0:05 Welcome to the really big show with Jim
0:07 Czech and Ian Burns.
0:12 >> I'm Jim Czech with me Ian Burns and our
0:15 guest today Heather Xner Perau from the
0:18 uh McDonald Laurier Institute and uh
0:21 when we have Heather on what are we
0:22 going to talk about? We're going to talk
0:23 about oil, right? We're going to talk
0:24 about energy. What else would we talk
0:25 about when we talk with Heather? and oil
0:28 um obviously big big big big in in
0:31 what's going on with with Canada and all
0:32 of a sudden uh you know in the last a
0:35 decade of anti-energy policies all a
0:37 sudden oil is like that they've
0:39 discovered it even in Nova Scotia the
0:41 premier is like we've got we've got
0:43 natural gas it's just we were kind of
0:46 making fun of it today just like they
0:47 just discovered they have natural gas in
0:49 out east there but um
0:53 the pipeline any progress on that
0:56 pipeline from from your end. What are
0:57 you seeing on like getting cuz you know
0:59 there's a lot of talk. We actually
1:01 played that clip of you talking about
1:03 you know like the 4.1 million barrels go
1:05 south. Where else can they go right now?
1:08 Like there's no place else.
1:10 >> Well I mean so we already have Trans
1:12 Mountain. So obviously the United States
1:14 has been a great customer. It makes
1:16 sense when you share continent to build
1:18 pipelines. It's an efficient way safe
1:20 way to get oil cross. They have a
1:22 refinery complex that is that allows
1:24 for, you know, processing heavy sour
1:26 crude and they get ours at a discount.
1:28 So, it all worked out pretty hunky dory
1:29 for everyone honestly, but it's
1:31 obviously in Canada's best interest to
1:33 diversify. Uh, it was always in our best
1:36 interest. Everyone sees that now. We
1:38 built the west, the original TMX late,
1:40 but at least we built it. And you see
1:43 now that there was a very good market in
1:45 Asia for that pipeline. If people don't
1:47 remember, before TMX was done, there's a
1:49 lot of speculation that would simply go
1:51 to more American refineries. It would go
1:52 to California uh maybe go back around
1:55 Gulf uh coast and get refined. But
1:57 actually, the majority of it has gone to
1:59 Asia. China's been the biggest customer,
2:01 but also Korea, um Singapore, uh Japan
2:05 has taken a few loads. So, and it's
2:08 almost full. In fact, it hasn't been
2:09 aortioned in some months. Uh but it's
2:12 running, you know, pretty hot, pretty
2:13 full, obviously with the straight of
2:14 hormones closure. And there's obviously
2:16 demand for more. And so two things to
2:18 your point is any is anything happen on
2:21 the West Coast oil pipeline. One is that
2:22 Trans Mountain itself is already
2:23 planning to expand and it'll probably
2:25 get another 90,000 uh barrels of of
2:28 egress in the coming months and and up
2:30 to 300,000 by the end of 2028. So
2:32 they're working on it. They see a market
2:34 for it. The CEO of Trans Mountain, Mark
2:36 Mackey, today was saying China wants
2:38 much more heavy oil. Uh and they also
2:40 see demand from India, Thailand, and
2:42 Korea. And the second thing is with the
2:44 west coast oil pipeline that Canada has
2:47 introduced as part of the legislation
2:49 the steps that you would need to make it
2:51 uh designated as that project of
2:53 national interest that lets it bypass
2:56 you know some of the more spirious I
2:57 would say uh regulations on migratory
3:00 birds and and and and that kind of a
3:02 thing. So, so the pieces are moving
3:04 ahead. Obviously, the price of oil is is
3:07 helping create some producer interest,
3:09 but the next step for me is a tax system
3:13 that will allow those producers to want
3:15 to fill not only the West Coast Oil
3:17 Pipeline, but the 1.3 million barrels
3:18 they had to fill before I get to that
3:20 one.
3:22 >> Yeah. And you know, like but the, you
3:23 know, like the the the rhetoric from
3:25 Doug Ford, you know, like turn it off,
3:27 like shut it off, you know, like we 4.1
3:30 million barrels. Yes. you know, you
3:32 know, in a couple years we can get
3:34 another 300,000 barrels, but and I think
3:36 I I I poke Chad GBT and you can get
3:38 about 8,000 barrels a day with rail. So,
3:40 we really have nowhere else to put 4.1
3:43 million barrels.
3:45 >> Oh, we're absolutely [laughter] not
3:47 going to displace what we send to the
3:49 United States uh to Asia. This is all
3:51 incremental barrels. And and again, I
3:54 mean, we have pipelines to United
3:55 States. You want to fill pipelines that
3:58 you've already built. that will
3:59 obviously be the cheaper most economic
4:01 thing. So in terms of you know a fantasy
4:04 I would say of cutting off the oil or
4:07 even putting an export tax I don't think
4:09 those are smart policies for many
4:12 reasons we can get into them but not
4:13 least of which is we are really trying
4:15 to position ourselves right now as a as
4:17 a supplier of choice to the world and if
4:20 we start getting into Iranian Russian
4:22 you know Venezuelan American tactics of
4:25 of of using oil or natural resources as
4:28 weapons uh for economic coercion I don't
4:32 think that helps us as we pitch to other
4:34 customers.
4:35 >> Yeah. I mean, and also a lot of the oil
4:38 is is actually investment from American
4:40 companies as well. So, you were telling
4:42 them, you know, like because I mean that
4:43 was an American pipeline. You know what
4:45 I mean? Like there's a lot of investment
4:46 that is is being used. So, that that
4:48 would scare away future investment as
4:50 well, I would imagine.
4:52 >> Well, I mean, we have the South Bridger
4:53 pipeline is is at risk here. Like if if
4:56 you had Canada cut off oil, even put on
4:58 the export tax, I would I would worry
5:01 about that FID that we're expecting next
5:04 year or Trump's approval of it or the
5:06 the kind of the legal construct is a lot
5:08 of regulatory shenanigans that can still
5:11 go on with that pipeline before it is uh
5:13 approved and and FID. So yeah, there'd
5:16 be a lot of knock-on effects and and
5:18 again, I've described it this way. It
5:20 may be easy in a in a press conference
5:22 or, you know, over coffee or drinks to
5:24 talk about what kind of pain could you
5:26 inflict on Americans. And that's not
5:29 really the same conversation as what is
5:31 in Canada's best interests. And the more
5:34 layers of the onion that you peel, the
5:36 more you realize it's very complicated,
5:38 you know, to use energy or mineral or
5:40 minerals as as a trading tool. And there
5:43 are many unintended consequences. And
5:45 those unintended consequences have not
5:47 been explained appropriately to the
5:49 Canadian public.
5:50 >> Yeah. And I think one of them if you
5:51 could just explain to the public that
5:53 it's it's not like a light switch either
5:54 way. You can just turn it off and on
5:56 like the the oil is flowing. So it's
5:58 being pumped, it's flowing. It's like a
6:00 it's a continuum. So maybe just explain
6:02 like it's not like we could go there and
6:04 just turn this valve off tomorrow and
6:06 it's leave it off for a month and then
6:07 you know come back and just turn it back
6:09 on.
6:10 >> No, there's so many things. So to your
6:11 point, there isn't a valve. You know,
6:13 there's there's a series of pipelines
6:15 and and all of them would so you would
6:18 have to shut in the production upstream
6:20 and and it's and you can't just turn off
6:22 a valve to shut off upstream either. You
6:24 you know, you stuck a drill and it's
6:26 flowing and now you have to capture it
6:27 and that's the idea. And and and you if
6:30 you shut in a well, that's what you
6:32 would have to do if we couldn't send
6:34 those millions of barrels to United
6:35 States. You have to shut in production,
6:37 losing out on $90 a barrel, by the way.
6:40 So, it'd be very painful economically.
6:42 you're getting a very good price for
6:43 those barrels. You would lose that, but
6:45 you would damage your wells. So, you
6:46 can't just shut in wells and say, "Well,
6:48 just turn it back on in a month."
6:50 There's a lot more um complicated than
6:52 that and be very expensive and damaging.
6:54 Then there's the other aspect of who are
6:56 we cutting off? And it's not just
6:59 Americans. It's not just gas stations. I
7:01 don't know what people imagine, but
7:02 we'll obviously be cutting off Ontario
7:04 and Quebec that they get a lot of
7:06 Alberta crude that I think we all
7:08 recognize now. it goes through the
7:09 United States through Michigan through
7:10 Wisconsin through line five. And if we
7:13 shut off, you know, if we cut off oil,
7:15 they would be hurt just as much as all
7:17 any American, you know, they're part of
7:19 that same um kind of a kind of
7:22 jurisdiction. So, very painful for
7:24 consumers, very painful for producers,
7:26 and then there's just the whole politics
7:28 of it. And I said this before, like
7:30 taking booze off the shelf is one thing,
7:32 not drinking American whiskey is one
7:34 thing. cutting someone off of oil in the
7:37 middle of an energy crisis
7:40 that is, you know, very very close to an
7:43 act of war and be an escalation and I
7:46 don't think Americans would forgive us
7:48 and we would lose the sentiment war and
7:50 Trump would be able to blame high energy
7:52 prices on Canadians and like all of
7:55 these series of things. Which part of
7:57 this is attractive to people? Which part
7:59 of the five things I just discussed are
8:01 the things that people say, "Oh, that
8:03 sounds fun." None of it would be fun.
8:05 Right now, we're getting a great price
8:06 from the Americans for oil. Let's keep
8:08 doing that. That's how you win trade
8:09 war.
8:11 >> I'm going to turn you over to Ian in a
8:12 second because he's going to jump on you
8:13 with Pearl Harbor. But I do want to make
8:15 a a comment and say the one thing this
8:19 has done to the Canadian public for the
8:21 most part, especially if they if they
8:22 listen to you a little bit, is it's
8:24 educated them on the importance of
8:26 energy in Canada and how it all works.
8:28 Right. Because I I worked in the
8:29 resource sector before too and I know
8:30 you just can't just turn off a well
8:32 because it's pressurized. You know what
8:33 I mean? You literally will lose months
8:35 of production or maybe lose a well,
8:37 >> but I mean and then plus refining and
8:39 all kinds of stuff, right? There's so
8:40 much in it's it's this complicated
8:42 system. But it really drives home the
8:44 point to Canadians how important it is
8:46 to our GDP, how important it is to our
8:48 economy and how complicated it is. I
8:50 think it's really important, you know,
8:52 like and how we don't have external
8:54 markets at the ready because we don't
8:56 have Northern Gateway, we don't have
8:58 Energy East, we don't have options, and
9:00 we did that ourselves with with policy
9:03 over the past decade.
9:05 >> I mean, I've actually been a little bit
9:07 delighted at how much Canadians have had
9:10 to be educated and have been educated on
9:12 Canadian oil. Um and and and you know
9:15 the anecdote I'll use is the situation
9:17 with Venezuela and I saw it in January
9:19 as well and I seen it this past you know
9:21 week or two. Canadians I've gotten more
9:25 media requests for Venezuela this time
9:27 and the last time than for pretty much
9:28 any other issue that has ever come up in
9:30 energy in the last 5 years and I had to
9:32 ask myself why do people care about
9:34 Venezuela oil so much in Canada? And my
9:38 conclusion is for the first time
9:40 Canadians see it the oil sector is their
9:42 oil sector. It's not Alberta's. It's not
9:45 something they're totally unfamiliar.
9:46 They appreciate the value and they feel
9:49 Venezuela is a threat to their
9:50 well-being as a Canadian, as a threat to
9:53 our biggest export. And so that to me
9:55 and and you can see it reflected in
9:57 polls. The polls reflect this. But
9:59 Canadians finally see the oil sector as
10:02 something that is valuable, something
10:04 you're proud of, something you don't
10:05 want to be threatened, something that is
10:07 a strength. Uh, and I think, you know,
10:09 even the term energy superpower, some
10:11 people don't like it, but the idea that
10:13 a Liberal prime minister would campaign
10:16 on and continue to run on the idea that
10:18 Canada wants to be an energy superpower,
10:20 that this is the source of our strength,
10:22 this is our calling card when we go to
10:23 new trading partners. That to me is very
10:26 bullish obviously for the sector at all.
10:28 Tim Hodgson putting out a video on his
10:30 social media this week about the oil
10:32 sands going up to Fort Mack for a visit
10:35 saying what a national treasure it is
10:37 essentially. You would never have seen
10:39 this before Trump
10:42 >> here.
10:44 >> Uh yeah, so not not Pearl Harbor, but I
10:46 would like to talk about uh geopolitics,
10:49 I suppose, a little bit. Canada's
10:51 popping up everywhere in geopolitical
10:53 chats. I don't know if you've noticed
10:54 that, but like Strat 4 and all these
10:56 sort of hardcore geopolitics nerds.
10:59 They're very interested in Canada all of
11:01 a sudden. And I'm wondering if that also
11:05 comes with um some potential downfalls.
11:08 For example, I mean, the obvious thing
11:10 would be how how easy is it to target
11:13 our energy infrastructure because our
11:16 adversaries, China, Russia, North Korea,
11:18 Iran, etc., They're very good at hacking
11:21 or at least they're very willing to do
11:23 it. We're going to go all in on
11:25 electrification. I'm reading a lot of
11:27 stories about the vulnerability of
11:29 having your entire grid, you know, so
11:31 expanding electrification massively.
11:34 Then there's drones and things like that
11:36 and um ships that cut wires and
11:39 pipelines and all sorts. I'm just I know
11:41 it's a big question, but I'm wondering
11:42 if should we prepare in Canada to sort
11:46 of get smart to this kind of thing, the
11:47 potential that we're going to be
11:48 targeted
11:50 You probably don't know how delighted I
11:52 am that you asked [laughter] me that
11:53 question because I am chairing a
11:54 conference on this topic, an energy
11:56 security summit in March in Ottawa that
11:59 MLI is putting on and it's a it's our
12:01 third version. The first two is really
12:03 about cyber attacks and that was a
12:05 growing threat that was very much under
12:07 the radar for the average Canadian. We
12:09 are literally attacked every single day
12:11 uh from cyber attacks. It's very low
12:13 risk, very low cost for adversaries to
12:15 do this. Sometimes it's just for money,
12:18 you know, it's just criminal behavior,
12:19 looking for ransomware, that kind of
12:20 thing. But it's very often a North
12:23 Korea, an Iran, a Russia, a China, you
12:26 know, that is doing this for nefarious
12:28 intent. And even prepositioning in our
12:30 in our energy infrastructure so that if
12:33 something did escalate, if they did want
12:35 to attack Canada, they're already
12:36 prepositioned in our system and can, you
12:38 know, kind of pull that trigger and
12:40 disrupt uh energy flows, electricity,
12:43 and oil and gas. And now you've seen in
12:46 the last year how this has escalated to
12:49 physical attacks that the most prominent
12:52 military targets you're seeing getting
12:54 hit both in the Middle East and Russia
12:55 and Ukraine are actually it's actually
12:57 energy infrastructure that aside from a
13:00 pure military targets people are
13:03 attacking energy infrastructure because
13:05 it causes so much pain and disruption
13:07 for that society and disrupts so many
13:09 things. And you were seeing with drones,
13:12 you know, obviously the Ukrainians have
13:14 gotten exceptionally good at using
13:16 drones and have been hitting Russian
13:17 infrastructure with it. Well, if
13:20 Ukrainians can do it to Russia, who's to
13:22 say the Chinese can't do it in the
13:24 United States or, you know, on and on.
13:26 Everyone in the world now is vulnerable
13:28 to drone attacks on our very exposed
13:31 energy infrastructure. And no one two
13:34 years ago was anticipating this or
13:36 certainly not putting the money in to
13:37 prepare for it because it was kind of a
13:39 a a further out threat. It's a very real
13:41 threat today. And so so absolutely you
13:46 know and then I'll get into one more
13:48 thing is is you know the disinformation
13:50 campaigns around AI for example or even
13:53 building infrastructure that is
13:55 obviously in our adversaries interest
13:56 that we don't build electricity
13:58 infrastructure fast enough that we don't
13:59 build data centers. you you are seeing
14:02 very much that while people may have
14:03 legitimate reasons to not like AI data
14:05 centers, absolutely China, Russia, the
14:08 usual suspects are are juicing up that
14:10 opposition um to keep the United States
14:13 from from leading the AI race. So there
14:16 is a a lot more in this new geopolitical
14:19 era. Yeah, there's an intensification on
14:22 the potential and the real tax that
14:24 people are facing and we're not just in
14:27 sleepy Canada anymore. uh as you say, as
14:30 we have ambitions to be an energy
14:31 superpower, as we provide, you know,
14:33 NATO partners with more critical
14:35 minerals, the United States with
14:36 electricity data centers, when we get to
14:39 8 million barrels, yeah, there's a
14:41 target on your back. Now you're in the
14:42 big boys club and and we need to have
14:45 Yeah, we need to start thinking to your
14:46 point of that security aspect of being
14:48 in the big boys club.
14:51 >> Yeah. Um I didn't know about that
14:53 conference, by the way, but that's an
14:55 amazing coincidence.
14:56 >> Yeah, [laughter] I know. We just had our
14:58 first council meeting today to talk
15:00 about the agenda. So, thanks so much for
15:01 that.
15:03 >> Amazing. Um, so sticking to geopolitics
15:06 and the big sort of, you know, the big
15:09 uh grand strategy stuff. We're seeing a
15:12 lot with o oil goes through choke
15:15 points, doesn't it? A lot of the time
15:16 and we're seeing right now obviously
15:18 everybody knows what's going on straight
15:19 up. Also, Barbal Mandeb, Red Sea, S
15:22 Canal, Panama Canal, that's got, you
15:25 know, that's to do with drought, isn't
15:27 it? It's a it's an extremely rough uh
15:30 environment to operate in. And since it
15:34 seems that the the federal government
15:36 isn't really interested in going out of
15:38 the St. Lawrence that doesn't they don't
15:39 seem to be serious about I don't know if
15:40 you know different, but so it looks like
15:42 it's going to be the West. And you look
15:44 at the West and a lot of people say,
15:45 "Oh, there's nothing in the way. It's
15:47 fine. We can just go straight over the
15:49 Pacific." But Jim and I, we often talk
15:51 about the fact that Canada doesn't
15:53 really have a navy of any kind, never
15:55 mind a sort of blue water navy, which is
15:58 what you need to protect your merchant
16:00 vessels if worst comes to worst. And
16:02 then you look, I mean, I can see you've
16:03 got a map behind you, you've got a map
16:05 here. You look at the map, even you come
16:06 down the Sea of Japan, East China Sea,
16:09 Taiwan Strait, there's a lot there. Even
16:12 if you just want to go to the sort of
16:14 East East Asia, there's a lot of
16:16 potential trouble there. And I'm just
16:19 wondering if do you know if anyone's
16:21 actually thought about this the
16:22 possibility that we might build all this
16:24 infrastructure, gear it towards East
16:26 Asia, and then suddenly we revert to a
16:29 situation where we no longer have
16:30 freedom of navigation on the seas and
16:32 the Americans aren't willing to do it
16:34 for us. Nobody else is going to do it. H
16:36 how do we then how do we operate in that
16:38 environment?
16:39 >> Yeah, I'll say for one, it's still
16:41 better to just have the North Pacific to
16:43 deal with than the Straits and the choke
16:45 points that you listed. So huge
16:47 advantage to have the North Pacific to
16:49 play in. Um but that doesn't say that
16:52 you're off scot-free. And and people
16:54 probably don't reflect on this. Maybe
16:55 like you or I might reflect on how
16:57 important freedom of navigation and
16:59 Americans guaranteeing that freedom of
17:01 navigation has been for globalization
17:03 for the last century of increasing trade
17:06 and and I don't see evidence yet that
17:09 they aren't, you know, interested in in
17:11 in maintaining that. But obviously they
17:14 are playing a different role in the
17:15 world right now. and a much more America
17:17 first role and the extent that they want
17:19 to preserve freedom of navigation for
17:21 everybody for freedom of trade for
17:23 everybody. Um I mean and it's also been
17:26 more difficult for them to do that.
17:27 They're obviously struggling to do that
17:28 in the street of Hormuz. Uh that you
17:30 know they they can't they don't have the
17:33 constraining power in Iran that maybe we
17:34 all thought they did six months ago. So,
17:37 it's an issue and I'll say, you know,
17:39 Ian, this is, you know, a provocative
17:41 point, but who, you know, if we're
17:43 sending some of it to China, do we think
17:46 China will be the one to stop us from
17:49 sending it to China? Uh, and so, you
17:52 know, so, so what I don't know what the
17:55 balance is. You know, this is a question
17:56 we'll be asking ourselves and grappling
17:58 with. What is the gray area for the next
18:00 few years, but who do we think would
18:02 want to constrain more Canadian oil
18:04 getting sent to Asia? Um, and right now
18:08 I have to say China is the biggest
18:09 customer for Canadian crude off the
18:11 Pacific coast off of Trans Mountain. I
18:13 know with the West Coast Oil Pipeline,
18:15 yeah, everyone's very wideeyed to the
18:17 threat that China poses in many other
18:20 areas. I don't think it would be I don't
18:22 think we should accept equity, Chinese
18:23 equity in that pipeline. I think we
18:25 should actively seek from Japan and from
18:28 Korea. We do have Chinese equity in LG
18:30 Canada. If people aren't familiar with
18:31 that, that was a multi- five country uh
18:34 a five party deal. And so this it's not
18:38 our first rodeo. We have had dealings
18:40 with China. We continue to have dealings
18:41 with China. They're an obvious customer
18:42 for heavy sour crude from the Canadian
18:44 coast because they are a major refiner
18:46 of it. And so that just gets into your
18:49 question of who would want who would be
18:50 the enemy to interrupt that trade. Maybe
18:52 it's Russia actually. Maybe it's Russia.
18:55 But them going against China and
18:56 interrupting those flows would obviously
18:58 be very very risky for them as well.
19:01 or potentially China saying Taiwan is
19:04 our territory and we're not happy about
19:05 you selling them oil or something or you
19:08 know friction between Japan and China.
19:09 They China might say if you're not
19:11 sending it to us then we're not going to
19:13 allow it in our in our territory. I
19:16 suppose one could say
19:19 >> I I just I'll just say this is the point
19:20 of optionality and you know we are too
19:23 dependent on the United States and you
19:25 don't want to go from being too
19:26 dependent on the United States to being
19:28 too dependent on China but I personally
19:31 assess that we have some ways to go that
19:34 the the optionality problem for Canada
19:35 is that we are dependent on the United
19:37 States it'll take some time before that
19:40 problem is about a different customer
19:42 clearly we need to get off dependence uh
19:45 of of the American customer. Not send
19:47 them less, but just increase who we can
19:49 send it to. The nice thing about getting
19:51 it to tide water is you can send it to
19:53 anybody from there. You aren't connected
19:54 by pipeline. If China becomes a very bad
19:57 customer, you want to divert to India,
19:59 to China, Japan, Korea, all you know,
20:01 sorry, China, not not China, but Korea.
20:03 So, so Tidewater gives you optionality
20:05 that a pipeline just simply can never
20:07 give you.
20:09 >> Okay, one last geopolitics one and I'll
20:11 chuck you back to Jim for more real
20:13 life. Uh, so this is the other side the
20:15 other side of the Pacific Ocean. I
20:17 suppose I mean to some extent you you
20:20 said that you were going to say
20:21 something provocative. I'm going to say
20:22 something provocative now. To a certain
20:24 extent we get it to tide water and we
20:27 trade with the world with the permission
20:29 of the United States. I think that's,
20:32 >> you know, if if America turned predator
20:34 in a way that we maybe fear they could,
20:37 they could just say we're not satisfied.
20:39 We're not content for you to sell
20:41 however much oil to China. We actually
20:43 don't want that to happen. Wait, and if
20:45 you do it, then we'll prevent that from
20:47 happening. We'll just impound your we'll
20:49 impound your ships and take them to
20:51 Alaska or something like that. You know,
20:52 that's in a mad alternate reality. I
20:55 suppose that is that is possible, isn't
20:56 it?
20:57 >> So my question there, it's kind of
21:00 >> I'd like you to contextualize that, but
21:02 also is it your opinion that the
21:04 Americans are content for us to do what
21:08 we're doing and and sell to China and
21:10 sell to East Asia? because we
21:12 interviewed the ambassador and he seemed
21:14 he he was totally fine. He said east,
21:17 west, north, south, do it, do it all,
21:19 you know, it's it's fine by us. But I
21:21 don't know the the sort of American
21:23 strategists in the Pentagon and the
21:24 State Department and what whatever. Are
21:27 they satisfied for us to do that? For us
21:28 to become a major energy supplier to
21:31 their primary adversary?
21:34 I mean these are great questions and
21:35 I'll say it I've there are different
21:38 answers um coming from from the Trump
21:41 administration itself. So on the one
21:43 hand in general raw commodities are seen
21:45 I think as less of a threat than you
21:47 know you know bringing in Chinese EVs
21:50 which have a security aspect to them
21:51 that my conference will address.
21:53 [laughter]
21:54 Uh and and and using that as you know a
21:56 way to get into the American market. Um
21:59 and so so that is obviously a threat.
22:02 Obviously in the Pentagon they've been
22:04 very hawkish on China, but obviously the
22:06 way that Trump has run his foreign
22:08 policy has been different from what I
22:10 would say the hawks in the Pentagon and
22:12 the hawks in the Republican party have
22:14 been uh in the last few years that you
22:17 just saw this week, you know, the two
22:20 high level American uh diplomats, you
22:22 know, Kushner and Wikov went and met
22:24 with Putin. So there's not that, you
22:27 know, so the American administration is
22:29 actually closer to the Russian, you
22:31 know, government than the Canadian or
22:34 any European government is right now.
22:36 That Trump often speaks highly of of
22:39 China um and has gone to Beijing
22:42 himself. And that Americans actually
22:44 have more trade with China, you know, as
22:46 a absolute number and as a percentage
22:48 basis than Canada. So it's not as though
22:50 they've said we're not doing anything
22:52 with China. They are still continuing to
22:53 do things with China. But it is also
22:55 true that Trump now um does you know
22:59 they do have this idea of the western
23:01 hemisphere as theirs. Uh they do want
23:04 you know they do want to control they
23:06 keep putting pictures of Canada and
23:07 Venezuela and Greenland with an American
23:09 flag of Mexico now uh recently and and
23:14 don't like the idea certainly the Trump
23:15 administration does not like the idea of
23:17 Canada. They don't want us, they want us
23:19 to trade less with them, but they also
23:21 don't want us to trade with anyone else.
23:23 And they want to buy more from Venezuela
23:25 and put Canada on notice, but also in
23:28 some respect don't want Canada to trade
23:30 more oil with anybody else. So, so these
23:33 are unacceptable things. They also, you
23:35 know, try to put a right of first
23:36 refusal on Canadian critical mineral
23:38 trade in the trade agreement, which is
23:41 also an unacceptable thing for mineral
23:43 producers and mineral producing uh
23:45 provinces. So they are doing some things
23:48 which I think are are you know not quite
23:51 just not quite fair and Canada has to
23:53 find what is in our interests while
23:55 recognizing that you're dealing with
23:57 wolves uh in in the world and you had to
23:59 do you know you don't want to offend the
24:01 Americans you also probably don't want
24:02 to offend some of the other ones either.
24:04 So, these are all very tricky questions
24:06 and I think to your point, these are
24:08 things Canada didn't have to worry about
24:09 too much when we were just the, you
24:11 know, the little cousin of the United
24:13 States and we were safe here in North
24:14 America and now we're in a very
24:16 different world and Canada has to be a
24:17 bit more savvy. Um, and probably a
24:20 little bit more machavelian if you ask
24:22 me. We do have to, you know, we can't
24:24 just be the boy scouts uh in this world
24:26 anymore.
24:29 I've got a kind of like this this
24:31 layered question and it's it's it it
24:34 brings in Venezuela, brings in carbon
24:36 capture and it brings in where Scott
24:38 Basset thinks oil settles once Venezuela
24:40 gets online and once Iran situation kind
24:43 of settles down you know he's talking
24:45 about an oil floor and I've heard other
24:46 experts say you know like the oil is
24:48 going to settle in the where it was like
24:50 in the 55 $58 a barrel kind of thing in
24:53 that range.
24:55 Can if that's if that's where oil
24:57 settles and then if there's still a
24:59 discount on Western Canadian select and
25:01 that you know we're talking probably in
25:03 the you know like the the low50s or you
25:05 know like high 40s for Canadian Western
25:08 Canadian select
25:09 >> is carbon capture still like a feasible
25:12 thing like are because nobody wants to
25:14 pay for it like I mean you when you we
25:16 had you on last time you said nobody
25:18 wants to pay for it and they made a deal
25:19 and it turns out it's it's you and I
25:20 that's going to pay for it
25:22 >> for part of it anyway. It turns out the
25:24 oil companies are like, "We're not
25:25 paying for it." And um so it's going to
25:28 be the taxpayer that's going to pay for
25:29 carbon capture, but is it really
25:32 feasible
25:34 still to do carbon capture, especially
25:36 when we're going to have to compete on a
25:37 world market and and and then the trust?
25:41 Uh Tim Hodson and Mark Carney keep
25:43 talking about the word trust that people
25:45 trust us and they're going to buy that.
25:46 But I mean, Ian pointed out that China
25:49 would buy energy from Satan if they
25:51 could. You know what I because it
25:52 doesn't really care where it buys it
25:53 energy. So,
25:55 where's the truth in all this? Like,
25:57 where where do we find truth on carbon
25:58 capture and the competition with
26:00 Venezuela and all that? Like, where does
26:02 this all shake out at the end of the
26:03 day?
26:04 >> Yeah, great question. I'll just note,
26:05 you know, the Sova CEO said, and they
26:07 sell, you know, in the Atlantic base and
26:09 the Pacific basin, in addition to having
26:11 their Canadian uh Western Canadian
26:13 assets, they said their customers don't
26:16 even ask them what the carbon intensity
26:17 of the barrel is.
26:20 >> No one's asking. So, so let's, you know,
26:22 settle that. There is no premium and
26:24 customers are not asking. But the
26:26 Liberals got a majority government based
26:28 on a voting base that wants us to do
26:30 something on on on greenhouse gases and
26:33 climate change. So, that's where this
26:35 comes from. The yes, the majority of
26:37 Canadians who voted for this government
26:39 want to see some action on it. But so,
26:41 what does where does that leave us? And
26:43 and to your to your point, and this is I
26:45 think important, people, you know,
26:46 people have said, "Oh, the industrial
26:47 carbon price is worth it. it's only
26:49 costs a 10 bit. And that's not true
26:51 going in the future. And that's
26:53 certainly not true of the carbon
26:54 capture, the Pathways Alliance project.
26:56 That those those things combined add a
26:59 few dollars to every barrel. And I'll
27:02 say, you know, I'm going to say $4.
27:04 Maybe some people say it's three. Some
27:05 people would say it's seven. Let's just
27:07 assume it's $4. And And you think to be
27:10 safe, you're going to assume that
27:12 barrels you're going to get $60. You
27:14 know that that's the low point. You have
27:15 to be resilient to to, you know, the
27:17 opposite of shocks, you know, which is
27:19 an over supply. And so, you're not going
27:21 to do any expansions of production if
27:23 you don't think you're going to get a
27:24 return on $60. And and actually, it's
27:27 much lower. Before before straight
27:29 moves, it was probably in the $45 or $50
27:32 range, but you were not you are not
27:34 expanding for anything that you would
27:36 not be resilient at $45 a barrel, WTI.
27:40 So, so if you add $4 on top of that,
27:44 that is actually a very significant
27:46 proportion. You've really changed the
27:48 hurdle rate of the projects that you can
27:50 invest in and expand to because you've
27:53 just really added a huge cost to the
27:54 cost of production. And people don't
27:56 think $4 is a barrel in a $90 a barrel
27:59 world. You know, it's not. Of course,
28:01 yeah, four, they got four extra bucks
28:02 right now, but at $60 months ago, they
28:05 didn't have an extra $4. And if your if
28:08 your profit is eight or $10 on that $60
28:11 a barrel or that $50 a barrel, now
28:14 you're talking about 20 30 40% of your
28:17 profits is what that $4 additional
28:20 barrel is representing. So this is where
28:22 it becomes untenable for the sector to
28:24 commit to doing these things that add
28:27 it's and it's more than $4. All the
28:29 regulatory the environmental things is
28:31 more than $4 a barrel that you're adding
28:32 to the cost of a Canadian barrel. And
28:35 now, but we're just in a situation where
28:37 Canada wants to be an energy superpower.
28:39 We're making these commitments to other
28:40 trading partners that we're going to be
28:42 able to supply this. And the government
28:44 of Canada itself is an investor in the
28:46 West Coast oil pipeline. And I might
28:48 have mentioned this before, but this
28:50 means it has an interest in increasing
28:52 Canadian oil production by 2.3 million
28:54 barrels because there's already 1.3
28:57 million barrels in the system and the
28:58 West Coast Oil Pipeline will be the
29:00 million barrels after that. How are you
29:03 going to incent the Canadian oil sector
29:05 to expand by 2.3 million barrels a day?
29:09 That's a lot of capital. Well over
29:12 hundred billion dollars of capital that
29:13 you have to attract. Well over uh and so
29:17 and so you have to have a competitive
29:18 barrel. You have to have a competitive
29:20 case in Canada to attract that kind of
29:22 capital. And that is why it won't be the
29:25 companies that pay that $4 a barrel.
29:28 >> Yeah.
29:28 >> And I Yeah. [laughter]
29:31 and and then that becomes what is what
29:34 is the voters's appetite for assuming
29:37 those costs. I can tell you right now
29:39 liberal v voting base does not want to
29:41 pay for oil sector's carbon capture and
29:44 I can tell you right now that Danielle
29:45 Smith's UCP base does not want to pay
29:48 for carbon capture and and so I think
29:51 that's why the can has been kicked a
29:53 little bit uh and why the negotiations
29:55 are so hard um and a lot will depend on
29:59 what does what is the barrel in a post
30:01  moose if what does a post-h horose
30:03 you know and what does a barrel look
30:05 like in 2027 2028 and The fact that
30:08 there is so much risk and no one knows
30:09 the answer to that question makes it
30:11 impossible for the sector to commit to
30:13 producing another 2.3 million barrels
30:15 under these circumstances.
30:17 >> Mark Carney and Tim Hodgen use that word
30:19 trust a lot too like they say people
30:21 trust Canada. We don't write our deals
30:23 in pencil but then I I want to bring up
30:25 you and I talk about a lot uh BP uh
30:30 British Petroleum Beyond Petroleum. Now
30:32 back to petroleum.
30:33 >> Lucky they kept that BP name right
30:35 because they sold all their their green
30:36 stuff. So BP
30:38 sold Beijonor, they sold their Canadian
30:40 assets. They're trying to sell their UK
30:42 assets and they're going to invest in
30:44 Venezuela. And one of the reasons the
30:46 new CEO said is they said we look at a
30:48 20 to 30 year time horizon, which most
30:50 oil field companies do when they're
30:51 doing hundred billion dollars of
30:52 investment in that when they're looking
30:53 at a capital outlay. and she said they
30:56 don't trust the regulatory environment,
30:58 you know, in in certain jurisdictions
31:00 and obviously Canada and and and that's
31:02 been said by even our own companies here
31:04 because who's who's stepped up to pay
31:06 for the West Coast pipeline? The
31:08 taxpayer has stepped up. None of the the
31:10 I mean there's a 10% interest, but so
31:13 where's the trust then when we talk
31:14 about trust? If they trusted us, they'd
31:16 be competing for that line because who
31:19 the taxpayers is not paying for the the
31:21 new Keystone XL or the pipeline south,
31:23 is it? It's it's it's companies are
31:25 going to pay for that loan.
31:26 >> Yeah. So this goes to the question, how
31:28 do we reconvince investment community
31:31 that Canada is a good and safe place to
31:33 invest in? And obviously trust was lost
31:36 in the last decade under Trudeau and
31:39 obviously you had an emissions cap and
31:40 you had all these other things and and
31:42 Northern Gateway. I don't think people
31:43 appreciate how bad Northern Gateway was
31:46 for Canada's reputation for investment
31:48 that you could just have the rug pulled
31:50 under you after you spent hundreds of
31:51 millions of dollars and even got
31:53 regulatory recommendation for approval.
31:56 And so we have to we have work to do to
31:59 to you know show people that no we are
32:02 again you know we've we've changed our
32:03 ways and I'm very curious to see how
32:06 that investor summit next week is
32:09 positioned because I am very curious
32:12 will it be a a place where the
32:14 government will say here's the
32:15 government's favorite projects and you
32:17 here's 12 projects for you to choose
32:18 from that we like and you should go
32:20 there or is it going to be a chance for
32:23 Carney and the government to say Canada
32:25 is a competitive compive place and we've
32:27 changed our policies and we're going to
32:28 change our tax structure and we're going
32:30 to be a great place for you to get a
32:31 return on investment and I don't know
32:34 what the answer to that is. I can say
32:36 that the government is planning as far
32:37 as I understand to introduce more
32:39 legislation for more regulatory and
32:41 labor approval and industry is very
32:44 would be very supportive of that has
32:46 been asking for that. So I'm very
32:48 curious to see that legislation um and
32:51 if that happens I think that would
32:52 attract investment. If you see in budget
32:54 2026 that the government is making some
32:56 tax changes, maybe is giving some
32:58 accelerated capital cost allowances for
33:00 the oil and gas sector for railroads, I
33:03 think that would attract investment. So
33:05 it is definitely show me time and I
33:08 think in this next three months we'll
33:10 have a good indication of you know just
33:12 how serious is Canada and just how
33:14 attractive are we going to be for this
33:15 investment.
33:17 >> Yeah, I think you know like patience and
33:18 I think you've you've shown some
33:20 patience. You say well there's some
33:22 progress. There's some progress there,
33:23 but I think patience wears thin,
33:25 especially for Albertans, you know what
33:27 I mean? Because like, you know, some of
33:29 the hurdles there, CCUs is a hurdle that
33:31 nobody wants to pay for really. And then
33:33 you got to make a deal with 150 First
33:35 Nations groups for this this West Coast
33:37 pipeline. And so, these are all hurdles
33:39 that that they don't seem to have to
33:41 face in other jurisdictions.
33:44 Sorry, I'm choking on myself there, but
33:46 like it it really shows the investment
33:48 thing. I think people need to really
33:50 look at that that BP decision and them
33:53 going to Venezuela. I think Venezuela is
33:55 like a bigger card than most people
33:57 realize because man, they they have more
33:59 resources than us. They have, you know,
34:00 their their assets are obviously in bad
34:04 shape from what went on there for a
34:06 while. And uh but Chevron, I think they
34:09 just put in billions of dollars. I think
34:11 it's $7 billion. And they're actively in
34:14 there working on those fields. And um
34:16 it's a it's a it's a competitive crude
34:18 as well.
34:19 >> Well, I mean we're always in
34:21 competition, so people need to
34:22 appreciate that. But I mean, we're an
34:25 imperfect uh jurisdiction in an
34:28 extremely imperfect world. And I guess
34:30 Jim, why I'm always so optimistic. Uh
34:33 Senator Pam Wallen says I'm a polyiana
34:35 all the time is is because there's a lot
34:38 of a lot of basket cases in the rest of
34:41 the world right now. and we are and and
34:44 so don't tell me that Venezuela looks
34:46 certain and there's no political risk uh
34:49 in what's happening in Venezuela. There
34:51 is corruption layered on top of, you
34:53 know, history and it's been nationalized
34:56 twice and there's no guarantee it won't
34:58 be nationalized a third time. And
34:59 Chevron is taking some very um, you
35:02 know, informed bets and I'm sure they've
35:04 gotten assurances about what happens if
35:07 those bets don't work out again this
35:08 time. But I just don't know how
35:10 replicable it is. And even Chevron,
35:12 >> I agree with you there. I just I just I
35:13 totally agree with you. But people are
35:15 still choosing Venezuela over Canada.
35:18 That's the point, right? That's that's
35:19 the really
35:20 >> I mean not in some specific cases but
35:22 not overall. So just because I want to
35:24 say this $7 billion over five years is
35:27 not a ton of money but it's into their
35:29 existing assets. So okay of course
35:31 they've you know they bet on those
35:32 assets and not a lot of money. It's a
35:34 billion and change a year. Canada in the
35:37 same week as that was announced you saw
35:40 uh Senovas had an all-time high. CNRL
35:43 had an all-time high. YCAP had an
35:44 all-time high. The sectors had a great
35:46 week. Why? Because we have great
35:49 reserves. Why? Because shale is peaking
35:52 uh has plateaued and we see even in this
35:55 price environment that the Americans
35:56 have not been able to meaningfully grow
35:58 production and so that the geological
36:00 signs are there now the financial ones.
36:02 So I agree, you know, we could do a lot
36:05 better and I'm pushing for very specific
36:07 ways in which we can do better on the
36:09 tax and regulatory front. But the Middle
36:12 East is not attractive right now. Russia
36:14 is not attractive right now. The Perian
36:16 is is obviously doesn't have enough, you
36:18 know, kind of life left in it for really
36:20 big meaningful things. Venezuela, you
36:23 know, don't tell me that that's not
36:25 going to explode uh in some way or
36:27 another in the next few years. So, yeah,
36:29 let's compete with Brazil and with
36:31 Guyana and with American, you know, Gulf
36:33 of Mexico. We have to do that. But we
36:35 have but we definitely have a shot. I
36:37 think we definitely have a shot at it.
36:39 >> I want to show a chart and then I'll be
36:40 my last question. Then I'll kick you
36:41 over to you in for last question. Nick,
36:43 can you bring up that chart there? I
36:44 just want to show this to Heather that
36:46 we had. It's at the top of the document.
36:48 We had it on. It's from Wealth Simple
36:50 actually.
36:52 >> And um can you show it, Nick, on full
36:54 screen?
36:57 >> It's at the top. I put it right at the
36:59 top there. So, as he's bringing up that
37:02 that chart there, it shows the
37:04 investment. I think it goes back to
37:06 about 2017 or something like that. It
37:07 shows the investment and it shows where
37:10 the investment is now. and and and I
37:11 think I'll just I'll just let you look
37:13 at it before I before I say too much on
37:16 it. We are appreciative of you coming on
37:19 though. I mean, I I think there's
37:20 there's no better voice for energy. And
37:22 like I said, I think it's it's so great
37:24 that Canadians are now actually having
37:26 to understand energy a lot better than
37:29 they did in the last decade because they
37:30 thought energy bad, right? Energy bad.
37:32 Let's get rid of it. Right. Some of the
37:34 people have their brains are broken
37:35 though. They're never going to come back
37:37 to energy, right?
37:38 >> No. And I'll just say like my mega
37:39 thesis is that yeah, it's easy in a
37:42 commodities downswing to to be against
37:45 oil and gas. Very hard, very high cost
37:48 in a commodities upswing.
37:50 >> Put it up. You cover up with it. Cover
37:52 up with it.
37:52 >> Okay, I can I'll have a look at it now.
37:56 >> So
37:57 yeah, so you'll see that clean energy
37:59 was kind of dominant there in 2020 2021.
38:03 It's the orange boxes, but they kind of
38:05 disappear.
38:06 >> And now it's all about like this is
38:08 investment. This is just showing you
38:09 what ETFs where the money is flowing
38:11 right now. And money obviously if we
38:13 look all the way into 2026, it's AI,
38:15 right? Space and defense. And those are
38:18 all energy intensive, right? So right
38:20 now, Alberta and Saskatchewan are like
38:22 in the catbird seat, right? Do you know
38:23 what I mean? Like as far as as you know
38:25 what I mean? Like that is that is like
38:27 and that's why they got the meta deal
38:29 and and different things like that. It
38:31 really shows where the investment is
38:33 going and I'll let you look at the chart
38:34 and maybe come up with your own kind of
38:37 >> well I mean this is exact you know and
38:39 and it's a cycle and I think you know
38:40 the stunning thing from the last decade
38:42 is that people thought there was a
38:44 transition we're hopeful that there was
38:46 a transition and and I'm not saying
38:48 that's you know ridiculous but when when
38:51 it's so clear over time that these are
38:53 cyclical things and you can anticipate
38:56 the cycle to just you know to just
38:58 imagine you know Elizabeth May you
39:00 saying in 2020, you know, I cry tears
39:02 for those poor oil and gas workers, you
39:05 know, who are all going to lose their
39:06 jobs. Uh for the energy minister,
39:08 Jonathan Wilkinson, to say literally
39:10 just a year and a half ago, uh I expect
39:13 oil will peak next year. He said in 2024
39:15 or 2025 that he expects oil to peak next
39:18 year and and convince themselves that
39:20 that was true and made decisions that
39:22 were damaging to Canada on the idea
39:24 there was no more demand for oil. when
39:27 every data point shows again and again
39:30 that there is very high demand for
39:32 Canadian oil and I will say at least I
39:34 think we have some political leadership
39:36 that recognizes it you know whether
39:38 that's been forced you know you could
39:39 say you know they've been forced to see
39:41 this because the world has changed but
39:43 but yet the but yet the world has
39:46 changed and people are seeing it and so
39:49 again I'm optimistic because I always
39:51 say you know I grew up in Saskatchewan
39:53 and saw firsthand what the commodity
39:55 cycle did for the province and did for
39:57 the economy and was waiting for 15 years
40:00 for it to happen [laughter] again. And
40:02 now it's and now it's happening again. I
40:04 I've been waiting for this and I see
40:06 that it is happening and I am I am happy
40:09 about that. And and I've said this
40:11 before, but there are already shovels in
40:14 the ground for some projects for for
40:16 copper, for natural gas, for oil, for
40:19 potach, for uranium, for gold. we will
40:22 produce more of that and Canada will
40:24 almost certainly glo global market share
40:27 in those very hot commodities as well
40:29 and we could do a whole lot better. You
40:31 know, that's kind of the minimum that
40:32 we're meeting is to just do a little bit
40:34 better in commodity cycle. But there
40:36 really is potential and and thank
40:38 goodness we got our butts kicked a
40:40 little bit by Trump in the last year and
40:41 a half that we may actually have some
40:43 ambition in this cycle because we had no
40:46 ambition in the in the 10 years
40:47 preceding.
40:48 >> Well, you're a Saskatchewan girl. I
40:50 didn't know that. But so there's a
40:51 harvest moon out and it's time for
40:53 Canada to harvest, right? There's a
40:54 harvest moon shining and uh and we have
40:57 all those resources and uh Elon Musk
41:00 said um just recently that uh LG is the
41:04 fastest way to get energy for AI data
41:07 centers. And and the thing that's
41:08 slowing it down right now is just the
41:09 turbines. And so he said they're going
41:11 to build their own turbines. So they
41:12 know that LG is is such a critical
41:15 factor and that's what makes Alberta and
41:17 Saskatchewan so attractive. and and I'll
41:19 kick you over to Ian there for final
41:20 questions.
41:22 >> I'm going to ask you like a bunch of
41:24 quickies if that's okay that you can
41:25 answer in like a couple of words just
41:27 because there some of these are quite
41:29 important. So the Maritimes in Quebec,
41:32 lots of attention to them about their
41:34 huge glorious hydrocarbon um endowment
41:38 that they have.
41:39 >> Do you think with all your experience,
41:41 all your knowledge, do you think that
41:42 will ever actually be exploited? Will
41:44 that ever be used?
41:47 So I I think everything eventually will
41:49 be used and and people might have had
41:51 bans on fracking or bans on data centers
41:54 or bans on uranium mining and there's
41:56 nothing like you know a bull market to
41:59 change people's minds just the cost of
42:00 not developing gets so high and Quebec
42:04 attitudes and politicians words have
42:06 changed on nuclear on natural gas to say
42:09 that they're not going to they're not
42:10 going to you know say no they're not
42:12 saying yes but they're not going to say
42:14 no to these things And that's very
42:17 different from four or five years ago.
42:19 Um, and so people don't appreciate, you
42:21 know, the Udica shell goes into Quebec.
42:23 So it has great resource. Yeah. Uh, and
42:25 and could absolutely develop it and at
42:27 some point I think it'll be worth their
42:29 while to do it. Whether they make this
42:30 cycle, I don't know. Uh, but I guess
42:33 we'll remain to be seen.
42:35 >> Okay. Uh, one more which might become
42:38 relevant depending on what happens in
42:39 Hormuz. At what point does the price of
42:44 a barrel of oil become a curse for
42:47 Canada rather than a blessing?
42:50 >> I think no one wants oil above $100
42:53 for a long time. Then you do get demand
42:56 destruction. You do get talk of windfall
42:59 taxes. Um you do you know so it's and
43:02 it's not healthy for the rest of the
43:04 economy. Get very unhealthy for the rest
43:06 of the economy. So we aren't in a danger
43:09 zone. You know, I would love to see oil
43:10 at $80 for forever. We are in a danger
43:13 zone right now. Uh and and people will
43:16 start getting hurt. It will be a food
43:18 crisis next year. You know, when when
43:20 you get fertilizer and diesel are
43:22 expensive, the next year food is
43:23 expensive. And I just don't see how
43:26 we're getting out of this quagmire. Um
43:28 so I I is getting very serious and and I
43:32 will not be one celebrating $120 a
43:34 barrel for Alberta. Um we need to
43:37 unravel this very quickly.
43:40 Okay. And super fast final one here. In
43:42 the absence of a enormous tom written by
43:45 yourself about um energy and Canada and
43:48 the world, where would you send people
43:51 if they if they listen to you and they
43:52 think, "God, she's like she knows
43:54 everything. How do I get that knowledge?
43:56 Where would you send them? What books or
43:58 magazines or whatever?"
44:00 >> Yeah. I think like S&P Global always has
44:02 good stuff. Um Have Your Blast from
44:05 Bloomberg has been a bit controversial
44:07 in this. Uh but in general he's written
44:09 some books uh that are very good. Uh so
44:12 there's a there's a few not a lot of
44:13 energy security thinkers frankly uh but
44:16 there's a handful uh a few think tanks
44:18 in the United States. Cesus I would say
44:19 is a good one. Uh the Hudson Institute
44:22 those are you know but anyways Bloomberg
44:25 FT uh S&P Global I think are very high
44:28 quality sources.
44:31 >> Marvelous. Well thank you. Well, I'm
44:32 going to ask you a final question and
44:34 because of diesel, like you mentioned
44:35 diesel and diesel is like the the
44:37 lifeblood of industry here in Canada and
44:39 it's, you know, like from the tractors,
44:41 trains and transport trucks and and the
44:43 tankers that carry them across the
44:44 ocean. Diesel is so important and then
44:46 diesel prices are just enormously high
44:49 and there's this huge premium, right?
44:51 The the crack spread or whatever you
44:52 want to call it, but this huge premium.
44:54 How do we fix diesel in Canada?
44:58 I you know I don't know what's going to
45:01 fix refined products because so much of
45:03 Russian supply has just been knocked
45:04 out. Um
45:07 you know so
45:09 again we are in a danger zone. Diesel is
45:12 at all-time highs that is that is going
45:14 to hit every facet of the economy. It's
45:18 you know we can't start building
45:19 refinery today. I don't think you know
45:21 like that will take years to unwind and
45:23 solve that problem. Um so yeah this just
45:26 you know it's just I see I foresee a
45:29 period of higher inflation uh is is
45:31 obviously coming and you know you know
45:35 govern yourselves accordingly.
45:37 >> Are they are they in danger of getting
45:39 some kind of wealth because I mean the
45:40 spreads they're making on diesel are are
45:43 I don't think they've ever seen those
45:44 types of spreads.
45:46 >> I mean I it'd be crazy to tax them more
45:49 when you want to incent.
45:52 [laughter]
45:52 Yeah. So if anything, you know, if you
45:55 really, you know, in Australia is is a
45:57 place that I'm sure will subsidize,
45:59 states subsidize more refining capacity.
46:02 We're fairly well supplied and can even
46:04 you're hitting all-time highs, but
46:05 you're not reaching scarcity. I think
46:07 some places are are going to have to
46:09 subsidize so that they have that
46:10 independent supply going forward.
46:14 Well, as usual, a wealth of knowledge
46:16 and we really appreciate you and um I
46:19 think the it's it's great that you're
46:20 educating the Canadian public more on on
46:22 the you know, energy and we say on this
46:25 show all the time, energy is prosperity
46:27 and security and cheap reliable energy
46:29 is the key, right? Cheap, reliable
46:31 energy. And I think that's what
46:32 everybody's chasing right now. And I
46:34 think that the world events have
46:36 highlighted that. and and and Trump may
46:38 be a blessing for Canada to actually,
46:40 you know, actually have to do something
46:41 because I think we've rested under some
46:44 policies that have been I don't know
46:47 like um pet policies or whatever you
46:50 want to call them that weren't rooted in
46:52 >> reality weren't rooted in reality of the
46:55 situation, right? So yeah, luxurious.
46:58 >> We can't afford the luxury anymore.
47:00 >> Not anymore.
47:02 >> Thank you. Thanks guys for having me
47:04 >> and thank you for watching a really big
47:06 show.