The US could be economically self-sufficient in oil.

The debate is only about economic self-sufficiencyThis debate is narrowly focused on whether the U.S. could be self-sufficient on oil for 50 years with oil prices at $100 per barrel. Perhaps global warming will kill us all, but that's not an issue here. Nor is the issue issue whether the US can be self-sufficient in water. The issue is solely about whether the US could be self-sufficient in oil, if oil were $100 per barrel. We agreed that the oil requirement for the US for 50 years is about 7.3 billion barrels per year. Data provided by U.S. government sources is that the US possesses known conventional oil rresources totalling 31 years supply of . Historical data shows that estimates of known reserves are always very low. The observed ratio of known to unknown is up to 25, but I have only claimed a factor of three. It's logical that not all resources are known, and specially so for the United States where large areas have been of limits to exploration for a very long time. That puts conventional supplies at 93 years of self-sufficiency.Con argues that we do not know with certainty exactly how much conventional oil is available, and indeed we do not know with certainty. However, the challenge specified "My burden in this debate is to establish that there is at least a 50-50 chance that the U.S. need for oil could be met at the $100 per barrel price" I have been throughout conservative in the resource estimates provided, relying on government data. Con provided no alternative sources with lower estimates. In the case of oil shale, the Bureau of Land Management, as I cited, estimates that there are 2175 billion barrels of oil recoverable from oil shale. I've used a more conservative estimate from another government source that it is 1400 billion barrels. The lower estimate is 194 years supply. Con started out arguing that only pr oven reserves should be counted. I provided evidence that proven reserves are only relevant to the claims made to investors by oil companies, and that areas made off-limits by either leasing restrictions or by regulations do not count. No one, and significantly no the government itself, believes that proven reserves are a meaningful measure of total reserves. Con seems to have dropped the claim at this point.Oil shale recovery costsI provided government estimates that oil shale can be recovered for about $65 per barrel using surface retorting. Con provided no source that $65 is a bad estimate; he only argued that the technology is not well-established. The technology is at the stage of development and demonstration projects, mostly aimed at developing in situ techniques that could drive the cost as low as $25 per barrel. The desire to achieve lower costs does not invalidate viability at $65 per barrel. It shows that $100 per barrel is a high price, and that oil companies are still worried about a price collapse to $37 as occurred in 2008. That's the reason they want to get costs down to $25 or $35. In situ processing also requires less water and sequesters most of the carbon dioxide produced in the processing. while there are strong incentives to perfect in situ extraction, they are not required to meet the $100 cost target assumed for the debate.Con argues that the restrictions placed on oil shale are reasonable, based upon the danger to water supplies and fears of global pollution. Whether the government restrictions are sound or not, they have been ruled out as an issue for the debate. The debate is solely about the resources available and the cost of recovery. My only point was that Con did not contest that the restrictions I cited were in fact in place. Whether reasonable or not, restrictions prevent all development of oil shale on federal or private lands, except for R&D.Even though I don't need to address the issue, I'll note the that the US uses about 19% of the world's oil, and the fraction is decreasing. Whether oil is imported or domestic makes no difference with respect to the CO2 produced when the oil is consumed. Con claims that the small amount of CO2 produced during recovery would increase by 25% to 75%. Con's source admits, "Replacing the retorting heat source with a near zero-carbon energy source would bring emissions from oil shale-derived fuels quite near to those from conventional oil production, as the CO2 generation from mineral and kerogen reactions is less than 10% of the total." Nuclear power is a zero carbon emissions source, so that would be a good solution if it is a real concern. Con worries that competition for water might endanger food supplies. Environmentalists have no concern for endangering food supplies by cutting off water supplies. They are destroying dams on the Klamath River that will destroy agriculture in the area. [15. http://abclocal.go.com...]Environmentalists argue it is more important to restore traditional Native American salmon fisheries than to grow large amounts of food. They cut off water to a large food growing region in central California to preserve a minnow-like fish. [16. http://www.sodahead.com...] Perhaps they are right that food should be a low priority. Whether it is or not is a subject for a separate debate. This debate is about the economics. Oil shale production can economically use recycled water; food production cannot. Water costs for oil shale recoveryThe cost of water is figured into the oil shale cost estimates. Con questions whether we can rely upon Canadians to sell water to the US. I don't have any concern with depending on Canada for water. Canadians do not fund terrorists, and Canada is the number one US trading partner and I figured a good price for the water. Our debate is about whether the US could be self-sufficient in oil if we chose to. I also suggested the use of recycled water which is available at acceptable cost. and Con did not respond. We also have an unlimited supply of desalinated water, which makes it ultimately only a cost issue.Con argues that we must figure the collateral damage from pollution. However, that's not a self-sufficiency issue. Oil obtained from the Middle East or Nigeria or Venezuela is not less polluting than oil obtained domestically. That's why it was reasonable to rule the issue out for this debate. In any case, reasonable or not, it was ruled out. Con argues that there are lots of leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Sure, but the entire Eastern Gulf is off limits. "Interior Sec. Ken Salazar said on Dec. 1 that Atlantic Ocean and eastern Gulf of Mexico areas will be excluded from the 2012-17 Outer Continental Shelf 5-year leasing program." [17. http://www.pennenergy.com...] The only drilling in the Eastern Gulf is being done by China in Cuban waters. Con also links to a government page that links to another page that says that there is plan for leasing in the Arctic coast, but it's now subject to a moratorium. A gave accurate sources for the areas off-limits and that stands. That some areas are leased is not in question. Our debate would be no different if all government restrictions were now lifted. We would still have to debate how much oil is available at what price.SummaryThe U.S. has huge reserves of oil and oil equavalents, and $100 per barrel is a very high price relative to the costs of recovery. We have about 90 year's supply of conventional oil, so 50 years could likely be obtained without tapping oil shale. We have at least 200 years worth of oil shale, so 50 years supply could be had from a quarter of it. In practice, tapping a quarter of the reserves of conventional oil and an eighth of oil shale would provide the 50 year supply with high confidence.