Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Cenovus replies to low-blow from Norway’s trillion dollar oil fund

Published

6 minute read

From Cenovus Energy

Canada targeted (yet again) as a scapegoat for global climate change challenge

Alex Pourbaix, President & Chief Executive Officer, Cenovus Energy

The recent decision by the Norwegian wealth fund, Norges, to pull its investments in Cenovus Energy and three of our oil sands peers is another example of Canada being used as a pawn by institutions attempting to earn climate points. But these announcements are motivated more by public relations than fact. The data they used to assess Cenovus’s greenhouse gas performance is outdated and incorrect.

Here’s what Norges failed to consider in its decision. Cenovus has reduced the emissions intensity of our oil sands operations by approximately 30 percent over the past 15 years. We’ve set ambitious targets to reduce our per-barrel emissions by another 30 percent across our operations by 2030 and hold absolute emissions flat during that time. We are also focused on innovation that will help us achieve our aspiration of net zero emissions by 2050. Our peers have similar emissions reductions achievements and commitments.

The hypocrisy of the move by Norges is particularly rich, given the sovereign wealth fund amassed its $1 trillion value primarily from oil production profits. Moreover, Norway’s former energy minister is on record saying the country will produce oil for as long as oil is used. Energy is important to Norway’s economy, as it is to Canada’s.

The oil and natural gas industry accounts for the largest share of Canada’s exports and is the most significant contributor to the country’s gross domestic product. This country is amassing a huge deficit as a result of the COVID-19 response, with the parliamentary budget officer suggesting our national debt could hit $1 trillion. That’s more than $26,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Key to reversing this unprecedented debt load will be secure and stable tax revenue to support the economic recovery. Canada’s energy sector has contributed an average of $8 billion annually to provincial and federal government coffers and its strength is fundamental to ensuring this country emerges from the downturn stronger than ever.

Yet, the Canadian oil sands have become an easy target for primarily European investment firms and insurers who have made a big splash announcing they are severing ties with Canadian companies. Pulling out of the oil sands earns these firms headlines but doesn’t have an impact on their business because most of them were not heavily invested in Canada. Canada’s oil sands have long been the poster child for the anti-oil movement. It’s easier to attack a country that has a regulatory system designed to ensure transparency on its environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance than it is to go after oil producing nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia where the commitment to regulation and transparency substantially lags Canadian expectations and standards.

As the leader of a Canadian company whose sector contributes billions to the national economy and directly and indirectly employs 800,000 people – including being the country’s largest employer of Indigenous people – I am standing up for our industry and for Canada. Enough is enough with these unwarranted attacks.

Cenovus and our peers are committed to doing our part to help meet Canada’s climate commitments and contribute to global climate change solutions. We’re investing millions in technologies to reduce our own emissions and collaborating with innovators around the world, including the support of initiatives like the NRG COSIA Carbon XPrize, which is focused on solutions to convert greenhouse gas emissions into valuable products and consumer goods.

Canada is the largest oil-producing jurisdiction in the world with a national price on carbon, and Alberta’s cap on oil sands emissions is an unprecedented commitment. Our industry is committed to achieving Canada’s 45 percent reduction target for methane emissions, addressing a greenhouse gas that is more potent than carbon dioxide. If investors are truly concerned about global greenhouse gas emissions, they should place greater value on Canadian oil and natural gas.

The world is undergoing an energy transition as action is taken to limit global temperature rise. Canada’s energy sector is going to play a key role in supporting the transition. But as we see today, energy and economic growth are inextricably linked and even the most aggressive emissions-reduction scenarios recognize that oil and natural gas will continue to be a significant part of the energy mix for decades to come. Canada has the world’s third largest oil reserves and a significant opportunity to provide the world with the low cost, lower carbon energy it demands.

Just as support for a strong energy sector has benefitted Norwegians, it’s essential for Canadians to recognize the importance of Canada’s energy sector in contributing to our collective economic future.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in  Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy 

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.

Continue Reading

Trending

X