EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 1/14/26

PIPELINE NEWS

• New York Times: E.P.A. Moves to Limit States’ Ability to Block Pipelines

• Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa House introduces bill to ban CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain

• Des Moines Register: Iowa House GOP proposes banning eminent domain for carbon pipelines

• Des Moines Register: See Iowa landowners lobby their representatives about eminent domain

• KGAN: Debate continues over eminent domain laws as carbon pipeline plan lingers

• Cedar Rapids Gazette: Iowa House lawmakers consider bill prohibiting use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines

• KIMT: Eminent domain debate reignites in Iowa with new pipeline bill

• Bloomberg: North Carolina Mountain Valley Pipeline Approval Draws Challenge

• MyCentralJersey.com: NJ issues another permit for controversial natural gas pipeline

• WDBJ: Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate application for Virginia Water Protection permit approved

• Toronto Star: B.C. First Nations remain opposed to pipeline after meeting with Mark Carney

• 100 Mile Free Press: Clinton’s High Bar First Nation signs agreements with Enbridge

• Bloomberg: JPMorgan, Citi in Talks to Finance $1 Billion Argentina Pipeline

WASHINGTON UPDATES

• E&E News: Permitting, NEPA, Venezuelan oil: Republicans’ reconciliation plan

• Inside Climate News: After Losing a Climate Case in a Louisiana Courtroom, Chevron Wants a Change of Venue

• Utility Dive: EPA final rule on NOx limits emphasizes cost savings to turbine owners

• Reuters: US oil lobby group backs repeal of climate rule for vehicles, not power plants

• E&E News: API mulls replacement for federal emissions reporting

• Gear Junkie: Interior Moves to Open All Federal Lands to Hunting and Fishing by Default

• CBS News: Texas firm’s plan to restart oil rigs off California coast gets Trump administration support, legal pushback

• E&E News: Trump wants data centers to pay for power. Will that lower electricity prices?

• E&E News: Rigs-to-Reefs hearing sparks fight over Trump energy plans.

STATE UPDATES

• Daily Montanan: Youth appeal federal climate lawsuit to Ninth Circuit

• E&E News: Republicans target climate lawsuits in Utah, Oklahoma

• KSBW: Central Coast communities oppose federal offshore drilling proposal

• E&E News: New Jersey’s ‘Climate Superfund Act’ is doomed (for now)

• The Center Square: Legislation would give parishes control over carbon capture

• KLFY: State Treasurer John Fleming discusses carbon capture, state budget surplus

• ecoRI: Lobbyists’ Opposition to Climate Legislation Has Profound Effect, Brown University Report Finds

• Louisiana Illuminator: Grassroots monitoring, helping neighbors track industrial pollution, is under threat in Louisiana.

EXTRACTION

• New York Times: U.S. Emissions Jumped in 2025 as Coal Power Rebounded

• Reuters: Exxon Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery preparing to run Venezuelan oil, sources say

• Reuters: Venezuela security, policy reform needed for US oil industry to move in, API chief says

• Reuters: Canadian oil tycoon proposes aiding US in Venezuela’s oil revival

• EuroNews: Why boosting production of Venezuela’s ‘very dense, very sloppy’ oil could harm the environment

• The Narwhal: Can Canada capture enough carbon to make a difference?

• Gas to Power Journal: Coastal Bend LNG to capture carbon from onsite power plant

• Canadian Energy Centre: Rare brand-new oil sands project starts operating in Alberta

• Waterline Stories: It was a federal lease – how officials downplayed a massive oil spill

OPINION

• Alaska Landmine: Alaska’s natural gas pipeline is a long, long-shot

• The Hill: What US oil CEOs know about Venezuela that Trump doesn’t
  

PIPELINE NEWS

New York Times: E.P.A. Moves to Limit States’ Ability to Block Pipelines
Maxine Joselow and Lisa Friedman, 1/13/26

“The Trump administration on Tuesday moved to limit the ability of states to block the construction of oil and gas pipelines, coal export terminals and other energy projects that could pollute local waterways,” the New York Times reports. “…The proposed rule would narrow the scope of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This section allows states and tribes to review, and ultimately to approve or veto, federal permits for energy projects that could discharge pollutants into nearby waterways. “This proposed rule is the next step in ensuring that states and tribes only utilize 401 for its statutory purpose, and not as a weapon to shut down projects,” Jess Kramer, the E.P.A. assistant administrator in charge of the agency’s Office of Water, said on a call with journalists on Tuesday. Under the E.P.A. plan, states and tribes would have the authority to address the direct water quality effects of a given project but not other factors like air pollution or traffic. The agency also would give states and tribes a maximum of one year to act on certification requests for federal permits. Ms. Kramer said the changes were important to supply electricity to data centers, adding that the E.P.A.’s leading priority was to “maximize efficiencies” and eliminate delays in permitting… “In recent years, Democratic governors have used the Clean Water Act to prevent a number of oil, gas and coal projects from moving forward. In 2017, for instance, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington refused to approve a permit for an enormous coal export terminal proposed to be built on the Columbia River, citing concerns about both water and air pollution… “Environmentalists told the Times the rule threatened to increase pollution because local officials would have less oversight in how water supplies are protected… “Jim Murphy, senior director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation, an environmental group, told the Times the E.P.A.’s proposed action ran counter to promises by the Trump administration to prioritize clean water and grant states more power.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa House introduces bill to ban CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain
Cami Koons, 1/13/26

“A House subcommittee advanced a bill Tuesday that would prohibit carbon dioxide pipeline operators from exercising eminent domain for the purpose of building a carbon sequestration pipeline,” the Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. “…Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said the language in House Study Bill 507 is “as simple as it can get.” Holt said the bill would not stop the pipeline from being built, but would protect Iowans’ private property rights. “Economic development is of profound importance, but it does not trump fundamentally constitutional rights,” Holt said… “Jake Ketzner, speaking on behalf of Summit Carbon Solutions, said HSB 507 would “kill” the project and take away Iowa’s ability to compete in new and emerging markets for low carbon ethanol. Ketzner said the company instead supports a bill that widens the pipeline corridor beyond the route in its state permit to allow the pipeline to find a route without having to cross through unwilling landowner’s property… “While not yet filed, Klimesh has said his bill, rather than banning eminent domain, would allow pipeline operators to deviate from their approved routes to instead find passage with willing landowners… “Landowners who testified in favor of the bill said Summit could still build its pipeline if the bill were enacted, but it would protect them from eminent domain. Earlier in the day, landowners opposed to the pipeline project gathered in the Iowa State Capitol Rotunda to kick off their fifth year lobbying against the project… “Landowners, wearing their signature red attire, joined in a prayer led by Rockwell City pastor Dillon Brandt. He prayed lawmakers would “seek what is best for the people, the land and future generations.” Peg Rasmussen, a Montgomery County landowner impacted by the second proposed phase of Summit’s project, came to the Capitol Tuesday to begin her second year lobbying against the pipeline… “Rasmussen told the Dispatch Holt’s bill was a “simple clean bill.” “…Rasmussen told the Dispatch landowners, about 80 of whom were in attendance Tuesday, have asked some of the senators who have been previously on their side to submit an eminent domain ban — like HSB 507 — in the Senate.”

Des Moines Register: Iowa House GOP proposes banning eminent domain for carbon pipelines
Brianne Pfannenstiel, 1/14/26

“House Republicans have proposed banning the use of eminent domain for the construction of carbon capture pipelines, staking out an aggressive early position on an issue that has become one of the most divisive currently facing Republican leaders at the Capitol,” the Des Moines Register reports. “House Study Bill 507 takes a straightforward approach, trimming out the language that Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds objected to when she vetoed similar legislation last year. House Study Bill 507 takes a straightforward approach, trimming out the language that Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds objected to when she vetoed similar legislation last year. “This year, the language is as simple as it can get: No eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in Iowa,” said Rep. Steve Holt, R-Denison, who introduced the bill. Holt led a subcommittee that advanced the proposal Tuesday, Jan. 13, and it is on the agenda for discussion by the full Judiciary Committee on Jan. 14. Landowners and farmers gathered in the building’s rotunda earlier in the day to pray and lobby legislators on the issue. Chris Hayek, a 67-year-old Fort Dodge resident whose property is in the proposed path of the pipeline, was among those urging lawmakers to support Holt’s legislation. She told the Register the issue has weighed on her since 2021 when she first got notice that she would be affected, and she’s spent the last several years being more active at the Capitol. She told the Register she’s ready for legislators to finally take action.” “…Iowa farmers cannot afford, literally, to be cut out of the most exciting emerging demand for corn, ultra-low carbon ethanol markets,” Iowa Renewable Fuels Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a statement. “This bill would essentially ban CO2 projects in Iowa while our neighboring states are moving forward.” But Holt was unmoved. “I will continue to support ethanol. I will continue to support the corn growers. And I will continue to support agriculture,” he said. “But they do not trump the constitutional rights of the good men and women sitting in this room.”

Des Moines Register: See Iowa landowners lobby their representatives about eminent domain
Cody Scanlan, 1/13/26

“Jim, Joe and Janice Smuck of Hardin County wait to speak with their state representative about the use of eminent domain on private property for carbon pipelines on Jan. 13, 2026, at the Iowa State Capitol,” the Des Moines Register reports. “Sen. Tom Shipley speaks with his constituents as they lobby against the use of eminent domain on private property for carbon pipelines on Jan. 13, 2026, at the Iowa State Capitol… “Iowa landowners head to speak with their legislators about the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines on Jan. 13, 2026, at the Iowa State Capitol.”

KGAN: Debate continues over eminent domain laws as carbon pipeline plan lingers
1/13/26

“The Iowa House Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday advanced the legislation that would ban using eminent domain for carbon capture projects,” KGAN reports. “…Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or Iowa Constitution does it say eminent domain may be used for economic development,” said Dan Tronchetti, a Greene County farmer. “It is only to be used for public use. The carbon oxide pipeline is not for public use.” “There are hundreds of billions of dollars of oil in Wyoming and over a trillion in North Dakota that will never be recovered without our carbon product,” said Brittany Lumley, a spokesperson for Summit Carbon Solutions. “Truly this pipeline will eventually become a intracule part of this nation’s security strategy — giving more access to oil which is essential to everybody’s every-day life.”

Cedar Rapids Gazette: Iowa House lawmakers consider bill prohibiting use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines
Maya Marchel Hoff, 1/13/26

“Companies constructing carbon sequestration pipelines would not be able to use eminent domain to acquire land for their projects under legislation being considered by Iowa lawmakers — the first piece of legislation in what’s expected to be a prominent topic during the 2026 session,” the Cedar Rapids Gazette reports. “…During his address to lawmakers on the first day of session, House Speaker Pat Grassley said Republicans’ approach will be a “narrowly tailored” focus on eminent domain, but he did not lay out a specific proposal… “House Study Bill 507’s sponsor, Rep. Steve Holt, R-Denison, said the Iowa State Constitution only allows the use of eminent domain for public use, arguing that a project proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions does not fit that definition… “Landowners in red shirts — the color adopted by the group to represent landowner rights — crowded a committee room at the Iowa Capitol to express support for the legislation. Ahead of the subcommittee, the group gathered in the Iowa Capitol’s second-floor rotunda to say a prayer before lobbying their lawmakers. During the subcommittee, Dan Tronchetti, a Greene County farmer, argued that the bill would be the best way to ensure Iowa landowners are shielded from pipeline companies acquiring their land. “This is a simple constitutional question,” Tronchetti said. “Nowhere does it say eminent domain can be used for economic development. A carbon dioxide pipeline is not for public use; it is to transport waste product.” “…The bill could be heard in front of the full Iowa House Judiciary Committee as early as Wednesday, according to Holt.”

KIMT: Eminent domain debate reignites in Iowa with new pipeline bill
Natalie Reittinger, 1/13/26

“Property rights and eminent domain are under discussion again in the wake of a new legislative proposal concerning pipeline projects,” KIMT reports. “…The current proposal, listed as House Study Bill 507, aims to prevent the use of eminent domain for acquiring right-of-way for constructing or operating pipelines primarily meant for transporting carbon dioxide… “Sherry Webb, a farmer from Shelby County, expressed support for the bill. “Our farm is in Shelby County. We appreciate all the work you’ve done on this, thank you very much representatives. House Study Bill 507 is a fair and reasonable bill. It gives the pipeline the ability to find a route, and landowners a right, which they deserve, to say no,” Webb said… “Jake Ketzner of Summit Carbon Solutions stated, “We support widening the corridor to allow for route adjustments to make this possible and significantly reduce any deeper eminent domain. However, in certain cases, like how you exit an ethanol plant, crossing rivers or roads, there might be only one option for the route, which is why this bill doesn’t work. Unfortunately, this bill would eliminate new and emergent low carbon markets for Iowa ethanol like sustainable aviation fuels.” The House Judiciary Subcommittee has voted to advance the bill to the full committee.”

Bloomberg: North Carolina Mountain Valley Pipeline Approval Draws Challenge
Taylor Mills, 1/13/26

“Environmental groups challenged North Carolina’s approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC extension in federal appeals court Tuesday,” Bloomberg reports. “Appalachian Voices,Sierra Club, and 7 Directions of Service petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the state’s Clean Water Act certification for MVP Southgate construction through several streams and riparian wetlands. The groups petitioned the Fourth Circuit on the same day the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would reverse a Biden administration rule that allowed states and tribes to veto oil and gas projects under the CWA’s Section 401 state certification rule.”

MyCentralJersey.com: NJ issues another permit for controversial natural gas pipeline
Mike Deak, 1/14/25

“The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued an air quality permit for the controversial Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) natural gas pipeline and compressor station,” MyCentralJersey.com reports. “The $1 billion project, proposed by Williams Transco, would transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to the New York City area through an underground pipeline that cuts through Hunterdon, Somerset and Middlesex counties to Raritan Bay where a submarine pipeline will take the gas to Long Island… “Environmental groups are calling the DEP’s decision “disappointing” and “flies in the face of science, public opposition, and the DEP’s own 2020 determination that the project failed to meet New Jersey’s environmental standards.” The DEP’s permit focuses on the compressor station on Route 518 near the Franklin and South Brunswick border. The New Jersey Sierra Club has vowed to continue its court fight against the project. “Today’s decision granting Williams Transco its air permit for NESE fails to keep New Jersey communities safe by locking us into dirty natural gas infrastructure for decades to come. Communities surrounding the compressor station and along the pipeline route will experience increased air pollution from these air toxics,” New Jersey Sierra Club Conservation Program Manager Taylor McFarland told MyCentralJersey.com. “On top of this, residential communities surrounding the compressor station will face a risk of explosions and gas leakage that will endanger human life and the surrounding environment.”

WDBJ: Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate application for Virginia Water Protection permit approved
Leslie Johnson, 1/13/26

“Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate’s application for a Virginia Water Protection permit was approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Tuesday, January 13, according to Mountain Valley Pipeline Spokesperson Shawn Day,” WDBJ reports. “We appreciate the Virginia DEQ’s comprehensive review of the amended MVP Southgate project and its approval of the Virginia Water Protection permit for this critical energy infrastructure project. As the DEQ noted, Mountain Valley’s permitted work will continue to be protective of waterbodies and wetlands and comply with all state water quality requirements.” “…Residents have voiced their concerns regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate Project.”

Toronto Star: B.C. First Nations remain opposed to pipeline after meeting with Mark Carney
Alex Ballingall, 1/13/26

“Coastal First Nations in British Columbia remain staunchly opposed to a major new oil pipeline to their territory after meeting Tuesday with Prime Minister Mark Carney, highlighting a key hurdle to the proposal that Alberta is trumpeting for fast-tracked federal approval,” the Toronto Star reports. “Following their meeting in Prince Rupert, Haida Nation president Gaagwiis Jason Alsop said the group’s opposition is entrenched and based on its joint desire to protect the oceans and coasts where its members live. No offer of financial support could move them to endorse the project, he said. “You heard us loud and clear … It’s a ‘no,’” Gaagwiis said. “Our interest isn’t about money in this situation. It’s about the responsibility of looking after our territories and, again, nurturing the sustainable economies that we currently have here.” Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations group that includes the Haida, Gitxaala, Heiltsuk and other nations, also urged Carney to preserve the existing ban on heavy oil tanker traffic in the waters off the province’s north coast. “It would take just one spill to destroy our way of life,” Slett said. Moments later, Slett added that the local First Nations have long opposed major oil projects, including the defunct Northern Gateway pipeline proposal through northern B.C… “We have talked about using every tool in the tool box, you know, whether it’s legal, whether it’s … other tools,” Slett said, when asked about what the First Nations might do to prevent construction if Ottawa greenlights Alberta’s pipeline proposal… “Some Indigenous groups, like the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, have backed the province’s proposal for the pipeline.”

100 Mile Free Press: Clinton’s High Bar First Nation signs agreements with Enbridge
Patrick Davies, 1/13/26

“West Coast Energy Inc. (Enbridge) signed two agreements with the High Bar First Nation (HBFN) regarding the Sunrise Expansion Program,” 100 Mile Free Press reports. “The HBFN put out a release on Jan. 6, 2026, announcing the signing of two agreements with Enbridge, including a Relationship Agreement (RA) and a Project Benefits Agreement (PBA). Both were signed on Nov. 27, 2025 within the traditional territory of the Llenllenéy’ten, the traditional name for the HBFN. “These agreements reflect a shared commitment to strengthening collaboration, enhancing communication, and ensuring that HBFN rights, culture, and community priorities remain central to future planning,” the HBFN stated in its release. The RA signed by the HBFN lays out a “clear and respectful framework” for the HBFN and Enbridge to share information and conduct consultation regarding Enbridge’s proposed projects and ongoing operations in the region. The HBFN also said the agreement lays out opportunities for community investment, training, environmental stewardship, and business development that will benefit their community.”

Bloomberg: JPMorgan, Citi in Talks to Finance $1 Billion Argentina Pipeline
Jonathan Gilbert, David Feliba, and Priscila Azevedo Rocha, 1/13/26

“A group of banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. are in talks to lend natural gas producers in Argentina roughly $1 billion to build a cross-country pipeline, according to two people familiar with the matter,” Bloomberg reports. “…Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale patch is growing fast as President Javier Milei’s free-market reforms have opened up the energy industry to global credit, unleashing investments. The $2 billion loan for the oil pipeline was the biggest project financing in Argentina’s history, according to JPMorgan. Southern Energy is now aiming to unlock the Vaca Muerta’s gas potential with Argentina’s first floating liquefaction terminal for natural gas. The pipeline would transport natural gas from Vaca Muerta to the terminal on the Atlantic coast. Argentina holds the world’s second-biggest resources of shale gas, and its daily production averaged the equivalent of about 550,000 barrels last year… “To start, the vessels will be sent gas from southern Argentina, requiring only small add-ons to an existing pipeline network. But to service them fully, Southern Energy needs to build an exclusive pipeline from the Vaca Muerta, which the banks would finance.”

WASHINGTON UPDATES

E&E News: Permitting, NEPA, Venezuelan oil: Republicans’ reconciliation plan
Andres Picon, 1/14/26

“House Republicans officially kicked off their pursuit of a second budget reconciliation bill this Congress, unveiling a policy framework Tuesday that is loaded with energy and environment provisions,” E&E News reports. “…Under the heading ‘Energy Independence and Economic Security for All Americans,’ the RSC included multiple proposals to ease permitting-related obstacles for energy and infrastructure projects… “One provision in the RSC blueprint would establish a program to ‘provide economic protection’ against future administrations canceling approved permits, licenses and investments for fossil fuel projects. The framework does not mention renewables or energy sources with broad bipartisan support, such as nuclear and geothermal… “Republicans added a proposal to ‘dramatically reduce’ the Bureau of Land Management permitting requirements for certain minerals projects. Another proposal would require the development of a rule to establish a new permit for oil, gas and liquid natural gas exports.”

Inside Climate News: After Losing a Climate Case in a Louisiana Courtroom, Chevron Wants a Change of Venue
Lee Hedgepeth, 1/12/26

“…In April 2025, after an 18-day trial, the group of south Louisianans awarded two coastal parish governments $744.6 million in damages, finding that Chevron had contributed to the decline of the state’s shoreline and wetlands,” Inside Climate News reports. “In the face of that landmark ruling, Chevron and oil companies facing similar suits fought back. On Monday, eight of the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices heard the companies’ appeal. Lawyers representing Chevron, Texaco and Exxon Mobil argued that the case should be litigated in federal, not state, court… “Because of the federal government’s outsized involvement in the oil market beginning in the 1940s, Clement argued, the court should require that suits over oil companies’ related actions should be heard by federal, not state, judges… ”Ben Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general, told justices that Clement’s argument before the court, focused in large part on oil companies’ actions during the World War II era, strayed far from the on-the-ground, contemporary evidence that was presented during the state court trial in Pointe à la Hache. “They do not dispute that they dumped billions of gallons of produced water from oil wells directly into our marsh,” he said of Chevron’s executives. Aguiñaga pointed the court to its own decision in Watson, a 2007 case where the body unanimously decided that Phillip Morris, a tobacco company, could not remove lawsuits against it to federal court simply because it operated under the close supervision of government regulators.”

Utility Dive: EPA final rule on NOx limits emphasizes cost savings to turbine owners
Ethan Howland, 1/13/26

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday issued a final rule on nitrogen oxide standards for new gas-fired power plants and other stationary turbines. The standards are significantly more lenient than a proposal issued in November 2024 during the Biden administration,” Utility Dive reports. “…The EPA estimated its final new source performance standards for stationary combustion turbines will cut annual NOx emissions by up to 296 tons by 2032 — significantly less than the 2,659 tons the proposed rule was estimated to cut… “NOx contributes to asthma, bronchitis, respiratory infections and premature mortality by reacting with other volatile organic compounds to form ozone and fine particulate matter, according to the EPA… “The agency expected its proposed rule would have cost $166 million in the same period, but it would have provided net benefits of up to $340 million, partly through improved public health. In a change from agency practice, the EPA declined to estimate the monetary benefits of improved public health caused by the final rule, saying those estimates are too uncertain… “Groups criticized the EPA’s decision to stop considering the health benefits of reduced pollution in its regulatory analysis… “Instead of protecting people’s health, however, these deficient new gas turbine standards make clear Trump’s EPA is only here to boost the profits of Big Tech and the fossil fuel interests that serve them,” Julie McNamara, associate policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate and Energy Program, told Utility Dive. The EPA’s failure to assess the monetary benefits from saving lives and improving people’s health by curbing fine particulate matter and ozone may be challenged in court, according to Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group.”

Reuters: US oil lobby group backs repeal of climate rule for vehicles, not power plants
Valerie Volcovici, 1/12/26

“The American Petroleum Institute supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to repeal the foundation of greenhouse gas regulations for vehicles but not for power plants and other stationary industrial facilities, its president said on Monday,” Reuters reports. “We would not support repealing the endangerment finding for stationary sources,” API President Mike Sommers told reporters, adding that the trade group believes it has “the greatest standing” from a regulatory perspective and it is clear the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from those sources. The EPA plans to finalize its proposal to repeal its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, called the endangerment finding. Such a move would remove within days the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations… “Sommers said API believes that a separate endangerment finding for stationary sources should remain in place, which would require the EPA to regulate the potent greenhouse gas called methane from the oil and gas sector. The industry supports that rule.”

E&E News: API mulls replacement for federal emissions reporting
Carlos Anchondo, 1/14/26

“The chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute said Tuesday that the oil and gas trade group is exploring a potential substitute for EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program if the agency scraps it as planned,” E&E News reports. “… In September, EPA published a proposed rule that would end mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting for the country’s largest polluters. While EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has characterized the roughly 15-year-old program as ‘nothing more than bureaucratic red tape,’ API has said it should be kept… “We need real, transparent emissions data and reporting,” Patrick Drupp, the Sierra Club’s director of climate policy, told E&E. “We should not trust the industry to police itself when they have shown time and time again that they [cannot] be trusted to be honest with the public about their climate and environmental harms.”

Gear Junkie: Interior Moves to Open All Federal Lands to Hunting and Fishing by Default
Rachelle Schrute, 1/13/26

“The U.S. Department of the Interior is preparing to issue a new directive that would make hunting and fishing the default use across most Interior-managed public lands unless specific closures are justified,” Gear Junkie reports. “The policy represents a procedural shift in how access decisions are made, placing the burden on land managers to explain why an area should be closed rather than requiring hunters and anglers to seek permission… “Under the new framework, federal lands would be considered open to hunting and fishing unless a closure is required by law, public safety concerns, or documented resource protection needs. Closures would need to be explicitly justified and approved through agency leadership, rather than implemented by default at the field level… “The Interior’s move does not eliminate conservation safeguards or override statutory closures. It does, however, flip the starting assumption.”

CBS News: Texas firm’s plan to restart oil rigs off California coast gets Trump administration support, legal pushback
Molly McCrea, 1/12/26

“Idled oil rigs off the California coast could be back up and running soon if the federal government has its way,” CBS News reports. “The Trump administration recently proposed a plan to open up the entire coast to new offshore drilling. While that plan is still in draft form, the administration is now involved in a push to restart three existing oil rigs near Santa Barbara. Houston, Texas-based Sable Offshore Corp. has been attempting to bring them back into production more than a decade after they were shut down, but has encountered environmental and legal roadblocks. “If this project is allowed to restart off of California, it will be the biggest threat to the California coast in terms of risk of oil spills but also in terms of greenhouse gas emissions,” Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, told CBS… “But there’s a problem, according to Alex Katz, Environmental Defense Center executive director. “If they were to restart today, they would be violating the court’s injunction,” Katz told CBS. “They’d be violating a number of state laws. But the important thing is that they have not made the repairs that the state told them they have to make.” “…But the company faces significant legal challenges from state and local authorities as well as environmental groups. The California Coastal Commission has issued multiple cease-and-desist orders to Sable Offshore for allegedly conducting unlawful repair work. Last year, the commission fined the oil company a record $18 million, claiming that it repeatedly defied its orders. In February 2025, the company sued the Coastal Commission, claiming the agency had unlawfully halted its repair work.”

E&E News: Trump wants data centers to pay for power. Will that lower electricity prices?
Jason Plautz, 1/14/26

“Even as he pumps up the artificial intelligence boom, President Donald Trump is also warning the tech industry that they should ‘pay their own way’ on electricity,” E&E News reports. “…In response, Microsoft on Tuesday announced what it called the Community-First AI Infrastructure Initiative. That included a pledge to pay more for the electricity that serves its data centers, including any new infrastructure needed to serve them. The company also said it would collaborate with local utilities to defray the cost to ratepayers and figure out what infrastructure is needed… “Power-hungry data centers — which could consume as much as 12 percent of the grid by 2028, according to federal estimates — are a target of consumers’ ire as they pull an increasing amount of power from the grid. As individual data centers balloon in size and can consume as much power as cities, their impact on the grid extends beyond their immediate construction and can necessitate upgrades to equipment or new generation.”

E&E News: Rigs-to-Reefs hearing sparks fight over Trump energy plans.
Scott Streater, 1/14/26

“A House hearing on a bipartisan bill promoting the use of decommissioned offshore oil rigs as artificial reefs instead devolved into a contentious partisan squabble Tuesday as lawmakers debated the merits of offshore drilling and the Trump administration’s oversight of it,” E&E News reports. “The Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing was intended to discuss H.R. 5745, the ‘Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act,’ sponsored by Rep. Mike Ezell (R-Miss.). The bill would expand the use of old offshore oil platforms as artificial reefs by streamlining a decades-old permitting process for doing so in federal waters along the five Gulf Coast states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas… “We don’t need a so-called Rigs-to-Reefs program that’s a get-out-of-decommissioning-free card for Big Oil,” she added. “We need strong safeguards to protect our federal resources and the taxpayer through polices that hold companies accountable for what they’ve already agreed to.” “…Huffman also pressed Domangue about whether BSEE has adequate staffing levels to ensure that expanding the Rigs-to-Reefs program is environmentally safe given the Trump administration’s moves in the past year to greatly reduce the federal workforce.”

STATE UPDATES

Daily Montanan: Youth appeal federal climate lawsuit to Ninth Circuit
Micah Drew, 1/13/26

“A group of young plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the federal government alleging a series of executive orders threaten their constitutional right to life by exacerbating climate change haven’t given up on their fight,” the Daily Montanan reports. “After a federal judge in Missoula dismissed the case, Lighthiser v. Trump, last fall over a lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and overturn the ruling that blocked their efforts to challenge the federal government’s plan to “unleash American energy.” “Our government has a system of checks and balances, and right now those checks have failed us,” lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser said in a statement. “These executive orders are directly harming me and my fellow plaintiffs. Every additional wildfire, smoky day, flood, puts our lives and health at risk. With this appeal, we have hope that the Ninth Circuit will uphold its constitutional duty to protect this nation’s young people.” Lighthiser v. Trump is the latest of a series of youth-led climate change lawsuits brought by Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based advocacy law firm, during the last decade. Several of the plaintiffs were also involved in the Held v. Montana case, a landmark court victory for climate activists… “In a statement to the Daily Montanan, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Trump “ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy which gave unfair and preferential treatment to certain sectors of the industry.”

E&E News: Republicans target climate lawsuits in Utah, Oklahoma
Lesley Clark, 1/14/26

“Republican lawmakers in at least two states are introducing legislation to shield oil and gas companies from lawsuits that seek compensation for the costs of climate change,” E&E News reports. “Oklahoma lawmakers have filed the Energy Security and Independence Act to “prevent the use of lawsuits that seek the imposition of unreasonable burdens on the commerce of fossil fuels.” The bill would “prohibit causes of action” against fossil fuel producers when the “highly regulated product functions as designed and intended.” In Utah, a state representative has introduced legislation that says persons will be not liable for climate change, unless a court finds they violated a law. “…These proposals are clearly part of a larger coordinated effort to strip communities and states of their right to hold Big Oil accountable for their climate lies and the enormous harms they’ve knowingly caused,” Wiles, whose group supports the climate lawsuits lodged by local governments, told E&E. “If you have not violated the law, there is no reason to seek immunity. No matter your politics, we should all agree that no corporation or industry should be above the law.”

KSBW: Central Coast communities oppose federal offshore drilling proposal
Michael Rosales, 1/12/26

“Community leaders and environmental groups in California are pushing back against a federal proposal that could bring new offshore oil and gas drilling to the California coast, raising concerns about the impact on local economies and marine life and the risk of future spills,” KSBW reports. “…Ashley Blacow-Draeger told KSBW, “When we drill, we spill. We know that oil spills contaminate fisheries, they close beaches, they kill wildlife, and they impact people who are reliant on healthy oceans.” Local leaders have highlighted the real risks associated with offshore drilling, referencing resolutions passed by cities across Monterey and Santa Cruz counties opposing such activities, and pointing to the long-term damages from the Santa Barbara oil spill. Seaside Councilmember Alex Miller told KSBW, “We want our coast to be left alone, and we want to be protected in this marine sanctuary for all the wildlife and for all the natural habitat here in the Monterey Peninsula.” “…Despite a 60-day public comment period, the federal government has not held an official hearing in California, prompting local groups like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Oceana, and Save Our Shores to take action… “Advocates argue that the proposal threatens California’s longstanding protections against offshore drilling… “Written public comments to BOEM are due Jan. 23, and organizers plan to maintain pressure until California’s coast is removed from the proposal completely.”

E&E News: New Jersey’s ‘Climate Superfund Act’ is doomed (for now)
Mona Zhang, 1/13/26

“Landmark legislation that would put fossil fuel producers on the hook for climate change got held up by the Assembly in the last days of the lame-duck session,” E&E News reports. “The bill, which was advanced by a Senate committee last week, was poised to pass on the Senate floor. But leadership is holding the bill because it didn’t make it out of committee in the Assembly — despite more than half of the chamber’s members co-sponsoring the bill. The bill known as the Climate Superfund Act would require fossil fuel extractors to contribute $50 billion to a fund that would go toward paying for climate resiliency projects. “It’s not a matter of if billions of dollars have to be expended as we pivot [to climate resiliency]. It’s a matter of who will help the taxpayer pay for it,” said bill sponsor Sen. John McKeon during a committee hearing. “This isn’t about anything being punitive to anyone other than keeping our state affordable.”

The Center Square: Legislation would give parishes control over carbon capture
Alton Wallace, 1/13/26

“Louisiana parishes would have a say in how carbon capture and sequestration projects are approved and developed in their jurisdictions under bills filed by Rep. Mike Johnson, a Republican who represents Pineville and serves as acting House Speaker in the state legislature,” The Center Square reports. “These bills are about fairness, property rights, and respect for local voices,” Johnson said in a statement. “No private company should have the power to force a family off their land, and no community should be sidelined when decisions directly affect their parish.” The regulation of carbon capture and sequestration, a combination of technologies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing carbon dioxide emitted at large industrial plants and storing it permanently deep underground, has been a contentious political issue in recent months. In October, Gov. Jeff Landry issued an executive order directing state regulators to suspend consideration of permits on new projects. No end date has been set for the moratorium. One of Johnson’s bills would prohibit the use of eminent domain, the legal power that allows the government to take private land for public or commercial use, even against the owner’s will, for use in carbon capture and sequestration. Another bill creates a statewide local option that allows parish authorities or voters to decide if carbon capture and storage projects are allowed in their communities… “In November, the nonprofit group Save My Louisiana filed a lawsuit in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish challenging the constitutionality of state laws granting eminent domain for private carbon capture and sequestration projects.”

KLFY: State Treasurer John Fleming discusses carbon capture, state budget surplus
Trevor Sonnier, 1/13/26

“State treasurer and U.S. Senate candidate John Fleming discussed an important topic for Southwest Louisiana, carbon capture,” KLFY reports. “…State Treasurer John Fleming is opposed to carbon capture, the process of removing carbon dioxide from the industrial process and storing it deep underground in wells. He argues it’s potentially dangerous if the carbon does not remain contained and leaks. “It can come in contact with our water supply or aquifers, and if it touches it, it taints it.” Fleming told KLFY. He told KLFY it costs the taxpayers money through federal subsidies. “So why should the American taxpayer, in the case of Carbon capture and sequestration, have to pay these 45Q tax credits to wealthy companies.” added Fleming. Fleming told KLFY carbon capture takes away the property rights of Louisiana citizens. “It also allows foreign and domestic companies, private companies, through eminent domain to take control of their land.” Fleming told KLFY. He told KLFY the average person does not benefit from it. “Who benefits from this? Politicians benefit, the wealthy Oil & Gas companies that have gotten into this.” “…Fleming is one of several candidates who will face incumbent Bill Cassidy in the republican primary for the U.S. senate.”

ecoRI: Lobbyists’ Opposition to Climate Legislation Has Profound Effect, Brown University Report Finds
Rob Smith, 1/12/26

“It’s not a secret that climate legislation has been sparse over the past five years,” ecoRI reports. “Despite starting off the decade strong with the Act on Climate law in 2021, and the 100% Renewable Energy Standard in 2022, no additional legislation responding to or tackling the climate crisis has emerged from the General Assembly in the years since. The General Assembly has failed to pass legislation creating decarbonization programs, expanding public transit, or creating a clean heat standard, among other climate-friendly bills backed by local environmental groups. Some of those groups even held a mock funeral last year to lodge their protest against climate inaction. The reason for the slowdown? Aggressive opposition to climate legislation from Rhode Island’s main utility company and business interests, according to a new report from Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab (CDL). The report is part of a larger project by CDL to understand state-level lobbying and political influence across different state legislatures in the United States. Rhode Island Energy, now owned by the Pennsylvania-based PPL Corporation, is identified as a major opponent to climate legislation introduced in the General Assembly. Between 2018 and 2024, according to the report, the company opposed 42 different pieces of legislation backed by the Environmental Council of Rhode Island and Climate Action Rhode Island. It’s also one of the biggest spenders on lobbyists in the Statehouse. In 2024 Rhode Island Energy spent $139,000 on lobbyist compensation, for a total of $466,500 since 2018, according to the report… “Substantial lobbying spending can translate into gaining access to key people in the legislature throughout the legislative session, as shown by Rhode Island Energy hiring the head of the top state agency, the Office of Energy Research (OER),” according to the report. “That top official was frequently the signer of written testimony from the utility in opposition to top ECRI (Environment Council RI) and CARI (Climate Action RI) priority bills.”

Louisiana Illuminator: Grassroots monitoring, helping neighbors track industrial pollution, is under threat in Louisiana.
Illan Ireland, Mississippi Free Press, 1/13/26

“…Cynthia Robertson and her mom live in Sulphur, a city of 22,000 due west of Lake Charles with more than a dozen industrial facilities surrounding it. The area has been a petrochemical hub for almost a century, attracting manufacturers like Citgo and Sasol that release carcinogenic chemicals as part of their operations,” the Louisiana Illuminator reports. “…In 2018, Robertson founded Micah 6:8 Mission, a community and environmental nonprofit based out of her home in Sulphur. Three years later, she began tracking pollution in the area using PurpleAir monitors, a commercial air sensor priced at around $300 that measures concentrations of airborne particles like soot. By sharing the monitoring data on Facebook each morning using a color-coded system, she offered residents some clues about the state of the air and helped them plan their days accordingly. She also tried to fill a void in the local air quality metrics issued by state regulators, which are not required to test for pollution in communities bordering industrial sites… “Robertson’s activities in Sulphur coincided with government efforts to strengthen air monitoring near industrial sites… “Separately, the administration poured tens of millions of dollars into grassroots air monitoring projects in places like Cancer Alley, the industrial corridor along the Mississippi River in Louisiana with some of the nation’s highest cancer rates… “Grassroots air monitoring data has yet to spur any LDEQ investigations in Louisiana, and the state has passed legislation limiting what communities can do with their pollution measurements. At the same time, the Trump administration has delayed Biden-era rules for dozens of chemical plants required to track carcinogens around their boundaries. These setbacks have been dispiriting for Roberston, who insists that LDEQ’s air quality metrics for Southwest Louisiana do not reflect the lived experiences of its residents. “If you live in the area, you know that there’s a problem,” she told the Illuminator. “It’s just that the powers that be refuse to acknowledge that there’s a problem.”

EXTRACTION

New York Times: U.S. Emissions Jumped in 2025 as Coal Power Rebounded
Brad Plumer, 1/13/26

“America’s greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2.4 percent in 2025 after two years of decline amid a resurgence of coal power, according to estimates published Tuesday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm,” the New York Times reports. “The researchers identified two main reasons for the uptick. U.S. electricity demand grew at an unusually fast pace, driven in part by an expansion of power-hungry data centers for artificial intelligence. To meet that demand, electric utilities burned about 13 percent more coal last year than they did in 2024. At the same time, colder winter temperatures led many buildings and homes to burn more natural gas and fuel oil for heating last year. The jump in emissions came as President Trump returned to office and moved to dismantle policies to tackle climate change while promoting fossil fuels. But the researchers said Mr. Trump’s policies would take time to have an effect and they mostly weren’t responsible for last year’s rise in emissions. “We don’t see a large emissions impact in 2025 from the Trump administration’s actions, although we obviously expect those to have an increasing impact as we go forward,” Michael Gaffney, a research analyst at the Rhodium Group, told the Times. “The main story here was partly weather and partly a growing power sector that’s burning more coal.” “…For much of 2000s and 2010s, America’s overall electricity use stayed roughly flat. But in recent years, demand for power has started surging amid a boom in data centers, an upswing of domestic manufacturing and the spread of electric vehicles… “To keep up with demand, electric utilities turned to a fuel that had fallen out of favor: coal. For two decades, America’s electric utilities have been switching away from coal, the most polluting of fossil fuels, in favor of cleaner and often cheaper gas, wind and solar power.”

Reuters: Exxon Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery preparing to run Venezuelan oil, sources say
Erwin Seba, 1/14/26

“Exxon Mobil is preparing to run Venezuelan crude oil at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery, people familiar with plant operations said,” Reuters reports. “The 522,500 barrel-per-day Baton Rouge refinery previously ran Venezuelan heavy sour crude, but has not since sanctions were imposed on Venezuela, the sources told Reuters.”

Reuters: Venezuela security, policy reform needed for US oil industry to move in, API chief says
Valerie Volcovici and Sheila Dang, 1/12/26

“Workforce security and policy reform including contract sanctity are among the prerequisites that have to be in place in Venezuela for the U.S. oil industry to move in, American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said on Monday during a telephone conference with journalists,” Reuters reports. “He said the move to remove Nicolas Maduro from power earlier this month had been welcomed by the U.S. oil industry, adding that energy assets in the country were large enough to attract significant interest… “The API is confident that the administration of President Donald Trump understands how important those concerns are, Sommers said. On Sunday, Trump said that he might keep Exxon Mobil out of Venezuela after the oil major’s CEO called the country “uninvestable” during a White House meeting last week… “Sommers said on Monday that he didn’t believe any financial incentives were needed to get U.S. companies to return. “It works best when markets provide the signal as to where people should develop and what resource should be developed.”

Reuters: Canadian oil tycoon proposes aiding US in Venezuela’s oil revival
Amanda Stephenson, 1/13/26

“A Canadian tycoon who heads one of North America’s fastest-growing oil companies is advocating for his country to lend its heavy oil expertise to the United States as it seeks to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry,” Reuters reports. “Adam Waterous, the executive chair of Strathcona Resources, told Reuters Canada’s decades of experience extracting oil sands crude make it uniquely qualified to assist in Venezuela, which produces a similar heavy oil, even though some in Canada worry Venezuela could compete with Canada’s oil sector. “We are better positioned than any country in the world, by far, to help rebuild,” Waterous told Reuters. “I would expect, but I don’t know, that an offer of assistance would probably be welcome.” “…Waterous — who attended Harvard University and has U.S. links through former President George W. Bush’s son-in-law Henry Hager, who serves as Strathcona’s managing director — told Reuters he would quickly assemble a technical team from his company to go to Venezuela if asked… “Strathcona, Canada’s fifth-largest oil producer, is not looking to invest in Venezuela, Waterous told Reuters. But helping to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry is an opportunity for Canada to help the United States at a time when Trump’s trade policy has strained relations between the two countries, he told Reuters.”

EuroNews: Why boosting production of Venezuela’s ‘very dense, very sloppy’ oil could harm the environment
1/12/26

“Even a modest increase in Venezuelan oil production could carry climate consequences on the scale of entire countries, experts warn,” according to EuroNews. “Environmental experts are warning that the US push to revamp and boost Venezuela’s vast oil reserves could worsen decades of ecological damage. It could also increase planet-warming pollution in a country already struggling with the legacy of a long-declining petroleum industry… “It produces heavy crude that emits significantly more pollution than most other forms of oil. That’s because it takes more energy to extract and refine, which often involves burning natural gas, mostly methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that heats the planet. Reviving Venezuela’s oil industry would deepen environmental damage in a country already plagued by spills, gas leaks and dilapidated infrastructure, with higher output expected to boost climate emissions and increase spill risks in fragile ecosystems, several experts warned. The Venezuelan Political Ecology Observatory, an environmental watchdog, documented nearly 200 oil spills from 2016 to 2021 that were largely unreported by authorities… “In a statement shared with news agency AP, the US Department of Energy said US oil and gas companies that would revamp Venezuela’s oil industry had “the highest environmental standards”… “Even a modest increase in Venezuelan oil production could carry climate consequences on the scale of entire countries, Mahdavi, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, told EuroNews. Mahdavi says raising output by about 1 million barrels a day – a level often cited as a near-term goal – would add roughly 360 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from production. Pushing production further, to around 1.5 million barrels a day, could drive annual emissions to about 550 million tons, he says – comparable to the emissions from roughly half of all gasoline-powered vehicles in the United States. “That’s just the production side,” says Mahdavi, noting that far larger emissions are generated when the oil is eventually burned by consumers.”

The Narwhal: Can Canada capture enough carbon to make a difference?
Will Pearson, 1/14/26

“Alberta can have another pipeline to the West Coast — at least theoretically — but only if the oil and gas industry puts carbon capture systems in place to ensure the bitumen that flows through it is “low-emission,” according to The Narwhal. “…According to the terms of Smith and Carney’s memorandum of understanding, the federal government’s support for Alberta’s new pipeline is contingent on the success of a massive carbon capture project being pitched by the Pathways Alliance, a coalition of Canada’s major oilsands companies… “The cost to build carbon capture, utilization and storage facilities typically runs into the billions of dollars. Then, there are operational expenses. A 2025 analysis found Alberta’s two major carbon capture and storage facilities each cost tens of millions of dollars per year to operate. Alberta’s oilsands companies — which collectively posted more than $29.1 billion in profits in 2024 — find those costs too high. The Pathways Alliance has stated on its website that its carbon capture plan “will require ongoing collaboration” with governments, including “making significant investments together.” “…In Carney and Smith’s memorandum of understanding, both the federal and Alberta governments committed to extending their respective incentive programs to support the Pathways project, which means a significant portion of the megaproject’s $16-billion price tag is likely to be publicly funded. That agreement also included a provision that tax credits for carbon capture extend to projects for enhanced oil recovery — which was previously excluded, as the Trudeau government responded to critics pointing out that extracting more oil results in more carbon emissions not just during production, but when the fossil fuel is eventually used by consumers… “It’s important for an oil refinery to reduce its own emissions, but carbon capture projects don’t address the emissions produced by the car that eventually burns the fuel produced by that refinery. This is a big deal, because most of the carbon footprint associated with a barrel of oil — 70 to 80 per cent, according to one estimate — comes from the oil product’s end use… “That’s why carbon capture and storage isn’t a silver bullet in the fight against climate change.”

Gas to Power Journal: Coastal Bend LNG to capture carbon from onsite power plant
1/14/26

“Nick Flores, CEO of the Coastal Bend LNG project, has highlighted the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a ‘central feature’ of the company’s proposed liquefaction terminal in Texas,” Gas to Power Journal reports. “CO2 emissions from the onsite power plant will be captured, moved by pipeline for sequestration and long-term underground storage.”

Canadian Energy Centre: Rare brand-new oil sands project starts operating in Alberta
1/13/26

“For the first time in nearly eight years, a brand-new oil sands project is operating in Alberta,” according to the Canadian Energy Centre. “It’s a rare development even as oil sands production continues to set new records. That’s because Blackrod, located about 3.5 hours north of Edmonton, isn’t an expansion or optimization of an existing project. It’s a new facility built on a site that previously had no large-scale oil sands operations. The 30,000-barrel-per-day steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) project will be “transformational” for Vancouver-based International Petroleum Corporation (IPC), said CEO William Lundin… “The same could be said of the broader oil sands, a 1.8-trillion-barrel resource base where most growth over the past decade has come from optimizing existing projects, according to S&P Global. Nearly all future growth will come from optimizations too, analysts said in S&P Global’s latest oil sands outlook.”

Waterline Stories: It was a federal lease – how officials downplayed a massive oil spill
1/13/26

“In 1969, an offshore oil platform near Santa Barbara suffered a blowout that should never have been possible under existing safety rules,” Waterline Stories reports. Federal regulators had allowed critical casing requirements to be waived, leaving the well vulnerable to uncontrolled pressure beneath the seabed. When the blowout occurred, officials initially claimed everything was under control while millions of gallons of oil spread through the channel. Crude poured from cracks in the ocean floor, blackening beaches, killing wildlife, and devastating the local economy. The disaster exposed how regulatory shortcuts and political pressure turned a pristine coastline into a sacrifice zone.”

OPINION

Alaska Landmine: Alaska’s natural gas pipeline is a long, long-shot
Born in Fairbanks, Joe Paskvan served in the State Senate from 2009-2013, 1/13/26

“Alaskans have been begging, since Alaska’s oil pipeline was completed in the 1970’s, for a gasline project. Long-time Alaskans remember the bumper sticker: “Please God Grant Us One More Pipeline, We Promise To Not Piss It Away This Time.” Alaska’s gasline project, Alaska LNG, would sell liquified natural gas (LNG) to Asian markets. But is the gasline more likely now than nearly 50 years ago?,” Joe Paskvan writes for the Alaska Landmine. “Canada has a competitor project called LNG Canada Development. Kitimat, B.C., its export terminal, lies in Western British Columbia, just south from Ketchikan, Alaska… “The withdrawal of ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips from Alaska LNG manifests core concerns as to the project’s profitability and/or market viability. Additionally, Alaska cannot ignore that Exxon, BP and Conoco have significant investment in LNG resources in the Permian Basin in Texas. Those oil heavy hitters likely do not want Alaska LNG to compete with their Texas LNG investments, including LNG export capacity from Texas to the world… “Alaska LNG has not received binding, signed commercial deals with Japan, South Korea, or Asian markets… “Total Alaska LNG project costs are not known. Potential buyers do not sign long term contracts, requiring them to buy fixed quantities from a pipeline, without knowing costs… “Conclusion: Alaska’s gas line is a looong, long-shot.”

The Hill: What US oil CEOs know about Venezuela that Trump doesn’t
Merrill Matthews is the Texas state chair or Our Republican Legacy, 1/13/26

“Heading into the home stretch of what looks like a challenging midterm election, President Trump is pressuring U.S. oil companies to rush into Venezuela and ratchet up the pumping in an effort to lower the price of oil — and therefore the price of gasoline. But reports indicate that oil-company CEOs aren’t that interested. That’s because their top priority is their companies’ economic survival, not Trump’s political survival,” Merrill Matthews writes for The Hill. “…He wants Venezuela cranking up oil production quickly to increase the global supply in the hope of lowering the price, which might also help lower the inflation rate. Trump has stated publicly he’d like to see crude oil at $50 a barrel. The problem is that price is well below the break-even point for most U.S. oil companies… “The political problem is that Trump left President Nicolas Maduro’s vice president and the “colectivos” — armed, pro-government militant groups that are perpetuating political oppression — in power, which means Venezuela is a very dangerous place. The federal government is even urging U.S. citizens to leave Venezuela immediately. No responsible CEO would start deploying a large workforce into such a tinderbox… “Trump’s sales pitch amounts to “spend more, make less.” That’s why ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told reporters that significant commercial and legal changes would have to be made before Venezuela would be “investible.” “…Even though Trump claims the companies want to invest $100 billion in Venezuela, no one believes that. In short, he wants oil companies to lose money so he can win an election.”