@Midwest Mom:"and the proposed Keystone pipeline is mainly for
exporting, although it is sold by certain politicos as a benefit to
Americans."Because of fracking, the pipeline is probably no
longer needed. But it was a mistake, at the time, not to want to build it.Exporting crude and refined products isn't such a bad thing.
People will send us money for selling them the crude. If we didn't sell
it, it would be sort of like having an oil embargo on the rest of the world.
Politicians will make statements about bombing the US to go get "our"
oil from them. People will start wars with us for "$20/ bbl oil" just
like we did in Iraq.Of course, the thing is that everyone,
everywhere is getting excited about fracking for oil. China will be
self-sufficient, Australia will be self-sufficient, Argentina, etc. It is good,
but it can also be massively bad.
Suck it dry now, so in time of war we have none. As others have
pointed out, there is no such thing as energy dependence, since it will be sold
on the world market.
I hope that we have learned the lesson of the Dust Bowl. Unregulated
development might well lead to a similar ecosystem disaster if market driven
greed is allowed to go unchecked. This may already be happening in the national
gas industry with the "fracking" process. I see commercials on
television everyday touting the safety of the procedure. But a good public
relations campaign does not mean that the exraction process will not end up as
an ecological disaster.But I agree with the central premise of the
editorial. We must achieve energy independence, but without harm to the
Patriots and his sky-falling-crowd lost because the basis of their arguments if
mostly lies and fabrications. It is driven by hate based on who knows what.
For example, the country we are most closely aligned in Latin American oil
exploration is Brazil followed by Mexico - and evidently in Patriots world,
Brazil and Mexico are run by a dictators. In Patriots world we gain more
independence by importing oil from Canada, I am just not sure Canada is aware
they are part of the US. Who knew? In Patriots world, gas is headed to $7 a
gallon - not the $2.99 a gallon I bough on my drive to Florida for the long
weekend. But hey, if the real answers don't match the narrative, make up
your own seems to be the rule of the day.Another lie being told -
Obama hates oil and is closing it down on Federal lands. The numbers don't
lie. The last year of the Bush administration there were 566 million barrels
produced. In the Romney quoted 2011 "down" year - 626 million barrels
or our were produced from federal oil leases. Obama's worst year is
better than most Bush years.Facts, not rhetoric.
You know partiot give it a rest. Your ideas lost, they are old, hateful, non
productive, and ignorant of reality.
Sorry but our newly elected pres doesn't believe in energy independence.
Not gonna happen. America will continue to buy inflated oil from South American
dictators and our good Muslim brethren in the middle east ... also at inflated
prices but who cares if gas prices go to $7 a gallon ... right? Oh and we will
be shutting down our coal fired power plants too!! Remember that there is a war
on coal. Yes energy independence - say good bye to that as well as all other
forms of independence. The Obama motto is government DEPENDENCE!! Just remember
in a year or two when energy prices are sky rocketing and Barack says its not
his fault.. again. I guess dumb people will always believe.
You wouldn't have to nationalize the oil industry like Iran and other
nations did, by kicking out the foreign developers etc; you could simply place a
well-computed export duty on oil drilled in the United States and its waters.
This is wholly constutional and makes sense. Energy independence is within our
grasp. Come on Congress! Do something for the American people; they
will appreciate the novelty and it might catch on.
America can be energy self-sufficient. New technologies combined with
American's vast resources of coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, untapped
hydropower, and unconventional fuels like oil shale and oil sands can indeed
make us independent of the whims of unstable socialist governments. That will
eliminate the biggest part of our balance-of-trade deficit, lower the price of
energy, and allow us to bring home more manufacturing jobs. America will once
again be a nation of exporters with plenty of good jobs, allowing many of the
47% ers to cross-over to the tax-paying other side. A win-win for everyone.
I'm surprised that this editorial made no mention of the most important way
to achieve energy independence: to reduce energy consumption and energy waste
through efficiency and conservation. It's completely win-win: lower energy
costs for businesses and families, more money kept in consumers' pockets,
less demand for environmentally damaging drilling and fracking, and reduced air
pollution. Efficiency is an energy policy that Utah's conservative (same
root as "conservation") lawmakers should be able to stand behind.Clean, renewable energy can also be produced domestically and is cost
comparable with fossil fuels in many cases.
Are you suggesting we "Nationalize" America's oil, and not sell it
on the Global Market? (Liberal and blatantly Socialist I might add)Are you suggesting we develop more "Alternative, Green and Renewable
Energy" sources? (Liberal)Are you suggesting we stop cow-towing
and financially subsidizing big OIL and use those funds to invest and develop
said new evergy independance? (again, Liberal)Are you suggesting we
stop invading foregin countries to plunder their natural resources? (Liberal)
Are you suggesting we do precisely what Pres. Obama has been
persuing for the last 4 years and have been stone-walled and obstructed by
Republicans daily so theie acheieve their #1 goal and hope "He Fails"?
The election is hardly 2 weeks over, and it appears since their man
in the ring didn't win, now the Deseret News is finally coming around to
Pragmatist4Life is absolutely right. The US actually produced more oil than it
consumed last year. So why weren't we energy independent? Because the US
government doesn't own BP, Exxon or any other big oil company. So that oil
ended up in Canada, China, S America or wherever it will be sold for the most
$$$. Barring a fixed energy source like hydroelectric, geothermal solar or wind,
where the energy can't be transferred to another location or a government
takeover of the oil industry(which would be real socialism, not the hyperbole we
hear about socialism) we can't be energy independent. However, We really
need to be looking more into natural gas as a bridge to true renewable energy.
Most people have a gas line running to their house, for a few thousand $$$ you
can fuel your car at home. It's much cleaner than petroleum. It's less
corrosive to car engines and we have way more natural gas than oil in america,
so it's cheaper.
Critics don't say the US won't reach energy independence because of
increasing demand, they say the US can't achieve energy independence
because the market for energy is global. So even when the US becomes the top
energy producer as predicted by the recent World Energy Outlook, it won't
be completely shielded by fluctuations in energy prices because of how the
commodities are traded. Leaders from both parties who talk about "energy
independence" are misleading their audience.
Let me see if I have this straight- we are the brokest nation in the history of
the world. 16 trillion in debt and spending more than 1 trillion more than
revenue every year. And we can't generate any revenue by leasing some
Federal land for drilling in Utah? Forward to the abyss. btw- Ken Salazar should
be ashamed to put on his cowboy hat or did the cowboy hat become the Sierra
Clubs headwear of choice?
No blood for oil.
Congrats DNEWS for projecting a rational thought that you won't find I. The
NYT or SLLIB
Energy independence for the US is a good idea. However, there are some things to
keep in mind. First, it won't make petroleum any cheaper, or gasoline.
It's still a world commodity. In fact the high price helps exploration.
Also, it won't last. The resources aren't there to sustain that kind
of production over the long term. And it has a cost beyond dollars. Drill baby
cannot be practicial in a nimby or banana (build absolutely nothing anywhere
near anyone) world.
Had Reagan not ended Carter's energy policy, the US would be much closer to
energy independence. What a foolish move, for nothing more than party politics
instead of what was practical.
Almost by definition to be enrgy independent we have to be producing energy that
can't be used anywhere else, or we have to nationalize the energy that can
be sold on open markets. The alternative..always be the highest bidder.
Yes, but let's do it safely, wisely and without destroying the priceless
places in Utah.And let's be sure it includes a wide variety of
renewable and sustainable energy sources. Let's be sure it includes
research and development aimed at seeking newer and more efficient methods of
providing renewables and sustainables.Let's not, above all,
place all our eggs in the basket of coal, oil and natural gas.
There's no guarantee that energy mined and produced in this country will
stay in this country. We alrady produce enough oil, and the proposed Keystone
pipeline is mainly for exporting, although it is sold by certain politicos as a
benefit to Americans.If we truly want to be energy self-sufficient,
we need to work towards all the clean energy options.For example: a
river runs through our area. Years ago, a coop provided electricity on this
river, via a small dam. The dam is still there, but it produces nothing because
a large utility was able to finagle being the sole electric provider. Now our
electricity comes from coal. Cleaner, self-sufficient energy comes
from local solutions, not one-size fits all.