I follow you since the early days of the Ukraine invasion and just love your, so many times brilliant, analyses. Really eye-openers (if there is such an expression! - I'm a portuguese living in Portugal so english is not my mother tongue)
Your excellent article inspired me to google Canada’s natural gas pipelines. Basically the largest -TC mainline - runs from the west all through Canada and terminates south of Montreal, then the Trans Quebec Maritime pipeline runs to Quebec City but to the US northeast and our Maritimes.
Not an expert but why not establish LNG facility near Quebec City or run an extension through Quebec to the Maritimes, bypassing the US. This would require an enlargement of the pipeline from Ontario through Quebec.
Your reply is exactly why I’m a paid subscriber. Your articles are free of MSM influence, discuss important matters, remove us from national “thinking silos” and often provide a European perspective, necessary for us non-Europeans. Your articles do not entertain us but inform us for those who care to learn. An informed readership will have the ability and inspiration to further explore the issues after you have laid the “foundation”.
Informed persons can advise friends to governments. Informed persons may acknowledge opposing viewpoints respectfully and logically. This may lead to a better world over time. Don’t go anywhere.
I had never thought to look up the pipelines coming east from AB. Through all the rhetoric, I'd assumed there weren't any! But there is definitely a need to get a large capacity LNG terminal on the Atlantic coast.
Agree that we should look into something that can bypass the US... can't give them the temptation of hijacking the LNG. I would suggest continuing on the south bank of the St. Lawrence, up towards the Gaspe peninsula and then down through NB and NS to Halifax. HFX is already our biggest deepwater Atlantic port with a ton of suitable labour as well as a big naval presence too.
There was a proposal to build a LNG facility in Saguenay Quebec. I don’t know what its status is. There are also proposals to build in Nova Scotia. I think now that major projects need to have indigenous buy in or partnership, some of the obstacles may be decreasing. It would also require more investment.
Excellent reasoning! There is little doubt that Putin has a designs on Europe! Stability first then price. Good thinking! Who knows what the future will bring? Look what's happened in less than a year? Thanks Shankar! Always a pleasure to read your posts!
A natural gas pipeline to the East Coast, long as it is, makes sense, as the Panama Canal is also a potential choke point given the Trump regime's unhealthy interest in reclaiming it. Up until now Quebec has given a firm no to pipelines, but I think that was for bitumen. PM Carney will have his work cut out for him convincing them and perhaps European leaders could help with that.
My understanding is also that the proposed pipeline was for bitumen. The timing of the proposal also matters as it was after a disaster railroad accident that I can’t remember the name of. That and the route that would affect the Manatees habitat were cited and reasons they were against it.
Perhaps recent world events has changed that calculation.
I would also like to consider a pipeline to Churchill for transit through the Hudson Bay. Shorter route, it would require a new pipeline unless shipment by rail is a possibility.
An excellent and insightful commentary. Canada, Norway and also Australia are the new key players to supplying energy and critical minerals to the world without the autocratic influence that is so prevalent of late. I suppose you could call these three countries the new democratic triangle of supply. Carney has said that Canada is an energy superpower, so back up that talk with definitive action. A natural gas pipeline to Hudson’s Bay and LNG export facility there that would service Europe would be a logical place to start.
I am still studying the landscape. It will be sometime before I can make my choices. Until that time, I have to keep my positions strategic and at a distance. Yes, east coast. It has to be done.
This is really great news. Carney is the right person at the right time to implement this. Now he just needs to deal with the mechanics of putting it in place. Canada is lucky to have him
What can the world do to help Canada? How do we help South America and Africa?
China and Russia may have the advantage in antimony, rare earths, and nuclear refining. It may be decades, but the size of the advanatage is temporary. And boosting steel and aluminium sourced from Canada boosts Canadian jobs and output, which rewards Canadian politicians and parties with foresight.
Can you tell Australia to build some new refineries and tax them please, Mr. Narayan?
Thank you, time is critical. Australia is in a bad spot.
“We’re going towards a cliff on oil and oil products by the end of this month. Physical shortages. We have physical shortages already, but just in countries we don’t care about.”
Don’t look for this investment from the O&Gs. They are too used to hand feeding by provincial and federal governments. Those big spending swaggering oil men are all show, no action!
Yes, the subsidy nonsense. And we’re only one of many countries subsidizing O&G. Many other industries don’t receive same and they employ many more people.
The trust premium argument is the most important structural shift in energy markets this year and I think most investors havent updated their models to reflect it yet.
For decades, energy infrastructure was valued on three variables: reserves, extraction cost, and distance to market. The Hormuz disruption just added a fourth variable that reprices everything: jurisdictional reliability. And unlike the first three, jurisdictional reliability compounds over time rather than depleting.
Germany considering Pacific coast Canadian LNG via Panama is the clearest proof that the premium is real and quantifiable. the additional shipping cost of that route versus a shorter Middle Eastern supply is roughly $2-3 per MMBtu. thats the market putting a price tag on trust. Two to three dollars per unit is what buyers are willing to pay for the certainty that the contract will be honoured, the shipment will arrive, and the supplier wont weaponise the relationship next winter.
The investment implication is significant. Every LNG terminal, every pipeline, and every export facility in Canada and Norway just got repriced upward by the trust premium. the old discounted cash flow models valued these assets based on commodity price forecasts and throughput capacity. now you have to add a reliability premium that didnt exist in any financial model six months ago. pension funds and sovereign wealth funds running infrastructure allocation models are going to reach the same conclusion this piece reaches: trusted supply in stable jurisdictions is undervalued relative to the demand thats about to arrive.
The three-exit strategy you describe, south, east, and west, is the right framework. but the sequencing matters. the Atlantic exit is the one that captures the trust premium most directly because it puts Canadian LNG within a single transit of the European market that is currently most desperate for alternative supply. the Pacific route works but the Panama routing adds cost and time that erodes part of the premium.
The deeper structural point is that trust scarcity in energy markets is permanent. even if Hormuz reopens tomorrow, every European energy buyer has now updated their risk models to include a demonstrated closure event. that risk assessment doesnt reset. the procurement committees have already met. the board papers have already gone through. Canada and Norway will benefit from this repricing for the rest of the decade regardless of what happens diplomatically in the next six months.
Getting a pipeline through Quebec has always been an issue for both political and environmental reasons. If the PQ don’t do well in the coming provincial election (Liberals suddenly and surprisingly looking potentially strong again) there may be some opportunity to open this discussion again. I look at the map and wonder why we don’t consider getting gas from the west to Churchill and shipping it out of Hudson Bay. Winter freeze-up no doubt a concern and the cost of icebreakers. Someone here will have data/info.
I believe we should expect many difficult months to come... Why?
A US intelligence confidential report sent to the White House states that Iran can sustain/survive a 3-4 months blockade and that 75% of it's pre-war drones-missiles are still available... And Iran will not surrender or accept conditions imposed by the US to govern it's future.
Obviously Trump is losing ground and this conflict will extend for a long period of time. Bad global economic times are coming and the energy sector should realign itself rapidly. No time to waste at all...
Man, great analysis!
I follow you since the early days of the Ukraine invasion and just love your, so many times brilliant, analyses. Really eye-openers (if there is such an expression! - I'm a portuguese living in Portugal so english is not my mother tongue)
Thank you for your work!
Thanky João. Glad to be of value.
Yes João- 'real eye- openers' is a real expression and you used it correctly. Thanks for your interest in Canada as well!
I agree Joao, and your English is just fine.
These essays are the antidote to bleak despair.
Yes, they really are!
Oh, what we in the U. S. wouldn't give for boring.
Your excellent article inspired me to google Canada’s natural gas pipelines. Basically the largest -TC mainline - runs from the west all through Canada and terminates south of Montreal, then the Trans Quebec Maritime pipeline runs to Quebec City but to the US northeast and our Maritimes.
Not an expert but why not establish LNG facility near Quebec City or run an extension through Quebec to the Maritimes, bypassing the US. This would require an enlargement of the pipeline from Ontario through Quebec.
You dont have to be an expert. logic is often more than enough to get closer to the answer. Thx. I am studying them too.
Your reply is exactly why I’m a paid subscriber. Your articles are free of MSM influence, discuss important matters, remove us from national “thinking silos” and often provide a European perspective, necessary for us non-Europeans. Your articles do not entertain us but inform us for those who care to learn. An informed readership will have the ability and inspiration to further explore the issues after you have laid the “foundation”.
Informed persons can advise friends to governments. Informed persons may acknowledge opposing viewpoints respectfully and logically. This may lead to a better world over time. Don’t go anywhere.
So agree.
Agreed Scott and Michael. Thank you Shankar.
I had never thought to look up the pipelines coming east from AB. Through all the rhetoric, I'd assumed there weren't any! But there is definitely a need to get a large capacity LNG terminal on the Atlantic coast.
Agree that we should look into something that can bypass the US... can't give them the temptation of hijacking the LNG. I would suggest continuing on the south bank of the St. Lawrence, up towards the Gaspe peninsula and then down through NB and NS to Halifax. HFX is already our biggest deepwater Atlantic port with a ton of suitable labour as well as a big naval presence too.
There was a proposal to build a LNG facility in Saguenay Quebec. I don’t know what its status is. There are also proposals to build in Nova Scotia. I think now that major projects need to have indigenous buy in or partnership, some of the obstacles may be decreasing. It would also require more investment.
Good info!
Excellent reasoning! There is little doubt that Putin has a designs on Europe! Stability first then price. Good thinking! Who knows what the future will bring? Look what's happened in less than a year? Thanks Shankar! Always a pleasure to read your posts!
A natural gas pipeline to the East Coast, long as it is, makes sense, as the Panama Canal is also a potential choke point given the Trump regime's unhealthy interest in reclaiming it. Up until now Quebec has given a firm no to pipelines, but I think that was for bitumen. PM Carney will have his work cut out for him convincing them and perhaps European leaders could help with that.
My understanding is also that the proposed pipeline was for bitumen. The timing of the proposal also matters as it was after a disaster railroad accident that I can’t remember the name of. That and the route that would affect the Manatees habitat were cited and reasons they were against it.
Perhaps recent world events has changed that calculation.
I would also like to consider a pipeline to Churchill for transit through the Hudson Bay. Shorter route, it would require a new pipeline unless shipment by rail is a possibility.
An excellent and insightful commentary. Canada, Norway and also Australia are the new key players to supplying energy and critical minerals to the world without the autocratic influence that is so prevalent of late. I suppose you could call these three countries the new democratic triangle of supply. Carney has said that Canada is an energy superpower, so back up that talk with definitive action. A natural gas pipeline to Hudson’s Bay and LNG export facility there that would service Europe would be a logical place to start.
LNG through Churchill, MB?
I am still studying the landscape. It will be sometime before I can make my choices. Until that time, I have to keep my positions strategic and at a distance. Yes, east coast. It has to be done.
This is really great news. Carney is the right person at the right time to implement this. Now he just needs to deal with the mechanics of putting it in place. Canada is lucky to have him
Interesting that trust is the critical element in Canadian energy production and that buyers are willing to pay a premium for it.
The constellation of democracies needs Canada to ramp up as quickly as possible.
Would the EU be willing to invest directly in the pipeline costs in order to get the LNG to an eastern Canadian port sooner?
I think they should.
Brilliant graphic.
What can the world do to help Canada? How do we help South America and Africa?
China and Russia may have the advantage in antimony, rare earths, and nuclear refining. It may be decades, but the size of the advanatage is temporary. And boosting steel and aluminium sourced from Canada boosts Canadian jobs and output, which rewards Canadian politicians and parties with foresight.
Can you tell Australia to build some new refineries and tax them please, Mr. Narayan?
Aussie is in my map. I will get there.
Thank you, time is critical. Australia is in a bad spot.
“We’re going towards a cliff on oil and oil products by the end of this month. Physical shortages. We have physical shortages already, but just in countries we don’t care about.”
- Amos Hochstein
https://ifloz.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-fucking-drill-the-cliff
I wonder how EV sales are in Australia right now.
Demand seems to have gone up everywhere for new EVs except the US, where used EVs are more in style.
This was a month ago. Probably stronger now.
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/04/car-yards-empty-as-ev-sales-surge-in-australia/
Don’t look for this investment from the O&Gs. They are too used to hand feeding by provincial and federal governments. Those big spending swaggering oil men are all show, no action!
Yes, the subsidy nonsense. And we’re only one of many countries subsidizing O&G. Many other industries don’t receive same and they employ many more people.
While causing less harm to the environment, mostly.
The trust premium argument is the most important structural shift in energy markets this year and I think most investors havent updated their models to reflect it yet.
For decades, energy infrastructure was valued on three variables: reserves, extraction cost, and distance to market. The Hormuz disruption just added a fourth variable that reprices everything: jurisdictional reliability. And unlike the first three, jurisdictional reliability compounds over time rather than depleting.
Germany considering Pacific coast Canadian LNG via Panama is the clearest proof that the premium is real and quantifiable. the additional shipping cost of that route versus a shorter Middle Eastern supply is roughly $2-3 per MMBtu. thats the market putting a price tag on trust. Two to three dollars per unit is what buyers are willing to pay for the certainty that the contract will be honoured, the shipment will arrive, and the supplier wont weaponise the relationship next winter.
The investment implication is significant. Every LNG terminal, every pipeline, and every export facility in Canada and Norway just got repriced upward by the trust premium. the old discounted cash flow models valued these assets based on commodity price forecasts and throughput capacity. now you have to add a reliability premium that didnt exist in any financial model six months ago. pension funds and sovereign wealth funds running infrastructure allocation models are going to reach the same conclusion this piece reaches: trusted supply in stable jurisdictions is undervalued relative to the demand thats about to arrive.
The three-exit strategy you describe, south, east, and west, is the right framework. but the sequencing matters. the Atlantic exit is the one that captures the trust premium most directly because it puts Canadian LNG within a single transit of the European market that is currently most desperate for alternative supply. the Pacific route works but the Panama routing adds cost and time that erodes part of the premium.
The deeper structural point is that trust scarcity in energy markets is permanent. even if Hormuz reopens tomorrow, every European energy buyer has now updated their risk models to include a demonstrated closure event. that risk assessment doesnt reset. the procurement committees have already met. the board papers have already gone through. Canada and Norway will benefit from this repricing for the rest of the decade regardless of what happens diplomatically in the next six months.
Getting a pipeline through Quebec has always been an issue for both political and environmental reasons. If the PQ don’t do well in the coming provincial election (Liberals suddenly and surprisingly looking potentially strong again) there may be some opportunity to open this discussion again. I look at the map and wonder why we don’t consider getting gas from the west to Churchill and shipping it out of Hudson Bay. Winter freeze-up no doubt a concern and the cost of icebreakers. Someone here will have data/info.
I believe we should expect many difficult months to come... Why?
A US intelligence confidential report sent to the White House states that Iran can sustain/survive a 3-4 months blockade and that 75% of it's pre-war drones-missiles are still available... And Iran will not surrender or accept conditions imposed by the US to govern it's future.
Obviously Trump is losing ground and this conflict will extend for a long period of time. Bad global economic times are coming and the energy sector should realign itself rapidly. No time to waste at all...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/07/cia-intelligence-iran-trump-blockade-missiles
Not every monster is born evil. Some are lost, controlled, or broken.
Before we fight, we should understand. Before we destroy, we should ask what caused the darkness.
Curses can be broken. Control can be shattered. Sometimes the strongest weapon isn’t power. it’s truth, memory, and compassion.
Outsmart the darkness when you must. Destroy what feeds it when you can. But never forget. there may still be a human soul worth saving.
Breaking the curse isn’t just about defeating evil. It’s about restoring what was lost.