Articles
The journal leads with outcomes: what is being built, where it goes and who pays. Every article links to the receipts it rests on.
Series: Who wins, who pays
Who wins, who pays, part 1
The forecast
Canada more than tripled its oil sales outside the US in two years, and the US still got more Canadian oil. Our main forecast, 'both sides win', expects both countries to come out ahead by 2034. Corrected: the 81% we first gave it counted only the US side. Counting the US side by supply and Canada's side by income, it comes out about the same if today's tariffs fade the way past US tariffs did, and about 7% if they never end; either way, the war years leave Canada behind over the decade.
Who wins, who pays, part 2
An awkward response
Within five months of the first US tariff order, three Canadian legislatures passed fast-track laws, and oil going to the US stayed above its 2023 level despite a dip in 2025. Before it happened, US officials said Canada couldn't build, analysts expected any building to turn away from the US, and Congress wanted building by agreement. We found no US forecast of both halves together, which makes the build-out a result to explain, not a truism.
Who wins, who pays, part 3
Quebec votes: the build-out stays, the fast track is in doubt
Every party likely to govern Quebec after October 5 backs more hydro and mining, and the new power lines to New York and New England are already running. The vote decides narrower things: whether Quebec revives its lapsed fast-track bill (only the CAQ, projected at zero seats, promises to), how the non-binding Churchill Falls deal is finished, and how a likely PQ government treats Ottawa's fast-track laws. Our forecast that more Canadian resources reach the US barely moves.
Who wins, who pays, part 4
Who pays
Countries coming out ahead is not everyone coming out ahead. Steelworkers, BC sawmill towns, auto-parts workers, aluminum processors, taxpayers and First Nations carry costs; so do US aluminum buyers, distillers and border towns. Manufacturing jobs are about where they were a year ago, but losses are concentrated, and many closures cite timber supply or the end of US EV support alongside or ahead of tariffs.
Who wins, who pays, part 5
The interference scare, in the order it happened
Ten days before Quebec voted, a newspaper reported that Ottawa had warned of possible US help for the sovereigntist PQ. Put in order, the record shows three public posts by a small US think tank, one confirmed US trade approach with no link to them, and the governing party pitching the posts to reporters ten days before it called the intelligence service. No authority has shown any interference. Among the posts' proposals: covertly bankrolling Indigenous land lawsuits, which we check in a companion piece.
Who wins, who pays, part 6
Where US money shows up, it builds
Since January 2025, every US dollar we could trace near a Canadian resource project goes into building it: C$2.7 billion from KKR and Apollo for Westcoast pipeline expansions, C$8 million from Newmont to Tahltan communities, US$25 million in Pentagon grants, and benefit agreements at Ksi Lisims LNG after which two nations dropped their court challenges. We found no US money behind any First Nations lawsuit. Most money enabling projects is Canadian, Alberta funds one lawsuit, and covert funding would not show in public records.
Who wins, who pays, part 7
What Canada nets
Our forecast put about 81% on both Canada and the US coming out ahead by 2034, but that figure counted only the US side. Counting Canada's side: in 2034, Canada comes out ahead unless about 57% of today's tariff damage is still in place; if the tariffs fade the way past US tariffs did, our model gives it 98%, and if they never end, about 9%. Over the decade as a whole, the war years leave Canada behind, typically by about C$89 billion. The build-out pays for both countries; the trade war doesn't.
Who wins, who pays, part 8
What the US nets
What Canada nets left the US side uncounted. Counting it on the same simulated futures: by 2034, Canada's resource build-out adds about US$1.5 billion a year to Americans' income, mostly US owners' profits from Canadian oil, gas and LNG, but the trade war costs more. The US comes out ahead unless about 10% of today's tariff damage is still in place, against about 57% for Canada. If today's tariffs fade the way past US tariffs did, the US comes out ahead in about 14% of our runs and Canada in 98%. Over 2025 to 2034, the US is behind in every run. Either way it is small for the US: about 0.006% of its economy in 2034. The build-out pays for both countries; the trade war doesn't.
Series: Who holds the veto
Who holds the veto, part 1
No veto, one way out
Launch of a series on First Nations, Métis and Inuit positions on the resource build-out. Consultation gives no veto, so 'opposed, then signed' is what the system produces whatever the motive. Across 132 cases, the evidence that can separate motives leans toward rights, and the people who wanted a stop or a say often got neither.
Who holds the veto, part 2
Does opposition stop projects?
We expected organized First Nations, Métis and Inuit opposition to lower the odds that a project gets built, and tested it before letting it into our forecast. It doesn't show: 4 of 7 approved projects facing it reached construction, against 1 of 2 without it, and 2 of 4 against 2 of 8 at the review stage. Tiny samples and a null result. Under the rule we wrote first, the record would now enter our forecast for two projects; the forecast follows the rule of a larger study of past projects instead, which finds no effect of opposition, so nothing changes.
Series: Tail risk
Tail risk, part 1
The order you heard it in
Many people heard the invasion story as: Carney speaks, Washington laughs it off. The dated record runs the other way. We put the two orders side by side.
Tail risk, part 2
What would have to change first
Prime Minister Carney called it plain risk management to look at extreme tail risks. We track one of them: US military action against Canada. Our odds are very low. Here are the warning signs that would come first, where each stands today, what US officials have said, and how we will update this page.
Series: Method
Method, part 1
Why we test an explanation we don't believe
This journal deliberately tests a speculative explanation it doesn't believe: that Washington foresaw and wanted the way Canada responded. The unlikely explanation decides where to look; the evidence decides the verdict. So far the graded events that tell the readings apart lean clearly the other way, and the searches it prompted found things that hold whatever anyone intended: no forecast of what actually happened, no hidden US money behind the lawsuits, and no choreography in the provocations.
Nothing matches these filters.
Also as an RSS feed.