From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Anthony Iafrate

Following the removal of socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump said the U.S. government might reimburse oil companies that invest in Venezuela.

In a Monday afternoon phone interview, Trump told NBC News’ Kristen Welker that an expansion of the U.S. oil industry in the South American nation could be “up and running” in less than a year and a half, but this would require “a lot of money.” Hours after announcing Maduro’s capture Saturday, Trump said in a press conference that the U.S. is going to “run” Venezuela until there could be “a safe, proper and judicious transition” — a remark that sparked much discussion over exactly what will come next for the country.

“A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue,” Trump said in his interview with Welker, referring to rebuilding the beleaguered oil infrastructure in post-Maduro Venezuela.

The president did not specify how much money is required for oil companies to upgrade the infrastructure, NBC News reported. Trump previously said he was going to “have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure and start making money for the country.”

“It’ll be a very substantial amount of money [that] will be spent,” Trump added in his interview with Welker. “But they’ll [the oil companies will] do very well. And the country will do well.”

Trump told the NBC News host that Venezuela producing oil is “good for the United States because it keeps the price of oil down.”

He also told Welker that his administration did not brief oil companies before carrying out the surprise attack that deposed Maduro.The companies, though, “were absolutely aware that we were thinking about doing something.”

Welker, on NBC News’ “Meet The Press” Sunday, asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “Why does the United States need to take over the Venezuelan oil industry?”

“We don’t need to. We don’t need Venezuela’s oil,” Rubio said. “We have plenty of oil in the United States. What we’re not going to allow is for the oil industry in Venezuela to be controlled by adversaries of the United States.”

“Why does China need their oil? Why does Russia need their oil? Why does Iran need their oil?” the Secretary of State asked. “They’re not even in this continent. This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live.”

Also on Sunday, a Venezuelan man in Buenos Aires, Argentina went viral while celebrating the end of the Mauro regime, after he pushed back against critics who said the U.S. is only interested in Venezuela due to its status as an oil-producing country.

“Those who say that the U.S. is only interested in our oil, I ask you: What do you think the Russians and the Chinese wanted here? The recipe for arepas?” the man asked in Spanish, naming a popular street food in Venezuelan cuisine. “Impossible.”

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

New report finds that displacing coal and foreign gas with Canadian LNG could lower global emissions by 70 megatonnes a year

Canada’s energy policy debate has become trapped in a polarization that feels dangerously disconnected from global reality.

On one side, we have a domestic conversation focused intensely on our own emissions ledger—counting every tonne produced within our borders as a liability. On the other side is the global reality: a world hungry for energy, often turning to the dirtiest sources available to keep the lights on and economies growing.

I’ve long argued that we cannot solve a global problem like climate change by wearing blinders that restrict our view to the 49th parallel. Recently, on the Power Struggle podcast, I sat down with Mark Cameron to discuss the hard data that backs this up.

Cameron is a fellow at the Public Policy Forum and the co-author of a new report Refuel: What Canadian LNG and Oil Exports Could Mean for Global Emissions. The numbers tell a story that might surprise those who view energy exports solely as a climate negative.

Flipping the script on emissions

The central finding of the Refuel report challenges the orthodoxy that “more production equals more pollution.” When we look at the global picture, the opposite appears to be true.

“The headline news is that if Canada was to increase its LNG exports by [47 million tonnes a year] and if we are exporting primarily into Asian markets, there would be a net reduction in emissions of about 40 to 70 megatonnes per year,” Cameron told me.

Let that sink in. By increasing our economic output and shipping more product abroad, we could lower global emissions by an amount roughly equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road.

It comes down to displacement. The energy we export doesn’t vanish into a void; it replaces other, often dirtier, forms of power generation.

“In some of those markets, you’re displacing coal,” Cameron explained. “Coal obviously is about twice the emissions in generating electricity as LNG. So to the extent that you’re displacing coal, you’re getting a clear emissions reduction.”

The Canadian advantage

This isn’t just about the inherent chemistry of gas versus coal. It is also about the specific quality of the gas produced in Western Canada. Not all liquefied natural gas (LNG) is created equal.

Canada’s geography and technology provide a distinct edge over competitors regarding carbon intensity.

“Canadian LNG, because it has cooler temperatures, shorter shipping times to Asia, more electric drive in its production, is actually about 35 per cent lower in emissions than LNG that would be shipped from, say, the U.S. Gulf Coast,” Cameron said.

When we debate blocking a Canadian project, we act as if the alternative is zero consumption. But the alternative is often gas from the Gulf Coast—which requires more energy to cool in the hot southern climate and takes longer to ship—or worse, coal.

Asian markets know this. They are looking for reliability and lower carbon intensity.

“We want to have a certain percentage of LNG, and we want a certain percentage of that coming from Canada because it’s a stable market and it has a particularly low emissions intensity,” Cameron noted.

The reality of substitution

This brings us to the concept of “carbon leakage.” It is a harsh economic reality that if Canada steps out of the market, we don’t save the planet—we simply cede market share to those with lower environmental standards.

“If the LNG is not coming from Canada, it’s going to come from somewhere else,” Cameron said bluntly. “It’s going to come from the U.S. or Qatar or Australia, or it would be displaced by coal or another energy source. So when you look at all those things in balance, it does look like Canadian LNG is a net positive for the climate.”

Progress in the oilsands

While LNG often dominates the “transition fuel” conversation, the report also addresses the oilsands. The narrative there has often ignored massive strides in efficiency.

“That emissions intensity is coming down. It’s come down by about 30 per cent in the last 20 years,” Cameron said.

He pointed to operational fuel switching as a key driver of this progress.

“Canadian oilsands was using petroleum coke, essentially coal, to generate the steam for the oilsands production. That is almost entirely shifted to natural gas.”

The long game

Finally, we must address the timeline. Critics argue that building LNG infrastructure locks us into fossil fuels. But the transition is a decades-long process.

“There is going to be LNG demand,” Cameron said. “We don’t know exactly how much, but there’s going to be LNG demand for the next four or five, six decades.”

Furthermore, natural gas is a fundamental building block of modern civilization, used for fertilizer and chemical production, not just electricity.

“If we can produce the cleanest LNG in the world, we’re actually doing global climate a favour by building those projects,” Cameron added.

If we retreat from the world stage, we aren’t taking the moral high ground; we are merely outsourcing the emissions to countries with a heavier carbon footprint. A Canada that exports more is a Canada that contributes to a cleaner world.

Watch the video on Power Struggle

• Power Struggle audio and transcript
• Mark Cameron on LinkedIn
• Stewart Muir on X
• Stewart Muir on LinkedIn

Power Struggle on social media:

• Power Struggle on LinkedIn
• Power Struggle on Instagram
• Power Struggle on Facebook
• Power Struggle on X