Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

Energy East May be the Nation Building Mega-Project Canada Needs Right Now

Published

9 minute read

From EnergyNow.Ca

By Jim Warren

Is it Time to Put Politics Aside for Team Canada? – Jim Warren

People on the prairies who understand the value of a flourishing oil and gas sector are hopeful the election of a Conservative government will sweep away the barriers that blocked the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. Some optimistic industry analysts suggest a project similar to Northern Gateway may be doable but concede that reviving Energy East would probably be a bridge too far.

It is getting difficult to recount exactly how many times Quebec’s demands for special treatment have disrupted national unity. Quebec’s rejection of Energy East was the most recent assault on national cohesion to anger large numbers of people on the prairies. It amounted to sticking a finger in the eye of the oil-producing provinces. And while the Poilievre Conservatives are set to win the next election, their victory won’t signal a big change in attitudes about the environment in Quebec.

Politicians from Quebec argue over which of their parties can claim it hates pipelines the most. Bloc Québécois leader, Yves-François Blanchet brags about the prominent role his party played in killing Energy East. His boasting actually drew the ire of Quebec Liberals and environmental groups in 2019. They claimed the Bloc was taking credit for their work. The 338Canada website, has the anti-oil Bloc Québécois winning 45 of the 78 federal seats in Quebec in the upcoming federal election.

Provincially, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government is marginally more reasonable to deal with. It claims to stand for Quebec’s national autonomy as opposed to outright separation. Quebec premier, François Legault, says the west would do well to behave more like politicians from his province when dealing with Ottawa. He makes a good point.

Revisiting just how eminently reasonable the original Energy East proposal actually was suggests many Quebec politicians are immune to common sense. If the Energy East proposal wasn’t acceptable to the overly zealous activists who influence environmental policy in the province, why would we expect a different response in the near future?

There are, however, coercive options that might work. Premiers from Alberta and Saskatchewan have proposed withholding a portion of Quebec’s annual equalization payment in response to its lack of cooperation on building a pipeline to tidewater on the Atlantic coast. Unfortunately that option would require a constitutional amendment, and those have proven to be extremely difficult to engineer.

Alternatively, prairie governments might encourage Enbridge to shut down its Line 9 pipeline which has the capacity to transport up to 300 barrels per day (bpd) of western oil to Montreal. That sort of move would require getting industry players on side–including Enbridge and Suncor, who owns a 137,000 bpd capacity refinery in Montreal. It is encouraging to recall that Peter Lougheed faced little in the way of industry opposition in the 1970s when he cut oil shipments to Central Canada by 10%.

Quebec’s past behavior pretty much guarantees the province would threaten separation if confronted with the loss of its equalization welfare ($14 billion for fiscal 2023-24). They might be less concerned about getting a pipeline from the west turned off—they seem to prefer tanker ships over pipelines.

Many westerners are weary of Quebec’s separation blackmail. Some of those who have run out of patience say, “next time they threaten to go, just tell them not to let the door hit them on the ass on their way out.”

The cancellation of the Energy East pipeline was viewed on the prairies as rejection of a project that would generate greater national harmony. It was seen as a nation building exercise of benefit to Quebecers, people from the Maritimes, Ontario and Western Canada. Westerners mistakenly assumed even environmentally sanctimonious Quebecers would recognize the benefits of obtaining more of their oil from pipelines rather than via marginally risky railways and ocean going tankers.

Following the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, people from western Canada’s oil patch naively assumed approval of Energy East was a no brainer. The disaster killed 47 people and destroyed downtown Lac- Mégantic. It was caused by the derailment and explosion of a train hauling oil tanker cars. It seemed reasonable to imagine Quebecers would happily purchase safer, less expensive Canadian oil transported by pipeline.

Energy East would have been the longest pipeline in North America. It was to run from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. The plan was to convert 2,900 miles of existing natural gas pipeline into an oil pipeline, build 1,900 miles of new pipeline and make a $300 million upgrade to an Irving oil terminal in New Brunswick.  It was a visionary project reminiscent of the building of the transcontinental railway and the original TransCanada pipeline.

The pipeline would be capable of transporting 1.1 million bpd. No more than 400,000 bpd would be required to replace the foreign oil being imported by tanker and rail. The remaining 600,000 barrels could be exported to new international customers for Canadian oil. The value of those new export revenues would conceivably approach $15 billion annually.

It is worth remembering the influential role Quebec Liberals played in opposing Energy East. Montreal’s Mayor Denis Coderre, was a former Liberal cabinet minister who led the Montreal Municipal Community (MMC) a coalition of 82 Montreal area municipal governments. As much as anything, the MMC’s strident opposition to Energy Easy in January of 2016 foretold TransCanada’s October 2017 cancellation of the pipeline.

Inspiration for cancelling the pipeline was provided by Quebec’s robust environmental lobby—led by activists like Steven Guilbeault. Polls conducted at the time showed the Quebec politicians who opposed Energy East had the support of 60% or more of the public. The pipeline was similarly denounced by premier Philippe Couillard and Quebec’s Liberal government at the time. While the southwest corner of B.C. has typically been thought of as the home of Canada’s Greens, in Quebec the Liberals are the party preferred by environmental activists.

Liberals in Ottawa remained officially neutral during the Energy East controversy but were unofficially cheering for the pipeline’s cancellation from the sidelines.

One of the biggest challenges to confront an effort to revive the project would be finding willing investors. TransCanada walked away financially bruised and who wants to be similarly burnt? And, the Trans Mountain example casts a dark shadow on the idea of a government-owned line.

Trying to convince Quebecers, especially young adults, about the value of new oil pipelines seems like a fool’s errand. Given that only 50% of 16-20 year-olds in Quebec have a driver’s license, it could prove difficult convincing them about the importance of petroleum to Canada’s transportation system and economic health.

No less discouraging is the fact that Quebec’s environmental movement remains dedicated to killing the petroleum and natural gas industries on behalf of combatting climate change.

Yet, oddly enough there have been surprising signals coming out of Quebec in recent years suggesting regular Quebecers don’t share the same level of anti-oil and anti-pipeline enthusiasm as their province’s politicians and environmentalists. Perhaps this is something worth looking into before giving up entirely on the idea of a pipeline to Atlantic tidewater.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years

Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.

Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.

Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.

“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.

Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.

“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.

BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.

The long-term picture looks different south of the border.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.

Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.

This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.

The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.

According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates  purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .

BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.

“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Canada’s New Green Deal

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Nuclear power a key piece of Western Canadian energy transition

Just reading the headlines, Canadians can be forgiven for thinking last week’s historic agreement between Alberta and Ottawa was all about oil and pipelines, and all about Alberta.

It’s much bigger than that.

The memorandum of understanding signed between Canada and Alberta is an ambitious Western Canadian industrial, energy and decarbonization strategy all in one.

The strategy aims to decarbonize the oil and gas sectors through large-scale carbon capture and storage, industrial carbon pricing, methane abatement, industrial electrification, and nuclear power.

It would also provide Canadian “cloud sovereignty” through AI computing power, and would tie B.C. and Saskatchewan into the Alberta dynamo with beefed up power transmission interties.

A new nuclear keystone

Energy Alberta’s Peace River Nuclear Power Project could be a keystone to the strategy.

The MOU sets January 1, 2027 as the date for a new nuclear energy strategy to provide nuclear power “to an interconnected market” by 2050.

Scott Henuset, CEO for Energy Alberta, was pleased to see the nuclear energy strategy included in the MOU.

“We, two years ago, went out on a limb and said we’re going to do this, really believing that this was the path forward, and now we’re seeing everyone coming along that this is the path forward for power in Canada,” he said.

The company proposes to build a four-unit, 4,800-megawatt Candu Monark power plant in Peace River, Alberta. That’s equivalent to four Site C dams worth of power.

The project this year entered a joint review by the Impact Assessment Agency and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

If approved, and all goes to schedule, the first 1,000-MW unit could begin producing power in 2035.

Indigenous consultation and experienced leadership

“I think that having this strategy broadly points to a cleaner energy future, while at the same time recognizing that oil still is going to be a fundamental driver of economies for decades to come,” said Ian Anderson, the former CEO of Trans Mountain Corporation who now serves as an advisor to Energy Alberta.

Energy Alberta is engaged with 37 First Nations and Metis groups in Alberta on the project. Anderson was brought on board to help with indigenous consultation.

While working on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Anderson spent a decade working with more than 60 First Nations in B.C. and Alberta to negotiate impact benefit agreements.

In addition to indigenous consultations, Anderson is also helping out with government relations, and has met with B.C. Energy Minister Adrian Dix, BC Hydro chairman Glen Clark and the head of Powerex to discuss the potential for B.C. beef up interties between the two provinces.

“I’ve done a lot of political work in B.C. over the decade, so it’s a natural place for me to assist,” Anderson said. “Hopefully it doesn’t get distracted by the pipeline debate. They’re two separate agendas and objectives.”

Powering the grid and the neighbours

B.C. is facing a looming shortage of industrial power, to the point where it now plans to ration it.

“We see our project as a backbone to support renewables, support industrial growth, support data centres as well as support larger interties to B.C. which will also strengthen the Canadian grid as a whole,” Henuset said.

Despite all the new power generation B.C. has built and plans to build, industrial demand is expected to far exceed supply. One of the drivers of that future demand is requests for power for AI data centres.

The B.C. government recently announced Bill 31 — the Energy Statutes Amendment Act – which will prioritize mines and LNG plants for industrial power.

Other energy intensive industries, like bitcoin mining, AI data centres and green hydrogen will either be explicitly excluded or put on a power connection wait list.

Beefed up grid connections with Alberta – something that has been discussed for decades – could provide B.C. with a new source of zero-emission power from Alberta, though it might have to loosen its long-standing anti-nuclear power stance.

Energy Minister Adrian Dix was asked in the Legislature this week if B.C. is open to accessing a nuclear-powered grid, and his answer was deflective.

“The member will know that we have been working with Alberta on making improvements to the intertie,” Dix answered. “Alberta has made commitments since 2007 to improve those connections. It has not done so.

“We are fully engaged with the province of Alberta on that question. He’ll also know that we are, under the Clean Electricity Act, not pursuing nuclear opportunities in B.C. and will not be in the future.”

The B.C. NDP government seems to be telling Alberta, “not only do we not want Alberta’s dirty oil, we don’t want any of its clean electricity either.”

Interconnected markets

Meanwhile, BC Hydro’s second quarter report confirms it is still a net importer of electricity, said Barry Penner, chairman of the Energy Futures Initiative.

“We have been buying nuclear power from the United States,” he said. “California has one operating power plant and there’s other nuclear power plants around the western half of the United States.”

In a recent blog post, Penner notes: “BC Hydro had to import power even as 7,291 megawatts of requested electrical service was left waiting in our province.”

If the NDP government wants B.C. to participate in an ambitious Western Canadian energy transition project, it might have to drop its holier-than-thou attitude towards Alberta, oil and nuclear power.

“We’re looking at our project as an Alberta project that has potential to support Western Canada as a whole,” Henuset said.

“We see our project as a backbone to support renewables, support industrial growth, support data centres, as well as support larger interties to B.C., which will also strengthen the Canadian grid as a whole.”

The investment challenge

The strategy that Alberta and Ottawa have laid out is ambitious, and will require tens of billions in investment.

“The question in the market is how much improvement in the regulatory prospects do we need to see in order for capital to be committed to the projects,” Anderson said.

The federal government will need to play a role in derisking the project, as it has done with the new Darlington nuclear project, with financing from the Canada Growth Fund and Canadian Infrastructure Bank.

“There will be avenues of federal support that will help derisk the project for private equity investors, as well as for banks,” Henuset said.

One selling point for the environmental crowd is that a combination of carbon capture and nuclear power could facilitate a blue and green hydrogen industry.

But to really sell this plan to the climate concerned, what is needed is a full assessment of the potential GHG reductions that may accrue from things like nuclear power, CCS, industrial carbon pricing and all of the other measures for decarbonization.

Fortunately, the MOU also scraps greenwashing laws that prevent those sorts of calculations from being done.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X