Energy Independence

Many politicians are now talking about the importance of drilling in the United States for oil so that America can become "energy independent". This argument is, rhetorically, the anti-global-warming argument. It goes something like this:
1) The price of oil is too high! We need to drill!
2) You can't drill more oil, we have to deal with global warming. Go solar!
3) We should develop new energy, but we can't be held hostage to dangerous regimes. Energy Independence!

I was thinking about "energy independence", and realized that I had misunderstood the real meaning of that term. Suppose that the U.S. Congress lifted the ban on various parts of the country, and opened them up to drilling. Major oil companies would move in, buy leases, set up deep water drilling rigs, and start pumping crude. Then what? Then, they would sell their new barrels of oil on the *international* commodities market.

In other words, drilling in the U.S. would increase production for the world, but that new production would be shared with everyone. So, the "independence" part would really be to dilute the share of global supply provided by the bad guys.

I think most people, when they hear the phrase, think that the U.S. would get every barrel of oil drilled in the U.S. And, that might practically be the case, since local oil should be the cheapest for U.S. consumers if only because of transport costs. But, unless we nationalize the oil industry, oil pumped in the U.S. isn't "American Oil" until America buys it.

(I'm certainly NOT advocating nationalizing the oil industry.)