Connect with us

Energy

Fresh Off Their Major Victory On Gas Export Terminals, Enviros Set Sights On New Target: Oil Exports

Published

2 years ago

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

Months after President Joe Biden handed environmentalists a major win by pausing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, activist groups are beginning to turn their attention to deepwater oil export hubs.

A coalition of 19 climate activist organizations — including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Sunrise Movement’s New Orleans chapter — wrote a Thursday letter to Biden, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Maritime Administration Administrator Adm. Ann Phillips urging the administration to halt approvals of proposed deepwater crude oil export facilities. The letter signals that the environmental lobby is turning its attention to a new target after the White House opted to pause new LNG export hub approvals in January following a considerable activist campaign.

“The undersigned urge the White House and Department of Transportation (DOT) to halt and reevaluate its licensing review of proposed deepwater crude oil export facilities to update and ensure the validity of the agency’s “national interest” determinations and related Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) project review,” the activist groups wrote. “The licensing of massive deepwater crude oil exports leads to disastrous climate-disrupting pollution and environmental injustices and would lock in decades of fossil fuel dependence that undercut the pathway to a clean energy economy.”

Oil Export Terminals Letter by Nick Pope on Scribd

“At minimum, we ask the Administration to update its outdated analysis under the DWPA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the harms generated by expansive oil exports on the climate, as well as consequences for environmental justice communities along the Gulf Coast, and for the national interest in energy sufficiency,” they continued.

American oil exports are “key” to global supply, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting changes in global energy markets, according to Bloomberg News. The U.S. became a net oil exporter in 2020 for the first time since 1949, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and global oil demand is expected to grow through at least 2028, according to the International Energy Agency.

“It’s hard to call yourself a Climate President when more fossil fuels are being produced and exported by the U.S. than ever before,” James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement. “Approving massive oil export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico not only exacerbates our deadly fossil fuel addiction, but also blatantly disregards the health and wellbeing of environmental justice communities in the region. This administration is acting less like a beacon of hope and more like an enabler of dirty energy. It is time for a course correction towards real climate action.”

Biden handed environmental activists a huge victory when he paused approvals for new LNG export terminals in January, instructing his administration to closely examine the climate impacts of proposed facilities alongside economic and security considerations. The LNG pause stands as one of Biden’s biggest decisions on climate through his first term, and activists applauded the move while elected Republicans and the oil and gas industry have strongly opposed it.

Well-funded environmental organizations and young voters figure to be key bastions of support for Biden in the 2024 election cycle as he attempts to secure a second term in office and prevent the return of former President Donald Trump. While the Biden administration has spent more than $1 trillion and pushed stringent regulations to advance its sweeping climate agenda, most voters remain most concerned about the economy, inflation and immigration, with a much smaller share identifying climate change as the top issue facing the country, according to recent polling data.

Neither the White House nor the DOT responded immediately to requests for comment.

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
Energy / 5 hours ago

‘The electric story is over’

Business / 6 hours ago

Some Of The Wackiest Things Featured In Rand Paul’s New Report Alleging $1,639,135,969,608 In Gov’t Waste

Alberta / 12 hours ago

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Energy

‘The electric story is over’

Published on December 24, 2025

By

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Oil economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji challenges assumptions about EVs, demand and Canada’s future.

Every episode of Power Struggle offers a different doorway into the global energy system. But every so often I speak with someone who doesn’t merely interpret the data — he dismantles the illusions around it. Energy economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji is one of those rare voices.

For anyone who follows world oil markets, Anas requires little introduction. He is one of the most widely referenced analysts in global energy economics, managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors, and a commentator whose views often diverge from the political narratives that dominate Western media. Our conversation, fast-paced and data-driven, reinforced a point I’ve been making for years: many assumptions about the energy transition are overdue for a hard reset.

And if you think the transition is unfolding as advertised, Anas has a simple message: look again.

Peak oil demand — or peak illusion?

We began with the recurring claim, made most notably by the International Energy Agency, that global oil demand is nearing a terminal peak. Anas has long challenged this analysis, but his breakdown was especially stark.

“In May 2025, they said they are revising up global oil demand… They’ve been wrong for 18 straight years. By how much? Two or three years. The total is about 350 million barrels.”

He added an even sharper example.

“In August, they revised up Mexico’s oil demand by a hundred thousand barrels a day — since 2020. With all of this, who is going to believe the IEA?”

If we are going to debate “peak oil demand,” Anas argued, we must start with accurate numbers. And reality, as he laid out, tells a very different story.

Oil demand is higher — not lower

The most striking fact he brought to the table was where global demand sits today.

“Current world demand for oil is 107 million barrels a day.”

That figure sits eight million barrels above 2019 levels, despite rapid growth in electric vehicle sales. And here is where the assumptions collide with the data.

“Right now we have about 55 million EVs… 35 million are in China. The replacement in terms of oil is only 1.3 million barrels a day. That’s it.”

EVs are increasing, yes — but the global vehicle fleet is expanding even faster, and so is mobility demand. A century’s worth of built energy systems does not pivot overnight.

Hybrids now dominate

This brought Anas to the point that may surprise the most people.

“The trend right now is very clear. We are going hybrid. Hybrid. The electric story is over.”

He emphasized that this is not ideological — it is practical. Hybrids outperform EVs on cost, convenience and grid impacts, and consumers are voting with their wallets.

“Hybrid sales have been going through the roof. And this is going to continue… The media reports EV sales all the time. But what matters is the number of EVs on the road.”

This distinction matters. Monthly sales data can create a false sense of momentum. What counts for emissions, infrastructure planning and oil displacement is the stock of vehicles actually in use.

Three ‘scams’ in EV sales reporting

Anas went further, arguing that even sales data does not always reflect real-world adoption. He described what he called three “scams” that inflate EV sales figures globally. He shared one example on air:

“There are many tens of thousands of them in parking lots that are not being sold… A manufacturer calls an official, says: I have 2,000 cars. I will sell them to you. You issue the license plates, you issue the insurance, you get all the subsidies, we split it. But the cars are still in the parking lot.”

On paper, these are “sales.” In reality, they are inventory.

The broader point is that EV market statistics need scrutiny — and policymakers who rely on headline numbers may be basing major decisions on flawed data.

Why Canada still needs another pipeline

We then turned to Canada’s current debates about pipelines and whether the country still needs more tidewater access. Anas answered without hesitation.

“I can tell you without any reservation, we do need another pipeline, another Canadian pipeline to tidewater.”

His rationale was blunt.

“Energy demand globally is increasing at a very high rate in a way that we have never seen before.”

For Canada, this is about competitiveness. Without access to global markets, Canadian oil is priced at a discount — a problem solved only by pipelines reaching the coast.

On LNG: “Canada should go at full speed”

Anas was even more emphatic when discussing natural gas.

“That’s where Canada basically should go at full speed.”

He criticized the idea of a long-term LNG surplus.

“All those ideas about a surplus in LNG… it is nonsense.”

Asian LNG demand is projected to grow sharply, and Canada’s low-emissions LNG — powered by hydro — gives the country a unique competitive advantage.

Why voices like Anas matter

What I value most about conversations like this is the grounding they give us. In energy, narratives and evidence are drifting apart. You may not agree with every assertion, but you can’t dismiss the data. Whether discussing EVs, oil demand, LNG or Canada’s infrastructure, Anas reminds us that aspirations only matter when they intersect with reality.

This episode of Power Struggle is exactly the kind of dialogue we need: sober, data-based, and challenging enough to re-examine assumptions.

You can listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. If it unsettles a few comfortable stories — that’s the point.

Watch the video on Power Struggle 

Power Struggle on social media:

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Alberta

What are the odds of a pipeline through the American Pacific Northwest?

Published on December 23, 2025

By

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Can we please just get on with building one through British Columbia instead?

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is signalling she will look south if Canada cannot move quickly on a new pipeline, saying she is open to shipping oil to the Pacific via the U.S. Pacific Northwest. In a year-end interview, Smith said her “first preference” is still a new West Coast pipeline through northern British Columbia, but she is willing to look across the border if progress stalls.

“Anytime you can get to the West Coast it opens up markets to get to Asia,” she said. Smith also said her focus is building along “existing rights of way,” pointing to the shelved Northern Gateway corridor, and she said she would like a proposal submitted by May 2026.

Deadlines and strings attached

The timing matters because Ottawa and Edmonton have already signed a memorandum of understanding that backs a privately financed bitumen pipeline to a British Columbia port and sends it to the new Major Projects Office. The agreement envisages at least one million barrels a day and sets out a plan for Alberta to file an application by July 1, 2026, while governments aim to finish approvals within two years.

The bargain comes with strings. The MOU links the pipeline to the Pathways carbon capture network, and commits Alberta to strengthen its TIER system so the effective carbon credit price rises to at least 130 dollars a tonne, with details to be settled by April 1, 2026.

Shifting logistics

If Smith is floating an American outlet, it is partly because Pacific Northwest ports are already drawing Canadian exporters. Nutrien’s plan for a $1-billion terminal at Washington State’s Port of Longview highlighted how trade logistics can shift when proponents find receptive permitting lanes.

But the political terrain in Washington and Oregon is unforgiving for fossil fuel projects, even for natural gas. In 2023, federal regulators approved TC Energy’s GTN Xpress expansion over protests from environmental groups and senior officials in West Coast states, with opponents warning about safety and wildfire risk. The project would add about 150 million cubic feet per day of capacity.

A record of resistance

That decision sits inside a longer record of resistance. The anti-development activist website “DeSmog” eagerly estimated that more than 70 percent of proposed coal, oil, and gas projects in the Pacific Northwest since 2012 were defeated, often after sustained local organizing and legal challenges.

Even when a project clears regulators, economics can still kill it. Gas Outlook reported that GTN later said the expansion was “financially not viable” unless it could obtain rolled-in rates to spread costs onto other utilities, a request regulators rejected when they approved construction.

Policy direction is tightening too. Washington’s climate framework targets cutting climate pollution 95 percent by 2050, alongside “clean” transport, buildings, and power measures that push electrification. Recent state actions described by MRSC summaries and NRDC notes reinforce that direction, including moves to help utilities plan a transition away from gas.

Oregon is moving in the same direction. Gov. Tina Kotek issued an executive order directing agencies to move faster on clean energy permitting and grid connections, tied to targets of cutting emissions 50 percent by 2035 and 90 percent by 2050, the Capital Chronicle reported.

For Smith, the U.S. corridor talk may be leverage, but it also underscores a risk, the alternative could be tougher than the Canadian fight she is already waging. The surest way to snuff out speculation is to make it unnecessary by advancing a Canadian project now that the political deal is signed. As Resource Works argued after the MOU, the remaining uncertainty sits with private industry and whether it will finally build, rather than keep testing hypothetical routes.

Resource Works News 

Continue Reading

Trending

X