Oil company suppliers

[Bald Eagle]

I got this info from a friend, and haven't verified the accuracy of any of it, but I thought it would be a good start to help porcs who want to spend their money wisely.

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.......................from South America
If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION

Here are some large companies that do NOT import Middle Eastern oil:
Sunoco...................0 barrels
Conoco...................0 barrels
Sinclair...................0 barrels
B P/Phillips...............0 barrels
Hess.......................0 barrels
ARC0.......................0 barrels

[Ron Helwig]

Just an FYI, Citgo is Venezuela (AKA commie Hugo Chavez)

[ancapagency]

Actually, most of the petroleum imported into the US doesn't come from the Middle East.  The top two sources (and I can never remember in which order) are Canada and Mexico.  Saudi Arabia is number three but then numbers four and five are Venezuela and Nigeria.  Followed in no particular order by (if I remember correctly) Chile, Argentina, and some other African countries.  The Middle Eastern countries are pretty low on the list, and some (such as Iraq) aren't even on the list--we get no oil from them.  Russia is of course on the list and climbing.

[Little Owl]

Boycotting companies that import middle eastern oil has no effect.  If they sell less here, they'll simply sell elsewhere.  The only longterm solution is to use less of it.  Nuclear power is about the only hope for that.

[RangerProbst]

I find it interesting that the price of oil continues to skyrocket even after we've stolen the rights to Iraq's oil. Can you say corporate greed?

[EJinCT]

The only longterm solution is to use less of it. 

Agreed; IMO, that is THE most significant step we all can do to decrease our dependency on a limited resource such as oil. Unfortunately, IME, too many are unwilling to change their lifestyle to accomodate such a wide sweeping benefit that it would provide.

Nuclear power is about the only hope for that.

There are also "natural" solutions ( thermal, magnetic, hydro, etc.) that pose much less of a threat to life than nuclear means. The risks associated with nuclear power just do not justify it's use IMHO.

More funding needs to go into the R&D of "alternative" energy production, instead of into the energy companies C.O's yearly bonuses IMO.

[John Edward Mercier]

I believe US oil consumption has been expanding at less than 3% per annum. And I'm unsure of any large solution to such.

[Pat McCotter]

I've always liked this (busy, to be sure) diagram of energy sources/consumption.

[ancapagency]

I think some of y'all are missing the point: This is a self-solving problem if we could just get the government the hell out of the way--Just as, in fact, the whale-oil problem solved itself without government intervention.

The fact is, petroleum is NOT running out--the rising numbers at the pumps are PURELY due to government action.  The combination of government regulatory costs, taxes, and above all INFLATION are to blame for those rising numbers.  The only actual "market" effect on the prices is that all the hype over alternative fuels has made the oil companies reconsider expansion and construction of oil refineries, reducing INCREASES in supply of refined petroleum products.

Remove the regulatory costs and taxes, and adjust for inflation, and gas is cheaper than it has ever been.  The whale-oil problem was rectified due to the increasing ACTUAL cost of whale-oil--caused by an ACTUAL decrease in supply.

Do I believe we will rely on petroleum for our energy needs forever? Absolutely not.  Do I believe there is at present a viable "one source" for all our alternative energy needs? Absolutely not.  But again, and at the risk of sounding like the cliche "The free market will solve the problem."

As for nuclear power, a few notes.  First of all, the "risks" are vastly overstated by Luddites and other power-hungry "Watermelons" (for those who aren't familiar with the term, they're Green on the outside and Red to the core).  All things considered, nuclear power is cleaner and less dangerous overall than hydrocarbons.  THAT BEING SAID--we don't have ANY real data available for a true cost/benefit analysis of nuclear power.  It has been completely subsidized and regulated by government since the beginning, thus NO ONE can tell if nuclear power is actually more cost effective than the present alternatives.  True, all other things being equal it looks like it ought to be, but the simple fact is that without real data, we can't know for sure. 

As for most of the "alternative" energy sources, most of them are either really bad deals from a cost/benefit analysis POV.  Additionally, even the supposed "clean" sources are not so clean--the production of solar power panels is one of the most toxic industries on the face of the Earth, not to mention that the energy requirements to produce them almost exceed the power they will collect over their lifetime.  Additionally, all the cost/benefit figures those who push solar are full of bad data--for example, the idea that the collectors pay for themselves in 15-20 years--not too bad, except they generally have a life span of 5 years at most.  Ethanol is largely bunk--burning out engines faster than gasoline, requiring more energy to produce than it provides, and generally ADDING to pollutants in the air, as well as requiring more acreage than is available to produce.  Wind and water power are of limited use and only in a few locations.  Geothermal requires a hell of a large investment and to be honest, I've never seen a credible accounting of the costs and benefits. 

Not to say that there are no alternatives which may be viable--but most aren't yet, and the problem isn't even real. 

That being said, if the ACTUAL crisis is what it's doing to our wallets, I'm right there with you--and I've already addressed the solution: Get the Government the Hell Out of our Wallets and Gas Tanks!

[John Edward Mercier]

I'm quite sure that the price of a gallon of gasoline adjusted for inflation was cheaper during the mid/late 90s.
The taxes on the State level go to into the road/highway system. The federal gas tax being another story.

[elf]

It's too late to retrofit the infrastructure and layout of our towns and cities.  Few are pedestrian a/o bicycle friendly.  People cling to the illusion of being captain of his own ship - inside the personal bubble of a car.   Most of us don't live near our jobs;  unlike two generations ago.  Not many are able to be their own boss right from their own homes.  That would eliminate the need for so many cars and so much commuting.  Nice to dream about, but that scenario is just not going to happen. 

So I agree, getting the government out of the oil biz is crucial to getting the "problem" under control.   Free market forces will regulate the price and supply.   That is, of course, if we can somehow also get control of our own money and stop the boom-bust cycle again.  That's another thread.

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm quite sure that the price of a gallon of gasoline adjusted for inflation was cheaper during the mid/late 90s.
The taxes on the State level go to into the road/highway system. The federal gas tax being another story.

I don't believe the government numbers for inflation are accurate. They have factored out many things, and bottom line is the cost of groceries, fuel ect. has really been going up at double digit rates lately.

The debasement of the dollar is very evident in our living expenses.

[Little Owl]

There are also "natural" solutions ( thermal, magnetic, hydro, etc.) that pose much less of a threat to life than nuclear means. The risks associated with nuclear power just do not justify it's use IMHO.

There is nothing more "natural" than nuclear power.  That big yellow thing in the sky isn't running on E85.

Most of the so-called "renewable" energy technologies won't scale to anything near what we need for power.  Corn ethanol is just an ADM-enrichment program.

What so many people forget is that almost every energy technology appears to be non-polluting when applied on a small scale.  Solar and wind power sound nice, but they're weather dependent and would surely affect the weather patterns when applied on a large scale.  Not to mention the industrial waste associated with large scale deployment.

The environmental risks of nuclear fission pale compared to the geopolitical and economic risks of dependence on foreign oil.

[mvpel]

[John Edward Mercier]