U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Considerations
This report discusses U.S. oil imports and trade deficit. Other policy considerations by congress are discussed in this brief.
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Considerations
Neelesh Nerurkar
Specialist in Energy Policy
April 1, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41765
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Summary
Despite long standing concern by policy makers, U.S. oil imports have generally increased for
decades. Two periods stand out as exceptions: the early 1980s and the last five years. Both
periods were characterized by high oil prices, economic volatility, and attention to energy policy.
U.S. oil imports fell each year between 2005 and 2010 to reach just under 50% of U.S. liquid fuel
consumption, its lowest level since 1997. The economic downturn and higher oil prices were a
drag on oil consumption, while price-driven private investment and policy helped increase
domestic supply of oil and oil alternatives.
Among the sources of net U.S imports, about a quarter of net imports come from Canada and
another half come from countries that are members of the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC). Almost 20% of imports come from the Persian Gulf (from OPEC
countries in the region). Global oil supply disruptions can shift import trends and raise prices for
oil produced at home and imported. This is true even if the disruption occurs in countries that are
not normally sources of U.S. imports. Even anticipation of disruption risks can have similar
impacts.
Reliance on oil imports is of particular concern to policy makers when oil prices increase.
Increased fuel costs for households and businesses can reduce spending on other goods and
services that might be domestically produced, send more wealth abroad, and cause economic
dislocations, such as greater unemployment. Economic forecasters estimate a sustained $10
increase in the per barrel price of oil can reduce U.S. economic growth by 0.2% in part due to
how much U.S. consumption is met by imports. However, even in a scenario where the U.S.
produced as much oil as it consumed, an increase in international oil prices would still raise oil
costs for households and businesses and cause economic dislocations, but wealth associated with
the increase may remain in the country.
Oil import volumes are expected to remain roughly flat over the next two decades. There is a
growing consensus that U.S. imports passed their high-watermark in 2005. Such forecasts are
predicated on expectations that current laws supporting fuel efficiency and domestic supply are
not reversed and that oil prices continue to rise. While volumes may remain flat, rising prices
could still increase the cost of oil imports.
There is congressional interest in further reducing the potential risks posed by import dependence.
Policy options generally fall into four categories:
• Direct trade policy regarding oil imports,
• Long-term measures aimed at reducing the need for imports through greater
domestic supply (conventional and alternative) and greater fuel efficiency to
reduce demand,
• Short term energy policy tools like the release of oil stored in the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and
• Foreign policy measures aimed at making foreign sources of oil more secure (not
covered in this report).
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
U.S. Oil Imports.......................................................................................................................... 2
Oil Import Fell Between 2005 and 2010 ................................................................................ 2
Net Versus Gross: Total U.S. Imports and Exports ........................................................... 3
Sources of Oil Imports .................................................................................................... 4
Supply Disruptions Can Shift Imports and Raise Prices ......................................................... 5
Oil Imports and the Trade Deficit .......................................................................................... 8
Looking Forward: Import Dependence Passed Peak?........................................................... 10
Policy Considerations ............................................................................................................... 11
Direct Policies on Oil Imports ............................................................................................. 11
Reducing the Need for Imports: Supply and Demand Policies ............................................. 13
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................................................................................................ 14
Figures
Figure 1. Net Oil Imports ............................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2. Domestic Oil and Other Liquid Fuels Supply................................................................ 2
Figure 3. Net Imports as a Share of Total Oil Supplied: Key Foreign Sources .............................. 5
Figure 4. Selected Events That Affected the Price of Oil.............................................................. 7
Figure 5. Petroleum in the Monthly Trade Deficit ........................................................................ 9
Figure 6. Lower Expectations for Future Oil Imports................................................................. 10
Tables
Table 1. Petroleum Trade Balance by Liquid Fuel Type ............................................................... 4
Table 2. Energy in the Trade Balance........................................................................................... 8
Appendixes
Appendix A. Net U.S. Oil Imports............................................................................................. 16
Appendix B. Gross U.S. Oil Imports ......................................................................................... 17
Appendix C. Petroleum Tariff Rates .......................................................................................... 18
Appendix D. Selected CRS Reports on Liquid Fuels Supply and Demand policy....................... 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Introduction
Oil is a critical resource for the U.S. economy. It meets nearly 40% of total U.S. energy
requirements, including 94% of the energy used in transportation and 41% of the energy used by
the industrial sector. Unlike other forms of energy such as coal and natural gas, which are largely
supplied from domestic sources, half of U.S. oil consumption is currently supplied from foreign
sources.
The United States has been concerned about dependence on foreign oil since it became a net oil
importer in the late 1940s. Those concerns grew with import levels, especially in periods of high
or rising oil prices. Imports have generally increased over the last six decades, except for a period
following the oil spikes of the 1970s and again in the last five years. See Figure 1. Oil import
volumes peaked in 2005 and then declined through 2010 as a result of economic and policy-
driven changes in domestic supply and demand. However, oil import costs have increased due to
rising prices, which more than offset the savings from lower import volumes.
Interest in oil imports has climbed again in recent months as oil prices rebounded to over $100
per barrel. President Obama highlighted the Administration’s concerns around recent energy
developments in a speech on March 30, 2011, proposing policies to cut oil imports by one-third.
Congress has also voiced concern and introduced proposals that aim to reduce the risks posed by
reliance on oil imports. This report first explains recent oil import trends. It then discusses long-
and short-term policy considerations.
Figure 1. Net Oil Imports
In millions of barrels a day (Mb/d) and as share of total U.S. oil supplied
Data Source: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STE0),
March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html. Also Energy Information Administration
U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Energy Review (AER), August 19, 2010,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
U.S. Oil Imports
Oil Import Fell Between 2005 and 2010
U.S. net oil imports, including crude oil, refined petroleum products, and other liquid fuels,1 fell
each year between 2005 and 2010, from 12.4 million barrels a day (Mb/d) in 2005 to 9.4 Mb/d in
2010.2 Only 49% of U.S. oil consumption in 2010, which totaled 19.2 Mb/d, was met with
imported oil, down from 60% in 2005. Net imports are at their lowest level since 1997, both in
terms of volumes of oil imported and percentage of consumption, see Figure 1. This decline has
resulted from lower consumption and increased domestic oil production.
Total U.S. consumption of oil fell from 2005 to 2009. Despite a small increase in 2010, it
remained about 1.7 Mb/d below 2005 levels. The decline is due largely to the recession, which
started in December 2007, as well as greater efficiency in reaction to several years of high oil
prices.
Figure 2. Domestic Oil and Other Liquid Fuels Supply
In millions of barrels a day (Mb/d)
Data Source: EIA, STEO.
Notes: Other includes production from Alaska, refinery processing gain, renewable fuels and biofuels and
oxygenates excluding fuel ethanol. L48 refers to the contiguous 48 states.
1 As is convention in oil market analysis, this report will reference the term “oil” to include crude oil, refined petroleum
products, and other liquid fuels, including substitutes such as natural gas liquids and biofuels. Natural gas liquids
(NGLs) are liquid fuels that can be extracted from natural gas. Note, NGLs are different from liquefied natural gas
(LNG), which is a means of transporting natural gas. “Net” oil imports means total oil imports less oil exports.
2 Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), March
8, 2011. Unless otherwise noted, all data in this report comes from EIA’s STEO, the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO),
Petroleum & Other Liquids, or International Energy Statistics. www.eia.doe.gov.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Meanwhile, higher prices also helped support greater domestic production. Production had been
falling steadily since 1985 to 8.3 Mb/d in 2005. Since then, increased supplies from ethanol,
offshore oil production, onshore production in the lower 48 states, and natural gas liquids raised
domestic output by 1.5 Mb/d. The decline in consumption and increase in domestic supply led to
net imports falling by 3.1 Mb/d or 25% between 2005 and 2010. See Figure 2.
Net Versus Gross: Total U.S. Imports and Exports
Net imports are gross imports minus exports. In 2010, U.S. gross oil imports were about 11.8
Mb/d, down from a peak of 13.7 Mb/d in 2005. Meanwhile, exports of oil increased from 1.2
Mb/d to 2.3 Mb/d, nearly all of which is in the form of refined petroleum products. Exports to
Mexico, Europe, and Asia have grown. These shifts reflect the domestic balance of supply and
demand discussed above—consumption fell and production increased. See details about the
differences between volume and sources of net and gross imports in Appendix A and Appendix
B. Note, both net and gross measures are relevant to energy security concerns. Net measures can
be more relevant to economic concerns around oil imports and are the focus of this report.
U.S. imports are primarily crude oil, while exports are
almost entirely refined petroleum products (see Table
Unlike many nations around the world in
1). Traditionally, much of U.S. oil exports are heavier
which oil production, refining, trade, and
marketing are dominated by government-
products from refineries, such as petroleum coke, for
owned national oil companies, these
which there is limited demand in the United States, or
functions are carried out by numerous
products that do not meet U.S environmental standards.3
privately owned companies in the United
Although the United States is a net oil importer, it does
States. The size and characteristics of U.S.
have significant refining capacity which has allowed it
imports and their variation over time result
from myriad decisions by a multitude of
to export some finished refined products. Moderating
individual U.S. oil companies in response to
demand at home and rising demand abroad led to U.S.
domestic and global market opportunities
exports of distillate since 2008 and of finished motor
and demands. Although these companies
gasoline in 2010. Market conditions—the particular
operate under U.S. national policies, and
needs (and ability to pay) of specific buyers and sellers
their decisions are affected by these policies,
there is no centralized control of oil imports
in different parts of the world at a given time—can drive
and exports in the United States.
the export of some petroleum product cargos even when
the United States generally imports oil.
Of the petroleum products that the United States exports, half goes to other countries in the
Western Hemisphere. In 2010, nearly 20% of exports went to Mexico and nearly 10% to Canada
(both send substantially more oil to the United States than they import from the United States).
Brazil, Chile, Panama, and Ecuador each received 3%-5% of exports. About 1% went to
Venezuela.
3 CRS Report R40120, U.S. Oil Exports, by Robert Bamberger.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Table 1. Petroleum Trade Balance by Liquid Fuel Type
In million barrels a day
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2010
Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Imports Exports Balance
Total
(12.5) (12.4) (12.0) (11.1) (9.7)
(11.8)
2.3
(9.4)
Unfinished liquid fuels
(11.5)
(11.7)
(11.6)
(11.5)
(10.4)
(10.7)
0.3
(10.4)
Crude Oil
(10.1)
(10.1)
(10.0)
(9.8)
(9.0)
(9.2)
0.0
(9.1)
Other unfinished
(1.4)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(1.4)
(1.5)
0.2
(1.3)
Finished Refined Products
(1.1)
(0.7)
(0.4)
0.3
0.7
(1.1)
2.0
1.0
Gasoline
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.1)
0.3
0.2
Distillate
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.0)
0.3
0.4
(0.2)
0.7
0.4
Residual Fuel Oil
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.0)
0.0
0.1
(0.4)
0.4
0.0
Petrochemical
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
0.0
(0.1)
Feedstock
Petroleum Coke
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
(0.0)
0.4
0.4
Source: EIA, Petroleum and Other Liquids: Imports/Exports & Movements,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/data.cfm.
Notes: 2005-2009 figures are exports minus imports. Parenthesis indicate a negative balance (more imports
than exports). 2010 figures show imports, exports, and balance. “Other unfinished” includes non-crude
unfinished liquid fuels, such as NGLs, gasoline blending components, and heavy gas oils.
Sources of Oil Imports
Most U.S. oil imports come from Canada, Mexico, and members of the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).4 In 2010, about 25% of U.S. consumption (50% of net
imports) was supplied by OPEC countries: 9% from Persian Gulf OPEC members, the rest from
Latin American and Africa members of the cartel.5 Net imports from Canada and Mexico met
another 16% of U.S. consumption (33% of net imports); see Figure 3. A list of the top 10 sources
of U.S. net oil imports is available in Appendix A. The largest volume of imports from any single
country came from Canada —2.3 Mb/d, more than twice the amount of the next largest source
(Saudi Arabia, on a net basis).
Oil trading patterns can shift due to market conditions, but much of the oil that companies import
to the United States comes from the same countries month to month. While many kinds of crude
oil are interchangeable to some degree—which reinforces the globally integrated nature of the oil
market—each has unique characteristics. Refineries optimize their operations for particular kinds
of crude.6 Proximity, infrastructure, and trading relationships may also contribute to normal trade
patterns and determine which crude oils are consumed in certain countries.
4 OPEC is a cartel of major oil exporting countries that attempts to adjust global oil supply to manage oil prices.
5 Note, the United States does not import any oil from Iran.
6 For more on refining, see CRS Report R41478, The U.S. Oil Refining Industry: Background in Changing Markets and
Fuel Policies, by Anthony Andrews, Robert Pirog, and Molly F. Sherlock.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Over the last several years, imports of oil from many countries fell with the general trend of
falling imports. The decline in imports from some specific countries was exacerbated by their
declining output. For example, declining oil output from Mexico, the United Kingdom, and
Norway contributed to lower imports from those countries.7 In addition, imports from OPEC also
fell in part because OPEC countries intentionally curtailed their output in 2008-2009 to stem the
decline in oil prices; see Figure 4.8
Figure 3. Net Imports as a Share of Total Oil Supplied: Key Foreign Sources
Share of oil supplied in 2010
Data Source: EIA, STEO, and EIA, “U.S. Net Imports by Country,” Feb 2, 2011,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_EP00_IMN_mbblpd_m.htm.
Notes: “Persian Gulf OPEC” members includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Qatar (the
United States does not import oil from Iran). ”Other OPEC” includes Angola, Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, Venezuela,
and Ecuador. For more detail, see Appendix A.
Imports from Canada are a notable exception to the general downward trend. Imports from
Canada have increased by roughly 0.3 Mb/d since 2005 due to rising production of oil sands and
because oil pipelines tie Canadian exports to U.S. markets.9 Imports have also increased from
Colombia, Brazil, and Azerbaijan—all countries that experienced significant increases in national
oil production. Trade with Colombia and Brazil benefits from proximity of the U.S. market to
Latin America.
Supply Disruptions Can Shift Imports and Raise Prices
Shifting trade flows arising from abrupt supply disruptions are a source of particular concern for
the oil industry and policy makers. Sudden shifts in supply can require rapid adjustment by
industry and raise global oil prices. When strikes reduced oil output from Venezuela, traditionally
a large supplier of oil to the United States, from 3.3 Mb/d in November 2002 to 0.7 Mb/d in
January 2003, U.S. imports from Venezuela fell by more than 1 Mb/d. Other examples include
7 Mexican output fell sharply due to depletion at the giant Cantarell field. Efforts to offset the decline from other
sources have been hampered by difficulties at the Mexican national oil company and restrictions on foreign investment.
8 OPEC cut supply after oil prices started falling in the second half of 2008.
9 For more on recent issues around infrastructure for oil imports from Canada, see CRS Report R41668, Keystone XL
Pipeline Project: Key Issues, by Paul W. Parfomak et al.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
when periodic militant attacks shut down oil production facilities in Nigeria and when
summer/fall hurricanes shut down Mexico’s offshore production; both are major sources of U.S.
imports. Such events may lead refiners to draw on oil inventories and/or bid for supply from
elsewhere in the world.
Domestic supply disruptions can also shift trade flows. After hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut in
oil production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, U.S. imports increased by around 0.7 Mb/d between
July and October 2005. The increase was in refined products; hurricanes shut down more refining
capacity than crude oil production. Crude imports fell.
Supply disruption in countries that are not traditionally major sources of U.S. imports may still
have significant implications for the United States because they raise the price of oil worldwide.
The oil market is globally integrated, refiners can shift the crude they use, and refined products
are interchangeable commodities; so a disruption anywhere can affect oil prices everywhere. For
instance, the United States imported only around 0.1 Mb/d of oil from Libya in 2010. (For
context, the U.S. consumed about 19.2 Mb/d in 2010.) Most of Libya’s crude supply went to
Europe. But when unrest shut down Libya’s exports in February 2011, global prices rose,
including prices for oil imported into the United States from elsewhere and oil produced
domestically. Global supply was reduced and European refiners had to look to other oil sources,
bidding up those oil prices to secure substitute supplies.10 The price of oil may rise until it makes
up for the amount of supply no longer available due to the disruption. This can occur by price
rising enough that some consumers no longer demand oil and/or suppliers bring additional
production to market.11 Many oil producers and consumers are inelastic to price changes when
considering how much to supply or consume, especially in the short run, so seemingly small
disruptions can lead to more significant percent changes in the price of oil.
Even anticipation of disruptions can contribute to higher oil prices. Buyers and sellers of oil make
risk-weighted decisions now about future commercial and financial needs. Anticipated disruption
risks affect the price at which they are willing to buy and sell oil. Arguably, a significant portion
of the increase in oil prices from unrest in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and elsewhere is attributable to
concerns that unrest could spread to other oil exporters in the Middle East and North Africa. For
more on this, see CRS Report R41683, Middle East and North Africa Unrest: Implications for Oil
and Natural Gas Markets, by Michael Ratner and Neelesh Nerurkar.
Disruptions to oil production reduced supply, slowed supply growth in recent years, and created
concerns about future supply. This combined with rising oil demand, resulting from rapid
economic growth in several countries, as well as other financial, geologic, commercial, and
political factors, contributed to the rise in oil prices during the 2000s. Some selected events that
played a role in recent price developments are presented in Figure 4.
10 Note that because many European refineries were undergoing annual maintenance at the time, it delayed the full
extent of the immediate physical impact of Libya shut-in exports. But they can still bid up crude prices as they look to
secure supply now for use later in the year.
11 It takes months or years to develop an oil field. Short term options are mostly limited to OPEC, which holds spare oil
production capacity, or inventories held by companies or governments, which is discussed in greater detail below.
Congressional Research Service
6
Figure 4. Selected Events That Affected the Price of Oil
Source: CRS. Includes data from EIA oil price databases (http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm) and Annual Oil Market Chronology
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html), and IMF World Economic Outlook databases (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28).
CRS-7
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Oil Imports and the Trade Deficit
The aggregate national cost of oil imports is a function of the volume of oil imported and the
price of that oil. The United States spent about $265 billion on net oil imports in 2010. Import
volumes and resulting costs fell with the economic downturn. Lower oil prices also helped push
down oil import costs in 2009. Import costs increased again with higher oil prices in 2010, as
seen in Table 2. Some estimates suggest import costs could be $100 billion dollars higher in 2011
as prices have risen from 2010 levels.12 This would surpass the previous peak cost of $386 billion
reached in 2008, the year with the highest average annual oil price in history to date: $99.67 per
barrel for WTI.
Table 2. Energy in the Trade Balance
In millions of dollars
Imports
Exports
Trade Balance
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Total oil
253,689
335,881
49,176
70,764
(204,513)
(265,117)
Crude Oil
188,712
252,064
972
1,328
(187,740)
(250,736)
Other Oil
64,977
83,817
48,204
69,436
(16,773)
(14,381)
Natural Gas
16,056
16,109
3,286
4,488
(12,770)
(11,621)
Electricity
2,075
2,071
562
648
(1,513)
(1,423)
Nuclear fuel
5,363
5,641
2,283
1,896
(3,080)
(3,745)
Coal
2,160
2,136
6,521
10,463
4,361
8,327
Total Energy
279,343
361,838
61,828
88,259 (217,515) (273,579)
Total Goods and Services 1,945,705 2,329,894 1,570,797 1,834,166
(374,908)
(495,728)
Energy Share
14%
16%
4%
5%
58%
55%
Oil Share
13%
14%
3%
4%
55%
53%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services Report,” March 10, 2011,
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/data/index.html. Figures on a balance of payments basis.
Despite net oil import volume falling since 2005, net import costs have generally increased. The
increase in oil prices has more than offset the decline in import volumes. While 25% fewer
barrels were imported in 2010 versus 2005, the price U.S. oil refiners paid to import barrels of
crude averaged 55% higher (natural gas liquids prices made similar increases).13 This price
increase has caused oil imports to constitute a larger share of the trade deficit, see Figure 5.
Being a net importer of a particular good is not necessarily negative for an economy; the United
States imports many products because they would be more costly to consumers, businesses, or
taxpayers were they produced domestically. But import dependence for a good can also have
12 CRS Report RS22204, U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices, by James K. Jackson
13 U.S. refiners’ acquisition cost (RAC) for imported oil was $75.88 per barrel in 2010 versus $48.86 per barrel in
2005. The acquisition cost for domestic crude grew by nearly as much. See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_a.htm.
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
negative impacts, particularly if it contributes to long-term trade deficits. Trade deficits are
ultimately financed by borrowing from abroad, which generates financial obligations for future
repayment. Positive and negative impacts of trade deficits are explained in CRS Report RL31032,
The U.S. Trade Deficit: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Options, by Craig K. Elwell.
Figure 5. Petroleum in the Monthly Trade Deficit
Billions of U.S. dollars (left axis) and petroleum deficit as a share of total trade deficit (right axis)
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services Report,” March 10, 2011,
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/data/index.html. Figures on a balance of payments basis.
Greater national oil import dependence can also amplify the negative economic impacts of oil
price increases. An increase in the price of crude oil can quickly translate to higher prices for
refined oil products like gasoline. Rising oil product prices strain the budgets of households or
businesses, reducing their savings and/or spending on other goods and services, some of which
would have been produced domestically. For imported oil, that wealth is sent abroad, and only a
portion of it is returned via now wealthier oil exporting countries buying more U.S. products.
Even with oil from domestic sources, an oil price increase redistributes wealth within the
economy. This may cause temporary dislocation as businesses and workers adjust to the change.
The impact can be exacerbated when the price change is faster as it makes the dislocations more
abrupt.
These and other economic impacts of rising oil prices and import costs are varied and complex.
Economic analysts estimates that the impact of a sustained $10 per barrel increase in the price of
oil could result in about 0.2% lower economic growth and 120,000 fewer jobs in the first year
after the increase.14 Rapidly rising oil prices likely contributed to the U.S. economic recession in
2007-2008.15 Some suggest that every major oil price increase since the 1970s has been
associated with a recession.16
14 Nigel Gault, "Oil Prices and the U.S. Economy: Some Rules of Thumb," IHS Global Insight Inc., February 24, 2011.
Estimates from other forecasters of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) impact of a $10 per barrel increase are similar,
including those from the Federal Reserve according to reports (Robin Harding, "Oil Surge Puts Fragile US Recovery at
Risk," Financial Times, February 24, 2011).
15 James Hamilton, Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08, Brookings Institute, Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, March 23, 2009, p. 40,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
If the United States were not a net importer of oil—if it produced as much oil as it consumed—
rising oil prices would not increase the import bill, but would still negatively impact the budgets
of many U.S. households and businesses. Wealth would be redistributed from oil consumers to oil
producers within the economy. Oil prices paid by U.S. consumers for petroleum products would
still be affected by international events as long as oil trade was permitted. Other impacts of higher
oil prices, like inflation and unemployment, may continue to be economic concerns.
Looking Forward: Import Dependence Passed Peak?
A consensus is generally emerging among energy analysts that U.S. oil imports may be past their
peak, reached in 2005, and are likely to remain roughly flat over the next 20 years.17 This
conclusion has been reached as the forces that pushed imports down in recent years have become
evident. While some of these recent forces are temporary—for example, those related specifically
to the recession—some are expected to persist: high oil prices, rising efficiency, and greater
domestic production of natural gas liquids, biofuels, and crude oil. See the evolution over time of
EIA projections of future oil imports in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Lower Expectations for Future Oil Imports
In millions of barrels a day
Data source: EIA, AEOs from 2005, 2007, and 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
(...continued)
http://www.brookings.edu/economics/bpea/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2009_spring_bpea_papers/2009_spring_
bpea_hamilton.pdf.
16 Richard Newell, What’s the Big Deal About Oil? How We Can Get Oil Policy Right., Resources for the Future, 2006,
p. 8, http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/upload/25007_1.pdf.
17 Forecasters from a range of institutions have come to this conclusion, including EIA (2011 Annual Energy Outlook,
Table 11, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/tables_ref.cfm), IEA (World Energy Outlook 2010 p. 134), OPEC (World
Oil Outlook, Chapter 8, http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/340.htm), and BP (Energy Outlook 2030, p.
72, www.bp.com/energyoutlook2030).
Congressional Research Service
10
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Policy Considerations
Oil import dependence has been a policy concern since the United States became a net oil
importer in the late 1940s. Nonetheless, imports generally increased since then, except during the
early 1980s and in the late 2000s, as shown in Figure 1. Both periods of falling imports resulted
from economic and policy reactions to high oil prices. These in turn increased domestic liquid
fuels production and reduced demand, bringing down imports.18 After oil prices collapsed in
1985, economic drivers waned, policy initiatives were rolled back, and imports climbed once
more. Today, forecasters expect that some of these drivers are more durable—largely because
prices are expected to remain high— and that imports may be past their peak levels. But there
remains policy interest in reducing oil imports further. Such concerns were underscored by recent
unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, giving rise to calls for a range of policies to reduce
import related risks.
Policy responses to address risks posed by oil imports tend to fall into one of four categories:
• Trade policy: Policies that directly address the import of oil, such as tariffs,
quotas, or sanctions.
• Reduce the need for imports: Most legislative initiatives to reduce oil imports are
indirect — they target raising domestic production of oil and oil alternatives or
reduction of oil demand. They work through creating new incentives and greater
policy intervention, or by removing existing policy hurdles to private investment.
• Short-term policy: Amending rules around the government’s Strategic Petroleum
Reserve can affect how well prepared the United States is to address oil supply
disruptions.
• Foreign policy: U.S. diplomatic and military measures can affect the stability of
foreign oil sources, though such policies fall beyond the scope of this report.19
Direct Policies on Oil Imports
Shortly after the United States became a net oil importer, President Truman appointed the Paley
Commission to examine the security of supply for oil and other basic materials. It supported
policies for greater domestic production, particularly from oil shale, and efficiency, but also
advised against raising trade barriers to imports.20 Imports continued to rise despite persistent
concerns around import dependence. Under powers granted in the Trade Agreements Extension
Act of 1958, President Eisenhower imposed quotas that limited imports east of the Rockies to a
certain percentage of total consumption.21 The quota program broke down by 1969 due to rising
18 A dramatic increase in oil prices during the 1970s, substitution of oil with other fuels in non-transport sectors,
conservation efforts, and greater domestic supply.
19 CRS has produced a number of reports on U.S. interests in major oil producing countries which can be found at
CRS.gov under the search terms “oil and foreign policy.”
20 The President's Materials Policy Commission, Resources For Freedom, July 2, 1952, p. 108.
21 Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP), started in 1959, put a cap on how much foreign oil a refiner could import.
Refiners were issued import allowance tickets that they could trade depending on their purchases of foreign oil. The
program was managed to try to sustain domestic oil prices above $3/bbl.
Congressional Research Service
11
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
oil prices and quota loopholes. President Nixon replaced the program with import fee in 1974, set
at only a few cents per barrel.22
Current tariffs on oil imports range from 5.25¢ to 52.5¢ per barrel depending on the type of
petroleum.23 See various rates in Appendix C. Oil and petroleum products from certain countries
are subject to duty free treatment under several trade agreements and preferential trade programs
enacted by Congress. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Generalized
System of Trade Preferences (GSP), and the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA)
account for most of the foregone revenue from waived tariff.24 At 2010 import levels, these and
other waiver programs accounted for about $180 million dollars in foregone revenue in 2010,
down from $215 million in 2005 when import volumes were higher.25
In the past, an increase in the tariff on oil has been considered as a means to provide an advantage
to domestic oil producers and reduce imports. Because tariffs on refined oil products are already
at the highest levels permitted by U.S. agreements with the World Trade Organization (WTO),
any increase may be limited to crude oil tariffs.26 The United States has not made any tariff
commitments bounding duties on crude oil.27 But like crude oil, refined products are globally
traded. There is a risk that an increase in the tariff on crude oil alone may create a disadvantage
for domestic refiners vis-à-vis their foreign competition. Such a tariff could shift imports in the
form of crude oil to imports in the form of oil products refined abroad. On the other hand, the
availability of foreign refined products imports may also limit how much of an increase in a crude
oil tariff could be passed on to domestic consumers.
Restrictions On Oil Exports
The wisdom of allowing exports of oil and petroleum products is sometimes questioned. Export
of Alaskan crude oil had been prohibited by the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline Authorization Act of
1973. Congress removed the restriction in 1995. In general, because the market for oil is global, a
prohibition on U.S. oil exports is unlikely to contribute to lower prices for U.S consumers. Such a
22 CRS Report RL30085, Depressed Crude Oil Prices: Some Policy Options for Domestic Producers, by Robert
Bamberger, et al.
23 Except for petroleum-based lubricants, which have a tariff of 84¢/bbl.
24 NAFTA is the free trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. GSP is a U.S. program designed
to promote economic growth in developing countries and includes about 131 beneficiary nations and territories.
Originally created by the Trade Act of 1974, the GSP’s authorization expired at the end of 2010. S. 308 has been
introduced in the 112th Congress to reauthorize the GSP until June 12, 2012. It would apply retroactively to imports
since December 31, 2011. Congress regularly reauthorizes GSP for short periods. The program had expired seven times
between 1993 and 2002; each time it was reauthorized and applied retroactively for the lapsed period. See
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2465. AGOA was enacted in 2000 to promote stable sustainable economic growth
and development in Sub-Saharan Africa. It has a broader list of products than GSP that eligible countries may export to
the United States that are subject to zero import duty. Oil accounts for more than 90% of AGOA imports—mostly from
Nigeria and Angola, both OPEC members (http://www.agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_2009.pdf).
25 Data provided by the International Trade Administration. Forgone revenue estimate assumes a scenario where the
same number of barrels would have been imported from countries with waivers if such waivers did not exist. This is an
assumption. Although the tariff amount is small, it is possible that its absence could have shifted oil trade flows (e.g.,
that less oil would have been imported to the United States from these particular countries if waivers did not exist).
26 U.S. President (Clinton), "The Uruguay Round Trade Agreements, Texts of Agreements Implementing Bill,
Statement of Administrative Action and Required Supporting Statements," 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., September 27,
1994, 103-316, Vol 2 (Washington: GPO, 1994), pp. 2418-2422.
27 Ibid, p. 2418.
Congressional Research Service
12
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
restriction is likely to only cause a rebalancing in the movement of petroleum. Restrictions on
exports might, in fact, create inefficiencies in the movement of world oil supplies that could
foster less optimal distribution of oil and possibly lead to higher prices in some markets.28 An
alternative way to consider the issue is that exports of oil products less in demand in the United
States help offset the import cost of crude oil and other oil products for which there may be
greater U.S. demand.
Reducing the Need for Imports: Supply and Demand Policies
President Obama highlighted the long-term nature of potential solutions to oil import challenges
in his March 30, 2011 speech on energy. The Administration has targeted reducing oil imports by
one-third over the next decade through encouraging greater conventional crude oil production,
increased production of biofuels, and efficiency or alternative fuel vehicles.29 Members of
Congress have also introduced a range of proposals aimed at increasing domestic liquid fuels
supply or reducing liquid fuels demand. These include creation of new policies or programs, or
the removal of existing policy barriers to supply enhancing (or demand dampening) investment.
Either sets of options come with associated costs and benefits to be weighed.
Production and use of ethanol as a motor fuel is an example. Fuel ethanol production has
increased by roughly 0.6 Mb/d since 2005, when the renewable fuels standard and ethanol excise
tax credit were passed.30 This is the largest single component of the domestic supply growth
between 2005 and 2010 discussed above (in volumetric terms). But some critics argue that
increased use of corn for biofuels is driving up food prices. Other critics have cited the high cost
to tax payers in the form of forgone revenues. The ethanol tax credit reduced federal excise tax
revenue by roughly $6 billion in 2009; it cost taxpayers $1.78 for each gallon of gasoline
consumption displaced by corn-based ethanol according to Congressional Budget Office
estimates.31 And there are limits to how much fuel ethanol can be absorbed by the U.S. market.32
Offshore oil and gas development is another example of tradeoffs being debated. Oil output from
the federal offshore region of the Gulf of Mexico was the second largest component of recent
domestic supply growth. Output from the region has increased by roughly 0.4 Mb/d since 2005.
But rising activity in progressively deeper and riskier waters, coupled with alleged industry and
government complacency on safety, created environmental risks that were realized with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.33 Risks to human safety and the environment may be reduced with
28 Information in this paragraph and more background on oil exports from the United States can be found in CRS
Report R40120, U.S. Oil Exports, by Robert Bamberger.
29 The Administration target is to cut oil imports by one-third in about a decade, relative to their levels when President
Obama took office. The U.S. imported around 11 Mb/d net in 2008, so a one-third reduction would be 3.6 Mb/d. The
target and plan were presented in President Obama’s March 30, 2011 speech on energy, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/30/remarks-president-americas-energy-security.
30 CRS Report R40110, Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
31 Congressional Budget Office, Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals, July
2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11477/07-14-Biofuels.pdf.
32 CRS Report R40445, Intermediate-Level Blends of Ethanol in Gasoline, and the Ethanol “Blend Wall”, by Brent D.
Yacobucci.
33 For more information on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and issues for Congress, see CRS Report R41407,
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Highlighted Actions and Issues, by Curry L. Hagerty and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Congressional Research Service
13
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
improved regulatory enforcement or new regulatory measures, but the risks may not be
eliminated.
There are also demand side examples of policy trade-offs. Congress increased the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE) in 2007, its first increase for cars in two decades.
CAFE’s impacts can take years to manifest because it takes years to turn over the vehicle fleet. To
spur growth in the auto industry and accelerate vehicle efficiency, Congress passed the Car
Allowance Rebate System Act of 2009 (CARS, also known as “Cash-for-Clunkers”) which
provided a $3,500 or $4,500 rebate for trading in a used car for a more fuel efficient vehicle
(amount depends on the fuel economy improvement). The CARS program provided a temporary
stimulus that contributed to economic recovery from recession,34 created jobs,35 and likely
reduced some fuel consumption faster than CAFE. But there were tradeoffs: Accelerating fuel
efficiency through CARS may have cost the government significantly more than the estimated
future fuel savings for participating consumers.36 It may only reduce 2020 oil consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 0.02%.37 It accelerated some sales that would have
taken place in future months anyways.38 And by scrapping cars traded in, it may have increased
the cost of vehicles for those who purchase used cars in the future.
A wide range of supply and demand related proposals aimed at reducing imports may be of
interest to Congress. Each has their own cost and benefit tradeoffs. A number of CRS reports
address these in depth, some of which are listed in Appendix D.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the Energy Policy and Conservation
act of 1975 to guard against “severe energy supply interruptions.” The policy had been considered
since at least the Paley Commission report and was ultimately established in reaction to the 1973-
1974 Arab Oil Embargo. The government-owned SPR is now filled to its 727 million barrel of
crude capacity, equivalent to roughly 77 days worth of imports at 2010 import levels.39 The crude
34 According to the Council of Economic Advisors, CARS may have raised third quarter 2009 gross domestic product
(GDP) growth by around 0.2 percentage points (annualized rate). Council of Economic Advisers, “Economic Analysis
of the Car Allowance Rebate System,” September 10, 2009, p. 12. Note, the United States was in recession from
December 2007 until June 2009.
35 Ibid, p. 13.
36 According to National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA), CARS cost approximately $3.0 billion, but
provided future fuel savings for consumers who participated of only an expected $1.3 to $1.9 billion (based on applying
a 7% and a 3% discount rate respectively to calculate present value of future savings). NHTSA, Consumer Assistance
to Recycle and Save Act of 2009: Report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, December 2009, p.
46, http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/CARS-Report-to-Congress.pdf.
This may still be the case even if one assumes a cost of the greenhouse gas emissions avoided: assuming $20 per ton,
CARS saved another roughly $0.2 billion through avoided emissions (p. 49). The value of reducing other air pollutants
was estimated at $0.2 billion (p. 53). Critics pointed out that the program could have been more cost effective had it
required a wider difference in the fuel efficiency between cars traded in and new cars purchased.
37 CRS Report R40654, Accelerated Vehicle Retirement for Fuel Economy: “Cash for Clunkers”, by Brent D.
Yacobucci and Bill Canis.
38 Edmunds.com, “Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per vehicle sold, Report
Edmunds.com,” October 28, 2009.
39 The amount of oil held in the SPR is frequently described as a fraction of U.S. daily average imports. Were SPR oil
released, it can only be pumped at a maximum rate of 4.4 Mb/d for up to 90 days. Then the drawdown rate begins to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
oil is stored in five underground salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. The government also holds 2
million barrels of heating oil in above-ground storage in the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
(NHOR).40 The President has the authority to release oil from the SPR.
Most policy options available to address oil import related concerns are long-term in nature.
Changes in the energy sector have long lead times and it can take many years for policies
affecting supply or demand to have material impacts. The SPR provides a short term tool to
respond to sudden supply disruptions at home or abroad. But what constitutes a significant
enough supply disruption, or whether the SPR should be used to reduce oil prices, is debated.
SPR releases were authorized in 1990-1991 around Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and Operation
Desert Storm and also after Hurricane Katrina and Rita. For more information on the SPR, see
CRS Report R41687, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Refined Product Reserves:
Authorization and Drawdown Policy, by Anthony Andrews and Robert Pirog.
SPR releases can be coordinated with the International Energy Agency (IEA), whose members
have also committed to hold strategic reserves.41 More than 4 billion barrels of oil are held in
stocks of IEA members, of which 1.6 billion barrels are held by member governments. Another
2.6 million barrels are held by companies in IEA countries.42 European IEA members meet most
of their commitment to hold strategic reserves by mandating that industry hold stocks for
emergencies. Most of Europe’s stock holdings are in the form of refined products, in contrast to
strategic stocks held by IEA members in North America and the Pacific, which are largely in the
form of crude oil and held by governments. IEA stocks could be brought to market at a maximum
rate of 14.4 Mb/d in the first month of an IEA collective action.43 The IEA has brought oil from
strategic stocks to market in a coordinated release on two occasions (never at full capacity): 1991
Gulf War and after hurricanes hit the U.S. Gulf of Mexico in 2005.
As more of the world’s oil is being consumed by developing countries, some of those nations
have started to develop strategic stocks. Both China and India are building strategic stockpiles of
oil. The IEA has engaged with them to explore opportunities for coordination should a strategic
release become necessary.
(...continued)
decline as storage caverns are emptied. At full capacity, the SPR can send oil to the market for about 180 days.
40 The Heating Oil Reserve is held to supplement commercial heating oil supplies should the heavily heating oil-
dependent North East region be hit by a severe heating oil supply disruption. Since its creation in 2000, the Heating
Oil Reserve has not been used for emergency purposes. Oil has been sold from the Heating Oil Reserve for budgetary
reasons and to convert inventories to fuel with lower sulfur content. For more details, see
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/heatingoil/index.html.
41 The United States and other members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
agreed to hold strategic reserves and coordinate their use through the 1974 Agreement On An International Energy
Program treaty (http://www.iea.org/about/docs/IEP.PDF). The treaty established the International Energy Agency
(IEA) to carry out this coordination. IEA members are required to hold 90 days worth of oil imports in reserve and
coordinate their use. The United States counts commercial inventories to satisfy the remainder of the 90-day
requirement not met by the SPR.
42 International Energy Agency, IEA Response System for Oil Supply Emergencies, 2011,
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2011/response_system.pdf.
43 International Energy Agency, Fact Sheet: IEA Stocks and Drawdown Capacity, February 25, 2011,
http://www.iea.org/files/Potential_IEA_Stockdraw_Capacity.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Appendix A. Net U.S. Oil Imports
Top 10 sources of net imports in million barrels a day
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
12.5 12.4 12.0 11.1 9.7 9.4
Canada
2.0 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3
Saudi Arabia
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1
Nigeria
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0
Venezuela
1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0
Mexico
1.4 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8
Russia
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6
Algeria
0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
Iraq
0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4
Angola
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
Colombia
0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
Al
others
2.9 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0
Selected Groups and Sub-Groups
OPEC
5.6 5.5 5.9 5.9 4.7 4.8
- Persian Gulf OPEC Countries
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
1.7
1.7
Non-OPEC
7.0 6.9 6.1 5.2 5.0 4.7
-
Canada
and
Mexico
3.4 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2
Source: EIA, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_ep00_IMN_mbblpd_a.htm.
Notes: Countries in italics are members of OPEC. Virtually all oil trade with the Persian Gulf is with OPEC
members in the region.
Congressional Research Service
16
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Appendix B. Gross U.S. Oil Imports
Top 10 sources of gross imports in million barrels a day
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
13.7 13.7 13.5 12.9 11.7 11.8
Canada
2.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Saudi Arabia
1.7 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.3
Nigeria
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1
Venezuela
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0
Mexico
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
Russia
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6
Algeria
0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
Iraq
0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4
Angola
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
Colombia
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4
Al
others
3.6 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.5
Selected Groups and Sub-Groups
OPEC
5.6 5.5 6.0 6.0 4.8 4.9
- Persian Gulf OPEC Countries
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
1.7
1.7
Non-OPEC
8.1 8.2 7.5 7.0 6.9 6.9
-
Canada
and
Mexico
3.8 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.8
Source: EIA, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm.
Notes: Countries in italics are members of OPEC. Virtually all oil trade with the Persian Gulf is with OPEC
members in the region.
Congressional Research Service
17
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Appendix C. Petroleum Tariff Rates
Normal petroleum import tariffs under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
Petroleum Categories
Normal Tariff
Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees API gravity or
10.5¢/bbl
more.
Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees API
5.25¢/bbl
gravity.
Naphthas (excluding motor fuel/motor fuel blend stock) from petroleum oils and bitumen
10.5¢/bbl
minerals (other than crude) or preparations 70% plus by weight from petroleum oils.
Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from
5.25¢/bbl
bituminous minerals, testing under 25 degrees API gravity.
Light oil mixture of hydrocarbons from petroleum oils and bitumen minerals (other than
10.5¢/bbl
crude) or preparations 70% plus by weight from petroleum oils, not otherwise specified,
not over 50% any single hydrocarbon.
Light oil motor fuel from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals (other than crude) or
52.5¢/bbl
preparations 70% plus by weight from petroleum oils.
Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum oils or oil of
10.5¢/bbl
bituminous minerals, testing 25 degree API gravity.
Lubricating oils, with or without additives from petroleum oils and bitumen minerals (other
84¢/bbl
than crude) or preparations 70% plus by weight from petroleum oils.
Light oil motor fuel blending stock from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals (other than 52.5¢/bbl
crude) or preparations 70% plus by weight from petroleum oils.
Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 27. Categories identified by the International Trade
Administration.
Notes: “bbl” stands for barrel (42 gal ons). API gravity is a measure for the specific gravity of oil developed by
the American Petroleum Institute and others. The higher the number, the lighter and less dense the oil. Lighter
oils tend to require less processing and yield more valuable products.
Congressional Research Service
18
U.S. Oil Imports: Context and Consideration
Appendix D. Selected CRS Reports on Liquid Fuels
Supply and Demand policy
These and additional reports on policies which can impact oil imports through changing aspects
of oil supply and demand can be found at http://www.crs.gov:
CRS Report R41139, Oil Industry Tax Issues in the FY2011 Budget Proposal, by Robert Pirog
CRS Report R41227, Energy Tax Policy: Historical Perspectives on and Current Status of Energy
Tax Expenditures, by Molly F. Sherlock
CRS Report R40645, U.S. Offshore Oil and Gas Resources: Prospects and Processes, by Marc
Humphries, Robert Pirog, and Gene Whitney
CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by Adam Vann
CRS Report R40806, Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization, by Adam
Vann
CRS Report RL34748, Developments in Oil Shale, by Anthony Andrews
CRS Report R41282, Agriculture-Based Biofuels: Overview and Emerging Issues, by Randy
Schnepf
CRS Report RL34738, Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress, by Kelsi
Bracmort et al.
CRS Report R40168, Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles: Issues in Congress,
by Brent D. Yacobucci
CRS Report R40166, Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards, by Brent
D. Yacobucci and Robert Bamberger
Author Contact Information
Neelesh Nerurkar
Specialist in Energy Policy
nnerurkar@crs.loc.gov, 7-2873
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Michael Ratner and Amber Wilhelm from CRS for their help with charts in this report, and to
Christopher Blaha from the International Trade Administration for his help with tariff data.
Congressional Research Service
19