[Hawkcreek]

Has anyone considered saving it for later? Or are we all on the same page wanting to burn it all up as fast as we can?

I believe that is the primary consideration. If oil is cut off from our friendly Arab brothers, it would be wise to have something in reserve.

And the pipeline can be run for many years down to about 300K barrels per day. After that, either more supply will need to be found to fill the pipe or it will have to be "batched", and run down the pipe between pigs.

[Sixstrings]

Has anyone considered saving it for later? Or are we all on the same page wanting to burn it all up as fast as we can?

That's what I've always thought.. what's the rush? ike the push for Florida drilling.. I never understood the idea of "hey the oil is running out let's hurry and dig up every last bit of it."

We should save the offshore oil and ANWR for future centuries, our descendants will still need oil for a few things so why not leave them at least a tiny bit.. hopefully they can extract from the ocean safer than we can now.

[AgentR11]

I've always been of the mind that we burn THEIRS first, then go for ours. I honestly think both political parties are onboard for this; they just play the shell game differently when they are up. Its just a bit of a hard sell to make publicly.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I've always been of the mind that we burn THEIRS first, then go for ours. I honestly think both political parties are onboard for this; they just play the shell game differently when they are up. Its just a bit of a hard sell to make publicly.

Well, that's a nice theory. Two little problems there though:

1). We're bankrupt. Just sending "them" cash instead of producing it ourselves doesn't exactly help jobs or the economy.

2). "Them", at least in the middle east generally hate us so much that we then need to spend lots MORE money on anti-terrorism, since we enrich and strengthen them with the money we spend burning oil. Not exactly a viable long term economic plan.

...

I'd be all for coming up with an intelligent comprehensive energy policy that weans us away from our heavy dependence on oil, but THAT (aside from the usual empty rhetoric) certainly seems to be the furthest thing from any politicians' mouths who expect to be re-elected.

[AgentR11]

We're not bankrupt; we're malevolent. Bankrupt means you can't pay what you owe. What we owe amounts to about 1 large pine tree and some ink. That is if we don't want to just take a scrap of paper, write "10 trillion" on it; sign it, hand it to the Chinese guys and say, "have fun". (which is what they are really terrified that that is exactly what we intend to do.)

As to energy policy?? With the layout of this country? Policy can't trump reality; and reality says, we're using the oil for transport, until its gone.

So nah, we aren't passing on florida & california coastal production because its green, we're doing it because when the Arabs run out, that 5-6 mil bbl/day that we'll still be able to produce is gonna seem huge. If we denominate it with inflated dollars at $10,000 / bbl; so be it. Gonna suck for those that held treasuries when oil was $100 / bbl, no?

In the end, its just a couple tacked on zeros on a piece of paper.

[Tanada]

I firmly believe as we head down the slope of Peak Oil ANWR will be exploited as one of the last places where 'virgin' oil fields can be tapped on land. I think claiming we are 'protecting' it by not exploiting it now with strong environmental laws in place means that when it does get developed out of desperation the environmental damage will be very much higher than it would be today. The recent run up in fracking oil took the pressure off for right now, but when the fracking bump reverses course in the near future certain politicians are going to be desperate because they have been touting all this Saudi America nonsense about America returning to oil exporter status.

The state of Alaska is seeking a summary judgment in its efforts to conduct a 3-D seismic campaign in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Jou ... ploration/

[Tanada]

Nothing like sticking your thumb in the eye of the Loyal Opposition to start the new Congress off in a friendly mood. Much more at the link after the quote.

Alaska’s all-Republican delegation to Congress is accusing President Barack Obama of attacking the economic health of their state by recommending that 12 million acres of land be designated as wilderness area, a move that would make the land off-limits for energy development.

The Department of the Interior and the White House on Sunday announced its proposal to protect a huge chunk of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area about as big as South Carolina that sits in the northeastern region of the state. The administration said only a portion of ANWR is protected, and that officially designating 12.28 million more acres would help protect it for future generations.

But Republicans, who have said it’s possible to drill for oil in ANWR in an environmentally sound way, said the move would be a crushing blow to the state’s economy. They also said it was announced without any significant consultation with Alaska’s representatives.

“What’s coming is a stunning attack on our sovereignty and our ability to develop a strong economy that allows us, our children and our grandchildren to thrive,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R). “It’s clear this administration does not care about us, and sees us as nothing but a territory. The promises made to us at statehood, and since then, mean absolutely nothing to them.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01 ... ent-happy/

[Tanada]

Here is a confirmation from ADN.com , the Anchorage Daily News.

President Barack Obama said Sunday that he planned to ask Congress to declare much of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, including its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, an area on Alaska’s North Slope suspected to contain vast reserves of oil and gas.

The designation would forever prevent exploration and production on the coastal plain, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the idea would be dead on arrival in the Republican-led Congress.

Murkowski and the rest of the state’s congressional delegation, along with Gov. Bill Walker, reacted strongly to the symbolism in the administration’s announcement. In a joint statement, they said the move -- and two other anticipated announcements involving offshore drilling in the Arctic and development in National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska -- amounted to “declaring war on Alaska’s future."

Murkowski, in a Sunday telephone interview from her home in Washington, D.C., called the administration’s moves a “trifecta” with a cumulative impact that could harm Alaska’s economy. Even though the wilderness bid will likely fail in Congress, it will reinvigorate an environmental cause that had slipped from the national consciousness, she said.

Since 1980, when the Arctic refuge was expanded from 9 million acres to 19 million acres by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, there’s been a stalemate over the coastal plain. The 1980 law left the plain in limbo, with congressional action required to open it to development or seal it permanently.

Alaska’s congressional delegation and allies from oil-friendly states have spent decades trying to allow drilling. They’ve been opposed just as strongly by the allies of environmental groups. Democrats and Republicans could be found on either side of the issue over the years, though most of the partisans for opening the refuge have been Republican, while those seeking wilderness protection have mainly been Democrats.

Former Gov. Sean Parnell sued the Interior Department last year, seeking authority for state-run exploration of the coastal plain using three-dimensional seismic methods that avoid actual drilling but still have a physical impact. The Interior Department is fighting the lawsuit, saying the authority to explore the area for development expired in 1987.

http://www.adn.com/article/20150125/obama-plans-block-anwr-development-alaska-leaders-irate

[Tanada]

MD pointed out over on the Alaska Pipeline thread that the real problem with the pipeline is low flow rates.

That being the given nobody has mention ANWR in this political campaign in the USA that I am aware of. However rumor is that Republicans always want to drill ANWR and the Democrats are always opposed.

If HRC wins it is likely no drilling will be going on anytime soon, OTOH if Trump wins and the choice is between drilling ANWR and shutting down the TAPS then drilling will be leased ASAP to keep things working.

Anyone see any faults in this logic?

[PeakOiler]

MD pointed out over on the Alaska Pipeline thread that the real problem with the pipeline is low flow rates.

That being the given nobody has mention ANWR in this political campaign in the USA that I am aware of. However rumor is that Republicans always want to drill ANWR and the Democrats are always opposed.

If HRC wins it is likely no drilling will be going on anytime soon, OTOH if Trump wins and the choice is between drilling ANWR and shutting down the TAPS then drilling will be leased ASAP to keep things working.

Anyone see any faults in this logic?

No. I made the same supposition in the "Declining Production in Alaska" thread many months ago. It's just a matter of time before the ANWR is developed, but not for several more years. Perhaps around 2024-2026?

[Tanada]

Will the TAPS still be functional in 2024 if they wait years to go forward with development, at least on a start up basis? I know the pipe can probably still handle lower flows than it has today, but just building the connection pipes to get new oil from new drilling to the first pumping station will take a year or three. On top of that someone has to get permission to drill, decide to drill on that lease and actually hit oil with that drill that is plentiful enough to be economically exploitable. All of those steps take time, and if all we keep doing is talk about it that time will always be 6-8 years in the future.

IMO as prices rise back up over the next two years it seems likely the USA fracking will get a second wind. That being said however the sweet spots are already being drilled pretty strongly even with low prices today so if oil is back at $80/bbl how much can we really expect from that second wind? While some people are eternal optimists and throw money at any prospect the realty is a lot of those low yield fracked wells were not making money in 2014, which we discussed endlessly around here before the price crash of 2015.

Add in the fact that a lot more people in China and India have cars in 2017-2018 than had cars in 2013-2014 and you have a world structural demand increase.

Saudi Arabia could still change their position at any time and decide higher prices are more important than market share, which could potentially double oil prices within a month or two. Or a new middle east war event could cause serious damage. This dust up between KSA and Yemen has been going on for a pretty fair while now. Wars are messy things, sometimes the enemy will destroy your vital industry as they are being defeated out of spite, like when Saddam ordered the Kuwaiti oil wells blown up in the first Gulf War. No doubt the KSA are doing their best to prevent such a thing, but sometimes the enemy gets lucky.

[Plantagenet]

Alaska Sen. Murkowski (R) will continue to chair the energy committee in the Senate, since the Rs retained the Senate.

Murkowski was just interviewed here in Alaska, and she predicts that the ban on oil leasing in ANWR will be repealed, since we now have an R president and R Senate and R Congress.

Opening up ANWR is a big deal here in Alaska, since the Prudhoe Bay oilfield is way past its peak and the state budget is in a tailspin.

If ANWR is opened up in 2017, then it will take years for oil development to occur there, but the oilco spending in Alaska that we are going to see soon will be very helpful to the Alaskan economy over the next few years until the oil from ANWR starts to flow.

cheers!


ANWR oil will be in the pipeline

[yellowcanoe]

Opening up ANWR is a big deal here in Alaska, since the Prudhoe Bay oilfield is way past its peak and the state budget is in a tailspin.

If ANWR is opened up in 2017, then it will take years for oil development to occur there, but the oilco spending in Alaska that we are going to see soon will be very helpful to the Alaskan economy over the next few years until the oil from ANWR starts to flow.

There is no guarantee that oil in commercial quantities will be found in ANWR. The Kulluk drilled four holes offshore of ANWR in 1992 and 1993 presumably without finding anything of significance.

[Plantagenet]

There is no guarantee that oil in commercial quantities will be found in ANWR.

Of course not. There is no guarantee oil be found anywhere until the prospect gets drilled.

The Ds have blocked oil leasing in ANWR since 1980. Now the Rs control both houses of Congress and the Presidency and the Rs want to open up ANWR.

This means ANWR will almost certainly be opened to oil drilling during the Trump administration. Given the terrible state of the economy in Alaska at the present time, this is a big deal for Alaska.

If oil is found in ANWR, this will also be a big deal the US and its energy picture going forward.

Cheers!

[yellowcanoe]

The Ds have blocked oil leasing in ANWR since 1980.

Just a wild ass guess here, but I suspect that has something to do with the fact that it is a WILDLIFE RESERVE!

[Plantagenet]

The Ds have blocked oil leasing in ANWR since 1980.

Just a wild ass guess here, but I suspect that has something to do with the fact that it is a WILDLIFE RESERVE!

No, thats not it.

It turns out that oil and gas drilling and other such things are permitted in US Wildlife Reserves. For instance in California, there is extensive geothermal drilling and production at the Salton Sea preserve. Oklahoma has oil production from Wildlife refuges. This is the case all across the USA. So why the hang up in Alaska?

In Alaska the 1980 federal ANILCA law was passed that explicitly allows oil drilling in ANWR, but only after Congress and the President approve it. Since 1980 the Ds have blocked Congressional approval, or if the bill got through Congress the president would not sign it and effectively veto it.

This is the first time since 1980 that there has been an R Congress and an R Senate and a R president. That means ANWR will finally be opened up now----and thats a big deal for Alaska and for US energy production.

Cheers!

[Tanada]

From my POV doing it now while ecology protecting laws are still enforced is a far far better choice than waiting until we are far down the slope of Peak Oil and drilling fast and dirty to get the oil ASAP.

[yellowcanoe]

From my POV doing it now while ecology protecting laws are still enforced is a far far better choice than waiting until we are far down the slope of Peak Oil and drilling fast and dirty to get the oil ASAP.

Ok, there is some logic there, and I assume any displaced caribou can go and stay with Plantagenet.

[Plantagenet]

From my POV doing it now while ecology protecting laws are still enforced is a far far better choice than waiting until we are far down the slope of Peak Oil and drilling fast and dirty to get the oil ASAP.

Ok, there is some logic there, and I assume any displaced caribou can go and stay with Plantagenet.

There is an immense caribou herd that migrates annually from the north slope down to the Porcupine River. If you are lucky enough to be on the north slope a the right time, thousands of extremely smelly caribou go by. They mostly ignore people...if you are in a tent they'll just walk right through the campsite. Its the American Seregetti---its spectacular.

The good news is that carefully done oil development doesn't seem to have any effect on them. At Prudhoe Bay there is a similar caribou herd, and the total number of Caribou in that herd has tripled since oil development began. Its possible the oil development protects the caribou since having oil people there and keeping an eye on things essentially stops illegal poaching from the local native villages (which is a big problem). The pipeline also seems to provide some shelter from the wind in a vast treeless plain, and the caribou hang out around the pipeline.

I once flew into Prudhoe Bay. Its pretty astonishing really----you fly for miles and miles and miles across wilderness tundra with absolutely no sign of humans. Then, way up ahead is a little dot. After another half hour or so you come to this tiny speck of white buildings and white pipes in a vast sea of green.


caribou near drilling site in ANWR

[PeakOiler]

Alaska Sen. Murkowski (R) will continue to chair the energy committee in the Senate, since the Rs retained the Senate.

Murkowski was just interviewed here in Alaska, and she predicts that the ban on oil leasing in ANWR will be repealed, since we now have an R president and R Senate and R Congress.

Opening up ANWR is a big deal here in Alaska, since the Prudhoe Bay oilfield is way past its peak and the state budget is in a tailspin.

If ANWR is opened up in 2017, then it will take years for oil development to occur there, but the oilco spending in Alaska that we are going to see soon will be very helpful to the Alaskan economy over the next few years until the oil from ANWR starts to flow.

cheers!


ANWR oil will be in the pipeline

I agree. This is what I expected. The ANWR is the "reserve tank" of the TAPS vehicle. But it won't be cheap oil. By the time the ANWR is developed, I bet the "glut" is history, and the oil price will be sufficient to move forward. And with the export ban repealed (or eased), more of the Alaska oil will reach Asian markets.

Plantagenet: Do you know if Alaska reports oil exports from Valdez from some state government or business website? Or could I get that info from the EIA?