Minister Wilkinson’s flawed crystal ball

The federal minister of energy and natural resources’ statements are at odds with the energy industry’s leaders and economists.

Meet Canada’s new expert on the global oil-and-gas market, and the world’s future demand for those commodities.

He is (surprise) Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s federal minister of energy and natural resources, who has announced this outlook for oil:

“Oil and gas will peak this decade. In fact, oil is probably peaking this year.”

The world oil market now eats up some 102.21 million barrels per day, so Wilkinson’s anticipated peak this year would be around that much.

But that’s not what market-watchers and oil-sector experts see:

Goldman Sachs Research: “While some prominent forecasters have predicted oil demand will peak by 2030, our researchers expect oil usage will increase through 2034.

“That’s in part because of demand for oil from emerging markets in Asia and demand for petrochemicals. We think peak demand is another decade away.”

The 2024 outlook of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (12 of the world’s major oil-exporting nations) says simply: “There is no peak oil demand on the horizon.

“For oil alone, we see demand reaching over 120 million barrels a day by 2050, with the potential for it to be higher.”

“What the Outlook underscores is that the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas bears no relation to fact. Combined they make up well over 50% of the energy mix today and are expected to do the same in 2050.”

In an outlook for 2024-2050, one scenario from energy giant BP sees this: “Oil continues to play a major role in the global energy system over the first half of the outlook, with the world consuming between 100-80 Mb/d of oil in 2035.

“Oil demand declines over the outlook but continues to play a significant role in the global energy system for the next 10-15 years. This requires continuing investment in upstream oil (and natural gas).”

Greg Ebel, CEO of Calgary-based Enbridge, says global oil consumption will be “well north” of 100 million barrels per day by 2050 — and could exceed 110 million barrels.

“You continue to see economic demands, and particularly in the developing world, people continue to say lighter, faster, denser, cheaper energy works for our people. . . And that’s leading to more oil usage.”

Even the optimistic International Energy Agency sees global demand increasing to 105.4 million barrels a day by 2030.

So take Minister Wilkinson’s crystal-ball outlook, of oil “probably” peaking this year, with at least a barrel of salt.

Then there’s Wilkinson’s contention that continuing to rely on oil and gas “will leave Canada uncompetitive and poorer on a go-forward basis.”

If so, why did his why his government invest $4.5 billion of your taxpayer money in 2018 to buy the Trans Mountain oil pipeline system and its TMX expansion?

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland: “Because we knew it was a serious and necessary investment — one that is in the national interest and will make Canada and the Canadian economy more sovereign and more resilient.”

And from Prime Minister Trudeau: “By moving forward with TMX, we’re creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating our clean energy transition, and generating new avenues for Indigenous economic prosperity. . . .

“This project isn’t about expanding our production. It’s about expanding our options. TMX will reduce our reliance on our single customer, the United States, and give us access to the growing markets of Asia.”

All of that seems to have escaped Minister Wilkinson and his flawed crystal ball.

Related Topics:#JonathanWIlkinson #OPEC #ResourceWorks GoldmanSachs OutlookForOil PeakOil WorldOilDemand

Up Next

Federal government should listen to Canadians and trim the bureaucracy

Don't Miss

Canada’s productivity and prosperity slump

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Métis will now get piece of ever-expanding payout pie

Business / 4 hours ago

US government buys stakes in two Canadian mining companies

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands

Business

Trump Blocks UN’s Back Door Carbon Tax

Published on October 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Has the time come for America to seriously reassess its participation in and support for the United Nations (U.N.)?

It’s a question that some prominent people are asking this week after the increasingly woke and essentially useless globalist body attempted to sneak a global carbon tax in through the back door while no one was looking.

Except someone was looking, as it turns out. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who chairs the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is part of the majority on both the Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, said in an X post Thursday evening that this latest bit of anti-American action “warrants our withdrawal from the UN.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his own X post on the matter on Wednesday that the Trump administration “will not allow the UN to tax American citizens and companies. Under the leadership of POTUS (President Donald Trump), the U.S. will be a hard NO. We call on other nations to stand alongside the United States in defense of our citizens and sovereignty.”

On Friday afternoon, Mr. Rubio took to X again to announce the news that efforts by himself and others in the Trump administration succeeded in killing an effort to move the tax forward during a meeting in London. However, the proposal is not fully dead – a final vote on it was simply delayed for a year.

The issue at hand stems from an attempt by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – an agency of the U.N. – to impose net-zero rules on fuels used for seaborne shipping operations. The Trump administration estimates the imposition of the new requirements will increase the cost of shipping goods by about 10%, thus creating yet another round of inflation hitting the poorest citizens the hardest thanks to the globalist obsession with the amount of plant food – carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere.

Known as the IMO Net-Zero Framework, the proposal claims it would effectively “zero out” emissions from the shipping industry by 2050.

The potential implications if the U.N. ultimately succeeds in implementing its own global carbon tax are obvious. If this unelected, unaccountable globalist body can levy a carbon tax on Americans, a concept that America’s own elected officials have steadfastly rejected across the terms of the last five U.S. presidents, what would then prevent it from imposing other kinds of taxes on the world to support its ideological goals?

President Trump’s opposition to exactly this kind of international intrusion into America’s domestic policy choices is the reason why he has twice won the presidency, each time de-committing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords.

It has become increasingly obvious in recent years that the central goal of the global climate alarm movement is to dramatically raise the cost of all kinds of energy in order to force the masses to live smaller, more restricted lives and make their behavior easier for authoritarian governments to control. This camel’s nose under the tent move by the U.N. to sneak a global carbon tax into reality is just the latest in a long parade of examples that serve as proof points for that thesis.

At some point, U.S. officials must seriously reassess the value proposition in continuing to spend billions of dollars each year supporting and hosting a globalist organization whose every action seems designed to inflict damage on our country and its people. Now would be a good time to do that, in fact.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Business

Trump Admin Blows Up UN ‘Global Green New Scam’ Tax Push, Forcing Pullback

Published on October 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Melissa O’Rourke

A United Nations (UN) proposal for a global carbon tax, which threatened to raise consumer costs, was tabled on Friday following pressure from the Trump administration.

Members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body based in London, met this week to vote on a “Net-Zero Framework,” which would have imposed steep penalties on ship emissions. A majority of countries at the agency voted on Friday to postpone the decision for a year after the Trump administration pushed back and threatened retaliation against states supporting the measure.

“Common sense prevailed. The Trump Administration will not stand for the UN or any organization forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for their environmental pet projects,” a senior State Department official told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The proposed IMO Net-Zero Framework, aimed at achieving global shipping emissions neutrality by 2050, would have imposed taxes of $100 to $380 per ton of CO2 on ships that failed to meet targets. If the global fleet fell even 10% short of the targets, costs could soar to $20 to $30 billion by 2030 and exceed $300 billion by 2035, by some estimates.

The Trump administration has warned the plan could raise global shipping costs by as much as 10%, forcing higher prices for American consumers.

“The collapse of the UN-backed shipping emissions deal is not the disaster portrayed by climate activists — it’s a victory for sovereignty over what amounted to taxation without representation,” Anthony Watts, Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “Shipping may account for 3% of global emissions, but it moves 90% of global trade; taxing it in the name of ‘net zero’ would have punished consumers and developing nations alike while enriching bureaucrats and consultants in Geneva and New York.”

President Donald Trump personally weighed in against the measure.

“The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form. We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers OR, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend YOUR money on their Green dreams,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform Thursday. “Stand with the United States, and vote NO in London tomorrow!”

The Trump administration had threatened that member states backing the measures could face a range of repercussions, including probes into anti-competitive practices, visa restrictions on maritime crews, commercial and financial penalties, increased port fees, and sanctions targeting officials promoting climate policies.

“Better than merely not signing a UN climate treaty is promising to punish countries that do sign. The result is no treaty. Thank you, President Trump,” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and former Trump EPA transition team advisor, told the DCNF.

Frank Lasee, president of Truth in Energy and Climate, said the president’s stance helped protect consumers from “neocolonial mandates that enrich China at our expense.”

“This global carbon tax isn’t climate action; it’s economic sabotage,” Lasee told the DCNF. “Trump’s masterstroke preserves innovation, low taxes, and freedom from globalist overreach — ensuring our future remains bright without new well-funded UN mischief.”