During her recent swing through South Carolina, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann made a promise while bashing President Barack Obama’s economic record that if she were elected president, she would bring back $2 per gallon gas prices.
She topped the comment off with a declared “That will happen,” as if the world’s oil markets were subject to the commands of a solitary politician. Responding to the criticism that she made a promise that was simple pandering to the masses, she told “America’s Morning News,” an affiliate of the Washington Times, that $2 gas was achievable and explained how it could happen.
In so doing, Bachmann not only revealed how she could lower gas prices, but she also solved America’s energy problems and created “millions of high-paying jobs instantly.”
Bachmann said Obama had ” lock[ed] up America’s energy reserves.” The three-term congresswoman, claiming the United States was the “No. 1 energy-resource-rich nation in the world,” ticked off examples of the vast untapped resources of America: shale coal oil, natural gas, off-shore oil.
“We just aren’t accessing or utilizing our energy,” she said. “Energy could be one of the most stable, accessible forms of resources for business in the United States. … And we would create millions of high-paying jobs instantly.”
Instantly. Not only does the tea party leader offer jobs for a nation that currently hosts a 9.1 unemployment rate (13.9 million individuals) and sees no end in sight for high unemployment levels in the near future, but she can see “high-paying” jobs if America’s resources are opened up for use.
If only …
Bachmann’s claims should be welcome words to the collective ears of a country trying to shrug off the aftereffects of the Great Recession, but they are not. Not because a lot of what Bachmann says is true, but because of what she says that is not.
Shale coal oil extraction is a laborious, expensive process. The reason why those massive Canadian and Western United States shale coal fields have not been exploited is not because of the Obama administration’s regulation-heavy hand. Shale coal oil extraction wasn’t pursued with alacrity during the “pro” oil-and-coal days of the Bush administration, either.
The reason? The high price of extraction. Getting liquid crude oil from the ground has been far easier and less expensive. And given its expense, it is most likely that developing shale oil, even combined with traditional oil obtaining methods, will not bring the price of gas down (which was Bachmann’s original argument for its development).
As for traditional extraction methods, even if all the areas available for off-shore drilling were to be employed, they would only make an estimated 500,000 barrel-per-day dent in American consumption rate (which is currently near 19 million barrels per day) — and not until 2030 (according to the Energy Information Administration).
The natural gas reservoirs of the U. S. are extensive and are being promoted by others, like oil billionaire turned alternative energy advocate T. Boone Pickens, as a way to lower America’s dependence on foreign oil. At present, the resource is underdeveloped and would take some time to reach peak production, making it a doubtful candidate for appreciably lowering the price of regularly produced gas anytime soon, if at all.
Although it is true that America needs jobs, it is also true that the “millions of high-paying jobs instantly” created through Bachmann’s ideas of available resource development are an exaggerated extrapolation and overly optimistic, even though a case could be made that a relatively large number of jobs could be created over a period of years.
And although it could be argued that exploiting America’s vast resources would have an impact on the price of gas, it is doubtful that the impact, given the time, cost, and increasing world consumption and competition, would see the price of gas fall to $2 per gallon.
But it is doubtful that a politician like Bachmann, who is known for exaggerations, unsubstantiated claims and outright falsehoods, would care about any of the details that suggest that her promises are unrealistic. She has votes to garner. She has a presidency to win.