Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

A Trump Effort To Revive Keystone XL Would Likely Be Purely Symbolic

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By David Blackmon

Of all the destructive actions President Joe Biden took related to energy policy during his four years in office, his stroke-of-a-pen decision on his first day in office to cancel the cross-border permit for the Keystone XL pipeline system as a political payoff to his environmentalist campaign funders was perhaps the worst.

It was bad enough that Biden took that action to cancel the $8 billion project absent any finding that operator Trans-Canada (now TC Energy) was in violation of any law or regulation of the United States. It was even worse that he took that action despite the fact that Trans-Canada had already spent over $3 billion building much of the project with hundreds of miles of pipe already in the ground by January 2021.

Worse still are the realities that, along with cancelling the project, Biden canceled as many as 10,000 high-paying American jobs during the construction of the project, left America more dependent on oil imports from hostile nations like Venezuela and Iran due to lost imports from Canada and even cost the province of Alberta an estimated $1.3 billion it stood to gain from the project’s completion.

But the most damaging impact of all emanating from Biden’s craven act of crony politics was the loss of trust in the consistent, fair application of American law and regulations it caused. The cancellation of Keystone XL made it vastly harder for big companies to secure financing for big projects that take years to permit and develop because funders could no longer assume U.S. laws would be applied based on merit rather than political fiat. That advantage over other parts of the world that the United States has always enjoyed was severely damaged.

Last week, we saw a flurry of stories by major media outlets that the Trump transition team is working on plans to reverse Biden’s ill-considered order and trying to revive the Keystone XL project. While that is certainly a laudable goal, developments that have taken place since 2021 will likely limit it to a purely symbolic act.

First, TC Energy no longer even owns the rights to the project or its remaining assets. Those assets, along with the rest of the previously existing Keystone Pipeline system, were spun off into a new entity named South Bow Energy in June of this year. A spokesperson for that company was reluctant to comment when asked about possible revival of Keystone XL, saying, “As a new company, our focus and priority at this point is to continue to deliver energy safely and efficiently. Part of South Bow’s long-term strategy is to grow our business.”

Second, a few months after Biden’s destructive action, TC Energy announced it had cancelled the project and would not be seeking to carry on the fight. As a result of the cancellation, TC Energy then removed the hundreds of miles of pipe that had already been installed into the ground so that it could be repurposed for use in other projects.

Third, the rights-of-way for the Keystone XL project are no longer in effect. Nor are the permits for the project. Thus, any effort to revive it by South Bow would necessitate a repetition of the painstaking, years-long process of reacquiring all those miles of rights-of-way and local, state and federal permits.

This brings us back to the most damaging aspect of Biden’s political payback: Any such effort would without doubt extend into the next presidential term to begin in 2029. Who is going to be willing to commit billions of now-inflated dollars (thanks largely to Biden and his team’s policies) to a pipeline project that might well end up being cancelled should voters decide to elect another Democrat to the presidency in 2028?

So, while the desire by the Trump team to restart Keystone XL is commendable, the facts on the ground almost certainly mean it would be a purely symbolic gesture.

This current presidency cannot end soon enough.

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.

Before Post

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

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on

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

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