Toolbox
  • User rankingRating: 4.2
  • Add to favoritesBookmark
  • Save as PDFSave as PDF
  • PrintPrint
  • EmailEmail
  • Blog ItBlog It
  • Stumble ItStumble It!
Digg It Reddit del.icio.us Save to Yahoo! bookmarks Save to Windows live Share on facebook Save to MySpace Slashdot it science news feed Add to google
- size +

Arctic 'holds 90bln barrels of oil, mostly offshore'

The town Novy Urengoi just below the arctic circle. Within the Arctic circle there are 90 billion barrels of oil and vast quantities of natural gas waiting to be tapped most of it offshore the government-run US Geological Survey has said.
The town Novy Urengoi just below the arctic circle. Within the Arctic circle there are 90 billion barrels of oil and vast quantities of natural gas waiting to be tapped, most of it offshore, the government-run US Geological Survey has said.

Within the Arctic circle there are 90 billion barrels of oil and vast quantities of natural gas waiting to be tapped, most of it offshore, the government-run US Geological Survey said.
The top of the world, shared by half a dozen countries including the US, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Greenland, holds an estimated 90 billion barrels of crude, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of gas and 44 million barrels of natural gas liquids, the USGS said in a report.

Eighty-four percent of that potential energy resources is expected to lie offshore, said the report, which comes a week after the US government lifted a 17-year ban on offshore drilling hoping to ease a spiraling fuel price crisis.

"The resources account for about 22 percent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in the world," the USGS said, meaning the estimated volume is not added to the world's known recoverable resources.

The Arctic estimate, said USGS geologist Donald Gautier, includes some degree of uncertainty.

Broken down, the Arctic energy reserves would account for about 13 percent of the undiscovered oil, 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent of the undiscovered natural gas liquids in the world, the report said.

The majority of the undiscovered 90 billion barrels of crude oil, USGS experts estimate, are lying in Alaska, where 30 billion are hiding, Russia's Barents Basins, East and West Greenland and East Canada.

"The Alaska platform really looms as the most obvious place to look for oil in the Arctic right now," said Gautier.

Some 40 billion barrels of oil and 1,100 trillion cubic feet of gas have already been found in the Arctic region.

By comparison, US oil reserves stand at 22 billion barrels, and its production level at 1.6 billion barrels per year.

Across the world, proven oil reserves stand at a record 1.24 trillion barrels. Production is stable but consumption -- some 30 billion barrels per year -- is on the rise.

The natural gas the Arctic region is estimated to hold, 1,670 trillion cubic feet, is potentially a more important find since it would represent nearly one third of all the undiscovered gas reserves in the world.

Most of the untapped gas reserves in the Arctic region (70 percent) lie in the West Siberian Basin and East Barents Basin, in Russia, and Arctic Alaska, the USGS said.

One cubic foot equals 0.028 cubic meters.

© 2008 AFP
» Next Article in Space & Earth science - Earth Sciences: Russian scientists begin trial exploration of world's deepest lake

would you recommend this story?

 

User Rating

4.2 out of 5 after 17 total votes
  • not at all
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • highly

Leave a Comment or

Rank filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.
Posted by deatopmg 07/24/08 16:53
Rank: 2.14/5 after 7 votes
This is a report on possible NEW reserves. How much is in KNOWN reserves but kept secret for 30 plus years at the "request" of our gov't????

There are good reasons to believe many MANY times the reported 90E9 barrels and 1.7E15 ft^3.

There are also good reasons why the gov't can't allow that information to get out.
Posted by googleplex 07/24/08 17:08
Rank: 1.86/5 after 7 votes
There is plenty of oil. The issue is that supply is very inflexible.
When an oil field is discoverd it can take 10 years to implement the infrastructure before oil flows and front money of magnitude US$10bn.
Who is willing to put up that kind of money against a 10year risk of swings in the oil price. All it takes is low cost solar cells to be invented and oil drops.
So when oil demand exceeds on-line supply the price is shocked. Which is where we are today. The term peak oil is a useless concept. The no-brainer solution is to turn on the crude well heads in Iraq. Which for some reason has not been done yet. In fact the pipeline to Turkey cannot maintain regular flows due to sabotage. Futhermore Iraq imports gasoline even though it has one of the largest and the cheapest oil reserves in the world.
Posted by zevkirsh 07/24/08 20:42
Rank: 3.5/5 after 6 votes
...oil is not oil. some is rich low sulfur crude lying is high pressure deposits close underneath the surface rock, and some is stuck under the arctic and is almost impossible to extract. if someone told you there is an unlimited supply of oil on the moon , would we go and get it? No , because it would still be cost ineffective to get it. we'd spend more than one barrel of oil trying to get a barrel of oil from the moon to here. much more. and it doesn't mean it couldn't be done or we wouldn't try to do it at some point, it just means there are better alternatives right now and it's dumb to go there and do that. doing it, would only lead to a more regressive system and is a last resort if there are no options that are better. developing the arctic now, would be tapping the real strategic petroleum reserve; that is the arctic. How about we just focus on getting iraqi oil out of the ground and lowering our consumption at the same time. ( and maybe even develop nuclear energy! ) it is far too early to be looking there..to the arctic. i feel the president should promise a full 100% opening of the arctic in 2033 but 0 access any earlier--no one at all ...no one to go to the arctic for oil or any other ground mineral or petroleum product. that is the compromise we can make. people could live with that.

if progress on fission/fusion/wind/solar/energy storage/superconducting/hydrogen etc.... occurs as hoped....then it won't be very profitable to get that oil and it will just be forgotten about. if not, then by 2033 we'll need to get it anyway and have no choice. lets go for the 2033 plan!

Posted by raythemoneyman 07/24/08 23:42
Rank: 1.33/5 after 3 votes
We may need to go to the moon to get it if countries like Russia and Mexico can't at least keep up production somewhere near current levels. Between the two of them we will loose 12% this year alone. Thank god the U.S. and Chinese economies have slowed.

http://www.thealt...spot.com
Posted by bobwinners 07/25/08 00:09
Rank: 4/5 after 4 votes
I agree with zev, to a point. The arctic will be developed. Who does it is the question. Currently, the Russians have plenty of oil to sell on the world market. The Canadians might permit development off their coast, but they are pushing oil shale development right now and it might not make good economic sense to go after Arctic oil now. Who else has claims up there and the economic where-with-all to pursue them?
There will always be a demand for oil. It is the feed stock for so many industries even leaving out transportation.
I really hope that the US makes a concerted effort to move transportation to electric energy and develops all of the potential clean alternatives to produce those dancing electrons. I think that is in the country's best long term interests.
Posted by holoman 07/25/08 00:22
Rank: 3/5 after 7 votes
Space Based Solar Energy will start to enter the world market in the next ten years.

http://www.p2pnet...ry/16477

If there is 90 bln barrels and we use 30 bln a year and growing at 30% then this is just a 3 year supply. The planet will not be able to survive or oil companies to refine and drill fast enough.

We need a new energy source for the future.

Posted by jeffsaunders 07/25/08 00:56
Rank: 3.2/5 after 5 votes
I agree with holoman. 90 bln barrels is not all that much when we are using 30 bln barrels a year.

Takes years to drill extract etc and if this is 22% of the total undiscovered but recoverable oil then it is no where near enough to think of as an important find.

Adding these numbers we have 15 years supply at todays consumption level in undiscovered but technically recoverable oil.

That is, including the arctic account. I think that pretty much tells us that we better start getting on with the job of fast streaming alternates or by the time we drill this stuff we will be paying $130 a litre instead of $130 a barrel.
Posted by out7x 07/25/08 01:41
Rank: 3.67/5 after 9 votes
oil shale in utah holds 300 billion barrels and is economic and $40/bbl.

East Siberian basins are largely unexplored.
Posted by Egnite 07/25/08 09:12
Rank: 2.5/5 after 8 votes
Oil is so 1900's, time to move on and get over this pathetic addiction to it.
Posted by PaddyL 07/25/08 15:04
Rank: 5/5 after 5 votes
Several commentators insist that development of a new oil field takes 10 years. This is misleading. The time until oil flows depends upon the distance a field is from existing transport infrastructure.

For example, oil can be produce from the capped wells and new drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel in one year. ANWR is less than 10 years because of its location to North Slope infrastructure. So too with development in the Gulf of Mexico.

Beaming solar microwave energy from space cannot occur in commercial quantities in 10 years. The technology and infrastructure to do so has not been invented or designed yet.

Petroleum and coal will continue to be the primary fuels to generate electricity and for transportation for decades to come due to cost benefits. Nuclear power will also contribute a major portion. The so-called renewable sources will remain a minor contributer now that the public is beginning to understand that the message from climate alarmists and environmentalists is phony, fraudulent, and dangerous.

Posted by GrayMouser 07/26/08 21:27
Rank: 5/5 after 5 votes
I saw the idea of space based microwave energy proposed in the early 1970s.

The arguments used against it then would be used against it now. Considering the worry about power lines and cell phones causing cancer I would expect the protests to be even louder.

I would also expect the global warming crowd to come out against it based on the absorption of microwave energy by the atmosphere.

This is a zero sum game. You can't win.
Posted by googleplex 07/29/08 13:34
Not rated yet.
...Santa Barbara Channel...

I am talking in terms of global oil terms. These small insignificant pockets in environmental areas have zero impact on oil price.
Meanwhile you have one of the worlds largest proven reserves of low cost premium sweet oil ooozing out of the ground in Iraq. By all means open up the environment and we should use up our hydrocarbon solar battery as long as it is cost effective to do so.
But keep in mind the root source for all energy on earth is/was nuclear.