‘Ten Policies to Unleash American Energy and Fuel Recovery’ (API gets nine of ten right)

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — June 27, 2022

” … it is time for an energy awakening – for the natural gas and oil supply chain and the government at all levels to open a new era of working together to ensure that essential energy resources are unlocked; to encourage investment opportunities and accelerate infrastructure development; and to strengthen global energy security, affordability and reliability.” (API, below)

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has represented the larger integrated oil companies since its founding just over a century ago. Much of its early mission was to standardize machinery specifications as well as accounting practices to modernize and streamline the industry. But API’s other major function has been politics, which became so great that the trade group moved from New York City to Washington, D.C. in 1969.

Often, the self-interest of the majors was the free market, particularly in the troubled 1970s. But API supported state-level market-demand proration in the 1920s and 1930s forward, and today it supports government subsidies for what its members can do in the name of climate change, such as carbon capture and storage. In fact, API gave up the moral high ground and has been playing defense since ceding the climate debate to the activist Left.

That has now changed. The global energy crisis, and energy problems at home, have given oil and gas a wide opening. The radical anti-fossil-fuel agenda of Joe Biden has citizen voters up in arms–and the oil and gas industry has the answers that Obstructionist Biden does not.

Thus API finds itself on offense and, to some extent, off the greenwash climate-alarmism bandwagon.

So it was of interest to review API’s much advertised 10-point plan to right-size the industry to meet high and growing domestic and world demand for oil and natural gas. There is no Peak Oil or Peak Gas; there is an Outsized Government that is artificially constraining a free-market industry.

Nine of the ten proposals below are free-market-oriented. But #7, mentioned here (yellow), is not:

Advance Lower Carbon Energy Tax Provisions
Congress should expand and extend Section 45Q tax credits for carbon capture, utilization, and storage development and create a new tax credit for hydrogen produced from all sources.

Plank #7 should be changed to:

End Preferential Tax Credits
Congress should should not expand or extend Section 45Q tax credits for Carbon Capture and Storage. Congress should not extend subsidies for Electric Vehicles and should eliminate the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar.


10 for 2022 Manifesto

America’s core promise – the freedom to be, to create, to aspire – drives the opportunity for all Americans to have better lives and reach new heights. American energy empowers American opportunity. Given today’s global unrest and economic uncertainty, this has never been more true.

Americans have been here before, with fuel shortages in the 1970s serving as a vivid reminder. Today, energy demand is outstripping supply. Inflation is the highest it has been in 40 years. Fuel prices have soared. Putin’s brutal aggression in Ukraine has united the West against his regime and the energy he once sold to Europe. It is all connected – and alarming. But a solution is beneath our feet.

Our nation is blessed with abundant natural gas and oil that is the envy of other countries. It is a foundation of our economy, supporting more than 11 million U.S. jobs, and makes our American way of life possible. It has revived Main Street storefronts, restored U.S. manufacturing, driven job creation and bolstered our nation’s ability to compete. It has made America safer in a turbulent world.

Given global circumstances, it is time for an energy awakening – for the natural gas and oil supply chain and the government at all levels to open a new era of working together to ensure that essential energy resources are unlocked; to encourage investment opportunities and accelerate infrastructure development; and to strengthen global energy security, affordability and reliability.

Bottom line: Washington policymakers must confront the global mismatch between demand and supply that has driven higher fuel prices by supporting greater U.S. production. To address the growing crisis we face, Congress and the President must support energy investment, create new access and keep regulation from unnecessarily restricting energy growth. The world is calling out for energy leadership. America can and should step up fast.

API’s 10-point plan to restore U.S. energy leadership and help fulfill our great nation’s core promise.

  1. Lift Development Restrictions on Federal Lands and Waters
    The Department of the Interior (DOI) should swiftly issue a 5-year program for the Outer Continental Shelf and hold mandated quarterly onshore lease sales with equitable terms. DOI should reinstate canceled sales and valid leases on federal lands and waters.
  2. Designate Critical Energy Infrastructure Projects
    Congress should authorize critical energy infrastructure projects to support the production, processing and delivery of energy. These projects would be of such concern to the national interest that they would be entitled to undergo a streamlined review and permitting process not to exceed one year.
  3. Fix the NEPA Permitting Process
    The Biden administration should revise the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by establishing agency uniformity in reviews, limiting reviews to two years, and reducing bureaucratic burdens placed on project proponents in terms of size and scope of application submissions.
  4. Accelerate LNG Exports and Approve Pending LNG Applications
    Congress should amend the Natural Gas Act to streamline the Department of Energy (DOE) to a single approval process for all U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. DOE should approve pending LNG applications to enable the U.S. to deliver reliable energy to our allies abroad.
  5. Unlock Investment and Access to Capital
    The Securities and Exchange Commission should reconsider its overly burdensome and ineffective climate disclosure proposal and the Biden administration should ensure open capital markets where access is based upon individual company merit free from artificial constraints based on government-preferred investment allocations.
  6. Dismantle Supply Chain Bottlenecks
    President Biden should rescind steel tariffs that remain on imports from U.S. allies as steel is a critical component of energy production, transportation, and refining. The Biden administration should accelerate efforts to relieve port congestion so that equipment necessary for energy development can be delivered and installed.
  7. Advance Lower Carbon Energy Tax Provisions
    Congress should expand and extend Section 45Q tax credits for carbon capture, utilization, and storage development and create a new tax credit for hydrogen produced from all sources.
  8. Protect Competition in the Use of Refining Technologies
    The Biden administration should ensure that future federal agency rulemakings continue to allow U.S. refineries to use the existing critical process technologies to produce the fuels needed for global energy markets.
  9. End Permitting Obstruction on Natural Gas Projects
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should cease efforts to overstep its permitting authority under the Natural Gas Act and should adhere to traditional considerations of public needs as well as focus on direct impacts arising from the construction and operation of natural gas projects.
  10. Advance the Energy Workforce of the Future
    Congress and the Biden administration should support the training and education of a diverse workforce through increased funding of work-based learning and advancement of STEM programs to nurture the skills necessary to construct and operate oil, natural gas and other energy infrastructure.

Final Comment

API can do more, building on the above plan (except for Plank #7 as it now stands). The writings, lecturing, and advocacy of Alex Epstein and Robert Bryce should be 1) acknowledged for setting up the Great Reversal in policy debate and action that is evident today and 2) promoted to seize the moral high ground in the climate/energy debate.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 2:25 pm

About the comment ‘No peak oil and no peak gas’.

I agree about natgas at least for many decades to come thanks to fracking and abundant gas shales not just in the US, but in Russia, China, and Europe.

I disagree about no peak oil. The peak in conventional oil happened about 2008, and the peak including unconventional (extra heavy, fracked shales) is between about 2023 and 2025. This is calculable 3 independent ways. And creaming curves by basin say that about 76-80% of all the crude oil to ever be discovered already has been, so exploration won’t save the day. This not, however, the disaster peak oilers have claimed in the past. The reason is simple. Unlike Hubbert’s original peak oil prediction using a symmetrical fat tailed logistics function, the correct function is a gamma with an asymmetric big long downside tail. So the crude peak probably won’t begin to pinch for another 2-3 decades when really big fields like Ghawar and Samotlar are fully depleted. Wrote several illustrated essays about this in the energy section of ebook Blowing Smoke.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 2:51 pm


But you can always count on the “peak oil” crowd.

They never learn… just like the AGW crowd…they forget nothing and learn nothing.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 3:15 pm

at some point the peak oil crowd is going to be right. Unless you somehow believe that there is an infinite amount of oil hiding within a finite volume.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 27, 2022 3:41 pm


words (an ideal, actually) to live by.

‘Cry wolf often enough and eventually you will be correct’

James F. Evans
Reply to  DonM
June 27, 2022 3:55 pm


At this point, “peak oil” is over the economic horizon (roughly 30 years), meaning “peak oil” has no impact on today’s price or availability.

Today’s situation is 100% political.

What we need is political will.

Drill baby, drill.

The Saint
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 28, 2022 7:08 pm

None of the 10 points will ever happen under Joe Biden. That’s 2 1/2 years to go.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 27, 2022 4:13 pm

Izaak you are always talking about peak oil. It reminds me of the movie Money Pit where the construction crews responded “2 weeks” every time someone asked when there were going to be done.

So take your clown show elsewhere with your peak oil will happen some day logic. When you come on here demanding nuclear and admonishing unreliables I will know you are serious. Until then, you and Simon are the same clown shows.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 27, 2022 5:23 pm

Yes, at some point there will be peak oil. But no one will know until 10-20 years after. All predictions so far have been wrong.

Reply to  Felix
June 27, 2022 6:03 pm


Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 27, 2022 5:58 pm

At some point the peak oil crowd is going to be right. So they have one up on the AGW crowd.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2022 6:02 pm

As long as the peak oil crowd becomes right at the same time the cold fusion crowd becomes right, there should be no problem. So far they’re neck and neck.

paul courtney
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
June 28, 2022 9:53 am

Mr. Clagwell: “So far they’re neck and neck.” Excellent.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 27, 2022 9:11 pm

‘Unless you somehow believe that there is an infinite amount of oil hiding within a finite volume.’

Alarmists like you like to use scare tactics to equate a very suspect TOA imbalance of 0.5 w/m^2 to 4 Hiroshimas per second. So given that the Earth has been absorbing over 1,800 Hiroshimas per second (232 w/m^2) over hundreds of millions of years, I’d wager that there is a lot more oil to be found and produced.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 5:34 pm

Unless you believe in the myth of abiogenic oil, you are just wrong. Please read my really cheap books to educate yourself before responding again.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 6:06 pm

Even if some oil was abiogenic in origin, Earth doesn’t make it nearly as fast as we use it. “Peak Oil” won’t be driven by how much oil is in the ground… It’ll be driven by how much we use.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2022 6:28 pm

^^^ That

Rud you need to be clear are you talking about peak supply or peak demand?

James F. Evans
Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2022 7:00 pm

I agree, in my opinion, almost all oil deposits are historical, what I mean by that is that the Earth has had a linear development. These hydrocarbon deposits were formed (during the geological time-line), but are not now active or producing new oil (hydrocarbons).

In that sense, oil is finite on this planet.

But the chance for oil discoveries is potentially an order of magnitude larger than many imagine.

We don’t know until we look.

Unless we explore for oil…. and damn, the oil industry has gotten real good at finding oil.

If only we let them.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 9:12 pm

We, have not reached peak water yet, geologically.
And maybe never will.
Oil, is far well behind water in that one.
Far later comer, geologically speaking.


Reply to  James F. Evans
June 28, 2022 8:38 am

New oil is being produced. Wherever organic deposits are being buried, there is a chance that in a few million years, there will be an oil deposit. The problem as David says, is that the rate of creation is significantly less than the rate at which we are using it.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 8:53 pm

Good quote. As applicable today as it was to the Bourbons.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 3:02 pm

Do not forget liquid fuels from coal
Fischer–Tropsch process

James F. Evans
Reply to  H B
June 27, 2022 10:54 pm

The Fischer-Tropsch process produces a suite of hydrocarbons from heavy hydrocarbons to light hydrocarbons (in a continuum) much like we find in Nature.

Catalysts are the key to the Fischer-Tropsch process and are likely the key in Nature.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 28, 2022 8:17 am

Please find and point out just one single published reference to a crude oil that contains only FT products, i.e., without biomarkers.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2022 9:25 am

Scissor, a scientific paper for you:

Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum; J. F. Kenny, Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov, I. N. Plotnikova. Published in Energia, 2001.

So-called “biomarkers” are spurious and without foundation.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 4:13 pm

We’ve barely begun to explore, or have the capabilities to explore, the depths of the ocean for additional sources. Undoubtedly there are vast sources to be found there.

Also, there are many theories that oil is abiotic and is produced naturally in the Earth’s crust and isn’t just the remains of long dead and decayed former life forms. I don’t know if that is true or not, but supposedly the Russians do believe it.

I’ve heard warnings of peak oil my entire life and at each turn we find the reserves are even larger than ever known or found before.

James F. Evans
Reply to  spren
June 27, 2022 5:27 pm

Yes, we keep running into oil overall & in deeper water in the Gulf of Mexico and all over the world.

Oil geologists keep expanding their horizons and the technology has kept up with them.

This vast horizon of oil world-wide in my opinion (I subscribe to the thesis) is due to geo-physical & geo-chemical actions (not a bunch of ancient algae) in the crust of the Earth, known as abiotic oil theory.

A ton of Carbon in the Earth’s crust, a ton of Hydrogen and chemical affinity between the two.

The oil industry technology is outstanding in detecting & identifying oil deposits at a pinpoint rate of success, today, that wasn’t possible 30 years before… dry hole danger is less.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 7:15 pm

Source rocks are sedimentary rocks. All crude oils contain biomarkers.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 27, 2022 8:56 pm

So-called “source rocks” are where heavy-hydrocarbons among the suite of hydrocarbons become lodged in the hydrocarbon column, heavy-hydrocarbons at the bottom and lighter hydrocarbon at the top. It is the sedimentary deposits that have the so-called “biomarkers” and not the hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons are excellent solvents.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 28, 2022 8:27 am

Your understanding of the fundamentals of crude oil sources is incorrect. You should do some research on kerogen.

As I requested above please find and provide even just one published reference to a crude oil that does not contain biomarkers. Certainly there must be somewhere in the whole of the world where your “hydrocarbon solvents” accumulated in basalt or granite formation without have extracted sedimentary rock formations that contain fossil hydrocarbons.

Perhaps even now or certainly after you do a little research, you must admit that kerogen is the result of the accumulation of biological materials in sedimentary rock.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 28, 2022 7:38 pm

So-called “kerogen” is simply heavy hydrocarbons (long chain hydrocarbons) mixed with sediment.

Percentages of hydrocarbons in “keorgen” is generally under 10%

Sir, you didn’t request anything… you made assertions.

It’s the other way round, almost all oil isn’t checked for so-called “biomarkers”.

I’ve done research on so-called “kerogen” and mostly it’s naked assertions about “kerogen” without any evidence at all, much like your comment. “Kerogen” is assumed becausse its adherents have to come up with “source rocks”

Rather, those are reservoir rocks where heavy hydrocarbons lodge in the geologic column (hydrocarbon column).

Ancient algae??? Really….

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 28, 2022 8:46 pm

I take it you cannot find even one single reference to show a crude oil that is absent biomarkers. That was my request.

For several years, I analyzed crude oil, reservoir and source rocks for biomarkers at a major oil company that rhymes with “hell” and of all the thousands of samples, I never saw a single one that did not contain biomarkers.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2022 7:51 am

So every sample you looked at came from sedimentary deposits? If so, then it would be expected that all the samples would have “biomarkers” given the excellent solvent properties of hydrocarbons.

Regarding so-called “biomarkers”, there is a separate explanation: What are labeled “biomarkers” are similar to, but not identical to biological detritus, the assumption is that similar structures means they are biological, but any scientist will tell you that is a logical fallacy.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 29, 2022 11:05 am

I’m afraid you are a biochemistry and geochemistry denier. I think I could convince you over a beer or two, but sorry no chance to do so.

Yes, all of the samples were from sedimentary rocks. All provided to me by geologists and geochemists.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2022 11:23 am


So, you go into ad hominem (“denier”) [just like the AGW crowd] argument when I provided a scientific paper (per your request).

“Yes, all of the samples were from sedimentary rocks.”

Exactly my point (hydrocarbons are excellent solvents).

Again, your “biomarker” argument is spurious, as in being outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities.

“Looks like” does not mean “comes from” — it’s an assumption.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2022 9:18 am

Scissor, a scientific paper for you:

Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum; J. F. Kenny, Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov, I. N. Plotnikova. Published in Energia, 2001.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 29, 2022 11:16 am

I couldn’t find “Energia.” The “paper” is here though:


They do not identify any crude oil that does not contain biomarkers, which is what I asked for. They just handwave over their existence. They do not have a good grasp of biochemistry or chemistry and bastardize it. Their understanding of FT chemistry is flawed.

I also analyzed FT products for several years and especially Fe based systems do not yield products remotely resembling crude oil under any conditions.

They poo poo the occurrence of biological materials and fossils in source rocks, e.g. shale, but I wonder what they think about coal and the presence of leaves and twigs, etc.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2022 1:02 pm

Scissor, thank you for linking the paper.

They do not identify any crude oil that does not contain biomarkers…’

You miss the point, their assertion is that there are no “biomarkers” to identify, in crude oil, therefore, your request (assertion) asking to prove a negative is like proving pink unicorns don’t exist.

The authors of the paper don’t “poo poo” anything. They provide evidence based analysis.

The only “hand waving” is yours.
Readers, read the link and decide for yourself.

Fischer-Tropsch produces a suite of hydrocarbons, from heavy to light.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 29, 2022 3:47 pm

I’m well aware of the chain forming mechanism of FT. It mainly produces linear alpha-olefin derived molecules in great abundance, especially from the catalysts which would occur within the earth. It would not produce directly or indirectly the diversity and specificity of biomarkers that are observed in crude oil or source rocks.

Believe me, I would like nothing more for oil to be abiotic, but I’m afraid it is a “fossil fuel” like coal, peat, which contain similar biomarkers.

You could learn a great deal from the free portion of volume 2 of the following book.


BTW, I was being facetious about the denier bits. Sometimes my wit is a hit and sometimes it bombs. Sorry.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2022 5:12 pm

What we learn is that you don’t respond with the best evidence currently available, but, rather with assertions of authority.

Ad hominens.

Misstating conclusions of published scientific papers.

And, now, assertions of authority (logical fallacy).

Without ever responding to specific discussion of evidence or reason provided (hint, read the linked paper above).

Scissor, your performance does not abound to your credibility.

No, what it shows is how weak your case really is.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  spren
June 27, 2022 5:42 pm

You have two problems.

  1. The theory of abiotic oil has been multiply disproven.
  2. Your theories of future exploration are disproven by actual exploration results via creaming curves by basin
James F. Evans
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 6:30 pm

No it hasn’t Rud. Is there disagreement, yes, but that is a normal part of science… except with the AGW crowd.

If we don’t explore… we won’t find any oil.

The situation is political not geological.

(And economic in more normal times.)

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 28, 2022 8:44 am

When they look in places that the biological origin theory says they should find oil, they usually find oil. Though not always in economically exploitable amounts.

When they look in other places, they find no oil. That is sufficient to disprove the abiotic theory.

James F. Evans
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2022 7:45 pm

Where they find oil is in sedimentary deposits (that act as reservoirs) above fractures, faults and fissures in the bedrock with evidence of geological activity.

Actually, they find hydrocarbons emitting in many places, but you do need some sort of reservoir structure to get sizable deposits.

Your easy dismissal is evidence of a closed mind.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 6:30 pm

You have large areas of Earth currently unexplored because they are largely off bounds like Antarctic and Arctic.

Reply to  LdB
June 28, 2022 8:45 am

Much of the Arctic has been explored. Development in the US portions of the Arctic are greatly hindered.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 4:56 pm

The problem of peak oil is that we not discovered more oil than we consume since 2008. We are simply living off our savings. As the gap widens the ability to produce more oil than we consume will become more and more difficult to overcome.

Reply to  Simonsays
June 27, 2022 6:13 pm

It doesn’t actually work that way. Most reserve additions come from extensions of existing fields and performance/economic revisions, not new discoveries.

Exploration is fun… Development makes money.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2022 6:22 pm

Probably didn’t explain the point, it’s about timescale. You simply cannot respond quick enough if the gap between discovery and production and the gap between refining and demand gets too wide. It’s what we are seeing now a self inflicted oil crisis.

Reply to  Simonsays
June 27, 2022 6:29 pm

True. This is why we need consistent, reliable regulatory and leasing polices.

We’re going on 2 years without Federal lease sales and likely looking at at least a 4 year hiatus. This is disrupting ongoing exploration and development programs, particularly in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2022 9:59 pm

‘Exploration is fun.’

I remember one geologist referring to a dry hole as ‘drilling for science’.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 28, 2022 2:14 am

Those wells are called “geological successes.” 😎

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  David Middleton
June 28, 2022 7:21 am

The one I referred to was highly ‘successful’ – not only was there no pay, but they missed all of the geological markers, as well.

paul courtney
Reply to  David Middleton
June 28, 2022 9:59 am

Mr. M: Sounds like the old surgeon joke, “The operation was a success, however, the patient died.”

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 27, 2022 7:11 pm

We have enough liquid fuels for a couple of hundred years. The distinction between conventional and frack/heavy oils is artificial, other than going forward eroei will be somewhat reduced. Then add in FT-fuels from coal and eventually FT-fuels from calthrates. All within reach of today’s technology (but not necessarily economic). Technology will improve and the economics will change to reflect that. The real challenge is going to be the rate at which it can be produced.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 28, 2022 5:50 am

“Peak oil” assumes there will be no further technological innovations in the industry. Which is ridiculous.

June 27, 2022 2:29 pm

Well, a couple of other nits that I could pick in it.

#1 – “infrastructure” can very well include even more unreliables. I would change that to “critical, always available energy sources.”

#10 – get rid of the “diverse” dog whistle for affirmative action hiring of incompetents. Change that to “competent.”

Tom Halla
June 27, 2022 2:35 pm

Basically, the Biden administration would reverse all its current policies.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2022 6:22 pm

Instead of “Build back better”… Just put it back the way you found it… 😉

Reply to  David Middleton
June 28, 2022 5:57 am

Elevating gas and diesel prices so that they begin to approach the levels seen in Europe has been a Democrat policy goal for decades. Expect nothing.

James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 2:47 pm

Call them out for the Luddites they are.

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 4:15 pm

This ^

Kit P
June 27, 2022 4:46 pm

“….Congress should not extend subsidies for Electric Vehicles and should eliminate the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar.

So why is API suggesting policy for the power industry?

Because they want to get rich off the backs of American rate payers.

The power industry is heavily regulated to prevent price gouging. Excess natural has been dumped on the power industry hurting coal and nuclear for 20 years.

I am I the only one who saw what was coming when natural gas became the largest source for electricty?

This is why I invested in coal and nuclear. I also invested in stocks that API represents. I can not stop the price gouging but I can share in it.

The PTC for wind mitigates the cost of making electrity with natural gas.

Making electricty is a public service. Everytime a coal or nuke plant closed becase of cheap gas, state regulators should have asked what will be the ramifications (not if) wehn the price of natural gas goes through the roof.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Kit P
June 27, 2022 10:09 pm

‘Every time a coal or nuke plant closed becase of cheap gas…’

They didn’t close because of cheap gas. They closed because politically favored dispatch rules for wind and solar energy left gas turbines as the only reliable energy source that could ramp up and down in response to the intermittency of these ‘renewable’ energy sources.

Kit P
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 28, 2022 10:43 am

My 50 years in the power industry saysa you are wrong. First, this about the US. All US nuke are designed to load follow just as they do in Frnace. Coal plants also change power too.

When natrual gas was above $5/MMBRU, nuke plants were a gold mine. Lots of cash for engineering to keep older plants on line. Cash to finish plants where construction had been suspended. 36 new nuke plants on the NRC docket.

In many cases, I know the reasons old nuke and coal plants closed. It was cheap natural gas. I also know that many grid operaators have no problem balancing wind.

I know of no case in the US where what you claim is true.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Kit P
June 28, 2022 1:22 pm

‘I also know that many grid operaators have no problem balancing wind.’

That will come as happy news to the Germans, Brits, CA-ISO, ERCOT and other grid operators who are coming to grips with the parasitic nature of non-dispatchable resources as the politically mandated grid penetration of these resources increases beyond the point where the rest of the grid’s energy providers can compensate for their intermittency.

And nobody said that coal and nukes plants can’t modulate their aggregate output to some degree, particularly if there are a large number of units. The issue, of course, is that departing significantly from serving base load means that these units become less economical and are also unduly subjected to thermal stress, factors they didn’t have to deal with prior to the politicization of grid scale energy production.

June 27, 2022 5:09 pm

Considering the damage Biden has imposed on America and much of the western world in only 18 months, he can do an awful lot more in his remaining 30 months, always assuming he doesn’t get a second term.

He’s insane enough not to invoke a single item on that list in an effort to secure his personal legacy to the world of eliminating fossil fuels. The man has been in politics all his working life and achieved nothing, he’ll never give up on his tyrannical crusade even if it means destroying America altogether.

He has an ideological, evangelical calling and his shouting and fist waving are reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. The whispering into the microphone is just creepy and self obsessive. He truly believes the green ticket will ensure mid term success and a second term in 2024, and if it doesn’t, he has an army of far left fanatics prepared to do what’s required to ensure his continuance.

Laugh and joke about his dementia and his handlers all you want, but Biden has been around DC for too long not to know how to get his way. I think even his own party is scared of him because he’s so unpredictable.

Never underestimate a madman with his hands on the levers of power. He has a history of jumping on the bandwagon of the moment e.g. being an overt racist in the past, supporting the 2nd Amendment in the past, when both were falling from favour. He’s doing the same again with climate change, abortion, and the 2nd Amendment again. He’s always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to judging events.

Then, as now, the public mood was changing on all these policies even before he adopted them for his personal gain. Today, much of the public is aware of people like Soros, Schwab and Gates. Covid woke many people up, the 2020 election many more, Afghanistan yet more, Ukraine and the laptop from hell alerted many more, and the climate/globalist pendulum was beginning to swing uncontrollably away from the left.

Biden will be the death of the climate agenda but the damage he can do in the meantime is incalculable. And even if there is a rout at the mid-terms, i don’t think it’ll make much difference. The ultimate distraction from political and economic incompetence is always a major conflict, and Biden has a ready made one tee’d up ready to go against Russia.

Reply to  HotScot
June 28, 2022 8:24 am

Hot Scot – you are spot on. FJB.

Reply to  DrEd
June 28, 2022 1:41 pm

Thank you DrEd. I’m a Brit so fairly dispassionate about American politics but I have been following it closely of late because I believe, now more than any time in history, America and Biden are ground zero for the world’s future.

June 27, 2022 5:21 pm

“Industry and government should work together” is shorthand for “gimme some of that old time crony corruption” and ought to scare everybody with a wallet.

Reply to  Felix
June 27, 2022 6:18 pm

Industry did work together with BLM and BOEM/BSEE (formerly MMS) for 60+ years to develop oil & gas assets under Federal lands & waters, prior to the Brandon Maladministration. As lawless as the Obama Maladministration behaved in the aftermath of Macondo (Deepwater Horizon), they still generally obeyed the law.

June 27, 2022 5:42 pm

Energy is power….

Chris Hanley
June 27, 2022 6:46 pm

There is no Peak Oil or Peak Gas …

“When the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be” (M King Hubbert).

James F. Evans
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 27, 2022 9:46 pm

And the increasing efficiency of the oil industry in bringing oil & gas up over time has been spectacular. (Lower cost & increasing amounts)

James F. Evans
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 27, 2022 10:01 pm

And that is why oil & gas can be inexpensive relative to the work it does.

Like it was three years ago.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 28, 2022 8:54 am

And that quote is just further proof that Hubbert didn’t know what he was talking about.
What matters is the price of oil vs the cost of extracting it. Energy content is just one part of both value and cost.

Allan MacRae
June 27, 2022 7:21 pm

I agree with the author, and I’m even more negative about number seven. Carbon capture, global warming, carbon taxes, and all such carbon sequestration and reduction notions are false nonsense, the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles. Climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 and the only measurable impact is increased plant and crop growth, which is beneficial.
The developed countries have been economically sabotaged by false green alarmists, and the cost to our societies has been enormous. The cost to the underdeveloped countries has been even greater,, as their access to modern energy has been cruelly curtailed.
I have dictated this note so please excuse any errors.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 27, 2022 7:58 pm

The above ten points (minus #7) work for the USA. Canada is different, because of our heavy oil. I published this recently in Canadian newspapers, not that anyone will actually listen.
Politicians and economists do their usual Kabuki theatre – creating excessive inflation with runaway spending and then crushing it with high interest rates – like killing flies on a glass table, with a sledgehammer.
If we want to control inflation and improve the economy do this :
[ We’ve done this before and it worked – see https://energy-experts-international.com/ ]
·     cut excessive government spending, which is now utterly destructive
·     do not raise interest rates significantly;
·     encourage new energy production by returning the innovative Tax and Royalty terms that we initiated in the 1980’s and 90’s;
·     quash the ridiculous carbon tax to “fight global warming” in a now-cooling world (as we correctly predicted since 2002);
·     complete much-needed oil pipelines to the East and West Coasts and to the Gulf of Mexico;
·     quash grid-connected intermittent green-energy (wind & solar) electrical generation schemes and subsidies – costly and destructive;
·     quash food-for-fuel schemes and subsidies for corn ethanol and biodiesel that never made sense;
·     quash hydrogen-for fuel schemes – methane (natural gas) is a much better and safer fuel;
·     incentivize waste-to-energy technologies – IF they work cleanly and efficiently;
·     incentivize fertilizer production with 100% Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) tax terms, similar to my oilsands incentives introduced in the 1980’s;
·     incentivize agricultural production and processing with 100% CCA rates;
·     increase CCA rates on manufacturing and quash the half-year rule on all CCA calculations;                                                                                                                           
·     shun all woke politicians, media and fellow-travellers who promoted costly and destructive climate and covid scams.
Allan MacRae, Calgary

jeff corbin
Reply to  Allan MacRae
June 28, 2022 8:19 am

Yeah Oil Sands! Thanks for the comments, workable solutions and admirable convictions. Can’t blame the low IQ folks but we can blame the scoundrels-grabbers. We are talking about very powerful grabbers within a complex web of smoke and mirrors. It’s very difficult to expose them in the current media environment.

jeff corbin
Reply to  jeff corbin
June 28, 2022 8:28 am

I would add. Pump Pennsylvania NG via LNG everywhere that needs it .Frack On! Also keep billionaires like Gates from buying up all the farmland.

Robert Bradley
June 27, 2022 7:31 pm

Regarding Peak Oil, the theory of ‘Resourceship’ basically states that ‘resources come from the mind, not the ground’. So unless human ingenuity is a depleting resource, oil can be expected to expand in its different forms and manifestations.


Reply to  Robert Bradley
June 27, 2022 8:08 pm

“Where oil is first found, in the final analysis, is in the minds of men”
–Wallace Pratt
That said, every oil reservoir ever drilled began depleting the day it went on production.

There is still a helluva lot of oil left to be found… However, we produce and consume it much faster than Earth makes it. At some point, we will reach peak production, probably driven by peak demand because human ingenuity figured out something better than oil. I’m fairly certain that point will be well beyond my expiration date… 🍻

Allan MacRae
Reply to  David Middleton
June 28, 2022 1:56 am

Thank you David, I enjoy your posts. I’m avoiding the Peak Oil discussion, because it is fraught with problems of imprecise definition – for example, I say Hubbert was correct, WITHIN HIS DEFINITION of what oil reservoirs were at that time – i suspect that he did not include the Athabasca oil sands or fracked oil shale in his analysis, and probably did not understand the magnitude of the PreCaspian Basin, which has barely been scratched with supergiants Tengiz, Karachaganak and Kashagan. Also, there used to be an enormous amount of improperly-developed Soviet oil that could be rehabilitated and that may still be true.
The obstacles to our future energy security are political – and that looks to be
deliberate. The vilification of atmospheric CO2 is fraudulent, and the sabotage
of our energy economies by green extremists is, in my opinion, a criminal act –
a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted.
Regards, Allan MacRae, Calgary

“To conclude, the alleged fossil-fuel-caused Global Warming Crisis does not exist in reality. The only real, measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is improved crop yields – which are hugely beneficial.” 
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
Our scientific predictions on both Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.

Reply to  Robert Bradley
June 28, 2022 4:03 pm


Twenty years ago there were almost no economically recoverable oil assets in North Dakota.

June 27, 2022 8:12 pm

The one policy missing and by far the most important, is rescinding the C02 endangerment finding. It is from this finding all other restrictions are derived. Without getting rid of it, nothing is accomplished other than possibly a bit of short term relief. Get rid of the endangerment find and all of the issues resolve themselves.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Alcheson
June 27, 2022 10:41 pm

It isn’t nearly that simple. Please see the extended discussion among myself, Richard Greene, Kevin Kilty, and StevenF in the comment section of this recent Manhattan Contrarian article from June 23rd:

Progressive Utopian Vision Versus The Constitution

The article itself by Francis Menton sets the contextual background for what is said in the comment section and is necessary reading for our discussion there to make any sense. The start of our discussion begins eight or nine comments from the top.

Reply to  Alcheson
June 28, 2022 8:59 am

The supreme court has yet to rule on W. Virginia vs EPA.

That one could also be a game changer.


June 28, 2022 4:57 am

Y’all always complicate things.
I can do it in ONE.

Put Trump back in the Oval Office.

June 28, 2022 12:22 pm

Most people don’t seem to realize that oil and gas are always sold to us at the global price
We don’t get a domestic discount

June 28, 2022 1:04 pm
Verified by MonsterInsights