163
Oil Doctrine Under Obama
The importance of oil to the United States is such that the issue of dependence has
created widespread concerns in the security and political community of the country.
US consumption in the Bush years averaged at around 20 million barrels per day,
10–13 million barrels of which are sourced from abroad. However, under the Bush
administration, there was no serious effort to reduce the amount of oil imports in
lieu of ensuring more control over the Middle East (Taheri and Torabi 2010:26).
However, under Obama, American oil doctrine changed dramatically, and in contrast to former US presidents, Obama reduced oil imports and reduced environmental impacts. As a result, unlike other US presidents, Obama’s oil doctrine principles
and programs were designed with a view to reducing oil consumption, reducing oil
imports, shifting to new energies, solving environmental problems, and reducing the
Middle East’s importance to the United States. However, this is not to say that
Obama’s actions should be considered as having reduced the importance of oil. The
reality is that, at least in the medium term, there are no suitable alternatives to oil.
And thus, oil continued to represent one of the main pillars of Obama’s foreign and
domestic policy, with the goal of reducing dependency alongside attempts to continue the same policy of control and security of supply and transfer of oil.
Obama caught all conventional oil and gas producers in OPEC and outside OPEC
such as Caspian basin literal states by surprise. Shale oil production passed well
over 5 mbd in 2015, and though it lost over 2.5 mbd in production volume in 2016,
it had flooded the market, thereby lowering the price of oil in coordination with
Saudi Arabia. Many oil-producing countries in and outside OPEC were hit hard by
the drop in oil prices—losing more than half of the value of their reserves. On the
other hand, nearly three million barrels of shale oil went out of stream, proving too
costly to get back online (Author’s interview with Dr. Feridon Barkeshli 2017).
Matthew Bryza, who served as “US Ambassador to Azerbaijan” and before that,
“Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,” believes
that there was no difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration—or the Clinton administration for that matter—in terms of Caspian energy
diplomacy, or Eurasian diplomacy throughout the course of these developments. All
three administrations understood the importance of helping European allies diversify. Initially, the focus of this entailed oil, through the BTC project, and subsequently natural gas (Author’s interview with Ambassador Matthew Bryza 2017).
According to Matthew Bryza, the Bush and Obama administrations focused a lot
more on natural gas diversification than the Clinton administration—whose main
focus was oil. And, thus, one can attest to a difference in implementation, if not
in goals.
Obama, Central Asia, and Caspian Sea Region
Oil Doctrine Under Obama
The importance of oil to the United States is such that the issue of dependence has
created widespread concerns in the security and political community of the country.
US consumption in the Bush years averaged at around 20 million barrels per day,
10–13 million barrels of which are sourced from abroad. However, under the Bush
administration, there was no serious effort to reduce the amount of oil imports in
lieu of ensuring more control over the Middle East (Taheri and Torabi 2010:26).
However, under Obama, American oil doctrine changed dramatically, and in contrast to former US presidents, Obama reduced oil imports and reduced environmental impacts. As a result, unlike other US presidents, Obama’s oil doctrine principles
and programs were designed with a view to reducing oil consumption, reducing oil
imports, shifting to new energies, solving environmental problems, and reducing the
Middle East’s importance to the United States. However, this is not to say that
Obama’s actions should be considered as having reduced the importance of oil. The
reality is that, at least in the medium term, there are no suitable alternatives to oil.
And thus, oil continued to represent one of the main pillars of Obama’s foreign and
domestic policy, with the goal of reducing dependency alongside attempts to continue the same policy of control and security of supply and transfer of oil.
Obama caught all conventional oil and gas producers in OPEC and outside OPEC
such as Caspian basin literal states by surprise. Shale oil production passed well
over 5 mbd in 2015, and though it lost over 2.5 mbd in production volume in 2016,
it had flooded the market, thereby lowering the price of oil in coordination with
Saudi Arabia. Many oil-producing countries in and outside OPEC were hit hard by
the drop in oil prices—losing more than half of the value of their reserves. On the
other hand, nearly three million barrels of shale oil went out of stream, proving too
costly to get back online (Author’s interview with Dr. Feridon Barkeshli 2017).
Matthew Bryza, who served as “US Ambassador to Azerbaijan” and before that,
“Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,” believes
that there was no difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration—or the Clinton administration for that matter—in terms of Caspian energy
diplomacy, or Eurasian diplomacy throughout the course of these developments. All
three administrations understood the importance of helping European allies diversify. Initially, the focus of this entailed oil, through the BTC project, and subsequently natural gas (Author’s interview with Ambassador Matthew Bryza 2017).
According to Matthew Bryza, the Bush and Obama administrations focused a lot
more on natural gas diversification than the Clinton administration—whose main
focus was oil. And, thus, one can attest to a difference in implementation, if not
in goals.
Obama, Central Asia, and Caspian Sea Region