« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Correcting Rush on The Big Energy Lie

Rush Limbaugh is on a rant right now about the Big Energy Lie – President Obama’s assertion that:

“We can’t just drill our way out of this problem — while we consume 20% of the world’s oil, we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves,” he said. [Source.]

Rush confused the issue with regard to the definition of reserves, suggesting that it has something to do with how much oil has been produced to date. It does not.

Reserves are the amount still in the ground that have been found by drilling efforts to date, and are expected to be produced with current technology, at current prices.

Reserves have been around 10 years of production ever since I can remember. That’s because energy companies measure their success by their ability to “replace production” – that is, if they produce a million barrels, they need to replace it with a million barrels of reserves. It’s like a current inventory.

Or like a checking account.

Imagine if you had $3,000 in your checking account. If you spend $1,000 per month, does that mean you will run out of money in 3 months?

Only if you stop working. And only if you have no other assets.

To extend the analogy, imagine if you had $200,000 in a brokerage account and another $300,000 in an IRA. Your Aunt Martha might leave you half her lottery winnings in her will.

Few would consider you “poor” because the numbers indicate you will burn up your current account in 3 months.

The energy equivalent to the brokerage account, the IRA and Aunt Martha’s will in my example is termed “resources”. Resources have yet to be discovered, are difficult to quantify and aren’t available right now, but there is a reasonable expectation that they will be available in the future. Strategic decisions about future supply should take resources, not reserves, into account.

Unfortunately, there’s lots of confusion on the subject of “reserves”, which are a specific term of art with particular meaning to accountants and engineers. Focusing on reserves will always lead one to the conclusion that — oh noes! — we are about to run out of supply.

That’s The Big Energy Lie.

One thing Rush gets right, though, is that the Administration is more than willing to confuse the issue to its political benefit.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.


Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • DerKrieger

    Definition and accounting of US reserves http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

    Pardon the messy URL

    According to our own government we have way more than the 2% lie.

    The CRS estimates shale oil at 1.38 TRILLION recoverable barrels alone.

    Throw this report at Dear Liar

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

  • gs425

    Technically “reserves” is an SEC term on oil still in the ground that we can legally extract. Meaning it is proven and permitted to do so.

    We have “found” and can produce over a trillion barrels. The Dums and their environmentalists are standing in the way,,,,which in and of is self is nothing new. Their anti energy agenda is the sole reason oil is at 105 a barrel. If supply was to increase it would drive any speculators, their new boogeyman, to the sidelines and send the price thru the floor.

    • spinoneone

      That is to say, speculators will always be with us because they are betting on small price swings, in both directions, over various periods of time. Some of them have even been known to make money on arbitrage – the difference in the price of a specific grade of crude delivered in, say, Oklahoma versus either Texas or New York.

      While the price of oil seems to have no “peak” it does have a “bottom.” That is the price at which the cost of extraction is greater than the value of the oil plus a small profit. We saw that in the ’60s when thousand of low volume, old wells were shut in because they weren’t worth maintaining. Many of them came back on line in the late ’70s, often producing more than they had before.

      The producing oil company will continue to produce crude oil so long as the value of the crude is greater than the cost of production, including the cost of exploration. [Oil extracted from shale very often resembles a green energy project - it is not economically viable without Government subsidies] The refiner will continue to produce product so long as the value of the product is greater than the costs of the feedstock used in the refinery.

    • Adjoran

      The Democratic/Obama anti-energy agenda will necessarily drive up the price of all fossil fuels in the long term, but they have virtually ZERO effect on this short term price rise. The fear premium is at fault as the world market calculates the potential costs of disrupting the Iranian supply, and what they might be able to do to disrupt the flow through Hormuz.

      Current gas prices cannot be pinned upon Obama. The higher future prices will be, but perhaps too late.

  • MF

    I’m trying to email Steve directly to ask about the Open Fuel Standard amendment to the Senate transportation bill. (Note that I’m not posting my questions here because I don’t want to start a threadjack, and this posting is only because I know of no other way to contact him directly.)

    Steve, could you please email me at MickeyF – at – MyWay dot com?

  • duncer

    Rush can make mistakes, he has no script or teleprompter, but his mistakes are just that, unintentional. Democrats and obama in particular use alice in wonderland semantics where a word means what ever they want it to mean. Resources or reserves, contraception or abortion, investment or redistribution, tax cuts or whatever, budget cuts that increase spending to mention just a few.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      This is technical stuff that he’s trying to make understandable for a lay audience. I am glad he called Obama on The Lie.

      I am trying to offer the same lay audience a clarification of “reserves” – an engineering and accounting term of art — to understand just how they’re being lied to by our liberal friends.

      Lots of people on both sides of the issue spend 15 minutes on Wikipedia & then try to tell me how the cat ate the canary. I’ve spent the last 35 years doing this stuff every day.

      • earlgrey

        explanation. For all the time I have heard about our dwindling “reserves”, I have never heard the proper definition of what reserves are.

      • johnt

        n/t

  • johnt

    perhaps in the flow on talk he confused terms. But he did refer to resources.
    Steve, I am peplexed by the use of the word “rant”. It’s not neccessary to turn a blind eye to our own gaffes, but considefring the nature of the beast we face maybe our more negative characterizations could be redirected. The targets are both ample and deserving.

  • cimon9999

    In theory we have about 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil left. We’ve only used 1.1 trillion in the last 130 years. The question becomes why the oil price is increasing if technology marches forward.

    Oil is now pricier to develop – the marginal barrel of oil costs $60 – $70/bbl. So that’s the floor on oil price. Then there is the price needed to balance Saudi Arabia’s books – $80/bbl at present, rising to around $100/bbl in 2015.

    Third is that there is very little sustainable spare capacity left in the system at the moment – less than 2%. This makes the oil price very sensitive to supply disruptions or rumours thereof.

    Can any American president control the price of oil? Of course not! Obama is clearly talking bs, but redstate using the tu quoque defense doesn’t really wash. Gingrich talking about $2.50 oil if he’s president? Wtf?

  • beafrank

    which is incorrect regarding the United States or the North American continental shelf petroleum sources. There is scientific evidence that petroleum is as natural, not the product of fossils and is as abundant in supply as lava. Note the following links regarding abiotic oil.

    http://dimensionalbliss.com/2010/12/04/is-oil-actually-a-renewable-resource/
    http://viewzone2.com/abioticoilx.html

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      If so, it is just methane. I can understand that because we know that other planets in the solar system are made mostly of methane.

      In that respect I can believe that there are large amounts deep in the earth. But I don’t think petroleum is abiotic. The fact that it is found often in fossil beds along with coal tends to make me disbelieve.

  • joeyjojoshabadoo79

    nt