Kelly McParland: How decades of Liberal indifference created Danielle Smith

[petros]

Good. Getting the impression China’s told America (who now controls Venezuela and not only its exports, but it’s imports) to go ‘kick rocks’ regarding American Venezuelans America’s newfound oil reserves and the prices America is setting for that crude, etc…

Based on data from early 2025, oil-by-rail in British Columbia and Western Canada is experiencing a shift in dynamics following the expansion of pipeline capacity, notably the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX). While total Canadian crude oil production has reached record highs, the reliance on rail to transport that oil has decreased as more product moves through pipelines.
Régie de l'énergie du Canada
Régie de l'énergie du Canada
+1
Key updates for 2025 include:
Reduced Rail Demand: As of March 2025, Canadian crude-by-rail exports hit an 8-year low, dropping by approximately 10% compared to 2023, as more oil is diverted to pipeline and marine transport.
Pipeline Dominance: The 590,000 barrel-per-day expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMEP) has, as of mid-2025, provided substantial capacity for moving crude to the BC coast for export, reducing the immediate need for rail, according to CAPP.
Operational Shifts: Despite the decrease, rail remains a key component of the Western Canadian energy logistics network, with infrastructure in the Port of Vancouver adapting to handle increased overall liquid bulk, including a 133% increase in bulk liquid tonnage in the first half of 2025.
Regulatory & Future Projects: The BC government continues to focus on safety regulations regarding the transport of liquid petroleum products by rail. Furthermore, discussions regarding new pipeline projects continue in late 2025, which may influence the future demand for oil-by-rail.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
+6
In summary, for 2025, rail is serving as a more supplementary, rather than primary, method of moving oil to the British Columbia coast, with the market favoring the increased capacity of the expanded TMX pipeline.


Let's roll.

 

[pgs]

Based on data from early 2025, oil-by-rail in British Columbia and Western Canada is experiencing a shift in dynamics following the expansion of pipeline capacity, notably the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX). While total Canadian crude oil production has reached record highs, the reliance on rail to transport that oil has decreased as more product moves through pipelines.
Régie de l'énergie du Canada
Régie de l'énergie du Canada
+1
Key updates for 2025 include:
Reduced Rail Demand: As of March 2025, Canadian crude-by-rail exports hit an 8-year low, dropping by approximately 10% compared to 2023, as more oil is diverted to pipeline and marine transport.
Pipeline Dominance: The 590,000 barrel-per-day expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMEP) has, as of mid-2025, provided substantial capacity for moving crude to the BC coast for export, reducing the immediate need for rail, according to CAPP.
Operational Shifts: Despite the decrease, rail remains a key component of the Western Canadian energy logistics network, with infrastructure in the Port of Vancouver adapting to handle increased overall liquid bulk, including a 133% increase in bulk liquid tonnage in the first half of 2025.
Regulatory & Future Projects: The BC government continues to focus on safety regulations regarding the transport of liquid petroleum products by rail. Furthermore, discussions regarding new pipeline projects continue in late 2025, which may influence the future demand for oil-by-rail.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
+6
In summary, for 2025, rail is serving as a more supplementary, rather than primary, method of moving oil to the British Columbia coast, with the market favoring the increased capacity of the expanded TMX pipeline.


Let's roll.

Yes but I see rolling pipelines everyday still .

 

[petros]

Yes but I see rolling pipelines everyday still .

They all look the same but carry LPG, Sulfur, Diesel, etc etc etc. About 20% are crude.

 

[pgs]

They all look the same but carry LPG, Sulfur, Diesel, etc etc etc. About 20% are crude.

Depends on the cars but yes .

 

[Ron in Regina]

From Alberta’s oil sands to Newfoundland’s offshore petroleum, Canada has some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. But despite this abundance, it’s mostly been a price taker within the global market—in other words, events elsewhere impact us more than we impact them. Most recently, the war in Iran has disrupted oil and gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. Prices are soaring due to attacks against regional oil refineries, ships and storage across the Persian Gulf, disruptions to insurance markets and, most importantly, the conflict’s ambiguous endgame and endpoint. Canadians are feeling it at the gas pumps.

Canada has little capacity to shape the trajectory of the current energy crisis. Only a small number of petro-states—the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia on the supply side, and China and India on the demand side—have the volumes required to influence global oil prices.

(Swap in Qatar for Saudi Arabia and the major players are basically the same for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, markets.)

Today, the geopolitics of oil are the most chaotic they’ve been since the 1970s. Consumers affected by the war in Iran will be seeking low-risk supply from stable markets like Canada, positioning us to achieve a more globally significant role in energy security.

After nearly a decade of dysfunction, Ottawa Liberals and Alberta Conservatives are working together to make this happen, aligning on the need to diversify markets and increase our economic resilience in light of the trade war. Indigenous partnerships are also proliferating, particularly in LNG, where several First Nations groups have ownership stakes in projects such as Cedar LNG, a proposed floating facility in Kitimat, B.C. Even our technology is becoming more innovative, as Canada’s oil and gas producers focus on lowering costs and increasing efficiency.

Could the Iran War Catalyze Canadian Oil and Gas? — Maclean’s

How conflict in the Middle East could propel the country to energy-superpower status

apple.news

 

[Ron in Regina]

Enbridge spent over $1 billion developing a West Coast pipeline proposal-Northern Gateway. Despite the fact that this project included agreements with virtually every Indigenous community along the route, it was rejected by Ottawa. The suite of federal laws and regulations brought in since then scares off any similar proponent.

Some 10-20 years ago, Canada was teeming with proposals to build pipelines every which direction, LNG terminals and oilsands mines. There was also tremendous investor enthusiasm in Ontario’s Ring of Fire mineral deposits. And then the Liberals came along and subjected everything to multiple reviews.

An RBC report released Tuesday confirmed that new investment in Canada has completely collapsed during the Liberals’ tenure in power. “Between 2015 and 2024, more than $1 trillion of investment exited Canada — the largest capital exodus in Canadian history,” the report says. “For every dollar of inward FDI, two dollars exited.” Partly as a result, GDP per capita growth, the best indicator we have of standard of living, has been less than one per cent the last decade, by far the lowest of any period since the Great Recession.

The suite of federal laws and regulations brought in since then scares off any similar proponent. The federal tanker ban makes any oil pipeline a non-starter. Even if an exception were made, the Impact Assessment Act would strangle it with red tape. If the feds decided to give a pipeline special status under their new Bill C-5 to fast track those regulations, their emissions cap for oil and gas would limit the ability to increase production to fill the new pipe.

The reason for this, the same reason why another $1 trillion in corporate capital is sitting idle is what the RBC report unhelpfully terms “burdensome regulatory, permitting and project delivery barriers.” In other words, the Liberals introduced regulations on top of regulations and endless processes, in the name of fighting climate change, thus choking off investment.

Carson Jerema: How Justin Trudeau cost Canada $1 trillion — National Post

The Liberals and the damage done

apple.news

When for instance, the private owner of the the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion pulled out, the Liberals did not take that as evidence that project reviews needed to be streamlined. They took it as evidence they needed to buy the pipeline, expending taxpayer dollars that should have never been spent if Canada had a functioning infrastructure assessment regime. By 2020, in all, about $150 billion in energy projects were cancelled or delayed.

Similarly, the Liberals were dismissive of the Ring of Fire because of the peat moss in the area. Former environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson complained in 2023: “I actually bemoan the fact that everybody goes right to Ring of Fire.” After the project was subjected to a regional assessment by Wilkinson, his successor Steven Guilbeault launched another review, further duplicating processes already completed by the Ontario government.

 

[Dixie Cup]

The goal is to destroy everything that is & was good in this country which is the intent of this government. As long as THEY benefit, screw the rest of the country!

 

[Ron in Regina]

The federal government is eyeing a new oil pipeline route in southern British Columbia that some in Ottawa believe would face fewer environmental hurdles and less resistance from Indigenous groups than the northern route Alberta is proposing, two federal sources say.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed an memorandum of understanding in November, with the goals of unlocking Alberta’s energy sector and diversifying export markets in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war. The agreement laid the conditions for construction of a new oil conduit to the Pacific.

The MOU doesn’t say what path the pipeline will take. Ms. Smith has talked up a northern route that would carry Alberta oil to the Port of Prince Rupert, B.C. Her government is expected to propose such a route to Ottawa’s Major Projects Office this summer. An Alberta government source said the province expects that the federal government will designate the pipeline a project of national importance in the fall. We’ll have to wait and see.

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ustry-new-pipeline-national-security-federal/)

Alberta prefers a northern route for two main reasons. First, Prince Rupert is North America’s closest port to Asia by up to three days sailing – around 36 hours closer to Shanghai than Vancouver.

It’s also the continent’s deepest port, which would enable access for the large crude carriers that are favoured for transporting oil to Asia. The massive tankers can transport about two million barrels of the dense, heavy crude that comes from Alberta’s oil sands.

But the two federal sources say Ottawa leans instead toward a route that would run through the province’s south to the port of Vancouver. That pipeline could either run alongside the Trans Mountain pipeline or follow another path. In either case, the sources said, it would require a new terminal for loading oil onto tankers.

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is planning to dredge the waters to deepen the channel in the Second Narrows waterway at Burrard Inlet. This will allow Aframax-class oil tankers at the Westridge Marine Terminal to operate at full capacity. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is planning to dredge the waters to deepen the channel in the Second Narrows waterway at Burrard Inlet. This will allow Aframax-class oil tankers at the Westridge Marine Terminal to operate at full capacity.

Ottawa leans toward new oil pipeline route from Alberta to southern B.C., sources say — The Globe and Mail

The line would terminate at the port of Vancouver, potentially avoiding some of the pitfalls of a northern route pitched by Alberta’s Premier

apple.news

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Alberta prefers a northern route for two main reasons. First, Prince Rupert is North America’s closest port to Asia by up to three days sailing – around 36 hours closer to Shanghai than Vancouver.

Wait, what? Is sailing only a 12-hours-per-day oparation?

It’s also the continent’s deepest port, which would enable access for the large crude carriers that are favoured for transporting oil to Asia. The massive tankers can transport about two million barrels of the dense, heavy crude that comes from Alberta’s oil sands.

But the two federal sources say Ottawa leans instead toward a route that would run through the province’s south to the port of Vancouver. That pipeline could either run alongside the Trans Mountain pipeline or follow another path. In either case, the sources said, it would require a new terminal for loading oil onto tankers.

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is planning to dredge the waters to deepen the channel in the Second Narrows waterway at Burrard Inlet. This will allow Aframax-class oil tankers at the Westridge Marine Terminal to operate at full capacity. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is planning to dredge the waters to deepen the channel in the Second Narrows waterway at Burrard Inlet. This will allow Aframax-class oil tankers at the Westridge Marine Terminal to operate at full capacity.

Wouldn't increasing Vancouver's port's capability be a good thing?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Wait, what? Is sailing only a 12-hours-per-day oparation?

That’s a good point. I understand these carriers move at about jogging speed, but 36hrs isn’t three days.

Wouldn't increasing Vancouver's port's capability be a good thing?

Somewhat, in a full capacity bottleneck sorta way I guess, and with Vancouver already being North America’s biggest urban clear cut, dredging out the harbour and strait leading to it wouldn’t be too much of a concern for BC residents I guess. It’s also busier traffic-wise and has some scenic bridges, etc…and would have an available work force in order to concentrate industry and its economic benefits in one place. Vancouver does have many things going on to its benefit.

 

[pgs]

That’s a good point. I understand these carriers move at about jogging speed, but 36hrs isn’t three days.

Somewhat, in a full capacity bottleneck sorta way I guess, and with Vancouver already being North America’s biggest urban clear cut, dredging out the harbour and strait leading to it wouldn’t be too much of a concern for BC residents I guess. It’s also busier traffic-wise and has some scenic bridges, etc…and would have an available work force in order to concentrate industry and its economic benefits in one place. Vancouver does have many things going on to its benefit.

Vancouver is now the property of the Musquem Indian band . Good luck .

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Vancouver is now the property of the Musquem Indian band . Good luck .

Have you tried genocide?

 

[Taxslave2]

Wait, what? Is sailing only a 12-hours-per-day oparation?

Wouldn't increasing Vancouver's port's capability be a good thing?

The short answer is no. It is not so much the port itself, it is all the other marine traffic, including whales. All ships for Vancouver, Tacoma, and Seattle use Juan de Fuca Strait. From a security point of view, that is putting all your eggs in one basket. Alberta oil producers would probably be better off contracting out ship loading to Louisiana or Alaska than deal with the BC government and coastal native bands that are opposed because they are not on the pipeline route and don't get any free money for a pipe that doesn't cross their land.

 

[Taxslave2]

Have you tried genocide?

That doesn't sound very sporting.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

That doesn't sound very sporting.

Can't make an empire without breaking a few eggs. And a lot of people.

 

[Taxslave2]

I have no idea about the extra cost, but I would seriously consider a ship loading facility around Sarita River, Alberni Inlet. It is just minutes from open water, and with all the mill closures there is a local workforce that isn't afraid of getting dirty.

 

[pgs]

Have you tried genocide?

No. I am friends with to many Sparrows .

 

[pgs]

The short answer is no. It is not so much the port itself, it is all the other marine traffic, including whales. All ships for Vancouver, Tacoma, and Seattle use Juan de Fuca Strait. From a security point of view, that is putting all your eggs in one basket. Alberta oil producers would probably be better off contracting out ship loading to Louisiana or Alaska than deal with the BC government and coastal native bands that are opposed because they are not on the pipeline route and don't get any free money for a pipe that doesn't cross their land.

Don’t forget nuclear submarines .

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Don’t forget nuclear submarines .

Or yellow submarines.

 

[pgs]

Or yellow submarines.

I am serious about the nuclear subs , check it out .