mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Mexican Oil Good, Canadian Oil Bad?

The Obama Administration’s energy policy is looking more convoluted by the day. On the one hand, its controversial nixing of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried Canadian oil south to refineries in the United States, delighted his green base. On the other, the administration has also been behind plans to expand offshore drilling in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. As with so many issues, Obama has managed to find the sour spot on energy, caving to green demands on vital jobs projects but still not doing quite enough to keep them happy.

The energy policy contortionism is about to get worse. The New York Times reports that America and Mexico have just inked a deal to further expand deep water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, despite concerns that Pemex, the Mexican state oil company, is too inexperienced to conduct the drilling in a safe manner.

The logic here is baffling. Earlier this month, Obama rejected plans for a pipeline that would carry already-extracted oil from Canada to America on environmental grounds. Now he seems relatively unconcerned by inexperienced companies conducting far riskier drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico. While openness to new oil certainly represents a step in the right direction, Obama’s schizophrenic decisions suggest to us that his energy policy could use a bit more thinking through.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Kenny


    Not really.

    Did you ever think that Obama is a Third Worlder at heart who favors the so-called the ‘downtrodden’ over the evil white man?

    After all, that’s exacty what the mentors he has had from childhood on up have been telling him.

    Once you accept this politically incorrect observation, then what appears convoluted becomes straight as an arrow.

  • LarryD
  • Lyle Smith

    I also kind of think progressive Democrats have become the party of the Latin American worker, foreign or domestic.

  • dearieme

    Now listen here, young intern, this is an abortion of a sentence: “Obama rejected plans for a pipeline that would carry already-extracted oil from Canada to America on environmental grounds.” You’ve isolated what is effectively an adverbial phrase “on environmental grounds” from its verb, and managed to wrongfoot a reader who comes to half suspect that it’s the pipeline that is on environmental grounds – though what other sort of ground might it be on? Now there’s a good lad, try again.

  • J R Yankovic

    “The logic here is baffling.”

    Oh, baffling doesn’t even begin to describe it. I could think of a few others, but the results would only (further) elevate my blood pressure. Must say, though, this recent slew of “Quick Take” articles has been covering some VERY important topics in top-notch fashion. Keep ’em coming.

  • elisa

    I think the underlying consistency will be shown to be corruption. Have you never heard the advice that if something seems crazy and like it doesn’t make sense, it is usually because somebody is lying? Once you know there is dishonesty at play, the ostensible story is nothing but veils and sequins to distract from the real one. So what’s under it?

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    Follow the Money, Crony Capitalism, Warren Buffet owns the tanker trains to carry the Canadian oil the Keystone pipeline would have carried. There is no doubt money in agreeing to the Mexican Offshore oil drilling as well. We are talking about the very corrupt Mexican’s after all.

  • Kohl Haas

    Kenny has it pegged. Dinesh d’Souza explained Obama’s seeming inconsistencies very well in “The Source of Obama’s Rage”.

    And then recognize that neither Obama nor most so-called environmental organizations give a [darn] about the environment; it is a Red Herring and a means of raising funds from the gullible.

  • Brendan Doran

    Maybe he just wants a poorer America? It’s in line with ideology and his party’s interests, the more dependent we are the better for them.

  • Corlyss

    What logic?

    The socialist agenda has always been about equalizing incomes at a shockingly low level while enriching themselves. That’s their definition of “fairness.”

  • Kris

    Or maybe it’s just that Keystone was Very Important Indeed for his green base, while this latest issue is less so (for now).

    To think that this is the best possible defense of Obama…

  • Stephan

    If you relieve yourself of the preconception Obama is acting with American interests in mind (at least as how they are conventionally understood), then his actions aren’t as baffling.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service