No claim is being made about proven oil reserves. A very specific claim (which may or may not be true, according to the blog) is being made about the rate at which it can be pumped from the ground.
U.S. oil production has been declining for decades (as predicted by people who used a similar logic to the current predictors), long before environmental concerns had a big impact on drilling. The decline continued during the period during the 1980s when large offshore leases were made by the U.S. government and the Alaska oil came on-line. (Of course, this is not necessarily an indictment of those who argued in favor of those moves, since none of them were so stupid as to claim they would reverse the decline in U.S. production.) No serious observer claims that the U.S. "stopped looking" and surely no reasonable expert has ever made the case that the decline would be reversed if we "started looking again."
I would love to get Sybert in a room full of oilmen to see their reaction when they realize he doesn't know the difference between reserves and production. Indeed, one only need look at the problems of Shell Oil in the UAR to see that some of the recent drops in reserves have come from unanticipated problems in production.
Sybert ignores the article and the blog that points to the article. Then he spouts provably false propositions about a vaguely related issue. Then he spews pure ideological nonsense about military and scientific advancement on the oil front.
Other than that, it's a fine post.