Série Energy Drivers – Quel avenir attend le secteur de l’énergie de l’Alberta dans un contexte d’incertitude géopolitique?

00:00:00 - 00:00:56

Lance Mortlock

Welcome to our next episode of the Energy Drivers Podcast. I'm Lance Mortlock and I'm your host for today's discussion with the Honorable Danielle Smith, Premier of the Province of Alberta. Throughout our series, we invite Canadian leaders to discuss key energy issues, share insights, and ask challenging questions. Today, we welcome Premier Smith on our show to discuss the Alberta energy industry and its crucial role in Canada's economy.

At the time of recording, Alberta's energy sector faces a climate of risk and uncertainty. With the energy transition continuing to gather pace, the threat of American tariffs looming and interprovincial differences presenting significant challenges ahead. We'll discuss these pressing issues and seek to understand Premier Smith's perspective and vision for the future of our energy space. Premier Smith, thank you for joining our podcast.

 

00:00:56 - 00:00:57

Danielle Smith

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

 

00:00:57 - 00:01:18

Lance Mortlock

So, to get us started, Alberta's energy sector is a powerhouse that contributes approximately 25% to our provincial GDP and employs hundreds of thousands of people. Before entering politics, how familiar were you with energy, space and have your views changed over the years?

 

00:01:18 - 00:03:25

Danielle Smith

I'd have to go back a long way to remember when I didn't know a lot about this industry, but what I always found about it, and I've had some great advisors over the years, is just when you think you know the industry, there's another aspect that you need to find out about.

I think I started understanding the industry from my parent's experience. My dad was always in the industry, and so began to understand a little bit about the oil and gas sector. He then, his company was bought out by Imperial, so got to know a little bit more about the large sector. But I really entered into the public policy world from a landowner perspective and a lease holder perspective, because we've got a unique system in Alberta where the Crown owns the mineral rights and you don't have the right to say no, you can't develop them.

So you have to develop a system to be able to give access and have the surface rights payments to be able to support any damage that is caused. So I learned about it from that perspective, that nexus between how do you mediate between two different property rights. But I could well imagine one of the things I remember, when I go back to how little I knew about the industry when I started off, I didn't know the difference between natural gas and gasoline.

And I often wonder if most consumers are like that, that they don't know that they're two different things. I think that's been part of the problem that we've had in trying to communicate to consumers. They just want to know that when they turn the heat on, it works, or they turn the switch on, the lights come on, or they go to a pump and the gasoline is there.

They don't really spend much time thinking about how it gets there, but that's why it's important for politicians to figure it out. I don't think that you can really be Premier of a province like Alberta, unless you know the system well. And I've been in a very deep, research mode since I first started running for office in 2009.

David Yager has been my long-time energy advisor, has taught me so much about the industry. And as I say, the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn. But I feel like I can communicate pretty well about why this industry is so important.

 

00:03:25 - 00:03:28

Lace Mortlock

You know, I've had the opportunity to spend some time with David over the years.

 

00:03:28 - 00:03:59

Danielle Smith

It's funny, I did ask him because after you know, my I guess it's been almost 15-16 years of collaboration. I said, so how much do I know compared to you? Do I know like 50% of what you know? And he said probably 10%. So, I know that there are a lot greater experts out there than I am.

But it's a brilliant industry. It's been so diverse, so dynamic, developing on so many fronts here that it really is an industry that I've enjoyed learning about and promoting.

 

00:03:59 - 00:04:01

Lance Mortlock

And a hotbed of innovation as well.

 

00:04:01 - 00:04:47

Danielle Smith

It is one of the most innovative industries. It is remarkable to me because, I know that there's this sense sometimes that there's a tension between the IT tech space and traditional resource development.

But I would say our industry continues to be at the forefront because it's a marriage of those two. We have a growing tech industry and many of the individuals that I've met out of that came from the traditional resource sector, saw a need that could be met if they could develop a technological solution. And so, there's a perfect marriage in some of the new tech innovations and how they lend themselves to doing either better production or cleaner production or brand-new energy uses.

 And so, I think that the industry here has always been at the forefront.

 

00:04:47 - 00:05:12

Lance Mortlock

I agree. And we'll come on to some of the clean tech a little bit later, maybe pivoting a little bit, the energy sector is currently at a crossroads, facing both significant challenges and opportunities. As a leader who many stakeholders turn to for guidance. How have you been, I guess steering through this period of uncertainty from an energy industry perspective?

 

00:05:12 - 00:07:50

Danielle Smith

It's hope for the best. Plan for the worst. I'm still very hopeful that we can have a diplomatic solution with our American friend and trading partner. And I think we already have demonstrated that diplomacy works. When the President started initially talking about putting 25% across the board tariffs to help address the issue of fentanyl and the border crisis, we were very effectively able to make the case that is just going to hurt American consumers.

You had a 25% tariff on oil and gas, and it's particularly our heavy oil. There are many  refineries in the US that are specially built to receive our particular brand of heavy oil. Can't get it there any other way. And if you and some of them are only marginal producers too, some marginal refiners, so if you ended up adding 25% cost, there's a potential that could run some of them out of business, which would create gasoline and diesel shortages.

And I don't think that would be good for American citizens. So, I think we were able to make the case that, if you cannot get heavy oil from Canada, there aren't very many great places to get it from. You get it from Venezuela, you can get it from Iran, and from Iraq. We think we're a better trading partner.

The other thing that I think we can say to the Americans is that if the US wants to use its WTI oil as a way of supporting international partners and crowding out some of the bad actors, they need us to backfill, they need our product to go into the US to keep prices low for American consumers so that they can export more of their product for their strategic interests.

So, I think that we support the Americans on both those fronts. And I think it's when he did a bit of a recalibration, he said, Okay, 10% for energy resources. That includes oil, gas, includes critical minerals and electricity. And now it's up to us to make the argument for food, to make the argument for auto parts, for natural resources and intermediate parts.

So that's again the positive side. The negative side is, why do we have this challenge right now? How did we get so dependent on the US? How come we created so many internal trade barriers to trading with each other? How come we created so many barriers to getting our product to new markets?

So, if there is a positive side of it, it's caused all of the provinces to now have their own recalibration, saying how can we maybe get some of these pipeline projects restarted? How can we trade more with each other? And so I think that's the potential civil silver lining that might come out of this.

 

00:07:50 - 00:08:16

Lance Mortlock

Shifting a little bit. The energy transition which we touched on, is on everyone's lips. Our clients talk about it frequently, and I'm sure you're consistently hearing about it, in your own circles. In your view, what does energy transition actually mean for this province? And can we balance reducing our carbon footprint while maintaining a robust industry and economy?

 

00:08:16 - 00:10:12

Danielle Smith

I think it's transitioning away from emissions. It's not transitioning away from oil and gas production. That's something I've been talking about for the last couple of years. We have been transitioning away from emissions, whether it's moving from natural gas, coal fired electricity to natural gas fired electricity in the emissions reduction that happens from that, whether it's using carbon capture utilization and storage to be able to bury emissions or turn it into useful products, or whether it's looking at different uses for our heavy oil because, as I understand  it's 60%, in some cases it's turned into asphalt. And so that's a non-combustion use of our heavy oil. So, if you're able to decarbonize the development of bitumen and then you're using it for construction purposes, you're not using it for combustion purposes, that will also reduce emissions without having to reduce production. There's, exciting developments potentially around, being able to develop carbon nanofibers for a replacement for steel.

And so, I'm really hopeful that this industry is going to find increasing uses for our products, but then also be able to deal with the emissions piece, either by doing the capture at source, which has been the most productive way, or direct air capture, which we're seeing a facility in the central Alberta area, develop a testing ground to be able to try out those different technologies.

There was already an early success with one of the I think it was carbon engineering that ended up selling their, direct air capture to Occidental. And so I would say that those kind of innovations offer a pathway for us to be able to continue to produce, but then also offset emissions. That's how I look at it, let's transition away from emissions but not away from production. I actually want to double production.

 

00:10:12 - 00:10:28

Lance Mortlock

And I think this idea of affordability, security and sustainability is always in balance. And you're trying to sort of think about what are the priorities and how do you balance those three elements of the trilemma. Right.

 

00:10:28 - 00:11:52

Danielle Smith

Yeah. For me, it's about what is a reasonable capital replacement schedule, that's where the costs come in, so if you end up with an industry that is fearful of stranded assets, they might not invest at all.

If you can give some certainty to the industry that you understand that they've got a natural capital replacement turnover. So, if you can say, okay, well, you're building a natural gas power plant today, in 25 years, our expectation is just you're going to use the next iteration of available technology. But I think anything is possible with a long enough time frame. And the way I've described it is, imagine you buy a new car today and then someone tells you two years from now that it has to be electric vehicle. What are you going to say? That's not fair. I invested the money today, I expected this car to last me 10 or 15 years.

But if you brought in an emissions standard that was 15 years old, people might say, Okay, well, next time I get the next car, then maybe I'll plan to have a hybrid or I'll plan to have a hydrogen vehicle or something. But you have to give people a reasonable amount of time to be able to get their investment paid off.

Otherwise you're just going to stall the economy on both fronts. You're going to increase the  costs overall to consumers, and then you're going to have an underinvestment and you're not going to then get to the place that you want to get to.

 

00:11:52 - 00:12:22

Lance Mortlock

Last year, the Alberta Utilities Commission concluded in its inquiry into the ongoing economic, orderly and efficient development of electricity generation in Alberta.

And I found module B findings particularly intriguing, given that they focused on ensuring reliability and integrity of the electricity system that's being affected by renewable generation. What's your take on the future of renewable energy in our province?

 

00:12:22 - 00:14:47

Danielle Smith

So, when I came in, I observed that over the course of a year and a half, I believe we had some 18 near failures in our power grid, whereas it used to be a very unusual experience.

And so what was happening and what is still happening, but to a lesser extent is, when you overbuild on solar and wind and you don't have a sufficient backup, wind comes on all in a rush as to solar and falls off on a solar is a little bit more predictable, but then you have to be able to have the peaker plants come on stream to be able to ensure that you can support the load.

And sometimes there's a mismatch. So that's what we have to be able to manage. We want a responsible amount of wind and solar on the grid, but every electron on wind and solar that comes on, you need to have a natural gas backup or as battery technology develops a battery backup.  If you look at our stats, wind works about 30% of the time, solar works about 10% of the time, that means you need to have some other type of dispatchable power available to you at the other time. And I think that was the hard conversation we had to have with Albertans, is that I know that there is this theory that you can operate your economy on wind and solar and batteries, and that's it.

But our battery technology right now lasts about an hour. And when you lose the sun in the wind in -30°C at 5:00 at night, that's a long time, you have to wait until the sun comes back up and the wind starts blowing again. So, we have to have a realistic approach. The reason we have always been able to be at the forefront of renewable investment is because we have the peaker plants, we have the natural gas backup.

And I think, Albertans are beginning to understand that we happen to be in a really good position now that I believe about 2700MW of dispatchable natural gas came on in the last year. So rather than having $0.32 a kilowatt hour, which is what we were facing when I first came in, I think it's been averaging around $0.02 to $0.03 a kilowatt hour.

So, we actually have a surplus of energy at the moment, which has the happy consequence that we've got AI data centers who just happen to be looking for a place where there's a surplus of energy. So, it's allowed us to make a, to reach our hand out to that industry and make the pitch for them to locate here.

So but the point is, we always have to be making sure that we're developing enough baseload power.

 

00:14:47 - 00:14:51

Lance Mortlock

Do you believe in nuclear in the future?

 

00:14:51 - 00:16:18

Danielle Smith

I think so. The challenge in a natural gas basin like ours is natural gas still, is just so much more cost effective. We've looked at the numbers on it.

I think there's an appetite to look at small modular reactors, which makes some good sense for some of our remote industrial sites. But when you're looking at a dollar-for-dollar comparison, call it a 1000MW if you're trying to bring that on stream. We just brought on Cascades, a 900-megawatt plant, for, I believe it was a $1.5 billion investment, might be closer to 2.5 billion today.

So that's what a natural gas power plant might look like. Nuclear for a similar size we're hearing is somewhere in the order of 15 to $20 billion. Small modular for the same size would be more like $45 billion. So, I understand the fuel is cheaper, uranium is cheaper. And, to be able to fuel a plant, you still have to factor in what the cost of natural gas would be.

But with natural gas prices being this low and likely to be this low for the foreseeable future, the economics still point towards, natural gas more than nuclear. Will we tend to have a free enterprise approach to the decision on generation, where we're trying to nudge the market into looking at more baseload power.

But I think there may need to be some step change in the technology on nuclear to bring the price down before it becomes competitive with natural gas.

 

00:16:18 - 00:16:48

Lance Mortlocks

Right. I'm also interested in your perspective on emerging clean energy technologies, which we touched on earlier, particularly clean hydrogen and carbon capture and sequestration. Alberta Innovates report, supporting 37 hydrogen and 43 CCS related projects, with funding exceeding $150 million.

With such significant investment and other investments, what role do you see these technologies playing in the energy transition in the future?

 

00:16:48 - 00:18:12

Danielle Smith

You're always hopeful that when you find a bright entrepreneur, that they're going to be able to find a solution that can then be scaled up. I don't know what the success ratio is. I don't know if it's one in 10, or one in 20, or one and 100, but by giving seed money to a number of different enterprises, we think that that will allow some of those good ideas to go forward.

We use Alberta Innovates, Alberta Enterprise Corporation, we've used emissions reduction Alberta. There have been some successes, E3 the lithium was one of the items we backed. I mentioned the carbon engineering.  We also have been backing geothermal as well. So, Eavor is one of the technologies that is had at scale roll out in Germany.

So, we've been able to already see that some of the things that we were able to provide some support for have turned into the technologies of the future. And so personally, I've already talked to my team about this,  I would like for us to take, instead of a grant stake in those kinds of companies and equity stake so that, Alberta taxpayers, if they're investing 500,000 or $1 million and the next big thing hits, why don't  we have a little bit of a way for us to be able to support and nurture those industries and now also have a little bit of a return to tax payers.

Haven't got quite there yet in policy, but I think that's the direction that I'd like to go.

 

00:18:12 - 00:18:39

Lance Mortlock

Shifting gears to a topic that's been on everyone's minds and very contentious is, tariffs and the relationship between Canada and the US, which has been fundamental to both economies for decades, considering our history, culture and, of course, energy independence.

How do you foresee the impacts of tariffs on the Alberta economy and should we be bracing for impact?

 

00:18:39 - 00:22:51

Danielle Smith

It depends, really, I mean. Ask me in 12 hours and my answer might change because I watch Truth Social just like anyone else to find out if we can see what the direction is going to be. We're on a pathway to a March 4^th imposition of 25% tariffs on most goods, 10% on our energy resources, which I think, if we can demonstrate that we are matching the Americans effort in addressing the fentanyl crisis and border security, I think we might be able to avoid those.

We did avoid them the first time. We've got a new fentanyl czar, Kevin Brosseau, who is in Washington having meetings. We have declared cartels to be terrorist organizations. We've added $200 million in investment at the border and 10,000 personnel, helicopters, sniffer dogs, commercial vehicle inspection. We've had some success in stopping the flow of drugs both ways, quite frankly. And so, I think we've got a good case to make that we are putting the best efforts in, it's showing success and we're going to keep on doing it. So, I hope we're able to avoid those tariffs. The stage two tariffs if we can call them that, are the tariffs that are likely to come in on April the 2nd and have been interested in the President's language around this and his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, talking about reciprocal tariffs. And just in recent days they've given some pretty clear indication of what that means. The Americans do not like national value added sales taxes because they don't have a national sales tax. They've got state level taxes and local taxes. But Canada has a GST of 5%.

European countries have national sales taxes above 20%. And if you read the former Trade Secretary Robert Lighthizer book, that is at the core of what the Americans are trying to do, is they're trying to impose reciprocal taxes that mirror the same kind of taxes that nations are charging on American goods going into their market. So if that's the case, Lutnick was pretty clear. He knows that we have a 5% GST. If we end up with a 5% tariff and everybody else ends up with 20%, maybe that's actually a good outcome for us. It still gives us an advantageous position. We'd also have to then talk about, some of the other trade irritants that we're hearing from the Americans. They don't like the digital services tax.

They feel that's an unfair tax on American businesses. They keep on expressing their frustration about dairy. We had to make concessions in the past on supply management, that's probably on the table. It sounds like the Americans want to move more of the auto industry back into the United States as well, which will impact on Ontario and then steel and aluminum are also areas, but aluminum, I think we can make the same argument that we have on oil and gas, because the Americans don't really have very many good options for where to get aluminum from.

It's not very easy to spool up the resources, the investment that they need for that. And so, I would say that there's going to be a bit of a reality reckoning that happens whatever, tariff regime is imposed because then you'll begin to hear the American voices that receive Canadian products or Canadian inputs, probably lobbying their representatives, saying this is hurting American people.

And that, to me is going to be the most influential. I think that's part of the reason we had some success on energy, is the American Petroleum Institute, the cross-border companies like Enbridge and TC energy, who've got massive pipeline networks in both our nations as well as the refiners, got very active in expressing to the President, just what kind of impact it would have on American citizens and American jobs.

And that's how Canadians have to frame in, we have to frame it in American interest.  The better job that we can do in lending our narrative to that narrative, I think we'll have some success.

 

00:22:51 - 00:23:15

Lance Mortlock

Building on the theme a little bit. The tariff threat has brought a renewed focus on unity within Canada. And as we saw at the recent Canada-US economic summit, Premier Smith, in your view, what opportunities are there to enhance provincial relationships you know across the country?

 

00:23:15 - 00:25:21

Danielle Smith

A very high opportunity. It's been encouraging for me to see that, I had to have some pretty direct words with my, with my colleagues because, as you know, I, parted company with them very early on because everyone seemed to be just bulldozing ahead with some notion that we might be able to cut off energy or tax exports of energy. And I had to let, everyone be aware that if you did something like that, not only would it harm Eastern Canada the most because we didn't build the energy east pipeline, so they are 100% reliant on oil and gas coming to them from either the United States or overseas.

But the other side of it was that why does Alberta sell so much to the United States? Well, it's because they wouldn't let us build those pipelines. We couldn't get Northern Gateway built. We couldn't get Energy East built. The federal government did nothing to defend us either when Keystone XL ended up getting canceled. And so we've done whatever we can.

Our industry has done whatever it can to use looping and twinning and compression to get as much product out of the basin as possible. But we've done a with very little help from our federal government and our neighbors and so that I think was a moment of clarity for everyone is that we all realized that our stronger trade relationship is North-South rather than East-West. Why do we trade more with our southern state partners than we do with our provincial neighbors? So, my internal trade minister, Matt Jones, he's taking the lead on helping us to have a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement so we can get labor, mobility, goods mobility, procurement, mobility. And, the part and parcel of that is talking about how we can help each other.

I'm supportive of François Legault wanting to build more icebreakers because I know the Americans need it. We'll certainly need it if we end up with a northern port. And, I think in return, we're going to be making the case about can we get an East-West pipeline built? Can we get another line going up?

                                     

00:25:20 - 00:25:23

Lance Mortlock

Do you believe that's realistic, though?

 

00:25:23 - 00:25:25

Danielle Smith

Yes. I'll tell you what I think is the most realistic.

 

00:25:25 - 00:25:33

Lance Mortlock

From an investment perspective and the risk involved in building a pipeline like that. Again, given our learnings from Trans Mountain.

 

00:25:33 - 00:28:56

Danielle Smith

I would say that part of the problem with Trans Mountain was that you need to determine the route and resolve the First Nations interests and the environmental issues first, and then you have a corridor where you can then start to build.

I think the problem was, those things were not sorted out in advance. There were all kinds of work stoppages that happened for environmental reasons and endangered species reasons. I think there were still some issues that had to be resolved with First Nations. But if we have a model now with our Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, where we can bring nations in as equity partners, and that has changed the conversation, it allows them to assist us in developing the route and helping to identify some of the problems.

So I would say I always prefer for these kinds of projects to be proponent led. But look what Scott Moe just did in Saskatchewan. He said, you got a pipeline project, consider it pre-approved. The answer is yes. And wouldn't that be something if every province did the same thing? I think the most economically feasible pipelines are probably, I was just reading about a twin of the Trans Mountain pipeline going north.

The Kinder Morgan original proposal talked about different routes, and so why not dust that off and see if we can go an existing right of way to get to Kitimat? I think another option for us is, I know that our friends in Northwest Territories and Nunavut are very keen to develop Grays Bay. If you can develop that as a strategic export port for critical minerals.

Also, perhaps, a strategic location to be able to have some kind of joint, NORAD defense infrastructure. And then we're able to also piggyback on having pipelines go up there, that's a possibility. We already have an economic corridor agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba. And you probably saw that in Manitoba, Wab Kinew just made a major investment in the Port of Churchill, that's a potential. Another potential is having a bit of a spur line come up in Ontario to James Bay, again need icebreakers for that. And if we want to restart the, conversation about going east, I would say we would have probably be a lot more fruitful if we didn't try to ram it through Montreal, where there's a lot of opposition, and look further north, where there is a lot more openness, among the people, to consider how they can develop their own vast natural gas resources.

And that's, I think we have to be very mindful about what a route would look like. Does it make economic sense? Well, I suppose the CP rail, initially when John A. MacDonald was building the country, didn't make economic sense. But why did he do it? He knew that Manifest destiny was very much an active conversation in the United States at the time.

And if Canada wanted to exist, it had to have big nation building projects. And I think that we're at that same kind of critical point in our history. We have to start acting like a country.

It goes back to the one of the first statements I made is, I don't know if people really think about where their energy comes from, and if they did start thinking about where it comes from. I think that if you frame it that way, people, really would like to buy Canadian, and now we just have to sort through some of the more complicated issues to be able to get that infrastructure built. But I think that there is an appetite now that I haven't seen, I've been watching this for some time.

 

00:28:56 - 00:29:24

Lance Mortlock

Maybe one more question before we conclude here. Related to this, the regulatory system, my observation, I've been saying for a long time on this podcast, with all kinds of energy CEOs across Canada, our regulatory system is complicated. It's difficult to deploy capital in Canada and do it in a way where there's regulatory certainty. What's your view? Do we need to modernize the regulatory system in Canada, and what does that look like?

 

00:29:24 - 00:31:07

Danielle Smith

We need to match whatever it is they do in the United States. The fact that the interior secretary is also heading this Energy Council to coordinate between all of the agencies who have a touch on pipeline infrastructure, they're going to pioneer a pathway to permit reform.

And we have to match that pathway on, permitting reform. I think we have some opportunities in Alberta to improve that as well. We've got some clunky plumbing on our natural gas system. Not enough pipes where the resources are sometimes bottlenecks and ends up driving prices negative. So, we've got to do some of that work ourselves and maybe chart a pathway for how we can improve the permitting process.

Then we can help educate the federal government when it comes to cross-border pipeline infrastructure. But I'll be watching very closely to see how they are able to fast track that in the US and we've got to do the same. It's a matter of having all the decision makers at the table.

And we already have that. We've got an integrated resource management structure that's been in place for some time. So, all of the different ministries that have any impact on energy development, sit at a table once a month and talk about a work plan. And now the work plan is going to be how do we address the water issues, the endangered species issues, caribou issues, First Nations issues, how do we make sure that landowners are consulted, property taxes are paid.

These are the kind of things that that we already have a working committee on that. And we  have to start in earnest figuring out how to reduce some of the barriers, reduce some of the red tape.

 

00:31:07 - 00:31:17

Lance Mortlock

Awesome. Maybe final comments that you want to share. And we have thousands of listeners across the country that are interested in the energy system. Anything you want to wrap up with?

 

00:31:17 - 00:32:20

Danielle Smith

I would say that this could potentially be a really positive time for Canadian unity and Canadian development. We have fallen so far behind on our standard of living, on our productivity. And some of it is because we've been shying away from the things that we're really good at.

We're really good at resource development. And it's important for the world to be able to get not only our oil and gas, but our critical minerals, our electricity. We have the ability, and I think it's important that we match the American's aspiration to not lose the AI war. We should want to be able to make sure that we're using AI to the benefit of all of our consumers and that we're staying ahead on that race and so, I think that this is a time that everybody is going to be able to benefit from that. If we can just get out of our way, we can stop fighting with each other, partner with those friends and allies that I think share our interest in a free and democratic society.

I think that this really could be an incredible period for Canadian development.

 

00:32:20 - 00:32:24

Lance Mortlock

 Well, thank you for joining the podcast.

 

00:32:24 - 00:32:25

Danielle Smith

My pleasure. Good to talk to you.

 

00:32:25 - 00:34:21

Lance Mortlock

Good luck as you continue your diplomatic efforts for our better in Canada. It was a pleasure discussing Alberta's energy landscape amidst geopolitical uncertainty and exploring the opportunities ahead.  For our listeners

If you have your own questions or queries, you can reach out to EY via the attached contact details. Finishing another great conversation and episode, I'd like to share a few final thoughts with our listeners. Number one, energy transition is more than just a buzzword. Premier Smith highlighted the importance of navigating the complexities of the energy transition while ensuring industry and economic growth occurs.

Alberta must remain agile and leverage its diverse energy mix that includes both traditional sources and renewable energy. Number two, the threat of tariffs shouldn't be underestimated. Once again, Premier Smith underscored the intertwined nature of the Canadian and US economies, reminding us that tariffs could have significant implications for consumers and businesses alike, both in Canada and the US. It's crucial for Alberta to remain proactive and strategic in anticipation of potential tariff negotiations.

Finally, international diplomacy should also be backed by cross provincial action, while international diplomacy is key, Premier Smith also pointed to the importance of internal action to reduce interprovincial differences and trade barriers. New LNG infrastructure could be a vital component in safeguarding our economy and enhancing access to international markets, despite the challenges of the past. Once again, thank you to our listeners for joining the podcast, and we'll see you at the next episode.