Energy Tomorrow Blog
Posted December 11, 2015
Then there’s this from Alaska: Falling oil revenues have the governor in that energy-rich state asking his legislature to plug a $3.5 billion hole in the state budget by imposing a small income tax (Alaska hasn’t had one for 35 years), other tax hikes, budget cuts and a reduction in the annual dividend Alaskans get from the state’s Permanent Fund.
Now, it might not bother you much that Alaskans soon could be paying higher taxes. But there’s another story playing out in Alaska and other places that should trouble all Americans: Access to U.S. energy is being restricted – by policy and regulation – in ways that could imperil America’s energy revolution and the generational opportunities that are being created by that revolution.
Posted December 9, 2015
The U.S. shale energy revolution is a game-changer – for the United States and the world’s energy balance. The U.S. has become the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas, resulting from a domestic energy renaissance driven by advanced hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – fracking. And the positive impacts are all around us.
U.S. crude imports are down, and American energy self-sufficiency is up. An America that’s more energy self-sufficient is more secure. Meanwhile, the global crude market is better supplied and more stable – thanks to the availability of crude that would have been imported to the U.S. Domestic pump prices reflect this well-supplied market. At the same time, greater use of natural gas has increased each American household’s disposable income by $1,200, and IHS says the benefit will grow to more than $3,500 in 2025. Thanks, fracking.
Posted November 25, 2015
Posted October 13, 2015
Last week’s bipartisan U.S. House vote to end America’s 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports is stirring needed debate over U.S. energy and trade policy as the exports issue advances in Congress. Unfortunately, much of the conversation remains focused on the wrong things.
For example, export opponents continue to say the United States shouldn’t export crude oil as long as it’s an oil importer. We rebutted that economically faulty position here. Access to global markets means bringing overseas wealth to the United States. Conversely, shutting in a domestic commodity is an obstacle to production and economic growth. The oil imports/exports threshold is one that isn’t applied to other domestic goods – and for good reason: Access to global markets is good for domestic producers.
Posted October 7, 2015
The U.S. House has an important vote scheduled for Friday on legislation that would lift the 1970s-era ban on domestic crude oil exports. It’s an historic chance for U.S. policymakers to affirm that America’s energy picture is fundamentally and dramatically improved from where it was four decades ago – thanks to surging domestic production that has made the United States the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas.
It boils down to this: A vote for the bill would be a vote for U.S. jobs, economic growth, trade benefits and strengthened American security. It would be a vote for U.S. consumers and American global competitiveness. It would be a vote for America’s friends abroad, who see U.S. energy as a global supply diversifier and stabilizer. As one ally said earlier this year, with U.S. oil exports the “world itself will be a … safer place.”
Posted September 30, 2015
America’s energy revolution means … a United States that’s more energy self-sufficient – less dependent on others, more secure in the world and better positioned to help friends abroad; economic growth and job creation – and with the right policy choices, a golden opportunity to secure American prosperity well into the future; and a stronger U.S. trading posture that, with energy exports, could benefit consumers
Let’s look at some charts that illustrate this American energy renaissance – which is based on the surge in domestic production that has accompanied the growth of safe, advanced hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling since the mid-2000s.
Posted September 25, 2015
The Washington Post reports that a coalition of environmental activists wants the Obama administration to stop new federal leasing for oil and natural gas development. Notwithstanding the broad energy, economic and security benefits produced by America’s energy revolution, the opportunity to secure America’s future and significant air quality progress, their position is simple: Keep it in the ground.
The position also is extreme, anti-progress and anti-modern – though hardly surprising. There’s a small but loud element that has little interest in safe and responsible energy development or in constant improvement of operational and environmental safety. Rather, it opposes development altogether. Their recent push is the latest sign of an agenda that would put America in retreat economically and in the world.
What’s surprising is that these activists actually concede that Americans want oil and natural gas. They acknowledge consumer demand for oil and gas – affordable, reliable and portable fuels that make life less harsh, healthier and more prosperous – but they want government to choke off that demand by cutting supply.
Posted April 1, 2015
Posted February 27, 2015
President Obama, in an interview with a North Dakota television station, explaining why he continues to delay the Keystone XL pipeline:
“Part of the reason North Dakota has done so well is because we've very much been promoting domestic U.S. energy use. I've already said I'm happy to look at increasing pipeline production for U.S. oil. But Keystone is for Canadian oil. Sending it down to the Gulf. It bypasses the U.S., it estimated to create 250, maybe, 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing on American infrastructure for American jobs for American producers, and that's something we very much support.”
In the span of just six sentences, the president contradicts expert analysis of Keystone XL’s jobs and market impacts at least four times – about once for each breath.
Posted February 20, 2015