Federal briefing note questions reflect anti-oil spirit, says Energy Advocate

Despite the cancellation of Keystone XL, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources is uncertain whether the country will need more pipelines.

“I don’t know … I think the market will decide it, and investors will decide it,” Seamus O’Regan said at an event in Alberta on June 3.

He was answering the following question: “Do you think Canada still needs additional export capacity? [Trans Mountain] And line 3? What do you think are the possible routes to implement it? “

This question was originally from a staff member of the Canadian Ministry of Natural Resources in January and was addressed to the Deputy Minister of the Ministry shortly after US President Joe Biden abolished Keystone XL on January 20 on the first day of his inauguration.・ It was raised in the note.

Bureaucrats sent notes before the meeting scheduled for late January to discuss cancellations with the Alberta government, Keystone XL owner TC Energy, and other stakeholders. Canadian Press obtained the document through a request for access to the information.

Dan McTeague, president of Canadians at Affordable Energy, believes this question reflects the anti-oil mindset of trying to minimize pipeline capacity.

“It’s no wonder some bureaucrats ask: [that] Question. And whether it was intended to be in line with or overlap with the federal government’s interest in closing pipelines, this has played a very important role. [modus operandi] Over the last five or six years, I don’t think the question is a coincidence, “McTeague said in an interview.

“My answer is,’How much do we produce?’. We have reserves and abilities, but by people and enthusiasts who have been able to take advantage of Canada’s good qualities. He was pulled and thrown into a straitjacket. “

The federal government, along with many other countries around the world, is committed to zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson took steps in Congress last November to introduce Canada’s Net Zero Emissions Liability Act. He needs to set a series of five-year national goals for Canada to get on track to reach its 2050 goals.

The impact on the global energy sector is significant.According to the International Energy Agency report In May, new oil and gas development will need to be completed to reach that goal.

However, on June 3, O’Regan stated that it disagreed with that aspect of the report that emission reduction technologies such as carbon recovery and storage would enable more energy production.

“We are particularly focused on reducing emissions,” he said.

Mr. McTigue said the federal government is “trying to be everything for everyone” and is already too hindered by the Paris Agreement.

“Even if we can sell large amounts of liquefied natural gas to countries such as China and India to prevent the construction of coal-fired power plants, whether we like it or not, it will increase global emissions. It will be, “he said.

Richard Masson, Executive Fellow at the University of Calgary’s Graduate School of Public Policy, said market forecasts suggest that more pipelines are needed.

“Our forecasts are that oil demand will probably not peak until the early 2030s, so long-term demand will allow Canada to continue producing oil,” Masson told The Epoch Times.

He said Line 3 and Trans Mountain would basically fill up with Canada’s short-term production outlook. “Therefore, if you want to see growth beyond railcars, you need more pipelines.” Said.

“If you believe it will take 20 or 30 years to really turn our transportation system into an electric vehicle powered by renewable energy, Canada will produce some of the oil,” Masson said. There is a big opportunity in those 20 or 30 years. We need it. “

In his view, Canada is very good at producing oil and “needs more pipelines.”

Achieving the 2050 target could eliminate the need for Trans Mountain expansion and the currently canceled Keystone XL pipeline, according to a report from Canada’s Energy Regulators last November.

Still, “all pipelines are full and there is a high risk of pipeline problems,” Masson said. He added, “Without the actual options, you wouldn’t get the best price for oil. Therefore, it’s better to have extra pipeline capacity, and the refiner will give you a poor price. If you’re trying to present it, you have the option of sending it to another refinery. “

Keystone XL would have combined oil sands-produced bitumen with a US refinery designed to process it. Ian Madsen, senior policy analyst at the Frontier Public Policy Center, said Keystone’s cancellation would require an alternative.

He said producers still need to sell refined products, even if refining capacity is added to the Edmonton region. Some could be sold to British Columbia and other parts of Canada, but “there’s something like an iron wall on the Ontario-Quebec border,” he said in an interview.

Madsen believes that bureaucracy connects the pipeline rather than the power of the market.

“In the next few years, extending another pipeline or two, or an existing pipeline or a pipeline in parallel, may not be as difficult as it is currently being seen,” he said. .. “But there is still the problem of having to go through all the approval processes and all the court proceedings. Not only here, but perhaps in the United States and Quebec, they can be hampered.”

Posted on