Fuzzy Math?

[muff528 3]

February 25, 2012 President Barack Obama’s Weekly Address:

"With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we cannot simply drill our way to lower gas prices, as some in Washington have suggested."

President Obama’s February 23 speech at the University of Miami:

“The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”

March 3, 2012:

"Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has decreased every single year. In fact, in 2010, for the first time in thirteen years, less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported. Part of that is because we’re producing more oil here at home than at any time in the last eight years."

So, which is it? Are our reserves now more than 10% of the world's oil (have our domestic oil reserves increased by over 500% in 11 days)? Or have we reduced our consumption from more than 20% to less than 4% of the world's reserves since Feb 25?

[jclalor 12]

I believe US oil reserves, US oil consumption and US oil production are three different items.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/24/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-oil-production-eight-year-hig/

[muff528 3]

Quote

I believe US oil reserves, US oil consumption and US oil production are three different items.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/24/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-oil-production-eight-year-hig/

OK, let's go with that for a minute. Given that "consumption" is different than "reserves", it would then seem that Obama's use of this sentence was intentionally meant to "baffle them with bullshit": “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.” And how do you reconcile “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil..." with "...less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"? ...considering that our oil reserves represent only 2% of all the world's oil.

Also, none of this considers that the US is a net exporter. So if we were to consume all of the <1% of our reserves (that portion that we do not export) it would represent more than half of the >20% of all that we do consume. Taking that into consideration further BS-ifies the quoted figures.

I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that the weather was bad in Greater Boston on the day they were teaching "percents" at Harvard and he just skipped class that day.

Also, your cited article only says that we are at an 8-year high in oil production ...and that even that is partially BS.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

So, which is it? Are our reserves now more than 10% of the world's oil (have our domestic oil reserves increased by over 500% in 11 days)? Or have we reduced our consumption from more than 20% to less than 4% of the world's reserves since Feb 25?

None of the above. We're not removing all 100% of our oil reserves in one year. Let's say, just for the sake of example, that we use up 5% in one year. The next year we could increase that to 10%, without increasing the size of the reservoir. That would certainly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Note that the two statements you quote talk about slightly different things, and there isn't any way to interchange them. The February statement mentions oil reserves, and the proportional use of oil by the US compared to world use, but you can't calculate the percentage of oil we get from non-US sources with only that information. So both the February and the March statements could be perfectly true.

What is also true is that increasing the rate of exploitation of our domestic reserves will decrease the amount of time until they are gone. In practice, what will happen (is happening) is that we are developing more and more marginal elements of the reserve, so it costs more to get the same amount of oil. There is a huge difference in cost between the "gusher" well of yesteryear and the oil shale of the future (today in Alberta). When people argue that we can return to 1950s level gas prices (relatively speaking) they are just showing their ignorance of what it takes to get at the oil today.

The "fuzzy math" is all yours, I'm afraid.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

“The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.” And how do you reconcile “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil..." with "...less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"? ...considering that our oil reserves represent only 2% of all the world's oil.

We consume more than a fifth of the world's oil production. That should be obvious, we can't use the oil when it's still in the ground. Does that really need to be spelled out for you? Somehow I don't think so, I suspect instead your ODS has you looking for things to jump on.

Quote

Given that "consumption" is different than "reserves", it would then seem that Obama's use of this sentence was intentionally meant to "baffle them with bullshit"

Only the people who are so obtuse as to need the difference between "production" and "reserves" to be spelled out for them.

Quote

Also, none of this considers that the US is a net exporter.

And this is the big flaw in any notion that we can drill our way to energy independence and low gas prices. Oil companies sell the oil to the highest bidder. US reserves and production are not enough to significantly affect global supply, so they don't have much effect on prices. "Drill baby drill" will only lower prices if we can flood the world market with so much oil we drive prices down globally, otherwise all that oil will just be sold to the Chinese or to India if we don't want to pay market value. And of course you know that if we ramped up production to that extent, OPEC would just decrease theirs to keep prices high.

We could have energy independence, and low prices, only if the government were to set the price and legislate that oil produced from US sources could only be sold in the US, at least until 100% of the domestic oil need was met. I somehow can't see anybody supporting that position.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

So, which is it? Are our reserves now more than 10% of the world's oil (have our domestic oil reserves increased by over 500% in 11 days)? Or have we reduced our consumption from more than 20% to less than 4% of the world's reserves since Feb 25?

None of the above. We're not removing all 100% of our oil reserves in one year. Let's say, just for the sake of example, that we use up 5% in one year. The next year we could increase that to 10%, without increasing the size of the reservoir. That would certainly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Note that the two statements you quote talk about slightly different things, and there isn't any way to interchange them. The February statement mentions oil reserves, and the proportional use of oil by the US compared to world use, but you can't calculate the percentage of oil we get from non-US sources with only that information. So both the February and the March statements could be perfectly true.

What is also true is that increasing the rate of exploitation of our domestic reserves will decrease the amount of time until they are gone. In practice, what will happen (is happening) is that we are developing more and more marginal elements of the reserve, so it costs more to get the same amount of oil. There is a huge difference in cost between the "gusher" well of yesteryear and the oil shale of the future (today in Alberta). When people argue that we can return to 1950s level gas prices (relatively speaking) they are just showing their ignorance of what it takes to get at the oil today.

The "fuzzy math" is all yours, I'm afraid.

Don

Obama said: we are consuming 20% of the world's oil.
Obama said: half the oil we consume is imported.

So, of the 20% mentioned, we are importing 10% and we produce 10% for ourselves. The math is fine ...the statistics and the implied message are BS.

My point is that all of those statements are BS and specifically that the "2%/20%" statement was intentionally phrased to deceive and to illustrate our supposed greed by comparing our meager contribution to our glutenous consumption.

[muff528 3]

Quote

......We consume more than a fifth of the world's oil production. That should be obvious, we can't use the oil when it's still in the ground. ....

Yes, it seems that the 20% figure is artificial and is based only in the fact that foreign producers are refusing to "produce" their fair share of their "reserves" and bring the product to market. If they would increase production levels then we would not be using 20% of the world's production. Oil they leave in the ground is not relevant in the short term. It appears that the implied accusation of greed is misdirected.

Quote

We could have energy independence, and low prices, only if the government were to set the price and legislate that oil produced from US sources could only be sold in the US, at least until 100% of the domestic oil need was met. I somehow can't see anybody supporting that position.

Agree here (+drilling, +oil shale, +natural gas, +etc.)

[billvon 3,120]

"With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we cannot simply drill our way to lower gas prices, as some in Washington have suggested."

We have reserves of about 21 billion barrels. (P90) Worldwide there are about 1324 billion barrels of proven reserves. Thus we have about 1.6% of the world's reserves. If we switched to all US oil we'd run dry in a bit over 3 years.

"The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”

We use about 19 million barrels a day. The world, total, produces 82 million barrels a day. That's 23% of the world's production, or a bit over one-fifth.

"Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has decreased every single year. In fact, in 2010, for the first time in thirteen years, less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported. Part of that is because we’re producing more oil here at home than at any time in the last eight years."

Annual totals for US production:

2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 1,998,137,000

>Are our reserves now more than 10% of the world's oil (have our domestic oil
>reserves increased by over 500% in 11 days)? Or have we reduced our
>consumption from more than 20% to less than 4% of the world's reserves since Feb
>25?

I think you're confusing amounts and rates. Statements about reserves are not the same as statements about production. Even though we only have 2% of the world's reserves we could switch to 100% domestic oil. That would be a bad idea, of course, but we could do it.

[jclalor 12]

This is a perfect example of why republicans don't want people going to college.

It's not fuzzy math, but fuzzy comprehension.

[shropshire 0]

So when did you start to think that you could take ANY politicians word as gospel? - silly you

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[muff528 3]

Quote

.....fuzzy comprehension.

Please try to comprehend that my OP was not really about oil. It was about the POTUS intentionally manipulating statistics, or the presentation of statistics, to deceive his audience.

[billvon 3,120]

>It was about the POTUS intentionally manipulating statistics, or the presentation of
>statistics, to deceive his audience.

I think most people understood what he was saying.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Please try to comprehend that my OP was not really about oil. It was about the POTUS intentionally manipulating statistics, or the presentation of statistics, to deceive his audience.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>It was about the POTUS intentionally manipulating statistics, or the presentation of
>statistics, to deceive his audience.

I think most people understood what he was saying.

I doubt that. I think most heard only the 2% vs the 20%. I almost think that even he didn't understand what he was saying. ...although he did use those exact words back in 2010 in his veiled attempt to demonize BP and the oil industry while pushing his own nebulous energy "policy".

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Please try to comprehend that my OP was not really about oil. It was about the POTUS intentionally manipulating statistics, or the presentation of statistics, to deceive his audience.

What do you believe he was trying to mis-lead you on?

[shropshire 0]

But the US IS an Oil Glutton ... how is that deceptive?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>I think most heard only the 2% vs the 20%.

He didn't say 20%. He said we have 2% of the world's reserves. He is correct.

I know that this is not what people want to hear, but it is the truth.

>.although he did use those exact words back in 2010 . . ..

So since he is both accurate and consistent he's misleading people? How much would he have to lie before he was telling people the truth?

>in his veiled attempt to demonize BP and the oil industry while pushing his own
>nebulous energy "policy".

Well, since BP did cause the biggest marine oil spill in history, and cost the US tens of billions - it makes sense to chastize them.

And given that his "nebulous energy policy" has resulted in more domestic production and record profits for oil companies, it's going to be hard to claim that it damaged the US oil industry.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Yes, it seems that the 20% figure is artificial and is based only in the fact that foreign producers are refusing to "produce" their fair share of their "reserves" and bring the product to market. If they would increase production levels then we would not be using 20% of the world's production. Oil they leave in the ground is not relevant in the short term. It appears that the implied accusation of greed is misdirected.

You do believe in a free market not controlled by any Government?

You do believe that owners of private assets can do with them what they choose to maximize their profits?

[muff528 3]

Quote

>I think most heard only the 2% vs the 20%.

He didn't say 20%. He said we have 2% of the world's reserves. He is correct.

Don't play coy. I think you understand what I mean by his playing the 20% against the 2% in that statement.

I know that this is not what people want to hear, but it is the truth.

I think there is enough evidence for the existence of additional domestic petroleum reserves that this 2% BS may qualify as a ....lie.

>.although he did use those exact words back in 2010 . . ..

So since he is both accurate and consistent he's misleading people? How much would he have to lie before he was telling people the truth?

Just illustrating that the wording has been tested and plays well as evidenced by 2 years of others' parroting.

>in his veiled attempt to demonize BP and the oil industry while pushing his own
>nebulous energy "policy".

Well, since BP did cause the biggest marine oil spill in history, and cost the US tens of billions - it makes sense to chastize them.

And given that his "nebulous energy policy" has resulted in more domestic production and record profits for oil companies, it's going to be hard to claim that it damaged the US oil industry.

BP began, and continues, the clean-up and reparations before and in spite of the spoutings and condemnations of Congressional figures and the POTUS, himself. They are even paying billions here in peninsular Florida which was not in any way, shape or form damaged by the spill. Economic problems in Florida resulted from the prevailing economic downturn but BP became the convenient deep pocket. They have become targets of lawsuits by individuals, businesses and local governments that suffered no damages from the spill and sadly there will be no one who will make an attempt to quantitatively and fairly assign fault. It's just too popular and politically expedient to not go with the plundering of BP.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

OK, let's go with that for a minute. Given that "consumption" is different than "reserves", it would then seem that Obama's use of this sentence was intentionally meant to "baffle them with bullshit": “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.” And how do you reconcile “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil..." with "...less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"? ...considering that our oil reserves represent only 2% of all the world's oil.

I reconcile it by the fact that only a complete moron would think that means the US consumes, per year, more than a fifth of the oil that physically exists in the world, and not that the US consumes more than a fifth of the worlds yearly output.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Yes, it seems that the 20% figure is artificial and is based only in the fact that foreign producers are refusing to "produce" their fair share of their "reserves" and bring the product to market. If they would increase production levels then we would not be using 20% of the world's production. Oil they leave in the ground is not relevant in the short term. It appears that the implied accusation of greed is misdirected.

You do believe in a free market not controlled by any Government?

You do believe that owners of private assets can do with them what they choose to maximize their profits?

Yes, that's why I believe it's disingenuous to whine about the US using 20% of the world's oil when it is other countries that control their own oil production. We use what we need regardless of the world's output. Much of that energy is used to produce food, medication and security and other exports that some folks in the world need. Our production of those products, dependent directly on energy consumption, far exceeds 20% of the total world production of the world's gastronomic needs.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Quote

>It was about the POTUS intentionally manipulating statistics, or the presentation of
>statistics, to deceive his audience.

I think most people understood what he was saying.

I doubt that. I think most heard only the 2% vs the 20%.

I doubt that. The meaning was perfectly clear.

Quote

I almost think that even he didn't understand what he was saying.

I think he knew very well what he was saying, it's really not complicated.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

We use what we need......

Complete popycock! You don't NEED personal big fuel guzzling cars, or flying or a/c etc... etc... A lot of you expect them or think that it;s your right .. well News Flash ... It's NOT.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

OK, let's go with that for a minute. Given that "consumption" is different than "reserves", it would then seem that Obama's use of this sentence was intentionally meant to "baffle them with bullshit": “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.” And how do you reconcile “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil..." with "...less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"? ...considering that our oil reserves represent only 2% of all the world's oil.

I reconcile it by the fact that only a complete moron would think that means the US consumes, per year, more than a fifth of the oil that physically exists in the world, and not that the US consumes more than a fifth of the worlds yearly output.

No one has said that! (Except maybe Obama)
Actually the part after that last "..." was sarcasm. How about the rest of that sentence? How do you see that working? "Consumes" and "consumed" would presuppose already-produced product.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, let's go with that for a minute. Given that "consumption" is different than "reserves", it would then seem that Obama's use of this sentence was intentionally meant to "baffle them with bullshit": “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.” And how do you reconcile “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil..." with "...less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"? ...considering that our oil reserves represent only 2% of all the world's oil.

I reconcile it by the fact that only a complete moron would think that means the US consumes, per year, more than a fifth of the oil that physically exists in the world, and not that the US consumes more than a fifth of the worlds yearly output.

No one has said that! (Except maybe Obama)
Actually the part after that last "..." was sarcasm. How about the rest of that sentence? How do you see that working? "Consumes" and "consumed" would presuppose already-produced product.

OK, let me be more specific.

"And how do you reconcile “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil..." with "...less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"? ...considering that our oil reserves represent only 2% of all the world's oil."

I reconcile it by the fact that only a complete moron would think that means the US consumes, per year, more than a fifth of the oil that physically exists in the world, and not that the US consumes more than a fifth of the worlds yearly output.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?