Alberta
Energy East May be the Nation Building Mega-Project Canada Needs Right Now
From EnergyNow.Ca
By Jim Warren
Is it Time to Put Politics Aside for Team Canada? – Jim Warren
People on the prairies who understand the value of a flourishing oil and gas sector are hopeful the election of a Conservative government will sweep away the barriers that blocked the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. Some optimistic industry analysts suggest a project similar to Northern Gateway may be doable but concede that reviving Energy East would probably be a bridge too far.
It is getting difficult to recount exactly how many times Quebec’s demands for special treatment have disrupted national unity. Quebec’s rejection of Energy East was the most recent assault on national cohesion to anger large numbers of people on the prairies. It amounted to sticking a finger in the eye of the oil-producing provinces. And while the Poilievre Conservatives are set to win the next election, their victory won’t signal a big change in attitudes about the environment in Quebec.
Politicians from Quebec argue over which of their parties can claim it hates pipelines the most. Bloc Québécois leader, Yves-François Blanchet brags about the prominent role his party played in killing Energy East. His boasting actually drew the ire of Quebec Liberals and environmental groups in 2019. They claimed the Bloc was taking credit for their work. The 338Canada website, has the anti-oil Bloc Québécois winning 45 of the 78 federal seats in Quebec in the upcoming federal election.
Provincially, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government is marginally more reasonable to deal with. It claims to stand for Quebec’s national autonomy as opposed to outright separation. Quebec premier, François Legault, says the west would do well to behave more like politicians from his province when dealing with Ottawa. He makes a good point.
Revisiting just how eminently reasonable the original Energy East proposal actually was suggests many Quebec politicians are immune to common sense. If the Energy East proposal wasn’t acceptable to the overly zealous activists who influence environmental policy in the province, why would we expect a different response in the near future?
There are, however, coercive options that might work. Premiers from Alberta and Saskatchewan have proposed withholding a portion of Quebec’s annual equalization payment in response to its lack of cooperation on building a pipeline to tidewater on the Atlantic coast. Unfortunately that option would require a constitutional amendment, and those have proven to be extremely difficult to engineer.
Alternatively, prairie governments might encourage Enbridge to shut down its Line 9 pipeline which has the capacity to transport up to 300 barrels per day (bpd) of western oil to Montreal. That sort of move would require getting industry players on side–including Enbridge and Suncor, who owns a 137,000 bpd capacity refinery in Montreal. It is encouraging to recall that Peter Lougheed faced little in the way of industry opposition in the 1970s when he cut oil shipments to Central Canada by 10%.
Quebec’s past behavior pretty much guarantees the province would threaten separation if confronted with the loss of its equalization welfare ($14 billion for fiscal 2023-24). They might be less concerned about getting a pipeline from the west turned off—they seem to prefer tanker ships over pipelines.
Many westerners are weary of Quebec’s separation blackmail. Some of those who have run out of patience say, “next time they threaten to go, just tell them not to let the door hit them on the ass on their way out.”
The cancellation of the Energy East pipeline was viewed on the prairies as rejection of a project that would generate greater national harmony. It was seen as a nation building exercise of benefit to Quebecers, people from the Maritimes, Ontario and Western Canada. Westerners mistakenly assumed even environmentally sanctimonious Quebecers would recognize the benefits of obtaining more of their oil from pipelines rather than via marginally risky railways and ocean going tankers.
Following the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, people from western Canada’s oil patch naively assumed approval of Energy East was a no brainer. The disaster killed 47 people and destroyed downtown Lac- Mégantic. It was caused by the derailment and explosion of a train hauling oil tanker cars. It seemed reasonable to imagine Quebecers would happily purchase safer, less expensive Canadian oil transported by pipeline.
Energy East would have been the longest pipeline in North America. It was to run from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. The plan was to convert 2,900 miles of existing natural gas pipeline into an oil pipeline, build 1,900 miles of new pipeline and make a $300 million upgrade to an Irving oil terminal in New Brunswick. It was a visionary project reminiscent of the building of the transcontinental railway and the original TransCanada pipeline.
The pipeline would be capable of transporting 1.1 million bpd. No more than 400,000 bpd would be required to replace the foreign oil being imported by tanker and rail. The remaining 600,000 barrels could be exported to new international customers for Canadian oil. The value of those new export revenues would conceivably approach $15 billion annually.
It is worth remembering the influential role Quebec Liberals played in opposing Energy East. Montreal’s Mayor Denis Coderre, was a former Liberal cabinet minister who led the Montreal Municipal Community (MMC) a coalition of 82 Montreal area municipal governments. As much as anything, the MMC’s strident opposition to Energy Easy in January of 2016 foretold TransCanada’s October 2017 cancellation of the pipeline.
Inspiration for cancelling the pipeline was provided by Quebec’s robust environmental lobby—led by activists like Steven Guilbeault. Polls conducted at the time showed the Quebec politicians who opposed Energy East had the support of 60% or more of the public. The pipeline was similarly denounced by premier Philippe Couillard and Quebec’s Liberal government at the time. While the southwest corner of B.C. has typically been thought of as the home of Canada’s Greens, in Quebec the Liberals are the party preferred by environmental activists.
Liberals in Ottawa remained officially neutral during the Energy East controversy but were unofficially cheering for the pipeline’s cancellation from the sidelines.
One of the biggest challenges to confront an effort to revive the project would be finding willing investors. TransCanada walked away financially bruised and who wants to be similarly burnt? And, the Trans Mountain example casts a dark shadow on the idea of a government-owned line.
Trying to convince Quebecers, especially young adults, about the value of new oil pipelines seems like a fool’s errand. Given that only 50% of 16-20 year-olds in Quebec have a driver’s license, it could prove difficult convincing them about the importance of petroleum to Canada’s transportation system and economic health.
No less discouraging is the fact that Quebec’s environmental movement remains dedicated to killing the petroleum and natural gas industries on behalf of combatting climate change.
Yet, oddly enough there have been surprising signals coming out of Quebec in recent years suggesting regular Quebecers don’t share the same level of anti-oil and anti-pipeline enthusiasm as their province’s politicians and environmentalists. Perhaps this is something worth looking into before giving up entirely on the idea of a pipeline to Atlantic tidewater.
From Resource Now
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.”
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
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Business2 days ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Business1 day agoEU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Courageous Discourse2 days agoHealthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoConservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoAlberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill
-
Immigration2 days agoMass immigration can cause enormous shifts in local culture, national identity, and community cohesion
-
Canadian Energy Centre1 day agoCross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project