|
The Pikka FEIS is out
Corps publishes its environmental analysis for major Oil Search development
Alan Bailey Petroleum News
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has published the final environmental impact statement for Oil Search’s planned major oil development in the Pikka unit, on the North Slope to the east of the Colville River delta. The FEIS presents a series of potential development options, including a “no action” alternative, and an analysis of the anticipated environmental impacts of each alternative. The Corps will issue a record of decision, stating its preferred, approved alternative for the project, following a 30-day public comment period for the FEIS.
Estimated oil resources for the project amount to at least 500 million barrels, with projected production rates of up to 100,000 barrels per day. Although the project has often been referred to as the Pikka development, the Corps calls it the Nanushuk development, while Oil Search refers to its Alaska Nanushuk project. The main oil resource is in the Nanushuk formation, but there is a secondary oil pool in the deeper Alpine C sands. Oil Search is partnering with Repsol, Armstrong Energy and GMT Exploration in the project.
The fact that the development requires a Corps wetlands permit triggered the need for an EIS, as part of the permitting procedures for regulatory approval of the project.
A major project The FEIS says that Oil Search has proposed a development involving the drilling of up to 146 production and injection wells from three drilling pads. The project would require a central facility for the processing of produced fluids, together with power generation, water treatment and wastewater disposal. An operations central pad would hold a personnel camp, office and warehouse facilities. A system of infield pipelines would be carried above the ground on vertical support members. A system of pipelines for the export and import of fluid from and to the field would connect to the existing North Slope infrastructure at a tie-in pad near Kuparuk Central Processing Facility 2. And there would be an intake system for potable water.
Modified proposal In its original permit application, designated in the DEIS as alternative two, Oil Search had proposed co-locating the central processing facility with drill site one, one of the three planned drill sites. That would place the processing facility about 14.4 miles from the village of Nuiqsut.
However, in the interests of moving as much as possible of the road and pipeline infrastructure out of the 50-year floodplain of the Colville River, the company now proposes an alternative, designated alternative five, that places the processing facility and the operations center farther south and east of where originally envisaged, with the processing facility about 12.1 miles from Nuiqsut. This would render the layout of infield roads less parallel to the east channel of the Colville River, thus addressing local resident and agency concerns about the possibility of creating a barrier to caribou migration, the DEIS says. Also under this alternative, the export-import pipeline system would parallel the route of the existing gravel road to Brooks Range Petroleum’s Mustang production pad and gravel mine, with the access road for the Nanushuk project connecting to the Mustang road - Oil Search’s original proposal had envisaged the road and pipeline system passing two or three miles north of the Mustang infrastructure.
According to the DEIS, Oil Search’s modified wetlands permit application, filed to specify the change in the company’s preferred alternative, says that the company has also changed its road design, to reduce the road surface width, and has moved the proposed location of drill site two, shifting the drill site 0.3 miles farther from the Colville River. Overall changes to the project have reduced the project footprint by 77.6 acres.
Other alternatives In addition to a no action alternative, the DEIS considers two other development options. One alternative, alternative three, would move the central processing facility and operations center to the south and west, thus enabling maximum use of the Mustang road. This alternative would place the processing facility 10.9 miles from Nuiqsut. The other alternative, alternative four, would move the central processing facility and operations center to the east, to enable shared use of yet-to-be constructed roads associated with Caelus Energy Alaska’s planned Nuna development for the Oooguruk oil field.
The DEIS says that some environmental impacts would be broadly similar for all alternatives, except for the no action alternative. For example, the project would have climate change impacts resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, both from the field operations and from the eventual combustion of produced hydrocarbons. And all of the action alternatives would have similar impacts on geologic and mineral resources in the region.
Subsistence impacts An issue of considerable importance to local communities is the potential impact of the project on the availability of subsistence resources.
The DEIS says that the project would likely have minor impact on the total subsistence take for caribou, a major subsistence resource in the region. However, the impact on subsistence harvester access to the project area would be major, the FEIS indicates. Impacts on caribou resource availability in the area would probably be major during project construction; these impacts would be possible to probable during field operations. Impacts on subsistence fish and bird resources are probable, but there are no data for quantifying these impacts.
Alternative four would likely have the greatest impact on subsistence resources, while alternative five would have the least impact, the FEIS says. But any of the action alternatives would likely have a high impact on subsistence harvesting for residents of Nuiqsut, the DEIS says.
Gravel usage Although all development alternatives would have broadly similar footprints in terms of the use of gravel fill and road construction, the orientation of the roads envisaged for alternatives two and five could result in snowdrifts that would insulate the ground and hence elevate soil temperatures. Alternative three would likely have the greatest impact in terms of dust deposition from road construction and use.
All of the development alternatives would likely have similar impacts on air quality.
River hydrology Different development alternatives have different potential impacts on the hydrology of the Colville River basin and floodplain, depending on factors such as the length of roadways and the number of pipeline support members and bridge piles within the floodplain. Alternative two would have the lowest number of pipeline supports and bridge piles placed below the river’s ordinary high water level.
Given its ice-road requirements, alternative three would require the highest volume of water withdrawal from the region during the lifetime of the project, while alternative five would require the lowest water withdrawal. Alternative four would require the largest number of pipeline stream crossings, a factor that affects the potential impact of a pipeline related spill.
All action alternatives would cause some minor but long-term loss of wetlands. However, alternative five would directly fill the smallest area of wetland and water bodies, while alternative four would fill the largest area of these environmental features.
Wildlife habitat Similarly, any development option will have minor but long-term impacts on wildlife habitat. Alternative four would place gravel fill within the designated critical habitat region for polar bears, a species designated as threatened under the terms of the Endangered Species Act. Alternative two would cause the greatest loss or alteration to potential polar bear denning habitat. The various development alternatives would have different impacts on bird habitat. And, while alternative four would likely have the biggest impact on the movement of caribou during the insect season, alternative five would cause the least loss of terrestrial mammal habitat loss.
With the fewest piles and vertical support members below high water, alternative two would have the least impact on fish habitat. Alternative five would likely cause the least impact from fugitive dust on lakes and streams.
Visibility and noise While all action alternatives would have minor to moderate impacts on the visual and aesthetic resources of the region, the central processing facility would be farthest from Nuiqsut under alternative four, and closest under alternative three. The infrastructure crossing of the Kachemach River would be least conspicuous under alternative five.
Noise would particularly result from relatively short-term construction activities, but there would be noise impacts from all phases of the project. The noise impacts on local residents would depend on the locations of the facilities, as determined by whatever alternative would be used for the development. Alternative four would result in the least noise impact on Nuiqsut but a higher level of helicopter noise than the other alternatives.
All action alternatives would have similar impacts on land ownership and management.
|
