Boards - soapbox - Ok, I admit I may not have all the facts, but I know a lot of Motherless regs have working brains, s | MOTHERLESS.COM ™

1

Anonymous

@soapbox

03 Sep 2012 3:55PM

• 989 views • 0 attachments

Ok, I admit I may not have all the facts, but I know a lot of Motherless regs have working brains, so...Energy Independence--I don't get it.

If America produces more oil, how the hell does that make us more energy independent? Every drop of oil that is pulled out of US ground is owned by a multinational oil company, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, etc. They either do their own exploration and production, or subcontract it to a company like TransOcean. Oil that is removed from land in Nevada is NOT owned by Nevada, or even the USA, it's owned by the company that removed it. So even if America quadrupled its production, all that means is that the multinational corporations would have more oil to sell on the world market.

US produced oil, natural gas, coal, etc. is not owned by the US. Apart from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as far as I know the US owns NO oil. So how can any amount of increased production lead to energy independance?

reply favorite add to gallery permalink Share

Replies 17

1

Zagg

View posts View profile

03 Sep 2012 3:59PM

The expression is just politicians' rhetoric.

reply permalink parent Share

1

NJHatter

View posts View profile

04 Sep 2012 3:39AM

Exactly OP, it's all just a game so they get more bank in their pocket from the people who own the oil. But like they would want their obedient sheeple to know?

Hence why they are scared of other kinds of energy that don't have their monopoly seal on it.

Also keep in mind, these are corporations that make billions in profit, yet STILL get Govt assistance. And the Conservatives don't want that Govt assistance going. But Food stamps, college loans, medicare/medicaid, and SS? They just can't have those. Cause they don't help their sugar daddy master corporations.

Wisdom overcomes all ignorance if people learn it. Educate yourself, TYT and RT america on youtube.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

04 Sep 2012 4:22PM

Socialists don't understand that companies make money BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE SOMETHING at a cost to research & develop, and then sell it for a profit employing millions of people. It's called free enterprise, and they hate it.

Corporations don't get "Gov't assistance", they receive THEIR OWN tax money back in tax incentives like every other American who pays taxes. Dimwitted Socialists want to believe that its the governments money....its not...its mine, yours, and belongs to those that earn it.

OP is correct in one regard, Congress should pass a law that a certain percentage of U.S. oil must be refined and sold within the 50 states. Republicans would do that, Democrats certainly will not.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

04 Sep 2012 11:13PM

OP here, i don't believe that republicans would support requiring the companies that largely fund their campaigns to do anything that might cost them an iota of profit. republicans believe that government should not interfere in ANY way with corporations. perhaps the democrats would support the concept of placing such a requirement on these oil companies, but you know DAMN well the republicans never would.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

04 Sep 2012 11:31PM

Yeah, when I read this..."Republicans would do that, Democrats certainly will not.", I said to myself, "He must be joking, no one could be that ignorant of what republicans stand for."

reply permalink parent Share

1

averagedvant

View posts View profile

04 Sep 2012 11:40PM

Yes, it only becomes the government's money once they confiscate it. The government believes that it, and it alone knows how best to spend that money.

Their could be incentives offered to oil companies who keep a certain percentage right here in the country.

When you combine the plan above with more drilling and exploration, natural gas, coal, nuclear, building more refineries, wind, AND solar, energy independence seems more possible when you think of it.

Plus, think of the massive amount of jobs more drilling and exploration would allow for! That's worth it all by it's self! Come to think of it, think of the massive amount of jobs these evil oil companies and refineries sustain to begin with. Look at how many good decent blue collar families those terrible companies provide a life for.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

05 Sep 2012 12:30AM

"Their could be incentives offered to oil companies who keep a certain percentage right here in the country"

yes and "Their" (there) could be monkeys flying out of my butt...but highly unlikely that it will ever happen.

the current energy system cannot produce energy independence, as long as multinational corporations totally own what is produced. the point was, at least, energy independence, and NO amount of additional production can result in that, under the current system...one has nothing to do with the other.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

05 Sep 2012 3:43PM

"...and NO amount of additional production can result in that..."

Any additional production (supply) would ease demand thereby lowering prices... 9th graders learn that in Junior High...maybe a refresher course is in order for the poster above.

These looney left wingers prove that don't understand the first thing about business and free enterprise, then resort to the lowest form of douchebaggery by using a "typo" in attempting to portray those with whom they disagree as less intellegent then they are. Their narcissistic pseudo-intellectualism is hilarious.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

05 Sep 2012 1:12AM

If more oil is pumped out of the ground the price of oil falls. If we do not increase our domestic oil production we basically have to beg the Saudi's to do so, because high gas prices cause a huge hit on economy. Increasing oil production gives us more of a voice on what current oil price is and lessens the impact OPEC and the middle east has. It does not make us truly independent but it does make us less dependent.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

22 Sep 2012 9:05PM

the last two posts confuse energy prices with energy independence. it's true that significantly increasing oil output ANYWHERE in the world will have the effect of lowering prices if demand does not increase, but that will not enhance any country's energy independence. they will still have to buy the fossil fuel from the corporations that own it.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

23 Sep 2012 1:18AM

The way you are defining energy independence, it can never be obtained. Say we stop using all fossil fuels and switch everything over to solar and wind. Where are we going to get the solar panels from?? Corporations. Who are we going to buy the electricity generated from wind farms from?? Corporations. You are confusing energy independence with free energy.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

23 Sep 2012 1:32AM

no, it can be obtained, just not with fossil fuels. you get thousands of wind turbines, hydro stations, solar panel farms, connect them to the power distribution grids, and viola! the energy is produced AND consumed in the US! you see, the problem is that the fossil fuels are extracted and owned by the multinational energy companies, but if you are using energy systems that do not require those fuels, like wind, solar, hydro etc., there is no "commodity" involved in the energy system, so independence (again, we're not talking about cost) is possible.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

23 Sep 2012 3:46PM

Oh, so we should switch everything over to solar and wind power....

....the very energy sources that failed after Obama gave them $1 TRILLION in free taxpayer money?

Stupid fucking Liberal.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

30 Sep 2012 10:23AM

it's always so humorous, and telling, when someone just cannot resist throwing insults in an otherwise calm and reasonable conversation. it proves they cannot rationally support their position. in this case, add to that the fact that this statement, "the energy sources that failed", is not only a non-sequitor, but those energy sources are proven to be effective. that's like saying because someone came up with that phrenology nonsense, all science has "failed".

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

23 Sep 2012 3:56PM

I still don't understand the distinction you are making. Yes the energy is being produced in the U.S. BUT you are still dependent upon corporations to produce the equipment that generates the energy. Unless you are suggesting the U.S government go into manufacturing itself, you are still buying something from a corporation.

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

23 Sep 2012 4:13PM

Yeah, its called free enterprise. Problem, Socialist?

reply permalink parent Share

1

Anonymous

30 Sep 2012 10:16AM

If can get away from the name calling for a moment, essentially the fact remains that if we define US energy indendence as the US producing, transmitting and supplying all the energy needed for the US, it has to happen with renewables, not fossil fuels, as long as multinational corporations control those fossil fuels extracted in the US. With renewables, you set up wind turbines, hydro stations, solar farms, etc...and these all just sit there and provide energy. The grids are already there, the energy delivery infrastructure is already there, you just need the energy collection devices set up, and hooked in. Where those devices are produced is, of course, irrelevent, because once you buy them and hook them up, you're good to go...and who says they can't be produced in the US??

reply permalink parent Share

of posts