Robert Murray, founder of a US coal company, met Donald Trump this month, and told him the US should lift the ban on exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). He said Mr Trump was “agreeable with the idea”, but then asked: “What is LNG?”
The presumptive presidential candidate for the Republicans, Mr Trump followed up last Thursday in North Dakota, heartland of the US shale oil boom, with a speech that similarly blended ignorance and contradiction.
Every president from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama has touted “energy independence” as an ideal, and Mr Trump pledged that: “We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel, or any nation hostile to our interest”. It was not clear whether the 539,000 barrels per day supplied by Mexico in February would be blocked by Mr Trump’s proposed wall.
“A Trump administration will focus on real environmental challenges,” Mr Trump went on to say. He did not specify what they are, as he demands withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement, and the repeal of air and water quality legislation.
“We’re going to bring back the coal industry … I love those people,” he added. At the same time, he promised to lift restrictions on hydraulic fracturing and drilling on federal lands, which would involve a further surge of US gas production. The slump in US coal mining is not because of Mr Obama’s restrictions on coal power, which have not even come into force yet, but the wave of cheap natural gas which has washed over the country.
That contradiction lay behind Mr Murray’s request for unfettered LNG exports, which would raise US gas prices and make coal more viable, although probably only slightly. But US LNG exports will be hampered more by low global prices than by the slow pace of project approvals.
For a businessman, Mr Trump’s policies show an odd disdain for the free market, in keeping with his protectionist line on Chinese trade.
His idea of approving the Keystone pipeline in return for a share of the profits would be tarred as socialism if Mr Obama proposed it.
If taken literally, sound bites intended to appeal to miners, drillers, energy bosses, factory workers, protectionists and national security hawks alike naturally lead to a policy morass.
Would a president Trump want oil, gas and coal prices to be higher or lower? Would access to the American energy market be restricted to “non-hostile” nations, whoever they are? While bashing Opec, would he cosy up to Vladimir Putin and so encourage Russian oil and gas exports or favour the Gulf countries – also Opec members – as he promised in his speech?
Of course, pointing out the unworkability of Donald Trump’s musings, in energy as in other areas, is not likely to sway his supporters. Although Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton might not like LNG, at least they know what it is. But some proclaimed Democratic energy positions are also absurd.
Mrs Clinton promoted shale gas abroad during her tenure as secretary of state, at least partly to reduce European allies’ dependence on Russia. But at a recent debate with rival candidate Bernie Sanders, she promised that: “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue.”
Mr Sanders topped that by saying: “No, I do not support fracking”, a sure recipe for soaring bills, energy crisis, higher greenhouse gas emissions as the US returns to coal – and a rescue for the miners Mr Trump loves so much.
Although Mr Obama has, largely passively, overseen a domestic energy boom, Mr Trump’s rhetoric sounds superficially more appealing to US fossil fuel producers than his Democratic challengers’. But for energy companies, environmentalists and oil-exporting countries alike, a Trump presidency promises chaos and confusion.
Robin Mills is CEO of Qamar Energy, and author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis.
business@thenational.ae
Follow The National's Business section on Twitter
