Tar Sands alternative, Light crude from Alaska, instead of dirty low quality oil

[FogerRox]

According to conservative estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, there are over 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 114.36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the NPRA. http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=245403

National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA) has extremely high quality oil, API 40 to 60. In a day and age when most light crude Mid East exports are API 31 to 37, the NPRA represents not just hi quality, but a viable alternative to the Greenhouse gas intensive Alberta Tar Sands. The EPA says that Tar Sands create 82% more GHG than conventional crude oil production, from well to wheel.
http://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20041215142158-Houseknecht%20-%20USGS.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34640697/EPA-Blocks-Canadian-Oil

Modern well drilling has come a long way from the rocking arms of Texas, 25 to 30+ wells can be drilled from a single 400 ft by 400 ft pad, vastly reducing the network of roads in environmentally sensitive lands like the Arctic Tundra in Alaska.

So why are oil companies going gaga over the tar sands? Maybe its oil field envy, The Alberta Tar Sands may be as large as the super giant oil field in Saudi Arabia called Gharwar, which produces hi quality light sweet crude (API 31 to 39) where as the Tar Sands has crude with an API of no more than 10.

I think oil companies know once they get the Tar Sands production ramped up, it'll be a money maker for 70 to 80 years. It'll also be game over for global warming.

With improved fuel economy standards, potential fuel-efficient technologies, advanced biofuels and electric vehicles and the effect these would have on crude oil consumption, there is simply no reason to dig up the Tar Sands. When fuel cell technology becomes refined, fuel cell cars will replace electric cars and hybrids. As transportation becomes less oil centric and more electric centric, renewable sources of electricity from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal will replace barrels of oil, there will still be no reason to dig up the Tar Sands.

So the next time someone says they support the Keystone pipeline, because its better to buy oil from Canada rather than from Mid East countries with people who want to kill us, just tell them thats bullshit. Its better to buy hi quality oil from Alaska's NPRA, not that dirty nasty GHG time bomb oil from Alberta.

This diary is a look from an oil centric viewpoint, some may consider it objectionable, Ok. But the diary does show that from an oil centric viewpoint, there is a huge and clear alternative to the Tar Sands, I tried to take the "Drill Smart" angle. If we use NPRA oil instead of Tar Sands and don't transition to renewables, we'll be forced to look at the Tar Sands again. We need to set initial goals of 20% of electricity from wind in 20 yrs, and the same for Solar. 100 gigawatts of solar and 100 gigawatts of Wind, and 100 gigwatts of renewable storage.

I do advocate for ending our oil dependance. We need to use the coal and oil we have left to build the next generation of renewable energy infrastructure, or else.

The premise of the dairy is a thought exercise for those who cant think outside the oil box. Its not my personal view.

What would the big man Al Gore say about the Tar Sands?
Over 200,000 people have signed the petition telling President Obama to stop the Keystone pipeline. If you haven't done so yet, please sign the petition to stop the Keystone pipeline.
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/keystone_obama/index2.html?rc=fb_share1

[Arctic Dave]

1. Not sure were to even begin on this.

First, oil drilling is already taking place in the NPRA (CPAI has the Alpine Field)
Second, you still have to build the infrastructure to get to these pads, not cheap.
Third, the Native Corps don't really want it, alot of the NPR-A is part of their traditional hunting and fishing grounds and they don't want the oil companies anywhere next to them.
Fourth, the main native corporation on the North Slope (ASRC) wants to open up ANWR so they don't have to share the royalities with the other native corps.

I would much rather see the NPR-A developed then any of the other options but doing this isn't an easy endeavor.

[FogerRox]

2. Tracts just west of ANWR

Were leased about 3 yrs ago, right on the border. Then think about horizontal drilling... state of the art was 8 miles, pilot projects were talking up to 14 miles. 80% of the oil in ANWR is in the west, in fractured rock, many plays 10+. Perfect for horizontal drilling...... just conjecture on my part.

Alpine is not far from the TAP, comparatively. And the fed in network at the north end of the TAP spreads out like a tree's branches. Except that Prudhoe Bay oil is like API 23-28, and NPRA is like 40 to 60.

SO many people are liking the tar sands thinking oil from ALberta us better than oil from the Mid East, so isnt oil from the US better than oil from Canada? OF course oil companies are transnational and will sell to whoever.

[Arctic Dave]

6. The fourteen mile pilot is the Liberty field owned by BP.

Is was put on ice last year because of chronic engineering problems. The closest thing to ANWR that was drilled was Pt. Thompson which is a gas field owned by ExxonMobil but is sitting idle until the State and XOM settle their legal battle.

The problem with the Alpine is the sales line is too small to push anything more through it, CPAI has drillsites on the board for years but until they build a larger pipepline, more drillsites aren't going to make a difference.

[FogerRox]

9. Bunch of gas/oil at PT Thompson IIRC

Lots of gas all over, no pipeline, hiway or Mackenzie....

[Arctic Dave]

11. Until all parties are done in court it will stay there.

Pipeline for gas is pretty much a pipedream.

[FogerRox]

3. ANWR sux, geologically a poor area for conventional drilling, many plays. Lots of folded rock....

[Arctic Dave]

7. Not a whole lot of conventional drilling anymore.

Not that I would ever want to see ANWR drilled. After all, drilling NPR-A is what it was designed for.

[FarCenter]

4. We need more Alaskan oil to keep the Alaska pipeline operational

If the flow gets too low, the oil will cool and solidify in the pipeline.

But we also need the pipeline from Canada as well.

Both together will significantly reduce oil imports, but not completely satisfy oil import needs.

[Arctic Dave]

8. That scenario is a long way off.

Better yet, go green and go big. Once the NPR-A is drained then it's lights out, no more last chances.

[FarCenter]

10. I thought that it was roughly half the current flow that would be a problem

And with the rate of depletion in the existing field, that would occur in about 5 -10 year time. That is about the time needed to implement new fields and feeder pipelines and infrastructure.

[Arctic Dave]

13. A litlle longer then that.

Smaller, infield drilling is still happening that will draw it out even longer. 5-10 year development is what you are looking at for completely new fields, NPR-A would be adding new drillsites which don't have a lot of infrastructure involved (wells, wellhouses, manifold building, test module, line heaters and piplines). Most of these are pre-fabbed, truckable modules now and don't require a lot of onsite construction.

What everyone wants to see is a magical field develope the will refill the line but that will never happen. The best you can hope for is keeping it around were it is now.

[FogerRox]

14. Stripper wells continue to produce for years.

[MadHound]

5. Better yet,

Let's have that crash program in green energy that's supposed to be just around the corner. You know, the one that's supposed to wean us off of oil for good and provide jobs now.

Oh, wait, that's being outsourced to China.

[FogerRox]

12. And they get tax break for outsourcing.... D O H !