From EnergyNow.Ca

By Jim Warren

Is it Time to Put Politics Aside for Team Canada? – Jim Warren

People on the prairies who understand the value of a flourishing oil and gas sector are hopeful the election of a Conservative government will sweep away the barriers that blocked the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. Some optimistic industry analysts suggest a project similar to Northern Gateway may be doable but concede that reviving Energy East would probably be a bridge too far.

It is getting difficult to recount exactly how many times Quebec’s demands for special treatment have disrupted national unity. Quebec’s rejection of Energy East was the most recent assault on national cohesion to anger large numbers of people on the prairies. It amounted to sticking a finger in the eye of the oil-producing provinces. And while the Poilievre Conservatives are set to win the next election, their victory won’t signal a big change in attitudes about the environment in Quebec.

Politicians from Quebec argue over which of their parties can claim it hates pipelines the most. Bloc Québécois leader, Yves-François Blanchet brags about the prominent role his party played in killing Energy East. His boasting actually drew the ire of Quebec Liberals and environmental groups in 2019. They claimed the Bloc was taking credit for their work. The 338Canada website, has the anti-oil Bloc Québécois winning 45 of the 78 federal seats in Quebec in the upcoming federal election.

Provincially, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government is marginally more reasonable to deal with. It claims to stand for Quebec’s national autonomy as opposed to outright separation. Quebec premier, François Legault, says the west would do well to behave more like politicians from his province when dealing with Ottawa. He makes a good point.

Revisiting just how eminently reasonable the original Energy East proposal actually was suggests many Quebec politicians are immune to common sense. If the Energy East proposal wasn’t acceptable to the overly zealous activists who influence environmental policy in the province, why would we expect a different response in the near future?

There are, however, coercive options that might work. Premiers from Alberta and Saskatchewan have proposed withholding a portion of Quebec’s annual equalization payment in response to its lack of cooperation on building a pipeline to tidewater on the Atlantic coast. Unfortunately that option would require a constitutional amendment, and those have proven to be extremely difficult to engineer.

Alternatively, prairie governments might encourage Enbridge to shut down its Line 9 pipeline which has the capacity to transport up to 300 barrels per day (bpd) of western oil to Montreal. That sort of move would require getting industry players on side–including Enbridge and Suncor, who owns a 137,000 bpd capacity refinery in Montreal. It is encouraging to recall that Peter Lougheed faced little in the way of industry opposition in the 1970s when he cut oil shipments to Central Canada by 10%.

Quebec’s past behavior pretty much guarantees the province would threaten separation if confronted with the loss of its equalization welfare ($14 billion for fiscal 2023-24). They might be less concerned about getting a pipeline from the west turned off—they seem to prefer tanker ships over pipelines.

Many westerners are weary of Quebec’s separation blackmail. Some of those who have run out of patience say, “next time they threaten to go, just tell them not to let the door hit them on the ass on their way out.”

The cancellation of the Energy East pipeline was viewed on the prairies as rejection of a project that would generate greater national harmony. It was seen as a nation building exercise of benefit to Quebecers, people from the Maritimes, Ontario and Western Canada. Westerners mistakenly assumed even environmentally sanctimonious Quebecers would recognize the benefits of obtaining more of their oil from pipelines rather than via marginally risky railways and ocean going tankers.

Following the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, people from western Canada’s oil patch naively assumed approval of Energy East was a no brainer. The disaster killed 47 people and destroyed downtown Lac- Mégantic. It was caused by the derailment and explosion of a train hauling oil tanker cars. It seemed reasonable to imagine Quebecers would happily purchase safer, less expensive Canadian oil transported by pipeline.

Energy East would have been the longest pipeline in North America. It was to run from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. The plan was to convert 2,900 miles of existing natural gas pipeline into an oil pipeline, build 1,900 miles of new pipeline and make a $300 million upgrade to an Irving oil terminal in New Brunswick.  It was a visionary project reminiscent of the building of the transcontinental railway and the original TransCanada pipeline.

The pipeline would be capable of transporting 1.1 million bpd. No more than 400,000 bpd would be required to replace the foreign oil being imported by tanker and rail. The remaining 600,000 barrels could be exported to new international customers for Canadian oil. The value of those new export revenues would conceivably approach $15 billion annually.

It is worth remembering the influential role Quebec Liberals played in opposing Energy East. Montreal’s Mayor Denis Coderre, was a former Liberal cabinet minister who led the Montreal Municipal Community (MMC) a coalition of 82 Montreal area municipal governments. As much as anything, the MMC’s strident opposition to Energy Easy in January of 2016 foretold TransCanada’s October 2017 cancellation of the pipeline.

Inspiration for cancelling the pipeline was provided by Quebec’s robust environmental lobby—led by activists like Steven Guilbeault. Polls conducted at the time showed the Quebec politicians who opposed Energy East had the support of 60% or more of the public. The pipeline was similarly denounced by premier Philippe Couillard and Quebec’s Liberal government at the time. While the southwest corner of B.C. has typically been thought of as the home of Canada’s Greens, in Quebec the Liberals are the party preferred by environmental activists.

Liberals in Ottawa remained officially neutral during the Energy East controversy but were unofficially cheering for the pipeline’s cancellation from the sidelines.

One of the biggest challenges to confront an effort to revive the project would be finding willing investors. TransCanada walked away financially bruised and who wants to be similarly burnt? And, the Trans Mountain example casts a dark shadow on the idea of a government-owned line.

Trying to convince Quebecers, especially young adults, about the value of new oil pipelines seems like a fool’s errand. Given that only 50% of 16-20 year-olds in Quebec have a driver’s license, it could prove difficult convincing them about the importance of petroleum to Canada’s transportation system and economic health.

No less discouraging is the fact that Quebec’s environmental movement remains dedicated to killing the petroleum and natural gas industries on behalf of combatting climate change.

Yet, oddly enough there have been surprising signals coming out of Quebec in recent years suggesting regular Quebecers don’t share the same level of anti-oil and anti-pipeline enthusiasm as their province’s politicians and environmentalists. Perhaps this is something worth looking into before giving up entirely on the idea of a pipeline to Atlantic tidewater.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

After recently meeting with president-elect Donald Trump, Premier Danielle Smith warned that Trump’s tariffs could include oil. That’s just one more risk factor added to Alberta’s already precarious fiscal situation, which could mean red ink in the near future.

Trump has threatened a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian goods, which includes oil, and could come as early as January 20 when he’s sworn in as president. Such tariffs would likely widen the price differential between U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil and Alberta’s Western Canadian select (WCS) heavy oil.

In other words, the average price difference between Canadian oil (WCS) and U.S. oil (WTI) could increase, reflecting a larger discount on Canadian oil. According to the Alberta government’s estimate, every $1 that WCS is sold at discount is a $600 million hit to the government’s budget.

To maintain its $4.6 billion projected budget surplus this fiscal year (2024/25), the Smith government is banking on oil prices (WTI) averaging US$74.00 per barrel in 2024/25. But every $1 decline in oil prices leads to a $630 million swing in Alberta’s bottom line. And WTI has dropped as low as US$67.00 per barrel in recent months.

Put simply, Trump’s proposed tariffs would flip Alberta’s budget surplus to a budget deficit, particularly if paired with lower oil prices.

While Smith has been aggressively trying to engage with lawmakers in the United States regarding the tariffs and the inclusion of oil, there’s not much she can do in the short-run to mitigate the effects if Trump’s tariff plan becomes a reality. But the Smith government can still help stabilize Alberta’s finances over the longer term. The key is spending restraint.

For decades, Alberta governments have increased spending when resource revenues were relatively high, as they are today, but do not commensurately reduce spending when resource revenues inevitably decline, which results in periods of persistent budget deficits and debt accumulation. And Albertans already pay approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year.

To its credit, the Smith government has recognized the risk of financing ongoing spending with onetime windfalls in resource revenue and introduced a rule to limit increases in operating spending (e.g. spending on annual items such as government employee compensation) to the rate of population growth and inflation. Unfortunately, the government’s current plan for restraint is starting from a higher base level of spending (compared to its original plan) due to spending increases over the past two years.

Indeed, the government will spend a projected $1,603 more per Albertan (inflation-adjusted) this fiscal year than the Smith government originally planned in its 2022 mid-year budget update. And higher spending means the government has increased its reliance on volatile resource revenue—not reduced it. Put simply, Smith’s plan to grow spending below the rate of inflation and population growth isn’t enough to avoid budget deficits—more work must be done to rein in high spending.

Trump’s tariffs could help plunge Alberta back into deficit. To help stabilize provincial finances over the longer term, the Smith government should focus on what it can control—and that means reining in spending.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute