Trump's threats reveal the trouble with Canada's pipelines running through the U.S.

[blackbird]

Canada has built its energy infrastructure completely intertwined with the U.S. under the belief this would provide Canada with the best security and economic stability.

This is turning out to be a serious mistake.  We are now learning that the present structure puts Canada at the mercy and control of the U.S. in a trade war.

"

Interconnectedness is a double-edged sword and Canada is vulnerable in any trade war

Evan Dyer · CBC News · Posted: Jan 24, 2025 1:00 AM PST | Last Updated: January 24

The Westridge Marine Terminal at the Port of Vancouver handles crude oil exports to global markets. If Canada were to avoid pipelines that run through U.S. territory, the Trans Mountain Expansion is the best of the country's limited options. (Gian Paolo Mendoza/CBC)

Social Sharing

"Continental energy security" was the watchword of both governments and industry for much of the past quarter century in North America: the idea that by linking the U.S. and Canada in a tight web of pipelines and refineries, both countries would protect themselves from threats and hostile trade actions that — it was assumed — would come from outside North America.

The website of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is still littered with references to the now-obsolete notion that increasing interdependence with the U.S. would make Canada safer: "Over the past decade, Canada has strengthened its continental energy security by reducing reliance on overseas oil and increasing the share of imports from the United States."

Too late did Canada realize that the threat would come from inside the house — that Americans would elect a president who saw Canada not as a partner, but as a target for extortion and even annexation.

Alberta can supply the volume of oil Sarnia, Ont., needs for its refineries. But that oil flows through pipelines that cut through the U.S. (Carlos Osorio/Reuters)

In the days when the Enbridge mainline was being laid down, talk of trying to keep infrastructure within Canada was dismissed as expensive and unnecessary, said oil market analyst Rory Johnston, founder of the Commodity Context newsletter and a lecturer at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs.

"If it's easier to push a pipeline through the U.S. border, if it's cheaper, if there's less political blowback than going through B.C. or Quebec, well it was a no-brainer, because the United States, our closest ally through all of history, would never impose a punitive tariff on us. That's crazy talk."

"And yet here we are."

All eggs in one basket

"There was never serious consideration to the reverse of that," Johnston told CBC News. "No other oil exporter on the planet has the same kind of built-in constraints."

Had they foreseen the rise of MAGA, says Johnston, "no industry in its right mind would have created this kind of dependence on the U.S. market."

Ironically, the very pipelines built in the name of continental energy security are now potential weapons in a trade war between the two erstwhile allies.

Cutting off oil is Canada's nuclear option. What would it mean if it happens?

Trudeau, premiers urge shoppers to buy Canadian as country prepares for a trade war

American reliance on Canadian heavy crude is the most powerful economic weapon in Canada's arsenal. But the same network also gives the U.S. leverage over Canada.

Were Canada ever to reach for its "nuclear option" — placing export tariffs on Canadian energy or even threatening to cut off supply — it would risk shortages of crude and refined fuels in other regions of the country."

Trump's threats reveal the trouble with Canada's pipelines running through the U.S. | CBC News

[paxamericana]

What is more likely to happen is 51st. Why would the Albertan pay for the Quebecois and Ontarian to shit on them? If the Albertan became part of the US all of Canada would have to follow suit. BC, Ontario and Quebec would quickly devolve into third world status otherwise. On the otherhand, Trump is offering unlimited access to the port and refinery of their choice, American Dollars, lower cost everything, lower taxes, guaranteed security, no more transfer payment. The math is simple enough. Canada hates Canada more than anything. You're all just a patchwork of hatred. Swallow your pride and face reality. It's not even a question of if Canada will apply for statehood, it's only when. So much so that I'm actually banking on this to transpire, saving up my american dollar to buy previously canadian land. 

That's the real choice Canadians have to make, let America buy you out or become third world. 

Edited July 26, 2025 by paxamericana

[herbie]

Another rant that ends up more whining and griping that BC is obligated to solve Alberta's problems disguised as 'problems with pipes through the US"

Do you even realize if Trump opens the Keystone project and somehow doubles the capacity to ship Alberta oil to Gulf Coast refineries and export terminals that Danielle Smith's jaws would snap shut so damn fast you'd hear the sound in Quebec City? And you'd see how much of a shit she really gives about pipelines in Canada.

[Aristides]

I think it is worth mentioning that the industry created this situation as a business decision, not governments.

[I am Groot]

11 minutes ago, herbie said:

Another rant that ends up more whining and griping that BC is obligated to solve Alberta's problems disguised as 'problems with pipes through the US"

BC IS the problem. We need to diversify customers away from the US. The Trans Mountain Pipeline helps us get better prices for it, but the US still pays us below world rates. We should be shipping more of our oil and gas abroad for billions more. For that we need a pipeline through BC. It would be real nifty to have one going to the East coast too, though obviously that's quite a bit further. But we should be supplying our entire country with oil and not importing oil from the Saudis or whomever.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I think it is worth mentioning that the industry created this situation as a business decision, not governments.

Yes that is entirely true. Just imagine if they hadn't dismantled PetroCanada we'd have an actual reason to listen to these arguments as well as a fund like Norway's. But we're dealing with brainwashed people convinced govt acts against the interests of the people and only corporate interests work for it.
Are the users of a proposed newpipeline prepared to pay 1% of the market price of the oil moving through BC to the govt of BC in return for the risks involved? Oh hear the screaming from the mobs convinced the pittance they'd get with 0% would be so much better.

[Aristides]

26 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes that is entirely true. Just imagine if they hadn't dismantled PetroCanada we'd have an actual reason to listen to these arguments as well as a fund like Norway's. But we're dealing with brainwashed people convinced govt acts against the interests of the people and only corporate interests work for it.
Are the users of a proposed newpipeline prepared to pay 1% of the market price of the oil moving through BC to the govt of BC in return for the risks involved? Oh hear the screaming from the mobs convinced the pittance they'd get with 0% would be so much better.

The decision to get rid of three of the four BC refineries and concentrate refining in the US and Alberta was corporate, not government.

[herbie]

I lived right there when it was happening.
Burnaby Council did not say a word to object and an awful lot of North Burnaby residents were all for them closing. By the latter 1970s they were no longer THE main employer and even the tiny amount of smell (compared to the 1960s) they occasionally produced became so many resident's "first world problem".
Gas was delivered from Alberta through the pipeline to the storage tanks that were all that remained, the crude went south and to Chevron (now Parkland) who's main product is jet fuel.
Overall demand in the Lower Mainland means much gas & diesel comes from Washington refineries. Hence the high prices.

Had PetroCanada been govt owned, there would've been some public input on that decision too,

[blackbird]

The U.S. just signed a deal with the EU which includes selling 500 or 600 billion dollars worth of energy (oil, gas?) to Europe.  Where is Canada on selling oil and natural gas to Europe?  Is some of this oil and gas originating from Canada at a cut rate price, but being sold to Europe by the U.S.?  We could have been selling it directly.  Not now.

Quebec, the federal Liberals under Trudeau, FNs, and enviros killed the Energy East pipeline.  We lost billions of dollars worth of royalties, corporate taxes, income taxes, thousands of jobs and spin-off jobs, and various other incomes because of the failure to build one or more pipelines to the east coast.

Edited July 28, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I lived right there when it was happening.

You lived right through the last ten years under Trudeau when the Energy East pipeline proposal and the Northern Gateway pipeline project were killed by Trudeau and did nothing.  Now the U.S. just made a deal to sell energy to Europe for hundreds of billions of dollars.  We could have been selling oil and gas to Europe but not now.  Canada missed and killed the chance to do that.  Now we are the losers.  Our economy is going down as Trump imposes tariffs and controls the energy market to Europe.  Maybe he will sell our gas and oil to Europe while we sell it to the U.S. for a cut rate.  We are the losers.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

The decision to get rid of three of the four BC refineries and concentrate refining in the US and Alberta was corporate, not government.

We should concentrate on ensuring no oil goes to these refineries.

If they want to refine Canadian oil they should refine it in Canada.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

I think it is worth mentioning that the industry created this situation as a business decision, not governments.

The government forced that business decision by making it more hostile to try and deal with Canada than the US

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

The decision to get rid of three of the four BC refineries and concentrate refining in the US and Alberta was corporate, not government.

Again, corporations make the decisions based on the environment and where they can make money and if the government is pushing them away then really it's the government that's creating the problem, not the corporation

For example if government raise taxes to 100% of income, businesses would say it's impossible to do business in that environment and leave. You would pretend that this is a Corporate decision and not a government one, but you would be wrong in every meaningful way

[herbie]

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You lived right through the last ten years under Trudeau

Trudeau did not "kill" a pipeline East. There was only talk, no proposal to build.
In the West, he merely respected the wishes of the Province and it's citizens, which you seem to think is exactly what govt should do. Or at least, only when you totally agree.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, herbie said:

Trudeau did not "kill" a pipeline East. There was only talk, no proposal to build.

He absolutely did kill the pipeline east and that's because his talk was There's No Business case and we won't support it

Energy projects only happened when governments send crystal clear messages that they will back the project legislatively and help clear obstacles. Enbridge has come right out and said they would put a proposal forward for a pipeline to the west coast but they have no interest in doing so or even thinking about it with the current legislative environment

Don't pretend the government has nothing to do with whether or not an oil project or pipeline project goes ahead

[ExFlyer]

18 hours ago, I am Groot said:

BC IS the problem. We need to diversify customers away from the US. The Trans Mountain Pipeline helps us get better prices for it, but the US still pays us below world rates. We should be shipping more of our oil and gas abroad for billions more. For that we need a pipeline through BC. It would be real nifty to have one going to the East coast too, though obviously that's quite a bit further. But we should be supplying our entire country with oil and not importing oil from the Saudis or whomever.

Why would BC be Albertas problem???

The Feds own and built the existing pipelines to help Alberta distribution of the oil.

If Alberta is so hard over, why do they not build a pipeline instead of blaming everyone for their woes???  Alberta made the deals with the US. "The deal for Alberta oil is a multi-faceted arrangement involving various stakeholders. Alberta, as the owner of the resource, sets the terms for its development and extraction. The Alberta government manages this on behalf of Albertans, who own 81% of the province's mineral rights." 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Why would BC be Albertas problem???

Because BC isn't Alberta. What a stupid thing to say

Quote

The Feds own and built the existing pipelines to help Alberta distribution of the oil.

Had a massive cost overrun as a result of their incompetence. So now the thing doesn't even make money because they have to charge so much to use it that they are having trouble reaching capacity. A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline

 

Quote

If Alberta is so hard over, why do they not build a pipeline instead of blaming everyone for their woes??? 

Because BC and the federal gov't won't let them.

🎵🎶"there's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza dear Liza....  "🎶🎵
 

 

 

 

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So now the thing doesn't even make money because they have to charge so much to use it that they are having trouble reaching capacity. A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline

You're only interested in your partisan hopes, and oblivious to facts.....  and are a failure in any way you choose to look at it.

Canadian crude shipments to China have experienced a remarkable, continuing surge, a volume increase that outpaces price volatility and signals a genuine shift in trade patterns. Notably, TMX has helped narrow the longstanding price discount US refineries pay for Canadian oil, boosting producer revenues and enabling Canadian crude to fetch higher prices in global markets, including in China. Broader geopolitical factors have also strengthened Canada’s appeal as a reliable, competitively priced alternative supplier for China.

Marking the first full year of TMX operations, this report analyzes these trends and also assesses operational challenges facing the pipeline’s export capacity, the economic implications of global oil market volatility, and the broader political implications for Canada regarding diversification. We conclude that TMX is not only reshaping Canada’s energy export landscape but providing an opportunity for the country to enhance its diplomatic profile and relevance in the Asia-Pacific.

 

STRONG AND SUSTAINED CANADIAN CRUDE OIL EXPORTS TO CHINA

Since May 2024, Canadian oil exports to China have grown consistently. China's critical need for energy imports and strategic efforts to diversify its own supplier base have positioned Canada as a desirable new supplier. After an adjustment period from May to September 2024, shipments surged from October 2024 onwards, with average monthly export value jumping 123% from C$247 million to C$511 million between May-September 2024 and October 2024-March 2025.

Edited July 28, 2025 by LinkSoul60

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You're only interested in your partisan hopes, and oblivious to facts.....  and are a failure in any way you choose to look at it.

Canadian crude shipments to China have experienced a remarkable, continuing surge, a volume increase that outpaces price volatility and signals a genuine shift in trade patterns. Notably, TMX has helped narrow the longstanding price discount US refineries pay for Canadian oil, boosting producer revenues and enabling Canadian crude to fetch higher prices in global markets, including in China. Broader geopolitical factors have also strengthened Canada’s appeal as a reliable, competitively priced alternative supplier for China.

Marking the first full year of TMX operations, this report analyzes these trends and also assesses operational challenges facing the pipeline’s export capacity, the economic implications of global oil market volatility, and the broader political implications for Canada regarding diversification. We conclude that TMX is not only reshaping Canada’s energy export landscape but providing an opportunity for the country to enhance its diplomatic profile and relevance in the Asia-Pacific.

 

STRONG AND SUSTAINED CANADIAN CRUDE OIL EXPORTS TO CHINA

Since May 2024, Canadian oil exports to China have grown consistently. China's critical need for energy imports and strategic efforts to diversify its own supplier base have positioned Canada as a desirable new supplier. After an adjustment period from May to September 2024, shipments surged from October 2024 onwards, with average monthly export value jumping 123% from C$247 million to C$511 million between May-September 2024 and October 2024-March 2025.

Sigh. 

Well at least you tried to make an argument. Not very successfully but still.  Well done. 

Nobody said that there was NO oil going down the tmx. 

What was said was that due to high costs it's not at capacity. 

One year after the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, why isn't it full? | CBC News

Exclusive: Canada's Trans Mountain pipeline lowers forecasts for amount of oil it ships | Reuters

 

So I'll go slowly for you. The government absolutely 100% screwed up building this pipeline after it took it over. As a result of the cost overruns the price of shipping oil through it is so high but as of yet it has not reached capacity because oil producers don't want to pay the toll

That was the issue. Nobody was talking about anything that was shipped to china

I won't need to explain that again in crayon

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. 

Well at least you tried to make an argument. Not very successfully but still.  Well done. 

Nobody said that there was NO oil going down the tmx. 

What was said was that due to high costs it's not at capacity. 

One year after the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, why isn't it full? | CBC News

Exclusive: Canada's Trans Mountain pipeline lowers forecasts for amount of oil it ships | Reuters

 

So I'll go slowly for you. The government absolutely 100% screwed up building this pipeline after it took it over. As a result of the cost overruns the price of shipping oil through it is so high but as of yet it has not reached capacity because oil producers don't want to pay the toll

That was the issue. Nobody was talking about anything that was shipped to china

I won't need to explain that again in crayon

No, you said.... So now the thing doesn't even make money because they have to charge so much to use it that they are having trouble reaching capacity. A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline

Try to dance around with your typical bullshit now....  

[ExFlyer]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because BC isn't Alberta. What a stupid thing to say

Had a massive cost overrun as a result of their incompetence. So now the thing doesn't even make money because they have to charge so much to use it that they are having trouble reaching capacity. A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline

 

Because BC and the federal gov't won't let them.

🎵🎶"there's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza dear Liza....  "🎶🎵

 

Duhhh, Alberta needs BC to move it's oil.... what a stupid thing to forget LOL

The cost overrun is exactly why the feds had to take it over and complete it so Alberta could move it's oil to export facilities...you certainly are ignorant of facts LOL

If Alberta wants to move more oil....let them fight BC and the indigenous and pay for the pipeline...oh wait...they would rather whine and complain , that is what conservatives do best. LOL

Oh contraire.....BC and the indigenous won't let them. C5 is a federal bill to encourage it.

Once again, your own ignorance defeats you LOL

Singing a tune that is irrelevant is you all over the place LOL

 

Edited July 28, 2025 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No, you said.... So now the thing doesn't even make money because they have to charge so much to use it that they are having trouble reaching capacity. A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline

 

Which has nothing to do with them selling to china  LOLOLOL  Which is what you posted

I appreciate you admitting that what you posted had absolutely no relevance to what I said  

And what I posted proves I was exactly right. As the Articles say and there are many others it doesn't even make money because they have to charge so much to use it that they're having trouble reaching capacity. This pipeline was so poorly managed that it went from 4 billion to 34 billion in costs to build and now they have to charge rates that people are unwilling to pay to ship the oil

 

So I was 100% right and you are 100% wrong. Well, I suppose it would be more fair to say you were 100% talking about something different because you didn't understand what the discussion was about.

Still, as I mentioned I think that's the first time when I've seen you even try to make an argument and I don't want to discourage you so well done, next time try and focus on what the discussion is actually about and respond to that instead of something completely different. You're kind of on the right track keep trying.

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline

Don't go off into a tangent about cost overruns.  That wasn't the subject.

Why can't you answer the question as of this is fact?

And you may want to read the quarterly earnings reports from companies using TMX to see how it's impacted their p&l's.

You're right about nothing, as usual....

[CdnFox]

Just now, LinkSoul60 said:

Don't go off into a tangent about cost overruns.  That wasn't the subject.

 

That was literally this whole subject. That is actually what we were discussing precisely.

"Don't go off on a tangent by discussing the whole point we were discussing!!"

The whole point was that government cannot effectively build Pipelines. When they tried they failed so badly that they still can't sell enough capacity because they have to charge so much due to the cost overruns.

That was literally the whole point.

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

And you may want to read the quarterly earnings reports from companies using TMX to see how it's impacted their p&l's.

Why would you? It would have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. They're shipping a tiny percentage of their oil through that pipeline, the rest of it is traveling through old pipelines or rail or into the united states.

Is there something in the articles I posted that you can refute? Is there anything you can present to mitigate my claim that the pipeline is not a capacity because they have to charge so much to use it?

No? Well then that's a bit of a fail on your part.

I recognize that one of the debate tricks that is often popular on the left is that when you can't argue the facts presented you try and change what the conversation is about by presenting other facts that aren't relevant that you can defend. However that is bad debate logic and you will find that if you run into an intelligent person it just makes you look bad.

Try again, but this time try and address the actual issue.

[LinkSoul60]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why would you? It would have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. They're shipping a tiny percentage of their oil through that pipeline, the rest of it is traveling through old pipelines or rail or into the united states.

 

Our convo started with you saying A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline.  So yes, you're off on a tangent with cost overruns because that's all you got, or know.

And why would I.....  because I'm invested in some of those companies.  

So sure, go with that little man...