The TSX30—the annual ranking of the top-performing stocks on the Toronto Stock Exchange—was recently released and, once again, oil and gas companies made up the lion’s share of the list.

Half of the top companies (11 producers and four energy service companies) are in the oil and gas sector.

Share prices have been driven up due to energy supply and security concerns and ever-increasing demand for oil and gas. The industry and its investors have enjoyed extraordinary three-year returns. The average share price return for the 15 oil and gas companies in the TSX30 was 210 per cent.

But what about the large endowment funds, pension plans, institutional funds and, more recently, banks that have bowed to pressure from divestment-promoting activists to stop investing in the natural resource sector?

In removing oil and gas from their investment pool, they have ignored their responsibility to their beneficiaries, who have missed out on these remarkable returns.

Trustees have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their beneficiaries, which in this case means maximizing the risk-adjusted return for their clients.

But for ideological reasons, oil and gas companies are often being left out of the investment equation.

What’s more, the divestors aren’t even achieving their ideological goal.

Abundant energy is the prerequisite for modern life. Divestment does not stop oil and gas production because it does nothing to reduce demand. After more than a decade of divestment pledges, demand for oil and gas has only continued to go up. This demand is projected to continue to grow for years to come.

If Canada does not supply the oil and gas the world wants and needs, it will be supplied from elsewhere, including by authoritarian regimes in poorly regulated, undemocratic countries that are less responsible and less environmentally friendly.

It would be better if Canadian companies like those on the TSX30 were the ones to step up and meet the world’s ever-growing energy needs.

It would be better for Canadians as well. Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources, and oil and gas is central to our prosperity. All of the companies on the TSX30 list rely on the oil and gas sector to fuel their business, from industrials to mining, to aviation, technology and yes, even to renewable energy.

Investing in the Canadian oil and gas sector means investing in energy companies that can and should be the suppliers of the energy demanded by our power-hungry world.

These companies have high environmental and governance standards, are driven to innovate—an essential process for emissions reduction—and have had some of the strongest returns on the TSX in recent years.

Can our banks and fund managers possibly continue to ignore the significant value in the energy space? Only time will tell.

Gina Pappano is the former head of market intelligence at the Toronto Stock Exchange and TSX Venture Exchange and executive director of InvestNow, a non-profit dedicated to demonstrating that investing in Canada’s resource sectors helps Canada and the world. Join the movement and pass the InvestNow resolution at investnow.org.

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.

While many are celebrating the completion of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project for its benefit of delivering better prices for Canadian energy to international markets, it’s important to reflect on how the project demonstrates successful economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

It’s easy to forget how we got here.

The history of Trans Mountain has been fraught with obstacles and delays that could have killed the project, but it survived. This stands in contrast to other pipelines such as Energy East and Keystone XL.

Starting in 2012, proponent Kinder Morgan Canada engaged in consultation with multiple parties – including many First Nation and Métis communities – on potential project impacts.

According to Trans Mountain, there have been 73,000 points of contact with Indigenous communities throughout Alberta and British Columbia as the expansion was developed and constructed. The new federal government owners of the pipeline committed to ongoing consultation during early construction and operations phase.

Beyond formal Indigenous engagement, the project proponent conducted numerous environmental and engineering field studies. These included studies drawing on deep Indigenous input, such as traditional ecological knowledge studies, traditional land use studies, and traditional marine land use studies.

At each stage of consultation, the proponent had to take into consideration this input, and if necessary – which occurred regularly – adjust the pipeline route or change an approach.

With such a large undertaking, Kinder Morgan and later Trans Mountain Corporation as a government entity had to maintain relationships with many Indigenous parties and make sure they got it right.

It was the opposite of the superficial “checklist” form of consultation that companies had long been criticized for.

While most of the First Nation and Métis communities engaged in good faith with Kinder Morgan, and later the federal government, and wanted to maximize environmental protections and ensure they got the best deal for their communities, environmentalist opponents wanted to kill the project outright from the start.

After the government took over the incomplete expansion in 2018, green activists were transparent about using cost overruns as a tactic to scuttle and defeat the project. They tried to make Trans Mountain ground zero for their anti-energy divestment crusade, targeting investors.

It is an amazing testament to importance of Trans Mountain that it survived this bad faith onslaught.

In true eco-colonialist fashion, the non-Indigenous activist community did not care that the consultation process for Trans Mountain project was achieving economic reconciliation in front of their eyes. They were “fair weather friends” who supported Indigenous communities only when they opposed energy projects.

They missed the broad support for the Trans Mountain expansion. As of March 2023, the project had signed agreements with 81 Indigenous communities along the proposed route worth $657 million, and the project has created over $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.

Most importantly, Trans Mountain saw the maturing of Indigenous capital as Indigenous coalitions came together to seek equity stakes in the pipeline. Project Reconciliation, the Alberta-based Iron Coalition and B.C.’s Western Indigenous Pipeline Group all presented detailed proposals to assume ownership.

Although these equity proposals have not yet resulted in a sale agreement, they involved taking that important first step. Trans Mountain showed what was possible for Indigenous ownership, and now with more growth and perhaps legislative help from provincial and federal governments, an Indigenous consortium will be eventually successful when the government looks to sell the project.

If an Indigenous partner ultimately acquires an equity stake in Trans Mountain, observers close to the negotiations are convinced it will be a sizeable stake, well beyond 10 per cent. It will be a transformative venture for many First Nations involved.

Now that the Trans Mountain expansion is finally completed, it will provide trans-generational benefits to First Nations involved, including lasting work for Indigenous companies. It will also demonstrate the victory of good faith Indigenous consultation over bad faith opposition.

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.

Just as they did with university endowment funds, divestment activists are now pressuring university pension plans to abandon investment in oil and gas companies.  

That’s why InvestNow has called on 20,000 university professors to reject the divestment agenda. 

In Ontario, Shift Action is pressuring the University Pension Plan – which represents the University of Toronto, Queen’s University, the University of Guelph and Trent University – to “remove oil and gas companies from its portfolio,” citing growing financial risk.    

This is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds you. Publicly funded universities are being asked to no longer invest in oil and gas, yet they continue to benefit from the sector. Universities and their pension plans are tax-funded to the tune of billions of public tax dollars. A big portion of those tax dollars comes from the oil and gas sector and its workers.  

Do professors understand the consequences of divestment? Divestment advocates say their efforts strike a blow against climate change, but the world needs oil and gas every day. In 2050, oil and gas are expected to still supply 47 per cent of world energy needs, compared to 52 per cent today, according to the International Energy Agency.  

Canada’s oil and natural gas industry operates under some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world. If people don’t use ours, their needs will be met by other countries with lower standards. So, divestment hurts the environment. It also hurts Canada.  

The oil and gas sector is our biggest exporting industry, is a top-three contributor to Canada’s GDP, supports 600,000 jobs across the country, and contributes billions annually to government coffers in taxes and royalties—including the salaries of university professors and staff.  

Divesting from Canadian oil and gas does not reduce global emissions, does not reduce demand and does not foster innovation. Divesting from oil and gas threatens to constrain supply and lead to shortages and higher prices. Divesting from oil and gas costs jobs. 

Divestment hurts at all levels.   

For the professor, their pensions are at risk. Oil and gas companies have had some of the strongest returns on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). To eliminate these companies from the investment pool solely for ideological reasons is folly and goes against the duty to maximize returns.  

For everyday Canadians, their livelihoods are at risk.  

For Canada, the economy is at risk. 

The end goal of divestment is the end of Canadian energy. With that comes a hobbled economy: supply shortages, higher prices, shuttered factories, job losses, energy poverty.  

It’s time to invest in Canadian oil and gas for the good of the economy, the environment, pension plan members, and everyday Canadians. 

Gina Pappano is executive director of InvestNow Inc., a non-profit dedicated to demonstrating that investing in Canada’s resource sectors helps Canada and the world. Join the movement and pass the InvestNow resolution at investnow.org. 

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.  

It seems like just the other day the wrath of the world was coming down on oil sands and coal.

To protect the atmosphere, Canada has been reducing coal-fired power generation for years. It started in Ontario then moved to Alberta. Saskatchewan is next. New Brunswick is supposed to stop by 2030, but that province claims it can’t be done.

Global coal consumption is rising again because it meets the cost and availability requirement created by energy shortages and rising prices. On December 16, the International Energy Agency reported, “The world’s coal consumption is set to reach a new high in 2022 as the energy crisis shakes markets.”

For energy, the biggest single change in 2022 is the remarkable shift in public attitudes towards fossil fuels.

The global energy complex is under assault by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the exposed shortcomings of wind and solar, years of underinvestment in fossil fuels, and rising inflation and interest rates.

But for the past ten years, there has been an all-out crusade against fossil fuels. Oil company CEOs were branded climate criminals. It was morally reprehensible to own fossil fuel company shares or loan money to oil, gas or coal producers. Elections were won in Canada, the US and in Europe on pledges to replace fossil fuels.

No cost was too great, because the cost of doing nothing thus permitting unchecked climate damage was greater.

What happened? How did the channel change to rapidly? Why after years of public and political attacks on the source of over 80 per cent of the world primary energy, has affordable energy on demand now become more important than where it comes from?

Price, the most fundamental driver of economics and human behavior.

The November 2022 global survey from public opinion research firm IPSOS titled “What Worries The World” tells the story.

IPSOS explains, “This 29-country Global Advisor survey was conducted…among 20,466 adults aged 18-74 in Canada, Israel, Malaysia, South Africa, Turkey and the United States, 20-74 in Indonesia and Thailand, and 16-74 in all 21 other countries.”

IPSOS charts the top six issues for the past two years. Poverty, crime, unemployment and corruption have always been important, and consistently ranked among the top five.

But in November 2020, inflation only registered among eight per cent of respondents. Two years later it is 42 per cent. Coronavirus and the unemployment that accompanied the lockdowns were the top two issues. The others remain in a consistent range.

Two years ago was the peak of the “oil is dead” mantra, and when many bright ideas for a fossil fuel free future were concocted. In a post-pandemic world, multiple voices claimed we must Build Back Better, ensure a Resilient Recovery, engineer the Great Reset.

The plan was to use government policy and borrowed money to create jobs through the large-scale replacement of fossil fuels.

Coined the “energy transition,” it was achievable and inevitable thanks to incredible advances in renewable energy cost and supply. Canada – the world’s fifth largest combined oil and gas producer – could lead the charge with minimal disruption thanks to a new federally-funded retraining program for displaced oil workers. This was called a Just Transition.

What happened?

The invisible hand of Adam Smith punched the world in the nose.

The only part of the demise of fossil fuels that was successful was reduced supply. As the economy recovered, consumers learned the hard way that low carbon energy sources were terribly oversold in terms of reliability, and demand for fossil fuels outstripped supply.

Prices for fossil fuels rose at the same time that inflation and interest rates reduced disposal income.

As demand grew, fossil fuel shortages were reflected in the price. When Russia – one of the world’s largest oil, gas and coal suppliers – invaded Ukraine, the gravity of the situation escalated immediately.

What the IPSOS survey dramatically illustrates is the number one concern for the world as 2022 ends is the rising cost of everything.

We’ve been told repeatedly that continued fossil fuel consumption will cause serious climate disruptions. No expense today will exceed the cost of future damages.

However, the more pressing issue today is still being alive in 2050 because of the rising cost of everything, including energy. Worrying about what the temperature, storm intensity or chemical composition of the atmosphere may be in 28 years has become an unaffordable luxury.

So fossil fuels are once again what they have always been – reliable and affordable sources of energy.

Happy New Year.

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.  

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd. 

If you’re confused by 21st century energy geopolitics, it’s not your fault. 

 The Russia/Ukraine war, EU’s economic crisis, global energy prices, rising inflation and interest rates, and the G7/EU price cap on Russian oil exports announced December 5 have created daunting challenges for international politics and diplomacy. 

The most recent solution is one whereby G7 member Canada has helped make oil cheaper for the world without relaxing existing commitments to increase Canadian energy costs through carbon taxes, emissions caps, and the Clean Fuel Regulations.  

For carbon taxes to be an effective deterrent for fossil fuel consumption, the price of oil, gas and coal is supposed to go up. We’ve been told repeatedly that “a price on pollution” is essential to avoid climate disaster. 

But the December 5 Russian oil price cap mechanism is engineered to cause oil prices to go down. This stimulates consumption and makes renewables less competitive.  

While U.S. President Joe Biden’s energy policies are rife with contradictions, one of his administration’s primary goals has been to keep oil prices as low as possible.  

For a president that ran on a climate protection platform in 2020, this is not intuitive. 

Following the symbolic cancellation of Keystone XL in early 2021, oil prices began to rise. For the past 18 months Biden has reached out to OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela in a quest to increase oil production and suppress gasoline prices. 

The most recent move saw the U.S. encouraging Chevron to increase production from its mothballed and sanctioned Venezuelan assets. Get the world more oil. Just don’t give any money to Venezuela’s government. 

At the same time, America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve has gone into competition with domestic producers by putting about one million barrels per day of crude into world markets for months. Lower prices send a signal to oil companies not to drill. High prices have the opposite effect. 

When Biden assumed office in January 2021, the SPR held 638 million barrels. As of mid-October it was down to 405 million barrels, a 37 per cent decline. SPR drawdowns are expected to end this month. The reserve could be down to 350 million barrels by then. This has helped keep oil prices lower for much of 2022. 

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, an angry EU concluded that the most effective non-military way to punish Russia was to quit buying its oil and gas, thus squeezing funds for its war machine. An oil embargo was planned for late 2022. Oil prices rose in anticipation of a supply shortage. 

Instead, on December 5 the G7 countries and the EU adopted a U.S.-led plan to allow Russian oil exports but put a price ceiling of US$60 a barrel. Noted oil guru Daniel Yergin said in an interview, “It’s the end of the global oil market as we’ve known it for the last 30 years. It’s now a partitioned oil market and no one can speak with any authority as to how it will play out.” 

And the price cap became a floor price. A Reuters article December 6 opened, “When U.S. officials first floated the idea of capping Russian oil export prices in response to a planned European embargo in March, they pledged to squeeze revenue to Russia’s war machine, while avoiding a devastating oil price spike. But keeping Russian oil on the market and global prices low soon became the bigger priority as oil prices jumped.” 

Analysts have concluded this price cap will have little impact on Russia’s oil revenues because Asian countries like India and China are thrilled to purchase more oil at lower prices. What Russia loses on price will be offset by volume. 

Quoting unnamed U.S. Treasury officials, Reuters wrote, “…the price cap is ‘institutionalizing’ current market discounts, arguing that plans for the cap were responsible for price declines over the past several months…” 

The U.S. opposed a complete EU Russian oil boycott because it would drive up U.S. prices. The article states the “…true motivation after March has been primarily to preserve Russian oil flows…if there was an oil price spike, not only will it hurt us economically and politically, but it’ll damage Western support for Ukraine. As the G7 formed the plan, India and China have snapped up heavily discounted Russian oil, and are expected to continue big purchases outside the price cap, moves endorsed by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.” 

At the G20 meetings in Asia last month, Yellen’s position was clear. An Arab News headline read, “Oil prices fall; Yellen says price cap on Russian oil will benefit China.” 

It continued, “Yellen told reporters…that China and other buyers of Russian oil will have more leverage to negotiate lower prices. ‘We see the price cap is something that benefits China and India, and benefits all purchasers of Russian oil’.” 

Maybe it’s more complicated than it appears. Perhaps central planning feared that a truly isolated Russia would retaliate with its nuclear arsenal. And a prolonged war in Ukraine and lower oil prices was the best solution under the circumstances. 

But Canada’s position is remarkable.  

Support lower oil prices for the world but make Canadians pay more in the name of climate change.  

This explains why I’ve never been tapped by Ottawa for advice on complex public policy issues. 

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.  

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.  

In the past few months there have been some noteworthy developments for the global alliance known as GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero).  

GFANZ, founded by Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg in the spring of last year and promoted at COP26, is the world’s largest (US$150 trillion) coalition of 500 financial institutions committed to transitioning the global economy to net zero greenhouse gas emissions.  

But already, some of the organizations have been questioning their membership in the Alliance.  

In October, GFANZ lost two pension funds and a consulting company. Major U.S. banks including JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America have also been considering exiting. Even some Canadian banks are having second thoughts about their membership in the alliance.   

So why have these big players been considering leaving? Because of stringent Race to Zero policies that have a specific requirement to withdraw funding from fossil fuel companies.  

These banks know that this will come with potential legal, reputational and governance risks. It also makes no financial sense when demand for oil and gas around the world is only increasing.  

Now is not the time to sign on to a pledge of divestment, when issues of energy security and energy poverty can be helped by investment in the oil and gas sector. 

As a result of the threatened departure of some members, GFANZ now says that going forward, members will be “encouraged, but not required, to partner with the Race to Zero”.  

As JP Morgan Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon said told congressional hearings on Capitol Hill in September, “we will not refrain from making new investments in major oil and gas development projects.”  

He went on to tell the members that JP Morgan Chase would “absolutely not stop investing in oil and gas because that would be the road to hell for America.” Instead, he said, “the world needs proper investing in the oil and gas complex”.  

Dimon’s words apply equally to Canada, where divestment in the oil and gas sector would also be the road to hell. Investment and support for the sector should be top of mind for Canadian bank CEOs right now for four important reasons:  

1. The oil and gas industry’s wellbeing is essential to the wellbeing of Canadians, ensuring energy affordability and with it the affordability of everything else necessary to a reasonable standard of living for all in Canada;

2. The sector’s environmental performance is world-leading and steadily improving;

3. Its expansion is increasingly important to addressing global concerns such as energy security and energy poverty; and

4. A lack of investment in Canada means more investment in oil and gas sector development in other parts of the world with poorer environmental performance, poorer corporate governance, and serious human rights infringements.  

The divestment agenda and pledges to divest from the oil and gas sector like the Race to Zero must be rejected, especially in Canada where the industry is the backbone of the Canadian economy.  

Adopting a pro-investment stance in Canadian oil and gas is good for the economy, the environment, innovation, financial institutions, shareholders, and everyday Canadians.  

Gina Pappano is the former head of market intelligence at the Toronto Stock Exchange. She is executive director of InvestNow Inc., a non-profit dedicated to demonstrating that investing in Canada’s resource sectors helps Canada and the world. Join the movement and pass the InvestNow resolution at investnow.org.  

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.  

What is the long-term future of a society that attacks its own economic foundation for political gain? 

North Americans must ask this question. 

By putting politics first, some politicians in both the U.S. in Canada undermine North America’s core strengths of energy security, economic competitiveness and continued prosperity.  

Many elections have been won on the future of energy. Fossil fuels are bad. Renewables are good. Financial support for oil, gas or coal producers was branded as a crime against the future of civilization. Those who asked questions were labelled climate change deniers. 

But that was so 2021. Everything has changed. 

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February, the western world is determined to figure out how to replace oil and gas from one of the world’s largest producers. 

You’d think this would precipitate different messaging from both Ottawa and Washington. 

Modern politics obviously leaves no room for flexibility.  

But this behavior is confined to North America. 

Because the rest of the world is quickly rewriting energy and climate policies to adjust to new realities.  

The latest round of oil bashing followed the release of third-quarter earnings by American and Canadian producers. Big profits. Record earnings. 

While the alleged driver is artificially high commodity prices, the unrecognized contributor is operating costs that have been slashed to the bone to survive seven years of low commodity prices and attacks from politicians, environmentalists, the public and capital providers. 

Oil companies have been repeatedly told they have no future. Only 18 months ago the International Energy Agency told oil producers not to invest in new supplies. A CNN headline read, “Oil companies advised to stop drilling now to save the planet.” 

So producers have been paying down debt and returning capital to shareholders. When they do get bright ideas about increasing output, legislative, regulatory and permitting obstacles continue.  

After ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and TotalEnergies announced big Q3 profits, Biden told a Democratic party event, “Can’t believe I have to say this, but giving profits to shareholders is not the same as bringing prices down for American families. I’m going to keep harping on it. They keep talking about me picking on them – they ain’t seen nothing yet. I mean it. It outrages me.” 

A California Democrat called oil profits “obscene.” Implicit in that adjective is knowing exactly what oil company profits should be. 

Which for the doctrinaire left is zero. That’s no solution to the global supply crisis. 

It’s not about energy security, but next week’s mid-term elections. What could matter more?  

Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault gave Canadian producers similar treatment with a different spin. In a video, he questioned again why producers weren’t putting more money into tackling climate change. A Canadian Press story wrote, “This is the third time in the last six months Guilbeault’s frustration has spilled over as oil company profits soar.” 

Having spent most of his adult life trying to put oil producers out of business, the minister wants to see more money spent on his priorities, not rewarding long-suffering shareholders. Increased production is never mentioned. 

That North American oil producers are again profitable is good – and would eagerly invest in increased output under different policies – is lost on politicians in Washington and Ottawa.  

The entire developed world is envious of the energy security and low prices enjoyed in the economic fortress of North America. European companies are considering relocating to the U.S. because of stable supplies of lower cost energy.  

Natural resources created Canada. Coal at the western end of the vast prairies gave the backers of the national railroad the confidence to complete the transportation link that connected the country.  

Huge oil reserves helped the U.S. win international wars in Europe and the South Pacific and become an economic powerhouse and global force. In the Second World War, Canada contributed high-octane aviation gasoline refined from the Turner Valley oilfield. 

When oil prices exploded in the 1970s and again early this century, it was the western oil companies that put new supplies on stream and reduced prices. This benefited the entire world. 

In the late 1970s, it was the North Slope of Alaska, Europe’s North Sea and Canada’s oil sands that returned balance to world oil markets. 

When crude hit US$146 a barrel in 2008 – which helped precipitate the world financial crisis – it was Canada’s oil sands and U.S. shale oil that put 10 million barrels per day of new production on stream by 2020. This collapsed world oil prices in 2015 and gave the world five years of unrepeatable economic prosperity. 

Today, the same oil producers that saved the day twice are criticized by their own governments. 

With energy security taken for granted last decade, plentiful oil at low prices allowed politicians in Europe, Canada and the U.S. to win elections by campaigning against fossil fuels and the promise that wind and solar power were suitable alternatives. 

But as Europeans plead for more fuel from North America to save the economy and liberate them from Russian energy, the governments that could help the most instead continue to campaign against the very industry that has made Canada and the U.S. the envy of the western world. 

Surely this cannot be sustainable. 

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.  

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.

The old saying goes, “No news is good news.” 

But in the 21st century smartphone/internet era, it should read “Good news is no news.”  

Driven by today’s ultra-competitive media, headlines have increasingly become what has been coined “clickbait” –  capture eyeballs with something awful happening to somebody somewhere. 

That’s why you’ll never see, “7.9 Billion People Didn’t Die Yesterday,” or “95% Of Canadians Are Employed.” 

Political news is dominated by the official opposition declaring the governing party incompetent, and vice versa. Images of every forest fire, flood, hurricane or tornado on the planet appears on the world’s 6.3 billion smartphones in seconds. This helped teenager Greta Thunberg become famous when she told us all, “The world is on fire.” 

Several things are indeed going poorly. The pandemic, war in Ukraine, rising inflation and interest rates, and the energy crisis in Europe. When you listen to or watch the news, you can’t help but be concerned, even fearful. 

So we spend increasingly less time counting our blessings. Long forgotten is U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s famous words from his 1961 inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” 

These thoughts crystallized during a road trip from Calgary to Lloydminster to participate in the 2022 edition of the Lloydminster Heavy Oil Show. I was a guest speaker at the kickoff banquet September 12.  

Six hours of windshield time is a great way to escape your smartphone. For personal safety, it’s actually essential. 

I’ve made dozens of trips to Lloydminster in my oilfield services career. “Lloyd” is the epicenter of a major heavy oil producing area dating back to the 1940s. The resource is huge, its production significant. 

While Google Maps suggests Calgary drivers take Highway 2 to Edmonton then 16 to Lloydminster, I prefer to go cross-country taking a wide selection of primary and secondary roads. They’re all paved and traffic is light. 

Six hours provides plenty of time to look out the window and truly appreciate where Alberta’s economic prosperity comes from. You see for yourself what makes this province a great place to live, things that don’t exist in a big city. 

Because it is ultimately bountiful resources, free enterprise, advanced technology, hard work and human ingenuity – not genius central planning – that drives our economy. 

Alberta exists in its current form because of massive raw and processed resource production and exports. Fuel. Food. Fertilizer. Petrochemicals. This underscores why market access remains such an important economic and political issue.  

But 58 per cent of Albertans live in four major urban centres: Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Red Deer. Too many don’t see enough of small-town Alberta, a big reason why rural and urban Albertans think and vote differently. 

There’s lots of road options to Lloyd. I always take a different route there and back. It can include bigger centres like Strathmore, Ponoka, Stettler, Camrose, Drumheller or Wainwright. If you don’t like traffic lights, travel instead through or by Beiseker, Three Hills, Hanna, Castor, Forestburg, Consort, or Trochu. 

What you’ll drive by is a continuous vista of cultivated fields, oil wells, gas wells, batteries, grain elevators, storage vessels, fertilizer and seed distribution facilities, and gas plants. The roads pass hundreds of farmyards full of houses, barns, outbuildings, and a large array of trucks and farming equipment.  

Travel via Hardisty and you’ll see the massive oil storage tanks that comprise the main staging point for Alberta’s petroleum exports. The nearest place with this much oil stored this way is Cushing, Oklahoma. 

This year’s trip was made during a much better harvest than in 2021. Thankfully. The world desperately needs the food. 

Many fields were already cut. The rest contained wheat, canola and other crops waiting to be turned into money. Lots of equipment working the fields, lots of trucks hauling the bounty to the nearest elevator or processing facility. 

Lloydminster was once again buzzing with visible prosperity. Help-wanted signs everywhere. Oilfield equipment coming and going. Stores full, service and support businesses busy.  

We all know about the problems. We’re reminded continuously.  

But when I looked at the faces of the 500 people at the oil show banquet, I was struck by the thought that right now, Lloydminster may be the best place to live in the world. 

Food and fuel in limitless supply. Good jobs for everyone who wants to work. Affordable housing. Opportunity. Recreational facilities. Schools. A hospital shared by Alberta and Saskatchewan.  

And the crowd was universally happy, at least that night. After pandemic lockdowns and years of tough times, their oil show was back for the first time in four years. It was a proud and important symbol of a community and industry that was finally and firmly back on its feet. 

Most of Alberta is feeling that way again. With the recovery in oil and gas and better weather and prices for crops, the people that create the resources the world needs have a smile on their face and a spring in their step. 

Too bad more Canadians don’t visit rural Alberta and learn first-hand where the necessities of life come from. It they did, our country would be heading in a much different direction. 

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.  

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.   

One of the best ideas that has gone nowhere is the creation of resource corridors for long-distance transportation infrastructure using routes where land-use and development issues are resolved in advance.

Historically, the path of transportation infrastructure like railroads, highways, power lines and pipelines has been “map and ruler,” a straight line at the lowest cost. Geography like lakes and mountains were the main reasons for route changes.

Fortunately, most of Canada’s long-distance infrastructure was built well before the population grew significantly. The national railroads are a perfect example.

Because the railroad came first, many communities exist only because of it. This spared seeking permission to knock down houses and buildings to run a rail line through town.

Since then, building anything extending beyond the property line of your backyard has become increasingly difficult if not impossible, be it pipelines, power lines, or even roads.

New acronyms emerged. NIMBY, or Not In My Backyard. More obstacles led to BANANA, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody.

In Canada, so many projects have been studied, delayed, cancelled or prohibited that we have rightfully earned an international reputation as the country that can’t build anything.

Which is counterintuitive, because long-distance infrastructure is the only reason our nation exists in its current form, and is wealthy enough to obstruct continued development.

A determined creator of infrastructure conflicts has been Canada’s landlocked oil and gas industry; enormous resources with no access to tidewater.

New pipelines to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico have been proposed then opposed by environmentalists, landowners, municipalities, provinces, states and countries.

Billions of dollars have been vaporized on uncompleted projects.

The Liberal federal government alone cannot be blamed when BC, Ontario, Quebec, Montreal, Vancouver, Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska and the U.S. federal government are also opponents.

An innovative solution conceived to resolve the pipeline wars was the concept of resource corridors, pre-arranged right-of-ways over long distances that would be wide enough to accommodate power lines, pipelines, railways and even roads.

Canada has enough empty or underpopulated space that it could avoid the higher concentrations of people through planning, ingenuity and determination. This is an obvious way to avoid most of the conflicts.

Soldiering on in its determination to maintain Canada’s standard of living despite itself is the C2C2C Unity Corridor project, a foundation which describes itself as a “…neutral national entity championing the development of a resilient network of corridors that can link Canada’s economic opportunities, help create more resilient supply chains and support access to global markets.”

Founded in 2018, C2C2C’s idea is to change the channel on development applications from “why” to “what and where” by dealing with economic, land use, environmental and social impact issues in advance.

The first question is basic. Should the country’s population and economy continue to grow? This answer is invariably yes, if for no other reason that even development opponents dare not say no.

Then the next step is what, how and where? This is where everything bogs down.

The C2C2C approach is materially different than the current process whereby a developer wants to undertake a multi-stakeholder project of some sort. The sponsor’s interests, most often commercial, are clear. But the benefits to those affected are not.

What makes C2C2C relevant today is that world events have finally put the need for development before the project itself. The narrative on oil and gas development in particular has finally changed.

Due to a worldwide energy shortage and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland uttered words not spoken outside of western Canada in years when she said, “We have a lot of energy. I think it is a political responsibility for us as a country to support our allies with energy security. This is a very tough moment for many European countries right now as they shift from their dependence from Russian oil and gas and I think it’s very important for Canada to step up and say, ‘We’re going to help you.’”

This moves the discussion from why to how and where. Which is C2C2C’s purpose.

The organization has an experienced leadership team that includes Jerry Demchuk who has a long career in major oil and gas project development. He is supported by industry veteran Bob Steele, Indigenous leader and energy advocate Chris Sankey, and former B.C. attorney general Bud Smith.

Advisors include Preston Manning, a tireless supporter of responsible but continued resource development.

If and when Canada wakes up and starts doing things again, it will have to be done differently. Most elements of the consultation and engagement process are permanent.

But groups like C2C2C understand this and can provide a resource and catalyst for private sector development proponents which by now may be so discouraged by a decade of “no” that they have given up or moved their business elsewhere.

The world has changed dramatically. Even the Liberal government is saying different things. Resource corridors could be the catalyst to actually getting something done.

Because the world needs Canada’s help.

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd. 

Due to a series of unfortunate events including the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, there is a world shortage of affordable food and energy. How and when this will end is unknown. Everyone is affected.

Those who suffer the most historically live in developing countries. But today it is affecting nations previously thought to be advanced and self-sufficient. Energy rationing is already underway across Europe. This winter could be a disaster. 

In response, years of anti-fossil fuel policies, initiatives and crusades are being reversed at an amazing pace. Coal, natural gas and nuclear power are making big comebacks at a scale unimaginable a year ago.

But parts of the planet remain oblivious to global events. Like the lower mainland of B.C. That’s where the Sue Big Oil initiative was invented, modestly described by proponents as “The birth of a new movement.” 

“We are going to sue Big Oil,” noted journalist Avi Lewis told us at the opening of the June 15 launch on Zoom. “This is a historic moment, and you are going to be able to tell everyone you were here when it began.”

Lewis is the son of famous New Democrat Stephen Lewis and husband of Naomi Klein, author of multiple hard-left books like “This Changes Everything – Capitalism Versus the Climate.”

First, the genius idea.

The website reads, “How do we sue big oil? Suing the world’s largest oil companies will ensure that B.C. communities and local governments have the resources needed for skyrocketing climate costs, while making sure the fossil fuel industry curtails its climate-destroying practices.”

Take it to the bank B.C. You’ve already won.

To collect the loot just sign the petition, convince local governments to fund and launch a class-action lawsuit, then sue the oil companies “for a fair share of climate costs.” 

Which oil companies? Only those with a “real and substantial connection” to B.C. The Sue Big Oil campaign will target “the world’s largest multinational fossil fuel companies” like Chevron, Shell, and Exxon, “as they are responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions.”

A key player is West Coast Environmental Law, which exists to use the courts to seek justice for environmental crimes. 

On July 20, Vancouver city council voted to contribute $660,000 tax dollars in funding. 

With a civic election coming this fall, spending everybody else’s money on climate virtue signalling is obviously a sound idea. 

In 2018, while still an NDP MP, mayor Kennedy Stewart was arrested and convicted of violating a court injunction at the Trans Mountain pipeline terminal in Burnaby.

Judging by Kennedy’s continued political success, attacking oil is a proven vote-getter around there. 

But the Sue Big Oil project is flawed on multiple fronts, and illustrates how disconnected Canada’s West Coast climate industry is from the real world.

First, suing oil companies is hardly “the birth of a new movement.” U.S. municipalities have been using taxpayer funds to unsuccessfully sue oil companies for alleged climate damage for years. 

In California, San Mateo, San Francisco and Imperial Beach started in 2017. A year later New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sued several multinational oil producers, claiming they helped cause Hurricane Sandy in 2012. 

The only cash that has changed hands goes from taxpayers and oil companies to lawyers. When NYC lost its case for climate damages, it sued again for misleading consumers. In California, the main activity has been switching between state and federal courts. 

Sue Big Oil cites the 2021 court judgement against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands as proof this type of litigation works. But that ruling only ordered Shell to reduce global emissions more quickly.

Shell paid no damages, is appealing, and with the blessing of shareholders subsequently moved its head office to London. 

At the time Bloomberg News reported, “There are currently 1,800 lawsuits related to climate change being fought in courtrooms around the world, according to the climatecasechart.com database.” 

Sue Big Oil has somewhat overstated the novelty of its initiative.

The second disingenuous claim is that if municipalities join the crusade, the outcome will be that “local governments have the resources needed for skyrocketing climate costs.” 

But for the next few years, all they will really do is clog the courts with taxpayer-funded lawyers. 

The most outrageous statement is that western multinationals such as Chevron, Shell and Exxon Mobil “are responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions.”

These three companies collectively produce about 5 million barrels of oil per day, or five per cent of world output. Canada uses 1.5 million barrels a day. Based on population, B.C.’s share is about 200,000 or 0.2 per cent of global consumption.

Eight of the world’s top ten oil producing countries couldn’t find B.C. on a map. They are Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Brazil, Iran and Kuwait. None of their producers will be subpoenaed. 

The biggest mistake these companies have made is selling transportation fuel in B.C. 

And the communities they have reliably served for decades are being urged to use their citizens’ tax dollars to bring them to their knees. 

While overlooking the fact that without car, truck, boat, rail and airplane fuel, many of these municipalities wouldn’t exist.

As billions struggle with the new realties of rising costs and shortages of everything, Sue Big Oil is just another taxpayer-funded make-work project for West Coast professional climate crusaders.

David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of  From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.