Big Oil turns on Trump over Paris accord exit for all the wrong reasons



One of Donald Trump’s priorities upon returning to the Oval Office in January is to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is welcome news for those who oppose the decarbonization agenda, which undermines freedom, prosperity, and mobility. Given that petroleum the bête noire of the global climate cult, you might expect major oil companies would support U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Soon after Trump’s intentions for the Paris agreement became clear, major oil companies signaled their opposition to his decision. Instead, they favor continuing down the path of heavy regulation and government subsidies for their industry, aligned with the priorities of the global climate community. As reported by Fox News, “Big Oil is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement after withdrawing from the treaty during his first term.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Why would companies whose primary business is extracting and selling petroleum align themselves with an unelected body openly hostile to oil and committed to achieving "net zero" production within a generation?

Unfortunately, this approach is a betrayal to those who have long defended Big Oil as a pillar of capitalism. Big Oil’s actions now appear to be in direct conflict with free-market principles.

By supporting government-mandated climate compliance, major oil companies can eliminate competition from smaller players in the short term, consolidating their market dominance. In the long term, they aim to secure government grants and subsidies for carbon-related initiatives, positioning these as a significant revenue stream.

ExxonMobil has made it clear that it sees the government as its future largest customer, carbon-related initiatives as its primary product, and government funding as its main revenue source. In the short term, the company seeks to leverage government power, under the Paris Climate Agreement, to eliminate competition from independent oil producers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods opposes Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from the climate accord. According to the article, Woods argues against the withdrawal, citing ExxonMobil’s efforts to expand outreach to government officials and advocate for “global carbon accounting measures.”

While the specifics of “global carbon accounting” remain unclear, it seems far removed from real-world generally accepted accounting principles. It is reasonable to assume that this concept involves government officials distributing taxpayer money to favored entities — a group Woods clearly intends for ExxonMobil to join.

The WSJ story goes on to say that ExxonMobil and other major oil companies are lobbying the incoming GOP leadership to preserve tax credits included in Joe Biden’s “signature climate law,” the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits reward technologies like carbon capture, in which the companies are heavily invested.

The IRA is a boon for Big Oil’s carbon-related projects. During an energy conference last March, Woods voiced his support for the legislation, stating, “I was very supportive of the IRA — I am very supportive of the IRA …”

In plain terms, ExxonMobil wants more taxpayer money and federal tax credits to fund its carbon mitigation initiatives. Meanwhile, you better believe small, independent drillers in West Texas are left out of these taxpayer subsidies. ExxonMobil, by contrast, is angling to make taxpayer subsidies a major source of revenue.

The Guardian in August highlighted how ExxonMobil has pivoted its business strategy to heavily rely on government subsidies for its carbon capture and storage operations. The company launched its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2021 and began lobbying for direct government funding. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, ExxonMobil secured a subsidy of $85 per ton of captured carbon. Dan Ammann, head of the Low Carbon Solutions unit, said the carbon capture business could eventually become “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as energy secretary offers a glimmer of hope for the American petroleum industry.

In the oil patch, Wright’s appointment has been met with much rejoicing. As the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, Wright understands well the challenges faced by independent oil producers. Unlike major oil company executives who apologize for their industry and align themselves with climate activists, Wright unapologetically defends the petroleum sector. Described as a “dedicated humanitarian on a mission to better human lives by expanding access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy,” Wright has earned respect across the industry.

But Wright’s fight to protect American oil won’t just involve battling left-wing advocates of net-zero policies. He will also face opposition from major oil company executives who have aligned with radical climate agendas, working to suppress independent producers while ceding control of the oil business to the government. He’ll need all the help he can get.

US energy independence is under threat from a court ruling



Two new energy enterprises in the Port of Brownsville were on the cusp of ushering in a new era of business and industry for the region. Together, they would bring in billions of dollars in investment, provide major infrastructure improvements, and create thousands of jobs.

And they would lead to a domino effect of benefits for the community, such as the $30 million Texas A&M training facility that broke ground at the port this year.

This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.

Both projects received the green light in the federal permitting process, and one had even begun construction.

But then everything came to a screeching halt at the whim of a court in Washington, D.C.

For the sake of the people of South Texas, this unprecedented move — tossing out preapproved permits, including one for a facility that is already under construction — needs to be challenged.

The Rio Grande LNG terminal, projected to be one of the world's largest liquified natural gas export projects, would cost an estimated $18 billion. It is expected to generate 5,000 construction jobs, over 400 permanent positions, and potentially another 3,000 indirect jobs in the local community.

Meanwhile, Texas LNG was finalizing its investment plans to start construction. This project, too, was set to invest billions and create thousands of jobs throughout its construction phase.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had approved permits for both projects. The companies went above and beyond to comply with environmental regulations, even incorporating a carbon capture and storage facility to reduce emissions. Ironically, the court cited these environmental efforts as the reason to revoke their permits. In response, both projects have now abandoned their carbon capture efforts to comply with the court’s demands.

As Charles McConnell, a former official in the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration, wrote, “This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has urged FERC to appeal a court decision that halted the construction of two major liquefied natural gas terminals. Cruz’s letter to the FERC chairman stressed the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that legal disruptions do not discourage investors from backing future projects that could position America as the world’s leading energy producer.

“If project developers come to believe that federal permits can be overturned due to procedural missteps by the regulator, apart from any actions or fault by the developers, U.S. infrastructure projects will slow and stall,” Cruz wrote.

But for the people of South Texas, this outlandish reversal is a lot more personal. We need more industry and business to help our region flourish. The projects were expanding business access to South Texas significantly. Rio Grande LNG was already in the process of making the channel another 10 feet deeper to make the Port of Brownsville accessible to more ships. With the federal court ruling, all that progress will come to an end — and with it, a golden opportunity to turn South Texas into a hub of prosperity.

It’s easy to get lost in the legal jargon of the permitting process and lawsuits. But what FERC and the courts do has real-world implications for everyone in South Texas. More industry leads to more jobs, and more jobs lead to more opportunities, which in turn would create more opportunities for South Texans to escape poverty.

The new LNG developments could set the region up for success in decades to come — but not if bureaucratic obstructionists continue to stand in the way.

Why It’s Terrifying That China’s Nuclear Capabilities Have Lapped The United States

China’s steady climb to the peak of nuclear energy technology underscores the need for a decisive American response.

DeSantis Outlines Earliest Actions Of His Administration If He Wins

'I think we can get it done'

Why The ‘#StopWillow’ Movement On TikTok May Be A CCP Influence Campaign

The apparent TikTok influence campaign highlights the app's power and danger.

'If you don't like our petroleum cars, well, we don't like your electric cars': Wyoming Republicans propose scrapping electric vehicles by 2035



A handful of Republican lawmakers in Wyoming aren't convinced that the destruction of a key job-producing industry in their state is inevitable. Either way, they'll be sure to go down fighting on the side of Wyoming's oil and gas workers.

Whereas other states, such as Oregon, New York, and California, have pledged to phase out combustion engines as a means of combatting the specter of anthropogenic climate change, Republicans in the state Senate and House seek to phase out new electric vehicles sales by 2035.

Republican Sens. Jim Anderson, Brian Boner, Ed Cooper, and Dan Dockstader and Reps. Donald Burkhart and Bill Henderson have sponsored a joint resolution to this effect.

In defense of a full tank of gas and an open road

The bill notes that "oil and gas production has long been one of Wyoming's proud and valued industries," which has created "countless jobs and has contributed revenues to the state of Wyoming throughout the state's history."

The Daily Mail reported that there are over 68,000 jobs in the state's oil and gas industry.

Extra to the jobs and revenue generated by oil and gas, the bill stresses that gas-powered vehicles ensure efficiencies throughout the country for a multitude of businesses in various other industries.

Whereas gas-powered cars are durable and already enjoy infrastructure in the state, "Wyoming's vast stretches of highway, coupled with a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, make the widespread use of electric vehicles impracticable for the state."

Even if taxpayers' money was effectively used laying that infrastructure, the lawmakers suggested in their bill that it would still require "massive amounts of new power generation in order to sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles."

The lawmakers noted that it's not just the open road and the demands placed on the state by EVs that pose a challenge to the gas-free paradigm championed elsewhere by Democrats. "The batteries used in electric vehicles contain critical minerals whose domestic supply is limited and at risk for disruption," they wrote.

Over the past year, there has been a supply shortage of the key metal required for EVs that use lithium-ion batteries. Bloomberg recently indicated that it is unclear whether lithium supply will catch up with demand this year, despite bearish forecasts suggesting a balanced market may soon be on the horizon.

In addition to lithium, EVs often require minerals like cobalt and nickel.

The International Energy Agency indicated in its March 2022 report on clean energy transitions that a "typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car."

The Verge reported in August that the shift to EVs will overwhelm U.S. mining operations, prompting reliance on foreign sources.

Rather than rely on foreign and possibly hostile sources to power potentially unreliable vehicles, the lawmakers suggested that Wyoming motorists should take advantage of the state's natural bounty.

The Wyoming State Geological Survey revealed in 2021 that the state ranked eighth nationally in crude oil production and ninth for natural gas production, producing over 85 million barrels of crude and over 1.37 billion MCF (MCF = one thousand cubic feet) that year.

Besides the alleged positives of Wyomingites sticking with the combustion engine, the bill highlighted at least one problem with the electric alternative that may concern environmentalists: "The critical minerals used in electric batteries are not easily recyclable or disposable, meaning that municipal landfills in Wyoming and elsewhere will be required to develop practices to dispose of these minerals in a safe and responsible manner."

For these reasons, the Republican lawmakers adopted the language of other anti-gas-car bills, but swapped in EVs as that which they seek to eliminate.

The bill concludes by saying, "Phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming’s oil and gas industry and will help preserve the country’s critical minerals for vital purposes."

Sen. Anderson told the Cowboy State Daily that by passing this bill, "the Legislature would be saying, 'If you don't like our petroleum cars, well, we don't like your electric cars.'"

Sen. Boner similarly suggested the bill's passage would serve to send a message; "One might even say tongue-in-cheek."

Boner added, "I'm interested in making sure that the solutions that some folks want to the so-called climate crisis are actually practical in real life. ... I just don't appreciate when other states try to force technology that isn’t ready."

California, among the states that has passed a ban on the sale of new cars with combustion engines, may have done so prematurely.

TheBlaze previously reported that the Democrat-run state's electric grid — already prone to rolling blackouts and rationing — may not be ready to handle the demands of a population increasingly adopting electricity-hungry vehicles.

Senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists Mike Jacobs told Yahoo Finance, "The use of an electric vehicle is like adding one or two air conditioners to your residence in terms of its energy increase."

According to Brouwer, "If we try to move in this direction and only use battery electric vehicles, we will fail. ... The grid cannot charge every single transportation application."

In addition to grid instability, the coerced adoption of EVs has begun to chase jobs out of the United States.

An Illinois Jeep manufacturer announced in December that it was firing thousands of American workers and moving its operations to Mexico, citing, in part, "the increasing cost related to the electrification of the automotive market."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

You Will Thrive in the Recession if You Learn the '5 Gs'| Robert Kiyosaki | POLITICS | Rubin Report

You Will Thrive in the Recession if You Learn the '5 Gs'| Robert Kiyosaki | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Gen Z Can't See What's About to Happen to Them (Pt. 3) | Robert Kiyosaki | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Gen Z Can't See What's About to Happen to Them (Pt. 3) | Robert Kiyosaki | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Here Are The Predictions Trump Got Right About Biden

'He's following the radical left agenda: take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment,'

Biden To World: Russia, Oil Sheiks, And China Control The U.S. Economy

President Joe Biden turned America’s financial crisis into a national security one by telling the world that foreign leaders have near-total control over the U.S. economy.