Arctic oil: even the money men can't do the maths

Posted by ben - 27 January 2011 at 12:57pm - Comments
Cairn's tugs drag icebergs out the way of its Arctic oil drilling rig
All rights reserved. Credit: Will Rose / Greenpeace
Cairn's tugs drag icebergs out the way of its Arctic oil drilling rig

An interesting article was published recently in the German newspaper Der Spiegel, examining the costs of oil extraction in the Arctic. The region, increasingly seen by the oil industry as the Promised Land, could hold significant amounts of hydrocarbons. The US Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in the past that the entire Arctic region could contain nearly 90 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (see inset).

Whilst the assumption from the oil majors has long been that it could get its hands on almost all of this oil, the Spiegel article has unearthed interim findings from a new USGS research report which questions the fundamental economic feasibility of extraction, suggesting that even if you ignored the enormous risks to the environment and global climate that drilling for Arctic oil poses, the costs of getting oil from the region would probably be prohibitively expensive.

The USGS team of geologists examined how much it would cost to look for oil in the East Greenland Rift Basins, which is suspected of housing around 7.5bn barrels of oil (noting however that statistically the chances of finding this much oil there is as high as finding absolutely nothing). The report concludes that even if oil was worth $100 a barrel (1 barrel of crude today sells at about $86), only 2.5bn barrels of oil could be commercially extracted. And only then with a 50% probability of success. Even if oil was selling for a fantastical $300 a barrel only 4.1bn barrels could be extracted, and again with only a 50% chance of success. And that $300 would just cover the cost of getting it out of the ground – without the oil company paying tax on it or making a profit.

Even accepting a degree of caution with respect to the modelling used by the USGS, this suggests that only a tiny amount of the oil that lies locked away under the high north is really likely to be exploitable. So why take such an expensive gamble?

This is a very good question, especially as Cairn Energy today confirmed it plans to drill up to 4 exploratory wells off Greenland this summer, subject to the green light from the oil-friendly government. It’s keeping its options open about where precisely the drilling will take place, maintaining up to 12 sites as potential wells, and also planning on doing 3D seismic surveys in 5 areas, probably in the significant prospecting blocks it owns off the east coast. Cairn continues to claim its operations will be safe and it has a “comprehensive” oil spill response plan, a now semi-legendary tome seen by no one outside of Cairn or the Greenlandic Bureau of Minerals and Management. Given the company was forced to write off the $185m it wasted on drilling 4 dry wells there last year and the enormous costs it would presumably incur dealing with a major oil spill, the USGS report is surely further reason why it’s time we all started to go beyond oil.

i think it is a great idea but we need to look after the last remaing oil and gas

can we stop using green peace to bully people

Yah grow up

i dont get the title please explain :/

 

Maybe the industry of oil think they can exploit this oil cheaper in the future ! Don't you think ?

hey dominatrices
oh cartes anniversaire
waou rencontre musulmane

Catie, I think the title is showing how the oil-searchers are looking for oil which, even if found, would cost more to get than money received from selling.

Personally, I think the Arctic is one of our last true wildernesses and such exploitation should be stopped. One thing I always wonder is who owns the Arctic? Certainly the oil reserves, if found, would Denmark be the owner (if found on Greenland)? And should we not conserve what we have left?

I agree, the Arctic is one is our last true wildernesses and very fragil place. If there was to be another oil spill like in the gulf then the damage would be massive and some speceis may become extinct due to the damage caused by the oil spill.

Honestly, we can fuel our cars on water/gas/oil...its the motor industries that keep the use of oil alive as it would cost them billions (ford in particular) to suddenly start making only gas/water powered cars and they would rather risk the financial loss as long term it's cheaper for them. (Along with all the billionaires from arabia that have invested in the industry too) Its hard for them to pull out using oil...greed..simple as I'm sad to say.

Cairn Energy would still make a $107.25bn profit at $86 a barrel in the East Greenland Rift Basins. That's with 2.5 bn barrels of oil extracted with a 50% probability of success. The problem is the devastation an oil spill would cause there, which no one wants to think about.

When will these companies realise the true cost of oil? As it says above it is a massive gamble the risk is not just money but what about the loss of a species and habitats.

Yes, Lynday,

The true cost in the event of an oil spill would be to the environment, of which we are a part.

Yes, every species of life in the arctic deserves preserving, like in a marine reserve if their numbers are dwindling.

Scraping the bottom of the global barrel. We are in the high cost/ high risk territory, with little prospect of good returns. But there are always subsidies so that the people pay for a aging technology that they don't want because it soils the futures of their children.

Casper the friendly ghost go die u know nothing about oil. Oil is honreal u dirty black man Up th Ra Up the Oil!

I never want to own a car again, and it depresses me that most people I know see having a car a basic human right instead of the luxury it is! Come on Wind and Water power!!!

Follow Greenpeace UK