Oil Survey Says Arctic Has Riches

[johnnymk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/business/24arctic.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

The Arctic may contain as much as a fifth of the world’s yet to-be-discovered oil and natural gas reserves, the United States Geological Survey said Wednesday as it unveiled the largest-ever survey of petroleum resources north of the Arctic Circle.

Oil companies have long suspected that the Arctic contained substantial energy resources, and have been spending billions recently to get their hands on tracts for exploration. As melting ice caps have opened up prospects that were once considered too harsh to explore, a race has begun among Arctic nations, including the United States, Russia, and Canada, for control of these resources.

The geological agency’s survey largely vindicates the rising interest. It suggests that most of the yet-to-be found resources are not under the North Pole but much closer to shore, in regions that are not subject to territorial dispute.

“For a variety of reasons, the possibility of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic has become much less hypothetical than it once was,” Donald L. Gautier, the chief geologist for the survey, said during a news conference Wednesday. “Most of the resources are on the continental shelf in areas already under territorial claims.”

The assessment, which took four years, found that the Arctic may hold as much as 90 billion barrels of undiscovered oil reserves, and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This would amount to 13 percent of the world’s total undiscovered oil and about 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas.

At today’s consumption rate of 86 million barrels a day, the potential oil in the Arctic could meet global demand for almost three years. The Arctic’s potential natural gas resources are three times bigger. That equals Russia’s proven gas reserves, which is the world’s largest.

The agency called the Arctic region “the largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on earth.”

The world currently holds 1.24 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves and 6,263 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves.

The survey looked at “undiscovered technically recoverable resources,” defined as resources that can be produced using current technology.

While the findings contain some uncertainty, they confirm a widely held industry belief that the Arctic may be the next frontier for global oil exploration.

Two regions stand out. A third of the yet-to-be discovered oil, or about 30 billion barrels, is off the coast of Alaska. The findings also confirmed the pivotal role of Russia. Nearly two-thirds of the yet-to-be found natural gas resources are in two Russian provinces, the West Siberian Basin and the East Barents Basin, which straddles the territorial waters of Russia and Norway.

Speaking of Alaska, Mr. Gautier said: “It is the most obvious place to look for oil in the North Arctic right now. It is virtually certain that petroleum will be found there.”

Unlike much of the continental shelf off the lower 48 states, the Alaskan coast is generally open to oil exploration. This year, oil companies spent $2.6 billion to acquire leases on government-controlled offshore tracts.

Even as production declines on Alaska’s North Slope, many people believe Alaska could see a revival as oil companies move offshore. Native and environmental groups are fighting some offshore drilling, however.

The geological survey compiled estimates from a variety of sources, including government and privately held data, from Denmark, Greenland, Norway, Russia, the United States and Canada.

[zippyjuan]

"yet to be discovered" means that they still do not know. It is just theory at this point. It would be impossible to estimate how much you have not yet found since obviously you haven't found it. Even the "three year's worth" is not really that much. That assumes that demand does not change in the meantime. It will take years to explore, find, develop and put into production the oil fields and extraction rates will probably not effect global oil prices or production as other areas face falling production. I am not saying we should not go after it- only that it will not have a big impact and certainly will not change the prices we presently pay.

[uncledaddy]

I say "DRILL!"

My SUV needs it. :D

[Airencracken]

I say "DRILL!"

My SUV needs it. :D

People like you are the problem.

Instead of continuing an unsustainable way of life, why not make a few changes and ditch oil forever.

I hope the price of oil stays high, its the only way people will wake up.

[renovation]

even if found there another problem there are not enough plants to refine the oil. building and putting refinery's on line in a safe and controlled manner has always been a larger problem then the drilling for the oil and natural gas.

[lindysd]

I say "DRILL!"

My SUV needs it. :D


I agree! drill.... at least until an affordable, well planned method for getting away from our need for the stuff is found!

[Daedalus]

Developing alternatives to oil almost requires high oil prices. Consider the pace of R&D today vs. that of just 5 years ago. Competing against $130/barrel oil offers a nice payoff for successful ventures that isn't there with $30/barrel oil. No doubt it is very painful for everyone, either directly or indirectly. I often wonder about the scavengers who come through my neighborhood on trash day to pick out cans and bottles for the 5 cent CRV...what % of the money is spent just on gas for their old V8 clunkers? They probably need 100 cans just for the round trip. After that they can start putting food on the table. I leave my scrap metal on top of the bin for them. I once dug out a copper pipe from my yard that was worth about $18 recycled. I even cut it up into short pieces.

IIRC the Middle East is getting around $700B/year income just from the US. They know they have a limited window for securing their future before the oil runs out, because they have no other natural resources, kind of like Japan. They can't even grow enough food to feed themselves. John Mauldin once joked the US and other nations should start OGEC--Organization of Grain Exporting Countries--to control supplies and restore some geo-political balance.

[InfiniteNothing]

Tonight we're going to party like it's -1999E5

[uncledaddy]

People like you are the problem.

Instead of continuing an unsustainable way of life, why not make a few changes and ditch oil forever.

I hope the price of oil stays high, its the only way people will wake up.

And how do you propose I carry my babies around. Maybe people without families don't understand the necessity of such a large vehicle.

Look up my other posts about fuel price, do you actually believe I like paying the high price of fuel. No. But for every hug-a-tree, free to be you and me activist, out there that touts "no more fossil fuel", not one has come up with a single alternative that doesn't cost more than most can handle, (that I've heard of. And E84 ethanol isn't it.)

And for the record, I don't think that we are causing the unfounded, phantom "Global Warming".

I use those stupid overly large curly Q fluorescent bulbs, (I forget the proper name), because I hate high electric bills. I recycle everything recyclable, because I'm charged at the store, I believe in reusing resources, and I hate throwing money down he drain. And I buy those stupid reusable grocery bags, because I think this dumb liberal state that I'm in is going to do away with plastic bags.

See, now you got me rambling irrelevant crap. But I still love ya man. ;)

Also, for the record, I'm with you on the price of oil....then I'll be able to get an Escalade, Denali XL, or even a Hummer H1 or H2. :D

[InfiniteNothing]

To be fair, AC didn't make you have so many kids that you now need an SUV.

Is a minivan an option? Usually they get more MPG.

[Daedalus]

And how do you propose I carry my babies around.

http://www.is-us.co.uk/Pictures/Bicycle-Trailer-4620h.jpg


Duh. ;)

[brainsmile]

I'm one that is opposed to postponing a better solution by accessing more oil. I'd like to see society think long term for a change.

[uncledaddy]

http://www.is-us.co.uk/Pictures/Bicycle-Trailer-4620h.jpg


Duh. ;)

Cute.

[gear02]

I'm one that is opposed to postponing a better solution by accessing more oil. I'd like to see society think long term for a change.

Totally - plus I would love to see it in my lifetime a world where we don't need oil from the middle east. And then those countries like Saudi Arabia who have no other resource but oil will just drown in their misery when they realize they have no other income.

Pipe dream, but something I'm hoping for.

[uncledaddy]

To be fair, AC didn't make you have so many kids that you now need an SUV.

Is a minivan an option? Usually they get more MPG.

Fair enough, but it's only a teenage girl and her two baby sisters. And I'm Uncle, (no actual kids of my own). I, along with their other uncle, take care of them as well as our mother, who is 65 and does not drive anymore. That is the family that I speak of.

A minivan is not an option as I am not a soccer mom, (no offense to anyone who is), and they don't have the power necessary for my towing needs.

I do my part, I schedule appointments together in order to carpool, I run errands on same days, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against alternatives. I think that is a misconception that most have of conservatives. Like lindysd, I think that supplies of oil should be increased to aid in the reduction of fuel costs, and I feel that we should allow drilling in U.S. owned lands to reduce dependence on foreign oils. All until an affordable alternative is developed.

Seriously, all those against fossil fuels don't have a single idea as to what they would do or use to replace it, that could still satisfy our energy needs. Why? And I'm not a brain so I personally haven't the slightest idea except nuclear. But one accident, and OMG!


Sorry guys, not trying to turn this into a political topic. :D

[LPMiller]

there is nothing evil about owning an SUV if you in fact have a large family or something big to tow. SUV's were only a problem when they were status symbols for single marketing guys or whatever.

SUV's aren't the problem, it was always the cheap gas. Picking on people for the car they drive seems silly.

[renovation]

kind of off topic -but i have to GM credit .they did try and keep us americans happy .
GM did try to save the gas guzzler by released e-85 automobiles - now you not only see worst mpg using this fuel. you are also seeing the worlds food supply being hurt . as farmers are seeing it's better to plant soy and feed/fuel corn. then to plant table foods per acre of land.
you also got to give it to GM they were the ones who thought of a great way to keep the American people happy by turning there large cars into Diesel power v-8 . you increase mpg and save money .except they didn't count on the price of diesel going up above the cost of Gasoline. and part of this due to the use of refinerys have to use space to make and store E-85 fuel .

[johnnymk]

Seriously, all those against fossil fuels don't have a single idea as to what they would do or use to replace it.

They believe in magic...or silly things like solar, wind and ethanol.

[cruelpupet]

I dont buy the large family SUV argument.

Im not against SUV's, and as a matter of fact I found it hysterical when a friend was chastised on the street for his. Friends response, was to point out they were retarded and not all NY license plates mean NYC. That some people have mile long driveways to plow and live in the mountains.

Anyway back on topic, an average SUV doesnt hold more people then a large sedan. We have had 6 people fairly comfortably in mom's camry, and Ive never had a problem holding 5 in my passat (mid sized sedan). How many SUV's hold more then 6 people?

[renovation]

Anyway back on topic, an average SUV doesnt hold more people then a large sedan. We have had 6 people fairly comfortably in mom's camry, and Ive never had a problem holding 5 in my passat (mid sized sedan). How many SUV's hold more then 6 people?
this is very true. the big difference i see the ground hight and a little more storage/haul.
i wanted to buy the wife a 2008 Chevy Impala.it had more space inside for people and not much less rear storage space .then the2008 saturn vue we bought.also was 3 grand less and got better MPG. but wife wanted that higher ground feeling she gets off the ground .and easier to get into after a long 12 hour shift. also have to say it been a little soft ride to. we don't haul anything with the car /suv so i can't make a judgment call there. and both would of been front wheel drive. i dont see a reason to buy a 4 wheel drive .never been stuck in snow and if you hit ice your sliding all the same 2 or 4 wheel drive . maybe worst in a 4x4 due to being over confident.

[VTGreg]

I dont buy the large family SUV argument.

Im not against SUV's, and as a matter of fact I found it hysterical when a friend was chastised on the street for his. Friends response, was to point out they were retarded and not all NY license plates mean NYC. That some people have mile long driveways to plow and live in the mountains.

Anyway back on topic, an average SUV doesnt hold more people then a large sedan. We have had 6 people fairly comfortably in mom's camry, and Ive never had a problem holding 5 in my passat (mid sized sedan). How many SUV's hold more then 6 people?

Unless you own a crossover SUV, which actually gets decent gas mileage, most hold at least 7 people these days. I don't think the large family argument is just about fitting 5 or 6 people in a vehicle. It's also about piling 5 or 6 people and luggage and being able to tow something with the vehicle.

I own an SUV that gets decent gas mileage and it is just me and my wife. We don't drive it all that much but the ability to carry 5 or 6 people comfortably and cram all the tailgating gear in there was important and something that a Minivan isn't going to handle.

[mojo]

now if we could all just click our heels together and wish ourselves into a less oil reliant vehicle...

[uncledaddy]

They believe in magic...or silly things like solar, wind and ethanol.

Actually, I meant for automobiles, but since you bring it up, solar and wind technology has also not been perfected enough to completely replace fossil fuels, and the ethanol argument has been had in another thread, (still not perfect).

So these ideas, though alternatives, are not replacements.

[cruelpupet]

Actually, I meant for automobiles, but since you bring it up, solar and wind technology has also not been perfected enough to completely replace fossil fuels, and the ethanol argument has been had in another thread, (still not perfect).

So these ideas, though alternatives, are not replacements.

I think the people who live off grid would disagree.

[chrissy]

Our explorer has a 3rd row seat. We use it quite often - anywhere we take an extra kid and when I was in Vegas the past couple years, I always had scouts in it.

It doesn't have the tow package that I wish it had, but that's okay we don't have the camper I want yet either :D

Donnie wouldn't be caught dead in a minivan. He hates them - looks, the way they drive. And in all honesty, our truck gets just as good gas milage as our Malibu and on long trips, we take it because of the room and comfort.

We thought about getting a new truck a couple weeks back and then realized we were probably replacing the house purchase with the truck so we took a step back :) It was a nice red 2007 Avalanche. With the car still upside down (never buying new again in my life!), it wasn't a good deal.

OMG! Look how bad we would have been! A truck AND an SUV??? :rolleyes:

[uncledaddy]

I carry a minimum of 6, but at times as much as eight or nine plus cargo, (strollers, baby bags, etc. depending on where I'm going), then there's towing, as VT and LP mentioned. Sedans don't work.


We have had 6 people fairly comfortably in mom's camry, and Ive never had a problem holding 5 in my passat (mid sized sedan). How many SUV's hold more then 6 people?

6 in a Camry with one belt per person? Didn't know that Camry had a 6 seater.

Two baby seats side-by-side with a third passenger on a 3 person bench seat is a tight uncomfortable fit in any sedan.

Both GM and Ford have nine passenger full size SUV models with cargo room and roof racks for the big families. Also Land Rovers and most imports can seat 7 with the rear jump seats.

[uncledaddy]

I think the people who live off grid would disagree.

Are these technologies perfected enough to replace on a large scale? Not yet, I believe. Maybe a few thousand homes or so. And I am always hearing stories of problems that they have.

I could be wrong. :shrug:

[cruelpupet]

Are these technologies perfected enough to replace on a large scale? Not yet, I believe. Maybe a few thousand homes or so. And I am always hearing stories of problems that they have.

I could be wrong. :shrug:

Im not sure what problems youve heard about, but many have gone off grid without a problem, and without going to extremes.

Actually theres a good blog about going off grid through popular mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/energy_digital/4204459.html?series=15
and on that link you can get to a more daily version.

As for solar, you dont even need to use it for electricity, you can use it to heat your hot water, or even just preheat your hot water. If you have in floor radiant heating, im sure you could tie that in as well, so you would be heating your home in the winter for free (during the day).

[cruelpupet]

Solar Hot Water options
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850

Instant hot water (more efficient then hot water heaters, and and be used in conjunction with above link)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12820

[johnnymk]

Im not sure what problems youve heard about, but many have gone off grid without a problem, and without going to extremes.


As for solar, you dont even need to use it for electricity, you can use it to heat your hot water, or even just preheat your hot water. If you have in floor radiant heating, im sure you could tie that in as well, so you would be heating your home in the winter for free (during the day).

Do you realize the number of BTUs required to heat a house? I have a 1000 square foot house with radiant heat and live in an area that's probably a shade colder than the rest of the country..maybe about the same. My house has R25 walls, R49 attic with average double pain windows. The house is so tight that I had an audit done years ago and the guy had to get a special fan adapter at the front door to measure the vacuum/pressure. The only heat loss I have is the perimeter of the house where the concrete slab is exposed to the air and the cold earth. And next year I will probably do something about that.

I use approx. 550-600 gallons of oil per year for heating and hot water. The oil burner has an efficiency of 82% which is pretty good for oil systems.

I keep the temperature at 70 degrees, except in the summer which is a tad higher.

I thoroughly investigated this when I first moved into my house which was right after the oil embargo in 1980. I read book after book about solar collectors for heating my hot water. I was going to make my own. But I didn't have the room for the tank and the heat exchanger. And I looked at the losses which would occur during the night and cloudy days. It was way too involved for the pitiful return on investment.

There is no way that a house in my area could be heated with solar water heaters. The amount of collectors, tubing or whatever would have to be so massive that it would cover everything in sight. It may work in a one room house in Georgia, but especially not in an average house in northern climates.

It can definitely be used for heating your hot water, especially in summer. But it involves a lot of hardware and additional space. On demand water heaters are cheaper and easier to install. Of course, they use electric, natural gas or propane.

If I was going to spend my money on an alternative source right now, I would probably consider geothermal. But I am not sure of the maintenance issues and the efficiencies.

People should stop dreaming about alternative methods at the present time until they realize the energy which is available from these sources and the energy required to replace fossil fuels. There is a lot of hype which is being presented by people who don't have a clue about this very hot topic.

[Airencracken]

Actually, I meant for automobiles, but since you bring it up, solar and wind technology has also not been perfected enough to completely replace fossil fuels, and the ethanol argument has been had in another thread, (still not perfect).

So these ideas, though alternatives, are not replacements.

You're kidding right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

SEGS an older solar plant in the Mojave desert produces 354MW from 6.4 km². The Mojave desert covers 57,000 km². Given a very rough calculation that means you could have 3.1528125 Terrawatts of capacity in the Mojave Desert with older solar thermal alone.

According to http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html we only need 35.242 GW here in California right now so we'd only need 1.12% of the theoretical output of the Mojave Desert. That doesn't take wind, hydroelectric, or any of the newer emerging technologies into account.

Now of course that's highly theoretical and my math is q&d, but it doesn't negate the fact that solar power is the real deal. Naturally there are other issues to sort out such as transmission and storage (molten salt is very interesting), but I'm tired of people saying that solar power can't replace fossil fuels.

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

Earth receives 174 PW of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere. 174 Petawatts. That's a lot of energy. Just a fraction of it would satisfy world demand. The only thing holding solar back is effort and money, both of which would be better spent here improving our infrastructure than searching for oil somewhere else.

As for your SUV, I'm fine with you owning an SUV if you actually use it for what its designed for, but I highly doubt that it is an efficient SUV. There are degrees to everything. When I said you were the problem I meant your very short-sighted attitude.

(Edited to correct some of my horrid formatting and love of line breaks)

[uncledaddy]

...As for your SUV, I'm fine with you owning an SUV if you actually use it for what its designed for, but I highly doubt that it is an efficient SUV. There are degrees to everything. When I said you were the problem I meant your very short-sighted attitude.

I honestly, and admittedly have a lot to learn about alternative energy sources. I get frustrated about the argument/debate over the use of fossil fuels because most argue the use because of global warming, or because drilling might kill some three toed, one-eyed slitherback, or something.

I agree with alternatives because of air quality, depletion of resources in the future, etc.

I just think so many bitch about the cost of fuel these days, yet protest increasing supply, or drilling here in the U.S. It just amazes me.

And I do use my SUV for the reasons that I stated, it is efficient enough to suit my needs at the moment, and I am purchasing a larger GM model next month.
And another "for the record", I also own a Nissan P/U which I use if I end up traveling alone, for nothing more than to spend a little less on the fuel.

[johnnymk]

Gee, I can see everyone having to justify their lifestyle.

And then the U.N. getting their hands in the mess as a monitor.

And then the one world government.

[LPMiller]

then cats and dogs, living together! Anarchy!

[uncledaddy]

then cats and dogs, living together! Anarchy!

Ha Ha! Mass hysteria! :hehehmm:

[johnnymk]

I built a small solar collector when I was living at home many years ago. It looks a lot like the design in the Mojave desert. Maybe I should have patented it.

It had a 4" glass tube 3 feet long used in chemical labs. Inside the capped tube was dirty motor oil, used because of the suspended metal particles. Another smaller tube approx. 3/8" diameter was placed in the center of it which carried water to be pumped to wherever. Surrounding the small tube was a series of car oil filter insides (perforated metal). I got a fresnel lens at Edmunds Scientific and focused it on the perforated metal. It heated the water in no time.

I forget why I gave up on the project, but I think it was because I couldn't figure how to make a sun tracking device to keep the fresnel lens focused properly. And I was working an a bunch of other car projects at the time. Plus I think I dropped the whole thing and glass went everywhere. Oh well.

[johnnymk]

Aging Icebreakers Hinder U.S. Oil Exploration Ability

from Newsmax.com email:

As Arctic sea ice recedes, the U.S. and other nations are increasingly eyeing the region as a promising source of natural resources. But America’s ability to exploit those resources could be hampered by its aging and ailing icebreaker fleet.

The U.S. currently has three polar icebreakers. But two of them, the Polar Sea and the Polar Star, have surpassed their intended 30-year service lives, and the Polar Star has been inactive and docked in Seattle for more than two years.

The third icebreaker, the Healy, was commissioned in 2000. But while the Polar Sea and Polar Star can break through ice up to 6 feet thick, the Healy can’t handle ice more than 4 1/2 feet thick, according to the CQ Politics Web site.

Russia, on the other hand, has 20 icebreakers in its fleet, seven of them nuclear-powered. One of those ships can break through ice more than 9 feet thick.

“While U.S. strategic interests in the Arctic region expand, both domestically and internationally, our polar icebreaking capability is at risk,” Thad W. Allen, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, recently told members of Congress.

“I am concerned that we are watching our nation’s domestic and international icebreaking capability decline as reliance on foreign icebreakers grows.”

He also stated in remarks reported by CQ: “We are losing ground in the global competition. Like Russia, Germany, China, Sweden and Canada are all investing and maintaining and expanding their national icebreaking capacity.”

Back in September 2006, a congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council said the U.S. should build two new polar icebreakers to protect its interests in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The report noted that melting sea ice in the Arctic was opening new shipping routes and sparking economic activity, such as exploration for natural resources.

But a new icebreaker would cost between $800 million and $925 million, and would take as long as 10 years to construct, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The stakes are high, however. The U.S. has “billion-dollar, if not trillion-dollar, national interests” in the Arctic, said Mead Treadwell, chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, which advises Congress.

Despite the receding polar ice cap, large areas of the region are still covered by thick ice.

And Treadwell told CQ that tougher operating conditions, due in part to changing wind and weather patterns, “will only make icebreaking capacity more critical.”