Oil Notes
President Bush says we're addicted to it, but how much do Americans really know about oil, this junk we've got ourselves hooked on? For that matter, how much does President Bush know? The stats over at the petroleum pages of the Energy Information Administration (Dept. of Energy) make me think not enough.
If you're like me, you probably thought we imported more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other country, right? The Saudis certainly came up in the State of the Union this week. Well, close, but not quite. As of 2004, at least, the leading exporters of oil to the United States were, in descending order:
There are plenty more such fun facts on file at the EIA. It's not a bad place to start if we really want to come to grips with, and talk honestly about, our addiction.
If you're like me, you probably thought we imported more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other country, right? The Saudis certainly came up in the State of the Union this week. Well, close, but not quite. As of 2004, at least, the leading exporters of oil to the United States were, in descending order:
- Canada
- Saudi Arabia
- Venezuela
- Nigeria
- Iraq
- Saudi Arabia
- Russia
- United States
- Iran
- China
There are plenty more such fun facts on file at the EIA. It's not a bad place to start if we really want to come to grips with, and talk honestly about, our addiction.
5 Comments:
I don't think these stats are correct. I've read a lot that says the contrary. Besides, what's your point your trying to make?
Speaking of Venezuela: How might the rankings and pie slices change if what Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday is true:
"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."—AP: "Rumsfeld likens Chavez's Rise to Hitler's"
Hitler? Gosh, how can we stand by and let some Hitler-like ruler exist in Latin America? Maybe regime change is the only decent option. We can pay for it with the country's oil revenues (from oil sold to us), and the locals will be grateful. It's been a while since we had a splendid little war down there.
This is going to be a tough addiction to break.
Anonymous, you say, "I don't think these stats are correct." Well, all I can do is refer you to the links in the post. These are the official stats from the Department of Energy. If you have other, contradictary sources, by all means, share them. My point, if I have one, is simply that we should know more about this stuff we're addicted to. Also, I think it's fascinating. The fact that we get 19 percent of our oil from the Persian Gulf, but 18 percent from Africa? That's amazing. Again, if you have stats to the contrary, please share.
Dear Pat,
I found the stats you laid out (courtesy of the Department of Energy) pretty interesting -- and yes, surprising.
An "anonymous" commenter wanted to know what your point was. One point worth noting is that in his State of the Union speech, President Bush announced that, "Breakthroughs on this ["this" referring to new ethanol technologies] and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
I firmly believe that reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil is a great goal -- both for our national security and for the preservation of our environment -- but, if as your graph showed, we're only getting 19% of our current oil from the Persian Gulf, and we're only going to cut that by 75% in the next 15 years, then isn't that a lame way to end an addiction? Isn't that a bit like cutting down on the Budweiser 75% over 15 years, while still sucking down martinis from your home-brewed gin non-stop?
It also raises a lot of questions about whether Bush's goal of reducing use from that specific area is really feasible considering the workings of OPEC and considering actual petroleum reserves -- a much different issue than current sources of supply.
An "anonymous" writer also questioned your basic facts. I think "anonymous" was surprised -- not truly sceptical of your Department of Energy sources. But you ought to check out a recent NY Times article on news releases from NASA (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3). The article mentions a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office who sent an email saying, "The word 'theory' needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, 'It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.'
Perhaps Mr. Deutsch has been fudging the numbers at DOE as well.
It seems to be accepted that oil resources are declining and that demand for petroleum is increasing world-wide. Therefore to not pursue alternative energy resources would be foolish. Knowing the stats is always useful. More stats: while the U.S. is the leading producer of wind generated electrical power in the world, as a percentage of our total electrical power generated, it is less than 0.4% While Spain, Germany, and Denmark all generate less electrical energy that the U.S., as a percentage of total electricity generated per country the figures are about 10%, 10%, and 20% respectively. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that a goal of at least 20% for the U.S. is practical and wise.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main