TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush to lift executive ban on drilling offshore drilling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush to lift executive ban on drilling offshore drilling - Page 3

post #61 of 72
Here are the top countries from which we import oil (Canada is the largest):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

...and here's the US petroleum product exports by destination or product, monthly or annually:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...X_mbblpd_m.htm

Laurie
post #62 of 72
Thread Starter 
Thanks LDG, good info.

So, out of 8 million + bbls a day that we produce we export 14,000 bbls a day to Canada. I got it now.
post #63 of 72
I didn't realize we imported so much oil from Canada. To be honest I didn't know that Canada was such a large producer of oil.
post #64 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Thanks LDG, good info.

So, out of 8 million + bbls a day that we produce we export 14,000 bbls a day to Canada. I got it now.
You seem to have missed this footnote on the same page;

Quote:
Notes: Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. See Definitions, Sources, and Notes link above for more information on this table.
There are a lot of Pacific Rim countries.

...and what happened to Puerto Rico?

ETA: Something else just occurred to me. If they start offshore drilling again, what's to keep them from simply increasing the export amounts of the oil that has no restrictions by an equal amount? Would that not simply allow them greater trading ability on the world markets without making any difference at all here?
post #65 of 72
The footnote mentions how crude oil exports are restricted. According to the table, the only unrefined crude exported was to Canada (in each month of 2008).

But if we're going for complete accuracy, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA):

US production of crude in 2007: 5.1m bbls/day

US imports of crude in 2007: 13.4m bbls/day
2007 Imports Breakdown:
approx 6m bbls/day from OPEC countries,
approx 7.5m bbls/day from non-OPEC countries
.....of which, 2.2m bbls/day comes from the Persian Gulf,
and 2.4m bbls/day comes from Canada

US consumption of crude in 2007: 20.7m bbls/day

US exports of petroleum products in 2007: 1.4m bbls/day,
....of which 27,000 bbls/day was unrefined crude oil, all of it to Canada.

As to Puerto Rico, according to the EIA, we exported 9,000 bbl/day of processed petroleum products in 2007.

The Fox report was wrong.

All of this is available in the tables at that link to the EIA. (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...X_mbblpd_a.htm) You just have to pick products, destination, or the tabs at the top for imports, exports, consumption, etc., and whether you want the info monthly, monthly in bbls/day, annually, or annually in bbls/day.

To put our consumption of oil into perspective, Total North American consumption in 2006 was approx. 24.8m bbls/day, Europe & "Eurasia" together consumed approximately 20.5m bbls/day, Central & South America together consumed 5m bbls/day, the Middle East consumed 6m bbls/day, Africa consumed 2.8m bbls/day, China consumed 7.5m bbls/day, total Asia/Pacific (including China) consumed 24.6m bbls/day.

China is the #2 consumer of oil behind the US, and surpassed Japan for the #2 spot in 2003.

This info came from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2007 (the data comes from the EIA).

Laurie
post #66 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Thanks LDG, good info....
Thank you. It's what I do for a living.

Laurie
post #67 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
The footnote mentions how crude oil exports are restricted. According to the table, the only unrefined crude exported was to Canada (in each month of 2008).


Laurie
I do understand that. But the way that I'm reading those restrictions is that exports are restricted to only being of oil from those areas. Which means to me, that they are the crude that can be exported. And if oil from those fields can be exported with so few restrictions, then next month may show many more places than Canada. They may just decide to start shipping to the entire Pacific Rim.

I have learned a lot reading up for this thread though. I had no idea that crude oil could be traded, and change owners, numerous times while it's still on the supertanker. Even the captains hardly ever know from day to day who the oil they're transporting belongs to, unless it's an oil producers exclusive ship.
post #68 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
ETA: Something else just occurred to me. If they start offshore drilling again, what's to keep them from simply increasing the export amounts of the oil that has no restrictions by an equal amount? Would that not simply allow them greater trading ability on the world markets without making any difference at all here?
According to the footnote on the EIA data page, crude exports ARE restricted, as you already quoted. Though interestingly, the footnote does say that California crude can be exported to Pacific Rim countries. Part of the area covered by the ban that would potentially be lifted is off the Coast of California. So I guess if that area is developed, nothing would prevent trading ability on world markets.

But increasing production through the lifting of this ban wouldn't have any impact for years. Estimates are that it would take a minimum of 3 - 5 years to bring any production online. And given that the largest growth in consumption is coming from China, I doubt any increased production from the lifting of the ban would have much of an impact on prices due to the lack of refining capacity, etc. All it would do is replace imports, but the overall world growth in demand worldwide would continue to drive production and potentially prices.

Like I wrote earlier, I don't think the problem with oil prices is supply.

Laurie
post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
According to the footnote on the EIA data page, crude exports ARE restricted, as you already quoted. Though interestingly, the footnote does say that California crude can be exported to Pacific Rim countries. Part of the area covered by the ban that would potentially be lifted is off the Coast of California. So I guess if that area is developed, nothing would prevent trading ability on world markets.

But increasing production through the lifting of this ban wouldn't have any impact for years. Estimates are that it would take a minimum of 3 - 5 years to bring any production online. And given that the largest growth in consumption is coming from China, I doubt any increased production from the lifting of the ban would have much of an impact on prices due to the lack of refining capacity, etc. All it would do is replace imports, but the overall world growth in demand worldwide would continue to drive production and potentially prices.

Like I wrote earlier, I don't think the problem with oil prices is supply.

Laurie
Thank you again I'm actually approaching this subject trying to learn. I tried earlier today to read up on Import/Export/Marketing, and found out that there are literally millions of pages of information out there on this. Thank you for a simple answer
post #70 of 72
Sorry, I gotta add one thing.

In our analysis, the problem with oil prices is not supply, it is refining and rig capacities worldwide and in the U.S. And the problem with production is not access to oil rich territory - only with $35 per barrel oil is that a problem. We have the technology to exploit the banned offshore coastal areas safely? We also have the technology to exploit existing fields, and the economics of oil at $85 per barrel and above make so many reserves that were previously economic (in non-banned areas) totally economic.

So this whole thing is ludicrous.

The real problem is national policy, and one easy and simple thing to address production - if the government decides domestic production is the issue - would be to change leasing policies on existing fields.

Laurie
post #71 of 72
Thread Starter 
It is very good to know that the vast, vast majority of oil we produce, stays right here.
post #72 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Because there is not enough oil there to make it worth their while.

You don't send someone out in the desert to get a drink of water, you send them to the lake.

The Environmentalists and the Democratic Party have single handedly made us dependent on foreign oil. That is it in a nutshell.

I think it is a travesty. Unless people want to continue to be dependent on foreign oil they will do something about it.
You're absolutely right that there is not enough oil to make it worth their while. Oil fields are abandoned when it is no longer profitable to pump the oil out- not when the field is dry.

However, environmentalists and democrats have not single handedly made us dependent on foreign oil. We, the consumers, have made ourselves dependent on foreign oil as we expect to maintain the high quality of life to which we're accustomed. Rising powers (such as China), are increasing their own demand for oil as their quality of life improves...

If we (Americans) maintain the current rate of consumption, we have only enough oil for a few years. (I posted a link somewhere on this board about the amount of oil in our reserves.) This might be a good reason to hold on to our own resources a bit longer...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush to lift executive ban on drilling offshore drilling