Today’s Key Takeaways: Canada looking for industry pledges in exchange for lifting oil emissions cap. Alaska-Asia LNG corridor advances with steel commitment. Anglo-Teck merger creates copper giant. Why should we care about permitting reform?
OIL:
Canada Considers Lifting Oil Emissions Cap in Exchange for Industry Pledges
Irina Slav, OilPrice.Com, September 12, 2025
The Canadian federal government has proposed lifting an emissions cap on the oil industry, but only if the industry promises to find other ways to reduce its emissions in line with 2030 and further targets.
Per a Reuters report citing unnamed sources in the know, Alberta’s government will also have to make an emission reduction promise if it wants the emissions cap lifted on its key industry. Prime Minister Mark Carney was in discussions about the cap with oil industry executives, the Reuters sources said.
The oil and gas sector is the source of the biggest chunk of Canada’s emissions, accounting for 28% of the total based on 2021 numbers. The federal government’s plan, first released at the end of last year by Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, calls for a reduction in emissions from 171 million tons in 2019 to between 106 and 112 million tons by 2030.
The oil industry reacted to the idea as one might expect, slamming it as a cap on oil production, essentially preventing the Canadian oil industry from growing beyond a certain level. At a House of Commons hearing a year ago, top executives from the oil sands said the cap would be unproductive and redundant.
“The world will not consume one less barrel of oil simply because Canada chooses not to provide it. That barrel will come from somewhere else,” Suncor chief executive Rich Kruger said at the hearing. Imperial Oil’s CEO noted the presence of other “vehicles and requirements” put in place to curb emissions of carbon dioxide in the country.
The cap is scheduled to go into effect from 2030, but if Carney’s new idea gains traction, it might end up in the trash, to be replaced by a “climate competitiveness strategy”, which the Carney government is set to announce later this year, according to the Reuters sources.
GAS:
Alaska–Asia LNG corridor advances as POSCO backs Glenfarne’s project
Dragana Nikse,Offshore Energy, September 12, 2025
Alaska LNG, a joint venture between U.S. energy player Glenfarne and the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), has signed an agreement with South Korea’s POSCO International to team up on the development of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Alaska.
According to Glenfarne, the deal covers initial terms for providing critical project components, such as steel, paired with an LNG offtake and an investment in the Alaska LNG project. It provides a basis for the duo to progress to signing definitive agreements, which are expected to close once board approvals are obtained.
Under it, POSCO is set to supply a significant portion of the steel required for the 807-mile, 42-inch pressurized natural gas pipeline bringing what Glenfarne says are vast, stranded natural gas resources on the North Slope to the planned 20 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) Alaska LNG export terminal in Nikiski.
“POSCO is one of the world’s foremost steel companies, a leading LNG importer in one of Alaska LNG’s most important markets, and now a significant partner in Alaska LNG. POSCO’s involvement underscores the project’s strategic, geographic, and economic competitive advantages as we rapidly progress toward a final investment decision on the Alaska LNG pipeline,” stated Glenfarne Alaska LNG President, Adam Prestidge.
The pipeline is planned to be built in two stages. Phase One will deliver natural gas approximately 765 miles from the North Slope to the Anchorage region. Phase Two includes the Alaska LNG facility, approximately 42 miles of pipeline under Cook Inlet, and pipeline compression equipment.
Worley was tasked with undertaking additional engineering and preparing a final cost estimate for the project in May. Glenfarne now notes that the work to complete the final engineering for the domestic portion of the pipeline is still underway.
A year-end final investment decision (FID) is planned for the pipeline portion, followed by a 2026 FID for the project’s LNG export components.
Furthermore, the latest deal will also cover a 20-year heads of agreement (HoA) for 1 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG offtake on a free-on-board basis. The U.S. player describes this as the first announced HOA for Alaska LNG.
“POSCO’s participation in Alaska LNG adds tremendous momentum as we drive this signature North American LNG project forward at a rapid tempo,” said Glenfarne’s Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Brendan Duval. “Korea is a valued target market for Alaska LNG, and we greatly appreciate POSCO’s engagement as we advance Alaska LNG.”
Glenfarne believes the latest agreement demonstrates global support for unlocking “some of the most strategically located” LNG in the world. It comes on the heels of yesterday’s announcement of a letter of intent (LoI) for 1-mtpa offtake for the project with JERA.
MINING:
Anglo, Teck to merge into $53B copper giant
Shane Lasley, North of 60 Mining News, September 11, 2025
Resulting Anglo Teck group would be a globally significant producer of copper, zinc, and iron.
In a landmark deal that reshapes the global mining landscape, Teck Resources Ltd. and Anglo-American plc have agreed to a $53 billion merger-of-equals to form Anglo Teck, a new global critical minerals champion with copper at its core.
“We are unlocking outstanding value both in the near and longer term – forming a global critical minerals champion with the focus, agility, capabilities, and culture that have characterized both companies for so long,” said Anglo American CEO Duncan Wanblad.
The resulting Canada-headquartered Anglo Teck group will have the capacity to produce 1.2 million metric tons of copper per year, making it one of the world’s largest producers of this metal critical to clean energy, modern technology, and everyday living.
“This merger of two highly complementary portfolios will create a leading global critical minerals champion headquartered in Canada – a top five global copper producer with exceptional mining and processing assets located across Canada, the United States, Latin America, and Southern Africa,” said Teck Resources CEO Johnathan Price.
Anglo Teck will also be a globally significant producer of zinc and germanium due to Teck’s world-class Red Dog mine in Alaska and Trail zinc refinery in British Columbia. The merged company will also have a premium iron segment that will include Anglo’s high-quality assets in Brazil and South Africa.
“Bringing together our world-class copper assets, premium iron ore and zinc operations, and an outstanding pipeline of high-quality growth projects provides enormous resiliency and optionality,” Price added.
POLITICS:
Low-Energy Fridays: Should we care about permitting uncertainty?
Phillip Rosetti, RStreet, September 12, 2025
A common argument against policy change is that the resulting “uncertainty” is disruptive, with the downsides of changing a bad policy potentially outweighing the benefits of adopting a better one. I was reminded of this when hearing a Trump administration official respond to a question about their rejection of permits for offshore wind projects. The administration’s position is that because these projects were uneconomical without subsidies, they were economically harmful to pursue and therefore, the administration should use available policy tools to course correct. This seems to make sense because, as noted in a past Low-Energy Fridays post, the subsidy costs for mature technologies tend to outweigh the benefits. However, the administration’s actions would rescind permits rather than eliminate subsidies. This could introduce a “chilling effect” on energy-related projects, with investors declining to fund new projects out of fear that a future administration will reject their permit.
A lot of economic activity requires federal permits. One thing we don’t know is how much economic activity does not occur because potential investors don’t think they can secure a permit or because they’re afraid their status may change before the project is completed. While an administration may be correct in determining that a policy failure has led to an economically harmful project proposal (e.g., a subsidy-reliant wind farm), rejecting a project on such grounds introduces a new layer of risk to investors in projects that are economically beneficial and must be approved by a current or future administration. And because future administrations will likely also target projects they don’t view as permit-worthy, today’s investors in projects that will require federal permits years from now must consider the possibility that a future administration may reject their permitting request if they don’t like the project.
Importantly, the Trump administration did not start this trend. A prime example of the politicization of permits was the Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The first Trump administration went on to approve Keystone XL, only for the Biden administration to reject it again. There are many examples of this political permitting tug-of-war, including the Twin Metals mine in Minnesota, the short-lived moratoria on oil and gas leases in 2021, the curtailment of offshore energy leases in 2023, and the recent rejections of permits for offshore wind projects, among others.
In all of these cases, policymakers proposed reasoned arguments to appeal to their constituents. But from an economic perspective, even if one administration is right or wrong, there’s clearly something wrong with the process—and we may be paying for it in ways we can’t evaluate. A large body of research confirms that securing a federal permit takes a very long time, which negatively affects the industries that rely on such permits. The more political the permitting process gets, the more likely it is that other potentially beneficial projects never materialize.
For example, S&P Global estimated that securing a permit for a new mine in the United States takes 29 years on average. It’s not unreasonable to believe that many potential mines have never been pursued because of how extraordinarily difficult it is to secure the necessary permits. This is further evidenced by the recent surge of mining permits under review by the current administration compared to the prior one. Extrapolating this to other industries, we can see how uncertainty about whether one can get a permit diminishes their investment.
But we shouldn’t focus too heavily on which administration rejects which permits. The genie is well out of the bottle by this point, and norms have been thoroughly smashed. It may be tempting to think that my politician is right, and their politician is wrong about which projects to approve and reject, but the truth is that politicians of all stripes are generally bad at steering investment.
This is a classical Hayekian knowledge problem, in which policymakers operate with imperfect knowledge and make inefficient decisions. Economic outcomes are better when those decisions are dispersed more broadly and the parties that stand to gain or lose the most have the most say in what gets built.
In other words, the economy is better off when Washington’s meddling in investment decisions is minimized, and investments are maximized when permits are granted swiftly and free from politics.
While permits have been a staple of political controversy for four administrations now, the concern over rejecting renewable energy permits should further motivate Congress to adopt permitting reform. The one thing investors can always be sure of is that politics are highly uncertain; therefore, the best way to encourage investor confidence is to make the economy less susceptible to politicking.