Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

TMX Pipeline a Success Story – Despite All the Green Battles Against It

Published

7 minute read

From Energy Now

By Resource Works

“As we go into winter months, Canada will set new export records”

We remember well the green battles against the “TMX” expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C. The idea was, they said, at best unnecessary and at worst thoroughly dangerous to the world environment.

One group said the expansion “threatens to unleash a massive tar sands spill that would threaten drinking water, salmon, coastal wildlife, and communities.” It would also, others said, impede investment in clean energy and undermine Canada’s efforts to deal with climate change.

Some said the expanded line would be an imposition on First Nations. But a number of First Nations are interested in acquiring an equity stake in the pipeline (and the federal government, which owns the line, is looking to sell a 30-percent stake to them).

Despite the loud opposition, the federal government went ahead and purchased the pipeline and the expansion project in May 2018, completing the pipeline’s expansion this year at a total cost of $31 billion.

Prime Minister Trudeau’s explanation: Ottawa stepped in because owner Kinder Morgan “wanted to throw up their hands and walk away,” and his government wanted to make sure that Canadian oil could reach new markets.

Alberta’s Canadian Energy Centre supported that outlook: “We’re going to be moving into a market where buyers are going to be competing to buy Canadian oil.”

Our Margareta Dovgal wrote: “What matters to us is the benefits to Canada. For one thing, we now will be able to ship more oil by tanker to refineries on the U.S. West Coast at a better price than oil by tanker from Alaska. And . . . we’ll have more oil more readily available for overseas buyers.

“So, all in all, we can expect to see higher returns on our oil, and we can continue to see the immense benefits of high-paying jobs in Canadian energy, and the benefits of revenues to government.”

It has all been happening, in spades.

And the opening of the expanded pipeline on May 1 this year also helped bring down gasoline prices.

In Vancouver, for example, regular gasoline in April ran as high as $2.359 a litre. At the beginning of May, as key refineries returned to normal after seasonal maintenance work, it stood around $2.085. As October opened, the price was as low as $1.579.

Economist G. Kent Fellows said at an event hosted by Resource Works and the Business Council of B.C.: “Our analysis shows that insufficient pipeline capacity was costing B.C. consumers an estimated $1.5 billion per year in higher gasoline prices.

“With TMX now operational, wholesale gasoline prices in Vancouver dropped by about 28 cents per litre compared to earlier this year.”

As for those buyers competing for our oil, some thought the prime export destination would be California. But the summer just past brought exports on tankers from Vancouver to China, Japan, India, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Brunei.

As of now, California is indeed leading as a destination, with Asian buyers having eased off after their initial purchases. Experts say that was expected, with Asian refineries first taking test cargoes to see how their systems handle our oil.

Kevin Birn, chief Canadian oil markets analyst for S&P Global, told Business in Vancouver: “There is always a market for crude oil in the Pacific Basin. We always saw the need for the Trans Mountain pipeline. We saw Canadian production continuing to grow.”

Birn added: “It’s still relatively early. I’d expect volumes to continue to build, cargoes to test different markets all over the place, and over time you’ll start to see patterns.

“As we go into winter months, Canada will set new export records, because as capacity’s been optimized and new product projections and wells are brought online, the winter tends to be the peak period.

“Every year, I think, for the next couple of years, Canada will set new records.”

That would be good news for Canada’s economy — and for Alberta’s.

There are no statistics available yet on the TMX line’s impact on the economy, but in 2019 Trans Mountain estimated that construction and operation would mean $46 billion in revenue to governments over the first 20 years.

Today, as reported by Alberta’s energy minister, Brian Jean, Alberta continues to break records for crude oil production, with global demand continuing to grow.

The latest numbers from the Alberta Energy Regulator show Alberta’s oil production averaged a little over 4 million barrels per day in August — the highest on record for any August.

“The addition of 590,000 barrels per day of heavy oil pipeline capacity from Alberta to the B.C. coast earlier this year with the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has been instrumental in the recent production increases.”

All this as the International Energy Agency said that while oil demand is decelerating from 2023 levels due to a slowing economy in China, demand is still set to increase by 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year. That would push global consumption to a record level of almost 103 million bpd.

And that forecast came as Jonathan Wilkinson, our federal minister of energy and natural resources, declared: “Oil and gas will peak this decade. In fact, oil is probably peaking this year.”

A bevy of market-watchers disagreed with him. Among them, Greg Ebel, CEO of Calgary-based Enbridge, says global oil consumption will be “well north” of 100 million barrels per day by 2050 — and could exceed 110 million barrels.

“You continue to see economic demands, and particularly in the developing world, people continue to say lighter, faster, denser, cheaper energy works for our people. . . And that’s leading to more oil usage.”

Business

All politicians—no matter the party—should engage with natural resource industry

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

When federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently criticized Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre for hosting a fundraiser that included an oil company executive, he raised an interesting question. How should our politicians—of all parties—engage with Canada’s natural resource sector and the industry leaders that drive our natural resource economy?

Consider a recent report by the Chamber of Commerce, entitled Canada’s Natural Wealth, which notes that Canada’s natural resources sector contributed $464 billion to Canada’s economy (measured by real GDP) and supported 3 million jobs in 2023. That represented 21 per cent of the national economy and 15 per cent of employment.

Within the natural resources sector, mining, oil and gas, and pipeline transmission represent 45 per cent of all GDP impact from the sector. Oil and gas production accounted for $71 billion in GDP in 2023. If you throw in the support sector for oil and gas production, and for manufacturing petroleum and coal products, that number reaches nearly $100 billion in GDP.

Shouldn’t any responsible leader want to regularly consult with industry leaders in the natural resource sector to determine how they can facilitate expansion of the sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy?

The Chamber also notes that the natural resource sector is a massive contributor to Canada’s balance of trade, reporting that last year the “sector generated $377 billion in exports, accounting for nearly 50% of Canada’s merchandise exports, and a $228 billion trade surplus (that is, exports over imports) —critical for offsetting trade deficits (more imports than exports) in other sectors.”

Again, shouldn’t all government leaders want to work with industry leaders to promote even more natural resource trade and exports?

The natural resource sector also accounts for one out of every seven jobs in Canada’s economy, and the wages offered in the natural resource sector are higher than the national average—annual wages in the sector were $25,000 above the national average in 2023. And workers in the sector are about 2.5 times more productive, meaning they contribute more to the economy compared to workers in other industries.

One more time—shouldn’t all of Canada’s political leaders, regardless of political stripe, want to work with natural resource producers to create more high-paying jobs for more Canadians?

Finally, the Chamber of Commerce report suggests that some environmental policies require swift reform. Proliferating regulations have made investing in Canada a “riskier and more costly proposition.” The report notes that carbon pricing, Clean Fuel Regulations, proposed Clean Electricity Regulations, proposed federal emissions cap and proposed methane regulations all deter investment in Canada. Which means less economic opportunity for many Canadian workers.

With so much of Canada’s economic prosperity at stake, it’s not improper—as Guilbeault and others suggest—for any politician to meet with and seek political support from Canada’s natural resource industry leaders. Indeed, to not meet with and listen to these leaders would be an act of economic recklessness and constitute imprudent leadership of the worst kind.

Continue Reading

Business

Data Center Demand: The Biden-Harris Energy Transition Will Just Have To Wait

Published on

A nuclear power plant

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By David Blackmon

Google has made big news in the energy space over the past week, and all of it conflicts with the Harris-Biden goals of a glorious future powered entirely by windmills, solar arrays and presumably some combination of Unicorn fur and fairy dust.

Last week, the Washington Post ran a major story detailing the fact that Nebraska’s Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) will be forced to keep two coal-fired power generation units running for years longer than previously planned to accommodate the electricity needs of new data centers being built in the area by Google and Meta. Originally scheduled to be shuttered at the end of 2023, the units will now remain active through 2026, and local residents and activists expressed skepticism they will be shut down even then.

“A promise was made, and then they broke it,” the Post quotes local resident Cheryl Weston as saying. “The tech companies bear responsibility for this. The coal plant is still open because they need all this energy to grow.”

Well, yes, they do. Given the way supposed deadlines and promises related to this government-forced energy transition have been consistently extended and broken, Weston’s skepticism seems well-grounded.

By now, most everyone is aware of the enormous new demand the proliferation of data centers is placing on the U.S. regional power grids. The new demand from Big Tech is being added to an electric system already strained by huge demands from crypto mining, EV charging and general population growth and economic expansion.

This demand growth threatens to overwhelm the ability of power companies to build new electric generating capacity rapidly enough to keep up. This is especially true for companies operating in areas that restrict such new generating capacity to be “green,” i.e. intermittent wind and solar.

In the Washington Post’s story, the OPPD attributes the need to keep the coal units running on the slow development of anticipated new wind and solar capacity. But that avoids the reality that these data centers and other big power demand hogs require reliable generation, 24 hours a day, 7 days every week. The limitations of intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar, even when combined with current backup battery tech, leaves companies like Google and Meta demanding more reliable, consistent generation.

This reality is not limited to the Omaha area. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Google and parent company Alphabet are also backing a new company engaged in the development of a new generation of modular nuclear reactors as a means of securing its future electricity supplies. In a deal with nuclear startup Kairos Power, Google commits to buying power from seven Kairos reactors when they go live in the coming years.

“The end goal here is 24/7, carbon-free energy,” Google/Alphabet senior director for energy and climate Michael Terrell said. “We feel like in order to meet goals around round-the-clock clean energy, you’re going to need to have technologies that complement wind and solar and lithium-ion storage.”

These developments involving Google and Meta come on the heels of other recent stories detailing efforts by tech giants to secure their future power needs. In early October, Constellation Energy announced it will reactivate its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania to feed the power needs of nearby data centers under development by Microsoft. Constellation announced a similar deal in July to power data centers owned by Amazon from other nuclear facilities it operates.

The securing of their own power supplies could well become a requirement for big tech companies in some regions, as regulators and grid managers become increasingly concerned about their potential to drain regional grids of needed capacity to keep the lights on for everyone else. Bloomberg recently reported on comments by Thomas Gleeson, Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, warning data center developers they should plan to provide at least part of their own power needs if they wish to connect to the grid in a timely fashion.

What it all means is that demand for reliable, 24/7 power supplied by nuclear, natural gas and even coal is going to continue rising for the foreseeable future. The glorious energy transition will just have to wait for reality.

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X