HANSON: Drilling is a win, win choice for U.S.

Obama’s opposition seems based more on faith than facts

Story Topics

When the summer driving season starts soon, and tension heats up about Iran, gas may reach $5 a gallon. Nothing bothers voters more than paying an extra $20 or $30 every time they fill up. In times like these, they soon might prefer even an oilman in the White House to an ideologue whose opposition to new oil development seems more religious than empirically based.

All presidents, of course, usually get the blame when the price of gas skyrockets and praise when it plummets, just like they own a bad or good economy, or a successful or failed war.

President Obama, however, earns additional blame for the gas rise for reasons well beyond the normal oil bogeymen - tension in the Middle East, rapacious OPEC dictators, oil company greed and Wall Street speculation.

Why? Americans remember that his team boasted about wanting higher energy costs in 2008, when Mr. Obama was still basking in hope-and-change adulation. Steven Chu, then the energy secretary-designate who doesn’t own a car, pontificated about wanting higher American gasoline prices, hoping they would somehow reach European levels.

Candidate Obama breezily warned of skyrocketing energy prices - the necessary cost of his planned cap-and-trade, anti-global-warming legislation.

Sen. Kenneth L. Salazar, Colorado Democrat who was soon to become Interior secretary, bragged that even if gas reached $10 a gallon, he would not vote to open up new federal offshore oil leases.

Once upon a time, Mr. Obama and his supporters believed that high gas and oil prices were either helpful in ensuring that favored subsidized green energies would be cost competitive, or that they helped the environment. That’s why a now-embarrassed Mr. Obama digs in by mocking opponents who call for increased drilling.

A president, so Mr. Obama claims, has little control over gas prices. New domestic supplies of oil would not come on the market for years. Americans consume a quarter of the world’s oil supplies while possessing only 2 percent of global reserves. In a global oil market, additional American drilling would not make that much of a price difference.

All of these claims are either flat wrong or misleading.

Presidents can affect gas prices, at least in the long term, by exercising budgetary discipline resulting in a currency that buys more oil per dollar, by approving or rejecting federal oil leases, and by adding or curbing regulations that affect oil exploration and development. In all of these cases, Mr. Obama has supported policies that contribute to higher gas prices.

The point about the lag time between finding and pumping oil is valid. But that reality is precisely why presidents must green-light exploration for future generations - and why Mr. Obama is now bragging of record U.S. production only because of his predecessor’s granting of federal oil leases. Mr. Obama’s “it takes too long” argument is absurd - as if farmers should never plant new orchards because they won’t see fruit on their trees for three years or more.

Mr. Obama’s knowledge of U.S. reserves is 20 years out of date. In the first three years of his administration alone, new finds offshore - in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in unexpected places such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio - have revolutionized America’s energy future in ways undreamed of just a few years ago. We probably have 100 years of natural gas supplies at present rates of consumption and could cut our imported oil by 50 percent in a few years.

Even Mr. Obama does not believe his own dismissals of the role of global supply and demand in setting energy prices. In a tight world oil market, just a few million more barrels a day produced anywhere - or even the indication that a major producer such as America might soon put 2 million or 3 million more barrels a day on the market - can help stabilize prices. That’s why Mr. Obama is considering tapping oil daily from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while asking the Saudis to pump a little more. Does the president believe that more foreign or previously pumped oil would lower world prices in a way newly pumped domestic oil would not?

Technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling have made it possible for Americans to produce their own oil and gas as never before. We can pump oil with less environmental damage than can Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria. New domestic production would save a near-bankrupt America billions of dollars currently being lost in import costs while cutting security expenses in deploying forces to the Middle East.

New oil development will create thousands of jobs, worry speculators that America will soon release lots of oil on the world market, and provide a window to produce alternative energies without slapdash, Solyndra-like boondoggles.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts