ALL FEATURES | ALL FULL ISSUES | ISSUE 26
A central tenet of Alberta separatism is that independence would finally end federal interference, freeing the province to produce and export more of its resources. This argument usually centres on the oil and gas sector, which separatists believe has been hamstrung by needless red tape and environmental regulations that keep oil underground and pipelines in blueprint stages. Oil prices, after all, are high, and Alberta already has a juggernaut trade partner in the U.S.
“We sit beside the largest economy in the world, with the shortest and lowest-cost trade routes to our most important customer,” independence leader Keith Wilson posted on X, alongside an AI-generated image of an outsized Alberta with three thick arrows pointing to the U.S. “The problem is not geography. The problem is Ottawa control.” The Alberta Prosperity Project also wants to boost oil production from an estimated 3.8 million barrels a day to 9.5 million by 2045, which is arguably more realistic than the governing UCP’s own goal of 6 million barrels a day by 2030 and 8 million by 2035.
Do Albertans really want to be beholden to a self-interested superpower with a long history of invading and destabilizing petro-states?
The problem with this bet is that Alberta's economy today is already over-dependent on the U.S., which last year accounted for 88.7 percent of Alberta’s international merchandise exports 2024, mostly crude oil and natural gas. By creating new borders and trade barriers with neighbouring provinces, independence could restrict Alberta’s access to Canadian ports — and, with it, overseas markets. In other words, a “sovereign” Alberta would become even more dependent on the U.S. and its increasingly unpredictable whims. Most Albertans already believe that the province is overly reliant on its oil and gas sector.
Do they really want Alberta beholden to a self-interested superpower with a long history of invading and destabilizing petro-states?
The Elephant Next Door
The U.S. is a massive market with a fast-growing economy. That makes it an excellent trade partner. But relying on a single trade partner is a huge risk, no matter how much of a powerhouse that partner is.
Picture an independent Alberta: Resource-rich but landlocked. Surrounded by international borders. The state would be severely limited in its ability to ship resources west to the Pacific Ocean, or through eastern Canada to the Atlantic; access to Europe (increasingly desperate for gas and oil) and Asia would be effectively cut off without Canada’s help. And, as CBC’s Jason Markusoff recently noted, the vast majority of Alberta oil is shipped through pipelines that cross into the U.S. via other western provinces.
“The reality is, you may have more control within your borders, but that doesn't give you more control outside of your borders,” says Tim Sargent, a director of economic growth and prosperity at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy.
In the absence of alternative trade partners, the Americans could simply demand a lower price for Alberta’s resources, Sargent explains. “That’s just the law of supply and demand.”
And while the U.S. is currently a dependable trading partner, especially at a time when oil prices are high, there is no guarantee that these conditions will last.
Though U.S. President Donald Trump and, to a lesser extent, Prime Minister Mark Carney have scaled back environmental regulations and efforts to lower greenhouse emissions, the global economy is increasingly moving away from fossil fuels as the climate crisis worsens.
“Trump won’t be in power forever,” Sargent says. “And a President Ocasio-Cortez or a President Newsom might not be as keen on Alberta oil as Trump is.”
“Biden famously cancelled Keystone, and Obama did as well,” he adds.
“Why would Mark Carney break into a political sweat in order to facilitate another pipeline to the West Coast if Albertans are no longer voting in federal elections?” – Tim Sargent, director of economic growth and prosperity at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy
Shrinking Influence
Within Canada, Alberta has an outsized influence on politics. Though only the fourth-biggest province, in terms of area and population, its interests often shape the national conversation. Even Justin Trudeau, who was not much liked in the province, was willing to spend significant political and financial capital in support of the TransCanada pipeline.
If Alberta separates, its political influence above the 49th parallel will diminish greatly, Sargent warns. “Why would Mark Carney break into a political sweat in order to facilitate another pipeline to the West Coast if Albertans are no longer voting in federal elections?”
The same goes for Alberta’s relationship with the U.S. Though the province may have an economically beneficial relationship with the current administration, it would be naive to think this might last forever.
In August, less than a year after the U.S. military carried out an operation — considered illegal by many international law experts and even several US lawmakers — to capture Venezuela’s former leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump announced that he had struck a ”deal” with the South American country to take control of its oil reserves. The deal, Trump suggested, should put Canada “on notice,” signalling that the U.S. is diversifying its imports away from Canada amid the ongoing trade war.
Which begs the question: If Alberta was independent, would it have the power to respond to Trump’s maneuvers? What about his veiled (and sometimes not-veiled) threats of annexation?
“The reality is that a country with 40 million people is going to have far more pull than a country with 5 million,” Sargent says, noting that Canada has spent decades nurturing its close relationship with the U.S. And while Alberta might be able to maintain strong ties with nearby states like Montana or Idaho, its pull in Washington, or its ability to retaliate to punitive trade policies, would likely be “very, very small.”
Compounding the problem is the fact that Alberta is overwhelmingly dependent on its energy resources, which would make its economy — and its future currency — extremely sensitive to changes in the price of oil. That price is currently high, but what happens if Venezuela starts producing oil faster, or if U.S. shale production rebounds?
“When you’re part of a bigger country, it’s easier to ride those waves and manage that volatility,” says Sargent.
High Risk, Low Reward
Another key problem with separatists’ “drill baby, drill” strategy is that it’s unclear how exactly it would benefit the average Albertan.
For decades, large multinational companies have been the biggest beneficiaries of Alberta’s oil and gas sector, a trend that has only worsened in recent years. According to a 2025 report by the Alberta Federation of Labour, the vast majority of the benefits from the oil sector “are being reaped not by Alberta workers or Alberta citizens … but by foreign investors, mostly wealthy Americans.”
Would the government of an independent Alberta nationalize the oil and gas sector in order to better distribute its revenue? Would it simply pay dividends to its residents?
This is highly unlikely, and none of the separatist groups have suggested anything of the sort. Instead of receiving dividends, typical Albertans would more likely benefit from higher employment and growth in the private sector. But there would be trickle-down costs, too.
For years, economists have argued that separation would be an expensive process in the short run. An independent Alberta would have to create its own government agencies, its own border patrol, police force, and on and on. It would also have to take on some share of Canada’s debt.
A recent independent report, commissioned by the Alberta government and led by Sargent, estimates that the process of separation could cost Alberta up to $170 billion over five years. It also examined how the typical Alberta worker might fare in the long run. In the report’s “smooth” scenario, workers’ annual take-home wages could be about $1,800 higher after roughly 20 years than they would have been without separation. Under its “difficult scenario,” a typical worker’s annual wages could eventually be nearly $12,000 lower.
“The risks and rewards of [independence] are skewed and asymmetrical,” Sargent explains. “And the potential downsides are significantly greater than the potential upside.”
Richie Assaly is a freelance journalist and former culture reporter for the Toronto Star. He writes about politics, music and internet culture.
A note from Forward Weekly on opinion content: The opinions expressed in this feature article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Forward Weekly or its publisher, editors, staff, or affiliates.