White House criticized over oil export veto threat

WASHINGTON – The White House has come under fire following the publication of a policy announcement saying that the administration “strongly opposes” legislation to remove restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports.

According to the policy statement, such legislation “is not needed at this time” and Congress should focus “its efforts on supporting our transition to a low-carbon economy.”

The House is scheduled to vote on a bill, sponsored by Representative Joe Barton (R - Ennis), to lift the decades-old oil export restrictions on Friday. But, according to the statement, the president's “senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

The announcement drew criticism from IPAA, API and U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

IPAA President Barry Russell called on President Obama to reconsider his position and direct the U.S. Department of Commerce to lift trade restrictions on U.S. oil exports.

Stacking rigs

“It’s discouraging to see this White House negotiate a trans-pacific trade agreement and authorize Iran to export its oil, while America’s energy producers are left tightening their belts and shutting down their rigs,” Russell said. “Shouldn’t American companies have the same competitive access to global markets?”

API also expressed disappointment in the administration’s stance. “Even experts within the administration recognize that free trade in oil could benefit American consumers and create U.S. jobs,” said API Executive V.P. Louis Finkel, citing reports by the Energy Information Administration and other agencies. “Given the benefits for U.S. families and workers, it’s hard to imagine why the administration would reject bipartisan efforts to unlock America’s potential as an energy superpower even as it pushes for a deal to lift the oil embargo on Iran.”

And U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R – Alaska) said, “It is unfortunate that the White House fails to understand the national security and geopolitical benefits of lifting the ban on oil exports. Ask Poland, which is 96% reliant on Russia for its oil, or Japan, which must continue to rely on Iran, if U.S. oil ‘is not needed at this time.’ The veto threat reveals a fundamental misalignment within the administration. These policy contradictions merit further attention. Regardless of what the president’s advisers may tell him, congressional legislation has become necessary: even though he has the authority to act, he has not—even though the time is right, the need is clear, and the global dividends promise to be significant.”