The US could be economically self-sufficient in oil.

Proven and Total ReservesAn oil company having publicly traded stock must disclose how much oil it has remaining in its oil fields. The value of that oil is used by investors to appraise the value of the company. Con correctly quoted the standard for evaluating proven reserves as only including oil that is available under "with existing equipment and under the existing operating conditions." [Con's ref 2] There is further clarification of "existing operating conditions:""Operating conditions includes operational break-even price, regulatory and contractual approvals, of which without these items cannot be classified as proven and are usually classified into probable. Price changes therefore can have a large impact on classification of proven reserves. Regulatory and contractual conditions may change, and also affect proven reserves amount." [11. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Consequently there are no proven reserves whatsoever on all the government land that is off-limits to leasing, or for which the government effectively prohibits development through environmental restrictions. Areas well known to have large quantities of readily available oil include ANWR, the eastern Gulf, and the California coast. However, since tapping the oil is prohibited there are no proven reserves in any of those places."The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is an area of some 1.76 billion acres submerged off the United States' coasts controlled by the federal government. Approximately 97% of the OCS is under federal moratoria preventing any exploration or production of oil and natural gas. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimates that the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Because exploration is prohibited on the vast majority of the OCS, these estimates are primarily based on survey projections and are likely quite conservative. Additionally, about 83% of federal lands onshore containing some 28 billion barrels of oil and 207 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are under moratoria or severely restricted." [12. http://www.energyxxi.org...]In addition to proven reserves (1P), oil companies are concerned with probable reserves (2P) and possible reserves (3P). "On December 30 2009, recognizing advances in exploration and valuation technology, the SEC allowed 2P probable and 3P possible reserves to be reported, along with 1P proved reserves, though oil companies also have to verify the independence of third party consultants. Since investors view 1P reserves with much greater importance than 2P or 3P reserves, oil companies seek to convert 2P and 3P reserves into 1P reserves." [11, op.cit.] Note that all the reserves are calculated for purposes of evaluating investments. 3P reserves have only a 10% chance of being recovered, but even at the 3P level, nothing made unavailable to industry would be counted.Also note the requirement that the proven reserve be recoverable "with existing equipment." Most of the time that means the well has been drilled and the oil is flowing, but I'll grant there is little leeway for drilling with available equipment.Con asserts that proven reserves are "the primary 'gold standard' for making economic decisions." If the economic decision is about valuing oil company securities, then that's true. But for public policy decisions, failing to count oil made unavailable by government or failing to count resources available at higher prices is foolish. A premise of our debate is that we will count the oil that would be available in the United States if it were not placed off-limits and if a $100 per barrel price were sustained.Oil shale cannot be counted as a proven reserve, or any other kind of reserve, because the federal government only permits research and development of oil shale. "Current oil shale research and development on six federal leases in the West is proceeding despite Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision last month to halt additional research and development leasing for further study." [12. http://www.nytimes.com...]I cited official government sources for all of the figures on reserves. I established that the history of estimates is that they are always exceeded by at least a factor of three or four and sometimes by a factor of 25. Con did not claim that any of the number cited were wrong, but only that they should be ignored in favor of the incredibly narrow definition of proven reserves that require that the oil be accessible with existing equipment under existing circumstances.Production CostsCon agreed to the recovery cost figures that I cited, excepting for risks associated with oil shale. The government gave two figures for the cost of producing oil from oil shale. The $65 per barrel figure is for surface retorting. The shale is excavated and then heated above ground. That's essentially the method used for recovery from tar sands. It's relatively expensive due to the cost of digging and moving the shale. However, there is no significant economic risk in the method. the target price considered in this debate is $100, so the $65 estimate has substantial margin as to viability.Current oil shale R&D is focused on in situ methods that do not require digging up the shale. The government figured a $35 price for recovery if that method is perfected. Keep in mind that investors are still worried that oil prices will again plunge to around the $37 level as happened in 2008. Our $100 price assumption obviates that concern for our debate.Currently about three barrels of water are needed for each barrel of oil recovered from oil shale, though the industry aims to reduce that to one barrel. The cost of the water is figured into the government estimates for the recovery costs. However, we can figure the contingency costs for water supplies for large production volumes. One way to get water is to pump it from Canada, where there are ample supplies. Oil people are good at pumping things. The cost of pumping an acre-foot of water over a 3000 ft mountain is $185. [13. http://www.pacinst.org...] That's about $2.30. As a check, the Keystone Pipeline is widely estimated to cost about $3 per barrel to transport oil. The purchase price of the water would likely about double that to around $5 or $6 per barrel.Another way to get water is to recycle water from city sewage systems. Recycled water costs about $500 per acre foot - $6.30 per barrel. [14. http://ag.arizona.edu...] Using recycled water is fairly common where water is expensive. For example, the Palo Verde nuclear generating station in the desert near Phoenix is cooled entirely with recycled water. Contingent water costs are therefore a maximum of about $20. That would be make oil shale recovery not economically viable for a market price of $37, but at $100 it's not an obstacle. The government estimate for recovery using established surface retorting methods is $65, and that included the cost of the water. Adding $20 would make the cost $85, still well under the $100 limit.Why is production low?I claimed there were several factors were several production low: worry about a crash in oil prices, federal lands placed off limits, and effective prohibitions by requirements to limit CO2. Con only addressed the issue of off-limits federal lands. I noted that production is rising sharply on private lands while it is declining on federal lands. That's because rising oil prices and improved technology are making more oil recovery economic on private lands where all the "cheap oil" has been exploited. It's dropping on federal lands because more of it has been placed off-limits.Sustained prices and removal of restrictions would produce boom.