Connect with us

Alberta

The Alberta energy transition you haven’t heard about

Published

11 minute read

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Horizontal drilling technology and more investment in oil production have fundamentally changed the industry

There’s extensive discussion today about energy transition and transformation. Its primary focus is a transition from fossil fuels to lower-carbon energy sources.

But in Alberta, a fundamental but different energy transition has already taken place, and its ripple effects stretch into businesses and communities across the province.

The shift has affected the full spectrum of oil and gas activity: where production happens, how it’s done, who does it and what type of energy is produced.

Oil and gas development in Alberta today largely happens in different places and uses different technologies than 20 years ago. As a result, the companies that support activity and the communities where operations happen have had to change.

Regional Shift

For the first decade of this century, in terms of numbers of wells, most drilling activity happened in central and southeast Alberta, with companies primarily using vertical wells to target conventional shallow natural gas deposits.

In 2005, producers drilled more than 8,000 natural gas wells in these areas, according to Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) records.

But then, three things happened. The price of natural gas declined, the price of oil went up and new horizontal drilling technology unlocked vast energy resources that were previously uneconomic to produce.

By 2015, the amount of natural gas wells companies drilled in central and southeast Alberta was just 256. In 2023, the number dropped to only 50. Over approximately 20 years, activity dropped by 99 per cent.

Where did the investment capital go? The oil sands and heavy oil reserves of Alberta’s northeast and shale plays, including the Montney and Duvernay, in the province’s foothills and northwest.

Nearly 60 per cent of activity outside of the oil-rich northeast occurred in central and southeast Alberta in 2005. By 2023, overall oil and gas drilling in those regions had dropped by 30 per cent, while at the same time increasing by 159 per cent in the foothills and northwest.

“The migration of activity from central and southern Alberta to other regions of the province has been significant,” says David Yager, a longtime oil and gas service company executive who now works as a special advisor to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“For decades there were vibrant oil service communities in places like Medicine Hat, Taber, Brooks, Drumheller and Red Deer,” he says.

“These [oil service communities] have contracted materially with the new service centres growing in places like Lloydminster, Bonnyville, Rocky Mountain House, Edson, Whitecourt, Fox Creek and Grande Prairie.”

Fewer Wells and Fewer Rigs

Extended-reach horizontal drilling compared to shallow, vertical drilling enables more oil and gas production from fewer wells.

Outside the oil sands, in 2005, producers in Alberta drilled 17,300 wells. In 2023, that dropped to just 3,700 wells, according to AER data.

Despite that massive nearly 80 per cent decrease in wells drilled, total production of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids outside of the oil sands is essentially the same today as it was in 2005.

Last year, non-oil sands production was 3.1 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe) per day, compared to 3.4 million boe per day in 2005–but from about 13,600 fewer new wells.

Innovation from drilling and energy services companies has been a major factor in achieving these impressive results, says Mark Scholz, CEO of the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors. But there’s been a downside.

Yager notes that much of the drilling and service equipment employed on conventional oil and gas development is not suited for unconventional resource exploitation.

Scholz says the productivity improvements resulted in an oversupply of rigs, especially rigs with limited depth ratings and limited capability for “pad” drilling, where multiple wells are drilled the same area on the surface.

Rigs have been required to drill significantly deeper wellbores than in the traditional shallow gas market, he says.

“This has resulted in rig decommissioning or relocations and a tactical effort to upgrade engines, mud pumps, walking systems and pipe-handling technology to meet evolving customer demands,” he says.

“You need not go beyond the reductions in Canada’s drilling rig fleet to understand the impact of these operational innovations. Twenty years ago, there were 950 drilling rigs; today, we have 350, a 65 per cent reduction. [And] further contractions are likely in the near term.”

Scholz says, “collaboration and partnerships between producers and contractors were necessary to make this transition successful, but the rig fleet has evolved into a much deeper, technologically advanced fleet.”

A Higher Cost of Entry

Yager says that along with growth in the oil sands, replacing thousands of new vertical shallow gas wells with fewer, high-volume extended-reach horizontal wells has made it more challenging for smaller companies to participate.

“The barriers to entry in terms of capital required have changed tremendously. At one time a new shallow gas well could be drilled and put on stream for $150,000. Today’s wells in unconventional plays cost from $3 million to $8 million each,” he says.

“This has materially changed the exploration and production companies developing the resource, and the type of oilfield services equipment employed. An industry that was once dominated by multiple smaller players is increasingly consolidating into fewer, larger entities. This has unintended consequences that are not well understood by the public.”

More Oil (Sands), Less Gas

Higher oil prices and horizontal drilling helped change Alberta from a natural gas hotbed to a global oil powerhouse.

In the oil sands, horizontal wells enabled a key technology called steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), which went into commercial service in 2001 to allow for a massive expansion of what is referred to as in situ oil sands production.

In 2005, mining dominated oil sands production, at about 625,000 barrels per day compared to 440,000 barrels per day from in situ projects. In situ oil sands production exceeded mining for the first time in 2013, at 1.1 million barrels per day compared to 975,000 barrels per day from mining.

Today the oil sands production split is nearly half and half. Last year, in situ projects–primarily SAGD–produced approximately 1.8 million barrels per day, compared to about 1.7 million barrels per day from mining.

Natural gas used to exceed oil production in Alberta. In 2005, natural gas provided 54 per cent of the province’s total oil and gas supply. Nearly two decades later, oil accounts for 60 per cent compared to 29 per cent from natural gas. The remaining approximately 11 per cent of production is natural gas liquids like propane, butane and ethane.

Alberta’s non-renewable resource revenue reflects the shift in activity to more oil sands and less natural gas.

In 2005, Alberta received $8.4 billion in natural gas royalties and $950 million from the oil sands. In 2023, the oil sands led by a wide margin, providing $16.9 billion in royalties compared to $3.6 billion from natural gas.

Innovation and Emerging Resources

As Alberta’s oil and gas industry continues to evolve, another shift is happening as investments increase into emissions reduction technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and emerging resources.

Since 2015, CCS projects in Alberta have safely stored more than 14 million tonnes of CO2 that would have otherwise been emitted to the atmosphere. And more CCS capacity is being developed.

Construction is underway on an $8.9-billion new net-zero plant producing polyethylene, the world’s most widely used plastic, that will capture and store CO2 emissions using the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line hub. Two additional CCS projects got the green light to proceed this summer.

Meanwhile, in 2023, producers spent $700 million on emerging resources including hydrogen, geothermal energy, helium and lithium. That’s more than double the $230 million invested in 2020, the first year the AER collected the data.

“Energy service contractors are on the frontlines of Canada’s energy evolution, helping develop new subsurface commodities such as lithium, heat from geothermal and helium,” Scholz says.

“The next level of innovation will be on the emission reduction front, and we see breakthroughs in electrification, batteries, bi-fuel engines and fuel-switching,” he says.

“The same level of collaboration between service providers and operators that we saw in our productivity improvement is required to achieve similar results with emission reduction technologies.”

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

Alberta

Province introducing “Patient-Focused Funding Model” to fund acute care in Alberta

Published on

Alberta’s government is introducing a new acute care funding model, increasing the accountability, efficiency and volume of high-quality surgical delivery.

Currently, the health care system is primarily funded by a single grant made to Alberta Health Services to deliver health care across the province. This grant has grown by $3.4 billion since 2018-19, and although Alberta performed about 20,000 more surgeries this past year than at that time, this is not good enough. Albertans deserve surgical wait times that don’t just marginally improve but meet the medically recommended wait times for every single patient.

With Acute Care Alberta now fully operational, Alberta’s government is implementing reforms to acute care funding through a patient-focused funding (PFF) model, also known as activity-based funding, which pays hospitals based on the services they provide.

“The current global budgeting model has no incentives to increase volume, no accountability and no cost predictability for taxpayers. By switching to an activity-based funding model, our health care system will have built-in incentives to increase volume with high quality, cost predictability for taxpayers and accountability for all providers. This approach will increase transparency, lower wait times and attract more surgeons – helping deliver better health care for all Albertans, when and where they need it.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

Activity-based funding is based on the number and type of patients treated and the complexity of their care, incentivizing efficiency and ensuring that funding is tied to the actual care provided to patients. This funding model improves transparency, ensuring care is delivered at the right time and place as multiple organizations begin providing health services across the province.

“Exploring innovative ways to allocate funding within our health care system will ensure that Albertans receive the care they need, when they need it most. I am excited to see how this new approach will enhance the delivery of health care in Alberta.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

Patient-focused, or activity-based, funding has been successfully implemented in Australia and many European nations, including Sweden and Norway, to address wait times and access to health care services, and is currently used in both British Columbia and Ontario in various ways.

“It is clear that we need a new approach to manage the costs of delivering health care while ensuring Albertans receive the care they expect and deserve. Patient-focused funding will bring greater accountability to how health care dollars are being spent while also providing an incentive for quality care.”

Dr. Chris Eagle, interim president and CEO, Acute Care Alberta

This transition is part of Acute Care Alberta’s mandate to oversee and arrange for the delivery of acute care services such as surgeries, a role that was historically performed by AHS. With Alberta’s government funding more surgeries than ever, setting a record with 304,595 surgeries completed in 2023-24 and with 310,000 surgeries expected to have been completed in 2024-25, it is crucial that funding models evolve to keep pace with the growing demand and complexity of services.

“With AHS transitioning to a hospital-based services provider, it’s time we are bold and begin to explore how to make our health care system more efficient and manage the cost of care on a per patient basis. The transition to a PFF model will align funding with patient care needs, based on actual service demand and patient needs, reflecting the communities they serve.”

Andre Tremblay, interim president and CEO, AHS

“Covenant Health welcomes a patient-focused approach to acute care funding that drives efficiency, accountability and performance while delivering the highest quality of care and services for all Albertans. As a trusted acute care provider, this model better aligns funding with outcomes and supports our unwavering commitment to patients.”

Patrick Dumelie, CEO, Covenant Health

“Patient-focused hospital financing ties funding to activity. Hospitals are paid for the services they deliver. Efficiency may improve and surgical wait times may decrease. Further, hospital managers may be more accountable towards hospital spending patterns. These features ensure that patients receive quality care of the highest value.”

Dr. Glen Sumner, clinical associate professor, University of Calgary

Leadership at Alberta Health and Acute Care Alberta will review relevant research and the experience of other jurisdictions, engage stakeholders and define and customize patient-focused funding in the Alberta context. This working group will also identify and run a pilot to determine where and how this approach can best be applied and implemented this fiscal year.

Final recommendations will be provided to the minister of health later this year, with implementation of patient-focused funding for select procedures across the system in 2026.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X