Canadian Energy Centre
Proposed emissions cap threatens critical Canada-U.S. energy trade
From the Canadian Energy Centre
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.
Wapisiw Lookout, reclaimed site of the oil sands industry’s first tailings pond, which started in 1967. The area was restored to a solid surface in 2010 and now functions as a 220-acre watershed. Photo courtesy Suncor Energy
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By CEC Research
Mines demonstrate significant strides through technological innovation
Tailings are a byproduct of mining operations around the world.
In Alberta’s oil sands, tailings are a fluid mixture of water, sand, silt, clay and residual bitumen generated during the extraction process.
Engineered basins or “tailings ponds” store the material and help oil sands mining projects recycle water, reducing the amount withdrawn from the Athabasca River.
In 2023, 79 per cent of the water used for oil sands mining was recycled, according to the latest data from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
Decades of operations, rising production and federal regulations prohibiting the release of process-affected water have contributed to a significant accumulation of oil sands fluid tailings.
The Mining Association of Canada describes that:
“Like many other industrial processes, the oil sands mining process requires water.
However, while many other types of mines in Canada like copper, nickel, gold, iron ore and diamond mines are allowed to release water (effluent) to an aquatic environment provided that it meets stringent regulatory requirements, there are no such regulations for oil sands mines.
Instead, these mines have had to retain most of the water used in their processes, and significant amounts of accumulated precipitation, since the mines began operating.”
Despite this ongoing challenge, oil sands mining operators have made significant strides in reducing fluid tailings through technological innovation.
This is demonstrated by reductions in “legacy fluid tailings” since 2015.
Legacy Fluid Tailings vs. New Fluid Tailings
As part of implementing the Tailings Management Framework introduced in March 2015, the AER released Directive 085: Fluid Tailings Management for Oil Sands Mining Projects in July 2016.
Directive 085 introduced new criteria for the measurement and closure of “legacy fluid tailings” separate from those applied to “new fluid tailings.”
Legacy fluid tailings are defined as those deposited in storage before January 1, 2015, while new fluid tailings are those deposited in storage after January 1, 2015.
The new rules specified that new fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim ten years after the end of a mine’s life, while legacy fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim by the end of a mine’s life.
Total Oil Sands Legacy Fluid Tailings
Alberta’s oil sands mining sector decreased total legacy fluid tailings by approximately 40 per cent between 2015 and 2024, according to the latest company reporting to the AER.
Total legacy fluid tailings in 2024 were approximately 623 million cubic metres, down from about one billion cubic metres in 2015.
The reductions are led by the sector’s longest-running projects: Suncor Energy’s Base Mine (opened in 1967), Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine (opened in 1978), and Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine (opened in 2001). All are now operated by Suncor Energy.
The Horizon Mine, operated by Canadian Natural Resources (opened in 2009) also reports a significant reduction in legacy fluid tailings.
The Muskeg River Mine (opened in 2002) and Jackpine Mine (opened in 2010) had modest changes in legacy fluid tailings over the period. Both are now operated by Canadian Natural Resources.
Imperial Oil’s Kearl Mine (opened in 2013) and Suncor Energy’s Fort Hills Mine (opened in 2018) have no reported legacy fluid tailings.
Suncor Energy Base Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Suncor Energy’s Base Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 98 per cent, from 293 million cubic metres to 6 million cubic metres.
Syncrude Mildred Lake Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 15 per cent, from 457 million cubic metres to 389 million cubic metres.
Syncrude Aurora North Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 25 per cent, from 102 million cubic metres to 77 million cubic metres.
Canadian Natural Resources Horizon Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Canadian Natural Resources’ Horizon Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 36 per cent, from 66 million cubic metres to 42 million cubic metres.
Total Oil Sands Fluid Tailings
Reducing legacy fluid tailings has helped slow the overall growth of fluid tailings across the oil sands sector.
Without efforts to reduce legacy fluid tailings, the total oil sands fluid tailings footprint today would be approximately 1.6 billion cubic metres.
The current fluid tailings volume stands at approximately 1.2 billion cubic metres, up from roughly 1.1 billion in 2015.
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Moratorium does little to improve marine safety while sending the wrong message to energy investors
In 2019, Martha Hall Findlay, then-CEO of the Canada West Foundation, penned a strongly worded op-ed in the Globe and Mail calling the federal ban of oil tankers on B.C.’s northern coast “un-Canadian.”
Six years later, her opinion hasn’t changed.
“It was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it,” said Hall Findlay, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.
The moratorium, known as Bill C-48, banned vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of oil from accessing northern B.C. ports.
Targeting products from one sector in one area does little to achieve the goal of overall improved marine transport safety, she said.
“There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast,” she said.
Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP who served as Suncor Energy’s chief sustainability officer before taking on her role at the University of Calgary.
She sees an opportunity to remove the tanker moratorium in light of changing attitudes about resource development across Canada and a new federal government that has publicly committed to delivering nation-building energy projects.
“There’s a greater recognition in large portions of the public across the country, not just Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Canada is too dependent on the United States as the only customer for our energy products,” she said.
“There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”
The Business Council of British Columbia, which represents more than 200 companies, post-secondary institutions and industry associations, echoes Hall Findlay’s call for the tanker ban to be repealed.
“Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast,” said Denise Mullen, the council’s director of environment, sustainability and Indigenous relations.
“This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.
“This results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”
The ban on tanker traffic specifically in northern B.C. doesn’t make sense given Canada already has strong marine safety regulations in place, Mullen said.
Notably, completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2024 also doubled marine spill response capacity on Canada’s West Coast. A $170 million investment added new equipment, personnel and response bases in the Salish Sea.
“The [C-48] moratorium adds little real protection while sending a damaging message to global investors,” she said.
“This undermines the confidence needed for long-term investment in critical trade-enabling infrastructure.”
Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais senses there’s an openness to revisiting the issue for Indigenous communities.
“Sentiment has changed and evolved in the past six years,” he said.
“There are still concerns and trust that needs to be built. But there’s also a recognition that in addition to environmental impacts, [there are] consequences of not doing it in terms of an economic impact as well as the cascading socio-economic impacts.”
The ban effectively killed the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit project, an Indigenous-led pipeline that would have shipped oil from northern Alberta to a tidewater export terminal at Prince Rupert, B.C.
“When you have Indigenous participants who want to advance these projects, the moratorium needs to be revisited,” Desjarlais said.
He notes that in the six years since the tanker ban went into effect, there are growing partnerships between B.C. First Nations and the energy industry, including the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project and the Nisga’a Nation’s Ksi Lisims LNG project.
This has deepened the trust that projects can mitigate risks while providing economic reconciliation and benefits to communities, Dejarlais said.
“Industry has come leaps and bounds in terms of working with First Nations,” he said.
“They are treating the rights of the communities they work with appropriately in terms of project risk and returns.”
Hall Findlay is cautiously optimistic that the tanker ban will be replaced by more appropriate legislation.
“I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country,” she said.
“Repealing C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Crime2 days ago“This is a total fucking disaster”
-
Fraser Institute1 day agoBefore Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
-
International2 days agoChicago suburb purchases childhood home of Pope Leo XIV
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘I Know How These People Operate’: Fmr CIA Officer Calls BS On FBI’s New Epstein Intel
-
MAiD2 days agoCanada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBlackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
-
Red Deer2 days agoJoin SPARC in spreading kindness by July 14th
-
Business1 day agoPrime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act