Energy
The Pervasive Myth of a “Grand Bargain” for Alberta Pipelines

From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace and Dennis McConaghy
Following a 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 with the Carney governments’ Bill C-5 the One Canadian Economy legislation, the Ministers agreed to “work together to accelerate major projects in support of building a strong, resilient, and united Canada.”
At that meeting Prime Minister Carney highlighted opportunities for Canada to build new export oil pipelines to tidewater – with the proviso that those projects would require parallel investments for carbon capture stating that it’s “absolutely in our interest” to de-carbonize Canada’s oil for export. Reflecting this stance, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith welcomed a “grand bargain” with the Prime Minister based on a bold trade-off: The rapid approval of a new oil pipeline from Alberta to tidewater in exchange for major investments in carbon capture technologies. Alberta has also suggested that it would commit barrels of physical bitumen received in lieu of cash royalties from oilsands producers to encourage a possible private-sector crude pipeline to Prince Rupert, B.C. Understandably, Alberta’s Premier hopes that the province could become a global energy leader by successfully navigating federal climate commitments – a strategy that, if successful could reshape not just Alberta’s, but the entire Canadian, economy.
However, there remain material challenges to this vision. Even with the tentative support from the federal government to fast-track these projects, there remain many challenges: These include B.C.’s skepticism about any new pipelines to their northern coast, Indigenous concerns and existing Acts and Regulations like the C-69 Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and C-48 tanker ban. A Carney-Smith “grand bargain” would entail a new “decarbonized” pipeline to transport 1 million barrels per day of Alberta heavy crude oil to the west coast, a project that Smith calculates would yield annual revenues of CAD$20 billion ($14.6 billion), revenues which she proposes to use to offset the massive estimated CAD$16.5 billion cost of the Pathways Alliance carbon-capture project. Are these assumptions accurate and what are the other policy implications for Canadian energy exports and imports?
First, let’s examine the concept of “decarbonization.”
Carney has advanced the concept of “de-carbonizing” Alberta oil – but what does this mean? If anything, it must mean that the incremental emissions from oil or gas production must be captured and sequestered to reduce global emissions – a proposition that assumes that Canada is the country that determines global demand and that also drives incremental production. Similarly, there are some that argue that Canada could buy off-sets (that is to pay others to stop their existing emissions, to accommodate Canada’s incremental emissions). Leaving aside the issue that the countries that have these offsets to sell are not forced to reduce emissions like Canada, it is highly unlikely that would they be sufficient to offset a potential Canadian oil production increase on the scale of 1.0 million barrels/day.
What would be demanded is that the Canadian hydrocarbon industry physically extract CO2 emissions from the production processes associated with oil sands production, followed by the compression of such emissions to pressures sufficient to enable transport to sequestration sites, typically abandoned or depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. Presumably this would apply not only to the emissions of the upgrading step for mined bitumen but also for the emissions related to steam generation across all the in-situ recovery sites across north-east Alberta. In face of initial capital cost-estimates for the Pathways Alliance CAD$16.5 billion Carbon Capture and Storage Project (CCS), recent studies indicate that that proposed hub in northern Alberta won’t likely break even without “substantial efficiency improvements” and much better revenue prospects. The blistering analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) concludes that “rising operating costs, uncertain revenues, an oversupplied market for emission credits, and stalled efforts to improve the technology could impede the plan to capture carbon dioxide from a dozen oil sands operations and store it underground at a repository in Cold Lake, Alberta”. Importantly the report finds:
“…. troubling cost implications for the Pathways CO2 transport and storage project and raises the concern that the Canadian federal government and the province of Alberta may be pressured to make up the likely shortfall.”
The brutal reality is that the proposal will likely represent an additional cost of more than $200/tonne of extracted CO2, more likely closer to $300/tonne. In fact, in equivalent $/bbl. terms, estimates of more than $100/bbl. could be optimistic. Most of that cost would be incurred by the ongoing, unavoidable operating costs related to compression. Who pays for this cost? Not crude oil markets. It is simply a cost that Canada would impose on itself to reduce netbacks from exported oil. But imposing that cost would simply impose a loss of market share for Canada. None of Canada’s heavy oil supply competitors are imposing such a cost and no other country is paying that cost. Can Alberta, much less Canada, afford this?
We consider that Carney’s “de-carbonized” oil represents a commercial standard that may be difficult, if not impossible, for Alberta’s hydrocarbon production industry to achieve. Many might consider this to be a sophistry whereby the Carney government professes to be open to another West Coast oil pipeline, or even expanded LNG production, with terms that are impossible to meet.
Next, what are the broader implications for the Canadian economy and the energy industry?
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The plain fact is that “decarbonization” is specifically aimed at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments for net zero. The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d).
Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. The Canadian Energy Regulator (2023) indicates that the United States remains the largest source of Canada’s imported crude oil at 72.4%, most of which originated from the U.S. Gulf Coast (68.8%). Nigeria was the second largest supplier of imported crude oil reaching 13% of Canada’s total while Saudi Arabia was third at almost 11%. In 2023 seaborne shipments to major eastern Canadian refineries in New Brunswick averaged around 263,000 barrels per day at an estimated cost of $19.5 billion. Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020. Are any of these deliveries subject to “decarbonization” requirements and how do they contribute to Canada meeting its targets for net zero?
Meanwhile, in 2024 Canadian exports of metallurgical coal, largely from B.C., reached 7.4 million tonnes as the Westshore Terminal exported a total of 16 million tonnes from the province. In 2022 these shipments of “non-decarbonized” coal had an export value of $12 billion for metallurgical coal and $2 billion for thermal coal.
Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil must selectively be produced and transported to competitive world markets under an exclusive, very material, regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, western coal exporters and eastern Canadian refiners are allowed to operate free from any comparable regulatory burdens for “decarbonization.” A “decarbonized” oil policy aimed specifically at the Alberta oil sands and pipeline sectors penalizes, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while ignoring other carbon-laden imports and exports.
These proposed policies reflect a contradictory and unfair federal regulatory requirement that would force Alberta to decarbonize its crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil. Many would consider these policies to render the One Canadian Economy Act moot while creating two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports, allows for the unrestricted export of coal and discourages, or at very least threatens, the competitiveness of Alberta oil exports.
The concept of achieving “decarbonized” oil arrives at a time of significant economic and fiscal challenges for Canada. The C.D. Howe Institute predicts that the Carney government is facing a deficit of $92 billion this fiscal year with additional deficits over four years of $78 billion “more than double the level forecast by the parliamentary budget officer before the spring federal election.” These facts compel a careful examination of alternative, cost-effective strategies affecting Canadian oil production and carbon sequestration.
For instance, Lennox recently noted that there are alternative methodologies that could represent a more pragmatic approach to sequestration and which could spur private investment and innovation in cleaner energy production. Bill C-59 earmarked $12 billion in tax credits to reduce the upfront costs of investments in carbon-capture equipment but it specifically excludes a proven method of carbon sequestration, to use CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR), from eligibility for its Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Investment Tax Credit. Lennox suggests that should the Carney government remove this exclusionary clause it could unleash billions in investments in EOR for carbon sequestration.
As Black recently commented:
“If Mark Carney thinks he can stimulate the Canadian economy by embracing a number of these desirable and impressive projects at the same time that he lumbers the economy with tax increases and the continued war on the oil and gas industries to reduce our carbon footprint, the result will be a political and economic disaster. The stimulus of the grant projects will be more than offset by the depressive impact of the continuing war on oil and gas, which may well provoke the voters of Alberta to request consideration of the virtues of secession from Canada, an event that would produce instantaneous concurrence from Quebec for different reasons. An atmosphere of serious political lack of confidence will ensue, and the economy will both evoke and reflect that fact.”
Canadians understand that Canadian regulations for emissions caps and “de-carbonized” oil will not impact the growth of global emissions simply because other heavy producers will meet that demand – most of which would otherwise have been supplied by Canada. In addition to the billions in lost capital investment suffered under the previous Trudeau government, and the potential to incur irreconcilable differences within Confederation, the prospect of “decarbonized” oil represents not a “grand bargain” but a “pyrrhic” ideological victory. Is this what the Carney government would propose to impose on Alberta: To deny economic value to Canada at a crucial time in our economic history while achieving little, or no, reductions in global emissions?
Ron Wallace is a retired, former Member of the National Energy Board. Dennis McConaghy, a former executive at TransCanada Corp., now TC Energy, recently published his third book, “Carbon Change: Canada on the Brink of Decarbonization”.
Alberta
Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands

Construction of an oil sands SAGD production well pad in northern Alberta. Photo supplied to the Canadian Energy Centre
From the Canadian Energy Centre
The facts about one of Canada’s biggest industries
Alberta’s oil sands sector is one of Canada’s most important industries — and also one of its most misunderstood.
Here are five common myths, and the facts behind them.
Myth: Oil sands emissions are unchecked

Steam generators at a SAGD oil sands production site in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Cenovus Energy
Reality: Oil sands emissions are strictly regulated and monitored. Producers are making improvements through innovation and efficiency.
The sector’s average emissions per barrel – already on par with the average oil consumed in the United States, according to S&P Global – continue to go down.
The province reports that oil sands emissions per barrel declined by 26 per cent per barrel from 2012 to 2023. At the same time, production increased by 96 per cent.
Analysts with S&P Global call this a “structural change” for the industry where production growth is beginning to rise faster than emissions growth.
The firm continues to anticipate a decrease in total oil sands emissions within the next few years.
The Pathways Alliance — companies representing about 95 per cent of oil sands activity — aims to significantly cut emissions from production through a major carbon capture and storage (CCS) project and other innovations.
Myth: There is no demand for oil sands production

Expanded export capacity at the Trans Mountain Westridge Terminal. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
Reality: Demand for Canadian oil – which primarily comes from the oil sands – is strong and rising.
Today, America imports more than 80 per cent more oil from Canada than it did in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
New global customers also now have access to Canadian oil thanks to the opening of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in 2024.
Exports to countries outside the U.S. increased by 180 per cent since the project went into service, reaching a record 525,000 barrels per day in July 2025, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.
The world’s appetite for oil keeps growing — and it’s not stopping anytime soon.
According to the latest EIA projections, the world will consume about 120 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum liquids in 2050, up from about 104 million barrels per day today.
Myth: Oil sands projects cost too much
Reality: Operating oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-cost oil in North America, according to Enverus Intelligence Research.
Unlike U.S. shale plays, oil sands production is a long-life, low-decline “manufacturing” process without the treadmill of ongoing investment in new drilling, according to BMO Capital Markets.
Vast oil sands reserves support mining projects with no drilling, and the standard SAGD drilling method involves about 60 per cent fewer wells than the average shale play, BMO says.
After initial investment, Enverus says oil sands projects typically break even at less than US$50 per barrel WTI.
Myth: Indigenous communities don’t support the oil sands

Chief Greg Desjarlais of Frog Lake First Nation signs an agreement in September 2022 whereby 23 First Nations and Métis communities in Alberta acquired an 11.57 per cent ownership interest in seven Enbridge-operated oil sands pipelines for approximately $1 billion. Photo courtesy Enbridge
Reality: Indigenous communities play an important role in the oil sands sector through community agreements, business contracts and, increasingly, project equity ownership.
Oil sands producers spent an average of $1.8 billion per year with 180 Indigenous-affiliated vendors between 2021 and 2023, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Indigenous communities are now owners of key projects that support the oil sands, including Suncor Energy’s East Tank Farm (49 per cent owned by two communities); the Northern Courier pipeline system (14 per cent owned by eight communities); and the Athabasca Trunkline, seven operating Enbridge oil sands pipelines (~12 per cent owned by 23 communities).
These partnerships strengthen Indigenous communities with long-term revenue, helping build economic reconciliation.
Myth: Oil sands development only benefits people in Alberta
Reality: Oil sands development benefits Canadians across the country through reliable energy supply, jobs, taxes and government revenues that help pay for services like roads, schools and hospitals.
The sector has contributed approximately $1 trillion to the Canadian economy over the past 25 years, according to analysis by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI).
That reflects total direct spending — including capital investment, operating costs, taxes and royalties — not profits or dividends for shareholders.
More than 2,300 companies outside of Alberta have had direct business with the oilsands, including over 1,300 in Ontario and almost 600 in Quebec, MLI said.
Energy products are by far Canada’s largest export, representing $196 billion, or about one-quarter of Canada’s total trade in 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
Led by the oil sands, Canada’s energy sector directly or indirectly employs more than 445,000 people across the country, according to Natural Resources Canada.
Business
Canada has an energy edge, why won’t Ottawa use it?

Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.
What the public doesn’t see behind all the climate summit fanfare is a carefully choreographed performance where capitals everywhere scramble to perfect their lines for the UN’s annual pageant. COP30 descends on Brazil in mid-November, and once again Ottawa looks primed to arrive clutching a stack of promises, desperately hoping that thunderous applause will somehow count as tangible progress in the real world.
Thanks to years of bureaucratic capture, our government keeps churning out the measures most fervently demanded by the climate lobby, and this ritual proceeds as if “net zero” were still a credible roadmap rather than a marketing slogan stretched so transparently thin it’s practically see-through. But out in the real world—away from the theatrical staging—the energy system keeps issuing updates of its own that no amount of wishful thinking can erase. The question this year cannot be what flashy new prohibition Ottawa can unveil on cue: are our leaders finally prepared to read the room? Away from the virtue-signalling theatre, countries are quietly adjusting to immovable realities: demand keeps climbing, reliability actually matters, and security trumps sermonizing—and we should be looking south to see what’s really working.
From 2005 to 2023, U.S. per-capita CO₂ emissions from energy plummeted by nearly a third. Not because of performative pledges or green grandstanding, but because coal quietly gave way to natural gas, with renewables filling in around the edges where they actually made sense. Pick almost any grid that made this pragmatic switch, and you’ll discover the same inconvenient pattern that climate absolutists prefer to ignore: fewer emissions and electricity you can actually count on when you flip the switch. Maryland serves as a clean example, where coal shrank from the backbone to a footnote as gas surged, helping keep the lights blazing when people needed them most.
Canada should pay very close attention to these uncomfortable truths. We benefit from hydro and nuclear in some regions, but what the green lobby doesn’t want to acknowledge is that our electricity demand is climbing relentlessly. Population growth alone would guarantee that outcome. Add the explosion in AI technology and it becomes utterly unavoidable, despite the silence from environmental groups. Even the cheerleaders of the new digital economy are brutally honest about this reality when pressed. The head of the world’s biggest AI chipmaker isn’t jesting when he bluntly tells the U.K. it will need gas turbines alongside nuclear and renewables to power its tech ambitions—inconvenient facts that shatter green fairy tales.
Another stubborn reality that doesn’t make it into climate summit speeches is that the International Energy Agency estimates oil and gas companies spend roughly half a trillion dollars every year just to keep output flat—a financial reality that exposes the “stranded assets” narrative as wishful thinking. Without this continual reinvestment, U.S. shale would crater within a single year. It’s rather difficult to describe that as a system drifting quietly into retirement, rather than an industrial backbone that still carries most of the load while activists pretend otherwise. If you’re Canada, that looks less like a looming problem than a golden opening that our competitors are already seizing.
Geopolitics is saying the same thing out loud, for those willing to listen beyond the climate activism echo chamber. J.P. Morgan bluntly calls this the “new energy security age,” and Europe is working frantically to end its dependence on Russian LNG—not for climate reasons, but for survival. Japan is expanding its LNG fleet, and Mexico is inking billion-dollar supply deals while climate campaigners aren’t looking. Strip away all the green branding and virtue-signalling, and you get a core calculation that energy security is nothing short of national security—and countries that get snookered by activist rhetoric into forgetting that harsh reality lose far more than bragging rights at international summits.

The Woodfibre LNG site is seen on Howe Sound in Squamish, B.C. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
Our allies have been leaning on us to quit sitting on the sidelines and deliver something concrete. And back home, even Ottawa’s mandarins are finally muttering what everyone else has known all along. For the next several years, at minimum, gas remains the most economical, rock-solid baseload option across vast stretches of the continent. Meeting that surging demand would deliver high-paying jobs, bulletproof alliances, and slash global emissions compared to the world burning more coal. Turning our backs on it means standing idle while rival producers rush to fill the void—all so we can pat ourselves on the back for warming the bench.
If this strikes you as abstract theorizing, cast your eyes toward California. A righteous crusade to shutter refineries didn’t magically eliminate the appetite for fuel—it simply exported the dirty work elsewhere, shipping out the jobs and the supply cushion that shields consumers from price shocks. The Golden State now scrambles like a panicked shopper whenever supply chains hiccup, because when push comes to shove, affordability draws the hard red line on what voters will tolerate. Meanwhile, the global landscape has shifted dramatically, with the United States now claiming the crown as top exporter of refined petroleum and LNG.
The lofty rhetoric of “climate solidarity” has quietly faded into something far more practical—nations ruthlessly pursuing their own interests. Even the most progressive speechwriters now pepper their drafts with buzzwords like ‘pragmatism’ and ‘realism.’ It represents nothing short of a grudging acknowledgment that wishful thinking won’t keep the lights on when the grid starts groaning.
British Columbia, meanwhile, sits perched atop the Montney—one of the continent’s most spectacular gas reservoirs—boasting the shortest shipping lanes to Asian markets. Indigenous nations are shrewdly securing equity stakes in LNG ventures while demanding genuine partnership—a blueprint that marries reconciliation with cold, hard prosperity. Those outbound cargoes are displacing coal-fired power overseas. If your genuine goal involves slashing real-world emissions, that achievement trumps a dozen flowery Ottawa press releases.
So no, the magic formula isn’t “all of the above,” but rather “the best of the above.” It demands deploying hydro, nuclear, and renewables where they deliver maximum punch, with natural gas serving as the indispensable bridge that keeps systems humming while breakthrough technologies mature. We must construct infrastructure that performs when sidewalks turn into skating rinks and when asphalt starts melting like butter.
We’ve also absorbed some hard-earned lessons about the political theatrics that spook serious capital. At COP28 in Dubai, then–environment minister Steven Guilbeault sported a baseball cap emblazoned with “emissions.” Emissions cap—catch the clever wordplay? The joke bombed spectacularly with investors. The policy proposal fared no better; its most vocal champion is reportedly eyeing the exit door, while nearly a hundred Canadian oil and gas CEOs have now fired off two blunt open letters to the new prime minister, spelling out precisely what the cap would accomplish: driving investors to pack their bags for friendlier jurisdictions. If your economic blueprint hinges on attracting capital, avoid crafting policies that essentially scream ‘beat it.’

World leaders at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.
What would that look like at COP30? It would sound nothing like the strangely self-defeating Canadian speeches of years past, which have been heavy on confessional hand-wringing, light on genuine intent, drowning in performative self-flagellation, and starved of actual competence. If Ottawa wants to prove it has finally woken up from its ideological slumber, it should ditch the tired theatre and roll out policies that actually unleash investment instead of strangling it: streamlined approvals with firm timelines that mean something; predictable fiscal treatment that doesn’t shift with every political breeze; a clear path for Indigenous equity in major projects; and an explicit commitment to “best of the above” power and fuels. Pair that with a forthright message to allies that cuts through the usual diplomatic fog: Canada intends to supply reliable, cleaner energy to the democracies that desperately need it.
It’s not capitulating to industry to stop pretending we can wish away reality. It’s the path that lets us grow the economy, slash global emissions faster than sanctimonious lectures ever will, and strengthen the alliances that keep free countries from getting steamrolled. If we want Canada to matter in this new energy security age instead of being relegated to the sidelines, we should start acting like we mean business. COP30 is the stage. Time to scrap the old script and write one that actually works.
-
Business2 days ago
Ford’s Whisky War
-
Agriculture23 hours ago
Is the CFIA a Rogue Agency or Just Taking Orders from a Rogue Federal Government?
-
Focal Points2 days ago
Trump Walks Back His Tomahawk Tease from Zelensky
-
Business1 day ago
Judges are Remaking Constitutional Law, Not Applying it – and Canadians’ Property Rights are Part of the Collateral Damage
-
Red Deer1 day ago
Your last minute election prep: Common Sense Red Deer talks to the candidates
-
Automotive2 days ago
$15 Billion, Zero Assurances: Stellantis Abandons Brampton as Trudeau-Era Green Deal Collapses
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Blocks UN’s Back Door Carbon Tax
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Trump urges Putin, Zelenskyy to make a ‘deal’