Connect with us

Alberta

2022 – the year fossil fuels once again became a preferred source of reliable, affordable energy

Published

2 years ago

6 minute read

A worker walks past gas pipes at Uniper’s new LNG import terminal in Wilhelmshaven, northern Germany on December 17, 2022. Getty Images photo

From the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.

By David Yager

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story. 

The only part of the demise of oil and gas that was successful was reduced supply

It seems like just the other day the wrath of the world was coming down on oil sands and coal.

To protect the atmosphere, Canada has been reducing coal-fired power generation for years. It started in Ontario then moved to Alberta. Saskatchewan is next. New Brunswick is supposed to stop by 2030, but that province claims it can’t be done.

Global coal consumption is rising again because it meets the cost and availability requirement created by energy shortages and rising prices. On December 16, the International Energy Agency reported, “The world’s coal consumption is set to reach a new high in 2022 as the energy crisis shakes markets.”

For energy, the biggest single change in 2022 is the remarkable shift in public attitudes towards fossil fuels.

The global energy complex is under assault by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the exposed shortcomings of wind and solar, years of underinvestment in fossil fuels, and rising inflation and interest rates.

But for the past ten years, there has been an all-out crusade against fossil fuels. Oil company CEOs were branded climate criminals. It was morally reprehensible to own fossil fuel company shares or loan money to oil, gas or coal producers. Elections were won in Canada, the US and in Europe on pledges to replace fossil fuels.

No cost was too great, because the cost of doing nothing thus permitting unchecked climate damage was greater.

What happened? How did the channel change to rapidly? Why after years of public and political attacks on the source of over 80 per cent of the world primary energy, has affordable energy on demand now become more important than where it comes from?

Price, the most fundamental driver of economics and human behavior.

The November 2022 global survey from public opinion research firm IPSOS titled “What Worries The World” tells the story.

IPSOS explains, “This 29-country Global Advisor survey was conducted…among 20,466 adults aged 18-74 in Canada, Israel, Malaysia, South Africa, Turkey and the United States, 20-74 in Indonesia and Thailand, and 16-74 in all 21 other countries.”

IPSOS charts the top six issues for the past two years. Poverty, crime, unemployment and corruption have always been important, and consistently ranked among the top five.

But in November 2020, inflation only registered among eight per cent of respondents. Two years later it is 42 per cent. Coronavirus and the unemployment that accompanied the lockdowns were the top two issues. The others remain in a consistent range.

Two years ago was the peak of the “oil is dead” mantra, and when many bright ideas for a fossil fuel free future were concocted. In a post-pandemic world, multiple voices claimed we must Build Back Better, ensure a Resilient Recovery, engineer the Great Reset.

The plan was to use government policy and borrowed money to create jobs through the large-scale replacement of fossil fuels.

Coined the “energy transition,” it was achievable and inevitable thanks to incredible advances in renewable energy cost and supply. Canada – the world’s fifth largest combined oil and gas producer – could lead the charge with minimal disruption thanks to a new federally-funded retraining program for displaced oil workers. This was called a Just Transition.

What happened?

The invisible hand of Adam Smith punched the world in the nose.

The only part of the demise of fossil fuels that was successful was reduced supply. As the economy recovered, consumers learned the hard way that low carbon energy sources were terribly oversold in terms of reliability, and demand for fossil fuels outstripped supply.

Prices for fossil fuels rose at the same time that inflation and interest rates reduced disposal income.

As demand grew, fossil fuel shortages were reflected in the price. When Russia – one of the world’s largest oil, gas and coal suppliers – invaded Ukraine, the gravity of the situation escalated immediately.

What the IPSOS survey dramatically illustrates is the number one concern for the world as 2022 ends is the rising cost of everything.

We’ve been told repeatedly that continued fossil fuel consumption will cause serious climate disruptions. No expense today will exceed the cost of future damages.

However, the more pressing issue today is still being alive in 2050 because of the rising cost of everything, including energy. Worrying about what the temperature, storm intensity or chemical composition of the atmosphere may be in 28 years has become an unaffordable luxury.

So fossil fuels are once again what they have always been – reliable and affordable sources of energy.

Happy New Year.

 

 

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 5 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

International / 8 hours ago

Biden Lied About Everything, Including Nuclear Risk, During Ukraine Operation

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

By

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:
Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Published on April 2, 2025

By

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:

“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.

“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.

“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.

“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.

“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.

“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X