Talk:United States energy independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Major Update[edit]

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)

  • aaaaaa

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

Untitled[edit]

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[edit]

Peak_uranium#Fast_breeder 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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on United States energy independence. I managed to add archive links to 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 {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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:


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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working Yes check.svg Jim.henderson (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

NPOV Issue?[edit]

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)