Discussion:
How Do We Extract Oil & Gas From ANWR With Assurance We Won't Do Great Environmental Damage There? Or Do We Simply Not Care?
(too old to reply)
Walt In Seattle
2017-10-21 18:53:37 UTC
Permalink
????
Mr. B1ack
2017-10-21 19:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Anything can be designed well - including oil-extraction
sites. The problem isn't sucking oil out from under the
ANWR, the problem is in preventing significant leaks
if something goes wrong with the process.

The first line of defense is just a ring or double ring
of earthen dikes surrounding the pump. They do
not have to be especially large, their job is simply
to contain smallish leaks in case of a bad seal or
cracked housing or whatever on the rig. Insofar
as the environment goes, they're just little mounds
of dirt like so many other natural ones.

There's a greater problem if the oil is under natural
pressure - ie if you unscrew the pump will the stuff
just pour out under its own pressure, a 'gusher'
situation. If that's the case then a double-layer
well/pumphead/piping design is required that's
strong enough to contain the pressure should the
inner mechanism break. This is more expensive ...
but under certain conditions it's a price worth paying.

What seems to be lacking on some of the older
petrochemical installations are adequate sensors
to very quickly identify a problem and apply the
appropriate shut-down/close-tight procedures. If,
say, a pipe in the collection network cracks we
want pressure to cease immediately and most
of the oil suctioned out of the defective segment.
Fortunately sensors and associated actuators
have become much cheaper and more reliable
over the years. This approach does not add much
to the cost of the rigs.

Methane and a certain amount of oil naturally seeps
out of the ground in big swamps like the ANWR.
A tiny amount of leakage from oil rigs isn't gonna
destroy everything. The trick is to prevent BIG leaks
BY DESIGN from the get-go. If you can do that
then everything's good.
Walt In Seattle
2017-10-21 20:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Well sites and pipelines, or roads for necessary transportation, will be constructed on permafrost which, thanks to climate change, is melting at an unprecedented rate. A pipeline resting on unstable permafrost is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Maintenance of roads for transportation to support well sites and associated facilities, which would include housing for well crews, will be a never-ending, EXPENSIVE process! Any structures, including rigs and housing, built on permafrost could soon be compromised as the permafrost melts. As permafrost melts, it dries out in the Summer. When dry, it becomes fuel for Spring/Summer wildfires. Can you imagine the difficulty of dealing with a major wildfire that threatens or actually does engulf a well and its associated facilities in a remote area? That's what you'd have to be prepared to cope with in ANWR!
Mr. B1ack
2017-10-22 01:45:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle
Post by Walt In Seattle
Well sites and pipelines, or roads for necessary transportation, will be constructed on permafrost which, thanks to climate change, is melting at an unprecedented rate. A pipeline resting on unstable permafrost is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
Unless you design for that. Pipes either have to float OR be
secured with deep pilings. I strongly suspect the engineers
KNOW about the permafrost issue. We're talking big $$$
here, a huge up-front investment - they won't want to fuck
it up.
Post by Walt In Seattle
Maintenance of roads for transportation to support well sites and associated facilities, which would include housing for well crews, will be a never-ending, EXPENSIVE process!
Yep. I forsee a lot of those big helicopters being
involved, maybe a few large hovercraft too. Big
up-front investment, big continuing investment.
Yet, they still think they'll make a profit.
Post by Walt In Seattle
Any structures, including rigs and housing, built on permafrost could soon be compromised as the permafrost melts. As permafrost melts, it dries out in the Summer. When dry, it becomes fuel for Spring/Summer wildfires. Can you imagine the difficulty of dealing with a major wildfire that threatens or actually does engulf a well and its associated facilities in a remote area? That's what you'd have to be prepared to cope with in ANWR!
Again, I think they know about this stuff and will
engineer ways to protect their investment - which,
even if coincidentally, will protect the ANWR.

Although the ANWR is kinda swampy, it's still more
easily dealt with than ocean oil rigs. The well-heads
will be where you can get at them instead of miles
below the sea.
Walt In Seattle
2017-10-22 06:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Dream on, Mr. B1ack. Your dreams, however, are not likely to come true. Alaska's natives have been building on permafrost for a long time. All the same, buildings are compromised or destroyed by melting permafrost. You still have the earthquake issue, which you have not addressed, and you haven't touched the matter of what to do about the wildlife that lives in or traverses ANWR.
Mr. B1ack
2017-10-23 15:50:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle
Post by Walt In Seattle
Dream on, Mr. B1ack. Your dreams, however, are not likely to come true. Alaska's natives have been building on permafrost for a long time. All the same, buildings are compromised or destroyed by melting permafrost. You still have the earthquake issue, which you have not addressed, and you haven't touched the matter of what to do about the wildlife that lives in or traverses ANWR.
The existing Alaska pipeline - running the whole length
of the state - has not been compromised either by
melting permafrost OR earthquakes during its decades
of operations. Apparently you're asserting that the
engineering skills that went into that pipeline have
somehow been forever lost ... ???

Sorry, but facts beat theory - good pipelines HAVE
been constructed and stood the test of time in the
exact same environment as the proposed new stuff.
Walt In Seattle
2017-10-23 20:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Facts, indeed, are stubborn things. And if you want something more than theory, Mr. B1ack.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207708.html
________________________________________
[...] Extensive corrosion threatens BP pipelines in Alaska, risking explosions, spills. The extensive pipeline system that moves oil, gas and waste throughout BP's operations in Alaska is plagued by severe corrosion, according to an internal maintenance report generated four weeks ago. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.propublica.org/article/oil-leak-is-latest-mishap-for-troubled-alaska-pipeline-system
________________________________________
[...] [January 10, 2011] Almost all oil production on Alaska's North Slope remains shut down after workers on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system discovered a leak over the weekend. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-alaska-spill-idUSTRE76H0VA20110719
________________________________________
[...] July 18, 2011] ANCHORAGE/LONDON (Reuters) - BP reported another pipeline leak at its Alaskan oilfields, frustrating the oil company's attempts to rebuild its reputation after last year's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03042017/cook-inlet-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-spill-oil-hilcorp-methane-beluga-whales
________________________________________
[...] [April 3, 2017] Owner of Leaking Alaska Gas Pipeline Now Dealing With Oil Spill Nearby
Pipeline owned by Hilcorp spewed an unknown amount of oil into Alaska's Cook Inlet, as its natural gas pipeline continues to leak on the other side of the inlet. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This looks safe to to you, Mr. B1ack?

As for earthquakes and pipelines: The Trans-Alaska Pipeline survived the magnitude 7.9 quake on the Denali Fault in 2002 ONLY because geologists carefully mapped the previously known Denali Fault. Using that information, the pipeline, where it crossed the fault, was designed to slide horizontally as it would flex when the Earth moved. The problem then and now is that it's prohibitively expensive to build entire pipelines in this fashion. Such would be necessary, though, to be certain the pipeline would survive anywhere it exists because, for every fault of which geologists are aware and have close studied, there are probably hundreds or more of which they're totally unaware or on which they have little information.

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2014/08/how-trans-alaska-pipeline-survived-2002.html
Mr. B1ack
2017-10-23 22:12:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle
Post by Walt In Seattle
Facts, indeed, are stubborn things. And if you want something more than theory, Mr. B1ack.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207708.html
________________________________________
[...] Extensive corrosion threatens BP pipelines in Alaska, risking explosions, spills. The extensive pipeline system that moves oil, gas and waste throughout BP's operations in Alaska is plagued by severe corrosion, according to an internal maintenance report generated four weeks ago. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which, gee, they seem to have been handling OK all
these years. They'll handle it now too - too much $$$
pours through that pipeline. Sometimes capitalist
greed can work FOR ya.
Post by Walt In Seattle
https://www.propublica.org/article/oil-leak-is-latest-mishap-for-troubled-alaska-pipeline-system
________________________________________
[...] [January 10, 2011] Almost all oil production on Alaska's North Slope remains shut down after workers on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system discovered a leak over the weekend. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What ... they didn't keep pumping oil all over the place
despite the leak ? What's WRONG with them ???
Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-alaska-spill-idUSTRE76H0VA20110719
________________________________________
[...] July 18, 2011] ANCHORAGE/LONDON (Reuters) - BP reported another pipeline leak at its Alaskan oilfields, frustrating the oil company's attempts to rebuild its reputation after last year's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So oil has been spewing out since 2011 ? Um ....
I'd suggest less-dated material ...
Post by Walt In Seattle
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03042017/cook-inlet-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-spill-oil-hilcorp-methane-beluga-whales
________________________________________
[...] [April 3, 2017] Owner of Leaking Alaska Gas Pipeline Now Dealing With Oil Spill Nearby
Pipeline owned by Hilcorp spewed an unknown amount of oil into Alaska's Cook Inlet, as its natural gas pipeline continues to leak on the other side of the inlet. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what the "unknown amount" was ? A teaspoon ?
Post by Walt In Seattle
This looks safe to to you, Mr. B1ack?
Yep.
Post by Walt In Seattle
As for earthquakes and pipelines: The Trans-Alaska Pipeline survived the magnitude 7.9 quake on the Denali Fault in 2002 ONLY because geologists carefully mapped the previously known Denali Fault. Using that information, the pipeline, where it crossed the fault, was designed to slide horizontally as it would flex when the Earth moved. The problem then and now is that it's prohibitively expensive to build entire pipelines in this fashion. Such would be necessary, though, to be certain the pipeline would survive anywhere it exists because, for every fault of which geologists are aware and have close studied, there are probably hundreds or more of which they're totally unaware or on which they have little information.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2014/08/how-trans-alaska-pipeline-survived-2002.html
Guess they might have to raise the price two cents to
cover it then ....

Is there like a college course dedicated to the art of
turning molehills into mountains ? Just wondering.
Walt In Seattle
2017-10-24 01:19:35 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 3:12:34 PM UTC-7, Mr. B1ack wrote:
________________________________________
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03042017/cook-inlet-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-spill-oil-hilcorp-methane-beluga-whales
________________________________________
[...] [April 3, 2017] Owner of Leaking Alaska Gas Pipeline Now Dealing With Oil Spill Nearby Pipeline owned by Hilcorp spewed an unknown amount of oil into Alaska's Cook Inlet, as its natural gas pipeline continues to leak on the other side of the inlet. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder what the "unknown amount" was ? A teaspoon ?
===========================================================================

In the instances above, we have the word on the owner who contends less than 3 gallons were leaked. But the point here is that leaks or spills from pipelines or wells occur, whether in Cook Inlet or along Alaska's North Slope. Some are not so big; some are bigger, such as the 2015 spill of around 4,000 gallons of oil near Deadhorse. ANWR is a sensitive wildlife refuge. It won't take a really big spill to do significant damage there.

But even if there are no spills or leaks, there's still the issue of disruption for wildlife caused by infrastructure or the mere presence of human activity in ANWR necessary to drill for oil and pipe it to port or market.

Perhaps you'll dismiss those animals as unimportant when compared to what we'[ll gain from oil at ANWR. If you would, that shall not be a surprise. Even so, maybe you and Trump should look closely, given projected reserves considered against time and money as well as effort to develop oil fields in ANWR, at whether oil companies have much chance of deriving profit from operations in ANWR for decades to come if ever at all.

If you haven't noticed, the supply of oil is plentiful and the law of supply and demand is keeping the price of crude relatively low. That translates into less incentive for oil companies to invest huge amounts of money on development of oil fields for which they can't be certain will bring income over a shorter term that compensates for then eclipses their expenditure. I'll be surprised if even the majors jump at this opportunity as long as oil markets are as they are....
Mr. B1ack
2017-10-24 02:43:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle
Post by Walt In Seattle
________________________________________
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03042017/cook-inlet-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-spill-oil-hilcorp-methane-beluga-whales
________________________________________
[...] [April 3, 2017] Owner of Leaking Alaska Gas Pipeline Now Dealing With Oil Spill Nearby Pipeline owned by Hilcorp spewed an unknown amount of oil into Alaska's Cook Inlet, as its natural gas pipeline continues to leak on the other side of the inlet. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what the "unknown amount" was ? A teaspoon ?
===========================================================================
In the instances above, we have the word on the owner who contends less than 3 gallons were leaked. But the point here is that leaks or spills from pipelines or wells occur, whether in Cook Inlet or along Alaska's North Slope. Some are not so big; some are bigger, such as the 2015 spill of around 4,000 gallons of oil near Deadhorse. ANWR is a sensitive wildlife refuge. It won't take a really big spill to do significant damage there.
So just ONE drop = ecological DISASTER !!!

Oh wait ... nope .............
Post by Walt In Seattle
But even if there are no spills or leaks, there's still the issue of disruption for wildlife caused by infrastructure or the mere presence of human activity in ANWR necessary to drill for oil and pipe it to port or market.
Caribou Migration Disruption !!!! Oh wait ... tested and
totally disproven. The animals don't know a pipeline from
a tree or a rock.

And people wander around all over Alaska already. Maybe
the moose KNOW an oil-company uniform when they see
one hmm ? You can e-mail them some pamphlets ....

Yer grasping at wet straws here Walt.
Post by Walt In Seattle
Perhaps you'll dismiss those animals as unimportant when compared to what we'[ll gain from oil at ANWR. If you would, that shall not be a surprise. Even so, maybe you and Trump should look closely, given projected reserves considered against time and money as well as effort to develop oil fields in ANWR, at whether oil companies have much chance of deriving profit from operations in ANWR for decades to come if ever at all.
If you haven't noticed, the supply of oil is plentiful and the law of supply and demand is keeping the price of crude relatively low. That translates into less incentive for oil companies to invest huge amounts of money on development of oil fields for which they can't be certain will bring income over a shorter term that compensates for then eclipses their expenditure. I'll be surprised if even the majors jump at this opportunity as long as oil markets are as they are....
The supply of oil is not exactly "plentiful" ... especially
if we don't want to import it from nations eager to use
oil as a blackmail tool.

But then you probably LOVE those countries .... SO
much better than us, right ? :-)

You've run out of straws here Walt. Give it up.
Walt In Seattle
2017-10-24 10:02:09 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:43:24 PM UTC-7, Mr. B1ack wrote:
________________________________________
[...] Caribou Migration Disruption !!!! Oh wait ... tested and totally disproven. The animals don't know a pipeline from a tree or a rock. And people wander around all over Alaska already. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen no evidence, let alone "theory" presented by you in support of your assertions, Mr. B1ack. The lack of such evidence (i.e. whatever "test" that "disproves") illustrates you're either clueless on this topic or pretending to be so.

http://www.defenders.org/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge
________________________________________
[...] At more than 19 million acres, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is also one of the last intact landscapes in America, and home to 37 species of land mammals, eight marine mammals, 42 fish species and more than 200 migratory bird species. [...] The Arctic Refuge contains one of the most fragile and ecologically sensitive ecosystems in the world. Its environment is extremely vulnerable to long-lasting disturbance because the harsh climate and short growing seasons provide little time for species to recover. Proposed oil development would occur on the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain sandwiched between the Arctic Ocean and the Brooks mountain range, and would have serious impacts on species such as polar bear, caribou, musk oxen and hundreds of species of migratory birds. This area is considered the "biological heart" of the refuge, and habitat loss that occurs here will impact the entire Arctic Refuge and beyond. Oil related activities such as seismic testing, aircraft and vehicle noise, or even the mere presence of humans nearby can drive mother polar bears away from their den and cubs. Drilling the Arctic Refuge could alter the annual path of the Porcupine caribou herd, one of the longest land mammal migrations in the world. The critical breeding grounds for migratory birds would be severely impacted, and could cause population-scale impacts for many species. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more in-depth information, see also:
https://blogs.umass.edu/natsci397a-eross/impacts-of-oil-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/

Keeping in mind offshore reserves we have not yet tapped that were open for extraction before President Trump took office, the rate at which we're fracking, the rate at which we're extracting oil in North Dakota, the rate at which Canadians are extracting oil from tar sands, the rate at which China is attempting to develop offshore oil drilling in places like the SCS, the wealth of oil in as well as from South America and OPEC responding by flooding oil markets with crude in competition, if we're overly dependent on foreign oil -- OPEC in particular -- or in danger of being so, let's see your evidence. Let's also see your evidence that tapping reserves in ANWR would ensure we won't be dependent, that such reserves would make a big difference.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/14/global-oil-glut-continue-despite-efforts-prop-up-price

https://www.thebalance.com/oil-price-forecast-3306219

Walt In Seattle
2017-10-21 20:53:46 UTC
Permalink
And your solution for dealing with the potential for pipeline leaks or ruptures is.... WHAT, Mr. B1ack? There are eathquakes (some of them BIG) in Alaska. How do you build a pipeline with that in mind? If you'll get the oil and gas to a pot then market another way which is economical for the company operating a well, how would you do it? What do you think an earhquake would do to an oil well rig?
M.I.Wakefield
2017-10-21 21:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Anything can be designed well - including oil-extraction sites. The
problem isn't sucking oil out from under the ANWR, the problem is in
preventing significant leaks if something goes wrong with the process.
No, there's experience with those issues ... the problem is managing the
drilling and infrastructure so it doesn't interfere with the Porcupine
caribou herd.
Exeter!
2017-10-21 22:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
No, there's experience with those issues ... the problem is managing the
drilling and infrastructure so it doesn't interfere with the Porcupine
caribou herd.
And there you go again, JUST as I predicted!

Wow, you are totally ADDICTED to American politics, you empty-nation'd
hoser Canucklehead.

You ignore your own nation, absorb your mind into ours.

Literally you dismiss your own walk-in beer cooler of a country as
insignificant to the point you refuse to even engage in commentary or
analysis of your own politics.

You evince the classic Canuck "widdle brudda" mentality, always chasing
after the USA in a desperate attempt to coattail on OUR national affairs.

You demonstrate how bereft Canucks are of any national pride and how
desperately you need to use the USA as a whipping post to excuse
yourselves from your own national blunders and dearth of presence on the
global stage.

it must SUCK to be a Canuck, for sure!
Loading...