NYT: Oddly, our dependence on Saudi oil seems to be rising

posted at 2:41 pm on August 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Who’d have predicted this? Just about everyone, as Josh Trevino reminded us last night:

After imposing a drilling moratorium in the Gulf in defiance of a court order, blocking oil exploration and extraction on both coasts, and then killing the Keystone XL pipeline to Canada’s oil fields, the US has grown more dependent on Saudi Arabia for its oil needs.  Color me shocked, shocked … and the New York Times a little clueless:

The United States is increasing its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, raising its imports from the kingdom by more than 20 percent this year, even as fears of military conflict in the tinderbox Persian Gulf region grow.

The increase in Saudi oil exports to the United States began slowly last summer and has picked up pace this year. Until then, the United States had decreased its dependence on foreign oil and from the Gulf in particular.

This reversal is driven in part by the battle over Iran’s nuclear program. The United States tightened sanctions that hampered Iran’s ability to sell crude, the lifeline of its troubled economy, and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase production to help guarantee that the price did not skyrocket. While prices have remained relatively stable, and Tehran’s treasury has been squeezed, the United States is left increasingly vulnerable to a region in turmoil.

The region’s been in turmoil for decades.  We’ve conducted wars in the region, and we’re still at war relatively close by to the Gulf.  None of this is new; even the Iranian standoff has been going on for almost a decade now.

Unfortunately, our domestic energy policy is also nothing new.  We’re not aggressively seeking out our own resources, which are vast and easily reachable.  We have proven oil reserves on land, off shore, and in Alaska that the Obama administration refuses to access.  We have a neighbor producing massive amounts of crude, which could easily have bought by approving and expediting the pipeline they craved to reach our refineries in the Gulf.  Instead, we’ve repeatedly snubbed them, and now they’re arranging to sell that crude to China by ship, a more ecologically risky transit than the pipeline would be.

In fact, that’s still the Obama administration’s Plan B:

Many oil experts say that the increasing dependency is probably going to last only a couple of years, or until more Canadian and Gulf of Mexico production comes on line.

“Until we have the ability to access more Canadian heavy oil through improved infrastructure, the vulnerability will remain,” said David L. Goldwyn, former State Department coordinator for international energy affairs in the Obama administration. “The potential for an obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz therefore poses a physical threat to U.S. supply as well as a potential price shock on a global level.”

Obama administration officials said they were not overly worried for several reasons. In the event of a crisis, the United States could always dip into strategic petroleum reserves; domestic production continues to climb; and Gulf of Mexico refineries could be adjusted to use higher-quality, sweeter crude oil imported from other countries.

Hey, I have an idea.  Why not make this our Plan A, along with producing our own oil rather than relying on Saudi Arabia?  That would create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, perhaps millions of secondary jobs, and keep gas prices from hitting new records over the next couple of years — as they will this year:

Gasoline prices are up sharply in the past month on surging crude oil costs and refinery woes, and now are likely to make 2012 the costliest year ever at the pump.

Nationally, gasoline averages $3.71 a gallon — up 31 cents since mid-July and is now higher than year-ago levels in 39 states. Prices are likely to continue climbing through August, with little relief until after Labor Day.

The swift, month-long, 9% price climb has lifted 2012′s average to $3.61 a gallon, vs. 2011′s $3.51, which had been the most expensive year ever for motorists. Even with demand expected to recede after the peak summer driving season, 2012 will surpass last year’s price, says Brian Milne of energy tracker Telvent DTN .

The run-up comes at a time when prices typically have peaked for the year, and just weeks after decreasing demand and slowing worldwide economic growth pushed prices well off 2012 highs. The trend had prompted some industry experts to forecast $3 a gallon gasoline by autumn. Now, Milne expects a top at about $3.90 before dropping in September.

We have been talking about dependency on foreign oil as a national-security issue for decades, and especially after 9/11.  This administration has no intention of taking any steps to improve our strategic and economic position.  It’s time to give someone else a chance.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Gee, I wonder why? Couldn’t have anything to do with Obama preventing us from developing our own energy resources, could it? Nah.

The Rogue Tomato on August 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Obama, in desperation, with diapers gray pouponed, will release oil from the reserves…yes, the ones meant for a national emergency.

He is an utter degenerate CiC.

Schadenfreude on August 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Bishop ?

Upstreamer on August 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

And oddly the lights are going out in California because they have to buy all surplus power from the evil racists in Arizona and sometimes there isn’t enough wealth to spread around.

If only there was a way to build power plants in California…

CorporatePiggy on August 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Bishop ?

Upstreamer on August 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Rats!

Upstreamer on August 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Having resided in Saudi Arabia, I can tell you, their concern with the environment is somewhat less than ours.

To be fair, if I were born in a country that ugly and miserable, I wouldn’t have too much concern for the future either.

NoDonkey on August 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Is “oddly” going to be the new “unexpectedly”?

Bitter Clinger on August 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

*cough*AlbertaOilSands*cough*

*cough*Friendly,allied,modernwesternliberaldemocracyrightnextdoor*cough*

*cough*hassoldiersfightingandbleedingalongsideUStroopsinAfghanistan*cough*

Alberta_Patriot on August 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Success!!!!

-Brayam

CW on August 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The problem is the Mother Earth religion and its adherents. Petroleum is evil, so it must be purchased from lands far away from us.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

The problem is the Mother Earth religion and its adherents. Petroleum is evil, so it must be purchased from lands far away from us.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Which always kills me with these folks. They’re so concerned with “global” climate change. Well, isn’t the Middle East on the same globe we are?

Bitter Clinger on August 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

And O talks about releasing our strategic oil reserves just in time for his reelection. He should have drilled. The reserve is for national emergencies, not to be dangerously squandered in an effort to bolster his reelection bid.

anotherJoe on August 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Whaaa? High oil prices ?? not a problemo, Obozo has the solution… of course tthe timing is just a coincidence…

jimver on August 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

isn’t the Middle East on the same globe we are?

Bitter Clinger on August 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Same globe, different millenium.

NoDonkey on August 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Stephen Chu has got it all handled. Shadow governments really do work.

a capella on August 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Do we still need proof that environuts – marxists work against American interests, for their masters in islamic OPEC’s 57 countries? And Venezuela too ?

burrata on August 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Bitter Clinger on August 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

It’s a religion. Reason doesn’t apply.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM

We are dependent on OIL, not “Saudi” oil, not “foreign” oil.

The economic illiteracy crippling the country is not limited to the idiotic “left” – and “energy independence” is the most important stupid, ignorant meme that “the right” embraces.

Oil is the most cost-efficiently produced and marketed commodity in world history, on a global basis. As with all commodities, there are variations in grade (and related commercial ties to particular processing, in this case, refining, infrastructure – but that all can be changed as needed), transportation cost, etc., which result in price variations. Hence the existence of multiple reference prices – West Texas Intermediate, Brent/North Sea, etc.

The rational path – as always – is to maximize welfare based on marginal cost. Thus the cost efficient oil resources of the US should be exploited – no different than for any other resource. Not doing so – as with the idiotic “energy policy” of the current administration, and the policies of governments at state and local levels in many areas (FL and CA for example) – is irrational. But exploiting these resources does not create “energy independence”.

Oil’s a global market. Highest price bid gets the contract. Saudi oil is interrupted, EVERYONE’s prices are affected, whether they source a drop of oil from the Kingdom, or not. And our trading partners – uh, remember that whole globalized economy thinggy, right, the fact that we are interconnected with the world in almost all of our economic activities? – they will be affected, so we will be affected. Geez, people, how can a community that generally gets the common sense basis of market economics (the only real economics there is) cling to this idiotic mirage of oil independence?

And for those who combine their economic illiteracy on energy with boneheaded ignorance on national security, 9/11 cost almost nothing. A growing world’s demand for hydrocarbon energy (the only kind there is, for practical purposes) will put huge revenues into the pockets of many countries who pose potential threats, regardless of what we do. Importing less or more oil has precisely zero potential impact on any of our actual or potential adversaries.

The reason to maximize domestic energy production is 100% economic, and completely irrefutable, and has nothing to do with “independence”, which is the dumbest false idea “the right” has to offer.

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Alberta_Patriot on August 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Thanks, Neighbor! I apologize for our current administration and most of the unelected bureaucracy in D.C.

TugboatPhil on August 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

This is what happens when the Queen Bee says build here while all the workers are pointing to the other tree.

Limerick on August 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The problem is the Mother Earth religion and its adherents. Petroleum is evil, so it must be purchased from lands far away from us.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I always tell the Gaians around here that crude oil is from Mother Earth and not only natural, but organic. However, talking to them is as productive as talking to North Dakota shale.

TugboatPhil on August 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

FORWARD!

Off the cliff…

J.H. on August 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Someday filling our tanks with unicorn flatulence isn’t a plan?

NoDonkey on August 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

as talking to North Dakota shale.

TugboatPhil on August 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Geologic race baiting.

Limerick on August 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The only drilling Obama cares for is the one Kal Penn performs.

Archivarix on August 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM

and has nothing to do with “independence”, which is the dumbest false idea “the right” has to offer.

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Then why have a strategic reserve? It would make sense that we run at maximum production capacity in our own country so that if there were any future shortfall, say, if Canada and Mexico suddenly became hostile, we could offset any embargo with domestic supplies. When the world is a happy place, sure, sell as much natural gas to international markets as you please, wherever you can get the most revenue.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

FORWARD!

Off the cliff…

J.H. on August 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-hvfb0TF_8lA/UBlW1O7dfpI/AAAAAAAAkjo/oJiRFYf0efc/forward3_thumb%25255B1%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800

Cody1991 on August 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Do the Saudis want Barry, a weak horse with sympathy towards the Muslim Brotherhoods, re-elected?

bayview on August 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

CorporatePiggy, as the country is beyond parody, and words themselves have lost their meaning (not just in ludicrous SCOTUS rulings, but in regular life), I have no words for CA’s idiotic situation in which power rationing is almost needed.

Radio ads promoting compliance with low-use days (as during the current SoCal heat wave) are jaw-dropping – but only to someone with the slightest understanding of the world, economics, engineering, energy, and common sense. Which apparently excludes most Californians.

People here are right to identify the various idiotic “green” obsessions as mostly a substitute religion for its adherents. But while that’s a nice satisfying pop psychology insult, it’s doesn’t address the much scarier economic illiteracy and lack of common sense that underly the whole phenomenon.

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Won’t this be Bambi’s third release from the Strategic Petroleum reserves and the third release done for no reason other than to keep his poll numbers from sagging at a rate less than Michelle’s rear end? (Speaking of Michelle, her vaunted “guns” are looking more like sausages these days.)

natasha333 on August 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Hey! It’s all part of Barry’s “energy plan”.

GarandFan on August 17, 2012 at 3:13 PM

It all comes down to one big NIMBY complaint. After all, we have one of the best safety records in the world when it comes to drilling accidents and cleanup. The middle east, africa and parts of central america are the worst. What self-respecting Gaia worshiper wants to concentrate drilling where the environmental damage is the worst?

alwaysfiredup on August 17, 2012 at 3:15 PM

…and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase production to help guarantee that the price did not skyrocket.

WOAH! Now hold on right here… this from the NYT??

Isn’t that the same bunch of morons who continually told us, when conservatives were screaming to drill more oil to increase supply to lower prices, that increased supply would not lower prices because oil is a “worldwide commodity” and therefore (by some insane logic) not subject to standard supply and demand economics, hence we drilling our own oil would be of no help?? And yet that same rag of a paper is now saying the Saudi’s specifically increased production to cover for what Iram was not allowed to feed to the market in order to keep prices down??

gravityman on August 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM

ODDLY??? ODDLY????
OMG!
What can anyone say. What is so odd? Obama won’t drill for oil, Obama wont drill for natural gas, Obama won’t pursue nuclear energy, Obama is shutting down coal mining, Obama shut down the pipeline, and the NY Times say “ODDLY”?
OH MY GOD

Delsa on August 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Well since it was a Saudi Prince that got him into Harvard (and probably paid for it too) we all noticed how he bowed to the Saudis.
This is him just returning the favor, screw the American people, or as Harry Reid would put it the smelly unwashed masses.

concernedsenior on August 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM

John the Libertarian, the SPR is precisely for short-term emergencies – which is why the others here denouncing its potential use for putting downward pressure gasoline prices for electoral reasons are correct.

The SPR doesn’t give us “energy independence” in an on-going sense – it provides a small reserve to be allocated to absolutely essential national purposes during an emergency. I think it’s currently too small, relative to US demand, to be used as a price-smoothing commodity program in the event of some kind of international price spike. In a sense, an SPR would be valuable as an emergency reserve even if the US imported only 5% of its petroleum. In the old days, some large oil finds on federal land were mapped and set aside (“naval petroleum reserves”) in this way – it had nothing to do with imports as % of daily consumption.

Hidden opportunity costs of all kinds are currently impoverishing (comparatively) the US on all fronts – excessive, needless and hurtful regulation, “captured” regulation being used by market players to gain advantage, insanely destructive taxation systems, liability shake-downs, distortion of insurnce markets, and on and on and on. Maximizing cost-effective domestic energy production is the best choice – any other course imposes real comparative opportunity cost penalties. But it has nothing to do with “oil independence”, which is a completely meaningless concept in an efficiently priced global market.

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I’m sure increased dependence has been one of Obama’s goals.

darwin on August 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Forget the “chicken in every pot”; it’s time for the “derrick in every driveway”.

M240H on August 17, 2012 at 3:23 PM

What we need to find is a source for oil, ideally somewhere away from a large part of the population…a large supply, and either pipe it or ship it in, also in the U.S., doesn’t have to be one of the 48, maybe even Alaska or something…does anyone know of an oil rich area that is not occupied, and is available?

right2bright on August 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM

MSM Headline release tomorrow: “Obama to release oil in exchange for 5 years of Romney tax returns”.

DDay on August 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM

83 days…

Common Sense Floridian on August 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Also, does anyone know where we can get some natural gas…it burns almost clean, easy to transport, and is cheap to refine…something local or neighboring country would be ideal…

right2bright on August 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM

“Don’t worry, Comrade…errrr…..Mr. President has this covered! He is paying Brazil to produce oil and create jobs for Brazilians, for us!!!!
For the 1st time in my lifetime, I’m SO proud of our country!!! Thank you Comrade….errrrr….Mr. President!!!!1111!!!
~Marxist, Socialist, Liberal, Progressive (or whatever they are calling themselves this week) Idiots

Strike Hornet on August 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I agree with your assessment, and would only say that in times of dire straits, i.e., world war, petroleum suddenly becomes a far more precious commodity. If oil were to become an issue, the SPR should be used only to fuel our military in order to restore the global market and assure us our supply. I understand our Navy spends huge amounts of money on oil alternatives (banana peels, algae, etc.) for just this reason.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Meanwhile, does anyone know where we can at least temporarily find some coal to mine? Not idea as an energy source, but great to use while we create pipelines and other infrastructure to handle oil and natural gas…it would be ideal if it was along the eastern seaboard…

right2bright on August 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM

IceCold –

also, Bush managed to burst the previous spec bubble on oil prices by opening up areas for exploration. Just the announcement of the proposal to open these areas caused prices to plummet.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

To round out, does anyone know of companies that produce nuclear power plants…a couple of those, clean and safe, will help in keeping our energy costs down and our grid up…if there is a U.S. company that makes those, that would be ideal.

right2bright on August 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

“Hate-Oil”!!!

Strike Hornet on August 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Oh, and solar panels, the Solyandra I hear ran into problems…maybe we could put that on the back burner while these other proven sources are developed. That way we can enter into new technology logically and properly create a market.

right2bright on August 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I’d much rather buy my oil from countries that keep women from voting, owning land or driving. I also like it when women are shot for serious offenses like not having a meal on the table on time, not wearing their tent when in public, have a complete set of genitals or expecting to be able to read or write.

Of course we all know how barbaric and satan possessed Canadians are so it’s a no brainer for our fearless leader.

acyl72 on August 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Which always kills me with these folks. They’re so concerned with “global” climate change. Well, isn’t the Middle East on the same globe we are?

Bitter Clinger on August 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

… and getting it here is incredibly more ecologically dangerous than simply producing it here.

Gobsmackingly, face-palmingly stupid. But then, they’re liberals, eh?

Midas on August 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Correct on all counts, John the Libertarian. While Bush’s thing about development leases was the “proper” way to jaw-bone the oil market on prices, it’s regrettable that even that was needed.

With common sense protection of the environment (and US regs are probably far, far above that level), just develop the damn resources as they become cost-effective to exploit. Ya know, obvious neon-bright economic common sense.

One thing – I don’t know if the Navy’s horsing around with biofuels makes any sense whatsoever, much less is actually an attempt at diversifying fuel sources. But I doubt it. While I haven’t looked into it in detail, it smells very much like irrational “green” idiocy pushed to its illogical conclusion. Experimenting with naturgal gas or other fuels for, say, municipal bus fleets, or certain federal car fleets, is conceivably defensible. But the Navy? Unless there’s a lock-cinch technical or tactical rationale – no way.

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Who ever heard of energy prices going UP in a recession, in contradiction to the law of supply and demand? Such is the Arab’s disregard for our America-hating, incompetent naif in chief.

paul1149 on August 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Is “oddly” going to be the new “unexpectedly”?

Bitter Clinger on August 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

ODDLY??? ODDLY????
OMG!
What can anyone say. What is so odd? Obama won’t drill for oil, Obama wont drill for natural gas, Obama won’t pursue nuclear energy, Obama is shutting down coal mining, Obama shut down the pipeline, and the NY Times say “ODDLY”?
OH MY GOD

Delsa on August 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM

The NYTimes didn’t say “oddly.” And there was nothing in the article to suggest that this was surprising. I don’t know why Ed made it sound like they were saying that.

tneloms on August 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

And, aren’t THOSE the ones Obama claims as his ??

pambi on August 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM

We should be tapping every thing in sight and drilling night and day and opening every mine available until everyone that wants and needs a job has one. If there are still those that are on the government dole and jobs are still available, and they are capable of working, offer them a job or cut them off. We should strive to keep every dollar spent on fuel right here in the USA and stop funding the people that want to annilate us. They have nothing without us. We need to be the ones controlling oil prices not the ones that are controll by it. We need a leader with great big well oiled balls to lay down the law. Stop letting Hollywood and the tree huggers set the agenda. They are a minority, controlling the majority. Stop buying movies, stop going to the movies and stop the pay per view B/S that feeds them and concentrate on what feeds your very own family. People are putting more in their gas tank than they spend at the grocery store. Enough already. You want to see America come rolling back and more prosperous than ever before start drilling and start pumping and start refining.

j bo on August 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Oil dependence was part of the Clinton and Bush plans as well as O’s.

When they made the big oil strike in AK during the Clinton admin, they covered it up and bought off/pledged to secrecy everyone who knew. It’s why they keep teasing about ANWAR. It’s also why we never were allowed to go “whole hog” off our coasts — keeping oil rigs out of view of highrises was a poor excuse.

There is a “quick and clean” way to solve the problem by Christmas! Encourage cars to switch to natural gas. Dual fuel kits are available for about $1500 uninstalled (self installation is possible). The big problem is distribution — 1. we need to have a national system to distribute natural gas. 2. Then we need to have “gas” stations to interface with cars. 3. The “gas” stations would have a compressor, a reservoir tank, and a automobile interface, like a gasoline type pump. Somehow I think steps 1 and 2 are done. Given how quickly the 3rd pump at all service stations (that wanted to stay in business) was added for unleaded fuel in 1974, I think it would be doable.

So this whole energy shortage thing is a scam and prices could be down to $2/gallon equivalent by Christmas. (If you fill your natural gas car from your home, it costs less than $1/gallon equivalent — but you have to have a compressor and patience)

KenInIL on August 17, 2012 at 4:25 PM

But the Navy? Unless there’s a lock-cinch technical or tactical rationale – no way.

IceCold on August 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

That’s how folks in the oil exploration business explained it to me. Seems daffy to me, too.

These same folks told me oil has to be around $100/barrel to make exploration and extraction feasible in the U.S. Funny how prices plunge whenever we talk about more domestic exploration.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM

And, aren’t THOSE the ones Obama claims as his ??

pambi on August 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM

He’s also claiming he opened up exploration when it was obviously GWB’s doing.

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Not to mention “unexpectedly”.

Who knew a slimy moratorium and hyper EPA regulations would make us more dependent on the house of Saud?

Just about everybody except for a few clouded individuals.

Speakup on August 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM

It doesn’t matter how much we pump or even if we are completely independent of gulf oil, we still won’t lower oil prices. We’re 6-8 years out from switching to CNG for most industrial needs and increased domestic production. In the mean time little will change because the US market is not solely driving the price up. Rather it’s increased global usage. Obama didn’t kill the XL pipeline and is in favor of it, Nebraska killed the line and Trans Canada simply has to do a new environmental impact as they trace a new path.

But go ahead, tell us all how if we just let BP keep drilling recklessly we’d be in a much better position because that last oil spill only killed off 300,000 or 400,000 jobs.

Zekecorlain on August 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Too bad this isn’t an election year…

Seven Percent Solution on August 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Gas prices went up 17 cents last night here.
Hope & Change
Hoax & Chains

txhsmom on August 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM

@txhsmom that’s right, Obama is a secret day trader in energy commodities

Zekecorlain on August 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Obama didn’t kill the XL pipeline and is in favor of it, Nebraska killed the line and Trans Canada simply has to do a new environmental impact as they trace a new path.

But go ahead, tell us all how if we just let BP keep drilling recklessly we’d be in a much better position because that last oil spill only killed off 300,000 or 400,000 jobs.

Zekecorlain on August 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM

1 – LOL, ‘Obama is in favor of it’. Good grief, you’re dumb.
2 – ‘let BP keep drilling recklessly’ – yeah, because that’s what everyone here is espousing, right? One of the more feeble strawman arguments offered up recently, congratulations.

Midas on August 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

You know why we’re increasingly dependent on Saudi Arabia for our oil (“temporarily”)? It’s because Saudi Arabian oligarchs own our politicians, and thanks to those corrupt bastards, have their claws so deep in our banking system that they could bankrupt us if we tried to get off their reservation. So when oil exploration and production on our own continent threatens their money flow, they yank on the reins, with compliance from certain invested oligarchs among our own.

It’s time to break the reins, take our chances, and start producing our own energy independence (and I don’t mean government-subsidized wind farms, either). Things are going to get hairy in the next decade or so, but that never stopped America before.

Here’s a little history for you: in the 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president, Saudi Arabia and all their client oil tick countries set up an oil embargo that had us lined up at the gas stations, hoping we’d get enough gas at pumped-up prices to get to work the next day. When an agreement was reached with the oil ticks, one of the Saudi princes in charge of petroleum production (I want to say Prince Bandar, that fat, greasy snake in an expensive suit, but I’m not sure it was him) said, “When this is over, it will be kiss-the-hand, and business back to usual.”

Kiss the hand. No American should EVER tolerate that kind of language, not from our own, and certainly not from a bunch of foreign dress-wearing parasites.

RebeccaH on August 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Funny that the proggies are always on the attack over any hint of “sending jobs overseas” or “outsourcing”, but they refuse to let us develop our own energy resources, and as a result millions of jobs are sent overseas!

slickwillie2001 on August 17, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Oddly, our dependence on Saudi oil seems to be rising.

Two words:

Presidential Libraries.

Three words:

Contributions to politicians

Two final words:

Enough said.

PappyD61 on August 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

You know, these are old oilwells. New ones don’t look like this.

MaggiePoo on August 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I do not want to hear one more word about Obama playing “four dimensional chess”. The see nothing in advance; they prepare nothing in advance; they are blind-sided by events at every turn; they cannot even make a simple, planned campaign statement without having to either walk it back or clarify it. And on and on and on.

Clueless as the day is long, the only expertise in this administration is blame and lies.

ss396 on August 18, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You know, these are old oilwells. New ones don’t look like this.

MaggiePoo on August 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

They’re the ones most people recognize.

MelonCollie on August 18, 2012 at 8:07 PM

With this administration and the courts legislating, we’re lucky that all the oil doesn’t come from outside our country. The Department of Energy was created to cut importing oil, at that time we were importing about 30%. Now all we have is another bureaucratic empire and we are importing about 75% of the oil. Another government experiment that didn’t work!

savage24 on August 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM