13 billionth barrel reaches VMT 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. Length: 800 miles. Crosses three mountain ranges and over 800 rivers and streams. Cost to build: $8 billion in 1977, largest privately funded construction project at that time. Construction began on March 27, 1975 and was completed on May 31, 1977. First oil moved through the pipeline on June 20, 1977. Over 14 billion barrels have moved through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. First tanker to carry crude oil from Valdez: ARCO Juneau, August 1, 1977. Tankers loaded at Valdez: 16,781 through March 2001. Storage tanks in Valdez- 18 with total storage capacity of 9.1 million barrels total. Gulkana River tiered-arch bridge The consortium of companies that own TAPS today includes: BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc.

46.93% ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. 28.29% ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, 20.34% Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 3.08% Pipeline Operations Operators at the Valdez Operations Control Center monitor the performance of pipeline operations Maximum daily throughput — 2.136 million bbl., avg. (With 11 pump stations operating). Rates exceeding 1,440,000 bbl./day assume drag reduction agent (DRA) injection. Maximum daily throughput — 2000 (with 7 pump stations operating) — .99 million bbl., avg. Rates exceeding 1,000,000 bbl./day assume DRA injection Fuel required for all operations (fuel oil equivalent) — 210,000 gal/day (also see fuel requirements under Pump Stations, and Marine Terminal). Pressure — Operating, maximum — 1,180 psi Pump Station facilities in original design — 12 pump stations with 4 pumps each. Pump Stations operating, Nov.

1, 1998 — 7: PS 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12. PS 5 is a relief station only. PS 11 is a security site. PS 8 placed in standby June 30, 1996. PS 10 placed in standby July 1, 1996. PS 2 placed in standby July 1, 1997. PS 6 placed in standby August 8, 1997. Pipeline Engineering Cost Approximately $8 billion for construction of entire system, including Terminal and pump stations, at conclusion of initial construction period in 1977. Does not include interest on capital investment, or capital construction after 1977. Concrete weights Pipe coating, river crossings — 75,000 lbs. per 40-ft. section Saddles, flood plains — 18,500 lbs. each Mainline crossings Road crossings, refrigerated — Glenn Highway at Glennallen Design modes Selection — Soil sampling and other means were used to determine soil types along the route.

Where thaw-stable soils were found, the pipeline was buried in the conventional manner. In areas of thaw-unstable soils, and where heat from the oil in the pipeline might cause thawing and consequent loss of soil foundation stability, the pipeline was insulated and elevated above ground by means of a unique support system. Basic types and miles of each — Above-ground — 420 mi. Refrigerated below-ground — 4 mi. Description — Above-ground — Specially designed vertical supports were placed in drilled holes or driven into the ground. 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. Conventional below-ground — The pipe is underlain with a layer of fine bedding material and covered with prepared gravel padding and soil fill material, in a ditch from 8 ft. to 16 ft. deep in most locations, but up to 49 ft. deep at one location.

Zinc ribbons, which serve as sacrificial anodes to inhibit corrosion of the pipe, are buried alongside the pipeline. The Atigun pipe replacement section, 8.5 miles in length, has four magnesium ribbon sacrificial anodes installed. Electrical currents in the earth's surface, called "telluric currents" and caused by the same phenomenon that generates the Northern Lights, can be picked up by the pipeline and zinc anodes. The zinc anodes act like grounding rods to safely return these currents back to the earth, reducing the risk of damage to the pipeline. Special burial, non-refrigerated — 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. Special burial, refrigerated — 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.

Pipeline buried in the standard method lies on a layer of bedding material (well drained sandy gravel without sharp rocks) covered with prepared gravel padding and soil fill material. Insulation Refrigerated below-ground pipeline, thickness-3.2 in. Under gravel workpad or road-2 in. to 4 in. (limited areas only) Tanana River suspension bridge Gabion & concrete mats Used in Atigun Floodplain Pipe Replacement Project for scour protection of the new pipe because less cover on top of new pipe. Gabion mats, used 31,750 ft. Concrete mats, used 9,525 ft. Land Ownership Ownership, entire system, by area: Federal government-6.27 sq. mi. approx. State government-7.79 sq. mi. approx. Private-1.33 sq. mi. Federal government- 376 mi. approx. State government-344 mi. approx. Private-80 mi. approx. (including 51 mi., Alaska Native Corp. land) Total –800 mi. Pipeline in municipal jurisdiction, approx. Arctic North Slope Borough - 179.2 mi.

Fairbanks North Star Borough - 89.1 mi. City of Delta Junction - 5.5 mi. City of Valdez - 20.8 mi. Linefill Definition - Amount of oil in pipeline from PS 1 to Marine terminal. The linefill is 9,059,057 bbl. Pump Station 1 receives and meters oil from the producers Permanent facilities Access roads, dimensions — 120 ft. to 7.5 mi. long; 28 ft. wide, minimum 3 ft. gravel base. Access roads, number — 225, linking state roads with pipeline, pump stations and airfields. Airfields, land status and length — Federal land subject to and operated under state leases — Galbraith Lake — 5,200 ft. Prospect — 5,000 ft. Pressure Relief Station — 1 (PS 5, reinjects oil drained down for pressure relief, but does not have mainline pumps and does not boost total stream). Marine terminal — 1 (Valdez). Pig launching/receiving facilities — 3 (PS 1, 4, and Marine Terminal).

Pipe shoes, number — 39,000 approx. Pump stations, operating — 11 (10 pump stations, 1 relief station) Topping units — 3 (PS 6, 8, and 10. PS 8 and 10 topping units placed in standby, summer 1996. PS6 topping unit placed in standby summer 1997.) Pipeline Valves, types and number — Check — 81 Ball — 1 Total — 177 Pump Station 7 is about 1.3 miles southeast of the Tatalina River in a wooded area. PS 7 is similar to PS 2 with two mainline pumps instead of three. Thermal expansion Definitions - Thermal expansion - change in pipe length due to change in crude oil temperature Tie-in temperature - actual pipe temperatures at the time when final welds were made which joined strings of pipe into a continuous line Hot position - pipe at maximum oil temperature (145° F) Cold position - pipe at minimum steel temperature (-60° F) (pre-startup) Each 40 ft.

length of pipe expands .031 inches with each 10° F rise in temperature and contracts the same distance with each 10°F drop in temperature. Longitudinal expansion of typical 720 ft. straight above-ground segment from min. tie-in temperature to maximum operating temperature - 9 inches. Note: due to anchoring, the pipeline does not expand lengthwise but shifts laterally on the above-ground supports (See zig zag configuration , below) Maximum above-ground lateral movement- Tie-in to hot position - 8 ft. Tie-in to cold position - 4 ft. Thermal stress - maximum, 25,000 psi - where below ground pipeline is fully restrained by the soil, the maximum longitudinal stress due to change in temperature from pipe temperature at tie-in to maximum oil temperature Zig zag Configuration Above-ground sections of the pipeline are built in a zig zag configuration to allow for expansion or contraction of the pipe because of temperature changes. The design also allows for pipeline movement caused by an earthquake.

Refrigerated Burial of Pipe Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) | ConocoPhillips Alaska Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) X What We Do ConocoPhillips has a long and proud history in Alaska as the state’s largest oil and gas producer. Oil Production Policy reform leading to new investment, a stronger economy, and a more prosperous future. GO Transportation Safely transporting oil and natural gas by pipeline & tanker to bring Alaska's resources to market. GO Natural Gas Before we drill, drilling and extraction, processing, what is oil used for? GO Exploration Dedicated to developing energy solutions for today and tomorrow . GO Arctic Operations Operating in the Arctic presents great opportunities along with great challenges. GO Vendor Information X Sustainable Development Conducting our business in a way that promotes economic growth, a healthy environment, and vibrant communities, now and in the future. Environment Committed to protecting the environment we share with all Alaskans. GO Safety X In Communities Helping improve the quality of life in the communities where we live and work is a fundamental value for us. Community Engagement Working diligently to build respectful relationships with our stakeholders. GO Volunteerism & the Community Our employees believe strongly in being involved in Alaska’s communities.

GO Community Investment We donate millions of dollars to community organizations annually. GO Grant Applications Share Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) | ConocoPhillips Alaska ConocoPhillips Alaska, Trans-Alaska Pipeline, TAPS, Prudhoe Bay, Valdez, pipeline, Alyeska, permafrost The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was the world's largest privately funded construction project when it was built. It includes the 800-mile-long pipeline, which runs from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. ​​ The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was the world’s largest privately funded construction project when it was built, at a cost of $8 billion. The system includes the 800-mile-long pipeline, which runs from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and the Valdez Marine Terminal, where oil is loaded onto tankers for shipment to market. The pipeline has become an engineering icon and has set a standard for design which endures to this day. Its distinctive zig-zags allow the pipe to flex in the event of an earthquake. More than half the pipeline runs above ground so that the hot oil does not melt the permafrost that is prevalent along the route.

In those areas, the pipeline is elevated on 78,000 refrigerated vertical support members. Construction of the pipeline project began in April, 1974 and finished in June, 1977. A total of 70,000 people were involved in building the line. TAPS is operated by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) on behalf of its five owners; ConocoPhillips owns 29%. Alyeska also operates the Ship Escort/Response Vessel System (SERVS), helping to safely transport tankers through the Sound and providing extensive spill response preparedness. Operations TAPS is run from Alyeska's Operations Control Center in Anchorage and is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The pipeline is protected by three separate leak detection systems. The system includes 71 gate valves that allow operators to stop pipeline flow in four minutes. Trans-Alaska Pipeline: Lessons for the Keystone XL Pipeline Debate Joel Griffith Research Associate Project for Economic Growth Citing various environmental and economic objections, in April, the Obama Administration again delayed construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, this time until at least early 2015.

Before the latest in a six-year string of delays, the President emphasized “how Keystone impacted greenhouse gas emissions would affect our decision,” lamenting “we’re already seeing severe weather patterns increase.” [1] In a press release, the Department of State indicated that, even after years of delay, it still has not determined whether the project is in “the national interest.” [2] The 1,179-mile Keystone XL Pipeline (850 miles located in the U.S.) would cost $5.2 billion [3] and carry 830,000 barrels of oil each day from Alberta, Canada, through the U.S. down to the Gulf of Mexico, where the oil would be refined and sold domestically and abroad. The massive infrastructure project is expected to support more than 42,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide [4] and would be built almost entirely with private investment, not taxpayer dollars. Polls show solid support for the energy project. Environmental groups have launched a blizzard of “green” objections to the project.

The Sierra Club claims that Keystone XL “is a threat to our water and environment,” “poses a health risk to our communities,” and is a “climate disaster in the making.” [5] Hollywood has chimed in, too, with Robert Redford exclaiming, “Tar sands crude means a dirtier, more dangerous future for our children all so that the oil industry can reach the higher prices of overseas markets. This dirty energy project is all risk and no reward for the American people.” [6] Americans have lived through all of this debate before. The Keystone XL debate is almost an exact replay of a similar policy clash during the early 1970s over whether to build a similar multibillion-dollar project: the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The Alaska project was eventually approved by Congress in 1973 and completed in 1978, but only after fierce debate. Today, the Alaska Pipeline is recognized almost universally as a technological marvel, an energy policy success story that reduced American reliance on Middle Eastern oil, and one of the most economically successful infrastructure projects in American history.

Over the past 40 years, it has carried 17 billion barrels of oil, [7] worth more than $1.7 trillion in today’s dollars. It also helped to rebuild the Alaska economy and made Alaska the second largest oil-producing state in the nation and one of the largest producers in the world. A University of Alaska study estimates that the petroleum industry directly and indirectly supports 110,000 jobs in the state. [8] All of this has happened with very little negative environmental impact and even some environmental improvements. Few people would look back and say that the U.S. should have listened to the environmentalist extremists and not built this pipeline. Thankfully, Congress and the White House had the good sense and courage to reject the green objections to the project and choose reasonable measures of good stewardship instead. This study examines historical documents, studies, and analyses of the project, which show that nearly every discredited argument against building the Alaska Pipeline is now being repeated almost verbatim by green groups opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Furthermore, some of the same environmental groups that were so spectacularly wrong 40 years ago are masterminding the propaganda campaign against the Keystone. It would be a shame for the U.S.

economy, environment, and energy security if four decades later Washington is duped by these same fatuous arguments. Opposition to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline The story of the Alaska Pipeline begins in 1968 when ARCO announced the discovery of an oil field in Prudhoe Bay in northern Alaska. This proved to be North America’s largest oil field, more bountiful than even any field in Texas. Early estimates indicated that Prudhoe Bay contained 10 billion barrels of oil, [9] although today we know the bay actually held closer to 25 billion barrels. [10] Engineers from leading energy companies worked to determine the best means to transport this oil bonanza from the North Slope for distribution to the lower 48 states. By February 1969, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System announced plans to construct an 800-mile pipeline stretching from Prudhoe Bay in the Arctic Circle to Valdez on Alaska’s south coast. Almost from day one, environmental groups campaigned to block, delay, and eventually kill the project. Environmental groups and academics began inventing a series of doomsday scenarios against the pipeline.

They argued then, as now, that it would be better to stop using oil and stop obsessing about economic growth in order to save the planet. This was an era when Malthusian concerns about dwindling finite resources were widespread and environmentalists claimed, as some still do today, that the earth was running out of oil and other fossil fuels. [11] The arguments against the pipeline included constant oil spills due to earthquakes and other acts of nature, disruption to the lives of native populations in Alaska, endangerment of fish, and threats to wildlife, such as elk, polar bears, and moose. Only after Congress passed and the President signed legislation that removed these legal impediments in November 1973, which in part declared that the project had met the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act, did construction of the pipeline finally begin. In a 1969 hearing on whether to build the pipeline, Dr. Robert Weedin of the Alaska Conservation Society told Congress: No one has or can deny the hazard earthquakes pose to the Trans-Alaska pipeline. The Trans-Alaska pipeline system has weighed these risks of pipeline breakage against profits and it has decided to take the risk….

I am not convinced the public, which lacks the lure of profits, can or should accept this same hazard. [12] The final environmental impact statement by the Department of the Interior repeated this argument, cautioning that “the probability that one or more large magnitude earthquakes would occur in the vicinity of the pipeline is extremely high, in fact, almost a certainty.” [13] Large earthquakes, the department warned, could lead to “a potentially serious hazard to the integrity of the proposed pipeline. Seismic shaking or surface faulting accompanying a large shock could rupture the pipeline directly or cause failure in the foundation material that could lead to rupture.” [14] Sounding much like the global warming alarmists of today, David Bower, president of Friends of the Earth, claimed: [T]he annual cost that will accrue to people unborn, and the threat to endangered species, are price tags we cannot fail to consider if we are to be responsible human beings…. Delay, even if it is costly delay, is the price we must be prepared to pay to make sure that we do not destroy the environment upon which we and other life forms down into the future will depend for survival.

[15] He further testified, “It is a public responsibility to decelerate, not accelerate, demands upon the earth’s finite resources.” [16] Sounding like the Obama Administration, he lectured: If, as many scientists fear, we are approaching the point of no return in a race to oblivion, then we urge that all the checks and balances of Government be used, not superficially, to ensure a tenable future for us all. None of us will live well, nor will any industries sell much, on a dead planet. [17] One persistent complaint was the predicted impact on wildlife in Alaska. Robert C. Krumm, Assistant Resources Director of the Bureau of Land Management in Fairbanks, warned “a pipeline break in the wrong place at the wrong time could be devastating to a broad spectrum of the ecology of a significant area.” [18] Bower assured Congress: “We have plenty of reason to suspect there will be many breaks [in the pipeline].” [19] He further warned that the Arctic Wildlife Range “is in enormous peril in the rush to discover and use up the oil reserves in the North Slope.” [20] David Brew of the U.S.

Geological Survey explained in the impact analysis that “the principal unavoidable effects [include] disturbances of terrain, fish and wildlife habitat, and human environs during construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil pipeline.” Brew added, The main disturbances during operation would be (1) thawing in permafrost leading to possible foundation instability and differential settlement, (2) some barrier effects of aboveground oil-pipeline sections on large mammal (especially caribou) migrations … and similar effects of any aboveground sections of gas pipeline that would eventually be built, and (3) adverse but unquantifiable effects on the marine ecosystem…. These last effects would in turn affect the fishing industry to some unquantifiable extent. [21] Proponents touted the jobs associated with the pipeline, but then as now, these jobs were discarded as “temporary.” As Brew noted in the environmental impact analysis, “At the end of construction, unemployment would probably increase.” [22] Some of the more radical green groups, such as Friends of the Earth, argued that such a construction project would forever disrupt the entire way of life and magnificence of Alaska’s natural beauty.

Harvey Manning, a researcher at Friends of the Earth, said in 1974 as the project was getting started: “Those who care about wilderness would have lost the big one; their efforts for Alaska would become less spirited, their minor victories would taste of defeat. It is the difference between defending a virgin and a whore.” Brock Evans, representing the Sierra Club, bemoaned that, if the pipeline goes forward, “the wilderness is forever broken.” [23] The Wilderness Society issued a resolution warning that “oil extraction on Alaska’s North Slope, the proposed trans-Alaska oil pipeline, road construction, and other development threaten imminent, grave and irreparable damage to the ecology, wilderness values, natural resources, recreational potential, and total environment of Alaska.” [24] After the 1969 congressional hearings, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit to enjoin the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a right-of-way for construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

The lawsuit alleged that the Department of the Interior was failing to abide by the newly minted National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), [25] which requires agencies in the executive branch to follow particular procedural guidelines before approving projects that could impact the environment. The lawsuit repeated past warnings that “the pipeline traverses a high-risk earthquake terrain.” In fact, the suit argued that “there is no other line of similar extent in the United States which is subject to greater earthquake hazards.” [26] The environmentalist groups also drew attention to the “varying processes of erosion, subsidence, and slippage” related to permafrost melting. According to the plaintiffs: A major characteristic of the Alaska wilderness is the unusual fragility of the ecosystem and vulnerability to man’s developments. Any disturbance of the plant cover triggers permafrost melt and erosion. The process is essentially irreversible and results in permanent environmental degradation. [27] Further enunciating the threat, the suit claimed: [F]ull scale construction and operation of the Trans-Alaska pipeline and appurtenant facilities pursuant to the permits will cause serious, permanent, and irreparable damage to the area traversed….

Erosion in certain areas along the route can potentially unstabilize large areas of soil and result in the situation of adjacent drainages destroying fish breeding habitat. [28] Gravel mining threatened to “destroy areas of important fish breeding habitat and riparian wintering areas for moose, other mammals and birds.” In addition, above-ground pipeline “will interfere with the natural and migratory movements of wildlife, primarily caribou and moose,” the suit warned. Although the pipeline was only to occupy fewer than 9 square miles, plaintiffs argued that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) “will have a substantial adverse environmental impact on a significant portion of the Alaska wilderness.” [29] Apparently discounting the effectiveness of safeguards, the lawsuit prophesied “oil spills will cover terrain with dark oil, which will absorb energy and begin melting…. Oil spills will endanger invaluable and irreplaceable shoreline and offshore birds and mammals of the Arctic Ocean. Indeed, the diversity of species endangered by oil spills is staggering.” [30] John P.

Milton, a deputy director at The Conservation Foundation, cautioned that “once an accident occurs, the oil will be around to cause environmental damage for a very, very long time.” [31] Concern for larger animal life was also raised in the lawsuit. Zoology professor Thomas J.

Cade stated that arctic wildlife, including barren ground grizzlies, wolves, wolverines, foxes, lemmings, and snowy owls, “will dwindle to pathetic remnants or become extinct within a few years’ time” if their habitats are disturbed by “major intrusions such as haul roads and pipelines.” [32] Lest this warning were not clear enough, Cade continued, stating that “the routes of the pipeline and roads will disturb the nesting sites and breeding grounds of several rare or endangered species of birds and mammals.” [33] A much younger Representative John Dingell (D–MI) warned that “the proposed pipeline … would be subject to many great natural hazards, particularly earthquakes.” Dingell continued, “[N]ot only is the Arctic environment up there in grave hazard, but … also the wildlife … are in extreme state of hazard.” [34] Despite the promise of an economic boon to native Alaskans, he also insisted, “there can be no doubt that the pipeline will represent an enormous threat to the way of life of these Alaskan natives.” [35] Not to be outdone in predictions of gloom, Sigurd F.

Olson, president of the Wilderness Society, admonished that the pipeline project was “environmentally unacceptable” and “could decimate fish and wildlife populations.” Discounting modern construction design, Olson insisted that the project was “spectacularly vulnerable [not only] to natural catastrophe but also to military attack and sabotage.” [36] James Moorman, counsel to the Environmental Defense Fund, claimed “inevitable” consequences from the project, promising that “we can look forward to disastrous massive oil spills along literally thousands of miles of the Pacific Coast of both the United States and Canada and in Washington’s priceless Puget Sound. In addition, we can look forward to a great scar through America’s Alps, the north Cascades of Washington, and across the great wilderness areas of Idaho and the Montana Rockies. These immensely important environmental impacts will be the inevitable results of a Trans-Alaska pipeline.” [37] The Environmental Impact What can now be said of the doom and gloom environmental predictions of building the Alaska Pipeline? Ample time has passed to determine whether the risks and harm associated with the project have been outweighed by the economic benefits of this source of energy.

In the past three decades, there has been one major oil spill in Alaska: the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which severely damaged the ecosystem of Prince William Sound for many years. The economic damage from recreational spending and tourism has been estimated at $2.8 billion. [38] In addition, Exxon spent more than $2.5 billion in cleanup costs. [39] That spill, as horrific as it was, was not a result of the Alaska Pipeline. The pipeline itself has an exemplary environmental record. However, it would be remiss not to discuss the impact of this spill on the surrounding region. In contrast to the dire predictions of TAPS opponents, the ecosystem of Prince William Sound has largely recovered since the disaster. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s 25th anniversary report on the Valdez spill: The latest federal and state assessments of recovery from the Exxon Valdez spill indicate that, as expected, measurable impacts have diminished over the last two decades. In 2013, even two vertebrate species that had shown consistent and lengthy signs of exposure and effects—harlequin ducks and sea otters—appeared to have recovered.

[40] Even so, residual effects of the spill “may lead to extinction in one orca subpopulation.” [41] The orca population at risk of extinction numbered just over 20 before the accident. The same report also stated: [B]y 1997, the monitoring provided strong inferential evidence that intertidal populations within Prince William Sound experience a substantial amount of recovery from the effects of the 1989 oil spill and cleanup. The onset of recovery … began less than three years after the spill. Recolonization required about one to two years and populations stabilized for most taxa by 1993. [42] High-pressure hot water was used to remove oil from the rocky shoreline—a process that also cleared away life forms. Some expected a slow return to natural levels.

However, rockweed “quickly recovered to levels of abundance observed in control plots within two years,” while mussels “took several years to recover to levels of abundance observed in control plots.” Barnacles, periwinkles, and limpets “recovered quickly and returned to pre-disturbance levels within a year after clearing.” [43] As noted earlier, a major objection to the Alaska Pipeline during the debate was the potential of earthquakes to damage the structural soundness of the project. This was tested on November 3, 2002, when a magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck along the Denali Fault. The pipeline, built to withstand a magnitude 8.5 earthquake, did not buckle although the structures holding the pipeline above the ground were damaged. The fears of ecological disaster promulgated by the “greens” proved unwarranted. As far as the pipeline’s harmful effects on the ecosystem, those fears were never realized. A study presented in 2002 at the American Society of Civil Engineers 11th International Conference on Cold Regions Engineering found: [T]he ecosystems affected by the operation of TAPS and associated activity for almost 25 years are healthy.

With the exception of very limited local impacts, the vegetation, fish, and wildlife along TAPS have not been impacted at the resource population level. TAPS, as it exists today, is simply another feature on the landscape, to which the flora and fauna have habituated. Even Alaska’s North Slope, with extensive oil fields, has a healthy community of flora and fauna. Populations of large and small mammals, birds, and fish are healthy despite development of the oil field. [44] That same study also found that “with respect to soils and permafrost, the impacts of continued TAPS operation are minimal. Most of the thermal impacts have already occurred or are significantly slowing.” [45] The prognostications of widespread disasters from spills proved far off the mark. Total oil spilled averaged less than 8,083 barrels (340,000 gallons) per year, including the Exxon Valdez spill, since the pipeline opened, while production has averaged nearly 20 billion gallons annually.

Not counting the Valdez spill, which was not a result of problems with the pipeline, total oil spilled averaged 1,151 barrels per year throughout TAPS, including all other Alyeska spills, shipper vessel spills, and contractor spills. Including the Valdez spill, which was approximately 150,000 barrels, just over 291,000 barrels was spilled from 1977 to 2012 (8,083 barrels per year) [46] out of around 400 million barrels produced annually. Many of the spills were small and easily contained and cleaned up, posing no environmental threat. To put this in perspective, in 1972, the Environmental Impact Study conducted by the Bureau of Land Management estimated that marine spills alone would average 140,000 barrels per year. [47] As such, the estimates of marine spills exceeded the total of all leaks by more than a factor of 17. Of course, the threat of environmental contamination from even these smaller-than-expected spill totals should not be ignored. However, it is also important to note that oil is naturally present in a variety of environments in Alaska.

As David Page and Edward Gilfillan explain: The many oil seep streams in Alaska are productive natural areas where lingering effects from petroleum exposure would be readily observed if such things really happened. The presence of petroleum in the environment does not automatically means that injury to biota is occurring. [48] While oil spills can affect the environment, empirical evidence does not support the premise that occasional, contained spills permanently destroy the ability of wildlife to thrive. Caribou The most recent census of the Western Arctic caribou herd (WAH), Alaska’s largest herd, was released in 2011. The report states that the WAH had declined to about 75,000 animals by 1976. After the pipeline was built, “[f]rom 1976 to 1990 the herd grew 13% annually, and from 1990 to 2003 it grew 1–3% annually.

In 2003 the WAH numbered ≥490,000 caribou but by 2011 it had declined to 325,000 caribou.” As a side note, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game downplayed concern over this recent minor decline, stating that “considering that the WAH has numbered more than 300,000 caribou since about 1988, a slow decline is probably preferable to continued growth that could lead to an eventual abrupt decline as occurred during the early 1970s.” [49] The bottom line is that the caribou population is about four times larger than it was when oil began to flow. The environmental report for renewing the pipeline’s right-of way noted, “Most spills have been contained on workpads. Localized areas of tundra have been killed and required remediation. No major spills on tundra have occurred.

Major spill possible but unlikely.” Regarding wildlife habitat, the same report states that “[b]irds use oil field structures for nesting, perching, and foraging” and that the early vegetation green-up nearby facilities has “[p]ositive impacts,” allowing birds to “feed and replenish fat reserves before nesting.” Overall, the evaluation seems to note that while some effects may be noted within very close proximity to facilities, no “population-level impacts” are occurring. [50] Lawsuits by environmental groups dragged on for more than four years. The numerous congressional hearings were rancorous and contentious. In 1973, the U.S. economy was thrown into recession by the Arab Oil Embargo, and the price of gasoline began rising week after week, eventually tripling. The energy crisis helped to spur Congress into action. On July 17, 1973, the Senate narrowly adopted an amendment by a vote of 49–48 to effectively end the lawsuits by declaring that the pipeline project had met all NEPA requirements. Only 20 of 55 Democratic Senators [51] supported the provision, compared with 28 of 42 Republican Senators.

A vote to reconsider this vote in favor of adoption failed, as Vice President Agnew cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the amendment. The House followed suit with a bipartisan vote of 356–60 on August 2, 1973. [52] These votes served as a precursor to legislation that granted final approval to the project. In November, the Trans-Alaska Authorization Act passed with broad bipartisan support: 185 Democratic votes and 175 Republican votes in the House [53] and 43 Democratic votes and 36 Republican votes in the Senate. [54] With the President’s signature, the industry finally received the green light from Washington to begin construction of the pipeline. Construction of the $8 billion privately funded pipeline began in March of 1975; oil began flowing in June of 1977. The results for the economy and America’s energy security have been spectacularly and indisputably positive: The pipeline has transported nearly 17 billion barrels of oil over the past 37 years. Today, TAPS transports more than 500,000 barrels of oil per day.

Although the volume continues to decline gradually from the peak of 2.1 million barrels per day, the original estimate of 10 billion barrels of total production was exceeded in 1994. Every barrel flowing through the TAPS is another barrel of economic benefit exceeding expectations. Alaska has become an energy production powerhouse. The 17 billion barrels of oil accounted for nearly 20 percent of U.S. domestic energy production for 1980–2000. Even now, Alaska accounts for 10 percent of U.S. domestic energy production, although volume is falling, in part because of federal prohibitions against drilling in certain areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). [55] The economic value of this oil is more than $1.7 trillion at today’s prices. Construction employment was significant. More than 21,000 contractors were employed at the peak of the construction project in addition to more than 6,300 other workers. Throughout 1969–1977, more than 70,000 individuals were employed at some point in the construction.

[56] While some decry the temporary nature of some of these construction jobs, it is important to note that this line of work is by nature temporary—at some point the project is finished. Real families prospered and built wealth because of these jobs. Oil and gas employment in Alaska has surged. Today, 127,000 jobs in Alaska (one-third) are oil related—either in production or in state oil revenue. [57] Another 60,000 jobs have resulted from the “broad economic benefits created by oil industry activities and by state spending of its huge oil revenues.” [58] The Alaska state constitution established the Alaska Permanent Fund, which states, “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.” [59] The current value of the fund is more than $53 billion—more than $71,000 for each of Alaska’s 731,000 residents.

Annual dividend payouts have ranged from $845 in 2005 to $2,069 in 2008. From 1982 through 2013, dividends totaled more than $35,000 per eligible resident. Over just the past 10 years, each eligible resident has received more than $12,000. [60] Family incomes increased substantially. “A family of four enjoyed on average an estimated value of about $22,000 in 2010—in tax relief, Permanent Fund dividends, and enhanced public services.” [61] Alaska is one of only two states without an income tax or sales tax. State revenue soared. About $157 billion (2010 dollars) in state revenue from 1959 to 2010 came from oil revenues [62] —mostly from the North Slope. Employment has soared. By some estimates, about half the jobs in Alaska are related to the oil and gas industry.

the same study estimates that without oil the state would have had only 187,000 jobs in 2007, rather than 374,000. [63] Conclusion Nearly four decades later, America is replaying the debate over the Alaska Pipeline in a different context. Among other objections, opponents of the Keystone XL Pipeline argue that the construction jobs would be only temporary, water supplies would be endangered, the pipeline would be a target for terrorists, some of the oil would be exported, the oil and gas would contribute to global warming, and the pipeline would threaten the lesser prairie-chicken. Environmentalists even make the absurd claim that the new pipeline would kill jobs and undermine U.S. energy security. [64] The Conservation Law Foundation even claims that the Keystone Pipeline would increase gas prices. [65] Some of the best scientific estimates tell an opposite story. The Keystone XL construction project is expected to support more than 42,000 “direct, indirect, and induced” jobs. [66] Construction of Keystone XL and the related Gulf Coast Pipeline are expected to have $20 billion in economic impact.

[67] By 2035, the Canadian Energy Research Institute predicts the pipeline will generate $172 billion in gross domestic product. [68] The American Petroleum Institute estimates: Employment in the United States (direct, indirect, induced) as a result of new oil sands investments is expected to grow from 21,000 jobs in 2010 to 465,000 jobs in 2035. This type of employment includes new and preserved jobs and also consists of full-time and part-time jobs. [69] The Trans-Alaska Pipeline has demonstrated that pipelines can be built and operated in ways that protect the environment and economically benefit the nation. The naysayers were wrong 40 years ago, and they are still wrong today. In the 1970s, Congress and the White House had the good sense to ignore the dire claims by the green movement. Sadly, with what should be 20-20 hindsight, today’s policymakers are giving credence to the same discredited arguments. By doing so they are putting jobs and North American energy security at risk.

Americans are prudent, yet not so risk averse as to refuse to meet the challenges of tomorrow with proven solutions available today. The President may continue to treat Keystone XL as a political football, but Congress should refuse to play this game. A crisis should not be a prerequisite to action. Congress and the President should approve the pipeline as the economically and environmentally sound project that it is. —Stephen Moore is Chief Economist and Joel Griffith is Research Associate in the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. About the Author How Long Will The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Be Viable? | Alaska Public Media How Long Will The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Be Viable? tweet The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is the 800-mile long backbone of the state’s energy infrastructure. It’s built to transport up to 2 million barrels of oil per day, but these days it carries only about a quarter of that. With oil production at lower levels, how long will the pipeline be viable? Alyeska Pipeline Service Company is exploring new ways to keep the system up and running. Photo courtesy of the Department of Natural Resources.

The 36-year-old Trans-Alaska Pipeline marches south from the North Slope across squishy tundra, mighty rivers and high mountain passes on its way to Prince William Sound. The system that monitors that pipeline is a bit less romantic. “Well here’s a station control panel,” Mike Malvik, a senior processing engineering adviser for Alyeska Pipeline Services Company said, as he opened the door to a beige cabinet. “All these are now are a bunch of Ethernet cables for communications between the various programmable logic controllers.” He takes me on a tour of the backrooms of the pipeline’s Operations Control Center in Anchorage. “Upon pipeline start up there was a computerized control system, but it was a lot more primitive in that it used mechanical relay switches and vacuum tubes,” Malvik said. Now, pipeline controllers sit in a quiet room filled with massive monitors. The screens show schematics that look sort of like 1980s video games. Symbols indicate which valves are open and the direction the oil is headed. “Follow the blue line and the oil’s going to tank five today,” Malvik said. Controllers monitor pressure, temperature, and flow. They respond to alarms and communicate with workers in the field.

It’s extremely mellow during a normal day as the controllers try to keep the oil flowing at a steady state. But Malvik explains that maintaining the steady state is harder when less oil is flowing through the system. With only about 550,000 barrels entering the pipeline per day, the oil gets colder much faster. “And if you get to the freeze point then you can start making ice in the pipeline, coating critical valves, collecting in low parts of the pipe and then you have a cleaning pig pick up that ice and bring it into a pump station and plug that pump station up,” he said. A cleaning pig looks like an 8-foot long shish kebab of mushrooms and quarters. It scrapes the inside of the pipeline and pushes wax and ice out of the system. The problem is, they only work if the oil moving fast enough to push them along. In the next few years, it may not be. Less oil makes leaks harder to detect as well. So, how low is too low? “We haven’t firmly landed on that number because we’re still studying it,” Malvik said.

Part of the study includes a new pipeline model decked out with all of the same types of monitors and equipment as the real pipeline, just in miniature. It’s being built at the University of Tulsa. “What we’ve designed the test loop at Tulsa to do is simulate as closely as we can, if I was a drop of oil going from pump one to Valdez, what temperatures would I see, what terrain types would I see,” Malvik said. Starting this month they’ll run oil from the North Slope through the model. They want to test new ideas like dry-flow. It’s deceptively simple. Oil pumped from the ground naturally contains water. If you let it sit in large tanks for a few hours, the water drops out. Less water in the oil could solve problems like ice build up and pipe corrosion. Lois Epstein is a petroleum engineer with the Wilderness Society and vice president of the Pipeline Safety Trust. She says studying the technical problem is the best solution to the low flow issue. “From my perspective as an engineer, the things they’re looking at right now seem to make a lot of sense,” Epstein said.

Epstein says she trusts that Alyeska, which operates the pipeline on behalf of it’s owners, has motivation to find a way to keep TAPS running for decades to come. “The major operators on the North Slope don’t want to leave the crude in the ground. They’ve already done the exploration. They’ve set up the pipeline infrastructure. They want to see it go to market. So from a commercial standpoint, an economic standpoint, they’re going to make sure that TAPS is viable over the long run,” Epstein said. From an environmental stand point, she would rather the companies make use of the infrastructure and oil fields that are already there instead of developing new ones in places like ANWR. As Alyeska waits for the study results, they are dealing with the low flow problem by adding extra heat to the oil. They have restarted some pump stations where they cycle the oil through multiple times. The friction heats up the oil before heading back down the line. Another possible solution is storing oil in tanks at Pump Station One and only running the pipeline part time. But Malvik says starting it and stopping it in the winter has problems of it’s own. “We don’t have all the answers now, but we are working on them.

And we we’re working on them very thoroughly because we can’t afford to get them wrong. We have to get them right,” Malvik said. He’s hoping the answers from Tulsa will help the pipeline run efficiently – and safely – far into the future. SHARE Pipeline101 - How-Do-Pipelines-Work SHARE THIS There are two general types of energy pipelines – liquid petroleum pipelines and natural gas pipelines. Within the liquid petroleum pipeline network there are crude oil lines, refined product lines, highly volatile liquids (HVL) lines, and carbon dioxide lines (CO2). Crude oil is also subdivided in to 'Gathering Lines' and ’Transmission Lines”. First, gathering lines are very small pipelines usually from 2 to 8 inches in diameter in the areas of the country where crude oil is found deep within the earth. These gathering lines exist all over the country but the bulk of them are located primarily in Texas, North Dakota, California, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Wyoming with small systems in a number of other oil producing states. The larger cross-country crude oil transmission pipelines or trunk lines bring crude oil from producing areas to refineries.

There are approximately 72,000 miles of crude oil system lines (usually 8 to 24 inches in diameter) in the United States that connect regional markets. There are also a few VERY large trunk lines. One of the largest in the U.S. is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which is 48 inches in diameter. The next group of liquid petroleum pipelines is one that carries refined petroleum products – gasoline, jet fuel, home heating oil and diesel fuel. These refined product pipelines vary in size from relatively small, 8 to 12 inch diameter lines, to much larger ones that go up to 42 inches in diameter. There are approximately 63,000 miles of refined products pipelines nationwide. They are found in almost every state in the U.S. These pipelines deliver petroleum products to large fuel terminals with storage tanks that are then loaded into tanker trucks. Trucks cover the last few miles to make local deliveries to gas stations and homes. Major industries, airports and electrical power generation plants are supplied directly by pipeline. Highly volatile liquid (HVL) lines and carbon dioxide (CO2) lines are also a part of the liquid petroleum pipeline network. These liquids turn to gas once exposed to the atmosphere.

They include ethane, butane and propane. Carbon dioxide pipelines allow carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery, as CO2 has long done in North America. The natural gas pipeline system is organized somewhat differently. Natural gas, unlike oil, is delivered directly to homes and businesses through pipelines. Natural gas can contain natural gas liquids (NGL) when produced. Processors remove water, NGLs, and impurities from the natural gas stream to make the natural qas suitable for sale. Natural gas and NGLs then travel on separate pipeline systems. It is determined to be "rich" or "wet" if it contains signiﬁcant natural gas liquids (NGL); by contrast, natural gas is known to be "lean" or "dry" if it does not contain these liquids. The U.S. natural gas pipeline network is a highly integrated transmission and distribution grid that can transport natural gas to and from nearly any location in the lower 48 states. It consists of more than 210 natural gas pipeline systems and 300,000 miles of interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines. PIPELINE RESOURCES AND INFORMATION

Question: What does the Transalaska Pipeline System transport?
Answer: Oil