PeakOil is You
THE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Thread (merged)
by MonteQuest » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 18:52:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'M')onte -I should have made clear that I was thinking of the now well recorded impact of Global Warming on the permafrost (both Russia and Canada have had significant changes) - thus I'm wondering if this was taken into account during the pipeline's construction? With regard to an attack on it, I'm wondering the extent to which a hit in early winter could employ the weather to delay reconstruction work and thus keep the pipeline out of action for an extended period ?
I guess that begs the question as to whether fewer months of freeze would make any difference on the special supports design. If they have to shut down the pipeline due to an attack in the winter, it would seem the oil cooling down would be the biggest hindrance. How do you heat it up again to get it moving? They must have substation heaters along the way. And if the attack was in the summer, wouldn't soft permafrost ground make it a big problem too for access for repairs?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
by backstop » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 19:25:18
Monte - I've seen photos of ex-permafrost in Russia with houses sunk in it, and I'm wondering about the pipeline tresles' stability as this melting advances in Alaska.
With regard to pipeline repairs, I guess they'd use something like a Chinook to bring in crews, accom units, crane sections, bulldozers, concrete and sections of pipe, but under winter conditions such flying would be limited, like the work itself, by the weather. Tracked freight vehicles are fine on permafrost of course, but very slow.
Your point about oil cooling in the pipe is interesting; could they reverse the flow upstream of an attack and empty it, and if so, into what?
With regard to pipeline repairs, I guess they'd use something like a Chinook to bring in crews, accom units, crane sections, bulldozers, concrete and sections of pipe, but under winter conditions such flying would be limited, like the work itself, by the weather. Tracked freight vehicles are fine on permafrost of course, but very slow.
Your point about oil cooling in the pipe is interesting; could they reverse the flow upstream of an attack and empty it, and if so, into what?
- backstop
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Varies
by MonteQuest » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 20:56:24
In warm permafrost and other areas where heat might cause undesirable thawing, the supports contain two each, 2-inch pipes called "heat pipes," containing anhydrous ammonia, which vaporizes below ground, rises and condenses above-ground, removing ground heat whenever the ground temperature exceeds the temperature of the air. Heat is transferred through the walls of the heat pipes to aluminum radiators atop the pipes.
Structures founded on "thaw-unstable"(Poorly drained, fine grained soils, especially silts and clays. Such soils generally contain large amounts of ice. The result of thawing can be loss of strength, excessive settlement and soil containing so much moisture that it flows) permafrost may settle if the large amounts of ice in the thaw-unstable permafrost are melted. Melting is typically caused by heat from the structure or changes to the natural thermal conditions, i.e., global warming. In areas of thaw-unstable soils calling for elevated pipeline construction, but where the pipeline had to be buried for highway, animal crossings, or avoidance of rockslides and avalanches, the line was insulated, to protect the permafrost from the heat of the pipeline, and buried. In some areas the line was insulated and buried in a refrigerated ditch. Refrigeration plants at each of these points circulate chilled brine through loops of 6 inch diameter pipe to maintain the soil in a stable frozen condition.
Temperature - (2002)
• At Pump Station 1 - 114 ° F at injection into pipeline
• At Terminal - 65 ° F approx.
Total travel time, PS 1 to Valdez
9 days
Velocity
3.7 mph.
Crude oil holding capacity (12 pump stations)
PS 1 — 420,000 bbl.
PS 5 — 150,000 bbl.
All others — 55,000 bbl.
I don't know if they can reverse the flow. Seems they could. It is just a pump. And pump it back to Prudhoe Bay, or to each pump station. Fuel requirements, per station, avg. (fuel oil equivalent)
30,000 to 60,000 gallons per day total
Structures founded on "thaw-unstable"(Poorly drained, fine grained soils, especially silts and clays. Such soils generally contain large amounts of ice. The result of thawing can be loss of strength, excessive settlement and soil containing so much moisture that it flows) permafrost may settle if the large amounts of ice in the thaw-unstable permafrost are melted. Melting is typically caused by heat from the structure or changes to the natural thermal conditions, i.e., global warming. In areas of thaw-unstable soils calling for elevated pipeline construction, but where the pipeline had to be buried for highway, animal crossings, or avoidance of rockslides and avalanches, the line was insulated, to protect the permafrost from the heat of the pipeline, and buried. In some areas the line was insulated and buried in a refrigerated ditch. Refrigeration plants at each of these points circulate chilled brine through loops of 6 inch diameter pipe to maintain the soil in a stable frozen condition.
Temperature - (2002)
• At Pump Station 1 - 114 ° F at injection into pipeline
• At Terminal - 65 ° F approx.
Total travel time, PS 1 to Valdez
9 days
Velocity
3.7 mph.
Crude oil holding capacity (12 pump stations)
PS 1 — 420,000 bbl.
PS 5 — 150,000 bbl.
All others — 55,000 bbl.
I don't know if they can reverse the flow. Seems they could. It is just a pump. And pump it back to Prudhoe Bay, or to each pump station. Fuel requirements, per station, avg. (fuel oil equivalent)
30,000 to 60,000 gallons per day total
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
by backstop » Sat 20 Nov 2004, 23:21:01
Monte -many thanks for the amazing detail. I can only hope to get anywhere near your skill in getting these electric boxes to divulge information.
It looks as if a pissed-off Iraqi is clearly more of a threat to the pipeline than permafrost melting. If one does get there, I just hope it's when the pipe happens to be empty.
It looks as if a pissed-off Iraqi is clearly more of a threat to the pipeline than permafrost melting. If one does get there, I just hope it's when the pipe happens to be empty.
- backstop
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Varies
Framing
by WebHubbleTelescope » Sun 21 Nov 2004, 01:13:31
I agree there is not much oil there, relatively speaking, but don't really believe in the technical problems of transportation (not in this day and age). However I do believe we have to listen to how our leaders frame the subject. I just finished blogging this essay on my site.
-> Framing of ANWR <-
No longer will I refer to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as ANWR (pronounced "anwar"). Listening to Carl Pope of Sierra Club, I heard a very persuasive argument against falling into a deliberate framing trap. Pope said that the administration never refers to "wildlife" or "refuge" when referring to the site of potential oil extraction. By using the contraction "ANWR", citizens do not get the repetition necessary to imprint in their minds the environmental sensitivity of the area. The administration (and corporate interests) do not want this association to happen in the public's collective consciousness.
Not only does this work to erase the rather noble goal of supporting the environment, but the framing technique can even work to add negative connotations to the discussion. How does this happen? The theory goes that "anwar" starts to sound mechanical and, further, meaningless to anyone new to the eco-political issue. Sad to say, but for anyone slightly up-to-date on history, it might even remind them of a certain historical Egyptian leader. And with anti-Arab sentiment nowadays, the contraction actually might project worse connotations ("anwar, where's that? the desert?").
I know this sounds like a fairly subtle argument, and perhaps a flimsy premise, but ideas have to get promulgated somehow.
Beyond the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue, I would also suggest to use the framing technique on other energy issues. For example, we should never use the term "Peak Oil" without adornment. Instead, if we regularly use "Peak Oil and Depletion", the significance would start to hit home harder. Without the extra verbiage, it only sounds like a glowing rejoinder ("by jove, we've reached the summit!"). Instead the full "Peak Oil and Depletion", begins to remind us that we have just hit the wall in the marathon, and bonked.
Remember the "Oil Crisis" of the 70's? I wonder if anybody in the administration would dare use that contextual framing again ...
-> Framing of ANWR <-
No longer will I refer to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as ANWR (pronounced "anwar"). Listening to Carl Pope of Sierra Club, I heard a very persuasive argument against falling into a deliberate framing trap. Pope said that the administration never refers to "wildlife" or "refuge" when referring to the site of potential oil extraction. By using the contraction "ANWR", citizens do not get the repetition necessary to imprint in their minds the environmental sensitivity of the area. The administration (and corporate interests) do not want this association to happen in the public's collective consciousness.
Not only does this work to erase the rather noble goal of supporting the environment, but the framing technique can even work to add negative connotations to the discussion. How does this happen? The theory goes that "anwar" starts to sound mechanical and, further, meaningless to anyone new to the eco-political issue. Sad to say, but for anyone slightly up-to-date on history, it might even remind them of a certain historical Egyptian leader. And with anti-Arab sentiment nowadays, the contraction actually might project worse connotations ("anwar, where's that? the desert?").
I know this sounds like a fairly subtle argument, and perhaps a flimsy premise, but ideas have to get promulgated somehow.
Beyond the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue, I would also suggest to use the framing technique on other energy issues. For example, we should never use the term "Peak Oil" without adornment. Instead, if we regularly use "Peak Oil and Depletion", the significance would start to hit home harder. Without the extra verbiage, it only sounds like a glowing rejoinder ("by jove, we've reached the summit!"). Instead the full "Peak Oil and Depletion", begins to remind us that we have just hit the wall in the marathon, and bonked.
Remember the "Oil Crisis" of the 70's? I wonder if anybody in the administration would dare use that contextual framing again ...
-
WebHubbleTelescope - Tar Sands
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
by johnmarkos » Thu 02 Dec 2004, 17:15:16
Alaska is already in decline: link
ANWR will not save us: link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
ANWR will not save us: link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
That's 1-2 years worth of U.S. consumption.
-
johnmarkos - Tar Sands
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: San Francisco, California
Re: Alaska
by clv101 » Thu 02 Dec 2004, 17:22:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 'A')laska = 20+yrs of oil.
Peak oil will happen but not anytime soon.
Peak oil will happen but not anytime soon.
Yes... and the Moon = cheese. Can I back that up? No. Can you back up what you are saying?
Please enlighten us?
-
clv101 - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Bristol, UK
Listen up all u crazies on here!
by Jon_Doe » Thu 02 Dec 2004, 17:23:30
Looks like there's no need to head off to them hills just yet!
- Jon_Doe
by guesta » Fri 03 Dec 2004, 20:02:08
I work in Alaska in a govt agency directly related to oil. Yes, there is oil up here, but compared to the current demand requirements, it is a drop in the proverbial bucket. I am also a FIRM believer in Peak Oil. The best thing about Alaska is that with the increase in oil prices, our state government will remain fiscally sound long after the rest of the US collapses into depression.
Don't go making assumptions based on things you read in the mainstream press ... you just make yourself look foolish.
Don't go making assumptions based on things you read in the mainstream press ... you just make yourself look foolish.
- guesta
by Guest » Sat 04 Dec 2004, 23:57:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
That's 1-2 years worth of U.S. consumption.[/quote]
What is that, the New Math ??
That's assuming that no other sources of oil will ever be consumed. It's a MARGINAL increase in supply which, like Prudhoe Bay, will last decades. Assuming 10 billion barrels, you are talking about 15-20 years worth of oil., $300 billion-plus dollars worth of energy at today's prices or future prices.
That's nothing to sneeze at.
- Guest
![[smilie=eusa_clap.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif "eusa_clap")
THERE IS NO F^CKING WAY THEY ARE GOING TO DISCOVER ALL OF TH@ OIL, BETWEEN NOW ON 2020, LET'S FACE IT GUYS....WE ARE ALL GOING TO CEASE... 