billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
jakee 1,596
QuoteThe US, with its meager 2% of the entire world's 100% of the oil pie in reserve, is consuming over 20% (one fifth) of the worlds consumption.
We are producing over half of that 20% that we are consuming and we are exporting the remaining portion (<10% of the world's consumed pie). In turn we are importing the remainder of the >20% that we consume. (from Obama's statements we don't know how much of our production is exported ...only that we produced a little over half of what we consumed. We also know from other sources that our exports exceed our imports by some amount ...can't be by much or Obama's numbers don't work.)This brings our consumption level to a total US consumption of more than one fifth of the world's consumption.
That's better.
Quote(We agree that we are not counting oil left in the ground.)
You either are or you aren't depending on which point you want to make this minute.
QuoteThe rest of the world which has 98% of the oil reserves is consuming about 80% of the entire world's production. About 10 of that 80% consumed by non-US countries is imported from the US. Since oil is fungible it can be said that we are producing about a fifth of the world's production and are consuming that same fifth, roughly. So we are already energy-independent if we are to believe those numbers. The entire rest of the oil-producing world are holding 98% of the world's reserves. They, along with those who are contributing no oil at all, are consuming the other 80% of the world's production. Increasing production by those non-US oil producers (thereby reducing our "bite percentage" into the consumable pie) will either serve to decrease prices or will increase oil consumption by non-US users and have less effect on price.
This should probably be the bit where you tie things together into a relevant point.
QuoteWhether we have 2% of the reserves or 52% (to pick a random number) has no effect on our consumption
I'll refer you back to the three fingered yellow dude.
QuoteObama's consumption/reserve statement implies a false relationship between the two mutually irrelevant numbers. Neither does it address whether our 2% represents "almost gone" or "a hundred years left". Statements like this are meant only to deceive his listeners by implying a relationship where one does not exist.
If that was the case he probably should have made himself slightly less crystal clear.
Look, it's very admirable that you're looking out for all the abject morons out there but seriously, anyone stupid enough not to understand the quoted statistics is probably too busy watching re-runs of Jersey Shore to actually listen to a speech by Obama.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteThe US, with its meager 2% of the entire world's 100% of the oil pie in reserve, is consuming over 20% (one fifth) of the worlds consumption.
We are producing over half of that 20% that we are consuming and we are exporting the remaining portion (<10% of the world's consumed pie). In turn we are importing the remainder of the >20% that we consume. (from Obama's statements we don't know how much of our production is exported ...only that we produced a little over half of what we consumed. We also know from other sources that our exports exceed our imports by some amount ...can't be by much or Obama's numbers don't work.)This brings our consumption level to a total US consumption of more than one fifth of the world's consumption.
That's better.Quote(We agree that we are not counting oil left in the ground.)
You either are or you aren't depending on which point you want to make this minute.QuoteThe rest of the world which has 98% of the oil reserves is consuming about 80% of the entire world's production. About 10 of that 80% consumed by non-US countries is imported from the US. Since oil is fungible it can be said that we are producing about a fifth of the world's production and are consuming that same fifth, roughly. So we are already energy-independent if we are to believe those numbers. The entire rest of the oil-producing world are holding 98% of the world's reserves. They, along with those who are contributing no oil at all, are consuming the other 80% of the world's production. Increasing production by those non-US oil producers (thereby reducing our "bite percentage" into the consumable pie) will either serve to decrease prices or will increase oil consumption by non-US users and have less effect on price.
This should probably be the bit where you tie things together into a relevant point.QuoteWhether we have 2% of the reserves or 52% (to pick a random number) has no effect on our consumption
I'll refer you back to the three fingered yellow dude.QuoteObama's consumption/reserve statement implies a false relationship between the two mutually irrelevant numbers. Neither does it address whether our 2% represents "almost gone" or "a hundred years left". Statements like this are meant only to deceive his listeners by implying a relationship where one does not exist.
If that was the case he probably should have made himself slightly less crystal clear.
Look, it's very admirable that you're looking out for all the abject morons out there but seriously, anyone stupid enough not to understand the quoted statistics is probably too busy watching re-runs of Jersey Shore to actually listen to a speech by Obama.
All that stuff you struck ....that's Obama's words, not mine except for maybe the part where we export more than we import. I'm telling you the "reserve" numbers and the "consumption" numbers are not related. You are trying to tie them together ...as was Obama. It's getting pretty obvious that the Jersey Shore bunch will believe whatever BS is shoveled their way. All the rest derives from Obama's statements.
Obama: "The US consumes more than one fifth of the world's oil."
There seems to be confusion over whether you mean "produced" oil or "reserve" oil. I'm assuming oil already taken from the ground. Maybe that's not "crystal clear". Obama referred to "reserves" and to "consumes" in the same statement. That is the basis for my original point.
Obama: "less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported."
Crystal clear: that means we had to produce more than half of the oil we consumed. The other (less than half) portion that we produced must then have been exported rather than consumed by us. And that portion of our production that we exported is more than the amount we imported if the "net exporter" tag is truthful. So the total amount we exported cannot have exceeded more than half of our consumption (or a bit over 10% of world total production if we go with Obama's "more than one fifth" number). And the total amount that we imported cannot exceed the amount we exported. Don't even need to look up the actual barrel numbers.
ETA: this also answers both of billvon's "No" responses in post #34. You are making the mistake of using actual production and export numbers. I am using Obama's statements and applying his percentages and relationships. I'll agree that your method probably gets closer to reality.
muff528 3
OK, I'm conceding an error with respect to the US production/consumption ratios. Nothing to do with the "reserves" business ...only with the relative sizes of the US "consumption" and "production" pies. All that was tangential to my original point anyway. I still stand by my opinion that the wording of the statement “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves” was intended to impart a false or deceptive relationship between the two parts of that statement. Maybe suspicious bias on my part ...maybe not.
billvon 3,120
>“The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the
>world’s oil reserves” was intended to impart a false or deceptive relationship between
>the two parts of that statement. Maybe suspicious bias on my part ...maybe not.
If your conclusion from hearing that statement is "we use a shitload of oil compared to everyone else, but we don't have much in the way of reserves compared to everyone else" then you have gotten the _correct_ impression of our current situation. And if it worries you - good. Better to be worried now than in 10 years when our easily extractable oil is gone forever.
>world’s oil reserves” was intended to impart a false or deceptive relationship between
>the two parts of that statement. Maybe suspicious bias on my part ...maybe not.
If your conclusion from hearing that statement is "we use a shitload of oil compared to everyone else, but we don't have much in the way of reserves compared to everyone else" then you have gotten the _correct_ impression of our current situation. And if it worries you - good. Better to be worried now than in 10 years when our easily extractable oil is gone forever.
kallend 2,150
QuoteOK, I'm conceding an error with respect to the US production/consumption ratios. Nothing to do with the "reserves" business ...only with the relative sizes of the US "consumption" and "production" pies. All that was tangential to my original point anyway. I still stand by my opinion that the wording of the statement “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves” was intended to impart a false or deceptive relationship between the two parts of that statement. Maybe suspicious bias on my part ...maybe not.
The consensus here seems to be that it was false or deceptive comprehension on the OP's part.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Stumpy 284
Quote
Explain your position (specifics please)
QuoteOK, I'm conceding an error
Think you answered your own question.
Never try to eat more than you can lift
muff528 3
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” was intended to impart a false or deceptive relationship between
>the two parts of that statement. Maybe suspicious bias on my part ...maybe not.
If your conclusion from hearing that statement is "we use a shitload of oil compared to everyone else, but we don't have much in the way of reserves compared to everyone else" then you have gotten the _correct_ impression of our current situation. And if it worries you - good. Better to be worried now than in 10 years when our easily extractable oil is gone forever.
Don't get so smug. My mistake only meant that Obama is even more wrong than I thought.
From your earlier post:
">About 10 of that 80% consumed by non-US countries is imported from the US.
No. We export about 1.6 million barrels a day which is less than 2% of world production.
>Since oil is fungible it can be said that we are producing about a fifth of the world's
>production and are consuming that same fifth, roughly. So we are already energy-
>independent if we are to believe those numbers.
No. (See above.)"
If your export value above is correct, my mistake had the incorrect value at 10%. Actually, our exports (using Obama's various statements) must exceed 10% of the world's production. Obviously conflicting even more with your "less than 2%" value above. I originally mistakenly concluded that imports and exports had to be about equal at a around 10%. (with exports exceeding imports by some small amount). Specifically, I had our consumption about equal with our production but then realized that our production had to be equal or larger than our consumption but could not be smaller.
Yes, we use a shitload of oil. We need to develop energy sources that are meaningful and not dump shitloads of resources down rabbit holes like Solyndra, etc.
edit for clarity.
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteOK, I'm conceding an error with respect to the US production/consumption ratios. Nothing to do with the "reserves" business ...only with the relative sizes of the US "consumption" and "production" pies. All that was tangential to my original point anyway. I still stand by my opinion that the wording of the statement “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves” was intended to impart a false or deceptive relationship between the two parts of that statement. Maybe suspicious bias on my part ...maybe not.
The consensus here seems to be that it was false or deceptive comprehension on the OP's part.
Nah ....just a little math mistake.
muff528 3
meh
sundevil777 102
QuoteYou feel that supply will have no effect on demand? Interesting take on economics.
Same take that Obama has on it. He says drilling will not affect the price, but lower consumption will.
Recent discoveries of oil are not included in what are called proven reserves. Obama and others want to ignore this. The Bakken may hold more oil than all the other oil fields in the country combined. The estimates and analysis are recent and debatable of course, but show that the prospects for finding really large quantities is very real, but not included in the definition of proven reserves.
Obama and other domestic oil supply deniers want to ignore the very real prospects for more oil to be discovered because it does not fit their image of an alternative energy future as quickly as they would want.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
GeorgiaDon 380
So, you are a proponent of buying lottery tickets, then going out and buying a house before the winning numbers are announced? Also, even if the Bakken holds anything close to what the speculators suggest, it will be more expensive to access than more conventional reserves.QuoteThe Bakken may hold more oil than all the other oil fields in the country combined. The estimates and analysis are recent and debatable of course, but show that the prospects for finding really large quantities is very real, but not included in the definition of proven reserves.
Oil is sold on the world market. If an oil company can get $100/barrel on the world market, do you really believe they would voluntarily sell that oil to domestic refineries at $25/barrel? Or even $95/barrel? Domestic production can decrease prices only by acting on the global market, and US reserves are not large enough to compensate for OPEC reducing supply to keep prices high, as one example. We could launch a program to exploit all our oil reserves within 10 years, if we wanted to, but that would have little effect on prices and only accelerate our movement towards the day when we are totally dependent on foreign sources.QuoteObama and other domestic oil supply deniers wants to ignore the very real prospects for more oil to be discovered because it does not fit his image of an alternative energy future as quickly as he would want.
Short of mandating that oil from US sources can only be sold to US refineries, please explain why you think domestic production will have a big effect on price/barrel?
Reduced demand is a time-tested way of forcing competing suppliers to reduce their price. Do you disagree?QuoteHe says drilling will not affect the price, but lower consumption will.
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)
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)
sundevil777 102
QuoteSo, you are a proponent of buying lottery tickets, then going out and buying a house before the winning numbers are announced?
That is a really crappy analogy. Are you trying to compete with BV?
Quoteeven if the Bakken holds anything close to what the speculators suggest, it will be more expensive to access than more conventional reserves.
It seems that private companies are willing to bet they can make a profit and are willing to spend money now to start the process of getting at it. That is what matters.
QuoteIf an oil company can get $100/barrel on the world market, do you really believe they would voluntarily sell that oil to domestic refineries at $25/barrel? Or even $95/barrel?
Who is suggesting that? Are you making up your own assertions to argue against?
QuoteReduced demand is a time-tested way of forcing competing suppliers to reduce their price. Do you disagree?
I do not disagree, but you contradict yourself. You claim that OPEC would keep prices despite increasing domestic production by reducing their production. I think that is a good thing. I think we should boycott OPEC over the next many years. That doesn't mean it would all come from US oil production, but at least it would not be from OPEC. However, you apparently do not think OPEC would reduce production as a response to lower consumption. Why should the president release oil from the strategic reserve if OPEC will respond as you suggest - reducing their production?
The president using gov't policy to restrict domestic oil development increases the ability of OPEC to set prices. Speculators respond to those policy decisions with increased futures prices. If those policies were shifted dramatically, speculators would do the opposite.
QuoteShort of mandating that oil from US sources can only be sold to US refineries
As I said earlier, I think a non-OPEC coalition should be developed. I would rather pay a higher price for oil in order to boycott oil from OPEC. Perhaps there is a small number of countries within OPEC not worth boycotting, but I think it applies generally.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
billvon 3,120
>Actually, our exports (using Obama's various statements) must exceed 10% of the
>world's production.
No. The only one claiming that is you, based on your misunderstanding of what he said.
>Yes, we use a shitload of oil. We need to develop energy sources that are meaningful
>and not dump shitloads of resources down rabbit holes like Solyndra, etc.
It is amusing that you vociferously defend BP, a company that created the worst maritime oil disaster in history through their incompetence, and claim that they were unfairly vilified. Yet when Solyndra, a company attempting to help provide energy for you, does nothing more than fail, you condemn and vilify them.
Too bad Solyndra didn't create an ecological disaster for the country. Joe Barton would start apologizing to them.
>world's production.
No. The only one claiming that is you, based on your misunderstanding of what he said.
>Yes, we use a shitload of oil. We need to develop energy sources that are meaningful
>and not dump shitloads of resources down rabbit holes like Solyndra, etc.
It is amusing that you vociferously defend BP, a company that created the worst maritime oil disaster in history through their incompetence, and claim that they were unfairly vilified. Yet when Solyndra, a company attempting to help provide energy for you, does nothing more than fail, you condemn and vilify them.
Too bad Solyndra didn't create an ecological disaster for the country. Joe Barton would start apologizing to them.
billvon 3,120
>Recent discoveries of oil are not included in what are called proven reserves.
Why do you claim that? US proven reserves (P95 reserves) have been growing steadily over the last decade. That's included in that 2% number.
>The Bakken may hold more oil than all the other oil fields in the country combined.
Are you including that in "recent discoveries?" Because oil was discovered there in the 1950's and we've been drilling there ever since.
As oil prices have climbed, more expensive extraction techniques (specifically shale oil extraction) has made it possible to extract oil from more difficult formations. And that's why the statement "He says drilling will not affect the price, but lower consumption will" is valid. We're not drilling gushers any more that give us light sweet crude; we're finding oil in shales and sands that take a lot of work to extract. And the only reason we CAN afford to mine shale oil is that prices are so high. Drop prices and the economics behind shale oil and tar sands stops making sense.
We will always have oil in some form or another. No matter how much we drill there will be a small pocket somewhere that we haven't discovered yet. But as time goes on it becomes more and more expensive to extract it. Once we reach an EROEI of 1:1 then it will not be economically viable to extract oil, period - and all the rhetoric in the world can't change that. At that point we better have another alternative ready to go.
Why do you claim that? US proven reserves (P95 reserves) have been growing steadily over the last decade. That's included in that 2% number.
>The Bakken may hold more oil than all the other oil fields in the country combined.
Are you including that in "recent discoveries?" Because oil was discovered there in the 1950's and we've been drilling there ever since.
As oil prices have climbed, more expensive extraction techniques (specifically shale oil extraction) has made it possible to extract oil from more difficult formations. And that's why the statement "He says drilling will not affect the price, but lower consumption will" is valid. We're not drilling gushers any more that give us light sweet crude; we're finding oil in shales and sands that take a lot of work to extract. And the only reason we CAN afford to mine shale oil is that prices are so high. Drop prices and the economics behind shale oil and tar sands stops making sense.
We will always have oil in some form or another. No matter how much we drill there will be a small pocket somewhere that we haven't discovered yet. But as time goes on it becomes more and more expensive to extract it. Once we reach an EROEI of 1:1 then it will not be economically viable to extract oil, period - and all the rhetoric in the world can't change that. At that point we better have another alternative ready to go.
muff528 3
Quote>Actually, our exports (using Obama's various statements) must exceed 10% of the
>world's production.
No. The only one claiming that is you, based on your misunderstanding of what he said.
What part do you think I misunderstood. Check the box below.
[ ] “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil”
[ ] "less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported"
[ ] White House Report: the United States is a net exporter of energy
That's all I needed to get to the bogus >10% number (unless we are exporting large quantities of some other kind of double-secret energy in addition to oil.)
It might help if you draw some pies.
Quote>Yes, we use a shitload of oil. We need to develop energy sources that are meaningful
>and not dump shitloads of resources down rabbit holes like Solyndra, etc.
It is amusing that you vociferously defend BP, a company that created the worst maritime oil disaster in history through their incompetence, and claim that they were unfairly vilified. Yet when Solyndra, a company attempting to help provide energy for you, does nothing more than fail, you condemn and vilify them.
Too bad Solyndra didn't create an ecological disaster for the country. Joe Barton would start apologizing to them.
I'm not defending BP. I'm condemning the end run around due process.
sundevil777 102
Quote>Recent discoveries of oil are not included in what are called proven reserves.
Why do you claim that? US proven reserves (P95 reserves) have been growing steadily over the last decade. That's included in that 2% number.
>The Bakken may hold more oil than all the other oil fields in the country combined.
Are you including that in "recent discoveries?" Because oil was discovered there in the 1950's and we've been drilling there ever since.
As oil prices have climbed, more expensive extraction techniques (specifically shale oil extraction) has made it possible to extract oil from more difficult formations. And that's why the statement "He says drilling will not affect the price, but lower consumption will" is valid. We're not drilling gushers any more that give us light sweet crude; we're finding oil in shales and sands that take a lot of work to extract. And the only reason we CAN afford to mine shale oil is that prices are so high. Drop prices and the economics behind shale oil and tar sands stops making sense.
We will always have oil in some form or another. No matter how much we drill there will be a small pocket somewhere that we haven't discovered yet. But as time goes on it becomes more and more expensive to extract it. Once we reach an EROEI of 1:1 then it will not be economically viable to extract oil, period - and all the rhetoric in the world can't change that. At that point we better have another alternative ready to go.
The Bakken and other areas have recently been found to have much much more oil than previously thought. So much so that private companies are keen on getting at it. That shows the economic viability. You sound like a domestic oil supply denier.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
>consumption. We are producing over half of that 20% that we are consuming and we
>are exporting the remaining portion (<10% of the world's consumed pie). In turn we
>are importing the remainder of the >20% that we consume.
OK.
>The rest of the world which has 98% of the oil reserves is consuming about 80% of the
>entire world's production.
OK.
>About 10 of that 80% consumed by non-US countries is imported from the US.
No. We export about 1.6 million barrels a day which is less than 2% of world production.
>Since oil is fungible it can be said that we are producing about a fifth of the world's
>production and are consuming that same fifth, roughly. So we are already energy-
>independent if we are to believe those numbers.
No. (See above.)
>Whether we have 2% of the reserves or 52% (to pick a random number) has no effect
>on our consumption and has no relevance as to whether we consume "more than one
>fifth of the world's oil" or four fifths (to pick a random number).
It has no effect right now. It will definitely have an effect on our future consumption. Which is why "drill, baby, drill!" is a stupid plan.
>Whether we have 2% of the reserves or 52% (to pick a random number) has no
>effect on our consumption . . . .
You feel that supply will have no effect on demand? Interesting take on economics.
>Neither does it address whether our 2% represents "almost gone" or "a hundred years left".
Correct. You would have to do math to get the number of years left.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites