I can just guess what the help-wanted ad looked like for the new head of the trade group representing the oil and gas industry. With gas prices at new records and people fuming about record profits at many oil companies, serving as spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute will take some seriously thick skin. Fortunately, Jack Gerard, the man named to fill the post come November knows a thing or two about representing industries that many people love to hate... mining and chemicals among them. So, how will he sell the oil and gas industry on Americans, and to congress? We'll ask him. And this is your first chance to talk with the future head of the oil and gas industry in America... leave your comments here.
Blog Of The Nation
You suggested that we can have our own opinions and not our own facts. Do you recognize the ways in which this Administration has pressured scientists to give it the facts it wants? How can we trust you?
I hear about how there are too many environmental restrictions to build more refineries. Are you saying it is impossible or that it is just to expensive?
Mr. Gerard is misrepresenting the facts. The oil and gas reserves are not as huge as he is trying to make it seem. In addition the businesses that burn coal have fought tooth and nail against having to install the equipment to help minimize pollution. Also he does not mention that it is not only the burning of coal that damages the environment but the mining of it.
What a horrible interview! Here is some well paid oil spokesperson going on about how great coal is and you just move on. SO disappointing. Did I accidentally tune in to Fox News?
How is this news? Why is NPR giving free airtime to the oil and gas industry? They spend millions if dollars to spin the facts to trick people into supporting the oil and gas industry and now we are asking this lobbyist what he thinks as if he will be fair. His job is to try to convince of things, not to tell the truth.
Coal is nature's way of sequestering carbon. Why are we trying to create CO2 from a perfectly stored form of carbon? This is stupid and self-destructive isn't it? This guy is just another salesman for the oil companies - he has NO credit as an independent thinker - he is a hired gun, that's all!
8 years ago president Bush mentioned the use of "clean coal" technology. He is very friendly to the industry and yet at the end of his time there still is not even one demonstration plant burning coal cleanly. How can your guest assert that coal can be used cleanly? Where is the evidence that is will ever be burned cleanly.
We need to re-regulate our commodity markets. We need to do away with Hedge Funds, the sale of derivatives. If we can take speculation out of the market, we should save $40-50 a barrel. I do not believe the fundamental problem is supply and demand. It is greed in the market place
I think Mr. Gerard should heed the warnings of Dr. Hanson: we have already exceeded the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that our climate system can safely handle. As a nation, we simply MUST move away from fossil fuels. We cannot be taken in by the newest line of myths and obfuscations put out by spokesmen for the oil industry. They conflate energy independence with independent sources of oil, coal and natural gas. They argue technology will clean up our pollution. We have to say "No, less polluting" is not good enough. We have to move away from fossil fuel use and the government should not waste time.
Is it true that the Oil companies own patents on innovative technology for fuel efficiency. and will not allow this technology be utilized?
Guest didn't answer question - a caller asked where oil and natural gas produced from the Gulf of Mexico would end up - U.S. or other countries. The Guest talked about everything but where it would end up - would we just be selling more to China - just like if ANWR opened up. Why should we allow our resources to be sold overseas to the profit only of the companies
What would be the down side of having a windfall tax on the oil and gas industries. It is not like these companies would go away.
Oil industries would love to tap into the remaining reserves of this country and others. They have been trying hard for so long. Is there a risk of giving them an inch and the lobbies taking 10 miles? I wouldn't trust oil companies to ever do the right thing. I feel they shouldn't get a single inch.
What about the vast areas of offshore resources which ARE open to oil and gas exploration, but which remains unused. Would it not be wiser for the industry to prove that they can exploit these areas in a safe manner before we go and give them the keys to any additional zones?
Why can't we self criticize our self and what would it take people to stop driving trucks and SUVs? How much effect it would have on petroleum industry?
--Irfan
Of coarse these guys can't be trusted to tell the truth, any more than the tobacco industry could be trusted with their "facts". Only independent scientists and thinkers, who are not on a company payroll can ever be trusted to tell the truth. Would you buy a used car from these guys?
During WWII, Americans were asked to sacrifice for the greater effort of the War. Factories all over the nation, re-tooled their operations, at great expense, to make war supplies. Those companies acted in a patriotic manner.
Wouldn't it be patriotic for the Gas/Oil companies to re-tool their operation and develop alternative energies rather than looking at this crisis as an opportunity to profiteer (expanding oil exploration) at the expense of the American people? I submit that if the Gas/oil companies really wanted to be the heroes of our time, they should limit profits and re-invest that money into alternative energy exploration, as well as halting further oil exploration.
Why are we selling the oil we produce in Alaska to foreign companies; couldn't we cut our costs if we used our own oil?
Also, one question not answered -- why aren't oil companies using their enormous profits to build more refineries?
I agree with Krista. This was free propaganda for the industry with the interviewer asking NO hard questions. It simply is not true that greater supply of oil/gas will lead to lower prices. Come on! That is only the tip of the melting iceberg of the Fox-news-like quality of that interview.
For the windfall tax -- my biggest question is whether this windfall consists of ill-gotten gains (or at the expense of our overall energy and environmental situation). But the DOWNSIDE is that I'm not so certain I want to give our federal government the right to determine when the amount of money any person or corporation makes is TOO much -- provided it is made in a completely above the board manner.
Wow! Guy, do you even listen to the callers? A caller asked about gasoline and your guest responded about natural gas; they are two different things! And, then you didn't even follow up or question him about his obvious deflection! Get Neal back, or at least get a host who knows what they are doing! This is a interactive/debate show, not a softball interview Guy!
Your interviewer started with the wrong question. It should have begun not where to dig but how to drastically reduce the need for energy. Digging/drilling in the US will only delay the inevitable. These are limited resources. Not to mention the tremendous damage they bring to our personal health and environment. Mr. Gerard's concern is not in "what is in the best interest of the American people" but what is in the best interest of his corporations or industry. I was very disappointed with Guy in his interview. I am not used to NPR allowing their guests to easily talk away the question. But to be fair to the guest, the questions were not too tough. The interview reminded me of the movie, "Thank You, for Smoking."
Jack Gerard didn't answer the 2 most important questions that were asked. He side stepped the question about oil drilling in the GOM affecting gas prices by saying that oil is sold on the world market and gas is sold on a regional basis. But we're not going to be drilling for gas, we're going to be drilling for oil. So won't it have to go through the world market first?
Also the question about cutting oil industry profits in half to lower prices wasn't answered. Instead, the host let him get away without explaining the relationship between oil profits and gas prices. I want to know WHY the oil industry can't cut it's profits to ease prices.
Mr Gerard is ignoring that the continuation of fossil fuel use is destroying the planet. He should be using his PR talents to sell non-polluting renewable resource technology and get us off this fast track to disaster. He talks of these things but takes on the presidency of the American Petroleum Institute? Oil is going to get more and more expensive and produce more and more greenhouse gases, not to mention more wars. A program on NPR promoting more petroleum production is very disappointing.
I am disappointed to hear the same ole spin regarding hearing ones expertise w/o
measure of any prophet change from our
industrialized emptying of oil,gas reserves. Oil producers just want to exploit for their grandchildren's future.
There is but 1 or 2 of modern coal factories in the united states. Why not 25 if we are so blessed with coal.
30mil trees in NE have died in NE due to beetle that uses mobility of highways to
kill our trees. Thousands of trees in the west are gone due to 1000s of fires.
When will we force mass transit programs
upon the people. Electric,battery cars.
That came in 70s and worked but weren't selling- why aren't they being considered again. Why don't the oil researchers use
the 75% of lands that could be leased in this country now? instead of pushing for
risky venues of Deep deep off shore drilling to pollute our waters disrupt our currents and kill wildlife.
How about addressing the increasing dead
zone in the gulf of Mexico.
thankyou npr
The oil and natural gas industry says there plenty of oil and gas supply in the united states. Are this oil or rude free flowing or is looked up in oil shale? And if it is doesn't this take 2-3 the energy to make then your will get out of the oil and realize massive amount of co2 emissions and other environmental problem assorted by making this type of oil. It doesnt seem to make any sense!-Chris Green
I believe that Mr. Gerard makes an excellent point of utilizing our resources to their full potential, by what ever means possible. To simply say that coal is dirty, and that we should abandon it completely is both wasteful and foolish. I agree that it is time to stop pointing fingers, asking other people to fix the problem for us, and time to stand-up and develop novel solutions utilizing our own resources. Be that wind, solar, nuclear, or developing new, clean ways to use our coal. But lets stop the finger pointing and work together.
What about the recent NY Times report that all offshore oil drilling ships are booked solid by other nations for at least the next 5 years? We couldn't drill if we wanted to. Or the fact that oil companies are not even using their existing rights on known US reserves. They're obviously trying to hoard all the rights they can while the Bushies still reign.
On average only 30% of an individual American's oil/petroleum usage is gasoline. The remaining 70% is consumed in the form of plastic bags, excessive packaging, "disposable" products (diapers, to-go containers, single use products, etc.), machine parts, toys, furniture, clothing, the list is endless. Look around you. I believe the fast route to ending our dependence on oil starts with ending our dependence on Plastic!
Wow, was that an interview or a pre-arranged PR stunt? Softball questions, nary an opposing view. Not even a little pushback from the interviewer when Mr Gerard failed to really answer the question put to him. What a poor job of journalism presented by NPR.
Jack Gerard suggests coal can be made green by applying new technologies that will capture CO2 emissions. What he has left out is that anything trapped must be stored. Most such plans involve sequestering the captured waste beneath the ocean, raising the CO2 levels of the water and killing the sea life. "Green" coal is a lot of work to put us right back where we started.
Really, really, disappointing NPR! Who put you up to this CRAP of an interview? This wasn't an interview, it was free advertising for the oil and coal industries - at least charge them an advertising fee! By the way, are they now, possibly, contributors to NPR? Why no critic(s) on the show to rebuff the numerous inane opinions (and NOT facts) of this guy? I grade NPR an 'E' on this very misleading 'promo' for the oil and coal industries. Like another commentator said, I thought I was tuned into FOX. In the future, please include opposing positions (from independent experts) when any 'for-profit' organization is being allowed to propagandize on your show.
Again, what was being said was essentially all CRAP (unsupported by the actual facts)! As an example - there has yet to be demonstrated and proven, ANY cost effect and completely safe way to sequester CO2 in huge quantities and for indefinite periods of time. The sad irony is that nature already does this perfectly well in coal. You can't really improve on solid carbon - since it can be compactly stored forever!
I was livid listening to this sophistry.
We are being told (or sold) to add to global warming,rape the lands of the strip mining, and shoulder the burdens of these terrible choices, while ignoring the obscene profits of the oil and gas industry.
That is his proposal and the host of TOTN, allowed him to escape answering the question of the horrific econmy due, in part, on the profits of these greedy men and corporations.
I just finished listening to the Jack Gerard "interview" on NPR, and I think I am now finished with NPR. When I first began listening to NPR over 15 years ago it was a valuable source of hard information and relevant insight, it is a travesty what it has become.
That was a shameful, slow pitch soft ball game of an interview. NPR might as well have been asking Mr. Gerard what flavor bubble gum he prefers. The Energy Industries have a HUGE responsibility (both good and bad) for the current state of our planet's condition. As citizens and consumers we need to demand greater accountability from the likes of Mr. Gerard.
We do not need fuzzy public relation pitches for Big Oil.
Having our current 'oil and gas' industry get into alternate energy makes as much sense as having the tobacco industry doing cancer research.
Even if they did some good, they will find a way to get the price up so high that we all still brought to the edge of financial ruin while they stuff their pockets.
We need new - non-greedy - blood in the energy industries.
This guy wouldn't answer how the price of oil is set. I'll tell you: it is fixed. We are paying RIGHT NOW for the private equity injections from oil producing states which went into failing financial institutions. It is the bailout of Bear Stearns et al using a global regressive tax.
The usual suspects were over there, negotiating for you and me to foot the bill just before the big price spikes. Nobody would accept higher taxes to bankroll their disproportionate lifestyles, but higher energy is much easier.
All of them: oil, financials, military industrial complex are CROOKS!
People like this run the country, Dems, Reps, and the media (including NPR) are in their pocket.
"At the end of the day" (Whenever someone uses that phrase, watch out!), WE ARE DOOMED.
They will siphon all the equity from this country and leave a smoldering heap as they wave goodbye from their yachts with their uneducated Ivy League brats in tow.
Charles what world do you live in? We have to point fingers because there are those who bear responsibility for the energy crisis we now face, whether it is Greedy CEOs or complicit politicians. The fact is we need a national response and you can't get one if these industries are allowed to follow their selfish interests at the expense of everyone else. Or, do you really think the oil companies will abandon their massive profits to do the rite thing?
I think NPR needs to have this same 'guy' on to face questions from some REAL experts in the field. I think most listeners and the above commentators would agree with this. If he refuses to come back on and face the critics, then he will be proven to be nothing but a well paid 'carnival barker' and coward.
The demand for oil has gone up 10% in the last 5 years, and yet the price has doubled.
ANWAR holds only 6 months of oil, and yet it would take at least 10 years to produce it. Gee, who's making all the money in the meantime?
Nuclear power will never work - besides the human-error factor, no one wants to store the waste. (Yo, McCain, how about making the whole of Arizona the national repository for nuclear waste?)
Speculation and greed has driven up the price of oil - and the current Administration, run by 2 oilmen, have encouraged this behavior.
People need to stand up and demand change - take back our country, prosecute the crooks, throw them in jail and toss away the keys!
I agree that Mr Gerard was allowed to dance around/sidestep a number of points. As several comments have noted, as prospective head of the API he has no mandate to comment on coal issues. He seemed mostly intent on propagating the API and coal producers' message that our supply problems can be laid mostly at the feet of inconvenient environmental restrictions, never mind the generous production and exploration incentives and tax breaks that fossil fuel producers have enjoyed for decades. Callers were allowed to conflate transport fuel supply with general energy supply. The only way coal will have an impact on transportation fuel prices is via coal-to-liquids technologies, which have a truly ghastly environmental cost.
Additionally, Mr Gerard seemed to support the assertion by one caller that the US had such vast oil/gas reserves that we had no need to depend on imports if only we could exploit them all. A check of the USDOE-EIA petroleum reserve figures shows that our proven reserves -- including offshore -- amount to about 18 billion barrels, which at our current consumption rate of about 20 m bbl/day would supply us for less than 3 years. The US does produce over 15% the world's oil -- unfortunately we consume 24%.
An additional fact check to the comment on plastics consumption by Jennifer: only 2% of crude oil supplies are used as petrochemical feedstocks, compared to 47% used for motor gasoline. While I'm all in favor of reducing plastics use it won't have much impact on our total consumption.
Your interviewers need to do their homework a bit better.
I agree with Chuck above. It scares me to death that the traditional energy monopolies and utilities are trying to get a hold of all forms of alternative energy, so that they make that into a commodity as well and have full control of it. Edison and Ford (no less) tried to push for an electric car in 1912, but they gave up because of the already powerful oil lobby. Let's all hope the 'usual suspects' don't get control of alternative energy markets, as they are trying to do here in Michigan (they are trying to make it impossible for electric customers to get power from other providers).
Hey NPR, how about a whole hour on how the energy conglomerates are now trying to get control over alternative energy markets? If they succeed, alternative energy will NEVER be cheap and you may not even get permission to make your own. We will surely have an 'energy prohibition', requiring all manner of, prohibitively expensive, special permits! This is not just a conspiracy theory, but a plausible agenda and 'master plan' that has yet to be investigated and reported on. I have no doubt that energy monopolies will at least try very hard to get total control of alternative energy markets and technologies.
oppossing views on subjects such as energy is part of a democratic society, unchallenged and false propaganda on the other hand, undermines us and is harmful to the American people. Thus it would have been great to have a 2nd guest to debate Dr. Gerard's false statements.
1) Demand might be high but supply is plenty. Go to any gas station and you can get all the gas you want-if you can afford it. During the 1970's demand was high and supply was low-you had to stand in long lines to get ANY gas.
The middle East has enormous supplies of pre-drilled oil. Lack of supply is not the problem.
2) The energy companies CAN bring down the cost of gas-they simply choose not to. They are making crazy profits, why should they make a penny less if they don't have to? I have no problems with their profits, but it is false for Dr. Gerard to make it appear as though lowering the price of gas and thus profits is not in their control. As though they are victims.
3) No significant oil spills in recent history? Last year on November 7, 2007 the Cosco Busan hit the San Francisco Bay Bridge spilling 53,000-58,000 gallons of toxic bunker fuel into the S.F. Bay. Ask Major Gavin Newsome how THAT clean up is going?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/11/bay.oilspill/index.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071109-AP-bay-spill.html
4) Less jobs for Chemists? completely unrelated to the oil industry. Science and biology degrees are no longer valued in America. Lots of funding cuts in the past 7years towards scientific research and jobs.
Overall, Dr. Gerard is no more and no less than a oil lobbyist trying to con the American public. It is unfortunate that an opposing view was not added to the program.
What floors us is his comment on the "billions" of dollars the industry is spending on developing renewable resources of solar; wind; etc. They are spending a small fraction of what the make in profits and get also in tax breaks that they insist they still need when Congress asks them about it!!!
This is an industry that wants its cake and to eat it too!!!
Who do you think has all the money to lobby for the continuation of their 18 billion in tax breaks?
Its like what was said on Fresh Air yesterday with the tax breaks for 401 k's ; how the rich get a huge break while the poor get very little. The oil industry is the same way!!!
The other poster is correct. This is what comes from having 2 oil men in the White House. This is why the war in Iraq started and why this country continues to go down the drain while a very few earn an obscene amount of profits!!!
NPR... National Petroleum Radio.
Why dont you folks do a piece about Peak-Oil... you know the rapidly accepted idea that we are entering a period where oil will soon peak in production and begin to fall, making the price shoot up further. This idea has been endorsed by Saudi Arabias former head of oil production, T. Boone Pickens, Matthew Simmons, the heads of Conoco Phillips and Total, and many other oil insiders.
NPR has their heads in Daniel Yergins tush.
I can only hope that we get out of oil as quickly as we can. We have so many different types of renewable energy that do not pollute I can't believe that these companies insist we continue to depend on oil.
When will we begin to take the environment seriously.
I am deeply disappointed that the interviewer did not press Jack Gerard to answer the question about whether or not the additional oil produced will be used here at home or shipped to other markets. His answer did indicate that they have no intention of using domestically produced oil domestically. It will be shipped to the highest bidder to maximize profits while they hope that increasing supply will bring down the cost of imported oil. Shameful Shameful Greedy Greedy Oil Companies.
I agree with the vast majority of comments here - this was a shamelessly soft interview. The last caller, Noona, asked Gerard point-blank why the oil companies can't reduce gas prices and cut their record profits in half. Gerard ignored the question, threw in a folksy reference to visiting his Grandkids, and proceeded to talk about how we should all stop the finger-pointing. Host Guy Raz gave him a pass on this question and the entire interview. Mr. Raz ought to be working for The Larry King Show, not NPR.
When Mr. Gerard answers "yes" to the question about weather it is possible to use coal for generating electricity with minimal environmental impact he only offers part of the story. Even if we go along with the assumption that clean-coal technology will pan out Gerard is not acknowledging the rape of the land for initial extraction. One look at West Virginia's dead watersheds that are filled with overburden from mountain top mining belies the impact of coal extraction. Yes clean coal may alleviate some carbon emissions but that's only part of the problem. The impact of extraction from sources of coal, oil shale and oil sand disrupts and destroys ecosystems on a large scale, consumes enormous amounts of water and (in the case of oil shale and oil sand uses an significant amount of energy to free the hydrocarbons up from the material in which they are embedded. Solar, wind farms and efficiency would get us further if we put the sort of resources toward developing them that we now put toward propping up the oil industry.
This was not an effective interview for airing the facts. It was more like an oil industry infomercial. When does someone with a more unbiased agenda get to respond?
After listening to this "interview", I did a quick web search on the names Jack Gerard and Al Gore together. I just wanted to read Vice President Gore's view on what Mr. Gerard stands for. Although I did not find Mr. Gore's opinion, the first hit revealed to me much more than this interview did. It was a pdf file of a speech by Mr. Gerard to the Eastern Coal Council on June 7, 2004.
This man is definitely the WRONG man in the WRONG position for the welfare of our country.
However, it is very encouraging to see how unified those of us who have commented here seem to be. This guy is not fooling anybody. The real hope for this nation is in us speaking out and demanding better.
I was horrified by today's Talk of the Nation show. Why on earth would you interview the future president of the American Petroleum Institute without having ANY environmental expert present to challenge his assertions? In giving Jack Gerard a national audience for his erroneous and misleading statements regarding the supposedly benign effects of extracting petroleum and coal resources, Talk of the Nation served as a propaganda machine and did a grave disservice to your listeners.
I agree that this was a bad interview. The oil and gas industry would be better off with no spokesman rather than this one. Likewise, the interviewer demonstrated no knowledge of the industry or even fundamental economics. I would strongly recommend an article in Motley Fool entitled "Big Oil Ruined my Life." It is a very thoughtful, well balanced article that I am forwarding to many of my friends. And fellow commenters, take a geology course, take an economics course, do your own research and make up your own mind rather than listen to and quote the massive amounts of politically inspired misinformation out there!
A caller commented on the large profits by oil companies in the US and the idea that they could reduce profits to aid those who must use gas for their livelihood. Mr. Gerard said prices are globally determined and went on to glass over the subject. The price of a barrel of oil is set globally, but the price of gas at the pump is not. Certain companies made outrageous profits in spite of the price of a barrel of oil. There are differences at the pump of close to a dollar. Why do the oil companies need such large profits. They certainly are not "trickling down" the excess to those who really need it.
WHAT A GREAT INTERVIEW. Finally NPR is giving industry a voice, without us having to listen to all the know-nothing environmentalists. Thank you for standing up and saying it like it is: oil is not the problem, the environment is the problem. Why? Because the environment is un-American. A word Mr. Gerard used frequently was "healthy"; this made me understand how healthy oil is, and how unhealthy the environment is. If the agriculture industry had such a spokesperson, we could finally turn things around in this country, and I could get my F150 back on the road!
I listened to this man evade answering anything that even seemed like a good question or a tough one as some in the media like to say. Why bother having anyone call in with questions that get no answers? I tuned him out after a while. I mean, he didn't even answer the question that arose from their own TV ad that we get beat to death with when watching the network news.
My interest in the Gerard interview was piqued when I realized there was something familiar in his tone and in the manner he responded to the questions. Being currently involved in a production of Shakespeare's Othello, I realized I was hearing the voice of Iago in a contemporary guise.
Unlike some responses I have read, I am grateful to NPR for letting us hear the man speak for himself and now we know from the horse's mouth, don't we?
I think we need to read less Shakespeare and more about the global economy. Perhaps following the Europeans in their off-shore drilling efforts would not only provide more resources, but also help America to follow the European lead on issues like nuclear energy. If the interviewer were to throw some faster pitches Jack Gerard would only make the hits go further.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.