# Bidens - economic impact



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Without being too political, I want to look at the impact of the new administration.
I don't want to raise political concerns which don't directly relate to an economic/investment impact.

So it looks like Biden is going to kill Keystone.
Obviously this is going to impact Alberta oil.

It also looks like he's going to be more protectionist with "Buy american", not sure how to account for this, but seems like Canada is getting another blow to industry.

What other areas of political interference should we watch for?
What can we take advantage of?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

While KXL is probably done, they will likely be able to get some or most of their investment back through legal wrangling.
However, if he follows through on some of the progressive policies some where espousing like banning fracking and reducing drilling/ E&P, we can expect the price of oil to creep up which will benefit Canada.

I think his buy US stance will soften a bit in the background for canada and maybe mex.

Stocks related to infrastructure, construction, green transportation, green tech, power distribution, solar, wind, etc should all do well (even if some of them are not deserved).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nobleea said:


> While KXL is probably done, they will likely be able to get some or most of their investment back through legal wrangling.
> However, if he follows through on some of the progressive policies some where espousing like banning fracking and reducing drilling/ E&P, we can expect the price of oil to creep up which will benefit Canada.
> 
> I think his buy US stance will soften a bit in the background for canada and maybe mex.
> ...


(un)fortunately those have already been on a tear and are pretty optimistically valued.
I've made a lot on infrastructure. Though there is a lot more work to be done. We've spent half a century building North America, and now it's time to repair and upgrade these projects that are EOL


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't see Biden being any worse for trade than Trump.

Pipelines unfortunately are likely a non-starter for now (I think KXL should proceed).

On the bright side, the US will be rejoining Paris Agreement. So Canada won't be going its own way quite so much in the NA context.

Biden will likely be more open to multi-lateral trade deals, so perhaps deals like TPP will move ahead.


----------



## kcowan2000 (Mar 24, 2020)

I am optimistic about trade once we get rid of the narcissist who must win at any cost.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Is it a widely held fact that trade benefits both parties or is that still up for debate?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Likewise I am more optimistic on trade as well and global treaties. Fewer tantrums on things like slapping 'win-lose', or more likely 'lose-lose', duties on steel and aluminum. I think Biden has a better appreciation of Canada (and Mexico) than anyone before him.

As I mentioned in the other thread, KXL was not needed anyway (if Enbridge Line 3 replacement and TMX go through). There is no way there would be enough global demand for such increases in AB oil production at reasonable prices to fill all those pipes. Better to have better margins on the oil we currently sell than to blow our brains out pushing for 830,000 additional barrels per day of oil production beyond that needed to fill Line 3 and TMX. Blessing in disguise.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Is it a widely held fact that trade benefits both parties or is that still up for debate?


Not even close.
It's a pretty common believe that foreigners are stealing our jobs and protectionism is a good thing.
Both Trump and Biden campaigned on protectionist platforms, and promise "buy American".

The actual business owners and state governments are closer to the action and realize that free trade benefits them, but that's not a vote getter. 

What I expect is lots of protectionism to great fanfare, then hopefully the smarter people in the room cut it to shreds with exceptions.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Money172375 said:


> Is it a widely held fact that trade benefits both parties or is that still up for debate?


There are more than two sides to trade. Almost infinite. In both 'sides' (countries) involved in trade, there are winners and losers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> There are more than two sides to trade. Almost infinite. In both 'sides' (countries) involved in trade, there are winners and losers.


True, but with fair balanced rules, free trade is typically like capitalism, good for everyone and even better for some.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm thinking these with the cheap money that is going to be thrown around in the US next couple years.

.

BROOKFIELD BUSINESS PARTNERS L.P.
QUANTA SERVICES INC
EMCOR GROUP INC
I did buy BBU.UN.T today. I wont buy the other two as they trade in the US exchanges.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think Alberta and Canada should employ the services of Peter Schiff to promote the KXL.

In a recent podcast he explained how the US is going to need oil from reliable sources, because their oil output is going to decline and won't keep up with US consumer demand.......for the intermediate future.

Although he didn't mention KYL specifically, he said that fracking oil was a disaster for the lenders and they won't be pouring money into that losing proposition anytime soon. The costs of fracking greatly exceeded the production necessary to repay the debts.

He said that a reliable source of oil was going to be a national security issue for the US.

Maybe if approached on a national security level, the Biden administration would give it greater consideration.

It might be too late now though.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> As I mentioned in the other thread, KXL was not needed anyway (if Enbridge Line 3 replacement and TMX go through). There is no way there would be enough global demand for such increases in AB oil production at reasonable prices to fill all those pipes.


Remind me again, it's been a while, but KXL was all about export wasn't it? None (or very little) of the refined oil was going to stay in the US for domestic use right? In other words, trying to play the secure/stable source of crude oil for the US card isn't really a compelling argument when KXL was all about export and the only benefit was increased profit for the oil refineries, and not energy security for the US.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Many refineries on the Gulf require heavy oil presently supplied by importing Mexican,Venezuelan & Canadian oil...California produces some as well.

Since the other 2 countries continue to be basket cases, maintaining Canadian imports should be a no brainer for the US.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The extra dilbit supply, as suggested, would find space in heavy oil configured refineries which are either no longer getting any, or only small amounts of, 'equivalent crude from Mexico and Venezuela. Of course, Venezuela could get its shite together in 10 years too and become a major supplier again to the US Gulf Coast. it's happened once before.

That said, the increased volumes to be delivered via Enbridge's Line 3 replacement will do much of the same thing as KXL at less transportation cost, and ultimately, there is limited heavy oil refining capacity anyway for all of the extra Line 3 and KXL space. Add to that that much of the refined product will find itself being exported as the demand for refined products declines in the USA over time (regardless of who is POTUS) and it will butt heads against surplus refining capacity in Europe, Middle East and places like Singapore. Finally, global demand for refined oil products will go into slow permanent decline putting a lid on refined product prices, and thus crude prices in AB, regardless of pipeline capacity. It is probably much better to get more margin on less volume than to blow one's brains out having increasing production as a goal. Too many producers (and investors) still want to see production growth rather than margin (netback) growth. The ultimate in stupidity really.

What I am trying to say is the ultimate market for oil, including dilbit is finite, so why build pipeline capacity that won't be filled and will become stranded capacity? Canada does not need to ship increasingly higher volumes.

P.S. The decline of California heavy oil production in the Bakersfield area for refining in LA area refineries is best replaced by Canadian dilbit provided by TMX to Vancouver and tankered down the coast to LA. As of now, :LA refineries have to import much/most of their crude supply. There are no (or minimal) crude oil pipelines to California from the US Midwest or Gulf Coast. I remember being a co-author of a study back in 1991 on that very issue.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> True, but with fair balanced rules, free trade is typically like capitalism, good for everyone and even better for some.


This was the lie that made so many people angry following the trade liberalization in the 90s and 00s. It's simply not true that every single person benefits even from overwhelmingly positive trade. The honest conversation is that the society as a whole is made better off, how can we compensate the losers to soften the blow. NAFTA was very good overall, but there were losers from it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Wealth creation through increased GDP generates a lot more revenue for governments who then pour it back in to health, education, and infrastructure. It allows for increased funding going to indigenous groups, and a variety of disadvantaged groups. Of course, it is not evenly applied but much better than remaining hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Things that disappeared and became sourced from elsewhere were the right economic answers because of lower cost to the consumer of those products. Loss of a pulp mill and its jobs occurred because it became cheaper to import newsprint and keep print media in business longer. The Red Star might have been bankrupt by now....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Wealth creation through increased GDP generates a lot more revenue for governments who then pour it back in to health, education, and infrastructure. It allows for increased funding going to indigenous groups, and a variety of disadvantaged groups. Of course, it is not evenly applied but much better than remaining hewers of wood and drawers of water.
> 
> Things that disappeared and became sourced from elsewhere were the right economic answers because of lower cost to the consumer of those products. Loss of a pulp mill and its jobs occurred because it became cheaper to import newsprint and keep print media in business longer. The Red Star might have been bankrupt by now....


That can all be true, but pissing on the 'losers' from free trade and telling them its raining is what lead to the kind of discontent that let Trump rise to power. Why TPP was such a lightning rod. My biggest beefs with TPP were enshrining absurd intellectual property protections such as on copyright (absurdly long and so far from the public interest it's not even funny) as well as patent protection for drugs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> This was the lie that made so many people angry following the trade liberalization in the 90s and 00s. It's simply not true that every single person benefits even from overwhelmingly positive trade. The honest conversation is that the society as a whole is made better off, how can we compensate the losers to soften the blow. NAFTA was very good overall, but there were losers from it.


Society as a whole is better, which is better for most.
I don't think there are many losers, yes we should help the real losers.

however I have no sympathy for those who used protectionism to enrich themselves at my expense


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Looking at the world as it exists today, decades after free trade deals were signed.........

The world is dependent on China for a large part of the global supply system. The COVID revealed what that means in real time.

China produced most of the PPE and medical devices needed to battle the pandemic. Everything from gloves to masks to ventilators were made in China.

Many common medications such as over the counter pain killers, vitamins, and expensive heart drugs are sourced from China.

The US is spending a lot of money to replace Huawai technology on cellular towers. Aircraft and vehicles contain Chinese made products.

China supplies the rare earth materials, technology, and products used in many business sectors. China is the leading exporter to the world.

Free trade resulted in Chinese control over manufacturing, including the supply chain, machinery, technology, necessary to manufacture products.

The US has awakened from a slumber to realize that Chinese control over steel and other products affected their national security.

The Chinese took US dollars for consumer goods, and then used those dollars to expand their empire and lend them back to their global customers.

So was the tradeoff of cheap consumer goods in exchange for dependence on China a good result ?









Can the West Actually Ditch China?


How severely can countries really punish China when many of them need Beijing for the most crucial of things—medical supplies?




www.theatlantic.com





_The U.S. is woefully unprepared to address even minor disruptions in the supply of these drugs.

In a letter to health chiefs last year, Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley cited reports claiming 80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients are produced overseas, mostly in China and India. 

“Medicines can be used as a weapon of war against the United States,” Rosemary Gibson, a senior adviser on health care issues at the bioethics-focused Hastings Center and co-author of “China Rx: Exposing the Risks of America's Dependence on China for Medicine,” told lawmakers last month. “Supplies can be withheld. Medicines can be made with lethal contaminants or sold without any real medicine in them, rendering them ineffective.”_









U.S. policymakers worry about China 'weaponizing' drug exports


Risks include contamination, disruption or deliberate embargo if trade war persists.




www.politico.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

You realize that the reason we sent all this production to China was because it was cheaper.
Both we and the Chinese people have higher quality of life that we would have without free trade.

Of course there are risks to relying on another for something.
That's something that people misunderstand.

If I rely on X to provide Y, it is my responsibility that I trust X proportionally to the importance of Y.
This holds true for everything.
If you are buying trinkets from China, you don't need to trust them much.
If you are buying essential medications from China, you need to trust them a lot.
If you are buying your heating fuel from Russia, you need to trust them a lot.
If you are buying water from the city, you need to trust them a lot.

When you outsource important things to untrustworthy partners, they can exploit that leverage, and worst case, people will die.
That being said, we almost universally outsource our water to cities, it's dramatically cheaper, safer and more reliable than if we did it ourselves. We just trust that they won't poison it, or arbitrarily shut it off. Just like we're trusting China.

The question of reliability of partners is different from artificial trade barriers.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sometimes the mouse gets to nibble the cheese before the trap springs.

The price of cheap goods was dependence and national security. That was a high price to pay.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Sometimes the mouse gets to nibble the cheese before the trap springs.
> 
> The price of cheap goods was dependence and national security. That was a high price to pay.


Was it?

How many lives were saved, or people pulled from poverty?

The price of teamwork is interdependance


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

GM announced they are transitioning the automotive assembly CAMI plant in Ingersol, Ontario from the Equinox SUV to all electric commercial delivery vehicles.

They have a contract with Fedex for delivery of vehicles. GM says that half of their vehicle products will offer electric vehicles in the near future.

GM spent billions of dollars and are building a major battery plant and research facility. They are hiring a large number of engineers.

Corporations must believe the Biden administration will be good for Canada.

Good times ahead !

PS.......there is a great deal of excitement around the new all electric Corvette. It is said that driving it will feel like piloting a jet fighter.

Move over Tesla.............vrroooom, vroooom !


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> GM announced they are transitioning the automotive assembly CAMI plant in Ingersol, Ontario from the Equinox SUV to all electric commercial delivery vehicles.
> 
> They have a contract with Fedex for delivery of vehicles. GM says that half of their vehicle products will offer electric vehicles in the near future.
> 
> ...


GM is building the battery plant in Ohio, not Canada,


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yup......and they are also re-opening a truck assembly plant in Oshawa, Ontario.

These production decisions demonstrate GM's confidence in trade relations between the US and Canada, under the Biden administration.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Yup......and they are also re-opening a truck assembly plant in Oshawa, Ontario.
> 
> These production decisions demonstrate GM's confidence in trade relations between the US and Canada, under the Biden administration.


These decisions are bigger than Trump vs Biden.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> These decisions are bigger than Trump vs Biden.


It constantly, but shouldn't, surprises me how many people think it's just people making whimsical decisions.

Projects like this are huge deals with lots of work.

Google buying Youtube is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These are expensive projects that depend on a massive supply chain that crosses back and forth across the US/Canada border on a continual basis.

GM is betting big that trade between Canada and US will be enhanced without the political influence and threat of protectionism.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> These are expensive projects that depend on a massive supply chain that crosses back and forth across the US/Canada border on a continual basis.
> 
> GM is betting big that trade between Canada and US will be enhanced without the political influence and threat of protectionism.


Yes, but GM would have made the same decision (and it was in the works) well before they knew who the President was going to be.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

GM and Trump didn't have a very good relationship. He constantly berated the company and CEO for refusing to do his bidding.

I would not be surprised at all that GM held back the announcement until 5 days ago to see who won the election.

I doubt they would be eager to announce new vehicle production in Canada for commercial customers in the US......if Trump was elected.

He already caused them enough headaches.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Biden's first call to a foreign leader will be to Justin Trudeau on Friday.

Keystone is already revoked though, so that is already "off the table" for discussion.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Biden's first call to a foreign leader will be to Justin Trudeau on Friday.
> 
> Keystone is already revoked though, so that is already "off the table" for discussion.


Billions of dollars, tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs, energy security for the US.
Cleared through all the hurdles and approved by the democratically elected government.

Done away with the stroke of a pen of a single person.
What better way to say "closed for business" than to go back on your word like this.


At least they have a good case for compensation


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Biden puts forth virus strategy, requires mask use to travel

Now this is what you call a "real" leader aka "President of the U.S.A.". The guy knows what the true priorities are for his "country" and has a "real plan" for that.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I’m confident in Biden’s ability to do a better job with the pandemic. If he succeeds there, all other policies are secondary to me. Leadership matters, and yesterday was refreshing. daily competent press conferences.....what a great idea! The new press Secretary seems very capable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> Biden puts forth virus strategy, requires mask use to travel
> 
> Now this is what you call a "real" leader aka "President of the U.S.A.". The guy knows what the true priorities are for his "country" and has a "real plan" for that.


Yeah, he's going to hoard all that vaccine and leave Canadians hanging, just like Trump
One of his first strokes of the pen killed a major Canadian Economic project.

I just hope that the people who understand things stand up to him, or work around him like they did when Trump was in office.

I think it's pretty bad when you have elected leaders like Trudeau, Trump and Biden, and have to desperately hope that the more informed people keep those dullards from screwing things up too bad.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, he's going to hoard all that vaccine and leave Canadians hanging, just like Trump


 ... really? Where did you hear/read this? If it is actually true of what you stated, then you can hardly blame him for Americans first unlike the Dump who pretends to MAGA to allow 400K Americans dead because "he" doesn't believe there is a pandemic going on, let alone believe in a "vaccine".



> One of his first strokes of the pen killed a major Canadian Economic project.


 ... how does that impact you as an Ontarian? Now go ahead and blame Trudeau for this ...



> I just hope that the people who understand things stand up to him, or work around him like they did when Trump was in office.


 ... right, and only people who understood things can continue to fly to and kiss their Messiah's booted axx in swamp land.



> I think it's pretty bad when you have elected leaders like Trudeau, Trump and Biden, and have to desperately hope that the more informed people keep those dullards from screwing things up too bad.


 ... no, this thread (btw you started) is about "B-I-D-E-N" so no need to drag Trudeau and the Dump into a twisted converse.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... really? Where did you hear/read this? If it is actually true of what you stated, then you can hardly blame him for Americans first unlike the Dump who pretends to MAGA to allow 400K Americans dead because "he" doesn't believe there is a pandemic going on, let alone believe in a "vaccine".
> 
> ... how does that impact you as an Ontarian? Now go ahead and blame Trudeau for this ...
> 
> ...


I have not heard of Biden rescinding Trumps executive order on covid19 vaccine allocations. In fact he's committed to 100 million vaccinations in his first 100 days. To hit it, he can't let the few % Canada needs slip out of the country.

How does political interference in a project of national importance affect me as a Canadian?
I think that's obvious.

I'm not blaming Trudeau for political interference from the US. He can advocate for our interests, but it's clearly outside of his direct control. You've got to be one crazy *** partisan to think that a US election campaign promise is somehow the "fault" of Trudeau.


I'm just pointing out the bad policies that Biden is continuing, or implementing.
I still hope (I'm an optimist) that someone smarter will figure out how to adjust or work around these bad policies, but my previous experience shows that isn't very realistic.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Alberta is in for a rough time and I think Canada should step up and form a task force on how to transition from oil to alternative energy and attract projects to the west.

The CAMI auto assembly plant was established in Ingersol, Ontario decades ago as a joint venture between Suzuki and GM.

They built the Suzuki Sidekick and GM Trackers in that plant and shipped all the production to California, where the little "jeep like" vehicle was a big success.

Why couldn't assembly plants like that be built in Alberta ?

Alberta has to start thinking beyond digging up oil and shipping off the raw bitumen.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Alberta is in for a rough time and I think Canada should step up and form a task force on how to transition from oil to alternative energy and attract projects to the west.
> 
> The CAMI auto assembly plant was established in Ingersol, Ontario decades ago as a joint venture between Suzuki and GM.
> 
> ...


Green houses are expensive compared to open farms like California and Mexico.
Fortunately a bit of global warming to historically normal temperatures should result in Alberta being able to do more farming.

Why no auto assembly plants in Alberta? Transport infrastructure. Most industry is close to population centers. 

Why, demand for good ethical Canadian oil should increase.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Always excuses to stay with an oil based economy. Total fail............

Ontario ships vehicles all over North America. US plants ship vehicles built in the deep South to Canada. Amazon ships all over North America.

There are no transportation barriers.

Ladies and gentlemen.....the Alberta manufactured all electric Sidekick.........










PS.....I removed the greenhouse idea from the post while Mr. Matt posted. I still think it would be a great idea.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> There are no transportation barriers.


As ignorant as ever.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are no roads or rail in Alberta ? Companies ship vehicles to North America from the other side of the world.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Biden's first call to a foreign leader will be to Justin Trudeau on Friday.
> 
> Keystone is already revoked though, so that is already "off the table" for discussion.


Nonsense--it's not off the table. I think Trudeau would be remiss in not mentioning it and expressing our displeasure. I think it is fair not to make a stink about it yesterday on the day of his inauguration, but Canada should still be pursuing this.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Nonsense--it's not off the table. I think Trudeau would be remiss in not mentioning it and expressing our displeasure. I think it is fair not to make a stink about it yesterday on the day of his inauguration, but Canada should still be pursuing this.


It's a back room discussion thing.
I agree, you don't fire back at one of his first political acts for one of his main voting blocks.

The problem with it being such a high profile order is that it makes it hard for him to flip flop


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Biden could use it as a bargaining chip to get GOP support, so it looks like a concession to get something Biden's base wants more.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You do realize that Biden already signed the executive order revoking Keystone yesterday ?

Trudeau and our ambassador to the US have already lobbied the Biden administration. I think Biden signing it yesterday took it off the table for discussion.









Biden Signs Executive Orders on Face-Mask Mandate, Keystone Pipeline, Paris Accord


Joe Biden on his first day in office implemented a national mask mandate on federal property, revoked a pipeline permit and took other executive actions.




www.wsj.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Biden could use it as a bargaining chip to get GOP support, so it looks like a concession to get something Biden's base wants more.


Could, but honestly the people that want this dead want almost nothing more.
Plus they see that they control the legislature and executive, they're not going want to give on anything.


----------



## Rosey (Oct 23, 2018)

Cancelling KXL was one of Biden’s first major promises during the Dem primaries. The fallout with the left wing of the party would be massive if he went back on that promise. I imagine that T will bring it up but concentrate more on removing tariffs such as aluminum, steel pipe, softwood.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rosey said:


> Cancelling KXL was one of Biden’s first major promises during the Dem primaries. The fallout with the left wing of the party would be massive if he went back on that promise. I imagine that T will bring it up but concentrate more on removing tariffs such as aluminum, steel pipe, softwood.


The only way those tarriffs will drop is if the consuming industry lobbies push for it.

When the states say they need them cut to create jobs, or build houses, they'll fall. I wouldn't hold my breath on softwood.


----------



## Rosey (Oct 23, 2018)

That is exactly what has been happening with aluminum and steel. Agree fully on softwood but he will push for it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> You do realize that Biden already signed the executive order revoking Keystone yesterday ?
> 
> Trudeau and our ambassador to the US have already lobbied the Biden administration. I think Biden signing it yesterday took it off the table for discussion.
> 
> ...


No, they didn't lobby Biden yet. Biden could not meet with foreign leaders in official capacity prior to being sworn in--that's illegal. Please see the Logan Act.

Biden can sign all the executive orders he wants. He doesn't set Canadian foreign policy. Canada is free to complain loudly and at great length about canceling KXL.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rosey said:


> Cancelling KXL was one of Biden’s first major promises during the Dem primaries. The fallout with the left wing of the party would be massive if he went back on that promise. I imagine that T will bring it up but concentrate more on removing tariffs such as aluminum, steel pipe, softwood.


What if he allowed KXL to go ahead, but go carbon pricing in its place? KXL was a proxy war on climate change. The main event is carbon pricing or cap and trade.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Could, but honestly the people that want this dead want almost nothing more.
> Plus they see that they control the legislature and executive, they're not going want to give on anything.


There are still measures that require 60 votes in the Senate. The Dems don't have absolute free rein.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Trudeau government has been lobbying President- Elect Biden since he was elected in November.

_Diplomats in Ottawa continue to engage with their American counterparts over Keystone XL, two sources close to the Keystone XL file said, and one of them said TC Energy is still lobbying.

*“We don’t have a decision from the Biden administration at this point. We should continue to work,” one source said, adding Trudeau had consistently supported the pipeline and would continue to do so. “It’s not over until a decision is public.”*_









Canada scrambles to salvage Keystone XL as Biden prepares to kill troubled pipeline project


U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's expected move to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline prompted Canada's main oil-producing province of Alberta on Monday to threaten to seek damages as Ottawa made efforts to save the troubled project.




www.reuters.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau could try to bring it up one last time in his phone call tomorrow, but I think Biden will just say the decision has been made.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Trudeau could try to bring it up one last time in his phone call tomorrow, but I think Biden will just say the decision has been made.


You must be hilarious to negotiate with.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think if KXL is terminated due to Bidens concern about climate change then we need to terminate American coal shipments out of BC...same same. Hopefully Sockman can get this done.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> What if he allowed KXL to go ahead, but go carbon pricing in its place? KXL was a proxy war on climate change. The main event is carbon pricing or cap and trade.


The main event is punish the rich. 
These goofballs don't actually care about climate change, or science. 
Climate change is just a tool and they thought they could weaponize it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting timeline to the KXL.









A timeline of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project


Here's a chronological look at the key dates in the history of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.



www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Rosey (Oct 23, 2018)

andrewf said:


> What if he allowed KXL to go ahead, but go carbon pricing in its place? KXL was a proxy war on climate change. The main event is carbon pricing or cap and trade.


That is likely what T’s position will be but I just don’t think that Bernie, AOC et.al. would remotely consider it and crucify him if he were to repeal the EO.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Interesting timeline to the KXL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very interesting.

It's simply being stopped by the Presidential veto.
The experts agree that the environmental impact is limited. 
Legislatures and courts approved it.

That's the danger of giving one person too much power.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump revived the KXL with an executive order. His executive order contained a clause that it could be revoked at any time.

Biden revoked Trump's executive order. Surely the company and Alberta government lawyers were aware of the clause.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Trump revived the KXL with an executive order. His executive order contained a clause tha tit could be revoked at any time.
> 
> Biden revoked Trump's executive order. Surely the company and Alberta government lawyers were aware of the clause.


Everyone approved it.
Obama killed it, Trump approved it, Biden killed it.

I think the overuse of executive authority is problematic. But that's the way the game is played.
Who cares what the peoples elected representatives want, I know better.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea........so you got your US and you got your Canada.

Canada wants the KXL built and the US doesn't.

I am thinking if the US wanted to build a pipeline over Canadian soil to ship Alaska's oil to the US.......we probably would reject it also.

End of story.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Yea........so you got your US and you got your Canada.
> 
> Canada wants the KXL built and the US doesn't.
> 
> ...


Canada wants KXL, and the US wants KXL.
A few busybody whiners don't.
If they looked at the data pipelines are BETTER for the environment than what they're doing today.
I say finish the pipeline, except for 100' in the middle, and just truck it across the border until someone with a brain can approve it.

I'd love a pipeline from Alaska to the US through Canada.
1. It would mean a lot of jobs for Canadians, that's a lot of pipeline.
2. It would also mean that the President would face more opposition from blocking things like this. It's one thing to turn away Canadian jobs, but another to turn away American jobs.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Closing thread, political bickering and impasse


----------

