Hi

This may be an inane question but I'll ask anyway

1/ Is this "Polar Oil" as referenced in this oilwatch monthly feb 2008

2/ If so why is it considered "Unconventional Production"?

Or is "Polar Oil" something completely different?

Thanks

Neven MacEwan B.E. E&E

@Neven911

1) Yes it is Polar oil as referenced in the oilwatch monthly. Arctic production is currently centered around North America

2) It is considered unconventional production because most of the arctic resource that is remaining is very difficult to produce due to the harsh and extremely remote conditions. In terms of the quality of the crude it is not unconventional. It would be best to split out the Arctic resources that can be produced in a reasonable amount of time and those that cannot, but unfortunately this is not possible due to a lack of data.

Rembrandt

Rembrandt

Thanks for that clarification, 'Polar' could have meant other things (some sort of polarised molecule), maybe we should call it Arctic Oil to avoid confusion.

Has anyone considered the amount of engineering that refineries worldwide are going to require to process the increasing proportion of sulfurous sour crude. This could contribute to refined product shortages in the near term from the graphs of declining sweet crude ive seen posted here.

Neven

Jean's reply to Neven911:

There is no consensus on definition of unconventional. My friend Colin puts Arctic in unconventional I don't. Unconventional is supposed to be expensive and difficult to extract. But it is hard to get a good definition. There is no agreed definition on heavy oil.

That is why I use only two simple items for oil :

-crude oil less extra-heavy oil
-rest of liquids to get the all liquids reported by USDOE/EIA

On the coming USGS arctic study I hope that they will not use a black box such as Monte Carlo simulation to get an estimate.