Talk:United States energy independence

Major Update
The great news is the USA is on its way to energy independence via shale oil now and soon to be accessed courtesy of advances in drilling and fracturing (fracking) technology. In his instance I am biased in favour of US and Western power in this chaotic world so I encourage a less committed writer to do the updating on this page!--Akafd76 (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I second that thought. This is an important topic. It appears to need updating. I am not qualified to do this. Somebody with knowledge on current frak oil production projections please update this page!!! ~A user 10/18/2013
 * aaaaaa

Untitled
The whole article seems very one-sided, promoting the idea rather than providing a balanced overview. Needs to be rewritten from a neutral perspective. 129.173.55.152 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As well as reading like a propaganda essay, it is also written from the point of view of a U.S. citizen (e.g., 'We are and our allies...'), which is a blatant violation of NPOV. Any rewrite must remove such problematic phrases. Terraxos 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is just plain terrible. Besides the points mentioned above, it looks like parts are pulled straight from some interest group's website. The few references all link to the same site, which is certainly not a reputable source. In Proponents Reply to Criticism, there are no references at all to back up the statements made. For a topic that would seemingly be very important, this article is truly embarrassing. Texasfirebrand 20:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty bad, written from the viewpoint of people who know nothing about subject. For example, see this statement: "About 35% of America's oil reserves lie under the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska. The oil was discovered in the 1970's..." That's all hogwash - nobody has drilled any wells in the ANWF and nobody has a clue about what is there. Until somebody sinks a drill bit into it, it's all speculation. It's what is know in the oil industry as a rank wildcat RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the ANWR claim, Oil reserves in the United States claims, in the first paragraph, that the DoI total estimate is 134 billion barrels of crude. A 2004 study from the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that ANWR probably contains 10 billion barrels (Associated Press coverage via MSNBC). Do the maths, and we see that ANWR contains less than 8% of the U.S. total oil reserve. I should note that the "Oil reserves..." article arrived at the total by including all unproven sources (offshore on the outer continental shelf, NPRA, ANWR area 1002, and the Bakken formation) excluding oil shale reserves (the eastern U.S. Devonian-Mississippian shales and the Green River Formation). If a clean way was found to extract oil from the shales, perhaps a solid-to-liquid conversion process, then the point would be moot, as the shale reserve is ENORMOUS. But I digress... 166.70.232.249 (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one that feels this way? Can we move to add a NPOV tag to problematic sections? It seems like a campaign against energy independence. If ppl seem to feel this way, I'm going to just add a tag. 209.42.136.137 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Breeder reactors
Peak_uranium is a well sourced section which explains that breeder reactors will have nothing to do with energy independence because of their technical and economic issues have all but been abandon as viable options. Adding a mention of them here is a biased presentation which would misinform readers. The statement is also being placed nonsensically in the criticism section right after a sentence which shows the premise of nuclear energy independence to be very problematic. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdated
Does not to begin to reflect the significant increase in US petroleum production since 2005, nor the absolute explosion in natural gas production. Solicitr (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Theres been an ongoing GLOBAL ENERGY INDEPPENDENCE DAY NOW MOVEMENT SINCE 2005!
Theres been a "DAY:" committed to the use,promotion, acceptance of GLOBAL ENERGY INDEPPENDENCE! Since 2005! (See GLOBAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE DAY ) On Jul.10th the birthdfate of the reat energy pioneer Nikola tesla(1856-1943) Why no mention in article? With at present (early 2012) A rise in gasolene prices to almost $5 in places in the U.S,A. Theres a GLOBAL EENRGY INDEPEPNDENCE MOVEMENT and a Boycott*(every Fridays) On buying Gas.To hopefully lower gasolene prices. Akas, unless gthe U.S. Govermengt releaes oil from the US Stretigic feserve(That has been done doing the time of Presidnt Clinton!) Any long term loweing of gas prices arent likely!Lets hope ENEGRY INDPPENDENCE FOR THE U.S. WILL BE REALLY ON TRACK SOON! Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D,Ulc. GLOBALENERGYINDEPEPNDENCENOW (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources modified on United States energy independence
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on United States energy independence. I managed to add archive links to 2 2 sources, out of the total 2 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013004434/http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/002597.html to http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/002597.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105172853/http://www.resource-solutions.org/where/pressreleases/2008/071808.htm to http://www.resource-solutions.org/where/pressreleases/2008/071808.htm

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States energy independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141207140146/http://www.nbr.org/publications/issue.aspx?id=306 to http://www.nbr.org/publications/issue.aspx?id=306

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

✅

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Issue?
I dunno about the early sections of the article but... we have a so-called "debate" section, which really has only one side of the issue, that Energy independence is inherently "bad." Btw, no less than 5 citations of this opinion come from one source (Bryce, Robert. Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence". New York, NY: PublicAffairs, 2008). If this is an actual debate, it needs pros and cons of the issue at hand. If not, it must be named "criticism" or something else, as it cannot truly be called a debate. Also, we cannot simply swallow Robert Bryce's opinions whole without investigation, he may have bias or an axe to grind. Such as this one: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1369 That he actually works for gas and oil companies. So, can we take his word for it that there is no documented increase on terrorism from heavy oil dependence? I would need more evidence one way or the other, but it appears that terrorism HAS increased in the Middle East in the last 50 years, while crude oil dependence has also increased, and whaling has decreased. Could someone PLEASE run a fact check of this information? 209.42.136.137 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a POV tag. Between what I found, and the complaints in the Untitled section, I think there is enough grounds for it to be mentioned. 209.42.136.137 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "We have unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy." https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/donald-trump-state-of-the-union-2019-transcript/index.html 108.12.52.29 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 State of the Union Address quotes
What to use or not use from reference ?

Focus of reference appears to be coal power in the United States. X1\ (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The reference also specifically speaks on the elements which were already present in the article. Factually, the article represents the items that are included in the last edit I made.  I added your concerns to an already fact filled statement about the State of the Union, regarding U S Energy Independence, the title of this article.  Mentioning coal is kinda a Debbie-downer... 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A warning; 72.43.251.134, You are on the verge of violated WP:3RR. Below are the two versions. X1\ (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

or


 * "We have unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy." https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/donald-trump-state-of-the-union-2019-transcript/index.html 108.12.52.29 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Democrats Didn’t Clap As Trump Touted American Energy Boom In SOTU. From The Daily Caller 10:01 PM 02/05/2019 | Energy Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor  https://liliannorman.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/democrats-didnt-clap-as-trump-touted-american-energy-boom-in-sotu-2/ 108.12.52.29 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * White House releases excerpts from Trump's State of the Union address--> "We have unleashed a revolution in American Energy — the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2019-state-of-the-union-excerpts-white-house-releases-first-look-at-trumps-sotu-address/ . Multiple RS's all mention the unleashing of the revolution in American Energy, so X1\, why is documenting not mentioning coal so important in this article entitle U.S. Energy Independence? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

look at the title of the original reference, Trump ditches coal when hyping 'revolution in American energy' in SOTU speech. I am not denying Trump said anything. He says many things. He blathers regularly, hence my reference to the veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Even though he is the President of the United States, his words are of diminished significance due to this; but the energy mix of the United States is not. The long decline of coal in the U.S. is significant. The rise of clean(er) energy is significant. This rise of hydraulic fracturing is significant. Trump is not significant, but United States energy independence is.

Wikipedia is not here to be an upper or downer for Coal (à la "Mentioning coal is kinda a Debbie-downer") or Trump. X1\ (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Protection
As there is wide range of IP Users making semi-coherent statements, not a discussion; and the possibility of socks I request an "extended-protected" lock. If I am not doing this request correctly, my apologies, it is my first time. X1\ (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. . DannyS712 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks.  X1\ (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Stats Need Major Updating
All the stats in the first few paragraphs are outdated. This piece from Bloomberg says the U.S. is now oil independent. I don't know enough about this topic to know if this is still the case or was just temporary. I will update it if no one else does, but would appreciate assistance. Oneultralamewhiteboy (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

this article is irredeemably awful
it doesn't even mention that the main reason the US became a net crude exporter (supposedly making the US "energy independent") was the easing of the 40-year oil export ban in 2014 followed by Congress repealing the ban in 2015.

it also reads in places like a Trump hagiography, as if he magically made America energy independent within two years, due in good measure by contributions of the banned editor User:Bought the farm whose content remains. the reality is that Trump just happened to be president after many years of declines in net oil imports inevitably turned negative on his watch. the article makes no mention that the US became the largest oil producer of any country in history in 2024

the article also dwells far too much on weekly data points rather than trends, and is just sloppily written in many places. I wish I had the time to overhaul the article; alas, I do not, perhaps others do. but the article is just so pervasively terrible that I'm tempted to recommend deletion and just start all over. it is unworthy for inclusion in this encyclopedia. soibangla (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)