Originally Posted By: Tempest
Got a link showing that?
You don't believe we import 67% of our oil?
Got a link showing that?
You don't believe we import 67% of our oil?
T. Boone Pickens Speaks
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
66.19% as of 2007 (the most recent year available), per the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy.
Mexico and Canada provide the majority of our imported oil.
Mexico and Canada provide the majority of our imported oil.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Lets guess why there is'nt enough oil being sucked from this here USA
Cause there isn't enough.
Are you be positive of that fact?
Yes, quite positive.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Lets guess why there is'nt enough oil being sucked from this here USA
Cause there isn't enough.
Are you be positive of that fact?
Yes, quite positive.
Gotta' ask twice I guess. Got a link for that?
A link for what? The percentage of oil imports?
Take yourself to the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy.
Take yourself to the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy.
Quote:
Cause there isn't enough.
I don't doubt that there isn't enough domestic oil to support our need entirely, but there certainly is enough to lower prices and make a dent in the speculators. Just looked what happened when the prez. rescinded the exec. order.
Cause there isn't enough.
I don't doubt that there isn't enough domestic oil to support our need entirely, but there certainly is enough to lower prices and make a dent in the speculators. Just looked what happened when the prez. rescinded the exec. order.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Tempest. The globe is too developed. Infinite demand based on price. We're getting all we want. No limits ..no lines ..no shortages. The price is (mainly) due to the lower worth of our US$. Now I'm all for "keeping it in the family" ..so to speak. I've always wanted that for stuff like manufacturing ..etc..etc. No one seemed to think that mattered too much
I mean, I figured if you didn't have employment where the cost of living was included with the production of the product, you can't maintain a standard of living ...or so I reasoned.
Most of our price increase is due to a falling US$. Bringing that back up to par is not going to magically happen over night.
Most of our price increase is due to a falling US$. Bringing that back up to par is not going to magically happen over night.
You have been arguing all this time about our use (squandering) of energy and had no idea we were importing (2/3 of our oil lolz.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm
The United States consumed 20.7 million barrels per day (MMbd) of petroleum products during 2006 making us the world’s largest oil consumer. The United States was third in crude oil production at 5.1 MMbd. In addition to crude oil, significant contributions to U.S. petroleum supplies came from natural gas plant liquids, refinery gain, and alcohol fuels. However, we still needed 13.7 MMbd of imported crude oil and petroleum products to meet U.S. demand. The United States also exported 1.3 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products during 2006, so our net imports (imports minus exports) equaled 12.4 MMbd.
66.2% Dependent on foreign oil.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm
The United States consumed 20.7 million barrels per day (MMbd) of petroleum products during 2006 making us the world’s largest oil consumer. The United States was third in crude oil production at 5.1 MMbd. In addition to crude oil, significant contributions to U.S. petroleum supplies came from natural gas plant liquids, refinery gain, and alcohol fuels. However, we still needed 13.7 MMbd of imported crude oil and petroleum products to meet U.S. demand. The United States also exported 1.3 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products during 2006, so our net imports (imports minus exports) equaled 12.4 MMbd.
66.2% Dependent on foreign oil.
Last edited:
Here's one: steer the profits from oil speculating into renewable energy instead of into a Swiss bank account. If it's as lucrative as people make out, then speculators who chase that strategy will eat their slice of the oil pie on the elevator of renewable energy. After all, the renewable stuff we have so far is small potatoes compared to what we'll need to use the oil to build to replace the oil at some point. Anyone who gets in on the ground will be the next oil, er, renewable energy baron.
Another thing you should consider is that just because there's some oil in the ground, doesn't mean oil companies can or will get it out profitably if the price of oil doesn't remain high.
And as for oil shale, which the world has a lot of, do you think it actually contains crude oil? Do you think oil companies are going to want to invest in expensive exploration and drilling operations if the price of oil goes back below $100 a barrel.
And as for oil shale, which the world has a lot of, do you think it actually contains crude oil? Do you think oil companies are going to want to invest in expensive exploration and drilling operations if the price of oil goes back below $100 a barrel.
Quote:
You have been arguing all this time about our use (squandering) of energy and had no idea we were importing (2/3 of our oil lolz.
2 people have stated that we do not have enough domestic oil. Is it so hard to get a link showing their point?
You have been arguing all this time about our use (squandering) of energy and had no idea we were importing (2/3 of our oil lolz.
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Another thing you should consider is that just because there's some oil in the ground, doesn't mean oil companies can or will get it out profitably if the price of oil doesn't remain high.
And as for oil shale, which the world has a lot of, do you think it actually contains crude oil? Do you think oil companies are going to want to invest in expensive exploration and drilling operations if the price of oil goes back below $100 a barrel.
Threatening nationalization and windfall profit taxes sure is not a way to motivate them.
Another thing you should consider is that just because there's some oil in the ground, doesn't mean oil companies can or will get it out profitably if the price of oil doesn't remain high.
And as for oil shale, which the world has a lot of, do you think it actually contains crude oil? Do you think oil companies are going to want to invest in expensive exploration and drilling operations if the price of oil goes back below $100 a barrel.
Threatening nationalization and windfall profit taxes sure is not a way to motivate them.
Quote:
Anyone who gets in on the ground will be the next oil, er, renewable energy baron.
The real motivation of Pickens and Mr. Internet inventor.
Anyone who gets in on the ground will be the next oil, er, renewable energy baron.
The real motivation of Pickens and Mr. Internet inventor.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Anyone who gets in on the ground will be the next oil, er, renewable energy baron.
The real motivation of Pickens and Mr. Internet inventor.
And what's wrong with that?
Seriosuly, I don't get it. You're a free market guy I thought.
It's only OK when people make money from oil?
Quote:
Anyone who gets in on the ground will be the next oil, er, renewable energy baron.
The real motivation of Pickens and Mr. Internet inventor.
And what's wrong with that?
Seriosuly, I don't get it. You're a free market guy I thought.
It's only OK when people make money from oil?
I have no problem with that, as long as they are honest about what they are doing and don't expect help from taxpayers. Neither is true about either man.
If we're (and I'm using the global "we") prepared to subsidise oil, corn to ethanol, and any one of the lobbied industries, then assisting windfarms is a "level" playing field.
I'd rather all of the subsidies, up front and hidden were removed, the tru cost of petroleum was reflected at the pumps, and Pickens could then compete on a truly level playing field.
Pick your poison.
I'd rather all of the subsidies, up front and hidden were removed, the tru cost of petroleum was reflected at the pumps, and Pickens could then compete on a truly level playing field.
Pick your poison.
Shannow, that still wouldn't make up for the fact that most businessmen in high positions are short sighted greedy people who can't see past the next 90 day reporting cycle. If they weren't, GM wouldn't have been caught unprepared and there would be more reasonable alternative energy schemes ready to go.
Except for a few people like Pickins they are just a bunch of short sighted money grubbers. Pickens is out to make money too, but his aim is to take some intelligent risks and make money by preparing for the future instead of business as usual.
Except for a few people like Pickins they are just a bunch of short sighted money grubbers. Pickens is out to make money too, but his aim is to take some intelligent risks and make money by preparing for the future instead of business as usual.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
You have been arguing all this time about our use (squandering) of energy and had no idea we were importing (2/3 of our oil lolz.
2 people have stated that we do not have enough domestic oil. Is it so hard to get a link showing their point?
I won't give you a link, but I'll give you numbers and tell you where to look to verify them.
Current US consumption is a little less than 21 million barrels a day. Less these last few months, but still up there.
According to the USGS, proven reserves in 2007 were about 21 billion barrels. Do a little math.
Recently the USGS released new estimates for the Bakken formation and ANWR of 3-4.5 billion barrels probably there, but not actually discovered in the Bakken formation, and a cumulative production toal for ANWR over a 12 year period of 4.3 billion barrels.
Proven reserves mean there is 80-90% probability of recovery.
If there are oil deposits on US territory that will make up the massive difference between what the USGS believes there is and what US consumption is, I would be very interested in knowing where they are.
It's possible that an area off northeast Greenland may have upt to 110 billion barrels, but then...I said possible, and last I heard, Greenland doesn't belong to us.
Now if you want to talk about oil shale and tar sands, you can come up with larger numbers, but I suggest you research what one actually gets out of shale and sands and what's involved.
Quote:
You have been arguing all this time about our use (squandering) of energy and had no idea we were importing (2/3 of our oil lolz.
I won't give you a link, but I'll give you numbers and tell you where to look to verify them.
Current US consumption is a little less than 21 million barrels a day. Less these last few months, but still up there.
According to the USGS, proven reserves in 2007 were about 21 billion barrels. Do a little math.
Recently the USGS released new estimates for the Bakken formation and ANWR of 3-4.5 billion barrels probably there, but not actually discovered in the Bakken formation, and a cumulative production toal for ANWR over a 12 year period of 4.3 billion barrels.
Proven reserves mean there is 80-90% probability of recovery.
If there are oil deposits on US territory that will make up the massive difference between what the USGS believes there is and what US consumption is, I would be very interested in knowing where they are.
It's possible that an area off northeast Greenland may have upt to 110 billion barrels, but then...I said possible, and last I heard, Greenland doesn't belong to us.
Now if you want to talk about oil shale and tar sands, you can come up with larger numbers, but I suggest you research what one actually gets out of shale and sands and what's involved.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: XS650
Shannow, that still wouldn't make up for the fact that most businessmen in high positions are short sighted greedy people who can't see past the next 90 day reporting cycle. If they weren't, GM wouldn't have been caught unprepared and there would be more reasonable alternative energy schemes ready to go.
Except for a few people like Pickins they are just a bunch of short sighted money grubbers. Pickens is out to make money too, but his aim is to take some intelligent risks and make money by preparing for the future instead of business as usual.
Yep ..most businesses are grabbing NOW and failing later. Much of it falls into privatized profits and socialized costs too. It may filter through a few things first ..but that's how it ends up. Long term investment just really evaporated in the 80's
Shannow, that still wouldn't make up for the fact that most businessmen in high positions are short sighted greedy people who can't see past the next 90 day reporting cycle. If they weren't, GM wouldn't have been caught unprepared and there would be more reasonable alternative energy schemes ready to go.
Except for a few people like Pickins they are just a bunch of short sighted money grubbers. Pickens is out to make money too, but his aim is to take some intelligent risks and make money by preparing for the future instead of business as usual.
Yep ..most businesses are grabbing NOW and failing later. Much of it falls into privatized profits and socialized costs too. It may filter through a few things first ..but that's how it ends up. Long term investment just really evaporated in the 80's
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
I have no problem with that, as long as they are honest about what they are doing and don't expect help from taxpayers. Neither is true about either man.
I keep trying to understand here, Tempest ..but I really have a hard time getting a grip on your disposition toward this. There's no downside to renewable energy or energy independence. All that it ever has to do, regardless of cost, is work out on an energy balance sheet in that it produces more than it consumes in its creation. Let's put it this way. I don't care if every wind turbine produced ever makes a profit. The utilities can play Hollywood accounting and everyone can attach more riders on its back than a well employed "working girl/guy" on a busy night.
We currently pay to secure and defend strategic oil reserves and we don't see that cost at the pump. We also secure and defend these strategic reserves for others who are under our defensive umbrella. WE PAY that cost.
What I can't figure out, and I'm truly trying here, is what do you "want" and what do you expect as an outcome ..and whom shall it benefit ..and how will it benefit the nation (and in much smaller case letters and said at a lower volume - almost mumbled) ..and the American people???
I have no problem with that, as long as they are honest about what they are doing and don't expect help from taxpayers. Neither is true about either man.
I keep trying to understand here, Tempest ..but I really have a hard time getting a grip on your disposition toward this. There's no downside to renewable energy or energy independence. All that it ever has to do, regardless of cost, is work out on an energy balance sheet in that it produces more than it consumes in its creation. Let's put it this way. I don't care if every wind turbine produced ever makes a profit. The utilities can play Hollywood accounting and everyone can attach more riders on its back than a well employed "working girl/guy" on a busy night.
We currently pay to secure and defend strategic oil reserves and we don't see that cost at the pump. We also secure and defend these strategic reserves for others who are under our defensive umbrella. WE PAY that cost.
What I can't figure out, and I'm truly trying here, is what do you "want" and what do you expect as an outcome ..and whom shall it benefit ..and how will it benefit the nation (and in much smaller case letters and said at a lower volume - almost mumbled) ..and the American people???
- Status
