Editing Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (section)

== 21st century==
[[File:Valdez Marine Terminal.jpg|thumb|The pipeline terminal in [[Valdez, Alaska|Valdez]]]]
[[File:Trans Alaska Pipeline System Thermal Gradient By Distance 2019.png|thumb|The temperature along the length of the line, as of early 2019. This visually demonstrates the effects of heaters at each Pump Station that increase the temperature.]]

The original design for the pipeline in the early 1970s called for a 25-year useful life with an expected 10 billion barrels of Prudhoe Bay oil production. By most economic, engineering and construction measures, the Alaska Pipeline has been a huge success. However, since the early 2000s, declines in oil production have posed a serious problem for the pipeline.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/business/energy-environment/alaska-grants-a-tax-break-to-oil-companies.html ''To Reinvigorate Production, Alaska Grants a Tax Break to Oil Companies''] April 15, 2013 New York Times</ref> As the flow rate slows, oil spends longer in the pipeline, which allows it to cool much further while travelling to Valdez. It cannot be allowed to fall below freezing (32&nbsp;°F), otherwise the pipeline could seize up, crack, and rupture, as the water content would separate from the oil and freeze in place.<ref name=FlowAssuranceOverview /> A "Low Flow Impact Study" conducted by the pipeline operators, Alyeska, concluded in June 2011 that the minimum flow for the pipeline as it currently existed was 300,000 to 350,000 barrels per day in the winter.<ref name="magill">{{cite web |last1=Magill |first1=Bobby |title=How Much Life Is Left in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline? |url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a7480/how-much-life-is-left-in-the-trans-alaska-pipeline/ |website=Popular Mechanics |date=February 2012 }}</ref>

This minimum flow rate is a legally contentious figure, since the taxable value of the pipeline is largely dependent on how long it can be operated.<ref name=magill /> In late 2011, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that Alyeska's low flow study was invalid, and it ruled in favor of an internal BP study.<ref name=AlanBailey/> The BP study concluded that with the installation of heaters along the pipeline route, the minimum flow could be lowered to {{convert|70000|oilbbl/d|m3/d}}.<ref name="magill" /> This court ruling increased ninefold the taxed property value of the pipeline.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Donahey |first1=Leah |title=Trans Alaska Pipeline System: More Drilling in our Nation's Special Places Is Not Needed to Keep TAPS Running |url=https://www.alaskawild.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Trans_Alaska_Pipeline_System011912.pdf |website=Alaska Wilderness League}}</ref> A study by the National Resources Defense Council that was also cited in this court case put specific numbers to this suggestion, and concluded that an investment of $0.8 billion in shoring up the pipeline could extend its lifespan long enough to extract an additional $28 billion of oil from existing wells alone.<ref name="magill" /><ref name=AlanBailey /><ref name="NRDC">{{cite web |title=Is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System in Danger of Being Shut Down? |url=https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ene_11092001a.pdf}}</ref> This NRDC study additionally explained: "This is a lower minimum throughput level than what is implied in Alyeska’s Low Flow Impact Study (LoFIS). We did not use the minimum throughput level implied by LoFIS because we have serious reservations about the assumptions used in the study and the LoFIS does not provide adequate data to support its claims."<ref name="NRDC" />

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Renewal Environmental Impact Statement estimated in 2010 that flow levels would be workable through at least 2032<ref>Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Renewal Environmental Impact Statement. [http://tapseis.anl.gov/documents/docs/g_App_A_May2.pdf "Trans Alaska Pipeline System Throughput Analysis"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161228214109/http://www.tapseis.anl.gov/documents/docs/g_App_A_May2.pdf |date=December 28, 2016 }}. Accessed March 28, 2010.</ref> due to ongoing exploration outside [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge|ANWR]]. Improvements that allow low flow-rates could extend its lifespan as far as 2075.<ref name=AlanBailey/>

As the pipeline's flow has diminished, its ownership has fluctuated. In 2000, as Exxon and [[Mobil]] merged, Mobil sold its 3.1% stake in the pipeline to [[Williams Companies]] as a condition of the merger.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Spiess |first1=Ben |title=Williams Buys Into Pipeline |work=Anchorage Daily News |date=29 March 2000 |page=E1}}</ref> Three years later, Williams sold that share to Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of [[Koch Industries]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Williams selling Alaska holdings, including refinery |url=https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/article/17255904/williams-selling-alaska-holdings-including-refinery |access-date=11 January 2021 |work=[[Oil & Gas Journal]] |date=18 November 2003}}</ref> Nine years later, Koch announced it would sell its share to the other pipeline owners, as did [[Unocal]], which had held a small ownership share since 1970.<ref>{{cite news |last1=DeMarban |first1=Alex |title=Minority owners selling stakes in trans-Alaska pipeline |url=https://www.adn.com/energy/article/minority-owners-selling-stakes-trans-alaska-pipeline/2012/06/23/ |access-date=11 January 2021 |work=Anchorage Daily News |date=23 June 2012}}</ref> In 2019, [[BP]] announced plans to sell its Alaska operations to [[Hilcorp|Hilcorp Energy Company]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=DeMarban |first1=Alex |title=BP will sell all its Alaska assets to Hilcorp |url=https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2019/08/27/bp-will-sell-all-its-alaska-assets-to-hilcorp/ |access-date=11 January 2021 |work=Anchorage Daily News |date=27 August 2019}}</ref> The deal, which closed in 2020, included BP's 49.1% ownership share of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.<ref>{{cite news |title=State regulatory commission gives final approval for BP-Hilcorp deal |url=https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/12/15/state-regulatory-commission-gives-final-approval-for-bp-hilcorp-deal/ |access-date=11 January 2021 |work=Alaska Public Media |date=16 December 2020}}</ref> Opponents of the deal expressed concerns that Hillcorp, which did not fully disclose its finances, will lack the resources and expertise needed to address flooding and thawing-related safety concerns resulting from climate change.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hasemyer|first=David|date=2021-11-22|title=Concerns Linger Over a Secretive Texas Company That Owns the Largest Share of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline|url=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112021/hilcorp-trans-alaska-pipeline/|access-date=2021-11-25|website=Inside Climate News|language=en-US}}</ref>

By the terms of its land grants and leases, the owners of the Alaska Pipeline will be required to remove the pipeline and supporting equipment at the end of its life, except for cleaned and capped underground pipes.<ref name="Fineberg"/> This multi-billion-dollar project is required to be paid for out of funds specifically charged to oil transport customers for this purpose, though as of 2004 these funds were co-mingled with other money and the amount needed was in dispute.<ref name="Fineberg">{{cite web |author=Fineberg Research Associates |url=http://www.finebergresearch.com/pdf/DR&R_040628.pdf |title=Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Dismantling, Removal and Restoration (DR&R): Background Report and Recommendations |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224911/http://www.finebergresearch.com/pdf/DR%26R_040628.pdf |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |url-status=dead |publisher=[[Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council]] |date=June 24, 2004 |access-date=July 29, 2009}}</ref>