Alaskans voiced overwhelming support for the development of ExxonMobil’s Point Thomson natural gas condensate project at a public hearing in Anchorage earlier this winter. By a 36-0 margin, those attending the hearing urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to move forward with Alternative B in the Point Thomson Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

The DEIS presents five alternatives, including Alternative B, which features coastal pads with in-field gravel roads.

Point Thomson is a remote field on the Beaufort Sea coastline 60 miles east of Prudhoe Bay and two miles from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The field contains an estimated eight trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 400 million barrels of oil and gas condensate. Point Thomson represents approximately 25 percent of the North Slope’s known natural gas resources.

The first exploration well was drilled in the Point Thomson area in 1969. To date, 21 exploratory wells have been drilled on and offshore in the area and several gravel structures from these early exploration activities remain. Most of the Point Thomson reservoir is offshore, but the project’s facilities would be on land and the reservoir would be tapped from two onshore drilling pads.

Development of Point Thomson is essential to Alaska natural gas commercialization. Besides the operator, ExxonMobil, other major partners include BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron.

The project will use long-reach directional drilling from onshore pads to recover offshore resources. The proposed project includes three pads and five wells, with a central pad supporting production facilities, in-field roads, pipelines, an airstrip, and a gravel mine site. A common carrier pipeline will be constructed for transporting hydrocarbon liquids 22 miles west to the Badami pipeline.

RDC, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supported Alternative B, which they all said is the safest and most environmentally-sound and economic option.

“Alternatives C, D, and E all prohibit or require project components which are more harmful to the environment than the proposed project,” said Kate Williams, Regulatory Affairs Representative for AOGA. She pointed out that the other alternatives result in a larger project footprint, pose unnecessary safety risks, as well as compromise emergency response and operational efficiencies. Williams also noted the project has been designed to have minimal impacts on subsistence activities.

Since 2008, ExxonMobil has contracted with 170 Alaska-based firms, investing $700 million in Alaska businesses and employment opportunities. Should the project move forward, revenues would flow throughout the state.

Joe Balash, Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, said “the state continues to fully support production at Point Thomson, which would offset current declines in North Slope production and maintain efficiency of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.” Balash said Point Thomson’s development would provide enormous benefits to the state and nation and lead to more jobs, significant revenue, and enhanced energy security.

However, he cautioned that the Point Thomson DEIS is another example of federal overreach on state lands. He explained that the DEIS includes ANWR in its evaluation due to its proximity to the project and assumes that activities occurring outside refuge boundaries could impact ANWR’s wilderness values.

“It is disconcerting that the DEIS places so much emphasis on the proposed project’s proximity to ANWR and implies that the state should manage its adjacent lands as if they were part of the refuge,” said Balash. “We have serious issues with the appropriateness of the DEIS assessing such impacts when the project is located on state lands designated for oil and gas development, well outside refuge boundaries. Moreover, a huge portion of ANWR already includes over eight million acres that are designated as wilderness and ANWR also encompasses vast ecosystems that are specifically designed to protect fish, wildlife, and wilderness values. Therefore, there is no reason to extend ANWR’s reach beyond it boundaries.”

The Point Thomson EIS process for the currently proposed project began in late 2009. The estimated date for issuing the Record of Decision (ROD) for the EIS has slipped by one year from the original schedule. Because construction on the North Slope is typically limited to the winter season, this schedule slip has unfortunately resulted in a two-year delay in the project start-up and production date.

As a cooperating agency on the EIS, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources has highlighted the importance of establishing and maintaining a reasonable and firm timeframe for completion. “Given these delays, the state remains a strong proponent for the timely decision making and collaborative working relationship among cooperating agencies throughout the remainder of the EIS process, as well as throughout the potential permitting of this proposed project,” Balash said. “We look forward to continue working together with these federal agencies to see continued success in completing the EIS phase for the Point Thomson project.”

In its comments supporting the project, RDC said Point Thomson will not pose a threat to the survival of polar bears. “Polar bear denning habitat is plentiful, widely distributed and undisturbed on the Beaufort Sea coastal plain,” RDC explained. “It is highly unlikely that denning habitat will become a limiting factor for polar bears, even when all foreseeable development activity is taken into account.”

Return to newsletter headlines