# sources of oil consumed in the US, and Mid-East oil independence



## Joel N. Weber II

Obama has promised to get the US to be independent of mid-east oil by some date.

While on some level I think that's a great idea, I'm also not really convinced it's doable.

This article claims ``And Obama is wrong when he implies that America imports most of its oil from the Mideast. Most of it comes from Canada and Mexico.''

(Did Obama actually imply that? The small snippet of his speach that WBZ decided to replay when I was briefly paying attention to the radio didn't clearly imply that to me.)

But then I'm looking at the June 2008 data in this US Department of Energy page. They list both crude oil and petroleum data. It looks like it's saying that 3.6 million barrels of petroleum per day came from Canada plus Mexico, and 2.4 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia plus Iraq plus Kuwait. About 3.0 million barrels of crude oil per day came from Canada plus Mexico; 2.4 million from Saudi Arabia plus Iraq plus Kuwait. The total crude oil imports from all countries were about 10.0 million barrels per day, so Saudi Arabia plus Iraq plus Kuwait make up about 24% of crude oil imports; I don't think I see a total petroleum import number on that page.

One thing that isn't clear to me is what the difference between crude oil and petroleum really is. Is it just a matter of whether some steps of the refining process happen in the US or in the other country?

Is it realistic to think that this country is actually going to eliminate 24% (or whatever exactly the number is) of fuel consumption by automobiles and airplanes? Even if we do, will we selectively buy more expensive oil from non- middle-east countries? Or is it realistic to think that the Canadians and Mexicans are going to start selling us more oil cheaply because Obama is going to ask them nicely, and otherwise it never would have occured to them that there are lots of US dollars they could be hoarding if only they would figure out how to produce more oil cheaply?


----------



## jackal

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is it realistic to think that this country is actually going to eliminate 24% (or whatever exactly the number is) of fuel consumption by automobiles and airplanes? Even if we do, will we selectively buy more expensive oil from non- middle-east countries? Or is it realistic to think that the Canadians and Mexicans are going to start selling us more oil cheaply because Obama is going to ask them nicely, and otherwise it never would have occured to them that there are lots of US dollars they could be hoarding if only they would figure out how to produce more oil cheaply?


Well, ya know, if the 1002 area--that tiny sliver of land specifically set aside by Congress for oil and gas exploration were allowed to produce oil, that would take care of approximately three quarters of a million barrels per day of oil--putting us 32% of the way toward eliminating importing oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. 

Seriously, I've been there, and I've watched the operations. I've talked to leaders on both sides of the issue as well as friends who have spent extensive time on the North Slope. I pored over the data on wildlife numbers since the Prudhoe Bay fields were constructed--they've gone _up_. Honestly, these companies know how to run a clean, tight operation. Compared to the endless horizon viewable from anywhere on the Slope, the amount of land used by ExxonMobile, BP, ConocoPhillips, and all of the ancillary support operations is truly miniscule. People have this image that half of the state of Alaska will be spoiled by an endless snaking system of oil wells and pipelines. Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas (we have this joke here that if we decide to split in half, Texas would be the third-largest state). The area we're talking about is equivalent to less than four tenths of one percent of the size of the state. If Alaska were the size of New York _state_, the area affected would be smaller than the area of Queens and Manhattan put together.

And even in that 2,300 square miles of coastal plain, technically, the surface area visibly used by the oil companies would be equivalent to less than 2,000 acres--about one tenth of one percent of the actual petroleum reserve and 0.00000476 percent of Alaska's land mass. (Yes, that 2,000 acres will be spread over the 2,300 square miles of coastal plain, but I've seen the development at Prudhoe and it's not anything like you'd think. It's pretty spread-out and minimal.)

And really, my favorite argument: over 75% of Alaskans support opening up the plain to exploration (and from my personal conversations with everyone from college students to senior citizens, I think that number is a conservative estimate), including every one of our governors (liberal and conservative) and a large majority of our state legislature (including liberals and conservatives) for the past 25 years (not to mention our Washington congressional delegation, but that argument may work against us!  ). Wouldn't you think that those of us who live here and would be affected by any environmental disasters (including any current "environmental devastation" from the existing fields) would be the people most qualified to know whether this is a good move or not? Alaskans are very inclined to protect the environment—our state depends on wildlife resources for a large portion of our income as well as for a significant number of our rural residents (who lead a subsistence lifestyle), and we are pretty dang good at keeping the “big evil corporations who want to rape our land” in check. If we support these measures, then I think that all you Outsiders (with a capital O) should listen to us!

To keep this on topic, of course: opening up the coastal plain would get us a third of the way towards ridding us of dependence on the Middle East for oil…and I’m sure we could accomplish the other two thirds by increasing Amtrak usage and reducing car/plane trips! :lol:


----------



## profwebs

jackal said:


> Well, ya know, if the 1002 area--that tiny sliver of land specifically set aside by Congress for oil and gas exploration were allowed to produce oil, that would take care of approximately three quarters of a million barrels per day of oil--putting us 32% of the way toward eliminating importing oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
> Seriously, I've been there, and I've watched the operations. I've talked to leaders on both sides of the issue as well as friends who have spent extensive time on the North Slope. I pored over the data on wildlife numbers since the Prudhoe Bay fields were constructed--they've gone _up_. Honestly, these companies know how to run a clean, tight operation. Compared to the endless horizon viewable from anywhere on the Slope, the amount of land used by ExxonMobile, BP, ConocoPhillips, and all of the ancillary support operations is truly miniscule. People have this image that half of the state of Alaska will be spoiled by an endless snaking system of oil wells and pipelines. Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas (we have this joke here that if we decide to split in half, Texas would be the third-largest state). The area we're talking about is equivalent to less than four tenths of one percent of the size of the state. If Alaska were the size of New York _state_, the area affected would be smaller than the area of Queens and Manhattan put together.
> 
> And even in that 2,300 square miles of coastal plain, technically, the surface area visibly used by the oil companies would be equivalent to less than 2,000 acres--about one tenth of one percent of the actual petroleum reserve and 0.00000476 percent of Alaska's land mass. (Yes, that 2,000 acres will be spread over the 2,300 square miles of coastal plain, but I've seen the development at Prudhoe and it's not anything like you'd think. It's pretty spread-out and minimal.)
> 
> And really, my favorite argument: over 75% of Alaskans support opening up the plain to exploration (and from my personal conversations with everyone from college students to senior citizens, I think that number is a conservative estimate), including every one of our governors (liberal and conservative) and a large majority of our state legislature (including liberals and conservatives) for the past 25 years (not to mention our Washington congressional delegation, but that argument may work against us!  ). Wouldn't you think that those of us who live here and would be affected by any environmental disasters (including any current "environmental devastation" from the existing fields) would be the people most qualified to know whether this is a good move or not? Alaskans are very inclined to protect the environment—our state depends on wildlife resources for a large portion of our income as well as for a significant number of our rural residents (who lead a subsistence lifestyle), and we are pretty dang good at keeping the “big evil corporations who want to rape our land” in check. If we support these measures, then I think that all you Outsiders (with a capital O) should listen to us!
> 
> To keep this on topic, of course: opening up the coastal plain would get us a third of the way towards ridding us of dependence on the Middle East for oil…and I’m sure we could accomplish the other two thirds by increasing Amtrak usage and reducing car/plane trips! :lol:


Well, you may have sold me on opening up ANWR to drilling. One of my goals is to move to AK in the next 10 years, because of the beauty and remoteness of the great state. So, I guess when I hear about them wanting to drill there, it kinda makes me cringe, because I'd hate to see industry take over the place and drill irresponsibly.

I mean down here in the lower 48, take a look at what MTR coal mining does to the environment and the people near the sites. Take a look at I Love Mountains. Also, I'm a co-author on End MTR. I see how the corruption of the last 100 years in WV hasn't changed. The companies that use this form of coal mining buy their way around various EPA laws and totally devastate the environment there. I'm not an environmentalist, I just love nature and the wilderness.

On a lighter note though, I mean isn't your above opinion paid for? I mean with the stipend... I'm just sayin


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

jackal said:


> Well, ya know, if the 1002 area--that tiny sliver of land specifically set aside by Congress for oil and gas exploration were allowed to produce oil, that would take care of approximately three quarters of a million barrels per day of oil--putting us 32% of the way toward eliminating importing oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.


But how sustainable is that? The Wikipedia article says ``A 1998 report by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was between 5.7 billion barrels (910,000,000 m3) and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable oil in the designated 1002 area[.]'' If the 1002 area produces a quarter of a billion barrels per year, 5.7 barrels will be produced in less than 20 years.

Also, the Wikipedia article says ``The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.''

I'm feeling like the ANWR issue is a distraction, and real long term solutions to affordable transportation need to focus on how to make transportation depend less on oil (which I think translates to electrified trains and trolleybuses if one wants to focus on technologies that work today).


----------



## jackal

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, ya know, if the 1002 area--that tiny sliver of land specifically set aside by Congress for oil and gas exploration were allowed to produce oil, that would take care of approximately three quarters of a million barrels per day of oil--putting us 32% of the way toward eliminating importing oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> But how sustainable is that? The Wikipedia article says ``A 1998 report by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was between 5.7 billion barrels (910,000,000 m3) and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable oil in the designated 1002 area[.]'' If the 1002 area produces a quarter of a billion barrels per year, 5.7 barrels will be produced in less than 20 years.
> 
> Also, the Wikipedia article says ``The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.''
> 
> I'm feeling like the ANWR issue is a distraction, and real long term solutions to affordable transportation need to focus on how to make transportation depend less on oil (which I think translates to electrified trains and trolleybuses if one wants to focus on technologies that work today).
Click to expand...

And if the fields contain the higher estimate of 16 billion barrels, they would produce oil for the next 58 years.

Either way, ANWR gets us a decent bit of the way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I fully support the development of alternative energy solutions, but that is going to take time. ANWR is a way to fill in until we can do that.

Also, electrifying trains and trolleybuses does not in and of itself reduce our use of oil. If the electricity for those modes of transportation comes from oil-fired power plants, it could actually use more oil than just powering them with diesel because of things like long-distance transmission losses, etc. A combination of electric power generated from renewable sources (hydro, wind, and solar, but the latter two of these have a long way to go before they are really ready for prime time) and tricks to maximize the efficiency of the system (power regeneration, straighter/flatter rights of way, etc.) is what really helps.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

jackal said:


> And if the fields contain the higher estimate of 16 billion barrels, they would produce oil for the next 58 years.


I guess. But that's far from certain.

Maybe taking the average of the low and the high and assuming 35-40 years is the best possible guess at this point is reasonable.

Making long term plans on the basis of something that is probably going to last less than your and my lifetimes doesn't strike me as a great idea.

And it's not at all clear that drilling ANWR would ramp up any faster than a major investment in track.

I think we might be better off saving ANWR for after we've made a real effort at doing everything else, and find that there are still occasions when we really, really want oil. I don't see how one is realistically going to get to Alaska 100 years from now without using oil unless we get lucky with some technological breakthrough that we shouldn't be counting on. Maybe biolfuel produced on a farm powered by trolley wiring that's held up by poles on wheels so that after the tractor gets through one row, the wires can be moved over to the next row, with the trolley wiring on wheels then powered from a fixed set of trolley poles at the end of the row. You could even put electric motors in the wheels that support the moving trolley poles to move them when the tractor is ready to go to the next row.



jackal said:


> Also, electrifying trains and trolleybuses does not in and of itself reduce our use of oil. If the electricity for those modes of transportation comes from oil-fired power plants, it could actually use more oil than just powering them with diesel because of things like long-distance transmission losses, etc. A combination of electric power generated from renewable sources (hydro, wind, and solar, but the latter two of these have a long way to go before they are really ready for prime time) and tricks to maximize the efficiency of the system (power regeneration, straighter/flatter rights of way, etc.) is what really helps.


In this country, electricity comes about 50% from coal and 25% from nuclear plants. While I have some serious concerns about both of those from an environmental perspective, the majority of our electricity does not come from oil, and the majority of our electricity comes from domestic sources.

We might actually end up getting more electricity from diesel generators if we substantially increase our use of wind. Coal and nuclear plants are very, very slow to start up and shut down (quite possibly more than 24 hours from 0% of nameplate capacity to 100%). You can start a small diesel generator in well under a minute. (I think 20 seconds is the number I've heard from an ISP that has diesel generators in their colo facilities, and -48VDC battery systems, but if you're their colo customer and you prefer to run your equipment off 120VAC, you generally need to supply a UPS that's good for that 20 seconds. I think their generators tend to be a few hundred kilowatts.) Tweaking the wiring and the control circuits so that the power grid can get power for a few hours or so once a month when wind unexpectedly dies down from the diesel generators that already exist may turn out to be useful.

As far as I can tell, the technology for wind is pretty much ready for prime time already, and while I haven't checked the numbers carefully enough yet, if we had a wind turbine for every tenth of a mile of Interstate highway we have (wouldn't surprise me if buying and installing a wind turbine is cheaper than building a tenth of a mile of Interstate highway), we might be free of any need to burn coal to feed the grid for 40+ weeks of the year. The main issue with wind is that people think the turbines are ugly, and/or the coal industry has an interest in persuading people to claim that.

I do think wind turbines are pricy at this point, and I wonder if a much higher quantity of them being built would bring prices down; in most industries, it does turn out that larger quantities do bring prices down. Wind turbines are undoubtably more expensive to construct and install than coal plants, but once a wind turbine is installed, the energy keeps on passing through the wind turbine for free. Extracting coal costs money in an ongoing fashion. In economics, it usually turns out that if you can invest some capital in a way that will then keep working without much at all in the way of additional human effort, that tends to be cheaper / more profitable than something like digging coal out of the ground (or off the tops of mountains) that requires an ongoing effort.

Then again, if you're skimming the profits of, say, 10% off whatever is being done (which I have heard claims is more or less what regulated utility companies do), it's not in your interest to drive the production costs down.

Even diesel commuter rail has some advantage over the automobile in energy efficiency that makes diesel commuter rail use less oil.  I was talking with a coworker maybe a year ago or so, looking at the traffic stopped on the street where we worked at the time, and he was pointing out to me that the mass of automobile vs mass of human with our typical single occupancy vehicles contributes a lot to the inefficiency. (Something like 4,000 pounds of autombile for 200 pounds of person.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion

jackal said:


> And if the fields contain the higher estimate of 16 billion barrels, they would produce oil for the next 58 years.
> Either way, ANWR gets us a decent bit of the way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I fully support the development of alternative energy solutions, but that is going to take time. ANWR is a way to fill in until we can do that.
> 
> Also, electrifying trains and trolleybuses does not in and of itself reduce our use of oil. If the electricity for those modes of transportation comes from oil-fired power plants, it could actually use more oil than just powering them with diesel because of things like long-distance transmission losses, etc. A combination of electric power generated from renewable sources (hydro, wind, and solar, but the latter two of these have a long way to go before they are really ready for prime time) and tricks to maximize the efficiency of the system (power regeneration, straighter/flatter rights of way, etc.) is what really helps.


I know that, living in Alaska, you support oil consumption, and I see your point of view. I also know we have a rotten economy- believe me, being unemployed, I know! But I do not support drilling for more oil in the US, although I do support becoming less dependent on foriegn oil. I know its going to cost a bloody fortune to develop an infrastructure not highly dependent on it.

Think of it as buying a new car, assuming what you are driving is a car that isn't designed to last forever. Say a Toyota. Your car is 20 years old, and you have 250,000 miles on it. At some point in the future, this car is going to be cold-stone dead. You need to replace it, in the near future, too. Your mechanic gives you a horseback guess in saying it will last another 2 to 3 months.

Now, you can spend time and energy repairing that Toyota, for sure. But the fact is, structurally it is becoming tired, and worn. The car is going to die for good, with no option to repair it. No matter how you look at it, in the foreseeable future you need to suck it up and pony up some serious cash for a new car. No two ways about it.

I don't know how long there is going to be obtainable oil in the earth at any level of technology. But the fact of the matter is, there is a limited amount of it. All our wells could have been overestimated and cough up dust tomorrow. Unrealistic maybe, but possible. Our oil supply can last another 10 years, another 50 years, or another 250 years. Doesn't matter, one day, in the future, we will run out. Conservative estimates (meaning the radicals who underestimate to scare) say 10-15 years. The Oil companies say in the 100-200 range. I'm going to guess 30-50, but its just a guess.

We can have the option to shop around at dealers and pick the car we want before trading in that Toyota on the perfect car and get some cash back from it, too. Or we can wait until it fails inspection due to its lack of structural integrity, race to the nearest car dealership, and buy the first car we can afford, because we need a car to get to work tomorrow, dangit.

Fact of the matter is, so long as oil is cheap, 95% of America doesn't really give much of a damn about its long term supply. When its expensive, they want solutions, and they want them bloody fast. Personally, with all due respect to the economy and the current wellfare of America's citizens, I think the price of oil should stay high, so we can light a fire under peoples selfish little arses, and get them to come up with a solution while it is still comfortable to do so.


----------



## jackal

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, electrifying trains and trolleybuses does not in and of itself reduce our use of oil. If the electricity for those modes of transportation comes from oil-fired power plants, it could actually use more oil than just powering them with diesel because of things like long-distance transmission losses, etc. A combination of electric power generated from renewable sources (hydro, wind, and solar, but the latter two of these have a long way to go before they are really ready for prime time) and tricks to maximize the efficiency of the system (power regeneration, straighter/flatter rights of way, etc.) is what really helps.
> 
> 
> 
> In this country, electricity comes about 50% from coal and 25% from nuclear plants. While I have some serious concerns about both of those from an environmental perspective, the majority of our electricity does not come from oil, and the majority of our electricity comes from domestic sources.
> 
> Even diesel commuter rail has some advantage over the automobile in energy efficiency that makes diesel commuter rail use less oil. I was talking with a coworker maybe a year ago or so, looking at the traffic stopped on the street where we worked at the time, and he was pointing out to me that the mass of automobile vs mass of human with our typical single occupancy vehicles contributes a lot to the inefficiency. (Something like 4,000 pounds of autombile for 200 pounds of person.)
Click to expand...

Actually, I misspoke--I was thinking more along the lines of pollution and the carbon footprint of energy production. You are correct that oil does not power a significant proportion of power generation.



Green Maned Lion said:


> I know that, living in Alaska, you support oil consumption, and I see your point of view. I also know we have a rotten economy- believe me, being unemployed, I know! But I do not support drilling for more oil in the US, although I do support becoming less dependent on foriegn oil. I know its going to cost a bloody fortune to develop an infrastructure not highly dependent on it.


As an Alaskan, I don't support oil consumption as much as I support oil _production._ I agree that it is in our bests interests and eventually will be necessary to transition away from oil usage.

There will always be arguments about whether it is better to explore for more oil now or later and how fast new oil production can come online versus new developments in technology for power. My main point is that it is beneficial to open ANWR to exploration and development and that it can be done in an environmentally sustainable manner.

I'll likely be moving out of the state before any of it can affect my Permanent Fund Dividend check, so I'd like to think I'm completely unbiased in this...


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Green Maned Lion said:


> I also know we have a rotten economy- believe me, being unemployed, I know! But I do not support drilling for more oil in the US, although I do support becoming less dependent on foriegn oil. I know its going to cost a bloody fortune to develop an infrastructure not highly dependent on it.


Actually, if we stopped spending a bloody fortune in Iraq and spent a fortune building track in the US, it would probably be the same fortune, but vastly less bloody. And I strongly suspect that rail in the US has a better return on investment than war in Iraq.

We shouldn't be so focused on the dollar amounts. We should think about trying to get the demand for workers in the US to match the supply better. And that means that things like building lots of track in the US and starting to require that farming that will be subsidized be organic farming would be very good things to be doing.


----------



## Neil_M

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Actually, if we stopped spending a bloody fortune in Iraq and spent a fortune building track in the US, it would probably be the same fortune, but vastly less bloody. And I strongly suspect that rail in the US has a better return on investment than war in Iraq.
> We shouldn't be so focused on the dollar amounts. We should think about trying to get the demand for workers in the US to match the supply better. And that means that things like building lots of track in the US and starting to require that farming that will be subsidized be organic farming would be very good things to be doing.


Wow! Really subversive talk..... Expect a knock on your door early one morning.... :lol:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

This Wikipedia article includes this illustration of US energy use.







Most of the imported energy seems to be petroleum, most of the petroleum seems to be imported, most of the petroleum seems to be used for transportation, and most transportation seems to use petroleum.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

Most of that chart, at least quickly, is confusing and if my first reaction is correct, it say's that 56% is wasted. I hope I am misreading it.

Mahalo for providing it I will study it some more later

Eric


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

GG-1 said:


> Most of that chart, at least quickly, is confusing and if my first reaction is correct, it say's that 56% is wasted. I hope I am misreading it.


I don't think you're misreading it.

I think the 56% is based on the amount of energy that is theoretically present in the petroleum and other energy sources, vs how much of that energy is actually converted to ``useful work''. For example, many of the types of electrical generating plants work by converting the fuel to heat, and then converting heat to electricity, and for reasons I don't really quite understand, it's apparently impossible to convert 100% of the heat to electricity; some of it is wasted as heat being put into the atmosphere unless you have a combined heat and power plant where the waste steam is used to heat or cool a building. Likewise, every modern automobile has a radiator to get the waste heat away from the engine so that the engine isn't damaged by excess heat. (I think the several decades old VWs are air-cooled instead.)

I suspect that 56% doesn't take into account the waste of driving a 6000 pound automobile when a 4000 pound automobile would work just as well, or the waste of leaving a computer on when it isn't being used.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

More precisely, I think that's saying that of all the energy which is either produced in the US (including that which is exported to other countries) or imported for use in the US, 56% of it is wasted in the US in the course of trying to use some of it for some ``useful work''. The 3% that's exported and 5.9% which is petroleum used for non-fuel purposes isn't included in that count of waste, even though I'm sure some of that 3% gets wasted, too.


----------

