Foreign policy of an energy independent USA

So, say the US only gets it's energy from the Western hemisphere at the most, or from only nuclear energy, at the least, by the 1990s. Would it's foreign policy change in the Middle East and East?
 
I just realized that cars would still demand oil, so what if they run on nuclear powered electricity that cuts off the need for gasoline/oil.
 
I just realized that cars would still demand oil, so what if they run on nuclear powered electricity that cuts off the need for gasoline/oil.
They could also be Ethanol/electric hybirds.

This would surely impact the US's Foreign policy, but how I will not venture a guess.
 

Cook

Banned
A note on being "energy independent", or anything else "independent" for that matter: Prices are dictated by supply and demand globally. Even if the US produced so much petroleum that it wasn't importing any at all, when the prince of crude oil increased overseas it would increase in the US, because the suppliers are selling it to whoever is willing to buy it, and selling at the best price that they can get on the market.
 
The Carter doctrine - that no one except the US is allowed to dominate the Persian Gulf's oilfields - will still be in effect both due to the global nature of the oil market, and the dependence of western Europe and Japan on oil from the Middle East.

Also, don't underestimate the power of the Christian evangelicals in the US. They *literally* believe the rapture is coming, and therefore the US must protect Israel at any cost so that God will protect the it. So, the US will still work against Iran and any mustached Arab dictators.
 
They could also be Ethanol/electric hybirds.

Not without a major improvement in technology they couldn't be. Or a radical change in the culture that leads to many fewer personal cars. In 2011, ethanol was about 10% of the US gasoline market - and consumed about 40% of our corn production. The math is pretty straightforward. There are ways to make ethanol with other feedstocks - cellulosic and so forth - but they're not economical with current technology. Batteries have the same problem. The tech's getting better, fast, and I expect to live to see the day that the majority of American vehicles are battery-powered, but I don't see any obvious way to advance the development of the technology fast enough to get it to a commercially deployable state in the last century. That said, I'm not terribly read up on the history of ethanol, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment.
 
Except they weren't. US crude producers were getting LESS than the spot price on the global market. Because they couldn't export. This is what naturally happens when domestic production exceeds domestic consumption, but the surplus can't be sold abroad. Which was the intention of the law when it was introduced.

You would be correct if domestic consumption was still greater than domestic production, the domestic price would still be tied to the global price. But that hasn't been the case since the May of 2011, when the US became a net exporter, until December of last year, when the crude export ban was lifted.

"Prior to September 2010, there existed a typical price difference per barrel of between ±3 USD/bbl compared to WTI and OPEC Basket; however, since the autumn of 2010 Brent has been priced much higher than WTI, reaching a difference of more than $11 a barrel by the end of February 2011 (WTI: 104 USD/bbl, LCO: 116 USD/bbl). In February 2011 the divergence reached $16 during a supply glut, record stockpiles, at Cushing, Oklahoma before peaking at above $23 in August 2012. It has since (September 2012) decreased significantly to around $18 after refinery maintenance settled down and supply issues eased slightly."

If the difference remains too great for too long, the big oil companies would cut domestic production and increase foreign production. After all, adjusting for the costs of exploration and production, if I can sell oil from my well in Mexico or Nigeria for $60 but my oil from North Dakota or Alaska only gets me $50, I'll cut American production and increase foreign production until the disparity goes away. Exxon, Chevron and many others produce oil globally.
 
So, say the US only gets it's energy from the Western hemisphere at the most, or from only nuclear energy, at the least, by the 1990s. Would it's foreign policy change in the Middle East and East?

Even if the US was somehow insulated from mideast oil, nothing changes because Japan and Western Europe are still dependent upon it. So, access to oil remains a matter of national security as long as Western Europe and Japan remain a matter of national security.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The United States and perhaps the wider West could realistically regain the option of embargoing petroleum exporting countries engaged in acts of aggression or terrorism.
 
There is more than one price for oil, Australia uses the Tapis oil price rather than the Bent Crude or West Texas Intermediate price.

In any event oil supply for individual transportation is only one part of the equation, the US could make much greater use of electrically power public transportation to soak up hundreds of millions or even billions of car journeys annually. The US could also make much more use of district heating, cogeneration and waste heat recycling to reduce the oil consumption in these areas which could make more available for transport.
 
Top