Biden Calls For More Foreign Oil While Attacking Domestic Producers

Last week OPEC+ talks on oil production quotas for member nations stalled and, as a result, oil prices rose. The Biden administration is somewhat concerned about the increase in oil prices and in response to the OPEC+ stalemate, a Biden administration spokesperson stated, “Administration officials have been engaged with relevant capitals to urge a compromise solution that will allow proposed production increases to move forward.” Instead of calling on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia to increase their oil production through investment and hiring more people, the Biden administration could reverse its anti-energy prices in the United States and oil prices would likely decrease. Our economy might also receive a shot in the from increased production. After all, the U.S. has been the biggest contributor to the decrease in global oil prices over the past 10 years by supplying the oil market with the majority of new oil over the past decade.

From 2010-2019, 81 Percent of the Global Increase in Oil Production Came From the United States

For decades, people have not thought of the United States as an energy superpower. Too many people were stuck in the mindset that the United States could not do anything about oil prices—that we had too little oil reserves to meaningfully impact global prices. This worldview was perfectly encapsulated by President Obama, when he stated in 2012, “we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.” But the United States did exactly that.

From 2010 through 2019, global total petroleum (and other liquids) production increased by 12.1 million barrels a day. For the same time period, U.S. total petroleum (and other liquids) production increased by 9.77 million barrels a day. In other words, the United States alone covered 81 percent of the total increase in global oil production over the past 10 years. More supply meant lower energy prices throughout the world, and American households gave a collective sigh of relief from lower gas prices.

In fact, if you include the COVID-19-altered 2020, the increase in U.S. oil production exceeded the global increase from 2010-2020.

It is very likely that Russia and OPEC could have increased their oil production over the past 10 years and further reduced prices, but Russia and OPEC were more interested in maximizing their revenues instead of supplying the market with more oil.

U.S. Oil Production Has Helped Keep Oil Prices in Check

The impact of all of this oil production from the United States led to downward pressure on oil prices over the past 10 years. In the oil price chart below you can see what looked to be a long-term run-up in the price of oil after the 1990s stalled in the early 2010s and then decreased by more than 50 percent. A greater supply of oil, the majority of which came from the United States, is a key reason for this price decrease.

IER has as long noted how U.S. oil production has helped keep oil prices in check. For example, in 2014 we explained how U.S. oil production growth more than offset unplanned disruptions to the world’s oil supply and in 2008, we explained how ending bans on offshore drilling led to immediate price relief.  Market signals about probable government actions also drive prices sooner than the actions’ actual effect.

The United States is playing a larger role in global oil production as a result of the increase in production. This chart shows the percentage of global oil production that is produced by the United States. In 2020, the United States produced almost 25 percent of the global total.

President Biden Could Reduce Oil Prices by Ending His Anti-Energy Policies

As has been amply demonstrated over the past decade, we can drill our way to lower gas prices. We did it. But while the Biden Administration would like to see oil production increase in OPEC+ countries, they are taking action after action to hamstring domestic (and Canadian) oil production. As a result of policies such as canceling President Biden is signaling to oil markets that it will be harder for the U.S. to produce oil in the future. It’s no wonder oil prices recently hit the highest level in nearly 7 years.

If President Biden wanted to see lower oil prices, he would reverse course on his anti-energy policies. But the reality is that high oil prices would help the electric vehicle market and “nudging” more drivers into EVs is a key policy objective of the Administration.

We can expect to see additional policies from the Administration that will drive up prices at the pump while at the same time the Administration asks other countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. After all, President Biden promised it during the campaign.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The Unregulated Podcast #44: Tom and Mike Discuss Gas Prices, Bipartisan Infrastructure, and Election Reform

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna talk about rising gas prices, the prospects of a bipartisan “infrastructure” bill, and election reform efforts from around the country.

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #43: Tom and Mike Breakdown the New York Election

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom and Mike breakdown the New York mayoral primary election.

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #42: Tom and Mike Discuss Recent Court Decisions

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the ramifications of recent SCOTUS rulings on American energy production and prices.

Links:

Someone Needs to Tell Biden That Countries Are Building New Coal Mines

President Biden’s goal is a net-zero economy by 2050. According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) report, to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, governments should refuse to approve any new oil and gas fields, as well as any new unabated coal power plants by the end of 2021, and new sales of fossil fuel boilers should be phased out by the end of 2025. It seems like Biden is intent on complying, based on his executive orders. Yet, the world’s coal producers are planning 432 new mine projects with 2.28 billion metric tons of annual output capacity—a 30 percent expansion of capacity by 2030. China, Australia, India, and Russia account for more than three-quarters of the new projects.

China is building 452 million metric tons of new annual production capacity and has another 157 million metric tons in planning for a total of 609 million metric tons. That means China’s planned new mine capacity will be 26 percent higher than all the coal that the United States produced in 2020. China already produces almost 50 percent of the world’s coal and 53 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity—nine percentage points more than five years earlier. According to the report by Global Energy Monitor, four Chinese provinces and regions—Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Shaanxi and Shanxi—account for nearly a quarter of all the proposed new coal mine capacity in the country.

Despite global coal-fired generation being on the decline since 2019, thermal coal operations still dominate the new proposed mines, making up 71 percent of the proposed new mine capacity. In North America, however, the numbers are reversed, with metallurgical coal used for steel-making accounting for 70 percent of the small increase in proposed new mine capacity.

The emissions from coal mine projects now on the drawing board are estimated to total between 5,000 and 5,800 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year from combustion and methane leakage, which is comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of the United States prior to the coronavirus pandemic—5,140 million metric tons in 2019.

New Coal Mine Capacity

The majority of the proposed coal mines in China and India are sponsored by state-owned enterprises. That is, public money continues to subsidize mine projects to fuel province and state economies. India has 13 million metric tons under construction and 363 million metric tons in planning stages. Australia has 31 million metric tons under construction and 435 million metric tons in planning and Russia has 59 million metric tons under construction and 240 million metric tons in planning. Unlike China, where 74 percent of projects are already under construction, the vast majority of proposed mining capacity in Australia (94 percent), India (96 percent), and Russia (80 percent) are in pre-construction phases and have yet to undergo the build-out of mine infrastructure.

While much of Western Europe is phasing out coal, Poland (32 million metric tons) and Turkey (22 million metric tons) continue to build new operations, accounting for 60 percent of Europe’s new mine development. Most new capacity remains under development in coal communities, such as Łódź and Lower Silesia in Poland, and Turkey’s Black Sea province of Bartin. As of 2020, 12 percent of the 453 million metric tons per annum proposed capacity in these regions is under construction, with the remaining 88 percent of capacity in pre-construction phases and subject to financial constraints or institutional and government restrictions in the future.

Mine development is also occurring in South Africa, Indonesia, and Mozambique. South Africa accounts for 65 percent of the proposed capacity in Africa and the Middle East. If all proposed mines went into operation, it would undergo a 51 percent increase in current coal production. Indonesia, the major driver of capacity growth in Southeast Asia, would undergo a 12 percent increase in production.

Stranded Asset Risk 

Coal mines and related infrastructure such as ports and railways are capital-intensive projects that cost tens of millions of dollars. The capital expenditures necessary to bring all 432 mine projects into operation is $91 billion, based on the average capital costs to open a coal mine. If planned coal mines open as intended, but are forced to lower production levels or shut down early, they represent a significant stranded asset risk, which the governments who in many cases own them are unlikely to willingly absorb.

Conclusion

Here in the United States—with the world’s largest coal reserves by far—policymakers, utilities and the media are pronouncing coal’s demise. Meanwhile, around the world, new coal mine development is taking place led by China, who already produces almost 50 percent of the world’s coal. While China’s government states that they will eventually take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be carbon neutral by 2060, the country’s current actions are vastly different from opening new coal mines to building new coal generating capacity at home and abroad that can operate for 40, 50 or even 60 years. Not only is China developing new coal mines, so are Australia, India, Russia, Poland, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia, and Mozambique. The United States, under Biden, will be taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will be costly while most of the rest of the world will develop energy industries that are less expensive and more reliable.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

AEA Applauds Supreme Court Decision, Calls on EPA to Take Action

With the small refinery exemption process validated, EPA must make the RFS a workable program for U.S. refiners and consumers.


WASHINGTON DC (June 25, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, today applauded the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Holly Frontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association which reaffirmed the long-established understanding of the small refinery exemption (SRE) process under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). As the Court correctly held, Congress intended SRE’s to be an ongoing safety valve for refiners facing economic hardship from the costs of complying with the RFS.

“With the cost of RINs [RFS compliance credits] at all-time highs and refiners still recovering from the impacts of the coronavirus shock, exemptions for small refineries are needed today more than ever. Following today’s straightforward decision, EPA must immediately take action to approve pending SRE requests sitting before them.

“The continuing need for hardship exemptions exposes the damage the RFS continues to create on the American economy and consumers. Moving forward, EPA should take action to make the RFS a workable program for U.S. refiners and consumers. With the ongoing RFS reset process and the expiration of mandated volumes next year, EPA has a golden opportunity to reorganize the RFS in a way that focuses more on protecting fuel consumers rather than subsidizing biofuel producers.”


View the full text of the decision here.

Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Key Vote YES on Lee Amendment to S. 1251

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to support the Lee Amendment to S. 1251 the Growing Climate Solutions Ace of 2021. Should this amendment not be adopted, AEA urges all Senators to oppose final passage.

Despite being described as “self-certification,” the certification program established by S.1251 is a de facto federalization of the environmental credits market. As has been seen repeatedly in other contexts, once the federal government sets “voluntary” standards, those standards become effective mandates as federal programs and funding become contingent on conforming to the standards and subsequent legislation and regulations incorporate the standards by reference. If the purpose of this legislation is to give farmers more information on credit markets, then it should simply give farmers more information about credit markets.

This legislation creates an unnecessary new credit certification bureaucracy in the Department of Agriculture. Like any bureaucracy, this new department will find ways to expand its remit, to increase regulation of environmental credit markets, all in the name of helping farmers. Credit trading markets and programs already exist and operate well, federal involvement is entirely unnecessary. The Lee amendment effectively addresses this problem by converting the heavy-handed certification provisions into the sort of information sharing process for farmers that the legislation’s proponents claim is their goal.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets by voting YES on the Lee amendment to S. 1251. Should the LEE amendment not be adopted, AEA urges all Senators to vote NO on the final passage. AEA will include these votes in its American Energy Scorecard.

Key Vote NO on S.J. Res. 14

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to oppose S.J. Res. 14, the Senate companion to H.J. Res. 34, the Congressional Review Act resolution regarding new source performance standards for the oil and gas sector, also known as the methane rule. The original NSPS permitting rules from 2016 were onerous and unworkable, especially for independent and small producers. The rule under CRA consideration attempted to reduce some of the unnecessary burden, while still regulating pollutants from wells.

The support of the oil majors for this CRA resolution and for more onerous methane regulations in general is no surprise, Big Oil supports methane regulations for the simple reason that it raises costs for their smaller competitors. The majors have plenty of money for expensive monitoring equipment and already have armies of lawyers for compliance. If the regulatory costs of production in the US grow too much, they can easily shift their investments to other countries like Guyana, Australia, or dozens of others. Small domestic producers, which provide most of the production and jobs in the industry, do not have such easy options. Congress should not do the bidding of big oil companies by voting to hobble their smaller competitors.

Additionally, using the CRA for this issue is fraught with legal uncertainty because the CRA does not allow an agency to issue a similar rulemaking. The 2020 rule under consideration affirmed and built on the 2016 rules, even as it modified parts. Thus, despite the assertions of commentators, it is not at all clear as a legal matter that passing this CRA resolution simply reinstitutes the 2016 rules. Furthermore, the Biden administration has stated that it intends to undertake new rulemakings on methane, but the legal hurdles to such rulemakings from a CRA passage are unclear. This all means that passage of a CRA resolution will introduce years of litigation and uncertainty into the methane regulatory process. The better option would be for the Biden administration to remake the regulations as it sees fit through the normal rulemaking process without injecting a CRA resolution into the process.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on S.J. Res. 14. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #41: Tom and Mike Discuss G7 and IEA’s Reality Check

On this episode of the Unregulated Podcast Tom and Mike talk about events from the G7 and what the various climate agreements mean, and don’t mean for American energy consumers as well as Joe Biden’s performance on the world stage.

Links