Oil and gas.
Energy
Energy & the Environment
The three letter curse words.
Many are calling for the end of oil and gas while promoting the slogan “Build Back Better”.
The slogan which originated from the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in response to Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, has now morphed into the slogan for all things green and socially just.
The Liberal Party of Canada’s website outlines their plan for “Protecting our Environment and Moving Our Economy Forward” as follows:
- Fighting and Preparing for Climate Change
- Making Communities Cleaner, More Efficient, and More Affordable
- Protecting Canada’s Natural Legacy
The document lays out a commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, plant two billion trees in ten years, provide interest-free loans for retrofits, build vehicle charging stations, set up a camping travel bursary and ban single-use plastics.
So what is the problem with the Liberals environmental plan? Simple. It lacks depth, neglects financial implications and worst of all, its not rooted in reality.
Net-Zero Emissions by 2050
Making a commitment to hit this target through “legally binding” targets ignores the reality that we live in.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has indicated that emissions-reductions cannot be met unless the carbon tax is drastically increased.
While it may be possible to tax the country into a state of zero emissions, this would significantly cripple the economy, destroy jobs and ruin lives. This is not acceptable.
What should the government do?
Up to the mid-late 1800s, wood was the primary source of energy for developed nations.
What changed from that point to now? Innovation.
Government needs to remove red tape, repeal poor policy, end harmful taxation and allow the free market to pursue new technologies.
How can we be sure that this will work?
The free market is driven to create returns for shareholders. If there is an opportunity to create profits through new technology, free markets will find a way to capitalize.
In order to truly implement policies that improve our environment, we need to look beyond our borders and bring leading Canadian technologies to foreign countries.
Canada is a significant coal exporter. Coal, when burned, is a much higher polluter than other non-renewable resources such as natural gas and hydrogen. The government should work with foreign countries to promote the use of natural gas as a substitute.
Retrofit Buildings
Plans to provide free energy audits, interest-free retrofit loans and grants for zero-emissions homes are the main talking points of the Liberal retrofit plan.
First off, nothing supplied by the government is free. All government expenses are bankrolled by taxpayers.
In the midst of reduced or eliminated incomes due to the pandemic, the likelihood of home-owners or landlords being willing to take on debt to retrofit homes or office buildings is going to be limited for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, the costs associated with building a zero-emission home will not be offset with a $5,000 grant as proposed in the Liberal plan.
What should the government do?
Canada is already home to stringent building regulations. Regulations that carry significant costs.
In order to encourage further “green” building, the market needs access to more affordable products.
The government could accomplish this through the reduction of red tape, and the promotion of trade deals that allow for foreign firms to bring their goods and technology to Canada.
Competition and innovation ultimately drive down consumer costs and will always be more effective and efficient than government subsidies.
Charging Stations
Recently, the federal government announced that it will “invest” $295 million to help Ford Canada upgrade its Oakville assembly plant to begin making electric vehicles.
With the increased manufacturing of electric cars, comes a requirement for charging stations.
According to a 2015 US Department of Energy study, costs for single port Level 1 stations range from $300-$4,500. For DC fast charging stations, $14,000-$91,000.
Level 1 stations add 6 miles of range per hour @ 1.9kW. DC fast charging stations add 90 miles per 20 minutes @ 90kW.
Before taxpayer funds are thrown at green projects, a complete analysis of the life-cycle costs should be a requirement. This will ensure that emissions are truly lower and that taxpayers are receiving economic value for their tax dollars.
What should the government do?
Government subsidies that prop up an industry or product are inevitably harmful to consumers. These subsidies hide costs that the free market would ultimately choose not to absorb.
Instead, government should encourage vehicle manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, regardless of the fuel system used to power the vehicle.
This could be done through the existing Scientific Research & Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program. The specific objective of the project should be to offset the costs of wages paid to research and development staff who are engaged in this direct work.
Beyond the direct goal of improving vehicle emissions, this program would create more opportunities for high-paying jobs within the tech sector which would further help to diversify the Canadian economy.
Trees and Camping Travel Bursary
The tree planting program involves two billion trees, ten years, 3,500 seasonal jobs and an overall $3 billion effort to deploy natural climate solutions.
If there is a job that meets pandemic guidelines, planting trees in the great outdoors qualifies.
The camping bursary was to provide a $2,000 grant to help families go camping in Canada’s national parks. No grants have been provided to date.
Additionally, the Learn to Camp program was to be expanded so that every Canadian child could learn how to camp by the time they reached grade eight.
What should the government do?
The WE scandal resulted in a missed opportunity to create job opportunities for post-secondary students. This can be remedied by expanding the Canada Summer Jobs program in advance of the 2021 tree planting season.
If there is little or no interest in the tree planting program for 2021, it should be abandoned entirely. Instead, government should support private sector companies who are consistently engaging in tree planting projects and other environmental reclamation projects.
Boutique tax credits and other one-off government programs typically result in creating winners and losers. As such, the camping bursary program should be cancelled.
Instead, and in conjunction with a full tax code review, the government could find efficiencies within the tax system that would translate into real results for Canadians.
Single-Use Plastics Ban
A recent announcement to ban single-use plastics, regulations to be finalized in late 2021, seeks to fulfill a long running Liberal election promise.
The ban will remove plastic grocery bags, straws, stir sticks, six pack rings, cutlery and takeout containers.
At a time where the hospitality industry is reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, this will be another difficult adjustment for this industry.
Smaller Alberta plastic manufactures have expressed concern with the new policy. Although single-use plastics account for a small portion of the plastics market, the costs associated with re-tooling a manufacturing facility can be quite high.
What should the government do?
Instead of virtue-signalling, the government should focus on addressing the issue of plastic recycling. The slogan of reduce, reuse and recycle can be traced back to the 1970s. Why hasn’t it caught on as hoped? Simply put, there is no money in plastic recycling.
Government should focus resources instead to projects that find viable solutions for plastic recycling. One such project is the development of plastic-bitumen composite roads.
Adding carbon capture technology to the plastic processing and bitumen mixing process would allow for road materials to be produced in an environmentally conscious manner.
Plastic-bitumen composite roads could result in better quality roadways as they are less water absorbent. Due to the temperature swings in Canada, this could save significant amounts of money otherwise spent on maintenance.
Final Thoughts
Canadians across the country have a strong desire to protect and preserve our environment for our children and future generations.
Environmental policies need to be more than exercises in virtue-signalling.
Government needs to understand the climate that we live in, the size of our country and the economic implications of the decisions being made.
Government subsidies are unacceptable. Subsidies result in expensive infrastructure projects and bloated consumer costs. If we need a reminder of this we only have to look at the recent failing of the Ontario green energy initiative.
Government should focus on reducing red tape, encouraging competition and providing targeted tax credits. Policy that focus on tax credits require free market enterprises to undergo the leg work to get new technology to a state where it can be capitalized on. This allows the free market to determine what is viable and how to achieve capitalization in the most efficient manner.
Lastly, we need capitalize on revenues from our oil and gas sector in order to further technological advances. Passing legislation to end emissions, create a zero-plastic waste economy or any other lofty agenda neglects the real world implications of these decisions. These policies do not take into consideration the resources required to accomplish these goals. Additionally, many families are being left behind as a result of these policy decisions.
We can protect our environment through innovation. In making policy decisions, government must not take better care of the environment than the residents who call it home.
https://www.jaredpilon.com/
CALGARY — No surprises are expected today as shareholders in ARC Resources Ltd. and Seven Generations Energy Ltd. vote virtually on an all-shares transaction to form Canada’s sixth-largest oil and gas producer.
The merger, valued at $8.1 billion including debt, comes amid a spate of consolidation in the Calgary-based oilpatch but analyst Cody Kwong of Stifel FirstEnergy says what makes it unusual is that it is the combination of two equally well-respected intermediate companies.
He says the only criticism he’s heard of the deal proposed in February is that it will reduce investment options by one for those looking for high-quality choices to diversify their energy company portfolios.
To proceed, the deal requires approval at virtual meetings today by holders of two-thirds of the shares in Seven Generations and a simple majority of the shares voted by ARC shareholders, along with their approval of the issuance of ARC common shares, plus court and other regulatory approvals.
The combined company is to operate as Arc Resources and remain headquartered in Calgary. Arc chairman Hal Kvisle and CEO Terry Anderson are to continue in their roles while Seven Generations CEO Marty Proctor is to become vice-chair.
Arc and Seven Generations say they expect to generate cost savings from synergies of about $110 million per year by 2022 while continuing to pay Arc’s quarterly dividend of six cents per share.
“We’ve seen several acquisitions and M&A activity in the past three to six months. This is probably the first time that we’ve seen a strong-versus-strong acquisition proposition, from my perspective, anyway,” said Kwong in an interview, adding the usual pattern is for stronger companies to buy weaker ones.
The merged company is to be Canada’s largest producer of condensate, a light oil prized as a diluent to be mixed with oilsands bitumen so it will flow in a pipeline. It would be its third-largest natural gas producer.
Overall combined production is expected to total more than 340,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day this year, composed of about 138,000 barrels per day of liquids like condensate and 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.
The companies are among the largest drillers into the Montney, a sprawling underground formation that straddles the Alberta-B.C. border.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 31, 2021.
Companies in this story: (TSX:VII, TSX:ARX)
The Canadian Press
WASHINGTON — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario are forming a united front in the fight to reverse Michigan’s shutdown of a key cross-border pipeline.
Energy ministers from all three provinces are urging Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to reconsider her attack on Enbridge’s Line 5.
The ministers are testifying before a special House of Commons committee examining Canada-U.S. relations.
Whitmer has ordered the 65-year-old pipeline shut down because it crosses the Straits of Mackinac, a sensitive area of the Great Lakes.
Enbridge has gone to court to get the order reversed — a legal challenge the provinces want Ottawa to join.
Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage says shutting down the line would create a dangerous precedent for other cross-border pipelines between Canada and the United States.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 30, 2021.
The Canadian Press
COVID-192 days ago
There’s another way to end the pandemic. Doctors can knock covid out with treatment
Alberta4 days ago
Video: AHS and RCMP at The Whistle Stop Cafe as latest lockdown restrictions kick in
Business3 days ago
City of Red Deer expedites patio process for desperate restaurants
Alberta5 days ago
Kenney tells UCP caucus COVID-19 dissent OK, breaking health rules means expulsion
COVID-192 days agoThere’s another way to end the pandemic. Doctors can knock covid out with treatment
- Alberta23 hours ago
History of Red Deer’s Second Courthouse
- COVID-1913 hours ago
“The elephant in the room is early treatment works.” Doctor testifies covid can and should be treated.
- Business2 days ago
My European Favourites: Český Krumlov
- COVID-191 day ago
Canada to get 1 million vaccine doses this week with only Pfizer delivery scheduled
- Alberta19 hours ago
Alberta legislature Speaker apologizes for condemning new COVID health restrictions
- Top Story CP16 hours ago
Air Canada, Ottawa agree to aid package worth up to $5.9 billion
- Top Story CP1 day ago
Erin O’Toole says ‘I didn’t hide who I was’ running for Conservative leader
