Poptech on June 13, 2008 at 8:00 PM

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE NPRA AND ANWR DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL!?!

If you don’t EFFING believe me… Call The BLM AND USGS and EFFING ASK!

The SITES I GAVE YOU are the CLOSESTS you will COME TO ACTUAL Estimated AMOUNTS.. From the ORINGAL SOURCE!

It is ON the Second LINK I gave you.. LOOK FFS don’t assume you KNOW because you haven’t LOOKED! It is the FIRST paragraph off the Damn Link… I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION earlier and you didn’t look… idiot!

A new USGS assessment concludes that NPRA holds signicantly greater petroleum resources than previously estimated. Technically recoverable, undiscovered oil beneath the Federal part of NPRA likely ranges between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels, with a mean (expected) value of 9.3 billion barrels. An estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of those technically recoverable oil resources is economically recoverable at market prices of $22 to $30 per barrel. Technically recoverable, undiscovered nonassociated natural gas for the same area likely ranges between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet, with a mean (expected) value of 59.7 trillion cubic feet. The economic viability of this gas will depend on the availability of a natural-gas pipeline for transport to market.

Implying I insinuated something through assumption is worse. Don’t state things or imply ANYTHING about what I did not say.

Poptech on June 12, 2008 at 8:17 PM

USGS (as well as BLM) goes off what industry has given to them (as this may or may not be correct) when they do a exploration well. USGS does not drill anymore unless it is for research only. As of right now check the areas that USGS is drilling, Alaska is one and I think WY and MT are the others. Husky Well Services were the Well Service providers (drillers) at that time.

Here is a link for the History of Umiat 2, NPR-A

The reports are many and varied. They also go off the logs (as I have stated) and if has any oil saturation in the sands and in some cases surface pools (As NPRA has some still). But USGS does there on conclusive report via what is given. Such as:

USGS 2002 Petroleum Resource Assesment of the NPRA

The first paragraph States the history of the NPRA (which started as the Naval Petroleum Reserve in WWII) as well as how a field was found (Alpine which is State not Federal and has never been Federal). This link also has has figures and “estimated” volumes.

But the first sentence of the Summary is the best part:

In anticipation of the need for scientific support for policy decisions and because the perspective of the 1980 USGS assessment of NPRA is two decades old, the USGS has completed a new assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources in NPRA.

Which means they have some new data to interlace with the old… but that data is due because they recieved it from industry.

But if you want the “Start” of the figures. You will have to get the NPRA 305 Publications, but you will have to ask for the Naval Petroleum Reserve Alaska.

Or you can get these: Results of Petroleum Exploration in Naval Petroleum Reserve no. 4 and adjuct areas, Alaska Bye George Grycs and R.C. Jenen.

Subsurface Stratigraphic, Structural and Economic Geology, Northern Alaska.

Any publication on NPRA and ANWR are based of these publications. It was the only time that USGS got off their butts and did real petroleum research, which has been now 1940’s – 1960’s (check the publications dates and research dates). The USGS has gotten out of Petroleum research which is not in the hands of BLM and it and only help the BLM with Leasing federal lands.

Now with all of this said. Pops, you may not have said proven as I have looked back. But insinuation is just as bad. Do you want me to prove anything else? I gave you the information in which other base their “findings” since you can not go into ANWR to do geologic research without a special “permit” that has to be approved via FWS.

Hope that helps you and I am done.

1. Please show me where I said the word “proven”. Otherwise stop lying.

2. Please provide me with other estimates AKA actual numbers. If you don’t have them just say so. No need to keep stalling.

TexasJew on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM

TJ you are correct. Most reports and Stats go off the highest degree of probability … not the conservative, or the true numbers.

You can’t reel in the stock holders if you show medium to low gains. It just won’t happen. So everything is inflated or used in different years, gradiant, in some cases pressures… to make it look better.

It is just like buying a house(metaphore). You have a realtor showing you all these nice house, but not telling you the problems associated with them.

upinak, do you always jump to conclusions without reading?

“If you have other estimates please provide them.”

Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Pop, I have given sites on where to go, who to talk to. What to do, how to look. I am not giving yo my ddamn job.

Why don’t you take a gander at it. I am not embarrassing myself… the only one who seems to be embarrassed is you for reading a science news blip. I actually work with cutting, core, logs, the porosity of the sands and quality of the oil here in Alaska. I don’t have to prove a freaking thing.

If you want to take what the USGS, BLM and Dept of Interior as gossple… then do it. I know better as I have worked on many different project. I also do not need you to tell me where to “look” for items when I posted it earlier. I I have explained how the damn “reports” come out for the White House and such because I help create them. Why don’t you take your head out of your butt, the methane must be effecting your brain!

Steve Z on June 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM

I’m currently leasing up in that area, and have been in the field for all of the often-disappointing fracture field booms and boomlets (Austin Chalk, Buda Lime, Barnett Shale, Mississippian Chat, etc.)and have endured the spectacle of nutcase estimations and arm-waving by such entities as the USGS (lovingly known to us oil types as the “Useless GS”).

The fact is, vertical fracture based fields are spotty, and the sweet spots are often drilled first, leaving the chaff to be developed later by sleazy promoters and associated scumbags.

The North Dakota/Montana/ Sask. Williston Basin is certainly remarkable, in many ways, but these Bakken estimates are not to be trusted.

If the USGS says 4.3 billion barrels, cut it by almost 80%. That is still a lot of oil, and there are a number of other targets that mimic the Bakken, often at shallower depths.
These Bakken horizontal wells are expensive beasts, and the initial productions vary widely, from a puny 20 up to a massive 5000 barrels of oil per day (a recent record) per well. Production from these fractured horizontal wells is flush production, and the 5000 BOPD may piddle down by almost 98% within a, 18-month period.

Additionally, it currently costs 3.5 million+ for a fully completed 6000-9000′ horizontal leg off of a 9600′ vertical well, if you can find the iron or peel it away from Hess, EOG and the other big players up there. Ouch.

But dingbat projections using Prudhoe Bay or ANWR-type numbers is both silly and self-defeating. Oil-saturated Alaska massive deltaics can be hundreds of feet thick – almost Kuwaitian (aka “Burgan-ian”) in thickness, and piddly 5-15′ (the normal range) vertical Bakken payzones are, well, piddly payzones.

Let’s not go totally pie-in-the-sky here!

“If you have other estimates please provide them.”

Must be nice to argue from a position where only you can see the data, so sorry if I do not believe what I do not have proof of. I provided my source and you have yet to provide yours. No I am not taking your “opinion” on it.

Another depressing fact is we have only ourselves to blame for allowing the current crop of craptastic congress critters to get in. I cannot blame Bush [so sowwy, liberal losers] as he had the forsight to introduce increased drilling right at the beginning of his presidency. Democrats deemed it more important to keep America weak, and charge Americans for their success. That is why NO person who voted for any democrat has any right to bitch about our current gas prices.

My self inflicted goal is to change that trend by slapping down any clueless voters I come across in person. Such is my battle against ignorance in an effort to save America from itself.

Gas has topped $4 per gallon and what is Congress doing about it? They’re shifting the blame from their decades-long ineptness into the lap of “Big Oil.” Sure, everyone is looking for someone to pin high gas prices on, and the oil i…

Here in the East millions rely on home heating oil for heat and hot water, yet the focus is strictly on gasoline. As surely as winter will arrive the stories are now being written of old people unable to afford fuel oil and frozen to death for lack of heat.
Government has fallen and it can’t get up.

diogenes on June 11, 2008 at 7:35 AM

What is funny about your comment is that you are right and wrong.

Well with that said… and I think you might agree. If millions where you are are using heating fuel, which spins off diesel as well… why is diesel fuel so much higher and the fact that heating fuel/oil is as well when it doesn’t cost all that much to produce it.

Now think about it…………..

Remember that new “low sulfer” diesel that was coming out. Now remember how much heating oil and diesel was about a year and a half ago…. no put the two together and I bet you are going to be one p.o.ed dude!

But Shhh! Don’t tell Congress–even the Democrat Senators from those states are pro-drilling, but out-of-state liberals might start worrying about what might happen to the buffalo. Tell them not to worry–some of the buffalo already end up in the meat section of upscale super-markets, down the aisle from the arugula.

Media ignore OPEC’s control of oil market when covering America’s pain at the pump. They do a considerable amount of research to find the truth, uncensored and unbiased. Why has one side of the debate on domestic oil production been censored?…

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr9834

The oil and gas resource potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska

If anyone knows what potential means, I don’t need to go any further. Pops, it has the potential, but even if it has the potential…. That doesn’t mean it is there.

here is the link for NPRA via USGS:
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/index.jsp?jboEventVo=PubResultView&view=basic&jboEvent=Search&pxfield_all=NPRA

Here is the link for BLM (Bureau of Land Management)
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/npra_oilandgasactivity.html

BTW the NPRA Wells that you see are and will be confidential. You can ask to see these Well Histories and Logs, even under FOIA, but that doesn’t mean you will see them!

You link also cracks me up. As you keep saying that it is PROVEN, this paragraph from your link says it all:

ScienceDaily (Jun. 22, 2005) — Reston, VA — A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the central part of the Alaska North Slope and the adjacent state offshore area finds that there is a significant amount of oil and a large amount of gas that remains to be discovered. The assessment estimates that there are 4.0 billion barrels of oil (BBO), 37.5 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas, and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids that are undiscovered and technically recoverable. Technically recoverable resources are the amount of petroleum that may be recovered using current technology.

Pops, FYI. You can’t PROVE anything until you actually DO something.

Have a great day! :)

Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 1:02 AM

Pop I really don’t think you understand “confidentiality cluases”.

Have a nice day :)

So why does Europe have to be our model for everything? Are we not still a sovereign nation, able to determine our own path? Europe can go **** up a rope.

abcurtis on June 10, 2008 at 7:19 AM

Not sure if you were directing this at me. But I was talking to a bayam who is infatuated with alternative/green energy.

As I think it is neat it doesn’t mean it would work here.

Thanks for linking the petition. I just signed it and will forward it to some family and friends.

On it, I listed myself as an independent. The Republicans need to see that they’re losing support if they don’t get onto this issue yesterday in a way that can’t be ignored by the MSM. Writing press releases and holding press conferences aren’t enough; the Republicans, in order to get their message covered, have to MAKE news, not suggest it! I’m not suggesting that they break the law, but it would have been awesome had one of those nutjobs climbing the NYT tower unfurled a banner saying something like:
Geologists: We have 60 years of oil supply here.
Engineers: We can get it with no environmental harm.
Republicans: Let’s get it and ease gas prices.
Democrats: They’re hopelessly wrong, and you have too much money.

Where’s the downside?

darwin-t on June 10, 2008 at 10:17 PM

There isn’t any downside to your arguments.

Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer (EIA)

48.9% Coal
20.0% Natural Gas
19.3% Nuclear
7.11% Hydroelectric
1.58% Petroleum

New USGS Oil & Gas Assessment Of Central North Slope, Alaska

“The central North Slope contains most of the commercial oil fields and virtually all of the petroleum-producing infrastructure and pipelines in northern Alaska, including the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. To date, 15 billion barrels of oil have been produced from this area, and remaining reserves include 7 BBO of oil… USGS estimates that there are 4.0 BBO of oil resources that remain to be discovered, most in the northern part of the assessment area. For comparison, recent USGS estimates of undiscovered oil in adjacent areas include 10.6 BBO in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and 10.4 BBO in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 area. Most undiscovered oil accumulations in the central North Slope assessment area are expected to be relatively small in comparison to those already discovered. [...]

The assessment was based on a comprehensive review of all available geological, geophysical, and geochemical evidence; including hydrocarbon source rocks, reservoir rocks, and traps. The minimum accumulation sizes considered in this assessment are 5 million barrels of technically recoverable oil”

4.0 BBO + 7.0 BBO + 10.4 BBO + 10.6 BBO = 32 BBO in Alaska

If you have other estimates please provide them. You mention drilling from the 50s and 60s, well can you confirm the current USGS report is using this same information? You made no case for this and failed to post and contradictory evidence.

IF the U.S. Congress ever got off their dead butts and said we were going to go all out drilling, which would flood the market in a few years, two possibilities come to mind:

1. The prices would drop greatly in anticipation of the much greater demand

B. OPEC, etc would drop the price so low that it would be uneconomical for American companies to drill in the areas we are talking about.

Where’s the downside?

I agree with you, just the reality of a bill being proposed should knock the price down.
techno_barbarian on June 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Not only that, but the speculators will shift some of their money that is driving prices even higher into drill bit, pipe, uranium and coal futures, instead of putting all their money into gasoline. ;-D