Connect with us

Energy

Navigating New Political Currents: How the U.S. Election Could Impact Canadian Energy – Resource Works

Published

8 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Resource Works
More News and Views From Resource Works Here

As Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, attends the annual Pacific North West Economic Region (PNWER) conference in Whistler this week, the unexpected news that President Joe Biden won’t be on the November 5 presidential ballot sent shockwaves through the policy and trade discussions.

For policy wonks like those I’m gathered with in Whistler this week, could there be a better gift than the conundrums unleashed over the past week onto the U.S. political landscape?

The rise of Donald Trump and the potential presidential candidacy of Kamala Harris conjure up a staggering range of possibilities. When it comes to trade, international relations, and the future of the foundational natural resource sectors that unify the ten sub-national jurisdictions making up PNWER, this is what everyone is going to be talking about..

With Trump securing the Republican nomination last week, Canadian energy producers were left pondering what his potential return to the White House might mean for their industry. Like a wildcatter drilling an exploratory well, Trump’s energy policies promise both gushers of opportunity and dry holes of risk for our oil and gas sector.

On the upside, his pledge to unleash American energy production could boost overall demand and prices, indirectly benefiting Canadian exporters. His promised regulatory reforms may also grease the wheels for new pipelines and LNG terminals, easing the flow of our energy products southward. It’s enough to make an Albertan oilman shed a tear of joy into his Stampede pancakes.

But before we break out the champagne (or perhaps a nice Canadian ice wine), consider the potential downsides. Trump’s “America First” trade policies and tariff threats loom like storm clouds on the horizon for Canadian exporters. His vow to gut environmental regulations faster than you can say “EPA” could leave Canadian producers at a competitive disadvantage, burdened by our quaint commitment to responsible production practices.

Yet in this potential regulatory race to the bottom, I spy an opportunity as golden as the fields of Saskatchewan canola. By doubling down on our world-class environmental and safety standards, Canadian energy could position itself as the responsible choice in global markets.

Picture it: “Canadian crude – now with 50% less guilt!” We could be the Tesla of fossil fuels, if you will.
Of course, there’s a risk in tooting our own sustainability horn too loudly. Trump isn’t known for his fondness of perceived criticism, and antagonizing him could lead to retaliatory tariffs faster than you can say “covfefe.” We’ll need to navigate this terrain as carefully as a pipeline through the Rockies.

On the other hand, if Kamala Harris, Biden’s preferred successor, retakes the White House, the landscape will look markedly different. Harris is likely to continue the Biden administration’s focus on climate action and clean energy. This could mean stronger support for renewables, potentially benefiting Canadian sectors involved in green technology and clean energy exports. However, stricter environmental regulations and a push for rapid decarbonization might challenge traditional oil and gas industries.

A Harris administration might prioritize cross-border collaboration on climate initiatives, providing opportunities for joint projects in carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen development, and renewable energy. This could foster closer ties and create a more integrated North American energy market focused on sustainability.

Bloomberg reports that while Harris wouldn’t be likely to make major shifts to the direction Biden charted on climate change, her opposition to offshore drilling and fracking suggests her signature move as president could be bringing fierce oil industry antagonism to the White House. As California attorney general, she brought lawsuits against energy companies, prosecuted a pipeline company over an oil leak and investigated Exxon Mobil Corp. for misleading the public about climate change.

Yet, such a focus on environmental standards could also mean increased scrutiny and regulatory hurdles for Canadian energy projects seeking to enter the U.S. market. Canadian producers will need to balance compliance with high environmental standards while remaining competitive.

In either scenario, navigating the U.S. political landscape will require strategic adaptability from Canadian energy producers. Trump’s potential return could mean deregulation and a push for fossil fuel dominance, while a Harris presidency could emphasize clean energy and environmental collaboration.

And for anyone lamenting the potential Trump threat to renewables growth, remember the number one test for The Donald: “Can I make money off it?” From Texas to Alberta, solar is a huge growth opportunity in the “and more” rather than the “and/or” category of energy opportunities that are creating investor profits. There’s no reason for him to fire opportunities like those.

Speaking of careful navigation, let’s ponder the electric vehicle conundrum. If Trump follows through on scrapping EV mandates, Canada may find itself stuck between a Chevy Bolt and a hard place. Do we follow suit and risk our climate goals, or forge ahead solo and risk becoming an automotive island? It’s enough to make one long for the simpler days of the horse and buggy.

But fear not, dear reader. For in the potential pairing of a Trump presidency and a Pierre Poilievre prime ministership, I see a silver lining as shiny as a freshly polished oil rig. Their aligned views on energy could usher in a new era of continental cooperation, turning the 49th parallel into a veritable pipeline of mutual prosperity. If current trends of market-driven decarbonization continue, this would actually be positive for the climate (and yes, I can already hear the chorus of those saying such a thing is impossible).

In the end, navigating the Trump energy landscape will require all the nimbleness of a Fort McMurray worker on an icy road. But with a dash of ingenuity, a sprinkle of diplomacy, and perhaps a generous helping of maple syrup to sweeten the deal, Canadian energy producers may yet find themselves not just surviving, but thriving in the turbulent waters of a potential Trump 2.0 era.

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

Business

Mark Carney is Planning to Hide His Revised, Sneaky Carbon Tax and This Time, No Rebates

Published on

 

Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney seems to think giving you a discount code on a new furnace or some extra insulation is the best way to help you with affordability.

And he’s going to pay for the discounts by hitting businesses like fuel refineries and power plants with a hidden carbon tax. Of course, those businesses will just pass on the cost.

Bottom line: You still get hit with that hidden carbon tax when you buy gas or pay your bills.

But it gets worse.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at least attempted to give you some of the carbon tax money back through rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer consistently made it clear the rebates don’t cover all of the costs. But at least you could spend the money on the things you need most.

But under Carney’s “affordability” plan, you don’t get cash to pay down your credit card or buy groceries. You can only use the credits to buy things like e-bikes and heat pumps.

Here’s how Carney explained it.

“We will have the big polluters pay for climate incentives by developing and integrating a new consumer carbon credit market into the industrial pricing system,” Carney told a Halifax crowd. “While we still provide price certainty for households when they make climate smart choices.”

Translation: Carney would still make Canadians pay, but he’ll only help them with affordability if they’re making “smart” choices.

Sound familiar? This is a lot like the scheme former opposition leader Erin O’Toole ran on. And it ended his political career.

Carney’s carbon tax plan is terrible for two reasons.

First: it’s sneaky. Carney wants to hide the cost of the carbon tax. A powerplant running on natural gas is not going to eat the cost of Carney’s carbon tax; it will pass that expense down to ordinary people who paying the bills.

Second: as anemic as the Trudeau government rebates are, at least Canadians could use the money for the things they need most. It’s cash they can put it towards the next heating bill, or buy a pair of winter boots, or pay for birthday party decorations.

That kind of messy freedom makes some central planning politicians twitchy.

Here’s the thing: half of Canadians are broke and a discount on a new Tesla probably won’t solve their problems.

About 50 per cent are within $200 each month of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills.

With the cost of groceries up $800 this year for a family of four, people are watching flyers for peanut butter. Food banks have record demand.

Yet, Carney wants Canadians to keep paying the carbon tax while blindfolded and then send thank-you cards when they get a few bucks off on a solar panel they can’t afford.

Clearly the architects of Carney’s plan haven’t spent many sleepless nights worrying about paying rent.

One of Carney’s recent gigs was governor of the Bank of England where he was paid $862,000 per year plus a $449,000 housing allowance.

With ermine earmuffs that thick, it’s hard to hear people’s worries.

About a thousand Canadians recently posted home heating bills online.

Kelly’s family in Northern Ontario paid $134 in the carbon tax for December’s home heating. Lilly’s household bill near Winnipeg was $140 in the carbon tax.

The average Alberta household will pay about $440 extra in the carbon tax on home heating this year.

After the carbon tax is hiked April 1, it will add an extra 21 cents to a litre of gasoline and 25 cents per litre of diesel. Filling a minivan will cost about $15 extra, filling a pickup truck will cost about $25 extra, and a trucker filling a big rig will have to pay about $250 extra in the carbon tax.

Trudeau’s carbon tax data is posted online.

Carney’s carbon tax would be hidden.

Carney isn’t saying the carbon tax is an unfair punishment for Canadians who are trying to drive to work and heat their homes.

He says the problem is “perception.”

“It has become very divisive for Canadians,” Carney told his Halifax crowd about the carbon tax. “It’s the perceptions of the negative impacts of the carbon tax on households, without fully recognizing the positive impacts of the rebate.”

Carney isn’t trying to fix the problem. He’s trying to hide it. And he wants Canadians to be happy with discount codes on “smart” purchases instead of cash.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Continue Reading

Energy

Bipartisan groups in Congress introduce bill to protect strategic petroleum reserve

Published on

From The Center Square

By

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill to limit, not prohibit, the sale of crude oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

The Banning SPR Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act was filed in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, John Fetterman, D-Penn., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. U.S. Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn, Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, and Jay Obernolte, R-Calif. filed the bill in the U.S. House.

Instead of repealing provisions of a 10-year-old law to ban the sale or export of SPR oil, the bill seeks to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the sale or export of SPR oil to certain countries and entities. It would ban SPR oil from being sold or exported to the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Russian Federation, Islamic Republic of Iran, any entity owned or controlled by these countries or the Chinese Communist Party.

The SPR is the largest publicly stored emergency supply of petroleum in the world – solely supplied by the U.S. oil industry, led by Texas. The SPR was created after a U.S. energy crisis erupted from a 1973 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo and Carter administration inflationary policies.

Underground tanks in Texas and Louisiana have the capacity to hold more than 700 million barrels of petroleum. Instead of passing balanced budgets, in 2015, Congress mandated that the U.S. Department of Energy sell SPR oil to fund its deficit spending.

Since then, the DOE has sold SPR reserves to the highest bidder through competitive public auctions to anyone in the world. During the Biden and Trump administrations, foreign companies with direct ties to American adversaries purchased SPR oil for anti-democratic regimes.

In 2022, in response to energy policies he implemented that directly contributed to high energy costs and inflation, President Joe Biden instructed the DOE to release 1 million barrels of SPR oil a day for 180 days. Chinese companies benefited from the sale, purchasing large quantities. The 2022 release was the largest SPR sale in U.S. history, according to US Energy Information Administration data.

Biden left the SPR with less than 395 million barrels of crude oil. Under the first Trump administration, the SPR exceeded 695 million barrels. Under the Obama administration, it exceeded 726 million barrels.

“The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is meant to protect the U.S. during crises, not supply our adversaries,” Cruz said. “Under President Biden, part of this reserve was sold, benefiting China’s strategic interests. There is strong bipartisan consensus around preventing such a sale from being repeated.”

“The Strategic Petroleum Reserve protects America’s energy, economic, and national security,” Fetterman said. “We must prioritize the safety of America and our allies – we cannot allow our adversaries to purchase oil from our critical energy reserves. This is a commonsense bill with strong bipartisan support.”

Their efforts follow a bipartisan initiative to protect the SPR that was incorporated in the Fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Cruz and Houlahan introduced amendments to their respective chamber’s version of the NDAA, which included similar provisions to this bill. Cruz’s amendment received bipartisan support in the Senate. Houlahan’s amendment unanimously passed in the House.

Continue Reading

Trending

X