Posted on 08/06/2008 1:40:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Barack Obama's suggestion that we can't drill our way out of the current energy shortage, but we can solve the problem through tire inflation, has been the source of much hilarity. We did the math here, and found that it would take approximately 11,308 years of tire inflation to equal the energy we can obtain by developing our own petroleum resources.
Now, remarkably, Time magazine has rushed to the defense of its candidate, arguing that "Obama is right."
The author of the article, Michael Grunwald, mixes apple-and-orange statistics to try to create the false impression that there is more to be gained by inflating tires than through offshore drilling:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right. Grunwald is trying, through sleight of hand, to conceal certain basic facts: Obama said that tire inflation could save energy equal to "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling," not just the outer continental shelf; the outer continental shelf, ANWR and Rocky Mountain oil shale contain an estimated one trillion, 28 billion barrels of oil--an estimate that is undoubtedly low--while the maximum savings that could be attained through tire inflation and tuneups, assuming that every single vehicle in America is driving around with semi-flat tires and has never had a tuneup, is a mere 420 million barrels per year.
But there are more devious errors lurking behind Time's claim that "Obama is right." Notice the curious formula that Grunwald uses to quantify the energy potential of the outer continental shelf:
The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. [barrels] per day by 2030. That equates to 73,000,000 barrels per year. Which may sound like a lot, but amounts to only four-tenths of one percent of the OCS's 18 billion barrels. Further, why is Time not only putting out an absurdly low number, but also talking about the year 2030? The implication seems to be that the oil wouldn't flow until then, or maybe wouldn't peak until then, but such a claim would be patently false.
To get to the bottom of the puzzle, I tracked down the source of the statistic that Grunwald attributes to the "Bush administration." I'm pretty sure this is it: the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030, as published by the Energy Information Administration. This graph, I'm confident, is the source of the "200,000 barrels a day in 2030" claim: (GRAPH AT LINK)
As you can see, the projected recovery from OCS drilling in 2030 is around 200,000 barrels per day. EIA projects recovery to begin around 2018, but as you can see from the graph, EIA projected that only a tiny percentage of the 18 billion barrels (minimum) under the OCS would be recovered.
The explanation, obviously, lies in the set of assumptions used by the EIA in creating its forecast. The forecast was not based on the amount of oil that the OCS actually contains, it was based on the amount that was predicted to be economically remunerative at the then-prevailing price of oil. The EIA report makes this explicit:
Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.
Aha! The obvious question, for anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of economics, is, What are the reference case prices? Here they are: (GRAPH AT LINK)
That's right: the EIA, writing in early 2007, assumed that oil prices would decline from their 2006 peak; that in 2008, the price of crude oil would be around $60 a barrel; that it would continue to decline until around 2013 to a low of about $50 a barrel; and that the price would then gradually increase to a little under $60 a barrel by 2030. Those were the assumptions on which EIA concluded that it would not be economically profitable to get most OCS oil out of the ground.
Earth to Michael Grunwald: that isn't what happened. The EIA was wrong. Currently crude oil is at around $120 per barrel, not $60. At the elevated prices we are now experiencing and are expected to experience in the future, vastly greater quantities of OCS oil (or ANWR oil, or shale oil) can profitably be exploited, and those resources can make a vastly greater contribution to our economic well-being.
When we read wildly inaccurate reporting in the mainstream media, it's often hard to tell whether the reporter is incompetent, or is deliberately trying to deceive. You can make your own guess. For now, suffice it to say that Time's attempt to rehabilitate Obama's tire-inflation gaffe is a failure.
Most Americans have already taken simple steps like tune-ups, air pressure, air filter changes to get the best gas mileage they can.
That well has already run dry.......
It was a joke—didn’t you see the ;)
?
That's a great point. With the energy that's required to produce ethanol combined with the reduced efficiency it provides, we'd be better off just not using it at all.
Here’s the new Obambi energy plan:
It has been noted that if automobiles could go only downhill, they would get better gas mileage. Therefore, Barack Obama urges everyone in the country to drive only downhill.
BARACK’S ENERGY PLAN: WE’LL HAVE AMERICA GOING DOWNHILL!!
"Cap'n, this is Scotty, I dun thing the warp drive engines can take anymore pressure."
What proof does Obama have that people chronically under inflate their tires? For the sake of argument, let’s say they do. So what? What can a President do to change that?
Hey, I used to count on that energy plan when I was a teenager.
Remember a few years back when they wanted everyone to put a brick in their toilet reservoir to save water?
So you end up flushing two or three times instead of once?
So I foresee road blocks with mass tire checks complete with tickets if your tires don't conform.
Yes, and so that way you save three times as much water... :)
“Who knew Time magazine was still around?”
They’re not. Time magazine stopped printing in the 70’s IIRC.
My bad...
On a recent flight, I sat next to a guy that talked my ear off for 3 hours... I started listening when he began complaining about dumb decisions in the beltway during his lobbyist days for a manufacturers association. My favorite tidbit was the mandate of low-flow toilets and the decision to install them in the senate (or was it house?) office buildings at the time. They were advised against it (and ignored the warnings)... a while later, they started having all sorts of pluming problems because the new toilets did not move enough water to clear out the older (corroded) pipes. solution? replace all the low-flow toilets with imported high-flow chinese models.
I think McCain should go further with the tire gauge gag. the current ones are too easy... they should replace the end with obama’s big-eared, cheesy-grinned mug and put a little sweater on the thing. As a bonus, the nose could get longer under pressure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.