Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Well, I was doing this rather quickly. However, here are some current numbers:

You're currently importing about 13,439,000 barrels of oil per day. (source)

Total imports of services and goods was $2,333.4 billion in 2007. (source)

0 Replies

The best I can come up with now is from the following site:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

"Imports: $1.965 trillion f.o.b. (2007 est.)
Imports - commodities: agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys) (2003) "

If oil imports grow to a half trillion, you are looking at a very sizeable portion of all imports, I would estimate 20% perhaps, who knows - depending on where oil prices go. Certainly a far cry from a fraction of 1%, which was obviously and grossly understated.

I repeat that increasing domestic oil production, including ANWR, is not only important, but crucial to our economic well being.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Well, I was doing this rather quickly. However, here are some current numbers:

You're currently importing about 13,439,000 barrels of oil per day. (source)

Total imports of services and goods was $2,333.4 billion in 2007. (source)

I cross posted my above post with this one, but yes, these figures are more like it, and I think the percentage of imports that oil comprises is probably more like 17% or more instead of 0.17%.

0 Replies

2.345 billion is total imports from the census site

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

0 Replies

We interrupt our fascinating program featuring barrels of oil to bring you this brief intermission:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn080624_02_cmyk.jpg

And now back to oil imports which, at whichever huge numbers look best, are huge and much or all of which would be unnecessary if we simply exploited our own reserves. I think that might be looking better and better to some folks who have rather strenuously resisted it up til now:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn080624_01_cmyk.jpg

Funny how global warming seems sort of less of a crisis now, huh?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
Well, I was doing this rather quickly. However, here are some current numbers:

You're currently importing about 13,439,000 barrels of oil per day. (source)

Total imports of services and goods was $2,333.4 billion in 2007. (source)

I cross posted my above post with this one, but yes, these figures are more like it, and I think the percentage of imports that oil comprises is probably more like 17% or more instead of 0.17%.

Well, that's really hard to say. If a lot of the current price of oil is due to the falling dollar, then all the other imports would be more expensive, too. In that case, you maybe wouldn't see much of a change.

On the other hand, it's really kind of hard to even say for how much e.g. ANWR would account. If you go by the mean estimate of 780,000 barrels per day, that'd still be just a rather tiny fraction of the current imports of 13,439,000 barrels per day.

And that doesn't take into account that US demand is projected to go up by another 2,100,000 barrels per day by the time ANWR would be online.

0 Replies

The solution doesn't lie in digging for more oil; it will have to come from a) increased efficiency, b) reduction of its use, and c) utilize other energy sources.

0 Replies

Quote:

The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

The daily/weekly/monthly/yearly price of oil has fluctuated more than these numbers since 2002. Only their market averages have smoothed those fluctuations since 2002.

"Get real."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The solution doesn't lie in digging for more oil; it will have to come from a) increased efficiency, b) reduction of its use, and c) utilize other energy sources.

The solution does not lie EXCLUSIVELY in digging for more oil; it will IN ADDITION have to come from:
(a) increased efficiency,
(b) reduction of use, and
(c) utilization of other energy sources.

Likewise, the solution does not lie in NOT digging for more oil; it will not come EXCLUSIVELY from:
(a) increased efficiency,
(b) reduction of use, and
(c) utilization of other energy sources.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:
The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

The daily/weekly/monthly/yearly price of oil has fluctuated more than these numbers since 2002. Only their market averages have smoothed those fluctuations since 2002.

"Get real."

So, then any statement you made using the EIA estimate was complete Bull Shite? OK.. I can live with that. Could you please retract those statements since you are being so honest here?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The solution doesn't lie in digging for more oil; it will have to come from a) increased efficiency, b) reduction of its use, and c) utilize other energy sources.

The solution does not lie EXCLUSIVELY in digging for more oil; it will IN ADDITION have to come from:
(a) increased efficiency,
(b) reduction of use, and
(c) utilization of other energy sources.

Likewise, the solution does not lie in NOT digging for more oil; it will not come EXCLUSIVELY from:
(a) increased efficiency,
(b) reduction of use, and
(c) utilization of other energy sources.

Uh... Ican, did you forget that we are still drilling for oil? CI didn't say we would stop in his post. I'm going to stop the straw man before you waste your time sewing the buttons on the face.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Drilling for more of our own oil is obviously part of the solution. And it should also be obvious that if we do that, it would be ill advised to ignore the areas that have the most potential for the largest reserves, such as ANWR and offshore. The lower 48 onshore still has potential, but lets admit it lies in areas that were previously thought to be of lesser potential, or deeper or different horizons within areas already explored or produced, or in existing oil fields or recognized reservoirs that may be further produced more efficiently by more refined methods of drilling or production, or in marginal producing wells that were previously uneconomic but now have become profitable because of higher prices.

In other words, why not go for the most potential areas instead of reducing our chances of success by only drilling secondary priorities? Why farm a rocky hillside when you have fertile bottomland to plant and harvest crops? Yes, rocky hillsides are somewhat productive, but it makes alot more economic sense to also farm the most productive land too. Why walk on one foot when the other one may be more healthy? Why not use what you have, and why withhold use of the healthiest foot you have? Why shoot yourself in the foot, when you don't have to? How many analogies will it take to convince people of the obvious?

0 Replies

In case anyone missed it, we imported less of our oil so far this year then we did in the same time period last year, 1.4% less oil.

Funny thing though. More of our oil is coming from domestic sources but the price of oil hasn't dropped. Can you explain that ican, in light of your claim that it would drop by $75?

http://www.oilvoice.com/n/US_Oil_Consumption_Declines/ff895835.aspx
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo

0 Replies

Or, as long as we're dealing in silly questions, perhaps you could enlighten us on how we would not be paying more if we had imported more?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Or, as long as we're dealing in silly questions, perhaps you could enlighten us on how we would not be paying more if we had imported more?

I asked ican to explain a statement he had made.

Are you asking me to explain something I said? If so, please point out where I said it. Or are you only stating that ican's statement was silly so my question is silly?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Or, as long as we're dealing in silly questions, perhaps you could enlighten us on how we would not be paying more if we had imported more?

I asked ican to explain a statement he had made.

Are you asking me to explain something I said? If so, please point out where I said it. Or are you only stating that ican's statement was silly so my question is silly?

Well, you posted links at least one of which clearly explains that lowered demand does not necessarily equate to lowered price. So you answered the question that you are asking Ican. I did mention that it was a silly question didn't I?

0 Replies

Since Parados has proven that importing less oil does not affect the price, then we might as well shut down all the wells here in the U.S., Foxfyre. Why produce the stuff if it doesn't help at all?

I have been living under an illusion my entire life. We might as well quit growing wheat too, after all, it won't cost us any more to make bread. Parados seems to have proven that.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Since Parados has proven that importing less oil does not affect the price, then we might as well shut down all the wells here in the U.S., Foxfyre. Why produce the stuff if it doesn't help at all?

I have been living under an illusion my entire life. We might as well quit growing wheat too, after all, it won't cost us any more to make bread. Parados seems to have proven that.

This morning Fox and Friends asked an economist and an oil guy if increasing the domestic supply would bring down the cost. Both agreed that announcement of a significant increase in supply and refining capacity--we're running pretty much at max right now--would significantly bring down prices though neither speculated how much. And then when we actually had a significantly increased domestic supply, the decrease in prices would be dramatic.

They didn't get into it, but I think neither would have said that a 1.4% difference, up or down, would have much effect at all.

0 Replies

Another thought that crossed my mind this morning is that one of the arguments against inreasing domestic production is that it would take four or five years to get it into the supply chain. Well that's like not going to college because gosh, I would be 30 or 40 when I got my degree. Well you're going to be 30 or 40 anyway so you might as well have a degree too.

Four or five years down the road we will still have an energy crisis on our hands or we can be four or five years down the road with a much improved situation.

So why don't we start now? The only reason I can think of is that the Democrats want Obama in the White House and a veto proof, filibuster proof Congress and they think the higher they can push the misery index for Americans while George Bush is in the White House, the better their chances to accomplish that. So much for having the good of the country at heart, huh.

0 Replies

The primary difference is not what we are paying, it is instead who we are paying. Obviously producing more here in the U.S. would affect the price slightly, depending on how much more we produce, but the most important thing in my view is who we are paying for it. I would rather be paying ourselves for it than paying the Saudis. Not only does it help our economy in more ways than one, it enhances our national security, and our ability to make more reasonable decisions in regard to the Middle East and other places around the world. We can't be held hostage quite as severely by those people that supply us stuff that we need every day.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know