Wednesday, August 8, 2012

American Energy: Our Gain is China's Pain

Tapping our own bountiful energy resources is our chance to be blessedly free from that inbred madhouse known as the Middle East, while screwing China at the same time.

While our dependence on Middle Eastern oil goes down, China grows increasingly dependent on the region.

Here’s a statement from a Chinese oil company researcher:
We understand that the United States' presence and influence in the Middle East is a key factor behind that region's stability, but China is the single greatest purchaser of Middle Eastern oil. The major reason that the United States is seeking energy self-sufficiency is its desire to reduce or even end imports of Middle Eastern oil...
...Nor do we wish to see the United States completely withdraw from the Middle East. We really don't want to see the Americans "transform" the Middle East or allow the region to fall into disorder once they are no longer reliant upon its petroleum. China has but little influence on the Middle East and even less power to control the region, but we need its oil, and we need a stable Middle East. (as quoted in The Atlantic)
Heh heh heh…

Yeah, lets continue wasting blood and treasure so China can reap all the benefits...

We need to get out. People hate the US because of our hegemony? Great! Let’s get the hell out of the Middle East and go home! Let China and Russia move in and provide stability.

While the Middle East snakepit writhes and lashes out at the new suckers on the block, we can sit back on our natural resources and enjoy flipping them all the bird as China and Russia struggle to keep the lid on the world’s out-of-control monkey house.

What a dream…

14 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Today's lead story in the WaPo was about Syria -- about how "the rebels" hate us for not intervening. Sheesh.

Of course, the above is part of our legacy under the Obama regime, which interfered in Libya.

Sam Huntington said...

Well, now we understand why China is spending so much on their naval buildup project. China has also created military assistance advisory groups in South America. They are busy little bees, aren’t they?

Meanwhile, back inside the Beltway, Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) stood in opposition to approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is perfectly understandable given his “D,” the fact that Energy Secretary Stephen Chu desires to see an increase in the cost of domestic gasoline prices until they equate to those in Europe, and Barack Obama’s stated intention to bankrupt coal companies. Admittedly, Chu backed off his statement —you know, the old “insincere apology” ploy, but Obama’s plan is working with respect to coal.

Amazing how Obama speaks of job creation out of one side of his mouth, and then he embarks on a policy to put people out of work from the other. Equally amazing, these “union” mine workers will vote for Obama in the upcoming election.

Getting back to Congressman Rush (D-IL), he laughingly said, “I am concerned that my Republican colleagues are trying to ram this project through Congress without the necessary review and oversight. It is the job of lawmakers to make sure that the Keystone XL pipeline delivers as promised for the American people.” Sadly, Mr. Rush did not think that when he and others rammed through Obama Care. We can only suppose he is a proponent of selective ramming.

Ducky's here said...

What I enjoy is the idea that somehow when we kick "foreign oil" the suckers aren't going to be subject to market rates.

The invisible hand will make it all better.

The Keystone pipeline will lower gas prices. What a bunch of chumps.

Silverfiddle said...

Nobody's talking price here, Ducky.

We share the same goal: Get out of the Medieval Torture Chamber known as the Middle East.

Ducky's here said...

But Silverfiddle, do you think Exxon and the other majors want to pay to guard their oil contracts out of their own pocket?
Please.

And what about the Iran bogey man? If we leave they'll blow up poor defenseless Israel and the contractors will be out all that money.

We are in the Middle East because IT'S GOOD BUSINESS.

Ducky's here said...

... besides, the pricing aside was to folks like Sam yammering about the pipeline as if oil pricing is a simple demand curve.

Z said...

SF, by the way...you mentioned natural resources; did you hear Obama promise to 'continue to support energy independence through our own energy resources'? I wondered what he meant by 'continue'. WHEN is he going to do that? What resources is he finally going to plumb?

(forgot to set my publish time at the blog last night and just got mine up...I think you'll like it :-) I hope so)

conservativesonfire said...

BINGO!!!

Becoming energy self sufficient is a winner on so many levels. Woudn't it be nice ithe US became an oil exporter.

FreeThinke said...

Tapping into our our super-abundant reserves of NATURAL GAS is the most likely method that might be our Salvation.

One of my high school classmates who turned out to be a virulent liberal, despite our shared background [probably because his father was professor of Sociology at Columbia University come to think of it! We didn't realize fifty years ago what that really meant], had this to say in reference to a recent article by Thomas Friedman in the NYT. Frankly, I was surprised at my classmate's reserved and balanced opinion:

The "carbon tax" [Friedman] advocates will probably never go anywhere in this tea-party political climate. It might have some merit, but I admit I'm not sure. The huge swings in energy costs certainly play havoc with the development of alternative fuel sources -- gas is so cheap now it's bankrupting a lot of start-ups.

The tax might help establish a floor on price as well as fund energy research and the development of alternative energy. But I'm not sure the government (or anyone else for that matter) will do very well predicting the winning energy horse (e.g., Solyndra).

I asked the chairman of the company I'm working with if he would welcome federal regulation in place of a patchwork of state regulations of varying stringency, etc.

Surprisingly, he said that the state regulations (his company is in four states) aren't a problem; states tend to imitate the regulations of one another so they're all pretty much the same and are prudent without being unworkable.

I got some pretty dismaying info from a super-bright Ph.D. engineer about solar and wind power. He said solar is just not feasible (under any circumstances) for large-scale electric power generation. And he said that wind turbines leave a huge carbon footprint because of the plastics (kevlar?) used to construct them -- actually having a worse environmental impact in total than natural gas.

A geologist I spoke with and for whom I have a great deal of respect (she is, in her spare time, a well-respected historian of the oil industry and sits on the board of the original Drake Well museum) was really upset with the film "Gasland" and said that virtually all of its claims against the use of natural gas were baseless -- natural gas has occasionally entered aquifers and water wells for a great many years and, in the cases cited in Gasland, the conditions were well-documented well before any drilling for gas was ever done.

Finally, I think the image presented of drilling crews being heedless of their environment is really erroneous. The guys I've met are country boys -- hunters, small farmers and fishermen -- and they really love the outdoors. They live in the area where they're drilling (some have wells on their own land) and they don't want to do any harm to it.

So, I guess I come down on the side of natural gas (with prudent regulation). It could fuel trucks very well (the tanks to store it are probably too large for the family auto), and we could become a lot less dependent on the Middle East in years to come.


A most interesting note -- especially considering its hard-bitten, ultra-liberal source.

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

Needless to say the "boldened" segments of the quoted material in that last post were added by yours truly for editorial emphasis.

I was very pleased to see the guy is at least thinking and not just following The Party Line as dished out by operatives with obvious communist sympathies like Thomas Friedman of the infamous New York Times "The Paper of Walter Duranty."

~ FT

Bunkerville said...

Meanwhile, the coal plants we have left, are being attacked once more. Now it is the suppposed coal dust that occurs when shipping it via rail to the ports to ship to china. Ohio electricity is going to skyrocket.

Finntann said...

@It could fuel trucks very well (the tanks to store it are probably too large for the family auto)

Not necessarily, you run automotive engines on compressed natural gas (CNG), while the tanks are larger, they don't need a larger vehicle if integrated into the design. The space issues arise in retrofitting existing gas vehicles to CNG.

Fiat makes the Multipla and Panda, while VW makes the Caddy and Touran (note Touran, not Toureg which is sold here). To give you an idea of size, the Caddy and Touran are both based on the VW Golf platform with a higher roof.

Cheers!

98ZJUSMC said...

Always On Watch said...
Today's lead story in the WaPo was about Syria -- about how "the rebels" hate us for not intervening. Sheesh.


Sheesh, is right.

Screw them and the entire cesspool sandbox.

Drill. Here.

.....and get us out of the Middle East. Completely.

98ZJUSMC said...

Ducky's here said...
What I enjoy is the idea that somehow when we kick "foreign oil" the suckers aren't going to be subject to market rates.

The invisible hand will make it all better.

The Keystone pipeline will lower gas prices. What a bunch of chumps.

8/8/12 7:22 AM


If I did not already know you were this stupid, I would say you were stupid.

Ah, I repeat myself. Sorry.

Is clueless a normal state for you or does it take online classes and government certification?