Energy
LATE TO THE PARTY: Liberal Resource Minister Minister Suddenly Discovers Canada Needs East-West Pipeline
From Energy Now
By Jim Warren
On Thursday, February 6 federal energy and natural resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told reporters about a brilliant idea he’d come up with. He said Canada should think about building an east-west oil pipeline. He claimed doing so could provide Ontario, Quebec and parts further east greater security of supply.
Furthermore, such a pipeline would eliminate the need to buy tanker loads of oil from places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. And what’s more it could provide us with the opportunity to export Canadian oil to countries other than the US.
Talk about being late to the party. It’s as though the Energy East project never made it onto the national agenda.
Wilkinson told reporters how a pipeline like Enbridge’s Line 5 is vulnerable to shut down by US authorities. Line 5 carries oil from the prairies through the northern US Midwest before delivering it to the refinery and petrochemicals facilities at Sarnia, Ontario.
This is not breaking news. The Liberals have been well aware of the threat for years. Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer waged a well-publicized multi-year campaign to have Line 5 shut down.
According to a CBC report, Wilkinson said, “successive Canadian governments never really gave it much thought that a lot of the energy the country needs to power its economy flows through the U.S.”
That’s a stretch. He apparently doesn’t consider the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to be Canadian governments. The real problem is Ottawa wasn’t listening when premiers Notley, Kenney, Smith, Wall and Moe explained the value of an all-Canadian Energy East pipeline. They also had plenty to say about the cancellation of Energy East in 2017 and the role Ottawa played by creating the regulatory approval quagmire that helped kill it.
No less puzzling is that Wilkinson imagines such a pipeline could ever be built under the BANANAs (build absolutely nothing, anywhere, near anything) regulatory barriers implemented by the Liberals which make it next to impossible for anyone to build a new pipeline. When Jason Kenney referred to Bill C-69 as The No More Pipelines Bill he wasn’t just whistling Dixie.
The only major export pipeline to be built in the wake of C-69, was the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX). And it was only completed because the owner, the Government of Canada, was prepared to incur the staggering costs of navigating its own pipeline approval regulations. A pipeline originally budgeted to cost $6.8 billion wound up costing an additional $54 billion. Sane investors simply aren’t prepared to accept that level of unreasonable cost and uncertainty.
A first step in getting new pipelines built would be eliminating Bill C-69 along with Bill C-48, the West coast tanker ban. Wilkinson didn’t touch on those points when telling reporters about his bold new idea.
One has to wonder, after11 years of anti-oil and anti-pipeline policy making, if Wilkinson really means what he’s saying. Has he truly experienced a road to Damascus level conversion due to the threat of US tariffs?
Another plausible explanation for Wilkinson’s call for the resurrection of Energy East is that he’s seen the polling numbers. An Angus Reid poll conducted earlier this month shows 79% of Canadians from across the country support new oil and gas pipelines to tidewater on the east and west coasts. The poll also shows 74% of Quebec respondents now support the idea of building new pipelines to tidewater.
If those numbers hold, Canada’s next government could possibly revisit Energy East. If they succeeded in getting the line built it would represent the most visionary nation building project since the building of the trans-continental railway.
No less surprising is, despite the rise in public support for pipelines, Quebec Premier Francois Legault says he won’t accept a new oil pipeline in his province. Legault is out of step with Quebec opinion on more issues than pipelines. The separatist Parti Quebecois is currently leading Legault’s Coalition Avenir Quebec by 10 points in party preference polls. This is not to say the PQ is any more pipeline friendly.
After11 years of Liberal anti-oil and anti-pipeline policy making, Wilkinson is finally on the right side of the Energy East idea. Some might say better late than never—better to change one’s mind than to continue being wrong. Others will say it is a flip flop of epic proportions and questionable sincerity. Skeptical pundits will question whether Wilkinson’s new found fondness for pipelines is any more credible than Mark Carney’s pledge to get rid of the carbon tax.
Wilkinson is a bright man, so it is possible he has believed Energy East was a good idea for some time. Too bad he didn’t tell us sooner. He waited too long to come clean to expect electoral redemption.
Canada must not allow ideological dogma and indecision to squander a rare chance to lock in our energy sovereignty for good
Canada teeters on the edge, battered by a trade war and Trump’s tariff threats from its once-steady southern ally, yet held back by its own indecision. Trump’s 25 percent tariffs have exposed a brutal truth: Canada’s economy, especially its oil exports, is nearly 100 percent dependent on the U.S.
Voices are crying out to lament the regulatory chaos, ideological zeal, and whispers of “peak oil” that stall progress. If Canada won’t build pipelines when its sovereignty and prosperity are at stake, will it ever? The economics are clear, peak oil is a myth, and the only barriers are self-imposed: dogma, tangled rules, and bad thinking.
The infrastructure Canada can command is immense. Four million barrels of crude flow to the U.S. daily, and Trump’s threats have made that number look even bigger.
The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) is proof—linking Alberta to Asia’s markets, with royalties already filling public coffers.
But it’s a lone success. Energy East and Northern Gateway are buried, killed by delays and poor decisions. Private capital is gun-shy, scarred by TMX’s $34 billion price tag, ballooned by a broken system. Why risk billions when the path is a minefield?
The stakes are higher than ever. Forget the claim that oil demand peaks this year at 102 million barrels daily. Experts see a different horizon: Goldman Sachs predicts growth to 2034, OPEC to 2050, BP to 2035—some forecasts topping 80 million barrels.
Enbridge’s Greg Ebel sees “well north” of 100 million by mid-century, driven by Asia’s demand and the developing world’s hunger for energy. Peak oil is a ghost story, not a reality. Canada sits on the third-largest reserves in the world and could dominate the global market, not just feed one neighbour. Pipelines to every coast—east, west, and north—would unlock that future and secure riches for decades.
So what’s holding us back? Ideology, for starters.
Environmental lobbying and influence wrap resource projects in suffocating red tape—emissions caps and endless assessments that kill progress. Years of environmental studies and “net zero” hurdles that no pipeline can clear are choking off bold ideas.
Quebec’s stance has softened under Trump’s pressure, but problematic ideals still linger that blind leaders to reality. The regulatory mess makes it worse.
Today’s system demands a $1 billion bet upfront—engineering, consultations—before a shovel hits the dirt. Companies like TC Energy have been burned before, and others won’t play unless there’s reform. TMX worked because it was a government rescue, but its cost is a deterrent to others.
Then there’s the mess of bad ideas. Government officials will talk about pipelines one day and then express doubts about them the next, leaving a void of leadership. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien very strongly backed a West-East pipeline at the Liberal Party leadership convention.
New leader Mark Carney supports energy links but will not name pipelines, even though public support for them has surged. Four out of five Canadians back coast-to-coast pipelines—but leaders continue to waver.
If not now—when we’re in a trade war and facing annexation—when? Canada’s future is about the infrastructure it controls, not the excuses it clings to. The wealth is waiting, the demand is there, and the barriers are ours to break. Ditch the dogma, fix the rules, and build. Or remain a nation forever poised to rise but never brave enough to do it.
Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
The EPA just announced it’s challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the “endangerment finding.”
This bogus “finding” allowed Obama and Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.
 |
- Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natural gas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA’s bogus “endangerment finding.”¹
- In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a “finding” that GHGs “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.²
- Since human beings began harnessing uniquely cost-effective energy from fossil fuels, human health and welfare have increased dramatically everywhere.
Why? Because the benefits of cheap, reliable energy for billions far outweigh any negative side-effects of fossil fuels.³
- Before and since the “endangerment finding,” which is supposedly about reducing climate danger, fossil fuels have on net made us far safer from climate danger by creating incredible climate resilience.
That’s why climate disaster deaths have declined 98% over 100 years!⁴
- In considering whether fossil fuels’ GHGs “endanger” us and thus should be restricted, EPA should have considered
1. Overall benefits of fossil fuels
2. Climate resilience benefits of fossil fuels
3. Both positive and negative climate impacts of GHGsEPA failed on all 3 counts.
- The “endangerment finding” was particularly inane because it concluded that the US restricting US GHG emissions would accomplish anything globally—when in fact all it accomplished was harming us and offshoring industry to China, which now has 300+ new coal plants in the pipeline!⁵
- By falsely claiming that fossil fuels “endanger” human health, welfare, and climate safety when they were—and have continued to be—a net benefit, EPA has justified giving itself totalitarian powers that, if not stopped, will crater the US economy.
- Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed GHG rules that effectively ban all coal plants and new natural gas plants—by requiring them to capture at least 90% of GHGs, which no plant has ever done at all, let alone cost-effectively.
How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid
·May 22, 2024
4 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:
Read full story - Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed “fuel economy standards” that would prevent more than 50% of Americans from buying a gasoline-powered vehicle after 2032—a complete violation of American freedom.⁶
- Drawing on the bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA and administration as a whole waged a “whole of government” war on fossil fuels that, if not reversed, will crater our entire economy—which has no near-term replacement for fossil fuels.⁷
- The Trump administration, especially EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, will be attacked relentlessly for challenging the bogus “endangerment finding”—but they should be praised for being willing to take on the most destructive regulatory action in American history.
Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Trudeau fills Canadian courts with Liberal-appointed judges before resigning as prime minister
Former Chief Judge of Manitoba Proincial Court will lead investigation into AHS procurement process
Here’s how First Nations can access a reliable source of revenue
Province announces funding for interim cardiac catheterization lab at the Red Deer Regional Hospital
-
Business2 days agoDoug Ford needs to ditch the net-zero pipedreams
-
COVID-192 days agoVerdict for Freedom Convoy leaders to be read April 3
-
COVID-192 days agoCanadian court approves $290 million class action lawsuit against Freedom Convoy
-
Business2 days ago38 state AGs, DoJ announce plan to end Google’s search monopoly
-
Business2 days agoOntario suspends electricity surcharge after Trump doubles tariffs
-
Business21 hours agoOntario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions
-
Daily Caller21 hours agoReality Finally Returns To Energy Industry
-
espionage13 hours agoWhy has President Trump not released the JFK, Jeffrey Epstein files?