ClaimOutcome
Canada's build-out was not obvious in advance. The US Energy Secretary said new Canadian pipelines were hard to build and did not expect the oil trade to change; conservative US analysts expected only a Conservative government to unleash oil and gas; and after Northern Gateway and Energy East fell through, 'Canada won't build' was a reasonable default. Some analysts foresaw Canada selling elsewhere, but in the US public record we found no one who predicted it would build fast and keep supplying the US. It is a surprising result that needs explaining.
Articles that cite this record
The evidence it rests on
Supports (4)
- Energy Secretary Wright, asked on CNBC whether Canada could ship its oil west to sell overseas, says new pipeline capacity is hard to build and the existing West Coast route is small
Energy Secretary dismissed Canadian rerouting.
Documented by: CNBC, “CNBC transcript: Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Squawk on the Street” (external site), .
- Colin Dueck (AEI) argues that 51st-state talk fuels Canadian anti-Americanism and helps the Liberals, and that a Conservative government would 'unleash oil and gas production'
Conservative analyst said only a Conservative government would unleash oil and gas.
Documented by: AEI, “Canada and the Trump Administration, Part I (AEI)” (external site), . and 2 more
- Federal Court of Appeal quashes the Northern Gateway approval for inadequate consultation with First Nations
Northern Gateway's approval was quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Documented by: Federal Court of Appeal, “Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2016 FCA 187” (external site), .
- TransCanada terminates the Energy East pipeline to Quebec and New Brunswick
TransCanada terminated Energy East.
Documented by: TransCanada (TC Energy), “TransCanada Announces Termination of Energy East Pipeline and Eastern Mainline Projects” (external site), . and 1 more
Complicates (3)
- Atlantic Council (Goldwyn and Webster): energy tariffs on Canada and Mexico could speed US energy partners' diversification away from the US, including toward China
Same: diversification away from the US was foreseen.
Documented by: Atlantic Council, “Tariffs on Canada and Mexico could hurt Trump's quest for US energy dominance” (external site), .
- At an AEI panel on Canada's election, Henry Olsen lists the quickest ways he sees for Canada to cut the US trade deficit, none of them resources; Alberta-born Jamie Tronnes says the crisis "might just be the kick in the butt that we need"
A Canadian stated the mechanism ('kick in the butt') before C-5.
Documented by: AEI, “Canadian Election Recap: Results and Foreign Policy Implications (AEI event transcript)” (external site), .
- CFR (Alden and Manak): Carney has promised to diversify Canada's trade with new infrastructure, but Canada's alternatives to the US are few
Analysts expected Canada to try to diversify its trade with new infrastructure, while noting its alternatives to the US were few.
Documented by: CFR, “What Mark Carney's Election Win Means for Trade and U.S.-Canada Relations” (external site), .
Context (2)
- Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, lists five ideas for how other countries could share the burden; none is resource development
The White House economic adviser's burden-sharing list has no resource development.
Documented by: The White House, “CEA Chairman Steve Miran Hudson Institute event remarks” (external site), .
- CSIS (Baskaran): tariffs on Canadian minerals would bring Canadian retaliation, send Canadian buyers of US minerals to other suppliers and push US firms toward Chinese-controlled nickel
Analysts expected tariffs to send Canadian buyers of US minerals to other suppliers; this is about where Canadian firms source mineral imports, not about Canada selling elsewhere.
Documented by: CSIS, “Canadian Tariffs Will Undermine U.S. Minerals Security” (external site), .
Claims are weighed by the evidence under them, actions first. Method.