# Alaska oil reserves 90% smaller than predicted. Does this change "Drill baby drill!"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538 "2010-10-27T15:53:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/1 "2010-10-27T15:53:50Z")
An article at CNN notes that new evidence suggests Alaska’s oil reserves are 90% smaller than previously thought. > [@](#): > > The group estimates about 896 million barrels of such oil are in the reserve, about 90 percent less than a 2002 estimate of 10.6 billion barrels. > > SOURCE: [Alaska's untapped oil reserves estimate lowered by about 90 percent - CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/27/alaska.oil.reserves/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher) Does this change anything for US energy policy or is it merely a hiccup that means little in the larger scheme of things? ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/2 "2010-10-27T18:36:57Z")
Just want to say that the construction “90% less” is rather innumerate. I think it might be meant to mean “reserves are but 10% of previous estimates” but there is no telling. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/3 "2010-10-27T18:47:00Z")
No, it changes nothing. This is just propaganda from some scientists with a liberal agenda, why should it change anything? Before you flame me, please note I am only joking… ---
**Author:** ![Baracus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@Baracus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baracus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/4 "2010-10-27T19:23:15Z")
Obviously we need to drill now before even more of the oil disappears. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/5 "2010-10-27T19:25:02Z")
No. The people who say drill baby drill are not the kind of people to let facts get in their way. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/6 "2010-10-27T19:34:24Z")
It can be spun that it is now even more important to develop the off shore reserves, and that the BP disaster should not deter from drill-baby-drill in the Gulf. We will need that oil now more than before … unless we can wean ourselves off of oil some, somehow. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/7 "2010-10-27T19:42:10Z")
> [@Baracus](#): > > Obviously we need to drill now before even more of the oil disappears. It cannot be properly protected unless it is in barrels! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/8 "2010-10-27T20:08:16Z")
We need to drill them over there, so they don’t drill us here. On a serious note, and I’m not really in either camp on this issue, is there a significance that the article talks about “conventional” oil? What about unconventional oil? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/9 "2010-10-27T20:19:05Z")
We collectively agreed to a massive pipeline project and then some politicians drew an arbitrary line in the sand that negated the full utility that infrastructure. What will happen is that the Russians or Canadians will drill in the Arctic and laugh as the tankers sail past the mosquito invested lump of nothing that is the North slope tip of ANWR. We could be slant drilling into a very small section of this area with the stroke of a pen. And by very small I’m talking about fractions of a fraction of land. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/10 "2010-10-27T20:21:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > On a serious note, and I’m not really in either camp on this issue, is there a significance that the article talks about “conventional” oil? What about unconventional oil? It has its charms, but is rarely welcome in polite company. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/11 "2010-10-27T22:12:02Z")
If I’m reading the article right, it turns out that what was previously thought to be areas oil is actually has natural gas instead. Yet the same report also says there is less natural gas than was previously predicted. So, basically, there’s a lot more natural gas than we thought but also it’s less than we thought. Huh? I know it’s possible the previous estimates for both oil and gas were just that wrong, but this article really makes me go ‘WTF?’ Anyway, this won’t have too much effect on drill baby drill. Oil is still there, just not as much as we thought, but still more than enough that some will want to drill it. Personally, I think we should go ahead and use up other nations oil while they still have it and are willing to sell it. If the world transfers to green energy, then fine, we still got oil for the stuff there is no replacement/the replacement is very expensive. If the world doesn’t transfer to green energy, then we got a supply of oil available once it becomes so rare other nations refuse to sell what little they have left. Either way, reserves should be held in reserve until needed, and right now it’s not really needed. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/12 "2010-10-27T22:13:08Z")
Here it is from the horse’s mouth (slightly less dumbed down than CNN), if anyone’s interested: [http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2622&from=rss\_home](http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2622&from=rss_home) The fact sheet and little powerpoint show on this page is also a little more technical: [http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/npra.html](http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/npra.html) ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/13 "2010-10-27T22:18:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We collectively agreed to a massive pipeline project and then some politicians drew an arbitrary line in the sand that negated the full utility that infrastructure. What will happen is that the Russians or Canadians will drill in the Arctic and laugh as the tankers sail past the mosquito invested lump of nothing that is the North slope tip of ANWR. We could be slant drilling into a very small section of this area with the stroke of a pen. And by very small I’m talking about fractions of a fraction of land. Are you saying the Russians and the Canadians are going to drink our milkshake? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/14 "2010-10-27T22:24:20Z")
Somebody else drilled first! Probably Russia! They’re right next door! ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/15 "2010-10-27T22:27:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Somebody else drilled first! Probably Russia! They’re right next door! I don’t believe you! Can you see it from there? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/16 "2010-10-28T00:04:58Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > I don’t believe you! Can you see it from there? No! That proves how sneaky they are! ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/17 "2010-10-28T03:07:42Z")
_They are not and never were talking about reserves_. This is entirely about the amount of _undiscovered resources_. Huge difference. Massive difference. It’s the difference between your current income and your projected future lifetime earnings. One of those figures is important in keeping you alive you right now. The other is really important in helping banks decide how much to lend you but won’t keep you alive today unless you are prepared to risk borrowing against it. The volume of oil reserves in the area continues to increase of reserves, unsurprisingly, since they only become reserves when someone test drills, and the decrease in undiscovered resource estimates results from a massive increase in test drilling. Estimates of undiscovered resources are always tricky because, well, they are undiscovered. It’s a lot of guesswork. Oil often turns up where it wasn’t predicted to be, and it often isn’t where it looked likely to have been, as in this case. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > On a serious note, and I’m not really in either camp on this issue, is there a significance that the article talks about “conventional” oil? What about unconventional oil? “gas that was dissolved in oil came out of solution, forming gas caps and displacing oil downward into poorer quality reservoir rocks.” IOW the oil is still there, it’s just trapped in, presumably, shales. > [@godix](#): > > If I’m reading the article right, it turns out that what was previously thought to be areas oil is actually has natural gas instead. Yet the same report also says there is less natural gas than was previously predicted.So, basically, there’s a lot more natural gas than we thought but also it’s less than we thought. Huh? I know it’s possible the previous estimates for both oil and gas were just that wrong, but this article really makes me go ‘WTF?’ Gas volume is dependent on pressure. “gas present in the subsurface expanded so much that it completely displaced oil from reservoirs”. So, greater areas of gas, less volume at any given pressure. > [@](#): > > Either way, reserves should be held in reserve until needed, and right now it’s not really needed. Define “need”. The economy has tanked, there’s a massively high deficit and a serious balance of payments problem. If things can be brought under control faster by reducing oil imports and stimulating home-grown jobs then its needed. The problem with waiting until the uttermost dire need is that you will never use it until it’s too late because things can always imaginably get worse. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/18 "2010-10-28T03:52:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > _They are not and never were talking about reserves_. This is entirely about the amount of _undiscovered resources_. Huge difference. Massive difference. It’s the difference between your current income and your projected future lifetime earnings. One of those figures is important in keeping you alive you right now. The other is really important in helping banks decide how much to lend you but won’t keep you alive today unless you are prepared to risk borrowing against it. Well, yes, but as I understand it the so-called “drill baby drill” argument is that we could meet our oil needs for some long length of time using domestic supply, and so our long-term energy policy should focus on encouraging more domestic production. That it now appears that a significant amount of the oil we assumed to be in the ground in our biggest domestic oil source isn’t there and/or is not economically recoverable, the prospect of expanding domestic reserves and production becomes more difficult. For that argument, the undiscovered figure is the more important one. Of course, a usual corollary to the “drill baby drill” is that we should be drilling in ANWR as well, and this report does not address those resources (although since the problem with earlier estimates was failing to account for a particular tectonic episode in the rocks’ thermal maturation history, maybe some of that might apply to ANWR). If anything, the fact that the NPR-A fields are going to play out sooner might cause the “DBD” contingent to redouble their efforts towards ANWR. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/19 "2010-10-28T04:31:17Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > Well, yes, but as I understand it the so-called “drill baby drill” argument is that we could meet our oil needs for some long length of time using domestic supply, and so our long-term energy policy should focus on encouraging more domestic production. There’s one reason to drill the oil – because it’s there and we can use it. This reason you reference has always been off because the U.S. burns through over 6 billion barrels of oil a year. That’s over 20 million a day. 15 or 20 billion barrels sounds like a lot, but it wouldn’t do much for the long term unless we dramatically cut down consumption. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538/20 "2010-10-28T04:41:55Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > There’s one reason to drill the oil – because it’s there and we can use it. This reason you reference has always been off because the U.S. burns through over 6 billion barrels of oil a year. That’s over 20 million a day. 15 or 20 billion barrels sounds like a lot, but it wouldn’t do much for the long term unless we dramatically cut down consumption. Well, yeah, that’s kind of what I’m saying. Clearly our current proven reserves won’t last particularly long given our consumption, so the “DBD” argument almost by definition relies on unproved resources. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alaska-oil-reserves-90-smaller-than-predicted-does-this-change-drill-baby-drill/558538.md?page=2)