Domestic oil production is something that Donald Trump brings up frequently. Somehow, the narrative is that if we just drill more oil, it will automatically translate into lower prices at the pump. Never mind that even though the U.S. temporarily holds the crown as the world’s largest oil producer, we will likely have to cede that position back to an OPEC nation sooner rather than later.
To anyone bemoaning prices that the pump:
The average car consumes about 423 gallons per year. At $3 per gallon, the annual fuel cost is $1,269. If gas drops to $2 per gallon, the cost falls to $846, saving roughly $423 per year, or about $16 per bi-weekly paycheck.
(Author’s Note: I will reference my previous post about the potential for war for oil with Venezuela, but will confine this piece to oil production.)
Fracking Changed Everything
U.S. oil production had long been on the decline up until roughly fifteen years ago. Back then, a topic that surfaced only occasionally was “peak oil” — the idea that the world had extracted most of the easily accessible oil, which would eventually lead to production declines and energy shortages.
In the U.S., this prediction seemed reasonable until recently. Domestic oil production had indeed been steadily declining for decades.
The decline suddenly reversed around 2009–2010. Why? Fracking and horizontal drilling unlocked reserves that had previously been out of reach. A new oil boom was born, and U.S. production quickly overtook Saudi Arabia and other major producers.
Fracking comes with significant environmental costs that are often glossed over. The process requires millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals that can contaminate groundwater, and the high-pressure injections have been linked to increased seismic activity in states like Oklahoma and Texas. Methane leakage from fracking sites — a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂ — also undermines claims that natural gas is a “clean” bridge fuel. Together, these impacts make fracking one of the most environmentally damaging methods of fossil-fuel extraction currently in use.
Setting aside the all the other environmental impacts of continued fossil fuel dependence, this fracking boom masks an important reality: it won’t last forever.
U.S. Lacks Proved Oil Reserves
Here’s a problem many U.S. consumers don’t realize when they demand more drilling to reduce gas prices: we don’t have the reserves to maintain production for long. Analysts distinguish between two types of oil reserves: proved reserves and technically recoverable oil.
Proved Reserves: Proved reserves is the amount of oil that is economically feasible to extract. If prices decline, then proved reserves decline, since some oilfields would not longer be able to operate profitably. Conversely, if prices increase, reserves would increase as a result, since oil could be extracted from places that are currently unprofitable. Take the term “proved reserves” with a grain of salt.
Technically Recoverable Oil which is the amount of oil would be accessible if price was no object. More or less a meaningless number – cost is always an object. If we ever live in a world that oil costs $1000 a barrel to extract, then we’ll live in a world that has moved beyond oil for all but the most esoteric of use cases.
Currently, the U.S. has an estimated 1.66 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, but proved reserves are much smaller, roughly 55 to 74 billion barrels (EIA, 2023). This means that, at current production levels, we could sustain domestic oil output for only about 10–15 years.
In our case, while we sit on an estimated 1.66 trillion barrels of oil that are Technically Recoverable, our proved reserves are lacking. Latest estimates are that our proved reserves could be as low as 55 to 74 billion barrel of oil. This means that if prices remain constant, our country can only sustain 10-15 more years of oil production.
A recent U.S. Geological Survey report estimates that opening public lands to oil production could unlock another 29 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. That sounds significant, but if all of it were economically feasible, it would extend U.S. production by only about six years.
Demographics of Decision Makers
Another problem: while corporations that fund political campaigns have effectively indefinite lifespans, human decision-makers do not.
- President Trump is 79 years old.
- 50 U.S. senators are 65 or older, as are about 151 members of the House of Representatives.
- The CEOs of major U.S. oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, and Marathon) average about 63 years old.
According to Social Security actuarial tables, the majority of these decision-makers may not be alive to witness the long-term consequences of their policies. It’s clear that those implementing and profiting from energy policy may never face the day the U.S. runs out of oil — or experience the severe effects of climate change that will result from continued fossil fuel dependence.
Increased Oil Production = Minimal Benefit to Consumers
When you hear calls to pump more oil to temporarily lower gas prices, remember: the benefits are fleeting, while the costs are long-term and borne by future generations. The beneficiaries from these calls for more production are oil companies, executives, shareholders, and oil-rich nations that we aren’t always the best of friends with.
- The Federal Highway Administration reports that light-duty vehicles drive 10,881 miles per year, on average.
- The U.S. Department of Energy reports that average fuel efficiency of light-duty vehicles sold in 2022 was around 26.4 miles per gallon.
- AAA reports that the national average price of gas is $3.07 per gallon (as of 11/23/2025).
This means the average car consumes about 423 gallons per year. At $3 per gallon, the annual fuel cost is $1,269. If gas drops to $2 per gallon, the cost falls to $846, saving roughly $423 per year, or about $16 per bi-weekly paycheck.
Conclusion?
It’s long past time for voters misled into supporting ever-increasing oil production to realize that they’re being sold a lie — by politicians and corporate executives who have no stake in what the country or planet will look like in 20–30 years. The temporary savings at the pump are minor, while the long-term costs — environmental, economic, and social — are enormous.
If consumers are so stressed about a $16 per week savings, perhaps they should look elsewhere for savings. Perhaps try cutting down on the avocado toast.