The Trump Presidency

[joepistole]

Trump meets with his master this week. It will be interesting to watch. Putin is pretty savvy prepared. Trump is very dumb, ill-prepared, and very egotistical. I expect Putin will play Trump like a fiddle just as Xi Jinping played Trump in April when Jinping explained his version of history to Trump.

Trump's narcissism makes him very vulnerable to manipulation, and when you have much you need to cover up as Trump does, and are as arrogant and ill-prepared as Trump is, it makes Trump a pushover. The only constraint on Trump will be his advisers, and it appears many of his advisers are on-board Putin train too.

I'm sure Putin is anxious to see a payback on his investment in Trump. What kind of payback will Putin be looking for at this meeting? Will Trump return Putin's US intelligence facilities? Will Trump loosen sanctions on Russia or will he give Putin US intelligence as he did when he met with the Russian ambassador in the White House? Maybe he does all the above and more. If he does; I hope congressional Republicans find the balls to do something about it.

Whatever happens I'm sure Trump will be bamboozled and the American people will get screwed. It's a certitude. It's now just a matter of how badly do we get screwed. The irony here is that Trump markets himself as the master negotiator. Trump is many things, but a master negotiator isn't one of them. Trump's ignorance, dull-wittedness, arrogance, and narcissism make him a stooge.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump gave back the American based intelligence operations Obama seized prior to leaving office. Russia, i.e. Putin, wants some payback for his investment. The seized assets would be a good starting point. Putin knows his American asset, The Donald, has been compromised by being exposed. The question is what does he do with it going forward. Does he try to resuscitate it as he has done or does he have some fun at The Donald's expense? It's an interesting question. Does Trump have any alternative other than jumping through Putin's hoops? I don't think he does.

This meeting on Friday will be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump return Russia's American based intelligence assets. Some Republicans in Congress may be upset about it, but what would they do about it? I'm guessing not much, that they already haven't done. The Senate has passed a bill which would make it more difficult for Trump to reverse sanctions on Russia. Does the House have the guts and patriotism to pass it? That's questionable.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's you, seeming to think that what I have "listed" about Clinton is opposed to your description of what was to be expected from her.

I was responding to

So how did you get to the point of prefewrring Donald Trump as a President more likely to encourage multipolarity in global power structures, and diminish US warmongering and terrorist abetting?

Once you think this is an error, it means you think this is wrong. Let's negate this (ignoring third party candidates). We obtain: It is Clinton who is more like to encourage multipolarity in global power structures, and diminish US warmongering and terrorist abetting. (Or equally like, for mathematical accuracy.)

That's elementary logic applied to what you have written. My response is that there is zero likeliness that Clinton will encourage multipolarity in global power structures, or diminish US warmongering and terrorist abetting. This shows that your assumption is wrong. Because likeliness is some value between 0 and 1, so if Clinton's likeliness is 0, and Trumps likeliness is not exactly zero, then Clinton's likeliness is less.

You would better have to think about what you write, instead of accusing me of a lot of nonsense if I simply reply to what you write.

How would you know? You post the propaganda from one side - the fascist faction that took over the Republican Party - apparently without even realizing it, on a wide range of issues - everything from AGW to Clinton's psychopathy.

If I think that that "propaganda" is correct, I use it. Which is something different from support of those who have written this. (Which would be spending them money, buying or writing articles for their papers, supporting them personally and so on.)

 

[iceaura]

Once you think this is an error, it means you think this is wrong. Let's negate this (ignoring third party candidates). We obtain: It is Clinton who is more like to encourage multipolarity in global power structures, and diminish US warmongering and terrorist abetting.

No, you don't.
You get by reason: Donald Trump would be a President more likely to discourage multipolarity in global power structures, and enhance US warmongering and terrorist abetting. That is true, and correctly reflects my post.

That's elementary logic applied to what you have written.

It's an elementary error in reasoning - and a propagandist's rhetorical trick, commonly found in exactly the US media operations that have suckered you. I mentioned they were pros, good at their job, yes?

If I think that that "propaganda" is correct, I use it

No kidding. And you think some of the silliest, least plausible bs in American propaganda is correct.

Which is something different from support of those who have written this

When you act as a willing repeater and sincere spreader of propaganda from one particular origin, across many different issues and consistently over months of time, you are supporting the cause that propaganda supports - that's a fact.

My response is that there is zero likeliness that Clinton will encourage multipolarity in global power structures, or diminish US warmongering and terrorist abetting. This shows that your assumption is wrong.

No, it doesn't. My information for you was that Trump was more extreme than Clinton in his opposition to "multipolarity" in power structures, and in his favoritism toward warmongering and terrorist abetting (including direct US terrorism, such as the CIA rendition and torture programs under the previous Republican administration which Trump openly advocates restoring).

The are both rightwing authoritarians, in other words. But Trump is significantly worse. And knowing that, plus being in contact with much better sources of insight, I and others like me were able to make predictions that turned out - none of us on this "side" found our expectations contradicted or disappointed by Trump's behavior in office.

 

[joepistole]

There are only 61 congressional working days remaining this year. That doesn't bode well for Republicans. They have promised:

1) to reform the tax code with lower taxes and simplified tax filing
2) repatriation of foreign corporate earnings
3) a massive trillion dollar infrastructure spend
4) repeal and replace Obamacare

Given how productive Congress was during the first half of the year, it's difficult to see how Congress will finish any of the above this year, and it's increasingly difficult to see how Congress accomplishes those promises next year given next year is an election year with even fewer working days.

And if that were not enough, they still have to pass a budget and raise the debt ceiling. Congress must pass a budget and they must raise the debt ceiling, and that's probably all they will do. That keeps the lights on. So they might be able to do that.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, you don't.
You get by reason: Donald Trump would be a President more likely to discourage multipolarity in global power structures, and enhance US warmongering and terrorist abetting. That is true, and correctly reflects my post.

Learn elementary logic. The negation of more likely doing X is not more likely doing something opposite of X.

 

[iceaura]

Learn elementary logic. The negation of more likely doing X is not more likely doing something opposite of X.

Sure it is. That's one of the several possible negations, anyway - unlike your attempt, which isn't.

And if you prefer a different casting of the "negation", you still have the truth of whatever you want to call this:

Donald Trump would be a President more likely to discourage multipolarity in global power structures, and enhance US warmongering and terrorist abetting.

 

[sculptor]

This from Tony Thomas (a seeming trump supporter from Australia)
"If you go by the mainstream media’s lockstep ‘coverage’ of the US president’s first six months, he is no more nor less than a tweeting buffoon. A comforting narrative for cant-addicted newsroom hacks and groupthinkers, it handily avoids any and all mooting of Australia’s need to follow his lead.

Our federal and state politicians scuttle about looking for innovative new ways to strangle the Australian energy sector. But across the Pacific, America is unleashing a world-changing energy revolution. The world’s energy fundamentals are in transition. Donald Trump is liberating American coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries from eight years of Obama’s harassment and restrictions.

The consequences for us as a player in energy–export markets are dire. In an officially supportive environment, Australian energy could hold its share – intrinsically, it has global competitiveness. But politics here involves ‘renewables’ targets and other sacrifices to please the climate gods, bans such as Victoria’s on normal and fracked gas exploration, official and green lawfare against every new energy project (think Adani), impromptu Turnbull restrictions on LNG exports, Sargasso seas of red tape, and on-going fatwas against nuclear proposals.


Domestically, American industry will enjoy cheap energy inputs, while our own industry’s energy becomes as expensive as anywhere in the world. This disparity will play out in Australian factory closures and capital flight to the US.

A banana republic couldn’t do a better job of destroying its own wealth.

The US is now estimated to have 20% more oil than the Saudis – at USD50 a barrel, a storehouse of USD $13 trillion. The US has been a net energy importer since 1953, but thanks to fracking is now likely to be a net exporter as early as 2020. American LNG could move into net export surplus as early as this year. By 2040, US natural gas exports alone could bring in USD $1.6 trillion, and generate USD $110b in wages. US gas reserves are also enough to meet domestic needs for a century. The American energy revolution – in Trump’s word, “dominance” – seldom makes the mainstream media here, which is fixated on the schoolyard narrative of Trump as a tweeting buffoon.

Want to know what’s really important? Trump on June 29 addressed the Department of Energy’s “Unleashing Energy” conference in Washington.

His policy announcements were so shattering to the green/left ideology – he talked of “clean, beautiful coal” for example – that his message went almost unreported here. Trump said

The golden era of American energy is now underway. When it comes to the future of America’s energy needs, we will find it, we will dream it, and we will build it.

American energy will power our ships, our planes and our cities. American hands will bend the steel and pour the concrete that brings this energy into our homes and that exports this incredible, newfound energy all around the world. And American grit will ensure that what we dream, and what we build, will truly be second to none.

Today, I am proudly announcing six brand-new initiatives to propel this new era of American energy dominance.

First, we will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy. A complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource. [US nuclear plants have been shuttering because of cheap gas and low power demand].

Second, the Department of the Treasury will address barriers to the financing of highly efficient, overseas coal energy plants. Ukraine already tells us they need millions and millions of metric tons right now. There are many other places that need it, too. And we want to sell it to them, and to everyone else all over the globe who need it. [Geo-strategically, US coal and LNG could weaken Russian energy hegemony in Europe. Cheniere Energy has just delivered the first U.S. cargoes of LNG to Poland and the Netherlands].

Third, my administration has just approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline to Mexico, which will further boost American energy exports. [This New Burgos Pipeline will deliver up to 180,000 barrels a day. The US is Mexico’s main petroleum supplier.]

Fourth, just today, a major U.S. company, Sempra Energy, signed an agreement to begin negotiations for the sale of more American natural gas to South Korea.

Fifth, the United States Department of Energy is announcing today that it will approve two long-term applications to export additional natural gas from the Lake Charles LNG terminal in Louisiana. It’s going to be a big deal. [Currently the US exports LNG only through Sabine Pass, Louisiana, but four other terminals should come on line between 2018 and 2020, competing with Australia, Qatar and Russia].

Finally, to unlock more energy from the 94 percent of offshore land closed to development, we’re opening it up, the right areas. Under the previous administration, so much of our land was closed to development. – we’re creating a new offshore oil and gas leasing program. America will be allowed to access the vast energy wealth located right off our shores. And this is all just the beginning — believe me.

Is Trump merely rhapsodising? No way. His energy track record in his first half-year — again, carefully ignored by Australia’s mainstream media — speaks for itself.

• The Environmental Protection Agency was ordered to dump Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” designed to bump up household electricity rates by 14%
• The long-frustrated Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Illinois/Texas got fast-tracked approval
• Obama’s ban on new coal leasing on federal land was revoked – these lands involve 40% of US coal production.
• The US has dumped its Paris Climate commitments, which Trump says will save taxpayers USD3 trillion, and protect 6.5m US industrial jobs. “Maybe we’ll be back into it someday, but it will be on better terms,” he said last week
• Hundreds of thousands of hours of red-tape energy regulations – including on fracking – were abolished.

Trump spelt out his energy philosophy. “With [our] incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy independence that we’ve been looking for so long, but American energy dominance.

“And we’re going to be an exporter — exporter!” he promised. “We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe. These energy exports will create countless jobs for our people, and provide true energy security to our friends, partners, and allies all across the globe.”

Unlocking energy would generate millions of jobs and trillions in wealth, he said. For over 40 years, America was vulnerable to foreign regimes using energy as an economic weapon. Americans’ quality of life was diminished by the idea that energy resources were scarce.

Many of us remember the long gas lines and the constant claims that the world was running out of oil and natural gas.

Americans were told that our nation could only solve this energy crisis by imposing draconian restrictions on energy production. But we now know that was all a big, beautiful myth. It was fake. The truth is that we have near-limitless supplies of energy in our country. Powered by new innovation and technology, we are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution.

We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal. We are a top producer of petroleum and the number-one producer of natural gas. We don’t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty and tell us what to do and how to do it. That’s not going to happen.

But this full potential can only be realized when government promotes energy development instead of obstructing it like the Democrats. We have to get out and do our job better and faster than anybody in the world. This vast energy wealth does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people of the United States of America. Yet, for the past eight years, the federal government imposed massive job-killing barriers to American energy development.

Job-killing [Obama] regulations are being removed. I’m dramatically reducing restrictions on the development of natural gas. I cancelled the moratorium on a new coal leasing on federal lands.

We have finally ended the war on coal. And I am proud to report that Corsa Coal just opened a brand-new coal mine in the state of Pennsylvania, the first one in many, many, many years

We’re ending intrusive EPA regulations that kill jobs, hurt family farmers and ranchers, and raise the price of energy so quickly and so substantially.

From all this are two take-home messages: in the US, you ain’t seen nothing yet. And for Australia, we can either change tack on energy madness or fall under the wheels of the US juggernaut."

...................
"For over 40 years, America was vulnerable to foreign regimes using energy as an economic weapon. Americans’ quality of life was diminished by the idea that energy resources were scarce."

It seems that previous presidents have spoken about "energy independence".
(we used to say that words and a nickle would get you a cup of coffee"

 

[Kittamaru]

So, what happens when the Coal is used up, then? What about the radioactive particles burning it pours into the atmosphere... or how about the rest of the pollution Coal plants create?

Guess we're just hand-waving that away... after all, it is the next generations problem, not ours, so who gives a fuck, right?

 

[joepistole]

This from Tony Thomas (a seeming trump supporter from Australia)
"If you go by the mainstream media’s lockstep ‘coverage’ of the US president’s first six months, he is no more nor less than a tweeting buffoon. A comforting narrative for cant-addicted newsroom hacks and groupthinkers, it handily avoids any and all mooting of Australia’s need to follow his lead.

Our federal and state politicians scuttle about looking for innovative new ways to strangle the Australian energy sector. But across the Pacific, America is unleashing a world-changing energy revolution. The world’s energy fundamentals are in transition. Donald Trump is liberating American coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries from eight years of Obama’s harassment and restrictions.

Domestically, American industry will enjoy cheap energy inputs, while our own industry’s energy becomes as expensive as anywhere in the world. This disparity will play out in Australian factory closures and capital flight to the US.

A banana republic couldn’t do a better job of destroying its own wealth.

The US is now estimated to have 20% more oil than the Saudis – at USD50 a barrel, a storehouse of USD $13 trillion. The US has been a net energy importer since 1953, but thanks to fracking is now likely to be a net exporter as early as 2020. American LNG could move into net export surplus as early as this year. By 2040, US natural gas exports alone could bring in USD $1.6 trillion, and generate USD $110b in wages. US gas reserves are also enough to meet domestic needs for a century. The American energy revolution – in Trump’s word, “dominance” – seldom makes the mainstream media here, which is fixated on the schoolyard narrative of Trump as a tweeting buffoon.

Want to know what’s really important? Trump on June 29 addressed the Department of Energy’s “Unleashing Energy” conference in Washington.

His policy announcements were so shattering to the green/left ideology – he talked of “clean, beautiful coal” for example – that his message went almost unreported here. Trump said

The golden era of American energy is now underway. When it comes to the future of America’s energy needs, we will find it, we will dream it, and we will build it.

American energy will power our ships, our planes and our cities. American hands will bend the steel and pour the concrete that brings this energy into our homes and that exports this incredible, newfound energy all around the world. And American grit will ensure that what we dream, and what we build, will truly be second to none.

Today, I am proudly announcing six brand-new initiatives to propel this new era of American energy dominance.

First, we will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy. A complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource. [US nuclear plants have been shuttering because of cheap gas and low power demand].

Second, the Department of the Treasury will address barriers to the financing of highly efficient, overseas coal energy plants. Ukraine already tells us they need millions and millions of metric tons right now. There are many other places that need it, too. And we want to sell it to them, and to everyone else all over the globe who need it. [Geo-strategically, US coal and LNG could weaken Russian energy hegemony in Europe. Cheniere Energy has just delivered the first U.S. cargoes of LNG to Poland and the Netherlands].

Third, my administration has just approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline to Mexico, which will further boost American energy exports. [This New Burgos Pipeline will deliver up to 180,000 barrels a day. The US is Mexico’s main petroleum supplier.]

Fourth, just today, a major U.S. company, Sempra Energy, signed an agreement to begin negotiations for the sale of more American natural gas to South Korea.

Fifth, the United States Department of Energy is announcing today that it will approve two long-term applications to export additional natural gas from the Lake Charles LNG terminal in Louisiana. It’s going to be a big deal. [Currently the US exports LNG only through Sabine Pass, Louisiana, but four other terminals should come on line between 2018 and 2020, competing with Australia, Qatar and Russia].

Finally, to unlock more energy from the 94 percent of offshore land closed to development, we’re opening it up, the right areas. Under the previous administration, so much of our land was closed to development. – we’re creating a new offshore oil and gas leasing program. America will be allowed to access the vast energy wealth located right off our shores. And this is all just the beginning — believe me.

Is Trump merely rhapsodising? No way. His energy track record in his first half-year — again, carefully ignored by Australia’s mainstream media — speaks for itself.
Trump spelt out his energy philosophy. “With [our] incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy independence that we’ve been looking for so long, but American energy dominance.

“And we’re going to be an exporter — exporter!” he promised. “We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe. These energy exports will create countless jobs for our people, and provide true energy security to our friends, partners, and allies all across the globe.”

Unlocking energy would generate millions of jobs and trillions in wealth, he said. For over 40 years, America was vulnerable to foreign regimes using energy as an economic weapon. Americans’ quality of life was diminished by the idea that energy resources were scarce.

Many of us remember the long gas lines and the constant claims that the world was running out of oil and natural gas.

Americans were told that our nation could only solve this energy crisis by imposing draconian restrictions on energy production. But we now know that was all a big, beautiful myth. It was fake. The truth is that we have near-limitless supplies of energy in our country. Powered by new innovation and technology, we are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution.

We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal. We are a top producer of petroleum and the number-one producer of natural gas. We don’t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty and tell us what to do and how to do it. That’s not going to happen.

But this full potential can only be realized when government promotes energy development instead of obstructing it like the Democrats. We have to get out and do our job better and faster than anybody in the world. This vast energy wealth does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people of the United States of America. Yet, for the past eight years, the federal government imposed massive job-killing barriers to American energy development.

Job-killing [Obama] regulations are being removed. I’m dramatically reducing restrictions on the development of natural gas. I cancelled the moratorium on a new coal leasing on federal lands.

We have finally ended the war on coal. And I am proud to report that Corsa Coal just opened a brand-new coal mine in the state of Pennsylvania, the first one in many, many, many years

We’re ending intrusive EPA regulations that kill jobs, hurt family farmers and ranchers, and raise the price of energy so quickly and so substantially.

From all this are two take-home messages: in the US, you ain’t seen nothing yet. And for Australia, we can either change tack on energy madness or fall under the wheels of the US juggernaut."

...................
"For over 40 years, America was vulnerable to foreign regimes using energy as an economic weapon. Americans’ quality of life was diminished by the idea that energy resources were scarce."

It seems that previous presidents have spoken about "energy independence".
(we used to say that words and a nickle would get you a cup of coffee"

Trump is a buffoon tweeter or no. Trump had nothing to do with the energy revolution in the US. Nothing Trump has done since becoming POTUS has materially changed anything in the energy space. Yeah, facts matter. Trump isn't responsible for the shale boom in the US. Years of research is responsible for the shale oil boom; research Trump would kill, if his budget is adopted. The Trump administration didn't build Cheniere Energy 's LNG export facilities. They didn't even approve the the deal. The Obama administration did that.

No one has waged a "war" on coal. Coal has gone the way of the stage coach. LNG has displaced coal as a practical energy source. LNG is cheaper to buy, and cheaper to burn. It's simply a matter of economics, and Trump isn't going to trump the economics no matter what he may tell you. Coal is a dying industry. You don't have to employ a cadre of miners to mine natural gas, and you don't have to send it on a train. You sink a well and pipeline it to the consumer. Coal is a dying industry, not matter what Trump the Great Buffoon tells you.

And that's a big problem for Australia. But there is the thing, Trump doesn't control China, and China is Australia's biggest coal customer. China is abandoning coal as an energy source because it has cheaper alternatives, e.g. LNG and other renewable energy sources.

What Trump has done is inherited the work of his predecessor. But hey, we all know that will not stop the Narcissist-In-Chief or his devotees from taking credit for it.

 

[iceaura]

It seems that previous presidents have spoken about "energy independence".
(we used to say that words and a nickle would get you a cup of coffee"

And Obama's administration achieved it. Not that my crowd approves of the means, but there it is - credit where credit is due.

What are the odds that Trump will screw it up? Canada and Mexico are both critically cooperative here, and there's a long history of that - but is their patience infinite?

And looking down the line: Trump's plans for America and its resources appear identical to the kinds of resource exploitation we see in other countries opened up to American corporate predation - what are the chances of avoiding the consequences, environmental and political and social and economic?

 

[sculptor]

sculptor said: ↑
It seems that previous presidents have spoken about "energy independence".
(we used to say that words and a nickle would get you a cup of coffee"

And Obama's administration achieved it. Not that my crowd approves of the means, but there it is - credit where credit is due.

...

In 2016, the United States imported approximately 10.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 70 countries. Petroleum includes crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, liquefied refinery gases, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. Apr 4, 2017
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

and sometimes:
there it is - credit where credit ain't due

 

[Quantum Quack]

sculptor said: ↑
It seems that previous presidents have spoken about "energy independence".
(we used to say that words and a nickle would get you a cup of coffee"



In 2016, the United States imported approximately 10.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 70 countries. Petroleum includes crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, liquefied refinery gases, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. Apr 4, 2017
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

and sometimes:
there it is - credit where credit ain't due

Why the distortion ?


Quoting your link:

"The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.9 MMb/d."

I suppose if the USA exported 20 MMB/d but imported 10 MMB/d you would still state that the USA imported 10 MMB/d as if it was a balanced statement...
Disingenuous is the word for it, I think....another would be "Trumpism"

 

[sculptor]

Why the distortion ?


Quoting your link:

"The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.9 MMb/d."

I suppose if the USA exported 20 MMB/d but imported 10 MMB/d you would still state that the USA imported 10 MMB/d as if it was a balanced statement...
Disingenuous is the word for it, I think....another would be "Trumpism"

You are right that the USA also exports as well as imports.
I was only addressing imports. (No obfuscation was intended.)
However, The USA is still a net importer.

It seems that with a little more conservation and production, we could limit imports to from just 3 countries---Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela?
............
Which could diminish our entanglements in/with the middle east?

...................
caveat: Oil companies are multinationals?

 

[joepistole]

No, it wouldn't diminish our entanglements in the Middle East. Terrorism isn't connected to US energy imports. Terrorism will continue with or without US energy imports. Furthermore, even with US energy independence our trading partners remain heavily dependent upon Middle Eastern energy imports. And as long as that remains the case, the US will be heavily dependent upon Middle Eastern oil exports.

It sounds like Putin and Trump had a lovefest today.

 

[iceaura]

In 2016, the United States imported approximately 10.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 70 countries. Petroleum includes cru

especially from Canada - the oil shale the Keystone Pipeline is supposed to help with.

And we exported a little over 5, for a net import of petroleum alone of 4 and change. Not 10.

That's about 4X365 = 1500 million barrels of oil per year net at current rates - exports, supported by Obama administration policies, are increasing steeply.

About 80% of that is burned for energy in some form - 1200 million BOE http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/fossil-fuels/

We are, meanwhile, exporting about 500 million BOE of natural gas per year, and about 250 million BOE of coal, unless I screwed up the arithmetic. The gas exports are also rising rapidly due to Obama policies.
http://www.kylesconverter.com/energ...-of-oil-equivalent-to-tons-of-coal-equivalent
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2m.htm

So by now, a while after the those stats were compiled, we're well under a million BOE per day imported - with solar and other petro replacements rising rapidly, and much low hanging fruit in the conservation line still hanging.

Effectively: energy independent. Even from Canada. If we want to be.

Furthermore, even with US energy independence our trading partners remain heavily dependent upon Middle Eastern energy imports. And as long as that remains the case, the US will be heavily dependent upon Middle Eastern oil exports.

The actual situation. The needs of empire, not domestic prosperity, are in conflict with common sense regarding AGW.

 

[spidergoat]

But across the Pacific, America is unleashing a world-changing energy revolution. The world’s energy fundamentals are in transition. Donald Trump is liberating American coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries from eight years of Obama’s harassment and restrictions.

What a revolution, what forward thinking! Unleash the rich and their ancient technologies to make a fast dollar while the rest of the world suffers.

Americans were told that our nation could only solve this energy crisis by imposing draconian restrictions on energy production. But we now know that was all a big, beautiful myth. It was fake. The truth is that we have near-limitless supplies of energy in our country. Powered by new innovation and technology, we are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution.

Wasn't fake. This guy is so full of shit.

 

[sculptor]

What a revolution, what forward thinking! Unleash the rich and their ancient technologies to make a fast dollar while the rest of the world suffers.

Wasn't fake. This guy is so full of shit.

actually, I didn't say any of that, your bitch is with Tony Thomas (who seems a tad rad for my tastes)

 

[spidergoat]

I know. But it's typical cornucopian blather. Does he think that there will be nothing but good effects from doubling down on wildly harmful forms of energy?

 

[iceaura]

caveat: Oil companies are multinationals?

Absolutely. Type specimens. And very closely tied in with the military, wherever they go.

Has anyone seen a cartoon with an elephant made out of bananas sporting an orange wig? The Banana Republican Party needs its icon.

 

[sculptor]

I know. But it's typical cornucopian blather. Does he think that there will be nothing but good effects from doubling down on wildly harmful forms of energy?

What I took away was that Tony Thomas' missive was primarily economic, and , most likely, an anti-liberal party rant.
(The Turnbull Government will secure domestic gas supply with the introduction of export restrictions to ensure the Australian market has adequate supplies before exports are permitted.)