If America wanted energy independence or rather if the leaders of America wanted energy independence it would only be necessary to drill and mine those resources. Why not drill and mine? Is the revenue produced by leaving the resources in the ground important? Important to whom? Revenue for the government or revenue for the people is the question I see and the question constantly decided by not drilling and not mining by those in power.
I pray I am being clear concerning my position, and I did see where StolarStorm believes the EPA has nothing to do with this. How do we know the EPA is not working with those who produce by mining and drilling to not keep prices artificially high?
I have to state here, this is my opinion, and opinion have flaws, yet the flaws of no energy independence are easily overcome, if our nation has the will. The politicians and the EPA should be pushed to the side if America is to attain energy Independence, and lower energy costs ... imho
Some of the seed money for some of the first Environmentalist organizations (i.e. Greenpeace--not Conservation, but Environmentalism) allegedly came from the KGB. They hoped to hamper Western industry during the Cold War. They succeeded wildly, underestimating the level of regulation Americans would put up with.
Working with oil companies? Nope. Just about anything to stop us from drilling.
Cost increases are simple enough to account for--the technology required to extract oil is far more expensive than it used to be.
We use drilling and production enhancement techniques which did not exist when gasoline was $0.25 a gallon--and those quarters (silver) now have a melt value of over six bucks.