Untapped Resources?
Nice map:
From Friday's WSJ:
"Mounting concerns about global energy supply are fueling a drive by the oil industry and some U.S. lawmakers to end longstanding bans on domestic drilling put in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas.
Increasing U.S. oil production would require overturning decades-old moratoriums that limit offshore drilling and accelerating leasing of federal lands, moves that would trigger a swift and vigorous political backlash. Still, as gasoline prices continue to climb and squeeze household budgets, the momentum appears to be gaining to open up new areas."
See also: New Find Fuels Speculation Brazil Will Be a Power in Oil
Now, what about raising CAFE standards?
>
Source:
Oil Industry, Lawmakers Aim To Lift Bans on Drilling
Fears Over Supply Drive Push to Enter Protected U.S. Areas
RUSSELL GOLD BEN CASSELMAN and STEPHEN POWER
WSJ, May 23, 2008; Page A5
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121149858423815755.html
Sunday, May 25, 2008 | 02:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (42)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e55279de428833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Untapped Resources?:
Comments
Imagine that... oil lobbyists eager to overturn environmental regs and begin domestic drilling. Nevermind that they were pushing for this back when gas was still $1.95.
So how is it that the same group that brought us the War in Iraq is taken seriously about anything at this point? Better yet, how come they aren't tarred and feathered?
Posted by: Condor | May 25, 2008 3:34:55 PM
"Better yet, how come they aren't tarred and feathered?"
I'll chip in for the tar-- that's probably $4 a gallon, too.
Posted by: tom B | May 25, 2008 3:38:38 PM
Gas prices in the US are still relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of the world. For example, most of Europe pays over US$8 per gallon.
Instead of drilling for more, and finite, supplies of oil, we should be raising the fuel efficiencies of our vehicles (your reference to CAFE), and exploring alternative energy approaches.
The supply of fossil fuels is finite. Meanwhile world-wide consumption is increasing (e.g., China and India, in addition to a thirsty US). This is not a sustainable condition. When something is not sustainable, eventually it has to stop.
Posted by: Bob | May 25, 2008 3:40:09 PM
Assuming I'm not missing anything the map depicts an estimated 39 billion barrels of oil in the US. The US consumes approx 21 million bbls of oil per day (2007 est) so a quick back of the envelope calculation indicates we're looking at about 5 years worth of consumption at current rates.
Looked at another way we could probably reduce US dependence on foreign sources of oil by a few points/year but it seems unlikely the impact would be great enough to reduce the influence of those sources over US business, policies and politics (it goes w/o saying that most of those sources are no one we would care to take orders from).
Probably time to give up on the short-term, stop-gap thinking typified by these kinds of proposals. If such plans were a genuine intermediate-term effort to buy us time in the face of unforeseen events one could accept them as justified but when they clearly represent the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place over the past few decades the conclusion is inescapable: nothing will change if we increase drilling and the kind of serious policy adjustments, R&D, infrastructure investment, social mobilization, etc necessary to forge a clear path out of the morass will once again be delayed.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Oh yeah.
Posted by: RW | May 25, 2008 4:31:46 PM
TGBBGDDD (the great big bell goes ding, ding, ding) moment - On Friday, I noted that CNBC ran a "Special Report: The Crude Crisis"
I would think about taking a little something off or getting protected.
Posted by: ZackAttack | May 25, 2008 4:41:00 PM
Would not increasing supply have the effect of lowering prices, increasing demand and hastening the ultimate depletion of this resource?
...But as long as I can drive the navigator down to the mall TODAY for some more cheap plastic crap from China...
Posted by: mobiaxis | May 25, 2008 4:49:07 PM
The USGS 2007-2008 Assessment Updates puts the figures at 48.5 BBO and 655 TCFG, and the current maps (HT TBP) are on my blog.
Posted by: Leo | May 25, 2008 5:01:59 PM
Until a few holes have been drilled, this is just speculation.
Posted by: Scytale | May 25, 2008 5:07:33 PM
Yep... seems pretty clear that the beneficiaries of extracting the remaining oil and gas from public US lands... would NOT be the public.
A couple million barrels a day production would NOT give anyone noticeably cheaper energy products.
However, what do you think are the chances that the $billions in profits would overwhelmingly flow to a couple oil & gas supermajors with typically sweet contracts from the feds? I'd say, 99.9%.
How many oil & gas execs have a fat bonus waiting for them on the day that they secure extraction rights?
This is about maximizing the monetization of energy resource assets before the INEVITABLE conversion to sun-sourced energy infrastructure, and actually reduces our strategic energy security. Our piddly remaining hydrocarbon energy resources should be kept for a rainy day.
It's an old game...... public strategic security is deliberately reduced in order to force maximum value extraction from the public. Adam Smith would sure as hell not approve.
Almost everyone I know actually thinks that oil & gas extracted domestically would somehow wind up giving "us" cheap gasoline. No understanding of market function whatsoever.
We always get what we deserve, dont we.
Posted by: Nick - Los Angeles | May 25, 2008 5:18:01 PM
I'm pretty certain tar is too expensive and feathers are environmentally protected...however, I have heard that waterboarding is legal....
Posted by: Winston Munn | May 25, 2008 5:20:56 PM
Interesting diagram but wow - just wow - lot of oil company hate today. The oil companies are doing exactly what we ask them to do. Provide us oil. And they do it very efficiently. How do you want it to work? Nationalize them? Because that works well.
The bottom line is that we should be limiting our reliance on foreign sources of energy. The only way of doing that is aggressively raising CAFE limits, researching new technology, AND taping our own resources. Lets be honest here some of this local moratoriums are downright silly.
Posted by: tim | May 25, 2008 5:29:18 PM
.... What I love, is that oil companies are suffering the same Hubris, the Car companies have suffered since 1970,(and the same one that Microsoft is about to suffer) Using their monopolies to bully mother market for long enough to become completely uncompetitive, and borderline delusional.
Oil is finished, it's time to move on to other methods, I'm not advocating Solar or any of the other dumb shit. But how if we don't flood the air with shit, to give our kids asthma, and everyone cancer over the next 30 years...
all of this is just continued "rearranging deck chairs.", and delaying the inevitable. I suspect big oil has been sandbagging it for the past 2 years, to exacerbate and initiate a Friedman-esqu crisis, so they can rape and pillage remaining resources, before we actually do have enough of a crisis to actually come to Jesus, that it's time to move on, to develop fusion, and expanded nuclear.
Instead of being ahead of the game, here in the U.S. and getting competitive in new markets.... We will be stupid and let Europe or Asia, develop the new technologies and markets.... While we, rearrange deck chairs, and let dinosaur old technology monopolies dominate our thinking and our markets, like the morons we are.
But like everything, I always like to skip to the end, instead of going through the motions like we always have to do.
Posted by: Eric Davis | May 25, 2008 5:31:18 PM
I'm glad someone above compared the reserves to the consumption. It just ain't there to SOLVE the problem, but this keeps being presented as a solution.
That is the key idea to refute.
Posted by: odograph | May 25, 2008 5:50:47 PM
Juneau Goes Into Conservation Overdrive
A series of avalanches in April cut off the Alaskan capital from its source of cheap hydropower. The cost of electricity has quadrupled as a result. Juneau has been forced to cut its power consumption by nearly a third in one week.
Juneau Power Crisis Brings Stark Savings Measures
One month after an avalanche knocked out its connection to a hydroelectric dam, much of Juneau, Alaska, is still relying on diesel back-up generators. Residential electricity rates have gone up about 400 percent.
As a result, residents and the city have embarked on an extraordinary conservation campaign. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are common; restaurants routinely dim the lights.
Posted by: FT Woods | May 25, 2008 6:04:46 PM
I'm amused that "foreign oil" never seems to consider Canada and Mexico despite the fact they're #1 and #2 of our providers, and, by definition, foreign.
Oh well, gotta whip the masses up for the War, right?
Posted by: Patrick | May 25, 2008 7:36:48 PM
CAFE standards? I would rather let the market decide how fuel efficient vehicles should be.
High gas prices create demand for efficient vehicles.
Posted by: SIV | May 25, 2008 8:28:27 PM
...because the "free-market" doesn't include the externalities such as taxes for roads, bridges, repairs, pollution, auto-traffic accidents, etc.. etc.. etc...
So the government provides these lowering the cost of gasoline vehicles WITHOUT the appropriate counter-balancing "free-market" costs.
Posted by: VennData | May 25, 2008 8:37:49 PM
raising cafe standards would hurt the US auto cos
Posted by: rickrude | May 25, 2008 8:41:03 PM
raising cafe standards would hurt the US auto cos
Posted by: rickrude | May 25, 2008 8:42:03 PM
According to an article I read on msnbc, European cars get an average of 40 mpg (Hope they did the right conversion of liters and kilometers to gallons and miles). American cars get an average of 20.4 mpg. On the face of it, it would seem that raising cafe standards is the correct choice. American car manufacturers have a history of not making better cars unless forced to.
Regarding renewed oil drilling in and around the US, I'm all for it. We really shouldn't expect the world to ship their oil to us which we waste in inefficient ways while we also make a mess in their backyard; we have a NIMBY attitude. All of these other countries are drilling for oil and don't make a mess of their ecology. Surely we can do as well.
Posted by: Rock | May 25, 2008 9:29:19 PM
EVERY energy card needs to be played, including the acquisition of new domestic reserves. We should not be forced to go to war to keep oil flowing to our economy.
Posted by: txshad0 | May 25, 2008 9:32:41 PM
But…., is drilling really banned in all of the places shown on that map as potential reserves? Really??
I am wondering this because I am in Houston and there is a great big circle right next to it, possibly overlapping it. I have never heard about that area being banned for drilling and I don’t understand why it would be.
Houston doesn’t really seem to have issues with nearby oil drilling, so long as it is not in the middle of the city. Even then, with the no zoning laws….., who knows, maybe they could set up a rig in the city. Houston is after all the oil capital of the country.
I don’t know if I buy the whole no drilling in that area south west of Houston.
Also, no drilling in that circle in Mississippi and Louisiana? Is that really true?? They let them drill in the Atchafalaya spill way, which would seem to be much more environmentally sensitive than there. It is even legal to drill in there right next to the interstate. They are allowed to be so close that they had to shut down I-10 there for a month or two a year or two ago when one of them blew.
Maybe the map is of potential reserves irrespective of whether or not they can currently be drilled. If so, that map is a little deceiving given the title of the article that it is shown with.
Posted by: Markus | May 25, 2008 9:35:57 PM
People are free to imagine anything they like from a bountiful god to a free market to moons made out of green cheese but the hard facts on the ground are that outfits like Toyota have beaten the US auto makers, gaining market share even while providing better performance and fuel efficiency, because they're better capitalists: They're not intrinsically better but they reacted to change via innovation instead of delaying tactics, cronyism and economic rent seeking.
IMO outfits like Toyota would probably deal with CAFE standards significantly higher than today and barely break a sweat doing it because the real world is what markets work in and when the real world changes -- as in society needs cleaner air and alternative fuels for example -- then that alters or even creates a market environment and capitalism, I mean the real deal here and not the utopian version, just loves a new environment to play in.
We really do need to rethink the way we've been playing the game here.
Posted by: RW | May 25, 2008 9:47:51 PM
This is about the oil bigs. I could do without gasoline with a decent EV and a squirrel cage on the roof. Instead we go on destroying the environment for the sake of corporate profits. Alas. On the plus side, it will be a hoot competing with dumb-assed J6P for the last tank of juice. Pucker up Joe & Jane.
Posted by: mort | May 25, 2008 10:00:25 PM
Here is a link to a map of oil fields from the DOE.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/topfields.pdf
Posted by: Markus | May 25, 2008 10:01:39 PM
