Connect with us

Alberta

25 facts about the Canadian oil and gas industry in 2023: Facts 1 to 5

Published

6 minute read

From the Canadian Energy Centre

One of the things that really makes us Albertans, and Canadians is what we do and how we do it.  It’s taking humanity a while to figure it out, but we seem to be grasping just how important access to energy is to our success.  This makes it important that we all know at least a little about the industry that drives Canadians and especially Albertans as we make our way in the world.

The Canadian Energy Centre has compiled a list of 25 (very, extremely) interesting facts about the oil and gas industry in Canada. Over the 5 days we will post all 25 amazing facts, 5 at a time. Here are facts 6 to 10. 

The Canadian Energy Centre’s 2023 reference guide to the latest research on Canada’s oil and gas industry

The following summary facts and data were drawn from 30 Fact Sheets and Research Briefs and various Research Snapshots that the Canadian Energy Centre released in 2023. For sources and methodology and for additional data and information, the original reports are available at the research portal on the Canadian Energy Centre website: canadianenergycentre.ca.

Environment

1. Canada’s share of Global CO2 emissions is dropping

Since the Kyoto Summit in 1997, Canada’s share of the world’s CO2 emissions has fallen from 2.2 per cent to 1.6 per cent. Canada’s share of world CO2 emissions decreased by 25 per cent from the Kyoto climate summit to the recent Dubai climate summit.

 

Source: CEC Research, Calculation from Various Database (2023)

2. Canadian natural gas is getting cleaner

Emissions intensity is the emission rate of a given pollutant relative to the intensity of a specific activity or industrial production process. Emissions intensity is determined by dividing the number of absolute emissions by some unit of output, such as GDP, energy used, population, or barrel of oil produced. Between 2010 and 2021, the CO2 emissions intensity of Canadian natural gas production fell from 63.5 kilograms CO2e per barrel of oil equivalent to 44.5 kilograms CO2e per barrel of oil equivalent, a decline of nearly 30 per cent.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy

3. Canadian oil sands production is getting cleaner

Between 2000 and 2021, the emissions intensity of the oil sands subsector fell from 111.8 kilograms CO2e per barrel to just under 79.3 kilograms CO2e per barrel, a decline of over 29 per cent. As GHG emissions intensity in the upstream oil sector continues to decline and because Canada’s ESG performance remains highly rated, Canadian oil has the potential to become the barrel of choice on the world stage.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy

4. Canada’s oil and gas sector is doing its part to reduce methane emissions

Gas flaring is the burning off of the natural gas that is generated in the process of oil extraction and production. It is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). In 2022, 138,549 million cubic meters (m3) (or 139 billion cubic meters (bcm)) of flared gases were emitted worldwide, creating 350 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. At 945 million m3 in 2022, Canada was the eighth lowest flarer among the world’s top 30 oil and gas producers (23rd spot). Canada decreased its flaring emissions by 320 million m3 from its 2012 level of 1,264 million m3, a 25 per cent drop. In 2022, Canada contributed just 0.7 per cent of the global amount of gas flaring despite being the world’s fourth largest oil producer.

Source: World Bank (undated)

5. Environmental spending by Canada’s oil and gas sector remains high

Canadian businesses spent $28.6 billion on environmental protection between 2018 and 2020. When capital and operating expenses on environmental protection are combined, out of that $28.6 billion the oil and gas sector spent $9.4 billion, or nearly 33 per cent. In 2020 alone, when capital and operating expenses on environmental protection are combined, the oil and gas sector spent $2.7 billion, or 27 per cent of all Canadian business spending on the environment that year.

Source: Derived from Statistics Canada, Table 38-10-0130-01

CEC Research Briefs

Canadian Energy Centre (CEC) Research Briefs are contextual explanations of data as they relate to Canadian energy. They are statistical analyses released periodically to provide context on energy issues for investors, policymakers, and the public. The source of profiled data depends on the specific issue. This research brief is a compilation of previous Fact Sheets and Research Briefs released by the centre in 2023. Sources can be accessed in the previously released reports. All percentages in this report are calculated from the original data, which can run to multiple decimal points. They are not calculated using the rounded figures that may appear in charts and in the text, which are more reader friendly. Thus, calculations made from the rounded figures (and not the more precise source data) will differ from the more statistically precise percentages we arrive at using the original data sources.

About the author

This CEC Research Brief was compiled by Ven Venkatachalam, Director of Research at the Canadian Energy Centre.

Acknowledgements

The author and the Canadian Energy Centre would like to thank and acknowledge the assistance of an anonymous reviewer for the review of this paper.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X
OSZAR »