The Oil Drum | U.S. Oil and Gasoline Import Statistics

55 comments on U.S. Oil and Gasoline Import Statistics

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

x on April 25, 2008 - 11:18am

Wealth transfer is largely ignored in the ethanol debate. This is no small matter.

Those who reject biofuels will find their economies constantly being drained of economic wealth to pay for energy unless they switch to solar/wind or some such. They will have to be very good at using the energy they import to make enough economic gain to keep it up.

It will not be easy to do since they must compete with all the other energy importers who are trying to do the same thing. In a declining economic environment brought on by Peak Oil it may get harder and harder to pull off.

This is also the situation within the the United States as well. States that can produce their own energy, whether from fossil fuels or from biofuels, will have an easier time than those who do not. Non producing states will find that wealth is being transferred to energy producers.

One reason the USA rose to be the dominant force in the world was its vast energy resources that were instrumental in the outcome of World War II for example.

In the past energy producers like Texas have become the dominant force in the country. I believe that is a main reason why we have had 3 Presidents from Texas in the last 45 years: Johnson, Bush and Bush II. They have helped set the agenda to favor oil in one way or another including even wars for oil in two cases.

In the future it might be that biofuel states will rise to be a more powerful force as oil becomes ever more expensive. States who reject ethanol will find their economies weakened by the outflow of economic gain to pay for energy compared to those who ebrace it.

This is already happening in Iowa. Locally Winnebago Industries is faltering, but the biofuel economy is saving the day.

Those states that I see declining are not the oil producers like Texas, but the now financially and culturally powerful like California, Florida and New York.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Peak_a_Boo on April 25, 2008 - 11:42am

Biofuel is but a blip in the gasoline supply...and if it continues to come from corn and rice we will continue to see the disastrous results

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

steph3p on April 25, 2008 - 12:16pm

Both California and Florida are solar power resource rich and both have climes suitable for 265 day cultivation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

VeloVol on April 25, 2008 - 12:35pm

In the past energy producers like Texas have become the dominant force in the country. I believe that is a main reason why we have had 3 Presidents from Texas in the last 45 years: Johnson, Bush and Bush II. They have helped set the agenda to favor oil in one way or another including even wars for oil in two cases.

Sure, energy-producing states may have greater wealth than a similar, energy-importing state. But your statement about presidents doesn't follow. Perhaps it's just coincidence, or because Texas is a big state.

My memory of the 1988 election isn't that good, but Bush II didn't explicitly campaign on an oil agenda in 2000. And Johnson became president because Kennedy was shot.

Several recent presidents have come from cotton-producing states. Should we attribute their victories to that?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rosswurm on April 25, 2008 - 3:31pm

Wow, I finally met someone else that is pro ethanol? I am a corn farmer from nw Ohio and no doubt benefiting from ethanol. I agree with most that ethanol doesn't solve the energy problem as discussed on this forum. But minus the subsidies and mandates if ethanol can stand on its own, profit wise, then more power to it. Would not this be a way for modern agriculture to continue to function when the peak oil crisis arrives? Use part of our own acres to grow bio-diesel to run our tractors and combines and still be profitable. Maybe I am not thinking of everything, or I am missing something.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Robert Rapier on April 25, 2008 - 3:54pm

Wow, I finally met someone else that is pro ethanol? I am a corn farmer...

So is the guy you were responding to. It shouldn't be surprising that corn farmers are pro-ethanol, as they are the ones benefiting the most from it. But what do you say to people like my dad - a cattle rancher - who has money flowing out of his pocket and into yours? I am all for farmers making a good living, but make no mistake that it's coming at the expense of a lot of other people who are also working hard to make a living.

But minus the subsidies and mandates if ethanol can stand on its own, profit wise, then more power to it.

Do you honestly believe that it can? A subsidy alone couldn't do it, so they slapped a mandate on top of that. Why is a subsidy even needed when a mandate is there? (Hint: To hide the true cost of production).

Funny thing to me is that the corn lobby likes to say that ethanol mandates aren't responsible for high corn prices: It's those darn fossil fuel prices. Makes one wonder then how renewable ethanol actually is when fossil fuel prices have such a large impact on the industry. Eh?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

InJapan on April 25, 2008 - 5:53pm

Do you honestly believe that it can? A subsidy alone couldn't do it, so they slapped a mandate on top of that. Why is a subsidy even needed when a mandate is there? (Hint: To hide the true cost of production).

You forgot something.... the TARIFF!

So, in order to get ethanol production in the US from corn, the US by law of Congress:
1) Mandates use;
2) Subsidizes blenders;
3) Applies tariffs to keep out lower cost imports.

Even with all of this, the actual impact upon the need for the US to import oil and finished product is difficult to detect in the actual data.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rosswurm on April 25, 2008 - 6:07pm

Robert,

When it comes college educated your far smarter than me. But why the cynical attitude?

Ethanol infrastructure wasn't built so subsidies and mandates were needed to get it going.

Hog farmer here also! Actually losing $30 to $40 a head right now. Hog market will eventually rise to fix that. THEN, consumers can say ethanol is driving up food prices!!!! Can't say it right now! Sorry, I don't care what the mainstream press says. I wish you smart people here would look into also instead of just listening to sound bites and sucking it all in!

Big oil got its subsidies just like ethanol is now. I am all for removing all subsidies and mandates over say a two year period and then see if ethanol stands on its own!!!!!

Yes, I believe it can.
Yes ethanol is responsible for hi corn,soybean,wheat,prices directly. But ethanol isn't responsible for food shortages or food crises currently!
It's all about money creation worldwide.

Also Robert, I would appreciate your thoughts on the following post I made to another web sites talk forum.

"Not sure how to word this. But, by using corn for fuel, is it any different than when they used so many acres per farm to feed horses to do the transporting and work on the farm? I have always been of the opinion that ethanol will not be a solution to an energy crises for the masses. Nor will it solve the peak oil problem to come.
But shouldn't modern agriculture be able to function ok even with energy shortages and peak oil problems in the future, by using our own bio-fuels, perhaps even bio-diesel processed on our own farms. Not smart enough to know these things for sure! Any comments?"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mbnewtrain on April 25, 2008 - 8:58pm

I have a friend that is benefitting from the ethanol boom in that his company makes components for the plants. He is not a believer in the economic viability of it in the current arrangement - ethanol plants burning huge amounts of nat. gas and the subsidy of $0.51 per gallon. However, in the situation where the ethanol plants can use waste heat from a power plant in the fermentation and distillation processes, the net energy (EROEI) can be made much better. Go from 1.25 to 3.0 or more. With greater net energy output the subsidy would not be needed. Right now with natural gas at $10.40 per million BTU I doubt many plants could be run at a profit sans subsidy.

The best case for supplying transportation fuel from crops is biodiesel from canola and other oil seed crops. Soybeans are priced too high in the world market for use in making biodiesel. Jatropha trees are very good producers of oil seed because they need such little water and NPK fertilizer compared to most crops. Problem with Jatropha is the warm climate as the trees are indiginous to the Southwest US and Mexico/Central America. I have heard 300 gallons per acre per year with Jatropha that has almost no imputs (irrigation or cultivation or fertilizer). Not sure what the pest problems might be.

My preference is for farm land to be used for food crops plus any fuel crops to aid farm production & crop transportation (hopefully by railroads). Energy for the automobile driver should come from solar/wind/hydro/tidal/etc. And if that is very expensive then people will have to use electric powered railways built with government help - just as ethanol is subsidized. Other transport options will be too energy intensive per passenger and thus too costly. Better dump your airline stocks while they still have some residual value.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rosswurm on April 25, 2008 - 11:45pm

For the most part I agree with what you said. But, perhaps there will be a place for the most efficient corn ethanol plants.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

55 comments on U.S. Oil and Gasoline Import Statistics

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”

—George Eliot