From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

The vast majority of Canadian oil exports to the United States are processed in Midwest states. Above, the Cushing Terminal near Cushing, Oklahoma is Enbridge’s largest tank farm and the most significant trading hub for North American crude.

Canada and the United States share something that doesn’t exist anywhere else. A vast, interconnected energy network that today produces more oil and gas than any other region – including the Middle East, according to analysis by S&P Global.

It’s a blanket of energy security researchers called “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times.

But, according to two leaders in governance and energy policy, that relationship is at risk.

Analysis has shown that the federal proposal to cap emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector would result in reduced production. That likely means less energy available to Canada’s largest customer, the United States.

Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, is a former Canadian political staffer born in northern Alberta now living in Washington, D.C.

Jamie Tronnes

Heather Exner-Pirot is a prominent energy policy analyst and senior fellow with the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Heather Exner-Pirot

Here’s what they shared with CEC.

CEC: The U.S. is one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers. Why does it need imports from Canada?

HEP: It’s because all oil is not the same. The United States developed its refinery industry before the shale revolution, when they were importing heavier crudes. Canada has that heavier crude. They are now exporting some of their sweet light oil and importing Canadian crude because that’s what their refinery mix requires.

What’s interesting is that we have never exported more Canadian crude to the United States than we are right now. Even as they have become the world’s largest oil producer, they’ve never needed Canadian oil more than today.

They also import a ton of natural gas from us. They have become the world’s biggest gas producer and the world’s biggest gas exporter, but part of that, and having their LNG capacity being able to so quickly surpass Qatar and Australia, is because some of the production is being backfilled by Canada.

CEC: Will the incoming new administration (either Democrat or Republican) impact the Canada-U.S. energy relationship?

JT: I don’t see a big change happening in such a way as it did when the Biden administration came in with the axing of the Keystone XL pipeline. Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, the global energy market has changed radically.

On the Republican side, Trump often repeats the phrase “drill, baby drill.” The issue is that the U.S. is already drilling about as much as demand allows.

I don’t think a Harris government would move quickly to limit oil and gas production without having a strategic alternative in place. It simply would make her look very weak, and she has explicitly said that she would not ban fracking.

In the post-COVID world, I believe that the Democrat side of the aisle is coming to the view that it was a geopolitical mistake in terms of securing North American energy dominance to cut the Keystone XL pipeline.

The reality is that being able to export refined Canadian feedstock is key to keeping the U.S. as an energy superpower.

The U.S. government continues to offer and subsidize tax credits for investment in carbon capture technology. Even though Trump has said that he would end all of those carbon capture credits and subsidies, it still would not stop the U.S. from importing Canadian oil and gas.

That’s only going to grow as things like AI continue to create more demand for energy. A huge amount of the United States electrical energy grid is powered still by natural gas, and that’s going to take decades to change.

CEC: Would a reduction in Canadian production from the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap impact the United States?

HEP: Yes, and we should be raising the alarm bells. The federal government has said it is a cap on emissions, not a cap on production, but all the analysis that Alberta and the oil and gas sector have done is that it will create somewhere between 1 million and 2 million barrels of production being shut in.

Well, 95 per cent of our exports are to the United States. If we are shutting in 1 million barrels or 2 million barrels, that all comes out of their end just when their shale oil is expected to plateau and decline.

A cap would also tap down natural gas production and LNG capacity. If you’re Japan or South Korea and you’re looking to secure 20 years of supply, the cap creates a lot of uncertainty with that Canadian supply. There’s zero uncertainty with Qatar’s supply. If you’re Japanese, these are not pleasant conversations. This is not giving you confidence. And if you don’t have confidence in LNG, you’re going to burn coal.

In a perfect world, Canada would supply LNG to Asia, the United States would supply it to Europe, and we’d be a pretty energy-independent Western alliance.

I wish we would be honest that we need a different way to reduce emissions that does not take away from production, because that capacity is a big part of what we offer our allies right now.

JT: It threatens the security of North America in a big way because the energy dominance of the United States is tied to Canada. Especially with what’s going on in Russia and other countries, it behooves us as Canadians and me as an American to remember that security is not freely granted.

We have to make sure that we are thinking more holistically when we think of things like emissions cap legislation that’s going to have knock-on effects and may even increase emissions. If you’re trying to replace that feedstock, it’s got to come from somewhere.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Marc Morano

Climate change does not poll well so Vice President Kamala Harris is downplaying the whole issue. Gone is the drumbeating that nothing is more important to the next generation than addressing climate change.

During the presidential debate with former President Donald Trump, Vice President Kamala Harris turned the moderator’s question about climate change into a discussion about housing insurance costs.

She declared climate change was “very real” and then she pivoted to what NPR described as morphing climate change into a “pocketbook issue.”

“You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or it’s being jacked up; you ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go,” Harris said during the debate.

Why has the climate issue, formerly known as an “existential threat” — complete with doomsday tipping points — now turned into a question of mere insurance costs for the Democratic presidential nominee? The Washington Post reported that Democratic Party leaders “appear to have calculated that climate silence is the safest strategy.” The Post explained, “Democrats see talking about the environment as a lose-lose proposition.”

When Harris was finally asked about “climate change” during her first sit-down media interview on CNN, she addressed her recent campaign reversals on fracking, EVs and net zero issues by claiming her ‘values’ have not changed.

Harris told CNN that there is a “climate crisis” and the way to solve it was by spending “a trillion dollars” and applying “metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”

Huh? So, Harris’ position on the alleged threat of man-made climate change still duplicates her 2019 brief presidential run. Her repeated claims that she will no longer seek to “ban” fracking do not address the fact that continuing Green New Deal and Inflation Reduction Act policies will result in a death by a thousand cuts on fracking and other U.S. energy production methods.

She pledged to continue the ideological net zero fairy-tale that government spending and mandates can alter the Earth’s climate system. Harris’ energy plans will continue to hammer America first.

Let’s remember that Harris’ “values” have included being an original co-sponsor of AOC’s Green New Deal, casting a tie-breaking vote in 2022 for the Inflation Reduction Act, supporting gas-powered car bans, gas stove bans, looking at climate change as one of the “root causes” of illegal immigration, and meat restrictions via the administration’s EPA regulations on agricultural methane emissions.

In addition, the Biden-Harris administration has talked openly about the possibility of declaring a national climate emergency which — according to NBC News — “can unlock special powers for a president in a crisis without needing approval from Congress.”

Bypassing democracy to impose a Green New Deal on America appears central to Harris’ “values.” But somehow her “values” have rapidly gone silent on the alleged “existential” climate threat of the 21st century during this heated presidential campaign.

If you listen closely, the Harris “silence” fades away. The Harris campaign raucously boasted to Reuters, that the “climate silence” is all part of her master election plan.

“She has been pursuing a policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ on energy policy, [Harris] aides told Reuters last month. She is anxious not to put off undecided voters in swing states, especially gas-producing Pennsylvania, by trumpeting her climate credentials too loudly.”

“Too loudly?!” The only Harris climate “values” that seem to matter are “strategic ambiguity” — otherwise known as deception.

The reality is that Harris’ “climate silence” is a concession to scientific reality and the failed solar and wind promises that are causing a pointless drain on the U.S. economy. The public has been hearing for years of how solar and wind are “cheaper” than fossil fuels and how they are about to replace fossil fuels. But the reality is starkly the opposite of these claims and the Democrat Party knows this.

Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, green energy mandates, UN climate summits, net zero commitments and restrictions on fossil fuels, solar & wind power made up just 13.9% of the world’s electricity in 2023. Meanwhile, the U.S. still consumed 82% of our energy from fossil fuels in 2023.

When these energy realities are screaming in your face, silence may be the only answer.

The most surprising aspect of the Harris-Walz climate shush campaign may be why the climate establishment has no qualms about muzzling climate change. The New York Times reported that “[Harris] has mentioned climate change only in passing” and noted that “[c]limate leaders say they are fine with that.”

Why are climate activists suddenly “fine” with their standard bearers hushing up on climate during a heated presidential race? Perhaps the answer can be found in the advice of Democratic Party activist Rev. Mark Thompson at the August DNC convention in Chicago, when he declared, “We got 70 days to act right, y’all. Now, after 70 days, we can go back to acting crazy, right?” he said. Thompson added, “Just wait 70 days to go back, please. Be good.”

Let’s hope Americans can glean the climate “crazy” blaring from Harris-Walz’s sham “climate silence” campaign.

Marc Morano, a former senior staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com.