Energy efficiency is only part of the puzzle

As someone working in the oil and gas industry, I read the opinion piece Energy efficiency a better bet than pipelines, Aug. 23, by James Wilt and Niall Harney with interest.

The authors make a compelling case for prioritizing energy-efficiency measures like building retrofits and geothermal heating over expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, arguing that such investments create more jobs, reduce emissions, and avoid the risks of stranded assets amid a supposed peak in oil and gas demand by 2030.

While energy efficiency is undoubtedly valuable and should be part of any balanced strategy, the article overlooks critical realities: the ongoing global demand for reliable energy sources like oil and natural gas, the inherent inefficiencies of alternatives such as solar and wind, and the substantial economic benefits that pipelines and fossil fuels provide to provinces like Manitoba and Canada as a whole. Relying exclusively on efficiency and renewables risks energy insecurity, higher costs, and lost opportunities. Below, I address the article’s key claims and offer a more comprehensive perspective.

First, global oil and gas demand is not peaking soon — it’s set to grow, making infrastructure investments essential.

The authors cite the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast of oil and gas demand peaking by 2030, driven by electrification trends, to label new pipelines as a “risky gamble.” However, this view is contested by other authoritative sources, highlighting a significant divide in projections.

For instance, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) forecasts oil demand rising to 123 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2050 — a 19 per cent increase from current levels — led by growth in developing regions like India and Africa. This contrasts sharply with the IEA’s plateau at around 105 million bpd by 2030 in its most optimistic scenarios. OPEC has even hiked its long-term forecasts, emphasizing no demand peak in sight, while the IEA’s predictions have been criticized for underestimating growth in non-OECD countries. A GlobalData poll aligns with this, with over 60 per cent of respondents expecting demand to rise beyond 2030.

This divergence underscores that betting against oil and gas could leave Canada sidelined as global suppliers like OPEC+ ramp up production. The authors dismiss fossil fuel exports as “fantasies of prosperity,” but ignoring robust demand projections risks stranding Manitoba’s and Canada’s resources, which could generate billions in revenue.

Energy efficiency alone cannot fill this gap — it’s a demand-side tool, not a supply solution for a world still reliant on hydrocarbons for transportation, manufacturing, and heating.

Second, solar and wind’s inefficiencies make them unreliable as full replacements — natural gas provides the necessary backstop.

While the article promotes “climate solutions” like efficiency upgrades, it glosses over the limitations of renewables such as solar and wind, which are often positioned as alternatives but suffer from intermittency, low-capacity factors, and massive land requirements.

Wind and solar generate power only when conditions allow, with average capacity factors of around 35 per cent for wind and 25 per cent for solar, compared to 50-90 per cent for natural gas plants. This intermittency necessitates overbuilding generation capacity — often by three to four times — to ensure reliability, plus expensive storage, or backups, which frequently rely on natural gas to avoid blackouts.

Land use is another inefficiency: Solar requires about 43.5 acres per megawatt (MW) of capacity, and wind needs 70.6 acres per MW, dwarfing the footprint of natural gas facilities. In Manitoba, where vast agricultural and natural lands are at stake, scaling solar or wind to meet growing electricity demand (as the authors note) could encroach on productive areas, leading to conflicts and higher costs. Moreover, geographic variations mean solar output drops significantly in northern latitudes like Manitoba during winter, exacerbating intermittency.

In contrast, natural gas offers reliable, dispatchable power that can ramp up quickly to support renewables. It’s also environmentally superior to coal, emitting 50 to 60 per cent less CO2 and fewer air pollutants when burned. While methane leaks are a concern, modern infrastructure minimizes them, and natural gas has driven U.S. emissions reductions by displacing coal. Efficiency measures are great for reducing waste, but they can’t power heavy industry or transportation without baseload sources like gas and oil.

Third, pipelines deliver long-term economic benefits, not just short-term jobs — far outweighing subsidies.

The authors criticize pipelines like Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) for requiring subsidies and providing only temporary jobs, calling the revenue a “drop in the fiscal bucket.” This understates the broader impacts. TMX, now operational, is projected to generate $9.2 billion in GDP and $3.7 billion in wages from 2024-2043, while boosting Canadian oil prices by $9 per barrel through market diversification to Asia. It has already invested $5 million in local infrastructure in communities like Clearwater, improving sewers, water, and roads. Nationally, TMX enables higher exports, generating revenue for governments and supporting Indigenous partnerships.

On jobs, while efficiency and renewables create roles (e.g., retrofits generating 2.8 times more jobs per dollar than fossils in some studies), oil and gas positions are often higher-paying and include long-term operations beyond construction. Fossil fuels still employ millions globally, with clean energy growth impressive but not yet eclipsing the sector’s economic multiplier effects. In Manitoba, tying into national pipelines could create supply chain jobs and revenue to fund the very efficient programs the authors advocate, rather than pitting them against each other.

Finally, consider a balanced approach: efficiency complements, but doesn’t replace, oil and gas.

The article’s call for a “green public bank” to finance retrofits is sensible, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of fossil fuels. Manitoba’s hydro-based grid is a strength, yet growing demand from electrification requires all tools — including natural gas as a bridge fuel to cut emissions faster than renewables alone can.

Efficiency reduces demand, but global trends show energy needs rising overall, necessitating supply growth.

In conclusion, while energy efficiency is a smart investment for affordability and resilience, dismissing pipelines and fossil fuels as outdated ignores evidence of sustained demand, renewables’ limitations, and the tangible benefits of oil and gas.

Canada, including Manitoba, should pursue an “all-of-the-above” strategy: enhance efficiency, integrate renewables with gas backups, and responsibly develop resources. This ensures energy security, economic growth, and emission reductions without ideological blinders. The authors’ vision is well-intentioned but incomplete, oil and gas remain vital for a pragmatic transition.

Rick Judson has spent his career as a pipeline professional in the oil and gas sector.