It will be a double f*** Russia from Canada if Canadian firms start extracting oil in Greenland in large quantities
9
Bad_Day_Moose5 days ago
+7
No need, Canada has lots we just need pipelines
7
Zakkuryu5 days ago
Greenland's oil may be much easier to extract than the oil sands though.
Also you'll simply never get a pipeline through Quebec. Best bet is somehow get one running from the Pacific to eastern Ontario, and then have to truck it from there out east.
0
Bad_Day_Moose5 days ago
+5
Pipeline will likely go to Churchill Manitoba/Hudsons bay if that doesn't pan out from what I understand which is actually a decent idea, as climate change will make this much much more passable even in the winter.
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/11/16/joint-statement-prime-minister-mark-carney-and-premier-wab-kinew
5
PJAYC695 days ago
+2
There’s a lot more oil in Alberta than in the oil sands. NW Alberta is all oil and natural gas drilled from conventional multi-well pad sites.
2
CupEcstatic27215 days ago
-7
Extra oil as a competitor to Russia's won't hurt, I think. And Greenland actually solves the pipeline deadlock. It's tanker-ready oil directly on the coast
-7
Bad_Day_Moose5 days ago
+10
I get your point but Canada could just ramp up production, best to leave Greenland white
10
CupEcstatic27215 days ago
+3
Anyway, a second f*** Russia from Canada is definitely possible through oil production
3
distinctidiot5 days ago
-1
Depends, if it's a sweeter crude vs the heavy stuff that comes out of the oil Sands I can understand why the oil companies here would be interested in it.
-1
Bad_Day_Moose5 days ago
+1
that's basically up to the refineries, while it is a bit more money because of the added processing to refine sour crude, sour crude generally sells at more of a d******* so it evens out pretty good.
Sour crude also produces more diesel which is insanely priced these days so it's good to have some refineries processing it for hauling/construction industries.
1
Worth-Original38255 days ago
+3
Literally under glaciers and mountains with no good ports, there's better ways to spend money.
3
eliceev_alexander5 days ago
+2
That’s weird. I remember that back when Biden was president, the US and then Canada passed amendments that let them use frozen Russian assets. But before that, neither the US nor Canada had taken steps like that. What changed with the new amendment?
2
Far_Car4305 days ago
+3
Yeah!
3
paulraymondjohn5 days ago
+1
Does that mean that super plane is finally going somewhere?
1
No_Chemist_78784 days ago
+1
Gotta sawzall it first.
1
hackenclaw5 days ago
-19
now do it on USA, gonna be fair ok?
-19
Few_Parkings5 days ago
+8
And give the money to who? Iran?
8
[deleted]5 days ago
-13
[removed]
-13
Kakkoister5 days ago
+14
That's not declaring war. Russia has invaded a longtime ally of Canada, a large percentage of Canadians were Ukrainian immigrants as well. Some provinces are over 10% Ukranian.
So, if Russia is going to unjustly attack an ally, they will get sanctioned and have assets frozen. Actions have consequences.
Ukraine is not in NATO, so not sure why you're bringing up NATO here. Countries not run by dictators are constantly sending support to Ukraine, and now with Orban out of the way, even more support will be able to be approved.
But I'm sure you don't care, as this is the most obvious Russian shill/agent of a comment I've ever seen.
14
WeakBlueberry50715 days ago
-38
Let's put it towards cerb repayments.
-38
Dynstral5 days ago
+13
No? The way cerb worked was laid out clearly, and made super clear that taxes on it would have to still be paid, and if you were found taking advantage of the system, to pay it all back in full. If people failed to read the information provided, or thought they could game the system and got caught, that’s on them.
22 Comments