Eby should put up, shut up, or pay up

Dan McTeague

Published

2 months ago

less than 1 minute read

Despite the state of our economy and the ongoing threat of U.S. tariffs, NDP BC Premier David Eby says he will not support a new pipeline from Alberta.

Has he not learned from the Trans Mountain pipeline fiasco, which has cost taxpayers close to $50 billion because of the antics of the BC NDP government?

Dan McTeague says Eby should either put up, shut up, or pay up.

Related Topics:#BCPremierDavidEby #CanadiansForAffordableEnergy #DanMcTeague BCCostsCanadiansBillions

Up Next

US Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report

Don't Miss

The True Cost of Mark Carney’s Ineffective Green Energy Sinkhole

An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions. Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.

Follow Author

Canada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire

Uncategorized / 2 days ago

Mortgaging Canada’s energy future — the hidden costs of the Carney-Smith pipeline deal

Dan McTeague / 2 weeks ago

Will this deal actually build a pipeline in Canada?

Alberta

Ottawa-Alberta agreement may produce oligopoly in the oilsands

Published on December 24, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The federal and Alberta governments recently jointly released the details of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which lays the groundwork for potentially significant energy infrastructure including an oil pipeline from Alberta to the west coast that would provide access to Asia and other international markets. While an improvement on the status quo, the MOU’s ambiguity risks creating an oligopoly.

An oligopoly is basically a monopoly but with multiple firms instead of a single firm. It’s a market with limited competition where a few firms dominate the entire market, and it’s something economists and policymakers worry about because it results in higher prices, less innovation, lower investment and/or less quality. Indeed, the federal government has an entire agency charged with worrying about limits to competition.

There are a number of aspects of the MOU where it’s not sufficiently clear what Ottawa and Alberta are agreeing to, so it’s easy to envision a situation where a few large firms come to dominate the oilsands.

Consider the clear connection in the MOU between the development and progress of Pathways, which is a large-scale carbon capture project, and the development of a bitumen pipeline to the west coast. The MOU explicitly links increased production of both oil and gas (“while simultaneously reaching carbon neutrality”) with projects such as Pathways. Currently, Pathways involves five of Canada’s largest oilsands producers: Canadian Natural, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips Canada, Imperial and Suncor.

What’s not clear is whether only these firms, or perhaps companies linked with Pathways in the future, will have access to the new pipeline. Similarly, only the firms with access to the new west coast pipeline would have access to the new proposed deep-water port, allowing access to Asian markets and likely higher prices for exports. Ottawa went so far as to open the door to “appropriate adjustment(s)” to the oil tanker ban (C-48), which prevents oil tankers from docking at Canadian ports on the west coast.

One of the many challenges with an oligopoly is that it prevents new entrants and entrepreneurs from challenging the existing firms with new technologies, new approaches and new techniques. This entrepreneurial process, rooted in innovation, is at the core of our economic growth and progress over time. The MOU, though not designed to do this, could prevent such startups from challenging the existing big players because they could face a litany of restrictive anti-development regulations introduced during the Trudeau era that have not been reformed or changed since the new Carney government took office.

And this is not to criticize or blame the companies involved in Pathways. They’re acting in the interests of their customers, staff, investors and local communities by finding a way to expand their production and sales. The fault lies with governments that were not sufficiently clear in the MOU on issues such as access to the new pipeline.

And it’s also worth noting that all of this is predicated on an assumption that Alberta can achieve the many conditions included in the MOU, some of which are fairly difficult. Indeed, the nature of the MOU’s conditions has already led some to suggest that it’s window dressing for the federal government to avoid outright denying a west coast pipeline and instead shift the blame for failure to the Smith government.

Assuming Alberta can clear the MOU’s various hurdles and achieve the development of a west coast pipeline, it will certainly benefit the province and the country more broadly to diversify the export markets for one of our most important export products. However, the agreement is far from ideal and could impose much larger-than-needed costs on the economy if it leads to an oligopoly. At the very least we should be aware of these risks as we progress.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Energy

‘The electric story is over’

Published on December 24, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Every episode of Power Struggle offers a different doorway into the global energy system. But every so often I speak with someone who doesn’t merely interpret the data — he dismantles the illusions around it. Energy economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji is one of those rare voices.

For anyone who follows world oil markets, Anas requires little introduction. He is one of the most widely referenced analysts in global energy economics, managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors, and a commentator whose views often diverge from the political narratives that dominate Western media. Our conversation, fast-paced and data-driven, reinforced a point I’ve been making for years: many assumptions about the energy transition are overdue for a hard reset.

And if you think the transition is unfolding as advertised, Anas has a simple message: look again.

Peak oil demand — or peak illusion?

We began with the recurring claim, made most notably by the International Energy Agency, that global oil demand is nearing a terminal peak. Anas has long challenged this analysis, but his breakdown was especially stark.

“In May 2025, they said they are revising up global oil demand… They’ve been wrong for 18 straight years. By how much? Two or three years. The total is about 350 million barrels.”

He added an even sharper example.

“In August, they revised up Mexico’s oil demand by a hundred thousand barrels a day — since 2020. With all of this, who is going to believe the IEA?”

If we are going to debate “peak oil demand,” Anas argued, we must start with accurate numbers. And reality, as he laid out, tells a very different story.

Oil demand is higher — not lower

The most striking fact he brought to the table was where global demand sits today.

“Current world demand for oil is 107 million barrels a day.”

That figure sits eight million barrels above 2019 levels, despite rapid growth in electric vehicle sales. And here is where the assumptions collide with the data.

“Right now we have about 55 million EVs… 35 million are in China. The replacement in terms of oil is only 1.3 million barrels a day. That’s it.”

EVs are increasing, yes — but the global vehicle fleet is expanding even faster, and so is mobility demand. A century’s worth of built energy systems does not pivot overnight.

Hybrids now dominate

This brought Anas to the point that may surprise the most people.

“The trend right now is very clear. We are going hybrid. Hybrid. The electric story is over.”

He emphasized that this is not ideological — it is practical. Hybrids outperform EVs on cost, convenience and grid impacts, and consumers are voting with their wallets.

“Hybrid sales have been going through the roof. And this is going to continue… The media reports EV sales all the time. But what matters is the number of EVs on the road.”

This distinction matters. Monthly sales data can create a false sense of momentum. What counts for emissions, infrastructure planning and oil displacement is the stock of vehicles actually in use.

Three ‘scams’ in EV sales reporting

Anas went further, arguing that even sales data does not always reflect real-world adoption. He described what he called three “scams” that inflate EV sales figures globally. He shared one example on air:

“There are many tens of thousands of them in parking lots that are not being sold… A manufacturer calls an official, says: I have 2,000 cars. I will sell them to you. You issue the license plates, you issue the insurance, you get all the subsidies, we split it. But the cars are still in the parking lot.”

On paper, these are “sales.” In reality, they are inventory.

The broader point is that EV market statistics need scrutiny — and policymakers who rely on headline numbers may be basing major decisions on flawed data.

Why Canada still needs another pipeline

We then turned to Canada’s current debates about pipelines and whether the country still needs more tidewater access. Anas answered without hesitation.

“I can tell you without any reservation, we do need another pipeline, another Canadian pipeline to tidewater.”

His rationale was blunt.

“Energy demand globally is increasing at a very high rate in a way that we have never seen before.”

For Canada, this is about competitiveness. Without access to global markets, Canadian oil is priced at a discount — a problem solved only by pipelines reaching the coast.

On LNG: “Canada should go at full speed”

Anas was even more emphatic when discussing natural gas.

“That’s where Canada basically should go at full speed.”

He criticized the idea of a long-term LNG surplus.

“All those ideas about a surplus in LNG… it is nonsense.”

Asian LNG demand is projected to grow sharply, and Canada’s low-emissions LNG — powered by hydro — gives the country a unique competitive advantage.

Why voices like Anas matter

What I value most about conversations like this is the grounding they give us. In energy, narratives and evidence are drifting apart. You may not agree with every assertion, but you can’t dismiss the data. Whether discussing EVs, oil demand, LNG or Canada’s infrastructure, Anas reminds us that aspirations only matter when they intersect with reality.

This episode of Power Struggle is exactly the kind of dialogue we need: sober, data-based, and challenging enough to re-examine assumptions.

You can listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. If it unsettles a few comfortable stories — that’s the point.