CRS Report Released: U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas (Feb. 28, 2013). The 13-page report authored by Marc Humphries discusses the following:

Summary

In 2012, oil prices ranged from $80 to $110 per barrel (West Texas Intermediate spot price) and remain high in early 2013. Congress is faced with proposals designed to increase domestic energy supply, enhance security, and/or amend the requirements of environmental statutes. A key question in this discussion is how much oil and gas is produced each year and how much of that comes from federal and non-federal areas. On non-federal lands, there were modest fluctuations in oil production from fiscal years (FY) 2008-2010, then a significant increase from FY2010 to FY2012 increasing total U.S. oil production by about 1.1 million barrels per day over FY2007 production levels. All of the increase from FY2007 to FY2012 took place on non-federal lands, and the federal share of total U.S. crude oil production fell by about seven percentage points.

Natural gas prices, on the other hand, have remained low for the past several years, allowing gas to become much more competitive with coal for power generation. The shale gas boom has resulted in rising supplies of natural gas. Overall, U.S. natural gas production rose by four trillion cubic feet (tcf) or 20% since 2007, while production on federal lands (onshore and offshore) fell by about 33% and production on non-federal lands grew by 40%. The big shale gas plays are primarily on non-federal lands and are attracting a significant portion of investment for natural gas development.

The number of producing acres may or may not be a function of how many acres are leased, and the amount of acres leased may or may not correlate to the amount of production, but in recent years, some members of Congress have proposed a $4/acre lease fee for non-producing leases. This proposal grew out of the efforts to open more public land and water (offshore) for oil and gas drilling and development when gasoline prices spiked in 2006-2008. Some in Congress noted that there were many leases they believed were not being developed in a timely fashion, while at the same time, others in Congress were pushing for greater access to areas off-limits (such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and areas under a leasing moratoria offshore). Higher rents for offshore leases were imposed by the Secretary of the Interior in 2009 to discourage holding unused leases and to move more leases into production if possible.

Another major issue that the 113th Congress may seek to address is streamlining the processing of applications for permits to drill (APDs). Some members contend that this would be one way to help boost energy production on federal lands. After a lease has been obtained, either competitively or non-competitively, an application for a permit to drill (APD) must be approved for each oil and gas well. Despite the new timeline for review (under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58), it took an average of 307 days for all parties to process (approve or deny) an APD in 2011, up from an average of 218 days in 2006. The difference, however, is that in 2006 it took the BLM an average of 127 days to process an APD, while in 2011 it took BLM 71 days. In 2006, the industry took an average of 91 days to complete an APD, but in 2011, industry took 236 days. The BLM stated in its FY2012 and FY2013 budget justifications that overall processing  times per APD have increased because of the complexity of the process.

CRS Report Released: Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues (Jan. 24, 2013). The 42-page report authored by Paul W. Parfomak, Robert Pirog, Linda Luther, and Adam Vann discusses the following:

Summary

In May 2012, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada reapplied to the U.S. Department of State for a Presidential Permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to the existing Keystone Pipeline System in Nebraska. It also could accept U.S. crude from the Bakken oil fields in Montana and North Dakota. A second segment of the Keystone XL pipeline system, the Gulf Coast Project, is proceeding separately to connect existing pipeline facilities in Oklahoma to refineries in Texas. When completed, the entire Keystone XL pipeline system would ultimately have capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day to U.S. market hubs. TransCanada submitted the May 2012 permit application after its 2008 Keystone XL permit application was denied.

The State Department has jurisdiction over the Keystone XL pipeline’s approval because it would cross the U.S. border. Before it can approve such a permit, the department must determine that the project is in the “national interest,” accounting for potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, and foreign policy, among other factors. Environmental impacts are considered under the National Environmental Policy Act, as documented in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For the 2008 permit application, a final EIS was issued in August 2011, followed by a public review period. Largely in response to public comments and efforts by the state of Nebraska, the State Department determined that it needed to examine alternative pipeline routes that would avoid the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a sand dune formation with highly porous soil and shallow groundwater that recharges the Ogallala aquifer.

The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78) required the Secretary of State to approve or deny the original 2008 project application within 60 days. On January 18, 2012, citing insufficient time under this deadline to properly assess the reconfigured project, the State Department denied the Keystone XL permit. Since then, TransCanada has worked with Nebraska officials to identify a pipeline route avoiding the Sand Hills. Its May 2012 permit application reflects that effort. The State Department has begun the NEPA process anew, but will largely supplement the August 2011 final EIS to include analysis of the new route in Nebraska, as well as analysis of any significant environmental issues or information that has become available since August 2011. The department estimates that it will determine whether to approve or deny the new Presidential Permit by early 2013.

The 112th Congress debated numerous legislative options addressing the Keystone XL pipeline. The North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would have transferred permitting authority for the Keystone XL pipeline project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, requiring issuance of a permit within 30 days of enactment. Several other bills (H.R. 3811, H.R. 4000, H.R. 4301, S. 2041, and S. 2199) would have approved immediately the 2008 permit application filed by TransCanada. A House bill (H.R. 6164), the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act (S. 3445), and S.Amdt. 2789 would have eliminated the Presidential Permit requirement for the reconfigured Keystone XL pipeline as proposed in TransCanada’s permit application filed on May 4, 2012. S. 2100 and H.R. 4211 would have suspended sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until issuance of a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL project. H.R. 3900 sought to ensure that crude oil transported by the Keystone XL pipeline, or resulting refined petroleum products, would be sold only into U.S. markets. To date, no Keystone XL legislation has been proposed in the 113th Congress but the issues surrounding the Presidential Permit remain largely the same.

CRS Report Released: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments (Jan. 31, 2013). The 15-page report authored by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Curry L. Hagerty discusses the following:

Summary

In the wake of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the federal government, state governments, and responsible parties faced an unprecedented challenge. An oil discharge continued for 84 days, resulting in the largest oil spill in U.S. waters—estimated at approximately 206 million gallons (4.9 million barrels).

Response activities, led by the U.S. Coast Guard, continue but have diminished substantially.

• At the height of operations (summer of 2010), response personnel numbered over 47,000; as of January 2013, that figure has dropped to about 935.
• As of December 2012, approximately 339 miles of oiled shoreline remain subject to evaluation and/or cleanup operations.
• As a responsible party, BP has spent over $14 billion in cleanup operations.

To date, BP has paid over $10 billion to the federal government, state and local governments, and private parties for economic claims and other expenses, including response costs, related to the oil spill. BP estimates that a recently approved settlement will lead to an additional $7.8 billion in payments to private parties.

BP and other responsible parties have agreed to civil and/or criminal settlements with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Although some are awaiting court approval, settlements from various parties, to date, total almost $6 billion. BP’s potential civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, which could be considerable, are not yet determined.

The natural resources damage assessment (NRDA) process, conducted by federal, state, and other trustees, is ongoing, now in its restoration planning phase. BP agreed to pay $1 billion to support early restoration projects. Ten such projects have been funded to date, with aggregate estimated costs of approximately $71 million.

The 112th Congress enacted two oil spill-related legislative proposals, including the following:

• The RESTORE Act: enacted on July 6, 2012, as a subtitle in P.L. 112-141 (MAP-21), it directs 80% of any administrative and civil Clean Water Act Section 311penalty revenue into a newly created trust fund, which supports environmental and economic restoration projects in the Gulf states.
• The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011: enacted on January 3, 2012 (P.L. 112-90), the act increases civil penalties for pipeline violations and requires a study of leak detection systems, a review of the regulations that apply to pipeline transport of “diluted bitumen” (i.e., oil sands), and an analysis whether such oil presents an increased risk of release.

In 2011, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) redefined the responsibilities previously performed by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and reassigned the functions of the offshore energy program among three separate organizations: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). These agencies have promulgated several rulemaking changes, some of which are based on issues raised by the Deepwater Horizon spill.

International Energy Agency Journal Releases Latest Edition: Energy Security: Oil

This month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released volume three of IEA Energy: Journal of the International Energy Agency titled, Energy Security: Oil. The 52-page issue is available free as a downloadable pdf here.  The journal,

IEA Energy covers a broad range of today’s energy issues, from technology to market developments, and highlights the energy challenges of tomorrow. It features a variety of perspectives from government, industry and other intergovernmental organisations – both in IEA member countries and beyond – as well as from IEA experts.

Prior editions of this journal are available here:

• Energy Security: Oil, Autumn 2012, Issue 3
• Renewable Energy: Coming of Age, Spring 2012, Issue 2
• Ministerial 2011, Autumn 2011, Issue 1 

Earthworks Report Released: Breaking All the Rules: The Crisis in Oil & Gas Regulatory Enforcement

Recently, Earthworks a pro-environmental "nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions," released the results of a one-year study of state enforcement data and practices in Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, New Mexico and Colorado."  Entitled, Breaking All the Rules: The Crisis in Oil & Gas Regulatory Enforcement (2012), the 125 page report available here is free as downloadable pdf and is accompanied by six individual state reports:

• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
• New Mexico Oil and Gas Conservation Division
• New York Department of Environmental Conservation
• Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management
• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
• Texas Railroad Commission

For more information on the underlying data used to generate these reports please consult the following links:

Colorado

• Colorado Oil & Gas Enforcement
• Colorado Oil & Gas Enforcement - Enforcement Actions
• Colorado Oil & Gas Enforcement - Inspections
• Colorado Oil & Gas Enforcement - Violations

New Mexico

• New Mexico Oil & Gas Enforcement
• New Mexico Oil & Gas Enforcement - Enforcement Actions
• New Mexico Oil & Gas Enforcement - Inspections
• New Mexico Oil & Gas Enforcement - the Public’s Role
• New Mexico Oil & Gas Enforcement - Violations

New York

• New York Oil & Gas Enforcement
• New York Oil & Gas Enforcement - Enforcement Actions
• New York Oil & Gas Enforcement - Inspections
• New York Oil & Gas Enforcement - Public Participation
• New York Oil & Gas Enforcement - Violations

Ohio

• Ohio Oil & Gas Enforcement
• Ohio Oil & Gas Enforcement - Enforcement Actions
• Ohio Oil & Gas Enforcement - Inspections
• Ohio Oil & Gas Enforcement - the Public’s Role
• Ohio Oil & Gas Enforcement - Violations

Pennsylvania

• Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Enforcement
• Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Enforcement - Enforcement Actions
• Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Enforcement - Inspections
• Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Enforcement - Public Participation
• Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Enforcement - Violations

Texas

• Texas Oil & Gas Enforcement
• Texas Oil & Gas Enforcement - Enforcement Actions
• Texas Oil & Gas Enforcement - Inspections
• Texas Oil & Gas Enforcement - Public Participation
• Texas Oil & Gas Enforcement - Violations

GAO Report Released: Interior’s Reorganization Complete, but Challenges Remain in Implementing New Requirements

Recently the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report, titled
Interior’s Reorganization Complete, but Challenges Remain in Implementing New Requirement GAO-12-423 (July 30, 2012). This 143 page report, available here, was conducted by the GAO in the wake of the Deepwater Drilling incident in order to:

assess[ ] (1) Interior’s reorganization of its oversight of offshore oil and gas activities; (2) how key policy changes Interior has implemented since this incident have affected Interior’s environmental analyses, plan reviews, and drilling permit reviews; (3) the extent to which Interior’s inspections of drilling rigs and production platforms in the Gulf identify violations or result in civil penalty assessments; (4) when stakeholders provided input to Interior on proposed oil and gas activities, and the extent which they believe Interior considered their concerns; and (5) key challenges, if any, Interior faces in overseeing offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf.

Based on its research the GAO recommended that the Department of the Interior improve the efficacy of its inspections with the "timely input of violation correction data, its capacity for categorizing oil and gas activities according to risk, and its strategic planning for information technology and workforce efforts."

In the News: Keystone XL Pipeline and Eminent Domain in Texas

The Keystone XL Pipeline situation took an interesting twist yesterday, with Judge Bill Harris of Lamar County Court at Law and his decision to uphold TransCanada’s condemnation of a 50-foot strip of land across a Texas plaintiff's land.  As reported by the New York Times, Plaintiff Julia Trigg Crawford plans to appeal Judge Harris' ruling which was apparently emailed to parties from his iPhone (text of the alleged 15-word ruling reported here). For those unfamiliar with the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, TransCanada has applied to the U.S. Department of State to obtain a permit to build a 1,179 mile pipeline from Alberta to Nebraska with possible extensions in Texas and Oklahoma allowing for easy access to the Gulf Coast.  TransCanada's initial application was denied, however, a second application is now being reviewed by the Department of State (DOS). The DOS is expected to make a decision on this pipeline in the early part of 2013. For more information about this issue see the related resources listed below:

Map by TransCanada of the existing and proposed Keystone XL pipelines, available at http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/keystone-xl-pipeline/.

Related Resources:

Saul Elbein, Judge Upholds Eminent Domian for Pipeline in Texas, NY Times (Aug. 23, 2012).

 

Leslie Kaufman & Don Forsch, Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist, NY Times (Oct. 11, 2011).

 

New Keystone XL Pipeline Application, U.S. Dep't of State (last visited Aug. 24, 2012) (project documents / press releases - includes DOS' January 18, 2012 Report to Congress).

 

Keystone XL Pipeline Project, TransCanada (last visited Aug. 24, 2012).

 

CRS Report, Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues (May 9, 2012).

 

Update

Nebraska's XL Keystone Pipeline Evaluation, Neb. Dep't Envtl. Quality (last visited Nov. 6, 2012). 

Information on the Quantity, Quality, and Management of Water Produced during Oil and Gas Production -- GAO

This report from the Government Accountability Office titled Information on the Quantity, Quality, and Management of Water Produced during Oil and Gas Production, (GAO-12-156, Jan 9, 2012), found that "A significant amount of water is produced daily as a byproduct from drilling of oil and gas. A 2009 Argonne National Laboratory study estimated that 56 million barrels of water are produced onshore every day, but this study may underestimate the current total volume because it is based on limited, and in some cases, incomplete data generated by the states.

In general, the volume of produced water generated by a given well varies widely according to three key factors: the hydrocarbon being produced, the geographic location of the well, and the method of production used... Generally, the quality of produced water from oil and gas production is poor, and it cannot be readily used for another purpose without prior treatment. The specific quality of water produced by a given well, however, can vary widely according to the same three factors that impact volume—hydrocarbon, geography, and production method.

Oil and gas producers can choose from a number of practices to manage and treat produced water, but underground injection is the predominant practice because it requires little or no treatment and is often the least costly option. According to federal estimates, more than 90 percent of produced water is managed by injecting it into wells that are designated to receive produced water. A limited amount of produced water is disposed of or reused by producers in other ways, including discharging it to surface water, storing it in surface impoundments or ponds so that it can evaporate, irrigating crops, and reusing it for hydraulic fracturing. Managing produced water in these ways can require more advanced treatment methods, such as distillation. How produced water is ultimately managed and treated is primarily an economic decision, made within the bounds of federal and state regulations.

The management of produced water through underground injection is subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control program, which is designed to prevent contamination of aquifers that supply public water systems by ensuring the safe operation of injection wells. Under this program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the states require producers to obtain permits for their injection wells by, among other things, meeting technical standards for constructing, operating, and testing and monitoring the wells. EPA also regulates the management of produced water through surface discharges under the Clean Water Act. Other management practices, such as disposal of the water into surface impoundments, irrigation, and the reuse of the water for hydraulic fracturing, are regulated by state authorities.

Saving Oil and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through U.S. Federal Transportation Policy -- Pew

This white paper from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, dated February 2011, finds that the United States consumes over 10 million barrels of oil per day moving people and goods on roads and rail throughout the country. Surface transportation generates over 23 percent of U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Transportation is the primary cause of U.S. oil dependence with its attendant risks to U.S. energy security. Contributions from this sector will be necessary in any effort to maintain a sustainable and secure economy in the future. There are many opportunities to save oil and reduce GHG emissions under existing federal law and possibly in the next surface transportation reauthorization legislation in the U.S. Congress, while increasing the mobility of people and goods in the U.S. economy.

This paper identifies opportunities possible in transportation reauthorization legislation and using existing legislative authority that will save oil and reduce GHG emissions. The strategy focuses on five key elements: vehicles; fuels; vehicle miles traveled (VMT); system efficiency; and construction, maintenance, and other activities of transportation agency operations.

Fighting Oil Addiction: Ranking States' Gasoline Price Vulnerability and Solutions for Change -- NRDC

This Report for 2010 from the National Resources Defense Council finds that:

• Oil dependence affects all states, but some drivers are hit harder economically than others.

• Drivers in 2009 spent a markedly lower percentage of their income on gasoline than they did in 2008, and drivers in all but 5 states actually spent a lower percentage than they did in 2006. This is a notable change in the trend of the past few years, which saw increasing vulnerability.

• While some states are pioneering solutions and many are taking some action, a fair number of states are still taking few (if any) of the steps needed to reduce their oil dependence.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress -- CRS

This Report from the Congressional Research Service, by Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator
Specialist in Naval Affairs, dated October 15, 2010, finds that "the diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened concerns about the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region.

On January 12, 2009, the George W. Bush Administration released a presidential directive, called National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25), establishing a new U.S. policy for the Arctic region. Record low extent of Arctic sea ice in 2007 focused scientific and policy attention on its linkage to global climate change, and to the implications of projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. The Arctic has been projected by several scientists to be perennially ice-free in the late summer by the late 2030s.

The five Arctic coastal states—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—are in the process of preparing Arctic territorial claims for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Russian claim to the enormous underwater Lomonosov Ridge, if accepted, would reportedly grant Russia nearly one half of the Arctic area. There are also four other unresolved Arctic territorial disputes.

The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in the coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes. Current international guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters are being updated, with a targeted completion date of 2010. Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals.

Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies have yet to be developed. Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic.

The United States is currently meeting with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could affect threatened and endangered species. Under the Endangered Species Act, the polar bear was listed as threatened on May 15,2008. Arctic climate change is also expected to affect the economies, subsistence, health, population, societies, and cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples."

Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill

This article from the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major oil spill occurs.

DOE Webinar July 26: Petroleum Reduction in the Transportation Sector

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Technical Assistance Project (TAP) for state and local officials presents a Webinar about how to use online tools and resources for petroleum reduction projects in the transportation sector. At the Webinar, you will learn how to use online calculators, databases, and interactive maps that can help you fine-tune your transportation programs to fit local conditions.

The presentation will take place this Wednesday, July 28, from 3:00 to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, and is titled "Clean Cities and Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (AFDC): Tools and Resources for Petroleum Reduction in the Transportation Sector. The speakers will be Wendy DaFoe, Clean Cities project leader at the DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Johanna Levene, senior applications engineer at NREL.

This Webinar is free of charge, but you must sign up in advance to obtain a URL for the presentation and call-in phone number. You can register online, find information about the presenters, and read background materials and reports on the Webinar section of the DOE Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program Web site.

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill:

This Congressional Research Service papers explores the issues that the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill have set in motion about oil exploration and recovery in the Gulf of Mexico generally, about the federal offshore oil and gas program, and about the risks of deepwater drilling in particular. The incident
has raised many issues; this report provides a set of selected descriptions to give the reader a baseline and context for pursuing topics of interest.

Several themes trace through the diverse aspects of the incident:
• The explosion and oil spill having occurred, what lessons should be drawn from the incident? Such lessons may involve the appropriateness and capabilities of the technologies used in drilling and in trying to stop the spill; the adequacy of
the regulatory regime and how it was administered and enforced; possible implications of corporate cultures of the companies involved; and the adequacy
of cleanup technologies and of the safety net for impacted businesses and
communities.
• As oil and gas exploration and recovery moved into the deepwater frontier, were
technologies and regulatory capacities keeping pace with new and/or heightened risks? Technologies and regulations appropriate to onshore and shallow-water
exploration and recovery may not be adequate to address risks in deep water.
There are economic incentives to develop technologies to find and recover
deepwater oil and gas, but the question arises of whether concomitant incentives
exist to ensure that those technologies are robust enough to provide a reasonable
margin of safety in this more challenging environment. Likewise, it might be
asked if administrative and regulatory requirements appropriate to the lesschallenging onshore and shallow-water environments have been, or need to be,
strengthened to address deepwater risks.
• What interventions may be necessary to ensure recovery of Gulf resources and
amenities? The spilled oil will surely degrade over time; intervention might
accelerate cleanup, but may have its own costs.
• What does the Deepwater Horizon incident imply for national energy policy, and
the tradeoffs between energy needs, risks of deepwater drilling, and protection of
natural resources and amenities?

The Peak Oil Debate

This article by Laurel Graefe in the November 2009 issue of the Federal Researve Bank of Atlanta's Economic Review (Volume 94, Number 2, 2009) finds that a "number of factors cloud the energy outlook: Estimates of remaining resources are typically given as a range of probabilities and are thus open to interpretation. Variations also occur in estimates of future oil production and in the ways countries report their reserve data.

The lack of a common definitional framework also confuses the debate. The author provides definitions of frequently used terms, delineating types of reserves
and conventional versus nonconventional resources. She also discusses how technological innovations, government policies, and prices influence oil production.
Regardless of the exact timing of peak oil production, the world must address
the challenge of adapting to a new model of energy supply.

Perhaps the world would be better served, the author notes, if the peak oil debate could be more solution-oriented, focusing on discovering the best way to transition to a world with less conventional oil rather than locking horns about discrepancies in terminology."

Statistical Review of World Energy 2009

This statistical Report by BP (the multinational energy company) finds that global oil consumption declined by 0.6% in 2008, world natural gas consumption grew by 2.5% and was the fastest growing fuel for the sixth consecutive year, and that world primary energy consumption grew by 1.4% in 2008. Significantly, it found that global proved oil reserves in 2008 fell by 3 billion barrels to 1,258 billion barrels, with an R/P ratio of 42 years. Declines in Russia, Norway, China and other countries offset increases in Vietnam, India and Egypt.

Maps: Exploration, Resources, Reserves, and Production

The maps created by the Energy Information Administration show the location and estimated reserves of oil, natural gas, shale, coal bed methane in the United States.

Oil and Gas Management: Federal Oil and Gas Management and Revenue Collection in Need of Stronger Oversight and Comprehensive Reassessement

This Government Accountability Office (GAO-09-556T) testimony before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives by Frank Rusco, Director Natural Resources and Environment focuses on findings from a number of recent GAO reports on federal
oil and gas management. GAO has made numerous recommendations to Interior, which the agency generally agreed with and is taking steps to address. However, two important issues remain unresolved. Specifically, GAO made one recommendation and one matter for Congressional consideration that together call for a comprehensive reevaluation
of how Interior manages federal oil and gas resources. Interior has not undertaken such a comprehensive review and until this is done, the public cannot have reasonable assurance that federal oil and gas resources are being appropriately managed for the public good.