By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Energy policy will be on the ballot this fall, and American voters deserve meaningful answers from all candidates about how to drive production of affordable and reliable natural gas and oil for decades to come.” – American Petroleum Institute
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is no better or worse than its membership. If the companies like the free market, they are on solid consumer, taxpayer grounds. If the membership tilts toward special government favor (rent-seeking), API works against consumers and taxpayers.
Oil and gas companies should work from fundamental consumer demand out rather than political correctness in. They would have avoided boondoggles like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the 1970s and hydrogen and carbon capture today. They also should have fought hard against wind and solar for on-grid electricity and for batteries to overcome intermittency.
Today, API has many free-market views, given the Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-oil-and-gas agenda, 250 actions (and counting) worth. Yes, the upcoming U.S. election is about energy. And one major party candidate is pro-oil-and-gas (and coal)–another rabidly against (via her handlers). No mystery there.
API’s Mark Green summarized the issues as follows:
“With demand for affordable, reliable energy rising here in the U.S. and around the world, the oil and natural gas industry stands ready to work with any administration to advance a policy agenda that helps secure America’s energy future and reduce inflation.”
Energy policy will be on the ballot this fall, and American voters deserve meaningful answers from all candidates about how to drive production of affordable and reliable natural gas and oil for decades to come.
API has offered a clear and beneficial energy plan for all candidates – a five-point policy roadmap to strengthen American energy leadership and help reduce inflation. You can see the details here and here, but the plan’s pillars are:
Protecting Consumer Choice – The Biden administration is using regulation – EPA’s tailpipe emissions rule and new fuel-economy standards – to force automakers to produce more electric vehicles and push Americans to buy them. Consumers – all of whom have different budget and family needs – deserve more freedom, not less, when it comes to deciding which vehicles they will buy and drive.
Restoring the Role of American Energy in Bolstering Our Geopolitical Strength – American liquefied natural gas (LNG) was a lifesaver for Europe when Russia invaded Ukraine and restricted natural gas supplies. LNG offers other countries an opportunity to reduce emissions from using other fuels – as the U.S. has done in its power sector. The U.S. Energy Department should lift the ongoing pause on new LNG permits and promptly approve pending export applications to support America’s status as the world’s top LNG supplier.
Leveraging Our Abundant Natural Resources – For today and the future, America must plan for robust production so that families and businesses have access to affordable, reliable energy – for transportation, home heating and cooking, and countless consumer products that are staples of modern life. Anchored by U.S. oil and natural gas, strong domestic energy production also helps control energy-related costs for Americans, even as inflation has greater impacts on the costs of food, health care, education and other necessities.
Fixing Our Broken Permitting System – America needs to be able to build critical energy infrastructure of all kinds, not just oil and natural gas projects. But this is being impeded by a federal permitting process that can take years to complete. Comprehensive reform, such as the proposals in new bipartisan Senate legislation introduced this week, is needed.
Advancing Sensible Tax Policy – America’s oil and natural gas industry supports 11 million jobs and drives billions in investment that boosts the nation’s economy. U.S. tax policy must be made competitive with policies of other nations, because capital flows to where it is most welcome. And investment in American industries is vital to a strong, diversified economy, helping to sustain the jobs, economic growth, and tax revenues that support our states and communities.
API’s roadmap is a practical, sensible, workable path forward on American energy, which should be treated as a national, strategic asset and foundational to our country’s economy and security.
API President and CEO Mike Sommers:
“As the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, America brings stability in a time of chaos, making our industry the envy of the world. This critical framework highlights our commitment to maintaining America’s energy advantage for decades to come.”
As the election season kicks into high gear, we look forward to an important national conversation about energy.
Final Comment
API’s 550-word summary above is pretty solid as far as it goes. But political correctness and internal rent-seeking prevents API from condemning the anti-consumer, taxpayer-enabled energies. At this late hour, principle must join pragmatism to advocate an across-the-board free market, classical-liberal energy policy. To this end, the oil, gas, coal, and internal combustion engine industries should unite against climate alarmism and forced energy transformation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They have, they still do and they are loosing.
From what I’ve seen from the debate sensible answers are not something you can expect from trump.
And where are all this coal jobs trump promised?
Disinformation, bought politicans, smear campaigns…that’s just business as usual in the sector.
It’s never about consumer choice, it’s taking away the alternatives to create quasi-monopolies on energy supply.
Well then stop using fossil fuels as you have been using them your entire life and I bet you have no solar panels on the roof, or a nice big array of them in your yard, hypocrite! Go live in a mud hut and save the Eaarth! (sic)
The way you spelled Eaarth- just like Bill McKibben. Nice.
Fearth
And “loosing.”
Of course I left off the sarcasm tag when I say “nice” J Boles
After ~ 40 years of “spare-no-expense” efforts to produce a workable installation of wind, solar, batteries, what-have-you that can provide uninterrupted, reliable, affordable grid-scale electricity to communities, it’s time to call the reality that this shit just doesn’t do the job.
Anyone with half a functioning, non-ideologically-addled brain should be able to read and comprehend the numbers by now.
(I should say even you, but we’ve got to draw a line on imbecility somewhere).
Dick Tracy’s wristwatch was impossible for good reasons, then seemed unwanted and is now an iWatch. Borrowing a recently heard other person’s policy: I don’t like to plan a future around technology that doesn’t exist. However I add my own addendum: If the imagined, seemingly impossible technology happens I will get on board.
Video calls: Standard old school futurism, then unwanted because “what if they call at a bad time”, now still some people like me put up a static profile photo but video business meetings are standard now.
Won’t we all get on board any new developments that demonstrably work effectively, efficiently and economically.
The horseless carriage didn’t need government edicts to build an enthusiastic customer base.
Nor did laptop computers.
The list goes on.
“Disinformation, bought politicans, smear campaigns…that’s just business as usual for the wind and solar lobbies
in the sector.”Fixed it.
From what I saw of the debate (I watched from 6:pm until 7:58pm) you can’t get a straight answer from Kamala. She responded to questions but not with direct answers. And you can’t beat Trumps closing statement
All that Kamala said she “Wants to do” she’s been in for 4 years already, why hasn’t she done it yet?
I wanted to chat about the debate too, but this is the wrong forum. The big science/enviro moment was when she adamantly stated she was pro-fracking. I wondered how long before the debate she decided that she would not be anti-fracking during the debate?
At the moment she might be for fracking.
That will change immediately if she is elected.
Remember, all women claim to have the prerogative to change their mind at anytime without question. This is all based on feelings at the time some subject arises. I have not met one women yet that didn’t claim this as a genetic birth right.
So when you vote for a woman to make decisions for you, then what you get is a woman making decisions for you.
The candidate is just a figurehead for the party. In modern times, someone who has TV appeal. Lots of people liked Trump’s “you’re fired” TV persona and combined with feelings that the government “swamp” needed to be drained resulted in many votes for him. It’s wearing a bit thin on him. And the TV persona candidates’ mass appeal goes to their head pretty fast, and they start believing the government is “all-about-what-the-Pres-thinks”and so does the media.
It’s probably more important that these “leaders” consult the intelligence of the elected representatives, departments, and thinkers behind them. It seems that Trump doesn’t, and mostly just wings it. That’s not good, since it is clear from the debate that his thought process has become somewhat addled. Harris was much more professional. Too bad her party blows mostly in a leftward wind…
And then there is popularity by celebratory.
It’s funny how two people can look at the same thing and come to completely different conclusions.
One of the two has reached a wrong conclusion.
If only he stayed on that theme all night!
“If only he stayed on that theme all night!”
Why? The polls are showing Trump won the debate. The Indepdents are in Trump’s camp now.
Read both sides. Harris won! Trump won!
No. No one one.
The big losers are the American people and indirectly, the world.
MUN,
“They have, they still do and they are loosing.”
**************
If I am correct, this is the second or third time now that I’ve seen you spell the world “l-o-s-e” wrong in a comment MUN. The word you have spelled means to loosen a belt around a waist or a rope that is tied around something. If you had done it just once I might have dismissed it as a typographical error.
So another Albert Einstein you undoubtedly are not. Which leaves me suspecting that you are not difficult to brainwash into believing falsehoods. I learned a long time ago to be suspicious and cynical of the world around me — especially when it comes to activism and politics. I can’t help but to quote H.L. Mencken whenever the opportunity arises.
I believe that you are making what is called an Appeal To Authority argument here with your support of renewables/batteries and EVs. We are supposed to believe that the authorities you reference in your comment links know what they are talking about more than the individuals you argue with around here (some of whom might have PhD’s for all I know). No convincing substance from you, just a lot of “he said” and “she said” and blind faith on your part.
The “authorities” you appeal to could be seen as high priests in a cult. So, in a nutshell MUN, learn to tell when you are in a religious cult — because I believe you are.
Muse be loosing his grip on reality
Only loosing his grip during the physical year.
I think losing vs loosing is geographical. Most of USA is “losing”.
The USA will lose even more this Nov if a certain wannabe gets herself elected
Yes, Kamala would be as big a disaster as Joe Biden. Maybe even worse.
The really bad thing about electing Kamala is it will keep the Democrat/Deep State Cabal in power. The one that is trying to steal our Democracy out from under us by ignoring the laws and the U.S. Constitution and using lawfare to attack and jail their political opponents..
The Democrat takeover is in progress. They just need a few more years to consolidate their political power, and then it’s over for the rest of us.
This election is about your personal freedoms. The Democrats are trying to take them away from you. Don’t vote for Democrats if you know what’s good for you. They are not on your side. They are on the side of tyranny.
No. It is about elite oligarchs and plebes and reducing the population to under 2B.
It is about eliminating individual liberties with the state making every decisions.
I wish you well when the state dictates who you can marry, how many (if any) kids you can have, where you live, what kind of domicile, where you work, and what you can buy and eat. You are pushing for this. Good luck to you.
“It’s never about consumer choice, it’s taking away the alternatives to create quasi-monopolies on energy supply.”
You have hit on the truth. This describes the anti-fossil fuel movement perfectly.
“Disinformation, bought politicans, smear campaigns”
The haulmark (as in slug trail) of the AGW scam.
Certainly the AGW scam is NOT interested in consumer choice…
… its about what the AGW scammers can ram down people’s throats.
“It’s never about consumer choice, it’s taking away the alternatives to create quasi-monopolies on energy supply.”
WOW.. I’ve never seen the wind and solar, EV scam NAILED so succinctly !
The Greens have sucked up all the oxygen and convinced the population that fossil fuels = bad, and renewables and non-
existent batteries = good.
Energy should be on the ballot but it’s the “shiny objects” that take up all the space.
Shiny objects=free sh!t for sluggards.
At least the transmission lines that are connected to wind and solar farms can easily be connected to gas turbines once the inadequate power sources are dismantled. Which in my opinion will be a steppingstone to the inevitable use of newer and safer small scale nuclear reactor designs that are on the table.
Is dropping nuclear fear smaller than dropping CO2 fear? Nuclear fear has been psychologically connected to cancer for so long – maybe it’s waiting on “cure for cancer” future technology to beat “gigantic energy density battery” technology.
I think intermittent electricity supplied to the masses will cause both of those fears to subside quite rapidly.
Connecting DC to an AC grid is not simple or inexpensive.
Mostly because it’s unusual and traditionally not needed. Almost every electrical doodad designed after 2010 has DC-DC converters in the power supply circuit. The DC-DC converts one DC (which the doodad derived from an AC 50/60hz wall socket to charge its battery) to AC khz then back to a different DC. The chips that do that work are cheap and abundant and have become reliable. So AC-DC-AC-DC is the default for consumer voltages. The difference for industrial is power levels – those circuits use JFETs the size of footballs.
Key word: grid.
FYI, I have designed AC to DC convertors since the 70s. Most of the equipment I use now operates on batteries.
DC doesn’t work well for long distance transmission.
It does not need long distance transmissions unless the power plant is in Scotland and the consumer grid is on the channel.
These molten salt Thorium reactors will still produce steam to turn generators at the required RPMs to produce the correct frequency of AC power, right?
Yes.
Free market supply and demand should dictate what, how much, and where wind and solar are deployed, not government edict.
Wind and solar are niche technologies. They have a place and a role, albeit minor, and it comes down to reliability and affordability when and where those are used.
Likewise, EVs have a place, too. Free market, not command economics, should be the decider.
Yes, remote mines, cattle stations, other outposts have supplemented their diesel generator fleets with wind & solar for decades.
And still do.
It saves precious fuel, and makes sense to tap the searing sunshine and howling wind for whatever electricity generation they can harness to keep their arrays of batteries charged.
But try to tell the mines & stations mangers to give up their diesel generators, and I bet they’d say –
“from my cold dead hands”.
Harris has plans. Elect Harris to find out what her plans are,
Hmmmm, vote for the bill, you can read it after it passes.
Certainly, absolutely NOTHING she says now has any bearing on what she would do after the election
Notice she doesn’t have details.
Agreed, they need to stop paying lip service to the notion that “alternative sources” of energy (i.e., wind and solar) are either “alternatives” OR “sources,” since they require coal, oil and gas to produce and provide the necessary backup.
It is true that API could have stood a bit stronger but for them to say what they did is a giant step in the right direction. I only wish all fossil fuel and nuclear interests would act as bold as API.
Not only is energy on the ballot but, our 1st and 2nd amendments are on the ballot too.
Censorship will be weaponized on the federal level.
The Harris/Walz administration is determined to shut up complainers of the disastrous policies they intend to implement.
They will delete the conversations determined to be misinformation or incitement to violence.
Anyone shown to have unlawful viewpoints will have their ability to defend themselves stripped.
The Harris/Walz administration would utilize the federal government’s resources to silence and ostracize anyone that admits that intermittent, unreliable energy is substandard. We would be under constant surveillance and subject to immediate consequences for using our God given rights.
Just one more lie.
Harris claims she was raised in CA by her middle class mom who finally bought a house when she was 14.
Funny thing is, Harris lived in the most affluent suburb in Canada from 12 to 18. Her mother was a cancer researcher (not a minimum wage job) and her father was a college professor (also not a minimum wage job).
Great post!
API’s roadmap for energy policy makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to protecting consumer choice and pushing for reforms in the permitting system. The focus on American energy security through LNG exports and natural resources is critical, especially with the global energy landscape changing so rapidly.
One thing I wonder about is how realistic it is to push back against electric vehicles when the auto industry is so focused on them. How do you see a balance between EV growth and maintaining robust oil and gas production for consumer needs? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Great article!
I really appreciate the breakdown of API’s five-point energy plan—it’s clear and practical. The emphasis on consumer choice and fixing the broken permitting system is crucial, especially in today’s energy landscape. I also agree that American energy resources like LNG have become a geopolitical asset, particularly in response to crises like the war in Ukraine.
I wonder, though, how do you think the ongoing political divide on energy policy will impact the success of API’s roadmap? Will it be enough to ensure long-term energy security and affordability for Americans? Would love to hear your thoughts!