Drill ANWR

Richard Wright said:
You need to multiply by 0.35 to convert the "Recoverable reserve" number to what will actually show up on the surface with current technology.

That number also differs from the USGS report. Referring to a chart near the bottom of the report, the mean "economically recoverable reserve" (this means to-market) approaches 7 billion barrels as the price of oil goes above $40. Of course, the much higher price now would justify even more expense in terms of recovery effort, so that 7 billion barrels would increase somewhat. So instead of .35, the factor inferred from the USGS report (not a factor they assumed, but one derived from analysis) is more like 0.7.

7 billion barrels of oil at $130/bbl is nearly a trillion dollars. It won't make the U. S. energy-independent, and that's not even the point -- but it would be a huge boost to the economy. And remember that this is just from ANWR; the offshore areas would provide even *more* oil.

Terry (astrotrf)

Richard Wright said:
35% is the best anyone can do, anywhere, for any amount of money.

The USGS report disagrees with that assessment. Do you have references for the figures you use?

If the price of oil goes up, that doesn't make fluid dynamics change so the oil all goes running for the pipe. It does make it easier to make the case to fork out $8 billion on the 10 year program to run a drilling campaign and put in facilities to develop the field (which may be a non-starter with oil at $35/ barrel).

This is precisely why the graph in question shows economically recoverable reserves as a function of the oil price.

Terry (astrotrf)

I remember when I used to live in Alaska. It blew my mind to find out that very little of the oil produced there actually goes to the US. They have some sort of a double tax on the oil produced if it is sent to a domestic destination, eliminating all incentive to bring it to the US. Most all of it goes to Asia. I am afraid, if ANWR is drilled, we will not be using it to fill our tanks, but the Chinese will see most of it. We will have destroyed our wilderness for nothing. If the public knew this it would not even be up for question.

I am curious, are you a geologist or a reservoir completion engineer? how do you know how much oil is in place, and how much is recoverable? Or, more specifically, did you consider primary or secondary recoverable.
FWIW, I am a geochemist, and while I do not have a problem walking to work when I can I do prefer the driving when it is 100*F outside and the drilling rig is 20 miles off the highway and the turn off is 50 or more mile from the nearest town.

matt affenita said:
We have been cornered into this way of thinking by the current price of oil.

Well, "cornered" is not the word I would have used; it's simply economics in action. Back then, with a much lower oil price, we could afford to place the low probability of a small area of environmental damage above the national need for the oil. That's no longer the case; we cannot continue buying massive amounts of foreign oil at these prices. We need to mitigate that as much as possible with new domestic production, as well as reducing demand by developing alternatives to oil/gasoline.

We need domestic oil now, and, in all likelihood, we're going to *really* need it in 15 years, so we have to begin developing these new fields. This won't *solve* the problem, but amounts of dollars measured in trillions sounds like real money to me.

Terry (astrotrf)

Amen, brother.

Luke Schmidt said:

Writing off conservation just because it is not the final solution does not mean it can't play an important part, even if it is just softening the blow to your own wallet.

Conservation is just a back door for socialism. How are you going to conserve? Are you going to boost the price until only the elites can consume, or are you going to issue non-transferable rationing quotas. Both, create the same basic problem; an intrusive and overbearing state.

My challenge to all who refuse to drill is very simple. Come up with a better solution that is cheaper, tangeable, efficient, and able to provide a higher energy allocation per capita then the present system. Until, then: go take a good cry on your own sleeve, as the rest of us drill for everything we can, until we grease the skids with the carcass of the last available carribou, whale, polar bear, and environmentalist.

Technology offers us all kinds of new opportunities, and obstructing that technology to impose a political agenda has its limits, and as far as I and many/most are concerned, we are well past the point of tolerance.

Man this is great!

All my buds and I in the oil buisness have been waiting since the 80's for this kind of enthusiasm to drill for oil. The beauty of the oil business is that it remains a very pure capitalistic venture aside from all those liberals and environmentalists that have kept oil out of the hands of good Americans.

The rewards of investing in an oil prospect are better than they've ever been! I have great admiration for the intelligence of the Astromart community and since almost 70% of you realize that oil is there just for the picking, I'd like to let everyone know that there are prospect fairs held regularly in Houston and Denver where you can put your money in any number of ventures that is sure to bring you great wealth from the almost certainty that you'll hit oil anytime and anywhere you drill.

There are Trillions to be made!!!

For information go here http://www.hapl.org/en/cev/?166, or better yet I have prospects in Utah and Florida that are almost certain to hit oil and bring you great wealth. All you have to do is help me through the environmantal BS so I can run a D12 Cat over those desolate canyons or those useless Everglades.

Happy drilling,

Dave

Nice bit of sarcasm, I'm sure ...

It is a huge mistake to argue that the alternatives are "don't drill at all" vs. "utter destruction of the environment". Aside from being completely false, that kind of extremism is not in any way conducive to a rational discussion, and does nothing to help find solutions to the problems we face.

Advocating drilling for oil in the Everglades, to take your example, doesn't mean defining the Everglades as "useless". Drilling for oil in ANWR does not imply the destruction of ANWR. Oil exploration *can* be done in an environmentally safe way, and it is quite evident that such safety practices would be *demanded* in ANWR and elsewhere.

A point I've made before is that other countries are drilling for oil offshore and in other environmentally sensitive areas, without significant environmental impact -- there's no reason the U. S. cannot do so as well.

And, yes, people are going to make money doing this. Some people are going to make a LOT of money doing this. That's just the way it is; there has to be a payoff for the huge up-front investment involved. That's true *everywhere*, not just in the oil industry. It's even true in the places where folks are working to come up with alternatives to the use of oil and gasoline.

Terry (astrotrf)

My hero!