Now TC Energy begins construction on a natural gas pipeline across Canada. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association is formed. Dredging for gas pipeline, Bow River, Alberta.
October 19, The life of a pipeline Planning and designing a pipeline Building a pipeline Operating, maintaining and retiring a pipeline How pipelines are regulated History of pipelines Pipelines in our lives Overview Why we need pipelines Impact of pipelines on our everyday lives Economic benefits Responsible energy future Working with our neighbours Indigenous communities Pipeline safety Overview Focus on prevention Building a safety culture Preventing third-party damage Monitoring and inspection Protecting the pipe Protecting our people Emergency response How companies prepare for emergencies What happens if there is an emergency Protecting the environment Overview Climate change Land Water Wildlife Blog Resources Contact us.
How long have pipelines operated in Canada? Pipelines have operated for a long time in Canada — since Related Content. That decreases the turbulence in the oil, which slows the flow even more. Alyeska's own study, done last June, suggested that if flows in the pipeline were to drop to , barrels per day in January, the oil, which enters the line at around degrees Fahrenheit, would dip to temperatures below 32 degrees by the time it reached the midpoint of the pipeline.
The study concluded that the pipeline could carry no less than , to , barrels of crude per day during the winter before major flow problems prevent the pipeline from operating safely. These areas become more prone to bacteria growth which can lead to corrosion of the pipe," Alyeska spokeswoman Michelle Egan says. Wax builds up in the line at cool temperatures, too, constricting the flow of oil in the line and requiring regular maintenance to scrape away the wax.
Still, Kozisek says, all the engineering problems facing the pipeline are solvable with upgrades and modifications, such as the heaters that Alyeska has proposed to install along the pipeline, and that the pipeline could be maintained indefinitely. The harder—and more controversial—question is whether it's worth the money, especially if ANWR and other areas remain off-limits.
This question is now the subject of a political fight in Alaska. The owners say they're reluctant to invest in pipeline upgrades or any North Slope operations unless Alaska lawmakers reduce the state's oil production tax, which is 5 percent of the gross value of the oil at the point of production.
While assessing the taxable value of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Gleason ruled that Alyeska's low-flow study was disproved by court testimony from former Alyeska COO Dan Hisey and Jerry Modisette, a consultant and board member of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, as well as by an internal BP study that was released in court documents. The BP study, conducted without the knowledge of Alyeska, suggested that if the oil in the pipeline were heated along its route, TAPS could operate with a throughput down to 70, barrels per day—much lower than the , barrel minimum Alyeska's study suggested.
Alyeska spokeswoman Katie Pesznecker defends the organization's study, saying it was intended to look at the challenges of moving between , and , barrels per day through the pipeline—not to give a concrete technical or economic lower limit.
While claiming the Alyeska study has little credibility, Gleason concluded that the most viable estimate for the lowest flow the pipeline could handle is , barrels per day. To Kozisek, these numbers aren't mutually exclusive: Alyseka's study asked what would need to happen for the pipeline to keep working down to ,, while the BP study Judge Gleason cited asked how low the flow could possibly go with radical modifications.
Nevertheless, the ramifications of the two studies are a world apart. BP and the other pipeline-owning companies claimed in court that about 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil remain on the North Slope, estimating that the pipeline's life would end around All facets of the tar sands industry pose a threat to the environment.
The mining depletes and pollutes freshwater resources, creates massive ponds of toxic waste, and threatens the health and livelihood of the First Nations people who live near them.
Refining the sticky black gunk produces piles of petroleum coke , a hazardous, coal-like by-product. The U. Finally, massive fossil fuel infrastructure investments like KXL undermine efforts to minimize global warming and prioritize clean energy like wind and solar. Opposition to Keystone XL centered on the devastating environmental consequences of the project.
The pipeline faced more than a decade of sustained protests from environmental activists and organizations; Indigenous communities ; religious leaders; and the farmers, ranchers, and business owners along its proposed route. One such protest, a historic act of civil disobedience outside the White House in August , resulted in the arrest of more than 1, demonstrators. In , more than two million comments urging a rejection of the pipeline were submitted to the U.
Department of State during a day public comment period. But the groundswell of public protest was up against a formidable opponent—hundreds of millions spent on lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. When industry-friendly politicians took charge of both congressional houses in January , their first order of business was to pass a bill to speed up approval of Keystone XL. That effort failed. One of the central arguments made by pipeline pushers was that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL.
This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs substantially more than moving it by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project which could last for 50 years , access to cheap pipeline capacity plays a major role in the decision to move forward or not.
The oil industry lobbied hard to get KXL built by using false claims, political arm-twisting, and big bucks. When TC Energy said the pipeline would create nearly , jobs, a State Department report instead concluded the project would require fewer than 2, two-year construction jobs and that the number of full-time, permanent jobs would hover around 35 after construction. Furthermore, we know that ambitious action on climate change—including investments in green energy alternatives—carries huge potential for job creation.
Dirty energy lobbyists claimed developing tar sands would protect our national energy security and bring U. But NRDC and its partners found the majority of Keystone XL oil would have been sent to markets overseas aided by a reversal of a ban on crude oil exports —and could have even led to higher prices at U.
The decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests. Upon entering office, President Trump—with his pro-polluter cabinet of fossil fuel advocates, billionaires, and bankers—quickly demonstrated that his priorities differed.
0コメント