That's good information and now that I've read it, it makes perfect sense. 10 years is absurd. Thanks for the post.

I wonder what that guy meant by "zero sum game." Unfortunately, what he probably meant is he has no idea what he's talking about but wants to sound intelligent while throwing off the discussion. Virtually nothing in life is a "zero sum game."

One factor inhibiting drilling is the shortage of personnel--petroleum geologists and skilled workers.

During the late 1990s, the only technology that the media wanted to discuss was "computers," and this probably discouraged a lot of people from oil-related college & trade-school choices. Now, the general hostility toward the oil industry & its future is probably having a similar effect.

I suspect "zero-sum game" means something like finite resource in this context, though admittedly, it's hard to say for sure. This would accord with generally-expressed worry about many of earth's resources: "once you use it, it's gone!" This is a simple and appealing formulation which has the unfortunate primary characteristic of being wrong. While it is technically true that there is only so much zinc or magnesium in the earth, it is not true that we know their limits. Extraction improves, new sources are discovered, substitutes are developed, and future need for zinc or magnesium is unknown. So too with oil. It is not like a plate of cookies that your mom left out, with nation-siblings scrambling to divide the last few.

That dramatic analogy captures the unspoken reasoning of progressives. They have an impression that the world is going to hell somehow, and that feeling seeks explanations. One of the explanations they have currently fastened on is environmental crisis and collapse.* The narrative of ecological decay accords with their own sense of overall decay, so they embrace the explanation.

But their impression of deterioration derives from other causes, and will attach to something else if environmental concerns are answered. It is within them, and they don't want to look there.

*Other explanations adopted for subterranean emotive reasons rather than intellectual ones include the belief that Bush is tyrannical, or that conservatives are less intelligent and easily manipulated.

No matter what, there will be some delay, but the day that we see new oil from new drilling will be that long after we start new drilling. I don't think it can happen at all if we don't drill. Can it?

That zero-sum game comment was very darn funny, I have to wonder if it was by a satire-troll.

They've been increasing the time scale lately. Now they're saying it will take until 2030.

I would guess most of the delays are for environmental impact reports.

A 12,000 foot well was drilled on a relative's land, beginning in early October. Ten weeks later the well was finished and the well was producing.

One factor inhibiting drilling is the shortage of personnel--petroleum geologists and skilled workers.
Agreed. The oil industry laid off hundreds of thousands in the 1980s, as the fall in the oil price from 1981 on reduced economic incentives for drilling. In the last 20 years,the industry has become MUCH more adept at successful drilling. The success rate for wildcats used to be 20%. Now it is 80%, thanks in large part to 3-D computer graphics of underground formations.

During the late 1990s, the only technology that the media wanted to discuss was "computers," and this probably discouraged a lot of people from oil-related college & trade-school choices. Now, the general hostility toward the oil industry & its future is probably having a similar effect.
Actually, the Rig Count had a much bigger influence than the media: peaked at 4530 in 1981, down to 600 in 1993, finally got above 1000 in 2000, now about 1957. The price of oil tracks the rig count, to a big degree.

Which brings back the old classic from the 1980. Q: What company is the biggest employer of petroleum engineers? Q. Sears Roebuck.

http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm