Energy
Canada Has All the Elements to be a Winner in Global Energy — Now Let’s Do It

Mike Rose is Chair, President and CEO of Tourmaline Oil Corp.
From EnergyNow.ca
By Mike Rose of Tourmaline Oil Corp.
There has never been a more urgent time to aggressively develop Canada’s massive resource wealth
There has never been a more urgent time to aggressively develop Canada’s massive resource wealth. An increasingly competitive world is organizing into new alliances that are threatening our traditional Western democracies.
Weaker or underperforming countries may be left behind economically and, in some cases, their sovereignty may be compromised. We cannot let either scenario happen to Canada.
Looking inward, our country has posted among the weakest economic growth of all G20 nations over the past decade — we are at real risk of delivering a materially diminished standard of living to our children and subsequent future generations.
Canada is blessed with one of the largest and most diverse natural resource endowments in the world. It’s not just oil and gas; it’s uranium, precious metals, rare earth elements, enormous renewable forests, a vast fertile agricultural land base and, of course, the single-largest freshwater reserve on the planet.
This is nothing new; Canada has been regarded as a resource-extraction economy for a long time, but over the past two decades we’ve been slowing down and finding reasons to not advance new projects. While looking ahead to an exciting new future economy is enticing, the majority of our easily accessible resource wealth remains largely untapped. Our Canadian resource sectors are the most capital-efficient, technologically advanced and environmentally responsible in the world. We’ve got the winning combination.
Canada has among the largest, lowest-cost natural gas reserves in the world — we’re already the fourth-largest producer. With consistent regulatory support, we can rapidly evolve into a leader in the growing global LNG business.
This country produces among the lowest-emission natural gas in the world and technology adaptation is widening the gap. A 10 bcf/day Canadian LNG industry targeted to displace coal-fired electrical generation in Asia would offset the vast majority of emissions from the entire domestic oil and gas industry. Contemplating a cap on the Canadian natural gas industry is actually damaging to the global environment, as growing demand will be met by jurisdictions with higher associated emissions.
As developed economies look at electrification to accelerate emissions reduction, nuclear power is becoming increasingly attractive. Canada is already one of the largest uranium producers in the world and has long possessed one of the most efficient and safest reactor designs. This is an advantage we created for ourselves several decades ago; it’s time to harvest this opportunity.
The rare earth elements required for a growing solar industry and battery requirements associated with electrification are abundant in certain regions in Canada — for example, a large new mining opportunity is emerging in Ontario. We should make that happen. One of the great outcomes of accelerating our multi-sector resource opportunity is that the economic benefits will be enjoyed across the country; all Canadians will share in it.
The Canadian agricultural industry has been long regarded as a world leader in efficiency, yield and technical innovation. Global food security and affordability are rapidly emerging issues, and Canada has a role to play here, as well. Not only could we make it more attractive for Canadian producers to grow output and explore novel new transportation corridors to feed more of the world, we have a large, well-established, globally competitive fertilizer industry.
There are many more future resource wealth opportunities we could be capitalizing on. The list is as long as the imagination of our well-educated and entrepreneurial resource sector workforce.
Enormous amounts of capital are required for these projects, and that global capital is most certainly available. These pools of capital will flow into Canada if we demonstrate a willingness to consistently support the Canadian resource sector at provincial and federal government levels.
Accelerating domestic multi-sector resource development provides solutions to many of the problems currently facing Canada. We’ll be playing to strengths that we have established and evolved over many decades. We are the most efficient and technologically advanced in the full spectrum of resource development. Adoption and innovative adaptation of the continuous march of technology advancements will only make us better.
To paraphrase: We can take advantage of what’s between our ears to do an even better job of developing what’s beneath our feet.
Mike Rose is Chair, President and CEO of Tourmaline Oil Corp.
In an ongoing monthly series presented by the Calgary Herald and Financial Post, Canadian business leaders share their thoughts on the country’s economic challenges and opportunities.
Energy
OPEC Delivers Masterful Rebuke To Global Energy Agency Head

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By
Some readers will remember the infamous May 2021 report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled ‘Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.’ The report projected a roadmap for transforming the world’s $300 trillion oil-and-coal-based energy system into one that runs on unreliable, intermittent alternatives like wind and solar.
Most educated observers viewed the report as a piece of propaganda coming from an agency then in the process of transforming itself from a historically reliable source of real data and analysis into just another advocate for the climate alarm narrative. It surprised no one when, just a few years later, Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, publicly boasted about that exact transformation as being the agency’s overt mission now.
One passage in the report’s set of recommendations immediately caught everyone’s eye due to its boldness and transparent illogic. That passage says, “There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway.”
To reinforce this stunningly absurd notion, Birol, in an interview published by the Guardian upon the study’s release, insisted that, ”If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year.”
It was a moment when the formerly respected agency shed a great deal of its credibility.
Making matters worse for Birol and IEA, barely a month later a spokesperson for the IEA urged OPEC to “open the spigots” to raise oil production to meet rising global demand that was outstripping the agency’s forecasts as the world recovered from the COVID-19 insanity. Three months after that, Wood MacKenzie, Rystad, and Moody’s had all issued studies directly contradicting IEA’s absurd assessment, and Birol was joining former President Joe Biden in calling for U.S. oil producers to drill more wells and produce more oil.
This sort of ill-advised posturing and self-contradiction is what happens when a scholarly enterprise consciously lurches into advocacy.
At this past week’s CERAWeek conference in Houston, Birol contradicted himself one more time, telling attendees, “I want to make it clear … there would be a need for investment, especially to address the decline in the existing fields. There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop.”
This latest impulse to respond to the next new thing surely surprised no one. But it was a bridge too far for officials at OPEC to sit by and absorb silently. In a March 13 statement posted on the OPEC website, the cartel reviewed Birol’s and IEA’s recent history of inconsistency and urged Birol to take a step back and consider the impacts it has had and will continue to have on investments for the future.
“Aside from the risk of whiplash that such severe yo-yoing between positions could cause, a serious point needs to be stressed,” OPEC writes. “The world needs unambiguous clarity on the realities of the future of supply and demand. Agencies that recognize the responsibility that comes from offering analysis of the long-term perspectives of the industry should not be shifting positions or mixing messages and narratives every couple of years on this matter, particularly ones that were founded to ensure the security of oil supplies.”
Oof. Blunt, but true. It is a dressing down that is well-deserved and long overdue.
Does Birol’s latest shift signal a recognition that the energy transition for which it has advocated has failed? It’s hard to know.
Regardless, once an agency like IEA makes a public decision to transform itself away from sterile analysis into the realm of advocacy, going back will be hard. Aside from the loss of credibility, which has only increased as Birol has lurched from one position to another and back again, such a transformation completely shifts the organization’s culture. Going back now will require time and a great deal of organizational pain.
Here, another obvious question arises: Is Fatih Birol the right person for this job? It is a question that should have arisen before the loss of so much credibility and trust. For the 32 member countries who subscribe to the agency and pay its bills, there is no time like the present to determine the answer.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Energy
Next federal government should close widening gap between Canadian and U.S. energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
After accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
At a recent energy conference in Houston, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s “irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.” He added that “Natural gas is responsible for 43 per cent of U.S. electricity production,” and beyond the obvious scale and cost problems, there’s “simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas.”
In other words, as a federal election looms, once again the United States is diverging from Canada when it comes to energy policy.
Indeed, wind power is particularly unattractive to Wright because of its “incredibly high prices,” “incredibly huge investment” and “large footprint on the local communities,” which make it unattractive to people living nearby. Globally, Wright observes, “Natural gas currently supplies 25 per cent of raw energy globally, before it is converted into electricity or some other use. Wind and solar only supply about 3 per cent.”
And he’s right. Renewables are likely unable, physically or economically, to replace natural gas power production to meet current or future needs for affordable, abundant and reliable energy.
In a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, for example, we observed that meeting Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 using only wind power (with natural gas discouraged under current Canadian climate policies) would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré wind farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. This would also require more than one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of Calgary.
Solar power did not fare much better. According to the study, to meet Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 with solar-power generation would require the construction of 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a two-year construction time per facility, this adds up to 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
And at what cost? While proponents often claim that wind and solar sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, they ignore the costs of maintaining backup power to counter the unreliability of wind and solar power generation. A recent study published in Energy, a peer-reviewed energy and engineering journal, found that—after accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
The outlook for Canada’s switch to renewables is also dire. TD Bank estimated that replacing existing gas generators with renewables (such as solar and wind) in Ontario could increase average electricity costs by 20 per cent by 2035 (compared to 2021 costs). In Alberta, electricity prices would increase by up to 66 per cent by 2035 compared to a scenario without changes.
Under Canada’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime, natural gas is heavily disfavoured as a potential fuel for electricity production. The Trudeau government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) would begin curtailing the use of natural gas beginning in 2035, leading largely to a cessation of natural gas power generation by 2050. Under CER and Ottawa’s “net-zero 2050” GHG emission framework, Canada will be wedded to a quixotic mission to displace affordable reliable natural gas power-generation with expensive unreliable renewables that are likely unable to meet expected future electricity demand.
With a federal election looming, Canada’s policymakers should pay attention to new U.S. energy policy on natural gas, and pull back from our headlong rush into renewable power. To avoid calamity, the next federal government should scrap the Trudeau-era CER and reconsider the entire “net-zero 2050” agenda.
-
Business2 days ago
Brookfield’s Deep Ties to Chinese Land, Loans, and Green Deals—And a Real Estate Tycoon With CCP Links—Raise Questions as Carney Takes Over from Trudeau
-
Alberta2 days ago
Highway twinning from Sylvan Lake to Rocky Mountain House among dozens of infrastructure projects beginning in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta power outages and higher costs on the way with new federal electricity regulations, AESO says
-
Canadian Energy Centre2 days ago
Experts urge caution with Canadian energy in response to Trump tariffs
-
Alberta2 days ago
Premier Danielle Smith calls for federal election
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
They knew it was a lab leak all along
-
National2 days ago
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre reacts to new PM and Federal Cabinet
-
Energy1 day ago
Trump asserts energy dominance, set to meet oil titans amid trade war