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.
;>)
Open ANWR! BTTT
(Pardon the formatting error... ;>)
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've never been to a Wildlife Resort, but it sounds like a whole lot of fun.
I know a guy who has a tap he uses for kegs. You think that would work in ANWR?
Not a chance. Afraid some talking head will fire back at them on Chris Matthew's show.
What are we waiting for? Drill it!
BTTT
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?
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?
;>)
ping
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.
Why does it take 10 years to start an oil well?
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.
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.
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.
I have a question.
If ANWR were open to American oil companies, would they still shaft the American people with high gas prices?
Do you have a spare two billion laying around for a highly speculative venture that will pay zero if oil stays under $80?
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.
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.