Putin's invasion of Ukraine has put a spotlight on
U.S. dependence on adversary foreign nations
for it's domestic energy needs
Obama Biden White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked why the Biden Administration was not yet increasing domestic oil production in order to reduce dependence of Russian oil. Here is her response - as well as the longer back and forth between the two. A 2nd clip is cued (5:47 to 6:10 mark) at her response to a similar question asked on Fox's America's Newsroom.
While the entire 2 minute clip & her Fox interview responses are worth commenting on, for this spotlight, I simply want to put a brief focus on the initial Psaki response to the oil production question asked, because I believe the current public energy (oil in this case) debate is circling around this question. The Biden administration and other Left groups responses seem to be coordinated on Psaki's replys given above.
25 second mark of 1st clip above: "Well, there are 9000 approved oil leases that the oil companies are not tapping into currently..."
I conducted an extensive search to verify this claim and while I could not find a concrete source to verify the exact number I also did not come across any that disputed it so for now the assumption is that it is more true than false.
It's worth noting that the call to stop buying Putin's oil is not just a Republican talking point. However, beyond that it is a mixed debate.
Yes, apparently even crazy ideas are on the table (where does the question by the "news" anchor even come from is my question).
After trying to verify the 9000 leases claim the next reasonable question to ask was WHY.
Why have oil companies not tapped into the approved leased lands? Since Jen REFUSED to even act like she actually wanted to know ("ask them" yourself Ms. journalist who's bothering me) I was forced to look into it. Try looking this up for yourself and see what comes up concerning this question. Spoiler...there is no dedicated direct answer from any source I was able to find. HOWEVER, I did finally find some answers FROM A SURPRISING SOURCE. While the article below was NOT INTENDED to answer the why question, it none the less reveals some interesting answers to the question. Read the article very carefully.
No 1 person's fault. Point the finger at both sides.
- CNN -
(Matt Egan Nov 10, 2021)
So after reading did you see the same things I saw?
Public companies that finance their operations via investors (shareholders) make themselves responsible to them. Proverbs 22:7 : "The borrower (business asking for funds) becomes servant to the lender (investors trading $$ for ownership shares)." There is NOTHING necessarily wrong or evil about this. Someone (person or business) requires immediate funds to help accomplish goals while someone else (lender, investor) wants to grow their $$ and is willing to take a RISK (they could lose their $$) to try and do so. In EXCHANGE FOR the risk they receive a % of ownership and have a say at the business table.
That's basically all the above article quote is talking about - no matter what the the subtle spin the article may or may not be trying to plant in readers minds. Are there price at the pump effects on the consumers of the business products? Yes. Such is the nature of ANY business activity. Balancing the needs of customers with the obligations to lenders.
BUT this is NOT the end of the story. While it's "not the government that is banning them from drilling more" (key sophistry word is "banning") the government IS INCENTIVIZING certain actions/decisions via the policies it is pushing.
It is HERE that the "9000 leases" argument Psaki & others keep communicating FAILS. It ignores (by ignorance or intention) the role government plays in the decisions that business across the nation make. Government by definition is FORCE. That force however is not always at the end of a barrel or other direct threat.
- Chris (3wn77!) -