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 its ever been, thanks to soaring fuel prices, domestic energy shortfalls and a political about-face in the nations Oval Office. At the core of many arguments pro and con are results of the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study on ANWRs 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 ANWRs 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.
**[10 billion barrels sitting under Wildlife Resort]**
Then why don't we insist that our Congress approve legislation to drill there!?????????
I made this argument during the Carter administration when I lived in CO, and Exxon was starting to nurture oil shale technology.
..............."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"..............
But, Fatso Raymond, and his toadie Exxon Board, looked at last years $36 billion in new cash, and Exxon made the decision to spend 1/2 of it, $18 billion, to buy back their stock, erasing a 2.1% dividend, even though their stock was trading at all time highs.
I guess they couldn't envision a better cash investment than a 2.1% return, as the company actually had oil exploration costs of less than one billion $, lower than the cost in 2004.
A real investment travesty; a short sighted management team; but one that voted to give Fatso another $400 million retirement present!
Total disgust!
But at some point we drill or we disappear.
There is but one choice, as I'm quite certain you would agree.
FRegards my Friend.
This is only part of the problem.
The rest of the problem are the unbuilt refineries, the dead in the water nuclear power plants, and our failure to convert coal reserves into effective power.
And the blame lies in the same place - radical enviro-wackos.
"[10 billion barrels sitting under Wildlife Resort]"
That's no RESORT, it's a totally useless wastland!
Drill for the oil and eat the carabou!
Sounds good to me. Anyone you can call or write, to highlight your concern?
;>)
Thanks for the post...this was what I was thinking of. Coal not shale. I did have the state right though...:)
My concern is that unless there is a clear delineations made between RINOs in particular and Republicans in general, the average citizen is going to say "Republican President, Republican controlled House, Republican controlled Senate - the Republicans screwed up!"
I don't know, maybe it's too much to expect of President Bush to ride herd on Congress, given the current political climate.
A question you may know the answer to - could the President issue some sort of Executive Order allowing for drilling in certain areas (including ANWR)?
The Pres has the power to do that and much more. What he can't do is allocate funding; funding is allocated by Congress. But if it costs the White House zero dollars, he can sweep a boatload of legal impediments out of the way. That would also go for the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, an ubermajor impediment to economic growth.
If environmentalists had tried to halt oil production or mining operations during World War II, you can bet FDR (socialist though he was) would have thrown their sorry butts in jail. Today, I would be overjoyed if our elected officials would simply ignore the greenies when considering issues relating to national security - such as domestic oil production...
;>)
;>)
couldn't that all be greatly shortened with some help from president Bush?
Nah! Let's keep giving money to our enemies!
This is great news. I hope gas goes to $5 a gallon, so we can finally get some drilling done and finally get some refineries built, for crying out loud.
By opening up ANWR, we immediately gain tremendous long-term security in supply of energy, which means that we can consider using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to deal with short-run problems in the supply and price of crude. Plus, our federal government's long-term fiscal position will strengthen enormously. We will achieve both cheaper, more secure supplies of energy and balance our federal budget. True, we will still have to fix the long-term insolvency of our entitlement programs and address our illegal alien/border problems, but - perhaps - by addressing two very tough problems, the Congress will get it into its thick skull that it should actually address our other urgent problems.
I think you mean Escalante?
The coal deposits in the Escalante area is clean-burning coal, too.... the Navajo were pulling a lot of coal out of the reservation and doing it with first-class equipment and decent pay and thanks to the enviros the Laughlin Power Plant (SCE) was shut down because they refused to spend millions to install clean-air scrubber (it was cheaper to shut it down and take an environmental tax credit instead)...
A 20+ billion barrel (ANW Resort + Left Coast offshore) bump...
;>)
It's something to be explored but it wouldn't solve our problems in the near term as any new exploration would take years to get set up and exploited.
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.