• Sep 5, 2009
Even during the recession, oil is hovering at around $70 per barrel. There are many reasons for elevated oil prices, such as emerging markets demanding more crude and market speculators. Perhaps the biggest reason of all, however, is that oil is just harder to come by, as all the obvious spots have already been drilled.

So when a massive oil reserve is uncovered, it's big news. British Petroleum has made just such a find, as it has reportedly discovered between three and six billion barrels of crude oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico about 250 miles off the coast of Texas. The find was made after BP drilled down a record seven miles, giving the oil giant another massive reserve a few hundred miles from where the natural resource is used most.

Autoline Daily notes that BP already pumps about 400,000 barrels per day in the region, and experts say the find could result in another 250,000 barrels of black gold a day towards the end of the next decade. That sounds mighty impressive until you remember that the U.S. uses about 20 million barrels of oil every day. Follow the jump to watch the latest edition of Autoline Daily.

[Source: Autoline Daily | Image: Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 57 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      omg look at that! A flying ship!
        • 5 Years Ago
        HA! Kind of looks like a Syd Mead futurist rendering, doesn't it?

        XD
      • 5 Years Ago
      milkshake has never tasted better!
      • 5 Years Ago
      whom does the oil belong to now ? Mexico ? US ? or BP?
      • 5 Years Ago
      Instead of granting US companies charters to explore on US soil, including Alaska and coastal areas...

      The current administration sent 2 BILLION dollars to the Brazilian oil companies, and is considering more.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

      Oh, BTW, who owns HUGE stakes in Brazilian oil companies???

      George Soros. Political contributor, and economic extortionist extraordinaire, and Obama ally.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Boxer: I gotta say, I'm not buying the conspiracy theory. The U.S. would probably have given this loan whether Soros was involved or not. And if not Soros, some other equally shady billionaire speculator would have been involved. You don't become a billionaire without using shady (or downright illegal) tactics.

        Besides, Brazil has the largest economy in South America, many American businesses have branches there, has a stable government, has the 4th largest lithium reserves, and is largely energy-independent. Because of all that, the U.S. has a vested interest in working with Brazil, so this deal would have happened anyway.
        • 5 Years Ago
        It's a loan, not a gift. Loans make money.

        And besides, we shouldn't be giving money to any oil companies. Oil is $70/barrel right now, that alone should be enough financial incentive for them to drill, they don't need a subsidy on top of that.

        What's with these comments about not giving US companies charters to explore on US soil? The government doesn't withhold exploration leases from any company on the basis of where it is based. BP/Amoco/Arco bid for the exploration lease for this area. It could easily have been Exxon instead, but they weren't the top bidder.

        By the way, if there really are 6 billion exploitable barrels of oil (which is unlikely), then that is a whopping 71 days of oil at the 2006 rate of 85 million barrels of oil consumed per day. That means a find this big has to be made 5 times a year and has to be fully exploitable and drainable in 71 days for this to even be a break even as far as oil reserves go.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I agree, LS7, that my tax money should not go to oil companies.

        But CERTAINLY not to foreign interests and international extortionists and currency racketeers like Soros.

        Granting exploration and resource rights to US companies to do business in the free market is not the same thing as STEALING MY MONEY AT GUN POINT, and then sending it to some other country to line the pockets of an international criminal, because he spent some of his billions on the political machinery that got the president elected after one of the shortest, and evidently radical, political careers of any president to date.

        And RayJ, you need to get a clue. Oil is the lifeblood of economics, in EVERY country. Economic activity requires an energy source, and after wood came coal, and oil has replaced some of that. Energy and plastics are by far the major uses of oil. It isn't food, and you can't otherwise build with it... (Aside from the afore-mentioned plastics...)

        Until another primary energy source is found, Oil is the major transportable energy source. (and electricity is NOT PRIMARY, unless you are Doc Brown, and you harness 1.21 jiggawatts from a bolt of lightning... otherwise it comes from something else.)

        Using less energy means conducting less business. Conducting less business means less GDP. Less GDP means more people out of work. Do you want to be out of work?

        I am all for efficiency, for the SAKE of efficiency. Free market competition seeks it to cut costs, if allowed to. Energy costs included. But it is foolish to think that on an aggregate scale that we can cut a major portion of our global energy useage, without a replacement source, and continue to live in the industrialized society we know.

        And you don't want to live in a third world mud-ball, working for your daily food, any more than I do. The people who live that way want to come here for better.

        Talking about cutting oil consumption is all fine and dandy, until it comes down to reality, and what the implications are on the ground.

        And our government, which the Constitution says is instituted to protect this country's sovereignty, is not supposed to be sending our resources to protect other countries, other people, and other interests, while denying US interests and liberties to provide resources for ourselves, to fuel our own freedom and liberty, and allow americans to be productive and prosper with that productivity.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Boxer,
        I think the responses are to what looks/sounds like a duck,... er,... a political statement.

        In the grand scheme, I think it's a bit ironic to suggest political shenanigans related to the current administration's energy policy when there's so much wrong with how it was managed by previous administrations (does anyone really have any clue who was on the energy policy task force in the previous admin, or what, beyond cash givebacks, the resulting policy actually was? How many of those task force assignments & cash givebacks were to "Rangers"?)... We don't have to get into pants-checking political leanings on this, either, since I have voted across party lines many times, okay?

        Energy policy is arguably the most important policy for the Federal Government to set and "policy" needs to take a long-view, yet be flexible enough to adjust to new findings, as long as those new findings affect the long-view. I'm hoping, since it was such a key part of the campaigns, that we'll see a long-view strategy/ policy versus one that changes based on short-view findings that don't affect long-term trends. Right now, the trend seems to suggest (all major scientific opinions) a finite supply and, with growing demand in other markets (BRIC countries), we need to keep the eye on the ball and actively try to figure out what will (as coal replaced wood and oil replaced coal) replace oil... This shouldn't be about politics though, I'd be first to point out, it's unfortunate that strategies/policies are established by politically-elected officials. I'm hoping we can all rise above this, including the politicians, otherwise the ride will only get bumpier, rather than smoother.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Now if we would just allow those pesky oil companies to drill 50 miles off the Florida and New Jersey coasts we might just become oil independent.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Seems like an awful lot of work to find less than a year's worth of oil. I wonder how cost effective accessing deep deposits like this are compared to extracting oil from oil shale in Canada or GTL technology.
      • 5 Years Ago
      so if it the generous estimate is 6,000,000,000 barrels and we use 20,000,000 barrels a day, that's less than a year of oil supply and full production won't be met for almost a decade?

      big deal.
        • 5 Years Ago
        moneyman: it has taken 30+ years to extract 11 billion barrels of oil from Prudhoe Bay. Why would things suddenly change within another 15 years?
        • 5 Years Ago
        And even after they start extracting the oil, at the projected 250k barrels/day, it will take nearly 66 years to extract all 6 billion barrels, making this an even less economical discovery.
        • 5 Years Ago
        You ever try to extract stuff from SEVEN MILES under the ocean?
        It's not easy nor is it cheap, which is kind of the point of the peak oil theory-it's that it'll get more and more expensive to extract.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Well, 250000/20000000 = 25/200 = 1/8 = 12.5%, which isn't too shabby.
      • 5 Years Ago
      There is more Oil on earth then Anyone could have dreamed of. Oil prices is about politics and setting agendas. You listen to Lindsay Williams talk about his experience working with Oil Executives in ARCO. There is more Oil in Prude Oil Bay then there is in all of the Oil fields in Iran.
        • 5 Years Ago
        First, it's Prudhoe Bay, not Prude Oil Bay.

        Second, you are wrong. Prudhoe Bay contains roughly 25 billion barrels of oil of which only 13 billion accessible barrels are accessible with current technology, and only 2 billion barrels of that oil remains. Iran's oil fields contain over 180 billion barrels of oil, much of which has yet to be accessed.

        Third, even if there is a larger arctic oil field, you have to get to it. It is very difficult to build off-shore rigs in the arctic where constantly shifting ice can destroy an oil platform or shift it off the well head. Plus, Russia has already been pushing to claim much of the land under the Arctic Ocean. It is also very likely that Antarctica has huge oil reserves but the chances of those ever being exploited are very slim. At least I hope so.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I remember seeing an article about that as well (maybe even the same one you are referring to). It had something to do with converting turkey offals into petroleum and showed that although high temps and pressure were necessary, it didn't take very long at all.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Boxer Fanatic your argument would have had merit if the wall street journal was not packed full of right wing conspiracy's and lies and if it did not have the ties to the republican party it does .if you want to cry then cry about bush's trillion dollar waste of taxes dollars on a fake war . I'll assume from your name, that you just might make over 250k a year and would have a strong reason to fear going back to a fair taxation system under president Obama where the rich will have to pay their fair equal share

      • 5 Years Ago
      it doesn't matter how many billions of oil we have because we have more supply then demand now and gas is ranging from 2,35 to 2,80 a gallon in most states and it should not be this high now. The oil company's are ripping us all off and we all do noting. I say we all should have a no buy gas weekend every month to punish these oil company's. Stay home , watch a dvd , play a game, go for a walk with ur family or girl friend or boy friend, find something to do. Imagine If everyone did a once a weekend every month of a no buy gas weekend. I hate the oil compnys and would love to see them suffer like so many of us have at their gas pumps.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Unfortunately, if you have a 401k you'd just be hurting yourself. Oil companies are the bedrock of most 401k plans.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Dont forget the good old boys playing with the market , I think they call it SPECTULATING !!
      • 5 Years Ago
      good thing we don’t let American companies drill off the Gulf...
        • 5 Years Ago
        That doesn’t make a difference… there is oil out there to find and the argument is for the environment yet other countries still drill off our coasts and make money? Why not American companies?
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'm not a fan of the peak oil fear either. But even if oil is determined to not be crushed dinosaurs (very likely in my opinion), that still doesn't mean that there's an unlimited supply or even if there is, that we can afford to burn it all and put that CO2 into our atmosphere.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "The find was made after BP drilled down a record seven miles..."

        With that deep thru the crust...it's gotta be abiotic/abiogenic oil.

        Peak oil imo is but a myth by big oil/OPEC to brainwash and gouge the world's consumers...
        • 5 Years Ago
        If the platform is 250 miles out I'm pretty sure it's considered international waters. Countries influence only go 200 miles into the ocean so if it isn't within another countries Exclusive Economic Zone I'm guessing international waters.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Oil rights extend to the edge of the continental shelf. Which, as you see, covers the entire Gulf.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Continental_Shelf

        So it falls under the US exclusive economic zone for oil, and thus it certainly is leased from the Federal government.
        • 5 Years Ago
        This has nothing to do with all the hype last year about expanding off-shore drilling. BP was already drilling in this area. The just drilled deeper.
        • 5 Years Ago
        250 miles from the US coast means it was a lease from the US government. So that makes your argument really dumb. Yes, it was BP/Arco/Amoco who found it, but it could have been any company.
        • 5 Years Ago
        When did I attack BP? I have no beef with them and don’t care that they lease off our shore. And I know that we drill off our shore as well, I live in Texas for crying out loud YES I know that. I’m talking about the federal government not allowing us to research more and find new areas along our coasts to drill and find these bigger pockets that could decrease the cost of oil for everyone and spark big job growth.
        Everyone is so keen on attacking American oil companies of just trying to do business… I don’t get it?
        • 5 Years Ago
        The government isn't restricting research into offshore drilling technologies. They just limit how close to shore they can drill. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

        And the development of alternative fuels and infrastructure, an updated power grid, and energy-efficient technologies can produce far more job growth than maintaining the status quo of trying to squeeze more oil out of the earth.
        • 5 Years Ago
        If you make is difficult or impossible for foreign companies to work in US territories than those foreign countries will make it difficult or impossible for US companies to work over there.

        Yes it would be better for the US if it was a US company finding this oil, but this is still very good news for US jobs, the economy, and for the US not being quite so reliant on foreign oil.
    • Load More Comments