Connect with us

Energy

Did the Environment Minister announce the end of Alberta’s Oil and Gas Industry at COP 27?

Published

5 minute read

Steven Guilbeault (center) arrested after climbing the CN Tower for a Greenpeace protest on July 16, 2001.

PHOTO BY AARON HARRIS/THE CANADIAN PRESS

News Release From the Alberta Institute

Stop The Federal Cap On Oil And Gas

This week, Environment and Climate Change Minister, Steven Guilbeault, effectively announced the end of Alberta’s oil and gas industry.

In Egypt, at COP27, he announced that his government will cap oil and gas sector emissions from the end of next year, and work to reduce them after that.

Remember, even Justin Trudeau said that no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.

But that, of course, was before he was Prime Minister.

Radical environmental activist Steven Guilbeault does believe we should leave 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground.

Now, yes, technically, he said he would cap and reduce emissions, not oil and gas production, and some energy companies are confident they can find efficiencies to allow them to continue producing some oil and gas without increasing emissions.

But anyone who’s been in the game long enough has seen the goalposts moved often enough to recognize another goalpost shifting when they see it, and that’s exactly what happened today.

How so?

Well, you would think Minister Guilbeault’s friends in the eco-activist industry – the same people who just a few years ago were calling for this cap on emissions – would be happy about this week’s announcement, wouldn’t you?

But no, these same people who were calling for exactly this policy just a few years ago actually attacked his announcement.

They think that this week’s announcement – the policy they were calling for until recently – is woefully inadequate.

They now want, you guessed it, a cap on production.

They don’t actually care about the level of carbon emissions, they don’t actually care whether emissions go down, they want the amount of oil and gas producedto go down.

This, fellow Albertans, is what Alberta is up against.

The radical eco-activist environmental movement doesn’t want Alberta’s oil and gas industry to be more environmentally friendly, they want Alberta’s oil and gas industry to die.

Meanwhile, having shifted the goalposts a dozen times already – the federal government’s environmental policies are as close to a complete ban on oil and gas as you can get, without actually banning it.

One more goalpost shift, and it will be an outright ban.

The environmental groups are pushing for that last final goalpost shift.

And Albertans are just supposed to trust the federal government that, despite all the previous times they shifted the goalposts, this time they definitely won’t.

The time to stand up for Alberta, and stand up for Albertans is now.

If we don’t do so right now, it might be too late.

In the 1980s, Alberta Premier, Peter Lougheed, fought for – and won – an amendment to the Canadian Constitution – Section 92A – that gave Alberta (and the other Provinces) the exclusive right to explore, develop, conserve, and manage their natural resources.

This amendment made clear that these resources belonged to the Provinces, not the federal government, and Alberta would not have signed on to the Constitution had that clause not been included.

Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault do not believe in that clause in the Canadian Constitution.

They have already ignored it many times, and intend to continue to ignore it.

Justin Trudeau’s view is that Alberta can do whatever we want with our resources… as long as whatever we want to do is exactly what the federal government wants us to do.

And the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s view is that we should leave them in the ground – all of them.

Enough is enough.

Now is the time for every Albertan – and the Alberta government – to stand up to the federal government.

If you agree, please join our campaign to stop the federal cap on oil and gas:

Please also consider forwarding this email to your friends, family, colleagues, and every Canadian.

Regards,

The Alberta Institute Team

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

TC Energy shuts down Keystone pipeline system after leak in Nebraska

Published on

CALGARY — TC Energy Corp. says it has shut down its Keystone pipeline after a leak in Nebraska.

The company says it has mobilized people and equipment in response to a confirmed release of oil into a creek, about 32 kilometres south of Steele City, Neb.

TC Energy says an emergency shutdown and response was initiated Wednesday night after a pressure drop in the system was detected.

It says the affected segment of the pipeline has been isolated and booms have been deployed to prevent the leaked oil from moving downstream.

The Keystone pipeline system stretches 4,324 kilometres and helps move Canadian and U.S. crude oil to markets around North America.

TC Energy says the system remains shutdown as its crews respond and work to contain and recover the oil.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 8, 2022.

Companies in this story: (TSX:TRP)

The Canadian Press

Continue Reading

Energy

Russian oil price cap, EU ban aim to limit Kremlin war chest

Published on

By David Mchugh in Frankfurt

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Major Western measures to limit Russia’s oil profits over the war in Ukraine took effect Monday, bringing with them uncertainty about how much crude could be lost to the world and whether they will unleash the hoped-for hit to a Russian economy that has held up better than many expected under sanctions.

In the most far-reaching efforts so far to target one of Moscow’s main sources of income, the European Union is banning most Russian oil and the Group of Seven democracies has imposed a price cap of $60 per barrel on Russian exports to other countries.

The impact of both measures, however, may be blunted because the world’s No. 2 oil producer has so far been able reroute much of its European seaborne shipments to China, India and Turkey, although at steep discounts, and the price cap is near what Russian oil already cost.

As it stands, Russia will likely have enough money to not only fund its military but support key industries and social programs, said Chris Weafer, CEO and Russian economy analyst at consulting firm Macro-Advisory.

“At this price level, that outlook really doesn’t change much. But what is key is how much volume Russia would be able to sell,” he said. “And that depends not only on the willingness of Asian buyers to continue buying Russian oil, but also what is the physical ability of Russia to shift that oil.”

Western leaders are walking a fine line between trying to cut Russia’s oil income and preventing an oil shortage that would cause a price spike and worsen the inflation plaguing economiesand hurting consumers worldwide. They could later agree to lower the price cap to increase pressure on Russia, which says it will not sell to countries that observe the limit.

That could take oil off global markets and raise energy costs, including for gasoline at the pump. International benchmark Brent crude rose before falling 2.5% to $83.40 a barrel Monday.

To seriously cut Russian revenue, the cap must be lowered “quickly and progressively,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Finland-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

Even the $60 cap, if enforced, would already push Russia to lower per-barrel tax, he said, calling it “by far the biggest step to date to cut off the fossil fuel export revenue that is funding and enabling Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine.”

Russia has been living off the huge windfall from higher oil pricesearlier this year and will be more vulnerable in the next several months when that money is spent, Myllyvirta said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, asked in a conference call how the oil price cap might affect the war, said, “The economy of the Russian Federation has the necessary potential to fully meet all needs and requirements within the framework of the special military operation, and such measures will not affect this.”

The U.S., EU and allied countries have hit Russia with a slew of sanctions aimed at bank and financial transactions, technology imports and regime-connected individuals. But until now, those sanctions have for the most part not directly gone after the Kremlin’s biggest moneymaker, oil and natural gas.

Europe was heavily dependent on Russian oil and natural gasbefore the war and has had to scramble to find new supplies. Previously, the EU banned imports of Russian coal, and the U.S. and the U.K. halted their limited imports of Russian oil, but those steps had a much smaller economic impact.

Even as Western customers shunned Russian oil, the higher prices driven by fears of energy shortages helped offset lost oil sales, and Russian exporters have shipped more oil to Asian countries and Turkey in a major reshuffling of global oil flows. Russia’s economy has shrunk — but not by as much as many expected at the start of the war almost 10 months ago.

One unknown is how much of the oil formerly sold to Europe can be rerouted. Analysts think many, but not all, of the roughly 1 million barrels covered by the embargo will find new homes, tightening supply and raising prices in coming months.

The Biden administration doesn’t expect that Russia’s threats to cut off countries observing the cap and slow production would “have any impact long term on global oil prices,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said.

He said “this cap will lock in the discount on Russian oil” and countries like China and India would be able to bargain for steep price reductions.

Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar indicated Monday that the country would keep buying oil from Russia to prioritize its energy needs. India so far hasn’t committed to the price cap.

The cap has a grace period for oil that was loaded before Monday and arrives at its destination before Jan. 19 to minimize disruption on oil markets.

The measure bars insurers or ship owners — most of them located in the EU or U.K. — from helping move Russian oil to non-Western countries unless that oil was priced at or below the cap.

The idea is to keep Russian oil flowing while reducing the Kremlin’s income. The U.S. and Europe leaned more toward preventing a price spike than provoking financial distress in Russia.

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said the cap was “worth trying,” adding that “we will make an assessment of the efficiency of the old cap at the beginning of 2023.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had called for a price ceiling of around $30 per barrel. That would be near Russia’s cost of production, letting Russian oil companies earn enough only to avoid capping wells that can be hard to restart. Russia needs some $60 to $70 per barrel to balance its budget.

Russia could use methods to evade the sanctions such as those employed by Iran and Venezuela, including using “dark fleet” tankers with obscure ownership and ship-to-ship transfers of oil to tankers with oil of similar quality to hide its origin. Russia or China could also organize their own insurance. Sanctions experts say that those steps will impose higher costs on Russia.

The new EU sanctions led the Italian government to take temporary control of the Russian-owned ISAB refinery in Sicily last week. The government stopped short of nationalization but put the facility, where about 20% of Italy’s oil is refined, under receivership to protect 10,000 jobs linked to the refinery and its suppliers.

___

AP reporters Raf Casert in Brussels, Aamer Madhani in Washington, Sheikh Saaliq in New Delhi and Colleen Barry in Milan contributed

Continue Reading

december, 2022

thu08dec5:30 pm7:30 pmPregnancy & Loss Support Group - Zoom Session5:30 pm - 7:30 pm

Trending

X