[nth]

It's really kind of irrelevant weather or not there's oil
in antarctica - it's the most remote and harsh environment
on Earth. Drilling for oil along it's coast would be nearly
impossible due to huge amount of sea ice which builds
around the continent every winter (just beginning there now).
It's impassable half the year. When it's clear the weather
is so savage that any drilling rigs would have a very hard
time - the winds circling the continent are extreme.

The continent itself has far and away the coldest climate on
the planet, with an average winter temperature of less then
-80 (F) - cold enough to freeze oil. Plus most of the continent
is covered with a mile or two of ice which would have to be
drilled through just to reach rock.

And this doesn't even take into account the political situation
regarding the continent.

I think it's safe to safe that unless a lunker field bigger than
Ghawar ever was is found, you can forget about oil from
the South pole.

-Eric B

Ice sheets are nothing. Current oil production facilities already meeting the Ice sheet issues and have no problems.

As for icebergs, I don't know how they get around that, but I haven't heard any iceberg issues. What do they do about icebergs? They must be encountering them now.

You guys do know that we are already drilling for oil in Artic Sea and northern tundra?

You guys also do know that people already drilling in Antartica?

I can't believe no one else is rebutting this. You guys should at least google Antartica drilling.
http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/275178.htm

[spot5050]

You totally ignore what I am saying.

Absolutely not.

I am saying US will not go drilling in Antartica without signing a treaty to allow Antartica to be drilled!

I'm saying the opposite. America does what it wants.

[eric_b]

It's really kind of irrelevant weather or not there's oil
in antarctica - it's the most remote and harsh environment
on Earth. Drilling for oil along it's coast would be nearly
impossible due to huge amount of sea ice which builds
around the continent every winter (just beginning there now).
It's impassable half the year. When it's clear the weather
is so savage that any drilling rigs would have a very hard
time - the winds circling the continent are extreme.

The continent itself has far and away the coldest climate on
the planet, with an average winter temperature of less then
-80 (F) - cold enough to freeze oil. Plus most of the continent
is covered with a mile or two of ice which would have to be
drilled through just to reach rock.

And this doesn't even take into account the political situation
regarding the continent.

I think it's safe to safe that unless a lunker field bigger than
Ghawar ever was is found, you can forget about oil from
the South pole.

-Eric B

Ice sheets are nothing. Current oil production facilities already meeting the Ice sheet issues and have no problems.

As for icebergs, I don't know how they get around that, but I haven't heard any iceberg issues. What do they do about icebergs? They must be encountering them now.

You guys do know that we are already drilling for oil in Artic Sea and northern tundra?

You guys also do know that people already drilling in Antartica?

I can't believe no one else is rebutting this. You guys should at least google Antartica drilling.
http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/275178.htm

Easy, easy.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very difficult. You're underestimating
the difficulty I think. Northern tundra's a walk in the park compared
to climate and accessibility of Antarctica

There are just a few bases (McMurdo?) on the continent, which
are kept staffed at extreme exspense. The continent is not accessible
for half the year, period. At least by boat. Because of the
very harsh climate and weather, it would be very difficult for
large tankers to approach close enough to the coast to tankup,
while following a regular schedule. I can see a seasonal effort
to get oil off the continent, but a large scale effort would not
be trivial.

Like I said in my original post, it would take a lunker field of
oil to justify the effort, and in that case there would likely be
international fighting over who gets dibs. I'm not holding my breath.

Do some googling yourself on the continents accessibility.

-Eric B

[marko]

I don't have numbers for this, but extracting and shipping oil from Antarctica would be extremely energy intensive. Just think of the heating required, and the energy required for construction of wells and pipelines. Then there is the energy required to transport the stuff. Antarctica is much farther from major oil markets than any other current oil-producing region. Possibly, the low temperatures would require the drilling equipment or even the pipelines to be heated.

I suspect that the EROEI would be less than 1. That is, I think that extracting and exporting oil from Antarctica would probably take more energy than it would produce.

Even if it did not, I think that the expense of obtaining oil from Antarctica would be too great to be economical. By the time oil reaches that price, the industrial economy will have nearly collapsed, and oil will be used in relatively small quantities for warfare and other elite pursuits. Without an industrial economy, there will not be the kind of infrastructure needed to extract oil from Antarctica.

Basically, I feel fairly certain that this ain't gonna happen on any significant scale.

[lotrfan55345]

Read "Big Picture" thread by Monte.

[0mar]

Drilling in Antartica will take a revolution. The ice itself is about a mile thick and then you have to hit the rocks to get the oil

Rocks are not a problem if you got $$$. I have not heard of a rock that we cannot drill through.

Ice and frozen tundra, you can drill through also and already doing that. 1 mile of ice is not impossible. The problem with Antartica is when it freezes beyond ability to ski to use a common term. But, it only happens during storms and cold spells like winter.

When you get deep enough, pressures and heat make drilling untenable. Especially with Antartica, you will run into pressure limits before you can get to the sedimentary layer because of the thickness of the ice (1 mile in most places). Very few wells are dug below 2,000 meters.

[Rincewind]

I may have missed this point while skimming through the discussion, but I was of the understanding that Campbell et al are of the view that Antarctica was not that prospective!

I think the argument is that during the wonderful period 200-100 million odd years ago when the environment and biology were right for the large scale oil formation in places like the Middle East, Texas etc, Antarctica was in the wrong place. So if there is oil there it is unlikely to be of the Ghawar type scale that we require to keep the global train going for a little longer.

Can anyone confirm this?

Rincewind

[0mar]

anartica was probably tropical many millions of years. no one is really in a position to say antarctica has oil or not because there has been almost no seismic survery for the purpose of finding oil done there.

[TrueKaiser]

anartica was probably tropical many millions of years. no one is really in a position to say antarctica has oil or not because there has been almost no seismic survery for the purpose of finding oil done there.

255 million years ago
http://www.scotese.com/newpage5.htm

237 million years ago
http://www.scotese.com/newpage8.htm

195 million years ago
http://www.scotese.com/jurassic.htm

152 million years ago
http://www.scotese.com/late1.htm

94 million years ago
http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm

66 million years ago
http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm

notice how Antarctica rarely if at all left the arctic zone and didn't even come close to the tropic zone. in fact it's not estimated to leave the arctic till about 250 million years form now.
http://www.scotese.com/future2.htm

[0mar]

Well I guess I was wrong! lol

[nth]

You totally ignore what I am saying.

Absolutely not.

I am saying US will not go drilling in Antartica without signing a treaty to allow Antartica to be drilled!

I'm saying the opposite. America does what it wants.

Go look up international law and ICJ court cases and specifically when US loses the case. Do the same for economic arbitration cases.
US does what is in its best interest economically.
If that is true, then it has to sign a treaty to exploit oil in Antartica. You miss my point. My point is that US will exploit oil by changing the rules. Not by violating them.
That is why I said you were not reading what I said. You simply read that I said US won't violate the law/treaty.
If you read what I said in my posts, you will see that I specifically point at specific cases/flash points to follow how US will exploit oil in Ocean Floors and Antartica where the last great oil fields lie.

[nth]

Easy, easy.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very difficult. You're underestimating
the difficulty I think. Northern tundra's a walk in the park compared
to climate and accessibility of Antarctica

There are just a few bases (McMurdo?) on the continent, which
are kept staffed at extreme exspense. The continent is not accessible
for half the year, period. At least by boat. Because of the
very harsh climate and weather, it would be very difficult for
large tankers to approach close enough to the coast to tankup,
while following a regular schedule. I can see a seasonal effort
to get oil off the continent, but a large scale effort would not
be trivial.

Like I said in my original post, it would take a lunker field of
oil to justify the effort, and in that case there would likely be
international fighting over who gets dibs. I'm not holding my breath.

Do some googling yourself on the continents accessibility.

-Eric B

I did. I even posted a link.
Anyways, USSR is the leader in drilling Antartica. They have successfully drilled to great depths as part of their research. There is really nothing to argue here regarding drilling. They already drilled.
As for shipping oil, they cannot ship oil in the winter, period. The only time they can ship oil is during the warmer months. Temp and conditions will be similar to Artic. Storms and changes in weather of course will affect. I never said it was easy. I am saying it is doable. That is different.

[nth]

I don't have numbers for this, but extracting and shipping oil from Antarctica would be extremely energy intensive. Just think of the heating required, and the energy required for construction of wells and pipelines. Then there is the energy required to transport the stuff. Antarctica is much farther from major oil markets than any other current oil-producing region. Possibly, the low temperatures would require the drilling equipment or even the pipelines to be heated.

I suspect that the EROEI would be less than 1. That is, I think that extracting and exporting oil from Antarctica would probably take more energy than it would produce.

Even if it did not, I think that the expense of obtaining oil from Antarctica would be too great to be economical. By the time oil reaches that price, the industrial economy will have nearly collapsed, and oil will be used in relatively small quantities for warfare and other elite pursuits. Without an industrial economy, there will not be the kind of infrastructure needed to extract oil from Antarctica.

Basically, I feel fairly certain that this ain't gonna happen on any significant scale.

Okay before we get carried away, I am not for Antartica drilling. I just can't believe no one else is refuting that it cannot be done based on engineering. I just had to point out that is wrong to say we cannot drill there.

The actual drilling is already going on, but not for oil. For research.

The actual production will probably cost over $10B with just a brief estimate on current costs to drill and construct things in Antarctica. This is conservative estimate as I am sure projects this big in such extreme weather will cause delays and major overruns. Not talking about accidents that cause death and I am not sure about insurance costs.

As for shipping, shipping is not an issue, considering Nigerian oil is shipped to China. Antartica to China will be around same distance or less depending on where you are.

As for heating and energy requirements for production, Alaskan oil in order to meet clean water standards is over 100 times more expensive than similar productions in Russia. Do you know that they literally beat the water till compliance?
I find that funny.
Back to energy requirements, EROIE are not being used in the oil industry. I really don't think it will play a role in whether they go drill there or not.

Everytime I read about EROIE, my blood boils. Our society gets free energy. No wonder we don't treasure it and conserve.

[nth]

Drilling in Antartica will take a revolution. The ice itself is about a mile thick and then you have to hit the rocks to get the oil

Rocks are not a problem if you got $$$. I have not heard of a rock that we cannot drill through.

Ice and frozen tundra, you can drill through also and already doing that. 1 mile of ice is not impossible. The problem with Antartica is when it freezes beyond ability to ski to use a common term. But, it only happens during storms and cold spells like winter.

When you get deep enough, pressures and heat make drilling untenable. Especially with Antartica, you will run into pressure limits before you can get to the sedimentary layer because of the thickness of the ice (1 mile in most places). Very few wells are dug below 2,000 meters.

I am not sure what you missed in my posts. Anyways, we have already drilled in Antarctica.

Here is another link if the first one that I posted didn't convince you.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/icecores-02a.html

[nth]

Well I guess I was wrong! lol

I don't think Antarctica has more oil than Central Asia. But, I think there will be oil and enough for people to fight over.

Now, don't take that map as is. Look at temperature and vegetation theories. The land should be populated with critters and vegetation.

[nth]

I may have missed this point while skimming through the discussion, but I was of the understanding that Campbell et al are of the view that Antarctica was not that prospective!

I think the argument is that during the wonderful period 200-100 million odd years ago when the environment and biology were right for the large scale oil formation in places like the Middle East, Texas etc, Antarctica was in the wrong place. So if there is oil there it is unlikely to be of the Ghawar type scale that we require to keep the global train going for a little longer.

Can anyone confirm this?

Rincewind

Actually, I agree with Campbell. His predictions have already come true. OPEC abandon the 22-28 price band. What more do people need? We no longer have cheap oil as Campbell says prices will be 40's to 60's. Ain't that what we are seeing today?

Even if Antartica has oil, it won't be no Ghawar, so unable to lower prices. Plus, cost of production there can only happen if prices are in 40's to 60's, so Campbell is right. Anti-peak oil people are wrong.

How long do oil prices need to stay this high before people realize prices are not coming down?
1 year? 2years?

[0mar]

Drilling in Antartica will take a revolution. The ice itself is about a mile thick and then you have to hit the rocks to get the oil

Rocks are not a problem if you got $$$. I have not heard of a rock that we cannot drill through.

Ice and frozen tundra, you can drill through also and already doing that. 1 mile of ice is not impossible. The problem with Antartica is when it freezes beyond ability to ski to use a common term. But, it only happens during storms and cold spells like winter.

When you get deep enough, pressures and heat make drilling untenable. Especially with Antartica, you will run into pressure limits before you can get to the sedimentary layer because of the thickness of the ice (1 mile in most places). Very few wells are dug below 2,000 meters.

I am not sure what you missed in my posts. Anyways, we have already drilled in Antarctica.

Here is another link if the first one that I posted didn't convince you.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/icecores-02a.html

If anything you just proved my point. I said very few wells are dug below 2,000 meters. At 2,002, there is still ice, meaning that you would have to drill even deeper than that to hit oil. It is simply not feasible.

On top of that, if the temperture is too low, then the oil is going to be very viscious, making it even harder to produce oil. Antarctica is not going to produce any oil at all.

[Bandidoz]

I wonder when Al-Quida are going to set up camp there?

[marko]

I suspect that the EROEI would be less than 1. That is, I think that extracting and exporting oil from Antarctica would probably take more energy than it would produce..

Back to energy requirements, EROIE are not being used in the oil industry. I really don't think it will play a role in whether they go drill there or not.

No, but EROIE is a proxy for profitability. The oil companies will not extract and ship oil from Antarctica unless they can make a profit at it. If it ends up taking them 2 barrels of oil (at let's say $150/bbl) to deliver 1 barrel of Antarctica oil to China or some other market, then they have lost $150 dollars on that barrel, in addition to the overhead costs of constructing the well, the pipeline, the port, and the tanker. Oil companies are not in business to lose money, and when EROIE on a given oil field less than one, they will not be interested in that oil field. This is all but certainly the case for Antarctica, or at least the bulk of the continent that is under the ice. The EROIE on a coastal or offshore oil field just might be greater than one.

[nth]

http://www.peakoil.com/article3049.html

As I said, this will be the basis for Antartica and Deep Sea floor oil exploration.
Next up is permit and profit sharing...