Canada Could Displace Half of Russian Energy

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - DEC 23, 2016: The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with eyes closed at the annual press conference in Center of international trade
  • New survey of oil and gas experts suggests Canada could displace up to 59% of Russian natural gas exports and up to 46% of Russian oil sales over the next decade

CALGARY, AB: Today, think tank SecondStreet.org released new analysis that examines just how much of Russia’s oil and natural gas exports Canada could displace over the short term (one year), medium term (three to five years) and long term (seven to ten years). A key assumption was that our country made it a priority to develop and export more resources.

“Putin is paying for his rockets and tanks by selling oil and natural gas to the world,” said SecondStreet.org President Colin Craig. “Canada could take a big bite out of Russia’s military funding by stealing many of Putin’s oil and natural gas customers. It can’t happen overnight but we need to remember, the world is facing a long-term problem with Russia.”

SecondStreet.org surveyed eight experts in the oil and gas industry, asking them to estimate how much Russian energy Canada could displace in the short, medium and long term. Their responses were then averaged and compared with projections for future Russian energy exports.

Findings from the research include:

  • Over the next 7-10 years, Canada could offset upwards of 59% of Russia’s annual natural gas exports and 46% of their crude oil exports. 
  • In the short term (one year), very little Russian energy sales could be offset by Canada. This is largely due to limitations on pipeline capacity and the reality that new energy projects tend to take longer than a year to get off the ground. Experts’ estimates suggest Canada could offset 4% of Russian natural gas exports and 6% crude oil exports. 
  • In the medium term, a more significant reduction to Russian energy sales could be achieved – 18% of natural gas, 19% of crude oil.

“It’s great for consumers that alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen power are emerging and growing. Competition is good,” added Craig. “However, they’re still a very small percentage of global energy and the world is expected to continue using oil and natural gas for decades. There’s a big opportunity for Canada to step up and be an ethical, dependable supplier on the world stage.”

To view SecondStreet.org’s policy brief – click here

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.