25 facts about the Canadian oil and gas industry in 2023: Facts 21 to 25

From the Canadian Energy Centre

One of the things that really makes us Albertans, and Canadians is what we do and how we do it. It’s taking humanity a while to figure it out, but we seem to be grasping just how important access to energy is to our success. This makes it important that we all know at least a little about the industry that drives Canadians and especially Albertans as we make our way in the world.

The Canadian Energy Centre has compiled a list of 25 (very, extremely) interesting facts about the oil and gas industry in Canada. Over the next 5 days we will post all 25 amazing facts, 5 at a time. Here are facts 21 to 25.

The Canadian Energy Centre’s 2023 reference guide to the latest research on Canada’s oil and gas industry

The following summary facts and data were drawn from 30 Fact Sheets and Research Briefs and various Research Snapshots that the Canadian Energy Centre released in 2023. For sources and methodology and for additional data and information, the original reports are available at the research portal on the Canadian Energy Centre website: canadianenergycentre.ca.

21. Projected Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) in Canada has a bright future

Global carbon capture capacity and worldwide spending trends to date underline the fact that the future is bright for Canadian investments in CCUS. Assuming that appropriate government policies and regulations are put in place, Canada can expect to see further project announcements and increased investment in the technology. Canada will likely emerge as a CCUS heavyweight given the prevailing policy environment and the existential need for oil sands players to decarbonize. Rystad Energy estimates that Canada alone could account for around 20 per cent of cumulative carbon capture demand between 2023 and 2030.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy

Nuclear and Renewables

22. Nuclear energy a stable source of electricity production in Canada

Nuclear power plants have been producing electricity in Canada since the 1960s. As of 2022, four nuclear power plants operate in Canada: three in Ontario and one in New Brunswick. Canada’s share of nuclear electricity production has remained relatively stable over the past few decades. In 1990, nuclear energy accounted for about 14.8 per cent of Canada’s electricity production; by 2021, this share had decreased only slightly to about 14.3 per cent.

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency

23. Canada’s trade in renewable products is modest

Trade is an essential component of Canada’s economic activity, accounting for about two-thirds of the economy and employing 3.3 million people. In 2021, Canada imported solar panel products with a value of CAN$653 million and wind turbine products with a value of CAN$91 million. The value of the solar panels and wind turbines Canada imported was much higher than the CAN$260 million export value for both products.

Source: Government of Canada, Trade Data Online

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

24. Global LNG production projected to rise

Global liquefied natural gas (LNG) production is expected to reach nearly 720 million tonnes by 2035. That year the United States is projected to be the world’s leading LNG producer at 259 million tonnes, followed by Qatar at 121 million tonnes, and Australia at 78 million tonnes. Russian LNG supply was expected to grow to 54 million tonnes by 2035, but this is now in question, leaving opportunities for countries such as Canada to fill the void. In fact, by 2035, Canada could be the fifth largest LNG producer at nearly 33 million tonnes of LNG.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy

25. Canadian LNG exports could help reduce global emissions

Asia is a significant source of CO2 emissions. Canadian LNG exports can help in reducing emissions from the Asian energy mix. If Canada increases its LNG export capacity to Asia, by 2050 net global emissions could decline by 188 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. That would have the annual impact of taking 41 million cars off the road.

CEC Research Briefs

Canadian Energy Centre (CEC) Research Briefs are contextual explanations of data as they relate to Canadian energy. They are statistical analyses released periodically to provide context on energy issues for investors, policymakers, and the public. The source of profiled data depends on the specific issue. This research brief is a compilation of previous Fact Sheets and Research Briefs released by the centre in 2023. Sources can be accessed in the previously released reports. All percentages in this report are calculated from the original data, which can run to multiple decimal points. They are not calculated using the rounded figures that may appear in charts and in the text, which are more reader friendly. Thus, calculations made from the rounded figures (and not the more precise source data) will differ from the more statistically precise percentages we arrive at using the original data sources.

About the author

This CEC Research Brief was compiled by Ven Venkatachalam, Director of Research at the Canadian Energy Centre.

Acknowledgements

The author and the Canadian Energy Centre would like to thank and acknowledge the assistance of an anonymous reviewer for the review of this paper.

Up Next

Albertans endure some of the longest health-care waits in Canada

Don't Miss

Danielle Smith vows to fight Trudeau’s ‘unconstitutional’ plan to ban gas-powered cars

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

Poilievre to invest in recovery, cut off federal funding for opioids and defund drug dens

2025 Federal Election / 1 hour ago

Mark Carney Comes to B.C. and Delivers a Masterclass in Liberal Arrogance

Podcasts / 1 hour ago

Trump’s Tariffs: The US, Canada, and the rest of the world

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

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.

Subscribe to The Audit

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.

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

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.

Alberta

Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Published on April 2, 2025

Government of Alberta

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.”