Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Jun 23, 2014 with 23 responses

Where The US Got Its Oil in 2013

How Much Oil Do We Import?

As events in Iraq continue to unfold, we have been getting quite a few queries on just how much oil the US imports from Iraq. In my previous post – The Top 10 Oil Producers in 2013 — I showed that even though the US is a major oil producer, we are an even greater oil consumer. So we import millions of barrels a day of oil from over 40 countries — one of which is in fact Iraq.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) tracks US oil imports and finished product exports, and I have tabulated our Top 10 sources of crude oil imports from 2013. Overall, the US imported 7.7 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in 2013, a 2 million bpd decline since 2008. We imported another 2.1 million bpd of finished products like diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel, but we also exported 3.6 million bpd of petroleum and petroleum products (mostly as finished products).

Where Does Our Imported Oil Come From?

Of the 7.7 million bpd of crude oil imports, 3.5 million bpd (45 percent of the total) came from OPEC countries. Saudi Arabia was our largest OPEC supplier at 1.3 million bpd (17 percent of the crude import total). But our biggest supplier of crude continues to be Canada. The 2.6 million bpd of crude we got from Canada in 2013 represents a 66 percent increase in the past 10 years and made up a third of US crude oil imports in 2013.

US Crude Imports in 2013

Top 10 Sources of US Crude Oil Imports in 2013 (million barrels per day). 

While Canada has become a much more important source of US crude oil, imports from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, and Angola have all seen double-digit declines over the past decade. These import declines are a result of a nearly 2 million bpd drop in our import demand, plus Canada’s increasing share of our business.

Why Do Events in Iraq Affect US Oil Prices?

The question often arises, given Iraq’s relatively small contribution to the US oil supply picture, why events there should impact prices here. As I explained last week in The Oil Markets as a Thanksgiving Turkey, Iraq’s oil production has risen 8 years in a row, and makes up 3.7 percent of the world’s oil supply. We imported 340,000 bpd of oil from Iraq in 2013, less than half of the all-time high of 795,000 bpd we imported from Iraq in 2001.

But over the past eight years, while Iraqi oil production was increasing by 1.3 million bpd, global oil consumption has increased by 6.9 million bpd. The increases in production in Iraq, along with the even greater production gains in the US, have struggled to keep up with rising demand. This has meant little spare capacity in the system, and with a globally traded commodity like crude oil, potential disruptions in supply make traders nervous and they bid prices higher.

Thus, even if we imported no oil at all from Iraq, oil that might be removed from the global supply tends to have a disproportionate impact on the price with supply and demand in such tight balance. There is no better illustration of this than Canada, a net exporter of crude oil. They are seeing gasoline prices hit record highs, showing that one doesn’t have to be a net importer of oil to feel the pain of higher oil prices.

Link to Original Article: Where The US Got Its Oil in 2013

You can find Robert Rapier on TwitterLinkedIn, or Facebook.

  1. By Tom G. on June 23, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Excellent follow up Robert – thank you. Its not often we think about how consumption in one country can lead a higher price in a different country. A really good demonstration of the power of a commodity like oil.

  2. By Forrest on June 24, 2014 at 7:52 am

    The EIA trend lines for U.S. oil production very heartening. Since ’08 were enjoying annual increase of tight oil production the likes the country never experienced. This production compounded by friendly neighbor with oil sand production doubling by 2030. All of Canadian crude, could be pumped and entrusted to U.S. refineries, giving the U.S. a piece of revenue. U.S. steadily increasing oil production a blessing as the country is adrift in deficit spending. If we utilize our natural resources wisely we have an opportunity to pay down our debt and hand country off in better shape to future generations. If we act foolishly, we could enslave the youth to debt. Were given a gift at a perfect time in history. India and China developing economies will need and pay premium prices for all oil production. We can stabilize and handicap our economy per steady petrol supply and hopefully export product. The U.S. objective per present production capability should be to energize the oil capability of efficient petrol production with pipelines, regulations, investments, infrastructure, etc. Hopefully, this could be managed to prevent oversupply conditions (highly unlikely). We need to keep market strong and recoup maximum benefit of new found riches. Maybe time to all invest in oil stock. Let average American share benefit and don’t forget to boost tax load. Environmentalist need to change strategy and avoid those urging actions that financially hurt the country. We need common sense management and put our thinking caps on. Less emotional drama and more intelligent compromise. That would require less political opportunism and name calling. We should continue the R&D efforts for promising energy supplies and continue the build out of same. We need to invest in long term solutions to countries ever need for energy. This can be accomplished per best cost return and learning curve installations. We should not attempt bleeding edge integrations per fever pitch environmentalism catastrophe predictions. We needn’t throw our countries hard fought personal freedoms under the bus to accomplish the objective. We may need little government (taxpayer and deficit spending) help other than general oversight. Most help would be for the federal complex to back out of the decision making process and simplify/decrease the compliance costs, IOWs empower the private sector to act and invent.

    • By Forrest on June 24, 2014 at 8:25 am

      I’m also bullish on retail roof top solar. However, wind energy enthusiasm should be tempered a bit until technology can make it more useful and cost effective. Clean coal appears to be a good resource and one that may be rated most powerful within international pollution problems. Biofuel and biomass has ability to make a big impact upon generation of low cost energy and may become a CO2 negative rating per cogeneration of starch, sugar, waste, and cellulosic feed stocks. Nuclear future always strong and will be ever more important in future. Nuclear reactors with high temperature and power generation may become hydrogen super producers. Natural gas production should be utilized not upon electrical generation as we have better uses for the fuel. I could think of nothing better for economy and environment than to shift more NG to transportation and CHP needs. We should also, increase the utilization of biomass for space heating needs and continue steady pace of biofuels production for transportation. Hydro, geothermal, and biogas should be pushed to capture all economic viable production sites.

  3. By John Borowski on June 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    So: we get oil from Nigeria who sponsors terrorism. We get oil from Saudi Arabia………how many highjackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? 14? Burn more oil? Who pays for the damage to the economy from smog? Global warming? (Flooding, loss of crops). Time to get off oil and coal. Now.

    • By Jacob on July 28, 2014 at 5:09 pm

      Yeah because high jackers were from Saudi Arabia the country is automatically bad? I’m American and I lived there for 10 years, honestly best years of my life. The have extremely strict anti-terrorism laws, with punishments that revolve around beheading. Oh and all those hijackers that were from saudi arabia? They were all recruited and trained in Pakistan. Don’t blame a whole country because some of there citizens have done.

      • By Brandon Li on January 16, 2015 at 11:03 am

        RE: “Oh and all those hijackers that were from saudi arabia? They were all recruited and trained in Pakistan.”
        Analysis – Madrassas

        “A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many
        of the Taliban were educated
        in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a
        particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi
        Arabia. Around the world, Saudi wealth and charities contributed
        to an explosive growth of madrassas during the Afghan jihad against the
        Soviets. During that war (1979-1989), a new kind of madrassa emerged in
        Pakistan-Afghanistan region — not so much concerned about scholarship
        as making
        war on infidels. The enemy then was the Soviet Union, today it’s
        America. Here
        are analyses of the madrassas from interviews with Vali Nasr, an
        authority on
        Islamic fundamentalism, and Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to
        the U.N. (For more on the role of madrassas in producing militant Islamists,
        see the story of Haroun Fazul.)”

        Richard Holbrooke – U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in the Clinton

        “I think that one of the tragedies of this story is that the Saudi Arabians exported their problem by financing the schools, the madrassas, all through the Islamic world. I saw this in Uzbekistan a few years after Uzbekistan got out of the Soviet Union, became an independent state in cities like Tashkent and Samarkand, where the Saudis were funding these schools teaching Koranic studies and creating a class of people for whom education was simply the Holy Book, the Koran.

        … What happened here was that the Saudi Arabian government had two wings. The mainland Saudi leadership went into financial issues, defense issues, and they controlled the elite establishment in order to purchase support. From the more fundamentalist religious groups, they gave certain other ministries, the religious ministries, education ministries, to more fundamentalist Islam leaders. And that’s how the split occurred.

        So the Saudi government was, to a certain extent, pursuing internally
        inconsistent policies throughout this period — reaching out to the West with sophisticated, well educated, internationally minded leaders like its foreign minister, like its ambassador in Washington and others. At the same time, it was funding with this vast oil revenue a different set of efforts: education, which was narrowly based in the Koran. …”

        On a personal note some Tajik and Hazara Afghan friends support this message.

    • By ManicDepression on August 8, 2014 at 1:40 pm

      Hate to break the news to you, there is no global warming, it’s a hoax, bet you hadn’t heard. Btw I’ll say yeah lets get off oil when we can fly a 747 on batteries, get back to me when that happens.

      • By voltaire on August 26, 2014 at 7:50 pm

        youre an idiot

        • By Ted John Noga on August 28, 2014 at 9:03 am

          I love your well thought out reply full of no supporting facts just insults. We all understand because there are no supporting facts for your delusion. None of the predictions came true. Overall warming wasnt 9 degrees Fahrenheit it wasn’t even.9 degrees Fahrenheit its been a big fat 0… then sea level rise. It wasnt 4 feet its been about 4 inches.. then the ozone layer, it wasn’t ripped back to the tropic it disappeared and then reappeared and scientists now conceded that it cyclical, well thanks for making us switch freon 3 times now for a cyclical event, assholes. Also the global ice, glaciers, what not. The rates of loss the same as the last three hundred years! I guess in 1700 it was all the suvs back then causing it? Here’s a partial list of things paranoid narcissistic idiots have sworn would happen and kill us.

          Hallies comet collision
          Hallies comet bring outerspace pathogens
          Global cooling
          Another ice age
          Bees dying off
          Killer bees coming all the way north to nova Scotia to kill us all
          Jesus christ coming back
          Satan releasing his demons
          Nuke plants all killing us
          Gmos killing us
          Pesticides killing us
          We’d need has masks to breathe
          Our water would be undrinkable
          Trains and plains and stock market crashes because of the “y2k” bug
          Obama putting us all in FEMA camps
          Bush handing us over to the UN
          china attacking us
          Korea attacking us
          A gazzilion muslims coming over here and attacking us
          ANTIBIOTIC resistant tuberculosis
          Solar flares
          Collapse of the dollar
          The soviet union nuking us
          Cuba nuking us
          Iran nuking us
          Yosemite exploding
          All fish life dying in the ocean predicted by 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050.. yawn
          The planets aligning and stripping away our magnetic shield
          The core shifting and our poles switching
          Emp blasts from the sun
          A host of plagues

          I’m sure I left out an absolute shit ton of stuff realky stupid paranoid narcissistic megalomaniacs have said would happen but didn’t.

          So to the point none of the predictions that they told is regarding global warming (in the 80,90 & 2000s happened. They won’t happen for your lifetime nor the next-generation nor the next nor the next..

          • By Tom G. on August 28, 2014 at 9:51 am

            Wait Ted John Noga you forgot to mention one on your list; “going to service stations”. Try this instead.

            Go to work or shopping – come home – plug in and your done.
            What could be more simple. The whole process can lead to a better life for everyone and we can eliminate the energy consuming process of creating hydrogen.

            • By Brian Gunn on September 5, 2014 at 11:16 pm

              Hydrogen cannot be created. A certain quantity resulted from the Big Bang and that’s all there is. There will never be more than that amount and there will never be less. We certainly can’t create the element. Hydrogen can be separated from substances that contain it and isolated but that’s it. Hydrogen CANNOT be created.

            • By Tom G. on September 6, 2014 at 12:15 am

              I guess created was a poor word choice. What is the correct or appropriate terminology?

            • By Henry on October 19, 2015 at 6:50 pm

              Transformed. As Einstein said: everything is transformed, nothing is created.
              Good discussions. There is no doubt that climate is changing. Anyone who denies it is just an ignorant moron. The question is if the climate is changing faster due too human intervention.
              I, for one, believe that with industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels has indeed contributed to climate change. If we were to become 100% green tomorrow would climate change slow down? One can only hope so.

            • By Forrest on October 21, 2015 at 7:01 am

              Science is a study that should always challenge conventional wisdom. Settled science or climate change are oxymora. We are talking of almost unfathomable complexity of measuring, let alone the complexity of predicting harm into the future. Were at the point of making intelligent guessing, but still within the class of speculation. The CO2 concentration change is minute. Consider the geological change upon earths history and to think one hundredth of one percentile increase upon CO2 concentration is doom? I don’t know and I’m not an expert, but the rhetoric and insults upon challenging such squishy science is just unwarranted. For example, I’ve read scientist are just now attempting to understand the physics of particle size emissions and the role upon thunderstorm development. It may be the primary driver of flooding and drought. Also, I’ve followed the science of regulating GW and have become fully convinced the science is polluted with politics. The nations best Scientist are totally at odds within their scientific studies. Quantitative accounting of environmental harm is all over the map and based upon funding resources, reputation, and personal bias. If GW Science comes from the Nations best, I’m more skeptic now than before.

            • By JonathanMaddox on November 18, 2014 at 6:42 pm

              Not technically true. Nuclear fission and nuclear decay processes involve the emission of free neutrons, which if not captured will in turn decay into a proton and an electron (precisely the components of a hydrogen atom) plus an electron antineutrino. It is also possible spontaneously to create proton/antiproton pairs in particle accelerator experiments.

          • By Bob on November 11, 2014 at 8:09 pm

            Anyone who says global warming will not happen is an anchor to society. No one, can deny the massive ice lose in Arctic and the melting of the permafrost in Russia. Carbon levels have increased from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. The climate is changing and no one can deny it. The 2011 tornado season was the worst in history and Super Storm Haiyan. The reason why the earth has been cooling since 1996 is because the oceans are absorbing the carbon dioxide and slowly turning into carbonic acid (it’s basic chemistry for any morons who deny it) as a result for the reduced carbon emissions in recent times. Winters are getting colder as a result from the increased chances of El Nino weather patterns. Most of the states in the Midwest report increased increased amount of rain but also reported record droughts. There has been record break off of ice in the poles in recent years and there is large ozone hole over the south pole and you morons are still denying climate change?

          • By Will Partridge on January 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm

            But he’s right. The guy is an idiot.

    • By Forrest on August 27, 2014 at 7:43 am

      Whoa, back up, the damages of global warming not well determined upon scientist for the next 100 years. The range is from economic improvement to damage. High estimates of damage on the extreme end. The estimates are speculative as the science is vague, at best, capable of only picking up a general trend. Smog is not a problem in U.S. any more as air quality is much improved. Historically, wood and coal energy very polluting per the low teck burners. Modern day coal and wood produce a small fraction of air pollutants. Modern coal plants produce minimum nutritious or sulfur oxides and stand aside natural gas per carbon production. Modern drill technology continues to take the country to energy independence. Solar, wind, and bio fuel continues to offset traditional carbon fuels at a time of increasing efficiencies per production and consumption of energy. The biggest threat to U.S. is over reaction to hype of global warming that appears to be the catalyst of political strategy and giving up personal freedom per ever increasing federal control. Open market solutions energized with some federal resources and friendly regulations that improve markets of alternative energy have worked well and appear to put the nation on a course to quickly offset national global warming emissions. The problem lays at the feet of developing nations and how they handle emissions. We would be foolish to spiral our cost of energy continually upward and increase federal restrictions/control per ever decreasing benefit as the lion share of problem is offshore. We need to help them solve their problems. BTW, hydrogen fuel cell solution is quickly moving to position per zero GW emission power production and transportation needs. Might all this GW “Chicken Little” fear mongering be all about nothing? Might the natural depletion of fossil fuel and subsequent increase in cost pave the way to increase efficiencies and alternative energy without the GW fear mongering? Natural market forces may subvert all claims of ruinous ecology.

    • By End the FED on September 18, 2014 at 11:50 am

      1st…Global Warming is a scam designed by elites at the “Club of Rome” to fleece the dumb sheep out of more taxes. Specifically carbon taxes aka “cap and trade”. Just goes to show that with enough propaganda and ignorance of science people will believe anything. (The earth has actually been cooling since 1996 and wait until this winter!)
      2nd…The US and Israel did 9/11 and the most of the world’s intelligence communities know this. Anyone can do the research and figure this out…provided he turns off the TV and sits down his beer long enough.
      3rd…The US and Israel and the world’s real terrorist nations. The US has been trying for years to maintain it’s hegemony by invading and conquering those oil rich nations (mostly Muslim) that dare to buck the US petrodollar scam. OPEC was in fact designed by Rockefeller crony Henry Kissinger to save the dollar from collapse when Nixon took the US off the gold standard.
      Pick up a book and read…stop getting your insights from the CIA and Israel controlled propaganda machine known as the corporate media. Any facts I have stated above can be easily documented and proved with some internet research.

    • By Abayomi on November 14, 2014 at 4:24 pm

      Where did you get the stupid idea that Nigeria sponsors terrorism? If you have not been reading your news like an illiterate, you would have found out that far from sponsoring terrorism, Nigeria is presently fighting against Boko Haram islamists terrorists.

    • By Thomassen Bart on July 19, 2015 at 4:50 pm

      Nigeria does not sponsor terrorism, it is a victim of terrorism, Boko Haram is currently engaged in the North of the country and is attacking, killing and enslaving Nigerians as we speak.

  4. By Anonymous on September 23, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    So we’ve actually been getting LESS oil from Iraq since the war started? Conspiracy theories, explain.

  5. By Scott Campbell on January 7, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    We buy oil from the bad guys who use the proceeds to buy weapons to kill our soldiers. So we fund wars on both sides. We need to be energy independent.

Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!