The Right Opinion
Oil-Rich America?
There is a revolution going on America. But it is not part of the Tea Party or the loud Occupy Wall Street protests.
Instead, massive new reserves of gas, oil and coal are being discovered almost everywhere in the United States, due to revolutionary methods of exploration and exploitation such as fracking and horizontal drilling. Current prices of over $100 a barrel make even complex efforts at recovery enormously profitable.
There were always known to be additional untapped reserves of oil and gas in the petroleum-rich Gulf of Mexico, off America's shores, and in the American West and Alaska. But even the top energy experts never imagined just how vast was the energy there -- or beneath far more unlikely places like South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York. Some studies suggest the United States has now expanded its known potential gas and oil reserves tenfold.
The strategic and economic repercussions of these new finds are staggering, and remind us how a once energy-independent and thereby confident American economy soared to world dominance in the early 20th century.
America will soon again be able to supply all of its own domestic natural gas needs -- and perhaps for the next 90 years at present rates of consumption. We have recently become a net exporter of refined gas and diesel fuel, and already have cut imported oil from OPEC countries by 1 million barrels per day.
With expanded exploration and conservation, the United States could also eventually supply half its own petroleum needs. If we were to eliminate just 5 million barrels of our current daily 9 million barrels of imported petroleum, the annual savings could reach nearly $200 billion per year. Eventually, the new gas and oil could add another 1.6 million new jobs and add up to nearly $1 trillion in federal revenue.
That windfall would cut out about a third of our present annual trade deficit -- well apart from additional income earned by new natural gas exportation. "Investments," "shovel-ready jobs" and "stimulus" would finally become more than empty sloganeering.
But America's new oil discoveries are not occurring in a vacuum. The entire Western Hemisphere is enjoying a fossil fuel boom, from northern Canada to Brazil and Argentina. America's backyard will soon be comparable to the oil-rich Persian Gulf, keeping more American money -- and troops -- at home. Illegal immigration should taper off as well, as oil-rich Latin American economies reap huge cash bonanzas. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela will soon be simply one of many regional exporters.
Current crises in American foreign policy -- Iran's efforts to obtain the bomb, the protection of an embattled Israel, stopping the funding of radical Islamists -- might be freed from the worries of perennial OPEC threats of cutoffs and price spikes.
Federal subsidies for inefficient corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest also could cease. That would save the Treasury billions of dollars and allow millions of American acres to return to food production to supply an increasingly hungry world.
The Obama administration's efforts to subsidize "green" energy so far have proved both uneconomical and occasionally corrupt -- as we have seen in the Solyndra affair. Yet more gas and oil can offer America critical breathing space until better technology makes wind, solar and electric power more price-competitive -- without massive federal subsidies and a marked reduction in our standard of living.
Of course, there are sizable interests opposed to the new American gas and oil finds -- not all of them foreign governments, but instead reflected in the current Obama administration policy of halting new pipelines, placing moratoriums on offshore drilling, and putting lucrative federal lands off-limits. Yet if the United States does not produce much of the fuel that it uses, will the oil-exporting Gulf sheikdoms, Nigeria or Iran better protect the world's environment than American-based oil companies? Would our oil dollars or theirs be less likely to fuel terrorism, illegal arms sales and rogue regimes?
For the American poor and unemployed, how liberal is it, really, to keep energy prices high while stalling millions of high-paying private-sector jobs that would both lower government costs in entitlements and empower the working classes?
In the current presidential campaign, three issues dominate: national security, fiscal solvency and high unemployment. Development of America's vast new gas and oil finds addresses all three at once.
The idea of vastly expanding American gas and oil production in the 21st century is almost as unbelievable as the present administration's apparent reluctance to capitalize on its windfall.
(C) 2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

12 Comments
A.R. Nash
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 4:06 AM
What we need is leaders that don't give a damn about protecting and maintaining the status quo which hobbles us in our own back yard. But we have a president who cares more about securing the environmental constituency's votes that securing the national economy. 5 more years of such obstructionism and we'll be in a hole so deep it will be impossible to extricate ourselves. But everything that is needed is lacking, whether it be the number of seats in the Congress, a president with national interests at heart and not ideology, -the vision to see reality, or the courage to go against entrenched and resistant forces. The bigger a problem becomes, the more radical is the solution needed to fix it, but the capacity of those in power to embrace extensive revisions and re-alignments in how government deals with economic issues is pathetically lacking. If the powers-that-be are so stupid as to assume that only job creation is the path to grow when that is impossible without "demand" from consumers, then how can they be expected to grasp the simple fact that booming economies are strangled by high energy costs? And that weak economies will never boom until very affordable energy leaves plenty of disposable income in the worker's pocket with which to drive an increase of spending and economic activity.
wjmccrindle
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:21 AM
What we need is a president that acually believes in America, free market capitalism, and would drill like crazy. What we now have is an anti-American islam loving marxist statist traitor, who would love to see the colapse of America, the istitution of martial law due to the "crisis" they love and can't afford to waste, and the rise of socialist tyrrany headed by the creator of the downfall; the Hugo Chavez model of takeover. Lower energy costs lower the cost of Everything, and everything Obamao does is opposite what is in the country's best interrest.
PDK
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Good job as usual Victor.Every once and awhile I think about identification cards. In particular I think about a conservative/republican card and a liberal/democrat card. One would carry their card wherever they went, just like a drivers license, and use it when purchasing products.All products could be devided into two groups according to the price needed to be charged because of the cost incurred by the philosophy that produced them.The short of this reasoning is self explanatory. When a conservative buys gas he pays the price incurred upon gas by his conservative philosophy, the same for the liberal. This would pan out, for example, that the conservative pays 2 dollars a gallon while the liberal pays 6 dollars a gallon.When flying the conservative gets the profiled flight, the liberal gets the random search flight.If both sides were force to pay appropriately for their philosophy, as opposed to sharing the cost with all, not only would fairness be administered, but the people can see the results of their philosophy and ajust their mindset accordingly.This may be a small additive to the mix, but I personally would love to pay 2 dollars a gallon while my fellow American but liberal pays 6 dollars a gallon, especially to do so at the same time. I would love to look in his eyes and see his pain for what he has done to himself, as well as his anger for my refusal to bare his burden.What do you think? Thank you.
Kirk
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM
It’s been known for over 50 years that methane exists on Titan, a moon that did not have dinosaurs or plant life. Titan's methane is believed to have a non-biological origin and was likely made in the moon's interior, through a reaction among carbon dioxide, water and rocks. Some scientists believe the same process works in the Earth. If true, then we have a limitless supply of natural gas since the Earth will just keep making more.
Major Stu
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM
"For the American poor and unemployed, how liberal is it, really, to keep energy prices high while stalling millions of high-paying private-sector jobs that would both lower government costs in entitlements and empower the working classes?"Don't forget to remind our liberal friends that the increased fuel production and employment rates will also accordingly add tax revenues - how could they forget?
enemaofthestatistquo
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 2:22 PM
I won't begin to guess at the chemistry, but Kirk is likely correct, & the Earth probably produces petroleum in a similar manner. It may well be that oil is cooled lava which did not reach the surface in an eruption or during other volcanic activity. It stands to reason that there never were enough dinosaurs to account for the quantity of oil drilled past, present, and future. Fossil fuel is a misnomer.
Brian
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM
Crude oil is the result of some type of geological process deep within the earth's crust. I do not know exactly what that process is, but I do know that we were supposed to have already reached "peak oil" and been on the downward slide already. Instead, wells that were long thought dry have egun to produce again. How is that possible, if not for the earth replenishing it? Also, crude oil is a natural product, consisting of hydrogen and carbon atoms (hence the hame "hydrocarbon") along with other atoms such as nitrogen or oxygen, depending on the particular hydrocarbon in question. So, the most abundant atom in the universe (hydrogen), and the atom upon which life on earth is based (carbon). That would explain why these "disatrous" oil spills never turn out to be as bad as everyone thought they would be.One last thing: "Yet more gas and oil can offer America critical breathing space until better technology makes wind, solar and electric power more price-competitive..." Never happen. Wind, solar, or any other "green" energy, with the exception of nuclear power, which is not considered "green", will never be able to match the power output of hydrocarbons.
Kevin
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 11:42 PM
"We have recently become a net exporter of refined gas and diesel fuel, and already have cut imported oil from OPEC countries by 1 million barrels per day."The fact that the current Administration does not exploit this fact, says magnitudes about their overall energy policy.
Jeff
Friday, December 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM
First, let me say I'm a conservative, slightly to the right of Rush Limbaugh. However, I really want to understand the truth, so I try to read both sides.Questions from the reading of liberal sites: 1) I've heard it said that all oil is sold on the world market to the highest bidder, so it would make sense that bringing more oil to market would force the price down, but how does that relieve us from dependency on foreign oil? 2) I've also heard that if we don't allow the currently proposed pipeline from Canada, it'll all go to China. How does that jive with it being sold on the world market? 3) I've heard that fracking is causing drinking water to be so polluted you can light it on fire. There's tons of videos out there showing just that; true, or are thousands of videos being faked and flooding the internet?4) If, "The entire Western Hemisphere is enjoying a fossil fuel boom...", why aren't gas prices dropping? 5) I've heard it said that the crude oil supply is not even the issue, it's the lack of refining facilities in the US. Any truth to that? If so, why aren't we busting Obama's b**ls to get that moving?
pete
Friday, December 9, 2011 at 8:23 PM
If we could burn water in our cars obama would find ways to block processing and sale.
Jake
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Has anyone checked out North Dakota lately?? Around 2% unemployment with jobs looking for people. One billion dollar budget surplus. Yes, you guessed it, oil.... You don't need to look very far to see a real world example of what VDH is talking about. This isn't theory, it's what's actually happening. We need more national exposure of this model in the debates. It won't get much front page news in the media.
RyDaddy
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Questions from the reading of liberal sites:1) Oil that has to be shipped less is of lower cost. So we can outbid anybody for oil from Canada, especially with a pipeline.2) Without a pipeline, the total cost with shipping is the same (or close enough) to China as the USA, so China will outbid the USA for that oil.3) BS. Fracking occurs at thousands of feet deep, water wells are 100's of feet deep. There is a factor of 10 difference between them. Videos being faked, yes, or alternate circumstances; like when plumbers mixed up water and propane lines in a home, mixing the 2.4) Time delay between discovery and completely refined product hitting market.5) There is truth to that. As our own oil exploration and pumping has diminished, refineries have closed. Obama is not at direct fault for that; as soon as it is business profitable to open new refineries (as soon as there is local oil to refine), then business investors will open them where ever they are needed.