Posted on 04/21/2006 2:12:56 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
The debate over oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is about as hot as it’s ever been, thanks to soaring fuel prices, domestic energy shortfalls and a political about-face in the nation’s Oval Office. At the core of many arguments — pro and con — are results of the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study on ANWR’s petroleum potential.
Pro-Development Resource Estimates:
Defensible and Desirable
The USGS report is thorough, presenting estimates that use a number of alternative resource concepts. Industry is often accused of distorting ANWR’s potential by focusing on the highest of these estimates. Not true. Numbers cited by advocates of ANWR drilling accurately characterize the USGS study conclusion — that ANWR contains undiscovered resource volumes of 5.7 to 16 billion barrels of crude oil, with an expected value of 10.4 billion barrels. Moreover, the USGS standard practice does not include any prospective effects of future technological change. One could argue, therefore, that USGS numbers are more likely to be conservative estimates of the true recovery potential of ANWR. On the flip side, several other numbers are cited by various opponents of development. Many are simply incorrect. An example is the 3.2 billion barrel estimate often attributed to the 1998 USGS study. This may have originated with the 1987 BLM EIS, or it may be based on a misinterpretation of data presented in the 1998 USGS report. In either case it is wrong.
Estimated Recoverable Resources:
Understated and Justified
The table below presents the key resource estimates presented by USGS in its 1998 assessment. These estimates are for the entire 1002 area (Coastal Plain), which includes both private lands and federal property. This geographical coverage is relevant, since none of the private lands within ANWR can be developed without opening federal lands. Within this area, USGS estimates that there are between 15.6 and 42.3 billion barrels of oil in place, with a mean of 27.8 billion barrels. From this, USGS derives the 5.7-to-16.0 billion barrel range as being recoverable using the technology of the mid-1990s. Anti-development groups often criticize use of technically recoverable resource numbers, rather than the narrower concept of economically recoverable resources. But a closer look confirms that use of the technically recoverable numbers does not overstate the resource base. As seen in this Table, at extremely low price levels ($12 on the West Coast), the commercially developable resources are only a small portion of the technically recoverable resource (0-11%). However, at a more realistic price of $24, the commercially developable portion of the resource approaches 90%, and at $30, virtually all of the technically recoverable resource is commercially viable. The Technology Factor: Considerable and Real Technically recoverable volumes cited in the USGS assessment are very conservative. Remember that USGS estimates assume only current technology. In this case, the agency assumes only about 37% of the oil in place can eventually be recovered. Estimated recovery from Prudhoe Bay was initially estimated to be about 35%, but the application of new technology since that time has progressed steadily, and recovery is now expected to exceed 65%. Similar experience with ANWR could raise eventual recovery well beyond the USGS estimate. For example, 65% recovery would imply a range of 10 to 27 billion barrels, with a mean of 18 billion barrels.
That "ANWR oil will only supply the US with one year of oil" is... poppycock. It's based on ONLY using the Alaska oit and NO OTHER source - Canada, Russia, Mexico, Middle East, etc. - at that time.
Actually, the best plan is to prepare ANWR and ALL other possible US land and off-shore oil reserves to pump but use it as a threat:
If one of our foreign oil suppliers hikes prices too much, we threaten to use our own oil for a full year (and sell to their competitors below market value). You'll see the price dive then.
But, we have nothing to bargain with if no pipelines are ready.
(Something is wrong when you have the resources to resolve a problem and you don't.)
I personally don't have a spare $2 billion laying around, but you give Exxon or Shell some tax incentives to develop it, they'll be there tomorrow.
100% correct...
Not just oil shale but high grade coal. Clinton put the Ascalante reserves into a preserve so the U.S. would have to buy Indonesian coal from his buddy Riady.
Lots and lots of mineral reserves there. The upside is that the rights were owned by a Canadian company (which I understand was a front for the Royal family). So, instead of foreigner profiting from U.S. mineral rights, no one can at the moment.
Eventually, it should be opened by the government and managed by a de-facto government company. That way the profits to the the Treasury to pay down the debt. (Yeah, wishful thinking, I know!)
Where's Ellis Wyatt when you need him?
After the disgust with the personal conduct and selling of out of the United States by Bill Clinton, the left wants revenge.
The left has got carried away with their retaliation.
They no longer care about The United States, they want revenge.
That revenge is directed at President George W Bush.
They have forgotten the citizens and well being of our country.
If they hadn't spent a decade f'n around, ANWR would already be pumping. Obstructionist watermelons AKA The Democrat Party.
If you think "American oil companies" are 'shafting the American people with high gas prices,' why don't you buy from a foreign oil company, like Shell?
;>)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619147/posts
;>)
In short: environmental studies, reviews, hearings, and permitting.
However it will be 10 years before the first barrel can be produced and 50 years to produce 10 billion from the field.
Add 2 or 3% to the worlds supply of oil and watch the price drop like a rock.
we could solve the immigration crisis AND high gas prices by allowing in only Mexicans that bring 1 barrel of crude with them.
Why does it take 10 years? Well.... here you go.
Alaska has been in negotiations with the oil companies for more than 10 years trying to put together lease agreements to drill in land they don't own. (regardless of the U.S. congressional haggelings) Those lease agreements and the ensuing legislation that goes along with them involve a litany of beauracratic levels, hearings etc, to get through.
That's the short answer.
I just finished reading the "hit piece" in National Geographic about the "pristine" North Slope.
Of all the pictures of "national wonderment", only one was taken in the ANWR area, and that was of natives on the beach slaughtering a whale. And then there is the caribou herd, which when you read the article, freely wanders a couple of thousand miles, so the herd is not territorial.
Then there's the horror discussion of Navy wells punched during WWII, and no clean-up actions after they left (like most other gov't facilities throughout the world.
The article states the billions barrels of oil, and gobs of natural gas throughout the area, but the peregrine falcon roosts in the area.
In the end, it's all Bush's fault, because Carter was kind to the area; Clinton only delineated a new 13% of the North slope for new exploration; and because Bush is more evil than Reagan!
Actually my kids have a well I drilled in 78 that is just now worth producing. They started in Jan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.