Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This isn’t accurate companies attempted 5 - Line 3, TMX, Gateway, and Keystone. 1 got built, 3 got killed in regulatory due to PC and US issues, 1 canceled for economic reasons.
So I don’t think it’s accurate to say that no company would do it. It’s accurate to say no company would take on the regulatory risk given previous failures. If the goal of Carney is truly to fast track projects of national interest through the regulatory environment then a Pipeline project is actually a good one.
If you can get regulatory certainty these are viable projects.
Though I think that Smith should be trying to partner with Kinew looking at Churchill feasibility as part of this project.
|
Churchill probably isn't viable. The government of Alberta does have the cards to get a pipeline built, and get the industry to largely pay for it and they probably need a piplein to tidewater in order to improve pricing power (and therefore royalty dollars paid to the government), especially with what's going on in the US.
It's shocking to me that more albertans aren't on board with this given how important maximizing those royalty dollars are to our public finances. If you do the math of how important these oil sands royalties become to Alberta over the next 10 years...it's really something.