Connect with us

Energy

Trump’s 1,000 Words About Energy

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By DAVID BLACKMON

 

As a person who spent 40 years doing policy and government affairs work in the oil and gas industry, I have always paid close attention to what presidential nominees of both parties have to say — or do not say — about energy in their acceptance speeches.

The vast majority of the time, it has been much more about what they did not say.

Many such speeches since I first started paying attention to such things in 1980 (Reagan vs. Carter) said literally nothing at all on the topic. Most other nominees limited energy-related talk to a sentence or two.

In most election years, energy and its costs are just not a top-of-mind topic for most Americans. But that has all changed now in the wake of the Biden administration’s heavy focus on inflation-causing green subsidies and the rising public awareness of the central role that mushrooming energy costs play in prices for groceries and every other aspect of their lives.

So, after being stunned by how much time former President Donald Trump dedicated to the energy subject during his acceptance speech Thursday evening in Milwaukee, I decided to plow through the transcript of that 90-minute speech to figure out just how many words he had to say on the topic. Amazingly, the number comes to right at 1,000 words. It is impossible to know for sure, but I would speculate that is the most words ever spoken about energy by any nominee in such a speech in American history.

In addition to the predictable promise to bring a return to the “Drill, baby, drill” oil and gas philosophy that characterized his first presidency, the former president spoke at length on other plans for a second one.

  • He openly mocked some elements of Biden’s Green New Deal agenda, at one point noting: “They spent $9 billion on eight chargers, three of which didn’t work.” He then called Biden’s obsession with forcing electric cars on a reluctant public “a crazy electric band-aid.”
  • Trump promised to end Biden’s “EV mandates” on the day he is sworn into office. Given that some of the web of EV-promoting policies implemented by the Biden administration come via regulatory actions, achieving a full pullback will be a little more time-consuming than that.
  • He talked at length about plans by Chinese companies to flood the American EV market with cars either made in Mexico or shipped from China into the U.S. through Mexico, saying the United Auto Workers union “should be ashamed” for continuing to support Biden and other Democrats while this is taking place.
  • He accused the Biden administration of spending “trillions of dollars” on “the green new scam. It’s a scam. And that has caused tremendous inflationary pressures in addition to the cost of energy.”
  • Trump noted that: “Under the Trump administration just three and a half years ago, we were energy independent” — which is factually accurate. The US did produce much more energy than it consumed throughout his presidency, and was a net exporter of oil, natural gas and coal in many months during that time.
  • Trump continued: “But soon we will actually be better than that. We will be energy dominant and supply not only ourselves, but we will supply the rest of the world.” Well, maybe not the rest of the world, but surely much of it. It is a political speech, after all, so a little hyperbole fits.
  • Trump further criticized the Biden White House for reversing the hard line he took with Iran while president, saying: “I told China and other countries, ‘If you buy from Iran, we will not let you do any business in this country, and we will put tariffs on every product you do send in of 100 percent or more.’ And they said to me, ‘Well, I think that’s about it.’ They weren’t going to buy any oil. And…Iran was going to make a deal with us.”

There was much more energy-related content in his speech, but you get the gist: A second Trump presidency would start by reversing as much of the Biden Green New Deal agenda as possible and go from there.

It is safe to say no presidential nominee has ever been as focused on energy as Donald Trump is today. We will see if it pays off for him in November.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Cross-Canada NGL corridor will stretch from B.C. to Ontario

Published on

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Sarnia, Ont., which sits on the southern tip of Lake Huron and peers across the St. Clair River to Michigan, is a crucial energy hub for much of the eastern half of Canada and parts of the United States.

With more than 60 industrial facilities including refineries and chemical plants that produce everything from petroleum, resins, synthetic rubber, plastics, lubricants, paint, cosmetics and food additives in the southwestern Ontario city, Mayor Mike Bradley admits the ongoing dialogue about tariffs with Canada’s southern neighbour hits close to home.

So Bradley welcomed the announcement that Calgary-based Keyera Corp. will acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia.

“As a border city, we’ve been on the frontline of the tariff wars, so we support anything that helps enhance Canadian sovereignty and jobs,” says the long-time mayor, who was first elected in 1988.

The assets in Sarnia are a key piece of the $5.15 billion transaction, which will connect natural gas liquids from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in B.C. and Alberta to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

Map courtesy Keyera Corp.

NGLs are hydrocarbons found within natural gas streams including ethane, propane and pentanes. They are important energy sources and used to produce a wide range of everyday items, from plastics and clothing to fuels.

Keyera CEO Dean Setoguchi cast the proposed acquisition as an act of repatriation.

“This transaction brings key NGL infrastructure under Canadian ownership, enhancing domestic energy capabilities and reinforcing Canada’s economic resilience by keeping value and decision-making closer to home,” Setoguchi told analysts in a June 17 call.

“Plains’ portfolio forms a fully integrated cross Canada NGL system connecting Western Canada supply to key demand centres across the Prairie provinces, Ontario and eastern U.S.,” he said.

“The system includes strategic hubs like Empress, Fort Saskatchewan and Sarnia – which provide a reliable source of Canadian NGL supply to extensive fractionation, storage, pipeline and logistics infrastructure.”

Martin King, RBN Energy’s managing director of North America Energy Market Analysis, sees Keyera’s ability to “Canadianize” its NGL infrastructure as improving the company’s growth prospects.

“It allows them to tap into the Duvernay and Montney, which are the fastest growing NGL plays in North America and gives them some key assets throughout the country,” said the Calgary-based analyst.

“The crown assets are probably the straddle plants in Empress, which help strip out the butane, ethane and other liquids for condensate. It also positions them well to serve the eastern half of the country.”

And that’s something welcomed in Sarnia.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference so we see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub,” Bradley said.

“We are optimistic this will be good for our region in the long run.”

The acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026, pending regulatory approvals.

Meanwhile, the governments of Ontario and Alberta are joining forces to strengthen the economies of both regions, and the country, by advancing major infrastructure projects including pipelines, ports and rail.

A joint feasibility study is expected this year on how to move major private sector-led investments forward.

Continue Reading

Business

B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”)

The Eby government has left the door (slightly) open to Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the British Columbia’s northern coast. Premier David Eby said he isn’t opposed to a new pipeline that would expand access to Asian markets—but he does not want government to pay for it. That’s a fair condition. But to attract private investment for pipelines and other projects, both the Eby government and the Carney government must reform the regulatory environment.

First, some background.

Trump’s tariffs against Canadian products underscore the risks of heavily relying on the United States as the primary destination for our oil and gas—Canada’s main exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. Clearly, Canada must diversify our energy export markets. Expanded pipelines to transport oil and gas, mostly produced in the Prairies, to coastal terminals would allow Canada’s energy sector to find new customers in Asia and Europe and become less reliant on the U.S. In fact, following the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion between Alberta and B.C. in May 2024, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent.

However, Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory environment continues to create uncertainty and deter investment in the energy sector. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment in Canada compared to only 41 per cent of respondents for the U.S. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deters investment compared to 42 per cent in the U.S.

When looking at B.C. specifically, investor perceptions are even worse. Nearly 93 per cent of respondents for the province said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment while 92 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over protected lands deters investment. Among all Canadian jurisdictions included in the survey, investors said B.C. has the greatest barriers to investment.

How can policymakers help make B.C. more attractive to investment?

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”), Bill C-48 (which effectively banned large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast, limiting access to Asian markets), and the proposed cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector (which will likely lead to a reduction in oil and gas production, decreasing the need for new infrastructure and, in turn, deterring investment in the energy sector).

At the provincial level, the Eby government should abandon its latest GHG reduction targets, which discourage investment in the energy sector. Indeed, in 2023 provincial regulators rejected a proposal from FortisBC, the province’s main natural gas provider, because it did not align with the Eby government’s emission-reduction targets.

Premier Eby is right—private investment should develop energy infrastructure. But to attract that investment, the province must have clear, predictable and competitive regulations, which balance environmental protection with the need for investment, jobs and widespread prosperity. To make B.C. and Canada a more appealing destination for investment, both federal and provincial governments must remove the regulatory barriers that keep capital away.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X