Hi, Steve

Regarding the GOM discovery, this article mentions at least 3 billion, which is of course significant:
http://newsok.com/oil-discovery-exte...rticle/3397994

However, the exuberance of its headline surely is not warranted in light of other info.
A BBC article indicated that they should reasonably expect to retrieve only 30% or so, which fits with the 1 billion that you mentioned.

Even at 3 billion, that would supply the world for a few weeks, the USA for about 5 months.
If Tupi and the Iranian discovery are both around 8 billion, then that’s global consumption for about 12 weeks from each field.
Not exacting what I would call “extending the petroleum age.”
Most Ages are measured in centuries, not weeks.

Both the Santos Basin discoveries and the new GoM field are ultra-deep water (the latter at record depth), and thus cannot be cheap.

Our perspectives on this are different… you are clearly more optimistic than I am.

But there is much that we agree on: that we face major problems, and that the investment and geopolitical aspects may catch us long before the geological constraints.
I especially agree with your point that “the conclusion is the same either way: we need to prepare for potential shortages.”

I have spent the past few months going through numerous GAO documents from the 1970s and 80s. They are very detailed, blunt in their assessment, and I commend the GAO for its persistence.
But it appears that little has changed… the issue seems to have faded away and North America remains highly vulnerable to an oil shock.
Such a shock would not require physical shortages: all it requires is widespread & prolonged unaffordability: our continent would then surely have a problem of unprecedented magnitude and complexity.

I also agree with your final comment about the obsessive focus on absolute reserves: such a focus would indeed distract from the many interacting above-ground factors.
But I also think that the credible peak oil analysts moved beyond that many years ago.

But in some respects, the inclusion of above-ground factors makes the situation more tentative, not more secure: the geological limits then provide a best-case scenario which can only be achieved in sensible, orderly geopolitical & investment climate, which may not in fact be maintained.

In fact, there are many factors which point to the difficulty of maintaining the relative peace & stability that we have enjoyed since 1946.

Other views are welcome.