On January 7, 2014 — one of the coldest days in the past 20 years in Washington DC — Jack N. Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API), provided his organization’s view of the State of American Energy 2014. He stressed the importance of American energy production to our national prosperity and security.
His speech also lays out the API’s plan to influence the mid term elections in 2014 to ensure that the voter choices made during those elections result in elected officials that will support policies considered vital to the oil and gas industry’s continued dominance of our energy supply options. As Mr. Gerard stated, the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technology — often abbreviated as ‘fracking’ — is at the core of the recent growth in US oil and natural gas output, which Gerard referred to as “America’s Energy Renaissance.”
He described the importance of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, passing laws that remove restrictions on crude oil and natural gas exports, and preventing the passage of laws that will ensure that fracking is undertaken with the proper amount of care for its effects on the environment and local habitats — including the rural human habitat that is such an important asset to some communities.
Gerard’s speech lasted until the 30 minute point on the video. In his prepared remarks, I only heard Jack mention the word “nuclear” one time. It appeared in his list of “all of the above” energy options and fell after oil, gas, coal, wind, and solar, but before geothermal and biomass.
PS – Gerard mentioned several times that jobs in the oil and natural gas industry pay 7 times the minimum wage. I found it difficult to believe that average oil and gas employees make $105,560 per year. ($7.25/hr x 7 x 2080 hours per year for a full time worker).
As is often said, Google is my friend. According to an April 2014 Wall Street Journal article titled The U.S. Energy Boom Lifts Low-Income Workers Too, Gerard actually understated average oil and gas annual wage. It averages $107,000 per year.
“Gerard actually understated average oil and gas annual wage. It averages $107,000 per year”
A drive through the suburbs of Bakersfield, and its numerous gated tracts, should serve to convince you about the wealth generated by the oil and gas industry. Oilfield workers are comfortably middle class if they have their shit together. If shrewd, they can easily attain upper middle class level. And management rises easily above that. And the industries in support of the oilfields generate huge wealth as well. Well maintainence, pipe suppliers, welders, clean up businesses, electrical contractors, on and on…….
“I could have worked the rigs when the money was big, Or hopped a freighter south to Trinidad….”
Sorry. Could resist.
@Jeff Walther
Knew that phrase sounded familiar. One of my favorite Jimmy tunes. Can’t go wrong with a song where the singer mentions regretfully that he could have been a Naval Academy grad.
Yep. It’s almost on topic, because the Naval Academy grad. bit is in the first couple of lines…
“His speech also lays out the API’s plan to influence the mid term elections in 2014 to ensure that the voter choices made during those elections result in elected officials that will support policies considered vital to the oil and gas industry’s continued dominance of our energy supply options.”
Vote Democrat and get people like Andy Cuomo who is trying to shut down IPEC, or Barbara Boxer who succeed with SONGS shutdown. Vote socialist and get Bernie Sanders who succeed with VY shutdown. Democrat politician after Democrat politician is anti-nuclear. Not all. There are a few rare shining exceptions. But too rare to make any difference in that party.
Vote Republican and yes, possibly get an oil man, but he won’t be the nut case anti-nuke that Democrat politicians are. Maybe we could get lucky and get another George W Bush who started GNEP that Obama killed.
But pointing that out is heresy at this blog site. All I know is what I see. When you Democrats are in charge, the economy tanks, taxes rise and nuclear energy takes it in the backside with appointments like Jackzo and Macfarlane as NRC Chairpeople. Hey, two new appointments are coming in from the guy who golfs after American journalists are beheaded! At least one and possibly both will be anti-nuke, stacking the NRC 3 to 2 against new nukes. Fill on up with the consequences of your vote. 🙁
Hold your nose, suck it up and vote Republican in the 2014 mid-terms. Oh yes, I hold the Republican politicians in contempt for their hypocrisy. But I reserve loathing for their political opponents and I see no other choice if you want nuclear power to expand. No other choice.
🙁
Maybe it seems like all Democrats are anti-nuke. I think it may be more like. All Democrats are anti-nuke some of the time and some Democrats are anti-nuke all of the time, but all Democrats are not anti-nuke all of the time.
Take a look at this link about John Fitzgerald Kennedy (Democrat). I think you will like it.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/09/22/2582697/jfk-visits-hanford-in-1963.html
I think the Democrats may be a bit more interested in the public good.
I think the Republicans are a bit more interested in the private good.
Maybe both can be convinced that nuclear power if good if it is shown to be in the interest of their constituents. The only thing permanent is change. Democrats can easily flop on nuclear power with a little push.
Really, JFK? You have to go back 50 years to find a counter example?
As for who is interested in what, I think all we can really say is that politicians are interested in re-election and the power & perks of their offices.
And most of the population isn’t interested in anything, so we get what we deserve. Starting a few years ago, I just vote against every incumbent on the ballot. From city manager to president.
You’re slipping, Paul; You forgot to mention “liberals”. Rush would be disappointed.
Tell me, will your white knights do a better job rescuing NE than they did rescuing Iraq?
The only way nuclear will be truly deployed in the U.S. is to reject the partisan politics you see here on this list by some. The last time nuclear was deployed is when it was NOT a political issue. It was a ‘national’ one that was totally devoid of politics supported by all: Democrats, Republicans, Environmentalists and Socialists. THAT’S how you get nuclear. It is the ONLY way to do so. It’s called ‘consensus’. Good luck doing it by voting in politicians who are only concerned about the next election. To get that consensus meaning convincing people regardless of their ideological outlook that nuclear is simply better than renewables and fossil fuels and can work with both quite seamlessly. Do that, get nuclear.
David Walters,
Founder, Left Atomics
Marxists Internet Archive
Pro-nuclear advocate since 2004
Hear. Hear. We need folks to focus on what is good for society as a whole again. In my mind, that means folks who will start at the bottom, and concentrate on fixing and improving infrastructure, including power generation.
Surely there could be voter traction for such a group of people?
I guess you haven’t heard, David. Paul isn’t “partisan”. Just ask ‘im, he’ll tell ya.
@David Walters
The UK seems to have made a non-partisan decision involving a substantial majority to move forward with a sustained nuclear energy program. There is hope for the United States, especially if we continue to help people understand the benefits that are being withheld from them, the reasons those benefits are being withheld, and the forces that profit mightily from the actions to withhold clean, abundant, affordable energy from all of the rest of us.
Hi Rod if the argument that witch energy system demand most human working hour was o.k.
We all must go back to stone age.
I wrote a short article compering coal with APR-1400 in UAE.
I don´t know if anyone is interested but if so, give me constructive critics, we have an election in Sweden and I try to open the voters mind about energy policy.
http://gunnarlittmarck.blogspot.no/2014/08/why-cant-coal-compete-with-modern.html
Looks like from this article, that Sweden will have nuclear power no matter what they vote.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Sweden/
The article says they are putting in undersea cables to import electricity from the new reactor(s) in Finland.
The article also says that Sweden puts an enormous tax on nuclear power.
People do not like to see more money leave their pockets. If your country shut its nukes down, that money would have to be made up by other means (new taxation). If your country shut its nukes down, it may mean importing gas from Russia. New plants would need to be built and the cost of electricity would go up.
You know you’d think it would be an easy sell,….safe, clean, less expensive,…..but it’s not.