Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Pathways (now operating under the Oil Sands Alliance) is a proposed large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) network for Alberta’s oil sands.
It would capture CO₂ from multiple oil sands facilities, pipe it roughly 400 km, and inject it underground near Cold Lake.
Claimed capture volume**: Phase 1 targets **10–12 megatonnes per year** by around 2030. Recent federal-Alberta language has floated up to **16 Mt** when other measures are included.
- **Original cost**: $16.5 billion (2022 estimate).
- **Current realistic range**: Capital cost now widely cited at **$20–30 billion**. Adding 25–30 years of operating costs pushes the total lifetime cost toward **~$35 billion**.
Carney’s “90% of Alberta cars” claim
This is the number he has used publicly.
A typical passenger vehicle emits roughly 4.6 tonnes of CO₂ per year.
10–12 Mt of capture is roughly equivalent to the tailpipe emissions of **2.2–2.6 million cars**. Alberta has a bit over 3 million light vehicles, so the “90% of Alberta cars” framing is in the ballpark if they use the higher end of their reduction numbers. It is not made up — but it is the most flattering way to present a project that only addresses a fraction of oil sands emissions (oil sands emit around 80+ Mt per year currently).
It is real reductions. It is also expensive reductions for the volume delivered.
Who pays?
Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for the large majority of the cost:
- Federal Investment Tax Credits already cover **50%+** of capital costs for CCS.
- Alberta has offered significant grants (often in the 25% range).
- Industry has repeatedly signalled it wants government to cover a large share of **operating costs** as well (via clean fuel credits, carbon contracts for difference, or other mechanisms). Recent reporting indicates Ottawa is exploring ways to shift operating costs onto the public through the clean fuel system.
In short: the companies keep the oil revenue and the production growth; the public covers most of the bill for cleaning up a portion of the emissions.
Who really wins?
| Winner | What they get |
**Oil sands companies** | Social license + regulatory cover to keep producing and expand. Access to a new West Coast pipeline. Large public subsidies for their emissions problem.
**Alberta government** | Pipeline progress, construction jobs, future royalties, political win with Ottawa.
| **Federal government (Carney)** | Ability to approve a major oil pipeline while still claiming climate action. Political narrative of “responsible” resource development.
**Canadian taxpayers** | Pay most of the capital + likely a chunk of the operating costs for decades. |
The companies get the upside (more production + market access). Taxpayers carry the downside (the cost of the emissions reduction).
### Who is actually buying “decarbonized” oil?
This is the weakest part of the sales pitch.
- Most Canadian oil still goes to the **United States**.
- Asia (China, India, South Korea) buys primarily on **price and security of supply**, not carbon intensity.
- Europe has the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which *could* eventually create a preference for lower-intensity barrels, but oil is harder to apply it to cleanly than steel or cement, and the premium is currently small or non-existent for most buyers.
- There is almost no evidence of a large, durable price premium for “low-carbon” oil sands barrels in the market today. The main value of lower intensity is political and regulatory (easier to get pipelines approved and maintain social license), not a big commercial windfall from buyers.
### Bottom line
Pathways is a classic “indulgence” project: very expensive public money used to reduce a portion of oil sands emissions so that more oil can be produced and exported. The emissions reductions are real but modest relative to the cost. The primary winners are the oil sands companies and the governments that want the pipeline and the political cover. The primary payer is the Canadian taxpayer.
Pathways (now operating under the Oil Sands Alliance) is a proposed large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) network for Alberta’s oil sands.
It would capture CO₂ from multiple oil sands facilities, pipe it roughly 400 km, and inject it underground near Cold Lake.
Claimed capture volume**: Phase 1 targets **10–12 megatonnes per year** by around 2030. Recent federal-Alberta language has floated up to **16 Mt** when other measures are included.
- **Original cost**: $16.5 billion (2022 estimate).
- **Current realistic range**: Capital cost now widely cited at **$20–30 billion**. Adding 25–30 years of operating costs pushes the total lifetime cost toward **~$35 billion**.
Carney’s “90% of Alberta cars” claim
This is the number he has used publicly.
A typical passenger vehicle emits roughly 4.6 tonnes of CO₂ per year.
10–12 Mt of capture is roughly equivalent to the tailpipe emissions of **2.2–2.6 million cars**. Alberta has a bit over 3 million light vehicles, so the “90% of Alberta cars” framing is in the ballpark if they use the higher end of their reduction numbers. It is not made up — but it is the most flattering way to present a project that only addresses a fraction of oil sands emissions (oil sands emit around 80+ Mt per year currently).
It is real reductions. It is also expensive reductions for the volume delivered.
Who pays?
Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for the large majority of the cost:
- Federal Investment Tax Credits already cover **50%+** of capital costs for CCS.
- Alberta has offered significant grants (often in the 25% range).
- Industry has repeatedly signalled it wants government to cover a large share of **operating costs** as well (via clean fuel credits, carbon contracts for difference, or other mechanisms). Recent reporting indicates Ottawa is exploring ways to shift operating costs onto the public through the clean fuel system.
In short: the companies keep the oil revenue and the production growth; the public covers most of the bill for cleaning up a portion of the emissions.
Who really wins?
| Winner | What they get |
**Oil sands companies** | Social license + regulatory cover to keep producing and expand. Access to a new West Coast pipeline. Large public subsidies for their emissions problem.
**Alberta government** | Pipeline progress, construction jobs, future royalties, political win with Ottawa.
| **Federal government (Carney)** | Ability to approve a major oil pipeline while still claiming climate action. Political narrative of “responsible” resource development.
**Canadian taxpayers** | Pay most of the capital + likely a chunk of the operating costs for decades. |
The companies get the upside (more production + market access). Taxpayers carry the downside (the cost of the emissions reduction).
### Who is actually buying “decarbonized” oil?
This is the weakest part of the sales pitch.
- Most Canadian oil still goes to the **United States**.
- Asia (China, India, South Korea) buys primarily on **price and security of supply**, not carbon intensity.
- Europe has the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which *could* eventually create a preference for lower-intensity barrels, but oil is harder to apply it to cleanly than steel or cement, and the premium is currently small or non-existent for most buyers.
- There is almost no evidence of a large, durable price premium for “low-carbon” oil sands barrels in the market today. The main value of lower intensity is political and regulatory (easier to get pipelines approved and maintain social license), not a big commercial windfall from buyers.
### Bottom line
Pathways is a classic “indulgence” project: very expensive public money used to reduce a portion of oil sands emissions so that more oil can be produced and exported. The emissions reductions are real but modest relative to the cost. The primary winners are the oil sands companies and the governments that want the pipeline and the political cover. The primary payer is the Canadian taxpayer.
