Re: Comparison of ANWR with tar sands and oil shales

>>> "Roger G. Olson" <rogero@saintjoe.edu> 07/01/04 5:35 PM >>>

I'd like to see some comments and analysis from the petroleum, energy,
and
environmental afficiandos regarding the relative environmental from the
proposed exploration and exploitation of the ANWR deposits vis-a-vis
that
is known to be happening the Alberta tar sands and the potential
exploration of CO/WY oil shales.

The ANWR issue is certainly a divisive political one. I've heard much
rhetoric from both political extremes with little of a supporting
factual
nature. But, how would a worse-case environmental scenario in ANWR
compare with stripmining the Green River oil shales, for example. What
would be the best-case scenario for ANWR?

AK:

Although I am not a petrolem geologist like Glenn and Don, what I have
read would pretty much agree with what they wrote in the two previous
replys. A significant point in this discussion is what do you get in
return for the environmental damage that you would incur. The estimates
for extractable oil in ANWR range from 2- 16 billion barrels, with a
likely range of 6-10 bbl. This is about 3 months of the world supply
now. From the standpoint of the companies allowed to extract the
petroleum there are 10 of billions of dollars to be made, but from the
viewpoint of a world citizen, what difference does it make if we extend
the time of when we start having demand exceed supply by a few months or
not. If the economists are right in saying that when the price of oil
goes up we will just find a suitable replacement (and I don't think they
are right), who cares whether this happens in 2010 or 2011, so why drill
in ANWR anyway? In the world's total oil of 2-3 trillion barrels why
should we concern ourselves with about 0.5% of that if it is hard to get
at and negatively affects the environment? On the other hand, if we
really will have problems when oil demand exceeds supply, why not wait
to extract this oil from ANWR when we finally realize how precious it
is? In other words, there is no rational argument for extracting oil
from ANWR today unless you are the one who will make the profits right
now. (Maybe preparing to extract it now because it will take 6-8 years
to get going makes sense, but not for the reasons I hear from many
politicians)

With regard to the oil shale, the question remains of whether we can
extract the oil with any worthwhile net gain of energy. As Steve Smith
pointed out,it takes large amounts of energy to extract the oil from the
shale. From what I have read, there is not yet any method that will
work to economically extract the oil from the shale. This relates to
the hottly debated topic of EROEI--energy returned over energy invested.
 Anything less than 1 is obviously worthless and even processes with an
EROEI only somewhat greater than 1 are questionable. Furthermore, no
price (contrary to what some economists propose), no matter how high
will ever make it possible to obtain a net gain of energy if the amount
of energy produced is less than that energy which is put in (where the
energy input is the same energy from the output, not some thing
renewable like sunlight). In other words, you can not make any money
selling one dollar bills for 95 cents no matter what the volume.

The tar sands on the other hand can apparently can yield some oil
economically, and here the question of environmental damage vs oil
produced has to assessed. As any environmental science textbook will
point out, some of the costs of pollution and loss of resources are
often not factored into the cost of the oil, so we generally
underestimate the true cost of the oil. Whether the oil from the tar
sands is worth the environmental damage pretty much depends on how you
set your priorities and values.
Received on Fri Jul 2 06:55:15 2004