muff528

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.

Yeah, my first car had that - 1964 Buick Special. Kewl! My first was a 66 Buick Special. 2-door, Blue with white top.

meh

The consensus here seems to be that it was false or deceptive comprehension on the OP's part. Nah ....just a little math mistake.

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.

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.

Enid, OK. I remember looking out the window at the CD guy (neighbor across the street) directing everyone into their holes one night. I could see the tornado in the flashes of lightning. He came to our door and told my folks to get us kids into the hallway with mattresses on either side of us and on top. We didn't have a hole. Kinda scary for a bunch of people from Florida.

That's better. You either are or you aren't depending on which point you want to make this minute. This should probably be the bit where you tie things together into a relevant point. I'll refer you back to the three fingered yellow dude. 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.

"that physically exists in the world"

Sorry, the 20% was from here "We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves." (BTW, 1/5 = 20%) I don't think I disputed the amount, whether it's represented fractionally or by percentage. Although I did use the absolute values rather than "more than" and "less than" for simplicity. I believe I understand how it was intended to be understood and now I see how he can claim a measure of plausible deniability and have that believed by some when he is called on it. Try to answer that later. Irrelevant. I'm sure there are criminals in the oil industry just as there are in any other industry. I prefer to let the criminal justice system manage that. The pillaging of BP began before any real information became known and even after BP proactively began providing aid and compensation.

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. "that physically exists in the world"

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. "that physically exists in the world"

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. Of course not. But our society has risen above subsistence. Some of us can afford gashogs and others cannot. Some can afford a/c and others cannot. Some are trying to level the playing field by making everyone equally miserable with nothing to strive for. Others are going further by attempting confiscation and redistribution with no personal reward for success and achievement. When that happens there will be no net output and not just the US will suffer because of it. There may or may not be some merit in those ideas but my only fear is "who" gets to decide what is needed or how much is enough. Future energy sources and technologies will be developed and eventually replace petroleum out of need as perceived by those who develop those technologies and by those who profit from them. They will not be determined by decree. Some folks even think that skydiving is an unnecessary use of fuel and energy. That jump ticket could feed someone for a week.

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.

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.

What do you believe he was trying to mis-lead you on? Once again ...to portray the US as the world's oil-gluton and to push his anti-oil energy agenda.

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".

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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?

I'm sure he's just trying to remind everyone to get to the safety meetings!

Yeah, after seeing your "hunger" post and then this one I thought there may be a "glitch".