|
This month in history: USGS: ANWR oil likely sweet, light
20 years ago this month: US Geological Survey says coastal plain low sulfur, high gravity oil is cleaner than Prudhoe Bay crude
Kay Cashman Petroleum News
Editor’s note: This story appeared in the Jan. 26, 2003, issue of Petroleum News Alaska.
The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may be a desolate and windblown place, but studies suggest that beneath its flat surface is sweet, low sulfur crude - in high demand by refiners and environmentally sensitive consumers.
“The oil we’ve studied in ANWR is higher gravity and lower sulfur oil than oil in Prudhoe Bay,” U.S. Geological Survey research geologist Ken Bird told Petroleum News Alaska in mid-January 2003. “Prudhoe Bay-type oil contains one to two percent sulfur, while samples from ANWR measure between zero and one percent sulfur.”
The oil tested by USGS was gathered from several points in and just outside the coastal plain, which is a 1.5 million acre slice of the 19 million acre refuge set aside by Congress for possible oil and gas exploration and development because of its geologic potential.
“All the seeps and oil-stained rocks we find in ANWR contain low sulfur oil from the Hue or Canning formations. Nearby offshore wells at Kuvlum, Aurora and Hammerhead and oil seeps next to Barter Island and Ungoon Point in the eastern part of ANWR, about 30 miles southeast of Barter Island, all have low sulfur oil,” Bird said.
The only oil USGS has not been able to test is from the KIC No. 1 well, drilled by Chevron in the mid-1980s in ANWR’s coastal plain. ChevronTexaco, a strong supporter of opening the coastal plain to oil and gas drilling, has kept that well information confidential.
Environmentally friendly Sweet light crude is the desired feedstock for refining, particularly for the refining of motor fuels. Reduced sulfur in the feedstock results in a reduction of sulfur and other effluents from the refining process, and reduced sulfur in refined products.
“There’s obviously an environmental benefit because of the fact you’re using a lower sulfur crude and producing lower sulfur fuels with less of an impact,” said Rod Cason, Tesoro Alaska vice president and manager of its refinery on the Kenai Peninsula.
“We hydro-treat all our gasoline here, so we’re well below what EPA’s 2003 sulfur emission requirements are going to be, but lower sulfur fuel will have an impact on other refiners. … And low sulfur crude from ANWR will reduce the overall sulfur content in the oil coming down the trans-Alaska oil pipeline because it will be commingled with Prudhoe oil,” Cason said.
Low sulfur fuel, Cason said, is also less expensive to refine.
“Typically, our costs are driven by chemical treatments (which include stripping out sulfur) and energy costs, but the biggest benefit of low sulfur crude from Tesoro’s perspective is that the lighter, sweeter crude produces lower sulfur products and we receive a premium for those fuels,” he said.
Greenpeace recognizes difference The environmental group Greenpeace doesn’t endorse any type of fossil fuel but acknowledges that some fossil fuels are easier on the environment than others.
“There is a difference in projects that we campaign against,” said J.P. Ross, a policy analyst in Greenpeace’s San Francisco office, adding that the organization will campaign more vociferously against projects it finds more onerous.
“We’re against all types of fossil fuels, be they tar sands or natural gas,” Ross told PN in December 2002. “We support wind, solar, and geothermal (energy).”
Ross said the organization understands that sweet light crude is relatively clean compared to sour crude, or tar sands development, and that natural gas is near the top of the scale in cleanliness. Even so, Greenpeace doesn’t favor development of gas projects like an Alaska natural gas line, because, it maintains, building of huge infrastructure prolongs the world’s fossil fuel dependence.
Might reduce consumer costs In the future, low sulfur refinery feedstock might take the edge off energy price increases for consumers. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, processing costs for light products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel, are projected to increase by 6 cents to 7 cents per gallon between 1999 and 2020.
The increases are expected because of projected growth in demand for the products, investment needed to meet new federal requirements for low-sulfur gasoline between 2004 and 2007, and investments related to compliance with refinery emissions, health, and safety regulations, EIA said.
| 