AB vs BC - Kinder Morgan Dispute

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe, but if this keeps dragging on, and nothing happens, and we don't see shovels moving, will Alberta want a ambassador or a bully by the next election?

I think that is the Carrot vs Stick thing for both Trudeau and Horgan. With Notley they have an ally on the vast majority of issues. Kenny will be an adversary on every policy. Notley needs to show progress on the pipeline to have any chance of being elected.

I think Kenny's election is inevitable though next time at which time this trade war gets ramped up if it isn't resolved.

[Flash Walken]

Most, maybe all of the BC environmental groups would prefer Kenney in office to Notley. I think if you asked the David Suzuki foundation for example, they would view Kenney in power as preferable to notley both politically and in absolute environmental terms. BC Environmental groups had the same attitude towards Harper.

Easier to fund raise, easier to attack, easier to be obstinate.

Having two provincial NDP government's battling it out is not exactly the political theatre environmental groups need to galvanize their base supporters.

Kenney's bluster about turning off the taps is tremendously flavourful red meat for a certain segment of the Alberta voter, but it's absolutely toxic to Alberta's interests outside of Alberta.

I think that a provincial NDP government and a federal liberal government, even if it's just lip service, both being unequivocal about their support for Trans Mountain should be awe-inspiring for many dyed-blue albertans.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Whoa... Flash made a strong, substantive point. Awe-inspiring indeed.

That being said, once you put it into the context that this discussion is all about Trans Mountain - which is (or should be) the biggest no-brainer among energy infrastructure projects that you could possibly dream up if you were to invent one out of thin air - makes the support from those quarters considerably less encouraging, to say nothing of the opposition from the lunatic not-quite-so-fringe. I mean, I'll take it given the circumstances, but the fact that we're here at all is not something I'm inclined to feel the slightest bit optimistic about.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Kenney's bluster about turning off the taps is tremendously flavourful red meat for a certain segment of the Alberta voter, but it's absolutely toxic to Alberta's interests outside of Alberta.

It’s all political grandstanding on Kenney’s part. It’s easy to make threats and say what would work better when you have no ability to follow through with it or face the consequences for those actions. If Kenney really has the interests of Albertans as his number 1 priority he should be supporting the premiere, instead he’s choosing to play politics.

[Knalus]

I wouldn't call it grandstanding, more like Bad Cop - a very believable bad cop.

One we may have to resort to.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Most, maybe all of the BC environmental groups would prefer Kenney in office to Notley. I think if you asked the David Suzuki foundation for example, they would view Kenney in power as preferable to notley both politically and in absolute environmental terms. BC Environmental groups had the same attitude towards Harper.

I would caution to give any credit to logic here. These people have been conditioned by people like David Suzuki to see this as an epic struggle of good vs. evil, to them it transcends politics and frankly logic. Anyone who sells out to the evil oil empire regardless of background is now the enemy.

and they will tell you this while filling their car with gas. I know someone who worked for them and Sierra Club. Hypocrites of the highest order, much like their leader.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Whoa... Flash made a strong, substantive point. Awe-inspiring indeed.

That being said, once you put it into the context that this discussion is all about Trans Mountain - which is (or should be) the biggest no-brainer among energy infrastructure projects that you could possibly dream up if you were to invent one out of thin air - makes the support from those quarters considerably less encouraging, to say nothing of the opposition from the lunatic not-quite-so-fringe. I mean, I'll take it given the circumstances, but the fact that we're here at all is not something I'm inclined to feel the slightest bit optimistic about.

Agreed, I really don't take a lot of solace in the Liberals somewhat tepid support of what should be an absolute slam dunk. In a country where TMX, Northern Gateway, Keystone, and Energy East were all active projects at one time it's depressing that we're fighting tooth and nail to even get one of them.

Any other country on earth would have major, 600,000+bbl/d pipelines to both coasts by now.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Most, maybe all of the BC environmental groups would prefer Kenney in office to Notley. I think if you asked the David Suzuki foundation for example, they would view Kenney in power as preferable to notley both politically and in absolute environmental terms. BC Environmental groups had the same attitude towards Harper.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I would caution to give any credit to logic here. These people have been conditioned by people like David Suzuki to see this as an epic struggle of good vs. evil, to them it transcends politics and frankly logic. Anyone who sells out to the evil oil empire regardless of background is now the enemy.

and they will tell you this while filling their car with gas. I know someone who worked for them and Sierra Club. Hypocrites of the highest order, much like their leader.

I think your post is accurately describing the poster you quoted.

(although, he's been better on this topic lately, I guess)

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It’s all political grandstanding on Kenney’s part. It’s easy to make threats and say what would work better when you have no ability to follow through with it or face the consequences for those actions. If Kenney really has the interests of Albertans as his number 1 priority he should be supporting the premiere, instead he’s choosing to play politics.

or......

Kenney continues to be very aggressive which enables Notley to present as a measured, reasonable voice. so when Notley increases the consequences it cannot be described as anti-climate change antics by the left wing professional protesters and their foreign oil money which funds them.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Agreed, I really don't take a lot of solace in the Liberals somewhat tepid support of what should be an absolute slam dunk. In a country where TMX, Northern Gateway, Keystone, and Energy East were all active projects at one time it's depressing that we're fighting tooth and nail to even get one of them.

Any other country on earth would have major, 600,000+bbl/d pipelines to both coasts by now.

If we built all those pipelines we would have just under 7 million barrels of capacity. That's way too much capacity for Alberta and Saskatchewan foretasted production.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

If we built all those pipelines we would have just under 7 million barrels of capacity. That's way too much capacity for Alberta and Saskatchewan foretasted production.

Well it's up to the respective private corporations who floated those pipelines if they saw demand to put them in the ground. My point was that there were four projects at a serious level of development and two have been killed outright due to anti progress opposition and the other two are in legislative limbo and have been for almost a decade.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

If we built all those pipelines we would have just under 7 million barrels of capacity. That's way too much capacity for Alberta and Saskatchewan foretasted production.

Perhaps that would spur investment in the province instead of driving it away? Shocking, I know.

[Mr.Coffee]

in general the more capacity you bring into the system the less leverage the mid-streamers have, which would have been healthier for industry. Today's oil and gas sector in Alberta consists of a lack of capacity which lends negotiating power to the mid-streamers who have really driven the economic performance of the industry on average. Companies like Keyera, Tidewater, Inter-pipeline, etc. have all dominated. I would assume good for some who work for those companies but not for the majority, who work for producers that have had margins squeezed and economics challenged, compounded by a tougher pricing environment over the last couple years.

[DiracSpike]

Here's a map of the major pipelines emanating from western Canada. How many protestors even knew of these ten years ago? These essential infrastructure projects pump tremendous amounts of crude daily that fuels a significant segment of our national economy, and have operated with minimal spills for decades.

One line runs under the straits of mackinac connecting Lakes Huron and Michigan, I can't even imagine the tremendous backlash and wailing if this pipeline was proposed today. Opppsing these projects just makes no sense, you might as well try to block other essential infrastructure like airports and railroads while you're at it.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Perhaps that would spur investment in the province instead of driving it away? Shocking, I know.

Overcapacity increases the cost to shippers since pipelines are regulated industries and tolls are set to allow pipeline owners to recover their capital and to earn a certain amount of return.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Agreed, I really don't take a lot of solace in the Liberals somewhat tepid support of what should be an absolute slam dunk. In a country where TMX, Northern Gateway, Keystone, and Energy East were all active projects at one time it's depressing that we're fighting tooth and nail to even get one of them.

Any other country on earth would have major, 600,000+bbl/d pipelines to both coasts by now.

What tepid support would that be? They have stated unequivocally that the pipeline has been reviewed and will be built. They have said that no province can hold this up. They're trying to resolve the situation in meetings. At this point, what would you have them do exactly?

Sometimes I think that until the Liberal caucus is out there digging the trench themselves, it's never going to be enough.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Slava

What tepid support would that be? They have stated unequivocally that the pipeline has been reviewed and will be built. They have said that no province can hold this up. They're trying to resolve the situation in meetings. At this point, what would you have them do exactly?

Sometimes I think that until the Liberal caucus is out there digging the trench themselves, it's never going to be enough.

Even then, the lazy bastards wouldn’t be digging as fast as the Conservatives could.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Slava

What tepid support would that be? They have stated unequivocally that the pipeline has been reviewed and will be built. They have said that no province can hold this up. They're trying to resolve the situation in meetings. At this point, what would you have them do exactly?

Sometimes I think that until the Liberal caucus is out there digging the trench themselves, it's never going to be enough.

I'm not trying to turn this in to a partisan issue, it's of much more national imprtance than petty conservative vs liberal squabbling.

It's nice that they said it would be built, but I want timelines and actions. I want even stronger language from Trudeau to treat this as the constitutional crisis it is. It's nice that they're having "meetings", but we are way way past the striking a committee phase here. I want Trudeau to outline a SPECIFIC course of action and how he plans to use the powers of the PMO and Federal Government to get this pipe in the ground in a timely manner. Him saying "it will get built" over and over is a nice start, but that's all it is. It doesn't mean anything without specifics and actions. That's what I mean by tepid support.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Not to mention that, following his original press conference which was all about scientific evidence and basing things on the facts available (which was a good signal to send), Trudeau and company have treated this project like it was something of a close call and that the objections from people opposed are understandable. The right attitude towards it is that this project isn't close to the line. It's an obvious approval and something that obviously should be built, and people opposed to it are irrational ideologues.

I don't really expect that given the politics and the makeup of the Liberal base, but the current attitude shifts whatever stands in for an Overton window in the sphere of energy infrastructure. There will be other projects that need approval in the future that will have significantly more impact (economically, environmentally, socially) than what amounts to twinning an existing line, and if this is such a tough thing to make happen, how are those projects ever going to be built?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There will be other projects that need approval in the future that will have significantly more impact (economically, environmentally, socially) than what amounts to twinning an existing line, and if this is such a tough thing to make happen, how are those projects ever going to be built?

They most likely won't be unless the political climate shifts dramatically.

I'm talking NEP shift in political climates.

This is what I was trying to get across with my post about Kenney. The unfortunate reality for many Albertans will be that federal liberals and provincial NDP is the single best combination they could have to get energy infrastructure off the ground.

Look at the row between Saskatchewan and the Feds right now regarding a carbon tax. Try to come up with a scenario where that kind of turmoil is beneficial to the Alberta oil and gas industry.

A carbon tax like the $3 billion pricing scheme unveiled by Alberta premier Rachel Notley on Sunday is a non-starter, according to Saskatchewan Finance Minister Kevin Doherty.

“We’re not imposing a carbon tax,” Doherty told the Regina Chamber of Commerce on Monday. “Now is not the time to impose another tax on the business community.”


Premier Brad Wall echoed Doherty at the first ministers’ meeting on Monday in Ottawa, telling reporters that while Canada needs to do better on its climate change record, it can’t forget the consequences for the economy.

“As we are meeting, there are literally tens of thousands of Canadians who have been laid off of their jobs in the (energy) sector, and there is the prospect for more difficult news if prices stay low,” he said.

“We need to work hard to ensure that we’re doing no further harm to an industry that is facing great difficulty,” Wall added.

It’s unclear whether the Sask. Party government’s position is ideological or pragmatic, but major energy industry players have voiced support for a broad-spectrum carbon levy in Alberta, Smith said.

“Does it have to be anti-economy to be pro-environment?” he said. “That seems (to be) how they’re painting it … but the Alberta government, I think, is saying the opposite.”

Economic vitality and environmental protection are not always mutually exclusive, according to the president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which represents companies in the oil and gas industries.

“If there’s a way to do things more efficiently, more effectively, it likely has less emissions and lower costs,” Tim McMillan said. “I think it should always be our goal to find win-win solutions.”

Every jurisdiction requires a different balance, meaning a solution that works in one province won’t necessarily succeed in another, and Saskatchewan has the track record and the credibility to achieve “real and meaningful improvements” while allowing its economy to remain strong, McMillan said.

University of Regina political science professor Jim Farney questions the provincial government’s position. While governments are typically wary of scaring away capital investment with tax hikes, most large companies can’t afford to abandon immobile natural resources, he noted.

“(A carbon tax) will be bad for some businesses, and those stories will come up,” Farney said. “(But) is it bad for economic growth on the whole, or is it the biggest factor for an economy like ours? Almost certainly not. It’s the price of oil, which we don’t control, and it’s the price of potash, which we don’t control.”

The Sask. Party’s commitment to avoiding new taxes leaves it out of step with Alberta, B.C., Ontario and Quebec — all of which have implemented, or are planning to implement, carbon pricing — but investment in renewables is a climate policy stopgap, Farney added.

“Everybody else is doing it, so we’ve got to be seen to do something,” he added.

http://thestarphoenix.com/business/e...cy-expert-says

OTTAWA—Canada and Saskatchewan seem headed to a legal showdown over whether the federal government can force provinces to impose a carbon tax.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last fall he wants every province and territory to have a $10 a tonne price on carbon in place by 2018, rising to $50 a tonne by 2022. Trudeau said if they didn’t do it themselves, he would do it for them.

Saskatchewan Environment Minister Scott Moe told The Canadian Press on Thursday his province will never let that happen. A $50 a tonne carbon tax would amount to $2.5 billion in Saskatchewan, he said, and that’s a cost its export-based economy cannot bear.

“We’ll use everything in our disposal to not have that cost imposed on industries here in the province of Saskatchewan and that may include going to a court of law,” he said.

Eleven provinces and territories agreed to the carbon price plan in December, when they signed the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba did not.

Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna told The Canadian Press this week negotiations with the two have continued.

“We’re always having good discussions with them and, to be honest, they agree with most parts of the framework, so I’m optimistic,” she said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ster-says.html

They've been battling about this for 3 years now. It has not been beneficial for Saskatchewan. They are now playing catchup with jurisdictions that have a Carbon Tax.

I spoke with someone a few weeks ago that was explaining to me how the Alberta carbon tax has helped increase diversification by attracting manufacturing to Alberta. The carbon tax has made the playing field level compared to BC, but with a lower cost of living and business start up costs like leasing and zoning for industrial use.

This industry was in tools and material assembly for mining, but this individual seemed to think it was across numerous industries that previously found it prohibitive to do business in Alberta.