HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1509I
I
I
I!)
co ' 1'--
<.0 ,-
('I)
,--
0
0
I!)
I!)
~
Cl)
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United
States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Depart-
ment of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of 11ny information, apparatus. product, ·or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product. process,
or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer. or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement. recommendation. or favoring
by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those
of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
. ARLIS
Alaska Resources Library & Information SeniM
IJbnuy Building, Suite 111
3211 Providence Drive
Anchora!!e. AK 99508-4614
f/D
q911
fff/
!13
11rud
j
"
.;;o
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the Office of Assessment and Integration (OA&I) of
the Region X (Seattle) Office of the Regional Representative of the U.S.
Secretary of Energy: Jack B. Robertson, Regional Representative,
Robert B. Hackman, Director, Office of Assessment and Integration. The work
was conducted under the auspices of the Office of Energy Supply
Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.: Mario Cardullo,
Director; Henry Bowes, Project Coordinator.
The study team appreciates the comments received from those who reviewed the
various drafts of the report.
The following identifies those who brought their technical, administrative and
clerical skills into play in developing and writing this report. They are as
follows:
Stuart H. Clarke, Jr. Region X, Department of Energy
Deborah French Office of Regional Counsel,
Region X, Department of Energy
Dr. Larry D. Mann Region X, Department of Energy
Cynthia McDonald Region X, Department of Energy
John B. McFarland Region X, Department of Energy
Thomasine H. Mitchell Region X, Department of Energy
Bill H. Williamson Office of Regional Counsel
Region X, Department of Energy
The Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center of the University of
Alaska, Anchorage is recognized for its contribution to the environmental
sections of the report.
"1
"'
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKET ANALYSIS OF ALASKA COAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER
r.
II.
III.
IV.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
Economics of Mine Development and Alaska Transportation
Transportation Costs from Alaska to Markets
Market Areas for Alaska Coal
Competitive Coal Sources
Competitiveness of Alaska Coal
Potential Balance of Payments Effect of Alaska Coal
Export and Use.
Potential for Synfuels from Alaska Coal
Legal and Institutional Considerations
Environmental Impacts Associated with Coal Development
Summary
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
APPENDICES
Coal Resources of Alaska
Environmental Impacts Associated with Coal Development
Competitive Coal Sources
Legal/Institutional Consideration
New Techniques for Utilizing and Transporting Coal
Page
ii
iv
v
ix
X
1
17
22 •
27
32
34
36
39
50
57
Bib-1
Page
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTERS
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
I-6
I-7
I-8
I-9
I-10
II-1
II-2
II-3
Estimated Identified Coal Resources of Alaska By Coal Field
Estimated Identified Coal Resources of Alaska By Coal Type
Nenana Coal Prices -FOB Mine
Percentage Change in Price Indices
Quarterly Percentage Change in Wage Indices
Total Estimated Capital Requirements -Kukpowruk Coal Field
Estimated Annual Production Cost -Kukpowruk Coal Field
Calculation of Coal Selling Price -Kukpowruk Coal Field
Selling Price Estimates ($/Ton)
Selling Price Estimates ($/Million BTU)
Transportation Costs Between Alaska Port and Destination Market
Total Delivered Cost of Alaska Coal from Sources to Primary
Market Areas (Dollars Per Short Ton)
Total Delivered Cost of Alaska Coal from Sources to Primary
Market Areas ($ Per Million BTU's)
III-1 Power and Energy Requirements -Railbelt Area
III-2 Power Generation Coal Demand -Railbelt Area
III-3 Estimated Alaska Steam Coal Consumption in Oregon and Washington
III-4 Total Steam Coal Demand for Japan, Tawian and Korea
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV-5
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
V-1
Increases in Australia Coal Production
Projected Steam Coal Exports from Australia
Estimated Canadian Steam Coal Production
Potential Steam Coal Exports from Canada
Steam Coal Production for South Africa
Steam Coal Export Projections from South Africa
Projected Steam Coal Exports from the United States
Summary of Steam Coal Production and Export Projections from
Competing Countries.
Potential Estimated Pacific Rim Steam Coal Market
-iv -
Page
2
2
4
6
8
9
10
11
15
16
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
32
Background
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the world price of oil increasing rapidly, coal is again becoming more
viable as an energy source. Coal reserves that, at one time, were considered
too costly to mine and transport to potential markets are now being given
closer scrutiny. Energy experts throughout the world agree that coal will be
playing an increasing role in the world's energy picture in the years to
come. The world steam coal trade will have to increase many fold to meet the
projected demands for coal in the next 20 years and thereafter. Because of
its large share of the world's coal reserves, the United States is expected to
be a leader in the coal export market. The President has established an
Interagency Coal Export Task Force, headed by DOE, to determine means to
substantially increase U.S. coal exports, identify impediments to such
increases and recommend appropriate government and private sector actions to
achieve them.
The United States is expected to ex~ort between 157 to 252 million short tons
of coal annually by the year 2000.4 The development and export of Alaska
coal could contribute materially to the production increases required to meet
the export market. Alaska coal has several advantages over conterminous U.S.
coal reserves with respect to export trade: (1) its proximity to potential
Far East markets offers transportation cost advantages; (2) large quantities
of Alaska coal are located near tidewater, a unique occurrence with United
States coal fields; and (3) Alaska coal entry into the export market would
displace the need for expensive and environmentally sensitive overland
transportation routes that would otherwise be required to move coal from
conterminous United States' fields to marine ports.
Scope of Analysis
This report examines the development and marketability of coal from three
areas in Alaska. The three areas are the Beluga Coal Field in south central
Alaska near the Cook Inlet, the Kukpowruk Coal Field in northwest Alaska, and
the Nenana Coal Field in central Alaska. At each of these sites, an
assessment was made· of the economics of mine development, inland
transportation requirements, loading facilities and overseas transportation
costs. Selling prices were developed for coal at both the Alaska port and the
port of entry for the potential markets. In addition, competitive coal
sources (Australia, South Africa, Canada and the contiguous U.S.) were
assessed for export projections and selling price. Legal, institutional and
environmental considerations of coal development in Alaska were also addressed.
There are five appendices to the report. Appendix A contains detailed
information on Alaska coal resources. Appendix B, which was prepared for DOE
by the University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center
in Anchorage, Alaska, is an assessment of potential environmental impacts
-v -
'
associated with coal development in Alaska. Appendix C provides a look at
competitive coal sources that is more extensive than that provided in the text
of the report. Appendix D, which was developed by the Region X's Office of
Regional Counsel, examines the Legal and Institutional Considerations that
will affect coal development in Alaska. Appendix E reports new developments
in coal utilization technology.
Findings:
The study found that Alaska coal could be delivered to primary market areas
(Puget Sound, Northern California, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea) for a cost of
between $1.87 to $3.31 per million BTU ($28 to $53 per ton) depending on the
coal source and the destination (all monetary values in this report are given
in 1980$). Coal from competing countries (Canada, Australia, South Africa)
can be delivered to the same markets for $33 to $45 per ton. The figures are
further explained in Chapters I and II and can be found in TABLE II-3. A
representative example from TABLE II-3 shows that coal from the Beluga Coal
Field could be delivered to Japan for a cost of $1.87 to $2.40 per million
BTU. It was found that the Far East will probably be the principal market
when Alaska coal is developed.
In general it was determined that coal from the Beluga field offered a cost
advantage to both foreign and Western U.S. Markets. However, the cost
advantage is not so great as to clearly eliminate the other two as viable
economic choices. Due to severe arctic conditions, environmental impacts
associated with mine development in the Kukpowruk area are significant and may
severely reduce its viability as a potential coal development site.
The demand for Alaska steam coal in California is expect~d to be rather small
due, in part, to the development of captive coal mines in Utah by California
electric utilities. A total demand of only 5 million tons per year is
expected in California in the 1990's compared with 30 to 80 million tons in
the Far East by 1990. However, it was determined that Alaska coal utilization
on the U.S. West Coast (that displaces imported crude oil) would have twice
the favorable impact on the balance of payments than coal exported to the Far
East. Due to existing coal-fired power plant construction plans, which rely
on coal from Wyoming, Utah or Montana, utilities in Oregon and Washington will
not be in the market for Alaska steam coal until about 1995.
However, by converting Alaska coal into a synthetic fuel (e.g. methanol) with
clean-burning characteristics, it could provide a valuable energy source to
serve the U.S. West Coast markets. This potential use of Alaska coal may
become a viable alternative. The DOE recently (July 1980) selected for award
a $3.9 million dollar contract to Placer Amex Inc. and Cook Inlet Native
Corporation, Inc. to perform a feasibility study of converting Alaska Beluga
coal to methanol.
Alaska coal will have to compete with coal from other sources for a share of
the foreign demand. Coal from Australia, Canada and South Africa will
probably be the main competitors. It does not appear likely that bulk coal
· from the Western conterminous United States will capture a significant share
-vi -
of the Far East market in.the near term. This is primarily due to the lack of
bulk coal shipment ports on the West Coast of the U.S. as well as the lack of
adequate transportation linkages from the Western coal fields (Montana,
Wyoming, Utah) to the West Coast.
Although Alaska's coal would be competitive with Canadian coal it is about
$.40 to $1.00 per million BTU more expensive than Australia and South Africa
coal for delivery to Japan. It is not clear, however, if Australia and South
Africa have the ability and desire to expand their production to meet the
projected Far East demand of the 1990's.
The legal and institutional analysis (Chapter VIII and and Appendix D) of
developing coal in Alaska found that no single regulatory requirement would
preclude development. However, as is the case with all major energy projects,
cUmulative Federal and State .requirements would be substantial and could pose
serious delays in the development process.
CONCLUSIONS
o The Foreign export market (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) comprise the primary
markets and will likely be the greatest determining factor in the
development of Alaska coal.
o Conversion of Alaska coal into synthetic fuels would expand the viable
market area and enhance the marketability of the coal.
o Although exports of Alaska coal to the Far East would reduce the U.S.
Balance of Payments' deficit, utilization of an equivalent amount of coal
on the U.S. West Coast (that backs out imported crude oil) would have
twice the favorable impact on the balance of payments as coal exports to
the Far East.
o The technological knowledge for the control of adverse environmental
effects associated with surface coal mining in the three study areas does,
for the most part, exist and could be applied to the Nenana and Beluga
fields. A coal mining operation in the Kukpowruk field, however, would
pose significant obstacles which may preclude the field from being a
viable development site.
o Alaska bulk coal cannot favorably compete with western conterminous coal
for the U. S. West Coast steam coal market unless perhaps coal-fired power
plants are sited on the coast.
0 The cumulative impacts associated with Federal and State regulatory
requirements may be a significant procedural barrier to Alaska coal
development.
o Given the enormous coal requirement in the Far East, 90-150 million
tons/yr by 2000, the U.S. is the only country capable of supplying the Far
East's coal demand in the 1990's.
-vii -
0 Specific coal quality requirements of the consuming market(s) will
strongly influence the specific Alaska coal source(s) that will be
developed.
o Additional geologic investigations are needed to better assess the
quantity and quality of Alaska coal resource.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A comprehensive economic and engineering feasibility study is needed to
assess the potential of converting Alaska coal into synthetic fuels for
consumption in the United States.
2. The potential export market, particularly the Far East, needs to be more
thoroughly investigated. This knowledge would be necessary to obtain the
long-term commitments required to develop new coal mines and terminal
facilities.
3. Alaska coal potential should be given equal status with other u.s. coal
sources in forums concerned with U.S. coal exports (e.g. the President's
Interagency Coal Export Task Force).
4. The Department should conduct a joint study with the State of Alaska and
affected parties to determine permit requirements and scenarios and to
identifY site specific institutional barriers!
5. The Department should take the required steps to ensure that local
district CZM programs in Alaska adequately consider and do not arbitrarily
exclude coal development sites.
6. As authorized in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(PL. 95-87), we recommend that consideration be given to the establishment
and funding of a University of Alaska Coal Research Laboratory. The
Laboratory could provide much of the information required to better assess
Alaska coal as a potential export commodity.
-viii -
J
FOREWORD
This report was prepared by the Office of Assessment and Integration staff
within the Region X (Seattle) Office of the Regional Representative of the
Secretary of Energy. The work was done under the auspices of the Office of
Energy Supply Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
The major sections of this report were written during April and May 1980 using
the latest information available at that time. The report is intended to be
an assessment of the potential of developing Alaska coal in the near term
(1990 or before) using existing technology. Major technological breakthroughs
were not considered to be a prerequisite for Alaska coal development.
-ix -
INTRODUCTION
Background
Coal currently supplies 25 percent of the world's energy and according to the
recent world coal study will supply between 50 and 66 percent of the world's
energy by 2000.44 Thus, the world coal trade will have to expand many fold
during the next 20 years to keep pace with the projected demand.
There are abundant coal reserves throughout the world; on a BTU basis, they
are many times greater than oil reserves. The United States, in particular,
is well endowed with coal resources, with approximately 28 percent of the
world's technically and economically recoverable reserves.
Coal can be mined, transported and burned in an environmentally acceptable
manner with existing technology.44 Research continues, however, in many
countries, on methods to improve upon the current state-of-the-art,
particularly in conversion technology (gasification, liquefaction, etc.).
Because of its large coal reserve base and its proclaimed goal of increasing
exports the United States will contribute substantially to the world coal
trade. Within the U.S., the State of Alaska has extensive coal deposits that
are situated close to potential markets in the Pacific Rim. Although Alaska
coal has been studied for many years it has not been subjected to a rigorous
analysis of its potential in the national or world energy picture. In the
past, the remoteness of Alaska coal from major consumers and the price of oil
and gas has hampered its serious consideration in the market place. Only in
recent years, particularly since the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-74, have the
coal reserves in Alaska begun to be given serious consideration as a viable
energy source for domestic and foreign markets.
In addition to the OPEC oil embargo, several other factors have caused
researchers and policy makers to reassess the potential role of Alaska coal.
These include:
o The President's Energy Plan emphasizes utilization of the United
States vast coal reserves.
o The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 mandates that
utilities and industries consider utilizing coal rather than oil and
gas.
o The reluctance of the public to accept increased use of nuclear power
has directed more attention to consideration of coal-fired powerplant.
o Potential major consumers of Alaska coal are proximate to navigable
waterways.
o Significant quantities of Alaska coal are located close to navigable
waterways.
- X -
o Export of Alaska coal to foreign markets would favorably affect the
U.S. balance of payments.
These factors, and others, have been the driving forces that prompted the
initiation of this report. We feel that now is the time to examine the
options and costs of producing and transporting Alaska coal. Information is
needed to supply accurate and up-to-date information to the market place so
that major utility and industrial fuel decisions can be made with a certain
amount of confidence.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This study focuses on the development potential and market economics of three
coal-bearing areas of Alaska. These areas were selected because they
represent a range of environmental issues, climatic differences,
transportation issues, demonstrated interest in development, coal quality and
others. Although these areas are considered likely candiates for near-term
development, the study recognizes that other areas of Alaska offer similar
development opportunities. The three areas studied in this report are:
a) Beluga Coal Field -located on the north side of Cook Inlet,
low-medium BTU coal (avg. 7,500 BTU/lb), relatively moderate climate,
near tidewater, total reserves of approximately 2.2 billion tons, and
high level of interest in development.
b) Nenana Coal Field -located in Central Alaska, medium BTU coal (avg.
8,000 BTU lb), discontinuous permafrost area, existing railroad and
roads to Fairbanks and Anchorage area, total reserves of
approximately 7 billion tons, existing mine with annual production of
750,000 tons per year.
c) Kukpowruk Cbal Field -located in northern Alaska, high BTU coal
(avg. 12,000 BTU/lb.), Arctic environment, seasonal barge access, no
existing overland transportation systems, total reserves of
approximately 1.7 billion short tons.
By focusing on these diverse areas we were able to address many of the issues
that may typically concern readers that have an interest in Alaska coal.
All monetary figures used in this report are in 1980 dollars which were, in
most cases, obtained by escalating original source data by appropriate price
indices.
-xi -
Chapter I
Economics of Mine Development and Alaska Transportation
A. Introduction
The exact amount of Alaska coal is currently unknown and a subject of much
debate. Undiscovered Alaska coal resources are currently estimated at
1.85 to 5 trillion short tons 2 , while identified Alaska coal resources
are only estimated at 130,126 million short tons.5 The wide range of
estimates for Alaska coal resources is primarily due to the lack of
geological data as almost all Alaska coal fields have not been
investigated or developed. Estimated identified coal resources of Alaska
are shown by coal field and coal type in Table I-1 and Table I-2
respectively. A more extensive description of Alaska's coal resources is
provided in Appendix A, "Coal Resources of Alaska."
Although coal exists throughout the entire State of Alaska, this study
only investigates the development of coal resources from the three
specific coal-bearing areas mentioned in the introduction; (l) the Beluga
Coal Field, (2) the Nenana Coal Field and (3) the Kukpowruk Coal Field.
Figure I-1 illustrates the locations of these coal fields and Figure I-2
shows the five major coal regions in Alaska. The three coal fields were
selected for investigation to represent the wide range of environmental,
transportation, mining and socioeconomic issues that would be encountered
in developing any of Alaska's coal resources. The intent of the study is
to estimate prices of three specific Alaska coals and determine if these
specific Alaska coals are or may become competitive in Pacific Rim steam
coal markets:
In this chapter, Alaska coal selling price estimates free-on-board (FOB)
at Alaskan ports, which are navigable year-round, are determined for coal
from the Kukpowruk Coal Field, the Usibelli Mine in the Nenana Coal Field
and the Beluga Coal Field. The selling price estimates are based on
(l) projected mining costs, (2) mine-support infrastructure costs, (3)
inland transportation costs and (4) port costs. The selling price
estimates in this chapter combined with marine transportation costs
estimated in Chapter II will serve as the basis for comparing Alaska coal
prices with other coal supply prices in the specific market areas
identified in Chapter III.
lA
Figurel-1
Three Representative Alaska Coal Fields
Bituminous
3,065 million short tons
NENANA COAL FIELD
Subbituminous to Lignite
6,938 million short tons
Subbituminous
1,801 million short tons
•
lB
Figurei-2
The Five Major Regions of Alaska Coal
CENTRAL REGION
SOUTHEASTERN = ::~,·
REGION
I
N
I
Coal Field
Northern Alaska
Nenana
Jarvis Creek
Broad Pass
Matanuska
Susitna (Beluga)
Kenai (Homer Dist.)
Total Identified Goal
Source: Reference 115
Anthracite
Bituminous
Subbituminous &
Lignite
Total Identified
Coal Resources
Source: Reference 115
Table I-1
Estimated Identified Coal Resources of Alaska
By Coal Field
(Million Short Tons)
Bituminous Sub bituminous and
19,292 100,905
6,938
77
64
137
2,395
318
Resources 19,429 110,697
Bibliography
Table I-2
Estimated Identified Coal Resources of Alaska
By Coal Type
(Million Short Tons)
Measured Indicated Inferred Total
Trace Trace
6.6 890.4 18,532.2 19,429.2
861.6 7,028.8 102,806.4 110,696.8
868.2 '7,919.2 121,338.6 130,126.0
Bibliography
,,
Lignite Total
120,197
6,938
77
64
137
2,395
318
130,126
·~
' '
i
- 3 -
B. Mine Development
1. Beluga Coal Field
2.
The Beluga Coal Field is located in south central Alaska
approximately 60 miles west of Anchorage in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough. Although the Beluga Coal Field is relatively close to
Anchorage, Alaska's largest population center, the field is totally
undeveloped and lacks the necessary transportation and support
facilities required by a major coal mine's labor force. However, due
to the field's close proximity to tidewater and existing utility
generation and transmission facilities, it is generally considered a
most likely candidate for near-term development. The characteristics
of Beluga coal are:
Rank of Coal: Subbitiminous
Total Identified Resources (million short tons): 1,801
Thickness of Beds: Ranges widely from a few inches to 50 feet
Moisture: 11% -30%
Volatile Matter: 27.8%-30.1%
Fixed Carbon: 25.8% -34.6%
Ash: 8% -30.5%
Sulfur: .2%
Heating Value (BTU/lb): 6,290-8,890
Placer Amex Inc., a Beluga leaseholder and experienced m1n1ng
company, has performed extensive geological exploration in this field
and has formulated a realistic development plan. This report bases
its estimated selling prices on the Placer Amex development proposal.
The Placer Amex mine development proposal would produce coal
averaging 7,500 BTU/lb at an estimated selling price at the mine of
$15.00 to $22.50 per ton or $1.00 to 1.50 per million BTU. (1980
$'s)6 The proposed mining operation would require an annual
production level of at least 5 million tons to provide sufficient
revenues to support the necessary auxiliary facilities for mine
employees working in an undeveloped area. Run-of-mine coal would be
crushed, screened and stockpiled for delivery. The stockpiled coal
could be hauled to tidewater by tractor trailers until market demands
increased to 2-3 million tons/year and therefore justified the
construction of a railroad. The mining and inland transportation
systems would utilize conventional technologies.
Nenana Coal Field
The Nenana Coal Field is the only major producing coal field in
Alaska and extends for about 80 miles along the north flank of the
Alaska Range. The Usibelli mine, located in the Nenana field near
Healy, is the only mine currently producing coal in the Nenana
field. The Nenana field's coal characteristics are:
- 4 -
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous to Lignite
Total Identified Resources (million short tons): 6,938
Thickness of Beds: Ranges widely from a few inches to 60 feet
Moisture: 11.7% -32.7%
Volatile Matter: 31.2% -42.9%
Fixed Carbon: 22.7% -36.6%
Ash: 3.3% -15.9%
Sulfur: 0.1% -.4%
Heating Value (BTU/lb): 6,320-10,385
The selling price estimates for Nenana coal are based on data
provided by Joeseph Usibelli, President, Usibelli Mines, Inc.42
These estimated selling prices represent a minimum price for Nenana
coal at the Usibelli mine at indicated production levels. The
extrapolation of Usibelli coal selling prices to other Nenana coals
is certainly not a totally precise estimating method. However,
Usibelli prices at the 4.1 million tons/yr production level, which
would require the expansion of the mine and the establishment of new
draglines and support facilities similiar to new mines in other areas
of the Nenana coal field, provide a good price estimate for coal from
other promising minesites in the Nenana Coal Field.
The Usibelli mine currently sells coal at an approximate FOB mine
price of $18.00 per ton or $1.12 per million BTU. The coal, which
has an average heating value of 8,000 BTU/lb., is distributed and
consumed entirely within the State of Alaska. At the current
production rate of 750,000 tons/yr the mine is currently operating
below capacity and could increase production to 2.1 million tons per
year with existing capital equipment. The average selling price FOB
mine at a 2.1 million ton per year production rate is estimated by
Usibelli Mines, Inc. at $16.00 to $18.00 per ton or $1.00 to $1.12
per million BTU. (1980S's) However, Usibelli Mine, Inc. also
estimates that any production above the 2.1 million ton per year
rate, which would require additional mining equipment and new coal
leases, will increase average FOB mine selling prices to $26.00 to
$28.00 per ton or $1.62 to $1.75 per million BTU. (1980 $'s) Table
I-3 summarizes Nenana FOB mine coal prices based on Usibelli FOB mine
estimates at increased production levels which would produce coal in
excess of current demand.
Production Level
2.1 million tons/yr*
4.1 million tons/yr
TABLE I-3
Nenana Coal Prices
FOB Mine
16.00 -18.00
26.00 -28.00
Source: Reference 42 Bibliography
$/Million BTU
1.00 -1.12
1.62 -1. 75
*maximum production level with existing equipment
- 5 -
3. Kukpowruk Coal Field
The Kukpowruk Coal Field is located in a wilderness area at the
northern edge of the Arctic foothills, 14 miles east of the Chukchi
Sea coast. This part of Alaska, due to its harsh climate, delicate
environment and remoteness, creates a number of environmental,
social, economic, legal and technical constraints to development.
This chapter attempts to incorporate all the reasonable costs
associated with these constraints. However, in considering the
development plan proposed for the Kukpowruk Coal Field, it must be
remembered that the costs of solutions to technological,
environmental, or legal problems may prevent all mining in northern
Alaska. A recent example of the possible increased costs, which may
be incurred on projects in northern Alaska, is the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS), built by the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company. The TAPS cost increases of over 100 percent during its
three years of construction serve as a warning to any development
project in northern Alaska to expect unbudgeted costs and large cost
increases in almost all budgeted expenses.
The Kukpowruk Coal Field represents-the northwest area of the North
Slope of Alaska. Its coals are of high quality and coal-bearing
rocks are exposed along the lower 25 miles of the Kukpowruk River and
also underlie a small area 70 miles above the mouth of the river.
The field's coal characteristics are:
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Estimated Resources (million short tons): 3,065
Thickeness of Beds: 1-1/2 -13 feet
Moisture: 0.8% -9.9%
Volatile Matter: 31.4% -35.6%
Fixed Carbon: 52.6% -56.1%
Ash: 2.5% -15.0%
Sulfur: 0.2% -.3%
Heating Value (BTU/lb): 11,910-12,880
An August, 1977, Bureau of Mines study performed by Kaiser Engineers,
Inc.30 provides the basis for Kukpowruk coal selling price
estimates projected in this report. The Kaiser Engineers designed a
hypothetical mine using three different mining methods; (1)
draglines, (2) shovels and trucks, and (3) combinations of draglines
and shovels and trucks. The dragline mining method was the most
economical, so only those costs are used here. The equipment
requirements and mining costs were estimated for a mine producing 5
million tons of coal per year over a period of 20 years. Since
measured and indicated resources of only 20 million tons of
bituminous coal have been identified, it is assumed that the mine's
20 year life will be supported by future coal discoveries. The
coal's heating value is estimated to average 12,000 BTU/lb.
- 6 -
The estimated selling price, FOB mine, for Kukpowruk coal was
determined by escalating Kaiser's 1976 data. Table I-4 summarizes
the basic index data, the price indices used and the cost category
updated by the specific index.
TABLE I-4
Percentage Change in Price Indices
Price Indices
Producer Price Index-Machinery and Equipment
December, 1976 ••••••• 175.4
April, 1980 •••••••••• 235.8
Percentage Change •••• +34.4
Producer Price Index-All Commodities
December, 1976 ••••••• 187.1
April, 1980 •••••••••• 262.3
Percentage Change •••• +40.2
Engineering News Record, Building Index
December, 1976 ••••••• 142.2
April, 1980 •••••••••• 179.2
Percentage Change •••• +26.0
Federal Highway Administration Composite Index
Fourth Quarter, 1976 •••••• 145.0
Fourth Quarter, 1979 •••••• 254.8
Percentage Change ••••••••• +75-7
EPA-Sewers Index
November, 1976 ••••••• 152.5
November, 1979 ••••••• 200.8
Percentage Change •••• +31.7
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Engineering News Record
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Cost Category
Mining Equipment,
Coal Storage and
Transfer Equipment
Exploration,
Operating Supplies,
Power Supply,
Townsite and Utility
Facilities
Buildings
Road Construction
Water and Sewer System
- 7 -
Table I-5 presents the quarterly percentage change in the Employer
Cost Index (ECI), White-Collar Workers and Blue-Collar Workers from
fourth quarter, 1976 to third quarter, 1979. The ECI, white collar
workers index was used to escalate Kaiser's 1976 salary cost estimate
and the ECI, blue-collar workers index was the basis for escalating
Kaiser's 1976 wage cost estimate.
Table I-6 summarizes total estimated capital requirements and Table
I-7 summarizes estimated annual production costs in 1976 and 1980
dollars. For example, mining equipment costs of $56,858,000 in 1976,
were increased 34.4 percent to $76,417,000 in 1980 to reflect the
percentage increase in the Producer Price Index -Machinery and
Equipment shown in Table I-4. The 1980 interest charges during
construction are based on a 12 percent interest rate with a total
construction time of three years. Total 1980 capital requirements
are estimated at $179,433,000 and 1980 annual production costs are
approximately $68,499,107.
The estimated coal selling price based on 1980 capital requirements
and 1980 annual production costs is calculated in Table I-8. The
estimated coal price is $18.52 per ton or $.77 per million BTU.
However, this price does not include costs for employee auxiliary
facilities, such as employee housing, community buildings and a power
plant, which the Kukpowruk mine site would have to support due to its
remoteness.
- 8 -
TABLE I-5
Quarterly Percentage Change in Wage Indices
Quarter and Year
4th, 1976
1st, 1977
2nd, 1977
3rd, 1977
4th, 1977
1st, 1978
2nd, 1978
3nd, 1978
4th, 1978
1st, 1979
2nd, 1979
3rd, 1979
Employer Cost Index
White-Collar Workers
+1.9
+1.3
+1.6
+1.7
+1.8
+1.8
+2.1
+1.9
+1.2
+1.9
+1.7
+2.3
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employer Cost Index
Blue-Collar Workers
+1.9
+1.7
+2.2
+1.8
+1.8
+1.8
+2.2
+2.0
+1.9
+1.9
+2.3
+2.0
-9-
TABLE I-6
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
KUKPOWRUK COAL FIELD
5 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
(thousand of dollars)
Exploration, Roads, and Buildings
Mining Equipment
Coal Storage and Transfer Equipment
Total Direct
Field Indirect (7-1/2%)
Total Construction
Engineering (3%)
Subs total
Overhead & Administration (7-1/2%)
Subtotal
Contingency (15%)
Subtotal
Fee (3%)
Total Plant Cost (Insurance-Tax Base)
Interest During Construction
Subtotal
Working Capital
Total Capital Requirements
Source: Reference 30 Bibliography
KAISER
1976
$ 11,287
56,858
4,500
72,645
5,448
78,093
2,343
80,436
6,033
86,469
12,970
99,439
2,983
$102,422
18,436
120,858
6,000
$126,858
DOE
1980
$ 15,284
76,417
6,048
97,749.
7.331
105,080
3,152
108,232
8,117
116,349
17,452
133,801
4,014
$137,815
33,074
170,889
8,544
$179,433
-10-
TABLE I-7
ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION COST
KUKPOWRUK COAL FIELD
5 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
Cost Item
Direct Cost
Wages
Operating Labor
Maintenance labor
Subtotal
Salaries
Production
Maintenance
Administrative
Subtotal
Payroll Overhead
Total Wage & Salary Cost
Operating Supplies
Spare Parts
Explosives
Fuel & Lubricants
Tires
Miscellaneous
Total, Operating Supplies
Power
Union Welfare
TOTAL DIRECT COST
Indirect Cost -(15% of Labor
& Material)
Taxes & Insurance -(2% of
Plant Cost)
Depreciation
Deferred Expense
Total Annual Production Cost
Royalty (12 l/2 % of Selling Price)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Source: Reference 30 Bibliography
KAISER
1976
$ 3,343,156
2,267,189
$ 5,610,345
397,500
488,750
1,071,250
$ 1,957,500
3,027,138
$10,594,983
3,884,370
3,665,316
1,543,510
784,575
1,837,140
$11,714,911
1,897,140
4,800,000
$28,989,034
3,346,484
2,048,440
7,234,000
1,518,625
$43,136,583
8,645,054
$51,781,637
DOE
1980
$ 4,235,461
2,844,882
$ 7,080,343
490,520
603,067
1,321,577
$ 2,415,164
3.798,203
$13,293,710
5,446,299
5,139,165
2,164,723
1,098,787
2,575,331
$16,424,305
2,652,790
4,800,000
$37,177,805
4,457,702
2,756,300
10,574,294
1,955,000
$56,921,010
11,578,006
$68,499,107
I'
-11 -
TABLE I-8
CALCULATION OF COAL SELLING PRICE
KUKPOWRUK COAL FIELD
5 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
20 YEAR PROJECT LIFE -15% RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Annual Gross Profit
After-Tax Cash Flow
(Initial Investment/6.259)
Less Depreciation
Depletion & After-Tax Profit
( =3/4 Gross Profit)
GROSS PROFIT
Annual Sale
(Sales= Production Cost +
Royalty + Gross Profit)
Production Cost
Gross Profit
Subtotal
Royalty (12 1/2% of Sales)
Annual Sales
Selling Price Per Ton
Cash Flow
Gross Profit
Depletion (50% of Gross Profit)
Taxable Income
Federal Income Tax
After Tax Income
Plus Depree ia tion
Plus Depletion
Cash Flow
Source: Reference 30 Bibliography
KAISER
1976
$20,268,094
7 1 234 1 000
13,034,094
$17 z378 z 792
$4 3 '136 ' 58 3
17 1 378 1 792
60,515,375
8 1 645 1 054
69 '160' 429
$ 13.83
$17' 378' 79 2
8,689,396
8,689,396
4,344,698
4,344,698
7,234,000
8 1 689,396
$20,268,094
DOE
1980
$28,667,998
10,574 1 294
18,093,704
$24 1 124 1 939
$56,921,101
24 1 124 1 939
81,046,040
11 1 578 1 006
92,624,046
$ 18.52
$24,124,939
12,062,470
12,062,469
6,031,235
6,031,234
10,574,294
12,062,470
$28,667,998
-12 -
Kaiser Engineers estimated capital and operating costs for a townsite,
employee housing and power plant at $4.15 per ton for a 5 million
ton-per-year operation in 1976. The 1980 cost of the same facilities is
estimated at $5.82 per ton based on the 40.2 percent increase in the
Producer Price Index-All-Commodities from December, 1976 to April, 1980.
Therefore, the estimated FOB mine selling price of Kukpowruk coal is
$23.20 to 25.60 per ton or $. 97 to 1. 07 per million BTU.
c. Alaska Coal Transportation
This section focuses on the role of transportation from the mine to an
Alaska port, which is navigable year-round, in the development-of Alaska
coal resources. The cost of Alaska coal ocean transport from Alaska to
potential markets is discussed in the next chapter. Transportation is a
fundamental requirement for the development and marketing of Alaska coal
and its costs must be included in selling prices. Beluga, Nenana and
Kukpowruk require different transportation systems and each is considered
separately.
1. Beluga Coal Field
The proximity of Beluga coal to port simplifies the logistics of its
transportation. A number of transportation systems have been
proposed. The Alaska Railroad has investigated a 70 mile spur which
would connect the Beluga field with the existing mainline of the
Alaska Railroad for movement to Anchorage; Seward or Whittier.
Placer Amex, in their Beluga Status Report, September, 1979, proposed
moving Beluga coal by truck initially and then later as production
increases to 2-3 million tons/year, the coal would be transported by
rail to a port facility to be constructed on Cook Inlet at Trading
Bay.6 Both the Alaska Railroad and Placer Amex systems are
feasible, but the extremely high cost of railroad construction and
the time delay associated with Congressional approval of any
extension of the Alaska Railroad leads this report to conclude that
the Placer Amex plan is the more viable as it offers both a much
shorter lead-time and greater liklihood of success.
The Placer Amex transportation system would initially use 120 to 150
ton tractor-trailer units to haul the coal to tidewater. If volume
increased to 2 million tons/yr or more, the transportation system
would be converted to rail and a larger stockpile would be
constructed, incorporating a tunnel-conveyor reclaim system to
deliver crushed coal to a high capacity railway storage facility.
The ground transportation system would feed a loading facility
consisting of a pier equipped with a 72 inch wide conveyor belt.
Several possible Cook Inlet port sites have been considered and
appear suitable to handle ships as large as 100,000 DWT. The total
estimated cost of the ground transportation system and port
faci~ities is $5.50 to $6.00 per ton or $.37 to $0.40 per million
BTu.C6)
)
-13 -
2. Nenana Coal Field
3·
For out of state sale, the only viable method of transportation for
Nenana coal is predicted to be rail to a year-round port where it
will be loaded onto ships or barges. The Alaska Railroad currently
transports approximately 600,000 tons of coal per year from the
Usibelli mine to the Fairbanks, Alaska area. The Alaska Railroad
also connects the Nenana Coal Field with three Alaska year round
ports -Anchorage, Seward and Whittier. According to the Alaska
Railroad, a totally owned Federal government system, the total
increased production forecasted for the Usibelli mine could be hauled
from Healy to Anchorage on existing railroad trackage without
upgrading the system.27 The Alaska Railroad would use 100 car unit
trains with a maximum load of 8,000 tons per train to haul the coal
to Anchorage. The estimated price for hauling the coal is $6.50 to
$7.00 per ton if the Railroad owns rather than leases the rail cars.
The next step in exporting Nenana coal would be to build an Anchorage
facility large enough to receive, store, and load the coal on ships
or barges. Anchorage Sand and Gravel Inc., which currently performs
all of these functions with sand and gravel, recently explored the
possibility of creating a coal facility in the Anchorage area. The
firm estimates Anchorage port and loading fees would be approximately
$4.75 to $5.25 per ton if a suitable site in the Anchorage Port can
be obtained. The combined cost of inland transportation and port
costs for Nenana coal is estimated at $11.25 to 12.25 per ton or $.70
to $.77 per million BTU.
Kukpowruk Coal Field
The transportation of Kukpowruk coal to a year-round port could be
accomplished by at least two different transportation systems. One
system would involve the construction of a railroad from the field to
Nenana, a distance of approximately 720 miles, and would connect the
field with the existing Alaska Railroad. A second system would
transport the coal by barge on a seasonal basis to the year-round
port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska for storage and future shipment to
markets. Dutch Harbor, which is located in the Aleutian Islands, was
selected as a transhipment point for Kukpowruk coal since it is
navigable throughout the whole year and is centrally located between
potential markets in the Far East and on the West Coast of the United
States. Direct shipment of coal from the Kukpowruk coal field to
markets was not thoroughly investigated due to the limited shipping
season (3-5 months) and the adverse weather conditions usually
encountered during the winter months in northwestern Alaska.
The Kaiser study investigated both transportation systems.30 It
determined that the railroad system was too costly to be viable so
this report does not consider it. The seasonal barge system,
however, was deemed to provide a reliable transportation system at a
reasonable price and this study will once again update the Kaiser
figures to determine 1980 costs.
D.
-14 -
The barge system would consist of; (1) a roadway for trucks, belt
conveyor or slurry pipeline from the field to the Chukchi Sea coast,
(2) a barge-loading facility at the Chukchi Sea coast, and (3) a
transhipment and storage facility at the year-round port of Dutch
Harbor. The Kaiser Engineers concluded that the combination slurry
pipeline and barge system was the most economical at $11.60 (1976
Dollars) per ton. This report assumes that relative costs of the
systems have remained constant since 1976 and therefore only
escalates the costs of Kaiser's slurry pipeline and barge
transportation systems. The slurry pipeline and seasonal barge
system is estimated to cost $15.50 to $17.00 per ton based on
increases in the Producer Price Index -All Commodities between
December, 1976 and April, 1980.
The transhipment of Kukpowruk coal at Dutch Harbor is estimated at
$4.75 to $5.25 (1980 $) per ton based on Anchorage Sand and Gravel's
port loading costs in the Anchorage, Alaska area. The total
transportation costs from mine to Dutch Harbor for Kukpowruk coal are
estimated at $20.25 to $22.25 per ton or $.84 to $.93 per million BTU
(1980 $).
Summary of Selling Price Estimates
Tables I-9 and I-10 summarize the FOB year-round port selling prices of
Beluga, Nenana and Kukpowruk coal given the assumptions outlined in this
chapter. Obviously, Beluga coal and Nenana coal at a 2.1 million ton per
year production rate are the most economical at the mine on a $1980 per
million BTU basis. However, the limited production in the Nenana field
available at the lower price and the greater transportation costs required
for Nenana coal would probably make the development of the Beluga field a
more favorable project. Kukpowruk coal is slightly more expensive than
Beluga coal or Nenana coal (2.1 million tons/yr) on a $1980 per million
BTU basis. However, the price differences between the three coals are so
small, it is doubtful that price alone would be the determining factor in
selecting an Alaska coal field for development.
The causal factors in addition to price for selecting one of the Alaska
coal fields for development may be the location and coal specifications of
the market for Alaska coal. For example, if the market specified a high
ranking coal then Kukpowruk coal would be a possible choice, if
environmental concerns can be relieved. However, if quantity is the most
desirable characteristic, Beluga Coal may be the first site developed.
And finally, if the market is relatively small and located in the Alaska
interior, Nenana coal production may be increased first. Also,
development at one site does not necessarily preclude development at other
sites. Several of the factors and various market demands could come into
play simultaneously, and coal would flow from two or more areas.
Beluga Coal Field
5,000,000 tons/yr
Nenana Coal Field
(Usibelli Mine)
2,100,000 tons/yr
4,100,000 tons/yr
Kukpowruk Coal Field
5,000,000 tons/yr
TABLE I-9
Selling Price Estimates
($1980/Ton)
Mine Price
$15 • 00 -22 • 50
$16.00 -18.00
26.00 -28.00
$23.20 -25.20
Transportation
$ 5.50 -6.00
$11.25 -12.25
11.25 -12.25
$20.25 -22.25
FOB Year-Round Port
$20.50 -28.50
$27.25-30.25
37-25-40.25
$43.45 -47-85
I
\0 .....
I
Beluga Coal Field
5,000,000 tons/yr
Nenana Coal Field
(Usibelli Mine)
2,100,000 tons/yr
4,100,000 tons/yr
Kukpowruk Coal Field
5,000,000 tons/yr
TABLE I-10
Selling Price Estimates
($1980/Million BTU)
Mine Price
$1.00 -1.50
$1.00 -1.13
1.63 -1.75
$ .97 -1.05
Transportation
$.37 -.40
$.70 -.77
.70 -·77
$.84 -.93
FOB Year-Round Port
$1.37 -1.90
$1.70 -1.89
2.33 -2.52
$1.81 -1.99
,I
-'
Chapter II
Transportation Costs from Alaska to Individual Markets/Users.
A. Economic analysis of transporting coal or coal derived fuels from sources
to primary market areas.
In order to determine marketability of Alaska coal in various markets, it
is first necessary to specify the costs of delivering coal to the
receiving port. It is clear that, in terms of the universe of
possibilities, certain market areas are more likely to be interested in
purchasing Alaska coal resources than others. For the purpose of this
study, as detailed in Chapter III, the prime market areas are those which
either have manifested interest in utilizing Alaska coal or are relatively
close to Alaska.
Both the Puget Sound and Oregon (Seattle, Portland) areas and the northern
California area (San Francisco and Sacramento) have been mentioned as U.S.
West Coast markets for increased use of coal for electric power
generation. Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a utility in the Puget
Sound area, is investigating the feasibility of low-medium BTU gas
(derived from coal) as a fuel for the generation of electricity. In
California, siting discussions are being held concerning construction of
coal-fired generation facilities in the Sacramento Delta area. Therefore,
these two areas are appropriate for analysis as leading U.S. West Coast
market destinations.
In terms of foreign markets on the Pacific Rim, Chapter III identified
Japan, Taiwan and Korea as countries actively pursuing the possibilities
of using coal from both Canadian and Alaska sources. They currently
import Australian coal. Thus, if Alaska coal could be shipped
competitively (i.e., to permit a delivered price in the same range as
Australian and other coals), coal trade with Alaska could be established.
As discussed in Chapter I, the transportation modes that may be considered
to move the mined coal to tidewater transhipment points include barges,
slurry pipelines, trains and trucks. Because of the unique challenges of
transporting resources over Alaska's terrain, the link between mine source
and tidewater is crucial in the transportation chain between resource site
and use.
Once the coal has arrived at tidewater, the question of marine
transhipment facilities arises. In this study, we assume that the three
coal sources (Kukpowruk, Nenana and Beluga) have corresponding tidewater
transhipment points (Dutch Harbor, Anchorage and Trading Bay (Cook Inlet),
respectively). Each of these transhipment locations have technical and
enviro~ental questions to be answered before construction and
transhipment could commence. The specific environmental questions on each
mine site are addressed in Appendix B. In developing the estimates for
the selling price at tidewater (FOB), detailed in Chapter I, the costs
-18 -
used are those which individual companies have presented in technical
analyses of construction and operation of their projects. Since the
methods of deriving the estimated selling price of coal thus incorporates
each firm's cost estimates, the selling price itself implicitly reflects
the technical aspects of constructing the facilities.
Once the bulk coal departs the transhipment point, it would move via
conventional marine transport. This report bases its analysis on the use
of 25,000 dead weight ton (DWT) vessels, a common size for such
transport. However, it is recognized that larger vessels could be used
that would provide a corresponding reduction in unit transportation
costs. Since Alaska's distance from major market areas has proved in the
past to be the prime deterrent to efforts to develop Alaska coal for
out-of-State markets, marine shipping, the lowest cost alternative over
long distances, is the appropriate method to be considered in a lower
bound (best case) transportation scenario.
As with transhipment ports, there are technical and environmental issues
associated with siting receiving ports. These issues need to be addressed
in some detail in order to determine the feasibility of receiving coal in
each considered location. If port siting at a particular location
encounters significant delays in the permitting process, costs would
increase. In this chapter, we address the cost to purchaser at the port
of entry (i.e., the FOB price at Alaska point of departure plus shipping
cost to destination). These cost estimates can then be used to make
comparisons with other coals and fuels.
This report considers only currently available transportation methods to
maintain the focus on near-term potential for marketing Alaska coal.
Discussions of the possibilities of Arctic marine transport systems and
high technology versions of slurry pipelines show that more time will be
needed to plan, approve and construct a system than the limits assigned to
this report permit. These systems also would be capital and/or
new-technology intensive. The possibilities that open up when synthetic
fuels (derived from coal) including methanol are considered are distinct
from those for bulk coal.
Although these alternatives may offer real and viable options for the
future, their contribution before 1986 is constrained because of questions
of timing, capital requirements and technology considerations in addition
to the basic criterion of economic profitability. The potential for
synfuels in the latter half of the 1980's is, however, more promising.
(See discussion in Chapter VII.)
Figure II-1 serves as a visual guide to the trade flows that are discussed
here as potential routes for Alaska coal trade. In the following section,
the transportation costs associated with these transportation links are
developed for the routes shown in this map.
18A
Figure II -1
Possible Trade Routes Between Alaska and Primary
Pacific Rim Market Areas for Alaskan Coal.
·' " ,,
DUTCH HARBOR 11 '' /,j ,, ..... "''/ ' p •• ..,. ·~ ......
tiiiJ "' • -•• • .., ~.... •• ' ' . .,. • . .,7.t.. ·······~ ....... ...... ,/// ·~.. \:·· .. ' ....... •. •· •·· y >' / / ••••. ' •••• :--.-a-: ·.
• • • • • -..,., / / • • • ' ~~----,---i
0 •• ••••• ..S.· ""' / ••• ..... .,..,..~ .,:/ ··. ' ·" . . . . . . . ...-.,.,.., ... ~ / .... ' ······ __ _... ... .,.,. / ··' ·······~-----.... _, .. · / ··~ . --·····..:....,.,... ... / ... .._. ...... :;..,..., ····· .,.""
•••• .,:.:·!.---••••• /""""""' . . ...... . .. .,. ... ,.,
JAPAN ••••• --............ ..,... ... •;... ,.,.. .. .::. ..,.-... ~·.:..-
~~~N
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Routes Originating in Dutch Harbor
- ----- -Routes Originating in Anchorage/Cook Inlet
• Transshipment Points
e Destination Points
""
'
"'
~
-
-.,
B.
-19 -
Investigation of Possible Transportation Modes
For moving bulk coal to Japan, Korea and Taiwan, the only near term
transportation mode currently available from Alaska is marine transport.
For U.S. West Coast markets, however, alternatives to marine transport
(railroad and coal slurry pipelines) are technically possible but
economically questionable. With regard to those alternatives, however,
the capital costs of construction of such an extensive system of fixed
facilities make it prohibitively expensive.
Assumptions pertinent to transportation cost estimates in this chapter
are:
1. Ships used are 25,000 DWT, and are dedicated and fully used on a
specific route -vessels do not haul anything of value on the return
trip. (If they could, costs would be reduced.)
2. Cost estimates are based on a quote of $10.00 per ton for the
Vancouver-Japan route. (F-1)
3. Shipping costs are proportional to distances.
4. Due to the requirement imposed by the Jones Act to use U.S. ships
between American ports, costs were increased 2.5 fold over
international rates.
Discussions held with shippers and a recent report (45) indicate that shipping
in American registered vessels as required by the Jones Act costs from two to
three times as much as shipping in foregin registered vessels. With these
assumptions, the following table of transportation costs per short ton of coal
was developed.
Destination Puget
Sound
Origin
Kukpowruk
(Dutch
Harbor) $9.75
Nenana
(Anchorage) 7.00
Beluga
(Cook Inlet) 7.00
TABLE II-1
Transportation Costs Between Alaska Port
and Destination Market
(Dollars Per Short Ton of Coal)
Northern
California
$12.00
10.00
10.00
Japan
(Tokyo)
$6.10
1-10
7-70
Taiwan
$8.60
10.20
10.20
Korea
$7.20
8.80
8.80
c.
-20 -
This table shows the relative costs of transporting coal to the five
market areas. Due to requirements imposed by the Jones Act, costs to
U.S. West Coast ports are, in some cases, higher than costs to Far
East Markets. Considering the Far East Market, the Table shows the
relative marine transportation cost advantage that coal shipped from
Dutch Harbor has over Cook.inlet and Anchorage shipped coal.
However, for shipments to U.S. West Coast markets, th Nenana and
Beluga coals have a marine considerable transportation cost advantage
over Kukpowruk coal.
Total Delivered Cost of Coal From Alaska Sources to Primary Markets
Esttmates for total delivered cost of coal per ton can be calculated
by combining the selling price estimates from Table I-9 with the
transportation cost estimates shown in Table II-1. These estimates
are presented in terms of dollars per short ton, according to
shipment origin and market destination in Table II-2.
TABLE II-2
Total Delivered Cost of Alaska Coal
From Sources to Primary Market Areas
(Dollars Per Short Ton)
Destination Puget Northern Japan
(Tokyo)
Taiwan Korea
Sound
(Seattle)
Origin
Kukpowruk
(Dutch
Harbor) $53-58
Nenana*
(Anchorage) $34-37
$44-47
Beluga
(Cook Inlet) $28-36
California
(San Francisco)
$55-60
$37-40
$47-50
$31-39
$50-55
$35-37
$46-50
$28-36
$52-57
$37-40
$49-53
$31-39
51-56
$36-38
$47-51
$29-37
*The two-tier costs for Nenana coal refer to the different scales of
operation as discussed in Chapter I.
Table II-3 presents these same estimates on a dollars/million BTU basis.
_ _J
Destination
Origin
Kukpowruk
(Dutch
Harbor)
Nenana*
(Anchorage)
Beluga
(Cook Inlet)
-21 -
TABLE II-3
Total Delivered Cost of Alaska Coal
From Sources to Primary Market Areas
(Dollars Per Short Ton)
Puget
Sound
(Seattle)
$2.21 -2.42
$2.12 2.31
$2.75 -2.93
$1.87 -2.40
Northern
California
(San Francisco)
$2.29 -2.50
$2.31 2.50
$2.93 -3.12
$2.07 -2.60
Japan
(Tokyo)
$2.08 2.29
$2.19 2.31
$2.87 -3.12
$1.87 -2.40
Taiwan
$2.17 -2.37
$2.31 -2.50
$3.05 -3.31
$2.06 -2.60
Korea
$2.12 -2.33
$2.25 -2.37
$2.94 -3.19
$1.93 -2.47
*The two tier costs for Nenana coal refer to the different scales of operation as discussed
Chapter I.
Table II-3 shows that for all market areas Beluga coal has a BTU cost
advantage. In the Northern California market areas, for example,
Beluga coal can be delivered for $2.07 to $2.60 per million BTUs
compared to about $2.30 -2.50 for the other two coal supply areas.
Similar relationships hold for the other market areas, i.e. Puget
Sound and the Far East markets.
Although the lower bound of the cost range is lowest in all cases for
Beluga Coal, it should be_noticed that the upper bound is
consistently higher than those for the other areas. In other words,
if the upper range of costs prove to be more accurate, the cost
advantage of Beluga coal would diminish.
Due to the environmental concerns of the Kukpowruk area, however, the
possibilities of development in the Kukpowruk region may be
significantly constrained. Such potential restrictions on developing
the resources in the Kukpowruk area should be kept firmly in mind
when considering the options for Alaska coal.
Chapter III
Market Areas for Alaska Coal
A. Introduction
Future prospects for Alaska coal can be properly assessed only against the
background of overall world energy demands and supplies. Due to the large
dependence on oil the world energy demands and supplies will be primarily
determined by world economic growth and OPEC pricing and production
levels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates a 3.4 percent
average annual rate of economic growth and a 2.7 percent per year increase
in energy demand for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development's (OECD) twenty-four member countries.21 The quantity of
oil that oil-exporting countries may make available to meet world energy
demand is concluded to be insufficient and extremely expensive to energy
importing countries. Therefore, the IEA and World Coal Study (WOCOL)
foresee an expansion of international coal trade to satisfy future world
energy demands.44
This chapter examines future market demand for steam coal in which Alaska
coal can be expected to become economically competitive with other coal
supplies. Synthetic fuel markets are discussed in Chapter VIII. Coking
coal markets have been eliminated from consideration since no Alaska coal
in mineable beds has been found and tested which possesses the necessary
combination of qualities (i.e., greater than 13,000 BTU/lb. and less than
8.0 percent ash and 1.0 percent sulphur) to be considered as coking coal.
The area of concern is the Pacific Rim market area; Alaska markets, U.S.
West Coast markets, and Far East markets. The analysis is limited to
these Pacific Rim markets due to; (1) their proximity to Alaska resources,
(2) associated advantages of water transportation and (3) demonstrated
interest by utilities in increasing coal consumption. Also, other market
areas could be analyzed by extending transportation routes and increasing
associated transportation costs.
The predicted range of steam coal consumption for each of the three main
market areas was determined by reviewing private and government energy
demand forecasts. The data contained in these forecasts were then
summarized to produce a range of steam coal consumption for each market
area. The availability and reliability of data sources for each of these
potential steam coal markets varies greatly, the results, therefore, are
presented as a general guideline to the future size of the Pacific Rim
steam coal market. Nevertheless, it is obvious that steam coal demand in
these markets will be large enough to require coal from several sources.
B. Alaska Markets
The potential major market areas in Alaska for indigenous coal are the
Anchorage -Cook Inlet and the Fairbanks -Nenana Valley areas, which
j
-23 -
comprise the Railbelt area. The Railbelt area possesses Alaska's largest
concentrations of population, economic activity, energy demand and
industry. The Railbelt area also has an existing transportation system
that currently hauls approximately 600,000 tons of coal per year.
The Alaska Power Administration (APA) recently analyzed current and future
power and energy requirements for Alaska's Railbelt area.3 APA
determined future power requirements based on forescasted energy use per
capita, projected population and an assumed utility load factor of 50
percent. Table III-1 summarizes APA's forecasted power and energy
requirements for the Railbelt area. The installed 1979 nameplate capacity
for the Railbelt area was approximately 795 MW. The need for new
generation capacity between 1980 and 2000 is well documented. The
question is, "Will any new generation be coal-fired and if so, how much?"
The probability that all future electric power generation in the Railbelt
area will be coal-fired is not great, as Alaska possesses a number of
large potential hydroelectric power sites. However, an integrated power
supply system based on a combination of hydroelectric and coal-fired power
plants has support of some interested parties in Alaska. Therefore, due
to favorable economics for hydroelectricity, this report assumes that
coal-fired generation will not supply more than 25 percent of future
Railbelt power demands and that 500,000 tons per year of Alaska coal will
be required to fuel a 100 MW plant. Table III-2 provides a summary of
Alaska Railbelt area increased coal demand for power generation based on
these assumptions.
Peak Power
Total
High
Mid
Low
Annual Energy
Total
High
Mid
Low
*GWH = 1,000 MWH.
1973
MW
389
1,838
TABLE III-1
Power and Energy Requirements
Railbelt Area
1977
MW
650
GWH
2,681
1980
MW
890
829
729
GWH
3,928
3,663
3,391
1985 1990
MW MW
1,671 2,360
1,162 1,592
961 1,177
GWH GWH
7,636 10,684
5,133 7,078
4,256 5,219
Source: Reference 3 Bibliography
1995
M'il
3,278
2,134
1,449
GWH
14,844
9,528
6,430
2000
MW
4,645
2,852
1,783
GWH
20,935
12,738
7,890
J
-24 -
TABLE III-2
Increased Power Generation Coal Demand
for Railbelt Area
1985
1990
1995
2000
c. U.S. West Coast Market
Tons/Year
207,500-1,095,000
477,500 -1,956,250
817,500 -3,103,750
1,235,000 -4,812,500
The U.S. West Coast energy market consists of Washington, Oregon and
California. Washington is currently the only State of the three which
produces electricity by burning coal. The 1330 MW mine-mouth power plant
at Centralia, Washington consumes approximately 5 million tons of coal per
year. The next coal-fired power plant to come on stream in this market
area will be Portland General Electric Company's 530 MW power plant at
Boardman, Oregon which will consume 2 million tons of Wyoming coal per
year.
Washington, Oregon and California utilities have usually been able to rely
on hydro, oil, gas and nuclear to meet growing electricity demands.
However, each of these traditional energy resources has either become
fully developed or new capacity has become economically, socially or
environmentally unacceptable. Therefore, public and private utilities
have started to seriously consider coal-fired electrical generation as an
alternative to more traditional sources.
The California steam coal market is projected to be limited to 20 million
tons per year since the California Energy Commission has placed an upper
limit of 5,000 MW of coal-fired generation within the State by the year
2000.7 However, it is unlikely that much Alaska coal will be able to
penetrate the California market as the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and
the Southern California Edison have already applied for permits to build
more than 3,000 MW of coat-fired generation to be supplied Utah coal. If
one assumes that a 1,000 MW coal-fired plant will be built on California's
coast in the 1990's, a maximum annual California market for Alaska steam
coal would be 5 million tons annually.
Forecasts of future steam coal markets in Oregon and Washington have been
developed by a number of organizations over the last few years. The most
comprehensive analysis of the Oregon and Washington energy situation is
the Northwest Energy Policy Project (NEPP) sponsored by the Pacific
Northwest Regional Commission and carried out in 1976-78.25 This
project included three forecasts of consumption and supply mixes.
However, this DOE report will base its steam coal consumption estimates on
the NEPP projected mid-and high-levels of energy demand, since the
projected low-level of energy demand has already been surpassed.
'!
J.
"'
j
·.,
,;;
1
j
-25 -
The NEPP forecasts use a methodology that relates State energy consumption
to State demographic and economic variables, such as the number of people
and households in the State, per capita personal income, and the prices of
energy products. The NEPP forecasts for coal consumption were divided
into direct uses and electrical generation uses. Table III-3 summarizes
the annual tons of Alaska coal that would be required to satisfy increased
forecasted steam coal demand in Oregon and Washington.
Table III-3 assumes that the proposed Washington Water Power Company's
Creston Plant, the expected Puget Sound Power and Light Company's Hanford
Plant and the probable Portland General Electric Company's Boardman II
Plant will be the only coal-fired power plants built in Oregon and
Washington before 1990 and that these power plants will probably consume
Montana, Wyoming or Utah coal. Therefore, Alaska coal is .not expected to
penetrate the Oregon and Washington steam coal market before 1990.
~
1985
1990
1995
2000
TABLE III-3
Estimated Alaska Steam
Coal Consumption in
Oregon and Washington
Tons/Year
2,250,000 -
4,300,000
Source: Reference 25 Bibliography
D. Far East Markets
6,000,000
15,000,000
The Far East energy market consists primarily of Japan, Korea and Taiwan •.
These three countries are extremely deficient in fuels and sources of
energy required for heavy manufacturing. Japan is the most energy
dependent industrialized country in the world. According to United
Nations 1976 data, Japan imported 99% of its oil supply, 73% of the
natural gas consumed, 77% of its coal supply and 100% of the uranium used
to fuel Japan's nuclear power plants.31 Japan is therefore dependent on
foreign energy supplies for over 90% of its energy requirements. This
large energy market, which is over 4,100 statute miles from Alaska's Cook
Inlet, may prove to be the major market for Alaska coal. Korea and Taiwan
are similarly dependent on foreign energy supplies, although exact figures
are not available.
The Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese government's realization that the
instability of oil supplies and higher oil prices are potentially the
greatest bottlenecks to their economic development have forced each
government to enact a national anergy policy.
~
~
~
.
_,i
-26 -
The Japanese national energy policy, which was a model for Korea and
Taiwan, recommends; (1) the promotion of nuclear power, (2) the
utilization of indigenous anergy resources, (3) the diversification of
overseas energy supplies by expanding coal and LNG imports, and (4) the
establishment of a stable petroleum supply.
Forecasts of future steam coal markets in the Far East have. been developed
by a number of organizations over the. last few years. The predicted range
of steam coal demand for the Far East market in this report is a summary
of the various government and private estimates encountered while
investigating future steam coal markets for this report. The data from
these studies are summarized ·in Table III-4.
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
Sources: Reference
TABLE III-4
Total Steam Coal Demand
for Japan, Taiwan and Korea
Million Tons/Year
20 -40
30 -80
45 100
90 -150
42, 17 and 32 Bibliography
\.
Chapter IV
Competitive Coal Sources
This chapter is a summary of information and data on sources of coal that are
anticipated to be competitive with Alaska coal. Information is presented for
the following countries: Australia, Canada, South Africa and the conterminous
United States. Detailed information on coal characteristics, producing
regions, institutional barriers, etc. for each of these countries can be found
in Appendix C.
A. Australia
Australia has over 350 billion tons of coal resources an9
become a major coal producer and exporter in the future.
Australia produced 124 million short tons and exported 39
coal (steam and metallurgical).
is expected to
In 1978,
million tons of
Table IV-1 shows the production increases anticipated in Australia under
current (1978) plans. Data are summarized from information contained in
Appendix c.
Table IV-I
Increases in Australia Coal Production
(million of short tons)
Steam
Coking
Lignite
Source:
1980
8.2
29.2
14.0
1985
25.5
50.6
20.0
1990
33·7
56.2
25.0
"Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the
Developing Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.c.,
1979.
Table IV-2 summarizes the projected steam coal exports from
Australia. As can be seen Australia is expecting to increase its
coal exports dramatically, from a little over 3 million tons in 1977
to 50 million tons per year by 2000.
TABLE IV-2
Projected Steam Coal Exports from Australia
(million of short tons)
1977 1980 1985 1990 2000
(actual)
3-3 7.0 18.5 30 50
Source: "Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing
Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.c., 1979.
B.
.I
c.
-28 -
It has been projected that Australia surface-mined coal can be landed
in Japan for $35 Per ton or $1.44 per million BTU (1980 dollars)35.
Canada
Canada is rapidly becoming one of the largest coal producing and
exporting countries. In 1978, Canada produced 34 million tons while
exporting 14 million tons (mostly metallurgical).
As illustrated in Table IV-3, Canada expects to increase its steam
coal production from 15.2 million tons in 1976 to 83 million tons in
1990.
Steam Coal
Source:
TABLE IV-3
Estimated Canadian Steam Coal Production
1976 1980 1985 1990
(actual)
15.2 30 57 83
"Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing
Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1979.
Table IV-4 summarizes potential steam coal exports from Canada.
Although Canada will increase its steam coal exports, most of the
expected new production is destined for internal consumption in new
coal-fired electrical plants.
Steam Coal
Source:
TABLE IV-4
Potential Steam Coal Exports From Canada
(millions of short tons)
1976 1980 1985 1990
0.7 2.0 10.0
"Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing
Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1979.
According to a DOE study, Canadian coal can be delivered t0 Japan for
an average price of $45 per ton or $2.35 per million BTU's (1980
dollars) • 35
South Africa
Since 1970, coal production in South Africa has been increasing at an
annual rate of over 6.0 percent, from 58 million tons in 1970 to 96
D.
_,
1
-29 -
million tons in 1978. South Africa has the world's only commercial
coal liquefication plant, SASOL I, which consumes 4 million tons per
year.
Table IV-5 illustrates the projected steam coal production for South
Africa through 1990.
TABLE IV-5
Steam CoalProductiort for South Africa
(millions of short tons)
1980 1985 1990
Steam Coal 90 127 144
Source: "Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing
Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.c., 1979.
Also, shown in Table IV-6 is South Africa's projected steam coal
exports. Exports are expected to increase from 6.6 million tons in
1976 to 23 million tons by 1990.
TABLE IV-6
Steam Coal Export Projections from South Africa
(millions of tons)
1976 1980 1985 1990
(actual)
6.6 11 20 23
Source: "Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing
Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1979.
Steam coal from South Africa can be delivered to Japan for an average
price of $33 per ton or $1.51 per million BTU.
Conterminous United States
The United States has tremendous quantities of technically and
economically recoverable coal reserves, estimated to be approximately
28 percent of the world's total.ll The U.S. is also the world's
largest coal producer, 647 million tons in 1978.
The U.S. is expected to increase its total coal production to over l
billion tons per year by 1985.21 The recent emphasis in the u.s.
with respect to steam coal development has been on western surface
mines. A recent DOE report indicates that in the Western u.s. the
productive capacity in 1980, 1985 and 1990 will be 286, 547 and 710
J
-30 -
million tons/year respectively.41 These represent potential steam
coal production increases of 49.5, 311 and 474 million tons per year
over the 1979 level of 236 million tons. It should be noted that
this expansion will not be without associated transportation, port
development, water boom town, etc. type of obstacles.
The u.s. is projecting significant increases in steam coal exports as
detailed in Table IV-7.
TABLE IV-7
Projected Steam Coal Exports From the United States
(millions of tons)
Steam Coal
Source:
1985
15.8
1990
23.4
2000
73.8
International Energy Agency, "Steam Coal, Prospects to
2000," Organization for Economic Co-Operation and
Development, Paris, 1978.
It has been estimated that U.S. Western surface-mined coal can be
delivered to Japan for an average price of $45 per ton or about $2.25 per
million BTU.
E. Summary
All of the countries discusSed in this chapter, and perhaps other
countries have the potential and the inclination to expand their exports
of coal, particularly to the Far East. Since Japan and perhaps other
countries intend to diversify their coal supply sources for security
reasons, all of these countries will probably capture a share of the Far
East demand. It can be seen by comparing the delivered price with those
for Alaska coal (see Chapter I) that Alaska can indeed compete on the
world coal market.
Table IV-8 summarizes steam coal export projections for each of the
competing countries. It is important to remember that the export tonnages
given are for total exports and not exclusively those destined for the Far
East Market.
Australia
Canada
South Africa
Lower u.s.
TABLE IV-8
Summary of Steam Coal Production and Exports
Projections from Competing Countries
Coal Production Increases
(million short tons per year over current levels)
1980
8.2
14.8
17.7
49.5
1985
25.5
41.8
54.7
311
1990
33 7
67.8
71.3
474
)i
-31 -
Projected Coal Exports
1980 1985 1990
Australia 7.0 18.5 30.0
Canada 2.0 5.0 10.0
South Africa 11.0 20.0 33.0
Lower U.S. 15.8 23.4 73.8
Source: "Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing
Countries," World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1979.
International Energy Agency, "Steam Coal, Prospects to 2000,"
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, 1978.
Chapter V
Competitiveness of Alaska Coal
This chapter compares Alaska coal price estimates developed in Chapters I and
II, with competing coal prices from other coal sources estimated in Chapter
IV. The comparison is on a u.s. dollar (1980) per million BTU (heating value)
basis and does not consider other coal characteristics which the specific
market might desire. The analysis assumes total steam coal market demand
identified in Chapter III, and summarized in Table V-1 is larger than the
steam coal supply which could be produced by employing excess coal mine
capacity in the world today. This assumption means that future steam coal
prices should increase in real terms, but probably not until after 1990 when
steam coal demand is expected to rise dramatically in Pacific Rim markets.
This assumption also suggests that the question of when Alaska coal may be
developed can be answered simply by comparing Alaska coal prices with the
price of competing coals in specific markets.
1985
1990
1995
2000
Alaska
0.2-l
0.4-2
0.8-3
1.2-8
TABLE V-1
Potential Estimated Pacific Rim
Steam Coal Market
(million tons)
U.S. West Coast
4.0 -5.0
7.2 -ll
9.3 -20
Far East
20 -40
30 -80
45 -100
90 -150
Total
20.2 -41
34.4 -87
53 -114
100.5-178
The first market which was examined in Chapter I -Section B was the Alaska
Railbelt Area. If coal-fired power plants are built to supply electricity to
the Alaska Railbelt Area, then it is obvious that increased production in the
Nenana Coal Field would be able to supply all the necessary steam coal at the
best price until at least 1995. Nenana coal's price advantage is due
primarily to location. The Nenana field is located in the Railbelt Area and
therefore transportation charges would be minimal since mine-mouth power
plants could be utilized. The Nenana Coal would be delivered to the Alaska
Railbelt market at a price of $1.00 -$1.75 per million BTU compared to Beluga
Coal and Kukpowruk Coal at $1.37 -$1.99 per million BTU.
The second market which was investigated was the U.S. West Coast steam coal
market. This market is similar to the Alaska market in that it is also
forecasted as being insignificant until the late 1990's. The main difference
between the U.S. West Coast market and the Alaska Railbelt market is that
Alaska coals should be in direct competition with western U.S. coals for all
future coal purchase agreements. According to DOE, western U.S. surface mines
can produce and deliver coal to Washington, Oregon and California steam coal
markets for $1.00 to $1.75 per million BTU.37 The total delivered cost of
-33 -
Alaska coal to U.S. West Coast ports calculated in this report and summarized
in Table II-3 range from $1.87 to $3.12 per million BTU. Therefore, unless
future coal-fired power plants are built on the Oregon, Washington or
California coast, bulk Alaska coal is not competitive in U.S. West Coast steam
coal markets at this time.
Primarily due to its vast size the Far East market may offer the best
opportunity for Alaska coal. Alaska coals are currently competitive with
Canadian and other U.S. coals in the Far East market, but are $.40 to $1.00
per million BTU more expensive than Australia or South Africa coal in Far East
steam coal markets. However, it is not clear that Australia and South Africa
can expand their coal production to meet their internal demands and at the
same time supply Far East steam coal markets. Most coal experts predict that
Australia and South Africa will be able to meet Far East steam coal
requirements until the late 1980's or early 1990's. However, in the 1990's as
Far East steam coal demands rise, the United States appears to be the only
coal supplier with the reserves capable of meeting the Far East's steam coal
demands.
In summary, the key to Alaska coal development should be the future growth of
steam coal markets in the Far East. As these coal markets increase to the 80
million ton per year range in the 1990's, the United States could be the only
country capable of meeting the demand. Since Alaska coal is currently price
competitive in Far East markets with other U.S. coal supplies, Alaska coal
should be in a position to compete for a share of the Far East steam coal
market within the next fifteen years.
Chapter VI
Potential Balance of Payments Effect of Alaska Coal Export and Use
The development of the Alaska coal resources can have a two-fold impact on the
u.s. Balance of Payments. First, if exports of Alaska coal to Pacific Rim
countries grow, the U.S. balance of.payments situation would be improved, both
in general and vis-a-vis the customer nations (Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong).
Because of Alaska's proximity to Pacific Rim markets, and because of Alaska
coal's ability to compete on a cost basis, the logical coal for potential
export from the United States to the Far East is Alaska coal. Second, if
increased coal utilization within the United States contributes to backing out
imports of crude oil and petroleum products from foreign sources, the balance
. of payments would be affected favorably. It should be noted that this same
effect could be gained from increased U.S. coal utilization from any u.s. coal
source be it Alaska, Western United States or others.
The facts that (1) the U.S., in 1973, had a trade surplus of $911 million but,
in 1978, had a trade deficit of $30 billion, and (2) the bill for the volume
of U.S. crude oil imports totalled approximately $26 billion in 1976, but
approximately $50 billion in 1979, in combination, indicate the importance to
the U.S. of increasing its exports and decreasing crude oil imports in order
to reduce the growing deficit in the U.S. balance of payments accounts.
In terms of market development potential in the Far East, the most likely
scenario for initial trade would be the export of five million short tons of
coal per year to those market from the Beluga fields. The export of this
volume to Japan would mean that, if the coal is transported in U.S. vessels,
the U.S. balance of payments would benefit by a total of $160 million per year
(5 million tons X $33 per ton). To the extent that the Far East market for
Alaska coal would expand beyond the volume of five million tons per year, the
positive balance of payments effect would be correspondingly greater.
The second most likely market is California. If Alaska coal were shipped· to
California at the rate of five million tons per year, and if this coal backed
out imported oil that is used for electricity generation approximately 12
million barrels of oil (on a BTU for BTU basis, a short ton of Beluga coal is
equivalent to 2.4 barrels of crude oil) could be saved. Using the February
1980 price of $32.40 per barrel of imported crude oil (source: Monthly Energy
Review, July 1980), a displacement of this quantity of imported crude oil
would translate into a balance of payments saving of almost $400 million per
year. Thus, the displacement of the crude oil equivalent in terms of energy
to five million tons per year has more than twice the impact on the balance of
payments that direct export of this amount of coal hast at February 1980
prices. Since the price of imported crude oil continues to rise (The April
1980 price level was $33.54. Source: Monthly Energy Review, July, 1980), the
balance of payments effect of backing out imported crude oil would increase
accordiagly. In addition, if even larger quantities of coal were utilized,
and that led to backing out imported crude oil as well, the effect on the
balance of payments would be even more favorable.
-35 -
The Puget Sound and Oregon market is the least likely of the market areas
discussed in this report to purchase Alaska coal for electricity generation.
If it is assumed, however, that 2.5 million tons per year were used for
electricity generation that is in turn used for home heating that displaces
fuel oil, then additional balance of payments benefits of approximately $180
million could be realized.
It should be noted that, for the equivalent tonnage of coal, shipment to and
utilization on the U.S. West Coast (if the coal backs out imported crude oil)
from only U.S. coal source would have twice the favorable impact on the u.s.
balance of payments. In terms of the_balance of payments, utilization of coal
within the U.S. (assuming the backing out of imported crude oil) would have
significantly greater impact than direct export. In addition, to this
important impact, utilization of Alaska coal on the West Coast would have the
related impacts of (1) reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign sources of
supply of crude oil, (2) added motivation for the coal conversion program, (3)
impetus to expand Alaska coal exploration and development, (4) increased
employment, and (5) promotes American shipping activity North-South from
Alaska.
Thus, export of 5 million short tons of Alaska coal to the Far East could lead
to expanding exports by almost $160 million per year. In fact, even larger
benefits to the balance of payments situation could be gained if increased
coal utilization on the West Coast backed out imported coal. For the case in
which California and the Puget Sound areas purchase a total 7.5 million short
tons of Alaska coal per year, the balance of payments impact would be a saving
of almost $600 million with the back-out of imported crude oil.
Thus, even the limited scale that these examples discuss, the impact on the
balance of payments is sizeable. If exports are larger and coal conversion
and utilization occurred on a larger scale, the impact on the balance of
payments would be correspondingly greater.
A.
)
B.
.•
Chapter VII
Potential For Synfuels From Alaska Coals
Introduction
One of the conclusions from the preceeding chapters is that Alaska coal
will probably not supply future U.S. West Coast steam coal markets due to
a price disadvantage when compared to western conterminous U.S. coal.
However, the inability of Alaska coal to penetrate West Coast steam coal
markets does not preclude its use as an energy resource for other West
Coast energy markets. The West Coast steam coal market is a small segment
of a large energy market that consumes oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity
and nuclear power. Steam coal prices, on a BTU basis, are relatively low
compared to oil and natural gas prices. With oil and natural gas prices
increasing, in the late 1970's and 1980's, at rapid rates th~ potential
for coal-derived synthetic fuels is being assessed in a new light.
Technologies for converting coal into gaseous or liquid products, that
were, until recently, considered too costly are undergoing close scrutiny.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a cursory look at the
possibility of using Alaska coal as a feedstock for a synthetic fuel
facility that would supply U.S. West Coast needs. This is not intended to
be a technical chapter which details economic and engineering parameters
relative to synthetic fuels development.
Due to the more advanced state-of-the-art on coal to methanol technology,
this chapter will focus only on methanol. Methanol has been produced from
coal for years and the technology is well known and understood, although
research is being conducted to assess more efficient production methods.
Since methanol is a liquid fuel with clean burning characteristics it is
ideally suited for use in combustion turbine generating stations. Due to
delays being experienced by Northwest utilities in siting and building
conventional generating facilities, they are investigating the possibility
of using combustion turbines fueled with coal-derived methanol. In
addition, California's utilities have long expressed their interest in
using methanol to produce electrical power. Particularly for peaking use,
combustion turbines using methanol derived from Alaska coal would be a
logical and environmentally sound end-use of the synthetic fuel.
Economics and Time Scale
One company (Placer Amex Inc.) has studied the cost of methanol production
from Alaska coal and estimates that methanol produced in Alaska from the
Beluga coal field could be delivered to Puget Sound for about $7/million
BTU (+ 20%) by 1986. Other estimates (see Appendix E) have ranged from
approximately $5.00 to over $11.00 per million BTUs to produce methanol
from coal. Current costs for imported crude oil is over $5.00 per million
c.
-37 -
BTU. The proposed plant would be designed to produce 54,000 barrels per
day of methanol to be transported through an existing pipeline system to
tanker loading facilities across Cook Inlet. A plant of this size could
produce methanol sufficient to supply 800 MWe of combined cycle generation.
A methanol facility, utilizing currently available technology, -could be
completed by the mid-1980. This time-frame would be particularly
beneficial to the electrical utilities in the northwest which need
additional generation to meet projected deficits in electrical power. A
thorough review of Federal and State environmental requirements associated
with the point of production should be completed as early as possible.
Existing air quality, availability of water, waste disposal, surface
reclamation and other environmental aspects appear initially to permit
siting of a synthetic fuel plant at or near the Beluga coal field.
Although there have been estimates that the cost of building a methanol
facility in Alaska would be 30% more than in the contiguous United States,
this cost differential could be partially alleviated by innovative
construction methods. For example, a methanol plant could be built in
modules and towed by barge to Alaska where it would be assembled on the
northerly shore of Cook Inlet near the Beluga coal field. This technique
was used for some of the Prudhoe Bay facilities, and was recently (1978)
used by a Japanese manufacturer who built an entire pulp mill/electrical
power plant that was towed from Japan to Brazil.
Since Alaska coals typically have high ash and high moisture the economic
seem to favor conversion of coal in Alaska to a high quality, clean
burning fuel rather than shipping bulk coal to U.S. markets. In contrast,
coal or methanol produced from Western U.S. coal (Wyoming or Montana)
would require a new pipeline or would be subject to high cost of overland
transportation systems. These costs have not been estimated and warrant
further study.
Role of Industry
Industrial interest in coal-derived electric utility fuel is demonstrated
by the large number of proposals that were submitted to DOE for
feasibility study funding~ These include proposals by Placer Amex/Cook
Inlet Region, Inc., (officially selected for funding) Puget Sound Power
and Light Company and a consortium of Western natural gas companies. This
expressed and implied interest combined with utility interest in
combustion turbines will assist with perceived near term shortages of
electricity, particularly in the Northwest. Seattle City Light and·other
regional utilities have ongoing feasibility studies on the use of gas
turbine installations that will have the capability of using coal-derived
methanol as a fuel.
It appears that industrial producers and industrial customers are
interested in Alaska coal-derived methanol as a utility fuel, and they may
be willing to invest in a coal-to-methanol system if the economics can be
determined to be favorable, and if the regulatory climate is also
favorable. The results of the recently awarded contract to Placer Amex to
study the feasibility of such a system will be a valuable input in the
decision to construct an Alaska coal-to-methanol project.
J
-38 -
D. Legal Considerations
E.
State government would have primary permitting and siting responsibility.
The State of Alaska looks favorably to projects which would develop Alaska
coal, and has offered State financial participation in the Placer Amex
proposal. The State and Federal permit requirements are explained in
Chapter VIII and in Appendix D.
It has been contrued that the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act
(FUA) permits exemptions for coal-derived methanol-fueled combustion
turbines. Section 2ll(b) of the Act provides for a temporary exemption
from the prohibition of using natural gas or petroleum products in certain
power plants based upon the future use of synthetic fuels, such as
coal-derived distillate.
Chapter IX, Legal and Institutional Considerations, provides additional
information relative to synfuel production from Alaska coal. Basically,
synfuel facilities are subject to the same regulatory constraints as other
energy facilities. In addition, some of the real-world issues surrounding
synfuel facilities are not yet known and could contribute to delays.
Recommendations
Serious consideration should be given to Alaska coal derived fuel projects
which could produce fuels to displace imported oil, since there seems to
be no significant technological or regulatory barriers, and there appears
to be a receptive political climate in Alaska for such an effort.
Early consideration should be given to preparing a short-term, conceptual
engineering and system design study of Alaska coal-derived synthetic fuel
in order to better determine costs and time schedules. While different
industries have done such studies on pieces of the option described
herein, we believe that DOE should have its own, independent figures upon
which to base Departmental policy decisions.
CHAPTER VIII
Legal and Institutional Considerations
Study Limitations
Legal and institutional considerations will play a central role in the
development of Alaska coal resources. Unresolved issues surrounding the strip
mining and coal conversion methods, transportation and utility corridor
systems, ports facilities and marine delivery systems, and the use of coal or
coal-derived synthetic fuels pose significant obstacles to Alaska coal
development. Topical areas include: (1) existing and evolving land tenure
and management regimes of Alaska coal fields; (2) environmental degradation;
(3) socio-economic impacts on existing communities and the creation of new
communities; (4) developing policies and actions toward coal development by
affected units of State, local and Native government; (5) existing and merging
Federal, State and local regulatory requirements necessary for development;
and (6) Federal policies and laws concerning coal conversion and use
requirements.
This chapter will address Federal, State and local regulatory requirements and
selected institutional considerations that will influence Alaska coal
development. Except for a brief status review of the Alaska Lands Bill, it
will not include a detailed discussion of existing and changing land tenure
regimes or acquisition, or issues concerning land transportation and utility
corridors, associated powerplants, port facilities and marine transportation
consideration. This chapter assumes that Federal; State, local and Native
lands in selected study areas can be acquired for surface coal mining,
synfuels facility development, transportation and utility cooridors and ports
and associated facilities. The scope of materials presented in following
sections will generally not include a discussion of State environmental or
regulatory requirements that will influence Alaska coal development. A
tentative list of likely Federal and State permits, licenses and approvals
necessary for land acquisiton, land transportaion and utility corridors, port
facilities and marine transportation and safety is included in Appendix D.
The assumption is also made that pending Alaska Naitive Claims Settlement Act
Selections, Exchanges, Federal Alaska lands legislation and Federal coal
leasing requirements will allow development of such lands. On August 19,
1980, HR-39 passed the Senate and would place 104.3 million acres of Federal
lands into conservation areas. HR-39 would finalize the State of Alaska's
selection of 98 million acres of the 105 million acres the State was entitled
to under its Statehood Act. HR-39 also guarantees the conveyance of 44
million acres to Alaska natives. Information contained in this chapter should
not be considered an exhaustive checklist for determining compliance with
Federal, State or local regulatory requirements.
A. Environmental Requirements for Mining Operations and Synfuel Facility
Development
1. All phases of proposed strip ~n~ng in Alaska are currently regulated
by the U.S. Department of Interior (DO!), Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. (P.L.
2.
j
J
)
95-87)
control
to OSM.
surface
OSM.
-40 -
Alaska is currently developing a State reclamation program to
environmental impacts of surface coal mining for submission
Until OSM approval and State legislative authorization, all
mining activities in Alaska will continue to be regulated by
The Act requires: ~estoration of land to its prior condition after
m~n~ng; restoration of land to its appropriate original contou~;
segregation and preservation of top soil; minimization of hydrologic
disturbance; construction of coal mine waste piles used as dams or
embankments; and revegetation of mined areas. If the proposed
program is approved by the Secretary of DOI, the State will assume
the responsibility for issuing mining permits and for enforcing the
provisions of its regulatory program. However, if the State fails to
resubmit an acceptable program or at any time fails to resubmit an
acceptable program or at any time fails to implement, enforce, or
maintain an approved program in accordance with the Act, OSM is
required to prepare and implement a "Federal Program" of regulation
within that State.
In addition to mining reclamation considerations, surface mining and
the construction and operation of synthetic fuels projects must
comply with an ever-growing list of Federal, State and local
regulatory requirements. A recent DOE study of permits and approvals
necessary for oil shale development in selected western States
discovered that more than 400 permits may be required for any given
project.34 Major Federal laws regulating surface coal mining and
the development of synthetic fuels facilities include the National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and Toxic Substances Control Act.
Other likely Federal laws affecting Alaska coal development include
the Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Rivers and
Harbors Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and Occupational
Health Safety Act.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) sets forth the basic
policy for all Federal agencies: that environmental protection is to
receive consideration in Federal decision-making. In connection with
Federal decision-making which may have significant impact on man's
environment, NEPA establishes three principal procedural
requirements. The Act calls for "systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of the national and
social sciences and the environmental design arts." Alternatives to
the recommended course of action must be considered. Lastly and most
importantly, a detailed environmental impact statement is required
for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment." NEPA' s procedural duties are judicially
enforceable. A decision made in violation of NEPA's requirements is
subject to judicial invalidation.
.i
-41 -
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes national ambient air quality
standards designed to prevent adverse effects of certain pollutant
involving particulates, sulfur dioxide, petrochemical oxidants,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen xide and lead. The CAA
directs participating States to develop State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) which set forth control efforts designed to achieve compliance
with the national standards. State standards can be more stringent
than those imposed under the CAA. The CAA also authorizes the
promulgation of new source performance standards for individual
industrial categories, requiring new plants to utilize the best
demonstrated system of emission reduction. In addition to these basic
requirements, the CAA has created two complex regulatory
requirements, one of which must be considered in reference to Alaska
strip mining and synfuels plant operation, viz., the Act's
nonattainment requirements which apply in areas continuing to violate
air quality standards and requirements to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in areas of the country, such as
Alaska, which are currently cleaner than air quality standards.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits any discharge of pollutants into
public waters without a permit and imposes stringent pollution
control requirements on all discharges, whether existing or new.
Although the CWA does not present the same degree of potential
barriers to new coal development in Alaska as the CAA, it does
represent one of the major components of environmental law which must
be satisfied in connection with construction and operation of a
synfuels facility. Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), a discharge must comply with applicable
Federal or delegated State water quality standards. State water
quality standards may also exceed minimum Federal standards. In
addition to requirements to prevent spillage of oil and hazardous
wastes, the Act's new source performance standards (NSPS) specifying
the greatest degree of effluent reduction through the best available
demonstrated control technology also impose stringent operational
standards on new plant construction.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act places "cradle to grave"
controls over the generation, transportation and disposal of
hazardous and other solid wastes. The Act establishes a permit
system and authorizes criteria for identifying hazardous wastes based
on ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity and toxicity. In addition
to establishing a system for classifying industrial wastes presumed
to be hazardous, recently proposed toxicity criteria would classify
as a hazardous waste any substance for which a primary drinking water
standard has been established if its concentration is ten times
greater than the drinking water standard. Like the CAA and CWA, RCRA
contemplates that States will assume permit and program enforcement
responsibilities.
)
j
-42 -
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to identify and
regulate the manufacture, processing, distribution, us~ and disposal
of hazardous chemical substances and mixtures. Synthetic liquids are
generally considered to have a high potential for containing toxic or
carcinogenic constituents. TSCA requires a developer to nofify EPA
or participating State 90 days prior to production of a new chemical
or product and submit environmental and health data. If EPA
determines that introduction of the product would pose an
unreasonable risk, it could restrict or prohibit production, require
further testing or regulate the handling, transportation and end-use
of the product.
B. Application of Environmental Requirements
l. Despite the very bst mining technology and pollution control
efforts, strip mining and synthetic fuel plant operation of any
significant size will have some adverse health and environmental
effects. Degradation of the air and water supplies, disposal of
huge amounts of wastes that contain traces of toxic metals
represent well recognized environmental impacts. Development of
the Beluga and Kukpowruk River District fields may also cause
more extensive socio-economic impacts on nearby residents and
communities than expansion of the Usibelli Mines in the Nenana
field. Housing, schools, police and fire protection, water and
sewer systems, roads, utility services and other
community-related service needs can be expected to result from
any moderately sized development activity.
Several issues involving compliance with NEPA would be presented
by development of Alaskan coal fields. Since Federal permits,
licenses and approvals discussed in greater detail below will
likely be required, a determintion of whether an EIS will be ·
required must be made at the outset. Assuming an EIS is to be
produced, its scope and range of alternatives to be considered
must be defined. This chapter does not attempt to address all
NEPA-related questions, rather, it is intended to identify
general problem areas that can be expected to arise under NEPA.
The Usibelli mine in the Nenana field near Healy, Alaska is the
only producer of coal in Alaska. The Usibelli mine has the
potential for expanding production. Expansion of a previously
approved existing use may not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Requirement of an EIS is likely to rest on the magnitude and
nature of expanded mining activity at the existing Usibelli Mine
site and whether mining methods go beyond existing activities or
technology. The use of new synthetic fuels technologies, such
as solvent refined coal (SRC) processes and coal gasification,
would likely cause new environmental impacts not currently
associated with th existing Usibelli Mine operation and
therefore require preparation of an EIS. For example, in-situ
2.
)
)
-43 -
conversion processes could adversely impact ground water and
drinking water supplies (salinity, organics, trace metals) and
large volumes of toxic or hazardous wastes could require costly
disposal techniques.
A decision to proceed with development of the Beluga, Nenana and
Kukpowruk area fields and need to prepare a NEPA EIS will
require a fundamental decision regarding the scope of the EIS.
A "site specific" EIS would address only the environmental
impact resulting from individual Federal actions. A
"comprehensive" EIS would examine a proposal's entire system
impact. Because of the absence of exisiting facilities and the
scale of development at the Beluga and Kukpowruk area sites, a
"comprehensive" and perhaps a "Regional" EIS examining mining
operation, synthetic fuels technology, overland and marine
transportation routes, port development community-related
impacts, and associated facilities and powerplant development
may be necessary.
Recently approved and mandatory Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA set forth regulations
designed to streamline the EIS process. The CEQ regulations
provide for the preparation of a single, lead agency EIS and
utilization of a draft EIS as an initial project planning
document. To avoid delays and insure that planning and decision
reflect environmental values, the regulations require
integrating and requirements of NEPA with other planning,
environmental review and consultation procedures required by law
so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than
consecutively.
Any plan to develop or convert Alaska coal resource must not
only comply with existing regulatory requirements but accept
certain risks associated with the impact of future promulgated
environmental requirements. Since regulation requirements of
synfuel technologies are difficult to predict, a situation could
occur where facilities would be required to alter their design
and plant operation to comply with new regulations. A recent
DOE analysis has concluded that despite reclamation, hazardous
waste and solid waste management impacts, there appear to be no
absolute environmental prohibitions for indirect liquefaction of
coal utilizing surface conversion technologies at low (500,000
BPD) and medium (1,000,000 BPD) levels. However, higher levels
of production (2,000,000 BPD) rapidly increase the chances of
siting and operation difficulties.35 Direct coal liquefaction,
although expected to contribute commercially to synthetic fuels
production by 1990, runs a greater potential for worker and
public exposure to toxic substances. Indirect coal liquefaction
(e.g., coal gasification, coal to methanol, coal to gasoline and
Fischer-Tropsch methodology) appear to generate far fewer toxic
wastes and potential for harm to the environment and danger to
man.
-44 -
The DOE analysis summarizes general impacts of the applicable
environmental laws as well as existing institutional processes
that influence synfuels development. The most important Federal
environmental requirement affecting synfuels develoment in
Alaska is the Clean Air Act. No new source performance
standards (NSPS) or air shed models currently exist for single
or cumulative impacts of synfuels facilities. Because of the
likelihood that candidate development areas may be immediately
near or within designated as Class I PSD areas, major synfuels
and related facility development could be substantially limited
or precluded. Synfuel facilities located near Class I PSD areas
(e.g., National Parks) could be required to install pollutant
control devices beyond BACT. Although it does not appear that
proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants
will unduly restrict or preclude synfuels development, DOE's
analysis indicates that compliance with any such requirements
could require costly plant modification.
DOE's environmental analysis further indicates that existing
Clean Water Act requirements should not preclude or severely
restrain coal development at candidate sites. States, however,
are not required to adopt Environmental Protection Agency water
quality criteria for toxic substances and accidental pollution
of State waters. Alaska could impose more strict water quality
standards than required under the CWA which could restrain
larger scale surface mining and conversion activities.
EPA has recently promulgated RCRA regulations covering the
identification, generation, transportation and disposal of
hazardous wastes. Although portions of certain wastes from
direct and indirect coal liquefaction technologies may be
identified as hazardous, compliance with RCRA permit and control
requirements should increase costs of wasts disposal but
generally should not prohibit or unduly restrict synfuels
facility development. Application of such regulations to Alaska
coal development is highly site and technology specific.
The impact of TSCA on Alaska coal development is uncertain.
DOE's environmental analysis of TSCA's impact on synthetic
liquid fuels indicates that the most likely impact would occur
in the storage and transportation of synthetic crude oil.40
The impact of Federal and State regulatory requirements on
Alaska coal development are uniquely site-specific. No single
requirements standing along appears initially to preclude or
severely restrict development of candidate sites. However, the
cumulative impact of all such requirements could protract
development of acceptable sites. Recent changes in Federal and
State requirements appear to provide an opportunity for reducing
time, manpower and informational requirements. For example, in
addition to recently finalized Council on Environmental Quality
3·
-45 -
environmental review integration requirements mentioned earlier,
EPA regulations now consolidate RCRA hazardous waste, Safe
Drinking Water Act underground injection control, CWA NPDES, 404
dredge or fill and CAA PSD requirements. Department of Commerce
and Interior regulations establish uniform procedures for
compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act at the
same time that action agencies are complying with NEPA
regulations prior to and during preparation of a Draft EIS.
Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation administers a
"one-stop" master application for development subject to
separate water rights acquisition and local approvals.
As the size of strip mining and synfuels development grows, the
likelihood of regulatory conflict at the Federal, State and
local level increases. Although State, local and Native
entities niay initially support new and increased coal
development, opposition may occur at later development stages.
The following material examines additional issues which are
likely to influence initial Alaska coal development.
Obtaining necessary Federal and Sta~e regulatory approvals to
undertake development of Alaska coal resources will be
significantly influenced by Alaska's evolving State and district
coastal zone management (CZM) programs and the extent to which
local government can control Federal and State lessees engaged
in the development of hydrocarbons and minerals. In 1972,
Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to
provide States with a lead role in coastal planning and
management through the design and implementation of coastal
management programs. The CZMA provides for reciprocal Federal
and State responsibilities in the development and administration
of State management programs. Before approving a State's
management program, the Secretary of Commerce must find, among
other things, that the views of affected Federal agencies and
the National interest in the siting of facilities (including
energy facilities) which are other than local in nature have
been adquately considered, and that local land-and water-use
regulations do not unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of
regional benefit.
Following approval of Alaska's coastal management program by the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Federal actions (regulatory
activities, development projects, permits and outer continental
shelf approvals) affecting the coastal zone are required to be
consistent with the State's CZM program and approved District
CZM programs. The importance of approved local District CZM
programs should not be underestimated. In addition to Federal
actions which affect the coastal zone (including spill-over
effects from excluded Federal lands) State agencies and
municipalities ae also required to administer land and water use
regulations and controls in conformity with approved District
-46 -
CZM programs. District program authorities are required to
conduct a resource inventory and analyze and describe land and
water uses subject to the program, including:
1) coastal development,
2) development in geophysical hazard areas,
3) recreation,
4) energy facilities,
5) transportation and utilities,
6) fish and seafood processing,
7) timber harvest and processing,
8) mining and mineral processing, and
9) subsistence.
District coastal programs must address all above uses that may
affect habitats, air, land and water quality and historic,
prehistoric and archaeological resources. In addition, coastal
resource districts are also responsible for designating and
developing special management policies for coastal areas
meriting special attention (AMSA's). An AMSA is an area which
is " sensitive to change or alteration and which because of
plans or committments or because a claim on the resources within
the area would preclude subsequent use of the resources to
conflicting or incompatible use warrants special management
attention •••
The Kenai Peninsula Borough and Matinuska-Susitua Borough, which
are likely to be substantially affected by development of the
Beluga field, are in a unique position to influence development
activities. In addition to exercising limited jurisidictional
authority over land-use planning, education, tax assessment,
recreation and solid waste disposal, both Boroughs are beginning
efforts to develop District CZM plans. The Kenai Borough has
proposed that the Beluga/Tyonek area be designated an AMSA in
anticipation of coal-related development and the need to protect
area heritage and fragile, highly productive natural resource
value of the area. In related developments, the Kenai Borough
is also attempting secure legislature authority from the State
which is necessary for port development. The City of Anchorage,
a likely market for Beluga coal, has recently received concept
approval of its local CZM program.
District coastal programs for the Kenai Peninsula and
Matinuska-Susitna Boroughs are in a paramount position to permit
or restrain the siting of coal mining and synthetic fuels
facilities, transportation systems, ports and associated
facility development. In a recent legal opinion issued on May
12, 1980, to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, the Alaska Law
Department has indicated that, under certain circumstances,
District CZM programs can restrict, control or exclude "uses of
-47 -
State concern", such as the exploration, development and
production of hydrocarbons and minerals, on offshore Federal
lands and coastal lands subject to State or local jurisdiction.
A local district CZM program reasonably restricting oil and gas
development through a permit system would apparently be upheld
as long as the plan is not unconstitutionally vague.
The development of district CZM programs offers another
procedural advantage which could expedite Federal, State and
local regulatory requirements. The CZMA and implementing
regulations provide an important opportunity for public and
private input in shaping District CZM program standards,
objectives and policies which are binding on Federal, State and
local government. The CEQ's mandatory procedures implementing
NEPA could be incorporated into the development of District CZM
programs in coal development areas. Environmental and
socio-economic impacts associated with land acquisition, mining
operations, synfuels facility siting, transportation and utility
corridor siting, port development and associated facilities and
community development could be proposed and considered together
in the creation of District CZM programs and consolidated in a
required NEPA EIS for the District CZM program. Integration of
CZMA and Alaska State program development requirements with CEQ
requirements should facilitate later site-specific industry
planning and public participation, and ensure that all major
Fedeal and State environmental and regulatory requirements are
fully and simultaneously considered early in State and local
land-use decision-making. Initiation of early NEPA planning
with District CZM program development could result in an
intergovernmental programmatic or comprehensive EIS that could
avoid replaying major Federal regulatory review and serve as the
principal environmental planning and decision-making record for
later Federal and State decision-making.
Another important issue likely to influence Alaska coal
development is the creation of "boom towns", the need for new
and permanent communities and socio-economic impacts on existing
communities. Mitigating the impacts of coastal and upland coal
development in Alaska could be funded through a variety of
mechanisms. Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) assistance is
available under CZMA Section 308 for coastal communities
affected by energy development. Proposed legislation extending
CZMA program authorization for CEIP assistance would provide up
to $25,000,000 a year to States adversely affected by coal
transportation. Additional Federal assistance for
socio-economic impacts to local communities may be available
from the Economic Development Administration of the Department
of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture under Title VI of
the Industrial and Powerplant Fuel Use Act. In the absence of
Federal efforts, assistance for mitigating local
community-related and environmental impacts may be secured
through imposition of State or local severance or conversion
taxes.
-48 -
c. Other Factors Affecting Alaska Coal Development
A variety of regulatory and non-regulatory factors could
influence Alaska coal development. Enactment of the Industrial
and Powerplant Fuel Use Act (FUA) would appear to provide an
incentive to Alaska coal development by prohibiting the use of
oil or natural gas in new utility generation facilities and
certain new industrial boilers. Existi.ng facilities capable of
using coal may also be required to use coal under the FUA. Coal
is only one of many fuels which can be used to comply with the
Act. In addition to encouraging coal gas use by classifying
coal as an alternate fuel the FUA provides temporary exemptions
from FUA prohibitions for facilities which plan to use
coal-derived alternate fuel (e.g., coal derived methanol). FUA
prohibitions and exemptions apply to both new and existing major
fuel burning installations. FUA prohibitions and exemptions,
however, apply only to new powerplants in Alaska.
Despite enactment of FUA prohibitions, the current availability
of natural gas and ability of firms to obtain exemptions from
the Act have not prompted contiguous U.S. or Alaskan utilities
to convert to coal. To encourage utility conversion, the
Administration has recently proposed a grant program authorizing
$3.6 billion for utilities without sufficient financial ability
to convert to coal. Such utilities would be eligible for grants
to construct coal handling facilities, pollution control
equipment and other changes to permit burning of coal.
Additional incentives to greater coal use may be generated by
Executive Order 12217 which mandates Federal facilities
compliance with FUA construction and conversion requirements.
Title I of the recently enacted Energy Security Act provides
incentives that may contribute to Alaska coal development. The
Act establishes a goal of producing an equivalent of at least
500,000 barrels of crude oil per day (BPD) of synthetic fuel by
1987 and 2,000,000 BPD of synthetic fuel by 1982. Under Phase I
of the program the Board is authorized to award $20 billion to
private firms to construct synthetic fuels facilities. To
encourage private capitol investment in the domestic production
of synthetic fuels, Title I authorizes creation of an Energy
Security Corporation (ESC) to provide price guarantees, direct
loans, loan guarantees up to 75 percent of project costs,
purchase agreements and joint ventures with the ESC. Financial
assistance would be available for: production facilities; land
and mineral rights required for use in connection with a plant;
equipment used to extract minerals for conversion to synthetic
fuels from either a mine located next to a plant or located
elsewhere if no other source of the mineral for the plant were ·
available; and transportation facilities, electric powerplants,
transmission lines or other equipment necessary for the project.
)
-49 -
CONCLUSIONS
1. Assuming that lands can be acquired, no single Federal or State regulatory·
requirement standing alone appears to preclude development of selected
study sites.
2. Together, cumulative Federal and State regulatory requirements can pose
substantial procedural barriers to development of study sites and
development activities involving surface mining, the siting of synthetic
fuels facilities, powerplants, transportation and utility corridors and
port facilities and marine transportation systems.
3. Proper utilization of integration provisions contained in Council on
Envionmental Quality environmental review, planning and decision-making
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA'
provide significant opportunity to expedite Federal and State regulatory
requirements for complete coal mining, synfuels facility and
transportation systems.
4. Active participation by affected Federal, State, local, Native and private
entities in the development of District Coastal Zone Management Programs
in concert with NEPA EIS requirements to ensure adequate consideration in
the siting of "use of State concern" and "national interest" is needed to
preserve acceptable sites in study areas for future development and
expedite Federal and State regulatory requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Department should conduct a joint study with the State of Alaska and
affected units of local, Native and Federal government to (1) determine
likely permit, license and approval scenarios (2) identify institutional
barriers to coal development at specific sites and (3) prepare draft
intergovernmental agreements or Memorandum of Understanding for expediting
regulatory requirements.
2. The Department, through its participation in the Federal Critical Energy
Facility Program (Executive Order 12129) and Energy Coordinating Committee
(Executive Order 12083) should begin consultation with affected Federal
agencies to. determine permit, licensing and and approval scenarios for
development of the candidate study areas and means to expedite Federal
regulatory requirements, including utilization of CEQ integration
requirements for implementing NEPA.
3. The Department of industry should take immediate steps to ensure that
developing local District Coastal Zone Management Programs adquately
consider and do not arbitrarily exclude or unreasonably burden acceptable
sites for coal systems development (surface mining, synthetic fuels
facilities, powerplants, transportation and utility corridors, ports and
marine transportation systems) in coastal areas.
4. The Department and affected Federal, State, local and tribal agencies,
together with industry, should jointly examine how the Council on
Environmental Quality's environmental review, planning and decision-making
regulations can expedite development of acceptable sites.
' ·'
Chapter IX
Environmental Impacts Associated with Coal Development
A. Introduction
This chapter provides a brief overview of part of the information
contained in Appendix B~ Information provided herein will focus on
environmental effects of surface mining. For detailed information on this
and to obtain information on the natural environment of the three sites
the reader is referred to Appendix B.
This chapter and Appendix B examine only those impacts associated with
mine development in the three areas previously discussed. It does not
examine potential issues associated with transportating coal or converting
coal into synthetic fuels. Although these are important areas of concern
which need to be addressed, they are beyond both the scope and resources
allotted for this study.
B. Environmental Effects of Surface Mining
The following is a review of expected major effects that would be
associated with surface mining Alaska. Discussed are direct effects on
water quality, water quantity, surface topography, and air quality and the
secondary effects pertinent to fish, wildlife, and other living organisms.
1. Water Quality
Water quality can be expected to be affected in any of the three
fields--Beluga, Nenana, or Kukpowruk--as the natural terrain is
disturbed, drainage patterns are altered, and excavation activities
produce silt and sediment, leachates, and dust. Expected quality
changes include turbidity, dissolved solids levels, pH, dissolved
oxygen, and temperature.
The main differences for surface mine development in the fields of
concern here, in comparison with operating mines elsewhere in the
United States, are the presence of frozen ground/permafrost, the
extremely contrasting summer and winter hydrologic cycles, and
presence and duration of ice and aufeis*. In addition, there are
very little hydrologic data available and theoretical approaches to
runoff prediction are unreliable. Thus, the engineering
considerations required for the removal and stockpiling of
overburden, the maintenance of slope stability, and the construction
of impoundment areas, etc., are difficult. Materials, particularly
those of fine grain, will flow, slump, and slide. Impoundments in
permafrost areas will thaw, and summer-excavated pits in the
Kukpowruk will fill with water. This latter situation could also
occur at Beluga or Nenana, depending upon the presence of absence of
permafrost.
*augeis -sheet of ice formed on a river flood plain in winter when
shoals in the river freeze solid so that water spreads over the flood
plain and freezes.
-·
-51 -
In the Kukpowruk area, gravel is scarce making construction of good
road beds difficult. All of these natural situations and engineering
considerations increase the possibility that water quality will be
affected by terrain disturbance.
Water Quality effects are regulated by a number of State and Federal
statutes and regulations falling within the purview of a number of
agencies. Obviously, one of the major hindrances to Alaska coal
development will be to convince such authorities of the efficacy of a
number of engineering practices required to prevent the reduction of
water quality in situations of natural extremity and limited
knowledge.
2. Water Availability
Water availability as well as water quality will be impacted by any
coal mining program. In Alaska, water quantity and availability are
affected by a number of natural factors, including seasonal
temperature, permafrost, ice, and high runoff in spring "breakup" and
often again during August storms. Furthermore, groundwater resources
are often unavailable or, if available, frequently highly
mineralized, adding to the discharge quality problem when used in
washing or other processing activities. In effect, then, surface
waters are the main usable sources and these can be highly variable
in availability throughout the year.
Not only is the availability of water for coal operations a potential
problem, but also the effect on downstream availability is also of
concern. In addition to the quality of waters discharged after use,
there is the question of adequacy of volume available for downstream
users (real or potential), including fish and wildlife and on a
seasonal basis consonant with natural factors. Large volumes of
wa·ter would be required in all of the regions for mining and
reclamation activities, coal conversion and use plants, conjunctive
developments, and population increases. Water withdrawals could
affect aquatic systems by reducing habitats and by changing physical
regimes such as the temperature and dissolved oxygen levels of the
remaining water. In areas such as the Kukpowruk, where seasonal
flows are either very high or very low, the maintenance of minimum
stream flow for aquatic life could be an important consideration to
the permitting of water appropriation.
3. Land Surface
The physical effects of surface ~n~ng are most obvious on land. A
few of the more evident examples are barren areas caused by road
construction, claim location and development, active mining,
overburden removal ·and stockpiling, tailing ponds, waste disposal
areas, open pits and slides, etc.
4.
-52 -
Natural terrain is altered during exploration, survey and mine
location, mine operation, and processing. Access roads would be
required in the development of deposits associated with the Beluga,
Nenana and Kukpowruk fields. Ports and terminal facilities would be
required at Kukpowruk and Beluga. As discussed in Chapter III,
railroad spurs would be utilized at Nenana. In transportation
construction, gravel would be required, necessitating additional
landform change at gravel borrow areas.
Less obvious impacts than those given above, are a number of landform
changes which would occur secondarily as a result of the alteration
of permafrost terrains if it exists in the mine area. Several
examples are: stockpiled, fine-grained, ice-rich overburden
materials are liable to thaw into muddy flows with often disastrous
and uncontrollable results; thaw ponds and watered ditches would also
appear when tundra over ice-rich permafrost is disturbed; and slopes
would fail, slide, fall, and be altered.
Finally, any restoration of land following the removal of the coal
and associated waste materials would depend on the character of
materials originally removed as overburden or interburden. If
materials are ice rich, as discussed in the previous paragraph, they
are liable to be unstable even on fairly gentle slops. Over time,
permafrost will develop some natural stability, but real stability of
landform will only come after vegetation is restored as an insulator
for the active (area that freezes in winter and thaws in summer)
upper few feet of material.
Air Quality
Another major environmental impact which can be expected to be
associated with surface coal mining is air quality degradation from
dust. In many ways, the dust problem is no different in Alaska than
in other coal-producing areas of the United States.
All three coal field situations of concern here lie in areas of
low-level air inversion. The effect of this generally winter-month
phenomenon, which exhibits temperature differences in the Interior up
to 20°C in the lowest 600 feet (200 m) and is one of the strongest
found anywhere, is to trap dust as well as hydrocarbon engine
emissions at extremely cold temperatures below a "roof" of warmer
air. The dust and hydrocarbons serve as nucleids to form "ice fog."
In its more serious forms, ice fog is deleterious to human health and
offers hazards to industrial operations due to reduced visibility and
worker discomfort.
During the winter months, dust from coal operations and from routine
travel on gravel roads will settle on the snow, often over many
miles, in accordance with prevailing winds. As spring approaches,
with greater solar radiation and warmer temperatures, dust-covered
-53 -
snow will melt more rapidly then uncovered snow.. The effect of this
is to speed up insect and other invertebrate life development. In
some areas this occurrence would have a disruptive chain reaction
effect on the food webs of many higher forms of life.
5. Summary
Environmental effects of coal operations in Alaska are, in the main,
similar to those elsewhere in the United States and are generally
well known. The main set of differences in Alaska stems from
differences in physical conditions (i.e., permafrost, hydrologic
cycles which exhibit seasonal and volume extremes and which are
imperfectly known, and coal air temperature phenomena), all of which
require special engineering and operational techniques during mining
and which can cause conditions making reclamation activities
virtually impossible on some sites.
c. Engineering and Reclamation Considerations
For purpose of discussion here, engineering and reclamation considerations
pertinent to both prevailing natural conditions and the induced effects of
coal operations associated with the Beluga, Nenana and Kukpowruk fields
are divided into three parts; (1) Terrestrial situation, (2) Hydrologic
situation and (3) Atmospheric situations.
1. Terrestrial Situations
Discontinuous permafrost affects the mining at the Usibelli Mine near
Healy (Nenana coal field), however, to date, has not been encountered
in the Beluga field. At the Kukpowruk field, operations would take
place in an environment of continuous permafrost. In whatever
permafrost conditions encountered, the essence of the degree of both
engineering and reclamation problems would be directly attributable
to the volume and form of ice within the permafrost materials and the
type of material with which the ice is associated (i.e., grain size,
particularly).
The removal of overburden would disturb the permafrost regime when
ambient temperature reach high enough levels to induce melting.
Removal of frozen ground is technologically difficult. Special
equipment is often required for breaking up materials, and blasting
requires specific expertise to be effective. If thawing is used,
special problems are encountered, often making mud conditions worse
when materials are fine gravel and rich in ice content.
The methods used in excavation of overburden and interburden
materials have a direct bearing on the success or failure, even the
possibility, of postdevelopment reclamation when fine-grained
materials are encountered. Excavation and future reclamation in
coarse materials are easier, but major reclamation problems are the
presence of water-filled pits (whether excavated in summer or winter,
J
-54 -
if open during the summer months permitting permafrost thaw), the
storage of muddy materials under site conditions which often do not
allow the percolation of water and compaction of materials into
stable forms, and the acceptability of materials for revegetation.
As discussed earlier, the slopes of permafrost materials forming the
banks of walls around excavations offer their own special problems of
stability from thawing and pore water pressures making revegetation
impossible. This problem of slope stability, together with the lack
of sufficient and suitable materials for stable backfilling would, in
areas of ice-rich, small-grained permafrost, make it difficult to
restore original land surface. Again, in order to give emphasis, the
handling of coarser-grained materials is quite possible, and the
Usibelli Mine experience gives examples of success on some sites.
In summary, the operational conduct of terrain excavation and
reclamation appear with some certainty to be manageable in the Nenana
field (although some sites are at variance with present experience)
and also in the Beluga field, based primarily on a comparative
geologic analysis with other regions of coal production. However, it
should be pointed out that specific sites can offer problems. In the
case of the Kukpowruk, terrain and reclamation control will be very
difficult.
Hydrologic Situations
Engineering and reclamation practices in the Beluga, Nenana and
Kukpowruk fields will encounter an extreme variation in existing
hydrologic data interpretation and overall knowledge. As a result,
the site-specific design of diversions, ditches, and settling ponds
is often fraught with uncertainty. The best hydrologic data probably
exist for the Nenana area, the worst for the Kukpowruk. The Beluga
area, on the other hand, has some gauged streams, and nearby
southcenter Alaska community data may be extrapolated. Difficulties
arise, however, with geologic hazard-induced flooding from volcanic
activity and the occurrence of unpredictable storm situations arising
from North Pacific August storm tracks.
In the Kukpowruk area, precipitation data are very scant, with only
some relevant data at Point Lay and Point Hope. In addition, much of
this area is devoid of vegetation or sparsely covered with tundra.
In any event, runoff is scarcely retained, and velocities and volumes
can be quite high during storm occurrences.
The point of the foregoing is that design criteria for hydrologic
waste and sediment control facilities are minimal at best, and in
order to have safest and adequate settling ponds, etc., overdesign
may have to be the rule rather than the exception.
D.
-55 -
3· Atmospheric Situations
Coal mining constraints associated with low external ambient air
temperatures for surface works are essentially the same as those for
any other arctic operation. Previously, some ice fog factors have
been discussed. In addition, some other considerations pertinent to
low ambient air temperature follow. Vehicles utilized for hauling
wet coal require some means of preventing the coal from freezing to
the truck bed. Covering the bed with antifre.eze has worked as has
heating the bed of the truck with vehicle exhaust.
Appropriate measures for preventing permafrost degradation under
surface structures need to be taken, as well as measures for insuring
vehicles operation. The latter may include providing heated warm-up
sheds as well as low temperature lubrication. Practices in the
Soviet Union include the utilization of thermopane windows,
insulation, and double heaters in the vehicle cabs.
·Due to the high moisture content of the coal, it tends to slack and
produce excessive dust upon drying. During summer, water is used to
suppress dust, but so far it appears that no effective solution has
been found to suppress dust in winter. The combination of high
moisture content in the coal and extremely low humidity in winter
produces a dust and fire situation that ranks among the moat serious
of the cold weather problems.
Conceptually, a water washing plant for winter operation in the
Arctic is possible. The plant would need to be heated and the coal
dried after washing to prevent freezing in the coal storage piles.
The tradeoff between the coat of winter coal washing and
transportation without washing appears to favor the latter.
Revegetation
Prerequisites of revegetation in Alaska as elsewhere are first, the
stabilization of land form and second, the ability of instituting and
maintaining a self-regenerative vegetative cover type. In the Nenana
field effective revegetation practices have been demonstrated. Stability
appears to be practical at Beluga, also, and plant species are available
which are suited to site and climatic conditions.
The Arctic has special revegetation problems. Domesticated plant species
are not well adapted to rigorous arctic conditions, and their success is
generally marginal at best. Native plants are slow growing and slow to
become established. Many of the revegetation tests in the Arctic. have
utilized seed from subarctic plants. Seed from plants of arctic origin
would likely be required for the arctic plantings of perennials. In
developing a program to employ native plants for revegetation, the seed
producing and harvesting characteristics of the plants also must be
considered. Some that are aggressive colonizers are not good seed
producers or are difficult to manage for the obtaining of seed.
E.
i
'
l
-56 -
The selection of grasses with revegetation potential is much narrower than
it is in the boreal region. Furthermore, the significance of varietal
difrerences within a species is more acute. Early germination is
particularly advantageous. However, a problem inherent in the
precipitation and temperature patterns of the Arctic involves obtaining
suitable moisture conditions along with favorable temperatures. The
characteristic low rainfall pattern in the Arctic may lead to dryness,
thus delaying germination when temperatures are favorable. This is
particularly true where a site is inherently dry or where a disturbance
has resulted in a deep thaw and enhanced drainage. Further, a cooler than
normal season may inhibit germination.
Despite what appear to be severe limitations and difficult conditions,
growth of certain species placed in trial at Prudhoe Bay has occurred,
and, so far, some have survived one or two winters. Undoubtedly, 24 hours
of daylight during the heart of the growing season helps to compensate for
the short growing period. First~year growth in the Arctic may be severely
restricted, with two years required to develop a stand.
Summary
The control of adverse environmental effects due to surface coal mining
operation in the Beluga, Nenana and Kukpowruk, fields will not be easy and
may adversely affect cost/benefit ratios. The technological and
environmental knowledge for such control, however, does for the most part
exist and could be applied to the Nenana and Beluga fields. The operation
of coal mining in the Kukpowruk field under existing knowledge and legal
restraints, however, is much more difficult and may well be impossible.
An alternative is to encourage active development research directly
applicable to coal mining under arctic conditions.
_)
CHAPTER X
SUMMARY
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss, in some detail, the rationale that
the authors used in reaching the conclusions listed in the Executive Summary,
Conclusion and Recommendations section of this study. The study is intended
to be an assessment of the potential for developing Alaska coal in the near
term, 1990 or before, using existing technology.
It was determined early in the study process that the major market areas that
should be addressed are the Alaska, U.S. West Coast and the Far East markets.
European markets were not assessed primarily because of their distance from
Alaska coal resources. However, it should be recognized this once the FOB
cost of Alaska coal at an Alaskan port is determined the cost of shipping the
coal to any other port in the world can be calculated by knowing the distances
involved.
It was found that the demand for bulk steam coal in Alaska and the u.s. West
Coast, particularly for electrical generation, is somewhat limited. Alaska's
hydroelectric potential may preclude accelerated coal use in the State and
result in a projection of only about 0.5 to 2.0 million tons per year by
1990. In California, the total demand for steam coal could reach 20 million
tons per year; however, California utilities are already applying for permits
to develop their coal interests in Utah. Also, since Alaska coal use would
probably be limited to plants built on the coast it was assumed that only one
coastal 1,000 MW plant requiring 5 million tons/yr, would be capable of using
Alaska coal, and this would not be operable until sometime in the 1990's.
Thus, there would basically be no demand for Alaska coal in California by
1990. In Oregon and Washington there are existing plans to build additional
coal-fired generation; however, the plants will be located inland where Alaska
coal could not be easily transported. Also, the utilities involved have
indicated that the coal source will be from Western Contiguous u.s. mines.
Therefore, it appears at this time that Alaska coal cannot favorably compete
against the Western U.S. coal sources (i.e., Montana, Wyoming, Utah) for a
share of the California, Oregon and Washington steam coal market.
By far the largest demand sector will be the Far East where 1990 demand is
expected to be from 30 to 80 million tons per year. This study concludes that
the Far East demand will be the predominant force behind Alaska coal
development. This conclusion was not based solely on the tremendous coal
demand projection from Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the Phillipines. "These
countries, particularly Japan, have demonstrated interest specifically in
Alaska coal both by sending delegations to Alaska to discuss coal development
with industry and State government officials and by having large samples of
Alaska coal shipped to their country for burning tests. Korean officials have
also recently visited Alaska and have made arrangements for trail shipments of
coal to be their country. In addition these countries have made national
committments to increase their coal-fired electrical generting capacity and
have announced plans to construct both coal receiving ports and coal-fired
power plants.
-58 -
Although there will be competition from other countries to supply steam coal
to the Far East it appears that the United States may be the only country
capable of meeting the large supply requirement. Canada, South Africa and
Australia are all coal exporting countries and have individually announced
plans to expand coal production and increase coal exports. These countries
will undoubtedly supply a share of the demand, particularly since some of the
Far East countries insist on diversifying their coal supply sources for
security reasons. However, since the U.S. coal reserve base is so vast and
there has been a favorable and consistent U.S. policy promoting coal exports,
the F'r East countries probably feel that the U.S. is the only country capable
of supplying their coal demands in the long term.
The recent passage of the Energy Security Act has provided a new impetus to
synthetic fuel production. The production of synthetic fuels from Alaska coal
is considered to be a viable and important alternative. A large portion of
the coal in Alaska is of a low quality (high ash, high moisture) making it
relatively unattractive for use as a fuel source for power plants in the
United States. An alternative that is discussed in this report is the
conversion to a clean burning fuel that can be burned in combustion turbines
to produce electricity. This is particularly relevant in the Pacific
Northwest where there are projections for an electricial energy shortage
commencing in early-mid-1980's. A methanol from coal plant could be built
using existing technology and be on-line in time to assist in alleviating the
electrical shortage issue. In essence, converting Alaska coal to methanol
would expand the viable market area and enhance the marketability of the coal.
Another aspect of developing Alaska coal that this study addresses is the
balance of payment effect. Using a selling price of $33.50 per ton and a
production level of 5 million tons/year the balance of payments would benefit
by over $175 million per year. However, if the same amount of Alaska coal
were used on the u.s. West Coast and backed-out imported crude oil, the
balance of payment saving would be almost $400 million. If exports from
Alaska are larger than this example, the impact on the balance of payments
would be correspondingly greater.
A detailed analysis was made of the various laws that could effect coal
development in Alaska. The National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water
Act, Clean Air Act and others were evaluated for their potential impact on
coal development in the three areas selected for study in this report. It was
found that no single regulatory requirement would preclude development;
however, the cumulative impacts associated with Federal and State regulations
requirements may present a significant procedural barrier to Alaska coal
development.
The Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center of the University of
Alaska provided an assessment of the potential environmental impacts
associated with coal development at the three locations. Their basic
conclusion is that although there will be environmental impacts associated
with coal development at all locations, they can probably be controlled with
existing environmental knowledge at the Nenana and Beluga Coal Fields.
However, due primarly to severe arctic climatic conditions, environmental
impacts associated with coal development in the Kukpowruk Coal Field will pose
significant obstacles to development and perhaps preclude development
altogether.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Advances in Coal Utilization," Symposium papers from Institute of Gas
Technology Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky, May 14-18, 1979.
2. Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, "Alaska Regional Energy
Resources Planning Project-Phase I & II," Final Report, October, 1977.
3. Alaska Power Administration, "Upper Susitna River Project Power Market
Analyses," Juneau, Alaska, March, 1979.
4. Averitt, Paul, "Coal Resources of the United States, January 1, 1974,"
Geological Survey Bulletin 1412, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.c., 1975.
5. Barnes, Farrell F., "Coal Resources of Alaska," U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.c., 1967.
6. "Beluga Coal Project Status Report, September, 1979" and "Personal
Communications" Placer Amex, Inc., July, 1980.
7. California Energy Commission, "1979 Biennial Report," 1979.
8. "California is warming to coal as a fuel," Business Week, January 21, 1980.
g. "California orders its utilities to 'unsell' energy," Business Week, May
26, 1980.
10. "Clean Energy from Alaska Coals," Stanford Research Institute
(NTIS-FE-1516-2), January, 1976.
11. "Coal Development Potential and Prospects in the Developing Countries,"
World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1979.
12. "Coal Reserves and Production in Eight Major, Non-U.S. Coal Producing
Countries," ICF Corporation, December, 1978.
13. "Conceptual Commercial Plant Summary, SRC-II Demonstration Project-Phase
0," Pittsburg Midway Coal Mining Co., Denver, Colorado, July 31, 1979.
14. "Cost Study for 2-200 MW Coal Fired Power Plants in Alaska," Ebasco
Services, Inc., 1979.
15. Crowell, Todd, "U.S. Eyes Far East as Hot Market for Coal," Cristian
Science Monitor, Wednesday, May 14, 1980.
16. "Energy: A Bottleneck in China's Industrial Development," Business Week,
May 19, 1980.
j
j
Bib-2
17. -Energy Development Department, "Estimated Demand and Procurement of
Steaming Coal by Japanese Power Utilities," Marubeni Corporation,
February, 1980.
18. Foo, 0. K., et.al., "Market Assessment and Financial Analysis of COM
Conversion," The Mitre Corp.
19 • .Freedman, Steven, et.aL, "Commercialization Task Force on Industrial
Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion," Department of Energy.
20. Howard, Smith I., and C.J. Wierner, "Coal Conversion Technology," Noyes
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1976.
21. International Energy Agency, "Steam Coal, Prospects to 2000,11 Organization
for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, 1978.
22. Mangore, Gerald J., "Energy Policies of the World," Vol. III, 1979.
23. McGee, Don L. and Kristina M. O'Connor, "Mineral Resources of Alaska and
the Impact of Federal Land Policies on their Availability," State of
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, 1975.
24. McGeorge, A., "Economic Feasibility Study -Fuel Grade Methanol from
Coal," Report TID-27156, DuPont Co., Wilmington, Delaware, 1976.
25. McHugh, Michael, et.al., "Energy Demand Modeling and Forecasting," Final
Report, Northwest Energy Policy Project, 1977.
26. "Next Decade will see Birth of U.S. Synfuels Industry," Oil and Gas
Journal, Vol. 77, No. 46, November 12, 1979, p. 189.
27. Polanchek, Arnold T., Personal Communications, Assistant to the General
Manager, The Alaska Railroad, March, 1980.
28. Rao, P. Dharma and Ernest N. Wolff, "Focus on Alaska's Coal "75,"
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1975·
29. Rubin, B., et.al., "An Assessment of the Potential for Using Alaskan Coal
in California," Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, July, 1978.
30. "Technical and Economic Feasibility Surface Mining Coal Deposits North
Slope of Alaska," Bureau of Mines, August, 1977.
31. United Nations, "World Energy Supplies 1972-1976,11 New York, 1978.
32. U.S. Department of Commerce, "Pacific Bulk Commodity Transportation
System, Phase II," Draft Report, Boeing Engineering and Construction Co.,
January 1979.
33. u.s. Department of Energy, "Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution,"
Energy Data Report (EIA-0125), April, 1979.
j
Bib-3
34. U.S. Department of Energy, Development and Application of a Permit
Information System for Oil Shale (PERMISSO). Science Application Inc.,
April 1979.
35. U.S. Department of Energy, Synthetic Fuels and the Environment: An
Environmental and Regulatory Impact Analysis, Review Draft, 1980.
36. , "Coal Conversion," 1978 Technical Report, Division of Fossil Fuel
Processing, September, 1979.
37. , "Coal Exports Study," Draft, December, 1979.
38. , "Concept Paper for Coal-Oil Mixtures. 11
39. , "Demand for World Coal Through 1995, 11 Energy Information
Administration, May, 1979.
40. ~-::-:--' "Monthly Energy Review," Energy Information Administration, April,
1980.
41. , "Western Coal Development Monitoring System - A Survey of Coal
Mining Capacity in the West," Office of Coal Supply Development, January,
1980.
42. Usibelli, Joe, Personal Communications, Usibelli Mines, Inc., April, 1980.
43. Washington State Energy Office, "A Review of Current Energy Forecasts for
the State of Washington," The Environmental Research Center, Washington,
December, 1979.
44. Wilson, Carroll L., "Coal -Bridge to the Future, Report of the World Coal
Study," Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Massachusetts, May, 1980.
45. Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Soros Associates. Port and Harbor Demand
and Feasibility Project, Kenai Peninsula Borough, April, 1980.
FLYERS:
Fl. "Rodriquez Sons Coal Trade Freight Report,"
New York, April 14, 1980
'
Appendix A
Coal Resources of Alaska
1. Estimates of Total Alaska Coal Resources
The Federal government has classified approximately 33 million acres of
Alaska as prospectively valuable for coal. The exact amount of Alaska
coal is currently unknown and estimates range from 1.85 to 5. trillion
short tons.(2 ) The wide range of estimates for Alaska coal is primarily
due to the lack of geological data as most Alaska coal fields are not well
known or developed. For example, an entire possible coal province along
the Yukon and Kuskokwin Rivers is so poorly known that it must be ignored
altogether in resource estimates. In this study, the 1967 Barnes Report,
Coal Resources of Alaska,(5) is used as the basis for resource
esttmates. The-sarnes Report is the most current comprehensive study on
Alaska coal resources.
Alaska coal resources can be categorized from three different points of
view. This depends on whether the appraiser is concerned with; (1) the
amount of coal originally in the ground, (2) the amount of coal remaining
in the ground as of the date of appraisal, or (3) the amount of coal that
is expected to be recovered by future mining.
In addition to Alaska's original, remaining, and recoverable coal
resources, are the undiscovered resources. · They are divided into
hypothetical and speculative coal resources. Hypothetical resources are
accumulations expected to be found in known geologic settings.
Speculative resources are accumulations expected to be found in unknown
of or new typessettings.
a. Original Resources
Original resources are those in the ground prior to m~n~ng. From
data available for coal fields presented in table IA-lt estimated
original resources total 130,126 million short tons.(5J
Many parts of Alaska that are known to contain significant amounts of
coal are not included in this estimate because of insufficient data.
These include areas such as; (1) the Yukon River which contains beds
of mineable thickness exposed at several points, (2) the Alaska
Peninsula which has three little-known coal fields of considerable
extent, (3) the Bering River field containing many high-rank coal
beds, but which may be impossible to mine economically due to its
structure complexity, and (4) numerous smaller coal areas.
Of the measured 130,126 million short tons estimated, 19,429 million
short tons are bituminous qnd 110,697 million short tons are
subbituminous and lignite.t5)
A-1
Coal Field
Northern Alaska
Nenana
Jarvis Creek
Broad Pass
Matanuska
Susitna (Beluga)
Kenai (Homer Dist.)
Total Original Coal Resources
Source: Reference #5 Bibliography
Table A-1
Estimated Original Coal Resource of Alaska
By Coal Field
(Million Short Tons)
Bituminous
19,292
137
19,429
~
l J
Subbituminous and Lignite
100,905
6,938
77
64
2,395
318
110,697
<~
)
,--.
' ·'
120,197
6,938
77
64
137
2,395
318
130,126
~ ' '
Original coal resource estimates are further divided into two
subcategories according to the relative abundance and reliability of
data used in preparing the estimates. These categories are
classified as; (1) demonstrated resources, which is the total
measured and indicated resources and (2) inferred resources. The
combined tonnage of these two categories are also known as the
identified resources. All coal in the identified category is further
classified according to rank of coal, thickness of bed and thickness
of overburden.
i. Demonstrated Resources
These reources are the combined tonnage in the measured and
indicated resource categories. The total demonstrated coal
resources are estimated to be 8,787.4 million short tons.(5)
aa)
bb)
Measured Resources
The tonnage of measured resources is computed from
diversions revealed in outcrops, trenches, mine workings,
and drill holes. Computed tonnage is judged to be accurate
within 20 percent of the true tonnage. The spacing points
of observation necessary to demonstrate continuity of coal
are generally l/2 mile apart, although these points may
vary from region to region according to the character of
the coal beds. Measured ~o~l resources are estimated to be
868.2 million short tons. 5
Indicated Resources
The tonnage of indicated resources is computed in much the
same way as measured resources. However, the spacing
points of observation used to compute indicated resources
are more widely spaced, about 1 to 1-1/2 miles apart
depending on known continuty of coal beds. The thickness
of coal beds are also projected overlonger distances on the
basis of geological evidence. Indicated co~l resources are
estimated to be 7,919.2 million short tons.\5)
ii). Inferred Resources
The tonnage estimates of inferred resources are computed on
knowledge of the geologic character of the bed or region and for
which few measurements of bed thickness are available. The
estimates are based on assumed continuty for which there is
geologic evidence. Generally, inferred coal resources lie more
than two miles from outcrops, from points of mining, or from
drill-hole information. Inferred CQal resources are estimated
to be 121,338.6 million short tons.\5) .
A-3
Bituminous Coal
Subbituminous &
Lignite Coal
Total Original
Coal Resources
Measured
6.6
861.6
868.2
Table A-2
Estimated Original Coal Resources of Alaska
By Category
(Million Short Tons)
Demonstrated
Indicated
890.4
7,028.8
7,919.2
Inferred
18,532.2
102,806.4
121,338.6
19,429.2
110,696.8
130,126.0
Source: Reference #5 Bibliography
(! '~)
\o--~
.;;.
-'
b. Remaining Resources
Remaining resources are in the ground on the data of appraisal. They
may be determined by subtracting past production and mining loses
from the original resources. There is little or no coal that has
been produced in many of the Alaska coal fields, therefore, the
original and remaining resources are virtually the same. Data on
mining loses are available for only one small area, the Wishbone Hill
district of the Matanuska coal field. Total coal production (through
1964) was estimated at 16.4 million short tons. This was mainly made
up of 9.9 million tons of subbituminous coal from the Nenana coal
field and 6.5 million tons of bituminous coal from the Matanuska coal
field. The amount of coal represented by mined-out areas was
approximately twice the reported production (for 1964) which
indicates a mining loss of 50 percent. On that basis, the amount of
coal mined and the amount lost in mining totals twice the reported
production, or about 33 million short tons. Therefore, the remaining
resources are the original resources, 130,126 million short tons,
minus the mining losses and past production (3~ million short tons)
or 130,093 million short tons (as of 1/l/65).< )
c. Recoverable Resources
d.
Recoverable resources are resources in the ground on the date of
appraisal that are considered to be recoverable by mining. It is
difficult to assign an average figure, because recoverability can
vary greatly due to the character of the beds being mined, or the
methods used in mining. If we use the 50 percent mining loss as
indicated for the remaining resources of the Wishbone Hill district,
the recoverable resources would be equal to half the remaining
resou~c~s of 130,093 million short tons or 65,047 million short
tons.\5J This 50 percent recoverability factor is considered
justified because in same places strip mining efficiency can run as
high as 90 percent, but in the long view strip mining may be
applicable to a relatively small percentage of the total estimated
resources.
Undiscovered Resources
Alaska's undiscovered resources are the hypothetical and speculative
resources. These reosurces are not included in the total resource
estimate, but they are estimated to be two to five trillion tons.(2)
i. Hypothetical Resources
Hypothetical resources are estimated tonnages of coal in the
ground in. the unmapped and unexplored areas of known coal basins
expected to exist in an area under known geologic conditions.
These resources are subject to a high degree of error since they
are confined to depositional areas where coal occurs in
A-5
Table A-3
Estimated Undiscovered Resources of Alaska
(Million Short Tons)
Hypothetical
Speculative
1,900
1,000
Total Undiscovered Resources 2,900
Source: Reference #5 Bibliography
A-6
r
[
[~:
L
[
E
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
[
outcrops. However, they will be helpful when the coal
gasification and liquefaction technologies develop where
extraction of coal or coal products become commercially
feasible. Hypothetical coal resources are estimated to be 1.9
trillion tons.(5)
ii. Speculative Resources
Speculative resources are categorized as areas with coal
occurrences outside Alaska's known coal fields, such as
coal on the continental shelves. The offshore areas's coal
resource has been estimated to be one trillion tons.(5)
2. Glossary of Terms
a. Rank of Coal
The American Society for Testing and Materials has established a
standard classification for coals in the United States by rank of
coal. This classification is used uniformly to estimate coal
resources. Table I-A4 shows the classification of coal by rank.
b. Thickness of Beds
c.
The u.s. Geological Survey uses a standard procedure to calculate and
report resources according to the thickness categories of coal beds
described in Table I-A5. These categories were used to classify the
coal resources for this report.
The thickness of beds is evaluated whenever possible by the use of
isopachs, such as in the Nenana Coal Field. Where data are
insufficient for construction of isopachs, average figures, weighted
according to the approximate area of bed represented by each
observation, are used. When points of observation are not evenly
spaced, weighting is done by assigning intermediate values for the
thickness at places where data was needed to fill out a system of
evenly spaced points. Tables I-A6 and I-A7 show detailed estimates
of original resources according to the thickness of beds' categories.
Thickness of Overburden
It is a standard procedure to report resource data in the following
three categories according to thickness of overburden in feet:
(1) 0-1,000; (2) 1,000-2,000; and (3) 2,000-3,000. In most Alaska
coal fields, the estimated resources lie within 1,000 feet of the
surface. North Alaska and the Nenana field are the only fields where
the resources were calculated in all three categories. Coal more
than 3,000 feet below the surface were not included in any of the
estimates. Tables I-A6 and I-A7 also show the thickness of
overburden used to report the estimated resources according to each
coal field.
A-7
Class
Table A-4
Classification of Coals by Rank
Group
Fixed carbon lim-
Its, dry, mlnercl·
matter-lree basis
(percent)
Equal or Less
grer.ter thnn
tb:m
VolntUe matter Calorific value lim-
limits, dry, mille! a!.· its, moist.' l!linCral~
matter-free basis matter-tree basis
(percent) (Btu per lu)
Greater Equal or Equnl or Less
tb6..ll less than greater tb:lil
than
Agglomerating character
--------------------l----------------------·!--------------------1-----~-----~--------------------
I. Anthracite •••••••••••••••••••• 1. Aiets-antbraclte ........... ~.................................. 98 ............ _gg ___ .................. 2.. 2 ........................................ ...
2. Antbr:JCitc... •••••••••••••••••••••• 92 8 ••••••••••••••••••••
3. Semiantbracitc..................... sr, 92 8 14 •••••••••••••••••••• Ncmagglomerat!ng.t
1. Low \'Olatile........................ iS SG 14 2"2 •••••••••••••••••••• }
2. Medium volatile................... 69 i8 22 31 ••••••••••••••••••••
3. High volatile A---················ ........ ~. 69 31 ·····-··· c a, 000 •••••••••• Commonly agglomerating.•
1: Z=::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::: { '!~: m it~ Agglomerating.
1. A •• ··············-··-·········-· •••••••••• •••••••••• .••••••••• •••••••••• 10, 500 ll, 500 Nonngglomerating.
II. Ditumlnous co.ll·-······-···
lll. Subbituminous coal ••••••••••• 2. B--······························ .......... .......... .......... .......... 9, 500 10, 500 3. c_............................... .......... .......... .......... ..••...... s. 300 9, son
I\". V~::e •••••••••••••••••••••••• 1. A.................................. .....••... ...•..•... .......... ...•...•.. 6, 300 8, 300 2. B-········-······················· .......... .......... .......... ....•..... .....•.... 6, 300
1 This clo.ssi!Jc:tion does not include a few coals, principally nonbanded varieties. which have unusual physical and chemlc:ll propertil'S and wbkl: come withir.tl:e llmits of
~s-:-·:! c:.:~. ~:l o: c:::!;:-:~!lc \"'~lue o! t!!e biJ:'h .. volo.tile bituminous and sub bituminous ranks. All these coals eitbcr contain less than •~ percent dry 1 miner5l-m3tter-!ree fixed car bOll
-::: ~-~~.-,. mo~c ti:1:.!: 1.5,SGJ Btu per lb (mois:, mineral-matter-free baslS).
• !>lois: refers to cc~l cont~illing its natural i!lheren' moisture but not Including visible water on the surface of the coal.
~ If a~g!o:n~r~titl;, class:[r iz low-volatile gyoup of the bituminous class. ·
• Co;;!;!:~-;-!!:;: G9 percent or more fixed carbon on the dry, mineral-matter-free basis shall be classified acco,d!ng to llxed carbon, regardless of calorific value.
• It is reccp>izcd that U1ere may be nonagg!omernt!ng varieties in these groups of the bituminous class, and there are notable exceptions in high volatile C bituminous group.
Table A-5
Thickness Categories of Coal Beds
,.ltiolme ..
Bcml: ntegonea
Anthracite, aemianthracit.e, and bituminous coal-------Inches___ >42
28-42
14-2S Subbituminous coal and llgnite.._ ___________________ feeL-->10
A-8
5-,10
2lf.l-5
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
·'
Coal lleld nnd district
Table A-6
Estimated Original Resources of Bituminous Coal
(Hillion Short Tons)
Measured resources Indicated resources Interred resources Total resc:.:.rccs
Over·
bunlcn
(leet) (Inches) (inches) ..... (inches)
Bed thickness Bed thickness Bed(,!~hiceskn) ess Bed thickness ,.
1---r--....,--ITotal Total Total Total -~----------;-----(-1_4-_2_81~~--~~ >~ 14-25 ~ ~ ---~!_:~_! >421---
Northcm Aleskr.: I J 1 Corwin Blufl-Cape Beaulort 1
district...................... o-l,OOOJ------•••••••••••• ------25.1 il.o 21.9 SG.O 119.6 35 9 7S.s. 23~.3. 1H.7 47.~: HT: 7 2n 3
1, 00>-2. OOOt...... •••••• •••••• •••••• •••••• •••••• •••••••• •••••••• 11~~:
0
4 52. 5 1W p, 317. S ISS. 4! ~· g; 1~ ~· 317. S
2,00".r3,00Ji------•••••••••••••••••• ----------------------------"" 61.9 126.31 371.2 JS3.o1 6 •.• , 1 .... 1 371.2
Kukpowruk Ri;er............. o-1. OOJ 1 •••••• --··--•••••• •••••• 31.2 75.7 Hu. 6 247.5 35!. C.j 276.4 m: ~I 1, 44;. 5 ss;. ~I 3~~-!i 9~!-~: 1. ~~~· o ~:~~:~!====== :::::::::::::::::::::::: ====== ======== ======== ig~:~l m:~l 44'-'l ~rn t~:.:i' h~:t: !ls 7; ;;:;:~
Kokolik Ri>er •••• -------------o-1. or.>:.j •••••••••••••••••• ------10.4 10. S 77.7 9S. 9 71. D 18-l. 2 663.3 919. 4 82. ~~ 195. "I ~41. G1 I,~;~.~ ~: ~~: ~!====== :::::: :::::: ====== :::::: :::::: :::::::: :::::::: lgg. ~,:::::::: ~M: ~ n~: i ~~~: ;;
1
!:::::::: n~: ~: ¥1-s:;
Utukok River ••••••••••••••••.
1
OOO-o-
2
J •• ~o01 ...... ------------------12.~ 8.5 69.5 ~~.s 409.9 54.9 1,055.0/ 1,519.8 c;.; r-3.4, 1.124.5! 1,~!2-~
, w 1 •••••••••••• -····-•••••• ------•••••• ---····-•••••••• 34.8 69. i 409.3/ 513. S 34. S G!i. 7j 4<rJ. 3j olo >
2,000-3,0001-···--•••••• -···---····-------------------·-----·---41.2 82.3 490.0 613.5 41.21 82.3 49G.G. 613.5
Meade River··········------·· o-1. OOl--·--.••••• •••••• .••••• 6.1 12.1 84.4 llt2. 6 62.7 .••••••• 1, 123.0 1,190. '/ us. 8!' 12. 1 1. 212 4J 1. 2>3. 3 ~:~~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~:~ :::::::: Wo~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ :::::::: ~5~:~1 ~~~:~
Colville River................. o-1, 000 •••••••••••• ------•••••• 71.2 121. G 49.4 242.2 1, ~~-8 1, 829.5 427.1 3, 818.4 1, ~-o 1, ~?H ~~~-<j 4. ~,,, G
1, 000-2,000 -----------------------· ------·-----······----------3:1· ~ 783.2 503.3 1. 614.1 3~7. ~, !""· ~ "::-'· 3, 1, ~~~-,! 2, 000-3,000 ---··· •••••••••••• -··---•••••• -·--·-•••••••. •••••••. 3o1. 1 7ll. 5 474.4 1, 547. G 3ul. 1 , ll. "/ 4, 4. 41 1. o4• .•
{
o-1.000 == == 15G:S237.7 ~-w 2,577.5 2:'3S3.07.17i7 D:"i37.1 ~:~~~~~
Tot:U........................ 1, 000-2, 000 .••••..••••• ··'··----·----···· -. ••••• •••••••• •••••••• 7S7. 9 1, 023. G 2, 651. s
1
· 4, 4('3. O• 7S7. 9.
1
. 1, 022. f•i Z. 6ol. o1 4. 4-~:l. 0
2, 000-3,000 •••••• ----·· --···------· -··---•••••• -·--···---------908.4 995.3 2, 9o:l. 4 4, 857.1 90S. 4 99:;. 3i 2, ~5J. 4! 4. S57.1
TotalnorthcmAlnskn ••••••••••••••••••• ==== 15G.8 237.7 443.5 838.0 4,203.8 4,402.8 9,.,,.6118.454.2 4.430.61 4.G~0.3~1C.Z2i.li 1P,29~.2
Matanu.ska coal field: . --------------------------. -~------,---~---,---
Wishbone llill ___ ••••••••••••• o-2. oon o. 1 o. 7 5. 8 6. G 1.2 9. 5 41. o 51.7 -···-·--10.0 43.7 53.7 1. 3
1
~J. 2: n c• 1!2. o
c~::~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :~::: ---~:; ---~:; ---~:~ ---~~ ···;:~ -··;:~ u:; 62:: ~~~~~~~: ··--;~:~ : ~ : ~~---··;:; ··--;~:;,1::: ~~ 1:".~::
1=::==:===== =,==r==
{
0-1,000 ------------------------156.8 237.7 443.5 838.0 2, 577.5 2, 383. 9-,4, 172.7 9, 1~4.1 2, I~!· ~I 2. G~:-~. ~-E!~· ~: 9. 972. I
Total Alnskn 1. 000-2,000 -··-·· ------•••••••••••••••••••••••• --·------······-787.0 1, 023.6 2, 651. 5. 4, 4u3. o
1
. .~... 1, 0.3. ''• •. oot. o! 4. h>. 0 ··············--· 2. ooo-3. ooo ------------ ------.••... ------______ ·---------------90S.4 ws.3 1 2, osa. 4! 4, S5i. 1 90::'. 4i 9JUI 2. Po3. 4: 4. ~;;. 1 o-2.000~~~~-2:..:~~~=--~-~ .. !L_~I_.2!._1:l~~-=:L..:~·-~;;7.o
Grand tot:U ••••••••••••• .! ... --------------o:l----o:-7 -u ---s:Gjli:Oi 247.2j~j---soo:414.273.8 4, 412.8J9. 845.6118, 532.2,4, m. 9j 4, or.o. To· 331}.,:.~
A-9
I [
Table A-7 [
Estimated Original Resources of Subbituminous Coal and Lignite
(Million Short Tons)
[
I I Measured resources Indlc:.tod rtSourees Inferred resources
Overburden __ B_c_d_t_h-lc_kn_css_,_ __ I--B-c-d-t-h-ic-kn-ess-....,.---I·--B-e-d-t-h-1c-kn-es-s---,.-----1---B-e-d-t-h-ickn--e-ss--:----
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
!--....----,---!Total Tota.l Totr.l Tota.l
___________ 1 _____ 1 _z_~_51_s-_l_o ~~--~~~---2~5~~~~---2 ~5 ~~----
Nonhrm Alaska: I I CtukokRi..-cr................ G-1,000, .•••••.••••••••••••••••• 8.2 (0.61 21.2
1
70.01 41.2 2:!3.7 725.8 ro0.7 49.4
1
264.3 1 747.0t 1,000.7
1, Ql\)..2, O"XJ 1 •••••• -------------------------------------- --------M. 3 81.7 --------1~1>. a 64.3 81. ;
1
.________ 13G. a
2,C.:o()-3,0001···--· ------•••••••••••••••••. --·-----------•••••..• 04.1, 96.5......... 1o0.61 04.1 9f>.5 .••..••• 160.6
"Kao!nk Test Well!....... G-3, 0001 •••••• ------ ------ ------29. s_______ 71. a 100. s1 2, 400. a 14. 930.1'25, 900. o 43,230. 0
1
2.429.8
1
14.980 .. ol25, Uil. o 43, 380. 8
Kck River (Wa!nwri~ht)..... G-1, Mj .••••• --------------·--· 15.6 20. S 26.2 62. 6 . 496. 1........ 899.0 1, 395. 1 611.7 20. Sl' 925.2 1, 457.7
Ku::rua River (Peard Bay)... G-1, 000:---------··· •••••• ----·-•••••• 44. 2~--------44.2 ••••••.• 700.0 •••••••• 796. 0 •••••••. 840. 2........ 840.2 !-1e~de Ri,·er -----------------o-1. OOL ••••• ------.••••• ------160.01 34.5 --------194.5 5, 003. 8, 1, 093. 0 ~-------. 6, 161. s1 0. 223.8 1,132. 5 --.------6, 351;. 3
MC-"de Test Well!....... G-3, ooo:-----· ••••••.••••• ------H.21120. f> .u2. 0 597. 0 1, 010.0 S, 319.0 23,474.0 32,803.0
1
1. 0!4. 2 8, 43V. 8:23, 93ii. 0 33, 400.0
Ikplkpuk River____________ o-1, ooo 1 •••••• ------ ------------2S. v 14.7 36.8 80.4 751. a 138. a--------889. a 779. 9• 15:!. 7 36. s Qo39. 4
1, 000-2, ooo 1 ______ ----------------------------------------------au1. o 153. a--------su. a 361. o 153. a--------5!4-o
Tltnluk Test Welll----
2
' oogj: ~J!:::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: --i7~ii :::::: :::::::: ····i7~~ ~?: & ---~~~:~ :::::::: ~~: ~ J~: ~ ---~~~:~ :::::::: ~ g
Col~ilie River................ G-1, ooo; ------------...... ..••.. 166.2,265. 3 --------431.5 2, 724. 5 4, 285. 2........ 7, 009. 7,2, 89a. 7 4, 550.5 ••••.••• 7, 441.2
l, 000-2, OOOj------........................ --···· -----··· --·--·· 794.5 1, 024.0 l,ll'.lO. 0 3, T.lS. 5 794.5 1, 024.0 1, !tZO. 0 3, T.lS. 5
2, ooo-3. 0001 •••••••••••••••••• --·------------·--........ •••••••• 106. 9~--------~--------100.91 lOG. 9 ------------·-·· 100.9
'l'mi:lt Test Wellll....... G-3, ~I==.:.:..:;:.: .:.:..:;:.: =.:::.:. ~ =.:::.:. ::.:::::::.:. ~ ~ ::.:::::::.:.::.:::::::.:. ~ ~~::.:::::::.:. ::.:::::::.:. ~
Totnl.._________________ o-1, ooo, ...... ------------------378.9 420.1 84.2 883.2 9, 070.6 6, 540.9 1, o·u. s 17,242.3 9, 455. 5 6. 9G1. o 1, 709. o; 18. 125. 5
1. 000-2. ooo ------------------------------~------j----------------1, 209.21 1, 2:-.s. 7 1, 9'20. o 4, 3gs. s11, 209. r.1 1, ~.;;;. 7 1, !t2a. o: 4, ass 5
2,ooo-3 ooo; ..•.•. ------------------------------________ --------230.5
1
213.5 1........ 44-l.oj 2ao.si 21J.s1 ....... I 444 o
G-3, 000,-----+-----------...... 72.4 120.81 533. 0 721l. 2 (, 548. I '23, 2W. 0 49. 374. 01 77,221.1 4, G:lO. 5\23,419.8149.907.01 77,947.3 I ----·------------------------------,---1---·rotal northern Alll!ka •• -------------== == ------!------451.3\ MO. Uj 617.2 1. 609.4 15, 06~. a 31,312.1 5:!, 918.8 119,295. 9!15, 51&. 3"31. 8!.3. 0
1
53. 53&. 0i100. ~c:; 3
Ncn~~~ ~;J.~::~~----------------o-1, ooo, ______ ------------------------9. 51--------9. 5 23. o 79. s 10.71 113. 5[ 23. o so. 3 10.71 123. o
Ta:lwtika Creek.............. G-1, aoo; ------··-·-----··· •••••• •••••• 4. 0 113. 4(117. 4 31.2 8. 9 37.0
1
77.1 31.2 12.9 150.4
1
194. 5
1, 000-2, ooo 1 ____________ ---·---------------------------- ----------------2. • 74. o 76.4 --------2. 41 i4. o 76.4
Wood River_________________ o-1, aoo,...... 15. o ---~--15. o ------12. 01........ 12. o --------201. o 40. o Ul. o --------225. o 4D. o :!OS. o
1. 000-2. ooo ....... ------------ ------------15. o
1
________ 15. o -------- -------- -------------------------15. o[··------1s. o
2, 000-3, ocq ______ ------ ------------ ------18.0 --------18.0 ---------------- ------------------------18.0 --------18. 0
o-Loool------4.0 2.0 e.ol------21.ol 200.61 233.6! 12.3 50.6 317.~\ 379.ol 12.3\ sul s2s.6\ 619.5
1,000-2.000
1
______ .................. ------1.0 6.0 1.0 ----· u.o 121.0 132.o ...... 1 12.£1 1:~.a; m.o
1.oo:t~:~.::::: --~~:~ -~:: -~~~·:::::: u;:g L~g l,m:8 ~:8 2~:~ 1.~~:8 1.~u 2i:8· ~~:c;· 2 ·~h:31 3 ·~:g
2, 000-3. ooo ------.••••. .. .. _. ------..... ------.. 1----------------------· 327. o 327. a -------. _____ ... 1 a;;. o' 3~;. o
Healy Creek______________ o-1.000
1
...... ------300.0 300.0 ··----1.0 93.5 94.5........ 27.0 114.2 141.2 ·----··· 2s.a1 sc7.i\ 535; 1. 000-2. ooo -----------274. o 274. o ...... 1. o 63. o 64. o --------21. o 112.4 133. 4 --------::-~. o, 449. 4; 4a. 4
2,000-3,000 ...... ------______ ------------------245.0 245.0 ·-------23.o 87.8 110.8--------:3.a, 332.51 355.8
Savage River----------------G-1, 000
1
...:..::.::.: .:.:..:;:.: .:.:..:;:.: .:.:..:;:.: .:.:..:;:.: =.:::.:.::.:::::::.:.::.:::::::.:.::.:::::::.:. ~::.:::::::.:. ~::.:::::::.:. ~i::.::::::.:. ~
Total.---------------------o-1. 000 .••••. 35. o 552. 6 587.6 ...... 146. 5 1, 739. s 1, 886. o 95. s 655.6 1, 561.9 2, 310. a 95. sl 810. :j 3. ~'\4. a; 4, 7S~ 6
1,000-2,000 .••••••••••• 274.0 274.0 •••••• 24.0 527.0 551.0 3.0 8G.4 533.4 6~2.S 3.0,110.4, 1.3.<!.4 1,4~7.~
2, 000-3,000 .••••••••••• -----· ...... ...... 18.0 2t5. 0 263.0 ........ 23.0 4U.8 437. & •••••••• 41.0 659. 8' 700.8 1-----1-----------------Total Nenana field--. -----------...... 35.0 826.6 861.6 ..... _ 188.5 2, 611.5 2, 700.0 vs. 5 788.0 2, 510.1 3,376.6 us. 5 091.5 5. 848.2 6, 938,2
= =-============ = 1arvis Creek coalfield............ o-1. 000 -----· ·-----.••••. •••••• 0. 8 5.1 -----·-· 5. g 45. o ----------------45. 0
1
45.8
1
5.1 --------50. D
1,000-2,000 ...... ...... •••••• •••••• ••••. •••••• •••••••• ........ 25.6--------•••••••. 25.6 25.(. ........ ........ 2S.f> . ----I---------------,--Total1arvisCreetfleld-. •• __________________ --~ .. ------------0.8 5.1 .••••••• 5.9 70.6 ................ 70.r.l 71.4
1
5.11-------· 76.5 === = ==== ===·= llro~r:S.~~c;:: ~:!~:............. o-1. 000 .••••• ------------------------0. 3 --------0. 3 ·-------63.3 --------63. 3, ........ I 63. r.l. _______ ! 63. f.
Costello Creek................ G-1,000 ------ ------------•••••• 0.3 •••••• --------.3--------------------------------· 0.3/----~---~------.. ~ .3
Tota.l Broad Pass flelcL •••• -----------=-= = = """"Q3 """"Q3 == ---o.6--::= -sa:31::== -ru --o:"3("63:f,1~ -ru,
Susltnacoalftcld: == == == = =1=1=1
l~~~tn~1 lft";u::::::::::::::: ~~: m :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: 1 ~: ~ t ~ 1n:g 1~g: g :::::::: :::::::: :::::::: ::::::::: 1t t.l ~Ji 1i;: ~! S~: ~
Beluga. River ..• ----------·-· G-1, 000 ............ ------•••••• 17.4 44.6 193. I 260.1. ••••••• --------................. 17.4 44. ol !!'"· lj• 20c\ 1
Cnp\)S OlRCier district........ o-1. 000 •••••••••••• ------------..... 8. 9 396. o 405.8 -------· -------------------------........ 8. o1 3P<'-9 405.8
Chuttna River ____ ........... o-1. 000 ------ ------------------lG. 3 25.5 1, 408.7 1, 540.5 •••••••• --------•••••••• ---------16.3 25. 5
1
1.49$. 7
1
I, 540. 5
Beacbaouthwest of Tyonek_ G-1,000 .••••••••••••••••• ·-----3.1 6.3--------9.4---------------------------------3.1 6.3 ........ 9.4 -1------------------Tota.ISnsltnaflelcL----·----··----.•••. ..... ...... .... 62.8 96.4 2.235.5 2.304.7--------....... ------· ......... 6:!.8 9i">.4 1 2.235.5! 2,30~.7
Xenalcoalileld<Bomerdlstrlct)-o-1,000 •••••• ______ ........... 264.2 M.o ·------· 318.2. _______ ........ ________ ~"'26U 54.oi·-------r 3ls.z
Tota.l AlDsltn.___________ o-1, ooo -----· 35. o 552.6 587.6 707. o 122.4 4. 059.2 5,488. 6 9, 217.1 7, 26:!. s 3,18G. 7 10. &;s. G o, 9!·1.1 s. o~o. 2! 7. ;~s. ;, 25.742. s
1, 000-2,000 ...... •••••• 274.0 2i4. 0 ...... 24. 0 627.0 551.0
1
1.238.4 1, 345. I 2, 403.4 6. 03t;. V 1, 238. 4 1. J,;g_ I'l 3, 2H 41 5. Sf• I. 9
2,006-3,000 .............................. 18.0 2·15.0 21>3.0 230.5 23G.5 414.Sj SSI.S. 23u.5j 2~L\ ,;:'fo.S' I.IH.S o-a.ooo ...•.. -----------· ..... 72.4 12o.8 533.o 12r,.2 4,5ts.l23.29\l.ol4o.3H.o 77,221.114,62o.s.z3.u~.s'~"-o":.o: 77.P~•.3
a1'81ld totaL.________________________________ as.o
1
826.s &6U(m~1~ ~ 7.'W is:23U ~ ~~~~~~~;~;~
Total resources
Coa.l fteld and district
Callfomta Creek., _________ _
LigD!t.e Creelt _____________ _
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
f' ._,
[
[
[
A-10
L
d. Specific Gravity of Coal
Weight of coal in the ground varies according to the rank and ash
content. Insufficient data on specific gravity is unavailable for
Alaska coals, therefore, the values for weight of coal presented in
Table I-A8 were used in this report. These values conform closely to
the average of the recorded specific gravities of coal in each of the
four major categories.
e. Composition and Heating Value of Coal
Overall, Alaska coals are low in sulfur. Table I-A9 shows the range
in composition and the heating value (BTU/lb) of representative
Alaska coals.
3. Location and Characteristics of Coal Fields
a. Central Alaska Region
i. Nenana Field
The Nenana coal field is one of the major coal fields in Alaska
and extends for about 80 miles along the north flank of the
Alaska Range. The Usibelli mine, located in the Nenana field
near Healy, is the only area currently producing coal and has
proven potential of expanding its production.
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous to lignite
Total Resources: 6,938 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 60 feet
Moisture: 11.77% -32.7%
Volatile Matter: 31.2% -36.6%
Fixed Carbon: 22.7% -36.6%
Ash: 3.3% ·-15.9%
Sulfur: 0.1% -.4%
BTU/lb: 6,320 -10,385
ii. Jarvis Creek Field
The Jarvis Creek field is located at the foot of the north flank
of the Alaska Range. Its coal-bearing rocks are of tertiary age.
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous
Total Resources: 77 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from 1 foot to 7 feet
Moisture: 20.0% -23.0%
Volatile Matter: 35.1% -43.4%
Fixed Carbon: 24.1% -35.3%.
Ash: 5.2% -13.1%
Sulfur: .3% -1.4%
BTU/lb: 7,815-9,415
A-ll
Table A-8
Weight of Coal
Anthracite and semianthracite_ ------
Bituminous co:l.L-------------------Subbituminous coaL _______________ _
Lignite ___ ..; _________________ ------_
A-12
8peci11c gravity Ton.s per IICI'!Hoot Tons per square
mile-foot
1. 47
1. 32
1. 30 I 1. 29
2,000
1.800
I; 770 I 1, 750
1,280,000
1, 152,000
1, 132, 800
1, 120,000
, {I
[
[
c
[
C'
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
F
L
L
[
L
[
..i
·-'
Table A-9
Range in Cc~?osition and Heating Value of Representative Alaska Coals
(On "as received" Basis)
Location Bank or coal
SuH;;r Moi!t!!re I Vo!:~:ile Fixe:!
matter ca.rboc llta!!:-.;=
~------~--------~-------! ________ l_______ ~~l~t Soun:e or IWilples
As!:l
Perccm 1 (B:l!: ---------------------------------------J------------------J--------------I------.-----~--------~----~------~---------
28. &40.1 I 47. s-ss. o 4.1-11.6 ••••••••• .!. ............ . Nor! tern .o\bsk:1 Rr~io~:
("~~..-'" I>.c t'-Cspo BC:ll!for: dis::ic:____________ Outcrop............... Bituminous .••••••••
K" k powr~ ~ R: v~: •...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• do.·-········-··· .•••. do.·-··········· 1\:ck.:.:.~ e:-.::! t:t"..!~ok R~'t'ers .............................................................. do ........................................... do ............................. .
K~ I> r.::d Kt:!'l"~a Rinrs.·-····-·····-·········· ••••• do-............. Subt.ituminous ••••. lie:.de and U:pikpult. Rlve:s-. ••••••••• ______ Mine.----·-·····-· ••••. do •• -••••••••••.
Out~rop_ •••••••••••.••••. do •• _ •••••••••••
Col..-i!le R!.-er ••••••• ·--············-··········· :::::~~=::::::::::::: -~~~d~:~~~~:::::::::
••••• dO---············ Subbit-.lminous ••••.
Centr:l! .~!~Sk:l Rc~!on:
:Kc!::;~ R:,-er. ············--·--····--·---···--··· ••••• do._............ Blrumino:.:s .•••••••. K~' "~"~ m.-~~ (Tra..,...-ay Bll!l. •••..••••••••••.•••.. do .•••••••••••••••...... do ••••••••••••••.
Cbi::o:l;:C Crt-ek' (Seward Pe.~ins::!a} ...................... ~iinp dump................... Lhmite ............................ ..
F.'..:by·A~l';~ dis:!'ict CYt:kc~ Ri-re:; ............................. ~1i:H~---·-------------Bitun::inous ................ ..
R=r=~: d:s:m·: (Ure-. min~) •••••••••••••••••••••••• do ••••.•••••••••••..•••. do •••••••.••••••.
Ea.::e-Circ:o d•s:ric~:
· \Vr.s~ !:1~! o~ Creek-...................................................... Ontcrop.............................. Subb!tnreino:.:s(!) ......
IS"~:.::. ~:;,·~r. ......•.••.•.............•••.•. Mine d;;x:::p ••••••••••.
1
Biwre::roc·s ...•.••..
Nenana cor.: fl•:d •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Mme •• -•••••••••••••. Subbituminous ••••.
Jan-is Cree.l; eoa] tie:d ••••••••••••••••••••••••••. -~~~a'o~~=:::::::::::: :::::~g::::::::::::::
Cook In!et-Sasi:na Redon:
Dro3d Pas:o co!l.! Qoid:
Cos:ollo Creek distrtc: ••••••••••••••••••••••. :Mine. •••• ~ •••••••••••..•••. do.·-···-·······
Broad Pas! di.!trict •••••••••.•••••••••••••••• Tunnel and trencb •••. Lhmite •••.••••••••••
SuSitna coal tleld-••• ·-··-··-··············· Outcrop.-•••••••••••• St.:bbitumlnous .•••. ..... do ••••••••••••••••. Li~nitc •••.••.•.••.•.
Belu,a Lake district ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Drill hole ••••••••••••. Subbituminous ••••.
Trench-••••••••••••••.•••• do.·-······-····
Mat:muska coal field:
Little Susitna district-.................... Mine.---·······-···· ••••• do·-··-···--·-· Outcrop_ ••••••••••••..•••. do .•••••••••••••.
Wishbone Bm district ••••••••••••••••••••• ~. Mine.................. Bituminous .•••••••.
Ct.icknioon district. ••.•.•••••••••••••••••••..•••. dO---············· .•••. do·-·······-···
Anthracite Rid~e district •••••••••••••••••••• ·Outcrop·-·······-·-·· .•... do ...•.•••••••••.
. . ••.. do................. 1\emianthraclte •••••.
X~nai coalll.eld (Bomer distric:)................ • •••• do................. S::bbltuminous ••••.
•.••. do-............. t.l~ni:c ••. ······-···
Mine.-............... Subllituminous ••••.
.AlAska Pentnsnla R~on:
Herendeen Bay eoa111cld. •••• ------··· Tunnel.-------··· "Bttullllll-. ••• _ •••
OutcroP-·-········· ••••. do·-···-······
Unra Island coal ll.eld-················--······ .•••• do._ ••••••••••••• I.l~mite.-•••••••••••
Chirnik co31 1\eld................................ Mine or prospect_.... Bituminous .•••••••.
Southeastc.on Al:ISka Re,ion:
Bering River coal tleld........................... Mine.·-·············· ••••. do •••••••••••••••
..••. do·-···-···-······ Somiantbraclte. ••••.
Outcrop.-·-·····-···· Bituminous ..••.•••. .•••. do._............. Scmi:~ntbracite. •••••
..... do.-••••••••••••.. Anthracite •••••••••.
Xoot~nahoo Illlct (Admiralty lsl:md) •••• _....... l>11ne.-.--·········· Bituminous ••••••...
A-13
3. o-6. g
0. ·-9. g 1. 7-6. 2
17. &-!!11. 7
!4.4
8.3-8.9
3.4
2.&-6.6
6. 2-16.4
10.5
4. 5
33.8
1. o-u. 2
9. 5
11.1-13.5
1 .•
1~. &-27.1
11.7-32.7
2~ G-:!3. 0
8. 7-1S. s
21. &-35. ~
~~-7-25. ~
31. &-33. I
11.3-10.3
24.4
17.4-20.3
14. I
2. 7-8. 6
1.1-4.1
I.!)-6. s
3.1-8. 7
21. 2-Zi.;
27.1-30. 4
16. &-21. 6
7.&-B.O
4.2-6. 7
23.3
6. 0.10. 8
1.o-8.6
2.~ 6.0
1.~ 7.7
1.o-9.4
3.o-8.3
3. &-6..
31. +-3o. t 52. r.-.:..:. 1 2. HS. o o. 2-.3
1
11. ~:o-12. s:;"
33.1-37.4 4o.&-57.9 2.3-17.4 .2-.6 11.6~C~l3.H:
29.1-3!. 9 4o. &-42. s .2. 3-9. s • 2-. 3 • s. 7o~ o. s1 c
33.6 47.3 4.8 .6 10.330
32. 4-35. 5 87. 7_.9. 9 6. 4-20. 0 • 2-• S 7, 7oo-IO. 720
36.6 46.8 13.3 • 7 11. GUO
30.1 ... 3. 7 39.3-62.8 2. 6-2-l. 3 • 3-• 7 10. 43D-t:d5o)
2S. 3-31. 6 41.11-49.2 11. &-23. 4 • 3-• 7 8, ·~()-~-~~:·
29.0 52. g
34.2 45. 3
39.9 lA. 2
24. &-40. 5 49. 9--65. 0
40.1 37.4
4:!. G-43. ~ 39. 7-U. 21
40. 0 55.6
33.2---:2. 0 27. !-~~ 3 ! ~k~~:: ~i:~s:~ I
32. Q,-43. 4
27. &-34. 5
3~. 1-39. g :u 9-37.6
27. &-37. 9
30.1
31. 6-3~. 5
31.3
31.&-44. r.
13. 8-22. g
14.3-31. 5
6. 6-10. 5
31.2-35. I
31.8-41.3
30.3-35.1
32.1-33.5 as. 2-38.6
25.4
27.:1->!!.3
13.1-17. 4
10.8-13. 0
10. ~-1~. 4
8. 7-13.6
o.o-13.3
34.3-35.2
23. 2---4:!. 2
20. 7-ZO. ~
:IS. 7---40.6
26. +-~~-1
25. &-34. 6
28. ~
3G. 6-35.9
34. J
~~: t=~~: g I
47. 4·71'. 4
64. 3-SO. f.
24.1-33. ~
24. &-3J. 3
31.2---4:.1
411.8-51.'
{7.2-53. 0
25.1
39.6-45. 4
65. 0-Pl. 1
60. 3-76. 1
6S. 1-~1. 7
60.1"--H 7
6C.. o-~:. 5
36. 3-3g. 6
7.6 .4 lC.'!-34
12. g --·-··········-·········· 7.1 ••••••••. I r. ~·,
3. ~2::. b • 2-. 6 •••. ···-······
2.1-
1i: ~ ···:;~~-it;;;;;;;~;;;:
3. &-13. 21 .1-.3 I 7. ~;-:~ U. 4~c
3. 3-15. 9 • 1-• 4 1 " ~:-q c :•'' 8.:;~-13.} .~}.f I :,:.!-~· 4:!1
6.0-21.~ l .3· .5\ 7.~'·~·1C-.6-':\~
18:tiU i :t ::! ~ ~::. ~t~
2.1-7.61 .1-.3! i.C3c-sc.o
13. 3·30 5 •••••••.. 6. 29G-~-s~~
16.6 .2, ,,1w
9.2-1351 .4 9.16"·92:0
~ J :-t • 4 I S 41 "'
(. ~:~. i l . ~-!. n • 10 ::1:?,.-~~ 19 ...
5. 5-Jf.. t 1 , 4-. 7 i 11. ~··.r--~4 ~;;;:
u~gn: :~= :: i i~·Etin~~
3.H~.7\ .1--~ i E-.~4:-7.f!_~
P. 1-1 .... I • 3-. 4 : 6. o>(>-9 ~-o
7.1-11.6 • 3-• 4111. 21\o-11. 7go
6. ()-12. 0 • +-• 6 l1,150ol2. 4."0
~C.2 .6 6.~10
14.1"--25.3
1
.7-2.3, g.64D-11,2~u
2.1-IS.O!
t.l"-::.: I
1. :-:s. 4 I
I. 7-24. ~ ,.
2.1-:!~. ~
~l. 4-:3. 0
iii. Eagle-Creek District -Nation River
The Nation River connects with the Yukon. Coal from this area
are from the Nation River Formation of Paleozoic age.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Resources: Unknown
Thickness of Beds: Not defined
Moisture: 1.4%
Volatile Matter: 40.0%
Fixed Carbon: 55.6%
Ash: 3.0%
Sulfur: 3.0%
BTU/lb: Unknown
b. Southcentral Alaska Region
i. Susitna Field -Beluga Area
The Susitna coal field is the major coal bearing area of the
extensive lowland that is located north of Cook Inlet. The coal
is in the Kenai Formation and is of Tertiary age. Coal-bearing
rocks are exposed in scattered areas, mainly around larger
steams.
The Beluga and Chuitna Rivers, located in the Susitna field,
contain most of the potentially reliable coal deposits.
Although the field is presently undeveloped and virtually
without roads, it has large proven reserves as some of the best
depostis are close to tidewater and therefore has been ranked
number one in development potential by most Alaska coal experts.
Susitna Field:
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous to lignite
Total Resources: 2,395 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Relatively flat
Moisture: 19.7% -33.1%
Volatile Matter: 30.1% -39-9%
Fixed Carbon: 26.4% -40.6%
Ash: 2.0% -14.2%
Sulfur: .1% -.4%
BTU/lb: 7,030 -9,520
A-14
[
[
[
f
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
L
J
j
l
Beluga Area:
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous
Total Resources: 1,801 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 50 feet
Moisture: 11.3% -30%
Volatile Matter: 27.8% -30.1%
Fixed Carbon: 25.8% -34.6%
Ash: 8% -30%
Sulfur: .2%
BTU/lb: 6,290 -8,890
ii. Matanuska Field
The Matanuska field occupies much of the Matanuska Valley.
There are several coal-bearing areas extending from the head of
the Susitna River Valley to the west. The coal is of the
Teritary age.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Resources: 137 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 23 feet
Moisture: 1.1% -8.6%
Volatile Matter: 13.8% -44.6%
Fixed Carbon: 38.4% -72.2%
Ash: 4.4% -21.7%
Sulfur: 0.2% -1.0%
BTU/lb: 10,390 -14,380
iii. Kenai Field
The Kenai coal field is located on the west side of the Kenai
Peninsula in the lowland between the Kenai Mountains and Cook
Inlet. Estimated total resources are stated below, however,
larger resources are present farther inland. Inland resource
estimates were not computed because of the scarcity of outcrops.
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous to lignite
Total Resources: 318 million to short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 80 feet
Moisture: 16.5% -30.4%
Volatile Matter: 30.3% -41.3%
Fixed Carbon: 24.5% -411.1%
Ash: 3.8% -15.7%
Sulfur: 0.1% -.4%
BTU/lb: 6,640 -9,020
A-15
iv. Broad Pass Field
c.
The Broad Pass coal field is located south of the Divide of the
Alaska Range, on the headwaters of the'Chuitna River.
Rank of Coal: Lignite
Total Resources: 67 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Unknown
Moisture: 21.8% -35.8%
Volatile Matter: 27.8% -34.5%
Fixed Carbon: 20.7% -28.3%
Ash: 10.6% -21.0%
Sulfur: .2% -• 3%
BTU/lb: 5,410-7,040
Northern Alaska Region
i. Kukpowruk River District
The Kukpowruk River District is located in the northwestern
corner of the Northern Slope of Alaska. Its coal is of high
quality and coal-bearing rocks are exposed along the lower 25
miles of the Kukpowruk River and a small area 70 miles above the
mouth of the river.
Rank of Coal: Bitiminous
Total Resources: 3,065 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: 1 and l/2 to 13 feet
Moisture: 0.8% -9.9%
Volatile Matter: 31.4% -35.6%
Fixed Carbon: 52.6% -56.1%
Ash: 2.5% -15.0%
Sulfur: 0.2% -.3%
BTU/lb: 11,910 -12,880
ii. Utukok River District
The Utukok River has coal-bearing areas between 25 and 80 miles
above the mouth of the river.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Resources: 2,738 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 12 feet
Moisture: 1.7% -6.2%
Volatile Matter: 33.1% -37.4%
Fixed Carbon: 46.8% -57-9%
Ash: 2.3% -17.4%
Sulfur: .2% -.6%
BTU/lb: 11,630 -13,640
A-16
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
L
iii. Kuk River District
The Kuk River is located near the Arctic coast, south and east
of Wainwright. These beds are nearly horizontal, some of them
which have been reported to extend several miles along the east
shore.
Rank of Coal: Subbituminous
Total Resources: 1,458 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: 3 to 14-1/2 feet
Moisture: 17.8% -26.7%
Volatile Matter: 29.1% -31.9%
Ash: 2.3% -9.8%
Sulfur: .2% -.3%
BTU/lb: 8,780 -9,510
d. Southwestern Alaska Region
i. Chignik Field
ii.
The Chignik coal field is located on the west shore of Chignik
Bay, which indents the southeast shore of the Alaska Peninsula,
about 250 miles southwest of Kodiak. Coal bearing rocks are of
the Chiqnik formation and are of late Cretaceous age. Data
available is insufficient for reliable resource estimates.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Resources: Unknown
Thickness of Beds: 1 to 5 feet
Moisture: 5.0% to 10.8%
Volatile Matter: 27.2%-34.3%
Fixed Carbon: 39.6% -45.4%
Ash: 14.9% -25.3%
Sulfur: .7% -2.3%
BTU/lb: 9,640 -11,240
Unga Island Field
The Unga Island is located off the south coast of the Alaska
Peninsula opposite Herendeen Bay. Coal bearing rocks are of the
Tertiary age and underlies a 40 mile area in the northwestern
part of Unga Island.
Rank of Coal: Lignite
Total Resources: Unknown
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 4 feet
Moisture: 23.3%
Volatile Matter: 25.4%
Fixed Carbon: 25.1%
Ash: 26.2%
Sulfur: .5%
BTU/lb: 5,810
A-17
e.
iii. Herendeen Bay Field
Herendeen Bay is located off the north shore of the Alaska
Peninsula, abut 350 miles southwest of Kokiak. Coal-bearing
rocks are of the Chiqnik Formation and the late Cretaceous age.
They underlie 40 square miles on the peninsula between Herendeen
Bay and Port Moller.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Resources: Unknown
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 7 feet
Moisture: 4.2% -8.0%
Volatile Matter: 32.1% -38.6%
Fixed carbon: 47.2%-53.0%
Ash: 5.0% -12.0%
Sulfur: .3% -.6%
BTU/lb: 11,150 -12,420
Southeastern Alaska Region
i. Bering River Field
Coal-bearing rocks lie in a continuous belt about 50 square
miles northeastward from the east shore of the Bering Lake. The
coal is in the Kushtaka Formation.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous & Anthracite
Total Resources: 3,200 million short tons
Thickness of Beds: Ranges from a few inches to 60 feet
Moisture: 1.0% -9.4%
Volatile Matter: 5.0% -17.4%
Fixed Carbon: 58.1% -91.1%
Ash: 1.2% -25.4%
Sulfur: .5% -.4%
BTU/lb: 9,880 -15,020
ii. Kootznahoo Inlet
The Kootznahoo Inlet is located 60 miles south Juneau. The
coal-bearing rocks are of Tertiary age afid underlie about 20
miles on the north and south sides of the Kootznahoo Inlet and
the west side of Admiralty Island.
Rank of Coal: Bituminous
Total Resources: Unknown
Thickness of Beds: 2 to 3 feet
Moisture: 3.8% -6.4%
Volatile Matter: 34.3% -35.2%
Fixed carbon: 36.3% -39.6%
Ash: 21.4% -23.0%
Sulfur: .9% -1.3%
BTU/lb: 9,930 -10,630
A-18
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
F
L
[
[
[
[
b
[
[
[
[
f!
I
L
[
[
[
L -------.-···-
APPENDIX B
..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH COAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE
KUKPOWRUK, NENANA, AND BELUGA FIELDS , ALASKA
Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy
by
University of Alaska
Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center
Anchorage, Alaska
August 1980
. ~ -...... ~.-~....,_.,-;:'"!;.-~ ... ·.· ... •.,or .. __ -:'" _______ •. ..,.,. ····-""'-···.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
• 1
Summary and Conclusion • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
Description of the Natural Environment of the Three Regions
Permafrost •
Hydrology o o-o o o o o o o o o
Geologic Hazards o o o •
Climate of the Three Regions • 0 • 0
Characteristic Plants and Animals
Endangered Species • • • o • • • • o
Environmental Effects of Surface Mining
Water Quality
Water Availability o
Land Surface . . . . . . .
Air Quality . . • • 0
. . . .
Engineering and Reclamation Considerations •
Revegetation o • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
. . .
. . .
0 0
4
9
10
12
21
33
35
36
37
38
39
42
[
[
r·
['
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
l
L
l
-I
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Location of Coal Fields and Permafrost Zones • • • • • • 5
Figure 2 Taliks in Relation of Active Layer, Suprapermafrost
Zones, Permafrost Table, and Permafrost • • • • • • • • • 6
Figure 3 Effect of Surface Features on the Distribution of
Permafrost in the Continuous Permafrost Zone. • • • • • • 7
Figure 4 Seismic Zone Map of Alaska • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11
Figure 5 Mean Minimum Temperature--January • • • • • • • • • • • • 13
Figure 6 Mean Maximum Temperature-January • • • • • • • 13
Figure 7 Equivalent Wind Chill Temperatures . . • • • • • • • 14
Figure 8 Mean Maximum Temperature-July ••••••••••• · •• 15
Figure 9 Mean Minimum Temperature--July • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15
Figure 10 Sunlight and Darkness • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16
Fagure 11 Mean Annual Precipitation •••••••••••••••• 17
Figure 12 Snowfall • o •••••••••••••••••••••• 18
. ------·----·-----· -----------
1
INTRODUCTION
The United States must find new domestic supplies of energy-
producing fuels to lower dependence on foreign supplies of oil and
natural gas. The President's National Energy Plan emphasizes the
development and use of alternative fuels, such as coal, to reduce
petroleum consumption. In addition, the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel
Use Act encourages industries to consider the economics of using coal
over the oil and gas currently being consumed. New technologies for
making coal burn more cleanly promise to make coal more environmentally
acceptable. Also, the reluctance of some members of the public to
accept the increased use of nuclear power results in serious consider-
ation by utilities of increasing the use of coal in electric generation.
Consequently, Alaska's huge coal reserves, estimated to be as large
as two trillion tons, comprise an important national resource. Coal has
been mined in Alaska for many years, but most mining efforts have been
unorganized and the coal used for local consumption. For example, early
immigrants to Cook Inlet utilized coal-from the exposed beds in the area
to heat their homes. and steam vessels pulled in to shore near exposed
seams and refilled their bunkers. (In this manner, the U.S. Revenue
Cutter Corwin lent its name to the deposit which includes the Kukpowruk
Field.)
The advent of the Alaska Railroad, linking Seward, Anchorage, and
Fairbanks, changed this scenario dramatically. Large amounts of high-
quality coal were required to fuel steam locomotives and to operate
related shop equipment. Relatively modern mines were established near
the present-day towns of Palmer and Healy. Opening of these mines
stimulated use of coal as a heating fuel, and many households took
advantage of the resource. The future of coal mining in Alaska appeared
good. In the late 1950s, however, demand began to drop substantially.
The railroad began replacing its steam locomotives with diesel-powered
engines at about the same time that U.S. military posts in the Anchorage
area switched from coal to oil as heating fuel. This double blow seem-
ingly spelled the beginning of the end for coal in Alaska, but markets
in Fairbanks have remained stable. At present, the mine at Healy de-
livers about 700,000 tons of coal per year to Fairbanks consumers.
The Department of Energy and others must examine the environmental,
social, and economic costs of mining and marketing Alaskan coal to
determine if it can play an important role in meeting America's energy
needs in the coming decades. This report represents the beginning of
this process for three areas of major interest in Alaska--Kukpowruk,
Nenana, and Beluga.
[
[
[
[
[~
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
L
2
/
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Historically, the process of finding and extracting near-surface
coal resources in the United States has adversely affected both fish and
wildlife populations and millions of acres of their habitats. Effects
are both direct and indirect and involve physical, chemical, and biolog-
ical changes. Some of the changes are confined to immediate mine sites,
while others affect larger geographic areas through both on-site and
downstream erosion and atmospheric and hydrologic processes. These
influences and results are also often of long duration. Expected major
effects that would be associated with surface mining in Alaska that are
discussed in this report are direct effects on water quality, water
quantity, surface topography, and air quality and the secondary effects
pertinent to fish, wildlife, and other living organisms.
Water quality can be expected to be affected in any of the three
fields--Kukpowruk, Nenana, or Beluga--as the natural terrain is dis-
turbed, drainage patterns are altered, and excavation activities produce
silt and sediment, leachate&, and dust. Expected quality changes in-
clude turbidity, dissolved solvent levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and
temperature.
The presence of frozen ground/permafrost, the extremely contrasting
summer and winter hydrologic cycles, and presence and duration of ice
and aufeis can induce changes to the environment from coal development.
These relate to such factors as flow, slump, and slide of fine grained
materials; water impoundments in permafrost terrains; changes in runoff
patterns; and sedimentation. These chang~s in turn affect plant and
animal communities and population of the aquatic system.
Water quality effects are regulated by a number of state and
federal statutes and regulations falling within the purview of a number
of agencies. Obviously, one of the major hindrances to Alaskan coal
development would be convincing such authorities of the efficacy of a
number of engineering practices required to prevent the reduction of
water quality in situations of natural extremity and limited knowledge.
Water availability as well as water quality would be impacted by
any coal mining program. In Alaska, water quantity and availability are
affected by a number of natural factors, including seasonal temperature,
permafrost, ice, and high runoff in spring "breakup" and often again
during August storms. Furthermore, groundwater resources are often
unavailable or, if available, frequently highly mineralized, adding to
the discharge quality problem when used in washing or other processing
activities. In effect, then, surface waters are the main usable sources
and these can be highly var-iable in availability throughout the year.
Besides availability of water for coal operations being a problem,
the subsequent effect on water availability for downstream use is also of
concern. An adequate volume availability for both real and potential
users, including fish and wildlife; the quality of discharged water; and
on a seasonal basis consonance with natural factors are also major
concerns. Large volumes of water would be required in all of the regions
3
for mlnlng and reclamation activities, coal conversion and use plants,
conjunctive developments, and population increases. Water withdrawals
could affect_aquatic systems by reducing habitats and by changing physi-
cal regimes such as the temperature and dissolved oxygen levels of the
remaining water. In areas such as the Kukpowruk, where seasonal flows
are either very high or very low, the maintenance of minimum stream flow
for aquatic life could be an important consideration to the permitting
of water appropriation.
The physical effects of surface mining are most obvious on land. A
few of the more evident examples are barren areas caused by road con-
struction, claim location and development, active mining, overburden
removal and stockpiling, tailing ponds, waste disposal areas, open pits
and slides, etc.
A number of landform changes would occur secondarily as a result of
the alteration of permafrost terrains. Stockpiled, fine-grained, ice-rich
overburden materials are liable to thaw into muddy flows with often
disastrous and uncontrollable results; thaw ponds and watered ditches
would also appear when tundra over ice-rich permafrost is disturbed; and
slopes would fail, slide, fall, and be altered.
A last major environmental impact which can be expected to be
associated with surface coal mining is air quality degradation from
dust. In all three coal field situations of concern lie in areas of
low-level air inversion• The effect of this generally winter-month
phenomenon, which exhibits temperature differences in the Interior up to
20°C in the lowest 600 feet (200 m) and is one of the strongest found
anywhere, is to trap dust as well as hydrocarbon engine emissions at
extremely cold temperatures below a "roof" of warmer air. The dust and
hydrocarbons serve as nucleids to form "ice fog." In its more serious
forms, ice fog is deleterious to human health and offers hazards to
industrial operations due to reduced visibility and worker discomfort.
During the winter months dust from coal operations and from routine
travel on gravel roads would settle on the snow, often over many miles,
in accordance with prevailing winds. As spring approaches, with greater
solar radiation and warmer temperatures, dust-covered snow would melt
more rapidly than uncovered snow. The effect of this is to speed up
insect and other invertebrate life development. In some areas this
occurrence has a disruptive chain reaction effect on the food webs of
many higher forms of life.
Environmental effects of coal operations in Alaska are, in the
main, similar to those elsewhere in the United States and are generally
well known. The main set of differences in Alaska stems from differences
in physical conditions (i.e., permafrost, hydrologic cycles which exhibit
seasonal and volume extremes and which are imperfectly known, and cold
air temperature phenomena), all of which require special engineering and
operational techniques during mining and which can cause conditions
making reclamation activities virtually impossible on some sites.
The control of adverse environmental effects due to surface coal
mining operations in the Kukpowruk, Beluga, and Nenana fields would not
be easy and may adversely affect cost/benefit ratios. The technological
r
[
[
[
L
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
[
L
[
j
4
and environmental knowledge for such control, however, does for the most
part exist and could be applied to the Nenana and Beluga fields. The
operation of coal mining in the Kukpowruk field under existing knowledge
and legal restraints, however, is much more difficult and may well be
impossible unless mining objectives are made paramount to current environ-
mental goals formed under existing law. The only other alternative is
to encourage active development research directly applicable to coal
mining under arctic conditions.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE THREE REGIONS
The three coal fields this report (Kukpowruk, Nenana, Beluga)
considers are separated spatially by many hundreds of miles and about
10 degrees of latitude. Local climate and physiography vary markedly
between fields, as do the respective biotic communities. Species lists
and more detailed information on the physical and biological environments
of these three areas can be found in the Alaska Regional Profiles,
published by the University of Alaska's Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center, 1975-77 •. Abbreviated accounts of the salient features
of the environments of each region follow:
Permafrost
Permafrost is any earth material (bedrock or unconsolidated mater-
ials) that has remained frozen for at least two seasons. Some perma-
frost has been in existence for tens of thousands of years. The dept~
of permafrost may range from a few feet along the southern boundary of a
permafrost region, to as much as 2,000 feet (610 m) at Prudhoe Bay in
northern Alaska.
Continuous permafrost covers the northern part of the state of
Alaska and underlies all of the region. South of that, permafrost is
discontinuous, or interrupted, and in the southern part of the state
permafrost is sparse, or absent altogether (Figure 1). The Kukpowruk
coal fields lie within the continuous permafrost zone; the Healy coal
fields are within the discontinuous zone; and the Beluga coal fields lie
in the sparse permafrost zone, near the southern permafrost limit.
The top of the permanently frozen layer is known as the permafrost
table. The zone above that is called the suprapermafrost zone. The
part of the suprapermafrost zone that freezes in winter and thaws in
summer is the active layer. In some years not all of the supraperma-
ftost zone would freeze; that part above the permafrost layer that
remains unfrozen in known as talik and may contain unfrozen water under
high pressure (Figure 2).
The depth to the permafrost table, and the thickness of the perma-
frost layer, are influenced by the surface topography and soil condi-
tions of the land (Figure 3). The permafrost table rises into hill
slopes; it is depressed beneath water bodies such as lakes and rivers,
often leaving an unfrozen "thaw bulb" beneath the water bodies that do
not freeze to the bottom in winter. The thickness of the supraperma-
..... ~
Discontinuous
Permafrost
Zone®
Nenana
Source: AEIDC, 1975-77. Alaska Regional Profiles.
Figure 1 Location of the Three Coal Fields and
Permafrost Zones of Alaska
5
r·
r
[
[
L
1 L
f
L
[,
rr~
lL
rr-, ...
J
w :I L
:1.
·il 'u-
.,. ,,
!
LL
:r--
' ~ :L
L
l
(_
L
j
Permafrost table (uOPH 5ur
face ot permafrost)
Permafrost (l)efenna .. ly frozen
pound)
I'
"'" la)'e' (seasan.lly trazen
around)
T•hk (unfrozen 1round below
permafrost)
Source: 0. J. Ferrians, Jr., R. Kac:hadoorian and G. W. Greene, 1969. Permafrost and Related
Engineering ProDiems In Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 678.
Figure 2 Occurrence of Taliks in Relation to the Active Layer, Supra-
permafrost Zone. Permafrost Table, and Permafrost
6
Source: 0. J. Ferrians. Jr .• R. Kachadoorian and G. W. Greene, 1969. Permafrost and Related
Engineering Problems in Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 678.
Figure 3 The Effect of Surface Features on the Distribution of
Permafrost in the Continuous Permafrost Zone
7
L
[
[
c
[
L'.
r.
[,
8
[
,[
p ·. I I .. !
;r' l : ';:._:_.-
fl
.!~~'
['
L-
L.
L~
[:
. ,
8
frost layer and active layer are influenced by the type of soils on the
surface. Coarse-grained, well-drained soils thaw much deeper in summer
than do fine-grained, silty or clayey soils that retain a large amount
of interstitial water.
The presence of permafrost affects the physical characteristics of
the ground surface, especially in areas overlain by fine-grained, poorly-
drained soils. "Patterned ground," a condition of the surface in which
a random distribtuion of polygonal crack systems occur, characterizes
areas underlain by permafrost. These crack systems occur when winter
freezing of the ground surface causes contraction of the soil surface,
similar in pattern to mud cracks in dried mud. Polygons are typically
30 to 60 feet (9 to 10 m) across. The cracks freeze and contract in
winter followed by summer filling with meltwater, then the following
winter they refreeze and contract further, until after a number of years
large ice wedges are formed along the boundaries of the polygons, extend-
ing downward as much as 30 feet (9 m).
In well-drained areas of topography, high-centered polygons occur
in which the polygon centers are higher than the bounding crack systems •
Runoff water follows the polygon crack systems and beaded streams often
form as drainage waters thaw small meltwater pools at the crack inter-
sections. In poorly drained, marshy areas, low~centered polygons occur
in which small soil ridges parallel the crack systems and stand higher
than the polygons themselves. In this circumstance, waters tend to
collect in the low polygon centers, eventually thawing the permafrost
beneath them and creating small pools and ponds. Often, these flooded
polygons thaw together and merge, creatiDg thaw lakes that may reach .
several miles in length.
When permafrost soils thaw they often become unstable, especially
if dominated by ice-rich fine-grained sediments. If these soils lie on
a slope, even a gentle one, they may begin to flow downhill. Some
natural soil flow occurs on slopes due to permafrost thaw. Anything
that disturbs the vegetation cover over permafrost soils may induce
thaw. The vegetation cover provides an insulative layer over frozen
soils that normally prevents melt, but removal or destruction of the
vegetation exposes the frozen ground to warm, summer temperatures. Many
of the activities of man, including surface mining, may contribute to
vegetation damage or destruction, followed by permafrost thaw and en-
suing soil instability. This often results in soil flow, ground set-
tling, surface slumping, and initiation of ever-enlarging areas of thaw
caused by released meltwaters. The final result often is severely
altered drainage patterns and topography which is difficult or impos-
sible to rejuvenate.
The thickness of a permafrost layer is generally controlled by the
average annual temperature of a region, though changes in mean tempera-
tures are usually lagged by changes in permafrost configuration. In
most of Alaska, the average annual temperature has warmed over the last
century or so. Permafrost is slowly warming, and permafrost thickness,
especially in discontinuous permafrost, is generally re~ict from an
earlier, cooler time. Because of this, permafrost in most areas, once
disturbed, would not reform in its original condition.
9
Hydrology
Kukpowruk Region
Streamflow in the Kukpowruk region is principally limited to the
short summer season. Highest flows occur in most streams during spring
breakup (normally in early June) due to the rapid influx in snowmelt
waters. Flow then rapidly decreases in most streams to a lower, relative-
ly stable su."llmer level, showing marked increases only during summer
storm periods accompanied by high precipitation, especially in the
mountains.
Freezeup of the arctic rivers usually commences in mid-September,
and most streamflow essentially ceases in most streams by December.
During the rest of the winter, flow is very low or nonexistent; some
small-amount of flow may occur in some rivers beneath the alluvial
riverbed.
Lakes in the region usually freeze to the bottom in winter unless
they are deeper than about 10 feet (3m). Lakes begin to freeze in
mid-September and usually break out by July.
Groundwater in the region is essentially nonexistent, due to the
continuous permafrost cover, which either keeps all subsurface waters
frozen or inhibits the flow of any unfrozen water. The one exception to
this is occasional small amounts of unfrozen water in thaw bulbs beneath
deep rivers and lakes and within alluvial or lake-bottom sediments. The
quality of this water is usually low due to the concentration of dissolved
solids in the unfrozen water beneath the frozen water bodies.
Nenana Region
Streams traversing the Nenana coal fields are principally draining
northward from the Alaska Range. Most of the large·r streams have their
headwaters at glaciers high in the mountains and exhibit flow character-
istics dominated by ice melt there. They have higher average flow rates
than streams that do not originate in glaciers and a summer diurnal flow
pattern that is usually highest in the evening when ice melt is at its
greatest, followed by lowest flow in the morning after a cool night.
Highest flow rates occur in July and August because of high glacier melt
rates.
Most of the streamflow in streams without glacial runoff occurs
daring the spring snowmelt period, usually during May and June. Highest
flows in these streams generally occurs in June. However, high flow
rates can occur in July and August due to high precipitation during
storms, especially is associated with high snowmelt rates.
Low flows occur in all streams during the late winter months of
March and April, just before spring breakup commences.
Groundwater in the region occurs in sedimentary rock formations and
in alluvial gravels in the principal stream valleys. Yields of less
than 1,000 gallons per minute have come from the sedimentary rock forma-
tions near the present coal mining area near Healy, but few data are
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
r
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
[
[
L
j
1
1
-,
10
available due to the small number of wells. Groundwater flow apparently
occurs in alluvial gravels in major streams even during winter low-flow
periods.
Beluga Region
Streams in this region have their headwaters either in Alpine
glaciers at high elevations or, in the case of many smaller streams,
originate at lower elevations within the foothills. In both, about
90 percent of yearly flow occurs during the summer period from mid-April
to November. For nonglacial streams, highest flows occur during May,
June, and July; peak flows occur somewhat later in glacial streams.
August is usually a period of low flow in nonglacial streams and moderate
flow in glacial rivers.
In most streams within the region, streamflow increases again
during September and October due to increased precipitation. Lowest
flows occur during February and March, just prior to spring breakup.
Groundwater resources are mostly unknown in the Beluga region,
though there is apparently ~ large contribution of alluvial groundwater
to the area's streamflow. Since permafrost is quite limited, ground-
water resources may be more widespread.
Geologic Hazards
Earthquakes
Earth slippage along bedrock fault planes, with its accompanying
ground shaking, can have severe effects on the natural environment and
man's activities in it. Ground shaking can cause stable soils to become
unstable and slump, slide, or avalanche; uplift of portions of the land
in relation to others can cause changes in local topography and drainage
conditions and affect groundwater flow and water quality. Man-made
structures can be destroyed or badly damaged. Earthquake-generated
seismic sea waves, or tsunamis, can wreak havoc on coastal structures.
Alaska varies in siesmic risk, with the greatest risk occurring in
the southern part of the state. Risk decreases to relatively minor
proportions in the northern part of the state. The Kukpowruk coal
fields lie within a region considered to have minor to moderate seismic
risk; the Nenana fields lie within a zone of major risk; and the Beluga
fields lie within the southern zone of severe seismic risk (Figure 4).
Tbe most severe earthquake to hit the state was the 1964 earthquake that
occurred in upper Prince William Sound, and destroyed much of Anchorage,
Seward, and Valdez. It had a magnitude of 8.4 on the Richter scale. An
earthquake of this magnitude is quite rare, but earthquakes large enough
to cause damage are not infrequent in the southern part of the state.
Flooding
In the arctic region, river flooding occurs annually during spring
breakup. During this time, flows commonly overflow riverbanks and
inundate river floodplains that do not see flows for the rest of the
year. River ice breaks up in a rapid, spectacular manner, with ice
blocks being carried well beyond the normal stream bed and isolated
EarthQuake Moonitude
• !t 3-!t 9
0 6 0-6 9
0 70-7 7
0 7.7~-u
Filled clrclu • hypocenter
areater than ~OKM
Figure 4 Seismic Zone Map of Alaska
lr---'· .,)
~ I J
,....._
l !
Ponibte Magnitude
mo~timum OOmoQe (RIChter) of
Zone to 11ructUfU largest tor thquakt
0 NONE len than 3.0
MINOR 3.0-4.~
•2 MODERATE 4 ~-6.0
3 MAJOR QriOier than 6.0
• Although no earthquake epicenters ort shown h't the nc:wthtrn
part of Alaska, It It thO!J9ht thockt do occur but ore ·
UIVICOfdtd Clue to lock of appropriate equipment In thot orea
Adopted from data tupplied by the U.S. ArmJ Corpt o' En;inun, 1974
.--"'1
-'
•,
I
!
~:
12
there to slowly melt away. River floodwaters with their load of ice
blocks and heavy sediment flood nearshore reaches of sea ice, covering
it with dark-colored sediments that then accelerate ice melt.
Throughout the rest of the year flooding is rare, but may occur
during periods of especially high precipitation, especially in the
mountainous headwater region. During this time, flooding is aggrevated
by the fact that precipitation must run off over the land surface,
rather than being absorbed by it, due to the occurrence of continuous
permafrost.
In the central and southern part of the state, especially near the
mountain ranges, river flooding occasionally occurs when a period of
high precipitation follows a warm period of rapid glacier melt. Then,
the combined input of water from precipitation and ice melt can cause
rivers to overflow their normal banks and inundate their floodplains.
Some regions are occasionally affected by flooding from glacier-
dammed lakes. This occurs when winter flow of a glacier blocks drainage
from a side valley. During the warm summer months, glacier melt-back
can occur to a sufficient degree that the side valley is suddenly freed
of its ice dam, and disastrous flash flooding can occur. In some areas
these floods occur annually, usually during July or August, but in other
areas they are less predictable.
Volcanoes
Volcanic activity is a potential tltreat only to activities in _the
Beluga coal field. Several volcanoes lie nearby, including Mts. Spurr,
Redoubt, Iliamna, and St. Augustine. These volcanoes have all been
active at some time in the recent century. The greatest threat from
eruptions of these volcanoes is from large ashfalls. However, mud flows
from actively erupting volcanoes can cause temporary damming of nearby
rivers, which usually is followed by severe flash flooding.
Climate of the Three Regions
The statewide, regional, and local climate descriptions and figures
in this section are from the Alaska Regional Profiles, AEIDC, 1975-1977.
The land mass of Alaska generally lies between 60 and 70 degrees
north latitude and is characterized by arctic to subarctic climatic
conditions. Winter temperatures are very low (Figures 5 and 6) and are
otten accompanied by seasonally high winds that cause severe chill
factors (Figure 7). Summer temperatures are generally cool (Figures 8
and 9). Another seasonal feature is the great fluctuations in the
amount of daylight. In the Far North there are many days in winter with
no daylight and many days in summer with no darkness (Figure 10).
Precipitation is low throughout much of the state, particularly in
northern and interior regions, but is quite high in others, for instance
in southeastern Alaska (Figure 11). Contrary to what might be expected
in this latitude, most precipitation falls as rain (Figure 12).
Figure 5
Figure 6
0 100 zoo 300
MILES
150 300 41!50
"II.OMETERS
MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE
JANUARY
Mean Minimum Temperature Distribution, January
0
I
IULOIII£ T(RS
MAXIMUM
TEMPERATURE
JANUARY
Mean Maximum Temperature Distribution, January
[
13 r
[
[
[
[
[
r
[
[
[
L
L
L
14
1
...
WINO SPEEO COOL. lNG POWER OF WINO EXPRESSED AS "EQUIVAL.ENT CHIL.L. · TEMPERATUI'tE"
MILES PER
HOUI't
TEMPERATUREC•F)
CALM 40 3.5 30 2S 20 IS 10 5 0 "5 ·10 "15 ·20 "25 •30 "3S •40 "45 "50 "5.5 ·so
EQUIVALENT CHILL TEMPERATURE ...,
.5 3.S 30 2.5 20 IS 10 5 0 -s ·10 -IS -zo "'2.5 "30 "35 "40 "4S -so ~s "65 "70
,.,_.~ ·-:.':': ·;,·.;. .. -..... _
10 30 20 IS 10 s 0 "10 "IS -zo ·2s ·3S "40 -4S ~0 ·so ·ss ·TO ·TS -so. "90 "9.5
-j -.-.::.,. ~---~ -~_-ye. :-'-~~ ;-. ~-'· < .... :.
1.5 2.5 1.5 10 0 -s ·10 ·20 ·2s "30 "40 •4.5 ·so -so -ss ·TO ·eo: -~: "90. "100 ·tos ·tio
:j
-~'-:-... --~ ..... ;-:" -.-r..~~ . 'to~ ... . ~:-:. ..
zo 20 10 .5 0 "10 ·ts •2.5 "30 •3.5 "4.5 "50 -so -&5 ·TS -so ~ss "9S ·: "100 "110 .;1~.5. "'120 :'".-... -.· ... ~
-ss
--~-, -:..;,. -~,; ..... ... "·:._, ........... -.:. ;
zs 1.5 10 0 -s "IS -zo "30 "3S -4s -so -so ·TS ~~~~ "!*0 ~9.5 "10.5 -:it~. -120 "125 "13!5 . .;.,.: -<,
..J '"'-':• '!-·-·· ::.,;t· ~---: ·.,-:"l-... ··:
30 10 s 0 "10 ·2o ·2s "30 "40 -so -ss -ss ·To -so __ -85 ..,s "100 -us •JZS :130 "140 ...
. ··1';"-
~100
., •.':· -izo ·tio ~135 3.5 /0 s -s "10 -zo •30 "3.5 •40 -so -so -ss :T~--so "90 ·tOS "11.5 ·t4·s • J __ ..
-~-:.-·:-.. _.,. .. : -"':-
----" -·· .... -:·. · • .-"!.:-· ~/i5"' -; ... ~ .: ~ :'"" 40 10 0 -s "IS -zo "30 "35 -4.5 -ss -so ·70 -T~ :s~: "!IS "'100 "110 "/2.5 "/30 "140 "''SO ---:'.":":0: ... -
.-., WINOS AI!IOVE ,.~~~:&"~~~ 40 HAVE
_.I l./TTLE OANOER INCitEASWG DANGER
l.ITTL.E
AOOITIONAL (FI"II free~• '""""' I """ J ~~~~!i!:~~'-.• ~:-.....,. .......... C moy"·fr••n wllllirl ~ .. cone!• ..:.. •• -~~~_..
EFFECT. :.-~~~i~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~.:t£~-~\~-~-~
DIINGEI't OF FPtEEZING EJCPOSEO FLESH ~ P~Rl.Y Cl.OTHED PERSONS
Figure 7 Equivalent Wind Chill Temperatures
Figure 8
Figure 9
roo 2QO
!50 500
KU.;.OME TEAS
MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE
..JULY
Mean Maximum Temperature Distribution, July
ISO 300 450
.,,..,QiilTlR:s
MAXIMUM
TEMPERATURE
.JULY
Mean Minimum Temperature Distribution, July
15
[
r
r
[:
[
[
['
L
c ---
c
[
['
[
[
[
L
L
L
L
L .. \.., .J li ...)_' \.. .. -) l • ' J,J l:., •• .J c j •L .J --.!._.,
l. ~4 Lc c. . '· "·-,, ... . ...
CONTINUOUS SUNLIGHT
I I
ANO TWILIGHT
I'
MAR 5£1' ocr
The curved lines are 'labeled in hours and represent the combined hours of sunlight and civil twilight for different latitudes
and months of the year. Hours of darkness can be estimated by computing the difference between the value of the line and
the total of 24 hours. The latitude locations of the villages in the Arctic are indicated by a solid horizontal line.
Source: Environmental Atles of the Greeter Anchorage Area Borough, Alaska. l. Selkregg et al. 1972.
Figure 10 Sunlight and Darkness
..... J/ 4 jl
-i
I 2°
I
I
I
/o
Ul"
CJ
R C T
Precipitation values include the water equivalent of the snow.
c 0 c
A N
Adapted from National Weather Service and U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 11 Mean Annual Precipitation Distribution in Inches
r--. ,.--
I -' J
i. ) l l ,L; IL, . ~-L j " J J \ ., L_ll ".!.: J..,;. l )
0 c F. 4 N I c
f
R c
/J
U S Geologicatii SS~u~rv~e~v _______ _ I Weather Service and , . Nations Adapted from --'-----
Figure 12
19
In spite of the generalities that can be made about Alaska's climate,
the three coal regions under discussion in this report have markedly
different climates. Microclimates are the result of many factors,
including latitude, altitude, presence or absence of mountains, speed
and direction of prevailing winds, and insolation. In turn, these
conditions have a bearing on coal extraction and land ·reclamation. The
Kukpowruk field, at 70 degrees north latitude, experiences vastly dif-
ferent conditions than the Nenana field at 64 degrees north latitude and
the Beluga at 61 degrees north latitude. When all factors affecting
climate are considered, it is easy to see why the climates of the three
areas differ so greatly.
Arctic Region (Kukpowruk)
The Arctic is a region of prolonged periods of light and dark, low
temperatures and high winds, and low precipitation. Monthly tempera-
tures average below freezing about eight months of the year. Although
snowfall in the Arctic is comparatively slight--only about 30 inches
(76 cm)--once snow is on the ground it persists until spring. Although
the terrain is continuously wet in summer and dotted with lakes, total
annual precipitation is very low, generally averaging about 5 inches
(13 em).
Summer temperatures in the Arctic range between 30° and 50°F (-1°
and 10°C), though temperatures as high as 80°F (27°C) sometimes occur.
From May to July the daily periods of light average 20 hours. The
growing season, however, spans a period of only about 10 weeks.
In the Arctic weather is critically important to man's activities.
Wind and temperature often make outdoor activities difficult or impos-
sible. The primary mode of transportation, flying, depends heavily on
weather conditions. Surfa~e transportation is restricted during warm
months but increases when the tundra is frozen and snow-covered.
Despite the proximity of the offshore icepack to land for at least
10 months of the year, the Arctic Ocean and Chukchi Sea have a moder-
ating effect on coastal temperatures. To the south and east of the
Kukpowruk fields, the foothills of the Brooks Range affect both temper-
ature and precipitation. Surface winds are relatively strong along the
coast but weaken and become more variable further inland. In the moun-
tains, wind speeds accelerate as they are channeled through north-south
oriented passes.
Site-specific weather data for the Kukpowruk area are remarkably
sparse; however, some data exist from nearby Point Lay. The lowest
recorded temperature to date at Point Lay was -55°F (-48.3°C); the
record high was 78°F (25.5°C). Precipitation is predictably low.
Greatest monthly precipitation was 6.24 inches in August 1948, but most
monthly records show less than one inch (2.5 em).
[
[
L
c
t
[
L
L
[
[
_.J
20
The Interior Region (Nenana)
In contrast, the Nenana fields are exposed to greater climatic
extremes. Climate can be generally classified as continental, but local
variables and conditions can produce very different microclimates within
short distances. The Interior has recorded bOth the all-time state high
temperature of 100°F (38°C) at Fort Yukpn and the lowest temperature of
minus 80°F (-63°C) at Prospect Creek. Summer Fahrenheit temperatures
generally range from the upper 30s to the upper 60s (about 5 to 20°C)
with extreme temperatures over 90°F (32.2°C) not uncommon. Winter
temperatures range from the minus 20s to plus 20s (about -29 to -7°C)
with extreme low temperatures in the minus 60s not uncommon.
Despite these extremes, the general climate of interior Alaska is
less rigorous than that of the Arctic. Summer temperatures are warm,
and the extended light, averaging about 18 hours per day during May,
June, and July, balances the extreme cold and dark of winter. Precipi-
tation averages 10 to 15 inches (25 to 38 em) annually, and most of that
occurs in late summer and early fall as rain and rainshowers. Storms
occur year-round but are most frequent in late summer and early fall
When the primary storm track penetrates the interior of the state. The
growing season spans about 10 to 15 weeks. Average annual snowfall is
about 50 inches (127 em). For about seven months of the year the
average monthly temperature is below freezing, so snow cover persists
for much of winter. As in the Arctic, there are significant periods of
diminished light.
High winds, common in the Nenana area in winter make the equiv-alent
wind chill temperatures so low that outside activity becomes almost
impossible. The long summer days, on the other hand, allow outside
activity 24 hours a day for several months of the year. Shipping on the
navigable rivers and streams is only possible about five months of the
year when the streams are free of ice.
The Southcentral Region (Beluga)
Although far removed from the open coast, the climate of the Beluga
coal fields is notably milder than that of the other two areas because
of a marked maritime influence. Highest recorded temperature is 83°F
(28.3°C), and the all time recorded low is -50°F (-45°C). Normally,
summer temperatures range between 45° to 65°F (7° to l8°C) and winter
temperatures between 0° and 40°F (-17° to 5°C). Average annual tem-
perature is 37.4°F (3°C). Precipitation is low to moderate, with an
average annual total of 31 inches (78.7 em) •. Winter snow accumulation
ranges from 70 to 100 inches (178 to 254 em). Long periods of daylight,
which average about 16 hours a day between May and July, are typical of
the region. The growing season extends over a 10-to 16-week period.
21
Characteristic Plants and Animals
Arctic Region (Kukpowruk)
Terrestrial vegetation in the Arctic Region is principally repre-
sented by tundra. Tundra is a word of Russo-Lapp origin that refers to
the rolling, treeless plain of arctic regions throughout the world. The
term now commonly includes all biotic communities above timberline in
both arctic and alpine regions.
Superficially, much of the tundra of the Alaskan Arctic resembles
grassland. Species composition of the vegetation varies with the site
according to moisture, slope, and other factors.
Three broad types of tundra are recognized in the region: Alpine,
moist, and wet.
Alpine Tundra
Alpine tundra communities occur in mountainous areas and along
well-drained, rocky ridges. The coarse soil is rocky and dry. A
fellfield community of low, mat-forming heather vegetation is char-
acteristic of much of the area. Exposed outcrops and talus slopes
sustain sparse islands of cushion plants and lichens among the rocks.
The low growth form protects the vegetation from abrasion by blowing
snow and sand in the exposed, windswept habitat. Important plants of
this fellfield community include mountain avens, willows, and heather.
Lichens, especially reindeer moss and other true mosses, are common.
Grasses, sedges, and a few herbs are also evident. Cushion plants, such
as moss campion and saxifrages, as well as many lichens are character-
istic of the drier talus communities.
Mammals
Many mammals, including wolves, grizzly bears, red foxes, ground
squirrels, and hoary marmots, den in the dry soils of the Alpine tundra.
Dall sheep also occur in Alpine tundra near steep terrain where their
climbing ability gives them an advantage over potential predators. Like
the musk-oxen, Dall sheep are intolerant of deep snow, and in winter
they often head for the higher ridges that are blown clear.
Birds
The alpine tundra and dry areas are used extensively by a wide
variety of birds for nesting and foraging. Typical shorebirds are the
whimbrel, bar-tailed godwit, golden plover, black-bellied plover, ruddy
turnstone, and the semipalmated and Baird's sandpiper. Some, such as
the golden plover, nest nowhere else in the Arctic.
f
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
j
-~ i
,.
22
Predatory birds include snowy owls, ravens, golden eagles, rough-
legged hawks, gyrfalcons, and an endangered subspecies of peregrine
falcon, the Arctic peregrine. This peregrine was once relatively common
in the Arctic, but is now scarce. All species of raptors native to the
region habitually nest on rocky outcrops or high bluffs. The short-eared
owl also occurs in Alpine areas where lemmings are abundant. Passerines,
especially snow buntings, yellow wagtails, redpolls, and savannah sparrows,
are common.
Invertebrates
There are many kinds of invertebrates, some of which are never free
living but instead use other animals for their habitat. Dall sheep of
the Alpine community, for instance, are commonly infested with round-
worms. Carnivores inturn are similarly infected. The rate of roundworm
infestation in wolves may run as high as 84 percent.
Moist Tundra
Moist tundra is the dominant plant community of the foothills
region. It is dissected locally by river drainages. Cottongrass
tussocks 6 to 10 inches (15 to 25 em) high, separated by narrow chan-
nels, cover large areas of rolling terrain. A tussock forms as a
cottongrass clump grows and dies back each year, accumulating dead
leaves which decompose slowly in the cold temperatures. Tussock meadows
form on moderately drained, residual silt or peat accumulations modified
by frost action. Mosses and lichens gro~ in the moist channels between
the tussocks. Frost action creates small frost boils where small grasses
and herbs occur. Other plants growing with the cottongrass include
small shrubs such as dwarf birch, willows, Labrador tea, and a few herbs
like bistort and cloudberry.
Mammals
The most obvious mammal of the moist tundra is the caribou. One
large herd, the Arctic, travels over this community and feeds on
lichens and sedges. In March the Arctic Herd leaves its wintering
grounds in the Kobuk and Koyukuk drainages and begins its northward
movement through the passes of the Brooks Range. If the migration is
not impeded, the animals calve from late May into late June in the moist
tundra of the upper Utokok and Ketik River drainages. After calving,
the animals wander widely throughout the western Arctic until fall, when
they begin migrating southward.
The abundance of caribou draws wolves to the moist tundr& in search
of food. Although they also prey on other available animals ranging
from moose to voles, caribou are their principal quarry.
In moist tundra the ranges of the Arctic fox and the red fox over-
lap. Although both occur in the region the former species is most
numerous, especially during periods of high microtine populations.
Lemmings and voles, both cyclical in abundance, feed on the grasses of
the moist tundra and use them for insulating material in their nests.
23
Musk-oxen also occur in low numbers on moist tundra near the coast.
After the native animals were extirpated from the Arctic, musk-oxen from
Greenland were reintroduced on Nunivak Island in 1935 and 1936. The
first reintroduction to the Arctic took place in 1969 when some were
released on Barter Island. Since then, several other transplants were
made from Nunivak Island to the eastern Arctic and near Cape Thompson in
the western Arctic where appropriate habitat occurs. Musk-oxen cannot
feed in deep snow, so they require areas which are swept free of snow by
the wind.
Birds
Shorebirds are common throughout the Arctic. Typical breeding
species include dunlins and pectoral and semipalmated sanpipers. Arctic
terns and Sabine's and glaucous gulls nest on grassy islands in this
community. The species composition of jaegers throughout the Arctic
depends largely on the lemming cycle. Where lemmings are abundant,
pomarine jaegers dominate, where they are not abundant long-tailed and
parasitic jaegers dominate.
Many waterbirds nest in the moist tundra, especially white-fronted
geese, pintails, oldsquaws, and Steller's, king, and spectacled eiders.
Nearly all waterfowl migrate out of the Arctic in winter, some travelling
as far as the eastern coast of the United States. Passerines are most
commonly represented by the Lapland longspur and snow buntings. Snow
buntings further south are found at high elevations, but on the arctic
coastal plain they commonly nest in and around human habitation, garbage
dumps, and under discarded barrels, lumberpiles, and driftwood.
Marsh hawks are often se~n in the moist tundra, but they are con-
spicuous and may appear more abundant than they really are. Snowy owls
are the most common predatory bird.
Invertebrates
The family Diptera is especially well represented in moist and wet
tundra environments. The hordes of mosquitoes and flies are essential
for the support of the seasonally abundant birdlife. Peak mosquito
populations occur in mid-June.
Wet Tundra
A mosaic of small lakes and wet tundra covers the arctic coastal
plain. The peaty soil has a shallow, active layer and is saturated
throughout the summer. The pattern of high and low center polygons
occurs even under the lakes. Several species of sedges (especially
Carex aquatilis) make up the majority of the vegetation of the ccirn-
munity. Differences in the vegetative composition are related to the
microrelief of the polygons. Many species of moss grow in the under-
story, but few lichens occur in the wet habitat. Secondary species
include cottongrass, lousewort, and buttercup in the wetter sites and
heather and purple mountain saxifrage in the raised drier habitats such
as the ridges between the polygons.
[
c
[
c
[
c
[
[
l
[
4:
24
Mammals
Wet tundra is inhospitable to burrowing mammals, which are re-
stricted to well-drained sites such as pingos and stream banks. A few
shrews feed on the prolific insects. The most common mammals are the
Greenland collared and brown lemmings. These are the staple food for
Arctic foxes and avian predators. Predatory birds can move from an area
during periods of low lemming population, but the less mobile Arctic
foxes may be forced to feed on bird eggs from the numerous shorebird and
waterfowl nests during such periods. Caribou feed on grasses, sedges,
and lichens where they occur. Cottongrass buds, which usually appear
during caribou calving season are apparently favored.
Birds
Wet tundra is a foraging area for many birds, particularly shore-
birds, which are numerous in summer and migrate south in winter. The
red phalarope is especially abundant. Some observers believe that as a
vertebrate it outweighs any other species of animal in the Arctic.
Other shorebirds found in wet tundra include the long-billed d9witcher,
dunlin, common snipe, and pectoral, Baird's, and semipalmated sandpiper.
The semipalmated sandpiper is exclusively restricted to feeding on the
muddy ~dges of ponds and lakes. Glaucous gulls, and all species of
jaeger prey on small birds and mammals of the wet tundra. Waterbirds
that nest and feed in wet tundra include yellow-billed, Arctic, and
red-throated loons; whistling swans; pintails; oldsquaws; and Steller's,
king, and spectacled eiders. Canada gee~e commonly nest on dry sites,
such as well-drained streambank bluffs and pingos.
Invertebrates
Wet tundra is especially noted for its production of flies and
mosquitoes, although other invertebrates and larval forms are equally
important. The abundance of invertebrates in the mud along the edges of
tundra ponds accounts for the tremendous numbers of shorebirds that nest
in this habitat and characterize the arctic coastal plain in spring.
High Brush
The high brush plant community occurs along the floodplains of many
large rivers of the Arctic Region, particularly in the mountains and
foothills. Soils are usually well-drained ~ravel, sand, or silt, and
the active layer is deeper than in the remainder of the Arctic. Spring
floodwaters and floating ice may destroy some vegetation, so the com-
munity is constantly changing. Newly exposed gravel bars are invaded by
a pioneer flora with such species as horsetail, alpine bluegrass, and
dwarf fireweed. The high brush community, found in areas that have not
been disturbed for several decades, includes willows, a few herbs, many
mosses and lichens, and possibly alder and a few well-developed stands
of cottonwood near springs in the eastern foothills of the Brooks Range.
25
Mammals
For most of the year, moose in the Arctic depend on woody vege-
tation. They are mostly confined to high brush areas, principally along
the Colville and Canning River drainages. A few may be found at times
along the Kukpowruk but it appears unlikely. Grizzly bears also con-
centrate in the watersheds, scavenging along the rivers for food ranging
from grasses to fish. Wolves range throughout the Arctic. They often
make their dens along the dry riverbanks close to the high brush. Lynx
are not common in the Arctic but prey on the hares at times when they
become abundant along stream valleys. Wolverines also hunt these hares
and other rodents. The red fox usually preys on smaller rodents such as
voles and ground squirrels. River or land otters are rare in the Arctic
but do occur along some of the more permanent streams associated with
high brush.
Birds
A number of birds are closely associated with the high brush com-
munity. Many are small and inhabit thick vegetation which provides
cover and nesting sites. These include the fox, white-crowned, savannah,
and tree sparrows; gray-cheeked thrushes and robins; red polls; yellow
wagtails; and Arctic warblers. Several predatory species are found in
the high brush, especially the northern shrike and the short-eared owl.
The willow ptarmigan is also found here.
Invertebrates
Except for the numerous members of the order Diptera, these in-
vertebrates are seldom noticed, but they are crucial to the continuation
of the more visible forms of life. Much of the diversity of birdlife in
the brief, arctic summers depends on the abundance of insects, spiders,
and mites for food. Saw flies are one of the most numerous insects and
feed on willows. Other invertebrates, such as nematodes, are vital to
the aeration and fertilization of soil.
Tundra Lakes, Ponds, and Marshes
Tundra lakes, ponds, and marshes, common on the arctic coastal
plain, comprise shallow bodies of water less than 20 feet (6 m) deep
with mud and organic sediment bottoms. Ponds less than 6 feet (1.8 m)
deep may freeze completely to the bottom during most winters.
The zooplankton in these waters are mostly copepods, rotifers, and
cladocera. Productivity is low. Arctic ponds without fish may contain
fairy and tadpole shrimp. Midge larvae dominate the benthic fauna in
this habitat. Aquatic earthworms, stonefly larvae, aquatic beetles, and
snails are also present.
Most of the lakes in this permafrost zone are considered unpro-
ductive for fish, although fish are present in most waters deeper than
10 or 15 feet (3 to 4.5 m). Whitefish and stickleback are most common
and abundant.
[
[
[
[
(
[
[
[
[
[
c
[
L
26
These ponds are, however, fmportant waterfo~l habitat. As men-
tioned earlier, ducks and geese are common nesters on the tundra.
Typically in late August waterfowl begin their autumn migration, moving
with easterly, favorable winds.
Rivers, Streams, and Springs
All but the largest rivers and spring-fed pools of smaller streams
may completely freeze to the bottom during winter. Breakup severely
erodes streambeds and further heightens the stress on organisms inhabit-
ing this environment.
Zooplankton in flowing waters of the Arctic have not been exten-
sively studied. Apparently caddisfly, mayfly, stonefly, and midge
larvae are the most common large invertebrates. Bottom fauna is par-
ticularly abundant in spring-fed streams.
Most fish must migrate seasonally to find suitable spawning sites
and locations to support them over the winter. Whitefish, grayling, and
char use freshwater streams as important summer rearing areas. These
species migrate between the ocean and fresh water and between different
areas within a freshwater drainage throughout the summer months.
Interior Region (Nenana)
Terrestrial vegetation of the Nenana region is preponderantly
tundra in character. Trees are generall~ restricted to river valleys.
Well-expressed brush associations are found throughout the region.
Brief descriptions of major communities follm~.
Alpine Tundra and Barren Ground
This type occurs on ridges and rubble slopes, usually where bedrock
is close to the surface, on such porous soils as alluvial fans and on
the driest parts of the river terraces. The soil is usually coarse,
shallow, and contains little humus. Alpine tundra is most common in
mountains at elevations between 2,000 and 4,000 feet (610 to 1,220 m).
Vegetation is usually sparse and seldom more than a few inches
high. Plant associations differ from one place to another, but mountain
avens and lichens usually dominate along with low-growing herbs, grasses,
and sedges. Associated species are resin birch, dwarf Arctic birch,
cassiope, crowberry, Alpine azalea, Labrador tea, mountain heath, moss
campion, black oxytrope, and Arctic sandwort.
Lowest production from these plant communities occurs on outcrops
and talus mainly in the higher parts of the foothills and in the moun-
tains at elevations from about 2,000 to 4,500 feet (610 to 1,370 m).
Above 4,500 feet (1,370 m) most of the mountains are bare except for
rock lichens, but a few flowering plants grow at elevations approaching
6,000 feet (1,830 m). The vegetation at high altitudes consists of
scattered plants similar to those found at low elevations but not
usually combined into any particular plant association.
27
Mammals
Caribou and brown bear are the most conspicuous residents of this
community. Relict populations of Dall sheep also occur in the region.
Arctic ground squirrels, marmots, and pikas inhabit elevated, well-
drained substrates. Snowshoe hares and voles are distributed throughout
the association in typical habitat.
Birds
Numerous species of birds inhabit this community type. Perhaps the
most conspicuous member of this fauna is the gyrfalcon. Rock ptarmigan
are found on the steeper, more exposed slopes, and water birds such as
plovers, turnstones, and tattlers inhabit lower-lying areas. Numerous
passerines, ranging from the raven to the Lapland longspur, occur in
suitable habitats throughout the association.
Moist Tundra
Moist tundra may vary from stands of nearly continuous and uni-
formly developed cotton grass tussocks, sometimes interspersed with
sparse growth of other sedges and dwarf shrubs, .to stands where tussocks
are scarce or absent and dwarf shrubs dominate. Associated species are
polar grass, bluejoint, tufted hairgrass, sedges, mosses, Alpine azelea,
wood rush, mountain avens, bistort, horsetail, low-growing willows,
dwarf birch, Labrador tea, American green alder, Lapland rosebay, blue-
berry, and lingonberry. This type is usually highly productive and .
forms a complete ground cover. It occurs mainly in the foothills of the
Alaska and Brooks Ranges and along portions of the lower Yukon River.
Mammals
Fairly extensive tracts of this community type near Nenana support
a fairly diverse fauna. Typical resident mammals include caribou, brown
bear, lemmings, shrews, and weasels.
Birds
Birds are farily numerous in this association. Most common are the
passerines, such as sparrows and buntings. Some water birds are locally
numerous. Ptarmigan are also distributed throughout. Abundance of any
single species may be locally high in response to pockets of "better"
habitat.
Wet Tundra
As the name implies, wet tundra occurs wherever soils are super-
saturated. The type occurs near Nenana but not extensively. Sedges and
cotton grass dominate the vegetation, usually forming a mat. rather than
tussocks. A few woody and herbaceous plants occur on drier sites above
the water table. Associated plants are lichens, mosses, low-growing
willows, dwarf birch, Labrador tea, cinquefoil, lingonberry, and occa-
sionally bog cranberry.
r
[
[
[
[
I
[
[
f~
L
[
L
L
L
..,,
j
l
28
Mammals
The vertebrate fauna of this community is fairly diverse despite
the ltmited distribution of the type, but overall numbers are low.
Typical mammals include shrews, lemmings, voles, caribou, and foxes.
Birds
Passerines, such as buntings and sparrows, predominate in this
type. Ptarmigan and water birds are discontinuously distributed in
variable abundance throughout the type.
Low Brush, Muskeg Bog
Interior bogs occur where conditions are too wet for tree growth.
Bog vegetation consists of varying amounts of sedges, sphagnum and other
mosses, bog rosemary, rose, resin birch, dwarf Arctic birch~ Labrador
tea, willow, bog cranberry, soapberry, and blueberry. Some low-lying
saturated soils support cotton grass tussocks surrounded by zones of
tall willow and alder brush. Bog surfaces in the region often have
uneven, stringlike ridges called string bogs, which are usually too wet
to support shrubs. Shrubs dominate on exposed and drier areas, and
mosses and herbaceous species dominate on waterlogged areas. Widely
spaced dwarf spruce and tamarack may occur on higher ground.
In the Interior, muskegs and bogs occur extensively where con-
·ditions are too wet for tree growth, prtmarily in unglaciated areas, old
river terraces, outwash plains, filling ppnds, sloughs, and occasionally
on gentle north-facing slopes.
Mammals
Moose, caribou, and brown bear are the most conspicuous large
mammals of this community in interior Alaska. The varied nature of the
vegetation provides numerous habitat types and, consequently, smaller
mammals abound. Typical small mammals include shrews, snowshoe hares,
voles, lynx, coyote, and weasels.
Birds
Numerous passerines, e. g., rusty blackbirds and sparrows, abound
in this association. Occasional observations are also made of northern
shrikes and various raptorial species.
High Brush·
High brush occurs as two distinct subtypes in the region--flood-
plain thickets and birch-alder-willow thickets. Floodplain thickets
develop rapidly on alluvial deposits in floodplains that are newly
exposed after flooding. The dominant shrubs are willows and alders.
Associated shrubs are dogwood, prickly rose, raspberry, soapberry, and
high bush cranberry. This subtype is found along all meandering
streams. Islands and bars of the major rivers are usually bordered by
29
pure willow stands, often in zones according to age. Birch-alder-willow
thickets are found near timberline in interior Alaska and are the tran-
sition between upland spruce-hardwood and alpine tundra. They consist
of resin birch, American green alder, thinleaf alder, and several willow
species. Thickets may be extremely dense or open and interspersed with
reindeer lichens, low heath-type shrubs, or patches of alpine tundra.
Other associated species are alder, bearberry, crowberry, Labrador tea,
spirea, blueberry, and lingonberry.
Mammals
High brush communities of interior Alaska provide important winter
habitat for moose and brown bear. Small mammals include shrews, red
fox, voles, hare, lynx, and weasels.
Birds
Numerous avian species inhabit high brush communities. Natural
edges between adjoining brush stands provide numerous habitat types that
combine to support this diverse assemblage. Typical inhabitants include
willow ptarmigan, thrushes, redpolls, and sparrows. Conspicuous resi-
dents include several hawks, which hunt in the area, and the northern
shrike.
Upland Spruce-Hardwood Forest
In the Nenena region this type consists of white spruce, birch, .
aspen, balsam poplar and some tamarack. Black spruce usually replaces
white spruce on north-facing slopes and poorly drained flat areas.
Trees in this type have shallow roots and are commonly fire scarred. It
is a comparatively open forest.
White spruce 40 to 80 feet (12 to 24 m) high and up to 15 inches
(38 em) in diameter occur in mixed stands on south-facing slopes and
well-drained soils and may form pure stands near streams.
White birch and aspen stands, usually an early stage of succession
following fire, tend to be even-aged and more uniform in size than
spruce stands. The largest birches are about 8 inches (20 em) in
diameter and SO feet (15 m) tall, and aspen trees are found up to 10
inches (2S em) in diameter and SO feet (15 m) tall. Average diameters
are four inches (10 em) or less. Aspen and birch predominate on well~
to excessively drained southern slopes.
Undergrowth in this type normally consists of mosses and grasses on
drier sites and brush on moist slopes. Typical undergrowth species are
willow, alder, ferns, rose high bush cranberry, lingonberry, raspberry,
currant, Labrador tea, and horsetail.
Tree line decreases in elevation from east to west and varies from
2,000 to 3,500 feet (610 to 1,070 m) along the Alaska-Yukon border,
dropping to 2,000 feet (610 m) on southern slopes of the central Brooks
[
[
r_
r
[
[
[
[
[
L
l
L
" .
l
__j'
!
'
30
Range and northern slopes of the Alaska Range and to 1,000 feet (305 m)
or less along the lover Yukon. Close to treeline, White spruce become
scattered among high brush, including dwarf and resin birch and willows.
Mammals
t ..
The relatively open nature of this forest acts to maximize the
edge, or ecotone, effect, producing the most diverse array of habitat
types of any vegetative community in the region. Overall numbers of any
single species are low but diversity of forms is high. Typical mammal-
ian residents of this forest include shrews, little brown bats, red and
flying squirrels, voles, porcupines, black and brown bears, and moose.
Birds
Avian forms attain their richest diversity in this region in this
forest type. Cavity-nesting ducks frequent stream courses, and passe-
rines, such as gray jays, thrushes, and juncos, are distributed through-
out suitable habitats. The most common raptor of the association is the
goshawk, which is a year-round resident of the community.
Southcentral Region (Beluga)
The Cook Inlet estuarine embayment complex encompasses all the
waters north of the Barren Islands. The distribution of plants and
animals in the area reflects the complex interactions of tidal mixing of
fresh and salt waters, large tidal amplitudes that result in extensive
tidal flats, large loads of suspended gl~~ial sediments, the scouring
actions of strong tidal currents, and ice during the winter months.
The waters of Cook Inlet can be subdivided into two major regions.
Each lies roughly along either side of a line drawn between Cape Douglas
and the city of Kenai. The eastern side includes Kachemak Bay and is
under the influence of saltier, relatively clear, inflowing coastal
waters. The Beluga field lies on the western side which is dominated by
the sediment-laden, brackish outflow.
Baseline information on intertidal organisms of Cook Inlet is
scant. Perhaps the most reliable indicator of the extent of intertidal
biota is the abundance of razor clams collected from the lover inlet for
food by the local people.
While little information is available on benthic communities, the
presence and abundance of king, tanner, and Dungeness crabs in the
Kachemak Bay-southern Cook Inlet area, suggests a diverse and healthy
environment. Food for these crabs includes marine worms, molluscs,
brittle stars, small crustaceans, some fish, and other assorted inver-
tebrates.
Pandalid shrimp also abundant feed at the bottom on marine worms,
small crustaceans, and fresh organic detritus, all abundant in lover
Cook Inlet. Herring spawn in abundance along the shores of Kamishak and
Kachemak Bays, and eulachon smelts run in upper inlet streams.
31
All five species of Pacific salmon inhabit and migrate into streams
and lakes surrounding the inlet. Additionally, deep water exploratory
trawls reveal the presence of 25 species of fin fishes. Butter sole,
yellowfin sole, turbot, and Pacific pollock are the most abundant.
The lower segments of streams and their assocaated pond complexes
are prime habitat for the spawning and rearing of coho, pink, and chum
salmon. During spawning migrations substantial populations of black and
brown bears prey heavily on these fish, as do mink, otter, and eagles.
Foxes, coyotes, ravens, and a host of other scavengers profit from the
leavings. After spawning, the salmon die, their carcasses adding nutri-
ents to the water and soil of adjacent areas. Partly because of this
enrichment, ponds, sloughs, and marshes are lush and provide important
wildlife habitat. Moose, bear, beaver, and waterfowl (including
trumpeter swans) are common.
Low Brush Bog and Muskeg
Dwarf shrubs usually dominate over a mat of sedges, mosses, and
lichens. Ponds or standing water are often present in the peaty sub-
strate. This type is found in wet, flat basins where conditions are
frequently too moist for tree growth. Two different forms of this
system, coastal muskegs and interior bogs, exist in southcentral Alaska.
In Cook Inlet coastal muskegs, mountain hemlock is scattered over the
drier portions of muskeg, with shrubs dominant on exposed and dry sites.
Such associations are poorly represented in the drainages bordering
upper Cook Inlet, however. In the interior bogs of the boreal forest,
trees are usually not found because conditions are too wet. Some black
spruce does occur, however. Large localized patches of cotton grass
tussocks may exist in such places within the region. These bogs occur
primarily in the Susitna River valley.
Most of the larger mammals use this type only intermittently, but
it is an important type for waterfowl.
High Brush
The dominant plant species in this community vary with locale.
Willows predominate along streams giving way to alder above timberline.
Stands are usually homogenous and dense, some integradation occurs,
however. The type occurs between beach and forest, between treeline and
Alpine tundra, in avalanche paths through forests, on floodplains, and
in old forest burn areas. Trees, such as quaking aspen, Alaska paper
birch, and white spruce, may be present but are widely scattered. This
plant community occupies a great variety of soils--from poorly drained
with permafrost in low river valleys to well-drained shallow upland
soils on moraines. It is also found on outwash and mountain slope soils
with intermittent permafrost. A coastal alder thicket subsystem extends
along the southern portion of the Alaska Peninsula and eastern Cook
Inlet. Species composition varies considerably with location. Flood-
plain thickets comprise another subsystem that develops quickly on
periodically flooded river and stream alluvium. Such stands may reach
20 feet (6 m) in height. In interior portions of the region, particu-
r
[
[
[
r l
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
L
-.... :
32
larly along parts of the Susitna River vally, a birch-alder-willow
thicket type is found near timberline. Areas where fires are common
frequently support this type. Thicke~s may be as high as 5 feet (1.5 m)
to 15 feet (5 m). ·
Many animals in varying abundance use this type for at least part
of the year. No one species is typical, or characteristic of the com-
munity, however. Resident mammals include brown bears, moose, voles,
hares, lynx, weasels, and shrews. ·
Bottomland Spruce-Poplar Forest
This tall, relatively dense forest system primarily contains white
spruce, locally mixed with large cottonwood and balsam poplar, found on
level to nearly level floodplains, low river terraces, and more deeply
thawed south-facing slopes. This forest type is generally not found at
elevations higher than 1,000 ft (305m). Both black cottonwood and
balsam poplar quickly invade floodplains and grow rapidly. Alaska paper
birch and quaking aspen are often conspicuous. These species are in
turn replaced by white spruce in the successional process. Where this
type occurs, a deep thawed layer overlies the permafrost which controls
the depth of roots. Extensive stands of this timber type are found in
the region. This relatively open forest type provides favored habitat
for black bears. Seasonal occupancy by moose may be locally high.
Coastal Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Forest
This coastal forest system, primari!y Sitka spruce and western
hemlock, is an extension of the rainbelt forests so important along the
Pacific coast.
In western Cook Inlet, Sitka spruce uncharacteristically dominates
within this forest. Mountain hemlock begins to replace western hemlock.
The deciduous hardwoods present are found primarily on stream floodplains.
This forest requires cool temperatures, high humidity, and abundant
rainfall. Soil types and conditions vary greatly throughout the forest.
This vegetation type generally occurs in areas where permafrost is
absent. This forest type is located in narrow belts or broad discontin-
uous expanses, bounded by the Aleutian Range on the west, Cook Inlet on
the east, Iniskin Bay on the south, and the Drift River on the north.
Some small stands of Sitka spruce have been reported adjacent to the
coal fields near Tyonek. The most northerly identification of the
species has been made on the southern slopes of Mt. Susitna. Many
spruce throughout the area are not identifiable as either white or
Sitka, probably due to hybridization.
Timber productivity on the west shore of Cook Inlet is high. A
U.S. Forest Service inventory of the area in 1971 indicated almost as
much volume produced by the relatively small area (45,000 acres, or
18,200 hectares) as in Alaska's entire Kuskokwim River floodplain. Most
of the commercial forest land produces more than 30 cubic feet per acre
per year of new growth. Total net volumes per acre range from a low of
approximately 600 BF to 30.2 MBF. The overall average is 10.6 MBF, or
1,140 cubic feet (31.9 cubic meters).
33
No data are available on the timber quality in the area.
Mammals
Brown bears and moose are the most abundant large mammals of this
association in Cook,Inlet. Both brown and black bears congregate on
salmon streams during spawning runs. Typical small mammals include red
fox, hares, lynx, weasels, voles, and both red and flying squirrels.
Mink, fox, and weasesls join bears in scavenging the remains of salmon.
Birds
Numerous types of birds are found in this association. Several
owls and raptors, particularly bald eagles are conspicuous by their
presence. Ravens, magpies, gulls, terns, and mallard ducks frequehtly
join bald eagles scavenging spawned out salmon. Passerines are numerous
and diverse. The dense overstory precludes ease of observation but
subjectively sparrows and thrushes dominate.
Endangered Species
Animals
The federal list of endangered species includes two races of pere-
grine falcon and a curlew from Alaska. Falco peregrinus tundrius, the
arctic peregrine, breeds exclusively north of the Brooks Range in Alaska.
Known nest sites within proximity of the Kukpowruk River occur to the·
east, near the headwaters of the Utukok River. To the west, identified
potential sites occur along the Cape Lisburne sea cliffs. No sites,
potential or actual, have yet been described from within the Kukpowruk
River valley. Subjectively, there appears to be some potential for
doing so.
One other endangered bird, the Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis)
have reportedly been sited in northwestern Alaska. Recent sightings are
so rare, however, that some consider the form extinct. Actual breeding
records are not available from Alaska, but past distribution during the
breeding season apparently extended from Norton Sound in the west and
generally eastward along the coast to the Mackenzie River delta in
Canada. It appears unlikely that the form would be encountered in the
Kukpowruk field; however, some potential, although small, exists for
doing so.
A second endangered race of falcon, I· R· anatum, commonly referred
to as the peregrine, at one time bred throughout the major river drain-
ages of interior Alaska. Remnants of the race still return annually to
breeding sites along the Tanana River well to the north of the Healy
formation near Nenana. Continued human activity in the area, as a
subjective judgment, would seem to pose no threat to this race through
either habitat modification or usurpation.
r
[
[
r
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
r .__
[
[
L
-,
__ j
L
L~
I l__,
[
L
34
Peregrine falcons of an unknown race or races, are reported sea-
sonal migrants in the Cook Inlet area. Subjectively, habitat usurpation
poses little direct threat to a life form which simply "passes through"
an area. There are no reports of the occurrence of the Eskimo curlew in
Cook Inlet.
Plants
c.o . At this time there is no official list of federally reCJ:t'gam.zed
threatened or endangered plants in Alaska although the Fish and Wildlife
Service is developing such a list. The U.S. Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management hired Dr. David Murray, a University of Alaska
botanist, to identify and gather information, make up a list of proposed
threatened and endangered plants. So far, Murray lists eight endangered,
13 threatened, and 15 rare taxa with undetermined status (Murray 1980).
One threatened species, the pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum), has
been identified in the Alaska Range (headwaters of the Kuskokwim?) and
the Cook Inlet lowlands. Although these plants have not been identified
from the specific locations of the coal deposits, rigorous searching may
turn up several species.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SURFACE MINING
Introduction
Historically, the process of finding'and extracting near-surface
coal resources in the United States has adversely affected both fish and
wildlife populations and millions of acres of their habitats. Effects
are both direct and indirect and involve physical, chemical, and biolog-
ical changes. Some of the changes are confined to immediate mine sites,
while others affect larger geographic areas through both on-site and
downstream erosion and atmospheric and hydrologic processes. These
influences and results are also often of long duration.
Raw land remaining afte.r surface mining is not capable of support-
ing most forms of life. It must go through a weathering period, which
may take a few years or decades before it again becomes suitable vege-
tative or other habitat for fish and wildlife. In order to compensate
for these effects, man, in recent times, has utilized many mitigation
and reclamation techniques to make the land once again naturally
p.-oductive.
Changes in the ecological succession of plant and animal popu-
lations routinely occur with surface mining. These need to be restored,
and in many places in the country this can and is being done today.
Whether or not Alaska's environment is adaptable to productive mitiga-
tion and reclamation approaches in a manner which would permit sustained
economic production of coal resources through surface mining is the
theme of the remainder of this paper.
35
Experience with modern, highly mechanized, high-volume surface coal
production is nonexistent in Alaska. The most relevant history is that
of the Usibelli Mine near Healy, Alaska, and here operations must be
viewed as being on a very modest scale. Moreover, the Usibelli pit
production does not have to contend with several environmental factors
common to the Beluga and Kukpowruk fields. Thus, any analysis of sur-
face mining effects on the environment must rely on other experience.
The following is a review of expected major effects that would be
associated with surface mining in Alaska. Discussed are direct effects
on water quality, water quantity, surface topography, and air quality
and the secondary effects pertinent to fish, wildlife, and other living
organisms.
Water Quality
Water quality can be expected to be affected in any of the three
fields--Kukpowruk, Nenana, or Beluga--as the natural terrain is dis-
turbed, drainage patterns are altered, and excavation activities produce
silt and sediment, leachates, and dust. Expected quality changes include
turbidity, dissolved solvent levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature.
As is obvious from earlier environmental descriptions, the main
differences for surface mine development in the fields of concern here,
in comparison with operating mines elsewhere in the United States, are
the presence of frozen ground/permafrost, the extremely contrasting
summer and winter hydrologic cycles, and presence and duration of ice
and aufeis. In addition, there are very little hydrologic data avail-
able and theoretical approaches to runoff prediction are unreliable.
Thus, the engineering considerations required for the removal and stock-
piling of overburden, the maintenance of slope stability, and the con-
struction of impoundment areas, etc., are difficult. Materials, parti-
cularly those of fine grain, would flow, slump, and slide. Impoundments
in permafrost areas would thaw, and summer-excavated pits in the Kukpowruk
would fill with water. This latter situation could also occur at Beluga
or Nenana, depending upon the presence or absence of permafrost.
In the Kukpowruk area, also, gravel is extremely scarce. Thus, the
construction of good road beds would be difficult. All of these natural
situations and engineering considerations make it highly probable that
water quality cannot help but be affected by terrain disturbance.
The effect on water quality due to sedimentation, pH, and oxygen
level change, etc. in turn affects aquatic system plant and animal
communities and populations. Fish spawning areas can become unusable
due to substrate change, invertebrate life cycles can be affected, and
overwintering pools for adult fish can disappear. In effect, entire
aquatic life systems are subject to detrimental change.
Sediment, particularly when introduced into surface waters by
runoff, can affect aquatic organisms in several ways: it can clog fish
gills, cover eggs of fish and inse-cts, eliminate food sources, smother
aquatic vegetation, and alter existing habitat. Turbidity resulting
r
r:
L
r~
[
[
[
L
L
[
[
L
[
L
l
j
36
from sedimentation decreases light penetration, thereby decreasing
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants and phytoplankton. This
effect then often results in a reduction of dissolved oxygen concen-
tration and temperature change.
In other regions of the country, coal seams and overburden often
contain pyrites, compounds of iron and sulphur. Pyrite in the presence
of air and. water reacts to produce sulphuric acid and iron sulfate. The
iron sulfate, when dissolved in water, hydrolizes to form more sulphuric
acid. In addition, acid water can dissolve and hold more minerals in
solution than can neutral water. Aluminum, calcium, and arsenic are
often found in high concentrations in acid mine water. During hydrol-
ysis an additional contaminator can be formed--iron hydroxide, or
"yellow boy," which coats stream bottoms. This situation is not expected
to be severe in Alaska. Most Alaska coal is remarkably low in sulphur-
containing ~ompounds. In addition, available sulphur is usually bonded
to organic matter, further minimizing pollution effects.
Water quality effects are regulated by a number of state and
federal statutes and regulations falling within the purview of a number
of agencies. Obviously, one of the major hindrances to Alaskan coal
development would be to convince such authorities of the efficacy of a
number of engineering practices required to prevent the reduction of
water quality in situations of natural extremity and limited knowledge.
Water Availability
Water availability as well as water quality would be impacted .by
any coal mining program. In Alaska, water quantity and availability are
affected by a number of natural factors, including seasonal temperature,
pennafrost, ice, and high runoff in spring "breakup" and often again
during August' storms. Furthermore, groundwater resources are often
unavailable or, if available, frequently highly mineralized, adding to
the discharge quality problem when used in washing or other processing
activities. In effect, then, surface waters are the main usable sources
and these can be highly variable in availability throughout the year.
Besides availability of water for coal operations being a problem,
the subsequent effect on water availability for downstream use is also
of concern. An adequate volume availability for both real and potential
users, including fish and wildlife; the quality of discharged water; and
on a seasonal basis consonance with natural factors are also major
concerns. Large volumes of water would be required in all of the regions
for mining and reclamation activities, coal conversion and use plants,
conjunctive developments, and population increases. Water withdrawals
could affect aquatic systems by reducing habitats and by changing physical
regimes such as the temperature and dissolved oxygen levels of the
remaining water. In areas such as the Kukpowruk, where seasonal flows
are either very high or very low, the maintenance of minimum stream flow
for aquatic life could be an tmpor~ant consideration to the permitting
of water appropriation.
37
In Alaska the legal doctrine for water use has particular appli-
cation to coal mining operations, and a word here on how water law
affects coal development is in order. Briefly, the doctrine of prior
appropriation was in effect at the time of Alaska's admission to the
Union. This meant that mines along streams held a limited riparian
right and "absolute ownership" of ground water. When the Alaska
Constitution was adopted, riparian and "absol11te ownership" rules were
eliminated and a permit system was added to the doctrine of prior
appropriation used in many other states. In addition, reservations for.
common use by the people and for fish and wildlife were included.
Two salient parts of the Alaska Constitution contained the
following sections in Article VII:
Section 3. Common Use. Wherever occurring in their natural state,
fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common
use.
Section 13. Water Rights. All surface and subsurface waters
reserved to the people for common use, except mineral and medicinal
waters, are subject to appropriation. Priority of appropriation
shall give prior right. Except for public water supply, an appro-
priation of water shall be limited to stated purposes and subject
to preferences among beneficial uses, concurrent or otherwise, as
prescribed by law, and to the general reservation of fish and
wildlife.
The net effects of these constitutional prov~s~ons, along with the
Alaska Water Use Act of 1966 and regulations adopted pursuant thereto as
regards coal mining operations are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A permit must have been or be secured for water appropriation
(i.e., diversion, impounding, or withdrawal of a quantity of water
from a water source for a beneficial use).
Only after a permit is issued may a party begin whatever construc-
tion is needed to appropriate water.
Before any permit is granted a determination is made as to the
effect of the requested appropriation on fish, wildlife, recrea-
tion, water quality, and navigation. A permit may be denied if
effects are detrimental to these values.
In the case of fish and wildlife values the maintenance of minimum
stream flows is an important consideration in permit granting, and
the science/technology for making this judgment is a subject of
great current interest and concern in Alaska.
Land Surface
The physical effects of surface mining are most obvious on land. A
few of the more evident examples are barren areas caused by road con-
r
[
[
[
[
[
[
r
[
L
L
[
l
L
38
struction, claim location and development, active mining, overburden
removal and stockpiling, tailing ponds, waste disposal areas, open pits
and slides, etc.
Natural terrain is altered during exploration, survey and mine
location, mine operation, and processing. Access roads would be
required in the development of deposits associated with the Kukpowruk,
Beluga, and Nenana fields. Ports and terminal facilities would be
required at Kukpowruk and Beluga. Railroad spurs would probably be
utilized at Nenana. In transportation construction gravel would be
required, necessitating additional landform change at gravel borrow
areas.
These are obvious statements. Less obvious are a number of land-
form changes which would occur secondarily as a result of the alteration
of permafrost terrains. Several examples come to mind: stockpiled,
fine-grained, ice-rich overburden materials are liable to thaw into
muddy flows with often disastrous and uncontrollable results; thaw ponds
and watered ditches would also appear when tundra over ice-rich perma-
frost is disturbed; and slopes would fail, slide, fall, and be altered.
Finally. any restoration o~ land following the removal of the coal
and associated waste materials would depend on the character of materials
originally removed as overburden or interburden. If materials are ice
rich, as discussed in the previous paragraph, they are liable to be
unstable even on fairly gentle slopes. Over time, permafrost would
develop some natural stability (we've witnessed this on several arctic
sites), but real stability of landform would only come after vegetation
is restored as an insulator for the active (area that freezes in winter
and thaws in summer) upper few feet of material.
Air Quality
A last major environmental impact which can be expected to be
associated with surface coal mining is air quality degradation from
dust. In many ways, the dust problem is no different in Alaska than in
other coal-producing areas of the United States. There are two consider-
ation, however, which warrant special comment.
The first of these is that in all three coal field situations of
concern here lie in areas of low-level air inversion. The effect of
this generally winter-month phenomenon, which exhibits temperature
differences in the Interior up to 20°C in the lowest 600 feet (200 m)
and is one of the strongest found anywhere, is to trap dust as well as
hydrocarbon engine emissions at extremely cold temperatures below a
"roof" of warmer air. The dust and hydrocarbons serve as nucleids to
form "ice fog." In its more serious forms, ice fog is deleterious to
human health and offers hazards to industrial operations due to reduced
visibility and worker discomfort.
39
During the winter months dust from coal operations and from routine
travel on gravel roads would settle on the snow, often over many miles,
in accordance with prevailing winds. As spring approaches, with greater
solar radiation and warmer temperatures, dust-covered snow would melt
more rapidly than uncovered snow. The effect of this is to speed up
insect and other invertebrate life development. In some areas this
occurrence has a disruptive chain reaction effect on the food webs of
many higher forms of life.
Summary
Environmental effects of coal operations in Alaska are, in the
main, similar to those elsewhere in the United States and are generally
well known. The main set of differences in Alaska stems from differences
in physical conditions (i.e., permafrost, hydrologic cycles which exhibit
seasonal and volume extremes and which are imperfectly known, and cold
air temperature phenomena), all of which require special engineering and
operational techniques during mining and which can cause conditions
making reclamation activities virtually impossible on some sites.
Engineering and Reclamation Considerations
For purposes of discussion here, engineering and reclamation con-
siderations pertinent to both prevailing natural conditions and the
induced effects of coal operations associated with the Kukpowruk,
Nenana, and Beluga fields are divided into four parts--terrestrial,
hydrologic and atmospheric situations, and habitat restoration.
Terrestrial Situations
Discontinuous permafrost affects the m~n~ng at the Usibelli Mine
near Healy and could be expected in the Beluga field. At the Kukpowruk
field, operations would take place in an environment of continuous
permafrost. In whatever permafrost conditions encountered, the essence
of the degree of both engineering and reclamation problems would be
directly attributable to the volume and form of ice within the perma-
frost materials and the type of material with which the ice is assoc-
iated (i.e., grain size, particularly).
The removal of overburden would disturb the permafrost regime when
ambient temperatures reach high enough levels to induce melting. Where
the overburden is composed of fine-grained materials (e.g. silts and
clays) flowing muds would result. Handling such material is technologi-
cally possible, but it is difficult and expensive, possibly requiring
dragline or dredge type equipment. Moreover, storage of such material
requires diking. Conversely, the larger the particle size and the
poorer the ice content, the easier material is to handle and make
stable.
Removal of for frozen ground is technologically difficult. Special
equipment is often required for breaking up materials, and blasting
requires specific expertise to be effective. If thawing is used,
special problems are encountered, often making mud conditions worse when
materials are fine gravel and rich in ice content.
r
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
r
[
[
[
L
L
_j
40
The methods used in excavation of overburden and interburden
materials have a direct bearing on the success or failure, even the
possibility, of postdevelopment reclamation when fine-grained materials
are encountered. Excavation and future reclamation in coarse materials
are easier, but major reclamation problems are the presence of water-
filled pits (whether excavated in summer or winter, if open during the
summer months permitting permafrost thaw), the storage of muddy materials
under site conditions which often don't allow the percolation of water
and compaction of materials into stable forms, and the acceptability of
materials for revegetation.
As discussed earlier, the slopes of permafrost materials forming
the banks of walls around excavations offer their own special problems
of stability from thawing and pore water pressures making revegetation
impossible. This problem of slope stability, together with the lack of
sufficient and suitable materials for stable backfilling would, in areas
of ice-rich, small-grained permafrost, make it virtually impossible to
restore original land su.rface. Again, in order to give emphasis, the
handling of coarser-grained materials is quite possible, and the Usibelli
Mine experience gives examples of success on some sites. Beyond this,
it should be noted that in areas devoid of permafrost overburden, back-
fill would, in most Alaska coal mine situations, (due to removed material
expansion), approximate the fill needed to restore,natural terrain
contours. This latter situation should be the rule in the Beluga field,
although some areas of discontinuous and fine-grained permafrost are to
be expected.
In summary, the operational conduct.of terrain excavation and.
reclamation appear with some certainty to'be manageable in the Nenana
field (although some sites are at variance with present experience) and
also in the Beluga field, based primarily on a comparative geologic
analysis with other regions of coal production. However, it should be
pointed out that specific sites.can offer problems. In the case of the
Kukpowruk, terrain and reclamation control would be very difficult, if
not impossible.
Hydrologic Situations
Engineering and reclamation practices in the Kukpowruk, Beluga, and
Nenana fields would encounter an extreme variation in existing hydrologic
data interpretation and overall knowledge. As a result, the site-specific
design of diversions, ditches, and settling ponds is often fraught with
uncertainty. The best hydrologic data probably exist for the Nenana
a~ea, the worst for the Kukpowruk. The Beluga area, on the other hand,
has some guaged streams, and nearby southcentral Alaska community data
may be extrapolated for some useful, but perhaps questionable conclusions.
Difficulties arise, however, with geologic hazard-induced flooding from
volcanic activity and the occurrence of unpredictable storm situations
arising from North Pacific August storm tracks.
In the Kukpowruk area, precipitation data are very scant, with only
some relevant data at Point Lay and Point Hope. In addition, much of
this area is devoid of vegetation or sparsely covered with tundra. In
any event, runoff is scarcely retained, and velocities and volumes can
be quite high during storm occurrences.
41
The point of the foregoing is that design criteria for hydrologic
waste and sediment control facilities are minimal at best, and in order
to have safe and adequate settling ponds, etc., overdesign may have to
be the rule rather than the exception.
Atmospheric Situations
Coal mining constraints associated with low external ambient air
temperatures for surface works are essentially the same as those for any
other arctic operation. Previously, some ice fog factors have been
discussed. In addition, some other considerations pertinent to low
ambient air temperature follow. Vehicles utilized for hauling wet coal
require some means of preventing the coal from freezing to the truck
bed. Covering the bed with antifreeze has worked as has heating the bed
of the truck with vehicle exhaust.
In the Arctic, even in areas with low snowfall, coal storage areas
are bound to have snow. When the snow melts, the water collects at the
bottom of the pile and may refreeze. The upper portion of the pile
should be removed and the lower allowed to thaw in the summer, be re-
classified, and then shipped.
Appropriate measures for preventing permafrost degradation under
surface structures need to be taken, as well as measures for insuring
vehicle operation. The latter may include providing heated warm-up
sheds as well as low temperature lubrication. Soviet practice appears
to include the utilization of thermopane windows, insulation, and double
heaters in the vehicle cabs. Low winter temperatures increase the ,
failure rate of rippers manyfold in surface mines.
Due to the high moisture content of the coal, it tends to slack and
produce excessive dust upon drying. This dust generation occurs at
transfer points, especially in the tipple. During summer, water is used
to suppress dust, but so far it appears that no effective solution has
been found to suppress dust in winter. Rock dust ,is employed if welding
must be performed at the tipple in winter. No welding is performed in
the tipple unless absolutely necessary, and a 24-hour fire watch is
maintained after any welding. The combination of high moisture content
in the coal and extremely low humidity in winter produces a dust and
fire situation that ranks among the most serious of the cold weather
problems.
Frozen water and low air temperatures make wet coal washing impos-
stble. The Norwegian Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani A/S utilizes
an air washing plant at its mines in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. This plant
separates coal from rock with a rising air current; poorly sorted coal
is recycled. In addition, limited hand picking is utilized at the mine
opening and special magnetic devices are used to remove metal objects
from the coal entering the washing plant. A limited amount of coal is
washed by water during the summer months at the Usibelli Mine, at Healy,
Alaska. The Norwegian Kings Bay Kulkompani A/S built a water washing
plant for summer operation at their mine in Ny Aalesund, Svalbard.
However, the plant did not operate for long before a catastrophe closed
r
L
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
42
the mine. The literature on the Soviet Arctic does not indicate that
coal washing is practiced. There are references to coal benefication
installations in Vorkuta, but the sources provide few details.
Conceptually, a water washing plant for winter operation in the
Arctic is possible. The plant would need to be heated and the coal
dried after washing to prevent freezing in the coal storage piles. The
Norwegian Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani A/S may be planning such
an installation at its proposed coal mine in Svea, Svalbard. However,
no detailed studies of either a technical or economic nature appear
available. The tradeoff between the cost of winter coal washing and
transportation without washing appears to favor the latter as far as the
Soviets are concerned and the former as far as the Norwegians are
concerned.
Constraints Related to Remoteness
Small-scale Local Mining
Low temperatures and remoteness are often cited as the major con-
straints on any type of operation in the North. While low temperatures
can be measured, remoteness exists basically in terms of transportat~on
costs and locally available resources and labor. These in turn are in
large part a reflection of the objectives of the enterprise and the
technology employed. A coal mine in the Arctic employing solely locally
available resources including labor, and supplying a local market is
not, therefore, remote. A mine which relies on external resources and
ships to a distant market is, on the other hand, remote.
Revegetation
Prerequisites of revegetation in Alaska as elsewhere are first the
stabilization of land form and second the ability of instituting and
maintaining a self-regenerative vegetative cover type. In the Nenana
field Usibelli practices have demonstrated feasibility on site conditions
find at Healy. Stability appears generally practical at Beluga, also,
and the plant species required are also generally available and suited
to site and climatic conditions.
With proper reclamation after surface mining, fish and wildlife
habitats can be enhanced. Pure vegetation stands are broken during the
mining of coal, lignite, and other commodities. Edges and voids are
created where monotypes previously existed. With aggressive reclamation,
preferred food and cover plants can become established in these openings
to benefit a wide variety of wildlife. A mixed grass and shrub cover
type can support many more species of animals and larger populations
than a dense forest. Many factors would affect the degree of revege-
tation success achieved. Recovery would ultimately depend on whether
enough arable soils remain.
The Arctic has special revegetation problems. Domesticated species
are not well adapted to rigorous arctic conditions, and their success is
generally marginal at best. Native plants are slow growing and slow to
43
become established. Many of the revegetation tests in the Arctic have
utilized seed from subarctic plants. Seed from plants of arctic origin
likely would be required for the arctic plantings of perennials. In
developing a program to employ native plants for revegetation, the seed
producing and harvesting characteristics of the plants also must be
considered. Some that are aggressive colonizers are not good seed
producers or are difficult to manage for the obtaining of seed. It
requires a number of years to develop a supply of seed from the original
collections (Mitchell 1969).
The selection of grasses with revegetation potential is much
narrower than it is in the boreal region. Furthermore, the significance
of varietal differences within a species is more acute. Early germina-
tion is particularly advantageous. However, a problem inherent in the
precipitation and temperature patterns of the Arctic involves obtaining
suitable moisture conditions along with favorable temperatures. The
characteristic low rainfall pattern in the Arctic may lead to dryness,
thus delaying germination when temperatures are favorable. This is
particularly true where a site is inherently dry or where a disturbance
has resulted in a deep thaw and enhanced drainage. Further, a cooler
than normal season may inhibit germination.
Despite what appear to be severe limitations and difficult con-
ditions, growth of certain species placed in trial at Prudhoe Bay has
occurred, and, so far, some have survived one or two winters. Un-
doubtedly, 24 hours of daylight during the heart of the growing season
helps to compensate for the short growing period. First-year growth in
the Arctic may be severely restricted, with two years required to ·
develop a stand (Cooperative Extension Service 1973).
Relief and microclimate have a significant effect on vegetation in
the Arctic. Lower areas provide shelter from desiccating winds, but
poor drainage can make them too wet. High spots are very dry. To
revegetate disturbed sites spread or place freshly cut native cotton
grass, sedges, or other native tundra sod vegetation on disturbed soil.
Pack well and fertilize as indicated by soil tests.
Native grasses can be used in the Arctic; however, only limited
quantities of seed for a few species are available. Arctogrostis and
Calamagrostis species, Nugget, Kentucky bluegrass, and Arctared fescue
are grasses most likely to provide initial ground cover. Fertilizer
rates should be determined for individual sites by soil tests (Coopera-
tive Extension Service 1979).
Revegetation in interior and southcentral Alaska is similar.
Preliminary Results and Deductions
Wild and Naturalized Species
Among the most ubiquitous and successful invaders are species
associated with nitrogen fixation. Goodman and Bray (1) note similar
findings for derelict sites throughout the world.
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
L
l
j
l
_;
44
The main woody plants to invade disturbed sites are black spruce,
white spruce, paper birch, balsam cottonwood, quaking aspen, green
alder, and several willows. These species invade rapidly and grow
vigorously in many sites with much fine materials in the substrate;
however, they grow slowly in the most droughty sites or those with
little topsoiL Alder, which nodulates well even in extreme sites, is
the most rapid and vigorous invader, but it seems limited in that it
needs a good seed source near, preferably uphill from a particular bare
site. Birch establishes in some extreme sites and can persist as a very
small plant for a long time, conferring the advantage of rapid growth
under ameliorated conditions but contributing little to revegetation
during the stunted phase. Black spruce seeded successfully into all
site types on all firelines except those which were extremely wet or
dry.
Among herbaceous plants, particularly able invaders are members of
the legume family, including the naturalized species noted earlier. On
river floodplains, the "peavine" (Hedysarum alpinum, H. hedysaroides,
and hybrids) and the milkvetches (Astragalus spp. and Oxytropis spp.)
are common, and several species of these form dense stands along older
highway edges in interior Alaska. Presence of these species along a
given road section may be related to nearness of river plains and/ or a
source of road surface gravels.
Tall and dwarf fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium and !·
glandulosum) have some means for enhancing nitrogen supplies and
excellent seed dispersal mechanisms and ~ght be expected to be highly
successful invaders of bare sites. Dwarf fireweed, vigorous on river
floodplains, was found only rarely in upland denuded sites. Tall
fireweed forms dense stands in old fields and similar sites but is slow
to establish from seed and grow in the extreme sites. Fireline individ-
uals spread from the line sides by rhizomes were vigorous and flowering
five years after a fire, while seedling-derived plants were small and
vegetative. Horsetail {Equisetum spp.) and bluejoint grass Calamagrostis
canadensis) show similar behavior. The small redtop (Agrostis scabra)
rapidly becomes very dense in some sites but maintains itself only if
competition from other species is low.
Alsike (white dutch clover), red fescue, hard fescue, and annual
ryegrass are preferred domestic grass species in southcentral Alaska.
In interior Alaska, red fescue, Alsike or white Dutch clover, hard
fescue, and smooth brome are preferred. Creeping foxtail is preferred
in both areas for soils with moderate limitations due to excess moisture.
Wet, peaty areas should be revegetated with seed cutting of sedges or
other native peat-tundra vegetation (Cooperative Extension Service
1977).
A number of practices are known for the culture and management of
vegetation. Comments on this subject follow.
45
Soil
The upper 12 inches (30 em) of the soil should consist of loamy
material that is able to hold at least 1 inch (2.5 em) of water. The
soil must be porous enough to allow root penetration and friable enough
to be tillable for good seedbed preparation.
On construction sites such as highways, airports, and subdivisions
the topsoil has often been removed. If a good turf is desired, it may
be necessary to replace the soil material. Where soil has been entirely
removed, at least 4 inches (10 em) of loamy material should be added
before seeding (Cooperative Extension Service 1979).
Woody Plants
The upper 8 inches (20 em) of the soil should consist of a loamy
material and be able to hold at least 1 inch (2.5 em) of water to permit
the establishment of a woody plant. With large shrubs and trees it is
necessary to have a minimum of 12 inches (30 em) of soil or to provide
planting pockets for the plants. These pockets should generally be 3 to
4 feet {about 1 m) in diameter and contain 18 to 24 inches (45 to 60 em)
of soil. The soil must be porous enough to allow root penetration, and
in most instances fine, smooth-grading hinders plant establishment,
particularly when planting by the seeding methods. Soil pH is an impor-
tant factor to many woody plants, especially for some of our native
species. Plants which are well adapted to acid soil conditions normally
fall in calcareous soils.
Fertilization and Liming
Fertilization is important to assure good growth of grasses and
herbaceous plants in Alaska. On some construction sites it is imper-
ative for establishment and survival of a planting. In revegetation
situations where exotic grasses are used for temporary cover until
native plants are able to reestablish, the use of fertilizers should be
reduced over the second and third years until none is used the fourth
year and beyond. This would allow the native species to gradually take
over from the exotics since the exotics require artifically high fer-
tility to compete, whereas the native species are adapted to Alaska soil
fertility levels (Cooperative Extension Service 1979).
Revegetation would be facilitated if, when working the soil, the
top foot or two of material is guarded and replaced at the surface.
Providing a mixture of organic and mineral matter for a seedbed would
improve the prospects for successful reseeding. Furthermore, any propa-
gates of native materials present in this layer could establish and
further the process of revegetation (Mitchell 1969).
Natural reclamation of large excavations, such as gravel pits, is a
very long-term process. The site is infertile and superficially dry.
The process could be hastened by plugging in young plants of green
alder. Alder is an important nitrogen fixer and often is the most
abundant plant on relatively sterile, gravelly sites (Mitchell 1969).
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[.
[
[
[
[
L
L
j
-,·
46
Habitat reclamation for fish would be prfmarily concerned with
improving water quality and spawning areas. The fmprovement of water
quality would in most cases involve fmpoundment of water to permit
pooling and settling of pollutants. The fmportance of pooling pol-
lutants such as acid, silt, and sediment is obvious.
In the case of acid mine drainage, reclamation should be directed
at preventing the formation of acid. This could be achieved through
burial of toxic materials, improved drainage, impounding water, and
inundating acidic materials and neutralization in certain areas.
Methods would vary with terrain, toxicity, and volume of water.
The prevention of additional silt and sedfment damage to streams
from mines would require watershed stabilization programs. Some grading
and improved drainage would be needed along with establishment of perma-
nent plant cover. Mixed grasses and shrubs that would provide quick
dense cover would be best. Presently, suitable plant species are avail-
able in Alaska, although native species are generally not available in
quantity. Where practical, plants that would enhance food and cover for
wildlife should be considered first.
Improving stream channels already choked with silt and sediment
would prove costly and impractical in remote areas of Alaska. In
high-gradient streams the pollutants would move downstream through
normal processes. The movement of silt and sediment from slower reaches
of streams could be accelerated and directed through the use of instream
devices, sediment-collecting basins, and.dredging. Shifting streambed
loads can be stabilized and further downs~ream damage alleviated in this
fashion. Intentional modification of streambeds to accomplish this
would require careful coordination between fisheries biologists, hydrol-
ogists, and engineers.
Faunal Re·colonization of Reclaimed Levels
Faunal recolonization of strip-mined areas would occur following
rehabilitation and stabilization of the area. Colonization rates would
ultimately depend on the species involved and their respective popula-
tion levels adjacent to the area. ·since the reclafmed substrates would
differ somewhat in composition from the original, these substrates
should act as new islands to be colonized. Predictably, patterns of
recolonization would parallel equilibrium postulates first proposed by
MacArthur and Wilson (1967).
Patterns of recolonization by herbivores are more complex than
those of carnivorous species. Profound species-specific differences in
mobility and range utilization exist among herbivores. This special-
ization within and between types has lead in part to their preponderance
in numbers and kinds. The following discussion illustrates some of the
divergent patterns of recolonization anticipated in reclaimed areas.
Gore (1979) examined the patterns of recolonization of benthic
macroinvertebrates in a reclaimed coal strip-mined river channel. Col-
onization occurred primarily through downstream drift of aquatic insects
47
and algal mats. The author concluded that the agents responsible for
observed patterns of recolonization were differential drift rates and
distances travelled for both aquatic invertebrates and detrital material.
Attainment of maximum diversity lagged behind density by about one
month. Gore (1979) notes, "This period represented a time of dynamic
adjustment within the community to match the undisturbed source area
communities."
Terrestrial herbivores are generally more mobile and occupy a more
heterogeneous environment than aquatic organisms. Patterns of coloniza-
tion are also more complex and reflect each species' life-style. Some
species would exploit new habitats faster than others.
North American mountain sheep (Ovis spp.) are at the extreme end of
the spectrum. These animals are slow to colonize unoccupied habitats.
Colonization of new range occurs in the following manner (vide Geist
1970). Prior to lambing, sheep segregate by sex and age into like
bands. Males two years old and older form one type of aggregation and
females and young the second type. Sheep ranges are typically composed
of isolated, discontinuous pockets of seasonal habitat scattered through-
out the mountains. Interaction between bands commonly occurs as sheep
from one band travel through pockets of habitat occupied by others in
transit to their own preferred grazing areas.
The precocious young frequently follow strange individuals from
trespassing bands to their destination. Once there, the young "imprint"
on the area and it, like their birth a~eas, becomes part of their seasonal
home range when adults. In the process of travelling to this "new"
habitat, the band may have travelled through one or more prime sections
of habitat.
If these pockets of habitat were unoccupied at the time, however,
they would not be recognized. An essential component of sheep range is
the presence of other sheep. Adjacent prime, but unoccupied range is
unrecognizable to sheep as ·habitat. Recolonization by sheep has to
await the chance utilization of the reclaimed area by a band with atten-
dant young.
Fortunately, most terrestrial herbivores are not so rigidly attuned
to their environment. For example, caribou typically exploit new range
opportunistically. Caribou herds are in dynamic flux with their envir-
onment. Spontaneous fragmentation and dispersion of large herds into
new habitats apparently is the rule. Patterns of dispersion among other
terrestrial herbivores vary between the two extremes discussed.
Generally, however, recolonization by terrestrial herbivores would pro-
gress as soon as an adequate food supply is established.
Recolonization by carnivorous fauna is easier to describe. Carni-
vorous organisms have evolved in close association with their respective
prey animals. Changes in prey distribution and abundance are quickly
mirrored by their predators. For example, Gore (1979) described limited
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
r·
[
L
L
[
L
t
I
-·
··-'
48
upstream colonization of new habitat by predaceous dragonflies.
Similarly, Allen (1979) reviewed the history of natural reintroduction
of wolves ontp Isle Royale, Michigan following an absence of many years.
Summary
The control of adverse environmental effects due to surface coal
mining operations in the Kukpowruk, Beluga, and Nenana fields would not
be easy and may adversely affect cost/benefit ratios. The technological
and environmental knowledge for such control, however, does for the most
part exist and could be applied to the Nenana and Beluga fields. The
operation of coal mining in the Kukpowruk field under existing knowledge
and legal restraints, however, is much more difficult and may well be
impossible unless mining objectives are made paramount to current
environmental goals formed under existing law. The only other alterna-
tive is to encourage active development research directly applicable to
coal mining under arctic conditions.
/\
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Rural Development Council. 1977. A revegetative guide for Alaska.
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska and U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture. 74 pp.
Alaska, University, Cooperative Extension Service. 1973. Alaska revege-
tation workshop notes. RP-239. 68 pp.
Allen, D.L. 1979. Wolves of Minong--their vital role in a wild com-
munity. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 499 pp.
Andrews, M. 1977. Selected bibliography of disturbance and restoration
of soils and vegetation in permafrost regions of the U.S.S.R.,
(1970-1976). Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Hanover, NH. 116 pp.
Boccarly, J.A., and W.M. Spaulding, Jr. 1968. Effects of surface m1n1ng
on fish and wildlife in Appalachia. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries 0~ and Wildlife, Washington, DC. Resource Publications No. 65. 20 pp.
Brown, J., W. Rickard, and D. Victor. 1969. The effect of disturbance on
permafrost terrain. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hanover, NH. Special Report 138. 13
pp.
Brown, R.J.E., chairman. 1978. 3rd International Conferen~e on Perma-
frost, Edmonton, Alberta. Proceedings. National Research Council. of
Canada. 94 7 pp.
Callahan, J.E., et al. 1969. Geology of T 15, R 44 W, unsurveyed, Umiat
principal meridian, in the Kukpowruk coal field, Alaska. U.S.
Geological Survey. Open-file report 378.
Carlson, R.F., and W.R. Morgenstern, eds. 1978. Report of the Joint
U.S.-Canadian Northern Civil Engineering Research Workshop. Boreal
Institute for Northern Studies. Miscellaneous publication. Institute
of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Report 96.
72 pp.
Clark, P.R. 1973. Transportation economics of coal resources of northern
slope coal fields, Alaska. Mineral Industry Research Laboratory,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Engineering Computer Optecnomics, Inc. 1977. An assessment of marine
transportation costs related to potential port sites in Alaska.
Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska.
Englemen, P., and B. Tuck. 1978. Transportation and development of
Alaska natural resources. Federal-State Land Use Planning Com-
mission for Alaska, Anchorage, AK.
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[.
[
[
[
L
L
L
L
'·
1
1
Gabrielson, I.N., and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The birds of Alaska. Stackpole
Co., Harrisburg, PA. 922 pp.
Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep, a study in behavior and evolution.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Wildlife Behavior and
Ecology Series. 383 pp.
Glenn-Lewin, D., G. Fay, and S.D. Cecil. 1976. Bibliography of strip
mine ecology. Energy and Mineral Resources Research Institute. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, IA. IS-ICP-20. 47 pp.
Gore, J.A. 1979. Patterns of initial benthic recolonization of a re-
claimed coal strip-mined river channel. Canadian Journal of Zool-
ogy. 57 (12): 2429-2439.
Hennigan, B.D. 1978. Cook Inlet coal: economics of mining and marine
slurry transport. Appendix to: Feasibility study of mining Alaska
coal and transportation by slurry to the west coast. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. Report for U.S. Bureau of Mines. Open file
report No. 17(2)-78. 79 pp.
Kessel, B., and D.D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska
birds. Cooper Ornithological Society. Studies in Avian Biology No.
1. 100 pp.
c-~ -Kinney, E.C. 1964. Extent of acid mine pollution in the U.S. affecting
' 1
0 'f' fish and wildlife. U.S. Bureau of Spbrt Fisheries and Wildlif~, .
Washington, DC. Circular No. 191. 27 pp.
, Lynch, D. et al. 1976. Constraints on the development of coal mining in
rf-0.-t.l' ~+-', arctic Alaska based on review of Eurasian arctic practices. Mineral
Industry Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
219 pp.
MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island bio-
Wv-vb• t~ J--geography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
'7
(
Mitchell, W.W. 1969a. Preliminary report on botanical and ecological
survey conducted June 16 to August 11, 1969, over portions of
proposed Tr,ans-Alaska Pip_gling_r.oute-n()l;.t.h-of Fairbanks. Unpub-
lished. 14 pp.
~~v V~~-----· 1969b. Report on 1969 experimental planting at Mobil Oil drilling
cJ r-:' site in Prudhoe Bay area. Unpublished. 5 pp.
Mitchell, W.W., and T.E. Laynachan. 1977. Revegetation research at
~~v ~a Prudhoe Bay and Kavik, Alaska. Agricultural Experiment Station,
ifLq r University of Alaska, Palmer, AK. 1976 Progress Report to Alaskan
0 Arctic Gas Study Company. 38 pp.
--. ..-Murray, D. F. 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of Alaska. u.S.
~~ t:
1
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 59 pp • . , -r:7
rttv'~""
--'·
Neiland, B.J. 1978. Rehabilitation of bare sites in interior Alaska.
-f&v'{'\)~ Agroborealis. 10(1):21-25.
Pewe, T.L., and J.R. Mackay, chairmen. 1973. Permafrost. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Permafrost Conference, Yakutsk, U.S.S.R.
North American Contribution. National Academy of Sciences. 783 pp.
Rao, P.D., and E.N. Wolff, eds. 1975. Focus on Alaska's Coal, 1975.
Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. Mineral Industries Research Laboratory, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Report No. 37. 281 pp.
Reid, D.E., ed. 1977. Vegetation survey and disturbance studies along
~~~ the proposed Arctic Gas Route. Canadian Arctic Gas Study, Ltd./
~evV 0~ Alaskan Arctic Gas Study Co. Biological Report Series. Vol 37. 1
vol.
Sanford, R.S., and H.C. Pierce. 1946. Explorations of coal deposits of
the Point Barrow and Wainwright areas, northern Alaska. U.S. Bureau
of Mines. Report of Investigations 3934. 17 pp.
Skoog, R.O. 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in
Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California; Berkeley, CA. 699
pp.
Spaulding, W.M., Jr., and R.D. Ogden. 1968. Effects of surface m~n~ng on
; the fish and wildlife resources of the United States. U.S. Bureau ~· of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, DC. Resource Publica-
tions No. 68. 51 pp.
Stanford Research Institute. 1976. Clean energy from Alaskan coals.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, DC.
Tompkins Campbell, D. 1973. Strip mining for coal. Institute of Govern-
ment Studies. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Public Policy
Bibliographies: 4.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1979. Federal coal management program,
final environmental statement. Washington, DC. 1 vol.
Soil Conservation Service. No date. Grasses for Alaska. Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 38 pp.
• 1972. A vegetative guide for Alaska. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
-----Portland, OR. 50 pp.
Warfield, R.S. 1969. Sampling and coking studies of several coal beds in
the Kokolik River, Kukpowruk River, and Cape Beaufort areas of
arctic northwestern Alaska. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Report qf In-
vestigations 7321. 58 pp.
L
["
[
r·
[
L
[
[
L
L
[
L
L
L
[
[
L
Warner, M.L. 1974. An assessment methodology for the environmenta~
impact of water resource projects. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-60015-74-016.
Williams, J.R. 1965. Ground water in permafrost regions--an annotated
bibliography. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply ~aper 1792. 283
pp •
• 1973. Permafrost bibliography (Russian papers). Unpublished.
-----Microfiche of index cards.
APPENDIX C
Competitive Coal Sources
Although there will be a substantial demand for coal in the market areas
described in Part A, Alaska coal will have to compete with coal from other
nations as well as from other areas of the U.S. for a share of those markets.
The purpose of this section, therefore, is to examine the resources and
development potential in those areas considered to be competitive with Alaska
coal for this market. This section, then, will focus only on the following
areas: Australia; South Africa; Canada; China and the Conterminous U.S. Much
of the information presented here was found in a report prepared for DOE by
ICF Incorporated.12 For additional details, the reader is referred to the
ICF Report.
World prospects for coal production have improved considerably in the last few ·
years. In .the 25-year period prior to the 1973/74 OPEC oil price increase,
there was a world-wide trend of oil replacing coal in many uses, i.e. rail
transport, power generation, process steam production, residential heating,
etc. Coal's contribution to meeting the world's primary energy requirements
fell from 49% in 1960 to 29% in 1973. Increases in the price of primary
energy since 1973/74 have stimulated serious consideration of methods to
increase the use of coal.
The information to provide an overall view of world coal trade is presented
in Table C-1. It should be noted that this table includes both metallurgical
and steam coal trade.
AUSTRALIA
Since 1966, Australia's bituminous coal production has more than doubled. The
amount of coal exported increased six-fold from 1966 to 1976. Large increases
in both production and exports are expected through 1990 and beyond.l2
Australia appears to have the reserve base necessary to support these
expansionary projections.
a. Reserves
As demonstrated in Table C-2, total Australian resources are
estimated at 353.6 billion short tons. Out of that total over 26%
are first category (measured/indicated) and over 73% are second
category (inferred). Table C-2 also shows that approximately 73% of
all Australian coal resources are bituminous or subbituminous and
about 27% are lignite.
b. Mining Methods
Both surface and underground m1n1ng methods are used in
Australia. As shown in Table C-3, in 1976, approximately 65% of
C-1
TABLE C-1
COAL SUPPLY, DEMAND, TRADE
1978 ,
(Millions or a-hort tons)
Country/
Recion Production Consumption Imports Exports
Canada 34 35 15 14
u.s. 654 618 3 40
Australia 124 86 39
Japan 21 78 57
* OECO-Europe 453 526 74
OECO-Total 1286 1343 149 93
(E) •
Po1a:'l.d 257 212 42
, (E)
USSR 800 775 15 29
(E) (E)
South Africa 96 80 16
E • Estimate
SOURCE: Reference 3~ Bibliography
*OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
C-2
[
[
r
[
[
L
[
E
[
[
[
[
L
L
L
l
'
TABLE C-2
AtE'rRALIAN CQ\L U:SOOR Cl!S
") (millions cf •hort ~ns)
Pirat Category 8econc5 Category
lmeasure~~inc5icate~l llnferre~l
l ltecove r able
_) Resoorces Reserves 8aleable Resources IJ'otal
"1 liew South Wales
Bit sni n::>us 17,471 9,714 8,086 93,939 111,410
-· &Jbbi t umi n::>US 336 243 243 11£458 11 t 794
Total 17,807 9,957 8, 329 105,397 123,204
j
Queenslan~
B i t\11\i n::>us 18,588 10,841 a, 738 110,230+ 129, 162+
l &Jbbit umi II) US 344 204 204
Total 18,932 11,045 8,942 110,230+ 129, 162+
~
TaS'II ani a
l BitllllirDUS 132 66 55 132+
J Western Australia
l Subbi tlJIIii'DUS 2,149 430 430 0 2,149
South Australia
Subbi tmi ncus 794 716 716 2,535 3, 329
--,
; Victoria
_1 BitlmliJI)US 0 D 0 10 10
' Lignite 53,793 11,199 NA 41,778 95,570
_; Australia
81 t&ni n::>us 36,191 20,621 16,178 218,172+ 257,986+ lllbbi t &IIi nous 3,623 1,593 1,593
Lignite 53£793 11,199 WA 41,778 95£570
Total 93,607 33,413 RA 259, 950+ 353, 556+
J
-,
~
--,
_j
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
_)
C-3
Australia's total production was extracted from surface mines.
The majority of non-lignite surface production is located in
Queensland.
c. Distribution and Coal Quality
Australia is divided into six States (Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western
Australia) and one territory (Northern Territory). All six
States have coal reserves; however, the reserves in Queensland,
New South Wales and Victoria account for over 98% of the total
resources.
The following information on coal quality is provided solelyy to
give the reader a general idea on the quality of coal in the two
major coal bearing States. These analyses represent only a
limited number of samples, and results should not be interpreted
as definitive for all coal in the particular State. Data are
presented only for the two States where development looks
promising, i.e. New South Wales and Queensland.
New South Wales
The most important New South Wales coal deposit is in the Sydney
Basin. The first coal mining developments occured in this
region. Coal from this basin typically has the following
characteristics:l2
Heat Content
Ash Content
Volatile Matter
Sulfur
Queensland
Sydney Basin
10,500 -12,000 BTU/LB
12-20%
25-28%
0.4-0.7%
Most of the coal-bearing areas in Queensland lie in the eastern
and particularly in the southeastern part of the State.
Resources are mainly located within three Basins: Bowen Basin,
Clarence-Moreton Basin, and the Galilee Basin. Typical analyses
of steam coals from each of these basins are shown below.
Heat Content
Ash Content
Volatile Matter
Sulfur Content
Bowen Basin
12,000-13,000 BTU/lb.
10-20%
26-29%
0.3-0.8%
C-4
[
[
[
[
[
[_
[
[
[
[
[
[
[,
[
l .
-'
L
-'
-'
l
-'
TABLE C-3
CURREN'!' AJl;TRALIAH CC».L PRODUCTION BY MINING METHOD
1975-1976 PCR SALEABLE COAL
Production ~000 ahort tons) Percent of Total Production
Underground Surface Underground Surface !£!b._ ..
New South Wales 34,474.4 9,088.5 31.1\ 8.2\ 39.3\
QUP.ensla.'1c1 3, 660.7 241636.4 3.3 22.2 25.5
Western Australia 594.1 2, 024.9 o.s 1.8 2.3
South Australia 2,144.0 1. 9 1.9
Victoria 34,164.7 30.8 30.8
Tasma.>1 i a 178.6 0.2 0.2
Total 3 8, 907.8 72,058.5 35. u 64." 100. 0\
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
c-s
d.
Clarence-Moreton Basin
Heat Content
Ash Content
Volatile Matter
Sulfur Content
Heat Content
Ash Content
Volatile Matter
Sulfur Content
Production Costs
10,000-11,500 BTU/lb.
17-28%
28-38%
0.4-0.7%
Galilee Basin
7,500 BTU/lb.
19-20%
37-38%
0.6%
Actual production cost data are difficult to obtain from coal
mining operation in Australia. Information available for New
South Wales indicates that total operating costs for the years
1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 were $248 million, $281 million
and $389 million respectively.12 Production for these years
was 42.0, 40.4 and 46.6 million short tons. Average production
costs for these years, in current U.S. dollars per short ton,
are $5.91, $6.96 and $8.39 respectively.
Total cost of production (capital costs and operating costs) for
New South Wales was calculated at $8.52 (1972-73); $10.04
(1973-74) and $12.03 (1974-75) per ton. Average nine mouth
prices in New South Wales were recorded as $12.41 in 1974;
$18.33 in 1975 and $19.17 in 1976.9 These data are presented
in Table C-4.
TABLE C-4
Coal Production/Costs/Prices
New South Wales
Production (106 tons)
Operating Cost (million $)
Avg. Operating Cost ($/ton)
Total Production Cost*($/ton)
Selling Price
1973.-73
$ 42.0
248.0
5.91
8.52
12.41
1974-75
$ 40.4
281.1
6.96
10.04
18.33
1975-76
$46.6
389.1
8.39
12.03
19.17
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
*See reference 12, pg. 2-24 for assumptions used
The cost figures in Table C-4 and costs are probably near the
average for the country since New South Wales, is the largest
producing State.
C-6
r·
L
[
L.
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
L
L
[
l
L
.,
e. Future Coal Production
f.
Table C-5 summarizes Australia's projected coal production for
the years, 1980, 1985 and 1990. As indicated in the Table,
steam coal production is expected to increase from 8.2 million
tons in 1980 to 33.7 by 1990. All of the steam and coking coal
is expected to be produced from New South Wales or Queensland.
Several new mines are currently under construction and others
are in the planning stage. Many of these mines are partially
owned by foreign interests and their total production is
destined for the export market.l2
There appear to be no basic constraints to the expected growth
of the Australian coal industry. Although, in recent years,
inadequate port facilities in New South Wales have hindered
exports, an upgrading of the Port of New Castle and large new
loading facilities in the Sydney Basin have eased this problem.
A large new port has also been constructed at Hay Point in
Queensland to handle the mineral exports from Northern Austr~lia.
Future Exports
A large part of Australia's future coal production is being
developed for foreign export. Table C-6 shows maximum projected
Australian coal exports for 1980, 1985 and 1990. Although there
appears to be a discrepancy in the numbers between Tables C-4
and C-5, in reality there is not. Table C-6 merely shows the
future production under current plans, while Table C-6 projects
export tonnages based on a higher level of production that could
occur under certain conditions.1 2
It is clear from Table C-6 that a large part of the Australia
export market is for coking or metallurgical coal. However,
steam coal exports are expected to increase from the 1975-76
level of 3.3 million short tons to 30 million short tons by 1990.
The export numbers given above agree closely with those found in
a·recent draft DOE study.37 According to that study,
Australia will export in 1990 25 million tons to both Japan and
Western Europe. Table C-7 summarizes Australia's steam coal
export projections from the cited DOE analysis.
C-7
South Wales
:eam
)king
Total
ens land
team
oking
Total
tori a
.ignite
1tra lia
Iteam
:oking
.ignite
Total
Source:
••• •• ' .. # • •• --..... -... ... ___ ... ___ • _ _.._. ---·-"---~.---....,.. ..... __ ~---... , .... _ ..... _ .,.,_,.., ___ ...__. ... _ __.
-.... ···---....... ·------~ ..-... ... ~---.Jo-•,.-_
TABLE c-s
MAXIMU!'1 INCREASES IN AUSTRALIAN COAL PRODUCTION BASED
ON CURRENT PLANS (CUMULATIVE)
(•illions of 1hort tons)
1980 .• 1985 1990
Surface Deep Total Surface Deep Total Surface Deep Total ----
6.'j 6.6 13.9 1.5 15.4 16.1 1.5 17.6
7.3 3.9 11.2 17.3 9.6 26.9 17.3 12.9 30.2
13.9 3.9 1'7':8 3f:2 T'i7I 42:3 33.4 1'4.4 ~
1.6 1.6 10.1 10.1 16.1 16.1
18.0 18.0 23.7 23.7 26.0 26.0
19.6-0 T9':6 33.8 -a 33.8 42.1 0 42.1
14.0 14.0 20.0 20.0 25 .o 25.C
8.2 8.2 24.0 1.5 25.5 32.2 1.5 33.7
25.3 3.9 29.2 41.0 9.6 50.6 43.3 12.9 56.~
14.0 14.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 25.(
47.5 3.9 51.4 85.0 Ti:T 96:1 100.5 "i'4.4 114.5
Reference 12 Bibliography
C-8
r
L
[
r L
[
[
[
[
[
[
I'
L
[
r~
L
L
L
L
L
TABLE C-6
1980
Metallurgical 23.9 38.4 62.3
Steare _!:.! ..!.:.Q 7.0
'l'otal 29.9 39.4 69.3
1985
Metallurgical 37.4 43.6 81.0
Steam 10.4 8.1 18.5
'l'otal 'i7.'i 51.7 '99.5
1990-_
Metallu-rgical 52.0 48.7 100.7 . . Ste!D'!l 1!2. lld ~
'l'otal 66.7 64.0 130.7
l
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
...J
C-9
Table C-7
STEAM COAL TRADE -EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA
(Millons of Short Tons)
Year W.EuroEe JaEan Total
1977 (actual) 2 1 3
1985 9 3 12
1990 20 5 25
1995 20 10 30
2000 35 15 50
Source: Reference 37, pg. 14 Bibliography
It appears that Australia will be a strong competitor for a
share .of world coal demand.
g. Coal Prices
h.
As shown in Table C-8, Australia surface-mined steam coal can be
delivered in Japan for an average price of $32 (1979 $) per ton
or $1.33/per million BTU. This can be compared with the $2 per
million BTU for Western u.s. surface mined coal delivered to
Japan and around $2.30 for Beluga, Alaska coal (see Chapter
IV). The higher price of U.S. coal reflects, in part, the high
cost of overland transportation from mine to port.
Conclusions
Australia has a stable, mature coal industry and both the State
and Federal governments encourage further development. Although
government regulation is kept to a minimum, neither does the
government provide subsidies for the coal industry.l2 The
coal industry or mining companies are responsible for providing
the industrial and community infrastructure necessary for the
development of energy projects.
It is apparent that Australia has both the resource and the
infrastructure required to expand coal exports in the future.
Australia's primary emphasis will be on the export of
metallurgical coal to Japan.12 Therefore, the future Japanese
demand will, to a large degree, be the impetus that will spur
coal export development.
The most likely apeas for future coal development in the western
conterminous U. s. are the States of Wyoming, Montana, North
Dakota and Utah. The DOE estimates that the 1990 production
capacity (short tons/year) ill these States will be 300.3, 95.9,
58.7 and 43.3, respectively. 1
C-10
r lc _
r
r
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
[
L
l
L
i
1
J
TABLE C-8
World Steam Coal Prices
For Deliveries to Japan
($1980 per ton)
Delivered
Price
From Range Average
u.s.
West-Surface 34 -56 45
Canada
West-Surface 39 -50 45
Australia
Underground 31 -39 39
Surface 29 -39 35
South Africa
Underground 29 -37 33
$Million
BTU
2.25
2.23
1.49
1.44
1.51
Source: Reference 37 Bibliography (data in Table 4, were
escalated from 1979$ to 1980 11 using appropriate price indices
as published by each country).
In summary, Australia will probably be one of the strongest
competitors for a share of the foreign coal demand market.
CANADA
Canada is rapidly becoming one of the largest coal producing and
exporting countries. As shown in Table C-1, Canada exported 14
million short tons in 1978. The potential for developing
Canada's coal industry is tied closely to the export market, as
well as to the development of coal-fired powerplants at home.
a. Reserves and Distribution
Canada's coal reserves have not been thoroughly assessed,
although the country has embarked on a National Coal
Inventory that will provide more complete data. Coal
reserves as currently known are shown in Table C-9. This
Table indicates that Canada has a total of 63.2 billion
short tons of measured and indicated coal reserves with a
large part (over 38 billion tons) being low/medium
volatility bituminous.
Most of Canada's coal reserves (over 97%) are located in
the three western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta
and Saskatchewan. This section will address only the coals
in British Columbia and Alberta since the reserves in
Saskatchewan are lignite and are not likely to be a viable
export product.
C-11
Alberta
·-• -··-----'~"-.~ .r•"• .. • •" --·--··
TABLE C-9
MEAS'IJRED AND DDICA'l'm tn\L Rl!SOtlRCES CF D.NAM
BY aA!O: OF CDAL
(in aillions af abort tons)
Bituminous
Low/Medium Bigh
Volatility Volatility &lbb i tumi nou s Lignite
20,602 6,279 7, 419
British Columbia 17,718 146 640
Saskatchewan 9,098
Ontario 240
New Brunswick 53
llova Scotia +* 1,039* -'l'otal Canada 38,320 7,517 7 9 9,978
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
C-12
'l'otal
34,300
18,504
9,098
240
53
1,039
63,234
[
r
r
[
[
r
L
r b,
L
['
L
[
[
[
L
[
r
L
[
L
L
L
1
b.
British Columbia
British Columbia has over 29% of the total measured and
indicated reserves of Canada. Over 95% of the coal in
British Columbia is low-to-medium volatile bituminous coal
suitable for metallurgical trade. The coal fields in
British Columbia are widely scattered. Listed below are
typical characteristics of coals from two prominent areas
of British Columbia.
Southeast
Region
Heat Content (BTU/lb)
Ash
13,000
15%
0.5
low to
medium
Sulfur
Volatility
Alberta
Northeast
Region
14,500
5%
0.5
low to
medium
The province of Alberta contains over 54% of all of
Canada's coal resources. Over 60% of the coals in Alberta
are bituminous of low/medium volatility suitable for
metallurgical purposes. In addition, Alberta contains all
of the subbituminous deposits known in Canada. Listed
below are characteristics analyses of coal from three
regions in Alberta. These regions are the Inner and Outer
Foothills Belts and the Plains Region.
Inner Outer
Foothill Foothill Plains
Heat Content 13,000 11,000 9,000
(BTU/lb)
Ash 10% 10% 10%
Sulfur 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%
Volatility low/med. high N/A
The Plains Region, contains primarily subbituminous
resources that lie in flat or gently inclined seams. The
Plain Region's resources are located in a band that begins
in the center of the border between British Columbia and
Alberta and curves gently southward to the southeast corner
of the province. Individual coal seams are 20 feet or more
thick and there are often multiple seams.
Mining Methods
C-13
Nova Scotia
New Br unswiek
Saskatc:hewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Total
TABLE C-10
1976 ~NADIAN CO\L PRODOCl'ION
BY'PROVINCE, MIN'ING ·METIIOD:;.:AN!)· QUALITY
(in aillions af abort tons}
!llrface Mines Unde!9round Mines
Steam Metallurgical Steam Metallurgical
1.81 0.40
0.33
5.16
7.55 3.60 o. 04 0.93
0.36 7.12 -£:.!£.
13.40 10.72 l:8s 2.13
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
C-14
~
2.21
0.33
5.16
12.12
~
28.10
[
[
[
r
L
[
L
[
E
[
L
[
[
L
L
L
J c.
1
d.
In 1976, Canada produced 28 million tons of coal with 24
million tons from surface mining and 4 million tons from
underground mines. Table C-10 gives 1976 production by
province and by mining method. In Alberta, the largest
producing underground and surface mines produced, in 1976,
0.6 million tons and 2.5 million tons respectively. In
British Columbia the largest underground mine produced 0.6
million tons while the largest surface mine produced 5.6
million tons of raw coal. Virtually all steam coal is
surface-mined (13.4 million tons out of 15.2 million
tons). Due to the geologic setting of the steam coal
(subbituminous) reserves, future production expansions are
expected to come from surface mining.
Production Costs
Little information is available on the actual production
costs of Canadian coal. In a recent report, estimates of
coal production costs (i.e. the recovery of capital costs
and operating costs) were made using the DOE National Coal
Model as a surrogate for estimating mining costs in
Canada.l2
The subbitiminous surface mines in Alberta have production
costs very simular to those in the Western part of the U.S.
(Montana, Wyoming). It is estimated that this cost is
$9-10 (1976$) per ton. Similarly, for underground mines,
production costs of $25 per ton (1976$) were estimated
using the U.S. Rocky Mountain mines as an equivalent area.
Future Coal Production and Exports
Canada is expected to increase its coal producton from 34
million tons in 1978 to 119 million tons in 1990.12 ·
Table C-11 gives the breakdown by year and type of coal for
the years 1980, 1985 and 1990. The estimates were
developed principally with the assumption of anticipated
expansion of export trade and the development of mines to
support new coal-fired powerplants in Canada.
The steam coal production level increases in shown Table
C-11, are partially needed to meet the Canadian demand for
powerplant fuel. The projected internal demand for
coal-fired powerplant consumption is 25.6, 43.6 and 58.6
million tons/year for 1980, 1985 and 1990 respectively.
Table C-12 estimates Canada's potential coal exports for
the years 1976, 1980, 1985 and 1990. Total Canadian
exports from 1978 were 14 million tons, most of which was
metallurgical coal.37 In 1976 Canada exported less that
C-15
-··-····-·--'----··--. ···--·· . ___ ... __ _
TABLE C-11
!S'!'IM.I.Tm COF\L PRODOC!l'ION L!NEIS FOR
1980 r 1985, AND 1990
(in •Ulions of ahort tons)
Mf'ltallurgical Coal
•• Stearn Coal
'l'otal
!ill. ill.P. ill..2. illQ.
12.9 15 25 36
ll.:l. ~ ll ..ll
28.1 45 82 119
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
C-16
r
f
L
[
r
L
r~
' L
[
r L
L
L
L
[
L
\
e.
f.
1 million tons of steam coal. As can be seen in Table
C-12, the steam coal exports are expected to increase from
0.7 million tons in 1976 to 10 million tons by 1990. The
principal market for the steam coal exports is expected to
be Japan.
Coal Prices
According to a DOE Report, Western Canadian surface mined
coal can be delivered to Japan for an average of $40 per
ton or $2.00 per million BTU (1979$).37 This is
identical to the delivered price and Western U.S. coal to
Japan and only slightly less than the $2.27 -2.37 cost of
Beluga coal delivered to Japan (Chapter IV).
Political and Institutional Factors
The future of coal mine expansion is dependent upon the
attitudes and policies of the individual provincial
governments. Each province has distinct development
policies. A brief discussion on the policies of the
Alberta and British Columbia governments follows.
In June 1975, the Alberta Cabinet passed the Coal
Development Policy which many observers contend is a policy
of deliberately impeding new coal developments.12 Other
observers contend that the policy is in the own self
interest of Aberta since the province is rich in oil and
gas reserves. The rationale behind this argument is that
coal reserves can be developed later when oil and gas
royalties begin to decline.
Although it is beyond the scope and intent of this study to
give a thorough analysis of Alberta's Coal Policy, however,
some of the more salient points are:
0 Royalty payments are increased via a formula based on
economic efficiency of the mine. Most mines are
expected to pay between 8 and 20% of revenues in
royalty payments.
o The Provincial Government will control the timing of
new developments.
0
0
The Provincial Government has classified the land in
Alberta with respect to coal exploration and
development. Some of the promising coal development
areas are restricted by these classifications.
The Provincial Government encourages development where
the infrastruture currently exists, but is hesitant
where new facilities would have to be developed.
C-17
TABLE C-12
PO'l!!NI'IAL COt\L BXPOR't'S PROM CflN1t.Ot\ POR
1980, 1985 AND 1990
(in ail 11oM of abort tons)
!ill. ill.Q. ...!... 1!!2. .....!._
Met allur gi cal"-Coal 12.3 14.0 1.7 25.0 11.0
Steam Co•l .Jl:1. ..£:..Q. .!:.l ..!:..Q. ..1:.2.
'l'otal 13.0 16.0 3. 0 30.0 14.0
6 • Increase fran the pr-evious period.
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
C-18
---=-[,
r
1'"
l .
c
r
L
r·
L
!ill. 4 L
34.0 10.0
!2..:.Q. s.o
44.0 rr.o 1~
[
{~
L
-· [
[
[
r
r~
L
L
r·
L
\
g.
j
a.
' \
o The Provincial Government requires a provision in coal
contracts for automatic price review and
redetermination every two years for all coal going out
of Alberta.
Many industry and energy officials believe this policy will
restrict development in Alberta causing a shift from
Alberta to British Columbiain future coal developments.
The Province of British Columbia appears to have a more
liberal policy toward coal development. The government is
attempting to reduce trade and investment restrictions with
Japan in order to encourage the expansion of coal exports.
British Columbia is attempting to obtain Federal support
for building the infrastructure needed to support new coal
developments.
Conclusion
The discussion above indicates clearly that, with Alberta's
tough policy on coal development, British Columbia will
become the major focus for coal development. This fact
seems particularly true with respect to development for
export markets, specifically to Japan. However, currently
there is relatively little planned development earmarked
for steam coal exports (less than one million tons). The
potential for a large steam coal export market from British
Columbia is somewhat limited since the most economical
steam coal (subbituminous) reserves are located in the
Plains Region of Alberta which has a strict development
policy.
SOUTH AFRICA
Coal is South Africa's only indigenous energy resource and
accounts for 75-80 percent of the total energy consumed in
the country. Coal consumption in 1976 reached some 71
million tons, primarily for power generation but also for
direct use in industrial transportation and for conversion
to liquid and gasious fuels (12). South Africa currently
has the world's only commercial-size coal liquefaction
plant.
Reserves and Distribution
South Africa is estimated to have between two and three
percent of the world's coal reserves and over 80 percent of
the reserves of the African continent. Table C-13 shows
the coal reserves estimates in the three coal bearing
provinces of South Africa.
C-19
r
TABLE C-13
Proven and Indicated Coal Resource of South Africa
(millions of short tons)
Province
Transvaal
Natal
Orange Free
State
Steam Coal
58,152
1,324
. 4, 547
64,023
Metallurgical &
Anthracite
1119
657
1,776
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
Total
59,271
1,981
4,547
65,799
Although quality of the reserves varies depending on the seams within
each province the following table provides typical analyses of steam
coal from each province.
TABLE C-14
Typical Steam Coal Characteristics for Coal From
Each Major Coal Bearing Province of South Africa
Transvaal Natal Orange Free State
Energy(Btu/lb) 11,000-12,000 11,000-12,000 8,500-10,000
Moisture 5% 5% 10%
Ash 15-20% 10-25% 20-30%
Sulfur 1.0-2.0% 0.5-3.0% 1.0-2.0%
Source: Reference 12 Bibliography
As shown in Table C-14, most of the steam coal reserves (90.8%) are
located in the Transvaal Province. In fact, 90% of all of South
Africa's coal resources are in this Province. One of the
disadvantages of South Africa coal as can be seen in Table C-14, is
the high ash content.
b. Mining Methods
In the past, most of the coal production from South Africa was
from underground mines. The use of this production technique
resulted from, (1) the geologic setting of the coal seams
(thick, horizonal, shallow depth seam) and (2) the availablility
of low-cost labor. In 1976, out of South Africa's total
C-20
r
L
r
r
c
r
l
L
L
[
r.
L
L
!. l
\
\
)
t
',
"
'
c.
production of 83 million tons, 71 million tons were produced
from underground mines. This situation, is changing. There are
currently several mines in various states of development with a
total projected produotion capacity of 53.7 million tons/year,
31.1 million tons of which will be surface mined.21
Several factors have influenced the shift toward surface mines.
Briefly, these are:
o Rapidly rising labor costs
o Uncertainty in labor policy regarding employment of
non-South African Blacks
o Greater concern over maximum possible recovery of the
resource (underground mining techniques leave a
considerable quantity of coal underground).
Production Costs
Coal production costs in South Africa are low despite the fact
that the majority of current production comes from labor
intensive underground mines. Estimates have placed the
production costs of coal from underground mines at $15 (1976$)
per ton as an average for the country.21 Similarly, estimates
for surface mined coal are $8-10/ton (1976$).
d. Future Coal Production and Exports
Historically coal production in South Africa increased at an
annual rate of about 3.4 to 4.2 percent in the period from 1940
through 1970.
Since 1970, however, coal production has increased at an annual
rate of over 6.0 percent.
To date, South Africa has not been a major exporter of coal.
The basic reasons for this are; (l) lack of adquate port and
coal handling facilities, (2) the great distances to major
markets, such as Japan and Europe and (3) the relatively poor
quality of the coal (high ash, little metallurgical coal
reserve).
Historical coal production is given below:
South Africa Coal Production
Year Tons
1940 18.9
1950 28.6
1960 41.9
1970 58.5
1976 83.4
1978 96.0
C-21
ICF. 12
Steam
Metallurgical
Total
OECD 21
Increases in coal production have resulted, to a large
extent, from an increased demand from coal-fired electric
generation plants. Approximately 96% of South Africa's
electricity is generated from coal; in 1976, about 58% of
South Africa's total coal consumption was for this
purpose. The coal liquefaction facility (SASOL I) is also
a large coal user with an annual consumption of 4 million
tons.
A second coal liquefaction plant (SASOL II) is currently
under construction and is expected to be in operation by
1981. SASOL II is expected to use around 14 million
tons/year.
A major impetus to South Africa's coal production was the
signing of the first major long-term coal contract with
Japan in 1969. The contract called for 25 million tons of
metallurgical coal to be delivered in a 10 year period
commencing in 1976. This was South Africa's first
significant entry into the world's coal market.
In 1976 South Africa exported 6.6 million tons of coal of
which 3.9 million tons was steam coal. Steam coal was
exported to the U.S., France, Italy and West Germany.
There is some variation in future coal production and
export projections. Following are projection from two
reference sources:
TABLE C-15
Coal Production Projections of South Africa
(million tons)
1980 1985 1990 2000
90 127 144
14 20 28
104 147 172
130 177 262
Note: Projections for Reference 21 include both steam and metallurgial
coal
C-22
[,
[
[
r:
[
['
'[,
(
L
L
L
L
[
L
[
\
\
\
-i
ICF 12
Steam
Metallurgical
Total
OECD 2l
Steam
e.
f.
TABLE C-16
Coal Export Projections (million tons)
1980 1985 1990 2000
11
2
13
20
4
24
38
23
7
30
67 1000
The information provided above indicates that South Africa
is indeed expecting to become a major coal exporter. The
range in export projection for 1985 of between 24 and 38
million tons substantially exceeds the actual 1976 exports
of 6.6 million tons.
Coal Prices
As shown in Table C-8 from DOE's Coal Exports Study, it is
estimated that South Africa underground coal can be landed
in Japan for an average price of $30 per ton or $1.36 per
million BTU (all in 1979$). For comparison purposes,
Western U.S. surface-mined coal is estimated to be landed
in Japan for $40/ton or $2.00 per million BTU, and Beluga
coal for $34.37/ton or $2.27 to 2.47 per million BTU
(Chapter IV) •
Political and Institutional Factors
Although the outlook is favorable for commercial
development of South Africa's coal, the government's export
policy is unclear. There are basically two conflicting
schools of thought with respect to future coal
development.12 First, there is a nationalistic school of
thought that advocates increased reliance on coal for
security reasons, banning exports and reserving coal for
the domestic market. On the other hand, coal producers.and
other elements agree on the need for further development of
coal for export. The government has neither established a
long-term policy on coal trade, nor put up major barriers
to further development. There are two issues that may
reflect unstated government policy. First, as mentioned
previously, there are several on-going projects with over
10 million tons per year capacity earmarked for export by
the early 1980's. Second, the South African government
C-23
g.
controls the price of domestically consumed coal at a
relatively low price (i.e. $6.90/ton in 1976); however,
export coal is not subject to control and thus coal
producing companies could obtain significantly higher
revenues for export coal than they would for domestically
consumed coal.
Conclusion
There appear to be adequate resources to justify expanded
coal exports from South Africa. Although labor costs are
rising and there are delays by government in authorizing
new mines, the overall outlook for expanding coal exports
appears to be favorable. •
In 1975, South Africa opened a new port at Richards Bay.
The Richards Bay facility is expected to increase its
capacity from its current 13 million tons per year to 22
million tons.12 The availability of this port facility
will assist in reducing the bottlenecks that could arise
when coal exports accelarate.
CHINA
China is the third largest coal producing country in the
world with a 1977 production of 551 million short
tons.11 Most of China's production is consumed
domestically. In 1976 China exported only 1.2 million tons
to Japan and other Asian countries.11
China's 10 year plan unveiled in 1978 called for a doubling
of coal output from 500 million tons to 1 billion tons by
1985. However, lack of proper planning and a series of
disastrous mining accidents have caused these projections
to be revised downward.lb In addition, China's rail
system does not have the capacity to move greater
quantities of coal even if they become available. The
Chinese have been holding discussions with the Japanese in
an attempt to get them to help with development costs in
eleven coalfields.16 It is estimated that these costs
could be in excess of $1 billion.
Specific information on coal mine development and potential
exports is difficult to obtain. However, there are
estimates that minehead production costs in China are $6-12
per ton (1978$) for surface mines and $12-20 for
underground mines.lO
Estimates have been made for China coal exports of 3,4 and
6 million tons per year for 1985, 1990 and 2000
respectively; these estimates are considered to be highly
C-24
r
r
Li
[
r:
L
L
[
L
'
\
\
uncertain.21 Thus, it appears that China may export some coal
in the future, but not in quantities that could supply a
significant portion of the market.
Conterminous United States
The United States possesses tremendous coal reserves. According
to a recent estimate, the U.S. has 27.8 percent of the world's
technically and economically recoverable reserves. The U.S. is
also the world's largest coal producer (647 million short tons
in 1978) and a large exporter (40 million tons in 1978). A
large part of the U.S. coal exported is sent to Canada and
Mexico.
a.
b.
c.
Resources, Distribution and Mining Methods
Table C-17 presents data on the U.S. demonstrated coal
reserve base by sulfur content, mining method and
geographic location. As shown in Table C-17, out of the 67
billion metric tons (74 billion short tons) of low sulfur
(less than 1%) surface mineable coal, all but 5 billion
tons lie west of the Mississippi River.
In the U.S., the emphasis with respect to mine development
has been directed at Western surface mines. A recent DOE
report indicates that by 1990 there will be 64 underground
mines producing 70 million tons, and 148 surface mines
producing 634 million tons in the Western U.s.39
Production Costs
Production costs in U.S. mines vary considerably with the
type of mine and its location (East vs. West). Table C-8
indicates that production costs from western surface mines
range from $5 to $15 per ton whereas eastern U.S.
underground mine production costs range from $15 to $28 per
ton. (all in 1979$)
Future Export Potential
The United States is projecting a significant increase in
coal exports from 40 million tons in 1448 to between 157
and 250 million tons by the year 2000. Coal export
projections are given below for both steam coal and
metallurgical coal. These projections are for the entire
U.S. including Alaska.
C-25
·=--·~-----.....:.:...----------------------I,
TABLI: C-1'1
DnaO.mated U.S. Coel Rese"' BaR b)· Sulphur C..tall
ud Potetllial Mttbod or Minilli:
Billion metric tons
Sulfur,._
<I~~ 1-3~ >l!-~ u ............
Underaround :
East of the Mississippi R.h·er 24 ~ 60 24
Yrcst of lhe Mississippi &Jver 90 JO 7 12
Total UDdcrlround 114 S4 67 36
Surface:
East of the Mississippi River s 6 13 s
West oLtbe M~issippi Ri\·cr 61 24 4 s
Total suirace 67 3o 17 10
'9rand total 181 14 84 46
Source: Reference 21 Bibliography
C-26
To1al
152
119
271
29
95
i24-·
395
1'
r
r
c
1:
[
L
r
· .
. .
L
L
\
\
)
U.S. Coal Exports
(millions of short tons)
2000
Metallurgical Coal
Thermal Coal
69.4
15.8
76.5
23.4
88.2
73.8
Total
Source:
85.2 99-9 162.0
Reference 21 Bibliography, TABLE I-2., OECD,
Steam Coal Prospects to 2000. 1978 (conversion factor of 1.26
used to convert tee to short tons)
d.
e.
Coal Prices
It has been estimated that U.S. western surface mined coal
can be delivered to Japan for an average price of $40/ton
in 1979$.37 For purposes of comparison, the same report
estimates that eastern underground coal can be delivered to
Japan for an average price of $54/ton. The average price
of U.S. coal delivered to utilities in 1979 was $25.77 per
short ton, up from the 1978 price of $22.19.38
Political and Institutional Factors
Federal coal leasing policy is one of the major issues
relating to future U.S. coal development. The Federal
Government owns about 60 pecent of the recoverable coal
resources in the Western States. In order to open a mine
on this land, producers must obtain a Department of
Interior lease. In 1971 a moratorium was imposed on the
leasing of Federal Lands. The Interior Department is
currently preparing EIS's on coal development in the
Northern Great Plains Region. Ma:jor leasing activities are
not expected to occur prior to mid-1982.
Federal regulations, permits and operating standards have
become significant factors in the mining industry's
planning and development process. Specific information on
environmental and institutional issues can be formed in
Appendices D and E, respectively.
f. Conclusion
The U.S. coal m~n~ng industry is expected to increase coal
production substantially during the next decade from 775
million tons in 1979 to about 1.2 billion tons in 1990
•21 Exports are expected to increase· in a similar
fashion, from 66 million tons in 1979 to 100 million tons
by 1990. At this time, there does not appear to be any
insurmountable problems that may cause delays in meeting
these projected levels.
C-27
Western coal producers, when considering exports, will have
to consider the issue of transportation linkages and the
port facilities needed to get the coal to market. Most
railroad officials believe they can meet the challenge of
increased coal movements.21 The need for the railroads
to improve tracks and increase capacity will depend, in
part, on the degree to which slurry pipelines can be used
economically. Another related factor is the need for coal
shipment ports on the u.s. West Coast. At the current time
there are the only two West Coast ports that have
coal-handling facilities: Long Beach, California and
Roberts Bank, British Columbia.l5
The most likely areas for future coal development in the
western conterminous u.s. are the States of Wyoming,
Montana, North Dakota and Utah. The DOE estimates that the
1990 production capacity (short tons/year) in these States
will be 300.3, 95.9, 58.7 and 43.3, respectively.39
C-28
,~
L
(
r
r~
L
[
C·
l~
[
L
[
L
L
·--· ··--· . .,-·~ .. --~-~ ··--·----·· .. ·-~ •.. , __ --........
::D-1
APPENDIX D
Alaska State Department of Commerce and Economic
Development Draft Permit/Approval Requirements for
Beluga Coal Development
j
~-
.... .. -.
. ' .·, ..
... , ..
···:-·
. . .
.--:=-~ i
.... .;· ..
. -. .
.;~~:.. 0 ...
. .
, .
.--
... -sf:· . ... ... . ...
. ~ -. --· -··---..
--·~ ... -·-.. .
. . . .. --: . ··: .
. :~ . : .. . . ~.---.
~--... -.. . -__ .__.
I
BELUGA COAL DEVELOPMENT
-Permits Scenario -
Division of Econo!Tiic Enteprise
Oep<lrtrnent of Cornrnerce and Econo~ic Development
October 1979
r--, .--, r--·-. ... --
I ""I ·,I •. ' I. •I I ~ i : I: I I : •. --, ,-
: ~: . ' ; . i . , I . . l' Jl
L/' U w~.J-tJ lJ
I
. ... --.
r
r
L
r
[,
[
[
r
L
' i
LOCATION
ji \ f' \ i·. 0 oil u· r I ! ! i j J
I ~ ! • .I
I i I : • \ ; .
: l i I I; ·. : .··. . . :
.. ____ .. t.,..._; ~ ... ! ~--; '---i_.J
The Beluga coal field is located in Southcentral Alaska and is that part of the Cook Inlet
Basin which is situated between Cook Inlet and Beluga Lake. It is 60 miles west of An·
chorage in the Kenai Peninsula Borough and is located along the southwest margin of the
Cook lnlet·Susitna low land.
The Beluga Coal Company (Placer Amex, Inc.) has, for nearly 12 years, conducted geolo·
gical explorations, exploratory drilling, and various other investigations of the area and have
found a large sub-bituminous coal resource. There are three separate fields; however, major
emphasis has been placed on the Capps Field which is 25 air miles from the shore of the
Cook Inlet.
,
There are no existing roads to the Beluga coa{ fields; however, there are two small air strips
in addition to the Tyonek landing strip. Helicopters may land virtually anywhere.
· land Status:
The land was orignally leased to Placer Amex (they hold seven State of Alaska coal leases)
by the State of Alaska but the land is now (or soon will be) partially under State and par·
tially under Native ownership. (The area covered by the original lease to Placer Amex is
still honored by the new landowners.)
On Native lands the Regional Corporation has subsurface rights. The village has surface
rights within their local ownership area. In this case, the Tyonek Native Corporation has .
surface rithts and the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation has subsurface and some surface
rights. Ho·.vever, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has interim management authority
over Native lands between the time that the Natives select the lands and receive interim
conveyance. For that reason any persons working on Native land should seek approvill and
assistance from the Native corporation, the village corporation and 8 LM.
-----~--·--~----~----~------------.-·· _,_-·-·---··-
.-...: :;..·:...· ....... ~ .............. . --·-··-... -··~---~·· .. ··---.. ·---· . -·-·-._ ...... _____ ~:.-.:~ ·:. . ..:.~ --~-.. .. -----·-----...-----"----·--·---..----·-·--·-------..
. . -ijl);
~ < 1\_1 I ./\ .; D -~ ·J . ()"Y _.
The Bureau of Indian Affaris' approve..l various"u~ Indian land. They have a Land '-' ,..
Lease Authorization which gives them the opportunity to review and approve land uses
and they also have a Right?of.Way.( Authorization in order to approve easements and righ~
of-wa# across Indian land.
Companies wishing to mine coal on State-owned lands are required to obtain a Coal Pro-
specting Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (ON R). These permits are
issued only after approval of the company's plan of operations, which describes the land to
be prospected, the equipment to be used, time frames for the operation, and other in forma-
tion as required by DNR. Coal Mining Leases may be issued if coal in commercial quantities
is discovered. A mining plan approved by DNR is required before commencement of opera-
tions. A Right-of-Way or Easement Permit may be required in some instances, as well as a
Meseellaneous Land Use Permit. Use of the tidelands requires a State Tidelands Lease or
Permit.
Kenai Borou~h government has legal jursidiction over the land where a town might be built;
their involvement would include reviewing plans for subdivisions, zoning, schools, solid
waste disposal and other miscellaneous permits. Roads, railroads, and communication lines
may need approval from the Mat-Su Borough, as well as Kenai Borough, if they go throug~
that area.
Any coastal activities or facilities associated with the development of the coal field will need
to meet federal consistency and local plans as determined by the Alaska Coastal Manage-
ment Program.
. - -
____ ,
r ' I
' I.
r-
' i
[
r
r.
[.
L
[
t'.
[.
[
r.·
r
L
[
L
L
L
L
~\.
,;
"'
)
.,
~
"
,;
~
_}
~-
-
BELUGA COAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
-PERMITS SCENARIO-
--~---------------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY ----------------------------------------------
LOCATION A. STATE
1. Coal Prospecting Permit • following ap-1. ONR
proval of plan of operation.
2. Coal Mining Lease • if commercial quan-2. DNR
tities are found· must have an approved
mining plan before commencement of
operation.
3. Leasing of land Other Than for the 3. ONR
Extraction of Natural Resources .
4. . Tidelands Permit • (one for all purposes 4. ONR
of tideland use).
5. Tidelands lease 5. ONR
6. Right-of-Way or Easement Permit 6. ONR
7. Miscelllaneous Land Use Permit 7. DNR
B. NATIVE
1. Approvals 1. Tyonek Native . Corporation .
Tyonek Native Council
Cook Inlet Regional
Corporation
2. land Lease Authorization 2. BIA
3. Right-of-Way Authoriz~tion 3. BIA
c. FEDERAL
1. Interim Authority Over Native 1. BL~-1
Selected lands.
0. LOCAL
1. Zoning. 1. Kenai Borough
2. Building Codes 2. Kenai Borough
3. Railroads, roads, communications lines 3. Mat-Su Borough,
(according to route location). Kenai Borough
4. Subdivision Approval. 4. Kenai Borough
5. Consistency with Coastal Management 5. Kenai Borough
Progn1m.
I\ .--·-: l I r-\,:' 1 ; .. -
f \ ~-' n \\ '~ } I , \ . ; . : . ~ ' . . ' I
-·----. ----~----. ·:--·-....... ~ _., ...
--.-·----· _ _, __ --·--'-~------------.. _.,..:___~-..-.-.:-~----........ ----·=-----._._-_______________ --·---------·----------........ ..:.;... - -
MINING OPERATION
Because of the way the coal occurs at Beluga, strip mining is the only possible method for
removal of much of the coal. The Federal Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Enforcement, now has Strip Mining Regulations which will set guidelines on how the
operation will proceed. (The Manager of Mines, Division of Minerals and Energy Manage·
ment in the Department of Natural Resources should be contacted for State guidelines.) An
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment may be required as well as
provisions for compliance with State and federal water and air quality regulations. Measures
to protect anadromous fish streams are mandatory, and withdrawals from all State waters
will require a Water Rights Permit from DNR. Provisions for use of materials such as timber
or gravel f!om State lands should be included in the development plan submitted for ap-
pro~! of the mining plan. Timber and other materials would have to be purchased from the
State through a material or timber sales contract. A Tidelands Lease or Permit would be
required for activities on tidelands and a Miscellaneous Land Use Permit will be required for
things such as use of explosives, waste dumps, etc. The Mining Safety and Health Admini-
stration (MSHA) has regulations regading safety of operation and equipment. The Alaska
Department of Labor supervises some features of that safety program.
Provisions for reclamation are an important part of the application for a mining permit.
Inspection and approval of a plan of reclamation and actual reclamation work done at the
end of operations are required by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the State De-
partment of Natural Resources. The site should be examinated for archeological artifacts
and any excavation of this type on State lands requires a Field Archeology Permit from the
Department of Natural Resources. (Results of an antiquities survey will be a necessary
subject of discussion in the environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.)
Department of Environmental Conservation approval for the disposal of overburden or
other spoil material may be required. Specific plans and methods of o~ation should be
discussed with the department to determine which requirements must be met.
r
r
r
c
r
c
f L
L
[
r
c
L
r
[
L~
r
r
L
L
. ----·------· - ---........ --... ____ -----------------~--~ ....... ~-------
-~--_._ ______ . ...,, ___ ·-------·-~·--~
-------------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ~ACTION AGENCY ------------------------------------------------------
MINING
OPERATION A. Strip Mining Regulations A. Dept. of Interior,
Office of Surface ·
Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement-
ON R • State Manager
of Mines
B. Labor and Equipment Regulations and Safety B. MSHA • DNR ·DOL c. Air Quality-Mine mouth power plant mining
site and processing site.
1. Air Quality Control Permit to Operate 1. DEC
2. Clea.r Air Act • PSD 2. EPA
3. New Source Performance Standards 3. EPA
4. Construction Orders (in process of 4. DOE
changing)
0. Water Quality
1. Permit to Discharge (surface only) 1. EPA
2. Waste Water Discharge (land, subsurface} 2. DEC
3. State Certificate (Discharge into Navi-3. DEC
gable Waters) . 4 . Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material 4. C of E
into U.S. Waters
E. Anadromous Fish Protection E. DF&G
F. Water Rights Permit F. DNR
G. EIS , G. -CEO ., H. Noise Pollution-Equipment H. EPA
J
I. Material or Timber Sales-by land ownership I. ON R, B LM, Na!ive
J. Tidelands Permit/Lease J.
Corporation, BlA
DNR
_:J_ ,., • .....r I/ . :.f ~-.,.1 -' K. Miscellaneous Land Use Permit-Explosives K. DNR I. I L. Reclamation Regulations e '• 7:,/~ ,: ~; f>:,· / : L· ( . L. ON R and Department
., I .-
of Interior M. Field Archeology Permit M. DNR N. Easements (roads, railroad, power, airfield) N. DNR (Division of
' Lands}, BIA
0. Land Quality
ef'tfr" 1>E"c 1. Solid Waste Disposal Permit (landfill) 1.
2. Dredge or Fill Activity 2. C of E
) !r0 ~-I? VI
1
1)(/;·.\. I ~ ~ ! ...
• I I . . . .
I '· 1 f l . . . I I • I
t . • · . ' --: ' I -I '
' . . • --.... : :__j
-·
--._..,. .. __ --------.... ·-------·------. . _ _. __ __.;,.... ___ ~----..:. __ _ ·------·--·· ...... ___ ._
OVERLAND ROUTE
Overland access for heavy construction equipment will be a necessary prerequisite to com-
mencement of operations. Equipment will be barged to Granite Point, from there it will be
driven to the mine site. Another psssibility is a link with an extension of the Alaska High-
way System, or an extension of the Alaska Railroad System. Other small roads, and rail
transport systems may also be needed. A direct overland route to marine terminal facilities
is the most likely form of transportation.
Requirements for both the railroad and highway are virtually the same; however, the rail-
road will require advice and approval from the Alaska Railroad System, if it is an extension
of the pres_ent railroad system, and the road will need approval from the Alaska Department
of Tfansportation and Public Facilities.
Both will require easements or right-of-ways from the various land owners along the route.
If a bridge or culverted crossing of a waterbody is required, the Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), Department of Fish and Game and Department of Environmental
Conservation should be contacted. Gravel sources will require a permit from the owner of
the land where the gravel is located. Labor and equipment safety standards are required by
MSHA and the State Department of Labor.
Burning of certain materials, or burning during the fire season will require permits from the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). If pesticides are applied aerially a Department of Envir::>nmental Consevation Pesti-
cice Permit will be needed. Oiling of roads on State land will require a Department of En-
vironmental Consevation Surface Oiling Permit.
r -,~ r:--\r· 1\ r,:-· ~ !f' I i I ! -, l I . \ . ! I J : • ' t •.
; . : i
I
r
r
r
c
L
r
L
[
r
r
r
L
L
L
[
L
--------------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY ----------------------------------------------------------OVERLAND
ROUTE A. ROAD
1. R-O-W/Easement
a. State a. DNR
b. Federal/Native b. BLM/Native Assoc./BIA
c. Private
2. Encroachment on State Highway 2. OOTPF
3. Gravel Sources
a. Miscellaneous Use Permit a. ONR
b. Dredging, or Structures in Navi-b. C of E (DEC)
gable Waters (State Certificate)
c. Federal/Native Land c. BLM/Native Assoc./BIA
d. Material Sale d. DNR
4. Highway Construction 4. USDOT (FHWA). DOTPr
5. Bridge
•"Navigable Waters" is a legill a. Structures in Navigable* Water a. C of E (DEC)
definition and may include very (State Certificate)
small streams far inland. b. Permit for Bridges over Navigable b. USCG (DEC)
Waters (State Certificate)
c. Anadromous Fish Protection Permit c. DF&G
" d. Discharge of Dredge Material or Fill d. C of E
Material in U.S. Waters
6. Air Quality Regulations
a. Air Quality Control Permit a. DEC
'>' 7. Noise Pollution· Equipment 7. EPA
8. labor and Equipment Safety Regulations 8. MSHA
9. Burning Permit 9. DEC and DNR
10. Pesticide Permit 10. DEC
11. Surface Oiling Permit 11. DEC
B. RAILROADS
1. Construction Permit and Agreement 1. Alaska Railroad
"' (extension of Alaska Railroad)
2. R-0-W /Easement
' a. State Land a DNA
b. Native/Federal b. B LM/Native Assoc./81 A
c. Private
3. Air Quality
a. Air Quality Control Permit a. DEC
" b. Clean Air Act • PSD b. EPA
c. New Source Performance Standards c. EPA
-' 4. Bridges
a. Dredging or Structures in Navigable a. C of E (DEC)
" Waters (State CertificZ~te)
-· b. Permit for Bridge Over Navigable b. USCG (DEC)
Waters (State Certificate)
c. Anadromous Fish Protection Permit c. OF&G
5. Burning Permit 5. DEC an~ DNA
6. Pesticide Permit 6. DEC
/
·-\ -""' ~! \r:~~~ 0~
! .
i •
·--· _; __ ..... -.:---------.._ __ -· .. ---. ·--............... ___ _, _____ ... -... ·---
PLANE LANDING STRIP
A landing area exists at Tyonek and an agreement may be negotiated with the village in
order to use the strip; it has been proposed, however, that a new landing area be built
specifically for Beluga operations.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will require a Notice of Intent to Establish a
Landing Strip, and material sources (such as gravel} must be obtained from owners of the
material site. FAA also requires an Airport Operating Certificate for airports serving CAB
cenified, scheduled air carriers. A Miscellaneous Land Use Permit from ONR may be re·
quired. MSHA safety requirements must be followed.
. .
I
l
--·, ' ! .._--.., ,--, :----.
i t I I r----._,
·, Llf:' ,·'
l .. ,· . . 'L] .• -·-' L....J '
f
f
[l
(
[
[.
r
[
[
L
L
L
-------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY ----------------------------------------------------PLANE LANDING
ST.RIP A. Use Landing Area -Tyonek Village
1. Approval to use land 1. Village negotiated
agreement/B I A
2. Lanqing fees
B. Build a Landing Strip
1. Notice of Intent to Establish an Air 1. FAA
Landing Strip
2. Gravel Sources
a. Miscellaneous Use Permit a. ONR
b. Federal/Native Land c. B LM/Native Assoc./B lA
c. Materials Sale/Land Lease d. DNR
3. Miscellaneous Land Use Permit 3. ONR
4. Noise Pollution-Equipment 4. EPA
5. Airport Operating Certificate 5. FAA
6. Safety Requirements 6. MSHA/DOL
PRESERVATION OF STREAMS AND WATERWAYS
Preservation of the natural quality and life of streams and waterways is an important consi-
deration and for this reason it has been divided out as a specific activity. All phases of
development in or near natural water systems must provide for minimizing or alleviating the
potential effects of damage that mining operations, as well as roads, railroads, etc., could
have on the stream and its inhabitants. Effects of physical disturbance or discharge of
pollutants must be controlled and minimized. The plan and environmental statement should
address these concerns.
f .. -' ;~f:\ , • : ~ f ; . : , : .
r--,
• I
l t :----; : c--, . ·-; r-
I i i I I • .__
f
r
c
[
[
c
L
L
[
L
L
L
L
. ,
--·--·-· -------~ .... ~--~ --
--------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY -------------------------------------------------------PRESERVATION OF
STREAMS A.
..
B.
c.
D.
Anadromous Fish Permit A. DF&G
Bridges
1. Structures and Dredging in Navigable 1. C of E (DEC)
Waters {State Certificate)
2. Permit for Bridges over Navigable Water 2. USCG (DEC)
(State Certificate)
Water Rights Permit 0. ONR
Discharge into Water
t" Permit to Disct:targe into Navigable Water 1. EPA (DEC)
NPDES {State Certificate)
2. Discharge into Waters 2. DEC
3. Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material 3. C of E (DEC)
in Waters of the United States (State
Certificate)
!·--· '\ r--....
]I !! =~' n r--tc;-;:;-, . . • I , I r·--'
i .. . . I I : ! ·. I ,-
-; I
J I
. -----------
CONSTRUCTION CAMP
The basic construction camp will require facilities for housing, cooking, a fresh water source
and a temporary means for waste disposal.
Structures will need DEC and OOSH approval while water use and discharge must be in
compliance with DEC, DNA and EPA reguations. A Food Service Permit is required from
the DH&SS for any food services offered and DEC must approve solid waste handling and
disposal.
There may also be some requirements from local authorities for the construction camp and
its associated facilities.
,
The construction plans and specifications for all buildings, i.e., commercial, industrial,
business, institutional, other public buildings or residential buildings containing four or
more dwelling units must be submitted to the State Fire Marshall (Department of Public
Safety) for examination and approval prior to starting construction. These facilities may
also require DH&SS and DEC inspection.
··,--· '7 I If ' I
I
[
r
[,
[
L
t
c
[
L
r
L
[
L
L
L
-···-·-·-----------
-------------~----------------------------
1\CTIVITY ACTION AGENCY -----------------------------------------------------CONSTRUCTION
CAMP A. Food Service Permit A. H&SS
B. Environmental Health Approval (Housing) B. H&SS
7 c. Solid Waste Disposal C. DEC
D. Water Rights Permits D. ONR
E. Occupancy Building Plan Check E. OPS
F. Water Discharge
1 I • ~· 1. Permit to Discharge into Navigable 1. _EeA.(DEC) z t,') Ct.:. • :.... 'l C• .. -~• r-.,__. Water· NPDES (State Certificate) 't.. • j.l '!;... '-.:....
-· 'D· f~Y ~. f~ ._,.-. ~:J. G. Drinking Water· Plan Review G. DEC
t..; , ...... -H. Air Quality
1. Air Quality Control 1. DEC
2. Clean Air Act • PSO (temporary facilities) 2. EPA
,. -...
;' ·~ r--~) lj
.. : I i--:-:-,
,' I~
.! i .'
I
DOCK
One reason that mining the Beluga Coal Field might be economically feasible is because if
its nearness to tidelands and marine transportation. A corridqr to transport the coal over
State land to the shoreline will be needed. A Tidelands Permit or Lease is necessary and a
Corps of Engineers permit will be required for the approaches over tidelands and dispsoal
of dredge spoils to tidelands and for structures in navigable water.
A dock to handle vessels carrying loads of up to 100,000 tons will be required. The tida:
conditions are such that there is a need for a high pier or causeway extending out to a dock
from an onshore storage and handling facility. The pier would be equipped with a conveyor
belt or other continuous loading system.
Fuel storage and general freight handling facilities would help to make this a full service
dock. If the facility handles fuel or any materials classified as hazardous or involves ship
ballast off-loading pipes, storage tanks and clearing facilities, permits and approvals from
USCG and DEC will be required, and a spill plan (SPCC) must be written and stan.ped by a
professional engineer, in order to meet with SPCC regulations.
I
I -,, ; -........ . '\. .
:.' :: 1 ll :·---.. 7? .' ; I
! ··-; ,
~ ,.
' I I
f
r
[
[
[
c·
L
[
[
[
[
[
L
L
[
)
l
.. -... --·-···----·----------------·. -·---· --
-------------------------------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY ------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCK A. Structures and Dredging in Navigable Waters (State
Certificate)
B. Tidelands Permit/lease c. Facilities Handling Petroleum Products
0. Oil Storage Facilities
E. Permit for Facilities to Handle Hazardous Materials
(State Certificate)
F. Petroleum Products-Request for Assignment of
Supplier
..
i .. _ .,
; \
A.
B. c.
D.
E.
.F.
./1
C of E (DEC)
ONR
DEC
EPA
USCG (DEC)
DOE
r---,,____
r .. ff _f
,I . (
.·
·------.... _. -------· -------------------·--------------·..c-"-""'--·---..-. ._~_ . ·. ____ .. --·---.
~------·-______ .., __ -....,_
GENERATING POWER PLANT
A generating power plant may be required to operate the mine and coal treatment plant
or the mine could supply a coal fired power plant. (Power could also be purchased from the
Chugach Electric Beluga Power Plant.) Construction Orders from the Department of Energy,
•nd EPA air quality standards will have to be considered carefully prior to operation.
. .
r·· ..
. I
f'·---
-; '----·-., ·' t r-
. i
: i
: I
f
r
c
r
r
c
[
[
[
c
[
L
[
L
. ····· ~---..... . -·····--·----..
··----~ -· _..,. __ --~ -----------------------~.....:.---.. -. --....__..,_._--·-... -~----· ___ _._ ~--....:.--·---··---
------------------------------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY ------------------------------------------------------GENERATING POWER
PLANT A.
B.
c.
,
Construction Orders (fossil fuel power plants) A. US DOE
Air Quality
1. Permit to Operate 1. DEC
2. Clean Air Act 2. EPA
3. New Source Performance Standards 3. EPA
Water Quality
1. Cooling water returned disch to system 1. (DEC) EPA
2. Discharge 2. DEC
3. Cooling water is addition to or separate 3. DNR
from mine source water.
4. Anadromous Fish 4. DF&G
5. Permit for Disch of Radionuclides 5. DEC
6. Storage of fuels· SPCC 6. EPA
I
r··--....
!
I
I
'·~ ,.._
.. l r-----
z I f •• .' r----. ..
I
i
. . : ~~ r-·
I I
.J
! I LJ
POWER LINES
Overland powerlines will require easements from the various landowners. The FAA requires
notice of proposed powerlines routed near airports. A permit is also required by the Corps
of Engineer.s tor overhead powerline crossings of a navigable water.
..
,.
I
I -------,
I
. ~ -·-·-~--·---.
f
I
r
L
r
[
L
[
[
L
[
r
L
L
L
L
[
..
·-···· . ,_.;.,.,~·-·· ---~-·-~-..
/
------------------------------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY
------------------------------------------------~-----------------POWER LINE
INSJ AL.L.A TION A. R-O-W/Easement
1. State
2. Federal/Native
3. Private
B. Structures which may Interfere with Airplane Flight
Paths
C. Dredging or Structures in Navigable Waters
(State Certificate)
1. ONR
2. BL.M/Native/BIA
B. FAA
C. C of E {DEC)
. --~-. r·--. r----...._.
-------------~-----------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY ---------------------------------------------------------COMMUNITY
COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Radio and Wire Communications
B. Structures Which May Interfere With Airplane Flight
Paths
C. R-O-W/Easement
1. State
2. Federal/Native
3. Private
4. Other
UTLITIES
A. Public Utilities-Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity
B. Air Quality Control Permit
C. Solid Waste Disposal Permit
D. Approval by Environmental Health
E. Water Rights Permit
-F. Construction Orders
G. New Source Standards
H. Clean Air Act
I. Plan Review
J. Hazardous Materials
K. Plan Review
L. Permit to Discharge into Water (State Certificate)
M. Sewage System and Treatment Plant
N. SPCC spill plan for storing fuel in large quantities
0. Local Requirements
SCHOOLS
A. School Construction
B. Public Safety Plan Review
C. Environmental Health Approval
D. Food Service Permit
E. DEC Plan Review
F. Local Requirements
MEDICAL SERVICES
A. Medical Facilities Construction
B. 1122 Review and Certificate of Need
C. licensing
0. Public Safety Review
E. Environmentill Health Approvill
F. Food Service Permit
G. Plan Review
H. Accredit<Jtion of Hospitals
I. loc:~l Requirements
.. ·-··· -----·-···· -----.. ·--------....... ·---· .----···----
A. FCC
B. FAA
1. ONR
2. BLM/Native Assoc./BIA
3. -Veres V~· r i e.~
4. Forest Service, Fish &
Wildlife, etc.
A DCED
B. DEC
c. DEC
D. DH&SS
E. DNR
F. US DOE
G. EPA
H. EPA
I. DEC
J. DEC
K. DPS
L. EPA {DEC)
M. DH&SS, DEC
N. EPA
0. Borough
A. Doe
B. DPS
c. H&SS
D. H&SS
E. DEC
F. Borough
A. H&SS
B. H&SS
c. H&SS
D. DPS
E. H&SS
F. H&SS
G. DEC
H. JCAH
I. Borough
------,
f
r
r
c
[,
L
L
L
L
L
t
[
c
[
L
[
L
[
-· -··.···'--·-·-. -·-······-· ---·. t' .. ----------·---· ..... -··---~-------"---~------~-------·· .. ····-~-·~,..:··· ---·-·--__ , ........
--------------------------------------------ACTIVITY ACTION AGENCY -------------------------------------------------------POLICE AND FiRE PROTECTION
A. Environmental Health Approval
B. Food Service Permit
C. Public Safety Plan Review
D. DEC Plan Review
E. Local Requirements
HOUSING
A. Subdivision Plan Review
B. Approval by Environmental Health
C. Safety Plan Check
D. Subdivision Approval
-E. Local Requirements
A. H&SS
B. H&SS
C. DPS
D. DEC
E. Borough
A. DEC
B. H&SS
C. DPS
D. Kenai Borough
E. Borough
RESTAURANTS, TAVERNS, HOTELS AND ENTERTAINMENT
A. Plan Review
B. Environmental Health Approval
C. Tourist Accommodations
D. Food Service Permit
.. -E. Liquor License
F. Restaurant Deisgnation
G. · Alaska State Business License
H. Zoning
I. Other Local Requirements
SERVICE STATIONS
A. DEC Approvals
1. Plan Review
2. Hazardous Materials · Certificate
B. Petroleum Products Suppliers
C. Environmental Health Approval
0. Plan Review
E. Alaska State Business License
F. Zoning
G. Other local Requirements
COMMERCIAL SHOPS
A. Plan Review
B. Environmental Health Approvals
C. Reserve Business Name
0. Register Business Name
E. Articles of Incorporation
F. Commodities and Measuring Devices
G. Weighing and Measuring Devices
H. Plan Check
I. Alaska State Business license
J. Borough Tax Permit
K. Zoning
L. Local Requirements
PLANNING
A. Local and State planning assistance
A. DEC/DPS
B. H&SS
c. H&SS
D . H&SS
E. DOR
F. OOR
G. DOR
H. Borough
I. Borough
A. DEC
B. USDOE
c. H&SS
D. DPS
E. DOR
F. Borough
G. Borough
A. DEC
B. H&SS
c. DCED
D. DCED
E. DCED
F. DCED
G. DCED
H. OPS
I. OOR
J. Borough
K. Borough
L. Borough
A. Kenai and Borough
and DC and RA
In its Draft Environmental Impact Statement
concerning its proposed Solvent Refined Coal II
Demonstration Project at Ft. Martin, West Virginia
(DOE/EIS-D069-D, May 1980, pps. -1-15 to 1-16) the
Department of Energy has identified the following
major federal and state permits and approvals
required for construction and operations of the
SRC facility.
r
c
r
[
L
L
[
[
[
[
f
L
L
[
[
L
L
L
l
-~ -·--. -_____ ..,
. --------. "~-----·----
--: .. ·--
.ble ~.1 Major permits and approvals required for construction
~rmit/Approval
inal Environmental
· tatement
.. ir
Responsible Agency Remarks
DOE Required 30 days prior
to commitment to con-
struction
Prevention of significant EPA/State
deterioration determination
Permit to construct air State
contaminant source
ft'ater
NPOES permit for construc-
tion discharges
State permit for construc-
tion discharges
Permit for construction
in navigable waters
Solid Wastes
Permit for construction
waste disposal site ·
EPA/State Authority may be delegated
f.o State
May be combined with NPDES
permit if authority is
delegated to State
Corps of Required prior to construc-
E~gineers tion in navigable waters.
State
FES required prior to
issuance.
Table 1.2 Major permits required for operation
Permit/Approval
Air
Operating permit
Water
IIPDES permit
Responsible Agency Remarks
State
EPA/State
Based on compliance with
conditions specified in
construction permit and
PSD determination.
Limitations on process
discharges will assure
compliance with water
~,~,;~v standards.
-·-.. .,~. --.--.~----· -... ~-.._~--....
.te discharge permit
id Wastes
source conservation
,d recovery act
!rmit
tate permit
-a• • "1. ·---· ·-~--·-•
However, there are no
specific standards for
SRC process materials.
State Probably will be incor-
porated in NPDES permit
if NPDES authority is
delegated to State.
EPA/State Specification for disposal
facilities and leachate
treatment based on hazard
as determined by tests now
under development.
State Probably will be incorporated
into RCRA permit program.
1
[
r
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
r
L
r L_
L
L
L
r
i
.I
l
t
!
:; 1
I
j r--
i j' '. II '.l
' I
'\ .i
I
i
l • I
(
I
-
O~p.Jttnvnr ul E~~o·••lY
o~K R.<~...: Up.tto~~.un'
PO Uo• f. 0.11. R.....,.c. lilnnc•wc J ;HJll
c .. "' ll.J,;c ~.aU::\.a: :...a:.u.u.:c·;
All~•: S. !). ~ • .: • .:.:,
Encr''' :'"':'t&Jn
P.JU :l:;.;e S.»c ·c,
IJ~k ih4.;c. rc:>n. j;~:J
Our !4r • .,.,;,::::
S.::HEOUL£ f:la H~::.:•£:.1£:;r Jf i:'oil~:·;·.t~·;r.\L PU:·IliS FOR :i~C·II
The :~U.Jw'n' ~:\!JC~J~\Jn i(\JI41'! ~t l:t.:> .. !-:.: ~n nu Dr.ltl Er.~r~u:m
IICnt&l lmp.a-:: i:.a:cncr\1 :.:r :;a:-;:. lt :.er.c'U Pt:.t•t l•tesl ;ar.:1c-:•
Cl.,n, .al .::.ntlru:~~:n .and .:p<CtJtl.:n , .. r~coJ.a~ct;
Eo•11r:-n~cr.l.a: =':-:-•~-:!:::'\ iJ•'"-I'i ~t·:•.u!",.e·.: "l'l rhtt l'nll~d Sll!tt
En·~tr~n!:'C:'\11. ·~:tc..:::Jn '.J'tr:.; .·
1. ''•ventl>" :i ~·;·>:1:; •~· ~•••n~r ,.,,.. ?~:ll
Thu u a :'t~ut:td prt::n,a••.:!~.J" .and pre.,pcc.all>ln.aL revuw
oi tna .u: l"f'!llh.Jnt c~pct:•tJ :r~~ :nc .Jpoe:.atl.n., ,,.,,hn· r..1
•n•ure :nu •m'l••nc ur ;;u.a.,c·o :n ::1c sce.a ~~ the pr:.p.ae~
Sil.:-11 ~·~"' •til r.~l :c '"~'""'""' •·~\' Jc~rl<lc-:1 De low >pph<-
abl• tl.a::.:a::•. ;t:, ~;.: .ap;t:o.:.au.:n ~nfJt"ft•Bon pro·•,ded to
tnc ihJ':n Ill :lll:c >I ::.;;. ;:p, ·•ll be ·uc4 1~ con<1u~:1.•
.::r"P"Icr an.alv\U ~~ !:'\eo ,al:!hnpnc n:. .:upcru.:.n ll 1ne ,il~ .. ll
~a .ani tr.tUilJnt. -~~!.)n· ! ~I . ..,,i.: .:.:nuder cmUi\.:lnt tr.1m
other caa:~r.; ~r ~r:OI!\'.1 • .,""r:et ~n ~:-.• .area •n .;3n.Su.::.n•
lhll anch'tu. ~he ?~i> i)"'"'''· 0r •~:til '>v fp., tiler l ntoll·
uv• lind~~· .11 Uinlh.:anc oec~r~.:r.au.Jn. -nuU be rccl\vt1
prt.)f' to l:'\1 u art. :i :Jntt:~,;c:~an. i"nt il~·ll i'SD af)ph~•
ll~n wu aubnllt!c<l :~ .~~~~~n Ill :n !-4lv t, 1-Jd<l. £n4 11\t
fSi) p1rmu u upc<:lc4 gy .:.::~oer :. !91!<l.
~-..u,n.s: P':'d·,ll'1" ""> ... 'ii41! f!:-·'"'t(::n jvJCS'II •:-4P~£5' t.>r
ja;.; I ;"fl':r·":::on .
The apph<:iltOn lor '"'' wllot ta~hl<i• pcn111t· mull be
IUD .. liiC4 10 '.l.:i. 1:PA h'l'"" Ill II lcul 1110 dcyl tn
&CIVIftCI ~~ Ule runnolf upe" !e•j 1.> be Uiftii\ClniiV '• clfeCitd
by conllruc11on unv•lln. The lpphcliiOn u t<:hc4111C4 10
111 ....... uc4 lly J"lr Jl. 19110.
\
.,
J, ~:.:.!.!~PoJt,uunt Ou.:~•r.;~ El•m•no~hon Sytltm t~P~E$1 I.Jr
""~·•· ., ~It· q• f·t..atm~ru r-:.uH
Thu a::.paiC•Il.•n "'"': •hoJ be tubrtued t&l t.avt be!.:re lhe
'"'' cta,.:n•r~e .l..:.:ur.. B4tcd tJA currt:'\l t,.:hedule• hr cnc
,,.., .. ~, pl•nt ' ten•tru:U~Jn. the •pph.:.ath)R wtll be tub•
m111tl1 n~ ltlcr tncn july I. l?dl.
'\t•: w.11 t'·l~,.:tn~ [•l,.'h.tr.:• Ell~an.tltJn Svlliltm ·~•PC·£j; !;,r
:•••: ,n· ...... :u: .. r,u .. n•r~ :..u.:n.ar;'!
\...uer wuhcr.a'-•• to lhc prltect '"• .• ,u be rc1uatc..s ~,
~·ctJo<r :. l~d;. Thlt pcr•111 cpph<clton vtll be 111D•a11c•
"" 1uer 1ncn Apnl I, 19S2.
:.. kr .. .:.urcc C:murv.ahon and lh·c:overv Ace f ·=·A I r~riiUU
1 "~'' oermu1 •re tKpc:.ed 10 be rcquucd ~r aU enhhlt
tnvolved an Inc t•nerahon, uantport. uearmcnc and 4u-
poul ol nuorcao.u wauu. Stncc £PA'1 hn•l 1Mplcmcn11n1
rc~ul.aUo~' lor :-t:IA have not yet been promul,.a114, M
Prr:tlll procurcmcnl Kllldulc d•••• un be lpc<:ahcd al IIIU ......
1. :-r.:uon 10 .1n~ ~t.:ll;,r. LO!. Ored •nd f•ll Pcrmu f,n
'-~"'" ;.~.::a,:,r. .,, .1 havtsab c aterw•v
Tl'\u pe:-:nu .-,:. bt rrq~ourtd for lht .:on11rucuon ~I 1ne
w•••r '"'•"' ilructurc. tl'\1 conllruUhln ph11c bare• thil'•
and tn• .:o•t o•rat dock. The pcrMll apphcahon w•U be
lu::tmnlla 1por~atlftllel'! 1u !WIOntl\1 •n a4vanca of the ;~r:.•
ae<:~cd conuru.:uon 11ar1 ~••• for &hetl fa<:>ltltll·
; . .,v•r ~r:mtnUI trlt~:n->n f't:m&l\ Jlt3Uiftd bv lhe $c.uc 01 •ell
~
l. AI'!' ,Plllult,JO :ont:-~1 Comma~\1on Pcrmll co C.Jntcruct. Moelt!v
cr ,.. ave 1 '' Att f .:aauuon ')llurce
Jl'\ctc Pcr••U mutl ttc a'qu.rcd pnor 11\c tt•rt of ptant
con~trucuon. PetOill appltullonl arc Kllcdulad 10 be aull•
•aneca on llay I, 1910.
)
;Q
I ...
I
f
I ! I ;
I
·1
1
I
l
I
j
l
I
i
I
---·-·--
)
:.
).
'·
s.
,,
••
;_,
. ) .
O•'l•c·..,,,,
~
. .ani
-, '"'"~" '4lll :le fhu pe~;u .. •;)pU • •uD•IIIll14 on ~r bti~rc ........ ••. ·~tlol.
s ... ,,,y , .. ,!_,.,.
fh" pcrm\1 6pphC6IIOR
... ,. Jl. ~~~.
'"'" b• .,.b,.tllt!S •n or btlon ..
! • --.....,
)
M~-JJI:JKA
)
:II»
I w
·-·-·--·~ ~...._... ...... ,.,.·.~...-----. ..-----·---.. -·· --.
In its December 1978 report to the 46th
Legislature of Washington State concerning
LNG and LPG hazards management, the
Oceanographic Commission of Washington
identified the following Federal agency
controls over facility siting and
transportation.
TABLE ES-1
FEDERAL AGENCY CONTROLS OVER LNG ANO LPG
FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
This summary fs current as of the publication date. It is exp~cted that the 96th Congress will consider legisla-
tion that could si~nificantly extend federal jurisdiction over LNG and LPG transport and facility siting;) •
tlote:
AGENCY
Jepartment of Energy
including Federal
:nergy Regulatory
;ommfssfon and Econo-
1fc Regulatory Adminis-
:ratfon
:LNG)
STATUTORY AUTHORlTY
Department of Energy
Orqanization Act of
1977;
Natural Gas Act of
1938;
tiEPA
PROCESS
Certification or approval:
by Secretary for §3 (imports
and exports); by F£RC for
§7 (interstate commerce)
CONCERNS
Heeting federal safety regulations 1
prescribed by ~ITB; Envircnmental / :
effects. via (1) EIS, including I .:
rfsk analysis, a.nd (2) environmenta: i
guidelines concerning aesthetic, i !
recreational, historical, archaeo-
logical, fish, wildlife, and land-
I ' ~ )
) I
I :
I
scape values; Economic effects, ~·
including gas pricing and market ,t .. r
control; Consistency with state and ff
j ~.
local land use, zoning, energy and t!
I ',•
other la\ots ! i
I. I
I' '; It ----------------------------------------------------------------------~----1!
Jepartment of Trans-
'ortation, Materials
Transportation Bureau
~LNG and LPG)
Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act of 196R;
Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act
Inspection of facilities
before ahd du~ing operations
(Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission is
responsible for enforcement
of pipeline regulations}
1: Safety on land through fire hazard if
regulations such as set back,
diking, back-up systems and the
sdfety of related facilities;
j!
; ;
i:
11
'.
regulation of pipeline facilities i:
(natura 1 gas)
I
\GEPICY
tment of Trans-
tion, Coast
and LPG)
partment of Army,
rps of Eng;neers
NG and LPG)
TABLE ES-1 (cont.)
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Ports and Haterways
Safety Act of 1972
(including 1978
amendments);
Executive Order 10173;
Dangerous Cargo Act;
~1agnuson Act
Rivers & Harbors Act;
Fish & Wildlife Coor-
dination Act; NEPA;
Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act
Amendments of 1972
PROCESS
Inspection of vesse1s during
construction or upon entry
, I
into U.S. waters; Issuance of
letter of Compliance or Certi-
ficate of Inspection (good for
two years); Restriction ~nd
regulation of vessel movement;
Inspection of waterfront
facilities and facilities oper-
ations; and Hazard containment,
prevention and control
Permit for activities affect-
ing navigable waters; EIS for
major and significant actions;
Comments from UOAA, U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service, EPA and
state ~nd local agrncies
CONCER~rs
----·----------· ·-Safety at sea:
design and construction personnel
navigation, safety, pollution
control equipment
cargo stowage
vessel traffic control
Safety at waterfront facilities:
proper securement of vessels
for cargo transfer
proper conmunication beb1een
vessel and terminal during
transfer
safety equipment and procedures
at facility
personnel qualifications
Environment;
Economics;
State and local wishes;
"Overall public interest".
~OIW
'
:i
•:
•f
'f
I
-/;
I
I
I ,
I '· { :
f,
i I .
~ '
! . ' I
1
i.
!
I I.
i
i
r .
j
APPENDIX E
New Techniques for Utilizing and Transporting Coal
When discussing the viability of developing and marketing a new resource, it
is important to examine on-going research related to that resource. In this
case, we discuss the current state-of-the-art for the following: synthetic
fuels development from coal, coal transportation, and industrial use of coal.
This appendix considers those techniques within each of the above groups that
are considered to have both near-term commercialization potential and
applicability to Alaska coal. Also, general information is presented as it is
beyond the scope of this report to exhaustively examine each technology. In
most cases, however, references are provided that enable interested readers
the opportunity to pursue a particular subject in detail.
An obvious technology excluded from this report is underground coal
gasification (in-situ). It was excluded for the following reasons: coal
resources addressed in depth are mineable by surface mining techniques, and
in-situ gasification has not been commercially demonstrated in the U.S., thus
is probably not a viable technology to consider in the near-term (1986 or
before).
All prices appearing in this Appendix have been escalated from their original
source to 1980 dollars using the Producers Price Index--All Commodities
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1. Synthetic Fuels Development
Synthetic fuels development from Alaska coal is a particularly relevant
issue. In the past, Alaska coal has often been overlooked as a potential
energy source because of its distance to markets and its often high ash
and moisture content. By converting to a synthetic product this situation
could change.
This section discusses those processes currently being examined for
utilizing coal either to produce a liquid, gas or solid product.
Generally, most coal conversion processes are designed to utilize coal
with a specific range of characteristics (i.e. ash content, moisture,
sulfur, and agglomerating properties, etc). In order to assess the
feasibility of using Alaska coal in any of the following processes below
it would be necessary to perform a detailed engineering analysis. This is
beyond the scope of this report.
E-2
This section is intended to describe the state-of-the-art on several of
the most promising techniques that could be viable within this decade.
a. Coal Liquefaction
Coal liquefaction is the conversion of coal from a solid to a
liquid. The DOE supports several coal liquefaction processes that
are in the pilot plant stage. The complex chemistry involved in
these processes is only now beginning to be fully understood.
Although there are generic problems that must be solved before
liquefaction can be successfully commercialized, these problems are
being aggressively pursued and are in various stages of analysis.
The construction and operation of large pilot plants, expected during
the next few years, should provide important data that can be used to
address areas of concern.
This report limits its review to the three liquefaction processes
receiving the most research attention from DOE. They are the:
(1) Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) Process, (2) Ebullated Bed Catalytic
Hydrogeneration (H-Coal) Process, and (3) Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS)
Process.
(1) Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) Process
The SRC process, which began in 1962, is the oldest coal
conversion process study in terms of continuous government
support. It has moved through a successful pilot plant
phase and is now in the initial phase of a major
demonstration plant activity. The experience that is being
gained in the process will be useful in other direct coal
liquefaction processes.
Initially, the SRC process was conceived as a process which
removed ash and sulfur from coal and produced a solid, high
BTU product. The initial process is designated as SRC-I to
distinquish it from the more recent liquid product process,
SRC-II. The solid SRC-I product has been tested
extensively at both the 6-ton per day (TPD) pilot plant at
Wilsonville, Alabama and at the 50 TPD pilot plant at Fort
Lewis, Washington (SRC-I is discussed in more detailed in
Section C).
The Fort Lewis pilot plant has been operating in the liquid
fuel mode (SRC-II) since May, 1977. Four different
bituminous coals have been used in the plant. A large
batch (4500 barrels) of product was used in a successful
burn test at a Consolidated Edison power plant in New York
City. Environmental standards were met during the test
firing making the product appear promising from a marketing
standpoint.
r~
L
[
[
[
[
L
[
L
L
L
L
L
0
0
0
E-3
Since SRC-II has been studied at the pilot plant scale and
the synthetic fuel has been tested to successfully show
basic fuel utility, DOE is proceeding with activities to
scale up to commercial equipment size in a demonstration
plant project. In July 1978 DOE awarded contracts for the
preparation of a conceptual commercial plant design and
cost estimate for both the SRC-I and SRC-II processes.
These have been completed and DOE is funding the detailed
design phase. Results from the conceptual plant design
report indicate that a 30,000 TPD plant could be
constructed in 42 months with a peak labor force of 5,400
and an operating force of 500.
According to recent estimates the planned SRC-II facility
will require a capital outlay of over $1.6 billion to
construct and have an annual operating expense of $418
million.1 3 The derived price for fuel produced is
estimated to be about $4.70 per 106 BTU which equates to
approximately $28.22 per barrel oil equivilent.
In a study done for ERDA in 1974-1975, the Stanford
Research Institute (SRI) examined the possibility of
locating a 100,000 barrel per stream day (approximately 20
million tons/yr of Beluga coal) SRC plant on the north
shore of Cook Inlet. Although the report is dated 1976 and
much has been learned since then, some of the information
presented and the conlusions drawn from their analysis
still apply.lO One of the major conclusions of the study
was that a SRC product from Beluga coal could not penetrate
the Pacific Rim market place, primarily due to cost.
The report indicated that the delivered price of SRC fuel
would be in the range of $5.74 to $6.04 per million BTU in
both California and Japan. With the tremendous increases
in the world price of oil since 1975, the economic
viability of an SRC facility could now be more attractive.
Some other conclusions brought out in the SRI study are:
The capital investment for a 100,000 barrel/day SRC plant
in Alaska is about $1.8 billion for a solid product, and
slightly less to produce a liquid product.
A variation of $1.00 per short ton in the coal price causes
a variation of about $0.55 per barrel in the revenue
required from the sale of a liquid product (8 cents per
million BTU).
A variation of 10% in capital investment causes a change of
$1.70 per barrel in the revenue required from the sale of
total liquid product (25 cent per million BTU).
E-4
It is apparent that the SRC process has the potential of
becoming a mid-term (1990-2000) method for converting Alaska
coal into clean export fuels. An accurate estimate of the costs
for constructing and operating a SRC plant will be available
when the conceptual commercial plant is underway.
(2) Ebullated Bed Catalytic Hydrogeneration.(H-Coal) Process
The development of the H-Coal process has also been
underway since 1962. Although some government support was
involved earlier in the process development, the major DOE
funding effort began in 1974. The H-Coal pilot plant is
under construction in Catlettsburg, Kentucky. It is
expected to be completed in the fall 1980, and ready for
two years of full testing. The plant will be capable of
converting up to 600 TPD of coal into boiler fuel or
synthetic crude oil.
Basically, the H-Coal process is a catalytic
hydroliquefaction process that converts high-sulfur coal to
boiler fuels and synthetic crude. The specific operating
conditions of the H-Coal process affect the type of final
product. For example, to produce synthetic crude, more
hydrogen is required and there is a lower yield of residual
oil. To produce clean fuel and low-sulfur residual oil as
major products, lower temperatures and pressures and less
hydrogen are required in the reactor.
Although the H-Coal process is promising, it will be
several years before a demonstration-size plant may be
constructed. The decision for constructing a demonstration
size facility will be made after data have been collected
and evaluated from operating the pilot plant.
Therefore, for the purposes of this report we do not
consider the H-Coal process to be viable before the mid
1990's.
(3) Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) Process
This process has been pursued by Exxon for well over 10
years. In 1977, after Exxon had completed the process
definition and small scale process studies, a cooperative
agreement was signed by Exxon and DOE to construct a pilot
plant. Since that time a 250 TPD pilot plant was
constructed in Baytown, Texas. The plant began start-up
operations on June 24, 1980, and is scheduled for a 2-l/2
year operating period during which time data will be
collected to determine the specification for a
demonstration-size facility.
I'
['
c
r
{
[
['
l
[
[
L
[
[
[
[
l'
[
L
L
L
L
' ..
E-5
Basically, the EDS process involves liquefying crushed coal
in a non-catalytic tubular reactor in the presence of
molecular hydrogen and a hydrogen donor solvent. The
process gives a· high yield of low-sulfur liquids from
bituminous or subbitumnious coals or lignites. For an
Illinois bituminous coal for example, the liquid yield is
2.6 barrels of liquid per ton of dry coal. Ammonia and
elemental sulfur are the only by-products of major
significance.
The EDS process, like the H-Coal process, is prom~s~ng.
Before it is possible to give accurate information on the
viability of the EDS process pilot plant, operating data,
currently being collected, needs to be analyzed and
evaluated. The next step after the pilot plant would be a
demonstration facility in which commercial size equipment
would be evaluated. The decision on constructing a
demonstration facility will be made after two or more years
of pilot plant data have been evaluated.
It appears that the EDS process is still several years away
from commercial application. It is considered, for the
purposes of this report, to be commercially viable at about
the same time frame as the H-Coal,i.e. not before the mid
1990's.
b. Coal Gasification
The process of making gas from coal is not a new
technology. Familiar processes such as Lurgi,
Koppers-Totzek and others have been used for years in
making gas from coal. However, these first-generation
processes typically have very low efficiencies and have
associated pollution problems. Major research activities
are now centered on second and third generation systems.
The second generation systems are the result of the attempt
to couple new engineering know-how with a knowledge of
modern concepts of coal chemistry and improvements in
engineering and materials science to achieve an improved
process. Representative systems classified as second
generation are: (co2 Acceptor; HYGAS; Synthane; BiGAS;
etc.). Most of these processes have advanced to the pilot
plant stage.
E-6
Third generation coal gasification is defined as that
technology which has not yet advanced to the pilot plant
stage of development. Systems which are considered third
generation include such evolving concepts as Rockwell
International Corporation's Flash hydropyrolysis system,
Exxon's Catalytic gasifier and Bell Aerospace's High Mass
Flux system. These new concepts are taking advantage of
new development in catalysis and rocket technology to
achieve the objectives of this class of gasifiers.
The type of gas produced from coal gasification systems are
generally subdivided by their gross heating value into low,
intermediate, and high BTU gas systems. The high BTU gas
system (950-1000 BTU/CF) is also referred to as synthetic
natural gas (SNG) and can be distributed to customers in
the same pipeline system now used to carry natural gas.
Low-BTU gas (up to 350 BTU/CF) is generally considered to
be economically viable only if used on site, and is not
further considered in this study. Both high and low-BTU
gasification processes are being developed with DOE
assistance. The High-BTU Gasification program is discussed
below.
High -BTU Gasification
The U.S. Department of Energy together with the American
Gas Association is sponsoring the development of several
high-BTU advanced conversion processes. Although the basic
chemical reactions are the same for each of the processes,
they each have their own unique characteristics. There
are, for example, important differences in reactor design
and methods for supplying heat to the reactor. Also, all
of these processes require high temperatures and pressures
and produce corrosive gases necessitating the concurrent
development of resistent alloys and new pressure vessel
design.
The High-BTU Gasification program has several systems which
have reached the pilot plant stage. Contracts for
designing, constructing and operating the pilot plants have
been awarded to Rockwell International Corporation for the
Short Residence Time Hydrogasification; Bitumimous Coal
Research, Inc., for the BiGAS pilot plant in Homer City,
Pennsylvania; Institute of Gas Technology for the HYGAS and
steam-iron system for the production of hydrogen in
Chicago, Illinois; and the Lummus Company for the Synthane
pilot plant in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
r L
L
{
[
[
L
L
L
l
E-7
The status on all of these 2rojects and others can be found
in several publications.11 36 It appears that large
commercial size coal gasification facilities are still
several years away and are not considered to have near-term
viability for the purpose of contributing to the
development of Alaska coal.
Capital cost for a plant producing 250 million cubic feet
of SNG per day range from 1~6 to 2.6 billion dollars
producing SNG at $3.90 to 6.70 per million BTu.21 The
construction period for a typical SNG plant is estimated to
be about five to seven years.
c. Solid Coal Conversion Process
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Moisture
BTU/Pound
(1) Solvent Refined Coal (SRC-I)
The SRC process, as described in Section a., can be
designed to produce either a liquid product (SRC-II)
or a solid product (SRC-I). The SRC-I process is a
solvent extraction procedure that converts coal to a
solid product with less moisture, ash and sulfur and
with a correspondingly higher energy content per
pound. The solid product has a melting point at
150-200° c.
Two pilot plants have oper~ted successfully, a 50 TPD
plant at Fort Lewis, Washington and a 6 TPD plant at
Wilsonville, Alabama. Typical product properties are
shown below.29
RAW SRC-I
Coal Product
38.7 36.5
51.7 63.0
7.1 0.5
2. o.o
100.0 100.0
12,821 15,768
Although the above data are not for an Alaska coal sample,
similar trends in ash, sulfur and moisture reduction would
occur.
DOE is proceeding with plans to construct a 6,000 TPD
demonstration plant. Thus, it appears that the technology
is developing rapidly to the stage where it will be
commercially viable. SRC-I product has already been
successfully fired in a direct-fired furnace.
2.
E-8
Methanol Production
Methanol production from coal is a technology that has
potential application in Alaska. Methanol is considered to
be an excellent fuel for power plants and as an additive to
gasoline.29 It is clean burning, has no sulfur and
produces lower NOx than natural gas, and emits no
particulate matter. A previous study concluded that
methanol is an excellen~ fuel for use in California power
plants.
Methanol can be synthesized by the catalytic reaction of
synthesis gas produced by any one of a number of
commercially available coal gasification processes (first
generation processes as described in section b.). The
commercial-scale production of methanol has been practiced
in many countries for many years using primarily
Koppers-Totzek, Lurgi and Winkler gasifiers.
Various studies have examined the large-scale conversion of
coal to methanol via coal gasification. Generally the
studies indicate that the efficiency of the energy recovery
of coal-to-methanol is about 40-50%, depending on the
efficiency of the gasification process.20 A
commercial-scale plant processing about 15,000 TPD of coal
will produce about 7,500 TPD on methanol.
An analysis of the potential of using Alaska coal in
California performed by Lawrence Berkely Laboratories
states that a major barrier to increased methanol use in
California is the projected delivery price. The study lists
a wide range of values that have been projected for the
future cost of methanol from coal. Early estimates ranged
from $5.05-6.74 per million BTU to over $11.40 per million
BTu.29 A large part of the cost is associated with the
large capital investment required to build a plant,
particularly in Alaska.
The cost for constructing a plant in Alaska is not known
for sure; however, SRI calculated it would cost 30% more to
build a plant in Alaska than on the U.S. Gulf Coast.1 0
For ball park estimates Du Pont projected the cost of a
5,000 TPD methanol plant at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania would
have a capital cost of $805 million and produce methanol
for $10.00 per million BTu.24
r
l
L
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
L
J
E-9
Costs could perhaps be better controlled by construction of
much of the plant on the West Coast of the United States,
and transported in modular fashion, on barges, to Alaska.
This was done for some of the North Slope petroleum
facilities, and for the large combination power plant/pulp
mill that was constructed in Japan and transported by barge
in 1978 to the Jari River area in Brazil.
2. Transport of Coal
This section looks briefly at maritime and slurry transport of
coal. Innovations in these two transportation modes are
important factors in determining the economics of coal
development.
a. Maritime Transportation
b.
During the last decade the most significant development
relative to overseas transport of coal has been the
increase in the capacity of bulk carriers for ocean
transport.
The largest now being used are 120,000 deadweight tons
(DWT). Transportation of coal in inland and coastal
waterways is being accomplished with barges and small
ships, which can be self unloading.
As the world coal exports from various coal producing
countries continues, the trend is toward larger capacity
coal carrying ships. There will be size limitations on
specific routes; however, due to physical constraints such
as those imposed by the Panama Canal maximum size is
approximately 60,000 DWT. Other size-limiting constraints
are those of port facilities and depth of ports,
particularly of eastern U.S. ports which limit the size of
coal-carrying ships to about 85,000 DWT. The largest
vessels used in coal trade have been between Australia and
Japan where vessels up to 150,000 DWT have been reported.
A gradual increase in average ship size is expected for
many of the world coal trade routes. A maximum size of
200,000 DWT has been estimated for coal trade by the year
2000.21
Slurry Pipelines
Coal slurry pipelines are being given serious consideration
in moving coal from the mine to its destination. The
technology for coal slurry movement of coal is known and is
being implemented in several areas.
3·
E-10
For instance, in the southwestern U.S. a 273-mile coal
slurry pipeline has transported 4 million tons of coal each
year since 1970 between a mine in New Mexico and a
powerplant in Arizona.
Slurry pipelines need approximately one ton of water for
each ton of coal thereby restricting them to use in areas
with adequate water supply. Disposal of dirty water after
the coal has settled out presents considerable
environmental problems. Another impediment to their use
are the legal problems associated with obtaining right of
way. The issue of granting pipeline companies the power of
eminent domain is now being considered by Congress.
The costs of slurry pipelines are highly "route specific."
A study on the economic viability of slurry pipeline versus
unit trains found that where distance is greater and
terrain is less difficult, than pipelines were
cheaper.21 In their analysis of a hypothetical route
from Wyoming to Texas, they found that slurry pipeline
costs were considerably lower than rail transport
($5.90/ton compared to $8.70/ton, in 1975 dollars).
Industrial Use of Coal
There has been considerable research during the last several
years on improvements in and more environmentally acceptable
ways of burning coal.
Two of the technologies which have reached the stage where they
are considered by DOE as being ready for commercialization in
the industrial sector are Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) and
Coal-Oil Mixtures (COM). They are briefly discussed below.
a. Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC)
Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) offers both the industrial
and utility sectors a superior method of coal combustion.
The basic principle of FBC consists of burning coal in a
bed of non-combustible material, such as limestone. The
bed.is maintained in fluidized condition by the incoming
combustion air, and coal is introduced above, below or
directly into the bed. The advantages of FBC are reduced
sulfur emmissions and, because of its lower burning
temperature reduced, nitrogen oxides levels. Also,
particulate matter is coarser and easier to collect. These
characteristics make FBC, in general, more environmentally
benign than conventional coal burning techniques.
r
[
[
[
L
[
L
[
[
[
[
L
[
[
L
L
L
j b.
j
E-ll
The operation of coal-fired units have been successfully
demonstrated in both the U.S. and overseas. In addition to
numerous pilot-scale experiments throughout the world there
are several demonstration-scale facilities. An 8 MWe
power plant in Rendrew, Scotland has operated as a
prototype and test unit and has demonstrated 90 percent
SOx retention.
Other plants include: a 30 MWe unit at Riversville, West
Virginia; a 80,000 lb/hr. steam plant in Enkoping, Sweden;
and a facility under contruction at Grimethorpe, England.
Also, in the u.s., Johnston manufacturing has operated a
10,000 lb hr. FBC plant, since 1977 has been producing and
is marketing commercial scale FBC boilers based on results
from their operation.
In general, capital cost of a FBC unit appears to be about
15 percent less than a conventional boiler and scrubber,
and projected steam-production costs may be 0-10 ~ercent
less than conventional units using the same fuel. 9 q
Recent capital costs estimates are $620/KW for FBC power
plants and production costs of about 3.2 cents per
KW/hr.21 A construction period of about 6 years would be
required.
Coal/Oil Mixtures (COM)
A Coal/Oil Mixture (COM) is a slurry-like mixture of
pulverized coal and oil. The mixture has the potential for
being burned as a liquid in oil-fueled furnaces.
Typically, the mixture is 50 percent coal and 50 percent
oil by weight. Increased fuel oil prices and uncertainty
of steady supply make COM an attractive alternative for
utility and industrial users.
It has been demonstrated that COM can be burned in existing
boilers and blast furnaces for limited periods of time;
however, long term operation has yet to be
demonstrated.l8 There are some problems associated with
using COM that are being addressed, such as, product
stability (coal should not settle out too rapidly)
erosion/corrosion (erosion on pumps and other equipment)
and environmental (small fly ash particles by-pass
collection systems). These problems are being actively
pursued and are not expected to be a constraint to rapid
development. DOE has estimated that COM could be available
for commercialization as early as 198138.
E-12
The major market for COM is anticipated to be conversions
of existing industrial and utility boilers. Conversions to
COM from oil will require capital outlay for such new items
as, burners, ash removal equipment, and pollution control
equipment. Estimates of these capital costs, in 1980
dollars, are approximately $99,500/MWe for a 100 MW size
facility and $75,500 /MWe for a 400 MW size plant.
Operation and maintenance expenses would also increase due
primarily to the higher viscosity and ash content of the
COM. Increased costs are expected to be offset by lower
fuel costs.l8
[
L
[
[
[
r
[
[
[
[
L
L