• 4 minutes End of Sanction Waivers
  • 8 minutes Balancing Act---Sanctions, Venezuela, Trade War and Demand
  • 11 minutes Mueller Report Brings Into Focus Obama's Attempted Coup Against Trump
  • 14 minutes What Would Happen If the World Ran Out of Crude Oil?
  • 2 hours Permafrost Melting Will Cost Us $70 Trillion
  • 14 hours New German Study Shocks Electric Cars: “Considerably” Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars, Up To 25% More CO2
  • 10 hours UNCONFIRMED : US airstrikes target 32 oil tankers near Syria’s Deir al-Zor
  • 11 hours Russia To Start Deliveries Of S-400 To Turkey In July
  • 23 hours Occidental Offers To Buy Anadarko In $57 Billion Deal, Topping Chevron
  • 11 hours Nothing Better than Li-Ion on the Horizon
  • 3 hours At Kim-Putin Summit: Theater For Two
  • 3 hours NAFTA, a view from Mexico: 'Don't Shoot Yourself In The Foot'
  • 23 hours Facebook Analysts Expect Earnings Will Reinforce Rebound
  • 11 hours How many drilling sites are left in the Permian?
  • 39 mins "Undeniable" Shale Slowdown?
  • 1 day Iran Sabre Rattles Over the Straights of Hormuz
  • 4 hours Gas Flaring

Study Suggests the Arctic May not Contribute as Much Oil and Gas as Thought

With the constantly rising demand for oil around the world, oil and gas companies are looking to extract every drop of oil they can from around the world.

The Arctic is estimated to contain 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of gas reserves. Exploration and production licenses have recently been granted to certain companies to work in the area, yet a Norwegian study claims that oil fields there may actually only contribute a marginal amount of oil compared to volumes initially forecast.

The study was carried out by the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo and Statistics Norway, and found that the amount of oil and gas produced in the Arctic will decline by 2050 due to the high production costs.

The fact that oil fields in the Arctic are generally out at sea, far from land and any existing infrastructure, and constantly bombarded with extreme climate conditions, means that the cost of extracting oil there is far higher than other sources.

The decrease will come due to an expected increase in unconventional oil and gas sources, such as shale gas in North America, and growing production volumes of conventional oil and gas in the Middle East, which will hold preference due to the higher profit margin that they command.

By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • davidrussell22 on September 08 2012 said:
    The Norwegians aren't in a position to have a position. Most of the arctic is controlled by Russia (and to a lesser extent, Canada). I've worked with the Russians who have identified 2ce as much arctic oil potential as in Saudi Arabia. In the 1970s Petro-Canada (the then-national oil company) did an extensive study of the arctic for oil and natural gas. They found quite a bit, but stopped looking at the point where they realized there was no way to get it out. My partners and I tried unsuccessfully to show them that submarine tankers would do the job. The Canadians instisted on using ice-breaker tankers instead and the Inuits stopped this dead for environmental reasons and that it would disrupt their hunting. Since all this the Canadians have ceded all their mineral rights in the arctic to the Inuits, who seem to have no interest in developing them
  • davidrussell22 on September 08 2012 said:
    The technology to exploit arctic fossil fuels is sea-bed drilling rigs and submarine tankers. My company has designs for both.

    It's a chicken and egg kind of thing. These 2 technologies must be developed to make arctic development possible, but it's not possible without them.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News