Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
I don’t have time or energy to do the quote thing, but I’ll try to hit your points. Do I think you’re left leaning? Generally yes and I basically form that opinion from your never ending staunch defence of unions. Typically people who support or are super into unions are left leaning. If that is an unfair characterization than I apologize, as I understand a political stance can be nuanced like is mentioned in the other thread. As well, you say point out where you are wrong. I definitely do not mean to imply (generally, like, outside of this one particular issue) that left leaning people are “wrong” and in fact often they are right about several topics. It’s why I come to CP despite the echo chamber because my job day in and day out is an echo chamber on the other side.
|
The biggest problem with labelling everyone or everything as left or right politically is it convinces people that there is no nuance and promotes tribalism. I can assure you that union members, especially in this province, aren’t all ideologically driven to only support ideas on one side of an imaginary spectrum. There’s many union members/supporters that are any combination of pro guns, pro choice, religious and/or take a number of other positions that fall on the wrong side of what you label as left and right. The “spectrum” is such a flawed concept and only serves to promote division.
Quote:
|
I appreciate you posting the link and I was not directing my post to you necessarily however I have definitely had discussions about oil and gas with many people that tend to be left leaning (most of my closest friends are left leaning actually) and I very frequently hear whenever I rant about JT (as you point out I do it a lot but it’s only because there’s just… so… much… to bitch about) I always get the “well they bought the TMX pipeline! They can’t hate oil and gas that much!” Like BS, #### that. That’s like saying Danielle Smith still signed off on the health care budget so look at how supportive she is of that segment!
|
I don’t think the question should be whether or not they’re pro O&G, it should be about what they actually do when push comes to shove. Does it mean that they’re always going to make similar choices in the future? No, but comparing actually building a pipeline to slowly dismantling an existing healthcare system doesn’t seem like a rational comparison.
Quote:
|
In some very special and specific circumstances such as vital infrastructure for energy security and the economy of the nation then yes I believe government and businesses should be allowed to overrule regulations or court rulings. I believe personally that’s how other countries are able to get #### done and sometimes it is what is required. I think that polling the audience of 40 million people will get you 40 million different opinions; 20 million of which will deny, well, just about ####ing everything. Canada has decided to just let small interest groups leverage courts to stop or stumble criticism infrastructure projects. The government of Canada a) does have the ability to create new laws (yes they may be court challenged possibly but there are many other pressure points the government can use in its authority and powers to get #### done. For example, funding. Carrots and sticks, etc. b) does have the ability to force through special projects that are deemed vital to the health and stability of the nation and IMO this project actually does fit that scope.
|
I don’t really buy the small special interests group arguments. The land rights issues in BC are far more complicated than simply passing a bill to deny people their rights. Keep in mind too that the O&G industry finances their own special interest groups to achieve goals unrelated to infrastructure development, IMO that is causing them to lose the broader public support that would help them more easily achieve their infrastructure goals.
Quote:
|
Recouping $30B? You should run some econs on pipe projects. I suppose it’s possible if we haven’t totally shut down growth in oil which we’re trying desperately to do that this could pay out in 50 years, sure. Or what fees do you think are reasonable to ship oil with? I’m being sarcastic but if the project was launched with a capital cost of 5,4B then 30B with a delay of project startup of 4.5 yrs could be pretty challenging to economics- just a hunch.
|
The sale alone is expected to be worth between $15M-$25M(not sure if those figures are in CDN or USD) and the pipeline is expected to bring in revenues of $40B to the province alone over the next 20 years not including federal tax revenues it will generate. I personally think those revenue numbers will be exceeded due to the current geopolitical environment but that’s just my opinion. To be clear I’ll reiterate my point that the government stepping in to buy KM was not the ideal way to get this done, but unfortunately it was probably the only way it was going to get done under the circumstances.
Sources:
Quote:
|
A Reuters survey of five analysts and investors valued Trans Mountain between C$15 billion and C$25 billion, based on factors including projected earnings and oil shipping tolls.
|
https://globalnews.ca/news/10019634/...-analysis/amp/
Quote:
|
In an interview last fall, TMX chief executive Dawn Farrell said the expansion is projected to generate about $40 billion of royalties and taxes to Alberta over two decades.
|
https://calgaryherald.com/business/v...danielle-smith
Quote:
|
Glad we agree on this one and I do agree with you that we do agree on more than you or I prob think, I just don’t really reply to you if I agree with you on something. I can tell you I do respect your opinion.
|
I respect yours as well…but admittedly my patience gets tested a little whenever people use the left/right labels in their arguments. None of the parties have the right balance at the moment, but unfortunately that isn’t going to change until people stop falling for the divisive rhetoric most parties and the news/social media continues to push.
