Energy
Texas Legislative Committee Proposes Ways to Protect, Expand LNG Industry

From Heartland Daily News
By Bethany Blankley
“the Biden Administration’s federal permitting pause during a presidential election year appears to be purely political in nature and an attempt to disrupt Texas’ booming economy, now the eighth largest economy in the world…. it is abundantly clear American LNG is in the best interest of the Texas economy, local communities, our national security, and global energy security.”
A state legislative committee is proposing ways to expand Texas’ liquified natural gas (LNG) industry after the Biden administration announced it was pausing pending applications for LNG exports that would significantly impact Texas.
The Texas House Select Committee on Protecting Texas LNG Exports issued its findings after holding a hearing on the topic earlier this month. Led by state Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, the report states, “the Biden Administration’s federal permitting pause during a presidential election year appears to be purely political in nature and an attempt to disrupt Texas’ booming economy, now the eighth largest economy in the world.
“It has caused long-term uncertainty for both investors and allied nations around the world relying on American energy, particularly in Europe as they seek to wean themselves off Russian natural gas. After multiple studies across Democratic and Republican presidential administrations, it is abundantly clear American LNG is in the best interest of the Texas economy, local communities, our national security, and global energy security.”
House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, created the select committee and charged it with evaluating the impact on the Texas LNG industry and to propose actions the state legislature could take in the next legislative session to protect it.
Phelan’s district is critical to the oil and natural gas industry. It encompasses a region known as the “Golden Triangle,” rich in oil and natural gas production, processing, refining and exports in the southeast towns of Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange. It includes a key LNG export terminal currently under construction in Port Arthur, where several LNG facilities are also located.
The LNG terminal, once completed and operational, is expected to have an export capacity of 13 million tons a year. With access to the Gulf of Mexico through the Sabine-Neches ship channel, it represents a $13 billion investment in new energy infrastructure, the report states.
The U.S. leads the world in LNG exports, led by the Gulf states of Texas and Louisiana. In 2017, the U.S. became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since 1957, “primarily because of increased LNG exports,” according to the EIA. The U.S. became a net exporter after Cheniere Energy was the first to export domestically sourced LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and from the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, The Center Square first reported.
Nearly 25% of U.S. natural gas reserves are located in Texas and 30% of the largest hundred natural gas fields in the U.S. are in Texas, the legislative report notes, citing state data. It also identifies six LNG facilities nationwide that would be impacted by the ban, including two in Texas, in Port Arthur and Corpus Christi.
Texas ports, including Port Arthur and Corpus Christi, are among the top ports in the U.S. leading in foreign trade impact, and the Port of Corpus Christi continues to break records in tonnage, primarily due to oil and LNG exports, The Center Square reported.
Texas Oil & Gas Association Chief Economist Dean Foreman, who testified before the committee, said, “Texas and Louisiana bear the brunt of short-sighted federal policies that jeopardize LNG export projects, representing potential investments of $200 billion across the value chain, including a projected 20% increase in Texas’ dry natural gas production.
“The reasons given for this pause – concerns about higher domestic natural gas prices, emissions, and community impacts – are clearly unfounded. U.S. LNG exports have responded to global demand, driving domestic innovation that enhances productivity and reduces consumer costs. LNG has replaced coal in power generation, emerging as a primary driver of emission reductions, and have catalyzed economic growth across the Gulf Coast. On all accounts, U.S. LNG exports have proven to be decisively beneficial.”
Two key claims the administration made for implementing the ban (LNG exports increase domestic energy costs and increase methane emissions) have been refuted, The Center Square first reported. A bipartisan coalition of Texas’ congressional delegation called on the president “to refocus on policies that support US LNG,” understanding that Texas is the energy capital of the United States, The Center Square reported. Sixteen states, led by Louisiana and Texas, also sued, arguing the ban is illegal.
The committee recommended that the legislature “consider legislation and policies authorizing the governor to develop and execute an interstate compact with the goal of sharing state information, resources, and services with other interested states seeking to protect and grow the LNG industry along the Gulf Coast.”
It also recommends that the legislature propose legislation and policies to permit temporary eligibility of LNG facility construction grants and loans when federal permitting pauses occur; provide economic incentives for LNG facilities to counter market consequences of a federal permitting pause; reform specific permitting regulations and increase overall permitting process efficiency; expand funding for project construction and development through the Texas Department of Transportation’s Maritime Infrastructure Program; increase workforce grants made available through local colleges to meet workforce demands for construction and facility operations; and mandate that official reports be published every year providing data on the “relevance and importance of the LNG industry regarding the public interest.”
Bethany Blankley is a contributor at The Center Square.
Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.
Canadian Energy Centre
Saskatchewan Indigenous leaders urging need for access to natural gas

Piapot First Nation near Regina, Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Piapot First Nation/Facebook
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona and Deborah Jaremko
“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”
Indigenous communities across Canada need access to natural gas to reduce energy poverty, says a new report by Energy for a Secure Future (ESF).
It’s a serious issue that needs to be addressed, say Indigenous community and business leaders in Saskatchewan.
“We’re here today to implore upon the federal government that we need the installation of natural gas and access to natural gas so that we can have safe and reliable service,” said Guy Lonechild, CEO of the Regina-based First Nations Power Authority, on a March 11 ESF webinar.
Last year, 20 Saskatchewan communities moved a resolution at the Assembly of First Nations’ annual general assembly calling on the federal government to “immediately enhance” First Nations financial supports for “more desirable energy security measures such as natural gas for home heating.”
“We’ve been calling it heat poverty because that’s what it really is…our families are finding that they have to either choose between buying groceries or heating their home,” Chief Christine Longjohn of Sturgeon Lake First Nation said in the ESF report.
“We should be able to live comfortably within our homes. We want to be just like every other homeowner that has that choice to be able to use natural gas.”
At least 333 First Nations communities across Canada are not connected to natural gas utilities, according to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).
ESF says that while there are many federal programs that help cover the upfront costs of accessing electricity, primarily from renewable sources, there are no comparable ones to support natural gas access.
“Most Canadian and Indigenous communities support actions to address climate change. However, the policy priority of reducing fossil fuel use has had unintended consequences,” the ESF report said.
“Recent funding support has been directed not at improving reliability or affordability of the energy, but rather at sustainability.”
Natural gas costs less than half — or even a quarter — of electricity prices in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, according to CER data.
“Natural gas is something NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] will not fund. It’s not considered a renewable for them,” said Chief Mark Fox of the Piapot First Nation, located about 50 kilometres northeast of Regina.
“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”
According to ESF, some Indigenous communities compare the challenge of natural gas access to the multiyear effort to raise awareness and, ultimately funding, to address poor water quality and access on reserve.
“Natural gas is the new water,” Lonechild said.
2025 Federal Election
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill

From EnergyNow.Ca
Mark Carney on Tuesday explicitly stated the Liberals will not repeal their controversial Bill C-69, legislation that prevents new pipelines being built.
Carney has been campaigning on boosting the economy and the “need to act forcefully” against President Donald Trump and his tariffs by harvesting Canada’s wealth of natural resources — until it all fell flat around him when he admitted he actually had no intention to build pipelines at all.
When a reporter asked Carney how he plans to maintain Bill C-69 while simultaneously building infrastructure in Canada, Carney replied, “we do not plan to repeal Bill C-69.”
“What we have said, formally at a First Ministers meeting, is that we will move for projects of national interest, to remove duplication in terms of environmental assessments and other approvals, and we will follow the principle of ‘one project, one approval,’ to move forward from that.”
“What’s essential is to work at this time of crisis, to come together as a nation, all levels of government, to focus on those projects that are going to make material differences to our country, to Canadian workers, to our future.”
“The federal government is looking to lead with that, by saying we will accept provincial environmental assessments, for example clean energy projects or conventional energy projects, there’s many others that could be there.”
“We will always ensure these projects move forward in partnership with First Nations.”
Tory leader Pierre Poilievre was quick to respond to Carney’s admission that he has no intention to build new pipelines. “This Liberal law blocked BILLIONS of dollars of investment in oil & gas projects, pipelines, LNG plants, mines, and so much more — all of which would create powerful paychecks for our people,” wrote Poilievre on X.
“A fourth Liberal term will block even more and keep us reliant on the US,” he wrote, urging people to vote Conservative.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
2025 Federal Election17 hours ago
WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals
-
Crime1 day ago
First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl
-
Automotive2 days ago
Electric cars just another poor climate policy
-
Energy2 days ago
Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?
-
Break The Needle1 day ago
Why psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
Three cheers for Poilievre’s alcohol tax cut
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill