Connect with us

Alberta

Emissions cap “will not be tolerated in Alberta” – Letter to Environment Minister Guilbeault

Published

5 minute read

Dear Minister Steven Guilbeault,

The federal government’s draft Regulatory Framework to Cap Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions represents a de facto production cap on Alberta’s oil and gas sector. This cap is not realistic or effective, will not achieve its grandiose emissions targets, and will not be tolerated in Alberta.

Today, Alberta is efficiently and effectively regulating and driving emissions from all industrial sectors, including oil and gas, and has been doing so successfully for decades. Our technical submission outlines how your proposed oil and gas emissions cap will undercut this work, and the severe consequences that it will impose on Albertans and all Canadians.

In no way does Alberta’s technical submission alter our province’s position that the proposed emissions cap is unconstitutional. As set out in Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867, Alberta has exclusive jurisdiction to manage the rate of non-renewable natural resources production and operational aspects of their development in our province.

If implemented, this cap would have a devastating impact on the economies of Alberta and all of Canada. Analysis from the Conference Board of Canada shows that it would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040 and create up to 151,000 lost jobs across Canada by 2030. Oil and gas production would be curtailed, tens of thousands could be out of work, and the economic impact would be felt from coast to coast.

We have identified an overwhelming number of flaws in your government’s proposed framework. For example, your assumed production forecasts – which form the basis of the cap – are from 2019. Alberta’s total oil and natural gas production has already risen past 2019 levels, and multiple forecasts project oil sands production to increase significantly by 2030. Similarly, the technologies needed to massively abate emissions in the oil and gas sector either don’t yet exist or aren’t being developed at the rate and scale that your modelling requires.

Many of these technologies and investments are supported by Alberta and will eventually deliver real and sustained reductions, but not by 2030. As well, our submission clearly demonstrates that:

• The proposed cap would violate Section 92A of the Constitution, and result in oil and gas production cuts and shut-ins in Alberta.

• It is based on a flawed regulatory framework and policy design that is ineffective, inefficient and will not produce the intended emission reductions.

• The proposed cap will negatively impact Alberta’s economy, as well as the economies of provinces and territories across the country, including the Canadian economy overall.

• It will undercut Canada’s competitiveness and drastically reduce investments in clean technologies like carbon capture, which are critical to meaningfully reducing emissions in the coming years.

• It is unnecessary and will undermine effective provincial-led decarbonizing approaches and initiatives already underway or proposed in Alberta and across Canada.

• It will lead to carbon leakage, with oil and gas production and greenhouse gas emissions increasing in other countries with less robust environmental and human rights standards.

Alberta is confident that the many of issues raised in this document are shared by other provinces and industry leaders, both within the oil and gas sector and beyond.

All greenhouse gas emissions have the same global impact, regardless of the sector or region in which they are produced. Instead of pursuing this unconstitutional cap, we are calling on your government to immediately halt further development and begin meaningful collaboration within established provincial regulatory regimes on oil and gas regulation and emissions reductions.

Alberta would welcome federal investment to help the oil and gas industry – and other industries – advance and adopt technology to reduce emissions to support our goals of carbon neutrality by 2050.

Alberta aspires to achieve a carbon neutral economy without compromising affordable, reliable, and secure energy for Alberta, Canada and the world. We know this relies on and requires investment to advance clean technology solutions.

We invite you to join us in implementing our Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan to achieve carbon neutrality while continuing the development of Alberta’s world-class natural energy resources for Canada and the world.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Schulz
Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Alberta

Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

Published on

From Resource Now

By

Alberta renews call for West Coast oil pipeline amid shifting federal, geopolitical dynamics.

Just six months ago, talk of resurrecting some version of the Northern Gateway pipeline would have been unthinkable. But with the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mark Carney in Canada, it’s now thinkable.

In fact, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to be making Northern Gateway 2.0 a top priority and a condition for Alberta staying within the Canadian confederation and supporting Mark Carney’s vision of making Canada an Energy superpower. Thanks to Donald Trump threatening Canadian sovereignty and its economy, there has been a noticeable zeitgeist shift in Canada. There is growing support for the idea of leveraging Canada’s natural resources and diversifying export markets to make it less vulnerable to an unpredictable southern neighbour.

“I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November,” Smith said at a keynote address Wednesday at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary. “I think that’s changed the national conversation.” Smith said she has been encouraged by the tack Carney has taken since being elected Prime Minister, and hopes to see real action from Ottawa in the coming months to address what Smith said is serious encumbrances to Alberta’s oil sector, including Bill C-69, an oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast tanker oil ban. “I’m going to give him some time to work with us and I’m going to be optimistic,” Smith said. Removing the West Coast moratorium on oil tankers would be the first step needed to building a new oil pipeline line from Alberta to Prince Rupert. “We cannot build a pipeline to the west coast if there is a tanker ban,” Smith said. The next step would be getting First Nations on board. “Indigenous peoples have been shut out of the energy economy for generations, and we are now putting them at the heart of it,” Smith said.

Alberta currently produces about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. Had the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines been built, Alberta could now be producing and exporting an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The original Northern Gateway Pipeline — killed outright by the Justin Trudeau government — would have terminated in Kitimat. Smith is now talking about a pipeline that would terminate in Prince Rupert. This may obviate some of the concerns that Kitimat posed with oil tankers negotiating Douglas Channel, and their potential impacts on the marine environment.

One of the biggest hurdles to a pipeline to Prince Rupert may be B.C. Premier David Eby. The B.C. NDP government has a history of opposing oil pipelines with tooth and nail. Asked in a fireside chat by Peter Mansbridge how she would get around the B.C. problem, Smith confidently said: “I’ll convince David Eby.”

“I’m sensitive to the issues that were raised before,” she added. One of those concerns was emissions. But the Alberta government and oil industry has struck a grand bargain with Ottawa: pipelines for emissions abatement through carbon capture and storage.

The industry and government propose multi-billion investments in CCUS. The Pathways Alliance project alone represents an investment of $10 to $20 billion. Smith noted that there is no economic value in pumping CO2 underground. It only becomes economically viable if the tradeoff is greater production and export capacity for Alberta oil. “If you couple it with a million-barrel-per-day pipeline, well that allows you $20 billion worth of revenue year after year,” she said. “All of a sudden a $20 billion cost to have to decarbonize, it looks a lot more attractive when you have a new source of revenue.” When asked about the Prince Rupert pipeline proposal, Eby has responded that there is currently no proponent, and that it is therefore a bridge to cross when there is actually a proposal. “I think what I’ve heard Premier Eby say is that there is no project and no proponent,” Smith said. “Well, that’s my job. There will be soon.  “We’re working very hard on being able to get industry players to realize this time may be different.” “We’re working on getting a proponent and route.”

At a number of sessions during the conference, Mansbridge has repeatedly asked speakers about the Alberta secession movement, and whether it might scare off investment capital. Alberta has been using the threat of secession as a threat if Ottawa does not address some of the province’s long-standing grievances. Smith said she hopes Carney takes it seriously. “I hope the prime minister doesn’t want to test it,” Smith said during a scrum with reporters. “I take it seriously. I have never seen separatist sentiment be as high as it is now. “I’ve also seen it dissipate when Ottawa addresses the concerns Alberta has.” She added that, if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast pipeline. “I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.

Tegan Hill

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X