Thursday, October 25, 2012

Making Foreign Policy Optional?

I long have been fascinated by the refusal to exploit our own energy resources. Having lived many years in California, I was always puzzled by the fact that all the scientific studies I read said that the waters off the Pacific coast had huge oil reserves. In addition, with the global price rise in oil and the new technologies coming on line, reserves, including fields once considered tapped-out, were growing. Phony environmental concerns and political correctness, however, prevented us from drilling our own resources and developing nuclear power, forcing us, instead, to buy ever increasing amounts of energy from foreign sources, often highly unstable and hostile sources.

I wrote before that after getting our government budget under control, the songle greatest step we can take is,
Eliminating or even reducing our dependence on foreign oil . . .. Achieving that would buck up the dollar, contribute to the general wealth of the United States, enrich our treasury, and free us of countless foreign policy concerns and headaches. Drill for oil in Texas, or fight for it in the Middle East. Our choice.
Can we greatly reduce or even eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil? Signs increasingly point to yes. In fact, they point to the very real possibility that the United States is on the road to becoming the world's top producer (h/t Instapundit) even with the current Obama misadministration's hostility to oil production,
The Energy Department forecasts that U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons, which includes biofuels, will average 11.4 million barrels per day next year. That would be a record for the U.S. and just below Saudi Arabia's output of 11.6 million barrels. Citibank forecasts U.S. production could reach 13 million to 15 million barrels per day by 2020, helping to make North America "the new Middle East."
Governor Romney's plan to seek North American energy independence is very doable.

With that independence we might not have the luxury of not having to worry about foreign policy, but it would certainly increase our options and our ability to act internationally with more freedom.

Just another reason to vote against Obama . . . how many more do you need?

18 comments:

  1. The classic reason given why the US does not exploit its own oil reserves is that it is waiting for the rest of the world to run out of oil before it taps into its own. This would give the US a strategic advantage, eh what?

    I merely pass on the information and make no claims for its veracity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That will be a VERY long wait . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clutching your own bottle of water, while waiting for your fellow castaways to die of thirst, seems like a bad strategy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the strategy is even worse. While clutching your own bottle of water, you drink out of everyone else's bottle. It is unlikely your bottle will survive intact with that strategy.

      Delete
  4. Diplomad, while I understand what you are saying, I think it is wrong to generalize "foreign" oil. Canada, and Mexico, have been our two largest suppliers. I don't think we want to end our dependency of using Canadian/Mexican oil, although I would be happy to end any international trade with Mexico until that nation cleans up its act and stops dumping its peon class on us.

    As to Texas drilling: we are. BIG TIME. But not due to anything done by this administration who wants to claim credit for it. Texas has less federal land than any state in the nation. There is a reason for that and it goes back to when Texas re-entered the union after the [not-so] Civil War. What drilling is being done is being done on private land that the administration has no control over.

    What that has done is provide the nation with Eagleford shale. And while some question the capacity of Eagleford, I have had geologists, and oil men, tell me that Eagleford could be a bigger discovery than Spindle Top or the Mexia fields. We are pumping, believe me.

    As for your state of California: sorry, but I think that ship has sailed. California is rapidly turning into a failed state because it has allowed the green weenies and the left to run it for far too long. I remember when Gray Davis was governor, and you were experiencing severe brown outs. At the time, you were buying electricity from Texas but Davis was stiffing Texas for the bill. Rick Perry finally had enough and told Davis "You want more electricity? Pay for what you have already gotten and we will talk." Davis appealed to the federal government to force Texas to provide California with electricity, but to no avail. Somewhere, somehow, Davis found the money to pay up, and we supplied California with more electricity and ended your brownouts.

    You see, we Texans believe in all of the above. We not only are rapidly becoming [again] the major oil producer in the nation, we also are now leading in wind generated electricity. The birds be damned. We also refine most of the gasoline for California, and it costs you more because of your designer blends that even takes in the time of the year. There should be none of that silliness in California. End it and watch your pump prices fall.

    We here in Texas are doing our part: pumping oil and voting Republican. When can we expect California to wake up and follow our lead?

    Zane

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When can we expect California to wake up and follow our lead?
      hahahahahLOLOLO
      Cracked me up. Thanks

      Delete
    2. When moonbeams are able to slip from their jars and pan gold from Sierra streams. Hahahahahahaha heee!

      Delete
    3. California is approaching bankruptcy. It is so close, eve the politicians can see it. They will be looking for new revenue to fill those gaps. Voila, suddenly, oil is good.

      Delete
  5. http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/charles-woods-father-of-former

    This link is for a short (14 minute) phone-in made yesterday by Charles Woods (Tyrone Woods father). It is worth the time to listen to...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looked like spam at first, so I googled.

      Tyrone Woods is one of the two ex-SEALs from the 9/11/2012 benghazi attack.
      http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-seals-killed-in-libya,0,5975607.story

      Wikipedia: Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi

      Delete
    2. John, you are right about this being worth taking the time to listen to. I wish all 14 minutes could be piped into the brains of all undecided voters.

      Delete
    3. Brains? Your assumption has identified the problem.

      Delete
  6. Diplomad, listen carefully to some of the things Romney is saying. Romney is hitting a lot of themes Sarah Palin talks about. domestic energy supplies = security.

    Sounds almost like 2008, doesn't it?

    -Blake

    ReplyDelete
  7. Even if we stop buying oil from the Mideast, we still have interests there. Israel for one. Also our trading partners, like Japan that will still be using Mideast oil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What is so deliciously ironic is the stated goals of the greenies could be best realized if CA were energy independent, so that dichotomy goes to prove their actual purpose is fraudulently concealed, they think.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you operate on the assumption that the oil and gas in the ground belongs to the people of the United States, how do you keep the oil companies from shipping it overseas? I recently heard that oil companies on US shores are exporting oil! This, while we are paying record prices to drive our cars and heat our homes.
    Any suggestions would be welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The oil companies are shipping refined product, not crude. For example, Venezuela cannot refine its nasty crude, so it comes here to be refined and then gets sent back or to other destinations.

      Delete