Directional drilling: Just another ploy to drill the Arctic Refuge

By Anne Gore on August 5, 2009 - 7:51pm

In their push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development, Alaska’s Congressional delegation, it seems, will try just about anything. Last month, Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced legislation that would allow directional drilling into the refuge, a plan she claims would have no surface impacts. In this television news story from Anchorage, The Wilderness Society’s Alaska Regional Director Eleanor Huffines explains why this isn’t so.

Although the U.S. Senate Energy Committee voted against Murkowski’s directional drilling plan last month, Alaska’s senior Senator and her pro-drilling colleagues are likely to take up the issue again when Congress returns from its August recess.

Click here for the second piece in this television news series.

Related Content

Latest Arctic Refuge drilling bill based on misleading claims

Tags: alaska, ANWR, arctic national wildlife refuge, Arctic Refuge, directional drilling, Eleanor Huffines, Energy Committee, Senate, Senator Begich, Senator Murkowski, Energy, Action and Issues

Comments

Horizontal drilling

Having participated in a number of horizontal (80-90 degrees to vertical) and other directional wells, I guess I have some thoughts on this, both pro and con.

First, I am not in favor of drilling ANWR, but not for the popular reasons. I feel that when ANWR production proves less than predicted, and reserve numbers normally are inflated compared to actual production, our strategic advantage over OPEC pricing is gone. In other words, when we flip over our trump card and it is weak, they will raise prices.

If ANWR is to be drilled, horizontal drilling is not going to effect the total exploitation of oil and gas reserves. Even if horizontal drilling can extend 20 miles (and it cannot), very little of ANWR will be exploited. But horizontal drilling CAN take place safely under ANWR if it is drilled. 20 or more wellbores can be drilled from a single platform, which will vastly reduce the industrial footprint. Spill controls and noise/light pollution are already being done successfully in some areas (though probably not to the satisfaction of some) and can be successful in the ANWR region.

So, on balance, the drilling of ANWR can be done with virtually no footprint in the area, but strategically, it is not in our best interest. With the recent substantial increases in recoverable gas and oil in the lower 48 (gas shales, oil shales), it is virtually unneccessary to drill ANWR in our lifetimes (next 50 years).