The observation that the oilcos are apparently unwilling to do what it takes to keep the pipeline operational indefinitely leads me to wonder if we shouldn't go ahead and try to get what we can out of ANWR, while we can. "Get while the getting is good" is about the only convincing argument that I can consider.
This also leads me to conclude that it doesn't matter how much oil there is theoretically recoverable in the ground, it is now likely that ALL of it WILL NOT be recovered. There will be oil that we know about, but that we'll never be able to get to, because the resources to maintain the necessary infrastructure will not have been allocated, and that infrastructure will have been abandoned before the last of the oil is extracted, leaving it stranded. We will then lack the resources to rebuild the infrastructure necessary. If there are fatal flaws in the analyses of organizations like CERA or the IEA, this is likely one of them.
Interesting observation. I happened to be in Alaska during the construction of the pipeline. At the time I voiced concern regarding the life expectancy of the line and how it would be dismantled and removed at the end of its service. No one seemed to have satisfactory answers to my questions. Since its completion there have been a number of serious maintenance problems, including significant leaks. I question the soundness of the TAPS to transport an increase in oil flow possibly resulting from ANWR reserves. Chances are that it would require a major overhaul of the entire pipeline.
I work for an oil company, I am actually at work on the North Slope of Alaska as I write this, I have worked up here for 28 years, and I am a corrosion supervisor for the Kuparuk and Alpine Oilfields, a few km west of Prudhoe Bay where the transit line leaks ocurred in 2006. So... I think I am as qualified as anyone to describe the situation up here.
I beg to differ about the oil companies being unwilling to do what it takes to keep the "pipeline" operational indefinitely. The industry is spending millions of $ inspecting and repairing the infrastructure here. It is a constant battle but I think we are doing a pretty good job. I believe where the industry got into trouble was we underestimated the life of these assets, especially when oil prices were low back in the late 80's and throughout the 90's. We thought we would be shutting down soon after 2000, but that didn't happen and now we think we will be here until 2040 or later. This was a worldwide problem not unique to Alaska- it happened in the North Sea too. There is certainly some embedded damage (corrosion)from those days, but we have been catching up over the last decade with an agressive repair program, and I have not much trouble getting the budget I need to keep doing this.
As far as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline which (I think) you are refering to (this is NOT the transit lines that leaked in 2006), that is operated by a different company (Alyeska) but they are taking good care of it too. It probably won't last indefinitely (what will?) but it will certainly last for decades longer. We have a much larger problem finding the oil to keep it operational as the big fields (mostly Prudhoe and Kuparuk) are in steep decline and the smaller fields aren't making up for it. There is still a fair amount of oil up here, but not the huge fields. So... Peak Oil is alive and well here in Alaska too.
Our biggest problem of all is the high cost of doing business here, particularly taxation from the State of Alaska and environmental regulations, but those are another issue entirely.
RE: Alaska pipeline
The observation that the oilcos are apparently unwilling to do what it takes to keep the pipeline operational indefinitely leads me to wonder if we shouldn't go ahead and try to get what we can out of ANWR, while we can. "Get while the getting is good" is about the only convincing argument that I can consider.
This also leads me to conclude that it doesn't matter how much oil there is theoretically recoverable in the ground, it is now likely that ALL of it WILL NOT be recovered. There will be oil that we know about, but that we'll never be able to get to, because the resources to maintain the necessary infrastructure will not have been allocated, and that infrastructure will have been abandoned before the last of the oil is extracted, leaving it stranded. We will then lack the resources to rebuild the infrastructure necessary. If there are fatal flaws in the analyses of organizations like CERA or the IEA, this is likely one of them.
Interesting observation. I happened to be in Alaska during the construction of the pipeline. At the time I voiced concern regarding the life expectancy of the line and how it would be dismantled and removed at the end of its service. No one seemed to have satisfactory answers to my questions. Since its completion there have been a number of serious maintenance problems, including significant leaks. I question the soundness of the TAPS to transport an increase in oil flow possibly resulting from ANWR reserves. Chances are that it would require a major overhaul of the entire pipeline.
WNC,
I work for an oil company, I am actually at work on the North Slope of Alaska as I write this, I have worked up here for 28 years, and I am a corrosion supervisor for the Kuparuk and Alpine Oilfields, a few km west of Prudhoe Bay where the transit line leaks ocurred in 2006. So... I think I am as qualified as anyone to describe the situation up here.
I beg to differ about the oil companies being unwilling to do what it takes to keep the "pipeline" operational indefinitely. The industry is spending millions of $ inspecting and repairing the infrastructure here. It is a constant battle but I think we are doing a pretty good job. I believe where the industry got into trouble was we underestimated the life of these assets, especially when oil prices were low back in the late 80's and throughout the 90's. We thought we would be shutting down soon after 2000, but that didn't happen and now we think we will be here until 2040 or later. This was a worldwide problem not unique to Alaska- it happened in the North Sea too. There is certainly some embedded damage (corrosion)from those days, but we have been catching up over the last decade with an agressive repair program, and I have not much trouble getting the budget I need to keep doing this.
As far as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline which (I think) you are refering to (this is NOT the transit lines that leaked in 2006), that is operated by a different company (Alyeska) but they are taking good care of it too. It probably won't last indefinitely (what will?) but it will certainly last for decades longer. We have a much larger problem finding the oil to keep it operational as the big fields (mostly Prudhoe and Kuparuk) are in steep decline and the smaller fields aren't making up for it. There is still a fair amount of oil up here, but not the huge fields. So... Peak Oil is alive and well here in Alaska too.
Our biggest problem of all is the high cost of doing business here, particularly taxation from the State of Alaska and environmental regulations, but those are another issue entirely.
regards,
AlaskaMark