Skip to content

So are we going to become a global leader in energy production? Or aren’t we?

November 14, 2012

The other day, I posted about this:

A new report by the International Energy Association says the U.S. will become the world’s largest oil producer by 2017…

U.S. oil production has risen rapidly since 2008 and oil imports are at their lowest level in two decades.

That seemed odd to me, given what we know about President Obama’s skyrocketing position on traditional energy production. And, indeed:

In news naturally ignored by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and virtually everyone else in the establishment media, The Hill reported late last week that the Interior Department “issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West (i.e., 2,500 square miles) originally slated for oil shale development.”

But wait: somebody just found domestic oil deposits that make OPEC look like John Travolta’s hair in “Grease:”

Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they would swamp OPEC.

A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green River Formation could be recovered it would be “equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”

Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.

In the past 100 years — in all of human history — we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here,” said Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil (AMSO).

Does the acreage in that second story affect the find in this third story? And if so…why? If not, can we get some assurance that it never will?

I think I know the answer to that last question.

Hey, I’m not suggesting a drill-at-all-costs policy. I want reasonable environmental protections, and oversight and courts to keep tabs on who’s responsible for what, spill and cleanup-wise.

The problem is, to the radical environmental lobby, there is no such thing as “reasonable” protections unless those protections are so overbearingly strict that the only people willing to take on the project are too crazy to attract any investors.

To wax metaphorical: a significant subsection of the environmental lobby is radical jihad to the Israel of traditional energy production. The only acceptable outcome is total destruction!

As long as no flowers are harmed in the process.

One more related story – this guy thinks the U.S. never will be “energy independent:”

This can’t be repeated enough: We can’t drill our way to oil independence. But by conserving our usage, we can insulate ourselves from rising gas prices…

If we want to stop buying oil from places other than Canada and Mexico, we need to cut our usage. Same deal if we don’t want to see prices spike as 1.3 billion Chinese inch closer to our standard of living.

His point, I think, is: no matter how much oil we produce, we can never wall ourselves off from the global market, and therefore we’ll never be completely “independent” from foreign suppliers of oil. Which is, in its way, true. But also not the point. The point is: the more oil the U.S. and other non-OPEC, non-dictator-led, non-vulnerable-to-jihadist-demands nations can produce, the less influence those mostly dictator-led and jihad-vulnerable nations will have.

And, plus, if it ever were to come to some kind of an anti-U.S. boycott, we’d have options.

And options are good.

One Comment
  1. November 14, 2012 7:52 pm

    “We can’t drill our way to oil independence.”

    Just like he can’t learn his way to intelligence.

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers