Posted on 04/09/2008 2:08:56 PM PDT by Dallas
WHERE TO BUY YOUR USA-GAS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. READ ON--
Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.
These companies import Middle Eastern oil:
Shell...........................205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco.........144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil...............130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway...117,740,000 barrels
Amoco..........................62,231,000 barrels
Citgo Gas comes from South America, from a Dictator who hates Americans.
Here are some large companies that DO NOT import Middle Eastern oil:
Sunoco................0 barrels
Conoco................0 barrels
Sinclair.................0 barrels
BP/Phillips...........0 barrels
Hess....................0 barrels
ARC0...................0 barrels
Also: Pilot, Flying J, Love's, RaceTrac, Valero.
All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing.
Just sent messages to a bunch of major conservative think tanks inquiring as to whether more accurate information has been/can be developed to make a boycott effective.
adjective
1. of goods or commodities; freely exchangeable for or replaceable by another of like nature or kind in the satisfaction of an obligation
Well, yes, I know what fungible means and that's exactly what I pointed out in my previous post.
I meant no offense.
How many times will we respond to this old and bogus email?
Let me look for prior responses.
For starters, the snopes article is clear the status is FALSE.
As an example, ConocoPhillips and BP (incorrectly called Conoco and BP/Phillis) both are importers of crude oil from Iraq, Oman and Saudi Arabia.
For that information and more, you can find list of what each company imports each month from each country at:
Company Level Imports Historical
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/cli_historical.html
All of 2006 can be found in a single spreadsheet:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/historical/2006/data/impa06d.xls
The top of each column lets you filter this massive amount of data such that you can see only the crude oil imported by BP.
Heavy on the alleged. Several false claims in it.
Valero has imported crude oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
No it is not. It is based in San Antonio, Texas, and incorporated in Delaware.
Its major stockholders can be found here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=VLO
The same base gasoline is used at all the stations. The majors add their own unique additive that cleans injectors and the like.
Arco (Atlantic Richfield) was bought up by BP in 2000. BP has an unbelieveable stranglehold on US supplies and infrastructure.
U.S. crude oil production peaked in 1970 and has declined gradually since then. In 1970, domestic production of crude oil (including lease condensate) averaged 9.64 MMbbl/d. In 2006, total U.S. domestic crude oil production, including Federal offshore, averaged 5.102 MMbbl/d. That is straight-line decline of 126,000 bbl/d annually over those 36 years.
The United States contains over 500,000 producing oil wells, the vast majority of which are considered "marginal" or "stripper" wells, generally producing only a few barrels per day of oil. According to EIA 2005 annual report (appendix B), the top 100 producing liquids fields comprised 56% of total 2006 "liquids" - crude oil and lease condensate combined - production. And the top 100 "liquids" fields by reserves, comprised 68% of total U.S. proven reserves. Just to maintain the current declining domestic crude production entails annually drilling 5,000 new domestic wells.
This chart shows the breakdown of petroleum products yielded from one barrel of crude.
In 2006 U.S. jet fuel useage amounted to 21 billion gallons. The crude oil fraction which kerosene jet fuel can be distilled amounts to about 12.3%; and so crude oil refinery input for kerosene jet fuel amounts to about 11.116 MbblOE/d.
Current U.S. refinery inputs total about 14.2 Mbbl/d (presently at 83% of operable capacity utilization). Of that amount, about 10.1 MMbbl/d is imported. Present U.S. production of kerosene aviation fuel amounts to about 1.4 Mbbl/d (or about 11.4 MbblOE/d).
Moreover, over the course of the past 6 periods, the four week moving average for imported kerosene jet fuel is about 159,000 bbl/d (or 1.29 MbblOE/d).
Furthermore, it should be noted that the figures cited are Mbbl of actual crude oil demand and does not address the total domestic demand of 22.5 MbblOE/d. While we may only import 10.1 Mbbl/d of actual crude, we actually import almost 14 MbblOE/d. The difference being all those other things that are found in a barrel of oil (as shown in the chart per the link above).
Current proven domestic oil reserves amount to about 21.757 BBL (a/o 05 Dec 31). At current production input levels, that would be sufficient for a little over four years.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Interior, there are approximately 10.4 BBL of technically recoverable oil available in ANWR. It is plausible this could amount to about 1.4 Mbbl/d of production.
On 6 Sep 06 Chevron, Devon Energy and Statoil (the Norwegian oil giant), were reported in the International Herald Tribune that they had found 3 to 15 BBL in several fields in the GOM.
While it is too early to know exactly how big the fields are, the oil companies expressed "hope" those fields might exceed those at Prudhoe Bay, off the northern coast of Alaska. If so, that would mean that discovery could increase U.S. "proven" reserves by 50%. What's that do but prolong the inevitable by how many years?
They said the reserves where 175 miles, or 282 kilometers, offshore and located at 30,000 feet, or 9,144 meters, below the gulf's surface, among formations of rock and salt hundreds of feet thick.
It would take more than a year of drilling to confirm the value of the find, and the depth of the water will make extraction extremely expensive - profitable only if oil prices remain at or above $40 a barrel, according to oil industry analysts. This is on par with oil shale extraction.
According to a survey conducted by the RAND, a surface retorting complex (mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil prices are at least US$70 to US$95 per barrel. Once commercial plants are in operation and experience-based learning takes place, costs are expected to decline to US$35–US$48 per barrel after 12 years. After production of 1000 million barrels, costs are estimated to decline further to US$30 – US$40 per barrel.
Currently, Shell has plans to go operational with a shale processing plant by 2010. It is hoped that 1 Mbbl/d could be produced within 5 years (and production of 3 Mbbl/d within 10 years thereafter).
According to the U.S.G.S. in 1995, total conventional undiscovered fields in all 8 U.S. regions (as defined by the U.S.G.S) at $30/bbl amounts to 17.4 BBL. Furthermore, all 8 regions are speculated having an additional 1.1 BBL of "probable" or "possible" reserves at $30/bbl. What production rates one could expect from those regions are totally unknown.
But the bottom line is there's no way the U.S. can meet its crude oil requirements domestically (not long term that's for sure). I believe a best case scenario would be a doubling of present cruide oii production levels. Even then there'd still be 30% deficit of just crude oil input requirements (at present levels). If one wants to domestically account for the ENTIRE 22.5 MbbOE/d, there is absolutely NO WAY.
There are a number of suggestions that can be made as to ways that current domestic demand might be met domestically, and how new technologies may be developed to spring into the breach. A good response to that claim is that one can't have a baby in a month by making nine women pregnant. Technological innovation takes time, and the introduction of new answers must be validated through steps that are each of significant temporal length.
Dixie Lee Ray was asked about that very thing once and she pointed out that EVEN IF a miraculous silver bullet technology (the candidate at the time may have been cold fusion) had already been validated in a test tube in some laboratory, that it would take over 20 years before it would have any significant impact on US energy supply. The reason being initial experiments have to be validated, then designed for, and approved at a larger - bench scale, and run at that scale, and then the process must be repeated at a prototype scale with permits being obtained and construction approved, and funding found, and then again the proces smust be run for some time to ensure it works at that level. Then an initial pilot plant must be developed through the same process, and then the first full-scale plant. If each of those processes takes a finite number of years, you may understand how quickly she reached the 20-year time to significant impact.
The other issue that needs to be addressed, even if one could (and just suppose for argument's sake that it is indeed possible) what happens to the global price of crude should the U.S.A. wean itself from the crude oil teat so to speak? What becomes the financial calculus then for domestic crude suppliers?
Valero sells the cheapest gas around - I'll give it a try now.
FRegards,
I have seen it claimed here before. You need to have doubts about such claims that are not supported with information. I try to catch those in this industry.
Nope. Not what I said or insinuated whatsoever. In fact all of your parentheticals suggests to me that you didn’t actually read what I wrote, are reading-comprehension disenfranchised, or perhaps that your preconceived notions are so foundationl to your reasoning that you can’t be bothered with facts. At best your position appears to me to be very muddled and shows evidence of a dearth of critical thinking skills.
First off, oil is NOT the sum total of U.S.A’s “energy” equation. A lot of liberal enviro-wacko tree-maters move their lips in such manner to make it sound as if the “solution” to our “oil” problem are electric automobiles. If one took all the autobomiles off the road and replaced them with electric types, what would happen to the power grid? What happens to the power grid there presently during the summer time?
I’ll concede that there are issue concerning environmental regulations pertaining to building additional electric-power plants, and petroleum refineries. I’ve already stated that presently refineries are operating at 83$ operational capacity (@ 14 Mbbl/d input - 5 Mbbl/d are domestic supply). So how will additional refineries solve the problem?
Where do you suggest that the differential in crude oil inputs can be found? I’ve described physical limitations of known reserves, not arbitrary constraints imposed by environmental regulations.
I don’t understand your position where you state that “It sucks that if we had dared to begin 40 years ago we wouldn’t be in this spot today.” Dared to do what 40 years ago? It sucks that capitalism dictated that 40 years ago it was cheaper to get oil from the ME rather than any other source? What was the price of oil 40 yeas ago?
You think it sucks that 40 years ago domestic gasoline and all petroleum byproducts should be priced against a minimum of $30/bbl THEN? Your last paragraph make me believe that you’re in the 4th or 5th grade and are trying to break out of the liberal indoctrintion that you’ve been exposed to at government school centers; but that lacks any critical thinking whatsoever. It would seem to me that you’ve replaced a bankrupt liberal pie-in-the-sky utopian environmental yearning for a Edan redeux with some other sort of unrational perspective.
The fact of the matter is tht we do NOT have sufficient oil reserves for you needs. Nor do we have sufficient electrical power generating capacity for our needs (at present) and continued growth demands a 4% annual increase of the existing capability. Hydroelectric, wind, solar and nuclear will NOT meet our needs in the immediate and forseable future.
The fact of the matter is that we can’t dig up the whole country for the coal that we have and is absolutely required as fuel for the electrical power we need presently (nevermind changing the entire country over to electric cars). Nor is nuclear the answer to the energy problem. We already have an issue of waste that exists, and the fact is that there’s about 100 years of known reserves avaiable GLOBALLY to satisfy global demand for electrical power generation.
Nuclear power MIGHT be a viable option given the reserves that are known to exist IF nuclear waste can be reprocessed. And tree-maters would have NO issues about that whatsoever, if but for re-processing nuclear waste has nucleasr weapons proliferation aspects, i.e., creation of weapons grade plutonium. I’m not certain about the specifics, but re-processing of spent fuel would allow re-use of existing waste material to be re-used 3, 4 perhaps 5 and maybe even 5 times. How do you feel about N. Korea reprocessing spent nuclear waste?
How do you feel about a law that mandates electrical power generating companies charge for their services such that a normal $22/month electicity bill becomes a $200/month bill (I pay $22/month for my monthly 235 KwHr of juice). However, suppose that by law the electric power SUPPLIERS were required to pay $500/month for the same 235 KwHr/month juice from “independent” providers. “Independent provider” is anybody who puts up a wind turbine and is connected to “the grid” where excess power is put into “the system”; that person gets credited for the difference.
That’s what’s happening in Germany. Presently in Germeny there are solar panels everywhere you look (including all up and down the highway medians and embankments). I wonder what sort of automobile accident liability that comes with. Like weeds the wind turbines are sprouting EVERYWHERE, and I mean EVERYWHERE.
They have more enviro-wackos over there per capita then we do, and yet they are STILL short of their electrical needs by 30%. SO they buy the difference from France which is 80% nucler reliant.
The fact of the matter is tht unless we figure the global power problem pretty quickly, we ALL are in a world of hurt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.