UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
It's not "solving the problem" by any means - but instead looking to stave it off...
If you had a little less hate in you, then you may have seen my point....
It's not "solving the problem" by any means - but instead looking to stave it off...
If you had a little less hate in you, then you may have seen my point....
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Americans cannot solve 'the problem' without addressing its own wasteful consumption. That is logic.
Just like how Democrats are just as much Americans as Republicans are, so your line about getting them out of the way so Americans can solve the problem only goes to show how much you must hate your own country.
However, let's try an accounting analogy, keeping it simple with just a married couple's joint checking account. Suppose both worked, but one spent considerably more than the other. And the more that one tried to save, or the more that they both made, the more that other just kept right up with the spending. Now suppose the saver went to spender to complain about the spending and was told, hey just earn more.
How logical is that?
This crap cuts both ways. Refusing to look at both sides, and insisting on whacked-out demonizations of one side in order to support all your arguments, only shows that your own IQ must not break above 10 either.
IF you talking about the handful of fools that make a 100mile daily commute you are talking about a handful of idiots and not the general population. And since this is just a handful of people, their total consumption is not that big of deal either. And my guess is they were the first to trade their SUV for an econobox when gas spiked.
Actually no it was not missed and I have credited the demand drop to lower prices we are experiencing now. And according todays IEA report, global demand grew by 1.3M BD, which more than offsets the drop in US demand.
Well speaking of honest discussions, you have been assuming the entire thread I am against conservation of any sort. And I even went as far to point out some very great fuel saving tech the auto industry that poised to dramatically cut our fuel consumption.
Once again, who said it was me. And once again, who said I want any government bail outs. And no, I am not blind at all.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,408
- 8,596
- 126
i'd really like an answer. if you're going to claim the 'ban' is a red herring because you can drill in private offshore areas, well, where are those private areas?
as for conservation, US americans drove 12.2 billion fewer miles this past june than the previous. SUV and truck sales are way down.
Who needs logic when you got religion, hate-doctrines, racism and guns? Neocons have yet to run into an issue (they think) that can't be solved by one of the latter.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Even then, conservation on our part is not going to offset the increase in global demand for oil. As mentioned before, we use 9.2 million barrels of oil per day for transportation. Global demand for oil has increased ~12 million barrels of oil per day to 87 million barrels in the last 10 years. Global demand is expected to reach 115 million barrels of oil per day in 2030.
So, even if the USA completely wiped out using oil for our transportation needs, it wouldn't slow down the growing demand for oil in the world. And oil is not used just for transportation but for home heating, electricity production, plastics, and more.
And let's also not forget that the OCS ban applies not only to oil but to natural gas as well. Demand for Natural Gas is going up worldwide as well and many people use natural gas to heat their homes.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Depends on what metric of the government report you are looking at: when we will see the first drops of oil regardless of the amount, or when the amount of oil we get from drilling will have an effect on price.
The government report says that production would start in 2017, but that there would not be a significant impact on production or prices until 2030.
Either way, TDS clip shows how proponents started with a range, and then kept stretching it downward like the "I caught a fish THIS big" tall tale in reverse. Start watching the vid at 2:42 in.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
It's a draw?
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...out_tire_pressure.html
The Truth About Tire Pressure
August 14, 2008
Motorists could save more than 1 billion gallons of fuel a year, right now. But expanded offshore drilling would eventually produce even more.
Summary
We are issuing a split decision in the Obama vs. McCain dispute over whether proper tire inflation could save as much oil as expanded offshore drilling is likely to produce.
We find that proper tire inflation could save more than a billion gallons of fuel per year and do it several years sooner than expanded drilling could produce a single drop. McCain has exaggerated by representing Obama's suggestion as a silly notion or implying that it constitutes his entire energy policy.
But we also figure that expanded offshore drilling is projected to produce far more oil eventually than can be saved by proper tire inflation ? nearly three times as much even by the conservative estimate of government experts, and more than 10 times as much if an industry-endorsed estimate is correct. And even taking into account additional fuel savings from tune-ups, which Obama also mentioned, he greatly exaggerated.
Analysis
We've been receiving a steady flow of inquiries about this matter ever since it was touched off by a remark that Sen. Barack Obama made on July 30:
Obama: Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.
Sen. John McCain ridiculed Obama for that remark. His campaign launched a fundraising effort offering tire gauges with the words "Obama's Energy Plan" emblazoned on them. McCain said at a motorcycle rally in Sturgis, S.D., on Aug. 5:
McCain: My opponent doesn?t want to drill, he doesn?t want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires.
McCain exaggerates. Obama's energy plan calls for much more than conservation measures (and, in fact, doesn't contain any language about tire inflation). It includes a proposal to spend $150 billion over the next decade to, among other things, improve fuel efficiency and develop new fuels and vehicles.
But was Obama exaggerating as well? Others have come up with conflicting answers.
ABCNews.com tossed off a quick piece quoting a single expert as saying that proper tire inflation could produce savings equal to "a tidy sum and a worthwhile target" but still "not equal" to the added production to be expected from expanded drilling.
TIME magazine concluded "Obama is right" after quoting a couple of general estimates about fuel savings.
PolitiFact.com drilled more deeply than either of those and concluded that Obama's statement is "true" even accepting the McCain campaign's preferred estimate for savings attributable to proper tire pressure.
We've continued to explore this subject. We conclude that Obama's statement is by no means as silly as McCain tried to make it sound, but it is a rather large exaggeration nonetheless.
Tire pressure: Wasting 1.2 Billion Gallons
Let's start with tire pressure. Even McCain finally admitted Aug. 5 that keeping tires properly inflated is a good idea and can save fuel:
McCain: Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don?t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it.
He's right; they do. And government experts agree: According to FuelEconomy.gov, a Web site jointly administered by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, "You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure."
But how many Americans are driving around on soft tires? According to a National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 2001 survey, 26 percent of passenger cars and 29 percent of light trucks were found to have at least one tire that was 25 percent below the manufacturer's required level. That's more than a quarter of all motorists running on one or more soft tires. So the savings could certainly add up. But add up to what?
Some have used an estimate of 2.8 billion gallons per year, but we think that's too high. That comes from a release issued last April by the Rubber Manufacturers Association and others in connection with an event in California. One tire executive was quoted as saying that "tire experts speculate" that U.S. drivers waste 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline per year because of under-inflated tires. But we could not find support for that figure, and a spokeswoman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association told us that the estimate was "not scientific."
A far more authoritative estimate comes from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which puts the figure at 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year. In a report dated Feb. 9, 2007, GAO says:
GAO: The Department of Energy?s designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board (TRB) estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on underinflated tires.
That figures out to be just under 1 percent of all fuel consumed by autos and light trucks. But would saving 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year equal the expected increase in oil production from opening up offshore areas to drilling? For the next several years, yes. But after that, probably not, according to the best estimates we can find.
How Much Oil?
Nobody can say for sure how much oil lies under the sea in the areas currently off-limits to drilling, and estimates of potential production from these areas over the next 15 to 20 years vary widely. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy ? which we've quoted a number of times in the past ? is conservative compared with estimates that appeared in a 2007 report from the National Petroleum Council, a group which exists "to represent the views of the oil and natural gas industries" before the federal government. The estimates in the NPC report were taken from a 2006 report done for the Department of Energy by a private research firm called Advanced Resources International.
Offshore Oil Predictions
Estimated results from expanded drilling in Outer Continental Shelf
EIA NPC/ARI
Added barrels per day, 2025 220,000 990,000
% of total U.S. crude-oil consumption 1.4% 6.1%
Years to start first production 4-6 3
According to EIA's official projection, allowing drilling in Outer Continental Shelf areas that currently are off-limits in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the lower 48 states would produce an additional 220,000 barrels per day by the year 2025. The more optimistic ARI assessment predicts an increase of 990,000 barrels per day by 2025.
ARI's prediction is more than four times larger than the official government prediction. The DOE expects only enough oil to equal about 1.4 percent of total U.S. demand, while ARI's prediction would amount to more than 6 percent.
ARI also predicts that oil could start flowing as quickly as three years after offshore areas are opened up, at least in those areas where leasing could begin immediately. But Phyllis Martin, an EIA senior energy analyst, projects a longer lead time. She predicts it would take two to three years for the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service to put a leasing program into place, and another two to three years for oil companies to explore and drill the first producing wells, for a total delay of four to six years.
We're in no position to judge which estimate is closer to the truth. We can say that government experts aren't convinced by ARI's arguments. The EIA's Martin says the size of the oil fields expected to be found are "in general smaller" than those currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico, for one thing. Another factor is that most of what would be opened are "deep-water" areas, which the EIA defines as being more than 200 meters (656 feet) below the surface. "The high cost of deep-water exploratory drilling and deep-water production platforms is an additional factor that could initially hold back production," Martin says. "A lot of these areas may not be economically attractive to produce at this time." Indeed, it's reported that the cost of renting a high-end deep-water drilling rig now runs between $500,000 and $550,000 a day. Other reports put the going rate at $600,000 a day.
As for ARI's prediction that leasing could start immediately in some places, Martin predicts that it would take two or three years just to put a leasing program into place. And while the government might be able to speed up the start of leasing, another two to three years is required for exploring and drilling after a lease is approved. ARI's projection, too, assumes about a three-year lead time to find any new oil after a lease has been granted. "This is going to require time and personnel," Martin says, "and the industry is really constrained right now in terms of available personnel. And all of the [drilling] rigs right now are currently operating." Indeed, the New York Times reported June 19 that a global shortage of deep-water drilling rigs is causing a "critical bottleneck" in drilling where oil is known to exist or exploring for new offshore fields.
Was Obama Right?
Tires can be inflated quickly, so it's clear that paying proper attention to tire pressure could save more fuel than expanded drilling for several years, until drilling begins to produce significant additional amounts of oil. But what then?
By the year 2025, if even the lower of the two offshore drilling estimates proved to be correct, it would exceed the estimated 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year that could be saved through proper tire inflation alone. Since each 42-gallon barrel of oil produces 19.15 gallons of gasoline (using 2007 figures), the peak output of oil that EIA expects from expanded offshore drilling would work out to be more than 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year. That's significantly more than the 1.2 billion gallons that GAO estimates can be saved from proper tire inflation, and it doesn't even take into account the possibility that actual production could be closer to ARI's much higher expectations. If those projections turn out to be correct, the added offshore production would yield nearly 7 billion gallons per year of additional gasoline.
Yet even these figures don't tell us everything. Each barrel of oil also produces more than 9 gallons of diesel fuel, 3 gallons of jet fuel and additional amounts of home heating oil and heavy "residual" fuel oil, among other products. Just saving gasoline can't possibly compensate for everything that would come from each added barrel of oil, at least not directly.
We note here that Obama didn't say we could "save all the gasoline" expected from expanded offshore drilling; he said "we could save all the oil' (our emphasis). So it's not enough to estimate only how much gasoline would result, we must somehow figure how much gasoline must be saved to offset, indirectly, everything that comes from a barrel of oil. We make the simple assumption that saving a gallon of gasoline offsets a gallon of diesel, jet fuel or any other product that comes from the added oil, and go on from there. And that makes the numbers much bigger.
Oddly, each 42-gallon barrel of oil actually yields between 44 and 45 gallons of refined product, according to the Energy Information Administration. This is due to something called "processing gain," which happens when crude oil is made into products which, in total, have a lower specific gravity than the oil itself ? like gasoline. So ending the ban on offshore drilling would result in 3.5 billion gallons of petroleum product per year under the government's estimate, and nearly 16 billion gallons if ARI's prediction turns out to be accurate. Both those figures are far beyond the 1.2 billion gallon savings to be expected from proper tire pressure.
The Ethanol Factor
And that 1.2 billion estimate refers to "fuel," not gasoline. Many motorists today are burning fuel that is blended with ethanol. As a national average, EIA says that what motorists put in their tanks now is between 4 percent and 5 percent ethanol. That means for every gallon of fuel saved by proper tire pressure, about 95 percent to 96 percent is gasoline. So the 1.2 billion gallons of "fuel" that the GAO says could be saved would work out to be as little as 1.14 billion gallons of gasoline at the current rate of ethanol use. And that rate is due to rise. A law passed in 2007 requires ever-increasing amounts of ethanol to be blended into auto fuel. The EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard program will require that 36 billion gallons per year of ethanol be blended in by 2022, quadruple the current 9 billion gallons.
But even without factoring in a correction for ethanol, it is clear that the GAO's estimate of savings from proper tire inflation is only a little better than one-third of the amount needed to offset the EIA's conservative estimate of increased offshore production, and less than a tenth of what would be needed to offset the increase in oil ARI says it expects.
The Truth About Tune-ups
Although the public discussion has centered mostly on tire pressure, Obama also included "regular tune-ups" in his equation. The total savings that could be expected here, we judge, are modest compared with what might be saved through proper tire inflation.
It's true that any individual motorist might be wasting a lot of fuel because of improper auto maintenance. Driving with a badly clogged air filter, for example, can cut mileage by as much as 10 percent, according to the government's Web site FuelEconomy.gov. And correcting a "serious" maintenance problem such as a faulty oxygen sensor can save as much as 40 percent in fuel, according to the site. It says the average fuel savings from tuning up a car that is "noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test" is 4 percent.
But we've found no data on how many motorists are operating cars that are "noticeably out of tune" or have serious maintenance problems or clogged air filters, so it's not possible for us to estimate from those figures how many gallons of fuel could be saved each year if all such problems were corrected. But we doubt very much that the possible savings is anything close to what could be achieved through proper tire pressure. The reason is that modern autos seldom, if ever, need tune-ups.
In the past, regular tune-ups were needed because cars used mechanical ignition systems that relied on points, rotors and distributor caps that wore and needed frequent adjustment. Today's cars have electronic ignition systems that seldom need attention. Older cars mainly used carburetors to mix fuel, and they also tended to get out of adjustment and require frequent tweaking. Today's cars mainly rely on fuel injection. Modern autos also come with platinum-tipped spark plugs that can last 100,000 miles, and air filters that typically don't need replacement for 30,000 miles. So the old-fashioned tune-up is pretty much a thing of the past.
We tend to agree with author-mechanic Theodore Olson, who writes: "Unless your vehicle is misfiring (i.e., not running on all cylinders), your gas mileage is likely fine." We're not saying that motorists should skip factory-recommended maintenance, such as regular oil changes. That's a good way to shorten the useful life of the vehicle. We just see no evidence that much fuel would be saved even if everybody followed their owner's manual.
But for the sake of argument, even if one assumed that another 1 billion gallons of fuel could be saved each year from proper tune-ups ? and again, we've seen no evidence to support that idea ? the combination of tire pressure and tune-ups wouldn't equal in savings what the government expects from increased offshore production once it reaches a peak. And it would be only a small fraction of what ARI and the NPC expects.
-Brooks Jackson and Emi Kolawole
Technical Notes:
ARI's report also predicts an increase of 20,000 barrels per day from opening up the Northern Aleutian Basin to offshore drilling, and the summary of the NPC's report speaks of "more than 1 million" barrels of increased production. But the Aleutian basin had already been opened by Congress and President Bush by the time the NPC paper with the ARI predictions was published. We have counted here only the 990,000 barrels per day that ARI expects from opening areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, the same offshore areas covered by the EIA's estimate.
EIA's published tables show no increase in production until the year 2016, but Martin states that these are based on an assumption that the current ban will remain in place until it is set to expire in 2012. For our analysis, we assume that the ban would be lifted immediately as proposed by McCain and others.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...out_tire_pressure.html
The Truth About Tire Pressure
August 14, 2008
Motorists could save more than 1 billion gallons of fuel a year, right now. But expanded offshore drilling would eventually produce even more.
Summary
We are issuing a split decision in the Obama vs. McCain dispute over whether proper tire inflation could save as much oil as expanded offshore drilling is likely to produce.
We find that proper tire inflation could save more than a billion gallons of fuel per year and do it several years sooner than expanded drilling could produce a single drop. McCain has exaggerated by representing Obama's suggestion as a silly notion or implying that it constitutes his entire energy policy.
But we also figure that expanded offshore drilling is projected to produce far more oil eventually than can be saved by proper tire inflation ? nearly three times as much even by the conservative estimate of government experts, and more than 10 times as much if an industry-endorsed estimate is correct. And even taking into account additional fuel savings from tune-ups, which Obama also mentioned, he greatly exaggerated.
Analysis
We've been receiving a steady flow of inquiries about this matter ever since it was touched off by a remark that Sen. Barack Obama made on July 30:
Obama: Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.
Sen. John McCain ridiculed Obama for that remark. His campaign launched a fundraising effort offering tire gauges with the words "Obama's Energy Plan" emblazoned on them. McCain said at a motorcycle rally in Sturgis, S.D., on Aug. 5:
McCain: My opponent doesn?t want to drill, he doesn?t want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires.
McCain exaggerates. Obama's energy plan calls for much more than conservation measures (and, in fact, doesn't contain any language about tire inflation). It includes a proposal to spend $150 billion over the next decade to, among other things, improve fuel efficiency and develop new fuels and vehicles.
But was Obama exaggerating as well? Others have come up with conflicting answers.
ABCNews.com tossed off a quick piece quoting a single expert as saying that proper tire inflation could produce savings equal to "a tidy sum and a worthwhile target" but still "not equal" to the added production to be expected from expanded drilling.
TIME magazine concluded "Obama is right" after quoting a couple of general estimates about fuel savings.
PolitiFact.com drilled more deeply than either of those and concluded that Obama's statement is "true" even accepting the McCain campaign's preferred estimate for savings attributable to proper tire pressure.
We've continued to explore this subject. We conclude that Obama's statement is by no means as silly as McCain tried to make it sound, but it is a rather large exaggeration nonetheless.
Tire pressure: Wasting 1.2 Billion Gallons
Let's start with tire pressure. Even McCain finally admitted Aug. 5 that keeping tires properly inflated is a good idea and can save fuel:
McCain: Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don?t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it.
He's right; they do. And government experts agree: According to FuelEconomy.gov, a Web site jointly administered by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, "You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure."
But how many Americans are driving around on soft tires? According to a National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 2001 survey, 26 percent of passenger cars and 29 percent of light trucks were found to have at least one tire that was 25 percent below the manufacturer's required level. That's more than a quarter of all motorists running on one or more soft tires. So the savings could certainly add up. But add up to what?
Some have used an estimate of 2.8 billion gallons per year, but we think that's too high. That comes from a release issued last April by the Rubber Manufacturers Association and others in connection with an event in California. One tire executive was quoted as saying that "tire experts speculate" that U.S. drivers waste 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline per year because of under-inflated tires. But we could not find support for that figure, and a spokeswoman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association told us that the estimate was "not scientific."
A far more authoritative estimate comes from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which puts the figure at 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year. In a report dated Feb. 9, 2007, GAO says:
GAO: The Department of Energy?s designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board (TRB) estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on underinflated tires.
That figures out to be just under 1 percent of all fuel consumed by autos and light trucks. But would saving 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year equal the expected increase in oil production from opening up offshore areas to drilling? For the next several years, yes. But after that, probably not, according to the best estimates we can find.
How Much Oil?
Nobody can say for sure how much oil lies under the sea in the areas currently off-limits to drilling, and estimates of potential production from these areas over the next 15 to 20 years vary widely. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy ? which we've quoted a number of times in the past ? is conservative compared with estimates that appeared in a 2007 report from the National Petroleum Council, a group which exists "to represent the views of the oil and natural gas industries" before the federal government. The estimates in the NPC report were taken from a 2006 report done for the Department of Energy by a private research firm called Advanced Resources International.
Offshore Oil Predictions
Estimated results from expanded drilling in Outer Continental Shelf
EIA NPC/ARI
Added barrels per day, 2025 220,000 990,000
% of total U.S. crude-oil consumption 1.4% 6.1%
Years to start first production 4-6 3
According to EIA's official projection, allowing drilling in Outer Continental Shelf areas that currently are off-limits in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the lower 48 states would produce an additional 220,000 barrels per day by the year 2025. The more optimistic ARI assessment predicts an increase of 990,000 barrels per day by 2025.
ARI's prediction is more than four times larger than the official government prediction. The DOE expects only enough oil to equal about 1.4 percent of total U.S. demand, while ARI's prediction would amount to more than 6 percent.
ARI also predicts that oil could start flowing as quickly as three years after offshore areas are opened up, at least in those areas where leasing could begin immediately. But Phyllis Martin, an EIA senior energy analyst, projects a longer lead time. She predicts it would take two to three years for the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service to put a leasing program into place, and another two to three years for oil companies to explore and drill the first producing wells, for a total delay of four to six years.
We're in no position to judge which estimate is closer to the truth. We can say that government experts aren't convinced by ARI's arguments. The EIA's Martin says the size of the oil fields expected to be found are "in general smaller" than those currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico, for one thing. Another factor is that most of what would be opened are "deep-water" areas, which the EIA defines as being more than 200 meters (656 feet) below the surface. "The high cost of deep-water exploratory drilling and deep-water production platforms is an additional factor that could initially hold back production," Martin says. "A lot of these areas may not be economically attractive to produce at this time." Indeed, it's reported that the cost of renting a high-end deep-water drilling rig now runs between $500,000 and $550,000 a day. Other reports put the going rate at $600,000 a day.
As for ARI's prediction that leasing could start immediately in some places, Martin predicts that it would take two or three years just to put a leasing program into place. And while the government might be able to speed up the start of leasing, another two to three years is required for exploring and drilling after a lease is approved. ARI's projection, too, assumes about a three-year lead time to find any new oil after a lease has been granted. "This is going to require time and personnel," Martin says, "and the industry is really constrained right now in terms of available personnel. And all of the [drilling] rigs right now are currently operating." Indeed, the New York Times reported June 19 that a global shortage of deep-water drilling rigs is causing a "critical bottleneck" in drilling where oil is known to exist or exploring for new offshore fields.
Was Obama Right?
Tires can be inflated quickly, so it's clear that paying proper attention to tire pressure could save more fuel than expanded drilling for several years, until drilling begins to produce significant additional amounts of oil. But what then?
By the year 2025, if even the lower of the two offshore drilling estimates proved to be correct, it would exceed the estimated 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year that could be saved through proper tire inflation alone. Since each 42-gallon barrel of oil produces 19.15 gallons of gasoline (using 2007 figures), the peak output of oil that EIA expects from expanded offshore drilling would work out to be more than 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year. That's significantly more than the 1.2 billion gallons that GAO estimates can be saved from proper tire inflation, and it doesn't even take into account the possibility that actual production could be closer to ARI's much higher expectations. If those projections turn out to be correct, the added offshore production would yield nearly 7 billion gallons per year of additional gasoline.
Yet even these figures don't tell us everything. Each barrel of oil also produces more than 9 gallons of diesel fuel, 3 gallons of jet fuel and additional amounts of home heating oil and heavy "residual" fuel oil, among other products. Just saving gasoline can't possibly compensate for everything that would come from each added barrel of oil, at least not directly.
We note here that Obama didn't say we could "save all the gasoline" expected from expanded offshore drilling; he said "we could save all the oil' (our emphasis). So it's not enough to estimate only how much gasoline would result, we must somehow figure how much gasoline must be saved to offset, indirectly, everything that comes from a barrel of oil. We make the simple assumption that saving a gallon of gasoline offsets a gallon of diesel, jet fuel or any other product that comes from the added oil, and go on from there. And that makes the numbers much bigger.
Oddly, each 42-gallon barrel of oil actually yields between 44 and 45 gallons of refined product, according to the Energy Information Administration. This is due to something called "processing gain," which happens when crude oil is made into products which, in total, have a lower specific gravity than the oil itself ? like gasoline. So ending the ban on offshore drilling would result in 3.5 billion gallons of petroleum product per year under the government's estimate, and nearly 16 billion gallons if ARI's prediction turns out to be accurate. Both those figures are far beyond the 1.2 billion gallon savings to be expected from proper tire pressure.
The Ethanol Factor
And that 1.2 billion estimate refers to "fuel," not gasoline. Many motorists today are burning fuel that is blended with ethanol. As a national average, EIA says that what motorists put in their tanks now is between 4 percent and 5 percent ethanol. That means for every gallon of fuel saved by proper tire pressure, about 95 percent to 96 percent is gasoline. So the 1.2 billion gallons of "fuel" that the GAO says could be saved would work out to be as little as 1.14 billion gallons of gasoline at the current rate of ethanol use. And that rate is due to rise. A law passed in 2007 requires ever-increasing amounts of ethanol to be blended into auto fuel. The EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard program will require that 36 billion gallons per year of ethanol be blended in by 2022, quadruple the current 9 billion gallons.
But even without factoring in a correction for ethanol, it is clear that the GAO's estimate of savings from proper tire inflation is only a little better than one-third of the amount needed to offset the EIA's conservative estimate of increased offshore production, and less than a tenth of what would be needed to offset the increase in oil ARI says it expects.
The Truth About Tune-ups
Although the public discussion has centered mostly on tire pressure, Obama also included "regular tune-ups" in his equation. The total savings that could be expected here, we judge, are modest compared with what might be saved through proper tire inflation.
It's true that any individual motorist might be wasting a lot of fuel because of improper auto maintenance. Driving with a badly clogged air filter, for example, can cut mileage by as much as 10 percent, according to the government's Web site FuelEconomy.gov. And correcting a "serious" maintenance problem such as a faulty oxygen sensor can save as much as 40 percent in fuel, according to the site. It says the average fuel savings from tuning up a car that is "noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test" is 4 percent.
But we've found no data on how many motorists are operating cars that are "noticeably out of tune" or have serious maintenance problems or clogged air filters, so it's not possible for us to estimate from those figures how many gallons of fuel could be saved each year if all such problems were corrected. But we doubt very much that the possible savings is anything close to what could be achieved through proper tire pressure. The reason is that modern autos seldom, if ever, need tune-ups.
In the past, regular tune-ups were needed because cars used mechanical ignition systems that relied on points, rotors and distributor caps that wore and needed frequent adjustment. Today's cars have electronic ignition systems that seldom need attention. Older cars mainly used carburetors to mix fuel, and they also tended to get out of adjustment and require frequent tweaking. Today's cars mainly rely on fuel injection. Modern autos also come with platinum-tipped spark plugs that can last 100,000 miles, and air filters that typically don't need replacement for 30,000 miles. So the old-fashioned tune-up is pretty much a thing of the past.
We tend to agree with author-mechanic Theodore Olson, who writes: "Unless your vehicle is misfiring (i.e., not running on all cylinders), your gas mileage is likely fine." We're not saying that motorists should skip factory-recommended maintenance, such as regular oil changes. That's a good way to shorten the useful life of the vehicle. We just see no evidence that much fuel would be saved even if everybody followed their owner's manual.
But for the sake of argument, even if one assumed that another 1 billion gallons of fuel could be saved each year from proper tune-ups ? and again, we've seen no evidence to support that idea ? the combination of tire pressure and tune-ups wouldn't equal in savings what the government expects from increased offshore production once it reaches a peak. And it would be only a small fraction of what ARI and the NPC expects.
-Brooks Jackson and Emi Kolawole
Technical Notes:
ARI's report also predicts an increase of 20,000 barrels per day from opening up the Northern Aleutian Basin to offshore drilling, and the summary of the NPC's report speaks of "more than 1 million" barrels of increased production. But the Aleutian basin had already been opened by Congress and President Bush by the time the NPC paper with the ARI predictions was published. We have counted here only the 990,000 barrels per day that ARI expects from opening areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, the same offshore areas covered by the EIA's estimate.
EIA's published tables show no increase in production until the year 2016, but Martin states that these are based on an assumption that the current ban will remain in place until it is set to expire in 2012. For our analysis, we assume that the ban would be lifted immediately as proposed by McCain and others.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Question: Why do we keep saying that it will take 10+ years to start producing oil in the United States when Brazil is going to be producing oil from newly discovered off-shore oil fields in a little over two years after discovering them?
Link
and don't say it's because equipment is tied up. Brazil has been building the equipment they need. Why can't we do the same?
Link
and don't say it's because equipment is tied up. Brazil has been building the equipment they need. Why can't we do the same?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,408
- 8,596
- 126
did you read the rebuttal to the EIA report posted by queasy as the 6th or 7th post in this thread? some of the places already have platforms in place. that would be a matter of months, depending on how much red tape could be cut through. further, no one in the clip claimed that initial wells would be a huge increase, only that it could be added to the supply within a short time. as in the brazilian fields referenced above, it starts out relatively slow and then builds and builds as more production equipment is added.
and the price of a barrel more than doubled since the EIA report saying 2030 for significant additions. a lot of expensive of projects that are too risky or marginal at $50 a barrel suddenly become good ideas at $100 a barrel.
and i'm disinclined to believe that out of the whole of the OCS, only 220,000 additional barrels per day could be produced. the thunder horse platform by itself will be producing 250,000 barrels per day once it is running at full steam.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I'm disinclined to believe reports of oil corporation proxies.
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.
It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
Exxon has donated over $200,000 to IER since 1998.
The government report may indeed need updating, but more than one grain of salt is needed before energy policy is based on the recommendations of the oil companies. IER is one of the groups that Exxon has actually announced it will cease funding, because it's too obvious in its efforts to push agenda under the guise of non-profit. "They were a distraction to the debate," said Exxon. When an oil company finds your proposals too blatantly pro-big oil, that's a serious statement.
Heh a whole 200K in a decade eh? They are clearly on the payroll of big Oil!
Look you can use whatever jutification you want for disregarding it. That is kind of a lame excuse though. Common sense tells us they will get more than what a single rig produces in a day out of the entire OCS.
Look you can use whatever jutification you want for disregarding it. That is kind of a lame excuse though. Common sense tells us they will get more than what a single rig produces in a day out of the entire OCS.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,408
- 8,596
- 126
i didn't say you had to buy their whole report, but if just one platform will be producing 250,000 barrels a day, it really isn't logical to assume that the great majority of the OCS, which is unexplored, can produce less than that at reasonably sustainable levels.
nevermind the fact that basically all the expertise in this field is part of, works for or with an oil company, and so they are in the best position to make estimates of what may be out there.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Are they also in the best position to make estimates on global warming and the ecological results of massive petroleum use? It was only last year one of these groups ran an advertisement called "CO2. They call it pollution, we call it life." :Q
I'll give you their estimate on production of a single platform is probably correct, but this group would push for drilling under any circumstance and would spin away any negatives. Non-profit != non-biased.
I keep hearing Sean Hannity mocking Obama's keep your tires filled and cars tuned up montra.
Guess we should all run on low tires and never tune up the cars according to Republicans.
Of course that would guzzle more of their friends oil.
Guess we should all run on low tires and never tune up the cars according to Republicans.
Of course that would guzzle more of their friends oil.
You dont get it Dave. Low tire pressure equals more tire wear and more tire sales. Republicans are in the pockets of Big Tires. Bridgestone, Cooper, and Goodyear have their puppets in the Repub party dancing right now.
CANT YOU SEE IT? CANT YOU???????????????????????????
- Jan 4, 2007
- 2,572
- 0
- 76
no he cant see it cause it's just a dumb joke that crashed and burned so fast nobody was around to notice it.
Why would you want to increase your vehicle and fuel efficiency? Only idiots want to get better millage for nothing.
McCain will take on big oil! yeah, tighten their vice grip on your balls and lull them into a false sense of security. Their increases in record quarterly profits wont be as big!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter