Energy
Navigating New Political Currents: How the U.S. Election Could Impact Canadian Energy – Resource Works
From EnergyNow.ca
By Resource Works
More News and Views From Resource Works Here
As Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, attends the annual Pacific North West Economic Region (PNWER) conference in Whistler this week, the unexpected news that President Joe Biden won’t be on the November 5 presidential ballot sent shockwaves through the policy and trade discussions.
For policy wonks like those I’m gathered with in Whistler this week, could there be a better gift than the conundrums unleashed over the past week onto the U.S. political landscape?
The rise of Donald Trump and the potential presidential candidacy of Kamala Harris conjure up a staggering range of possibilities. When it comes to trade, international relations, and the future of the foundational natural resource sectors that unify the ten sub-national jurisdictions making up PNWER, this is what everyone is going to be talking about..
With Trump securing the Republican nomination last week, Canadian energy producers were left pondering what his potential return to the White House might mean for their industry. Like a wildcatter drilling an exploratory well, Trump’s energy policies promise both gushers of opportunity and dry holes of risk for our oil and gas sector.
On the upside, his pledge to unleash American energy production could boost overall demand and prices, indirectly benefiting Canadian exporters. His promised regulatory reforms may also grease the wheels for new pipelines and LNG terminals, easing the flow of our energy products southward. It’s enough to make an Albertan oilman shed a tear of joy into his Stampede pancakes.
But before we break out the champagne (or perhaps a nice Canadian ice wine), consider the potential downsides. Trump’s “America First” trade policies and tariff threats loom like storm clouds on the horizon for Canadian exporters. His vow to gut environmental regulations faster than you can say “EPA” could leave Canadian producers at a competitive disadvantage, burdened by our quaint commitment to responsible production practices.
Yet in this potential regulatory race to the bottom, I spy an opportunity as golden as the fields of Saskatchewan canola. By doubling down on our world-class environmental and safety standards, Canadian energy could position itself as the responsible choice in global markets.
Picture it: “Canadian crude – now with 50% less guilt!” We could be the Tesla of fossil fuels, if you will.
Of course, there’s a risk in tooting our own sustainability horn too loudly. Trump isn’t known for his fondness of perceived criticism, and antagonizing him could lead to retaliatory tariffs faster than you can say “covfefe.” We’ll need to navigate this terrain as carefully as a pipeline through the Rockies.
On the other hand, if Kamala Harris, Biden’s preferred successor, retakes the White House, the landscape will look markedly different. Harris is likely to continue the Biden administration’s focus on climate action and clean energy. This could mean stronger support for renewables, potentially benefiting Canadian sectors involved in green technology and clean energy exports. However, stricter environmental regulations and a push for rapid decarbonization might challenge traditional oil and gas industries.
A Harris administration might prioritize cross-border collaboration on climate initiatives, providing opportunities for joint projects in carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen development, and renewable energy. This could foster closer ties and create a more integrated North American energy market focused on sustainability.
Bloomberg reports that while Harris wouldn’t be likely to make major shifts to the direction Biden charted on climate change, her opposition to offshore drilling and fracking suggests her signature move as president could be bringing fierce oil industry antagonism to the White House. As California attorney general, she brought lawsuits against energy companies, prosecuted a pipeline company over an oil leak and investigated Exxon Mobil Corp. for misleading the public about climate change.
Yet, such a focus on environmental standards could also mean increased scrutiny and regulatory hurdles for Canadian energy projects seeking to enter the U.S. market. Canadian producers will need to balance compliance with high environmental standards while remaining competitive.
In either scenario, navigating the U.S. political landscape will require strategic adaptability from Canadian energy producers. Trump’s potential return could mean deregulation and a push for fossil fuel dominance, while a Harris presidency could emphasize clean energy and environmental collaboration.
And for anyone lamenting the potential Trump threat to renewables growth, remember the number one test for The Donald: “Can I make money off it?” From Texas to Alberta, solar is a huge growth opportunity in the “and more” rather than the “and/or” category of energy opportunities that are creating investor profits. There’s no reason for him to fire opportunities like those.
Speaking of careful navigation, let’s ponder the electric vehicle conundrum. If Trump follows through on scrapping EV mandates, Canada may find itself stuck between a Chevy Bolt and a hard place. Do we follow suit and risk our climate goals, or forge ahead solo and risk becoming an automotive island? It’s enough to make one long for the simpler days of the horse and buggy.
But fear not, dear reader. For in the potential pairing of a Trump presidency and a Pierre Poilievre prime ministership, I see a silver lining as shiny as a freshly polished oil rig. Their aligned views on energy could usher in a new era of continental cooperation, turning the 49th parallel into a veritable pipeline of mutual prosperity. If current trends of market-driven decarbonization continue, this would actually be positive for the climate (and yes, I can already hear the chorus of those saying such a thing is impossible).
In the end, navigating the Trump energy landscape will require all the nimbleness of a Fort McMurray worker on an icy road. But with a dash of ingenuity, a sprinkle of diplomacy, and perhaps a generous helping of maple syrup to sweeten the deal, Canadian energy producers may yet find themselves not just surviving, but thriving in the turbulent waters of a potential Trump 2.0 era.
Energy
What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?
From Resource Works
Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.
Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?
It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.
That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.
The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.
I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.
Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?
I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.
To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.
Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.
Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?
It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.
But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.
The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.
Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?
I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.
That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.
I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.
Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?
Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.
I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.
We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.
It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.
Energy
What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?
From EnergyNow.ca
By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow
The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.
Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.
Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?
Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built
Economic and Job Creation
The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.
Energy Security
By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.
Environmental Safety
Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.
Regulatory Oversight
The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.
Political Reasons for Cancellation
Environmental Activism
The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.
Obama’s Cancellation
President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.
Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation
President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.
Political Symbolism
For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.
Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?
Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.
It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.
Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.
That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.
-
Business2 days ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel1 day ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta1 day ago
Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Business2 days ago
From ‘brilliant’ to ‘aghast’: Reactions to RFK Jr.’s nomination for HHS secretary run the gamut
-
MAiD2 days ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
ESG1 day ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!