I know we produce a ton of energy here and that we have significant reserves, especially when it comes to natural gas. We also have needs to import and export because of specific refining capacities that we lack. "Drill, baby, drill!" is OK, but it's just a political slogan. If we really had the political will to do so, what would this country need to do in order to be able to have complete energy independence (not including renewables), and to be able to help our allies such as European countries so that they would not be beholden to foreign adversaries such as Russia, Iran, etc.? I would love to hear the answer to this from persons in oil and gas exploration, pipeline management, LNG plant manufacturing, and refining points of view.
Gracias por su ayuda.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Nucular

---

I agree that we are underutilizing nuclear power here, but that wouldn't allow us to fuel our automobiles and ships and planes. I should have added "besides going nucular" to the question.

Live like Ma and Pa Ingalls.

Make this Vivek product (SHOC) reach $500 by the end of DJT's term.

I'm not convinced we could be stand alone energy independent, or if we did achieve it, how long it would last. There is only so much in the ground. Some say we became independent when, during Trump's first admin, we became a net exporter of oil. Semantics, to me.

Sorry, renewables must be in the mix, just not relied upon as option A as they are now. To help augment their use, however, utilize Tesla battery storage to take up excess production and discharge at night.

Up and down the supply chain, everything would need to be significantly increased. More wells. More pipelines. More processing. More storage. Would big time need to increase the offshore production, gathering, and processing.

There is somewhat of a glut of natural gas already, so to take up some of that glut, start converting large fleet trucks like garbage, recycling, other big gov't vehicles from diesel over to nat gas. Fairly simple, and definitely cleaner burning. Of course, would need to increase the infrastructure for this too.

Bring more power plants online that use nat gas and nuclear.

Would need to convert or build more facilities to handle the different lighter crude blends. I don't think it would be too difficult from a pure engineering standpoint, but it would be expensive.

All of these changes would take anywhere from 10-20 years to fully ramp up. Simple matter of material and labor constraints, on a good timeline. On a bad timeline, politics slows down or stops the process completely.

However, I got back to my original thought, how long could we be completely independent? The supply won't last forever at the voracious rate we consume. I would rather use up everyone else's fossil fuels as much as possible first.

These would increase energy costs, but be logical and wise.

1) Increase renewable fuel production. Our fast food diet runs through so much in the way of fatty oils it is unreal. Start recapturing as much as humanly possible and turn that **** into fuel rather than dumping it or burning it.

2) Start collecting the hell out of plastics and turn them into fuel as well through pyrolysis. Same idea. Rather than putting into a landfill, reusing a hydrocarbon as much as possible before it breaks down into unusable molecules.


As a species, we really need to stop wasting and start recycling various items until it is physically impossible. We do not have an infinite supply of hydrocarbons.

implement a tax on data center and bitcoin mining energy users. They are driving energy costs up by causing demand to skyrocket.

Change all of our refineries from heavy to light sweet crude, frack more, and harness the true potential of natural gas.

Nuclear wouldn't hurt but it's not necessary.

Nuclear greatly reduces the demand for hydrocarbons since we would not need to burn it to generate electricity.

Modern Gen III/III+ reactors are safe, efficient, and if we get a lot of the government bull**** out of the way, cheaper to build than the older designs. Models like the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor are designed to cost even less. There are also the small modular reactors.


We should also be researching the Gen IV reactors and fusion power. There is also the use of thorium for fuel instead of uranium, and using breeder reactors to consume a good amount of the waste other reactors generate.

Until we come up with a way to store energy effectively to efficiently power vehicles, we still need to use gas and diesel as fuel. If someone ever develops a system which can store power, be recharged quickly, doesn't require the use of large quantities of minerals and rare elements, and doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace, then perhaps EVs will become the future.

Drill baby drill....and drop all this CO2 is bad for the atmosphere bull#$%@

We nee to remove about 20% of the current regulations associated with drilling, nuclear and refining. Then it needs to be simplified and expedited.

Kool said:

---

I know we produce a ton of energy here and that we have significant reserves, especially when it comes to natural gas. We also have needs to import and export because of specific refining capacities that we lack. "Drill, baby, drill!" is OK, but it's just a political slogan. If we really had the political will to do so, what would this country need to do in order to be able to have complete energy independence (not including renewables), and to be able to help our allies such as European countries so that they would not be beholden to foreign adversaries such as Russia, Iran, etc.? I would love to hear the answer to this from persons in oil and gas exploration, pipeline management, LNG plant manufacturing, and refining points of view.
Gracias por su ayuda.

---

We got enough problems of our own we don't need to be trying to solve European problems too.

Especially places like Germany where they've gone full R-word on their forced windmill plan.

I think we've got a few people on this board who have experience with German "green" initiatives.

One of my former co-workers for Germany told me that it cost him something like $10,000 to replace his hot water heater due to forced green rules by their government. I don't remember the specifics but he went on a long rant about how much more expensive things had gotten.

With respect to energy commodities that can be shipped, whomever can produce it the cheapest is going to be the winner. That might be Russia or Iran. Commodities and open markets don't care about sovereignty.

We (US + Canada) are pretty much independent as is. Our allies would benefit from increased production & corresponding trade facilities. Our largest current vulnerability isn't sourcing but rather physical equipment. If we don't reshoring manufacturing we will always be vulnerable to foreign disturbances.

The "global supply chain" makes us globally dependent.

As to nukes: big fan. But we already have vastly more coal, oil, hydro, biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc energy sources than our energy demand requires. True independent is primarily limited by our domestic industrial capabilities.

(thanks a lot, globalists)

For every 1 megawatt of 'green energy' (wind turbines/solar farms) you must operate/own/JV 100megawatts from either nuke or natty gas.

Kool said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Nucular

---

I agree that we are underutilizing nuclear power here, but that wouldn't allow us to fuel our automobiles and ships and planes. I should have added "besides going nucular" to the question.

---

The previous posters weren't suggesting nuclear for autos, ships, planes. Most people just gravitate towards the petroleum/natural gas side of discussion when this topic comes up.

For true energy independence we have to include electrical generation and distribution/infrastructure. Its part of the equation.

Nuclear. More domestic refining capacity. Upgrade power grid. Cut regulations.

Kool said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Nucular

---

I agree that we are underutilizing nuclear power here, but that wouldn't allow us to fuel our automobiles and ships and planes. I should have added "besides going nucular" to the question.

---

It would allow people to charge electric vehicles for daily commutes. And doing that would allow fossil fuels to be used for other things. Not to mention replacing fossil fuels for electricity generation. It doesn't have to be the answer to every situation. It would take enough load off of fossil fuel use that we would not need to import them. We would have more than enough fossil fuel reserves to meet our energy needs if we had all (or most) electricity generated from nuclear.

When it comes to natural gas, we do indeed have copious amounts remaining in the ground in North America. There are many trillions of cubic feet of it behind pipe on the North Slope and much more in the Marcellus/Utica as well as all over west Tx/east New Mexico and many other places in the US onshore.

The GoM is very mature and while there are still significant yet to find volumes of oil in the western GoM in the Paleogene, it is expensive to find and produce.

We need an all the above approach to energy generation. I'm not anti-alternative/renewables, but we need to let the market decide when and how and not do so arbitrarily by government policy based on pseudo science and quasi-religious "feels" like most climate nonsense.

We should be developing tech that allows us to seamlessly transition from wind and solar power to nat gas power on the same grid so that we can play to wind and solar's strengths and use nat gas when it is cloudy, night or the wind isn't blowing.

It's not that hard. But it's so politicized that doing what makes sense is ridiculously complex.

ExxonMobil CEO just announced that the election will have zero impact on drilling, and he refuted drilling baby drill as policy. Didn't this liberal commie get the memo?

we've been "energy independent" (net exporter of oil) for several years now. what exactly do people mean when they say we aren't?

Stop relying on other countries for our energy.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Kool said:

---

I know we produce a ton of energy here and that we have significant reserves, especially when it comes to natural gas. We also have needs to import and export because of specific refining capacities that we lack. "Drill, baby, drill!" is OK, but it's just a political slogan. If we really had the political will to do so, what would this country need to do in order to be able to have complete energy independence (not including renewables), and to be able to help our allies such as European countries so that they would not be beholden to foreign adversaries such as Russia, Iran, etc.? I would love to hear the answer to this from persons in oil and gas exploration, pipeline management, LNG plant manufacturing, and refining points of view.
Gracias por su ayuda.

---

We got enough problems of our own we don't need to be trying to solve European problems too.

Especially places like Germany where they've gone full R-word on their forced windmill plan.

I think we've got a few people on this board who have experience with German "green" initiatives.

One of my former co-workers for Germany told me that it cost him something like $10,000 to replace his hot water heater due to forced green rules by their government. I don't remember the specifics but he went on a long rant about how much more expensive things had gotten.

With respect to energy commodities that can be shipped, whomever can produce it the cheapest is going to be the winner. That might be Russia or Iran. Commodities and open markets don't care about sovereignty.

---

I brought this up because, within days of the Biden administration starting, he essentially nuked the Keystone XL pipeline and green-lighted the Nordstream 2 pipeline. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a degree to which Europe was at their mercy. IF, in the United States, we had the capacity to massively produce and liquefy natural gas and ship it to Europe (and they had massive natural gas utilization capacity), much of the world would have been able to stop funding the invasion of Ukraine. You could say much of the same thing for Europe's reliance on the Middle East ne'er-do-wells, Iran in particular.

Nm

DanielDay said:

---

ExxonMobil CEO just announced that the election will have zero impact on drilling, and he refuted drilling baby drill as policy. Didn't this liberal commie get the memo?

---

He can say whatever he wants, but he knows that's not true.

It may not have an effect on Exxon's drilling plans, but it will definitely have an effect on the plans of smaller and medium sized operators.

More solar and wind farm generation!

I am just jacking with everyone.

Kool said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Nucular

---

I agree that we are underutilizing nuclear power here, but that wouldn't allow us to fuel our automobiles and ships and planes. I should have added "besides going nucular" to the question.

---

Gotcha. Agreed.

Wish we'd diversify all of our energy sources: Fossil fuels, green, and everything in between( including nucular).

mm98 said:

---

For true energy independence we have to include electrical generation and distribution/infrastructure. Its part of the equation.

---

But I thought we already Built Back Better.

CDUB98 said:

---

I'm not convinced we could be stand alone energy independent, or if we did achieve it, how long it would last. There is only so much in the ground. Some say we became independent when, during Trump's first admin, we became a net exporter of oil. Semantics, to me.

Sorry, renewables must be in the mix, just not relied upon as option A as they are now. To help augment their use, however, utilize Tesla battery storage to take up excess production and discharge at night.

Up and down the supply chain, everything would need to be significantly increased. More wells. More pipelines. More processing. More storage. Would big time need to increase the offshore production, gathering, and processing.

There is somewhat of a glut of natural gas already, so to take up some of that glut, start converting large fleet trucks like garbage, recycling, other big gov't vehicles from diesel over to nat gas. Fairly simple, and definitely cleaner burning. Of course, would need to increase the infrastructure for this too.

Bring more power plants online that use nat gas and nuclear.

Would need to convert or build more facilities to handle the different lighter crude blends. I don't think it would be too difficult from a pure engineering standpoint, but it would be expensive.

All of these changes would take anywhere from 10-20 years to fully ramp up. Simple matter of material and labor constraints, on a good timeline. On a bad timeline, politics slows down or stops the process completely.

However, I got back to my original thought, how long could we be completely independent? The supply won't last forever at the voracious rate we consume. I would rather use up everyone else's fossil fuels as much as possible first.

---

The US has an estimated 264 billion barrels of unapped recoverable oil, almost 700 trillion CF of known recoverable nat gas reserves and an estimated 2,900 trillion CF of recoverable gas reserves.

We aren't hurting.

Kool said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Nucular

---

I agree that we are underutilizing nuclear power here, but that wouldn't allow us to fuel our automobiles and ships and planes. I should have added "besides going nucular" to the question.

---

Plug-in hybrids would massively reduce the need without going full EV. We will always need some fossil fuels; thankfully, the US is positioned well to self support

Build, build, build nuclear plants everywhere