In Canada the people tend to opt towards renwables because we have a lot of open area for solar and rivers for hydro, but lately the PM has been using greenwashing speak that sound similar to Trump's "clean coal" BS. Which makes me believe that the industry has some room to grow. But I don't know if the demand is there or not.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/government-adviser-slams-mark-carney-for-promoting-decarbonized-oil-pipelines/article_71fd48cf-5328-4936-b827-d59faee9a817.html

Much of Canada's main oil and pipelines run into the US who process it in their refineries then we buy the finished product so it's profitability is also tied to the US market.
Plus our power supply and generation is not as high meaning more support on renewables less on NG. So my thoughts are that it's pointless even if Alberta whines about it.

Stil, the export into Japan and other oversea countries is important and if we start building more ways to export product it could see a return even though oil profitably is near barely break even point

I know nothing of Canada's energy situation.
I know little about America's energy situation, save that we should have pivoted to nuclear just as most other countries capable of it should have. Granted, different places have to deal with different natural disasters which require some heavily resistant infrastructure.
Ultimately we're dealing with forces we can't compete against: a few dozen people with lots of money. It doesn't matter how rational or beneficial something is if they say no. It's not about the science, it's about money. I stopped following this energy stuff years ago because it's depressing to read about scientific breakthroughs that will be crushed and suppressed if it means someone might have a slightly smaller fleet of yachts.

>>3763
It's not like the US doesn't have nuclear power