This was a statement uttered by vice president candidate Sarah Palin during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. Palin was suggesting that additional oil drilling be authorized to satisfy America’s demand for oil. Recently, the statement has become a statement of ridicule because of the oil platform disaster off the coast of Louisiana.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s website, The United States imported 57 percent of the oil that we consumed in 2008. The top fifteen sources of import crude oil in February of this year were, in order:
- CANADA 1,897,000 barrels per day
- MEXICO 996,000 barrels per day
- VENEZUELA 913,000 barrels per day
- NIGERIA 896,000 barrels per day
- SAUDI ARABIA 881,000 barrels per day
- IRAQ 540,000 barrels per day
- COLOMBIA 371,000 barrels per day
- ANGOLA 312,000 barrels per day
- ALGERIA 282,000 barrels per day
- UNITED KINGDOM 260,000 barrels per day
- KUWAIT 228,000 barrels per day
- RUSSIA 214,000 barrels per day
- BRAZIL 192,000 barrels per day
- ECUADOR 145,000 barrels per day
- CONGO 76,000 barrels per day
Of these top 15 providers, 5 are relatively friendly and relatively stable countries. Together they provided about 43 percent of our imported crude oil (Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Brazil and Ecuador).
7 of the providing countries are either unstable or in unstable regions and provided about 33 percent of our imported crude oil (Iraq, Colombia, Angola, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait and Congo).
3 of the providing countries are adversaries and provided about 24 percent of our imported crude oil (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela). Saudi Arabia is in theory a friendly country, however they continue to fund Islamic fundamentalist schools that teach children to hate the West (and that they should do something about it). Russia is a competing military and economic power which even though they engage in trade with the U.S., would like to see American influence in the world reduced. Venezuela is lead by a dictator who on a regular basis denounces America’s evil ways. On a side note, is it really a good idea to provide these three countries with vast quantities of American dollars?
If we add the percentage of imported crude provided by unreliable providers with the percentage provided by adversaries, we find that they together provided 57 percent of our imported crude oil for the month of February this year. Since I do not have a 2010 number for percentage of U.S. import oil consumption, let us say that there has not been any change in the rate since 2008. Of all oil we use in the U.S. we need 57 percent from the rest of the world and in turn, 57 percent of that oil comes from unreliable sources (as defined by me) meaning about 33 percent of our total oil need may or may not be provided for by imports.
U.S. Army risk assessment talks about the likelihood of negative outcome and if that negative outcome were to occur, how severe would the ramifications be. Following Army logic, if you are not entirely in agreement with my view regarding how much of our oil supply is unreliable let us ponder what would happen if a substantial percentage of our oil supply was interrupted.
One of many cheap political one-liners is “No blood for oil,” made famous during Operation Desert Storm where Iraq occupying forces were forcibly removed from Kuwait. I believe that 99 percent of the people who ever uttered that phrase owe their continued existence to oil. Do you walk or ride your bike to work? Some do, but the vast majority of people drive or use mass transit to get to work which requires fossil fuels in some form. For everything you buy at your local Wal-Mart at least three trucks were involved (fresh produce which has the shortest route to the store) usually a lot more depending on the number of steps involved in the manufacturing of the good. Try to think of anything around you that was not brought by a semi truck. The floor you are standing on, the pencil you are holding, the laptop you are reading this article on, the socks you are wearing, your refrigerator, the cables from the outside which provides your house electricity, the vitamins you took this morning, the car you are going to drive to work, your favorite video game, the mirror you look into every morning in your bathroom, all these things needed multiple trucks to make it into your daily life. These trucks are not fueled by hocus pocus, wishful thinking or future green technologies. They are fueled by petroleum products.
A small cut in our oil supply and our lives become uncomfortable. Everything costs more, you start sacrificing your luxury items in order to afford the necessities. A medium cut in our oil supply results in increased unemployment, increased crime (people like to eat even if they can not afford it), and political unrest. A dramatic cut in our oil supply and it is back to basics, survival of the fittest (pure speculation true, but what do you think would happen if all the supermarkets were suddenly empty?). It is of the highest national security interest that we take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, more specifically, oil from unreliable sources. How do we do this? Contrary to the belief of some, rhetoric and promises does not actually reduce the need for oil. Hopefully in the future, our data manipulating scientists of “Global Climate Change” fame can come up with technology which will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in addition to being better for the environment. Meanwhile, we need to increase our own oil production for the immediate future which is easier said then done as car driving, Wal-Mart shopping, airplane riding environmentalists make increasing domestic oil production very difficult.
Am I suggesting that we do away with regulations and let the oil companies do whatever they want to get more oil? No, I am well aware that the oil industry is one of the greedier industries out there but I do suggest that as one considers environmental concerns, also consider the need for increased domestic oil production. Take for instance drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. Do you have to commit one hundred percent and turn it in to Kuwait overnight? Or is it possible to start on a smaller scale to see if it can be done without destroying the local ecosystem?
Recently, the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform sank off the coast of Louisiana. The resulting oil spill is of historic proportions. Now be honest, before this news story broke, what is the last oil platform disaster you remember? The last really big oil spill of this proportion that I remember is the Exxon Valdez but that was a ship, not an oil platform. Thousands of oil platforms are in service every day and operate so safely that you never hear about them. Of course, let us examine what went wrong so we can avoid these mistakes in the future, but given the importance of a stable supply of oil, is it too much to ask for our Government to think about the big picture and not give us another knee jerk reaction? Did we stop using oil tankers after the Exxon Valdez disaster? Is there another big plan for how to increase domestic oil production besides additional coastal drilling? Did I miss it? You can try to fill your gas tank with “green technology” from the future but I am almost certain the resulting mileage will be terrible! Given how much time our legislators spend finding places to sneak in earmarks and legislation for their campaign contributors, given how much time the executive branch spends watching television so they can call out political pundits by name, I believe they should be able to give this issue the time it deserves.
Tom The Amateur Thinker
