billvon 3,120 #51 March 19, 2012 > “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 It is indeed a bogus number and you did indeed get to it in error. We PRODUCE 10% of the world's oil, and we use most of it. We do not EXPORT 10% of the world's oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #52 March 19, 2012 >So much so that private companies are keen on getting at it. That shows the economic viability. Brent Crude Oil: $125.81 ▲0.11 0.12% 11:20 AM EDT - 2012.03.19 ^ THAT shows the economic viability. Let oil drop to $80 a barrel and that oil that costs $90 a barrel to extract will suddenly seem less of a magic bullet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #53 March 19, 2012 Quote > “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 It is indeed a bogus number and you did indeed get to it in error. We PRODUCE 10% of the world's oil, and we use most of it. We do not EXPORT 10% of the world's oil. EXACTLY! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #54 March 19, 2012 >How do we produce only 10% of the world's oil, use more than 20% of which more >than half is domestically produced, and export more than we import ...all at the same >time? We don't export more than we import. We export about 1.6 million barrels a day which is less than 2% of world production. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #55 March 19, 2012 Quote EXACTLY! You are confusing two separate numbers. We are a net importer of crude oil. We recently became a net exporter of refined oil proucts. We have a large amount of refining capacity, so we are importing raw materials, refining them, then exporting some of the refined products. Crude Oil and refined oil are kept track of separately."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #56 March 19, 2012 Quote>How do we produce only 10% of the world's oil, use more than 20% of which more >than half is domestically produced, and export more than we import ...all at the same >time? We don't export more than we import. We export about 1.6 million barrels a day which is less than 2% of world production. Now we've gotten somewhere. You think I misunderstood Obama's parameter number 3 from my post #49. 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" [X] White House Report: the United States is a net exporter of energy I probably could use an explanation of how being a "net exporter" really means "We don't export more than we import". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #57 March 19, 2012 >I probably could use an explanation of how being a "net exporter" really means "We >don't export more than we import". Are you asking about oil or energy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #58 March 19, 2012 gotta count all that hot air (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #59 March 19, 2012 QuoteQuote>How do we produce only 10% of the world's oil, use more than 20% of which more >than half is domestically produced, and export more than we import ...all at the same >time? We don't export more than we import. We export about 1.6 million barrels a day which is less than 2% of world production. Now we've gotten somewhere. You think I misunderstood Obama's parameter number 3 from my post #49. 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" [X] White House Report: the United States is a net exporter of energy I probably could use an explanation of how being a "net exporter" really means "We don't export more than we import". Oil gas coal Electrickery etc (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #60 March 19, 2012 QuoteAll that stuff you struck ....that's Obama's words, not mine except for maybe the part where we export more than we import. All that stuff I struck was stuff that did not 'bring us to' more than one fifth of the worlds consumption. The only thing that brought us to it was the bit at the beginning that I left unstruck, where you said the US accounts for more than one fifth of the worlds consumption. QuoteI'm telling you the "reserve" numbers and the "consumption" numbers are not related. Liar. Re-read post 1. The only way it makes sense is you conflating reserves with production. The. Only. Way. QuoteYou are trying to tie them together Where and how? QuoteObama: "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. Only for certifiable morons. But like I said, they're probably not listening anyway. QuoteCrystal 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. So what's your fucking point? Do you not believe any of those numbers? Then go look them up and prove him wrong. It's got nothing to do with your original post though.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #61 March 19, 2012 Quote Quote EXACTLY! You are confusing two separate numbers. We are a net importer of crude oil. We recently became a net exporter of refined oil proucts. We have a large amount of refining capacity, so we are importing raw materials, refining them, then exporting some of the refined products. Crude Oil and refined oil are kept track of separately. The EIA site takes crude and petroleum products together when referring to the US 22% of total consumption and when referring to what part of our consumption comes from where. So, it seems, does Obama when making his points because they agree with the EIA. ....Except when his White House report refers to our exports exceeding our imports. The WH report does say "energy" but it neglects to mention that our crude imports had to spike to nearly the highest levels ever to meet a production level of petroleum products that we can either export or use and that would allow that "net exporter" statistic to exist. Pie chart at the top and the graph about halfway down. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #62 March 19, 2012 Quote>So much so that private companies are keen on getting at it. That shows the economic viability. Brent Crude Oil: $125.81 ▲0.11 0.12% 11:20 AM EDT - 2012.03.19 ^ THAT shows the economic viability. Let oil drop to $80 a barrel and that oil that costs $90 a barrel to extract will suddenly seem less of a magic bullet. You are not disputing that there is a LOT more oil to be had domestically than the "proven reserves" number which Obama cites so often, correct? That is the basis for the complaint against Obama's assertion that drilling for more oil will not help. He is intentionally not telling the whole truth. I think it is worth pursuing a boycott of OPEC oil, for both domestic and foreign policy reasons. Domestic production can and should contribute greatly to that. Speculators are often labeled the bad guys for driving up the price of oil, but they would also be the ones driving it down if the anti domestic oil policies of Obama were reversed.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #63 March 19, 2012 >You are not disputing that there is a LOT more oil to be had domestically than >the "proven reserves" number which Obama cites so often, correct? There is a lot of POTENTIAL oil out there that we haven't discovered yet. The reason we haven't discovered (and mapped) it is that until recently it hasn't been economical to exploit, so (for example) we have very little data on shale oil quantities. How much can we extract of a shale oil vein? 10%? 5%? 2%? We don't know yet - so they are unproven reserves. And even once you extract the organic material, it's not oil. It's kerogen, which is a tarry substance that, with a lot of processing, you can get some oil out of. The reserve numbers are based on confidences. We have 95% confidence we can extract another 21 billion barrels oil. We have 5% confidence we can extract another 134 billion barrels of oil from the deposits we've located. We THINK there might be up to 1500 barrels of kerogen in oil shale deposits, but we haven't even discovered a fraction of them yet. The question is - if you are betting the entire energy future of your country, do you want numbers that you have 95% confidence in? Or 5%? Or 0%? And if your answer is 5% - let's go with solar and wind. The odds are a lot higher there. >That is the basis for the complaint against Obama's assertion that drilling for more oil >will not help. He is intentionally not telling the whole truth. Drilling for oil will not help lower prices - because those new wells will not produce economically viable oil if the price drops. The only way they can operate economically is to keep prices high. Want that oil? Keep gas prices high enough that oil companies can make money extracting it. >Speculators are often labeled the bad guys for driving up the price of oil, but they >would also be the ones driving it down if the anti domestic oil policies of Obama were >reversed. Which policies are those? The ones that have resulted in 10 year highs in oil production? Do you really want to reverse that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #64 March 19, 2012 Quote>You are not disputing that there is a LOT more oil to be had domestically than >the "proven reserves" number which Obama cites so often, correct? There is a lot of POTENTIAL oil out there that we haven't discovered yet. The reason we haven't discovered (and mapped) it is that until recently it hasn't been economical to exploit, so (for example) we have very little data on shale oil quantities. How much can we extract of a shale oil vein? 10%? 5%? 2%? We don't know yet - so they are unproven reserves. And even once you extract the organic material, it's not oil. It's kerogen, which is a tarry substance that, with a lot of processing, you can get some oil out of. The reserve numbers are based on confidences. We have 95% confidence we can extract another 21 billion barrels oil. We have 5% confidence we can extract another 134 billion barrels of oil from the deposits we've located. We THINK there might be up to 1500 barrels of kerogen in oil shale deposits, but we haven't even discovered a fraction of them yet. The question is - if you are betting the entire energy future of your country, do you want numbers that you have 95% confidence in? Or 5%? Or 0%? And if your answer is 5% - let's go with solar and wind. The odds are a lot higher there. >That is the basis for the complaint against Obama's assertion that drilling for more oil >will not help. He is intentionally not telling the whole truth. Drilling for oil will not help lower prices - because those new wells will not produce economically viable oil if the price drops. The only way they can operate economically is to keep prices high. Want that oil? Keep gas prices high enough that oil companies can make money extracting it. >Speculators are often labeled the bad guys for driving up the price of oil, but they >would also be the ones driving it down if the anti domestic oil policies of Obama were >reversed. Which policies are those? The ones that have resulted in 10 year highs in oil production? Do you really want to reverse that? Your assertions imply that the price of oil is just barely enough to justify going at new discoveries. I think that there is likely significant profit to be made even with slightly lower prices, and this is supported by the fact that oil companies were keen to do it in the not so distant past when prices were lower. Obama does not deserve credit for increased oil production. The fact that it is higher is further proof that the oil industry sees new discoveries as quite economically viable, despite your assertions of gloom for the future of domestic production. How has Spain's huge "investment" in alternative energy gone for them? Boycott OPEC!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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #65 March 19, 2012 >I think that there is likely significant profit to be made even with slightly lower prices, >and this is supported by the fact that oil companies were keen to do it in the not so >distant past when prices were lower. I think it's only been pretty recent that unconventional sources have made sense - and I think the demonstration of that it that is has only been recently that anyone has tried. Shale oil costs between $75 and $90 a barrel to recover, so until oil is reliably above $100 a barrel it's not economical. Now it is. Want to keep it economical? Keep oil prices above $100 a barrel. As time goes on and the process is streamlined prices may drop. As time goes on and the easy-to-mine (not drill, mine) shale oils are used up prices may rise. Which will win out? Hard to say - but it's pretty easy to say that for now oil prices will have to remain high for non-oil resources to remain viable. >Obama does not deserve credit for increased oil production. So he is to blame for the shortage due to his policies but gets no credit when that shortage is shown to actually be an increase? And he is to blame for people misunderstanding him, but gets no credit when his statements are revealed to be the truth? The "I hate Obama" thing as a replacement for rational argument is getting pretty old. >How has Spain's huge "investment" in alternative energy gone for them? How has Gulf drilling gone for Gulf fishermen? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #66 March 19, 2012 Quote>I think that there is likely significant profit to be made even with slightly lower prices, >and this is supported by the fact that oil companies were keen to do it in the not so >distant past when prices were lower. I think it's only been pretty recent that unconventional sources have made sense - and I think the demonstration of that it that is has only been recently that anyone has tried. Shale oil costs between $75 and $90 a barrel to recover, so until oil is reliably above $100 a barrel it's not economical. Now it is. Want to keep it economical? Keep oil prices above $100 a barrel. As time goes on and the process is streamlined prices may drop. As time goes on and the easy-to-mine (not drill, mine) shale oils are used up prices may rise. Which will win out? Hard to say - but it's pretty easy to say that for now oil prices will have to remain high for non-oil resources to remain viable. >Obama does not deserve credit for increased oil production. So he is to blame for the shortage due to his policies but gets no credit when that shortage is shown to actually be an increase? And he is to blame for people misunderstanding him, but gets no credit when his statements are revealed to be the truth? The "I hate Obama" thing as a replacement for rational argument is getting pretty old. >How has Spain's huge "investment" in alternative energy gone for them? How has Gulf drilling gone for Gulf fishermen? Why focus on unconventional sources? Lots of regular oil that is not included in the proven reserves because it hs only recently been reevaluated. What Obama policies are to get credit for the increase in production? He has done the opposite. Production went up in spite of him, not due to his policies. I'll take your answer about Spain's alternative energy results as being a reluctant admission that it hasn't worked well at all.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #67 March 20, 2012 Quote Nah ....just a little math mistake. No more of a mistake that improperly using the term "fuzzy math." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #68 March 20, 2012 Quote Quote Nah ....just a little math mistake. No more of a mistake that improperly using the term "fuzzy math." If you'd like to join a discussion with your thoughts, opinions or other relevant stuff, I'd like to hear them. I've never had a problem with losing a debate or discussion with reasoned discussion and facts I can't disagree with. If you just want to cut and paste some smartass comeback over and over, I'm not interested. But go ahead anyway, ...if it's good enough others might want to read it or take notes for use in future discussions. I got no problem with sprinkling friendly jabs in here and there. Yeah, "Fuzzy Math"! meaningful mathematical relationship. "Fuzzy Presentations...." could apply to the "net exporter" thing, too. Maybe you could tell me how 5.5 million barrels of crude oil can yield over 10 millions barrels of petroleum product. I'm probably overlooking something there, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #69 March 20, 2012 >I should have said "Fuzzy Presentations and Half-Truths" since the two parts of the >"reserve/consumption" statement have no meaningful mathematical relationship. Nor did he claim there was. >Maybe you could tell me how 5.5 million barrels of crude oil can yield over 10 millions >barrels of petroleum product. I'm probably overlooking something there, too. Yes, you are. No one is claiming that 5.5 million barrels of crude can yield over 10 million barrels of petroleum product. That's a strawman argument, which is an argument you made up so you could "win" it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #70 March 20, 2012 Quote>I should have said "Fuzzy Presentations and Half-Truths" since the two parts of the >"reserve/consumption" statement have no meaningful mathematical relationship. Nor did he claim there was. >Maybe you could tell me how 5.5 million barrels of crude oil can yield over 10 millions >barrels of petroleum product. I'm probably overlooking something there, too. Yes, you are. No one is claiming that 5.5 million barrels of crude can yield over 10 million barrels of petroleum product. That's a strawman argument, which is an argument you made up so you could "win" it. I've already given up on anyone agreeing with me that Obama uses deception and half-truths with some of his statistics. So no one else notices or I am simply wrong. I got no problem either way. This oil discussion is more interesting anyway. I'm not looking for a "win" now. I asked a simple question regarding the EIA chart. If you don't have an answer that's cool. No strawman. The EIA chart for our consumption for 2010 says our domestically produced daily share was 51% of 19.1m barrels + 2.3m barrels which we exported. They also say our crude oil production was 5.5m barrels/day. Does the sentence at the end of the first paragraph ("But crude oil alone does not constitute all U.S. petroleum supplies.") refer to some other domestic source besides crude? Or is it a segue into the next paragraph which refers to imports? What then constitutes the rest of the domestic production? Are we refining the imported crude from "import side" of the chart and moving that to the "domestic side" and calling that domestic production? ETA - The title of the first section seems to contradict what the chart seems to try to say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #71 March 20, 2012 Damn, I hate to hit this again but... Obama, 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." From EIA site: "Most of the Petroleum We Use Is Imported The United States consumed 19.1 million barrels per day of petroleum products during 2010,.... " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #72 March 20, 2012 QuoteI've already given up on anyone agreeing with me that Obama uses deception and half-truths with some of his statistics. I get the sense there may be some pre-conceived notions that you are trying to "prove" with some fuzzy math and understanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
