<A quick review of some current numbers on domestic crude oil stocks and the like The Oil Drum Peak Oil Update - February 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers>
<DrumBeat: February 25, 2007 DrumBeat DrumBeat: February 27, 2007>

136 comments on DrumBeat: February 26, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Bruce Scott on February 26, 2007 - 10:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Just to add to PeakPlus: my point is that a find of 0.3-0.5 GBl is a pin prick and that during earlier times nobody would have made a big deal of such a find.

What these journalists should do if they're at all professional is to put their reports into perspective: tell the readers how small the find is compared to previous years and let them know (1) what the hype threshold would have been back then (say, 1970s) and also, as PP notes, how many days that is in terms of either the world consumption or the US/EU consumption.

Bruce Scott in Duesseldorf

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CO2 on February 26, 2007 - 11:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This hype and lack of basic math skills is also the reason why ANWR oil development continues to make the "addicted to oil" talking heads in Washington salivate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sf on February 26, 2007 - 11:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ANWR is 25 times more than this discovery. That is enough to matter. It is almost inevitable that this area will be developed eventually. But it will be a lot more valuable post peak when we are all driving micro-mini cars or taking public transit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on February 26, 2007 - 12:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ANWR may be or may not be 25 times more than this discovery. As I understand, the SWAGs for ANWR are just that, Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sf on February 26, 2007 - 1:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

There was a test well. That makes the estimate 10 gb better than a SWAG.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on February 26, 2007 - 6:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

one test well 10 gb ??????? roflamo

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on February 26, 2007 - 9:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I also understood that there had been one test well drilled in ANWR, but that the findings were not public.

I did a fairly intensive search of the EIA, though, and could not find any reference to the test well. Instead estimates of oil resources seemed to be based on comparisions of other areas with similar geographical structures.

Does anyone have any more solid data on what we actually know about potential resources in ANWR?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on February 27, 2007 - 8:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

the 10 gb figure is apparently the mid range of usgs estimates, based on very limited information, making lots of assumptions and applying monte carlo simulation.
when i first started learning fortran* the prof had a saying "gigo" (garbage in garbage out)

* that was back in the days when programing was done on punch cards (shortly after we graduated from basic programing - the programs were saved on tickertape)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on February 26, 2007 - 11:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Here are a couple of links on KIC-1 'The only test well drilled in ANWR' with its results still held confidential by Chevron.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn11977.htm
http://anwrnews.blogspot.com/2005/04/aint-it-kic-story-of-anwrs-only-wel...

Like I said, SWAG, unless somebody has news of a more recent, and public, exploratory effort.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HeIsSoFly on February 26, 2007 - 3:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No realistic estimate that I can find goes beyond 7-800 kbd, and many go lower. Which is a lot, but still maxes out at just 3% of US daily use (today's consumption, no growth included).

And it's an optimistic number, and disregards the costs and uncertainties inherent in the operation. Look at what happens at the Sakhalin projects, how the deep freeze differs from normal extraction. Cost predictions double every 2 years, Putin gets angry etc etc.

If, for example, the ANWR oil turns out to be twice as expensive to extract as the oilsands, what will happen? What if the oilsands' oil gets twice as expensive as it is now? Hard to predict, except that the price'll move upward, not down.

All of these estimates are on the "happy"side, but we will be in for some nasty surprises.

What's going to happen to ethanol fuel prices if the cost of corn, or grains in general, quadruples?

Might as well get your investment advice in Vegas.

Oil in the ANWR

Numbers are bandied about by both sides - those for drilling say that there is 30 years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that drilling will enhance the national security and lessen dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile Middle East.) Opponents say that the ANWR will supply less than 3% of US annual oil use, and that the price for drilling this small amount of oil will be the destruction of unspoiled land and the ANWR's flora and fauna.

---------------

The estimates of the technically-recoverable oil (i.e. ignoring the market price) in the 1002 area are as follows: There is a 95% probability of being able to technically recover 4.254 billion barrels of oil, and a 5% probability of recovering 11.8 billion barrels of oil. The mean expected estimate is of being able to technically recover 7.7 billion barrels of oil. Using the graph on the right we see that at an oil price of below $13/barrel no oil is commercially recoverable, while at an oil price of $30/barrel the 95% probability estimate is 3.2 billion barrels of oil, the 5% probability is 10.4 billion barrels of oil, and the mean expected estimate is 6.4 billion barrels of oil. At an oil price of $24/barrel the mean expected estimate comes in at 5.2 billion barrels of oil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sf on February 26, 2007 - 3:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OK, I will buy 7.7 gb as a reasonable estimate. By the time this comes on line, the price will probably be well over $100/barrel. It's hard to imagine the technical/economic problems there being more challenging than deep water oil, or tar sands.
There is no environmental free lunch for oil (except conservation) The potential environmental nightmares for oil shale and stripmined tar sands are probably worse than ANWR. Chronic marine oil spills have a comparable impact.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

136 comments on DrumBeat: February 26, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version