Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

History, Controversy & Indigenous Involvement – Death of Keystone XL

Published

7 minute read

For many, few stories have been as captivating and as frustrating as that of the stop-and-start Keystone XL pipeline project, which appears to officially be reaching its end following the inauguration of President Joe Biden on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 

The Keystone XL pipeline extension was originally proposed by TC Energy in 2008 as the 4th phase of the existing Keystone Pipeline System, which traverses Canada and the United States. The 1,947 km pipeline would run from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, dramatically increasing the transportation capacity of Alberta crude oil to 830,000 barrels per day. 

The National Energy Board first approved the Keystone XL application in March 2010, with a number of conditions in place to protect environmental and landowner interests.
Opposition towards the project developed quickly, largely on the basis of environmental concerns. Environmental assessments released by the U.S. State Department, which established the pipeline would have “limited environmental impact”, were met with public backlash and mass protests.
In 2011, the State Department required TC Energy (then TransCanada) to reroute the pipeline around an “ecologically sensitive” area in Nebraska, to which TC Energy agreed.

In January 2012, President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL, but invited TC to submit another application, which was done in May 2012.
Following another 3 years of legislative debate, protest and controversial back and forth, Obama vetoed the bill to build the Keystone XL on February 24, 2015.
On November 6, 2015, the Obama Administration once again rejected TC Energy’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

In this context, tensions continued to rise, as massive amounts of money and potential jobs hung in the balance with no end in sight. In 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump included the Keystone XL in his campaign, vowing to approve it if elected as President of the United States.

Following his election in November 2016, President Trump signed an executive order approving the Keystone XL pipeline, along with an order requiring American pipelines be built with American steel.
In late 2018, the pipeline’s construction was delayed once again by a U.S. federal judge, citing environmental impact.

Construction resumed in April 2020, following a pledge from Alberta Premier Jason Kenney to invest CAD$1.5 billion in the project in March 2020. Outrage from environmental and Indigenous groups continued in the wake of the announcement.

In May 2020, then-presumed presidential nominee Joe Biden shared plans to shutdown the Keystone XL as a part of his campaign. (1)

It is January 2021, and Biden has indeed followed through on his claim to scrap the pipeline. To the outrage of many Albertans and their fellow Canadians, one of Biden’s first executive orders as President of the United States, just hours after his inauguration, was to revoke TC Energy’s permit for the Keystone XL. 

As of December 2020, more than 150 kilometres of pipeline had already been installed. According to Financial Post, the cancellation leaves behind approximately 48,000 tons of steel.

Biden’s decision has served to deepen the division between pro and anti-pipeline groups, including the opposing positions expressed by a number of Canadian Indigenous groups.
Over the course of the past decade, Indigenous opposition to the pipeline has been well documented through a series of protests and petitions, featuring countless Canadians who rallied in support of First Nations groups, environmental concerns and land rights. 

In 2016, Donald Trump’s renewed approval of the pipeline was met with equally renewed opposition by those groups determined to halt the project once and for all. “The fight to kill the Keystone XL pipeline begins anew,” said Dallas Goldtooth, lead organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network in 2017, “and Donald Trump should expect far greater resistance than ever before.” 

On the other side of this opposition, the historic formation of the Natural Law Energy coalition came as a shock to many. Natural Law Energy (NLE) is a coalition of First Nations groups who expressed their support for the Keystone XL pipeline by pursuing investment opportunities with TC Energy. Little Pine First Nation, Louis Bull Tribe, Nekaneet Cree First Nation, Ermineskin Cree Nation and Akamihk Montana Cree First Nation came together to form the coalition with the ambition of providing First Nations groups with financial resources and opportunities.

For Chief Alvin Francis of Nekaneet First Nation in Saskatchewan, the pipeline presented an opportunity to secure funding for indigenous communities and aid indigenous youth in their schooling or business endeavors for years to come. “It’s about making life better for all of our youth,” he told the Globe and Mail in November 2020.
Just as Indigenous anti-pipeline groups celebrate the latest development, Biden’s executive order to cancel the pipeline once again has been met with disappointment from members of the NLE and its supporters. 

Recent developments over the multi-billion dollar Keystone XL have also led to heated discussions between the Kenney Administration and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Kenney’s response to the Canadian Federal Government as well as the Biden Administration was one of absolute disappointment and anger, as Alberta’s oil and gas industry sustained another massive hit. He went as far as to call upon Trudeau to impose economic sanctions on the United States. 

While many have echoed Kenney’s sentiments regarding the cancellation of the pipeline and the Biden Administrations early treatment of Canada and the province of Alberta, others have identified this development as an opportunity for Alberta to diversify. Under the current economic circumstances, can Alberta overcome the loss of the Keystone XL? Should Alberta focus on diversifying? Given the ongoing global shift towards renewable energy technology, can we afford not to? 

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Alberta

Province to double Alberta’s oil production

Published on

The Government of Alberta is working with partners to increase pipeline capacity in pursuit of its goal to double crude oil production and increase exports to the United States.

 

Alberta is a strong partner to the United States, currently delivering more than 4.3 million barrels per day to the U.S. The province is committed to increasing Alberta’s crude oil production and preserving and adding pipeline capacity, supporting North American energy security as well as enabling increased U.S. production.

The Government of Alberta is taking immediate action to accelerate its plan to increase pipeline capacity to get more product to market and more value for its product.

A critical step towards achieving this goal includes working directly with industry. This is why Alberta’s government has signed a letter of intent with Enbridge, which will form a working group with the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission (APMC). The working group will evaluate future egress, transport, storage, terminalling and market access opportunities across the more than 29,000 kilometres of the Enbridge network in support of moving more Alberta oil and gas to Canadians and American partners.

“The world needs more Alberta oil and gas, and we need to make sure Alberta is meeting those needs. Our objective of doubling oil production aligns with Enbridge’s plans to enhance its existing pipeline systems and we look forward to partnering with them to enhance cross-border transport solutions. This will also allow us to play a role in supporting the United States in its energy security and affordability goals.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

The working group will focus on preserving and optimizing egress, developing opportunities to expand along Enbridge’s current footprint, and developing new solutions to improve global market access and maximize the value of Alberta’s commodity. Additionally, it will work with government to cut red tape and streamline regulations and permitting approvals. It will also assess opportunities for shared investment and benefit to both Albertans and Enbridge by leveraging BRIK (Bitumen-Royalty-In-Kind) barrels.

“A strong and growing Alberta oil and gas transport and storage network will allow the Government of Alberta to maximize the economic benefits for all Albertans from our bitumen and natural gas royalties. We must also pursue regulatory reform where needed so Alberta can continue to be an attractive place for companies to invest.”

Brian Jean, Minister of Energy and Minerals

“Enbridge has 75 years of experience delivering Alberta’s energy, safely and cost-effectively to support the region’s economy, unlock export value and help meet North American demand. We’re prepared – and exceptionally well-positioned – to work with producers and governments to deliver capacity as production ramps up, providing cost-effective, scalable, executable solutions now and through the decade that support North American energy security, reliability and affordability.”

Greg Ebel, president and chief executive officer, Enbridge Inc.
Continue Reading

Alberta

Albertans still waiting for plan to grow the Heritage Fund

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

In February 2024, the Smith government promised to share a plan to grow the Heritage Fund—Alberta’s long-term resource revenue savings fund—with the public before the end of 2024. But 2025 is upon us, and Albertans are still waiting.

The Lougheed government originally created the Heritage Fund in 1976/77 to save a share of the province’s resource wealth, including oil and gas revenues, for the future. But since its creation, Alberta governments have deposited less than 4 per cent of total resource revenue in the fund.

In other words, for decades successive Alberta governments have missed a golden opportunity. When governments make deposits in the Heritage Fund, they transform onetime (and extremely volatile) resource revenue into a financial asset that can generate more stable earnings over time. Eventually, the government could use annual income from the fund to replace volatile resource revenue in the budget.

Historically, however, rules that would have helped ensure the fund’s growth (for example, a requirement to deposit 30 per cent of resource revenue annually) were “statutory” rather than “constitutional,” which meant Alberta governments could easily disregard, change or eliminate these rules once they were no longer convenient.

And they did. The government changed that 30 per cent requirement to 15 per cent by 1982/83, and after an oil price collapse, eliminated it entirely in 1987/88. Due to a lack of consistent deposits, paired with the real value of the fund eroding over time due to inflation, and nearly all fund earnings being spent, the Heritage Fund is expected to be worth less than $25 billion in 2024/25.

Again, while Premier Smith has promised to grow the fund to between $250 billion to $400 billion by 2050, we’ve yet to see how she plans to do that. Whatever plan the government produces, it should heed lessons from other successful resource revenue savings fund such as Alaska’s Permanent Fund.

The Alaska government created its fund the same year Alberta created the Heritage Fund, but Alaska’s fund is worth roughly US$80 billion (or C$113 billion) today. What has the Alaska government done differently?

First, according to Alaska’s constitution, the state government must deposit 25 per cent of all mineral revenues into the fund each year. This type of “constitutional” rule is much stronger than a “statutory” rule that existed in Alberta. (While Canada does not have separate provincial constitutions, it’s possible to change Canada’s Constitution for province-specific measures.) Second, the Alaska government must set aside a share of the fund’s earnings each year to offset the effects of inflation—in other words, “inflation-proof” the principal of the fund to preserve its real value. And finally, the government must pay a portion of fund earnings to Alaskan citizens in annual dividends.

The logic of the first two rules is simple—the Alaskan government promotes growth in the fund by depositing mineral revenue annually, and inflation-proofing maintains the fund’s purchasing power. But consider the third rule regarding dividends.

The Alaska government created the annual dividend, paid out annually to Alaskans, to create political pressure for future governments to responsibly maintain the fund. Because citizens have an ownership share in the fund, they’re more interested in the state maximizing returns from its resource wealth. This has helped maintain and reinforce robust fiscal rules that make the Permanent Fund successful.

Based on this success, if the Smith government began contributing 25 per cent of resource revenue to the Heritage Fund and inflation-proofed the principal, it could pay each Albertan a total dividend between roughly $600 to $1,100 from 2024/25 to 2026/27, or roughly $2,300 to $4,400 per family of four. And as the fund grows, so would the dividends.

Almost one year ago, the Smith government promised a new plan for the Heritage Fund. When the plan is finally released, it should include a constitutional requirement for consistent contributions and inflation-proofing, and annual dividends for Albertans.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X