View Full Version : US Oil Exports
BMT (RIP)
04-05-2005, 12:06
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005040512350002903521&dt=20050405123500&w=RTR&coview=
BMT
NousDefionsDoc
04-05-2005, 12:21
Well now, that's messed up in my opinion. They need to get off the G2 and let's see who's doing what.
Airbornelawyer
04-05-2005, 17:23
Political grandstanding.
As the numbers show, oil exports are only a fraction of oil imports, so it's not like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. The article's title says "exporting US oil" and the first paragraph refers to "crude oil prices" but the substance of the article refers to "gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels as well as other petroleum products," which is a much broader category of refined products. We import a raw material, turn it into a product, and either sell it domestically or export it. Sounds like American manufacturing.
Is Ron Wyden against manufacturing? Perhaps he will want a list of American furniture companies selling wooden chairs and tables. We import a lot of trees from Canada, don't we?*
* Yes, the answer is $30.6 billion in lumber and wood in the rough since 2000. That's not counting plywood and woodpulp.
I am at a total loss on this article.
As I have said many times. The problem with gasoilne, #2, JP fuel is that there are only 6 refineries that can make these products in the US. As of last week BP Texas City blew up and shut down production of these products. Leaving 5. The other refineries are are max cap. They can not get any more in or out and the refineries have obligations to contracts that they have to honor.
Plus, if this dude Ron Wyden thinks he is going to come in and try and squeeze the Crude Traders he will really send this country into an energy crunch.
RAT OUT!!!
NousDefionsDoc
04-05-2005, 18:18
Political grandstanding.
As the numbers show, oil exports are only a fraction of oil imports, so it's not like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. The article's title says "exporting US oil" and the first paragraph refers to "crude oil prices" but the substance of the article refers to "gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels as well as other petroleum products," which is a much broader category of refined products. We import a raw material, turn it into a product, and either sell it domestically or export it. Sounds like American manufacturing.
Is Ron Wyden against manufacturing? Perhaps he will want a list of American furniture companies selling wooden chairs and tables. We import a lot of trees from Canada, don't we?*
* Yes, the answer is $30.6 billion in lumber and wood in the rough since 2000. That's not counting plywood and woodpulp.
Not the point. What right do they have not to turn over the info?
Not the point. What right do they have not to turn over the info?
Doc,
The crude trader companies are pvt. They act as a pvt company / individual from what I understand. Enron was the 1st company to try and get into the complex dealings with the crude trade. As well all know they fell right on their ass.
Somethings I don't feel should be out for debate or public domain. MHO.
RAT OUT!!!
NousDefionsDoc
04-05-2005, 18:41
Is crude not considered a strategic national asset?
Ambush Master
04-05-2005, 19:14
I am at a total loss on this article.
The problem with gasoilne, #2, JP fuel is that there are only 6 refineries that can make these products in the US. As of last week BP Texas City blew up and shut down production of these products. Leaving 5. RAT OUT!!!
I have a "Step-Brother-in-law" that is an "Operator" at that plant !! It was only one line that went Bang, and it was in "Shut-Down" undergoing Rework !!! I'll call him and get his opinion. Knowing what it takes to turn a normal shutdown, they may be able to rebuild about as quick !!
Airbornelawyer
04-05-2005, 19:22
This is a shabby attempt to manufacture a political issue. Companies provide their export declarations to allow the Commerce Department to collect data and to ensure that they are complying with the law, i.e., not exporting restricted technology or goods. They should be able to expect some confidential treatment. For the government to disclose that data, whether to the public or to another agency, should require some standard higher than Wyden's bullshit excuse.
How is it bullshit? As I noted, there is no issue here. We mine, extract, grow or import a raw material which we use to make a product, which we then sell, either here or abroad. It is the basis of the American economy. It does not matter whether it is wood or iron ore or coal or crude oil. It does not affect our energy dependence one way or another if US refiners import more crude oil than US consumers need and then sell refined products overseas. If we stopped exporting these products tomorrow, it would not affect the price of gas or heating oil.
The ignorance Wyden is relying on and trying to feed is that we extract our own crude and then turn around and sell it to other countries, when we could be using it ourselves to reduce energy dependence or lower oil prices. Wyden of course does not really favor that - he has consistently opposed ANWR drilling - and it relies on ignorance of oil geology and the oil industry.
It is simple. The United States extracts a fair amount of crude oil, but most of our reserves are in difficult terrain, making it relatively costly to extract. Almost all of what we extract, we use. Total crude oil exports in 2004 were $296,860,000, with almost all of that (97%) going to Canada (where several Alaska pipelines lead).
On a customs value basis, in 2004 we imported $136 billion in crude oil and $38 billion in non-crude. Our crude oil imports were 458 times our crude oil exports.
We refine most of the oil we produce, along with what we import. We also import refined products, partly because of the shortage of refining capacity and partly because of economics - for example, it is cheaper to buy Canadian refined products in the northeast and northwest than it would be to buy them from Texas, since these parts of the US are closer to Canadian refineries than to US.
What our refineries then refine is used to meet demand, both foreign and domestic. What drives the price is first demand and then uncertainty over supply, mainly because of threats to Persian Gulf crude.
To reiterate, we export miniscule amounts of crude. What we export are fuel oils and petroleum products like motor oil. As noted, 2004 crude oil exports were around $300 million. Fuel oil exports were $4,333,052,000 and other petroleum products were $11,205,104,000. That's $15.5 billion to $300 million.
And where do these refined products go?
More than half goes to just 5 countries - Mexico ($3.36 billion), Canada ($2.07 billion), South Korea ($1.12 billion), Singapore ($972 million) and the Netherlands ($569 million).
Thirty countries together account for 90%. Most of these are major trading partners of the US or Western Hemispheric nations dependent on refined products from the United States. These are the 30, ranked by total US exports:
1. Mexico
2. Canada
3. South Korea
4. Singapore
5. The Netherlands
6. Japan
7. Panama
8. Belgium
9. Taiwan
10. Chile
11. France
12. Dominican Republic
13. Guatemala
14. Bahamas
15. Jamaica
16. India
17. China
18. Honduras
19. Brazil
20. Italy
21. Great Britain
22. Australia
23. Peru
24. Venezuela
25. Ecuador
26. Spain
27. Israel
28. Thailand
29. South Africa
30. Argentina
It is utterly irrelevant that oil is a strategic asset. If we stopped selling refined petroleum products tomorrow, it would not affect US demand, any more than cutting down US trees instead of buying Canadian ones would affect US lumber demand.
All it would mean is billions in lost revenue for US refiners who sell their products overseas. And, strategically, it would mean that a long list of countries who rely on the US for petroleum products would have to look elsewhere. Of the 30 countries on that list, only 5 or 6 are major oil producers or refiners themselves. As you can see from that list, many of those countries are of strategic importance to the US; threatening our exports to them does nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign crude but could significantly weaken our influence. If you want to bring in strategy, the strategic calculus is clearly against Wyden's scheme.
Airbornelawyer
04-05-2005, 19:24
I have a "Step-Brother-in-law" that is an "Operator" at that plant !! It was only one line that went Bang, and it was in "Shut-Down" undergoing Rework !!! I'll call him and get his opinion. Knowing what it takes to turn a normal shutdown, they may be able to rebuild about as quick !!
We have a client that provides property & casualty insurance to the oil industry. BP let the policy lapse and went with another insurer about a month before that went bang. Our client dodged a major payout.
NousDefionsDoc
04-05-2005, 19:30
Fine. Now I want to know.
BTW, you do know who I have been working for for the last 10 years right?
Is crude not considered a strategic national asset?
a fair amount of transshipping occurs in the oil business...technically, one could consider swapping US oil from the Pacific basin to Canada for Canadian oil in the Upper Midwest as exporting...
wish you woulda asked this question 14 years ago when i was working on my thesis at the JFK Center...i had some answers then...
I have a "Step-Brother-in-law" that is an "Operator" at that plant !! It was only one line that went Bang, and it was in "Shut-Down" undergoing Rework !!! I'll call him and get his opinion. Knowing what it takes to turn a normal shutdown, they may be able to rebuild about as quick !!
You are 100% right that it was one line but it was the naptha feed line. My new step mom is the VP of operations for BP now. I will try and get more info from her as well.
What I do know is that all the people who were hurt were all sub-contractors. What I was told was that all BP personel were in the Blast Proof Control room.
RAT OUT!!!
Airbornelawyer
04-06-2005, 08:57
If you really want to go after those evil American oil companies "that are shipping U.S. petroleum products to other countries," the solution is easy, of course.
As noted, 90% of these exports go to the 30 countries above.
1. Divide them into four clusters:
a. Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China
b. Singapore, India, Australia, Thailand, South Africa
c. Mexico, Panama, Chile, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Bahamas, Jamaica, Honduras, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina
d. The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Great Britain, Spain, Israel
2. Build a refinery in Canada. Route Canadian crude oil which would be coming to a US refinery to this one. Sell some of the petroleum products and fuel oil to Canadian buyers and export the rest across the north Pacific to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China.
3. Build a refinery in India. Route Persian Gulf crude oil which would be coming to a US refinery to this one. Sell some of the petroleum products and fuel oil to Indian buyers and export the rest to the other countries on the Indian Ocean and in the South Pacific set forth in (b) above.
4. Build a refinery in Mexico. Route Mexican and Venezuelan crude here rather than to Texas refineries. Sell some of the petroleum products and fuel oil to Mexican buyers and export the rest to the other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in (c) above (add in the other Western Hemisphere countries not in the top 30, like Costa Rica, El Salvador and Colombia, and you get closer to 95% of US exports).
5. Build a refinery in southern France. Route Algerian, Libyan and maybe some more Persian Gulf oil there rather than to US refineries. Sell some of the petroleum products and fuel oil to French buyers and export the rest to Israel and the other European countries in (d) above.
Voila! The US no longer "ship[s] U.S. petroleum products to other countries". The world is a happier and safer place, at least for Ron Wyden, the US refiners who probably make more profits because of lower overhead in their non-US refineries, and workers and tax collectors in Canada, India, Mexico and France.