| | Dependency on Foreign OilJanuary 16, 2012 - Rick BurdtWouldn’t it be great to break the hold that the Middle East has over us? Most of this is our own fault. Our country is full of natural resources, but liberal agendas keep getting in the way of common sense. We have a huge amount of crude oil of our own, but environmentalists bind oil company’s hands from being able to drill in our own soil. Instead, we pay higher prices for a product shipped halfway around the world in tanker ships that each burn thousands of gallons of fuel every day. The fuel they burn is of the lowest quality, and according to a study by John Vidal, environmental editor of guardian.co.uk, as few as fifteen of the largest of these ships may emit as much pollution as all the world's cars. And there are thousands of these ships on our oceans. We don’t see the large, black plumes of smoke because these ships are designed with the exhaust underneath, pumping directly into the sea. Once the tankers reach our shores and are emptied, they turn around and sail back to the Middle East completely empty, burning amazing amounts of fuel that is basically one grade higher than asphalt. Here’s an idea. Instead of exporting our hard-earned money to the Middle East, why not allow the rich American oil companies a chance to use our own natural resources and open up drilling? They would create a whole slew of new jobs, and I’m sure that the best way to deliver that fuel from many of the oil fields would be by pipeline. Pipelines are the greenest and safest way to transport fuel. We can create American jobs and cut our dependency to the Middle East. This would globally be a lot cleaner than the current way in which we receive much of our oil, and I’m sure the US oil companies would be more than happy to invest in America if the current liberal agenda would just let them. I’d be willing to bet that the threat of us doing something like this alone would make the Middle East start dropping prices just to try to keep us from doing such a thing. I’m not against green, renewable energy, but let’s face the facts; the technology to replace fossil fuel energy does not yet exist. Even when science discovers a way to harness a green, renewable energy, it will still take years, if not decades, to change our nation’s energy infrastructures and completely come off the current “grid.” Article Comments(9)ConcussionJan-20-12 9:35 AM Well, let me see if I can summarize this for you: 1)US gas demand-down 2)US gas supply- surplus 3)US gas price- record highs So where's your argument again? We can drill baby drill all we want, but Crude is a global commodity. Even if we (magically) obtained 100% of our 300 MILL. barrels of crude each month, from our own land, that's not ours, that's EXXON/MOBIL'S crude and after it's sold to the highest bidder on the global commodity market we can refine it into high value petroleum products, gasoline being one. The US has a very well developed and competitive refining capability. This year we are set to be a net exporter of gasoline, which is (partly) due to lower US demand and a vehicle fleet with higher efficiency. So thanks Wall Street Speculators! PNorthElbaJan-19-12 7:04 PM "....but I will always try to back up my information with reputable source." "liberal agendas keep getting in the way of common sense" where is the reputable source supporting that statement? "We have a huge amount of crude oil of our own". Again, reputable source? ADKTransientJan-19-12 6:44 PM Oops, went over the total characters. Here's the rest: Their contributions total over 32% of our total oil import, “much” more than the 24% from Canada. Please, the next time you want someone to "get the facts straight", maybe you should take a little of your own advice first. ADKTransientJan-19-12 6:42 PM It amazes me when people accuse others of making false statements and back that up with half-truths. Yes, in this case I’m referring to you adkforever and iman05. Firstly, adkforever, much does not require a majority. A majority would be much but the inverse does not have to be true. But if you honestly think we don’t get much of our oil from the M.E., there’s just no reasoning with you. Applying algebra to the numbers in your post, more than 13% of our total oil imports came from Saudi Arabia. Adding in whatever part of remaining 31% that comes from other M.E. countries and "much" is safely reached. Your post also provides the numbers to show a half-truth in iman05's comment. OPEC does not officially set the price of oil, but they do regulate the price of oil the same way De Beers keeps the price of diamonds artificially elevated by creating scarcity of demand when they want prices to rise. Working with your numbers again, 3 of the 5 are in OPEC. Their contributions tota iman05Jan-19-12 12:22 PM As I am 'Left of Center' - welcome aboard. Couple things though - get the facts straight. The 'middle east' doesn't set prices. The MARKET sets prices. Most of the 'price' of crude oil is created daily in Manhattan. Its a worldwide commodity. All OPEC (I assume this is what you mean)does is try to limit the SUPPLY of oil (which all the nations overproduce anyway) to create a worldwide supply/demand argument. I agree we need to drill mor ehere, but not for money. To protect us so we aren't reliant on any other country for our fuel needs. adkerforeverJan-17-12 2:01 PM A quick google search of the "top 5 US crude oil imports 2011" reveals a very detailed picture of exactly where the majority of our oil comes from. And guess what Rick - much of it is not from the Middle East as you surmise above. Here are the top 5 sources of crude oil imports (with thousand of barrels per day): 1. Canada - 2157 2. Saudi Arabia - 1180 3. Mexico - 1113 4. Venezuela - 893 5. Nigeria - 826 These 5 countries provide 69% of our annual crude oil imports (2011). Only one of them is in the Middle East. In fact, of the top 15 sources of US crude oil imports, only 6 are Middle Eastern countries. I suppose when you propose drilling at home, you are referring in part to the oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It has been shown time and time again the this region would only provide a fraction of the oil that we currently consume every day, and that opening ANWR to oil drilling would have zero effect on world oil prices. In other words, the ben LoveTheColdJan-16-12 8:29 PM I'd like a public record of all politicians stocks, bonds and real estate investments since Jimmy Carter al gore harry reid nanny pelosi jon c and the right too From albany to washington phahn50Jan-16-12 10:45 AM Its not a liberal agenda thats opposing them - its the competing business interests in the tourism industry. The risk is a massive loss of jobs and property values if there is an off-shore oil leak. There are also many people who like to go to the beaches for recreation and don't want them wrecked. Post a Comment | in: News, Blogs & Events Web Blog Links |
