Canada’s oilpatch shows strength amid global oil shakeup

Todayville

Published

4 weeks ago

7 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

Global oil markets are stumbling under too much supply and too little demand but Canada’s energy sector is managing to hold its own

Oil prices are sliding under the weight of global oversupply and weakening demand, but Canada’s oilpatch is holding steady—perhaps even thriving—as others flounder.

Crude is piling up in tankers, major producers are flooding the system, and demand is fading fast. According to a Windward report cited by Oilprice.com, the amount of oil held in floating storage—tankers sitting offshore waiting for buyers —has hit record highs. Sanctions on Russian and Iranian crude have sidelined entire fleets. Meanwhile, Middle East cargoes continue to pour in, keeping global supply bloated.

Gunvor CEO Torbjorn Tornqvist called the scale “unprecedented,” warning the market would be flooded overnight if sanctions against Russian and Iran were lifted.

And there’s more coming. U.S. crude production has hit a new record of 13.8 million barrels per day in August. And China’s Changqing oilfield just surpassed 20 million tonnes in cumulative output, and national totals have topped 400 million tonnes of oil equivalent this year. More barrels. More pressure. Less price support.

At the same time, demand is slipping. U.S. gasoline use is down. Global shipping activity has slowed. JPMorgan just trimmed its 2025 oil demand forecast by 300,000 barrels per day. China’s manufacturing sector shrank for the seventh month in a row.
Japan’s purchasing index dropped to an 18-month low. And recession fears are back in the headlines.

OPEC+ tried to calm the chaos by announcing a modest increase in output this December, with a pause on future hikes. But the move didn’t move markets. Then Saudi Arabia cut its selling prices to Asia, a clear signal that the kingdom sees weak demand ahead.

In short, it’s messy out there. But not everywhere.

Amid this global downturn, Canada’s energy sector stands out for one rare quality: resilience. While other producers are scaling back or scrambling to adapt, Canada’s oilpatch is quietly outperforming.

A recent CBC News report highlighted the sector’s staying power and why it’s better positioned than its U.S. counterparts. “The companies that have survived here are the companies that have been able to adapt,” said Patrick O’Rourke, managing director at ATB Capital Markets. “It’s effectively Darwinism.”

It’s also smart design. Canada’s oilsands—primarily in Alberta—are expensive to build but cheap to run. Once the upfront costs are covered, producers can keep pumping for decades with relatively low reinvestment. That means even in a
downturn, output stays strong.

Dane Gregoris of Enverus says Canada’s conventional sector is holding up better than the U.S. shale patch. Why? Canadian oil producers operate more efficiently, with fewer legal and logistical barriers tied to land access and ownership than their U.S. shale counterparts. They also benefit from lower operating costs and are less dependent on relentless drilling just to maintain output.

And now, they finally have a way to get more oil out.

The long-delayed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is finally complete. It delivers Alberta crude to B.C.’s tidewater and, from there, to Asian markets. That access, once a significant limitation for Canadian producers, is now a strategic advantage. It’s already helping offset lower global prices.

Canada’s energy sector also benefits from long-life assets, slow decline rates and political stability. We have a reputation for responsible regulation, but that same system can slow development and limit how quickly we respond to shifting global demand. We can offer a stable, secure supply but only if infrastructure and regulatory hurdles don’t block access to it.

And for Canadians, that matters. Oil prices don’t just fuel industry headlines; they shape provincial and national budgets, drive investment and underpin jobs across the country. Most producers around the world are bracing for pain but Canada may be bracing for opportunity to expand its presence in Asian markets, secure long-term export contracts and position itself as a reliable supplier in a turbulent global landscape.

None of this means Canada is immune. If demand collapses or sanctions lift, prices could sink further. But in a volatile global landscape, Canada isn’t scrambling—it’s competing.

While others slash forecasts, shut wells or hope for an OPEC rescue, Canada’s energy producers are doing something rare in today’s oil market: holding the line.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Up Next

Wealthy tourists allegedly paid money to ‘massacre’ civilians in Bosnia during the 1990s

Don't Miss

P.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation

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

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Crime / 5 hours ago

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

COVID-19 / 6 hours ago

Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Alberta

The case for expanding Canada’s energy exports

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

For Canada, the path to a stronger economy — and stronger global influence — runs through energy.

That’s the view of David Detomasi, a professor at the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University.

Detomasi, author of Profits and Power: Navigating the Politics and Geopolitics of Oil, argues that there is a moral case for developing Canada’s energy, both for Canadians and the world.

David Detomasi. Photo courtesy Smith School of Business, Queen’s University

CEC: What does being an energy superpower mean to you?

DD: It means Canada is strong enough to affect the system as a whole by its choices.

There is something really valuable about Canada’s — and Alberta’s — way of producing carbon energy that goes beyond just the monetary rewards.

CEC: You talk about the moral case for developing Canada’s energy. What do you mean?

DD: I think the default assumption in public rhetoric is that the environmental movement is the only voice speaking for the moral betterment of the world. That needs to be challenged.

That public rhetoric is that the act of cultivating a powerful, effective economic engine is somehow wrong or bad, and that efforts to create wealth are somehow morally tainted.

I think that’s dead wrong. Economic growth is morally good, and we should foster it.

Economic growth generates money, and you can’t do anything you want to do in social expenditures without that engine.

Economic growth is critical to doing all the other things we want to do as Canadians, like having a publicly funded health care system or providing transfer payments to less well-off provinces.

Over the last 10 years, many people in Canada came to equate moral leadership with getting off of oil and gas as quickly as possible. I think that is a mistake, and far too narrow.

Instead, I think moral leadership means you play that game, you play it well, and you do it in our interest, in the Canadian way.

We need a solid base of economic prosperity in this country first, and then we can help others.

CEC: Why is it important to expand Canada’s energy trade?

DD: Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation, because we’ve got a lot of geography and not that many people.

If we don’t trade what we have with the outside world, we aren’t going to be able to develop economically, because we don’t have the internal size and capacity.

Historically, most of that trade has been with the United States. Geography and history mean it will always be our primary trade partner.

But the United States clearly can be an unreliable partner. Free and open trade matters more to Canada than it does to the U.S. Indeed, a big chunk of the American people is skeptical of participating in a global trading system.

As the United States perhaps withdraws from the international trading and investment system, there’s room for Canada to reinforce it in places where we can use our resource advantages to build new, stronger relationships.

One of these is Europe, which still imports a lot of gas. We can also build positive relationships with the enormous emerging markets of China and India, both of whom want and will need enormous supplies of energy for many decades.

I would like to be able to offer partners the alternative option of buying Canadian energy so that they are less reliant on, say, Iranian or Russian energy.

Canada can also maybe eventually help the two billion people in the world currently without energy access.

CEC: What benefits could Canadians gain by becoming an energy superpower?

DD: The first and primary responsibility of our federal government is to look after Canada. At the end of the day, the goal is to improve Canada’s welfare and enhance its sovereignty.

More carbon energy development helps Canada. We have massive debt, an investment crisis and productivity problems that we’ve been talking about forever. Economic and job growth are weak.

Solving these will require profitable and productive industries. We don’t have so many economic strengths in this country that we can voluntarily ignore or constrain one of our biggest industries.

The economic benefits pay for things that make you stronger as a country.

They make you more resilient on the social welfare front and make increasing defence expenditures, which we sorely need, more affordable. It allows us to manage the debt that we’re running up, and supports deals for Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

CEC: Are there specific projects that you advocate for to make Canada an energy superpower?

DD: Canada’s energy needs egress, and getting it out to places other than the United States. That means more transport and port facilities to Canada’s coasts.

We also need domestic energy transport networks. People don’t know this, but a big chunk of Ontario’s oil supply runs through Michigan, posing a latent security risk to Ontario’s energy security.

We need to change the perception that pipelines are evil. There’s a spiderweb of them across the globe, and more are being built.

Building pipelines here, with Canadian technology and know-how, builds our competitiveness and enhances our sovereignty.

Economic growth enhances sovereignty and provides the resources to do other things. We should applaud and encourage it, and the carbon energy sector can lead the way.