Monthly Oil Imports

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth "Lisa" Hughes on January 13, 2009 at 10:03am

sounds like a great idea

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by American in the D.R. on January 13, 2009 at 10:44am

Nice David,

Does anyone have the figures for Dec. 07?

Regards, ADR

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by david@PickensPlan on January 14, 2009 at 6:30am

Not at this time - started with 2008 stats

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sonne DeVries on January 17, 2009 at 5:28pm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/comp...

This site provides a great deal of information regarding petrol imports.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Earl the Energy Explorer on February 5, 2009 at 5:24pm

Weekly updates of the oil imports and exports with a breakdown on use is also available at this link at the Energy Information Administration.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on January 13, 2009 at 10:50am

Handy new section. Good job.

A Fuel Debate between T. Boone Pickens vs. Fed Ex CEO Fred Smith at seekingalpha.com

I think we're winning.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chandrashekar Tamirisa on January 13, 2009 at 5:04pm

The central premise of the Pickens Plan that the plan wants to divert natural gas from power generation to transportation could be subject to considerable debate. I think it is important that as members of the plan we have to be flexible to counter any critique of the plan that it is impractical to expect power production to switch out of natural gas. Combined cycle power plants currently use both gas and steam turbines, in that order, to generate relatively clean power. The more polluting plants are the oil and coal plants which require scrubbing technology to generate power as cleanly as the combined cycle plants.

It is important that we present the thrust of the Pickens Plan as first, targeting buses and trucks and second, as creating a choice for consumers between gasoline-based cars and gas based cars.

The paragraph in the article that highlights the infrastructure that lets people use gas-based automobiles can also be expanded to the current gas stations, giving consumers the option to use gasoline, gas, diesel and electricity if they have plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles, with the emissions standards set high enough to make natural gas, hybrid and electric vehicles more attractive. Such a strategy brings together the energy diversification, energy security and environmental lobbies.

Electric vehicles as will increase the demand for electricity and so will high-speed rail which could create millions of jobs in infrastructure and engineering which the economy desperately needs (the 21st century equivalent of the Eisenhower Interstate System in the United States), producing structurally the opposite effect of what the Pickens Plan really needs: more natural gas being used up in power generation, and this is could be the bias of the Obama administration as well that of Detroit and other foreign car makers.

This is still good for the Pickens Plan insofaras the production of more U.S.-based natural gas. We may not get all the natural gas cars we want, but we will get more U.S. natural gas production and the oil and coal workers can move to work in the natural gas fields.

Nuclear, solar, wind and natural gas, in that order, can together entirely eliminate the need for oil and coal in power generation and transportation, if we, as a country, commit to such a diverse strategy, in 20 years.

Solar, wind and hydrogen can be expected to replace all non-renewable energy sources by the century's end, extending the life of the cleaner non-renewables such as nuclear, natural gas, while cleaning up the use of oil and coal, making renewables the lead sources of energy and the non-renewables auxiliary.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Van Hamlin on January 13, 2009 at 7:25pm

I Love your passion and the thought you've put into you position. I am afraid that any of us presuming that we can supplant the marketplace is a bit arrogant. The consumer wants cheap uninterrupted energy. What we have to do is first ensure that we generate so much power that we export energy in all forms. This country's needs alone will double over the next decade. The developing nations need will triple or quadruple if their economies get past the current economic slump. The USA is in the position that it can export coal, compressed natural gas, and crude oil if we can generate enough nuclear, wind and solar electricity to meet our own needs. That's right, money in the bank and clean power at home. All we have to do is reduce our consumption and invest in clean energy production. In the end the global consumer will tell us what they will buy, and what they will pay.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean McDonald on January 25, 2009 at 10:12am

I agree with your statement: Nuclear, solar, wind and natural gas, in that order, can together entirely eliminate the need for oil and coal in power generation and transportation, if we, as a country, commit to such a diverse strategy, in 20 years.

Replacing oil with natural gas does not solve our long tern energy needs. We sell CSP plants for example that do not need any fuel unless you choose to use Biomass. We also have an additive named Omstar D-1280X that will cut our imports I believe by at least 10% by simply putting it in the fuel. It also cuts GHG by 6-8% and a host of other emissions as well by about 52% across the board. I put 2oz in my tank every time I fill up and I get 80-100 more miles per tank. That is a 25% minimum improvement. I fill up four time a month and save between 320-400 miles per month. That equals 30 gallons of gasoline I do not have to buy or burn in my truck. See: www.greenecotek.com

We cannot simply support only wind and gas as the solution to the crisis we face. The windmills that Mr Pickens wants to use from GE are too expensive, only make money around 12mph and have to be shut down with less than 20mph winds. We have windmills on the way to Palm Springs that do not run above 17mph and only make money above 12mph. There are so many other choices that are much better than GE windmills. Just do the research!. This money that is going to be released by Congress has to go also to small business and not companies like GE only or some big gas company. We also have a process to convert biomass to a fuel that is Carbon Neutral that will replace coal and also a Carbon Neutral Bunker C oil for ships and powerplants. All money given by the government should have a Return on Investment (ROI) and not simply not be a handed out. This is our money and our children's money they are giving to these large banks and corporations.The banks are lying about how bad this and they will need trillions more to get out of the hole that they made billions of dollars in commissions on. We can reduce our importation of oil if we look at all solutions and not just wind and gas.

Sean

www.greenecotek.com

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dan thompson on May 3, 2009 at 4:14pm

what about solar panels?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sandie Abel on June 26, 2009 at 3:20pm

You're right, Sean. We're all used to relying on just a few energy sources--oil, coal, and natural gas. In the future there will be many more options added into the mix. That's why it's so important that we support development of all non-oil and coal sources of energy.

Small businesses are developing affordable home wind turbines! We need the smart grid that the President proposes, because any electricity a household or large wind turbine can generate will be able to be sold to the power company.

I think the most important thing we can do regarding the banking "industry" is to fight hard to put the curbs and bridles back onto lending! Right now we have no usury laws, allowing for "payday loan" places that are seen almost everywhere. I say "almost everywhere" because the military has banned them from operating within 14 miles of a military base. These bloodsuckers have a much harder time preying on military families now, but that still leaves a giant base of vulnerable people.

Lenders must be forced to behave responsibly, as they did before the regulatory agencies and the Congress and former Presidents decided to let them do whatever the hell they wanted in order to make short term profits. The government can do things right--and does, when an alert and informed public holds Congress and the President's feet to the fire.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by neil cox on June 27, 2009 at 3:51pm

David Epps is too hard on Sandie who mentioned the big three energy sources. Epps added four more and a dozen variations of the big three. The percentages Epps mentioned may be correct for Canada but are a bit high for the USA. Epps thinks these sources are safe and abundant for 100s of years. Most experts agree, not very safe, and the easily obtained are mostly gone. we are now harvesting expensive to extract and/or lower quality.
I am sympathetic to liberals not deserving the title leader, But we did elect these liberals, so we need to find a way to get them to behave responsibly, edit: That was lenders who could have gone public when they were coerced by politicians lawyers and judges. A few, did, but most enjoyed the wealth that came from bad lending policies.

I agree we need net metering not smart metering, but some grid improvements are desirable to make the grid less vulnerable to terrorist attack and single point malfunctions. We urgently need a HVDC = high voltage direct current power line from West Texas to the customers on the East coast.
Distributed wind and solar is good, but it is impractical in about half of the states and 70% of the counties. The other renewables may be ready for large scale in one year or ten, But we can't wait a year to start reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Neil

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last