AOGCC tells Alaska Senate committee Point Thompson is high‑pressure, condensate yields lower than earlier estimates; recommends revisiting 2015 offtake order

Senator Giesel convened the Senate Resources Committee on May 13 to hear a technical briefing from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) about Point Thompson and implications for SB 280, a bill supporting an Alaska gas line.

Commissioner Greg Wilson and senior petroleum engineer Dave Roby told the panel that recent production data and reservoir behavior have altered earlier expectations for Point Thompson. Wilson summarized a shift from earlier estimates of about 8 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas in place to a more conservative interpretation nearer 6 TCF. Using the current operator’s figures, the commission showed an ‘‘in‑place’’ condensate number of roughly 330 million barrels before applying recovery factors and cited a current condensate yield of about 55 barrels per million standard cubic feet.

AOGCC officials emphasized the technical difference between gas cycling and blowdown. ‘‘Gas cycling’’ means producing gas and condensate at the surface and reinjecting most gas to maintain reservoir pressure so condensate does not ‘‘drop out’’ and become trapped in the rock. Roby explained the operational consequences: "In a blowdown situation, you will recover less condensate than you would in the gas cycling project." He added that Point Thompson is among the highest‑pressure reservoirs the commission has seen, with pressures on the order of 10,000 pounds per square inch, which makes cycling expensive and technically demanding because of the compression required.

Commissioners said their mandate is conservation and that they frame choices in barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) rather than in price. Wilson noted that, on a BOE basis, the gas resource at Point Thompson is larger than the condensate resource, and that heavy fuel consumption for compression in a cycling project can reduce the gas available for sale. Roby described operator estimates that in a full cycling scenario roughly 75% of gas might be recoverable over a 30‑year period and that operator-supplied condensate recovery estimates varied with their inputs; AOGCC’s working comparisons showed example ranges on the order of 165 million barrels recoverable under cycling versus roughly 100 million barrels under a blowdown scenario, depending on assumptions and recovery factors.

The commission also pointed to reservoir compaction observed over 10 years of production as a factor that reduces deliverability and complicates recovery. Commission staff recommended the committee consider revisiting Conservation Order 7‑19 (2015), which set the allowable gas offtake for Point Thompson at 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day (BCF/day), because updated data, lower gas‑in‑place estimates, and compaction change the tradeoffs between immediate sales and maximizing long‑term recovery.

Committee members pressed for clarity on economics and asked the AOGCC for a written comparison of condensate and gas available under cycling versus blowdown; commissioners agreed to respond to that request. Senator Wilikowski asked the commission to provide written calculations to reconcile differing numbers in recent studies and the EIS; the commission accepted that as a reasonable follow-up.

The committee made no formal policy decision during the briefing; the AOGCC’s presentation concluded with the suggestion that a review of the 2015 offtake order may be warranted based on the new technical findings.