Saturday, August 25, 2012

No Mitt, You Didn't Tell The Truth About Oil


The Romney campaign put out a circular titled: “The Romney Plan For A Stronger Middle Class: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.” It is basically a compilation of quotes that were made through the years on the subject of energy. It is not an exhaustive compilation but one that brings together the quotes that tend to support the current point of view of Mitt Romney. As to the quotes that were made through the years but do not support the Romney point of view, well these ones never made it into the circular.

Luckily, however, the truth was not lost for ever because it can still be extracted from the circular itself despite the fact that the quotes were cherry picked to tell a fake story. One of the goals that the circular tries to accomplish is refute a thought expressed by President Obama on the subject of energy. In fact, it happened that Romney criticized Obama for saying the United States has only 2 percent of the world oil reserves yet consumes 20 percent of it. In fact, something like this was said in the Nineteen Seventies. To be precise, it was fashionable to say that the United States had 5 percent of the world population yet consumed 25 percent of the world resources. The reason for saying it at the time was to promote the culture of conservation, which undoubtedly is what President Obama is trying to do now.

Under the heading: But The President Gives An Incomplete Picture Of U.S. Oil Resources, the circular quotes Glenn Kessier who wrote this: “The president is trying to make the case that the world has finite oil resources, and the United States – the world's biggest oil consumer – needs to use less oil in the future. But using 'oil reserves' as a key metric gives an incomplete picture of U.S. oil resources.” Even without reading the entire article, this quote alone should alert the attentive reader to the fact that something about it isn't kosher because it conveys the notion that oil resources in the US is infinite, which is downright idiotic.

So then, what is behind this? Well, what is behind it is the definition of the two words: reserve and resource. When it comes to the underground natural resources, you call a “resource” what the instruments say is there whether or not you can get to it. For example, the seismic tests may indicate that 700 million barrels of oil exist under this patch of land. You call this a resource. But if only 100 million barrels are recoverable with the existing technology, you call this a “reserve.” Thus, it can be 700 million barrels of resource but only 100 million barrels of reserve. And when you read the prospectus of a company that is promoting its stock, the words are clearly defined so as not to mislead the investors; or someone can be sued for putting out a false prospectus. In fact, some companies go further than that and call reserve only the part of the 100 million barrels that has been developed and is currently producing.

Not only do some companies in North America do this but a few countries do it as well when they publish data on the size of the natural resources they have. For example, it is generally accepted that Egypt may have as much as 25 billion barrels of conventional oil resources. Between 6 and 8 billion of these are recoverable using the existing technology; and yet the country lists its oil reserves as only 4.5 billion barrels because only this much has been developed and is currently producing.

To come back to the size of America's oil reserves as compared to that of the world, it is 20 billion barrels versus 1000 billion. And this puts America's reserve at 2 percent that of the world which is what President Obama was referring to. But what some characters have been doing is compare apples with oranges. That is, they started to compare America's resources with the world's reserves. Not only that, they even exaggerated America's potential by considering as being a resource not only what has been detected by the seismic instruments and could someday be recovered with improved technology, but counting what is sometimes called “inferred” resource.

That is, if you have a patch of land under which there is a huge formation of the same geological type, and if you discover an X number of fields separated from each other by a few miles, containing 10 million barrels or so each, you may infer that there is a Y number of fields under that whole patch of land even though you have not yet detected them. This is what those characters have done, thus have come up with the figure of 140 billion barrels for America -- 7 times the 20 billion proven reserves.

And the reason why people do something like this is always political. You can see it by the spin with which the news was made public in the Romney circular. Under the heading: Proven Oil Reserves Are Not All Of Our Oil Resources – Not Even Close, the circular quotes Benjamin Cole as saying what I basically said in the above paragraph, to which he adds this: “That estimate does not include oil that we know about, yet are unable to access because of regulatory barriers. For example, the billions of barrels of oil in ANWR are not included in our proved oil reserves.” But the reality is that there may be at best 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR which is situated near the North Slope of Alaska – an area that is protected because of its unique environment. Thus, the spin here is part of the war of words between those who want to develop everything and those who want to protect the environment.

But what happens if we compare apples with apples? Will the 1000 billion barrels of proven world reserves increase to say 7 times that amount? Well, let's take one example. Canada lists its reserves of Tar Sand oil as 175 billion barrels but the fact is that 500 billion barrels could be recovered with an improved technology, and as much as another 2000 billion (2 trillion) barrels of what is called bitumen could be recovered with an improved technology and a price per barrel of oil that reaches 300 dollars. This is because you will have to extract as many as 3 barrels to obtain one barrel of usable oil. The other 2 barrels or the equivalent thereof in natural gas will be used in the process of extracting and refining the bitumen.

Thus, if we take into account the inferred conventional oils in the world and add to them the known oil sands, and the known oil shale, the number could exceed the 10 trillion barrels. Not only that, but there is more to the story – more of what the dreamers may consider to be bad news. It is that because America has developed industrially faster than the rest of the world, most of what can be inferred in America has already been inferred.

This is not the case in the rest of the world where vast tracts of land are yet to be prospected and tested. In fact, while America's number in conventional oil has declined from about 40 billion barrels to 20 billion since the turn of the century, the world proven conventional oil has risen from 1000 billion barrels to 1400 billion. Thus, to be honest in comparing apples with apples, America has less than 2 percent of the world oil whether you compare reserve with reserve or you compare resource with resource.

In conclusion, President Obama spoke the truth when he painted the energy situation in America, and his motive was honorable -- he can be trusted. By contrast, Mitt Romney and his team spun the truth to mislead the public and score a dishonorable political point – they cannot be trusted.