By Mitchell Beer

Alberta is demanding even faster federal approval of a bitumen pipeline to British Columbia’s west coast, even as a former provincial energy minister admits the project would have “zero” chance of attracting private investors without federal subsidies to “backstop” it.

The new demands came just six weeks after Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a controversial memorandum of understanding (MOU) that envisioned an accelerated, two-year approval schedule for at least one new pipeline. Smith issued her latest letter to Carney after Donald Trump’s bombing and kidnapping raid in Venezuela became the latest pretext to demand ever-faster federal action on the pipeline plan despite a glutted global market for oil.

“Alberta intends to submit its application for a pipeline to the Major Projects Office by June—and [Smith] asked that it gets approved by this fall,” CBC reports.

“Within the current geopolitical context, timelines of up to two years are still woefully long and risk putting Canada at a disadvantage,” Smith wrote. “Any delay risks ceding market share, losing investment, and undermining Canada’s competitive position in a rapidly changing global energy landscape.”

When the MOU was signed in late November, impact assessment experts warned that even a two-year approval period would be too short to allow for thorough review of a major, new pipeline, or for engagement with Indigenous and other affected communities. Short-circuiting those steps could help land a project in court, where it would only face further delays.

Smith’s letter also sidestepped major questions about the years it would take to refurbish Venezuela’s decrepit oil production infrastructure, whether U.S. fossil companies are willing to invest, and whether there will significant global demand for new oil—from Venezuela, Canada, or anywhere else—by the time any new project could be completed.

A west coast pipeline would also need federal subsidies, Smith’s former energy minister, ex-pipeline lobbyist Sonya Savage, told a CBC podcast. Without taxpayer support, “I would say it’s not just diminishing, the likelihood of a private sector proponent.… I would almost say it is zero at this point,” she said.

While the MOU explicitly calls for any new pipeline to be built and financed by private companies, Savage said a federal “backstop” to cover cost overruns, like the massive, 584% budget increase that plagued the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, would not be a new concept for Canada.

“The TransCanada mainline gas line in the 1950s would not have been built without federal government intervention,” she told CBC’s West of Centre podcast. “They set up a Crown corporation, they backstopped it. Enbridge’s Line 9 in the 1970s would not have been built without a federal government backstop.”

In a release Monday, the Calgary-based Pembina Institute called on both governments to “stay true” to the language about “strong regulations that will drive down oil and gas emissions” that accompanied the release of the MOU.

“Alberta using this moment to lobby in public against what it is now calling an ‘overly aggressive’ industrial carbon price raises more questions about the outcome Alberta has in mind—especially given it already agreed in the MOU to strengthen its system,” said Executive Director Chris Severson-Baker. “This is in addition to the regulatory changes Alberta pushed through in December—days after signing the MOU—that weakened its industrial carbon pricing system and effectively moved the goalposts on the negotiation before it had begun.”

Severson-Baker added that, “far from being a reason to further expedite a pipeline proposal and weaken Canadian climate policy, the Venezuela situation should give further pause for thought and reassessment about the best economic bet for Canada going forward.”

“42 days after signing the ‘grand bargain’ MOU with the federal government, Alberta is trying to change the terms of the agreement, leveraging the current situation in Venezuela,” veteran climate analyst Dan Woynillowicz wrote on LinkedIn. “Underpinning the MOU is a commitment to ‘good faith’ collaboration,” but “I don’t see how seeking any and every opportunity to change the terms of the MOU or shift the goalposts can be seen as living up to this.”

On Substack, fossil industry analyst and communicator Bill Whitelaw praised Savage for “speaking her truth” on the taxpayer backstop that private investors would expect before pouring their own money into a new pipeline project. That “loadsa dough” subsidy won’t happen, he said, as long as there’s a chance that Alberta separatists will succeed in pulling the province out of Canada—much less making it Donald Trump’s sought-after 51st state.

“Ottawa will need to pony up big bucks to bolster an already-thin business case,” Whitelaw wrote. “Fellow Canadians would never countenance Ottawa forking over billions to a province that can’t be bothered with Confederation.”

The post Fast-Tracked Western Pipeline Won’t Draw Investors Without Taxpayer ‘Backstop’: Ex-Alberta Energy Minister appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

The Liberal government rejected a Conservative motion in the House of Commons this week that called for explicit federal backing of a large oil pipeline to tidewater. Ministers said the proposal oversimplified complex negotiations with provinces and Indigenous nations and failed to reflect the government’s approach to reconciliation and major project development.

Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin said the motion ignored the full context of a recent Canada–Alberta memorandum of understanding, which links any future pipeline discussions to climate policy, clean-technology investment and Indigenous engagement. She described the Conservative proposal as “immature” and said it misrepresented how large infrastructure projects move forward in Canada.

Poilievre, by contrast, argued that Canada’s economic interests require decisive action on export infrastructure. He has said waiting for unanimous agreement among provinces, communities and Indigenous nations risks stalling projects indefinitely and limiting Canada’s ability to access overseas markets, particularly in Asia.

“We need a pipeline,” Poilievre said in recent remarks, framing the issue as one of national interest and economic competitiveness. He accused the Liberal government of using consultation as a pretext for delay and challenged it to clarify whether it supports new oil export infrastructure at all.

The Conservative motion — which was non-binding — called on Parliament to affirm support for one or more pipelines capable of exporting at least one million barrels per day of bitumen from a British Columbia port. It also referenced potential changes to the federal oil tanker moratorium on B.C.’s north coast, while stating that the duty to consult Indigenous Peoples must be respected.

The pipeline debate has long been shaped by Indigenous rights and environmental concerns. Previous projects, including the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, were opposed by dozens of First Nations over risks to land, water and treaty rights. That project was ultimately cancelled, and Ottawa later enacted legislation banning oil tanker traffic along much of northern British Columbia’s coastline.

Legal experts and Indigenous leaders have repeatedly warned that proceeding with major resource projects without consent could trigger lengthy court challenges. Canadian law requires meaningful consultation with Indigenous nations whose rights may be affected by development, and court rulings have reinforced the federal government’s obligation to engage early and substantively.

The issue also carries political weight as Parliament edges closer to an election cycle. Reuters has reported that the Liberal government’s position has been strengthened by recent defections from the Conservative caucus, reducing opposition leverage on key votes and policy initiatives.

As energy security, export access and reconciliation continue to collide in national debate, Poilievre’s comments underscore a clear dividing line between the Conservatives’ approach to resource development and the Liberals’ emphasis on consultation and consent — a contrast likely to feature prominently in the months ahead.

The post Consent or Construction: Canadian Pipeline Debate Returns appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Stewart Prest

The recently struck memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and Alberta is a high-stakes strategy that risks deepening already deep divides in Canadian politics.

While the MOU touches on a number of issues, at its heart is a shared vision for a new pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s protected northern coast.

In effect, the deal offers a quid pro quo: Ottawa agrees to relax a range of federal environmental regulations — including a ban on tanker traffic in B.C.’s north — and to support a pipeline in exchange for a commitment from Alberta to eventually increase the price of carbon on industrial emissions in the province to $130 a tonne.

It’s a vision negotiated without the involvement of either the B.C. government or the Indigenous Peoples affected by the plan. While the agreement calls for consultations with both groups, they are relegated to the status of secondary partners, with concerns to be addressed in the execution of the plan outlined by Ottawa and Alberta.

A policy solution for an identity issue

The deal is clearly meant to bridge the gap between populist voters centred in the Prairie provinces and the rest of the country. But both the content and the process risks widening that gap, even as it deepens divisions elsewhere in the country.

Simply put, Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find a policy solution to an identity problem, and doing so by picking sides rather than neutrally facilitating agreement.

It’s part of the polarized, populist identity in Alberta, in particular, to oppose Ottawa and Liberal governments. In fact, when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith referred to the MOU in front of the United Conservative Party (UCP) convention, she was roundly booed. Rather than being hailed as champion who had achieved valuable policy concessions, she was greeted as a traitor to the cause.

Given the rude reception, it’s not surprising that in recent days Alberta has sought ways to limit its environmental commitments.

Read more: How ideology is darkening the future of renewables in Alberta

Playing favourites in the federation

Over the longer term, the agreement risks legitimizing the narrative of “Alberta aggrieved” by treating it as a distinct, sovereign jurisdiction entitled to special treatment.

In fact, the trappings and language of the agreement seem to reinforce the idea that “Alberta” is a natural negotiating partner with “Canada” rather than part of Canada.

The MOU’s signing ceremony in Calgary — not the provincial capital of Edmonton or Ottawa — bore all the hallmarks of international treaty-making, complete with flags and a formal text in both official languages. The symbolism reinforced the image of the deal as a kind of grand bargain between Ottawa and oil country.

While the federal government often strikes deals with provincial governments, this situation is quite different. It’s a deal only with Alberta but it primarily involves British Columbia. The agreement therefore elevates Alberta to the level of a quasi-sovereign jurisdiction to be treated as an equal with Canada. B.C., site of any future hypothetical pipeline terminals, has been rendered a deal-taker, not a deal-maker.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the federation is supposed to work. Just because the federal government has ultimate jurisdiction doesn’t mean other regions don’t get a say. It’s hard to imagine the federal government striking a deal with Ontario about what should happen in Québec without Québec’s involvement.

Read more: Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here’s why that’s a dangerous myth

B.C. fury

B.C. Premier David Eby was accordingly furious with the federal government’s approach before the deal was announced.

Since then, while pointing out weaknesses in the deal, the NDP premier has also been at pains to show his willingness to work with Alberta on workarounds, including an expanded Transmountain pipeline or another pipeline that would leave the oil tanker moratorium in place on B.C’.s northern coast.

In leaving Eby out of the conversation, the federal Liberals have alienated a natural ally in their pursuit of economic development, forcing the premier to defend B.C.’s status within the federation, the rights of the province’s Indigenous communities and the province’s protected northern coast and Great Bear Rainforest.

Constitutional obligations to consult

Even more telling is the united reaction of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations has unanimously voted in favour of a motion calling for the MOU to be scrapped. In fact, the federal government may have put itself in legal jeopardy over its failure to consult prior to the MOU.

At some point, it will likely have to explain in court how it could be serious about consulting in good faith with Indigenous Peoples in accordance with its obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act when the MOU gives the appearance of approving the project in principle before such conversations even begin.

Offering ownership stakes to Indigenous groups in a project devised without their involvement is not consultation. Simply put, unless governments can show they’re open to amending their plans in light of information they receive during consultations, they risk falling short of their obligations.

Cracks in the Liberal coalition

While polls suggest a majority of Canadians support the idea of a pipeline so far, the Liberals’ own coalition shows some signs of fraying.

Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from cabinet over the deal, along with the resignations of multiple environmental advisers to the Liberal government, suggest the party’s reputation for environmental progress has taken a hit given the slow and fuzzy approach to climate action outlined in the MOU.

Other federal parties sense an opportunity. The Bloc Québecois has strongly denounced the deal and has offered to support B.C. in its campaign to defend the province’s autonomy. The move underscores the sensitivities that remain in Québec around issues of provincial rights.

Even more tellingly, federal Conservatives, perhaps initially dismayed by a deal uniting federal Liberals and Alberta Conservatives, are now putting a motion before the House of Commons asking it to endorse the government’s position on the MOU and make good on its commitments. The Liberals, for their part, have vowed to vote against the motion, arguing that it only endorses part of the MOU.

In effect, the Conservatives are seeking to turn the government’s own MOU into a wedge issue against it. The Conservatives will likely continue to press the issue going forward given how the idea of a pipeline at any cost unites Conservatives and divide Liberals. Liberal MPs in B.C. and Québec, in particular, will also likely feel torn between loyalty to the party and deference to the views of constituents opposed to the deal.

In short, a pipeline intended to unify threatens to throw divisions into even sharper relief — even within the Liberal Party itself.

The post Opinion: Why Mark Carney’s pipeline deal with Alberta puts the Canadian federation in jeopardy appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Jody MacPherson

This story is part of The Energy Mix ongoing investigative series, Hidden Wonder Valley.

Celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary’s proposed $70-billion data centre, designed to run on 7.5 gigawatts of gas-fired power, could raise Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions to levels not seen since the coal era, according to estimates obtained by The Energy Mix.

Planned in an area battling drought, the project’s water needs would also be vast, rivalling the annual use of hundreds of thousands of Alberta households.

Wonder Valley is still nowhere near getting off the ground. But if it ever gets built as planned, it could pump out 25.7 to 30.5 megatonnes of emissions a year, depending on what turbines and gas are used, and whether or not it includes carbon capture, found [pdf] Pembina Institute Senior Analyst Jason Wang, who crunched the numbers for The Mix.

“It would be the equivalent of a return to the era of mostly coal-fired electricity,” said Wang.

The reversal would set the province and Canada back about 20 years, matching the 27 megatonnes of coal emissions Alberta phased out between 2005 and 2023.

The data centre complex, which O’Leary claims will be the “largest on Earth,” would require the equivalent of about 10 per cent of all gas supply in Alberta once fully operational.

It’s still just a concept, but in the Municipal District of Greenview where it’s planned, local officials are confident it will be built.

“We’re about to pull off the largest project in Canadian history in this sector and I think Greenview should be really proud of that,” Chief Administrative Officer Stacey Wabick told council members at a budget review meeting in November.

Wonder Valley was announced with great fanfare last December, a few days after the Alberta government unveiled a new data centre strategy designed to attract $100 billion in investments.

At the time, Innovation and Technology Minister Nate Glubish said data centres would play a “significant role” in Premier Danielle Smith’s plan to double oil and gas production by increasing domestic demand for gas.

The land designated for Wonder Valley is south of Grande Prairie, about 460 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. It’s located on the massive Montney Formation, one of North America’s, and perhaps one of the world’s, largest gas reservoirs.

Wang said the first phase of the project, requiring 1,400 megawatts (MW) of power, would generate about 4.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year using shale gas to run a combined-cycle gas turbine, the most efficient type of gas power. That would make it one of the largest industrial facilities in the province, he said.

Carbon capture and storage has been promised for Wonder Valley, but not necessarily at startup. Wang said a carbon pipeline would need to be built between the facility and an injection site.

“With carbon capture efficacy at about 80 per cent, it would still mean the first phase of Wonder Valley would be 1.3 Mt/year of greenhouse gas emissions,” Wang said.

Huge Water Demand, No Consultation

Another requirement for data centres is the large amount of water they use for cooling. But water is also needed to run gas power plants. Even though the Grande Prairie area is known for longer, colder winters, Wang estimated the water needed for the fully completed data centre, including both cooling and for the power plant, would be between 112 and 195 billion litres per year. That is roughly one-third to two-thirds of the total annual water consumption of all the households in Alberta.

Multiple communities in the region are struggling with drought and water supply issues. Greenview itself declared an agricultural disaster due to drought this past summer, and that same day, its council approved adding more land to the purchase agreement being negotiated with O’Leary.

The nearby Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation (SLCN) received public assurances from the province that it would be consulted before water permits were issued. But records show that Greenview was granted Water Act licences for withdrawals from two locations on the Smoky River at the proposed Wonder Valley site before the First Nation’s input was sought.

“To this day, we have heard nothing from O’Leary other than generic statements, and Greenview has not said a word to us since the spring of 2024,” SLCN Chief Sheldon Sunshine told The Mix in a Dec. 1 email, adding that there has been “no meaningful consultation.”

“In fact, they claim there is no project, so we are completely in the dark.”

Jonathan Gauthier, press secretary to Glubish’s ministry, told The Mix in January that Environment and Protected Areas (EPA) had issued Greenview a “preliminary certificate which will allow a Water Act licence to be issued in future, provided various mandatory conditions are met,” emphasizing that the conditions included “appropriate consultation with First Nations.”

According to court-filed documents [pdf] provided to The Mix, SLCN requested a copy of the preliminary certificate, but never received it. When they met with then-Indigenous relations minister Rick Wilson, Glubish, and officials from the province’s Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO) in April, they say they discovered that on top of the preliminary certificate, a full water permit had been granted without their knowledge. The full permit was dated one day before the meeting.

SLCN filed an appeal of the water licence to the environmental appeal board, which according to documents viewed by The Mix, Greenview has applied to strike, saying the board cannot consider Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Alberta has supported Greenview’s position.

In the public filing, SLCN said ACO officials told them they did an assessment and decided there was no duty to consult because “the issuance of the licence would have no impacts on SLCN’s Treaty and Aboriginal rights.” The Nation is asserting the land is part of their traditional territory, that members have registered traplines throughout the area, and that they should have been consulted.

“We knew AI data centres were water guzzlers. We didn’t know it was that bad,” Sunshine wrote to The Mix. “We also know that taking this much fresh water and then releasing it causes increased toxins, which is detrimental for us as well as those that farm, but where is the opposition?”

Putting Gas First

Many data centre developers around the world are looking to clean, cost-effective renewable energy to power their projects because “it’s cheaper to get electricity from wind and solar than it is from gas,” Pembina’s Wang said. Clean technology industrial areas are springing up in the United States, where renewable energy and data centres are located together, using “green” steel and cement.

“Renewable energy can be built faster right now than gas turbines can be procured and installed,” he added. And there could be an opportunity for wind and solar if Alberta loosened up some of its renewables restrictions, noting that the government had promised to open up an engagement process on the possibility of solar and wind development on Crown land.

Greenview has seen past plans fall through for the site they’ve dubbed the “Greenview Industrial Gateway.” In 2021, then-premier Jason Kenney said a planned $2.5-billion petrochemical plant to produce ammonia and methanol from gas was a “sign of hope in the province’s recovery.”

Northern Petrochemical Corporation’s website is still under construction four years later. CEO Geoff Bury did not respond to The Mix’s request for an update. In 2023, The Progress Report wrote that Bury expected to reach a final investment decision in 2024.

A combined geothermal and carbon sequestration project was also announced for the site by Alberta No. 1 Geothermal Energy, but the company’s website hasn’t been updated with any progress since July 2023.

“There definitely are opportunities for exploring other types of energy in my view,” Wang said, adding that Alberta is upgrading [pdf] the electricity line to Grande Prairie and most data centre projects see more benefits from being grid-connected due to the very high standard for power availability.

“And that might not mean the specific area where Wonder Valley is proposed, but maybe just a few kilometres away there’s really good potential that could be tapped into.”

Alberta’s “gas-centric” data centre strategy has also raised questions from energy experts who say the province may be sabotaging its own aspirations by discouraging wind and solar power.

But a new 2 per cent levy on data centres requiring grid connection favours projects that “bring their own power.” That makes the province’s ubiquitous gas more of an option as long as renewables are bogged down by Alberta’s strict regulations.

The Globe and Mail reports that around 29 data centre projects have requested connection to the grid for access to 16,000 MW, but the provincial grid operator has put a cap on the amount of electricity available to data centres.

The post O’Leary’s Gas-Powered Data Centre Emissions Could Wipe Out Alberta’s Coal Phaseout Gains appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Lennie Kaplan

Alberta’s climate-change strategy, the emissions reduction and energy development plan (ERED), announced with fanfare by the Smith government in April 2023, seems to be in public limbo after more than two years.

The plan outlined a series of actions, opportunities and commitments to reduce the province’s emissions, including an aspirational target of a carbon-neutral economy by 2050.

But implementation appears to have stalled, which is troubling given renewed talks between Ottawa and Alberta about a “grand bargain” focused on significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging carbon capture and storage deployment, and unlocking pipeline development.

The 2025 mandate letters from Premier Danielle Smith to the ministers of environment and protected areas and energy and minerals make no reference to implementing the plan despite a 2023 mandate letter from the premier that talked about the two ministers co-ordinating to do so.

No significant action on implementation appears to have occurred over the past two years around the following key initiatives, which I support and believe are critical to success:

• reducing the provincial oilsands 100-megatonne (Mt) annual emissions limit to align with carbon capture and storage project targets – an estimated 11-Mt annual reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 – of the Pathways Alliance, an organization representing six of the largest oilsands producers;
• working collaboratively with partners – including environmental NGOs, industry, Indigenous organizations, municipalities, labour groups and others – to design effective policy and programs to support implementation of the ERED;
• establishing policies and programs that are evidence-based, including understanding the environmental, social and economic impact of policy choices;
• publishing reports documenting the progress and outcome of the actions taken as part of the plan.

In a 2018 audit, the Office of the Alberta Auditor General pointed out that critical elements of a robust system to manage provincial climate-change plans included maintaining overall and sectoral implementation plans, as well as rigorous and effective monitoring of the progress of climate-change programs, including complete information on costs.

The lack of action on the ERED creates uncertainty about how Alberta can reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 or any interim emissions-reduction targets for 2030, 2035, 2040 or 2045.

To come to that conclusion, we use the Canada Energy Dashboard, updated with detailed data to January 2025, based on the current suite of federal and provincial climate-change policies (but not the proposed federal oil and gas emissions cap, the federal clean-electricity regulations and the federal 75-per-cent oil-and-gas methane-reduction requirement) to examine Alberta’s emission projections. We further use refence cost assumptions for technologies such as carbon capture and storage, solar, wind and batteries, and hydrogen.

Based on this reasonable scenario, Alberta will miss its 2050 target of carbon neutrality by 222.4 megatonnes.

Canada needs to accelerate its transition to renewable energy

Many Albertans still fine with an oil-and-gas future

These Alberta emission levels do not include the implications of the latest Alberta government goal to increase oil production from nearly four million barrels per day in 2024 to six million barrels per day by 2030 and to eight million barrels per day by 2035.

Clearly, further actions will be critical, including vigorous implementation of the ERED, coupled with aggressive adoption of carbon capture and storage, and the early advent of direct air capture. So why the implementation delay?

One of the key components of a successful ERED is the need to conduct comprehensive emissions forecasting and analysis to develop credible sectoral and overall action plans.

The Alberta Environment and Protected Areas ministry recognized this recently when it issued an RFP to enhance the government’s internal capability to perform sophisticated analysis and forecasting of the social, economic and environmental impact of provincial climate-related policies and federal climate-related policies.

The goal is to have access to best practices and methods in the field of empirical economic-energy-environment modelling, including the ability to study the economic impact of policy scenarios, as well as how policy, energy prices and technological change impact energy use. This work is scheduled to begin in January.

Enhancing emissions forecasting and analysis capabilities within government is critical in preparing an overall ERED action plan as well as action plans for key industry sectors; establishing sectoral and interim emissions targets for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045; and promoting vigorous monitoring and reporting systems.

These are all best practices of a robust legislated climate-change accountability framework, which is vital because maintaining national and international credibility is important to Albertans.

The Alberta government talks about sovereignty within a united Canada. To put meaning to these words, Alberta needs a strong ERED if it expects to conclude a successful “grand bargain” with Ottawa on significantly reducing emissions, encouraging carbon capture and storage deployment, and unlocking pipeline development.

The post Opinion: What is going on with Alberta’s climate-change strategy? appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Jody MacPherson

The post Alberta orphaned wells strategy faces pushback from residents, municipalities, experts appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mitchell Beer

The post Any new oil pipeline will need massive taxpayer subsidies, analyst warns appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mitchell Beer

Climate advocates and policy analysts are taking Alberta Premier Danielle Smith back to business school after she promised to pitch a new westbound oil pipeline to the federal Major Projects Office by May 2026.

On Wednesday, Smith committed to a “West Coast oil pipeline do-over that hinges on First Nations getting onboard early and Ottawa reversing a tanker ban that would make such a project unworkable on the northern B.C. coast,” The Canadian Press reports. Once the province has put up $14 million for early regulatory work, “the hope is that Alberta’s kick-start will instil enough investor confidence for the private sector to eventually take over and potentially for First Nations to take ownership stakes,” the news agency writes.

“What stands before us right now is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unlock our wealth and resources and become a world-leading energy superpower,” Smith told media Wednesday.

The project is the latest in a series of efforts by Alberta governments to support a fossil industry that can’t attract the capital for the expanded infrastructure it says it needs. In 2018, then-NDP premier Rachel Notley leased a fleet of rail cars and signed contracts with railways to move the province’s oil to markets, CBC recalls. Her United Conservative Party successor, Jason Kenney, eventually cancelled those deals at a cost of nearly $1 billion.

Instead, Kenney gambled and lost another $1.3 billion on the failed Keystone XL pipeline before U.S. President Joe Biden cancelled the project on his first day in office.

The latest plan from Smith earned swift rebukes, with Aly Hyder Ali, program manager, oil and gas at Environmental Defence Canada, declaring Smith’s declaration “nothing but a farce”. He cited estimates that place the cost of a new pipeline at up to $50 billion over the 10 years it would take to complete the project.

“There is no private company behind the project, no committed investors, and no clear plan—just a province stepping into a paperwork process, desperate to keep the idea of a new oil pipeline alive,” Ali said in a statement. By the time the project could be completed, “global oil demand is projected to have peaked and begun a slow, steady decline, resulting in another stranded asset. According to recent analysis, 66% of new capital investments in oil and gas infrastructure would fail to deliver returns and become stranded assets as the world continues to accelerate towards a global energy transition.”

Janetta McKenzie, director of the Pembina Institute’s oil and gas program, said Smith should heed the private sector’s caution about new oil infrastructure, noting that industry has refused to buy in “after months of pressure from the Alberta government to bring forward a proposal, and offers of concierge service” from the federal government.

“If a new pipeline promised to be profitable, there would be a private sector proposal in some phase of development,” McKenzie said. “It’s economically perverse that the provincial government will spend public money on a project the private sector has balked at, while simultaneously sabotaging private investment in renewable energy projects the market is demanding.”

She added that a new Alberta oil pipeline would be a “multi-decade gamble prefaced on the hope that the world will not reduce oil consumption, despite the advent of lower-cost alternatives and the increasing risk of dangerous climate change. It is a bet that private sector proponents are not willing to take on.”

“This talk of a new pipeline was always only a distraction meant to provide cover for funnelling as much public money towards oil and gas corporate profits as possible,” Conor Curtis, head of communications at Sierra Club Canada, said in a release. “Oil and gas corporations know their industry is dying economically, and even when production increases they still cut jobs.”

In mid-September, Simon Fraser University political scientist Anil “Andy” Hira said there’s only one way private investors would agree to go along with the kind of plan Smith is now proposing. “The private sector is in no way willing to take on the risk of building another pipeline,” he told The Energy Mix. “So unless the federal government steps in and decides to put in massive amounts of money, these things are not going to get built.”

Toronto Star national columnist Althia Raj says Smith’s purpose with her announcement is to dare Prime Minister Mark Carney to defy her, “throwing a bone to separatists in her province, and inflaming a divisive cross-country debate” over pipelines and climate change that the federal government has tried hard to tamp down.

“This is a test of whether Canada works as a country,” Smith told media. “Because if we can’t build with the collaboration of the federal government and between provinces, if it’s everybody gets to get their products going to market except Alberta, that’s not a country.”

Within minutes of the announcement, Smith was on notice that the Indigenous support she’d framed as a condition for the project will not be forthcoming, CP reports. Marilyn Slett, chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council and president of the Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative, recalled First Nations’ decades-long fight to win a federal moratorium on oil tankers in their waters.

“As the rights and titleholders of B.C. North and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii, we must inform Premier Smith once again that there is no support from coastal First Nations for a pipeline and an oil tankers project in our coastal waters,” Slett said.

B.C. Premier David Eby told media that Smith wasn’t pitching a real project.

“Premier Smith continues to advance a project that is entirely taxpayer funded, has no private sector proponent,” he said, adding that he would work with Alberta on projects “that have real private sector backing, that aren’t entirely taxpayer-funded wedge politics.” He added that the proposal is “incredibly alarming to British Columbians”.

But in Calgary Wednesday, fossil industry advocates were praising Smith’s move.

“It’s bold, it’s aggressive, and it’s what’s needed to be done in order to get this country moving forward economically,” Robert Cooper of Calgary-based investment firm Acumen Capital Partners told CBC, claiming that federal policies—not increasingly shaky global markets—have made it impossible for oil pipelines to attract investment.

Rafi Tahmazian, a retired energy portfolio manager with Canoe Financial, said Smith “should be praised” for championing the industry, CBC says, but compared the venture to the Trudeau government’s hugely expensive purpose of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. “If the province has to be involved, that’d be a shame. It’d be too bad,” Tahmazian said, since governments have “no business” building or operating pipelines.

The Star’s Raj says Carney “seemed to be pouring cold water on Smith’s plans” on Wednesday, telling a Liberal Party caucus meeting the proposal wouldn’t make the second series of nation-building projects that he’s expected to announce later this year. But she recalls moments when both Carney and Eby have sent out mixed messages on pipeline development.

In the end, “none of these leaders—Smith, Eby, or Carney—can all get what they want (if they can figure out what that even is),” she writes. “And at least one of these politicians is painting the other into a box. The question is, who?”

The post Alberta’s new pipeline pitch: Bad for business, disastrous for climate, analysts say appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mitchell Beer

The global oil industry is facing down a “flashing red warning light” and firing thousands of workers as analysts project several years of low prices, just as the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney debates whether or when to designate a new oil pipeline as a priority project of “national interest”.

“The world’s biggest oil and gas companies are cutting jobs, slashing costs, and scaling back investments at the fastest pace since the coronavirus market collapse,” the Financial Times reports. “Spending plans have been reined in, with some projects paused or put up for sale as groups seek to balance the books.”

That news landed with Canadian media reporting that a new oil pipeline will not be included in the hotly-anticipated first list of national interest projects the federal government was due to release Thursday, September 11, notwithstanding a tentative list published by the Globe and Mail last week.

However, “behind the scenes, a Liberal source insisted that the absence of a pipeline on the initial list does not mean that one will never happen,” CBC reports, citing interviews gathered by Radio-Canada. “Approval of a natural gas pipeline project is also not out of the question.”

When the PM and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith discussed the matter over the summer, “Carney was clear: the involvement of a private developer is essential for a project to move forward,” CBC writes. “So far, no company has expressed interest in financing or carrying out such a project.”

But Smith is still pushing Carney to rescind the federal Impact Assessment Act and cap on oil and gas emissions, both enacted by the previous government led by then-PM Justin Trudeau, The Canadian Press says. She’s claiming those regulatory factors are the only thing holding back investment.

And yet, the impact of weak oil prices is affecting projects across the globe. The impact is falling most obviously on the U.S. shale industry, where the Times reported last week that colossal fossil ConocoPhillips was cutting one-quarter of its work force. That dispatch attributed the price drop to the decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) to increase production, combined with “soaring production costs” brought on by Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and other inputs.

But “this isn’t just a Conoco problem,” Kirk Edwards, president and CEO of Odessa, Texas-based Latigo Petroleum, told the Times. “It’s a flashing red warning light for the entire U.S. oil and gas industry.”

Crude oil prices are down by half from their peak during Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and “an OPEC+ decision at the weekend to continue boosting output, despite forecasts of a looming supply glut, will add to the price pressure.” the Times adds. At a price below US$60 per barrel—the threshold that analysts at Wood Mackenzie are projecting through the next few years—”none of the big western oil companies can cover their investment plans and the dividends and buybacks that investors expect.” Their borrowing, meanwhile, has been creeping up, with some companies taking on new debt to pay off their shareholders.

And it’s not just the U.S. or North American industry.

“Even the largest state-run energy companies have not been immune, with Saudi Aramco selling a $10-billion stake in a pipeline network to raise cash and Petronas of Malaysia cutting 5,000 jobs from its work force,” the Times writes. WoodMac expects capital investment in oil and gas production to fall 4.3% this year, its first drop since 2020, though it will still come in at $341.9 billion.

The post ‘Flashing red warning light’ for oil as Carney government mulls new pipeline appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mitchell Beer

Alberta has lost 10.7 gigawatts of clean energy capacity in the two years since the province slapped a moratorium on renewable energy and battery storage development, enough to meet 109% of its average power demand and 89% of its peak demand, in what the Pembina Institute calls an “alarming milestone”.

The analysis shows 5.3 GW of solar+storage, 1.6 GW of wind+storage, and 3.8 GW of stand-alone storage projects that have been withdrawn since October 2023 from the project development queue maintained by the Alberta Electric System Operator.

Those losses were equal to 109% of Alberta’s average electricity demand and 89% of its peak demand, Pembina says. Last year, The Narwhal reported that nearly 80% of the province’s electricity was supplied by gas, most of it coming from a few large suppliers—Enmax, Heartland Generation, Capital Power, and TransAlta.

“Though not all proposed projects make it all the way to completion, cancellations for renewables over the last two years have been concerningly high, at 44%,” Pembina writes. “By comparison, 11% of gas capacity proposed in the same time frame has been cancelled.”

The cancellations are about more than just lost power supply, said Will Noel, senior analyst in Pembina’s electricity program.

“Economic development from renewables is not just economic development from renewables,” he told The Energy Mix. “It’s vitally important to clean up our power supply and keep it affordable so we can attract more investment from other sectors like data centres that are looking for clean, cheap power.”

Those investors are now turning to provinces like British Columbia for wind and solar, or to Ontario for battery storage, he added. “If Alberta wants to diversify its economy, it can’t really do it without cleaning up its grid.”

The string of cancellations also “means that Albertans are losing out on low-cost power—as well as tens of millions of dollars each year of potential tax revenues, which would have largely gone to rural municipalities,” Pembina writes. The latest estimate from the Pembina-affiliated Business Renewables Centre-Canada, published last year, pegged those local losses at $91 million per year spread across 53 cancelled projects, some of them in cash-starved rural communities where fossil companies of steadfastly refused to pay their taxes.

The latest Pembina Institute infographic shows another 19 GW of projects that are still in progress as of this month.

The new data is an update on a May 2025 report [pdf] that “detailed the litany of challenges faced by renewable energy developers in Alberta,” Pembina said in a release. “This includes outright bans and ambiguous restrictions on areas of land where wind and solar projects can be built, new requirements relating to equipment recycling and land reclamation, and changes to transmission legislation, all of which will likely add new regulatory burdens and upfront costs.”

It’s “notable,” Pembina adds, “that many of these new requirements are not equally applied to other industries, including other energy sectors such as oil and gas.”

Earlier this month, Pembina said Alberta’s renewable energy queue had hit a four-year low—even as other provinces like British Columbia and Nova Scotia moved to get new projects under way.

“I’d love to hope that this is as bad as it gets and that we can see things turn around,” Noel told The Mix. “We really need to restore that certainty for investors,” including tech companies like Bell Canada, Microsoft, and Amazon as well as big cities like Edmonton and Calgary.

“Right now, both buyers and developers don’t know what the costs are going to be because of all of these price impacts, the stack of policy decisions and market changes and transmission regulations. We really need to see concrete answers in order to spur these contracts.”

The post Alberta restrictions cancel 10.7 GW of new renewables, 89% of province’s peak power demand appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.