[llama66]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

llama66 llama66:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You Trudeau Derangement Syndrome folks don’t understand how Canada works. It’s BC, not the Feds holiding up the pipeline. If you’ll recall Trudeau BOUGHT the damn pipeline.

Also equalization payments to Quebec have nothing to do with this situation and they’re guaranteed under the charter so not available as a token in right wing fantasy extreme hardball plays

And once again the righties refuse to point so much as a pinky finger at the oil companies themselves. Plenty of blame to spread everywhere but never at the oil companies. A sure sign they’re being played for patsies.

One Word: Expropriation. What you don't understand is Trudeau can declare the pipelines a "National Strategic Project"(or whatever), Take the land and assert Federal Jurisdiction on it.

I actually blame OPEC and the Saudi's for this mess. They over produced, they crashed the market, but the left is responsible for this anti-pipeline rhetoric.

I also blame every Alberta PC government since Lougheed for not having Alberta's best interests in mind when they entered into business friendly royalties that ensured less money found its way into provincial coffers. Alberta's Heritage Fund and Norway's Oil Fund were both supposedly set up the same way, yet only one is worth $1T dollars.

But I do still blame Quebec, and anyone that's fine with taking foreign oil over locally produced stuff. Quebec blocked the Energy East Pipeline.

BC is also to blame, absolutely.

But its not like Trudeau doesn't have the tools to get the Pipeline built. He just lacks the balls to get the job done.

This is why Alberta is musing with Separation, our concerns are ignored and provinces can act in a manner that damages the Confederation and the Federal Government is powerless to stop them.

None of this is good, but its clearly big Oil and Gas that's responsible.

Expropriation sounds extreme. How about martial law and mass arrests? Perhaps a few public executions will shake things up.

Also I doubt the federal government can expropriate any land owned by FN or provincial Crown land. And the owners would have to be compensated for it anyway, who would pay for it?

Crown land is just that.. Crown land the GG can do as she pleases as her Majesty's representative. Let's do nothing and watch Canada crumble..

[BRAH]

llama66 llama66:

They need to drive on Ottawa. Take the fight to the halls of power.

Boy Blunder would make sure he's on vacay before they hit Ottawa.

Tricks Tricks:

This is how I see what should happen

Build pipeline
Make fuckton of money
Take profits and re-invest in alternative energy sources
Once oil market has died in 50 years, be leader in alternative energy

Tesla's giant battery it activated in South Australia is the future of alternative energy which is at least 15 years away from becoming a reality for every major city.

[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Expropriation sounds extreme. How about martial law and mass arrests? Perhaps a few public executions will shake things up.

Did you really just go there?

WTF?

[JaredMilne]

llama66 llama66:

Jack Mintz: Alberta has better reasons to Albexit than Britain did for Brexit
https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... for-brexit

Apparently you missed my post in the other thread where I commented about all the pitfalls that would come with Alberta separation, and the whole 'knife at the throat' strategy, but here's a sample:

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

I suppose I could mention how Alberta could be carved up under the Clarity Act the way people said Quebec should be in the 1990s, the fact that our economy would fall into the shitter because we'd have to print our own currency and spend years wrangling with the feds over our share of the national debt, the transfer of federal assets in Alberta and more, the fact that we would have even less chance of getting any pipelines built in dealing with a foreign country and the ROC could slap tariffs on us, and in short that our hand would be far weaker than this Solomon guy claims...

...but I want to ask everybody reading this if they recall Quebec and the calls for it to use a 'knife at the throat' strategy in the 1990s.

Remember how everybody wanted to play hardball with Quebec over that? Remember how it led to the claims that if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec?

Because that's what Solomon is advocating. I can't fathom how he thinks this would lead to us building a more productive relationship with the ROC. Everything he talks about in terms of power and threats could easily be reversed and turned against us. And with an attitude like this, so reminiscent of Quebec separatism, what makes you think the ROC wouldn't take the same hard line against us that Albertans were cheerleading against Quebec 20 years ago?

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Everybody with half a brain can already see that if Ottawa really wanted to help the energy sector and Alberta, they'd build the fucking pipeline and quit using every excuse in the book to ensure it doesn't happen. They'd stop equalization payments to Quebec till these projects get back on track and they'd put tariffs on imported oil at least to the amount they've put on our own oil.

Except that the pipeline was delayed by court rulings on the failure to consult with Indigenous people, which Trudeau is trying to address with Bill C-69. And Harper's bungling paved the way for it:

$1:

It is also not possible to fairly assess Bill C-69 without first recognizing it as a direct response to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s legislative overreach back in 2012. I am referring to Bill C-38, the infamous omnibus budget bill (introduced by the Minister of Finance, incidentally) that repealed the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (passed by Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government in 1992) and replaced it with CEAA, 2012. CEAA, 2012 fundamentally altered the federal environmental assessment regime from one that assessed the effects of federal decision-making broadly to one that focuses almost exclusively on large resource projects.

...

All of these changes did not, of course, go unnoticed. They were met with considerable opposition by Indigenous peoples, environmental groups, scientists, and former politicians – both liberal and conservative. Ultimately, “restoring lost protections” became a key plank of the federal Liberal campaign in 2015. Having won that election, and following nearly three years of study by both parliamentary committees and expert panels, the exceedingly democratic result is Bill C-68, which proposes to restore the Fisheries Act to its pre-2012 status quo, and Bill C-69, which as noted above introduces a new Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and proposes to replace, perhaps in name more than anything, the current NEB with a Canadian Energy Regulator.

Oh, and I was pretty much ahead of the curve on this.

Another funny fact is that the proportion of oil that Quebec buys from Western Canada has more than quintupled over the last five years:

$1:

While the province got most of its oil from overseas in 2012, the situation had flipped by 2017, with most of the supply now coming from North American producers. On top of that, Western Canada is now the Central Canadian province's top source of crude.

The shift away from overseas imports is partly due to a 2015 reversal in the direction oil is delivered through Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline, according to a new analysis by the National Bank of Canada. The analysis, first reported by Radio-Canada, also attributed the shift to increased production of U.S. shale oil.

And Trudeau is getting a lot of heat from the Natives about buying TransMountain. Here's an article that describes just how much a lot of Indigenous people see it as a threat to their livelihoods:

$1:

If this pipeline is completed, these pristine waters will become the sailing grounds for more than 21,000 huge oil tankers over the next 50 years, carrying the world’s most toxic oil – diluted bitumen – from the Alberta tar sands. That is the minimum number of oil tankers; it could be more. A single incident would render the beautiful beaches of the city, surrounding islands and Vancouver Island uninhabitable. It would kill the Salish Sea and destroy our Squamish territory. All it takes is just one incident – and no one, from industry experts to the government, can guarantee that won’t happen.

...

The Squamish Nation will continue to fight to protect our inlet, our communities and our economy. Regardless of who owns the project, our position has not changed. An expanded Trans Mountain pipeline would triple the capacity of diluted bitumen and is expected to increase the number of tankers from five to 35 each month. The tankers pass by three Squamish Nation communities on the Burrard Inlet. A single diluted bitumen marine spill would be catastrophic for our communities, our economy and our home as a Squamish people.

And as for Energy East, it was killed by the free market, not Trudeau or Quebec[url][/url]:

$1:

The case for Energy East was weakened by the decline in global oil prices since 2014. Between then and now, the forecast for Western Canadian oil production has fallen precipitously. According to data from the University of Alberta's Andrew Leach, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer's forecast for production by 2030 is down by more than two million barrels a day.

As the largest of Canadian pipeline proposals, Energy East alone was to represent about 1.1 million barrels a day of shipping capacity from Western Canada. If TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline gets built – a prospect looking increasingly likely every day – along with Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansion to the West Coast and improvements along the Enbridge system, there would likely be excess pipeline capacity from Western Canada.

With more pipelines fighting over less oil to ship, TransCanada likely saw it would be cannibalizing Keystone XL. Every company would make the same decision: better to make money on one project than lose money on two.

[JaredMilne]

llama66 llama66:

Jack Mintz: Alberta has better reasons to Albexit than Britain did for Brexit
https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... for-brexit

Apparently you missed my post in the other thread where I commented about all the pitfalls that would come with Alberta separation, and the whole 'knife at the throat' strategy, but here's a sample:

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

I suppose I could mention how Alberta could be carved up under the Clarity Act the way people said Quebec should be in the 1990s, the fact that our economy would fall into the shitter because we'd have to print our own currency and spend years wrangling with the feds over our share of the national debt, the transfer of federal assets in Alberta and more, the fact that we would have even less chance of getting any pipelines built in dealing with a foreign country and the ROC could slap tariffs on us, and in short that our hand would be far weaker than this Solomon guy claims...

...but I want to ask everybody reading this if they recall Quebec and the calls for it to use a 'knife at the throat' strategy in the 1990s.

Remember how everybody wanted to play hardball with Quebec over that? Remember how it led to the claims that if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec?

Because that's what Solomon is advocating. I can't fathom how he thinks this would lead to us building a more productive relationship with the ROC. Everything he talks about in terms of power and threats could easily be reversed and turned against us. And with an attitude like this, so reminiscent of Quebec separatism, what makes you think the ROC wouldn't take the same hard line against us that Albertans were cheerleading against Quebec 20 years ago?

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Everybody with half a brain can already see that if Ottawa really wanted to help the energy sector and Alberta, they'd build the fucking pipeline and quit using every excuse in the book to ensure it doesn't happen. They'd stop equalization payments to Quebec till these projects get back on track and they'd put tariffs on imported oil at least to the amount they've put on our own oil.

Except that the pipeline was delayed by court rulings on the failure to consult with Indigenous people, which Trudeau is trying to address with Bill C-69. And Harper's bungling paved the way for it:

$1:

It is also not possible to fairly assess Bill C-69 without first recognizing it as a direct response to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s legislative overreach back in 2012. I am referring to Bill C-38, the infamous omnibus budget bill (introduced by the Minister of Finance, incidentally) that repealed the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (passed by Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government in 1992) and replaced it with CEAA, 2012. CEAA, 2012 fundamentally altered the federal environmental assessment regime from one that assessed the effects of federal decision-making broadly to one that focuses almost exclusively on large resource projects.

...

All of these changes did not, of course, go unnoticed. They were met with considerable opposition by Indigenous peoples, environmental groups, scientists, and former politicians – both liberal and conservative. Ultimately, “restoring lost protections” became a key plank of the federal Liberal campaign in 2015. Having won that election, and following nearly three years of study by both parliamentary committees and expert panels, the exceedingly democratic result is Bill C-68, which proposes to restore the Fisheries Act to its pre-2012 status quo, and Bill C-69, which as noted above introduces a new Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and proposes to replace, perhaps in name more than anything, the current NEB with a Canadian Energy Regulator.

Oh, and I was pretty much ahead of the curve on this.

Another funny fact is that the proportion of oil that Quebec buys from Western Canada has more than quintupled over the last five years:

$1:

While the province got most of its oil from overseas in 2012, the situation had flipped by 2017, with most of the supply now coming from North American producers. On top of that, Western Canada is now the Central Canadian province's top source of crude.

The shift away from overseas imports is partly due to a 2015 reversal in the direction oil is delivered through Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline, according to a new analysis by the National Bank of Canada. The analysis, first reported by Radio-Canada, also attributed the shift to increased production of U.S. shale oil.

And Trudeau is getting a lot of heat from the Natives about buying TransMountain. Here's an article that describes just how much a lot of Indigenous people see it as a threat to their livelihoods:

$1:

If this pipeline is completed, these pristine waters will become the sailing grounds for more than 21,000 huge oil tankers over the next 50 years, carrying the world’s most toxic oil – diluted bitumen – from the Alberta tar sands. That is the minimum number of oil tankers; it could be more. A single incident would render the beautiful beaches of the city, surrounding islands and Vancouver Island uninhabitable. It would kill the Salish Sea and destroy our Squamish territory. All it takes is just one incident – and no one, from industry experts to the government, can guarantee that won’t happen.

...

The Squamish Nation will continue to fight to protect our inlet, our communities and our economy. Regardless of who owns the project, our position has not changed. An expanded Trans Mountain pipeline would triple the capacity of diluted bitumen and is expected to increase the number of tankers from five to 35 each month. The tankers pass by three Squamish Nation communities on the Burrard Inlet. A single diluted bitumen marine spill would be catastrophic for our communities, our economy and our home as a Squamish people.

And as for Energy East, it was killed by the free market, not Trudeau or Quebec[url][/url]:

$1:

The case for Energy East was weakened by the decline in global oil prices since 2014. Between then and now, the forecast for Western Canadian oil production has fallen precipitously. According to data from the University of Alberta's Andrew Leach, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer's forecast for production by 2030 is down by more than two million barrels a day.

As the largest of Canadian pipeline proposals, Energy East alone was to represent about 1.1 million barrels a day of shipping capacity from Western Canada. If TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline gets built – a prospect looking increasingly likely every day – along with Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansion to the West Coast and improvements along the Enbridge system, there would likely be excess pipeline capacity from Western Canada.

With more pipelines fighting over less oil to ship, TransCanada likely saw it would be cannibalizing Keystone XL. Every company would make the same decision: better to make money on one project than lose money on two.

[JaredMilne]

All that aside, though, there's something I wish environmental activists, some of the Indigenous anti-pipeline advocates, and people like Quebec's new Premier Francois Legault would answer if they hate the oilsands so much:

If we're supposed to have a transition to green energy, build capacity for Indigenous communities, heat our homes, continue to maintain the equalization structure and everything else in between, how will we pay for it without the oilsands?

We've all heard about how oil and gas generates high-paying jobs that make us such high payers into equalization. But a lot of that money flowed into other parts of the country with the number of expats from elsewhere who came to Alberta to become rig pigs and remitted money back home. It's been said that Fort McMurray had the biggest population of Newfoundlanders in Canada outside of Newfoundland itself.

One person who answered my question blithely said we'd pay for it with the rest of the economy that makes up our GDP. Except that the oil and gas companies pump money into other sectors of the economy from manufacturing to transportation, and their employees also spend a lot of money too.

We have a lot of far-flung communities in this country, including Indigenous ones. Indigenous commentators have ripped on non-Natives who say Indigenous people should leave their communities and come to the cities, and rightly so...but how about transporting people and supplies to and from those places? How will we do it without oil and gas? Hydroelectric dams have their own ecological issues, as the Indigenous people upset about the Site C dam in British Columbia, the Muskrat Falls project in Newfoundland and Labrador, or about the damage done by Hydro-Quebec's building their dam network several decades ago can tell you.

And if the transition to green energy requires subsidies and government support...well, the oilsands are an important part of that public tax base.

Hell, Rick Salutin of Rabble.ca, of all places, stated it best:

$1:

Here's where Alberta's tarsands slot right in. If, said Financial Times writer Martin Sandbu, "unfair burden-sharing is justified by what science says we must do, it is hard to resist the temptation to tell science where it can go."

This applies to tarsands workers and all those "downstream" whose jobs also depend on that grim sludge. Most people, especially Easterners, who lecture them on the need to "leave it in the ground," aren't so shallow that they stop there. They expand (like Macron) on transitioning to jobs in a green economy.

But that won't cut it either. If you're raising a family you have to know how soon and how generous the transition will be. It needn't come tomorrow but there must be a schedule providing foreseeable hope.

So it's no wonder Albertans are pissed. From our point of view, we've done a hell of a lot to help out the rest of the country, only to be demonized as Captain Planet villains who seemingly want to get our jollies by deliberately wrecking the planet. Yes, there are factors tying into this-everything from an oil oversupply keeping prices low to our own mismanagement of our oil booms-but to us this is just the latest in a string of episodes where Ottawa makes policies to benefit other parts of the country and leaves us holding the bag.

[Thanos]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

All that aside, though, there's something I wish environmental activists, some of the Indigenous anti-pipeline advocates, and people like Quebec's new Premier Francois Legault would answer if they hate the oilsands so much:

If we're supposed to have a transition to green energy, build capacity for Indigenous communities, heat our homes, continue to maintain the equalization structure and everything else in between, how will we pay for it without the oilsands?

Pretty sure that their, and almost all other environmental-economics logic, goes according to the same idea the underground gnomes on South Park had about fifteen years ago:

1) steal underpants
2) ??????
3) PROFIT

Seriously, I've never heard an environmentalist or Alberta-basher have an economic idea that doesn't fall almost entirely along that pattern.

[raydan]

Who's underpants?

[Thanos]

raydan raydan:

Who's underpants?

Everyone's. It was an equal opportunity enterprise.

[herbie]

Just for those completely ignorant of actual politics

1) You have today's politicians and times confused with PIERRE Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. The first had the balls to do what was necessary and the public support to do it. The second had the balls and was willing to fall on his sword to accomplish it. NOBODY has wanted a gov't that would impose it's will over such huge opposition ever since.
2) You ain't gonna manage to "expropriate" native land, not after decades of guaranteeing it was theirs. NO political party would even dream of doing that.
3) You could just make a bill declaring it necessary that overrides the Court's decision, but WHY would you when there's 90% chance of getting there just by waiting it out, probably in months. If you did make such a Bill would the Tories have the BALLS to support it? Or would they keep their usual stance of being opposed just because the other guy did it? Copy their obstructionist Republican bum buddies to a tee, like they've only been capable of managing so far?

[BeaverFever]

llama66 llama66:

Crown land is just that.. Crown land the GG can do as she pleases as her Majesty's representative. Let's do nothing and watch Canada crumble..

No I don’t think the feds can take provinciall crown land. Provinces have their own Lieutenant Governirs as Her Majesty’s representatives. anyway

Also The GG doesn’t answer to the PM

[llama66]

The PM answers to the GG. The PM is the de jour leader and the GG is the De facto leader of Canada acting on her Majesty, the Queen's behalf who is the actual head of state. Provincial Crown land just means the province is the custodian of the land.