Is the US a NET exporter of OIL

A while back Tiassa made this remarkable claim:

in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2910835&postcount=10

Now I found that frankly amazing, that after all the discussions about what we could do to lessen our reliance on foreign oil, that Tiassa for some reason had come to the conclusion that: Not only had we lessened our reliance on foreign oil, but we had infact become a net SOURCE of oil to the world's oil market.

I wondered, where was I when this MASSIVE change in the flow of oil INTO the US had reversed itself and become a flow of oil OUT of the US?

(The US uses ~20% of the world's oil, and so if we were to simply stop importing oil (forget exporting it) the oil supply would increase to the rest of the world by 13% and drive prices back to VERY low levels)

Nah, I thought, he has to have read something wrong, and so I replied:

Well he promptly sent back his sources with a snarky rejoinder that I must have missed this huge turn around in the flow of oil because I was absorbed with mindless TV programs:

Of course I looked at his sources and as expected they didn't support the conclusion that we had reveresed the flow of oil and as such become a net EXPORTER of oil.

So my contention is pretty simple:

The US was NOT a Net Exporter of OIL in 2011.

We in fact imported FAR more OIL then the relatively small amount we exported in the form of refined fuels.

What do you think?

In 2011 was the US a net exporter of OIL or not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was posted in politics because the orignal assertion that the US was a net exporter of oil was in Politics.

Besides, why do you say it's an opinion poll James?

Indeed I think it is all about the FACTS behind our oil imports vs oil exports.

I posted Tiassa's sources that he claims supports his long standing contention that the US was a net exporter of oil in 2011 and I posted my critique of that claim and the EIA data that refutes that contention.

I've been going back and forth with Tiassa on this forum for a long time now on this issue, and even after giving him source after source, fact after fact, he STILL contends that his assertion, that the US was a net exporter of OIL in 2011 is correct.

I thought this might be a way for others on the forum to convince him that he is mistaken in this belief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We can simply refer to the recent speech by Obama on this very subject:

http://inhabitat.com/president-obam...y-american-businesses-through-energy-savings/

Well the World uses 87 million barrels of oil per day.

20% of that is 17.4 million Barrels per day

So how much do we produce of that?

World oil production was 87,500,000 barrels per day in 2011

The 3 top producers were in barrels per day:

1 Russia 10,540,000 @ 12.01% 2011
2 Saudi Arabia 8,800,000 @ 10.06% 2011
3 United States 7,800,000 @ 8.91% 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

Which means if we USE 17.4 million barrels per day and we only produce 7.8 million barrels per day then we IMPORT nearly 10 million Barrels per day of OIL.

When you compare this to the piddly amount of Distallate fuel we export (Net about 300,000 barrels per day) it is quite clear that we are NOT a net exporter of oil.

 

By David Zeiler, Associate Editor, Money Morning

The United States has become a net exporter of fuel for the first time in more than 60 years. That simple fact could drive oil-company profits for at least the next decade.

It's also another sign of dramatic shifts in the energy industry, with consumption declining in the United States and rising in emerging economies.

The United States exported 98 million barrels more of fuel than it imported in the first 10 months of 2011. Just a few years ago, in 2005, the country imported almost 900 million barrels of fuel.

"It looks like a trend that could stay in place for the rest of the decade," Dave Ernsberger, global director of oil at Platts, told The Wall Street Journal. "The conventional wisdom is that U.S. is this giant black hole sucking in energy from around the world. This changes that dynamic."



http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...utiQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEfD7z8BAsFrqKSh7WI3Tu2nCexyA


So it looks like Tissa is correct according to this document.

 

No, that's a net exporter of FUEL.

Fuel is made from oil, but exporting some fuel is not the same thing as being an exporter of oil.

We IMPORT 10 million barrels of oil per day, we export a small fraction of that as fuel, about 300,000 barrels of day.

This chart shows the huge gap we have between production and use.

It only goes to 2009, but there was no significant change in the numbers by 2011.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I c.

 

Yes, we are the reverse of many of the middle east countries which import fuel, but export far more oil.

Unlike the US, they simply don't have the refinery capacity.

But even though Iran imports a lot of fuel, they are a large NET exporter of oil.

In 2011, we were a small net exporter of fuel, but still imported 10 million barrels per day of oil

Which is a LOT of oil.

 

That is why we should find alternative ways for using different fuels and not be hooked on just one source.

 

The underlying question, and a dose of reality

The underlying question of Adoucette's objection is whether we adhere to a strict definition of oil meaning only crude petroleum, as opposed to an application that refers to the oil/petroleum sector.

And of this question, we can conclude our neighbor thinks he knows better than the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing magazine, an industry journal that has published since 1922. When people, apparently including the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing, discuss our oil situation, they frequently use a broader definition than our neighbor demands. Indeed, we might note that the EIA's "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data" includes, in its body, "distillate fuel" and "propane/propylene" inventories.

So now Adoucette apparently knows better than the EIA, as well.

I would be much more sympathetic to his point if it was anything more than contrarian trolling intended to distract from the point that 2011 was a year for the petroleum sector like we haven't seen in over six decades.

And that point is important in the context of the former thread because Republicans have made a talking point out of misrepresenting President Obama's record on issues related to oil and energy. And this, of course, was the point our neighbor wanted to distract people's attention from.
____________________

Notes:

Energy Information Administration. "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending April 13, 2012". April 18, 2012. IR.EIA.gov. April 22, 2012. http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf

 

In fact, and much to the chagrin of folks like Arthur, the low cost of US energy brought about by unprecedented increases in oil and gas production under the Obama administration is one of the major factors affecting the Renaissance in American manufacturing now underway in the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577325582170978416.html

 

Of course we are a net importer of oil. We only have a tiny amount of the world's reserves, but we are the leading consumer.

 

Except the first post AFTER you made that assertion, that the US was a net exporter of OIL, I suggested that maybe YOU were using something other than a strict definition of OIL.

And that's when you offered the sources I linked to above, saying they supported your claim that in fact it was OIL that we were a net exporter of and you were not in fact discussing differnet Distillate fuels.

As to the EIA and ALL of those sources, they indeed do follow a rather STRICT definitions of the terms.

From your EIA source, notice how they refer to EACH product by it's unique name:

In the first paragraph they talk about OIL imports:

This also gives us the magnitude of our imports of OIL.

OVER 9 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL PER DAY are IMPORTED into the USA.

And no, they do not use the term OIL when they refer to any of the Refinery outputs:

Same thing when they refer to Inventories:

First they talk about OIL inventories:

Then after discussing OIL, then they talk about Gasoline and Distillate fuel inventories:

So, No Tiassa, the EIA gives us the specific figues on Gasoline, Distillates and Propane as UNIQUE items, and also distinct from the OIL figures.

And I've included that link to Hydrocarbon Processing and NO, they don't use a BRODER definition, they give specifics just like the EIA dose and they never once claim that we were a net exporter of oil.

Not at all.
Indeed this has nothing to do with Obama's record, and bringing that in is just an attempt to lay smokescreen since we haven't been a net Exporter of oil since the 50s, so this has nothing at all to do with any recent politics or anything to do with Obama.

In fact I quoted Obama and his correct summation that we use 20% of the world's oil.

But as Spidegoat pointed out, we do not produce anywhere near 20% of the world's oil, so no, we are not a net exporter of oil, and aren't likely to ever again become one.

Except that isn't the issue and that's not what you claimed.

You specifically said we were a NET EXPORTER OF OIL.

We are not.

Our many refineries produced a bit more gasoline and other fuels than we needed in 2011, to the tune of about 300,000 barrels of fuel per day, but that amount of excess fuel we sold abroad was indeed DWARFED by the nearly 9,000,000 barrels of OIL per day that we had to import.

 

Nothing in that article addressed the question as to whether we are a net exporter of oil

So Joe, do YOU think that the US is a NET exporter of oil?

 

Did I say the US was a net oil exporter? No.

The whole reason for this thread is because you got caught in another thread trying to advance the Republican party line that President Obama has retarded US energy production and is therefore responsible for recent increases in the price of gasoline.

It was pointed out to you that the US is number one a net exporter of fuel for the first time in nearly 62 years. It was also pointed out to you that US oil production has for the first time in decades increased under the Obama administration. You then attempted to divert attention with various spurious claims, each throughly debunked. And now you are trying to split hairs on oil production.

The bottom line is the US is now a net fuel exporter. The bottom line is that the low cost of fuels in the US (e.g. natural gas) is in part fueling a manufacturing boom in The United States.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html

So all this Republican nonsense about President Obama causing fuel prices to increase and retarding economic development just flies in the face of reality. That is the very unpleasant fact for you and your fellow Republican/Tea Partiers.

 

Yes, and we have been a net importer of oil since the early 50s.

 

Untrue.

My first short post in that thread was a simple statement of fact, that clearly was NON Political (post 9)

In the very next post is when Tiassa made his claim that we were a Net Exporter of Oil.

My response to that pointed out that we were a net exporter of Distillate fuels and not of oil and suggested that mixup was the source of his confusion.
Again, a totally non-political response.

Again just facts and unlike your claim Joe, it was a totally NON-POLITICAL response.

 

Right, and I suppose you have a bridge you want to sell me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Pay Close Attention

Pay Close Attention

Okay, Arthur, I would like you to pay close attention to what follows in this post.

And let us be clear about that:

• "I suspect you got that fractured fairytale from a badly worded headline somewhere." (#2910972/11)

• "Because you believed the HEADLINES and apparently didn't bother to actually read the articles." (#2911296/14)​

You're noting the difference between the headline and the body of the article. While this is not in itself an invalid argument, it seems that you presume nobody else can figure out the difference, or else, well, you're observing a different definition than the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing magazine.

Now, in the first of the above-cited posts, you quoted the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Implied in the first of those cited posts, and explicitly declared in the second, you argued the difference between the headline and the body.

Looking to the EIA, a federal administration to which you appealed as an authoritative source, we also see, as I have already noted, the headline of a regular report: "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending April 13, 2012".

Contained within the body of that report, we see consideration of "distillate fuel", and even "propane/propylene" inventories.

Let us review:

• Headline: "Petroleum" (i.e., "Oil")

• Body: "distillate fuel" and "propane/propylene" inventories​

It would seem that even the source you appealed to—the EIA—does not adhere to your strict definition.

In other words, sir, you are the outlier here. And that's well and fine, except for the problem that arises when you insist that your definition should trump, say, the editors of a ninety year-old industry journal and the Energy Information Administration, the latter being an authoritative source you chose to invoke.

You are the outlier.

Your definition, while technically not incorrect, is situationally inappropriate.

Insisting on your own definitions is your problem.

Look around. That lack of sympathy you're experiencing? The chortles and chuckles you're seeing? That is what they're about, sir.

That lack of credibility people invest in you? That is nobody's fault but your own.

This is why people think you're a troll. This is why people find your arguments ridiculous. This is why you have no credibility in this community.

It's your own choice, Arthur. You can keep making a fool of yourself, with all the risks of ridicule, or you can try making decent and honest points.

As long as you choose the former, and eschew the latter, people are going to keep laughing at you.

That's all it comes down to. That is all there is to it. This is not rocket science, sir. This is not brain surgery. This is not theoretical mathematics.

Rather, this is a simple matter of whether or not you are going to go out of your way to humiliate yourself.

And so far, the answer to that is pretty clear.

After all, when you argue that your definition trumps that of a longstanding industry journal and the federal administration you appeal to as an authoritative source, it's hard to figure out what you expect of other people except to laugh their asses off at your futile flailing.

 

The EIA and others use the term PETROLEUM as the general term for ALL oil based products, Oil, gasoline, diesel etc, but that doesn't help your argument at all.

But because it is a general term that includes ALL forms of Oil and oil based products you STILL can NOT say that we are a NET exporter of Petroleum.

We export a small amount of refined petroleum based fuels but we import FAR more Petroleum in the form of crude oil, so we are a huge NET importer of Petroleum.

The same would be true if you tried to use the term OIL in place of Petroleum as a general term for Oil based products, we would STILL be a NET importer of OIL.

Only when you break Petroleum down into it's sub components and specifically break out the statistics for one of the smaller catagories like REFINED DISTILLATES, can you come up with a sub-category of Petroleum that we were a net Exporter of, but then you have to state it for that sub-catagory, you can't apply stats that ONLY apply to the sub catagory of gasoline to the LARGER term OIL or Petroleum.

One would think that is so obvious Tiassa, particularly on a science forum, that it doesn't need to be stated.

Ah, no Tiassa, it doesn't matter if you use the term Oil or Petroleum to represent all oil based products, including gasoline and distillates.

Your statement:

Is simply wrong because we imported over 9 million barrels per day of oil into the US in 2011 and exported less than 1 million barrels per day of oil based fuels, so NO, no matter HOW you try to twist the definition, we were NOT a net exporter of OIL in 2011.

And NO Tiassa, Hydrocarbon Processing does not agree with you on this. Indeed you can't come up with a quote from that article that supports your claim that we were a NET exporter of Oil in 2011.