Without doing an extended search to look for one no. But my information comes from anecdotal information from a family friend who is a petroleum engineer. I am sure one could find the info somewhere.

Here is the bottom line though, directional drilling, even horizontal drilling is possible, but we are talking a distance of over 50 miles that would need to be drilled horizontally. It is not economical to do so, maybe at $200 a barrel. But there is still the issue of subsurface resource rights.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

The U.S. oil production peak was reached in 1970. We've been a net oil importer since then, and as long as we continue to run our energy economy on oil, we always will be. That's true whether or not we drill in ANWR. Our dependence on foreign oil is a problem, true, but under present circumstances "foreign oil" is redundant. If we're dependent on oil, it will be foreign oil, period.

True.

But nothing says we can;t be less dependent on foreign oil.

I'm all for drilling the absolute shit outta' ANWR...

If you want to become less dependent on foreign oil, what you need to think in terms of is increasing energy efficiency and switching to alternative energy sources -- getting us off oil altogether for energy purposes. (Oil has so many other uses that burning it is really a waste anyway.)

The best argument against drilling in ANWR isn't even environmental, it's that it can instill false hope and complacency, and keep us from doing what really needs doing.

I agree for the most part, I have used the argument before that even if everyone tomorrow woke up to free hydrogen powered cars and an entire solar/wind electricity source we would still need crude oil for many other uses. So that demand will be there for the forseeable future. What it boils down to for me is among other things that we could be giving Americans high paying jobs and the other growth that comes from the existence of jobs, also it would provide considerable royalty and tax wealth to all three levels of government.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

While I agree in principal, I guess I will say that if it were ever allowed, the absolute care and respect for the land need be maintained. Including an accurate reclamation bond for permanent restoration after drilling is done.
The state of Alaska does not have a great track record on issues such as that. Better than most, but they would need to go beyond current levels.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

SOME demand for oil will exist for the foreseeable future. But if we stop burning petroleum products for energy, the AMOUNT of demand for oil will fall through the floor. Certainly there would be no percentage then in drilling in ANWR. Even 38 years after the U.S. oil peak, we're still producing domestically all the oil we need for making plastics, fertilizers, chemicals, etc.

It would be an economic boon to Alaska, granted. But the question is whether that justifies the cost, both gross and subtle, to the rest of the nation. The benefit cited, a boost in domestic oil production, would be negligible in terms of reducing dependence on foreign oil, or dropping the price of oil products.

I will point out that a chemical plant recently closed in AK at the loss of a thousand jobs due to a lack of cheap raw material. But while there may be considerable developments in car sized vehicles and in electricity production, the practice of burning or use as a lubricant will not leave us for probably 50 years. For instance there is little realistic development on new types of airplane engines beyond burning Jet Fuel more effeciently.


Well again, Alaska has its handscuffed in very much a catch-22 system. We take all kinds of heat about the federal spending and earmarks that go to Alaska, but our wealthiest resource is limited to only domestic consumption by certain companies through legislation that is over 30 years old.
So, do we continue to spend millions and billions in federal dollars in Alaska that most claim is a waste anyways while forcing Alaska to sit on our resource

There is proven oil reserves there that could power all of the UK for the next few decades. If it wont make a difference on domestic consumption, lift the export ban on the oil in Alaska and lets put it on the open market.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

Sure; that'd be great.

In the meantime, though, drill the shit out of it. By the time we start getting complacent, we'll have the technological advances, in the areas of alternative energy, at our fingertips.

Honestly, I can't think of a single viable reason why that resource should remain untapped. If you're not going to tap into it, it's no longer a "resource"; it's just a "thing"...

Improvements in boring technologies could reduce costs.

The public sector could drill from outside the preserve, at cost. The private sector does not need to drill within a marginal preserve.

How much of that is political? Our current California governor ran on a campaign platform of alternative energy use in the public sector. There is nothing to prevent the chief executive of any of the various executive branches from requiring a segment of new vehicles purchased for that branch be alternative fuel capable.

You apparently dont understand how the directional technology works and the geography/geology of that area. There is no drilling technology in existence or in the foreseeable future that would make it even remotely profitable to drill horizontally with the ground and its permafrost and general volatility of freezing and thawing cycles etc. Again we are talking about a line that would need to be 70-100miles long.

Keep in the mind places where the existing pipeline encounters permafrost it is built above ground, one of the only long above ground pipelines in the world, if not the only one.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

The public sector doesn't have to make a profit. The drug and terror wars are sufficient anecdotal evidence of the public sector artificially creating markets. In the case of extended reach drilling technologies, it would be a worthwhile investment.

If they knew how to do it, they would, but they dont have the ability to do it yet, and there is still the issue of the land and its subsurface are apart of a national wildlife refuge. So even if they had the technology to drill to China or in ANWR's case to Antarctica, that oil is still off limits because of federal law.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

I was under the impression that it was about extracting subsurface resources that can have virtually no impact on the preserve, if done from outside the preserve.

I disagree with your assessment that there is no current boring technology that is cost effective, even if implemented at the appropriate scale.