Oil and natural gas are found all over the world in varying amounts, and throughout history, about one trillion barrels of oil have been produced. While about one-third of our oil is produced domestically, where does our imported oil come from?

Consider this Energy IQ survey question:

In 2008, which of the following countries was the largest U.S. supplier of imported oil?

Looking ahead to the future, there's no doubt that we'll need more energy in the United States and around the world. Given expected global economic and population growth, time and again economists have said that energy efficiency improvements alone will not be enough to meet this future demand.

With this in mind, can you answer this question?

According to 2008 government projections, about what percent of global energy demand in 2030 will be met by fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal?

Tonight, the House approved the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. In approving this bill, the House has chosen to ignore the legislation's harmful effects on American consumers, businesses and the economy. At a time when America is trying to recover from a serious recession, the House has approved legislation that would cost energy users billions of dollars and add new stress to the economy.

Today, newspapers all over America have published editorials and op-eds on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Here's a sample:

"We're not ignorant of political realities, and we don't believe the perfect should become the enemy of the good. Congress should deliver a bill to Mr. Obama this year. But given that congressional action could set a template for years or decades, we think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal." - The Washington Post, June 26

API shares President Obama's well-intentioned goal of having a comprehensive energy policy that grows the economy, creates jobs, promotes energy security and addresses climate change.

But independent analysis shows that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would burden American consumers and businesses with substantially higher energy costs. This is more than "a few postage stamps."

The media are handicapping the upcoming vote on the Waxman-Markey bill as though it were The Kentucky Derby. In today's 24-hour-a-day news cycle, reporters, anchors and pundits are asking whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the votes for passage, whether the bill could be more costly than previously anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and they are dissecting President Obama's comments delivered in the Rose Garden this afternoon.

No one likes the prospect of paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, but API economists who analyzed the bill say $4 gasoline easily could become a reality. They based on their calculations on two recent studies--the Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill, and two Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports.

The most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculations for the Waxman-Markey climate bill give new meaning to the term "rosy scenario."

CBO pegs the annual household cost of Waxman-Markey at $175 per household, yet its own report suggests gasoline could rise 77 cents a gallon. That's $800 more a year just for gasoline, assuming a family uses 20 gallons a week. CBO claims that free emission allowances will offset this, but these go to businesses and government--not consumers.

Yesterday, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suspended the sale of all 31 oil and natural gas drilling tracts in Utah that had been purchased earlier in the day during a regularly scheduled lease sale, after the bureau accepted last-minute protests about the sale from two environmental groups. BLM has put all the leases on hold to conduct an environmental assessment.

This Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or the Waxman-Markey bill. The American Petroleum Institute (API) strongly opposes the bill, and today sent a letter to every member of Congress explaining why this bill should be rejected by the House.

As studies by the Heritage Foundation and the National Black Chamber of Commerce show, this bill will cut jobs by more than two million a year and raise the price of gasoline by an estimated 77 cents a gallon over the next decade.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives will take up the Waxman-Markey bill aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the oil and natural gas industry endorses the bill's goal of protecting the environment, this bill should be rejected. Simply stated, the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation will cost Americans billions of dollars, kill jobs and will not deliver the environmental benefits promised.

Yesterday's Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial, "Energy: Drill, Baby" discussed the nation's current and potential energy reserves and stressed the importance of increased access to oil and natural gas:

"...The country needs a broad spectrum of reliable and abundant energy sources. But fossil fuels will continue to make up a major part of the equation for years, if not decades. Start drilling--now."

A new Ernst & Young report is adding some context to 2008's wildly fluctuating oil prices and misperceptions about oil company earnings. The report, called "U.S. E&P Benchmark Study," is the consulting firm's annual snapshot of the oil and natural gas industry's exploration and production activities.

Did you know that Congress is about to consider massive taxes and fees on the U.S. energy sector?

A new Institute for 21st Century Energy report argues that these taxes and fees, specifically on the oil and natural gas industry, could harm the U.S. economy at precisely the wrong time--during a deep recession. According to the report, the Obama administration's tax proposal and House Natural Resources Committee's proposed energy bill would jeopardize U.S. jobs, erode the nation's economic competitiveness, and do nothing to help U.S. energy security.

Today, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 15 to 8 to approve an energy bill that would open part of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for additional oil and natural gas leasing and clarify ambiguous language included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This language--as originally written--could have prohibited federal agencies from using transportation fuels derived from Canadian oil sands.

Today, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and labor unions announced the historic creation of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Labor-Management Committee, which will work to preserve and create jobs by promoting domestic oil and natural gas production. Currently, the industry employs more than 1.8 million American workers and supports another 4 million workers.

The Bakken formation is making a noticeable improvement in U.S. oil production. According to API's Monthly Statistical Report for May 2009, U.S. oil production climbed for the fifth straight month largely because of higher output from North Dakota's Bakken shale production.

This formation stretches under North Dakota, eastern Montana and portions of southern Canada. A year ago, the U.S. Geological Survey raised its assessment of Bakken energy potential from a few million barrels of oil to as much as 4.3 billion barrels. In recent months, North Dakota has experienced an old-fashioned oil rush and hundreds of wells have been drilled.

Gasoline prices have risen to an average of $2.67 a gallon, the highest price in the past eight months. API's Chief Economist John Felmy and Statistics Manager Ron Planting attribute the price rise largely to what they call "market fundamentals"--the basic law of supply and demand.

Answer: U.S. oil and natural gas companies.

According to a study released today, U.S.-based oil and natural gas company investments in renewable energy accounted for nearly one-fourth of the money invested in renewables by all U.S.-based private industry and the federal government over the past nine years. More than $6.7 billion supported development of energy sources such as wind, biofuels and solar power.

When asked to summarize her trip to Washington last week, one of the women from the oil and natural gas industry offered two words--"extremely enlightening." She was one of 29 women from energy companies who fanned out across Capitol Hill to meet with members and staffers from the U.S. Senate and House and to challenge the misperceptions about the oil and natural gas industry.

As API President and CEO Jack Gerard noted a couple of days ago, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13-10 on Tuesday to open the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and natural gas development.

This should be welcome news to American consumers. If this amendment is enacted as part of the Senate's proposed energy bill, the United States finally will be able to harness the power of the area's abundant energy resources that have been off-limits for many years. It's estimated that the eastern Gulf contains 3.7 billion barrels of oil and 21.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which are huge deposits by any measure. Producing the energy will create jobs, generate revenues for government and make more domestic energy available to consumers.

One of the most difficult tasks in Washington is connecting the dots. What I mean is this: advocates who have staked out positions on various issues often focus on the minutiae of proposed legislation, fight to have certain language included in bills on political or ideological grounds, and neglect to consider how American consumers could be affected. Occasionally, this inability to step back and see the real-life consequences of legislation creates laws that make little sense and are costly to the taxpayers.

Yesterday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13 to 10 in favor of opening the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for additional oil and natural gas leasing.

By allowing greater access to leasing in promising areas of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Senator Dorgan's amendment stands to strengthen our economy and help the American people by creating new jobs, adding new energy resources and providing new revenues to federal, state and local governments.

It would be hard to find a more determined group of people than the 29 women who've come to Washington this week to meet with members of Congress about energy. In their day jobs, some wear hardhats, others wear heels, but all work for an energy company.

API urged Congress to consider the ramifications of applying new regulations to the process of hydraulic fracturing today, just as members of the House and Senate introduced legislation to regulate the process under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

According to a study commissioned by API and conducted by Global Insight, new federal regulations could cause a sharp drop in U.S. oil and natural gas production.

In this week's episode, I talk with Kevin Book, a principal at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC, about energy legislation being considered in Congress. We also briefly discuss energy security issues and the recent rise in oil and gasoline prices.

This is a face of the oil and natural gas industry.

She is Geraldine Storer, wife and mother of three young children, and an employee of Shell Exploration & Production Company in Alaska. Geri came to Washington this week along with 28 other women from the oil and natural gas industry to meet with U.S. Representatives and Senators on Capitol Hill.

Their goal--to show members of Congress that when they demonize the industry, they also criticize the people who work in oil and natural gas. "It's too easy to go after an industry when you don't see a face," Geri said.

In Washington this week, the House and the Senate will continue to work on energy bills on parallel tracks. I've written about the draft version of the House bill, so today I'm turning to a provision in the Senate bill that would require an inventory of oil, natural gas and renewable energy resources along the nation's coastlines. According to reports, this provision would lead to new seismic testing along the nation's coastlines to get fresh look at the Outer Continental Shelf's (OCS) energy potential.

A new public opinion poll indicates that Americans living in mid-Atlantic coastal areas support offshore drilling. In the survey conducted in April, Monmouth University researchers found 46 percent of coastal residents from Virginia to New York favor offshore energy exploration; 37 percent were opposed and 12 percent offered no opinion.

A couple of days ago, the Sierra Club posted on The Hill's blog, questioning whether it's safe to bring more Canadian oil sands crude oil into the United States via pipeline. I posted a comment to this post last night, and today on this blog, I'm providing additional information to set the record straight. Simply put, the Sierra Club post grossly exaggerates the risks and ignores the benefits of transporting oil derived from Canada's abundant oil sands to the United States. And it mischaracterizes the pipelines that carry this much-needed oil to American consumers.

Have you ever heard of shale gas? It's the naturally occurring, clean-burning gas that is found in shale rock formations, and it's becoming increasing important as an energy resource in the United States. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy says there is enough so-called unconventional gas (shale gas, tight sands and coalbed methane) in the United States to supply our energy needs for the next 90 years. Other estimates extend this supply to 116 years.

At a time when the need for an economic boost has never been greater, Congress is considering a bill that threatens energy investments and jobs. If enacted as drafted, the bill--called The Federal Lands and Resources Energy Development Act of 2009--would consolidate federal energy and mineral leasing programs within one bureau at the Interior Department and establish regional councils intended to provide federal-state discussions about the development of regional energy plans.

The bill would also raise the fees associated with leasing onshore land for energy development, shorten the initial onshore lease terms from ten to five years, and assess a production incentive fee on existing leases that are not producing oil and gas in the later years of the lease agreement.

There are 3,800 oil and natural gas production platforms and 74 operating drilling rigs in the federal, hurricane-prone waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

They are responsible for about 27 percent of the oil and 11 percent of the natural gas produced in the United States every day. These energy resources help to power our cars, homes, and factories, and have a role in nearly every consumer product sold in America today.

When economists are asked why the price of fuel fluctuates, they often explain that price changes are due to the "market"--the interaction of all of the people around the world who buy and sell crude oil and fuels in the global marketplace. These buyers and sellers decide how much oil and oil products they are willing to buy or sell at a given price. Their decisions can be affected by several factors including weather, refinery operations, and geopolitical and economic conditions. The price of other commodities, such as wheat and corn, are determined in much the same way. I touched on these points a bit in last Friday's post.