while the media continues to focus on nonsense and DJT continues to troll/drive that focus, common sense topics are being reviewed....

#deflectandconquer

http://www.oann.com/interior-dept-takes-...c-reserve/

Quote:The Trump Administration takes it’s first step towards opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for drilling.

Reports released Friday suggest Interior Department Officials are seeking to revise a 30-year-old regulation that currently prohibits seismic studies in the area.

Authorities estimate as much as nine billion dollar barrels of recoverable oil lay beneath the 19 million acres of the reserve’s surface.

If the rule is finalized then companies would be able to bid on conducting seismic studies in the area.

However, only congress has the power to permit drilling in the wildlife reserve.

Well global warming is already killing all the animals, so we might as well drill.
















Ok, that's just a bit of sarcasm.

(09-18-2017 07:05 AM)Crackerjackprize Wrote:  Well global warming is already killing all the animals, so we might as well drill.
















Ok, that's just a bit of sarcasm.

at least the 'huggers' will be able to keep manufacturing these guys.....

Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

(09-18-2017 06:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  while the media continues to focus on nonsense and DJT continues to troll/drive that focus, common sense topics are being reviewed....

#deflectandconquer

http://www.oann.com/interior-dept-takes-...c-reserve/

Quote:The Trump Administration takes it’s first step towards opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for drilling.

Reports released Friday suggest Interior Department Officials are seeking to revise a 30-year-old regulation that currently prohibits seismic studies in the area.

Authorities estimate as much as nine billion dollar barrels of recoverable oil lay beneath the 19 million acres of the reserve’s surface.

If the rule is finalized then companies would be able to bid on conducting seismic studies in the area.

However, only congress has the power to permit drilling in the wildlife reserve.

I'd favor opening up Anwar to exploration and eventual drilling so long as that footprint is as minimal as the "experts" suggest it would be.

But, your overall post does point to something larger.

There is stuff getting done, and some of it not insignificant.

Let the lefty lunatics focus on Melanias shoes and Trumps hats, meanwhile...

(09-18-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

Open question, certainly to you if you know, or to anyone that has some exp./background in this stuff.

If they were to approve the exploration part of things, say tomorrow. Wouldn't it still likely be a half decade or more before oil started to flow in any real capacity? At least?

I'd guess closer to 10 years, the staging and build-out would be pretty massive, I would guess.

(09-18-2017 02:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

Open question, certainly to you if you know, or to anyone that has some exp./background in this stuff.
If they were to approve the exploration part of things, say tomorrow. Wouldn't it still likely be a half decade or more before oil started to flow in any real capacity? At least?
I'd guess closer to 10 years, the staging and build-out would be pretty massive, I would guess.

Probably reasonably accurate. At this point, the footprint would actually be pretty small, with directional drilling and such, and some of the Alyeska infrastructure could probably be used to get it out. But you're still looking at pretty significant lead time.

(09-18-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

All I can see from reading the WaPo article is that the only thing being planned is seismic surveys. That seems like a good idea*. They're non-intrusive and would give an updated look at the potential reserve volume. That's a pretty good thing to have in your back pocket. Expending the resources to conduct these surveys comes with an expectation of a return on investment, but energy companies are usually pretty good at playing the long game...


*I've read that denning polar bears may be disturbed by the vibrations. Not sure how that manifests, so I suppose my caveat is "as long as this doesn't kill any polar bears".

(09-18-2017 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

Open question, certainly to you if you know, or to anyone that has some exp./background in this stuff.
If they were to approve the exploration part of things, say tomorrow. Wouldn't it still likely be a half decade or more before oil started to flow in any real capacity? At least?
I'd guess closer to 10 years, the staging and build-out would be pretty massive, I would guess.

Probably reasonably accurate. At this point, the footprint would actually be pretty small, with directional drilling and such, and some of the Alyeska infrastructure could probably be used to get it out. But you're still looking at pretty significant lead time.

Yea, I was thinking more about the delivery of the stuff once it's out of the ground. My limited understanding/knowledge is that yes, the foot print for the drilling itself will be small, especially relative to the enormous area up there, but it still needs to sent or hauled somewhere. I could see that taking a pretty long time, especially when you factor in all the inevitable long, drawn out lawsuits...

(09-18-2017 04:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

Open question, certainly to you if you know, or to anyone that has some exp./background in this stuff.
If they were to approve the exploration part of things, say tomorrow. Wouldn't it still likely be a half decade or more before oil started to flow in any real capacity? At least?
I'd guess closer to 10 years, the staging and build-out would be pretty massive, I would guess.

Probably reasonably accurate. At this point, the footprint would actually be pretty small, with directional drilling and such, and some of the Alyeska infrastructure could probably be used to get it out. But you're still looking at pretty significant lead time.

Yea, I was thinking more about the delivery of the stuff once it's out of the ground. My limited understanding/knowledge is that yes, the foot print for the drilling itself will be small, especially relative to the enormous area up there, but it still needs to sent or hauled somewhere. I could see that taking a pretty long time, especially when you factor in all the inevitable long, drawn out lawsuits...

Actually, if you look at the map, it's not that far to Prudhoe Bay or the route of the Alaska pipeline. You just need to get it over to there, then hook up and go. So to clarify my earlier comment, you could actually use most of the Alyeska infrastructure.

https://enerknol.com/wp-content/uploads/...oe-Bay.gif

I'd say do the G&G, get a pretty good idea of what's there, but hold off drilling for now. Because you can use Alyeska to get it out, the delay from drilling to production could be shorter than normal.

Make a decent assessment of what's actually there, and make long range plans to use it when the cost-benefit calculation is optimum.

(09-18-2017 04:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 04:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not a fan of drilling in the ANWR--at least not yet. I think to would be a useful chip to keep in our hip pocket for now. Plus, I think that our ability to protect the environment will grow over time. For those reasons ANWR makes more sense to me later rather than sooner.

Open question, certainly to you if you know, or to anyone that has some exp./background in this stuff.
If they were to approve the exploration part of things, say tomorrow. Wouldn't it still likely be a half decade or more before oil started to flow in any real capacity? At least?
I'd guess closer to 10 years, the staging and build-out would be pretty massive, I would guess.

Probably reasonably accurate. At this point, the footprint would actually be pretty small, with directional drilling and such, and some of the Alyeska infrastructure could probably be used to get it out. But you're still looking at pretty significant lead time.

Yea, I was thinking more about the delivery of the stuff once it's out of the ground. My limited understanding/knowledge is that yes, the foot print for the drilling itself will be small, especially relative to the enormous area up there, but it still needs to sent or hauled somewhere. I could see that taking a pretty long time, especially when you factor in all the inevitable long, drawn out lawsuits...

Actually, if you look at the map, it's not that far to Prudhoe Bay or the route of the Alaska pipeline. You just need to get it over to there, then hook up and go. So to clarify my earlier comment, you could actually use most of the Alyeska infrastructure.

https://enerknol.com/wp-content/uploads/...oe-Bay.gif

Hunh. For some reason I thought this was going to likely go all the way West. Didn't realize the Trans-Alaska pipe went north-south across the entire State, course that may explain why it's called "Trans" Alaska


I think I was mixing it up with the last go around with exploration and pipelines, the Canada deal.

Thanks for the map, big help.

thanks guys for all the "due"!

and JMU, as usual, you figured out the add-on in relative importance....