[Recon Dad]

Try and get a bit deeper into the numbers and you will see what the overall energy picture is here in the US. The world demands may be going up but here in the states it has been stagnant fro a few years.
The Bakken is old news that just keeps getting bigger. Google 3 forks, Sanish and see what you find. The technology is costly but coming down all the time and at $70 makes money.
Not much discussion in this article of other energy sources, like NG, which is the big play today.

As far as promoting wind and solar I will direct you to the article below.

Clean and green, the energy system we aspire to, is subsidized like no other energy source in history. By whom? Us, and our progeny. All energy has historically received some type of public support to even out the volatility of high and low price cycles. The Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government's Department of Energy reports that, for 2008, natural gas was subsidized 25 cents per megawatt hour of electricity produced, coal received 44 cents per megawatt hour, nuclear $1.59. Oil was not reported in these numbers since oil is hardly a factor in electricity production. However, oil benefits from a variety of tax subsidies for dry well expenses and royalty holidays dating from the $10-a-barrel oil days of the late 1990s, which the administration promises to rescind. At the same time in the same year, wind energy received public subsidy of $23.37 per megawatt hour; solar energy received $24.34. These numbers do not include the additional subsidies we taxpayers have been compelled to pay for wind, solar and biofuels through the stimulus plan, the 2010 budget and the 2011 framework budget. These subsidies help support 2 percent of today's energy system. Their proponents promise to double and double again the amounts of subsidized supply from clean and green with no commitment to ending subsidies. That's not a new energy system.

[Senator John Blutarski]

Recon Dad,

You seem to have a better than average grasp of the oil industry, so please permit me to toss a question ot two your way for comment from a source better informed than I.

When the calculus is performed to determine the cost of oil, is it conducted strictly from a commercial point of view - i.e., landed/delivered cost of imported oil versus domestic oil at the refinery, adjusted for quality - or does it include an economic component - i.e., the value of keeping the money within the economy of the USA (where it will generate business, jobs, and tax revenue) versus sending it offshore and contributing to our trade deficit?

What are the implications of these two approaches from the point of view of the oil industry?