|
Point Thomson alternatives cut to 5 Agencies working EIS have cut nine alternatives developed from scoping comments to five; draft EIS still scheduled for November Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
Work on the environmental impact statement for Point Thomson development has progressed to the alternatives stage. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the lead agency for the EIS, said in its June project newsletter that it has been working with cooperating agencies — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources — on nine alternatives developed from scoping comments received in 2010.
ExxonMobil is proposing to develop the Thomson Sand reservoir on Alaska’s North Slope, just west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The company’s objective is to produce 10,000 barrels per day of condensate, re-injecting natural gas, testing and delineating other hydrocarbon resources including oil and natural gas in the Point Thomson area.
Point Thomson is under litigation between the State of Alaska and the owners, led by ExxonMobil, after the state terminated the unit and took back the leases, charging lack of development.
Under an agreement with DNR, ExxonMobil committed to the 10,000 bpd project and has drilled two wells. The date to have the project online was 2014, but ExxonMobil told Petroleum News in April that with the date for completion of agency work now a full year beyond the original date, there is likely to be an impact on project completion date (see story in the May 1 issue).
Screening reduced options The Corps described the process of elimination by which it got to five alternatives for consideration in the EIS.
Phase one screening, which eliminated four alternatives, included consideration of whether the alternatives were technologically feasible, allowed for future full field development, would be able to receive required permits and were unique and distinct from other alternatives.
One of the remaining alternatives was refined into two, leaving six alternatives.
Phase two screening included consideration of whether the alternative met the project purpose and need and was responsive to issues identified in the scoping phase. That screening eliminated one alternative, leaving five alternatives to be evaluated.
That evaluation will be done in the course of preparation of the draft EIS, which is scheduled to be released in November, with public meetings to follow in November or early December, the Corps said. Details of the alternatives will be available when the draft EIS is released.
The Corps also said that studies in support of the EIS have been completed and those studies will be available on the web site as part of the draft EIS release, including wetlands mapping and wetlands functional assessment, baseline assessment for noise, visual assessment, human health impact assessment and analysis of previously collected subsistence information. The Corps said many of the study topics were generated during the scoping process and are a direct result of concerns heard in that process. The EIS agency team and the applicant ExxonMobil both participated in development of the studies. Applicant studies conducted in 2010 include hydrology investigation, fish survey and nesting bird survey.
Alternatives considered Under alternative A, the no action alternative, existing wells at the Point Thomson central pad would be capped and the site would be monitored.
Alternative B, the applicant’s proposed action, consists of developing an onshore layout with three pads and five wells. Gravel roads and infield pipelines would connect the pads.
Offshore oil and gas resources would be recovered with directional drilling into the Point Thomson sand reservoir from onshore wells.
The project would include a mine site, gravel airstrip, barge dock and 22-mile export pipeline to connect to the Badami pipeline, which connects to the Endicott pipeline and ultimately to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline at Pump Station 1.
Alternative C, developed in response to scoping comments, would move facilities and infield gravel roads away from the Beaufort Sea coast, minimizing impacts to marine resources and nearshore processes.
There would be no barging to the site, with ice roads used to transport equipment during construction and an airstrip and a permanent gravel road from Deadhorse to Point Thomson to support operation of the facility. There would be four onshore pads and five wells.
Alternative D is similar to C, with facilities and infield roads moved inland, but without an all-season road to Deadhorse. Ice roads would be used for the duration of the field life.
Alternative E would have a three-pad and five-well onshore layout similar to alternative B. The goal of alternative E is to minimize permanent infrastructure by using multiseason ice pads during drilling and accessing satellite pads via helicopter and seasonal ice roads.
Transportation facilities would include a short gravel airstrip and barge dock; winter access to the project area from Prudhoe Bay would be by ice road.
| 