Wrong reasons steer Obama to wrong path on oil import cuts

Bob Tippee
Editor

The goal reasserted by US President Barack Obama last month to cut US imports of oil by one third can be good or bad, depending on the route chosen and the reason for making the effort.

Although Obama deserves credit for acknowledging that the US won’t soon quit importing oil, he kept the US off course.

He wants to displace oil imports with renewable energy, nearly all of which is not commercial and requires subsidization by taxpayers. That’s expensive.

The Congressional Budget Office last year estimated the cost to taxpayers of replacing a gallon of gasoline with the energy-equivalent amount of fuel ethanol—the best-established oil substitute at this point—at $1.78.

To meet all of Obama’s goal by displacing gasoline with ethanol would cost taxpayers roughly $99 billion/year.

Not all the proposed oil displacement can come from ethanol. Other forms of renewable energy would have to supplement the gasoline additive.

But most other substitutes would cost even more.

What would taxpayers receive for this sacrifice? A reduction in oil imports. Is the benefit worth the cost?

It is if reducing oil imports boosts employment. But that’s unlikely to happen across the economy with a new $99 billion/year drag on productive taxpayers.

The employment effect would differ greatly if the import cut came from increased production of domestic energy not dependent on subsidies. To that prospect, though, Obama pays only lip service.

Beyond job effects and the trade balance, import dependency matters little. If the US imported no oil at all, it still would be economically vulnerable to geopolitical events affecting the price of oil and need to defend its interests. This is an inescapable fact of economic life for any country engaged in international trade.

Obama wants to do the right thing, moderate oil imports. But he wants to do it the wrong way for the wrong reasons—by wasting public money on noncommercial energy in pursuit of economic isolation, which the real world won’t abide.

(Online Apr. 8, 2011; author’s e-mail: bobt@ogjonline.com)

Related Articles

DOE approves LNG exports to non-FTA countries from Oregon project

03/24/2014 The US Department of Energy conditionally approved Jordan Cove Energy Project LP’s application to export LNG through its proposed terminal on Orego...

INGAA Foundation forecasts oil, gas infrastructure outlays to 2035

03/24/2014 An estimated $640.9 billion, or an average $29.1 billion/year, will need to be spent on US and Canadian midstream crude oil, natural gas, and natur...

Export short-sightedness

03/24/2014 Opposition by specific refiners to US exports of crude oil should surprise no one. The export ban suppresses the price of domestically produced lig...

ETP unit gets FERC approval for gas exports to Mexico

03/21/2014 Energy Transfer Partners LP unit Houston Pipe Line Co. LP (HLPC) has received approval from the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build a ...

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