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
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
From Energy Now
At the energy conference in Calgary, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressed the case for building infrastructure to move provincial products to international markets, via a transportation and energy corridor to British Columbia.
“The anchor tenant for this corridor must be a 42-inch pipeline, moving one million incremental barrels of oil to those global markets. And we can’t stop there,” she told the audience.
The premier reiterated her support for new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Man., and potentially a new version of Energy East.
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government are assembling a list of major projects of national interest to fast-track for approval.
Carney has also pledged to establish a major project review office that would issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Alberta
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.
Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets. However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies. While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”
The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act). Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.
It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions. While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?
As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?
The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity. Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day. In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.
What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil? It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.
Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
