• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why America has to import oil

RoperAB

Well-known member
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
American oil reserves are 22,450,000,000 barrels
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htm
As of 1997 America was consuming 18,600,000 barrels a day.

So in other words if America would have stopped importing oil during the last oil crisses(oil embargoes) in the 70s you would be completely without oil right now and very much in a crisses in the case of another oil embargoe.
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/03/naples/d925444a.htm
"oil remains the fuel of economic growth," according to Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of prize-winning books on globalization and world oil.
A $15-a-barrel rise slows world growth a full percentage point, but that number may lowball the impact when "a surge in oil prices undermines consumer and business confidence, hitting both spending and investment and how it affects stock prices," International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff has warned.
The United States today is not only the world's most powerful nation but also the greatest debtor nation, depending heavily on foreigners to finance our federal debt, keep up our standard of living and cover a $500-billion-a-year trade deficit.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
The United States today is not only the world's most powerful nation but also the greatest debtor nation, depending heavily on foreigners to finance our federal debt, keep up our standard of living and cover a $500-billion-a-year trade deficit.

Yes, we're in debt to countires that are not our friends, China, for example. And we're spending over a billion dollars a week in Iraq for the privilege of having our young people killed, and being insulted by the government we support. All this under the banner of Conservatism. Remarkable, isn't it?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Its actually Chinas economic growth that is putting pressure on world oil supplies and driving up the price of crude. That and a lack of refineries in North America.
Want to slow down the Chinese economic machine? Eliminate their source of cheap oil in the middle east and invest in Canada. http://web.naplesnews.com/03/03/naples/d925444a.htm
America's ability to absorb the cost of an Iraq conflict is unquestioned.World War II consumed 130 percent of America's yearly economic output, or $2.9 trillion in 2002 dollars. Contrast that with today's $10 trillion U.S. economy taking on Iraq, with its $57 billion annual output, and top economists with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences' international security committee sketch the following scenarios:

n The best case of quick military victory with minimal loss of life, destruction and rebuilding would cost $100 billion, or 1 percent of America's gross domestic product.

n The worst case of prolonged warfare, occupation and reconstruction would present a $1.9 trillion, 10-year bill, still a manageable 2 percent of a decade's output.

The big question mark for the U.S. economy and the world is oil.
Global oil consumption is up 40 percent since the 1970s oil embargoes, so "oil remains the fuel of economic growth," according to Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of prize-winning books on globalization and world oil.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Diesel was $3.20/gallon in Baker yesterday.

A lot of that is market manipulation because of lack of refinery capacity in North America.
Now im not talking about nationalising the oil industry or regulating the prices but why not form a Government owned refinery that would compete in the free market?
You could make the same arguement for a government owned packing plant in the beef industry.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Soon as it has "Government owned" as part of an idea, I think it is
probably a BAD IDEA.

Why can't the private sector do this? That would be much better.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Soon as it has "Government owned" as part of an idea, I think it is
probably a BAD IDEA.

Why can't the private sector do this? That would be much better.

Well the oil companies are not going to do it because they want high gas prices.
Im thinking the cost is to high for anybody else in the private sector to start up there own refinery?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Gas in Ga yesterday was $2.52/gal and diesel was about a nickle higher.

China will only grow in numbers and they legalized a knock off version of Viagra the other day!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
In retrospect, one of the biggest mistakes in the oil business was selling the stuff too cheaply. I can remember working for an independent oil company and gasoline was selling wholesale at 11 cents per gallon.

If we had taxed the stuff like it is in Europe, we would not have wasted so much in gas-guzzling cars and trucks. Would have cut the heck out of the income tas as well.

I was once at a Petroleum Industry Tax conference in Houston. One attendee was lamenting the loss of the depletion allowance and how it was impacting the business. I commented that losing it was no loss at all. The oil companies were building money-losing gas stations on every corner and the depletion benefits were simply wasted.

After thinking for a minute, he agreed.
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Or if it was taxed like Europe you can have one heck of a rail system....And it would probably be used more... Still remember being in France in 92 and gas, after converstions and all was about 5-6 bucks a gallon. ..

All I know is I cringe everytime I fill the truck up... But hey, the new program they put in bumped my milage up 2 mpg... That makes me smile a little...
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Because of NAFTA retail gas in Alberta is about $4.50 a gallon!
I dont think you can compare Euro gas prices to ours because of the distances involved. Example if I lived in a European country I could hop on a bicycle and peddle from one side of the country to the other in a few hours.
Pisses me off when I hear city people on TV saying we have to change our lifestyles. My question is how? Its not like we can use public transet. Where I live you need a 4 wheel drive just to get here six months out of the year. Plus I need a truck. I cant haul anything in a friggen little KIA SUV. Plus these high energy prices drive up the cost of everything from steel panels to feed. Everything is affected by it.
It gives concentrated countrys like China another edge in producing goods.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
This shortage has its roots pretty deep in history. Remember $10 oil during Klinton, Saudia Arabia was shutting down marginal wells all over the US. Ofcourse we hould have protected domestic producers from predatory measures taken by a monopoly nation state.


China's surging economy certainly has exaserbated the shortages; the good news is no modern economy has been sustained at the growth rate of China.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Thought you might be interested in this. dis, try to read the whole thing and then check the link.

Addicted to Regulation
The real reason for America's foreign-oil dependence.
BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, June 21, 2006


In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said that "America is addicted to oil." But it would be more accurate to say that America is addicted to opportunity, and oil and its products help us seize it.

American oil consumption is indeed rising, from more than 15 million barrels a day in the early 1980s to more than 20 million today. It is likely to continue to increase--another 33% over the next 25 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy--because crude oil is a useful substance. Some 40% of our oil consumption is for cars and light trucks; 32% for buses, railroads, ships, trucks and agricultural machinery; and another 17% goes into petrochemicals to produce products from plastic to paint. These uses represent opportunities, not addictions.

The problem is that America's domestic petroleum production has significantly declined, from 10 million barrels a day in 1970 to about 5 million today. Our response has been increasing importation of oil, now more than 12 million barrels a day.

So expanding America's energy production is the obvious priority. Common sense would suggest that we should begin tapping into the estimated 102 billion barrels of oil sitting under America's Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska. That domestic supply could replace America's importation of foreign oil for some 25 years.

But our country's political establishment, from Congress to the press and the presidency, has worked for a quarter century to prevent increases in our energy supply.

In 1980 President Carter imposed a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies, which raised $40 billion rather than the $227 billion promised. Rather than easing energy shortages, the tax reduced domestic oil production by between 3% and 6% and gave imported oil from foreign countries a competitive advantage that increased imports of foreign oil by about 10%.

In 1990 the first President Bush issued a presidential directive forbidding access to about 85% of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas reserves. In 1998 President Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012.

In 1995 Mr. Clinton vetoed a budget bill that would have allowed oil exploration and drilling in part of the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Prudhoe Bay fields, just to the west of ANWR, have delivered 15 billion barrels of oil through the Alaska pipeline to the U.S. market without damage to Alaskan land, caribou or other wildlife. ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil, so Mr. Clinton's veto today is costing America about a million barrels of oil each day. Yet Congress has repeatedly defeated efforts to open ANWR to exploration.

As the Heritage Foundation points out, the U.S. "is the only nation in the world that has placed a significant amount of its potential domestic energy supplies off-limits."

Congress has also limited the capacity to refine our oil. After Hurricane Katrina, a bill to streamline the refinery permitting process--we have not built a new one since 1976--and encourage the building of refineries on closed military bases was blocked in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when every Democratic senator, along with Jim Jeffords (I., Vt) and Lincoln Chaffee (R., R.I.) voted "no."

We could reduce our importation of, and "addiction" to, foreign oil in various ways.

Nuclear power is one. We have 104 nuclear power plants in operation in America that provide clean energy and decrease by 700 million tons the CO2 released into our atmosphere each year. But we have stopped building nuclear power plants: Construction of the last one began three decades ago. President Bush has proposed the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative to facilitate plant construction. Sixteen companies have expressed interest, and 25 new nuclear plants are under consideration.

Offshore drilling for natural gas is another way. There are some 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. We currently consume about 23 trillion cubic feet per year, so that amounts to a 19-year supply. But the House last month voted 217-203 to block the opening of some Outer Continental Shelf areas to natural gas exploration and drilling.

Then there is ethanol, the heavily subsidized energy produced from crops like corn, soybeans and sunflowers. Ethanol producers receive a 51-cent-a-gallon federal subsidy, which cost the government $1.4 billion last year, and are protected from international ethanol imports by a 2.5% tariff and an import duty of 54 cents a gallon.

But it is not clear that ethanol is a good economic or energy bargain. Producing it requires diesel fuel for tractors to plant and harvest the corn and fertilizers, and pesticides to allow it to grow, so it takes about seven barrels of oil to produce eight barrels of corn-based ethanol. But then more truck or rail fuel is required to deliver it, since there are no pipelines from corn country to urban areas, making shipping ethanol about double the cost of shipping gasoline. In the end ethanol may be a more expensive fuel. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) says there is no policy reason for ethanol: "If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren't benefiting from this, we wouldn't be doing it."

Cleaner coal technology--we have 200 years worth of coal--is being pursued, as are other energy sources such as wind and solar power that may ultimately be some help in meeting our energy needs.

So what does the political establishment think of all these energy alternatives? Except for ethanol, wind and solar power, not much.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's energy speech to the National Press Club last month perfectly (and politically correctly) makes the establishment's point. Yes, she is for wind power, solar power and increasing the amount of oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all good things. But she is also:

• For a windfall profits tax on oil (though she doesn't call it that), which would, as in 1980, reduce domestic oil production; and for higher taxes on oil companies so government, rather than the market economy, can regulate energy production.

• Against the construction of additional nuclear power plants--America's cleanest source of energy--because of her "real concerns" about the "quality of the oversight provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." That translates into not enough governmental control over an industry that is too hot to touch politically.

• Against ANWR drilling (she has voted against it half a dozen times), and against additional offshore drilling.

• For greatly expanded--and greatly subsidized--ethanol production.

Her overall goal is "reducing our dependence on foreign oil by at least 50% by 2025." But expanding nuclear power, drilling for the proven reserves of oil and gas off our coasts, and even eliminating the ethanol import tariffs and subsidies all are politically incorrect energy policies that the Washington establishment will not permit.

That's too bad, because they are the correct policies that would help a great many Americans enjoy greater opportunity. But that's the political establishment's thinking, which makes government control--not oil--the addiction that is misdirecting our national energy policy.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008528
 
Top