[Lehyina]

Does anyone know what the category 'polar' consists of in the depletion chart published in the Peak Oil Newsletter? Does it mean just Arctic oil or does it also include oil from the last great continental frontier in the South - Antarctica? If so, what oil reserves estimates are being postulated for Anarctica and does anyone truly believe that oil resources can be economically exploited in such a harsh environment?
The following is interesting reading on the subject: "BLACK GOLD IN A WHITE WILDERNESS& ANTARCTIC OIL: THE PAST, PRESENT, AND POTENTIAL OF A REGION IN NEED OF SOVEREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP", http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse ... ARDTXT.HTM

[Doly]

That's a good question to post in the thread "From Colin Campbell's new office"

[nth]

That article is a wonderful read. It is a bit pessimistic. International law currently prohibits oil drilling and a big fiasco will arise if any state decided to exploit it. A good guess on how this will resolve is to look at the South China Sea dispute where there are known oil deposits. There is no solution as of yet, so there will be no solution and no oil drilling allowed in Antartica anytime soon.

International Law prohibits any State of redrawing or reclaiming boundaries without due process. Antartica currently is defined as common territory- similar to UNCLOS. The precedents have been set with UNCLOS, Antartica Treaty, and Outer Space Treaty. A violation of any one of these treaties will bring chaos to International law and believe me all the major countries who want to exploit Antartica have more to lose than to gain in International law. We are talking about serious consequences inregards to violating treaties, norms of state conducts, customary laws.

With all that said, it doesn't mean oil will not be produced from Antartica. All I am saying is that a treaty needs to be signed and submitted to UN before they will proceed with oil drilling and until someone comes up with a good arbitration process to satisfy all parties, it just won't happen.

As for the technology, the deep sea drilling in the continental shelf is achievable with current technology. Based on what I know of artic oil production, Antartica oil production will be a seasonal thing. They will shut down during the winter and restart during the summer. If prices stay above $50, then the price is high enough to drill anywhere in the world if you have oil fields with over 5billion barrels. That is over $250B dollars. Enough to go to war over oil.

[Lehyina]

There is no solution as of yet, so there will be no solution and no oil drilling allowed in Antartica anytime soon.

Do you think international law will prevail in this context? The article implies otherwise:
"When the well begins to run dry, heavy oil importers such as the United States, which indulges in excessive dependence on nonrenewable resources to meet its energy needs, will barely slow down to cast aside the Protocol in their stampede to claim the oil fields of Antarctica".

[nth]

Yes, international law will prevail.
Reason is US cannot afford to violate international law when it comes to economics.
US attack of afghanistan and iraq do not violate international law. It is only in violation according to politicians. International law allows states the right to protect itself. US lawyers have cited the laws and presented their arguments. These cases never got brought to ICJ, so we will never know.
US has more to gain by abiding the law and working within international law to exploit the oil. Which will happen, but won't happen anytime soon. Once precedents are set, it will happen very fast, so keep an eye on the South China Seas. That is one area where people know there is oil and just need to sort through the politics before they start drilling.
Now, why US need to abide to the law? Because of economic trade. If US doesn't care about ruining its economy, then yeah, they can cast the treaties aside. The whole point of violating the treaties is to continue economic expansion. If that is the case, then US have to work within the law.

[maverickdoc]

Yes, international law will prevail.
Reason is US cannot afford to violate international law when it comes to economics.
US attack of afghanistan and iraq do not violate international law. It is only in violation according to politicians. International law allows states the right to protect itself. US lawyers have cited the laws and presented their arguments. These cases never got brought to ICJ, so we will never know.
US has more to gain by abiding the law and working within international law to exploit the oil. Which will happen, but won't happen anytime soon. Once precedents are set, it will happen very fast, so keep an eye on the South China Seas. That is one area where people know there is oil and just need to sort through the politics before they start drilling.
Now, why US need to abide to the law? Because of economic trade. If US doesn't care about ruining its economy, then yeah, they can cast the treaties aside. The whole point of violating the treaties is to continue economic expansion. If that is the case, then US have to work within the law.

[size=150]Yes the US will never break any international treaty just ask Alberto “the Geneva conventions are quaintâ€

[spot5050]

Yes, international law will prevail.

You can't say that with absolute certainty.

Reason is US cannot afford to violate international law when it comes to economics.
US attack of afghanistan and iraq do not violate international law. It is only in violation according to politicians. International law allows states the right to protect itself. US lawyers have cited the laws and presented their arguments. These cases never got brought to ICJ, so we will never know.

Politics and international law are different ends of the same stick. You can't separate the two like that. There are no fundamental, indesputable, non-negotiable laws.

[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

[TrueKaiser]

i can see it now. being shipped to Antarctica to go on the front lines so America can have it's oil from there.

[Terran]

First we need to get rid of those treaties, then things should go forth drilling.

I'm pretty sure Antartica does have hydrocarbons, just look at the geological history. Go back 100 million years and beyone, the dinosours still roamed the planet, the climate was much warmer, Antartica was a forest, Australia was conected to that continent. Antartica was also farther north, so that had an effect of the climate. From what I heard coal is found in Antartica today, this may go the same oil, and gas.

The problem is how to get past the mile thick ice sheets, maybe the heat from a thermonuclear blast?

[maverickdoc]

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

that’s way we need global warming to melt it

[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

[lotrfan55345]

Although environmental concerns will go out the window post peak, but it will be too late by then.

They have a heard enough time getting 100 scientists to survive there for short periods of time. Imagine how hard supplying/keeping alive 1000's of oil workers in the brutal conditions.

[Dezakin]

Some people estimated 50 billion barrel fields:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

But not a lot of activity so far. Its too cold, and too many signatories to the anti-mining treaty. Maybe next year from some non-signatory.

http://www.rigzone.com/search/r/antarctica/

Oh well. It'd be neat to get something out of that worthless frozen desert.

[Half-Mad]

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

that’s way we need global warming to melt it

You won't mind the 200 metres that the oceans will rise because of that?

[nth]

If you follow international law and corresponding politics you will know that US does follow the law. As I said, it is in the best interest of US to follow the law. For non-experts, just look at the ICJ (International Court of Justice). This is a binding court, meaning the rulings must be adhered, too. The problem with this binding court is that it has no way to enforce its rulings. Now that is a big loop hole for non-experts, but you can see that in practice that no one has violated the ICJ. Everyone has pretty much follow their rulings. Reason is that even though International law has very few mechanisms to enforce the law- it has one big thing keeping States in compliance. If you don't follow their rulings, then the whole international law's legitimacy goes down the drain. US and most civilized states will rather live with international law than without it.
As I specifically stated that economic international law is what I am talking about and not others, if you look at business international laws, you will find very few violators.

[nth]

You can't say that with absolute certainty.

Yes, I can. Simply abandoning it is not an option for US, unless US wants to be an isolationist. If US wants to be isolationist, it doesn't need to go to Antartica to get oil.

Reason is US cannot afford to violate international law when it comes to economics.
US attack of afghanistan and iraq do not violate international law. It is only in violation according to politicians. International law allows states the right to protect itself. US lawyers have cited the laws and presented their arguments. These cases never got brought to ICJ, so we will never know.

Politics and international law are different ends of the same stick. You can't separate the two like that. There are no fundamental, indesputable, non-negotiable laws.[/quote]

You totally ignore what I am saying. I am saying US will not go drilling in Antartica without signing a treaty to allow Antartica to be drilled!
I am also saying that you can just see the South China Sea case to see how Antartica and Ocean floor resources will be exploited. The South China Sea case will be one of the first ones to set precedents. Caspian Sea maybe another case.

[nth]

Yes, international law will prevail.
Reason is US cannot afford to violate international law when it comes to economics.
US attack of afghanistan and iraq do not violate international law. It is only in violation according to politicians. International law allows states the right to protect itself. US lawyers have cited the laws and presented their arguments. These cases never got brought to ICJ, so we will never know.
US has more to gain by abiding the law and working within international law to exploit the oil. Which will happen, but won't happen anytime soon. Once precedents are set, it will happen very fast, so keep an eye on the South China Seas. That is one area where people know there is oil and just need to sort through the politics before they start drilling.
Now, why US need to abide to the law? Because of economic trade. If US doesn't care about ruining its economy, then yeah, they can cast the treaties aside. The whole point of violating the treaties is to continue economic expansion. If that is the case, then US have to work within the law.

[size=150]Yes the US will never break any international treaty just ask Alberto “the Geneva conventions are quaintâ€

[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.

[nth]

i can see it now. being shipped to Antarctica to go on the front lines so America can have it's oil from there.

talking about going to war over oil, no one talks about US involvement in Iran-Iraq War. US warships actively participated to protect oil tankers. US didn't even pretent to be there for other purpose. They specifically said they were there to protect oil tankers and destroy the Iranian navy. Where were the protesters?