I'm not sure what you are implying. Chart 63 says they have known reserves for 150 years. Yes, it's more expensive but the reason production peaked is because the are switching to other sources of energy.
I grew up in Oklahoma and I have friends in the oil business. One friend has a chart of his land on the wall of his office. He said that a mile down there's oil under every state in the union. They just haven't developed a good way to get it and it costs over a million dollars to drill that deep. So I googled it and found this article. It is true that there is more known oil deposits in North America than in the Middle East. The Bakkan field in North Dakota, for example, contains up to 500 billion barrels of oil, more than twice the known oil deposits of Saudi Arabia. Just this past summer, a new major oil field was discovered about 250 miles off of Houston, Texas, in the Gulf of Mexico, that initial estimates put at 250 billion barrels – also more than Saudi Arabia. Besides those two fields, we have at least another 250 billion barrels under Alaska and 50 billion under and off the coast of California and billions more under just about every state in the Union. All told, we have enough oil underground in North America to furnish all of the needs of the United States for well over another century. Most of the oil fields under the North American continent were discovered long ago. The Bakkan field, for example, was discovered back in 1951. The reason why we import oil from South America and the Middle East instead of producing our own right here is a matter of cost. In the same way that American manufacturers rely on foreign workers to manufacture products, American oil companies import oil from abroad because it is cheaper than pumping oil out of the ground here. In the case of oil, it isn’t labor costs that play a major role in the decision to import oil into the United States. The environmental costs and the geological costs are the two major factors that make importation more attractive than domestic production. The oil under the sands of Saudi Arabia is far easier, and therefore less costly, to extract than the oil pocketed under rock beneath North Dakota. On the environmental front, getting a permit to sink a well in North America is just slightly less difficult than acquiring tickets on the fifty-yard line for a Chicago Bears – Green Bay Packers game. http://chiefengineer.org/?p=4046 Sent from my iPad > On Nov 20, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Peter Eckhoff via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > When you consider that Exxon Mobile, in their 2016 World Energy Outlook: A > View to 2040, (ref: > http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/outlook-for-energy/2016/2016-outlook-for-energy.pdf) > on page 62 of 80, has a graph that clearly shows conventional oil production > peaked in 2005. The graph also shows a combination of Conventional, New > conventional, Deepwater, Oil sands and Tight oil peaking in production around > 2040, it seems very short sighted not to develop EVs (or alternative fuel > sourced vehicles). 2040 is only 23 years away and fleet turnover is roughly > once every 16 years. Also, the remaining oil reserves are more expensive to > develop. How people get around after the peak in 2040 is something I think > GM would want a share of that market or they grow irrelevant. > > The other possibility is that someone has or is close to storing hydrogen > absorbed in a solid (or liquid) material for later release under heat, > pressure, or sound. GM would then be hedging their bets. Has anybody read > of any recent developments? > > Tom is likely on to something. Increasing the range of an EV from 80 miles > to 238 is a significant development and there maybe problems as Tom listed > especially if it was done by increasing the Whr/kg energy density. > >> On 11/20/16, 1:10 PM, tomw via EV wrote: >> A few possible reasons for the slowed introduction of the Bolt: >> >> 1) LG Chem has had a glitch in increasing battery production so cannot >> supply the planned quantities in the required time frame. >> >> 2) GM has discovered some problems with the Bolt which they do not want to >> advertise, but need to delay production to implement improvements. >> >> 3) GM (or LG Chem) has discovered some ways to significantly reduce >> production costs and want get these designed in and implemented before >> producing significant product quantity. >> >> 4) GM wants to gain field experience with Bolt ownership in a limited way to >> see what issues arise to limit warranty/recall costs. >> >> Having worked in product development quite a few years I have personally >> experienced analogs of all of these. But, people like to speculate and >> believe what they want to believe. Only time will tell. >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GM-Killed-The-Bolt-Electric-Car-GM-only-selling-Bolt-in-CA-OR-tp4684542p4684555.html >> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> _______________________________________________ >> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub >> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org >> Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ >> Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ > Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20161121/84f05794/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
