I didn’t read his statement to mean all refuges are now open for drilling, but rather that no refuge can be expected to last in such a climate. Other such votes may be pending.
O.K., I get that you don’t like the Mr. KABC show. Having established that, could you explain your figures a little better? I don’t see any units or time frame in the chart above, and that chart doesn’t seem to be the same as the one to which you linked. What’s the total amount of oil that the U.S. exports? How is “We don’t export very much?” a valid argument? If the consensus belief is that foreign oil dependence is bad, isn’t exporting any oil illogical? Please don’t get mad; I’m just trying to understand the argument.
The first problem is I copied the wrong link from my scratchpad of EIA links. I apologize profoundly. This link is the correct one.
The units on the chart are in terms of thousands of barrels per year for the whole year, 2003.
The first line says that the crude oil disposition in the US was 5,585,875 thousand barrels to refineries, and 4,538 thousand barrels sent out as exports (highlighted since you asked that specific question). Then as we go down the list, we can see the proportion of refinery products from the crude oil input which are produced for domestic use, and compare this with the amount which are produced for export. At the end line, we see that of total products supplied of 7,312,229 thousand barrels, we exported about 374,710 thousand barrels of product - a very small percentage.
Some of these products are likely being sold internationally due to the ability to get a much higher price from them. Now, your argument as I see it, is why should we export anything if we have a crunch? The simple reason is that other people must have more of a crunch, economically, such that they are willing to pay more for the product than domestic consumers are willing to pay. We are supplying a demand for the product. If you were to ban all exports of products, it would only add a tiny amount back to our balance, and in fact might lead to a net economic reduction - since it’s highly possible that the oil is a pass-through where the US refineries are making it into a “value-added” product.
Plus, IMHO the buyers of these products would just buy from numerous other sources, so the net oil usage of the world would, I feel, likely be unchanged.
Is this more clear, especially now that I’ve linked to the correct graph?
Where do you get these numbers from? The numbers I see (for example here) suggest that cars, SUVs, and light trucks account for somewhere close to 45% of our oil consumption. I find it hard to believe that SUVs then are only at 6%. And certainly, if you consider SUVs and other light trucks together, you’d get considerably more. (Note that this says that SUVs and other light trucks account for 50% of the passenger vehicle market…and although it may be somewhat lower when you consider percentages in use rather than percentage of new vehicles, I don’t think it is that much lower.)
Also, Figure 1 in my first site on fuel economy seems to show the light trucks category as a whole using about 40% more gas per mile than cars.
Hmmm…On the number for fuel efficiency, there seems to be some variations. These numbers for flightwide average from the EPA have light trucks being 25% higher in fuel consumption than passenger cars (17.2 vs. 21.5 mpg), more in line with Sam’s number of 22% for SUVs vs. passenger cars.
From the NHTSA:
[quote]
In 1973, the U.S. transportation sector accounted for 51% of total U.S. petroleum use (8.4 of 16.5 million barrels per day (mmbd)). By 2001, transportation’s share of U.S. oil use had increased to 69% (12.5 out of 18.1 mmbd) (USDOE/EIA, 2002a).
…
When the Automotive Fuel Economy Standards were enacted in 1975, light trucks accounted for only 20 percent of light-duty vehicle energy use. Light trucks account for 40 percent today, and their share is projected to increase to 55 percent by 2020.
…
So the percentage of petroleum that light trucks have used has gone from 10.2% in the 1970’s to 27.6% today. SUVs make up only a portion of that category. Pickup trucks, vans, three-quarter ton trucks are also in heavy use. In 1970 there is no question that SUVs were a small fraction of the light truck category. Today, I’d guess that they make up a significant fraction, but not the majority. There are a lot of pickup trucks out there. I believe the best selling vehicle in America is the Ford F-150 truck.
So SUV’s as a category have gone from being only a couple of percentage points of the overall fleet up to maybe as high as 14% today. The numbers I had seen said SUVs made up 6% of the vehicle fleet, so perhaps it was a few years old. But even if it’s 14%, getting 22% better mileage only changes national fuel consumption by maybe 3-4%. That’s a good thing, no doubt. What it isn’'t, is a solution. If we manage to do this, it simply flattends the curve one time, pushing the same problem a few years down the road. And next time, conserving that much will become harder. And more expensive.
The root problem is that our energy sources are slowly dwindling. If you want to argue that conservation is smart because it buys us time to find a new energy source, that’s fine. If you’re willing to acccept restrictions on the economy today so later declines aren’t as steep, I might accept that as a valid argument, worth debating.
But when people say that the real problem is that we like SUVs, they’re just wrong. Eliminating SUVs entirely would not solve the problem.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Or you can spin it another way - …
Also, the economic benefits should not be taken lightly. 18 billion barrels of oil at today’s prices is 90 billion dollars.
First post so a little confused here with submitting replies - anyway
FWIW the 18 billion barrels of oil at todays price of $50/barrel is $900 billion, not $90!
What is the total estimated reserves of oil worldwide and how does that compare to current and projected oil usage worldwide?
We had better start finding alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. Our government (and industry, etc.) has done an excellent job of postponing and delaying serious efforts in this area so that we can continue to fatten the pockets of our oil companies and their executives. I for one don’t believe that the answer is to keep drilling every hole we can to satisfy our lust for more energy and also who gave us the right to be the gluttons of oil?
Sorry for the rant.
[QUOTE=Waterman]
:smack:
[QUOTE=WatermanI for one don’t believe that the answer is to keep drilling every hole we can to satisfy our lust for more energy and also who gave us the right to be the gluttons of oil?[/QUOTE]
:mad: Hey, whaddaya got against drilling every hole to satisfy lust for . . . oh, wait . . . :o
Thanks for the corrected chart; makes much more sense now.
But I thought the issue was foreign-oil dependance, not oil-company profit. My understanding is that the oil-companies are making plenty of profit.
But I thought the main argument for drilling in ANWR was that we were importing too much oil. I haven’t heard it framed as “We need to do it so we can continue to make more money.”
I’m afraid I don’t know what that means.
But again, I thought the issue was our foreign-oil dependance, not worldwide usage.
Yes it is, and thanks for the info.
I absolutely agree with that. It makes me wonder if it’s not an incurable flaw in the nature of our political system, and if it’s ever possible to put future needs ahead of short-term gain, or if we’re doomed to having politicians only able to satisfy the instant needs of constituents, and having long-term vision be impossible.
It seems to me that if we wait until alternative energy sources are more economically feasible than oil before we even start making an earnest effort, it will already be too late, and we’ll have a serious crisis on our hands. IMO, the time is now.
There’s my rant.