Crude oil tankers are seen docked at the Trans Mountain Westridge Marine Terminal, June, 2024. In a time of disruption, strategic assets like oil pipelines to tidewater are an imperative, not a luxury, writes Jackie Forrest.DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press
Jackie Forrest is the executive director of the ARC Energy Research Institute and co-host of the ARC Energy Ideas podcast, a weekly show that explains the latest trends and news in Canadian energy and beyond.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia built the 1,200-kilometre East–West Pipeline to ship crude westward to the Red Sea, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. Until recently, some people might have questioned the purpose of the long underutilized pipeline, when the strait was a perfectly fine export route.
Today, I don’t think anyone in Saudi Arabia questions the value of that investment, as the kingdom continues to sell oil while its neighbours have few options and face severe economic hardship.
There is a lesson that Canada can take from that.
In Canada, heated debates over pipelines have been taking place since the 1950s, including recent clashes over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and failed Northern Gateway project.
North or south? How potential pipeline routes to the West Coast would differ
More than 70 years into our national pipeline debate, Canada finds itself at another critical moment. Once again we are in a pipeline discussion, this time over whether the country should build a greenfield pipeline to boost West Coast oil exports to Asia. The imperative for a new pipeline is hard to deny – if threats from the United States and the risk of competition from Venezuela were not enough motivation, then the Iran war only ups the ante.
In the modern era of pipeline projects, the need for a pipeline has been determined solely by near-term utilization. The thinking is that a pipeline should be built only when there is enough supply to match it and that only the lowest-cost projects should be pursued. However, in a world where great powers are weaponizing their economies for gain, investment in new pipeline projects needs to be viewed differently.
An oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s West Coast should be viewed as insurance, providing optionality in an uncertain world for both Canada and crude oil buyers.
Why is insurance needed? For Canada, it provides a hedge against risks from unpredictable U.S. policy, whether that’s tariffs, export restrictions, new competition from Venezuela or other surprises that emerge over the horizon.
For crude oil buyers, particularly in Asia, supply diversity is a matter of energy security. Canadian oil offers a stable, geopolitically secure and geographically advantageous alternative to more vulnerable sources, such as those in the Middle East that are currently choked off.
If pipelines are insurance, then the commercial model needs to change. Strategic infrastructure won’t always operate at full capacity and may require new ownership structures, including government ownership or foreign participation, as well as different expectations for returns. The purpose of a pipeline isn’t just to recover capital costs: There are broader benefits that need to be factored in, even if they are not easily modelled in a spreadsheet.
Opinion: Will Canada choose oil and bondage to the U.S., or forge our own destiny?
Of course, on the Canadian side, some costs and benefits can be quantified. For example, Canada is exporting more oil to tidewater since the Trans Mountain pipeline began operations, boosting prices for all Canadian crude and driving billions in additional revenues. Before its completion, limited market access was estimated to cost the country roughly $4 billion annually. On the flip side, according to ARC’s calculations, if the U.S. imposed a 10 per cent tariff on oil imports and Canada absorbed it through lower oil prices, the lost revenue would be roughly $15 billion in a typical year, and significantly more in a high oil price environment like today.
Other costs and benefits are harder to pin down. What is the value of infrastructure that enables meaningful trade with new markets? How much leverage would concrete plans for a new pipeline provide in trade negotiations with the United States by demonstrating that Canada has real alternatives for selling its products?
Just because pipelines are controversial in this country, and have been for more than 70 years, that should not be a reason to shy away. Now is the time for Canada to act boldly and build the assets needed to make our economy more resilient.
Managing risk includes investing in insurance and options. In a time of disruption, strategic assets like oil pipelines to tidewater are an imperative, not a luxury. Canadians, politicians and industry need to come together to consider new options for financing, ownership and returns that will get these critical projects over the finish line.