Enbridge’s CEO doesn’t think investors should take on the risk of developing new fossil fuel infrastructure — that, instead, governments should do so for them.

The CEO, Greg Ebel, made his comments during a recent earnings call with analysts and they were reported by The Globe and Mail. In them, he was saying the quiet part out loud, and admitting in the process that a new West Coast oil pipeline might not be economically viable.

His fiscal pessimism contrasts sharply with the “Build Canada Now” open letter he and other oil and gas executives signed in March 2025 and then reiterated in September, which argued Canada was on the verge of becoming an energy superpower — if only the Carney government would commit to eliminating environmental regulations. 

While the open letter asked the federal government to “simplify regulation” and “grow production,” it never explicitly suggested public coffers should shoulder the costs of building a new pipeline. Perhaps the leaders of Canada’s fossil fuel sector didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau did just that — at a cost of $35.6 billion — and the results have been less than encouraging. The Trans Mountain Expansion project cost more than $30 billion above initial estimates and hasn’t been running anywhere near its projected utilization rate since it opened. And that’s without projecting forward into a world where oil demand is expected to fall.

Without the convenient and familiar scapegoat of Trudeau to blame for the fossil fuel sector’s troubles, Ebel appears to be trying to concoct a hypothetical jurisdictional crisis to preemptively explain why the private sector shouldn’t pay for any future pipeline. Ebel reportedly referred to British Columbia as a jurisdiction that has “historically created a challenge” before mentioning the defunct Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

It’s worth remembering that the potential West Coast oil pipeline has yet to find a builder, despite having the support of both the federal government and the government of Alberta. Enbridge is one of three companies that the government of Alberta recruited to provide technical and regulatory guidance for the proposed project, though none have been enlisted to financially back the project. 

More importantly, it’s worth remembering that the Northern Gateway pipeline wasn’t cancelled because of any jurisdictional spat, but because a federal court determined that the Harper government failed to adequately consult with Indigenous communities. It should go without saying that failing to meet a constitutionally-mandated consultation requirement is not the same thing as a disagreement between two levels of government. 

Without the convenient and familiar scapegoat of Justin Trudeau to blame for the sector’s troubles, Enbridge seems to be concocting a hypothetical jurisdictional crisis to excuse the private sector from paying for a pipeline, writes Taylor C. Noakes.

Enbridge didn’t appeal the federal court’s decision. Instead, the company said at the time that it would redouble its efforts to consult with Indigenous communities along the proposed pipeline route. When the company was seeking a three-year extension on its permits in 2016, it said it was working primarily on developing better relationships with Indigenous communities and acknowledged that it should have done a better job engaging with the affected ones.

The narrative has changed — as have the facts. Ebel told analysts this month that Enbridge had invested roughly $600 million in the project and that “the rug was pulled out from underneath us.” A CBC News article from December 2018 — when the federal government agreed to refund $14.7 million in fees related to the project — reported that Enbridge said it “was out $373 million in lost costs for the cancelled project” but also that the company had no other claims for reimbursements or refunds.

And indeed they shouldn’t. A private company is responsible for their gains and losses, not the government. It was incumbent upon Enbridge to ensure full and proper engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities, given that is a prerequisite to approval of the project. The fact that it didn’t sue the government at the time suggests it’s fully aware of the fact that Enbridge — and Enbridge alone — bore full responsibility for the project’s failure.

What was conveniently omitted from much of the discourse surrounding Northern Gateway is that there was a global oil glut in the mid-2010s that depressed the value of Canadian crude. It’s tough to say exactly where the oil market is heading in such a volatile world, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) is still projecting global fossil fuel demand will plateau in the early 2030s. That doesn’t bode well for a prospective pipeline project that still doesn’t have a builder. The IEA’s February Oil Market Report indicated lower growth projections for 2026 than it had made a month earlier, but maintained its projections of a growing global oil surplus. It’s worth considering as well that while the IEA’s most recent World Energy Outlook included projections that indicate oil and gas demand rising through 2050, it appears these projections were included because of pressure placed on the organization by the Trump administration.

Unfortunately for Canadians, it’s unlikely we’ll get straight answers from either the federal government or the energy sector when it comes to the future of fossil fuels. The Carney government has painted itself into a corner with industry-approved talking points about becoming an energy superpower, despite overreliance on exports to the United States, an energy sector largely controlled by American interests and consistent projections from international experts pointing towards declining fossil fuel demand. Industry, as demonstrated by Ebel’s reported statements, portrays its failures as failures of government policy or jurisdictional spats, regardless of whether there’s evidence to support those claims. In the same way that Big Oil, their lobbyists, politicians and third party advocates pointed the finger at “foreign-funded anti-pipeline activists” a decade ago for pipeline projects that weren’t economically viable, a similar pattern seems to be emerging today. 

The problem is that this strategy works, as evidenced by the fact that the supposedly environmentally conscious Trudeau government used $35.6 billion in public money to pay for TMX. Carney’s alleged environmental credentials were also easily pushed aside after Big Oil’s sustained anti-emissions-cap PR campaign. Ebel’s comments suggest we’re now facing yet another PR campaign for a West Coast pipeline being built with public money, even though experts have already determined it is highly unlikely Canada will ever recoup the public money spent on TMX.

Canada’s oil industry might not be great at building pipelines, but it has become expert at creating scapegoats for its failures and PR nightmares for even modest proposals to pay for its own pollution. 

Continued subsidy will neither change this power dynamic, nor reverse the inevitable decline of a sunsetting industry.

© National Observer