Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/17/2001 5:11:45 AM EDT
I have a class where the typical Liberal BS is spread. During it it was said Oil comp want to drill in ANWAR because it would create a precedent for drilling in Wildlife/protected reserves not because there is alot of oil. My instructer said there is only 6 months of oil there and that it is meant to let them get their foot in the door. But then heard on Rush's show a high ranking Lib Dem say that about 13% of our protected lands are being drilled/mined/forested. That would mean there is already a precedent. Does anyone know where to find REPUTABLE web sites or publications where this could be reaerched quickly? Anyone heard a reputable source about amount of oil in ANWAR? I heard 6 months to 40 years? How about info on current and future oil production? Thanks, BrenLover
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 6:37:11 AM EDT
BTT
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 6:40:43 AM EDT
I forwarded this thread to a friend of mine who is a geophysicist. He might be able to help!
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 6:43:47 AM EDT
SO: It has been awhile since I was involved with petroleum production, but I do have some insights. The reason there are so many variable estimates of the oil in ANWAR is because of the lack of exploration. Field geology has revealed oil-bearing formations. Limited geophysics has indicated oil traps. But reservoir calculations are typically based on drilling results, pump tests and the permeability and porosity calculations. One reason to drill now involves how long it takes to bring a field into production and arrange the transportation. That infrastructure can take awhile to build, especially given the location. Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to pump it out right now. As far as mining goes, there is more land impacted by airports within the US than has EVER been mined. Ask the class if they are concerned about protecting the local environment or the global environment. If they are truly concerned about the global environment, you must produce natural resources from the countries that not only have environmental laws, but enfore them. NO country in the world has stronger protection then the US. Therefore, if they don't support domestic production, they must approve of exporting pollution to economically depressed nations which do not have the resources to deal with the problem. E-mail me for any help I can give. SRM
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 6:47:37 AM EDT
Those are GREAT points, SRM!
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 9:21:42 AM EDT
Another reason the don't know exactly how much oil is in ANWR is the one and only exploration well data is begin keep a very guarded secret. lawsuit have been filed and lost to force BP(I belive)to make the info public. Another point on estimates is Prudhoe Bay We have surpassed drilling estimate along time ago, but with new technology we keep pump the oil. Clint
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 10:10:23 AM EDT
SRM, we have touched on a couple of those points and most seem to think we should cut the use of such resources as much as possible all over the earth even though our energy requirements will continue to grow. It's just as Rush said we cannot meet demand by simply "conserving". We have found oil today that we knew nothing about a decade ago simply because of new evolving tech that allows us to find it and get it. A3kid, thanks, hope he replies, I wanna throw this shit right back in their faces. BrenLover
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 10:14:29 AM EDT
Hey there, I am an Alaskan presently working up on Prudhoe Bay. There is no data on how much oil is in ANWR because exploration is forbidden. The environmentalists in the Clinton administration prohibited it, even though exploration causes no environmental impact, because they were afraid there might be another huge Prudhoe-sized deposit discovered. I have spoken to a geologist who surveyed the Prudhoe field in the 60's who reported dropping rolls of toilet paper onto tundra in ANWR and seeing them turn black from crude oil on the surface. There is unquestionably oil there. How much, no one knows. Environmentalists know that if the answer is "a lot" people will be more likely to ignore them, and hence they do everything they can to obfuscate the issue and spread lies and distortions about ANWR and its impact. Now, for hard info, I don't have much to go on. Maybe the best approach would be to look up environmentalist objections to developing Prudhoe and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The hysteria and doomsday predictions they made about those projects will help discredit their lies about ANWR. Here is an Alaskan pro-development group: [url]http://www.anwr.org/power.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 10:46:24 AM EDT
SO: Just wanted to add that it is interesting how many of these discussions take place in the US. As a nation, we arguably have among the highest standard of living and, accordingly, one of the highest use rates of natural resources. IIRC, the average American uses some 2,200 tons of mineral products per year (might want to check that out with the National Mining Association,a dot org I think). Developing nations typically have higher population densities and lower standards of living. However,most want what we have. It is presumptive of us to force our view of the environment on countries that lack our development. Recycling will be important but as the world population expands, so will the demand. You might also ask how much of any metal (gold for example) gets consumed in a year or how much gold is on the earth now compared to 100 years ago. Except for a few hundred ounces that are floating around above us, the answer is the same. Virtually none has been created, lots has been recycled and lots has been found, but the quantity contained on the earth is virtually identical. As far as coal,oil, and gas, we are just consuming prehistoric nuclear energy. The ancient sun (nuclear) was utilized by the local flora and fauna for their energy requirements. When they died, their remaining energy was converted into fossil fuels. So, in essence, ALL of the energy we consume is nuclear based. Nuclear energy vaporizes the water which will be used for hydroelectric. If we don't utilize the fossil fuels, they will be naturally consumed. SRM
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 12:59:34 PM EDT
Thanks guys, keep the info and opinions coming. Great to hear from those who actually worked in the field. I also got some info from the Anxietycenter.com, they have a link to a oil story that was very informative but not well documented. BrenLover
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 1:34:08 PM EDT
I have no work experience in the oil industry but I than had classes in petroleum geology I agree with SRM.
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 3:56:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2001 3:55:11 PM EDT by raven]
Raven here again, with some more thoughts on ANWR. You know, I am coming from a diametrically opposite point of view from most people who want to keep oil development from ANWR. My dad's made his living building facilities for oil service companies for the past 20 years. My whole state's tax revenue comes nearly entirely from taxing the oil companies. Alaska NEEDS and DEPENDS on the production of oil up on the North Slope, and the current oil field's production is declining. Hearing people say stuff like "There's only 6 month's worth of oil up there" is so stupid to me. That's like seeing $200 across a stream, and saying "Gee, it's not worth it to cross the stream and get that money. It'll only keep my gas tank full for six months.." Or to forgo paychecks because they'll only pay for 2 months worth of bills. ANWR won't make us energy-independent from foreign oil, but so what? To me, ANWR is $200 billion laying under some of the most useless, desolate land on earth. $200b that will flow into workers' pockets, shareholders' portfolios, and help the bottom line of businesses all over the country. Environmentalists say ANWR's beautiful and pristine, but the arctic has millions of square miles of identical tundra that DOESN'T have $200 billion in oil under it. ANWR is nothing spectacular or precious intrinsically that say, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or Glacier Nat'l Park are. The economic benefits of the oil under ANWR are concrete and real. The benefits of leaving it be are completely subjective and dwell solely in the minds of these environmentalists, 99.9% of whom will never visit ANWR because of the high cost and the total lack of anything worth seeing. Not to mention, it is specious to say that if drilling starts in ANWR, Denali Nat'l park is next. For one, a coastal portion of ANWR was reserved for possible future oil development. This is a small section of the entire park. Greenies want to deny even this AGREED area to oil development, "just cuz".
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 6:36:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 6:58:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2001 6:54:11 PM EDT by worldskipper]
I totally agree, they need to start poking holes in the ground ASAP! Brouhaha, Now are you a geologist or a geophysist? There is a big difference, one can do their job drunk and make a killing and the other is a poor sap trying to apply science to a guessing game [:D]. Just having a little fun, worked for a Western Geo for a couple of years and got to know some of the yahoo geophysists working offshore, and man, the crap that comes out of their mouths! (An Former Field Engineer) Worldskipper (edited for grammar)
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 7:43:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/18/2001 6:43:18 AM EDT
BLM or Interior Department used to publish a book every year on natural resources production on government lands (including offshore). We do produce plenty of oil and gas on BLM and Forest Service land. And make even more in off-shore fields (we should have a lot more off-shore production than we do now). According to government geologists who specialize in oil and gas I have privately heard that there is many times more oil and gas on the Alaska North Slope than is published by the governmnet. GunLvr
Link Posted: 11/18/2001 7:57:40 AM EDT
Brouhaha, I assume that you are doing downhole and seismic. I have some geophysical experience primarily surface EM, Mag, and GPR.
Link Posted: 11/18/2001 2:12:56 PM EDT
Top Top