The Alaska gas pipeline - what do you think?

[Kellie]

I'm not much of one for political threads, but I thought it might be interesting to see what the collective thinks of the Alaska gas pipeline

20-25 billion dollar investment
3600 miles of 52" steel underground pipeline from the arctic to Alberta
4 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day to the Chicago market

[backpack]

I'm liberal and all, but I feel that building a new pipeline parallel to the old one, then following an existing highway for much of the rest, well, probably isn't that bad overall and could actually do more for US energy needs than drilling in ANWR (not that where they're drilling now to the west is any better, but that's already too late to stop so we might as well take all the hydrocarbons to market that we possibly can).

Yea. Go natural gas pipelines!

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, the cab I took in San Rafael, Argentina to Mendoza was a CNG vehicle... kinda cool, and they actually have the whole infrastructure for fueling everywhere.

Oh, and they're re-injecting the gas now to keep pressure up and get as much oil out as possible... can they then take the gas out again once the oil is gone or something?

[Viva]

Wasn't the Alsaka oil pipline suppose to go that route too, but political pressure ensured that we loaded tankers to haul it all that way around South America to the gulf refineries rather than piping to the midwest refineries? Meanwhile, Japan's importing oil from the Middle East when Alaska's, what, 5X closer?

[cj001f]

Soooeeeyy!

[BFD]

It will never be 1986 again.

[Pow4Brains]

We might as use coal. We have a shitload of it closer to the power source.

[xyz]

We might as use coal. We have a shitload of it closer to the power source.

Coal power generation = green house gases = global warming = warm winters = suck....clean coal would be better.

[Pow4Brains]

clean coal would be better.

Yes. Centralized energy generation is easier to control.

[PaSucks]

Coal power generation = green house gases = global warming = warm winters = suck....clean coal would be better.

Petroleum power generation = green house gases = global warming = warm winters = suck.... see how that works?

[taynton]

America needs her energy. You can't stop a problem like energy abuse by stopping supply, only by reducing the demand for it. Knock down a couple trees for the pipeline will definately have higher public opinion than say building new nuclear plants. It will do less damage than a hydroelectric dam for sure. The pipeline is burried too. From what I've heard, oil companies have come a long way in terms of environmental policies.

I'm all for alternative fuels, I'm considering a career in it. Fossil fuels are something we need to try and control our use of. As a skier, global warming is a very scary prospect. Fossil fuels aren't going to be around for very long either if we continue our current ways, and we need them for more than just energy (plastics, lubricants, etc). Also, I'm thinking about doing an internship in Anchorage (working a real job and being in the skiing sweet spot in AK...) so new projects might mean more oppertunities for that.

Backpack: They'd be pumping the natural gas under pressure so I'm sure it could be recovered. Often there already are natural gas deposits in the same resivoir as oil, and they use other gasses and acids as well. I've also heard they are exparimenting on pumping captured carbon dioxide into wells and sealing it in (removing it from being a greenhouse gas), but I'm not sure if its the same as what the natural gas is used for.

Viva: If Japan took all of the oil from AK, where would then the continental US would just have to get more oil from the middle east. I'm sure the oil industry has the most efficient way down pat.
Edit: mid-read you. I'm pretty sure that the tankers go from Valdez to the west coast. The oil might then go on a pipeline to the Guld coast to be refined, but you are right, tanking all the way around South America doesnt make sense. Most should be able to make it through the Panama Canal though I would have thought.

As for coal, there is a lot of coal in the ground and a lot is already being used. According to wikipedia, coal power plants are the highest emmiters of greenhouse gasses. Natural gas emits 45% less carbon dioxide per energy unit than coal. There is also quite a bit of natural gas in the world. Coal also burns quite messy (soot everywhere, black trees and buildings), but new ways of burning it are being worked on. Something to do with gassifying it or turning it into methane? Either way it will still make carbon dioxide though.

[Pow4Brains]

Something to do with gassifying it or turning it into methane?

If I’m not mistaken, they are trying to get natural gas out of it???

[taynton]

If I’m not mistaken, they are trying to get natural gas out of it???

Methane is the largest component of natural gas (70-90%). Natural gas that is burned for heating is almost pure methane (i think natural gas and methane can be used interchangeably).

[Pow4Brains]

^^^^^^^^makes sense^^^^^^^^

[adipose]

Natural gas isn't perfect but it's about the best we have right now in terms of a non-renewable resource. When you talk about natural gas it is usually in the context of methane so yes; natural gas = methane. There are several other forms of natural gas but they are usually in the form of a liquid, ethane, butane, propane (LPG), ect.
Here in Wyoming there is a huge industry in natural gas, we also have CBM. CBM = coal bed methane. This gets the gas out by pumping massive amounts of water off of the coal seam and producing a little gas with it.
To get gas out of the ground there are several by-products that come with it, usually a great deal of other unprofitable gases and liquids(H2S, CO2, are the gas biggies, a gasoline like liquid and various non-potable waters.) that either get converted to sulpher (H2S) or vented to the atmos (CO2). The liquids are sold to refineries or pumped back into the ground.

An Alaska natural gas pipeline would be my ticket north.

[Kellie]

Interesting discussion so far . . .

The gas that would be sent to market is indeed the gas that is currently being re-injected, although there are likely many gas reservoirs as well. The arctic gas cap is very high (12%) in CO2, so there would be a purification plant set up on the slope to remove that and re-inject it. There is already a plant on slope to remove any heavy components in the gasoline range (C5 and higher) - these are added to the crude that goes down the trans-Alaska pipeline. As part of the new pipeline, there would also be a facility (probably in Alberta) to remove the natural gas liquids (i.e. whatever's left of ethane and heavier) to meet burner tip spec.

As far as Alaskan crude, it is rare, if ever, that it's shipped around to the gulf. The gulf refineries tend to get their supplies locally, or foreign oil from the middle east, Venezuela, Mexico, and other S. American sources. Alaska North Slope crude was originally intended for PNW refineries (it didn't even make it as far south as CA!), although it may be exported by tanker now to places in Asia - to be honest, I am not familiar with that side of the distribution. PNW refineries still run it though, but their demand has outlived Alaska's supply.

If you do have an opinion you want to share on it, there's a place to on the website . . . the project is currently in the public comment phase www.alaskagasnow.com

[MTT]

I just hope its done correctly. Why to Chicago? Why not run it down to feed the Western states>?

[Viva]

My sources are pretty old. I didn't know that Alaska oil primarily went to the PNW (how many refineries there? I understand that the West coast is a bit limited in that respect). Anyway, the oil should all go to SoCal so I don't have to pay fucking $3.50/gal

I do recall that there were proposals to have the original pipeline go through Canada to the midwest refineries and, possible, those in the gulf states.

[shera]

I just want America to hurry up and drain the middle east and make that place so much less interesting.

[MTT]

I just want America to hurry up and drain the middle east and make that place so much less interesting.

There ya go.

[steve]

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, the cab I took in San Rafael, Argentina to Mendoza was a CNG vehicle... kinda cool, and they actually have the whole infrastructure for fueling everywhere.

I thought argentina/brazil was big into ethanol and their infrastructure was completely set up for that?
They grow sugarcane there, which is much more efficient as a fuel than the corn that we'd have to use..

[Cono Este]

I thought argentina/brazil was big into ethanol and their infrastructure was completely set up for that?
They grow sugarcane there, which is much more efficient as a fuel than the corn that we'd have to use..

Not entirely. Brazil, not sure about Arg., still gets alot of natural Gas from Bolivia. Mostly for use in homes. Recently, Bolivia is putting the squeeze on them all.

[splat]

Argentina gets their gas from Bolivia and Argentines have been freaking lately with the Morales issues. My sister was the liason between the State of Alaska and the Fed for everything pipeline in Alaska and beyond. An attorney working for BLM by appointment by then-Gov Tony Knowles, she secured the land leases for the line Kellie talks about six years ago. I'm sure just about everyone in AK wants the pipeline. Unreal amounts of money flowed in AK when the old pipeline was built in the 70s. I was there and it was a wild west scene with lots of cash getting thrown around.

[Pow4Brains]

I just caught the tail end of it, but it looked like there was going to be something about this on 60 min. tonight.

[gravitylover]

They grow sugarcane there, which is much more efficient as a fuel than the corn that we'd have to use..

We only have to use corn and soybeans until we legalize hemp.

[Tippster]

I just hope its done correctly. Why to Chicago? Why not run it down to feed the Western states>?

'cause Truth needs a job....