Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[BigThief]

What I'm referencing was openly talked about and discussed (by you), here. Throwing around words like weird and "stalking" because they remember what you yourself posted is certainly one way to go about it, to steal from woob.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by BigThief

What I'm referencing was openly talked about and discussed (by you), here. Throwing around words like weird and "stalking" because they remember what you yourself posted is certainly one way to go about it, to steal from woob.

Ah yes, sorry about that. I'm running on a little bit of sleep here and not all there. Sorry sorry. Carry on.

[Looch City]

No oil pipeline on the list of projects of national interest

As Prime Minister Mark Carney's government prepares to announce the first projects of national interest it has selected, Radio-Canada has learned that no oil pipeline is on the list, according to three sources.

"There is no [oil] pipeline project on the table," one of them said, despite the federal government's promise to make Canada an "energy superpower."

Carney has never ruled out the idea of ​​supporting the construction of a new pipeline.

[...]

Behind the scenes, a Liberal source insisted that the absence of a pipeline on the initial list does not mean that one will never happen. Approval of a natural gas pipeline project is also not out of the question.

SMITH IS GOING TO BE OUTRAGED! This is UNACCEPBLE!

I truly can't wait to hear what Poilievre comes back with lol. New slogan incoming??

Is this basically the end of Canada as we know it?

[direwolf]

You missed the part about how no private companies have stepped up to develop one yet, or have even shown interest. So if the government wants to build one, they’re likely gonna have to do it all by themselves.

Smith and PP will definitely blow a gasket over this though, no question.

[Fuzz]

Ya, but if we separate, the pipeline companies will be bustin' down the doors to build international pipelines...


None of it makes sense when you dig deeper than the coal dust.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Looch City

No oil pipeline on the list of projects of national interest




SMITH IS GOING TO BE OUTRAGED! This is UNACCEPBLE!

I truly can't wait to hear what Poilievre comes back with lol. New slogan incoming??

Is this basically the end of Canada as we know it?

I don't know why people kept equating "energy superpower" with oil pipelines?

Carney is well known for being very pro-green energy, so forcing through renewable and nuclear projects in the national interest seems to line up with his "Values" more than additional oil infrastructure.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Looch City

No oil pipeline on the list of projects of national interest

Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.

[Firebot]

The article and headline is a bit sensationalist.

Private company has not raised a hand so far to develop such a project

Until Bill C-69 is repealed, no pipeline company in their right mind will ever propose a new oil pipeline and take on any burden and vitrol that was allowed to fester. You need a supported proposal to actually build something. Considering the Transmountain controversy which involved the purchase of an existing, already approved project, the Liberal government isn't going to fund a new pipeline that doesn't exist yet. Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy passed by the Liberals and CPC is a huge step forward, but not enough by itself.

Doesn't mean it's not going to happen, but lots of work to be done.

Would also be nice to have politicians working towards the security of the nation versus what we saw in this national embarrassment (looking at you Green / NDP)



Carney being the pragmatic type and so far proven so, I would not be surprised if we see a project eventually come up during his term as necessary for national energy security. We are seeing it with Canadian steel now (which he infamously mocked prior to the election), and we saw a significant 180 shift from Trudeau's "there is no business case for LNG to Europe".

[direwolf]

The government released their initial list of upcoming nation building projects. Shockingly, Smith didn't completely freak out like I expected she would.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/car...list-1.7630470

• Phase two of LNG Canada in Kitimat, B.C., doubling its production of liquefied natural gas.
• The Darlington New Nuclear Project in Clarington, Ont., which will make small modular reactors.
• Contrecœur Terminal Container Project to expand the Port of Montreal.
• The McIlvenna Bay Foran Copper Mine Project in Saskatchewan.
• The expansion of the Red Chris Mine in northwestern B.C.

In addition, CBC News has learned Carney will also name additional projects that are at an earlier stage and require further development, but could be part of the next wave for consideration:

• Wind West Atlantic Energy, supporting wind power in Atlantic Canada.
• The Alberta-based Pathways Plus carbon capture project.
• An Arctic economic and security corridor.
• Upgrades to the Port of Churchill.
• All-weather road infrastructure in Northern Canada.
• The Alto high-speed rail corridor between Toronto and Quebec City.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith told reporters in Calgary that she won't be concerned with an oil pipeline not being on the initial list.


"The list is going to be an evergreening list," Smith said.

"It's not, 'Oh my gosh, this is it, nothing else can be added.' And so we've got a little bit of work to do to be able to get to an environment where oil companies want to expand their production."

Smith said she's hopeful that "in short order, we'll be able to get this to the finish line together."

Radio-Canada also reported that Carney told Smith earlier this summer the involvement of a private developer was essential for a pipeline project to move forward.

So far, no company has expressed interest in financing or carrying out such a project.

[GioforPM]

That's the most sane thing I've ever heard Smith say.

[#-3]

I think Carney told Smith he would put any fully formed plan she could come up with go onto the list, and she could not find any industry partners that were willing to put any level of investment into this project, because they don't need additional outlets for supply right now, and the 10+ year timeline to have a west to east pipeline built leaves demand far to uncertain to invest in that kind of infrastructure.

Carney will have this documented and if Smith trash talks the plan, he will retort pretty quickly how the world is leaving Smith behind weather she likes it or not.

Really this is the most sensible political decision she has ever made.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by #-3

I think Carney told Smith he would put any fully formed plan she could come up with go onto the list, and she could not find any industry partners that were willing to put any level of investment into this project, because they don't need additional outlets for supply right now, and the 10+ year timeline to have a west to east pipeline built leaves demand far to uncertain to invest in that kind of infrastructure.

Carney will have this documented and if Smith trash talks the plan, he will retort pretty quickly how the world is leaving Smith behind weather she likes it or not.

Really this is the most sensible political decision she has ever made.

I mean... she was probably stuck behind the requirement of a "fully formed plan". She can't even get a fully formed plan put together for her grifts.

[Ironhorse]

Radio-Canada also reported that Carney told Smith earlier this summer the involvement of a private developer was essential for a pipeline project to move forward.

So far, no company has expressed interest in financing or carrying out such a project.

No sane company would consider such a project with the west coast tanker ban and Bill-69 still in place.

[Regorium]

I would argue the bigger issue with pipelines is indigenous consultation.

Without direct funding/backing for consultation, I think it's a non-starter.

In Mexico, the government is responsible for indigenous consultation and own the costs of the deal making, and also any costs of delay/litigation if they reneg. Thats the level of structural shift that'd be necessary to get a major project off the ground.

Tanker ban and C69 add costs, but they're known costs and can be assessed.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I would argue the bigger issue with pipelines is indigenous consultation.

Without direct funding/backing for consultation, I think it's a non-starter.

In Mexico, the government is responsible for indigenous consultation and own the costs of the deal making, and also any costs of delay/litigation if they reneg. Thats the level of structural shift that'd be necessary to get a major project off the ground.

Tanker ban and C69 add costs, but they're known costs and can be assessed.

I think the problem is the regulatory burden overall. No company is going to commit to a couple hundred million to get to the stage where this gets killed by regulations/consultations, etc. And frankly, that is where we've been for roughly a decade in this country. What we're asking a business to do is put down some shareholder capital in hopes of getting a profitable outcome, and that is a big ask.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that the political appetite for the government to flat-out own and build one of these pipelines again isn't that high either. It's a massive cost, and a lot of taxpayers aren't incredibly keen on it.

[GGG]

That kind of thing would be in the negotiations of this program.

The whole idea of this fast tracking of approvals for things in the national interest is to break down the barriers for private investment. We will see how these agreements work but I suspect the federal government will be underwriting the regulatory risk in these approaches. And if it was a lack of regulatory certainty that industry partners identified to Smith as the cause Smith would be beating the federal government with it.

I think we can accept on the face of it right now that export capacity is relatively balanced and that has led to a lack of future investment.

[Fuzz]

A lot of it is just economics. Oil is at ~$63USD, which in 2000 dollars is about $118. Oil was in the ~$25 range then. WCS is currently at $51.


When they say their is no economic case to build a new pipeline, this is what they mean. They don't say "there is no compatible regulatory environment". We need to live in the real world here, and even eliminating all the barriers people keep complaining about, there still isn't an economic case.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A lot of it is just economics. Oil is at ~$63USD, which in 2000 dollars is about $118. Oil was in the ~$25 range then. WCS is currently at $51.


When they say their is no economic case to build a new pipeline, this is what they mean. They don't say "there is no compatible regulatory environment". We need to live in the real world here, and even eliminating all the barriers people keep complaining about, there still isn't an economic case.

Doesn't your post say that there should be a boom right now? "118$ Oil" in 2000 would've had people running to Ft Mac with shovels...

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A lot of it is just economics. Oil is at ~$63USD, which in 2000 dollars is about $118. Oil was in the ~$25 range then. WCS is currently at $51.


When they say their is no economic case to build a new pipeline, this is what they mean. They don't say "there is no compatible regulatory environment". We need to live in the real world here, and even eliminating all the barriers people keep complaining about, there still isn't an economic case.

Fuzz, you have lots of intelligent things to say and even if I don't always agree, I'm usually impressed by your ability to make rational and educated arguments.

This isn't one of them. This literally makes no sense. You can't just reference real oil prices as some sort of silver bullet, and completely ignore how much cost structures have changed in the upstream space (for the better, significantly more efficient), and also ignore how much cost structures have changed in the midstream space (for the worse, partly and significantly due to the abhorrent regulatory conditions we subject them to).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by indes

Doesn't your post say that there should be a boom right now? "118$ Oil" in 2000 would've had people running to Ft Mac with shovels...

I'm not sure where my brain is. $25 oil would be $47 today. $33.50 would be $63.