.657 ' 53.302. 1.646 1994 53.159 . 54.9 1~741 1995 55 .. 011 56.755 1.743 [ 1996 56.906 58.517 1.611 1997 59.171 60.761 1.589 1998 61.321 -62.863 1.542 c : 1999 63.86 65.538 1.678 2000 66.397 68.193 1.795 ·-.. .. • > .. i L [ [ PDPR5 -DEFINITION r.:F<LH RFU<H F..:F~f.IH_Er~ [ 1978 193. 23~! :1.93 ~ 232 o. 1979 198.461. 198.461 o. 1980 205.817 205.864 0.047 [ 1981 217.936 218 .. 267 0.331 1982 232.67 233.832 1.162 1983 245.689 247.373 1.683 [ 1984 2·-19.531 251.793 2.262 1985 255.914 257.589 1.675 1986 261.569 263.979 2.409 [ 1987 269.477 273.052 3.575 1988 278.018 283.649 5.631 1989 288.086 295.837 7.75 1990 2'7"7. 919 306.386 8.467 [ 1991 306.91.5 317.053 10 .. 1.39 1992 315.96 326.33 10.37 1993 325.656 336.715 11 .. 059 [ 1994 335.548 347.41 1.1.862 1995 346+868 359. 12.131 1996 358.607 371.36 12.753 r 1997 371.953 :~84 .103 12.15 1998 385.343 397.466 12.123 l-' 1999 400.322 413.246 12.925 "--" 2000 414.586 428 .. :1.36 1.3 +55 r L EM99F\~.) DEFINITION - ~ [ RRLH FmBH RRBH_ER 1978 88.534 88.534 o. c 1979 90.937 90.937 o. 1980 94 .. 601. 94.636 0.035 1981 101.359 101 .. 554 0.195 E 1982 108.879 109.536 0.657 1983 115.19:1. 116.1()1 0.911 1984 115.894 I 117.125· 1.232 ·j 1985 117.944 118.73 0.786 c 1986 119.622 120.763 . 1 + 141 . 1987 1.23.39 125.063 1.673 1988 127.652 130.465 2.813 [ 1.989 132.959 136.915 : ... 3 956 -' .. 1990 137.886 142.191 4 •. 306 1991 1.41.814 146.811 4+997 0 1992 1.45.953 150.984 5.031 1993 150.519 155.84 5.321 . 1994 155.22·4 160.783 5.559 L 1995 160.907 166.421 5.514 1996 166.806 172.152 5.346 . 1997 173.777 178.751 4.974 1998 180.558 185 + 4~)5 4.897 L 1999 188.391. 193.643 5.251 2000 195.605 201.1.38 5.533 [ c '. F~F.:P.H n EiV: :i. Exr-::!'.5 Et-1S4R5 ENS~'iH5 ENI:~Hl~~5 El'iG9f\~'i 1978 1.33 12.1.86 37.642 2.109 35.107 [j 1979 1.33 12.683 . 39 .• 613 2.249 34.885 1980 1.33 !3 + 475· ·42. 653 2.48 34.669 [ 1.981. 1 .• 388 14.746 47.407 2.555 35.226 1 1. 9.82 1.316 16.254 53.()07 2.692 35.889 1983 l.45 17.325 56.614 2.856 37.141 I 1984 1.512 17.436 56.639 3.01 38.109 I r-, 1985 1.563 17.921 57.405 3.173 38.317 l.i 1986 1.565 18.506 58.971 3.353 37.843 I 1.987 1. 5:~l> 19.331 62·. 015 3.53'6 37.924 I [ I 3.988 1. ~i65 20.325 65.73 3.723 38.151 I I 1.989 1.5fJ5 21'. 496 70·. 051 3.908 38.753 ! 1990 1.594 22.498 73.353. 4.1.08 39.387 u 1991' 1.449 2·3.278 76.439 4.302 39.899 1992 1.5B8 24.018 79.143 ~l. 524 40.083 1. 99:3 1. ~)84 24. 9l>3 82.62 4.744 40.159 1994 1.581 2~). 90~) 86.029 4. 9:-.)2 40.296 [j 1995 1.582 27.003 90.002 5.193 40. ·128 1996 1. :~7 28. 07!5 9·4. 098 ~) + 451 40.525 1.997 1.579 29.465 98.574 5.721 40.676 n 1998 :1..579 30.841 103.258 5.978 40.801 ' I ; l-~,...J l999 1.58 32.498 108.948 6.251 ·41.048 2000 1.58 34.033 1 J.4 ~ 2:~.5 6 + 5~~1 41..3()5 D EN :I. EXf~'? EHG4F(7 EN!3~5F::7 ENf~F~f~7 Ef-·IG9FO c 1978 0.243 ~) • .J. 4:1. 9~122 0 + 4~37 :L6. 265 0 :1. 9'79 0.243 5~:~f.;.ll 9.7:1.4 0.4? 16.1.21 1. 98() 0.243 ~=;.71.3 :lO.C>:l~'i 0.526 15.973 :l <;· i:1 J. 1.534 6.043 j,J.948 0.563 16~:i.7D 19B2 4.079 6.6U. 14 + :589 o.6o1 1.6.431 D 1983 I 4.182 7.174 1~5.537 0.635 16.946 1.984 0.487 7.465 14.866 0.687 17 .• 356 1985 0.252 7 + '7:54 15.158 0.703 1.7. 444 c 1986 0.277 7.965 15.672 0.741 17.206 1987 0.301 8.302 16.657 0.788 17.208 1988 0.316 8.69 :1.7.816 0.834 17.277 c 1989 0.312 9.154 19.142 0.876 17.517 1 <;•90 0.266 9.574 20.218 0.924 17.776 1991 0 + 2~l2 9.861. 21.184 0.968 17.982 i 1992 0 .25:; 10.185 22.097 1.035 18.05 c 1993 0.266 10.547 23.173 1..081 18.067 1994 0.266 10.914 24.281 1.131 18.114 1995 0.255 11.349 25.56 1.194 18.159 [ 1996 0.213 11.736 26.878 1.256 18.188 1997 0.243 12.298 28.311. 1.326 18.242 1998 0.243 12.804 29.76 1.37 18.282 [ 1999· 0. 24~:S 13.435 31.576 1. 4:~9 18.38J. 2000 0.243 14.07.1. 33.374 1.512 18.484 L [ [ EN :i. EXF~ :l EMS4f<:l. Er1S~HU EMF::F\f-::1 EHG9R1 19/'8 1.'7'51 o~t: 0. c'>95 o. 0.995 1979 ~-~ • rJ()2 O.B4 0. :7()5 o. 0.997 [ 1980 2.11 ().<;'jl~ 0.728 o. 1.008 :1. ~.)~J:l 2. 0-!>1 . 1.. 0.2 0.755 o. 1.07 19E:2 2.43 1 ")")'"' •··-~o 0.818 o. 1.124 [ 1983 .2.369 1.279 0.794 o. 1.239 1984 1.702 1.146 0.719 o. 1.307 1985 1.461 1.146 0.702 o. 1.289 [ 1986 1.704 1.22 0.726 o. 1.269 1987 2.034 I' 1.332 0.765' o. 1.304 I i 1988 2.331 1.458 ·o.8o9 o. 1.348 ! [ 1989 2.513 1.546 0. 8·12 o. 1.408 1990 2.1.29 1.506 0.847 o. 1.461 1991 2.497 1. + 656 0.912 o. 1.491 1992 "> ~ ~ ··-• V/ 1. ~i86 0.861 o. 1.522 [ 1993 2.044 1.63 0.871 o. 1.519 1994 1.961. 1.669 0.874 o. 1.529 1995 1.813 1.699 0 + 87:{ o. 1.54 [ 1996 2.1.:'>8 1.908 0.955 o. 1.55 1997 1.63S 1.806 0.885 o. 1.578 1998 :1..635 1.8/' 0.898 o. 1.579 r 1999 1.636 1.962 0.92 o. 1.595 2000 1.632 2.054 0.941 o. 1.614 1-' '---" r L F:RBH c Et'il EXI:~-4 Ei'-1S4H4 EMS5R4 ENI-i:F~F:4 EI·1G91:::4 1 <7'78 0.789 -r .• _,, ~~ • J . .:) (:) ·s,. ··=t:)8 4.371 5. 7 ... 12 c 1.979 0 • B31. :~. ~~27 8. 7:54 4.537 5.69 1980 1 + 19:;; -r ~ '") 9. 2t)9 4 -,-.. , !5. 58 ~:;. + -'r ... .._ ... ; ~-- :i.981 2.198 3.778 9.952 4.87 5. 76.ci u 1982 2.78 "f + 096 10.41.7 ~i.018 5.931. 1.983 2.85'7 4.262 10~852 5.202 6.294 1984 2 + ~j99 4 -•oL-:-11.398 5.4 6.608 ·~~:,.) '1985 2.347 4.42 11..532 5.621 6~605 c 1986 1.878 4.421 11.561 5.81/' 6.478 1987 1.71.8. 4.47 1.1.804 5v966 6.528 1988 1.753 4.581 12.165 6.165 6.632 [ 1989 1.788 4.733 12.66 6.328 6.828 1990 1.823 4.891 13.148 6 .. 563 7.025 I 1991 -J .,,. --, 4.841 13.28 i> •. ?22 7 .19:~ I . t .--w---~ c 1992 1.373 4.963 13+727 6 .. 931 7 + 22~5 I 1993 1.373 5.075 1~l + 123 7 + 1.05 7 .• 269 !· 1994 1'.372 5.179 '14+501. 7.~H4 7.299 1995 1. 37:~ 5.311 14.975 7. ~:;.tn 7.337 L 1996 .--j-~ 5.357 15.18:1. 7 -·o-· 7.387 .-.-; ~ ----• /\.10 1997 1.373 5.579 15.908 8.016 7.428 1998 1.373 5.722 16.398 8.234 7.512 f' 1999 1. 37:;; 5.898 16 ~ 99·4 8.501 7.576 6 2000 1.373 6.069 17.588 8.721 7 .c:;57 [ 0 POP --ENDOGENOUS LCOOKL : L • l!L:Ov.J L.BLmLEf\ D 1S'78 422~83 422.83. o. n 1979 431..7"1. 431.71 . o. :1.980 444.03 444.131 0.101. 1981 464.456 465.025 0.569 1982 492.762 494.694 1.932 n 1983 506~556 ~)09. 417 2.862 1984 506.252 510.494 4.242 1985 512.917 516.023 3.106 r 1986 521.748 545 .• 559 3. 81:: 1987 536.3.28 540.489 4.16 _j 1988 551.561 .557.775 6.214 r1 1989 568.712 576.778 8.065 :1.990 584.516 594.391 9.875 L_J 1991 596.971. 608.818 11.B47 1992. 609.791 621.921 12.13 LJ 199~~ 623.167 636.76:1. 13.595 :1.994 637.215 651.586 1.4.372 1 '7'95 653.4:55 667.906 14.472 D 1996 670.1.46 .684.058 13.911 1997 689. C',5:~ 703.273 13.619 i998 708 .. 714 722.433 13,. 719 n 1999 730.388 744.543 14.15!:-1 I I 2000 751.647 766.407 14.76 ~ MIGNET -ENDOGENOUS D LCOOI\L L • DLOl·J L. BLOvl_ER D 1.978 -2.801 -2.801. o. 1979 1 a::-r~·o 1.558 o. 0 + ,..J...JW 1980 5.02 5.121 0.101. 1981. 13.013 13~478 0~465 1.982 20. 47~5 21.816 1.341 0 1983 r=-,.> , r:..-6.:1.21 0.856 ~ . ...,.(.);,.; 1.984 -8.9:1.3 -7.637 1.276 1985 -1.47 -2.757 -1.287 c 1986 0.859 1.469 0.61 1987 6.669 6.904 0.235 1988. 7.145 9.079 1.934 1989 8.866 10.528 1.662 c 1990 7.252 8.814 1.56l. 1991 3.702 5.373 1.672 : 1992 4.003 3.93 -0.073 D 1993 4.477 5.602 1.126 1994 5.046 5.45 0.40·4 1995 7.092 6.817 -0+275 [ 1996 7.374 6.462 -0.912 1997 9.953 9.356 -0.597 1.998 9.192 9.019 -0.172 r: 1999 11.529 u .• 7o5 0.176 6 2000 10.75 11.095 0.345 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r I ' .__ r L [ c C [ [ [ [ L [ ._ BEAUFORT LOH -LOi~ER COOK INLET LOH SCENARIO [ El·iG9F' -· iiEFINITION n LCOOKL .L.BLOlJ 1978 0.412 0 + A112 n , ___ ) 1979 0.4 0.4 1980 0.383 0.383 p 1981 0.368 0.368 1982 0.348 ~~-J 0.346 1983 0.352 0.35 [J 1984 0.37 0.368 1985 ·o.361 0.36 ·. 1986 0.349 0.348 1987 0.342 0.34 [~ 1988 0.335 0.332 .) 1989 0.329 0.325 1990 0.323 0.32 [ 1991 0.32 0.317 1992 0.314 o.:n2 1993 0.307 0.304 [J 1994 0.3 0.298 1995 0.292 0.291 1996 0.285 0.284 1997 0.277 0.276 n 1998 0.27 0.269 I LJ 1999 0.263 0.261 2000 0.256 0.255 D E~·iNSP -·· DEFINITION LCOQJ-\L_ L.BLOW c 1978 0.234 0.234 0 :J. <7'/'9 0.235 0.235 1980 0.237 0.238 1.981 0 .. 2·42 0.242 D 19B2 0.25 0.251 1983 0.246 0.247 198·4 o.·233 0.233 1985 0.236 0.236 c 1986 0.239 0.239 1987 0.238 0.239 1.988 0.238 0.239 [ 1989 0.236 0.237 1990 0.236 0.236 1991 0.234 0.234 c 1992 0.234 0.234 1993 0. 2~~5 0.235 1994 0 ~-:~:; 0.235 + .. ·~w,_,. 1.995 0.235 0.235 L 1996 0.236 0.235 1997 0.236 0.235 1998 0 , ... /. 0.236 c ..... ~ .. ) 1999 0.236 0.236 = 200() o. 23c) 0.236 [ [ [ EN99 --ENDOGENOUS LCC!OI\! ... L. BL.Ol,J L.. BLCH·LEH [ 197B 190.273 190.273 o. 197'7' 194.593 . 194. ~)93 o. [ "1980 201.229 201.304 0.074 19B1. 21~".).1?5 213.58El 0.413 1982 229.954 231.335 1.381 [ 1983 234.428 236.321 1.892 1984 229.013 231.71 2.698 1985 230.856 232.399 1.543 1986 234.659 236.596 1.936 [ 1987 242.788 244.826 2~038 1988 251.081 25.cl + -'t05 3.32:.:; 1989 2l>0. 554 264 .. 939 ·4 + 385 [ 1.99(1 ~~68. 741. 274. O~)•l 5.~H3 1991 274.325 280 .. c>6El 6.344 1992 280.364 286.415 6.051 [ 1993 286.875 293.614 6.73Ci 1994 293.782 300.672 6.889 1.995 302.3:~6 308.87-4 6.538 1996 31.:1..146 316.932 5.786 r J 9CJ7 321.839 327.171 5.333 1998 331.91.2 337 ~ 1:~9 J::" ~')0 "-"' ....) • A•-A•-\J 1999 343.762 34?.151 5.389 C 2000 3~:;5. o:~ :~60 + 704 ~).674 [ ENSPP -DEFINITION c LCOCJI\L L .BLot.J 1978 0 -r--r~ -· ~ .,..~.,_.,J.J 0~355 0 1979 0. :~65 0.365 1980 04-38 0.38 1.981 o.:~9 0.39 c 1982 0 + 4()2 0.403 1983 0.402 0.403 1984 0.397 0.399 [ 1985 0.403 0. 40•l 198&' 0.412 0.412 1987 0.42 0.421 1988 0.428 0.429 c 1989 0.435 0.437 1990 0.441 0.444 1991 0.446 0.449 L 1992 0 .t1'""~> 0.454 • r..J,.._ 1993 o. 4~)9 0.461 :L994 0. 46~5 0.468 [ 1995 0. 47:~ 0.475 1996 0.479 ·0.481 1997 0.487 0.489 1998 0.494 0.495 [ 1999 0.501 0.503 2000 0.508 0.509 E99S ·-ENDOGENOUS n LCOOKL L.BLO~J L.BLO~LER n :!.97fJ 1311.1.3 1311.13 o. l 1979 1414.71 14l.4.71 o. fl l.980 1549.01 1.552.25 3.241 1981 1742.31 1744.37 2.058 19B2 1982.38 1988.67 6.288 19B3 2300. 2316.48 16.478 0 1984 2500.96 2524.51 23. 5·1 1985 2634.43 2655.1.5 20. 7:t 1986 2921.96 2930.9 a. 9:: f' 1987 3250.56 3258.69 8. ~·-'• _j 1988 3613.43 3635.52 22. ')6 1989 3985.86 4024.24. 38. ~_;ya [J 1990 4348.55 4414.58 66.027 1991 4669.21. 4754.52 85.305 1992 4966.67 5076.06 109.391 1993 5321.24 5433.8:1. 13.2. 566 n 1994 5724.0D 58~'i4. o:~ t29+945 199~; 6148.09 6296.B7 148.777 1996 6674.02 6B02.04 128.016 fJ 19'7'7 7253.63 7:r72. 01 118.379 1998 7901..1.9 B01.8.7B 117.594 :1.999 8589.32 87:1.0.~)1 1.-2 9 • :L9 :l jl ~~<>OC• 9~5,;17. !:):~ 94<).'4.9 147.379 I w E'l''?SF;:F'C --DEFINITION n LCDOI\L L.BLmJ L • [: Ull·L-E F.: D :1.978 1351.:· <· 99 13~';<;. S'9 (). :1.979 :L359. 1359. o. 0 J.980 1 :~~)0. 64 1~3!'":i3.19 2.553 :1.981 1.379. 57 1379.47 -0.096 1982 l.403.41. 1402.07 -1.337 6 1983 1507.61. 1508. ~'j 0.882 1984 1611.71. 1.614.9 ::~ .186 1.985 1622.65 1626.49 3.844 1986 1659.89 165<)1. 69 -0.194 c 1987 1700.41 1694.23 -c"> .177 1988 1740.12 1. 73~'i. 33 -4.792 1989 1779.04 1773.08 -5.958 [J 1990 1803.l8 1804.43 1.256 1991 18:1.4.67 1818.06 3.397 1992 1808.71 1819.05 10.343 c 1993 1806.55 1815. 8.45El 1994 1810.25 1818.6 8.353 1995 1806.37 1818.7 12.328 1996 1819.85 1826.:1.5 6.296 L 1997 1833.09 1835.63 2.541 1998 1850.87 1850.18 -0.688 1999 1863.46 1861.6!'5 -1.808 L 2000 1877.92 1876.26 -1.661 L G F'I --Ef'-,!DOGENCJUS [ LCOOI\L L.BLOW L. BLCJvLER [ :1.978 3511.53 3511.53 o. 1979 :1894.95 3894.95 o. 1980 4484. 4t<, 4486.54 2.086 [ 1.98:1. 5244.78 5262. 17.223 1982 t,334. 34 6396.68 62.336 1983 6852.55 6946.91 94.363 [ 1984 6554.42 6669.02 114.602 1985 6925.97 6987.07 61.102 1986 7725.39 7786.51 61.121 1987 8671.69 8781.25 109.555 [ 1988 9727.42 9913.41 18~5. 988 1989 10806.6 11086.9 280 + 2·46 1990 1:1.933.8 12253.5 319.73 [ 1.991. 12901.3 1:1293.1 39:i. 848 1.992 1.4051..8 14420.5 368 •<S37 1.993 15401. :1.582:1..9 420.902 c 1994 169).~~. 6 :1.7391.3 477.656 1995 18t'>65.J 19112.5 447.453 19'i'6 20633.2 21028.3 395.109 1.997 22869.9 ::!3252 •. t~ 382.562 r 19(/B 25~50;7 + t~ 25731.8 423.969 I , 1999 2B046.B 20~:)40. 9 494.082 ~ 2000 2H056.4 :.·H629. 572.68 [ PJFWC --ENDOGENOUS [ LCOOI\L L.BL()l.J L.BLOl·LER c 197B ~~634. 39 3634. 3C:' o. 1(/79 3741.57 3741..57 o. 1900 3910.16 3911.21 1.044 198i 4152.75 A of ~ of 4 ~ 8.414 ~tJ.O.L + J.O t 1982 44B4.53 4509 + 71. 25.18 198~5 4491..69 4523.79 32.098 1984 4223.98 4266.04 42 .• 059 c 1985 4265.9.8 4280.15 14.1t'>8 1986 43E~f:~. ~'i7 440_9. 3 20.727 1987 4536.28 4565 •. 43 29 .1~52 [ 1988 4684.37 4731..84 47.465 1989 4823+38 4884.79 61.406 1990 4948.41 5008.5•1-60.129 1991 5014.04 5083.12 69.082 c 1992 5117.22 5167.69 50. •173 1.993 5228.62 5284.82 56.20:~ 1994 5348.95 5402.72 53.777 [ 1995 5483.99 5520.23 36.234 1.996 5626.21 5645.52 19.309 1997 5779.56 5789.92 10.359 L 1998 5928.41 5937.12 8.719 1999 6084.83 6094.37 9.535 2000 6239.27 6250 .1.B 10.902 L 0 FUND ·-ENDOGENOUS [J LCOOKL L .IJLOL~ L.BLotLER n 1978 625.803 62~). 803 o. 1979 822.066 872.066 50. 1980 1145.91 1197.48 51.564 c 1981 1634.43 1689.1 54.667 1982 2300.7 2357.69 56.997 1983 3006.51 3061.14 54.626 fl 1984 4133.36 4182.23 48.871 LJ 1985 5559.38 5603.68 44.301 1986 6918.28 6966.87 48.5.9 c 1987 8223.57 8281.55 57 .. 977 1988 9441.92 9!5()8. 48 66.559 1.989 10550.7 1.0642.1 91.355 c 1. 7'90 11.381 .• 2 11522.2 140.965 199:1. 1201.4.1 12221.2 207.086 1992 1 ')1::"1::"1!:" L.,-A•.-J..J'J. ~~ 128·41.6 286.078 1.993 12990~ 13367.9 37:1.852 0 1994 1 ~:s:~~~~;·. 8 13700.8 4:72,969 i 9s>;5 13244.3 1.3812.5 568.18 1996 :i.301.?.J. 13698.4 681.293 n 199:; :l2!529. 7 13:~3~). 3 805.652 I l 199B 11746~9 12683.5 936 .. 551 bi 1999 1066"1. 11.726.1 1(>65.02 2000 9r)-"'." .(.'") 10420.9 1187.24 n ··-~~ • a.:. L R I i\lfi -DEFINITION c Leoma_ L ~ :BLOvJ L. flLCJvLER D 1. '=?/' 8 46.954 4i!. 9~)·1 (). 1.979 ... 1.1. -()r::; ., I I 7 V..._I,.J. . .-'1: A "L7 ·f ... , ... 7 + v .... J .1. o • 1 Q,..,,, 58. 2~)6 61.818 3.562 [~ , Ci ~ .. 19f.H 81.551 85.223 3.672 "" 1.9El2 116.449 120.338 3.889 1983 163.868 167.92 4.052 0 1984 214.139 218.025 3.886 1985 294.129 297.613 3.483 1986 395.176 398.339 3.163 c 1S'87 491.569 495.032 3.464 1988 584.185 588.305 4.121 1989 670.731 675.453 4.722 1990 749.615 756.084 6 + Al69 c 1991 808.954 818.928 9.974 1992 854.396 869.042 14.6~l6 1993 893.44 913.673 20.233 [ 1994 925.01.7 951.733 26.716 1995 942.797 976 .234· 33.437 1996 945.057 985 .22!:-i 40.167 [ 1997 930.245 978.396 48.151 1998 897.218 954.14 56.922 1999 843.516 909.664 66.148 L 2000 7{,8.601. 843.802 75.201 [ [ HEVGF -DEFINITION L.BLOl.·j L .BLOlLEF~ LCOOKL. [ 1978 :1.01:5.49 101.3.49 o. 1.979 1.3:")~) + 25 1385.25 50. 1980· 1574.58 157B.22 3.645 [ 198:1. 1893.48 1.898.1.4 4.664 1982 2263.96 2271.17 7.21.8 1.983 2558.49 2569.23 10.746 [ 1984 3143.1.6 3156.51 13.342 1985 3536.01 3548.15 12.1"44 1986 3684.69 3696.32 11.63 [ 1987 3897.78 3913.41. 15.621 198B 4108.43 4134.24 25.809 1989 4308.66 43l>4 .12 55.457 1. ~.>90 4334.92 4436.98 102.059 [ 199:1. 4416.92 4549.95 133.023 1992 4582.27 4747.17 164.895 199~:) 4771.1!>4 4951.88 180.238 [ :1.994 491.0.B9 51.08.4:) 197.559 1.995 5046. ~.'i:~ 5260.12 213.59 1.996 5234. 5452.75 218.746 r 1997 54·47. 93 5670.36 ;!22. 422 1.99B ~)682. BB 59LI .• 42 228.539 f ' .._.... ·J 000 ~i94 :! .• 8t'> 61.77. !:"i6 235~703 ... , ,. ~ 2000 c'>219. 78 6464.18 244. •106 [ f::P9~) -·· frEFINITICli'·l [ L.CODf<L L.BLmj L.BLOLLEF\ c :1. 97f3 4~)0. :f. 4~)0. 1. o. 1979 79!:-i + ~~ 845.3 ~:iO + 1900 1004.1 1004.1 o. [ 1981 1253.B 1254.11 0.31 1982 1509.6 1510.04 0.44 198:~ 1678.3 1679. 0.7 c 1.984 2178.2 2178.91 0.71. 1985 2472.6 2473.08 0.48 1986 2464.8 2466.81 2.01 1987 2496.6 2501.35 4.75 L 1988 2515.6 252·4.52 8.92 1989 2518.6 2549.13 30.53 1990 -23·48. 9 2416.57 67.67 c 1991 2253.1 2341.66 88.56 1992 2254.6 2365. ·41 110.81 1993 2268. 2386.34 118.3•1 L 1994 2216.8 2339.96 123.16 1995 2152.8 2280.83 128.03 1996 2127.5 2255.55 128.05 199.7 211~5.5 2241.71 126.21 [ 1998 2:L08.4 2230.26 121.86 1999 211..::!.:~ 2225.56 113.26 2000 211.4.1 2217.35 103.25 t RF'I -Ei'-!DOGENDUS LCOOI(L L .• BLOH 1978 228.508 228.508 1979 241.133 241.133 1980 258.286 258.279 1981 271.917 271.924 1.982 286.659 286.718 1983 301.169 301..447 19B4 306.516 306 .. 224 1985 316.531 316.351. 1986 :~~~7 + 392 336.009 198/' 356.429 3t)~5. tl63 1988 376~484 37:). 601. :1.989 393.953 ·393 .502 1990 412.582 41:1 .• 601 1991 4:H .016 429.546 1992 450.313 -448.689 199:..~ 472.i>72 470.164 197'4 496. 2~~9 494.021 1995 520.873 51B.38 1996 547.244 5 ... 14. 51~; 1997 57~-). 774 571..054 199B i>02. 34~i 599.924 :1.999 631.08:1. 629.005 2000 662.223 660 .. 293 L. BLOl-LER o. o. -0.007 0.007 0.059 0.277 -0.292 -0.181 -1.383 -0 .~)66 -0.883 -0.451 -0.98:1. -1.-47 -1.624 -2.507 -2. 20£~ -2.492 -2.729 -2.72 -2.421. -2.07i> -1.93 D c D D n LJ 0 u 0 n I ; '-.-' fl LJ [ 0 B c c c L [ L [ .... ·-·····--· SH1P --DEFINITION [ LCOCJKL L.BLOH r 19?B -44.797 -,44 + 797 19:79 196.263 246v263 1980 323.B48 325.412 [ ·-·--1.9. 81 48B.5l8 491.621 1982 666.263 668.593 1983 705.817 703.447 1984 1126.85 1121.1 [ 1985 1426.03 1·421.46 1986 1358.9 1363.19 1987 1305.29 1314.68 [ 1988 1218.35 1226.93 1989 1108.8 1133.6 1990 830.535 880.142 [ 1991 632.864 .!,98. 986 1992 541..359 620.352 1993 434.543 526.316 1994 237.773 332.891 [ 1995 16.52 111.73 1996 -227.219 -11..4. 105 1997 --487.402 -363.043 r 1998 -782.766 -651.867 1.999 -1085.87 -957.402 L 2000 -1427.42 -1:105.2 [ EXBITES ·-DEFINITION [ LCOOJ\L L.DLmJ c 1978 0.30:1. 0.301 1979 0 ':IQ':l 0.292 .,_,,_ 1980 0.279 Ov279 .., oo·: () .. 268 () ~ 26:? t .L ,. \.1 .. 1.. :L982 0.252 0.251 1983 0<-27 0.269 1984 0 + ~5()8 0.:305 [ 1985 0. 30~) 0. ::~04 19:3<='> o.=5()1 0.3 198/' 0.299 0.296 [ 1988 0.297 0.293 1989 0.296 0.291 1990 0.294 0 .. 29 [ 1991 0.293 0.29 1992 0.288 0 ·> 286 1993 0.282 () + 28 1994 0.276 0.275 [ 1995 0.269 0.269 1996 0.265 0 "> 'c" + ,;_Q,J 1997 0.26 0 ">•=·o ...... ~,/ [ 1998 0.255 0 + 25~) 1999 0.251 0.25 2000 0.246 0.246 L [ [ POF'F:l -DEFINITION f.:RLL Rf-i:BL RRBL_ER [ 1978 7.155 7.155 o. 1979 7.306 7.306 o. 1980 7.567. 7.569 0.002 [ 1981 7.54 7.664 0.124 1982 7.985 8.417 0.433 1983 7.814 8.329 0.515 [ 1984 7.148 7.718 0.57 1985. 7.32 7.562 0.241 1986 7.407 7.838 0.431 [ 1987 7.524 8.084 0.56 1988 7.603 8.369 0.766 1989 7.664 8.577 0.913 [ 1990 7.707 8.417 0.71 :1.991 7.823 8.597 0.775 1992 7.902 8.565 0.663 1993 7.893 8.602 0.708 [ 1994 7.899 8.589 0.691 1995 7.985 8.602 0.618 1996 8.057 8.62 0.562 r 1997 8.15 8.685 0.536 3.998 8.22 8.75 0.53 b :l999 8.308 8.836 0.528 2000 8.436 8.966 0.531 [ D-i9'?F: 1 -DEFINITION L RF~LL RRBL F\I:::BL_EF;: c 1978 4.463 4.463 o. 197'1 4.569 4.569 o. 1980 ~l + 797 4.799 0.002 1981 ~t. 79 .A 1""'11'\_, r\ -1 -r-z [ "'tt70:.:..:> V+.L.Jv 1982 5.:~()1 5.766 0.465 1983 5.047 5.592 0.545 1984 4.155 4.745 0.589 c 1985 4.202 4.436 0.234 1986 4.201 4.627 0.427 1987 4.316 4.872 0.556 [ 1988 4.403 5.175 0.772 1989 4.463 5.388 0.926 1990 4.499 5.202 0.703 c 1991 4.566 5.329 0.763 i<J92 4.612 5.241 0.628 1993 4.564 5. 23~l 0.669 1994 4.546 5.187 0.641 [ 1995 4.613 5.168 0.556 1996 4. 681. 5.173 0.492 1997 4.773 5.235 0.462 r~ 1998 4.854 5.308 0.455 L 1999 4.954 5.407 0.453 2000 5 • Ot,.4 5 .. 517 0.453 -t 0 F'OPR4 -DEFINITION F<HLL RREIL FmnL_ER n 1978 58.417 58.417 o. .n 1979 58.62 58.62 o. IJ 1980 60.122' 60.135 0.014 1981 61.971 61.99 0.018 1982 63.485 63. 5:~7 0.052 n 1983 62.697 62.811 0.114 1984 63.694 63.927 0.233 1985 64.159 64.427 0.268 tJ 1986 64.661 64.906 0.245 1987 65.802 65.984 0.181 1988 66.99 67.286 ·0.296 1.989 68.395 68.792 0.397 1990 69.808 70.549 0.742 1991. 69.427 70.316 0.889 [l 1992 70.357 71.33 0.973 1993 71.31 72.398 1.088 _, 1994 72.437 73.588 1.15 1995 73.62 74.817 1.197 0 1.996 74.865 76.013 1.148 1997 76.306 77.405 1.099 1998 77.644 78.718 1 .• 074 n 1999 79.285 80. :~66 1.08 I 2000 80.955 82.065 .. .. .. ·-~ ........... ,., ... .... ··-· ·-··--u EH99R4 -DEFINITION Rf"..:LL F~RBL RRBL_EF\ u 1978 22.385 22.385 o. 0 1979 22.893 22.893 o. 1980 2-4.071 24.08 0.009 1.981 25.68 25.695 0+015 1982 27.055 27.097 0.042 0 1983 26.408 26.481 0.073 1984 26.608 26.751 0.143 1985 26.898 27.014 0.116 c 1986 27.265 27.362 0.097 1987 28.06 28.115 0.055 1988 28.863 28.99 0.127 [; 1989 29.8 29.983 0.183 1990 30.668 31.034 0.366 1991· 30.64 31.078 0.438 c 1992 31.191 31.632 0.441 1993 31.775 32.263 0. ~188 1994 .32.428 32.925 0.496 1995 33.1.66 33.647 0.481 L 1996 33.924 34.332 0.409 l. 9'~'7 34.827 35.18 0.353 1998 35.634 35.958 0.324 r~ 1999 36.633 36.955 0.322 L 2000 37.616 37.952 0.336 L [ [ F'OPR5 -DEFINITION HRLL F~f\BL f.:t.:BL._Ef~ [ 1978 193.232 193.232 o. 1979 198.461 :1.98.461 o. 1980 20~). 81"7 .. 20~5 ~ 864 0.047 [ 1981 216.962 217.295 0.333 1982 2~12 + 139 233.298 1.158 1983 241.17 242.849 1.679 [ 1984 240.926 243.316 2.39 1985 244.94 246.604 1. 66•1 1986 250.953 253.01 2.058 [ 1987 259.275 261.743 2.468 1988 268.077 271..701 3.624 1989 277.816 282.553 4.736 1990 287 .. 019 292.497 5.478 [ 1991 295.022 301.518 6.496 1992 303.085 309. 7·43 6.658 1993 311.692 319.141 7. 4-49 [ 1994 320.578 328.52 7.942 1995 330.859 338.829 7.97 1996 341.482 349.169 7.687 r-, 1997 353.71 361~299 7.589 1998 365.935 37:-i. 655 7.72 L 1999 379.636 387.669 8.033 [ 2000 392.61 40:l. 026 8.416 [ EW79f~5 -DEFINITICH,! RF~LL FmBL F~F\DL_ER [ 1978 88.534 88.534 o. 1979 90.937 90.937 (). 1.980 94. t'>Ol 94.636 0.035 [ 1981 :1.00. 558 100.754 0.1.97 1982 108.453 lOS'. 115 0.662 1983 lll. + 782 112.699 0.917 c 1984 110.11 111.44 1.329 1985 111.321 112.075 0.754 1986 113.95 114.888 0.93B [ 1987 118.632 119.685 1.052 1988 123.425 125.144 1.718 1989 128.778 131.084 2.306 1990 133. 48:l 136.235 2.754 c 199:L 136.94 140.241 3.301 1.992 1.40.65 143.835 3.185 1993 144.737 148.302 3.565 L 1994 149.036 152.73 3.694 1995 1.54.292 157.816 3.524 1996 159.747 162.905 3.158 L 1997 16t;. 257 169.217 2.959 1998 :1.72.553 175.502 2.949 l999 179.832 182. 9U. 3.079 2000 1EJ6. 49 189.752 3.262 L n POPF:7 -DEFINITION n fi:F~LL RRI{L f~HBI ...• -EF~ 1978 ti7 .829 57.829 o. 1979 ·60.066 60.066 . o. 1980 62.846 62.861 0.014 1981 67.914 67.99 0.076 1982 77.839 78.092 0.254 1983 81.686 82.102 0.416 [J 1984 77.234 77.923 0.689 1985 78.738 79.218 0.479 1986 81.042 81.666 0.624 1987 84.445 85.175 0.73 c 1988 87.907 89.006 1.099 1989 91.566 93.013 1..448 1990 94.886 96.595 1.709 1991 97.601 99.704 2.102 1992 100.385 102.54 2.155 1993 103.248 105.694 2. lf46 D l994 106.256 108.879 2.623 1995 109.758 112.391 2. 63:~ 1996 113.334 115.883 2.549 1997 117 .4 .. 12 119.978 2.535 n 1998 121.429 124.028 2.6 l l L.J 1999 125.959 128.683 2.724 2000 130 ··478 133.356 2.878 n EM99f'\7 -DEFINITION D RRLL RRI'L RH:8L.ER 1978 31.297 31.297 o. c 1979 32.032 32.032 o. 1980 33.143 33.1.56 0.012 0 1981 36+ 138 36.187 0.049 1982 42.199 42.362 0.163 1983 43.415 43.6T 0.255 [ 1984 38.887 39.29 0.404 1985 39.064 39.304 0.24 1986 39.859 40.154 0.295 1987. 41.409 41.729 0.32 c. 1988 42.997 43.524 0.527 1989 44.767 45.·476 0.709 1990 46.298 47.178 o.aa c 1991 47.419 48.492 1.073 1992 48.607 49.651 1.044 1993 49.895 51.07 1.3.75 [ 1994 51.254 52.479 1.225 1995 52.959 54.128 1.169 1996 54.701 55.745 1 t 0·14 1997 56.807 57+ 78~5 0.978 [ 1998 58.788 59.764 0.977 1999 61.134 62.-158 1.024 2000 63.447 64. 5~14 1.096 L [ . ·-· ·--· .. -· -·. I RRBL [ EM1EXR1 Ef·1S4F\l EMS5R1 EMF<F:F\1 EMG9R1. [ 1978 1.9~H 0.8 0.695 o. 0.995 1979· 2.002 0.84 0.705 o. 0.997• 1980 2.11 0.9:1.4 0.'728 o. 1.008 1981 2.061 1.01 0.75 o. 1.07 [ 1982 2.592 1.222 0.818 o. 1.123 .1983 2.369 1.237 0.772 o .. 1.228 1984 1.702 :1..071 0.681 o. 1.293 c 1985 1.461 1.07 0.664 o. 1.248 1986 1.603 1.136. 0.682 o. 1.222 1987 1.726 1.215 0.706 0 •. 1.257 [ 1988 1.882 1.307 0.734 o. 1.302 1.989 1.975 1 • :')66 0.754 o. 1.359 197'0 1.788 1.352 0.775 o. 1.407 1.991 1. 85:~ 1.393 (). 787 o. 1..437 [ 199.2 1.71"8 1 ... l:l. 0.783 o. 1.454 199:;; 1.696 1.448 0.79 o. 1.459 199·4 1 .. c;2 1.48 0.791 o. 1. 46'? D 1995 j r~""" 1.5:1.9 0.796 o .. 1.479 • t ;._}A._;._} 1.996 1.47 1.564 0.801 o. 1 .1'=> .. . ' :l997 1.447 1.629 0.8:1.5 o. 1.503 r :l998 1.446 1. t.196 0.82B o .. 1.518 1999 1.444 1.775 0.847 o. 1.535 L~ l=.iJ 2000 1.444 :1..857 0.866 o. 1.553 [ I c RRE!L Ei1:lEXF\4 EMS4F~4 Erts:m4 Et·mRF\4 ENG9R4 D 1978 0.789 3.136 8.458 4.371. 5.742 1977' O.fl31 3. ~~2/7 8 + 7~.)4 4.537 5.6? ·r o~:<.,.} 1.193 3.-42 9.269 4.731 5 .. 58 .... , "·' w E jQf.l•' :l • 75'7 3.677 9.778 A. 0'7 e:-...., r.:-.•• , . , uJ. • <fU./ ...J+/ ... J)" :J.OO'? 2 .. 154 3.933 :1.0.22 5.018 5.9-28 I \.}- 1983 1.209 3.85 10.166 5.202 6.233 c 1984 0.747 3 .. 838 :1.0. 393 5.4 6 .53/' 1985 0.747 3.928 10~!':'i72 5.558 6.396 1986 0.74-4 .lj. 038 10.801 5.754 6. 2~3::; 6 1987 0.775 4.155 11.1.76 5.904 6.317 1988 0.81 4.278 :1.1.577 6.103 6.467 1989 0.845 4.416 12.041 6.266 6.676 1990 0.906 4.556 12.51.3 6.5 6.859 c 1991 0.444 4.539 12.735 6.66 7.009 1992 0.437 4.607 13+02:t 6 .. 869 7.048 1993 0.445 4.708 13.392 7.043 7.055 [ 1994 0.445 4.807 13.759 7.252 7.083 1995 0.437 Al+ 92 14.177 7.479 7.115 1996 0.432 5.026 14.56 7.724 7 .. 153 [ 1997 0.43 5.:1.71 15. O~i4 7.954 7.202 1.998 0.43 5~302 :1.5. ~)06 8.172 'i'. 26 1999 0.43 5.468 16.082 8.439 7 .331' 2000 0.43 5 .t)37 16. c)59 8.659 7 .. A05 [ n HRF.IL EM:LEXf~5 ENS41~5 Et1S5F~5 EMF\F\H5 ENG9F\5 c --' 1978 1.33 12.186 37.642 2.109 35.107 1979 1.33 12.683 :-s9.613 2.249 34.885 [} 1980 1.33 13.475 42.653 2. :-ss 34.669 1981. 1.338 14.62 46.778 2.555 35*212 1982 1.354 16.:1.82 5~!. s:~9 2.692 35.812 [J 1983 1.354 16.788 54 .1.1. 2.856 36 .. 813 ·I 1984 1.358 16.501 52.343 3.0:1. 37.689 1985 1.34 16.883 53.069 3.173 37.129 n 1986 1.338 17.643 55.307 3 .35"1 36.641 1987 1.34 18.543 58.632 3.537 36.9 ·. 1988 1.347 19.517 62.225 3.723 37.392 1989 1.356 20.569 66.112 3 .. 909 38.053 D 1990 1.398 21 .. 489 69.371 4.108 38.631 1991. 1.403 22.161 71.92 4.303 39.079 1992 j_ • :18 22.786 7~1.:~47 4.525 39.219 [J 1993 1.401 23.655 77.565 4.745 39.212 1994 1.402 24.514 80.668 4.953 39.269 1995 1.377 25.497 84.256 5.194 39.360 c 1996 1.362 26.50-4 87. 77::-i 5.452 39.423 1997 1.355 27.793 92.207 5.722 39.533 1998 1.355 29.067 96.559 5.979 39.657 11"1 199<; 1.355 30.574 101.7:1.6 6.251. 39.864 20()0 :1 .• 355 3:1.., 977 106.:':146 t> + ~.)22 40.072 I I I LJ n --· ·--· .. -· -· .. -· ·-.. --. . ... -· ..... RF:BL r-, u EI1:1.EXFO E~·iS4H7 Et-iS5R7 ErmF;:R7 ENG9FO J. ~J7t~ 0 + :~-43 5.141 9.122 0 .. 4~)7 16. 26~~; D :l979 0.243 5 ~ 36 .... l 9.714 0.49 1.6.121. :L 9~1() 0.2-43 5.713 10.615 0.526 15.'?73 D 1981. 1.534 6+004 11.81. 0 r"'l7 16.171. t.JOv 198:2 4.352 c,.f:>16 14.334 0.601 16.:~95 1. 98::. 4.1.82 7.026 14.995 0.635 16.797 j_ 984 0 + 48~7 7.13 13.772 0 + c>87 1.7.164 0 1985 0.252 7.35 14.037 0./'03 16.903 1.986 0.269 7.67 14.757 0.741 16.66 1987 0.273 8.046. 15.819 0.788 16.744 u 1988 0.279 8.444 16.9~16 () + 8~~4 16.935 1989 0.279 8.867 H~.1.63 0.876 17.202 1.990 0.263 9.243 19.1 S'4 0.924 17.436 u 1991 0 .26:~ 9.511. 19.99B 0.968 17.615 1992 0.253 9.756 20.787 1.036 17.662 1.993 0.264 10.095 21.797 1.081 17.644 D 1994 0. 26·4 10.425 22.786 1.131 17.655 1.995 0.252 10.81 23.932 1 + 194 17.685 :L996 0.246 11.1.91 2!:-i. 053 1.256 17.696 1997 0. 2·4~5 11 .. 687 26 + 4!:-i 1.326 17.731 L 1.998 0.243 12 .1.6:1. 27.8:1.4 1.37 17 + /'73 1999 0.243 12.731 29.432 1.439 17.853 200(1 0. =~..:l3 13.307 31.048 1.512 17.934 [