• 4 minutes Drone attacks cause fire at two Saudi Aramco facilities, blaze now under control
  • 7 minutes China Faces Economic Collapse
  • 13 minutes Oil Production Growth In U.S. Grinds To A Halt
  • 15 minutes Iran in the world market
  • 18 minutes Ethanol, the Perfect Home Remedy for A Saudi Oil Fever
  • 2 hours USA Wants Iran War -- Shooty Shooty More
  • 4 hours Collateral Damage: Saudi Disruption Leaves Canada's Biggest Refinery Vulnerable
  • 3 mins Experts review drone damage . Say Saudis need to do a lot of explaining.
  • 9 hours USA : Attack came from 'Iranian soil'. Pompeo to release 'evidence'.
  • 15 hours Never Bring A Rapier To A Gun Fight
  • 3 hours Yawn... Parliament Poised to Force Brexit Delay Until Jan. 31
  • 18 hours Bahrain - U.S.: Signed Deal To Buy Patriot Missiles
  • 20 hours One of the fire satellite pictures showed what look like the fire hit outside the main oil complex. Like it hit storage or pipeline facility. Not big deal.
  • 19 hours Trump Will Win In 2020 And Beyond..?
  • 20 hours How OPEC and OECD play their role in setting oil price in light of Iranian oil sanction ?? Does the world agree with Iran's oil sanctions ???
  • 18 hours Democrats and Gun Views
Alt Text

A Fracking Ban Will Never Happen

Democratic candidates are ramping up…

Business Insider

Business Insider

Business Insider is one of the leading Business and finance news sites online.

More Info

Premium Content

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




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage



Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play