5 Reasons Why Canada Should Be a Global Oil Supplier of Choice

Post Submitted by Canada Action

#1 – Unprecedented Net-Zero Commitment

Canada’s largest oil sands producers just announced an unprecedented commitment to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050!

The net-zero term – used to describe the process of removing all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reduction methods – has become an increasingly important mandate for companies looking to continue attracting investment while participating in the transition to a lower-carbon future.

Accounting for about 90 per cent of oil sands production, the new five-member alliance is just one of many examples of why Canadian producers should be go-to oil suppliers of choice for buyers worldwide.

#2 – Continual GHG Emission Reductions

The emissions intensities of oil sands operations dropped by 36 per cent between 2000 and 2018due to fewer gas venting emissions, technological and efficiency improvements and reductions in the percentage of bitumen upgraded at national refineries says Natural Resources Canada.

Oil sands emissions intensities per barrel are also forecast by IHS Markit to drop another 16 to 23 per cent by 2030 due to continued innovation and technological advancement in the Canadian oil and gas sector.

This matters in an increasingly carbon-constrained world where going “green” has been put at the forefront of investors’ minds around the globe. According to these standards, investment cash should be flowing into Canada in droves for its dedication to the sustainable production of its natural resources such as oil, natural gas and minerals to name a few.

#3 – Leader in Social Progress

Social Progress Imperative lists Canada as seventh out of 163 countries on its Social Progress Index 2020, outranking all other major global oil jurisdictions except Norway. The annual index examines a total of 50 social and environmental indicators across 12 major subcategories, including:

● Nutrition & Basic Medical Care

● Water & Sanitation

● Shelter

● Personal Safety

● Access to Basic Knowledge

● Access to Information & Communications

● Health & Wellness

● Environmental Quality

● Personal Rights

● Personal Freedom & Choice

● Inclusiveness

● Access to Advanced Education

If you value social progress, the choice is clear. Canada ranks number one out of all the world’s top oil producers, exporters and reserve holders except for Norway and should be a global supplier of choice.

#4 – Carbon Pricing in a Carbon-Constrained World

Home to roughly 80 per cent of Canada’s total oil production, Alberta is one of the few global oil jurisdictions with mandatory disclosures, regulated emissions protocols and carbon taxes on excess GHGs.

In 2007, the province also became the first jurisdiction in North America and one of the first in the world just behind the European Union to take climate action with mandatory GHG emission reduction targets for large industrial emitters across all industries.

To add, only 10.5 per cent of global crude oil production is subject to carbon pricing, of which about 40 per cent is accounted for by Canada (with ~4.2 per cent of global output).

Carbon pricing and mandatory GHG emissions protocols matter huge in a carbon-constrained world. Therefore, Canada’s current policies indicate that it should be a choice supplier of oil and gas for decades to come.

#5 – A World-Class Regulatory Environment

Canada’s oil and gas producers are subject to some of the most stringent regulations and governance standards for energy projects anywhere on the planet. It only makes sense that future oil and gas supply comes from highly transparent producers like Canada that practice environmentally conscious extraction and production techniques.

Shutting down Canadian pipelines carrying Canadian oil has not kept one barrel of oil in the ground. What this has accomplished, however, is the displacement of global market share to less environmentally conscious producers who, in many instances, have abysmal records on social progress indicators such as freedom of expression and other basic human rights.

More Oil & Gas in Canada

● Experts Warn of Looming Oil & Gas Supply Shortages Post 2021

● Global Oil & Gas Pipeline Projects in 2021 & Beyond

● How Much Oil Does Canada Import? Too Much!

Canada Should Be a Supplier of Choice

Canada’s proven track record on Environmental, Social and Governance metrics means that we should be a global supplier of choice for oil, gas, minerals, metals, agricultural products, forestry products and everything in between.

Support Canadian resource families and learn more about our world-class natural resource sectors by joining us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook today. Hope to see you there!

Up Next

RCMP search for suspect leads to multiple shoot outs over 24 hours. Suspect dies from wounds.

Don't Miss

Province adds travel prizes to boost vaccine numbers

Canada Action

www.canadaaction.ca

Follow Author

How Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG Project is a New Dawn for Indigenous Peoples

Energy / 2 years ago

Majority of Canadians Support Canada’s Role as Responsible Energy Producer & Exporter: POLL

Alberta / 3 years ago

Canada’s Forestry Sector is World-Class. Here’s Proof.

Economy

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Published on May 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

New government data shows that wind power generation fell in 2023 despite the addition of new capacity, a fact that energy sector experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation demonstrates its inherent flaw.

Wind generation fell by about 2.1% in 2023 relative to 2022 generation, despite the 6 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity that came online last year, according to data published Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That wind power output dropped despite new capacity coming online and the availability of government subsidies highlights its intermittency and the problems wind power could pose for grid reliability, energy sector experts told the DCNF.

The decrease in wind generation is the first drop on record with the EIA since the 1990s; the drop was not evenly distributed across all regions of the U.S., and slower wind speeds last year also contributed to the decline, according to EIA. The Biden administration wants to have the American power sector reach carbon neutrality by 2035, a goal that will require a significant shift away from natural gas- and coal-fired power toward wind, solar and other green sources.

A table depicting the decrease of wind power generation in 2023 relative to 2022. (Screenshot via U.S. Energy Information Administration)

“Relying on wind power to meet your peak electricity demands is gambling with the grid,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in power grid-related analysis, told the DCNF. “Will the wind blow, or won’t it? This should be a moment where policymakers step back and consider the wisdom of heavily subsidizing intermittent generators and punishing reliable coal and gas plants with onerous regulations.”

Between 2016 and 2022, the wind industry received an estimated $18.6 billion worth of subsidies, about 10% of the total amount of subsidies extended to the energy sector by the U.S. government, according to an August 2023 EIA report. Wind power received more assistance from the government than nuclear power, coal or natural gas over the same period of time.

“This isn’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s raw subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the numbers would be even more extreme,” Paige Lambermont, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is a massive amount of money. It’s enough to dramatically alter energy investment decisions for the worse. We’re much more heavily subsidizing the sources that don’t provide a significant portion of our electricity than those that do.”

“Policy that just focuses on installed capacity, rather than the reliability of that capacity, fails to understand the real needs of the electrical grid,” Lambermont added. “This recent disparity illustrates that more installed wind capacity does not necessarily correlate with more wind power production. It doesn’t matter how much wind you add to the grid, if the wind isn’t blowing at peak demand time, that capacity will go to waste.”

Wind power’s performance was especially lackluster in the upper midwest, but Texas saw more wind generation in 2023 than it did in 2022, according to EIA. Wind generation in the first half of 2023 was about 14% lower than it was through the first six months of 2022, but generation was higher toward the end of 2023 than it was during the same period in 2022.

In 2023, about 60% of all electricity generated in the U.S. came from fossil fuels, while 10% came from wind power, according to EIA data. Beyond generous subsidies for preferred green energy sources, the Biden administration has also aggressively regulated fossil fuels and American power plants to advance its broad climate agenda.

Biden’s Climate Bill Boosted An Offshore Wind Giant, But His Economy Brought It To The Brink https://t.co/AF7SPT2FNu

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) landmark power plant rules finalized this month will threaten grid reliability if enacted, partially because the regulations are likely to incentivize operators to close plants rather than adopt the costly measures required for compliance, grid experts previously told the DCNF. At the same time that the Biden administration is effectively trying to shift power generation away from fossil fuels, it is also pursuing goals — such as substantially boosting electric vehicle adoption over the next decade and incentivizing construction of energy-intensive computer chip factories — that are driving up projected electricity demand in the future.

“The EIA data proves what we’ve always known about wind power: It is intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on the energy sector, told the DCNF. “Any power generation source whose output is wholly dependent on equally unpredictable weather conditions should never be presented by power companies and grid managers as safe replacements for abundant, cheap, dispatchable generation fueled with natural gas, coal or nuclear. This is a simple reality that people in charge of our power grids too often forget. Saying that no doubt hurts some people’s feelings, but nature really does not care about our feelings.”

Blackmon also pointed out that, aside from its intermittency, sluggish build-out of the transmission lines and related infrastructure poses a major problem for wind power.

“Wind power is worthless without accompanying transmission, yet the Biden administration continues to pour billions into unreliable wind while ignoring the growing crisis in the transmission sector,” Blackmon told the DCNF.

Another long-term issue that wind power, as well as solar power, faces is the need for a massive expansion in the amount of battery storage available to store and dispatch energy from intermittent sources as market conditions dictate. By some estimates, the U.S. will need about 85 times as much battery storage by 2050 relative to November 2023 in order to fully decarbonize the power grid, according to Alsym Energy, a battery company.

The White House and the Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

Alberta

Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans

Published on May 2, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill

Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.

And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.

Why should Albertans care?

First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.

For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.

Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.

Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.

In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.

By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.