U.S. it has its own oil, gas and minerals, but replacing the Canadian supply it would require new investments, infrastructure, and external suppliers.
The assertion that the United States can do without Canada’s resources requires a more complex answer than a simple yes or no. Canada possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, minerals, and timber. However, replacing Canadian supplies under current conditions would entail significant economic, industrial, and logistical costs.
The problem lies in how the North American infrastructure works, for decades, both countries have connected oil pipelines, gas pipelines, refineries, power grids, and industrial supply chains. This integration allows resources to cross the border in large volumes and reach the markets that need them directly.
In 2025, bilateral trade in goods reached approximately US$715.5 million, with the United States exporting US$333.6 million to Canada and importing US$381.9 million, according to data from the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Therefore, a rapid separation would force both countries to seek alternatives, Canada would lose its main market for numerous resources, while the United States would have to increase production, processing, and transportation or resort to more distant suppliers.
Canadian oil is difficult for U.S. refineries to replace
In the oil sector, the dependence has a particular technical characteristic, Canada is the largest foreign supplier of crude oil USA and its shipments reached around 4.1 million barrels per day in 2024, according to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Much of that volume is heavy crude oil that arrives via pipelines to refineries in the Midwest and along the Gulf Coast. Many of these facilities are specifically configured to process this type of oil.
Conversely, much of the oil produced from US shale formations is lighter, increasing its extraction would help boost domestic supply, but it wouldn’t directly replace all the Canadian blends used by refineries.
The United States could import more heavy crude from Venezuela, Mexico, or other producers, however, that option would involve modifying supply routes and assuming higher transportation costs or geopolitical risks.
Likewise, the exchange benefits Canada, its producers have a huge market connected by pipelines while US refineries receive a supply close to and adapted to their facilities.
Natural gas and electricity show another regional dependency
The energy relationship doesn’t end with oil either, US imports of natural gas from Canada, they averaged around 8.6 million cubic feet per day during 2025.
This supply is especially important for regions such as the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, during periods of high demand it also contributes to supplying other US markets.
In theory, the United States could replace those volumes through increased domestic production, the challenge lies in transporting the gas to the right location. This would require new pipelines or capacity expansions, and such projects demand investment, permits, and time.
Electricity presents a similar situation, Canada and the United States operate interconnected grids that allow for cross-border energy exchanges. Canadian hydroelectric generation can supply US markets such as New York, New England, and parts of the Midwest.
The United States can build more generation and transmission, however, replacing existing connections requires developing infrastructure that does not appear immediately when trade policy changes.
Canada is not exempt from this equation either, some Canadian regions depend on US gas and electricity exchanges at certain times. The grid functions more as a continental system than as two completely independent markets.
Potash and critical minerals exacerbate the problem
Outside the energy sector, another strategic dependency appears: potash, according to data from United States Geological Survey (USGS), Canada it accounted for nearly 90% of net US imports of this product in 2023.
Potash is an essential component of fertilizers used by agriculture, rapidly replacing that supply would force the search for alternative producers in an international market where countries like Russia and Belarus also participate.
Canada also holds a significant position in the supply chains for aluminum, nickel, zinc, uranium, and cobalt. These materials have applications in vehicles, power grids, aerospace, defense, and advanced manufacturing.
The current trade dispute has brought some of that interdependence under greater scrutiny, Trump has argued that the United States can operate without Canada, although he has also acknowledged the importance of Canadian aluminum to the American economy.
For Washington, developing more domestic mining and processing can reduce long-term vulnerabilities, however, opening mines, building processing facilities, and developing rail connections, roads, or power lines can take years.
American self-sufficiency requires more infrastructure
Having a resource underground doesn’t mean having it immediately available in a factory or refinery, the United States possesses sufficient resources to significantly expand its domestic production. Even so, self-sufficiency requires extracting, processing, and transporting them to the industrial consumer in the required form and at a competitive price.
Therefore, replacing Canada would be technically possible in several areas, but it would hardly be immediate or free. The alternative may require new mines, oil pipelines, gas pipelines, processing plants, transmission lines, and contracts with other international suppliers.
Canada would face its own costs; dependence on the US market makes any prolonged deterioration of the trade relationship an incentive to develop new liquefied natural gas terminals, pipelines, ports, and export markets.
Thus, both countries have reasons to diversify, the United States can increase its production and Canada can seek new buyers without dismantling an economic infrastructure built over generations.
The central question, therefore, is not which of the two countries could survive without the other, both could reorganize their supply chains. The real factor is how much time, investment, and efficiency they would lose during that process.
For the United States, Canada remains one of its closest and most interconnected resource suppliers to its industrial infrastructure. For Canada, the United States remains the largest natural market for much of its production.
Absolute independence would come at a price, greater domestic capacity combined with diversified suppliers and a stable relationship between the two countries offers a less costly alternative for North American energy and industrial security.
Source: EnergyNow
Photo: Shutterstock
