That figure is an estimate of undiscovered oil in the entire arctic circle, including Canada, Greenland and Russia. The total quantity of proven technically recoverable oil within the ANWR assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Source: US Geological Survey High potential for oil shale reserves in the US? Yes. Economically viable and environmentally sound? No.
I linked a site that says more is available than that, but it's moot because this number is not included in the 21 billion barrels we have listed today. You also ignore the OCS which adds quite a bit more to that number. There are more than enough oil resources here that can add a significant quantity to the world market and will effect a price decrease, if our politicians do what the say they will do. Namely develop alternative energy while using affordable oil to bridge the gap. We wait another 10-20 years like we did in the seventies, and eventually there will be no back up. Opinions will always vary on the environmental impact of drilling, so I take that with a grain of salt. As to economics, your own link said that extraction/conversion would be a bit more than $60/barrel. We are over $100/barrel. It is more than affordable and there is an outrageous amount of it here. You may not want to get it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is outside of our ability to refine.
Well thats backing down at bit from your suggestion that there is little envronmental impact. :wink: Dude. Surely you know the difference between what it costs to produce a barrel of oil and it's wholesale price? Getting oil to the surface currently costs under $5 a barrel in Saudi Arabia, with the global average cost certainly under $15. And with technology already well in hand, the cost of sucking oil out of the planet we occupy simply will not rise above roughly $30 a barrel for the next 100 years at least. Source: Wall Street Journal If you imagine that oil costing $60 a barrel to produce is economically viable with oil that costs $5 to $15 a barrel, you are a bit optimistic. If there was ever oil that must wait until the next century before becoming economically viable, it is oil shale. Even then evironmental remediation may be cost prohibitive, oil shale extraction endangers ground water very badly and produces vast amounts of spoil.
Are you choosing to ignore ANWR and OCS estimates now and just want to focus on shale? I said ANWR had 90 billion, you said upwards of 16 billion. I said OCS has 59 billion, and you offered no rebuttal. Are you just going to pretend that these are already counted in our current reserves of 21 billion? Fully aware of the difference in price for production and wholesale price of shale oil. Currently oil companies are enjoying record profits and pricing at over $100/barrel is not a function of production, it's a function of supply. If it was prohibitive to bring shale to market at current market prices, there would be no push for this. Is it nearly as profitable as the OCS or ANWR? No, but still quite doable. This is being blocked on mainly environmental stances, not just economic. As it is, the BLM has just released 350k acres to shale development as of Sept 5th. We will see how hard they make acquisition of leases. Like it or not guys, the people want drilling and the politicians will have to bend or get voted out. Americans won't tolerate prices like this next summer without an effort to extract what we have. The dems know this and are changing their positions.
Well the US Geological Survey (not me) says that 90 billion figure is the estimated entire arctic circle, not ANWR proven reserves which they say is between 5 and 16 billion. Do I have to keep repeating myself? And how is this a response to environmental impact, which you quoted? I have no issues with OCS drilling and did not check your figures, which may be wrong like the ANWR figures or may be correct. I'm all for drilling offshore. Smart, eh? :grin: Americans don't want abortion outlawed either, but the GOP inflexibility on the issue, as on most issues, is part of the problem with allowing them back in power. Democrats are trying to find the middle, which is why I'm going with them this time around.
I will post it again so can check it. It's the Energy Information Administration and they say the OCS has nearly 60 billion barrels. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html The original point of listing the capacity for ANWR and OCS is to disprove your claim that America only has 3% of the world's reserves. That is simply not true. If you use the current figure of legally accessible oil(21 billion barrels) then it is true. I have demonstrated that figure is inaccurate by at least 65-75 billion barrels that we are not allowed to touch and you have not disputed these figures. You continue to go off on tangents and ignore the initial point. We do have significantly more oil and adding it to our supply will bring the price of oil down. Add to that, Canada is likely to increase their production from 2.7 million barrels/day and that will also decrease the price of oil. I missed the memo, did the Republicans outlaw abortion while holding the presidency and congress? And abortion has what to do with the oil discussion or the fact that the dems would not table it until the voters demanded it? Thank God it's an election year or they would continue to ignore it. Don't kid yourself. Democrats look for their side(which is left) while repubs look for theirs(which is right). Very few individuals in congress look for the middle.
Once Again I must point out the difference between an estimate and proven reserves. To quote from the first line of your source: Just like the 90 billion you cite in the arctic circle, the 60 billion you cite in the OCS is an estimate, not proven reserves. To be proven they have to have been drilled sufficiently to calculate the reservoir and it's potential for recoverability, since most of the oil we know about is currently unrecoverable. We can't yet drill in the OCS, so these estimates cannot be proven until we do so. I posted definitions of proven reserves already, I suggest you go back and read them, re-read your sources, and learn to differentiate between and estimate an proven reserves. To reiterate, I understand that there is the potential for lots of oil there, but until they are proven, they are not reserves.
I'm not asking how soon we could get the oil, I'm asking how quickly we could produce the oil once we get to the point of production. How many barrels/day? We could have the most oil in the world, but if we can't produce it at a competitive rate, the price of oil will be set elsewhere and our production will do little to change the cost of gas at the pumps. Well, according to the costs provided by Red, shale is definitely not economical and it is disingenuous for you to suggest it is or that it should be considered with more viable sources of oil. The push for bringing shale to market, I'd think, is more political than economic. It seems most aren't thinking rationally and simply want to to feel like we are trying to make a difference at the pumps.
may be a simplistic question but is it really about price as much as it's about the ability to produce "our" oil and to help ensure a somewhat "ready" supply to help offset middle east unrest and to help bridge to alternative fuels?
I like this argument much more than the argument of price, because I don't see the price of gas changing much because of drilling. Will it be better for the US overall? Probably. I just hope to see the next president proactive in his search for alternatives.
