digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at civicactions.com

World Map: Who Has the Oil? [Pic]

civicactions.com — World map of oil reserves and consumption. Scaled to the amount of oil reserves countries have.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gab00n, on 11/17/2007, -10/+505Those Saudis look like they could use some more freedom.
    • miketrin, on 11/17/2007, -8/+41My thoughts exactly. Freedom, american style!
    • chaostheoryd, on 11/17/2007, -13/+2Cowboy style ! :)
    • NnyCW, on 11/17/2007, -2/+14They're too busy supplying us money to spread freedom everywhere else.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 11/17/2007, -15/+9Saudi Arabia is already pretty much in our back pocket.
      • rezist, on 11/17/2007, -1/+4wow that makes me laugh! news sources outside your own country are liberating.
      • jugglingjon, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8or are we in theirs?
      • Racerx52, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8Pretty sure it's the other way around.
        Militants they support kill us, What does our Government do? Praise them!
      • pintomp3, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4i don't know why tao is being dugg down. we support countries that have monarchy's or dictators who look after our business interests instead of their own citizens. we demonize, threaten, and invade democratically elected leaders who the opposite.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 11/17/2007, -0/+13That's pretty much what I mean. We already have business agreements with the Saudis and their oil and have for awhile. Why do you think no one went after Saudi Arabia after 9-11 even though most of the high jackers were saudi. We already get what we need from them. We don't care about invading them.
        • urbandistrict, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8Because you have it wrong.

          Bush Sr. WORKS for the Saudis. Their whims are being met not ours. If the US goes to war with Iran...who will benefit? I'll put it in terms you can understand... If the US goes to war with Burger King, then McDolands stands to make quite a bit of money.
          • pintomp3, on 11/17/2007, -4/+4"If the US goes to war with Iran...who will benefit?" israel.
    • robschraer, on 11/17/2007, -8/+6no we are their bitch, the own almost all of our defense systems.
      • soulkitchen, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8So in essence what you are saying is: "All our bases are belong to them" ??
        • robschraer, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2yes. you hit the nail on the head.
    • Osjpr, on 11/17/2007, -6/+5There is something very suspicious about the coloring. Notice how the 1st and 3rd options, that represent the western world, are colored similarly, while the color for Saudi Arabia was given what should be the 3rd color. Saudi Arabia should be colored light green.....it's a very deliberate switch if you look at the color legend.
    • brad3378, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8Those Australians look like they could use some more land. Where did they go?
    • DBNKR, on 11/17/2007, -3/+3LOL, ooooh my god! I laughed out loud.
    • Deodrus, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Thanks for the early morning laugh !
  • treelovinhippie, on 11/17/2007, -2/+71Strange. Canada has the second largest oil reserves, but they mustn't be mining it as much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
    • dmac41, on 11/17/2007, -11/+1It's because we send most of it to the states.
    • darwiniandemon, on 11/17/2007, -1/+33All our oil is in the oil sands - more difficult (and more expensive) to extract.
      • sanman, on 11/17/2007, -3/+13The higher the price of oil, the more economically attractive it is to extract from those sands.
        Same goes for oil trapped in shale rock, which is very abundant in the US (more than triple what Saudi has)
        • jackal42, on 11/17/2007, -2/+12Actually the higher the cost of oil, the more it costs to extract. due to it being energy intensive. Tar sands have a EIoER (Energy input vs energy return) of 1:1 that means it takes the energy of barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil ... not economic.

          Biofuel has a negative EIoER. it takes more energy to produce, than what you get out of it. But keep it quiet, because it meant to be a secret, ok?
          • shark615, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8You should probably research what you just posted. If the return was 1:1 Alberta wouldnt be what it is today and the tar sands would be left alone.
        • joegibes, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2I believe that oil in shale takes less energy to extract.
          I remember reading an article about a man who built a microwave emitter that turns any thing with petroleum in it to ash and petroleum (through finely-tuned microwaves).
      • brad3378, on 11/17/2007, -1/+5yeah, this map needs to be viewed with a grain of salt. It's not how much oil a country has that is important. It's how much "inexpensive oil" that a country has and how much it uses. We will never run out of oil. The problem is that someday we will only be left with the oil that is too expensive to justify extracting from the ground. In my opinion, Peak Oil is a more serious problem than global warming. Unfortunately, Peak Oil is already here. To learn more, I suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
    • Stevethegreat, on 11/17/2007, -1/+42They fear that US will bring freedom and democracy to Canada if they do.
      • Skootles, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7They tried that before - The war of 1812, so we went and burned down their white house. There's even a delightful Arrogant Worms song about it.
        • gmoney1, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6We did go attack Canada, but it was the British that burned down our White House. They had a naval blockade on us at the time.
          • shark615, on 11/17/2007, -4/+7Using that logic American didn't beat the British in the war of independance. The British beat themselves in a Civil war as the US wasn't formed then. Canada was a country in all but name, just like the US, so therefore Canada won, thank and ***** off.
          • theodenking, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4At that time the distinction between a Canadian and a Briton was only one of geography.
          • theodenking, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3At that time the distinction between a Canadian and a Briton was only one of geography.
    • 1randomguy08, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3yeah as darwinandemon said the reserve are huge but they are difficult and expensive to mine. Not to mention the environmental effect of digging up billions of tonnes or mud and dirty rock(see google earth) I believe technically Canada dont have alot of "oil" per se' they have alot of tar sands.
      Canada plans to increase production over the coming years to around 6mil barrels/ day which is still far behind Saudi Arabia and russia current levels, mind you by that time it may eclipse the Saudis and the Russians as their wells run dry.
    • mokayogi, on 11/17/2007, -0/+7Clearly you haven't been to Alberta. The whole province is run on oil and gas.
    • cdstewart, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3The western sedimentary basin (that includes Alberta) has very dense rock which doesn't allow for oil to pass through it easily. The rate at which we can pull it out of the ground is very slow as a result.
      Saudi Arabia has oil reserves trapped in rock that has a very high porosity, which makes it very easy to extract at large rates. This is probably why it seems that we aren't "mining" it as much.
      Yeah, and its great that we have the oil sands, so that oil companies can burn ***** of natural gas to separate the oil from the bitumen profiting only because of government subsidies. Where's the map of "Who has the Natural Gas?"
  • tehbored, on 11/17/2007, -7/+133This is partially inaccurate. Canada and the U.S. both have a ton of oil. Just in Canada, most of it is found in oil sands and in the U.S. most of it is in oil shoal, trapped in rock. Since we don't really have an effective way of extracting the oil from shoal, the U.S. one can pass, but Canada does get oil from oil sands, so those numbers should be included. They would have the second largest reserves in the world then.
    • kinseyincanada, on 11/17/2007, -3/+22getting the oil from the sands is very very expensive.
    • lieutenantmudd, on 11/17/2007, -1/+15For the bulk of US oil fields, a field is considered depleted when it still has 2/3 of the original oil left in. Or at least it was until oil sailed north of $80 a barrel. That map is archaic. It counts only counts "easily" recoverable sweet and somewhat sour crude. With oil at its current price, all kinds of technologies exist to go into Oklahoma and re-pump old fields or go into Alberta and shovel entire swamps into a pot and boil the oil out. Hell, Digg had an article two weeks ago about melting oil based rocks in Colorado. What I am trying to say is that "proven reserves" is a dancing target, technology and especially the price of oil can dramatically change what the definition of proven reserves.
      • 1randomguy08, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0But an important thing to remember is that tar sands cos about $40 barrel to extract as apposed to north african oil which can be extrated for like $2/barrel. Not to mention its MORE energy to put in oil production then it takes out.
        • lieutenantmudd, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2That's why the price of oil is so important when it comes to determining reserves. If oil costs $80 a barrel, and you have billions of barrels recoverable at $40 a barrel, you still have enormous reserves. Who cares if Saudi Arabia is making twice as much a barrel, you are still making a fortune.
          • fryguy1013, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Isn't the price of extracting oil based on the price of oil? I mean, if it costs $60 to recover a barrel of oil and oil sells for $60, then suddenly oil is worth $80, it'll cost more to recover the oil.
    • cyberdork, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8"For every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and between 2 and 4 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds that have replaced about 50 km² of forest. The forecast growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta also threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to [1990]. In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990."
      • shark615, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1which still only counts for barely 2% of the world noxious emissions.

        whats your point?
    • dukeeeey, on 11/17/2007, -4/+1tar isn't oil
      • sirber, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3right! tar is tape archiver!
      • fluxion, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2and seeds aren't gardens

        edit: that analogy was hugely inappropriate, given the nature of the product
    • jonathansoeder, on 11/17/2007, -3/+4Oil in oil sands and shoal require close to as much as - if not more - energy to extract and render into a usable product than you will ever get out of the process. It is a concept called Energy Returned on Energy Invested, and they fail this test. What this map represents, mainly, is the type of crude oil which still has a positive Energy ROI. It is primarily in the middle east.

      It should be clear from this map that the survival of the capitalist, for-profit economic model in the United States is completely dependent -- at an energy level -- on the subjugation of all people in the middle east through war, direct or by proxy, and by espionage and the installation of dictatorships. The maintenance of a state of chaos will provide a pretext for military occupation, and this is why the war in Iraq is not a failure but a success in that it is achieving exactly what those who engineered it intended for it to achieve.
    • Evildudetx, on 11/17/2007, -1/+5Shell has actually figured out how to get the oil out of the shale very cheaply. They are still testing the process though.
      • lucutus, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Testing has estimated that the new efficient process of extracting oil from shoal can produce light sweet crude for under $30 per barrel but will not be able to produce more than 10% of the US consumption rate.
    • Skootles, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Shoal? It's shale..
  • jdh24, on 11/17/2007, -22/+41Inaccurate. The United States has more oil from oil shale alone than all of the Middle East, and more natural gas than all of the Middle East. The US's oil 'reserves' have been mostly untapped.
    • eclipse007, on 11/17/2007, -7/+32"...and more natural gas than all of the Middle East."
      Well that was a good joke!

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872966.html
      Proven Natural Gas Reserves
      1. Russia
      2. Iran
      3. Qatar
      4. Saudi Arabia
      5. UAE
      6. US
      ...

      Notice that 2,3,4 and 5 are in Middle east.
    • databoy, on 11/17/2007, -8/+2You will not find this information in any stock exchange listing. Insider information and a carefully guarded secret. Natural gas; The North West of Australia. Enough to supply Europe for 400 years. Oil reserves; the Timor Sea between Australia and Indonesia.
      • Tanyanika, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Let's keep this our little secret, ok? Dugg down ;)
    • gmillerd, on 11/17/2007, -2/+5Obviously reserves is some fluid term that nobody has a handle on.
    • airiox, on 11/17/2007, -14/+2True, and the fact that scientists are still being payed under the table by the oil companies to educate people that oil comes from the deaths of dinosaurs and 65 million year old plants. Oil is a Natural Resource people, the earth creates it. Anyone who still believes that the oil we pull out of the earth is from some dead old dinosaurs and their plant life really needs to use their brain for once.
      • ErrorS, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6creates it from what?
      • cyberdork, on 11/17/2007, -2/+7LOL, you are great. You know that the oil companies wish you were right and oil is produced abiogenic. But none of them is using that crackpot theory to search for new oil fields.
        PS: It's only idiots like you who bring dinosaurs in connection with oil. Nobody ever claimed that!
    • alwilson, on 11/17/2007, -6/+2Let me guess.. you are a creationist? Oil is a resource created by a intelligent design? Did you sleep through school? Wow, I wonder how you manage to tie your shoes in the morning.
      • guestaccount, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Relevance?
        btw... "a inteligent design"? did you sleep through English?
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1That's what I thought at first. I read that we were importing oil from other places so that the oil that we owned would become more valuable.
  • andrewcsayer, on 11/17/2007, -8/+143Also explains why the military doesn't give a ***** about the African continent
    • Racerx52, on 11/17/2007, -21/+11Dude, Seriously.
      ***** africa
      • Racerx52, on 11/17/2007, -9/+13What? I`m serious. The only good thing there is Diamonds, And those are ***** to anyone with a brain.
        What good does africa serve for the rest of the world? It's no technical marvel, Agricultural continent. It's just a big money pit for those with soft hearts
      • perot9296, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Lets see, it has some ancient marvels, the Pyramids and other Egyptian stuff, nice wildlife (elephants, lions, ...), plus its the birthplace of mankind.

        I'd like to see more areas of the world still undeveloped, rather than more concrete smog filled urban wastelands that have shiny wal-marts.
        • shark615, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2You would be amazed at the number of people who thing Egyt and Africa are seperate countries/continents.
      • markmoogal, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1And you wonder why we hate Americans
        • kebwi, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Please don't hate all of us. Some of us are nice people. I promise.
    • Fasterthanthou, on 11/17/2007, -2/+6How the hell can you justify this statement? The only reason the US military has not intervened in the African continent is because it has little strategic value in the current global scene. Before the Iraq war, the US was not highly involved in the Middle East either. I fail to see how the whole race card can be played.
      • Schneckehaus, on 11/17/2007, -2/+6In soviet russia, statements justify you.
    • skyfire1, on 11/17/2007, -5/+4Replace "military" with "Bush".
    • ButSeriouslyNow, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2Why Bush doesn't give a ***** about the African continent. The military takes its orders from him, not the other way around.
    • doctorfungi, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7Tell that to the men and women who fought in Somalia in 93'

      The military doesn't give two ***** about Africa because we've been there, done that, and no one ended up better for it. It's a lost cause.
    • abeduler, on 11/17/2007, -2/+0It's called 'national interests'. The elected officials that are in office are charged with this responsibility. Oil is the fuel that runs this county. It's not that hard to put 2 and 2 together.
    • ShosuroYuu, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1The US is in Africa now... maybe in not the same scale as in Iraq, but we are there (for better or for worse).

      The best sign of this was to create a central command for Africa.
  • ToastyMallows, on 11/17/2007, -12/+1Inaccurate, Canadia is quite big.
    But the middle east does have an ass load.
    • RegalGSX, on 11/17/2007, -4/+5Yes, Canadia is huge! Even bigger than Chinia and Mexicio.
    • mokayogi, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2That comment sounds really gay!
  • jthrashr, on 11/17/2007, -10/+9I wish I could find some black gold. I'd be like the Beverly Hillbillies.
  • MASTERPL, on 11/17/2007, -6/+29This was on the front page a few weeks ago. Just as inaccurate and lame as before.
  • jthrashr, on 11/17/2007, -21/+19I thought Britney Spears' face was the world's largest oil reserve.
  • salmonz, on 11/17/2007, -2/+17Canada has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. The map content is highly inaccurate.
    • dmac41, on 11/17/2007, -3/+3Canada has the second largest oil deposits, most of the oil that is extracted doesn't go into the reserves.
  • monkeyrun, on 11/17/2007, -3/+7ok, so Iran's next on Bush's todo list.
  • Bossy, on 11/17/2007, -10/+7U.S. is the only country colored yellow/gold for using 6,000 + thousands of barrels per day. Very disturbing and at the same time not surprising. Oil is like crack, IT KILLS and we go out of our way to get it.
    • iChuckles, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Oil kills? Or do you mean obtaining it. Then this can be said about many things.
    • Fasterthanthou, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3OIL IS NOT CRACK!!!! The only reason that the US consumes more oil than another country is because WE ACTUALLY US IT! Simply look at the amount of infrastructure per acre and it is blatantly obvious that a developed country would use as much as we do. For our leaders to not become involved in the pursuit of oil is to undercut the stability and strength of the US.
      • alwilson, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2Yeah, everyone jumping their SUV's and driving across country for the holidays is a good USE of oil? Sure we use it... and abuse it.
    • trentasaurus, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Interesting. So what is it you use for energy?
  • databoy, on 11/17/2007, -4/+31Who has all the natural gas. The North West of Australia. Enough to supply Europe for 400 years. You easily convert natural gas to LPG. Who needs the Arabs for vehicle fuel no-one. OILS AIN'T OILS.The big problem is that the Arabs have a certain type of heavy oil which does not exist anywhere else in the world. This oil is needed for the manufacture of plastics. Vehicle fuel is just a by-product from the distillation process.
    • Zettabyte, on 11/17/2007, -5/+5Be quite...

      Or the Americans will be liberating us next.
      • qualish, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Indeed. Starting with your sisters... >_>
    • 1randomguy08, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2Hope what your saying is true data boy cos it aint hard to run to cars on LPG but knowing the government and oil companies once we start using it price will ***** double.
    • howea, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1what ... do you mean it will become the United States of Australia? (you're too late mate)
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1Can we make a deal that it all goes to Europe and not America?
    • lieutenantmudd, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3You are right in the sense that, once oil runs out, we'll still have plenty of gas to power our lives for a few more decades. But oil is a much better fuel than gas. It is cheaper to extract and transport and it has a significantly higher energy density.

      As for your other two statements, you pulled them out of your ass. Middle Eastern oil is light, sweet crude and similar types of the crude can be found all over the world. And even heavier crude can be upgraded to light crude for less than a dollar a barrel. Second, the vast majority of refinery activity is converting crude into as much gasoline and diesel/diesel-like fuels as possible. Plastic manufacturing is an after-thought. Some of the new upstart refiners are making good money by buying old refineries and rebuilding them so that they can get more gasoline/diesel per barrel than older refineries.
  • thekronz, on 11/17/2007, -8/+1The majority of our oil is in a "Strategic Reserve". We're keeping it to ourselves in the case of an emergency.

    By the way, title is misleading. This is a "Who USES the Oil" map.
    • Scienceisfun, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2It's both a "who has the oil", in terms of the size of the countries, and a "who uses the oil" map in terms of the colours of the countries.
  • ferrazf, on 11/17/2007, -1/+11The oil reserve chart is highly innacurate, google it up
  • carfey, on 11/17/2007, -2/+2This is a map of reserves, not production capacity or any measure of natural resources. Canada produces a very large amount of oil, but has little in reserves compared to a country like the US.
  • Rogozhin, on 11/17/2007, -9/+5OPEC doubled their 'potential' production in the late 70s. This map is completely invalid. Every poster in this thread is an ignorant bastard.

    Rogo
  • Treshnell, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8I thought Canada was like second or third for the largest reserves, and I've read that in several other places. I question the accuracy of this map.
  • derek20cali, on 11/17/2007, -17/+3Ron Paul caters to special interests, would compromise national security, infringe on individual rights, raise taxes, restrict freedoms, seize private property, and violates ethics rules.
    • Racerx52, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7Hey, Sup.
      This article has 0% to do with Ron Paul, Until you showed up
  • RegalGSX, on 11/17/2007, -1/+12That's America's oil you're hording!
  • voodoozombie, on 11/17/2007, -2/+7Inaccurate. The oceans (think offshore drilling) have more oil. Regulations (think environmental and political) and the environment (think hard to get to) keep us from drilling. California has a ***** of oil offshore. Can you imagine a rig off the shore of Del Mar? Or an oil rig in your postcard of the Golden Gate bridge? Do you know how much water covers the earths surface? Besides, if we really needed oil, we could drop a nuke on Saudi Arabia and use oil from Alaska and Russia that would last us a hundred years. Besides, it would hit the airlines first. Do you know how much fuel 747 uses?
    • Racerx52, on 11/17/2007, -4/+2Since when is it a requirement to fly.
      I never have, and will never fly. Am i saving the world? I hope so
      • GawtMilk, on 11/17/2007, -0/+7You're saving something you've never seen. I feel bad for you.
      • qualish, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2There's more to the world than Oklahoma, my good friend.
    • Fasterthanthou, on 11/17/2007, -4/+1You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. DROPPING A NUKE ON SAUDI ARABIA??? ARE YOU NUTS? Do you have any concept of how that would screw up the world?
      1) Most likely, the type of yield needed to level an ENTIRE COUTNRY is enormous, and would most likely lead to millions of casualties, both in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere
      2) Nations friendly to the US would become not so friendly, and enemies of the US would have a reason to become more fanatical.
      Don't say this ***** if when you obviously have no idea what you are saying.
      • LvsSocer, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3You obviously missed the point of his comment...
    • pineutrino, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1It's probably referring to the reserves each country controls, rather than the reserves within the geographical boundaries of each country.
    • lieutenantmudd, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Alaska does not have that much reserves. Alaska's production has already peaked. That pipeline across Alaska only takes half as much oil down as it once did.
  • benroy, on 11/17/2007, -1/+25Is this really shocking to anyone? Yeah i get it, we're American pigs, our ***** doesn't stink and we live beyond our means.
    It's also funny how everyone just assumes that oil = gasoline. It's important to realize that 80% of your life is plastic. Seriously, look around, what is most of your stuff made of?
    I also appreciated the complete lack of references and/or citation.
    • ErrorS, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2I promise I use far more oil's worth of gasoline than I do plastic.. while plastic and vasoline are nice, it's not what's causing us problems.. I'd imagine we have enough oil in Alaska alone to support the entire planet's plastic and rubber needs for the rest of time.

      It's probably not 1:1 plastic to oil in weight, but I don't have enough weight in plastic in my entire house to make up probably 10 gallons of gas..
      • benroy, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2what about the materials & energy needed, plus the waste produced by the manufacturing process? not to mention things like plastic bottles and used/old electronic components going into landfills?
        • ErrorS, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1That's besides the point.. We might need oil to make plastic, but we sure as hell don't *need* oil to run the machines to make plastic.

          and I don't know why you brought up envriomental waste? what does that have to do with our usage? which is what the original post I was replying to was all about.

          Can't believe you're being dugg up while I'm being dugg down..

          I found real figures, materials makes up a total of 4% of the oil we use. When you include motor oil, WD40, rubber, vasoline, ANYTHING other than fuel used by petroluem including the process required to make it, it only makes up 16% of our usage.
    • UnstableMind, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2Plastic can now be made from corn you know. Yes, I know it takes alot more corn, but still.
      • qualish, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4We'll use that as an excuse why I ate my cellphone...
    • floatingpoints, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1We know.

      No one said anything contrary to that.
  • DrFel, on 11/17/2007, -1/+4Everybody knows that us Canadians are the biggest exporters of both oil and cannabis to the U.S.A.
  • tugger, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Take the number of people flying, multiply that bt carloads of people, and a 747 is quite fuel efficient.
    • doublefelix, on 11/17/2007, -0/+11/5 mpg or Approx. 100 mpg/ per person for a fully occupied 747. About the same as carpooling in a Honda Accord. That is, if you're carpooling halfway around the world everyday.
  • Sabretou, on 11/17/2007, -0/+32I see that Glorious Kazakhstan is not very far behind. Soon they will be the no. 1 exporter of Oil, much like they are the no. 1 exporter of Potassium.
    • kvseelbach, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8Got a few guys from Kazakhstan in my petroleum engineering class, sponsored by their home government.
  • misterid, on 11/17/2007, -2/+0Anyone notice it's based on three year old statistics?
  • ryouko, on 11/17/2007, -4/+57President Bush's dartboard?
  • number5, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Russia has a ton of oil they don't tap, mostly due to Siberia's climate where the fields are, but all and all it the same field the feeds the middle east
    • yacks, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2And people say Global Warming is bad... Just look at all oil we could be tapping if it was warmer in Siberia.
  • abhirules, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5This is like the 5th time this is on Digg's front page.....
  • ypSami, on 11/17/2007, -1/+4This does seem very.. generalized, and vague in it's context. For instance, Saudi Arabia may have the most oil, but the United States gets 56% of it's oil from Mexico, Canada, and Domestic Sources, and only 36% from Saudi Arabia.

    Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com did a great podcast episode about this. It's a quick listen, about 10 minutes:

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4032
    • lieutenantmudd, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Shocking that is cheaper to pipe oil in from Mexico instead of carrying it on a ship from half way around the world...
  • Gunshotlullaby, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1Actually i believe that canada has more oil in its forests then all of the other oil deposits in the middle east and south america combined. So this chart is pretty much *****.
  • dolezal73, on 11/17/2007, -2/+25Quit saying that we (Canada) has the 2nd largest reserves of oil. We're trying not to get attacked up here.
    • UnstableMind, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3You won't get attacked, you'll just get annexed. Oh wait, NAFTA.
  • samiel86, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Isn't Canada's Athabasca Oil Sands reserve supposed to rival that of Saudi Arabia's?
    • 1randomguy08, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2well saudia arabian oil is like the rolls royce of oil whist the tar sands are like fat ugly sl*ts only use them for a last resort.
  • rhedwolf, on 11/17/2007, -6/+7Wow, look at the three countries with the largest oil reserves:
    1. Saudi Arabia
    2. Iran
    3. Iraq

    We're already in war with Iraq, and Cheney apparently wants to go to war with Iran next. Who wants to bet that either a) he's going to go after Saudi Arabia next or b) he's working alongside Saudi Arabia to help it monopolize the global oil market? This is all speculation of course...
    • 1randomguy08, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9B) has been happening for decades man its not a secret either.
  • Fasterthanthou, on 11/17/2007, -2/+0attacking Canada would be political and strategic suicide. Why would the US invade such a country when it already has problems of its own?
    • Gman1223, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4It would be suicide because: We're too close to nuke, and if you invade us you make us miss our hockey, you wouldn't like us when we miss hockey.
    • TheMachine1, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0To get Terrence and Phillip.
  • zachseaman, on 11/17/2007, -3/+2We need to reconsider our "friends".
  • rupertmorris, on 11/17/2007, -4/+3Well, Libya and Nigeria's days are numbered. US invasion is imminent!
  • 7717, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1Oldie but goodie
  • PueSi, on 11/17/2007, -0/+15Why Mexico is not on the oil reserves list?
    We have 26,941 million barrells, a lot more than ***** Qatar
    • brainboy77, on 11/17/2007, -4/+1there are people in mexico? I thought they were all in america. and you guys have internet?!! then, why the ***** are you coming to our country!
      • Zaetha, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Asking that is like asking about why every American loves NASCAR and marries their cousins.
  • macslut, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Can I have all of the oil in the Arctic and Antarctica?
    • Sabretou, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2You can, but 10 years later you will labelled a heartless dictator and be declared war upon.
  • seanny19, on 11/17/2007, -5/+2PLEASE do NOT let Bush see this! We will be in war with the top five in a matter of DAYS!
  • 1randomguy08, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0This is a respost, plus reserves arent really that important. In the long run yes as those smaller countries strink to nothing and the middle east has all the oil, but I believe production levels are more important.
  • Jpotts12, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0d
  • darkchild82, on 11/17/2007, -4/+2no wonder they (Bush & Cheney) want to invade Iran next. Of course the American people will pay dearly for it with more terrorist attacks while Bush & Cheney go on holiday with their oil executive buddies !
  • Jpotts12, on 11/17/2007, -3/+2Maybe once we're done in Iraq and Iran (our next target for liberation), we'll detect WMDs in S.A.
  • tybris, on 11/17/2007, -5/+4or 'countries the US government would like to attack most'
  • kvseelbach, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Inaccurate, but it's hard to be accurate considering we don't know if offshore reserves are included, and recoverable reserves vary with economic conditions.
  • 2shae, on 11/17/2007, -14/+9USA you suck!
    Why are you using so much?

    • spawnfree, on 11/17/2007, -2/+3there is a massive and highly profitable industry supplying a nation that has been told it is their right to use as much as they like.
      A map of drug production and consumption would look similar, with Afghanistan and south America being the chief suppliers.
      America; a nation of mislead and abused people, but hey we all love money too right?
  • odganarb, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2seriously, how many times are you bush hating commies gonna put this ***** on digg? nobody gives a *****. you're going on and on about this ***** on digg, making all kinds of brouhaha, and yet you're not gonna vote. i'm quite happy with this, because it gives the actually sane people a real say in the matter of things, rather than being drowned out by drones who get told by the media to vote for the democrats. also, you make it seem like a little known fact that saudi arabia has a *****-ton of oil. that fact is the ONLY reason that a city like Riyadh is flourishing the way it is today. in summary, omfg, stfu, nobody cares.
  • w00ters, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2So the Eurasian world doesn't use any oil after all. Whew what a relief more for me!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.