Yesterday, the Obama administration announced its rejection of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would have traveled from the Canadian oil sands to the U.S. refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

In the State Department press release, the administration blames Congress for forcing him to make a decision, claiming the administration simply does “not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.”

Therefore, the administration deemed the construction of Keystone XL “not to serve the national interest.” Really? The construction of this pipeline was set to create 20,000 jobs for Americans. It would have secured a source of much-needed oil that may not be domestic, but at least sourced from Canada, our neighbor and great ally. The completion of this pipeline also would have helped America’s independent producers, who face a backlog in the transport of their oil from Cushing, Oklahoma.

Additionally, the press release even indicates that the president has had four years to review the Keystone permit: “since 2008…been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review.” That’s when President Obama was elected! Four years is still not enough time?

This flat-out rejection of American jobs, energy security, and economic development is sure confirmation of the administration’s animosity toward the oil and natural gas industry and demonstrates the chokehold that the President’s environmental base has over the administration. The labor unions, a huge base of the Democratic Party, are up in arms over this rejection of jobs. Canadian Prime Minister Harper expressed his “profound disappointment” of President Obama’s decision.

Once again, the administration puts pressure from its environmental base over the needs of the American people. In a struggling economy, the fact that the President puts concerns of radical, anti-development activists over blue collar Americans who would have benefited from the well-paying Keystone XL pipeline jobs is truly shameful.

Yesterday, the Durham Herald Sun reported that a group of respected scholars came together yesterday on an unbiased, academic panel to discuss the economic, environmental and social impacts of hydraulic fracturing.  RIGHT.

The group that actually came to Duke University on Monday was a gang of biased, anti-development professors whose studies on natural gas and hydraulic fracturing have been discredited over and over again.

Robert Jackson, professor and director of the Center on Global Change at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment (the title of which truly says it all) was the author of a study called “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.” Energy in Depth combed through the study – highlighting the problems with the data, revealing the author’s bias and bringing to light the authors’ own admission that hydraulic fracturing has no impact on water wells.

Not least among the panelists was Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, and author of the notorious paper which claims that natural gas has more emissions than coal. This study has been “debunked by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Mellon University, and even his own colleagues on campus.”  Check out Energy in Depth’s smack-down of the paper to see how completely biased and manipulated this study was.

Susan Chistopherson, another Cornell professor, said on the panel that the economic benefits are overrated and that “longterm outcomes for the places where drilling takes place are not ‘particularly favorable.’”

Couple that biased, dour outlook with today’s Bloomberg news article about the economic ripple effect of oil and natural gas drilling which started off saying:

“Thirty-four years after Black Monday, the day Youngstown Sheet & Tube announced shutdowns marking the end of the Ohio city’s steel era, a $650 million mill is coming to life thanks to the natural-gas drilling boom.”

It continued on to cite these statistics from Marcellus shale development:

“Employment by businesses directly involved in Marcellus shale grew 114 percent in the first quarter of 2011 from the same period in 2008, according to the Pennsylvania Center for Workforce Information and Analysis. Wages in Marcellus industries average $76,036, compared with the state average of $46,222.”

It’s truly a shame Duke and Cornell are not serving their purpose as academic institutions to seek the truth but getting together to espouse to each other their politically-motivated, debunked accusations in the form of an “academic panel.”

There are real concerns from the public about the environmental impact of natural gas development which need to be addressed by academics, industry, and the government. However, these blatantly biased panels instill illegitimate fear in the public and detract from these real concerns.  The industry is ready and willing to participate a real, honest conversation surrounding hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development.

This morning, Lee Fuller, IPAA’s vice president of government relations appeared on a panel on hydraulic fracturing on the Diane Rehm Show (NPR & WAMU’s 88.5). The purpose of the panel was to address the “New Concerns Over Hydraulic Fracturing.” The panelists included two of the natural gas industry’s most vocal opponents – Ian Urbina,  New York Times’ reporter of the infamous “Drilling Down” series, and Dusty Horwitt of the Environmental Working Group, an active anti-development organization. Peter Robertson of America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) represented the natural gas industry as well.

Throughout the interview, as accusations on environmental dangers of natural gas development were addressed, Lee urged the panel and the public to put accusations in a broader context.

On Hydraulic Fracturing

“It’s important to put this in some context. The context is we’ve probably done a 1.2 million or so hydraulic fracturing jobs in the United States since it was initiated and the success record for that effort has been extraordinary—to the point where we’re now looking for one or two instances to try to suggest that there is some sort of systemic problems with fracturing.”

“In fact, all of the analyses that have been done suggest that fracturing is safely managed now and continues to be safely managed.”

On Pavillion

“It hasn’t been peer reviewed. It’s very important that we not jump at conclusions with respect to Pavillion until there is a better chance for questioning to be made.”

“Even EPA Administrator Jackson has been very cautious taking a position on the quality of this report. Secretary Salazar of DOI has been very critical. The state of Wyoming is concerned about the quality of the data.”

“In fact, one of the monitoring wells that EPA drilled may well have been drilled into a natural gas formation. The reason why they’re seeing various chemicals and compounds there may have been from their own well operations.”

On Landowners

“We have about a million oil and gas wells that are in operation today in the United States and around 8.5 million leaseholders. The process for actually going through the leasing activity is one that has been working in general quite well.”

“As the industry has moved into areas like the Marcellus in Pennsylvania and New York…the familiarity with the industry is not as extensive. There probably needs to be a better mechanism to share information with the potential leaseholders as that contract is being negotiated.”

To listen to the full segment, please click here.

This week, businessman Steve Forbes came out in full defense of the industry – and on the attack against President Obama’s anti-industry rhetoric. In Politico, he discussed the political hot button issue of the oil and gas industry’s tax provisions, mischaracterized as “subsidies” by the White House.

Instead of allowing the industry to do what they do best – invest in the economy, unlock energy, and create jobs—Forbes discusses how President Obama and his compatriots in Congress have demonized the industry, painting them as an industry propped up by taxpayer handouts. This could not be further from the truth.

As Forbes points out, “What the president knows, but fails to divulge in making his case, is that U.S. oil and natural gas companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies. The provisions he’s targeting for repeal are the same tax credits and deductions available to a broad swath of other U.S. companies.” In fact, the industry pays an enormous amount to the federal government – over $86 million dollars a day.

Or, look at it this way: “The industry is taxed at an effective rate of 41 percent. For comparison, the average tax bracket for industrial companies is 26 percent. The oil and gas industry pays its fair share. If the president were really interested in creating jobs and economic growth, he would support more domestic energy production rather than punitive tax increases.”

President Obama has made it clear he supports a “green agenda.” Not only do green projects produce a miniscule amount of energy compared to oil and natural gas, they do not create jobs! They are not a real competitive source of energy – Solyndra is not an exception, it’s the tip of the iceberg.  

On the other hand, opening up America’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas and promoting development would create more than 1 million jobs would “create more than 1 million jobs nationwide; channel an estimated $800 billion in additional government revenues; and contribute 10 million more barrels of oil and natural gas per day by 2030.” Why are we arguing again?

It’s truly astounding that President Obama has an answer to the economic crisis by way of the job creating oil and natural gas industry, but instead seeks to stifle their productivity. The oil and natural industry is helping the poor and the middle class across the entire country by providing them with well-paying jobs.  This can be real, lasting economic recovery—if the President stops political pandering.

I encourage you to read the full article.

With election season almost in full swing, you hear alot of political battling over which candidate or party is truly “fighting for the middle class.” Underneath the political rhetoric on the campaign trail and in Washington, one thing is indisputable. The oil and natural gas industry is changing the lives of middle class people. Let’s hear a few stories.

Colorado:

Rick Davis and mother Ruth Davis: Rick’s father, Joe, told them stories from years ago of Coloradoans striking it rich after oil and gas were discovered underneath their property. He never gave up on that possibility—advising his family to hold onto those rights. Now, years later, Rick and his 88-year old mother Ruth have leased their land to oil and gas to “follow Joe’s dream.” (New York Times)

Ohio:

Cory May: A young veteran and native of eastern Ohio, Cory’s mother is a janitor and his father is an unemployed machinist. For years, Cory (pictured above) thought his only career option for years was either the military or a minimum wage job in a factory. Until the natural gas industry rolled into Ohio and “changed his prospects.” Cory took a two week shale exploration course that upon completion, qualified him to apply for industry jobs. Now he has taken a job cementing wells for Halliburton that pays well above the minimum wage — $60-$70K a year!  “It blew my mind, really. I was like – what? It’s [the industry] coming here? It’s kind of unheard of, really.” (Associated Press)

John Riggs: John works on the drilling rigs in Carroll County, Ohio: Over the roar of engines, he yells, “The benefits are good. They treat you right. Where else are you going to find a job working six months a year making one hundred grand?” (The Plain Dealer)

Donna Sauer: The sleepy town of Carrollton, Ohio in which Donna has lived and owned Donnna’s Deli for years, is all of a sudden fresh with activity, excitement, and – customers. She calls the roughnecks, engineers, and surveyors (her new customers) “the gas guys” and describes them as really the “nicest people…extremely courteous.” The oil and natural gas industry and the residents have a mutually beneficial relationship. Donna describes, “We’re happy they’re here, and they’re happy to be here.” (The Plain Dealer)

Monica Wetherell: The Wetherell’s family property in the hills outside of smalltown Stuebenville is on land which has natural gas reserves. Once used as a dairy farm, it will soon be leased to a drilling company for one million dollars. “It’s peace of mind … knowing that when the money comes we’ll be able to put money away for college for the kids, pay off some debts.” (ABC News)

North Dakota:

Barb Russell: A 60 year old grandmother from Farmington, Barb moved to the oil fields of North Dakota to improve her job prospects. Barb sure did—in the form of a tripled income. She now uses her prior experience as a school bus driver to bus Halliburton workers to the drilling rigs every morning. (Star Tribune)

Mark Luna: An unemployed electrician from Phoenix, Mark started sending resumes to Bismarck, North Dakota when he heard about the Bakken boom. In Arizona, “it took 30 days just to get a call back…Here, it took only a week” – to get an offer. Two weeks later, Mark moved with his family to North Dakota. (ABC News)

A few weeks ago, Washington political world was a-buzz with the news that President Obama decided to back off an EPA rule to tighten Bush-era ozone standards due to the enormous burden it would put on businesses. This was an absolute win for the industry, but a blow to Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who has been crusading for this rule since she became head of the EPA in 2009. She went so far to say that the current ozone standards were not “legally defensible.”

Following the announcement, many inside the Beltway questioned Lisa Jackson’s tenure at EPA. However, she publicly and respectfully agreed to stand behind President Obama’s decision, making  it clear that she would not be leaving.  In the weeks following, Obama has made inroads to mend fences with environmental groups. In a press release, he suggested that backing off the job-killing ozone rule was an exception and wrote, “Work is already under way to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.” In other words, “we’ll pick this up later.”

Whether or not President Obama has made personal promises to Ms. Jackson to more harshly regulate the oil and natural gas industry in order to make up politically for backing off the EPA ozone rule, one thing is apparent: In recent weeks, Obama has amped up his anti-industry sentiment in his pitch for jobs.

Right now part of his jobs plan is calling for repealing the “tax loopholes” on oil and natural gas. In reality, these investment-encouraging provisions are applied to all industries. Repealing these provisions is not only counterproductive to job creation, but actually destructive as it would cost thousands of jobs and particularly devastate the smaller independent companies. Please read the IPAA tax structure analysis to learn how repealing the historic provisions will cost the country.

President Obama is nervous about the vocal environmentalists. What Obama should be most concerned with is job creation. In fact, the oil and natural gas industry is one of the only industries currently creating a large amount of well-paying jobs in spite of economic turmoil.  But for radical environmentalists, the fact that the nation is facing an economic crisis is not paramount. Despite the fact that the oil and natural gas industry overall has an extremely safe track record, these environmentalists believe quelling industry and development is a absolute moral issue. In reality, the moral issue is putting Americans back to work. Millions of families are struggling. People are taking jobs that they are overqualified for. Companies, burdened by regulations, are forced to lay off workers or close up shop completely.

President Obama is seeking to appease the environmental wing through hurting the oil and natural gas industry. It’s clear that overhauling the tax provisions for the industry would be the ultimate trophy for environmentalists. For the sake of job creation, economic growth, and energy security—lawmakers, the public, and industry must fight to ensure that they do not succeed.

Tonight, in front of Congress, President Obama will announce his much-anticipated jobs plan. The cost of the plan is set at $300 billion, much to the chagrin of many lawmakers in Congress who want to scale back the government’s spending spree due to a deepening national debt. 

In Detroit last week, President Obama gave a preview of his plan in front of labor union members, which includes putting people back to work through government-funded construction projects reminiscent of the stimulus package. Later in the speech, he called out Republicans in Congress for defending the historic tax structure for oil and gas companies: “…you say you’re the party of tax cuts?  Well then, prove you’ll fight just as hard for tax cuts for middle-class families as you do for oil companies and the most affluent Americans.” In fact, these lawmakers are actually helping middle class families.  The historic tax structure encourages private American investment and, consequently, American jobs. Read how repealing the tax structure for American oil and natural production will cost this country.

It’s puzzling that President Obama continues to target the oil industry, considering it’s one of the few bright spots in this dismal economy actually creating a large amount of well-paying jobs. The oil and natural gas industry could be an even larger pillar for job creation if the President changes his administration’s course on energy policy. John Schiller, chairman and CEO of Energy XXI, targeted the problem, saying “if the government would get out of the way, from a regulation standpoint, and let us [XXI] do what we do good, you’ll see us continue to hire and grow this economy.”

Meanwhile, Americans are echoing this frustration at the administration. President Obama’s job approval ratings are at an all time low of 38 percent, numbers which came in the wake of news that no new jobs were created in August and unemployment remains at 9.1 percent, despite White House forecasts that it would drop to 8.3 percent in 2012.

Yesterday, a Wood Mackenzie study revealed that policies that expanded drilling in the United States would create over 1 million jobs by 2020. The study looked at the effects of policies which would loosen regulatory restrictions on drilling to open up vast areas of resource-rich land for development—land that is now off-limits. It included policies that would speed up permitting in the Gulf, open up New York for shale drilling, and approve the Keystone Pipeline XL. Not only would jobs be created, but the government’s own bank account would be replenished. The study estimates that wider development would add $36 billion in new revenue by 2015 and $803 billion by 2030. The study reported that in addition to jobs, these policies would produce an additional 1.27 million barrels of oil-equivalent (BOE) per day by 2015 and 4.19 million BOE in 2020. This goes a long way to increasing our energy security and minimizing our dependence on foreign oil—two goals President Obama says he supports.

IPAA, along with an array of industry groups, sent a letter to Obama that called for faster offshore oil and gas permitting in his plan for jobs. We’ll see if Obama’s jobs plan does indeed include a responsible energy policy that develops our rich resources and puts Americans back to work or if he will continue targeting and demonizing the very companies that are keeping this economy afloat. The American people—desperate for work—will be watching.

Last night, President Obama made a special televised address to the nation to discuss the debt ceiling negotiations. And, yep, he attacked oil companies…again.

“Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.”

This is not the first time (or the last—you can count on it) that the President has made oil companies a main target in the debt ceiling debate.

June 29, Press Conference: “And… if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship… I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys.  I don’t think that’s real radical.”

June 16, Weekly address: “I don’t think oil companies should keep getting special tax breaks when they’re making tens of billions in profits.”

April 26, Letter to Congress: “One of those steps [to address rising gas prices] is to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks to the oil and gas industry and invest that revenue into clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Although the President claims that oil and gas companies receive “tax breaks that no other business enjoys,” this is simply not true. The industry experiences deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses that all industries enjoy. Click here for the entire in-depth analysis of the oil and gas industry tax structure.

Seemingly, it wouldn’t be a presidential speech for President Obama unless he was demonizing the oil and gas industry. This is the same industry that supports 9.2 million jobs in the United States. This number should appear familiar to President Obama, as 9.2 percent is the current unemployment rate. In fact, the oil and gas industry is to thank for 7.5 percent of U.S. GDP. The activities of independent oil and gas companies specifically supported 4 million of those jobs and contributed 4 percent to the nation’s GDP.

There is no way that President Obama is unaware of these numbers. In fact, I am sure he has more than one economic advisor pointing to states like North Dakota and Oklahoma, which have respective unemployment rates of 3.2% and 5.3%, and rely heavily on the oil and gas industry. There is clearly something else at play here—many would argue an ideological opposition to the industry. This is unacceptable: Our nation desperately needs a boost in jobs and economic growth and the oil and gas industry is a key to this growth. In the midst of increasing turbulence in the Middle East, our country desperately needs energy security. Tapping into our own abundant reserves of energy here at home is a crucial part of insulating ourselves from the political pressures of these countries.

Even at the small chance that President Obama is demonizing and targeting oil companies without full knowledge of the potential economic devastation of his actions, ignorance does not equal innocence—especially not if you are the President of the United States.

Today, at a Georgetown University speech, President Obama highlighted a host of critical energy-related issues facing America. Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which represents the companies that drill 95 percent of American oil and natural gas wells, issued this statement following the President’s speech:

“As Americans continue to watch before our eyes the unfolding of truly historic world events, all of which seem to directly impact our collective energy future, the President once again has an important opportunity to demonstrate bold leadership by setting our nation on a path toward increased energy security and leading a national commitment to increased domestic production of American oil and natural gas. Indeed, the President has, and at least rhetorically, embraced these common sense goals before. However, actions speak much louder than words.

“Despite the rhetoric coming from the Obama Administration, the federal government continues to add new burdens to the federal oil and natural gas leasing and permitting process. Those new burdens overlay a process that has become laden with opportunities to delay or deny access and production of America’s resources. The Administration’s latest attempt to blame domestic oil and natural gas producers for untapped US resources through the ‘use it or lose it’ issue is merely an ill-fated attempt to detract the attention of the American people from the President’s own failed energy policies.

“It is easy to tell the American people that resources are not being developed here at home because oil and natural gas companies are sitting on idle leases both offshore and onshore. What Americans aren’t told is that only seven permits have been issued in the deepwater offshore Gulf of Mexico by the Administration since last spring, and lease sales in these areas have been put on hold. Leases can’t be developed if companies don’t have the permits necessary to proceed with exploration and production activities, which take several years and billions of dollars to develop. There is also no guarantee that oil and natural gas will be found on all of the land that is leased. If no production is found, the companies already have an obligation to return the land back to the federal government by law. Independent producers reinvest 150 percent of their American cash flow back into American production. Why would producers sit on leases that will not provide them with cash flow that will provide capital for future projects?  

“We are encouraged when we hear the President talk about the need to ‘embrace a diverse energy portfolio’ that includes the ‘responsible development and production of oil and gas at home.’ While the President talks a good game, his administration is putting in place policies that halt, rather than encourage, the production of US energy, and instead is touting oil and gas production in other parts of the world, most recently Brazil.           

“The responsible development of job-creating American oil and natural gas resources, overwhelmingly produced by small, independent operators, creates thousands of good-paying jobs while stabilizing energy costs, generates much-needed federal revenue to help pay down the skyrocketing national debt, and bolsters our national security by lessening our dependence on unstable foreign imports. Despite these clear benefits, the Administration’s current regulations, policies and proposals do quite the opposite: cost jobs, raise costs, stunt revenue and increase dependence through massive taxes, a virtual shut-down of new exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and similar slow-downs for onshore production.

“America is blessed with abundant energy resources, including a century worth of clean-burning natural gas. As world events sharpen our focus on the need to secure our own energy future, the President has a chance to pivot accordingly and put words into action by getting the Gulf back to work and encouraging the responsible production of our vast natural gas and oil resources. We remain hopeful that this opportunity won’t be another missed opportunity for America’s future.”