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.
Business
Trump’s oil tariffs could spell deficits for Alberta government
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
After recently meeting with president-elect Donald Trump, Premier Danielle Smith warned that Trump’s tariffs could include oil. That’s just one more risk factor added to Alberta’s already precarious fiscal situation, which could mean red ink in the near future.
Trump has threatened a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian goods, which includes oil, and could come as early as January 20 when he’s sworn in as president. Such tariffs would likely widen the price differential between U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil and Alberta’s Western Canadian select (WCS) heavy oil.
In other words, the average price difference between Canadian oil (WCS) and U.S. oil (WTI) could increase, reflecting a larger discount on Canadian oil. According to the Alberta government’s estimate, every $1 that WCS is sold at discount is a $600 million hit to the government’s budget.
To maintain its $4.6 billion projected budget surplus this fiscal year (2024/25), the Smith government is banking on oil prices (WTI) averaging US$74.00 per barrel in 2024/25. But every $1 decline in oil prices leads to a $630 million swing in Alberta’s bottom line. And WTI has dropped as low as US$67.00 per barrel in recent months.
Put simply, Trump’s proposed tariffs would flip Alberta’s budget surplus to a budget deficit, particularly if paired with lower oil prices.
While Smith has been aggressively trying to engage with lawmakers in the United States regarding the tariffs and the inclusion of oil, there’s not much she can do in the short-run to mitigate the effects if Trump’s tariff plan becomes a reality. But the Smith government can still help stabilize Alberta’s finances over the longer term. The key is spending restraint.
For decades, Alberta governments have increased spending when resource revenues were relatively high, as they are today, but do not commensurately reduce spending when resource revenues inevitably decline, which results in periods of persistent budget deficits and debt accumulation. And Albertans already pay approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year.
To its credit, the Smith government has recognized the risk of financing ongoing spending with onetime windfalls in resource revenue and introduced a rule to limit increases in operating spending (e.g. spending on annual items such as government employee compensation) to the rate of population growth and inflation. Unfortunately, the government’s current plan for restraint is starting from a higher base level of spending (compared to its original plan) due to spending increases over the past two years.
Indeed, the government will spend a projected $1,603 more per Albertan (inflation-adjusted) this fiscal year than the Smith government originally planned in its 2022 mid-year budget update. And higher spending means the government has increased its reliance on volatile resource revenue—not reduced it. Put simply, Smith’s plan to grow spending below the rate of inflation and population growth isn’t enough to avoid budget deficits—more work must be done to rein in high spending.
Trump’s tariffs could help plunge Alberta back into deficit. To help stabilize provincial finances over the longer term, the Smith government should focus on what it can control—and that means reining in spending.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Alberta
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border
Marathon Petroleum’s Detroit refinery in the U.S. Midwest, the largest processing area for Canadian crude imports. Photo courtesy Marathon Petroleum
From the Canadian Energy Centre
More than 450,000 kilometres of pipelines link Canada and the U.S. – enough to circle the Earth 11 times
As U.S. imports of Canadian oil barrel through another new all-time high, leaders on both sides of the border are warning of the threat to energy security should the incoming Trump administration apply tariffs on Canadian oil and gas.
“We would hope any future tariffs would exclude these critical feedstocks and refined products,” Chet Thompson, CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), told Politico’s E&E News.
AFPM’s members manufacture everything from gasoline to plastic, dominating a sector with nearly 500 operating refineries and petrochemical plants across the United States.
“American refiners depend on crude oil from Canada and Mexico to produce the affordable, reliable fuels consumers count on every day,” Thompson said.
The United States is now the world’s largest oil producer, but continues to require substantial imports – to the tune of more than six million barrels per day this January, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Nearly 70 per cent of that oil came from Canada.
Many U.S. refineries are set up to process “heavy” crude like what comes from Canada and not “light” crude like what basins in the United States produce.
“New tariffs on [Canadian] crude oil, natural gas, refined products, or critical input materials that cannot be sourced domestically…would directly undermine energy affordability and availability for consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest trade association, wrote in a recent letter to the United States Trade Representative.
More than 450,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines link Canada and the United States – enough to circle the Earth 11 times.
The scale of this vast, interconnected energy system does not exist anywhere else. It’s “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers with S&P Global said last year.
Twenty-five years from now, the United States will import virtually exactly the same amount of oil as it does today (7.0 million barrels per day in 2050 compared to 6.98 million barrels per day in 2023), according to the EIA’s latest outlook.
“We are interdependent on energy. Americans cutting off Canadian energy would be like cutting off their own arm,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, a special advisor to the Business Council of Canada.
Trump’s threat to apply a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada, including energy, would likely “result in lower production in Canada and higher gasoline and energy costs to American consumers while threatening North American energy security,” Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said in a statement.
“We must do everything in our power to protect and preserve this energy partnership.”
Energy products are Canada’s single largest export to the United States, accounting for about a third of total Canadian exports to the U.S., energy analysts Rory Johnston and Joe Calnan noted in a November report for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
The impact of applying tariffs to Canadian oil would likely be spread across Canada and the United States, they wrote: higher pump prices for U.S. consumers, weaker business for U.S. refiners and reduced returns for Canadian producers.
“It is vitally important for Canada to underline that it is not just another trade partner, but rather an indispensable part of the economic and security apparatus of the United States,” Johnston and Calnan wrote.
-
National2 days ago
Trudeau not seeking re-election as MP following resignation as prime minister
-
Carbon Tax2 days ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Business2 days ago
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
No, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done
-
Alberta2 days ago
Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”
-
National1 day ago
BC Conservative leader calls for independent review after election ‘irregularities’
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Death of an Open A.I. Whistleblower
-
Business1 day ago
Google Rejects Eurocrats’ Push For More Censorship