Alberta Politics Thread

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Edit. Nvm premature postulation

[CaptainCrunch]

In other words Elizabeth May can GTFO.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Her comments go against the State Department study on the Keystone pipeline where they arrived at two things which are I think on page 43 and 44.

Pipelines are safer then the other methods of transportation.

Pipelines have a lesser environmental impact then the other methods of transportation. Its not a huge reduction but its a reduction.

Elizabeth May thinks that the economy can run on fairy dust and unicorn poop.

I understand that it's safer when transporting oil but her point is the fact that we aren't transporting oil, we are transporting bitumen.

The concern that I have is that we were doing just fine up until the drop in oil prices, everyone was making money and everyone was happy. Now (and this seems to be the last 3 or 4 years) it seems that we need more, more, more but I'm unsure as to why.

And as far as Elizabeth Mays party or where she leans I was simply looking at arguments against what she is saying.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I understand that it's safer when transporting oil but her point is the fact that we aren't transporting oil, we are transporting bitumen.

The concern that I have is that we were doing just fine up until the drop in oil prices, everyone was making money and everyone was happy. Now (and this seems to be the last 3 or 4 years) it seems that we need more, more, more but I'm unsure as to why.

And as far as Elizabeth Mays party or where she leans I was simply looking at arguments against what she is saying.

Its a numbers game. When oil prices were high there was enough money going around that no one really minded taking the shipping costs on the chin. Now that things are leaner they have to be more efficient.

The few dollars per barrel that they spend on shipping can be cut down especially when you're talking millions of barrels over time.

This is very similar to the outrage over the Royalty review.

"Its not a big deal."

It is. Oil production in Alberta is an intensive process requiring a lot of labour and logistics over the long-game, it isnt just a few buck here and there today its about the up and down-stream effects of those dollars over time.

Same with pipelines, we're talking about dollars per barrel from now until the foreseeable future.

[MelBridgeman]

Quebec cares about environmental reviews?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mcin...ring-1.2964868

McInnis Cement plant in Gaspé proceeds without environmental hearing


Quebec Liberals table bill to push plant's OK through by law to avoid hearings on environmental impact

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its a numbers game. When oil prices were high there was enough money going around that no one really minded taking the shipping costs on the chin. Now that things are leaner they have to be more efficient.

The few dollars per barrel that they spend on shipping can be cut down especially when you're talking millions of barrels over time.

This is very similar to the outrage over the Royalty review.

"Its not a big deal."

It is. Oil production in Alberta is an intensive process requiring a lot of labour and logistics over the long-game, it isnt just a few buck here and there today its about the up and down-stream effects of those dollars over time.

Same with pipelines, we're talking about dollars per barrel from now until the foreseeable future.

Thanks for the response. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the oil industry to cut through the half truths that seem to be told by everyone. This is the main reason for me not being a fan of government and the oil industry, it seems that what is said is spun so much that it takes quite a bit of time to cut the bs out and figure out what is actually going on.

Im not a Notley hater though, I just think some of the mistakes are from inexperience. WRP leader reminds me of William H Macy, more so from Fargo than any other movies. In other words, I don't trust him at all.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Thanks for the response. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the oil industry to cut through the half truths that seem to be told by everyone. This is the main reason for me not being a fan of government and the oil industry, it seems that what is said is spun so much that it takes quite a bit of time to cut the bs out and figure out what is actually going on.

Im not a Notley hater though, I just think some of the mistakes are from inexperience. WRP leader reminds me of William H Macy, more so from Fargo than any other movies. In other words, I don't trust him at all.

The user peanut really explained it best in a different thread, but paraphrasing her explanation is that basically our Oil industry has to swallow all of the shipping costs because we're moving product from a landlocked province to market.

Over time and production that cost adds up. When things were doing well you dont care too much about a few bucks here and there but when things get tight you've got to reduce the costs.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I understand that it's safer when transporting oil but her point is the fact that we aren't transporting oil, we are transporting bitumen.

The concern that I have is that we were doing just fine up until the drop in oil prices, everyone was making money and everyone was happy. Now (and this seems to be the last 3 or 4 years) it seems that we need more, more, more but I'm unsure as to why.

And as far as Elizabeth Mays party or where she leans I was simply looking at arguments against what she is saying.

Bitumen is what comes out of the ground, but it gets upgraded. By the time it gets into the Keystone pipeline, it is a heavy oil, but not unlike other blends of heavy oil that is transported all across the world. Transporting bitumen-based heavy oil blends is no different than any other type of crude oil.

You can read about how oil is classified here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity

You are correct in saying that bitumen isn't great for transport, but every bit of oil going into transport pipelines (currently mostly enbridge and original keystone) has been upgraded. TransCanada (and Enbridge and Alliance and Kinder Morgan) has extremely strict guidelines on the quality of the product that flows through their pipelines - this includes API gravity, water, chemical, sediment etc. I know for a fact that no long range transmission pipeline would transport bitumen in its raw form.

For your other point, Keystone was started in 2006, Keystone XL was started in 2008 and Energy East was in 2014. While it's clear that the demand for capacity drives the design of the projects, the execution of the project is not predicated on current oil prices. These lines are supposed to last for 50 years, and once the need has been identified and the capital set aside, it really doesn't matter what the current oil price is at.

It only seems like a big deal because for some reason, Keystone XL became this massive political hand grenade, which makes it seem like any capacity expansion seem like "a big deal" or "wanting more." Otherwise, as has been noted, the length of ten KXL's have been built in the states in the last 8 years - it's really not as big of a deal as the media wants you to think it is, but it is great at getting clicks at the moment.

Edit: I re-read your question, and there have been multiple studies done that show diluted/upgraded bitumen behaves in exactly the same way as a heavy conventional oil. Here's a quote from the energy east website (take it for what it's worth, you can click through to the academic papers on the actual website if you care to):

Oil sands bitumen has a consistency similar to that of peanut butter so it needs to be reduced in viscosity through the addition of a diluent in order to flow through the pipeline. Some opponents claim that pipelines carrying diluted bitumen – or “dilbit” – have more internal corrosion, and are therefore presenting safety risks. That is not true. Year after year, multiple studies conducted by some of the world’s leading and most respected scientific research organizations (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Battelle Memorial Institute, Penspen Institute and Natural Resources Canada…) have all concluded that dilbit behaves the same way as conventional crude oils and does not pose any additional risk when transported through pipelines.

[Tinordi]

Required reading for most in this thread:

Notwithstanding the spin from Conservative quarters in Saskatchewan, Alberta and at the federal level, there are no magic shortcuts to getting shovels in the pipeline ground.

For a decade, Harper’s government claimed it had found some. But those shortcuts have all led to quagmires. Pretending that a mess that could pave the way to decades of litigation does not exist will not make it go away.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...und-hbert.html

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Required reading for most in this thread:



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...und-hbert.html

Nobody thinks there are shortcuts. However, there needs to be goalposts. Conditions that are met. Not just vague ideas about consulting, delays, reviews, and buzzword conditions like "fair share".

How about this Tinordi - tell me what it would take to get you to believe that Energy East is good to go. Set some goalposts for me, and I will believe that you actually support the pipeline, rather than just trying to put up as many roadblocks as possible.

For example, it can be as easy as "It passes the NEB and BAPE review process." I'd be on board with that.

[Resolute 14]

How do you break a promise without breaking a promise? If you are Rachel Notely, you cancel a proposed program without cancelling the program:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...-in-limbo.html

Right decision, as this would not encourage creation of new jobs - it would rather reward those that were going to hire anyway - but if you're backing away, just back away. Don't be so wishy washy about it.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How do you break a promise without breaking a promise? If you are Rachel Notely, you cancel a proposed program without cancelling the program:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...-in-limbo.html

Right decision, as this would not encourage creation of new jobs - it would rather reward those that were going to hire anyway - but if you're backing away, just back away. Don't be so wishy washy about it.

The NDP's campaign promises don't actually make sense in the real world?

Inspirational leadership, yet again. What a merry band of idiots we have running the province right now.

[puckedoff]

^ To be fair, most of them are fresh out of college and new to the real world

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The NDP's campaign promises don't actually make sense in the real world?

Inspirational leadership, yet again. What a merry band of idiots we have running the province right now.

But what the previous government was doing wasn't working, Redford went all over the world pumping up Alberta Oil but it got us where?

And apparently social issues are boring...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Required reading for most in this thread:



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...und-hbert.html

They cite this decision.

In between the two decisions, some first nations groups took the province to court. In mid-January the B.C. Supreme Court found the province had abdicated its responsibilities when it declined to conduct its own assessment of the pipeline. It said Christy Clark’s government did have the legal duty to insure its environmental standards were respected.
“British Columbia, within its own jurisdiction, has unique objectives, political and social goals, and legal obligations, the court concluded . . . it cannot be the intention of the legislators to allow the voice of British Columbia to be removed in this process for an unknown number of projects, when the purpose behind the EAA (Environmental Assessment Act) is to promote economic interest in this province, and to protect its land and environment.”

So this is the court decision people now are pointing to to suggest that Quebec is on-side for demanding that the pipeline follow Quebec law. Well, courts can be wrong. The first thing you need to know is that the BCSC is a court of first instance. It's the lowest level of trial. And in my view, on appeal and ultimately before the Supreme Court, that ruling gets reversed. At least, I certainly hope so, because from where I sit it flies right in the face of over a century of high-level jurisprudence about the division of powers under the Constitution.

Quebec is opportunistically taking the position that interprovincial and international trade being solely within the legislative purview of the federal government somehow gives it the right to review - and presumably, prevent - the construction of an interprovincial pipeline. That's completely contrary to how the Constitution has always functioned. In fact, under the section that delegates legislative authority to the provinces, it EXPLICITLY says that the Province has no authority over this stuff:

Originally Posted by Canada's Constitution

10.
Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a)
Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province

So yeah, I'm not on board.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

But what the previous government was doing wasn't working, Redford went all over the world pumping up Alberta Oil but it got us where?

And apparently social issues are boring...

The NDP won the election almost a calendar year ago. The defense of trotting out the PCs every time someone criticizes the general ineptitude of the NDP is getting pretty tired.

At what point do we start judging the NDP based on their record of governance instead of giving them a free pass "because PCs"?

Finger pointing at the previous regime needs to stop.

Joe Ceci is about to release his second budget, fortunately this time there isn't a federal NDP election to delay things. So there is that as a positive....

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The NDP won the election almost a calendar year ago. The defense of trotting out the PCs every time someone criticizes the general ineptitude of the NDP is getting pretty tired.

At what point do we start judging the NDP based on their record of governance instead of giving them a free pass "because PCs"?

Finger pointing at the previous regime needs to stop.

Joe Ceci is about to release his second budget, fortunately this time there isn't a federal NDP election to delay things. So there is that as a positive....

Where do you see that I'm pointing blame at the cons? Pretty sure I said that Redford tried her thing and it obviously didn't work because we are having this conversation about pipelines. Notley is trying a different approach, if we give our politicians 1 year to get things done then let's keep that consistent with all parties.

We have the WRP chirping about how social issues are boring but that's a no issue as the official opposition party? Is this who is the better alternative for you?

[rubecube]

I wasn't really sure where to put this, but it's a pretty decent write-up on the history and success of the carbon tax in BC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/bu...ml?src=me&_r=1

In 2008, the British Columbia Liberal Party, which confoundingly leans right, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. The party stuck to the tax even as the left-leaning New Democratic Party challenged it in provincial elections the next year under the slogan Axe the Tax. The conservatives won soundly at the polls.

Their experience shows that cutting carbon emissions enough to make a difference in preventing global warming remains a difficult challenge. But the most important takeaway for American skeptics is that the policy basically worked as advertised.

British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors’ even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined.

“It performed better on all fronts than I think any of us expected,” said Mary Polak, the province’s environment minister. “To the extent that the people who modeled it predicted this, I’m not sure that those of us on the policy end of it really believed it.”

The tax, which rose from 10 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in 2008 to 30 dollars by 2012, the equivalent of about $22.20 in current United States dollars, reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent with “negligible effects on aggregate economic performance,” according to a study last year by economists at Duke University and the University of Ottawa.

The tax made fuel more expensive: A gallon of gas, for example, costs 19 United States cents more. It encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful about heating and cooling their homes. Businesses invested in energy efficiency measures and switched to less polluting fuels.

Despite the price increases, voters warmed to the tax. Last year only 32 percent of British Columbians opposed the tax, down from 47 percent in 2009.

Perhaps most surprisingly, so did big business. And for good reason. As it turns out, a carbon tax is the most efficient, market-friendly instrument available in the quiver against climate change.

“We were not very happy when it was first announced,” said Jock A. Finlayson, head of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia. Now, “within the business community there is a sizable constituency saying this is O.K.”

Christopher Knittel, an expert on energy economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said a properly calibrated carbon price in the United States could effectively replace all the climate-related regulations businesses hate so much, including renewable fuel mandates and President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

That would create a clear incentive for businesses and consumers to use less fuel, invest in efficiency and switch to cleaner energy. The only other necessary action, in Professor Knittel’s view, would be more government support for research and development to accelerate the quest for new energy technologies.

And this part kind of highlights how the NDP blew the implementation in Alberta:

Here in British Columbia, however, it wasn’t the efficiency argument alone that won people over. The pioneering legislation provided critical political cover by ensuring every single carbon tax dollar would be returned to families and businesses through a variety of breaks.

That “is the thing that saved us,” said Carole Taylor, the provincial minister of finance at the time the tax was introduced. “If I had said, ‘Give us the carbon tax and trust us,’ I knew it would have been a failure.”

The corporate income tax was cut to 10 percent from 12 percent, to stimulate a flagging economy in 2010. Though it is back to 11 percent, it is still the lowest among Canada’s provinces. The bottom two personal income tax rates were also cut. Low-income families got a tax credit.

[robaur]

How many pipelines have Harper's Conservatives and Alberta's PC's gotten built in the last 10 years?

Answer: 0


Just because Notley isn't acting like Brad Wall doesn't mean anything. It's very easy to blast the Federal and Quebec governments and would have been the easy route. I think Notley showed a lot of restraint, and a great deal of character.

[rubecube]

IMO, Brad Wall is only acting like Brad Wall because it's an election year for him and he's trying to get the attention off of some the corruption and cronyism allegations against him.