Pipelines and the Transportation Corridor

Bridging 2,500 Kilometers of Somebody Else's Country

Here's a detail that the founding visionaries of Albertification may have glossed over: Alberta and Texas do not touch.

Between Edmonton and Austin lies approximately 2,800 kilometers of territory belonging to the United States of America—specifically Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico (western route), or Saskatchewan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma (central route). Canada occupies a thin strip at the top. Mexico sits at the bottom. South Alberta's two constituent regions are separated by an entire nation that has not agreed to participate in this project.

This is, to use a technical term, a problem.

But it's also an opportunity. The infrastructure question forces South Alberta to think seriously about what kind of nation it wants to be: one that accepts geographic fragmentation, one that negotiates extraordinary transit arrangements, or one that—and we should discuss this—seeks territorial continuity through means we haven't yet specified.

Let's examine what connection would actually require.

THE KEYSTONE XL CASE STUDY

No infrastructure project better illustrates the promise and peril of cross-border development than Keystone XL.

The history:

TransCanada (now TC Energy) proposed Keystone XL in 2008 to transport diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. The pipeline would have moved 830,000 barrels per day across 1,900 kilometers, crossing the US-Canada border in Montana.

What followed was a fourteen-year regulatory and political nightmare:

• 2008: Application submitted
• 2010: Environmental review begins
• 2011: Route modified to avoid Nebraska's Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer
• 2012: Obama administration denies permit (election year)
• 2015: Obama vetoes congressional approval
• 2017: Trump issues presidential permit
• 2018: Montana federal judge blocks construction
• 2019: Construction begins on some segments
• 2021: Biden revokes presidential permit on Day One
• 2021: TC Energy abandons project, writes off $15 billion

Fourteen years. Three presidents. Multiple lawsuits. Billions in sunk costs. Zero oil transported.

The South Alberta reframe:

Under Albertification, this project transforms from international negotiation into internal infrastructure. No presidential permits. No State Department review. No foreign policy considerations. One government, one approval process, one set of environmental regulations.

The pipeline from Fort McMurray to Port Arthur becomes the same category of project as a pipeline from Midland to Houston—significant, requiring environmental review, potentially controversial, but not requiring the permission of foreign governments.

What this enables:

• Regulatory certainty for long-term capital investment
• Unified environmental standards (presumably somewhere between current Alberta and Texas approaches)
• No political weaponization by foreign governments with unrelated grievances
• Direct connection between extraction sites and refining capacity
• Potential for carbon capture integration along the full chain

What this threatens:

• Accelerated fossil fuel development at a time when climate science demands reduction
• Loss of the "foreign policy veto" that environmental advocates used effectively against Keystone XL
• Concentration of regulatory authority that could be captured by industry interests
• Stranded asset risk if global energy transition proceeds faster than expected

The pipeline question is not whether South Alberta can build unified infrastructure—it obviously can, if it exists. The question is whether it should, and under what constraints.

THE GEOGRAPHY PROBLEM

Let's be honest about what we're dealing with.

Option 1: Accept Discontinuity

South Alberta remains geographically fragmented. Alberta is Alberta; Texas is Texas; the United States sits between them.

Implications:

• All surface transportation between regions crosses foreign territory
• Pipelines, highways, and rail require US transit agreements
• Citizens traveling between regions need to cross international borders (twice, minimum)
• We are functionally two disconnected territories sharing a government

This is not unprecedented. Alaska is separated from the contiguous United States by Canada. Pakistan was geographically split between West and East Pakistan until 1971 (when East Pakistan became Bangladesh, partly due to the unworkability of the arrangement). Colonial empires routinely governed disconnected territories.

But it's awkward. Very awkward.

Option 2: The Corridor Negotiation

South Alberta negotiates a permanent transit corridor through US territory—a strip of land or set of rights allowing free passage of goods, people, and infrastructure.

Precedents:

• Panama Canal Zone (1903-1999): The US controlled a 10-mile-wide strip across Panama for canal operations
• Kaliningrad transit: Russia negotiates transit rights through Lithuania to reach its Baltic exclave
• Berlin corridors (1945-1990): Guaranteed transit routes through East Germany to West Berlin
• Wakhan Corridor: A narrow strip of Afghanistan connecting to China, created as a buffer

What South Alberta might negotiate:

• Right-of-way for pipelines, highways, and rail through US states
• Customs pre-clearance allowing sealed transit without inspection
• Extraterritorial jurisdiction over the corridor itself (ambitious)
• Simply favorable transit terms without territorial claims (modest)

Why the US might agree:

• Transit fees and economic benefits to corridor states
• Continued energy supply relationships
• Better to have cooperative neighbors than resentful ones
• The alternative might be... messier

Why the US might refuse:

• National security concerns about foreign infrastructure crossing the heartland
• Political opposition to "giving" territory or rights to a new nation
• Leverage over South Alberta in other negotiations
• General principle against territorial concessions

Option 3: The Oklahoma Purchase

Here's where the satire gets genuinely provocative: What if South Alberta sought territorial continuity by acquiring the land in between?

The Oklahoma Panhandle—a 166-mile strip of territory that exists due to historical accident—plus portions of Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota could theoretically create a land bridge. Total area would be roughly equivalent to a small US state.

This is absurd because:

• The United States does not sell territory
• Residents of these regions have not consented to become South Albertan
• The legal mechanisms don't exist
• This would be the most significant territorial change in North America since 1867

This is interesting because:

• It forces us to think about what territorial integrity means
• It raises questions about self-determination for regions that feel ignored by Washington
• The Oklahoma Panhandle, in particular, is sparsely populated and economically marginal—genuinely forgotten territory
• Stranger things have happened in history (see: Louisiana Purchase, Alaska Purchase, Gadsden Purchase)

Option 4: Accept That This Is All Imaginary

The most realistic option: South Alberta remains a satirical thought experiment, and the transportation corridor problem is a feature, not a bug—a way of highlighting the absurdity of the entire premise while still having substantive discussions about infrastructure policy.

But that's less fun than pretending we might buy Oklahoma.

PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE

Setting aside the geography problem (imagine we've solved it somehow), what pipeline infrastructure does South Alberta need?

Existing pipelines:

The Alberta-to-US pipeline network already exists, despite Keystone XL's failure:

These pipelines move Alberta crude to US markets, including Texas refineries. Under Albertification, they become internal infrastructure—except for the portions crossing non-South-Alberta US territory.

New pipeline possibilities:

The environmental framework question:

Unified pipeline regulation means choosing a regulatory approach. Options include:

Alberta-style:

• Provincial energy regulator with technical expertise
• Environmental assessment requirements
• Indigenous consultation obligations
• Reclamation and liability requirements

Texas-style:

• Railroad Commission of Texas (historical jurisdiction)
• Lighter environmental review
• Private property rights emphasis
• Faster approvals, less public input

Hybrid approach:

• Federal South Alberta energy regulator
• Tiered review based on project scale
• Mandatory carbon intensity standards
• Indigenous consent requirements (FPIC)
• Public participation balanced with timeline certainty

The choice of regulatory framework will determine whether South Alberta becomes a streamlined energy corridor or a carbon-constrained transition economy—or attempts to be both.

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

Roads are how most people actually experience transportation infrastructure. What does South Alberta need?

Current routes:

Driving from Calgary to Austin today takes approximately 30 hours via Interstate 15 South → I-70 East → I-25 South → I-40 West → I-27 South → various Texas highways. You cross Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas—plus potentially other states depending on routing.

There is no direct highway. There never will be, unless geography changes.

The CANAMEX Corridor:

A proposed trade corridor connecting Canada, the United States, and Mexico already exists conceptually:

• Edmonton → Calgary → Lethbridge → Montana → Salt Lake City → Las Vegas → Phoenix → Mexican border

This isn't a single highway—it's a designated priority route combining existing roads. Under Albertification, this corridor becomes strategically important.

What South Alberta could invest in:

Northern segment (Alberta):

• Highway 2 upgrades (Calgary-Edmonton-Fort McMurray)
• Highway 63 improvements (oilsands access)
• Ring roads completion for Calgary and Edmonton
• Border crossing capacity at Coutts/Sweet Grass

Southern segment (Texas):

• I-35 expansion (Austin-San Antonio-Dallas corridor)
• I-10 improvements (Houston-San Antonio)
• Highway 290/71 corridor development
• Port connections to Houston and Corpus Christi

The corridor challenge:

• Everything in between is not our jurisdiction
• Transit agreements with the US would need to guarantee maintenance and capacity
• Customs and inspection delays at borders could negate any time savings
• Trucking regulations differ between jurisdictions

Trucking integration:

Currently, trucks crossing the US-Canada border face:

• Customs inspection and documentation
• Different weight limits (Canada allows heavier loads)
• Different hours-of-service regulations
• Different safety inspection standards
• Cabotage restrictions (Canadian trucks can't haul US domestic freight)

South Alberta-internal trucking would eliminate these barriers between Alberta and Texas—but every truck still crosses US territory, so the barriers merely move rather than disappear.

Unless, of course, we solve the corridor problem.

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

Rail offers the most realistic near-term integration opportunity. Trains already cross borders efficiently, and rail corridors have established rights-of-way.

Existing rail connections:

The CPKC opportunity:

In 2023, Canadian Pacific completed its merger with Kansas City Southern, creating the only railroad connecting Canada, the United States, and Mexico under single ownership. The combined network runs from Edmonton to Mexico City.

Under Albertification, CPKC becomes a critical national asset—a railway that directly connects both regions of South Alberta without changing hands at the border.

Strategic implications:

• Bulk commodities (grain, oil, potash, sulfur) can move seamlessly
• Intermodal containers can travel Edmonton → Austin without switching railroads
• South Alberta has bargaining power as a major customer
• Potential for infrastructure investment partnerships

What South Alberta could develop:

• Expanded rail capacity in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor
• New intermodal terminals in Calgary and Austin
• Dedicated unit train service for high-priority commodities
• Passenger rail feasibility studies (see below)

Passenger rail:

No passenger rail service connects Alberta to Texas. The distances involved (2,800+ km) make conventional rail impractical—journey times would exceed 24 hours.

But high-speed rail? Let's dream:

Fourteen hours by high-speed rail is competitive with flying (when you include airport time, security, and connections). It's not crazy—it's just extremely expensive and requires crossing US territory.

The corridor problem again.

What's actually feasible:

Short-term:

• Enhanced freight rail connections via CPKC
• Improved intermodal terminals
• Calgary-Edmonton passenger rail (actually plausible)

Medium-term:

• Austin-Houston-Dallas-San Antonio passenger rail (Texas Central project, in development)
• Coordinated freight logistics platforms
• Bulk commodity shipping agreements

Long-term (fantasy?):

• Cross-continent high-speed rail
• Hyperloop (we should probably discuss this, even if to dismiss it)
• Overnight sleeper service for the patient

AIR INFRASTRUCTURE

In practice, most people traveling between Alberta and Texas will fly. What does South Alberta need?

Current connections:

These routes exist because business travel, especially oil and gas, demands them.

Under Albertification:

Internal flights between Alberta and Texas become domestic—no customs, no immigration, no passport required. This dramatically simplifies travel:

Current experience: Check-in → Security → Immigration/customs → Flight → Immigration/customs → Baggage

Domestic experience: Check-in → Security → Flight → Baggage

The time savings are significant. The hassle reduction is enormous.

Airport investments:

South Alberta would have two major international gateways (DFW and YYC), which is actually advantageous—redundancy, competition, and coverage of different global destinations.

The airline question:

Should South Alberta have a national airline? Options include:

Let the market decide: WestJet, American, United, Southwest already serve these routes. Competition is healthy.

Create a flag carrier: South Alberta Airlines, serving both regions and projecting national identity. Expensive, potentially unprofitable, but symbolically meaningful.

Designate a champion: Give WestJet (Calgary-based) preferential treatment as the national carrier without government ownership.

THE ENERGY TRANSITION QUESTION

All this infrastructure discussion assumes continued fossil fuel transport. But the world is changing. How does South Alberta prepare for energy transition while building petroleum infrastructure?

The stranded asset risk:

If global oil demand peaks and declines (some projections: 2030s), infrastructure built today may become worthless:

• Pipelines with no product to carry
• Refineries with no crude to process
• Export terminals with no ships to load
• Railway capacity with no tank cars to fill

Investing billions in petroleum infrastructure is a bet on continued demand. It might be a winning bet. It might not.

The transition opportunity:

The same corridors that move oil can potentially move other things:

• Hydrogen: Produced in Texas (solar/wind electrolysis) or Alberta (natural gas with carbon capture), transported via pipeline
• CO2: Captured from industrial sources, transported to sequestration sites in depleted reservoirs
• Ammonia: Hydrogen carrier that can use existing chemical infrastructure
• Electricity: High-voltage transmission lines connecting Alberta's hydro/wind with Texas's solar/wind

South Alberta's geography—spanning the continent's best wind resources (both regions) and solar resources (Texas)—could make it a renewable energy corridor, not just a petroleum corridor.

Dual-purpose infrastructure:

Some investments serve both current fossil fuel economy and future clean energy economy:

• Rail infrastructure carries anything
• Ports handle any bulk commodity
• Pipelines can be converted (with modifications) for hydrogen or CO2
• Road infrastructure serves electric and internal combustion vehicles alike

Smart infrastructure investment hedges bets rather than committing irrevocably to one future.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FORUM:

On the geography problem:

• How do we handle the discontinuity between Alberta and Texas?
• Is a transit corridor negotiation realistic? What would we offer the US in exchange?
• Should we simply accept geographic fragmentation and build around it?
• (Satirically but seriously) What would "buying" a land bridge actually look like?

On pipelines:

• Should South Alberta streamline pipeline approvals, and if so, with what environmental constraints?
• How do we balance economic development with climate commitments?
• What carbon intensity standards should apply to new pipeline projects?
• Is reviving Keystone XL worth the political baggage?

On highways and trucking:

• What highway investments are actually within our control?
• How do we handle the complexity of transiting US territory?
• Should trucking regulations harmonize toward Alberta or Texas standards?

On rail:

• How can South Alberta leverage CPKC's integrated network?
• Is Calgary-Edmonton passenger rail a priority?
• Should we seriously study long-distance passenger rail, or accept that flying makes more sense?

On air travel:

• What airport investments should be prioritized?
• Should South Alberta have a flag carrier airline?
• How do we maximize the domestic travel simplification?

On energy transition:

• How do we balance fossil fuel infrastructure with transition planning?
• Should new pipelines be built "hydrogen-ready" even at higher cost?
• What's the right level of climate commitment for infrastructure approvals?
• Is South Alberta positioned to be a clean energy corridor?

THE HONEST ASSESSMENT

Transportation infrastructure is where the satirical premise of Albertification meets brutal physical reality. You cannot wish away 2,800 kilometers of foreign territory. You cannot pretend that unified regulation solves the problem of actually moving things across space.

The pipeline simplification is real—unified jurisdiction does eliminate fourteen-year regulatory nightmares. But the pipeline still has to cross Montana and Wyoming and Nebraska and Kansas and Oklahoma, and those places still belong to someone else.

Every transportation investment South Alberta makes is a negotiation with geography, with the United States, and with time itself. We're betting on continued demand for what we extract, continued cooperation from our giant neighbor, and continued relevance of infrastructure that takes decades to build.

These are not safe bets. They're the bets that building a nation requires.