[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

SG-W:/ Fw: [energyresources] Re: NCPA: Misconceptions About Drilling in ANWR

      This is from an American oil expert that I respect. The message seemed
interesting and informative enough to pass on. There is a real war going on
between the US EIA and the pessimistic oil experts. I don't really care
whether there are one or 2.4 trillion barrels of oil left because I know
that it will take 30 to 40 years of high spending on energy to partially
replace fossil fuels. Global Warming will be assured  if the number is 2.4.

                                Kermit Schlansker
-----Original Message-----
From: blanchardrd@altavista.com <blanchardrd@altavista.com>
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, November 03, 2001 12:37 PM
Subject: [energyresources] Re: NCPA: Misconceptions About Drilling in ANWR

>  I have been to ANWR and, by American standards, I would in no way be
>considered rich, at least not in financial terms.  Within ANWR I have
>been from the Brooks Range to the coast down the Hula Hula River.
>There was only 1 structure I observed in the refuge, build by natives
>as lodging for hunting trips.  That was located on the coastal plain
>along the Hula Hula River.  The natives live on Barter Island in a
>community called Kaktovik, which is where the military installation is
>(I was there).  Barter Island is approximately 2-5 miles north of
>ANWR.  I'm not aware of any native settlements in ANWR itself.  In
>terms of human impacts within ANWR, up to this point, I would consider
>the coastal plain pristine.  The native cabin was the only obvious
>permanent impact I observed, along with a few short bush plane
>airstrips.  I have repeatedly heard and read that the caribou
>population in the Prudhoe Bay area is larger than before the time
>of oil development in the region.  I would assume that an increase in
>the caribou population is due to a reduction in pedator populations
>but I'm not a wildlife biologist. Grizzlies and wolves don't do well
>around humans.
>  I would consider the 2000 acre figure misleading.  Those 2000 acres
>would be spread over the coastal plain in ANWR and it only includes
>the surface area contacted by any structures dealing with exploration
>and production.
>  I am highly skeptical of any estimates made by the U.S. DOE/EIA.
>They are notorious for estimating high.  To give a few examples, as
>recently as this spring they were projecting that total liquid
>hydrocarbons production (crude oil, condensate, NGL and refinery gain)
>for the United Kindom would peak in 2006 and not decline much to 2020.
> U.K. crude + condensate production, making up ~90% of total liquid
>hydrocarbons production, reached its highest level in 1999 and through
>the first six months of 2001 is down ~400,000 b/d from the 1999
>average (~15% decline).  By 2006, U.K. crude + condensate production
>will be substantial less then it is now.  In the case of Colombia, the
>EIA is projecting that within a few years Colombian total liquid
>hydrocarbons production will exceed 1 mb/d.  They obviously haven't
>been looking at what's going on in Colombia.  Crude + condensate
>production has decreased from ~817,000 b/d in 1999 to ~580,000 b/d
>through the first 6 months of this year.
>  Prudhoe Bay field production reached its highest level in 1987 at
>1.56 mb/d.  This year it will produce ~510,000 b/d so production is
>now about 1/3rd its peak production level.  The Alaska Department of
>Natural Resources is projecting that oil production from presently
>active Alaskan fields, including Northstar which will begin production
>soon, will decline 700,000-800,000 b/d from 2000 to 2020.  I calculate
>significantly less production from the Prudhoe Bay field then they do
>(I'm projecting a decline of 7.5%/year in the future) so I think they
>are optimistic in their production estimate for 2020.  At the end of
>this year the Prudhoe Bay field will have produced 10.3 billion
>barrels oil (bbo).  The Prudhoe Bay field has an EUR of ~12.5 bbo.
>  The argument being put forward for opening ANWR is that it will
>reduce U.S. oil imports.  Proponents are claiming that a production
>level from ANWR will be 1 mb/d.  They are basing that on the highest
>in-place estimate of oil from the USGS.  I consider that optimistic.
>The US DOE/EIA is projecting that U.S. liquid hydrocarbons consumption
>will increase 3.0 mb/d from 2000 to 2010 and another 3.1 mb/d from
>2010 to 2020.  If the EIA is anywhere near the ballpark with their
>projections, U.S. oil imports will increase substantially in coming
>years.  Of course the real reason oil companies want to open ANWR is
>that they stand to make a lot of money.  Geologically ANWR is by far
>the best place left in the U.S. to look for oil of those federal lands
>and water that haven't been opened to oil exploration and development.
>                                         Roger Blanchard
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info