Posted on 03/14/2012 12:51:06 PM PDT by IBD editorial writer
When he was running for the Oval Office four years ago amid $4-a-gallon gasoline prices, then-Sen. Barack Obama dismissed the idea of expanded oil production as a way to relieve the pain at the pump. "Even if you opened up every square inch of our land and our coasts to drilling," he said. "America still has only 3% of the world's oil reserves." Which meant, he said, that the U.S. couldn't affect global oil prices....But the figure Obama uses — proved oil reserves — vastly undercounts how much oil the U.S. actually contains. In fact, far from being oil-poor, the country is awash in vast quantities — enough to meet all the country's oil needs for hundreds of years.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
if so then why is our goverment choking the h%$# out of us . they should let the free market have it.
oops ..I forgot we dont have that anymore(free market) or any other freedoms. we paid our politicians to take all that away.
Not necessarily; there could be a tariff for the export of petrol and its products.
Because we are running out of coal? Because Natural Gas is too expensive?
I don't plug my truck into the wall receptacle. Battery technology does not yet exist to make electrical power a reasonable conversion for liquid fuels.
I started wondering that in the early 80’s. Why else would we so overtly NOT drill what we have?
I too thought the same thing, but it has become evident that they have more oil than we have money. We must drill or go broke.
“I know there’s video of Obama saying he wants gasoline prices to rise but more slowly, I know there’s video of him saying energy prices under his administration will necessarily skyrocket and his energy secretary saying he wants gasoline in the $8 to $10 range. I know there’s video of him rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. My question is: Why the hell don’t the Republicans have a commercial playing every half hour on TV with these videos? No money they spend would have greater bang for the buck.”.....
Good question. I have no doubt that this is being considered. I know if Newt Gingrich was the candidagte, it would definitely be a part of his campaign. Ditto for Santorem. What we have to insist is that the GOP candidate, whether Newt, Rick, or Mitt, - must absolutely use all the idiotic comments by Obama against him. No more the stupid antics of McCain who refused to actually attack Obama with his own words out of some sort of suicidal honor against a black opponent.
That seems to me to be essentially the same thing
Coal is used to make electricity.
Natural gas, you have a point. But there is still a lot of conversion to go through if you’re limiting the discussion to transport.
Unfortunately, it somehow all gets lost in the shuffle of BS created by those trying to motivate the situation politically.
Perhaps I am missing what you were suggesting.
Did you mean to put nuclear reactors into vehicles?
To destroy the US economy!
Oil is the lifeblood for the economy, our standard of living and our national defense!
Only leftwingnut socialists who hate America want to limit our oil drilling.
The point, for the elitists, is to make energy use too expensive for the commoner,
so, while we huddle in our huts burning a few twigs we can gather to keep warm and cook,
they have a lot less competition and crowding in the areas of consumption that they prefer.
The article states otherwise.
The concept can be applied to many different things.
The information age didn’t move beyond books and newspapers because a lack of paper and ink.
Transportation didn’t move past carriages because we ran out of horses.
We will, someday, move past petroleum for transportation fuel. Those that think we should hold on to ours while funding everyone else should consider, who will have the funds left to develop what comes next?
To be sure, energy companies couldn't profitably recover all this oil — even at today's prices.
That means we have reached peak CHEAP oil.
There might be plenty of oil.
But it will not be cheap.
Cheap oil is over.
Why weren’t we drilling all this oil when the right was in power?
Why weren’t we drilling all this oil when the right was in power?
I wasn’t limiting the discussion of energy to transportation. I gave the example of France which meets 75% of her energy needs through nuclear.
If ever there were a time to switch to a majority nuclear power generation, this would be it. If the French can make it work (75% of their electricity is nuclear generated for the last 40 years) we can do it.
Or we can spend another 30+ years in costly wars and geopolitical intrique to get oil and still be in this same position in 2042.
I see the two as totally unrelated. Do you see it differently? If so, how are they related.
France doesn't have our coal or natural gas reserves. Also today we import most of the uranium we use. I just don't see shutting down coal and natural gas to build more expensive reactors and depending on an outside source for uranium a good move by any measure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.