Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ – Good News for Canadian Energy and Great News for WCSB Natural Gas

Todayville

Published

4 weeks ago

11 minute read

By Maureen McCall

April 2 was ‘Liberation Day’ according to U.S. President Donald Trump. While the announcement of U.S. reciprocal tariffs was not good news for many countries, Trump’s announcement also had some good news for Canadian Energy companies – 0% tariffs. Some tariffs against Canada are still in place, but for now, no energy sector tariffs against Canada underscores the importance of Canadian energy to the Trump administration.

President Trump announced new tariffs on April 2nd, which he dubbed “Liberation Day” with a 10% baseline tariff for all U.S. trading partners, to go into effect on April 5th. He also announced more reciprocal tariffs against the “worst offenders,” which will go into effect on April 9th but no tariffs on Canadian energy were announced.

Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs Announcement

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith celebrated the win which she says is precisely what she has been advocating for from the U.S. Administration for months.

“The United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian Federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. Administration. It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including 0% tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and a host of other Canadian goods.”

This is great news for Canadian energy producers, especially natural gas producers who are experiencing dramatic growth in the Montney.

At this year’s S&P Global CERAWeek, Mike Verney, Executive Vice-President of petroleum reserves with McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. had great news for Canadian companies.

McDaniel’s study, commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), reported data indicating that Alberta has proven natural gas reserves of 130 trillion cubic feet (TCF), compared to previous provincial estimates of only 24 TCF. According to the study, if probable gas reserves are added in, the overall figure is 144 TCF.

As reported in the Financial Post, Verney said “We’re growing like mad in the Montney. The major natural gas plays in the U.S. are actually declining versus the Montney that is actually growing.”

This message was echoed by Michael Rose, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tourmaline Oil, Canada’s largest natural gas producer during his keynote address at the SPE Canadian Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition last month in Calgary.

Not a Sunset Industry

*Michael Rose – Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tourmaline Oil*

Rose opened his keynote speech with optimism saying: “This is not a sunset industry- it is closer to sunrise than sunset” and spoke about Canada’s compelling opportunity for natural gas production as well as Tourmaline’s successes.

Reuters reports that analysts are wondering about the U.S.’s ability to meet the demand growth of booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects and also to meet huge domestic demand for natural gas-fired electricity generation to supply new data centre growth. Canada’s resources in Alberta’s Deep Basin and the North East BC Montney will be a huge supply source.

Deep Basin and the Montney are where the most competitive gas plays are found, and where Tourmaline operates as well as producing oil in the Peace River Triassic Lake.

Rose credits technology development and the building and ownership of midstream infrastructures as keys to affordability and profitability for Canadian companies which can control costs by controlling more of the production cycle. In addition, AI optimization has helped the company increase production. He also pointed out the environmental advantage of natural gas production. Since society needs the energy density of hydrocarbons to power industries, natural gas is the best choice as it is “the cleanest member of the fossil fuel stack.” He quoted Arjun Murti– 30 year Wall Street research analyst, buy-side investor, and advisor covering the global energy sector now with Veriten.com who asserts that there is no real energy transition and the only thing humans have actually transitioned off in the energy world is whale oil.

Rose said that 2022 statistics indicated the world set a record for all sources of energy. He pointed out that coal was supposed to replace wood 200 years ago, and it still hasn’t while wood, which has been renamed as biomass is still 7% of the overall energy stack.

The Golden Age of Gas

Rose’s natural gas outlook to 2028 in Canada was rosy saying gas “never looked better.” Beyond 2028 also looks good with a proliferation of electricity generation planned to feed data centre growth. In Alberta alone, 15 projects are in queue which will create a material increase in demand. In the U.S. however, some large U.S. natural gas supply basins have reached a tipping point with only 50% estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) left. Rose reported that drilling inventory is an issue in the U.S. but not in Canada. For example, Tourmaline has over 20 years of Tier 1 drilling inventory left while its U.S. peers don’t have the same luxury. He noted that U.S. M&A is currently driven by a quest for inventory. He noted that U.S. companies will chase profitable acquisitions in a quest for inventory to lower future costs saying “Things are still cheap in Canada.”

Canadian Resources – Will we ever be an energy superpower?

With global exploration down sharply, focus has turned to the WCSB where in the case of the Montney, only 5% has been produced so far.

“All you hear about is the western Canadian sedimentary basin and it is a monster, and it is the gift that keeps on giving, but we’re actually blessed with multiple other opportunities. Like the U.S., a number of them are off limits for government policy reasons, but certainly changes are in order.”

Some of the undeveloped basins in Canada which Rose referred to as “forbidden basins” are located on the West Coast and in the lowlands in Quebec. The tariff issue may be changing attitudes towards oil and gas development in those areas. Dealing with an unsupportive Federal Government for the last decade has made capital attraction difficult. Routine talk about phasing out Oil and Gas and the series of regulations, bills and initiatives that have stalled basin development and new pipelines have taken its toll. It has discouraged capital from flowing into the sector – a period that Rose said “ felt like an endless hurricane.”

So what is the right path forward?

The challenge for industry and policymakers is finding the right balance between energy and the environment according to Rose. He advises that setting unrealistic goals and timelines that are not based in science/technology or economics won’t work, and notes a shift away from the time frame set by net zero.

“We look at the whole environment, air, land and water, and we develop plans to improve performance in all three. We have a group of young engineers working on what amounts to an embedded clean tech business within our company, and I think they’re having a lot of fun doing it.”

One of Tourmaline’s longest initiatives, is the conversion of drilling rigs from diesel to natural gas, using field gas for fuel. The result is that projects have an improved economic return as well as reduced emissions. Rose says this year, Tourmaline will cross a “200 million barrier” and will have displaced 200 million litres of diesel and save $200 million including the makeup gas used. He says they like to think of it as a drill bit to burn initiative.

Mike Rose still had an optimistic view of the path forward for energy companies that is certainly more relevant after yesterday’s “Liberation Day” announcement from Trump.

“We’ve missed 10 years of opportunities,” Rose said. “It would have made us so much stronger than we are today as an industry and a country. Still, late is better than never. The only thing I’ll say about tariffs is that they are just another curve ball. We’ve had nothing but curve balls for 10 years, and we’ll figure out how to hit this one too. Given how integrated both countries’ energy systems are and will continue to be, I think a great narrative that just might appeal is: ‘Let’s make North America the world’s preeminent energy and oil and gas superpower’.”

Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.

Related Topics:#EnergyNow.CA feature MaureenMcCall TrumpTariffsCanadianEnergy TrumpTariffsLiberationDay TrumpTariffsNaturalGas

Up Next

‘Time To Make The Patient Better’: JD Vance Says ‘Big Transition’ Coming To American Economic Policy

Don't Miss

B.C. Credit Downgrade Signals Deepening Fiscal Trouble

Todayville

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

Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border

International / 1 hour ago

Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech

Energy / 1 hour ago

European Outage Shows Weakness Of ‘Renewable’ Energy

Business

Federal government’s accounting change reduces transparency and accountability

Published on May 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.

The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).

According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.

First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.

Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.

Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.

Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

Carney poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history

Published on May 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

The Liberals won the federal election partly due to the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to Carney’s fiscal plan, he doesn’t think Justin Trudeau was spending and borrowing enough.

To recap, the Trudeau government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1 trillion in debt, recorded the six highest spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023, and last fall projected large deficits (and $400 billion in additional debt) over the next four years including a $42.2 billion deficit this fiscal year.

By contrast, under Carney’s plan, this year’s deficit will increase to a projected $62.4 billion while the combined deficits over the subsequent three years will be $67.7 billion higher than under Trudeau’s plan.

Consequently, the federal debt, and debt interest costs, will rise sharply. Under Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3 billion in 2028/29 compared to $68.7 billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. More taxpayer dollars will be diverted away from programs and services and towards servicing the debt.

Clearly, Carney plans to be a bigger spender than Justin Trudeau—who was the biggest spender in Canadian history.

On the campaign trail, Carney was creative in attempting to sell this as a responsible fiscal plan. For example, he split operating and capital spending into two separate budgets. According to his plan’s projections, the Carney government will balance the operating budget—which includes bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers (e.g. health-care funding) and benefits (e.g. Old Age Security)—by 2028/29, while borrowing huge sums to substantially increase capital spending, defined by Carney as anything that builds an asset. This is sleight-of-hand budgeting. Tell the audience to look somewhere—in this case, the operating budget—so it ignores what’s happening in the capital budget.

It’s also far from certain Carney will actually balance the operating budget. He’s banking on finding a mysterious $28.0 billion in savings from “increased government productivity.” His plan to use artificial intelligence and amalgamate service delivery will not magically deliver these savings. He’s already said no to cutting the bureaucracy or reducing any cash transfers to the provinces or individuals. With such a large chunk of spending exempt from review, it’s very difficult to see how meaningful cost savings will materialize.

And there’s no plan to pay for Carney’s spending explosion. Due to rising deficits and debt, the bill will come due later and younger generations of Canadians will bear this burden through higher taxes and/or fewer services.

Finally, there’s an obvious parallel between Carney and Trudeau on the inventive language used to justify more spending. According to Carney, his plan is not increasing spending but rather “investing” in the economy. Thus his campaign slogan “Spend less, invest more.” This wording is eerily similar to the 2015 and 2019 Trudeau election platforms, which claimed all new spending measures were merely “investments” that would increase economic growth. Regardless of the phrasing, Carney’s spending increases will produce the same results as under Trudeau—federal finances will continue to deteriorate without any improvement in economic growth. Canadian living standards (measured by per-person GDP) are lower today than they were seven years ago despite a massive increase in federal “investment” during the Trudeau years. Yet Carney, not content to double down on this failed approach, plans to accelerate it.

The numbers don’t lie; Carney’s fiscal plan includes more spending and borrowing than Trudeau’s plan. This will be a fiscal and economic disaster with Canadians paying the price.