Power Struggle
Improving the energy dialogue in Canada (and beyond) through honest, non-partisan, and fact- based conversations.
The energy conversation is personal: it’s in our homes, in our hands, and now, it’s in our ears. Power Struggle invites you to listen in on honest, non-partisan, and fact-based conversations between host Stewart Muir and the leaders and thinkers designing modern energy.
Watch videos at https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
Power Struggle
Terry Etam: What Canada Gets Wrong on Energy
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Terry Etam is one of Canada's most outspoken energy thinkers — a former insider turned straight-talking columnist, and the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity. In this wide-ranging Power Struggle conversation with Stewart Muir, Etam lays out what he calls the “energy literacy” gap — the disconnect between public perception and the real-world complexities of energy.
He tackles the myths around pipelines and renewables, explains why the EV mandate misses the mark, and why Canada’s permitting system is broken. Etam calls for pragmatic policy, streamlined infrastructure approvals, and a renewed respect for the people and regions that power the country. From his prairie roots to a career across every corner of the industry, his message is simple: Canada’s future depends on facts, not fantasies.
Don’t miss this honest and urgent episode for anyone who cares about energy, economy, and how we keep the lights on.
The energy conversation is polarizing. But the reality is multidimensional. Get the full story with host Stewart Muir.
Reach out to us with thoughts, questions, or ideas at info@powerstruggle.ca
Linkedin
Instagram
Facebook
Twitter
🎧 For audio versions of our podcast visit powerstruggle.ca and listen on the go in your favourite podcast app!
Video available on Power Struggle’s YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
Welcome to Power Struggle. I'm your host, Stuart Muir. Today's guest is Terry Eatum, described by industry peers as the most influential voice in the Canadian oil patch, and an industry thought leader whose writing has educated, challenged, and inspired thousands of readers to rethink energy policy, economics, and reality in an era of intense ideological polarization on energy issues. It's great to have you in the studio today, Terry.
SPEAKER_00:Thanks for having me. Pleasure to be here.
SPEAKER_01:You bring a rare combination of practical experience, sharp analysis to the energy conversation. I've been following you for years. But over more than 25 years of hands-on experience spanning production, trading, storage, transportation, you've really started with a hands-on the tools approach. And now you're a communicator. That's really rare. And at the same time, you've held executive roles across finance, commodity, trading, logistics, production in Canada's dynamic hydrocarbon sector based out of Calgary, where you're based. Now, rather than retreat into corporate silence, you, Terry, chose, after you acquired all of those experiences in the energy industry, to step into the public arena as a writer. First on the platform of your own making, the Public Energy No. Love that name. And later as a prominent columnist for the widely read BOE report. And you're still a columnist there.
SPEAKER_00:I am, yes.
SPEAKER_01:Now your columns have become must-reads for the industry. Those listening to Power Struggle Today haven't heard of it. It is really kind of the Daily Bible, one of those publications of the Trevor Burrus.
SPEAKER_00:It covers the whole spectrum of energy happenings in an objective manner. I think it's just the news.
SPEAKER_01:It's where you get your information if you're in that in that world, policymakers, professionals. You're also the author of a best-selling book, The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity, Clearing the Air Before Cleaning the Air. And we're going to get into some of those threads. But this became a touchstone, this book, for people looking for reasoned arguments in energy debates, especially over the last decade. When in Canada, that was quite a you know pitched debate a lot of the time. But I I want to set the stage for this conversation. I think it's important because what sets you apart is your refusal to pander to extremes and your advocacy for what you've often called energy literacy. I mean that's that's the term. Um, a grounded understanding that energy is life. And that the path forward lies in pragmatic innovation rather than ideological purism. That comes through in in your writings, you know, every column in one way or another. So, Terry, you've been in the Canadian energy sector for a quarter of a century or more. What drew you in?
SPEAKER_00:Uh yeah, so it's a bit more now, actually. That's uh my book came out five years ago, now. Uh what drew me in was uh where I came from. I I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan, and the um options were limited at the when I was uh exiting high school. The the imperative was to get a job. And so I I headed down the path of there's nothing locally. There was nothing in Saskatoon even or in the province much. And um the oil patch was quite healthy at the time. There was a lot of recruiting that was happening on campus. And so I was fortunate enough to land a summer job um in Alberta. And so I came out here and worked in a field office, and it was I absolutely loved it. Just the the action and the uh the the pace of development and and the professionalism of it all. And it just drew me right to it. And um then I was fortunate enough to get a second summer job, and then after graduation, there were job offers in Calgary that didn't exist anywhere else. And so I just gravitated into the field and I just never left. It just felt very entrepreneurial and and welcoming to newcomers.
SPEAKER_01:You say you're a farm boy. Now I know you put yourself through school. How did that start? How did you get yourself through school?
SPEAKER_00:When I knew that I was leaving the farm to go to university, I had to come up with a way to do it because it was not um, we weren't a wealthy uh family. And so we had to uh I had to self-finance my way through. And and it it that was part of uh the the farm life of growing up. My father, when we were younger, we didn't get an allowance, we didn't have money for allowances. He gave my brothers and I each a little pig. And when it, I don't know, it was 10 or 12 or something like that, and we could do with it what we wanted. When we when it grew up, we could sell it and spend the money, or we could reinvest it into more livestock. And so that's what my brothers and I did, and we kind of grew that into something where we could sell something every year, like our own crop. And uh and then it we could blow the money or we could reinvest it. And so I kept up with that until I had enough of a pool to go to university.
SPEAKER_01:So And what was your herd when you went off to university?
SPEAKER_00:The the the launching my herd to that launched me through university was 12 breeding cows, so I sold the calves every year and then work helped my dad out in the summer to the extent I could uh when I was off time and not working on my summer job in the oil patch, but I would stay home to help with harvest and whatnot. And so uh dovetailed it with farm life as much as I could and got me through university.
SPEAKER_01:So you got yourself established in the energy business, but then you moved into writing. What was the trigger for you to want to say more in a public way?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell At a certain point in my career, I think I realized that there wasn't enough being said on the educational front to uh to the general wider audience, and so I felt the need to start writing about it. Um we are we the industry tends to be I view it as engineering-led. So there's a lot there's a lot of logical thinking that people will understand energy because it just makes sense. Energy is the basis of everything. We use fuel every day, we use heating fuel every day, we use it to move around, and people will understand the importance of it. And I and I don't think that happened with the public uh over time. I could see with the energy wars that developed, with the attacks on the existing uh production sector. It seemed like, no, someone's missing the point here, and so we someone has to step in and say, like, people we we need to realize where everything comes from. And that's part of my farm upbringing as well, is like people don't think about where things come from. They think that food comes from a supermarket, but it comes from a farm that people grew and slaughtered animals and and harvested grain and and and uh our buildings don't heat themselves automatically, and we don't get gasoline automatically. It comes from somewhere, and so people have to start telling the story about how it gets there, and that there's people involved, and it's uh it's a critical industry. So so I it seemed like there was a void that was developing. There was uh opponents of the hydrocarbon sector, which were telling their story with free reign, I would say defenders, when I became a defender, even though I didn't mean to, it was just more like, whoa, whoa, like that that's not the whole picture. This is the whole here's part of the picture, too, which people need to realize how critical the fuels that we have are and how difficult it would be to change systems. Like that was a really um key driver, I think, was that people were selling easy answers. We'll just switch to wind or solar or whatever. And and the reality is is just so light years away from that. And but there were few people that were standing up and pointing that out in any kind of logical manner, uh, without just getting defensive, which was a challenge too for the oil patch, just to be defensive because they were under attack. So I think that's human nature. So so I sort of stepped into that void, it felt like. Uh, and there were others too, but not that many at the time that were trying to bridge that gap.
SPEAKER_01:So it seems like energy literacy is one of those things uh I often hear from executives in business, from professionals, engineering, uh, geologists. If only the public knew the facts. Do you feel that filling the fact vacuum or countering facts that don't bring understanding is something that can bring about change, or is it futile?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Ross Powell It's an interesting discussion to focus on the facts of of energy, because there that's a double-edged sword in a sense. What one, the discussion should be factual, it has to be, but at the same time, facts go over a lot of people's heads. If I if I say that um an average gas well produces 500 gigajoules a day, that that that's true. Uh and but that means nothing to to someone. If I say those, if an average gas well heats 150 homes, that's that's quite a different thing. So imperative to use facts is there, but you have to make them in a in a present them in a way that's relatable to people so that they can absorb them because they don't otherwise. Like to say a million barrels a day of production, like what does that mean? Like a barrel is a very odd unit of measure, and and you can't picture that. The average person can't picture that. Is that a lot, or is it, well, global production is over a hundred million barrels a day. So, okay, so a million is quite a bit, but in the Canadian context is a lot. So just factual basis is important, but it has to you we have to bridge the gap to the reality that people understand, which is what my book was aimed at. It was aimed at my audience's audience, the people that were curious about energy that say, what's the real story here? But I don't want to hear about the the nitty-gritty or the or just a bunch of hard numbers that don't mean anything. Right.
SPEAKER_01:So it it's it was aimed at your audience's audience. Uh what do you mean exactly?
SPEAKER_00:I felt that my audience was largely energy professionals that were frustrated that their message wasn't getting out. That seemed to be who it most resonated with. So my writing, particularly for for the BOE report, but originally for my own website, was to explain the industry better to a world that didn't seem to understand it at all and tends not to care. We we don't care about utilities, we don't care about sewage systems, we don't care about heating ducts. That's just we just have we only have space in our minds for so many things. We worry about groceries and bills and things like that, and we take everything else for granted. So my um audience cares about energy, and they care that people don't know about energy. So there are so many people within my uh circle that were frustrated that they couldn't get points across to people. And so I thought, well, maybe I can help. Maybe I'll I'll write a book that's in my view, it's it's a simplistic view of or it's it simplifies problems that are complex into relatable situations. There's um uh chapters on on um what does an oil spill mean? Like what is it, like what are the what are the actual consequences? Is it as devastating as as people say? Well, it certainly can be. Um but what what's the whole story about an oil spill? An oil spill has an as an impact, for example, of um creating new global standards for shipping or for safety or whatever. So so we build on incidents. They're unfortunate, no one wants them, of course, but uh but uh and I'm not saying we should have more of them, but but it's it's uh it's a fact that when something bad happens, the whole world can change for the better for it. Like airline safety or anything like that as well.
SPEAKER_01:So you mentioned pipelines specifically, and I think a good bit of context here for the audience today is that you spent a lot of years in the pipeline industry, so you acquired a lot of knowledge. And uh we are looking as a country as Canada at possibly a new um Alberta pipeline to Tidewater. That's uh the subject of the MOU between Premier Daniel Smith of Alberta and Prime Minister Mark Carney. Um let's talk about the prospect of a new pipeline, starting from what you you've just said, that this this uh process of understanding the the scale, the the relative um issues. Um what do you think as we freshly embark on potentially a new national conversation we need to do to have a better outcome than before? Because things got more expensive, major projects that were worthy were cancelled, there was a huge uh flight from uh Canada as a place to invest, the reputational damage from that has not been restored as yet. The question of whether the world needs Canadian oil seems to have been answered. It does. Look at how much it's buying, everything that the new Transmountain line can get to the world, the world wants. So what's different in 2026, Terry, that might allow for a better future here?
SPEAKER_00:From a pipeline perspective, if if we want to discuss what's different in 2026, it's the um there's been a shift in the past a couple of years about uh a refocusing on energy security, and and that's I think changed the discussion dramatically. And the the pipeline story itself is is very deep and and complex. It's not as simple as um as the as a a current w struggle about whether a pipeline should be built in a certain location or not. If you if you take a step back in Canada's history of pipelines, uh Dave Yeager wrote a fantastic book about the history of of the Canadian energy sector. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Another Alberta energy expert. That's right, another internal uh person. He's uh he works in the oil field services sector and has for a very long time. So his book gave chronicled the history of pipeline development and the development of the the oil scene in Alberta. As little known facts, for example, that the two main pipelines that carry oil out of Alberta were mandated by not just the Alberta government, but the federal government. The federal government wanted pipelines built because then Alberta didn't necessarily want pipelines built because then it was a finite resource. It wasn't known how how expansive oil uh fields were. Was it uh fairly localized? There was enough for Alberta and Western Canada's needs. If we drain it all to eastern Canada or elsewhere, like what does that leave the province? So so it was a totally different mindset when federal governments wanted that infrastructure built. And that was that that dominated global geopolitics at the time as well. The United States was desperate, is maybe not the best word, but not far from it. They needed to secure oil supplies to provide their growing economy, the biggest in the world, and they went everywhere in the world to make sure that they could secure oil supplies. Canada was no different in a microcosm. So we built pipelines by federal mandate. And then over time, once the everything was sort of sorted out, I guess, there were enough pipelines to meet Eastern Canadian needs and Central Canadian needs and the U.S. and relative stability with the infrastructure that had built out, then it became a bit of a complacent scene, I think, until the until the narrative shifted when the pipelines became a challenge to build because people didn't want them built. So that kind of just crept in over time, I think as 10 things tend to do, that a pipeline became a controversial thing, even though there was like hundreds of thousands of miles of pipe running underneath our our feet. We don't even know they're there. They've been there for so long. And they operate safely and and efficiently. It's it is the best way to move around product that there is. It's the safest, and as long as they're maintained properly, it's not a problem. So in 2026, I think now it's um for there was a lull of probably five years ago where the the there was the the feeling that we had to get away from hydrocarbons, that humanity depended on it. And I think that's sort of taken a back seat now to the fact that we we we need energy security more than anything.
SPEAKER_01:So for those who believe the humanity's growing incessant demand for more energy is going to require all of the above options. It's gonna require hydrocarbons to be responsibly developed and used. It's gonna require renewables, it's gonna require other forms if nuclear is kind of in its own class, we're gonna need that. Um in in a world where you seem to have to, you know, pick your corner, renewables. You're in this corner, arguing for renewables and against everything else. Oil and gas in that corner, same thing. But that's not reality. What is energy reality for someone who's trying to put it all together and um operate in a world that does demand more energy? Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00:The energy reality is that all of the above is required at uh and that's gonna grow in in um in a bunch of different directions, and we don't even know what they are yet. But I I think that um uh the if we look back at the history of energy, it began with wood and then it s switched to coal, and then it switched to oil, and and then and uh and now it's malt branched out into more natural gas and renewables and nuclear as well. And it's all additive. The energy pie just keeps getting bigger, demand just getting bigger. It's not like it's not like a finite pie that gets divided differently, which is what a lot of people seem to think, but it's it just keeps demand just keeps growing. We're we're we're there's the golden billion they're called, the Western civilization that lives very well, mainly based on cheap energy, and the other 7 billion people want to live like the 8 billion. So if we think of what that could do to energy consumption, if we consumed if energy if India and China and and Pakistan and uh Indonesia and populous countries like that start consuming all everything, but energy in the same per capita amounts that that Westerners do, like oil demand would or energy demand would go through the roof. And that's where and all of the above uh story starts to make sense. There and there's one I I get I butt heads with people in the oil patch sometimes when I say that it's in my view at some point we will be moving away from hydrocarbons as cheaper as the cheapest reserves are developed and used up. There's a lot of hydrocarbons out there, and we're a long ways from that, but it will just get more and more difficult to access them. They're they're deeper under the ocean or or further offshore or in Arctic locations. The the easy stuff will get used up and we will gradually morph to other things. I think we'll be using hydrocarbons for a very long time, but but over time we will shift to more nuclear and and renewables will be integrated into the mix, and there'll be new technologies that'll come along as well. So these are economic choices. They're economic choices. The cost to find uh barrel was dominated by um the Middle East, for example. So Saudi Arabia could could produce vast quantities of oil for very little capital. And then they just adjusted the flow through OPEC to uh to keep prices kind of where they want them. They've been doing that for 40, 50 years now or something. And but the their reserves are that they're have a lot of reserves, but they're not finding them or adding them like they used to. And the new reserve additions globally aren't happening like they used to either. So now we're turning into more of a harvester of the known reserves. There will be new discoveries, of course, but the but the it's a globe and it's been it's been drilled up. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01:What makes Canadian oil, especially Alberta oil, because we have offshore in the Atlantic as well, and some other uh producing areas like Saskatchewan, a little bit from BC, but primarily when we talk about Canadian oil, it's Alberta. Um what makes it distinct? What makes it uh worthwhile making sure that we have that in the mix?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell What makes Canadian oil distinctive and worthwhile, I think, is uh for one, it's just a dominant economic driver of prosperity. Um it's a secure energy supply, which we we that's something that we take for granted, is that much of the world does not have that. They they rely on energy, which is energy is life. You need it for cooking, for heating. And if you don't have it, that means you're dependent on someone else to get it, which isn't the best feeling. And uh we're so blessed in Canada to have everything. But but on the energy side, we have these vast reserves of oil, which we uh there, and there's different kinds of oil. There's the oil sands, which is the biggest um deposit. There's the conventional oil sector, which is the is is off the east coast as well in various parts of Canada in Saskatchewan. Um and and so there's there's different products that come out of it, and a lot of natural gas as well. So so it's quite a balance. We have heavy oil, which is useful in in for some refineries and in various parts of the world where they built refineries to take it, including the U.S. There's lighter oil, which is more versatile and more easy to move around because it's not so thick and viscous and it does require, um you talk about the oil sands, that's heavy oil.
SPEAKER_01:And Canada is not the only place in the world that produces heavy oil, Iraq and Venezuela and Russia, maybe a couple of other places, but Canada has a lot of that and the world needs it. Um often there is a critique that Canada needs to become more of a technology-driven nation. It needs to embrace manufacturing, because that's argued to be the future. Um but uh when you look at our actual trade statistics, crude oil is our biggest, most valuable trade commodity right now, although at the moment perhaps gold is uh by value, I don't know, with the crazy prices. But in terms of year in, year out, you know, crude really is it. Um what do you say to those who look at oil as the mainstay of our Canadian economy and say, this is wrong, we need to move to these other areas because that's the future.
SPEAKER_00:Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, I think the oil, oil and hydrocarbons will remain a mainstay of our of our uh economy for some time. First of all, because the world demands it in ever-increasing quantities, and there aren't that many places that have it. And there and uh there are even fewer places that have it that are democratic societies, open societies with open markets and transparency.
SPEAKER_01:We have excellent transparency in terms of measurement and uh emissions monitoring and Terry, is that going to satisfy the idealistic undergraduate in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver who wants to see climate addressed. Is that resonating?
SPEAKER_00:That pure fact of trade? That probably won't resonate with everyone. There are there are certain um uh groups that just believe that hydrocarbons have to go and that they're they're unacceptable. But those are the ones you need to reach and persuade with your your knowledge. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Well, I th I think there's I think in any extreme there's five or ten percent that that will not be reached. The far right, the far left, the the extreme of any type. And and I and I think that's I I can't talk to those people. They believe what they believe.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Ross Powell Okay. So there's always an extreme at like you say at at either remove. Um but there is that persuadable middle. Sounds like that's who you're talking about. That's correct. So what is the persuadable middle looking for then?
SPEAKER_00:Well I think they I think it comes back to their view of the world. They want they want a good economy, they want to be able to own a home, they will they want a good society, they want a lot of the things that that economic development brings. And w it it's a good argument that we should be moving more towards manufacturing and expanding our adding value to our natural resources instead of just shipping them everywhere. And I make that myself. There's I would love to see us have more industry developed in Canada that uses those building blocks and creates um more uh develop uh developed products and sells higher value end products. It's it's not that easy. And can't first of all, Canada is blessed with space, relatively few people, and all sorts of resources. So we have it and we should just use it wisely, but we should use it. But we're we're at a we're at a competitive disadvantage climate-wise. We're a cold country. It's uh it's far easier to set up a manufacturing facility in Texas than in n northern Alberta or northern Ontario, where much of Canada is huddled along the border. That's where we live, right? The most of the population is. And there's a reason for that. The climate is better for one of them. So so we're we have a lot of space and a lot of resources, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're the best place for manufacturing. We have high regulatory burdens, we have relatively high taxation compared to like some jurisdictions in the U.S. It's very unfortunate, but I hear from many people that they they they go to the U.S. to s to start or develop a business because the opportunity in Canada isn't here from the regulatory burden.
SPEAKER_01:Trevor Burrus, Jr.: What's the difference between getting something permitted in the United States and other countries you're aware of versus Canada, if it's something in the oil and gas space, from your experience? Can you give us a comparator there?
SPEAKER_00:The differences in in actually developing a business in the United States, they've had ebbs and flows as well, where it's been challenging to build pipelines, for example. They've they've had they have more of a lawsuits are a lot more common there to hinder progress on certain things. And so groups have used lawsuits a lot more in the U.S. than in Canada. But there seems to be an overarching sentiment that things need to get done more so in Canada. We're talking about it now in Canada. We need to build major infrastructure, but the the impediments in Canada are everywhere, and they're they seem to be just a lot more severe and long-lasting than in the U.S. or longer duration in terms of the sequential permitting and then the approvals from a municipal or a provincial or a federal level and the many branches of approval that are required, not just environmental, there's regulatory challenges that just seem to be much slower and much more pervasive here. That that people, it's when there's a statistic that's never seen, which is the most vital one that I know of, but it it's how much money is not invested here because of that. And there are I know wealthy people that would start businesses here in a heartbeat if they could in Canada, but they don't, because it's like, I why would I do that? There's but that there's so much uncertainty in terms of getting something actually built. Um, like a basic a basic function in Canada can take a year to just get approval for the first stage to even the um even that like in Alberta, which is probably the most free entrepreneurial and free-spirited of the provinces, like everyone wants to build a data center now. But the the challenges involved in building a data center and actually getting it off the ground are are formidable. The uh the access to natural gas, the access to uh a good site with water and and fiber optic connections. And and so when with all these big companies with their giant checkbooks come looking saying, where can I build my data center? And Canada says, well, the we don't really want them in this jurisdiction, but you can go over there, which happens too. And then if we go to Alberta and we say, well, our grid can only handle this much, so you're gonna have to bring your own power, as Premier Smith says. So companies say, okay, how do I bring my own power? And then they realize, well, that's not that easy because this and this and this have to happen. And it can be done, but now we're talking five, six, seven years, whereas they can go to the United States and find a jurisdiction and be up and running in three years, and they can access all of the above. Uh, part of it is just because it's more of a developed market down there. There's a lot more options. There's a lot more power lines, there's a lot more power centers, there's a lot more pipelines, so they they have more of a nexus. But but Canada should be acting the other way to make it easier to develop rather than more difficult.
SPEAKER_01:So energy abundance alone is no guarantee that we can turn that into prosperity for Canadians.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell That's correct. The energy abundance is great because it really helps fill the national coffers and the provincial coffers. A lot of money goes to the federal government and provincial governments from resource development, not just oil and not just Alberta. It's many provinces have this. In my view, I I come from not inside the oil patch. I grew up in, like I said, on a farm. And so I view resources across Canada as sort of more singular rather than Alberta-specific. There's uh there's in some ways, there's no difference between a nickel deposit in Ontario and and forestry in British Columbia and in oil in Alberta. We we produce more than we need of all of these things. And it it sh I I wish it would be more of a national discussion that that because we don't our consumption isn't that high, we should be focusing more on how do we develop all of these things collectively. It's uh why why is Alberta singled out as this renegade jurisdiction? But it just they have more clout because Alberta has more clout because they have more dollars and they get noticed more, but but a lot of these other regions of Canada are the same. So so the urge to develop or the desire to develop new industries, as you mentioned, like to develop manufacturing and and high-tech and whatever else that comes along with that. We do have these resources, but we have we have a lot of barriers to converting those resources into something we can actually use at home here.
SPEAKER_01:There's about five different directions uh I want to go in at the same time, but we have to do this one one at a time. I'd just like to dig into this uh thought you have on the commonality of different resource sectors, not just um mining, energy, forestry, other things, but also you have this regional uh divisions. Let's take down those divisions. Let's look at the country in terms of all the resources. Uh that that really strikes a note with me because of what we do at ResourceWorks, all the resources. We started in BC, and we really have been drawn into a more national conversation recent years. So, you know, absolutely 100 percent agreement. But I want to dig into that a little bit because I wonder uh what we need to do to really unlock that and make some make it something that people are excited about. Because I I'm excited about it, um, and I think you are, I think a lot of our listeners are, as excited as we are about it.
SPEAKER_00:I think we can kind of break the logjam, maybe nationally, in terms of developing resources if we I think we've recognized some of the problem with the interprovincial trade barriers as a as a prime example. Right. Where it's very difficult to do business from province to province, which makes no sense. You don't need a passport to go to from one province to the other, but there can be like these invisible barriers that that prevent things from happening. And so I think we recognize that there is a bigger issue here, and that's one of it is to harmonize standards across the country, and the other one is just to have a better dialogue, which I uh applaud what you're working on. I think to have more of these parties in common discussions to actually understand problems that so I I've been in the energy sector for a long time. What do I know about agriculture or forestry or mining? Like very little. And I and I it's amazing to spend time with someone from those sectors, and I really enjoy talking to people from across the country that are heavily involved in some other sector and and understanding what their challenges are. I I had a, I went to a conference, I spoke at a conference this summer, and I happened to be on the plane with one of the attendees who I'd never met, and it was a surface land conference, surface rights negotiators. And that's part of the energy industry. We we we forever deal with surface rights issues in terms of how they impact the energy sector. And this this gentleman explained, I I learned so much on that flight about surface rights and the impediments to development um that that happened because of surface rights issues, and it's not it's not uh energy specific, it's across everything. And he pointed to things like uh railway development or or power infrastructure development or negotiations with farmers or whatnot. And as a result of that, I went back and did some research on the there's the comical cartoon example of the California's high-speed rail network, which is which was a it's in uh California proposed building a high-speed rail network from Los Angeles to San Francisco at initial cost of$23 billion. And the latest cost estimate for the whole thing is something like$130 billion, and it's 10 or 15 years behind schedule, and they've made virtually no progress on it, and they've started with a segment in the middle that they're worried out in the desert, sort of that they're working on first, and they're still having trouble with that. And and if you uh you can anyone can find the the a litany of challenge that they've had with surface rights, there were counties that would block um soil testing, for example, because for some reason that they they needed to needed to disallow it. And so a year goes by until that's allowed, until that's sorted out through the courts. And another group would challenge water usage, and and um local cities along the way would um would challenge the development of rail stations because what did that mean for the local uh commuter buses gathering that would have to populate those nodes? Like how do you get people to the train? Trevor Burrus, Jr. So this is even before you get to NIMBYism. Aaron Ross Powell, Jr. That's right. This is you're not even building anything yet. You're you're just arguing about and and California is kind of a good representative of Canada because they they suffer the same gridlock that we do, sort of. So so anytime you talk about building major infrastructure, you have all of these issues that come up. And it's it's a disc discussions are necessary to understand. And there the the challenge that each of these jurisdictions faces, like a little community, the the one I used in California, I wish I had a better Canadian example, but one of the cities said, like, if if if we're gonna have a bus or I mean a train station in our city, then we have to develop a whole ecosystem to get people to this one point, which is something I would have never thought of. But to them that's real. Like, where does that money come from in their budget? How do they integrate that? Does somebody just write them a check? And it's the same with anything else here in Canada.
SPEAKER_01:So we've got Mark Carney, he's made some big promises on getting the country moving back into economic development as the top or a top priority. But at the same time, I continue to hear from those who are at the pointy end of engagement in Ottawa that the thousands of hours being poured into the the regulatory work that Ottawa is forcing onto the oil patch in particular, but I think mining, other sectors uh affected just as much is unrelenting. It's unchanging and does not reflect in the daily lived experience this high-level political message. Right or wrong on that? What do you think? Is that the complaint of the moment?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I think that the the regulatory uh challenges are unrelenting. I think it's frustrating to see a federal government that recognizes them, but it's it's been what a year now or uh of this government and and very little progress.
SPEAKER_01:Is it just imprisoned in its own red tape that has been so carefully constructed that we are imprisoned now in a in a legislative regulatory maze? Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.
SPEAKER_00:I i it's I think it is very hard to roll back a lot of the red tape that that uh that exists. And and uh they I wouldn't say the sad part of it, but a lot of the things are there for there's a kernel of of of wisdom there, or there's a good reason that they're there. There's there's a a standard that almost as one example that few people know about, but there's a requirement by um a Canadian agency that um any company above a certain size, and it's not very big, has to file a report with the federal government annually. You have to, and you have to say uh what you've done to eradicate child and forced labor from your supply chains. And it's uh you think you might think from a glance, like, hey, that's a good idea that we're we're doing our part. But if you if you read into the requirements, this has been in place for about three years now, do at the end of May every year, and the the requirements are they verge on the absurd. You have to you have to document not just the first level of supply chains, but you're supposed to comment on the second and third levels of supply chains as well. So if if I buy a computer, I'm supposed to understand the and report on the the child labor conditions that went into those components, which is an impossibility to to document for for anyone, never mind the third level, which is where those materials came from. And and but that's an expectation, and and so that's a requirement that has to be filed with the government. And there's teeth in the legislation. If they decide that you're not uh doing enough, they can come after you. But doing enough isn't defined. But this is just one example of red tape that that companies have to deal with. And I don't think a lot of companies are even aware that they're supposed to be filing these reports, but they're uh and and there are many more like this, that there are just these requirements that there's it's it's um a good idea run wild, and and now there's a whole entrenched um sector of the government whose job is to maintain and monitor this, and and how do you get rid of that? It's like, well, you don't care about child labor anymore. It's like, well, of course we do, but is is this the best way to tackle it? Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:And um if you focus in on emissions, methane, um, the Environment Canada um regulations that are slowing down investment, that are making projects more difficult to build. What's the message that's not getting through that one would hope can can make change? Is is there something about what's happening in the economy, including better environmental performance that's actually happening that maybe hasn't been grasped?
SPEAKER_00:I I think some of the standards that have been enforced to for the right reasons again, like such as methane emission reduction or uh various other emission control things, uh again, there's a kernel of a good idea in them, but it's it's just the execution of them is not not realistic or or not sensible. It's the if if we want to reduce our overall emissions, having more of a holistic view to, let's say, the the 80-20 idea, eight maybe 80 percent of the emissions reduction can be achieved fairly easily, and the other 20 percent, we're not gonna worry about that so much because it just it just ramps up in terms of challenge and and cost. The the Canadian uh electric vehicle mandate is an example of that. It's just like we we could if if the goal is to reduce emissions from transportation, there are multiple ways you can do that. One one is you could just change the standards for fuel economy for vehicles. Do we do we need 400 horsepower V8s and cars? Or should be should there be a tax on that, an emissions tax, saying if you if you must have a monster hyper-powered vehicle, well, maybe you should pay more for it. From an emissions perspective, I'm not saying that's the case, but if our goal is to reduce emissions, you could do that and you could reduce emissions. But to have a blanket mandate that says everyone in the country will drive an electric vehicle, it's just a a square peg and a round hole. It's the the uh uh someone working in industry in the far north is like not likely to ever adopt that. They will they will shut down their operations before they'll rely on batteries for their life up there. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Right.
SPEAKER_01:Now suppose you took a call from the Prime Minister and Tim Hodgson, his energy minister, and you need to give them what they need to know in less than two minutes. What would you say, Terry?
SPEAKER_00:If I had a call from the high-up powers in Canada for my advice, I think that I would try to persuade them in two minutes to to put ideology aside and think in terms of practicalities, that the framework of adhering to uh a globalized definition of what we must do in terms of emissions, it's not a one-size-fits-all and we shouldn't treat it that way. I would say talk to industry, talk to each industry and say what can be done relatively easily. And we'll worry about that first in terms of if emissions reductions are your goal. And in some ways, the the they have to make a decision, those politicians, do you want to build things or do you want to focus on emissions reduction? We've seen jurisdictions that have made that decision, such as Germany. They've said we will we will reduce emissions, and they've de-industrialized and they've succeeded in reducing emissions in a suicidal sort of way. So I think that's a question of do is that what you want? And they're now reversing course. They've said they're quite happy with natural gas now and they're regretting shutting down nuclear facilities. And everyone that I know in the energy scene that watched Germany do that just shook their heads in sadness that why are you doing this, especially on the nuclear front, with clean energy, but it was ideologically driven energy decisions, which are no different than a lot of the other ones. That that's that's no different than Canada's.
SPEAKER_01:Let's talk about China or the two Chinas. Let's let's compare the China that has uh decided to do away with the fossil fuels, it has embraced renewables, it is racing into this clean future where everything runs on electricity. And that's also don't forget the other China, the China that is over the last five years has spent half a trillion dollars on oil and gas development within the borders of the People's Republic of China, the mainland China. I'm not talking about Taiwan here. Um the the China that is importing all the crude oil it can from Canada and storing it and using it. Uh the the the China that continues to be the uh factory of the world that uses all kinds of inputs, uh hydrocarbons, plastics, to make things, people those those two Chinas seem to exist in a parallel sense. And uh how does one decide which is the real China?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Ross Powell Two Chinas of that uh line of thinking that w one is pursuing the clean energy, you're going to be a clean energy superpower, and which has become a poster child for the for the climate aware movement, that China is now the only country that really cares about emissions, it seems to be. That that's uh a line of thought that that coexists with the one you're talking about, or that you mentioned about the development of oil and gas reserves and building new coal-fired power plants every week. Yeah. Um and I I think it's exactly the same thing. I don't I don't think there are two Chinas. I think there's two messages that they promote to the people that want to hear it. The the people that want to hear that China is a clean energy superpower simply aren't paying attention to what they're doing everywhere. China's is a textbook example of the energy pie only growing. They're adding solar and coal, and they're adding wind, and they're adding natural gas and oil refineries. They're adding everything. They're just voracious. And and and part of that is our the West's choice to farm out our manufacturing to them. They became the world's factory, right? And there's the the there's probably three Chinas to if in addition to the two that you mentioned. There's the clean energy image, there's the relentless conventional energy development, and then there's the processing side, which is extremely harmful to the environment, which we've all happily farmed out to China. Like there's a reason that metals aren't processed in Canada or the U.S. or Europe, is because it's dirty business and environmentally challenging, and China doesn't mind doing that. They've created the whole sectors, geographical sectors where that happens, and it's that they're toxic wastelands that is fine because they're producing what we need. We need these critical elements, the tungsten and the magnesium and all of these things that we require for our defense and high-tech industries, and we're reliant on China for it because they're willing to bear the burden of that environmental cost. And they they don't that's not part of their messaging. You hear the Chinese government willing to make a big deal about how much solar they're putting up, stats that they like to publish. They don't publish how much toxic waste they generate from producing the materials that go into those things. That's hidden. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01:Terry, you drove across Canada recently, something that everyone dreams of doing. Not many people actually do from coast to coast. Uh why did you do that and what did you experience?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell I drove across Canada this past summer. I I spend a portion of every summer in uh Nova Scotia. I love the Maritimes and I love the people and I love the the different uh outlook on life that they have there. It's uh and I think the only way to really absorb that if you can is to spend a bit of time there. Driving across Canada didn't allow me to spend a bit of time there, but when you actually drive instead of flying over it, you you get a view of what's why things are so important to certain parts of the country. Even even driving through a portion of Quebec that uh just just from the New Brunswick border inward, it's it's like cheese land. There's there's cheese shops everywhere and and fromageries and and the streets are or the roads are named after them. And it's you can tell it's a very heavy cultural item there and very important to that part of the province and the province as a whole. And and and then traveling across northern Ontario, just the space and the amount of trees and and and uh mineral potential, you you can just imagine going across that endless province. And then the then you hit the prairies and you see like a total agricultural focus and the amount of grain you can see that comes out of there and um British Columbia, the the beautiful scenery in the mountains, again, the the mineral development and forestry. Uh you just get a better sense for the various aspects of the province. And you have time to think about it when you're driving as well. You notice that you're in you're in something different than you were eight hours before. And I just found it a very valuable uh exercise to get a more of a feel for the country. That that we have these uh regional disparities that someone that lives in downtown Toronto is probably never going to resonate with the the oil patches' concerns in Calgary unless they come out here and spend some time. And and I'm fortunate enough to in Calgary, it it really is a melting pot. There's people from all over the world, but a lot of Canadians come here as well. And and I meet people from Quebec that come to Alberta and they're and they're blown away by what they discover that like this is the reality. Like I had no idea that it was like this. I had no one gentleman that moved out here, an executive-level guy that moved out with his family, uh, he thought that it was just like a toxic wasteland where things didn't grow because there was oil spills all over the ground. And and and I know that's a bit silly to think that because you can obviously see that these things aren't true by looking, but they're just a general feel that people have about other sectors that build up over time through prejudices or or preconceived notions, I suppose is a better word or phrase.
SPEAKER_01:Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And we're at a moment in time when Alberta separatism seems to be a thing. Uh it's certainly a thing that is causing a new level of political discourse between provinces. Um I just want to ask you from the energy perspective, the you know, Alberta exceptionalism, the sense that Alberta is uh funding so much of Canada, it creates uh a large amount of wealth that goes to other parts of the country, which everyone I hope is thankful for. Um, but maybe Alberta doesn't feel it's appreciated. And whether that is a blip, in your opinion? Do you think it's tied to energy policies? Do you think that the solution to it is not necessarily addressing separatism per se, but uh addressing the underlying issues? Um what are your thoughts from your your wheelhouse?
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Ross Powell I think the Alberta separatism issue points points in a little bit of a different direction than what superficially it looks like. That there's there is a feeling of alienation in the province, or that we're not being heard, or that um we have no clout that the that that people just take the proceeds of the of what's produced, enjoy all the benefits, and disparage the the source of it and diminish it and try and starve capital from it, as our prime minister has done less than five years ago. I think that's it's easy to look at the surface of that and the emotion of it and react to that, but I I think there's more depth to it than that. So when I when I grew up on the farm in Saskatchewan, the farming community is totally disrespected. We feed the world. An average farmer can feed tens of thousands of families. It's unbelievable the productivity of a single farm, what that where that can reach around the world. You you literally could feed small, a farmer could feed a small city. Uh and and people don't think like that, but a farmer definitely sees that. They say, I like what where's the where's the respect for the farming community? And it becomes part of that challenge that people in urban centers buy things from grocery stores, and that's where food comes from, and they don't think about that. And so so there's elements of that, and maybe a mining community feels the same thing, and the fisheries community might feel the same thing. It's like we you you all love sushi, don't you? And where do you think that comes from and or whatever? So there's there's these pockets of this all over the place, and I think Alberta is is has kind of risen to the top because Alberta actually has the clout to do something about it, to say something about it. And that's just the sheer magnitude of the of the value that's generated from from hydrocarbons, that it's um there's the country has to take it seriously just because it's such a big building block of the I mean, we it in the the graphic is very popular in Alberta that shows how much the equalization settlement, how much comes from Alberta and goes to other parts of the country. And it it is a stark graphic that that shows that there's a big amount of wealth that moves out. And and it's I think Alberta has become like almost a figurehead and um and it's a like a lightning rod for discontent because it's quantifiable and it's big. Where do you think it's going? The the separation movement in Alberta, it's hard to say where it's gonna go. I I think that it's gonna it's gonna be a two-stage process. I think there's a lot of people that are supportive of the idea of having a referendum because they they want to see uh change. They want to see something happen. They don't want to hear lip service anymore. They want to they want to know that they're being heard and and not uh disrespected as much. So I think a lot of people are supportive saying, yeah, I I I will support holding a referendum because that's going to get everyone's attention. Aaron Powell Once unleashed, might that be something that even those folks come to regret? Aaron Powell That's possible that they people would regret um uh developing or or in encouraging a referendum. My gut feeling is that it would never cross the finish line. And the reasons that I think that are if we look at Quebec when they were so close a long time ago, and I think 1995, when they almost voted in favor of it, that that was a the feeling out of Quebec was that it was quite overwhelming that they were in favor of separatism. That's just my take on it. I would it was a long time ago, and it it it felt like they were going to go. But then when people went in the ballot box and they're like, do I really want to do this? Um and I s suspect that Alberta would be no different. There's there's a there's a very vocal uh uh chunk of the population, and they make a uh case that we would be better off, and and then they will be persuasive to a lot of people. Terry, what's the most controversial thing you've ever written? Aaron Ross Powell, Jr. So I've written a few articles that have uh yeah, stepped on some toes, probably, which I don't mind doing if I feel the cause is right. And and one of the most controversial was uh uh Alberta's former premier, Rachel Knottley, the leader of the NDP, the the sole time that the NDP was ever elected in Alberta. I wrote an article uh that was somewhat in defense of her. I'm not a socialist that I never will be, but but people were just the the the um hatred was so strong for everything. And I I wrote an article saying we like we can't blame Rachel Notley for low oil prices, which some people were doing at the time. And uh I I just said there's whatever you your view of is of her management of the economy and the oil sector, which I wasn't necessarily in favor of, it said you you this is just not a good idea to be having this blanket hatred. It's just not sensible. And and that that got a lot of negative feedback, immediate feedback. So which which is kind of ironic because it's uh uh it's just a plea to be sensible, and and but that's that touches back on the point that there's a certain percentage of the population that can't be reached.
SPEAKER_01:You're taking us back almost a decade ago, and you think now it's relatively calm right now, and maybe that's just because there's no major projects that are currently focusing in public discourse. It's a kind of quieter moment. But uh that distance ago, it it was a very hot space, and you were one of the few who was out there uh articulating your positions and getting some heat for it, including from those who maybe were the natural supporters for the government. On my side, very much so, yeah, yeah. Which also uh, you know, you think back to the uh when when Jason Kennedy became the premier after Rachel Notley was premier, one of the things he brought in was the idea of this w energy war room, which later was established and became um I think war room was a kind of a regrettable term. You know, people instantly recognized what it meant when that term was used. I think it was really more, you know, if you were Switzerland say, and you wanted to defend your market share for fine watches, maybe you would have a uh watch uh war room and make sure that the world understands, you know, your most one of your important exports. That would be a perfectly normal thing to do, and not controversial at all, I'm sure, in Switzerland. But the the energy war room in Alberta became um this big controversy. Um and it it was a period when uh there was a lot at stake. Uh what what is your memory of that time when we had maybe a more a lot more heat in these issues?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, my my memories of the time of kind of uh the peak of what I would call the energy wars were that it was it was very challenging because the emotions were so high, and maybe we're getting there again. But but the the emotions were so high in the the energy sector in Canada, which predominantly the hydrocarbon sector, was was on full defense. There was very very visible attempts to to diminish the industry and and ultimately get it removed from existence. Federal leaders were saying that, right? We don't need your industry anymore, and it has to go. That was the messaging. And so people are going to put on the boxing gloves, right? That when that happens. And so that so it was very tense. And uh the example that I gave about defending against extremism, like my I for years I wrote about in defense against extremism on the climate movement side, like saying you can't keep you can't lie about things, you can't make up things, you can't ignore energy realities. You you can't you can talk about the harm of hydrocarbons, but it's if you're gonna do that, you should talk about the benefits of hydrocarbons, which keep everyone alive. And and to to have only this one-sided discussions, it's just it's just damaging to the discourse because you create hatred by doing that. And and so my fight was against the extreme camps to say, like, you need to stop that, you need to stop that. This is if we want to progress, like we we we have to bring, get the emotion out of it and start thinking about what needs to happen here and what the the here's what here's what one side wants to happen, can it happen? No, in my opinion, we won't have a rapid energy transition. And and if you just look at the evidence, which has been borne out these days, we can see that that's true, that that it's not that easy. Um and if we would just looked at that and said, what what are some pragmatic solutions we can put in place that say, like, okay, we we address emissions reduction, and but here's the reality it's a bedrock of our economy, hydrocarbon development, and and it's just utterly foolish to tell us industry that we want it to we want to decimate it. So that so that was very, very hard to have a voice inside that that didn't immediately get dumped into one bucket or the other, which was but any comment, and yet I had to be very careful as that everybody else that spoke in the space that you didn't automatically just get tossed in the heap. And people would toss you in the heap. The extremists of either side were very quick to toss you in the heap, like well, he said this, he that means he believes everything over here, or vice versa. And and it's just not the case, like any rational discussion that you try and have. You have to keep emotion out of it, and then you'll see things a lot more clearly. And and I think that was the challenge at the time. And I think it's on the energy side, it has gotten better in terms of that. I think the because their energy reality is kind of returned. Unfortunately, we've had a couple of uh global examples that have shown us what happens if you try and do this too quickly. Um and so I I think we're healing a bit there as a country. If we see support for pipeline development strong across the country, right? And it's it it's a bit uh I don't that doesn't thrill me because it's for the wrong reasons in one sense. If it's just an anti-U.S. reflex, that's not the right reason. So e even though it's it's it's uh development that I approve of, I wish it was more on logical grounds than emotional ones, but the it is what it is. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Terry, I wish we had more time. Really enjoyed the conversation with you. Trevor Burrus, Jr. I did as well, Stuart. Thanks for having me on. It was a great discussion. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01:That was Terry Eatum, Calgary-based energy writer and contributing writer for the BOE report. I'm Stuart Muir, host of Power Struggle. If there's one takeaway from today's conversation, it's that Canada's energy future depends less on political promises and more on understanding the practical realities of engineering, economics, and global markets. And Terry's decades of hands-on experience really remind me that good policy starts with good facts. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure to subscribe to Power Struggle on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Sharing the show helps us bring more serious, honest conversations about energy policy and Canada's future to a wider audience. You can find more episodes and information at powerstruggle.ca. Thanks for listening and watching. Stay curious, stay engaged, and we'll see you next time on the Power Struggle.
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
The Eco Innovators:
Stewart Muir