• Sign up for the Daily Digest E-mail
  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • See more results

    Generic selectors
    Exact matches only
    Search in title
    Search in content
    Post Type Selectors

BOE Report

Sign up

See more results

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
  • Home
  • StackDX Intel
  • Headlines
    • Latest Headlines
    • Featured Companies
    • Columns
    • Discussions
  • Well Activity
    • Well Licences
    • Well Activity Map
  • Property Listings
  • Land Sales
  • M&A Activity
    • M&A Database
    • AER Transfers
  • Markets
  • Rig Counts/Data
    • CAOEC Rig Count
    • Baker Hughes Rig Count
    • USA Rig Count
    • Data
      • Canada Oil Market Data
      • Canada NG Market Data
      • USA Market Data
      • Data Downloads
  • Jobs

Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion may face new delays – filing

August 29, 20233:42 PM Reuters0 Comments

Trans Mountain pipeline Trans Mountain Corp fears that the expansion of its Canadian oil pipeline may be delayed further unless a regulator allows it to change its route in British Columbia, according to a First Nation that opposes the route adjustment.

Cost overruns and delays have dogged efforts to triple the capacity of the government-owned pipeline that runs from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia (B.C.).

Costs of construction have more than quadrupled to C$30.9 billion ($22.80 billion). Further delay would limit options to move Canadian oil to refineries in the United States or Asia.

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) is weighing whether to allow Trans Mountain to deviate from its approved route on a 1.3-kilometre (0.8 mile) section just south of Kamloops, B.C.

Trans Mountain has requested to use a conventional open trench because it says it has encountered “significant technical challenges” micro-tunnelling through hard rock formations.

In a Monday filing to the CER, Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc Nation (SSN) said Trans Mountain CEO Dawn Farrell raised the urgency of the route change at a meeting on July 6.

“I know that it’s not your concern that this is taking longer and that it’s causing problems with the schedule and all the rest of it, but it is, significantly,” SSN quoted Farrell as saying. “We are constrained to options that are economic and feasible within the remaining time frame.”

Trans Mountain did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The route change would harm an area that holds spiritual and cultural significance, SSN said.

SSN said it supports the pipeline expansion, but not the route deviation, which it said Trans Mountain has not shown is necessary. It said Trans Mountain has instead indicated that it is seeking the change because of cost factors and its goal to put the pipeline into service on Jan. 1, 2024.

(Reporting by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Editing by Andy Sullivan)

Follow BOE Report
  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn

Sign up for the BOE Report Daily Digest E-mail

Successfully subscribed

Latest Headlines
  • Exxon, Chevron warn of continued high fuel prices from Iran war
  • ROK Resources Announces the Closing of its Non-Core Southeast Saskatchewan Asset Disposition
  • Chevron records highest quarterly profit in six years, beating analyst estimates
  • US energy firms add rigs for sixth time in seven weeks, says Baker Hughes
  • Canada’s Enbridge to postpone plans for second phase of Mainline oil pipeline expansion

Return to Home
Alberta GasMonthly Avg.
CAD/GJ
Market Data by TradingView

    Report Error







    Note: The page you are currently on will be sent with your report. If this report is about a different page, please specify.

    About
    • About BOEReport.com
    • In the News
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Editorial Policy
    Resources
    • Widgets
    • Notifications
    • Daily Digest E-mail
    Get In Touch
    • Advertise
    • Post a Job
    • Contact
    • Report Error
    StackDX
    • BOE Report Jobs
    • StackDX Intel
    © 2026 Stack Technologies Ltd.