U.S. exporting record amounts of gasoline?!

[XT]

@Fear Itself

I’ll be waiting. Until then, the DOE is all we have. I have seen no reason to dismiss them.

Couldn’t find the article I was talking about earlier, and don’t have a lot of time for research today, so just did a few quick google searches. I doubt this is going to meet your criteria, since you seem wedded to the DOE figures (not to be snarky, but I think this is because they are telling you what you want to hear).

Here is a USGS report that isn’t talking about offshore but about estimates for accessible reserves in the arctic (goes along with what I assume intention was talking about):

90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic

The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.

The U.S. Geological Survey assessment released today is the first publicly available petroleum resource estimate of the entire area north of the Arctic Circle.

These resources account for about 22 percent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in the world. The Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the undiscovered oil, 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent of the undiscovered natural gas liquids in the world. About 84 percent of the estimated resources are expected to occur offshore.

Of the estimated totals, more than half of the undiscovered oil resources are estimated to occur in just three geologic provinces - Arctic Alaska, the Amerasia Basin, and the East Greenland Rift Basins. On an oil-equivalency basis, undiscovered natural gas is estimated to be three times more abundant than oil in the Arctic. More than 70 percent of the undiscovered natural gas is estimated to occur in three provinces - the West Siberian Basin, the East Barents Basins, and Arctic Alaska.

The USGS Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal is part of a project to assess the global petroleum basins using standardized and consistent methodology and protocol. This approach allows for an area’s petroleum potential to be compared to other petroleum basins in the world. The USGS worked with a number of international organizations to conduct the geologic analyses of these Arctic provinces.

The point here is that no one knows…while some preliminary exploration has been done (in SOME of the regions specified) by and large no one has gone out there with a drill to see what is actually there. And until you take a drill out and drill a number of test holes you won’t really know what is there.

Here is a cite from the Institute of Energy Research that talks to your DOE estimates (no idea how reputable these guys are, but it goes along with a lot of other stuff I’ve been reading on this subject):

Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting

Politicians have a knack for citing statistics that support their positions. Those who are opposed to increasing domestic supplies of energy are especially adept at citing statistics that make it seem as though it is “not worth it.” Government reports, while not all wrong, can be rife with such statistics.

Recently, for example, some have pointed an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that estimated the amount of oil we could produce on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) if the drilling ban were lifted. EIA estimated this to be approximately 200,000 barrels per day. 1

Unfortunately, this figure – and the data it was based on – is fatally flawed. For example:

* 200,000 barrels per day is roughly equal to the daily production rate of just one new offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The Thunder Horse oil production facility, which will be on line this year, is designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day. 2 The Atlantis oil platform currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico has a production capacity of 200,000 barrels per day. 3

Despite these facts, the EIA projects that lifting the bans that prevent production on 85 percent of the OCS acreage surrounding the lower 48 states will yield an amount equal to that which can be produced from just one of these platforms. Obviously, the projections are flawed.

The EIA assumed that technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in off-limits areas of the OCS total 18.2 billion barrels, based on the Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service’s Report to Congress (February 2006). 4 But technically recoverable resources are based on current technology and economics.

Historically, technological improvements and on-site exploration and development have increased technically recoverable resource estimates. For example, world proved oil reserves were estimated to be 521 billion barrels in 1971 when oil was $1.25 per barrel ($6.61 in 2007 dollars) and are estimated under present technology to be 1,317 billion barrels at an average price per barrel in 2007 of $67. 5

* EIA’s analysis is based on crude oil prices averaging around $50 per barrel in 2005 dollars 6 (or around $80 per barrel in 2030 assuming a 2 percent per year inflation rate), well below the current price of around $120 per barrel.

* EIA’s analysis assumes that exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS are based on data from fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Since the majority of the resources under moratoria (55 percent) are off the coast of California, the analysis should have used data from the Santa Barbara Channel, which would have provided more realistic assumptions and higher production levels.

* EIA’s analysis assumes that leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Yet, off the coast of California, some of these resources have already been leased. A report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratoria were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. 7 Further, Department of Interior Secretary Kempthorne announced in July a new 5 year plan that will allow leasing to start 2 years earlier, in 2010, implying production from currently unleased areas could begin as early as 2015. This new 5 year plan includes the areas under Federal moratoria. 8

There are a number of linked citations on the page but I haven’t bothered looking through them.

Here is another cite with estimates (in the chart on the right) showing recoverable oil in various US regions (again, this goes along with what intention was saying). Their estimate is 59.9 billion barrels of recoverable oil (and 287 trillion cubic feet of natural gas! woofa!). But even these are estimates only, as little exploration has been done as far as test drilling goes…these estimates are mostly considered to be low, based on past experience where usually more oil is found than was first estimated (such as in the oil fields currently being exploited in Alaska).

The OCS is estimated to contain substantial resources of crude oil and natural gas; however, some areas of the OCS are subject to drilling restrictions. With energy prices rising over the past several years, there has been increased interest in the development of more domestic oil and natural gas supply, including OCS resources. In the past, Federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders. More recently, the States of Alaska and Virginia have asked the Federal Government to consider leasing in areas off their coastlines that are off limits as a result of actions by the President or Congress. In response, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior has included in its proposed 5-year leasing plan for 2007-2012 sales of one lease in the Mid-Atlantic area off the coastline of Virginia and two leases in the North Aleutian Basin area of Alaska. Development in both areas still would require lifting of the current ban on drilling.

For AEO2007, an OCS access case was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Currently, except for a relatively small tract in the eastern Gulf, resources in those areas are legally off limits to exploration and development. Mean estimates from the MMS indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Table 10).

Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.

Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion cubic feet.

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

But they aren’t talking 20 years to explore, develop and begin exploitation…more like 5-10 years. And we are talking about a pretty significant amount of oil here, even if the estimates of known reserves is right. Even at 40 billion barrels of oil there is no way that we’d only be able to take out 200,000 barrels a day more in production. At a million barrels a day (a much more reasonable figure) we are talking about (from my back of the envelop estimate) around a hundred years of production. And a million barrels a day would have a significant impact on world oil supply.

It’s NOT just about profits. I’m still on the fence myself as to whether it’s wise to go to full scale exploitation at this point…but we SHOULD open those areas up to test drilling and extensive exploration to see just what’s out there, and we should probably open up the more easily accessible regions up to at least limited development and exploitation. We’d be stupid not to.

I’ll still try and dig up that article I was reading as I think you’d get a lot out of it. It really went into detail on all this stuff, especially about the uncertainty of the DOE estimates and how little we really know about what all is out there, especially offshore.

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@Cheesesteak

Agreed, as long as the opponents quit acting like “big oil’s profits” is actually a bad thing that must be avoided at all costs. SOMEONE is going to be selling oil to us, it’s either Big Oil (US version) or Big Oil (another country’s version). One of those options creates jobs and wealth in the US, the other doesn’t.

A valid argument, if we could just start paying that money to US companies today. However, as my DOE cite concluded, we are not going to reach the 200,000 barrel production figure until 2030. In 20 years, we can probably replace that energy with alternative sources. The object, IMHO, is not to produce as much energy as possible, but to meet our needs without oil at a sustainable price.

With that assumption, isn’t it then clear that the oil we use will have to come from some other country’s production?

Your argument that it must be oil is not as compelling when we have to wait 20 years for the benefit. A lot can happen in 20 years, especially when we are highly motivated. I just don’t think it is a valid assumption that we will still need the equivalent of 200,000 barrels from oil in 20 years. It is not inconceivable that by that time, the price of oil will be higher than the equivalent energy from wind and solar, making it a poor economic choice.

[Uzi]

The US has the largest coal reserve in the world. Building plants that would convert this to gasoline is on par with the plants in the Northern Alberta Oil Sands. At ~$30/barrel these plants would be economically viable (incidentally, that is the price that the oil sands used to be economically viable when they first started. Given enough time and technology that figure would drop just like the oil sands). There is so much coal there that the US, even given its current consumption, wouldn’t have to look for foreign suppliers for thousands of years. So, why this big push about drilling offshore? Give some companies incentives to utilize the local coal reserves and avoid drilling in sensitive areas.

[XT]

Where are you getting that 20 years until production estimate?? Unless you are assuming either that oil will take a price nose dive in the next year or so, or that it will be the environmental groups blocking things up and dragging our collective feet before the various oil companies are allowed to do anything I don’t see where that is coming from.

-XT

[XT]

@Uzi

The US has the largest coal reserve in the world. Building plants that would convert this to gasoline is on par with the plants in the Northern Alberta Oil Sands. At ~$30/barrel these plants would be economically viable (incidentally, that is the price that the oil sands used to be economically viable when they first started. Given enough time and technology that figure would drop just like the oil sands). There is so much coal there that the US, even given its current consumption, wouldn’t have to look for foreign suppliers for thousands of years. So, why this big push about drilling offshore? Give some companies incentives to utilize the local coal reserves and avoid drilling in sensitive areas.

Because oil is more versatile, and it’s also easier to move around (being a liquid and all). There is a reason why oil is so widely used after all. And it’s not like we can only do one thing or the other here…we can exploit coal resources, oil resources AND look at renewables, alternatives, and probably even rub our tummies and chew gum all at the same time.

-XT

[Uzi]

@xtisme

Because oil is more versatile, and it’s also easier to move around (being a liquid and all).

You put the plants where the coal is and then move the produced liquids from that location just like you would to move the oil from the wells where it currently is to refineries in other locations to be converted to gasoline. But you could use the Oil Sands as an example of how it’s done there. It would be no, or little, different for coal.

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

Couldn’t find the article I was talking about earlier, and don’t have a lot of time for research today, so just did a few quick google searches. I doubt this is going to meet your criteria, since you seem wedded to the DOE figures (not to be snarky, but I think this is because they are telling you what you want to hear).

Not to be snarky, but you seem to be rejecting the DOE figures because they are telling you what you do not want to hear.

Here is a USGS report that isn’t talking about offshore but about estimates for accessible reserves in the arctic (goes along with what I assume intention was talking about):

Well, yeah, but we we talking about new offshore drilling, so it is not really fair to bring in figures for anywhere north of the arctic circle, which last time I checked was comprised by a significant amount of onshore property.

Here is a cite from the Institute of Energy Research that talks to your DOE estimates (no idea how reputable these guys are…

The founder and chairman of the Institute for Energy Research is Robert L. Bradley, Jr., who worked at Enron for 16 years, the last seven as corporate director for public policy analysis and speechwriter for CEO Kenneth L. Lay. Some people might take issue with his objectivity.

There are a number of linked citations on the page but I haven’t bothered looking through them.

Here is another cite with estimates (in the chart on the right) showing recoverable oil in various US regions (again, this goes along with what intention was saying). Their estimate is 59.9 billion barrels of recoverable oil (and 287 trillion cubic feet of natural gas! woofa!).

That 59.9 billion barrel figure includes offshore areas already approved for exploration. Areas currently under restriction are estimated at only 18 billion barrels.

But they aren’t talking 20 years to explore, develop and begin exploitation…more like 5-10 years. And we are talking about a pretty significant amount of oil here, even if the estimates of known reserves is right. Even at 40 billion barrels of oil there is no way that we’d only be able to take out 200,000 barrels a day more in production.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I have provided DOE figures that place peak production from new offshore drilling at 200,000 barrels per day by 2030; you gave me Ken Lay’s speechwriter.

[Cheesesteak]

@Fear Itself

A valid argument, if we could just start paying that money to US companies today.

We won’t be paying that money to US companies today, US companies will be paying US workers millions of dollars in wages to explore and drill. Money that comes out of their “windfall” profits, and goes straight into the pockets of middle class America.

However, as my DOE cite concluded, we are not going to reach the 200,000 barrel production figure until 2030. In 20 years, we can probably replace that energy with alternative sources.

If we do, then Big Oil just made a really shitty bet, didn’t they? Realistically, even if we get alternative sources ramped up, it’s not going to eliminate the need for oil, it will just reduce it. We’ll reduce first by eliminating imports of oil, only ramping down our own production when it becomes unprofitable to maintain the wells.

A lot can happen in 20 years, especially when we are highly motivated. I just don’t think it is a valid assumption that we will still need the equivalent of 200,000 barrels from oil in 20 years. It is not inconceivable that by that time, the price of oil will be higher than the equivalent energy from wind and solar, making it a poor economic choice.

If oil goes away within 20 years, then they’ll shut down the plants. Big Oil will have wasted some of their big profits setting up drilling operations that we didn’t ultimately need. I consider that a risk worth having them take on the off-chance we still need oil 20 years from now.

[XT]

@Fear Itself

Not to be snarky, but you seem to be rejecting the DOE figures because they are telling you what you do not want to hear.

Hey, I’m not the one who is single mindedly grasping the government figures (that even THEY say are estimates) like they were the writ of the gods here. YOU are the one who seems to be putting your faith in DOE figures…

BTW, we referenced the same cite (I actually hasn’t looked at your link last night), so I’ll quote some things from it:

Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion cubic feet.

Warning bells SHOULD be going off in your head over just how firm your cite is…the clue should be the use of the world ‘assumption’ over and over again.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

This is all data based on a price of less than $100/barrel, Fear. They are PROJECTING a 7 percent increase based on conditions in the world market…conditions we have already past through in a short time. And they are basing it ALSO on ‘assumptions’ from the proceeding paragraphs! Assumptions that they have no way of knowing if they are right or not because the exploration of many of those regions and the exact nature of the reserves is unknown.

Well, yeah, but we we talking about new offshore drilling, so it is not really fair to bring in figures for anywhere north of the arctic circle, which last time I checked was comprised by a significant amount of onshore property.

True, but some of that IS offshore as well and isn’t part of the estimate you gave.

My guess is that intention didn’t mean simply offshore oil reserves but was talking about oil reserves in general…which was one reason I linked that cite. The other was to show that all this is guess work at this point and that a lot of people think there is a lot more oil out there than the governments out of date estimates show.

The founder and chairman of the Institute for Energy Research is Robert L. Bradley, Jr., who worked at Enron for 16 years, the last seven as corporate director for public policy analysis and speechwriter for CEO Kenneth L. Lay. Some people might take issue with his objectivity.

Well, obviously I didn’t know that…but so what? Do you have anything showing that what I cited was wrong? Even Bush sometimes says something rational or correct…you can’t just dismiss everything he says. If you have a cite other than the pretty bare bones EIA cite showing that what was said is wrong then go for it.

That 59.9 billion barrel figure includes offshore areas already approved for exploration. Areas currently under restriction are estimated at only 18 billion barrels.

No way to tell though, is there…since they haven’t been explored. There were a lot of ‘assumptions’ and ‘estimates’ in your cite, and not a lot of linked citations or explanations for many of those assumptions.

From a CNN article I dug up:

Oil: What the drilling advocates say
Supporters say there could be much more oil offshore than the government predicts as they fight for access to new supplies to lower the price of oil.

According to the article the ‘government’ actually estimates increased production at a figure closer to my supposed guess than from your cite:

Government estimates assume that drilling off the eastern and western coasts offers just over 1 million barrels a day. Even John McCain - who has made offshore drilling a cornerstone of his energy platform - doesn’t dispute that figure, which is dwarfed by worldwide production. Currently world production stands at about 73 million barrels of oil each day.

Add to that ANWR:

Drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could kick in another million barrels, though many drilling advocates - including McCain - don’t support lifting the ban there.

2 additional million barrels a day SEEMS like it’s not a lot compared to the fact that world wide production is 73 million barrels a day, but it gives significant slack to the system in case of production problems in other countries.

Boosting spare capacity is important

Kennedy also said more drilling would increase the world’s spare production capacity - the difference between what the world currently produces and what it could produce if all the spigots were turned on.

Spare production capacity is currently about 1.5 million barrels a day, most of which is held by Saudi Arabia. But just a few years ago, spare production capacity was 4 or 5 million barrels a day. That tight margin today is one reason why oil prices are so high - there is less surplus crude available to cover a disruption in supplies.

Hoping for more oil

For starters, they think there could be more oil than the government says.

“We think the estimates are extremely conservative,” said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that supports more drilling.

Kennedy said the government thought Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay field originally held 6 billion barrels of oil. Since the field began producing in 1977, Kennedy said it has provided about 14 billion barrels of oil.

Other reports have shown the discrepancy between estimated production and actual production in Prudhoe Bay to be smaller, but still it ended up producing more oil than initial projections.

“They have a bit of a weatherman’s track record when it comes to forecasting,” Kennedy said.

Granted, not an authoritative cite (just happened to see it on CNN when I was browsing the site), but it’s not like what I’m saying is some weird radical speculation coming from me alone. The rest of the CNN article gets into the politics of how all this is being spun by both sides so might be interesting to read through it if you have time.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I have provided DOE figures that place peak production from new offshore drilling at 200,000 barrels per day by 2030; you gave me Ken Lay’s speechwriter.

And yet you base your own on a one page report with no citations chocked full of words like ‘assumption’ and ‘estimate’…and who is using baseline data far out of line with current pricing and that admits that exploration in those regions is limited. But that’s a nice attack using the whole ‘Ken Lay’s speechwriter’…I’m sure you scored major points around here with that. I could similarly shoot the messenger and say that we are talking about the government estimate here…you know, the same government who thought Iraq had WMD? Yeah…THAT government. As for the DOE, their track record isn’t exactly spotless either, ehe?

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

Hey, I’m not the one who is single mindedly grasping the government figures (that even THEY say are estimates) like they were the writ of the gods here. YOU are the one who seems to be putting your faith in DOE figures…

Yes, I am. Who are you putting your faith in?

Warning bells SHOULD be going off in your head over just how firm your cite is…the clue should be the use of the world ‘assumption’ over and over again.

I guess until you shine up your crystal ball, we are stuck with “assumptions” and “estimates”. Provide a cite that can predict the future with 100% accuracy, and we will talk.

Well, obviously I didn’t know that…but so what? Do you have anything showing that what I cited was wrong? Even Bush sometimes says something rational or correct…you can’t just dismiss everything he says. If you have a cite other than the pretty bare bones EIA cite showing that what was said is wrong then go for it.

It is a matter of credibility. Say what you will about the DOE, I will let the gentle reader decide if Ken Lay’s speechwriter is a more reliable source of information about the oil industry than the DOE.

[XT]

@Fear Itself

Yes, I am. Who are you putting your faith in?

Well, that’s the difference between us, ehe? My assertions aren’t faith based…and certainly not faith based on the stuttering and hem/hawing word of the government.

I guess until you shine up your crystal ball, we are stuck with “assumptions” and “estimates”. Provide a cite that can predict the future with 100% accuracy, and we will talk.

uh, whatever you say chief.

It is a matter of credibility. Say what you will about the DOE, I will let the gentle reader decide if Ken Lay’s speechwriter is a more reliable source of information about the oil industry than the DOE.

I’ll also allow the, um, ‘gentle reader’ of this thread to use their own bullshit detector on this one. I think even a cursory reading of your cite will show that even the government realizes those estimates have feet of clay…regardless of what ‘Ken Lay’s speechwriter’ does or doesn’t have to say on the subject.

I think we are done with this for now, ehe?

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

I think we are done with this for now, ehe?

Who do you based your reasoned conclusions on?

[XT]

@Fear Itself

Who do you based your reasoned conclusions on?

Well, my ‘conclusions’ are a bit less firm than your own are, ehe? I’m saying there is a lot of doubt out there. Who do I base this on? No one source in particular. It seems pretty wide spread throughout the oil industry that the DOE figures are low, mainly because they are basing them on A) guesswork, since a lot of those regions haven’t been fully or even partially explored, and B) on metrics that aren’t valid today (such as the price of oil being lower than $100/barrel).

I’ve given you a few cites that show this, and your reply seems to focus on Key Lay…and repeatedly hammering on your DOE cite, despite the uncertainty and lack of substance to it. While I’d still like to hear back from intention on what he was basing his ~80-90 billion barrels of offshore reserves on (presumably economically exploitable reserves), I think that the DOE estimate you cite is pretty shaky.

Even if it’s NOT however, that’s still 18 billion barrels. Where they are getting that this would only bring up our production by 200,000 barrels a day is a mystery to me even at that level. At an additional 200,000 barrels a day we are talking about drilling oil out of those (estimated) reserves for something on the order of 10,000 years, no? I’m not asking you to make a huge leap of faith here…but doesn’t that seem a tad conservative to you?

(BTW, I would assume what they mean, since they don’t say, is that while we are ramping up production in these new fields we will be losing more production capacity in our old one’s…but again, I see nothing indicating such a radical lowering of our current production to warrant only an overall 7% increase over current production. Your cite goes into no details on that and this is MUCH more pessimistic than what I’ve read in the past).

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

Even if it’s NOT however, that’s still 18 billion barrels. Where they are getting that this would only bring up our production by 200,000 barrels a day is a mystery to me even at that level. At an additional 200,000 barrels a day we are talking about drilling oil out of those (estimated) reserves for something on the order of 10,000 years, no? I’m not asking you to make a huge leap of faith here…but doesn’t that seem a tad conservative to you?

That is my problem with your conclusions. Neither of us are petroleum engineers, so what you think “seems a tad conservative” is really irrelevant. At some point, we have to make decisions based on information from somebody who knows more than we do. I have seen no sources more reliable than the DOE.

[XT]

Well, I showed you cites indicating a million+ additional barrels a day (estimated)…and the author wasn’t ‘XT’. You are quite right…I’m not an oil expert or engineer, nor do I play one on TV. I’m not basing my speculations on MY opinion, but on what I’ve read…by people who are at least in theory experts.

I think you are putting to much stock in that one small DOE article…and again, I base that on what I’ve read, not on my own expertise (or lack there of). Maybe one of the folks more knowledgeable on oil will wander into the thread who DO know more about this topic. At this point you and I are just spinning our wheels…I don’t have the time to dig up more cites and you seem fixated on the DOE cite. Besides, it’s really a side topic to the OP which is about why the US is exporting refined fuels…different than the topic of how much offshore reserves we have or how much can be brought into production and in what time frame.

-XT