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

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Our convo started with you saying A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline.  

 

Well no it didn't. There were a lot of words that happened around that sentence. Let's look at what I really said. And the first comment actually wasn't our conversation at all I was talking to X flyer

 

Quote

 

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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

 

So we were talking about the feds building a pipeline to help out Alberta because they had done it before. And I pointed out that when they did it before it went so badly that now they can't even sell it to capacity because they have to charge so much.

So it wasn't actually our conversation at all. You didn't even get who I was talking to right  

And has it clearly shows, What I was saying is that the pipeline was so poorly managed that they can't even sell it to capacity now. It's currently losing money for the government and it's a limited use to industry because it's too expensive to use.  That's what happens when the government instead of industry builds these things.

You got confused and jumped into the conversation with this:

"Canadian crude shipments to China have experienced a remarkable, continuing surge"

Which as I pointed out does not change the fact that the trans mountain pipeline is losing money because it was so badly organized and run that they can't make it profitable and it's not a capacity because it's too expensive . 

So your problem is you jumped in halfway through a conversation you didn't understand and posted facts that aren't remotely relevant to the conversation.

 

But like I said, you did post some facts even though they had nothing to do with the discussion and you were confused about what the discussion was. And for you that's a step forward. I would like to encourage you to continue trying. The takeaway from this is that you have to make sure that any facts you look up actually pertain to the subject being discussed.

 

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well no it didn't. There were a lot of words that happened around that sentence. Let's look at what I really said. And the first comment actually wasn't our conversation at all I was talking to X flyer

 

So we were talking about the feds building a pipeline to help out Alberta because they had done it before. And I pointed out that when they did it before it went so badly that now they can't even sell it to capacity because they have to charge so much.

So it wasn't actually our conversation at all. You didn't even get who I was talking to right  

And has it clearly shows, What I was saying is that the pipeline was so poorly managed that they can't even sell it to capacity now. It's currently losing money for the government and it's a limited use to industry because it's too expensive to use.  That's what happens when the government instead of industry builds these things.

You got confused and jumped into the conversation with this:

"Canadian crude shipments to China have experienced a remarkable, continuing surge"

Which as I pointed out does not change the fact that the trans mountain pipeline is losing money because it was so badly organized and run that they can't make it profitable and it's not a capacity because it's too expensive . 

So your problem is you jumped in halfway through a conversation you didn't understand and posted facts that aren't remotely relevant to the conversation.

 

But like I said, you did post some facts even though they had nothing to do with the discussion and you were confused about what the discussion was. And for you that's a step forward. I would like to encourage you to continue trying. The takeaway from this is that you have to make sure that any facts you look up actually pertain to the subject being discussed.

 

I got confused about nothing.  You've typed 85 freaking paragraphs and have yet to explain your comment of A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline.    Why is that not surprising....

[herbie]

These guys have convinced themselves that everything was Trudeau and BCs fault and no amount of fact, reality or anything else is going to convince them otherwise. They'll just continue the circle jerk of simpletons among each other to solidify each others  mental locks.

When you're determined that when companies cannot make agreements it must be the fault of the govt, your entire outlook is warped. 

[LinkSoul60]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

In the grand scheme of things we've never sold a lot energy to the EU.... ~$32B.  This so-called 'deal' is just another country telling Trump wants he wants to hear...  

 

(Bloomberg) -- The European Union’s promise to buy $750 billion of American energy imports over three years was pivotal to securing a trade deal with President Donald Trump, but it’s a pledge it will struggle to keep.  

The deal would require annual purchases of $250 billion of natural gas, oil and nuclear technology, including small modular reactors, according to EU officials. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc’s estimates were based on the existing plan to shift away from remaining Russian fossil fuel supplies and purchasing “more affordable and better” liquefied natural gas from US producers.

Yet it’s hard to see how the EU attains such ambitious flows over such a short time frame. Total energy imports from the US accounted for less than $80 billion last year, far short of the promise made by von der Leyen to Trump. Total US energy exports were just over $330 billion in 2024.

The huge figure for energy imports “is meaningless, as it’s unachievable not only because EU demand cannot grow that much, but also because US exporters cannot supply that much either!” said Davide Oneglia, an economist at TS Lombard.

The lack of detail underlines that the deal finalized by von der Leyen and Trump in Scotland is a pragmatic, political agreement, rather than a legally binding pact.

The EU has yet to provide a breakdown of the figures, and it remains unclear how private companies can be convinced to purchase or sell US oil and gas. There’s also uncertainty around how European investment in the US energy sector might count toward the EU’s pledge.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I got confused about nothing.  

Well you always seem to get confused about everything so getting confused about nothing as well make sense  

I posted the quotes and evidence clear as a bell. Sorry for your bad luck

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You've typed 85 freaking paragraphs and have yet to explain your comment of A pipeline that's so poorly managed that nobody can use it isn't much of a pipeline.  

I have explained that several times, I have posted articles explaining it and have gone in detail.

And it's all plain English, none of it is anything anybody who had completed Elementary School would struggle with

So either you're too dumb to understand basic English or you're playing dumb because you don't like that what I said was 100% true.

I don't really care which one it is, it's kind of funny either way  

So here's your next lesson, when you screw up as badly as you just did what you absolutely do not want to do is double down on the stupid. It's slightly embarrassing but it's fine to say you got confused about something or you misunderstood or you were thinking of something else or something like that.

But making the same stupid claims after you have been given the facts just makes you look not only retarded but petulant. It's not a good look

At any rate as we have thoroughly Explored the government isn't very good at building Pipelines. The one they did build is so expensive they can't even sell it to capacity and they're losing money on it.

Edited July 28, 2025 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

These guys have convinced themselves that everything was Trudeau and BCs fault and no amount of fact, reality or anything else is going to convince them otherwise.

LOL ok, so you're saying that the gov't owned and run trans pipeline is NOT overbudget? and IS profitable? And ISN'T not at capacity because of price?  

"THEY HAVE TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THE THING THAT TRUDEAU DID THAT HE WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IS **SOMEHOW!**  HIS RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!  DERP!

(btw, nobody mentioned trudeau. )

[LinkSoul60]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well you always seem to get confused about everything so getting confused about nothing as well make sense  

I posted the quotes and evidence clear as a bell. Sorry for your bad luck

I have explained that several times, I have posted articles explaining it and have gone in detail.

And it's all plain English, none of it is anything anybody who had completed Elementary School would struggle with

So either you're too dumb to understand basic English or you're playing dumb because you don't like that what I said was 100% true.

I don't really care which one it is, it's kind of funny either way  

So here's your next lesson, when you screw up as badly as you just did what you absolutely do not want to do is double down on the stupid. It's slightly embarrassing but it's fine to say you got confused about something or you misunderstood or you were thinking of something else or something like that.

But making the same stupid claims after you have been given the facts just makes you look not only retarded but petulant. It's not a good look

At any rate as we have thoroughly Explored the government isn't very good at building Pipelines. The one they did build is so expensive they can't even sell it to capacity and they're losing money on it.

You have not answered the question nor have you explained anything.  Typical....

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You have not answered the question nor have you explained anything.  Typical....

I answered in detail, I provided you links, and here you are once again pretending that this isn't true when it very clearly is.

I don't think you grasp How childish that makes you look.

Every day you resilient yourself to be a little dumber than we thought you were. Why don't you go over the responses and take a look and see if there's something you can disagree with or make an argument about. Just pretending that things that people can see right above you aren't there this idea that you can only win against a 6-year-old   

[herbie]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL ok, so you're saying that the gov't owned and run trans pipeline is NOT overbudget? and IS profitable? And ISN'T not at capacity because of price?

LOL once again makes up something so he can increase his post count and impress fellow dimwits.
Then claims someone else is the m0ron....

[CdnFox]

Just now, herbie said:

LOL once again makes up something so he can increase his post count and impress fellow dimwits.
Then claims someone else is the m0ron....

So what am I making up? Am I making up that the government owns it and runs it and ran it while it was being built? Am I making up that it came in over budget? Am I making up the part where it's not profitable? Or perhaps I'm making up the part where it isn't that capacity because they have to charge so much?

Which one of those am I making up?

I can literally hear you reaching for your bottle of Nyquil even as we speak  

[WestCanMan]

On 7/26/2025 at 9:28 AM, paxamericana said:

What is more likely to happen is 51st.

Why?

What does Trump stand to gain from giving 40M left-wing-voters a say in US elections when he already pulls the strings here, and he doesn't have to put up with Quebec's endless stream of BS?

If Canada does join the US, invest in Tylenol and Advil buddy, because Trump will have to let all the drug mules out of prison just to keep the WH supplied. 

Edited July 28, 2025 by WestCanMan

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Why?

The most important reason is nationall security.

Same reasoning behind Greenland, though this is more important than Canada as it covers our North Eastern coast line. The entire artic region would come under America's watch as it is already. Our military is currently preparing for the entire artic sea ice to melt opening up a new theater of operations. It's more than a mild inconveniece to not have a coastal base in the region for our ships. We anticipate that the Russian will lose Siberia and their far east region opening up the land to new owners. 

America see the entire world as a managed decline, (this mean you too Canada) as most countries are past theoretical repopulation. The world will break into sphere of influence with Turkey, India and the Stan countries that will probably take over most of soviet Russia. This may sound counterintuitive but as the light goes out it lowers the threshold for war. You see this with the Ukraine war and now the Chinese build out in the pacific. 

Yes we would pay for the administration of 40 million previous Canucks but this isn't something we plan to do in 1 generation, this project would span into third generation and beyond. The older folks might still remember life under an independent Canada sure but their grandchildren will not. It will begin with Alberta and Saskechewan I can tell you that much. 

Oh and I should mention this last point as it may not be apparent to many Canadians. We don't veiw Canada as a soverign country, we see you as another state, meaning your territory is already ours. Hence why we bother to defend it. Your soverignty to us was a nice sicence experiment so long as we can prevent the Europeans from fighting each other but we see now that it is not possible. This is the Brave New World.

Edited July 28, 2025 by paxamericana

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Why would BC be Albertas problem???

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

The feds made it uneconomically for any private entity to try to build a pipeline, and then took it over so they could siphon of billions of dollars in graft for their friends. 

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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

Build it where? BC  says no. Manitoba says no.

 

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

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.

The Trans Mountain has a capacity of 890k barrels per day. That's considerably less than a quarter of Canada's exports. We have no other outlet for the rest but the US.

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The Trans Mountain has a capacity of 890k barrels per day. That's considerably less than a quarter of Canada's exports. We have no other outlet for the rest but the US.

Yes, I'm aware of TMX capacity and the reliance we have on the US for purchasing our oil.  

Not correct for no other outlet though....  We export from pipelines that run to the US gulf coast - 150K BPD in June and average of 170K BPD past 12 months going to India, China, Spain and Peru refineries.

 

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, I'm aware of TMX capacity and the reliance we have on the US for purchasing our oil.  

Not correct for no other outlet though....  We export from pipelines that run to the US gulf coast - 150K BPD in June and average of 170K BPD past 12 months going to India, China, Spain and Peru refineries.

That still leaves us almost completely at their mercy. We need to be able to export almost all our oil if necessary. Even if we build a pipeline but never need it, the mere existence will give us independence from American games and higher prices from them. Same goes for LNG

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

The most important reason is nationall security.

Same reasoning behind Greenland, though this is more important than Canada as it covers our North Eastern coast line. The entire artic region would come under America's watch as it is already. Our military is currently preparing for the entire artic sea ice to melt opening up a new theater of operations. It's more than a mild inconveniece to not have a coastal base in the region for our ships.

The US has military bases all over the world. There's no reason it has to own the actual countries those bases are placed on.

 

2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Oh and I should mention this last point as it may not be apparent to many Canadians. We don't veiw Canada as a soverign country, we see you as another state, meaning your territory is already ours.

Yeah, that's bulilshit. Try taking it and see what happens. You defend it because you don't want a powerful hostile nation like Russia on your border, not out of some altruistic sense of comradeship. 

[TreeBeard]

Does anyone disagree that we should be undoing all the harm to Canadian sovereignty that occurred by aligning ourselves so closely with a failing democracy?  
 

If we can do it tomorrow, then let’s do it. 

Edited July 29, 2025 by TreeBeard

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

That still leaves us almost completely at their mercy. We need to be able to export almost all our oil if necessary. Even if we build a pipeline but never need it, the mere existence will give us independence from American games and higher prices from them. Same goes for LNG

Agree we need to export more to other countries, which is starting to happen and will continue to in a bigger way.  Fact remains though that we're landlocked and our North American infrastructure is integrated for both oil and electricity and dependence on each other.

[I am Groot]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Agree we need to export more to other countries, which is starting to happen and will continue to in a bigger way.  Fact remains though that we're landlocked and our North American infrastructure is integrated for both oil and electricity and dependence on each other.

Which is what Carney says he will change.

I remain skeptical. Let's see the mines and pipelines approved.

[paxamericana]

26 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The US has military bases all over the world.

We currently do but that is not guaranteed. It would mean keeping friendly relations with the aforementioned host nation, coming to their aid and creates diplomatic bargaining leverage. See USAID. You really need to move past the post world war 2 order. Trump is just a long series of disinterested, isolationist, president starting from George Bush Senior. America is not that interested in maintaining an alliance structure where we foot the bill indefinitely with no return on investment. Beside, I would argue that America actually do not have the ability to play world police anymore even if we wanted to. Carriers are purpose built hammer in search of nails, they are not police patrol car like destroyers. We would need a 800 ship navy just to do that again.

26 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeah, that's bulilshit. Try taking it

I understand the aggravation but you should see things from the American perspective, we really do see you all as another state. 

Edited July 29, 2025 by paxamericana

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Which is what Carney says he will change.

I remain skeptical. Let's see the mines and pipelines approved.

I'm cautiously optimistic...  It's just starting and there's no doubt the appetite is there for these type projects, but he's got the hurdles of FN's, courts and finding private investment in front of him so a long way to go.  The more we diversify our trade for oil the more it obviously helps output but also helps command a higher dollar from US refineries. 

23 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Does anyone disagree that we should be undoing all the harm to Canadian sovereignty that occurred by aligning ourselves so closely with a failing democracy?  
 

If we can do it tomorrow, then let’s do it. 

How do we do that, quickly?

[TreeBeard]

19 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'm cautiously optimistic...  It's just starting and there's no doubt the appetite is there for these type projects, but he's got the hurdles of FN's, courts and finding private investment in front of him so a long way to go.  The more we diversify our trade for oil the more it obviously helps output but also helps command a higher dollar from US refineries. 

How do we do that, quickly?

We can’t do it quickly.  That’s not realistic. 

[LinkSoul60]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

We can’t do it quickly.  That’s not realistic. 

Absolutely not, for either country who needs each other energy alliance.

The US has done a fine job though in reminding the world to diversify trade and investment away from them. Nothing like that happens quickly but America first will be known as America alone at some point down the road.

[paxamericana]

My crystal ball says 51st. Resistance is futile.