The Truth About Foreign Oil
Take this quick quiz about our dependence on foreign oil:
1. What percentage of oil used in the US comes from the Persian Gulf?
a. 15% b. 25% c. 50% d. Over 75%
2. What country is the largest source of US oil imports?
What is the next largest?
a. Iran b. Iraq c. Saudi Arabia d. Canada e. Kuwait f. Mexico g. Venezuela
The answers from the June, 2007, issue of The Lamp, published by Exxon Mobil are:
1. a
2. d and f (in that order)
Here is the complete list of sources of oil used in the United States: (rounded to whole percents)
United States : 34 %
Canada & Mexico: 21
South America : 12
Africa : 15
Persian Gulf : 15
Other : 3
Are you surprised at how little of our oil comes from the Gulf and how much from the Western Hemisphere? I was! In fact, Saudi Arabia (for whom the US would do almost anything) is only our third largest foreign supplier, after Canada and Mexico.
Americans need to know this, because our foreign policy, including military action, is affected by public perception of our dependence upon Arab oil. Older readers will remember the 1973 Yom Kippur War, after which Arab states cut-off oil shipments to the US to protest American support for Israel. In case of another war in the Middle East, could the Arabs wreck the US economy by cutting off oil again?
Given the bellicose statements by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, coupled with that country's support for terrorism and continuing enrichment of uranium, I would estimate the chances of a war involving Iran within the next five years or so at more than 50%. Although the US does not buy Iranian oil, the destruction of Iran's pipelines and export facilities (highly probable if Iran goes to war) would cut the world oil supply enough to drive crude prices through the roof everywhere, which would hurt the US economy. If the war also involved other oil-exporting nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Kuwait, the effect would be even more devastating worldwide.
Although it is beyond our power to control events in the Middle East, peace in the region is important for our economic interests. However, we must not allow the oil-producing countries to intimidate us into accepting their demands. Even if we do nothing to achieve energy independence, we could survive a total cut-off of Middle Eastern oil for an indefinite time. What we pay for their oil is a more important factor in their economies than their oil is in ours!
Nevertheless, the US should still take effective steps to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, if only to ease the potential harm to our economy if the supply is disrupted in the future. I expect that this will become a major issue in the 2008 Presidential Election. But will any of the candidates tell us this "inconvenient truth" (to use Al Gore's phrase): every effective measure to reduce dependence upon imported oil will reduce our standard of living in some respect. Here are our cholces:
Reducing Oil Consumption: Congress is considering raising gas-mileage requirements for American cars. A good idea, but that will result in lighter-weight cars made of thinner materials, so that collisions will be more expensive and injurious.
Replacing oil-burning electric power plants with nuclear or coal-fueled generators wouldl cut oil imports, but will require higher electric bills for consumers in the affected areas to amortize the cost of new construction. Both nuclear and coal plants have environmental problems, which can be expensive to ameliorate.
Synthetic fuels, which can be produced from corn, soybeans, or other crops, could replace petroleum, but right now they are even more expensive than imported crude oil. If world oil prices get anywhere near about $100 per barrel, synthetics will boom.
Raising the federal gasoline tax, an idea pushed constantly by NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, could cause some people (mainly lower-income) to drive less and thus conserve oil. Members of Congress with any hope of being re-elected will not vote for a tax big enough to have any significant effect.
Increasing Domestic Oil Production: For example, Congress could permit drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as advocated in the March 6, 2005, Glazerbeam (1).
The caribou won't like it, but fortunately they can't vote.
Another idea is to extract oil from the huge amounts of bituminous shale rock in both the western US and Canada. The trouble is that shale-oil, like synthetic fuel, is more expensive than imported oil at today's price. As the price of oil rises due to increasing worldwide demand, shale-oil will eventually become economically viable.
New Techology: If we could run cars on electricity,or some other form of energy, we could kiss OPEC good-bye and the real price of oil would decline in world markets. Electric cars and hybrids exist today, but have not attained mass appeal. Considering the enormous strides in science and technology made in the century since gasoline-powered autos were developed, it seems likely that a new "generation" of autos could replace the internal-combustion engine before long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Frozen Asset". The land needed for drilling, including roads, housing, and all infrastructure, would use less than one percent of ANWR.
1. What percentage of oil used in the US comes from the Persian Gulf?
a. 15% b. 25% c. 50% d. Over 75%
2. What country is the largest source of US oil imports?
What is the next largest?
a. Iran b. Iraq c. Saudi Arabia d. Canada e. Kuwait f. Mexico g. Venezuela
The answers from the June, 2007, issue of The Lamp, published by Exxon Mobil are:
1. a
2. d and f (in that order)
Here is the complete list of sources of oil used in the United States: (rounded to whole percents)
United States : 34 %
Canada & Mexico: 21
South America : 12
Africa : 15
Persian Gulf : 15
Other : 3
Are you surprised at how little of our oil comes from the Gulf and how much from the Western Hemisphere? I was! In fact, Saudi Arabia (for whom the US would do almost anything) is only our third largest foreign supplier, after Canada and Mexico.
Americans need to know this, because our foreign policy, including military action, is affected by public perception of our dependence upon Arab oil. Older readers will remember the 1973 Yom Kippur War, after which Arab states cut-off oil shipments to the US to protest American support for Israel. In case of another war in the Middle East, could the Arabs wreck the US economy by cutting off oil again?
Given the bellicose statements by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, coupled with that country's support for terrorism and continuing enrichment of uranium, I would estimate the chances of a war involving Iran within the next five years or so at more than 50%. Although the US does not buy Iranian oil, the destruction of Iran's pipelines and export facilities (highly probable if Iran goes to war) would cut the world oil supply enough to drive crude prices through the roof everywhere, which would hurt the US economy. If the war also involved other oil-exporting nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Kuwait, the effect would be even more devastating worldwide.
Although it is beyond our power to control events in the Middle East, peace in the region is important for our economic interests. However, we must not allow the oil-producing countries to intimidate us into accepting their demands. Even if we do nothing to achieve energy independence, we could survive a total cut-off of Middle Eastern oil for an indefinite time. What we pay for their oil is a more important factor in their economies than their oil is in ours!
Nevertheless, the US should still take effective steps to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, if only to ease the potential harm to our economy if the supply is disrupted in the future. I expect that this will become a major issue in the 2008 Presidential Election. But will any of the candidates tell us this "inconvenient truth" (to use Al Gore's phrase): every effective measure to reduce dependence upon imported oil will reduce our standard of living in some respect. Here are our cholces:
Reducing Oil Consumption: Congress is considering raising gas-mileage requirements for American cars. A good idea, but that will result in lighter-weight cars made of thinner materials, so that collisions will be more expensive and injurious.
Replacing oil-burning electric power plants with nuclear or coal-fueled generators wouldl cut oil imports, but will require higher electric bills for consumers in the affected areas to amortize the cost of new construction. Both nuclear and coal plants have environmental problems, which can be expensive to ameliorate.
Synthetic fuels, which can be produced from corn, soybeans, or other crops, could replace petroleum, but right now they are even more expensive than imported crude oil. If world oil prices get anywhere near about $100 per barrel, synthetics will boom.
Raising the federal gasoline tax, an idea pushed constantly by NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, could cause some people (mainly lower-income) to drive less and thus conserve oil. Members of Congress with any hope of being re-elected will not vote for a tax big enough to have any significant effect.
Increasing Domestic Oil Production: For example, Congress could permit drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as advocated in the March 6, 2005, Glazerbeam (1).
The caribou won't like it, but fortunately they can't vote.
Another idea is to extract oil from the huge amounts of bituminous shale rock in both the western US and Canada. The trouble is that shale-oil, like synthetic fuel, is more expensive than imported oil at today's price. As the price of oil rises due to increasing worldwide demand, shale-oil will eventually become economically viable.
New Techology: If we could run cars on electricity,or some other form of energy, we could kiss OPEC good-bye and the real price of oil would decline in world markets. Electric cars and hybrids exist today, but have not attained mass appeal. Considering the enormous strides in science and technology made in the century since gasoline-powered autos were developed, it seems likely that a new "generation" of autos could replace the internal-combustion engine before long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Frozen Asset". The land needed for drilling, including roads, housing, and all infrastructure, would use less than one percent of ANWR.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:51 AM
2 Comments:
Excellent post.
There is one point regarding gulf oil not mentioned however. While we may import only 15% from gulf, if we lost this or any 15% it would create a massive depression in the USA. The USA worries about gulf oil because the American oil is not a worry, it comes from friends and stable countries.
So you are correct that we could probably do without gulf oil if we had effective conservation programs, alternative sources and a third possibility you did not mention: i.e. drilling in Alaska and/or Gulf of Mexico.
There is another general point regarding oil you did not mention and that is oil reserves are in fact increasing not decreasing. Every year the amount of oil reserves we have in the world goes up not down. The media has us believe that there is a shortage of oil, but the facts say otherwise. Just this month very large new reserves of oil were found off of Africa.
The main problem of gasoline is not oil it is refining plants. We have bult no new refining plants in about 30 years therefore we are always in a gasoline shortage even though there is no oil shortage.
I take issue with one point you wrote. You said "Congress is considering raising gas-mileage requirements for American cars. A good idea, but that will result in lighter-weight cars made of thinner materials, so that collisions will be more expensive and injurious." Considering that safety requirements are strict and have "increased" over time, there is no reason to assume that lighter-weight vehicles will be any less safe. In fact, race cars, made from aluminum honeycomb and carbon fiber, are significantly lighter than production automobiles yet (almost) infinitely stronger and safer. People believe that less weight means less safety; not true - energy dissipation techniques are extremely effective and in most cases not dependent on weight but on material properties such as strength, elasticity, and the like. However, use of such materials might raise prices of vehicles. But again, I think that safety will remain equal or even get better with lighter-weight vehicles.
Post a Comment
<< Home