Connect with us

Alberta

NATO reps say U.S., Canada oil and gas critical for energy security

Published

6 minute read

Outside NATO headquarters ahead of a flag-raising ceremony for Sweden’s accession to NATO, in Brussels on February 27, 2024. Getty Images photo

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

‘The traditional energy system will not disappear in a day’

Canada and the United States now produce more oil and gas than anywhere else on Earth, including the Middle East, according to a new report by S&P Global. 

This blanket of energy security extends beyond borders and is “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers wrote.  

They found that without oil and gas produced in the U.S. and Canada – which has more than doubled since 2008 – North America, Europe and the rest of the world would have been “notably more vulnerable” following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 

The ‘massive social impact’ of energy insecurity 

Energy insecurity is all too familiar for Lithuanian Juljius Grubliauskas, who works for the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO).  

Growing up, he was on hand when the Soviet Union weaponized energy in an attempt to topple Lithuania’s fledgling independence.    

“I remember clearly from my childhood in 1990 when the Russians cut off energy supplies to try to break the resolve of the Lithuanians, [and] that affected the daily lives of every citizen,” Grubliauskas  told a recent webinar hosted by the Toronto-based Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.  

“Having a lack of energy has a massive social impact and massive cascading effects like prices immediately jumping, massive inflation and such,” he said.  

“Today obviously many things have changed and the energy landscape looks much different, but the principle that energy is closely linked to national security and the independence of nations to make their decisions still remains true.” 

North America’s role in NATO energy supply 

Formed following the second world war, NATO represents 31 nations in Europe and North America in shared collective defense where an attack on one is seen as an attack on all.   

NATO is finalizing a strategic plan for its energy future as the world seeks to reduce emissions, focusing primarily on secure access for military forces, Grubliauskas said.   

Oil and gas from North America play a critical role, said Brussels-based NATO energy security policy expert Can Ögütcü. 

We need to be sure that we’re going to have security of supply of production in the U.S. and in Canada,” he said.  

“We have last one import supplier, the Russians, [and] we are in the transition to perhaps also lose another big supplier, the Middle East Gulf countries, as maritime routes become more and more insecure.” 

Critical North American energy integration 

While Canadian oil and gas exports currently go almost exclusively to the U.S., once they enter the integrated pipeline system, they can become so-called “re-exports” from U.S. Gulf Coast to overseas markets. 

At the end last year, the U.S. imported more oil from Canada than ever before, according to the U.S. Energy Information. 

At the same time, America exported a record 11.5 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products, and a record 709 billion cubic feet of natural gas.   

“North American energy integration, things like the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and the Keystone pipeline are absolutely crucial pieces of infrastructure, not just for the energy security of North America but also increasingly for the energy security of NATO allies,” said Joseph Calnan, energy security analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. 

“The traditional energy system will not disappear in a day. Climate change of course makes it imperative that we do reduce our emissions globally but the role of Canada in the short term and medium term, I believe, is to firm up this traditional energy system.  

“While Canada has a major role to play in future energy technologies, the current energy technologies are in my opinion, the priority.” 

Canada can do more 

Canada has not done enough to improve world energy security, said Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.  

“In the wake of Russia’s invasion, Canada has not stepped up and there is risk on all sides from depending too much on OPEC, or Qatar or Russia, but also too much on the United States,” she said, referencing the U.S. decision to pause approvals of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects.  

“We can do much more shipping on the East Coast. There are projects that were in the pipeline that have been rejected by the federal government and by provincial governments that could be going to Europe. Obviously on the West Coast is more promising.” 

Major projects slated to start up soon like the Trans Mountain expansion and LNG Canada terminal will grow global access to Canadian oil and gas, primarily in the Indo Pacific region, Calnan noted.  

“I think we’ll see that Canada has a much larger role to play in the total global market, which will have a stepwise influence on the situation in Europe,” he said. 

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

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in  Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy 

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.

Continue Reading

Trending

X