CRS report shows much higher US oil, gas reserve levels than previously thought

posted at 2:55 pm on March 10, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Republicans in Congress advanced against the EPA and the Obama administration’s energy policy on two fronts today. In the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill to stop the EPA from implementing regulations to enforce its finding on carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant. The bill will certainly pass the House, and might pass the Senate as well:

Lawmakers approved a bill to block Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on carbon dioxide emissions in a key House subcommittee, Thursday.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee voted in favor of the bill with a voice vote along party lines. No amendments were offered, and so far there is no word on when the full committee and House will take up the measure.

In the debate leading up to the vote, Republicans attempted to frame the legislation as a measure that would stop job-killing regulations they argue contribute to high gas prices. Democrats, on the other hand, blasted the bill, calling it extreme, and saying it would roll back reasonable EPA efforts to control dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Barack Obama has threatened to veto any bill that restricts the EPA from enforcing that finding, and it may well come to that. A few Democrats in the Senate want the EPA reined in as well, notably Jay Rockefeller, who has already proposed a two-year moratorium. Other Senators in red states, such as Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Claire McCaskill in Missouri, might decide that they’ll push off the onus of stopping the bill onto Obama and let him take the heat in the 2012 election. Harry Reid may have to generate a filibuster to prevent that from happening.

That may not be the biggest development, though. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has issued a report that claims that the US has far more recoverable reserves in oil and natural gas than previously thought:

U.S. proved reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 488 billion short tons, of which 261 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable. …

Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, which are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.

Jim Inhofe briefed the Senate on these findings in a floor speech earlier today:

My message today is simply this: higher gas prices-indeed, higher prices for the energy we use - are an explicit policy goal of the Obama Administration. Let me put it another way: the Obama Administration is attacking affordable energy.

By stopping the President’s costly cap-and-trade rules, we will also remove a significant barrier to developing America’s energy resources.  You see, the cap-and-trade agenda is also about energy austerity.  The hope is that if we restrict enough supply, the price will increase, and we can then simply shift to less costly alternatives.  Yet this is wishful thinking.

We have, in fact, 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil-nearly six times higher than what President Obama and the Democrats like to claim.  Let’s think about 163 billion barrels for a moment: that is enough to maintain our current levels of production and replace our imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.

But oil resources offer only a glimpse of the full picture. As I noted earlier, CRS found that America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.  It’s far larger than that of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined.

Opponents of domestic production in oil and gas claim we cannot drill our way out of the energy crisis and our dependence on imported oil.  However, the findings certainly suggest that we can in fact do so, and that we can make that solution last for a very long time.  Even on its own, those reserves would last 22 years if we stopped all current areas of American production.  Furthermore, we’re likely to find more as we take the leash off of exploration.

It’s time to start acting like adults.  We need to use oil, and we have plenty under our feet.  Let’s start using it instead of putting cash into the pockets of unstable and unfriendly regimes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s time to start acting like adults. We need to use oil, and we have plenty under our feet. Let’s start using it instead of putting cash into the pockets of unstable and unfriendly regimes.

Your mouth to God’s ears, Ed.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 2:58 PM

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has issued a report that claims that the US has far more recoverable reserves in oil and natural gas than previously thought

Harry Reid says that stuff makes us sick. And I don’t dare question the wisdom of Sen. Reid.

Doughboy on March 10, 2011 at 3:00 PM

It’s time to start acting like adults.

Now why would we want to start doing that?

ncborn on March 10, 2011 at 3:03 PM

We have, in fact, 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil-nearly six times higher than what President Obama and the Democrats like to claim.

Let’s also understand that these estimates are conservative and the actual amounts always turn out much higher when these deposits are explored and drilled.

RadClown on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

It’s time to start acting like adults. We need to use oil, and we have plenty under our feet. Let’s start using it instead of putting cash into the pockets of unstable and unfriendly regimes.

Amen. And lets keep in mind that cars could be made to run on NG too. Many industrial vehicles use CNG, and there are also many dual fuel (diesel/CNG) vehicles out there too. With the improvements in diesel and CNG technology in the last 15 years, its an outrage watching all the billions chucked away trying to make electric cars, when diesel and CNG vehicles could make those goals a reality for far less money. People talk about plugin electrics charging in your garage, if you had an NG vehicle and NG service in your hose, you could also fill up at home. I think there was a pilot program in NJ that did this.

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Tax the rich, don’t touch my benefits!
Ooops, wrong chant.

Drill, baby drill!!!

Electrongod on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Not so much CNG, but NLG (Natural Liquid Gas) that can also be used and doesn’t really need refinement. People have been using it since the start of the industrial revolution… just saying.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM

” Democrats, on the other hand, blasted the bill, calling it extreme…”

I think I’m beginning to see a pattern here…

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 10, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Why does Sen Inhofe hate polar bears. :(

John Deaux on March 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM

drill a well. If it turns up a dry hole, then fill it with democrats.

ted c on March 10, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Start drilling now and building new nuclear power plants. Break the back of OPEC price setting the value of crude by their means of managing the amount of oil on the open market.

We also need to build new refineries. And, stop making so darn many different blends of gasoline for every locality.

SC.Charlie on March 10, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Ed Wallace at Inside Atomotive has been covering how light sweet Texas crude can not be moved from the fields as the storage is full.

HeywoodUBuzzoff on March 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Not so much CNG, but NLG (Natural Liquid Gas) that can also be used and doesn’t really need refinement. People have been using it since the start of the industrial revolution… just saying.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I was reading articles about converting diesels to NG, and they mentioned CNG instead of LNG. And they didn’t really deal with consumer level applications.

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I hope no one actually thinks that the truth is going to change the minds of any liberals.

They don’t care about reality, but invest their hopes and dreams in a fundamentally transformed America that isn’t just plain mean.

sharrukin on March 10, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Considering the kerogen locked in shale in the Rockies, we have over 1.8 Trillion bbls of recoverable oil.

Kermit on March 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM

I was reading articles about converting diesels to NG, and they mentioned CNG instead of LNG. And they didn’t really deal with consumer level applications.

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

oh I am sure. I know australia does something like that, and call it Petro. They pay for much cheaper Petro and have a switch to convert it from Petro to gasoline on their vehicle when they fill up. But the gasoline is so high there (not like it isn’t here as well) that most people only use the petro.

I wish we had it here.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Whatever you do, don’t listen to Senator Inhofe because he is from Oklahoma and may know what he is talking about. Listen to the progressive cosmo lawyer politicians. Everybody knows that lawyers are the only ones that know anything.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Not so much CNG, but NLG (Natural Liquid Gas) that can also be used and doesn’t really need refinement. People have been using it since the start of the industrial revolution… just saying.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM

If you are referring to condensate from wells, that is crazy. That stuff will burn up an engine in a heartbeat. Lots of people have tried using this right out of the oilfield where I grew up. Putting a small amount to clean out the fuel system and engine is great, but to run on it will burn out a cast iron block engine. It would melt modern aluminum engine blocks.

Kermit on March 10, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Electrongod on March 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

HA! Nice!!

ucantbserious on March 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Why does Sen Inhofe hate polar bears. :(

John Deaux on March 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM

If the polar bears can’t adapt or ‘evolve’ that’s their problem.

darwin-t on March 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM

oh I am sure. I know australia does something like that, and call it Petro. They pay for much cheaper Petro and have a switch to convert it from Petro to gasoline on their vehicle when they fill up. But the gasoline is so high there (not like it isn’t here as well) that most people only use the petro.

I wish we had it here.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Me too. Here are the libs denying us a massive opportunity for growth. For investing in ourselves rather than jihadis and they crush it. If fuel costs went down, it’d be like giving everyone a massive raise. Food and utilities would be so much cheaper. But nooooo, our intellectual betters know so much better.

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Ed Wallace at Inside Atomotive has been covering how light sweet Texas crude can not be moved from the fields as the storage is full.

HeywoodUBuzzoff on March 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Refinery construction needs to be pushed as hard as drilling. That would create jobs though and this Progressives don’t want something like that.

darwin-t on March 10, 2011 at 3:23 PM

People, in general, don’t want to believe that Obama and the radicals he has surrounded himself with that make up his administration, want the cost of energy to go up.

They do because it allows them to reach their goals in regards to “green” energy. They are so invested in “green” bot literally and figuratively that they will do anything to push through this agenda.

These people do not have the nations interests in mind.

Vince on March 10, 2011 at 3:24 PM

By the way, Senator Inhofe is a graduate of the University of Tulsa with a degree in economics.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 3:24 PM

The solution is simple and being held up by a very small cabal.

darwin-t on March 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM

It’s time to start acting like adults. We need to use oil, and we have plenty under our feet. Let’s start using it instead of putting cash into the pockets of unstable and unfriendly regimes.

Wouldn’t this disrupt Barry’s plan to fundamentally transform destroy the United States of America?

Naturally Curly on March 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Putting a small amount to clean out the fuel system and engine is great, but to run on it will burn out a cast iron block engine. It would melt modern aluminum engine blocks.

Kermit on March 10, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Not sure if you ever do historical oil/gas history, but the condensate you are speaking of (white gas) was used in the first engines, before they really began to refine oil and wanted to see what it would do in steam like engines. It did fine as long as it wasn’t an engine that had a lot of HP and not for long period of time. They have used it, but they liked it more for light.. as I am sure you know. But you know I am not talking just white gas, but I am also talking about propane as it is a liquid as well and can be found in the wells at times.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM

These people do not have the nations interests in mind.

Vince on March 10, 2011 at 3:24 PM

The Progressives want us to go back to pre-internal combustion engine days, because they believe that is in the nation’s best interest. That is why I think they should be called the Regressives.

txmomof6 on March 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM

There’s a lot more than that under there.

John the Libertarian on March 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM

It should be noted that proven reserves are a function (in part) of the price of oil. As noted in Ed’s post “Proven reserves” are “those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered.

In a higher price environments or using higher price assumptions, there will naturally be more proved reserves.

All oil or gas in the ground takes some amount of effort and money to bring it up. If it would be more expensive to bring that oil or gas up than it will sell for, that it is not “economically recoverable” at that time. Companies only get to count a reserve as proven when it becomes economically feasible to bring that product to the surface. There is a wide divergence in costs to bring up product.

In other words, there are reserves in the ground that at $90 a barrel it is too expensive to bring that product up. However, at $110 a barrel that same product is now economical to bring up.

Therefore, the recent run up of oil prices has likely caused the increase in proven reserves, because oil that was previously uneconomical to bring up has suddenly become economical. These are not newly found reserves, but merely reserves that are only now economical.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

My message today is simply this:

Jim Inhofe.

When Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats mantra has always been: ‘No War for Oil’ they are absolutely correct.

Energy for The United States of America is a matter of National Security.

Arguing within that which has been framed by environmentalists will get you nowhere. Arguing in the framework of Energy is a matter of National Security is the route I would go, after all, ‘No War for Oil’.

BDU-33 on March 10, 2011 at 3:35 PM

The Progressives want us to go back to pre-internal combustion engine days, because they believe that is in the nation’s best interest. That is why I think they should be called the Regressives.

txmomof6 on March 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM

You’d think they wouldn’t want the competition in the production of horsesh!t.

Patrick S on March 10, 2011 at 3:47 PM

We have so much natural gas, it is ridiculous. We should use it in our power plants, cars and definitely our homes.

barnone on March 10, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Oh, no. This can’t be right. We’ve been on the verge of running out of oil since the 70s!

The libs never seem to realize that oil companies work REALLY hard to find new sources of oil. And surprise, it’s all over the place.

hawksruleva on March 10, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Peak oil is a myth invented by liberals.

We probably have more than enough for a thousand years and more if we let technology help with wise usage of it.

The real story is liberals are willing to self deceive and blatantly deceive others for their perceived “good causes” being earth worship and their desire to control others.

scotash on March 10, 2011 at 3:50 PM

In fact, the static view of situtations is a pretty major characteristic of liberal thought. They think companies won’t move to avoid high labor costs, people won’t move to avoid taxes, and the economy is a pie to be sliced.

hawksruleva on March 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM

If the events in Wis. have proven anything…the other side is void of adults. This will not sway Obama one bit. Long live the drilling moratorium!

SPGuy on March 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Why does Sen Inhofe hate polar bears. :(

John Deaux on March 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM

I hear he hates Elmo and Big Bird, too.

UltimateBob on March 10, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Wait a second. I just looked at that again. Is Inhofe really comparing “technically recoverable” reserves to “Proven reserves”? Really? If so he is an idiot and must have spent the last 77 years in Oklahoma with his hands over his ears and not listening to one conversation involving a petroleum engineer or an oil company rep.
Quite a bit of the technically recoverable assets are only economically recoverable if you assume Oil price at $500-$1000 per barrel.
Technically recoverable aren’t included in Proven reserves only because at current price environments it would be uneconomical to pull that product up. We are currently in a “high” price enviroment. Inhoffe’s statement indicates that we will be fine because we have huge assets in the ground which will be economically viable to extract once WTI hits approximately $500-$600 per barrel.
The only sensible measure to use is proven reserves when talking about our current and future energy situation. Technically recoverable reserves are not applicable. His complaint that Obama is using proven reserves instead of “technically recoverable” reserves is stupid. He should fire the legislative aide that handed him this information. Obviously the Legislative aide is not from Oklahma or any other oil producing region.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 3:54 PM

The Bakken Field in ND, SD, and eastern MT are supposed to contain hundreds of billions of oil, too. Anyone else heard of this?

Mirimichi on March 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM

But Cowboy Reid said “it’s true we need to import oil to keep from making us sick” good Ole Gunslinger Reid knows best ..

wheels on March 10, 2011 at 4:09 PM

The Bakken Field in ND, SD, and eastern MT are supposed to contain hundreds of billions of oil, too. Anyone else heard of this?

Mirimichi on March 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Yep, that’s no secret. Here’s the USGS report.

I debated this recently with an anti-drilling lefty on facebook. Another person claimed that there is some drilling going on in North Dakota, but I haven’t been able to confirm that.

UltimateBob on March 10, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Our national security and the US economy ride on us drilling and accessing our resources. This has been an urgent for decades.

Mexico is close to failed-state status, Venezuela is certainly not dependable, the Middle East could blow up any day, which leaves Canada as our only dependable source? At what cost if the rest fail as sources?

Lack of action here is suicidal, and incredibly stupid! We all care about the environment, but adults balance risks. This is much more than filling up our cars being expensive, we are talking hunger and much worse. This is unconscionable, when we DO have a choice.

jodetoad on March 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Sorry, but we can’t drill until gas is at least $10 a gallon because the O’s administration likes and wants it that way.

tims472 on March 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM

That, and:

“Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.”
–George Washington

Alas, too bad the corrupt morons in CONgress are either too beholden to special interests, and/or have no “common sense and they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

Rae on March 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I can guarantee you that Jim Inhofe knows what he is talking about being from a state rich in oil and natural gas and energy companies in both large cities. And I doubt he hires his legislative aides from other states.

silvernana on March 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM

It’s time to start acting like adults. We need to use oil, and we have plenty under our feet. Let’s start using it instead of putting cash into the pockets of unstable and unfriendly regimes.

From here, it sometimes appears that all of the entrances to Washington DC are guarded by a “You must be shorter than this to get on this ride” sign stolen from the Dumbo ride at Disney World….

landlines on March 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM

More speaches should compare the affects of Obama’s policies with those of Carter. Obama is still quite popular, whereas, Carter is not. Let a little of the contempt of Carter fall on Obama.

burt on March 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Eco troll: If you knew what you’re talking about, you might be dangerous. But your attempt to change the meaning of words to fit your agenda doesn’t work here.

landlines on March 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Hey New_Jersey_Buckeye, if proven reserves really counted all the proven economically recoverable oil, then we would have to count oil shale, which is generally held to be recoverable at less than $50/bl equivilent. That means we would have MORE THAN A TRILLION barrels. Of course Obama has banned the use of oil shale and coal for liquid fuel. So by fiat, it doesn’t exist.

LakeLevel on March 10, 2011 at 4:33 PM

So by fiat, it doesn’t exist.

LakeLevel on March 10, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I used to own a Fiat. Biggest POS I ever drove in my life.

Kind of like 0bama’s policies.

UltimateBob on March 10, 2011 at 4:38 PM

What about that oil well in the Gulf that blew up? They were pumping 1K barrels per day and after it blew it up, it was spewing 100k barrels per day.

Mirimichi on March 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM

It’s far larger than that of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined.

Crikey!

PattyJ on March 10, 2011 at 4:42 PM

This just supports my argument to eliminate the Dept. of Energy. They were brought into existence to make us energy independent of foreign oil. They have failed. Time to defund and disband.

Mirimichi on March 10, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Eco troll: If you knew what you’re talking about, you might be dangerous. But your attempt to change the meaning of words to fit your agenda doesn’t work here.

landlines on March 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I’m not changing the meaning of words. Inhofe states that he is referring to “recoverable oil”. He is complaining that Obama used “proven reserves” instead of “recoverable oil” when referring to the oil and gass reserves of this country.
My post points out the huge difference between “recoverable oil” and “proven reserves”. My post also makes a judgment as to Inhofe’s intelligence based on his either a) confusion of recoverable oil with proven reserves; or b)willful conflation of those two terms.

Technically recoverable resources is defined as in-place oil and gas that may be recoverable using current recovery technology, without regard to cost.
Proven reserves are defined as in place oil and gas that has a 90% likelyhood of being recovered under current economic conditions. “Economic conditions” means that it would result in a profit if those reserves were brought out of the ground.
I didn’t make up these defintions or change anything. If you want you can check my definitions at the USGS or Society of Petroleum Engineers.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

The funny thing: when we look, we find. The CRS number’s not the end.

Mexico has reserves, just not the ability to exploit them. It would be of great advantage to Mexican stability and economic health, as well as our own, to figure out some way to get them modernized but it all comes down to milking Pemex for cash.

JEM on March 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye – the problem with that logic is that extraction technology keeps moving.

What wasn’t economically or technically practical ten years ago is now commonplace.

JEM on March 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

And yet you completely ignore the point that if we wanted to get it, there is much more fossil fuel available for all purposes at a price less than we are paying today. You are obvously someone pushing Peak snake Oil. It is a wish fulfillment fantasy of you Leftys.

LakeLevel on March 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Whitney Pitcher put this together:

As Governor Palin mentioned in her tweet, Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Those kinds of numbers make even Obama’s deficit numbers seem small!

She also mentioned that other states have large amounts of resources as well. For example, the Green River formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil–6 times as much as Saudi Arabia. There are 3-4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Those a just a few examples of the abundance of God-given resources.

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I didn’t make up these defintions or change anything. If you want you can check my definitions at the USGS or Society of Petroleum Engineers.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Mmmkay.

What does “technically recoverable” mean?

Resources that, if found, could be produced using currently available technology and industry practices.

hillbillyjim on March 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM

I was reading articles about converting diesels to NG, and they mentioned CNG instead of LNG. And they didn’t really deal with consumer level applications.

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

oh I am sure. I know australia does something like that, and call it Petro. They pay for much cheaper Petro and have a switch to convert it from Petro to gasoline on their vehicle when they fill up. But the gasoline is so high there (not like it isn’t here as well) that most people only use the petro.

I wish we had it here.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Yeah you guys in Alaska pay a LOT for gas as it is.

Ford, Chrysler, and GM have been building CNG powered cars for decades.

I remember back in the 1960s a lot of farmers used to run their stuff on propane.

Anyhow, the time has never been better for CNG powered vehicles. The new engine technologies, variable valve timing, direct injection, and sophisticated engine management systems are tailor made for CNG.

Even better, Ford, GM, and Chrysler make duel fuel cars and trucks that can run on either gasoline OR CNG, just in case you are somewhere that CNG is not available.

They are expensive, now, but companies are making units you can put in your garage that take the natural gas you already have coming into your home, and compress it to go into your car. You can just fill it up from home!

They are around $5,000 right now, but if millions of people were buying them, the prices would fall.

I like the idea of CNG because we have so much of it, and it’s actually a REAL “green” fuel.

There is little or no downside to using CNG, and tons of upside. It’s mature technology so no one has to reinvent the wheel!

Let’s get it on.

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM

It is all technically recoverable until you start working the field! the funny thing that some idiots don’t understand, is that you don’t want to be in a situation where you are desperate for oil before you starting working on ways to get it out of the ground. Had we started 10 years ago, we may have to pay more, but we would have the oil accessible.

rgranger on March 10, 2011 at 5:42 PM

NJ Buckeye,

Your definition:

Technically recoverable resources is defined as in-place oil and gas that may be recoverable using current recovery technology, without regard to cost.

USGS definition:

Resources that, if found, could be produced using currently available technology and industry practices.

Um, wouldn’t industry practices be contrary to your “without regard to cost” formulation?

hillbillyjim on March 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye – the problem with that logic is that extraction technology keeps moving.

What wasn’t economically or technically practical ten years ago is now commonplace.

JEM on March 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Cool. So if we compare proved reserves of crude oild from 10 years ago to today we will see that there has been a large increase? Because you state that extraction technology has gotten so much better in the last ten years, that economically impractical formations are now economically practical.
Well lets test your theory. In 2001 proved reserves were 22.446 billion barrels of oil. In 2009 proved reserves were at 20.682 billion barrels of oil. Source is EIA.
This seems to indicate that the new drilling techniques you spoke about in the last 10 years are not present. Also please note that WTI (West Texas Intermediate Oil) price in 2001 was approximately $26 per barrel. In 2009 the WTI price was approximately $61. So alot of increase in proved reserves comes from the more than doubling in price as more oil is economical to be pulled out of the ground.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Not sure if you ever do historical oil/gas history, but the condensate you are speaking of (white gas) was used in the first engines, before they really began to refine oil and wanted to see what it would do in steam like engines. It did fine as long as it wasn’t an engine that had a lot of HP and not for long period of time. They have used it, but they liked it more for light.. as I am sure you know. But you know I am not talking just white gas, but I am also talking about propane as it is a liquid as well and can be found in the wells at times.

upinak on March 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Service stations still sold white gas when I was a kid! 1960s early 1970s.

People would run it in their lawn mowers and stuff like that.

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Iblis on March 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Sorry, I meant to hit “quote” and hit “strike” by mistake.

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 6:01 PM

My message today is simply this: higher gas prices-indeed, higher prices for the energy we use – are an explicit policy goal of the Obama Administration. Let me put it another way: the Obama Administration is attacking affordable energy.

As gas prices continue higher, this statement should be repeated over and over until every adult voter in the US has it memorized.

GarandFan on March 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Resources that, if found, could be produced using currently available technology and industry practices
Um, wouldn’t industry practices be contrary to your “without regard to cost” formulation?

hillbillyjim on March 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

I don’t think you can read into that definition “economically feasible”. “Industry practices” means the normal methods currently used by the extraction industry. I don’t think that industry practices means “economically feasible” I think it means using current industry practices is it technically feasible to extract that oil. Technically recoverable doesn’t take cost as factor.
To illustrate: Technically I could “date” Sienna Miller. Technically I am fully equiped to “Date” that celebrity. However is it econoomically (or otherwise) feasible that I could date Ms. Miller? Sadly no.
That is the difference between Technically recoverable reserves and proven reserves.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM

The President’s Oil Reserves Lie.

… untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

Enough said. Drill baby, drill.

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM

I don’t think you can read into that definition “economically feasible”. “Industry practices” means the normal methods currently used by the extraction industry. I don’t think that industry practices means “economically feasible” I think it means using current industry practices is it technically feasible to extract that oil. Technically recoverable doesn’t take cost as factor.
To illustrate: Technically I could “date” Sienna Miller. Technically I am fully equiped to “Date” that celebrity. However is it econoomically (or otherwise) feasible that I could date Ms. Miller? Sadly no.
That is the difference between Technically recoverable reserves and proven reserves.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM

You technically have a “brain” but it’s obvious you never use it.

Why are you whining so much?

Do you think we SHOULDN’T be using our own resources?

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Here’s a link that may “prove” useful..

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

karl9000 on March 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Not buyin’.

I’ve read the definition of proven reserves as well.

Industry practices are most definitely “economically feasible”, otherwise they would not practice them, no?

Have you forgotten the First Rule of Progresssivism? It goes like this:

Big Oil is all about greed. Profit is everything.

hillbillyjim on March 10, 2011 at 6:21 PM

You technically have a “brain” but it’s obvious you never use it.

Why are you whining so much?

Do you think we SHOULDN’T be using our own resources?

gary4205 on March 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Wow. Insulting a fellow commentator. Excellent debate technique.

I think we should use our own resources. I just want to compare apples with apples. In this article, Inhoffe was comparing apples and oranges.
I also don’t want to people to understand that while there may be billions of barrells of oil in the ground, that doesn’t necessarily make it easy or economical to get the oil out of the ground. You can have a million barrels of oil on your land. However that doesn’t assure you of being a rich man if it costs $200 per barrell to produce from your property. YOur oil is uneconomical. You will have to wait until we reach (and sustain) $210 per barrell before we start developing your oil fields.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

You will have to wait until we reach (and sustain) $210 per barrell before we start developing your oil fields.

We have more than a trillion barrels recoverable at less than $50 per barrell. You sir are an idiot.

LakeLevel on March 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM

You know, you could have just said, in your infinite experience and wisdom, that you think or know he is wrong. Instead, you said

If so he is an idiot and must have spent the last 77 years in Oklahoma with his hands over his ears and not listening to one conversation involving a petroleum engineer or an oil company rep

I won’t say you are an unsufferable blowhard idiot, becasue that would make me guilty of your sins. If you can’t disagree without perjoratives, then I suggest you go back to your law office and harass your clerk.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 6:33 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye

If you know so much about the oil business, why can’t you spell barrel correctly? Just picking the nits of which you are so fond.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

I won’t say you are an unsufferable blowhard idiot, becasue that would make me guilty of your sins. If you can’t disagree without perjoratives, then I suggest you go back to your law office and harass your clerk.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Alright. You are reportedly an Okie, and therefore likely to know a little about the oil business. Would you use “Technically Recoverable” interchangeably with “Proven Reserves”. Better yet, ask your son (the PE mechanical engineer in the oil busienss) if he would use those terms interchangably as Inhoffe did in this article.

Thank you for the correction to my spelling. I will endeavor to not make such mistakes in the future.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Technically recoverable reserves include oil that can be got from the ground based on the technology of the times without reference to the economics and past history of the area or zone.

Proven reserves are probabalistic numbers derived from the first number and based on the history of the field, the economics of recovery, including price, etc. Since one is inexactly derived using information from the other, they are often interchanged. When I say inexactly, I mean probabilistically.

Both of definitions are somewhat inexact, because they are colored by the users knowledge of the situation. For example – not included in these figures is the liquid petroleum in many gas wells that foul the well and make gas recovery difficult and expensive – hence moved to the reserve column. At the same time, the petroleum is still there, but current technology make it uneconomic to recover, even including gas from an unfouled well.

It is well to not hang your hat on inexact and probablistic definitions. I wouldn’t make a bar bet on any of these or yours.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Since one is inexactly derived using information from the other, they are often interchanged. Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 7:33 PM

If the terms (“technically recoverable reserves” and “Proven reserves”) can be used in interchangeably would you pay the same amount for a field that had 100K barrels of technically recoverable reserves vs a field that had 100K barrels of proven undeveloped reserves?

Probabilistic definitions and determinations are the job of petroleum engineers. That is why there is a huge difference between when a petroleum engineer says a formation should have X amount of oil in it vs that formation has x amount of oil.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM

If you are referring to condensate from wells, that is crazy. That stuff will burn up an engine in a heartbeat. Lots of people have tried using this right out of the oilfield where I grew up. Putting a small amount to clean out the fuel system and engine is great, but to run on it will burn out a cast iron block engine. It would melt modern aluminum engine blocks.

Kermit on March 10, 2011 at 3:19 PM

The problem is not that the fuel is too hot, the problem is that the fuel air ratio was too close to optimum thermal efficiency. Increase or decrease the fuel to air ratio and the mix will burn cooler. The book for big radial piston aviation engines called for running the engine about twenty percent over rich.

Slowburn on March 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye

Now I agree.

Does anyone realise where the raw data for these reports comes from? financial reports, stock options, real estate financing, driller opinions, computer programs, engineers’ estimates, etc. These are all bundled together and the best guess, based on the opinions of the numbers available is that what is published. It is no wonder, with so much opinion, guessing and sales hype involved that the numbers are as trust worthy as they are. My gosh, people, the government can’t tell us how many people are unemployed because they get their numbers from different sources and they change the definition of unemployed to make the numbers fit their agenda. Hmm! Kinda sounds like the oil reserve answers, don’t it? This appears to me to be an exercise in quibbling.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Senator Inhofe is magnificent!
He is a fighter and we’re lucky to have him as a senator.
He is the voice of Americans wanting to preserve liberty,
to lead the charge against the hoax of global warming, and
to advocate for lower energy costs!

Mark7788 on March 11, 2011 at 12:50 AM