Kamala Harris Is Set to Turn the Energy Industry on Its Ear

Despite the fact that she got ZERO votes from Democrats as they named their original nominee for the 2024 Presidential Election, don’t discount Kamala Harris’ ability to be elected. After all, few (myself included) anticipated Joe Biden defeating then President Donald Trump in 2020. I suppose I felt the same shock Hillary Clinton’s supporters did in 2016, although I was not so smugly confident about victory as she was. While it seems there were more deplorables than she anticipated that year, there may well also be a shocking surprise this year. God help us if she ever becomes the Cackler-in Chief. Things just may get too screwed up to ever fix. Time will tell, I suppose.

It's no secret that Ms. Harris is a devout enemy of fossil fuels and the oil and gas industry as a whole. Equally evident, is her love and devotion for all things green. She was, after all, among the biggest promoters of the Green Energy Bill, a document, had it passed, would have done irreparable damage to our economy. Should she become President, you can certainly expect her to determinedly push for re-discussion of this dangerous mandate. The bill was heavily promoted by Ms. Harris and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, two peas in a pod, both with, in my mind, questionable judgement and mental acumen. Harris denies being an original backer of the legislation, but PolitiFact has recently confirmed such.

Officially titled “the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018”, it is an all-encompassing attack on our American society as it now exists. In addition to its tax credits and other incentives for almost all “alternate energy sources”, and its taxation and regulation of all things fossil-fuel related, it attempts to change our society and punish those who are not on-board with the mission. It promotes environment-justice programs (programs to improve health and economic outcomes of individuals residing in low-income areas or area populated disproportionately by racial or ethnic minorities) and requires the Department of the Treasure to report on the utility of data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (who knew there was even such a thing???) for determining the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by taxpayers for purposes of imposing a fee on them for such emissions. Doesn’t sound much like capitalism or freedom of choice to me. Perhaps I am missing something.

AOC calls the New Geen Deal “advocation for a just transition”, counteracting previous “systematic injustices that had disproportionally hurt vulnerable communities”. I regret to admit that I am not intelligent enough to understand how the oil and gas industry has caused disadvantages to communities, or racial groups, or any perceived victim for that matter. Energy is available for all, and the residents of each state pay equally per kilowatt (or whatever unit of measure you wish to choose), impacted primarily by the tax and political climate found there. I’m not sure why people don’t seem to understand that preventing pipelines or other energy infrastructure to deliver heating oil and the like will cause prices to rise. Supply and demand are the basis of our economic thinking. If you prevent the supply of necessary items, you should expect an according rise in prices. That’s just the way of the capitalistic world, or our democratic republic, as I prefer to say, works.

The Green New Deal not only wants to address climate change, but has stated goals to “achieve social aims like economic growth, reducing economic inequality, and achieving job creation.” Job creation? How about the 11 million folks already gainfully employed in the oil and gas industry here in America. Folks who contribute over $2 trillion annually to America’s economy. It is foolhardy to expect Green Energy to approach either of those figures in the near future, likely not in most of our lifetimes. And don’t get me started on the DEI aspect. I’m more interested in the equality of opportunity than the equality of outcomes.

America has been, and hopefully always will be, a society that rewards those who strive for excellence in education, devotion to their job or craft, or who take the risks necessary to employ others and grow the economy. I spoke to a group of disadvantaged youths recently and I told them this. If you want a better life, get an education. If you want to live happily, get an education. If you want a rewarding homelife and a caring spouse, get an education. If you want a nice home and the amenities associated with success, get an education. Almost all success in our society is linked to education, not opportunity, and I think the problem is that it is not a priority for many people today. Having said that, I don’t see how oil and gas has any relation to the issue. DEI won’t solve our energy needs.

We do know that it focuses on phasing out fossil fuel extraction and ending all fossil-fuel subsidies, with a goal of eliminating fossil fuels totally by 2035. The bill dismisses the idea of carbon emission trading, preferring instead to mandate strict emission reductions and transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy in barely a decade. I am 100% behind the solar energy industry and hope that it will one day be a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels. However, the truth is, solar energy has a very long way to go in terms of being economically feasible. Relying primarily on it for our energy needs in just a decade is preposterous. It simply is not advanced enough technologically to be relied upon. How are we to handle ten or a hundred times today’s demand? Fact is, we can’t. Not with today’s technology and not anytime in the foreseeable future. The truth of the matter is this. America has depended on the oil and gas industry to power our economy for over 150 years, and we will always be reliant upon it to some extent. That’s an undeniable fact.

Perhaps electric vehicles will be our salvation, no? Already that industry is showing incredible growing pains, in almost every area that it is proposed to be used. Cars can’t drive more than 300 miles (at best) on a single charge. They are incredibly expensive compared to automobiles which are powered by internal-combustion engines. They are expensive to work on, and few capable mechanics exist. Charging stations are practically non-existent in most of America. Where they do exist (i.e. California) they place an incredible strain on the energy grid, necessary to do things perhaps more important like, say, heat or cool your home. They require lithium batteries, an element that is, in itself, much worse for the ecology than oil or gas. Refer to my prior article entitled “Can PA Save the EV Industry” for proof.

What is described as a “diverse array of interests” wrote and formulated the bill by supposedly consulting with, among others, the Disadvantaged Communities Advisory Group. Can someone please explain to me what in the heck they know about energy and the technology to provide such? How about costs? Implementation? The effects on the other industries which rely on petroleum products? Fact is, almost everything you use or touch on a daily basis is made through some facet of natural gas extraction and refining.

How would all this change impact inflation? Farmers cannot exist without nitrogen for fertilizer. From where do you think that is derived? Natural gas. The price of food would sky-rocket and cause unthinkable calamity and famine if we had to farm organically. Like solar technology, it is just not advanced enough to be a practical source, and may never be more than a supplement it its practicality. Those who cry for and demand all-electric power sources have no idea that, almost without exception, that “electric power” is produced by burning natural gas. Remember, natural gas, gasoline, and all petroleum-based products are on their hit list, as all are categorized as being fossil-fuels.

I could go on forever about all the pork attached to the New Green Deal. What seemingly should be about planning a smooth transition from reliance primarily upon fossil fuels to an economy and ecology with greater emphasis on alternate energy has become misguided. We must face the facts that technology will not support such at the present time. The ten or eleven year time schedule is impossible and a total fallacy. Let’s set some more reasonable goals and take pride in making progress at a pace that does not ruin our economy or society. One has to crawl before they walk, and walk before they run. We should take no shame in the progress we make addressing our environmental and energy concerns, so long as we have a sincere and dedicated effort to placing emphasis on those matters. The Green New Deal is not the answer, and is, instead, a bigger problem than a solution.

Let’s talk about some specific policies that have been verbalized over the last few years by Ms. Harris. She has adopted some very extreme anti-energy positions that should be of concern. Harris has said that she was “no question, in favor of banning fracking” even on private property. She has supported a ban on ANY new oil and gas infrastructure from being built. She has gone as far as to promise to end the filibuster, so her colleagues can pass her beloved legislation. Seems funny that we would find the necessity to literally change our government in order to achieve her goal. I thought there was some concept of checks and balances that was supposed to exist?

Harris has even bragged about using her pre-Congress experience to attack the industry. The activist community already is rallying around her in hopes that she would “prosecute” the oil and gas industry. She has boasted about her experience as a prosecutor as key to “holding Big Oil accountable for its role in the climate crisis”. She also like to boldly state that she “sued Exxon Mobile” as California’s Attorney General (truth is she did not). But Jamie Henn, a climate activist who works for a group called Fossil Free Media, wrote that Harris is “perfectly positioned to prosecute the case against Big Oil. From a new perch in the Oval Office, Harris could throw the full weight of the White House behind the prosecution of Big Oil’s climate lies. That could include everything from further empowering the FTC to go after the industry’s price gouging to appointing a new Attorney General (perhaps one that’s already suing Big Oil) to lead a new lawsuit on behalf of the Department of Justice”. If you don’t think these people are dead serious about killing the industry you should definitely think again. They are Dead Serious, with a capital D.

Democrats are already enforcing arbitrary price caps, passing climate superfund bills, and filing state lawsuits against oil producers. These, and similar measures, are already causing progressive states like California to lose residents. Michigan’s Governor talks boldly about her intent to sue oil producers that could include auto manufacturers and utilities, a move that would surely torpedo the economy of her state. The problem is, when the ringleader is President rather than Governor, there is no where left to move, unless you want to repatriate overseas. In what world is it ok for Americans to be driven out of their own homes and country just to serve a political ideal? Again, it’s apparently over my head. I’m just unable to comprehend the “do it at all costs” mentality that is more than prevalent today. Perhaps I will consult Greta Thurnberg who will surely clearly explain it all to me. Anybody have her number handy?

The obvious answer to defeating this ideal is simply to defeat the candidate, but that is a precarious mission in today’s political climate. Seems a lot of people don’t know what to think unless the main-stream media tells them. Making decision based upon research, logic and facts are passe in 2024 America.

Perhaps the industry will find some relief in the recent Chevron Decision made by the Supreme Court just weeks ago. I would encourage you to visit my recent article about such which is available on LinkedIn, Mineral Rights Forum, and the like. The decision was deemed favorable to the industry, ruling that much of today’s regulation can be overturned by courts, giving them precedent over regulatory agencies like the EPA, and legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Liberal Justices were especially critical, predicting that the ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system” and that SCOTUS was dispensing “judicial hubris”, calling the ruling a “judicial power grab. In one fell swoop, the court has now given itself exclusive power over every open issue involving the meaning of regulatory law”. At least that’s how the dissenting Justices view it.

It remains to be seen how this will all shake out but it definitely gives one hope if you are in the industry. Will Justices overrule Executive Orders, made popular under President Obama and continued to be used today? Will our courts be backlogged with challenges and lawsuits for decades? Only time will tell, but our legal system has worked pretty well for over two centuries now and I expect that to continue. Just how much relief this legislation will provide to the oil and gas industry remains to be seen, but I predict it will be quite significant. Will it indeed re-shape the industry? Stay tuned for further developments.

And vote on Tuesday November 5, regardless of your position on matters discussed here. You owe it to yourself and your country.