Thanks Trudeau and Notley for getting something done that other governments were unable to! It’s amazing what can get done when you’re not hyper focused on being difficult and starting fights all the time *cough cough Marlaina*
Wahoo!
Right because Bill C 69, Bill C48, constantly moving goalposts, constantly taking public stage to declare "no business case" for our resources, doesn't constitute being difficult and starting fights.
On Notley - fair enough.
Can you acknowledge when somebody does something right?
I swear, there could be a news story about Trudeau and Notley saving puppies and people would be hating on them for it.
Notley I can absolutely acknowledge did a few good things for the patch, even if I don't support her.
Trudeau gets zero points for creating an environment which takes over a decade to break ground on nation building projects, then swooping in at the 11th hour with billions in taxpayer $s before the 37th one dies on his watch.
But Treudue does! This project had to be publicly funded because of his policies! He scared away private investors about the future of the Canadian resource industry, they didn’t want to invest in a country that was clamping down harder and harder. So now the tax payer has to cough up the bill for this. It could have been handled much. Better.
Disagreeing with Tombe or just incoherently ranting.
Bill c69, bill c48, constantly downplaying our resource value are objectively what you do if you hate Alberta.
Facts dont fuckin matter though.
The bills have a huge impact on oil export projects.
AB is the main proponent of oil export projects...
Is there some interpretation where these bills were passed in isolation of Alberta's existence?
Couple of facts:
* C48 banned specifically Albertan crude without dealing with any imports or Alaskan tankers. That is in fact largely "because Alberta".
* C69 was also not "because carbon" and was largely deemed unconstitutional in recent supreme court ruling
* Alberta deployed over three quarters of all new Canadian renewables in 2022.
* Canadian O&G industry sells \~99% of its exports to a single customer.
* That customer recently doubled their own production and become the worlds foremost LNG exporter and a top 5 crude exporter. Our single customer became our competition.
* This combined with the landlocked situation drives down the value we get for our natural resources.
I agree that we should "adapt with the times". That doesn't mean we shut down the source of over 75% of Canadian primary energy consumption tomorrow. Or even 10 years from now.
It means we work with what we have, get the best value for our existing non-renewable resource industry, while continuing to lead the country in renewables.
>C48 banned specifically Albertan crude without dealing with any imports or Alaskan tankers. That is in fact largely "because Alberta".
Can you show me in the text of the bill where it says that?
International law dictates that Canada can't ban other tankers transiting the waters covered in the bill. Oil is regularly imported to the port of Vancouver, the only marine terminal unloading crude oil on the west coast, but of course this port is not part of the exclusion zone. The only potential port for loading/unloading oil in the exclusion zone was in Kitimat, the terminus of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. The tanker ban still permits coal, naptha, jet fuel, LNG etc.
Wish I had a dollar for every Trudeau hater who wanted to bet me that the twinning would never get built because Trudeau & Notley were just faking Alberta out, and they both hate oil and Alberta.
LOL! Most conservatives quite openly say it was a bad investment, **and** that if liberals hadn't enacted disastrous policy like the unconstitutional "no more pipelines" Bill C 69, and publicly proclaim "no business case" for our natural resources, that we would never have to consider socializing a project like this.
It's all relative. For example, Justin Trudeau is absolutely "ramming pipelines down everyone's throat" according to plenty of people. There are people who will never want this, and I sort of understand that in a lot of cases. I feel for people who get their home quarter bulldozed over for a new hwy interchange too. We all make sacrifices for the greater good.
>Yes. “But not like that!”
I appreciate the snark, but that is actually **precisely correct**.
Ideally, projects like this don't take a decade + to complete and don't risk any public money. We are the only oil producer with such a hostile environment for project approvals, and this doesn't bode well for all types of other critical projects including renewables and nuclear. We took so fugging long to complete TMX, that we are lucky the oil market hasn't completely changed since the project's inception. I mean, it has, but not in a devasting way.
To be clear I am not saying we need to be like the US and build multiple TMX's annually, environment be damned. Somewhere there is a happy medium. To be like Mark Carney's Brookfield and build one **once in a while** would be great - ideally **in Canada** though!
>It means another 800,000 bbls/day out of Alberta. Also means increased royalty revenue. Isnt this what we wanted?
This is the essence of Tombe's writeup in my OP.
An economics professor in Calgary doesn't factor in anything but cash money and vibes. Do we trust people like him who base their theories on disproven models?
Can you explain which part of Tombe's article/modelling has been disproven? I actually do somewhat trust a University economics professor to evaluate economics of a project. Who do you think we ought to turn to for this task?
This is essentially a rebuttal to that PBO report but with a broader economic scope, so I'd love to hear how Trevor Tombe, using figures from the CER and the Bank of Canada, has gotten it so wrong. Personally, I'm not sure who is correct.
Thanks Trudeau and Notley for getting something done that other governments were unable to! It’s amazing what can get done when you’re not hyper focused on being difficult and starting fights all the time *cough cough Marlaina* Wahoo!
Right because Bill C 69, Bill C48, constantly moving goalposts, constantly taking public stage to declare "no business case" for our resources, doesn't constitute being difficult and starting fights. On Notley - fair enough.
Some people are hopeless. LoL
Can you acknowledge when somebody does something right? I swear, there could be a news story about Trudeau and Notley saving puppies and people would be hating on them for it.
Notley I can absolutely acknowledge did a few good things for the patch, even if I don't support her. Trudeau gets zero points for creating an environment which takes over a decade to break ground on nation building projects, then swooping in at the 11th hour with billions in taxpayer $s before the 37th one dies on his watch.
Right wingers will continue to insist that Trudeau (and notley) hate oil and hate alberta. Facts don't fuckin matter
But Treudue does! This project had to be publicly funded because of his policies! He scared away private investors about the future of the Canadian resource industry, they didn’t want to invest in a country that was clamping down harder and harder. So now the tax payer has to cough up the bill for this. It could have been handled much. Better.
It could have been handled better had the SCoC not deemed Harper’s half assed pandering approval process insufficient under the law.
No it didn't. It was quite literally the BC government holding things up. The project had federal go ahead
Disagreeing with Tombe or just incoherently ranting. Bill c69, bill c48, constantly downplaying our resource value are objectively what you do if you hate Alberta. Facts dont fuckin matter though.
So you're saying those bills were tabled with alberta in mind? I mean, that's what it seems like you're saying.
The bills have a huge impact on oil export projects. AB is the main proponent of oil export projects... Is there some interpretation where these bills were passed in isolation of Alberta's existence?
It's not "because alberta", it's because carbon. If alberta was so fuckin great we would adapt with the times.
Couple of facts: * C48 banned specifically Albertan crude without dealing with any imports or Alaskan tankers. That is in fact largely "because Alberta". * C69 was also not "because carbon" and was largely deemed unconstitutional in recent supreme court ruling * Alberta deployed over three quarters of all new Canadian renewables in 2022. * Canadian O&G industry sells \~99% of its exports to a single customer. * That customer recently doubled their own production and become the worlds foremost LNG exporter and a top 5 crude exporter. Our single customer became our competition. * This combined with the landlocked situation drives down the value we get for our natural resources. I agree that we should "adapt with the times". That doesn't mean we shut down the source of over 75% of Canadian primary energy consumption tomorrow. Or even 10 years from now. It means we work with what we have, get the best value for our existing non-renewable resource industry, while continuing to lead the country in renewables.
>C48 banned specifically Albertan crude without dealing with any imports or Alaskan tankers. That is in fact largely "because Alberta". Can you show me in the text of the bill where it says that?
International law dictates that Canada can't ban other tankers transiting the waters covered in the bill. Oil is regularly imported to the port of Vancouver, the only marine terminal unloading crude oil on the west coast, but of course this port is not part of the exclusion zone. The only potential port for loading/unloading oil in the exclusion zone was in Kitimat, the terminus of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. The tanker ban still permits coal, naptha, jet fuel, LNG etc.
is it a volume/mass based ban? I would simply load my ship with less than the volume or mass cap.
The volume limit was low enough to render the proposed, nearly approved northern gateway pipeline completely useless.
Wish I had a dollar for every Trudeau hater who wanted to bet me that the twinning would never get built because Trudeau & Notley were just faking Alberta out, and they both hate oil and Alberta.
Every conservative is tight lipped about this because their masters haven't passed along any talking points yet. Heel doggies!
LOL! Most conservatives quite openly say it was a bad investment, **and** that if liberals hadn't enacted disastrous policy like the unconstitutional "no more pipelines" Bill C 69, and publicly proclaim "no business case" for our natural resources, that we would never have to consider socializing a project like this.
It means another 800,000 bbls/day out of Alberta. Also means increased royalty revenue. Isnt this what we wanted?
Yes. “But not like that!”
We would still be looking at our navals if Harper’s strategy of ramming pipelines down everyone’s throat continued
It's all relative. For example, Justin Trudeau is absolutely "ramming pipelines down everyone's throat" according to plenty of people. There are people who will never want this, and I sort of understand that in a lot of cases. I feel for people who get their home quarter bulldozed over for a new hwy interchange too. We all make sacrifices for the greater good.
>Yes. “But not like that!” I appreciate the snark, but that is actually **precisely correct**. Ideally, projects like this don't take a decade + to complete and don't risk any public money. We are the only oil producer with such a hostile environment for project approvals, and this doesn't bode well for all types of other critical projects including renewables and nuclear. We took so fugging long to complete TMX, that we are lucky the oil market hasn't completely changed since the project's inception. I mean, it has, but not in a devasting way. To be clear I am not saying we need to be like the US and build multiple TMX's annually, environment be damned. Somewhere there is a happy medium. To be like Mark Carney's Brookfield and build one **once in a while** would be great - ideally **in Canada** though!
>It means another 800,000 bbls/day out of Alberta. Also means increased royalty revenue. Isnt this what we wanted? This is the essence of Tombe's writeup in my OP.
An economics professor in Calgary doesn't factor in anything but cash money and vibes. Do we trust people like him who base their theories on disproven models?
Can you explain which part of Tombe's article/modelling has been disproven? I actually do somewhat trust a University economics professor to evaluate economics of a project. Who do you think we ought to turn to for this task?
Nonsense. It'll never make back its cost. That's according to the PBO.
This is essentially a rebuttal to that PBO report but with a broader economic scope, so I'd love to hear how Trevor Tombe, using figures from the CER and the Bank of Canada, has gotten it so wrong. Personally, I'm not sure who is correct.
Which only means that it 100% would never have been built by the private sector. So “oil hating lefties” had to do it.