Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has caused a stir across Canada’s political and oil and gas landscapes with comments she made in a year-end interview with the National Post on Monday.The premier told the outlet that while her stated preference would be to build a new West Coast pipeline through northern British Columbia, she will consider looking south if no progress is made.A potential route that was mentioned could go through Montana, Idaho, or either Washington or Oregon.“Anytime you can get to the West Coast, it opens up markets to get to Asia,” Smith said.Smith’s comments come after Saskatchewan-based potash company Nutrien announced its plans to build a $1 billion export terminal in Washington state at the Port of Longview, bypassing BC, which prompted criticism from BC NDP Premier David Eby and federal Transport Minister Steve MacKinnon.Smith signed a memorandum of understanding on energy with Prime Minister Mark Carney last month, which discussed a proposal for a new million-barrel-a-day pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and concessions on the federal oil tanker ban off BC’s coast.However, what comes of that remains to be seen, as the Liberal Party — with support from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois — recently voted down the Conservative Party’s motion to endorse the development of a new pipeline to move Alberta bitumen to BC’s coast for export to Asian markets.Many commentators have also said that Smith’s comments and Nutrien’s US investment underline a possible future pattern of bypassing Canadian suitors for ones more willing to do business and with less red tape to wade through south of the border..Marc Nixon, a political commentator, said on X that, “Alberta will go around BC if it has to. That’s billions in lost economic activity for BC ports, jobs, and revenue. David Eby’s obstructionism is going to gut BC and give Donald Trump everything.”.“First Nutrien, now a pipeline,” said interim BC Conservative leader Trevor Halford.“Canadian energy could bypass British Columbia entirely because years of BC NDP obstruction made it impossible to build here. Jobs lost. Revenue lost. Economic prosperity lost. This is the cost of blocking pipelines and saying no to opportunity.”.Steve Kooner, BC Conservative MLA for Richmond-Queensborough, believes that BC is now “at a crossroads” and criticized Eby’s “ideological agenda” for exposing B.C. to “legal, economic, and private property chaos.”“Premier Eby, for the sake of British Columbians, work with Team Canada and build the pipeline to BC’s North Coast,” Kooner said.“We can’t afford more economic disaster from you.”Some observers, such as Tim McMillan, a Calgary-based partner at Garrison Strategy, have stated that a pipeline through the US won’t be a project that needs to be started from scratch, noting a finished segment of the Keystone XL pipeline already runs through Montana.“We have a pipe in the ground already, to the border. Whether somebody’s interested in reviving the pre-existing US route to the Gulf Coast or, potentially, taking it straight west out to the (Pacific) coast, that’s an open question,” McMillan told the National Post.He also noted the US “seems to have a much easier time building infrastructure.”Not surprisingly, much noise was made about Smith’s comments online from proponents of Alberta independence, who see the possible pipeline route as not only a way to strengthen that sentiment but also to open up Alberta’s resources to the world market and establish deeper ties with the Trump administration..“Finally! Some common sense,” said Jeffrey Rath of the Alberta Prosperity Project..Pro-independence lawyer Keith Wilson — known for his work with the Freedom Convoy — stated that bypassing BC “via the US Northwest makes sense—now or after Alberta goes its own way.”“The route exists, approvals are realistic, and there’s no BC or Ottawa veto. Albertans will finally benefit from the full value of our resources,” Wilson said.
