More Pa. Town Hall Obamabsurdity: Three Media-Ignored Misleads on Oil Reserves and Production
By Tom Blumer | April 11, 2011 | 00:20
Reasonably astute readers will catch the falsehoods and fallacies inherent in the following statement made by President Obama last Wednesday at the town hall meeting held in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania:
But here’s the thing about oil. We have about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves; [1] we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. [2] So think about it. Even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produce, we’d still be short by a factor of five. [3]
The average Associated Press or other establishment media apparatchik following Obama around as he embarks on his 19-month reelection campaign has apparently given these statements little if any thought, simply assuming that they're "obviosuly" true. Each of the President's three key number-tagged assertions is either demonstrably false or seriously misleading. Each is badly in need of a specific refutation.
[1] -- "We have about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves."
The President is wrong on this one, but in a direction that would appear to reinforce his ultimate point. The 2010 CIA Factbook, which is based on data as of the end of 2009, says that proven reserves in the U.S. amount to 19.12 billion barrels. Wikipedia's related link calculates the percentage of worldwide proven reserves correctly at 1.37%, which places the U.S. fourteenth in the world. The proven reserves figure is lower than the 22.3 billion barrels published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in November 2010. The higher figure only changes the worldwide share to about 1.6%.
But Jeff Dunetz at BigGovernment.com (and many others, I'm sure) points out that proven reserves is not the correct frame of reference in measuring truly available resources:
The number is America’s proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil is clearly false.
In the sense that Obama defenders can say "Well, he was talking about proven reserves," Obama is technically correct. But in context, Obama is trying to convince Americans that the rest of the world has 30-50 times more oil than we do and that we therefore can't possibly produce our way out of our current situation. That just isn't so, especially when one realizes that the correct figure for shale oil alone may be more like 2.5 trillion barrels instead of Dunetz's 800 billion barrels (though I'm not clear on its degree of recoverability).
[2] -- "We use 25 percent of the world’s oil."
That was the big campaign theme in 2008, wasn't it? We have only 5% of the population greedily burning through 25% of the world's oil. It's just so unfair.
Well, the percentage has gone down:
- An article at Ritholtz.com berates the U.S. for consuming 25% of the world's oil production. But the actual numbers on the map shows the U.S. consuming 18.686 million barrels a day, with the world consuming 84.077 million. Uh, that's actually 22.2%. These numbers agree to those found in a spreadsheet I found at BP's web site here.
- 2010 U.S. consumption averaged about 19.145 million barrels today, per Table 4A at the EIA's March 2011 Short-Term Energy Outlook (large PDF). Table 3A at the same link shows worldwide consumption as average of 87.18 million barrels during 2010. U.S. consumption was 21.96% of worldwide consumption.
- From the same report as in the previous bullet, project 2011 U.S. daily consumption is 19.28 million barrels. Worldwide, it's 88.2 million. That works out to 21.86%.
All three percentages are closer to 20% than 25%, eliminating any potential "well, we were just rounding up" excuse. The President, who is supposed to be up on these things, doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's relying on old data, and should stop using the 25% canard; the press should stop assuming the canard is true.
[3] -- "Even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produce, we’d still be short by a factor of five."
This is by far the biggest howler of the bunch, and is easily disproven.
Obama's math-challenged calculation simply multiplies the proven reserves number of "2%-3%" by two to arrive at roughly 5%, and then claims that this result is only one-fifth of our 25% share of world consumption. Thus, we're supposedly "short by a factor of five."
Lord have mercy. Let's look at some real numbers:
- As seen above, our 2009 daily consumption was 18.686 million barrels. A preliminary EIA document for that year which likely changed very little indicates that our daily production was 5.31 million barrels. Double that to 10.62 million a day, and we're short by a factor of 1.76 (18.686 divided by 10.62). That's nowhere near in the neighborhood of five.
- The EIA report previously cited says that our 2010 daily consumption was the 19.145 million barrels a day seen above, and that our daily production per Table 1 was 5.51 million daily barrels. Double that to 11.02 million a day, and we're short by a factor of 1.74 (19.145 divided by 11.02). That's also nowhere near five.
- The EIA report also estimates that our 2011 daily consumption will be the 19.28 million barrels seen above, and that our daily production will come in at 5.40 million daily barrels. Double that to 10.80 million a day, and we're short by a factor of 1.79 (19.28 divided by 10.80). Again, that's nowhere near five, but the administration is slowly but surely working on getting it there. 2012 production is predicted to drop another 2% or so to 5.27 million barrels a day.
Bottom line: Obama is wrong, by a factor of almost three (2009 - 2.84; 2010 - 2.87; 2011 - 2.79).
Frankly, the problem isn't that we're consuming more than our "fair share" of the world's energy. It's that we're not producing energy at an easily achievable level, making this country perhaps the only civilization ever on planet earth to proactively choose not to exploit the God-given resources provided to sustain and grow its economy. We are paying dearly for taking this course.
Barack Obama and his administration want Americans to think we can't produce the fossil fuel we need, that we can't afford to keep importing it, and that we must therefore bet the farm on unproven (and in certain cases, disproven) renewables to have any chance at all of avoiding an energy resource calamity. This is irresponsible, clearly media-assisted horse manure.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments




















Comments
Let's give President Obama a break for a change. If I'm not
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:56am.
mistaken, this is the first speech he has ever given in his life that contained falsehoods and fallacies. Isn't the man entitled to one mistake? ;-)
As you can see from the gas price heat map, California, where I live, always has the highest prices in the country. I live in Redondo Beach, and paid $4.19 a gallon today for gas.
Once we take back the Presidency and the Senate, I hope, in addition to cuts in spending, we focus on a sensible energy policy that incorporates Drill Baby, Drill.
Nice try Rush Fan...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 1:23am.
but whenever I see a headline like yours in Recent Comments, I know immediately a great big sarcastic 'other' shoe is just about to drop.
[And more often than not, it's one of your shoes.] :-)
Jer
Thanks Jer. Sometimes, even I have a hard time adjusting
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 1:32am.
to my sarcasm. Except when I'm in the shower, of course. :-)
Rush Fan
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:52pm.
Jer just insulted you. He uses the smiley face to disarm, but his zero content post directed at you, not the points you made about his messiah, was all about putting you down.
strat...Here's a thought:
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:36pm.
Why not let Rush Fan speak for himself regarding whether or not he feels he was insulted by my reply? Or do you believe he is incapable of properly interpreting my words, comprehending their meaning and drawing reasonable inferences regarding my intentions, and, that being the case, he therefore requires your guidance?
Rush Fan, stratman just insulted you.
Jer
Here's A Thought For You, Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:44pm.
I understand you just fine.
Rush Fan didn't invite you to comment. Yet you did, and your comment was ad hominem.
If you don't like my posts to and about you then stop doing the same to others on this forum.
He didn't invite your comment either, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:55pm.
and Rush Fan has known me long enough and well enough to know your claim of ad hominem--in the connotation of personal insult--is absolute bullshit.
Jer
stratman.......Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Jer and I may
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:04pm.
at times disagree (sometimes we are in complete agreement), but even though we may engage in mutual kidding, Jer and I have a relationship based on mutual respect. As with most posters at NewsBusters, if you treat Jer with respect, he will return it in kind. In summary, Jer (and you) are welcome to reply to my comments anytime. No invitation required.
Jer Was Still Putting You Down, Rush Fan
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:22pm.
Jer may seem the quid pro quo kind, but he is not always. My post was not just for you but for all to read in order to understand Jer better. I held your opinion for quite a while. Not anymore. Good luck on your end. As long as you can handle the Grand Canyon victimhood chip on his shoulder then Jer will be palatable.
BTW, the invitation aspect concerned Jer's whining about others jumping in on his posts without being involved. He has done this numerous times to others and is quite the hypocrite in this area. As I said to him, if he doesn't like it then he should stop doing the same to others. Whether you are fine with it is secondary in the grand scheme of things since Jer does not live by the golden rule he wants from others. This is first and foremost about the trollish ways of Jer.
stratman........Let me be blunt with you, but hopefully you will
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:29pm.
take my suggestion in the nicest way that I can convey it to you.
GIVE IT A REST!
I paid 4.35 a gallon in NYC.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:58am.
I figure once the price hits $5.00 the GOP could run a pile of excrement against BO and beat him in 2012.
Obombus isn't wrong, He's
Submitted by Rowane on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:01am.
Obombus isn't wrong, He's lying AGAIN
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
Oh no, he didn't lie
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:58am.
HE MISSPOKE!
Figures may lie.........but
Submitted by big.league.slider on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:38am.
Figures may lie.........but liars sure can't figure.
The whole argument over oil supplies is a canard. The discussion should be about energy costs. Oil is currently of interest because it is the most economical source of transportation fuels. If it becomes too expensive or scarce, something else will replace it. Most likely natural gas or coal-derived fuels. In fact, the US is now one of the largest producers of natural gas in the world.
As noted, the US has massive reserves of oil shales. These can be extracted economically for less than the current inflated price of crude oil. But no sensible oil company will commit the $billions necessary to begin extracting them until the price of crude stabilizes at a high enough price.
Proven Oil Reserves are Admited Oil Reserves.
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:31am.
Thanks to the State politicians tendancy to tax everything in sight and a lot that isn't in sight US oil men have a powerful incentive to make assets disappear from the books.
At the end of the 1960's the California oil production was hundreds of thousands of barrells a day in the sixties and there were plans to rampu up to millions of barrels per day when the Government shut down production.
At that time oil production was limited to a couple of hundred feet. Does anyone think that with a drilling ban in place for the last forty years that any businessman is going to prove reserves of the west coast? If you do would you like to buy a bridge?
Peak oil will always be a rainbow connection based on the business horizen of the oil companies. Tea Pot Dome a hundred years ago was about the proven oil that the Navy saw when they planned their oil purchases.
Someone should get a copy of Jimmy Carter's speach thirty-one years ago where he said that the US would be out of Natural gas in thirty years. If we allowed oil drilling we will be in the same situation with oil in thirty yeas as we are now with Natural Gas.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/46590#ixzz1JCJDvzUL
Another view
Submitted by JRL0912 on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 4:13am.
Let's say we do consume 22% of the worlds energy....that figure looks real different if we produce 30% of the worlds goods......I do not know the exact figure of our % of production, however I have heard numbers in the 40's 5 years ago, but my point is that the "greedy" approach does not hold water if we consume so much because we produce so much....but of course this is never discussed because it makes sense and the MSM does not like "sense".
John
Cut the energy we use to coddle the world
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 5:47am.
Don't forget that we (America) grow food for the world's population and feed many for free plus we manufacture and provide many medicines for free. All that takes energy.
Mr Obama, should we stop 'wasting' those resources?
I thought that China was going to pass us in manufacturing
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 6:08am.
sometime this year. And EVERYONE knows that they don't use ANY energy to produce their goods. The fact that they are building a coal-fired power plant every week, while we cannot get even one permitted by the Obama administration, shows who wants their people to be successful.
Dennis Prager
The real problem is that his economic policy
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 6:05am.
has the same math in it. For instance, he would cut the deficit in half in his budget, which did nothing of the kind.
Math is not Professor Obama's discipline. I only hope that Michelle or one of the kids balances the checkbook.
Dennis Prager
Don't ever forget...
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 7:05am.
that Obama said he didn't have a problem with $5 a gallon gas.
Now he says if we double production, we'd still be using way more than our so-called fair share of the world's resources.
Does that make anyone think he's interested in improving the situation?
New oil production...
Submitted by Paarl on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 7:53am.
Not only do the oil luddites use the false arguments presented by Obama they also apply another canard to argue against drilling....
Whenever the issue of offshore or ANWR drilling is suggested as a source of 10 billion or 50 billion\
barrels the usual suspects from the NRDC or the Sierra Club express the new reserves in terms of how long that new source of petroleum could fulfill the petroleum requirements of the USA if it ALONE was in production.....so these luddites say that ANWR with its 10 billion is ONLY "X" months of USA petroleum usage...as if the case would be that all other production would cease if ANWR began production....truly a very biased and useless metric. Sadly the unprepared members of the MSM never question this metric....the reporters are unprepared.
paarl of rhodesia
So what about the reports
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:34am.
So what about the reports that US companies sell a lot of gas for export. Can't remember the amount. Something like 30-40 %. Is exported......
Iran imports 95% of it's gas.
Venezuela imports 90% of it's gas. And their oil can only be refined in US. High sulfur content.
My forty year plan for US Oil - ACA
Submitted by acaiguana on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 8:46am.
Who woulda thunk in 1961, when I was in 8th Grade and History class explained that the US only had 40 years of oil left to exploit that in 2011 my plan would be the only path left for the country?
Who?
My idea at that time was to keep buying foreign oil at prodigious rates whilst using up their oil first then drill for our oil.
Well, we didn't run out of oil in 40 years and we now have more reserves discovered (but unproven as that requires a drill bit) than ever before. In fact; given the new fracture technology we can not only drill it but we can produce in areas never before available. So, the US probably has the most oil in the world and we probably don't need any foreign oil (my thesis assumption thus proven correct at the time).
Who woulda thunk that when it finally came time to produce the oil that a buncha minority in number left wingers with no education whatsoever other than self-feeding 'studies' would keep the drill bits out of the ground?
I'm being dragged kicking and screaming to the suicide of this country over poor science; poor math; poor educations and poor leadership.
Who woulda thunk?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
What angers me is that I
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:53am.
What angers me is that I believe that leftist environmentalists who do not care about the unintended consequences on their fellow man, have the Democrats, the courts and the liberal media in their pockets. The crazy environmentalists are standing in the way of our energy independence and we are all suffering for it and especially the poor who can not afford the high gas prices. I also think that the liberals are willing participants with the environmentalists on this harrm that they are doing. Obama is loving this high gas prices, because he wants to push us all toward "greener" energy. This "greener" energy is not proven and what we do know is that it is inadequate in meeting our energy needs.
kill all the humans, start with America
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 1:14pm.
Their is a perfect storm of power seekers, fascist-Marxists, and misantropes. Two of them wish to destroy America as a world power and the third wants to rule the remainder as unconstrained royalty whose fiefdom is controlled by handouts.
The biggest joke is on the dickwads in Europe who whined and moaned for decades about America and how we should be like them. Now that we are rapidly getting there we've got even the Russians hollering at us to hit the brakes! When our economy goes south so does a large part of the rest of the world's. ooops.
Forever. So you remember
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:08pm.
Forever.
So you remember Ethanol?
How many refineries convert corn today?
How much money was lost?
Where is the cheap ethanol gas??????
Don't hear too much about it.
Oh Yea! Brazil was supposed to be using the most.
So why did Barry give Soros' company all that money for off shore drilling??????????
Wizard watch this guy. Pat is
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:12pm.
Wizard watch this guy.
Pat is awesome.
http://dotsub.com/view/27ed1cee-1584-42f1-a970-8c9697c2f711