Navigating New Political Currents: How the U.S. Election Could Impact Canadian Energy – Resource Works

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.

Related Topics:#EnergyNow.CA #ResourceWorks #USEnergyPolicy CanadaUSEnergyPolicy HarrisEnergyPolicy StewartMuir TrumpEnergyPolicy

Up Next

Post Fauci NIH can’t help itself. Still misleading public about severity of COVID

Don't Miss

Fraser Institute says Albertans should get annual dividend to promote Heritage Fund

Todayville

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

Is the Price of Reconciliation that we Must Pretend to Believe a Lie?

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Court Shoots Down Biden Admin’s Mass Amnesty Order For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Illegal Migrants

Alberta

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Published on November 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.

The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.

According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.

Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)

And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?

In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Alberta

For second year in a row, Alberta oil and gas companies spend more than required on cleanup

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Center

By Grady Semmens

$923 million spent cleaning up inactive wells, sites and pipelines in 2023

As a business owner, Ryan Smith values few things more than predictability when it comes to the oil and gas market and the demand for his company’s services.

That’s why knowing that next year in Alberta, the regulator requires at least $750 million worth of work cleaning up inactive oil and gas wells and other legacy energy infrastructure is tremendously helpful for the CEO of Calgary-based 360 Engineering & Environmental Consulting.

“Having a minimum spend in place for the province makes the market more predictable and consistent, which in turn helps our clients and our business plan for the future, which is a good thing,” says Smith, whose company has completed more than 5,000 site closure activities in Canada and internationally since 2015.

“Site closure has really emerged as a growth market over the last decade, especially in Western Canada where the regulatory systems for oil and gas are more advanced than anywhere else we are exposed to. It is an integral part of the energy lifecycle, and if it is done well it adds a lot of value to the industry.”

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) introduced an industry-wide minimum “closure” spending requirement in 2022, part of Alberta’s Inventory Reduction Program to accelerate the remediation of inactive oil and gas wells, facilities and pipelines across the province.

The mandatory quota determines the minimum level of work a company must conduct primarily to decommission and reclaim a proportion of its inactive inventory.

Inactive wells are defined as those that have not been used for six months or a year, depending on what they are being used for. When a company decides that they will not reactivate an inactive well they decommission it through a process called abandonment.

A well is considered successfully abandoned after it is cleaned, plugged with cement, cut to a minimum of one meter below the surface and covered with a vented cap. After abandonment comes remediation and reclamation, where the land around the well is returned to the equivalent of its original state.

The first two years under the new rules saw Alberta’s energy industry significantly exceed the minimum closure requirements.

In 2022, companies spent more than $696 million, about 65 per cent more than the initial threshold of $422 million. The AER increased the minimum spend to $700 million in 2023, which producers surpassed by 22 per cent with total expenditures of $923 million.

The 2024 minimum remains at $700 million, while in July the regulator announced that the minimum spend for 2025 was raised to $750 million.

This closure work does not include remediation of oil sands mining sites, which is handled under the Mine Financial Security Program, nor does it include the closure of orphan wells (wells without a legal owner) managed by the industry-funded Orphan Well Association.

Gurpreet Lail, CEO of Enserva, an industry association representing energy service companies, suppliers and manufacturers, says there was an initial rush of closure work when the quotas were first put in place, but activity has since become more even as companies develop long-term closure plans.

“A lot of the low-lying fruit has been taken care of, so now companies are working on more complex closure files that take more time and more money,” Lail says.

Facility owners say that Alberta’s rules provide direction for planning closure and remediation work, which in the past may have been put on hold due to the ups and downs of the oil and gas market.

“When commodity prices are up, everyone is focused on drilling more wells and when prices are down, budgets are strained for doing work that doesn’t bring in revenue. Having a minimum spend makes sure closure work happens every year and ensures there is longer-term progress,” says Deborah Borthwick, asset retirement coordinator for Birchcliff Energy, an oil and natural gas producer focused in Alberta.

Over the last few years, Birchcliff has budgeted more than $3 million for annual facility closure work, far above its required minimum spend.

The company completed 11 well abandonments and decommissioned 23 facilities and pipelines in 2022, according to its latest environmental, social and governance report.

Borthwick says having the closure quota for 2025 already set has allowed it to plan ahead and line up the necessary service companies well in advance for next year’s remediation work.