Flint,

On an earlier thread you were lamenting over a lack of accurate data out there on oil imports. Well, I finally came up with some stats FWIW from API and DOE.

API stats: 1. U.S. petroleum imports (crude & products) in September were 10,494,000 barrels per day (b/d); imports in the same month last year were 10,499,000 (b/d). (API). This is 59% of all US crude consumption coming from foreign sources! (WOW, almost 2/3rds!)

For Comparison to the 1973/1974 Arab Oil Crisis we imported 3.24 Million barrels per day.

Also in 1973-1974 Oil Crisis, we had a shortage of 2.2% of crude on avg. and 6.4% for all petroleum products. It didn't take much of a drop in supplies to turn us upside down. For the DOE Stats see:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/energy.overview/aer98/txt/aer0501.txt

2. Total imports in September as a percentage of total domestic petroleum deliveries 53.1 percent; imports as a percentage same month last year 55/6 percent. (API).

3. Persian Gulf petroleum represented 21.3 percent of total imports in July; 20.9 percent same month last year. (DOE)

Now for the country by country breakdown of who is exporting crude to the USA in 1999:

Estimated Crude and Products Imports By the U.S. From Leading Supplier Countries For Month of July 1999 #1 is Canada supplies 14.8% of imports #2 is Venezuela supplies 13.3% #3 is Saudi Arabia supplies 12.6% #4 is Mexico supplies 12.2% #5 is Iraq supplies 6.0% #6 is Nigeria supplies 5.7% #7 is UK supplies 5.5% #8 is Columbia supplies 5.4% #9 is Norway supplies 3.1% #10 is Angola supplies 2.8% All others supplies 18.7%

Opec Countries supplies 43.3% Persian Gulf Countries supplies 21.3%

For the Year to date of 1999 Jan - July 1999

#1 Venezuela supplies 14.2% of our imports 8.0% of all US uses #2 Saudi Arabia supplies 14.0% of our imports 7.9% #3 Canada supplies 13.7% of our imports 7.7% #4 Mexico supplies 12.5% of our imports 7.0% #5 Nigeria supplies 6.5% of our imports 3.6% #6 Iraq supplies 6.5% of our imports 3.6% #7 Columbia supplies 4.4% of our imports 2.5% #8 United Kingdom supplies 3.4% of our imports 1.9% #9 Angola supplies 3.1% of our imports 1.8% #10 Norway supplies 2.7% of our imports 1.5%

Other nations supply 18.9% of our imports 10.6%

To date Opec Nations have supplied us 46.8% of our imports 26.3% Persian Gulf nations supplied 22.9% of our imports 12.9%

The last number on each line is the percent of the total USA market share of oil consumed by USA.

Source: DOE, Petroleum Supply Monthly, August 1999 http://www.api.org/faqs/ (I'm link impaired also).

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999

Answers

To all

Sorry, but I keyed this data into nice easy to read rows and look what happens. I think it's still legible but just not as easy to read as when I did the layout.

FLINT:

Well, here ya go. I found the 1973-1974 oil stats for the Oil Crisis period and Wow! I was surprised. I could have sworn that crude oil supplies dropped more than 2.2% and that all petro products dropped more than 6.4%. Just a 2.2% drop and look what a mess it caused not only in the oil industry but hey, it tanked Wall Street plus long lines at the gas pumps, we had to lower our electricity usage, etc etc all for a measley 2.2% drop in supplies??? And get this too... we were using only 3.24 million barrels a day... now we're up to nearly 11 billion barrels a day... or more than 3 times what we were using in 1973-74.

Even if we only lost Nigeria or Iraq we'd be hurting if the others couldn't make it up. What if one of these nations goes toast and the other ones all have their hands full with their own problems and can't make up the shortfall??? It would still be a heavier impact than in the 73-74 scenario.

Conclusion: It won't take much of a BITR in any of these nations to have heavy ramifications for the USA. IF NOTHING ELSE...ramifications on STOCKS and Bonds... and of course the metals and the dollar...and electric utilities dependent upon oil.

Just imagine if the USA loses 2% of domestic production and Nigeria only... Now your at 4% loss of crude. Add a half a point to the other top 9 and now your at about 8%+. What if the reports of Venezuela are true? Now add another 8% loss and we're up to 16% of total USA supplies. Saudi Arabia ? Add another 7.9% and now we're at nearly a quarter of all USA supply suddenly missing in action.

Will this happen? Don't know, but the indicators still don't look good.

WORSE YET... I've got some documented data regarding a specific oil company which has posted on the web some serious problems with its embedded systems that it sells to the oil industry. I don't know whether or not to publish the name and the website. Comments anyone? I mean that this company posts which systems are compliant and which are not. It is updating as the information becomes known. You ought to see the list of non-compliants, but even more --- see the quantity that they still don't know about yet!!! It appears that they've been getting at least some items reclassified back to non compliant. This company even has ships that are non-compliant and they admit that the embedded's manufacturer won't stand behind the products and that the company is on their own in trying to find someone to remediate the boats. They're planning to implement contingency plans as a result. So should or is it best to post what company it is and their web URL so that folks holding company stock can dump the stock immediately?

Why do I ask? Morality. Should this company suffer greater financial hardship because they were honest enough to post the data? What message does this send to other companies? We all ask ... why the big corporations won't level with us and tell us the truth about their problems? Well, if one does, and we all jump up and down and make an issue out of it, what message does that send to the big biz companies? Answer: "Under no circumstances reveal anything, they'll just crucify us anyway. Might as well enjoy the time left that we've got."

Now honestly guys...both doomers and pollies... can anyone see the dichotomy here? What a disconnect for both sides of the coin. NOW maybe you all see why we're not getting the info we say we want. We all say we want the information. But should we have it? Is that what is really best? I'm asking here, not preaching. I'm not sure. All the same, post you're answers and let's see what you all think.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999.

Oh, one more thing.

I've been researching 24 major oil companies for their latest 10-Q assessments and statements...and or their latest website fluff/spin cycle material. So far the data totals 92 pages. Too much to post here. There is some very, very interesting aspects that I've noticed as I've been tracking this now for a few weeks.

The mood and tone of the Oil co. statements seems to have shifted from a 'rosy' PR spin to one of "yes we may have problems but it won't be our fault, its those lousy 3rd party vendors fault." In addition, some of these companies are admitting without stating it that they're NOT going to finish by rollover. Some are fairly candid about their problems. Other's would lead you to think "heaven on earth" was just around the corner.

The reason for the length of 92 pages is mostly in the quotes of the 10-Qs and their statements on their websites. I am not sure I can shrink it much without cutting out some important, relevant material. Anyway, your thoughts on whether or not a short executive summary would really have any value if I just posted a summary here.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999.

R.C. - I vote post it. Moral or not it's 77 days now and the whole world will know. Thanks for your post, very good info from API.

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), October 15, 1999.

Excellent data, R.C.

We need the truth, here. The only way we can make sound judgements is with all the facts we can muster. I don't think that posting this data on the embeddeds will cause even so much as a ripple outside of this forum. The lid is still firmly on this pressure-cooker. For about 75 more days.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

RC,

Great post there guy.

I wouldnt bother with posting long, boring, spinned, exec summaries tho. i mean, who really cares?? if someone is that interested, they can go to the websites and read them themselves.

you've obviously done lots of research on this issues, a lot more than most of us, and i'm willing to give u credibility on YOUR summations (is that a word?) versus an exec summary.

keep up the good work.

-- lou (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), October 15, 1999.

Lou,

My problem on the oil co. 10-Qs is that the really good stuff is mixed in with the PR spin and easily missed. The length in my research notes is primarily in the quotes themselves ... and then almost diagramming out the subtle and or not so subtle spin OR the contradiction from a point made in another segment. I'm having trouble figuring out a way to get that much crammed into a 3 page executive review. Shoot, I need nearly a half page or more just to list each company and their URL let alone adding any of the juicy stuff. So I am not sure... Any other opinions out there ???

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999.

RC,

I say post the name. Just like everything else associated with y2k, most people will read and go back to sleep. This was a very good article. Of course, there are those who will say the 73/74 oil embargo was a hoax. Please keep us posted.

-- yk2 dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

RC:

I, personally, would appreciate the information.

Any fresh news from out on the "front lines", ie engineers, operators, drilling folks, etc.?

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

RC, I dont understand your morality dilemma. The company itself has decided to publicly post the info on the web. Why wouldn't you pass it along to this forum? Give us the URL. You're overestimating the ramifications.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), October 15, 1999.

If they posted it on the web, it's not confidential. You can be sure that you're not the only person who has seen it. I promise you that the specialist who is the market maker in that stock has seen it as well.

Now, an update from our source in Saudi Arabia from two posts at the FR forum:

Hi Gang, I am now in Bahrain. I needed a short Vacation (and a beer). While in Oman, a Brit Y2k programmer told me the joke of the day.....

(with extreme cockney accent) "we are using a new Y2K remediation product. Y2KY Jelly. Just use it liberally and I guarantee you will be able to get four digits in your date..."

For the most part, all efforts are being focused on the "windowing" solution. But even that is fraught with failure. Nearly ALL of the critical infrastructure is "state" owned as part of a ministry or is a newly minted "privatized" company. In either case, the COMPLETE dependence is on western corporations to do the actual work. This is good, because a great deal of Y2K remediation is being successfully conducted. It is bad because these western firms ARE NOT communicating among themselves. This can be directly attributed to GREED. In one case, Telacordia is lambasting Lucent Tech in an attempt to wrest a lucrative contract away.

In an attempt to pre-empt another idiotic attempt to pointing out that the Moslem Calendar won't have a Y2k impact, The Gregorian calender is the Business calender here. I will stand by my previous prediction regarding petro flow, with a caveat. IF and it is a big if, there is treaty for common OPEC disbursement of crude, then America will be looking at about a 10-30% reduction in available petro product (refined gas oil etc.) If no treaty is achieved, then it is more like a 60-80% reduction for a minimum of 4 months.

That is based on first hand observation and copious meetings with production planners.

--------------------

Post #2 in response to my question about storing crude in idle tankers:

There have been discussions about prepositioning some product on idle tankers. But, by the same token, there is a full-court press to get as much product as possible offshore. The Russians are buying as much as possible. At most of the loading ports, revenue producing loads have a big priority over strategic planning loads...

Oh yeah chew on these factoids as well, Saudia Arabia net worth has declined 55% since 1989. AND there is a lot of unrest with the monarchy regarding Islamic repression (i.e. womens rights etc..) You can be sure that if Y2k foments a high level of social unrest among the populace, then the fundamental Islamics will move quickly to protect Mekkah (Mecca) and Medina, the two holiest spots in the Islamic world. There is already local spot problems between Sunni and Shiite sects. There is concern that during Hajj, there could be the beginnings of major problems. Y2k could be a very violent catalyst in these events. The technical aspects of Y2k notwithstanding, oil flow to the west could be hampered by political implications that have been excerbated by Y2K....

More to consider..

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 15, 1999.

RC:

Thank you very much for these numbers. The worst case, as always, is terrible. But the probable case itself doesn't look very rosy either. I may need to revise my outlook again...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.

Thanks, Dog. Keep 'em comin'. Throw you a bone.

Energy is the ultimate currency.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

I believe that the oil supply is the linchpin that will have the greatest impact. 1/1/00 may be the proverbial "bump", but, when the oil flows to a trickle in a month or two (at the most) is when the real problems will rise in the states. JIT delivery will be one massive train wreck. The ramifications will affect all aspects of the economy (and life). Try explaining this to a DGI and their eyes glass over.

I fear for my family I fear my government

theletterz

-- theletterz (theletterz@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

Dog Gone,

What is the FR URL for T/D's comments?

Didn't see any obvious threads and nothing on the botlist.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

The FR thread is here.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 15, 1999.

Dog One, As usual, I'm appreciative of your info but skeptical. Credibility on this one seems to be low. First I too would like more info on the FR forum.

Your post mentions some common OPEC dispersement of crude deal. To my knowledge (based on regular perusal of various trade publications), no such deal is even being considered. If its implemented, we get a 10-30% drop in supply. If its not its 60-80% for at least 4 months. What the hell are you basing this on? ie if Saudi wells or loading systems go down its gonna drop supplies accordingly -with or without an OPEC dispersement deal. I cannot fathom any collusive deals that could possibly vary supplies this much. More info needed or I think its bunk.

I also have a real problem with your Russian buying contention. Russia is and ALWAYS has been a net exporter of oil and oil products. In their current sorry financial state, they couldn't finance a foreign oil acquisition deal if their tired-assed future depended on it. No oil producer would even exchange with them either. I've had a working relationship with the largest private Russian energy information company named Kortes that tracks Russia's energy flows. I can assure you Russia is not buying crude or products anywhere-except small volumes, mostly gasoline, that moves across their borders in the Far East (I've been directly involved with such a deal) and some that flows across Ukraine or other East Europe points. There are also western info sources that track who's involved with each tanker of product loaded. This info also eventiually gets to the DOE/EIA. Russia has never bought squat. To be honest this makes me question the credibility of your source.

I fully agree with the latter part of your post. Y2k aside, the shaky nature of the House of Saud is probably the most critical issue that could undermine our whole financial house of cards. They're corrupt. They're brutally repressive. And they're proped up solely by US/UK industrial/military/political complex. Over 75% of their crude production comes from their Eastern region that is heavily Shia. The vast majority of their oil workers are Shiite. We didn't learn anything on our foolish support of the Shah of Iran. But don't try and predict when this shaky house of cards will fall. Its like trying to predict the exact timing on a stock market crash.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), October 15, 1999.

Just rereading your post I think clarification is needed. What are the Russians buying? Do you mean they're chartering tankers? If so this makes a little more sense but is still questionable. The Russian Baltic ports can't handle big tankers, and they've got capacity probs on the Black Sea. They just aren't that big a player in the tanker market.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), October 15, 1999.

Downstreamer

I'll ask him when he gets back in touch, possibly later today.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 15, 1999.

Dog Gone,

Thanks for supplying the info from the Saudi source... BUT, I'm with Flint and Downstreamer on this one. Just take a look at the initial post and see the actual DOE numbers on imports. I'll snip those out below --

"To date Opec Nations have supplied us 46.8% of our imports 26.3% Persian Gulf nations supplied 22.9% of our imports 12.9%"

Now the Saudi source says: " IF and it is a big if, there is treaty for common OPEC disbursement of crude, then America will be looking at about a 10-30% reduction in available petro product (refined gas oil etc.) If no treaty is achieved, then it is more like a 60-80% reduction for a minimum of 4 months."

I'd like to know how this fellow reconciles the difference in the numbers. Perhaps he means 10-30% reduction of their regular levels? But certain it cannot be that an OPEC deal would mean a 60-80% loss of American supply, because Open does NOT supply the US with that much of a percent of the USA's daily needs.

IF this source is indeed credible on every other aspect and he may or may not be based upon the current disparity between his numbers (though maybe he just doesn't remember the correct numbers, I didn't till I looked them up) then we should likely see some % of disruptions from the Middle East. I suspected as much anyway.

Also, Saudi's Oil Co. "Aramco" has a lot of PR spin on its site about having been Y2K compliant a long time ago... they certainly sound rather smug and perhaps even "overconfident" regarding Y2K. That itself might be deemed scary by some in that maybe they really don't grasp Y2K afterall.

Venezuela somehow in 6 months went from absolutely having done nothing about Y2K to being Y2K compliant. See this IEA statement from July:

Venezuela's Oil and Electricity Industries

Venezuela Faces $1.5 Billion Y2K Computer Problem

This report finds that PDVSA, the world's third largest oil exporter and largest oil exporter to the US, is aware of Y2K and has made progress.

The electricity sector in Venezuela is however very vulnerable.

The previous Government which left office in February 1999 had made no Y2K preparations.

A senior government official is quoted as saying that Venezuela is very behind in its preparations and that the situtation is "very, very serious".

http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/homepage.htm

Here's the actual Reuters wire story from May 26th, 1999.

http://www.y2ktoday.com/modules/home/default.asp? id=1516&feature=&type=

And here's the Happy-Face spin from the folks in Venezuela at about the same time:

http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/newlinks/venoilex.htm

Y2K: "Venezuela says its Oil Exports are on Track" story dated: May 20th 1999.

Saudi Aramco says on its website:

http://208.233.152.164/y2k/y2k.htm

Y2K COMPLIANCE TARGET DATE Saudi Aramco's target date for Y2K compliance is June 30, 1999. In the event this target date is not met for any individual system due to factors beyond the company's control, every effort will be made to ensure such system(s) is made compliant during 3Q99. The status of Y2K compliance for such a system(s) will be updated on this site at the appropriate time. If it is not possible to confirm Y2K Compliance for any such system prior to the 1/1/2000 rollover date, the company's Contingency Plan will ensure minimal or no interruption to the company's business operations.

The current completion status of the five items above is as follows:

1. Identification of the total impacted inventory is 100% complete 2. Verification of compliance status is 100% complete 3. Assessment of non-compliance impact is 100% complete 4. Development of remediation plans is 99% complete 5. Certification of the entire inventory is 99% ( As of August 25,1999).

This statement dated August 25th, 1999 has been added within the last 2 weeks I think, because, IF I remember correctly it wasn't there prior to late September when I checked again. Do I believe them? No, not really, just hope to believe them.

MORE TO COME SHORTLY FOLKS WITH MORE DATA.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999.

Downstreamer,

FYI on Russia's Oil situation:

FWIW, WorldNetDaily's Jeff Nyquist is an "expert" on Russia. Of course he's been predicting an immediate Russian sneak attack for 5 out of the last 5 years. I don't buy his conclusions but he seems to do well with numbered statistics. Here is his comments on Russia preparing to attack us during Y2K. Yeah, I know, but really he makes an interesting case, (No, I don't believe it will happen) but my point to note regards his making the following statement about Russian Oil.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_nyquist/19991011_xcjny_dark_rumor .shtml

Last summer Russia curtailed gasoline and diesel fuel exports, as well as exports of fuel oil. Almost a year ago Russia cut her oil exports by more than 25 percent, while increasing oil imports from Iraq. But Russia is supposedly broke! She desperately needs cash, and 45 percent of Russia's $80 billion in exports in 1997 came from fuel exports.

NOW Jeff is asserting the conclusion that Russia is stockpiling fuel in order to invade the USA and this explains that massive stockpiling build up and the cut in oil exports and the step up in Iraqi oil shipments. (I'm guessing its a "guns for oil" type of arrangement?)

So, I wouldn't so quick to dismiss the claims regarding Russian importing of oil... it may be true that they're stockpiling. I don't think its for war however. At least not an offensive war on their part.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999.

Our guy in Saudi Arabia was using percentages of mid-east oil exported, and not in terms of what percentage of American imports they represent. I know this from previous e-mails or posts, which I thought I had posted here, but perhaps not.

I'll still follow up on the Russian purchases when I can.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 15, 1999.

Dog Gone,

Thanks for the updated info and the clarification. I figured surely there must be a rational explanation for the difference in the numbers. Either way, we're looking at the possibility of a whole lot more of a percentage loss of oil supplies than what occurred in the '73-'74 Oil Embargo. Look at the turmoil just a 2.2% loss created for the US.

Look forward to a clarification also on the Russia thing.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 15, 1999.

I think we should expect fuel rationing at the very least. I would expect farmers would get some kind of fuel preference, as would medical people,etc. Anyone that has a good sized plot of land should go register as a "farm" of some type with their county Farm Service Agency. You can say you raise asparagus,blackberries, or whatever...just get that farm ID number - in some states you will also be able to get a sales tax exemption number and register your vehicles very cheaply. I have an idea that the federal farm ID number will be useful for fuel preferences.The Farm Service Agency used to be the federal ASCS office, which was combined with the soil conservation office I believe. I'm not a "homesteader" as such. I practice law and my husband raises cattle...but I just bought a small size pickup and intend to convert it to propane just to be sure to be able to get to the office every day. Propane might also become scarce, but at least we will be able to start off with 2,500 gallons. I foresee that prices and availability of all types of fuel/energy will go through the roof next year...with the most serious shortages about this time next year; looking at a very long winter NEXT year.

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), October 15, 1999.

Folks, last year Senator Strom (still fathering kids at age 65 and challenged Harry Truman for the Presidency before most of us were born) Thurmond asked in a hearing what would be the military impact of losing 70% of refining capacity in Y2K. There's much about Y2K that is CLASSIFIED.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), October 15, 1999.