• Home>
• Issues

As President Obama noted in his prime-time address on Wednesday, America continues to face grave threats around the world. A comprehensive response to those threats – in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and other unstable regions – should incorporate America’s abundant fossil energy resources.

The Obama administration has focused too much of its foreign policy attention on more dubious priorities like climate change, which it blames on carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Secretary of State John Kerry called climate change “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now” last month. In February, he labeled it “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” just before instructing all American embassies to make it “a top priority and to use all the tools of diplomacy that they have at their disposal” to fight it.

America’s fossil fuels are important geopolitical assets available to the president for influencing events and fostering prosperity around the world. The administration should enthusiastically deploy this tool to promote freedom overseas and energy security at home.

Supporting Sanctions and Other Measures

On September 3, President Obama proclaimed that “Russia is paying a price” due to sanctions imposed by the U.S., the European Union, and other partners. The president failed to acknowledge that booming U.S. oil production is underwriting those sanctions. “U.S. production growth, the main factor counterbalancing the supply disruptions on the global oil market, has contributed to a decrease in crude oil price volatility since 2011,” the Energy Information Administration reported on August 27. “Over the past 13 months, the monthly Brent price has moved within a narrow $5 per barrel range.” In May, Bloomberg Businessweek quoted one analyst saying, “North America’s shale boom has been a huge calming factor. Without it, we might be seeing $150 oil right now.”

EIA called this price stability “remarkable,” especially at a time when supply disruptions are at their highest levels since the 1990-91 Iraq-Kuwait war. This price stability strengthens the capacity of nations to pursue vigorous economic, diplomatic, and military measures because it mitigates their concerns about upsetting global oil markets and harming their own economies.

In 2013, energy policymakers and analysts noted that increasing U.S. oil production was playing a vital role in supporting the Iranian sanctions regime. According to an April 1, 2013, report by NBC News, increased U.S. oil production helped keep oil prices stable despite the loss of 1.5 million barrels a day of oil exports from Iran. Daniel Yergin, a prominent energy analyst was quoted saying: “People talk of the future impact. The increase in U.S. oil production has already had an impact. Sanctions wouldn’t have been effective without U.S. oil production.”

While price stability is by no means permanently guaranteed, it is an important geopolitical tool generated by U.S. oil production growth that should not go unheralded. The Obama administration, however, cannot take credit for U.S. oil production growth over the past five years. Crude oil production increased by 61 percent on state and private lands from 2009 to 2013. It fell by six percent on federal lands the Obama administration controls, according to an April 10 Congressional Research Service report.

Oil production surges in spite of Obama administration, not because of it

Change in daily production from 2009 to 2013

Source: CRS

President Obama could increase the value of this foreign policy tool by finally making federal onshore and offshore lands available for energy exploration. He should also end the six-year review of the Keystone XL pipeline and approve the additional 830,000 barrels per day of North American oil it would bring to market.    

Projecting Power and Influence Against Foreign Adversaries

Many of America’s adversaries rely on energy income. Russia derives more than 50 percent of its federal budget revenues from oil and gas, according to EIA. Foreign Policy magazine reported in a July 28 article that the terrorist group ISIS takes in as much as $3 million a day in oil income. It called the group “the newest petrostate.” Oil and gas are the main sources of Iran’s foreign currency earnings, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies found in January 2013. Sanctions can help undermine these revenues, but the Obama administration’s refusal to pursue energy exports remains a gaping hole in its geopolitical strategy.

In a January 2 article, The Economist magazine noted that the U.S. shale gas revolution is already undermining Russia’s negotiating position relative to its European neighbors. It has reduced U.S. demand for gas from the global market, freeing up those supplies to flow to Europe’s spot market, where they now compete with Russian gas. In 2008, Europe bought 15 percent of its gas on the spot market, The Economist said. By early this year, it was more than half. The competition has forced Russia’s state-owned gas company, Gazprom, to lower its prices, reducing the country’s energy revenues.

America can further increase that competition in Europe – and further erode Russian revenues – by committing to a program of unimpeded exports of liquefied natural gas. One economist told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in March that removing restrictions on U.S. LNG exports “could drive Russia’s revenues from natural gas exports down by as much as 30 percent, and in the longer term could cut those revenues by as much as 60 percent.” 

Yet the Obama administration refuses to fully embrace U.S. LNG exports, dragging its feet on permits for export facilities. The Energy Department has spent an average of 743 days processing each of the nine applications it has approved and refused to act on another 26 applications still pending.

Hungary’s ambassador-at-large for energy security also testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power in March. She addressed the administration’s claim that action on LNG exports would not have an effect for many years. “It would immediately change the business calculus of infrastructure investments,” she testified, “and send an extremely important message of strategic reassurance to the region which currently feels more threatened than any time since the Cold War.” Ignoring such advice, the Energy Department in August finalized a new review process that could add additional delays and burdens for exporters.

Just as natural gas is increasing global competition, America’s shale oil revolution is reducing U.S. demand for oil from the global market. That frees up those supplies to flow to Asia and other foreign markets, which puts pressure on oil prices and weakens the leverage of America’s foreign adversaries, including Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq. Lower oil prices could create economic problems in Russia and new openings for President Vladimir Putin’s political opponents. Lower oil prices could constrain the revenues of dangerous groups in the Middle East and limit their malevolent influence in the region. According to an essay published in the March/April 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Iraq and Libya “are already living beyond the limits of their fiscal breakeven prices” and Iran needs oil to trade “over $150 per barrel” before it can break even. 

America can immediately enhance its impact on these markets if it lifts its decades-old ban on crude oil exports. The infrastructure required for global trade in crude oil is already in place. The Obama administration would not even need to wait for Congress to act, since it already has the statutory authority to allow crude oil exports.

A study released by the Brookings Institution on September 9 found that additional U.S. crude oil in the world market would lead to lower oil prices. This would not only squeeze our adversaries’ finances, but also reduce gasoline prices, increase household income, boost our economy, and provide jobs for Americans. Even if OPEC cut its exports to offset U.S. exports, the Brookings study said, global energy security would still “improve substantially,” since less crude oil would come from regions vulnerable to supply disruptions.    

Democrats Protect the President’s Anti-Fossil Fuel Agenda

The Senate should be debating how to directly confront threats posed by ISIS, Russia, Iran, and others. The discussion should include the availability of America’s fossil fuels to strengthen our foreign policy. Yet for the entire 113^th Congress, Democrats have used their control of the Senate to shelve America’s abundant oil and natural gas resources in the name of climate change ideology.

Over the past two years, Senate Democrats have tied up the Environment and Public Works, Foreign Relations, Budget, and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees with at least 10 hearings on climate change. They have hidden behind Majority Leader Harry Reid, who blocks consideration of projects like the Keystone XL pipeline that would immediately boost America’s energy security.

In May, Senate Democrats voted against a Republican attempt to expedite approval of applications to export LNG to Ukraine and other U.S. allies. Even energy-state Democrats like Senators Mary Landrieu and Mark Udall sided with their party instead of their constituents.    

Democrats block Barrasso Amendment 2981

Republicans will keep working to promote energy sources that provide Americans with economic, social, and geopolitical benefits. Energy-state Democrats must join Republicans in their fight against the administration’s policies. They must persuade President Obama to abandon his war on fossil fuels and to use American oil and natural gas to support his foreign policy. They must force Senator Reid to allow – in committees and on the Senate floor – vigorous debate and real votes regarding the contribution fossil fuels can make to America’s energy and economic security. Anything less is just playing politics with the prosperity and safety of American families.