Connect with us

Energy

Biden Talks Tough About NATO, but His Energy Policies Tell Different Story

Published

7 minute read

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.

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.

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

Alberta

Working to avoid future US tariffs, Alberta signs onto U.S. energy pact

Published on

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu of the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security

Premier Danielle Smith has joined the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security to further support advocacy of Alberta’s energy and environmental interests with key U.S. states.

The coalition was established in September 2024 by U.S. State governors Jeff Landry (Louisiana) and Chris Sununu (New Hampshire) with the aim of ensuring energy security, lower energy costs, increased reliability, sustainable economic development and sensible management of energy resources and the environment. With 12 U.S. states already signatories to the coalition, Alberta is the first non-U.S. state to enter into this agreement.

By expanding energy ties with the U.S. and promoting cross-border energy trade and participation, Alberta is helping to build upon its North American Energy strategy. Alberta already accounts for 56 per cent of all oil imports to the U.S. – twice as much as Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined – which is helping to drive job creation and prosperity on both sides of the border. Natural gas also plays an important role in North America’s energy mix. Alberta is the largest producer of natural gas in Canada and remains positioned to support the U.S. in filling their domestic supply gaps.

“I am honoured to join the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security and would like to extend my sincere thanks to governors Landry and Sununu for the invitation. Alberta plays a vital role in North American energy security, serving as the largest supplier of crude oil and natural gas to the United States. With 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, significant natural gas liquids and ample pore space for carbon capture, Alberta’s contribution is set to grow even further as we look to work with the Trump Administration and other U.S. partners to increase our pipeline capacity to our greatest friend and ally, the United States. We are proud to collaborate with this coalition of allied states in advancing energy security, reliability and affordability for Americans and Canadians.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

“Our mission as an organization has not changed but Alberta’s welcome arrival to our group sparked a conversation about what our core mission is, and that is ensuring energy security in all its forms. Our members all share the common goal of enhancing and protecting energy options for our people and businesses, which leads to lower energy costs, increased reliability, sustainable economic development and wise management of energy resources and the environment. I welcome Premier Smith and the insights she will bring as the leader from a fellow energy-producing province, that like my state, is under a federal system of government where national imperatives are not always aligned with state or provincial interests.”

Jeff Landry, governor of Louisiana

Alberta is a global leader in emissions reduction technology and clean energy solutions. The province has captured about 14 million tonnes of carbon dioxide through carbon capture, utilization and storage technology, and has the ability to support the U.S. in developing new infrastructure and supply chains for future energy markets in the areas of hydrogen, renewables, small modular reactors and others.

Alberta is also unlocking its untapped geological potential to help meet the increasing demand for minerals – many of which are used worldwide to manufacture batteries, cell phones, energy storage cells and other products. This includes the province’s lithium sector where Alberta’s government is supporting several innovative projects to develop new ways to extract and concentrate lithium faster and with higher recovery rates that are less capital and energy intensive and have a smaller land-use footprint.

As part of this coalition, Alberta looks forward to sharing best practices with states that already have expertise in these areas.

Quick facts

  • The U.S. is Alberta’s largest trading partner, with C$188 billion in bilateral trade in 2023.
  • In 2023, energy products accounted for approximately C$133.6 billion, or more than 80 per cent of Alberta’s exports to the U.S.
  • The Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security’s 12 signatory states include Louisiana, New Hampshire, Indiana (Governor Eric Holcomb), Alabama (Governor Kay Ivey), Georgia (Governor Brian Kemp), Tennessee (Governor Bill Lee), South Dakota (Governor Kristi Noem), Mississippi (Governor Tate Reeves), Arkansas (Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders), Oklahoma (Governor Kevin Stitt), Wyoming (Governor Mark Gordon) and Virginia (Governor Glenn Youngkin).

 

Continue Reading

Business

Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business

Published on

From Resource Works

Ottawa’s emissions cap for oil and gas aims to cut emissions but risks raising costs for consumers and disrupting industry stability.

Ottawa has brought down a new emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, with a mandate to reduce emissions by 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to support the federal government’s climate targets. While the federal government is celebrating the cap as a big step towards a more sustainable future, it is going to make life harder for consumers and businesses alike.

This cap is coming in at a time when the oil sector is finally gaining greater stability due to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the mandate would undermine that progress and press greater costs upon households and industries that are already adjusting to high inflation and uncertainty in world markets.

Now that TMX is operational, Canada’s oil producers have grown their access to international markets, most importantly in Asia and the West Coast of the United States. Much-needed price stability now exists for Western Canadian Select (WCS), cutting the discount against the U.S. West Texas Intermediate benchmark, enabling Canadian oil to compete more effectively.

Newfound stability means that Canadian consumers and businesses have benefited from slightly lower prices, and that industry has grown less dependent on a more limited domestic demand. However, Ottawa’s emissions cap does threaten this new balance, and the sector now has to deal with compliance costs that could be passed down to consumers.

In order to meet the cap’s targets, Canadian oil producers must heavily invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which is costly but essential. Major CCS projects include Shell’s Quest and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, both of which are already operational.

The Pathways Alliance is a coalition of six major oil sands companies and is preparing to invest in one of the world’s largest networks for carbon storage. These efforts are crucial for reducing emissions, despite requiring vast amounts of capital.

Those in the industry are worrying that the emissions cap will push resources away from production and, instead, towards compliance, adding costs that will be borne by fuel prices and other consumer products.

Ottawa has portrayed the cap as an essential measure for meeting the federal government’s climate goals, with Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson labeling it “technically achievable.” Nonetheless, industry players argue that the timeline does not align with the practicalities of scaling CCS and other strategies aimed at decarbonizing.

Strathcona Resources executive chairman Adam Waterous pointed out the “stroke-of-the-pen” risk, in which shifting political landscapes imperil ongoing investments in carbon capture. Numerous oil producers feel that without certainty in carbon price stability, Ottawa’s cap will result in an unstable business environment that will push investment away from production.

Business leaders do not share the federal government’s optimism about the cap and see it as a one-sided approach that fails to reckon with market realities. The Pathways Alliance, which includes companies like Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources, has been frustrated in its multiple attempts to get federal support to fund its $16.5-billion CCS project.

Rather than imposing these new limits, energy industry advocates argue that the government should provide targeted incentives like “carbon contracts for difference” (CCfDs), which help to stabilize carbon credit prices and reduce financial risk among investors. These measures would enable the energy sector to decarbonize without putting a greater burden on consumers.

The cap’s timing also raises concerns about the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has traditionally been a stable supplier of energy and helps to bolster U.S. energy security. However, as the U.S. increases its reliance on Canadian oil, the cap could disrupt this trade relationship. Lowered production levels would leave the economies of both the U.S. and Canada vulnerable, potentially disrupting energy prices and supply stability.

For households across Canada, the emissions cap could mean further financial strain. The higher costs of compliance passed to oil producers will mean higher prices at the pump and more expensive heating costs at a time when Canadian consumers are already struggling financially.

Businesses will also face increasing operating costs, which will be passed down to consumers via more expensive goods and services. Furthermore, higher costs and reduced production will erode Canada’s competitive advantage in the global energy market, slowing economic growth and risking job losses in the energy sector.

So, while Ottawa can laud its emissions cap as a necessary action on the climate, the implications for consumers and businesses are tremendous. Working with industry to find pragmatic, collaborative solutions is how Ottawa can avoid creating more financial burdens for Canadians.

Continue Reading

Trending

X