Where Our Oil Imports Come From

Following the theme of the previous post on where we get our gasoline imports, below is the list of our Top 10 sources of oil imports for 2007.

For 2007, our Top 10 importers of crude oil into the U.S. in million barrels were:

1. Canada 680.533 million barrels
2. Saudi Arabia 530.245
3. Mexico 514.48
4. Venezuela 419.841
5. Nigeria 394.856
6. Angola 181.215
7. Iraq 177.009
8. Algeria 161.755
9. Ecuador 72.138
10. Kuwait 64.306

Source: U.S. Crude Imports by Country of Origin

If you compare to the list for gasoline imports, Canada is the only country common to both lists (although “OPEC Countries” in total came in at #10). Any surprises on that list? I am surprised to see Ecuador in the Top 10. I would have thought Brazil would have come in higher than Ecuador (Brazil was 11th). For me, it was also noteworthy that Mexico and Saudia Arabia swapped places in 2007.

Total OPEC imports in 2007 were 1.97 billion barrels. Total non-OPEC imports were 1.69 billion barrels. Consider how dependent we are on oil, how oil prices have run up, and the resulting massive transfer of wealth out of the U.S. and into other countries.

This is a big reason that I am pessimistic about the U.S. economy recovering any time soon. A lot of discretionary income is disappearing from American pockets and ending up flowing into the hands of oil exporters. An obvious solution is to do more business with these oil producers, and offer them something of value that will pull more of that money back. (I am also basing many of my personal finance decisions based on the premise that this trend will continue).

15 thoughts on “Where Our Oil Imports Come From”

  1. Hmmm. Considering I live in a Canadian province that would account for 1/3 of the Canadian oil exports to the US, what would I buy that is made in the USA?

    Farm and industrial equipment like the Terex crane I bought. Fresh produce in winter, but a lot of the fruit that I see on the grocery shelves is stamped from Chile and Mexico. It’s a tough thing to spot anything USA made in my house.

    We also ship all of the potash, much of the nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer, a lot of natural gas and all the uranium to the USA.

    I wonder why my house is worth 3x what I paid for it six years ago and the neighborhood convenience store started closing early because they can’t find anyone to work for minimum wage in the city?

  2. The United States needs an energy policy — and our “reporters” spend the evening asking Obama about his pastor. The price mechanism will work, and is alread reducing demand — but we get get out of energy jail so much more quickly if we had a drive to enery independance (sorry Bob, but I consider Canada to be a well-run autonomous region within the United States, so when I say energy independance, I include Canadian produciton.).
    I think (hope) RR is wrong about the long-term consequences of the current high oil prices. WE arespending less on energy as a percent of GDP than earlier epochs. Still, we are vulnerable, we are sending money to Oil Thug States, and we could be creating a jobs boom in the United States by mandating domestic sources of energy.
    But we prefer to talk about Obama’s pastor.

  3. Two things. One, there is no such thing economically as a “wealth transfer.” In the short term, countries like China and the oil states do have more dollars. However, unless they burn that money, it will eventually come back to us as they start spending their savings. Thr current account deficit has been negative for long because our economy has been expected to continue gowing faster than the rest of the world’s.

    Secondly, while expensive oil isn’t exactly good for the economy, we are spending much less oil as a percentage of GDP than in the 1970s. I drive a car with reasonable mileage (Camry) 30 miles to work and gas costs me only about 60 dollars a week. We are definitely driving too many SUVs if 3.50 gas could cause a recession.

  4. It doesn’t really matter where US oil and gasoline imports come from, since these are fungible commodities. For example, even though Russia is not on the top-10 crude oil list for the US, any shortfall in their exports will be immediately felt in the US as the countries buying from Russia switch to buying from places like Canada and Saudi Arabia.

  5. In the short term, countries like China and the oil states do have more dollars. However, unless they burn that money, it will eventually come back to us as they start spending their savings.

    Yes, those dollars come back — in the form of credit extended to the American consumer and institutions. The net effect is that we are giving them money in exchange for consumables and consumer products of no lasting value. They are returning the money to us in exchange for debt and equity ownership of property and business assets.

    That works fine, until they decide to call in their markers. Then, you’re screwed: they literally own your ass.

    The current account deficit has been negative for long because our economy has been expected to continue gowing faster than the rest of the world’s.

    That has been true historically, but there is plenty of reason to question the continued validity of that assumption. We make relatively few things of durable value, and much of our spending is financed by debt.

  6. Green engineer-
    For most of my life, I have been reading how the trade deficit doesn’t matter, how “free trade” is great, how wonderful our lives will be. I have degrees in economics; I understand the logic behind relative and absolute advantages in production and trade
    And yet, and yet.
    Median wages have been flat since 1972. Detroit is a wasteland, and new auto workers at starting at $14an hour. China could ruin us by selling our debt (or not buying anymore; OPEC could crush us by not selling us oil, or even as much oil as we need.
    We are a paper tiger, and the world knows it.
    Yeah, free trade. Ain’t it great?

  7. We are a paper tiger, and the world knows it.

    Yep. And the only thing keeping our creditors from destroying us is that we are still an economic heavyweight, if only because we’re still riding on the inertia of our past glory days. Our deficit spending is financing the development of China and India, and they don’t dare disrupt us until they have developed sufficiently that they have markets for their goods internal to their own country. Until then, they fall if we fall. After that point, they will no doubt cut us loose and run laughing to the bank.

    I have no idea how long we have until we hit the point where they no longer need us. But it can’t be a long time: 10 years, maybe 20, maybe as little as 5. That’s how long we have to get our shit together, economically and financially. The prospects for that do not look good.

  8. BOB ROHATENSKY–

    come spend the cold months in FLA or ARIZ. BRING LOONIES, EUROS,NG, or oil sands. we’ll sell the warmth and dry air and living accommodations.

    i don’t share RR’s enthusism for homeland in total. i own Canada as well as other commodity laden economies. some good looking startups on TSX-V also. but keep up the loonies going to MDR, CMI,JOYG, CAT, etc as you mention. buy a MAC, I phone in addition to your RIMM. i like your banks also[BNS].

    fran

  9. Mexico’s production is clearly in decline. Expect them to drop a couple more places on the list over the next few years, unless the US does something that curbs total imports fairly drastically…

  10. One, there is no such thing economically as a “wealth transfer.”

    Wrong. We use dollars to buy consumables. Foreigners then use those dollars to buy our land, buildings and other productive assets. That is wealth transfer. Warren Buffett uses the example of a family with a gigantic farm. Each year they sell off (or mortgage off) a small part of the farm to cover their living expenses. It might be barely noticeable at first, but they are transferring their wealth to others.

    Note: it’s possible to run a trade deficit without transferring wealth. For example if you export consumables and import productivity-enhancing machines it’s possible you are not transferring wealth even if you run a trade deficit. But that’s not what the US is doing.

    Secondly, while expensive oil isn’t exactly good for the economy, we are spending much less oil as a percentage of GDP than in the 1970s.

    You’re 0 for 2. We never spent more than 2.5% of GDP on oil imports in the ’70s or early ’80s. We’re now at almost 4%.

    We must move to wind cars ASAP. It’s a matter of national security and an economic no-brainer..

  11. When you see this list don’t forget that the 1002 area if developed would likely produce 1.1 to 1.2 million barrels per day. It could just about replace our imports from Venezueala.

    Yet the 1002 remains off limits to drilling even though it was set aside specifically as part of the deal to create the refuge.

    If congress wanted to do something about worldwide oil prices, they could direct DOI to shoot seismic during the winter of 2008-2009 (the only time you can really do it) and then plan to have a lease sale by 2010. The futures markets would immediately need to recognize the potential for 1 million plus barrels per day to come on the market.

  12. On domestic oil production; Google Shell and shale. (Say that fast five times) You will be interested. Shell says they can pump shale oil at $30, and relatively benignly, in terms of the environment.
    We have immense reserves of shale. It dwarfs ANR or anywhere else.
    We can achieve energy self-sufficiency (including the autonomous region of Canada) in the US. We just have to have the will to do it. PHEVs, solar, wind, geothermal, shale oil, nukes.
    But hey– let’s talk about whether some guy wears a flag lapel pin.

  13. Anonymous: regarding “1002”, what you are not discussing is the “rest of the story.”

    Even with the schedule you outlined (unlikely in any probable US political situation, IMO), when would the first oil flow out of the pipeline; and, when would that 1mbd come about. And, for how long (only a few years)?

    I do not disagree that having that extra 1mbd (at whatever time in the future it could happen) would somehow lower the cost of oil on the world market, but I do not agree that the idea that somehow it could be labeled a solution to our energy problems.

  14. bob r….”It’s a tough thing to spot anything USA made in my house”…there may be some things that are hard to spot because of their intangible nature. For instance, Microsoft or Apple software on your PC. Or the aesthetic design of an Apple, even if it is manufactured mainly in China. Or electricity made with GE-manufactured turbines from coal hauled by GE-manufactured locomotives. Or Disney cartoons on TV. Or clearing services for stock trades on a US exchange. All of these things generate revenue for various parties in the U.S.

  15. Economists would call the increase in energy import prices a reduction in America’s terms of trade:

    price of exports/price of imports.

    This is the equivalent of a negative technology shock.

    What is the latest forecast for oil consumption globally by country for 2008? Total production by country? How quickly to the oil sands come online?

    Is America about 6 billion barrels, and the world about 25 billion barrels?

    Because oil is a fungible commodity, the real question is global dependence on oil.

    Oh, don’t worry about us Americans too much. China will bail us out. Us failing is too much of a risk for China. 😉

Comments are closed.