From Resource Works

By Jim Rushton

Life in a federation is mostly hard, but worth the effort and frustration. We should keep that in mind when we face a question like: Should there be a second oil pipeline to Canada’s Pacific Coast?

We should also remind ourselves of the chain of events that led eligible voters in the Colony of British Columbia to choose Canada over the United States, and what the British North America Act stated about such decisions at that time and still today.

Section 92 of the Constitution stipulates that infrastructure projects that connect or run through provinces fall within federal jurisdiction. It clearly states that Parliament may declare a project which is wholly situated within one province to be “…for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.”

Many crucial events took place between 1867 and 1871, the year B.C. entered Confederation. Canada and the United States were in a race across North America to the Pacific.

The United States had reached Washington State and Alaska by 1867, which posed a threat to Canada. In 1870, Canada acquired from the Hudson’s Bay Company the land that is today Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Both the United States and Canada competed for BC.

The Colony of British Columbia was having infrastructure debt problems, as Britain was becoming a less enthusiastic sponsor. Canada won the competition in part because of Upper Canada’s British roots, but the deal was sealed by promising to build a transcontinental railway.

B.C.’s entry to Confederation had everything to do with a transportation corridor. Ever since, Canada has relied upon B.C. to be an ever-expanding transportation and energy corridor, and the province has delivered. Today, B.C. hosts the largest and third-largest deep-sea ports in the country, as well as the only oil and natural gas pipelines to tidewater.

I agree with Premier Eby that BC’s contribution has been taken for granted, as have other western provinces. However, I disagree with the dismissive arguments he is making about Alberta’s goal to significantly increase oil production, in particular, relying on the point that there is no proponent.

Premier Smith, Federal Minister Hodgson, and potential proponents are all clearly acknowledging that fact. They also demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements for adding the proposed project to the Major Projects List. The purpose of Alberta’s undertaking is an attempt to reach that threshold.

It is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the shattering of investor confidence and the erosion of trust among global customers in Canada’s ability to deliver another oil pipeline.

Both Premier Smith and Minister Dix appeared on CTV’s Power Play this past week. I cheered them both on and thought each did a good job. It was entertaining, but not political theatre. The debate was an expression of opposing viewpoints within a pluralistic and democratic country.

The argument that TMX is not at capacity is true but irrelevant. If the dredging is completed on schedule, the terminal will be capable of reaching full capacity as early as Christmas 2026, bringing total rail and pipeline capacity to approximately 4.8 million barrels per day. Production in Western Canada in July 2025 was 4,303,045 barrels per day.

Saskatchewan has set a 2030 target of 600,000 barrels per day, and projections indicate that Alberta’s 2034 production goals will reach 4.7 million barrels per day. This raises the need for an increased transport capacity to approximately 5.3 million barrels.

It is a fair point made by Premier Eby and Minister Dix that 10 years ago, a social licence trade-off was made with coastal First Nations in exchange for accepting LNG on the North Coast. Many things have changed since then that warrant a thoughtful second look.

There has been a general stagnation in living standards for something like eighty percent of the population. Public debt is rising to a level that is threatening many public services. The breakdown in relations with the United States is attacking our economy and sovereignty.

We have come to realize that we need billions of dollars annually to fortify the Arctic regions, protecting our northern populations and their resources from Russia and China.

Also, it has become apparent in the changing geopolitical landscape that energy resources and energy technology are essential currency for a mid-sized country to establish reliable trading partners and allies. It will get us back to the table internationally with credibility.

It is now clear that the industrialization of developing and emerging economies will not be halted. Canada has a choice to be an active, positive democratic participant or sit on the sidelines.

We now acknowledge that our proximity and dependence on the United States have defined our place in the world. We will need every asset and every comparative advantage to make that change. If we become less reliant on the United States, they will be less inclined to take us for granted.

The first proposal had the pipeline terminal at Kitimat. The project being worked on today proposes that it be changed to Prince Rupert. Many reports suggest that a route from Prince Rupert, and through Dixon Entrance, is the safest, even safer than the Burrard Inlet. This contention should be tested early in the process.

Most importantly, what has changed is that a growing number of First Nations are leading resource development. Joint regulatory processes, business, employment, and training opportunities, as well as access to rents and equity, have brought Indigenous Nations into partnerships with governments and corporations. The first equity opportunity came through the oil and gas industry.

It is reasonable to assume that the tanker ban decision made 10 years ago should be put under scrutiny. It is also sensible that potential proponents and supportive First Nations and Indigenous economic development groups engage with other First Nations in the early stages of developing an amended version of the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

It is also necessary to answer this question: What is the probability that Canada can successfully meet the consensus economic and sovereignty goals we have set for ourselves without expanding oil production?

Like it or not, oil outweighs natural gas and critical minerals in value when its entire value stream is considered.

One final thought. The NDP of old would not have objected to public ownership of an oil industry company. We should learn from the Norwegian example. Norway sold its leading oil and gas company in 2001 on the Oslo and New York Stock Exchanges. They did so because their reserves are limited, and they decided to acquire international assets, including in Canada.

Since then, Equinor has significantly expanded its asset base, and private companies now own approximately one-third of the company’s shares. Despite top-level environmental regulations, and the fact that the people of Norway hold two-thirds of the shares, private investors have confidence.

Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Is the push and pull in the energy and climate regulatory environment hurting the ability for companies to finance and complete energy projects in the United States? The head of Shell in the United States, Colette Hirstius, said she believes it is in a recent interview.

“I think uncertainty in the regulatory environment is very damaging,” Hirstius said, adding, “However far the pendulum swings one way, it’s likely that it’s going to swing just as far the other way.”

Hirstius was addressing the moves made by the Trump administration to slow the progress of the offshore wind industry, which was the crown jewel of the Biden administration’s headlong rush into a government-subsidized energy transition. Trump’s regulators, led by Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have taken a series of actions in compliance with executive orders signed by Trump since January to halt several projects that were under construction, roll back federal subsidies, and review permits they believe were hastily issued in non-compliance with legally required processes.

That hope seems discordant, coming as it does amid Shell’s ongoing effort to step back from offshore wind and refocus more of its capital budget back to its core oil and gas business following years of unprofitable ventures into renewables. It also seems fair to point out that the political pendulum about which Hirstius warns already swung wildly in favor of offshore wind and other wind and solar projects in the Biden administration. It is odd that Shell only now decides to roll out that particular warning.

Shell was pulling back from its major offshore wind investments while Trump was still fighting off efforts by an array of Democratic prosecutors to put him in prison. In June 2023, for example, the company announced its intent to offload its 50% share in the Southcoast project offshore Connecticut amid Biden era high inflation and supply chain challenges that were already rocking the industry at the time. Nine months later, Shell sold the interest to another party.

The company announced last December that it was “stepping back from new offshore wind investments” as part of a company-wide review implemented by then-new CEO Wael Sawan in mid-2023. A month later, it cancelled its interest in the Atlantic Shores project, writing off $1 billion in investments in the process. Shell’s ventures into the U.S. offshore wind arena had run head-long into economic reality long before the second Trump presidency came along.

That Atlantic Shores project has become an item of special interest inside the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in recent days. In a court filing last Friday, BOEM Deputy Director Matthew Giacona said the Bureau plans to conduct a full review of the process that went into approving Atlantic Shores during the Biden presidency. He also said the review would likely expand to other offshore wind projects given the administration’s concerns that Biden’s regulators failed to properly assess the true environmental impacts these major industrial installations create.

In addition to that, the Daily Caller’s Audrey Streb reported on Monday that Biden regulators gave the go-ahead to some of these offshore projects despite internal concerns expressed as early as 2021 that granting long delays in their decommissioning processes “increases risk to the federal taxpayer.” Offshore developers are normally required to provide financial assurance to pre-fund such costs, but big Danish developer Orsted and others were requesting delays as long as 15 years in that requirement to make their project economics work.

Hirstius’s concerns about regulation are absolutely valid: Having such certainty is a crucial element for any company to be able to plan its future business endeavors. But every presidency has a duty to ensure that actions by prior administrations meet the mandates of prevailing laws. It has long been feared that the Biden regulators cut important corners related to environmental and marine mammal protections to speed some offshore wind projects through the process.

As this current review process plays itself out, Shell might well find itself glad it cut its losses in this failing offshore wind sector when it did.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.