Fresh Off Their Major Victory On Gas Export Terminals, Enviros Set Sights On New Target: Oil Exports

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

Months after President Joe Biden handed environmentalists a major win by pausing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, activist groups are beginning to turn their attention to deepwater oil export hubs.

A coalition of 19 climate activist organizations — including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Sunrise Movement’s New Orleans chapter — wrote a Thursday letter to Biden, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Maritime Administration Administrator Adm. Ann Phillips urging the administration to halt approvals of proposed deepwater crude oil export facilities. The letter signals that the environmental lobby is turning its attention to a new target after the White House opted to pause new LNG export hub approvals in January following a considerable activist campaign.

“The undersigned urge the White House and Department of Transportation (DOT) to halt and reevaluate its licensing review of proposed deepwater crude oil export facilities to update and ensure the validity of the agency’s “national interest” determinations and related Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) project review,” the activist groups wrote. “The licensing of massive deepwater crude oil exports leads to disastrous climate-disrupting pollution and environmental injustices and would lock in decades of fossil fuel dependence that undercut the pathway to a clean energy economy.”

Oil Export Terminals Letter by Nick Pope on Scribd

“At minimum, we ask the Administration to update its outdated analysis under the DWPA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the harms generated by expansive oil exports on the climate, as well as consequences for environmental justice communities along the Gulf Coast, and for the national interest in energy sufficiency,” they continued.

American oil exports are “key” to global supply, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting changes in global energy markets, according to Bloomberg News. The U.S. became a net oil exporter in 2020 for the first time since 1949, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and global oil demand is expected to grow through at least 2028, according to the International Energy Agency.

“It’s hard to call yourself a Climate President when more fossil fuels are being produced and exported by the U.S. than ever before,” James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement. “Approving massive oil export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico not only exacerbates our deadly fossil fuel addiction, but also blatantly disregards the health and wellbeing of environmental justice communities in the region. This administration is acting less like a beacon of hope and more like an enabler of dirty energy. It is time for a course correction towards real climate action.”

Biden handed environmental activists a huge victory when he paused approvals for new LNG export terminals in January, instructing his administration to closely examine the climate impacts of proposed facilities alongside economic and security considerations. The LNG pause stands as one of Biden’s biggest decisions on climate through his first term, and activists applauded the move while elected Republicans and the oil and gas industry have strongly opposed it.

Well-funded environmental organizations and young voters figure to be key bastions of support for Biden in the 2024 election cycle as he attempts to secure a second term in office and prevent the return of former President Donald Trump. While the Biden administration has spent more than $1 trillion and pushed stringent regulations to advance its sweeping climate agenda, most voters remain most concerned about the economy, inflation and immigration, with a much smaller share identifying climate change as the top issue facing the country, according to recent polling data.

Neither the White House nor the DOT responded immediately to requests for comment.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #DeepwaterOilExportHubs #GasExportTerminals #LNGExportTerminals #NickPope

Up Next

Over 200 Days Into War, Family Of American Hostage in Gaza Strives For Deal To Bring Son Home

Don't Miss

Texas governor, GOP blast Biden’s latest immigration plan

Todayville

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

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 9 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.