The U.S. oil and gas industry is in the midst of a renaissance—for the first time since the Truman administration, the U.S. has become a net exporter of gasoline and diesel. As this renaissance continues, the industry is creating more jobs, yet energy hasn’t been a large focus in this presidential campaign.

Jack Gerard, president and chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute (API), contends that with the main crux of this presidential election being job creation and economic recovery, energy should be at the heart of the debate, since the industry is experiencing significant growth.

“A lot of people don’t understand that the U.S. is a very energy-rich nation. In many ways, we have more resources than most other major producers around the world,” he said while speaking at API’s “Energy in the Presidential Debates” event in Washington on September 19. However, he cautioned that the ability to fully utilize these resources is dependent upon the sort of public policies in place.

A big change on the political front is that the discussion on energy is no longer as focused on the environmental aspects, but rather being viewed from an economic viewpoint. “You hear energy talked about less from the environmental side of the equation and much more about what it can do for our country to create jobs, generate revenue and make us more energy sustainable,” he said.

Gerard said that API hopes that when energy is brought up during the presidential debates, it is discussed in terms of how relevant it is to economic recovery and job creation. As an example of the positive impact that the oil and gas industry can have on a region, he cited North Dakota. “North Dakota is not so little anymore. It is the No. 2 oil producer in the country and has the lowest unemployment rate in the U.S.”

When asked why API has been critical of President Obama in the past, Gerard stated that the administration’s deeds to support domestic energy haven’t matched its words on the subject. “I think the president is very sincere in his efforts to create jobs, we just wonder why he hasn’t taken action to create jobs, particularly as they are related to oil and gas.”

Gerard stated that the administration has been slow to provide access to leases on federal lands—both onshore and offshore. “We need to think today about our energy future 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road. The lead times, particularly in oil and natural gas, are relatively long compared to other energy forms. We need to make policies today that will ensure that we’ve got adequate supplies a decade from now, when demand starts to increase as a result of population growth and economic recovery,” he said.

According to Gerard, the bulk of the growth in oil and gas production has come from private and state land, while production out of the Gulf of Mexico is off by 20% from the original forecast.

He added that there is an unrealistic push for renewables from sections of the government, while questioning whether the government is providing as much support as will be necessary for the country’s future energy needs.

“We need more renewables of all forms, but we shouldn’t overlook the fundamental fact that oil and natural gas today provide 62% of all the energy we consume. By the government’s own estimates, 30 years from now oil and gas will still be over 50% of the energy equation,” Gerard said.

He specified two areas in which the government could help the oil and gas industry meet the country’s future energy needs: provide more access to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and avoid imposing federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

API president and CEO Jack Gerard (left) and Frank Sesno (right), director of George Washington University’s school of media and public affairs, discussed how the oil and gas industry can help the U.S. economy recovery (courtesy API)

Gerard stated that producers have been limited to approximately 15% of the OCS with all of these leases being located in the Gulf of Mexico. He called for the government to provide access to the OCS in the South Atlantic, which he claimed has broad political support in the state of Virginia from both Democratic and Republican leadership.

In the case of federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, he noted that historically the oil and gas industries have been regulated at the state level. The addition of federal regulations would add unnecessary costs by duplicating regulations already in place related to the production of oil and gas from unconventional plays.

“The process of hydraulic fracturing has been used in the U.S. for more than 65 years. It has been developed and improved on considerably. We have drilled more than 1.2 million wells using this technology, and there has never been a case of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. There are a lot of natural occurrences with methane and other gases that are already in the water. I know of no other industry, no other modern technology, that has as great a track record as we have with hydraulic fracturing,” Gerard said.

“There’s currently an effort under way at the federal level with 10 different departments and agencies that could potentially regulate (hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling). There is no need to overburden and to lay an additional level of regulation that will conflict and confuse what the states have moved quickly to address to protect the environment and (the citizenry),” he continued.

Gerard was quick to point out that API was not calling for limited regulations, just not duplicative regulations. “We need robust regulatory activities. We’re very supportive of having an appropriate regulatory regime. What we don’t want are provisions that are unnecessary, that duplicate and require years to get a permit to produce.”

API has also been critical of the notion that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” that will work to transition consumers from crude oil/gasoline to renewables since the term implies a short-term period in which only one energy source is used.

“I don’t know how you define ‘transition,’ because oil and gas will be around for 30, 40, 50 years clearly as dominant fuels. What happens after that is unclear. It took us 100 years in the U.S. to transition from wood as the primary form of energy. Where we look at these transitions, we need to think long-term and that requires planning for multiple decades. We need an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy. We will need all fuel sources going forward. That approach will be much more thoughtful than to have gut reactions of ‘us versus them,’” he said.