Question of the Week: Who Is Against American Energy Independence?
Here’s something that fascinates us and, we believe, warrants an in-depth discussion: who is against American energy independence?
Frequently, we hear people talk about all the potential for harvesting the energy that sits under our Atlantic coast, in the Gulf, or in Alaska. We even hear stories about oil and gas reserves in unexpected places like upstate New York or Ohio. Then there’s tidal and wind energy projects like the one in Massachusetts that the Kennedy Family personally keeps stalling. The ethanol lobby from the corn-producing states has its hands deep in this mess as well.
Doesn’t it puzzle you that a nation with so much energy producing potential remains beholden to foreign oil and gas interests?
Who exactly are the players working against American energy independence?
We don’t really need to ask WHY, because without even knowing who’s involved the answer is money. The answer’s always money. So that’s the first clue: who is making the most money off the status quo, and who benefits the most from using the Liberal left to clog any attempts to harvest our national energy reserves?
Let’s use this upcoming week to think about this question, and see what we can come up with.
© 2009, HillBuzz. All rights reserved.
Also Recommended:
- Sarah Palin is leading the way towards energy independence
- Sarah Palin takes another step towards owning energy independence as her signature issue
- Text Hillary Clinton a question about her trip to the Middle East and Europe this week
- Stimulus Trillions Should Have Been Spent on Energy Development
- Dr. Steven Chu is a good man who is a very bad choice for Secretary of Energy
Latest Buzz:
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
I have pondered this as well.
I’ll tell you the one super scary theory that I’ve come up with.
Here’s my major clue. I get that the huge shale oil reserves are going to be really expensive to harvest. I get that California and Dems/environmentalists in general may be blocking harvesting from the ocean. But it really never made any sense to me that George Bush didn’t tap ANWR when he had the chance.
Bush could have done it. He would have taken some flak, but he could have gotten it done with relatively minimal damage, especially in his second term.
So why didn’t he? I really can’t figure it out, except for this one theory.
We’re saving it.
Consider that we’ve used the same amount of oil in the last 20 years as we did in the previous 100. If we continue using oil at the same rate, existing known reserves will be gone within 50 years or so. Also consider that China is about to his a huge economic boom and their oil use is going to skyrocket.
Can you imagine the implications of running out of oil? Our entire infrastructure, from farm equipment to everyday civilian transportation to airplanes runs on oil products.
But even scarier, our military runs on oil products.
Without oil, our military would be worthless. Our strategic reserve would only power the military for a couple months, and that’s assuming we didn’t allow any of it to be released to the civilian market.
The time and cost necessary to refit our military equipment to burn natural gas or some other fuel would be massive.
Without oil, the U.S. is severely crippled.
I think the United States may be preparing for a massive energy crisis. I dare say, maybe even an energy war.
It could be our explicit strategy to use up all the oil in the rest of the world first. Then, when everyone else is facing domestic energy crises, we’ll have 50 years of oil left on U.S. property.
Could be wrong, just a theory.
Eric –
Here is the thing we don’t understand: it will take 10-15 years to build the infrastructure needed to get to all that oil. Your theory makes sense in terms of using everyone else’s oil up first (sounds like something the government would do), but it doesn’t prep us for when we need to get to our own oil.
It’s like Oprah eating all the cake and baked goods at her neighbors’ houses before she gets into her own stash of Little Debbies. But Oprah has easy access to her cellophane-wrapped cupcakes and pies. We, unlike Oprah, don’t have access to the treasures and treats we’ve got buried underground.
So…what is the plan for when we need to get to it?
I don’t believe that 10-15 years bit. I know of an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico that began drilling in April of 2007. It began selling oil in June of 2008, the day that oil reached the record high of over $140 per barrel. And that is just one that I know about – I know of several more with the same sort of time frame. In fact, one of the ones in shallow water took less than 6 months from drilling to selling. I’m sure that for deep Atlantic wells where there is no infrastructure the time frame is different, but I think an all out effort would make it move much, much faster than 10 years. I don’t know why we keep hearing that 10-15 year baloney all the time. I believed it myself until I had personal experience to the contrary.
Also, right now it is extremely reasonable to rent drilling rigs because the demand is low. This is due to some kind of tax that was in either the stimulus bill or the omnibus bill, I can’t remember which one, but it was in the late winter when everyone found out about it.
According to the OPEC website, it can take anywhere from 3 to 10 years to go from the decision to explore all the way through to selling. That’s exploration, discovery, testing, drilling, harvesting, piping/transport, and selling.
So drilling off the coast might indeed require 10 years to bring oil to market. Drilling shale oil in the Rockies might take 2 years. Drilling proven reservoirs in ANWR might take 1 or 2 years.
Even if it were 10-15 years for every scenario, we could still use everyone else’s oil for another 30 or 40 years (probably more, depending on rate of discovery and China’s use) before we started prepping for the theoretical energy war.
This is a hot-button issue here in Alaska, as you can imagine.
Who’s against oil development in AK? Not the people who live here! It’s outside environmentalists and their deep pockets funding all opposition to oil, mining and even how we control our game populations (‘I eat, therefore I hunt.’ – Sarah Palin)
The effort has always been to turn this state into one big national park. News flash…this isn’t Disneyland!
ANWR is just a plane of mosquitoes and sand flies, as far as we understand. Correct us if we are wrong, but it’s not a teddy bear’s picnic up there…but that’s what Liberals paint it as, some kind of pristine wonderland.
You are exactly right! And here’s even more hypocrisy about ANWR:
Sen. Murkowski proposed directional drilling from state land to the oil underneath ANWR…thereby protecting ALL ANWR land from the human footprint. Oil companies said they could do it, the state volunteered the land, but of course, the feds rejected the idea.
Protect ANWR, my a**!!!!!
I also heard that when Bush did float the idea of opening ANWR, he suggested opening one-half of one percent of the land for exploration.
I also think that the bush family’s close relationship with the bin laden family since the early ’70′s and our close relationship with the Saudis plays a role in using foreign oil. You can be certain that it’s all about money and, of course, selling out the American people in the process.
I also believe Sarah Palin’s voice for energy indenpendence and pushing for us to finally take it seriously is probably why she is being villified, attacked and marginalized. She’s not an active member of the treasonous politicians’ club, who are fleecing America. It should not be dismissed that she is also not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations nor The Trilateral Commission and the majority of obama’s administration are.
It’s very telling when they go after this former Alaskan Governor, despite all the press implying that she’s “stupid”. If she’s so stupid and therefore, not a real threat, why are they going to such great lengths to destroy her?
Kathleen: I agree. Sarah would/could/should be a voice for energy independence and tried to do so during her brief tenure on the national stage. That is why so many were/are afraid of her and they worked awfully hard to take her down. I pray she will not be silenced and will continue to work for our country’s good.
First- please not to forget the massive amounts of oil off the West Coast (California) as well. The beaches of southern California have long been plagued (as in centuries of recorded history) with blobs of oil washing ashore. It literally oozes through cracks in the ocean floor.
Second- Eric P, you are the second person I’ve heard forward that theory- the other being someone from the middle east.
HB, I don’t know if the bit about 10-15 years to come online is altogether accurate. That time frame has always been bandied about, but where did it come from? Who said it, in which context?
Back to Eric- I read an article a year or so ago about emerging technology utilizing high pressure steam(?) on shale oil reserves that if memory serves makes that method of extraction plausible at roughly the price oil is at today.
At the risk of stepping onto Conspiracy Island, I’ve always wondered why we don’t go after our oil- Lord knows China and Russia are.
Always end up asking myself cui bono (who profits?) and the only thing I can think of is them opec fellers. With us staying out of the oil extraction business, they continue to have a de facto monopoly on petroleum production (yes, even with Russia in play). With a de facto monopoly, you can continue having sheikh billionaires and wealthy fascists in South America. All one need do is pay off enough US congressvermin to block energy development in the US.
And buying off corpulent swinish legislators in the US is somewhat simple, as has been demonstrated for a couple centuries now.
Do I have a single shred of evidence to back up my assertions? Heavens no- just a hunch. Ignore or take to heart as you wish.
I have other theories. If we were to tap all our reservoirs at one time, we would flood the market and the price of oil would plummet, especially if we didn’t have to worry about wars in the Middle East driving speculation up.
This presents a number of plausible reasons that politicians would be opposed. For one, Republicans and Democrats alike have their pockets lined with cash from oil companies who actually theoretically stand to lose profit if the market were flooded.
Democrats have a second reason — pollution. If the cost of oil were to plummet, use (and, therefore, pollution will rise). Remember, Al Gore is on record as saying he’d like to price of gasoline to be $5 per gallon so people would be forced to buy fuel efficient cars and to drive less. Many liberals have an ideological reason to keep the price of oil from dropped and, therefore, to block more exploration and drilling.
Here’s a great “alternative” for our energy independence and a potential boom to our economy, but “he Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it could take years before it approves the design safety of mini-reactors.”….of course….
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_12384042
Hyperion’s business plan calls for construction of up to eight manufacturing plants across the world. It is pursuing joint-venture talks in Eastern Europe, Asia and Australia.
In the U.S., New Mexico and Idaho are dangling tax breaks and other incentives to land a plant, Deal said.
Each plant could cost about $100 million.
If up and running, the plants, combined, could build 1,000 reactors per year, he said, capturing a slice of the estimated $70 billion global market.
“Small reactors are very attractive in developing countries such as Vietnam that don’t have infrastructure such as transmission lines to support big power plants,” said Felix Killar, senior director of fuel supply and material licensees at the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry.
Hyperion would ship the reactors from its plants to enrichment facilities to be fitted with uranium hydride fuel rods.
The reactors can’t blow up, melt down or be used to make weapons, Deal said.
The 6-foot-by-10-foot reactors could be carted on flat-bed trucks and buried several feet underground. Each reactor could generate enough heat to power 20,000 homes in the U.S. or purify water for scores of villages in West Africa.
“It certainly is an optimistic plan,” Killar said. “It can be completed, provided Hyperion can do a good job of laying out the technical basis of their nuclear reactors to the commission.
“The commission always assumes accidents could occur and wants to know how the company could minimize that eventuality and any adverse impact on the public.”
Dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and shorts, as is his custom when he’s not meeting investors or potential customers, Deal hardly looks the head of a company that plans to sell nuclear reactors.
“I was a left-wing nut bag, anti-nuke liberal until 10 years ago,” he said, stroking Nala, a wrinkly-faced Shar-Pei at his feet (the two dozen Hyperion employees at its Cherry Creek office can bring pets to work).
“Then I became educated about nuclear. I still am a liberal, but I don’t see how we can implement our climate-change policies and reduce carbon if we don’t use nuclear power for base-load plants.”
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, and more hypocrisy. Obama campaigned on energy independence, then immediately allowed Congress to shut down all local oil exploration and new drilling projects.
It’s not just about money, it’s about power.
Ten why do you think he was bending down all the way to kiss Saudi Arabian leaders ring,because he didn’t want them to raise oil prices so people would shut up. That’s a Muslim politics.
Ten,
Money is the root of power. Can’t have one without the other these days.
The only thing we, the people have to fight back is by becoming a unified force.
Without a willingness to put aside party affilation by putting country first and joining together as unified citizenry, we will never be able to take back our country from big money.
In fact, the power elite, such as billionaire, George Soros, are counting on our remaining divided. It’s the only way they can destroy America.
It’s not the drilling of a new well that takes 10 years. It’s the environmental impact studies, the permitting, the pipeline (and the environmental studies and permitting for the pipeline) etc. that take so long. And then, the Sierra Club etc. lawsuits and appeals. Exhausting business.
Thank you Bonnie- that makes a good deal of sense.
I have to agree, its all about the money! But lets not forget that there is enough Oil in Wyoming & North Dakota…to fuel the USA for 100 years at least. Why our Gov, and Special interest stop all of this is because they can keep us all in check. Al Gore with all this Climate BS, using Corn & sugar as alt fuels is hurting the food supply this will of course drive up those prices, Bio fuels are not needed.
Now I know that some may not like this but the H20 engine has been built and shown outstanding mileage and lower consuption of gas. BUT the Gov put a lid on it. And the auto Co’s. Shelved it. Here is my Thoughts on this.
If we have these things WHY are they being put on a shelf………because you can’t make money on water now can you. And this Country is so in Bed with the Oils company’s everyone is making insane profits. Why would they do anything to help the American ppl!
Its all such a waste, He who can screw the American ppl out of all there money wins I guess.
Gov. Palin once said Alaska’s resources belonged to the people, yet out gov. refuses to allow us access.
I just read this:
OIL drilling on the USA dime…in Brazil!
Lend $10 Billion To Drill… Brazil?
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Energy: We didn’t hear the administration crow about it, but Brazil is about to get $10 billion from U.S. taxpayers to develop its offshore oil reserves. It’s not a bad idea, but something’s still wrong with the big picture.
Having said all this, the question remains: Why must we go so far and spend so much taxpayer money to drill oil when we could unleash our private sector to do it here for free ?
Eximbank officials are serving America’s interests by developing Brazil. But our Congress, which refuses to encourage offshore drilling, and our Interior Department, which is pulling permits for inland development, are not.
At the center of it is energy security. If lending money to Brazil for oil is a good idea, isn’t freeing our own companies to develop America’s vast reserves an even better one? But failing that, this promising venture 170 miles off the Brazilian coast will have to do.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334968315717535
Our gov. doesn’t seem to mind polluting (which I don’t believe in), other countries for them to get oil, so we can buy it…but we cannot drill for our own!
It’s time we demand we obtain our own resources and to Hell with the greenies, as we can do it cleaner than any other country!