Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ANWR Resource Estimates [10 billion barrels sitting under Wildlife Resort]
anwr.org ^ | 1st Quarter 2001

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anwr; anwroil; environment; gas; gasoline; imports; oil; rush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
This information is highly relevant, given rising oil prices. Leaving 10 billion barrels in the ground under the 'Arctic National Wildlife Resort' means we will be sending $700 billion or more overseas (adding to the trade deficit, and possibly aiding hostile nations & terrorists). You might want to ask your Congressman & Senators why they want to chop almost a trillion dollars out of our economy - in order to protect a wildlife project...

;>)

1 posted on 04/21/2006 2:13:00 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

Open ANWR! BTTT


2 posted on 04/21/2006 2:14:15 PM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

(Pardon the formatting error... ;>)


3 posted on 04/21/2006 2:17:12 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("If you try any preversions in there, I'll blow your head off!" - Col. 'Bat' Guano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

10 billion barrels would take care of the US needs for one year. However it will be 10 years before the first barrel can be produced and 50 years to produce 10 billion from the field.


4 posted on 04/21/2006 2:18:46 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

I've never been to a Wildlife Resort, but it sounds like a whole lot of fun.


5 posted on 04/21/2006 2:19:00 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

I know a guy who has a tap he uses for kegs. You think that would work in ANWR?


6 posted on 04/21/2006 2:20:23 PM PDT by rfreedom4u (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You think the coward Rebublicans could come up with an ANWR campaign to hang $3.00 / gallon gas prices around the Rat's collective necks?

Not a chance. Afraid some talking head will fire back at them on Chris Matthew's show.

7 posted on 04/21/2006 2:21:34 PM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chena

What are we waiting for? Drill it!


8 posted on 04/21/2006 2:22:48 PM PDT by MrLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

BTTT


9 posted on 04/21/2006 2:23:01 PM PDT by Unicorn (Too many wimps around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

Wasn't there another recent post that said there was another find of some 10 billion barrels or more sitting somewhere under the Rockies in the continential United States? Or was I dreaming?


10 posted on 04/21/2006 2:23:49 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jec41
10 billion barrels would take care of the US needs for one year. However it will be 10 years before the first barrel can be produced and 50 years to produce 10 billion from the field.

I didn't know the US was consuming over 27 million barrels per day. But assuming you were correct, what point(s) were you attempting to make?

;>)

11 posted on 04/21/2006 2:25:13 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("If you try any preversions in there, I'll blow your head off!" - Col. 'Bat' Guano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney

ping


12 posted on 04/21/2006 2:27:49 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

I think I heard Rush mention that there was a huge deposit of oil shale in Colorado and Utah(?) earlier today. The GOP needs to quit beating around the bush and start beating the RATS over the head with their obstruction of any new drilling in the US.


13 posted on 04/21/2006 2:31:18 PM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) ("By the time I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish you felt this good again" - Jack Bauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Why does it take 10 years to start an oil well?


14 posted on 04/21/2006 2:31:24 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
Open ANWR and prices at the pump will drop overnite. The Pubs should push this hard right away.This is there issue.They should portray dems as hurting the "little guy" if they obstruct.

This is a campaign year and Dems might not be able to mount a filibuster if the R's frame the debate as helping consumers and strengthening national security by lowering dependence on foreign oil.If they even try to obstruct, paint them as weak on national defense.

It's an ideal issue, plus imagine how much fun it will be to see the dems whine and contort themselves.

15 posted on 04/21/2006 2:31:35 PM PDT by smoothsailing (NEVER FORGET-Don't be Murtha'd again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

Will someone please post the names of the 21 Republicans in the House who killed the ANWAR drilling bill? I recall Sensenbrenner was one of them. Their names ought to be published far and wide as their constituents fill up at the pump for $3/gal. in this election year. And everyone in FLA should be on the necks of Martinez and Nelson for keeping our oil companies out of their coastal waters, thus giving them to Castro's Cuba. It is shameful to be represented by such clueless jerks.


16 posted on 04/21/2006 2:32:34 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLee

What are we waiting for? drill it.

Could be we are waiting on the do nothing congress of the United States and, I sure don't have my hope up for that to happen.

The left would just as soon see America go to he** because George Bush is president.

I feel there will never be a coming together in America again,
I could never imagine the left could hold such hatred for a president in my life time, so sad.


17 posted on 04/21/2006 2:32:37 PM PDT by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?

I have a question.
If ANWR were open to American oil companies, would they still shaft the American people with high gas prices?


18 posted on 04/21/2006 2:34:55 PM PDT by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
We have known of the oil shale desposits for decades. I the oil spike in the 70s they attempted to develope it and found the costs didn't pay until oil was very high. As I recall it was $60 per barrell in 78 prices. We may be getting high enough to dig it out and then smelt it down to crude, but it will take about three years to build the first plant to take the shale and make crude and a whopping big private investor.

Do you have a spare two billion laying around for a highly speculative venture that will pay zero if oil stays under $80?

19 posted on 04/21/2006 2:38:18 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

It doesn't take 10 years for a single well, but to get a field like ANWR operating, pipe needs to be laid to connect with the rest of the Alaska pipeline and the entire field brought into production before you'll actually see oil moving down to Valdez. A crash project where the oil companies band together and get crews working day and night could cut some time off that estimate, but it would still be a few years before ANWR oil makes it into your gas tank.


20 posted on 04/21/2006 2:40:29 PM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) ("By the time I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish you felt this good again" - Jack Bauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson