Energy
Biden Has Taken More Than 200 Actions Against Domestic Oil, New Report Says

From HeartlandDailyNews
By
President Joe Biden and his administration have taken over 200 actions against the U.S. oil and natural gas industry as energy prices have gone up, according to a new report.
“President Biden and Democrats have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase,” the Institute for Energy Research states in a new report. “Since Mr. Biden took office, his administration and its allies have taken over 200 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America.”
The analysis highlights actions Biden took on his first day in office, listing them chronologically through March of this year. The first act was canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, issuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and revoking Trump administration executive orders that decreased regulations in order to expand domestic production.
Within a week of being in office, Biden issued additional moratoriums on new oil and gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters and imposed new regulations related to permitting and leasing practices, which were tied up in the courts for years. It was not until last month that a federal court upheld the first oil and natural gas lease sale on federal lands. Last December, the Fifth Circuit also ruled that Gulf lease sales must go forward.
Other actions ahead of the midterm elections include threatening to tax the oil and natural gas industry, blaming them for profiteering. Roughly six months before the general election, his administration has proposed $110 billion tax hikes on oil, natural gas and coal. In response, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., led a coalition of 24 senators expressing “grave concern” about his “continued hostility towards American energy production.”
IER published the report after the latest action taken to increase the cost of U.S. oil production and cancel plans to restock the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The SPR has been depleted to roughly half of what it was when he first took office.
“President Biden had the chance to top up the SPR when prices were still low during the pandemic, but anti-oil-and-gas ideologues within the administration couldn’t bear to do anything that would help out producers when demand was low,” Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, told The Center Square. He then drained it “for political reasons and it’s long overdue to fill the SPR back up. Like many other politically driven decisions from this administration that distort energy markets, the government will have to spend more taxpayer money than if it had rational energy policies.”
Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association, told The Center Square that the Biden administration withdrawing approximately 250 million barrels from the SPR “was another dangerous example of putting politics over national security. The fact that some will believe the decision to cancel contracts to refill the SPR is due to a newly discovered fiscal consciousness is both nonsensical and alarming. Poorly conceived, albeit intentional energy policy results in higher costs for consumers, global emissions, and inflation, while putting our economy and energy security at risk.”
Daniel Turner, Founder and Executive Director for Power The Future, said instead of using American-produced oil to refill the SPR, Biden was “embracing insanity by putting the green agenda ahead of our families and our national security. Only in Joe Biden’s head does it make sense to lower costs by raising fees.” In light of Iran’s recent attacks against Israel, he said, “the world and our allies need a strong America that is fully utilizing our energy strength. Instead, the only things Joe Biden wants to strengthen is Iranian oil and Washington’s tax revenue.”
As the Biden administration imposes more fees on American oil producers, Iran’s oil exports reached $35 billion within the last 12 months, according to Iranian Labour News Agency. “Despite the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Tehran in 2018, Chinese purchases of Iranian oil have allowed the country to maintain a positive trade balance,” Reuters reported. “Without oil exports, Iran would have registered a $16.8 billion trade deficit.”
U.S. House Republicans last month passed several bills and resolutions to strengthen the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, The Center Square reported. Only a handful of Democrats, largely from Texas, supported them.
Texas leads the U.S. in oil and natural gas production, having broken records in the last few years, The Center Square has reported. Because the majority of oil and natural gas is produced on private land and a bipartisan group of Texas elected officials and regulatory agencies are supportive of the industry, Texas has been able to achieve what most states have not.
Those in the Texas energy industry argue that, without their ingenuity and technological advancement, the U.S. would not be as energy independent as it is and prices would be higher. When the Russian-Ukrainian crisis hit, it was Texas LNG exports that provided a “lifeline” to European countries, a TIPRO analysis found.
“With so much uncertainty in the world, the need for reliable, responsibly produced energy from a stable trading partner has never been more crucial,” Texas Oil & Gas Association President Todd Staples said. “Texas is that trade partner. Our producers, pipelines, refineries, and exporters answer the call to alleviate the global energy crisis, made worse by war.”
He also argues that Texas’ production records “are not guaranteed. We cannot take for granted that this industry can continue to rewrite its record book in the face of federal policies blatantly designed to undermine progress. Delayed permits, canceled pipeline projects, closed and delayed federal leasing programs and incoherent regulations hurt American consumers and stifle our ability to deliver energy freedom and security around the world.”
Bethany Blankley is a contributor to The Center Square.
Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.
Business
Canada has an energy edge, why won’t Ottawa use it?

Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.
What the public doesn’t see behind all the climate summit fanfare is a carefully choreographed performance where capitals everywhere scramble to perfect their lines for the UN’s annual pageant. COP30 descends on Brazil in mid-November, and once again Ottawa looks primed to arrive clutching a stack of promises, desperately hoping that thunderous applause will somehow count as tangible progress in the real world.
Thanks to years of bureaucratic capture, our government keeps churning out the measures most fervently demanded by the climate lobby, and this ritual proceeds as if “net zero” were still a credible roadmap rather than a marketing slogan stretched so transparently thin it’s practically see-through. But out in the real world—away from the theatrical staging—the energy system keeps issuing updates of its own that no amount of wishful thinking can erase. The question this year cannot be what flashy new prohibition Ottawa can unveil on cue: are our leaders finally prepared to read the room? Away from the virtue-signalling theatre, countries are quietly adjusting to immovable realities: demand keeps climbing, reliability actually matters, and security trumps sermonizing—and we should be looking south to see what’s really working.
From 2005 to 2023, U.S. per-capita CO₂ emissions from energy plummeted by nearly a third. Not because of performative pledges or green grandstanding, but because coal quietly gave way to natural gas, with renewables filling in around the edges where they actually made sense. Pick almost any grid that made this pragmatic switch, and you’ll discover the same inconvenient pattern that climate absolutists prefer to ignore: fewer emissions and electricity you can actually count on when you flip the switch. Maryland serves as a clean example, where coal shrank from the backbone to a footnote as gas surged, helping keep the lights blazing when people needed them most.
Canada should pay very close attention to these uncomfortable truths. We benefit from hydro and nuclear in some regions, but what the green lobby doesn’t want to acknowledge is that our electricity demand is climbing relentlessly. Population growth alone would guarantee that outcome. Add the explosion in AI technology and it becomes utterly unavoidable, despite the silence from environmental groups. Even the cheerleaders of the new digital economy are brutally honest about this reality when pressed. The head of the world’s biggest AI chipmaker isn’t jesting when he bluntly tells the U.K. it will need gas turbines alongside nuclear and renewables to power its tech ambitions—inconvenient facts that shatter green fairy tales.
Another stubborn reality that doesn’t make it into climate summit speeches is that the International Energy Agency estimates oil and gas companies spend roughly half a trillion dollars every year just to keep output flat—a financial reality that exposes the “stranded assets” narrative as wishful thinking. Without this continual reinvestment, U.S. shale would crater within a single year. It’s rather difficult to describe that as a system drifting quietly into retirement, rather than an industrial backbone that still carries most of the load while activists pretend otherwise. If you’re Canada, that looks less like a looming problem than a golden opening that our competitors are already seizing.
Geopolitics is saying the same thing out loud, for those willing to listen beyond the climate activism echo chamber. J.P. Morgan bluntly calls this the “new energy security age,” and Europe is working frantically to end its dependence on Russian LNG—not for climate reasons, but for survival. Japan is expanding its LNG fleet, and Mexico is inking billion-dollar supply deals while climate campaigners aren’t looking. Strip away all the green branding and virtue-signalling, and you get a core calculation that energy security is nothing short of national security—and countries that get snookered by activist rhetoric into forgetting that harsh reality lose far more than bragging rights at international summits.

The Woodfibre LNG site is seen on Howe Sound in Squamish, B.C. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
Our allies have been leaning on us to quit sitting on the sidelines and deliver something concrete. And back home, even Ottawa’s mandarins are finally muttering what everyone else has known all along. For the next several years, at minimum, gas remains the most economical, rock-solid baseload option across vast stretches of the continent. Meeting that surging demand would deliver high-paying jobs, bulletproof alliances, and slash global emissions compared to the world burning more coal. Turning our backs on it means standing idle while rival producers rush to fill the void—all so we can pat ourselves on the back for warming the bench.
If this strikes you as abstract theorizing, cast your eyes toward California. A righteous crusade to shutter refineries didn’t magically eliminate the appetite for fuel—it simply exported the dirty work elsewhere, shipping out the jobs and the supply cushion that shields consumers from price shocks. The Golden State now scrambles like a panicked shopper whenever supply chains hiccup, because when push comes to shove, affordability draws the hard red line on what voters will tolerate. Meanwhile, the global landscape has shifted dramatically, with the United States now claiming the crown as top exporter of refined petroleum and LNG.
The lofty rhetoric of “climate solidarity” has quietly faded into something far more practical—nations ruthlessly pursuing their own interests. Even the most progressive speechwriters now pepper their drafts with buzzwords like ‘pragmatism’ and ‘realism.’ It represents nothing short of a grudging acknowledgment that wishful thinking won’t keep the lights on when the grid starts groaning.
British Columbia, meanwhile, sits perched atop the Montney—one of the continent’s most spectacular gas reservoirs—boasting the shortest shipping lanes to Asian markets. Indigenous nations are shrewdly securing equity stakes in LNG ventures while demanding genuine partnership—a blueprint that marries reconciliation with cold, hard prosperity. Those outbound cargoes are displacing coal-fired power overseas. If your genuine goal involves slashing real-world emissions, that achievement trumps a dozen flowery Ottawa press releases.
So no, the magic formula isn’t “all of the above,” but rather “the best of the above.” It demands deploying hydro, nuclear, and renewables where they deliver maximum punch, with natural gas serving as the indispensable bridge that keeps systems humming while breakthrough technologies mature. We must construct infrastructure that performs when sidewalks turn into skating rinks and when asphalt starts melting like butter.
We’ve also absorbed some hard-earned lessons about the political theatrics that spook serious capital. At COP28 in Dubai, then–environment minister Steven Guilbeault sported a baseball cap emblazoned with “emissions.” Emissions cap—catch the clever wordplay? The joke bombed spectacularly with investors. The policy proposal fared no better; its most vocal champion is reportedly eyeing the exit door, while nearly a hundred Canadian oil and gas CEOs have now fired off two blunt open letters to the new prime minister, spelling out precisely what the cap would accomplish: driving investors to pack their bags for friendlier jurisdictions. If your economic blueprint hinges on attracting capital, avoid crafting policies that essentially scream ‘beat it.’

World leaders at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.
What would that look like at COP30? It would sound nothing like the strangely self-defeating Canadian speeches of years past, which have been heavy on confessional hand-wringing, light on genuine intent, drowning in performative self-flagellation, and starved of actual competence. If Ottawa wants to prove it has finally woken up from its ideological slumber, it should ditch the tired theatre and roll out policies that actually unleash investment instead of strangling it: streamlined approvals with firm timelines that mean something; predictable fiscal treatment that doesn’t shift with every political breeze; a clear path for Indigenous equity in major projects; and an explicit commitment to “best of the above” power and fuels. Pair that with a forthright message to allies that cuts through the usual diplomatic fog: Canada intends to supply reliable, cleaner energy to the democracies that desperately need it.
It’s not capitulating to industry to stop pretending we can wish away reality. It’s the path that lets us grow the economy, slash global emissions faster than sanctimonious lectures ever will, and strengthen the alliances that keep free countries from getting steamrolled. If we want Canada to matter in this new energy security age instead of being relegated to the sidelines, we should start acting like we mean business. COP30 is the stage. Time to scrap the old script and write one that actually works.
Energy
Prince Rupert as the Optimal Destination Port for an Alberta Crude Oil Pipeline –

From Energy Now
Assessing the Strategic, Economic, and Environmental Advantages on British Columbia’s Northern Coast
With ongoing discussions about diversifying Alberta’s crude oil export routes, selecting the right destination port on British Columbia’s northern coast is critical. This analysis examines Prince Rupert as a prime candidate, highlighting why it stands out as the best choice for a new Alberta crude oil pipeline.
Geographic and Logistical Advantages
Prince Rupert is Canada’s deepest natural harbour and is located approximately 1,500 kilometres closer to Asian markets than Vancouver. Its northern coastal position provides a shorter and more direct shipping route across the Pacific, reducing transit times and shipping costs. The port’s location also means ships can avoid the congested and environmentally sensitive waters of southern British Columbia, including the Salish Sea and Vancouver’s busy port.
Infrastructure and Expansion Capacity
Prince Rupert has a modern and rapidly expanding port infrastructure. The Port of Prince Rupert already handles bulk cargo, containers, and other exports, and it has significant capacity for further development. There is available land and established transportation corridors—including rail lines operated by CN Rail—that connect directly to Alberta, making it logistically feasible to construct a new pipeline and efficiently move crude oil to tidewater.
Economic Benefits
A pipeline terminating at Prince Rupert would open up Alberta’s crude oil to global markets, particularly in Asia, increasing market access and potentially securing better prices for Canadian oil producers. The economic spin-offs for both Alberta and northern British Columbia include job creation, increased tax revenue, and local business opportunities in construction, operations, and port services.
Environmental and Community Considerations
Shipping crude oil from Prince Rupert avoids some of the most ecologically sensitive regions along the southern coast. The port’s deep waters allow for safer navigation of large tankers, reducing the risk of groundings and spills. Additionally, the relatively low population density around Prince Rupert compared to southern ports minimizes the social impact and opposition that has historically challenged energy projects in more urbanized regions.
Strategic and Security Factors
The northern location of Prince Rupert is advantageous from a national security perspective. It is less vulnerable to geopolitical tensions and traffic bottlenecks that can affect southern ports. The port’s proximity to the open Pacific also reduces the time tankers spend in Canadian waters, limiting exposure to potential environmental incidents.
Prince Rupert’s strategic location, robust infrastructure, economic potential, and lower environmental and social risks make it the best choice for a new Alberta crude oil pipeline on British Columbia’s northern coast. Its selection would not only enhance Canada’s energy export capabilities but also support responsible economic development in Western Canada.
-
International2 days ago
Poland’s president signs new zero income tax law for parents with two children
-
Business1 day ago
Ford’s Whisky War
-
International2 days ago
Australian territory bans men from women’s prisons in national first
-
National2 days ago
Poilievre accuses Canada’s top police force of ‘covering up’ alleged Trudeau crimes
-
Agriculture11 hours ago
Is the CFIA a Rogue Agency or Just Taking Orders from a Rogue Federal Government?
-
COVID-192 days ago
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich says ‘I am not to leave the house’ while serving sentence
-
Focal Points1 day ago
Trump Walks Back His Tomahawk Tease from Zelensky
-
Business20 hours ago
Trump Blocks UN’s Back Door Carbon Tax