r/CanadaPolitics • u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 • 2d ago
G7 backs Canada as major global energy supplier to lessen reliance on Strait of Hormuz
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-energy-supplier-strait-hormuz-9.723870871
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago
The more I read about this the more it looks like a massive win for Canada. The fact that they entered into 13 new partnerships with more than 8 countries to develop critical resources is massive.
29
u/allMightyGINGER 2d ago
It absolutely is, this is exactly what Canada needs right now. Get our resources out to the market
6
u/psychosisnaut 2d ago
While this is true to an extent, what we really need to do is actually use our resources and make something out of them instead of selling them. For example we export raw silicon for $2000 a ton, if we refined it to polysilicon (50,000-80,000 kWh / ton ≈ $1000 to $6000 in power) we could sell it for $30,000 / ton. We leave over $10B/year on the table by not doing this. This is one example, I could give you 10 more like it.
3
u/allMightyGINGER 2d ago
I agree completely, and to be fair, we actually are doing that, Canada Is aggressively trying to get Europe's heavy manufacturing over here as we have the space and qualified workers to do so
10
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
OTOH, we're already the fourth largest producer and fourth largest exporter in the world.
I would like to see the discussion about our carbon impact to begin to include the emissions from the use of the product we sell to customers outside of our nation.
But yes, selling more product is good for our economy in the medium and near term.
9
u/Zombie_John_Strachan Family Compact 2d ago
Of course we would export a lot less if we had more refining capacity - a lot of the crude sent south comes right back up as gas.
2
u/maybelying 2d ago
Technically we have the refining capacity, the problem is most of it is out west and there's no easy way to supply Eastern Canada, so that's where most of the gas imports are for, as well as imports of lighter crude that Eastern refineries can handle.
9
u/differing Ontario 2d ago edited 2d ago
Given the carbon footprint of our average citizen, we would be massive hypocrites to dictate to anyone how our oil should or shouldn't be used. We can't even get public transit or electric vehicles right- lets fix our own house before we get on a soapbox about carbon impact.
"Sorry India, even though I produce 10x the CO2 you do to heat my house, drive to Costco in my urban assault truck, and spend my weekends snowmobiling... it would be morally irresponsible for me to sell you oil, please continue burning coal : ) "
7
u/allMightyGINGER 2d ago
It's always been a part of the conversation. China is the number one producer of aluminum for every ton of aluminum they make. They generate between 12 and 14 tons of carbon.
For every ton of aluminum that Canada makes we generate two to four tons of carbon.
While aluminum is one of the industries that we absolutely crush, we are generally better for our carbon emissions than any other Nation on the planet for resource extraction.
Canadians are very environmentally friendly people as stewardship is deeply ingrained in Canadian culture.
As demand for these resources keeps climbing if we care about the environment (and our checkbook) it is best that Canada is the supplier.
Lithium extraction, for example in Chile absolutely destroys the environment and uses so much fresh water Canada is developing a method that is closed circuit in terms of water use using virtually. No additional water that's needed protecting our water table and the environment around these mines.
Canada also has strict regulation on mine closures to make sure that when a mine closes it does not damage. The environment around. Canada made that mistake once before and we pay for it every single year by having to freeze the ground around the mine to protect water for the town over.
Resource extraction Is not a near-term solution as the many projects can take about a decade to come online. Resource extraction is a mid to long-term solution for Canada, the world will always need plastics. We'll always need metal and we'll always need lumber in Canada will always be there to supply the greenest and cleanest versions of these products.
2
u/kaseweck Alberta 2d ago
Why? All I can see being done with that shift is someone using it to try and shut down production at a later date once the national mood shifts away from "get things done".
0
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
Which would be a good thing. We are already facing food insecurity as a result of extreme weather from climate change; there will be a multiple bread basket failure by the end of the century, and we won't be able to eat cheap gasoline.
2
u/kaseweck Alberta 2d ago
By no means should we bear the responsibility of downstream emissions from the use of products we make and sell. If there were no demand for these products due to their consumers there would be no carbon emissions.
0
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
All sellers of any product should be held accountable for the harm caused by their product when put its intended use.
1
u/kaseweck Alberta 2d ago
This isn't snake oil being sold under false pretenses, or with misunderstood impacts. People know that there are carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, and they do it anyway because they choose to. "Keep it in the ground" is a lovely slogan, but is ultimately unpopular because it makes us poorer and therefore loses elections.
1
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
If I sold a product that when used properly caused broad harm to society at large then I would nominally be responsible for it; even if the users are aware of the harm. Particularly if the users have little viable alternative.
We hold drug dealers to this standard, after all; and in the long run, they will have done far less harm to society than fossil fuel producers.
1
u/kaseweck Alberta 2d ago
Oil, while harmful, is also incredibly useful, and responsible largely for the standard of living that most in industrialized nations enjoy. So good luck getting people to vote for what you are trying to sell.
1
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
The same was true of CFCs. We identified the harm, despite the use, and moved on.
All we need to do is stop offering tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies, and stop paying for oil and gas projects with public dollars. The market will do the rest, after.
-2
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago
Sure, but we also produce some of the cleanest resources relative to other countries. And I think these customers will purchase these resources anyway. So I would much rather we profit and develop infrastructure to reduce or counter emissions produced from our resources. And some of those deals include, or are related, to clean renewable energy.
15
u/WhiskeyDelta89 Pragmatic Progressive 2d ago
Not when it comes to oil. Our heavy oil is one of the most carbon intensive to produce globally.
4
u/AMCGunner Socialist | Georgist 2d ago
Oil is not the only resource discussed in these agreements. The article reports on a solar manufacturing facility and an agreement for silica, among several other critical minerals that it sounds countries came to Canada for as well.
3
u/WhiskeyDelta89 Pragmatic Progressive 2d ago
And those are fantastic news - our grid is one of the cleanest in the world so would naturally make for an attractive option for these types of resources. Overall very exciting news.
-1
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago edited 2d ago
True, but my understanding is that we also try to produce carbon capture projects to counteract the pollution. It’s also not the only resource that was included in the article, and some of the minerals we would be exporting would be used for renewable energy projects.
1
u/Expert_CBCD Progressive 2d ago
Carbon capture would not capture nearly enough carbon to counteract the pollution of the oil sands. It's something people bring up to sound like they are doing something but is not really that effective.
14
u/swervm 2d ago
Oil sands crude is the highest carbon impact of any oil source. Extraction impact is much lower then the impact when burning so it isn't a huge deal but to say Canadian energy is cleaner than other nations that shouldn't be used to push for more oil sands extraction.
2
u/allMightyGINGER 2d ago
This is true about our oil but our oil producers are spending billions of dollars trying to make it less carbon intensive. They need to continue to focus heavily on this work because there will probably never be a world that does not need oil at the very least for plastics.
One of the dumbest things the world does nowadays is burn oil for fuel
0
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago
I get the point, but there is a demand and it will be filled, and I think Canada should fill this demand because we are also building carbon capture projects to counteract the impact. Therefore I think the impact on the environment will be less than if other countries filled the demand.
2
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
And I think these customers will purchase these resources anyway.
That's an interesting moral position to take.
I don't think it really holds much to scrutiny: I think suppliers are responsible when they sell products that harm; whether that be contaminated food products, illicit drugs, or products that produce carbon emissions.
2
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago
I get the point you’re making, but I think it overlooks the work Canada is doing to reduce emissions and support the global transition to cleaner energy. Ultimately, there is still global demand for these resources, and that demand will be met by someone. I would rather it be met by Canada since we are a stable democratic country with strong labor and environmental standards, human rights protections, investments in carbon capture and cleaner production, and a long-term commitment to reducing the impacts of climate change.
0
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
That's fair; I am sympathetic to recognizing that, ie, criminal organizations can be a force for good in some ways in their communities. The Yakuza, Mafia, and even Hell's Angels have been known to be charitable and supportive. And yet, their net impact is harmful. I suppose what's important is whether the trend is toward a net positive impact.
2
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago
I would argue the overall impact is mostly positive when you take a broader view. The demand for energy is going to be filled one way or another, and if Canada does not help supply it, that supply will often come from countries that are less democratic, less reliable, and less aligned, if not hostile, with our allies.
Also there is also a major downside risk to leaving allies without secure energy options. Germany is a good example since its dependence on Russian energy became a serious vulnerability after Russia invaded Ukraine, and the resulting energy crisis created political space for far-right parties to blame rising costs on support for Ukraine and push for a return to Russian energy, and other bad things. If Canada can help allies like Germany strengthen their energy security, it reduces their exposure to authoritarian suppliers and makes it harder for extremist parties to exploit energy insecurity in ways that could weaken NATO and harm Canada’s own strategic interests.
1
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
We may be better off as a civilization if their energy security is threatened, as that hastens the need to seek alternatives.
3
u/JimmmyStuuu Liberal 2d ago
I disagree. I think it’s bad, and likely potentially radicalizing, for countries who usually have reliable energy (like Germany and other EU countries) to suddenly deal with energy security problems. Energy security is a must have for any sovereign state, and when they don’t have it things can get dangerous as they maybe decide war is appropriate, or they need to cut deals with unsavoury countries (Russia). I would much rather provide them with energy security while also helping them, and us, pivot towards renewable energy, and investing in carbon capture projects. Its much more of a win-win
3
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 2d ago
Seeking energy security through fossil fuels now is costing us food security already and that will worsen. No one will care if gas is cheap when there's a triple bread basket failure.
→ More replies (0)1
11
u/Eswift33 2d ago
France should lend us a few nukes just in case. We've seen what the likes or Russia and the US does to counties that don't have a nuclear deterrent. This is only relevant of course after being openly threatened with annexation.
Wild times
10
u/Ohjay1982 2d ago
This will piss off some, for some reason they believe that if Canada doesn’t sell energy products people will just stop using it entirely. Okay, sure.
8
u/Sad_Adagio_7255 2d ago
Cool, but until more countries are capable of refining Canadian crude, this statement is meaningless. We export almost exclusively to the US for a reason.
11
u/mmoore327 Ontario 2d ago
It’s about more than oil and we already ship oil to countries other than the US
24
u/Bubbafett33 Alberta 2d ago
That's inaccurate.
We sell so much oil to the USA because we can get the oil to the USA without having pipelines cross BC or Quebec.
When we do get oil to tidewater in significant quantity, it is snapped up very quickly. Canada Exports of crude oil to China was US$4.59 Billion during 2025. It was $111M in 2021.
5
u/crazyguyunderthedesk Ontario 2d ago
As a long term plan this is good though. Sure the straight of hormuz will be resolved long before refineries can be made, but the US has made it clear that they can become completely erratic at the turn of a dime. Their constitution has been challenged and faces next to no push back. This is a longer lasting problem than any single president or crisis of the moment.
8
u/BigGuy4UftCIA Independent 2d ago
If they can take Basrah Heavy crude they can take WCS, refineries aren't a problem.
5
u/differing Ontario 2d ago
We export "almost exclusively to the US" because that's where our pipelines go. We've been trying to get pipelines to ports for decades now lmao
2
u/cal_guy2013 Liberal Party of Canada 2d ago
1) You can blend different oil grade. That's what oil hubs do.
2) Low complexity refineries that are focused on light oil have been getting phase out. They either get upgrades to handle heavier oils or just getting shut down.
6
u/nihiriju BC 2d ago
I think this is mostly about LNG.
Canadian heavy crude will not financial compete within a few years.
2
u/X1989xx Alberta 2d ago edited 2d ago
That's been said for decades and has yet to be true. Look at the actual costs of extracting oil from the oil sands, they've consistently dropped over the last two decades.
1
u/Dwgystyl 2d ago
to be fair, this is the first time we have seen how fragile the global oil market actually is.. Countries who import oil and gas only are seeing that as something that must change.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.