🚨 CANADA HIKES OIL EXPORT PRICES — U.S. FUEL MARKET ON EDGE.
Canada’s Energy Finds New Leverage as Global Oil Routes Falter
When the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital energy corridors, abruptly fell silent, the effects rippled across global markets almost instantly. Oil tankers stopped moving through the narrow waterway. Shipping companies pulled vessels from the region. For countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas, the disruption threatened to choke off one of the primary lifelines of the modern economy.
But one major energy producer stood largely outside the crisis.
Canada, long viewed as a regional supplier whose oil flowed predominantly south to the United States, suddenly found itself in a very different position. With a growing network of Pacific-facing infrastructure and vast reserves beneath its soil, Canada now possesses something many countries urgently need: an energy supply that does not depend on the Middle East.
At the center of that shift is the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which carries roughly 890,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta to Canada’s Pacific coast. From there, tankers can reach Asian markets in roughly ten days — about half the time required for shipments traveling from the Persian Gulf, even under normal conditions.
The route bypasses the Strait of Hormuz entirely.
Canada’s strategic advantage extends beyond oil. On the coast of British Columbia, the LNG Canada export terminal is preparing to ship liquefied natural gas to Asian customers, including South Korea. At full capacity, the facility is expected to send roughly 170 LNG carriers a year across the Pacific.
Taken together, these projects represent a significant shift in Canada’s energy geography. For decades, nearly all Canadian crude exports flowed to the United States. At times, that dependency forced Canadian producers to sell oil at steep discounts — sometimes $40 or more below global benchmarks — simply because there were few alternative routes to other markets.
That dynamic is beginning to change.
Canada holds about 163 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the fourth largest in the world, and produces roughly six million barrels of oil per day. For years, the challenge was not the size of the resource but the ability to reach customers beyond North America.
Now that access is expanding just as global supply routes face renewed uncertainty.
Energy-importing nations in Asia are watching closely. India, which imports roughly 90 percent of its oil, relies heavily on supplies that normally move through Middle Eastern shipping lanes. Japan and South Korea face similar vulnerabilities, importing the vast majority of their energy from overseas.
When those routes become uncertain, diversification becomes urgent.
Canada’s Pacific export infrastructure offers one possible alternative. Oil, liquefied natural gas and even uranium — another major Canadian export — can reach Asian markets without crossing some of the world’s most congested maritime chokepoints.
For Canada, the geopolitical shift could translate into stronger bargaining power in energy markets.
In the past, American refineries were often the only practical buyers of Canadian crude. That gave U.S. purchasers considerable leverage in price negotiations. If Asian buyers are willing to pay global benchmark prices, Canadian producers may be less willing to accept steep discounts.
The implications could extend beyond trade balances.
Refineries in the American Midwest, which are specifically configured to process heavy Canadian crude, depend heavily on those imports. If Canadian barrels increasingly move toward higher-priced markets overseas, U.S. buyers may need to match those prices to keep supplies flowing south.
At the same time, Canada’s long-term strategy is becoming clearer. After years of debate over pipelines and export routes, the country has invested heavily in infrastructure designed to diversify its energy markets.
The Trans Mountain expansion alone nearly tripled Canada’s Pacific export capacity. Additional projects are already under consideration, including proposals for another major pipeline linking western oil fields to the Pacific coast.
Meanwhile, Canada remains one of the world’s largest producers of uranium, a critical fuel for nuclear power plants. Deals for long-term uranium supply have been expanding, particularly with Asian partners seeking stable energy sources as they reduce reliance on coal and other fossil fuels.
Whether the current disruption in the Strait of Hormuz lasts days or weeks remains uncertain. Historically, energy markets have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to geopolitical shocks.
Yet the episode underscores a larger trend: countries that once relied heavily on a single region for energy are increasingly seeking alternative suppliers.
In that search, Canada’s combination of abundant resources and expanding Pacific access is giving it a new role in global energy markets.
For decades, Canada was often described as a supplier with few choices, its vast energy resources tied to a single export market.
Today, as shipping lanes in distant waters falter, that assumption is being quietly rewritten.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
