Beneath Canada’s forests, rivers, and cities lies a powerful but largely invisible force—an intricate web of steel pipelines that fuels the country’s economy and defines its political leverage. As one of the world’s largest energy producers, Canada sits atop vast reserves of crude oil, the lifeblood of its economy. But despite this abundance, a striking 98% of Canadian oil exports still flow in a single direction—south, to the United States.
This heavy reliance on one buyer has never been more precarious.
In an age of rising nationalism and trade protectionism, particularly from figures like former U.S. President Donald Trump, Canada’s economic vulnerabilities have been thrust into the spotlight. Trump’s pivot from free trade to economic protectionism has exposed the risks of Canada’s lopsided oil export strategy. And while Americans may celebrate cheap gas, their energy patriotism resurges when prices rise, often to Canada’s detriment.
But a new chapter is unfolding—one that could redefine Canada’s place in global energy markets and strengthen its national sovereignty. At the heart of this transformation is a project more than a decade in the making: the Trans Mountain Expansion Pipeline, a 1,150-kilometer artery designed not only to increase capacity but to carve out Canada’s pathway to global energy independence.
The Crude Truth: Canada’s Oil Dependency Problem
Oil and gas contribute about 5% to Canada’s GDP, making them a vital pillar of its economy—and one of its few expanding sectors. The vast majority of this oil comes from the oil sands of Alberta, a province in western Canada. These thick, tar-like reserves produce millions of barrels per day. But while production is booming, destination diversity is not.
The vast majority of Canada’s oil is funneled into the United States, particularly to the Midwest. Historically, this made economic sense: the U.S. is a massive, energy-hungry market. Over time, the two countries developed a mutual dependency. But like any relationship rooted in convenience rather than balance, trouble was inevitable.
Canada’s heavy reliance on the U.S. as a buyer means it lacks leverage. Even if the U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on Canadian oil, the flow likely wouldn’t stop—Canada simply doesn’t have enough alternative customers. This kind of vulnerability isn’t just a financial risk; it’s a national security issue. That’s why breaking free of this single-market dependency has become an urgent strategic imperative.
A Pipeline of Controversy: The Trans Mountain Expansion
Enter the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX)—a pipeline meant to change everything.
Originally proposed by Kinder Morgan in 2013, the TMX was designed to address the capacity limitations of the aging 1953 Trans Mountain pipeline. That pipeline was Canada’s only westward oil route, making it the sole option for shipping oil to international markets via the Pacific.
The expansion aimed to triple capacity—from 300,000 to 900,000 barrels per day. The idea was simple but game-changing: allow Alberta’s landlocked oil to flow efficiently to Canada’s west coast, where it could be exported to energy-hungry nations like Japan, China, and India.
Yet the path to completion was anything but smooth.
Originally estimated to cost $4 billion, the project ballooned to $25 billion over the course of 12 years. Much of the delay was due to intense opposition from environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and provincial governments. In 2018, with private investors walking away, the Trudeau government stepped in and bought the pipeline, signaling that this was no longer just an economic endeavor—it was a matter of national strategy.
The Strategic Pivot: Why TMX Matters
The TMX is more than just steel and oil. It’s a geopolitical statement.
Completed in May 2024, the expansion opens the door to markets beyond the United States. It strengthens Canada’s position in global energy trade and offers leverage in future negotiations with Washington. The federal government projects that TMX will generate CAD $73 billion in revenue for oil producers and CAD $46 billion in government tax revenues over the next 20 years—roughly USD $51 billion and $32 billion, respectively.
This isn’t just about dollars and cents. It’s about sovereignty.
The TMX proves that Canada can—and should—build infrastructure that serves its own long-term interests. But even with TMX completed, the U.S. remains Canada’s primary customer. In fact, many of Canada’s pipelines designed for domestic distribution still pass through the U.S., meaning that even oil destined for Quebec and Ontario must first travel across the border and then return.
This bizarre setup highlights the structural weaknesses in Canada’s current system. If cross-border tensions flare or if tariffs rise again, this dependence could cause logistical nightmares for domestic energy supply.
Energy East and Northern Gateway: Revival or Rejection?
If Canada is to break free from these constraints, it needs more than TMX. It needs redundancy, reach, and resilience.
Two pipeline projects—Energy East and Northern Gateway—are being talked about again in political and business circles. Both were previously cancelled but are now viewed through a new lens thanks to escalating tensions with the United States.
-
Energy East was a 4,600 km project designed to carry over a million barrels per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Eastern Canada (primarily in New Brunswick).
-
Northern Gateway aimed to carry 500,000 barrels per day from Alberta to a port in Kitimat, British Columbia, providing another westward export route to Asian markets.
Both projects promised strategic diversification and national security. But both also faced steep opposition—from environmental groups, Indigenous leaders, and provincial governments like Quebec.
Still, times are changing. Trump’s renewed trade threats have opened the door for a new kind of national dialogue—one focused less on ideology and more on infrastructure security. As Canadians feel the economic risks of single-market dependency, previously unthinkable projects are now topics of serious debate.
Challenges: Cost, Consensus, and Climate
There’s just one problem—or rather, several.
First is the cost. With the Trans Mountain Expansion already reaching $25 billion for 1,150 km, duplicating that for Energy East’s 4,600 km length could mean a project north of $100 billion. Private companies like South Bow (for Energy East) and Enbridge (for Northern Gateway) have expressed no interest in revisiting them.
Second is public consensus. Building pipelines in Canada has become politically toxic. Environmental and Indigenous opposition remains strong, especially in provinces like British Columbia and Quebec. And with Canada committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, increasing fossil fuel infrastructure is seen by some as a step backward.
Third is federal leadership. The only reason TMX was completed is because the federal government bought and managed it. Doing so again—especially at the scale Energy East would require—would demand unprecedented political unity and public support.
Still, there’s one unexpected factor that might shift the calculus: Trump himself.
A National Rallying Point: Trump as Unifier?
In March 2025, all five living former Canadian prime ministers issued a joint letter denouncing Trump’s hostile rhetoric and supporting stronger Canadian sovereignty. It was a rare moment of political unity in a deeply divided era.
Could Trump be the one to unite Canada?
Ironically, his antagonism may become the rallying cry Canadian lawmakers need to push through difficult energy infrastructure decisions. If supply chains break down or prices spike, public opinion could shift dramatically in favor of new pipelines—not just for export but for domestic resilience.
The lesson is clear: sovereignty isn’t just about protecting borders. It’s about securing supply chains, diversifying partners, and building infrastructure that reflects national interests—not just economic convenience.
Final Thoughts: Pipelines, Patriotism, and the Path Forward
The Trans Mountain Expansion marks a turning point in Canada’s energy future—but it’s only a first step. The vulnerabilities exposed by Trump’s protectionism should not be viewed as temporary irritations. They are flashing red warning signs.
Energy independence won’t happen overnight. But Canada has the resources, the talent, and—perhaps now—the public will to reclaim control over its most valuable exports. It will take leadership, unity, and investment on a scale not seen in decades. But as the TMX shows, it’s possible.
Because in geopolitics, as in life, innocence is no shield—and ignorance is no excuse.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Why is Canada so dependent on the United States for oil exports?
Canada historically built its oil infrastructure with the U.S. in mind. The U.S. is a massive market, making it a convenient and lucrative buyer. Over time, pipelines were constructed almost exclusively to serve this one partner, leading to a dangerously lopsided trade relationship.
Q2: What is the Trans Mountain Expansion, and why is it significant?
The Trans Mountain Expansion is a 1,150 km pipeline project completed in 2024. It tripled Canada’s capacity to export oil to the Pacific Coast, allowing access to Asian markets and reducing its reliance on the U.S.
Q3: What were Energy East and Northern Gateway, and why were they cancelled?
Both were pipeline projects aimed at diversifying Canada’s oil export routes. They were cancelled due to environmental concerns, lack of federal support, and political opposition from key provinces.
Q4: Could these cancelled pipeline projects be revived?
Possibly. Rising tensions with the U.S. have opened new political discussions. However, massive costs and lack of private sector interest remain significant hurdles.
Q5: How much oil does Canada produce, and how much can it export now?
Canada produced over 5 million barrels per day in 2024. The TMX now allows up to 900,000 barrels to be exported via the Pacific Coast, but most oil still goes to the U.S.
Q6: What role do Indigenous groups play in the pipeline debate?
Many Indigenous communities oppose pipeline projects over environmental and sovereignty concerns, while others support them for the potential economic benefits. Their input is critical in any future project planning.
