Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/17/2023 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB72 | |
| Presentation(s): Heavy Oil Recovery | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2023
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, -Chair
Co
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 72
"An Act relating to designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): HEAVY OIL RECOVERY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 72
SHORT TITLE: NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
02/17/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/23 (S) RES
03/17/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JULIA O'CONNOR, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 72
on behalf of the sponsor.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 72 on behalf of the
department.
LEILA KIMBRELL, Executive Director
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on SB 72.
DR. ABHIJIT DANDEKAR, Professor and Chair
Department of Petroleum Engineering
UAF College of Engineering and Mines (CEM)
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation titled, "Heavy Oil
Recovery Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks."
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dunbar, Kawasaki, Co-Chair Giessel, and Co-
Chair Bishop. Senators Claman and Wielechowski arrived
thereafter.
SB 72-NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
3:31:20 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
72 "An Act relating to designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water; and providing for an effective date."
3:31:32 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, District E, sponsor of SB 72, explained
that the bill proposes a formal process for designating
waterbodies as Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW).
These are commonly known as Tier III waters, which are part of
the Clean Water Act that was enacted in 1972. This federal law
mandated that states implement water quality standards by 1983.
These standards had to include designated use classifications,
numerical or narrative water quality criteria, and an anti-
degradation policy. At a minimum, the anti-degradation policy
had to establish minimums for management of water quality in a
tier system.
3:32:51 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN joined the committee.
3:33:43 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL spoke to the document in the bill packet titled,
"Water Quality Tier 3 Water Nomination and Designation Process
in Alaska." Page 4 describes the three tiers of water quality.
Tier I refers to the existing quality of the water, also known
as "the floor." Tier I waters do not meet one or more of the
water quality standards due to things like docks, agricultural
runoff, and boat traffic. Tier II waters are high quality. They
comprise the majority of waters in Alaska and are safe for
fishing and swimming. Tier III waters are Outstanding National
Resource Waters (ONRW); they deserve special protections. They
receive the highest protection under the anti-degradation policy
of the Clean Water Act.
3:35:46 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL read 40 Code of Federal Regulations
131.12(A)(3):
"WHERE HIGH QUALITY WATERS CONSTITUTE AN OUTSTANDING
NATIONAL RESOURCE, SUCH AS WATERS OF THE NATIONAL AND
STATE PARKS AND WILDLIFE REFUGES AND WATERS OF
EXCEPTIONAL RECREATIONAL OR ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE,
THAT WATER QUALITY SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED."
She said Tier III waters have no development along side, no
pollution, and no degradation is allowed.
3:36:38 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL spoke to the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) policy and procedure document that provides
guidance relating to the nomination and designation of Tier III
waters. Nominations are submitted to DEC and the policy states
that the nominations will go to the legislature. Implementing
this policy is at the discretion of the DEC commissioner, which
means the policy could change. The bill addresses this issue by
codifying that the designation of Tier III waters is in the
hands of the legislature.
SENATOR GIESSEL displayed a state map that identifies the
locations of five waterbodies that have been nominated as Tier
III and submitted to DEC. She noted that copies of the five
letters requesting Tier III designation were in the bill
packets. She restated that the bill proposes that these
nominating letters be submitted to the legislature to review and
determine whether the designation is appropriate.
3:39:26 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL cited the Constitution of the State of Alaska
that clarifies that appropriation of resources, as assets of the
state, is the purview of the legislature. She read:
"THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE UTILIZATION,
DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSERVATION OF ALL-NATURAL RESOURCES
BELONGING TO THE STATE, INCLUDING LAND AND WATERS, FOR
THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT OF ITS PEOPLE."
ALASKA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2
"ALL SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATERS RESERVED TO THE
PEOPLE FOR COMMON USE, EXCEPT MINERAL AND MEDICINAL
WATERS, ARE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION. PRIORITY OF
APPROPRIATION SHALL GIVE PRIOR RIGHT. EXCEPT FOR
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY, AN APPROPRIATION OF WATER SHALL
BE LIMITED TO STATED PURPOSES AND SUBJECT TO
PREFERENCES AMONG BENEFICIAL USES, CONCURRENT OR
OTHERWISE, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, AND TO THE GENERAL
RESERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE."
ALASKA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 13
SENATOR GIESSEL stated that the Alaska Supreme Court underscored
this authority in Mallott v. Stand for Salmon. The question was
whether an initiative could be used to designate a state water
as Tier III. The court ruled that an initiative designating a
Tier III water would override the legislature's power to make
decisions about the allocation of state assets. The court went
on to say that the legislature has the ultimate decision-making
authority to use specific public assets for specific purposes.
3:40:54 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
3:41:25 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL spoke to the following summary of what SB 72
seeks to do:
SUMMARY
CODIFIES ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION'S CURRENT TIER III POLICY.
COULD EXPEDITE THE CURRENTLY NOMINATED WATERBODIES.
3:42:20 PM
JULIA O'CONNOR, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 72 on behalf of the sponsor:
Section 1: Amends AS 46.03 by adding a new section
that: Establishes AS 46.03.085(a). Through statute,
the legislature may designate water of the state as
an outstanding national resource water. Establishes
AS 46.03.085(b). Unless the body of water has been
designated as an outstanding national resource water
can it be managed like so.
Section 2: Applies for an immediate effective date.
3:43:26 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, stated support for
SB 72 on behalf of the department. He spoke to the following
points:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Outstanding Natural Resource Waters, ONRWs or Tier 3
waters, are defined as waters of "of exceptional
recreational or ecological significance" which shall
be "maintained and protected" from degradation in
perpetuity.
A Tier 3 designation of a waterbody bestows the
highest level of water quality protection under the
federal Clean Water Act and restricts a wide range
of activities on these waters as well as on adjacent
lands.
Since 1983, the Clean Water Act has required that each
state establish an ONRW or Tier 3 designation
process.
Alaska has a process in place, formalized in November
2018 in the form of a Department Policy and
Procedure that essentially reads the same as the
bill "The current process for nominating Tier 3
waters involves proposing the introduction of
legislation to make the designation. Any such
request may go to a legislative representative or
committee for consideration for introduction as a
legislative bill. Typically, a request to an
individual legislator would go to a legislator whose
district contains the proposed Tier 3 water."
Because the designation of a Tier 3 water carries with
it the requirement to maintain and protect the water
quality from degradation, the designation restricts
a wide range of activities on the waters and
adjacent areas, to include
• road and building construction
• recreational activities
• seafood processing
• municipal wastewater discharge and septic systems
• storm water discharge
• landfills
• gravel quarries
• large-scale resource development projects
• and or any other activity that might affect the
designated water
Designation as a Tier 3 waterbody requires that the
water quality on the designated body be maintained
and protected for the reasons designated and for the
water quality at the time of designation.
What that practically means is that no new or
increased discharges to the river or its tributaries
would be permitted if the discharges would result in
lowering or degrading the water quality.
That has potential long-term if not permanent adjacent
and upstream land-use consequences no new
discharge contributions that lower or degrade water
quality, whether those new discharges meet water
quality standards or not.
That would potentially eliminate road improvements in
the area, increased or changed discharges from
municipal wastewater treatment facilities, increased
recreational opportunities, seafood processing, or
anything else that might affect the water quality.
Such widespread impacts effectively make a Tier 3
designation a de facto land and water use decision,
one that may be based on designation criteria and
use restriction well outside the Department's
expertise and authority.
The Department is supportive of this bill that
formalizes that the designation of Tier 3 waters by
the legislature through statute for three very
important reasons:
1. The legislative process provides a full and
public process engaging all the interested and
affected parties, including those communities,
residents, users, developers, and
conservationists, and also those agencies with
oversight responsibilities for the area lands and
waters;
2. The legislative process allows for a full
discussion on the consequences, restrictions, or
impact to other activities and potential
activities by the designation, including future
and foreseeable activities; and
3. This legislative body and process is the proper
forum to establish land and water use
designations, and we are pleased to return that
power to this body in this instance.
Providing for the designation of a Tier 3 water as
structured in the bill will bring certainty to the
process and would codify in statute a consistent
practice for how lands and waters across the state
would be designated for conservation by legislative
approval rather than by division, department, or
judicial discretion.
3:48:52 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether any other states use a regulatory
process.
MR. BATES said yes; it's done by regulation, by statute, by
commission, or by a commissioner. He noted that Idaho has a
legislative process that's similar to what SB 72 proposes.
SENATOR DUNBAR referred to the slide that shows the locations of
the five waters that have been nominated as Tier III waters. One
of the nominations is the Chilkat River near Haines. He asked
whether the legislature could act on its own to designate the
Chilkat River as a Tier III water.
MR. BATES said yes; DEC's current policy directs proponents to
the legislature. If the legislature were to make that
designation, DEC would manage that waterbody accordingly.
SENATOR DUNBAR clarified the question. He asked, if DEC did not
have the current policy in regulation, would the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) recognize the legislature's inherent
power to designate a waterbody as Tier III.
MR. BATES said he would follow up in writing after he'd
conferred with the Department of Law, but his belief was that
the answer is yes.
SENATOR DUNBAR articulated his conclusion that SB 72 does not
give the legislature new power to designate Tier III waters; the
bill restricts the department in the future from changing the
regulations and eliminating the legislature from the process. He
opined that this probably would reduce the likelihood of Tier
III designations in the future.
MR. BATES said it would only reduce the likelihood of Tier III
designations in the future if it were the will of the
legislature to do so.
SENATOR DUNBAR clarified that SB 72 ensures that the
designations would be solely up to the legislature.
MR. BATES agreed.
3:52:41 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked whether the onus to prove that a waterbody
should be designated as Tier III was on the individual or entity
that submitted the nomination to DEC. But if SB 72 were to pass,
the onus of proof would reside with the legislature.
MR. BATES replied that the onus of proof is always on the
proponent. His expectation is that anybody who nominates a
waterbody as Tier III would be asked to provide proof.
3:53:41 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN offered his understanding that the five
waterbodies depicted on the map the sponsor presented were
nominations that were submitted to DEC.
MR. BATES agreed. He explained that when each application was
submitted, the department reached out to the proponent to
articulate the process going forward.
SENATOR CLAMAN noted that one of the applications was submitted
in 2009. He asked whether any of the nominations had been
approved.
MR. BATES answered no, but each proponent received instructions
on the process to pursue the designation of a Tier III
waterbody. The instructions were based on DEC's policy and
procedure document relating to the nomination and designation of
Tier III waters.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the policy became effective in
2018.
MR. BATES confirmed the effective date was November 21, 2018.
SENATOR CLAMAN summarized that the applications are submitted to
DEC but the department's policy and procedure is to notify the
applicant that they must go to the legislature to designate the
waterbody.
MR. BATES confirmed that the department would direct the
proponent to the legislature and suggest they seek help from
their legislator in the House and Senate.
3:55:15 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN observed that DEC's policy is to serve as a pass
through.
MR. BATES confirmed that the department would direct the
proponent to the legislature to evaluate the nomination.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP observed that the hurdle for proponents was the
cost to do the science necessary to prove to the legislature
that the nomination was valid.
MR. BATES said he would provide a copy of the letter he
submitted to the legislature last year about the cost to propose
a waterbody be designated as Tier III. He said the notion is
that the proponent should identify the reasons that the
department should be managing that waterbody as a Tier III so it
can ensure there is no degradation to the water quality.
The point is if there is a special waterbody that needs
increased coverage, there should be effort put in to identify
what the existing water quality criteria are so that the state
agency vested with the protection of human health and the
environment, and the implementation of water quality standards
knows exactly how and why it is managing that waterbody as Tier
III.
3:57:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI offered his understanding that the
legislature delegated to DEC the authority to develop clean
water quality standards, and that anti-degradation is part of
that authority.
MR. BATES agreed; as part of the delegated authority of primacy
under the Clean Water Act, DEC identified designated uses,
established water quality standards, and developed and
implemented an anti-degradation policy. That anti-degradation
policy includes a process for Tier I waters, Tier II waters, and
Tier III waters.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that the philosophical question is
whether waterbody designations should be based on an agency
review of the science and what it shows to be best for the
waterbody or a political decision. He further observed that the
department seems to be advocating for waterbody designations
that rely on political decisions.
MR. BATES posited that science would prevail when the
legislature is presented with the facts.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP turned to invited testimony.
3:59:58 PM
LEILA KIMBRELL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, provided invited testimony
on SB 72, paraphrasing the following prepared testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Briefly, for 47 years, RDC has advocated for a strong,
diversified private sector in Alaska and to expand the
state's economic base through the responsible
development of our natural resources. We are a
statewide trade association comprised of individuals
and companies from Alaska's fishing, tourism,
forestry, mining, and oil and gas industries. This
includes private companies, labor organizations,
Alaska Native corporations, as well as local
governments and non-profit organizations. RDC
collaborates with our partners and policy makers to
ensure Alaska continues to have a strong and diverse
economy by growing Alaska through the responsible
development of our natural resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide invited
testimony on SB 72, an act relating to the designation
of state water as outstanding national resource water,
also commonly referred to as "Tier 3" waters. RDC
speaks in support of SB 72, which provides a clean
solution to complying with EPA requirements to codify
State agency policy related to Tier 3 waters for the
following reasons.
EPA, under our nation's Clean Water Act, requires all
states to have a policy against the degradation of
waters and to maintain associated procedures that
prohibit the lowering of water quality under three
categories of water protection, the most stringent of
which is Tier 3.
Tier 3 designation is for an Outstanding National
Resource Water, which is described as having
exceptional recreational or ecological significance.
Tier 3 waters are required to be maintained to their
baseline conditions, and effectively cannot have any
new or expanded activities that have the potential to
change the water quality in any way. This would apply
even in situations where the activity meets the water
standards and fully protects fish and other water
uses, especially the highly regulated industries I
represent.
(note/citation: See 18 AAC 70.016(d)).
To be clear: the Clean Water Act, combined with other
federal and state policy extensively regulates how
waters are managed and impacted by all user groups.
Stringent water quality standards are established,
baseline study is done, extensive monitoring takes
place, and action is taken to further protect waters
when needed. This management already exists in
Alaska.
A Tier 3 designation goes much further than our
already exemplary water quality protections, without
any added benefit to the environment but with added
threats to economic and community activity.
Specifically, any activity that has the potential to
degrade a designated Tier 2 water and its tributaries
could be prohibited. A designation would impact the
users such as motorized vessels of any kind,
residential and commercial septic systems, stormwater
permits associated with road building, seafood
processors, timber harvesting, and much more.
Tier 3 water designations have the potential to become
a tool for anti-development interests to block or
delay resource development projects. That is evident
in the five nominations before DEC currently, which
specify mining, oil and gas, federal land planning,
and Alaska Native Corporation lands selections as
threats to waterbodies.
Further problematic, a Tier 3 water designation
applies "to a Tier 3 water or tributary to a Tier 3
water." This expansive designation means that it
would prohibit development in entire watersheds of
Alaska essentially comparable to establishing de-
facto Wilderness, akin to a national park or other
expansive conservation area. For this reason, we
believe the authority to designate a Tier 3 water
should therefore lie solely with representatives of
Alaskans - the Alaska Legislature, similar to Congress
having the authority to designative federal areas as
national parks or Wilderness.
Because of the watershed-wide land and water impacts
of a Tier 3 designation, it is no different than the
impacts of the 12 million acres of legislatively-
designated State refuges, sanctuaries, critical
habitat areas, ranges, special management areas,
forests, parks, recreation areas, marine sanctuaries
etc. All of these designations are made by the
Legislature. Just as the Legislature made those
designation, so too should the Legislature make Tier 3
designations and not the EPA.
To do so, the State needs a policy and statutory
authority in place. The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation existing policy agrees that
Tier 3 designations should be made by the Legislature.
Former DEC Commissioner Larry Hartig, in the
Walker/Mallott Administration, submitted a letter to
the Senate in November 2018:
"DEC recently updated its internal guidance to advise
DEC employees who might receive a nomination of a
water for Tier 3 designation on how to deal with that
nomination. This guidance provides that the current
process for nominating Tier 3 waters involves
proposing the introduction of legislation to make the
designation. Any such requests would need to go to a
member or committee of the Legislature to be
considered for introduction. DEC has reviewed this
guidance with EPA and they confirmed what we have put
in place satisfies Clean Water Act requirements for
antidegradation implementation."
In short, SB 72 is a housekeeping measure to implement
and codify existing DEC policy. Enactment would meet
EPA's Tier 3 designation process requirement and
provide process certainty to the public.
We believe that, given the significant, adverse,
watershed-wide land and water use impacts and socio-
economic impacts of Tier 3 designation, a Tier 3 water
should be designated ONLY by a vote of the
Legislature. This is consistent with the Alaska
Constitution, the existing process for setting aside
areas of State land and water from development, and
existing DEC policy. For these reasons, we urge you
to move this bill from committee and support it to
statute.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of SB 72.
4:04:52 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked her to send her testimony to his office
and he would distribute it to the members.
MS. KIMBRELL indicated she would do so.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP held SB 72 in committee.
4:05:09 PM
At ease
^PRESENTATION(S): HEAVY OIL RECOVERY
PRESENTATION(S): HEAVY OIL RECOVERY
4:05:44 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced a
presentation by Abhijit Dandekar, Ph.D. titled, "Heavy Oil
Recovery Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks."
4:06:17 PM
DR. ABHIJIT DANDEKAR, Professor and Chair, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, UAF College of Engineering and Mines
(CEM), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated
his intention to provide an update on the $5 million
appropriation for FY23 and FY24 for research on heavy oil
recovery.
DR. DANDEKAR displayed the outline for the presentation and
stated that he would begin by discussing the vast heavy oil
resources in Alaska and the difficulties associated with
producing that oil. This was the reason for the research. He
reported that research over the last five years has provided
sufficient proof that polymer enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the
Alaskan Arctic works for viscous oils. These oils are water
floodable meaning that they can be recovered by injecting water.
He said this was the primary motivation for ambitiously
targeting Ugnu.
4:08:11 PM
DR. DANDEKAR turned to slide 3, Alaska's abundant heavy oil
resources, and spoke to the following points:
(1) The left most picture on this slide shows the
three main units on ANS with Viscous and Heavy
oils resources sandwiched between the Kuparuk and
the Permafrost.
(2) The depth vs. oil viscosity plot on the right
most side gives us an idea of the increasing
viscosity with decreasing depth and three
development phases.
(3) Rather than lumping everything in one heavy oil
category we use a home-grown term to
differentiate between viscous oils (water
floodable) and heavy oil with viscosities upward
of 2000 cP.
(4) Viscous and heavy oil represent about a third of
known North Slope OOIP.
(5) Cumulative production of heavy and viscous oil is
about 1% of OOIP slope wide and currently,
there's hardly any production from Ugnu.
4:11:38 PM
DR. DANDEKAR spoke to the following points to explain why
research on the recovery of heavy oil is important:
• Strategic importance to the State of Alaska and the
Nation
• Technology development "in Alaska for Alaska"
• Resource too large to ignore, and within
established and permitted infrastructure
• Prudhoe Bay type diluent crude is still available
for heavy oil transport through TAPS. Willow has
fairly light oil that may be used for this purpose
in the future.
DR. DANDEKAR directed attention to the samples of viscous and
heavy oil pictured on the next slide. The Schrader Bluff viscus
oil moves when the test tubes are tilted but the Ugnu heavy oil
shows a very slow or sluggish movement. Reasons for high
viscosity are close proximity to the permafrost, fairly low
reservoir pressures and the lack of lighter hydrocarbon
components. He noted that in Canada and the area near
Bakersfield, California, it's common to see steam injected to
produce heavy oil, but in Alaska the presence of permafrost
precludes this typical thermal method of recovery.
4:15:03 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if the permafrost was about one-quarter
mile or 2,500 feet deep.
DR. DANDEKAR replied that it varies depending on the area but
it's from about 2,000 to 2,500 feet deep. He added that the
depth for the resources he's discussing is 3,000 feet plus so
there's some spacing. Another point of reference is the
reservoir temperature, which for both viscous oil and heavy oil
is about 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
4:16:17 PM
DR. DANDEKAR advanced to the illustration on slide 6 that
illustrates sweep efficiency or mobility ratio. The concept is
that water or gas injected into immobile heavy oil will cause
movement. The example in the top figure shows that water
injected in the oil will "finger" through the thick oil without
much recovery. If water soluble polymer powder is mixed with
water, the thicker polymer solution is 20-40 times the viscosity
of 1 cP of water. He said it's important to know the optimum
concentration of the polymer so there are no injectivity issues,
but enough research has been done to show that this does work.
4:19:33 PM
DR. DANDEKAR turned to slide 7 to discuss other concerns
associated with the recovery of heavy oil. The first is known as
polymer retention. He said this is a significant parameter that
may impact the effectiveness of a polymer flood; that portion of
the polymer is retained by the rock, so it doesn't play a role
in the displacement efficiency. This is shown in the first
picture. A second concern is that the use of any type of solvent
may precipitate asphaltenes in the reservoir and blocks the
pores, thus impeding the flow of oil. This is called formation
damage. He said there are also concerns related to the
breakthrough polymer. When the polymer breaks through and shows
up in the production stream, it will influence emulsions that
have to be broken down. The picture on the lower left shows
heavy oil and water emulsions and fouled heater tubes that
influence heat transference. Finally, conformance control must
be considered to ensure even distribution of the polymer
solution or injectant in nearly mile-long horizontal wells.
Injection control devices that are similar to nozzles are used
for this purpose. He said the research team also investigated
recovering the breakthrough polymer. The viscosity of the
breakthrough polymer is reduced but can still be used in the
"makeup" solution.
4:25:05 PM
DR. DANDEKAR advanced to slide 8 to discuss the success of the
Schrader Bluff pilot project. He pointed to the image on the top
left that shows the polymer injection unit that's located at the
J-Pad of the Milne Point unit. The idea is to prepare a thick
polymer solution that is diluted to a specified concentration
for use in the injection unit. The polymer that's used is called
Hydrolyzed Poly Acrylamide or HPAM. It looks like sugar and is
stored in the solo that's pictured.
4:26:36 PM
DR. DANDEKAR advanced to slide 9 to discuss the enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) benefit that was realized from the J-Pad pilot
project. The chart shows the actual oil production rate for the
polymer flood compared to the best-case history matched model.
To do the forecast, actual production data is used to calibrate
the assimilation models. This chart looks at the incremental
recovery of about 700 barrels/oil/day (bopd) compared to
recovery with water flooding, which isn't very efficient.
He said another measure of success is the polymer utilization
factor. This is the amount of polymer needed to produce the
incremental barrel of oil. In this case, it was 1.7 pounds of
polymer per incremental barrel, which is among the lowest in the
reported field cases worldwide. He noted that the cost for the
polymer was $2-3 per pound so the cost was not high to produce
the incremental barrel.
4:27:56 PM
DR. DANDEKAR directed attention to the charts on slide 10 that
show the forecast and economic analysis that was done. He said
this shows that water flood alone, which is the blue curve, is
not very efficient compared to polymer floods. The red curve is
the best model, but even the most conservative polymer model,
which is the gray curve, produces from 1.6 to 1.7 times more
than the water flood recovery.
The bar chart shows the economic analysis for the history
matched models. A higher net present value indicates a greater
project value while a higher profit-to-investment ratio and low
development cost indicates a more efficient investment. All
three models were robustly profitable through 2050.
Slide 11 speaks to workforce development. The picture shows Cody
Keith, the Alaskan student who ran all the simulations for the
test project. He won the Society of Petroleum Engineers Western
Regional Student Paper Contest and the master's division
international student paper contest. He currently is working for
ConocoPhillips as a reservoir surveillance engineer in the
Kuparuk area.
4:31:03 PM
DR. DANDEKAR advanced to slide 12, Targeting Ugnu Polymer
Alternating Solvent. He said the big question is whether polymer
alone will work for the heavy oil in Ugnu, given its
comparatively high viscosity. The proposed solution is to use a
solvent to reduce the viscosity of Ugnu oil and then use
polymer.
Advancing to slide 13, he summarized the following points
regarding project management:
(1) We have basically retained the structure from our
last project with involvement of other non-UAF
experts.
(2) We have a strong commitment from industry in
terms of the needed samples and technical
advisory.
(3) The entire team meets for 2 hours every other
Friday to review the progress and internally we
meet with the students every alternate Friday.
(4) Senator Bishop visited us back in early January
and you're most welcome again any time and I
extend that invitation to the entire committee.
(5) I'll share some results in the next few slides,
which are basically indicators that we're
steadily making progress.
4:32:45 PM
DR. DANDEKAR spoke to the following points on slide 14 to
discuss the phased approach for the polymer alternating solvent
project:
(1) The approach in this project somewhat differs
from the Schrader Bluff pilot in that it was
designed as a "Field Laboratory" right from day
one because there was sufficient experimental and
simulation evidence that warranted the field
testing. Note though that the lab work and
simulation continued in parallel as new data
emerged from the pilot.
(2) However, polymer alternating solvent is a new
territory and that means we need to first
demonstrate the efficacy of appropriate polymer
solvent combo in the lab and run simulation
models. After that we will test the proposed
methodology in a heavy oil reservoir this
phased approach is shown here.
4:34:23 PM
DR. DANDEKAR stated that the next few slides show the latest
results from the project. The first picture looks at the
swelling effect that carbon dioxide, as a solvent, has on Ugnu
oil. The test samples and graph show the significant reduction
in viscosity when carbon dioxide comes in contact with and is
dissolved into the heavy Ugnu oil. The plan is to also test with
other miscible solvents such as natural gas. He noted that the
discussions about carbon capture, utilization, and storage also
align with the project.
DR. DANDEKAR displayed slide 16, Ugnu oil recovery low
salinity water and polymer. He said the team has run commercial
sand pack core flooding experiments using both water and
polymers. These experiments show that some heavy Ugnu oil can be
recovered when it's flooded with low salinity water. But if a
polymer solution is injected after the water, even more heavy
oil is produced. The caveat is that these commercial sand packs
have high porosity and permeability, so the real test will be
when water followed by a polymer solution is injected into
actual reservoir sands.
4:37:22 PM
2
DR. DANDEKAR displayed slide 17, CO solvent -> Low Salinity
2
Water and/or CO solvent -> Polymer injection Alternating Cycles.
• Two different modes of CO "soaking" followed by low
2
salinity water
• Evaluate oil viscosity reduction/swelling
• Monitor gas, oil and water production
• Evaluate CO "stored" while enhancing heavy oil
2
recovery
He explained that these experiments inject CO alternated with
2
water injection. At this stage, it is not polymer alternating
solvent, it is water alternating solvent. The schematic shows
what's called huff and puff, which means the solvent is injected
and left to soak into the oil. This is followed by low salinity
water and also polymer in sand pack floods. He said the amount
of CO that's injected is just enough to see the effect. He
2
acknowledged that this will be a long iterative process to
figure out what combination works best.
4:39:04 PM
DR. DANDEKAR stated that the schematic on slide 18 illustrates
the soaking modes that have been tested in the alternating
cycles. On the left it shows a certain amount of CO is injected
2
while oil is produced. Then the system is closed for 24 hours so
the CO can soak. This is followed with low salinity water
2
injection to see how much the viscosity has reduced, and then
the heavy oil is recovered.
The second image illustrates full soak. This means CO is
2
injected until a certain pressure is achieved, and then the
system is closed. This is followed with water injection. He
explained that the idea is to determine the ideal combination of
water and CO.
2
4:40:00 PM
DR. DANDEKAR displayed slide 19, Ugnu oil recovery: CO low
2
salinity water alternating cycles, which shows results from last
week. The test vials on the left show the cumulative oil and
water production. CO is also produced but it can only be seen on
2
a gas meter. He said the motivation was to determine just how
much CO can actually be stored in heavy oil; it ties into CCUS.
2
The bar chart on the right shows that about 11 percent of the
oil can be produced when just CO is injected as a solvent. But
2
when water was injected into that less viscous oil, as much as
43 percent of the oil was produced. Then there was a second full
soak followed by more injected water, which produced another 4.9
percent of the oil.
4:41:51 PM
DR. DANDEKAR concluded the presentation by reviewing the
upcoming plans.
• Continue working on all Phase I tasks so that enough
data is generated for initial reservoir simulation
decision point
• A two-day forum/conference of academics (US and
Canada), industry and SNF (polymer manufacturer) on
heavy oil EOR at UAF after the SPE Western Regional
Meeting to:
-Discuss our currently ongoing projects and raise
ideas on how to extend our current work
-Visit our labs to know our capacity and capability
-Discuss future potential collaborations in heavy oil EOR
DR. DANDEKAR extended his thanks to everyone who contributed to
the research efforts.
4:44:40 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the polymer was designed in Alaska or
just tested here.
DR. DANDEKAR replied that polymer is not new technology, but
this was the first polymer pilot project in Alaska. S&F
manufactures the polymer in Georgia. Conceptually, polymer could
be manufactured in Alaska because the primary raw material is
natural gas, but other elements aren't readily available here,
so the logistics would be complicated.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the polymer is inert, and what happens
to it after it's used for flooding.
DR. DANDEKAR referenced the slide that shows the polymer
breaking through into the produced stream, but not in amounts
that cause concern. For example, the polymer concentration on
the J-Pad ranged from 300-700 parts per million. The polymer
stays in the water and is processed; the separated water is
disposed of, and some may be used for reinjection. The team is
looking at recycling the polymer so it's more of a closed
system.
4:49:14 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN summarized that the concept is to inject CO into
2
the heavy oil to reduce the viscosity and make it easier to
produce. He asked what happens to the CO after it comes out of
2
the ground.
DR. DANDEKAR said part of the research is to determine how much
of the CO stays in the reservoir, but the gas that's produced
2
could be used again. Some of the recycling could be done on the
pad using a "knock out drum." This process is already used to
recycle water containing polymer. He acknowledged that once a
lot of CO shows up, something else will have to be done.
2
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if he was saying that not all the CO that
2
was injected would stay in solution with the heavy oil.
DR. DANDEKAR said that's correct; it's similar to the gas
injection that's been done at Prudhoe Bay for years.
4:52:34 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN wondered how the dissolved solvent would affect
the blend of the oil. He specifically mentioned sulfur content.
DR. DANDEKAR said he didn't believe there was any concern about
sulfur, especially with heavy oil.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him for the presentation and his work
at the university.
4:54:42 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 4:54 p.m.