Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Trump’s 1,000 Words About Energy

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By DAVID BLACKMON

 

As a person who spent 40 years doing policy and government affairs work in the oil and gas industry, I have always paid close attention to what presidential nominees of both parties have to say — or do not say — about energy in their acceptance speeches.

The vast majority of the time, it has been much more about what they did not say.

Many such speeches since I first started paying attention to such things in 1980 (Reagan vs. Carter) said literally nothing at all on the topic. Most other nominees limited energy-related talk to a sentence or two.

In most election years, energy and its costs are just not a top-of-mind topic for most Americans. But that has all changed now in the wake of the Biden administration’s heavy focus on inflation-causing green subsidies and the rising public awareness of the central role that mushrooming energy costs play in prices for groceries and every other aspect of their lives.

So, after being stunned by how much time former President Donald Trump dedicated to the energy subject during his acceptance speech Thursday evening in Milwaukee, I decided to plow through the transcript of that 90-minute speech to figure out just how many words he had to say on the topic. Amazingly, the number comes to right at 1,000 words. It is impossible to know for sure, but I would speculate that is the most words ever spoken about energy by any nominee in such a speech in American history.

In addition to the predictable promise to bring a return to the “Drill, baby, drill” oil and gas philosophy that characterized his first presidency, the former president spoke at length on other plans for a second one.

  • He openly mocked some elements of Biden’s Green New Deal agenda, at one point noting: “They spent $9 billion on eight chargers, three of which didn’t work.” He then called Biden’s obsession with forcing electric cars on a reluctant public “a crazy electric band-aid.”
  • Trump promised to end Biden’s “EV mandates” on the day he is sworn into office. Given that some of the web of EV-promoting policies implemented by the Biden administration come via regulatory actions, achieving a full pullback will be a little more time-consuming than that.
  • He talked at length about plans by Chinese companies to flood the American EV market with cars either made in Mexico or shipped from China into the U.S. through Mexico, saying the United Auto Workers union “should be ashamed” for continuing to support Biden and other Democrats while this is taking place.
  • He accused the Biden administration of spending “trillions of dollars” on “the green new scam. It’s a scam. And that has caused tremendous inflationary pressures in addition to the cost of energy.”
  • Trump noted that: “Under the Trump administration just three and a half years ago, we were energy independent” — which is factually accurate. The US did produce much more energy than it consumed throughout his presidency, and was a net exporter of oil, natural gas and coal in many months during that time.
  • Trump continued: “But soon we will actually be better than that. We will be energy dominant and supply not only ourselves, but we will supply the rest of the world.” Well, maybe not the rest of the world, but surely much of it. It is a political speech, after all, so a little hyperbole fits.
  • Trump further criticized the Biden White House for reversing the hard line he took with Iran while president, saying: “I told China and other countries, ‘If you buy from Iran, we will not let you do any business in this country, and we will put tariffs on every product you do send in of 100 percent or more.’ And they said to me, ‘Well, I think that’s about it.’ They weren’t going to buy any oil. And…Iran was going to make a deal with us.”

There was much more energy-related content in his speech, but you get the gist: A second Trump presidency would start by reversing as much of the Biden Green New Deal agenda as possible and go from there.

It is safe to say no presidential nominee has ever been as focused on energy as Donald Trump is today. We will see if it pays off for him in November.

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.

Energy

Why Japan wants Western Canadian LNG

Published on

From Resource Works

From Tokyo’s perspective, Canada offers speed, stability, and insulation from global energy shocks

In a Dec. 22, 2025 article, influential Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun laid out why Japan is placing growing strategic weight on liquefied natural gas exports from Western Canada – and why the start of full-scale operations at LNG Canada marks a significant shift in Japan’s energy-security calculus.

The article, written by staff writer Shiki Iwasawa, approaches Canadian LNG not as a climate story or an industrial milestone, but as a response to the vulnerabilities Japan has experienced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global gas markets.

1. Shorter distance and faster delivery

The most immediate advantage identified is geography. LNG shipped from British Columbia’s Pacific coast reaches Japan in about 10 days, roughly half the time required for cargoes originating in the Middle East or the U.S. Southeast, which can take 16 to 30 days.

For Japan – the world’s largest LNG importer – shorter voyages mean lower transportation costs, tighter inventory management, and reduced exposure to disruptions while cargoes are at sea.

2. Avoidance of global maritime choke points

Just as important, Canadian LNG avoids the world’s most precarious shipping bottlenecks.

The Asahi report emphasizes that shipments from B.C. do not pass through either:

  • the Strait of Hormuz, increasingly volatile amid Middle East conflict, or
  • the Panama Canal, where climate-driven water shortages have already led to passage restrictions.

Japanese officials explicitly frame these routes as strategic liabilities. As one senior government official responsible for energy security told the newspaper: “We, the government, have high hopes. It means a lot not having to go through the choke points.”

From Japan’s perspective, Canada’s Pacific-facing terminals offer a rare combination of proximity and route resilience.

3. Political reliability and allied status

The article contrasts Canada sharply with Russia, once a significant LNG supplier to Japan through the Sakhalin-2 project.

Before the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for about 10 per cent of Japan’s LNG imports. When Japan joined international sanctions, Moscow responded by restructuring the project’s ownership – a move that underscored how energy supplies can be weaponized.

A government source reflected on that experience bluntly: “We had thought it would be OK if we diversified procurement sources, but we were at risk of power outages even if only 10 percent (of LNG) didn’t reach Japan.”

Canada, by contrast, is described as a friendly and politically stable nation, free from sanctions risk and viewed as a long-term, rules-based partner.

4. Scale, certainty, and investment momentum

The Asahi article devotes considerable attention to the fundamentals of LNG Canada itself.

Key features highlighted include:

  • approximately $14 billion in total development costs,
  • 14 million tonnes per year of production capacity,
  • two liquefaction trains already operating,
  • natural gas sourced from inland Canada and transported via a 670-kilometre pipeline to the coast,
  • and the successful shipment of first cargoes in mid-2025.

Mitsubishi Corp., which holds a 15 per cent stake, has rights to market 2.1 million tonnes annually to Japan and other Asian buyers. Mitsubishi expects the project to generate tens of billions of yen in annual profits starting in the fiscal year beginning April 2026.

At a Nov. 4 news conference, Mitsubishi president Katsuya Nakanishi said the company is actively considering additional investment to expand capacity, with internal sources indicating output could eventually double.

5. LNG’s continuing role in Japan’s energy system

The article situates Canadian LNG within Japan’s broader energy strategy. Under Japan’s Economic Security Promotion Law, LNG is designated a “specified critical product.” The government maintains dedicated funds to secure supply during emergencies.

While nuclear power remains central to long-term planning, officials acknowledge LNG’s indispensable role. A senior economy ministry official told Asahi: “Nuclear power is the key player in the spotlight, but thermal power (mainly fueled by LNG) is the key player behind the scenes.”

Japan’s latest Basic Energy Plan projects LNG imports rising to 74 million tonnes by 2040, roughly 10 per cent higher than today, underscoring why secure, politically insulated suppliers matter.

What Japan’s view tells Canada

In a recent Canada-Japan leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of APEC, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi discussed expanding economic ties, with energy cooperation specifically highlighted around the LNG Canada project as a key element of their bilateral relationship. While Takaichi didn’t make a detailed public statement about Canadian LNG itself, the joint statement underscored Japan’s interest in stable and diversified LNG supplies—of which Canadian exports are a part of the broader Indo-Pacific energy security context.

What emerges from Asahi Shimbun’s reporting is a pragmatic assessment shaped by recent shocks. Japan values Canadian LNG because it is closer, less exposed to conflict-prone routes, backed by a stable political system, and already delivering cargoes at scale.

For Canadian readers, the message is unambiguous: Western Canadian LNG is not being embraced because of rhetoric or aspiration, but because it aligns with the operational, geopolitical, and economic priorities of one of the world’s most energy-dependent nations.

Continue Reading

Energy

Canada’s debate on energy levelled up in 2025

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Compared to last December, Canadians are paying far more attention.

Canada’s energy conversation has changed in a year, not by becoming gentler, but by becoming real. In late 2024, pipelines were still treated as symbols, and most people tuned out. By December 2025, Canadians are arguing about tolls, tariffs, tanker law, carbon pricing, and Indigenous equity in the same breath, because those details now ultimately decide what gets built and what stays in the binder. Prime Minister Mark Carney has gone from a green bureaucrat to an ostensible backer of another pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast.

From hypothetical to live instrument

The pivot began when the Trans Mountain expansion started operating in May 2024, tripling capacity from Alberta to the B.C. coast. The project’s C$34 billion price tag, and the question of who absorbs the overrun, forced a more adult debate than the old slogans ever allowed. With more barrels moving and new Asian cargoes becoming routine, the line stopped being hypothetical and became a live economic instrument, complete with uncomfortable arithmetic about costs, revenues, and taxpayer exposure.

The American election cycle then poured gasoline on the discussion. Talk in Washington about resurrecting Keystone XL, alongside President-elect Donald Trump’s threats of 25 percent tariffs, reminded Canadians how quickly market access can be turned into leverage.

In that context, Trans Mountain is being discussed not just as infrastructure, but as an emergency outlet if U.S. refiners start pricing in new levies.

The world keeps building

Against that backdrop, the world kept building. Global pipeline planning has not paused for Canadian anxieties, with more than 233,000 kilometres of large diameter oil and gas lines announced or advancing for 2024 to 2030. The claim that blocking Canadian projects keeps fossil fuels in the ground sounds thinner when other jurisdictions are plainly racing ahead.

The biggest shift, though, is domestic. Ottawa and Alberta signed a memorandum of understanding in late November 2025 that sketches conditions for a potential new oil pipeline to the West Coast, alongside a strengthened industrial carbon price and a Pathways Alliance carbon capture requirement. One Financial Post column argued the northwest coast fight may be a diversion, because cheaper capacity additions are on the table. Another argued the MOU is effectively a set of investment killers, because tanker ban changes, Indigenous co ownership, B.C. engagement, and CCUS preconditions create multiple points of failure.

This is where Margareta Dovgal deserves credit. Writing about the Commons vote where Conservatives tabled a motion echoing the Liberals’ own MOU language, she captured the new mood. Canadians are no longer impressed by politicians who talk like builders and vote like blockers. Symbolic yeses and procedural noes are now obvious, and voters are keeping score.

Skills for a new era

The same sharper attention is landing on carbon capture, once a technocratic sidebar. Under the MOU, a new bitumen corridor is tied to Pathways Alliance scale carbon management, and that linkage is already shaping labour planning. A Calgary based training initiative backed by federal funding aims to prepare more than 1,000 workers for carbon capture and storage roles, a sign that contested policy is producing concrete demand for skills.

British Columbia is no longer watching from the bleachers. It flared again at Carney’s December 18 virtual meeting, after Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault resigned from cabinet over it. Premier David Eby has attacked the Alberta Ottawa agreement as unacceptable, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has been forced into talks with premiers amid trade uncertainty. Polling suggests the public mood is shifting, too, with a slim majority of Canadians, and of British Columbians, saying they would support a new Alberta to West Coast pipeline even if the B.C. government opposed it, and similar support for lifting the tanker ban.

None of this guarantees a new line, or even an expanded one. But compared with last year’s tired trench warfare, the argument now has stakes, participants, and facts. Canadians have woken up to the reality that energy policy is not a culture war accessory. It is industrial policy, trade policy, and national unity policy, all at once.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X