Oil, real numbers

[JohnBirchSociety]

The United States produces approximately 8.4Million Barrels of oil a day. We use nearly 21Million Barrels of oil a day.

We EXPORT (Yup, I said EXPORT) approximately 1.1Million Barrels of oil a day. That leaves approximately 7.3Million Barrels a day, of our own oil, to use. So we export 13% of our daily oil production, which equates to .5% of our total daily usage.

Our leading foreign source of oil is Canada (2.6Million Barrels a day), followed by Saudi Arabia (1.5Million Barrels a day), followed by Mexico (1.4Million Barrels a day), and so on. We import 13Million Barrels a day, of oil. That is about 62% of the oil we use each day.

Considering we EXPORT 1.1Million Barrels of oil a DAY, we could reduce our dependence on imports by nearly 8% a day, but just stopping our exports. That's right. We could reduce our reliance on foreign oil by nearly 10%, IMMEDIATELY, by stopping the export of US oil.

If we take Canada and Mexico out of the equation (they've been generally friendly allies), then we're left with 9Million Barrels a day of oil from nations that are historically unfriendly with America (except for wanting our money). Now, again, if we immediately stopped exporting our oil, we'd only need to import 7.9Million Barrels a day from our enemies (for lack of a better term). That would be a decrease in current importation of 12%, with no need to drill for more oil.

Simply put, our politicians / eco-extremists / alarmists are wrong.

From public figures, we can actually "drill ourselves" out of this mess. Here's how:

1) Stop exporting our oil (1.1Million Barrels a day)

2) Drill now for our 40Billion Barrels of known oil (Standard sources, not shale or coal oils which would put us ahead of most, if not all nations in the world for total oil reserves)

So, we can immediately reduce our reliance on our enemies for oil by over 10%. And, we CAN drill ourselves out of all reliance on foreign oil.

What do you think?

[FunkyTown]

I think it's a good idea.

Actually, given the amount of oil in Canada and the US, I'd like to see greater trade with the two and more development. Frankly, I think if the US acquiesced to allowing Canada the northwest passage, we'd be willing to become almost exclusive trading partners. Off the coast of Newfoundland is an oil reserve that's larger than all the oil reserves in the middle east combined. I also think more development in to green energies should be developed to reduce our dependency on a non-renewable resource.

PS: If you're interested in what's off the coast of Canada, check out this link:

Steel, Sweat, and Oil As Nova Scotia and Newfoundland tap their vast offshore oil and gas fields, Canada's hardscrabble Atlantic provinces are finally getting a chance to achieve a rugged, old-economy kind of prosperity. - October 2, 2000

If developed, it would be the great basin of oil and gas production for the world. CNN agrees.

[glennh]

Very insightful and thought provoking post JBS. I work in the Oil industry and I agree with what your saying. Now if we could just get the politicians to listen:huh:

[JohnBirchSociety]

I think it's a good idea.

Actually, given the amount of oil in Canada and the US, I'd like to see greater trade with the two and more development. Frankly, I think if the US acquiesced to allowing Canada the northwest passage, we'd be willing to become almost exclusive trading partners. Off the coast of Newfoundland is an oil reserve that's larger than all the oil reserves in the middle east combined. I also think more development in to green energies should be developed to reduce our dependency on a non-renewable resource.

PS: If you're interested in what's off the coast of Canada, check out this link:

Steel, Sweat, and Oil As Nova Scotia and Newfoundland tap their vast offshore oil and gas fields, Canada's hardscrabble Atlantic provinces are finally getting a chance to achieve a rugged, old-economy kind of prosperity. - October 2, 2000

If developed, it would be the great basin of oil and gas production for the world. CNN agrees.

I think increased trade with Canada is a win-win. They have a ton of oil that would be easy to get at. We have a lot of our own, but a bit more difficult to get to.

As for development of "green" sources of energy, I'll point to Commercial Nuclear Power as the solution for electrical generation in the United States. Nuclear Power has proven itself as the safest form of energy ever produced in the United States. No person has ever died as a result of a nuclear accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.

Thanks.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Very insightful and thought provoking post JBS. I work in the Oil industry and I agree with what your saying. Now if we could just get the politicians to listen:huh:

You are right. It is just another prime example that politicians are alligned with our destruction as a nation.

We will become the only nation in history to fall while sitting on a nearly endless supply of natural resources.

Very Sad.

[DigitalShadow]

Who is exporting the oil and why? Without knowing that, I can't really say whether your plan is a good idea or bad idea. (I don't know the answer and am hoping that someone more well versed in economics could help me out here because I suspect it is somewhat complicated.)

[JohnBirchSociety]

Who is exporting the oil and why? Without knowing that, I can't really say whether your plan is a good idea or bad idea. (I don't know the answer and am hoping that someone more well versed in economics could help me out here because I suspect it is somewhat complicated.)

Good questions. I don't know.

I only know that we do export oil (which would appear to be absurd, given the current climate in the US for oil).

[Traveler]

Who is exporting the oil and why? Without knowing that, I can't really say whether your plan is a good idea or bad idea. (I don't know the answer and am hoping that someone more well versed in economics could help me out here because I suspect it is somewhat complicated.)

The oil that is exported is under the complete control of congress and trade agreements they ratify. Oil companies want to export as much oil as possible because it is more profitable to export than to keep our oil domestic.

We have another problem in that we do not have the refineries to process enough crude for domestic use and must rely on foreign refineries.

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

The oil that is exported is under the complete control of congress and trade agreements they ratify. Oil companies want to export as much oil as possible because it is more profitable to export than to keep our oil domestic.

We have another problem in that we do not have the refineries to process enough crude for domestic use and must rely on foreign refineries.

The Traveler

That is correct.

[Traveler]

I think increased trade with Canada is a win-win. They have a ton of oil that would be easy to get at. We have a lot of our own, but a bit more difficult to get to.

As for development of "green" sources of energy, I'll point to Commercial Nuclear Power as the solution for electrical generation in the United States. Nuclear Power has proven itself as the safest form of energy ever produced in the United States. No person has ever died as a result of a nuclear accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.

Thanks.

I know you have a hard time with certain concepts but nuclear power is not cheap and the cost of keeping our nuclear fuels safe as well as disposing of spent fuel is escalating faster than medical costs. Coal fired power generation is much cheaper than nuclear. I guess the nuclear idea is okay if you are willing to pay for it. The cheapest form of power currently is hydro-electrical but that also has its down side.

In theory nuclear fusion has the greatest promise but in over 50 years of research we have never been close to making that even kind of safe.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

The oil that is exported is under the complete control of congress and trade agreements they ratify. Oil companies want to export as much oil as possible because it is more profitable to export than to keep our oil domestic.

We have another problem in that we do not have the refineries to process enough crude for domestic use and must rely on foreign refineries.

The Traveler

But how much of it is greedy oil companies unchecked by congress exporting to make more money and how much is out of necessity because we don't have enough refineries?

[Traveler]

BTW just as a side note nuclear fusion is a really nifty form of energy generation. We can use salty sea water directly in the process and we can get the heat we get from similar nuclear fission plus we get electricity directly from the process as well as pure drinkable water and hydrogen fuel we could use as well. Too bad we cannot control fusion for more than fractions of a seconds.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

But how much of it is greedy oil companies unchecked by congress exporting to make more money and how much is out of necessity because we don't have enough refineries?

There are many factors - perhaps related to greed but some of the reasons we say we export is for security reasons, foreign relations and to help underdeveloped countries.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

But how much of it is greedy oil companies unchecked by congress exporting to make more money and how much is out of necessity because we don't have enough refineries?

I am just wondering why you think the oil companies are the only greedy ones unchecked by congress - are you implying that there is no greed in congress?

I have worked with the oil companies and it is my impression that their greed is chump change compared to congressional greed.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

There are many factors - perhaps related to greed but some of the reasons we say we export is for security reasons, foreign relations and to help underdeveloped countries.

The Traveler

I am just wondering why you think the oil companies are the only greedy ones unchecked by congress - are you implying that there is no greed in congress?

I have worked with the oil companies and it is my impression that their greed is chump change compared to congressional greed.

The Traveler

I certainly don't think oil companies are the only greedy ones. I thought it went without saying that congress was motivated by greed as well if they are allowing those practices. Let me rephrase my question:

Rougly how much of the export is a direct result of human greed and how much of it is a result of necessity or humanitarian effort?

To me, that question is very central to this discussion, but I honestly don't know the answer or even have a clue how to find out that type of information.

[FunkyTown]

I am just wondering why you think the oil companies are the only greedy ones unchecked by congress - are you implying that there is no greed in congress?

I have worked with the oil companies and it is my impression that their greed is chump change compared to congressional greed.

The Traveler

Greed is greed, Traveler, and while Congress is greedy, so are the oil companies. No side is good. There's no such thing as 'chump change greed'. Instead, if their greed hurts people, it is avarice and is wicked. It's as simple as that.

[Hemidakota]

The United States produces approximately 8.4Million Barrels of oil a day. We use nearly 21Million Barrels of oil a day.

We EXPORT (Yup, I said EXPORT) approximately 1.1Million Barrels of oil a day. That leaves approximately 7.3Million Barrels a day, of our own oil, to use. So we export 13% of our daily oil production, which equates to .5% of our total daily usage.

Our leading foreign source of oil is Canada (2.6Million Barrels a day), followed by Saudi Arabia (1.5Million Barrels a day), followed by Mexico (1.4Million Barrels a day), and so on. We import 13Million Barrels a day, of oil. That is about 62% of the oil we use each day.

Considering we EXPORT 1.1Million Barrels of oil a DAY, we could reduce our dependence on imports by nearly 8% a day, but just stopping our exports. That's right. We could reduce our reliance on foreign oil by nearly 10%, IMMEDIATELY, by stopping the export of US oil.

If we take Canada and Mexico out of the equation (they've been generally friendly allies), then we're left with 9Million Barrels a day of oil from nations that are historically unfriendly with America (except for wanting our money). Now, again, if we immediately stopped exporting our oil, we'd only need to import 7.9Million Barrels a day from our enemies (for lack of a better term). That would be a decrease in current importation of 12%, with no need to drill for more oil.

Simply put, our politicians / eco-extremists / alarmists are wrong.

From public figures, we can actually "drill ourselves" out of this mess. Here's how:

1) Stop exporting our oil (1.1Million Barrels a day)

2) Drill now for our 40Billion Barrels of known oil (Standard sources, not shale or coal oils which would put us ahead of most, if not all nations in the world for total oil reserves)

So, we can immediately reduce our reliance on our enemies for oil by over 10%. And, we CAN drill ourselves out of all reliance on foreign oil.

What do you think?

Go back and research from 1986 and see what happened. You will find some surprising stuff.

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

[Hemidakota]

But how much of it is greedy oil companies unchecked by congress exporting to make more money and how much is out of necessity because we don't have enough refineries?

Even when our refineries are running at 68 to 72 percent of capacity? Or that oil attracted from wells have dropped to keep up the artificial pricing and the need to venture overseas?

[DigitalShadow]

Even when our refineries are running at 68 to 72 percent of capacity? Or that oil attracted from wells have dropped to keep up the artificial pricing and the need to venture overseas?

I was just using the information that Traveler gave me to form a question, I was not making the claim. See my revised question:

Rougly how much of the export is a direct result of human greed and how much of it is a result of necessity or humanitarian effort?

[Traveler]

Greed is greed, Traveler, and while Congress is greedy, so are the oil companies. No side is good. There's no such thing as 'chump change greed'. Instead, if their greed hurts people, it is avarice and is wicked. It's as simple as that.

I do not think that oil companies are greedy nor do I think that investing in oil is done by greedy people. Now there may be some oil executives that are greedy – but I would like to see blame go to where blame belongs.

First off I do not believe that 8 to 10 percent profit return on investment is greedy. Most venture capital looks for a return on investment of at least 20 percent. We honor venture capitalist as innovators that make America great. It appears to me that they are at least twice as greedy as the oil companies. Many people that I personally know that work for the oil companies just are not that greedy.

Now the top oil executives are a whole other matter but their salaries have not been that much different than other executives in pharmaceuticals, and just about any other industry. Personally I believe that the US business model is way of plumb and top heavy and I see nothing in the great change my Democratic friends tout that will make any difference – Since bribes are tax deductible as long as they are called political contributions and surprise, surprise the new president elect had twice as many bribes (er I mean contributions) as his rival.

The Traveler

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

The United States produces approximately 8.4Million Barrels of oil a day. We use nearly 21Million Barrels of oil a day.

We EXPORT (Yup, I said EXPORT) approximately 1.1Million Barrels of oil a day. That leaves approximately 7.3Million Barrels a day, of our own oil, to use. So we export 13% of our daily oil production, which equates to .5% of our total daily usage.

Our leading foreign source of oil is Canada (2.6Million Barrels a day), followed by Saudi Arabia (1.5Million Barrels a day), followed by Mexico (1.4Million Barrels a day), and so on. We import 13Million Barrels a day, of oil. That is about 62% of the oil we use each day.

Considering we EXPORT 1.1Million Barrels of oil a DAY, we could reduce our dependence on imports by nearly 8% a day, but just stopping our exports. That's right. We could reduce our reliance on foreign oil by nearly 10%, IMMEDIATELY, by stopping the export of US oil.

If we take Canada and Mexico out of the equation (they've been generally friendly allies), then we're left with 9Million Barrels a day of oil from nations that are historically unfriendly with America (except for wanting our money). Now, again, if we immediately stopped exporting our oil, we'd only need to import 7.9Million Barrels a day from our enemies (for lack of a better term). That would be a decrease in current importation of 12%, with no need to drill for more oil.

Simply put, our politicians / eco-extremists / alarmists are wrong.

From public figures, we can actually "drill ourselves" out of this mess. Here's how:

1) Stop exporting our oil (1.1Million Barrels a day)

2) Drill now for our 40Billion Barrels of known oil (Standard sources, not shale or coal oils which would put us ahead of most, if not all nations in the world for total oil reserves)

So, we can immediately reduce our reliance on our enemies for oil by over 10%. And, we CAN drill ourselves out of all reliance on foreign oil.

What do you think?

We're just waiting till you guys let your guard down. Then the invasion of maple leafs begin.

But seriously, yes, developing nuclear power can be expensive. But overall it is far cheaper, and repays itself far quicker than one might expect. The reason people fear it is chiefly due to incidents such as Chernobyl. Now, Chernobyl happened for a number of reasons which could have been easily avoided, and wouldn't have happened in a developed country.

As for hydro? I love the stuff, a huge chunk (I think it's the majority, but I don't have the inclination to find anything official on it right now) of British Columbia is run on it. To make it better the government has ended its monopoly on the power industry and has allowed for privitization. The dam in our area was bought by a local man I know, and it has allowed much more competative ratings, and prices.

[austro-libertarian]

Considering we EXPORT 1.1Million Barrels of oil a DAY, we could reduce our dependence on imports by nearly 8% a day, but just stopping our exports. That's right. We could reduce our reliance on foreign oil by nearly 10%, IMMEDIATELY, by stopping the export of US oil.

If we take Canada and Mexico out of the equation (they've been generally friendly allies), then we're left with 9Million Barrels a day of oil from nations that are historically unfriendly with America (except for wanting our money). Now, again, if we immediately stopped exporting our oil, we'd only need to import 7.9Million Barrels a day from our enemies (for lack of a better term). That would be a decrease in current importation of 12%, with no need to drill for more oil.

Simply put, our politicians / eco-extremists / alarmists are wrong.

From public figures, we can actually "drill ourselves" out of this mess. Here's how:

1) Stop exporting our oil (1.1Million Barrels a day)

2) Drill now for our 40Billion Barrels of known oil (Standard sources, not shale or coal oils which would put us ahead of most, if not all nations in the world for total oil reserves)

So, we can immediately reduce our reliance on our enemies for oil by over 10%. And, we CAN drill ourselves out of all reliance on foreign oil.

What do you think?

What I think is that this sounds a bit too much like "we" are a big club that can make these decisions. It is up to the individual companies to make these types of decisions. I think trade is beneficial and should not be arbitrarily defined by a country's borders. You could make the same argument of self-sufficiency within any geographic territory. Imagine Alaska decides not to export (i.e., trade) its goods to Washington; or perhaps Los Angeles doesn't want to export its products to San Francisco; or a community doesn't export to another community; or an individual decides not to export any of their products to anyone else. Sounds a bit silly to me . . . trade is mutually beneficial and prices help coordinate exchanges in the market.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I know you have a hard time with certain concepts but nuclear power is not cheap and the cost of keeping our nuclear fuels safe as well as disposing of spent fuel is escalating faster than medical costs. Coal fired power generation is much cheaper than nuclear. I guess the nuclear idea is okay if you are willing to pay for it. The cheapest form of power currently is hydro-electrical but that also has its down side.

In theory nuclear fusion has the greatest promise but in over 50 years of research we have never been close to making that even kind of safe.

The Traveler

You're right, it is not cheap.

Of course, why, is the question.

It is not cheap because it is mired in lawsuits / regulations that don't allow new plants to be built and greatly hamper the potentials of the ones we do have.

I'm for regulation of nuclear plants.

I'm not for the insane litigation one must go through to even begin to have a chance to build one. Especially when the litigation is almost always without merit.

[JohnBirchSociety]

What I think is that this sounds a bit too much like "we" are a big club that can make these decisions. It is up to the individual companies to make these types of decisions. I think trade is beneficial and should not be arbitrarily defined by a country's borders. You could make the same argument of self-sufficiency within any geographic territory. Imagine Alaska decides not to export (i.e., trade) its goods to Washington; or perhaps Los Angeles doesn't want to export its products to San Francisco; or a community doesn't export to another community; or an individual decides not to export any of their products to anyone else. Sounds a bit silly to me . . . trade is mutually beneficial and prices help coordinate exchanges in the market.

Anyone who has read my threads knows that I'm a free-trade / free-market supporter.

The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate the absurdity of yelling about importing so much oil when we EXPORT oil. If those doing the yelling about "our dependence on foreign oil" would just get of their arse and start wondering why in the world we would EXPORT oil under the "dependence on foreign oil" rampage, we'd get somewhere.

If T.Boone Pickens would study a bit more, he'd not be so inclined to go for wind power, etc...

We ought not complain about importing oil if we are exporting what we produce.

It's nonsense.

Also, we can most certainly drill ourselves out of dependence on unfriendly foreign sources of oil. We have extraordinary reserves in both standard sources and in shale oil, etc.

Hydroelectric could be used more, for sure, if you could get around the eco-extremist who sue to have such things stopped.

It's just a mess, but we are barking up the wrong tree on solutions, and we don't even realize the facts behind the smoke-screen we are being fed.

[FunkyTown]

Nuclear energy is definitely clean. The problem with it is that nobody knows what to do with the waste. Dump it in a hole? Shoot it in to space? It can poison the area around it for a very long time if it isn't properly disposed and, should it get in to the water table, it can devastate an area(And has). People remember Long Island and Chernobyl, but forget the wonder of things like the CANDU reactors.

Frankly, I agree. Nuclear energy is the way to go. In terms of waste, I'm a fan of the 'Drill ridiculously deep and dump it down far, far below the water table.' crowd. While safety shouldn't be a concern for a reactor, disposal does need to be highly regulated.