Energy
Biden Talks Tough About NATO, but His Energy Policies Tell Different Story

From Heartland Daily News
By Steven Bucci of the Daily Signal
That faction must decide which is the priority: stopping Putin and helping our friends in Europe permanently leave the sway of Russia’s energy extortion, or crippling American energy companies to virtue-signal how “green” America can become. You can’t really have both.
President Joe Biden, host of the 75th anniversary NATO Summit in Washington that ends Thursday, last week claimed to ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos that he “put NATO together.”
Trying to find a charitable spin on this claim, let’s assume Biden means that he helped NATO stand stronger against Russian President Vladimir Putin in the crisis over Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Biden certainly didn’t put together NATO, founded in 1949, regardless of his recollection. In that context, it makes one wonder about the purpose and intent behind Biden’s energy policies and their implications for our NATO allies.
The president’s words imply one thing, but his actions are exactly the opposite. At this week’s NATO Summit, America’s allies should have denounced Biden’s energy policies for benefiting Russia.
For example, if we investigate the Biden administration’s policies on liquefied natural gas, we find that rather than supporting NATO against Russia, they clearly enable Russia and disadvantage our allies. Biden’s imposition this year of an export moratorium on liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has hampered U.S. companies that are trying to aid our allies by weaning them off dependence on Russian natural gas.
You can debate Biden’s words (and his faulty memory), but his policies are simply dead wrong.
First, let’s look at Biden’s disastrous pause in exports of liquefied natural gas. The Energy Department has stopped new permits for such exports to Europe and Asia, which has led to price volatility and no assurance of reliable sources for our allies to meet their energy demands.
A federal judge in Louisiana recently reversed Biden’s moratorium. That action could eventually help allow private sector companies in the U.S. to support our allies in Europe and Ukraine.
One example of note includes Ukraine and Venture Global, an American company that wants to come to the rescue by supplying Ukraine and Europe with liquefied natural gas to help them reduce their dependence on Russian gas. Biden’s continued pause had stood in the way.
The judge in Louisiana noted that the Biden administration’s suspension of LNG exports conflicts with settled law such as the Natural Gas Act, which directs the Energy Department to “ensure expeditious completion” of permit reviews.
Biden’s LNG export moratorium also violates the Administrative Procedure Act, since there never was a congressional direction that the Energy Department impose it.
All of this is a clear conflict (again) between responsible policy and the extremist green faction of Biden’s Democratic Party and his administration. That faction must decide which is the priority: stopping Putin and helping our friends in Europe permanently leave the sway of Russia’s energy extortion, or crippling American energy companies to virtue-signal how “green” America can become.
You can’t really have both. And yet, ironically, new evidence demonstrates that U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas represent a climate-conscious solution. A recent Berkeley Research Group report found that these exports result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than does natural gas supplied by competing countries, and much lower emissions compared with coal.
The second example of this dangerous conflict is Biden’s support for a Middle East pipeline owned by the Russians. Here at least the president’s position seems to be nuanced, since a greater supply of oil could help lower energy prices.
Biden’s State Department has strongly supported restarting an oil pipeline that has been offline because of a political dispute among Kurdistan, Iran, and Turkey. Unfortunately, the pipeline is 60% owned by Rosneft, an oil company that itself is owned by the Russian state.
Oh, and a point I skipped above: We shouldn’t be helping Iran or a hostile Turkey to control or influence significant energy in any way. All this defies logic.
It’s obvious that Biden wants cheaper energy. Every president does in an election year. That said, why is the State Department supporting reopening a Middle East pipeline that’s majority-owned by the Kremlin after the Biden administration canceled infrastructure projects here at home?
The administration’s priorities are entirely misplaced.
There is a path forward. It involves reinforcing American leadership in domestic energy production. Instead of playing into the hands of our adversaries (Russia, Iran, and Venezuela), the Biden administration needs to change course and open more access to American oil and gas production.
That starts by permanently ending the suspension on LNG exports, ending the moratorium of oil and gas exploration on federal lands, ending unprecedented restrictions on offshore oil and gas leasing, ceasing resistance to the Canadian Enbridge Pipeline 5, and restarting canceled pipeline projects such as Keystone XL.
America’s energy resources are the envy of the world and should be leveraged to protect our citizens and our allies.
U.S. energy exports strengthen our competitive edge against China, Russia, and other hostile regimes. They also produce high-paying jobs at home and lessen dependence on any foreign source.
If America really wants to help Ukraine and be a leader in NATO, this is a path that will be consistent, effective, and inexpensive compared with direct financial or material support.
The green energy activists will hate it, but simply put: They’re wrong.
Steven Bucci is a visiting fellow in the Phillip N. Truluck Center for Leadership Development.
Originally published by The Daily Signal. Republished with permission.
Alberta
Cross-Canada NGL corridor will stretch from B.C. to Ontario

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

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.
-
Business18 hours ago
Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home
-
National1 day ago
Women and girls beauty pageant urges dismissal of transgender human rights complaint
-
Alberta18 hours ago
Cross-Canada NGL corridor will stretch from B.C. to Ontario
-
International2 days ago
Support for the Ukraine war continues because no one elected is actually in charge.
-
Business2 days ago
Trump slaps Brazil with tariffs over social media censorship
-
Business2 days ago
CBC six-figure salaries soar
-
Business19 hours ago
B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen
-
Addictions2 days ago
Can addiction be predicted—and prevented?