Connect with us

Business

Innovative Solutions Like This Plan To Provide Power For Data Centres Will Drive Natural Gas Demand For Decades

Published

6 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The dramatic expansion of the number and scale of planned datacenter projects across the United States has generated a great deal of news over the last year. The central question in many of those stories centers around the power needs of these projects, and how the power will be generated.

Early developers hyped their preference to use electricity generated by wind and/or solar to power their projects but found the 99.999% datacenter uptime requirements can’t be met by these intermittent power sources, even when backed up by stationary batteries.

With new nuclear projects facing permitting times of 10-15 years and coal being crowded out by emissions regulations, more recent speculation has centered heavily on natural gas as being the fuel of choice for developers whose projects won’t be interconnected into a regional power grid. Natural gas generation is cheaper and faster to build than nuclear, and, while anti-fossil fuel activists complain that gas still comes with emissions, it presents a far cleaner alternative to coal.

In Wyoming, a group of three companies said this week they’ve agreed to a joint project that also satisfies the emissions critics. In a release dated May 6, data center developer Prometheus Hyperscale, Wyoming’s largest gas producer PureWest Energy, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) developer Frontier Carbon Solutions, LLC, rolled out what they call “a first-of-its-kind partnership focused on driving innovation and sustainability while contributing to Wyoming’s long-term economic growth.”

In simple terms, the plan goes like this:

  • Prometheus will permit and build the datacenter;
  • PureWest will produce and supply the natural gas to a nearby power plant operated by an independent power provider from its Wyoming production portfolio, which it boasts maintains “industry leading emissions performance with a rigorous Measurement, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MMRV) program and ISO 14067 verification;”
  • Frontier will capture biogenic carbon dioxide from across the Mountain West and sequester it in underground formations in Southwestern Wyoming; and
  • Frontier will sell traceable carbon removal credits to Prometheus.

Through entering into these various agreements, a datacenter sporting a net-zero emissions profile is created. This not only embellishes the clean energy scorecards for the three companies involved in the partnership, but also for customers who purchase the computing power from the datacenter, as well as the operators of processing plants and transportation systems which move both the natural gas and the carbon dioxide.

“PureWest’s goal to be the region’s energy supplier of choice is rooted in innovation and cutting-edge technology, and today’s exciting announcement reflects our ongoing mission and progress,” said Ty Harrison, President and CFO of PureWest said in a release. “We’re proud to partner with Prometheus and Frontier because this project affirms the critical role that verified low-carbon natural gas will play in sustainably meeting the growing energy needs of AI and its related infrastructure. PureWest is committed to ensuring Wyoming continues to be a leader in delivering scalable energy and decarbonization solutions for the data-driven future of the United States.”

While the joint venture is fairly complex with a number of moving parts, it actually represents a pretty ingenious solution. Once up and running, the partners end up creating a major datacenter with the same carbon footprint as one powered by wind or solar would have, but which will enjoy the added benefit of being able to meet its 99.999% uptime requirements.

But it’s more than that. As the Trump administration’s energy and climate regulatory agenda moves ahead to consolidation, these companies will also avoid running into the reality of so many U.S. wind and solar projects becoming financially unsustainable when the endless stream of rising subsidies their business models require are inevitably reduced or cut off entirely.

As the religious global fervor driven by climate alarmism continues its inevitable fade, producers of American natural gas like PureWest will find themselves presented with a wide array of innovative opportunities like this one. Those opportunities will be driven by customers and potential partners who need the combination of abundance, affordability, reliability, speed of development and low emissions profile that only natural gas is capable of providing.

Anyone who still believes that oil and gas is a dying industry is in for a very rude awakening.

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

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Business

What Do Loyalty Rewards Programs Cost Us?

Published on

You’ve certainly been asked (begged!) to join up for at least one loyalty “points” program – like PC Optimum, Aeroplan, or Hilton Honors – over the years. And the odds are that you’re currently signed up for at least one of them. In fact, the average person apparently belongs to at no less than 14 programs. Although, ironically, you’ll need to sign up to an online equivalent of a loyalty program to read the source for that number.

Well all that warm, fuzzy “belonging” comes with some serious down sides. Let’s see how much they might cost us.

To be sure, there’s real money involved here. Canadians redeem at least two billion dollars in program rewards each year, and payouts will often represent between one and ten percent of the original purchase value.

At the same time, it’s estimated that there could be tens of billions of unredeemed dollars due to expirations, shifting program terms, and simple neglect. So getting your goodies isn’t automatic.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Just why do consumer-facing corporations agree to give away so much money in the fist place?

As you probably already know, it’s about your data. Businesses are willing to pay cold, hard cash in exchange for detailed descriptions of your age, sex, ethnicity, wealth, location, employment status, hobbies, preferences, medical conditions, political leanings, and, of course, shopping habits.

Don’t believe it works? So then why, after all these years, are points programs still giving away billions of dollars?

Every time you participate in such a program, the data associated with that activity will be collected and aggregated along with everything else known about you. It’s more than likely that points-based data is being combined with everything connected to your mobile phone account, email addresses, credit cards, provincial health card, and – possibly – your Social Insurance number. The depth and accuracy of your digital profile improves daily.

What happens to all that data? A lot of it is shared with – or sold to – partners or affiliates for marketing purposes. Some of it is accidentally (or intentionally) leaked to organized criminal gangs driving call center-related scams. But it’s all about getting to know you better in ways that maximize someone’s profits.

One truly scary way this data is used involves surveillance pricing (also known as price discrimination) – particularly as it’s described in a recent post by Professor Sylvain Charlebois.

The idea is that retailers will use your digital profile to adjust the prices you pay at the cash register or when you’re shopping online. The more loyal you are as a customer, the more you’ll pay. That’s because regular (“loyal”) customers are already reliable revenue sources. Companies don’t need to spend anything to build a relationship with you. But they’re more than willing to give up a few percentage points to gain new friends.

I’m not talking about the kind of price discrimination that might lead to higher prices for sales in, say, urban locations to account for higher real estate and transportation costs. Those are just normal business decisions.

What Professor Charlebois described is two customers paying different prices for the same items in the same stores. In fact, a recent Consumer Reports experiment in the U.S. involving 437 shoppers in four cities found the practice to be quite common.

But the nasty bit here is that there’s growing evidence that retailers are using surveillance pricing in grocery stores for basic food items. Extrapolating from the Consumer Reports study, such pricing could be adding $1,200 annually to a typical family’s spending on basic groceries.

I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s way too late to “unenroll” from our loyalty accounts. And government intervention would probably just end up making things worse.

But perhaps getting the word out about what’s happening could spark justified mistrust in the big retailers. No retailer enjoys dealing with grumpy customers.

Be grumpy.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X