“As we go into winter months, Canada will set new export records”
We remember well the green battles against the “TMX” expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C. The idea was, they said, at best unnecessary and at worst thoroughly dangerous to the world environment.
One group said the expansion “threatens to unleash a massive tar sands spill that would threaten drinking water, salmon, coastal wildlife, and communities.” It would also, others said, impede investment in clean energy and undermine Canada’s efforts to deal with climate change.
Some said the expanded line would be an imposition on First Nations. But a number of First Nations are interested in acquiring an equity stake in the pipeline (and the federal government, which owns the line, is looking to sell a 30-percent stake to them).
Despite the loud opposition, the federal government went ahead and purchased the pipeline and the expansion project in May 2018, completing the pipeline’s expansion this year at a total cost of $31 billion.
Prime Minister Trudeau’s explanation: Ottawa stepped in because owner Kinder Morgan “wanted to throw up their hands and walk away,” and his government wanted to make sure that Canadian oil could reach new markets.
Alberta’s Canadian Energy Centre supported that outlook: “We’re going to be moving into a market where buyers are going to be competing to buy Canadian oil.”
Our Margareta Dovgal wrote: “What matters to us is the benefits to Canada. For one thing, we now will be able to ship more oil by tanker to refineries on the U.S. West Coast at a better price than oil by tanker from Alaska. And . . . we’ll have more oil more readily available for overseas buyers.
“So, all in all, we can expect to see higher returns on our oil, and we can continue to see the immense benefits of high-paying jobs in Canadian energy, and the benefits of revenues to government.”
It has all been happening, in spades.
And the opening of the expanded pipeline on May 1 this year also helped bring down gasoline prices.
In Vancouver, for example, regular gasoline in April ran as high as $2.359 a litre. At the beginning of May, as key refineries returned to normal after seasonal maintenance work, it stood around $2.085. As October opened, the price was as low as $1.579.
Economist G. Kent Fellows said at an event hosted by Resource Works and the Business Council of B.C.: “Our analysis shows that insufficient pipeline capacity was costing B.C. consumers an estimated $1.5 billion per year in higher gasoline prices.
“With TMX now operational, wholesale gasoline prices in Vancouver dropped by about 28 cents per litre compared to earlier this year.”
As for those buyers competing for our oil, some thought the prime export destination would be California. But the summer just past brought exports on tankers from Vancouver to China, Japan, India, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Brunei.
As of now, California is indeed leading as a destination, with Asian buyers having eased off after their initial purchases. Experts say that was expected, with Asian refineries first taking test cargoes to see how their systems handle our oil.
Kevin Birn, chief Canadian oil markets analyst for S&P Global, told Business in Vancouver: “There is always a market for crude oil in the Pacific Basin. We always saw the need for the Trans Mountain pipeline. We saw Canadian production continuing to grow.”
Birn added: “It’s still relatively early. I’d expect volumes to continue to build, cargoes to test different markets all over the place, and over time you’ll start to see patterns.
“As we go into winter months, Canada will set new export records, because as capacity’s been optimized and new product projections and wells are brought online, the winter tends to be the peak period.
“Every year, I think, for the next couple of years, Canada will set new records.”
That would be good news for Canada’s economy — and for Alberta’s.
There are no statistics available yet on the TMX line’s impact on the economy, but in 2019 Trans Mountain estimated that construction and operation would mean $46 billion in revenue to governments over the first 20 years.
Today, as reported by Alberta’s energy minister, Brian Jean, Alberta continues to break records for crude oil production, with global demand continuing to grow.
The latest numbers from the Alberta Energy Regulator show Alberta’s oil production averaged a little over 4 million barrels per day in August — the highest on record for any August.
“The addition of 590,000 barrels per day of heavy oil pipeline capacity from Alberta to the B.C. coast earlier this year with the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has been instrumental in the recent production increases.”
All this as the International Energy Agency said that while oil demand is decelerating from 2023 levels due to a slowing economy in China, demand is still set to increase by 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year. That would push global consumption to a record level of almost 103 million bpd.
And that forecast came as Jonathan Wilkinson, our federal minister of energy and natural resources, declared: “Oil and gas will peak this decade. In fact, oil is probably peaking this year.”
A bevy of market-watchers disagreed with him. Among them, Greg Ebel, CEO of Calgary-based Enbridge, says global oil consumption will be “well north” of 100 million barrels per day by 2050 — and could exceed 110 million barrels.
“You continue to see economic demands, and particularly in the developing world, people continue to say lighter, faster, denser, cheaper energy works for our people. . . And that’s leading to more oil usage.”
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Northern Gateway ($7.9 billion), cancelled in 2016
These projects were cancelled due to regulatory challenges, environmental opposition, and shifting political decisions on both sides of the border. This left Canada without key infrastructure to support energy exports.
For years, companies have tried to build the infrastructure needed to move Canadian oil and gas across the country and to sell to global markets. Billions of dollars have been invested in projects that never materialized, stuck in regulatory limbo, weighed down by delays, or cancelled altogether.
The urgency of this issue is growing.
Last week, 14 CEOs from Canada’s largest pipeline and energy companies issued an open letter urging federal leaders from all parties to streamline regulations and establish energy corridors, warning that delays and policy uncertainty are driving away investment and weakening Canada’s position in global energy markets.
The U.S. recently imposed tariffs on Canadian energy, adding new pressure to an already lopsided trade relationship. According to the 2024-2025 Energy Fact Book from Natural Resources Canada, the U.S. accounted for 89% of Canada’s energy exports by value, totalling $177.3 billion. This leaves the economy vulnerable to shifts in American policy. Expanding access to other buyers, such as Japan, Germany, and Greece, would help stabilize and grow the economy, support jobs, and reduce reliance on a single trading partner.
At the heart of this challenge is infrastructure.
Without reliable, efficient ways to move energy, Canada’s ability to compete is limited. Our existing pipelines run north-south, primarily serving the U.S., but we lack the east-west capacity needed to supply our own country and to diversify exports. Energy corridors (pre-approved routes for major projects) would ensure critical infrastructure is built fast, helping Canada generate revenue from its own resources while lowering costs and attracting investment.
This matters for affordability and reliability.
Our research shows engaged women are paying close attention to how energy policies affect their daily lives — 85 per cent say energy costs impact their standard of living, and 77 per cent support the development and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to help provide energy security and to generate revenue for Canada.
With increasing concern over household expenses, food prices, and economic uncertainty, energy corridors have become part of the conversation about ensuring long-term prosperity.
What are energy corridors, and why do they matter?
Energy corridors are designated routes for energy infrastructure such as pipelines, power lines, and transmission projects. With an energy corridor, environmental assessments and stakeholder consultations are completed in advance, allowing development to proceed without ongoing regulatory hurdles which can become costly and time consuming. This provides certainty for energy projects, reducing delays, lowering costs, and encouraging investment. They are also not a new concept and are applied in other parts of the world including the U.S.
In Canada, however, this isn’t happening.
Instead, each project must go through an extensive regulatory process, even if similar projects have already been approved. Energy companies spend years trying to secure approvals that don’t come to fruition in a reasonable time and as a result projects are cancelled due to sky-rocketing costs.
“Getting regulatory approval for energy transportation projects in Canada takes so long that investors are increasingly looking elsewhere,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the Montreal Economic Institute. “Energy corridors could help streamline the process and bring back much-needed investment to our energy industry.”
Jackie Forrest, executive director at the ARC Energy Research Institute, pointed out that the time it takes to get projects approved is a major factor in driving investment away from Canada to other countries.
“Projects are taking five or more years to go through their regulatory review process, spending hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars to do things like environmental assessments and studies that sometimes need to be carried out over numerous seasons,” she said.
The cost of missed projects
Over the past decade, multiple major energy projects in Canada have been cancelled or abandoned. Among them:
Keystone XL ($8 billion), cancelled in 2021
Energy East ($15.7 billion), cancelled in 2017
Northern Gateway ($7.9 billion), cancelled in 2016
These projects were cancelled due to regulatory challenges, environmental opposition, and shifting political decisions on both sides of the border. This left Canada without key infrastructure to support energy exports.
LNG projects have faced similar setbacks. More than a dozen LNG export proposals were once on the table, but these same issues made most of these projects not viable.
Meanwhile, the United States rapidly expanded its LNG sector, now exporting far more than Canada, capturing global markets that Canada could have served.
“Ten to 15 years ago, there were about as many LNG projects proposed in Canada as in the U.S.,” said Forrest. “We have not been able to get those projects going. The first Canadian project is just starting up now, while the Americans are already shipping out far more.”
She cited a report that shows LNG development in the U.S. has added $408 billion to GDP since 2016 and created 270,000 direct jobs.
“That’s a major economic impact,” she said. “And Canada hasn’t been able to take part in it.”
The case for energy corridors: Creating prosperity, keeping costs in check
Energy corridors could help Canada build long-term prosperity while addressing affordability, job creation, and energy reliability.
“More efficient infrastructure reduces supply chain delays, helping to lower consumer energy costs and related expenses like food and transportation,” said Wittevrongel.
Wittevrongel notes that projects that cross provincial borders face both provincial and federal impact assessments which leads to duplication of effort and delays. Reducing this overlap would shorten approval timelines and provide more certainty for investors.
“One of the ways to improve this process is having the federal government recognize provincial environmental assessments as being good enough,” she said. “There has to be a way to balance that.”
Forrest said investors have already taken note of Canada’s high project costs and long approval timelines.
“TC Energy just built a pipeline to connect the BC gas fields with the West Coast that cost about twice as much as originally expected and took a lot longer,” she said. “Meanwhile, they recently completed a $4.5-billion natural gas project in Mexico under budget and ahead of schedule. Now they’re looking at where to put their next investment.”
Forrest explained that energy corridors could help de-risk infrastructure projects by front-loading environmental and stakeholder work.
“If we just had a pre-approved corridor for things like pipelines and transmission lines to go through, where a lot of this groundwork had already been done, it would really reduce the timeline to get to construction and reduce the risk,” she said. “That would hopefully get a lot more capital spent more quickly in this country.”
The path forward
Without changes, investment will continue to flow elsewhere.
“Energy corridors can go a long way to restoring Canada’s attractiveness for energy transportation and infrastructure projects as it cuts down on the lengthy bureaucratic requirements,” said Wittevrongel.
And Forrest agrees.
“We need to pick key projects that are going to be important to the sovereignty and economic future of Canada and get them done,” Forrest said. “I don’t think we can wait for long-term legislative reform — we need to look at what the Americans are doing and do something similar here.”
Energy corridors are about ensuring Canada remains competitive, lowering costs for consumers, and creating the infrastructure needed to support long-term economic prosperity.
For engaged women, this translates into a stronger economy, lower costs, and more reliable energy for their families.
“The two areas that this will be felt for every family are in lower energy costs and also in lower grocery or food prices as transportation of these things becomes easier on rail, or exporting grain reduces the price, for instance, ” said Wittevrongel.
Whether policymakers take action remains to be seen, but with growing trade pressures and investment uncertainty, the conversation around energy corridors is needed now more than ever.
A majority of Americans say it is more important for the U.S. to establish energy independence than to fight climate change, according to new polling.
The poll from Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters shows that 57% of voters say making America energy independent is more important than fighting climate change, while 39% feel the opposite and 4% are unsure.
Those surveyed also were asked: Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or keeping the price of cars low enough for families to afford them?
Half of voters (50%) said keeping the price of cars low was more important to them than reducing emissions, while 43% said emissions reductions were more important than the price of buying a car.
When asked, “Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the cost and improving the reliability of electricity and gas for American families?”, 59% said reducing the cost and increasing the reliability was more important compared to 35% who said reducing emissions was more important.
The survey was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen on March 18-19. Field work was conducted by RMG Research. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points
Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].
