dude...there was a plan initiated in the 70's under Nixon. There is more oil sitting under the US than anywhere else in the world combined, and we are SITTING ON IT until the rest of the world has been drained. We import almost all of our natural resources so that when the music stops, we 're the only ones with a chair. Nothing will change this, and everything else you read and see is a smoke screen.

http://www.lindseywilliams.net/lindsey-williams-the-energy-non-crisis-chapter-17

@shian

Even if you believe that it's official American policy to sit on "our" continental oil reserves -- no issues of the cost of extraction, the quality of the fossil fuel at issue, supply and demand, etc. -- it would do U.S. citizens no good at all, because U.S. companies would export the better of it -- as they're already doing, and intend to do with new reserves -- and American consumers would pay exactly the same prices that are paid in the rest of the world, based on world-wide supply, even if that supply was limited to North America.

It doesn't matter where fossil fuels are extracted, unless we intend to nationalize the oil companies, take the profit out of fossil fuel production and keep the lights off in the rest of the world, for lack of fuel (and in that case, to whom do we export all our other products?).

American oil companies have no more commitment to U.S. national or consumer interests than nationalized Venezuelan oil companies, the Iranians or the Saudis. And as long as private companies own or lease the U.S. land where drilling takes place, it makes far more sense to let other countries destroy their natural resources and use their oil, since we'll be paying exactly the same price anyway. Besides, even if we had 3 Saudi Arabias underneath Texas or Ohio, these companies will never do enough drilling to bring the price down by flooding the market; that would be self-defeating.

@JRD we don't export any oil. The statistically small amount that we "export" is to Canada and that is generally returned to us as gasoline. We do however import the most crude oil in the world, more than a lot of other countries combined. The problem here is that, once again, someone is too busy posing a "USA vs. The World" statement when in actuality most of these oil companies are worldwide conglomerates with little to do with governments other than their lobbying arms stuffing politician's pockets with cash in return for laws that help them control their profits. Just look at Russia and trying to control natural gas production from former Soviet member countries.. I don't think there is a strategic reason for not pumping oil from these wells, I think it's all about control of the profits. Even OPEC has been quoted as saying that they will never let production ramp up so that profits drop ever again. You can forget about 1$ gallons of gasoline again. Hell, you can probably forget about >2.50$/gal gasoline too. Nevertheless, even if someone were to get all of these wells pumping, our refineries are already running at peak levels just to keep up with current production/demand. It would be 10-15 years before more refineries could be brought online to even touch the amount of oil that could be pumped today.

Here's a link to a summary of a workshop at Harvard that featured notable leaders from the scientific community and the energy industry. Their conclusions don't square very well with some of the opinions in this thread.

While some forecasts for production growth may be too bold, and current natural gas prices may be too low for long run firm profitability, the medium term prospects for the North American energy landscape look strong. Industry has seen remarkable technological breakthroughs, and the pace of R&D and innovation has been increasing. There is still the potential both for consolidation and sharing of current technology and for its application in new and innovative ways.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Shale%20Workshop%20Rapporteur%20Report%20May%202012.pdf

World is full of Oil. New finds: 260Billion barrels in Israel oil shale. 600 Billion south of Baffin Island.

It does not matter where oil is coming from, we will be paying more and more. After all, oil will always go to the highest bidder. It is the oil companies calling the shot, nobody else. Has anyone looked at Exxon's quarterly profits the past 5 years?

North America (and South America) is full of natural resources including food cropping. If there is energy/food crisis, this continent is the best place to be.

Primates brain is build in such interesting way that they can talk themselfs into anything. Many believe that they are personally the center of universe.

Negative Vitaliy, a planet with a pure diamond core has been found. Enough carbon to fuel Chinese factories for at least a month.

Mirrorkisser, it's naive to think the USA is the only country with a mixed history. It's the way of powerful nations. Japan in Asia, Great Britain everywhere, Germany in Europe, Russia in Afghanistan, Italy , Iran. The list is long. It's what people do to each other. USA has also liberated a lot countries .

@svart

So, in your view, if a private American company has a dispute with a foreign government, the U.S. has every right to invade that country, overthrow a democratically elected government, install a dictator, equip his military, and then support him in the civil war which results, because some people don't like living under American-sponsored dictatorships and having their natural wealth stolen by American companies?

You are aware, of course, that U.S.-supported and funded dictatorships in Latin and South America murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people, most of them bystanders? Or whose "crime" was to join a labor union?

And I gather you would endorse a foreign invasion of the U.S., if a foreign company insisted the U.S. has reneged on its obligations?

@svart

yes, the USA has had it's hand in some shady governmental dealings in SA but there is absolutely ZERO proof that the influence of the US government had any outcome in their favor through any of these situations.

All I can suggest is, you read some history. There is a ton of documentary evidence that U.S. intervention in the region -- including military coups, invasions and propping up of dictators -- achieved distinct political and economic goals of the U.S. Sometime the gains were largely symbolic -- to show other countries what happens if they defy U.S. interests -- but the disastrous consequences of U.S.-sponsored repression are no less real for the native populations. If you go back and read policy papers produced in the 60s and 70s by the U.S. State department, you'll see that this matter is discussed quite openly -- on the need to stifle "bad examples" (meaning countries which take their own path and don't follow U.S. dictates), with military intervention.

For a guy who claims to hate or distrust government so much -- I thought you were a libertarian? -- you're awfully quick to defend or deny the reprehensible acts of your own government.

For a guy who claims to hate or distrust government so much -- I thought you were a libertarian? -- you're awfully quick to defend or deny the reprehensible acts of your own government.

There are worse places in the world. Genocide isn't part of our history. Bet a lot of members here can't say that about THEIR country. And let's see the hands of those from countries that liberated the death camps.

When did USA commit genocide?