# Alberta starts to fight back.



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Kenny is doing what we elected him for...a good read unless you're an energy denier.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...ationals-criticism-of-his-fight-back-strategy


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

It is about time Alberta fought back. The way that province is treated, after delivering so much to equity payments for so many years, is a travesty.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Very good factual and measured response.

I also think the Koch foundation will be exposed too but I may be mistaken. At least one of the Koch brothers is now gone. I think other organizations will be exposed as well. 

It is incredible how naive organizations and the media have been not recognizing this is a global phenomena designed to suppress Canada being a O&G competitor to those of despot regimes and increasing US production.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

If foreign industries have been working to suppress ours, I definitely want that exposed.

However I would prefer to have journalists (not the government) do this kind of work. Aren't they qualified to do that? Sure the oil & gas industry could have funded investigative journalists to spend the time & effort to look into these things. If the journalists uncover this kind of information, it could have been broadly publicized. Why hasn't this already happened all these years?

If there are competing industries masquerading as environmentalists, it would be great to expose them so that authentic environmentalists who care about Canada can move to the forefront and become even stronger voices. Environmentalists should be representing true concerns of citizens, not being used as agents of industry.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, the media investigate the environmental industry and related social media misinformation machine that feeds the media their stories? Really?

How many times has any of the well researched reports and studies done on behalf of CAPP or CERI or independent work simply reported by reference on the CAPP site been picked up by the media?

There never has been an equitable playing field. Have you ever looked at and read some of the referenced material yourself?

I am regularly accused of defending the O&G industry. Yes, I do when there is gross exaggeration, lies and misinformation. I will continue to do so when it is extreme. Beyond that, I have no personal stake in the matter and have better things to do with my time.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Really?


Yeah. Someone on this very thread once pointed me to a few different news stories on this exact topic. It is a true fact that it is, from time to time, researched and published.

What is genuinely baffling is how seldom the topic comes up, though, and how generally uninterested folks seem to be in the degree of foreign intervention there seems to be in Canadian environmental causes.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I understand that Alberta's energy industry wants the public to believe this is the case (that some foreign influencer is ruining their business) but I'm not convinced it's true. It smells like scapegoating to me, helping angry people find an outlet.

Macleans: Actually, foreign funding flows to both sides of Alberta’s oil sands battle



> Last month, when Jason Kenney announced the creation of a $30-million war room to fight for Alberta’s oil industry, one of the people standing on stage with him, looking on approvingly, was Stewart Muir, executive director of Resource Works, a British Columbia group that was created to rally support for petroleum projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline that will move Alberta bitumen to the Pacific.
> 
> Muir is one voice in a growing chorus that laments the attacks on Alberta’s industry from environmental groups, particularly those that take money from similar organizations in the United States.
> 
> ...


That last part echoes my primary suspicion, that this just makes for a good story. The conspiracy. The hard working Albertans who would be doing fine, if it weren't for those damned environmentalists!

The article goes on to describe that both sides of this struggle take their lead, and their money, from Americans. The pro oil sands side will take money from foreigners while simultaneously complaining about environmentalists taking money from foreigners.

Pro-industry forces take instructions and money from the Koch brothers. It's really the same kinds of complaints, because Alberta is just an extension of the environmentalist vs industry battle that's going on elsewhere.

I find it sad that the government is wasting the money of hard working taxpayers... those hard working Albertans... just for some ridiculous scapegoating and venting of anger. What a terrible use of public money. The environmentalists are not causing Alberta's bear market, and it's kind of pitiful to spend public money trying to find people to "blame".

I thought you Albertans were really hot on government being responsible with public money, and not wasting it? I can't think of a bigger waste than $30 million to run some juvenile blame campaign that can't possibly help the industry, or the hard working taxpayer.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gardner said:


> What is genuinely baffling is how seldom the topic comes up, though, and how generally uninterested folks seem to be in the degree of foreign intervention there seems to be in Canadian environmental causes.


Why aren't you interested in the degree of foreign intervention there is in the Canadian corporate cause, and pro-energy, pro- oil sands development?

We need to protect our environment. I find it upsetting that foreign money and foreign intervention is trying to override Canadians' environmental concerns, including vilifying protesters who have very legitimate concerns about development. I don't want to see our country harmed because some foreign interest has a big profit motive, and can throw money around.

Maybe it's time for a $30 million war room to investigate that. It's been going on for too long, is well known, and yet the topic hardly ever comes up.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The thing is AB oil producers can compete with their competition if they can actually transport the crude and sell it at world price. They were doing just fine until pipeline expansions got blocked and production exceeded pipeline capacity.

Instead they have been forced to take big discounts in price and that favours the big US refiners who can buy the crude at firesale prices. That is why the US conspirators want to keep Canadian crude landlocked without additional pipeline capacity. It serves both environmental and big US oil interests.

None of that is covered in any materials you have referenced. You are being led down the garden path by those same conspirators!

Repeat after me. Reduced oil prices due to increasing US production starting about 2015 is not the issue at all. It is the US producing companies desire to shut out more Canadian production to keep the market for themselves, and for big US refiners being able to buy discounted Canadian oil. This macro picture is plain to see.

Added: This conspiracy will collapse when TMX gets built (for an alternative market). Northen Gateway was supposed to be the original option to start that process and TMX was to follow that up. There is a ready Asian market for our crude once Asian buyers know we can actually ship to them. We cannot ship anything to Asia now because there is no way to get it to tidewater except by rail down the Fraser canyon, and that is extremely limited due to rail track capacity.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

So if I understand correctly, you're saying there are parts of the US energy industry that directly benefit from blocking pipelines.

And they are doing this partly by masquerading as environmentalists, and assisting the environmental cause?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That is a likely scenario for which there appears to be enough evidence to warrant an inquiry. Both the US production industry and the US refining industry benefit because of the differences in the type of crude.

That is why the $30 million is money likely well worth spent. To potentially find out the scope of the problem. Perhaps the problem is of grand scale, or perhaps it is minor in nature. We should all be wanting to find out, dont you think?

JK is taking some risk that there may not be as much of a smoking gun as he thinks there is.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Government has a responsibility to both keep industry healthy, but also to protect shared resources (environmental concerns). Government is not just about bolstering corporate interests.

Why is the province not investigating the *pro*-energy foreign influence? Many Americans, and foreign agents, have business interests in Alberta's energy industry and are funding their agendas. The foreign interests are undoubtedly pushing advertising and media messaging, not to mention help lobby for policy changes in their own best interest.

This needs to be investigated. You can't just investigate one side of a contentious issue, where foreign influence is all over the place. I agree with you AltaRed that foreigners are contributing to environmental opposition, but foreigners are also contributing to the industry side.

Kenney is only focusing on half of the problem, which is very unfair to Albertans. Kenney is taking a completely biased position here. He's neglecting foreign corporate interests which are pushing against, and suppressing, environmental concerns... that's a failure of government to protect Alberta's lands, resources, and long term well being.

Actually pretty ridiculous to see a Premier so blatantly pro industry, and anti-environmentalist. He has zero interest in investigating foreign influence that assists the industry and which fights environmentalists.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I find it sad that the government is wasting the money of hard working taxpayers... those hard working Albertans... just for some ridiculous scapegoating and venting of anger. What a terrible use of public money. The environmentalists are not causing Alberta's bear market, and it's kind of pitiful to spend public money trying to find people to "blame".
> 
> I thought you Albertans were really hot on government being responsible with public money, and not wasting it? I can't think of a bigger waste than $30 million to run some juvenile blame campaign that can't possibly help the industry, or the hard working taxpayer.


Kenney has received the largest majority in Albertan history , a main mandate was to expose the pseudo enviro's for what they really are. Sorry you are not empathetic, but many other Canadians will be once the truth gets out. A breath of fresh air out here.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Kenney has received the largest majority in Albertan history , a main mandate was to expose the pseudo enviro's for what they really are. Sorry you are not empathetic, but many other Canadians will be once the truth gets out. A breath of fresh air out here.


I agree with you that there are industry-backed pseudo enviro's trying to hurt industry. I get it; this should not happen.

But he will not be exposing foreign influence that supports the oil sands. The only ones breathing a breath of "fresh air" (lol) will be the pro oil sands crowd, feeling vindicated.

In other words, this is not a search for truth, nor a search for foreign influencers in Canada. It's only a search for *foreign influence that harms the industry's position*.

How can you be a Canadian, proud and protective of our country's well being (and our environment) and be comfortable with foreign influence in pro oil sands development which is suppressing Canadians who are trying to protect our land, air, and water?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder, if you're having trouble seeing this, imagine that BC creates a war-room to investigate foreign influence in pro-energy lobbying, and suppression of environmental groups, using stealthy methods. (This absolutely is happening).

It would be just as legitimate as Kenney's efforts. Foreign forces should not be working against those who are trying to protect Canada's lands and people.

Both efforts would be stupid in isolation, purely biased positions. The only way to legitimately do this is to investigate ALL foreign influence, hopefully so we can rid Canada of agents which both support energy develpoment and which oppose it, by masquerading as people they are not. In other words these are foreign agents bringing their battles onto our turf.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I often watch the business news, religiously for years after I first retired and I have never heard any of the hundreds of oil analysts and experts say there was a global conspiracy to keep Canadian oil prices low.

I heard low prices were currently due primarily to overproduction. It would be worse if not for oil embargoes on some producing countries.

Heavy Canadian oil is also discounted due to higher refining costs.

Albertans are hanging their hopes on pipeline capacity as the solution, but haven't identified where these new markets will come from.

I don't see how shipping more oil when there is already a glut of oil on the markets is going to raise the price.

That would be contrary to the law of supply and demand.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I once questioned why Alberta hasn't focused on diversifying their economy by attracting other types of business, and the response was primarily that the markets for products would be too far away from the production.

If that is true, it is probably also true for oil production in Alberta. 

As the US becomes an oil exporter and less dependent on Canadian oil, new potential markets are thousands of miles away and already well served.

Where do the Chinese buy their oil from now ? Answer.....Russia, OPEC nations, Africa, They buy sweet crude for discounted prices due to purchase volume.

China will buy Canadian oil, as was shown in the spike in sales to China in 2018, but only if it is sold at a steep discount.

There is no business where you lose money per item and make it up in volume, and that includes oil priced by the barrel.

I am not protesting against the pipeline or opposed to it's construction.. 

I am okay with "giving it a shot" and providing some badly needed jobs out west, but I think of it more as a "Hail Mary" pass than a good business plan.

The way I consider such situations is that it is better to pay people to work than paying then to work. At least something gets accompished.

"Digging up holes and filling them in" can be a worthwhile activity to create jobs, when the situation warrants it.

Alberta/Canada needs to start planning for a life after oil, like some other oil producing countries are doing......Saudi Arabia, Norway....etc.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Eder, if you're having trouble seeing this, imagine that BC creates a war-room to investigate foreign influence in pro-energy lobbying, and suppression of environmental groups, using stealthy methods. (This absolutely is happening).
> 
> It would be just as legitimate as Kenney's efforts. Foreign forces should not be working against those who are trying to protect Canada's lands and people.
> 
> Both efforts would be stupid in isolation, purely biased positions. The only way to legitimately do this is to investigate ALL foreign influence, hopefully so we can rid Canada of agents which both support energy develpoment and which oppose it, by masquerading as people they are not. In other words these are foreign agents bringing their battles onto our turf.


I think you are mostly chasing ghosts James in your assertions, my bold to your quote


> Why is the province not investigating the pro-energy foreign influence? *Many Americans, and foreign agents, have business interests in Alberta's energy industry and are funding their agendas. The foreign interests are undoubtedly pushing advertising and media messaging, not to mention help lobby for policy changes in their own best interest.
> *
> This needs to be investigated. You can't just investigate one side of a contentious issue, where foreign influence is all over the place. I agree with you AltaRed that foreigners are contributing to environmental opposition, but foreigners are also contributing to the industry side.
> 
> Kenney is only focusing on half of the problem, which is very unfair to Albertans. Kenney is taking a completely biased position here. He's neglecting foreign corporate interests which are pushing against, and suppressing, environmental concerns... that's a failure of government to protect Alberta's lands, resources, and long term well being.


You are clearly letting your bias say things for which you likely have little, to no, basis for saying. I think mostly rampant speculation, but I am pretty sure we might find out some answers here too IF there is anything that stands out. Best I can tell, there are few foreign pro-oil for influences left in the Canadian oil patch (including the oil sands). Who would benefit? Maybe major financial lenders to the Canadian oil industry, and maybe a few major shareholders of Canadian oil and pipeline stocks. With few exceptions, foreign oil multi-nationals have mostly left Canada, and thus there is nothing of financial interest to ex-Canadian interests to be pro-oil in Canada. Exxon, through its majority interest ownership in Imperial Oil, may be one, and various Chinese, e.g. CNOOC, interests of course. Indeed, the Chinese may be the major player if there is one because they want more and more of our oil patch. I don't think Li Ka-Shing's overture via Husky to buy IPL was a random, non-strategic event. Shell is no longer investing in Canadian oil though it retains its existing interests. I have not given it a lot of thought, but what other ex-Canada business has a major financial interest in the Canadian oil patch?

It is clear from your recent posts that you have latched on to a theme for which you have no apparent evidence, or at least none that I have been able to determine. Perhaps a creative conspiracy of your own and others to try to deflect and distract?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Of course there's foreign influence in Canadian energy development and politics. Boy are you blinded by your pro-industry bias! The following are some simple, glaringly obvious examples of foreign money being used in Canada to fuel the pro-development side, including overriding environmental concerns.


*1. Kinder Morgan lobbyists, Texas-based energy giant*

I suppose you didn't notice this one, when Kinder Morgan lobbied the government for their interests, resulting in the approval of Trans Mountain? Talk about influence on Canada! Not only did the American giant first push Canada to approve their project, but it later resulted in Canada buying a whole bunch of it for $4.5 billion!

Kinder Morgan had very significant lobbying efforts over the years, with the federal government and BC. That's incredibly strong foreign influence in Canada from an American energy giant.

*2. Fraser Institute (and Ezra Levant), funded by the Koch brothers*

The conservative think tank Fraser Institute is funded by many American interests, including the oil industry (Koch brothers). The Fraser Institute campaigns in favour of oil sands and pipeline developments, and their staff is a propaganda machine that creates material for newspapers and media. Ezra Levant, previously at Sun and now at the far-right Rebel media outlet, interned at the Fraser Institute after a fellowship with the Koch Foundation. Ezra continues to campaign for pro oil sands.

This means that both the Fraser Institute, plus operations like Rebel, have significant roots in Koch money, from US funders.

*3. Keystone XL*

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) financed pro-pipeline advocacy groups in the US, notably Keystone XL. This is big American money that is pivotal in benefitting the Canadian industry, even though the lobbying money was recorded south of the border. Exxon and other American giants were involved. I think it's obvious that these group of companies, with their Canadian counterparts, act in tandem for lobbying & media pressure on both sides of the border.

It's naive to think that the US stakeholder (like Exxon) simply "stay out of it" north of the border. Some of the strategies being attempted, like vilifying protesters and environmentalists, are identical north & south of the border. Just as Canadian companies are known to operate south of the border, it's expected that their US partners would operate north of the border too.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Well its nice attempt at deflecting the thread...getting back on topic for those actually interested in Alberta oil and how American environmentalists interfere in our elections and business heres a lucid link...

https://business.financialpost.com/...-the-rockefellers-and-albertas-landlocked-oil

Cant read this stuff on the CBC


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, you don't get it.

1. The KM experience is nothing more than a company, which in this case was mostly foreign owned, lobbying the country in which it is investing, for project approval of TMX That is no different than TRP or ENB or CN or BCE lobbying for their Canadian projects once the NEB has issued its conclusions. Every business does that in the country in which they operate. Canada paid for the existing line that is profitable as an ongoing operation, as a way to help make TMX happen. KM was throwing in the towel on TMX and that is what prompted taxpayer purchase. Otherwise, TMX would have died and KM would simply continue to operate the existing operation. Seems most Canadians still don't understand the specifics. Your KM example is not foreign influence on domestic projects.

2. Fair enough on Ezra Levant. I had no idea she, nor Rebel Media, was at all influential. I don't know anyone in the industry that aligns with Rebel Media, though clearly many individuals do. I acknowledge that one. I am not so sure about the Fraser Institute which has a much broader buiness mandate. It is simply the counter-opposite of the CCPA. I am not giving you that one.

3. Keystone XL is primarily an International project meant to serve Canadian oil shippers and American dilbit oil refiners. Of course it is going to have American business proponents. What would you expect? It is no different than business interests in the upper Midwest supporting CN Rail capacity expansion. Do you not think that CN and its shippers and customers would not lobby for their cross-border business? Every single major project in every single industry in the world has to lobby host governments for approval. There is no secret about that. You are really grasping on that one.

You need to come up with better examples of silent, secret foreign funding of domestic business. So far, it is only Erza that I can agree with you on. As Eder's example shows, the foreign agenda has been to try and landlock Alberta's oil. That is the the real issue here.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Well its nice attempt at deflecting the thread?


Lol ... deflecting? Here you guys are, whining about foreigners working against Alberta's industry, and I'm pointing out that foreigners spent huge amounts of money also supporting Alberta's industry.

Your behaviour of ignoring half of the issue that doesn't serve your interest is the definition of prejudice / bias.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Lol ... deflecting? Here you guys are, whining about foreigners working against Alberta's industry, and I'm pointing out that foreigners spent huge amounts of money also supporting Alberta's industry.
> 
> Your behaviour of ignoring half of the issue that doesn't serve your interest is the definition of prejudice / bias.


No, James. You don't understand business investment from any industry. No different than GM lobbying Ontario gov't for tax beaks on an Ontario auto assembly plant. Companies investing in a country will always be proponents for their own projects! Separate that from foreign influence on domestic affairs in which they have no business interest. That difference is night and day apart.

Added: Now if you said the Chinese (e.g. CNOOC) or maybe BP (which I think no longer has any interests in western Canada) were funding a pro-industry mouthpiece for a project in Canada or funding media cheerleaders, then that would be foreign interference in domestic affairs. The Chinese have the most to benefit from Pacific tidewater pipeline capacity. Can't imagine BP, Chevron, Lukoil, PDVSA, Aramco, Statoil, Petrobras, etc. do. If anything, they'd fund the NGOs to keep AB oil off the market.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

SNC Lavalin lobbied the government and Conservatives are still raking them over the coals for it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> SNC Lavalin lobbied the government and Conservatives are still raking them over the coals for it.


No sags, you misunderstand. You see, when a _Canadian_ business lobbies a _Liberal_ government and gets special treatment, the Conservatives scream bloody murder.

In contrast, when the _oil industry, including American giants_ lobby government and get special treatment, it's always good and pure! Even when they suppress environmental concerns from real Canadians about harm to their land.

(above is sarcastic... of course it's ridiculuos)

None of these industries should have such powerful influence on our democratic institutions. And especially American corporations like Kinder Morgan have no business setting our policies in Canada... but they do! With much applause and approval from AltaRed, apparently. It's just regular business to him.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> SNC Lavalin lobbied the government and Conservatives are still raking them over the coals for it.


It's not the lobbying that's the problem.
Its interfering with the criminal case that's the problem.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> It's not the lobbying that's the problem.
> Its interfering with the criminal case that's the problem.


Oh please. The energy lobby basically wrote environmental policy for Harper, which is a massive corruption and insult to democracy. And Conservatives today seem to be doing whatever CAPP tells them to say & do ... the party is tremendously corrupt.

The Conservatives, and obviously Alberta's government, just do what the energy industry tells them to do. If you want your elected officials to serve the interests of citizens, vote for someone else.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Oh please. The energy lobby basically wrote environmental policy for Harper, which is a massive corruption and insult to democracy. And Conservatives today seem to be doing whatever CAPP tells them to say & do ... the party is tremendously corrupt.
> 
> The Conservatives, and obviously Alberta's government, just do what the energy industry tells them to do. If you want your elected officials to serve the interests of citizens, vote for someone else.


Please provide evidence supporting your accusation of corruption.
It isn't corruption to consult with stakeholders on an issue. The Liberals consulted with pot experts before legalization, might be bad policy, but that wasn't corruption.

Or is this another set of your lies were you make up an unfounded, unsupported accusation, then refuse it back it up, like you've done many times.

Moderators, how many times are you going to let james make blatant, unsupported lies without evidence?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Don't ask for Mod2 lol...might seem familiar.
At any rate this thread has been derailed...a few more minutes I'll be called an angry white man and/or Nazi so I'm out.
Still glad Kenny is doing his job and shaming diseases like our Amnesty International Canada leaders.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks for the post and link Eder.
The drivel I've read in this thread from the likes of sags and james is like the drivel contained in the letter that alex neve wrote. 
Kenney aptly pointed out how misinformed and misguided he is (a stronger adjective related the exit opening of the large intestine comes to mind).
Ditto to those posters.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm saying the Conservatives are highly influenced by the Canadian energy lobby. This is a fact that I don't think is being disputed; many references below. I am calling this "corruption" because in my opinion, having a powerful industry lobby determine public policy is a form of corruption in a democracy. This is why I say the Conservative party is corrupt (or more accurately, corrupted by energy industry influence). Others here probably don't view that kind of influence as corruption.

If it makes you feel better, I think the Liberals are similarly corrupt when it comes to corporate influence. It's just from different industries.

The Conservative party has a pattern of this unethical and corrupt behaviour when it comes to allowing influence from the energy industry. As you can see, they are largely proud of their close relationship with lobbyists. The evidence is cited below:

Scheer: No apologies for secret meetings with oil executives



> Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer took to social media Friday to say he will not apologize for participating in a day-long election strategy session with wealthy oil executives at a luxury resort in Alberta earlier this month.


Energy executives listed on organizing team for Conservative Party event with Andrew Scheer

Andrew Scheer's Climate Plan



> Abreu was concerned by the similarities between the CPC plan and a proposed Federal Energy Platform released by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers on June 3. Both include a large-emitter framework that prioritizes investment in technology, and both say the government should take a position that Canada has lower-emissions oil and gas products than other countries. “It checks a lot of the boxes of the CAPP platform,” she said.


Combined with the party's history of taking policy directions from the energy industry under Harper:

Energy industry letter suggested environmental law changes



> "The industry's fingerprints are all over this budget. They got the changes that they wanted and they even put out a press release later thanking the government for making those changes," said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace, the organization that gave the letter to the CBC.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I know that our CMF pro-oil people are big fans of the close ties between the energy industry and the Conservative party, but if they're not careful, the Conservatives could break the law. The party is already morally corrupt, but they could also be breaking the law:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/26/news/scheer-no-apologies-secret-meetings-oil-executives



> Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould told the Globe the meetings were "concerning," given Canada's "*very robust laws ... when it comes to transparency and when it comes to anti-collusion with third-party groups and political parties*." She added, “I think it’s concerning that type of co-ordination would be going on, and I think it is concerning that it is happening behind closed doors in secret, and I think Canadians deserve more transparency to know what the intentions and objectives of their political leaders are."


The blindness and bias of some of the people on this board is shocking. In what world is this kind of closeness with a corporate lobby acceptable in our politicians? Well I know the answer to that actually. "In Alberta".


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

National observer? 

What a fucking alarmist.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> National observer?
> 
> What a fucking alarmist.


They are credible journalists, though with a left of center bias. You shouldn't just dismiss reports that you don't like the sound of ... the energy industry's influence on Canadian politics has been very powerful for a long time. This really deserves closer scrutiny.

I realize that in Alberta, the energy industry telling government what to do is considered normal and healthy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I'm saying the Conservatives are highly influenced by the Canadian energy lobby. This is a fact that I don't think is being disputed; many references below. I am calling this "corruption" because in my opinion, having a powerful industry lobby determine public policy is a form of corruption in a democracy. This is why I say the Conservative party is corrupt (or more accurately, corrupted by energy industry influence). Others here probably don't view that kind of influence as corruption.
> 
> If it makes you feel better, I think the Liberals are similarly corrupt when it comes to corporate influence. It's just from different industries.
> 
> ...


So he met with stakeholders, and they proposed actions.
I believe that's appropriate.

Trudeau meets with people who promote action as well.
https://www.macleans.ca/news/bono-trudeau-un/

There is no evidence of corruption. I don't think you know the meaning of the words you are using. Or you're simply redefining them because it suits your political purpose.

Why do you make a habit about lying about people you don't like?
Is it that hard to come up with valid criticism that you have to make false accusations?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer is still accusing the Trudeau government of corruption in the SNC Lavalin case.

Now he has been demanding Trudeau grant a waiver that releases all the classified cabinet documents.........for the first time in Canadian history.

He wants to release all this top security classified information to an RCMP that just had one of it's top security investigators arrested for espionage.

Good thing the government didn't turn over the documents. I guess Andrew Scheer would have happily handed over all of Canada's secrets.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Andrew Scheer is still accusing the Trudeau government of corruption in the SNC Lavalin case.
> 
> Now he has been demanding Trudeau grant a waiver that releases all the classified cabinet documents.........for the first time in Canadian history.
> 
> ...


Yes, and he should. There should be an investigation
No person should be above the law, and hiding behind privilege isn't a license to commit crimes. 
Solicitor client privilege is revoked when that communication is used to further a crime.

Maybe they could appoint a special investigator, there are mechanisms here. And "trust me" isn't good enough.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just thinking a bit more, I don't think it is corruption for a group, even an industry group, to propose and advocate for policy change.

I do think that it is very inappropriate for an unelected group of industry insiders to divide up a huge pile of money for themselves, as in the case of the media b**** fund. 
I personally think it's a bribe fund, but he insists is a bailout.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

James........you have to understand that it is a completely different mindset in much of rural western Canada.

My wife was born and raise on a wheat/beef farm in rural Saskatchewan. The closest town was a 30 minute drive and there wasn't much there.

When we visited the farm, I noticed it was an all white area. Everyone is either of German or Polish descent. There are a dozen or so dominant family names.

The only exceptions were the Chinese family who ran a restaurant in town. When they moved there was nobody of color in the town or immediate area.

So the kids go to school and never meet a person of color or from a different culture. Some graduate high school and move on to bigger cities for post secondary education, as my wife did in taking her nursing training in Toronto where it is a big change for them. They suddenly see the diversity of big cities. Their view of the world slowly changes. My wife stayed in the nursing residence and ate in the cafeteria, as all the nursing students were expected to do, and she met many friends of different color and from different cultures. Some became life long friends and it changed her own personal beliefs. Her father remained extremely prejudiced until the day he died. Her brother has traveled more and is much less prejudiced.

When you have never met a black person or a Muslim person, it is a lot easier to accept false beliefs about them and there is always someone peddling a false narrative based on their own prejudices. When you meet in the local coffee shop and everyone there expresses prejudiced views, it is difficult to remain objective.

When you see all the oil pumps in the fields and all the business supporting the oil companies, and not much else besides farming, it isn't difficult to understand why people strongly resist any change from the status quo. In my wife's home town, home prices rose in tandem with oil prices. People moved into town to get jobs in the oil industry. According to my brother in law who still lives there.......home prices have collapsed. There are no jobs. There are homes for sale but not much buyer interest. He built a beautiful large home for $350,000 when he sold his farm. He figures he would lose a lot of money if he sells in today's environment.

Failure to diversify economies has left them with few other options. Few other options leaves people angry.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Eder, I had read that letter in NP. Thanks for posting it here. Quite a powerful and reasonable response from Kenney. 

As expected we have all the usual BS responses here from the usual suspects. As usual too nothing of any relevant real factual substance or that isn't veering off topic into some attack on Conservatives past and present and the oil industry, or stereotyping some Canadians, or defending this current morally corrupt Liberal government. 

Thanks for those who took the time to articulate solid rebuttles to much of the shiet posted by the usual suspects.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Ditto. Can't believe coming back in here this morning to see how bizarre and completely off the rails and out to lunch the comments have become. A complete meltdown so Trump like in style, it is scary. Another thread destroyed. Au revoir....


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

But I learn from james in this thread that the National Observer is a 'left of centre' news source. No. It is not even on the spectrum. It is a Vancouver-based anti-oil rag with funding ties to the Tides Foundation.

And I find out that rural Sask residents are a bunch of prejudiced red necks. Using the same logic, I can conclude that if someone were to visit their brother-in-law and talk like we read here, they'd probably be shot and buried behind the barn, with their able spouse (being from Sask as well) willing to swing the shovel.

Off the rails indeed ==========


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Maybe this will give some of you cause to gloat. Turns out the bloom is off the oil patch in Texas too. 
Dropping employment, declining drilling: U.S. oil and gas jobs fall as shale boom cools

Those of you who resent and attack a competitive, innovative, world-leading sector that provided good paying jobs and created wealth. Why? Because you weren't getting your piece? You conveniently ignore that it has helped pay for your social benefits and kept a lid on your cost of living where ever you live in Canada.

If Canada chooses another 4 years of liberal free-fall spending, anti-resource development, and incompetent management, you can be sure that the O&G sector will become the least of your concerns.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think the US situation is more related to short term pipeline capacity constraints out of the Permian. These lines are coming on stream at various points this year and early next, not only crude, but natural gas to move the (associated) gas that comes with oil production. https://napipelines.com/2019-oil-pipeline-report-permian-basin-production-infrastructure-projects/

Production continues to increase though from about 11.7 million barrels per day at the end of 2018 to about 12.5 million barrels of oil per day today. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W Start seeing a significant surge in production increases in 2021 and beyond barring $30 oil of course. All light oil which does not compete for the same refining space as Canadian dilbit.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But I learn from james in this thread that the National Observer is a 'left of centre' news source. No. It is not even on the spectrum. It is a Vancouver-based anti-oil rag with funding ties to the Tides Foundation.
> 
> And I find out that rural Sask residents are a bunch of prejudiced red necks. Using the same logic, I can conclude that if someone were to visit their brother-in-law and talk like we read here, they'd probably be shot and buried behind the barn, with their able spouse (being from Sask as well) willing to swing the shovel.
> 
> Off the rails indeed ==========


Yea well.......it is what it is.

The ethnic breakdown for Saskatchewan. Arab, African, South American ethnic groups don't even make the list.

_German 28.6%
Canadian 25.0%
English 24.5%
Scottish 17.9%
Irish 14.5%
Ukrainian 12.6%
French 11.4%
North American Indian 10.6%
Norwegian 6.3% (the highest proportion of Canadians of Norwegian descent of any province)
Polish 5.3%
Métis 4.2%
Dutch (Netherlands) 3.4%
Swedish 3.1%
Russian 2.9%
Hungarian (Magyar) 2.5%
Austrian 1.5%
Welsh 1.4%
American (USA) 1.2%
Romanian 1.1%
Danish 1.0%
Chinese 1.0%_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nowhere have I called all Saskatchewan residents "prejudiced racists", nor has that ever been my experience.

I said that diversity or the lack thereof, can shape opinions and I don't think it could be argued that opinions don't vary across Canada.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> [ ... ] the National Observer is [ ... ] a Vancouver-based anti-oil rag with funding ties to the Tides Foundation.


Maybe so, but the original stories ran in the Globe and Mail under Shawn McCarthy's byline.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Reading the propaganda from the oil industry (and people echoing it here on this board), I thought it was supposed to be the federal government and evil, fake environmentalists holding back the energy industry. They certainly get the blame for all of it... they must have been the cause of Alberta's problems.

And yet I see that Canadian energy equities, XEG are up 8% today. In comparison, global/US energy stocks XLE are only up 2.5%.

Did the federal government and the evil environmentalists suddenly stop "holding down Alberta"? Is that why the price of equities went up? Of course not!

XEG is rising with the price of oil. Both the sector's down and up movements are dependent on the price of oil. It's like everyone in Alberta suddenly forgot that they work in a boom/bust economy. When prices are high/rising, the sector does really well. When prices are low/falling/stagnant, they still do well, but not as well.

*I will not take Alberta's whining about evil forces working against them seriously as long as XEG proves that the Canadian sector is, in fact, pinned to broader oil prices*. Oil sands are simply a dirty and expensive operation that results in more costs -- that's the reality of your oil in the ground. You need higher market prices to do really well. _When you get those higher prices_, like the world currently is implying, you'll do fine.

Now on the other hand, if global oil prices rallied sharply, and yet XEG failed to rally, then I would agree that there's some systemic issue holding back the industry. But until then, I think we're seeing an industry trying to find scapegoats when really they're just dealing with a prolonged bear market, and cheaper oil that makes dirty oil sands unattractive to the world.

Market oil prices have been in a bear market since 2014. I can't believe how much scapegoating is going on in Alberta, instead of just acknowledging that you're in a commodity bear market and that current oil prices make oil sands uncompetitive.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, of course XEG is going to go up due to investor speculation*, especially on some underlying constituents of XEG. That is how markets work! Nothing has changed on any company's financials....yet but could to a limited degree for a limited time for those companies who have access to, and/or own some refining capacity in Canada like SU, Husky, Imperial and Shell, and to company owned refining capacity in the USA like Husky's interest in Lima, Toledo and Superior. As gasoline prices go up, those with combined upstream and downstream operations could get some temporary benefit. So will stocks for the likes of Baytex with Eagle Ford production operations in Texas. No one stuck with landlocked production, or discounted dilbit, benefits.

James, you really should think through what you are going to say before you say it. You are truly embarrassing yourself with your very amateurish commentary.

* So is ENB, TRP and related stocks up today... and not one thing has, or will, change for them.

P.S. Just to reinforce how foolish your commentary is, look at the 5 year chart of XEG. Multiple times there has been investor speculation in the sector. A 10 year look is even more volatile. That is why I do not own a single O&G stock.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

West Canada Select is up more than Western Texas Intermediate oil.

How is being landlocked hurting Canadian oil prices ?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

gardner said:


> Maybe so, but the original stories ran in the Globe and Mail under Shawn McCarthy's byline.


But Shawn McCarthy's article was merely reporting the meeting (which Scheer readily admitted to) and reporting reaction to it.
N.O. referenced his article and then hijacked it to put their own political, anti-oil spin on it.
Don't be disingenuous by implying that the N.O. bias was McCarthy's.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sigh... so much uninformed, anti-oil bias on this thread written by self-righteous hypocrites.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Sigh... so much uninformed, anti-oil bias on this thread written by self-righteous hypocrites.


Yeah, I just don't understand when you have someone who has intimate career knowledge of an industry, why wouldn't James4beach listen to them rather make accusations of "prejudice / bias". 

AltaRed apparently has no dog in this fight as he says: "I do not own a single O&G stock."

I don't understand the vitriol from James4beach when information is coming from someone who understands the industry and not the usual google search results. Myself, I listen a little closer when I know the person posting has real knowledge. I try not to attack them at least. Sheesh.

ltr


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It seems to be a common problem on this forum...the usual suspects trolling people posting useful info till good posters give up and go elsewhere. AR needs to be commended for his patience...it would be easy for him to just post on the other forum and avoid providing any enlightenment here. Thanks for doing this.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James just needs to become a lot more rational about this subject like he often is in money forum subjects, or refrain at all from commenting. It does not serve him well at all. Stop digging..... 

His ridiculous comment on XEG this morning is a case in point. He knows (or should know) full well that more than 50% (probably 65%) of the holdings are companies that: 1) are partially or fully integrated and will reap the benefit of increased refined product prices that may occur as a result of ownership in refineries (CU, CNQ, IOL, Husky), 2) have ownerships in US based refineries (Husky, CVE, IOL via Exxon), 3) have significant production operations in places like Texas (ECA, BTE) and all will benefit accordingly. Lastly, oil stocks have been beaten down so far, some trading at 30-40% of book value, that any good news, real or perceived, will cause major, if likely only temporary, jumps in stock prices.

Next will likely come sideswipes on WCS pricing without having a clue on how that impacts, or does not impact, prices received by producers. The market WCS price is a spot price primarily influenced by traders on relatively small volumes of crude. Further WCS is an 'invented' crude grade at Hardisty that is a reference like WTI. Virtually no one actually produces WCS. There are a host of 'real' grades that are actually produced and referenced back to WCS. Further, most crude is sold under term contract with pricing based off the futures. September prices are based on futures prices set in late August. Futures for October have not closed yet so it is unclear just who, out of all the producers, will be able to actually capture today's prices, and who has actually not hedged a lot of their 2019 production. The short answer is no one knows in advance and it is purely speculative what producers will actually sell their October crude for. If one truly wants to try and understand what producers get for their crude, try understanding links such as these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canadian_Select
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canadian_Select#Sarnia-Lambton_$10-billion_oil_sands_bitumen_upgrading_project for info on certain grades and refinery co-ownerships
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts about halfway down for historical prices of certain Canadian crudes
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural...lean-fossil-fuels/crude-oil/oil-pricing/18087 try July 2019 to compare recent Western Canada prices to references like WTI. Look at another month like Jan 2018 for another set of data points

The point is the business is very complicated with more arms and legs than I can count and today's market behaviour is nothing more than investor emotion and irrational behaviour. Only if the Saudi debacle sustains itself for some time will some of that pricing trickle down to producers in the aggregate. Each, however, will be impacted differently.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^It seems to me the likelihood of that is close to asking a hungry racoon with rabies to stop biting. There is some serious hate on for the oil industry, Alberta and anyone who has a reasonable comment not critical of same.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I want to address one other grenade James mentioned earlier and which I responded to briefly...and it pertains to 'why does Alberta want to keep increasing its oil production'. After all, it's going to run out soon and leave AB grandchildren in poverty. The answers are pretty simple:
1. It is common throughout the business world that corporate managements wish to grow their companies to increase profit (earnings) for shareholders on a unit share basis. After all, why invest in a company if it is not providing Total Return growth? That makes CVE no different than a bank or an Alimentation Couche-tarde.
2. Profits are hard to come by in the oil patch. So much capital must be spent to re-invest in finding and developing new reserves that such companies are cash flow heavy but earnings poor. Not many Canadian oil companies show strong earnings , nor strong earnings growth (and hence one reason I don't own them). They simply need increasing cash flow to sustain the business.
3. Canada as a whole has a huge R/P or 'reserves to production' ratio compared to most oil producing nations and could be producing a lot more oil (doubt in fact) and still be in the top tier of countries with high R/P ratios. Would it be the smart thing to do? Probably not doubling of production, if for no other reason than at some future point in time, 10-20 years out, global oil demand is likely to roll over and no one wants to peak just when the market starts to diminish. The right answer is likely somewhere in between current production levels and 10 million barrels per day (10 being a number fully justifiable based on proved reserves of some 170 Billion barrels alone, never mind total known resources of about 300 Billion barrels).

Here is a chart of the world R/P ratio https://www.statista.com/statistics/682098/oil-reserves-to-production-ratio-worldwide/ It kept increasing in earlier decades as higher oil prices allowed oil companies to find a lot more new oil than they were producing each year. Then it has gone into slow decline as oil prices softened and companies could not afford to find enough new oil to replace what they were producing every year. By way of example: If ZERO oil had been found in any given year, R/P would have reduced by one digit, e.g. from 52.5 years to 51.5 years the following year. The big drops (exceeding one) in 2005 and 2015 were a result of reserve 'writeoffs' that must be taken when certain proved reserves are no longer economic due to price slumps.

Now take a look at how many years of production each country still has (without new finds or increases/decreases in production) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves as of a few years ago. Canada is #3 on the list at 126 years of reserves after Venezuela and Libya, but for obvious reasons, those countries are basket cases. Iran is also high given sanctions. I'd suggest Canada has a lot of room to grow production if it was practical/able/reasonable to do so. Further, if Canada was to include ALL of the oil sands it knows it could produce subject to economic conditions, i.e. 300 Billion barrels, its R/P would be over 200 years. Our grandchildren will not have to worry even if we were to increase production to well over 2 Billion barrels (5.5 million barrels per day) of production from the 1.3368 Billion barrels show in that chart. The whole point of all this is...... even without new finds, there is absolutely no fear of Canada running out of oil production any time in the next century. 

Time for that walk by the lake.....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Drill baby drill.

Is this the world we want to leave as our legacy ?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Very predictable sags. 
Your neighbourhood I assume?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Very predictable sags.
> Your neighbourhood I assume?


Pretty much, fortunately one of the local the NDP MP is retiring, good chance to swing some Conservatives in there to clean it up


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

So to close the loop from post #57.....

So from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves Canada a few years ago held 10% of the world's proven reserves and 4.5% of global production, and today is almost as much (global demand growth outpacing Canada's ability to incrementally maintain its share of global production). One can argue Canada's equitable share of global supply should be about 10 million barrels per day based on R/P ratio, but of course that is not necessarily a necessary objective.

So let's say, by means of an example, that Canada was able to increase its share of production by another 1 million barrels per day to 5.5 million barrels per day. That would, of course, need to displace some other global production IF global demand did not increase, but we know global demand is increasing in the range of about 1 million barrel per day each year, i.e. global demand next year will be about 101 million barrels per day, absent a significant recession somewhere.

Imagine the boost to Canada's GDP, an extra 1 million barrels per day of production would provide. Priced at $50/barrel, that is another $18.25B of additional revenue, the vast bulk of which stays in Canada. The only leakage would be capex certain producers like ECA may spend in the USA such as the Permian and any stock dividends re-patriated by remaining multi-nationals like Husky, Exxon and Shell and of course Chinese oil companies like Petro-China, CNOOC and Sinopec. To be conservative, let's assume 2/3rds of that $18.25B stays in Canada as direct revenue ($12.17B) to be spent by the oil producers. Add a rule of thumb economic multiplier of 7 as economists do for the trickle down effect from wages and services and products and we have about $85B of economic wealth added to the Canadian economy. That might actually pay for JT's deficits and new promises every year.

And there's a bonus. That extra 1 million barrels of day of production from Canada backs out production elsewhere in such environmentally conscious and friendly producing nations like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and...... We all know their environmental programs are much better than ours <sarcasm>.

It is time we Canadians give our heads a shake and recognize we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot by NOT supporting increased oil production from Canada in an equitable and conscientious way. It is in our interest from a climate change perspective* to have that production come from Canada and we get a windfall in additional GDP as well. A win-win. JT said just that when approving TMX for the second time. The additional wealth will help pay for increased services all Canadians want

* Climate change advocates are naive in thinking that trying to constrain supply will do something to wean the planet off oil. Nothing is further from the truth. Constraining supply in one place just causes it to pop out in another place. Constraining supply has never reduced demand in anything be it prostitution, prohibition tobacco, or illicit drugs. It won't work with oil either. Supply will ALWAYS be produced to meet demand. Climate advocates truly need to focus their effort on reducing demand because no one supplies a product that cannot be sold.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

A Calgary couple were prohibited from participating in a tour of the House of Commons because of their “I love Canadian oil and gas” shirts — the second time in as many weeks that the clothing has been the subject of a ban at Parliament.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/pro-...dent/wcm/86939b48-497a-4362-8051-a0d883b5748b

Seems to be an ongoing discrimination problem inside the Ottawa bubble?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> A Calgary couple were prohibited from participating in a tour of the House of Commons because of their “I love Canadian oil and gas” shirts — the second time in as many weeks that the clothing has been the subject of a ban at Parliament.
> 
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/pro-...dent/wcm/86939b48-497a-4362-8051-a0d883b5748b




you are misrepresenting - to the point of posting fake news - all the facts stated in your own linked article.

the couple were not prohibited from touring parliament. Your article reports that they booked a tour for later the same day while one spouse was wearing a t-shirt printed with a pro-oil message.

at the booking, security guards warned the party that he would not be permitted to enter the parliament buildings for the actual tour if he returned wearing the same t-shirt.

the article does *not* state whether the couple returned to carry out their tour reservation; or if they did return, what they were wearing at that time.

however, the article does provide the security rationale for the clothing prohibition. Evidently security regulations for public entry to parliament buildings currently prohibit political statements including upon articles of clothing.

it was only five years ago that a terrorist shot dead a canadian soldier standing guard at the national war memorial just outside the main parliament building. The same armed terrorist managed to make it into the Centre Block where prime minister stephen harper was meeting with MPs in a chamber next to the house of commons. In short, that insane murderer came within metres of the prime minister himself before security guards were able to bring him down.

security has tighterned on parliament hill since that october assassination 5 years ago. I for one am thankful that canadians are free to wear what they want, carry signs & voice their beliefs everywhere in ottawa. But i wholeheartedly believe that the houses of parliament themselves, visited as they are by thousands of unscreened persons every year, need to run a much tighter level of security.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Posting fake news? My byline is cut and paste directly from the article. 

But now that you are awake, maybe you can explain how "I love Canadian oil & gas" is a political statement as you suggest?

Wait, you are thankful Canadians are free to wear what they want everywhere in Ottawa, but you assume their particular t-shirt makes them a security risk?

And what are you trying to insinuate by talking about a terrorist from 5 years ago (who was from Montreal btw)?

You are guilty of 'racial' profiling. You are saying that Albertans in Ottawa are a security risk. Shame on you.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> you are misrepresenting - to the point of posting fake news - all the facts stated in your own linked article.
> 
> the couple were not prohibited from touring parliament. Your article reports that they booked a tour for later the same day while one spouse was wearing a t-shirt printed with a pro-oil message.
> 
> ...


Would someone be banned from a parliment tour for wearing a Pride shirt? A Canadian Flag shirt? A poppy? A Black Lives Matter shirt?
All political messages.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Posting fake news? My byline is cut and paste directly from the article ...
> 
> You are guilty of 'racial' profiling. You are saying that Albertans in Ottawa are a security risk. Shame on you.




please read. your. article. It says the couple were warned - the article included the published rules - that political slogans on clothing items are not permitted inside parliament buildings. That's all.

there's nothing remotely racist about my message. There's nothing about albertans. I did believe & i continue to believe that very high levels of security have to be maintained nowadays. Certainly on parliament hill. No political statements inside the centre block. 

the place is unique in that a gigantic unscreened public wants entry, gains entry every year, is welcome every year. But security has to prevent dangerous attacks, how are they to do this with very large numbers of unscreened visitors? one way is to watch for political sloganeering & certainly there are many other ways to quietly vet a crowd.

so far, there are no airport type security searches for the public to gain entry to parliament's centre block. So far, the screening appears to be mild.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The tshirt is fine other than it refers to Alberta O&G rather than a Gay Pride parade...thats the state of Canada today....last I looked we are still allowed to point out the *hypocrisy* even though loving oil & gas is verboten. Maybe things can change after our election?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> so far, there are no airport type security searches for the public to gain entry to parliament's centre block. So far, the screening appears to be mild.


Wait, what? I've been on tours of center block in the last few years and each time the screening has been at or beyond airport screening. For everyone.

The one note to this story is that supposedly the PPS has been told that "I <3 Canadian Oil and Gas" should not be grounds for removal and permitted. But it happened a second time. Perhaps all just innocent mistakes, but definitely a sign of the divisive times.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Keep the political stunts outside of Parliament. People protest all the time. Just do it outside.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> please read. your. article. It says the couple were warned - the article included the published rules - that political slogans on clothing items are not permitted inside parliament buildings. That's all.
> 
> there's nothing remotely racist about my message. There's nothing about albertans. I did believe & i continue to believe that very high levels of security have to be maintained nowadays. Certainly on parliament hill. No political statements inside the centre block.
> 
> ...


Note this article is from 2015, metal detectors and reading T Shirts is "mild"?

https://ipolitics.ca/2015/05/15/new-security-measure-restricts-bags-on-parliament-hill/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada gives $3.3 billion every year to the fossil fuel industry.

A $10 billion dollar pipeline.........$3 billion a year in subsidies.........maybe Alberta should stop crying the blues.

_The federal government has been promising under both the former Conservative government and the recent Liberal one to cancel federal fossil fuel subsidies — worth more than $3.3 billion a year — as part of a pledge of all G20 nations to do so. Despite the decade-old promise that Canada has recommitted to every year since, the subsidies have not been cut._

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-business-subsidies-1.5288031


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Hey sags, why don't you do a bit of homework before you make your mindless posts.

Do you even know where your alarmist number comes from and *what is it comprised of*? 

Why have you posted it in an 'Alberta' thread? You do know that $301 million of the total attaches to Quebec right? 

And that another $540 million attaches directly to Ontario (during the time Wynnie was in the saddle)?

How about the $631 million in BC, and what is attached to the Feds?

Do you even know what a crown royalty is and when they were last reviewed in BC and Alberta?

Surely you know that the source of the number is an enviro group that deliberately makes every number as alarming as possible to advance their own agenda?

.... That's what I thought.

Go back to watching CNN sags, you are just a TROLL


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OMO, I have had the likes of Sags and HP on ignore for some time. With their very low signal to noise ratio in non-monetary threads, it makes sifting through threads like this much less painful. You might consider it yourself.

The mere mention of 'royalty' in your post suggests Sags may be ranting on about his interpretation of tax breaks the fossil fuel industry gets.... which is pure horse pucky. There is almost no understanding about how the fiscal regimes (royalty, depletion, amortization) of any resource industry anywhere on this planet are set up. 

As an example, a lot of people especially seem to think accelerated DD&A is a subsidy when it is used by every government in a variety of ways to promote significant capital investment in a wide variety of industries, including technology, automation, innovation, new plant and equipment. That kind of drivel is not worth responding too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My post was a direct quote from the story.

The replies to it are solely opinion based and backed by no documentation at all.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I found this table:

https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/


Subsidy nameWho gives it?Who gets it?millionsFlow-through shares**CanadaOil and gas companies265Direct spending & budgetary transfers***CanadaOil and gas companies112Crown royalty reductionsAlbertaOil and gas companies1162Tax exemptions for certain fuels & uses in industryAlbertaIndustry298Royalty reductions, including deep drilling and infrastructure credits†British ColumbiaOil and gas companies631Reduced tax for aviation fuelOntarioAviation Industry292Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agricultureOntarioAgricultural industry248Fuel tax exemptions and reductions ‡QuebecIndustry and other consumers301

I think a reasonable share of the exemptions are actually due to motor fuel that is used off-road and therefore quite reasonably exempt from "road tax". Aviation fuel, "purple gas" and so forth, that is not used to drive on public highways is generally exempted from taxes targeted at paying for roads.

The largest line items are crown royalty reductions. Arguably they represent a subsidy, but the development deals that set out the royalty rates for production levels over time are contractual obligations between the crown and producers. Over time we expect the royalty reductions to diminish, and in the mean time, backing them out would be twice as expensive as they would cost to maintain.

Flow-through shares are something that applies to almost any risky business -- the source even allows that it also applies to renewable energy projects, along with many non-energy projects.

The remaining "Direct spending & budgetary transfers" is 112M and is probably the only thing reasonably addressable by potential policy changes by the feds. This line item is built from a few mining/exploration Accelerated capital cost allowances, Canadian development expense deductions and Oil and gas property expense deduction. Some of these are available for renewable energy projects too.

My overall conclusion is that there are some subsidies -- almost all in the form of tax breaks. The largest share of total, in the form of royalty reductions, goes to Alberta business from the Alberta Govt. The feds directly own a tiny slice of these tax breaks, and many of THOSE tax breaks are available for a range of industries, not only fossil fuel/O&G ones.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From the same article I quoted. 

It is also interesting that half of the taxation collected by corporations is returned to them. So much for the too much taxation on corporations theory.

_John Lester, a former federal government economist who now works as an executive fellow at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, said in a 2018 paper that there were about $14 billion in federal government business subsidies in 2014-15. The paper said Ottawa and the four largest provinces in Canada provided $29 billion in subsidies through program spending, mostly through the tax system, *with Alberta leading the way at $600 per capita corporate handouts.*

[*The total amount was about half of what the provinces and Ottawa collected in corporate income taxes.*
_
The federal government has been promising under both the former Conservative government and the recent Liberal one to cancel federal fossil fuel subsidies — worth more than $3.3 billion a year — as part of a pledge of all G20 nations to do so. Despite the decade-old promise that Canada has recommitted to every year since, the subsidies have not been cut.[/I]


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

No it wasn't a direct quote sags. The article says "_federal fossil fuel subsidies — worth more than $3.3 billion a year"_ 

What did you say, _Canada gives $3.3 billion every year to the fossil fuel industry_ 

But just because you quote a number from CBC doesn't make it true. In fact 'federal' is wrong, and the $ number is total unmitigated bullshit that is purposely misrepresenting expenditure types, level of government and accounting practices.

Actually no, my post is not "_opinion based and backed by no documentation at all_". I have the document that the 3.3 number comes from. It's not hard to find unless a person is a lazy troll. Of course that won't help some lazy trolls because they would have to actually read 34 pages of content and be aware that the numbers are misleading and misrepresented to present a heavily biased agenda.

I apologize if I interrupted your CNN viewing.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Ah there, gardner did your work for you sags, lazy troll.

Dig into that and tell us if you understand any of it. Tell us why claiming "Canada gives $3.3 billion every year to the fossil fuel industry" is a gross simplification and misrepresentation designed to mislead and advance an agenda.

Better yet, brush crumbs off your undershirt and stick with watching CNN.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Gardner, what is not understood is that royalty reductions (formulae?) are mostly time weighted value of money to allow accelerated cost recovery until such time sunk costs are recovered, plus potentially a 10% return on investment, before reverting to a net royalty. It allows companies to risk undertaking a capital venture on the premise of getting their money back sooner. No corporation wants to have 'cash in red' for an extended period of time. A big base metal or oil sands mine could have 10-15 years of 'cash in red' before turning a profit. Royalty reductions until payout plus a return lessens the time a venture is 'cash in red'.

A typical arrangement used throughout the world might go like this: 10% gross royalty (meaning 10% of all revenue received goes to government regardless of operating costs or DD&A) until costs have been recovered, then an allowance for return on capital, and then the royalty regime reverts to a 25% net regime, which means 25% of the difference between sales revenue less operating costs and ongoing DD&A. This allows both the company and government to have a 75/25 share of the profits for most of the project life (after payout). This is a generalized example of fiscal regimes I have had experience with in the Canadian oil sands, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, etc. In OECD countries, the resource (oil, gas, mining, etc) industries typically trust legislation and regulations of those countries to NOT inappropriately change the rules after the investment has been made. In most other countries, the resource industries cannot trust rule of law and so insist on commercial contracts where disputes are subject to international arbitration or the courts, e.g. The Hague. In still other cases, some countries insist on production sharing contracts (PSCs) which is a case where the country pays the resource industry to develop and sell their resources, and the operator gets to keep a portion of the revenue, e.g. Nigeria where PSCs were orginally set up with $2/BBL production sharing and then $4/BBL sharing in less attractive fields, etc. 

Flow-through shares are as you suggest. Usually highly risky ventures, or start ups, which develop business ventures/partnerships specifically ring fenced to develop a certain physical property. Without the flow through share concept, the venture would never take place, i.e. the investment would never be made. Governments have to decide whether they want no investment at all, or they are ready to use the flow through share vehicle. to get the investment, jobs, income taxes, etc. It can be a win-win for government (royalties, jobs, taxes) and for the investors, or as many retail investors know, do so poorly that they become merely tax write offs, with no return.

AB, BC et al specialized royalty reductions are specifically designed to encourage capital investment in resources that would not otherwise be developed. The choice becomes no investment at all, or a reduced take to get the capital investment committed, jobs and GST and income taxes flowing. A lot of conventional oil, gas and heavy oil wells (not projects) fall into this area because it would be uneconomic to invest in these scenarios to begin with. To my knowledge, all mature basins have these kinds of reduced royalty regimes. They exist in Canada, USA, North Sea and on land Netherlands, Germany, France, etc. There is nothing unique about these provisions in Canada that are not applied in some form elsewhere. Again, the objective is to incent investment vs leaving the uneconomic resource in the ground. Partisans call these subsidies because of the reduced terms associated with these investments. But the reality is, does the government want some money? Or no money at all?

It is the interpretation and labels that certain factions latch on too that misrepresent what is actually happening. 

Added: Decided to look at the link Gardner provided. It is the classic leftist, i.e. NDP/CCPA approach. Example: By having corporate income tax at X%, we are subsidizing business and not generating enough revenue to support 'hard working' Canadians. We should increase it to 2X% and wow... look at all the revenue we'd have. Except they forget that if they increased corporate income tax to 2X, business would stop investing in Canada and potentially even cease operations and move elsewhere such that actual tax revenue received would diminish, potentially to lower levels than it would have been with an X% tax rate. Capital knows no boundaries. It will move to where the economic opportunities are. Is income tax at X% really a subsidy or not?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadian taxpayers latest gift to Alberta.

_Scheer said the Conservatives would have never spent federal funds in other ways the Liberals have, including $220 million to buy energy-efficient gas turbines for the Canada LNG project in British Columbia, and *the $4.5-billion purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.*_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer would have waited around for some company to build the pipeline like Stephen Harper did for 11 years and never happened.

The latest is the Conservatives want to ram rod pipelines over property owner's rights. Who cares whose property it is..........oil is oil.

Alberta should clean up their own Province (tens of thousands of abandoned wells, toxic ponds, polluted water) before they lecture the rest of Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-scheer-pipelines-supreme-court-1.5289469


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Alberta's latest gift to Canadian taxpayers.
> 
> _Ownership of a $4.5 billion, profitable, regulated pipeline._


..


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> ...Alberta should clean up their own Province (tens of thousands of abandoned wells, toxic ponds, polluted water) before they lecture the rest of Canada.


Hey troll, care to provide sources to support for your latest bullshit post?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I was wrong. It isn't tens of thousands. It is 300,000 abandoned wells that will cost $70 billion to clean up.

Alberta taxpayers gift to oil companies.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5143478/...xGqECg.0&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

And there are 340 Billion gallons of toxic sludge the Alberta government doesn't know what to do with.

https://business.financialpost.com/...-of-sludge-spur-environmental-fears-in-canada

National Geographic called the Alberta oil sands the world's most destructive oil operation.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-is-growing-but-indigenous-people-fight-back/

The pollution to Alberta rivers, lakes and groundwater has been documented for decades.

Alberta taxpayers will get the bill for all this clean up some day and it will be devastating. 

The oil industry will just walk away like they have everywhere else.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ..


He is still spouting that nonsense? The Canadian taxpayers bought an existing profitable operating pipeline that pays dividends back to its shareholders. Should the taxpayers own an existing profitable pipeline? Of course not, but that was the only way to progress TMX. Kinder Morgan was no longer willing to pour any more of their shareholders' money into a project that had no reasonable certainty of TMX coming to fruition and allowing KM to get a return on their investment. Appears neither TRP nor ENB saw a reasonable probability either.

The partisans continue to spin deliberately misleading information.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Some facts about the oil sands and reclamation: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/publications/18740


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Hey troll, care to provide sources to support for your latest bullshit post?


More hyperbole, but that said, orphan wells that were owned by now bankrupt companies are a problem. Orphan wells have always been present and the Orphan Well Fund which is funded by fees paid by the oil industry have traditionally been able to properly seal and cement orphaned wells on an ongoing basis. I was one of the industry's participants in this program decades ago. The problem today is the higher rate of bankruptcies of oil firms and thus higher rate of orphaned wells. Plus a court battle AB is having trying to get environmental liabilities like orphaned wells as a secured creditor in bankruptcies. Essentially, Ottawa needs to change legislation to add some teeth to the law.

From what I see quoted by Sags, he's missed the barn door that was wide open to see. He refers to abandoned wells? Those are the ones that have been properly decommissioned. The ones that have not been properly decommissioned and secured are called 'orphan wells'. 

As for toxic ponds and polluted water, clearly a broad brush drive by an uniformed partisan. Performance (reclamation) bonds are posted for such reclamations although there is legitimate questions being raised if that is enough in event of a bankruptcy by the likes of CNQ, SU, etc. https://www.aer.ca/regulating-devel...and-processes/mine-financial-security-program


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Not to burst the bubble of any anti-Alberta **** mongers, but:

Some background on  o&g well abandonment. The AER has indicated that the vast majority of the 750 companies licensed to operate in Alberta “are doing just fine”. 

The recent insolvency of  Lexin, Sequoia and Trident has ballooned the number of orphan wells. The  OWA indicated that "in 2012 we had 14 wells left to be decommissioned and we’re at (about) 3,000 now". Funding and work has ramped up accordingly.

The  Supreme Court recently ruled that "Energy companies must fulfil their environmental obligations before paying back creditors in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy".

As an aside, it appears that  BAM has written down the thousands of Cdn wells held in their private equity segment.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Super... I obviously missed that Supreme Court decision back in January. Until then, it was getting more and more concerning given the rate of bankruptcies was accelerating.

As with anything, one must be careful what headlines one chooses to pick, and to do some due diligence. Too many in the media write their **** without their own due diligence.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> Kinder Morgan was no longer willing to pour any more of their shareholders' money into a project


Plus they pissed away all that money lobbying our governments, occupying the time of our elected officials. I can't believe we let foreign companies like Kinder Morgan have such a huge impacts on our politics (they were a very significant lobbyist).

AltaRed, as someone who has voiced so much concern about foreign interference in Canada, I would expect that you are also angered by this political influence that the foreign energy companies have. In my opinion, we should stop them from being able to influence Canadian laws and policy decisions.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Plus they pissed away all that money lobbying our governments, occupying the time of our elected officials. I can't believe we let foreign companies like Kinder Morgan have such a huge impacts on our politics (they were a very significant lobbyist).
> 
> AltaRed, as someone who has voiced so much concern about foreign interference in Canada, I would expect that you are also angered by this political influence that the foreign energy companies have. In my opinion, we should stop them from being able to influence Canadian laws and policy decisions.


There is no such thing as foreign interference by a foreign investor when they have capital at stake in the host country they are investing in. Every investor, regardless of origin, interacts with all levels of governments for its own capital projects. So does GM when they are investing capital in Ontario. So did Pembina when they invested in a petro-chemical project. So did Imperial Oil and partners when they were trying to get a fiscal regime in place for the Mackenzie Delta pipeline, So did the proponents of the 407 in Ontario. So did the shipbuilding firms on the coasts for naval vessels. So is Shell et al on the LNG project. 

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you say KM was 'a significant lobbyist'. Lobbyist for what? KM Canada and its parent company KM from the USA were doing what every project proponent does. I can't believe you don't understand the difference between a project proponent working with governments to further its capital project versus interference from foreign parties with no skin in the game in the host country, and/or who are attempting to cause damage in another country due to its own vested agenda in its home country. The exact things the Kenney inquiry is trying to get to the bottom of.

Kinder Morgan's money went into applying for and getting NEB approvals for the purposes of constructing the expansion project. It went into field work and environmental studies, front end engineering, and the pre-ordering of pipe to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to get to the approval stage. About 6-7 years of a project team getting to the point of putting a shovel in the dirt.

KM did the right thing before they continued to spend any more money on the expansion. They simply told the federal government they had to walk away from the expansion because they could not put any more money into it without certainty. KM could have simply dropped tools on the expansion, and continued to operate the existing pipeline indefinitely, or if Ottawa wanted too they could take on the whole thing and KM would kindly leave the country. KM was actually gracious enough to offer that option to Ottawa rather than simply abandon the expansion, like Enbridge did with Gateway. I really can't believe you are as stupid as your comments suggest. You really have a case of blinders on that is beyond comprehension.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The dumber that James gets on the O&G industry the smarter Alta Red makes me...thanks!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> The dumber that James gets on the O&G industry the smarter Alta Red makes me...thanks!


That post by James is so bizarre it is completely 'out of the solar system'. Had to read it 3 times to wonder what the hell he was talking about and I still don't really know. Any corporation that goes anywhere on this planet to do a project HAS to work with the various levels of government in the host country. Can you imagine TRP or Enbridge not working with Texas state and local governments on pipelines it is building from the Permian? Can you imagine Toyota, Honda, MB, BMW etc. not working with state or provincial governments in locating an assembly plan in their jurisdiction? The comments leave me speechless!

In KM's case, it actually IPO'd a portion of KM Canada on the TSX to attract capital for TMX and had Canadian shareholders. That is a highly unusual move to Canadianize a portion of its business, something the big automakers and a host of other multi-nationals have not done. It was more of a Canadian operation than a number of other entities which don't trade shares of a Canadian affiliate on the TSX.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What makes _me_ speechless, AltaRed, is how fervently you defend the right of foreign corporations to influence Canadian government policy.

Lobbying means: arranging meetings with government officials. Making their requests. Influencing politicians to decide on public matters, in their favour. Corporations use money (hire professional lobbyists) to influence government, to do what they want.

And no, just because someone is an investor in our country, does not mean they get to dictate policy. Government policy is up to Canadians to decide, not foreigners. On this matter, AltaRed and I have a difference in philosophy. I see it as improper and unacceptable. I believe AltaRed sees it as a normal and acceptable relationship between corporations & government.

A little bit of communication with officials is of course expected. But the lobbying efforts of Kinder Morgan went very far beyond that. Federal registries indicate they had a ton of contact with officials at many levels of Canadian government, very frequently.



> I have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you say KM was 'a significant lobbyist'. Lobbyist for what?


Wow, are you ignorant of your own industry. I thought you were an expert in this stuff? Kinder Morgan had extensive lobbying in Canada, at several levels of government. They occupied the time and energy of elected politicians.

If you'd like to see details of it, I'll refer you to these articles:

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lobbying+companies+lobbyists/8264170/story.html
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/20/Facts-About-Kinder-Morgan/
https://www.corporatemapping.ca/826-reasons/
https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...government-rigged-its-review-pipeline-federal



> In Canada the company has actively lobbied provincial and federal politicians since 2009. According to the Office of the Commissioner for Lobbying, *representatives of Kinder Morgan Canada have been extremely busy lobbying 19 different federal agencies, including the PMO’s office,* on technical tax issues, support for Trans Mountain expansion and promotion of international oil tanker shipping.
> 
> Since 2009 Anderson, the president of Kinder Morgan Canada, has had 226 “communications” with the federal government including nine “communications” in 2018 alone.


This isn't normal, run-of-the-mill contact between a corporation and government. This is a really cozy relationship, and exerting influence and pressure.

Do you think Canadian companies have this kind of power in other countries like USA and Brazil? Get real! Of course they don't.

It's time for Canadians to start fighting back. Who should control policy... Canadian voters, or large American corporations? The answer is clear.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James you are mistaken if you dont think there are years of interactions between sponsors of big multi- billion dollar projects and governments. You clearly are out of your league if you dont grasp that. 

Five years would not be uncommon for a wide range of expecially resource projects all over the world before they get to FEED (front end engineering and design). TMX via KM is not an unusual anomaly for 200 communications over 9 years, albeit it should never have been 9 years if the pipeline had been progressed on a timely basis.

I have been involved at various times in a number of such situations around the world such as USA, Kazakhstan, Canada. I have sat in many offices of many ministries of government officials. Most of the time it is education via white papers and PowerPoint presentations on technical environmental and financial matters, and other times it is fiscal negotiations. It takes unbelievable patience to provide everything that governments want before and during negotiations. The amount of effort seems directly proportional to how long it takes to get a project from idea to start of major construction.

Added: You are also mistaken if you don't think our major multi-nationals don't undertake similar processes in various projects around the world. I can think of pipeline projects in Argentina, Chile, Peru and Mexico and I suspect our mining companies have spent years getting their fiscal (royalty and tax) contracts negotiated and signed in all the various countries in the world they do business in. It is less about ANY power a multi-national has, than it is persuading host governments what is needed to make a project economically viable. 5+ years is probably at the light end of the time needed to get to the point of commitment and construction.

It is not about writing host country policy, It is about fiscal contracts, obtaining ROW, access to ports, etc, etc, etc. There are dozens of things that must be negotiated and signed to help make the project happen. In places like PNG, such things would include port enhancements, building of roads and even villages with schools. No freaking idea what you are ranting about 'Canadians fighting back'. In the TMX case, Canadian industry WANTS the pipeline expansion and KM just happened to be the owner of the existing line. No different than TRP building Keystone XL or Enbridge replacing Line 3. Where do you get your ideas from?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yeah, I've seen it too AltaRed. I've been in the room with lobbyists from the military industrial complex, and saw how they influence US government officials to further their own interests. I worked as a consultant, assisting US govt.

More than once, I thought to myself: the things these lobbyists are pushing are not good for the country.

I found it disgusting, to the point I didn't want to be involved with any of it any more (and quit that role). I saw first hand how these companies get their agendas into government, and it's really horrible.

I don't think it's right. Yes I realize it's common, but I think it's bad for democracy. I'm not aware of how much Canada does it elsewhere in the world.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Nothing in the mega-dollar range would ever happen if there were not years of negotiations between large companies and governments. We (meaning any national government) would have no infrastructure, we'd have no resource development and we wouldn't have any industrial complex without negotiations and lobbying between the investors and governments. That is how it has been done since the early days of steamboats and railroads and will always be done. The investors need certain assurances before betting their companies on an an investment. If you believe it should be anything else, you have not evolved from kindergarten.

FWIW, I think the military-industrial complex is a special category that holds sway in the USA in particular. That is what much of the economy is about. Without the government procuring all the 'stuff' the complex is selling them, the economy would likely collapse. But the government (military) continues to want bigger and better toys. Everyone feeds off this remarkable machine for better or for worse.

Added: You better believe our multi-nationals with operations ex-Canada actively progress their investment opportunities with host governments as much as anyone else does. Because it has to be done.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed, saw you edited and posted more. What do I mean by 'fighting back'?

You talk a lot about industry wanting this and that, but here are other stakeholders in Canada. Yes, Canadian industry is one stakeholder. _They are just one of many stakeholders_. Others are citizens, people who live in different provinces, who have local concerns of their own, BC residents, First Nations, etc.

You talk as if what industry wants is the whole story. British Columbia does not want the project built (for example). These are pipelines that cover a lot of land ... it's not simply a matter of what industry in Alberta wants.

With those disputes, it's then up to Canadians to figure out how to resolve, negotiate or reach middle ground. *That's a Canadian matter*. What I don't find acceptable is for the foreign corporation to interfere in our politics as we try to attend to our citizens' interests and concerns.

And if attending to those concerns means that investors get screwed? Then screw the investors. Investors don't get to have a special power. Of course their interests have to be listened to (and you and I both know they are ... they spend lots of money explaining their interests).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It all pretty much boils down to climate change.

The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to global warming and climate change. 

Other industries don't have the same obviously negative impact on the planet.

Canadians believe climate change is real and caused by burning fossil fuels. They wonder why the Canadian government supports big oil expansion.

Canada produces as much oil as it ever has. Lower prices for Canadian oil due to a global oil glut will not be solved by adding more supply via a new pipeline.

If the world needed Canadian oil it would not be priced at a discount.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It seems to me the only position that Canadians will accept, is the government supports fossil fuel production with the proviso that all steps to eliminate fossil fuel use as soon as possible are implemented.

Research and development, subsidies for alternative energy, subsidies for electric vehicles, support for the alternative energy industry are key policies.

Liberals appear to support some of each, with a foot in each doorway. It isn't clear which position they support more.

Conservatives clearly reject any support for alternative energy, deny climate change, and wish to expand the fossil fuel industry.

The evidence for this is reflected in their policies. For example........eliminating subsidies for alternative energy.

Canadians believe it is important for them to know where political parties stand on climate change, so they can vote for the party that reflects their views.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> AltaRed, saw you edited and posted more. What do I mean by 'fighting back'?
> 
> You talk a lot about industry wanting this and that, but here are other stakeholders in Canada. Yes, Canadian industry is one stakeholder. _They are just one of many stakeholders_. Others are citizens, people who live in different provinces, who have local concerns of their own, BC residents, First Nations, etc.
> 
> ...


James, this will be my last post on this matter. 

1. BC does want the pipeline. Polls over the last few years have consistently shown the majority of British Columbians want the pipeline. You consistently either conveniently forget this small fact or have been programmed and conditioned to believe it. It is a small ideological group of Greens and lower mainlanders who feel they have the right to impose their will on everyone else. That is not democracy in itself. In less than two years, another provincial election may actually cause the majority to prevail (the Liberals in opposition actually have more seats). The short answer: The majority of stakeholders want the project.

2. This proposal has been studied to death every which way it can be sliced over the past 5 years. There is nothing that has not been brought to the table and discussed. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by the project sponsor to get the proposal this far. Government agencies have all agreed that there is a net benefit to Canadians through all these studies, public hearings and NEB decision making. Just because some are against the project does not make it NOT in the best interest of Canadians overall. Repeat: The majority of stakeholders support the project. 

3. KM is not the villain here. They are the messenger and the company that took on the shareholder financial risk to progress this proposal to its approval in 2018. It was recognized some 15 years ago by both politicians provincially(BC and AB) and federally that Canada was the natural preferred supplier of oil supply to the rapidly growing Asian tigers. With the possible exception of some Siberian oil fields, we were closest and remain closest to them physically and that is why China (Petro-China, Sinopec, CNOOC, Husky) has invested so heavily in Canadian oil production. That physical fact remains fact. It was the politicians and the producers who encouraged KM to seek an expansion of their system through the regulatory process and it was the producers who signed long term shipping contracts to financially underpin the financing of this project. It is the same process that encouraged Enbridge to pursue Gateway. 

4. It was ideology at the political level that eventually killed Gateway and Enbridge shareholders had to eat the hundreds of millions of sunk costs when JT arbitrarily killed the project. As the saying goes, that ruling simply prevents Canadian crude from being shipped out by tanker, but it does not prohibit tankers plying the west coast bringing crude to Puget Sound, as has been occurring for decades from Alaska. 

5. Now it was political ideology at the provincial level that has again been going against majority public opinion. When the debacle unfolded in 2018 that set the project back, KM management and shareholders recognized their company could not afford another Gateway with hundreds of millions of dollars of sunk costs. The company might not have been big enough to absorb that level of write offs given their balance sheet issues in the USA. I suspect their bankers pressured KM management to cut their losses. The choices were limited: 1) Walk away from TMX and simply remain as an operator of a profitable existing pipeline and absorb the sunk costs of the attempt, 2) Attempt to sell the lot given that TMX and the existing pipeline are highly intertwined and impractical to operate with two different ownerships. 

6. No doubt KM tried to market the whole lot to the marketplace, but no one else, i.e. Enbridge nor TRP, were ready to take on the financial risk of where TMX stood given their own project experiences. Enbridge had its own debacle with Northern Gateway and challenges with Line 3, and TRP has had a 6 year debacle with Keystone XL. Both already had and have unrecoverable sunk costs at stake. Hence the federal option that came to be. The Feds knew (and know) that TMX is the right project at the right time for Canada, all things considered and studied to death. It will be an economic and strategically placed asset to the eventual owners when it finally comes to fruition. This country cannot afford to turn its back on the obvious and desirable Asian tiger market, never mind potentially the entire west cost of North America as a market opportunity. California refineries already need additional sources of crude too. Ultimately, this country should thank KM for persevering as long as it did on this project. They've done everything reasonably possible through no fault of their own to progress a project that is good for, and valued, by the majority of Canadian stakeholders... and will be over the long term. We will avoid crude oil trains plying the Fraser Canyon and we will almost certainly look back at this years from now and wonder how incredibly naive we were at the time.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Sadly those who oppose the pipepine do so because they buy into the propaganda and lies.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Sadly those who oppose the pipepine do so because they buy into the propaganda and lies.



let's be honest here, do you know of a single cmffer who opposes transMountain pipe? offhand i do not, i would say that, as with the ROC, the vast majority of cmf supports TMP II. 

among all these supporters, there are varying degrees of comparehension & patience when it comes to understanding & working with BC greens & indigenous nations who still oppose. But agreement is in sight.

i would say that by far the most discordant note is coming from a few apparently-angry alt rights who continue to stir up commotion by claiming that "liberals" & "leftists" are opposing the pipeline. Yes, there are some demonstrators in burnaby from time to time. They will be dealt with. As mentioned, one would be hard put to find any small-ell liberal anywhere in canada today who opposes the pipeline.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> 1. BC does want the pipeline. Polls over the last few years have consistently shown the majority of British Columbians want the pipeline.



I feel like this could use some references...

2016: https://biv.com/article/2016/12/poll-finds-majority-bc-support-trans-mountain
2018: https://abacusdata.ca/is-bc-really-polarized-over-kinder-morgan-trans-mountain/
2018: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...tain-pipeline-supporters-in-bc-poll-1.4624611
2018: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/second-poll-i...pport-growing-even-among-ndp-voters-1.3893986
2019: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/most-british-...ans-mountain-pipeline-approval-poll-1.4495165


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to global warming and climate change.


Correction: ONLY the BURNING of fossil fuels... Just sucking it out of the ground has little impact. It's down to when and how it gets used to say what the carbon footprint is. That is a matter for the consumer, not the producer. A consumer of lubricant or plastics is on safer ground than someone who just burns it.

And it's worth being clear that fossil fuels are not all the same vis-a-vis carbon footprint. You can knock 25% of the carbon footprint off a ship by switching from bunker to LNG. You can knock back half the footprint of coal electricity by switching to LNG. These are excellent reasons why northern gateway LNG should be a huge priority for the greens. Imagine if China could stop burning coal entirely and instead buy huge dollops of LNG from the Peace river? The jobs and money all flowing to northern BC residents and the world basking in a genuine reduction in GHG emissions. Not to mention huge improvements in non-GHG pollution and elimination of the near-slave conditions of Chinese coal mining. All rainbows and unicorns as far as the eye can see!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is some burning of fossil fuels, mostly nat gas in the processing of oil and gas production (oil batteries and gas processing plants) to separate out impurities like sulphur, particulates, water and salt make the raw crude and gas pipelineable and marketable, or in the specific case of mining, diesel used by the haul trucks. The major user in that chain are the refineries to make the refined products. Like anything else, if consumers were to reduce demand for liquid hydrocarbons in particular, there would be less CO2 emitted. The focus in this whole debate needs to be on reducing consumption, i.e. the demand side of the equation. As linked before, Suncor, for example, is now spending some $1.8B? to replace coke for power, with a cogeneration facility that will significantly reduce CO2 footprint.

It really is misguided to blame producers around the world for CO2 emissions. They are simply providing the HC supply to meet consumer demand. Producers themselves actually want to keep their own energy usage as low as possible for simple economic reasons. The less energy they use, the less energy they have to buy and/or the more they have to actually sell. They spend small fortunes on improved technology to keep these costs (and emissions) down. Don't know how many countless times this seems to need to be said.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> l
> i would say that by far the most discordant note is coming from a few apparently-angry alt rights who continue to stir up commotion .


Same thread killers looking to call people Nazi's rather than try and learn something.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eder said:


> Same thread killers looking to call people Nazi's rather than try and learn something.



eder perhaps you should work to achieve a real vocabulary?

was anybody using the nazi word on here, other than yourself?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

gardner has a link whose data suggests more near-term trouble for TMP II than i was expecting.

although the CTV headline trumpets that "most british columbians" agree with transMountain, nevertheless the article itself says that a surprising number of BC residents are still opposed.

a july/2019 poll found 56% of british columbians in favour of TMP II while 44% either opposed or had not yet decided. 

44% not in favour as recently as this past summer is close to half of all BC residents. Out of the not-in-favour camp, 33% of british columbians opposed TMP II outright. Another 11% said they had not yet decided.





gardner said:


> 2019: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/most-british-...ans-mountain-pipeline-approval-poll-1.4495165


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie, looks like you exposed the wacky foreign conspiracy to harm Alberta, and plunge its residents into a world of poverty.

Do Albertans really believe this nonsense?

What these threads are teaching me is that on Planet Alberta, the only thing that matters is the energy industry's wishes. US energy corporations are beloved friends, even as they interfere with and override our democratic institutions. Other voters (in Alberta, BC, and Canada) are enemies who hold back Alberta from achieving the obscene wealth it deserves. The concerns from citizens, provinces, and First Nations are an elaborate conspiracy, and not legitimate.

If Alberta's enemies have their way, hard working oil & gas workers will only be able to afford Chevy Silverados instead of the higher end trucks they deserve!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> gardner has a link whose data suggests more near-term trouble for TMP II than i was expecting.
> 
> although the CTV headline trumpets that "most british columbians" agree with transMountain, nevertheless the article itself says that a surprising number of BC residents are still opposed.
> 
> ...


Supporters 56% outnumber opponents 33%, by 25%, that's almost double the support for vs against. Assuming your numbers are correct.
How can such a high level of support indicate a problem?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Actually, Albertans complain because they don't want the likes of j, h or s getting any ideas about moving there.

 New survey finds Alberta first-time buyers among most optimistic in Canada. 
 Alberta avg house price Apr 2018 $387,000 (-4.9 % 12mo)

Solar project approved for southern Alberta would be Canada's largest, by far. Array of 1.5 million panels will provide enough energy to power 100,000 homes. It will be, by far, the largest solar energy project in Canada and one of the largest in the world. (It will cover 7 1/4 sections (4,640 acres) of agricultural land, but green energy doesn't come without environmental costs).

Northwestern Alberta’s first commercial-scale geothermal facility. The facility, upon completion, will be the first in the province and the first of its kind in Canada. Generating five megawatts of electricity annually and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 20,000 tonnes per year.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Supporters 56% outnumber opponents 33%, by 25%, that's almost double the support for vs against. Assuming your numbers are correct.
> How can such a high level of support indicate a problem?



poll results showing that one-third of a population opposes a planned operation is not the same thing as a political vote based on simple majority.

one-third of any population opposed to a major infrastructure project planned for their biggest city means a relatively high probability of trouble ahead. Trouble in the form of demonstrations, sabotage.

me i was surprised that the percentage of opposed + undecided was so high at 44%. I was expecting that a not-approving TMP II poll would pull only 15-20% negative at this point in time.

certainly to hear altaRed & others talk, southern BC is supposed to be united in its pro pipeline support. But the CTV july/19 poll suggests that such reality may still be some time away.

ie there's still more work to be done to win over the undecideds. A second concern is how to work with the diehard opposed cohorts, because those are the groups that are going to spawn demonstrators & saboteurs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> poll results showing that one-third of a population opposes a planned operation is not the same thing as a political vote based on simple majority.
> 
> one-third of any population opposed to a major infrastructure project planned for their biggest city means a relatively high probability of trouble ahead. Trouble in the form of demonstrations, sabotage.
> 
> ...


Nearly twice as many people support it as object to it, that's pretty overwhelming support.

Definitely higher than marijuanna legalizatoin
http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2880/cannabis-october-2018

Sabotage and illegal demonstrations are easy to deal with.
Unfortunately we have a government that doesn't believe in the rule of law.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

No government could survive ramming a pipeline through without a consensus by landowners.

It would be a pointless exercise when the next government would get elected by vowing to remove it.

Face it......if BC doesn't want it, they can just slap a high Provincial tax on the flow and that be that.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> ... Face it......if BC doesn't want it, they can just slap a high Provincial tax on the flow and that be that.


I believe the courts may have decided otherwise? But they also continue to throw **** against the wall just like you, hoping that something will stick.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Another large solar development in Alberta:
$200MM Alberta solar farm to proceed after TC Energy deal


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Today's CBC 'The Current' interview with Jason Kenney (19min). An articulate explanation of Alberta's position. 
Worth a listen by anyone with a genuine interest in understanding the issues.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent...-because-manifesto-was-radical-left-1.5316012


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jagmeet Singh says he will talk nice to the 70% of Quebec people who support Bill C21 and convince them they are wrong.

Jason Kenney blusters and rants and thinks he can threaten Canadians into accepting his view of climate change and pipelines.

Both leaders are naive and sadly mistaken.

The only way a pipeline is going to ever get built is the Trudeau way with consultation and agreement among the affected stakeholders.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Kenney is pretty much checking all the boxes on the issues we elected him on. Its refreshing to read the news and see at least our premier has our back...unlike the Notley disaster.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm afraid we get spoiled by Conservatives who try to keep their promises. Then we elect Liberals and wonder what went wrong.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

_Demonstrating the trend__, last week Calgary-based Perimeter Solar Inc. said it would move ahead with a $200-million, 130-megawatt solar power project in southern Alberta after signing a contract to sell just over half of the output to TC Energy Corp. Arnold says the *open market in Alberta allows such deals to be struck between generator and customer, but they are prevented by regulation in most of the rest of Canada*.

Evan Wilson, Prairies director for Canadian Wind Energy Association, says Alberta has the third-largest wind power sector in Canada and it supplies about seven per cent of provincial demand thanks to about 1,500 megawatts of capacity from 900 turbines at 37 projects. He says the sector is set to add about 1,300 megawatts over the next two years_

*Unlike other provinces, Alberta has an open, deregulated marketplace, which create opportunities for private-sector investment.*
The recent decision by the Kenney government to stick with the energy-only market, instead of shifting to a capacity market, is seen as positive by renewable electricity developers.
There is also increasing interest from corporations to buy wind and solar power from generators — a trend that has taken off in the United States with players such as Google, General Motors and Amazon — and that push is now emerging in Canada.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Alberta begins to eke out a small net migration again. 









https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/migration-to-alberta-hits-highest-level-since-petro-slump

But ATB - Challenges will continue


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

Last night for a few minutes I was listening to CBC Radio. They were interviewing a few Calgary residents. I sensed a bit of despair and apathy with regards to how they perceived the federal gov is treating Calgary's economy. It was a bit sad. I don't think that is the case in BC. Why can't we do something?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think its a bit late for the ROC to care...Alberta will fix itself in spite of the Butts government.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Albertans are constantly assaulted with "woe is me" rhetoric from Kenney and right wing media, and it is a wonder they can crawl out of bed in the morning.

Instead of looking for new opportunities in the coming new world, the Conservatives continue to want to go back to the past.

Alberta should have elected Rachel Notley for another term. Conservatives have done nothing for them.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

^ Incapable of digesting any of the several links I provided today I see. 
If you had bothered, you would find out your post is (as usual) the bile of an ignorant old man.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Alberta begins to eke out a small net migration again.
> 
> View attachment 19736
> 
> ...




the meaning of your text message above is not clear to me. The way i read your table is that alberta experienced negative out-migration during 2016 & 2017, followed by a slight rise to net in-migration during 2018 & very early 2019, followed by a descending line to net out-migration as this 2019 year unfolds.

i'm puzzled as to why your graphic shows Q2 only. Those months - april may & june - would be the period when young working families w school age children prepare to leave. But because the children have to remain in school through late may or early june, those are not the months when the families actually do depart alberta. They are more likely to move during the summer months, aiming to be in their new locatons by late august when the new school years get underway.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I believe the courts may have decided otherwise? But they also continue to throw **** against the wall just like you, hoping that something will stick.



won't you please stop with the obscene language, i do beg of you. Yourself & altaRed are the principal offenders at present. It's ugly to see, serves no purpose & it certainly disfigures cmf forum for all the public to view.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> the meaning of your text message above is not clear to me. The way i read your table is that alberta experienced negative out-migration during 2016 & 2017, followed by a slight rise to net in-migration during 2018 & very early 2019, followed by a descending line to net out-migration as this 2019 year unfolds.
> 
> i'm puzzled as to why your graphic shows Q2 only. Those months - april may & june - would be the period when young working families w school age children prepare to leave. But because the children have to remain in school through late may or early june, those are not the months when the families actually do depart alberta. They are more likely to move during the summer months, aiming to be in their new locatons by late august when the new school years get underway.


Humble, I believe the linked article that the graph was sourced from provides the context. 
i.e., _For the first time since 2015, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta saw more people migrating here from other provinces, though that number — 5,542 since July 2018 — pales in comparison to figures before the downturn_
That (the July '18-'19 period) was the basis for saying there has been a small net migration.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Humble, I believe the linked article that the graph was sourced from provides the context.
> i.e., _For the first time since 2015, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta saw more people migrating here from other provinces, though that number — 5,542 since July 2018 — pales in comparison to figures before the downturn_
> That (the July '18-'19 period) was the basis for saying there has been a small net migration.



thankx for details, yes i noticed that 2018-very early 2019 uptick in your table

what i'm wondering is what is the composition of that uptick? would it be possible there were a number of immigrant & other new arrivals to this country in that uptick?

it may not be possible to know, the data might not break down so finely. 

as you say, the good news is that the trend has stabilized in alberta.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> won't you please stop with the obscene language, i do beg of you. Yourself & altaRed are the principal offenders at present. It's ugly to see, serves no purpose & it certainly disfigures cmf forum for all the public to view.


Humble, I suppose it may not be apparent(?) but I have been trying in this thread to largely post news of positive developments in Alberta, including ghg reducing investments that are occuring. Whether it serves to provide any useful insight to those like james and sags who are so openly hostile to the west, its leaders, and the big bad oil sector, is an open question.

As to obscenity, I respond in kind. Posts that are based on fallacy and/or ignorance of facts that can be easily checked are not 'opinion'. They are the hallmark of a person who posts to "_distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages_". In other words a troll. Such posts are no less obscene than the word 'sh^t'. 

So I apologize in advance, but I will continue to respond in kind when it seems warranted.

Verticalscope is concerned about eyeballs and impression income, not the occasional 4 letter word that starts with 's'. 
Personally, I find the idea of the public reading the vacous posts of a troll more disconcerting.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Now I'm hostile to the west? I live in a western province, genius (Manitoba). Living in the west doesn't automatically make someone a mouthpiece for the energy industry.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Isn't it ironic that while there are 100,000 abandoned wells in Alberta due to poor oversight and regulation, Premier Kenney lobbies for less regulation and oversight.

Ontario learned it's lessons the hard way with abandoned uranium mines and petrochemical facilities. Alberta is going to face the same legacy challenges left by the oil industry.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Oh yes, I remember driving through Manitoba now. Terrible road conditions and drivers on that Winnipeg bypass.
Reminds me, I missed stopping at (longitudinal) Centre of Canada Park just outside Winnipeg to celebrate leaving the eastern half of Canada.
You're right, your hostility is more specific to Alberta.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Isn't it ironic that while there are 100,000 abandoned wells in Alberta due to poor oversight and regulation, Premier Kenney lobbies for less regulation and oversight.


See Humble, here's another example. 

Information and links were posted earlier in post #88 about orphan and abandoned wells after a similar misleading trolling post. Warning to readers: the sh^t word appears.

If the information had been read, the ridiculous comment would not be posted, but because we are dealing with a troll, the facts are not the point. To "_distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages_" is the point.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_The number of wells in the province slated to be remediated is about 3,000. *However, there are more than 100,000 unproductive wells that will need to be cleaned up.*

A new report suggests cleaning up all of the old and unproductive oil and gas wells in Alberta will cost between $40 billion and $70 billion._

The last thing Alberta needs is less regulation on the "walk away and leave the mess" oil industry.

Kenney is a Conservative. It was Conservatives who created the mess and pissed all the royalty money away. Albertans can help themselves by not voting Conservative.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/orphan-wells-alberta-aldp-aer-1.5089254


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

Looks like the situation in Fort Mac is not healthy:



> *From binge to bust: A Canadian oil town lines up at the food bank*


Used to be the engine of growth for Alberta. Now on hard times, due to a combination of factors such as low energy prices and natural disasters.

From BNN Bloomberg:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/from-bi...-oil-town-lines-up-at-the-food-bank-1.1330084


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Alberta Energy Regulator was a corrupt organization with little or no expertise.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/aer-icore-board-members-1.5312265


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

The AER has about 1200 staff, many of them are professionals dedicated to job excellence. 

But what does sags have to say:


> The Alberta Energy Regulator was a corrupt organization with little or no expertise.


Pretty broad generalization don't you think?

That is why you are regarded as a troll who posts in ignorance. A troll posting on a financial forum who has never had anything financial to contribute.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL........take your whining to the 3 investigations that uncovered the blatant fraud, theft, and corruption that has been revealed.

Maybe Jason Kenney is right and the regulatory bodies in Alberta aren't worth keeping.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

But I'm not whining. I'm pointing out the ignorance that gets posted by you - the resident troll.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_A troll posting on a financial forum who has never had anything financial to contribute._

As to this comment, There is little of interest to me being posted in the financial sections, that hasn't already been posted numerous times.

I already know all the low level financial stuff and the high level financial stuff like options and bonds are way above my pay grade.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Don't strain your brain. There is nothing that you can contribute to a financial discussion. You are a very competent troll however.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> That is why you are regarded as a troll who posts in ignorance. A troll posting on a financial forum who has never had anything financial to contribute.




onlyMO let's not do this. Sags is a nice man who votes NDP & therefore he has opinions that differ from your own.

sags is not a troll. Neither are jas4beach or myself. We just happen to have opinions that differ from your own.

PS if we end up w a liberal minority gummint i am thanking my stars that it's the NDP they'll likely be looking to for vote support when they need it.

although jagmeet singh has said his party wants no more fossil fuel development in canada, recent remarks in scrum show that he might agree to TMP II as planned. He's already said the federal NDP supports the pacific coast LNG terminal as does the NDP BC gummint.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The AER has about 1200 staff, many of them are professionals dedicated to job excellence.
> 
> But what does sags have to say:
> Pretty broad generalization don't you think?
> ...


The AER is, and has been, a highly qualified and respected organization globally and has been a 'go to' for decades by many countries on how to be an energy regulator. What happened recently was a rogue CEO (Ellis) and a few members of his management team using AER resources to develop a 'side business'. Ellis was not a good choice to begin with. They are now gone and the new executives are trying to restore employee pride and morale. Good on them.

It would be a travesty, ignorance and maliciousness to dump all over the AER.

Added: A link to the CBC news story. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/aer-icore-board-members-1.5312265 An example of a rogue CEO and some complicit direct reports AND just as importantly lack of proper Board oversight. It is an example of sloppy governance BUT those issues do not take away from the good work that the organization does overseeing the overall energy industry. It would be like saying a rogue driver behind the wheel of an auto condemns the auto itself.

When I used to sit on the Board of a few Joint Ventures we were equity owners in, the operator's management team would sometimes get annoyed at questions being asked. I had no problem reminding them the Board's job is to ask pertinent questions and get answers on both operations and forward plans. Too may Boards don't do their jobs. Think HCG and its near death experience, or MFC during the great recession on its risk management protocols. Especially important with aggressive, ambitious Executive teams.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They haven't done a very good job of fixing the problem or advising the public about the estimated 167,000 abandoned wells in Alberta.

But then, it may not have been a high priority for a succession of Conservative governments.

_“For decades, we've looked the other way as the number of aging oil and gas wells threatening farm lands and drinking water continues to grow,” Regan Boychuck, lead researcher for ALDP, said in a news release.* “The Alberta Energy Regulator hasn’t come clean on how much it will actually cost to deal with this mess*, but our new data raises the floor of the debate. We need the government to tell Albertans the truth, so we can make a plan to deal with this ticking time bomb.”
_
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...andoned-oil-wells-could-cost-dollar70-billion


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I've been advised that Sags, who is on my Ignore list, is misrepresenting (again) the 100,000 or so of 'abandoned' wells in AB. Guess he did not learn the first time. Abandonment is a technical term for proper abandonment of wells, wellhead facilities, flow lines, pipelines, processing facilities, etc. But with respect to wells specifically, wells are either in: 1) suspension or inactive, i.e. not producing oil or gas, not re-injecting gas or water, not disposing of excess salt water, or 2) in the more important context has been permanently abandoned safely by cementing off the well bore and cutting off the casing below surface the way it should be.

1) inactive wells often are used at a later date by converting them for secondary recovery such as re-injection of water or natural gas for improved oil recovery, or re-completed to a producing zone (reservoir) higher up in the well bore. Some are simply scheduled for permanent abandonment.

2) abandoned wells are those in which the producing string has been removed, the casing has been cemented off to prevent any future hydrocarbons or water to surface, the wellhead removed, and the casing cut off and sealed below land surface.

https://www.aer.ca/regulating-development/project-closure/suspension-and-abandonment

A 30 year old producing field of 1000 wells, for example, may have 500 wells producing oil, another 200 re-injecting gas into the reservoir for reservoir pressure maintenance and/or 100 wells re-injecting produced water (that comes with the oil) back into the reservoir, or temporarily suspended pending company technical decisions to re-configure, or eventually formally abandon. Such inactive/suspended wells may exist for 10 or more years pending re-evaluations of how the field produces and companies have an abandonment program whereby they will formally abandon a certain number of wells no longer needed each year. For all the years I worked in the O&G industry, our drilling dept had a budget for formally abandoning a certain number of wells each year.

The real problem is orphan wells, wellsite facilities and the like for which the company who owned them has gone bankrupt and there are no resources left to spend the money to formally abandon the equipment. Hence the Orphan Well Association, funded by the industry, which goes in and does the abandonment work. http://www.orphanwell.ca/ As can be seen from http://www.orphanwell.ca/about/orphan-inventory/ the inventory of orphaned (problem) wells is certainly not 100,000 or so. 

That said, the list grew a lot since the downturn in the industry started 4 years ago when more and more companies went bankrupt. My understanding is that earlier this year, the Supreme court ruled in favour of AB to get orphaned wells and facilities as a secured creditor ahead of bond holders to secure funds to undertake proper abandonment. That will go a long way to reducing the burden and inventory in the Orphan Well program.

Way too often, people quote stuff for which they know nothing about, or more often, maliciously misrepresent the facts. Spirits willing, I hope not to have to explain this stuff again!


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Many Canadians love Albertan handouts but are not thrilled with the source of their handout...just listen to Blanchet...he hates everything Albertan but loves the welfare check we write him each year.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> Many Canadians love Albertan handouts but are not thrilled with the source of their handout...just listen to Blanchet...he hates everything Albertan but loves the welfare check we write him each year.


Quebec will always whine for more and more largesse so might as well just tune it out. That said, if CBC's Poll Tracker today was to hold through Oct 21 (but it most likely won't), the Cons would need the BQ to support them for the 170 threshold for passing at least some legislation. Wouldn't that be an interesting state of affairs! Obviously, the election is way too close to call even if the vote was happening this coming Monday. Just maybe BC will be the swing province this time and easterners will have to stay up until 3am to get results.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags I am encouraged by your deep and abiding interest in well abandonment, the status of Alberta's industries and, its current economic challenges.

Here is a link to Directive 13 for your interest. It can be hard to keep up with regulatory changes don't you find.

You are probably already familiar with Alan Harvie's (Norton Rose Fulbright) article providing a summary of the recent ABC (area-based closure) strategy. But I have provided a link here in case it has slipped your mind. It offers a more cost efficient and timely method of dealing with the abandonment and reclamation of suspended wells and has met with some success already (e.g. Husky). 

I see you have been following the ALDP. Not sure if you have reviewed their most recent excel file which lists their estimate of abandonment liabilities by company. You can open the file by clicking the green X at the  bottom of their research webpage.

Remember, as noted in this Edmonton Journal article, that while raising the profile of this issue is good, the ALDP is an advocacy group with support from some anti-development groups. Their liability estimates are considered high and are based on a 'shut down the industry tomorrow' scenario and must be taken with a 'large grain of salt'. We don't have a lot of granularity for their assumptions.

I know you will have reviewed my earlier link to the OWA's annual report in detail, but I've provided it again to note that their all-in cost to abandon a well and reclaim the wellsite last year was a respectable $61k (page 5).

We realize that not all wells are the same. Even every natural gas well, oil or bitumen well will have a different PBTD, # completed zones, BGW, etc., which all affect the abandonment program and costs. A well planned and executed abandonment program can really drive down the per well costs. Large companies with large programs are able to negotiate better terms with service companies. And of course they are most familiar with their well inventory particulars and future liability.

We look at these liabilities on the books when we review their financials. Those that are in strong financial shape can be expected to meet their future obligations. It is those in poor financial shape that are of greatest concern. Do you own any companies in your portfolio that are causing you to lose sleep at night?

Looking forward to further informed discussion with you on the challenges and solutions of this issue.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Don't strain your brain. There is nothing that you can contribute to a financial discussion. You are a very competent troll however.


That's very rude. You seem to have a lot of trouble with opinions that differ from your own.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Deleted


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Glad to hear there is no problem. Canadian taxpayers won't have to pay for the cleanup.

_Kenney also said he would speak to PM Trudeau about working together on a well reclamation plan after news yesterday that a company was walking away from more than 4000 wells and leaving over $300 million in cleanup liabilities._

Suspended, abandoned, orphaned.......look like word play to hide the depth of the problem from the public.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Not sure if you got the news of Medicine Hat's decision to abandon and reclaim 2,000 of their shallow natural gas wells. The cost of $90 million (avg $45,000/well) is being spread out over seveal years. These are low rate (volume) wells and with continuing low nat gas prices they are uneconomic to operate. Shallow gas was originally discovered by accident near Med Hat in 1883 when the CPR was drilling for water for its locomotives.

This article in the Globe yesterday starts (and ends - nicely written) with the same Med Hat news, but also provides a fairly extensive discussion of Alberta's situation, challenges and the upcoming Federal election.
While it is titled: _What about Alberta? In the federal election, the province’s economic woes fail to break through_, and discusses the current economic and employment challenges, it's worth noting that there is some positive forward-looking commentary in the article, including having the youngest, most highly educated population, and affordable housing prices.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Eder said:


> Many Canadians love Albertan handouts but are not thrilled with the source of their handout...just listen to Blanchet...he hates everything Albertan but loves the welfare check we write him each year.


Some Albertans just like iranians, saudis confuse the fact that the Oil wealth was created by their grit but in reality it's mostly due to the geograhic lottery of being born close to Oil. . . Alberta has yet to make a compelling offer to the other provinces for the pipeline. They should make a compelling offer to Quebec and B.C. or U.S. on additional pipelines.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

*Greta Goes to Alberta*

Greta Thunberg, swedish global climate change activist, is headed to Alberta. From Yahoo News:

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/climate-activist-greta-thunberg-says-145717245.html

I think she is a well-intentioned young lady, but in the current economic and political climate, I don't know if she would receive a very welcoming reception in Alberta. It would be interesting to watch.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Fain87 said:


> Some Albertans just like iranians, saudis confuse the fact that the Oil wealth was created by their grit but in reality it's mostly due to the geograhic lottery of being born close to Oil. . . Alberta has yet to make a compelling offer to the other provinces for the pipeline. They should make a compelling offer to Quebec and B.C. or U.S. on additional pipelines.


How about saving money through lack of subsidies to offshore oil. It is all our money that pays that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Topo said:


> Greta Thunberg, swedish global climate change activist, is headed to Alberta. From Yahoo News:
> 
> https://ca.yahoo.com/news/climate-activist-greta-thunberg-says-145717245.html


Very interesting. Well I'm sure that the reasonable, open minded, even-tempered people of Alberta will treat her with respect.

However I would have preferred it if she left this announcement until after the election, because I don't like seeing foreigners with agendas coming and influencing voters within days of the election. The timing is not appropriate.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Fain, the compelling offer is construction jobs, then operating jobs, billions of capex spent in other provinces for goods and services, especially ON and QC, billions in ongoing goods and services, municipal tax base, a whole lot more in equalization payments and billions of federal corporate and personal income tax with a material boost to GDP. That is what pays for everything in this country. 

If the adversaries here would only take the time to look at, and understand, the cost benefit and economic impact studies for these projects, they'd maybe appreciate the cascading effect of such a boon to Canada. JT actually said something factual when he said the GDP generated as a result of the pipeline would help pay for green initiatives. Not to mention health transfers, etc, etc.

Ignorant statements just serve to demonstrate how naive (or willfully malicious) the person saying them is.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

Fain87 said:


> Some Albertans just like iranians, saudis confuse the fact that the Oil wealth was created by their grit but in reality it's mostly due to the geograhic lottery of being born close to Oil.


It still takes a lot of effort and ingenuity to extract and transport the oil to markets, especially when you don't have access to water routes.



> Alberta has yet to make a compelling offer to the other provinces for the pipeline. They should make a compelling offer to Quebec and B.C. or U.S. on additional pipelines.


The compelling offer that Alberta makes is allowing the Federal Government to take 6-8% of its GDP in surplus every year to spend in the Rest of Canada. If Alberta was only as wealthy per capita as BC, then to make up the difference the Federal Government would need to collect about $1.5B more from BC and about $2B from Quebec. If Alberta wasn't in Confederation, then BC would have to pay out $3B+ more per year, and Quebec more than $4B.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

james4beach said:


> Very interesting. Well I'm sure that the reasonable, open minded, even-tempered people of Alberta will treat her with respect.
> 
> However I would have preferred it if she left this announcement until after the election, because I don't like seeing foreigners with agendas coming and influencing voters within days of the election. The timing is not appropriate.


True. The timing is bad. It looks a bit like election meddling, although I doubt that is her intention.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Maybe she'll stop by to see the inventive, technological, and entrepreneurial spirit of Albertans who just shipped solid bitumen right out of Prince Rupert, despite the no-more-tankers ban that the Trudeau government imposed to explicitly stop Alberta oil from reaching world markets. It was shipped straight up inter-modal. That solid bitumen should be in China soon for processing.

There are about a dozen other alternate techniques for shipping bitumen being developed or actively piloted in Alberta. All of which will enable bitumen processing and consumption for decades. This shows the absolute ridiculousness of attacking industry to stop something you don't like. Demand drives innovation. Corporations are meeting demand.

Greta must learn the only way to actually stop oil production is to stop oil demand. Otherwise, people will find a way to get what they want. If there was no massive oil demand in China, we wouldn't be finding dozens of ways to ship oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids - all massive carbon-emitting products, to China. However, I don't think she has any trips to China planned. Or if she does, she'll be manipulated into celebrating their electric cars, and not their ever-increasing and insatiable fossil fuel use.

People don't want actual solutions. End rant.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> Fain, the compelling offer is construction jobs, then operating jobs, billions of capex spent in other provinces for goods and services, especially ON and QC, billions in ongoing goods and services, municipal tax base, a whole lot more in equalization payments and billions of federal corporate and personal income tax with a material boost to GDP. That is what pays for everything in this country.
> 
> If the adversaries here would only take the time to look at, and understand, the cost benefit and economic impact studies for these projects, they'd maybe appreciate the cascading effect of such a boon to Canada. JT actually said something factual when he said the GDP generated as a result of the pipeline would help pay for green initiatives. Not to mention health transfers, etc, etc.
> 
> Ignorant statements just serve to demonstrate how naive (or willfully malicious) the person saying them is.


For a compelling offer, it is getting refused alot by B.C., Quebec, and even U.S. (keystone). I don't think it is as good of an offer if all parties at the table don't agree. Why not offer something like $5 a barrel goes to the provinces that agreed to allow the pipeline through their land.

Equalization is not an offer. Its the status quo. The offer should be increased to win over opposition. 

Come back to the table with new terms.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

kcowan said:


> How about saving money through lack of subsidies to offshore oil. It is all our money that pays that.


Sorry, what? What is the offer Quebec? What subsidies are they paying for offshore oil?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Very interesting. Well I'm sure that the reasonable, open minded, even-tempered people of Alberta will treat her with respect.
> 
> However I would have preferred it if she left this announcement until after the election, because I don't like seeing foreigners with agendas coming and influencing voters within days of the election. The timing is not appropriate.


The timing was deliberately chosen by her handlers to coincide with the election. To think otherwise is horribly naïve.

If an anti-immigration child was trotted out a few days before the election you'd be up in arms with outrage.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

accord1999 said:


> It still takes a lot of effort and ingenuity to extract and transport the oil to markets, especially when you don't have access to water routes.
> 
> 
> The compelling offer that Alberta makes is allowing the Federal Government to take 6-8% of its GDP in surplus every year to spend in the Rest of Canada. If Alberta was only as wealthy per capita as BC, then to make up the difference the Federal Government would need to collect about $1.5B more from BC and about $2B from Quebec. If Alberta wasn't in Confederation, then BC would have to pay out $3B+ more per year, and Quebec more than $4B.


You're saying the compelling offer is the existing equalization formula from around 1957. That's not an offer. That's like Quebec bringing up the existing pipeline already going through its province. . . If Alberta goes to the negotiating table over 10 times and doesn't get any results then maybe the "compelling offer" isn't so compelling.

I think Quebec can be won over, maybe by an effective PR campaign for the pipeline or by increasing its offer to Quebec.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Fain....Maybe we should charge $5/rail car that passes thru Alberta? Or maybe $5/truck that uses our highway? Silly right? 

Why is it OK to ship 30 million tons of thermal coal out of Vancouver to be burnt by China each year but not Alberta bitumen and conventional oil to replace it,,,that would halve the CO2 emitted , allowing Canada to more than meet its emission targets? Oh...the coal is from BC & USA...so obviously not an environmental issue.

Where are the protesters swarming over those Pacific ports demanding a halt to ships taking Canuck coal to Japan or China? And how about strapping themselves to the gates of the mines in Sparwood and Elkford?Or laying down in solidarity on rail tracks bringing U.S. coal into Canada?

Anyway I think its great the young kid is coming to Alberta, we welcomed Justin Bieber when he arrived not much older. Not sure her shtick will resonate much but even Obama had a full house last year in Calgary.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Fain87 said:


> Sorry, what? What is the offer Quebec? What subsidies are they paying for offshore oil?


No they get it free. It is we the taxpayers that pay (like with all Liberal programs).


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Eder said:


> Fain....Maybe we should charge $5/rail car that passes thru Alberta? Or maybe $5/truck that uses our highway? Silly right?
> 
> Why is it OK to ship 30 million tons of thermal coal out of Vancouver to be burnt by China each year but not Alberta bitumen and conventional oil to replace it,,,that would halve the CO2 emitted , allowing Canada to more than meet its emission targets? Oh...the coal is from BC & USA...so obviously not an environmental issue.


If the offer keeps getting rejected over and over again, then yes it has to be changed. You want to get the other party to YES. How will you do that? Compensation is one way. . . Bringing up Thermal coal getting shipped from Vancouver to China, won't bring Quebec to the table. 

If you bring the same deal to the table and expect a different result then you're delusional. Alberta has to face reality and build consensus and win over the opposition in both Quebec and B.C.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Fain87 said:


> You're saying the compelling offer is the existing equalization formula from around 1957. That's not an offer. That's like Quebec bringing up the existing pipeline already going through its province. . . If Alberta goes to the negotiating table over 10 times and doesn't get any results then maybe the "compelling offer" isn't so compelling.
> 
> I think Quebec can be won over, maybe by an effective PR campaign for the pipeline or by increasing its offer to Quebec.


You are winging it. The equalization formula has evolved over time. The last time in 2009 I think https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/200820E with Morneau ruling out changes until 2024. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/10/finance-minister-rules-out-any-changes-to-equalization-formula/ You really should do some fact checking before making a fool of yourself.

As Eder says, that merely starts a cycle of everyone putting a tariff on everything. Why shouldn't the West then put a tariff on any autos and other manufactured goods coming west through Maniitoba and just buy from Asia instead? It gets silly fast, doesn't it. The fact is there is plenty of GDP generation in the West that benefits the East in transfer payments and the purchase of goods and services and it gets really silly pointing fingers at each other.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> You are winging it. The equalization formula has evolved over time. The last time in 2009 I think https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/200820E with Morneau ruling out changes until 2024. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/10/finance-minister-rules-out-any-changes-to-equalization-formula/ You really should do some fact checking before making a fool of yourself.
> 
> As Eder says, that merely starts a cycle of everyone putting a tariff on everything. Why shouldn't the West then put a tariff on any autos and other manufactured goods coming west through Maniitoba and just buy from Asia instead? It gets silly fast, doesn't it. The fact is there is plenty of GDP generation in the West that benefits the East in transfer payments and the purchase of goods and services and it gets really silly pointing fingers at each other.


Thats good nit-picking there. Maybe the equalization formula was changed but the concept is the same. I'm not going to debate how it was calculated through the ages of this country. . . 

We're not talking about Tariffs, We're talking about a deal that encourages the other side to say YES to the pipeline. Tweaking the deal to make it acceptable is more constructive than complaining about how unfair it is to Alberta.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> You are winging it. The equalization formula has evolved over time. The last time in 2009 I think https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/200820E with Morneau ruling out changes until 2024. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/10/finance-minister-rules-out-any-changes-to-equalization-formula/ You really should do some fact checking before making a fool of yourself.
> 
> As Eder says, that merely starts a cycle of everyone putting a tariff on everything. Why shouldn't the West then put a tariff on any autos and other manufactured goods coming west through Maniitoba and just buy from Asia instead? It gets silly fast, doesn't it. The fact is there is plenty of GDP generation in the West that benefits the East in transfer payments and the purchase of goods and services and it gets really silly pointing fingers at each other.


Thats good nit-picking there. Maybe the equalization formula was changed but the concept is the same. I'm not going to debate how it was calculated through the ages of this country. . . 

We're not talking about Tariffs, We're talking about a deal that encourages the other side to say YES to the pipeline. Tweaking the deal to make it acceptable to those involved is more constructive than complaining about how unfair it is to Alberta.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I doubt anything will make it acceptable, except maybe ALL of the royalty revenue AB would otherwise get through increased production. 

As an example, Horgan is on record saying AB should build more refineries to ship more gasoline to BC to meet their needs, rather than import it from WA state. The dumb bunny #1 doesn't understand the TM pipeline already ships quite a lot of crude to WA state refineries so it can refine it to BC's specific standard (at higher cost). The dumb bunny #2 is the one that should build more refining capacity in Burnaby or Langley or Port Moody or..... to actually meet BC's refined product needs and get jobs and tax base as a bonus. The dumb bunny #3 also forgets Econ101 in that refining capacity is ALWAYS built (almost always) near the market(s) that it serves, the exception being tidewater refineries like Irving which can move refined product by tanker very cost effectively to coastal markets like Boston and New York. The dumb bunny #4 doesn't seem to understand the globe already has an excess of refining capacity to make another tidewater refinery uneconomic (unable to compete with SE Asian refineries).

Way east, Legault has no particular problem with western pipelines supplying the Suncor operation in Montreal, nor partially supplying Levis on the south shore to the east. Seems to be social license to do that, but not to permit crude to go further east to Irving and exported to Europe. Very kind of him to avail himself to the security of western crude, but to deny its ability to do anything else. The whole thing smacks of 'it's all about me' but no surprise really. When Levis and Irving start to have supply problems some day, Western Canada will have already made alternative arrangements. 

P.S. I think Scheer's energy corridor is mostly a dumb idea. Northern communities would certainly benefit from the jobs created to operate and maintain that corridor, but it isn't happening any time soon when things like transmission grids are highly provincial monopolies in nature.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Too many people are under the impression that AB makes a killing off oil sands royalties. That isn't remotely close to the truth. Most of the money is made by the trickle down effect of the companies spending huge amounts of money on goods and services, both on the capital development (construction goods and services) and operating costs (labour, goods, services, taxes). Much of it is spent outside of AB's borders. Royalties are a small portion of the total and that is frankly all that AB really collects on behalf of the residents of AB for their resources.

Figure 8 of https://www.alberta.ca/royalty-oil-sands.aspx is a sobering look at the royalty situation in the oil sands. In 2016, AB collected perhaps $1/BBL in oil sands royalties. And no, AB can't just jack up royalties. Royalty regimes around the world are designed to help ensure royalties are price (gross royalty) and margin (net royalty) sensitive depending on the status of the project (gross for pre-payout projects and net royalty for post-payout projects) taking into account the cost of development and the cost of operations. 

AB, Norway, USA, Kazakhstan, Saudi Aramco, Brazil, etc, etc, etc all review each others fiscal regimes on a regular basis to ensure they are not out of line with each other. If one jurisdiction has a much too low royalty regime, then they are not extracting enough 'rent' from the developer for their own citizens. Too high a royalty and capital will flee to more competitive jurisdictions and too many companies can go bankrupt in a low price environment... which is what has happened in the past 3 years in AB and SK. Fiscal regimes have always been designed to share the pain when prices are too low and/or the costs of development and production are high, and to share the reward when prices and/or project profitability are high. I've been party to a number of negotiated contacts with a number of countries around the world and the approach is always the same. It is what it is, despite misinformed, but common, views to the contrary.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yes that was my sense as well, that the province doesn't get much in royalties. They've kept royalties low to encourage rapid development of the oil sands.

That may not have been such a great management of the resource (and not good for Alberta). It became over-developed, with faster extraction than can be exported. Too much production, which can't be fully exported, against a competing US product.

As I understand it, bitumen prices are known to be more volatile than light crude based on history. It doesn't seem surprising at all that in an oil bear market, that bitumen would get hit especially hard. Which is what happened.

So who exactly is Alberta "fighting back" against? Seems to me that Alberta's two greatest enemies are the global commodity market [1], and their own resource development policies.


[1] this chart of light crude is very unfortunate, and I feel bad for people whose livelihoods depend on it. Alberta's oil price, Western Canada Select, is even _more_ volatile, which means it's natural to see it decline more in the bad phases (e.g. now). It has historically had that behaviour, has it not? It seems to me that people in this industry have no choice but to ride out the volatility, the same way an investor has no choice but to ride out the natural volatility of an asset class.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals want to negotiate with stakeholders to build the TMP. The Green want to cancel it. The NDP don't care about it. The Conservatives would try to ram it through.

The Liberals expended the political capital to purchase the TMP despite opposition from some of their own supporters.

The Liberals want it to be built to avoid a "white elephant legacy". Only the Liberal plan has a chance of success.

People who support the pipeline should hope for a Liberal majority.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, there is no competing US product for dilbit itself. In fact, AB could sell more dilbit to US and China configured refineries if AB could get it out of province simply because the refining space is there for it (Venezuela being the key competition on the Gulf Coast and it's gone to the dogs because of the socialist gov't there). You can't compere light(er) oil from US shale with dilbit and don't know why you keep spouting that misinformation. What did change is the major drop in WTI prices and dilbit is priced at a discount to WTI. Price and takeaway capacity is an issue, not production or refining volumes. Royalties, being price and project payout sensitive, came down from pre-2015 levels.

You missed yet another point which is Canada has one of the highest R/P (reserve to production ratios) in the world, third in fact behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Canada SHOULD be producing in the order of 10 million barrels per day to be at the global average R/P ratio of 50. You didn't read or care to understand what I've written before on this subject. A huge R/P ratio was a key reason why oil sands royalty regimes were overhauled in the mid-1990s, i.e. to permit more development of a resource which was languishing at the then world's highest R/P ratio. What Canada and Alberta did in the 1990s was exactly the right thing to raise oil sands production by perhaps 5 fold over the next 20 years. It is what the UK did in the North Sea in the '70s, what Norway also did in the '70s, what Nigeria did to encourage production, etc. It is a process that has been repeated over and over for decades. 

Those developments are what brought large boosts in GDP to this country and AB footing the bulk of equalization payments in Canada. Without resource development, we wouldn't be anywhere close to where we are today in economic status.

Added: About the same time in the '90s, Venezuela started to undertake an ambitious expansion of their huge Orinoco heavy oil belt changing their fiscal (royalty and tax) regime to encourage development. Tens of billions were spent to develop considerable volumes (with local upgrading) and all looked good until Chavez effectively stole everything back via nationalization and PDVSA then struggled thereafter for lack of capital (Chavez squeezed the golden goose of needed re-investment capital to fund his social programs) and production fell back, perhaps never to recover for generation. Venezuela is a classic case of what NOT to do to foreign investment and what NOT to do squeezing all the cash out of an industry.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm surprised to hear you say that production isn't a factor. Isn't it the case that when you produce too much of something (large supply) but demand is weak, that the price drops? Surely the price of the commodity is related to production levels.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is refining market globally (US and China) for dilbit feedstock that exceeds our ability to service due to lack of takeaway capacity from the oil sands. What is hard to understand about that?

Added: You need to think about dilbit being different from other crudes. While it is true that price of benchmark crudes such as Brent and WTI have declined because supply exceeds supply, and that all other crudes, including dilbit are priced at discounts to benchmark crudes and have done so for decades, that does not change the continued demand for dilbit by refineries configured for dilbit/heavy. AB has had an exaggerated discount relative to historical levels because takeaway capacity is constrained. If AB could get its dilbit out, there is a ready market for the dilbit and the exaggerated discounts would also disappear. IOW, there is no shortage of demand for dilbit at competitive prices.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Heres a guy I wish would come to visit Alberta


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

The problem with Jadav is that he actually does something instead of demanding that others do something or fund their grand ideas. His work ethic is a real danger to protestors...many of whom live rent free in their parent's basement.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Eder said:


> Heres a guy I wish would come to visit Alberta


Agreed. The problem I see with Greta is that she has become merely a mouthpiece for larger groups. She cannot be argued or reasoned with because who can argue with 'a child'. Her speeches are filled with emotion, shaming, and demands for a call to action. However, she does nothing except inspire people to complain and do nothing. She has not done her fact checks (probably because her handlers do not want to). She has no solutions or suggestions other than people should continue to protest and world leaders must do something. Again, just looking for someone else to do the work. Inspiration - yes, but inspiration without any substance or vision, is just a waste of resources.

Then you have people like Jadav, and this young man Boyan Slat. He was also 16 when he was troubled by the state of the environment, but instead of shaming and travelling around the world to shame, he did something about it.

https://time.com/5389782/boyan-slat-plastic-ocean-cleanup/

I like how he says 'in order to solve a problem, you must understand it' Does Greta understand anything?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The _System 001_ is pretty cool...I hope it works as well as anticipated. It seems to me single use disposal is easy enough by burning in kilns etc once harvested...I don't see why burying it makes sense. Maybe we can build many _System 001_ & make China and India pay for them?

I also hope they put AIS identifiers on it, I'll be sailing thru the gyre in May next year and would hate to get tangled in it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What 'larger groups' is Greta a mouthpiece of?

Do you not believe it's possible that a young person actually cares about environmental causes?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> What 'larger groups' is Greta a mouthpiece of?
> 
> Do you not believe it's possible that a young person actually cares about environmental causes?


They care enough to lecture everyone, but not enough to actually do something.
It's getting really obnoxious with all these protests where they just end up causing a bunch of environmental damage.

They don't have a plan, and they're not actually taking action.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> What 'larger groups' is Greta a mouthpiece of?
> 
> Do you not believe it's possible that a young person actually cares about environmental causes?


The "larger groups" that she is a mouthpiece for are those who are paying for all of her flights around the world. Or, do you think that her parents are footing the bill?

As always...follow the money.

By the way, people of all ages care about the environment. Even old white guys who are blamed for every problem these days.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who pays the wages and expenses of the oil lobbyists and climate change deniers ?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

james4beach said:


> What 'larger groups' is Greta a mouthpiece of?
> 
> Do you not believe it's possible that a young person actually cares about environmental causes?


I don't have time to find the article now, but she has even said that she is providing the voice for others. Her parents and her are not paying for her trip by themselves. 

Yes, I do think its great the young people care about the environmental cause. My two young people in my house care about it. They have also been raised to try and find a solution and think through things. Young people care a lot of about things, but very few do anything about it. They complain and want others to do something. I appreciate Greta's passion, and even agree with some of her points. However, once you get past here youth, the cute accent, and the 'Shame on you for stealing my future and do sometime', she has little substance. Telling people to protest doesn't really help. I heard in in London, UK, and in other larger cites (mine included), in the spirit of Greta, they are protesting. So they are blocking traffic during rush hour. Is it just me that finds ironic that they caused a ton of GHG emission through making hundreds of people wait in traffic so they could protest. 

I personally would have liked to see her after she made the world stage provide some proposals that are realistic. I have no issue with people bringing up environmental concerns, but also do something about it. Hence why I posted about young people who actually are making difference. When I define making a difference, I don't mean rallying protesters or asking someone else to fix the problem, but dedicating time and resources to fix the problems themselves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Climate change advocates plan to tax polluters and replace all fossil fuels with green energy.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Who pays the wages and expenses of the oil lobbyists and climate change deniers ?


For the record, no one pays me or has ever paid me to question the alarmists false claims, but someone is paying for Greta's world tour.

I've never met anyone that denies that climate changes so perhaps you can stop calling people deniers. And you can stop calling CO2 carbon or pollution while you're at it. Both of those claims are factually inaccurate.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Climate change advocates plan to tax polluters and replace all fossil fuels with green energy.


We know their plan...the only problem is that it can't work in the real world. The alarmists are the real deniers...denying the laws of physics and economics to push their agenda.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The plan is based on the best scientific evidence and expertise. 

I consider climate deniers all those who either openly deny climate change and those who for whatever reason claim there is nothing that can be done about it. 

Neither group considers climate change important enough to make it the highest priority for governments to address.

The oil lobby and special interest groups spend millions of dollars supporting those who deny climate change.

It will require millions of dollars to inform the public and governments that climate change is a crisis that must be addressed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The EPA has designated CO2 as a pollutant. The US Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. Scientists agree that CO2 is a pollutant.

CO2 causes increased acidity in the oceans and is the main cause of global warming. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reaching dangerous levels.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Way east, Legault has no particular problem with western pipelines supplying the Suncor operation in Montreal, nor partially supplying Levis on the south shore to the east. Seems to be social license to do that, but not to permit crude to go further east to Irving and exported to Europe. Very kind of him to avail himself to the security of western crude, but to deny its ability to do anything else.
> 
> The whole thing smacks of 'it's all about me' but no surprise really. When Levis and Irving start to have supply problems some day, Western Canada will have already made alternative arrangements.




numerous threads over the past 2 years have described, in elaborate detail, how Texas-based Valero is operating its jean gaulin refinery at Levis partially using alberta dilbit piped to montreal east & thence from mtl east to levis via valero's own pipeline, which was inaugurated in january 2015. 

prior to 2015, Valero had been shipping alberta dilbit from the montreal east enbridge terminal to the levis refinery by small tanker ship. Two aframax ships sailing twice a week, it's reported. The new bi-directional pipeline is far more efficient since it enables product from Levis to be sent for storage in the big montreal east tank storage farm.

Valero has been operating successfully at Levis for nearly two decades. Valero has no problems with quebec governments at any level. Not with pipelines, not with dilbit tanker ships in the st-lawrence river, not with alberta dilbit. Valero has always been welcome in quebec.

very recently, calgary's Parkland Fuel bought Ultramar, a big oil, gas, gas station, diesel, propane & other fuels distribution company operating throughout quebec, east central ontario & northeast USA. Like Valero, Parkland Fuel has no problems in quebec, is successful in quebec, is welcome in quebec.

on the other hand, the snarling contemptuous post above from altaRed illustrates precisely the kind of business attitude that is not welcome in quebec.

it's a throwback attitude to brute laissez-faire capitalism of a century ago, which canadian & other western resource extractors used to try to enforce in 3rd world resource rich countries until relatively recently. 

as we have so elegantly witnessed in cmf forum, recalcitrant countries which refused to obey or were unable to obey the oil lords & the mining lords, got themselves referred to as Ess. Aitch. Eye. Tee. Excrement. Holes.

alas, quebec is not one of those countries. Companies like calgary's Parkland Fuel & america's Valero Energy are hugely welcome in quebec because they hire locally, speak the language, respect the people & the government of the province, offer vital services reliably & efficiently, for which quebecers are very happy to pay. Bref, whatever Parkland Fuel or Valero want from quebec city or montreal city government, they are likely to get.

outside parties who approach quebec with insults & threats of future punishment, such as those exposed in the unpleasant paragraph above, will never be welcome in La Belle Province.


.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It seems the only thing about Albertan oil welcome in Quebec is the royalty money.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> It seems the only thing about Albertan oil welcome in Quebec is the royalty money.


Well, Quebec is clearly addicted to equalization payments...for decades BUT that may self-adjust in years to come, at least to some extent as their economy is firing on all cylinders. Spouse's family is all from (and partially still in) Montreal and things are looking much better than they have for some time. Furthermore, Suncor has certainly taken the initiative to feed their Montreal refinery with Western crude and Valero has partially done so at Levis with pipeline expansion from Montreal.

Don't know what it would take to convince Quebecers of the benefits of allowing crude to transit to NB, but I doubt they'd ever agree to do so if it was primarily intended for export purposes (which is what Energy East was all about). I think it would take a commitment by both Irving in Saint John and Valero in Levis to commit to dilbit feedstock and take a partial ownership in the pipeline to get dilbit there for that to happen. After all, there is a (limited) pipeline to Levis already. It doesn't take much more to go to the NB border where dilbit would/should be welcomed with open arms.

Simply put, Valero and Irving need to step up to the plate.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Simply put, Valero and Irving need to step up to the plate.




but why would Valero & Irving step to the plate of an albertan whose business approach is to threaten - in monolingual english only - that alberta will cut off supply if alberta doesn't get exactly what alberta wants

afaik Parkland Fuel & Valero are happy with the present state of affairs in eastern canada. They have excellent gummint relations. They're hiring local engineers, all of whom are french-speaking. They are definitely not hiring armchair engineers who "plan" at keyboards located somewhere in western canada.

they're also hiring local business admin & marketing types. Most of their internal communication is in french. One has to admire the skill with which remote head offices situated in calgary & in texas manage to stick-handle their eastern canada operations.

for a new pipeline build across quebec, there are substantial land usage complications. The single most contentious territory is land next to the kanesatake reserve NW of montreal. The mohawk elders at kanesatake are opposing any new pipeline build on territory they consider sovereign.

this mohawk reserve has an extraordinarily fraught history including an armed uprising in 1990. In fact the smouldering firebox that is kanesatake is burning afresh these days in a new issue related to the traditional mohawk cemetery known as The Pines, which was the epicentre of the 1990 uprising, which saw the army brought in & a canadian soldier killed. Today, neither the federal nor the quebec gummint will move to add tinder to the kanesatake fires.

.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> ... for a new pipeline build across quebec, there are substantial land usage complications. The single most contentious territory is land next to the kanesatake reserve NW of montreal. The mohawk elders at kanesatake are opposing any new pipeline build on territory they consider sovereign.


Definitely a challenge.




humble_pie said:


> ... this mohawk reserve has an extraordinarily fraught history including an armed uprising in 1990. In fact the smouldering firebox that is kanesatake is burning afresh these days in a new issue related to the traditional mohawk cemetery known as The Pines, which was the epicentre of the 1990 uprising, which saw the army brought in & *a canadian soldier killed*.


Not that it will make a difference to the situation today but I didn't understand how I could have missed the media reporting a Canadian soldier killed so some searches were done.

SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay, a member of the emergency response unit, the Groupe d'intervention is listed as being shot to death on July 11th, as part of the initial attempt to disperse Mohawks. Mohawk elder Joe Norton is reported to have been hit in the chest by a rock thrown by a mob at the entrance to the reserve, later dying of a heart attack.

Lots of other reports of non-life threatening injuries but I'm not finding other deaths.


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not that it will make a difference to the situation today but I didn't understand how I could have missed the media reporting a Canadian soldier killed so some searches were done.
> 
> SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay, a member of the emergency response unit, the Groupe d'intervention is listed as being shot to death on July 11th, as part of the initial attempt to disperse Mohawks. Mohawk elder Joe Norton is reported to have been hit in the chest by a rock thrown by a mob at the entrance to the reserve, later dying of a heart attack.




the 1990 Oka uprising was front page news every media for its entire 78 days, not including the year or two of prior protests to prevent bulldozing of the ancient mohawk cemetery at kanesatake. The nearby white man's town wanted to run over the cemetery to build a golf course, can you imagine.

the cemetery was still in active use in 1990, remains in active use for all mohawk burials today.
.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

There goes James with his racist stereotypes again..."the nearby white man's town". 

What if someone referred to natives or black people with the same disdain as James does on a regular basis?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> the 1990 Oka uprising was front page news every media for its entire 78 days ...


Which is why I couldn't figure out how I could have possibly missed a Canadian soldier being killed. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> There goes James with his racist stereotypes again..."the nearby white man's town".
> What if someone referred to natives or black people with the same disdain as James does on a regular basis?


James is now posting as HP?

Interesting ...


Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> James is now posting as HP?
> 
> Interesting ...
> 
> ...


It's hard to tell them apart sometimes...


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Man I love our province...

https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...rike/wcm/ea6afe4f-430b-4b5f-8b4b-d8a6fefc9092

“We’re proud of our oil and gas industry, we’re proud of our clean resources, we’re proud of the hardworking Canadians and it’s a point of pride actually. We’re taking the opportunity to show that we champion Canada’s resources,” said Haley Wile, an United We Roll organizer.

“We’re taking it as an opportunity. Hey there’s gonna be cameras, there’s gonna be people there, let’s show how proud we are,” said Wile. “There’s a big number of people who are proud of what we are doing in Canada, we should be proud.”


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Counter rallies, truckers in a parade...........the oil lobby must feel very threatened by young Greta Thunberg and her climate change message.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags, I think a "trucker parade" is their answer for just about everything, including the horrific threat of a little girl.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

My view is these trucker parades are really, really dumb. Immature as well.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Counter rallies, truckers in a parade...........the oil lobby must feel very threatened by young Greta Thunberg and her climate change message.


Why would anyone be threatened by a young child who read speeches prepared by others? The only reason they're protesting Greta's appearance is that the people behind her are too scared to show their faces. They're cowards who hide behind young girls.

Who is funding her?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> My view is these trucker parades are really, really dumb. Immature as well.


Exactly. There are far better ways to do a strong rebuttal.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Exactly. There are far better ways to do a strong rebuttal.


I have an idea...maybe they could publicly debate the people who are hiding behind the child.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

I do generally agree with Greta's views on climate change and the urgency the world is facing. But I find it hard to believe that a sixteen year old teenager would be so stressed and upset about something so abstract and scientific that she would cry and wail about it. The level of dramatization seems suspicious to me. 

I could see her fret over teen life issues such as an iphone, a boyfriend, curfews, or allowances. But climate change?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> I have an idea...maybe they could publicly debate the people who are hiding behind the child.


Sure, that would be a reasonable debate they could have.

Someone could point to organizations they believe are funding her. And she can point to all the oil & gas companies, and CAPP, who are funding and assisting Kenney, Ford, the Conservatives, and Liberal party.

It would be a great debate to have in front of the public because I think it's helpful to see how many corporate interests are fuelling all of this. For example, the Manning Center, which is traditionally funded by oil & gas money (even though they are hiding the actual donors) is spending significant $ through a network of subsidiary organizations to pump out pro-energy propaganda, _plus_ anti-Trudeau attacks.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good idea James.........a full debate with all the players in the open.

Although, I am not sure it is necessary anymore. The general public has become informed of climate change and understand the long term implications of doing nothing.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Sure, that would be a reasonable debate they could have.
> 
> Someone could point to organizations they believe are funding her. And she can point to all the oil & gas companies, and CAPP, who are funding and assisting Kenney, Ford, the Conservatives, and Liberal party.
> 
> It would be a great debate to have in front of the public because I think it's helpful to see how many corporate interests are fuelling all of this. For example, the Manning Center, which is traditionally funded by oil & gas money (even though they are hiding the actual donors) is spending significant $ through a network of subsidiary organizations to pump out pro-energy propaganda, _plus_ anti-Trudeau attacks.


You and sags have been brainwashed to think that the government has nothing to gain from pushing the climate hoax yet they've already scored a major victory by imposing a climate tax.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Despite some CMF posters claiming there is no problem with abandoned wells, apparently there is and it is a costly one.

_The growth potential for decommissioning wells is substantial considering there are about* 93,000 inactive wells in Alberta and 139,000 across Western Canada*. Some of those wells may once again produce oil and gas if commodity prices improve, although most sit idle until they're eventually cleaned up._

_The growth in decommissioning is in part fuelled by an increase in funding by the Orphan Well Association (OWA). The group is tasked with cleaning up old wells, pipelines and facilities that can't be sold when an energy producer goes bankrupt. *The Alberta government loaned the OWA $235 million*. The money began flowing at the start of 2018 and will continue into 2020.

The industry-funded OWA said the financial boost from the government loan has made a "substantial" difference as nearly 800 wells were cleaned up this past year, a figure which has increased steadily from 50 wells in 2014._

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/decommissioning-closures-wells-psac-alberta-1.5323450

3666 wells were abandoned this year and 800 have been cleaned up. The cost of cleanup ranges from $100,000 to $500,000 per well. The problem is getting worse.

Maybe the carbon tax could be collected and used to pay for the well cleanup. It would create thousands of jobs in the west and Canadians are already used to paying the tax.

If I recall, we received a couple hundred dollars carbon tax rebate, but would be willing to donate our share to the cleanup.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Ah...so now the climate tax can be used to clean up oil wells. So it's really not about the weather.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Topo said:


> I do generally agree with Greta's views on climate change and the urgency the world is facing. But I find it hard to believe that a sixteen year old teenager would be so stressed and upset about something so abstract and scientific that she would cry and wail about it. The level of dramatization seems suspicious to me.
> 
> I could see her fret over teen life issues such as an iphone, a boyfriend, curfews, or allowances. But climate change?


You've not spent a lot of time around female teenagers then. The drama is strong in all of them. Her position on the spectrum gives her more focus than your usual 16yr old, but the drama is not feigned.

She's in Edmonton today, doing another protest at the Legislature. And there'll be a counter protest truck rally (started in Red Deer this morning). Couple guys from work want to go support that one. Lot of people here don't think kindly of her, she's just a patsy, a puppet, etc. But have not heard any provide counter arguments to hers. Just Ad Hominem attacks and whataboutisms.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

nobleea said:


> But have not heard any provide counter arguments to hers. Just Ad Hominem attacks and whataboutisms.


We haven't heard any valid arguments from her...just typical teen drama "You're ruining my future" but with no scientific details. What exactly are people supposed to counter that with? Perhaps "go to your room" is the appropriate response...


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Though I agree that things should be done for climate change. I appreciate that Greta is trying to inspire people, as my 13 year old said, 'Awareness and mission, is useless without a plan'.

Coming from my younger teenager, she appreciates that Greta is bringing awareness of climate change and stop GHG emissions, but offers no suggestions how to do so. It's great the people are watching, she now has the world stage. If she actually had a plan, could you imagine what could be accomplished. Instead, she is telling people to protest, wasting more resources. 

- Last weeks Friday protest had hundreds of people in my city delayed or stuck in traffic idling their cars. Protesters offered Timbits to make them feel better. What was the carbon footprint on that protest? What about the processed Timbits.
- This weeks protest will be even worse the Truck convoy. Which I don't necessarily agree with, but what could environmentalist expect. It's the truck convoys right to peaceful protest, but how much gas will they emit, , at least the truck convoy doesn't pretend to not use oil and gas. 
- I was really intrigued that Greta walked to walk, or in her case sailed the boat across the ocean to set an example instead of taking an evil carbon emitting flight. Until further research showed that taking the flight for her and her father would have been better for the environment than the trip for the 4-6 people to bring the sail boat back to Europe. So net 4 more transcontinental flights need to be taken than if Greta would have not been so principled to not take the flight. 

The list goes on with how resources are just being wasted. If both sides would take a step back instead of just fighting their side, they could be diverting resources to not make things worse, maybe even better. 

On a side note, when my daughter heard Greta was coming to our province. She really wanted to have a debate/discussion with her. Why? Because she recognizes that any adult that tries to oppose or criticizes would be ostracized for 'attacking a child' She said the only way to get all sides heard is to get another teenager to which will be considered equal.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> My view is these trucker parades are really, really dumb. Immature as well.


Back in the 1973 my dad accompanied a truck parade heading from Penticton going to Vancouver to protest the fact fruit growers had no recourse but to sell to government run packing houses. They were stopped at gun point in Princeton, but a year or so later laws were changed. I remember my mom being scared for my dad's life.

Heres the story, and heres why these trucks need to run today.

https://theprovince.com/news/local-...usly/wcm/04a88ad2-1746-4e55-8921-d6de0d3e68c7

So, ya, in the long run we'll be heard. Perhaps when its not so fashionable to dump on Canada's energy industry.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

nobleea said:


> You've not spent a lot of time around female teenagers then. The drama is strong in all of them. Her position on the spectrum gives her more focus than your usual 16yr old, but the drama is not feigned.
> 
> She's in Edmonton today, doing another protest at the Legislature. And there'll be a counter protest truck rally (started in Red Deer this morning). Couple guys from work want to go support that one. Lot of people here don't think kindly of her, she's just a patsy, a puppet, etc. But have not heard any provide counter arguments to hers. Just Ad Hominem attacks and whataboutisms.


I have been spending an incredible amount of time with hormonal teenagers. Please don't be sexist, boys are just as bad if not worst than the girls for the drama. Its hormone thing, not a gender thing. 

That being said, Greta may have focused but she really doesn't have debatable points. As I just posted, an adult cannot argue with her as it's the equivalent of a parent trying to argue with their hysterical teenager. It doesn't end well. Add media, and the adult is always wrong. If there were debatable points, my child would have been Edmonton today, but she saw no value on trying to appeal to emotion without logic. (Her words). 

I do think she is being used and played and I think that is horrible for either side of the argument. I don't think she has much more of a focus than other teenagers. 

here's a video of her passion without the speech writers. Just when asked a simple question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwLt_5t73g

hen I saw this and other impromptu answers she has given, I am more convinced that there are people using her. I think it's just wrong. I would feel just as strongly if it was the other side doing the same to a child. Sure there are organizations funding all sides of the debate, but they are using adults not kids.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Sure, that would be a reasonable debate they could have.
> 
> Someone could point to organizations they believe are funding her. And she can point to all the oil & gas companies, and CAPP, who are funding and assisting Kenney, Ford, the Conservatives, and Liberal party.
> 
> It would be a great debate to have in front of the public because I think it's helpful to see how many corporate interests are fuelling all of this. For example, the Manning Center, which is traditionally funded by oil & gas money (even though they are hiding the actual donors) is spending significant $ through a network of subsidiary organizations to pump out pro-energy propaganda, _plus_ anti-Trudeau attacks.


Never mind Unifor spending $1.3M on anti-conservative ads. You know... the same people benefiting from the $600M media fund. James, it is time for you to become more rational and balanced if you want to retain any credibility, that is, if you still have any.

You still don't get that every industry has associations that lobby on their behalf. From banking, to insurance, to energy, to mining, to forestry, to CARP, to Canadian Taxpayers, to..... pick any one of perhaps 100 or more. All perfectly legitimate. That is what NGO groups do as well.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> That being said, Greta may have focused but she really doesn't have debatable points. As I just posted, an adult cannot argue with her as it's the equivalent of a parent trying to argue with their hysterical teenager. It doesn't end well. Add media, and the adult is always wrong. If there were debatable points, my child would have been Edmonton today, but she saw no value on trying to appeal to emotion without logic. (Her words).
> 
> I do think she is being used and played and I think that is horrible for either side of the argument. I don't think she has much more of a focus than other teenagers.
> 
> ...


Of course it is very wrong exploiting her. It is especially wrong with her being on the spectrum with Asbergers. I don't understand why there has not been a major social, liberal backlash about her being played and exploited.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People should be researching the science on climate change instead of waiting around for 16 year old Greta Thunberg to enlighten them.

Part of Greta's message is.......adults should act like adults.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

sags said:


> People should be researching the science on climate change instead of waiting around for 16 year old Greta Thunberg to enlighten them.
> 
> Part of Greta's message is.......adults should act like adults.


And most of them are, making the logical decision that the impact of slightly changed global temperatures is far less negative than the impact of making energy expensive and unreliable to both the developed world and developing world. Greta Thunberg, being young and poorly educated has no understanding of how quickly most of Europe would freeze and starve to death in winter without oil, coal and natural gas.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_"While Albertans and Alberta companies are doing their best to drive down environmental intensity, it's still a challenging way of producing energy," Whittingham said in a phone interview.

It's high-cost and high-carbon at a time when the world is going toward low-cost and low-carbon sources of oil. And that's an inescapable fact.

[Albertans] are not seeing where the puck is going.… They're not seeing this fuel switching that's happening in global energy markets. 

Oil is going to be around, but there will be less of it consumed, and that's what I think people in this province have to realize. In a world where demand goes down and the price falls, you don't want to be sticking out like a sore thumb."
_
Ed Whittingham, Calgary environmentalist and ex-head of Pembina Institute

Whittingham is something of an outlier in the environmental movement: a proud Albertan who supports the Trans Mountain expansion — for both financial and climate reasons — a position which has earned him praise from oil and gas executives.

However, he's also been vilified by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney as an "opponent of Alberta jobs" because Whittingham remains resolute in calling for environmentally-responsible growth of the oilsands.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/al...lts-to-see-if-pipeline-will-proceed-1.5327667


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Federal Conservative governments have done nothing to approve and build pipelines. 

Meddling by the Harper government into the US decision on the Keystone pipeline created problems with environmental groups for President Obama to approve it.

Justin Trudeau has approved pipelines and saved the TM expansion when private industry wasn't interested. He has a legacy interest in negotiating with private stakeholders to get it built.

Andrew Scheer has no negotiating experience, and has said he would seek Constitutional authority to ram the pipeline through.

Albertans should understand that Justin Trudeau is their best option to get the TM expansion built.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Federal Conservative governments have done nothing to approve and build pipelines.
> 
> Meddling by the Harper government into the US decision on the Keystone pipeline created problems with environmental groups for President Obama to approve it.
> 
> ...


The pipeline is good for Canada, they should build it.

Yeah, we all know Justins great negotiating experience, he sure "negotiated" well with JWR.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This successful fund manger says more pipeline space would be bad for oil company investors.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/commodi...kes-the-lack-of-new-pipeline-capacity~1813470


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> This successful fund manger says more pipeline space would be bad for oil company investors.
> 
> https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/commodi...kes-the-lack-of-new-pipeline-capacity~1813470


Ok? So?
I'm not an oil company investor, I just want the government to act in the best interests of Canada.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Well lets get started...


https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...n-a-serious-idea-that-would-flip-out-the-feds

Baby steps but in the right direction.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

What I would be suspicious of is whether AIMCo would have some bias to investing in Alberta vs what is in the best interest of pension plan members. We already know QPP has historically invested in a number of Quebec ventures that wouldn't pass the best investment test. That all said, I don't know the performance metrics of QPP vs CPP, e.g. contribution rate, sustainability, etc. At the very least, AB better look at QPP's relative success AND AIMCo's success before pulling the drain plug in that boat.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> What I would be suspicious of is whether AIMCo would have some bias to investing in Alberta vs what is in the best interest of pension plan members. We already know QPP has historically invested in a number of Quebec ventures that wouldn't pass the best investment test. That all said, I don't know the performance metrics of QPP vs CPP, e.g. contribution rate, sustainability, etc. At the very least, AB better look at QPP's relative success AND AIMCo's success before pulling the drain plug in that boat.


Well, this came up before. CPP has a higher return than either QPP or AIMCo. Keep in mind when I say higher return, I mean that the funds are managed better.
CPP had an investment return of 8.9%. 
AIMCo had a return of 2.3%.
QPP had a return of 4.2%

So, I don't think there is much success of QPP relative to CPP. Investment returns don't really mean much, other than the fact that it is a little more sustainable without need of extra contributions.
And the other thing to keep in mind is that there is some harmonization between the QPP and CPP, to make sure that people can retire in other provinces.

Actually, that's one of the biggest red herrings about Alberta's complaints the CPP. Sure, per capita you have more people paying into when working in Alberta, but when they retire in other provinces, you don't think they're entitled to their pension? In other words, it sounds like a good idea, but really, doesn't change anything. Basically, if Albertans aren't retiring in Alberta, then you are going to get an outflow of money out of Alberta regardless if Alberta is managing its own pension plan, or if they stay in the CPP. Obviously if more people who worked in Alberta retired in Alberta, you wouldn't see this effect.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It's good politics. I know it just means there are more people at YMPE in AB than the Canadian average during contributory years, but when Albertans move west upon retirement, AB doesn't see it spent in AB.

One thing I did look up was contributory rate. QPP is 5.5% for 2019 while CPP is 5.1% and I do understand both are harmonized for the most part (there may be a few benefits that are different). I recognize mandates can be different as well so focusing on returns is a mug's game, but for example, I doubt AIMCo nor CPP invested as much recently in SNC-Lavalin as did QPP. And one has to wonder about Bombardier et al too. It can be a dangerous game if one gets too insular due to political or parochial influence.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eder said:


> Well lets get started...
> 
> https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...n-a-serious-idea-that-would-flip-out-the-feds
> 
> Baby steps but in the right direction.




the linked article is incomprehensible. Or rather, comprehensible only if read as another rant from a peeved albertan.

the CPP has billions in obligations to support pension & social benefit payouts to millions of canadians wheresoever they may reside in canada. Including wheresoever they may move during the period they are receiving benefits.

there's no way the CPPIB will hand over $40 billion in portfolio capital to a poor-performing private fund manager such as AIMco.

the linked article goes on to whine that AIMco, although reportedly managing $115 billion in assets, is excluded from "big" deals because it is being deprived of the extra $40 billion the author feels the CPPIB should hand over.

but there's something wrong with a pension fund manager that already has $115 billion in the kitty, complaining that it's not capable of participating in "big" deals on those merits. More billions $$ won't make any difference, if a fund cannot perform.

not that my opinion matters; but i think it would be entirely fair to offer alberta workers the choice to opt out of the CPP from now on. They could contribute instead to a pension fund to be chosen by the alberta gummint. Apparently that choice has been made, it's the Alberta Investment Management Corporation. With a 2018 total investment return of 2.3%, AIMco was the worst performing fund among the canadian, quebec & alberta pension funds.

since some - possibly many - albertans would choose to remain with a known & better-performing CPPIB, whose benefits might also be easier to transport if/when worker would move out of alberta, the choice of which plan should be optional imho.


,


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Kenney government should spend their time diversifying their economy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> It's good politics. I know it just means there are more people at YMPE in AB than the Canadian average during contributory years, but when Albertans move west upon retirement, AB doesn't see it spent in AB.


Irrelevant. An Alberta pensioner would be entitled to that income regardless of residency, and regardless of whether it was administered through CPP or an Alberta managed fund.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CPP is kept separate from government for good reasons.

It sounds like Kenney would like to have $40 Billion transferred from the CPP to the Alberta public service pension fund.

Could the Alberta government declare a surplus and take an employer contribution holiday to save the government money ?

If I were an Albertan, I would want the money to stay with the CPP. After all, the Alberta government has a poor record of saving money for the future.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> The Kenney government should spend their time diversifying their economy.


The finance minister just said that diversity is a luxury we can't afford right now.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> What I would be suspicious of is whether AIMCo would have some bias to investing in Alberta vs what is in the best interest of pension plan members. We already know QPP has historically invested in a number of Quebec ventures that wouldn't pass the best investment test. That all said, I don't know the performance metrics of QPP vs CPP, e.g. contribution rate, sustainability, etc. At the very least, AB better look at QPP's relative success AND AIMCo's success before pulling the drain plug in that boat.


AIMco did have a mandate from the previous NDP government to do this, though not in the oil sector. I believe 300M was invested. I think that's stupid and I'd almost say that such a fund should be prohibited from investing in AB.
I think the CPP withdrawal is just a bargaining tactic. It would be a nightmare to coordinate (what happens when you move provinces?). One bargaining chip is that CPP contributions for the rest of Canada would have to go up by over 10% to make up with the loss of AB contributions. Since our population is the youngest and highest paid.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> I think the CPP withdrawal is just a bargaining tactic. It would be a nightmare to coordinate (what happens when you move provinces?).



in effect there's nothing to bargain. The CPP has obligations to millions of canadians living everywhere in canada including alberta. CPP cannot deliver any part of its portfolio to any other party, the whole is required to support those obligations. The issue is not even on the table.






> One bargaining chip is that CPP contributions for the rest of Canada would have to go up by over 10% to make up with the loss of AB contributions. Since our population is the youngest and highest paid.



the 10% fig is a made-in-alberta fiction based on prior years of higher contributions. Such metrics are no longer the case. Going forward, direct federal payments to individual albertans from the receiver general of canada will increase while alberta salary contributions to CPP will drop.

nor will all of those "youngest" workers remain in alberta. The younger they are the more likely it is that they migrated to alberta strictly for the jobs, will easily migrate elsewhere for jobs.

AIMco's poor performance pretty much rules it out as a national pension fund competitor. Did you know that AIMco maintains cushy offices in london england & tax haven luxembourg on the continent? all that lush & expensive bureaucracy for a 2018 return that was inferior to most cmffers on here?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Irrelevant. An Alberta pensioner would be entitled to that income regardless of residency, and regardless of whether it was administered through CPP or an Alberta managed fund.


You just agreed to what I said. The recipient takes it with him/her.

What could be different though, like QPP, is contributory rates, benefits, and relative fund performance. IMO, it would be hard to best CPPIB performance. Going alone would be a political AND symbolic gesture to resentful Albertans who want the perception of more control. Could be argued that AB should also have its own provincial police force like ON and QC. There are a number of perceived "F U" snubs to Ottawa, even if they end up costing AB more money to implement and operate.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

All steps toward a more independent Alberta and worth a few extra bucks...especially our own police force answerable to only our provincial government.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

As an Albertan I certainly do not think that taking back the CPP very smart. It is more politics for the folks at home and does not comprehend how well the CPP investment board has performed over the past few years. I certainly have more faith in that board than in any board controlled or influenced by our current Premier.

There are issues to be resolved but alas politics is clouding some, exacerbating others and more often than not getting in the way of a reasonable solution.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

nobleea said:


> AIMco did have a mandate from the previous NDP government to do this, though not in the oil sector. I believe 300M was invested. I think that's stupid and I'd almost say that such a fund should be prohibited from investing in AB.
> I think the CPP withdrawal is just a bargaining tactic. It would be a nightmare to coordinate (what happens when you move provinces?). One bargaining chip is that CPP contributions for the rest of Canada would have to go up by over 10% to make up with the loss of AB contributions. Since our population is the youngest and highest paid.


I don't see how that is true. If Albertans are disproportionately higher paid, they also come with disproportionately higher pension liabilities. It doesn't really matter younger vs older, but you might have to untangle CPP contributions based on residency at time the pension liability was accrued vs current residency.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> You just agreed to what I said. The recipient takes it with him/her.
> 
> What could be different though, like QPP, is contributory rates, benefits, and relative fund performance. IMO, it would be hard to best CPPIB performance. Going alone would be a political AND symbolic gesture to resentful Albertans who want the perception of more control. Could be argued that AB should also have its own provincial police force like ON and QC. There are a number of perceived "F U" snubs to Ottawa, even if they end up costing AB more money to implement and operate.


The police force issue is fine, but seems like divorcing from CPP would be cutting off ones nose to spit the face. As a contributor to CPP, I like the current arrangement that makes CPP rather immune to political meddling, unlike QPP.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

sags said:


> The Kenney government should spend their time diversifying their economy.


Whats your definition of diversifying?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think taking minor steps to begin distancing ourselves from the centralists is in Alberta's best interest...other Albertans may disagree but I suppose whatever the majority is OK with then we should proceed. 

CPP is easy enough to administer for those moving between Alberta & other provinces...investment returns are a red herring as we all know every investor gets hot from time to time but in the long run returns should begin to mirror each other.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> As a contributor to CPP, I like the current arrangement that makes CPP rather immune to political meddling, unlike QPP.


I think that is the better option too and if the due diligence is done right without political interference, Kenney should come to the same conclusion. That all said, if some symbolic (if not best) gestures can be done to help dial down the rhetoric and bring some rational thought to the great divide, AB and Canada could be better for it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> I think taking minor steps to begin distancing ourselves from the centralists is in Alberta's best interest...other Albertans may disagree but I suppose whatever the majority is OK with then we should proceed.
> 
> CPP is easy enough to administer for those moving between Alberta & other provinces...investment returns are a red herring as we all know every investor gets hot from time to time but in the long run returns should begin to mirror each other.


Not sure I would classify exiting CPP as a minor step. It would be a significant undertaking. I think there are more meaningful things AB could do that would improve its direct oversight over affairs in AB, such as creating a provincial police force. Not sure giving local politicians more control over investment decisions for large pools of wealth is a great deal.

It is pretty rare for public pension systems to be reasonably sound and well-run. I wouldn't be too eager to abandon that arrangement.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It's good politics. I know it just means there are more people at YMPE in AB than the Canadian average during contributory years, but when Albertans move west upon retirement, AB doesn't see it spent in AB.
> 
> One thing I did look up was contributory rate. QPP is 5.5% for 2019 while CPP is 5.1% and I do understand both are harmonized for the most part (there may be a few benefits that are different). I recognize mandates can be different as well so focusing on returns is a mug's game, but for example, I doubt AIMCo nor CPP invested as much recently in SNC-Lavalin as did QPP. And one has to wonder about Bombardier et al too. It can be a dangerous game if one gets too insular due to political or parochial influence.


If good politics is being working with half-truths and misinformation. The fact of the matter is that the funds in the CPP do not belong to Canada or to Alberta. It belongs to the ones who paid into it. In other words, you don't group contributors by province and say that X province contributes more or less than Y province. Someone who maxes the CPP contributions and lives in Ontario will get the same CPP pension as someone who maxes the CPP contributions in Alberta. The fact that Kenney is promoting the fiction that CPP is a scam based on the imbalance of people contributing when working in Alberta, and then collecting when they retire in BC (for example), is problematic. Here's the thing, we can fix the CPP "imbalance" easily, why not relocate enough retirees around Canada into Alberta so that Alberta can "collect" more of the CPP payout? Yeah, it's a deliberately silly solution, but no more silly than what is being proposed. Unless you plan on handcuffing Alberta workers so that they can only collect their APP while living in Alberta, you aren't solving the problem. Instead, you'll end up with Alberta workers contributing while living in Alberta, and collecting when retiring outside. Then we'll get more complaints that Alberta is subsidizing BC because BC retirees are collecting APP while Alberta workers are contributing.

Oh, I'm sure the other provinces would love that plan. That way, they don't have to deal with the health care costs of the retirees while Alberta benefited from lower health costs when they were relatively healthy workers.

Keep in mind that even with QPP investing in SNC-Lavalin and Bombardier, it still outperformed AIMCo.



nobleea said:


> AIMco did have a mandate from the previous NDP government to do this, though not in the oil sector. I believe 300M was invested. I think that's stupid and I'd almost say that such a fund should be prohibited from investing in AB.
> I think the CPP withdrawal is just a bargaining tactic. It would be a nightmare to coordinate (what happens when you move provinces?). One bargaining chip is that CPP contributions for the rest of Canada would have to go up by over 10% to make up with the loss of AB contributions. Since our population is the youngest and highest paid.


Well, I see 2 ways of getting it off the ground. 1. you pick a future start date when people start contributing to the APP. It starts from scratch with no liabilities and will give Alberta time to build up funds before people start to retire, so for some time, Albertans would be getting some combination of APP and CPP until you have people entering the workforce who have only paid into APP. 2. you pick a past date, but have to go through anyone who had filed taxes in Alberta to determine what their contributions were and their pension liabilities and transfer all that over. That's a lot more painful to determine, but makes more sense than this arbitrary value of $40B. 

As for this 10% increase in CPP contribution, I would say that's garbage. If people aren't contributing, they aren't incurring increased pension liabilities. The contribution rate is supposed to be set to ensure that the person's contribution is sufficient to cover their future liabilities. In other words, that's an empty threat.



AltaRed said:


> You just agreed to what I said. The recipient takes it with him/her.
> 
> What could be different though, like QPP, is contributory rates, benefits, and relative fund performance. IMO, it would be hard to best CPPIB performance. Going alone would be a political AND symbolic gesture to resentful Albertans who want the perception of more control. Could be argued that AB should also have its own provincial police force like ON and QC. There are a number of perceived "F U" snubs to Ottawa, even if they end up costing AB more money to implement and operate.


Sure, I mean why not? Alberta is complaining that they have to tighten their belt, but why not spend more money to set up a provincial police force and implement a new pension plan? Why not be like Quebec and set up their own tax collection agency so that they can collect the federal and provincial taxes and then hand over the federal share and save the rest of Canada some administration costs? If someone wants to cut their nose off to spite their face, I'm not going to stand in the way.



AltaRed said:


> I think that is the better option too and if the due diligence is done right without political interference, Kenney should come to the same conclusion. That all said, if some symbolic (if not best) gestures can be done to help dial down the rhetoric and bring some rational thought to the great divide, AB and Canada could be better for it.


This is hardly rational thought. People who want to try to bridge gaps generally aren't trying to think of ways to divide people. It plays well to Albertans, but isn't going to play well with Canadians. Think about Quebec and their threats of separatism, how did that play out well to bridge the Quebec-Canada divide?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The point is the ROC takes AB for granted and by at least going through the motions to be somewhat a 'Quebec west', perhaps Central Canada will start to take notice. 

Ottawa didn't and still doesn't care about 100,000+ lost jobs in AB and SK but had a PM who broke the law to potentially save 9000? jobs in Central Canada and even that potential loss was random speculation at best.

I also think JT doesn't want to have a legacy of alienating the west to the extent it becomes a 'Quebec west'. So it does not matter what the practicality, or economics, or common sense is of any of the upthread debate is about a APP, or a provincial police force, or anything else one can conjure up, it is the mere act of doing these things that is the message. Get out of the trees and look at the forest.

For that matter, it just might start a flood with SK and BC following down the same path. I personally think all of that would be a travesty for the country as a whole, so maybe it is about time for some equity and appreciation that is well overdue.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Think of us like Quebecor's, only with money.... we don't need Canada...Canada needs us...might stick in the throat of many.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> The point is the ROC takes AB for granted and by at least going through the motions to be somewhat a 'Quebec west', perhaps Central Canada will start to take notice.
> 
> Ottawa didn't and still doesn't care about 100,000+ lost jobs in AB and SK but had a PM who broke the law to potentially save 9000? jobs in Central Canada and even that potential loss was random speculation at best.
> 
> ...


Got it, so basically, Alberta just wants to stamp its feet and get heard. Sounds like the resurrection of the Reform party, or a more separatist version of the Conservative party.

Here's a serious question, a lot of the complaint is based on the oil industry bust. When exactly was that? Aside from a noticeable dip in oil production in 2016, it has been steadily increasing over the past decade: https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/OilProduction
Given that I don't believe there has been pipeline capacity shut down since the boom, and oil production has increased, what exactly is the difference in circumstance between the last boom and now?


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

Sometimes I wish the capital of Canada was located somewhere West of the Ontario-Manitoba border. 

The Conservatives won the popular vote. I wish they had won the majority of seats but, sadly; they did not. If we were to use the last federal election as a referendum to support our western neighbours, the Rest Of Canada (ROC for short) want to see pipelines built ASAP. I like most of my neighbours here in an Ontario riding located South of Ottawa voted in a Conservative member! SO please stop labeling us as anti oil and gas! 

Depending on their candidate, I used to vote NDP or Liberal. But; ever since Jim Flaherty guided us through the 2008 financial crisis, I have voted Conservative no matter who the candidate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Conservatives got 30% of the popular vote so 70% of Canadians voted for a different party.

The current minority government does represent the popular vote and every party is represented in Parliament.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> I personally think all of that would be a travesty for the country as a whole, so maybe it is about time for some equity and appreciation that is well overdue.


I suspect Quebec is quite appreciative of the money that Alberta hands over in transfer payments. This year Quebec will receive around 13 billion dollars.

I see that Quebec released its mini-budget yesterday.

_"QUEBEC — The province’s economic picture is so rosy that the Legault government is opening the spending tap, rolling out an increase in family allowance payments and the return of a flat daycare rate, which will be $8.25 a day".

"Unlike some struggling provinces, real GDP growth in Quebec is forecast to hit 2.4 per cent in 2019"

"In a mini-budget tabled by Finance Minister Eric Girard on Thursday, Quebec also reveals it is sitting on a fat surplus: $8.2 billion for 2018-2019 and $4 billion for 2019-2020."

"Swimming in cash, Girard says that money will come in handy to step up Quebec’s climate change fight"_


And yet they're a have-not province..........

ltr


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Albertans should keep in mind which was the last Government to review and make changes to the equalization formula. It was the Stephen Harper Conservatives.

And I quite remember Jason Kenney , as Harpers western lieutenant, promoting the revised formula as being 'good for all Canadians' including western Canada.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> As for this 10% increase in CPP contribution, I would say that's garbage. If people aren't contributing, they aren't incurring increased pension liabilities. The contribution rate is supposed to be set to ensure that the person's contribution is sufficient to cover their future liabilities. In other words, that's an empty threat.


It has to do with AB's very young population versus the rest of the country. Current employees pay in to the kitty to pay for existing retirees (plus future liabilities). By removing AB from the CPP, the average age of people in the CPP increases. The number was put out there by Trevor Tombe, a well respected economist with U of C who has tried to explain the equalization numbers and formulas to the frothing out the mouth albertans out here (not much effect unfortunately).

The details in withdrawing from CPP are complex, but the legalities are straightforward. It's explicitly stated that any province can do so.

Personally, I think it's a stupid idea. I like the diversification that a large CPP provides. Moreover, Kenney has mused that an APP could be used to finance AB O&G firms that banks do not seem to want to lend to anymore. That's a horrible idea. Add to that the conservatives penchant for doling out contracts to politically connected friends and that would be a disaster.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> I suspect Quebec is quite appreciative of the money that Alberta hands over in transfer payments. This year Quebec will receive around 13 billion dollars.
> 
> I see that Quebec released its mini-budget yesterday.
> 
> ...


Their provincial tax rates are substantially higher than ABs. We would be sitting on an absolutely massive surplus if we matched their provincial sales and income taxes.
But instead, we cut benefits to disabled seniors, school funding, stop building hospitals while the premier flies his buddies around in chartered jets for parties.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Can anyone tell me who all these 'Albertans' are? Every time I read or hear something about them I wonder who they are. I mean these are what, third, fourth or more generation Albertans? I am asking this seriously. My impression is that a great many of the disgruntled oil field workers are at best temporary workers who have moved from other provinces for work. I say this as someone who lived in Calgary for 7 years, several decades ago and am well aware of the continuous boom and bust economy of Alberta. While living in Calgary, I don't think more than 1 in 10 people I met were actually born in Alberta, which is what I would refer to as a minimum as being an 'Albertan'.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Can anyone tell me who all these 'Albertans' are? Every time I read or hear something about them I wonder who they are. I mean these are what, third, fourth or more generation Albertans? I am asking this seriously. My impression is that a great many of the disgruntled oil field workers are at best temporary workers who have moved from other provinces for work. I say this as someone who lived in Calgary for 7 years, several decades ago and am well aware of the continuous boom and bust economy of Alberta. While living in Calgary, I don't think more than 1 in 10 people I met were actually born in Alberta, which is what I would refer to as a minimum as being an 'Albertan'.


Generally they would be people that live here and here alone. We have many immigrants in our office - China, Brazil, India, Colombia, Venezuela, Liberia, etc. Proportionately, they lean the same way politically as those that were born here. I was born in Montreal, but would consider myself Albertan. My wife was born in BC, as were her parents. The province has seen some of the highest numbers of net in-migration in the country for quite some time, so yes, many who live here were not born here. But the term Albertan means anyone who lives here permanently.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> Got it, so basically, Alberta just wants to stamp its feet and get heard. Sounds like the resurrection of the Reform party, or a more separatist version of the Conservative party.
> 
> Here's a serious question, a lot of the complaint is based on the oil industry bust. When exactly was that? Aside from a noticeable dip in oil production in 2016, it has been steadily increasing over the past decade: https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/OilProduction
> Given that I don't believe there has been pipeline capacity shut down since the boom, and oil production has increased, what exactly is the difference in circumstance between the last boom and now?


There were 2 main causes of the current malaise. Firstly, the general price collapse in oil starting in mid-2014 I believe and hitting a low in 2016. That, in itself, is always part of the boom and bust cycle and one that the oil business and AB residents/gov't are used too. So that can/could be (and has been in the past) shrugged off, just like in 2008-2010. 

A compounding problem this time was nat gas prices going in the tank at the same time, which is/was caused by shale gas production increases in the USA and associated gas increases due to the shale oil boom. That typically has not happened directly in unison with oil except in times of recession. That could be weathered.

What is REALLY different this time was the lack of timely oil pipeline takeaway capacity additions to ship increasing oil production. TMX and Keystone XL, and Northern Gateway were supposed to provide this capacity, some of it as early as about 2016-2017, based on what producers signed long time contracts to pay for, and producers thus invested heavily in production increases starting 2012-2013 to be ready to use this 'take or pay' type shipping capacity. This has to be timed like a symphony orchestra due to long lead times. At the same time (I think), Line 3 throughput was cut back with a pressure reduction due to aging pipe. This all conspired to cause increasing production with lower (and/or non-increasing) pipeline takeaway capacity and consequently a significant widening of the WCSB to WTI discount which has essentially remained in place since 2016. At one point, WCSB oil was selling in the mid-teens.

So it is a double whammy. Oil (and gas) price decreases which are part of the industry's normal business environment, compounded with even lower prices due to an inability to ship increasing volumes due to the country's inability to advance timely pipeline capacity additions. We are 3 years into this double whammy with no end in sight (minimum of 2 more years). This latter issue is the real cause of western alienation and one that could have been averted with motivated federal government attention to a well understood and practiced energy policy that continually adds billions in GDP to Canada's economy. Instead, they essentially throttled these projects, firstly with the political decision to shutdown Northern Gateway, and then lack of political support of regulatory (NEB) decisions on TMX project approvals.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

AltaRed spellet it out exactly it in a nutshell. 

Lots of other nonsense and fluff around that is promoted by politicians but this is truly the nuts and bolts of it. The discussion is heightened by the choice of a Liberal Party that cannot realize a true western presence and is arrogant with it, and a Conservative party that is far from progressive, has a disaster as a leader, and is out of touch with Canadians under the age of 45. Jason Kenney, IMHO, is artificially fanning the flames for his self promotion and with an eye to the hopefully upcoming federal Conservative leadership race in late 2020. As is his friend next door. 

So...we have only lived in Alberta for 20 years. Neither of us were born here. 

Does this make us eligible to have an opinion about Alberta within Canada or do we have to be born here??? As an aside, we also decided to retire in Alberta rather than go to BC or Ontario.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They say that oil prices are low because there is a global glut of oil, even with embargoes on Iran and Venezuelan oil. (2nd largest oil reserves in the world)

I don't see how increasing production into the global market would do anything but lower the price of oil further.

Is the plan to let the price fall but make it up on volume ?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> They say that oil prices are low because there is a global glut of oil, even with embargoes on Iran and Venezuelan oil. (2nd largest oil reserves in the world)
> 
> I don't see how increasing production into the global market would do anything but lower the price of oil further.
> 
> Is the plan to let the price fall but make it up on volume ?


Global prices are low. But our local prices are substantially lower still.
Constraining of supply to achieve an objective has never worked. Work on the demand side instead.
The theory that constraining local supply will somehow have an effect on GHG emissions is incorrect. Look to the war on drugs and prohibition to see how futile that is.
Let products flow freely and then let market forces shut things down.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There are two other factors in the oil patch that are not often mentioned by politicians but have, and will continue to have, a significant impact on employment. 

The first is technological advances that have, and will continue to reduce the number of heads required-from engineers on down.

The second is amalgamation. As capital becomes scarce, profits tight, and overheads under pressure many of the juniors have gone. They have been swallowed up. Jobs have been lost that will never return.

I cannot imagine either of these trends subsiding in the near term. It is a function of the the price of oil for certain but other factors are also at play. 

Seems to me that it is much like the automobile industry. We are producing far better product with far fewer workers. Previously unskilled work forces in other lower cost countries have now become skilled and can produce the same product for less money in this international marketplace. You only have to look at what happened to Australia's automobile industry to see what is on the horizon for Canada.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Global prices are low. But our local prices are substantially lower still.
> Constraining of supply to achieve an objective has never worked. Work on the demand side instead.
> The theory that constraining local supply will somehow have an effect on GHG emissions is incorrect. Look to the war on drugs and prohibition to see how futile that is.
> Let products flow freely and then let market forces shut things down.


That doesn't address Sags' specific point which has been addressed multiple times before. World oil demand is 100 million barrels of oil per day and continues to increase. Even if supply on a 100% availability basis (always available) is 110 million barrels of oil per day, some oil is always shut in due to maintenance, etc. and yes, perhaps half of that 10 million barrels per day is currently constrained off the market to support price (Russia and Saudi in particular since they need the oil revenue to support their economies).

But the real issue is global supply has a natural production decline ratio of 4-5% per year, so at least 4 million barrels per day of production capability is lost every year without new capital re-investment. And that is the key point... One has to have tens (or hundreds) of billions of capital every year to re-invest to sustain production levels, and that simply is not available in places like Iran or Venezuela or Libya or Iraq or Russia (not much anyway), and not Saudi (which is on the thin edge of sustainability). Another point is that oil from 'stable' places like Canada, Norway, USA et al has more value than from **** hole countries in the world and those customers would much rather source a reliable supply for their needs. 

Not only will increasing Canadian supply be welcomed in the global market over many other sources, the volume of increased supply, such as 1 million barrels per day, will hardly be a bump on the global graph. That much oil supply has to be replaced every 3 months of every year just to sustain current global production rates! It won't cause a ripple.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

ian said:


> As an aside, we also decided to retire in Alberta rather than go to BC or Ontario.


Pretty good choice...just having no sales tax really helps out all lower income/retired Albertans.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> Pretty good choice...just having no sales tax really helps out all lower income/retired Albertans.


I can't argue strongly with that, even though it is incredibly nearsightedness NOT having a VAT. Imagine what the Heritage Trust Fund could be spinning off in investment income had royalty revenue all gone to the fund all along, and government operations were funded with a more reliable VAT stream. Just like Norway. Native Albertans and in-migration newcomers simply can't come to grips with this scenario and it is going to continue to be gut wrenching every time a bust occurs. 

I don't recall what organization looked at it, but all it would take is something like a 3% VAT to make a huge difference. Consumers don't notice VAT after awhile, and there are GST/HST rebates for lower income folk. My Alberta based mother got a GST rebate for much of her latter years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is a glut of oil today. Too much oil is being produced for the demand.

Pipeline advocates seem to be saying that demand will increase in the future to exceed production and that is when the new pipelines will become important.

I find that unlikely. There are many oil exporting countries closer to their markets that could easily increase their output.

I also find it unlikely that demand for oil will continue to rise. Already green energy is replacing the increasing demand and that will replacement will continue in the future.

Lastly, on the "ethics" of Canadian oil....if China is the end user goal of the new pipelines, I doubt they care where they get it as long as it is abundant and cheap.

Having said that........I trust Trudeau has access to the best people and will make a good decision based on their advice.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> There is a glut of oil today. Too much oil is being produced for the demand.


I guess you must have missed AltaRed's post earlier. You can read that now.



sags said:


> Already green energy is replacing the increasing demand and that will replacement will continue in the future.


They can produce all the wind and solar replacement energy possible, and unfortunately it has to be backed up kilowatt for kilowatt with conventional generation plants - usually natural gas. This is because they haven't discovered how to store energy yet such that when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, the output of green energy is zero. Are you willing to accept no electricity during those situations that occur every single day. Most aren't. Green energy will be great when they discover how to store power, until that happens, not so much.




sags said:


> I trust Trudeau has access to the best people and will make a good decision based on their advice.


That hasn't happened yet, why do you feel he'll start now?

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Green energy is already replacing sufficient amount to cover the small increase in demand for fossil fuels year over year. Demand will soon hit an apex and start to decline.

As the technology in storage capacity improves, green energy will substitute a greater amount of fossil fuels.

It is the OECD developed countries who are the greatest users of oil, and it is the same countries with the ability to changeover to green energy.

There is information coming from the oil producing Provinces and there is conflicting information coming from elsewhere. I guess people have to choose what they believe.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> They can produce all the wind and solar replacement energy possible, and unfortunately it has to be backed up kilowatt for kilowatt with conventional generation plants - usually natural gas. This is because they haven't discovered how to store energy yet such that when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, the output of green energy is zero. Are you willing to accept no electricity during those situations that occur every single day. Most aren't. Green energy will be great when they discover how to store power, until that happens, not so much.


Further to your response to Sags' point,


> Already green energy is replacing the increasing demand and that will replacement will continue in the future.


 this is not making any sense to me. How can green energy replace increasing demand when it has not existed yet? What he probably means is that more and more of increasing electrical demand is being met by green energy, and with that I agree. BUT green energy is not replacing EXISTING demand from fossil fuels in any material way. 

Besides, I don't even understand Sags' argument. Electrical demand is rarely oil fired anywhere except where there is not sufficient natural gas (including LNG) sourcing. Oll fired electrical generation tends to be focused to places where there are not feasible alternatives. Even Hawaii (I think) still has some oil fired generation since they must have something to backstop solar and wind when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow and the rains can't run the TG sets. Sags clearly has not studied the 2019 IEA world report on the wide range of energy sourcing.

Nat gas is replacing coal fired generation where it can economically, but that is limited in places like Asia where imported LNG is still pricey relative to all the coal fired stations they are still building in places like Vietnam and China. Bottom line is nat gas fired generation will continue to climb, coal fired generation will fall, and who knows what the limited oil fired generation will do. There is not much isolated communities can do except to have diesel fired generation supplemented by solar and wind. The shift to green will simply not impact oil demand to any material degree. It's a non-issue to oil producing countries. If Sags is reading this, he really needs to drill deeper into the various studies and forecasts that exist.

Added: Can't find a link to a free 2019 IEA Energy Outlook for now. But this link https://www.ief.org/_resources/file...rgy-outlook/ief-energy-outlook-2018-09-09.pdf provides some insight. Slide 10 in particular shows how little role and effect liquids, e.g. oil, have in power generation. Slide 11 is interesting in that it shows graphically about what I have been saying about the tens of billions that will have to continue to be spent to replace natural decline (red dotted line). Canada has plenty of room to supply a portion of that increasing wedge for decades to come. 

Even if this year old summary is optimistic (and probably is), oil and nat gas have a very lengthy life ahead of them. Note: My guess is coal generation will decline more rapidly than shown, replaced by nat gas.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> As the technology in storage capacity improves, green energy will substitute a greater amount of fossil fuels.


Yeah, that's great, we're all waiting for science to solve the storage of power conundrum, but no one has solved it yet, so we'll wait. But sure, once and if they solve it, then green energy will substitute a greater amount of fossil fuels. Not until.



sags said:


> I guess people have to choose what they believe.


Yeah, and I believe the science, which says they can't store power yet. Lots of silly ideas, but nothing concrete.

ltr


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Green energy is already replacing sufficient amount to cover the small increase in demand for fossil fuels year over year. Demand will soon hit an apex and start to decline.


It may be covering the increase in demand for electricity production. But certainly not for transportation, which is the main use of our liquids (in addition to all the other products that use it during production).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

nobleea said:


> Moreover, Kenney has mused that an APP could be used to finance AB O&G firms that banks do not seem to want to lend to anymore. That's a horrible idea. Add to that the conservatives penchant for doling out contracts to politically connected friends and that would be a disaster.


Terrifying. 

If Kenney wants to do this, the province should borrow cash and lend to firms. Pension assets have only one purpose: earn a return that ensures a high probability of funding future liabilities.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

nobleea said:


> Their provincial tax rates are substantially higher than ABs. We would be sitting on an absolutely massive surplus if we matched their provincial sales and income taxes.
> But instead, we cut benefits to disabled seniors, school funding, stop building hospitals while the premier flies his buddies around in chartered jets for parties.


Spend the oil endowment today to ensure future poverty if/when it is worth less.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Indeed a horrible thought. Smells like QPP.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

nobleea said:


> Global prices are low. But our local prices are substantially lower still.
> Constraining of supply to achieve an objective has never worked. Work on the demand side instead.
> The theory that constraining local supply will somehow have an effect on GHG emissions is incorrect. Look to the war on drugs and prohibition to see how futile that is.
> Let products flow freely and then let market forces shut things down.


I think this is an important point, and one that the vast majority of Canadians should be able to get on board for. I think some of the strongest pro-oil interest groups saboutage their own interests by being so openly hostile to environmental/climate concerns, prompting a backlash. Oil companies are clearly much more savvy about this as most make lots of noises about acknowledging human GHG emissions contribution to climate change and being open to carbon pricing. 

Think Norway as a path forward for bridging this divide. I think it would do Alberta some good to transform the oil endowment into a financial endowment through a sovereign wealth fund. Current government spending should be financed out of proper tax revenues. Jurisdictions where the government can use resource revenue to fund their spending rather than taxation often do not need the consent of the governed and tend to have deteriorating democratic traditions. I wonder if there is a correlation with the one-party rule in Alberta at both provincial and federal level (brief NDP interlude notwithstanding, as it was only the result of an internal schism).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OPEC released a study on the future of oil demand.

_The report comes at a time when many energy market participants are increasingly concerned about a repeat of rising supply and faltering demand — the same situation that precipitated a dramatic fall in crude futures from mid-2014 to 2016._

Some predict that oil demand will peak in the 2030s and start to decline.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/ope...recast-cut-over-the-medium-and-long-term.html


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> They can produce all the wind and solar replacement energy possible, and unfortunately it has to be backed up kilowatt for kilowatt with conventional generation plants - usually natural gas. This is because they haven't discovered how to store energy yet such that when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, the output of green energy is zero. Are you willing to accept no electricity during those situations that occur every single day. Most aren't. Green energy will be great when they discover how to store power, until that happens, not so much.


Even if you are right that the backup power capacity has to be _available_, it does not mean it will be _used_. So you are arguing that we would have to maintain a large, costly fleet of gas plants that are seldom used as a 'just-in-case' backup power when intermittent renewable sources of power are unavailable. This scenario is also consistent with dramatically falling consumption of nat gas for power generation.

What you will find is that as these backup gas generators become less and less used, their cost becomes higher and higher per unit of energy generated. It is a vicious cycle that will accelerate the business case for storage. There is already huge investment in storage technology. Tesla is building GWh-scale battery backup installations, primarily for grid regulation (a use case for which peaker plants are totally outclassed). Battery prices will continue to fall as technology advances and production increases. Alternative technologies are being developed, using compressed air or pumped water. Then there is demand management/dispatchable demand. If nuclear is part of the picture as baseload power, such as it is in Ontario, then the need for fossil fuels in power generation can be substantially eliminated. And transportation will be electrified, it is just a matter of time. Some things will take longer, such as long haul air travel and ocean shipping, but most everything else has a pretty clear path to conversion to electric power.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Further to your response to Sags' point, this is not making any sense to me. How can green energy replace increasing demand when it has not existed yet? What he probably means is that more and more of increasing electrical demand is being met by green energy, and with that I agree. BUT green energy is not replacing EXISTING demand from fossil fuels in any material way.
> 
> Besides, I don't even understand Sags' argument. Electrical demand is rarely oil fired anywhere except where there is not sufficient natural gas (including LNG) sourcing. Oll fired electrical generation tends to be focused to places where there are not feasible alternatives. Even Hawaii (I think) still has some oil fired generation since they must have something to backstop solar and wind when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow and the rains can't run the TG sets. Sags clearly has not studied the 2019 IEA world report on the wide range of energy sourcing.
> 
> ...


IEA has been comically wrong in their forecasts for growth in renewable energy production and growth in the EV fleet. This is an old chart, I've only see updated versions of this in slides, but the point stands that in 2006, IEA predicted that the next 5 or 6 years of growth in wind/solar would have taken 20-25 years. The pattern continued in later years. They have absolutely laughable projections about the size of the global EV fleet, given even just existing production today (assuming Tesla and Chinese automakers don't expand production at all). All this to say I would not trust IEA forecasts, as it seems like they are talking their book more than giving honest forecasts (or are just really bad at what they do).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

IEA has no specific energy agenda. The represent all forms of energy so there is no vested interest on one fuel or another. That said, forecasts are just that. Based on a particular set of assumptions. Conditions do change based on technology advancements and public sentiment. Time will tell.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

More baby steps...

https://globalnews.ca/news/6135912/alberta-rural-crime-lawsuits/

Its time that innocent people are protected by law...not the assholes


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

At this moment we are experiencing a power interruption for 4 hours to allow HYDRO ONE the necessary time to complete a major change over on our road. 

We have an 800 W solar system with 400 amp hours of storage to use when the sun shines and sparingly when the grid is down. 

We knew of the interruption. Our cell phone, ipad, and computer batteries were fully charged beforehand. WE are burning wood in the wood stove for heat and candles for light. The flat screen TV, fridge and freezer are not working.

The back-up storage is being used to power up the internet, sump pump, and the radio. 

The sun is on the horizon and it looks like clear skies ahead. Just what is needed for a recharge.

Love using solar, but, would never want to be without the EFFICIENT, CHEAP and DEPENDABLE sources of electrical energy supplied by Hydro, Coal, Natural Gas, Oil and Nuclear power plants.

An efficient method to store the DC power made while the sun shines will be costly and far from green. Solar should ONLY be promoted as something touchy feely for an individual homeowner to install for personal use.


Just spoke with our neighbour who is in the process of leaving for work. She said, "It isn't much fun getting ready for work in the dark!"


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

andrewf said:


> They have absolutely laughable projections about the size of the global EV fleet, given even just existing production today (assuming Tesla and Chinese automakers don't expand production at all).


_China is considering further cuts to subsidies for electric-vehicle purchases, according to people familiar with the matter, threatening to deal another blow to a once-burgeoning industry that’s facing an unprecedented slump.

...

Separately, China’s Passenger Car Association said Friday that NEV deliveries fell for a fourth-straight month, *plunging 45 percent in October*, as subsidy cuts made it harder for the country’s hundreds of EV makers to convince consumers that they’re worth paying higher prices for than regular cars._

https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/china-considers-cutting-ev-subsidies-again-report-says

The reality of EV sales is that they're dependent on government subsidies, once they're cut EV sales collapses.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> AltaRed spellet it out exactly it in a nutshell.
> 
> Lots of other nonsense and fluff around that is promoted by politicians but this is truly the nuts and bolts of it. The discussion is heightened by the choice of a Liberal Party that cannot realize a true western presence and is arrogant with it, and a Conservative party that is far from progressive, has a disaster as a leader, and is out of touch with Canadians under the age of 45. Jason Kenney, IMHO, is artificially fanning the flames for his self promotion and with an eye to the hopefully upcoming federal Conservative leadership race in late 2020. As is his friend next door.
> 
> ...


I have no FINANCIAL horse in this race ian but if I take what AltaRed says and you agree with as being the issue, that is pipelines, then I have to ask is that the right thing to be focused on? What I mean is that I am of the opinion that the oil industry is not a good thing for the world and that we should be moving away from oil as quickly as possible. It just sucks in environmental terms.

I can understand the viewpoint of someone who earns their living in that industry will be different given their obvious bias but most people do not work in the oil industry. So while it will hurt a few, less oil production will please a majority. What then should a government of the people be doing? Protecting the jobs of a few or doing what is best for all and best for the world? 

I liken it to many industries that have come and gone over time and how politicians always try to placate a minority of voters who will lose their jobs. Take Canadian shipbuilding (or elsewhere as well like the UK) as an example. Canadian companies could no longer compete globally in building ships. The only ships now built here are for the navy basically and those are built at a higher cost than they could be built elsewhere, because politicians want the vote of those who work in those last remaining shipyards. The same is happening with the auto industry. The N. American 'Big 3' are dying, they just don't want to admit it and the politicians again wanting the vote of the auto workers, continue to waste money keeping it on life support.

The question is not should we build pipelines and keep jobs going, the question should be WHY are we even thinking about it. The oil industry is NOT good for the world environment and we should be moving away from it, no ifs ands or buts. But that is not the question 'Albertans' of whatever definition want to debate (how could they), they want to make it about how politicians don't care about Alberta jobs.

My response to those crying about their oil field jobs is, find another job. If anyone is being arrogant, it is 'Albertans' who think they have a RIGHT to work in an industry that should be and IS dying. Get out while you can or end up like GM workers with 30 years of service and little if any transferable skills. They get no sympathy from me.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

accord1999 said:


> _China is considering further cuts to subsidies for electric-vehicle purchases, according to people familiar with the matter, threatening to deal another blow to a once-burgeoning industry that’s facing an unprecedented slump.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Tesla is still selling plenty of vehicles in the US despite losing subsidies (while competitors still enjoy them). I would say that the Chinese makers generally are making inferior vehicles, and are vulnerable to when Tesla can start delivering domestic vehicles to avoid tariffs.

If you also consider TCO, cars like Model 3 do very well even without subsidies against other luxury vehicles or even cars like Camry. You can continue to live in denial about EVs, but the whole auto industry sees the writing on the wall and is investing heavily to catch up to industry leaders.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> I have no FINANCIAL horse in this race ian but if I take what AltaRed says and you agree with as being the issue, that is pipelines, then I have to ask is that the right thing to be focused on? What I mean is that I am of the opinion that the oil industry is not a good thing for the world and that we should be moving away from oil as quickly as possible. It just sucks in environmental terms.
> 
> I can understand the viewpoint of someone who earns their living in that industry will be different given their obvious bias but most people do not work in the oil industry. So while it will hurt a few, less oil production will please a majority. What then should a government of the people be doing? Protecting the jobs of a few or doing what is best for all and best for the world?
> 
> ...


This is wrong-headed. Keeping Alberta oil from markets will only induce supply from other sources to be used. You need to address demand, not supply.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

accord1999 said:


> _China is considering further cuts to subsidies for electric-vehicle purchases, according to people familiar with the matter, threatening to deal another blow to a once-burgeoning industry that’s facing an unprecedented slump.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


A foolish argument accord1999 that does not hold water if you look at the bigger picture. EV sales will NOT collapse, they are increasing and they ARE the future.

CURRENT sales may be dependent on subsidies or not as you say but so what? Sales are and will continue to increase, no one in the auto industry even tries to deny that anymore. The internal combustion engine as the motive power of vehicles is a dying product and the oil industry as a dominant force in the world economy, is also going to fall. It is not a question of IF it will happen, it is only a question of how FAST it will happen.

Here is a very good article on the subject: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/24/how-electric-cars-can-end-the-age-of-oil/

Meanwhile, we have everyone here arguing about pipelines and 'Albertans' not being treated as they deserve. Hilarious, they're all going to be out of work in a decade or two anyway.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> This is wrong-headed. Keeping Alberta oil from markets will only induce supply from other sources to be used. You need to address demand, not supply.


I agree totally andrewf. I am not suggesting that we should keep oil from markets, I am indeed suggesting we should realize that demand is the problem. But 'Albertans' do not want to debate that issue, they can't see beyond their own job today.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It seems not many want to understand how oil is supplied, what it takes to replace declining existing production, nor how oil will continue to be in demand potentially for centuries yet to come. Based on what I hear and read looking at AB from the west side of the Rockies, Albertans generally know that global oil demand growth will slow and roll over, but they simply want an equal opportunity to supply what the world will continue to demand over the long term like any other producing country. 

Despite all the movement to reduce demand for the good of our planet's environment, large volumes of oil will continue to be needed for a long time. A lot of existing production sources are drying up or are unable to attract the capital to sustain itself and leaves opportunity for some countries like Canada, Brazil, Norway and Guyana, and even the USA to step up where others falter. It has always been that way and will always be that way. Oil supply/demand balances take care of themselves simply because commodity price will be the leveling factor for taking out marginal production. Much less oil can be economically developed at $50/Bbl than can be developed at $80/Bbl. We are in a new world of sustained 'lower' oil prices.

Albertans are generally not nearly as stupid as some make them out to be. Anyone with a brain already recognizes the industry is maturing and Alberta is in the midst of substantial change to reduce its own carbon footprint already. It is a vocal minority along with immature behaviour from Kenney that makes all the headlines.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Tesla is still selling plenty of vehicles in the US despite losing subsidies (while competitors still enjoy them). I would say that the Chinese makers generally are making inferior vehicles, and are vulnerable to when Tesla can start delivering domestic vehicles to avoid tariffs.





> The electric automaker’s U.S. sales plummeted to US$3.13 billion in the latest quarter, from US$5.13 billion a year earlier,


https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tesla-s-u-s-sales-fell-39-in-q3-new-filing-reveals-1.1339465



> If you also consider TCO, cars like Model 3 do very well even without subsidies against other luxury vehicles or even cars like Camry.


If you ignore the poor reliability of Tesla vehicles.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> A foolish argument accord1999 that does not hold water if you look at the bigger picture. EV sales will NOT collapse, they are increasing and they ARE the future.


No, you look at the bigger picture and EV sales collapses every time subsidies are cut. It increasingly looks like without massive government subsidies and enticements, people just don't care enough to switch to EV, no more than a niche anyways.

https://qz.com/1676912/teslas-sales-never-recovered-after-hong-kong-cut-a-tax-break/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...le-denmark-reconsiders-electric-car-subsidies

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/electric-car-sales-ontario-drop-cancellation-rebates-1.5223071


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Back in the day the government paid me to convert my 4x4 to run on propane. A lot of people did. Propane was 7 cents/litre ...after a year of the conversion program road tax was added to the price of propane & it cost about 40cents/litre nearly the same as gas.
Right now there are lots of free plug ins for EV's etc...lets see when there are 500 EV's wanting to charge up at the _Coquihalla_ rest stop otw to the Okanagan . Bring your jumper cables!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Norwegian incentives that were needed..... and unintended consequences? https://www.citylab.com/environment...hicle-models-incentives-car-free-oslo/578932/

Can you imagine what that would look like in Canada with 7+ times the population?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

accord1999 said:


> No, you look at the bigger picture and EV sales collapses every time subsidies are cut. It increasingly looks like without massive government subsidies and enticements, people just don't care enough to switch to EV, no more than a niche anyways.


Yeah, I agree with your take on this accord1999. Everything I read appears to back it up.

I just don't think that people are ready to commit to an EV quite yet. They have potential, and it's a step in the right direction, but just like everything that is green energy, they haven't solved the storage problem. The hybrid solution is sheer lunacy. It's the same result that we get from wind and solar energy where we have to back up the car's green system with a conventional solution, so we have to maintain two systems in a car - a maintenance nightmare -Nuts.

I can drive into a gas station and fuel up in a matter of minutes. If I was lucky enough with an EV to find a charging station, and it isn't presently being used, then how long does it take to fuel up? If it ain't a matter of minutes, I'm not interested and neither is anyone else. The only solution is to discover a super battery that is small, lightweight and I can swap it out at the charging station in a matter of minutes. Again, the storage problem.

I guess if I live in a nice bungalow in a subdivision I can pay a $1000 and install a charger for my EV in my driveway. What if I live downtown in a nice row-house. Where will I be plugging my car in? I won't, so I need a local charging station where I'll sit for a half hour to get fueled up, while being eyed by everyone else who wants to use the station.

Nope, we ain't there yet. I replace my car every 5-6 years. I'm getting close. Will I consider an EV - no.... I thought about it for about 10 seconds, just like everyone else and concluded, just like everyone else, we ain't there yet.

ltr


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

accord1999 said:


> https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tesla-s-u-s-sales-fell-39-in-q3-new-filing-reveals-1.1339465
> 
> 
> If you ignore the poor reliability of Tesla vehicles.


They are covered by warranty for a 5 year TCO. Reliability has improved as well, see recently released Bloomberg owner survey.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

accord1999 said:


> https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tesla-s-u-s-sales-fell-39-in-q3-new-filing-reveals-1.1339465
> 
> 
> If you ignore the poor reliability of Tesla vehicles.


How much do you want to bet that Tesla revenues in the US will decline over time?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Back in the day the government paid me to convert my 4x4 to run on propane. A lot of people did. Propane was 7 cents/litre ...after a year of the conversion program road tax was added to the price of propane & it cost about 40cents/litre nearly the same as gas.
> Right now there are lots of free plug ins for EV's etc...lets see when there are 500 EV's wanting to charge up at the _Coquihalla_ rest stop otw to the Okanagan . Bring your jumper cables!


You generally top up at home. If you have 500km range, you shouldn't need to stop en route for most normal day trips. If you think chargers won't be installed to meet demand, continue to enjoy your denial. Fair enough that charging en route may not be cheap, all the stronger incentive to charge up at home. Try that with your dinosaur burner.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I agree with your take on this accord1999. Everything I read appears to back it up.
> 
> I just don't think that people are ready to commit to an EV quite yet. They have potential, and it's a step in the right direction, but just like everything that is green energy, they haven't solved the storage problem. The hybrid solution is sheer lunacy. It's the same result that we get from wind and solar energy where we have to back up the car's green system with a conventional solution, so we have to maintain two systems in a car - a maintenance nightmare -Nuts.
> 
> ...


With a model 3 15 to 20 minutes is enough to get 2-3 hours of driving range. Most normal people enjoy a stretch and bathroom break at that frequency. Of course the other benefit is you leave your house every morning with a full "tank". The rate long distance trip comes with charging stops, but you avoid the weekly or more often trip to the gas station during normal use.

For the downtown resident, you charge for thirty minutes at the mall or grocery store while you are shopping. No angry stares, unless you are tying up a charger without charging.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You generally top up at home. If you have 500km range, you shouldn't need to stop en route for most normal day trips. If you think chargers won't be installed to meet demand, continue to enjoy your denial. Fair enough that charging en route may not be cheap, all the stronger incentive to charge up at home. Try that with your dinosaur burner.


lol at 500km range...I have 1st hand knowledge with a Tesla driving Vancouver to Rock Creek...free charging was very necessary there and back. Do you own one? Oh...3 hour charge both ways. Thats on a Model S. No idea on model 3 but some tests are in.

Actual testing on the road show the Model 3 with extended battery pack will go only ~380 km's. Standard range battery was found to offer 315km range before requiring a charge...good luck finding a super charger.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

EV cheerleaders simply don't understand what it is like to live outside of major urban areas. Talk to me again in 5-10 years if/when there is a lot more competition, more range and charging stations are readily available. In the meantime, ICE sales will continue to be brisk.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> EV cheerleaders simply don't understand what it is like to live outside of major urban areas. Talk to me again in 5-10 years if/when there is a lot more competition, more range and charging stations are readily available. In the meantime, ICE sales will continue to be brisk.


The vast majority of CAD population lives in major urban areas though. So just like rural areas have to deal with archaic internet connections, they will be seen as having to deal with archaic ICE vehicles in 30 years.
We have two vehicles. The next time one is replaced, it will be electric. The second one for longer road trips will get replaced with a plug in hybrid EV once they have one on the market with a 3500lb+ tow rating. Of the 30K we put on our vehicles per year (combined), probably 27K is just within town and so a full EV would be well suited. I'm would bet this is the case for 3/4 of the population.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> I agree totally andrewf. I am not suggesting that we should keep oil from markets, I am indeed suggesting we should realize that demand is the problem. But 'Albertans' do not want to debate that issue, they can't see beyond their own job today.


The way I think about it is we're Apple. And we have a crapload of iPhone 8's in the warehouse. And Apple is releasing the iPhone X now. Production is limited and it's more expensive, but clearly a better option. We should be selling as many iPhone 8's as possible before the market passes us by. The market will only take how many it wants and there's other competition out there too. But it would be stupid for headoffice to say, "nope scrap them all and bury them. The X is better and we shouldn't be selling this archaic form of phone."

Albertans are well aware that demand is where the focus should be. If you read between the lines, all the comments about "well you shouldn't be using a computer then - it was made with oil products" and "I wonder how all those oil protesters got to the protest!" and "hypocrite Leo - flies around in a private jet telling us how bad oil is" are all referencing how demand is the issue. If TMX was under construction 2 years ago, I bet we'd still have a healthy carbon tax in effect here. Everyone here knows the industry is dying a slow death (probably one more boom to go yet though), they won't be telling their kids to go in to that industry. They just want unrestricted flow of goods in our country as you should have in an open market.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

It amazes me how people will focus on a tree and continue to ignore the forest.

It doesn't matter if you think an EV today is a bad proposition or not. It is the future and there is no denying that. Instead of trying to argue about the range of an EV, trying arguing the bigger picture of where the future is leading us. 

Or try arguing whether we SHOULD be moving to alternatives to internal combustion engines in vehicles or not. 

One comment by nobleea about people not telling their kids to go into the oil business caught my attention. I'm afraid that history tells us that you are wrong about that nobleea. Look at any of the industries that have died and you will find that parents were telling their kids, 'I'll get you in', right up until the end. People were still saying that to their kids in Oshawa and General Motors right up until a couple of years ago. Some are still saying it to their kids in Halifax in regards to Irving Shipbuilding. 

There are people who can see the writing on the wall and there are people who can't see what they don't WANT to see. Sadly, there are always lots of the latter who will ignore it right up until they are unemployed and then they will cry, 'woe is me, how unjustly I have been treated'. These are the people who vote for a populist like Jason Kenney. He feeds them just what they want to hear.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I have not seen or heard much of that type of thing in AB about the oil industry. If anything, kids of parents in the oil industry don't want to continue in the oil industry UNLESS their parents own/run an oil related business, and they can start with a silver spoon in their mouths. 

It is especially true with professionals where kids really don't follow their parents into the business. The old blue collar 'unionized' example (stereotype) of auto workers or coal miners or X does not apply nearly as much to the oil industry, particularly since there is much less unionization in the oil industry, and the work force is way more transient, and mobile, and from all corners of Canada. In all my career, I've rarely seen 'generational' commitments to the oil industry. Too much boom and bust for one thing and too much mobility required.

Added: Nobleea is reinforcing what some of us have been saying for some time. Most of the anger is due to the artificial constraints put on an industry that has been restricted from competing on an equal footing with the rest of the world, i.e. the ability to transport and ship their products to open markets. The rest of the issues/complaints are mostly peripheral, e.g. carbon tax, equalization, etc, and almost always die down to near nothing when the primary issue goes away. I believe Albertans as a whole have a broader world view than most because of the global based industry they are in, and because the majority of them originate from somewhere else. Maybe not the diehard social conservatives that were born in a cow pasture or wheat field, but the vast majority have no family roots to the province.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The world is awash in oil production and reserves.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-oil-50-barrels-rouhani-1.5354846


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> lol at 500km range...I have 1st hand knowledge with a Tesla driving Vancouver to Rock Creek...free charging was very necessary there and back. Do you own one? Oh...3 hour charge both ways. Thats on a Model S. No idea on model 3 but some tests are in.
> 
> Actual testing on the road show the Model 3 with extended battery pack will go only ~380 km's. Standard range battery was found to offer 315km range before requiring a charge...good luck finding a super charger.


Which road? There are fleet stats that bear out range, your anecdote notwithstanding. Driving mountain passes will get worse efficiency, similarly to gas cars.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> EV cheerleaders simply don't understand what it is like to live outside of major urban areas. Talk to me again in 5-10 years if/when there is a lot more competition, more range and charging stations are readily available. In the meantime, ICE sales will continue to be brisk.


People who live in the boonies don't seem to understand that being the last 5% to convert doesn't mean the technology isn't ready for the bulk of the economy. By this standard, the internet is still a crappy fad because some farms in North Dakota can only get crappy satellite internet.

ETA: I grew up in a rural area. We had electricity service. Certainly more prevalent than gas stations. Local stations charged steep convenience premiums over gas in town. If you are driving 500km, you are probably driving a highway, which will tend to have charging stations. Even if it is not a Tesla branded station (gold standard in terms of cost/service/speed), there are many more lower power output or less convenient to use stations, even in smaller towns. Rural Alberta or BC is not indicative of the use case most people in North America would experience. Get over it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Take up of EVs is close to non-existent in the BC Southern Interior because people here don't buy vehicles just to commute or go shopping. They buy them for multi-purpose use and for long distances. Even more so in the north. It has nothing to do whether one has electricity at their home/farm/ranch or not, or Internet, or anything remotely similar to your examples. It's about security and practicality of intended purpose. 

Having said that, I agree the more urban an area is, the earlier and the more inroads EVs will make and specifically because of a higher percentage of shorter runs. I take no personal exception to EVs themselves. The cleaner the air is and the sooner the better. I just don't believe in what appears to be irrational idealism and the blinders it seems to put people in. We will have to agree to disagree on this subject, as we have done so before.

Added: Let's have the discussion again in 2025 and 2030.

Added again: Here is a Deloitte projection, for whatever it is worth https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...ing/deloitte-uk-battery-electric-vehicles.pdf This article https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...-million-units-by-2030-at-a-CAGR-of-21-1.html assumes about 30 million EV sales by 2030, somewhat more than the 21 million of EVs assumed by Deloitte in Figure 2. 

Then there is this article showing huge disparities in forecasts https://qz.com/1620614/electric-car-forecasts-are-all-over-the-map/ but I do recognize everyone has had to revise their forecasts upward. All we really know is the range of possibilities will be huge depending on regulatory incentives, both carrot and stick, and public acceptance. BNEF assumes about 100 million EVs by 2030.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the arguments will continue to be stripped away. Most of them are rather spurious anyway, like the insistence of 5 minute recharge once every 8 hours. No normal human can feasibly keep up with such a machine unless they are fans of tossing Gatorade bottles full of urine on the side of the road (thanks to those folks, by the way). Or maybe they are more fans of the adult diaper approach. Sane people are generally okay with a break every 2.5-3 hours, and putting in more battery capacity than this is wasteful (more weight, more cost, etc. that is almost never needed). Even when the technology improves, it makes more sense to put the improvement toward lower cost, lower weight, and better efficiency.

Would a 400-500 mile range pickup that has more torque than any gas/diesel pickup and 240v power outlets change the story at all? That will be available probably within 3 years (several makers are working on products). This is the next product Tesla is working on after they release their compact crossover in ~6-9 months, and the product Rivian is launching with. Ford has one in the works.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

andrewf said:


> If you are driving 500km, you are probably driving a highway, which will tend to have charging stations. Even if it is not a Tesla branded station (gold standard in terms of cost/service/speed), there are many more lower power output or less convenient to use stations, even in smaller towns. Rural Alberta or BC is not indicative of the use case most people in North America would experience. Get over it.


The 500Km is an exaggeration I believe. It's realistically more like 350Km for that Tesla car, which you have to admit is a top line machine that most could never afford. You seem to feel that 20 minutes charge time is acceptable to everyone. If there's 3 people in line, then I'll wait an hour to get my fill-up. Sorry, that's just not acceptable to about 90% of the population.

I'm all for EV's. It just won't be a situation I'll consider for my next car, and anyone who buys a hybrid must love maintenance bills.

ltr


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

At any rate Kenney put up a rousing speech last night and announced he will now consider the establishment of a provincial revenue agency, withdrawing Alberta’s workers from the Canada Pension Plan and removing the RCMP in favour of a provincial police force. Alberta will even consider whether it should write its own constitution.
Things are starting to accelerate. Preston Manning is back on board bringing a lot of grass roots experience. 
I say go for it...the status quo has been failing for too long.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> The 500Km is an exaggeration I believe. It's realistically more like 350Km for that Tesla car, which you have to admit is a top line machine that most could never afford. You seem to feel that 20 minutes charge time is acceptable to everyone. If there's 3 people in line, then I'll wait an hour to get my fill-up. Sorry, that's just not acceptable to about 90% of the population.
> 
> I'm all for EV's. It just won't be a situation I'll consider for my next car, and anyone who buys a hybrid must love maintenance bills.
> 
> ltr



That charge time is only if you have a super charger...the regular free one at the rest stop 7kw charger will take 8 hours to fully charge your EV or about 25 miles *of* Range Per Hour . Plug into a regular outlet in your garage is *Level 1 charging* and only adds about 4 miles *of* Range Per Hour.
Driving to the Okanagan from Van will involve at least one 3 hour picnic ...longer if you need a heater on in the winter.

British Columbia has more than1,300 Level 2 charging stations...(pretty useless), and 64 DC fast-charging sites...(these are what is needed everywhere...150kw as opposed to home charger which is ~7kw), installed or in the process of completion.


Having said that I love the Tesla S .... fast & quiet...for the price it should have a better finish though.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder: I have to say Jason Kenney is making a fool of himself. Must be embarrassing to the average Albertan who is more sophisticated than that. Hopefully, a lot of it is sabre rattling although I do believe AB should take over certain things like policing...but not CPP.

The Tesla S is just not ready for the Southern Interior. Fine if one is going to stay within range in the Valley itself or nearby, but I would not take the chance of having to re-charge outside the Valley. They are a nice car having ridden in one, but have not driven one nor do I want to own one.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Would a 400-500 mile range pickup that has more torque than any gas/diesel pickup and 240v power outlets change the story at all? That will be available probably within 3 years (several makers are working on products). This is the next product Tesla is working on after they release their compact crossover in ~6-9 months, and the product Rivian is launching with. Ford has one in the works.


This has been an interesting debate online for the better part of a year. Pick up owners are fierce brand loyalty for the most part. The Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan have tried to succeed like they have with cars to no avail. Despite a superior vehicle, Ford, Chevy and Ram owners simply don't want to budge. I think that will play out similarly with trucks but time will tell. The Ford F-150 EV could well be the front runner.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> The 500Km is an exaggeration I believe. It's realistically more like 350Km for that Tesla car, which you have to admit is a top line machine that most could never afford. You seem to feel that 20 minutes charge time is acceptable to everyone. If there's 3 people in line, then I'll wait an hour to get my fill-up. Sorry, that's just not acceptable to about 90% of the population.
> 
> I'm all for EV's. It just won't be a situation I'll consider for my next car, and anyone who buys a hybrid must love maintenance bills.
> 
> ltr


LTR, find some evidence if you think 350 km real world mileage for 500 km stated mileage is reality. The only time I have heard of such extreme range loss is in very cold windy conditions. One anecdote doesn't cut it.

The reality is that you don't typically wait in line--typically over half the stalls are empty. Only exceptions are in really high penetration markets like California, and that is just a matter of Tesla needing to build more stations to keep up with their sales. Perhaps on holiday weekends that are unusually busy from a travel perspective.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> This has been an interesting debate online for the better part of a year. Pick up owners are fierce brand loyalty for the most part. The Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan have tried to succeed like they have with cars to no avail. Despite a superior vehicle, Ford, Chevy and Ram owners simply don't want to budge. I think that will play out similarly with trucks but time will tell. The Ford F-150 EV could well be the front runner.


Yes, brand loyalty will enter into it. Because the truck market is so large, even if they only get a small share, Tesla can be quite successful. They don't need to unseat Ford with their ~1M unit/year F series sales. Of course, an electric pickup will blow the doors off a gas truck in terms of performance (acceleration, towing, traction, handling, etc.). Until the legacy makers release equally capable trucks, loyal buyers of those brands will be taking some hits to their pride--while enduring $100+ fillups.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

As context as to why I post in discussions like this, it is really just to counter FUD/misinformation. It is not reality that you have to wait in line for an hour like a Soviet breadline to get a charge. I'm not expecting anyone to be an early adopter of the technology, which you would be if you bought today. Just trying to keep social attitudes a bit more open.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Eder: I have to say Jason Kenney is making a fool of himself.


I don't believe he's anyone's fool.It is refreshing that we have a leader looking out for Alberta interests as opposed to embarrassments like Redford or Notley. I'm happy he is being front & center and after our election he has a mandate to be confrontational. I say keep up the good work.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Just trying to keep social attitudes a bit more open.


That's great, and good for you. I'm all in when they make it as convenient as my gas vehicle, because I think the electric vehicles are very nice and the way of the future. They're just not there yet.

ltr


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

The fact that all other O&G countries see Canada as a threat to their $$$ motivates them to collaborate against us. We are idiots for allowing this to happen.

When the USA needs O&G prices up or down they act internationally to achieve their desired outcome. The USA cannot attack Canada to destabilize our country - it would work against them. 

We are a pawn in a global system.... it sucks to be small and have no balls.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

In our case, we are allowing primarily US organizations undermine and interfere with our GDP opportunities, perhaps even our sovereignty. Imagine the USA allowing us to use our Canadian NGOs and activist groups to hold up Permian basin pipelines. We just dont have a government in Ottawa willing to take action via CRA audits, CBSA, etc.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> We just dont have a government in Ottawa willing to take action via CRA audits, CBSA, etc.


We don't really have rules to cover this either. Foreign support for charities is totally legitimate. Canadians contribute to the International Red Cross all the time, for example, and there's no reasonable way to choke off foreign funding to Canadian charities. The fact that "charities" get up to some of the activities they do might be assailable, but a lot of the activity is support and organization of indian bands and environmentalists and those are totally legitimate charitable causes that lots of Canadians support too. The fact that the actual activities supported by the organizations furthers a particular agenda is frustrating, but likely not something that could be regulated, at least without dismantling the charter. Like it or not, there are Canadians that do support the anti-pipeline and anti-oil agenda, and while foreign money unfairly amplifies their influence, it's not really possible to regulate their agenda.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

gardner said:


> Like it or not, there are Canadians that do support the anti-pipeline and anti-oil agenda, and while foreign money unfairly amplifies their influence, it's not really possible to regulate their agenda.


And therefore we need to move forward and possibly leave confederation if required...amicably hopefully, irreconcilable differences etc etc.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Some good news for Alberta.

Enbridge says Canadian portion of Line 3 pipeline is ready for oil
_
CALGARY — Enbridge Inc. is calling for Canadian oil producers to begin filling up its Line 3 oil pipeline, a sign that relief may finally be on the way for oil companies dealing with a multi-year pipeline shortage that has left a glut of crude trapped in Western Canada.
_
ltr


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> I have not seen or heard much of that type of thing in AB about the oil industry. If anything, kids of parents in the oil industry don't want to continue in the oil industry UNLESS their parents own/run an oil related business, and they can start with a silver spoon in their mouths.
> 
> It is especially true with professionals where kids really don't follow their parents into the business. The old blue collar 'unionized' example (stereotype) of auto workers or coal miners or X does not apply nearly as much to the oil industry, particularly since there is much less unionization in the oil industry, and the work force is way more transient, and mobile, and from all corners of Canada. In all my career, I've rarely seen 'generational' commitments to the oil industry. Too much boom and bust for one thing and too much mobility required.
> 
> Added: Nobleea is reinforcing what some of us have been saying for some time. Most of the anger is due to the artificial constraints put on an industry that has been restricted from competing on an equal footing with the rest of the world, i.e. the ability to transport and ship their products to open markets. The rest of the issues/complaints are mostly peripheral, e.g. carbon tax, equalization, etc, and almost always die down to near nothing when the primary issue goes away. I believe Albertans as a whole have a broader world view than most because of the global based industry they are in, and because the majority of them originate from somewhere else. Maybe not the diehard social conservatives that were born in a cow pasture or wheat field, but the vast majority have no family roots to the province.


Well thanks for adding to my point that 'Albertans' are not all that common and most of those complaining in the oil industry are transient and from somewhere else AltaRed. Your rebuttal re my contention of telling kids to follow into the business does make sense to me now that you have made your point. I was indeed thinking more of the blue collar unionized examples like auto workers. So thanks for adding to my thinking in that regard.

As for the anger and complaints re the artificial constraints that restrict competition on the world stage, I have no argument with that reasoning. BUT, I do argue that the question should still be about whether we should be trying to compete in oil or should we be trying to move away from oil? That the rest of the world continues to add to Climate Change is not a reason to argue we should continue to do so as well AND should be allowed to compete in doing so! Arguing for fair competition is in fact arguing to be able to compete in adding to Climate Change. Are you in favour of that?

It is the argument of 'if we don't do it someone else will' as a justification for doing something we know to be wrong. I always remember someone I knew who bought a stolen (obviously) bicycle off the back of a truck for his son. When he told me about it, I asked him what lesson he thought he was teaching his son? To me what he was teaching him was that it's OK to buy stolen goods if it benefits you personally. His response of course was, 'well if I don't buy it, someone else will.'

What lesson is an engineer in the oil patch teaching his son about life and choosing who you work for? To me the lesson is, it's OK to contribute to something that adds to Climate Change, as long as it benefits you personally. I see no difference. I understand it is difficult sometimes to put your principles ahead of putting bread on the table as I am sure many would argue but it doesn't make it right. There are ethical companies out there to work for and hopefully more and more each year. I have some hope that the younger generations will know to look for them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fin....69i57j33l2.5056j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> I don't believe he's anyone's fool.It is refreshing that we have a leader looking out for Alberta interests as opposed to embarrassments like Redford or Notley. I'm happy he is being front & center and after our election he has a mandate to be confrontational. I say keep up the good work.


You do realize that there are millions of Americans who do not see Trump as an embarrassment or a fool Eder. There are also many people in many other countries who see their POPULIST politicians in a good light as you see Kenney. The rest of the world is usually able to recognize populist politicians in other countries quite easily even when they ignore their own at the same time. You may see Kenney as a good thing but the majority of Canadians and elsewhere in the world can recognize him for what he is.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...-take-root-in-canada-too-late-it-already-has/


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Kenney is playing both sides. He needs to be careful. I believe that his ambition lies in Ottawa and that Alberta is simply a stepping stone. Had Harper not been soundly defeated no doubt Kenney would have run in the ensuing leadership contest two years or so later. This was foiled by the defeat. Kenney was not ready. No doubt he wishes that Scheer stays in place to loose the next election before being dumped by the party. Timing is everything.

Think back to the same sex marriage issue. At the same time Alberta Premier Ralph was running around Alberta claiming that there would never be same sex marriage in Alberta he and his Minister were pressing the Martin Government (along with several other provinces) to enact legislation making same sex marriage legal. Nothing is straightforward with politicians who crave power.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> As for the anger and complaints re the artificial constraints that restrict competition on the world stage, I have no argument with that reasoning. BUT, I do argue that the question should still be about whether we should be trying to compete in oil or should we be trying to move away from oil? That the rest of the world continues to add to Climate Change is not a reason to argue we should continue to do so as well AND should be allowed to compete in doing so! Arguing for fair competition is in fact arguing to be able to compete in adding to Climate Change. Are you in favour of that?


Yes, I am. It is a legal product that the world will continue to use for centuries. Demand is still increasing beyond 100 million barrels per day and Canadians should have an opportunity to supply a portion of that need. There is no restriction on our offshore oil going to any market. If you had read my posts explaining r/p ratios, how if Canada was producing on the same global r/p ratio the globe is, we would be producing 10 million barrels of oil per day, not 4.5 million barrels per day as we do now. I do agree oil demand will roll over at some point circa 2030 but even the most aggressive forecasts don't have oil demand reducing below 80 million barrels per day by 2040 or so. There is a huge history left in oil, used in a large variety of industries for a wide variety of products. Supply with wither as demand withers through price action per Econ101. No one supplies a product that cannot be sold. It is as natural as buggy whip manufacturers eventually going out of business.

There is no reason we should not be continuing to be part of that market, generating GDP to support our infrastructure needs, health and education, and all the social services we count on today. It is no more complex than that. It will even fund our move to green, just like Norway is doing. They are making significant effort to increase their oil production so as to continue their progress towards a green economy. They are not nearly as dumb as Canada seems to be. 

If young people do not want to work in the industry, that is their right to do so. Just don't tell anyone that they cannot work in the industry. That is what a free market is about. I don't know of a single case where a legal product freely distributed has been constrained in supply except our agricultural supply management programs and that is for the industry's protection.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

ian said:


> he and his Minister were pressing the Martin Government (along with several other provinces) to enact legislation making same sex marriage legal. .


You do realize he swings from the left side of the plate right?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Albertans might want to take a look at the most recent Mercer report on the global standing of Govt pension plans. As I recall, CPP was upgraded one spot to number 9 in the world in the 2019 rankings. I understand what Kenney is doing to essentially destroy the Wexit campaign but he will need to be careful. Sending it off for review is tantamount to sending it off to a Royal Commission. By the time the results are in the entire notion will have been forgotten at best, and recommendations not acted on at worst. It is the usual ploy by all cagey politicians.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Alberta should have re-elected Rachel Notley. 

She was getting things done, while Kenney just talks a lot of nonsense.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, that should be the plan, no? Head off Wexit, get the pipelines built to dissipate the anger, and forget about stupid ideas like leaving the CPP.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Sags...the bottom line is that there were some very good people in the Notley Government. And some real duds. Just as there are some real stars in the Kenney Gov't and some absolute duds...many of them in the God squad and have that as their primary filter notwithstanding economic sense or the beliefs silent majority. 

The labels NDP or Liberal do not in and of themselves translate into good Government or policy.. Just as the label Conservative does nothing to guarantee or even indicate good Government or indeed good public policy. We have fallen into a world of public opinion polls and pragmatic politicians who place their election, their re-election, and rewarding their supporters above all else including good public policy and what is best for the unfortunate voters. 

Do you really think that the NDP or the Liberals transcend this. I don't.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Yes, I am. It is a legal product that the world will continue to use for centuries. Demand is still increasing beyond 100 million barrels per day and Canadians should have an opportunity to supply a portion of that need. There is no restriction on our offshore oil going to any market. If you had read my posts explaining r/p ratios, how if Canada was producing on the same global r/p ratio the globe is, we would be producing 10 million barrels of oil per day, not 4.5 million barrels per day as we do now. I do agree oil demand will roll over at some point circa 2030 but even the most aggressive forecasts don't have oil demand reducing below 80 million barrels per day by 2040 or so. There is a huge history left in oil, used in a large variety of industries for a wide variety of products. Supply with wither as demand withers through price action per Econ101. No one supplies a product that cannot be sold. It is as natural as buggy whip manufacturers eventually going out of business.
> 
> There is no reason we should not be continuing to be part of that market, generating GDP to support our infrastructure needs, health and education, and all the social services we count on today. It is no more complex than that. It will even fund our move to green, just like Norway is doing. They are making significant effort to increase their oil production so as to continue their progress towards a green economy. They are not nearly as dumb as Canada seems to be.
> 
> If young people do not want to work in the industry, that is their right to do so. Just don't tell anyone that they cannot work in the industry. That is what a free market is about. I don't know of a single case where a legal product freely distributed has been constrained in supply except our agricultural supply management programs and that is for the industry's protection.


So, here's my follow-up questions to this. Increasing pipeline capacity is basically an attempt to move more product right? So, the customer choice is limited to those who have refinery capacity for heavy crude right? China, India, Middle East and Gulf Coast (source: https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/technical/product-streams). So Middle East is out of the question and Gulf Coast would be fed by Keystone. But given the increased oil extraction from fracking has decreased US requirement to import to a certain extent no? That leave India and China (although I see that South Korea is another customer), but it seems that China imports have decreased over the last year, not to mention that China is setting up other more "secure" supplies through Africa and Russia. 

Personally, I'd prefer a plan to replace domestic imports as a starting point instead of concentrating on exports, but that is never in the conversation. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/crude-oil-facts/20064


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Firstly, shale oil from Texas does not compete with refineries configured for dilbit. Many/most of the refineries from Indiana, Ohio and Illinois down to the Louisiana Gulf Coast are designed for Canadian dilbit AND Venezuelan Orinoco AND Mexican Maya. One refinery in Louisiana is actually co-owned by Citgo, which is owned by Venezuela's PDVSA national oil company. Heavy production from Venezuela and Mexico has been in decline and those refineries could actually use more Canadian dilbit...hence Keystone XL. Note that much of the Permian lighter shale oil is now exported and docking facilities are expanding.

China has specifically configured some of their refineries for dilbit and the obvious choice is Canadian dilbit rather than Venezuelan which must either be transported through Panama or around South America. The point you, and Sags (who still doesn't get it) don't understand is that there is no dilbit to sell to China economically. Trans Mountain is full of oil shipped by Alberta producers to the Burnaby refinery and Puget Sound refineries. If Trans Mountain ships dilbit instead (which they do occasionally), dilbit's physical characteristics reduces overall throughput capacity. So instead of being able, for example, to ship 1.5 barrels of light oil to WA state or Burnaby, they can ship only 1 barrel of dilbit to a ship at the Vancouver harbour. Unless the shipper (producer) is willing to pay higher tolls to ship that dilbit barrel, which of course also fetches a lower price than WCS, why try to sell it at all? I didn't read your link thoroughly, but I think a producer would only sell dilbit to China in the existing TM line if they can get high enough a price for it. So it has nothing to do with China wanting, or not wanting, dilbit... it is that it is currently not economic to do so, nor can it be sustained on a reliable basis. That is what TMX brings to the table. Dilbit capacity to sell to China, South Korea, etc, etc. 

FWIW, Africa is not much of an oil supplier any more. Most exporting countries are seeing a decline in production. The biggest competitor will be Russia IF there is money in transporting oil by a long pipeline all the way from Siberia. I think China will more likely rely on Canada when Canada can get its **** together, and eventually Venezuela if that country will ever return to the modern world on a long term basis. Venezuela has gone through 2 significant growth cycles in oil production, only to have it implode with nationalization and socialist governments. It's to the point that... you can fool me once, and you can fool me twice, but be damned if you are going to fool me a third time. Western oil industry has been burned at the stake both times. If China ever gets into Venezuela in a big way, they will make sure they control the country, including its politics and its military, to enough of a degree to protect their investment.

Added: It would be nice to see more oil move through Quebec to Levis, and also onward to Irving in Saint John, but there are 2 big hurdles: 1) Quebec politics and social mood, and 2) both Valero (Levis) and Irving (Saint John) would have to make huge refinery investments to process Western Canadian dilbit. The latter is not likely to happen as long as those two companies can rely on imports. There is not much governments can do, to interfere in corporate investment decisions, beyond huge tax breaks to spend the tens of billions of dollars to install the needed process units.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

China’s Big Three oil giants — CNOOC, PetroChina and Sinopecall are major investors in Alberta oil even though they can't ship it home yet.MacKay River ,Dover oilsands,Nexen Energy,Syncrude all have Chinese ownership. They don't worry about the price of oil next year but invest for long term. Adding Gateway & TMX will get production to market and put a large dent in Chinese CO2 emissions. Too bad we're not like Norway & build pipes and export terminals to every coast. Maybe we could send them some of our activists.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> but it seems that China imports have decreased over the last year, not to mention that China is setting up other more "secure" supplies through Africa and Russia.


Though imports overall have been almost setting new records:



> China’s crude oil imports in October rose 11.5% from a year earlier to a record high, as new refineries bolstered demand and small independent plants maintained throughput amid steady refining margins.
> ...
> China, the world’s top oil importer, brought in 45.51 million tonnes of crude last month, equivalent to 10.72 million barrels per day (bpd), according to data released by the General Administration of Customs on Friday.


https://business.financialpost.com/...rts-in-oct-rise-to-record-gas-imports-drop?s=


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> You do realize he swings from the left side of the plate right?


Ralph? That is who ian was talking about.

Kenney hasn't said either way, has he? I know he is single.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Firstly, shale oil from Texas does not compete with refineries configured for dilbit. Many/most of the refineries from Indiana, Ohio and Illinois down to the Louisiana Gulf Coast are designed for Canadian dilbit AND Venezuelan Orinoco AND Mexican Maya. One refinery in Louisiana is actually co-owned by Citgo, which is owned by Venezuela's PDVSA national oil company. Heavy production from Venezuela and Mexico has been in decline and those refineries could actually use more Canadian dilbit...hence Keystone XL. Note that much of the Permian lighter shale oil is now exported and docking facilities are expanding.
> 
> China has specifically configured some of their refineries for dilbit and the obvious choice is Canadian dilbit rather than Venezuelan which must either be transported through Panama or around South America. The point you, and Sags (who still doesn't get it) don't understand is that there is no dilbit to sell to China economically. Trans Mountain is full of oil shipped by Alberta producers to the Burnaby refinery and Puget Sound refineries. If Trans Mountain ships dilbit instead (which they do occasionally), dilbit's physical characteristics reduces overall throughput capacity. So instead of being able, for example, to ship 1.5 barrels of light oil to WA state or Burnaby, they can ship only 1 barrel of dilbit to a ship at the Vancouver harbour. Unless the shipper (producer) is willing to pay higher tolls to ship that dilbit barrel, which of course also fetches a lower price than WCS, why try to sell it at all? I didn't read your link thoroughly, but I think a producer would only sell dilbit to China in the existing TM line if they can get high enough a price for it. So it has nothing to do with China wanting, or not wanting, dilbit... it is that it is currently not economic to do so, nor can it be sustained on a reliable basis. That is what TMX brings to the table. Dilbit capacity to sell to China, South Korea, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Yes, I get it that shale oil doesn't compete with dilbit for refinery resources, my point was that whatever dilbit was being processed for domestic consumption may not be as critical due to shale oil extraction.

While China may have configured their refineries for dilbit, Canada has not cracked the top 15 oil suppliers, nor the 15 fastest grower of suppliers: http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-15-crude-oil-suppliers-to-china/. Sure, maybe if there was more supply through TMX Canada will start cracking the top 15, but it would appear that China doesn't need Canadian dilbit, unless they are getting a significant discount, which was the point of the article link about China decreasing import of Canadian crude. 

I've already mentioned it before, but Petro-Can would have been a vehicle for that sort of thing and allow government funding. It could have been a useful way to ensure that type of energy corridor was constructed in Canada, but I'm sure there are a lot of Canadians (mainly Albertans) who would balk at that, as it would have been viewed as an Eastern conspiracy to steal Western oil.

As a bit of an aside comment, I find the cognitive dissonance related to this particular subject interesting. How many threads have we had complaining about cheap Chinese manufacturing destroying Canadian manufacturing, but we're going to do our best to sell them the oil to help fuel that manufacturing industry.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Refiners have a lot of capital invested and so they need to run pretty flat out to meet shareholder demands for profit. So do the refiners of shale oil. So 2 things happen: 1) surplus shale oil is exported as crude to refineries most likely In Europe, and 2) refiners export surplus product like gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. To my recollection, the US has been a net exporter of product for some time.

Point being is surplus shale oil is exported either as crude or refined product. It is not a threat.

World oil supplies are always in motion going to where it can get the most money or security. For example, European refineries probably prefer to buy American oil rather than Russian or MidEast oil all other things being equal. Indeed both Russia and Saudi have cut back production to support world price. Why? Because their economies require it to support their budgets. Russia and Saudi are more desparate to keep price above $55-60 than North America is because they became addicted to oil revenue.

And China? Well, they want to secure reliable supply too rather than count on countries that use oil as a weapon. As said upthread too China eventually wants to get the oil they already own out of Alberta. 

Too many talking heads dont understand the business when they make fools of themselves in the media. Most of the drivel in the media has to be discounted.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Speaking of talking heads making fools of themselves, a vivid example that comes to mind is Jeff Rubin. He used to peddle a narrative that scarce oil was going to collapse globalization and the end of ocean shipping. He's supposed to be an economist. He never seemed to do the math that ocean shipping is remarkably energy efficient. It can be lower energy intensity to ship NZ apples to North America than to keep local apples in cold storage for 9 months. Same with shipping Mexican tomatoes to Canadian shelves rather than using local greenhouse tomatoes in the winter. This is why I support things like carbon tax, as people's intuition is often wrong about what is more environmentally sustainable. Better to put that information into the price of goods and let the market figure it out. The 100 mile diet is completely wrongheaded (and essentially intellectually lazy).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rubin's prediction of peak oil was based on oil production by the known technology. Fracking, deeper offshore wells, and new technology greatly increased the world's oil reserves.

The collapse of Rubin's theory may also impact Alberta's plan to supply a world that no longer has a peak oil supply problem.

Iran just announced a huge oil deposit that will greatly increase their reserves. Venezuela now holds the world's largest reserves. Nobody saw that coming.

The world is awash in oil, despite sanctions on Iran, Russia and Venezuela and a reduction in production among OPEC countries.

The future demand for increased production in Canada may be greatly overstated as a result.

The last thing that Trudeau wants is a $20 billion dollar legacy to a pipeline to nowhere. The government should guarantee the build and sell it off to interested buyers.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Premier Ralph.....the late Ralph Klein.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> Yes, I am. It is a legal product that the world will continue to use for centuries. Demand is still increasing beyond 100 million barrels per day and Canadians should have an opportunity to supply a portion of that need. There is no restriction on our offshore oil going to any market. If you had read my posts explaining r/p ratios, how if Canada was producing on the same global r/p ratio the globe is, we would be producing 10 million barrels of oil per day, not 4.5 million barrels per day as we do now. I do agree oil demand will roll over at some point circa 2030 but even the most aggressive forecasts don't have oil demand reducing below 80 million barrels per day by 2040 or so. There is a huge history left in oil, used in a large variety of industries for a wide variety of products. Supply with wither as demand withers through price action per Econ101. No one supplies a product that cannot be sold. It is as natural as buggy whip manufacturers eventually going out of business.
> 
> There is no reason we should not be continuing to be part of that market, generating GDP to support our infrastructure needs, health and education, and all the social services we count on today. It is no more complex than that. It will even fund our move to green, just like Norway is doing. They are making significant effort to increase their oil production so as to continue their progress towards a green economy. They are not nearly as dumb as Canada seems to be.
> 
> If young people do not want to work in the industry, that is their right to do so. Just don't tell anyone that they cannot work in the industry. That is what a free market is about. I don't know of a single case where a legal product freely distributed has been constrained in supply except our agricultural supply management programs and that is for the industry's protection.


Legal? You want to try and argue that a reason to continue in the oil industry is because it is legal? Yet again, ignoring the bigger picture. Is it good for the world and Climate Change or not is what we should be looking at. When we knew no better it was understandable that we would continue on. But when we know it is harming the world, we cannot in good conscience (forget legal) continue.

Canada should be looking at plans to reduce oil dependency in the economy and the job market. That's what it is really all about, MONEY in one way or another. You think we should be trying to continue to compete for that money. I think we should be trying to get out of oil completely even if that means a plan that will take decades to achieve. I realize we cannot do so overnight but we can START down the right path of doing what is RIGHT rather than what is about the money.

Think of it as retiring. When people are going to retire, they have to start thinking about living on less money (usually). Alberta and the oil workers need to start thinking the same way. Oil needs to be retired.

Trying to argue 'legal' is pathetic AltaRed, try arguing about what is the RIGHT thing to do for the world.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You obviously have not been reading anything posted on this subject, nor do you really consider any other opinions. Use the GDP generated by selling oil to fund green initiatives to reduce domestic demand, just like Norway is doing. They've use their oil wealth to subsidize EVs to the extent that 50% of new registrations are now EVs. In the meantime, while global oil demand is still rising and will continue to be used in some quantities for centuries, why not supply our equitable share of that market? Shutting down our oil industry will just allow the likes of Russia, Saudi, Nigeria, etc. produce and sell more. Market demand will ALWAYS be supplied by somebody and that will still be occurring in 2100. Constraining free market opportunities is what is really pathetic.

If you want to talk about something pathetic, Canada allowed its asbestos industry to naturally wind down (mines in Quebec) decades after it was known asbestos was a carcinogen. There was no interference in that free market. Remaining global suppliers are garden spots like Russia, china, Brazil, India and Kazakhstan. There was/is no need to have produced asbestos when substitutes were readily available.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> You obviously have not been reading anything posted on this subject, nor do you really consider any other opinions. Use the GDP generated by selling oil to fund green initiatives to reduce domestic demand, just like Norway is doing. They've use their oil wealth to subsidize EVs to the extent that 50% of new registrations are now EVs. In the meantime, while global oil demand is still rising and will continue to be used in some quantities for centuries, why not supply our equitable share of that market? Shutting down our oil industry will just allow the likes of Russia, Saudi, Nigeria, etc. produce and sell more. Market demand will ALWAYS be supplied by somebody and that will still be occurring in 2100. Constraining free market opportunities is what is really pathetic.
> 
> If you want to talk about something pathetic, Canada was one of the last to close down its asbestos industry (mines in Quebec) decades after it was known asbestos was a carcinogen, and it is still used in some things. Remaining global suppliers are garden spots like Russia, china, Brazil, India and Kazakhstan. There was/is no need to have produced asbestos when substitutes were readily available.


You use the 'if we don't someone else will' argument on one hand and then on the other talk about how Canada was slow to stop mining asbestos. So it's OK to produce and sell oil but it wasn't OK to produce and sell asbestos once we knew it was a bad thing. You are contradicting yourself AltaRed and again, you are not arguing that oil is good vs. oil is bad for the world. You avoid that topic at all cost it seems.

Your Norway example is simply an example of a country using a dying industry to help kill itself. That is indeed something I would support. It is what I was referring to in my last comments about having a plan to 'retire' oil. That is what Norway is in fact doing in part with using oil revenue to support EVs.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I used the example of asbestos as one where our country allowed that industry to come to a natural economic end (note that I corrected context in my revision). I used the word 'pathetic' to mock your use of the word. Not a contradiction at all. 

JT and Bill Morneau have clearly used the example of TMX a number of times. The profits will be plowed back into green initiatives. So yes, Canada federally plans to at least start to do something similar to Norway and if the ROC would think about it the same way instead of howling with placards on protest lines, they'd see the logic in it too. A number of us have called for focusing on demand reduction, not supply constraint.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> A number of us have called for focusing on demand reduction, not supply constraint.


Carbon taxes are meant to reduce demand. For example, gasoline in Canada is far too cheap today and many people drive giant vehicles when they don't really need to. These are seen as luxury/fun vehicles. Even many suburban people buy a truck or large SUV purely for the image (or to feel big).

This kind of behaviour needs to be disincentivized.

Higher carbon/fuel taxes will help with that. The carbon taxes in Canada, and price of gas, should be *much* higher than it is today.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I have no issue with carbon taxes as long as the revenue is put to good use such as funding green initiatives and investing in infrastructure to adapt to inevitable climate change, and provided there is transparent accounting. We are not yet focused enough on adaptation and mitigation measures. 

However, I will violently object to such revenues going back into government coffers, and lack of transparency, which is what the BC NDP/Greens government is now doing. Politicians can't seem to keep their hands out of the till.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> I have no issue with carbon taxes as long as the revenue is put to good use such as funding green initiatives and investing in infrastructure to adapt to inevitable climate change, and provided there is transparent accounting. We are not yet focused enough on adaptation and mitigation measures.
> 
> However, I will violently object to such revenues going back into government coffers, and lack of transparency, which is what the BC NDP/Greens government is now doing. Politicians can't seem to keep their hands out of the till.


That makes sense AltaRed


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> I have no issue with carbon taxes as long as the revenue is put to good use such as funding green initiatives and investing in infrastructure to adapt to inevitable climate change, and provided there is transparent accounting. We are not yet focused enough on adaptation and mitigation measures.
> 
> However, I will violently object to such revenues going back into government coffers, and lack of transparency, which is what the BC NDP/Greens government is now doing. Politicians can't seem to keep their hands out of the till.


My first preference would be to reduce other taxes. Given that that is not necessarily politically sustainable, I am okay with the per capita refund approach used by the federal governments in jurisdictions that didn't implement their own regulations. I'm not too keen on reserving cash for uneconomic windmills, etc. I'd rather let the price signal pull investment than try to push it with subsidies.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

We seem to be moving closer together here in agreeing that what we should be doing (whether we agree on methods or not) is working on reducing demand and incentivising reducing our use. 

I live in a small Ontario town where town dwellers (not just farmers) overwhelmingly drive large 'Big 3' pickup trucks. I can see no real justification for them to drive them, it's just the 'done thing'. Getting them to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle would take some doing I am sure. Forget getting them to drive an EV. They don't even drive the smaller model pickups, most are as big as they get. The only way I can see to change them is to punish them severely in their pocket and I do mean severely.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> We seem to be moving closer together here in agreeing that what we should be doing (whether we agree on methods or not) is working on reducing demand and incentivising reducing our use.
> 
> I live in a small Ontario town where town dwellers (not just farmers) overwhelmingly drive large 'Big 3' pickup trucks. I can see no real justification for them to drive them, it's just the 'done thing'. Getting them to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle would take some doing I am sure. Forget getting them to drive an EV. They don't even drive the smaller model pickups, most are as big as they get. The only way I can see to change them is to punish them severely in their pocket and I do mean severely.


If we're going to punish behavior let's start with vacations that require air travel. Some of the biggest fans of government legislating people's behaviour are also the same people who post about international flights.

No one who takes an international plane trip for a vacation has the right to determine what kind of vehicle that someone else should be allowed to drive.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Or....we could raise the price of CO2 emissions...oh wait, the Liberals are doing that.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> My first preference would be to reduce other taxes. Given that that is not necessarily politically sustainable, I am okay with the per capita refund approach used by the federal governments in jurisdictions that didn't implement their own regulations. I'm not too keen on reserving cash for uneconomic windmills, etc. I'd rather let the price signal pull investment than try to push it with subsidies.


Fair enough. I am all for reducing taxes on certain goods and services to incentivize green investments rather than subsidies too. Carbon taxes do make a difference (per BC) but it is always a delicate balance oh how much so as not to materially affect GDP through material profit reductions (business and industry) and reduced consumer spending. Refunding the majority of carbon taxes collected to the taxpayer (and I would include business and industry in that too, not just the retail consumer) helps in that regard, but this country also needs a wake up call in spending on adaptation and mitigation measures. Canada will never make a material difference in GHG emissions so it is silly to think we can have more than a token contribution. Spend some money on survivability rather than being a global martyr.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Carbon taxes are meant to reduce demand. For example, gasoline in Canada is far too cheap today and many people drive giant vehicles when they don't really need to. These are seen as luxury/fun vehicles. Even many suburban people buy a truck or large SUV purely for the image (or to feel big).
> 
> This kind of behaviour needs to be disincentivized.
> 
> Higher carbon/fuel taxes will help with that. The carbon taxes in Canada, and price of gas, should be *much* higher than it is today.


How do you explain to a farmer how to make ends meet when their fuel bills go through the roof? Fuel for tractors, combines, grain drying all take a huge toll on operating costs. So does building heating for dairy, eggs, poultry, hog farming. We will see more agricultural bankruptcies just from the current carbon tax burden, never mind doubling it. 

The forestry industry out West in particular is collapsing. What should logging operations do? What about Arctic communities that already have huge costs of living?

Point is there are unintended consequences in broad actions and the price of carbon is a delicate balance. They are needed but maybe higher CAFE type requirements to improve efficiencies in both heating and transport are also needed. Too many folk on these threads have blinders on and don't consider cascading impacts.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Fuel costs far more in Europe and yet there are still farms in Europe.

Automation and small autonomous robots will impact agriculture far more than fuel prices. Fuel price can and already are subsidized for agriculture.

I know we never heated the cow barn, chicken coop or hogs. Animals live outside in the winter let alone inside.

In the west the biggest cost to most any business especially agriculture is the human. Otherwise we would still use horse power (requires more humans)


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Agricultural products are protected in Europe. It is not an open market like it is here (supply managed products aside). They simply are not comparable.

None of our animals were in heated buildings either growing up, but then we were not competing in world markets. Other than beef cattle we sold to feedlots for income, none of our other products were intended for market, at least not beyond local markets. 

Family farms today for the most part cannot survive without family members, usually the wife, having an urban job to pay for household expenses.

Extra fuel costs will sink some farming operations and Ottawa is not prepared to give agriculture concessions on the carbon tax.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Most developed countries around the world already dye untaxed diesel for agriculture.

Family farms have not been competitive for at least a generation already. I did the math decades ago in a heavily supply managed sector. Would have happened even sooner if we'd opened agriculture to more free trade. A family business can't possibly compete with larger scale operations just like the mom&pop can't compete with walmart

It makes strategic sense to protect a domestic agricultural capability, family or not.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Yes I already know farm fuel is dyed differently. That has nothing to do with my point. Ottawa isn't going to give agricultural operations a carbon tax break, but James feels fuels should carry an even larger carbon tax because he wants to get even with guzzling SUVs.

My response was be careful because unintended consequences can materially affect the viability of business operations, such as farming. Nothing more than that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Fuels absolutely should have larger carbon taxes. We can argue about the implementation, and yes maybe it makes sense to exempt certain types of fuel. There are many ways this can be done.

There are obviously going to be some secondary fallout of higher carbon taxes. Similarly, there were secondary effects of environmental regulations which banned toxic substances, dumping of hazardous chemicals, disposal into freshwater, etc.

Strict financial regulations get in the way of a lot of business too. Do you think everyone in the country is happy about the mountain of strict financial rules and regulations?

The point of these regulations (environmental, hazardous substances, carbon taxes, financial) is to protect the entire country from harm.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The point is blanket application of anything, including carbon taxes, has unintended consequences, and appropriate considerations and adjustments have to be made. It isn't good enough to just say double, or triple, the carbon tax indiscriminately... which is what James essentially said


> Higher carbon/fuel taxes will help with that. The carbon taxes in Canada, and price of gas, should be much higher than it is today.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> We seem to be moving closer together here in agreeing that what we should be doing (whether we agree on methods or not) is working on reducing demand and incentivising reducing our use.
> 
> I live in a small Ontario town where town dwellers (not just farmers) overwhelmingly drive large 'Big 3' pickup trucks. I can see no real justification for them to drive them, it's just the 'done thing'. Getting them to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle would take some doing I am sure. Forget getting them to drive an EV. They don't even drive the smaller model pickups, most are as big as they get. The only way I can see to change them is to punish them severely in their pocket and I do mean severely.


We just need to create enough incentive that there is a market for the alternatives. The alternatives will keep getting better. Eventually, gas powered trucks will be left in the dust of better performing EVs and the done thing will change. But we don't need that to be the first thing to change. Most people emit less than average CO2, so a tax and dividend approach leaves most people with more cash as a result, and a few heavy emitters pay more. Everyone has an incentive to make improvements, either in transportation, home heating/cooling, appliances, industrial processes, etc.

I work for a company that moves a lot of freight. We have already committed to significant emissions reductions as part of CSR, and it will be easier for us to make the business cases for this work if we are properly incentivized to reduce emissions. People who think taxing carbon won't work obviously do not work for big businesses. It always boils down to business cases. You can get a company to do just about anything when properly incentivized.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> If we're going to punish behavior let's start with vacations that require air travel. Some of the biggest fans of government legislating people's behaviour are also the same people who post about international flights.
> 
> No one who takes an international plane trip for a vacation has the right to determine what kind of vehicle that someone else should be allowed to drive.


That is covered by carbon tax. Great, we're all on board. I don't want to see a special "evil liberal trip to Costa Rica" tax. Nor should there be an "evil conservative F450 all hat and no cattle" tax. Let consumers and businesses make their own decisions about propensity to reduce consumption on a level playing field.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Agricultural products are protected in Europe. It is not an open market like it is here (supply managed products aside). They simply are not comparable.
> 
> None of our animals were in heated buildings either growing up, but then we were not competing in world markets. Other than beef cattle we sold to feedlots for income, none of our other products were intended for market, at least not beyond local markets.
> 
> ...


The pressure for farms to scale or fold is not a cost-of-energy issue. It's a trend that is being driven by many factors. I am kind of okay with fewer farmers operating larger farms. That is what increased productivity looks like.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Fuels absolutely should have larger carbon taxes. We can argue about the implementation, and yes maybe it makes sense to exempt certain types of fuel. There are many ways this can be done.
> 
> There are obviously going to be some secondary fallout of higher carbon taxes. Similarly, there were secondary effects of environmental regulations which banned toxic substances, dumping of hazardous chemicals, disposal into freshwater, etc.
> 
> ...


Better than exempting fuels for certain industries would be to provide an output based rebate. Thus producers still have an incentive to be more efficient than average. If we are concerned about certain energy intensive industries being chased out of Canada, I can see a per tonne of cement, steel, of barrel of oil produced rebate. There are plenty of things these industries can do to reduce emissions, and we should reward the leaders and penalize the laggards.

The social benefit here is in the products, not in how much energy gets consumed to produce them. It is just a means to an end.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Oops...many wont like this technology...

Scientists have developed a large-scale economical method to extract hydrogen (H2) from oil sands (natural bitumen) and oil fields. 
This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output". This compares with current H2 production costs of around $2/kilo. Around 5% of the H2 produced then powers the oxygen production plant, so the system more than pays for itself.
Just taking Alberta as an example, we have the potential to supply Canada's entire electricity requirement for 330 years
Don't bet the farm on lithium yet.

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html


----------



## Rosey (Oct 23, 2018)

Eder said:


> Oops...many wont like this technology...
> 
> Scientists have developed a large-scale economical method to extract hydrogen (H2) from oil sands (natural bitumen) and oil fields.
> This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output". This compares with current H2 production costs of around $2/kilo. Around 5% of the H2 produced then powers the oxygen production plant, so the system more than pays for itself.
> ...


Now this is interesting and something that the entire country should get behind to develop and bring it safely to mkt. In the meantime I am hoping that the western pipeline can be built so that the entire country can benefit from the additional revenue that it will produce. For honesty and disclosure I no longer live in Deep Cove, N Van. - if I did I may feel quite a bit different about adding to existing capacity there. 

In talking with some of the industry’s CFO’s no one sees employment levels going back to anywhere near pre oil price crash levels. If the new technology proves to be financially feasible, with safe delivery and retail outlet (existing infrastructure) conversions that still will not provide the hoped for levels of employment many are hoping for. The hydrogen option could use existing gas pipeline to come eastward and I am hoping with significantly less opposition than the transport of crude.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Oops...many wont like this technology...
> 
> Scientists have developed a large-scale economical method to extract hydrogen (H2) from oil sands (natural bitumen) and oil fields.
> This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output". This compares with current H2 production costs of around $2/kilo. Around 5% of the H2 produced then powers the oxygen production plant, so the system more than pays for itself.
> ...


Why would people not like this? If we have a cheap, sustainable source of hydrogen, that would be a good news story. Distribution will continue to be a problem (hydrogen is hard to store and distribute. It is also very expensive and low throughput to fuel). Hydrogen has a big hill to climb in terms of cost, so a 75%+ cost reduction is in order to be competitive with battery EV. Hydrogen is attractive as a potential solution for long distance freight such as long haul trucking, possibly air travel, etc. where energy density comes at a premium.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i thought a problem with hydrogen was always that it's hyper-explosive?

a tendency to blow up could do a number on hydrogen as a common source of energy ...


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> i thought a problem with hydrogen was always that it's hyper-explosive?
> 
> a tendency to blow up could do a number on hydrogen as a common source of energy ...


Yeah, I remember when I was younger that the apartment building I lived in didn't allow hydrogen powered vehicles to park in our underground parking.

And seriously, not many people want a bomb planted under the back seat of their car. Hydrogen powered vehicles are a non-starter I'm afraid.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Hydrogen probably has more application in commercial and industrial use, including transit, bus, train, construction machinery, etc. Maybe even aircraft. Let EVs capture personal transportation and the amateurs that own them, and keep them away from hydrogen.

The key will be in cost competitiveness and generating hydrogen through GHG effective means

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradte...future-as-transportation-energy/#14b60aa4bd7c
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/the-clean-energy-of-the-future-is-already-here/


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Hydrogen probably has more application in commercial and industrial use, including transit, bus, train, construction machinery, etc. Maybe even aircraft. Let EVs capture personal transportation and the amateurs that own them, and keep them away from hydrogen.
> 
> The key will be in cost competitiveness and generating hydrogen through GHG effective means
> 
> ...


I agree, hydrogen is well suited to large, heavy transportation items where it can displace diesel for example. Agriculture equipment for example. Long distance trucking, transit.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i thought a problem with hydrogen was always that it's hyper-explosive?
> 
> a tendency to blow up could do a number on hydrogen as a common source of energy ...


So is gasoline. Even EV batteries. Any time you put a lot of potential energy in not a lot of space, you tend to run the risk of explosive releases of that potential energy.

Hydrogen can be made reasonably safe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Hydrogen probably has more application in commercial and industrial use, including transit, bus, train, construction machinery, etc. Maybe even aircraft. Let EVs capture personal transportation and the amateurs that own them, and keep them away from hydrogen.
> 
> The key will be in cost competitiveness and generating hydrogen through GHG effective means
> 
> ...


They will be going head to head in trucking. Tesla is releasing an all-EV class 8 truck, while Nicola is making a hydrogen-BEV hybrid. It will be interesting to see which is more successful in the market. I think Tesla/BEV approach will prevail, unless something really disruptive happens with hydrogen, particularly because so much trucking is short haul it will be able to scale more easily, while hydrogen fueling infrastructure will be hard to come by.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> How do you explain to a farmer how to make ends meet when their fuel bills go through the roof? Fuel for tractors, combines, grain drying all take a huge toll on operating costs. So does building heating for dairy, eggs, poultry, hog farming. We will see more agricultural bankruptcies just from the current carbon tax burden, never mind doubling it.


At least half of that issue is covered. There is a fuel exemption for fuel used on farms: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/forms/l402.html

People just have to fill in the form, and it's not new, it was implemented at the same time as the carbon tax was implemented.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Interesting. At least some of the media (can't remember which media now) had it wrong when they said there were no agricultural exemptions or concessions. So there is some common sense being applied after all!


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Interesting. At least some of the media (can't remember which media now) had it wrong when they said there were no agricultural exemptions or concessions. So there is some common sense being applied after all!


I don't see how they could get it wrong, unless it was about Alberta before they pulled their carbon tax regime. The backstop after Alberta dropped their plans would have reverted to the Federal carbon tax regime which has the exemptions. If you google "carbon tax exemptions for farmers", the top 2 hits are the Canadian Canola Growers Association, and Ontario Farmers Association.

So if there wasn't an exemption for Albertan farmers, that would have been due to Alberta's version of carbon tax implementation.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> So if there wasn't an exemption for Albertan farmers, that would have been due to Alberta's version of carbon tax implementation.


Could very well be the case. I simply don't remember where I read that info and it no longer matters to me, now that I know better. The key to me is the Carbon Tax regime needs to be smart enough with exemptions/concessions as the case may be to avoid punitive collapses in the various sectors of our economy. Obviously heavy enough to shift behaviours, but not so much as to bury whole industries/businesses.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Something needs to be done.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe the government should get rid of the equalization payment concept, and have all revenues flow in and out of the Federal government directly.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau will give the Throne Speech and fire up the government in December.

After discussions with the Premiers, the NDP said their support is contingent on more legislation on pharmacare and climate change.

The west didn't support the Liberals and now the NDP hold the power. They will likely support the TMP and nothing beyond that.

Conservatives would have been better off with a Liberal majority government.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Hey we've got our own Greta...









The motion said that if Ottawa does not facilitate the moves towards taking back Alberta’s powers, such as the provincial pension plan, and by not doing so stands in the way of Alberta exercising those rights, then the provincial government should hold an October 2021 referendum vote on the secession of Alberta from Canada.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/here...fire/wcm/3be15b1c-c34d-41e1-bf24-c7fac882ecc0

Good to see our youth getting involved with our issues.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Eder said:


> The motion said that if Ottawa does not facilitate the moves towards taking back Alberta’s powers, such as the provincial pension plan, and by not doing so stands in the way of Alberta exercising those rights, then the provincial government should hold an October 2021 referendum vote on the secession of Alberta from Canada.


Such a referendum would fail spectacularly.
https://abacusdata.ca/alberta-wexit-separation-poll-abacus-data/
Right now, at the peak of dissatisfaction after the election, barely 1/4 of Albertans would vote for secession. Once the data flows out and common sense returns, I bet that number drops down to 10%.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Of course you are right, but I do enjoy the baby steps that are required for an orderly secession in a number of years. Alberta leaving confederation most likely is inevitable over the long run.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Eder said:


> Of course you are right, but I do enjoy the baby steps that are required for an orderly secession in a number of years. Alberta leaving confederation most likely is inevitable over the long run.


I disagree. Our main economic driver is a product that is still growing in use, but the end is in sight. Especially for a high cost production. In 30 years, or even sooner, AB will be a have not province if the UCP continue on the current path. At that point a secession is a stupid idea.

The ONLY reason why the idea is still being tossed about is because Kenney needs to keep the separatist wackjobs under the UCP banner. If he says, that's a stupid idea, I don't support it, then the separatists get organized and start to split the right. A divided right means the UCP is no longer in power.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

nobleea said:


> separatist wackjobs


With all due respect your Edmonton is showing...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> With all due respect your Edmonton is showing...


Seems vast majority of Albertans disagree with you, if polling is to be believed.


----------



## MoneySafe (Nov 24, 2019)

AltaRed said:


> The point is blanket application of anything, including carbon taxes, has unintended consequences, and appropriate considerations and adjustments have to be made. It isn't good enough to just say double, or triple, the carbon tax indiscriminately... which is what James essentially said


A carbon tax is relatively neutral.

A carbon tax doesn't have unintended consequences, and BC has had one for over a decade so this isn't a hypothetical. The BC economy has been fine, it certainly hasn't blocked growth. A carbon tax is not just more revenues for the gov't, its a tax shift. The concept is to tax more on the things we want less of (burning carbon into the atmosphere is a good qualifier). And then on the other side of the coin, to increase tax cuts and credits on the income side (to shift the tax slightly off income so you can make the choice to spend those cents elsewhere if you want to avoid the carbon tax).

That is why you've seen the federal gov't create a number of tax cuts along side the carbon tax: first thing in 2016 was we received an income tax cut on 90%+ of income earners.
Tax credits and deductions and rebate programs have been beefed up: Canada Child Benefit is a reformed program that produces a lot more payment than before (and for most income earners, produced more gross incomes). Workers' Benefit was increased for those on the low end of the scale.

Not to mention, the carbon tax itself has a rebate program. I can't remember, but I think I received $150 more in tax refund than I would have otherwise gotten? And since I drive a 4 cylinder economy car, this alone pays for the entire increase the carbon tax instituted for me.

The carbon tax is applied to people who are consuming extraordinary amounts of energy, which is the point. And the carbon tax did something else, it funds a national electric car rebate program of $5,000 that is paid for and costed, so its not coming out of the GST or other revenues.

Likewise, the carbon tax revenues can be used to fund things like next-gen nuclear power or other renewables as opposed to placing it on ratepayers backs, so we can get some investments to move quicker toward electric generation that is carbon neutral.


This idea that the carbon tax is some holy grail is bunk. It isn't bringing the economy down, and it isn't going to save the earth from climate change in and of itself (technology will do that). But its an effective program for what its intent is. Its just a transaction program providing some needed incentives and some necessary revenue shifts. If you listen to some people, they would have you simultaneously believe the carbon tax is so powerful it will bring down the entire economy, while out of the other side of the same mouth they say its too small to effect change.

One thing is true: we shouldn't reverse course. The carbon tax is working, and in my own personal life I have more disposable income under the current rebates and income tax reductions and carbon tax scheme than I did under the old policies.


----------



## MoneySafe (Nov 24, 2019)

delete post


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

BC NDP has dropped the commitment to revenue neutrality. That is what happens when one lets politicians near tax money. There is a program to rebate/subsidize BC agriculture so that is what I mean by avoiding unintended consequences. The program has to be smart so as not to starve GDP growth and/or economic viability.

You don't live in BC like I do so you really don't know. Several studies have come to different conclusions as to whether the carbon tax has provided a headwind to the economy or not. I tend to support the hypothesis that it has been relatively neutral (and environmentally positive) until recently when the NDP started on a revenue grab. Got to get rid of those bums.

Most of the breaks you mention have absolutely zero to do with carbon taxes. Those are all funded by increasing deficits. Good grief already!
- Tax cut in 2016 has nothing to do with carbon taxes. It came out of General Revenue. Simply politics to buy votes and increase the deficit
- Benefits like CCB were likewise funded from General Revenue that increase the deficit.

I generally support the carbon tax as long as the balance sheet is transparent and detailed, is audited and reported annually, and the funds go to rebates and green initiatives.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good post MoneySafe, and I would presume in this new minority government the carbon taxes will be increased, which will increase the positive effect desired.

The carbon tax is merely one facet of the government's comprehensive climate change strategy. There are a number of initiatives being deployed simultaneously.

From lowering CO2 emissions to climate change damage mitigation, the government is well aware of the serious challenges ahead.

As the old saying goes.......before you can climb out of a hole (climate change damage), you have to stop digging (reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions).

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan.html


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)




----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

^ that's awesome


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

canada is on the cusp of laying TMP II pipe - the final federal hearing is only days away - but already alberta separos have turned their negative attention back to laying a new pipeline across quebec.

when construction starts on TMP II it's the alberta separos who will be denouncing it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who supported the Liberal election win ? Who didn't ? I expect decisions on pipelines will be as simple as that.

I read that Liberal strategy has abandoned any hope in the west and calculate the road to a majority government goes through Quebec.

It is all politics. You can't make decisions if you don't win.

As a wise politician once said.........your worst day in power is much better than your best day in opposition.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^That's a really dangerous attitude.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Who supported the Liberal election win ? Who didn't ? I expect decisions on pipelines will be as simple as that.
> 
> I read that Liberal strategy has abandoned any hope in the west and calculate the road to a majority government goes through Quebec.
> 
> ...


The problem is that this government was basically elected by the big cities, who live in a different world than the rest of the country.
The overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want these jokers in charge.

I do agree, electoral success is job 1, but voting for the party who's literally campaigning against your interests isn't the way to get what you want either.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> The problem is that this government was basically elected by the big cities, who live in a different world than the rest of the country.
> The overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want these jokers in charge.
> 
> I do agree, electoral success is job 1, but voting for the party who's literally campaigning against your interests isn't the way to get what you want either.


I am not interested in a political debate but I have to ask who you are referring to when you say, 'the majority of the country'? Is that the majority of people who vote or just a geographical statement? And what is an 'overwhelming' majority? Is that 90% of all who vote or 51%? Of course, I am assuming that you are not counting anyone who did NOT vote in your comments.

I'm having trouble understanding where you get this 'overwhelming majority' of those who vote, when you eliminate, 'big cities' and the population of Canada is only 18.9% rural. To get any majority, overwhelming or not, you must include city voters. It seems to me that your statement re what the 'overwhelming majority' want is simply wishful thinking perhaps on your part.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think MrMatt is defining 'big cities' as maybe the big 6-10, e.g. half a million or more. Not as defined by StatsCan as your quote of 18.9% for rural is. StatsCan considers any population centre over 1000 as urban, whereas, most of us wouldn't likely consider anything under perhaps 20,000 urban (if that). I am hard pressed to consider cities like Vernon (~40,000) and Penticton (~35,000) urban because they typically don't vote like a big city (as often shown by polling station patterns). They are part of a much larger CMA, or typical federal riding of 110,000. Only Kelowna (120,000) had some polling stations that went Liberal instead of Conservative (the over whelming vote for the 2 ridings that contain portions of Kelowna).

The top 10 have about 50% of our population. Cutoff being Waterloo-Kitchener-Cambridge (470,000) at #10, but London (383,000), Victoria, Regina, Saskatoon and Halifax not in the top 10.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I suspect that the Liberals will continue to win by default. There are major issues inside the Conservative Party. Their 'tent' has become smaller and there are really three of four parties within this party. The current leader, while abysmal, is only a manifestation of the Conservative Party's malaise. My hope is that they will find a leader who can bridge these barriers. Until then, we will not have much of an Official Opposition IMHO.

Lately voters do not appear to be voting for someone. They seem mostly to voting against the Trudea Liberals or against the Scheer Conservatives. It would be a nice change to be able to mark an X beside someone, or some Party that you thought was very good vs. who you think is the worst of a very bad lot.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

TMP II construction started today with preparations to lay new pipe west of edmonton, even though the final court hearing is 13 days away..

thus far, more than 2,200 workers have been hired and Trans Mountain Corp. said it has focused on hiring Indigenous and local workers. TMP also said it will quicky ramp up to 4,200 new workers by the end of this year.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...n-trans-mountain-oil-pipeline-ahead-of-court/

https://globalnews.ca/news/6248082/trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion-construction/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tmx-construction-1.5381915

https://business.financialpost.com/...egin-with-pipe-in-the-ground-before-christmas


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

Alberta's credit was downgraded by Moody's to Aa2 stable from Aa1 negative.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/moody-s-alberta-credit-rating-1.5383294

Two factors are cited:



> The downgrade, the agency states, reflects Moody's "opinion of a structural weakness in the provincial economy that remains concentrated and dependent on non-renewable resources … and remains pressured by a lack of sufficient pipeline capacity...


And 



> Another factor the report outlines as a concern is environmental risk.
> 
> "Alberta's oil and gas sector is carbon intensive and Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions are the highest among provinces. Alberta is also susceptible to natural disasters...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I believe that Alberta is also the only province that has defaulted on its debt, in all of Canada (someone correct me if I'm wrong).



humble_pie said:


> TMP II construction started today with preparations to lay new pipe west of edmonton, even though the final court hearing is 13 days away..


Yup, construction has started
https://www.transmountain.com/news/2019/trans-mountain-marks-the-start-of-pipeline-construction


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't know about being the only province but AB did default on its debt in 1935. A bit of the saga here https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bit...l20_iss2_pp148_153.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and also quotes from https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion...d-a-rerun-of-albertas-nasty-history-with-debt


> In the 1930s, Alberta’s economy was largely based on agriculture. U.S.-imposed tariffs and dropping food prices led to a substantial economic lag, ushering Alberta into the Great Depression with an already-heavy debt load. The Social Credit party under Premier William Aberhart formed government and proposed both taking hold of the financial system and dishing out monthly payments to Albertans.
> 
> In 1935, Albertans began cashing in Alberta Savings Certificates — government bonds held by individuals — en masse. In response, the government imposed a moratorium on their redemption.
> 
> The provincial auditor said the spike in withdrawals was due to a lack of confidence from investors. That year, the government defaulted on its maturing bond principal, unable to secure a loan from the then-Dominion (federal) government. Nine years later, the province had defaulted on its $33.4 million in principal debt and $28.6 million in interest. The government simply couldn’t pay the bills.


AB has to get a VAT in place. It has a revenue problem and needs to fix that before debt growth becomes a lot worse. That all said, a number of provinces have worse accumulated debt problems built up over the years, but AB needs to get its deficit under control to avoid getting into the same place. 

The last 2 charts of http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf show that eastern provinces, primarily NF and ON, have the most debt to GDP ratio, and debt per capita but note how fast the AB numbers are growing. Hence Kenney's need to take even broader action than he is already doing. Notley did nothing much.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I believe that Alberta is also the only province that has defaulted on its debt, in all of Canada (someone correct me if I'm wrong).


That was in 1936 I believe. There are maybe 5 people alive in the province who would've been voting age at that time. During the great depression, before WW2, before any oil resources were really found. Hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> AB has to get a VAT in place. It has a revenue problem and needs to fix that before debt growth becomes a lot worse. That all said, a number of provinces have worse accumulated debt problems built up over the years, but AB needs to get its deficit under control to avoid getting into the same place.


Certainly a revenue problem. Maybe cutting the corp tax rate wasn't such a good idea....
Absolutely introduce a sales or VAT tax. Do it now early in to the mandate when it won't be so fresh in voter's minds. Heck, it won't really matter as it's not like the majority is going to vote for the centrist NDP again.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Certainly a revenue problem. Maybe cutting the corp tax rate wasn't such a good idea....
> Absolutely introduce a sales or VAT tax. Do it now early in to the mandate when it won't be so fresh in voter's minds. Heck, it won't really matter as it's not like the majority is going to vote for the centrist NDP again.


Corporate income tax rates could be zero actually on the provision that cash flow not going to taxes be re-invested in the business, e.g. PP&E, jobs, etc. That would take federal cooperation though since there is no point drastically reducing the provincial take if Ottawa doesn't do the same. Helping keep companies out of bankruptcy is one of the best things a gov't can do.

That said, AB needs to work on both revenue (mostly) and cost cutting (some). The civil service is bloated both in wages and size. AB has the highest civil service costs per capita in Canada and that should be an embarrassment. The f'ing unions are so righteous but hope Kenney holds firm. Family members who hold civil service jobs in AB don't like my swipe at them but they have been fat cats for far too long.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> I don't know about being the only province but AB did default on its debt in 1935. A bit of the saga here https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bit...l20_iss2_pp148_153.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and also quotes from https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion...d-a-rerun-of-albertas-nasty-history-with-debt
> 
> AB has to get a VAT in place. It has a revenue problem and needs to fix that before debt growth becomes a lot worse. That all said, a number of provinces have worse accumulated debt problems built up over the years, but AB needs to get its deficit under control to avoid getting into the same place.
> 
> The last 2 charts of http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf show that eastern provinces, primarily NF and ON, have the most debt to GDP ratio, and debt per capita but note how fast the AB numbers are growing. Hence Kenney's need to take even broader action than he is already doing. Notley did nothing much.


Relying on resource revenues for half of provincial budget is always going to the lead to feast or famine. This is why RoC rolls its eyes a bit when Alberta complains about empty coffers while spending more and taxing less per capita (ex royalties) than every other province.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Alberta is not complaining about empty coffers, we'll fix that ourselves in a few years as we always do and without any help from TROC...its complaining about no support from Ottawa for its needs (pipelines) even though Alberta has been the cash cow paying for confederation. That's why many of us think confederation is broken and not worth fixing. 
Seems like many large corporations agree and are slamming the door on Canadians.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Ditto. Andrew (and Easterners) continue to miss the real point....the bottlenecking of Alberta's products from fair and reasonable access to markets. No other province would put up with being handcuffed from marketing their goods and services ex-province. AB isn't complaining about their coffers. They are complaining about the bleed of jobs and corporations that support their economy and also pay taxes.

That said, AB has to do better in managing its own affairs from both a revenue (tax) and spending perspective to improve their standing amongst ROC. They can't take care of business riding a roller coaster.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jason Kenney......cut the public service and social programs to pay for corporate tax cuts.

It is the typical "cut to prosperity" conservative economic plan.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Sags... we in Alberta have had 40 years of Conservative Government. Over that period of time Alberta's civil service has become the most inefficient in Canada. Albertans pay more per person for all Provincial services than any other province in Canada. 

While I am not a particular fan of Kenney, nor did I vote for him, I do support in principle the fact that he has identified this issue and is moving to examine it in detail. Hopefully his Government will make the necessary changes. 

Paying more and getting less than any other person in any other Province for a similar service does not appeal to me. 

Would you be willing to pay your plumber or your car repair shop twenty percent over the odds or would you shop for a market rate?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I guess the question would be on service delivery. All too often cuts to the public service employees means less service and longer wait periods.

It will be up to Albertans to decide if the effects of the cuts are worth the savings, and if the savings are put to good use.

Expecting the same level of service from fewer people probably isn't a viable assumption though.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

ian said:


> Sags... we in Alberta have had 40 years of Conservative Government. Over that period of time Alberta's civil service has become the most inefficient in Canada. Albertans pay more per person for all Provincial services than any other province in Canada.
> 
> While I am not a particular fan of Kenney, nor did I vote for him, I do support in principle the fact that he has identified this issue and is moving to examine it in detail. Hopefully his Government will make the necessary changes.
> 
> ...


That was an exceptionally sore point with me when I lived in Alberta. Across the board, public sector wages exceeded the rates in places like ON and BC. It was easier to capitulate to the unions rather than hold them accountable. It was also easier to allow top heavy and high cost administrative positions such as managers and executives get out of hand. It took willpower to consolidate all the fiefdom health boards years ago, and it is going to take another surgical knife to either cut more fat positions or freeze/cut salaries.

I like that Kenney is offering an alternative, i.e. we are cutting costs to bring our civil service costs per capita into line. It is either positions or if you prefer, cut salaries to preserve positions.

Added: It should be obvious to anyone, other than the brain dead, that it is primarily wages that are out of line.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My guess is that it is a combo of wages and methodology. For years in Alberta high paid board and commission member positions (of which there are many) has been a place to put well connected, Conservative Party insiders and at compensation that is two and three times that of the Premier or of Cabinet members. Plus expense accounts. The NDP did some cleaning up but there is still a long, long way to go.

sags appears to be stuck in that old rut of them vs us. Our world has changed.

I sometimes think of all those union members who shop at Walmart yet support their union's boycott of Walmart. It is always about some other guy.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

My daughter is a provincial employee dragging down a 6 figure income. She's not opposed to a salary cut and is aware of the cat bird seat she occupies.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> My daughter is a provincial employee dragging down a 6 figure income. She's not opposed to a salary cut and is aware of the cat bird seat she occupies.


Good on her. We have 2 family members on AB civil service salaries and I doubt they would be willing to take less, even grudgingly. It should be obvious they and I don't have productive conversations on this issue.....LOL


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eder said:


> Seems like many large corporations agree and are slamming the door on Canadians.




^^ totally untrue. Reality is the opposite of the above.

foreign direct investment in canada hit its highest level in four years in mid-2019, reports the Financial Post from Stats Canada.

the net inflow high of $18 billion reached in august this year shows that "foreign investment into Canada has been picking [up] for more than a year, since a dismissal performance in 2017 amid an exodus of capital from the nation’s oilpatch," says the finPost.

https://business.financialpost.com/...ment-in-canada-hits-its-highest-in-four-years


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The increase in foreign capital investment is also showing up in the employment numbers. Lowest unemployment levels in years (with the exception of Alberta). Other provinces are booming.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Foreign capital may also not be investing in Alberta because of their concerns about climate change, insurance needs, and the future of oil.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6255402/kenney-danielle-smith-interview-moodys/


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Could also have something to do with the world price of crude, the discounted price for Alberta crude because of access issues, and the ww supply/demand f'cast over the next five years.


----------

