The United States is divided into Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts – better known as PADDs. The system was created during World War II to better organize petroleum-derived fuels and their distribution. The districts are still used to day for collection of data.

PADD III, which contains Alabama, Arkanas, New Mexico, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, produces the greatest number of barrels of oil per day, 2,859,000 barrels. PADD V, which includes ANWR – the area the oil companies have deemed the end all and be all to oil production, produces 1,391,000 barrels per day – one-half of the oil produced by PADD III.

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) and Statemaster provide a wealth of information about enegy consumption, price, sources, etc. The EIA website also provides a 25-year projection from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. That prediction reflects that world marketed energy consumption is projected to increase by 57 percent from 2004 to 2030. Total energy demand in the non-OECD countries increases by 95 percent, compared with an increase of 24 percent in the OECD countries.

The prediction supports those of us who understand that we are not going back to the days of cheap energy and gasoline regardless of drilling locations that big oil continues to push down the American public’s throat.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Energy, Energy Information Adminstration and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. David Waas says:

    Just a note to thank your blog Charlotte. I was doing research on blackberries and Berry Street Beacon came up – what a pleasant surprise. I appreciate the careful research you’re doing on critical issues and when I finish with the blackberries will certainly visit your site often.


  2. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    Your data is right on. However a couple of issues need to be addressed in the overall though process of where to drill for oil.

    1- Oil companies by nature want to turn a profit. Hence, they would seek to drill in areas that allow for the lowest overall cost to get the final product to the market place.

    2- While parts of North America has, what is believed, to be higher levels of reserves the types oils are not the same. There is sand oil and shell oil. Both of which take a great deal more refining to obtain final products.

    3- Because no one wants a new refinery in their backyard oil companies do not want to spend the tens of millions of dollars just to fight for the right to build a refinery.

    4- Current large refineries can not process shell and sand oil. Most are designed for processing “sweet crude” or low sulfur.

    5- The BP refinery at Whiting Indiana I believe will be able to process the more “sour crude” out of Canada. However, look at the years it has taken to get questionable approval and the fact it is costing them over a billion dollars to outfit the operation.

    I agree we need to start addressing getting off of oil but there is no magic switch. Even if we do everyone is not going to be able to run out and purchase new cars and so forth.

    The winning of oil battle is a combination of drilling for new oil to even maintain our current thurst. To build more nuke power plants and shut down the ones burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

    Work on developing new engery for autos. It may be electric, which I doubt will be the final answer.

    What we need to do is get past the stupid Demo vs Repub thought process. If we do not the United States will soon become a third class country.

  3. ice-ironman says:

    THANK YOU J Q TAXPAYER. Anyone who doesnt agree with your point is hurting for the truth.

  4. J.Q.

    Thanks for the comments. You and I agree on getting past the thirst for oil. And there is no magic switch. We have dug ourselves into a hole in the ground, and it is going to be fairly painful getting out.

    I still believe Americans just do not see themselves as having to change their habits. We went through the oil embargo during the 1970s, which many younger people don’t remember. For a while it scared everyone, and we started having serious conversations about oil independence. But then the embargo ended, and energy conservation and new ideas fell by the wayside as oil again began flowing at cheap prices. Americans quickly forgot about conservation.

    It seems like we just don’t learn from past events. We will not see the days of $2.00 or $2.50 gas again. To accept that is not to accept defeat; it is to accept reality. The world has changed, and the sooner we move forward and adjust, the better off we will be.

    The only concern I have with nuclear energy is that it won’t solve the oil issue. Transportation takes 70% of the oil we use, so nuclear energy won’t impact that part of our energy needs. Nuclear energy may be helpful in generating electricity, but unless we figure out how to build cars that are efficient on electricity, nuclear power won’t help in that area.

    I ran across some interesting info while researching. We get almost half (49%) of our oil from countries in the western hemisphere. We really aren’t dependent on the Middle East for our oil supplies. I also ran across information about the Bakken Oil Formation which extends across North Dakota, Montana, and Saskatchewan. Apparently, this formation is being viewed as the biggest find in our history.

    Another plus is that the oil is “sweet”, which is the type that will be most easily processed.

    Here is my question. Why aren’t we hearing about this site? Why aren’t we hearing about drilling in the Bakken Formation? I will tell you why, and it goes back to my earlier thoughts. The oil companies are making an example of ANWR. They want to see how much power they have to control the course of energy production. If they can manage to scare the American people into demanding drilling in ANWR, then they will pretty much be able to get what they want.

  5. Ice-ironman:

    A little subjective to use “anyone”, don’t you think?

    J.Q. and I disagree on some things, and we agree on others. We always end up, though, learning from each other.

  6. ice-ironman says:

    “We really aren’t dependent on the Middle East for our oil supplies”. Are you truely mad?

    “I also ran across information about the Bakken Oil Formation which extends across North Dakota, Montana, and Saskatchewan. Apparently, this formation is being viewed as the biggest find in our history”.

    It is already being tapped. Why dont you look up a little town called Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada. Almost all CNH (case new holland)(Case IH for the layperson)employees were lost because the workers left to go oil drilling. I love Canada. The problem is Why dont you care about the areas in Montana and N. Dakota? Oh thats right you do. And as soon as we want to drill there you will complain. Correct?

    So what did you learn from JQ tax payer on his last statments?

  7. ice-ironman says:

    Ever heard of Synthetic Fuels Corp.?
    What should I do to reduce my fuel consumption? Everyone (Libs) want to say Americans must change our ways but what do we do right now?

  8. Ice-ironman:

    You need to do some research.

    Here is the link that shows where our oil comes from:

    You will note that the only Middle Eastern country with any amount of exports to the U.S. is Saudi Arabia. As I said in my reply to J.Q., almost half of our imports come from the western hemisphere.

    How is relying on facts provided by the EIA being “truly mad?” Perhaps, you are confusing OPEC countries with Middle Eastern countries. OPEC includes countries from Africa such as Algeria, Nigeria, etc. as well as Saudi Arabia.

  9. Ice-ironman:

    Follow-up – what do we do right now?

    No matter how much we expand drilling and exploration “right now” it won’t have any impact for years down the road.

    So it is okay to go after areas that have been off limits for decades even though they won’t make a difference right now, but it isn’t feasible to change habits now because it won’t make a difference?

    Sounds like you want it both ways.

  10. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    Here I go again….

    1- Yes nearly all of “our crude” comes from this part of the world. Our refineries are designed and built to process this type of crude. In other parts of the world the refineries are designed to process a certain type of crude. That is why currently the US is importing finished gas by tankers.

    2- Regardless to where “our” oil comes from it has to be considered part of the world supply. The world is supplying the world.

    3- China fears the oil problem as much as we do. Maybe even more. There country is exploding in growth. They have underwritten the cost of finished oil products to their own people. However, the cost has been high they are started to reduce this and it has started to impact their growth.

    4- India has the same issue as listed above.

    5- China and India also have started to feel the pinch as the heavy containers that arrive in the US come via ships. These ships eat millions of gallons of fuel. Hence the cost of shipping “weighted” and high profit items has exploded. Our very own SDI steel operation has seen their business explode as the cheap China stell is no longer cheap by the time it arrives in the US.

    6- The weak US dollar has had a huge impact on the cost of oil here in the US. Our dollar is so weak because of a number of issues that this also has driven up the price within the US.

    7- The world is quickly approaching max pumping abilitiy of obtaining crude from the earth. Some say we have and this explains in parth why some Arab countries will not pump more as they have hit max capacity.

    Why we need nuke power plants.

    1- We could shut down the coal fired ones as part of an agreement of building the new nuke plants. This would reduce a solid percentage in reduction of green houses gases.

    2- Nuke plants also would allow for the shut down of natural gas and oil fired generation plants. While they do not produce as much green house gas as coal plants they do contribute to the overall problem.

    3- Using the French nuke power plants and use of fuel rods would also help reduce the amount of spent fuel rods now being stored in water baths at various nuke plants. These rods could be recycled/recharged so that when they are really used up we would only have 10% of the nuke waste we are currently setting on.


    1- Transportation sucks up between 60-70% of the oil brought into the US.

    2- We fly more airplanes then any other country in the world. Maybe every little hick city does not need 50-90 passanger jet service like it is now.

    I wish I had written down the figure a CEO of one major airlines said it cost per passanger to fly from Chicago to LA. The only reason it caught my ear was the fact my daughter drove from Fort Wayne to San Francisco using less then half the fuel.

    3- A large percentage of ships bringing food or product to the US uses either the west or east coast ports. This often leads to semi trucks transversing the entire width of this country to deliver goods.

    4- Yes we love our cars in the US. The US has a developed land mass greater then any other country in the world. The US generates more finished goods/foods per develop acre then any other place in the world. Hence, our use of fuel would be higher to support such.

    5- When comparing the US other countries in the use of fuel one has to research the real number. Most of Europe is made up of small countries that are smaller then many of our states. Hence, their fuel usage will be smaller then ours. There is no doubt in my mind that we use more oil then other countries but I think if the proper study was done we would find our lead over others would be a much smaller percentage.

    With regards to Charlotte ——

    I am a fan of her writings and thought process. I know I have learned a fair amount from her writings. Some have caused me to rethink my position while others she could not budge me the least.

    Charlotte is the kind of person that I would enjoy setting on the same council. I would know she would have her ducks pretty well lined up when she presented her case. I also know that she will listen to others and give them fair value. I know I would do the same. Hence, I would feel that debating a subject with her would result in the best possible results for all. I would not win everything and neither would she. We would compromise and produce the best the masses.

    Well I think I have about covered this for now unless I missed something or some other point is brought up.

  11. J.Q.

    Heavens, you know you can make any amount of comments here you want to. I always get so much information from you, and I almost always end up doing more research as a result of something you have said.

    You are certainly right on our positions. I know that some things I will re-think – nuclear power being one of them, and some I won’t – the war in Iraq. I used to be opposed to nuclear power, but since our discussions here and information you have provided, I am starting to look at nuclear power a little differently.

    My son and I also discuss nuclear power, and he has made arguments for it. I am sure he would be happy to know I have re-thought my position. My only concern is that we understand it is valuable as a source of energy in certain areas – production of electricity, the primary one – and not so much in the area of transportation.

    Although, come to think of it, we used to have electricity-powered street cars in Fort Wayne. I found some pictures of them when I was doing my research on the truss bridges in Allen County. I would imagine if we dug up our streets to the brick layer, we would find the old rails unless they were torn up when re-paving.

    I haven’t paid much attention to the issue of coal like I should, so I will probably be doing some research soon on that. If we begin to use nuclear power again, I believe that will relieve some of the pressure to use coal since coal is also used to produce electricity. I know we are working on processes to make coal “clean” since its use produces CO2 and other hazardous discharges.

    And thank you for your comments on my writings. I really enjoy blogging; I just wish I had more time to do so.

    Oh, and that post about the black raspberries. I made 7 pints of black raspberry jam, and I froze some in sugar to use later. I also snacked on plenty.

    I froze my sour cherries, and I just picked red currants. I will be making jelly sometime this week.

  12. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    I believe if you go over around the back streets around the GE complex there are still tracks. Many of them where brick for car travel with the rail lines running through them. I am sure they have been paved over but as a kid I remember us driving over them.

    I also remember seeing (Gosh I am old) the electric buses. They where no longer on the rails when I saw them but still used the overhead lines to power them.

    I to do not support the use of nuke power outside of the generation of electric power.

    It would be great if “clean coal” could be developed but I think it is some time off. I believe their are “CLEARNER COAL” processes out there now but on a huge world wide scale I think the end result would only be slightly better then we have now.

    Glad your “WEST CENTRAL FRUITS” are giving you such joy. To think if 1,000,000 more people would undertake what you have done then think of the thousands of semi-trucks that would not be running the highways.

    Then again that is why people even in the cities had their own gardens as it was a way to keep the cost of eating lower. Which also means fewer trips to store.

  13. ice-ironman says:

    If 49% comes from the western hemisphere–Wouldnt 51% have to come from the eastern hemisphere. So your statement that we really dont rely on the Mid East is a little off.

  14. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    Where is comes from is no big deal. The sad answer is we are running out of oil. Where comes from only raises the issue of where it will be processed.

    Because US refineries can not “crack” most of the oil from “the other side of the world” we are now getting huge tankers of refined gas.

    By drilling off our own shores, ANWR, or on are own land is only a stop gap measure. It gives us some time to develop and to change over to other forms of fuel.

    The sad thing is in our modern world of thinking that next week the problem will be fixed. It will not be fixed for between 8-15 years.

    1- Nuke power plants take from 5-8 years to build once final approval is gained.

    2- Switching over to electric/gas cars is a stop gap at best. Even now the supply line to build the current batteries could not support a total switch over.

    3- There is no system in place and nothing is on the drawing boards to support a total switch over to electric cars. The battery packs would need to be switched out at some service center over waiting on your own batteries to recharge.

    For me I only see bad days ahead. Too many people on both sides of the isle do not want to stand up and admitt we are in deep trouble. That we need to address this issue on a scope equal to or greater then when President Kennedy showed the leadership in putting a man on the moon.

    If we taxpayers/voters do not demand answers from both canidates before we vote then we are the ones at fault for the failure of the greatest country in the world.

    By getting wind power and large scale solar panel fields on line we should start demanding the shut down generating plants that use oil to fire the turbines. It is not an answer all but affords some additional oil to be used by diesels.

    Wind power and solar will also give us time to get nuke power plants built. In building them we can reduce both oil and coal fired generation plants. It is not an answer all but affords some additional oil and to reduce greenhouse gases.

    We need to allow all auto manufactures to work outside antitrust laws in designing and building a new system to power automobiles. With them working as a joint design group the final designs can be used across all platforms of auto. Hence there would be standard over everyone having their own “best mouse trap!”

    We need to spend billions of dollars to bring our train system up to the 21st century level. Keep in mind our gov. (federal, state, and local) underwrite our airports and airways with billions every year.

    Trains based on per person carried is far more fuel efficient then any other power mode of mass transit. This includes airplanes, buses, and cars.

    In closing think about this. If we had a high speed train (120 mph) you could leave the old Baker Street Train Station and arrive at Indy airpot in about 1 1/2 hours. Which would include a couple of stops on the way. Your suitcases that would be going on the airplane would be sorted and tagged while in transit. Your carry on material would be processed and checked while in route. You would get off the train in a secure area that would allow you to walk/ride right to the gate area.

    Currently you go to Fort Wayne International and take up to one hour getting everything taken care of. You get on the plane and head to Chicago or Detroit which takes around one hour of flight time.

    The two wash each other out time wise but you saved a ton on fuel.

    Stick a fork in me……. I am done

Comments are closed.