Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

‘Take On The Resistance’: Who Could Trump Tap To Help Cement His ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Agenda?

Published

1 year ago

13 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

Former President Donald Trump has promised to revitalize and unleash the American energy sector if he returns to the White House in 2025, and has a plethora of former officials and new faces he could tap for key executive branch roles.

The Biden administration has utilized executive agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to implement many of the key policies driving its sprawling climate agenda. These agencies will be crucial to any effort by a prospective Trump administration to undo President Joe Biden’s energy legacy and execute Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda.

Several insiders with extensive experience in Republican energy politics speculated to the Daily Caller News Foundation as to who Trump could pick to lead that charge if he wins in November.

“I am really impressed by the number of former Trump officials, as well as people who have not served before who are also interested in doing so in the future who have reached out to inquire about my prior experience or the process,” David Bernhardt, who served as the secretary of the interior during the latter half of Trump’s first term, told the DCNF. “If President Trump wins, he’s going to have droves of capable people to choose from to fill his political appointments this time around — a lot of seasoned veterans, and also a lot of people with new, fresh ideas. I think that’s very exciting and bodes well for the president’s second term and for our country.”

However, the Trump campaign told the DCNF that internal discussions about who may fill these roles have not started.

“There have been no such discussions about who will serve in a second Trump Administration,” Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, told the DCNF. “When the time comes, President Trump will choose the best possible people to implement his America First agenda.”

Whoever Trump selects to lead the EPA will have to confront an agency that has been juiced with thousands of new employees and promulgated numerous major regulations. The Biden administration has used the EPA to advance some of its most aggressive environmental policies, which include a major green power plants regulation, electric vehicle (EV) mandates, stringent fine particulate matter emissions rules and more.

At least some of these rules figure to be on the chopping block if Trump returns to office, as the former president has already pledged to walk back EV regulations.

Andrew Wheeler, who helmed the agency between 2019 and 2021, could be tapped to take the reins again if Trump wins in November, one energy expert, who wishes to not be publicly identified, speculated to the DCNF.

Others who may be under consideration include Mandy Gunasekara, who served variously as EPA chief of staff, principal deputy assistant administrator and senior policy advisor during Trump’s first term.

“I have a beautiful community in Oxford, Mississippi, and it would be very hard to leave. Plus, the idea of going back into a hostile situation away from my children and the ‘Bible girls’ is hard pill to pill to swallow. Ultimately, that’s a bridge I’ll cross if I get there,” Gunasekara told the DCNF. “Andrew Wheeler is a very experienced leader at EPA and would no doubt faithfully execute the President’s agenda again.”

Myron Ebell, a recently-retired energy policy expert formerly at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a member of the Trump EPA transition team, believes that Gunasekara and Wheeler “would both be great choices,” he told the DCNF.

“I think it’s inappropriate to discuss a position I may be offered,” Wheeler told the DCNF when contacted for this story.

Another name to watch is Anne Vogel, who currently runs the Ohio EPA, according to the energy expert. Prior to taking that role, Vogel worked for the American Electric Power Company, handling federal regulatory matters in Washington, and she also has experience working at a private law firm.

“Director Anne Vogel currently has no intention of leaving her position at Ohio EPA,” a spokesperson for the agency told the DCNF.

Notably, Vogel testified to Congress in March 2023 about the train derailment and subsequent chemical burn-off that marred the skies of East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023.

“I think that we’re going to need people that are committed to reforming these agencies and advancing the Trump agenda, which is basically unleashing the energy sector, and that includes the coal industry, oil and gas and everything else,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and a former member of the Trump EPA transition team, told the DCNF. “They’ve got to be willing to take on the resistance. And in Trump one, people weren’t necessarily willing or prepared to take on the resistance, and there’s going to be a lot of resistance.” 

‘Full Speed Ahead’

As the agency in charge of managing America’s federally-controlled lands and waters, DOI has a major role to play in the American energy sector given that it leases millions of onshore and offshore acres to oil and gas developers. Under Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, DOI has taken numerous actions to restrict development on millions of acres of American land and issued a bare-bones leasing schedule for offshore oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

In light of Trump’s calls to “drill, baby, drill,” the DOI’s approach to natural resource management is likely to change dramatically from its current attitude as part of the Biden administration.

Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, told the DCNF to keep an eye on Republican Govs. Mike Dunleavy of Alaska and Doug Burgum of North Dakota as possible leaders of DOI under a prospective second Trump presidency. However, Burgum may be in play for other positions, such as secretary of the interior or perhaps a high-level White House role, Pyle told the DCNF.

A representative for Burgum referred the DCNF to the Trump campaign.

Both McKenna and Ebell indicated that Bernhardt could be a good fit to return to the top job at DOI should he and Trump have mutual interest. For his part, Bernhardt declined to comment about whether he wants to get back into the fray or specific roles he would ostensibly have interest in filling during a second Trump term.

Pyle said he does not expect Trump to feel an obligation to stick to the establishment when selecting his political appointees.

“It’s clear with President Trump’s vice presidential pick [J.D. Vance] that he no longer feels compelled to extend an olive branch to the GOP establishment,” Pyle told the DCNF. “It’s Trump’s party now, and he chose someone who he thinks will best help implement his agenda.”

Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist with extensive energy sector experience, agreed that Dunleavy and Burgum could each be the type of person to run the DOI for Trump if called upon to do so.

“I hope they will go full speed ahead on restoring or increasing energy production in the federal estate” regardless of who Trump might pick for the top job if he wins, Ebell told the DCNF. “But I also hope that they will focus and put some effort into improving federal land management.”

Ebell floated former Alaska Republican Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell as a possibility should he have interest. He also said that Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah would both do well in the position, in his view, but that they may both be too valuable as seasoned legislators to make the jump to the executive branch.

“Senator Barrasso is focused on working for the people of Wyoming and passing President Trump’s agenda in the U.S. Senate,” a Barrasso spokesperson told the DCNF.

‘Dark Horse’

Choosing a successor for Jennifer Granholm to lead the DOE will be another key decision for Trump should he prevail this November.

Among other initiatives, the Biden DOE has pushed regulations promoting energy efficient appliances, a broad building decarbonization agenda and sought to loan huge sums of taxpayer cash to green energy companies since 2021.

McKenna, who is plugged into both the energy industry and GOP politics, flagged several possible candidates to look out for.

Paul Dabbar, who served as the under secretary for science at DOE during Trump’s first term, could be an option, with McKenna pointing to his managerial skills as a strength that could appeal to Trump. Dabbar declined to comment when contacted for this story.

McKenna also identified Burgum as a possible option for DOE, but like Pyle, McKenna believes that Burgum could be called on to take any number of roles, stretching from DOE to the White House or even the Department of Commerce, should he have interest in serving in a possible second Trump administration.

One “dark horse” possibility to watch is Bill Cooper, who currently works for Golden Pass LNG as vice president and general counsel, McKenna said. In addition to his private sector mettle, Cooper has experience at DOE, having served in the agency for about two years in various senior roles during Trump’s first term, making him a possible candidate should he have interest in the gig.

Ebell is not discounting the possibility that Trump may dip into the private sector to find his potential energy secretary.

“I think looking in the private sector makes sense,” Ebell told the DCNF. “It makes a lot of sense if it’s somebody who isn’t part of the subsidy chain, who isn’t part of the corporate welfare world, special interests who get money under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, or other DOE programs.”

Cooper, Treadwell, Lee’s office and Dunleavy’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
International / 5 hours ago

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design

National / 7 hours ago

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Alberta

Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline

Published on October 15, 2025

By

Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel. The company’s extensive pipeline network transports about 30 per cent of the oil produced in North America and nearly 20 per cent of the natural gas consumed in the United States. Photo courtesy Enbridge

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

B.C. tanker ban an example of federal rules that have to change

The CEO of North America’s largest pipeline operator says Alberta’s move to champion a new oil pipeline to B.C.’s north coast makes sense.

“There’s a good reason the Alberta government has become proponent of a pipeline to the north coast of B.C.,” Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel told the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto the day after Alberta’s announcement.

“The previous [federal] government’s tanker ban effectively makes that export pipeline illegal. No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.”

It’s a big lost opportunity. With short shipping times to Asia, where oil demand is growing, ports on B.C.’s north coast offer a strong business case for Canadian exports. But only if tankers are allowed.

A new pipeline could generate economic benefits across Canada and, under Alberta’s plan, drive economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

Ebel said the tanker ban is an example of how policies have to change to allow Canada to maximize its economic potential.

Repealing the legislation is at the top of the list of needed changes Ebel and 94 other energy CEOs sent in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney in mid-September.

The federal government’s commitment to the tanker ban under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a key factor in the cancellation of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline.

That project was originally targeted to go into service around 2016, with capacity to ship 525,000 barrels per day of Canadian oil to Asia.

“We have tried to build nation-building pipelines, and we have the scars to prove it. Five hundred million scars, to be quite honest,” Ebel said, referencing investment the company and its shareholders made advancing the project.

“Those are pensioners and retail investors and employees that took on that risk, and it was difficult,” he said.

For an industry proponent to step up to lead a new Canadian oil export pipeline, it would likely require “overwhelming government support and regulatory overhaul,” BMO Capital Markets said earlier this year.

Energy companies want to build in Canada, Ebel said.

“The energy sector is ready to invest, ready to partner, partner with Indigenous nations and deliver for the country,” he said.

“None of us is calling for weaker environmental oversight. Instead, we are urging government to adopt smarter, clearer, faster processes so that we can attract investment, take risks and build for tomorrow.”

This is the time for Canadians “to remind ourselves we should be the best at this,” Ebel said.

“We should lead the way and show the world how it’s done: wisely, responsibly, efficiently and effectively.”

With input from a technical advisory group that includes pipeline leaders and Indigenous relations experts, Alberta will undertake pre-feasibility work to identify the pipeline’s potential route and size, estimate costs, and begin early Indigenous engagement and partnership efforts.

The province aims to submit an application to the Federal Major Projects Office by spring 2026.

Continue Reading

Alberta

The Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil

Published on October 14, 2025

By

By Ron Wallace

The term “decarbonized oil” is popping up more and more in discussions of Canada’s energy politics. The concept refers to capturing and storing carbon dioxide (CO₂) generated during oil production and processing, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to support the continued strength of Canada’s oil and natural sector, the nation’s number-one export earner and crucial to the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Projects like the Weyburn Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration Project in Saskatchewan have demonstrated the idea’s technical feasibility by sequestering 1.7 million tonnes of CO₂ annually while producing incremental oil.

The key question now is whether this type of process can be dramatically scaled up – by anywhere from six to over 20 times – to facilitate what Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has termed a “grand bargain”: using carbon capture and storage (CCS) to gain a greenlight from the federal government for a new oil export line to the West Coast, enabling Alberta to continue growing oil production and generating jobs while advancing Ottawa’s climate goals. Prime Minister Mark Carney may be prone to hedging and ambiguity, but he has now made it clear that any such pipeline will indeed be contingent on Alberta proving it can “decarbonize” its oil
production.

The Pathways Alliance, a group of six producers representing 95% of Canada’s oil sands production, has designed a $16.5 billion CCS network to capture and store CO₂ from up to 20 facilities, aiming for 11 million tonnes per year in Phase 1 and a breathtaking 40 million tonnes in Phase 2. Pathways is intended to help build consensus in favour of a new oil export pipeline that could enable up to 25% growth in Alberta’s oil production – generating possibly $20 billion per year in export revenues.

While credible critics, including the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and energy economist Jennifer Considine, highlight the high costs, uncertain revenues and poor returns from several other attempts at large-scale CCS, Alberta’s UCP government appears to view it as the way out of its current impasse with Ottawa. It believes the profits generated from exports of Alberta’s decarbonized oil could themselves help finance the CCS facilities required for the “grand bargain” to be sealed.

Smith has been keeping up the political pressure, recently announcing that Alberta will fund and lead the effort to submit a formal pipeline application to the Carney government’s new Major Projects Office. Major obstacles remain, but none is more serious than Carney maintaining predecessor Justin Trudeau’s suite of anti-energy policies, particularly the draft oil and natural gas emissions cap, as part of his government’s intention to meet net-zero targets by 2050 (although Carney has recently indicated some flexibility in this view). Smith argues that this is effectively an “unconstitutional” production cap that threatens Alberta’s economic future, vowing to challenge it legally if Carney doesn’t shelve it.

Smith’s government at the same time is pursuing a more conciliatory tactic, offering to help advance federal climate objectives through CCS in order to speed up pipeline approvals under Carney’s Bill C-5. In this track, there is a question as to whether Alberta may be walking into an economic and technological trap that it will regret.

That is because the “grand bargain” would create two different classes of oil in Canada, operating under different sets of regulations and resulting in different cost structures. Western Canada’s crude oil producers would shoulder costly and technically challenging decarbonization requirements – plus the threat of federal veto over any new oil projects that weren’t similarly “decarbonized”. Canadian-produced oil would enter international export markets at a significant if not ruinous competitive disadvantage, risking not only profitability but market share. Eastern Canada’s oil refiners, meanwhile, would remain free to import fully “carbonized”
oil at the lowest prices they could get from countries with significantly looser environmental standards.

The Alberta oil sands currently generate 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 shows Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operated at near capacity. The same year, Eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels per day by pipeline and sea from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%) and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, imports by marine terminals along the St. Lawrence River have exceeded $228 billion, while imports by New Brunswick’s Irving Oil Ltd. refinery totalled $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.

The economic viability of large-scale CCS projects remains completely unproven; indeed, attempts to date in other jurisdictions have performed poorly. Attempting to “decarbonize” Alberta’s oil, then, makes little economic sense; it appears to be based more on the Carney government’s ideological objectives set to achieve global climate objectives.

The question thus becomes why Alberta is agreeing to a policy that could trap its taxpayers in a hugely expensive and unfair system that could imperil consideration of any new pipelines for Canadian oil exports, especially when private capital already largely remains on the sidelines.

Not only Albertans but Canadians generally need to carefully reconsider any “grand bargain” that hinges on “decarbonization” of western Canadian oil, because doing so threatens the economic viability of Alberta oil production and associated export pipelines – without meaningfully reducing global CO 2 emissions. And if industry proves unable to raise the vast capital required to construct the CCS projects, while lacking the cash flow to cover the steep ongoing costs needed to operate them, then where is the money to come from? At a time when Canada’s fiscal trajectory is so worrisome, the shortfall had better not be made up through public subsidies.

Even worse than the yawning fiscal risks, such an approach risks splitting the country into two economic zones: a West burdened by costly decarbonization requirements making Alberta’s oil some of the world’s least profitable to produce, and an East benefiting as before from cheaper imported oil. This is hardly conducive to national unity. It is time for Alberta to reconsider the “grand bargain”.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.

Continue Reading

Trending

X