Energy
Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—as is everyone who advocates the net-zero agenda
From Energy Talking Points
By Alex Epstein
Myth: Kamala Harris used to be for banning fracking, but now she supports fracking.
Truth: Kamala Harris is still for banning fracking—because she is still for the net-zero agenda that requires banning fracking along with all other fossil fuel activities.
- Kamala Harris, who in 2019 said, “There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking,” now tells voters in fracking-dependent states like Pennsylvania that she is no longer wants to ban fracking.They shouldn’t believe her, since Harris’s net-zero agenda requires banning fracking.¹
- To know what to make of Harris’s reversal on a fracking ban, we need to first recognize that banning fracking would have been one of the most harmful policies in US history. It would have destroyed 60% of our oil production and 75% of our natural gas production.²
- Fracking is very likely the single most beneficial technological development of the last 25 years. By extracting cheap, abundant oil and natural gas from once useless rock, it has made energy far cheaper than it would otherwise be.
- Fracking and agriculture: The availability of food is highly determined by the cost of oil, which powers crucial machinery, and gas, which is the basis of the fertilizer that allows us to feed 8 billion people. Thanks to fracking, the world is far better fed than it would otherwise be.
- Given how life-giving fracking is to humanity and how essential it is to the prosperity and security of the US, any politician who has ever suggested banning fracking should be considered an energy menace until and unless they issue a deeply reflective apology.
- Harris and others who have advocated banning fracking should apologize along the following lines: “I called for banning something crucial because I listened only to exaggerated claims about its negatives and ignored its huge benefits. I am deeply sorry, and pledge to do better.”
- Someone who comes to understand why it’s wrong to ban fracking—because the benefits you would destroy are far greater than the harms you would avoid—should also understand that the same problem exists with the broader anti-fossil-fuel, “net zero” agenda.
- Harris has not apologized whatsoever for her support of a murderous fracking ban.And far from questioning the anti-fossil-fuel, “net zero” agenda, she has remained 100% committed to it.
Which means she’s an enemy of not just fracking but all fossil fuel use.
- The guiding energy goal of Biden/Harris is “net zero by 2050”—rapidly banning activities that add CO2 to the atmosphere.Since there’s no scalable way to capture CO2, burning fossil fuels necessarily means more CO2.
“Net zero” = “ban most fossil fuel use”—including fracking.³
- Given that “net zero by 2050” requires banning virtually all fossil fuel activity, the whole conversation about whether Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking is absurd.You can’t be for fracking and for net-zero anymore than you can be for penicillin and for banning all antibiotics.
- For “net zero by 2050” advocates there’s no question of if they want to ban particular fossil fuel activities such as fracking in the next 25 years, just when and in what order.If Harris doesn’t try to ban fracking soon she’ll just try to ban other vital fossil fuel activities.
- The Biden-Harris administration has already shown us that they will try to do everything they can to ban fossil fuels in pursuit of net-zero—and that they will only be limited by pro-fossil-fuel political opponents’ opposition and the resistance of voters.
- Both Biden and Harris made it clear when campaigning that their guiding energy goal was “net zero by 2050” and that meant rapidly banning fossil fuels.Biden: “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel.” Harris’s cosponsored Green New Deal called for banning fossil fuels.⁴
- When they entered office, Biden and Harris continued to make “net zero by 2050” their guiding goal by rejoining the Paris Agreement that committed us to it and by announcing a “whole of government” focus on “climate”—code for: rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels.⁵
- In action after action, the Biden-Harris administration has shown us that it will do anything it can get away with politically to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels: pipeline blocking, Federal leasing bans, LNG prohibitions, power plant shutdowns, EV mandates, SEC rules, etc, etc.
8 ways the Biden administration is working to increase gasoline prices
·Jun 14
The Biden administration claims that draining the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve shows its commitment to low gas prices.
Read full story - Americans have already paid a high price for the Biden-Harris administration’s net-zero agenda—high energy bills, power shortages, and inflation.But we’d be paying a far higher price had pro-fossil-fuel politicians and voters not opposed and dramatically slowed the agenda.⁶
- Most of what Biden-Harris have tried to do to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use has been, thankfully, slowed by opposition: lawsuits over power plant shutdowns, courts reversing illegal leasing bans, etc.Without this opposition they would have already caused energy ruin.⁷
- Consider: America desperately needs more reliable power plants given huge demand from AI and (Biden-mandated) EVs.But the Biden-Harris EPA has tried to shut down all coal—1/6 of reliable capacity!
Were it not for Biden-Harris opponents we’d already have a 3rd-world grid.⁸
How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid
·May 22
4 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:
Read full story - Harris tries to act reassure us that she’s “moderate” because Biden-Harris hasn’t destroyed oil and gas—e.g., fracking is allowed and oil production has actually increased.But that’s because opposition has moderated her insanely destructive net-zero ambitions.
- The only way Kamala Harris can validly convince the public that she’s not an energy threat is to renounce not only her support of a fracking ban but of the “net zero” agenda—and to correct the anti-fossil-fuel bias that leads to both of these murderous policy ideas.
- Whenever you hear a politician claim to be a friend of oil and gas, fracking, or any other aspect of fossil fuels, ask one simple question: Do you renounce the “net zero” agenda?If not, they will work to destroy fossil fuels—and with them our energy, prosperity, and security.
Alberta
“It’s Canada’s Time to Shine” – CNRL’s $6.5 Billion Chevron Deal Extends Oil Sands Buying Spree
From Energy Now
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.’s $6.5 billion acquisition from Chevron Corp. marks the latest in a string of deals that has helped make it the country’s largest oil producer and brought Alberta’s massive oil sands deposits almost entirely under local control.
CNRL has feasted on the oil sands assets of foreign energy producers over the past decade, snapping up stakes and operations from Devon Energy Corp. and Shell Plc as they shifted away from the higher-cost, higher-emissions oil sands business. Investors have applauded the strategy, which allows CNRL to boost output and make the operations more efficient.
That trend continued on Monday, with CNRL shares climbing more than 4% after the deal with Chevron raised its stake in a key oil sands mine and a connected upgrading facility, while also adding natural gas assets in the Duvernay formation.
“These assets build on the robustness of Canadian Natural’s assets,” said CNRL President Scott Stauth said on a conference call Monday. The deal boosts CNRL’s stake in the Athabasca oil sands project, which it first bought from Shell in 2017, to 90% from 70%.
The acquisition was largely expected and boosts CNRL’s oil and gas output by roughly 9%, adding the equivalent of 122,500 barrels of oil production per day.
“It’s just been a matter of time,” Eight Capital analyst Phil Skolnick said by phone, noting that CNRL had been seen as the logical buyer for Chevron’s oil sands business.
While CNRL also boosted its dividend by 7% on Monday, Desjardins analyst Chris MacCulloch cautioned the company’s additional debt to finance the acquisition “may disappoint some investors” given it plans to temporarily slow capital returns.
Still, MacCulloch said the deal is positive overall for CNRL as it further consolidates assets in the region. “There’s no place like home,” he wrote in a note.
Chevron, for its part, is the latest in a long line of US and international oil producers — such as BP Plc, TotalEnergies SE and Equinor ASA — that have shifted away from the oil sands after spending billions to build facilities in the heavy-oil formation. That has left the oil sands largely in the control of Canadian firms including CNRL, Suncor Energy Inc. and Cenovus Energy Inc.
“There’s no remaining, obvious assets available,” Ninepoint Partners partner and senior portfolio manager Eric Nuttall said after Monday’s deal. Ninepoint owns 3.1 million shares in CNRL, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
Many of those oil sands deals have been struck at prices that favor the Canadian buyers, which have consolidated land, reduced costs and boosted returns in recent years.
“It’s Canada’s time to shine,” Nuttall said, adding that he expects foreign investors will return to the country’s oil producers in the future.
From Energy Now
“As we go into winter months, Canada will set new export records”
We remember well the green battles against the “TMX” expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C. The idea was, they said, at best unnecessary and at worst thoroughly dangerous to the world environment.
One group said the expansion “threatens to unleash a massive tar sands spill that would threaten drinking water, salmon, coastal wildlife, and communities.” It would also, others said, impede investment in clean energy and undermine Canada’s efforts to deal with climate change.
Some said the expanded line would be an imposition on First Nations. But a number of First Nations are interested in acquiring an equity stake in the pipeline (and the federal government, which owns the line, is looking to sell a 30-percent stake to them).
Despite the loud opposition, the federal government went ahead and purchased the pipeline and the expansion project in May 2018, completing the pipeline’s expansion this year at a total cost of $31 billion.
Prime Minister Trudeau’s explanation: Ottawa stepped in because owner Kinder Morgan “wanted to throw up their hands and walk away,” and his government wanted to make sure that Canadian oil could reach new markets.
Alberta’s Canadian Energy Centre supported that outlook: “We’re going to be moving into a market where buyers are going to be competing to buy Canadian oil.”
Our Margareta Dovgal wrote: “What matters to us is the benefits to Canada. For one thing, we now will be able to ship more oil by tanker to refineries on the U.S. West Coast at a better price than oil by tanker from Alaska. And . . . we’ll have more oil more readily available for overseas buyers.
“So, all in all, we can expect to see higher returns on our oil, and we can continue to see the immense benefits of high-paying jobs in Canadian energy, and the benefits of revenues to government.”
It has all been happening, in spades.
And the opening of the expanded pipeline on May 1 this year also helped bring down gasoline prices.
In Vancouver, for example, regular gasoline in April ran as high as $2.359 a litre. At the beginning of May, as key refineries returned to normal after seasonal maintenance work, it stood around $2.085. As October opened, the price was as low as $1.579.
Economist G. Kent Fellows said at an event hosted by Resource Works and the Business Council of B.C.: “Our analysis shows that insufficient pipeline capacity was costing B.C. consumers an estimated $1.5 billion per year in higher gasoline prices.
“With TMX now operational, wholesale gasoline prices in Vancouver dropped by about 28 cents per litre compared to earlier this year.”
As for those buyers competing for our oil, some thought the prime export destination would be California. But the summer just past brought exports on tankers from Vancouver to China, Japan, India, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Brunei.
As of now, California is indeed leading as a destination, with Asian buyers having eased off after their initial purchases. Experts say that was expected, with Asian refineries first taking test cargoes to see how their systems handle our oil.
Kevin Birn, chief Canadian oil markets analyst for S&P Global, told Business in Vancouver: “There is always a market for crude oil in the Pacific Basin. We always saw the need for the Trans Mountain pipeline. We saw Canadian production continuing to grow.”
Birn added: “It’s still relatively early. I’d expect volumes to continue to build, cargoes to test different markets all over the place, and over time you’ll start to see patterns.
“As we go into winter months, Canada will set new export records, because as capacity’s been optimized and new product projections and wells are brought online, the winter tends to be the peak period.
“Every year, I think, for the next couple of years, Canada will set new records.”
That would be good news for Canada’s economy — and for Alberta’s.
There are no statistics available yet on the TMX line’s impact on the economy, but in 2019 Trans Mountain estimated that construction and operation would mean $46 billion in revenue to governments over the first 20 years.
Today, as reported by Alberta’s energy minister, Brian Jean, Alberta continues to break records for crude oil production, with global demand continuing to grow.
The latest numbers from the Alberta Energy Regulator show Alberta’s oil production averaged a little over 4 million barrels per day in August — the highest on record for any August.
“The addition of 590,000 barrels per day of heavy oil pipeline capacity from Alberta to the B.C. coast earlier this year with the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has been instrumental in the recent production increases.”
All this as the International Energy Agency said that while oil demand is decelerating from 2023 levels due to a slowing economy in China, demand is still set to increase by 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year. That would push global consumption to a record level of almost 103 million bpd.
And that forecast came as Jonathan Wilkinson, our federal minister of energy and natural resources, declared: “Oil and gas will peak this decade. In fact, oil is probably peaking this year.”
A bevy of market-watchers disagreed with him. Among them, Greg Ebel, CEO of Calgary-based Enbridge, says global oil consumption will be “well north” of 100 million barrels per day by 2050 — and could exceed 110 million barrels.
“You continue to see economic demands, and particularly in the developing world, people continue to say lighter, faster, denser, cheaper energy works for our people. . . And that’s leading to more oil usage.”
Employer Vaccination Mandates Under Scrutiny Post COVID-19
‘Total Failure’: Shocking Data On Criminal Migrants In US Highlight Harris’ Border Hypocrisy, Former ICE Official Says
The FOIA Lady Pleads the Fifth
Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoCanada’s immigration system and Islamist terror threats
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoCost of Ottawa’s gun ban fiasco may reach $6 billion
-
International2 days agoEvacuations urged in Tampa Bay ahead of Hurricane Milton
-
National1 day agoRetired judge slams Trudeau gov’t for promoting ‘false’ accusation about residential school deaths
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoRose & His Thorns: A Failure Of All Parties
-
Business2 days agoToyota to scrap DEI policies following social media exposé
-
Canadian Energy Centre2 days agoOil and gas companies are once again the top performers on the TSX. Why do people still listen to the divestment movement?
-
Daily Caller1 day agoFEMA Doled Out Millions Pushing ‘Equity,’ Prioritizing ‘Underserved Communities’ Leading Up To Hurricane Season