Latest news with #NorthernGateway
Canada Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
Canada News.Net
2 days ago
- Business
- Canada News.Net
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
National Observer
27-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Mark Carney is reviving the oilsands discussion — and it's giving me whiplash
Mark Carney has certainly changed the dial on the oilsands discussion. Ottawa has all but abandoned the idea of a cap on oilsands emissions — and now it's willing to consider a West Coast pipeline if it carries so-called 'decarbonized oil' (a ridiculous phrase, given that the crude would contain just as much carbon as it always has). As a result, Danielle Smith is suddenly all in on carbon sequestration, calling it a 'grand bargain ' if she can secure a pipeline as part of the deal. There seems to be no point in repeating, yet again, that the oil industry does not need more new pipelines. The status of pipelines is not what's holding the oilsands back from returning to the golden era of 2000s mega-investment. Alberta's oilsands simply aren't the world's best place to put big money into oil — now or in the future. But if you cling to the pipeline myth, you get to indulge the fantasy that all it takes is another pipe to unlock untold riches. You can't use facts to fight a delusion, though I keep trying. I'm not too worried, though — so long as we can keep the government from getting involved in this pipeline project beyond just the approvals for it. That means: no subsidies, no government guarantees on shipping volumes, and a real 'open season' where companies make long-term binding commitments to use it. It's clear that if we stick to those limits on government involvement, few companies will sign up. The cost of building a new line is massive — just look at TMX. A revived Northern-Gateway-like project would be no different. Northern Gateway's original cost estimates were in the same ballpark as TMX's early projections — meaning this new line would end up just as expensive as TMX's final price tag, if not more. Meanwhile, Enbridge has lower-cost expansion options, and Enbridge connects to the Capline system — with 1.2 million barrels per day of capacity from the US Midwest to Louisiana and massive export capability. That system currently has about a million barrels per day of spare capacity. Connecting to Capline offers effectively unlimited capacity to export our crude through the Gulf Coast to anywhere in the world. It's a fantasy that another pipeline will unlock new riches in the oilsands. But as long as the federal government doesn't pay for it, the industry is welcome to keep pining. If shippers have to face the real cost of a new pipeline — not the highly subsidized tolls on TMX — they'll use those existing systems instead. Because it's cheaper. And it doesn't take someone with a PhD in economics from Oxford to understand that. Mark Carney can push through the approvals with his 'nation-building' Bill C-5, giving cabinet the power to sidestep required reviews. But it won't matter if the economics don't support the project. So, sure — whatever. At any rate, Smith has been as consistent as her predecessors in selling the fantasy of untold riches — if only we had another pipeline. On carbon sequestration, though, she's been anything but consistent. She's now fully on board, but as recently as last summer, she released a Deloitte report concluding that carbon sequestration for the oil sands was so uneconomic that companies would rather shut down production than invest in it. Deloitte reached that conclusion even assuming high subsidies from both the federal and Alberta governments. So, according to Smith, carbon sequestration is so uneconomic that companies would shut down rather than do it — but if they get a pipeline, suddenly it makes sense? I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Here's the fundamental problem: the savings oilsands companies expect in industrial carbon tax reductions from carbon capture don't justify the capital they'd need to spend to achieve those reductions. Their solution? You and I — the taxpayers — cover most of the capital costs, while they pocket the carbon tax savings. Worse, they want guarantees that the industrial carbon tax won't go down. If it does, they want the government — again, taxpayers — to top them up for the difference. Imagine that: we're being asked not only to pay to build the infrastructure but also to insure their revenue stream against policy changes they'll likely be lobbying for. And that's not the only risk. Oil companies know full well that as global decarbonization accelerates, demand — and prices — for crude could collapse. That would leave some of these facilities stranded. And who would eat that loss? The party that put up most of the money: taxpayers. As Oxford climatologist Myles Allen puts it, 'The case for CCS [carbon capture and storage] boils down to waste disposal.' And yet we're being asked to subsidize how companies dispose of their waste — and take on the financial risk. There is absolutely no reason taxpayers should be doing that. None. Isn't the obvious solution on the other side of the ledger — the industrial carbon tax? Raise it for the oilsands to the point where carbon capture becomes economically viable. Use industrial carbon tax revenues from companies still emitting to help reward those who are actually sequestering. It would be a stronger incentive than anything currently on offer, while avoiding public money going into facilities that may or may not have a long life. Instead, Ottawa and Alberta seem eager to keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. A 'grand bargain,' indeed. No more TMX-scale boondoggles. No blank cheques for carbon sequestration. Raise the carbon tax until sequestration makes economic sense. Hold the industry accountable.
Winnipeg Free Press
25-06-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Northern pipeline the wrong nation-building plan
Opinion The Western Canadian climate-induced wildfires show the time for action on climate is now. But the premier of Manitoba pitched a fossil fuel pipeline to be built from Alberta to Hudson's Bay in response to the prime minister's call for 'energy corridors' to diversify export markets away from the United States. Climate was not mentioned once in Premier Wab Kinew's letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney on Manitoba's five nation-building projects. Instead, Canada and Manitoba must invest in renewable energy and infrastructure to help all Canadians and not greenwash fossil fuel expansion projects as responsible economic development. The prime minister and premiers are under pressure to demonstrate that they are taking action in the face of U.S. tariff threats and diversify markets. But Canadian oil products are currently exempt from tariffs, as are all products which are compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement. The U.S. has backed away from threats of tariffs on Canadian oil. Most of the crude oil the U.S. imports is from Canada — 62 per cent. The U.S. relies on Canadian oil, and to replace this would require increasing its production by 30 per cent, which is not feasible in the short- or mid-term. Furthermore, the global oil and gas demand is expected to peak in 2030, if not sooner, and then decline as countries transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. However, many of the nation-building projects being considered by the prime minister are fossil fuel expansion projects. In response to pressure from the oil and gas industry, Conservatives and Alberta, the prime minister has promised that the federal government will expedite federal approvals on infrastructure projects within two years, rather than five. But comprehensive reviews take time, and even with co-operation from provinces and Indigenous governments, the federal government has final approval over all projects that cross provincial boundaries. The Canadian oil industry itself does not want the Canadian government to pick projects for fast-tracking; instead, it wants to delay climate action by asking the federal government to remove the emissions cap on industrial projects and eliminate the industrial carbon tax, two measures that Prime Minister Carney has said he will not do. Pipeline development has been a boondoggle in Canada. The industry wanted the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines built, but both projects ultimately failed. The Northern Gateway project failed due to strong and ongoing opposition from First Nations communities, concerns over environmental impact and the potential for oil spills on B.C.'s coast. Energy East's failure is attributed to the high expense and emissions of fossil fuels. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which tripled the capacity to ship Alberta oil to tidewater, was constructed by the federal government to meet the demand for a pipeline from the oil and gas industry in Alberta. The Canadian Trans Mountain pipeline cost Canadian taxpayers $34 billion and does not have a private-sector buyer. It is not working at capacity due to reduced demand. Enter Kinew's pitch for a northern pipeline from Alberta to the Port of Churchill. The premier stated that Manitoba is 'open for business' for private sector development to build a pipeline that would transport an 'energy product, hydrogen, or a potash slurry', despite committing to no new pipelines during the last provincial election. It appears Kinew is presenting himself as a nation-builder to the prime minister and the rest of Canada. The northern Manitoba pipeline is being pitched as a means to attract private capital for economic development. However, what is being ignored is the fact that the private sector has no interest in financing such a project. Experts advise that the Arctic shipping season is too short, even if the federal government funds expensive icebreakers to break up the ice. Building a pipeline on fragile northern muskeg would be challenging, particularly as permafrost in the north melts due to climate change. The threat of a spill to the northern Canadian coastline is significant. Most importantly, investing in fossil fuel infrastructure in 2025 is contrary to scientific findings, legislated federal commitments and international commitments; it will exacerbate global warming, making life on Earth hotter and worse for all. There is an alternative. Manitoba must prioritize climate mitigation and resilience in its nation-building projects. Canada and Manitoba are well-positioned to invest public resources in expanding Manitoba's clean energy advantage in nation-building projects alongside critical infrastructure for clean water, roads, schools and housing, as called for by the Assembly of First Nations. Manitoba is on the right track with initiatives to expand the publicly-owned hydroelectric grid to Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Alberta, initiatives that would also bring economic development to Manitoba's north. Much more needs to be done to grow wind, solar and geothermal energy. Federal and provincial investment is needed, alongside promising initiatives in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities for ownership and economic reconciliation. Molly McCracken is the Manitoba director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The Province
24-06-2025
- Business
- The Province
Premier Eby wants TMX at full capacity before discussion of another pipeline. Experts say it's close
Premier David Eby is citing the fact the pipeline hasn't reached full capacity as a reason to oppose a new pipeline to B.C.'s north coast. A welder works on a section of pipeline for the Trans Mountain expansion project, which was completed in 2024. Photo by JOHN LEHMANN/Trans Mountain Corporation/AFP via Getty Images B.C. Premier David Eby continues to say that before the province can discuss the potential for a bitumen pipeline to Prince Rupert, as demanded by Alberta, it needs to ensure the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion is operating at full capacity. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Experts, however, say that Eby's excuse for why a new pipeline shouldn't be built is flimsy as Trans Mountain is already at near capacity, though they acknowledge that building an oil pipeline to Prince Rupert will be costly and time-consuming, and might not be profitable in the long run. The premier said in appearances on CTV and CBC on Sunday that there is no proponent for a revival of a pipeline project along a similar route as the proposed Northern Gateway project, which was killed in 2016. He said Ottawa ultimately spent $34 billion to get the Trans Mountain expansion completed after Kinder Morgan backed out, and he doesn't want the federal government spend billions more on another pipeline. 'Why would we prioritize a massive public spend like that when more limited public spend could deliver additional capacity through the pipeline we already own, and so many projects that are ready to go with actual proponents and able to deliver in a short period of time?' Eby told CTV host Vassy Kapelos. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Jack Mintz, an economist at the University of Calgary, says there are significant costs with building any pipeline and that regulatory challenges such as the ban on tankers off B.C.'s coast are major impediments. He believes the federal government should focus on easing the path for pipeline projects but neither invest in in them nor buy them outright. Mintz says there is still research needed on whether Alberta's bitumen can remain profitable given the $16.5 billion plan to decarbonize the oilsands. 'There may be some profitability for producers to sell decarbonized oil, but if they can get better profits investing in pipelines in the United States or other countries, they may prefer doing that to investing in a pipeline in Canada,' he said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'From the estimates I've seen, oil could be $10 to $15 more expensive per barrel if it has to be subject to carbon capture and storage.' Mintz said that Eby is wrong about Trans Mountain not being at full capacity and that most pipelines never reach 100 per cent of rated capacity, as that allows allow oil to flow better. Trans Mountain's first-quarter report said the pipeline was at 85 per cent capacity at the end of March and plans are being discussed to add lubricants to the pipeline to increase the amount of oil that can flow from Edmonton to Burnaby for export. The company says this could boost capacity by as much as five to 10 per cent within a year to 18 months. Another idea being studied is to add more pumping stations to the pipeline, which could increase capacity by 250,000 barrels a day. That would take five years. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Energy Minister Adrian Dix has said the province is open to the federal plan to dredge Burrard Inlet to allow ships to load with more oil at the Burnaby terminal. He increasing the capacity of Trans Mountain would cost between $3 billion and $4 billion, compared to the $50 billion estimated cost of a new pipeline. 'The northern pipeline would require a massive public subsidy. It doesn't make comparative sense,' said Dix. 'So from our perspective, we want to deal with serious projects, ones with actual proponents and that actually bring the country together. Projects like the work we're doing to improve the (electricity) intertie between B.C. and Alberta, projects like the North Coast Transmission Line, projects like the natural gas lines that have been part of our priority projects since the beginning of the tariff crisis.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Mark Jaccard, chair of the B.C. Utilities Commission, said that he doesn't have a strong opinion about whether or not building a pipeline to Prince Rupert is a good idea but that there is little reason to have this debate until a proponent comes forward. Where he disagrees with Eby is that such a project would require federal investment. 'I don't understand how, in a market economy, we need our governments to invest in pipelines. They should be stand-alone profitable investments,' said Jaccard, pointing out that Trans Mountain was a private venture before it ran into trouble and was bought by Ottawa. He also pointed to research showing that while the proposed benefit of a pipeline to Prince Rupert would be to increase exports to Asia, most forecasters say that it would be very difficult for Canada to move away from the U.S. being the primary market for Alberta oil and gas. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Andy Hira, a political-science professor at Simon Fraser University, said another concern with a pipeline to Prince Rupert is the added emissions that Canada would be producing through exports. He urged Prime Minister Mark Carney and provincial leaders to instead focus on developing clean power sources such as wind, solar and hydro. He said that, ultimately, the focus should be on making Canada a green energy superpower, which will create economic benefits in the long-run as the transition away from fossil fuels continues. 'It's understandable that the federal and provincial governments in this time of economic consternation with U.S. pressure on us and the economy seemingly moving toward a recession, reach for this easy solution of building new pipelines,' said Hira. 'However, the Canadian government itself has said that beyond 2030 if we don't start to reduce emissions we will face annual losses of $35 billion, so you consider those amounts versus the amount of money that would be gained from building pipelines in terms of revenues, and it's kind of a no brainer.' Read More Vancouver Canucks Vancouver Canucks Vancouver Canucks Local News News
