ETHANOL

I will be starting a few posts throughout the following weeks on Ethanol production, repercussions and all the information I can find. I really think with a blend of different fuel sources we could eventually lessen our dependency on oil. Ultimately we would loose that dependency and depend on electric powered cars and other alternative energy!

EARTHQUAKE READY

INTRODUCTION

The pipe crosses three fault lines, the Denali, McGinnis Glacier and Donnelly Dome. The Denali fault is the biggest of the three and recorded the largest earthquake in the U.S. in 2002. The earthquake was 7.9 on the Richter scale, which as your may recall has a maximum scale rating of 8.5. This major earthquake did very little damage to the pipeline. In great part due to great engineering and also great geological research in the area. It is amazing what can happen when engineers and geologists put their heads together. Special supports, that allow lateral movement, are in place where it is known that the pipe crosses a fault line. The supports allow for either right lateral movement or left lateral movement depending on the fault type. There is also room left for vertical displacement, as faults often created vertical displacement as well as horizontal displacement. The following is the design criteria setforth:
· Denali fault — 20 ft. lateral and 5 ft. vertical displacement
· McGinnis Glacier fault — 8 ft. lateral and 6 ft. vertical displacement
· Donnelly Dome fault — 3 ft. lateral and 10 ft. vertical displacement
· Minor potential fault locations — 2 ft. lateral and 2 ft. vertical

The 2002 earthquake on the Denali fault caused the ground along the fault to move and estimated 7 feet horizontally and nearly 2.5 feet vertically.

SPILLS

As one can imagine, a leak on this pipeline would be devastating to the local environment. There 4 leak detection systems that can pinpoint location of oil spills. The four systems each monitor for oil leaks in a separate manner. The four manners are: pressure deviation, flow rate deviation, flow rate balance and line volume balance. In case a leak does occur there are 221 containment sites set up along the pipe. Historically there have been leaks along the pipeline. The highest losses from the pipeline was in February 1978, when a deliberate explosion led to more than 16,000 barrels spilling from the pipe. From 1977 to 1994 there were 30 to 40 spills a year on average, the worst years in terms of number of incidents were 1991 to 1994 when there were 164 spills. Since 1995 the spills have been radically reduced to under 6 barrels total. The pipeline is resistant to gunshots but in 2001 the pipe was damaged when someone shot into a weld joining two pipe sections and 6,000 barrels (250,000 gallons) of oil spilled.

CONCLUSION

This pipeline is another example of the engineering achievements we are capable off. The pipeline was designed and built in such a manner that all parties would be kept in mind, including the environment and the animals. Although there have been several spills, we have contained and repaired most of the damage that was done, and have reduced the spills to near nothing. There is always the hazard of intentional damage, as was shown with the shooting incident and explosion, but it is impossible to predict when such events may occur.

PIPELINE DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

The design of the pipeline had to overcome many obstacles, human and environmental, of which the greatest was the environmental concerns. The pipeline had to face the following main concerns from opposition: disturbance of animal migration patterns, environmental damage from spills, geological concerns and the Alaskan permafrost. The design team handled each manner if very interesting ways.

COST AND TIME

Approximately $8 billion for construction of entire system, including Terminal and pump stations, at conclusion of initial construction period in 1977. Time required to complete the pipe, terminal and pumping stations was 3 years and 2 months. The project started Apr. 29, 1974 and construction was completed June 20, 1977.

ANIMAL MIGRATION

Since the pipeline basically runs from northern Alaska all the way to southern Alaska the engineers had an obvious problem on their hands concerning animal migration. The animals either had to go over the pipe or under the pipe. It would be ideal for the entire pipe to be underground and unnoticed but for reasons I will talk about later, that could not be done. They decided to elevate the pipe to 10 feet in areas known to be migration routes for the caribou. There are 554 such elevated areas through the span of the pipeline. There are also 23 buried sections to allow animal crossing.

PERMAFROST

This is the major reason the pipe could not be underground for most of its 800-mile span south. Permafrost is a condition in which the ground is basically frozen during the entire year, summer and winter. Melting soil in a permafrost condition creates settling and mud. Although permafrost can be very stable, it can also become very unstable when melted. The oil flowing through the pipe can reach temperatures up to 145° F it is not efficient to avoid all heat convection. What this means is the warm pipe will warm the supports, which are drilled into permafrost soil, which will in turn warm the permafrost and settle the foundation of the pipe. To overcome this situation the engineers designed the support pipes to contain ammonia. Ammonia has a much lower boiling temperature than most elements and therefore will evaporate at the slightest increase of temperature in the support. This evaporation does two things, it absorbs the heat given off by the pipe but it also rises to the cooling towers located on top of the support leg. Once the ammonia reaches the cooling towers the special design allows the ammonia to cool and condense back to the bottom of the support leg. So the cycle of cooling the support legs as the pipe warms is continuous and keeps the support legs firmly planted in nice solid permafrost.

TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE

SUMMARY

The Trans-Alaska pipeline is 800 miles long and was constructed in 1977. The pipeline is designed to withstand many environmental and geological occurrences, such as frost and earthquakes. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was designed and constructed to move oil from the North Slope of Alaska to the northern most ice- free port- Valdez, Alaska. During the oil’s journey south it crosses numerous geological faults, which expose the pipe to dangers of shifting foundations or even rupturing. I will take a look at the importance of the role the pipe serves in our current energy needs and for fun I will then discuss some of the interesting design aspects involved to overcome the environmental challenges.

THE PIPELINE’S IMPORTANT ROLE IN OUR ENERGY DEMAND

Pipeline elsewhere, is a major U.S. oil pipeline connecting oil fields in northern Alaska to a sea port where the oil can be shipped to the Lower 48 states for refining. Since its completion in 1977, the pipeline has transported over 15 billion barrels of oil, that is an average of about 1.93 billion barrels a year. Given that the U.S. consumes approximately 20 billion barrels of oil a year the Alaskan oil is but a small fraction to quench our demand. The oil from the northern oil fields is stored in sstorage tanks in Valdez until tanker ships transport the oil to refineries. There are 18 storage tanks with total storage capacity of 9.1 million barrels total. The Alaska North Slope (ANS) oil field functions on the principle that U.S. oil be used domestically, and remain available for consumption in the U.S. as a matter of energy security, but about 7% of crude oil production from the ANS is currently exported to South Korea, Japan, and China. When the pipeline was constructed congress put a ban on the export of the oil that was to flow through it. That ban has recently been overturned as we now export 7% of the oil. A June 1994 Department of Energy (DOE) study, Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil-Benefits and Costs, found that exporting Alaska crude would increase producer receipts for both California and Alaska oil. The increased producer receipts would be the result of transportation savings realized by avoiding a trip through the Panama Canal.

CONCLUSION

It can then be concluded that the pipeline plays a vital role in our energy demand and also in the energy demands of a few other countries. The pipeline is just a small part of the puzzle when it comes to the U.S. oil imports but it plays a vital role in energy security. During the Arab oil embargo of 1973 there was a great sense of need for such energy security.

SHALE MINING IN CANADA

BACKGROUND

This blog is where I would like to focus on the natural resources that will be drained in order to get to the precious oil. Mining has always been known to take dramatic tolls on surrounding areas. The mines not only demand great resources, such as gas, water and fossil fuels, to operate but they also discard many pollutants, such as tailings and CO2. Luckily CO2 is no longer labeled as a pollutant by our government, since it is a naturally occurring product, despite its environmental impacts. That should send chills down your spine.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS?

Some has viewed extracting oil from offshore locations both cool and awesome engineering. It is quite a credit to our capabilities that such remote locations can be reached and used to obtain petroleum. What will happen in the Rockies will be another credit to our capabilities, in a more negative aspect though. As the offshore oil becomes less and harder to reach it is only natural that oil companies will seek for other resources. Why wouldn’t they, demand is bigger than ever. The attitude is that the oil companies will be the ones to bring our environment to its knees, but a quick reminder, consumers create demand. Do the logic.

THE RAMIFICATIONS

The ramifications of oil shale extraction can already be seen in Canada. According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, Wednesday, May 31, 2006; Page A01, Canada blames the oil thirsty U.S. for the increasing environmental aspect. Some of the environment aspects include: hydrological impacts (sucking the rivers dry), tarry sand discharge, and massive discharge of CO2 (remember we need heat to get oil from rocks, heat needs fire, fire creates CO2). Is Canada right? The U.S. is not only the highest oil consumer but not surprisingly we are the highest per capita users of oil. Everyone knows China is close behind us in the consumer line, but way in the back in the per capita use. Simply put, every person in the U.S. uses way too much oil, but don’t put Canada too far behind us, they are also a major consumer of petroleum. Currently the average U.S. resident uses about 25 barrels per person per year.

The Canadian region that is affected by shale mining now has a river, including the Athabasca, with undrinkable water and fish that can’t be eaten, that is if you are able to catch one. The Washington Post quotes, “Each barrel of oil requires two to five barrels of water, carves up four tons of earth, uses enough natural gas to heat a home for one to five days, and adds to the greenhouse gases slowly cooking the planet, according to the industry's own calculations”(1).

CONCLUSION

Take note, first Canada and the western Colorado. If there is anything that American’s can usually come to agreement on is that we hold our country very close to our hearts, including our natural landmarks. The Rocky Mountains is certainly such a landmark. This principle is the same reason we don’t have a giant geothermal electric plant sitting on Yellowstone, a hot spot volcano region with excellent geothermal capabilities seconded only to Iceland, which would supply a major portion of the U.S. with clean electricity. Yellowstone is a landmark and we respect it, the Rockies is a powerful representation of the U.S. and we shouldn’t touch it!

What do you think? Should we flatten the Rockies to mine shale?

SOURCES

Doug Struck, Washington Post Foreign Service,Wednesday, May 31, 2006; Page A01, July 21, 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001429.html

THE SHALE, THE ROCKIES, THE REST OF THE STORY....

BACKGROUND

So we have oil in our Rockies, which is very exciting. The oil crisis is over! Not so quick. There is a small problem. To get the oil means pretty much means getting rid of the Rockies. Now don’t think for a minute that Shell and Exxon will announce their plans in great detail. The picture painted is that surface The Rockies

rock will be “collected” and the oil extracted. As geologists will tell you, the rock is about 500 feet underground. They are correct; surface rocks exist, but only about 1/3 of the oil shale is on the ground surface. As you have read my blog you have probably noticed that I am a bit of an enthusiast for engineering advances and have always had positive views on offshore oil exploration. I think we can all agree that there is a line to be drawn where we are no longer seeking engineering advances but simply trying to literally squeeze every bit of oil and money from the land. I use the word squeeze because that is exactly how oil is extracted from shale. Extracting oil shale from the Rockies will have many natural ramifications, and if we are not careful a landscape that has taken millions of years to build will be flattened within a century.

WHY SHALE?

As mentioned previously, oil shale is a metamorphic rock of low grade that is in its first metamorphic stage. Shale comes from mud rock. Mud rock usually comes from a marine or swamp like environment, millions of years ago, which was exactly what the western Colorado area was. The cool thing about this shale is that the oil is trapped in porous, sponge like, texture of the shale. The shale will eventually turn to slate and then gneiss, which are then considered to be the higher-grade metamorphic rocks. Once the higher grades have been reached, under high temperature and high pressure, the oil in the shale is essentially cooked away. The formation of the Rockies, from colliding tectonic plates, has brought the shale to the ground surface.

The shale has to be collected and essentially cooked under pressure in essentially the same method that oil would naturally have been extracted had the shale been allowed to develop into slate.

THE OIL SQUEEZE

BACKGROUND

The focus of this blog is alternative methods to extract oil from nature. In a not so far past blog I discussed alternate methods to extract oil, one of which was to heat shale and collect the oil. As most of us know shale, a metamorphic rock brought to the surface by mountain building, litters the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, both in the U.S. and in Canada. The oil contained in these rocks is somewhere between one half and two trillion barrels of oil. Yes, that number is comparable to the oil locked under the Middle East. Get out the dynamite!

SHALE RUSH!

In the early 1980’s, 1982-1985, there was so much talk of getting oil from the shale in the Rockies that Exxon oil invested $5billion dollars in claiming their “stake” to the land. Ranchers, who usually sold their land for $200, were now cashing in at $2000 an acre. Times were really good in Battlement Mesa, west Colorado, the town was booming in what appeared to be a gold rush.

After oil prices dropped in the mid eighties, to below $40 a barrel, interest was lost in the project and it was abandoned. The land, still worth $200 for the average rancher, remained unused. As we know oil is now at or above $70 a barrel, depending on the Mid East chaos of the day, any day. Bottom line: the “black gold” rush is back on for the rocks that burn.

CONCLUSION

During the next few blogs I would like to discuss this insane topic from a few different perspectives. Many interest advances in the oil discovery field is happening in our time, some good and some not so good.

Oil and Gas exploration links

www.ogjresearch.com

www.geology.com