Skip to comments.
USGS says ANWR crude may be light, sweet
AP ^
| 2-17-2003
Posted on 02/17/2003 6:25:47 AM PST by Trailer Trash
USGS says ANWR crude may be light, sweet
By Associated Press
Article Last Updated: Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 7:02:11 PM MST
ANCHORAGE
While debate continues over whether to open the coastal
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to petroleum drilling, government geologists say the oil underneath may be the sweet, low sulfur crude in high demand by refiners.
"The oil we've studied in ANWR is higher gravity and lower sulfur oil than oil in Prudhoe Bay," U.S. Geological Survey research geologist Ken Bird told Petroleum News Alaska. "Prudhoe Bay-type oil contains one to two percent sulfur, while samples from ANWR measure between zero and one percent sulfur."
That would make some of coastal plain oil 10 times lighter than Prudhoe Bay crude.
Oil tested by USGS was gathered from several points in and just outside the coastal plain, a 1.5 million-acre slice of the 19 million acre refuge set aside by Congress for possible oil and gas exploration and development because of its geologic potential.
"All the seeps and oil-stained rocks we find in ANWR contain low sulfur oil from the Hue or Canning formations," Bird said. "Nearby offshore wells at Kuvlum, Aurora, and Hammerhead and oil seeps next to Barter Island and Ungoon Point in the eastern part of ANWR, about 30 miles southeast of Barter Island, all have low sulfur oil."
USGS has not tested oil from the KIC No. 1 well, drilled by Chevron in the mid-1980s in ANWR's coastal plain. ChevronTexaco, a strong supporter of opening the coastal plain to oil and gas drilling, has kept that well information confidential.
Sweet light crude is highly desired feedstock, particularly for refining motor fuels.
"There's obviously an environmental benefit because of the fact you're using a lower sulfur crude and producing lower sulfur fuels with less of an impact," Rod Cason, Tesoro Alaska vice president and manager of its refinery on the Kenai Peninsula. "We hydro-treat all our gasoline here, so we're well below what EPA's 2003 sulfur emission requirements are going to be, but lower sulfur fuel will have an impact on other refiners.
"And low sulfur crude from ANWR will reduce the overall sulfur content in the oil coming down the trans-Alaska oil pipeline because it will be commingled with Prudhoe oil," Cason said.
Low sulfur fuel also is less expensive to refine. Carson said Tesoro's costs are driven by chemical treatments, including what is necessary to strip out sulfur, and energy costs.
"But the biggest benefit of low sulfur crude from Tesoro's perspective is that the lighter, sweeter crude produces lower sulfur products and we receive a premium for those fuels," he said.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: anwr; energylist; enviralists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
No blood for oil?
Here you go...
To: Trailer Trash
Sweet!!
To: Keeper of the Turf
That was crude....
To: Trailer Trash; Grampa Dave; EBUCK; Ernest_at_the_Beach
"All the seeps and oil-stained rocks we find in ANWR contain low sulfur oil from the Hue or Canning formations,"After learning of the naturally occurring seeps in ANWR, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council announced today that they will sue GOD for allowing this travesty of environmental assault on the pristine plains and waters of the ANWR area.
In addition, they are suing the EPA to initiate cement plugging of all seeps to prevent further damage to the environment.
4
posted on
02/17/2003 6:45:13 AM PST
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Just like Black September. One by one, we're gonna get 'em.)
To: BOBTHENAILER
Since California refineries are now consuming heavy ANS crude and, since the ANWR oil would likely be routed through the same gathering and delivery system, I doubt the difference would amount to a bonanza.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
I doubt the difference would amount to a bonanza.If I were the owner of those CA refineries, I would much rather crack light sweet crude than heavy, wouldn't you?
I'm no engineering wiz, but 1 million additional barrels of light crude beats mideast imports every day in my book.
6
posted on
02/17/2003 7:06:41 AM PST
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Just like Black September. One by one, we're gonna get 'em.)
To: BOBTHENAILER
But I think they'd have to refit the refineries to handle the different grade of crude, wouldn't they? Does that cost much? Maybe other refineries in the US could handle it, though?
7
posted on
02/17/2003 7:08:47 AM PST
by
mewzilla
To: BOBTHENAILER
The California refineries have already "soured up," that is, installed desulfurization equipment and cokers to deal with heavy crudes. Sure, lighter crudes mean a better gasoline conversion and that would be where the payoff would be when running light crudes. However, lighter crudes would tend to cost more because of this desirability, thus negating some of this value. Lighter crudes don't have roofing and paving asphalts which are high value products these days ($200/ton or about $.85/gallon). I'm sure the refineries would run light crude instead of heavy if the price were the same...
To: Eric in the Ozarks; mewzilla
Thanks for the info on CA refineries. As I said, I'm no engineer, nor a chemist. Still, the light sweet crude from ANWR is a highly valued prize, regardless of where it is refined.
9
posted on
02/17/2003 7:29:22 AM PST
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Just like Black September. One by one, we're gonna get 'em.)
To: BOBTHENAILER; All
Isn't this just the opposite that we were being told by the enviral whackos re this oil? They were saying that it was heavy crude, loaded with sulphur and would create massive refinery problems. There were even a couple of their liars posting that garbarge here.
10
posted on
02/17/2003 7:33:31 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
To: Grampa Dave
Facts are meaningless to the enviro/nazis.
11
posted on
02/17/2003 7:39:57 AM PST
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Just like Black September. One by one, we're gonna get 'em.)
To: BOBTHENAILER
Good Science and reality are enemies to the lying Watermelon Green Jihadists!
12
posted on
02/17/2003 7:43:46 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
To: *Energy_List; *Enviralists
13
posted on
02/17/2003 8:41:19 AM PST
by
Free the USA
(Stooge for the Rich)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
The California refineries have already "soured up," that is, installed desulfurization
equipment and cokers to deal with heavy crudes.
I was suprised to read on the front page of the Business section of
The Los Angeles Times that 8% of the oil consumed in California is from...Iraq.
The article said that this was about double the average of the other states...
and that Iraqi crude account for 28% of the imported oil used in California.
Now I know why my fellow citizens here in California are so much against
bringing Saddam to heel: fear they might have to pay a bit more to keep their
Benzes, Beemers, Land Rovers and Hummer H2s gassed up.
(IIRC this article ran last Monday)
It was interesting to find that California refineries were so much into using
sour crude. I grew up in Ponca City, OK next to the Conoco and Cities Services (Citgo)
refineries...and it was a particular point of pride that Conoco tried to
always use sweet crude.
(This was even before we had heard the word "environmentalism".)
14
posted on
02/17/2003 8:47:33 AM PST
by
VOA
To: BOBTHENAILER
Crude oil carries a big freight bill. It actually makes more sense to send Alaska oil to Japan and bring Mexican crude to California. The Alaskan gathering system can be used to get the light oil to Valdez. I'm all for drilling every square foot of our 49th state if it looks like a good payzone.
To: VOA
I think Ponc has a lube unit, which means they run napthenic crude--light stuff from OK-KS-TX.
To: BOBTHENAILER
Looks like great news. Wasn't there some enviral talk of Alaskan oil being nasty, full of sulfur and other such pollutants? Hazy memory but I do remember something like that.
How would Alaskan oil production compare to, say, Saudi? Could we eliminate them altogether?
17
posted on
02/17/2003 9:06:38 AM PST
by
EBUCK
(FIRE!....rounds downrange! http://www.azfire.org)
To: EBUCK
Some of the heavy sour stuff from around Edmonton and over to Lloydminster is 4 to 5 percent sulfur. Refineries that can deal with this get a big discount on it vs the benchmark West Texas Cushing crude.
To: EBUCK
How would Alaskan oil production compare to, say, Saudi? Could we eliminate them altogether?If the reports of light sweet crude are correct, it would be very similar to Saudi crude and the estimates of 1 million barrels a day would effectively replace Saudi imports.
19
posted on
02/17/2003 9:24:22 AM PST
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Just like Black September. One by one, we're gonna get 'em.)
To: Trailer Trash
"All the seeps and oil-stained rocks we find in ANWR contain low sulfur oil from the Hue or Canning formations," Bird said. "Nearby offshore wells at Kuvlum, Aurora, and Hammerhead and oil seeps next to Barter Island and Ungoon Point in the eastern part of ANWR, about 30 miles southeast of Barter Island, all have low sulfur oil." Looks like all this seepage needs a major cleanup. Get the hot water hoses. Get the Dawn dishwashing liquid and thousands of volunteers to scrub the birds and otters. We need to remove that massive oil spill in ANWR as soon as possible to save the wildlife from all that seepage mess, then refine the extracted oil.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson