News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 619     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.9K     8 

How to get Canada's oil to export markets?

I wonder how much of this is actually Kinder Morgan switching to crisis mode, and how much of it is political posturing to put pressure on Trudeau.
 
Apparently they've set a deadline for clarity on the ability to expand the pipeline of May 31st.
 
Last edited:
So, apparently the answer to the question "How to get Canada's oil to export markets?" is: corporate welfare and/or demi-nationalisation.
 
MTown said:
So, apparently the answer to the question "How to get Canada's oil to export markets?" is: corporate welfare and/or demi-nationalisation.
Click to expand...
Quebec gets more than its fair share of the same, such as the Federal gov't essentially nationalizing part of the Bombardier CS series. Why not throw some of that weight westward. And how do you think the CPR was paid for?

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/railway-history/

Though ostensibly a private enterprise, the CPR was generously endowed by the federal government with cash ($25 million), land grants (25 million acres), tax concessions, rights-of-way, and a 20-year prohibition on the construction of competing lines on the prairies.

What bugs me about BC's position is the hypocrisy. They're importing oil to run their economy, automobiles, and airport, and use natural gas, diesel fuel and coal for much of their electrical generation, http://energybc.ca/electricitymap.html

But regardless of BC's wishes, if we are to call ourselves one country, one province should not be allowed to block whatever the Federal government has deemed the strategic or economic interests of the nation, be it railways, pipelines, highways, airports, or even naval training areas, If that makes you mad, the place to fight that is the Federal election. BC is lucky Chretien is not PM, he'd expropriate the land the pipeline sits on, and then cut off BC's access to Federal cash until they cried uncle. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...challenged-federal-authority-he-lost-horribly.
 
Admiral Beez said:
But regardless of BC's wishes, if we are to call ourselves one country, one province should not be allowed to block whatever the Federal government has deemed the strategic or economic interests of the nation, be it railways, pipelines, highways, airports, or even naval training areas, If that makes you mad, the place to fight that is the Federal election. BC is lucky Chretien is not PM, he'd expropriate the land the pipeline sits on, and then cut off BC's access to Federal cash until they cried uncle. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...challenged-federal-authority-he-lost-horribly.
Click to expand...

Actually Chretien might be more likely not to give a damn about AB.

AoD
 
Admiral Beez said:
Quebec gets more than its fair share of the same, such as the Federal gov't essentially nationalizing part of the Bombardier CS series. Why not throw some of that weight westward. And how do you think the CPR was paid for?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what and how the CPR. What's your point? I wasn't making a judgment, just a statement of apparent fact.

As for Bombardier, I don't see where I said that their version of corporate welfare isn't corporate welfare.

Ok, maybe you saw a judgment being made based on my use of the term 'corporate welfare'. I guess it's a bit transparent. I'm guessing people who have nothing against corporate welfare call it something else (likely a stupid euphemism for why I have to pay for other people's business and share interests while getting fuckal back from said corporations).
 
I outlined my thoughts earlier in the thread.

Without repeating myself to great excess, I think they remain on point.

If they refined the product in Alberta, this would not only be good for local employment, both long term and short term, as well as garner a much higher price on the resulting value-added product; It would likely also erase much of the ecological concern being expressed about the risk of spilled bitumen.

Throw in a bonus requirement to double-hull the pipeline if needs be.

Then we can discuss next steps if that still breeds opposition.

But the notion of extending equity or financial guarantees to a private, for-profit, corporation with billions of dollars at its disposal is at best peculiar, certainly ill-advised and financially risky to-boot.

There is no guarantee that civil disobedience, not to mention bad publicity wont' stifle this project anyway.

Canada should not be on the hook for that.

This isn't even a Canadian company.

Which still wouldn't justify a poorly thought out handout in this scenario, but at the least there would be greater value-added.

I understand Notley's rhetoric even if I don't agree with her. She has a very uphill battle to re-election.

But Trudeau is potentially stepping on a political landmine.

In BC and Quebec any heavy-handed response will play very poorly.
 
Northern Light said:
I outlined my thoughts earlier in the thread. Without repeating myself to great excess,
Click to expand...
Thank you. I stopped there.

There is IMO a tendency here at UT for some to repeat their same points, as if the level of engagement or response wasn’t deemed sufficient the first time round. I suppose the third time comes in all caps.
 
narduch said:
Why are they doing this?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent question.

We can reasonably say that it does not make good public policy sense writ large.

That's even if one's goal was to maximize resource revenue from AB, and to do so in part w/public investment. Incenting construction of a refinery would produce much better results than this pipeline, at lower financial cost, and lower political cost.

It can then be said that this doesn't play particularly well with any group on the political spectrum as the first to bash this idea today was the Taxpayer's Federation...while the left/green segment wasn't far behind.

Then we might look at the narrow politics of it and note that this likely won't play well in the Lower Mainland area of BC, where the Liberals have a fair few seats; while it also won't attract many (any?) new seats for them in AB.

So, bad business, bad policy, bad politics.

What the..................are they doing?
 
I don't have the slightest problem with it. So long as the necessary environmental standards are met, the issue should not be used as intra-provincial football. We have trouble getting anything remotely national in scope done already.

AoD
 
Act Two of this farce will see the federal government offer 25% of the new pipeline to the First Nations whose territory it traverses. Act Three will open with howls of protest from uncompensated FN’s with some tangential claim that the pipeline passes through their traditional lands, expansively defined. But a happy resolution will occur in Act Four, with a further 25% share given to the protesting FN’s. With that pesky impediment shut down, the Feds will be able to launch a new regulatory review, this time applying the gendered lens so sorely lacking from the various reviews done in the past. With luck, we could see shovels in the ground within ten years.
 
Northern Light said:
What the..................are they doing?
Click to expand...

Keeping promises?

I know, I know, I loled when I read what I wrote too.

Imagine they had gone all in to keeping some other promises....like electoral reform or legalisation of marijuana. (Ok, that second one is happening but it's a sad joke, to be honest).

Honestly, imagine they were this stubborn in enacting electoral reform. The sky's the limit!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top