Summary of Toby Mack: Unblocking needed infrastructure | Tom Nelson Pod #109

00:00:00 - 00:40:00

Toby Mack, in an interview with Tom Nelson Pod, emphasizes the need for reform in the permitting process for building and maintaining energy infrastructure like pipelines and power systems. He notes that anti-fossil fuel environmentalists delay projects until the threshold of economical feasibility collapses and the government has recognized the need to reform the permitting system to shorten review times. However, the most critical reform is judicial reform to limit challenges and lawsuits against permits issued for projects. The discussion also touches on the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, the myths surrounding natural gas and pipeline safety, the issue of climate denial, and the need to unblock infrastructure in the Appalachian Basin to facilitate the doubling or tripling of the US's liquefied natural gas exports. Lastly, Mack highlights the issue of energy poverty that affects two billion people worldwide and argues that the world needs to supply as much clean energy, like natural gas, as possible for human flourishing, health and safety.

• 00:00:00 In this section, Toby Mack discusses the importance of building and maintaining energy infrastructure, including pipelines and power transmission systems, to ensure that reliable power generation is possible amid the rapidly increasing demand for electricity. However, building new capacity requires a complex and lengthy permitting process that is increasingly challenged by opposition to fossil fuel-generated energy. Permitting reform is being debated in the context of the debt ceiling debate, but the changes proposed do not address the core of the problem. NEPA reviews, which take an average of four and a half years to complete, are a primary level of review for major projects that have an impact on the environment and require permits at the federal level.
• 00:05:00 In this section, it is discussed how anti-fossil fuel environmentalists purposefully attempt to delay projects until the threshold of economical feasibility collapses in an effort to prevent more fossil fuel energy from entering the nation's Energy Systems. The permitting system is used to stretch review process timelines as far as they can because the longer they can hold off on construction, the more it costs the developer. It is said that the longer the project inception is delayed, the more likely it is that it will become uneconomic, leading companies to cancel the project and further adding to the disincentive for companies to propose new projects.
• 00:10:00 In this section, Toby Mack discusses the current status of pipeline projects in the US, which are on hold due to complex permitting processes. The government has recognized the need to reform the permitting system to shorten review times, create mandates for time limits, and coordinate among federal agencies to avoid process delays. However, Toby notes that the most critical reform needed for infrastructure development is judicial reform to limit challenges and lawsuits against permits issued for projects. Although the debt ceiling bill includes a few reforms, the judicial reform is not included, and so the fight for reform will continue in the future.
• 00:15:00 In this section, the discussion centers around the challenges facing pipeline projects and the need for reform in the permitting process. While recent legislation aimed to improve permitting, there are still issues that need to be addressed, such as legal challenges and blocked permits, which limit new projects from being developed. These challenges are largely due to opposition from groups concerned about the use of fossil fuels and climate change. Appalachian producers are particularly affected by these issues, as there is a lack of pipeline take-away capacity, preventing them from increasing production beyond current levels. Despite the obstacles, reform is seen as the biggest opportunity for change and could pave the way for future projects.
• 00:20:00 In this section, Tom Nelson Pod shares an excerpt of an interview with Toby Mack on the topic of infrastructure and energy policy. They discuss how major environmental organizations such as Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Food and Water Watch, are blocking the needed infrastructure, and how Republican politicians are allies for the fossil fuel industry. The interview mentions that the opposition was not as organized during the Obama administration, and that if a Republican is elected in 2024, the fossil fuel industry is likely to see a reversal in the trend and a start for the building of more pipelines.
• 00:25:00 In this section, Tom Nelson discusses with his guest, Toby Mack, the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and the current state of energy transport in the US. They discuss how the pipeline's cancellation led to more crude oil being carried by railcar, which is less safe, less efficient and more costly. It is revealed that shipping over land or LNG is not a viable alternative, as crude oil carried by railcar is less safe and far more costly. Toby stresses that pipelines are much more efficient and emit less carbon, especially when compared with the emissions produced by locomotives hauling crude oil by railcar. Finally, Berkshire Hathaway's stake in pipelines is discussed and it is revealed the company is "moving something like about 20 percent of the natural gas that's moving through pipelines in this country."
• 00:30:00 In this section, Tom Nelson speaks to Toby Mack about some of the myths surrounding natural gas and pipeline safety and the propaganda of raising money through instilling fear into the general public. Toby mentions the issue surrounding the Pennsylvania crisis where some people saw methane coming out of their faucets, which was really ambient methane in the ground which can leach into the water wells. He also states that natural gas pipelines have an exemplary safety record, and the opposition tends to exploit an incident to instill fear. Toby goes on to talk about the natural gas situation in Europe, where they looked like they were going to run out of natural gas, but by the end of the winter, they had plenty, and this issue was pushed by anti-fossil fuel advocacy groups who were in the business of raising money. Toby emphasizes that an enormous amount of export capacity could be added if the LNG terminals could be built, but some of these projects are having trouble gaining financing due to the reluctance in financial institutions looking out in the future and saying that we may not need all this LNG export capacity.
• 00:35:00 In this section, Toby Mack discusses the need to unblock infrastructure in the Appalachian Basin in order to facilitate the doubling or tripling of the US's LNG exports, which could have a significant impact on global markets. He explains that while the LNG facilities that are operational or under construction currently receive their gas from intrastate sources, in the future, they will need to get gas from the Appalachian Basin. However, building pipelines in the region is challenging due to permit issues. The conversation also touches on the potential of nuclear power and the issue of climate denial, with Mack stating that his organization does not fund climate denial and that Exxon is unlikely to be doing so either. Lastly, Mack highlights that people in the industry do not believe that the products they are working on will make weather worse, but will enable human beings to thrive, including those in energy poverty.
• 00:40:00 In this section, Toby Mack highlights the issue of energy poverty, where two billion people in the world are cooking indoors with coal, dung and wood, which creates indoor pollution leading to the deaths of 3.5 million children each year. He argues that if people genuinely care about human flourishing, health and safety, and the ability of others to enjoy basic comforts, then the world needs to supply those people with as much clean energy, such as natural gas, as possible. Additionally, he mentions that opponents to fossil fuel consumption do not acknowledge that it is almost impossible for the US alone to have a significant impact on global emissions, as China and India emit almost half of the global emission profile.