Import arguments backfire against US oil producers

Bob Tippee
Editor

Arguments aimed at cutting US oil imports do producers more harm than good in Washington, DC. The industry should try a different approach.

Reducing oil imports is a legitimate goal. For the US economy, domestically produced oil—with all the incomes and tax payments it represents—surely beats the imported kind.

Import worry just doesn't work as an argument for policies essential to the expansion of US production.

In fact, it regularly succeeds as an argument to forget about expanding production and to quit using oil altogether—a popular fantasy with inexplicably strong influence over policy-making.

Consider the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The group's web site disparages oil imports for the usual reasons—funding of terrorists, profits for totalitarian regimes, intensifying competition for petroleum resources.

And, typically, it neglects to mention the economic goodness that the US forgoes with however much oil it imports instead of producing in off-limits areas such as 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain.

If imports are so bad, why doesn't the US open the closed areas to boost domestic production?

According to the committee, it can't. The web site ludicrously compares US oil reserves (12th highest in the world) with total Middle Eastern reserves and implies that US production (third highest in the world) can't increase—although it did so last year.

The committee further characterizes the potential of ANWR—the coastal plain resource of which the US Geological Society estimates at 11.6-31.5 billion bbl of oil in place—as "a drop in the bucket in reducing the amount of imported oil."

It's no surprise that an outfit with this sense of proportion should think conservation and alternative energy by themselves can meet all US energy needs. They can't. Yet the view prevails. The US has a new energy law that boosts alternative energy sources and tinkers with consumption but says nothing about leasing of ANWR or locked-up expanses of the OCS.

The industry needs a new argument—maybe something that relates oil supply to a public concern less abstract than imports, like price.

(Online Jan. 11, 2008; author's e-mail: bobt@ogjonline.com)

Related Articles

Western Australia taps Kimberley site for LNG hub

12/29/2008 Western Australia has chosen a site called James Price Point about 60 km north of Broome on the Kimberley coast to establish a proposed LNG hub for...

MMS chief hopes next president, Congress won't reinstate OCS bans

12/19/2008 US Minerals Management Service Director Randall B. Luthi said on Dec. 9 that he hopes the Obama administration and Congress seriously consider expa...

Pakistan plans $1 billion TAPI, IPI gas storage

12/17/2008 Pakistan says it will require $1 billion to build underground storage for gas to be imported from Iran and Turkmenistan, according to the country's...

MMS OCS Policy Committee plans first post-moratorium meeting

12/12/2008 The US Minerals Management Service's Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee will hold its next meeting Dec. 9-10 at the Washington Dulles Crowne ...

Careers at TOTAL

Careers at TOTAL - Videos

More than 600 job openings are now online, watch videos and learn more!

 

Click Here to Watch

Other Oil & Gas Industry Jobs

Search More Job Listings >>
Stay Connected