wrote:
I have been somewhat following this discussion and as to the "proven
reserve" why would anyone putting out the money for what exploration
has been done want to freely share this with their competitors and a
bunch of so called experts that could not count their family jewls
twice and come up with the same answer. Oops we forgot to measure the
output, Duh, if you want to know put your money where your mouth is.

If an oil company wants to attract investors it has to
demonstrate that it actually does have a future in oil
production. That is to say, the investors want to see
proven reserves, and the more the better.

But what you suggest is *very* true of data from seismic
work and other collection/analysis by geologists, which
is used to suggest where exploration wells should be
drilled; however, all of that is kept secret so that a
company can bid on leases that allow them to drill.

Once they are at the drilling stage there are very few
instances where secrecy is either useful or even
allowed. Nobody drilling on a State lease from Alaska
is able to keep the well data secret. The only time it
would be useful is when no other leases have been sold
in a particular area. Hence one shot wildcat
operations, generally not on State land, are the kind
that might be kept secret.

Note that this discussion was about proven reserves in
the 1002 area of ANWR. To date there has been exactly
one well drilled (KPC-1, by Chevron in 1985, on land
owned by the village of Kaktovik) in ANWR. Because they
knew they would be the only ones allowed to drill a
well, they have kept the data secret. Speculation is
that given Chevron's absolute disinterest in ANWR since,
that it must have been a dry hole.

As far as the government experts how could they possibly know how
much oil is in Alaska when all the dipsticks are in Washington DC.

Dead on.

The USGS reports and the department of the Interior's
various manipulations have all been extremely suspect.

The shift in the USGS 1988 and 1998 reports on ANWR,
from projecting oil would be in the eastern section to
claiming it will be in the western section, is just a
little too convenient for political purposes. In the
1980's it was not clear what the effects of oil
pipelines and road stretching all the way to the eastern
edge of ANWR would be, and saying the oil was in the
eastern end made it easy to justify drilling anywhere.
But by the 1990's that was environmental suicide!
Saying the oil will all be right on the western edge,
causing the least possible impact, is good politics in
terms of getting a foot in the door.

Take the USGS reports with a grain of salt. Just then
be aware that otherwise there simply is *no* indication
of *any* oil in ANWR (never mind any proven reserves!).

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)