Given the unrest in the Middle East we’re hearing a lot of noise these days about how the U.S. is totally dependent on oil imports from that region of the world.   The data, however, does not confirm these assertions.

We were surprised by the following table from the E.I.A. which shows the U.S. imports only about 25 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East and just 10  percent when Saudi Arabia is excluded.  It is our sense that Saudi is much more politically stable than oil traders believe. This is not to say the U.S. won’t have to pay the world market price if supply is disrupted from Libya or elsewhere, however.  (click here if table is not observable)

Category: Energy, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

4 Responses to “U.S. Dependent on Middle East Oil? Think Again.”

  1. foosion says:

    >>This is not to say the U.S. won’t have to pay the world market price if supply is disrupted>>

    That’s the real point. The world is dependent on Middle East oil and we’re part of the world. The Middle East is responsible for a very large percentage of the world’s oil production. The real question is the US price, not how much we physically import.

  2. Glad I bought SU along with Barry. Having something in energy adds a lot of peace of mind for the common man. We saw prices increase 10% so far this year up in Canada. My oil stock increases covered the difference in prices I pay at the pump

    Oil’s next danger zones

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/oils-next-danger-zones/article1921789/

  3. romerjt says:

    Perhaps even more surprising . . . according to “Turning point for drivers?
    By JONATHAN FAHEY Associated Press” . . our use of oil in the US has peaked and the unrest in the ME can only accelerate this trend. Google the above article and see that this is not the view of some “out there” individual “Government and industry officials — including the CEO of Exxon Mobil — say U.S. gasoline demand has peaked for good. It has declined four years in a row and will not reach the 2006 level again, even when the economy fully recovers.”

    And it’s not just driving . . . I remember a chapter in “The End of Oil” about the tremendous potential savings in conservation and efficiency. As a DIY guy I pay attention to building and building materials and its all about low energy use and I recently learned this first hand. I had to replace my oil fired boiler last year and I’ve monitored my use of heating oil right down to comparing heating degree days. I’m using just under 30% less oil- that’s a lot.

    At 100 mpg the Chevy Volt (and others) are potential game changers. They use the same concept as locomotives where a diesel engine creates electricity that powers the wheels, that’s not rocket science. This is the only way the Chinese have a high level of personal transportation.

    Ironically, the only threat to less less oil energy future may be the financial markets that are currently profiting from the spike. The oil minister of Saudi Arabia told Leslie Stall a few years ago that they saw $40 a barrel as an acceptable price but would support $70 for the benefit of the “marginal” producer OPEC members. If producers and financial markets decided less profit was acceptable it could arrest the momentum to replace oil.

  4. Thomaspin says:

    Oil is a fungible commodity and will sell to the highest bidder. Poor thinking in this piece.