North America could be self-sufficient in gasoline and diesel fuel in 15 years if only the government would get out of the way, the president of the American Petroleum Institute said on Wednesday in a “state of American energy” address intended to raise the industry’s profile in the presidential election.
Jack N. Gerard, the president and chief executive of the trade group, said repeatedly that his organization would not take a position on whom to vote for.
But he also said that “it would be a huge mistake on the part of the president of the United States to deny the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,’’ which would deliver crude extracted from oil sands in Canada to the Gulf Coast. Turning it down would have “huge electoral consequences,’’ he said.
(Wait, you might say: imports from Canada are still imports. But oil flows routinely across the border, with crude generally going south and products going north, and the two countries share interconnected electric grids, meaning that interdependence with a friendly democracy is generally viewed as independence.)
Another crucial issue, Mr. Gerard said, is access to onshore and offshore areas where drilling is currently banned or limited.
He also announced a “Vote 4 Energy” advertising campaign that he said would be prominent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where natural gas drilling in shale formations is under way, and Virginia, where the federal government has imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling.
A Metro station in Washington adjacent to the office buildings used by the staffs of the House of Representatives is already plastered with the ads.
In fact, energy has not played an enormous role so far in the Republican presidential primary campaigning.
Ethanol, for example, was barely mentioned in the run-up to the Iowa precinct caucuses despite that state’s position at the heart of the corn belt.
While the country is currently committed to a variety of strategies to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, including higher fuel efficiency for cars and trucks and the production of renewable motor fuels, Mr. Gerard is pushing a conventional solution, producing more oil and gas, and arguing that this route will succeed in a way that did not seem possible a few years ago.
“We are an energy-rich nation,’’ he said in his speech.“We have more oil and natural gas in the United States than anyone ever thought possible even 20 years ago.’’
Among the reasons is horizontal hydraulic fracturing, in which chemicals and vast amounts of water are used to extract natural gas and oil from rock underground, and more efficient oil drilling techniques.
The industry is arguing that more drilling would mean more jobs, more royalties for state and federal governments and fewer imports.
As Mr. Gerard delivered his speech in a conference room to a group of about 200 industry executives, Congressional staff and officials of various trade associations, protesters from Greenpeace handed out leaflets denouncing “big oil” on the sidewalk outside.
The Keystone XL decision represents a tricky problem for the Obama administration, with Congressional Republicans and organized labor on one side, citing the potential for creating thousands of construction jobs, and environmentalists on the other, pointing out that extracting crude from oil sands creates even more carbon dioxide emissions than more conventional oil production does.
Whether it will turn into a bigger electoral issue has yet to be determined.
nytimes.com
Jack N. Gerard, the president and chief executive of the trade group, said repeatedly that his organization would not take a position on whom to vote for.
But he also said that “it would be a huge mistake on the part of the president of the United States to deny the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,’’ which would deliver crude extracted from oil sands in Canada to the Gulf Coast. Turning it down would have “huge electoral consequences,’’ he said.
(Wait, you might say: imports from Canada are still imports. But oil flows routinely across the border, with crude generally going south and products going north, and the two countries share interconnected electric grids, meaning that interdependence with a friendly democracy is generally viewed as independence.)
Another crucial issue, Mr. Gerard said, is access to onshore and offshore areas where drilling is currently banned or limited.
He also announced a “Vote 4 Energy” advertising campaign that he said would be prominent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where natural gas drilling in shale formations is under way, and Virginia, where the federal government has imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling.
A Metro station in Washington adjacent to the office buildings used by the staffs of the House of Representatives is already plastered with the ads.
In fact, energy has not played an enormous role so far in the Republican presidential primary campaigning.
Ethanol, for example, was barely mentioned in the run-up to the Iowa precinct caucuses despite that state’s position at the heart of the corn belt.
While the country is currently committed to a variety of strategies to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, including higher fuel efficiency for cars and trucks and the production of renewable motor fuels, Mr. Gerard is pushing a conventional solution, producing more oil and gas, and arguing that this route will succeed in a way that did not seem possible a few years ago.
“We are an energy-rich nation,’’ he said in his speech.“We have more oil and natural gas in the United States than anyone ever thought possible even 20 years ago.’’
Among the reasons is horizontal hydraulic fracturing, in which chemicals and vast amounts of water are used to extract natural gas and oil from rock underground, and more efficient oil drilling techniques.
The industry is arguing that more drilling would mean more jobs, more royalties for state and federal governments and fewer imports.
As Mr. Gerard delivered his speech in a conference room to a group of about 200 industry executives, Congressional staff and officials of various trade associations, protesters from Greenpeace handed out leaflets denouncing “big oil” on the sidewalk outside.
The Keystone XL decision represents a tricky problem for the Obama administration, with Congressional Republicans and organized labor on one side, citing the potential for creating thousands of construction jobs, and environmentalists on the other, pointing out that extracting crude from oil sands creates even more carbon dioxide emissions than more conventional oil production does.
Whether it will turn into a bigger electoral issue has yet to be determined.
nytimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment