Major Oil Discovery in Russia, Drilling Starts in Sept.
MOSCOW -- Swedish oil company Lundin Petroleum announced it has made a major oil discovery in Russia's north Caspian Sea. The discovery was made during exploratory drilling on the Morskaya-1 well on the Lagansky block, which has estimated reserves of more than 800 million barrels of oil.
"This is a world class oil discovery which has confirmed the excellent prospectivity of the Lagansky block," said Ashley Heppenstall, President and CEO of Lundin Petroleum.
Drilling is expected to commence at the end of September, and Lundin Petroleum plans to drill a further two wells in 2009.
MP: That seems like a pretty sensible drilling strategy: a Swedish company make a major discovery of oil in July, and it plans to start drilling in just TWO MONTHS. Compare that to the U.S. strategy - discover major deposits of crude oil in ANWR in 1987, and ban drilling for more than TWO DECADES.
HT: Clover Aguayo
21 Comments:
Makes sense to me; the oil is worth a lot more now than it was 20 years ago.
Wait another 20 years, it might be worth even more :)
I'm mostly kidding.
what price of oil makes it okay to violate the natural environment of Anwar? Is the problem one of economics or religion?
What price makes it ok to violate the other guy's environment? Are you suggesting that environmental controls in the U.S. are less stringent than say Venezuela, Russia, Congo or the Canadian Tar Sands?
It will be interesting to see how many months it will take the Russian government to discover a serious tax or environmental violation. Surely, not 2 months...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/22/cnbp22.xml
"MP: That seems like a pretty sensisble drilling strategy: a Swedish company make a major discovery of oil in July, and it plans to start drilling in just TWO MONTHS."
sounds reasonable. we should expand on that philosophy
"Oil and gas companies should "use or lose" access to the 68 million publicly held acres where they can currently drill but aren't. There's no reason that companies should be able to lock up oil and gas reserves on publicly held land when we've made a choice as a nation to begin extraction in those locations. Let's find a company that will . . . and get on with it. . . "
Free market oil drilling -what's wrong with Bush? by rdan on ANGRY BEAR
What does the number of acres oil companies have access to have to do with anything? You only have to have a "use or lose" system if you restrict drilling to begin with. And, 68 million acres seems like a small area when we have over 12,000 miles of shoreline.
Correct response at angrybear to rdan from FA:
"They already ARE using it, the problem with those like you who continue to push this strawman is that nobody even knows if there is any oil on those 68 million acres. The leases were bought for speculation that there might be oil. The latest statistic I have heard is that 4 in 5 holes drilled there comes up dry."
fred:"The leases were bought for speculation that there might be oil. The latest statistic I have heard is that 4 in 5 holes drilled there comes up dry."
i don't know the answers to these, just asking:
what are the lease terms? can we even change them?
have all acres been explored? if not, how long should we allow them to be locked up without exploration?
with or without oil, how long should they be allowed to be locked up with no drilling?
if they find oil, but are not drilling all they could (waiting for higher prices?), should this be allowed?
should undeveloped leases be re-offered at a certain interval?
"what price of oil makes it okay to violate the natural environment of Anwar?"...
Oh dear! Yet another tree hugging, root kisser whining about despoliation of gaia...
anon @ 3:09 PM that price was passed at least a $120.00 per barrel ago...
Just what do you know about ANWR?
BTW the link has pretty pictures and simple words...
Have you ever been there to appreciate its alledged beauties?
Do you realize the expense the oil companies and wildcatters have to take on with a lease and the HOOPS these people have to jump through?
Hey bobble glad to see you are still quoting your socialist Krugman clone...
Right out of the box your boy, the pant wetting bear gets it wrong: "Oil and gas companies should "use or lose" access to the 68 million publicly held acres where they can currently drill but aren't."...
Its understandable how YOU would turn to someone who doesn't have a clue...
Funny how the pant wetting bear doesn't give any facts or figures to back up his whine...
How about doing some HOMEWORK first?
Apparently Congress has to be instructed with simple words about what's going on...
juandos:"Bobble . . . Its understandable how YOU would turn to someone who doesn't have a clue..."
jeez juandos, get a grip.
from your tone, it seems like you *think* i said "no drilling in ANWR or offshore because there are already x acres leased".
but if you re-read my post and the post i linked to you will note it doesn't say that.
what i'm asking for is that *all possible* drilling is done everywhere in the US. seems like you'd be in favor of that.
i've said many times here that i'm not against drilling, including ANWR and offshore.
LOL, and i'm not antagonistic to big oil. i worked for Chevron for 8 years :o]
btw, thanks for the link. it answered some of my questions.
NOTE that, the cited article quotes 800 million “barrels of oil equivalent” (aka BOE).
BOE is a way of computing the energy equivalence of the oil and natural gas COMBINED!
In our Outer Continental Shelf ALONE, we have 161 BILLION BOE (see the chart). But, Dims keep telling us that is an inconsequential amount that won’t affect anything.
In ANWR, we have 10.4 BILLION barrels of oil and another 8.6 TRILLION cubic feet of Natural Gas and Dims keep telling us that is an inconsequential amount that won’t affect anything.
WHAT MORONS! I am REALLY FED UP WITH THIS IGNORANCE!
Bobble,
Your “Use it or Lose it” charade failed almost a month ago.
MOVE ON!
sbvor:"and Dims keep telling us that is an inconsequential amount that won’t affect anything."
it's not just the dumos telling us that. it's the WHITE HOUSE's own Energy Information Agency:
ANWR
"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only
a small portion of
total world oil
production, and would likely be offset in
part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of
ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a
reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006
dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for
the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil
resource case, relative to the reference case."
offshore
"any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be
insignificant"
note that i am *not* against drilling in ANWR and offshore, i just think we need to realistic about what it will accomplish. it's been politicized beyond recognition by both sides. reflubs seem to think it will solve all our problems, dumos think its worse than useless. the answer is somewhere in between.
"from your tone, it seems like you *think* i said "no drilling in ANWR or offshore because there are already x acres leased"."...
Making it up as you go along, eh bobble?
"i've said many times here that i'm not against drilling, including ANWR and offshore"...
Where in my post did I say you were against drilling bobble?
Is this another attempt to divert attention away from your: ""Oil and gas companies should "use or lose" access to the 68 million publicly held acres where they can currently drill but aren't."...
You apparently can't do any homework either...
I see still you are using outdated data regarding the continental shelf in an attempt to bolster your point of view though...
Do you ever consider the data of people actually doing the work out in the Gulf of Mexico for instance?
Bobble,
As I have told you before:
The EIA is independent from The White House.
Nobody I know of EVER said drilling is the ONLY solution, certainly not me. But, it is undoubtedly a critical component.
All,
I created my own post for this one.
sbvor,
The Russians certainly are too smart by half:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2104
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371853
Will the Swedish company fare any better than BP or Shell?
Anonymous,
Your links look to me like two more reasons to drill here.
One thing I can't seem to find about federal oil leases: if you find oil, do you have the right to drill for it, or can your drilling plan be tied up in lawsuits forever? Leftists are whining that the leases "aren't being used", but how many aren't being used because the selfsame leftists are using the courts to stop it?
"Oil and gas companies should "use or lose" access to the 68 million publicly held acres where they can currently drill but aren't. There's no reason that companies should be able to lock up oil and gas reserves on publicly held land when we've made a choice as a nation to begin extraction in those locations.
Seriously, bobble, this doesn't even begin to make sense. Are you suggesting that Exxon is sitting on top of oil reserves when the price of oil is ~$140 a barrel and they're not drilling, but they're drilling in other places?
I've never understood this unused lease argument. It seems to fall apart after about 20 seconds of thinking. It's the kind of thing designed to provide a soundbite for a dimwitted MSM.
that article about ANWR juandos produced, while being from a conservative publication (and therefore pushing an agenda), was informative. However, I have yet to get that kind of specifics from anyone in my own country who wants to drill. Basically the talking points I seem to hear make it all or nothing, because if drilling more in ANWR was reasonable and non environmentally destructive, perhaps the Bush regime could dig up someone credible *cough cough* or change course and tell the truth for once *cough* and explain to the American people what the deal is.
and I agree with k t cat that the MSM is dimwitted. Can't we have a media that features talking that is neither vapid, nor dishonest, nor retarded on an animal level?
anon @ 10:29 PM says: "The Russians certainly are too smart by half"...
Yes sir, you've said more than you know...
Stalin And Abiotic Oil
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not new or recent. This theory was first enunciated by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951, almost a half century ago, (Kudryavtsev 1951) and has undergone extensive development, refinement, and application since its introduction. There have been more than four thousand articles published in the Soviet scientific journals, and many books, dealing with the modern theory...
hey Blogger juandos
I am not against drilling in ANWR or offshore as long as the people are kept in check and are not creating other problems (ecological )let me say first off before I get my head chopped off. I will also say I am not a democrat before that gets rammed down my throat. However I would like to say that when ever the republicans get to speak all they do is say that the Dems are lying about everything and causing all the problems period end of story. All the Rep are saints and never do anything wrong. Please who is doing all the whining here? Are we to believe that all the photos that the one party shows are lies oh since you showed us these other photos now we all know the truth see the Reps were telling the truth all along and the Dems are lying. Maybe your photos are a crock. Are we to believe because you told us on this blog that Al gore started all these problems (lies) about pollution that none of it is true. Let me tell you long before Al Gore was on this we had pollution problems I had to take classes for emissions testing way before Al Gore was on the seen. And yes I have been to Alaska just got back as a matter of fact. The nice picture you showed of the 2000 acre facility proposal in ANWR was missing one key item. Now that you showed them all where you are drilling and the nice photos of the area south of it. Where will the pipeline go? I suppose its wireless. Will that pipeline fit in that 2000 acre lot also? OOPS forgot about that part who's doing their homework here. I think they did a great job with the Alaskan pipeline and I am not opposed to them doing it again. BUT everything is subject to human error and mechanical breakdowns. Lets not forget Exxon Valdez. I think for realistic purposes we should do this the democratic way and let the public vote. And the first properties that should be explored will be all those who voted for drilling back yards. Then we can move on to other areas afterward. And please accept my apologies for not being sympathetic to the oil companies after all I helped make them very rich even after they lost all that money on NON PRODUCING leases which we still don't know if they explored or not. Oh thats right you said they did so it must be true. By the way how come your links didn't include this one boy was this kept hush hush DISASTER Maybe your HOMEWORK was not as complete as you thought. Lets just say ALL politicians are corrupt *&^%&^%(*& and leave it at that.
Post a Comment
<< Home