Prove You’re Not a Terrorist

By Jeff Thomas

Recently, France decided to crack down on those people who make cash payments and withdrawals and who hold small bank accounts. The reason given was, not surprisingly, to “fight terrorism,” the handy catchall justification for any new restriction governments wish to impose on their citizens. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin stated at the time, “terrorism feeds on fraud, money laundering, and petty trafficking.”

And so, in future, people in France will not be allowed to make cash payments exceeding €1,000 (down from €3,000). Additionally, cash deposits and withdrawals totaling more than €10,000 per month will be reported to Tracfin—an anti-fraud and money laundering agency. Currency exchange will also be further restricted. Anyone changing over €1,000 to another currency (down from €8,000) will be required to show an identity card.

Do you need to make a deposit on a car? That might be suspect. Did you just deposit a dividend you received? It might be a payment from a terrorist organisation. Planning a holiday and need some cash? You might need to be investigated for terrorism. And France is not alone. In the US, federal law requires banks to file a “suspicious activity report” (SAR) on their customers whenever a customer requests a suspicious transaction. (In 2013, 1.6 million SAR’s were submitted.)

As to what may be deemed “suspicious,” it may be any transaction of $5,000 or more, but it may also mean a series of transactions that, together, exceed $5,000. The reader may be saying to himself, “But that’s just normal, everyday banking business—that means anybody, any time, could be reported.” If so, he would be correct. Essentially, any banking activity the reader conducts could be regarded as suspect.

In Italy, in 2011, Prime Minister Mario Monti began working to end the right of landlords, tradesmen, and small businesses to perform large transactions in cash, which critics say help them evade taxation. In December of that year, his government reduced the maximum allowed cash payment from €2,500 euros to €1,000.

Spain has outlawed cash transactions over €2,500. The justification? “To crack down on the black market and tax evaders.”

In Sweden, the country where the first banknote was created in 1661, the use of cash is being steadily eliminated. Increasingly, expenses are paid and purchases made by cellphone text message, and many banks have stopped handling cash altogether.

Denmark’s central bank, Nationalbanken, has another justification for ending its use of banknotes—producing paper money and coinage is not cost effective.

Israel also seeks to end the use of cash. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff has announced a three phase plan to “all but do away with cash transactions in Israel.”

Individuals and businesses would initially continue to be allowed to make small cash transactions, but eventually, all transactions would be converted to electronic forms of payment. The justification being used in Israel is that “cash is bad,” because it encourages an underground economy and enables tax evasion.

Across the Atlantic, banks and governments are on a similar campaign. A 2012 law in Mexico bans large cash transactions, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

In August 2014, Uruguay passed the Financial Inclusion Law, which limits cash transactions to US$5,000. In future, all transactions over that amount will be required to be performed electronically. The crying need for such a law? The stated reason was to improve the country’s credit ratings.

The Elimination of Paper Currency

In recent years, in commenting on the inevitability of currency collapse in those countries that are indebted beyond the possibility of repayment, I’ve made the prediction that governments and banks would jointly resort to the elimination of paper currency and replace it with an electronic one.

Some readers have understandably regarded the prediction as “alarmist.” After all, the idea is so farfetched—paper currency may be conceptually flawed, but it’s been around for a long time. But banks and governments seek total control of money, and this can only be achieved if they possess a monopoly on the flow of money.

If a worldwide system can be implemented in which currency transactions can only take place electronically through banking institutions, the banks will then have total power over the ability of a people to function economically. But why would any government allow the banks such dictatorial monetary control? The answer is that governments would then realise a long held, but heretofore impossible dream: to have access to a record of every monetary transaction that takes place for every single individual.

Governments have been both more proactive and bolder than I had anticipated and are simply imposing the restrictions worldwide under the justifications previously stated. As yet, there hasn’t been any backlash, and it may be that people worldwide may simply swallow the pill, not understanding what it means to their economic liberty.

If the public are not treating the new system as serious business, governments most assuredly are. Bankers on both sides of the Atlantic have forcibly become unpaid government spies. If they don’t comply, they can be fined and/or lose their banking charter. Directors can be imprisoned.

The US Justice Department already wants to take this overreach even further. Banks are now being asked to call the authorities whenever something “suspicious” occurs, presumably so that immediate action may be taken. What we are witnessing is the creation of totalitarian control of your finances. The implication that you may have some sort of terrorist involvement is a smokescreen.

As the above information attests, if for any reason you object to any of these measures, you have already been forewarned—you may be suspected of money laundering, tax evasion, or even terrorism. If you use cash for any reason—to pay your rent, to buy a used car, or (soon) to pay for your lunch—you may trigger an investigation. (The onus of proof that you are not guilty good will be on you.)

The take away from this discussion? Totalitarian control of currency is an inevitability, and it will take place sooner rather than later. The only question is whether the reader can retain some control of his wealth. Fortunately, wealth may still be held in land and precious metals, but these are only safe if they’re held outside a country that seeks totalitarian rule over its people. The ability to retain wealth still exists and, as always, internationalisation remains a key element to its continuation.

Editor’s Note: The ultimate way to diversify your savings internationally is to transfer it out of the immediate reach of your home government. And we've put together an in depth video presentation to help you do just that. It's called, "Internationalizing Your Assets."

Our all star panel of experts, with Doug Casey and Peter Schiff, provide low cost options for international diversification that anyone can implement - including how to safely set up foreign storage for your gold and silver bullion and how to move your savings abroad without triggering invasive reporting requirements. This is a must watch video for any investor and it's completely free.

Click here to watch Internationalizing Your Assets right now.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity

By Doug French, Contributing Editor

The minimum wage should be the easiest issue to understand for the economically savvy. If the government arbitrarily sets a floor for wages above that set by the market, jobs will be lost. Even the Congressional Budget Office admits that 500,000 jobs would be lost with a $10.10 federal minimum wage. Who knows how high the real number would be?

Yet here we go again with the “Raise the minimum wage” talk at a time when unemployment is still devastating much of the country. The number of Americans jobless for 27 weeks or more is still 3.37 million. And while that’s only half the 6.8 million that were long term unemployed in 2010, most of the other half didn’t find work. Four fifths of them just gave up.

So, good economics and better sense would say, “make employment cheaper.” More of anything is demanded if the price goes down. That would mean lowering the minimum wage and undoing a number of cumbersome employment regulations that drive up the cost of jobs.

But then as H.L. Mencken reminded us years ago, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Which means the illogical case made by Republican multimillionaire businessman Ron Unz is being taken seriously.

We Don’t Want No Stinkin’ Entry Level Jobs

 

Unz says the minimum should be $12 and recognizes that 90% of the resistance is that it would kill jobs. So what’s his answer to that silver bullet to his argument? America doesn’t want those low paying jobs anyway. In his words, “Critics of a rise in the minimum wage argue that jobs would be destroyed, and in some cases they are probably correct. But many of those threatened jobs are exactly the ones that should have no place in an affluent, developed society like the United States, which should not attempt to compete with Mexico or India in low wage industries.”

He doesn’t think much of fast food jobs either. But he knows that employment can’t be shipped overseas, so Mr. Unz’s plan for those jobs is as follows:

So long as federal law requires all competing businesses to raise wages in unison, much of this cost could be covered by a small one time rise in prices. Since the working poor would see their annual incomes rise by 30 or 40 percent, they could easily afford to pay an extra dime for a McDonald’s hamburger, while such higher prices would be completely negligible to America’s more affluent elements.

The Number of Jobs Isn’t Fixed

 

He believes that if all jobs pay well enough, legal applicants will apply and take all the jobs. This is where Unz crosses paths with David Brat, the economics professor who recently unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Brat claims to be a free-market sympathizer and says plenty of good things. However, in his stump speeches and interviews, Brat says early and often, “An open border is both a national security threat and an economic threat that our country cannot ignore. … Adding millions of workers to the labor market will force wages to fall and jobs to be lost.”

That would make sense if there were a fixed number of jobs, but that’s not the case. An economics professor should know that humans have unlimited wants and limited means, which, as Nicholas Freiling explains in The Freeman, “renders the amount of needed labor virtually endless—constrained only by the economy’s productive capacity (which, coincidentally, only grows as the supply of labor increases).”

An influx of illegal immigrants may or may not drive down wages, but even if it does, that’s a good thing. Low wages allow employers to invest in other things. More efficient production lowers costs for everyone, producers and consumers, allowing for capital creation. In the long run, it is capital investment that creates jobs.

Employers Bid for Labor Like Anything Else

 

Mr. Unz claims that low-wage employers are being subsidized by the welfare state. “It’s a classic case of where businesses manage to privatize the benefits of their workers—they get the work—and socialize the costs. They’ve shifted the costs over to the taxpayer and the government,” writes Unz.

It makes one wonder how the businessman made millions in the first place. Wage rates aren’t determined by what the employee’s expenses are. “Labor is a scarce factor of production,” wrote economist Ludwig von Mises. “As such it is sold and bought on the market. The price paid for labor is included in the price allowed for the product or the services if the performer of the work is the seller of the product or the services.”

Mises explained that a general rate of wages does not exist. “Labor is very different in quality,” Mises wrote, “and each kind of labor renders specific services. each is appraised as a complementary factor for turning out definite consumers’ goods and services.”

Not every job contributes $12 an hour in production benefits toward a finished good or service. And many unskilled laborers can’t generate $12 an hour worth of output. The Congress that created the minimum wage knew this and carved out the 14(c) permit provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, allowing an exemption from minimum wage requirements for businesses hiring the handicapped.

That Congress included in the act this language:

The Secretary, to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulation or order provide for the employment, under special certificates, of individuals ... whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury, at wages which are lower than the minimum wage.

Entrepreneurs must purchase all factors of production at the lowest prices possible. No offense to labor—that’s what customers demand. All cuts in wages pass through to customers. If a business pays more than the market wage rate, the business “would be soon removed from his entrepreneurial position.” Pay less than the market, and employees leave to work somewhere else.

Who Picks Up The Tab?

 

First, Unz says, “American businesses can certainly afford to provide better pay given that corporate profits have reached an all-time high while wages have fallen to their lowest share of national GDP in history.” So, instead of taxpayers supporting the poor, Unz wants business to pay. No, wait: later he writes that consumers will support the poor by paying higher prices.

“McDonald’s and fast food places would probably have to raise their prices by 8 or 9 percent, something like that. Agricultural products that are American-grown would go up by less than 2 percent on the grocery shelves. And those sorts of price increases are so small that they would be almost unnoticed in most cases by the consumer.” Walmart would cover a $12 minimum wage with a one time price increase of 1.1%, he says, with the average Walmart shopper paying just an extra $12.50 a year. So it’s consumers—who are also taxpayers—who get to be their brother’s keeper either which way with Unz’s plan.

Walmart Must Be Offering Enough

 

Fortune magazine writer Stephen Gandel appeared on Morning Joe this week, making the case that Walmart should give its employees a 50% raise (his article in Fortune on the subject appeared last November). According to him, the company is misallocating capital by not paying higher wages. He says investors are not giving the company credit for the lower pay in the stock price, so they should just do the right thing and pay their employees more.

But Walmart does pay more when it has to compete for employees. In oil rich Williston, North Dakota, the retail giant is offering to pay entry level workers as much as $17.40 per hour to attract employees.
Walmart isn’t alone. McDonald’s is paying $300 signing bonuses to attract workers. The night shift at gas stations in Williston pays $14 an hour.

By the way, whatever Walmart is paying, it must be enough, because it has plenty of applicants to choose from. In 2005, 11,000 people in the Bay Area applied for 400 positions at a new Oakland store. Three years later near Chicago, 25,000 people applied for 325 positions at a new store.

Last year a new Walmart opened in the DC area. Again, the response was overwhelming. Debbie Thomas told the Washington Post, “It’s hard to live in this city on $7.45 or $8.25 an hour. I’ve lived here all my life, and I want to stay here. In the end, I’m just glad Walmart’s here. I might get a job.”

Throughout history, people have had to relocate to find work. Today is no different.

In the long run, as the minimum wage increases, capital will be invested to replace labor. We’ve seen it for years. Machines don’t call in sick, sue for harassment, require health insurance, or show up late. Now patrons pour their own drinks. Shoppers scan their own groceries and pump their own gas. Soon we’ll be ordering from electronic tablets at our tables in sit down restaurants to cut down on wait staff, and the cooks will be replaced by automated burger makers.

Unz may well believe what he proposes would be doing good; however, it means kids and the unskilled go unemployed and in the end, are unemployable.

You read an excerpt from the Daily Dispatch, Casey Research’s wildly popular e-letter. Stay in the loop on big-picture trends, precious metals, energy, technology, and more. Sign up Here to receive the Daily Dispatch free of charge in your inbox.

The article Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity was originally published at Casey Research

Check out our "Beginner's Guide to Trading Options"....Just Click Here!

 


-->

Why the Resource Supercycle Is Still Intact

By Rick Rule, Chairman and Founder, Sprott Global Resource Investments

Natural resource based industries are very capital intensive, and hence extremely cyclical. It is not unreasonable to say that as a natural resource investor, you are either contrarian or you will be a victim.

These markets are risky and volatile!

Why Cyclicality?

 

Let's talk about cyclicality first. Some of the cyclicality of these industries is a function of their being extraordinarily capital intensive. This lengthens the companies' response times to market cycles.

Don't miss this weeks free webinar "The Big Trade with John Carter"....Just Click Here

Strengthening copper prices, for example, do not immediately result in increased copper production in many market cycles, because the production cycle requires new deposits to be discovered, financed, and constructed......a process that can consume a decade.

Price declines—even declines below the industry's total production costs—do not immediately cause massive production cuts. The "sunk capital" involved in discovery and construction of mining projects and attendant infrastructure (such as smelters, railways, and ports) causes the industry to produce down to, and sometimes below, their cash costs of production.

Producers often engage in a "last man standing" contest, to drive others to mothball productive assets, citing the high cost of shutdown and restart. They fail to mention their conflicts of interest as managers, whose compensation is linked to running operational mines.

Interest-rate cycles can raise or lower the cost and availability of capital, and the accompanying business cycles certainly influence demand. Given the "trapped" nature of the industry's productive assets, local political and fiscal cycles can also influence outcomes in natural-resource investments.

Today, I believe that we are still in a resource "supercycle," a long-term period of increasing commodity prices in both nominal and real terms. The market conditions of the past two years have made many observers doubt this assertion. But I believe the current cyclical decline is a normal and healthy part of the ongoing secular bull market.

Has this happened in the past?

 

The most striking analogy to the current situation occurred in the epic gold bull market in the 1970s. Many of you will recall that in that bull market, gold prices advanced from US$35 per ounce to $850 per ounce over the course of a decade. Fewer of you will recall that in the middle of that bull market, in 1975 and 1976, a cyclical decline saw the price of gold decline by 50%, from about $200 per ounce down to about $100 per ounce. It then rebounded over the next six years to $850 per ounce.

Investors who lacked the conviction to maintain their positions missed an 850% move over six short years. The current gold bull market, since its inception in 2000, has experienced eight declines of 10% or greater, and three declines—including the present one—of more than 20%.

This volatility need not threaten the investor who has the intellectual and financial resources to exploit it.

The natural-resources bull market lives…

 

The supercycle is a direct result of several factors. The most important of these is, ironically, the deep resource bear markets which lasted for almost two decades, commencing in 1982.

This period critically constrained investment in a capital-intensive industry where assets are depleted over time.

Productive capacity declined in every category; very little exploration took place; few new mines or oilfields replenished reserves; infrastructure and processing assets deteriorated. Critical human-resource capabilities suffered as well; as workers retired or got laid off, replacements were neither trained nor hired.

National oil companies (NOCs) exacerbated this decline in many nations by milking their oil and gas industries to subsidize domestic spending programs for political gain. This was done at the expense of sustaining capital investments. The worst examples are Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Indonesia, and Iran. I believe 25% of world export crude capacity may be at risk from failure of NOCs to maintain and expand their productive assets.

Demands for social contributions in the form of taxes, royalties, carried equity interests, social or infrastructure contributions, and the like have increased. Voters are not concerned that producers need real returns to recover from two decades of underinvestment or to fund capital investments to offset depletion. Today this is actively constraining investment, and hence supply.

Poor people getting richer…

 

The supercycle is also driven by globalization and the social and political liberalization of emerging and frontier markets. As people become freer, they tend to become richer.

As poor countries become less poor, their purchases tend to be very commodity centric, especially compared to Western consumers. For the 3.5 billion people at the bottom of the economic pyramid, the goods that provide the most utility are material goods and consumables, rather than the information services or "high value-added" goods.

A poor or very poor household is likely to increase its aggregate calorie consumption—both by eating more food and more energy-dense food like meat. They will likely consume more electrical power and motor fuel and upgrade their home from adobe or thatch to higher-quality building materials. As people's incomes increase in developing and frontier markets, the goods they buy are commodity-intensive, which drives up demand per capita. And we are talking billions of "capitas."

Rising incomes and savings among certain cultures in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia—places with a strong cultural affinity for bullion—have increased the demand for gold, silver, platinum, and palladium bullion. Bullion has been a store of value in these regions for generations, and rising incomes have generated physical bullion demand that has surprised many Western-centric analysts.

Competitive devaluation

 

The third important driver in this cycle has been the depreciation of currencies and the impact that has had on nominal pricing for resources and precious metals.

Most developed economies have consumed and borrowed at worrying levels. The United States federal government has on-balance-sheet liabilities of over $16 trillion, and off-balance-sheet liabilities estimated at around $70 trillion.

These numbers do not include state and local government liabilities, nor the likely liabilities from underfunded private pensions. Not to mention increased costs associated with more comprehensive health care and an aging population!

Many analysts are even more concerned about the debts and liabilities of other developed economies—Europe and Japan. In both places, debt-to-GDP ratios are greater than in the US. Europe and Japan are financing themselves through a combination of artificially low interest rates and more borrowing and money printing. This drives down the value of their currencies, helping their exports.

But which nations' leaders will stand firm and allow their export industries to wither as their domestic producers suffer from cheap competing foreign goods? If Japan's Abe is successful at increasing his country's exports at the expense of its competitors like Taiwan, Korea, or China, then his policies could lead to competitive devaluation. And how will the European community react, for that matter?

Loss of purchasing power in fiat currencies increases the nominal pricing of commodities and drives demand for bullion as a preferred savings vehicle.

The factors that have driven this resource supercycle have not changed. Demand is increasing. Supplies are constrained. Currencies are weakening. Thus I believe we remain in a secular bull market for natural resources and precious metals.

With that in mind, I would call the current market for bullion and resource equities a sale.

Where to invest?

 

Let's talk about a type of company most of us follow: mineral exploration companies, or "juniors." We often confuse the minerals exploration business with an asset-based business. I would argue that is a mistake.

Entities that explore for minerals are actually more similar to "the research and development" space of the mining industry. They are knowledge based businesses.

When I was in university, I learned that one in 3,000 "mineralized anomalies" (exploration targets) ended up becoming a mine. I doubt those odds have improved much in 40 years. So investors take a 1-in-3,000 chance in order to receive a 10-to-1 return.

These are not good odds. But understanding the industry improves them substantially.

Exploration companies are similar to outsourcing companies. Major mining companies today conduct relatively little exploration. Their competitive advantage lies in scale, financial stability, and engineering and construction expertise. Similar to how big companies in other sectors outsource certain tasks to smaller, more specialized shops, the big miners let the juniors take on exploration risk and reward the successful ones via acquisitions.

Major companies are punished rather than rewarded for exploration activities in the short term. Majors therefore tend to focus on the acquisition of successful juniors as a growth strategy.

Today, the junior model is broken. Many public exploration companies spend a majority of their capital on general and administrative expenses, including fundraising. Overlay a hefty administrative load on an activity with a slim probability of success, and these challenges become even more severe.

One response from the exploration and financial community has been to put less emphasis on exploration success and focus instead on "market success." In this model, rather than "turning rocks into money," the process becomes "turning rocks into paper, and paper into money."

One manifestation of that is the juniors' habit of recycling exploration targets that have failed repeatedly in the past but can be counted on to yield decent confirmation holes, and the tendency to acquire hyper-marginal deposits and promote the value of resources underground without mentioning the cost of actually extracting them.

The industry has been quite successful, during bull markets, at causing "sophisticated" investors to focus on exciting but meaningless criteria.

Being successful in natural resource investing requires you to make choices. If your broker convinces you to buy the sector as a whole, they will have lived up to their moniker—you will become "broker" and "broker."
We have already said that exploration is a knowledge-based business. The truth is that a small number of people involved in the sector generate the overwhelming majority of the successes. This realization is key to improving our odds of success.

"Pareto's law" is the social scientists' term for the so-called "80-20 rule," which holds that 80% of the work is accomplished by 20% of the participants.

A substantial body of evidence exists that it is roughly true across a variety of disciplines. In a large enough sample, this remains true within that top 20%—meaning 20% of the top 20%, or 4% of the population, contributes in excess of 60% of the utility.

The key as investors is to judge management teams by their past success. I believe this is usually much more relevant than their current exploration project.

It is important as well that their past successes are directly relevant to the task at hand. A mining entrepreneur might have past success operating a gold mine in French speaking Quebec. Very impressive, except that this same promoter now proposes to explore for copper, in young volcanic rocks, in Peru!

In my experience, more than half of the management teams you interview will have no history of success that shows that they are apt at executing their current project.

Management must be able to identify the most important unanswered question that can make or break the project. They must be able to say how that question or thesis was identified, explain the process by which the question will be answered, the time required to answer the question, how much money it will take. They also need to know how to recognize when they have answered the question. Many of the management teams you interview will be unable to address this sequence of questions, and therefore will have a very difficult time adding value.

The resource sector is capital intensive and highly cyclical, and we expect that the current pullback is a cyclical decline from an overheated bull market. The fundamental reasons to own natural resource and precious metals have not changed. Warren Buffett says, "Be brave when others are afraid, be afraid when others are brave." We are still "gold bugs." And even "gold bulls."

Rick Rule is the chairman and founder of Sprott Global Resource Investments Ltd., a full-service brokerage firm located in Carlsbad, CA. He has dedicated his entire adult life to different aspects of natural-resource investing and has a worldwide network of contacts in the natural-resource and finance worlds.

Watch Rick and an all-star cast of natural-resource and investment experts—including Frank Giustra, Doug Casey, John Mauldin, and Ross Beaty—in the must-see video "Upturn Millionaires," and discover how to play the turning tides in junior mining stocks, for potentially life changing gains. Click here to watch.

The article Why the Resource Supercycle Is Still Intact was originally published at Casey Research.com.

Don't miss this weeks free webinar "The Big Trade with John Carter"....Just Click Here

 

Exxon May Soar On New Potential In Mexico

Things have been looking great for Exxon Mobil (XOM) lately. Anadarko Petroleum (APC) recently indicated that Exxon may become a partner in Anadarko's Gulf of Mexico operations. Anadarko is already partnered with Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) on its deepwater Phobos project in the Gulf, and according to Anadarko Vice President of Investor Relations and Communications, John Colglazier, Exxon may enter the project with up to a 20% working interest, which would reduce Anadarko's interest from 50 to 30%.

In exchange, Anadarko could receive cash and a drilling carry, which would potentially cover the cost of the project's first exploration well. This would be beneficial for Exxon Mobil, and represents just one of the recent successes the company has seen lately. Below, I will show how Exxon's current position within the energy sector makes it a strong investment now.....Looking Deep for Gains

Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

Nearly 69% of U.S. Crude Oil Imports Originated From Five Countries in 2011

 The amount of crude oil the United States imported from its top five foreign suppliers—Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria—increased slightly during 2011, even though total U.S. crude oil imports fell to their lowest level in 12 years. As a result, the crude oil from these five countries accounted for a bigger share of overall U.S. crude oil imports, nearly 69%, or just over 6.1 million barrels per day (bbl/d).

Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria have consistently been America's five largest crude oil suppliers, although their rankings varied from year to year. However, U.S. purchases of crude oil in 2011 increased from Canada and Saudi Arabia and declined from Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria, according to final trade data from EIA's February 2012 Company Level Imports report.

Combined crude oil imports from the five countries increased by less than 1% during 2011 to 6.1 million bbl/d. At the same time, total U.S. imports fell about 3%, or 0.3 million bbl/d, to 8.9 million bbl/d. That marked the lowest annual level of crude oil imports for the United States since 1999.

The combination of lower total U.S. crude oil imports and higher crude oil shipments from the top five foreign suppliers boosted their market share to about 69% of all U.S. crude oil imports during 2011, compared to 66% in 2010.


 Highlights from the U.S. top crude oil importing countries in 2011 included:

• Canada. Crude oil imports averaged a record 2.2 million bbl/d, up 12% from the year before, and topped 2 million bbl/d for the first time because more oil is now being transported by rail.
• Saudi Arabia. Crude oil imports averaged 1.2 million bbl/d, up 10% from the year before, and were the highest level since 2008.
• Mexico. Crude oil imports of 1.1 million bbl/d were down 4.5% from the year before and the second lowest since 1995, reflecting the steady decline in Mexico's crude oil production and rising domestic fuel demand.
• Venezuela. Crude oil imports of 0.9 million bbl/d were down 5% from the year before and the lowest since 1992.
• Nigeria. Crude oil imports of 0.8 million bbl/d were down 22% from the year before and the lowest since 2002, due in part to civilian unrest that disrupted the country's crude oil production.

Check out our latest Video, Market Analysis and Forecast for the Dollar, Crude Oil, Gold, Silver, and the SP500

Today's Trends: Crude Imports Decline, But Critical to U.S.

U.S crude oil imports grew rapidly from mid-20th century until the late 1970s, but fell sharply from 1979 to 1985, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Review 2009. The trend resumed upward from 1985 through 2004, then remained flat through 2007 before dropping in 2008 and 2009.

In 2009, crude oil imports were 9.1 million b/d; petroleum product imports were 2.7 million b/d; and exports were 2.0 million b/d mainly the form of distillate and residual fuel oils.

U.S. petroleum imports rose sharply in the 1970s, and reliance on petroleum from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) grew. In 2009, 41 percent of U.S. petroleum imports came from OPEC countries, down from 70 percent in 1977. After 1992, more petroleum came into the U.S. from non-OPEC countries than from OPEC countries.

Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria were the three key suppliers among OPEC countries of petroleum to the U.S. market. The amount of petroleum each country has sold to the U.S. has widely fluctuated over the decades. In 2009, Iraq supplied .4 million b/d of petroleum to the U.S., EIA reported.

Canada and Mexico were the largest non-OPEC suppliers of petroleum to the U.S. In 2009, U.S. imports from Canada reached a new high of 2.5 million b/d. Imports from Mexico were insignificant until the mid-1970s, when they began to play a key role in U.S. supplies. Canadian and Mexican petroleum together accounted for 32 percent of all U.S. imports in 2009.

What do Super Traders have in common?

Share

Mexico's Fading Oil Output Squeezes Exports, Spending

Mexico's oil output is falling faster than expected, increasing the chance that the country will lose its status as a major oil exporter in coming years and face a worsening budget shortfall. Output at state owned oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos's offshore field Cantarell, once the world's second largest oil field, has plunged to 500,000 barrels a day from its peak of 2.1 million in 2005. "I don't recall seeing anything in the industry as dramatic as Cantarell," says Mark Thurber, assistant director for research at the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.....Read the entire article

Mexico's Calderon: BP's Deepwater Find A Wake Up Call

Mexico needs more reforms to rapidly tackle the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and shore up plummeting domestic oil production, President Felipe Calderon said Thursday. Calderon said BP PLC's giant deepwater oil discovery in the Tiber field, announced Wednesday, should serve as a wake up call for Mexico. State run Petroleos Mexicanos is legally blocked from teaming up with foreign oil companies that have more experience in the area."I hope this sign from the Gulf of Mexico tells us something," said Calderon in a radio interview.....Read complete article

StatoilHydro's Gulf of Mexico Output Doubles

Norway's StatoilHydro ASA Thursday said it has more than doubled its output from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico in the past few months, as the Thunder Hawk field comes onstream. Murphy Oil operated Thunder Hawk has a daily production capacity of 45,000 barrels of oil and 70 million cubic feet of natural gas. StatoilHydro company spokeswoman Mari Dotterud said StatoilHydro will have 70,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day net from the U.S. Gulf Of Mexico once Thunder Hawk.....Complete Story