Business
Oil producers brace for market share battle

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Rashid Husain Syed
OPEC+ launches a crude oil price war, and everyone will feel the pain
The gloves are off. OPEC+—the alliance of major oil producing countries led by Saudi Arabia and Russia —has abandoned its price-support strategy. Instead, it’s flooding the market to punish overproducers and claw back market share, regardless of the consequences.
For three consecutive months, despite falling prices, OPEC+ has ramped up output, bringing back 1.37 million barrels per day to the market. Until recently, it had withheld 5.3 million barrels per day—about five per cent of global supply—to stabilize prices. But that restraint is vanishing fast. The group is now rolling back voluntary cuts at high speed, opening the taps just as global markets are showing signs of oversupply.
Geopolitical developments are adding fuel to the fire. A possible breakthrough between Iran and the United States could put even more crude back into circulation. Meanwhile, Russia continues to find ways to move oil despite sanctions.
On top of that, U.S. production hit an all-time high in March at 13.499 million barrels per day, surpassing the previous record set just months earlier. Shale producers in the Permian and Gulf Coast regions continue to churn out oil, even as drilling slows elsewhere.
This rising tide of supply spells trouble for all producers, but it presents a unique challenge for jurisdictions like Canada, where oil sands production is a major driver of jobs, investment and government revenue.
Oil sands projects require massive upfront capital and long lead times, making new investments harder to justify in a weak price environment. Yet once built, these operations are remarkably resilient, with low ongoing costs and long production lifespans.
Major Canadian producers like Canadian Natural Resources can remain profitable even when West Texas Intermediate—a key oil price benchmark—falls into the low-to-mid US$40s. That long-term efficiency offers a structural advantage over U.S. shale, which depends on constant reinvestment. Still, prolonged low prices can stall future oil sands development and weigh on government budgets.
Meanwhile, demand is faltering. U.S. consumption dropped to its lowest level in a year, with total petroleum products supplied falling to 19.95 million barrels per day, a red ag for refiners heading into the crucial summer driving season.
Hopes that India might offset global demand weakness are fading. While its economy is growing, “India’s volumes aren’t anywhere near the Chinese boom in consumption that began in the early 2000s,” wrote Tsvetana Paraskova in Oilprice.com. Those who expected India to be the “next China” are in for disappointment. Between 2000 and 2025, Chinese crude demand growth averaged 485,000 barrels per day, noted Bloomberg opinion columnist Javier Blas. In contrast, India’s crude demand growth is just around 200,000 barrels per day annually, less than half of China’s booming growth during the 2000s and 2010s.
This growing mismatch between surging supply and tepid demand is already taking its toll. Brent price forecasts have been revised downward for the third straight month. Analysts now expect it to average just US$66.98 in 2025. U.S. crude is forecast to average US$63.35. These are bleak numbers for producers across the board.
As Rystad Energy’s Jorge Leon puts it, “Three strikes from OPEC+, and none were softballs. May warned, June confirmed, and July fires a shot across the bow.” The message is clear: OPEC+ is done playing nice.
This is a direct challenge to North American shale and high-cost producers like Canada. With the market saturated and demand falling short, the price pressure is mounting. Unless producers adapt quickly, they’re in for a punishing stretch.
The global oil market is being reshaped in real time, and the consequences will be felt in boardrooms and across national economies.
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.
Automotive
Canada’s EV house of cards is close to collapsing

By Dan McTeague
Well, Canada’s electric vehicle policies are playing out exactly as I predicted. Which is to say, they’re a disaster.
Back in November, in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s re-election, I wrote in these pages that, whatever else that election might mean for Canada, it would prove big trouble for the Justin Trudeau/Doug Ford EV scam.
The substance of their plot works like so: first, the federal and provincial governments threw mountains of taxpayer dollars in subsidies at automakers so that they’d come to Canada to manufacture EVs. Then Ottawa mandated that Canadians must buy those EVs — exclusively — by the year 2035. That way Ford and Trudeau could pat themselves on the back for “creating jobs,” while EV manufacturers could help themselves to the contents of our wallets twice over.
But the one variable they didn’t account for was a return of Donald Trump to the White House.
Trump had run on a promise to save America from their own back-door EV mandates. Though Kamala Harris had denied that any such mandates existed, they did, and they were founded on two acts of the Biden-Harris administration.
First, they issued an Executive Order setting significantly more onerous tailpipe regulations on all internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, with the explicit goal of ensuring that 50 percent of all new vehicles sold in America be electric by 2030.
Second, they granted California a waiver to make those regulations more burdensome still, so that only EVs could realistically be in compliance with them. Since no automaker would want to be locked out of the market of the most populous state, nor could they afford to build one set of cars for California (plus the handful of states which have — idiotically — chosen to align their regulations with California’s) and another set for the rest of the country, they would be forced to increase their manufacture and sale of EVs and decrease their output of ICE vehicles.
Trump’s victory took Canada’s political class completely by surprise, and it threw a spanner into the workings of the Liberals’ plan.
That’s because there just aren’t enough Canadians, or Canadian tax dollars, to make their EV scheme even kinda’ work. Canada’s unique access to the world’s biggest market — America — was a key component of the plan.
After all, vehicles are “the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023, of which 93 percent was exported to the US,” according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9 percent of all exports (2023.)”
It further depended on Americans buying more and more EVs every year. But since, when given a choice, most people prefer the cost and convenience of ICE vehicles, this would only work if Americans were pushed into buying EVs, even if in a more roundabout way than they’re being forced on Canadians.
Which is why the plan all began to unravel on January 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration, when he signed Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which, among other things, rescinded Joe Biden’s pro-EV tailpipe regulations. And it has continued downhill from there.
Just last week, the US Senate voted to repeal the Biden EPA’s waiver for California. Not that that’s the end of the story — in the aftermath of the vote, California governor Gavin Newsom vowed “to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.” (Though don’t be surprised if that fight is brief and half-hearted — Newsom has been trying to leave his lifelong leftism behind recently and rebrand as a moderate Democrat in time for his own run at the White House in 2028. Consequently, being saved from his own EV policy might only help his career prospects going forward.)
But it’s worth noting the language used by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents car companies like Toyota, GM, Volkswagen and Stellantis (several of whom, it should be noted, have received significant subsidies from the Liberal and Ford governments to manufacture EVs), which said in a statement, “The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable.”
That’s worth repeating: these EV sales mandates were never achievable!
That’s true in California, and it’s true in Canada as well.
And yet, our political class has refused to accept this reality. Doug Ford actually doubled down on his commitment to heavily subsidizing the EV industry in his recent campaign, saying “I want to make it clear… a re-elected PC government will honour our commitment to invest in the sector,” no matter what Donald Trump does.
Except, as noted above, Donald Trump represents the customers Doug Ford needs!
Meanwhile, our environmentalist-in-chief, Mark Carney, has maintained the Liberal Party’s commitment to the EV mandates, arguing that EVs are essential for his vacuous plan of transforming Canada into a “clean energy superpower.” How exactly? That’s never said.
These are the words of con artists, not men who we should be trusting with the financial wellbeing of our country. Unfortunately, in our recent federal election — and the one in Ontario — this issue was barely discussed, beyond an 11th-hour attempted buzzer-beater from Pierre Poilievre and a feeble talking point from Bonnie Crombie about her concern “that the premier has put all our eggs in the EV basket.”
Meanwhile, 2035 is just around the corner.
So we can’t stop calling attention to this issue. In fact, we’re going to shout about our mindless EV subsidies and mandates from the rooftops until our fellow Canadians wake up to the predicament we’re in. It took some time, but we made them notice the carbon tax (even if the policy change we got from Carbon Tax Carney wasn’t any better.) And we can do it with electric vehicles, too.
Because we don’t have the money, either as a nation or as individuals, to prop this thing up forever.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
Business
Patriotic Millionaires concept of tax ‘fairness’ ignores tax facts in Canada

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Tegan Hill
A group of wealthy Canadians called the “Patriotic Millionaires” recently asked governments in Canada to increase the amount of taxes they pay to “ensure greater fairness” in the system. In particular, the group is calling for a wealth tax and higher taxes on capital gains.
Unfortunately, the Patriotic Millionaires (whose motto is “Tax the rich!”) seem to misunderstand the current distribution of taxes paid by different income groups in Canada and the economic consequences of raising taxes.
The fixation on tax “fairness” (which the Patriotic Millionaires never actually define) is not new in Canada. It was a constant focus of the Trudeau government, which decided to increase “fairness” by increasing the top federal personal income tax rate from 29 per cent to 33 per cent in 2016 and proposing to raise taxes on capital gains in 2024.
These policies, like the Patriotic Millionaires, ignored basic facts about taxes. According to a recent study, the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in Canada paid 54.2 per cent of all federal, provincial and local taxes while earning less than half of the country’s total income (46.4 per cent). These families are the only income group in Canada that pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income.
In contrast, the remaining 80 per cent of Canadian families pay less in taxes than their share of total income. For example, the bottom 20 per cent of income-earning families pay 2.0 per cent of total taxes while earning 5.0 per cent of total income.
Why? Because Canada, like most advanced economies, has a progressive income tax system where government taxes individuals at increasingly higher rates as their income rises. For example, the marginal federal tax rate is 15 per cent on individual incomes up to $57,375 but more than double that rate (33 per cent) on income that exceeds $253,414.
According to the Patriotic Millionaires, Canada needs a “wealth tax,” which taxes a person’s net wealth. But time and time again, wealth taxes have failed to deliver the promised results of proponents. Eight European countries that experimented with wealth taxes have since abandoned them because they were expensive to administer, raised little revenue and imposed enormous costs on their economies. In particular, wealth taxes discourage investment, which is needed to broadly raise living standards and improve prosperity, by prompting people to move their assets away from productive investments (e.g. new businesses) to investments that may be exempt from the tax.
So, if Ottawa implemented a wealth tax, we’d likely see a reallocation of investment away from startups and towards housing (assuming housing remains exempt from the tax). Consequently, companies and investors would have less resources to invest in the technology, machinery and equipment that improve productivity, create jobs and drive higher living standards, particularly for average workers.
The Patriotic Millionaires also want to raise taxes on capital gains, which would have similar negative effects by making it more expensive for individuals and businesses to invest in Canada, leading to stagnant wages and living standards for Canadians.
The Patriotic Millionaires are misguided in their claims about “fairness” in the tax system. High-income earners already pay the majority of all taxes in Canada, and proportionality is one of the only objective measures of fairness with respect to the tax burden. Their policy proposals, if enacted by government, would only harm the economy rather than help it. That wouldn’t be fair to Canadian workers.
-
Fraser Institute2 days ago
Atlantic provinces should focus on growth—despite Carney’s transfer policies
-
Economy2 days ago
Canada Treats Energy As A Liability. The World Sees It As Power
-
Business2 days ago
Bureaucracy balloons while less than 50 per cent of government performance targets are consistently met
-
conflict2 days ago
“Will Be in History Books”: Zelensky Hails Long-Range Drone Strike That Hit Dozens of Russian Bombers
-
Indigenous2 days ago
Carney’s Throne Speech lacked moral leadership
-
Crime2 days ago
Terror in Boulder: Woman set on fire during pro-Israel hostage walk
-
Addictions1 day ago
Saskatchewan launches small fleet of wellness buses to expand addictions care
-
Fraser Institute12 hours ago
Declining stature of foreign affairs minister underscores Canada’s waning influence on world stage