Obama, GOP vie for upper hand on energy

MALJAMAR, N.M. (AP) — Wooing a nation of increasingly angry motorists, President Barack Obama and his Republican rivals are all plunging into gas-pump politics, seeking the upper hand as energy becomes a driving issue in the election campaign.

The president is defending his energy agenda this week, traveling Wednesday to a solar panel plant in Nevada and oil and gas fields in New Mexico and the site of a future oil pipeline in Oklahoma that the White House is promising to accelerate. At the same time, GOP opponents from front-runner Mitt Romney on down are vigorously accusing him of stifling domestic production and betting on foolhardy alternative energy methods over traditional oil drilling.

With gasoline reaching $3.86 a gallon in the U.S. and apparently heading higher, the public is impatient for Obama — or someone in his place — to do something about it.

In truth, a president has little direct control over gas prices, which have risen more than 50 cents a gallon since January in response to a standoff over Iran’s nuclear program that has threatened to disrupt Middle East oil supplies.

Well aware of Republicans’ criticism, Obama’s advisers argue that voters take a sophisticated view toward energy and think about it as a problem demanding long-term answers. They know that talk about future solutions may not satisfy people as they endure high prices, but they’re betting that voters will side with the candidate they trust the most to deal with the issue — and they’re determined that that will be Obama.

“We’re drilling all over the place,” Obama said in Maljamar, N.M., in a field dotted with oil rigs.

Polls show less certainty about it all. One survey this month by CBS News and The New York Times found that 54 percent of Americans felt the price of gasoline was something a president could do a lot about while 36 percent said it was beyond his control. And a recent Washington Post/ABC poll found 50 percent thought the Obama administration could reasonably do something to bring down gas prices, while 45 percent felt the recent rapid rise has been beyond White House control.

Obama has repeatedly argued that drilling for new oil alone will not solve the nation’s energy woes or reduce gas prices. He accuses Republicans of claiming they can “wave a magic wand” to return to the days of cheap gas, and on Wednesday, he mocked them for having a “lack of imagination” about alternative energy.

“You’d think that everybody would be supportive of solar power,” Obama said from the Copper Mountain Solar 1 facility in Nevada, the largest plant of its kind in the country, with nearly 1 million solar panels. “And yet if some politicians had their way, there won’t be any more public investment in solar energy. There won’t be as many new jobs.”

Obama carried three of the four states on this week’s itinerary — Oklahoma is one of the safest Republican states in the nation — but all four elected Republican governors in 2010. Two of the governors, Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Susana Martinez of New Mexico, have been floated as potential vice presidential choices this year. Obama was making his first visit to Oklahoma as president

He has been hurt by his administration’s decision to pump millions into California solar company Solyndra before it collapsed. And he’s been repeatedly criticized by Republican presidential candidates for blocking the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

The mere mention of Solyndra and Keystone generate instant reactions at Republican rallies.

Romney has blamed Obama for rising gasoline prices and urged the president to fire Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, calling them the “gas hike trio.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has adopted $2.50 gasoline as a central tenet of his struggling campaign, criticizing Obama for holding up the pipeline project and mocking him as “President Algae” for highlighting research into developing oil and gas from algae.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, regularly notes his grandfather’s work as a coal miner. And he detoured his campaign to tour oil fields in North Dakota recently, labeling himself the only ardent supporter of oil drilling.

“Instead of paying two-digit dollars you’re now paying three digits,” Santorum said in Illinois. “When you see that zero come up, when it gets into the $100 range, when you see that zero, think of ‘O’ for Obama because that’s why you’re paying that extra amount of money.”

On Wednesday, Santorum campaigned at a company in Harvey, La., that services oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. He pressed the administration to open more federal lands for leases that he says would both generate revenue for the government and boost U.S. oil production.

“Here’s an opportunity for us in this country to do something about it: increasing jobs, lowering energy prices, decreasing the deficit, all of the things you would think he president of the United States would be for,” Santorum said.

In many ways, the issue has come full circle for the president. In 2008, candidate Obama criticized an inside-the-Beltway culture for the rise in gasoline prices. “So what have we got for all that experience? Gas that’s approaching $4 a gallon. Because you can fight all you want inside of Washington, but unless you change the way it works you won’t be able to make the changes America needs,” Obama said at an Indianapolis gas station in April 2008.

Now he’s the president.

From the sprawling solar plant in Nevada, Obama’s motorcade kicked up dust as it traveled into an oil field in New Mexico, where he promoted increased drilling on federal lands.

On Thursday, Obama will use Cushing, Okla., as a backdrop to highlight the decision by Calgary-based TransCanada to build a portion of the Keystone pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas. The 485-mile line from Cushing to Port Arthur, Texas, doesn’t require presidential approval because the pipeline does not cross a U.S. border.

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama plans to fast-track the pipeline.

Administration officials have said the Oklahoma-to-Texas line could address an oil bottleneck at a Cushing storage hub, but the argument may not fly in Oklahoma, where President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain carried all 77 counties in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

“It’s a PR stunt and Oklahomans aren’t buying it — the president is celebrating his failed energy policies in a community that will be hardest hit by them,” said Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla.

Obama wraps up his trip with a stop in Ohio, a key state in November, where he will discuss advanced energy research and development at Ohio State University.

Obama has few options to dramatically alter gas prices. Beyond green-lighting Keystone or opening up more oil drilling in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico, Justice Department officials could accelerate efforts to crack down on speculation in the oil markets, a move that the administration has discussed.

The White House could also tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, something it has said it would do only along with action by other countries. The U.S. released oil from its reserve last summer but saw little impact. Oil prices dropped nearly 5 percent when the government announced the release of 30 million barrels from the SPR on July 23, but prices quickly rebounded and oil ended the year higher than it started.

“Is there a lot that can be done in the short term that can have a huge impact? The answer to that is no,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton. Yet he cautioned, “I don’t think a posture of simply saying that and being the voice of responsibility in a rising political clamor is going to serve the White House politically well.”

Republicans are trying to make sure of that. Ahead of the president’s trip, the Republican-leaning super PAC Crossroads GPS was spending $650,000 on TV ads in Las Vegas, Albuquerque, N.M., and Columbus, Ohio, criticizing Obama’s handling of energy policy and the Keystone XL pipeline.

———

Associated Press writers Jennifer Agiesta, Kasie Hunt, Steve Peoples, Brian Bakst and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Comments

wyriontair 1 year, 2 months ago

You"re corrrect when you say news agencies are not doing their jobs, if they did they'd also point out that high ranking Democrats including the president have been hollering for the Saudi's and Brazil, who we gave $3 million to, to increase their production and the main reason he doesn't want to "cut the red tape" for the upper part of Keystone is because the oil that's being transported to the south is making money for the train owner, the presidents' favorite person--Warren Buffett. Even the DOE has proven the president is not being truthful about the amount of oil we could be getting and that he keeps forgetting to point out that it's only on PRIVATE lands that were permitted by the last administration where production is up. It would sure be nice to see responsible reporting, where a reporter actually researches the story and investigates to find the truth, that would be so refreshing.

0

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

We're closer to energy independence than ever before. I think Obama has a strategy of oil and gas production in the short term as a bridge to renewables in the medium/long term, which in my view depends on widespread embrace of dispersed generation. My problem with Obama is that his approach to renewables is here-and-there. He doesn't tell a story about energy independence and how renewables, dispersed generation and electric cars all work together. That's why people aren't getting it.

Also, we need more infrastructure development. New gas pipes might be important, but not as important as fixing the old gas pipes that are exploding and killing people.

Regardless, Obama isn't much different than Bush on oil policy, contra the henny pennies:

theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/could-us-actually-become-energy-independent/50237/

0

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

Make gasoline $8-10/gallon and the demand will drastically drop, as no one but the rich or the government will be able to afford to purchase gas. Maybe that is the plan for making us more energy independent: Make this country a third-world country so we don't need much gasoline.

1

asb 1 year, 2 months ago

The price of fuel is a driver of all costs, so if a price jump is too quick, you accelerate inflation and the relative price of fuel decreases. When gas was twenty cents per gallon (along with twenty cent cigarettes and twenty cent draws for beer), a sudden bump to $2 per gallon would've really hurt the economy due to peoples' unwillingness or inability to buy fuel. If you'd have jumped it to just $75 per gallon, you would've heard a lot of griping, and seen the price of beer and cigarettes take off, along with everything else that costs fuel to produce or distribute, and bring the relative price of fuel back down. But, through decades worth of five and 10 cent average increases, the cost of fuel is buried in the rest of our economy. However, it has been regressive, in that lower incomes are paying relatively more for fuel today than when gas was twenty cents, while higher incomes are not impacted. This steady rise in fuel prices, for heat and for transport, has been one of the most painful longterm bites on the lower and middle classes, and a huge source of longterm profit for the energy, and financial, sectors. And Lifer, America has a substantial third-world population, of all races, not just those who come across the border to pack poultry and pick peas.

0

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

The price of gas is never going down again, no matter what some politician tells you. The conservative movement has failed to embrace the need to rethink the way we power our society, so we're stuck in a counter-productive tug-of-war between Solyndra and "drill baby drill." If we'd taken all the money we spent on the Iraq War and invested it more wisely, we'd be a long way toward transportation that's not based on gasoline. On this point, one party lacks vision while the other lacks responsibility. It's a shame. We're wasting time, money and soldiers on oil, even thought we know it is finite and doomed. We're foolish.

0

asb 1 year, 2 months ago

Actually, the price of fuel has a VERY big impact on the cost of nearly all things, and so it is a parameter of inflation. Thank you for the definition of inflation, even though it is negative enough for you to then blame it on the President. I'd define it in more positive terms and then give him credit, even though he's only doing what sound economics and most previous Presidents have done by pushing to grow the money supply during slumps. Moderate inflation of a few percent is a sign of a healthy, growing economy. The last thing ANY economist wants to see is zero or negative money supply growth for any length of time. Borrowing against future growth requires good management, and as the economy improves now, the debt can be addressed, as it always has been.

0

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

The key to the future is dispersed generation, energy efficiency, smart grid technology and electric cars. They all go together. Focusing on one and not the others is pointless.

0

asb 1 year, 2 months ago

Diverse generation yes, Dispersed, not always so much, One of our best future sources of energy won't be able to be spread around. The first fusion plants that consistantly make more power than it takes to run them will dwarf existing 2+GW coal and nuke plants. Some estimates place them at 20-50GW to make them affordable! While there will eventually be tech for shrinking fusion to more sane sizes, our first serious fusion plants will be the largest and most complex structures ever built, greatly centralizing quite a bit of our electric production.

0

asb 1 year, 2 months ago

As long as most electricity is from burning carbon, you'll have a valid point, and even if I only charged my EV from solar cells, there's still lots of burnt carbon involved in it's production. But a double digit amount of our electricity comes from non-carbon sources. Of course Obama is different from Bush on oil, Bush IS oil. They've still both treated our supplies pretty much the same because fuel is at the core of our economy, but George went quite the extra mile to assure miniimal environmental interference from it and maximum profit from it. Are you sure American oil production has been reduced under Obama? I'm not so sure of that.

0

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Re: Oil production reduced under Obama.

Is that like "Obama has raised taxes"?

i.e., It FEELS true, but isn't?

0

RobHunterJohnson 1 year, 2 months ago

We the United States need to increase production in oil only if they make more refining available, otherwise they need to hold it until they can. There is no reason what so ever that our OIL should be going to Asia! The oil companies sell the Alaskan Oil to Asia and that needs to stop. I asked my Republican Brother-Inlaw in Nebraska what were his feelings were and he did not want it it crossing where they have it planned? They need to come into Missouri or nearer to it and build their pipeline! I would welcome it through Missouri, how about you? I paid this morning $3.59 a Gallon at Saint Robert, what gives with our little Oil companies here in Jefferson City? $3.79 it is GREED! Rob

0

evenkeel 1 year, 2 months ago

Chevy Volt facts: • GM sold 7,500 Volts in 2011 (compare to the 200,000 Chevy Cruzes sold in 2011. Cruzes are gas powered (read, reliable), costs ½ the price (read, affordable), seats more people and has greater range (read, practical) • Volts cost more than $40,000 and buyers get a $7,500 tax credit for being politically correct • Volts get 35 miles per gallon (although it is rated at 60 mpg) because it can go less than 40 miles on battery power alone

Tell me asb and Seq., how are your Volts working out for you? You folks are so futuristic! Takes my breath away.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting