Good piece as usual. I wish, for my kids' sake, we didn't have to keep drilling and pumping fossil fuels, but as my esteemed PM has said, we take the world as it is, not how we wish it to be. Canada isn't a big enough player to just leave the oil and gas in the ground. We'll get passed by and then wonder why some provinces want to leave.
I think it only makes sense that we really start thinking hard about developing a pipeline to the East Coast, because if the Gulf states stay unreliable due to Iran or some other instability in that region, the entire European continent becomes a potential customer, and that is too much to pass up.
On another note, Shankar, you've argued recently that Canada is better off outside of the EU, as a mediator state in between alliances. But Finland's got a pretty smart PM themselves, who has advocated for Canada to join the EU. What would you say about Stubb's opinion?
I invested in an EV and heat pumps because it makes economic and environmental sense. But the house still also has a gas furnace... and it runs a lot less now. For my family this is dealling with what is with limited resources while doing all I can so there's a future for humans. I think in line with Carney's thinking and statements.
In the past the Government would start the projects and industry would then chip in and profit. This has tons of problems but seems like the best solution to "giter dun". Capitalism and money are amoral.
Why the east coast though? Hudson's Bay is much closer. Discussed for decades. Obvious choice IMO for potash, timber, LNG, critical minerals (ring of fire Ontario). Enough talk and planning!
The provinces and a Native owned umbrella corporation signed an MOU for this in 2023 FFS.
The Governments can either just ram it through (the past) or make sure that the Native nations benefit - infrastructure, education, health care, jobs, an assured reliable future. This seemingly is in place already.
East Coast because you need a port to be accessible year-round, esp for oil and gas. That's not something that can be a seasonal export. Access to Churchill or any other port on Hudson's Bay would be limited to 4-5 months of the year, and that is not changing within the timeframe the Europeans would want (unless you also want to invest in icebreakers and the cost of doing that for every tanker).
Related thought: We are valued and in demand because we are a reliable, safe, and ethical supplier. We are those things because we follow our own due process (and because we have unsettled internal issues that can't be rushed). We can't always respond quickly to the shifting demands of the market for the same reasons.
We can always seek to improve, but to truly become an opportunist means diminishing the our values as a reliable, safe, and ethical supplier of choice.
Now that Carney has a majority govt, Canada doesn't have any reason not to move fast on LNG projects combined with the new regulations adopted after being nominated as pm, although it won't be easy, yes he can do it.
Let' recall 6-8 years ago in the province of Quebec: there was a LNG terminal project to be built at Saguenay. Strongly opposed by environmentalists who argued that, if such terminal was constructed, Canada would export natural gas to other countries and, therefore, contribute to the rise in global emissions although not being induced locally... And they also argued that, if there was a leak, it would impact lakes and rivers... while being gas leaks would have had no effect on the environment!
So govt refused to authorize the project and that's why there's no LNG project in Eastern Canada.
Now it's time for Canada (Carney) to counteract those objections using new legislation adopted last year.
And, what about a gas pipeline from Alberta reaching Churchill (Manitoba) in the North to set up a local LNG processing plant? Would be much more easier to convoy LNG along the Artic route from Churchill to Europe than from BC coast
Jean-Marc, I’m not Canadian and don’t want to stick my nose in too far here. OTOH, I do want to take exception to your declaration that, “gas leaks would have no effect on the environment .” That is patently untrue.
I do think our complacent corporate leaders (and their complacent politicians) bought into the easy role of "rip and ship" south. That is the reason alternatives were not developed. But this hinterland mentality also limited our ability to think about changing our rip and ship mentality...and now we understand that there are serious limitations to resource management...in forestry and fishing but also in oil and gas and huge hydro-projects and mining. We have known there were alternatives since the 1980s...but there has not been the will to change.
Unless Canada also vastly increases its renewable energy resources and decreases its carbon dioxide output drastically every attempt to build more fossil fuel infrastructure will be met with opposition. Canada is one of the leading producers of climate altering gases, and we have not done enough to curtail that.
While the Green Party does not hold much sway in our House Of Commons it does influence a large portion of the population about the environment. And since his accent to the PM’s seat Carney has removed some of the incentives to go to renewables and a lot or environmentalists are not happy. As well any new energy infrastructure must also go through First Nations approval as well.
Trump, Putin, Vance and Musk will be very happy to know this.
Canada is and will always be the world's lead driver on renewables. But to use that position to stop production of oil and gas, while driving cars every day is exactly what the global right and kremlin want you and me to do. We should not fall for this.
Canada needs to follow the path of Norway - use the proceeds of LNG and oil sales to fund a strategic reserve and encourage more green energy investment. It can be done with the proper plan in place.
The problem is Shankar is that’s exactly what’s going on in Canada right at this moment.
There’s a fair number of us who drive EV’s, use solar panels, all of the environmental stuff that we can possibly do to keep our country doing our part to lower emissions.
But there’s a massive pushback and a huge amount of ignorance about using EV‘s as a vehicle of choice. We are still getting the, “oh but you have to replace your battery every 10 years and that cost more than the car”, or “ EV‘s are so much more expensive than any other type of car on the road so nobody can afford them except for the wealthy” or “they’re worse for the environment t than ICE cars” or “solar panels only work for 10 years” or or or or.
We do have a very highly educated populous, who understand that there’s a balance that needs to be made, and that we need to go forward with a lot of these projects, even though they are burning fossil fuels. We’re also aware of the fact that there are no quick and easy fixes to complicated problems.
But Canada just like the United States has about a 30% group in our population who are dead set against any type of renewables and would be more than happy to “drill baby drill”, and we also have about 20% of our population who are extremist environmentalist who basically want to take us back to the dark ages before steam or electricity was ever invented.
And as I said, first nations are now also part of that because they need to be consulted on anything that is built or impinges on their territories. We’re a bloody complicated country.
You’re welcome. Part of our problem is not having any government for decades that was willing to do much of anything if it upset enough of the electorate, they’d give up or backed away.
Here’s hoping Carney has the spine to push things through whether these special interest groups like it or not.
My understanding is that the natural gas and oil found in North America is quite different from that found in the Middle East, is more difficult to refine and does not yield the same by-products. (An oil expert explained this to me in the 1990s when I was working on a deal in the Middle East.)
Pipelines are easy; but refineries and shipping terminals, especially LNG are complicated engineering infrastructure that takes years and billions to construct.In a similar vein, LNG ships are complicated and finicky to build and operate safely.
So this begs the question of why Canada should be using expensive diesel and billions to build specialized infrastructure that might not be needed in the future because there may not be not be enough demand for very expensive Canadian oil and LNG. Europe and the rest of the world will have had time to adjust to using less oil and LNG because the prices of those commodities is not returning to prewar levels.
Even the IMF thinks the Middle East War has dampened the prospects for global trade for quite some time.
I sure hope Carney starts to focus on hunkering down and building a more resilient Canada for those of us living here.
Excellent read and you are most correct. In my words “CANADA! Get moving!” As a Canadian, our current shipments of crude petroleum and natural gas are heavily discounted as the US petroleum industry further processes our resources and sells them onto the world market.
“Canada is moving now. That part is true. But the world changed faster than Ottawa did, and the scale of global stress is now demanding something harder from the country: move faster, build bigger, and act with more force than before.”
Outside of the infrastructure context, I do believe that Canada moved more, not less, quickly than Europe for starters.
May the newly formed majority show us all how far our PM wants to go.
But how exactly does Canada unravel our dependence on US and other multinational oil and gas companies that have been deeply tied into American refining from the beginning of our industry? Canada sells our heavy crude oil to the US at a discount from the world price.
American refineries then do most of the processing and then resell at higher price to world market.
How do we change this very tight supply chain and incentives when the most powerful global corporations control most of it?
All very good points. It should be noted that Canada is willing, if not 100% ready to meet the demand. And, the demand under such stress at least points Canada in the direction of where, exactly, to build and invest.
Good piece as usual. I wish, for my kids' sake, we didn't have to keep drilling and pumping fossil fuels, but as my esteemed PM has said, we take the world as it is, not how we wish it to be. Canada isn't a big enough player to just leave the oil and gas in the ground. We'll get passed by and then wonder why some provinces want to leave.
I think it only makes sense that we really start thinking hard about developing a pipeline to the East Coast, because if the Gulf states stay unreliable due to Iran or some other instability in that region, the entire European continent becomes a potential customer, and that is too much to pass up.
On another note, Shankar, you've argued recently that Canada is better off outside of the EU, as a mediator state in between alliances. But Finland's got a pretty smart PM themselves, who has advocated for Canada to join the EU. What would you say about Stubb's opinion?
I agree with Steve whole heartedly.
I invested in an EV and heat pumps because it makes economic and environmental sense. But the house still also has a gas furnace... and it runs a lot less now. For my family this is dealling with what is with limited resources while doing all I can so there's a future for humans. I think in line with Carney's thinking and statements.
In the past the Government would start the projects and industry would then chip in and profit. This has tons of problems but seems like the best solution to "giter dun". Capitalism and money are amoral.
Why the east coast though? Hudson's Bay is much closer. Discussed for decades. Obvious choice IMO for potash, timber, LNG, critical minerals (ring of fire Ontario). Enough talk and planning!
The provinces and a Native owned umbrella corporation signed an MOU for this in 2023 FFS.
The Governments can either just ram it through (the past) or make sure that the Native nations benefit - infrastructure, education, health care, jobs, an assured reliable future. This seemingly is in place already.
Action rather than more discussion!
East Coast because you need a port to be accessible year-round, esp for oil and gas. That's not something that can be a seasonal export. Access to Churchill or any other port on Hudson's Bay would be limited to 4-5 months of the year, and that is not changing within the timeframe the Europeans would want (unless you also want to invest in icebreakers and the cost of doing that for every tanker).
Related thought: We are valued and in demand because we are a reliable, safe, and ethical supplier. We are those things because we follow our own due process (and because we have unsettled internal issues that can't be rushed). We can't always respond quickly to the shifting demands of the market for the same reasons.
We can always seek to improve, but to truly become an opportunist means diminishing the our values as a reliable, safe, and ethical supplier of choice.
It's complex.
Now that Carney has a majority govt, Canada doesn't have any reason not to move fast on LNG projects combined with the new regulations adopted after being nominated as pm, although it won't be easy, yes he can do it.
Let' recall 6-8 years ago in the province of Quebec: there was a LNG terminal project to be built at Saguenay. Strongly opposed by environmentalists who argued that, if such terminal was constructed, Canada would export natural gas to other countries and, therefore, contribute to the rise in global emissions although not being induced locally... And they also argued that, if there was a leak, it would impact lakes and rivers... while being gas leaks would have had no effect on the environment!
So govt refused to authorize the project and that's why there's no LNG project in Eastern Canada.
Now it's time for Canada (Carney) to counteract those objections using new legislation adopted last year.
And, what about a gas pipeline from Alberta reaching Churchill (Manitoba) in the North to set up a local LNG processing plant? Would be much more easier to convoy LNG along the Artic route from Churchill to Europe than from BC coast
Jean-Marc, I’m not Canadian and don’t want to stick my nose in too far here. OTOH, I do want to take exception to your declaration that, “gas leaks would have no effect on the environment .” That is patently untrue.
Apart from gas being released in the atmosphere until valve is closed, no direct effect on environment
And, objectively, gas leaks from torching can bring much more damage to the environment than gas leaks resulting from a broken pipe...
I do think our complacent corporate leaders (and their complacent politicians) bought into the easy role of "rip and ship" south. That is the reason alternatives were not developed. But this hinterland mentality also limited our ability to think about changing our rip and ship mentality...and now we understand that there are serious limitations to resource management...in forestry and fishing but also in oil and gas and huge hydro-projects and mining. We have known there were alternatives since the 1980s...but there has not been the will to change.
Unless Canada also vastly increases its renewable energy resources and decreases its carbon dioxide output drastically every attempt to build more fossil fuel infrastructure will be met with opposition. Canada is one of the leading producers of climate altering gases, and we have not done enough to curtail that.
While the Green Party does not hold much sway in our House Of Commons it does influence a large portion of the population about the environment. And since his accent to the PM’s seat Carney has removed some of the incentives to go to renewables and a lot or environmentalists are not happy. As well any new energy infrastructure must also go through First Nations approval as well.
Trump, Putin, Vance and Musk will be very happy to know this.
Canada is and will always be the world's lead driver on renewables. But to use that position to stop production of oil and gas, while driving cars every day is exactly what the global right and kremlin want you and me to do. We should not fall for this.
Canada needs to follow the path of Norway - use the proceeds of LNG and oil sales to fund a strategic reserve and encourage more green energy investment. It can be done with the proper plan in place.
The problem is Shankar is that’s exactly what’s going on in Canada right at this moment.
There’s a fair number of us who drive EV’s, use solar panels, all of the environmental stuff that we can possibly do to keep our country doing our part to lower emissions.
But there’s a massive pushback and a huge amount of ignorance about using EV‘s as a vehicle of choice. We are still getting the, “oh but you have to replace your battery every 10 years and that cost more than the car”, or “ EV‘s are so much more expensive than any other type of car on the road so nobody can afford them except for the wealthy” or “they’re worse for the environment t than ICE cars” or “solar panels only work for 10 years” or or or or.
We do have a very highly educated populous, who understand that there’s a balance that needs to be made, and that we need to go forward with a lot of these projects, even though they are burning fossil fuels. We’re also aware of the fact that there are no quick and easy fixes to complicated problems.
But Canada just like the United States has about a 30% group in our population who are dead set against any type of renewables and would be more than happy to “drill baby drill”, and we also have about 20% of our population who are extremist environmentalist who basically want to take us back to the dark ages before steam or electricity was ever invented.
And as I said, first nations are now also part of that because they need to be consulted on anything that is built or impinges on their territories. We’re a bloody complicated country.
Got it. Thx
You’re welcome. Part of our problem is not having any government for decades that was willing to do much of anything if it upset enough of the electorate, they’d give up or backed away.
Here’s hoping Carney has the spine to push things through whether these special interest groups like it or not.
Yes to all of the thoughts in this thread... and thanks for articulating them so clearly.
If the Global Right doesn't like an idea... It's exactly what should be done!
My understanding is that the natural gas and oil found in North America is quite different from that found in the Middle East, is more difficult to refine and does not yield the same by-products. (An oil expert explained this to me in the 1990s when I was working on a deal in the Middle East.)
Pipelines are easy; but refineries and shipping terminals, especially LNG are complicated engineering infrastructure that takes years and billions to construct.In a similar vein, LNG ships are complicated and finicky to build and operate safely.
So this begs the question of why Canada should be using expensive diesel and billions to build specialized infrastructure that might not be needed in the future because there may not be not be enough demand for very expensive Canadian oil and LNG. Europe and the rest of the world will have had time to adjust to using less oil and LNG because the prices of those commodities is not returning to prewar levels.
Even the IMF thinks the Middle East War has dampened the prospects for global trade for quite some time.
I sure hope Carney starts to focus on hunkering down and building a more resilient Canada for those of us living here.
Excellent read and you are most correct. In my words “CANADA! Get moving!” As a Canadian, our current shipments of crude petroleum and natural gas are heavily discounted as the US petroleum industry further processes our resources and sells them onto the world market.
This is good to know and thanks for sharing
“Canada is moving now. That part is true. But the world changed faster than Ottawa did, and the scale of global stress is now demanding something harder from the country: move faster, build bigger, and act with more force than before.”
Outside of the infrastructure context, I do believe that Canada moved more, not less, quickly than Europe for starters.
May the newly formed majority show us all how far our PM wants to go.
I think pretty far. We will see.
Aren't we mixing two things here?
I did not think I was doing that? I definitely had the two side by side in my mind when I responded.
Moving more quickly is tied to investment and he’s been working relentlessly to attract more of that ever since he came on board.
Not sure if I misunderstood.
More good news. I was wondering if you’ve heard anything about the Churchill project in Manitoba maybe helping with shipping links to Europe. It’s one of Carney’s mega projects, and seems to be moving fast : https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/04/14/canada-and-manitoba-sign-new-agreement-get-major-projects-built
Thx..I am documenting all the projects and started tracking them . Reports will.keep coming.
Sure, sounds great.
But how exactly does Canada unravel our dependence on US and other multinational oil and gas companies that have been deeply tied into American refining from the beginning of our industry? Canada sells our heavy crude oil to the US at a discount from the world price.
American refineries then do most of the processing and then resell at higher price to world market.
How do we change this very tight supply chain and incentives when the most powerful global corporations control most of it?
All very good points. It should be noted that Canada is willing, if not 100% ready to meet the demand. And, the demand under such stress at least points Canada in the direction of where, exactly, to build and invest.