Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Houses passes bill to protect domestic oil production, protect Iñupiat community

Published

7 months ago

7 minute read

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

Indigenous communities are advocating for economic development projects in the North Slope, explaining that more than 95% of their tax base comes from resource development infrastructure.

The U.S. House passed another a bill to advance domestic energy production, this time in response to cries for help from an indigenous community living in the Alaska North Slope.

The bill’s cosponsor, a Democrat from Alaska, did not vote for her own bill. It passed with the support of five Democrats, including two from Texas who are strong supporters of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry.

The U.S. House has advanced several bills and resolutions to support domestic U.S. oil and natural gas production, supported by Texas Democrats. They’ve done so after the Biden administration has taken more than 200 actions against the industry, The Center Square reported.

One includes the Department of the Interior restricting development on over 50% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), directly impacting the Iñupiat North Slope community.

The Alaska North Slope region includes a part of ANWR and National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA). Both are home to the indigenous Iñupiat community who maintain that the Biden administration is trying to “silence indigenous voices in the Arctic.”

The plan to halt North Slope production was done through a federal agency rule change, a tactic the administration has used to change federal law bypassing Congress. The rule cancels seven oil and gas leases issued by the Trump administration in the name of “climate change.” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said canceling the leases was “based on the best available science and in recognition of the Indigenous Knowledge of the original stewards of this area, to safeguard our public lands for future generations.”

The indigenous community strongly disagrees, saying they weren’t consulted before, during or after the rule change.

Nagruk Harcharek, president of the Voice of Arctic Iñupiat, a nonprofit that represents a collective elected Iñupiaq leadership, says the administration’s mandate “to ‘protect’ 13 million acres of our ancestral homelands was made without fulfilling legal consultative obligations to our regional tribal governments, without engaging our communities about the decision’s impact, and with an incomplete economic analysis that undercuts North Slope communities.”

He argues the administration has overlooked “the legitimate concerns of elected Indigenous leaders from Alaska’s North Slope. This is a continuation of the onslaught of being blindsided by the federal government about unilateral decisions affecting our homelands.”

Restricting NPR-A oil production is “yet another blow to our right to self-determination in our ancestral homelands, which we have stewarded for over 10,000 years. Not a single organization or elected leader on the North Slope, which fully encompasses the NPR-A, supports this proposed rule,” he said, adding that they asked for it to be rescinded.

In response, U.S. Reps. Mary Sattler Peltola, D-Alaska, and Pete Stauber, R-Minn., introduced HR 6285, “Alaska’s Right to Produce Act.” The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the issue; members of the Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and the Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation testified.

Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation president Charles Lampe said they “refuse to become conservation refugees on our own homelands and unapologetically stand behind the Alaska’s Right to Produce Act.”

The Kaktovik is the only community located in the ANWR. The North Slope Iñupiat have stewarded their ancestral homelands for thousands of years, predating the creation of the U.S. federal government, the Interior Department and the state of Alaska, they argue.

The indigenous communities are advocating for economic development projects in the North Slope, explaining that more than 95% of their tax base comes from resource development infrastructure. Tax revenue funds public school education, health clinics, water and sewage systems, wildlife management and research and other services that otherwise would not exist, they argue. Eliminating their tax base, will directly impact their lives and jeopardize their long-term economic security, they argue.

The House passed Alaska’s Right to Produce Act on Wednesday to reverse the rule change and establish the Coastal Plain oil and gas leasing program. It authorizes and directs federal agencies to administer oil and natural gas leasing on 13 million acres of public land in the North Slope.

The bill passed by a vote of 214-199 without the support of its Democratic cosponsor from Alaska, Peltola, who voted “present.”

Five Democrats voted for it: Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. of Georgia, Henry Cuellar and Vincente Gonzalez of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington. One Republican voted against it, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.

After it passed, Harcharek said, “Since the Biden administration announced this decision in September, our voices, which overwhelmingly reject the federal government’s decisions, have been consistently drowned out and ignored. This administration has not followed its well-documented promises to work with Indigenous people when crafting policies affecting their lands and people. We are grateful to Congress for exercising its legislative authority to correct the federal government’s hypocrisy and advance Iñupiaq self-determination in our ancestral homelands.”

Kaktovik Mayor Nathan Gordon, Jr. said the administration “is regulating our homelands in a region they do not understand and without listening to the people who live here.” The new law is “a vital corrective measure that will prevent our community from being isolated and protect our Iñupiaq culture in the long term.”

The bill heads to the Democratic controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to pass.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 5 hours ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on November 20, 2024

By

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more. 

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Continue Reading

Energy

What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?

Published on November 18, 2024

By

From EnergyNow.ca

By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow

The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built

Economic and Job Creation

The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.

Energy Security

By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.

Environmental Safety

Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.

Regulatory Oversight

The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.

Political Reasons for Cancellation

Environmental Activism

The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.

Obama’s Cancellation

President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.

Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation

President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.

Political Symbolism

For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.

Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?

Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.

It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.

Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.

That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.

Continue Reading

Trending

X