SR/OIAF/2004-04 

 

Analysis of Oil and Gas Production 

in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

March 2004 

Energy Information Administration 

Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585

This Service Report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent 

statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained 

herein should be attributed to the Energy Information Administration and should not be construed 

as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or of any other 

organization. Service Reports are prepared by the Energy Information Administration upon 

special request and are based on assumptions specified by the requestor. 
Contacts 

This report was prepared by the staff of the Office of Integrated Analysis and 

Forecasting, Energy Information Administration (EIA). General questions concerning the 

report can be directed to Mary J. Hutzler (mary.hutzler@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), 

Director of the Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, and James Kendell 

(james.kendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director of the Oil and Gas Division in the 

Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. Specific questions regarding Alaska 

resources and production can be directed to Philip Budzik (philip.budzik@eia.doe.gov, 

202/586-2847). 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

ii 
Preface 

On February 23, 2004, Representative Richard W. Pombo, Chairman of the U.S. House 

Committee on Resources, requested that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

provide an assessment of authorizing oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. In his request, Representative Pombo 

cited Division C, Title III, Sections 30401 through 30412 of the H.R. 6, “Energy Policy 

Act of 2003,” as it passed in the House. Representative Pombo asked that the impact of 

this oil and gas leasing authorization be compared to the projections shown in the Annual 

Energy Outlook 2004. In addition, Representative Pombo asked EIA to assess whether 

there were any “significant synergies” regarding the opening of ANWR to oil and gas 

leasing and the potential construction of an Alaska gas pipeline, which would transport 

natural gas from the Alaska North Slope to the lower 48 States. This report responds to 

Chairman Pombo’s request. 

The legislation that established EIA in 1977 vested the organization with an element of 

statutory independence. EIA does not take positions on policy questions. It is the 

responsibility of EIA to provide timely, high-quality information and to perform

objective, credible analyses in support of the deliberations of both public and private 

decision makers. This report should not be construed as representing the official position 

of the U.S. Department of Energy or the Administration. 

The projections in the reference case used in this report are not statements of what will 

happen but of what might happen, given the assumptions and methodologies used. The 

reference case projections are business-as-usual trend forecasts, given known technology, 

technological and demographic trends, and current laws and regulations. Thus, they 

provide a policy-neutral starting point that can be used to analyze policy initiatives. EIA 

does not propose, advocate, or speculate on future legislative and regulatory changes. All 

laws are assumed to remain as currently enacted; however, the impacts of scheduled 

regulatory changes, when defined, are reflected. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

iii 
Table of Contents 

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 

Analysis Summary.............................................................................................................. 2 

Background......................................................................................................................... 2 

Methodology and Assumptions.......................................................................................... 4 

Results................................................................................................................................. 6 

ANWR Production Uncertainties ..................................................................................... 10 

Synergies with the Alaska Gas Pipeline ........................................................................... 11 

Appendix A Request Letter from Representative Pombo.............................................. 14 

Tables 

Table 1. Oil Field Sizes and Their Date of Initial Production for the Three ANWR 

Resource Cases.......................................................................................6 

Table 2. Petroleum Supply Impact of Opening ANWR to Petroleum Development 

under Three Oil Resource Cases.....................................................................9 

Figures 

Figure 1. Map of Northern Alaska Showing ANWR and the Coastal Plain Area...........3 

Figure 2. Domestic Oil Production for the Three ANWR Resource Cases and the 

AEO2004 Reference Case, 2000-2025............................................................7 

Figure 3. Net Import Share of Petroleum Consumed in the United States for the Three

ANWR Resource Cases and the AEO2004 Reference Case, 2010-2025.....................8 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

iv 
Introduction

On February 23, 2004, Representative Richard W. Pombo, Chairman of the U.S. House 

Committee on Resources, requested that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

provide an assessment of authorizing oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.1

 In his request, Representative Pombo 

cited Division C, Title III, Sections 30401 through 30412 of the H.R. 6, “Energy Policy 

Act of 2003,” as it passed in the House. Representative Pombo asked that the impact of 

this oil and gas leasing authorization be compared to the projections in the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2004 (AEO2004).

2

 He also requested that a prior EIA analysis of oil and gas 

development on the ANWR coastal plain be used, as appropriate.3

 Finally, 

Representative Pombo asked EIA to assess whether there were any “significant 

synergies” regarding the opening of ANWR to oil and gas leasing and the potential 

construction of an Alaska gas pipeline, which would transport natural gas from the 

Alaska North Slope to the lower 48 States. 

This analysis presents three ANWR cases that assess the potential impact of oil and gas 

leasing in the coastal plain area of ANWR.4

 These ANWR cases represent the following 

potential oil resource levels: 

• A mean oil resource case, which is based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

mean probability estimate5

 of technically recoverable oil resources in the coastal 

plain area of ANWR; 

• A low oil resource case, which is based on the USGS 95-percent probability 

estimate of technically recoverable oil resources in the coastal plain area of

ANWR; and 

• A high oil resource case, which is based on the USGS 5-percent probability 

estimate of technically recoverable oil resources in the coastal plain area of

ANWR. 

These three ANWR scenarios are compared to the AEO2004 reference case, which serves 

as the analytical baseline for this report.6

 

1

 A copy of the request letter is included in Appendix A. 2

 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2004, DOE/EIA-0383(2004), (Washington, DC, January 2004); 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 3

 Energy Information Administration, Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: Updated 

Assessment, SR/O&G/2000-2 (Washington, DC, May 2000); http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/ 

petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/anwr101.html. 4

 The coastal plain of ANWR is roughly north of the Sadlerochit Mountains and west of the Aichilik River. 5

 The 95-percent probability estimate refers to a 19 in 20 chance of there being oil resources equal to the size of that estimate; the 

mean probability estimate refers to a 1 in 2 chance of there being oil resources equal to the size of that estimate; and the 5-percent 

probability estimate refers to a 1 in 20 chance of there being oil resources equal to the size of that estimate. 6

 A similar question was raised by Senator Frank Murkowski in a December 20, 2001, request. See Energy Information 

Administration, The Effects of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas Provisions of H.R. 4 and S. 1766 on U.S. Energy Markets, 

SR/OIAF/2002-02, (Washington, DC, February 2002); http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/aong/pdf/sroiaf(2002)02.pdf. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

1 
Analysis Summary

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and gas development is projected to increase 

domestic oil production starting in 2013. In 2025, the coastal plain of ANWR is 

projected to reach 0.9 million barrels per day under the USGS mean oil resource case, 

and 0.6 and 1.6 million barrels per day under the low and high resource cases, 

respectively. These cases include the impact of production in the Federal 1002 Area plus 

Native lands and the State offshore area within a 3-mile limit. 

Petroleum imports are projected to decline one barrel for every barrel of ANWR 

production. Opening the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reduce 2025 oil import 

dependence from 70 percent in the AEO2004 reference case to 66 percent in the mean 

resource case. The high and low oil resource cases project a 2025 oil import dependency 

of 64 percent and 67 percent, respectively. Expenditures on foreign oil and petroleum

products are also projected to be lower in 2025 by $8 billion dollars (2002 dollars) in the 

mean oil resource case, and by $15 and $6 billion dollars in the high and low oil resource 

cases, respectively. 

The opening of the coastal plain of ANWR to oil and gas development is expected to 

have little impact on the development of an Alaska gas pipeline. Although the opening of 

ANWR might reduce the gas resource risk of building an Alaska gas pipeline, there is 

expected to be a much larger gas resource in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

(NPRA). The NPRA is currently being leased and explored for oil and gas resources, and 

has an expected gas resource base six times larger than that expected for the coastal plain 

of ANWR. The NPRA is expected to have a greater impact on reducing the gas resource 

risk associated with an Alaska gas pipeline than ANWR. 

Background

The Federal Government currently prohibits oil and natural gas development in ANWR. 

ANWR was created by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

in 1980. Section 1002 of ANILCA deferred a decision on the management of oil and gas 

exploration and development of 1.5 million acres of Federal lands in the coastal plain of 

ANWR. Division C, Title III, Sections 30401 through 30412 of H.R. 6 proposes to open 

the 1002 Area to oil and gas exploration and production. The USGS estimates that 74 

percent of the oil resources in ANWR’s coastal plain area are on Federal lands, with the 

remaining 26 percent on State and Tribal lands. 

The estimates presented in this report include oil production from the Federal 1002 Area, 

the Native lands within ANWR, and the State offshore areas of the coastal plain. The 

linkage between development on Federal and Tribal lands is legally driven: under terms 

of ANILCA, development on the Native lands can only proceed after a Congressional 

decision to open the Federal 1002 Area. In contrast, the linkage between development in 

ANWR and State offshore lands is economic, not legal; without ANWR development, the 

necessary infrastructure for offshore development would likely not be available. Since 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

2 
both the State and Native corporations have expressed a strong interest in developing 

their respective oil resources, an approach that reflects the legal and economic linkages 

operating on the North Slope is appropriate in evaluating the potential production impact 

of a Congressional decision to allow development in ANWR. Estimates for the Federal 

1002 Area alone, such as those in the USGS Economic Assessment issued in 1999,7

 are 

most useful for an assessment of physical development impacts within the Federal 

ANWR area and for development of Federal revenue estimates. The difference in 

geographical coverage is one of several important factors leading the results of this report 

to differ from those presented in the USGS Economic Assessment. 

ANWR is located on the northern coast of Alaska, due east of both Prudhoe Bay, the 

largest oil field ever discovered in the United States, and NPRA (Figure 1.) Surveys 

conducted by the USGS suggest that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of technically 

recoverable oil8

 are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 

billion barrels, divided into many fields.9

 This estimate includes oil resources in Native 

lands and State waters out to a 3-mile boundary within the coastal plain area. The mean 

estimated size of oil resources in the Federal portion of the ANWR coastal plain is 7.7 

billion barrels. In comparison, the estimated volume of technically recoverable, 

Figure 1. Map of Northern Alaska Showing ANWR and the Coastal Plain Area

Source: Energy Information Administration, Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment, SR/O&G/2000-02, May 2000.

 

7

 U.S. Geological Survey, “The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, 

Alaska,” Survey Open File Report 98-34, 1999, Chapter EA (Economic Analysis). 8

 Technically recoverable resources are resources that can be produced using current technology. 9

 US Geological Survey, USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01, April 2001; http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

3 
accessible, unproved oil in the rest of the United States is 105 billion barrels, as of 

January 1, 2002.10

To date, there has been no assessment of the oil and natural gas resources in the rest of

ANWR outside of the coastal plain area. However, it is unlikely that the non-coastal plain 

area of ANWR has the same level of resources that are estimated to be in the coastal 

plain area, due to differences in geology. The House version of the Energy Policy Act of 

200311 calls for opening the coastal plain area to development and does not open any of 

the rest of ANWR. 

Methodology and Assumptions 

The effects of opening the coastal plain area of ANWR were determined by incorporating 

the resources of that region into the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS).12 The 

key assumptions required to forecast crude oil production from the coastal plain of 

ANWR are discussed below. 

• Timing of first production 

At the present time, there has been little exploration and development activity in the 

coastal plain region. The EIA report Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment suggested that between 7 and 

12 years were required from an approval to explore and develop the coastal region of 

ANWR until first production. The study further noted that the time to first production 

could vary significantly based on the time required for petroleum leasing once approval 

to develop ANWR has been given. Environmental considerations and the possibility of 

drilling restrictions also could significantly affect projected schedules. 

Following the earlier study, this analysis assumes that passage of the current legislation in 

2004 will result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2013, assuming 

that the first lease sale occurs 22 months after enactment, as required by H.R.6 passed by 

the House of Representatives. 

• Timing of continuing development 

This study assumes that much of the oil resources in ANWR, like the other oil resources 

on Alaska's North Slope, could be profitably developed given the current levels of 

technology. This study assumes that new fields in the coastal plain of ANWR will be 

sequentially developed every 2 years after a prior field is opened. 

 

10 Energy Information Administration, Assumptions for the Annual Energy Outlook 2004, DOE/EIA-0554(2004), 

(Washington, DC, February 2004), page 89, Table 50; 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2004).pdf. 11 Energy bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h6eh.txt.pdf. 12 Energy Information Administration, The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581(2003), 

(Washington, DC, March 2003); http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/05812003.pdf. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

4 
The decision to use a 2-year lag in bringing fields into production is driven by four 

factors. First, there is the large expected size of the coastal plain of ANWR fields, which 

complicates the logistical problems associated with their development. Second, there is 

considerable investment infrastructure required both to begin production in these fields 

and to link these fields to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Third, there is 

competition of financial resources from other domestic and foreign projects, including the 

projected development of oil fields in the NPRA, which potentially limits the resources 

available for ANWR development. Finally, increasing the rate of ANWR development 

might also require an expansion of TAPS throughput capacity. 

This study does not assume that the expected rate of technological change in the oil and 

gas industry for exploration and development will affect the rate of development of 

ANWR. While a higher rate of technological development might reduce costs and lead to 

more efficient development of ANWR resources, the primary impediment to the 

development of ANWR resources is the current legal restriction, which precludes access 

to these oil resources. 

• Field size distributions 

The current analysis uses the USGS assessment of potential field sizes in the coastal plain 

area, based on its assessment of the underlying geology. For the purposes of evaluating 

the impact of opening ANWR for U.S. markets, EIA assumed that State and Tribal lands 

within the coastal plain of ANWR would be opened for development. In the mean oil 

resource case, the total volume of technically recoverable crude oil projected to be found 

within the coastal plain area is 10.4 billion barrels, compared to 5.7 billion barrels for the 

95-percent probability estimate, and 16.0 billion barrels for the 5-percent probability 

estimate. Because the USGS 5-percent and 95-percent oil resource estimates are 

asymmetric around the mean estimate, the expected field size distribution and, in turn, the 

distribution of projected oil production are also asymmetric with respect to the mean 

estimate’s field sizes and projected production. 

In the mean oil resource case, the largest projected field in the coastal plain of ANWR is 

nearly 1.4 billion barrels. While considerably smaller than the 13-billion-barrel Prudhoe 

Bay field,13 this would be larger than any new field brought into production in decades. 

Subsequent fields, which are developed through 2025 in the mean resource case, are 

expected to be smaller, with two additional fields with 700 million barrels of oil, four 

additional fields each with 360 million barrels of oil (Table 1). To put these field sizes in 

context with recent North Slope Alaska oil discoveries, the Alpine Oil field, the largest 

field to start producing in recent years, is estimated to have 435 million barrels of 

ultimate recovery. 

These field size assumptions presume that the largest oil fields are developed first, based 

on the concept that the larger fields are generally easier to find and cheaper to develop. 

 

13 The 13 billion barrels of Prudhoe Bay field oil represent the cumulative volume of oil expected to be produced from 

this field over its entire production life. The amount of in-place oil in Prudhoe Bay is estimated to be 25 billion barrels. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

5 
Table 1. Oil Field Sizes and Their Date of Initial Production for the Three ANWR 

Resource Cases (million barrels) 

Year In Which Field 

Begins Production 

Mean Oil Resource 

Case 

Low Oil Resource 

Case 

High Oil Resource 

Case 

2013 1,370 700 2,000 

2015 700 700 1,340 

2017 700 340 1,340 

2019 360 340 700 

2021 360 340 700 

2023 360 340 700 

2025 360 180 700 

Total 4,210 2,940 7,480

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. 

• Production profiles 

Potential production from ANWR fields is based on the size of the field discovered and 

the production profiles of other fields of the same size in Alaska with similar geological 

characteristics. In general, fields are assumed to take 3 to 4 years to reach peak 

production, maintain peak production for 3 to 4 years, and then decline until they are no 

longer profitable and are closed. Identical production profiles were used in the prior EIA 

report, Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge: Updated Assessment.

Results 

In the AEO2004 reference case, total U.S. crude oil production is projected to grow from

5.8 million barrels per day in 2002 to 6.1 million barrels per day in 2008 (Figure 2).

14 

After 2008, domestic oil production is projected to decline during the remainder of the 

forecast period, reaching 4.6 million barrels per day in 2025. 

In the reference case, Alaska oil production is projected to continue at about 0.9 million 

barrels per day through 2016, with a projected drop in North Slope oil production offset 

by new oil production from the NPRA. After 2016, total Alaska oil production is 

projected to decline to 0.5 million barrels per day in 2025. The decline in Alaska oil 

production is expected to occur in all regions, including the State lands on the North 

Slope, the NPRA, and the southern Alaska oil fields of Cook Inlet. 

In all three resource cases, ANWR coastal plain oil production begins in 2013 and grows 

during most of the forecast. In the mean oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks 

 

14 The growth in U.S. crude oil production between 2002 and 2008 largely reflects the projected growth in offshore 

lower 48 oil production.

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

6 
 

t 876,000 barrels per day in 2024. The low resource case production peaks at 639,000 

he opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts: 

• Reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil; 

Improving the U.S. balance of trade; 

• Extending the life of TAPS for oil; 

• Increasing U.S. jobs; and 

• Reducing world oil prices. 

he remainder of this section focuses primarily on the first three impacts, because the 

is

 

Figure 2. Domestic Crude Oil Production for Three ANWR Resource Cases and the

AEO2004 Reference Case, 2000-2025 (million barrels per day)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Lower 48 production (AEO2004 Reference Case)

Source: National Energy Modeling System runs anwr_bs.d022304b, anwr_lo.d022304b, anwr_hi.d022304b, and aeo2004.d101703e.

Additional Alaskan

production, high ANWR

resources

Additional Alaskan

production, mean ANWR

resources

Additional Alaskan

production, low ANWR

resources

Alaskan production, no ANWR

(AEO2004 Reference Case)

a

barrels per day in 2024, while the high resource case production peaks at 1,595,000 

barrels per day in 2023. 

T

•

T

employment impacts are difficult to determine and are not within the realm of EIA’s 

expertise and because the impact on world oil prices is not expected to be significant.

With respect to the world oil price impact, ANWR coastal plain oil production in 2025

projected to constitute between 0.5 to 1.3 percent of total world oil consumption.15 It is 

15 Based, respectively, on the low and high oil resource case ANWR production levels in 2025. World oil consumption is projected to 

be 118.8 millions barrels per day in 2025, as published in Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2003, 

DOE/EIA-0484(2003), (Washington, DC, May 2003), Table A4, page 185; http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

7 
expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil

prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price 

of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) in the AEO2004 reference case. Assuming that world oil 

markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 

Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain 

production by reducing its exports by an equal amount. 

he leasing and development of ANWR oil resources potentially extends the life of 

hput

as.

NWR coastal plain oil production is projected to reduce future petroleum imports on an 

in

es,

Figure 3. Net Import Share of Petroleum Consumed in the United States for the Three 

T

TAPS. Currently, TAPS is believed to be uneconomic to operate once the oil throug

falls to between 200,000 to 400,000 barrels per day, depending on prevailing oil prices. 

Although the reference case projects North Slope production to be above this minimum 

level (i.e., 510,000 barrels per day in 2025), the development of ANWR coastal plain oil

resources extends the life of this pipeline well beyond 2025. The retention of this oil 

pipeline infrastructure could prove crucial in the future, if and when other regions of 

North Alaska are leased and developed, such as the offshore Beaufort and Chukchi Se

A

equal barrel-to-barrel basis. In the AEO2004 reference case, 70 percent of U.S. oil 

consumption is projected to be satisfied by crude oil and petroleum product imports

2025. The mean oil resource case reduces the percentage of petroleum imports to 66 

percent, with an import range of 64 to 67 percent for the high and low oil resource cas

respectively (Table 2 and Figure 3). 

ANWR Resource Cases and the AEO2004 Reference Case, 2010-2025 (percent)

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

2010 2015 2020 2025

Source: National Energy Modeling System runs anwr_bs.d022304b, anwr_lo.d022304b, anwr_hi.d022304b, and 

aeo2004.d101703e.

Low Resource ANWR case

Mean Resource ANWR case

High Resource ANWR case

AEO2004 Reference Case

70%

67%

66%

64%

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

8 
Table 2. Petroleum Supply Impact of Opening ANWR to Petroleum Development 

under Three Oil Resource Cases (million barrels per day, unless otherwise 

noted)

2015 Petroleum Supply 

Category

2002

AEO2004

Reference Case

Mean Oil 

Resource Case 

Low Oil 

Resource Case 

High Oil 

Resource Case 

U.S. Crude Production 5.8 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.9 

---- Lower 48 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

---- Alaska 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3

Net Crude Imports 9.1 13.5 13.2 13.2 13.1 

Total Crude Supply 14.9 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 

Natural Gas Liquids 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 

Other Inputs 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Net Product Imports 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 

Total Primary Supply 19.9 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 

Net Import Share of 

Total Primary Supply 

(percent) 53 63 62 62 61

Net Expenditures For 

Crude & Product 

Imports

(billion 2002 dollars) $90.4 $143.8 $141.5 $141.5 $141.0

2020 Petroleum Supply 

Category

2002

AEO2004

Reference Case

Mean Oil 

Resource Case 

Low Oil 

Resource Case 

High Oil 

Resource Case 

U.S. Crude Production 5.8 5.0 5.7 5.5 6.3 

---- Lower 48 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

---- Alaska 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.3 2.1

Net Crude Imports 9.1 14.5 13.7 13.9 13.1 

Total Crude Supply 14.9 19.5 19.4 19.4 19.4 

Natural Gas Liquids 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

Other Inputs 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Net Product Imports 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 

Total Primary Supply 19.9 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 

Net Import Share of 

Total Primary Supply 

(percent) 53 66 63 64 61

Net Expenditures For 

Crude & Product 

Imports

(billion 2002 dollars) $90.4 $169.0 $161.9 $164.3 $157.0

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

9 
Table 2. (continued) Petroleum Supply Impact of Opening ANWR to Petroleum 

Development under 3 Oil Resource Cases (million barrels per day, unless 

otherwise noted) 

2025 Petroleum Supply 

Category

2002

AEO2004

Reference Case

Mean Oil 

Resource Case 

Low Oil 

Resource Case 

High Oil 

Resource Case 

U.S. Crude Production 5.8 4.6 5.5 5.2 6.2 

---- Lower 48 4.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1

---- Alaska 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.1 2.1

Net Crude Imports 9.1 15.7 14.8 15.0 14.0 

Total Crude Supply 14.9 20.4 20.3 20.3 20.2 

Natural Gas Liquids 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

Other Inputs 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Net Product Imports 1.5 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.1 

Total Primary Supply 19.9 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 

Net Import Share of 

Total Primary Supply 

(percent) 53 70 66 67 64

Net Expenditures For 

Crude & Product 

Imports

(billion 2002 dollars) $90.4 $200.2 $191.9 $194.4 $185.1

Source: National Energy Modeling System runs aeo2004.d101703e, anwr_bs.d022304b, anwr_lo.d022304b, and

anwr_hi.d022304b. 

The reduction in oil import volumes also reduces the level of expenditures on crude oil 

and petroleum product imports. In the AEO2004 reference case, expenditures in 2025 on 

foreign oil and petroleum products are projected to be $200 billion (2002 dollars). The 

mean oil resource case projects expenditures in 2025 of $192 billion, with a range of 

$185 to $194 billion for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively. So, the 

opening of ANWR is projected to improve the U.S. balance of trade by $6 to $15 billion 

in 2025. 

ANWR Production Uncertainties 

Significant areas of uncertainty regarding the impact on U.S. oil production and imports 

of opening ANWR are: 

• The size of the underlying resource base. Because there has been little petroleum

drilling or exploration in ANWR, there is little first-hand knowledge regarding the 

petroleum geology of this region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based 

largely on the geologic conditions that exist in the neighboring State lands. 

Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

10 
quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil 

recovery and potential yearly production are uncertain. 

• The underlying field structure. The size of reservoirs that are found in ANWR 

will determine the rate at which ANWR oil and gas resources are developed. If

the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production will be greater in earlier 

years. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production will 

be less in the early years.

• The costs of developing oil resources in ANWR. This analysis assumes that the 

costs of developing ANWR are not significantly different than developing the 

Prudhoe Bay field. Oil field development costs depend upon the quality of oil 

found (e.g., light or heavy) and the field’s reservoir characteristics, such as 

permeability, faulting, and water saturation. If the ANWR oil field development 

costs are higher than those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field, the timing of 

ANWR production could be delayed. 

• Timing of ANWR production. This analysis assumes that production in the ANWR 

coastal plain will begin in 2013. This analysis also assumes the size of the oil 

fields expected to be discovered in ANWR (based on USGS estimates) and their 

production rates (based on the industry’s experience in the State lands on the 

North Slope). The actual timing of ANWR production could vary significantly 

from the timing assumed in this study. In addition, in the high oil resource case, 

North Slope production is slightly below the throughput capacity of TAPS. 

Although the TAPS throughput capacity could be expanded through the 

construction of additional pumping stations and/or the use of surfactants, it might 

be more economic to restrict ANWR oil production to the level of TAPS 

throughput capacity.16

• Environmental considerations. Environmental restrictions could affect access for 

exploration and development. 

Synergies with the Alaska Gas Pipeline 

The Alaska natural gas pipeline faces three types of business risk: gas market price risk, 

pipeline construction cost risk, and resource availability risk. Gas price risk is associated 

with the potential that future lower 48 natural gas prices might be too low to recover all 

pipeline and production costs, along with an adequate rate of return. Gas market price 

risk is further enhanced by the 9- to-10-year permitting and construction period for a gas 

pipeline, which increases the possibility that lower 48 gas market conditions and prices

could have changed considerably by the time the pipeline goes into operation. For 

example, more than 35 North American liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, with more 

 

16 The maximum throughput capacity of TAPS is 2.136 million barrels per day, which is slightly above the 2.12 

million barrels per day projected in the high oil resource case in 2023. (Rates exceeding 1,440,000 barrels per day 

assume drag reduction agent injection.) Source: Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., http://www.alyeskapipe.com/PipelineFacts/PipelineOperations.html.

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

11 
than 30 billion cubic feet of daily delivery capacity, have been proposed for completion 

over the next decade. Some analysts have concluded that LNG imports are a less 

expensive gas supply option for the lower 48 than the transportation of gas from the 

Alaska North Slope.17 If this is true and if a significant portion of the proposed North 

American LNG capacity is built, then gas prices might be lower than the breakeven cost 

for gas transported by an Alaska gas pipeline. 

The last two Annual Energy Outlooks have projected a need for both new LNG terminals 

and an Alaska gas pipeline to satisfy future natural gas consumption requirements. 

However, no new LNG terminals have been built since the 1970s, and LNG terminal 

project sponsors are faced with local siting issues, because many landowners do not want 

such facilities situated near them. 

The risk of potential economic loss is also increased by the possibility that an Alaska gas 

pipeline might experience significant construction cost overruns, as happened with the 

construction of TAPS. A significant construction cost overrun could result in an Alaska 

gas pipeline being uneconomic upon its completion, especially if lower 48 gas prices 

decline substantially. 

A gas resource risk exists because gas producers have proven the existence of 35 trillion 

cubic feet (tcf) out of the 51 tcf of natural gas needed to supply an Alaska gas pipeline.18 

Of the 35 tcf of proved recoverable natural gas assets that have already been found on 

State lands in the Alaska North Slope, about 26 tcf reside in the Prudhoe Bay Field, about 

8 tcf reside in the Point Thomson Field, with the remainder located in various other 

fields. The difference between the 51 tcf required for a pipeline and the 35 tcf of proved 

gas resource constitutes a requirement to discover an additional 16 tcf of recoverable gas 

resources for an Alaska gas pipeline. 

Other areas of the Alaska North Slope besides ANWR are expected to hold considerable 

natural gas resources, which are sufficient to cover this 16-tcf deficit. In particular, the 

NPRA portion of the North Slope is estimated to contain between 40 to 85 tcf of 

technically recoverable non-associated gas resources and 7 to 17 tcf of technically 

recoverable associated-dissolved gas resources.19 The NPRA is already being leased for 

oil and gas development, with the eastern portion of NPRA under an active exploration 

program. 

 

17 Deutsche Bank, Picking the winners from the liquid gas boom, May 2, 2003, Figure 6, page 8. 18 Based on a presentation prepared by BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil entitled: “Alaska Producer Pipeline 

Update,” May 2002, Slide 16. Includes natural gas volumes required as lease, pipeline, processing, and electricity 

generation fuel. 

19 United States Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey 2002 Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), USGS Fact Sheet 045-02, Table 1, and personal communication on March 1,

2004, with Emil Attanasi, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Estimates include NPRA, native lands, 

and adjacent offshore areas within a 3-mile boundary surrounding NPRA. The USGS mean gas resource estimates for 

NPRA are 61 tcf for non-associated gas and 12 tcf for associated-dissolved natural gas. The NPRA figures cited in the 

text represent the 95-percent and 5-percent probability gas resource estimates, respectively. Associated-dissolved

natural gas is co-located with crude oil in a reservoir, while non-associated gas is found without any crude oil in a 

reservoir. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

12 
In contrast, the USGS estimates that the technically recoverable non-associated natural 

gas resources available in the ANWR coastal plain are between 0 and 11 tcf, with a mean 

estimated value of 3.8 tcf.20 An additional 2.3 to 5.2 tcf of technically recoverable 

associated-dissolved natural gas is estimated to exist in the ANWR coastal plain, with a 

mean estimate of 3.6 tcf.21 So, under the mean gas resource estimates, total associated 

and non-associated ANWR coastal plain gas resources are estimated to be 7.4 tcf, which 

is less than half of the 16 tcf necessary for the gas pipeline. Even the 5-percent 

probability estimates (a 1-in-20 chance) for associated-dissolved and non-associated gas 

resources just barely cover the 16-tcf gas resource deficit. Consequently, opening the 

ANWR coastal plain to petroleum development might reduce the resource risk associated 

with an Alaska natural gas pipeline, but only marginally, because the expected size of the 

NPRA gas resource base is so much larger and because NPRA is already under an active 

leasing and exploration program.

22

 

20 U.S. Geological Survey, The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, 

Alaska Open File Report 98-34, Table AO3. Gas resource estimates include Federal lands, Native lands, and the State 

offshore area within the 3-mile limit. 21 Ibid. Table EA3. These associated-dissolved gas figures are for the Federal lands portion of ANWR only (ie, the 

1002 Area) and do not include the Native lands and the 3-mile offshore portions of the ANWR coastal plain. The more 

inclusive gas resources estimates were not available from USGS at the time of publication. 22 The phrase “might reduce” is used in this context because this resource risk is only reduced if large volumes of

natural gas are, in fact, found in ANWR. However, the finding of such resources can only occur if ANWR is opened to 

exploration and development. If ANWR is opened to petroleum development and no large gas deposits are found, then

the pipeline’s resource risk remains unchanged. 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

13 
Appendix A 

Request Letter from Representative Pombo 

 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

14 
 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

15 
 Energy Information Administration/Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR

16