Does Canada becoming an energy superpower depend on public opinion in Quebec?

[blackbird]

Up to now it has been impossible to build gas and oil pipelines into and through Quebec because the Quebec government relies entirely on public opinion in Quebec to make its decisions on what it will and will not allow to be built in Quebec.  Public opinion is a very fickle thing and whether or not a country becomes economically well off by being an energy superpower should not depend on the whims of the public in one province.  That is not leadership.

Environmental organizations are also given a major platform and they are experts in driving public opinion.

So regardless of what PM Carney wishes to do, unless he can convince the Quebec government to go along with building oil and gas pipelines in and through Quebec, we are dead in the water.

Alberta and some western provinces hope to possibly ship oil and gas from a port on the Hudson Bay at the north end of Manitoba.  This might work but it is a lot further from the Atlantic ocean than the maritime provinces of N.S., Quebec, and N.B.  There might also be challenges in shipping through the Hudson Bay in the winter when the water freezes up with thick ice.  So there are two problems with shipping from Hudson Bay,  ice and distance.

We also have problems with the ideological B.C. NDP which is opposed to oil pipelines and possibly even natural gas.  They are often opposed to resource development.  They are obsessed with fighting climate change. They are also obsessed with giving FNs control over resource development.  So we can expect problems from them when it comes to building an oil pipeline across B.C. to Kitimat or Prince Rupert.

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

57 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We also have problems with the ideological B.C. NDP which is opposed to oil pipelines

Then why did they double the capacity of the oil pipelines?

[herbie]

Oh forget about that. Let's pretend they didn't so we can keep with the narrative.
It was the almost unanimous decision by the enviro-nazis in northern BC that prevented the company with only the best interests of all Canadians from putting a virgin river system and it's salmon runs, the Inside Passage and Canada's west coast at risk purely for 'woke' reasons.

 

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Then why did they double the capacity of the oil pipelines?

Because the Trans Mountain Pipeline was decades old and not carrying enough oil.  A new TMX pipeline was added but that still does not provide near the capacity that is needed to ship to Asia.  Most of TMX oil goes to the U.S.

However, Alberta could be shipping far more than twice as much oil through B.C. to Asian markets than it is now if we had a Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat or Prince Rupert from Alberta.  Why would anybody oppose Canada shipping and selling its vast oil reserves to international markets and just let other countries do it?  Doesn't make any sense.  We could also be selling to many other countries if we had a pipeline to the east coast.   But Energy East was killed by Trudeau, Quebec, FNs, and enviro groups.

"

Canadian crude exports from the recently expanded Trans Mountain pipeline are shifting to the U.S. from Asia, showing how the major project’s effect on global oil markets remains in flux.

Exports by tanker to the Far East in July fell 45 per cent from a month earlier to 107,000 barrels a day, while shipments to the U.S. West Coast — mostly to California — more than tripled to 240,000 barrels a day, Vortexa ship-tracking data show. Shipments to China, the biggest Asian buyer, fell by about 36 per cent to 91,400 barrels a day."

Trans Mountain pipeline oil exports shift to U.S. from Asia | Financial Post

The vast majority of our oil goes to the U.S.

We could be selling far more oil to Asian markets, but we need another pipeline to do it.

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Because the Trans Mountain Pipeline was decades old and not carrying enough oil. 

So they were pro-pipeline.  

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We could be selling far more oil to Asian markets, but we need another pipeline to do it.

Why not triple the existing pipeline?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

We could be selling far more oil to Asian markets, but we need another pipeline to do it.

Why not triple the existing pipeline?

There are several reasons they don't do it that way.

1.  It is a shorter ocean shipping route from Prince Rupert in northwest B.C. to Japan and China and the other Asian markets.  You have to look at a globe to see but the route goes across the north Pacific.  A flat topographical map does not show the distance correctly.

The distance from Vancouver to China is about 9533 km.  But from Prince Rupert to China it is about 8677 km, almost a thousand kilometers less.  That makes a big difference for shipping anything.

2.  Using a pipeline on the TMX route would greatly increase the tanker traffic in the busy port of Vancouver, Georgia Strait, and Puget Sound to and from the Pacific Ocean.  They don't want to increase tankers in the Vancouver area if it can be avoided.  Much better to use another port on the north coast that is not very busy.  Vancouver harbour is already a busy place with various ships including cruise ships.  

Also, they must use pilots on deep sea ships from Vancouver out to the open Pacific and they are under speed restrictions because of whales, and other shipping in the lower mainland/Vancouver island area.  The open ocean is closer to Prince Rupert which means less time spent getting in and out of the area.  Much less shipping on the north coast as well.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2025 by blackbird

[paxamericana]

It’s not built because you didn’t ask America’s permission. We own all the major oil companies. You’ll be dealing with our CIA backed environmental tree huggers until the end of time. 

Edited July 22, 2025 by paxamericana

[Zeitgeist]

49 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

It’s not built because you didn’t ask America’s permission. We own all the major oil companies. You’ll be dealing with our CIA backed environmental tree huggers until the end of time. 

It’s got zero to do with the US and everything to do with Quebec and anti-resource development Indigenous activists.

[paxamericana]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s got zero to do with the US and everything to do with Quebec and anti-resource development Indigenous activists.

If you want your pipeline built, ask our permission first. Source; trust me bro.

[TreeBeard]

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s got zero to do with the US and everything to do with Quebec and anti-resource development Indigenous activists.

Quebec is the reason we don’t get a pipeline through northern BC?  

[blackbird]

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Quebec is the reason we don’t get a pipeline through northern BC?  

The major reason there are no companies jumping in to offer to build a pipeline across northern B.C. (actually more central B.C., Edmonton to Prince Rupert) is because of the the federal laws still in existence that would prevent the pipeline from being approved and proceeding.  Bill C69 is still there and the tanker ban on the north BC coast is still there.  The federal government under Carney would have to kill those laws before anything can get started.  We are waiting to see how serious he is about getting a pipeline built.

[herbie]

It would be relatively easy to propose another pipe down the TMX route, far easier than garnering support for a new northern BC one.
Just as it would be easier to propose expansion of LNG lines already in place.

And just as The 1% have perverted the need of sovereignty over the NW Passage from he residents wish to prevent Alaskan oil tankers out of it to keeping Chinese warships out, opening Hudson's Bay to oil tankers would fulfill that corporate agenda.

As far as Quebec goes, that's Quebec's concern. If they can't make a deal sweet enough for them, then their bad.

[Zeitgeist]

On 7/21/2025 at 9:50 PM, paxamericana said:

If you want your pipeline built, ask our permission first. Source; trust me bro.

Not sure we should build more pipelines to the U.S.  Keep the extra oil for our own consumption.

On 7/21/2025 at 10:09 PM, TreeBeard said:

Quebec is the reason we don’t get a pipeline through northern BC?  

No, that’s the Indigenous activists.  Quebec is why we can’t pipe oil to Eastern Canada.  

[August1991]

Many Quebecers are zero-sum thinkers.

If foreigners use electrictity, this makes Quebec rich because Quebec has electrictity. 

[Aristides]

On 7/21/2025 at 3:39 PM, blackbird said:

Because the Trans Mountain Pipeline was decades old and not carrying enough oil.  A new TMX pipeline was added but that still does not provide near the capacity that is needed to ship to Asia.  Most of TMX oil goes to the U.S.

However, Alberta could be shipping far more than twice as much oil through B.C. to Asian markets than it is now if we had a Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat or Prince Rupert from Alberta.  Why would anybody oppose Canada shipping and selling its vast oil reserves to international markets and just let other countries do it?  Doesn't make any sense.  We could also be selling to many other countries if we had a pipeline to the east coast.   But Energy East was killed by Trudeau, Quebec, FNs, and enviro groups.

"

Canadian crude exports from the recently expanded Trans Mountain pipeline are shifting to the U.S. from Asia, showing how the major project’s effect on global oil markets remains in flux.

Exports by tanker to the Far East in July fell 45 per cent from a month earlier to 107,000 barrels a day, while shipments to the U.S. West Coast — mostly to California — more than tripled to 240,000 barrels a day, Vortexa ship-tracking data show. Shipments to China, the biggest Asian buyer, fell by about 36 per cent to 91,400 barrels a day."

Trans Mountain pipeline oil exports shift to U.S. from Asia | Financial Post

The vast majority of our oil goes to the U.S.

We could be selling far more oil to Asian markets, but we need another pipeline to do it.

 

BC has made no objection to increasing capacity along the existing TransMountain right of way. Three pipes instead of the existing two.

There is nothing that requires TMX capacity to go to the US. That was the whole idea behind building the thing. 

Why are we selling more to the US if we could get more money for it in Asia?

Edited July 24, 2025 by Aristides

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

There is nothing that requires TMX capacity to go to the US. That was the whole idea behind building the thing. 

Why are we selling more to the US if we could get more money for it in Asia?

The U.S. is our major customer.  You would have to ask an oil company financial officer why we sell most of our oil to the U.S. from pipelines in Alberta and B.C.  That is just the way the system evolved over time.  

B.C. gets much of its gas for motor vehicles from refineries in the U.S.  If we are going to stop shipping oil to the U.S. through the TMX pipeline, then you must first build refineries in B.C. lower mainland area.  The refineries for gas for B.C. motor vehicles are in the U.S.

So even if you had refineries in lower mainland B.C. to provide gas from TMX for B.C. motor vehicles, you still would not have enough capacity left in the TMX pipeline to ship a large amount of crude oil to Asia through Vancouver.  B.C. needs the TMX pipeline for its own needs.

The other thing is Vancouver is a busy seaport and there are lots of vessels moving around the port.  So if you want to ship lots of oil to Asia, why would you do it through a port like Vancouver which is much further from Asia and much busier than Prince Rupert BC?  Shipping through a port like Prince Rupert which has much less traffic is safer and less chance of accidents.

 

So we need the TMX pipeline to provide fuel for B.C. motor vehicles to begin with.

Therefore TMX does not have enough capacity to ship much crude oil to Asia and is the reason not much for Asia goes through TMX.

Edited July 24, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

There is nothing that requires TMX capacity to go to the US.

That's not correct.   TMX provide the oil to Washington and they refine it and ship the gas back to B.C.  B.C. doesn't have refineries of its own in the lower mainland.   

So even if you built refineries in the lower mainland, the TMX would still be required for B.C. and there would still not be enough capacity to ship a large amount of oil to Asia through it.  We still need another pipeline for Asia.

Edited July 24, 2025 by blackbird

[Aristides]

29 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's not correct.   TMX provide the oil to Washington and they refine it and ship the gas back to B.C.  B.C. doesn't have refineries of its own in the lower mainland.   

So even if you built refineries in the lower mainland, the TMX would still be required for B.C. and there would still not be enough capacity to ship a large amount of oil to Asia through it.  We still need another pipeline for Asia.

The oil that goes to Washington refineries is light crude from the original TransMountain and only uses half its capacity, the rest goes to Burnaby. All of the TMX oil is exported by tanker. BC has expressed no objection to a third pipeline using the existing TransMountain right of way. BC has one refinery in Burnaby that produces over 40% of the provinces requirements. The rest comes from Washington or Alberta refineries.

[herbie]

Oh FFS the oil from TMX went mainly to the USA. And Vancouverites (actually Burnabeings) chose to get their gas from Cherry Point so they didn't have to disturb their cement city 1963 suburbanite dreams disrupted by the occasional smell and the sight of ugly metal towers.
They'd rather look at concrete ones with people living in shelves and to tear down their shopping centres and drive to ones in Surrey to make room for even more.
The TMX expansion allows for oil to be exported elsewhere and adding to the same line would increase that even more. As would dredging Vancouver's harbour allow 33% more.

As far as Quebec goes, WTF do they have to gain from an East Coast terminal? They export Hydro power and can deliver far more of that.

 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The oil that goes to Washington refineries is light crude from the original TransMountain and only uses half its capacity, the rest goes to Burnaby. All of the TMX oil is exported by tanker. BC has expressed no objection to a third pipeline using the existing TransMountain right of way. BC has one refinery in Burnaby that produces over 40% of the provinces requirements. The rest comes from Washington or Alberta refineries.

You didn't acknowledge that the existing TMX pipeline doesn't have the capacity to ship a significant amount to Asia because it is already being used for refineries in Washington and B.C.

The idea of a third pipeline using the same right of way to ship oil for Asia is not a good idea for reasons I already explained.  I repeat:

1.  That would mean many more big oil tankers moving in and out of the port of Vancouver which is already a busy shipping area.  That increases the chances of an accident.  The Georgia Strait between Vancouver and Juan de Fuca Strait is a very busy shipping area with B.C. Ferries, freighters, fishing vessels, pleasure craft, etc. now.  Not a good idea to add more tankers there if not necessary.  The north coast out of Prince Rupert would be very lightly used compared with Vancouver and Georgia Strait.

2.  The distance is about 1000 km further from Vancouver to China than from Prince Rupert to China.

 

Edited July 24, 2025 by blackbird

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You didn't acknowledge that the existing TMX pipeline doesn't have the capacity to ship a significant amount to Asia because it is already being used for refineries in Washington and B.C.

The idea of a third pipeline using the same right of way to ship oil for Asia is not a good idea for reasons I already explained.  I repeat:

1.  That would mean many more big oil tankers moving in and out of the port of Vancouver which is already a busy shipping area.  That increases the chances of an accident.  The Georgia Strait between Vancouver and Juan de Fuca Strait is a very busy shipping area with B.C. Ferries, freighters, fishing vessels, pleasure craft, etc. now.  Not a good idea to add more tankers there if not necessary.  The north coast out of Prince Rupert would be very lightly used compared with Vancouver and Georgia Strait.

2.  The distance is about 1000 km further from Vancouver to China than from Prince Rupert to China.

 

All of the capacity from the new expansion is heavy crude exported by tanker. The refineries in Washington are not equipped to process heavy crude and are supplied by the original line carrying light crude. There is a station in Sumas where the original line splits, over half going to  Puget Sound refineries and the rest  to the Burnaby refinery and storage and shipping. It is the only pipeline that carries light  and heavy crude and refined product to Burnaby depending on demand.

https://www.transmountain.com/product

https://www.transmountain.com/product-destination

What is  the matter with using the original right of way instead of pounding one through to the north coast where there is  the highest environmental risk?

Yes it would mean more tankers out of Vancouver but it would be a lot easier to handle a spill in Georgia straight than nowhere North Coast  British Columbia which is more isolated and has worse weather.

Edited July 24, 2025 by Aristides

[blackbird]

38 minutes ago, Aristides said:

All of the capacity from the new expansion is heavy crude exported by tanker.

I read your two links and could find nothing there to say how much is shipped by tanker.

Are you pulling the above claim out of thin air?   Where is the link that says all the capacity goes by tanker.  I read another website the other day that says a large part goes to the U.S. and only a small amount goes by tanker overseas.   Show me the link that explains that.

The weather on the north coast is not a problem for large ships.  They can sail in it anyway.  Once a ship gets out in the open ocean, the weather is rough in the winter regardless whether it comes from Vancouver or Prince Rupert.  The Pacific Ocean gets rough much of the year.

I spill in Georgia Strait would be much more of a disaster because it is heavily populated all around that area.   Prince Rupert area is mostly wilderness and only lightly populated.

What do you say about all the shipping traffic I told you about in the Vancouver/Georgia Strait area?  That should be a big concern too.   Better to avoid a high traffic area.

No, the environment further north is no more of a concern than in southern B.C.   A spill would be the same kind of problem wherever it occurred.

Edited July 24, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

39 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What is  the matter with using the original right of way instead of pounding one through to the north coast where there is  the highest environmental risk?

The existing pipelines to Burnaby/Vancouver just don't have the capacity to double or triple the amount of oil Alberta could be shipping to Asia.  I already explained why a new pipeline should go to the north.

1.  Shorter distance to Asia

2.  Much less busy shipping traffic on the coast.

[LinkSoul60]

 

On 7/21/2025 at 3:39 PM, blackbird said:

Most of TMX oil goes to the U.S.

That's not correct.  China is the top customer of oil from TMX;  

Canada shipped about 207,000 barrels per day (bpd) on average to China since the Trans Mountain expansion ramped up to full operations in June last year, ship tracking data on Kpler showed. That was a huge increase from an average of about 7,000 bpd in the decade to 2023.  The U.S. took about 173,000 bpd from the pipeline in the same period.

The only obligation to sell to WA refineries would be from O&G company shipping through TMX.  Otherwise O&G companies can find best price for WCS which is now easier to do with TMX. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-canada-oil-trans-mountain-pipeline-1.7537530

Not a huge Eby fan but do agree with his comments around the Northern pipeline - There is no proponent right now so why waste time debating it.  It's not apples to apples but the $34B price tag on TMX is something that every company considering will look at, along with longer term energy transition when considering any investment for a northern pipeline.  

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

 

That's not correct.  China is the top customer of oil from TMX;  

Canada shipped about 207,000 barrels per day (bpd) on average to China since the Trans Mountain expansion ramped up to full operations in June last year, ship tracking data on Kpler showed. That was a huge increase from an average of about 7,000 bpd in the decade to 2023.  The U.S. took about 173,000 bpd from the pipeline in the same period.

The only obligation to sell to WA refineries would be from O&G company shipping through TMX.  Otherwise O&G companies can find best price for WCS which is now easier to do with TMX. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-canada-oil-trans-mountain-pipeline-1.7537530

Not a huge Eby fan but do agree with his comments around the Northern pipeline - There is no proponent right now so why waste time debating it.  It's not apples to apples but the $34B price tag on TMX is something that every company considering will look at, along with longer term energy transition when considering any investment for a northern pipeline.  

Eby and the NDP do no support making Canada an energy superpower.  We in BC are shackled by NDP ideology that opposes pipeline expansion.  We could be selling far more to the rest of the world if the NDP got out of the way.  We have huge reserves in the ground.  But all the gocernment regulations and opposition groups make it risky for a company to even try.  They know they could lose a fortune just trying to get through all the hurdles.  Meanwhile the health care is failing and government doesn't have enough money.  They could have far more in taxes and royalties if everyone supported pipelines and helped it happen.  Not with NDP.