The National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska (NPRA)

The National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska (NPRA)

Order Code RL31573
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska (NPRA)
September 17, 2002
Robert L. Bamberger
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska (NPRA)
Summary
In May 2002, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released revised
estimates of the oil and gas resources that may lie beneath the surface of the National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA), an area of more than 20-million acres that lies
West of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Significantly higher than
previous estimates, these numbers may be considered by House and Senate conferees
as they seek to reach agreement on a mutually acceptable energy bill (H.R. 4). The
House-passed version of omnibus energy legislation, H.R. 4, would allow oil and gas
leasing in ANWR (limiting the footprint of development to 2,000 acres of the coastal
plain). The Senate version contains no ANWR provision.
The NPRA did not figure in the floor debates on H.R. 4. However, some may
now argue that the promise of NPRA makes development of ANWR less urgent and
that, in any event, greater emphasis should be placed on conservation policies and
utilization of alternative and renewable energy sources. However, there is no inherent
irreconcilability between ANWR and NPRA, and nothing to preclude making it a
matter of policy to develop both areas.
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves were established in the early
1900s to assure availability of fuels for the Navy, which was converting its ships
from coal to oil prior to World War I. In 1923, by Executive Order, President
Warren G. Harding established one of these reserves in northern Alaska. Over time,
the original rationale for the Naval Petroleum Reserves faded. In 1981, stewardship
of the Alaskan Reserve passed from the Navy to the Department of the Interior
(DOI), and the area was designated the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA).
The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (P.L. 96-514) authorized the Secretary
of the Interior to conduct oil and gas leasing and development in the NPRA. The
USGS had estimated that the NPRA could hold technically recoverable resources of
820 million to 5.4 billion barrels of oil. Lease sales were held during 1983-85, but
none of these leases was developed and all have expired.
However, the new estimates for NPRA present a more optimistic picture,
estimating 1.3 billion barrels economically recoverable at a price of $22/barrel (bbl),
and 5.6 billion barrels economically recoverable with a market price of $30/bbl (2001
constant dollars). Technically recoverable oil is estimated at 5.9-13.2 billion barrels;
the mean estimate is 9.3 billion barrels. Discovery of hydrocarbon deposits in 1996
just east of the NPRA has also contributed to expectations about the resources that
might lie under the surface of the NPRA.
NPRA lease sales were held again in May 1999 and June 2002. The FY2002
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63) provided $2 million
in funding for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in
anticipation of holding a lease sale in 2004 for tracts in the northwestern NPRA.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
NPRA: Early Exploration and Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
USGS Estimates of NPRA Oil Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Northern Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
List of Tables
Table 1. NPRA Resource Assessments
1980 and 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. NPRA vs. ANWR Oil Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. ANWR vs. NPRA Oil Economics:
Economically Recoverable Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska
(NPRA)
Introduction
In May 2002, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released revised
estimates of the oil and gas resources that may lie beneath the surface of the National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA), an area of more than 20-million acres that lies
West of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Significantly higher than
previous estimates, these numbers may be considered by the House and Senate
conferees in their delibetations to reach agreement on a mutually acceptable energy
bill. The House-passed version of omnibus energy legislation, H.R. 4, would allow
oil and gas leasing in ANWR (limiting the footprint of development to 2,000 acres
of the coastal plain). The Senate version contains no ANWR provision.
This report provides a history of the NPRA and discusses the most recent
estimates.
Background
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves were established in the early
1900s to assure availability of fuels for the Navy, which was converting its ships
from coal to oil prior to World War I. The oil reserve consisted first of three fields
in California and Wyoming. In 1923, by Executive Order, President Warren G.
Harding established a fourth petroleum reserve in northern Alaska, designated Pet-4.
Over time, the original rationale for the Naval Petroleum Reserves faded; moreover,
the likelihood of a sustained interruption in oil supply diminished, and markets had
shown a capacity to set prices and allocate supply during periods of uncertainty. In
1981, stewardship of the Alaska Reserve passed from the Navy to the Department of
the Interior (DOI), and designation of Pet-4 was changed to National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPRA). The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (P.L. 96-
514) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and gas leasing and
development in the NPRA. Lease sales were held during 1983-85 on nearly 9 million
acres of the more than 20 million acre Reserve. None of these leases was developed
and all have expired.
As production from the Alaskan North Slope fell from a peak of slightly more
than 2.0 million barrels per day (mbd) in 1988 to an estimated average of 1.2 mbd
during the first half of 1998,1 many Alaskans expressed support for exploration of
NPRA in the hopes that production from that area would help offset the decline in
1U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply
Monthly: July 1998, p. 6. DOE/EIA-0109 (98/07).

CRS-2
royalty payments from lower Prudhoe Bay production. Royalties on production from
the NPRA, currently set at 16 2/3%, are equally divided between the State and the
U.S. Treasury.2 Production from NPRA, some argued, might also assure sufficient
throughput to keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline running.
Figure 1. Map of Northern Alaska
Figure 1. Map showing locations and relative sizes of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and “feeder” pipelines extending east and
west of Prudhoe Bay show the extent of existing petroleum infrastructure. Locations
of the Alpine and Prudhoe Bay oil fields and the Point Thomson gas and oil
accumulation also are shown.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
NPRA: Early Exploration and Leasing
In early 1997, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within DOI initiated a
study of a 4.6 million acre section in the northeast portion of the NPRA, and
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to serve as the basis for management of the area.
This tract of NPRA comprises an area north of Umiat – where one oil reservoir had
been discovered – and west from the Colville River to the Ikpikpuk River.3 The
discovery of hydrocarbon deposits the previous year, just east of the NPRA
perimeter, was an important factor in initiating development of a leasing proposal.
Since November 2000, Phillips Alaska Inc. has been producing this site just outside
2U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. Mineral Revenues 2000.
Preliminary, p. 98, 131.
3For a map of the NPRA area that was under review, as well as extensive information about
the area, see: http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/final/pdf/FI_3.PDF.

CRS-3
NPRA, known as the Alpine field, where recoverable reserves are estimated between
365-430 million barrels, significantly exceeding initial expectations. 4
In announcing the planning process in 1997, BLM indicated the objectives were
to determine whether there were lands that could be leased, and what additional
measures might be required to protect the habitat for waterfowl and the caribou herd.
Comment was invited on six alternatives, or courses of action, including one to do
nothing, and one preferred alternative.
On August 6, 1998, BLM released its Final Integrated Activity Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (IAP/EIS) for leasing in this area.5 The IAP/EIS
imposed a number of restrictions intended to strike a reasonable balance between
permitting exploration and protecting the environment.6 BLM officials in Alaska
estimated that the quadrant under review for leasing could hold 500 million to 2.2
billion barrels of recoverable reserves, assuming a crude oil price of $18-20/barrel.7
A lease sale was held on May 5, 1999, and drew 174 bids from six different
companies on 3.9 million acres. More than 130 bids were accepted, totaling $104.6
million. Most of them awarded to BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. and Arco Alaska Inc.
Subsequently, Phillips Petroleum acquired the assets of Arco Alaska as required by
an order from the Federal Trade Commission.8 In the spring of 2001, Phillips Alaska
Inc. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. reported discoveries of oil or gas and condensate
not far from the Alpine field, but located in NPRA. Phillips indicated that these
discoveries might be commercial and possibly comparable in size to the Alpine
field.9 By early October 2001, Anadarko had initiated securing permits to drill two
additional prospects.10
Another lease sale in early June 2002 leased an additional 60 tracts comprising
nearly 580,000 acres for $63.8 million. Phillips Alaska and Anadarko submitted
bids jointly and were awarded 34 tracts for a total of $9.6 million. New to the NPRA
4American Geological Institute. Update on National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (5-11-00).
www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/npra.html. Phillips and Conoco merged on Aug. 30, 2002.
5The IAP/EIS is on-line att: http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/final/html/contents_vol1.html.
6U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Northeast National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.
August 1998.
7Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 24, 1998. NPRA Sale Plan Carries Heavy Restrictions, p. 26.
8U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Press release. FTC Clears Merger of BP Amoco and
Atlantic Richfield Company. Apr. 13, 2000.
9Ibid., p. 73. See also: Petroleum Economist. Firms Drift Down Coastal Plain. July 4,
2002: p. 31.
10Oil & Gas Journal, June 11, 2001. NPRA Leasing A Model of Responsible Oil and Gas
Development in Alaska, p. 20 et seq. See also Petroleum News Alaska, Vol. 6, No. 11.
Week of Oct. 7, 2001. Anadarko Will Use Phillips’ Ice Roads to Reach Altamura Prospect
in NPRA, p. A11

CRS-4
lease sale was TotalFinaElf E&P, which bid $53.5 million for 20 tracts. EnCana Oil
and Gas (USA) Inc. bid $920,000 for five tracts.11
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63)
provided $2 million in funding for planning, and preparation of an EIS, in
anticipation of holding a lease sale in 2004 for tracts in the northwestern NPRA.
This EIS is projected to be completed by the end of 2003.12
USGS Estimates of NPRA Oil Reserves
Measurement of resources is often expressed in different ways, beginning with
“in-place” resources, which the USGS defines as the volume of petroleum contained
in accumulations of at least 50 million barrels of oil equivalent, without regard to its
recoverability. Recoverability falls into two categories – “technically recoverable”
and “economically recoverable” reserves. Technically recoverable resources are
defined by the USGS as the volume of in-place resources that may be recoverable
with currently available technology and without regard to cost. Economically
recoverable resources are the volume of technically recoverable resources “for which
the cost of discovery, development, production, and transport, including a return to
capital, can be recovered at a given market price.”13
The USGS had estimated in the 1980s that the NPRA could hold technically
recoverable resources of 820 million (95% probability) to 5.4 billion barrels (5%
probability) of oil. The most recent evaluation of the potential resources in NPRA,
reported in late May 2002, present a more optimistic picture. The USGS estimates
1.3 billion barrels economically recoverable at a price of $22/barrel (bbl), and 5.6
billion barrels economically recoverable with a market price of $30/bbl (see Table
1). Technically recoverable oil has been estimated at 5.9-13.2 billion barrels (95%
and 5% probability, respectively); the mean estimate is 9.3 billion barrels.
More detailed estimates released by the USGS in 1998 of the potential of
ANWR in the 1.5 million acre “1002 area” coastal plain suggested that there was a
95% chance of finding technically recoverable oil resources of 4.25 billion barrels,
and a 5% chance of finding 11.8 billion barrels or more. The mean estimate was 7.7
billion barrels.14 (See Table 2.)
11The federal government shares 50% of the bids with the state of Alaska. U.S. Department
of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Press release, June 3, 2002:
http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/news.html#lease
12 Petroleum News Alaska, Vol. 6, No. 15. Week of Nov. 4, 2001. Federal Agencies in
Alaska Gear Up To Meet U.S. Energy Needs, p. 1, 14-15.
13 United States Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 045-02. U.S. Geological Survey 2002
Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), p.
6. To see entire document: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs045-02/fs045-02.pdf
14 For further background on the history of ANWR and proposals for its development, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10094, The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Issues.
Continuously updated. See also: CRS Report RL31278. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
(continued...)

CRS-5
Table 1. NPRA Resource Assessments
1980 and 2002
(technically recoverable)
Oil (billion bbl)
Gas (tcf)
F
Mean
F
F
Mean
F
95
05
95
05
1980
0.3
2.1
5.4
1.8
8.5
20.4
assessment1
2002
5.9
9.3
13.2
39.1
59.7
83.2
assessment2
Note: F = 95% probability; F = 5% probability.
95
05
tcf = trillion cubic feet
1 Includes entire NPRA, as native land selections had not been made. Does include state
offshore areas. Reported gas resources are total gas (nonassociated and associated).
2 Includes only the federal part of NPRA; native lands and adjacent state offshore areas are
excluded. Gas resources are nonassociated gas only.
Source: United States Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 045-02. U.S. Geological Survey 2002
Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). To
see entire document: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs045-02/fs045-02.pdf.
While not the focus of this report, the chart above reveals that USGS estimates
of natural gas are also potentially significant. As of January 1, 2000, technically
recoverable U.S. natural gas reserves in the lower 48 have been estimated at 167 tcf.15
The USGS estimate of mean technically recoverable natural gas resources in NPRA
represents 36% of lower 48 gas reserves. Less focus accrues to natural gas because,
in the absence of a transportation system to move it, they are not commercial.
However, the Senate version of H.R. 4, omnibus energy legislation currently in
conference, provides loan guarantees and expedited procedures for construction of
an Alaskan natural gas pipeline.
14(...continued)
Background and Issues. Updated June 11, 2002. USGS. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998. USGS Fact Sheet FS-04-98. May 1998.
15 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2002, p. 81. DOE/EIA-
0383(2002). December 2001.

CRS-6
Table 2. NPRA vs. ANWR Oil Potential
(technically recoverable oil)
Oil (billion bbl)
F
Mean
F
Size of area,
95
05
million acres
Entire area1
ANWR 1002 area
5.7
10.4
16.0
1.9
NPRA
6.7
10.6
15.0
24.2
Federal area only
ANWR 1002 area
4.3
7.7
11.8
1.5
NPRA
5.9
9.3
13.2
22.5
Note: F = 95% probability; F = 5% probability.
95
05
1 Includes federal and native lands and state offshore areas.
Source: United States Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 045-02. U.S. Geological Survey 2002
Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA).To
see entire document: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs045-02/fs045-02.pdf.
The USGS believes that most of the oil is located in the “northern third” of the
NPRA, and that it is distributed in “accumulations of moderate size. It is unlikely,”
continues the USGS, “that a Prudhoe Bay-size accumulation occurs in NPRA.”16
Based upon its estimates of field sizes, the number of accumulations in various size
classes, and the possibility that some accumulations may be farther from existing
infrastructure than in ANWR, the USGS also concluded that recovery from ANWR
is economically more attractive at lower prices for oil (see Table 3).17 “When market
prices are below $35/bbl, a larger volume of technically recoverable oil would be
economic in the ANWR 1002 area.” However, future oil prices are difficult to
predict, and predictions cannot take into account the periodic volatility of prices due
to external, and sometimes internal events. The USGS goes on to note that “if prices
exceed $35/bbl, NPRA and ANWR 1002 would have nearly equal volumes of
economically recoverable oil.”18 OPEC has committed itself to maintaining world
prices in a range of $22-$28/bbl, and if oil producers believe that commitment to be
indicative of any sort of trend, then production from either NPRA and ANWR, or
both, could provide a return on investment. The USGS, in making its calculations,
offers no prediction of future oil prices.
16Source: United States Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 045-02. U.S. Geological Survey
2002 Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
(NPRA).To see entire document:
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs045-02/fs045-02.pdf
17 Ibid., p. 4-5.
18 Ibid., p. 5.

CRS-7
Table 3. ANWR vs. NPRA Oil Economics:
Economically Recoverable Oil [billion bbl]
[2001 constant dollars]
Market
price,
$/bbl
NPRA
ANWR
15-19
0
0
20
0
3.2
21
0.4
4.0
22
1.3
4.4
23
2.8
5.0
24
3.1
5.2
25
3.7
5.6
26
4.0
5.8
27
4.8
6.0
28
5.1
6.2
29
5.4
6.3
30
5.6
6.3
35
6.4
6.6
40
6.9
6.8
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
While Table 3 is limited to a comparison of the relative economics of oil
production from NPRA and ANWR at various prices, any policy decision on the
future of ANWR – relative or not to the NPRA – will likely turn on a number of
broad policy issues.
Policy Implications
The newest assessment of the NPRA by the USGS comes at a time when
Congress appears sharply divided over whether to open up ANWR to leasing and
exploration. The House-passed version of an omnibus energy bill, H.R. 4, would
allow oil and gas leasing in ANWR but limit the footprint of development to 2,000
acres of the Coastal Plain.19 The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 contains no ANWR
development provision. During debate on the Senate version of the energy
legislation, the Senate essentially rejected ANWR development on a cloture motion
(46 yeas, 54 nays) to break a filibuster of a pro-development amendment. The
amendment was subsequently withdrawn, and it is one of the more controversial
issues to be addressed by the House and Senate conferees as they deliberate to craft
a mutually acceptable version of omnibus energy legislation. In the current debate,
some may argue that the revised USGS estimates and ongoing exploration and
19 Some have argued that there has been very little specificity about how this restriction will
be applied, and that full development of ANWR would be impossible unless the
infrastructure were scattered. The language does not preclude the dispersal of facilities, and
may not apply to Native lands within the NPRA. See CRS Issue Brief IB10094, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Issues.

CRS-8
development in NPRA make opening up ANWR less urgent. However, there is no
inherent irreconcilability between ANWR and NPRA, and nothing to preclude
making it a matter of policy to develop both areas.

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.