Connect with us

Energy

Developing Alberta’s Oil & Gas for Export Should Not Require a “Grand Bargain” or “National Interest” Status from Mark Carney

Published

11 minute read

From Energy Now

By Ron Wallace

The Carney government is not the first to grapple with serious challenges associated with Canadian energy and resource policies. However, its proposed solution is to continue to centralize regulatory powers in Ottawa with policies that represent a final repudiation of the  lessons derived from the Great Pipeline Debate of 1956.  Today, framed as a response to developing economic threats such as US trade policies, Bill C-5 (the One Canadian Economy Act) returns the process of regulatory decision-making full cycle back to the 1950s whereby the federal cabinet will deem projects to be in the national interest – decisions that could allow the federal government to over-ride its own laws. There are also questions about how Carney, previously a high-profile committed international climate advocate, intends to work with a Cabinet and Senate largely composed of members apparently committed to achieving net zero in Canada.


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


Since returning to office in 2025, the Trump administration has dramatically chosen to advance economic policies that run directly contrary to the principles of the 2016 Paris Climate Accord having signed executive orders to withdraw from the Accord on the first day of the administration.  Compare those actions with a July 2025 landmark advisory position from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).  The IJC Advisory Opinion could significantly reshape international climate laws and has been paralleled by pronouncements from the U.N., that call for a ‘Just Transition’ in Climate Policy.  Asserting the fossil fuel era to be nearing an end, UN Secretary-General Guterres said that the global economy has “passed the point of no return” on a shift to renewable energy and has implored governments to file sweeping new climate plans before November’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil.

These contradictory, if not tumultuous, events place Canada squarely on the horns of a material economic and policy dilemma:  Will the Carney minority government be able to revitalize the Canadian economy by fast-tracking major infrastructure projects and simultaneously maintain the previous governments’ legislative commitments for net zero?  Meanwhile, Premiers from Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have signed a memorandum calling for a repeal or overhaul of the Clean Electricity Regulations, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Oil and Gas Emissions Cap, the Net-Zero Vehicle Mandate and the west coast Oil Tanker Ban.

Resolving these challenges will not be an inconsiderable task. Indeed, some consider that their resolution may require a complete re-thinking of Confederation. The Carney minority government’s proposed solution to many of these challenges is Bill C-5 – an unprecedented, sweeping attempt to designate and fast-track Canadian “nation building” infrastructure projects crafted to overcome the legislative legacy inherited from the Trudeau years.  But will it work?

Following the landmark June 2025 First Ministers meeting in Saskatoon, a session that discussed the federal government’s plan to remove trade barriers and advance major projects of national interest, Ministers agreed to “work together to accelerate major projects in support of building a strong, resilient, and united Canada.”  Significantly, the Prime Minister highlighted opportunities for Canada to build new export oil pipelines to tidewater – with the provisos that those projects would originate from the private sector and be accompanied by parallel investments for carbon capture – stating somewhat controversially, and with little economic clarity, that it’s “absolutely in our interest” to de-carbonize Canada’s oil for export.  Is it really?

In response, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith welcomed this “grand bargain” with the Prime Minister as a bold trade-off: An alluring promise of rapid approvals for a new oil pipeline from Alberta to tidewater in exchange for major investments in carbon capture technologies. The Carney-Smith “grand bargain” envisions a new “decarbonized” pipeline to transport 1 million barrels per day of Alberta heavy crude oil to the west coast. Smith, using what would appear to be back-of-the-envelope calculations, reckons that this project would yield annual revenues of CAD$20 billion, revenues that she proposes to use to offset the massive estimated $16.5 billion cost of projects such as the Pathways Alliance carbon-capture project.  However, are these assumptions accurate and what are the other policy implications for Canadian energy exports and imports? The current optimism among some Premiers that Bill C-5 will accelerate regulatory progress for complex linear energy projects, such as new pipelines, should be tempered by a careful examination of Canadian regulatory history.

In 2025, 39 CEOs from a coalition of major energy companies issued an open letter to the Prime Minister that urged the federal government to prioritize energy development, as a cornerstone of economic sovereignty and resilience, and overhaul the IAA and Bill C-49 (the west coast tanker ban).  This letter followed a call by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith who had issued a detailed list of regulatory demands with the warning that failure to address them could lead to an “unprecedented national unity crisis”.  Those conditions, which include amendments to the IAA, abolishing restrictions for oil exports from the west coast of B.C. and dropping proposed Clean Electricity Regulations, reflect long-standing disagreements on energy policies between Alberta and the federal government.

Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel recently outlined conditions that his company and other investors would need from the Carney government before supporting the revival of new export pipelines proposed by provincial premiers – projects like the cancelled Northern Gateway project. Ebel foresees a need for “legal guarantees” and the removal of “various environmental policies:”

“For us to be willing to seriously consider reinvesting in a project like that, whether it’s east or west or just west, we need to see real change on numerous fronts.”

However, such “real change” would require broader federal and provincial legislative reforms that would extend beyond Bill C-5, “reforms” that would affect policies like emissions caps, carbon taxes, and environmental assessment rules, and tanker bans. As Ebel noted:

“A lot of co-ordinated federal and pan-provincial legislative and regulatory action would be required before we think investors, management teams, or customers would be able to green light such projects.”

And then there is the challenge of dealing with what Black has termed the “incomprehensible references” to carbon-neutral pipelines. Will Bill C-5 be sufficient to overcome existing Acts and legislation that embody fundamentally irreconcilable principles of governance?  McConaghy has argued that Alberta is, in fact, on a collision course with the federal Liberal government.

Will Bill C-5 reduce regulatory uncertainty for proponents and incentivise investors?  Instead, perhaps it is high-time to address long-standing problems, issues that will require hard choices, most of which probably cannot be addressed by a handful of cabinet-selected nation building projects.  In short: Canada needs to thoughtfully reconsider not just its regulatory framework but its entire climate agenda.

Recall that the Carney government has, at least initially, defined “national interest” as projects that enhance energy security, clean growth and economic competitiveness.”  This definition provides little comfort, or predictability, to project developers or investors. Albertans may wish to carefully reconsider assumptions that this unprecedented “grand bargain.” Will trading billions of dollars worth of carbon capture infrastructure result in federal pipeline approvals?  Indeed, some suggest that Alberta should unequivocally reject the concept of “decarbonized oil” as a condition of future hydrocarbon export growth and infrastructure development. Not the least of concerns are monumental hurdles presented by undetermined technical challenges and the material capital costs for the proposed facilities.  It should be recalled that estimates for this proposed $16.5 billion project indicate that it would, at best, capture less than 2% of Canada’s annual emissions.

While the Carney government clings to the previous government’s policies for net zero that encourage pension funds, banks and corporations to direct investments away from non-renewable energy, Bill C-5 now compounds uncertainty in the regulatory and investment community by providing more, not less, government as it empowers a federal cabinet to make discretionary decisions entirely veiled in cabinet secrecy.  Industry and provincial governments, justifiably concerned about the consequences and delays that surely would result from a full repeal of Bill C-69, could yet be walking into another badly implemented regulatory morass crafted by well-intentioned central planners in Ottawa.

Ron Wallace is a Calgary-based energy analyst and former Member of the National Energy Board.

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 number of inactive wells trending downward

Published on

Aspenleaf Energy vice-president of wells Ron Weber at a clean-up site near Edmonton.

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Aspenleaf Energy brings new life to historic Alberta oil field while cleaning up the past

In Alberta’s oil patch, some companies are going beyond their obligations to clean up inactive wells.

Aspenleaf Energy operates in the historic Leduc oil field, where drilling and production peaked in the 1950s.

In the last seven years, the privately-held company has spent more than $40 million on abandonment and reclamation, which it reports is significantly more than the minimum required by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

CEO Bryan Gould sees reclaiming the legacy assets as like paying down a debt.

“To me, it’s not a giant bill for us to pay to accelerate the closure and it builds our reputation with the community, which then paves the way for investment and community support for the things we need to do,” he said.

“It just makes business sense to us.”

Aspenleaf, which says it has decommissioned two-thirds of its inactive wells in the Leduc area, isn’t alone in going beyond the requirements.

Producers in Alberta exceeded the AER’s minimum closure spend in both years of available data since the program was introduced in 2022.

That year, the industry-wide closure spend requirement was set at $422 million, but producers spent more than $696 million, according to the AER.

In 2023, companies spent nearly $770 million against a requirement of $700 million.

Alberta’s number of inactive wells is trending downward. The AER’s most recent report shows about 76,000 inactive wells in the province, down from roughly 92,000 in 2021.

In the Leduc field, new development techniques will make future cleanup easier and less costly, Gould said.

That’s because horizontal drilling allows several wells, each up to seven kilometres long, to originate from the same surface site.

“Historically, Leduc would have been developed with many, many sites with single vertical wells,” Gould said.

“This is why the remediation going back is so cumbersome. If you looked at it today, all that would have been centralized in one pad.

“Going forward, the environmental footprint is dramatically reduced compared to what it was.”

During and immediately after a well abandonment for Aspenleaf Energy near Edmonton. Photos for the Canadian Energy Centre

Gould said horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing give the field better economics, extending the life of a mature asset.

“We can drill more wells, we can recover more oil and we can pay higher royalties and higher taxes to the province,” he said.

Aspenleaf has also drilled about 3,700 test holes to assess how much soil needs cleanup. The company plans a pilot project to demonstrate a method that would reduce the amount of digging and landfilling of old underground materials while ensuring the land is productive and viable for use.

Crew at work on a well abandonment for Aspenleaf Energy near Edmonton. Photo for the Canadian Energy Centre

“We did a lot of sampling, and for the most part what we can show is what was buried in the ground by previous operators historically has not moved anywhere over 70 years and has had no impact to waterways and topography with lush forestry and productive agriculture thriving directly above and adjacent to those sampled areas,” he said.

At current rates of about 15,000 barrels per day, Aspenleaf sees a long runway of future production for the next decade or longer.

Revitalizing the historic field while cleaning up legacy assets is key to the company’s strategy.

“We believe we can extract more of the resource, which belongs to the people of Alberta,” Gould said.

“We make money for our investors, and the people of the province are much further ahead.”

Continue Reading

Energy

Canada Cannot Become an Energy Superpower With its Regulatory Impediments

Published on

From Energy Now

By Yogi Schulz


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


Prime Minister Carney wants Canada to become an energy superpower. It’s a worthy goal because Canada has rich, undeveloped energy resources. Many Canadians happily endorse his goal because it achieves these benefits:

  • Economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.
  • Reduce the adverse consequences of American tariffs.
  • Additional tax revenue that reduces the mountain of Canadian public debt.
  • Improved energy security and reduced cost for Canadians in Eastern Canada.
  • Improved energy security for Canada’s international energy customers.
  • Alternative energy supply options for NATO allies to replace Russian energy.
  • Greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that occur when Canadian high ESG energy replaces other energy sources.

However, Canada can achieve these benefits only by overcoming multiple regulatory impediments, including those described below.

Interprovincial trade barriers

Interprovincial trade barriers impose costs on all industries. Consumers, not companies, bear these costs. A Macdonald-Laurier Institute study estimated that eliminating interprovincial trade barriers could boost Canada’s economy by between 4.4 and 7.9 percent over the long term or between $110 and $200 billion per year. Examples of interprovincial trade barriers that affect the oil and gas industry include:

  • Pools that cross provincial boundaries: Producers must build two higher-cost processing facilities, one on each side of the border.
  • Gathering systems that cross provincial boundaries: Producers must obtain a federal pipeline permit, which requires a multi-year approval process, to build a pipeline that crosses a provincial border.
  • Many minor technical differences: Provinces set their own rules, standards, and certifications for topics such as vehicle weight, length, and safety protocols. These differences increase producer operating costs.
  • Professional licensing: Individuals, such as those in skilled trades, must undergo a lengthy, costly process to obtain a license to work in another province, even if they are already certified elsewhere.
  • Administrative hurdles: Producers operating in multiple provinces face a complex web of permit, license, and reporting requirements that vary from one province to the next.
  • Geographical barriers: The dimensional limitations of tunnels in the Rocky Mountains create a shipping barrier for producers, adding costs when importing large facility components.

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing interprovincial trade barriers will be necessary to enhance its competitiveness. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act are encouraging federal initiatives to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. The outrageous Trump tariffs have also provided some provinces with a new incentive to lower or eliminate some of their barriers. However, the “mutual recognition” approach may be more symbolic than substantive.

Provincial regulatory incompatibilities

Oil and natural gas producers face slightly different regulations in every province and territory. These incompatibilities incur avoidable operational costs and erode Canada’s competitiveness in the global investment capital market.

Energy industry regulators operate in every province and territory where oil and natural gas are produced. These regulators have independently produced large volumes of regulations that are similar but far from identical. Most of these regulations are derived from those first written in Alberta and various US jurisdictions. Alberta created the first Canadian energy industry regulator because most of the resources are located within its borders.

So far, energy industry regulators have only harmonized the following:

  • Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have adopted this standard.
  • Directive 017 – Measurement Requirements for Oil and Gas Operations. Alberta and Saskatchewan have adopted this directive.

Unfortunately, only these two documents, among many dozens, have been harmonized. Parochial thinking appears to be a significant impediment to more harmonization. For example:

  • Some Canadian regulators participate in the Western Regulators Forum (WRF). However, the WRF has yet to harmonize any regulations.
  • Over two decades ago, the Alberta Department of Energy and Minerals sponsored the development of Petrinex with a vision of energy industry-government data management cooperation across multiple provinces. However, the vision has not been realized because the provinces built individual, incompatible systems to protect their turf.

“Producers write more government submissions than technical papers – ten times more. Submissions consume significant effort from technical professionals and include specific oil and gas technical information such as fracking schemes, SAGD operations or facility modifications,” says Granger Low, of Regaware Systems Ltd. “When producers can easily search previous submissions using the artificial intelligence of AppIntel AI, they take advantage of Alberta’s uniquely remarkable oil and gas technical advances, and avoid the delays related to over-regulation and resubmission.”

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, harmonizing more provincial and territorial oil and natural gas industry regulations will be required to improve its competitiveness.

Provincial regulatory issues

Dealing with regulations is a cost that all oil and natural gas producers bear. Regulations are desirable and necessary to a point. Issues where the energy industry regulators could improve performance include:

  • Reducing and simplifying the enormous number of directives. The issue is that the directives contain extensive related best practices that, while valuable, become indistinguishable from regulatory requirements.
  • Reducing and simplifying the permit application processes for wells, facilities and pipelines. How the current complexity helps regulators fulfill their mandate is unclear.
  • Simplifying reporting and compliance assessment would reduce administrative costs for both producers and regulators.
  • Eliminating the APMC in Alberta would reduce producers’ administrative costs and increase Crown royalty revenue. This article describes the details: It’s Time to Retire the APMC – The APMC Mandate Has Expired, Its Cost is Now Avoidable.
  • Failing to address data quality issues for wells, digital well logs, and cores undermines one of Alberta’s competitive advantages.

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing the cost of regulatory applications and compliance is a component of improving its competitiveness.

Taxation disparities

Oil and natural gas producers encounter taxation disparities across provinces. The following disparities affect geographic investment decisions:

  • Crown Royalty and Freehold Production Tax calculations and related settlement processes vary considerably by province and type of production.
  • Corporate income tax rates and reporting vary by province.
  • The combined GST and PST/HST rate varies from 5% in Alberta to 15% in some other provinces.
  • Oil and natural gas facility property tax rates and reporting vary by province.

Simplifying these taxation disparities would reduce administrative costs for both producers and the Crown. The combination of taxes and fees that producers pay in Canada is enough to cause some to invest in more profitable jurisdictions.

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing and harmonizing taxation disparities is a prerequisite to encourage more investment in production.

Additional costs that every producer accepts

Overcoming impediments is particularly important to Canadian competitiveness because the Canadian oil and gas industry incurs higher operating costs than the industry does in most other jurisdictions. The higher cost categories include:

  • Wages and benefits.
  • Health, safety and environmental standards.
  • Abandonment standards.
  • Disclosure of intellectual property in publicly-accessible permit application documents.
  • Lower staff productivity and added heating costs due to lower winter temperatures.

No one is suggesting lowering these Canadian standards and expectations. However, the associated costs increase the urgency of reducing other regulatory impediments to maintain Canada’s competitiveness.

Conclusions

Canada has the resources to become an energy superpower and realize the immense economic, strategic, and environmental benefits that are available. Policymakers can contribute by harmonizing regulations and removing interprovincial trade barriers to ensure investment in Canadian energy is competitive on world financial markets.


Yogi Schulz has over 40 years of experience in information technology in various industries. He writes for Engineering.comEnergyNow.caEnergyNow.com and other trade publications. Yogi works extensively in the petroleum industry to select and implement financial, production revenue accounting, land & contracts, and geotechnical systems. He manages projects that arise from changes in business requirements, the need to leverage technology opportunities, and mergers. His specialties include IT strategy, web strategy, and systems project management.

Continue Reading

Trending

X