Today’s Key Takeaways: CA asks residents to forgo EV charging. Iraq’s political turmoil poses risk to oil markets. BLM approves ExxonMobil’s carbon storage application. Rejecting EPA’s preemptive veto of Pebble Project impacts all Alaskans. Mixed message for mining in Manchin permitting deal.
NEWS OF THE DAY:
HEAT WAVE – CALIFORNIANS TO BE ASKED TO SET AC AT 78 AND FORGO EV CHARGING*: California grid operators warned residents to prepare for voluntary energy cuts and other emergency measures as the state braces for a heat wave expected to last through early next week.
Operators said they are taking measures to bring “all available resources” online ahead of the heat wave, which is expected to be the longest and most severe high-heat period to hit the state so far this year.
CAISO officials warned that residents may be asked to set thermostats to 78 degrees or higher, avoid large appliance use and EV charging, and to turn off unnecessary lights between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m, when the grid is the most stressed. Lowering electricity usage during that time will help prevent “more drastic measures, including rotating power outages,” officials said.
An excessive heat warning is in effect through much of Southern California, where meteorologists said “dangerously hot” conditions could climb as high as 115 degrees. Temperatures in Northern California, meanwhile, could climb up to 18 degrees above average.
Iraq’s political turmoil could bring about considerable risk to global oil markets, analysts told CNBC.
“While Iraqi production is usually fairly resilient to unrest, the current political environment is extraordinarily toxic and poses a considerable risk to the oil sector,” said Fernando Ferreira, a director at Rapidan Energy Group.
Those concerns come on the heels of escalated protests in Iraq on Tuesday, after powerful Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced his resignation from politics.
Iraq’s political turmoil could pose a significant risk to global oil markets, analysts told CNBC.
“While Iraqi production is usually fairly resilient to unrest, the current political environment is extraordinarily toxic and poses a considerable risk to the oil sector,” said Fernando Ferreira, a director at Rapidan Energy Group.
Those concerns come on the heels of escalated protests in Iraq on Tuesday, after powerful Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced his resignation from politics.
Recurring risk
While risks of disruption to oil supplies has subsided after Sadr called for calm, Ferreira cautioned that the power struggle between Shia factions in the country is far from resolved, and that civil unrest in Iraq will remain a recurring risk to oil markets.
“Prices could rally $5-10 on Iraqi disruptions, possibly more as low liquidity is driving bigger swings than usual,” he projected.
In a global oil market already strained by low oil inventories and key OPEC members failing to meet quota commitments, slips in Iraqi oil production could be significant, said Timothy France, a senior oil market analyst at Refinitiv.
“Even partial declines in Iraqi oil output and exports may have a significant upward impact on crude benchmark prices in Asia and Europe,” France said.
According to OPEC, global demand for oil is estimated to average 100.8 million barrels per day in 2022. Iraq produces around 4.5 thousand barrels of oil per day, and current export volumes represent approximately 3.5% of global demand, according to data from Refinitiv.
″The unrest we’ve seen in recent days has been mostly concentrated in Baghdad and southern Iraq, which exports 3.3 thousands to 3.4 thousand barrels of oil per day — a little over 3% of the global market,” France added.
China and India
Physical supplies of oil in the Chinese and Indian markets will be acutely affected by a decline in Iraqi crude oil exports, France told CNBC in an email.
“China and India are top importers of Iraqi crude oil, receiving an estimated 797,000 bpd and 817,000 bpd in August,” said France.
Ferreira added that growing unrest could also bring more caution to the OPEC+ decision-making processes. The group, whose members comprise OPEC, Russia, and allied producers, is set to meet on Sept. 5.
” [The unrest may] encourage ministers to defer making adjustments to production quotas until there’s more clarity on the direction of geopolitical risks threatening the oil market,” he said.
No major disruptions yet
Despite the cautionary figures, both analysts said there are no major disruptions to Iraqi oil output as yet. “Iraqi crude oil exports have averaged 3.53 million barrels per day. Weekly data export shows no sign of a slowdown,” said France. “Tankers are currently [still] loading at Basrah Oil Terminal.”
“Refinitiv’s historical export data shows no major export outages at the Basrah Oil Terminal dating back to 2014. During this time Iraq has arguably endured more severe security threats than it is today.”
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has announced that it has approved the first application for permanent underground storage of carbon dioxide on public lands.
BLM revealed that it had greenlit ExxonMobil Corporation’s proposal to sequester carbon deep underground in Lincoln and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming, a development the organization described as a “significant milestone in the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to combat the climate crisis”.
The proposal includes a carbon dioxide disposal well pad and pipeline, which once completed will provide the opportunity for permanent underground storage of carbon dioxide produced along with natural gas at the existing Exxon Mobil Shute Creek Plant, BLM noted. Currently, ExxonMobil sells the carbon dioxide for commercial uses and excess carbon dioxide is vented into the atmosphere under a permit approved by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, BLM highlighted.
The disposal well will sequester approximately 60 million cubic feet of carbon dioxide daily at a depth of approximately 18,000 feet in the water leg of the Madison formation, which is an approved disposal zone, BLM outlined, adding that the injection of carbon dioxide into underground geologic formations offers safe, secure, and permanent disposal.
“This project is a prime example of how the BLM can work together with industry leaders to combat climate change,” BLM Wyoming State Director Andrew Archuleta said in a BLM statement.
“Projects like this will allow the BLM to play a part in reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere,” Archuleta added in the statement.
Back in June, the BLM announced that it had issued a new policy relating to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide on public lands “as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat climate change and reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere”. The policy allowed for the permanent underground storage of carbon dioxide.
In the announcement, BLM highlighted that carbon dioxide has been injected underground in the U.S. since the 1940s, but typically as a temporary measure to produce more oil. The new policy marked the first time BLM issued such an action to allow for the permanent underground storage of carbon dioxide, BLM revealed at the time.
“This policy is an important tool to help the BLM combat the climate crisis and supports the Biden-Harris Administration’s goal of reaching net zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050,” BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning said back in June.
BLM highlighted in June that it had no approved carbon sequestration projects on BLM-managed lands, but added that it was processing two applications, one in Wyoming and one in Montana, and noted that it had received inquiries related to other potential projects in several states.
BLM manages the Federal government’s onshore subsurface mineral estate for the benefit of the American public, the organization’s website notes. It also manages some aspects of the oil and gas development for Indian tribes from the Tribal mineral estate.
MINING:
The Pebble Deposit is an Alaska Asset and Economic Driver
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed action against the Pebble Project is not just a veto of the current Pebble permit application, it is also a preemptive veto of any future proposals in the area fully blocking any development actions across 309 square miles of Alaska land. It is a permanent economic closure: Full Stop.
The EPA action is clear in its intent to preclude any activity in the watershed around the Pebble site (these are the watershed boundaries of the North Fork Koktuli, South Fork Koktuli, and Upper Talarik Creek) regardless of action by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The justification for Pebble action could be applied to any watershed in Alaska including the Copper River, Yukon River, or Kuskokwim River.
The EPA has made no attempt at establishing context with its action against Pebble and is using the immediate and local impacts of the development footprint as its justification for taking action against the Project. By this logic and standard, there will be no future development in Alaska bringing the state’s economic future to a screeching halt.
Don’t be fooled – once the preemptive veto and its justifications are successfully utilized it will become easier for regional administrators to use this tactic to stop development across the nation. The arguments used against Pebble could become the norm for stopping development across the United States.
Pebble could provide thousands of jobs, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, and make important contributions to the state and local governments in Alaska; more than $150 million according to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Pebble. The Project is also positioned to make a significant contribution to the domestic mineral supply needed to fulfill a transition to more renewable energy sources and support the future mineral independence of the U.S.
The Proposed Determination should be rejected, and the agency should return to its proper regulatory role of a fair and transparent process unhindered by politics.
Say No to the EPA’s Preemptive Veto of the Pebble Project Please comment before Sept. 6, 2022
Manchin permitting deal offers mixed bag for mining Jael Holzman, Energywire, August 29, 2022
Mining companies have longed to get a fix for their federal permitting problems. But some legal experts say they shouldn’t hold out hope that those issues will go away with a new permitting reform proposal making its way through Congress.
Federal mine reviews have been moving at a snail’s pace for a long time. Even as President Joe Biden calls for a new U.S. mineral supply chain for electric vehicles and solar panels, his administration has approved relatively few new mines and slowed some projects.
On paper, it would seem Washington is poised this fall to wrestle with the industry’s woes, as Congress prepares to debate a permitting deal that Democratic leadership struck with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) as a condition for his vote on a landmark package of climate, health, and tax legislation.
Advertisement
Although the text of the proposal has not been introduced, an outline Manchin released promises on paper what mining companies eager to start digging have long asked for: a faster permitting process.
Yet legal experts who reviewed the outline said mining companies really shouldn’t expect too much from Manchin’s deal.
According to the outline, the proposal would set one- to two-year mandatory timelines for completing environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and require the president to designate and prioritize reviewing projects of “strategic national importance” — including mining projects.
It would also set a one-year deadline for issuing permits related to Clean Water Act compliance and a statute of limitations for legal challenges against permits (Energywire, Aug. 4).
These provisions are vehemently opposed by many environmental groups that say they would wipe away regulations local communities can use to try to stop projects they oppose. Earthworks, a nongovernmental organization that advocates on behalf of people impacted by mining, said in a recent blog post the deal “is an attempt to stymie opportunities for communities to voice their opinion on projects that will directly impact them.”
Attorneys who work on federal permitting for mines described the outline in interviews as a mixed bag: Tighter deadlines to complete reviews, they said, won’t end the bureaucratic hurdles that cause delays to construction (Greenwire, Aug. 9).
“It would be misleading if we suggested that this is going to open up a lot of mines,” said Karen Bennett, a partner and co-chair of the environmental and administrative law practice at Washington firm Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.
Bennett said the changes to water permitting and a statute of limitations would certainly be beneficial for mining projects. As the Biden administration progresses on regulatory changes that could create new obstacles for projects on wetlands, for example, a legislative endeavor to simplify construction on water-heavy lands with federal Clean Water Act protections would benefit mine development.
But the deal’s primary focus on timelines on environmental reviews — instead of substantive changes to the factors actually considered by the government — could wind up adding a complication for mine approvals.
“I’m always cautious about things that say, ‘Do stuff faster. Prioritize,’” said Michael Drysdale, an attorney based in Minneapolis, Minn., who is of counsel to law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
Arbitrary constraints on the environmental review process have a history of creating new legal vulnerabilities for the government’s analysis. It’s a wrinkle similar to when the Interior Department created a page limit for documents related to the government’s analysis of a project’s impacts.
As a result, Drysdale could only conclude that the total sum of Manchin’s deal “can’t hurt.”
“I don’t see it making things worse,” he said. “[But] it’s not changing the obligations the agencies must satisfy. There’s only so much you can do with, ‘Work harder, work faster.’”
Ellie Dawson, an attorney with Crowell & Moring LLP, echoed the sentiment there were some positive qualities in the deal for mining companies, but was skeptical of the time constraints.
“If quality is sacrificed in the effort to complete something by a timeline and then it’s litigated, [and] if the preparation of the documents hasn’t been sufficient because they didn’t have enough time, that might not make things go faster,” Dawson said. “You could just be mired in litigation, fighting about the completeness of a [mine] plan or a review.”
Dawson concluded the deal could hypothetically speed up the pace permits are issued, but “that might not necessarily speed along the time to start a project.”
An easier way for Congress to resolve the mine plan backlog, Drysdale said, would be for lawmakers to fund new staffing at permitting agencies.
Democrats recently did this in their climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided $150 million to the Interior Department for hiring and training employees so they can hand ample funding to agencies that complete environmental analyses (Greenwire, Aug. 25).
The National Mining Association, a trade group that represents coal and hardrock mining companies, sees the permitting deal as a step in the right direction that could help shore up investor certainty in the U.S. as a future mining destination.
At the same time, Katie Sweeney, executive vice president and general counsel for NMA, said she too “understood where” attorneys concerned about the time frames were “coming from.”
In the end, she sees this proposal as “incremental progress.”
“We would like to see any progress happen. We’ve been waiting a long time. Does it do everything that probably needs to be done? No,” Sweeney said, “[but] we see this as one piece of the puzzle.”
The Alaska Division of Elections will announce the unofficial winner of the special election to replace Congressman Don Young in a 4 p.m. livestream today. (via @AlaskaBeacon)https://t.co/1cF4x7NKVv
Today’s Key Takeaways: Major win for American Energy – permanent injunction against Biden Administrations illegal moratorium on oil & gas leasing. Political unrest in Iraq threatens their oil supply. Australian energy prices see 400% increase – highlight need for new gas sources. Nova Minerals Ltd. results at Estelle gold deposit. CA takes wrong turn with ban on gasoline powered vehicles.
A federal judge in Louisiana sided with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 12 other plaintiff states (including Alaska) in a Louisiana-led lawsuit, issuing a permanent injunction against the Biden Administration’s illegal moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal public lands and offshore waters.
The permanent injunction comes after Attorney General Paxton joined the lawsuit in 2021 and successfully obtained a preliminary injunction last year.
As high energy costs and skyrocketing inflation continue to crush American families, the Biden Administration’s moratorium would only have increased the suffering. This all-out assault against oil and natural gas production would have killed good-paying jobs and increased consumer energy costs, all while decreasing funds that could be used for the restoration of state coastlines.
“Joe Biden may have declared war on American energy independence, but we’re fighting back and we’re winning in court,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The executive order was a clear example of unconstitutional federal overreach, and I’m pleased to see the court make the right decision in issuing a permanent injunction to prevent it from taking effect.”
In recognizing the damage done by the Biden Administration’s actions, the court stated: “Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake. Local government funding, jobs for Plaintiff States’ workers, and funds for the restoration of . . . Coastline[s] are at stake. Plaintiff States have a reliance interest in the proceeds derived from offshore and onshore oil and gas lease sales. Additionally, the public interest is served when the law is followed. The public will be served if Government Defendants are enjoined from taking actions contrary to law. In a time of high gas and oil prices, draining of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and looking to other nations to supply the United States’ oil and gas needs, the public interest would be served by a permanent injunction.”
Oil prices saw their largest daily gain in nearly six weeks on Monday, with supply concerns in both Libya and Iraq spurring bullish sentiment.
On Tuesday morning, however, that bullish sentiment had decidedly turned, with oil prices falling by 3% as inflation fears and concerns about demand returned.
Violence in Iraq overnight failed to spark further concerns about the country’s oil demand, with the director general of SOMO claiming it could export more oil if necessary
Oil prices dipped by nearly 3% early on Tuesday, losing around $3 from Monday’s close, as fears of a global economic slowdown intensified while fears of a loss of supply from OPEC’s second-largest producer, Iraq, abated.
As of 8:43 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Brent Crude was down by 2.82% at $102.19. The U.S. benchmark, WTI Crude, traded down 2.46% on the day at $94.62.
Oil prices saw on Monday their biggest daily gain in nearly six weeks after Brent hit $104 per barrel yesterday due to concerns about supply from both Libya and Iraq, as well as the possibility of an OPEC+ production cut.
On Tuesday, concerns about demand prevailed, with prices losing ground amid continuous fears that aggressive interest rate hikes from central banks, including the Fed, would slow down economies for a prolonged period of time.
In a Friday speech, Federal Reserve’s Chair Jerome Powell said that large interest rate hikes could continue and could slow the economy “for some time,” and that rates could be higher for longer.
In addition, the oil market swept aside, for now, concerns that the deadly clashes in Iraq would hurt the country’s oil industry and exports.
At least 15 people have been killed and scores of others wounded in overnight fighting in the Iraqi capital, following protestors’ storming of the presidential palace on Monday. Fighting broke out in and around the Green Zone after hundreds of protesters loyal to powerful Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadar tore down cement barriers and charged through the Republican Palace following the cleric’s announcement on Monday that he would withdraw from politics.
Iraq can ramp up its oil exports and will not decline any requests for more crude, Alaa Al-Yassiri, director general of state oil marketing company SOMO, told Bloomberg in an interview on Tuesday. SOMO could even redirect more Iraqi oil to Europe, if necessary, a source at the marketing firm told Reuters today.
Australian east coast energy prices skyrocketed earlier this year as a winter cold snap sent gas, coal, and electricity to record-highs, triggering price caps in Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne at around $27/Million British Thermal Units, around 400 percent above the normal price range.
The situation highlighted the delicate scenario in which the need for new gas sources must be balanced against government attempts to meet net-zero goals, say analysts at Wood Mackenzie.
“This recent crisis was caused by a perfect storm of under-investment in new energy supplies, as well as cold weather hitting at the same time as coal outages and supply shortages, low renewable generation, and high global commodity prices. It was an incredible combination that pushed the market to the breaking point. LNG suppliers stepped in to divert gas to areas that needed it, but the situation did highlight the need for new sources of energy supply to meet current and future demand,” Daniel Toleman, Principal Analyst for Global LNG at Wood Mackenzie said.
This is amidst efforts from many governments, including Australia, to transition to a net-zero economy. For many, the challenge will be finding a balance between providing energy security at the same time as decarbonizing energy systems to meet net-zero emissions by 2050.
“To manage the Australian east coast energy balance, the federal government needs to walk a bit of a tightrope. After this winter’s energy crisis, prioritizing Australian gas resources for Australian consumers is very much in the spotlight. But the government also needs to manage new gas projects and gas supply including those of the LNG projects,” said Lucy Cullen, Principal Analyst for Global Gas.
Australia requires gas for both power generation as well as other industrial uses including mineral processing, mining, chemical production, and fertilizer.
“For the Australian east coast, future gas projects are critical to meeting domestic demand keep prices in check. With LNG imports, one of the solutions, now likely delayed until at least the mid-2020s, the government should look to support new fast-to-market gas projects. Another solution could be a behavioral change that can reduce demand in peak periods,” added Toleman.
The Australian Domestic Gas Security Measure (ADGSM) is currently in place to ensure enough natural gas is in place to meet domestic demands.
“While the ADGSM offers some assurance to the domestic markets, implementation of any domestic market obligation mechanism must balance investor concerns and must not be counterproductive by
discouraging future gas developments and investment. The government must keep these factors in mind as it reviews the ADGSM ahead of its year-end expiry,” said Cullen.
To meet net-zero targets, Australia undoubtedly requires renewable energy. But it also requires gas and LNG to ensure affordable and reliable energy throughout the energy transition,” Toleman concluded.
Results bode well for upgrading, expanding deposit at Estelle
Nova Minerals Ltd. Aug. 22 followed up on the long sections of high-grade gold assays reported earlier this month from drilling at RPM North with even longer sections of higher-grade gold at this exciting gold deposit on the Australia-based explorer’s Estelle property in Alaska.
Located about 16 miles south of the 8.1-million-ounce Korbel gold deposit at the north end of the Estelle property, RPM hosts 23.1 million metric tons of inferred resource averaging two grams per metric ton (1.5 million oz) gold.
This resource was calculated from the results of six holes drilled prior to the 2022 summer exploration season in Alaska. To upgrade and expand upon this resource, Nova plans to complete at least 40 more holes at RPM North and adjacent RPM South gold target.
On Aug. 8, the company reported long sections of strong gold mineralization in the first four holes drilled at RPM North this year; highlights include:
• 140 meters averaging 6.5 g/t gold from a depth of 44 meters in RPM-008, including 56 meters averaging 10.1 g/t gold and two meters averaging 53.4 g/t gold.
• 155 meters averaging 2.4 g/t gold from a depth of 16 meters in hole RPM-010, including 30 meters averaging 10 g/t gold and three meters averaging 56.4 g/t gold.
The latest batch of assay results continued to encounter long sections of strong gold mineralization at RPM, including:
• 258 meters averaging 5.1 g/t gold from surface in hole RPM-015, including 161 meters averaging 8.1 g/t gold, and 14 meters averaging 51.2 g/t gold.
• 113 meters averaging 1.4 g/t gold from a depth of eight meters in hole RPM-018, including 55 meters averaging 2.1 g/t gold and 11 meters averaging 4.5 g/t gold.
“I am pleased to report more shallow high‐grade broad mineralization from our drilling at RPM,” said Nova Minerals CEO Christopher Gerteisen. “This program is part of a targeted program designed to allow for further increases to potential measured and indicated resources in the next MRE (mineral resource estimate) on the high-grade RPM deposit.”
In addition to upgrading the current resource, drills are stepping out to the west to test a roughly 1,400-meter-long magnetic anomaly associated with the high-grade gold currently being drilled.
The company is also testing RPM South, a zone about 600 meters southeast of current drilling at RPM North. Rock samples collected by Nova geologists at RPM South returned assays with as much as 103 g/t gold. RPM South also hosts a magnetic geophysical anomaly that is similar but smaller to the one found at RPM North.
The volume of samples from the companies carrying out mineral exploration during the summer season in Alaska and northern Canada has slowed assay turnaround times. Because of this, Nova has assays pending from more than 50 holes drilled at RPM and Korbel this year.
This assay lab backlog will likely slow the completion of Nova’s phase-two scoping study for RPM and Korbel, which was originally slated for completion later this year.
“As we continue with our aggressive 2022 diamond drilling program, we are mindful of the extensive delays currently being experienced in the laboratory assay turnaround times, and while we are still hoping to deliver the Phase 2 Scoping Study on time, the latest results show that it is important that we include as many of the drill results from the current program as we can in the upcoming MRE,” said Gerteisen. “In light of this, PFS level trade off studies will now commence in tandem, which aims to optimize the project with a view to increasing the gold production schedule and NPV (net present value) significantly across the Estelle Gold Trend, as we continue on our path towards commercial production.”
There are about 35 million Americans looking to hit the road this Labor Day weekend, but that’s a number that could shrink in the future because of California’s ban on gasoline-powered vehicles by the year 2035 in favor of expensive electric vehicles (EV.) In little more than a decade, the number of electric vehicles (currently accounting for 16 percent of sales in the state this year) will be mandated to 100 percent.
Unfortunately, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California. One in eight U.S. residents call the Golden State home and its economy is the fifth largest in the world. Already, as many as 17 other states are looking to follow California down this disastrous road. If this mandate is not stopped in its infancy, there will be no turning back.
American families already struggling with massive inflation will feel even more pressure if more state’s follow California’s wrong turn. Here are 10 reasons why:
1. EVs are powered by fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), fossil fuel–based power plants—coal, oil, or natural gas—create about 60 percent of the nation’s electrical grid, while nuclear power accounts for nearly 20 percent.
2. The batteries of EVs rely on cobalt. An estimated 70 percent of the global supply of cobalt emanates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country with deplorable working conditions, especially for children.
3. A study released earlier this year by an environmental group showed nearly 1/3 of San Francisco’s electric charging stations were non-functioning. The population of San Francisco represents roughly two percent of California.
4. Supporters of the California law admit there will be a 40 percent increase in demand for electricity, adding further strain to the grid and requiring increased costs for power and infrastructure.
5. According to one researcher, the strain of adding an EV is similar to adding “1 or 2 air conditioners” to your home, except an EV requires power year-round.
7. Utility companies will need to add $5,800 in upgrades for every new EV for the next 8 years in order to compensate for the demand in power. All customers will shoulder this cost.
8. The average price for an electric vehicle is currently $66,000, up more than 13 percent in just the last year, costing an an average of $18,000 more than the average combustible engine. Meanwhile, the median household income is $67,521. For African American families, the average is $45,870 and Hispanic households at $55,321.
9. A 2022 study found that the majority of EV charging occurs at home, leaving those who live in multi-family dwellings (apartments) at a real disadvantage for charging.
10. The same study also noted that many charge their EVs overnight when solar power is less available on the grid.
All eyes on: Political unrest in Iraq threatening to potentially disrupt oil flows. Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr have been protesting in Baghdad and the southern oil-rich region. #OOTT#Opec
Today’s Key Takeaways: Support for fossil fuels doubles in 2021. Musk calls for more oil and gas – media goes nuts- read his full quote. Canada looking at smaller LNG export projects. Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) benefits Alaska. Climate activists looking for loopholes in IRA to stop oil and gas leasing mandates.
Major economies sharply increased support for the production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, with many countries struggling to balance longstanding pledges to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies with efforts to protect households from surging energy prices, according to analysis released today by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Energy Agency
New OECD and IEA data show that overall government support for fossil fuels in 51 countries worldwide almost doubled to 697.2 USD billion in 2021, from 362.4 USD billion in 2020, as energy prices rose with the rebound of the global economy. In addition, consumption subsidies are anticipated to rise even further in 2022 due to higher fuel prices and energy use.
“Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has caused sharp increases in energy prices and undermined energy security. Significant increases in fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption though, while not necessarily reaching low-income households,” OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said. “We need to adopt measures which protect consumers from the extreme impacts of shifting market and geopolitical forces in a way that helps keep us on track to carbon neutrality as well as energy security and affordability.”
The OECD and IEA produce complementary databases that provide estimates of different forms of government support for fossil fuels. The current OECD-IEA combined estimates cover 51 major economies, spanning the OECD, G20 and 33 other major energy producing and consuming economies representing around 85% of the world’s total energy supply.
OECD analysis of budgetary transfers and tax breaks linked to the production and use of coal, oil, gas, and other petroleum products in G20 economies showed total fossil fuel support rose to USD 190 billion in 2021 from USD 147 billion in 2020. Support for producers reached levels not previously seen in OECD tracking efforts, at USD 64 billion in 2021 – up by almost 50% year-on-year, and 17% above 2019 levels. Those subsidies have partly offset producer losses from domestic price controls as global energy prices surged in late 2021. The estimate of consumer support reached USD 115 billion, up from USD 93 billion in 2020.
The IEA produces estimates of fossil fuel subsidies by comparing prices on international markets and prices paid by domestic consumers that are kept artificially low using measures like direct price regulation, pricing formulas, border controls or taxes, and domestic purchase or supply mandates. Covering 42 economies, the IEA finds that consumer support increased to USD 531 billion in 2021, more than triple their 2020 level, driven by the surge in energy prices.
The media is going nuts over Elon Musk calling for more oil and gas at an energy conference in Norway, but the full quote is not being widely reported and brings some important context.
Earlier this year, Elon Musk called to drill for more oil, which raised a few eyebrows, but it was in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how it sent gas prices skyrocketing:
Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil and gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil and gas exports.
At an energy conference in Norway today, Musk brought back the comment in the context of the current energy crisis in Europe.
The Tesla CEO said that he believes the world still needs more oil and gas and the media is running with the headline:
However, many of these articles don’t include the full quote, which makes it clear that Musk hasn’t changed his mind and still believes that renewables, especially solar and wind, are the way to go.
Musk is often a very literal person and sometimes he simply points out the obvious, which is the case with this comment.
The full quote shows that Musk is talking about fossil fuels being needed right now to keep civilization functioning until we can reach sustainability with renewable energy:
I want to thank the leaders and the people of Norway for their long-standing support. I do think we actually need more oil and gas for civilization to function. But simultaneously moving fast to a sustainable energy economy.
Musk still believes that solar and energy storage should dominate the energy market to achieve sustainability, but he does realize that fossil fuels are needed until it can be achieved.
Canada is taking a second crack at developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry on its west coast a decade after soaring costs and indigenous opposition derailed a previous wave of proposed LNG terminals.
This time, companies are focusing on smaller west coast projects they bet will be cheaper and faster to build.
“Smaller project are easier to manage, especially in Canada,” Enbridge chief executive Al Monaco told Reuters in an interview. “The need for global LNG is clearer now than it was before, we’re getting a second chance and I hope we don’t blow it this time. We’ve got to get on it right away.”
Environmental and regulatory hurdles to pipeline construction have discouraged new LNG terminals on Canada’s Atlantic coast. read more British Columbia’s Pacific coast is close to Canada’s vast Montney shale field and Asian markets, where LNG prices hit a record high last week.
Privately owned Port Edward LNG is raising capital and negotiating off-take agreements with Asian buyers, a Shell-led (SHEL.L) consortium is studying the feasibility of building Phase 2 of the LNG Canada project and last month Enbridge Inc (ENB.TO) outlined a C$1.5 billion investment in Pacific Energy Corp’s Woodfibre LNG project.
Alaska is known to be a trove of the minerals and metals critical to every segment of the American economy. This critical mineral richness is despite the fact that Alaska is a vast state that remains largely underexplored. To help gain a better understanding of the Last Frontier State’s potential to provide domestic supplies of the 50 critical minerals, the U.S. Geological Survey has allotted $6.75 million to explore specific regions of the state for 29 critical minerals.
The new funding includes grants to the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) for geologic mapping and sampling of a portion of the Yukon-Tanana Upland near the Canadian border.
In addition, the USGS funding will support new airborne geophysical surveys in the Kuskokwim River region and on the Seward Peninsula, areas of western Alaska known for their antimony, graphite, rare earth elements, tin, tungsten, and other critical minerals.
These programs are being carried out under the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, or Earth MRI, a cleverly named partnership between the USGS, Association of American State Geologists, and state geological surveys to better understand America’s geology and mineral resource potential through new mapping, geophysics, and geochemical sampling.
USGS says the new Earth MRI surveys of Alaska are a key step in securing a reliable and sustainable supply of the critical minerals and metals that power everything from smartphones and household appliances to clean energy technologies like electric vehicle batteries and wind turbines.
“All the way back to the days of the Gold Rush, Alaska has been famous for its mineral wealth. These new projects represent the next steps in understanding the mineral potential for commodities that are critical to our national economy and defense,” said USGS Director David Applegate.
Exploring the Yukon-Tanana Upland
While best known for its rich gold endowment, including being home to Kinross Gold Corp.’s Fort Knox Mine near Fairbanks and Northern Star Resources Ltd.’s Pogo Mine near Delta Junction, the Yukon-Tanana Upland is a past producer and future domestic source of many of the minerals and metals considered critical to the U.S.
Antimony, bismuth, platinum group metals, rare earth elements, tin, and tungsten are among the critical metals known to be found in potentially economic quantities across this roughly Maine-sized region of eastern Alaska.
This 100-mile-wide swath of Interior Alaska that extends about 300 miles west from the Yukon border to the town of Tanana at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana rivers offers up another advantage when it comes to being a domestic source of critical minerals – excellent transportation infrastructure. This includes the Alaska Highway, which transects the Yukon-Tanana Upland from the Canadian border to the city of Fairbanks; a road that extends further west to Tanana; several highways that extend both north and south; and the Alaska Railroad that runs from Fairbanks to the port town of Seward.
This readily available access will make it easier and less expensive to transport metals from future critical mineral mines to market.
With the new Earth MRI funding, DGGS will focus on geologic mapping for critical mineral commodities in an area of the Yukon-Tanana Upland near Alaska’s border with Canada’s Yukon Territory.
The geologic mapping efforts, which are managed through the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, will refine our understanding of the geology underlying areas of interest.
In addition to gaining a better understanding of the critical mineral potential, USGS says these maps will support decisions about land use; provide information on water, energy, and minerals resources; and can help mitigate the impact of geologic hazards on communities.
Western Alaska geophysics
DGGS and USGS are also carrying out airborne magnetic and radiometric surveys of the Kuskokwim River region of Southwest, which has potential for antimony, gold, rare earths, tin, tungsten, and other critical minerals, and an airborne electromagnetic survey over the Seward Peninsula in areas with potential for graphite.
Several critical mineral prospects – including occurrences with antimony, arsenic, bismuth, niobium, rare earths, tin, and tungsten have been identified in the Kuskokwim Mountains.
The Earth MRI magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys flown over the Kuskokwim region will provide geologists with data on the magnetic levels of natural radioactivity in the rocks, which will help pinpoint areas for further exploration for critical minerals.
The Seward Peninsula survey will primarily be looking for graphite, and for good reasons.
It is forecast that by 2030 the world will need roughly 5 million metric tons of graphite per year for the lithium-ion batteries going into electric vehicles. This compares to only about 1 million metric tons that were mined globally to meet the demands of all industrial sectors during 2021, according to “Mineral Commodity Summaries 2022,” an annual report published by the USGS.
The Graphite Creek project on the Seward Peninsula, which is being advanced toward production by Graphite One Inc., is the largest known deposit of graphite in the U.S.
Airborne electromagnetic surveys, such as those to be flown over the Seward Peninsula as part of Earth MRI, help identify areas that are electrically conductive, such as areas with near-surface graphite.
In addition, USGS says the data compiled from these surveys can also be used to locate geothermal energy resources, groundwater resources, and potential earthquake hazards in the region.
“Data provided through these projects will have many applications and will create a foundation for better understanding of mineral and geothermal resources, earthquake hazard potential, carbon storage capacity and many other geoscience opportunities,” said Applegate.
Part of a larger Alaska strategy
The 2022 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided the USGS with an additional US$74 million in funding to Earth MRI for accelerated mapping in areas with potential for hosting critical mineral resources both still in the ground and mine waste. Overall, the Infrastructure Law is providing a $510.7 million investment to USGS to advance scientific innovation and map critical minerals.
Given its known rich mineral endowment, even with being less explored and mapped than other states, Alaska is one of four priority regions in the U.S. being explored under Earth MRI
The critical mineral commodities that are included in the Yukon-Tanana Uplands, Kuskokwim, and Seward Peninsula research projects are:
• Arsenic – used in lumber preservatives, pesticides, and semiconductors
• Antimony – used in flame-proofing compounds, alloys, and rechargeable batteries.
• Bismuth – Stomach remedies, weighting agent, solar power, and atomic research.
• Cobalt – used in rechargeable batteries and superalloys.
• Graphite – used for lubricants, lithium batteries, and fuel cells.
• Indium – mostly used in LCD screens for smartphones, monitors, and televisions.
• Platinum group metals – used for catalytic agents.
• Rare earths – primarily used in magnets, batteries, and electronics.
• Tantalum – used in electronic components, mostly capacitors, and in superalloys.
• Tellurium – used in solar cells, thermoelectric devices, and as a steelmaking alloy.
• Tin – used as protective coatings, alloys for steel, and solder for electronics.
• Tungsten – primarily used to make wear-resistant metals.
In addition to the Yukon-Tanana Uplands, Kuskokwim, and Seward Peninsula, USGS announced updates to two reports representing Earth MRI investigations on Alaska’s potential for 38 of the 50 minerals and metals critical to the U.S.
Climate activists have developed plans to foil a provision Senator Manchin put into the new climate law that ties renewable energy projects to more oil and gas drilling.
Climate activists have developed plans to foil a provision Senator Joe Manchin wedged into the new climate law that ties renewable energy projects to more oil and gas drilling.
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, new wind and solar leases on federal lands and waters are contingent upon the sale of drilling rights in the same territory within a specific timeframe. Environmentalists initially dubbed it a “climate suicide pact” and warned the requirement would hold green projects hostage to fossil fuel development.
Now, climate activists, and even some proponents of oil exploration, say they there is enough ambiguity in the law that it may still allow the federal government to keep new drilling in check.
“There are lots of things the administration can do to not turn this into a headlong rush into oil and gas development,” said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation at the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice.
The provision was a concession to Manchin, the Democrat from coal-and-gas rich West Virgina whose support was essential to pass the climate measure in the evenly split Senate. The law dedicates a historic $369 billion to advancing clean energy and fighting global warming but it comes at a cost that some environmentalists find too high to bear — more oil and gas lease sales on federal property.
Interior Department officials are still developing strategies for implementing the leasing requirements embedded in the law President Joe Biden signed last week. “We are committed to implementing the law, including direction regarding the federal oil and gas program,” Interior spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said by email.
Some options under discussion include speeding up an auction of wind rights along the US West Coast to make sure it occurs in the next three months and delaying the issuance of any purchased leases until new oil-leasing requirements are met, according to two people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the deliberations are private.
The new law mandates three sales of offshore oil and gas leases — one this year in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and two next year in the Gulf of Mexico. The Interior Department is also required to reinstate a $192 million auction of Gulf drilling rights held last November that was voided by a federal judge.
Climate activists have developed plans to foil a provision Senator Manchin put into the new climate law that ties renewable energy projects to more oil and gas drilling.
Climate activists have developed plans to foil a provision Senator Joe Manchin wedged into the new climate law that ties renewable energy projects to more oil and gas drilling.
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, new wind and solar leases on federal lands and waters are contingent upon the sale of drilling rights in the same territory within a specific timeframe. Environmentalists initially dubbed it a “climate suicide pact” and warned the requirement would hold green projects hostage to fossil fuel development.
Now, climate activists, and even some proponents of oil exploration, say they there is enough ambiguity in the law that it may still allow the federal government to keep new drilling in check.
“There are lots of things the administration can do to not turn this into a headlong rush into oil and gas development,” said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation at the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice.
The provision was a concession to Manchin, the Democrat from coal-and-gas rich West Virgina whose support was essential to pass the climate measure in the evenly split Senate. The law dedicates a historic $369 billion to advancing clean energy and fighting global warming but it comes at a cost that some environmentalists find too high to bear — more oil and gas lease sales on federal property.
Interior Department officials are still developing strategies for implementing the leasing requirements embedded in the law President Joe Biden signed last week. “We are committed to implementing the law, including direction regarding the federal oil and gas program,” Interior spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said by email.
Some options under discussion include speeding up an auction of wind rights along the US West Coast to make sure it occurs in the next three months and delaying the issuance of any purchased leases until new oil-leasing requirements are met, according to two people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the deliberations are private.
The new law mandates three sales of offshore oil and gas leases — one this year in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and two next year in the Gulf of Mexico. The Interior Department is also required to reinstate a $192 million auction of Gulf drilling rights held last November that was voided by a federal judge.
To issue onshore renewable rights over the next decade, an oil or gas lease sale will have to have been held in the previous four months. The window stretches to one year for offshore wind projects. The law also lays out minimum acreage requirements.
After studying the law’s more than 700 pages, environmentalists think they have found a catch: It doesn’t require lease sales to result in new barrels of oil, or even leases.
“Nothing in the provision says the lease sales have to be successful,” observed Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. That requirement is filled “even if no one bought them,” says Hartl.
Some activists and lawmakers are encouraging the Interior Department to satisfy the mandate by only putting unwanted acreage on the auction block and packing leases with so many onerous stipulations even the most committed oil companies won’t want to buy them.
“There is a way to technically comply with these provisions without changing very much about the amount of oil and gas that gets developed,” said Representative Jared Huffman, a Democrat from California.
Even some oil advocates are nervous.
In this week's #MarketMovers Americas: 🔹Midwest #oil markets keeping an eye on BP Whiting’s refinery 🔹Freeport #LNG partial restart delayed by a month 🔹Shoulder-month US #power contracts average triple digits 🔹Labor deals with US steelmakers set to expire#OOTT#ONGT#steelpic.twitter.com/uyjVxvIrBV
Today’s Key Takeaway: On Friday we wrote here about the likelihood of environmental groups blocking the permitting reform compromise between Manchin and Schumer. Today, the folly of spending more without reforming NEPA.
Every summer, people gather to celebrate the works of William Shakespeare in festivals from Utah to Pennsylvania, Cambridge to Poland, and everywhere in between. This summer, Senate Democrats apparently decided to host their own festival in Washington, DC.
Thanks to the negotiating power of one person, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, President Joe Biden is panting to sign a “historic climate bill” lauded by the Left as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save the planet. It’s dubiously titled the “Inflation Reduction Act.”
This is the ultimate climate cart before the horse moment. In the words of the Fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear: “May not an ass know when the cart draws the horse?”
The 730-page “Inflation Reduction Act” won’t reduce inflation (additional government spending, by definition, increases inflation) and instead sprays around $437 billion like a fire hose. It mandates government price controls on prescription drugs. Imposes a 15% minimum tax rate on US companies that make “too much money.” It “invests” $80 billion in the IRS for tax enforcement. It strengthens the hands of unions.
None of that has anything to do with inflation or climate change.
It’s the same approach Democrats always reach for: their way to attack climate change is to spend taxpayer money and to remake our system of government to be more socialist.
To be fair, there is much in the Inflation Reduction Act related to climate, energy security and the environment, and not all of it bad. Almost 85 percent of the price tag, $369 billion, will go to programs related to some aspect of climate, energy, and the environment.
That includes subsidies for energy sectors: aviation biofuels, electric vehicles (new and used), energy efficiency (home and business), hydrogen, solar, nuclear, and wind (onshore and offshore).
There are also rebates for retrofits for homeowners, multi-family buildings, and industrial manufacturing facilities. Conservationists, farmers, and ranchers get funding. Forests, rural electric cooperatives, ports, and even pipelines get funding. Electric transmission lines get $2 billion in direct loans and $760 million in grants.
To the chagrin of many environmentalists, even the oil and gas industry benefits through the “45Q” carbon sequestration and utilization tax credit. Among other things, it pays oil and gas producers to capture and use carbon, including for extending the life of oil and gas fields, aka enhanced oil recovery. In a step that is long overdue, the bill also opens up some key drilling areas in the US.
The funding parade rolls on:
Scientists at our national laboratories get funding. There’s funding for early stage” basic” research, later stage but not yet commercial” applied” research for everything from fusion to fission, molecules but not quite moon landings.
There’s funding for domestic manufacturers of iron, steel, aluminum, cement, glass, pulp, paper, ceramics, chemicals and virtually anything dubbed as” energy intensive.”
There are loan programs for Made in the USA critical minerals production, processing, manufacturing, and recycling. Loan guarantees for retooling, repowering, and replacing energy infrastructure.
There’s funding for planning, modeling, and analysis, building, processing, and deploying.
No matter where you live, anywhere in the U.S., there’s something in this for you.
The bill covers just about every base, except for one – the most important one. The Inflation Reduction Act fails to address federal permitting reform.
It’s said that if all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. Apparently, President Biden and the Congressional Democrats think that their golden appropriations hammer is the solution to climate. But what we need now is a saw.
We can spend ever more, and it won’t solve the problem we can actually build projects expeditiously on American soil. What is keeping us from “Build Back Better” is the regulatory morass under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, that environmentalists deploy to delay energy projects, sometimes for a decade, sometimes forever.
And the problem is not just for oil and gas projects, but also for solar, wind and nuclear. Want more solar and wind on the grid? Want more clean electricity for your EV? We need to build new transmission lines for that. NEPA stands in the way.
Senator Manchin did supposedly get a “side deal” that will streamline the federal permitting process for new infrastructure projects, but only over the objection of his Democrat colleagues. Kudos to Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska for his resolution forcing the Democrats’ hand on their unwillingness to roll back regulations. But I wouldn’t bet on Biden signing this part of the bill.
Our federal permitting process must be reformed to allow climate solutions to flourish and to make those solutions here in the U.S. Otherwise, billions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted.
it’s time to put the spending cart behind the permitting horses. Mr. President, the reigns are in your hands.
"There is no alternative path forward on climate policy besides abundance. The public will demand cheap and abundant energy."
Many of the environmental groups that have pushed hardest for decarbonization are likely to take aim at the landmark law’s implementation.
“It is not true that we need to gut our environmental protections in order to scale up green energy,” said Mahyar Sorour, deputy legislative director for Beyond Dirty Fuels at the Sierra Club. And thus goes the next chapter in the political war over whether and how the United States will join the battle against climate change.
Unlike America’s longstanding partisan stalemate – not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed into law on Tuesday – the new conflict over climate policy will pit many environmental groups that have pushed hardest for the US to decarbonize against the administration’s efforts to do so.
The new tussle will inevitably trip up the strategy to overhaul the nation’s energy infrastructure, as environmental organizations stand in the way of the most straightforward paths to take carbon out of the American economy over the next 30 years.
“Maybe it was the best they could get, but let’s not be disingenuous about the tradeoffs,” Brett Hartl, the government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity – an environmental advocacy group – told me.
At the moment, what sticks in the craw of green activists are the demands by Senator Joe Manchin in exchange for his vote for the IRA: to clear the path for the completion of a natural gas pipeline across West Virginia, plus a slew of reforms to relax other regulatory hurdles facing energy infrastructure projects, including environmental reviews.
“There is no reason to give Senator Manchin any more concessions than he already got,” Sorour told me. “The IRA is going to be transformative,” she acknowledged. “Congress approved a massive investment to scale up renewable energy.” But as far as Sorour is concerned, giving West Virginia’s natural gas a pass is way over the line.
She has a point. Conscripting Congress to approve a favored pipeline is a little unseemly. One hopes America won’t go about overhauling its energy infrastructure one pipeline bill at a time. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to demand that pipelines abide by standards to protect the ecosystems and communities they traverse.
But let’s face it: Natural gas, which produces just half the carbon emissions of coal, will continue to play a critical role in the decarbonization of the energy grid. “Gas is not a bridge fuel to the clean energy future that we need,” Sorour insisted. In fact, it has been the main fuel to replace coal. And it will continue to for some time. Pipelines will be needed to move it around.
Consider North Carolina, one of 16 states that have imposed a schedule of carbon mitigation, committing to slash CO2 emissions by 70% from 2005 to 2030. An analysis by the Brattle Group for the Clean Power Suppliers Association concluded that the cheapest path to the goal included adding 2,000–3,500 megawatts of natural gas-powered generation by then.
Natural gas features in national decarbonization strategies too. The modeling in Princeton’s Repeat Project, which calculates the IRA could cut the nation’s carbon emissions 42% by 2030, compared to 2005, assumes multibillion dollar investments in additional generation capacity powered by natural gas. The Rhodium Group, which assesses that the legislation could cut emissions from 32% to 42%, also acknowledges that gas-fueled generation will grow.
Getting in the way of natural gas generation, at this stage, will probably just mean burning more coal. “At some point we will approach the end of the ‘coal-to-gas’ bridge,” said Alex Trembath, deputy director of the Breakthrough Institute, which promotes the deployment of technology to confront environmental problems. “But we’re not there yet.”
The environmental movement’s disquiet about the administration’s climate strategy is not just due to the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Hartl points out that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig emitted little CO2 but still managed to do a lot of damage by spilling millions of barrels of oil into the sea.
Indeed, many of America’s most powerful green organizations have a broader beef with the impact that any energy infrastructure can have on the natural environment. And that’s a problem for the administration’s strategy to combat climate change. Every tool in the IRA is likely to run afoul of one environmental goal or another.
The Sierra Club and other groups opposed a now-blocked project to bring hydropower from Canada to the Northeast on the grounds that the needed transmission lines would cut through long swathes of forest, while hydropower takes up substantial acreage and is not renewable anyway.
The sun and the wind, for now, seem to be relatively unopposed sources of clean energy. But the Sierra Club has already opposed at least one solar plant in Nevada. Scaling up wind power, which requires 370 times as much land as natural gas-based generation, is definitely going to butt against demands to preserve the natural environment.
The environmental movement’s objection to natural gas and other stuff has been of relatively little significance, as the question over what to do about CO2 has been controlled by Republicans’ response to it: nothing. But with the GOP’s veto over climate policy lifted, greens’ opposition to all sorts of things may become the main roadblock to a solution.
The so-called “permitting compromise” between Manchin and Senator Chuck Schumer, which reportedly has the approval of both President Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the House, will provide the first battleground for this new conflict. Schumer promised Manchin the bill would pass before the close of this fiscal year, which ends on September 30.
But this is hardly the end of the new war over the nation’s environmental priorities.
I talked to Phillip K. Howard, the lawyer and good government advocate who wrote “Two Years, Not Ten Years” about how government reviews and regulations have gummed up the deployment of urgently needed infrastructure. I asked whether, ironically, the environmental movement would become a significant obstacle to the nation’s efforts toward carbon mitigation. His answer: “clearly, yes.”
Another climate change irony. The green groups that pushed hardest for the US to slow CO2 emissions will now stand in the way of the most promising strategies to do so. My column: https://t.co/Z7jTA7gCXs via @opinion
