You think ANWR is dead? Well think again, people. (Senate Vote Tonight)

Anwr.org ^

[Pukin Dog]

Under the radar screen, the Senate has marked up the 07 budget to include ANRW drilling. There is a vote tonight in the Senate starting around 5pm eastern time on a measure by Maria Cantwell to remove ANRW from the budget. This time it should pass in the Senate before moving on to the House.

All you folks who thought the matter was dead were not paying attention. ANWR is alive and well, and starting tonight, we are one step closer to soaking those Caribou in crude oil. (that is a joke for the humorless among us)

Drill, baby. DRILL!!

[Marine_Uncle]

"You making this stuff up. It is ~10 BILLION barrels of oil. If this is not enough oil to be worth producing, name one place in the world that is."
OK. Firstly one site I have bookmarked, Oil. Now lets do some basic math.
From the above mentioned site, for 2004 US daily barrel of oil consumption per day we find it to be 20 million barrels. Of course that was 2004 numbers but let it suffice.
20x10⁶ X 360 (days) = 7.2 Billion barrels.
Now at web sites I had gone to last year, I found that under ideal conditions, assuming companies where not impeded by local restrictions/federal, and that they quickly could install the rigs and associated facilities, to actually operate at a near 100% drilling effeciency, e.g. extraction, storage, transportation to refineries, the proposed drilling sites would only last between 7-10 years before becoming exhuasted.
Now if my math is correct using your 10 billion barrels, as you can see, the total amount of oil that could be extracted from those targeted drilling plateforms is not that much oil based on the US daily needs.
And as I had made clear, I am all for the drilling and the further expansion of more drilling sites within the ANWR area. And I am all for, going west along the coast where a lot more oil is probably sitting.
Lastly. And it is simple as this. 10 billion barrels of crude oil is a drop in the bucket as to what the US needs dictate. I rest my case.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Is the Senate even in session?

[rbmillerjr]

Glad to see some good hard facts on this issue.

The liberal eco-geek line that I abhor is "...if we start drilling now we won't have any oil from ANWR for 7 years..."

Of course if the eco-geek, Ansel Adam loving freaks would have let us begin drillig in 2000, we'd be about online at this time.

[thackney]

Now at web sites I had gone to last year, I found that under ideal conditions, assuming companies where not impeded by local restrictions/federal, and that they quickly could install the rigs and associated facilities, to actually operate at a near 100% drilling effeciency, e.g. extraction, storage, transportation to refineries, the proposed drilling sites would only last between 7-10 years before becoming exhuasted.

This is not a true statement. The wells on the North slope produce for decades, not years. Base it on reality and current equipment, regulations and standards. Not someone theory.

it will yield less then a weeks supply of crude oil when comparing the US daily need for oil

This was your claim. Where do you back it up?

10 billion barrels of crude oil is a drop in the bucket as to what the US needs dictate.

You seem to claim this is not worth producing. Since it is bigger than anything else, where in the world would you produce oil from in traditional reserviours?

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the reference URL. I had visited this site last year. Notice in my original comments I said nothing of how much expected oil could be extracted over time. My last comments bear out in simple terms that the total extraction of oil at area 2002, over the expected life, simply is not an significant amount of oil compared to the daily US needs. That is all I was trying to bring out. Perhaps my grammer did not bring out the point I strived to communicate. At any rate, like I say, I am all for the drilling to take place.

[Pukin Dog]

I dont think so. Something went wrong.

[Marine_Uncle]

"it will yield less then a weeks supply of crude oil when comparing the US daily need for oil"
"This was your claim. Where do you back it up?"
Did you bother reading post #101?

[Issaquahking]

I hope they have medics on hand for Ted Stevens if it does not pass.

JANE, YOU IGNORANT SLU...

Give him a gun and arrange for the terrorists to meet Allah...for those who appose the best interests of America, caribou love oil!!!


Tundra permits my arse!!!

DRILL!!!

[RightWhale]

ANWR, if the leases are let in the next year, would keep the supply of North Slope oil at a fairly constant level of about half of what Prudhoe production was at the beginning for the next 20 years while the Prudhoe field amd NPR fields dry up. After that is unknown, but if ANWR does not go into production the North Slope production will fall to nothing sometime between 10 to 20 years from now.

[Marine_Uncle]

"...but if ANWR does not go into production the North Slope production will fall to nothing sometime between 10 to 20 years from now."
And like I said, I am all for ANWR, as well as opening other fields up to the west of ANWR proper as well as further inland if oil can be found. The environmental movements must be diminished in their power to poison the minds of drone senators and representatives, and let America start getting on a solid ground for future oil and coal extraction.

[thackney]

it will yield less then a weeks supply of crude oil when comparing the US daily need for oil

This was your claim. Where do you back it up?"
Did you bother reading post #101?

Yes we use about 140 million barrels a week. This is 10,000 million barrels. How is this less than a weeks supply?

[thackney]

North Slope production will fall to nothing sometime between 10 to 20 years from now.

I'm sorry my friend but you are using old data. We are selling leases in NPR-A, drilling that oil and putting it into production starting next year at Alpine West (CD5). Ugnu, Schrader Bluff and West Sak have a combined reserves of 36 Billion Barrels. We have been producing West Sak for a couple years and these field are having more wells drilled into them this year. Shell Oil bought a lot of offshore leases and are locating two drilling ships/platforms this year. The majors are planning for 50 more years.

[RightWhale]

The way it looks right now, and the way it looks to those in Congress who favor leasing ANWR production, is that the North Slope has about a relatively steady 20 years to run if ANWR is phased in now. If ANWR is delayed, North Slope production will fall by that much delay, and then pick up a little when ANWR begins production. Better to have a steady production for 20 years than sporadic production for a longer period. What else might be done from other sources is a different question, but at least they would have North Slope steady for 20 years while they get something else going.

[RightWhale]

The bbls are increasing faster than we can possibly burn it. Last data I saw was 7 bbl west of Prudhoe.

[Marine_Uncle]

Answer to your first of last two. I included the reference and clearly indicated the 20 million barrels per day where from year 2004. I was not trying to deceive. Did the simple math. Then based on things I remember from which included the URL you provided (the USG report in pdf format) which indicates a possible 10 billion total...that was your report, did a simple math calc. But as you are familiar with that USG report, the 10 billion was a rather top end figure based on the many factors involved.
BUT GREAT! As you report in your last posting. It appears we have a lot more oil then earlier projected. I sense you either are involved in the business and or have keep abreast of developments in this area. And surely what you are reporting in this last post, is good news. Based on what I read, it appears a lot more oil can be extracted for a much greater period of time. So once again, I say, I am all for the drilling to take place. And that was my feelings from my original post. And I am all for east/gulf/west/interior drilling in the mainland to the hilt. And all for as many secure and geographically placed oil refineries and petrochemical plants as neccessary, for the US to once again become oil independent, just say dealing with our Canadian neighbors who we undertand sell us quite a lot of oil.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Better to have a steady production for 20 years than sporadic production for a longer period."
Obviously refineries would like to know what they must do to refine the stuff over the long hull, just to name one part of the picture. Let the drilling begin!

[Ditter]

Note to self: Be sure to peruse DU tomorrow to enjoy the weeping and wailing.

[RightWhale]

The North Slope has been supplying 15-20% US needs. Another way of looking at it.

[Marine_Uncle]

"The North Slope has been supplying 15-20% US needs. Another way of looking at it."
And if we can make it 25% over some twenty years, I am all for it. Meanwhile, we truely must give more lee way for off shore and mainland interior exploration as well as the final drilling permits. And all those vast coal beds sitting on the east coast and in Wyoming etc., must be given a chance to create synthetic oils, and all the other fractions into petrochemicals etc., they can yield. I have read estimates that the US has huge total oil/coal reserves that simply are off limits. But nothing I say has not been said many times before.

[RightWhale]

The North Slope, west half, was reserves for coal for the navy a century ago. Navy doesn't use a lot of coal these days, but the NPR has a load of coal, enough there to last the US 300 years.