ClaimMethod
What would count against the project's readings. Against 'both sides win': on the US side, capital never committing, or the second wave of output, the part that depends on the new laws, being sold mostly overseas while flows south stall; on Canada's side, most of today's tariff damage (about 57% or more) still in place in 2034. Against the foresight thought experiment: sustained escalation after the laws pass that damages the flow south, resources tariffed as hard as everything else, no resource terms ever appearing in a deal, or documented US support for lawsuits or provincial deals that slow the build-out.
The evidence it rests on
Supports (2)
- Three Section 338 proclamations impose 50% tariffs on about US$20B of Canadian goods, including USMCA-compliant goods: the first known use of Section 338 to impose tariffs
Escalation so far spares resources.
Documented by: The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Additional Tariffs on Canada” (external site), . and 5 more
- Reported US ask in the August 2026 trade talks: a right of first refusal on Canadian critical minerals
Resource terms have appeared in talks (reported).
Documented by: X (Weekly Voice), “The Price of Tariff Relief: Washington Seeks Preferential Access to Canada's Critical Minerals” (external site), . and 11 more
Complicates (3)
- Enbridge postpones Mainline Optimization Phase 2 (+250,000 barrels a day, Alberta to North Dakota) because producers won't commit
Capital withholding is a live sink risk.
Documented by: Global News, “Canada's Enbridge postpones plans for second phase of Mainline oil pipeline expansion” (external site), . and 1 more
- Uniper signs a binding agreement to buy 2 Mtpa of LNG from Ksi Lisims for up to 20 years, with first deliveries expected in 2032
LNG from Ksi Lisims, a project on the federal major-projects list, is being sold overseas: part of the second wave of output going abroad, which would count against 'both sides win' only if flows south also stall.
Documented by: Major Projects Office, “Ksi Lisims LNG - Major Projects Office” (external site). and 3 more
- Trump threatens 'very severe tariffs' on Canadian fertilizer if needed
Threat to tariff a resource.
Documented by: 980 CJME, “Trump looking at 'very severe tariffs' on fertilizer, affecting Sask. potash industry” (external site), . and 1 more
Corrections to this claim
Break-even share follows the new official run of Canada's net ledger (CA1, run 65), rerun after rules amendment 3 of our resource-exports model (O2 v1.4, run 63), whose odds for approved and postponed projects now come from our study of past Canadian resource and energy projects: about two-thirds -> 57% of today's tariff damage, now a model figure.
- Text
- was
What would count against the project's readings. Against 'both sides win': on the US side, capital never committing, or the second wave of output, the part that depends on the new laws, being sold mostly overseas while flows south stall; on Canada's side, most of today's tariff damage (about two-thirds or more) still in place in 2034. Against the foresight thought experiment: sustained escalation after the laws pass that damages the flow south, resources tariffed as hard as everything else, no resource terms ever appearing in a deal, or documented US support for lawsuits or provincial deals that slow the build-out.nowWhat would count against the project's readings. Against 'both sides win': on the US side, capital never committing, or the second wave of output, the part that depends on the new laws, being sold mostly overseas while flows south stall; on Canada's side, most of today's tariff damage (about 57% or more) still in place in 2034. Against the foresight thought experiment: sustained escalation after the laws pass that damages the flow south, resources tariffed as hard as everything else, no resource terms ever appearing in a deal, or documented US support for lawsuits or provincial deals that slow the build-out. - Text fr
- was
Ce qui compterait contre les lectures du projet. Contre « les deux pays y gagnent » : du côté américain, des capitaux qui ne s'engagent jamais, ou une deuxième vague de production, la partie qui dépend des nouvelles lois, vendue surtout outre-mer pendant que les flux vers le sud stagnent; du côté canadien, la plus grande partie des dommages causés par les tarifs actuels (environ les deux tiers ou plus) encore en place en 2034. Contre l'expérience de pensée sur la prévoyance : une escalade soutenue, après l'adoption des lois, qui nuit au flux vers le sud, des ressources frappées de tarifs aussi durement que tout le reste, aucune condition sur les ressources n'apparaissant jamais dans une entente, ou un soutien américain documenté à des poursuites ou à des ententes provinciales qui ralentissent la vague de construction.nowCe qui compterait contre les lectures du projet. Contre « les deux pays y gagnent » : du côté américain, des capitaux qui ne s'engagent jamais, ou une deuxième vague de production, la partie qui dépend des nouvelles lois, vendue surtout outre-mer pendant que les flux vers le sud stagnent; du côté canadien, la plus grande partie des dommages causés par les tarifs actuels (environ 57 % ou plus) encore en place en 2034. Contre l'expérience de pensée sur la prévoyance : une escalade soutenue, après l'adoption des lois, qui nuit au flux vers le sud, des ressources frappées de tarifs aussi durement que tout le reste, aucune condition sur les ressources n'apparaissant jamais dans une entente, ou un soutien américain documenté à des poursuites ou à des ententes provinciales qui ralentissent la vague de construction.
Correction: the list of what would count against 'both sides win' named only US-side tests; it now adds Canada's side (most of today's tariff damage still in place in 2034), after What Canada nets, our model of Canada's gains against its costs.
- Text
- was
What would count against the project's readings. Against 'both sides win': capital never committing, or the second wave of output, the part that depends on the new laws, being sold mostly overseas while flows south stall. Against the foresight thought experiment: sustained escalation after the laws pass that damages the flow south, resources tariffed as hard as everything else, no resource terms ever appearing in a deal, or documented US support for lawsuits or provincial deals that slow the build-out.nowWhat would count against the project's readings. Against 'both sides win': on the US side, capital never committing, or the second wave of output, the part that depends on the new laws, being sold mostly overseas while flows south stall; on Canada's side, most of today's tariff damage (about two-thirds or more) still in place in 2034. Against the foresight thought experiment: sustained escalation after the laws pass that damages the flow south, resources tariffed as hard as everything else, no resource terms ever appearing in a deal, or documented US support for lawsuits or provincial deals that slow the build-out. - Text fr
- was
Ce qui compterait contre les lectures du projet. Contre « les deux pays y gagnent » : des capitaux qui ne s'engagent jamais, ou une deuxième vague de production, la partie qui dépend des nouvelles lois, vendue surtout outre-mer pendant que les flux vers le sud stagnent. Contre l'expérience de pensée sur la prévoyance : une escalade soutenue, après l'adoption des lois, qui nuit au flux vers le sud, des ressources frappées de tarifs aussi durement que tout le reste, aucune condition sur les ressources n'apparaissant jamais dans une entente, ou un soutien américain documenté à des poursuites ou à des ententes provinciales qui ralentissent la vague de construction.nowCe qui compterait contre les lectures du projet. Contre « les deux pays y gagnent » : du côté américain, des capitaux qui ne s'engagent jamais, ou une deuxième vague de production, la partie qui dépend des nouvelles lois, vendue surtout outre-mer pendant que les flux vers le sud stagnent; du côté canadien, la plus grande partie des dommages causés par les tarifs actuels (environ les deux tiers ou plus) encore en place en 2034. Contre l'expérience de pensée sur la prévoyance : une escalade soutenue, après l'adoption des lois, qui nuit au flux vers le sud, des ressources frappées de tarifs aussi durement que tout le reste, aucune condition sur les ressources n'apparaissant jamais dans une entente, ou un soutien américain documenté à des poursuites ou à des ententes provinciales qui ralentissent la vague de construction.
Claims are weighed by the evidence under them, actions first. Method.