In his January 2012 State of the Union Address President Obama called for (again) investments in clean energy. He announced that the DoD, the world’s largest consumer of energy, “will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -– with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.” He was referring to recently established 1-megawatt solar array on Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. Note that the Department of the Navy’s energy security goals include to produce or consume one gigawatt of new, renewable energy on its naval installations.
For instance, Energy Information Administration reported that the U.S. is in the midst of a dramatic turnaround. It says that continued development of tight oil in the onshore U.S. and exploration and production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico will push domestic crude oil production from 5.5 million barrels a day in 2010 to 6.7 million barrels a day in 2020; then production will fall off to 6.1 million barrels a day and stay there through 2035. U.S. oil demand will rise a bit over the period, by almost 1 million barrels per day, from 19.2 million barrels per day in 2010 to 20.1 million barrels per day in 2035. Because of moderate demand, increased oil production, net oil imports will decline from 49 percent in 2010 to 36 percent in 2035.
Obama’s these and previous speeches, and the EIA’s report bring a crucial questions to my mind. If the US wants to reduce oil imports from the countries “unfriendly” to the US why Obama administration rejects imports from friendly countries?
Obama’s administration rejected the cross-border permit for the TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, saying that a deadline imposed by Congress (February 21) does not give it time to properly determine if the proposed project is in the national interest in its current state. Keystone XL, a 1,600-mile pipeline that would carry some 830,000 barrels of bitumen from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to US Midcontinent and Gulf Coast refineries. Proposed pipeline has been studied exhaustively for more than 3 years (since 2008). (see Reuters timeline).