Document JvErxMo0EKEoD5EK31MJJBKd6

9/26/2017 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito Harris, Margo <mrharris@usgs.gov> Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito 2 messages Werkheiser, William <whwerkhe@usgs.gov> To: Margo Harris <mrharris@usgs.gov> Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:01 PM ----------Forwarded message----------From: Hitzman, Murray <mhitzman@usgs.gov> Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:29 PM Subject: Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito To: William Werkheiser <whwerkhe@usgs.gov>, Walter Guidroz <wguidroz@usgs.gov> Bill Walter is dealing with this. ----------Forwarded message----------From: MacGregor, Katharine <katharine_macgregor@ios.doi.gov> Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito To: Murray Hitzman <mhitzman@usgs.gov>, William Werkheiser <whwerkhe@usgs.gov> Cc: "Cardinale, Richard" <richard_cardinale@ios.doi.gov> Hey Murray and Bill - Have these BOEM points been added to the joint memo? Did y'all reach out to BOEM to add the attached information on their update of the nearshore Beaufort Sea OCS planning area? ----------Forwarded message----------From: Walter Cruickshank <walter.cruickshank@boem.gov> Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito To: katharine_macgregor@ios.doi.gov, Richard Cardinale <Richard_Cardinale@ios.doi.gov> Here's updated BOEM input to USGS paper (see below for the change). Walter Sent from my iPhone Kate MacGregor 1849 C ST NW Room 6625 Washington DC 20240 202-208-3671 (Direct) Murray W, Hitzman U. S. Geological Survey Associate Director - Energy and Minerals 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr,, MS 102 Reston, VA. 20192 703-648-4576 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/7ui=2&ik=ada3ab5e6d&jsver=EalL6uzdl9M.en.&view=pt&cat=Secrelarial%20Order%203352&search=cat&th=15e95t ) . 1/3 9/26/2017 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito William H. Werkheiser Acting Director, U.S, Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 100 Reston, VA 20192 ' 703-648-7411 2 attachments noname.html IK iSi USGS Resource Assessment Prop - Alaska North Slope V4-BOEM AK(062117).docx ^ 753K Werkheiser, William <whwerkhe@usgs.gov> To: Margo Harris <mrharris@usgs.gov> Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:01 PM ----------Forwarded message----------From: MacGregor, Katharine <katharine_macgregor@ios.doi.gov> Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito To: Murray Hitzman <mhitzman@usgs.gov>, William Werkheiser <whwerkhe@usgs.gov> Cc: "Cardinale, Richard" <richard_cardinale@ios.doi.gov> Hey Murray and Bill - Have these BOEM points been added to the joint memo? Did y'all reach out to BOEM to add the attached information on their update of the nearshore Beaufort Sea OCS planning area? ----------Forwarded message----------From. Walter Cruickshank <walter.cruickshank@boem.gov> Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito To: katharine_macgregor@ios.doi.gov, Richard Cardinale <Richard_Cardinale@ios.doi.gov> Here's updated BOEM input to USGS paper (see below for the change). Walter Sent from my iPhone Kate MacGregor 1849 C ST NW Room 6625 Washington DC 20240 202-208-3671 (Direct) William H. Werkheiser Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 100 Reston, VA 20192 ` 703-648-7411 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=ada3ab5e6d&jsver=EalL6uzdl9M.en.&view=pt&cat=Secre!arial%200rder%203352&search=cat&th=15e95b. 2/3 9/26/2017 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Fwd: Proposal from USGS to DeVito 2 attachments noname.html IK ra1) USGS Resource Assessment Prop - Alaska North Slope V4-BOEWI AK(062117).docx ^ 753K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=ada3ab5e6d&jsver=EalL6u2dl9M.en.&view=pt&cat=Secretarial%20Order%203352&search=cat&th=15e95b... 3/3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 13, 2017 Vincent DeVito, Department of Interior Energy Counselor William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey Alaska North Slope Assessment Proposal (S.O. 3352) Secretarial Order 3352 (Section 4b) directs the Assistant Secretary - Land and Minerals Management and the Assistant Secretary - Water and Science to submit to the Counselor to the Secretary for Energy Policy a joint plan for updating current assessments of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources of the Alaska North Slope, focusing on Federal lands including the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and the Section 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This document represents the USGS submission for the joint plan. KEY TAKEAWAYS USGS can conduct energy resource assessments of NPRA, ANWR 1002 area, central North Slope, and west of NPRA. Assessments would be conducted in collaboration with Alaska Region BLM and BOEM. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) personnel would be invited to contribute if funding can be secured. A USGS energy resource assessment of NPRA could be completed by late 4Q CY2017. Total USGS costs for this NPRA assessment are estimated at $2.55 M. USGS FY17 costs of $1.6 M can be covered but an additional $0.5M for support of Alaska DGGS and DOG personnel is required. FY18 costs of $0.95M for the project have not been fully included in the President's FY18 budget request. Three options are possible for a USGS energy resources assessment of ANWR 1002: o Determination of no new data so no assessment is conducted (cost $0) o New USGS energy resource assessment based on reprocessing of 1984-85 2-D seismic data. However, USGS has neither the funds nor the administrative capacity to procure the reprocessed data. Public release of results of such an assessment would be planned for late 4Q CY2018. Total USGS costs (FY17-19) are estimated at $4.85 M. o New USGS energy resource assessment utilizing data from a new 3-D seismic survey (not procured or managed by USGS). Release of the assessment results would occur during late CY2019. Total USGS costs (FY17-19) are estimated at $3,575 M. USGS energy resource assessments could be completed by end CY2020 for the central North Slope and by late CY2021 for the area west of NPRA. Funding for the proposed assessments has not been included in the President's FY18 request. The Energy Resources Program would have to secure additional funding for FY18 and beyond to undertake the proposed assessments. Background USGS assesses undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the U.S. and the world, using a variety of methodologies that have been peer reviewed by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Committee on Resource Evaluation. USGS conducts assessments when directed to do so by the Administration or Congress, when requested to do so by Federal land-management agencies, or when compelling new data become available that may substantially modify the scientific perspective of undiscovered resource potential. 1 This plan for energy assessments of the North Slope of Alaska (Figure 1) was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in collaboration with the Bureau of Land Management-Alaska Region (BLM) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management-Alaska OCS Region (BOEM). USGS's mission includes assessing oil and natural gas resources of all onshore and State waters areas of the United States. BLM and BOEM manage oil and gas resources of Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), respectively. Their missions include conducting lease sales and collecting and archiving pertinent exploration and development data. These assessment plans include personnel from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) to work in support of the assessments. Current Alaska North Slope Assessments Current USGS assessments of the North Slope include: * Conventional oil and gas in NPRA (2010) * Conventional oil and gas in the Central North Slope (2005) * Conventional oil and gas in the ANWR 1002 area (1998) * North Slope-wide assessments of "unconventional" oil and gas in shale (self-sourced) reservoirs (2012), gas in coal beds (2006), and gas in hydrates (2008) USGS assessments of the Alaska North Slope differ somewhat from those of the Lower 48 because the North Slope is an under explored basin, with fewer exploration wells and producing fields than most Lower 48 basins. North Slope assessments therefore rely more heavily on interpretation of seismic reflection and other subsurface data and on information derived from field work focused on rock formations that may be exploration objectives beneath the North Slope. For example, the USGS conducted an assessment of NPRA in 2002 following the discovery and development of the giant Alpine (Colville River) field, which represented a petroleum trap type previously unknown on the North Slope. However, subsequent industry drilling in NPRA on leases covering geologic features similar to Alpine revealed that the oil charge in the Alpine field changes to mainly a gas charge just 25 miles west of Alpine. As these results became known and a sufficient amount of data from the new wells became available, USGS updated the NPRA assessment in 2010, with the main result being a significant reduction in the volume of oil estimated to be present. In the 2010 NPRA assessment, the two plays estimated to contain the greatest potential for undiscovered oil were the Torok and Nanushuk Formations, in which huge oil discoveries have been announced since 2015. Recently announced discoveries include Pikka (>1,200 million barrels of oil (MMBO) recoverable from Nanushuk), Willow (>300 MMBO recoverable from Nanushuk), and Smith Bay (perhaps >1,000 MMBO recoverable from the Torok). If these announced volumes of recoverable oil are verified by development, the estimated largest oil accumulation size (a significant input to the assessment methodology) would be increased by one to two orders of magnitude compared to the assessment input used in the 2010 assessment of these formations. Thus, these significant discoveries represent compelling new data that may substantially modify the scientific perspective of potential resources in these plays. 2 Generalized USGS Assessment Workflow The assessments directed by Secretarial Order 3352 (Section 4b) will be conducted using the following generalized workflow that is followed for all USGS energy assessments. USGS protocol requires that steps 1-7 be as transparent as permitted by non-disclosure agreements related to proprietary data. 1. Acquire or access essential seismic reflection (and perhaps other pertinent data) to be used in conducting each assessment. This step in the workflow will determine the start date of each assessment and therefore will determine the date on which a completed assessment will be published. Possible start dates for North Slope assessments are addressed in the following section. 2. Assemble a team of scientists with expertise in pertinent disciplines of the earth sciences (e.g., petroleum geologist, geophysicist, seismic interpreter, organic geochemist, structural geologist, etc.). Assessment workflow steps 1 - 7 for NPRA and the ANWR 1002 Area will comprise a team that includes scientists from USGS, BLM and BOEM. BOEM geologists and geophysicists have analyzed the geologic and geophysical data for all sales in the NPRA starting with the 1999 sale through the most recent sale in 2016. BOEM analysts have access to all BLM seismic and well information as it becomes available. BOEM has also assessed the resource potential of adjacent Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore of NPRA and ANWR. Re-examining the geologic settings of both the onshore and offshore areas will enhance our understanding of the oil and gas potential of the Alaska North Slope. 3. Compile all additional data pertinent to the assessment, determine additional data needs, acquire additional data as budget permits, integrate all data into digital data base, and analyze/interpret all data in a digital workflow. Proprietary industry geologic and geophysical data held by BOEM is unlicensed to the USGS. This data (subject to appropriate non-disclosure agreements) will be available for analysis and interpretation in Anchorage at the BLM Alaska State Office and the BOEM Alaska Regional Office. Any new geophysical and geological data acquired (seismic reflection, non-federal well data, etc.) not currently available (i.e., proprietary State of Alaska data) will be shared between the three bureaus for the purpose of this analyses. BOEM is researching the availability and cost of the Smith Bay portion of the BLM 3D dataset pertinent to the assessment of the Caelus discovery. BOEM, in conjunction with BLM, will pursue the acquisition of the Alaska state portion of the NPRA 3D dataset collected in Smith Bay. This seismic data is a critical piece of information for analyzing the possible geological impact on resources from the Caelus discovery. The cost to purchase the Smith 3D data is currently unknown. 4. Define petroleum systems, plays, or assessment units that fully represent formations known to contain or hypothesized to contain technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources. BOEM has an integrated system of high performance computer workstations, specialized geological and geophysical interpretive software, and trained staff for analyzing and managing the large volumes of geophysical and geological data used in the exploration for oil and gas on the OCS of Alaska. BOEM staff and resources will be available for assessing the oil and gas potential of NPR-A and the 1002 area of ANWR. 4 5. Communicate and coordinate with Alaska technical agencies, as appropriate, throughout the data collection, analysis, and interpretation workflow. The Alaska agencies will include DGGS, DOG, and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservations Commission. 6. Hold public review meetings in Anchorage, Houston and other locations as appropriate to (a) explain rationale for conducting, and timeline for completing, assessment; (b) present scientific basis of assessment (e.g., explain framework geology, regional and local petroleum systems, likely reservoir units, trap geometries, and key risk factors that determine the probability that technically recoverable resources are present; (c) present fundamental geological entities (i.e., plays or assessment units) to be assessed; (d) present details of assessment methodology to be used; and (e) seek constructive feedback from knowledgeable scientists. USGS experience indicates that these public meetings build buy-in and support for assessment results from State agencies and the oil industry. . BOEM will work collaboratively with USGS and BLM and, by consensus, the team will determine the geologic risk of plays and assessment units to ensure resources are consistently evaluated, especially where geologic plays extend from onshore to offshore. BOEM, USGS, BLM and other government experts will review geologic play risks for consistency. 7. Revise fundamental aspects of the geological framework of the assessment based on constructive feedback from public meetings and follow-up discussions with petroleum geology experts from State agencies and the oil industry. 8. Conduct assessment - USGS Alaska project team presents the assessment framework and inputs to USGS National and Global Assessment review panel. Results from this meeting are subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, which generates probabilistic results. BOEM scientists regularly assess the undiscovered technically recoverable resources on OCS lands using rigorous analytical methods. BOEM also conducts fair market value analysis for BLM's annual NPR-A lease sales. It is imperative for this North Slope assessment that the DOI agencies conduct a consistent analysis between onshore and offshore resources, subject to rigorous statistical analysis and supportable probabilistic results. BOEM scientists will assess the Beaufort OCS potential as might be influenced by new discoveries onshore. BOEM will also revise the resource assessment of two existing plays equivalent to the Torok and Nanushuk Formations in the Beaufort Sea using new information and our geological and geophysical interpretive software. BOEM anticipates completing the Beaufort Sea nearshore assessment by the end of September 2017, in sufficient time for it to be incorporated into the NPRA updated assessment due at the end of the year. 9. Technical reports will be produced that summarize the geological science that forms the foundation of the assessment. The assessment results are then incorporated into non-technical fact sheets summarizing results. These documents are submitted to USGS technical and editorial review as required by USGS Science Integrity Policy. Fact sheets are given priority to assure timely release. 10. Assessment results are released to the public by publication of fact sheet. Simultaneous briefings are presented to the Department of the Interior and elsewhere to share results with the Administration, Congress, and the public at large. 5 PROPOSED NORTH SLOPE ASSESSMENTS: National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) Review of technical data has been initiated and involves personnel from USGS, BOEM and BLM. Primary data will include 3-D seismic reflection data, exploration well data, and a large volume of ancillary data generated by ongoing USGS research and data submitted to the BLM by industry. BOEM has conducted advanced analysis of 3-D seismic data for NPRA lease sales, and USGS has conducted research on all rock units to be evaluated. The first three tasks of the workflow, therefore, will comprise review of all data and analyses by an integrated team of USGS, BLM and BOEM personnel and building of consensus on plays to be assessed and risk structure to be imposed on the assessment. It is anticipated that this step can be completed late in the third quarter (3Q) of calendar year (CY) 2017. Public review meetings and the USGS assessment could be held in 4Q CY2017, with a date for results release in late 4Q CY2017 (Figure 2). Total USGS costs for this NPRA assessment are estimated at $2.55 million. Included in these costs is $0.50 million dedicated to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to conduct analytical services in support of the NPRA resource assessment. Figure 2: Estimated completion timeline for NPRA Resource Assessment Task CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 Review technical data and interpret seismic data 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q lQj 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q Refine interpretations of seismic and well data Define AUs; prepare for public review & assessment Conduct public review meetings Conduct assessment L ft Prepare release document (fact sheet) Conduct technical and editorial review Release assessment Hold briefings for Admin., Congress, State et al. 1 , 1 1 -- 6 Alaska National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area Three ANWR 1002 Area assessment scenarios are considered, which are detailed below: Scenario 1: Assumes that existing vintage 2-D seismic data are not reprocessed No updated assessment would be conducted because no new post-1998 data exist that would compel the USGS to consider conducting a new assessment. The only new information available since completion of the 1998 assessment is summarized below. A. Information from two wells (Stinson and Warthog) drilled in nearby state waters prior to completion of the 1998 assessment was released after the assessment and analyzed by USGS. The Stinson well discovered oil in two rock units, but the volumes of oil were determined to be sub-economical. The Stinson lease blocks were relinquished and subsequently acquired by another company, although no further exploration has been conducted. The Warthog well was declared a dry hole, and the lease blocks were relinquished and never re-acquired. The formations in which oil was found in the Stinson well and the formation that was the main objective of the Warthog well were assessed by USGS in 1998. The information gleaned from data released from both wells is consistent with the results of the 1998 assessment. B. After nearly three decades of delays, the giant oil, gas, and condensate accumulation at Point Thomson is now being developed by ExxonMobil. The limited available seismic and well data indicate that little or none of the main reservoir extends into the 1002 area. Moreover, the structure of the hydrocarbon trap indicates unfavorable conditions in the 1002 area (i.e., the ANWR area is down dip from the Point Thomson accumulation). C. Oil accumulations discovered by Exxon in 1975 on Flaxman Island, just offshore from the 1002 Area, and by BP in 1994 at Sourdough, located less than a mile west of the 1002 area, have not been developed. BP dropped the leases over Sourdough, whose well data remain proprietary, after disappointing results at the nearby Badami field, but the leases have been incorporated into the Point Thomson Unit. ExxonMobil has indicated that it is evaluating the possibility of developing the Flaxman Island and Sourdough accumulations but no development decision has been made. Despite these recent developments, USGS was aware of the Flaxman Island and Sourdough discoveries prior to completion of the 1998 assessment. Based on the information summarized above, the USGS concludes that no basis for conducting an updated assessment exists. Scenario 2: Assumes that the 1984-1985 2-D seismic data will be reprocessed (not procured or managed by USGS) The timeline for this scenario includes procurement of state-of-the-art industry reprocessing of the vintage data during 4QCY2017, and reprocessing of the vintage data during late 4Q CY2017 through early 2Q CY2018 (the seismic company that collected original data estimates six months for reprocessing). USGS and BOEM scientists would make multiple visits to the company conducting the reprocessing to provide interactive geological constraints to assure optimal results. During the reprocessing, new data would be collected from well samples adjacent to the 1002 Area and from outcrop samples collected during a short field season in 2017. These data would include constraints on oil source-rock quality, uplift and exhumation history, and reservoir-rock quality. USGS recommends collection of an airborne gravity gradiometry survey across the 1002 Area pending sufficient funds 7 (would require approximately $2.5M), but neither procurement nor interpretation of such a survey are included in the USGS budget. After reprocessed seismic data were delivered, a team of USGS and BOEM scientists would interpret the data, produce maps, and define plays (assessment units) to be evaluated. It is estimated that these tasks could be completed during 1Q-3Q CY2018 (Figure 3). This schedule should allow public review meetings to be held during 3Q-4QCY2018, with the assessment and technical review of release materials during 4Q CY2018. Public release of results would be planned for late 4Q CY2018. Total USGS costs are estimated at $4.85 million over three fiscal years. Included in these costs are $0.75 million dedicated to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to conduct tasks associated with analytical services in support of the ANWR 1002 Area assessment. Figure 3: Estimated completion timeline for ANWR Resource Assessment (Scenario 2) Task CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 Seismic data reprocessing (existing 2-D data) * IQ 2Q 3Q | 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q Review technical data and interpret seismic data Refine interpretations of seismic and well data Define AUs; prepare for public review & assessment Conduct public review meetings Conduct assessment Prepare release document (fact sheet) Conduct technical and editorial review Release assessment Hold briefings for Admin., Congress, State, et al. [1 Q 1 D [ * USGS does not procure reprocessed vintage 2-D seismic data, but provides geological and geophysical advice to seismic vendor. Scenario 3: Assumes that a 3-D seismic survey is conducted during 4Q CY2017 and IQ CY2018 (not procured or managed by USGS) This task, including initial processing of the new 3-D data, would be difficult, but not impossible, to achieve by end CY 2019 (Figure 4). Interpretation and mapping of the 3-D and ancillary data by USGS and BOEM scientists would occur during 3Q and 4Q of CY 2018 and IQ of CY2019. Definition of plays (assessment units) through public review of the assessment work products would be completed by late 3Q of 2019, and the assessment, report preparation, technical review, and release of the assessment results would occur during 4Q of 2019. If the 3-D seismic survey was not completed until winter 2018-2019, the timeline would be delayed by one year. In that case, the workflow for assessment of the Central North Slope would be advanced by one year and would commence during 3Q or 4Q of 2018. 8 Total USG5 costs are estimated at $3,575 million. Included in these costs are $0.5 million dedicated to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to collaborate in field work and ancillary analytical tasks. Figure 4: Estimated completion timeline for ANWR Resource Assessment (Scenario 3) Task CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 3-0 seismic survey and processing of data * Review technical data and interpret seismic data IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q Hr' U Refine interpretations of seismic and well data Define Alls; prepare for public review & assessment Conduct public review meetings Conduct assessment rwra. Prepare release document (fact sheet) a Conduct technical and editorial review D Release assessment 1 Hold briefings for Admin., Congress, State, et al. D * USGS plays no role in designing or acquiring a 3-D seismic survey. BOEM has no disagreement with the USGS proposed scenarios for assessing the 1002 area of ANWR, except to add that a request should be made to the owners of the KIC well (API #02520001-00) to release the well data for purposes of this assessment. The KIC well was drilled by a consortium of oil companies led by Chevron on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation lands in ANWR in 1986. It is the only well drilled within the confines of ANWR. Data from this well would significantly influence our understanding of the geology and resource potential of the 1002 area. Central North Slope Assessment of the Central North Slope would rely heavily on the public release of tax-incentive 3-D seismic reflection data by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Assuming that several of these data sets are released before or during 2Q CY2018 and that funding is available for the USGS to license other 3-D and 2-D seismic data, an assessment could be completed by the end of CY2020 (Figure 5). As no Federal lands are involved in this assessment, much or all of the technical analyses would be completed by USGS scientists, with the expectation that BOEM and BLM scientists could provide technical review of the interpretations. Alaska state agencies would be invited to collaborate on data interpretation and play (assessment unit) definition. If the ANWR 1002 Area 3-D seismic survey is not completed until winter 2018-2019, the timeline in Figure 5 could be advanced by one year. In that case, the workflow for assessment of the Central North Slope would commence during 3Q or 4Q of 2018. Total USGS costs are estimated at $6.4 million. Included in these costs are $0.4 million dedicated to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to collaborate in field work and ancillary analytical tasks. 9 Figure 5: Estimated completion timeline for Central North Slope Resource Assessment Task CY 2019 CY 2020 CY 2021 Acquire (license) existing 2-D/3-D seismic data IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q Review technical data and interpret seismic data Refine interpretations of seismic and well data Define Alls; prepare for public review & assessment Conduct public review meetings Conduct assessment fl Prepare release document (fact sheet) 1 Conduct technical and editorial review Q Release assessment Hold briefings for Admin., Congress, State, et al. [ _l West of NPRA The area west of NPRA, both onshore and beneath Alaska state waters, contains only sparse and very old (1970s vintage) 2-D seismic data. Workflow for this assessment would include review with BOEM of seismic data in the Chukchi Sea to evaluate the extent to which those data may inform the geology of the onshore and state waters. Unless new seismic data become available, it is anticipated that existing data could be reviewed and interpreted, and that an assessment would be conducted between 3Q CY2020 and 4Q CY2021 (Figure 6). It is anticipated that much or all of the technical analyses would be completed by USGS scientists with the expectation that BOEM and BLM scientists will provide technical review of the interpretations. Because much of the onshore area consists of Native lands, USGS would also invite the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to provide a technical review of USGS work. Total costs are estimated at $4.4 million. Included in these costs are $0.2 million dedicated to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to collaborate in field work and ancillary analytical tasks. 10 Table 1: Cost information, Alaska North Slope Assessment Options (numbers in millions of dollars) Assessment National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Alaska National Wildlife Refuge ANWR-Option 1 ANWR - Option 2 ANWR-Option 3 Central North Slope West of NPRA FY17 1.600 FY18 0.950 FY19 0.000 FY20 0.000 FY21 0.000 FY22 0.000 Total 2.550 0.000 1.350 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.550 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.950 2.250 3.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.950 2.200 1.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.950 2.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 4.850 3.575 6.400 4.400 Note: Totals not provided due to range of assessment scenarios provided. Contacts: Murray Hitzman, Associate Director for Energy and Minerals, U.S. Geological Survey, mhitzman@usgs.gov, 703-648-4576 Walter Guidroz, Energy Resources Program Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, wguidroz@uses.gov. 703-648-6421 BOEM Contact: David Johnston, Regional Supervisor, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region, david.johnston@boem.gov, 907-334-5273. 12