Posted on 12/17/2011 2:22:10 PM PST by thackney
Four years later the production forecast has changed, with 100,000 fewer barrels per day anticipated in FY 2012.
What would you posit as the cause of that?
Do you know offhand how much oil the Trans-Alaska Pipeline needs to remain operational?
At least partial due to the impact of higher taxes resulted in few dollars spent on improving and maintaining production rates.
What options do they(we) have to increase production there ?..
The last projection I saw was they would switch to natural gas in 20 years and run that for 40+ years. That is IF no new exploration areas are opened, then the need a second pipeline to carry gas.
They are only drilling a 25 mile by 50 to 65 mile section of what is a +/-900 mile by 200 mile field. The Dems have so far blocked further opening of new areas.
The field started at 1.4 million barrels per day...
Maintenance is another factor. The facilities have reached the design life and are being refurbished during temporary down times. That negatively effects the production rates when they are not running because of repairs.
Alyeska has completed a comprehensive Low Flow Impact Study (LoFIS) on behalf of the TAPS owners. The study evaluated the potential risks associated with declining throughput and lower oil temperatures and identified mitigation measures.
The LoFIS identified potential challenges with throughput levels between 600,000 and 300,000 barrels per day (BPD). Potential challenges include:
Water, present in oil as small droplets, is expected to separate out in a layer at the bottom of the pipe at 500,000 BPD and lower. Separated water will increase the potential for ice formation and corrosion.
Wax build up in the pipeline is present at current throughput levels and will continue to increase as throughput declines.
As throughput drops below 550,000 BPD, oil temperature will have the potential to drop below the freezing point of water and form ice in the pipeline during the winter months. Ice could damage pumps and equipment.
Crude oil temperatures at 350,000 BPD could allow soils surrounding buried sections of the pipeline to freeze, which would create the potential for ice lenses. Ice lenses could cause movement and damage the pipeline via frost heaves.
Mitigation measures recommended in the study include:
- Minimize the impact of temperature decline by adding heat and insulation.
- Modify the water and temperature specifications for crude oil entering TAPS.
- Adjust the pipeline pigging program as throughput declines
http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/Inthenews/LowFlow/LowFlow.html
Unacceptable pipe displacement limits and possible overstress conditions in the pipe would be reached at a flow volume of 300,000 BPD.
Lots more detail available at the link.
What options do they(we) have to increase production there ?..
Dump Obama for starters :)
Don’t forget the AGIA pipeline!!
Bring state taxes to be more competive with the rest of North America.
When the same money invested in Texas, North Dakota or Canada results in far more return than in Alaska, Alaska is going to be on the low end of the investments.
I've worked in Alaska designing production facilities on the Alaskan North Slope.
What 900 mile long field are you thinking of?
Logical.. thanks..
Fix this problem by drilling in the lower 48! There is so much oil/NG in the lower 48 then we’ll ever use!
Don’t try to tell me ANY different, PLEASE.
They have found oil and gas from the Canadian border around to the Bering Sea Coast. It looks like there is oil in all the shallow waters north well into the Artic Ocean.
I’ve done the outage repair work up there the last three years. I’ve worked GC1, GC3, FS3, GPMA, the BOC poo plant, the FS2 refinery, and estimated work in other areas.
The problem is low flow rates in the Alaskan Pipeline. More drilling in the L48 will NOT bring more oil through the Alaskan pipeline.
Is your suggestion to abandon the Alaskan Pipeline and leave the remaining North Slope oil unproduced?
Active drilling in the lower 48 is at a rather high rate:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/BHI/1569845165x0x529196/458366F8-E50A-4B9C-BC0C-8E91304939E7/na_charts_121611.pdf
There are multiple fields with pockets of oil and gas, but it isn't one 900 mile long field.
I hate HTML... That is why I don’t post more.
It almost is if you count the various depths they have found in the last few years.
That is not oil. Methane Hydrates are pure natural gas traped inside a latice of ice. There have been limited attempts to produce them on the North Slope. But with the successful production of the shale gas fields, they do not compete economically with gas from the lower 48.
These are typically found at the bottom edge of the permafrost in this area. BP has completed a production test; ConocoPhillips have done one as well. They were at least partially funded by us taxpayers on a government program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.