Energy
Energy notes from the edge: Coal trains vs high speed rail

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Author Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report
They are accusing you of murdering people by producing fuel the world requires for survival. It’s silly; they (the NDP) have things precisely backwards – they are confused by the role of hydrocarbons in our life. So you need to address that first and foremost, because they are writing policy based on such faulty reasoning.
They are NOT asking you to produce your product better. They are saying you are killing the planet and its people and making a fortune while doing so.
Ah, you couldn’t make this stuff up, as we find ourselves saying on a daily basis.
Here’s a look at two ambitious infrastructure projects involving rail construction, separated by a few years and also by about everything else two projects could be separated on. One of the train stories dates way back to 2019; let me take you back to that era for all the readers less than five years old (not quite but close; last week I met a delightful family, a mother and two young daughters that are fascinated by pump jacks, love taking pictures of them, and are planning to launch an apparel line adorned by nodding donkeys. I’ll take five.) 2019 was the zenith of anti-hydrocarbon frenzy. It remains alive in small pockets of guilt-ridden billionaire inheritors and various political types that don’t understand energy and don’t want to learn, but 2019 was something else; hundreds of thousands of brainwashed children taking to the streets behind a strange Swedish kid that was treated like a messiah by confused adults. Canada’s prime minister jauntily joined one of her protests, standing proudly in front of signs explaining in emotional gobbledygook that the hydrocarbons that were keeping the sign-holders alive now and for the foreseeable future had to be eradicated immediately via some demand or magic or else the world will simply explode into flames a few decades hence.
Anyway, it was all surreal in one sense, but back to the railways: a few interesting milestones were hit around then that, when viewed alongside the climate hysteria of the era, prove without a doubt just how challenging it will be to transition to a new energy system.
But before getting to the 2019 story, we’ll check in on one that began long before then and continues to this day. It hails from sunny California, spiritual leader of the Movement To Use Extreme Wealth To Do Wacko Things. In 2008, voters approved a high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and San Francisco, to be completed by 2020, at a cost of some $33 billion. Big numbers, both on the timescale and in the $ department. That’s reality these days though; nothing is easy or cheap, part of which is the price of going green. US energy transition advocates have reliably pointed out that high speed rail was a necessity all over the US, and the world for that matter. Nature website ran an article stating “…the role of high-speed railways in fostering a transition towards sustainable energy sources has gained prominence… these findings highlight the environmentally friendly attributes of high-speed railways and underscore the pressing need for effective policy measures to facilitate a global transition towards renewable energy, both in China and worldwide.”
A few interesting tidbits emerge out of this scenario. The first and most peculiar is that a scientific article on the scientific website Nature would assert that high-speed rail is important in “fostering a transition towards sustainable energy sources” – the statement has no logical basis, it flows from nothing, and is incoherent. HSR is wonderful, and makes efficient use of time, and possibly could replace air travel in some circumstances, and, as the paper rightly asks, HSR may well contribute to ‘nationwide energy savings and emissions reductions’. But none of these virtues foster a transition towards sustainable energy sources and to state it does is an oddly dumb non sequitur to feature as the anchor statement for an academic paper.
But anyways, whatever, the paper analyzes China’s experiences with HSR, which brings up a far more interesting point about the energy transition that is in the realm of That Which Must Not Be Discussed: the fact that in the west, major infrastructure projects are incredibly difficult to construct, whether green or not, and that initial cost estimates often turn out to be laughably low.
California did indeed set out to build an HSR in 2008, to be completed (as you may recall) some twelve years hence. But, as this California news website notes, “the blueprint is fraying”, which is some beautiful understatement. In 2020, the year the project was to be completed, Governor Newsom unveiled an updated plan, that California would settle for building a 171 mile initial segment – about a third of the distance of the original – at a cost of $35 billion, a number that exceeds the initial estimate for the entire 500 mile line. And the in-service date for the shortened version is now penciled in as 2030. As for an end date for the entire project, they haven’t a clue, don’t even bother taking a guess at it, but they have bravely provided an updated budget of, brace yourself, $128 billion. That’s almost four times the original estimate.
And even that number is scoffed at by engineers that have worked on HSRs. Bill Ibbs, a retired UC Berkeley engineer, says he is concerned about the lack of attention to engineering risks – that proponents don’t even address significant engineering challenges in the latest cost estimate, such as challenges likely to arise in the 38 miles of mountain tunnels required. (Per the article linked above: “Democratic leaders have declined or did not respond to requests for interviews.” Who saw that coming.)
That is what we are in store for in the western world. Keep this example in mind the next time you hear about net-zero 2050 visions based on almost any large scale infrastructure construction. You would have to be the world’s most naïve person to believe initial cost and time estimates.
Now, on the other hand, countries such as China have indeed made great progress though, as we’ll see in a second, the choice of China as an example is fairly ironic. The Nature academic paper notes that hundreds of Chinese cities already operate HSR networks. China has stunned the world with the pace at which it has developed infrastructure over the past 40 years; however, it is an authoritarian state that sweeps aside the sort of issues that bog down western democracies like a bear sweeps aside a hiker.
And if we’re going to marvel at the speed at which China has constructed these HSRs, then we should look at this one too. In 2019, China opened a brand new, 1,813 mile railroad, completed on schedule at a cost of $28 billion. It took 4 years to construct, and faced multiple significant challenges such as “crossing both the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers twice” and includes 770 bridges and 229 tunnels totalling 469 kilometres or 291 miles, some 8 times as many tunnel miles as California. This new rail line is dedicated to carrying… coal. It was created for no other reason. It was built entirely to handle coal.
That’s how they do it folks. An authoritarian state that removes any obstacles instantly, all to build a supply line for a fuel that the west is cleansing itself from as fast as it can. China realizes what it takes to build things. The West does not. Further, while China is the largest installer of renewable energy, it is fairly transparent about its appetite for any fuel. That’s how the world works, folks, except for some…
“How do you sleep at night?” Or… how to win a debate with extremist loons – hand them a microphone.
An NDP committee that hates things dragged a bunch of “Big Oil” (or “Big Canadian Oil”, anyway) CEOs onto the carpet to, literally, blame them for forest fires and floods. Their argument went about where you’d think it would, when your philosophical underpinnings are of that grade: Not only do you mooks create a lot of bad weather, but you line your pockets by doing so, gleefully so, and thus we want to know just how you can sleep at night.
The CEOs responded decently enough in their polished way, but I think it’s important when addressing an interrogation of that sort to firmly call out the lay of the land.
Rich Kruger, CEO of Suncor, said “I could praise the transformational virtues of hydrocarbons over the past century, convey the world’s dependence on oil and gas for decades to come, recite economic contributions to Canada’s prosperity and, yes, discuss the concerning effects of climate change and GHG emissions… however, today, I plan to dispel a series to myths. And paint a picture of opportunity.” The myths: oil & gas prosperity comes at the expense of the planet; Canadian companies are resisting the energy transition/decarbonization; and that Canada can demonstrate global leadership by restricting its oil & gas sector.
He’s not wrong, but there’s a significant subtlety that gets swept under the rug here, one that can cause grave danger to a lot of people.
First, y’all need to understand the battlefield. Kruger is right; it is to generate headlines, but consider the headlines carefully when selecting which myths to bust. They (the NDP) are literally accusing the hydrocarbon industry of murder – not with a gun, but via creating the emissions that cause weather disasters that kill people. They and their fellow warriors have created a lazy but sellable chain of causality there.
Mythbusting is important, but first, it is critical to take aim at the cornerstones of their argument, and not capitulate on those. In other words:
- If someone accuses you of killing a bunch of people, might I suggest that saying “Yeah, well, we pay a lot of taxes…” is a losing strategy?
- If someone accuses you of killing a bunch of people, might I suggest that saying “Don’t worry, I’m taking measures to mitigate how many people I kill.” is also a losing strategy?
- Absolutely speak of emissions reduction improvements and any efforts made towards an energy transition – but don’t ignore the emotional point they use, when it undercuts everything else you say.
They are accusing you of murdering people by producing fuel the world requires for survival. It’s silly; they (the NDP) have things precisely backwards – they are confused by the role of hydrocarbons in our life. So you need to address that first and foremost, because they are writing policy based on such faulty reasoning.
They are NOT asking you to produce your product better. They are saying you are killing the planet and its people and making a fortune while doing so.
Their army of lawyers, with literally nothing better to do (hello, Sierra Club/Environmental Defense/EcoJustice/ad infinitum) are running circles around your lawyers. You are facing an army of extremely well-funded legal guerillas. You need to recognize their weapons. You are fighting against rifles with a diorama of your decarbonization efforts.
Here is the answer that addresses the inanity of the question in a simple and fool-proof way, which will do the trick, because they will have no answer: Hydrocarbon production enables life as we know it. Without hydrocarbon production, most of the earth’s 8 billion people will not survive a year. Hydrocarbon production feeds those people in a way that nothing else can. Hydrocarbon production keeps countless people from freezing to death, every year, like nothing else at present can. Hydrocarbon production provides the building blocks for our modern medical system, our transportation system, and almost any other thing within arm’s length.
Hydrocarbon production enables life, and it will do so for decades until a suitable replacement arrives on the scene that can not just match, but beat hydrocarbons for energy density, reliability, and cost. That will most likely happen some day. But to attempt to strangle today’s fuel system without a replacement is a clearer path to willfully causing human death than is the production of the fuel that keeps us alive.
There are multiple excellent pathways a hydrocarbon company can go down to show the public they are validly concerned about the environment, such as eliminating spills, eliminating pollution of all sorts, or respecting and revitalizing natural habitats.
But when you tell them how eagerly you are ‘decarbonizing’, you forfeit the match. Your product is carbon. That is literally the murder weapon they place in your hands.
The impact on humanity from more carbon in the air, whatever the consequences may be, pales in comparison – by an astounding degree – to what the impact on humanity would be if oil and gas production were to cease.
Mr. Kruger touched on the most important part, but then skipped right over it: the “transformational virtues of hydrocarbons over the past century”, as a phrase, skips right over the entire arc of the human benefits brought through the industrial revolution, treating them as secondary aspect that needs to take a back seat to convincing the world that Canadian companies really are trying to decarbonize.
And let’s be clear about that whole idea: anyone that places decarbonization as the number one priority should drop whatever they’re doing to get out and make nuclear energy happen here, there, and everywhere, because that’s the only game in town as far as a global, achievable solution goes. I don’t have a problem with that. I love cheap, clean energy, available reliably and in abundance. And almost every global citizen would agree with those four, but more importantly would prefer all four, of those characteristics. People don’t love oil & gas. They love what it can do. Want to replace them? Then it has to be better in every functional way.
While the fate of oil/gas on the global stage will be determined by billions who know how much they need it, the emotional messaging of the NDP et al nevertheless has the power to shape legislation, for example to sneakily introduce climate reporting requirements into financial statements and thereby open the door to countless lawsuits – lawsuits which the industry will be forced to defend. And those singular-function activist-lawyers will eat you alive if you are sitting at the table agreeing about the need to rapidly decarbonize.
The messaging should be that humanity requires oil and gas and will for decades, and that role of industry is to do this as cleanly and efficiently as possible. That might sound like a subtle distinction compared to a pledge to decarbonize asap, but it’s not – it’s the difference between a bullet missing you by an inch and not.
The reason you need to think this way is because hydrocarbons will remain standing for a very long time as a fundamental source of energy, as is witnessed by the sheer global force of increasing consumption of every type of energy (see: New Zealand completely backtracking on an oil & gas exploration ban once it dawned on them that existing fields deplete – coming soon to governments everywhere)… But Western energy leaders may get seriously wounded by the sheer legal might of the enemies faced at such panels, and by the minions they inspire, as bombastically comical as it might appear on the surface.
Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary. He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity. You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.
Energy
Trump Takes More Action To Get Government Out Of LNG’s Way

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
The Trump administration moved this week to eliminate another Biden-era artificial roadblock to energy infrastructure development which is both unneeded and counterproductive to U.S. energy security.
In April 2023, Biden’s Department of Energy, under the hyper-politicized leadership of Secretary Jennifer Granholm, implemented a new policy requiring LNG projects to begin exports within seven years of receiving federal approval. Granholm somewhat hilariously claimed the policy was aimed at ensuring timely development and aligning with climate goals by preventing indefinite delays in energy projects that could impact emissions targets.
This claim was rendered incredibly specious just 8 months later, when Granholm aligned with then-President Joe Biden’s “pause” in permitting for new LNG projects due to absurd fears such exports might actually create higher emissions than coal-fired power plants. The draft study that served as the basis for the pause was thoroughly debunked within a few months, yet Granholm and the White House steadfastly maintained their ruse for a full year until Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20 and reversed Biden’s order.
Certainly, any company involved in the development of a major LNG export project wants to proceed to first cargoes as expeditiously as possible. After all, the sooner a project starts generating revenues, the more rapid the payout becomes, and the higher the returns on investments. That’s the whole goal of entering this high-growth industry. Just as obviously, unforeseen delays in the development process can lead to big cost overruns that are the bane of any major infrastructure project.
On the other hand, these are highly complex, capital-intensive projects that are subject to all sorts of delay factors. As developers experienced in recent years, disruptions in supply chains caused by factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major delays and cost overruns in projects in every facet of the economy.
Developers in the LNG industry have argued that this arbitrary timeline was too restrictive, citing these and other factors that can extend beyond seven years. Trump, responding to these concerns and his campaign promises to bolster American energy dominance, moved swiftly to eliminate this requirement. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the U.S. was set to rescind this policy, freeing LNG projects from the rigid timeline and potentially accelerating their completion.
This policy reversal could signal a broader approach to infrastructure under Trump. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, enacted in 2021, allocated $1.2 trillion to rebuild roads, bridges, broadband and other critical systems, with funds intended to be awarded over five years, though some projects naturally extend beyond that due to construction timelines. The seven-year LNG deadline was a specific energy-related constraint, but Trump’s administration has shown a willingness to pause or redirect Biden-era infrastructure funding more generally. For instance, Trump’s Jan.20 executive order, “Unleashing American Energy,” directed agencies to halt disbursements under the IIJA and IRA pending a 90-day review, raising questions about whether similar time-bound restrictions across infrastructure sectors might also be loosened or eliminated.
Critics argue that scrapping deadlines risks stalling projects indefinitely, undermining the urgency Biden sought to instill in modernizing U.S. infrastructure. Supporters argue that developers already have every profit-motivated incentive to proceed as rapidly as possible and see the elimination of this restriction as a pragmatic adjustment, allowing flexibility for states and private entities to navigate permitting, labor shortages and supply chain issues—challenges that have persisted into 2025.
For example, the $294 billion in unawarded IIJA funds, including $87.2 billion in competitive grants, now fall under Trump’s purview, and his more energy-focused administration could prioritize projects aligned with his energy and economic goals over Biden’s climate and DEI-focused initiatives.
Ultimately, Trump’s decision to end the seven-year LNG deadline exemplifies his intent to reshape infrastructure policy by prioritizing speed, flexibility and industry needs. Whether this extends formally to all U.S. infrastructure projects remains unclear, but seems likely given the Trump White House’s stated objectives and priorities.
This move also clearly aligns with the overall Trump philosophy of getting the government out of the way, allowing the markets to work and freeing the business community to restore American Energy Dominance in the most expeditious way possible.
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.
Business
Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ – Good News for Canadian Energy and Great News for WCSB Natural Gas

By Maureen McCall
April 2 was ‘Liberation Day’ according to U.S. President Donald Trump. While the announcement of U.S. reciprocal tariffs was not good news for many countries, Trump’s announcement also had some good news for Canadian Energy companies – 0% tariffs. Some tariffs against Canada are still in place, but for now, no energy sector tariffs against Canada underscores the importance of Canadian energy to the Trump administration.
President Trump announced new tariffs on April 2nd, which he dubbed “Liberation Day” with a 10% baseline tariff for all U.S. trading partners, to go into effect on April 5th. He also announced more reciprocal tariffs against the “worst offenders,” which will go into effect on April 9th but no tariffs on Canadian energy were announced.

Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs Announcement
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith celebrated the win which she says is precisely what she has been advocating for from the U.S. Administration for months.
“The United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian Federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. Administration. It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including 0% tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and a host of other Canadian goods.”
This is great news for Canadian energy producers, especially natural gas producers who are experiencing dramatic growth in the Montney.
At this year’s S&P Global CERAWeek, Mike Verney, Executive Vice-President of petroleum reserves with McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. had great news for Canadian companies.
McDaniel’s study, commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), reported data indicating that Alberta has proven natural gas reserves of 130 trillion cubic feet (TCF), compared to previous provincial estimates of only 24 TCF. According to the study, if probable gas reserves are added in, the overall figure is 144 TCF.
As reported in the Financial Post, Verney said “We’re growing like mad in the Montney. The major natural gas plays in the U.S. are actually declining versus the Montney that is actually growing.”
This message was echoed by Michael Rose, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tourmaline Oil, Canada’s largest natural gas producer during his keynote address at the SPE Canadian Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition last month in Calgary.
Not a Sunset Industry

Michael Rose – Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tourmaline Oil
Rose opened his keynote speech with optimism saying: “This is not a sunset industry- it is closer to sunrise than sunset” and spoke about Canada’s compelling opportunity for natural gas production as well as Tourmaline’s successes.
Reuters reports that analysts are wondering about the U.S.’s ability to meet the demand growth of booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects and also to meet huge domestic demand for natural gas-fired electricity generation to supply new data centre growth. Canada’s resources in Alberta’s Deep Basin and the North East BC Montney will be a huge supply source.
Deep Basin and the Montney are where the most competitive gas plays are found, and where Tourmaline operates as well as producing oil in the Peace River Triassic Lake.
Rose credits technology development and the building and ownership of midstream infrastructures as keys to affordability and profitability for Canadian companies which can control costs by controlling more of the production cycle. In addition, AI optimization has helped the company increase production. He also pointed out the environmental advantage of natural gas production. Since society needs the energy density of hydrocarbons to power industries, natural gas is the best choice as it is “the cleanest member of the fossil fuel stack.” He quoted Arjun Murti– 30 year Wall Street research analyst, buy-side investor, and advisor covering the global energy sector now with Veriten.com who asserts that there is no real energy transition and the only thing humans have actually transitioned off in the energy world is whale oil.
Rose said that 2022 statistics indicated the world set a record for all sources of energy. He pointed out that coal was supposed to replace wood 200 years ago, and it still hasn’t while wood, which has been renamed as biomass is still 7% of the overall energy stack.
The Golden Age of Gas
Rose’s natural gas outlook to 2028 in Canada was rosy saying gas “never looked better.” Beyond 2028 also looks good with a proliferation of electricity generation planned to feed data centre growth. In Alberta alone, 15 projects are in queue which will create a material increase in demand. In the U.S. however, some large U.S. natural gas supply basins have reached a tipping point with only 50% estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) left. Rose reported that drilling inventory is an issue in the U.S. but not in Canada. For example, Tourmaline has over 20 years of Tier 1 drilling inventory left while its U.S. peers don’t have the same luxury. He noted that U.S. M&A is currently driven by a quest for inventory. He noted that U.S. companies will chase profitable acquisitions in a quest for inventory to lower future costs saying “Things are still cheap in Canada.”
Canadian Resources – Will we ever be an energy superpower?
With global exploration down sharply, focus has turned to the WCSB where in the case of the Montney, only 5% has been produced so far.
“All you hear about is the western Canadian sedimentary basin and it is a monster, and it is the gift that keeps on giving, but we’re actually blessed with multiple other opportunities. Like the U.S., a number of them are off limits for government policy reasons, but certainly changes are in order.”
Some of the undeveloped basins in Canada which Rose referred to as “forbidden basins” are located on the West Coast and in the lowlands in Quebec. The tariff issue may be changing attitudes towards oil and gas development in those areas. Dealing with an unsupportive Federal Government for the last decade has made capital attraction difficult. Routine talk about phasing out Oil and Gas and the series of regulations, bills and initiatives that have stalled basin development and new pipelines have taken its toll. It has discouraged capital from flowing into the sector – a period that Rose said “ felt like an endless hurricane.”
So what is the right path forward?
The challenge for industry and policymakers is finding the right balance between energy and the environment according to Rose. He advises that setting unrealistic goals and timelines that are not based in science/technology or economics won’t work, and notes a shift away from the time frame set by net zero.
“We look at the whole environment, air, land and water, and we develop plans to improve performance in all three. We have a group of young engineers working on what amounts to an embedded clean tech business within our company, and I think they’re having a lot of fun doing it.”
One of Tourmaline’s longest initiatives, is the conversion of drilling rigs from diesel to natural gas, using field gas for fuel. The result is that projects have an improved economic return as well as reduced emissions. Rose says this year, Tourmaline will cross a “200 million barrier” and will have displaced 200 million litres of diesel and save $200 million including the makeup gas used. He says they like to think of it as a drill bit to burn initiative.
Mike Rose still had an optimistic view of the path forward for energy companies that is certainly more relevant after yesterday’s “Liberation Day” announcement from Trump.
“We’ve missed 10 years of opportunities,” Rose said. “It would have made us so much stronger than we are today as an industry and a country. Still, late is better than never. The only thing I’ll say about tariffs is that they are just another curve ball. We’ve had nothing but curve balls for 10 years, and we’ll figure out how to hit this one too. Given how integrated both countries’ energy systems are and will continue to be, I think a great narrative that just might appeal is: ‘Let’s make North America the world’s preeminent energy and oil and gas superpower’.”
Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs
-
Business1 day ago
California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline
-
Business2 days ago
Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs
-
Alberta2 days ago
Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars
-
Catherine Herridge1 day ago
FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report