EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 3/4/22
PIPELINE NEWS
KXMD: Pipeline concerns discussed with Civil Works
Argus Media: FERC pressed to revisit pipeline permit overhaul
WDBJ: Senators question federal regulators on pipeline policy
Michigan Radio: Gas and oil industry report projects fuel price hikes if Enbridge Line 5 is shut down
Sarnia Observer: Closing Line 5 pipeline could cost Midwest residents billions: study
FOX Business: Republicans, energy experts say Keystone XL cancelled by Biden would have helped lessen need for Russian oil
FOX News: NBC reporter insists Biden canceling Keystone Pipeline made no difference on US dependence on foreign oil
WASHINGTON UPDATES
Accountable.US: Big Oil Blames Biden Administration Public Land Policies For High Energy Costs – But International Markets And World Events Are What Really Impact Prices
STATE UPDATES
WZFG: Governors tout importance of carbon capture as Summit Carbon Solutions announces major investment by Continental Resources
Arizona Republic: 'They're finally listening': Indigenous peoples play major role in new climate report
EXTRACTION
Politico: PLASTIC WRAPPED
Reuters: As world scrambles for oil, Canadian producers reluctant to spend on growth
Bloomberg: China’s Energy Sector Methane Emissions Dwarf U.S. and Russia
CLIMATE FINANCE
Press release: Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies for misleading the public over Net Zero
Reuters: Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies over climate marketing claims
Bloomberg: Investors Handed Stark Warning With Latest Climate Assessment
Bloomberg: HSBC, BlackRock Shed Light on Hidden Role of Financed Emissions
OPINION
Des Moines Register: Opinion: Iowa, let's get back to our roots with a better way of capturing carbon
Tribune-Democrat: Opinion | Let go of Keystone XL
Forbes: Why Approving Keystone XL Was A No-Brainer
Calgary Herald: Opinion: What global hydrocarbon reordering could mean for Alberta
Center for American Progress: The Biden Administration’s Easiest Climate Win Is Waiting in the Arctic
PIPELINE NEWS
KXMD: Pipeline concerns discussed with Civil Works
Cameron Brewer, 3/3/22
“Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Leaders said they are left clueless about safety protocols surrounding The Dakota Access Pipeline,” KXMD reports. ““Our goal as Standing Rock is to remove the pipeline and definitely that’s our goal,” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairwoman Janet Alkire told KXMD. “The Draft EIS was to be released on the 18th, which was last week.” Wednesday, those concerns were addressed along with support from Native American Tribes from surrounding regions who expressed their concerns with Michael Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “The Fact is that DAPL has a pipeline with no permit which is illegal,” Alkire told KXMD. The reasoning for wanting to remove the pipeline is because of the possibility of a leak or burst, that could cause contamination of the water supply affecting the life line of the reservation. “It’s the only water source we have on our reservation; we have nothing else. If the intake we have got contaminated then that’s our whole reservation,“ Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Chairman Harold Frazier told KXMD… “It needs to be ongoing until the tribes get what they want, and that’s figure out a new way, a new route,” Chairman Spirit Lake Tribe Doug Yankton told KXMD. In the meantime, tribal leaders say they are waiting on the outcome of Michael Connors decision, but will continue to prepare documents and suggestions about the future holdings of the pipeline.”
Argus Media: FERC pressed to revisit pipeline permit overhaul
Chris Knight, 3/3/22
“A federal regulator's push for gas companies to curtail greenhouse gas emissions from pipelines has triggered backlash on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers make their case for major changes,” Argus Media reports. “...One of the most contested changes, approved by FERC's Democratic majority, would encourage developers to propose ways to "mitigate" a project's foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions before a project is permitted. But industry groups, along with FERC's two-member Republican minority, say that change would require developers to effectively "guess" at how much mitigation is necessary. FERC has left it up to developers to voluntarily decide if mitigation will only apply to direct emissions, such as natural gas leaks on a pipeline, or if it should also cover downstream emissions from customers burning natural gas… “Pipeline developers have similarly criticized the policy and Democratic FERC chairman Richard Glick's argument it will add to long-term certainty for industry, by reducing the risk of court losses. The industry is urging FERC to narrow the policy to focus specifically on direct greenhouse gas effects… “FERC's Democrats and environmental groups have defended the policy change. Glick said today that asking developers to mitigate greenhouse gases is no different from how the agency handles soil erosion and other issues posed by pipeline construction… “Even if FERC retains the new policy, Republicans and industry groups are pressing the agency to revert back its earlier procedures for pipelines that have already been in the permitting process for 1-2 years. An industry coalition is pointing to "geopolitical realities" of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as justification for FERC to quickly approve pending projects that would send feed gas to LNG export facilities.”
WDBJ: Senators question federal regulators on pipeline policy
Joe Dashiell, 3/3/22
“The Mountain Valley Pipeline was in the spotlight Thursday in Washington, as a Senate committee focused attention on federal regulators and the natural gas projects they oversee,” WDBJ reports. “At issue was a recent policy shift by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency that regulates projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The new Democratic majority on the commission recently indicated it will consider the impact on climate change as it reviews pipeline projects. US Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia chairs the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “In my view there is an effort underway by some to inflict death by a thousand cuts,” Manchin said during his opening remarks. During a hearing that called on FERC members to explain their actions, Manchin defended MVP and similar projects. “If the Mountain Valley Pipeline is not completed, and it’s 95% done - over $5 billion, twice the cost because of court interjection -” Manchin said. “If that one is not, there will not be another investment taking the most abundant, plentiful, gas reserves out of an area that could basically backfill, so we don’t have another Texas, so that we have LNG, so that we can do the things we need to.” Russell Chisholm is Coordinator of Mountain Valley Watch and Co-Chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights Coalition (POWHR). Chisholm and other pipeline opponents dispute the assertion that the project is almost complete… “They also cite the key permits MVP lacks, the number of stream crossings that remain and the company’s own status reports that indicate final restoration of the pipeline right-of-way is now about 55% complete.”
Michigan Radio: Gas and oil industry report projects fuel price hikes if Enbridge Line 5 is shut down
Lester Graham, 3/4/22
“A report for a gas and oil industry group predicts gasoline and diesel prices will jump and stay high in this region if Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 is shut down by politicians or the courts,” Michigan Radio reports. “...A news conference discussing the report from the Texas-based Consumer Energy Alliance started out with a Michigan voice. Representative Sara Cambensy, a Democrat from the Upper Peninsula, said Line 5 needs to continue to pump oil. She said a proposed tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to house a replacement segment for the nearly 70-year-old pipeline is the only way to ensure energy security for the state… “Terry Clower is a professor of public policy at George Mason University. He and his partner, an economist, told Michigan Radio there’s never been a case where a pipeline was shut down by a state government, so they had to analyze something similar… “They based their predictions based on what happened when Hurricane Katrina forced refineries to close. If Line 5 shuts down, “we project that the restriction in fuel in fuel supplies will cause an increase of between 9.47 percent and 11.66 percent," he told Michigan Radio. "In the states of Ohio and [southeast] Michigan that is on top of any other market-based increase.” At today’s prices, the high side would amount to a more-than 40 cents a gallon increase for gasoline. Environmentalists think the report makes some wrong assumptions. Sean McBrearty is with Clean Water Action. He told Michigan Radio two refineries are not going to stop operating if Line 5 shuts down. All the refineries in Toledo and Marathon in Detroit get their oil from more than just Line 5.”
Sarnia Observer: Closing Line 5 pipeline could cost Midwest residents billions: study
Paul Morden, 3/3/22
“A new study by a U.S. consumer group says families and businesses in the American Midwest will spend a total of US$5.8 billion a year more for gasoline and diesel fuel if state officials in Michigan succeed in shutting down the Line 5 pipeline,” the Sarnia Observer reports. “The report released Thursday by the Consumer Energy Alliance focuses on the impact on Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania if the pipeline carrying western oil and natural gas liquids closed… “Officials in Sarnia have warned loss of the pipeline would cause severe job loss in the community where several refineries are located… “Justin Donley, a United Steelworkers local president at the Toledo Refining Co., took part in a conference call when the study was released. He said the refinery in Toledo, Ohio, where he has worked for 18 years, “would likely shut down as well” if Line 5 closed, leading to the direct loss of 1,200 jobs, as well as “fuel shortages, price hikes, economic loss of over US$5billion a year that our refinery puts into the regional economy.” “...The study suggests the loss of Line 5 could increase fuel prices in Midwestern states by as much as 11.6 per cent. That’s in contrast to a study released recently by the group Environmental Defence that said closing the pipeline would cause gasoline prices in Canada to rise by only 1.8 cents a litre.”
FOX Business: Republicans, energy experts say Keystone XL cancelled by Biden would have helped lessen need for Russian oil
By Andrew Mark Miller, 3/3/22
“The Keystone XL pipeline was halted by the administrations of both President Obama and President Biden which critics, including one expert who spoke with Fox Business, say only exacerbated the current predicament the United States faces as it continues to purchase oil from Russia as it invades Ukraine, a U.S. ally,” FOX Business reports. “Several news outlets including the Washington Post and CNBC have posted headlines admonishing those who invoke Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline as the United States continues to buy oil from Russia while the country’s military wreaks havoc in Ukraine. Several Republicans across the country have disagreed with that assessment including South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott… “Jason Modglin, President of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, told Fox Business on Thursday that the Keystone XL pipeline along with other pipelines would in fact make a difference in the short and long term. "Keystone would have absolutely made a difference because it would have lowered the cost of Canadian crude to get to the markets that it needs to get to in order to be refined and shipped to be utilized here in the United States," Modglin told FOX. "And so by canceling Keystone, it artificially raises the price of Canadian oil and allows for the Russians to undercut that."
FOX News: NBC reporter insists Biden canceling Keystone Pipeline made no difference on US dependence on foreign oil
Kristine Parks, 3/3/22
“NBC’s Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander repeated White House talking points to his Republican guest during a MSNBC interview on Thursday. Alexander denied that the Keystone XL Pipeline would’ve had any impact on the United States’ dependence on foreign oil,” FOX News reports. “Alexander was speaking with former chief of staff for former Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short, when he started arguing with him over solutions to our dependence on foreign energy, amid the Ukraine-Russia war. He asked Short if President Biden should put embargoes on Russian oil and gas exports, in which Short said yes and blamed the Biden administration for making the U.S. more reliant on foreign energy by shutting down the Keystone Pipeline… “Alexander interrupted his guest and said the pipeline would’ve made no impact in our dependence on Russian oil. "But Marc, you know about the Keystone Pipeline it was only 8% completed when Joe Biden canceled it. So it’s not like that would’ve changed anything. That would have taken years to do it. That oil that the tar sands of Canada still gets into the U.S. in different means of transportation. By trains— just to complete, it goes to refineries doesn't mean it's going to the U.S. necessarily," Alexander said.
WASHINGTON UPDATES
Accountable.US: Big Oil Blames Biden Administration Public Land Policies For High Energy Costs – But International Markets And World Events Are What Really Impact Prices
3/4/22
“As Americans are paying more to heat their homes and fuel up their cars, Big Oil is making billions in profits and attempting to blame higher energy costs on the Biden administration’s policies towards oil and gas production on public lands. Despite Big Oil’s claims, this new analysis of the federal onshore oil and gas program shows drilling, permitting, and acres offered for lease on public lands are not driving up the price of oil and gas throughout the supply chain. With less than 10% of both US crude oil and US natural gas coming from federal lands, and industry leaving huge swaths of leases on public lands undeveloped, and thousands of approved drilling permits unused, it is clearly not Biden’s public land policies that are impacting energy prices. Key Takeaways: Both the retail price of gasoline and the price of natural gas that is delivered to consumers are largely driven by crude oil and natural gas spot prices, which are primarily influenced by global markets and events – not the drilling that occurs on federal public lands in the United States. Production of crude oil and natural gas on public lands has not been found to have any impact on consumer energy prices… “The reality is consumers are often left to suffer for longer than necessary with high prices as oil and gas companies are quick to raise prices but slow to lower them to continue raking in profits at the expense of American consumers… “Contrary to Big Oil’s blame game, extreme weather and civil unrest across the globe do much more to influence the prices consumers pay to heat their homes and fill up their cars than the policies of a given US president.”
STATE UPDATES
WZFG: Governors tout importance of carbon capture as Summit Carbon Solutions announces major investment by Continental Resources
Bonnie Amistadi, 3/3/22
“Continental Resources Inc. will commit $250 million over the next two years to help fund the development and construction of a $4.5 billion carbon capture and sequestration project which would be the largest project of its kind in the world,” WZFG reports. “...North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts were at Tharaldson Ethanol Plant in Casselton Weds. to highlight the importance of carbon capture and storage. “Combining the considerable resources and geologic expertise of one of North Dakota’s most productive and pioneering oil and gas operators with this visionary model of carbon capture and storage is a win-win-win for our farmers and ethanol plants, environmental stewardship and U.S. energy security,” Burgum said… “Continued investments in carbon capture and storage highlight the forward-thinking leadership throughout the bio-refining industry,” Ricketts said. “This innovative approach shows the world that energy producers can pursue a reduced carbon footprint without sacrificing production vital to a secure economy that fuels America and beyond.” Summit Agricultural Group CEO Bruce Rastetter, Continental Resources Chairman Harold Hamm and CEO Bill Berry were also at the press conference hosted by North Dakota entrepreneur Gary Tharaldson.”
Arizona Republic: 'They're finally listening': Indigenous peoples play major role in new climate report
Debra Utacia Kro, 3/3/22
“Nikki Cooley’s family were forced to sell off most of the livestock they depended on for both food and income as springs dried up and wells went dry in the heart of the Navajo Nation,” the Arizona Republic reports. “...The dry wells, increasingly hot summers and freezing winters seemed to confirm the fears of Native people that climate change was taking a toll on the Navajo Nation and on Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas and the world. Cooley, the co-manager for the Tribal Climate Change Program at the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals at Northern Arizona University, found herself in a position to address the issue. She was one of a team of Indigenous climate experts who contributed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report. The report, “Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,” found that Indigenous peoples are especially affected by the rapidly changing climate. Indigenous people and local communities, the report said, often find themselves on the front lines of a warming world and face cascading, long-term impacts as they endure the loss of ecosystems they depend on for food, shelter and other basic needs of life… “The report also said that supporting Indigenous peoples' self-determination and sovereignty and working with Indigenous practitioners to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and land management practices may help address or even mitigate the crisis.”
EXTRACTION
Politico: PLASTIC WRAPPED
Zack Colman, 3/3/22
The United Nations greenlit a plan to establish the first-ever legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution. The 175 nations that endorsed the resolution will begin their work this year and hope to finalize a draft agreement by 2024. It will cover the whole lifecycle for plastics, from production to disposal. Inger Andersen, the U.N. Environment Programme’s executive director, called it “the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris accord” on climate change. The U.N. noted curbing plastics would bring health benefits, such as reduced air pollution and exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. Plastics production is an increasingly large slice of global greenhouse gas emissions – the U.N. forecast that making, designing and disposing plastic products would account for 15 percent of global emissions if nations were to keep temperatures from surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”
Reuters: As world scrambles for oil, Canadian producers reluctant to spend on growth
Nia Williams, 3/3/22
“The world is scrambling for oil after Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent prices rocketing and upended global supply but producers in Canada, home to the world's third-largest reserves, have no plans to significantly boost output,” Reuters reports. “Despite the surge in oil prices to 11-year highs, Canadian companies are wary of spending aggressively to grow oil production after the pain of 2020's pandemic-induced oil price collapse. Investors are demanding strict capital discipline, while environmental opposition to new fossil fuel projects and the Canadian government's plans to cap carbon emissions are also deterring growth… "They can sit with their feet up right now, with money flowing into their pockets, while hardly working," Rafi Tahmazian, portfolio manager at Canoe Financial in Calgary, which owns shares in oil sands producers, told Reuters. "Why would they want to be a growth business again?" “...Producers would need a clear signal from the Canadian government that it supports large energy infrastructure investments to grow gas and oil production and export capacity, Ben Brunnen, vice president of oil sands at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told Reuters… “The focus on cutting global carbon emissions has made financing massive oil sands projects more expensive, analysts say, and long-term demand forecasts suggest the world will need less oil, not more, by 2050… “Outside the oil sands, conventional oil and gas producers are also cautious about expanding drilling programs. Instead they are prioritizing paying down debt incurred during the pandemic and returning value to shareholders, who have been clear in demanding companies keep a tight rein on spending.”
Bloomberg: China’s Energy Sector Methane Emissions Dwarf U.S. and Russia
Aaron Clark, 3/2/22
“China’s coal operations spewed so much methane last year that it had the same global warming impact as all the carbon dioxide emissions from international shipping,” Bloomberg reports. “The nation’s energy sector, the world’s largest coal producer, accounted for roughly a fifth of total global methane emissions from oil, gas, coal and biomass. It generated over 50% more than the next largest emitters: Russia and the U.S. The estimates, which are the latest from the International Energy Agency’s Methane Tracker, show the enormity of China’s task in mitigating its methane pollution. “China has encouraged miners to utilize more methane produced during the mining process but there remain major obstacles,” said Nannan Kou, an analyst with BloombergNEF in Beijing. “Capturing the gas requires a lot of capital investment and most mines aren’t near major gas transmission pipelines.” Different entities are often responsible for extracting coal and any methane produced, making efforts to curb emissions more complicated, he added… “China has declined to join an international effort to curb methane led by the U.S. and EU, but has said it’s working on a plan to contain emissions. The country’s coal sector offers Beijing the biggest opportunity to cut its methane emissions, according to an analysis from the United Nations”.
CLIMATE FINANCE
Press release: Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies for misleading the public over Net Zero
3/3/22
“Greenpeace France, Friends of the Earth France and Notre Affaire à Tous, supported by ClientEarth, have filed a lawsuit against TotalEnergies to protect the public from the oil giant's misleading claims on alleged environmental virtues of fossil gas and biofuels. The legal action, filed at the Paris judicial court, argues that TotalEnergies’‘reinvention’ ad campaign breaks European consumer law as it falsely portrays the company as on track to address the climate crisis. Clara Gonzales, legal counsel at Greenpeace France, said: “We are taking TotalEnergies to court today because it is using sly propaganda to try to convince us of the impossible: that carbon neutrality can be reached while producing and selling ever more fossil fuels when, in reality, our dependence on fossil fuels is driving up bills, wrecking our climate and funding war. Just as tobacco manufacturers misled people about the link between cigarettes and health, TotalEnergies’s advertising acts as a smokescreen for the harm it is causing to the planet and the people. We need to protect consumers from disinformation PR strategies that leave them trying to tell fact from fiction and delay the urgent climate action we need.”.
Reuters: Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies over climate marketing claims
By Simon Jessop, Gloria Dickie and Benjamin Mallet, 3/3/22
“A group of environmental organisations has filed a lawsuit in France against the country's largest energy company TotalEnergies (TTEF.PA), accusing it of misleading consumers about its efforts to fight climate change,” Reuters reports. “The claim, which has been served on TotalEnergies and was to be filed before the Paris Judicial Court, concerns the company's "reinvention" marketing campaign. Claimants say the campaign broke European consumer law by suggesting TotalEnergies can reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 whilst still producing more fossil fuels. Environmentalists have long complained about corporate "greenwashing" which they define as marketing or public relations campaigns that attempt to hide pollution or make a company's operations appear more environmentally friendly than they are… “Claimants allege TotalEnergies was in breach of the European Unfair Consumer Practices Directive (UCPD), which bans misleading practices that can include promoting false or leaving out relevant information that impacts consumer decision-making. The case, part of a growing field of legal challenges to corporate climate efforts, was brought by Greenpeace France, Friends of the Earth France and Notre Affaire à Tous and supported by environmental lawyers ClientEarth.”
Bloomberg: Investors Handed Stark Warning With Latest Climate Assessment
Natasha White and Saijel Kishan, 2/28/22
“A multitrillion finance movement intended to protect the planet and its people faces some awkward questions as fresh analysis from the world’s top climate scientists suggests it’s falling far short of the mark,” Bloomberg reports. “In a report published Monday, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided a bleak picture, saying “the extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments.” The IPCC went on to say that “current global financial flows for adaptation, including from public and private finance sources, are insufficient.” It listed finance to developing countries as a particular weak point. The findings lay bare the disconnect between the approach taken by governments, banks and parts of the environmental, social and governance investment community, and the existential threat that climate change represents. And while ESG investors, who collectively oversee about $2.7 trillion, are constantly acknowledging the extent of the problem, they’ve done little that’s discernible to help tame the pace of rising temperatures or help governments adapt to the changing climate.” “...Dr. Nina Seega, research director at the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, told Bloomberg the finance industry almost always focuses on short-term returns, a business model that isn’t suitable to address climate change. “The time horizon is always a problem within financial services.”
Bloomberg: HSBC, BlackRock Shed Light on Hidden Role of Financed Emissions
Alastair Marsh, 2/28/22
“The world has just been handed its first set of hard data exposing the extent to which major financial firms are contributing to climate change, and how crucial their actions are in the race to slow it,” Bloomberg reports. “HSBC Holdings Plc and Barclays Plc revealed last week that they’re each responsible for financed emissions equivalent to roughly 18% of the total carbon footprint of the U.K. That followed a landmark set of climate disclosures from BlackRock Inc., which indicate the asset manager’s emissions at least rival those of Volkswagen AG, Europe’s biggest car manufacturer. The mere fact that these financial giants have started making their carbon footprint public marks a milestone moment in the battle against global warming. The calculation is widely acknowledged to be fiendishly difficult, as banks and fund managers must get a handle not only on the direct emissions from the companies they give capital too, but also the emissions that results from their supply chains and customers. HSBC's emissions from lending and underwriting for oil and gas companies surpass Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet combined.. “BlackRock was responsible for 330.7 million tons CO2 equivalent of absolute emissions in 2020 for corporate securities and real estate holdings representing over 65% of its total assets. The world’s largest asset manager said it lacked the data to calculate the emissions of all its holdings. Volkswagen reported around 370 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2020. Barclays' financed emissions for coal, oil and gas companies exceed Austria's emissions.”
OPINION
Des Moines Register: Opinion: Iowa, let's get back to our roots with a better way of capturing carbon
Suzanne Kelsey co-owns grass and timber acres in rural Hardin County that would be affected by the proposed Navigator CO2 pipeline, 3/3/22
“Iowa, it’s time to get back to our roots, literally, with a better way of capturing carbon, one that would benefit the common good of all: converting more acres to grasslands and prairies,” Suzanne Kelsey writes for the Des Moines Register. “By sequestering carbon dioxide and other toxic emissions, these perennials can help mitigate climate change, control soil erosion, protect waterways from pollution from ag and lawn-care chemicals, and regenerate soil nutrients that are lost with repeated monocropping. Surely more Iowans can get more excited about natural carbon sequestration than about CO2 pipelines — like the one proposed to run through my property — that devalue land, limit land use, and depend heavily on taxpayer-funded money for dangerous technology that lacks a good track record… “Let’s work together to incentivize landowners to convert at least 20% of the state’s rural land, or about 6 million acres, to prairies and grasslands. Contact federal leaders, asking them to make it possible for businesses to use tax credits like 45Q to mitigate their emissions by paying for farmers, landowners, and municipalities to sequester carbon naturally. Lean on members of the Carbon Sequestration Task Force established last year by Gov. Kim Reynolds, to consider alternatives besides CO2 pipelines that put more rural land, urban acreages, and public parks into prairies and grasses. Come on, Iowa. Let’s enjoy cleaner air with less CO2, cleaner water, and those beautiful tall grass prairies that were once part of our heritage.”
Tribune-Democrat: Opinion | Let go of Keystone XL
Dave Jones, of Johnstown, is a retired marketing manager in the energy industry. Tom Stewart, of Windber, is a retired physical therapist, 3/3/22
“Frequently, letters to The Tribune-Democrat call for President Joe Biden to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline to reduce the high cost of oil and gas,” Dave Jones and Tom Stewart write for the Tribune-Democrat. “Some of us may recall when David Letterman would start his late-night talk show each night with a Top 10 list. In an effort to demonstrate 10 fundamental reasons why the pipeline has nothing to do with current oil and gas prices, we offer this: No. 10: The Keystone XL pipeline was intended to be a short-cut to the existing Keystone pipeline (that is not, by the way, in Pennsylvania) to bring tar sands oil from Canada at a lower cost on its way to the Gulf of Mexico… “Extracting tar sands oil/sludge from Alberta, Canada, has been called the worst environmental project on earth. A quick Google search will reveal pictures of a tar sand pit that would make a coal mining strip job site look picturesque. A rupture of the XL line would potentially threaten the Midwestern aquifer – which in turn could affect the U.S. food production chain… “It’s time, however, to let the mythical debate about the Keystone XL pipeline and the production of tar sands oil go – once and for all.”
Forbes: Why Approving Keystone XL Was A No-Brainer
Robert Rapier, 3/4/22
“Some readers won’t get past the headline before rendering the opinion that I obviously don’t care about climate change,” Robert Rapier writes for Forbes. “That is false. My views on climate change are entirely compatible with the points I am about to make… “People often admit to me that the Keystone XL itself wasn’t that important. Stopping it was more about what Keystone XL represented. This is a good point. I am going to argue the opposite. The arguments I am going to make here aren’t specific to Keystone XL, but are rather about what it represented — a strategic insurance policy with negligible downside… “The third scenario is that the pipeline isn’t built, but we find that demand for oil imports still exists when it would have been completed. Then we have a situation like we have today, where we are importing oil from countries that in many cases have foreign policies that are hostile to the U.S. There was this naïve belief that if Keystone XL was blocked, then the oil wouldn’t be produced. If the demand is there, the oil still going to be produced. It’s just going to come from places like Russia, and some of it will be transported via more carbon intensive (and more dangerous) methods like truck and rail…”Even though canceling Keystone XL has no bearing on the current gasoline price spike, for many people it seems like basic common sense that it must have had an impact. When I am discussing gasoline prices with people, inevitably someone will blame the cancellation of Keystone XL. That’s totally inaccurate, but the appearance is there superficially… “Ultimately, canceling Keystone XL was about sending a message. But when you weigh the actual impact versus the political impact that many got from the message, it was just the wrong decision to cancel it.”
Calgary Herald: Opinion: What global hydrocarbon reordering could mean for Alberta
Donna Kennedy-Glans is Alberta’s former associate minister of electricity and renewable energy, 3/4/22
“In times of war, hydrocarbons still hold the power to decide winners and losers. That fact feels like an alternative reality, entirely out of synch with zealous climate change advocacy and aspirational corporate promises to get to net-zero emissions by 2030 or 2040,” Donna Kennedy-Glans writes for the Calgary Herald. “In Alberta, where oil companies who couldn’t shut in production were paying shippers and refiners to take their oil at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is now a push by Premier Jason Kenney to get pipelines built. “Now if Canada really wants to help defang Putin, then let’s get some pipelines built!” tweets Kenney, enthusiastically… “ And yet, it feels awkward to have our province’s fortunes tied, once again, to the misfortune of others. And there is that niggling question: Haven’t we left this boom-and-bust economy behind? Oil and natural gas assets across the globe are in a state of great upheaval. Major energy players — BP, Shell, Equinor — are pulling up stakes in Russia. America is collaborating with other countries on a co-ordinated release of oil from global strategic crude reserves. Alberta’s energy players, corporate and government, are raising their hands as willing participants in this global hydrocarbon reordering.”
Center for American Progress: The Biden Administration’s Easiest Climate Win Is Waiting in the Arctic
Jenny Rowland-Shea, 3/3/22
“The Biden administration has set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent by 2030—the most ambitious climate goal of any U.S. president. To get there, the administration has taken a whole-of-government approach, including pledging to vastly expand renewable energy development on public lands and waters,” Jenny Rowland-Shea writes for the Center for American Progress. “But a single oil lease in the Alaskan Arctic threatens to negate all of that promised progress on renewables. ConocoPhilips’ Willow oil drilling project is estimated to extract more than 160,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 30 years, which a Center for American Progress analysis finds would dwarf the greenhouse gas emissions avoided by fulfilling President Joe Biden’s 2030 commitments on renewables on public lands and waters. The Willow project was originally approved after being rushed through in the final months of the Trump administration. Initially defended in court by the current administration, a federal judge in Alaska rightfully struck down the Trump administration’s approval of the project, citing “serious errors” with the environmental review. The court found that the review contained inaccurate and inadequate analysis of climate impacts—the same legal basis that saw a recent Gulf of Mexico lease sale overturned—along with major flaws in the consideration of effects on polar bears and of less harmful plan alternatives. The fate of the project now lies with the Biden administration, which is charged with conducting a supplemental environmental analysis—including meaningful consideration of the climate impacts—to determine if the project can proceed. As the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) engages the public and conducts a thorough and science-based review of impacts and alternatives, the only clear decision will be to reject ConocoPhillips’ request for permits and block this catastrophic project.”