Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[burn_this_city]

The economy would be the biggest carrot in my opinion. Running deficits while hindering economic development isn't sound financial management.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Money? Jobs? Happy citizens? How much political capital is he really going to burn here? Get ti done a few years before the next election and everyone will forget. Remember Harper backtracking on his income trust promise? He stabbed a core group of his voters in the back, didn't make a lick of difference come election time. Liberal voters don't have a lot of alternatives on this issue. They aren't going to vote Conservatives, Greens are useless and the NDP are a disaster.

Honestly I don't see a good political argument to be made for not doing this. He can make it up to voters in other ways, such as keeping the money flowing to Quebec, and progress on other native issues. Make other environmental commitments. It really is a no-brainer. Dragging it out, especially close to an election is a bad idea.

You don't see a good political argument for not doing this?

How's this for a political argument for not doing it:

Liberal Seats in Quebec: 40
Liberal Seats in Alberta: 4

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I thought Irving had said they would deal with it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they want to back out any Saudi barrels. http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=29de-f443

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why should Trudeau spend political capital to get a pipeline done?

What is his incentive to include Alberta at the expense of Ontario or Quebec or BC?

Lots of talk in this thread as if building pipelines across Canada is a no-brainer for the rest of the country but I haven't exactly been wowed with any of the logic or reasoning behind it other than Alberta needs pipelines to help stave off economic turmoil which is of course a legitimate reason, but mostly for Albertans.

Come on. We're talking about billions of dollars in GDP and a much larger tax base. The economics of this aren't even in question. Trudeau and a number of his cabinet ministers have spoken of the importance of getting the resource to the coast. I have to think that asking why it's important is just choosing not to look for the reasons.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You don't see a good political argument for not doing this?

How's this for a political argument for not doing it:

Liberal Seats in Quebec: 40
Liberal Seats in Alberta: 4

I guess I just don't see it costing him that much. The protests seam to be from a small noisy group. Support for the pipeline is 48% in Quebec,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...east-1.3474031
but people don't vote on single issues, and how much of that is strongly against?
There is also strong support in the business community:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/quebe...line-1.3046315

I guess I just don't see it costing him much if he does it quickly.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why should Trudeau spend political capital to get a pipeline done?

What is his incentive to include Alberta at the expense of Ontario or Quebec or BC?

Lots of talk in this thread as if building pipelines across Canada is a no-brainer for the rest of the country but I haven't exactly been wowed with any of the logic or reasoning behind it other than Alberta needs pipelines to help stave off economic turmoil which is of course a legitimate reason, but mostly for Albertans.

In 2015 the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC, and NFLD contributed 15 billion in transfer payments to the rest of Canada. That money is essentially all resource dollars to benefit all of Canada.

To say that the rest of Canada doesn't get benefit from the risk they take is laughable.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

In 2015 the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC, and NFLD contributed 15 billion in transfer payments to the rest of Canada. That money is essentially all resource dollars to benefit all of Canada.

To say that the rest of Canada doesn't get benefit from the risk they take is laughable.

Phewf, fortunately no one is saying that, but I agree that it makes for a very good emotional argument.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Locke, it's been sad watching you go Full CaptainCrunch these last few months.

Please come back.

Again, I ask, what is the tangible benefit to Trudeau to use political capital to help push through pipeline infrastructure to eastern canada or the BC coast?

"Because Canada owes us" or "terror oil" aren't real reasons.

You're being a little hard on the Captain and a little shortsighted in terms of the reasons being put forth, just lumping them into 'Canada Owes Us' and 'Terror Oil' shows that you are either not taking this seriously or cant see the forest for the trees.

I believe that this country is best served when all parties are pulling their weight, but you and I see current events very differently.

You consider me hyperbolic because I completely disregard 'Social License' and 'Political Capital.' And you're right, I do completely disregard them, and I do that because BS buzzwords dont interest me in the slightest.

I'm looking at things like balancing budgets, being able to pay for obligations without a credit card, growing the economy through diversification and trade, the economic benefits and pitfalls of taxation regulations and employment statistics.

You're looking at things such as: Trudeau wants to be re-elected so he should pander to the people he needs to in order to make it happen.

So on one side we have practical realism: taxation, budgets, economics.

And on the other we have impractical idealism: social licenses, political capital, Leap Manifestos, etc.

The fact of the matter, and the one that really concerns me deeply, is that this country has a number of people in positions of power and authority who lean far more to one side than the other without any thought of consequences.

I guess in a way it boils down to practicality for me.

Idealism is like a Ferrari. Its awesome, its great and it turns a lot of heads. People notice you now. But if you arent practical with your finances you'll never be able to afford one.

Get the financial house in order before you start spending on fancy things.

[woob]

I don't know Locke, you both kind of post the same way. Single sentence, line space, single sentence. Let me introduce you to paragraphs and such

[Tinordi]

What peak demand means for this current era of geopolitics:

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/09...ng-oil-demand/

Good article.

A future of declining oil demand would significantly exacerbate risks to states that have relied on oil revenue to maintain a social contract based on generous benefits and patronage. Domestic political instability in states with deep ethnic and sectarian divisions can cause geopolitical ripple effects far and wide. Those risks would be especially pronounced in a region like the Middle East already struggling with security issues like the Syrian civil war, the battle against Islamic State, the political turmoil in Yemen, and the fracturing of Iraq. Closer to home, the end of the oil era would pose hardships for neighbors and allies pursuing reform agendas like Mexico, Brazil and Colombia.

A long-term outlook of declining oil demand would give greater urgency to efforts to diversify petrostate economies. Several Persian Gulf countries have such plans in the works already, such as Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030 and National Transformation Plan to reduce dependence on oil revenue, grow the private sector, and attract foreign investment. Even though Saudi Arabia is a very low cost producer at less than $10 per barrel, it requires a price many times higher to balance its budget.

An outlook for declining oil use would also change longstanding geopolitical relationships. What would underpin the already-strained U.S.-Saudi relationship if one element of the historic “oil-for-security” bargain might soon be obsolete? Reduced oil needs may also free up foreign policy options, like sanctions against oil-rich countries. Consider how the U.S. and Europe limited sanctions against Russia to restricting future growth in oil supply without curtailing its current supply. And less need for oil might also reduce geopolitical tensions in frontier areas for oil exploration, like the Arctic and South China Seas.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by woob

I don't know Locke, you both kind of post the same way. Single sentence, line space, single sentence. Let me introduce you to paragraphs and such

He's Rick Bell!!!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by woob

I don't know Locke, you both kind of post the same way. Single sentence, line space, single sentence. Let me introduce you to paragraphs and such

Paragraphs? Those sound suspiciously like 'Leap Manifesto' propaganda.

Paragraphs are for chumps and the weak.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ding Dong the witch is dead

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

In 2015 the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC, and NFLD contributed 15 billion in transfer payments to the rest of Canada. That money is essentially all resource dollars to benefit all of Canada.

To say that the rest of Canada doesn't get benefit from the risk they take is laughable.

Ontario is also a net contributor too. They put more into the program than they receive back even though they do receive some.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Phewf, fortunately no one is saying that, but I agree that it makes for a very good emotional argument.

Ummm..

The Premier of BC and the Mayors in Quebec are saying exactly that. They have repeatedly said that the they take all the risk from the pipeline and don't get the benefit.

[Azure]

Better to approve it now and hope everyone who hates him for it forgets about it come election time.

[IliketoPuck]

Right then.

I'm not sure I would trust this guy with a pair of safety scissors, let alone stewardship of a city...

http://boereport.com/2016/09/23/vanc...l-gas-by-2050/

[Weitz]

Another reason to never live in Vancouver...

[IliketoPuck]

How does that vote even get close to being justifiable? The massive increase of costly burdens to every single person, business, and entity in Vancouver is staggering.

[burn_this_city]

Mayor Moonbeam needs to be jettisoned into orbit.