REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER! Democraps care more about the Caribou then they do about you!
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.
One problem with this report; Its done by the USGS office which historically over inflates the figures by huge margins. It has never been close to the actual recovered resources established by the actually drillers and producers. Plus, show me a well that delievers much over 50%. With water intrusion and gas caps, that's about the limit of economically recoverable crude, and
that's sweet, light crude.
Actually, at one time I worked for the U.S.G.S., with a group that produced estimates of oil & gas reserves. In my experience, U.S.G.S./M.M.S. estimates are quite conservative. When Pt. Arguello Field was discovered offshore California, for example, the U.S.G.S. estimated recoverable oil reserves at several hundred million barrels. Industry, on the other hand, was publishing reports (in the Oil & Gas Journal and elsewhere) indicating several billion barrels in reserves. Guess who was right?
;>)
Plus, show me a well that delievers much over 50%. With water intrusion and gas caps, that's about the limit of economically recoverable crude, and that's sweet, light crude.
Check out the source: the numbers quoted are for recoverable resources, not oil-in-place...
;>)
Most people, if they actually had a look at the 1002 area in the 'Arctic National Wildlife Resort,' would describe the area as a barren wasteland (or something similar). The Left Wing media prefers to print irrelevant pictures of lovely mountains and cute animals...
;>)
I might be wrong on this but didn't Clinton bar the drilling of that shale in CO and UT?
A politician can claim that and get some votes and contributions, and then later when nothing like that happens nobody will remember.
And if ANWAR were opened up the oil companies and their executives would just get richer...and we can't have that, we must have an oil shortage and pristine arctic land (scarcasm off)
How about going full bore on nuclear power and take off all the restrictions about off-shore drilling, as well as opening up anwar...that is the real solution.
That's one very old example. Second point is exactly that, recoverable oil. Other than that, this is like preaching to the choir, nice for a change.
;>)
(I could provide many, many others... ;>)
...this is like preaching to the choir, nice for a change.
If our Congresscritters start running scared on the issue of high gas prices, and we keep reminding them of the continual D*mocrat refusal to develop our own resources, maybe they will actually do something. Of course, that would require Republican 'leadership'...
;>)
Is this Friday? Because I meant the estimates from
the EIA......time to go home, my brain is tired.
I doubt that opening ANWR will cause any major change in the price of oil. It will change a small part of who and where the profits go. Assuming extracting, transporting, refining, distributing, and retailing make 50% of the price of a gallon of gas. The rest coming from the price of oil. Now, assuming the owners of the oil is the USofA, what will the price be? It should be free for supply to the U.S. But, based on past performance the government will say that it should be market price to bring the maximum return to the taxpayer. This will be a tax, because, it will be paid to government. Since it is a regressive tax, refunds will need to be given to poor and middle class by higher taxes on the rich. In all fairness the cost of the oil must be free. So, the price of gas will remain high or go higher.
There are two ways to solve the problem. Run out of oil, so, something will have to be done. Or, allow the price to go high enough for alternatives to be competitive. And, let the market then bring the price down. The 80s saw the price of alternatives at roughly 5 times the price of oil, and, the way to kill the alternatives was to keep oil cheap.
The only thing worse than high gas prices is no gas.
(I know what you mean! Have a great weekend! ;>)
I don't know about shale oil in Colorado or Utah.
BUT
The Lippo Group, James Riady and etc owned one of the two largest reserves of low- sulfur coal in the world.
After receiving campaign contributions directly or indirectly from Lippo etc, then President Bill Clinton by Presidential Directive created The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah contained the other largest reserve of low- sulfur coal in the world.
The Utah Geological Survey valued all energy and mineral resources within the Monument at between $223 billion and $331 billion. (1997 Dollars)
Thus by creating the Monument, Clinton removed the completion for low- sulfur coal from The Lippo, James Riady etc, low- sulfur coal holdings.
Just a small part of The Clinton Legacy you and I are still paying for today.
The USGS figures are typically below the amount of oil produced in most areas.
I guess along with the bricks to build the wall we need to send them drills to drill ANWR.
If it were a national emergency, I would think the Prez could get it started through executive order.
It doesn't. But, there is more than just punching a hole in the ground to get refined product to the pump.
Seven to ten years from now.
Let's get drilling, we can quibble about the timeline later! :)
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.