Energy
Why Eastern Canada Needs to Support Western Provinces and Reject the Government’s Energy Policies
From EnergyNow.ca
By Catherine Swift
There are currently about 400 different laws, regulations, taxes and other measures in Canada that serve as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. No one has a clue which of them are effective or useless or how much they are damaging our economy and reducing Canadians’ standard of living needlessly.
Energy
Tanker ban politics leading to a reckoning for B.C.
From Resource Works
That a new oil pipeline from Alberta to BC is being aired by Ottawa and pushed by Alberta has, in turn, critics eagerly pushing carefully crafted scare stories.
Take the Green Party’s Elizabeth May, for one: She insists that oil tankers leaving Prince Rupert would be sailing through “Canada’s most dangerous waters and the fourth most dangerous waters in the world.”
First, this “dangerous waters” claim is unsubstantiated, unproven, and hyperbolic. It is apparently based on a line in a 1992 federal guide to marine-weather hazards on the west coast, but it is not credited or supported there.
Second, who says a new oil pipeline would go to Prince Rupert? No destination is specified in the memorandum of understanding published by Ottawa and Alberta.
It speaks of a commitment to “enable the export of bitumen from a strategic deep-water port to Asian markets.”
Energy Minister Tim Hodgson: “There is no route today. Under the MoU, what (Alberta) would need to do is work with the affected jurisdiction, British Columbia, and work with affected First Nations for that project to move forward. That’s what the work plan in the MoU calls for.”
First Nations concerned
Now, the MoU does say that this could include “if necessary” a change to the federal ban on oil tankers in northwest BC waters.
Some First Nations are strongly fighting the idea of oil tankers in northern BC waters citing fears of a catastrophic spill. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), for example, is calling for the Canada-Alberta pipeline MoU to be scrapped.
“A pipeline to B.C.’s coast is nothing but a pipe dream,” said Chief Donald Edgars of Old Massett Village Council in Haida Gwaii.
And AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said: “Canada can create all the MOUs, project offices, advisory groups that they want: the chiefs are united. . . When it comes to approving large national projects on First Nations lands, there will not be getting around rights holders.”
Alberta group interested
But the Metis Settlements of Alberta say they’re interested in purchasing a stake in the proposed pipeline and want to “work with First Nations in British Columbia who oppose the project.”
The Alberta government’s Indigenous loan agency says a new oil pipeline to the BC coast could deliver “significant” returns for Indigenous Peoples.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has suggested the pipeline could bring in $2 billion a year in revenue, and that it could be as much as 50 per cent owned by Indigenous groups — who would thus earn $1 billion a year,
“Can you imagine the impact that would have on those communities in British Columbia and in Alberta? It’s extraordinary.”
And we note that in 2019 the First Nations-proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, which aimed to connect Alberta’s oilpatch to Kitimat, garnered serious interest among Indigenous groups. It had buy-in from 35 First Nations groups along the proposed corridor, with equity-sharing agreements floated with 400 others. (The project died with passage of the tanker ban.)
Vancouver more likely
More recent chatter, including remarks by BC Premier David Eby, would suggest oil from a new pipeline would more likely be through Vancouver, rather than via Prince Rupert or Kitimat BC. And tankers have been carrying oil from the Trans Mountain Pipeline System’s Burnaby terminal since 1956 — with no spills.
Oft cited by northern-port opponents is the major spill of 258,000 barrels of crude oil (more than 40 million litres) from the tanker Exxon Valdez, which ran aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989.
The resulting spill killed native and marine wildlife over 2,100 km of coastline. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board found that the spill occurred due to human error. It cited a tired third mate on watch, and noted the captain had an alcohol problem.
But the Exxon Valdez was a single-hull tanker. Its spill led to the phasing out of single-hull tankers, replaced in the ensuing 36 years by new generations of double-hull vessels (with an inner and outer hull separated to contain spills if the outer hull ruptures), new tanker safety rules — and new ways of dealing with the far-fewer spills.
Among those new ways is the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation: “Our mandate is to ensure there is a state of preparedness in place when a marine spill occurs and to mitigate the impacts on B.C.’s coast. This includes the protection of wildlife, economic and environmental sensitivities, and the safety of both responders and the public.”
What about LNG carriers?
At the same time, fear-mongers are actively flogging scare stories on social media.
One opposition group sees future LNG carrier traffic along the southern BC coast as potentially numbering “in the realm of 800+ transits a year.”
Eight hundred a year? BC Ferries runs more than 185,000 a year. And the ferries don’t have tethered tugs helping them to get safely from LNG terminals. And they don’t have BC Coast Pilots on the bridge to keep progress safe. Oil tankers leaving the Port of Vancouver have both.
As marine captain Duncan MacFarlane of LNG Canada in Kitimat says: “LNG carriers are some of the most sophisticated ships in the world…Once loading operations are complete (at LNG Canada), three BC Pilots will join the ship and start navigating up the Douglas Channel, which is approximately 159 nautical miles out to the Prince Rupert pilot station.”
“LNG Canada has partnered with HaiSea Marine, which is a company formed between the Haisla Nation and Vancouver-based SeaSpan, to provide two escort tugs and three harbour-assist tugs to safely move the vessel out of the Douglas Channel…once the vessel drops the pilots at Prince Rupert, it starts a seven- to ten-day voyage to its discharge port. To assist with this, they’ll use satellite navigation, weather routing, and a variety of other technologies to get to their port the safest and most efficient way.”
The same would apply to oil tankers from any northern port in BC.
BC’s tanker-safety record
As the small-c conservative Fraser Institute points out: “Pipelines are 2.5 times safer than rail for oil transportation, and oil tankers have [the] safest record of all.”
And it adds: “The history of oil transport off of Canada’s coasts is one of incredible safety, whether of Canadian or foreign origin, long predating federal Bill C-48’s tanker ban. . . .new pipelines and additional transport of oil from (and along) B.C. coastal waters is likely very low environmental risk. In the meantime, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships have been cruising up and down the B.C. coast between Alaska and U.S. west coast ports for decades with great safety records.”
This last refers to the 200-230 tankers a year that now carry crude oil from Alaska through Canadian waters south of Haida Gwaii and then down BC’s Inside Passage or outer coastal waters to Juan de Fuca Strait and Washington refineries.
While these tankers do not transit Hecate Strait (the north end of which is the area of concern about spills from tankers from Prince Rupert or Kitimat) all these US tankers are double-hulled, must report positions, speeds and routes in real-time, must carry certified pilots, must use traffic-separation routes (like traffic lanes), and must slow to 11 knots in sensitive areas.
And as Pipeline Action says: “Canada is not inferior — If Norway can move tankers safely through fjords, if Japan can operate in some of the busiest waterways on Earth, if Alaska balances ecological protection with responsible shipping and if Eastern Canadian ports manage tankers every day, then Canada’s West Coast, with its governance standards, technical capacity and Indigenous partnership potential, can certainly do so.”
Resource Works News
Energy
Meet REEF — the massive new export engine Canadians have never heard of
From Resource Works
A Prince Rupert megaproject is rising quietly on the coast, fuelled by Montney gas and poised to reshape Canada’s trade footprint from Asia to Alberta.
Most Canadians know who Connor McDavid is.
Most Canadians know who Connor Bedard is.
And, well … most Canadians know who Howie Mandel is, right?
Household words.
But do any Canadians know what REEF is? Probably not.
The Ridley Island Energy Export Facility project, a large-scale terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., being built by AltaGas to export liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and other bulk liquids to global markets.
Did you know it is providing valuable propane to Japan? No, not for barbecues, but for crucial energy demands in the Asian nation.
Japan uses propane (LP gas) for a wide range of purposes, including household use for cooking, water heating, and room heating, as well as for a majority of taxis, industrial applications, and as a raw material for town gas production.
Construction is progressing, with a target startup around the end of 2026. The project involves building significant infrastructure, including large storage tanks.
And it just so happens that Resource Works CEO Stewart Muir, paid a visit this past week to get a close-up look at a part of Canada’s export story that almost nobody talks about: a brand-new accumulator tank built to hold chilled propane and butane.

The “triple-word-score” of resources
“It’s the largest of its kind anywhere. Two more are on the way, and together they’ll form a critical piece of the AltaGas Ltd. REEF project,” Muir said in a report.
”What stood out to me is the larger pattern: projects like this only happen because of the crown jewel of the B.C. economy — the Montney Formation.”
“It’s the triple-word-score of Canadian resource development: LNG, valuable natural gas liquids like propane, and the diluent streams that help unlock Canada’s single biggest export category, crude oil.”
Like the oilsands, the industry has long known about the Montney formation, which stretches 130,000 square kilometres in a football-shaped diagonal from northeast British Columbia into northwest Alberta.
According to CBC News, underneath this huge tract of land, the National Energy Board (NEB) estimates there’s 90 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), most of it natural gas. That’s more than half the size of the oilsands, yet the Montney has received only a fraction of the attention, at least from the public at large.
For oil and gas types, the gold rush is on.
Without question, and despite the ire of green groups who seem to be against any kind of resource development in Canada, the Montney is the quiet force multiplier behind local jobs, municipal tax bases, and the national balance of trade.
And it’s all being done at the highest environmental standard, with producers like Tourmaline Oil Corp already posting a 41% reduction in CO2 emission intensity and a target of 55% less methane emission intensity.
A strategic corridor under pressure
“Congrats to AltaGas for pushing this project forward, and a nod as well to other major employers on the North Coast — Trigon, CN and Pembina”, writes Muir.
“Quietly and steadily, they’re building the future prosperity of Canadians. And thanks to Mayor Herb Pond, who took the time to walk us through the regional dynamics that make this corridor such a strategic asset.”
Muir was gobsmacked by the size of the project. Sources say Alberta’s midstream bottleneck and rapid growth of shale oil and gas exploration and production, has created an absolute glut in ethane, propane and butane. Ridley Island takes this glut and transports it to the Prince Rupert region by railcar and exports to Asian markets.
Ridley Island’s current export capacity of 92,000 bpd is undergoing aggressive expansion to growth by another 115,000 bpd over the next few years in two more phases of construction.
Resource Works News
-
Automotive2 days agoThe $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
-
Local Business1 day agoRed Deer Downtown Business Association to Wind Down Operations
-
International1 day agoTrump admin wants to help Canadian woman rethink euthanasia, Glenn Beck says
-
C2C Journal1 day agoWisdom of Our Elders: The Contempt for Memory in Canadian Indigenous Policy
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
-
Agriculture1 day agoGrowing Alberta’s fresh food future
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoConservative MP calls on religious leaders to oppose Liberal plan to criminalize quoting Scripture
-
Alberta1 day agoThe case for expanding Canada’s energy exports



The federal Liberal government’s approach to energy policy has created problematic regional divisions across Canada. It’s time for the East to reject these crass politics and show greater support for the West.
Two recent court decisions — one at the Supreme Court and another at the Federal Court — have ruled against the federal government with respect to the Impact Assessment Act (the “No More Pipelines Bill”) and the single-use plastics ban. The courts found these laws to be unconstitutional as the federal government had intruded on provincial jurisdiction, among some other considerations such as the absurdity of declaring plastics “toxic.”
Around the same time, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced a punitive new emissions cap on the oil and gas industry at COP28, which was also attended by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. This was seemingly timed to embarrass Guilbeault’s provincial counterparts and the Canadian oil and gas executives in attendance.
Back in October, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a three-year exemption for home heating oil from the carbon tax. As heating oil is only used extensively in the Atlantic provinces, this was clearly an attempt to win back sharply declining Liberal support in that region. After Liberals claimed the carbon tax must be applied everywhere — in every industry and every region — this move served as a complete refutation of everything the Liberals had said before. It completely undermined their rationale for the carbon tax.
Meanwhile, countries around the world such as the United Kingdom and much of the European Union have been abandoning or significantly watering down their “net-zero” plans. Auto manufacturers are backing off production of electric vehicles (EVs) as they are not selling and all the lofty goals of the climate-crisis crowd are being questioned, as it has become clear the impact of these policies is hugely damaging to the economy and our standard of living.
For the trillions of dollars spent around the globe to attain the elusive net-zero target, very little has been achieved other than negative impacts on average citizens. Meanwhile, an elite class of “green” activists and government officials travel around the world first-class on the taxpayers’ dime, spewing much carbon in the process.
There are currently about 400 different laws, regulations, taxes and other measures in Canada that serve as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. No one has a clue which of them are effective or useless or how much they are damaging our economy and reducing Canadians’ standard of living needlessly. This is because the Trudeau government never evaluates the effectiveness of its policies.
The Liberals first sold us the carbon tax as the only measure needed to reduce GHGs, arguing it was a market-based mechanism that would motivate consumers and businesses to make their own sensible decisions to reduce fossil fuel usage. We were also told by former environment minister Catherine McKenna the carbon tax would never exceed $50 a tonne, which we now know was just one of many Liberal bald-faced lies as the tax is slated to increase to at least $170/tonne by 2030.
Despite dishonest claims the carbon tax was the only measure needed, we have subsequently seen the so-called Clean Fuel Standard, the absurdly red-tape intensive Impact Assessment Act (which the Supreme Court has now overthrown), and Guilbeault’s recent emissions cap.
Interestingly, other parts of the economy emit similar amounts of GHGs as the oil and gas sector, but those industries are not subject to an emissions cap. Could it be because those industries are located in regions that tend to vote Liberal, unlike Alberta and Saskatchewan? Perish the thought!
Throughout all of the climate policy overkill, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have remained steadfast in opposing foolish federal government initiatives based on facts, science and constitutional law. All Canadians should know that Alberta in particular is a disproportionately significant contributor to the rest of Canada in many ways — equalization payments, contributions to programs such as CPP and Employment Insurance as well as personal and corporate taxation and royalty revenue from the oil and gas industry.
It was truly ironic that, in the context of the federal budget earlier this year, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland boasted that government revenues had come in higher than forecast. Yet the key source for this excess revenue was the oil and gas sector the Liberals are working hard to kill.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have been doing yeoman’s work defending the jurisdictional rights of all provinces and opposing the costly and unproductive federal government policies. At the same time, their success is boosting the economy of the whole country.
While Trudeau plays his destructive and divisive regional games — putting in place policies that benefit some parts of Canada while punishing others — all in the name of Liberal votes, the whole of Canada should call his bluff and support the leadership role that is being taken by the Prairie provinces.
The next federal election would be an ideal time to demonstrate that support.
Catherine Swift is president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada