Alberta West News

Monday, December 1, 2025

Alberta’s “pipeline huff and puff”: political theatre more than infrastructure plan

The current round of pipeline posturing between Alberta and Ottawa is overwhelmingly about managing political constituencies, not about a realistic, near‑term piece of infrastructure. The deal is structured so that both Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney can claim victories to their bases, while the actual probability of a new Alberta‑to‑north‑coast pipeline being built remains very low.cbc+4youtube

What the new “pipeline deal” actually is

The Canada–Alberta memorandum of understanding (MOU) on energy and major projects does not approve a pipeline. It does three main things:

It offers “political support” and a procedural path for a potential oil pipeline from Alberta to the northwest B.C. coast, including:
- A route through the federal Major Projects Office.
- Possible exemptions or “carve‑outs” from the tanker ban and some federal emissions rules.theenergymix+1
In exchange, Alberta agrees to:
- Toughen its industrial carbon pricing system (the TIER regime).
- Back multi‑billion‑dollar carbon capture investments from the Pathways Alliance.theenergymix
It sets a process deadline rather than a project commitment:
- Alberta can submit a pipeline application to the Major Projects Office by mid‑2026.nationalpost

There is still:

No route.
No private proponent willing to finance and build it.
No consent from B.C. or affected First Nations.thenarwhal+3

Even Carney’s own language in Ottawa frames this as conditional and theoretical, stressing that any pipeline requires B.C. government support and Indigenous rights‑holder consent. B.C. Premier David Eby has been blunt that he is “not threatened” by a project that does not exist, noting there is no route and no private backer.youtubecbc+1

Why a new West Coast pipeline is unlikely to be built

Several converging realities make this project a classic “pipe dream” rather than an actual project.

No economic driver right now

Analysts and political commentators aligned across the spectrum have pointed out that the underlying economics are weak:

Trans Mountain Expansion is not yet running at full effective capacity and can be incrementally expanded with pump and operational upgrades, increasing Alberta export potential without a new greenfield line.reddit+1
A CBC political panel was explicit: “the economics just isn’t there to build it,” and the politics are more interesting than the project itself.youtube
Ottawa’s Major Projects framework has fast‑tracked other things (ports, Atlantic wind, etc.) but has not identified any concrete new oil pipeline as a designated, shovel‑ready “major project.”thenarwhal

From the private sector perspective, committing tens of billions into long‑lived heavy-oil infrastructure in the mid‑2020s—under tightening climate policy, EV growth, and investor pressure—is extremely high risk. There is no sign of a serious proponent stepping forward.theenergymix+1

Legal and political wall on the B.C. coast

The northwest B.C. coast is among the most constrained locations in Canada for new oil export infrastructure:

Coastal First Nations and many inland nations along plausible corridors have a long, consistent record of opposing oil pipelines and tankers in these waters, including through legal challenges.wcel+2
B.C.’s NDP government is politically and economically committed to other coastal projects (LNG, ports, fisheries, tourism, clean energy) and has framed another oil pipeline as a risk to “thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in real projects.”wcel+1
Even if the federal government offers limited carve‑outs from the tanker moratorium, the constitutional and consultation hurdles are immense, and courts have repeatedly enforced the duty to consult and accommodate in coastal energy cases.elc+1

One West Coast legal analysis describes the Alberta north‑coast concept as a “non‑starter” given the combination of Indigenous rights, environmental risk, and existing law.wcel

Timeframe and climate policy headwinds

To go from MOU to operating pipeline would likely be on the order of a decade (proponent, route, consultation, assessment, land, construction). That pushes potential start‑up into the late 2030s—precisely when global demand and policy trajectories for unabated oil are most uncertain.

Even the supportive National Post editorial about the deal concludes it offers only “the narrowest of paths” for a pipeline and expresses skepticism one will ever be built.nationalpost

What Smith gets: red‑meat optics and a grievance outlet

For Danielle Smith, the value of this pipeline language is almost entirely political.

A trophy for the UCP convention and the separatist flank

Smith is facing an energized far‑right, sovereigntist current within the UCP. The MOU allows her to claim:

Ottawa has formally committed to:
- “Increasing production of Alberta oil and gas.”
- Supporting “one or more private sector constructed and financed pipelines” from Alberta.nationalpost+1
Alberta has won special treatment on emissions policy (no federal oil and gas emissions cap; exemptions from federal clean electricity regulations).nationalpost

Commentary from both sympathetic and critical outlets notes that this buys her time and “gives her something to take to the UCP AGM to quell the separatist uprising within her party.”globalnews+1

Continuation of the “Ottawa vs Alberta” narrative

Smith has already institutionalized a combative stance via the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, explicitly marketed as a tool to fight “harmful” federal laws.alberta+1

At the same UCP events where she touts the pipeline deal, she also promises Sovereignty Act motions to refuse enforcement of things like the federal gun buyback, and to shield Albertans from select federal initiatives. The pipeline MOU slots neatly into this narrative:globalnews+1

If a pipeline never materializes, she can still say:
- “We did everything possible; it was blocked by B.C., courts, woke investors, or Ottawa’s environmental wing.”
If it advances even procedurally, she can say:
- “We forced Ottawa to back down and recognize Alberta’s right to get product to tidewater.”

Either way, it feeds the perpetual grievance cycle that has been politically useful in Alberta since the “No More Pipelines Act” framing of Bill C‑69.thenarwhal+1

Distraction from harder questions

Focusing attention on a hypothetical pipeline:

Diverts attention from unresolved issues like:
- Unpaid municipal taxes and lease obligations from oil and gas operators.thenarwhal
- Long‑term diversification and energy transition strategies.
Lets the government keep the illusion of an infrastructure bottleneck as the central problem, rather than global market risk, capital discipline, and climate constraints.

What Carney gets: centrist branding and a convenient scapegoat

For Mark Carney, the same arrangement provides political cover and leverage.

Proof he’s “not Trudeau” on Alberta

Carney campaigned on major nation‑building projects and on mending relations with Alberta. This deal allows him to signal:

Willingness to support Alberta hydrocarbons and “increase production,” under conditions.theenergymix+1
Openness to carve‑outs on contentious policies (tanker ban, emissions cap, clean electricity regulations) for Alberta, in exchange for tougher industrial carbon pricing and CCS investment.nationalpost+1

This gives him arguments against Conservative claims that only they will “stand up for Alberta,” while also extracting more stringent climate measures from the province.

A low‑cost offer that probably never has to be cashed

Multiple analyses stress that Carney and federal officials are not committing to build a pipeline, only to support one if Alberta can:

Find a private sector proponent willing to invest.
Get the B.C. government onside.
Secure consent and equity participation from affected Indigenous nations.cbc+3youtube

Most of those conditions are outside Ottawa’s direct control and are, in practice, very unlikely to be met. That means Ottawa can:

Claim good faith toward Alberta.
Blame:
- Market realities if no company steps up.
- B.C. or Indigenous opposition if the corridor fails.
Emphasize that “all stakeholders must be on board,” deflecting criticism from either side.youtubecbc

A Reddit political discussion summarized this as Carney essentially saying “sure, go build it” knowing no proponent exists—offering Alberta a symbolic win without changing concrete outcomes. The National Post editorial also describes the deal as buying time for both leaders to satisfy their bases.reddit+1

Internal Liberal triangulation

Carney is simultaneously:

Facing strong pushback from B.C. Liberal MPs and environmentalist Liberals, some of whom see any pipeline language as betrayal.cbcyoutube
Losing an outspoken former environment minister over the deal.nationalpost

By heavily emphasizing the conditional and procedural nature of the pipeline language, Carney can argue to his own base that:

Nothing has actually been approved.
Climate disciplines (carbon pricing, CCS commitments) have been strengthened.
Real projects being advanced as “major projects” are ports, grids, and clean energy, not new oilsands export lines.thenarwhal+1

The “huff and puff” dynamic in Alberta pipeline politics

The pattern on display fits a broader cycle that has run for roughly a decade:

Inflate the centrality of new export pipelines to Alberta’s prosperity, even when:
- Existing or under‑construction capacity is not fully utilized.
- Price and demand conditions are the main constraints.
Blame external villains (Ottawa, B.C., environmentalists, courts, foreign funders) for the lack of new mega‑projects.
Use confrontational tools and rhetoric:
- “No more pipelines act” framing of the Impact Assessment Act.thenarwhal
- The Alberta Sovereignty Act and a steady stream of “fighting Ottawa” motions.wikipedia+2
- Announcements of projects without proponents or routes, which legal and policy experts describe as non‑starters.wcel+1
When projects fail to materialize, convert that failure into more political capital:
- “We tried; they blocked us”—fuel for fundraising, mobilization, and demands for more constitutional fights.

The current north‑coast pipeline MOU is a particularly pure example because, as The Narwhal put it, Alberta is furious about the absence or treatment of a project that does not actually exist. The “real major project is politics, not pipelines.”thenarwhal

What this actually means for Alberta’s material future

From a material systems perspective—energy markets, infrastructure, climate constraints—this deal:

Does not add any steel in the ground or capacity in the short to medium term.
Does not change the fundamental risk calculus for private capital on long‑lived bitumen export infrastructure.
Does reinforce:
- A reliance on symbolic victories and grievance politics rather than concrete, diversified investment strategies.
- An expectation among parts of the Alberta public that another tidewater pipeline is both feasible and just around the corner, making eventual disappointment likely and politically exploitable.

The more practical levers for Alberta’s long‑term resilience—industrial decarbonization, grid modernization, reclamation and cleanup liabilities, economic diversification, and dealing honestly with stranded‑asset risk—are largely orthogonal to this pipeline drama, yet get less attention than the theatrics.thenarwhal+2

Bottom line: The current “pipeline huff and puff” is best understood as a carefully staged piece of intergovernmental theatre. It is designed to impress partisan bases, buy time, and redirect resentment, while imposing minimal real‑world commitments on either government. The structural obstacles to actually building a new Alberta‑to‑north‑coast oil pipeline remain so large that, absent a radical change in markets and politics, this remains primarily a rhetorical project, not an infrastructure one.youtubenationalpost+5

If you want, the next step could be a more technical look at whether there is any plausible corridor that could navigate the Indigenous, environmental, and geophysical constraints on the north coast, or an economic breakdown of why industry is not lining up behind this idea.

How to ferment Inulin

To ferment inulin (specifically in high-inulin vegetables like sunchokes/Jerusalem artichokes) to reduce gas and improve digestibility, use a lacto-fermentation process.

This process relies on salt and time. Beneficial bacteria (Lactobacillus) consume the inulin (a complex carbohydrate) and convert it into lactic acid and carbon dioxide. This "pre-digestion" happens in the jar rather than in your gut, significantly reducing flatulence.

Standard Lacto-Fermentation Method for Inulin

This method works for sunchokes, garlic, and onions.

Ingredients:

Sunchokes (Jerusalem Artichokes): Scrubbed clean, knobs trimmed. Peeling is optional but unpeeled skins often contain more natural yeast/bacteria to kickstart the process.
Salt: Non-iodized salt (sea salt, kosher salt, or pickling salt).
Water: Dechlorinated water (filtered or tap water left to sit out for 24 hours).
Aromatics (Optional): Garlic, ginger, turmeric, dill, mustard seeds, or chili flakes.

Step-by-Step Process:

Prep the Vegetable: Slice the sunchokes into coins (approx. ¼ inch thick) or matchsticks. Thinner slices ferment faster and allow easier brine penetration.
Make the Brine: Dissolve salt in water to create a 2% to 3% brine.
- Ratio: Approx. 1 tablespoon of salt per 2 cups (500ml) of water.
- Metric: 20–30g of salt per 1 liter of water.
Pack the Jar:
- Place your aromatics at the bottom of a clean glass jar (Mason jar).
- Pack the sliced sunchokes tightly into the jar, leaving about 1 inch of headspace at the top.
Submerge: Pour the brine over the sunchokes until they are completely covered.
- Crucial: Use a fermentation weight (or a Ziploc bag filled with water) to keep the vegetables submerged below the liquid. Any pieces exposed to air can mold.
Ferment:
- Seal the jar with a lid. If using a standard lid, "burp" it daily (loosen briefly to let gas escape) to prevent pressure buildup. Ideally, use an airlock lid.
- Store at room temperature (60–75°F / 15–23°C) out of direct sunlight.
Wait (The "De-gassing" Phase):
- Standard flavor: 1–2 weeks.
- Maximum inulin breakdown: 3–4 weeks. The longer you ferment, the more inulin is consumed by bacteria, and the tarter/softer the result will be.
Finish: Once they taste sour and tangy to your liking, move the jar to the refrigerator. The cold slows down fermentation but doesn't stop it completely.

What to Expect

Active Bubbling: You will see bubbles rising in the jar after 2–3 days. This is CO₂—evidence that the bacteria are eating the sugars/inulin.
Cloudy Brine: The water will turn cloudy/milky. This is normal and healthy.
Texture: Fermented sunchokes retain a pleasant crunch, similar to water chestnuts, unlike cooked ones which get mushy.
Digestion: Start by eating a small amount (1 tablespoon) to see how your stomach handles it. While fermentation significantly reduces gas, it may not eliminate it 100% for extremely sensitive individuals.

How to de-gas sunchokes

The gas from sunchokes (Jerusalem artichokes) comes from inulin, and you can reduce it but not eliminate it entirely by using acid, time, and/or fermentation.naturesproduce+2

Most effective methods

Acid + heat (lemon/vinegar boil): Slice sunchokes about 0.5–1 cm thick, cover with water strongly acidified with lemon juice or vinegar, and gently boil or simmer 15–20 minutes, then drain well and use in recipes. The acid plus heat hydrolyzes a good chunk of inulin into simple sugars that don’t cause gas, though you lose some “artichoke” flavor.instagram+1
Fermenting/pickling: Lacto‑ferment sliced sunchokes in brine (like sauerkraut) or make traditional pickles and let them ferment for days to weeks. Lactic acid bacteria consume much of the inulin and turn it into gas in the jar instead of your gut, yielding crunchy, largely “de‑gassed” pickles.agardenerstable+1
Long, slow cooking: Very long low‑temperature cooking (several hours around 90–100 °C, e.g., in a low oven or slow cooker) gradually converts inulin to fructose, similar to how inulin‑rich camas roots were traditionally prepared, and reduces gassiness compared with quick roasting or boiling.growveg+2

Additional tricks

Pre‑soak or warm water bath: A warm water soak around 60 °C for about 15 minutes, especially with a bit of acid, can help pull some inulin into the water; discard the soaking water.agardenerstable
Freeze first: Holding tubers in the freezer for about a week before cooking promotes some natural inulin breakdown, making them a bit easier on digestion once cooked.growveg
Smaller portions and acclimation: Start with small servings (a few slices, not a full plate) and increase gradually; gut microbes adapt over time and many people report much less gas after repeated small exposures.learningherbs+1

Simple workflow example

Slice and briefly rinse the tubers.
Simmer 15–20 minutes in well‑acidified water, then drain.naturesproduce+1
Either:
- Pat dry and roast or pan‑fry as usual, or
- Pack in brine and ferment for 1–2 weeks for pickles.naturesproduce+1

Combining acid pre‑boil, long cooking when practical, and modest portions gives the best odds of enjoying sunchokes with minimal “side effects.”agardenerstable+2

Based on experiments, how much water is required to bring one stalk of corn to maturity?

Based on experimental data and agricultural field studies, a single stalk of high-yielding commercial corn typically requires between 20 and 25 gallons (76–95 liters) of water to reach maturity.

In water-limited environments or lower-yield subsistence farming, a stalk may reach maturity with as little as 5 gallons (19 liters), though grain production will be significantly reduced. Conversely, in hot, dry climates with maximum irrigation, a single plant may consume upwards of 33 gallons (125 liters).

Executive Summary: Water Requirements per Stalk

Scenario	Water Required per Plant (Season)	Equivalent Field Measurement
Standard High-Yield	20 – 25 gallons (76 – 95 L)	22–28 acre-inches
Peak Demand / Arid	30 – 33 gallons (114 – 125 L)	30+ acre-inches
Survival / Low-Yield	~5 gallons (19 L)	~10–12 acre-inches

Detailed Analysis

1. Standard Commercial Requirements (The "22-Inch" Rule)

Most US university extension services (e.g., Nebraska, Iowa State) cite that a high-yielding corn crop requires 22 to 30 inches of water per acre per season. This figure accounts for Crop Evapotranspiration (ETc)—the water transpired by the plant plus water evaporated from the soil.cropscience.bayer+1

Using standard planting densities, we can derive the per-plant requirement:

Total Water: 22 acre-inches = 597,396 gallons of water.
Plant Density: A typical modern commercial field has ~30,000 plants per acre.reddit+1
Calculation: 597,396 gallons ÷ 30,000 plants ≈ 19.9 gallons per plant.

Experimental data from Cornell University Extension corroborates this, explicitly recommending 1.5 gallons per plant per week for vegetable corn. Over a typical 14-16 week growing season, this totals approximately 21–24 gallons.rvpadmin.cce.cornell

2. Experimental Variations

Field experiments underscore how variable this number can be depending on the goal (maximum yield vs. survival).

High-Input Experiments: A study on deficit irrigation published in Agricultural Water Management recorded water use of 83 liters (22 gallons) per plant for standard irrigation treatments, rising to 126 liters (33 gallons) per plant under high-water regimes.sciencedirect
Subsistence/Low-Input: A report on agriculture in East Nusa Tenggara found that maize could reach harvest with as little as 18 liters (~4.8 gallons) of water per plant. However, yields in such systems are often a fraction of commercial averages (e.g., 40 bushels/acre vs. 200+ bushels/acre).kopernik

3. Peak Daily Demand

Water usage is not linear; it peaks dramatically during the reproductive stages (tasseling and silking).

Vegetative Stage: Young plants use very little water, often less than 0.1 inches per day.
Reproductive Stage (Silking/Tasseling): This is the critical window. Experiments show corn can consume 0.25 to 0.40 inches of water per day during this period.crops.extension.iastate+1
Per Plant Peak: At peak heat and growth, a single stalk may transpire roughly 0.25 to 0.50 gallons per day.facebook

4. Key Variables Affecting Water Use

Geography: Corn grown in the humid US Midwest requires less applied water (irrigation) due to lower evaporation rates compared to corn grown in the arid High Plains or Western US, where the plant transpires more rapidly to cool itself.
Yield Targets: There is a linear relationship between water and yield. Producing 250 bushels/acre requires significantly more transpiration (approx. 22 inches) than producing 150 bushels/acre (approx. 16 inches).crops.extension.iastate
Planting Density: Higher density fields (35,000+ plants/acre) create a closed canopy faster, which reduces soil evaporation but increases competition for water between individual stalks.