The Unstoppable U.S. Oil Boom: Why No President Has Managed to Slow It Down

[Social Media]

 

In 2020, during his campaign for the presidency, Joe Biden made a bold pledge at a New Hampshire town hall, vowing to bring an end to drilling on federal lands. With deliberate emphasis, he stated, "No more drilling on federal lands. Period. Period. Period. Period." However, nearly four years later, the reality of his presidency tells a different story. Under Biden's leadership, the United States is now producing more oil than any other country ever has, and his administration has approved more drilling permits on public lands than his predecessor, Donald Trump.

 

This unanticipated boom in fossil fuel production reveals a challenging truth for both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris: it is nearly impossible for any U.S. president to significantly curb oil production, a key driver of both the economy and climate change. As Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, aptly observed, "If you were to show someone who came from Mars the line of U.S. oil and gas production over the last 15 years, they probably would not be able to tell whether a Republican or Democrat was in the White House."

 

 

Despite Biden's earlier promises, his administration's actions have continued to fuel the U.S. oil boom, with the country expected to produce an average of 13.2 million barrels of oil per day this year—surpassing both Saudi Arabia and Russia. This surge in production, while beneficial for the economy in the short term, has complicated Biden's broader climate agenda, which aims to transition the nation away from fossil fuels. Even Biden's landmark 2022 climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, which has significantly boosted the production of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, has not been enough to offset the continued dominance of oil.

 

The challenges Biden has faced in trying to reduce the nation's reliance on fossil fuels stem from a combination of legal obligations, political pressures, and market forces. In June 2021, a federal judge struck down Biden's attempt to pause oil and gas leasing on federal lands, a policy move that had been challenged by Republican-led states. Then, in February 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine further complicated the situation by disrupting global energy markets, leading to higher fuel prices and record profits for oil companies.

 

 

These obstacles highlight the difficulties Harris would likely encounter if she were to win the presidency in the next election. Although some former administration officials suggest that Harris could avoid what they view as Biden's strategic missteps, the reality is that any president will face significant challenges in trying to reduce U.S. oil production. As one former administration official noted, Biden's early pledge of no more drilling was "an early strategic mistake because it set expectations in a way that was not going to be achievable legally and politically."

 

Despite these challenges, Biden's administration has defended its record on fossil fuels. John D. Podesta, senior adviser to the president for international climate policy, emphasized that the surge in U.S. oil production is largely a "market-driven phenomenon" that has short-term economic benefits, even as the country works toward a long-term transition away from fossil fuels. "On the gas side, I think it was important that we could supply our friends and allies in Europe after the illegal invasion of Ukraine and cutoff of Russian sources of supply," Podesta said. "On the oil side, we continue to benefit from production and the effect that it has on stabilizing prices around the world."

 

Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration and Production Council, a trade group representing independent oil and gas companies, pointed out that much of the record production seen today is the result of policies enacted by previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat. However, on the campaign trail, Trump has framed the current boost in oil production as a Democratic tactic to lower gasoline prices ahead of the election. "Now [Biden’s] drilling like crazy," Trump claimed at a rally in March. "He went back to my policy. You know why? Because it was up to $6, $7, $8 a gallon. … They allowed them to continue drilling, but the day after the election, it’s over."

 

The limitations of any administration's control over oil production are evident when considering the legal and logistical constraints involved. While the federal government can regulate drilling on federal lands and waters, it has no authority over drilling on private or state lands, which include some of the largest shale deposits in the country, such as those in the Permian Basin in West Texas. Moreover, even on federal lands, there is a two-step process for oil and gas production: first, the administration must decide whether to auction off new lands for leases, and then it must issue permits for the actual drilling to begin.

 

Biden's administration has faced significant legal challenges in trying to stem new leases on public lands. The pause on leasing that Biden attempted to implement early in his presidency was struck down by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, a Trump appointee, who ruled that the administration could not stop leasing without congressional approval. Since then, the Interior Department has resumed quarterly lease sales, although it has auctioned off fewer acres overall compared to the Trump administration. During Biden's first three years in office, the Bureau of Land Management leased 232,630 acres, a steep decline from the more than 5 million acres leased during Trump's first three years.

 

Despite the administration's efforts to limit new leasing, the approval of drilling permits has continued, largely due to legal requirements. "The fact is that President Biden has followed the rule of law in this country, and the rule of law says that if you have already given a lease to a fossil fuel company, you have to give a permit," explained Leah Stokes, an associate professor of environmental politics at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

 

The political realities surrounding gas prices have further complicated Biden's efforts to reduce fossil fuel dependence. High gas prices are a political liability for any president, and Biden has taken steps to address rising fuel costs even when those actions seem to contradict his climate goals. For instance, in late 2021, as gas prices climbed above $3.30 a gallon nationwide, Biden urged major oil-producing countries to ramp up production. This move, while intended to alleviate economic pain at the pump, drew criticism for its perceived inconsistency with Biden's climate messaging.

 

The invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces in 2022 further intensified the pressures on the administration. In response to the crisis, Biden released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pledged to supply the European Union with natural gas to help offset the bloc's reliance on Russian energy. These actions, while necessary in the short term, highlighted the ongoing tension between maintaining energy security and pursuing aggressive climate goals.

 

If elected, Harris would inherit the same challenges that have plagued the Biden administration. Experts suggest that Harris's campaign has already learned from some of Biden's mistakes, particularly in avoiding climate promises that are not politically or legally feasible. For example, after Trump and other Republicans attacked Harris for supporting a ban on fracking in 2019, her campaign clarified that she would not seek to ban fracking if elected president.

 

The impact of Biden's climate policies may become more evident in the coming years, particularly if Harris continues on a similar path. Prolonging Biden's strict limits on emissions from cars and trucks, for instance, could accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, which do not rely on gasoline or diesel. Washington Governor Jay Inslee, whose climate proposals during his 2020 presidential campaign influenced Biden's policies, noted that a Harris administration could focus on expanding renewable energy, gradually reducing the nation's reliance on fossil fuels. "This is not an instant transition," Inslee said. "We don’t flip a switch and totally eliminate fossil fuels. It’s a thermostat. And to turn down that thermostat, you need to have as aggressive a development of non-fossil-based sources as possible."

 

In conclusion, while Biden's presidency has seen record levels of oil production despite his climate-focused campaign promises, the complexities of legal obligations, political realities, and market demands have made it difficult to significantly slow the U.S. oil boom. As Harris looks ahead to a potential presidency, she faces the challenge of navigating these same obstacles while trying to advance a more sustainable energy future. The tension between economic imperatives and environmental goals will likely continue to shape U.S. energy policy for years to come.

 

Credit: W.P.  2024-08-21

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

[ExpatOilWorker]

All thanks to frac'ing. The Permian basin is producing nearly 6 million bbls/day alone.

[roquefort]

When political BS gets smacked in the face by reality.

[johng]

Seeing as they try to  illegally sanction and embargo Russian Oil and gas  where on earth could the shortfall in an energy hungry world come from ????

[john donson]

the same biden that sold the strategic oil reserves ?