[PeakOiler]

I added the latest two points to the graph. EIA's report is through August, 2011.



http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm

It still looks like early 2016 is when the red line may be reached.

[PeakOiler]

I modified the graph adding an exponential trend line and necessarily extending the timeline:



The last data point from the EIA is to September, 2011. I don't know why there is such a long time lag from the EIA.

The exponential trendline may be more accurate. Only time will tell.

I also did a Google News search and came across this recent article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/how-much-life-is-left-in-the-trans-alaska-pipeline

The oil companies that run the Trans-Alaska Pipeline suggest that if oil flows drop too low, the line could be compromised. But others say that the industry’s numbers are wrong and are actually part of a campaign to open up currently off-limits areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

In an election year when access to domestic oil supplies will figure prominently in the presidential campaign, uncertainty is growing over how much life the critical Trans-Alaska Pipeline has left in it. The pipeline transports roughly 14 percent of U.S. crude oil supplies, yet energy companies are starting to suggest that the lifeline to some of the richest oil fields in the country may not be worth the expense of upkeep. Oil production in Alaska’s North Slope oil fields has declined every year since production peaked in 1988, and the consortium of energy companies that own the line say they are worried: If production slows down too much, the pipeline can become unsafe—or at least uneconomical—to run. But some watchdogs say the industry may be fudging its numbers as part of a ploy to get access to new, potentially rich oil fields.

[vtsnowedin]

If the Republicans take the White house and both houses of Congress and sweep in Drill Baby Drill!! what and where would they drill on the presently closed areas and what kind of yields would be expected and in what time frame. Could they ,in say three years ,drill enough wells to stabilize the flow through TAPS above the red line? I'm sure that has all been hashed over somewhere but if you update the start drill date to summer 2013 is there enough time or is it already too late.?

[PeakOiler]

I think that more offshore wells off the northern Alaskan coast are already in some stage of development, but with the harsh conditions most of the year, those offshore wells will be very expensive to build and maintain. I think that if the Republicans take control of the government, we might see the development of the ANWR.

If no new fields are added to the supply of the TAPS, then oil from the North slope will have to transported by ship if the TAPS is shut down, and only when there's no sea ice. And thanks to a warming Arctic, that window is increasing.

As the article I linked above pointed out, the companies may not want to spend the $$$ on heating the TAPS. That effort may be determined to be uneconomical.

[PeakOiler]

The EIA finally got caught up on the data for oil production from each state through December 2011. Earlier this week, the EIA had only state data through Sept, 2011. So here's the updated graph:



I'm curious what the data will show through early 2012. Can anyone tell us if the increase in late 2011 was from more offshore wells?

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm

[PeakOiler]

Here's the latest 10-yr snapshot of Alaska N. Slope production:



The EIA data are to Feb, 2012.

The two trend lines are linear and exponential.

I'll be 62 years old in Jan 2021!

[PeakOiler]

Here's the updated graph:



Data are through April, 2012. After the slight increase from Nov-Feb, 2011-2012, the decline continues. There was a recent news article on PO.com's main page
http://peakoil.com/production/oil-exploration-ramps-up-in-us-arctic/
saying that new Alaskan offshore exploratory oil drilling can commence in a few places, but it may take a decade for the oil to come on-stream.

Next update in about two months.

[PeakOiler]

Here's a comparison chart to put things into perspective:



I don't think that I'll be alive in another 29 years. Maybe. (I'm 54 now). Someone else will have chart the data to 2041.

Someone had mentioned in another thread how much it cost per well in N. Dakota. Perhaps that was in the Bakken thread. Anyway, we could do some math.

IF N. Dakota oil production were to reach the same level of production as N Slope Alaska production when it peaked, how many wells would it take at what cost? (Assuming the cost per well stayed constant, which it won't of course). I doubt N. Dakota oil production will ever reach the level as the N Slope, but I could be wrong. I may be gone before I ever know.

[sparky]

.
The safety upgrade are mandated by their operating licence
also it's tax deductible always a good thing when the price of crude go up
the North Slope crude is indexed on the far East market ,
that would be Tapis , the Singapore index .

the low flow problem probably can be mitigated some
it's critical only during the cold season, maybe some seasonal extraction schedule
or better separation at the wells heads .

there is a lot of action on arctic crude prospect ,
having the infrastructure ready for more discoveries make sense

[PeakOiler]

Updated graph:



June N. Slope production dropped to 483 mbpd.

[PeakOiler]

UPI Article-Energy Resources

JUNEAU, Alaska, Aug. 27 (UPI) -- Alaska is considering unconventional oil plays to increase production but a federal agency said it might be difficult to do so economically.

Oil production in Alaska peaked more than 20 years ago with slightly more than 2 million barrels of oil produced per day, state figures indicate. Slumping oil production in the state has left the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system operating at about 30 percent of its capacity.
<snip>

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline system has an expected service life of 10 years given anticipated declines in oil flows from the state.

The U.S. Geological Survey in February said unconventional reserves could be bountiful in the state.

David Houseknecht, a USGS scientist, was quoted by the Post as saying the prospects were uncertain, however.

"It is really an unknown whether that oil can be recovered from the source rock and can that oil be recovered at a rate and volume per well that would be economically viable," he said.

It seems the increased tax breaks for oil exploration in Alaska will go forward.
Alaska Dispatch Article

A complex regulatory battle is brewing over how much money the owners of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline charge to ship crude, one that raises questions about Gov. Sean Parnell's push to slash billions of dollars in oil taxes.

Parnell has said that the trans-Alaska pipeline -- the 800-mile umbilical cord that symbolizes the state's lifeblood industry -- is running low on oil and could shut down in as early as eight years under certain conditions.

To solve that alleged dilemma, he has advocated for the Alaska Legislature to cut oil taxes by up to $2 billion a year for the companies that produce crude from state lands. Parnell and others claim that will result in the companies searching for more oil and pumping it into the trans-Alaska pipeline.

[PrestonSturges]

Here's a comparison chart to put things into perspective:



I don't think that I'll be alive in another 29 years. Maybe. (I'm 54 now). Someone else will have chart the data to 2041.

Someone had mentioned in another thread how much it cost per well in N. Dakota. Perhaps that was in the Bakken thread. Anyway, we could do some math.

IF N. Dakota oil production were to reach the same level of production as N Slope Alaska production when it peaked, how many wells would it take at what cost? (Assuming the cost per well stayed constant, which it won't of course). I doubt N. Dakota oil production will ever reach the level as the N Slope, but I could be wrong. I may be gone before I ever know.

Nice graph but for all we know the Bakken has already peaked.

[Econ101]

The Alasksa pipeline was built to handle increasing oil supplies from the almost unlimited reserves up there. Unfortunately the federal government, because of politics, stopped orderly development and of course over the yrs production has fallen.

Arctic production is now on the up swing even without development on US areas. The pipeline will be there for those reserves.

An energy independent North America is possible. One of our presidential candidates has the plan.

[PeakOiler]

June N. Slope production dropped to 483 mbpd.

Oops. That should have read 483 thousand bpd.

[PrestonSturges]

I'd like to see a serious debate on drilling in ANWR, but it has become an excuse for various "dick" moves by the GOP and pointless grandstanding.

[PeakOiler]

I suspect drilling the ANWR will happen within a decade. Environmental concerns seems to always get overruled when the need for oil outweighs those concerns.

[seenmostofit]

I suspect drilling the ANWR will happen within a decade. Environmental concerns seems to always get overruled when the need for oil outweighs those concerns.

or energy in general, or a new road, strip mall, etc etc.

Environmental concerns are nice, certainly no one wants to drink bad water, breath crappy air, but "concerns" will rarely override the benefits in most cases.

I have "concerns" that climate change will cause the sea level to rise. But I appreciate the view from my seaside villa. So my "concerns" will certainly wait...at least until the villa is washed away.

[seenmostofit]

I have "concerns" that climate change will cause the sea level to rise. But I appreciate the view from my seaside villa. So my "concerns" will certainly wait...at least until the villa is washed away.

Sadly this attitude, these seemingly innocuous comments, is rather common today. They speak volumes about the tragedy of ecological ignorance, and intrusions of republican creationist (rather than conventional religious) education theory into our public school systems.

I would agree with you that public school systems have been polluted by those who teach non-critical thinking and the certitude of one dogma or another. Which the state undergraduate and graduate programs pound home into those unfortunate enough to be stuck in them.

Regarding Alaska and ANWAR; Lest we forget, the nine billion barrels of probable reserves are only good for another nine months of American motoring. I am ashamed that my country would see fit to spend the last of our inexpensive oil legacy on such a stupid, short-sighted venture. You'd think we never heard of oil depletion.

We've all heard of it, it just hasn't mattered very much, in the greater scheme of liquid fuels available (increasing quite a bit as of late). Because consumers don't care what they put in their fuel tanks, as long as it works, oil depletion itself just hasn't been particularly relevant.

[PeakOiler]

Exploratory drilling has begun off the N. coast of Alaska.

LA Times Article

However,

In any case, Shell officials say they are still a decade away from any oil production in the Arctic. This season’s drilling is for exploration wells, designed to test the size of the undersea oil deposits.

Actual production wells would require another exhaustive round of federal approvals and, most likely, construction of a pipeline to carry the offshore oil bounty into the Trans-Alaska pipeline.

And of course, they won't build a pipeline to the TAPS until they have proven that that the amount of oil offshore has economic potential for development.