It really depends on what “energy” you are talking about.
The phrase “energy independent” is silly. It does not refer to energy really, simply to petroleum, with very minor exceptions (West Coast Canadian natural gas for instance).
The US has always been “energy independent” in power generation and industrial fuels like coal/coke.
It has imported petroleum and its distillates extensively since the 1970’s when domestic production fell below consumption, and thats all the term has meant ever since.
The US still isn’t self-sufficient in petroleum, but its down to about 40% the peak rate of imports.
Net petroleum imports -
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m
we are not energy independent and the fracking that is being done so it might look like she had a leg to stand on, by lying and stretching, is being done against the will of obama and hillary. they will take the credit for what they opposed from the get go, and still oppose.
Thank you.
I have always questioned the popular notion that the US can be “energy independent” in the same sense that politicians routinely feed us the term. Inasmuch as “energy”, in all its forms, is produced by private providers (including publicly held corporations) and delivered to global or regional markets, the concept of energy independence is indeed silly. Depending on the spot market for energy, it can often make great sense to import petroleum or natural gas from off-shore sources.