The U.S.-Canada Energy Relationship Is Underappreciated – And May Now Be Under Threat

By Dan ByersMichael Gullo

September 18, 2024

“Senators, Calgary is a lot closer to Washington than Riyadh. And you don’t need the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet to patrol the Great Lakes.”   So said then-Alberta Premier Jason Kenney at a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee hearing in May of 2022, just a few months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine thrust energy security back into the spotlight.   

While global markets have calmed since the 2022 energy crisis, geopolitical tensions have worsened, there is war in Europe and the Middle East, and economic nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. Uncertainty reigns, which makes the North American energy alliance Premier Kenney championed all the more important. However, a sector-by-sector cap-and-trade system designed to meet Canada’s ambitious economy-wide 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) goals is threatening this increasingly important partnership.   

While it should go without saying that U.S.-Canadian energy trade is critical to each country’s energy security and economic prosperity, Canada’s role in responding to U.S. demand with a safe and secure supply of affordable energy is often overlooked or poorly understood by policymakers.  

Even though the U.S. is the world’s largest oil and gas producer, it increasingly relies on its northern neighbor to supply refineries with much-needed heavy crude oil and keep power flowing to households and industry. In fact, growth in Canadian imports is an important factor driving America’s reduced reliance on OPEC countries, as the country now accounts for more than 50% of U.S. petroleum imports. Meanwhile, virtually all natural gas coming into the U.S. comes from Canada, and it is also America’s primary supplier of electricity and important minerals such as uranium. In total, two-way energy trade of oil, natural gas, electricity and uranium reached a record total in 2023 of $156 billion USD.   

This energy security partnership must not be taken for granted. Potential serious disruptions loom, especially if Canada’s intentions to impose a cap on the emissions produced by its upstream oil and gas sector go forward as envisioned.  While Canada’s emissions cap does not directly constrain energy production, it will do so as a practical matter, because the substantial costs and long lead times required to approve and deploy emissions-reducing technologies to power oil and gas operations (such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), waste heat recovery systems, and small modular reactors) leave industry with no other options.   

This could force Canadian producers to curtail operations as a compliance measure. Estimates suggest that curtailment could range from 626,000 to as much as 2,000,000 barrels per day—amounts equivalent to 16 – 52% of U.S. imports of Canadian crude oil.  Similarly, natural gas producers would need to reduce production by approximately 2.2 billion cubic feet per day, or roughly 76% of imports to the U.S. All this at a time when energy demand is rising, and power sector dependence on natural gas grows in response to coal retirements, transportation electrification, and data center expansion. 

Put simply, the de facto production caps under consideration by the Canadian government threaten to severely restrict cross-border energy trade in a way that harms our shared economic and security interests. They should not go forward as proposed, but that does not mean industry opposes ambitious action on emissions. To the contrary, energy companies on both sides of the border are investing billions of dollars on the transition to a cleaner energy future. Progress abounds  in both the U.S. and Canada, from investments in multi-billion dollar CCS projects and alternative fuels such as renewable natural gas to clean hydrogen production and world-leading actions to reduce methane throughout the oil and gas value chain. This commitment is unwavering, and promises to enhance North American energy security while meeting international demand for our (lower-GHG-footprint) exports.  

Policymakers should seek to strengthen cross-border collaboration on energy security, infrastructure, climate change policy, harmonized standards and development and deployment of key clean energy technologies. This coordination should recognize and protect the fundamental role each country plays in enhancing North American prosperity, meeting global demand and building resilient energy supply chains. Taking this broader view should also consider the increasingly important and integrated role both countries play in providing a safe, secure and clean supply of energy to overseas markets and NATO allies.  

Together, Canada and the U.S. have dominated global oil and growth in the past decade, creating an energy secure North America while driving billions into innovation and technologies designed to lower emissions. Policy actions that limit production and export capacity could reverse this progress, leaving us and our allies more vulnerable. We must instead leverage our deeply interconnected energy systems and rock-solid commercial relationships in support of a North American Energy Security framework that will deliver benefits for decades to come. Our organizations and collective membership stand ready to be a fully committed partner in this effort. 

Dan Byers is Vice President of Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute.  

Michael Gullo is Vice President of Policy at the Business Council of Canada.  

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

4.1 14 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
September 24, 2024 3:27 am

Policymakers.

Haven’t they done enough damage on the back of their blind faith in a theory that has more holes in it than a colander? Apparently not. And where, ultimately, do they get their ideas? Outfits like “Working Holiday Ireland”…

“”One of the stranger developments of recent years has been the speed with which supposedly rational people acquiesced to activists spouting the green agenda.

Senior politicians prostrated themselves at the altar of Greta Thunberg. School teachers actually applauded their pupils whenever the little brats decided to bunk off school in the name of ‘climate strikes’.

 ‘I see you’re burning turf?!’, it [Working Holiday Ireland] wrote beneath the pub’s post, ‘Carbon footprint guys…’””

Did the landlord of the pub cave? Er, no.

“”‘It’s how we heat the pub. Looking at your page you rely on tourists who come to Ireland, correct? How do they get here? They hardly swam. How would you compare and quantify the emissions of a Boeing 747 to a small turf fire? How do your guests get around Ireland when they arrive, do they walk?’

Digging deep into the Little Book of Green Clichés, it [Working Holiday Ireland] also claimed that Ireland has a duty to ‘set an example for others to follow’. “
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/23/why-have-eco-warriors-gone-to-war-with-a-rural-irish-pub/

Ireland produces ~0.1% of global emissions.  They still want to get rid of the herds….

Reply to  strativarius
September 24, 2024 4:31 am

“Theory”?
I thought it was still just a hypothesis.

strativarius
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 24, 2024 4:50 am

In reality it isn’t even that.

I don’t write media styleguides.

Reply to  strativarius
September 24, 2024 6:03 am

To call it either one implies that the idea has been subjected to falsification and revision as necessary. Absent that, neither applies.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 24, 2024 7:12 am

If one were honest, it would be a “disproven hypothesis.”

strativarius
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 24, 2024 7:15 am

If one were… generous.

Reply to  strativarius
September 24, 2024 4:49 am

Ireland’s Department of Agriculture proposed killing 200,000 cows to meet the European Union’s climate change objectives. However, some, including the president of the Irish Farmers’ Association, have criticized this plan [Google Search]

The Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement was a large-scale sacrificial event that took place in South Africa between 1856 and 1857. The movement was a result of a combination of Xhosa beliefs, a prophecy, and Christian doctrines [Google Search]

The Salem witch trials – 1692 and 1693. More than 200 people were accused. Thirty people were found guilty, nineteen of whom were executed one by torture and five died jails.[Wikipedia]

The Jonestown massacre was a mass murder-suicide that took place on November 18, 1978, at the Jonestown compound in Guyana. The event involved the deaths of over 900 members of the Peoples Temple cult, a California-based group led by Jim Jones. [Google Search]

strativarius
Reply to  Steve Case
September 24, 2024 5:17 am

“”Haven’t they done enough damage on the back of their blind faith “


The Lord’s work is never done.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 24, 2024 7:41 am

Sorry, I forgot one:

[Sri Lanka’s] tea industry had also been affected by many factors, the most serious being the sharp decrease in tea production. Experts say that the main cause of the decline was the sudden ban on all agrochemicals including fertilisers from April to November 2021, decided by the then President Rajapaksa, who abruptly declared that the whole country would go organic without any preparation. [Tea and Coffee dot Net]

Reply to  Steve Case
September 24, 2024 7:54 am

Perhaps it is the only incident America has to brag about but Salem was tiny, tiny compared to the massive murder of “witches” in Europe, apparently mainly on the charge of causing bad weather.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 24, 2024 8:40 am

“…killing 200,000 cows…” They all become food sooner or later…so its the reduction of the cattle industry they are actually pushing….

Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 24, 2024 10:47 pm

But that doesn’t sound scary. Because the 1.8 million cows on their plates each year have not been killed.

Mr.
September 24, 2024 4:40 am

This post is very informative about the production and supply of fuels by Canada to the USA.

A very mutually beneficial arrangement.

Now watch Trudeau and Harris f#ck it up.

Reply to  Mr.
September 24, 2024 7:56 am

The claim made is that billions of $, and the lost energy that represents, are already being wasted on “emission reduction”.

September 24, 2024 4:46 am

“Progress abounds in both the U.S. and Canada, from investments in multi-billion dollar CCS projects and alternative fuels such as renewable natural gas to clean hydrogen production and world-leading actions to reduce methane throughout the oil and gas value chain.

Movement toward expensive measures that do NOTHING to influence the climate outcome is not “progress.” All of these are a facade. Just keep exploring and producing. No apologies. Stop acting like there is any reason to be ashamed to supply affordable hydrocarbon fuels from natural deposits.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 24, 2024 7:15 am

Actually, if the MIT methane from CO2 and sunlight technology is scalable, it will be a marvelous investment.

Not that CO2 needs to be reduced, but recycling CO2 to provide energy might be a significant financial success.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 24, 2024 7:26 am

No disagreement with your point, but as long as natural methane is readily available, it would be a long shot to compete financially using a synthetic route.

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 24, 2024 7:58 am

And they will still want to ban using the gas for making life tolerable through cooking and heating water and homes.

Editor
September 24, 2024 5:08 am

This is truly insane. Curtailment from 626,000 to as much as 2,000,000 barrels per day is not aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from tbose barrels, it is aimed at reducing the accidental “carbon” emissions from the production process for those barrels. These accidental emissions amount to something not far from three cubic centimetres per day. For that, they block two million barrels.

Like I said, it is truly insane.

Fran
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 24, 2024 11:50 am

What do you expect from Soy Boy and his WEF finance minister?

Sommer
Reply to  Fran
September 25, 2024 5:42 am

No mention in this article of the deal with industrial wind turbines which Parker Gallant has been reporting on regularly, for years, as he diligently does the number crunching. He’s pleading for Canadians to wake up and force this government to stop the pick- pocketing by our U.S. neighbours.

Here’s his comment from September 24, 2024 at

parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com

“On the Sunday, IESO reported our intertie sales (exports minus imports) were 46,205 MWh and climbed to 53,844 MWh on the Monday. The intertie was notably higher on the Monday presumably due to those IWT generating over 13,000 MWh of higher output. As a result of the foregoing we ratepayers/taxpayers once again had our pockets picked, as IESO sold the unneeded IWT generation to our neighbours ( Michigan and New York) for an average HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) of $26.68/MWh on the 22ndand $32.07/MWh on the 23rd , netting us about $1million for the approximately $5 million we paid for the 32,911 MWh those IWT provided.”

September 24, 2024 5:09 am

So, O&G production caps are bad, but CCS and other ‘carbon’ curtailment schemes are ok? Who does the industry think is going to save it once it has surrendered to the Left?

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 24, 2024 8:01 am

Since the inquisition eventually comes for everyone not bowing and scraping before holy edicts, it is just duck and cover, not too unlike getting under one’s desk as the nuclear warhead screams earthward..

Reply to  AndyHce
September 24, 2024 10:01 am

Nobody expects the [Spanish] Inquisition.

ferdberple
September 24, 2024 5:28 am

If Canada exported enough natural gas to China to offset just 20% of Chinese coal consumption, this would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than 100% of Total Canadian emissions for all sectors.

Canada would be net zero and at the same time gain a 6% boost in GDP.

Instead the Canadian government is restricting exports of Canadian natural gas, increasing global CO2 emissions and increasing Canadian debt to the point where debt servicing costs more than Canada spends on health care. As evidenced by extremely long wait time in Canada for medical services.

Legalized Euthanasia is the fastest growing Canadian medical procedure. Canada leads the world in this regard.

Sparta Nova 4
September 24, 2024 7:11 am

Integration promotes a team effort.
Diversity promotes individualism.

We must diversify! (DEI mandate).

We are imploding.

September 24, 2024 1:32 pm

As a Canadian oil and gas geologist for 37 years, I’ve seen the push against Canadian production from the US as well. Back in the days of Bush, he and Cheney came to our oilsands and in a speech announced how Canada, with Mexico,was key to North American energy security. We professionals laughed: the energy security involved was American. Nobody else.

US influence killed Arctic oil and gas production and pipelines. It killed the Keystone pipeline AND an attempt to export Western Canadian crude via pipeline through the Pacific ports of Canada, while scrubbing exports through Eastern Canada. We can’t ship refined products south because the American refineries would suffer economically.

Canadian production is landlocked by intent, in our opinion.

Saudi will run out of oil one day. So will Venezuela. Others are way down the road to depletion already. If it weren’t for fracking, so would the US. The decline rates of fracked gas/oil wells are horrendous, like 90% over 12 months. Its only constant drilling that keeps production up. But the US will still need oil and gas: when the oil/gas of Others is gone, the US will simply look north.

The issue here is not incompetence or malevolence. It’s national strategy. In 20, 30 years the taps will open again.

My career was just timed badly!

Bob
September 24, 2024 1:46 pm

This is not a real problem, it is a wholly government manufactured problem. You can play stupid little pretend policy games and screw your citizens over all you want. It isn’t going to change average global temperatures one iota. This is stupid.

Edward Katz
September 24, 2024 6:31 pm

The Canadian electorate, in the upcoming federal election probably next spring, needs to let the Liberal Party and its supporters of convenience know that it’s more concerned with affordable living costs rather than wild-eyed schemes to save the planet. It’s economic growth and export opportunities based to a large degree on fossil fuels that need to be exploited and never mind the pipe dream of clean energy dominance because that’s a substantial distance away.