Originally Posted by X5rolls (Post 808142)

In the piece above (while I really do have empathy for folks who are struggling on a month to month basis) this quote jumped out as a bit off.

For drivers such as Robert Wagner, 51, a high school teacher from Thornton, Colo., the higher fuel costs mean cutting back on movies and dinners out for him, his wife and their two children. "We're very, very frugal right now," he said as he trickled enough $3.09-per-gallon gasoline into his Chevrolet Suburban to get him to his next pay day.

It's not like people didn't know Surburbans got horrible has mileage 2 years ago. I mean, come on now. Frugal would mean getting rid of the Surburban, not going to movies and eating at home. He needs to cut his expenses big time.

Give me 20 minutes going over his finances/expenses and I bet I could get him on a plan to reduce his costs significantly. There is nothing wrong with living within ones means.

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 808666)

Back on the theme of increasing domestic production, and focusing on the supply side of the equation....

I came across this today, and thought of this thread. The USGS reduced their previous (2002) estimate of undiscovered conventional oil in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve and associated waters by 90%. This isn't all of Alaska, but it is a sizeable area. This new estimate is based on more recent exploration, and counts the technically recoverable oil and gas. Gas reserves were also reduced. So, it isn't just in Saudi that reserves have been overstated. This entire estimated reserve would supply all oil needs in the US for about 45 days by one calculation. Sort of puts a cramp in the 'drill baby drill' promoters in Alaska.


USGS Release: USGS Oil and Gas Resource Estimates Updated for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) (10/26/2010 12:43:17 PM)

Edit:

I wondered how comparable the NPRA is compared to the ANWR, since there is a lot of discussion about drilling in the ANWR. The NPRA is 23 million acres, the ANWR is 19 million acres. Comparable, at first glance. They are both on the North Slope, where the oil is. We don't know with any confidence what reserves the ANWR contains, since the estimates are older than the old NPRA estimates. However, in 1998 the USGS put the reserves in the ANWR at between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels. That is comparable to the 10.6 billion barrels that the USGS estimated were in the NPRA in 2002, and which has been downgraded by 90%, above.

Originally Posted by X5rolls (Post 808693)

This is pretty big news - I've not followed any of the details around prior geologic predictions on oil and gas but this seems to be a critial change.

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 808698)

Yeah, that's what I thought when I read it. I first read an editorial today which was essentially saying "Why Isn't Anyone Talking About This?" It was linked to a source article, then another article, and eventually I got back to the USGS press release from October 2010. That press release didn't seem to generate much reasoned debate, and that is unfortunate IMO.

Originally Posted by X5rolls (Post 808699)

Yes, that is unfortunate. Big bells should be ringing. This puts a big priority on further exploration in Alaska, the continental US and our coastal waters IMO. We have to get a handle on what reality is. Quickly.

Originally Posted by Quicksilver (Post 808787)

Like I said it was a electronic error.

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 808716)

The down-estimate was a product of a significant exploratory drilling program. There doesn't seem to be the political will on either side of the spectrum to drill in the ANWR, and extrapolating from the findings documented above, it may not ever be worth drilling there.

Knowing that vast parts of Alaska do not have the oil that they were previously supposed to have, perhaps effort could be put into starting to affect demand.