Alberta
Demian Newman pens second open Letter to fellow Canadians
We give a lot of credit to Demian Newman in his ongoing attempts to bring reasonable discussion to the pipeline debate. In this most recent opinion piece, he links to a lot of different sources of information to support his argument. Take the time to read this article as well as the opposing POV written by Mike Sawyer, linked at the end of this story.
Read Demian’s first Open Letter by clicking this graphic: 
Here’s Demian’s second Open Letter:
Dear fellow Canadians,
In my original Open Letter, I had a very simple and basic premise; I do not believe shutting down Canada’s oil and gas industry will help the environment or climate change. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe it would have the adverse effect.
Over 200,000 people have read my opinion piece, and a lot have left very positive comments. But there have also been some opposing viewpoints. Which is good, because I wanted to start a conversation. With that in mind, I have summarized all the opposing comments below, with a response to each (minus the personal attacks…which I quickly dismissed).
Before we dive into all the comments concerned with my original letter, I would just like to summarize again; that Canada’s oil and gas industry putting up an OUT OF BUSINESS sign today, will not help Canada, or the planet, on any environmental level. Because, 1) you (and I), will not change our energy consumption. 2) that energy will simply be provided by another country, which does not have the same environmental regulations and standards to extract and sell their natural resources as Canada does.
If you’re protesting Canada’s industry because you’re fighting climate change, then I need to remind you that this is a worldwide issue, not a just a Canadian one. So, if that’s your intention, then you need to use your efforts to make worldwide change. Not just suffocate Canada’s industry.
If you’re already getting fired up that I’m not getting to the Q&A conversation, I promise I heard them all. But I don’t think a lot of people heard me before commenting on my first letter. And a lot of those voices were coming from a city that I absolutely love, but is obviously on a very different page regarding Canada’s oil and gas industry than me.
So, to my friends in Vancouver; I should’ve focused a bit more on the project which has been such a bone of contention for you – The Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion. And I’m not going dive that deep into this, as again, the basis of this letter was a conversation with everyone from my first letter. But I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up that your former Mayor, Greg Robertson was vehemently opposed to a Canadian pipeline (the TMX), but last June signed a $150M pipeline deal to get the ever-expanding Vancouver airport jet fuel – from the state of Washington.
This is the part where I’m left scratching my head again, as Mr. Robertson fights against a Canadian pipeline, saying “it’s not worth the risk. In fact, it’s not in Canada’s interest”. How is a pipeline from the state of Washington, instead of Canada, in Canada’s best interest?
I’d dive into the hypocrisy of Mr. Robertson blasting Canada’s oil and gas industry, by saying that the TMX would put “people and the environment are at risk”, but a pipeline direct to the Vancouver airport from the state of Washington, is apparently no issue. However, I will refrain, as I like to travel. And though commercial airline travel certainly isn’t the best for the environment, I do believe that Canada’s airlines/airports are doing everything to be a world leader in reducing their environmental footprint – because I’d expect nothing less of a Canadian industry.
To use an analogy, I didn’t have a chance to in my first letter; I do believe Canadians protesting Canada’s oil and gas industry would be the equivalent of Canadians boycotting Westjet and Air Canada, but still going on the same holidays – just using international airlines instead. This idea is obviously ridiculous, as no one could believe this would help the environment on any level.
But then there are protesters all over the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, but not one to be found fighting against the 4000 tankers bringing imported oil to Canada each year. Again, it’s head scratching.
I do think to understand why it’s happening, we need to have a cross-Canada conversation.
So, below are all the opposing opinions from my original letter (and I do apologize if I missed any, as I did try and summarize all of them). I’ve done this in a Q&A format, with the Opposing Comments (summarized) and then My Opinion. And it is only my opinion, and I’m sure someone else can give a much better reply, should they want to keep this conversation going…
Opposing Comments:
I received a lot of similar comments, that there’s no point in investing in a dying industry with no future.
My Opinion:
If you’re referring to no future based on worldwide oil reserves? The math on “Proven Reserves” is pretty straight forward, and everything you look up has it at 50ish years. This is based on today’s technology, and when you consider how far technology has come in the past 10–15yrs the opinions get pretty varied on how long the 50 years extends into. As this technology makes producing the “Probable Reserves” and “Possible Reserves” more likely by the day.
Without getting pulled down on this, I hope we can agree that fossil fuels aren’t running out any time soon – but aren’t a “forever solution”. So, we do need to find energy from multiple sources.
Opposing Comments:
It’s not a dying industry, it’s a dead industry. It’s the Model-T to the horse and buggy, Netlfix to Blockbuster video, or the Internet to traditional media.
My opinion:
I’m sorry, but if fossil fuel energy was a dead industry – then it’d be dead. But absolutely every economist is saying that fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase worldwide each year. I don’t have to copy a link for this, as you can find Google results by the hundreds for factual data. And it’s not hopeful data, but factual based estimates which provide information that every country, Fortune 500 company, bank, etc is listening too, while investing for the future.
At the bottom there is a link to an Energy Minute video, which does a great job explaining that the decrease in oil used by Canada between now and 2040 is more than offset by the increase use from developing nations. I’ve also again added Chris Slubicki’s video link (below) to this, as there’s a big portion of his presentation that explains this (and everything) much better than I ever could.
Opposing Comments:
A lot of people asked for proof that Canada is a world leader in oil and gas environmental standards.
My opinion:
The one thing I realized after my original letter, is that I’ve done a terrible job archiving everything I’ve read/watched/heard over the years, which drove the opinion for my first letter. So, if I could ask anyone for the stats on Canada versus the world on environmental standards in this industry, that’d be great. I know I’ve read hundreds of positive articles over the years (maybe more).
However, I have included the very public list of oil producing countries flaring gas in a link below (billions of cubic meters of gas which releases CO2 into the atmosphere). Canada ranks 22nd for the gas our industry emits (typically methane, ethane, butane, propane and hydrogen sulfide). I’m reading that as extremely positive, since we’re 7th in oil production over that time (2013-2017). Our 1.3 bcms pales in comparison to Russia (19.9) Iraq (17.8), Iran (17.7), or the USA (9.5). And don’t get me started on Nigeria who flared 7.6 bcms, which is more than 5 times the gas Canada flares, even though we produce almost twice as much oil.
I also included another link below of an interesting article this past month, where we have the least political corruption of any country involved in the oil and gas industry. Which is kind of funny, as I don’t think any Canadian would be surprised by that.
Opposing opinions:
Even though I didn’t mention the TMX pipeline in my original letter, I had numerous people say they were for Energy East and BC LNG, but dead-set against TMX – because of the certainty (as in absolute certainty) that there will be a tanker spill in the Vancouver harbor. And it could threaten the Orca population.
My opinion:
I agree. It might surprise people (but I really hope it doesn’t) that I also don’t want an oil tanker spill, nor do I want those tankers to endanger a single killer whale. And now that the feds bought TMX last summer (which is a whole other letter for another day), and EVERY CANADIAN is officially a pipeline company owner, I do think we should take these concerns seriously.
Current info will tell you that the TMX being built would increase tanker traffic off the coast of BC by 6.6.%. Certainly not a huge percentage. I also understand that any increase needs to be measured against its environmental impact.
The National Energy Board (NEB) just came out last Friday, that they want the creation of the marine mammal protection program in response to the TMX. So, it’s good to see the NEB doing its job as a 3rd party nonpartisan review board on international and inter-provincial aspects of the oil, gas industry – which certainly doesn’t need to be removed as per bill C-69 (again, another topic for another letter).
Also, for the spills, I did see the plans for the (I believe quadrupled) emergency response program for tanker issues, because of the 6.6% additional TMX tanker traffic. Which was followed up with how incredibly unlikely an event like this would be, as the tankers are handled with tug boats until they hit open water.
What is easily accessible on Google are the stats on tanker spills (below). Worldwide it’s been 2 large tanker spills (700+ tonnes) since 2010. I also believe that two is, two too many – which is why I believe the Canadian industry will add a ton of safeguards over and above worldwide standards (like they do with their pipelines).
Speaking of, there is still nowhere near the Canada wide education on pipelines and the Canadian environmental standards for safe construction and maintenance of them. As somehow a record of 99.9995% pipelines with zero issues in Canada isn’t good enough. Neither is the fact that Canadian pipelines rate of spills were 57 per cent lower than in Europe and 60 per cent lower than in the United States over the past decade.
I understand that it should be 100%. But honestly, what is?
Opposing opinions:
Many in BC are upset as they are viewed as a mere obstacle for Alberta to get their oil to market. When Alberta gains all the benefit financially.
My opinion:
Federal and provincial governments will see $46.7 billion in additional taxes and royalties from construction and 20 years of operation. At the point, where a CANADIAN OWNED pipeline is making Canada billions, why as a Canadian who wants green energy vs fossil fuels, wouldn’t you demand your current government use that money to research and develop this green/clean tech. Seems like a win-win…with some compromises. But every reasonable solution requires compromise.
Opposing Comments:
The romance of the electric car saving everything. And there are a lot of Canadians with this idea.
My opinion:
I can’t underscore my confusion on how the electric car has been so romanticized.
I completely understand the low emission side of the argument. But I’m shocked at how many people stop there, as if the electric car is “an environmental mic drop moment”, and don’t look any further. I think the video on the Energy Minute website does a fantastic job of both the pros and cons of the electric car (link below). But I also couldn’t help but include a link regarding on of the concerns on the batteries (also below).
Opposing opinion:
Not super surprising that I received lots of anti Oilsands “tarsands” “dirtyoil” comments, where Fort Mac got slammed pretty hard.
My opinion:
I included a few examples in my original letter about Oilsands GHG emissions dropping 29% since 2000 and a barrel of oil from there being a smaller carbon footprint than that of a barrel from California. But it fell on deaf ears.
So, this part of my letter isn’t for those you oppose the Oilsands, but instead is for those companies working in Canada’s Oilsands. It’s time to spend millions on a cross-Canada public relations campaign for this industry. And don’t tell Canadians how many jobs it creates. Cause I’ve heard from Canadians – and they don’t care.
Its time promote the thousands of real stories, where Canadian oil and gas projects cost so much more because of the extra time and effort needed to do them in the safest and most environmentally responsible way possible. Show Canadians what Fort Mac was before; unusable farmland with oil literally bubbling up through the ground. Show them what I’ve seen, that the reclamation efforts after the oil is extracted and the area is returned to a lush green forested area, where people would be shocked that oil and gas wells used to be there.
Perhaps we also need to get Canadians angry, and show them how they’ve been manipulated by groups like The Rockefeller group (article below) to demonize the Canadian Oilsands for their financial benefit.
Opposing Comments:
Who cares if protesters are paid? Doesn’t mean they don’t believe in their cause.
My Opinion:
I feel really bad that there are Canadians who’ve spent an enormous amount of time and effort at these protests and rallies, thinking they were trying to benefit the world. When they were actually helping line the pockets of billionaires. It makes me angry.
I hope they all look into it. And it makes them angry.
Protesting a Canadian pipeline based on saving the environment, probably wasn’t funded by environment loving humanitarians. But instead funded by a corporation with this in their Corporate Guidance: From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so their crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing to block all proposed pipelines (taken from the Vivian Krause interview link below).
Again, I’d be mad.
Last and my favorite Opposing Comments:
That I’m a millionaire lobbyist for Canada’s Oil and Gas industry.
My reality
I wish! That sounds fantastic!
But alas, I’m just your run of the mill sales guy.
I absolutely benefit financially from a booming oil and gas industry. And I was frustrated by this downturn hitting me financially, but not enough to type out these massive rants. These are 100% based on Canadians working together for an oil and gas industry we should all be proud of; as the best, safest, and most environmentally friendly in the world. As anything less would be un-Canadian.
Again, I’m Demian Newman. And I’m shocked so many people read my last rant. And even more so, if you made it through this epically long one.
Links to articles I’ve mentioned above:
Worldwide future of oil (This is a brand-new website, which can only grow through donations. And both sides of this debate hopefully want a no-partisan website which has no agenda other than educating everyone on the facts of energy. So, I’ve donated in hopes they grow this site, and I hope you do as well):
https://energyminute.ca/video/83/oil-what-does-the-future-look-like
The electric car:
https://energyminute.ca/video/76/the-electric-car
Vivian Krause interviews:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/vivian-krause-tar-sands-campaign-canada-oil-1.4895487
Counties flaring gas:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gasflaringreduction#7
Canadian’s being manipulated by groups like The Rockefeller group:
Creation of the marine mammal protection program:
https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2019/1/neb-wants-trans-mountain-marine-protection-program/
Chris Slubicki Youtube video:
Oil tanker stats:
Ranking Canada’s oil industry on corruption:
35,000 children in Congo’s mines (related to electric car, and all batteries):
Here is a link to a story that includes Demian’s first Open Letter, and a response from Mike Sawyer. 
Just over a year ago, Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner unveiled a report exploring the potential risks and benefits of an Alberta Pension Plan.
The report, prepared by pension analytics firm LifeWorks – formerly known as Morneau Shepell, the same firm once headed by former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau – used the exit formula outlined in the Canada Pension Plan Act to determine that if the province exits, it would be entitled to a large share of CPP assets.
According to LifeWorks, Alberta’s younger, predominantly working-class population, combined with higher-than-average income levels, has resulted in the province contributing disproportionately to the CPP.
The analysis pegged Alberta’s share of the CPP account at $334 billion – 53% of the CPP’s total asset pool.
We’ve explained a few times how, while that number might initially sound farfetched, once you understand that Alberta has contributed more than it’s taken out, almost every single year CPP has existed, while other provinces have consistently taken out more than they put in and technically *owe* money, it starts to make more sense.
But, predictably, the usual suspects were outraged.
Media commentators and policy analysts across the country were quick to dismiss the possibility that Alberta could claim such a significant portion. To them, the idea that Alberta workers had been subsidizing the CPP for decades seemed unthinkable.
The uproar prompted an emergency meeting of Canada’s Finance Ministers, led by now-former federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. Alberta pressed for clarity, with Horner requesting a definitive number from the federal government.
Freeland agreed to have the federal Chief Actuary provide an official calculation.
If you think Trudeau should release the pension calculation, click here.
Four months later, the Chief Actuary announced the formation of a panel to “interpret” the CPP’s asset transfer formula – a formula that remains contentious and could drastically impact Alberta’s entitlement.
(Readers will remember that how this formula is interpreted has been the matter of much debate, and could have a significant impact on the amount Alberta is entitled to.)
Once the panel completed its work, the Chief Actuary promised to deliver Alberta’s calculated share by the fall. With December 20th marking the last day of fall, Alberta has finally received a response – but not the one it was waiting for:
“We received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number,” said Justin Brattinga, Horner’s press secretary.
In other words, the Chief Actuary did the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do.
The Chief Actuary’s job is to calculate each province’s entitlement, based on the formula outlined in the CPP Act.
It is not the Chief Actuary’s job to start making up new interpretations of the formula to suit the federal government’s agenda.
In fact, the idea that the Chief Actuary spent all this time working on the issue, and didn’t even calculate a number is preposterous.
There’s just no way that that’s what happened.
Far more likely is that the Chief Actuary did run the numbers, using the formula in the CPP Act, only for them – and the federal government – to realize that Alberta’s LifeWorks calculation is actually about right.
Cue panic, a rushed attempt to “reinterpret” the formula, and a refusal to provide the number they committed to providing.
In short, we simply don’t believe that the Chief Actuary didn’t, you know, “actuarialize” anything.
For decades, Alberta has contributed disproportionately to the CPP, given its higher incomes and younger population.
Despite all the bluster in the media, this is actually common sense.
A calculation reflecting this reality would not sit well with other provinces, which have benefited from these contributions.
By withholding the actual number, Ottawa confirms the validity of Alberta’s position.
The refusal to release the calculation only adds fuel to the financial firestorm already underway in Ottawa.
Albertans deserve to know the truth about their contributions and entitlements.
We want to see that number.
If you agree, and want to see the federal government’s calculation on what Alberta is owed, sign our petition – Tell Trudeau To Release The Pension Calculation:
Once you’ve signed, send this petition to your friends, family, and all Albertans.
Thank you for your support!
Regards,
The Free Alberta Strategy Team
By Dan McTeague
Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.
There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.
It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.
This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.
Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.
But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.
First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”
Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).
But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.
Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”
And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.
Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”
But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.
In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”
Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.
(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)
Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”
This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.
While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.
As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely
Canada needs to get serious about securing its border
-
National1 day ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National2 days agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
National1 day agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
Daily Caller13 hours agoLNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
Alberta2 days ago
Free Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
National13 hours agoCanadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches
-
Business2 days agoSenator Introduces Bill To Send One-Third Of Federal Workforce Packing Out Of DC