• 7 hours Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 8 hours Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 9 hours China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 9 hours UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 10 hours Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 11 hours VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 12 hours Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 13 hours Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 13 hours OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 1 day U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 1 day Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 1 day Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 1 day EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 2 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 2 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
  • 4 days Trump Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Back to Congress
  • 4 days Texas Shutters More Coal-Fired Plants
  • 4 days Oil Trading Firm Expects Unprecedented U.S. Crude Exports
  • 4 days UK’s FCA Met With Aramco Prior To Proposing Listing Rule Change
  • 5 days Chevron Quits Australian Deepwater Oil Exploration
  • 5 days Europe Braces For End Of Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 5 days Renewable Energy Startup Powering Native American Protest Camp
  • 5 days Husky Energy Set To Restart Pipeline
  • 5 days Russia, Morocco Sign String Of Energy And Military Deals
  • 5 days Norway Looks To Cut Some Of Its Generous Tax Breaks For EVs
  • 5 days China Set To Continue Crude Oil Buying Spree, IEA Says
  • 5 days India Needs Help To Boost Oil Production
  • 5 days Shell Buys One Of Europe’s Largest EV Charging Networks
  • 6 days Oil Throwback: BP Is Bringing Back The Amoco Brand
  • 6 days Libyan Oil Output Covers 25% Of 2017 Budget Needs
  • 6 days District Judge Rules Dakota Access Can Continue Operating
  • 6 days Surprise Oil Inventory Build Shocks Markets
  • 6 days France’s Biggest Listed Bank To Stop Funding Shale, Oil Sands Projects
  • 6 days Syria’s Kurds Aim To Control Oil-Rich Areas
  • 6 days Chinese Teapots Create $5B JV To Compete With State Firms
  • 7 days Oil M&A Deals Set To Rise
  • 7 days South Sudan Tightens Oil Industry Security
  • 7 days Over 1 Million Bpd Remain Offline In Gulf Of Mexico
  • 7 days Turkmenistan To Spend $93-Billion On Oil And Gas Sector
  • 7 days Indian Hydrocarbon Projects Get $300 Billion Boost Over 10 Years
Alt Text

Why U.S. Crude Exports Are Booming

U.S. crude oil exports are…

Alt Text

Kobe Steel Scandal Could Rattle Nuclear Industry

The scandal at Japan’s Kobe…

Alt Text

Corbyn Seeks To Renationalize Britain’s Utilities

Jeremy Corbyn wants to renationalize…

Environmentalists Damaging US Economy and Job Growth

If President Obama is serious about smoothing the path for U.S. businesses, he should take up reading the newspaper. Not a day goes by that he wouldn’t find opportunities aplenty to unclog our regulatory arteries.

This past Friday was no exception.  The issue?  A proposed coal terminal on the Columbia River in Washington.  A terminal that would facilitate coal shipments to China, thus aiding one of Mr. Obama’s professed goals—ramping up U.S. exports.

Unfortunately, as the Wall Street Journal reported, local environmentalists want the project scuttled. Not because the terminal’s operations would damage Washington State’s air or water quality, but because burning the coal in far-off China might foul the air – there.

For the record, they also argue that the environmental consequences of mining the coal in Wyoming and Montana have not been sufficiently researched. Let us immediately discard this latter notion. We have been mining in those coal-rich states for more than a century; I’m pretty confident that residents in the region have looked into the attendant pros and cons. In any event, it is the former dispute that should unhinge anyone concerned with our country’s future.

Those opposed to the terminal will argue that if the Chinese have access to our coal, they will not pursue clean energy technologies. The green lobby will thus link U.S. exports to some increased degradation of global air quality. This argument fails because our coal burns cleaner than China’s indigenous resources, which is their most likely alternative. China’s sulfur content, for instance, is 1.1% compared to 0.8% for the Powder River fuel at issue. China’s coal also burns with higher ash. The Chinese, in other words, are not inconsiderate of the environmental impact of energy production.

Not only have they have been building cleaner coal-burning power plants in recent years, moderating the pollution impact, but they have chosen to import more expensive lower sulfur fuel. This policy at the moment is being stonewalled by environmentalists –go figure. At the same time, the Chinese have made vast investments in all kinds of alternative energy production, including nuclear and also “green” approaches. The extraordinary growth of the country –last year at 10.3% and by most estimates better than 9% this year – requires that they pursue all available power sources.

Meanwhile, as the green group wrings their hands over emissions in China, U.S. citizens go without a $100 million project, billed as likely to produce 125 construction jobs and 75 permanent jobs, in a region where unemployment exceeds 12%.

As it happens, the shipping of coal to China is also currently limited by a shortage of suitable West Coast terminals. As U.S. utilities migrate to using cleaner-burning natural gas, of which we have an abundant supply, coal producers are increasingly looking for new markets. Exporting to countries like China seems a great opportunity – an opportunity that environmentalists are currently prohibiting. Apparently some companies are exporting through Vancouver, where the enticement of jobs and income evidently overwhelmed green protests.

This situation is symptomatic of the kind of hurdles that U.S. companies routinely face. It is time to put the needs of our workers ahead of all other considerations – including the gigantic environmental lobby. When Mr. Obama finishes straightening up this imbroglio, he might next turn his attentions to another item that showed up in Friday’s paper- Shell Oil’s abandonment for the current year of its drilling program offshore Alaska – on acreage it has under lease in the Beaufort Sea. Because the company was unable to secure air permits from the EPA for the project, Shell will not be able to spend the expected $100 to $150 million on a test well. U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) claimed the stalling by the EPA cost the state 800 direct jobs and millions in related contracting work. Meanwhile, the trans-Alaska pipeline operates at one-third capacity.

I can’t wait to see what’s in today’s paper.

By Liz Peek




Back to homepage


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News