The big leak in Trump and Haley’s oil promises by CHRISTIAN ROBLES

 

The two remaining Republican presidential candidates have repeatedly promised to expand U.S. oil production — but they would be hard-pressed to meet that pledge, writes Shelby Webb.

Presidents have little impact on day-to-day production in the near term, analysts and industry officials told Shelby before former President Donald Trump and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley face off in tonight’s New Hampshire primary.

“It’s not zero, but it’s pretty close,” said Ryan Kellogg, a former BP engineer and economic analyst who’s now a professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy.

 Only 11 percent of oil and 9 percent of natural gas produced onshore in the U.S. is on federal land. U.S. oil production hit a record high last year, even though President Joe Biden has limited federal oil lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and curbed oil and gas exploration in much of Alaska.

Market forces, namely volatile global oil prices and innovation by the oil industry, have greater influence on industry output than the White House, the analysts say.

When global oil and gas prices are high, American companies increase output to financially benefit, Kellogg said. This year, global oil demand is expected to keep rising, bringing prices and production up.

Meanwhile, oil companies continue to innovate, developing technology that better identifies where oil fractures occur and where to drill.

However, a Republican president determined to “drill, drill, drill” — to quote Trump — wouldn’t be inconsequential in the long term.

Analysts say a president’s oil policies can influence future industry developments.

“As far as new production goes, presidential impacts can be quite significant over time — but emphasis on the time,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners. He said opening federal land to oil and gas leasing can affect output five to 10 years down the line.

So far, Trump and Haley have been vague about which Biden environmental policies they would dial back. They could target an upcoming fee on methane emitted from oil and gas infrastructure, rules to prevent methane leaks, or a slowdown in federal oil lease sales.

Such policy changes would hardly affect prices at the gas pump. But they could put the U.S. at odds with international efforts to combat climate change, said Jason Rylander, senior adviser for the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund.

“We’re coming out of [the U.N.’s annual climate conference] with an international commitment to begin a phase-out from fossil fuels,” he said. “It’s appalling our political leaders would be actively campaigning on expansion of new oil and gas development.”