Talk:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alaska Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 14, 2006


Contents

[edit] Alaska trip 2004

Well, I just got back from Alaska a few days ago, and I learned quite a bit of things about the pipeline, so I thought I'd share the wealth! --Ixfd64 00:48, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

[edit] 799 miles long

  • I don't want to pee in anyones cereal, but is the following sentence really necessary? --Chairboy 18:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Although the pipeline is actually about 799 miles long, it is usually referred to as 800 miles long.
It reminds me of this excerpt from bash.org: http://www.bash.org/?2999
  • Yes, it is necessary. Even people who work for APSC usually refer to the pipeline as 800 miles long. The fact that it is only 799 comes as a surprise to most of them, and to other Alaskans who've been told numerous times that it's 800 miles long. Even during a chat with an Alyeska public affairs employee while on contract with APSC I was told it was 800 miles long. Encyclopedias should note these sorts of odd discrepancies between popular belief and reality. — Jéioosh 08:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not really a discrepancy, though, is it? It's just a rounding-off. -- Nik42 29 June 2005 04:21 (UTC)
  • Except that people actually think it's exactly 800 miles long. I've heard claims like "they built a couple extra miles and moved PS1 further north to get it that way". Total BS of course, but encyclopedias are around to clarify such things. — Jéioosh 29 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

The straight line mileage from Pump Station #1 at Prudhoe Bay to the Valdez terminal is 798 miles. But the pipe is not a straight line. It does a considerable amount of zig-zagging between fixed points in the above ground sections to allow for lateral expansion caused by the warm (roughly 140 degree F) oil inside. The zig-zagging accounts for most of the extra 2 miles. Flying Crow, 5/22/06

[edit] Last sentence

I don't think the Exxon Valdez should be mentioned as a Trans-Alaska Pipeline spill. Its accident occured away from the pipeline. --Kitch 11:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be either. I've noticed a tendency for anything related to oil in Alaska to have a link to the Exxon Valdez disaster, and for no good reason. Just because it's famous doesn't mean that it needs to be linked to everything peripherally related to it. Also, people seem to want to blame the pipeline for the Exxon Valdez, which is unfair. The Exxon Valdez was well outside of APSC's sphere of influence: it had left the terminal and piloted out of the Valdez Arm. Bligh Reef is on the opposite side of Bligh Island from Tatitlek, and the Valdez Arm is generally considered to end around Rocky Point which is well north of Bligh Island. I don't think that APSC pilots tankers even as far as Rocky Point, actually. And it's not APSC's job to make sure that tanker captains aren't drunk, it's the US Coast Guard's. — Jéioosh 08:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The tanker shipping in Alaskan waters is technically part of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, managed by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The Exxon Valdez spill happened on their watch, as they readily admit, and they report the spill as part of the total oil spilled on TAPS since 1977. Flying Crow, 5/22/06

[edit] Canadian portion?

From somewhere in BC:

My concern with this page, is that it only shows PART of what many people concider to be the Alaska Pipeline. Namely, the people in NorthWestren Canada. [1]

But, again, it is the Alaska highway pipeline I'm thinking of... (As the link suggests)

There is no pipeline which runs from the Prudhoe Bay fields in Alaska through Canada. A natural gas pipeline has been proposed whose route would follow the Alcan Highway, but there no money has yet been dedicated to such a project, nor are the oil companies interested in transporting natural gas out of Prudhoe Bay at this time.
Historically you may be confusing the CANOL project with TAPS. The former was a WWII era pipeline from Haines to somewhere up in the Yukon or NWT, only a few inches in diameter (like six or ten I think) and designed to carry fuel not crude. The old fuel terminal still stands in Haines and is occupied by the US Army, I believe. The road built alongside still functions as the Haines Highway up to Haines Junction in YT. TAPS however was built in the 70s and is strictly within Alaska's boundaries, it doesn't come anywhere near the Canadian border at all. – Jéioosh 04:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Would more history in the article be appropriate?

I was thinking in terms of the controversy involved. There seems to be similar controversy surrounding drilling at ANWAR, today.

Feel free to add anything you'd like, even just some bullet points. There are some similarities with the ANWR controversy, but there are some very significant differences too. – Jéioosh 04:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pipeline Shooting

For what it's worth, I know people who live in Livengood. It's a small town of fewer than 30 people. Daniel Carson Lewis, who shot the hole in the pipeline in 2001, is lucky that the state troopers caught him before his neighbors did. Lewis is currently in prison (and will be for many years to come), and if he ever gets out he'd be well-advised not to return to Livengood...

The text in this portion is worthwhile, however, it would be better suited in a article about Daniel Carson Lewis.

[edit] Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline

Why is there apparently no Wikipedia article about the proposed (or currently being built?) Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline? It's a huge project that will deliver enormous amounts of natural gas to the lower 48 states, but I can't find any signifigant mentions of it in Wikipedia. It was even profiled on 60 Minutes. I wouldn't really know where to begin writing it myself, so could somebody more qualified start it?

IIRC it's still not past the stage where the state legislature argues about it incessantly and then decides that they'll leave it for the next batch of politicians to work out. That combined with the fact that BP doesn't want to sell its gas on the Slope, and... So it's all talk at this point, at least as far as I know (I've been away from AK for six months so I could be out of the loop.). Granted it would be nice to have an article that sums up all the issues, however. — Jéioosh 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there is one now: Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline

[edit] Delisted Ga

I don't know how this article is still a GA, since it was reviewed by User:Worldtraveller who is ordinarily a fairly strict reviwer, but the only two notes refer to a current event, and the only two other refs don't exactly cover the entire article. This is not well-referenced. Homestarmy 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life expectancy of pipe?

I recall a news story about the leak which mentioned the life expectancy of the pipes. I don't remember what that was, and I didn't see a number for that in the article or in the links provided. It seems to me to be a relevant bit of information. Brian Pearson 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion of 15 billion barrels of oil

I wanted to get a sense of scale in regards to energy that 15 billion barrels yield. After performing some calculations, I found that for the entire life of the pipeline (30 years), all the oil produced could only supply 87% of the United States' energy demands in a year. This certainly demonstrates to me what a huge amount of energy the US (and the world) consumes and how little 15 billion barrels really is. If anyone else thinks this figure is useful, please add it to the article - I did not want to add it myself without discussing first.

How I came to these figures:
Constants
1 barrel of oil ~= 0.136 tonnes (Source: [2])
1 tonne of oil ~= 45.217GJ = 4.5217*1010J (Source: Ton_of_oil_equivalent)
1.05*1020 = The energy consumed by the United States in one year (2001) (Source: Orders_of_magnitude_(energy))

Conversions
15 billion barrels * 0.136 = 2.04 billion tonnes = 2.04*109 tonnes
2.04*109 tonnes of oil * 4.5217*1010J ~= 9.224268*1019J of energy in 15 billion barrels
9.224268*1019J / 1.05*1020 ~= 87.85% of the US energy demand in 2001

--75.177.155.101 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By "energy", I assume you are defining it strictly as oil transformed into gasoline, deisal, and so forth? There are a number of other energy sources: gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, and etc, that adds up to the true total energy consumption. Complicating the picture a bit are things made from oil such as plastics. Brian Pearson 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Different forms of energy can't be compared merely based upon energy content. Energy in hydrocarbon form is much more portable than a nuclear or hydroelectric power plant, which have distinct advantages for fixed location uses. Energy from a Space Shuttle launch is not very useful for heating a house, but rockets do that job better than home heating fuel. (SEWilco 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
And if you look more closely, you'll find the Alaska oil tends to not go to the USA anyway. As oil on the Pacific coastline it is more valuable in Asia. The Alaska oil can be sold to Asia and cheaper oil from closer locations can replace it. If non-USA oil prices rise too much, it might be cheaper for Alaska oil to go to the USA. (SEWilco 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
Any source of oil would be considered to be a contribution to the entire supply, I think. If we used Alaska oil instead of Japan, they would get it somewhere else and we would use the Alaska oil, which would decrease our need, however small, of other sources.
BTW, I noticed from one of your sources [3] that there's a slight discrepancy. I'm not sure how that came about. Brian Pearson 01:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the [4] tables has been updated. At the time I wrote this, 1.05*1020 was the energy consumed by the United States in one year. 75.177.181.191 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A net gain?

If all the energy that has gone into construction and maintainance is fully added up, which includes the energy that has gone into the production of aluminum, steel etc used, and into refining and shipping the gasoline that has been burned etc, how does the total relate to the energy eventually obtained from the pipeline's production of crude oil? The corporations have enjoyed huge tax breaks, and it has all been immensely profitable in dollars, needless to say. The "cost" is reported as US$8bn here, but has the total energy budget broken even yet? This is the essential question, unaddressed by the somewhat corporatist and surficial report in this Wikipedia article. No doubt the question has been addressed in scientific literature: why isn't it here? --Wetman 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska article

Saw this article in the Houston Chronicle today [5],figured there might be enough information to be incorporate and update the article by someone with more knowledge on the matter than I am. --Hourick (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)