In a gold rush, who makes the most money? Not the miners or prospectors. A few of them get filthy rich, most just hit dirt. The guy who profits the most in a gold rush is the one who sells the shovels.
I've commented before, but I really am a strong believer in Harold Innis's staples thesis. The Canadian economy is built around exporting raw natural resources to more developed partners. It has been that way from the fur trade in the 17th century to the oilsands today. This is a pattern that has worked for us, but it also brings with it severe vulnerabilities to resource depletion, trade disruptions, or demand shifts.
It won't be easy, but I think Canada needs to force itself up the value chain. We should want to export equipment and expertise, not raw resources. I hope this electrification strategy will move us i that direction. Mastering electrification in Canada can generate the industries and communities of practice needed to export electrification abroad.
You are so right! Many years ago I worked with Garnet Anthony and Dennis Sherbanuk on the CBC noon show Alberta Today. Dennis was the agriculture reporter and host. Garnet covered resources like energy, forestry and mining. Garnet would get so frustrated. Hewers of wood, drawers of water. That’s all Alberta is he would snort whenever he saw another opportunity to add value slip through the government’s fingers like sand. I never forgot that.
Is it really a surprise to see electrification factored into PM Carney's overhaul strategy for Canada's economy? The Major Projects Office is led by CEO Dawn Farrell, a decades-long veteran of the electricity industry, and the Hon. Tim Hodgson brings extensive experience in the ON electricity sector to his role as Minister of Energy & Natural Resources.
True, the emphasis appears to be on the supply side over the demand side, but that could reflect the lead-lag in the mammoth undertaking of a national infrastructure system overhaul.
PM Carney has a vision for creating a great country. This plan, along with previous announcements, are positioning Canada to be a world leader well into the next century.
That is leadership.
That type of generational thinking & planning as opposed to the knee jerk, reactionary, chaos producing policies of, say, Danielle Smith are truly nation building!
This is an excellent development. I think the proposed timeline is insufficiently urgent, but it is undoubtedly progress. And I'd add that a new pipeline and increased oil and gas exports remain inappropriate and environmentally irresponsible.
I felt the same initially. 2050? But then I realized that the target date to double what we already have is actually pretty substantial PLUS PM Carney comes from a risk management perspective and background.
Pretty certain we’ll find he often takes an under promise over deliver approach.
He needs a target to frame the discussion without creating too much skepticism.
At least I hope that’s what’s happening. And no matter the date I’m just glad to hear a positive forward thinking approach to the issue.
Judging from the regulation fast-track discussion paper posted recently, I suspect Carney et al are still focused on nuclear rather than solar/wind/batteries—which are much cheaper and faster—maybe for political reasons/optics or because the administration is not up to speed on the distributed energy technology. Natural gas for electric generation is definitely not clean energy, no matter how often that line gets repeated. We will see how positive people are feeling after the announcement tomorrow on the pipeline MOU.
How do we get the electricity? Nuclear is still horribly expensive.- Ontario is still paying off it's original nuclear plants becauss Ontario rate payers don't want to pay the full cost of nuclear energy. Ford and Smith cancelled all the windfarms. Like to hear how he plans to generate all this electricity.
I have not looked at the actual announcement yet, but it is a hopeful move in the right direction. One aspect that must be addressed are the provincial utilities. Here in Nova Scotia, NS Power is not the exemplar of a well managed utility, having to recently employ meter readers to take the data from their smart meters because their data systems were compromised.
There is definitely a role for the feds to play but how to sort out the provincial suppliers will be a difficult problem in itself.
As a retired clergyman, Markham, I’m very interested as to which New Testament parable Danielle will advance now to accommodate this shift from a carbon-fuels based economy to an electricity-based infrastructure and thereby keep her religionists cohort and, of course, Jesus on her side for election day ballot-box stuffing purposes. 🤪
The pipelines at full capacity are likely only for the next 10 years. There will still be a market for oil/gas for some time but less and less of it over time. This is a transition cost to renewables which will become cheaper and more attractive. Change like this takes time. But we are doing it - and clearly committed to it with a strategy like this.
Thanks Sheila. Maybe you could fill me in a bit more? My understanding from Markham's writing has been that Carney's plan to invest heavily in oil and gas did not make sense because building pipelines will take years, and by then, demand for oil/gas will be decreasing, as you say. So does this announcement on electrification mean Carney is turning away from pipelines? I see the initial tranche of national infrastructure investments does not include any pipelines either.
Strikes me there are two issues: The Ukraine and Iran wars indicates how vulnerable oil and gas supplies are and how dependent the world still is on it. Especially for air and sea transport. Especially right, now and it will no doubt get worse. There will be big shortages among allied countries within weeks or months especially if Hormuz stays closed for any length of time. Canada is seen as a place to help through that looming crisis. It could have impacts for the next decade.
Thing two: Alberta politics. How do we keep that province happy? If Daniele Smith and her awful UCP party don’t do well or are ousted in the next election, the rush to build another pipeline to get oil to tidewater may not be quite as rushed. However, TMX is already running at capacity and bringing in great royalties for both Alberta and the feds. Clearly another pipeline would be an economic win. If the second pipeline runs south along the existing TMX, it will be built faster, less environmental impact, and there is speculation other things could run in that pipeline. Maybe Water. We have lots. Maybe eventually sell to the US as the midwest has been dramatically drying up over decades. We would sell it for a good price, not give it away. Long term planning.
In a gold rush, who makes the most money? Not the miners or prospectors. A few of them get filthy rich, most just hit dirt. The guy who profits the most in a gold rush is the one who sells the shovels.
I've commented before, but I really am a strong believer in Harold Innis's staples thesis. The Canadian economy is built around exporting raw natural resources to more developed partners. It has been that way from the fur trade in the 17th century to the oilsands today. This is a pattern that has worked for us, but it also brings with it severe vulnerabilities to resource depletion, trade disruptions, or demand shifts.
It won't be easy, but I think Canada needs to force itself up the value chain. We should want to export equipment and expertise, not raw resources. I hope this electrification strategy will move us i that direction. Mastering electrification in Canada can generate the industries and communities of practice needed to export electrification abroad.
I have this same thought. We have the ingenuity, the capacity and the materials to craft our own value-added products.
You are so right! Many years ago I worked with Garnet Anthony and Dennis Sherbanuk on the CBC noon show Alberta Today. Dennis was the agriculture reporter and host. Garnet covered resources like energy, forestry and mining. Garnet would get so frustrated. Hewers of wood, drawers of water. That’s all Alberta is he would snort whenever he saw another opportunity to add value slip through the government’s fingers like sand. I never forgot that.
Is it really a surprise to see electrification factored into PM Carney's overhaul strategy for Canada's economy? The Major Projects Office is led by CEO Dawn Farrell, a decades-long veteran of the electricity industry, and the Hon. Tim Hodgson brings extensive experience in the ON electricity sector to his role as Minister of Energy & Natural Resources.
True, the emphasis appears to be on the supply side over the demand side, but that could reflect the lead-lag in the mammoth undertaking of a national infrastructure system overhaul.
Visionary.
PM Carney has a vision for creating a great country. This plan, along with previous announcements, are positioning Canada to be a world leader well into the next century.
That is leadership.
That type of generational thinking & planning as opposed to the knee jerk, reactionary, chaos producing policies of, say, Danielle Smith are truly nation building!
Good news. They finally listened to Energi Media and listened to our visionary Markham!
This is an excellent development. I think the proposed timeline is insufficiently urgent, but it is undoubtedly progress. And I'd add that a new pipeline and increased oil and gas exports remain inappropriate and environmentally irresponsible.
I felt the same initially. 2050? But then I realized that the target date to double what we already have is actually pretty substantial PLUS PM Carney comes from a risk management perspective and background.
Pretty certain we’ll find he often takes an under promise over deliver approach.
He needs a target to frame the discussion without creating too much skepticism.
At least I hope that’s what’s happening. And no matter the date I’m just glad to hear a positive forward thinking approach to the issue.
And nice $7.5 B gift from tax payers to oil and gas to make up the carbon contract for difference up to $130/tonne.
Judging from the regulation fast-track discussion paper posted recently, I suspect Carney et al are still focused on nuclear rather than solar/wind/batteries—which are much cheaper and faster—maybe for political reasons/optics or because the administration is not up to speed on the distributed energy technology. Natural gas for electric generation is definitely not clean energy, no matter how often that line gets repeated. We will see how positive people are feeling after the announcement tomorrow on the pipeline MOU.
How do we get the electricity? Nuclear is still horribly expensive.- Ontario is still paying off it's original nuclear plants becauss Ontario rate payers don't want to pay the full cost of nuclear energy. Ford and Smith cancelled all the windfarms. Like to hear how he plans to generate all this electricity.
I have not looked at the actual announcement yet, but it is a hopeful move in the right direction. One aspect that must be addressed are the provincial utilities. Here in Nova Scotia, NS Power is not the exemplar of a well managed utility, having to recently employ meter readers to take the data from their smart meters because their data systems were compromised.
There is definitely a role for the feds to play but how to sort out the provincial suppliers will be a difficult problem in itself.
🤣
As a retired clergyman, Markham, I’m very interested as to which New Testament parable Danielle will advance now to accommodate this shift from a carbon-fuels based economy to an electricity-based infrastructure and thereby keep her religionists cohort and, of course, Jesus on her side for election day ballot-box stuffing purposes. 🤪
I am not sure how this announcement reconciles with the idea of investing in pipelines and a giant port project? Can anyone shed some light?
The pipelines at full capacity are likely only for the next 10 years. There will still be a market for oil/gas for some time but less and less of it over time. This is a transition cost to renewables which will become cheaper and more attractive. Change like this takes time. But we are doing it - and clearly committed to it with a strategy like this.
Thanks Sheila. Maybe you could fill me in a bit more? My understanding from Markham's writing has been that Carney's plan to invest heavily in oil and gas did not make sense because building pipelines will take years, and by then, demand for oil/gas will be decreasing, as you say. So does this announcement on electrification mean Carney is turning away from pipelines? I see the initial tranche of national infrastructure investments does not include any pipelines either.
Strikes me there are two issues: The Ukraine and Iran wars indicates how vulnerable oil and gas supplies are and how dependent the world still is on it. Especially for air and sea transport. Especially right, now and it will no doubt get worse. There will be big shortages among allied countries within weeks or months especially if Hormuz stays closed for any length of time. Canada is seen as a place to help through that looming crisis. It could have impacts for the next decade.
Thing two: Alberta politics. How do we keep that province happy? If Daniele Smith and her awful UCP party don’t do well or are ousted in the next election, the rush to build another pipeline to get oil to tidewater may not be quite as rushed. However, TMX is already running at capacity and bringing in great royalties for both Alberta and the feds. Clearly another pipeline would be an economic win. If the second pipeline runs south along the existing TMX, it will be built faster, less environmental impact, and there is speculation other things could run in that pipeline. Maybe Water. We have lots. Maybe eventually sell to the US as the midwest has been dramatically drying up over decades. We would sell it for a good price, not give it away. Long term planning.
This is a very good idea.
With proper carbon pricing and an eye to the 2*c preindustrial warming that is expected to be reached in 11 years: 2037.
How it will be done while respecting the new findings is a real problem. I hope they are paying close attention to this: