Foreign oil and the Prius

The biggest issue we face in reducing our liquid petro-fuel usage is ... trucks and heavy vehicles. Think of all the long-haul trucks you see every day; delivery trucks; USPS trucks; contractor's trucks; FedEx trucks; garbage trucks; busses. Nearly all of these use diesel and get maybe 12-14 mpg. Some of the larger ones get low single-digit FE numbers.

This article just posted in SeekingAlpha has some interesting stats:
Bullish Case For Westport Innovations - Seeking Alpha

These long-haul truckers can use 24000 gal annually of liquid petro-fuel....each!!! That's the annual usage of 80 Prii at 15000 mpy!!! Get the trucks off liquid dope!!!

One signature and our imports from OPEC are over forever. Bring the troops home. Cut down on the naval presence ( nothing to protect ). Keep the money here at home!!

 

If you mean oil, that's simply not true. US is HUGE NET IMPORTER OF OIL. US oil trade deficit due to NET OIL IMPORTS is close to $500B per year, 70% of US trade deficit.

Please click on the link below and read up. You are getting bad information.

Total U.S. consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil fuels and biofuels, rises from about 18.8 million barrels per day in 2009 to 21.9 million barrels per day in 2035 in the Reference case. The import share, which reached 60 percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 51 percent in 2009, falls to 42 percent in 2035.

Keep in mind that while percentage of US oil needs being imported drops to 42 per cent in 2035 that absolute number will remain close to the same while cost of oil increases so US trade deficit will go up. 50% of 19M today (10M barrels) and 45% of 22M in 2025 (10M). So US Net imports will remain the same, but the percentage of US trade deficit will likely go up pushing $1T tax on US economy as oil prices continue to rise.

Again US is HUGE NET IMPORTER OF OIL. Nothing will change that EXCEPT US getting as energy efficient as Europe which would reduce US oil use by 50%, cutting US trade deficit 70% and cutting US military budget by 50%.

 

oil imports is not 50% of our trade deficit... its only 45.8% as of Feb 2012
Trade Deficit for February 2012 - $46.0 Billion | The Economic Populist

we had a very mild winter which caused oil imports to drop to 225 million in Feb which is a 16% decline in volume, but the price went up making it only a 1.something decline in value.

so we are using less oil (thanks to global warming...now aint that a twist?)

 

Look at the US Dept of Energy hard data.

1. US is big IMPORTER of Natural Gas.
2. Trend line US importation would be zero in 2020

If you switch US transport to natural gas, US gas usage skyrockets and US would remain big importer of natural gas.

Only "free lunch" is getting US to European energy efficient levels. Europeans use 50% less energy per capita, per GDP dollar. That would eliminate US energy imports of oil and natural gas.

The environmental cost of fracking natural gas is huge, especially in scarce fresh water resources. We would lay waste the nation and the world. The path to sustainable world energy lies elsewhere. We can achieve major progress quickly by getting to world energy efficiency standards. US could reduce energy usage by 50% in 10 years.

 

Then explain why Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy says our net petrolum imports are 9.44 million barrels/day and why our dependence on net petroleum imports is 49%? We currently consume about 19 million barrels of oil/day yet our petroleum production is only ~7.5 million barrels/day.

 

Best to stick to yearly numbers vs. monthly fluctuations.

US Net imports are 4 billion barrels of oil.
$120 barrel
$484B
US Trade deficit $731B
66% of US trade deficit.

These are moving targets, recessions, oil prices etc. but the range remains the same.

Decline in oil use is due entirely to effects of recession.

U.S. Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)

 

I'm certain that these imports are for political and logistical reasons primarily with our two biggest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. In fact from this table from EIA you can see that imports only account for about 15% of our national supply.
AEO Table Browser

I recognize the environmental problems surrounding the fracking issue. There's no question that it's something that has to be dealt with responsibly ( cancel the Cheney/Bush exemption to the Clean Water Act that the explorers received ). But this is far easier to do then to fight oil wars in the Persian Gulf.

The graph posted above doesn't account for the recent changes in supply in the continental US; note the sharply downward slope of the graph recently. It's in the last two years that all these new sources of NatGas have come on line flooding the market and filling all the available storage facilities. The prices of NatGas recently plummetted under $2 /million BTU for the first time in 10 yrs. Many including Chesapeake have had to cap wells to stem supply.

The fact that we import limited quantities of NatGas for isolated regions doesn't cancel the benefits of converting our fleet of heavy trucks to NatGas as quickly as possible thus reducing their consumption of liquid petro-fuels.

 

Something is wrong with your data, I believe the DOE has come under some criticism for under-stating USA nat gas production/reserves. Up until last 3-4 years, oil and gas industry was working hard to import more natural gas. LNG (cryogenic) import facilities and pipelines were under planning and/or construction at substantial cost. Now the plan is to reverse the flow and to the extent possible, revamp the planned import facilities to change them into LNG export facilities. I believe some of the first exports (LNG?) are supposed to start from Virginia within a year.

Re: your environmental concerns, EPA is studying nat gas fracking and expects to issue some rulings, very soon I think. At this point, some nat gas production is being shut down due to over-supply and historic low prices.

 

Noted it and stated the fact that US would STOP being a BIG IMPORTER of Natural Gas in 2020 IF TREND CONTINUED.

1. You advocated switching US transport system to NG would would blow it up and require US to import NG at levels same for imported oil. Back to the future.

2. Fracking is disastrous for US water supply, think agriculture, drinking water, health, a decent place to live vs. Love Canal. Current level of NG extraction are not sustainable must less future increases.

US is 50% less energy efficient than Europe. Fix that problem FIRST as it is easy to fix and it solves all US issues oil imports, oil drilling (remember BP destroyed Gulf of Mexico?), air and water pollution, climate change, national security threat, economic costs.

We will not frack and drill our way to eliminating energy imports, eliminating strategic risk to US, eliminating economic cost to US, eliminating environmental damage to US and world. We can upgrade our technology to current world standards of energy efficiency and that WORKS.

 

It contradicts your beliefs?

It's US Dept of Energy data not mine.

It's real world, hard data.

 

We typically talk about North American natural gas, and now there are net exports.

The US peaked in imports in 2007, and has dropped significantly since then. Because of some logistics the us still does some LNG importation, but soon will be a net exporter. Certain parts of the country are better served by mexican or canadian gas pipelines than domestic ones, and these imports should continue. The natural gas boom means that electricity from natural gas is less expensive, and North America has plenty of natural gas. The US is now exporting LNG to Japan and India. Given the way the pipelines work, more US natural gas may be exported to Asia even as the united states continues imports from Canada and Mexico.

Converting the whole fleet to natural gas would again cause a shortage, but some portion of vehicles, especially large vehicles that can hold large natural gas tanks, may be a good way of lessening dependance on OPEC oil. These trucks and buses might be even more efficient as hybrid gas vehicles.

 

First 15% - and declining - is not IMHO a "BIG IMPORTER" ( YOUR opinion ) of NatGas. It's a natural business situation of getting gas from the least expensive ( and politically beneficial ) areas to those customers here who want gas. For example note the footnote to that EIA data I referenced which mentions LPG > gas imported by pipeline from the Bahamas to South Floria. The vast bulk of the imports is via pipeline from Canada and Mexico. These are both politicaly and economically motivated purchases.

This is a erroneous conclusion. As I noted previously the US is considered the Saudi Arabia of NatGas. We have more than enough to satisfy all our needs. Transportation is the largest 'need' by far. Converting the heavy vehicle fleets to NG is well within our supply capabilities, and we haven't found it all yet.

See prior comments on fracking.

But the reality is, NG is the future and everyone in government, exploration, transportation sees that it is. It's vastly abundant; it's now easy to bring to market; it's entirely domestic, except the little bit we bring in from our neighboring friends; it's exportable which benefits our balance of trade account; the technology to use it is well-known; it already has a wide distribution network; the major explorers and marketers are already major players in NG; it burns cleaner than liquid petro-fuel or coal; it enhances our national security and our way of life. It's far less expensive!!

Europe and its citizens are willing to tax and be taxed at much higher rates than we are here. Any significant increase in fuel taxes is immediate political suicide for any official suggesting it. [side note: GM, Ford and the auto industry supplier group that makes parts for the OEMs has been in favor of a big jump in the gas tax since 2008.]

Sorry that you don't agree that NG is the future here but it has so many benefits that it's only a matter of time. We do have to make sure that the drillers and explorers don't ruin the environment while making us self-sufficient. Repealing their exemption to the Clean Water Act is the first step.

 

When Cheney talked about oil imports he included Iraq as the 51st state.

"We" as in US Dept. of Energy, OECD, World Bank etc. etc. do not refer to "North America" when discussing US oil imports, trade deficits, economic impacts etc.

Best to stick to actual facts. If China pays more for oil or gas, Canada or Mexico will ship to China. There is only one world market for oil and gas. Idea that US imports from Canada are "more secure" is a fiction. If Middle East shuts down over Iran-Israel nuclear war, China will outbid the US for the oil.

Again, there is only one world oil market. It's all about US imports and bad effects they have on US national security, US economy, US environment.

 

Saudi Arabia exports oil.
US imports Natural Gas.

There's no comparison.

US will be able to supply it's own natural gas in about 10 years but at a terribly high cost of US ground water if the destructive practice of fracking continues. Also needed will be the deep water wells similar to those that have destroyed the Gulf of Mexico in the BP disaster, about to be visited on US East coast.

As you see from the numbers that would mean US would remain a large net importer of natural gas.

Before doing any of this, first do the easy part of reducing US energy usage by 50% and then decide what energy mix is needed. US cannot survive with $1T energy trade deficit per year topped with $1T in military budget in vain attempt to secure the overseas energy sources. Environment can't survive the high usage either.

 

We`ll just have to disagee and wait until NG does become a major source of transportation fuel.

You really don`t have any idea about economics when you make those comparisons between the US and SA. SA is significantly smaller than the US it doesn`t need as much as we do.

Again the US is NOT a major importer of NG, in relation to its size. We do have enough to supply our needs well into the next century. You can doubt this but time will prove you wrong.

Your suggestion to reduce our energy consumption by 50% is never going to happen. Our population growth and economic growth require that our energy demand will grow. That`s simple economics. What we CAN do is each of us reduce our personal consumption.

 

Well, it would be possible to reduce fossil fuel use by 50% but overall energy use is a different matter entirely. But, I'd just like to correct one point you made: economic growth does not require increased energy demand. Ultimately, it's all about what output you can from primary inputs so increased efficiency can also lead to economic growth.

 

Europe, Japan et al prove you wrong since their energy use per capita and per GDP dollar (the population and economic growth issues you raise) is 50% that of the US.

Will it happen in the US, likely not for the same reasons US has the problem in the first place, the "greed is good" failed economic policies of the last 30 years. The unwillingness of the people to demand constructive long term policies vs destructive short term policies of a faith based vs. fact based ideology.

Facts are killers.

US is 50% less energy efficient per capita per GDP dollar than Europe.
US imports 50% of its energy needs
US pays a $500B per year energy trade deficit tax.
US pays a $500B per year military oil tax.

 

We as in, the people that talk intelligently about natural gas. I'm not sure why you are confused about this. If you look at any data you might realize that there are pipelines going between Canada, United States and Mexico. There is not a pipeline from Iraq. Look at EIA and select international and you will see North America. With pipelines you don't need to liquify and ship.

You realize I am talking abut natural gas here. The price in Japan right now is about 9x higher than in the US. There is not capacity to liquify and ship. There is talk to build this on the gulf coast of the US and on the canadian pacific coast. That would drop the price in asia and raise the price in the US.

Again, you do not understand these markets. As I was talking about natural gas there is not even the capacity to ship much to Japan now.

 

But unrealistically. US is huge net importer of natural gas and will be for the next 20 years.

You advocate massive INCREASE in use of natural gas for vehicles in which case US would swap importation of oil for importation of natural gas. Natural gas would be better because it has significantly lower emissions and that would at least help with global warming.

But in economic and national security terms, US gas trade deficit would replace the oil trade deficit and the military security of Middle East gas fields 30% of world supply replace the military security Middle East oil fields.

Alternatively, US becomes as efficient as Europe and we can be self sufficient in oil and natural gas. Eliminating $500B oil/gas trade deficit tax, eliminate $500B of wasteful military spending. Development of alternative energy solar, hydrogen, biofuels, electric cars and US can further cut its fossil fuel use, create millions of new jobs.

Prius's is the new volks wagen.

 

Our economic and population growth may require that our energy demand grow, but that doesn't mean that it will happen. Easy enough to not have our economy grow. (and that will pretty much take care of the population growth as well.)

Not sure what you mean about reducing our personal consumption. What would that do other than reduce the whole country's energy demand?