Posted on 07/16/2006 1:18:55 PM PDT by Flavius
COPENHAGEN (AFP) - The remote oil fields of Greenland could become a new eldorado for oil companies thanks to a spectacular rise in fossil fuel prices and uncertainty concerning future supplies, experts say. ADVERTISEMENT
Greenland will this week launch a new round of concessions for oil and gas exploration and officials expect record bidding.
"We have never known a level of interest for oil exploration like today, which makes us optimistic. Our dream of becoming a heavyweight energy producer could become reality one day," Joern Skov Nielsen, division head of Greenland's Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, told AFP.
Several US and European oil companies have bought seismic data collected in the Disko bay, which will be opened for exploration in the new round of concessions, said Nielsen. "That's an unmistakable sign of interest," he said.
The fjord and glacier of Ilulissat, situated in the Disko bay, were in 2004 included in Unesco's world heritage sites, and exploration in the ecologically fragile area has been a cause of concern for environmentalists.
Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have both expressed concern about the effect on whales, shellfish and sea birds living in the area.
Greenland's local government has promised that the environment will be protected.
But it also points out that Disko bay oil production could provide a vital financial windfall for the 58,000 inhabitants of Greenland, mostly inuits, who won home rule from Denmark in 1979.
After six test drillings in 1976, 1977 and 1990 failed to prove the potential for profitable exploitation, record oil prices are now key to unlocking the fuel potential of Greenland, which had previously scared off investors because of the high cost of accessing reserves in waters and land which are icebound for most of the year.
Global warming, which affects Greenland more than any other place, has also made the job of finding oil easier by reducing the thick layers of ice.
Greenlanders always have in the back of their minds that the liquid gold could one day finance their complete independence from Denmark on which they still depend for heavy subsidies to shore up their fishery-dependent economy.
Their current hopes focus on Canadian company EnCana, which in January 2005 won a licence for offshore oil and gas exploration between the 62nd and 69th parallel, 250 kilometres (156 miles) west of Nuuk.
In 2008, EnCana is to start drilling in the area which is estimated to contain up to two billion of barrels of oil equivalent.
A 2001 US Geological Survey found that north-eastern Greenland, facing Norway, was likely to boast spectacular reserves.
With the water just 100 to 200 metres deep, this sector is said to contain up to 110 billion barrels of oil, half of the known reserves in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter of oil.
Greenland's government is already thinking about a fifth round of concessions within three or four years, Skov Nielsen said.
The first I've heard about oil in Greenland but with the oil in S Dakota and Montana (Bakken formation), the tar sands in Canada and the shale oil in Colorado and surrounding states it appears there's more oil waiting to be produced than there are current reserves. Peak oil? I don't think so.
Every decade of my adult life, the numbers of bbl/equivalents of proven reserves has increased. Every single one. In 10 years' time, unless something spectacular occurs, we'll see full production of the tar sands, and CO shale will be online, too, to what exact extent is hard to tell right now. The Bakken production is somewhat dicier, mostly for political reasons. The huge Libyan find will be online by 2009 at worst, likely sooner.
If Russia get their thumbs out of their bums, their production can easily double in a decade, and in any case the total of provable Siberian reserves is going to do nothing but go straight up. Hell's bells, they haven't even explored, in any reasonable fashion, two of the potentially most productive basins.
I'm curious about your comment re: the Bakken farmation since drilling has been going on in that region for decades and the only reason it's a hot play right now is the new technology that allows horizontal drilling. Last I saw there's between 200 and 400 billion barrels of oil there. Are you saying we'd give up that potential?
Sorry, didn't mean to mislead in any way, and I see how the phrasing of my post might have done.
Most shale oil is in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The oil in S Dak and Mont, although contained in shale deposits, actually flows and is much easier to obtain than the shale oil found in other areas which need to be mined or cooked to be released. We're not confusing the two are we?
If so, then some combination of production technologies will be more effective, ultimately, than simple/complex extraction of liquids.
Nothing against drilling and traditional production, mind, but in the long-term, the biggest payoff prize is non-liquid extraction technologies, imho.
Yes and sort of....
The shale formation is ten thousand feet below. We can drill and stimulate, but we're not going to excavate.
Thanks for that datum; changes the game considerably.
Chevron and Pogo Producing are interested enough to lease almost 300,000 acres for exploration. Horizontal drilling is coming to the fore.
51st State ping
Let's annex Greenland.
Or buy it like we did with Alaska.
But what about the reindeer?
Denmark is our strong ally and remember they weren't PC with their cartoons.
Anyone think the author noticed the intense irony of his statement?
The more the earth warms, the more oil we can find. Yep, can't beat that!
The poor shellfish.
If you happen to remember it, what's your source for that estimate? Does your source also have an estimate of the recoverable percentage? That is a big oil field even if only 15% is ultimately recoverable.
(Reference ping only to Joe.)
How about a joint venture with Denmark where we provide 80% of the investment capital and we get 80% of the oil? That's more diplomatically constructive than a friendly invasion and annexation...lol. The Danes would make great business partners. I've met the Danes, and they are a great bunch.
There's also a lot that can and will be done to increase vehicle fuel economy. Up until about three years ago, auto engineers spent the last 15 years developing more powerful engines and bigger vehicles. Now they're starting a major effort to apply that technology in smaller engines and lighter vehicles. The V8 engine is making a comeback in smaller versions, such as new small V8's from GM and Audi. I don't know the details, but I've heard from engineers that the V8 is inherently more efficient than the V6 engine. It's just a more balanced design with an even number of cylinders on each side, so they can make it out of simpler and lighter engine parts. Anyway, peak oil theory is nonsense considering we're just coming out of 20 years of cheap oil. You're not going to get anything close to a maximum oil production effort or a maximum engineering effort on fuel economy when oil is cheap, like it was up until 2002.
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.