Dear Northeast: How’s that solar working out for you

A reminder from Marita to silly folks on why electricity needs real power plants

Marita Noon

For immediate release: November 24, 2014.

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 2189

Dear Northeast, How’s that solar working out for ya?

A couple of months ago, effective in November, National Grid, one of Massachusetts’ two dominant utilities, announced rate increases of a “whopping” 37 percent over last year. Other utilities in the region are expected to follow suit.

It’s dramatic headlines like these that make rooftop solar sound so attractive to people wanting to save money. In fact, embedded within the online version of the Boston Globe story: “Electric rates in Mass. set to spike this winter,” is a link to another article: “How to install solar power and save.” The solar story points out: “By now everyone knows that solar power can save homeowners big money on utility bills.” It claims that solar works even in New England’s dreary winters and cites Henry K. Vandermark, founder and president of Solar Wave Energy in Cambridge, as saying: “Even snow doesn’t matter if your panels have a steep angle. It just slides right off them.”

Solar is not the panacea it is promoted to be, though it is true that—after a substantial investment, heavy government subsidies (funded by all taxpayers), and generous net-metering programs (that raise costs for non-solar customers)—solar systems can save money on the typical homeowners’ monthly bill. (An unsubsidized system averages about $24,000.)

New England has seen one big power plant close within the past year—Salem Harbor Power Station in Salem, Massachusetts went “dark” on June 1, in part due to tightening federal regulations. Another major closure will take place within weeks: Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

A new, state-of-the-art natural gas plant on 18 acres of the 65-acre Salem site will replace the Salem Harbor plant. The remaining 47 acres will see redevelopment, including renewable energy. But, that plan has received pushback from environmental groups that want it fully replaced with renewables. The Boston Globe states: “A decade ago, replacing the aging plant with a far cleaner natural gas facility would have thrilled environmental and public health advocates.” The Conservation Law Foundation filed a lawsuit against the project’s approval, claiming the state “failed to adequately consider its own climate change law when state energy officials approved the Salem plant.” In February, the group settled the suit after it caused construction delays and reliability concerns.

Just days before the plant closed, a report from The Daily Climate addressed the controversy over usage of the Salem Harbor site: “Many activists pushed back, arguing for wind or solar generation or non-energy uses, such as a marine biotechnology research facility.” One activist group: HealthLink, “has marshaled opposition to running a gas line to the new plant” and another: Grassroots Against Another Salem Plant (GAASP), “has pledged to use peaceful civil disobedience to block construction of the gas plant.”

The state of Massachusetts has offered three closed, or scheduled to be closed, coal-fueled power plant sites $6 million to pursue renewable energy projects—even though wind and solar require full back up from fossil fuel power plants so electricity is available in the frigid Northeast winters. Additionally, a new report from two Stanford Ph.Ds., who spent 4 years trying to prove renewables can, ultimately, replace fossil fuels, have had to admit defeat: “Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

Having lived with the 63-year old Salem Harbor plant in her back yard for 20 years, Linda Haley, doesn’t, according to WGBH News, “understand why Salem would encourage use of a non-renewable fossil-fuel resource like natural gas when alternative investments in green technology finally seem possible.”

These stories reveal the snow job that has been perpetuated on the general public regarding renewable energy. They don’t understand the need for power or how it works. They seem to believe that when a rule passes a magic wand waves replacing older, but still fully functional, power plants with wind or solar—that doesn’t produce electricity 24/7/365 as do the decommissioned coal or nuclear plants and which requires far more land to produce the same amount of, albeit intermittent, electricity.

An iced up wind turbine or a solar panel covered in seven feet of snow—even if some of it slides off—doesn’t generate electricity. And the cold days of a Northeast winter create one of the times when energy demand peaks.

Remember last winter’s polar vortex, when freezing weather crippled the Northeast for days and put a tremendous strain on the electric supply?

Congress, following the near crisis, brought in utility executives to explain the situation. Regarding the nation’s electrical output last winter, Nicholas Akins, the CEO of the biggest generator of coal-fueled electricity in the U.S., American Electric Power (AEP), told Congress: “This country did not just dodge a bullet—we dodged a cannon ball.” Similarly, Michael Kormos, Executive VP of Operations for PJM Interconnection (the largest grid operator in the U.S. overseeing 13 states), commented on operations during the polar vortex: PJM was “never—as some accounts have portrayed—700 megawatts away from rolling blackouts. … On the worst day, January 7, our next step if we had lost a very large generator would have been to implement a small voltage reduction”—industry speak for the last option before power outages.

About last winter’s grid reliability, Glenn Beck claims: “I had an energy guy come to me about three weeks ago. …He said, ‘We were one power plant away from a blackout in the east all winter long… We were using so much electricity. We were at the top of the grid. There’s no more electricity. We’re at the top.’”

This winter’s extreme weather—with new records set for November power demand—has already arrived. Come January, there will be not one, but two fewer Northeast power plants since last year—not because they had to be retired, but because of EPA regulations and public sentiment. In a November 17 op-ed, former Senators Bayh (D-IN) and Judd (R-NH) said: “Vermont Yankee produced 26 percent of New England’s power during the peak of last year’s frigid weather.” The Northeast won’t have Vermont Yankee’s power this January.

Without these two vital power plants, what will the Northeast do?

For several months, since I had a chat with Weather Bell Analytics’ Joe Bastardi at the International Conference on Climate Change, I’ve continued to say that I fear people will have to die due to power outages that prevent them from heating their homes in the winter cold, before the public wakes up to the damage of these policies. AEP’s Atkins seems to agree. He told Columbus Business First: “Truth be known, something’s probably going to have to happen before people realize that there is an issue.”

“New England is in the midst of an energy crisis,” claims WGBH News. The report continues: “residents and businesses are facing a future that may include ‘rolling blackouts’ on days when usage is highest.”

ISO New England, the agency that oversees the power grid, warns, in the Boston Globe: “Boston and northeast Massachusetts are ‘expected to face an electricity capacity shortage’ that could lead to rolling blackouts or the use of trailer-mounted diesel generators—which emit far more pollutants than natural gas—to fill the gap.” Ray Hepper, the lawyer for ISO New England, in a court filing, wrote: “The ISO simply cannot make megawatts of generation materialize that are not on the system.” In an interview, he added: “We’re really, as a region, at the point of needing new power plants.”

As the Salem Harbor story illustrates, natural gas will likely fuel those new power plants and environmental groups are expected to challenge construction. Plus, natural gas faces cost volatility. On November 20, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), in the wake of November cold, not experienced since the 1970s when global cooling was predicted, featured an article titled: “Chill pushes up natural-gas prices” that stated: “Natural-gas stockpiles shrank by more than expected last week reflecting surging demand.” As in the ’70s, many are now projecting, based on solar activity and other natural variables, a long global cooling trend.

While the Boston Globe, in September, said: “The upcoming winter is not expected to be as cold as last season,” Bastardi told me otherwise. He said: “This winter could be as cold and nasty as last year and in a worst case go beyond that to some of the great winters of the late 1970s, lasting all the way into April. As it is, we still have a winter comparable to last year forecasted, though the position of the worst, relative to averages, may be further southeast than last year.” During a November 19 appearance with Neil Cavuto, Bastardi suggested that we may see a bit of warming after November, but will have one, or two, very cold months after that.

The WSJ quoted Brian Bradshaw, portfolio manager at BP Capital in Dallas: “‘Everyone thinks it’s not possible’ to have another winter like last year ‘But the weather does impossible things all the time.’” WSJ added: “the natural-gas market is setting up for a repeat of last winter.”

So, why, when natural gas prices sit at historic lows that experts predicted will lower electricity rates, is the Northeast facing double-digit increases? The answer: there is no magic wand. The changes have been mandated, but the replacements aren’t ready yet. Ray Gifford, former commissioner with the Colorado Public Utility Commission, told me: “I don’t see how the gas infrastructure in New England can be built fast enough to replace retiring baseload capacity.”

Within the past decade, natural gas went from supplying less than a fifth of New England’s power to one half—which could be great if New England had natural gas, but it is, as Tim Maverick, Commodities Correspondent for Wall Street Daily, says: “gas-starved.” After last winter’s freezing weather, Maverick wrote: “The Northeast was slapped in the face with the reality that there’s not sufficient pipeline infrastructure to provide it with the mega-energy pull it draws in the colder season. This is probably because not one new pipeline infrastructure has been introduced in over 40 years. Natural gas consumption in the Northeast has grown more than 20% in the last decade, and not one new pipeline has been built. Current pipelines are stuffed and can carry no more supply.”

At the Edison Electric Institute financial conference on November 11, AEP’s Atkins confirmed that the proposed timeline to cut pollution from the EPA will shutter coal plants before completion of construction of new power plants using other fuels, or the infrastructure to move the needed natural gas around.

The lack of available supply, results in higher prices. The Boston Globe explains: “gas supplies for home heating are purchased under long-term contracts arranged far in advance, so utilities have the advantage of locking in lower rates. Power plants, on the other hand, often buy shorter-term and are more exposed to price movements in the spot markets.” In the winter’s cold weather, the gas goes to people’s homes first. Different from coal, which is shipped by train, with a thirty-day supply easily held at the point of use, the switch to natural gas leaves power plants struggling to meet demand, paying higher prices.

Addressing the 2013/2014 winter, Terry Jarrett, a former public service commissioner and a nationally recognized leader in energy, utility, and regulatory issues, said: “Natural gas couldn’t shoulder that burden, due in part to a shortage of infrastructure to deliver gas where it was needed—this despite record-setting production in the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere. But more importantly, whereas coal’s sole purpose is to generate electricity, natural gas is also used for home heating. And when push comes to shove, heating gets priority over generation.”

Last winter, coal and nuclear met the demand to keep the lights on and heat homes and businesses. AEP reports that 89 percent of its coal plants, now slated for retirement, ran at capacity just to meet the peak demand.

These shortages in the Northeast occur before the implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan that experts believe will shut down hundreds of coal-fueled power plants nationwide by 2016. New pipelines and new plants need to be built, but “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes and environmental activists will probably further delay and prevent construction as they have done in the Northeast, which will result in higher electric bills nationwide.

“Because less-expensive coal generation is retiring and in part is being replaced by demand-response or other potential high energy cost resources, excess generation will narrow and energy prices could become more volatile due to the increasing reliance on natural gas for electricity generation,” PJM’s Kormos told Congress.

The lessons for America’s energy supply learned from the Northeast’s far-reaching experiment, that has only resulted only in price increases and potential energy shortages, are twofold. First, don’t shut down existing supply until the replacement is ready, as legal action and local attitudes can slow its development. Second, you can cover every square inch of available land with wind and solar, but when extreme weather hits, it requires a reliable energy supply, best met by coal and nuclear.

Current policy direction will have all of America, not just the Northeast, freezing in the dark. I hope it can it be turned back before it is too late.

(A version of this content was originally published at Breitbart.com)

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Conspiracy Brews 11.22.14

If you like your coffee and your politics flavorful, served with a heaping dose of civility by a diverse group of interesting people from all parts of the political spectrum then you should be joining us every Saturday. Started in 2007 over coffee and lively conversation by a group of concerned friends and neighbors, ‘Conspiracy Brews’ is committed to finding solutions to some of our State’s toughest problems. Our zest for constructive political discourse is only equaled by our belief that the only way forward is to exchange our views in a relaxed and friendly setting. For additional information or to be added to our e-mail list contact: ConspiracyBrews@aol.com.

Conspiracy Brews

“Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none.”

Benjamin Franklin

Not your average political discussion group!

November 22, 2014

9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
at
Southwest Secondary Learning Center
10301 Candelaria Rd NE
(northwest corner of Candelaria and Morris)

We think that government should be open and honest at all times.
People from all political parties are welcome.

*** Quotes of the Week ***

“Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.”

Thomas H. Huxley

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Thomas Jefferson

Suggested Topics

– The US keeps dropping in freedom ratings…why?

– So what is the latest good news for our area?

– Government lies no longer matter to most. Integrity is irrelevant. Ex. Bernco Treasurer Ortiz and APD where a Lt provides information in his official email for classes at a company where his wife works with military lessons on how to effect a good kill. Where are we heading?

(Light Quotes of the week)

“When I was kidnapped, my parents snapped into action. They rented out my room.”

Woody Allen

“Parents were invented to make children happy by giving them something to ignore.”

Ogden Nash

“Old age is the most unexpected of all the things that happen to a man.”

Leon Trotsky

——-

Ben Shapiro: The Ferguson days of rage

 

In his piece from CNS News, Ben Shapiro minces no words with his report on the Ferguson fiasco of the recent past and that which is to come:.

This week, America held its collective breath as it waited on the grand jury indictment verdict for Officer Darren Wilson. Wilson, you’ll recall, had the misfortune to run into 6’5″, 289-lb. Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man who had just finished strong-arm robbing a convenience store.

Wilson pulled over Brown as he and his accomplice walked in the middle of the street; all available evidence shows that Brown then pushed himself through the driver’s side window, punched Wilson, went for his gun, was shot in the hand, ran, turned around, charged Wilson, and was shot to death.

But that doesn’t matter. And it has never mattered. Because facts do not matter to those attempting to rectify what they perceive as an unjust universe. For those utopian visionaries – and, yes, violent thugs who rob stores are minions of the utopian visionaries — individuals do not exist. Individuals are merely stand-ins for groups.

Wilson was a white cop; therefore, he was the Racist White Establishment. Brown was a black teenager; therefore, he was the Innocent Black Victim. The parts have already been written; Wilson was merely unlucky enough to land the starring role.

And so we expect riots no matter what the outcome of the indictment. Should Wilson escape indictment due to complete lack of evidence, the utopians and their rioting henchmen will attribute that acquittal to the Racist White Establishment. Should he be indicted, the utopians and their rioting henchmen will cite Wilson as merely the latest example of the Racist White Establishment. No matter the antecedent, the consequence has been determined in advance: rage, riots, recriminations.

If all of this sounds familiar, that’s because it is.

Read the rest here

Why did he wait so long

Senator Jeff Sessions has just now called Obama, “the emperor of the United States.”  One should ask, why did he and other Republicans not hang the title on the day he (Obama) made his inaugural speech?  Anyone with one eye and half-sense could understand the direction he was heading.

Here’s is a short article by William Halper in the Weekly Standard detailing Sessions’ assertion:

Senator Jeff Sessions calls Barack Obama an “Emperor of the United States” now that the president is going ahead with executive amnesty.

“President Obama previously said he could not issue an executive amnesty because ‘I’m the President of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.’ Well, apparently we now have an ‘Emperor of the United States,’” Sessions writes in a statement.

“President Obama’s immigration order would provide illegal immigrants with the exact benefits Congress has repeatedly rejected: Social Security numbers, photo IDs and work permits—which will allow them to now take jobs directly from struggling Americans in every occupation. Congress must not allow this unconstitutional action. That means Congress should fund the government while ensuring that no funds can be spent on this unlawful purpose.”

 

Six energy policy changes to watch for in a Republican-controlled Congress

This is a long one from Marita, but it needs to be.  Read all of it … it is worth the few minutes you’ll spend compared to the enjoyment and satisfaction you’ll receive.

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 2463

Six energy policy changes to watch for in a Republican-controlled Congress

Now that the dust has settled on the 2014 midterms, we can get a sense of how things will change in Washington under a Republican controlled Senate—and energy will be front and center.

Republicans and Democrats have very different views on energy development and policy. The past six years have seen taxpayer dollars poured into green-energy projects that have embarrassed the administration and promoted teppan-style renewables that chop-up and fry unsuspecting birds midflight and increase costs for consumers and business. Meanwhile, Republicans have touted the job creation and economic impact available through America’s abundant fossil-fuel resources.

Voters made their preference clear: Republicans won more seats, and with bigger majorities, than anyone predicted.

The day after the election, the Friends of the Earth, wasting no time, sent out a dramatic fundraising pitch, opening with: “The election’s over—the planet lost.” (You may not have even known that the planet was on your local ballot, but apparently it was.)

The email’s proclamation, once again, exposes the environmentalists’ agenda: “President Obama hasn’t always done the right thing for the environment. He should have denied the Keystone Pipeline years ago, he should be rolling back unchecked fracking, and he should have taken stronger action on climate both at home and in international negotiations.”

Gratefully, though ideologically aligned with them, he attempted to appease and didn’t take the extreme level of action Friends of the Earth would have liked.

The Keystone pipeline remains a strong possibility, though the Canadians have nearly given up on us. Fracking is regulated at the state level, which, mostly, allows it to continue to increase America’s energy freedom—resulting in lower prices at the pump. Because more than 96 percent of the wells drilled in America today use the decades-old, but new-and-improved, technology of hydraulic fracturing, a federal fracking ban, like environmental groups have been trying to pass through city and county initiatives, would virtually shut down our booming energy economy. President Obama tried, but couldn’t pass a cap-and-trade bill—even when his party controlled both houses. Nor could he get a new Kyoto-like international treaty ratified. Most of the western world is now retreating on the climate pledges made in a different political era.

Friends of the Earth is correct, though. The email states: “Now, with both the Republican Senate and the House salivating and ready to sink their teeth into our most basic environmental laws, the President’s environmental legacy is truly at stake.” The Republicans are likely “salivating”—though not specifically about “basic environmental laws.”

Big changes in energy policy are in the works. Not just because Republicans want to destroy the president’s “legacy,” but because a wealthy country is better able to do things right. A growing economy needs energy that is efficient, effective and economical—which is why countries like China and India will not limit energy availability and why Republicans want to expand access in the U.S.

What energy policies might the Republicans want to “sink their teeth into”?

Keystone pipeline
At a November 13 breakfast presentation on “the unconventional oil and gas revolution,” Senior Director, Energy Insight IHS, Chris Hansen said: “I expect to see action on the Keystone pipeline within the next few months.” While it is widely believed that Keystone would be an easy win in the Republican-controlled congress, the November 4 results are already making a difference.

Post-election, the Keystone pipeline—which the State Department has projected would create more than 40,000 jobs—has suddenly leapt to the front of the lame-duck-legislation line. Months ago, Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and John Hoeven (R-ND), along with 54 others (including 11 Democrats), reintroduced legislation to authorize building the Keystone pipeline—but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has blocked the popular bill by repeatedly denying requests to take up the legislation. The House has already approved eight previous Keystone bills and quickly passed an identical bill sponsored by Landrieu’s election opponent Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).

The question remains is whether or not the White House will approve the bill, though spokesman Josh Earnest hinted at an Obama veto—which would further anger his union supporters that have pushed for its passage for the past six years. If the president vetoes what many are calling the Save Mary Landrieu Act, all is not lost for the Keystone pipeline.

With many Democrats already on board with Keystone and a push for more support from union leadership, the new Congress may be able to pass it again—this time with a veto-proof majority.

Federal lands
President Obama likes to brag about the increased U.S. production of oil and gas. In his post-election press conference he stated: “Our dependence on foreign oil is down.” While the statement is true, it falsely implies that he had something to do with that fact.

Reality is, as a Congressional Research Service report makes clear, while oil production has increased 61 percent on state and private lands, it has decreased 6 percent on federal land where the administration has authority. Additionally, the report points out, applications to drill on federal lands take nearly twice as long to process under the Obama administration than they did previously.

Not only has the White House discouraged drilling on federal lands, President Obama has used his pen to lock up federal lands with potential development, such as the newly designated Organ Mountain Desert Peaks National Monument—which blocks production without analyzing the economic impact. “Every time they lock up federal lands, whether through national monuments, conservation areas, or wilderness areas,” Steven Henke, President of New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, told me, “they eliminate the potential for royalties from the federal estate. Those funds benefit both the state and federal government and reduce the burden to the taxpayers.”

For example, one prediction has drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) becoming a part of the Republican Party’s vision of energy independence: Alaska’s senior Senator “Lisa Murkowski has long argued that drilling in ANWR would help reduce the national deficit.”

Not all federal lands have oil-and-gas, or other mineral-extraction, potential, so a reversal of policy may not increase production by the 61 percent seen on state and private lands—but it could mean the U.S. not only passes Saudi Arabia in oil production, it leaves it in a dust storm.

Oil and natural gas exports
Before the new Congress is sworn in, we already hear a lot of talk about lifting the ban on oil exports that was put into place in response to the 1970s Arab oil embargo. Reuters reports: Senator Murkowski “has fought to relax the ban all year by issuing a series of papers detailing how such exports have been allowed in the past, holding a private meeting on the subject with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, and hinting that 2015 could be the time to introduce ban-ending legislation.”

With the Republicans now in charge come January, Murkowski will become the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She is expected to start by “holding hearings, pressuring Obama administration officials, and testing the level of support from party leadership.”

Oil producers continue to lobby for the lifting of the ban, as the light crude now being produced in the U.S. is difficult for domestic refiners to process with current equipment. If Congress can increase drilling access to federal lands, even more crude will flood into refineries with limited capacity. Reports indicate exports will have little impact on pricing within the U.S.

“Policy makers need to catch up with the industry,” Harold York, an analyst of the refining sector at Woods Mackenzie said. He projects that easing the crude oil restrictions “would lead to $70 billion in investment spending in the U.S. oil sector and further economic stimulus.”

Different from crude oil, the law currently allows liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, but the Energy Department has dozens of applications for LNG export terminals languishing on some bureaucrat’s desk. Just six applications have been approved in the past year. Bipartisan support exists for expediting the permitting process—especially in light of Russia’s stranglehold on natural gas supplies to many of our European allies. Legislation must be drafted and passed to allow exports to non-European free-trade countries.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) has widespread opposition within the Republican Party—including state governors who struggle to interpret the regulations but who are asking the right questions regarding the impact on their individual states. Even coal-state Democrats, such as Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), have concerns with the CPP.

The CPP has the potential to prematurely shutter hundreds of coal-fueled power plants when viable option exists for the plants’ replacement. This winter, Massachusetts is experiencing a 37 percent increase in electricity rates over last year because plants closed without sufficient infrastructure for their replacement.

The CPP, plus the many other regulations—such as those coming on ozone and methane—have many lawmakers concerned about the EPA’s impact on grid reliability and the economy. President Obama is not likely to sign any legislation designed to rein in his personal priorities, but Republicans can make changes in EPA appropriations.

In a post-election analysis webinar, Scott Segal, founding partner of the Washington, DC-based Policy Resolution Group, declared Obama’s approach to greenhouse gas emissions—specifically the CPP which projections show may cost $42 billion—as the number one priority of the Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works Committees. He believes the committees’ oversight will look at reliability, cost, and, benefits. Segal said: “I think you can expect tailored legislation to focus on these topics. You can expect use of the Congressional Review Act for resolutions of disapproval when these regulations become final. You can also look to the appropriations process. …that might mean an Interior and Environment appropriations bill might have a rider, not that sets aside the CPP entirely, but that makes narrowly targeted changes to that plan. Then the president would be confronted with a choice: ‘do I essentially shut down the EPA or do I work with Republicans in the House and Senate to reform my proposal?’”

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA direly needs revision, updating or outright repeal as, though well-intended in the beginning, it has more recently been used as a funding tool for environmental groups and a way for them to block economic activity, such as oil-and-gas extraction, and ranching, farming, and mining.

Earlier this year, a group of 13 GOP lawmakers released a report, which called for an ESA overhaul, though CBS News called the changes “unlikely given the pervasive partisan divide in Washington, DC.” CBS continues: “The political hurdles to overhaul are considerable. The ESA enjoys fervent support among many environmentalists, whose allies on Capitol Hill have thwarted past proposals for change.”

While repeal is unlikely, this may be the time to introduce legislation that would reform the ESA to curtail litigation from wildlife advocates and give states more authority—two ideas that were brought forth in the report.

Kent Holsinger, a Colorado-based attorney specializing in ESA issues, told me: “As radical groups continue to push their agendas, other parts of the country are now beginning to feel the threat that westerners have long suffered. The House moved significant, but targeted, legislative measures just recently. Perhaps the Senate might follow suit?” Maybe we can encourage them.

Climate Change
The biggest change will come on the climate change agenda. While Obama will not back down, committees have significant influence, as previously mentioned, through the appropriation process. Also, expect oversight on Obama administration policies.

The Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairmanship will change from one of the biggest supporters of Obama’s climate change agenda (Senator Barbara Boxer [D-CA]) to the biggest opponent of his policies (Senator Jim Inhofe [R-OK]). On election night, Inhofe stated: “I am looking forward to taking back the environment committee”—a role that, according to Environment & Energy Publishing (E&E): “Already has greens cringing.”

“A leadership transition would mark a seismic shift in the tone of the EPA Committee,” states the E&E report. The switch will mean, according to Frank O’Connell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch, that instead of serving as a “shield for the executive branch” the committee could turn into “a battering ram against the executive branch.”

This reversal of attitude in climate change policies is already evident in the response to the president’s newly announced pact with China to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and his promised $3 billion contribution to a U.N. climate fund designed to help poor counties deal with potential impacts of climate change.

About the deal with China, Inhofe said: “This deal is a non-binding charade. The American people spoke against the president’s climate policies in this last election. They want affordable energy and more economic opportunity, both which are being diminished by overbearing EPA mandates. As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA’s unchecked regulations.”

Reports now declare: “Climate change compromises may be easier with China than Congress.”

What does Inhofe have in his power? Andrew Wheeler, EPW staff director when Inhofe was chairman previously, says: “I know he won’t hesitate to conduct oversight of the Democratic Obama Administration.”

The E&E report projects: “Among the topics Inhofe would likely zero in on: EPA’s rules to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, a controversial EPA proposal to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act and the science underpinning federal environmental rules. EPA management could also be the topic of some oversight hearings.” Wheeler added: “I think his climate work will probably be focused more on the EPA regulation.”

The $3 billion pledge to developing countries is subject to Congressional appropriations. In a statement from Inhofe’s office, he vows to work with his colleagues “to reset the misguided priorities of Washington in the past six years.” He says: “The President’s climate change agenda has only siphoned precious taxpayer dollars away from the real problems facing the American people.”

The National Journal states: Republicans “want nothing less than to send money to poor countries to fight climate change.”

As a part of this shift, watch for environmental activists to be more aggressive on the state level—pushing for increased mandates for renewables and more regulation and/or bans on hydraulic fracturing.

***

For those of us who watch the politics of energy policy, it is going to be an interesting two years. If the Republican policies turn the economy around as predicted—offering a sharp contrast to the stagnation of the past six years, they will pave the way for victory in 2016. Call your Senators and Congressman and ask him or her to support these six energy policy changes that will give America energy security and economic strength.

(A version of this content was originally published at Breitbart.com)

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

For crying out loud, Pelosi

For Republicans, the clown act Pelosi and some Democrat operatives are trying to perform, is more than a little bull butter.  The fact there are more than  two videos and a lot of narrative, shows the stupidity of lying liars, such as seen in the Gruber grab.

Read this account for more on the dregs that drag the demos down:

Dragging The Demos Down

As always, don’t forget the related articles found below.

He’s not finished

HolderToTheWell2WebCR-11_12_14

We Told You So.

Visit: TerrellAftermath

Related articles

Every day should be veterans day: Read why below

First posted in December 2013

I was poking  around on Facebook early this afternoon and I found a post by a friend; Retired Navy Commander John Jones of Albuquerque, New Mexico.  I had read the information contained in his post some two years ago, but time has not dampened the words’ effect on my sentiments and I wanted to give the words more exposure.

The words in Commander Jones’ post come from a speech given in 2010 by US Marine Corps Lt General John Kelly.  General Kelly tells the story of two Marines from different backgrounds bonded together by their common service and dedication.

Not revealed and hidden from his audience on the evening of his presentation was the fact of General Kelly’s loss of his own son four days earlier in Afghanistan.  Below, after a brief introduction by Geoffrey Ingersoll written in the Business Journal, are the words of General Kelly as he spoke them during that evening in 2010.

Five years ago, two Marines from two different walks of life who had literally just met were told to stand guard in front of their outpost’s entry control point.

Minutes later, they were staring down a big blue truck packed with explosives. With this particular shred of hell bearing down on them, they stood their ground.

Heck, they even leaned in.

I had heard the story many times, personally. But until today I had never heard Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly’s telling of it to a packed house in 2010. Just four days following the death of his own son in combat, Kelly eulogized two other sons in an unforgettable manner.

From Kelly’s speech:

Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 “The Walking Dead,” and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour.

Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines.

The same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda. Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle class white kid from Long Island.

They were from two completely different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines they would never have met each other, or understood that multiple America’s exist simultaneously depending on one’s race, education level, economic status, and where you might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.

The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure went
something like: “Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no unauthorized
personnel or vehicles pass.” “You clear?” I am also sure Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like: “Yes Sergeant,” with just enough attitude that made the point without saying the words, “No kidding sweetheart, we know what we’re doing.” They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, al Anbar, Iraq.

A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way—perhaps 60-70
yards in length—and sped its way through the serpentine of concrete jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck’s engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a house down before it stopped.

Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young infantrymen didn’t have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms.

When I read the situation report about the incident a few hours after it happened I
called the regimental commander for details as something about this struck me as
different. Marines dying or being seriously wounded is commonplace in combat. We expect Marines regardless of rank or MOS to stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is what the mission takes. But this just seemed different.

The regimental commander had just returned from the site and he agreed, but reported that there were no American witnesses to the event—just Iraqi police. I figured if there was any chance of finding out what actually happened and then to decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I’d have to do it as a combat award that requires two eye-witnesses and we figured the bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general officer.

I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi
police all of whom told the same story. The blue truck turned down into the alley and immediately sped up as it made its way through the serpentine. They all said, “We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing.” The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then to a man, ran for safety just prior to the explosion.

All survived. Many were injured … some seriously. One of the Iraqis elaborated and with tears welling up said, “They’d run like any normal man would to save his life.”

What he didn’t know until then, he said, and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal. Choking past the emotion he said, “Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did.”

“No sane man.”

“They saved us all.”

What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I
wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their
heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “… let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.”

The two Marines had about five seconds left to live. It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was half-way through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing
non-stop…the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have know they were safe…because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber.

The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread should width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God.
Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty…into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.

Below you will find three YouTube Videos of General Kelly’s speech (the sound quality is not the best, but it is still stirring.)

English: Photo of LtGen John F. Kelly

English: Photo of LtGen John F. Kelly (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kellys-speech-about-marines-in-ramadi-2013-6#ixzz2mdNKgRjP

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Every day should be veterans day: Read below to find out why

Originally posted in December 2013

I was poking  around on Facebook early this afternoon and I found a post by a friend; Retired Navy Commander John Jones of Albuquerque, New Mexico.  I had read the information contained in his post some two years ago, but time has not dampened the words’ effect on my sentiments and I wanted to give the words more exposure.

The words in Commander Jones’ post come from a speech given in 2010 by US Marine Corps Lt General John Kelly.  General Kelly tells the story of two Marines from different backgrounds bonded together by their common service and dedication.

Not revealed and hidden from his audience on the evening of his presentation was the fact of General Kelly’s loss of his own son four days earlier in Afghanistan.  Below, after a brief introduction by Geoffrey Ingersoll written in the Business Journal, are the words of General Kelly as he spoke them during that evening in 2010.

Five years ago, two Marines from two different walks of life who had literally just met were told to stand guard in front of their outpost’s entry control point.

Minutes later, they were staring down a big blue truck packed with explosives. With this particular shred of hell bearing down on them, they stood their ground.

Heck, they even leaned in.

I had heard the story many times, personally. But until today I had never heard Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly’s telling of it to a packed house in 2010. Just four days following the death of his own son in combat, Kelly eulogized two other sons in an unforgettable manner.

From Kelly’s speech:

Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 “The Walking Dead,” and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour.

Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines.

The same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda. Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle class white kid from Long Island.

They were from two completely different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines they would never have met each other, or understood that multiple America’s exist simultaneously depending on one’s race, education level, economic status, and where you might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.

The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure went
something like: “Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no unauthorized
personnel or vehicles pass.” “You clear?” I am also sure Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like: “Yes Sergeant,” with just enough attitude that made the point without saying the words, “No kidding sweetheart, we know what we’re doing.” They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, al Anbar, Iraq.

A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way—perhaps 60-70
yards in length—and sped its way through the serpentine of concrete jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck’s engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a house down before it stopped.

Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young infantrymen didn’t have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms.

When I read the situation report about the incident a few hours after it happened I
called the regimental commander for details as something about this struck me as
different. Marines dying or being seriously wounded is commonplace in combat. We expect Marines regardless of rank or MOS to stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is what the mission takes. But this just seemed different.

The regimental commander had just returned from the site and he agreed, but reported that there were no American witnesses to the event—just Iraqi police. I figured if there was any chance of finding out what actually happened and then to decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I’d have to do it as a combat award that requires two eye-witnesses and we figured the bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general officer.

I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi
police all of whom told the same story. The blue truck turned down into the alley and immediately sped up as it made its way through the serpentine. They all said, “We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing.” The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then to a man, ran for safety just prior to the explosion.

All survived. Many were injured … some seriously. One of the Iraqis elaborated and with tears welling up said, “They’d run like any normal man would to save his life.”

What he didn’t know until then, he said, and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal. Choking past the emotion he said, “Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did.”

“No sane man.”

“They saved us all.”

What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I
wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their
heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “… let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.”

The two Marines had about five seconds left to live. It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was half-way through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing
non-stop…the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have know they were safe…because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber.

The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread should width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God.
Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty…into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.

Below you will find three YouTube Videos of General Kelly’s speech (the sound quality is not the best, but it is still stirring.)

English: Photo of LtGen John F. Kelly

English: Photo of LtGen John F. Kelly (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kellys-speech-about-marines-in-ramadi-2013-6#ixzz2mdNKgRjP

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Marita Noon: From The Battlefield To The Oilfield

What  great things Marita has related below.  As always, she has outdone herself.

 

Greetings!

Whew! Now that the elections are over (and energy won!), I can write something that is not so snarky, not so combative. This week’s commentary, From the battlefield to the oilfield, it is all about employing veterans (attached and pasted-in-below), is a feel-good piece that I have been waiting a year to write. October 2013, I was in Midland, TX, at the Executive Oil and Gas Conference. At lunch, I dined with two gentlemen who got me excited about jobs for returning veterans in the oil-and-gas industry. I decided then to use the idea for Memorial Day—but I had other pressing issues at that time. Last week, when I realized that Veterans Day was this week, I remembered the veterans job idea. I search my database for the contact information of the guys with whom I had lunch but could find them as, a year later, I couldn’t remember their names or their company names. On Tuesday, I sent an announcement out to my 5000-person-strong newsletter-distribution list asking for help finding them and other stories of the energy industry hiring veterans. I cast my net and it brought in a good haul. I found the two men–and others.

It is my hope that From the battlefield to the oilfield, it is all about employing veterans will encourage companies not currently thinking of veterans recruitment, to look into this valuable potential labor pool. Additionally, I want to give hope to our Veterans seeking employment. I was on a flight Saturday, on my way home from speaking in Ohio. The gentleman seated next to me is active-duty navy. I asked him to read my column and let me know what he thought. I watched him, nodding as he read. His wife has just returned to civilian life following a career in the Air Force. She’s looking for a job. He told me they hadn’t thought of the energy industry and he was going to tell her about it. Bingo!

Please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy From the battlefield to the oilfield, it is all about employing veterans. Thanks for your help in spreading the word on this important topic.

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

.

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Marita Noon

From the battlefield to the oilfield, it is all about employing veterans

One-and-a-half million to 2 million men and women served in America’s defense during the Global War on Terror. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 250,000 service members enter civilian life each year—and that number will rise with the drawdown of soldiers from Afghanistan. As troops return home, they face a new fight: finding a job in a competitive labor market that doesn’t understand how their military experience translates into employees with discipline, organization, and motivation.

Most have served in the Middle East, risking their lives for America, and ensuring an uninterrupted energy supply. They believe in the greatness of America.

Their experiences in the military make these returning veterans ideal employees for America’s booming oil-and-gas industry. Many companies have seen the value veterans bring to their organization and are actively recruiting veterans—both enlisted and officers.

What better way to honor them for their service than to minimize the need to return to the Middle East by making America energy secure, by developing our own abundant resources?

The U.S. oil-and-gas industry has added millions of jobs in the past few years and expects to add more and more—especially with the new energy-friendly Republican-controlled Congress. Just the Keystone pipeline—which is now likely to be built—will employ thousands. Increased access to reserves on federal lands will demand more personnel. But finding potential hires that fit the needs of the energy industry in the general labor pool is difficult, as they lack discipline, the ability to work in a team and, often, can’t pass a drug test. Here the fit for the veteran becomes obvious.

“The number one bottleneck to the oil-and-gas industry,” according to Steve Yen, founder and CEO of Valor Services, a two-year-old professional services firm that specializes in energy-industry career opportunities for veterans, “is having enough quality people to execute business at today’s levels—let alone projected growth.” Yen, a former Army Captain, Ranger, and Bronze Star recipient, who served as an infantry officer in Iraq in ‘06, ‘07, and ‘08, sees veterans as a misunderstood segment of the workforce. Through Valor Services, he wants to champion his generation of veterans. With a current staff of ten, several of which are recruiters with 15-20 years of experience, Valor has a unique mission of optimizing returning veterans’ transition from the military to the oil-and-gas industry.

Veterans, as high-quality individuals, are accustomed to working in a team on the battlefield—translate well to the oilfield. They’ve focused on safety and understand the need for procedure. They respect chain of command. Both the military and the energy industry have a large number of “boots on the ground” and those individuals need to be trustworthy and responsible.

Yen has found that it is easy to teach someone how to do a job, but difficult, or impossible, to teach character and discipline.

Obvious parallels exist. Many military experiences translate well to roles in health, safety, and environmental work. Enlisted service members make excellent field personnel where technical and mechanical skills are valued and team skills and project management are required. Welders and heavy equipment operators, for example, are always needed. But other applications need skills honed in the military. Officers make high-quality professionals and management team members. Combat arms and special-operations experiences translate into strong leadership and resiliency, valuable characteristics that are hard to develop.

Because the energy industry has such immediate needs, it doesn’t generally offer apprenticeship programs. Here vocational and technical schools, such as San Juan College’s (SJC) School of Energy in Farmington, NM, and Valor’s Vo-Tech Program fill the need. Employers often co-sponsor the education and/or partnerships are can be formed with veteran-advocacy groups.

“Those who serve in our nation’s military find many challenges when they return to civilian life. One of those challenges is often finding the work they need to provide for the families they love,” Randy Pacheco, Dean of SJC’s School of Energy, told me. “We provide programs, degrees, and certifications that can help those soldiers learn skills that will help them obtain a career in the energy industry. These men and women have served not just a nation, but every member of our great nation. Their service and commitment can never be overstated and we, as an industry, should do all we can to do for them. It is the least we can do.”

Ray Long, a Vietnam-era Navy Seabee, became a trailblazer with the vision to match returning Marines with jobs in the energy industry. As HR Director for Integrated Production Services, Inc. (IPS), a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services, Inc., Long, had difficulty in finding quality applicants for the company’s various operations. He pitched senior management on hiring Marines, who were completing their tours of duty and transitioning to civilian life. Initially, due to concerns that potential hires lacked direct oilfield experience, Long’s proposal met with resistance from both senior management and district/area managers, who’d been used to hiring locally. With the argument that these were clearly quality guys who knew how to work on a team, had proven they were imminently trainable and, by definition, would not quit when the work got tough, he convinced them to hire a few Marines.

Long told me: “Similarly aged local hires tend to be high school dropouts—job hoppers who are difficult to motivate. Marines come with a need to be part of a team and succeed.” Long added: “Employee turnover is the singular problem in the oil patch and often exceeds 50 percent. Marine turnover was less than half that of local civilian hires.” Soon, he started getting calls from the district managers, asking: “You got any more of those guys?”

Prior to retirement, Long hired more than 400 Marines before their release from active duty. He recalls that while one may have failed a drug test, many are now, not surprisingly, on their way up to leadership roles in the company.

Apache Corporation actively targets veterans to fill HR needs. In 2014, military veterans made up 12 percent of Apache’s new hires in the U.S. Its career page highlights the veterans and boasts: “When it comes to core values, Apache and the military fit like a well-pressed uniform.” Apache often participates in career days held at military bases near their operations. As result, appropriate personnel have jobs waiting for them when they return to civilian life.

Apache’s Executive VP of Human Resources, Margie Harris, reiterated the military fit: “Apache’s culture is one that respects and admires military service. We find that those we hire with former military experience tend to make very good employees.”

Unfortunately, many returning veterans face a tough headwind in seeking employment: the highly publicized, tragic cases where post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) causes questionable behaviors. These, however, are a small segment of the returning forces as only about 20 percent of those deployed in the Global War on Terror actually engage in direct combat and, Yen reports: “Even amongst combat troops, most don’t have PTSD. They have Post-Traumatic Growth; that is, their experiences evolve them into stronger, more capable people.”
Yen believes that, as more companies see the correlation between a military background and energy industry needs, career opportunities for those who have served honorably and successfully will grow. Valor has an extremely high success rate with its placements—a retention rate of nearly 100 percent.
What a powerful way to thank our veterans for their sacrifice that, in part, kept the necessary fuel flowing. Hire them to make America energy-secure.

(A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com)

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.