USA, the world's largest oil producer?

Yep. That's where we are heading:

U.S. to become world's largest oil producer before 2020, IEA says

The U.S. will become the world’s top producer of oil within five years, a net exporter of the fuel around 2030 and nearly self-sufficient in energy by 2035, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.

It’s a bold set of predictions for a nation that currently imports some 20% of its energy needs.

Recently, however, an “energy renaissance” in the U.S. has caused a boost in oil, shale gas and bio-energy production due to new technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Fuel efficiency has improved in the transportation sector. The clean energy industry has seen an influx of solar and wind efforts.

By 2015, U.S. oil production is expected to rise to 10 million barrels per day before increasing to 11.1 million bpd by 2020, overtaking second-place Russia and front-runner Saudi Arabia. The U.S. will export more oil than it brings into the country in 2030.

Around the same time, however, Saudi Arabia will be producing some 11.4 million bpd of oil, outpacing the 10.2 million from the U.S. In 2035, U.S. production will slip to 9.2 million bpd, far behind the Middle Eastern nation’s 12.3 million bpd. Iraq will exceed Russia to become the world’s second largest oil exporter.

At that point, real oil prices will reach $125 a barrel. By then, however, the U.S. won’t be relying much on foreign energy, according to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook.

Globally, the energy economy will undergo a “sea change,” according to the report, with nearly 90% of Middle Eastern oil exports redirecting toward Asia. [...]

This report also confirms the claims made by Porter Stansberry, that I referred to in an earlier post about President Obama capitalizing on an oil boom, like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR did. And with the same corrupting influences.

   

Will Obama become America's Hugo Chavez?

Here is one person's version of "What's Next": The Third Term

On the above link, a video will try to play, showing text with someone narrating it. It's very long. If you prefer to read (as I do), simply try to shut the window. When you do, a pop up will ask you if you really want to leave. Don't do anything for a moment; the page will reload, with the full text from the video. Then from the pop-up box you can choose to stay on the page and read.

It's a long ramble, by Porter Stansberry, who is trying to sell his investment newsletter. In the course of that, he predicts that Obama, in his second term, will consolidate and keep his power from an economic boom caused by shale oil and natural gas.

That may sound far-fetched, but he does explain with extensive sources and data to back his prediction. He also makes two very compelling historical comparisons, with Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, who both used similar circumstances to do what Stansberry believes Obama will also do. FDR managed a third term, and Obama could do the same, either by changing the constitution or by having his wife Michelle run as his proxy.

The data he gives for shale oil and natural gas is also fascinating. He uses his record of past accurate predictions, to bolster his predictions for Obama. The extensive references and data he offers to back up his ideas and predictions seems very plausible; it pieces together a lot of things I've heard from various other sources.

I wanted to print some excerpts here, and discuss some of the ideas, but blogger has changed it's publishing software, and I am now finding it very difficult to work with. The new blogger software requires me to do extensive reformatting of excerpted text, which is very time consuming. And even then, it often won't let me publish it (like it did today, after I did all the work!).

Thus, I predict, that I will not be blogging very much anymore. I have a life, and I'm going to start living it more. I may occasionally post interesting links and small amounts of text, but I'm pretty sure my most active blogging days are behind me.

It was fun, it was a learning experience. But now, seeing as Blogger has made this so unnecessarily arduous and time-consuming, methinks it's time to make better use of my time.

Is lsrael really ready to strike Iran? Why now?

Just a bluff? Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran

[...] Is Israel bluffing? Israeli leaders have been claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons since the early 1990s, and defense officials have issued a series of ever-changing estimates on how close Iran is to the bomb. But the saber-rattling has become much more direct and vocal.

[...]

Israel views Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, Iran's support for anti-Israel militant groups and Iranian missile technology capable of hitting Israel.

On Friday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut," and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.

When faced with such threats, Israeli has a history of lashing out in the face of world opposition. That legacy that includes the game-changing 1967 Middle East war, which left Israel in control of vast Arab lands, a brazen 1981 airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor, and a stealthy 2007 airstrike in Syria that is believed to have destroyed a nuclear reactor in the early stages of construction.

Armed with a fleet of ultramodern U.S.-made fighter planes and unmanned drones, and reportedly possessing intermediate-range Jericho missiles, Israel has the capability to take action against Iran too, though it would carry grave risks.

It would require flying over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or Turkey. It is uncertain whether any of these Muslim countries would knowingly allow Israel to use their airspace.

With targets some 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away, Israeli planes would likely have the complicated task of refueling in flight. Iran's antiquated air force, however, is unlikely to provide much of a challenge.

Many in the region cannot believe Israel would take such a step without a green light from the United States, its most important ally. That sense is deepened by the heightened stakes of a U.S. election year and the feeling that if Israel acts alone, the West would not escape unscathed.

The U.S. has been trying to push both sides, leading the charge for international sanctions while also pressing Israel to give the sanctions more time. In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran's oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy, and its central bank. Israeli officials say they want the sanctions to be imposed faster and for more countries to join them.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that officials in Israel — all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Iran — were concerned that the measures, while welcome, were constraining Israel in its ability to act because the world expected the effort to be given a chance.

Even a limited Israeli operation could well unleash regionwide fighting. Iran could launch its Shihab 3 missiles at Israel, and have its local proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, unleash rockets. Israel's military intelligence chief, Aviv Kochavi, warned last week that Israel's enemies possess some 200,000 rockets.

While sustained rocket and missile fire would certainly make life uncomfortable in Israel, Barak himself has said he believes casualties would be low — suggesting it would be in the hundreds.

Iran might also try to attack Western targets in the region, including the thousands of U.S. forces based in the Gulf with the 5th Fleet.

An Israeli attack might have other unintended consequences. A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

To some, the greatest risk is to the moribund world economy.

Analysts believe an Israeli attack would cause oil prices to spike, since global markets so far have largely dismissed the Israeli threats and not "price in" the threat. According to one poll conducted by the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm in Bethesda, Maryland, prices would surge by $23 a barrel. The price of oil settled Friday at $97.84 a barrel.

"Traders don't believe there's anything but bluster going on," said Robert McNally, president of Rapidan and an energy adviser to former President George W. Bush. "A potential Israeli attack on Iran is different than almost every scenario that we've seen before."

McNally said Iran could rattle oil markets by targeting oil fields in southern Iraq or export facilities in Saudi Arabia or Qatar — and withhold sales of its own oil and natural gas from countries not boycotting.

Iran also could attempt to carry out its biggest threat: to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil passes. That could send oil prices soaring beyond $200 a barrel. But analysts note Iran's navy is overmatched.

If a surge in oil prices proved lasting, financial markets would probably plummet on concerns that global economic growth would slow and on the fear that any conflict could worsen and spread.

For the U.S. economy, higher gasoline prices would likely result in lower consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of U.S. economic activity. That could have devastating consequences for an incumbent president seeking re-election.

Nick Witney, former head of the EU's European Defense Agency, said "the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe" since the likely spike in the price of oil alone "could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession."

He said this could lead to "messy defaults" by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro. Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that "the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies."

Oil disruptions or higher oil prices will also dent growth in Asia. China, India, South Korea and Japan all buy substantial amounts of Iranian crude and could face temporary shortages.

China's fast-growing economy, which gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran, has urged all sides to avoid disrupting supplies. Any impact on China's economy, the world's second-largest, could send out global shockwaves if it dented Chinese demand for industrial components and raw materials.

Why is the issue coming to a head with such unfortunate timing, with the U.S. election looming and the global economy hanging by a razor's edge?

The urgency is fueled by a belief in Israel that Iran is moving centrifuges and key installations deep underground by the summer — combined with doubts about whether either Israel or the United States have the bunker-busting capacity to act effectively thereafter. [...]

But the global repercussions of trying to stop it, are enormous. Could the be a case of the cure being worse than the disease?
     

"Peak Oil" and/or "Increased Demand"?

The Peak Production theory:

Peak oil

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

[...]

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak.

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.[3] Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred,[4][5][6][7] that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly.[8][9] The International Energy Agency (IEA) says production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2006.[10][11] Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices.[12] [...]

A Dark Warning on Global Oil Demand

Many top corporate and political figures gathered in Houston on Tuesday for the annual CeraWeek conference on the outlook for energy, and they got an earful from John B. Hess, chairman and chief executive of the Hess Corporation.

“An energy crisis is coming, likely to be triggered by oil,” he predicted. “Demand is expected to grow on an annual basis by at least one million barrels per day, driven by the developing economies of the world and by a growth in transportation as we go from one billion cars today to two billion cars in 2050.”

The problem, he said, is not that the world is running out of oil. He estimated that while the world has produced one trillion barrels of oil, two trillion more remain in the ground. Meanwhile surplus oil production capacity is three billion to four million barrels a day.

But watch out for the future. “As demand grows in the next decade, we will not have the oil production capacity we will need to meet demand,” Mr. Hess said. “Supply will then have to ration demand, and prices will skyrocket – with the likely outcome of bringing the world’s economy to its knees.”

So where are oil prices going? “The $140-per-barrel oil price of three years ago was not an aberration,” he said. “It was a warning.”

Mr. Hess’s policy prescription was not surprising: he wants more drilling, including in the Gulf of Mexico, and more natural gas used in the generation of electricity, among other proposals. His stark vision of the global energy future stood out nonetheless.

Either way, Peak Oil or Increased Demand, the same end result: rationing? Are the days of abundant cheap energy about to become a thing of the past? At least in the way that we knew it be. As more energy producing sources are developed, and more efficient ways of using energy are implemented... well. I can't say exactly how it's going to turn out. But it's likely going to be different from what we have known. Another unfolding aspect of Our Brave New World.

     

Sarah Palin on Energy for America

Here is an interview with Sara Palin that was done August 1st 2008, by Larry Kudlow. She talks about America's energy needs and what Alaska can offer, and how and why she needed to fight the corruption in the state to achieve the natural gas pipeline to the lower 48.

My Interview with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has exactly the high energy, political toughness, and conservative reform message that would boost Sen. John McCain’s presidential run if Big Mac were to put her on the ticket. In an interview last evening on CNBC, Palin was very clear on her drill, drill, drill message for Alaska and the rest of the U.S., along with her strong supply-side tax-cutting and free-market economic views. She did not shirk from questions about an investigation of her firing the state’s safety commissioner. She told us she has nothing to hide — let them bring it on.

Palin is dealing with Alaska’s culture of corruption by supporting all manner of reform and investigation. She basically dissed Ted Stevens, calling him a distraction. She then talked about cleansing the Republican party of all the pork-barrel corruption that cost it the congressional election of November 2006.

Palin’s response to all the vice-presidential talk is fascinating. It was a point of view I have never heard before and it underscored her independence. I have interviewed all the veep prospects, and I still have Gov. Palin at the top of my list.

I hope readers will enjoy this interview: [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I enjoyed it! And in case you missed it, this video is also excellent:



A practical energy policy we can believe in. Follow the "Energy VP" link below, where Pat has a link to the entire video.


Related Links:

Palin - the energy VP

Fred Thompson Sizes Sarah Up

The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse

Colorado teacher and mother of four: A Vote for Sarah Palin
     

What is a "Windfall" profit, and how big should it be? And who should it belong to?

And how do the profits of "greedy" Oil companies compare to the profits of other businesses? This piece from the Wall Street Journal looks at those very questions:

What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?

[...] Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. [...]

It goes on to give some examples of institutions that are regarded highly by liberals, that have greater profit margins than big oil. Why not seize their profits?

Because this is about politics, not economics. What Obama and the Democrats are proposing is the Venezuela solution. We don't need that kind of thuggery in our government.

How about a bi-partisian American Solution instead?

Who is benefiting from Oil company profits? Neal Boortz spells it out:

OBAMA HEADING BLUE COLLAR THIS WEEK

[...] Just who owns the profits these oil companies have earned? That would be the stockholders. And just who might these stockholders be? Well, about 1.5 percent of them are oil company executives. The rest are the rank and file Americans who own mutual funds and workers who will rely on pension plans for their retirements. Pension plans and mutual funds, you may not know, are major investors in oil company stocks. This means that the retirement incomes of school teachers, firemen, police officers, municipal workers, flight attendants, warehousemen, truck drivers, hotel employees and other service sector workers and others may rely in part on the financial health of the oil companies in which their pension funds hold stock. Obama the Magnificent wants these pension funds to cough up some of their earnings so that he can hand out checks to voters. Too bad the government-educated masses can't see through this, and too bad the media won't point it out to them.

Bold emphasis mine. It's more Democrat wealth redistribution. Are you folks living on pensions ready to have YOUR money confiscated?
     

The Democrat CONTROL Agenda

Not Even At $10 A Gallon?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell asks that the Senate consider a bill to allow offshore drilling, but Democrats, led by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) object.

Sen. McConnell then asks if the bill could be triggered when gas reaches $4.50 per gallon, then $5 per gallon, then $7.50 per gallon, and finally $10 per gallon. All objected to.

So how high does the gas price have to be for Democrats to agree to more oil drilling?

Hat tip to TammyBruce.com for video. Her comments on it were right on the mark:

McConnell exposing the Dems as they object to drilling even if gas gets to $10 a gallon. You see, it's not that they have some bigger, better, superior idea about how the make the world better. They simply want and need Americans to be victims. That, in fact, is the only way the left gains power, is when a population is already suffering and feels vulnerable and hopeless. Keep that in mind as you watch this.

That is the very thing that has put me off the Democrat Party long ago. They derive their power from making people feel like victims, and treating their voters like victims. The dominant Left in the party have and investment in keeping the populace aggrieved, angry and unhappy; the Democrat Left never work to solve problems, and their proposed solutions often create more problems, which require even more Democrat government interference and control.

The Republicans have unfortunately mismanaged many things while they had a majority. People are rightly fed up. The Democrats have been able to capitalize on that dissatisfaction, but instead of using the opportunity to offer real solutions, they are using it to consolidate control over the American populace. Many of them have no problem with having us living with high gas prices, because the crisis gives them the means to implement more restrictions, to assume more power over US.

We need to vote for people who are actually interested in dealing with and solving problems, not creating them.

Rock the House: What should Republicans do now? It’s on…Culberson: Every day on the House floor this week
     

Saudi Financial Woes?

But aren't they greedy SOBs, who are just soaking us for all they can? That's what many people believe, but when you look at the details, it's not that simple. They may have cheap gas for themselves, but not much else:

Amid oil boom, inflation makes Saudis feel poorer

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 8, 2:25 PM ET

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Sultan al-Mazeen recently stopped at a gas station to fill up his SUV, paying 45 cents a gallon — about one-tenth what Americans pay these days.

But the Saudi technician says Americans shouldn't be jealous. Inflation that has hit 30-year highs on everything else in the kingdom is making Saudis feel poorer despite the flush of oil money.

"I tell the Americans, don't feel envious because gas is cheaper here," said al-Mazeen, 36. "We're worse off than before."

While Saudis don't feel the pain at the pump, they feel it everywhere else, paying more at grocery stores and restaurants and for rent and construction material. While the country is getting richer selling oil at prices that climbed to a record $145 per barrel last week, inflation has reached almost 11 percent, breaking double-digits for the first time since the late 1970s.

[...]

Moreover, Saudis are grappling with unemployment — estimated at 30 percent among young people aged 16 to 26 — and a stock market that is down 10 percent since the beginning of the year.

Many Saudis are realizing that this oil boom will not have the same impact as the one in the 1970s, which raised Saudis from rags to riches. This time, the wealth isn't trickling down as fast or in the same quantities.

One reason is the kingdom's growing population, says John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Saudi British Bank. In the 1970s, the population of Saudi Arabia was 9.5 million. Today, it's 27.6 million, including 22 million Saudi citizens. [...]

There's more. Read the whole thing for the many details. Food prices are rising world-wide, and it's affecting everyone, and the cost of everything.

As we debate the state of the US economy in this election year, with both the Republicans and the Democrats blaming each other for rising prices, we need to remember that what is happening isn't unique to OUR economy; there are global economic realities that affect us as well. We need to understand and be mindful of them, if we are to act wisely.
     

Drilling in ANWR... some important details

Here is an email I got recently:

FIRST. do you know what ANWR is?

ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

..

Now. A comparison



And some perspective.



NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS.
(it's in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")



THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS AND "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR and they are right. these ARE photographs of ANWR







ISN'T ANWR BEAUTIFUL? WHY SHOULD WE DRILL HERE (AND DESTROY) THIS BEAUTIFUL PLACE?
.
.

WELL. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE TRUTH


Do you remember the map?

The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain

Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?


WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
.
..
...
...
...
...
...
..
.


THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.

THAT IS NOT WHERE THEY ARE WANTING TO DRILL!

THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED EXPLORATION AREA ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE WINTER



AND THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IN THE SUMMER







HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH





AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DRILLING IS A BARREN WASTELAND.

OH. AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT ON THE LOCAL WILDLIFE.

HERE IS A PHOTO (SHOT DURING THE SUMMER) OF THE "DEPLETED WILDLIFE" SITUATION CREATED BY DRILLING AROUND PRUDHOE BAY*.

DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE CARIBOU REALLY HATE THAT DRILLING?



HERE'S THAT SAME SPOT DURING THE WINTER.



HEY, THIS BEAR SEEMS TO REALLY HATE THE PIPELINE NEAR PRUDHOE BAY*.


*The Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production


NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING ABOUT ANWR?

REMEMBER WHEN AL GORE SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK TO ARTIFICIALLY RAISE GAS PRICES TO $5.00 A GALLON?

WELL.
AL GORE AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS HAVE ALMOST REACHED THEIR GOAL!


NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING,
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?


YOU CAN START BY FORWARDING THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
SO THAT THEY WILL KNOW THE TRUTH.

[END]

Is it true? There is a page about it at Snopes.com: The Truth About ANWR, but at this time, they list the status of the accuracy of the email as being "undetermined". Presumably they are researching it.

It would be nice to have the maps and the photos verified. But I don't doubt the basic premise, because I've heard this before from other sources. The area they want to drill in is the size of a football field. It's a frozen plain in the winter, and a muddy mosquito mess in the summer.

I'm tired of hearing that "we can't drill our way out of this". The only thing stopping us from drilling is the Democrats, who have many reasons for wanting gas prices to rise.

It's true that starting drilling now won't have an immediate effect on the availability of oil; but that's all the more reason to start NOW. Doing so may also end some of the market speculation that some claim is driving prices up. Drilling isn't a short term answer, or a long term answer, but it is a medium term answer. We are going to need more oil, until we can develop alternatives. Right now we are too dependent on foreign sources, and we have the means to do something about it.

Drilling alone won't solve our energy problems, but drilling plus nuclear and other alternative energy sources, seriously applied, along with building more refineries and energy conservation too, will make an enormous difference in moving us to energy independence and ultimately away from oil. When are we going to get serious about it, and stop shooting ourselves in the foot?

     

Two excellent videos by Newt Gingrich

While I'm not a big fan of his, he is occasionally right on the mark with some of his observations. And that is the case with these two videos.


Newt Gingrich: 3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices



This video is 3 minutes and 41 seconds. He makes it clear that the problem we are facing does have viable, workable solutions. The real problem is the people who are blocking us from proceeding with the solutions that are in our control to implement.


Newt Gingrich on the War on Terror



This video is 5 minutes and 24 seconds. He's very blunt about spelling out the reality we are facing. Is he right about what it's going to take for us to wake up to what we are dealing with, and act accordingly? I'm afraid if it is, that by the time we are ready to face reality, it will be too late to act. 9-11 wasn't enough. What's it gonna take?