Canada’s energy landscape changed significantly in 2025, with mounting U.S. economic pressures reinforcing the central role oil and gas can play in safeguarding the country’s independence.

Here are the Canadian Energy Centre’s top five most-viewed stories of the year.

5. Alberta’s massive oil and gas reserves keep growing – here’s why

The Northern Lights, aurora borealis, make an appearance over pumpjacks near Cremona, Alta., Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024. CP Images photo

Analysis commissioned this spring by the Alberta Energy Regulator increased the province’s natural gas reserves by more than 400 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.

Even with record production, Alberta’s oil reserves – already fourth in the world – also increased by seven billion barrels.

According to McDaniel & Associates, which conducted the report, these reserves are likely to become increasingly important as global demand continues to rise and there is limited production growth from other sources, including the United States.

4. Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Photo courtesy Coastal GasLink

Canada could be on the cusp of a “golden age” for building major energy projects, said Kevin O’Donnell, executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

That eagerness is shared by the Edmonton-based Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which launched a “Let’s Get Building” advocacy campaign urging all Canadian politicians to focus on getting major projects built.

“The sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy,” said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong. 

3. New Canadian oil and gas pipelines a $38 billion missed opportunity, says Montreal Economic Institute

Steel pipe in storage for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2022. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

In March, a report by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) underscored the economic opportunity of Canada building new pipeline export capacity.

MEI found that if the proposed Energy East and Gazoduq/GNL Quebec projects had been built, Canada would have been able to export $38 billion worth of oil and gas to non-U.S. destinations in 2024.

“We would be able to have more prosperity for Canada, more revenue for governments because they collect royalties that go to government programs,” said MEI senior policy analyst Gabriel Giguère. 

“I believe everybody’s winning with these kinds of infrastructure projects.”

2. Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan, Alta. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

In June, Keyera Corp. announced a $5.15 billion deal to acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia, Ontario. 

The acquisition will connect NGLs from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in Alberta and B.C. to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference,” said Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley. 

“We see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub.” 

1. Explained: Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Enbridge’s Cheecham Terminal near Fort McMurray, Alberta is a key oil storage hub that moves light and heavy crude along the Enbridge network. Photo courtesy Enbridge

The United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, but its reliance on oil imports from Canada has never been higher.

Many refineries in the United States are specifically designed to process heavy oil, primarily in the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Gulf Coast.

According to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the top five U.S. refineries running the most Alberta crude are:

• Marathon Petroleum, Robinson, Illinois (100% Alberta crude)
• Exxon Mobil, Joliet, Illinois (96% Alberta crude)
• CHS Inc., Laurel, Montana (95% Alberta crude)
• Phillips 66, Billings, Montana (92% Alberta crude)
• Citgo, Lemont, Illinois (78% Alberta crude)

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

More than a century after its founding, the former ghost town of Nordegg, Alta. is getting natural gas service, promising lower costs and more reliable energy for homes and businesses.

“Natural gas will be a huge game changer, especially for commercial use,” said Clearwater County Reeve Michelle Swanson.

The former coal mining town is no stranger to cold winters. During Alberta’s cold snap in January 2024, the hamlet broke its cold weather record reaching a bone chilling -45.8 degrees Celsius.

In the 1920s, Nordegg — tucked into the foothills of the Rockies about two hours west of Red Deer — was home to Alberta’s most productive coal mine, a fuel supply primarily for steam locomotives.

But demand declined following the Leduc No. 1 oil discovery in 1947, and the mine closed in 1955.   

The population dwindled from a peak of nearly 3,000 people to as few as 27 at one point, said Swanson.

Today, about 90 people call the hamlet home, and the future is looking brighter.

“We’re slowly building up. We have more full time residents. We have businesses that are looking to locate there, a couple hotels. Tourism is the area’s primary industry,” Swanson said. 

By adding access to natural gas and installing new fibre optic internet, Nordegg will be able to sustain new growth and attract development, she said.

In July, the Alberta government announced $2.5 million in funding to help build an 11-kilometre pipeline connecting the hamlet to a nearby gas plant. The $8-million project is also funded by the county and the Rocky Gas Co-Op. 

With the new gas connection, residents could save up to 25 per cent on their utility bills, according to the province.

Swanson said that right now people in Nordegg get their energy from electricity, wood and propane. 

“Electricity is the primary heat source, and your secondary is wood stoves and most of the businesses are also running off propane, because of the costs of electricity,” she said. 

The biggest benefit of connecting to natural gas is reliability, she said. 

“Number one is having the predictability that gas provides. It is going to be there on time. Propane, I mean, you can run out,” Swanson said.

Safety is another big factor in a region that can be prone to wildfires.

“I know our firefighters were worried that a wildfire could set off a lot of propane explosions, and that’s not helpful,” she said. 

“At the end of the day to me, it’s all about the fact that you’re creating a safer community, and you’re having a more predictable fuel source.”

Pipeline construction began in February and is targeted for completion this fall.

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

Indigenous communities across Canada need access to natural gas to reduce energy poverty, says a new report by Energy for a Secure Future (ESF).

It’s a serious issue that needs to be addressed, say Indigenous community and business leaders in Saskatchewan.

“We’re here today to implore upon the federal government that we need the installation of natural gas and access to natural gas so that we can have safe and reliable service,” said Guy Lonechild, CEO of the Regina-based First Nations Power Authority, on a March 11 ESF webinar.

Last year, 20 Saskatchewan communities moved a resolution at the Assembly of First Nations’ annual general assembly calling on the federal government to “immediately enhance” First Nations financial supports for “more desirable energy security measures such as natural gas for home heating.”

“We’ve been calling it heat poverty because that’s what it really is…our families are finding that they have to either choose between buying groceries or heating their home,” Chief Christine Longjohn of Sturgeon Lake First Nation said in the ESF report.

“We should be able to live comfortably within our homes. We want to be just like every other homeowner that has that choice to be able to use natural gas.”

At least 333 First Nations communities across Canada are not connected to natural gas utilities, according to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).

ESF says that while there are many federal programs that help cover the upfront costs of accessing electricity, primarily from renewable sources, there are no comparable ones to support natural gas access.

“Most Canadian and Indigenous communities support actions to address climate change. However, the policy priority of reducing fossil fuel use has had unintended consequences,” the ESF report said.

“Recent funding support has been directed not at improving reliability or affordability of the energy, but rather at sustainability.”

Natural gas costs less than half — or even a quarter — of electricity prices in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, according to CER data.

“Natural gas is something NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] will not fund. It’s not considered a renewable for them,” said Chief Mark Fox of the Piapot First Nation, located about 50 kilometres northeast of Regina.

“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”

According to ESF, some Indigenous communities compare the challenge of natural gas access to the multiyear effort to raise awareness and, ultimately funding, to address poor water quality and access on reserve.

“Natural gas is the new water,” Lonechild said.

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

Alberta is at risk of power outages by the mid-2030s as a result of the federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER), says a new report by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

The AESO’s analysis found the new regulations, which came into effect on January 1, will make the province’s electricity system more than 100 times less reliable by 2038.

Alberta has already reduced emissions from electricity production by 59 per cent since 2005 without the CER, according to the federal government’s national emissions reporting.

The finalized CER in December 2024 pushed out the federal government’s target of a net zero power grid from 2035 to 2050, but the AESO said the costs of the regulation continue to outweigh its minimal environmental benefit.

The CER essentially mandates the rapid and widespread adoption of technologies that remain under development or have not been commercially tested in Alberta, the AESO said.

This includes nuclear, large-scale hydroelectric generation, natural gas generation with carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen generation.

Due to restrictions on natural gas generation, the AESO forecasts an additional $30 billion in capital and operational costs between now and 2049.

The regulations will have high costs for Albertans, increasing wholesale electricity prices by 35 per cent above what they otherwise would be, the AESO said.

Along with potential reliability and affordability issues, the regulations will result in less than one million tonnes of emissions reduced annually, according to AESO.

“The significant cost that the CER will impose on Alberta’s electricity system for minimal emissions reductions means the regulation is inefficient and ineffective,” the AESO said.

“The threat to reliability resulting from the CER means that the regulation puts Alberta’s electricity grid at significant risk for little to no benefit.”

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

Canada’s energy sector is one of the country’s greatest strengths, says an emerging leader with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Bryan Detchou is the Chamber’s senior director of natural resources, environment and sustainability.

A former government relations consultant and staffer on Parliament Hill, in 2023 The Peak recognized Detchou as one of Canada’s young leaders shaping the country’s economy, culture and society.

The Chamber boasts a membership of over 200,000 businesses, including many energy-related companies. Detchou helps advocate for achieving the sector’s untapped potential.

Here’s what he shared with the Canadian Energy Centre:

CEC: Why does the Canadian Chamber of Commerce support Canada’s oil and natural gas sector? 

BD: The mandate of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is to support and be the leading voice for all businesses across the Canadian economy.

You cannot discuss the Canadian economy without recognizing the essential role of the oil and gas sector.

CEC: What role should Canada’s energy sector play in the 21^st century Canadian and world economies? 

BD: We believe that Canada’s energy and natural resources sectors are sources of pride and deserve strong support. These sectors hold the potential for Canada to exceed expectations on the global stage, positioning us as a key player in solving many of the world’s pressing challenges.

The conflict in Ukraine has exposed vulnerabilities in European and global energy security, underscoring the critical role Canada can play in addressing these issues. It is not only Canada’s responsibility to its citizens but also its duty to the global community to be a strong and reliable energy partner.

However, our failure to act decisively on energy security weakens our position and undermines our ability to contribute meaningfully to the reduction of global emissions.

CEC: How can Canadian energy businesses take a leadership position in emissions reduction? 

BD: The majority of emissions reductions are being driven by the private sector, and we’re already seeing significant investments from various organizations. However, the challenge lies in the substantial capital required for these initiatives.

Before making major investment decisions, companies need a level of certainty and predictability in the markets they operate in—this is where the government can play a stronger role.

Regulatory hurdles, such as amendments to the Impact Assessment Act and the slow deployment of Investment Tax Credits, continue to create uncertainty.

We must understand that this is a global race. Canada is not the only country working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and attract the necessary investment.

It is our responsibility to identify and leverage our competitive advantages. There is still much Canada can do to ensure its regulatory framework is conducive to attracting investment and driving environmental progress.

CEC: How is the federal greenwashing Bill C-59 impacting Canadian energy companies? 

BD: From the outset, we have been fully engaged in addressing the challenges posed by this new legislation, starting with our involvement when the amendment was first introduced in the House of Commons committee in late May.

We testified before the Senate in early June, voicing the concerns of the industry, and have remained actively engaged ever since.

We unequivocally support the goal of ensuring that no Canadian company engages in deceptive marketing, whether in terms of product claims or the communication of their environmental commitments, particularly those aimed at combating climate change. Transparency and accountability are fundamental.

However, the law’s vague language and the absence of a clearly defined methodology have unfortunately created uncertainty across all sectors of the Canadian economy. This uncertainty hinders the ability of businesses to openly and confidently contribute to Canada’s ambitious climate goals.

Rather than driving environmental progress, the new law has inadvertently undermined the significant efforts already made by Canadian corporations, and by extension, the Canadian government. It has become a barrier to both innovation and meaningful environmental action.

The time has come for the government to revisit this legislation. The government should do now what it should have done in May and work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to develop a made-in-Canada regime that ensures corporate accountability and transparency while fostering, not stifling, innovation and environmental ambition.

Only by doing this can we achieve the climate objectives that Canada is striving for.

CEC: What does the Chamber believe are the best steps forward for Canada’s energy sector? 

BD: The best way forward for Canada’s energy sector involves recognizing and leveraging our natural resources as one of the country’s greatest strengths, rather than a weakness. In the face of global challenges Canada’s energy sector must evolve to address these pressing issues.

We advocate for a balanced approach that includes diversifying the energy portfolio with investments in renewable technologies and innovations like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, ensuring a clear and efficient regulatory framework to attract investment, and strengthening Indigenous partnerships to foster shared prosperity.

Promoting sustainable resource development to meet net-zero targets, expanding global market opportunities, and enhancing collaboration between government and industry are crucial.

By embracing our energy sector as a key asset, Canada can enhance its role on the global stage, support our allies, and combat climate change effectively. Unleashing the full potential of Canada’s natural resources is essential for securing energy security, achieving economic growth and driving long-term prosperity.

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

Despite the rise of “Buy American” policy, the CEO of Canada’s biggest company says there are many opportunities to improve Canada’s sluggish economy by supporting the United States.

Near the top of the list for RBC boss Dave McKay is energy – and not just the multi-billion-dollar trade between Canada and the U.S. The value of Canada’s resources to the U.S. stretches far beyond North America’s borders.

“Canada has to get in sync and create value for our largest trading partner,” McKay told a Canadian Club of Toronto gathering on Sept. 10.

Security, he said, is one of America’s biggest concerns.

“Energy security is a big part of overall security…As we think about these power structures changing, the U.S. needs us to supply Asia with energy. That allows the United States to feed energy to Europe.”

He said that for Canada, that includes oil exports through the new Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and natural gas on LNG carriers.

“Particularly Asia wants our LNG. They need it. It’s cleaner than what they’re using today, the amount of coal being burned…We can’t keep second-guessing ourselves,” McKay said.

Asia’s demand for oil and gas is projected to rise substantially over the coming decades, according to the latest outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The EIA projects that the region’s natural gas use will increase by 55 per cent between 2022 and 2050, while oil demand will increase by 44 per cent.

With completion of the Trans Mountain expansion in May, Canada’s first major oil exports to Asia are now underway. Customers for the 590,000 barrels per day of new export capacity have already come from China, India, Japan and South Korea.

Canada’s long-awaited first LNG exports are also on the horizon, with first shipments from the LNG Canada terminal that could come earlier than expected, before year-end.

According to the Canada Energy Regulator, LNG exports from the coast of British Columbia could rise from virtually nothing today to about six billion cubic feet per day by 2029. That’s nearly as much as natural gas as B.C. currently produces, CER data shows.

But the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap could threaten this future by reducing production.

Analysis by Deloitte found that meeting the cap obligation in 2030 would result in the loss of about 625,000 barrels of oil per day and 2.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.

This could wipe out significant sales to customers in the United States and Asia, without reducing demand or consumption.

McKay said the “massive complexity” around climate rules around the world and the lack of a cohesive path forward is slowing progress to reduce emissions.

Canada has opportunities to advance, from conventional energy to critical minerals and cleantech innovation, he said.

“We have to continue to leverage our resources…We can lead in clean tech, but in the meantime, there is an opportunity to get more carbon out of the economy sooner,” he said.

“We are in a race. Our planet is heating, and therefore we have to accept there can be transitionary energy sources.”

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

Canada and the United States share something that doesn’t exist anywhere else. A vast, interconnected energy network that today produces more oil and gas than any other region – including the Middle East, according to analysis by S&P Global.

It’s a blanket of energy security researchers called “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times.

But, according to two leaders in governance and energy policy, that relationship is at risk.

Analysis has shown that the federal proposal to cap emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector would result in reduced production. That likely means less energy available to Canada’s largest customer, the United States.

Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, is a former Canadian political staffer born in northern Alberta now living in Washington, D.C.

Jamie Tronnes

Heather Exner-Pirot is a prominent energy policy analyst and senior fellow with the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Heather Exner-Pirot

Here’s what they shared with CEC.

CEC: The U.S. is one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers. Why does it need imports from Canada?

HEP: It’s because all oil is not the same. The United States developed its refinery industry before the shale revolution, when they were importing heavier crudes. Canada has that heavier crude. They are now exporting some of their sweet light oil and importing Canadian crude because that’s what their refinery mix requires.

What’s interesting is that we have never exported more Canadian crude to the United States than we are right now. Even as they have become the world’s largest oil producer, they’ve never needed Canadian oil more than today.

They also import a ton of natural gas from us. They have become the world’s biggest gas producer and the world’s biggest gas exporter, but part of that, and having their LNG capacity being able to so quickly surpass Qatar and Australia, is because some of the production is being backfilled by Canada.

CEC: Will the incoming new administration (either Democrat or Republican) impact the Canada-U.S. energy relationship?

JT: I don’t see a big change happening in such a way as it did when the Biden administration came in with the axing of the Keystone XL pipeline. Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, the global energy market has changed radically.

On the Republican side, Trump often repeats the phrase “drill, baby drill.” The issue is that the U.S. is already drilling about as much as demand allows.

I don’t think a Harris government would move quickly to limit oil and gas production without having a strategic alternative in place. It simply would make her look very weak, and she has explicitly said that she would not ban fracking.

In the post-COVID world, I believe that the Democrat side of the aisle is coming to the view that it was a geopolitical mistake in terms of securing North American energy dominance to cut the Keystone XL pipeline.

The reality is that being able to export refined Canadian feedstock is key to keeping the U.S. as an energy superpower.

The U.S. government continues to offer and subsidize tax credits for investment in carbon capture technology. Even though Trump has said that he would end all of those carbon capture credits and subsidies, it still would not stop the U.S. from importing Canadian oil and gas.

That’s only going to grow as things like AI continue to create more demand for energy. A huge amount of the United States electrical energy grid is powered still by natural gas, and that’s going to take decades to change.

CEC: Would a reduction in Canadian production from the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap impact the United States?

HEP: Yes, and we should be raising the alarm bells. The federal government has said it is a cap on emissions, not a cap on production, but all the analysis that Alberta and the oil and gas sector have done is that it will create somewhere between 1 million and 2 million barrels of production being shut in.

Well, 95 per cent of our exports are to the United States. If we are shutting in 1 million barrels or 2 million barrels, that all comes out of their end just when their shale oil is expected to plateau and decline.

A cap would also tap down natural gas production and LNG capacity. If you’re Japan or South Korea and you’re looking to secure 20 years of supply, the cap creates a lot of uncertainty with that Canadian supply. There’s zero uncertainty with Qatar’s supply. If you’re Japanese, these are not pleasant conversations. This is not giving you confidence. And if you don’t have confidence in LNG, you’re going to burn coal.

In a perfect world, Canada would supply LNG to Asia, the United States would supply it to Europe, and we’d be a pretty energy-independent Western alliance.

I wish we would be honest that we need a different way to reduce emissions that does not take away from production, because that capacity is a big part of what we offer our allies right now.

JT: It threatens the security of North America in a big way because the energy dominance of the United States is tied to Canada. Especially with what’s going on in Russia and other countries, it behooves us as Canadians and me as an American to remember that security is not freely granted.

We have to make sure that we are thinking more holistically when we think of things like emissions cap legislation that’s going to have knock-on effects and may even increase emissions. If you’re trying to replace that feedstock, it’s got to come from somewhere.

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