US depends on Canadian oil, despite Trump's comments, Cenovus CEO says
The U.S. relies on Canadian oil imports, despite comments to the contrary by U.S. President Donald Trump, the CEO of Cenovus Energy told the Global Energy Conference in Calgary on Tuesday.
Trump has threatened on-again, off-again tariffs on Canada's oil, of which nearly 4 million barrels per day are exported to the United States. Canada is the world's fourth-largest oil producer, and fifth-largest natural gas producer.
Trump has previously said the U.S. does not need to import goods, including oil and gas, from Canada.
Prime Minister Mark Carney, who won a minority government in April on a wave of anti-Trump voter sentiment, has said the country's old relationship with the U.S. based on steadily increasing economic integration is over.
1:59
Alberta's energy sector responds to lower tariff
Jon McKenzie, who heads oil sands company Cenovus and chairs the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers industry group, said trade tensions between the two nations have highlighted the need for Canada to diversify its exports.
Story continues below advertisement
But he said that need does not take away from the fact the two countries' energy systems are inextricably linked.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'What hasn't changed is energy economics and energy physics,' said McKenzie. 'The reality is we are hardwired into the U.S. system.'
Canada depends on U.S. refiners to buy the vast majority of its exported oil, while landlocked U.S. refineries in the Midwest are configured to process the grade of crude that Canada produces.
McKenzie said Canada has the opportunity to grow its oil output in the coming decades, and added the country's new government needs to recognize Canada's co-dependence with the U.S. and seek to improve that relationship.
'We need to make sure that we don't act viscerally when we're threatened, and that we act intelligently in our long-term interest,' he said.
As part of its response to the U.S. tariff threat, Carney has pledged to identify and fast-track projects of national interest aimed at helping Canada become what he calls a conventional and clean energy superpower.
McKenzie said the oil and gas sector does not want the federal government to pick winners and losers by deciding which projects to fast-track.
He said the industry instead wants to see broad regulatory reform that will remove barriers to investing in oil and gas projects.
Story continues below advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
Wildfires Push Climate Onto the Agenda as G7 Leaders Meet in Alberta
With the G7 leaders' summit due to descend on Kananaskis, Alberta June 15-17, questions are swirling about what Canada can accomplish with this year's G7 presidency and how agreement is possible with Donald Trump in the room-while swirling smoke from a devastating Prairie wildfire season helps bring climate change back onto the leaders' agenda. Now in its 50th year, the G7 brings together the leaders of seven of the world's biggest economies plus the European Union in what is described as a "forum for co-operation, stability, and shared prosperity." The leaders' summit each year is meant to end with a consensus statement of all the countries. But community voices on everything from climate change to international finance and justice have rarely been satisfied with the outcome. Much of the news analysis leading up to this year's event has cast the G7 as a diminished institution, reduced to handshakes, photo ops, and carefully-worded generalities that are the most the countries can agree to. Coming into this year's summit, the G7's "legitimacy is hanging by a thread. Its promises have fallen flat, its unity is strained, and its moral voice is fading fast," retired civil servant Bhagwant Sandhu writes for The Hill Times. "Originally conceived as a multilateral pact among Western democracies to steward global economic control, the G7 was never intended to serve the desires of its most powerful-and now unpredictable and illiberal-member: the United States," he adds. "The group's initial goals have been obscured by authoritarianism, unilateral action, and creeping militarization." That leaves Prime Minister Mark Carney with a choice, Sandhu says. "Canada can, of course, preside over the usual choreography of communiques and handshakes-or try something more ambitious: restore the G7 to its founding mission." Carney's office kicked off that discussion June 7 with a list of the three "core missions" the PM will pursue in his role as G7 president, all "anchored in building stronger economies"-the same priority, CBC points out, that he has brought to the domestic scene in Canada. The list includes: "Protecting our communities and the world" by "strengthening peace and security, countering foreign interference and transnational crime, and improving joint responses to wildfires"; View our latest digests Building energy security and speeding up the "digital transition" by fortifying critical mineral supply chains and using technologies like artificial intelligence to spur economic growth; Investing in stronger infrastructure, creating higher-paying jobs, and fostering "dynamic", competitive markets for business. But much of the attention so far has been on the chaos Trump will bring to the table, just as he did in 2018 when Canada last hosted the G7 in Charlevoix, Quebec. Then, as now, U.S. tariffs were at the centre of the discussion, and Trump issued two angry tweets pulling the U.S. out of the leaders' final communique, just hours after countries had signed off on the text. "A show of unity on big geopolitical problems that holds longer than a few hours after President Donald Trump's participation will be seen as success after the American president in 2018 blew up a fragile consensus even before he left the last Canada-hosted G7 in Charlevoix, Que., later angrily insulting then-prime minister and G7 host Justin Trudeau," writes Toronto Star Ottawa bureau chief Tonda McCharles. This time around, "a key performance indicator for the summit will [be] getting something down that all leaders can agree upon that will also include the U.S.-and that will be a challenge," Deanna Horton, a diplomat who served twice in the Canadian embassy in Washington, told The Hill Times. On June 11, McCharles reported that organizers of this year's summit are not looking for a final communique that represents a consensus of all G7 members. "Instead, G7 host Carney is expected to issue a G7 chair's statement and the closed-door high-stakes sessions that could nevertheless produce some heated discussions will be summarized in documents likely to be so whitewashed of the juicy bits, that they could almost be written in advance." The Star has details on how the Summit agenda is likely to play out. Carney has also stirred controversy with the list of "middle power" countries he's invited to the summit. In addition to the leaders of Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and South Korea, the list includes Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose government has been linked to acts of murder and extortion on Canadian soil, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has been connected to human rights crackdowns, mistreatment of migrants, and the 2018 murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Meanwhile, Carney's plan for the summit makes scant direct reference to past G7 commitments in areas like power sector decarbonization, methane controls, forest and land degradation, and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies-a promise the countries made in 2016 and were supposed to deliver on by this year. "Its climate commitments remain stalled, and the vaunted $600-billion infrastructure pledge to the Global South-first announced in 2021 as the 'Build Back Better World' initiative-has been more frequently rebranded and re-announced than realized," Sandhu writes for The Hill Times. Moreover, "the G7 has yet to fulfill its decades-old promise to allocate 0.7% of each member's gross national income to humanitarian aid. At the start of the 2023 Hiroshima summit, it was still short by a staggering US$4.49-trillion. More troubling still, members like the United Kingdom have diverted aid funds from humanitarian crises to finance NATO expansions, raising serious questions about the group's priorities." In a release this week, Oxfam warned the G7 is in the midst of its biggest-ever foreign aid cut. The member countries, which account for three-quarters of the world's official development assistance, are on track to cut their aid budgets 28% in 2026 compared to 2024 levels, the organization said. "Rather than breaking from the Trump administration's cruel dismantling of USAID and other U.S. foreign assistance, G7 countries like the UK, Germany, and France are instead following the same path, slashing aid with brutal measures that will cost millions of lives," said Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar. "The G7's retreat from the world is unprecedented and couldn't come at a worse time, with hunger, poverty, and climate harm intensifying. The G7 cannot claim to build bridges on one hand while tearing them down with the other." Meanwhile, in a G7 agenda stripped bare of any language that could rile up a volatile U.S. president, author Arno Kopecky says the massive wildfires covering swaths of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are playing into Canadian officials' plan for keeping climate change in the conversation. When officials first began planning the meeting last year, "Canada's Liberal government wanted the G7 to discuss climate change (the host nation sets the summit agenda), but what if Donald Trump was there as President?" Kopecky writes for the Globe and Mail. "This was no abstract worry either: the day before Jasper caught fire, Joe Biden had dropped out of the presidential race, and the Democrats' prospects looked dismal." Officials "knew that if they start with the standard stuff on climate change, Donald Trump and his people would get out their red pens and just say 'no way,'" John Kirton, founding director of the G7 Research Group, told Kopecky. "So then, what is your strategy? And wildfires was the answer." The difference, Kopecky writes, is that while Trump refuses to listen to climate science, he's seen a rash of wildfires since he returned to the White House in January, and his country is now receiving smoke from the blazes in Canada. "So Donald Trump's got a reason to be seen to be doing something about it," Kirton said. It also "speaks volumes" that the energy security section of the G7 agenda talks about artificial intelligence, but makes no reference to oil and gas, Kopecky writes. Source: The Energy Mix
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Canada's Conservatives still aren't serious about housing
He was so close to getting it. Jacob Mantle, the newly-elected thirty-something Conservative MP for York-Durham, rose in the House of Commons on Tuesday to make a point about housing costs. 'Oxford Economics reports that Toronto's housing market ranks among the worst in the world for affordability. At the same time, mortgage delinquency rates in Toronto are higher than at any time during the pandemic. The financial burden is suffocating the next generation of homebuyers.' But Mantle wasn't actually interested in proposing solutions to that problem. Instead, he wanted to whine about the fact that the Carney government isn't going to table a budget until the fall, which the government has defended on the basis that it will be better able to account for the fallout from Donald Trump's tariffs by then. And despite his supposed concern over housing, Mantle was dismissive of the government's plan to embrace and scale up modular housing in Canada. 'My generation refuses to live in a shipping container,' Mantle said. For what it's worth, I suspect many members of his generation (and mine) would be happy to live in the sort of modified shipping containers that are being designed and built right now, including the ones in his own city. But modular housing is so much more than just the use and conversion of shipping containers. It's an entirely new approach to homebuilding, one that uses factories and their inherent economies of scale to drive down costs. They can be one or two-storey, single or multi-family, and configured in any number of layouts and sizes. In an environment where driving down construction costs is a nearly existential issue for Mantle's generation, you'd think he would be more open to new ideas and economic innovation — especially when it promises to use more Canadian materials and labour. Then again, if you've been paying close attention to the Conservative Party of Canada's approach to this issue, his behaviour was entirely predictable. Under Pierre Poilievre's leadership, the party and its MPs have repeatedly highlighted the very real problem of rising housing costs in Canada and the disproportionate impacts they have on younger people. But when it comes to actual solutions to that problem — ones, at least, that don't involve cutting taxes or regulations and assuming the market will magically solve the problem it has helped create — those same Conservatives either disappear into the metaphorical bushes or come out on the other side of the issue. In Calgary, for example, opposition to a city-wide measure to increase affordability and density while reducing sprawl came mostly from Conservative-leaning councilors like Dan McLean, Peter Demong and Sean Chu, with some conspicuous cheerleading work coming from federal Conservative MP Greg McLean. In British Columbia, provincial Conservative party leader John Rustad decided to go to bat for the very 'gatekeepers' standing in the way of new housing that Poilievre had repeatedly promised he would eliminate. Even in Ontario, where Conservative politicians have been more visibly and vocally on-side with pro-supply measures, the results of the Ford government's efforts have been underwhelming, to say the least. We are not in a moment where we can afford to reflexively turn our noses up at potential solutions. And yet, Conservative politicians like Mantle seem determined to find fault in every proposed approach that doesn't flatter their own pre-existing ideological and political biases towards cutting taxes and reducing government involvement. Modular housing will not be, in and of itself, the solution to a problem that has been building for more than two decades. But that's only because nothing on its own will, or could, be the solution. The Carney government has embraced modular housing as a way to lower costs and improve affordability in Canada's housing market. Canada's Conservatives, on the other hand, seem determined to miss the mass timber for the trees. Instead, we need every possible lever being pulled right now, from regulatory reform and improved operating efficiencies to direct government involvement, procurement, and even development. Mantle is right that the status quo has failed his generation. But he's wrong to indignantly oppose a good-faith effort at challenging and changing it, and all the more so as he pretends to speak on behalf of an entire generation. We can only hope that his party and its online proxies don't decide to turn modular housing into this year's iteration of the 15-minute city and throw a self-evidently good and decent idea into the stew of online conspiracies it always seems to have at low boil. Yes, that might feed the eternally hungry appetites of their increasingly online political base. But it won't do anything to address the problem Conservatives like Mantle claim to care about. At some point, Canadians may conclude that they're not actually all that interested in solving it.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Canada risks squandering multi-billion-dollar critical minerals market without 'swift action': report
Canada risks squandering a $12-billion-a-year domestic market for minerals and metals key to the country's energy transition by 2040 if the federal government cannot attract the massive investments needed to propel development of copper, nickel, lithium, graphite, cobalt and rare earth element mines, a new report has concluded. The study out today by the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI), a think tank, found Canada's place in the global critical minerals market would be jeopardized unless at least $30 billion in capital flowed into the country's mining sector over the next 15 years to meet growing minerals demand driven by technologies ranging from EV batteries to wind turbines and power infrastructure. 'Securing Canada's place in the global critical minerals race requires swift action to unlock public and private investment that can power Canada's energy transition with these building blocks of clean technologies,' said the CCI's director of clean growth, Marisa Beck, who was lead author of the report. "We are at a phase globally in critical minerals market development where the market is reorganizing itself [against the backdrop of the energy transition] and in the midst of major geopolitical and trade upheavals, so it is the perfect time to establish policies to support Canada's mining sector and supply chain,' she added, speaking with Canada's National Observer. To meet skyrocketing worldwide demand for these six key critical minerals – which the International Energy Agency, an industry watchdog, forecasts to reach $770 billion by 2040 – investment in Canadian mines would have to rise to $65 billion by the end of the next decade. Facilitating this investment, according to the report, which comes ahead of next week's G7 leaders summit in Alberta where critical minerals is one of three topics topping the agenda, will require: agreements between government and the private sector sharing the financial burden of capital investments in critical mineral mines; more funding for Indigenous communities to partner on these projects; strengthened environmental regulations that reduce risks and liabilities for neighbouring communities; and streamlined mining project reviews and decision-making processes. "Securing Canada's place in the global critical minerals race requires swift action to unlock investment that can power our energy transition with these building blocks of clean technologies,' says the Canadian Climate Institute's Marisa Beck. 'We are seeing very fast progress in a lot of the technologies that will need these critical minerals, so it is important to focus on the high-level areas of mine development, but we also recognize that the processing side and the high-value manufacturing side must all be considered going forward,' said Beck. 'But this was outside the scope of this report.' Marilyn Spink, director of operations at the Canadian Critical Minerals and Metals Alliance, an industry advocacy group, warned that the report could entrench 'old-world thinking' by government and industry on new mining sector development that focuses on resource development but 'doesn't sufficiently consider demand-pull,' where future market strategy is more demand-determined rather than supply-led. 'What is Canada going after?' 'What is Canada going after? Materials enable the economy; critical minerals do not. We need to intelligently decide who the customers for these critical minerals will be — EV battery-makers, sure, but think about the wider clean-tech space, energy infrastructure, robotics and so on,' she said, speaking with Canada's National Observer. 'Then decide which critical minerals you mine and where you mine them, because then you can build the midstream facilities to process them and then add real high-value manufacturing that will lead to economic development and job creation.' She cautioned that without following this strategy, Canada could fall prey to the 'resource curse,' when a country 'fails to leverage a natural resource well because it doesn't add manufacturing value and this results in slowly eroding the wider economy.' In a bid to ramp up mining of critical minerals in a global market dominated in recent decades by China, Ottawa in 2022 announced $3.8 billion in federal funding to finance geoscience and exploration, mineral processing, manufacturing and recycling applications, as well as research and development. And last year, Canada's critical minerals list was updated with three new materials, bringing the total to 34. But only a handful of critical minerals mining projects have gained traction in the past year, with developments in BC, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec recently receiving a financial boost from the $1.5 billion Canadian Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund.
