I'm trying to say, that while in some ways we have become slightly more independent, we are still very much dependent on the US market for our product. No matter how you slice it, 90% of our exported oil goes to one market. I'm not so concerned with why this is and how we got here "who's fault it is" because there is no one reason. The US is currently, and was in the past our, only customer. Not sure what you'd have done with the product if we weren't going to sell it to them. That being said, I acknowledge, that had the bandaid been ripped off in the past (and again, im not so concerned with why this didn't happen, only that it didn't happen), it likely means we have much larger capacity east and west now, and our position would be much better.
I'm trying to say, due to current circumstances, we need capacity to refine, and move our products both east and west, yesterday. Even if you don't believe the federal government played a major role in the scrapping of these projects, I'm sure you'd agree they sure didn't help. The economy and logistics of these projects were altered by legislation and rhetoric.
Im trying to say, I don't think there is a legitimate argument against having a more diverse set of markets competing for our products. That only happens one way while bypassing the US.
Hopefully that is more clear.
The odd thing about large projects, when it comes to government involvement, is that over the last 20 to 30 years the narrative has moved firmly into a business-like sphere. There is an idea that any large project must recoup the costs over a certain timeframe. And those monies must be a direct repayment. This was not how government was meant to work.
Benefit from a large project is felt amongst large swaths of a region, hitting many effected groups. It's possible to estimate overall impact of a large project, but the actual benefit is usually underrepresented.
We see this in the constant promise/threat of a bullet train between Calgary and Edmonton. If this is constructed through a private entity, then they are looking for a profit, and reimbursement as soon as possible for the cost of the project. Ticket prices would sit around $100 for a one way ticket. If it was government run, and the reimbursement was understood to exceed what could be drawn from direct billing, the construction would be a sunk cost and ticket's would be in the $25 range (one way), allowing usage to explode. The province would see an insane amount of gain from a cheap transit corridor, where a private business would stifle sales due to the need for direct compensation.
I would love for governments to start governing. Politics blended with businessmen = ####.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
I'm trying to say, that while in some ways we have become slightly more independent, we are still very much dependent on the US market for our product. No matter how you slice it, 90% of our exported oil goes to one market. I'm not so concerned with why this is and how we got here "who's fault it is" because there is no one reason. The US is currently, and was in the past our, only customer. Not sure what you'd have done with the product if we weren't going to sell it to them. That being said, I acknowledge, that had the bandaid been ripped off in the past (and again, im not so concerned with why this didn't happen, only that it didn't happen), it likely means we have much larger capacity east and west now, and our position would be much better.
I'm trying to say, due to current circumstances, we need capacity to refine, and move our products both east and west, yesterday. Even if you don't believe the federal government played a major role in the scrapping of these projects, I'm sure you'd agree they sure didn't help. The economy and logistics of these projects were altered by legislation and rhetoric.
Im trying to say, I don't think there is a legitimate argument against having a more diverse set of markets competing for our products. That only happens one way while bypassing the US.
Hopefully that is more clear.
Sure, but who is paying for these new pipelines and exports and who’s taking the oil. Exports east really don’t get you much in terms of putting heavy in the water. There’s no market. Exports west for heavies and Asia has some appetite, but you need to build like 4.5 million of export capacity to displace the Us. What company is building that? What comoany(s) are signing the 25-30 year agreement to underpin it? Is the government building it?
Refining more here isn’t the answer, refining is mostly done as close to the consumer market for lots of good reasons. I guess we could build more upgrader capacity to produce more syn so we wouldn’t habe be the heavy issue it same questions? Who’s building the upgraders?
I just don’t see a path to building out more export capacity in a substantial way and all the people sayign it’s the solution can’t explain the economics to me.
The odd thing about large projects, when it comes to government involvement, is that over the last 20 to 30 years the narrative has moved firmly into a business-like sphere. There is an idea that any large project must recoup the costs over a certain timeframe. And those monies must be a direct repayment. This was not how government was meant to work.
Benefit from a large project is felt amongst large swaths of a region, hitting many effected groups. It's possible to estimate overall impact of a large project, but the actual benefit is usually underrepresented.
We see this in the constant promise/threat of a bullet train between Calgary and Edmonton. If this is constructed through a private entity, then they are looking for a profit, and reimbursement as soon as possible for the cost of the project. Ticket prices would sit around $100 for a one way ticket. If it was government run, and the reimbursement was understood to exceed what could be drawn from direct billing, the construction would be a sunk cost and ticket's would be in the $25 range (one way), allowing usage to explode. The province would see an insane amount of gain from a cheap transit corridor, where a private business would stifle sales due to the need for direct compensation.
I would love for governments to start governing. Politics blended with businessmen = ####.
Agree, wholeheartedly. The answers are surely much easier said than done, and regardless of the answer, a lot of people are going to be pissed off.
I think in an ideal world, these projects are completed without subsidy, but that's a dubious proposition, at best.
Sure, but who is paying for these new pipelines and exports and who’s taking the oil. Exports east really don’t get you much in terms of putting heavy in the water. There’s no market. Exports west for heavies and Asia has some appetite, but you need to build like 4.5 million of export capacity to displace the Us. What company is building that? What comoany(s) are signing the 25-30 year agreement to underpin it? Is the government building it?
Refining more here isn’t the answer, refining is mostly done as close to the consumer market for lots of good reasons. I guess we could build more upgrader capacity to produce more syn so we wouldn’t habe be the heavy issue it same questions? Who’s building the upgraders?
I just don’t see a path to building out more export capacity in a substantial way and all the people sayign it’s the solution can’t explain the economics to me.
I think you greatly underestimate the global market outside the US for cheap energy. We sell our product to the US at massive discounts. The WSC differential, though reducing in recent years, is still $14. We still sell LNG at $4. 14-15 in EU. I'm not suggesting these are the final prices for US alternatives, but I think it's surely an attractive proposition.
I also don't agree you necessarily have to replace 4.5million/d. Obviously you want to get as close as possible, but if we are getting squeezed enough at one end to make the switch (if we even had that ability), I don't think we are comparing apples to apples at that point.
As for who's underpinning it, that's the biggest hurdle. No question about that. I do think we are more likely to have suitable, willing contenders if the government wasn't so hostile towards the idea. But again, I don't want to make it seem like you can snap your fingers and it's done, and there aren't challenges. But I have to believe these projects got to where they were at, prior to being scrapped, because there is at least a compelling business case. Would full government support have caused a successful result? I don't know, but I'd like to think so.
I've never understood why Governments, be it provincial, municipal or federal don't buy and build way way more housing, it's the one thing that a Government will always need, pays for itself and over time doesnt lose value
The odd thing about large projects, when it comes to government involvement, is that over the last 20 to 30 years the narrative has moved firmly into a business-like sphere. There is an idea that any large project must recoup the costs over a certain timeframe. And those monies must be a direct repayment. This was not how government was meant to work.
Benefit from a large project is felt amongst large swaths of a region, hitting many effected groups. It's possible to estimate overall impact of a large project, but the actual benefit is usually underrepresented.
We see this in the constant promise/threat of a bullet train between Calgary and Edmonton. If this is constructed through a private entity, then they are looking for a profit, and reimbursement as soon as possible for the cost of the project. Ticket prices would sit around $100 for a one way ticket. If it was government run, and the reimbursement was understood to exceed what could be drawn from direct billing, the construction would be a sunk cost and ticket's would be in the $25 range (one way), allowing usage to explode. The province would see an insane amount of gain from a cheap transit corridor, where a private business would stifle sales due to the need for direct compensation.
I would love for governments to start governing. Politics blended with businessmen = ####.
The money that the government spends to build and run this at a loss comes from the private sector
This type of project is exactly what a government should not be doing.
You haven’t, actually. At best you’ve attempted to spin it into a question, likely because you haven’t actually put enough thought into your positions to intelligently back them up, but mostly you’re just giving wandering non-answers.
- How will others tariffs, but just not this one little one that Alberta cares about, “strengthen the relationship?”
- Explain how our pension and the RCMP are harming Alberta.
- Explain how the federal government giving money to municipalities in Alberta is harmful to Alberta.
- In a negotiation, how is one person who is not authorized to make any sort of terms going against the wishes of the people responsible for that negotiation and advocating for themselves not “undermining” the position?
These are all positions you brought up. If they’re not relevant, why did you bring them up?
You can keep repeating that I “just don’t get it” but it seems like there are a few people struggling to understand exactly what you’re trying to say and what your point is. But I’m sure you’re the smartest person in the room and everyone else is the problem. I’m sure it’s easier that way,
The fundamental difference between them and you, is you seem to need the explanation 12 times, and often you still don't get it. I have no desire to go back and forth on this particular subject with you any longer. We have gone over it all over and over. We will never agree.
You seem to think I'm talking in circles and don't know what I'm talking about.
I think, as what seems to be your MO, your only real interest is getting up on your soapbox and yelling louder, being a sarcastic, disingenuous prick. Over the years, im certain I've seen plenty of people call you out on it.
If I believed you had any honest intentions of having a possibly productive, yet hostile conversation, I'd happily engage and answer anything you wanted to ask me.
But that's not likely to happen. It's ok. Get over yourself.
Last edited by Andy83; 01-18-2025 at 08:57 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Andy83 For This Useful Post:
The money that the government spends to build and run this at a loss comes from the private sector
This type of project is exactly what a government should not be doing.
I'm not talking about subsidizing the private sector to build infrastructure. I'm talking about government ownership of infrastructure. It resets the economic feasibility of large projects.
Ever since governments started selling off utility assets, it was the end of the line for new large public owned resources. Why?
Also, it wouldn't be running at a loss, it would run at break even (with a reserve). Eliminating the cost of building and restructuring the financials to include secondary and tertiary income resulting from the resource, would help the people (the province as a whole). Private companies be damned.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
Last edited by Harry Lime; 01-18-2025 at 08:59 PM.
75 convictions at just 32 and out on bail again doing more crime? Bail reform by the Federal government? Naw those are rookie numbers, go for at least 200 and maybe kill a family or two along the way.
I'm not talking about subsidizing the private sector to build infrastructure. I'm talking about government ownership of infrastructure. It resets the economic feasibility of large projects.
Ever since governments started selling off utility assets, it was the end of the line for new large public owned resources. Why?
Also, it wouldn't be running at a loss, it would run at break even (with a reserve). Eliminating the cost of building and restructuring the financials to include secondary and tertiary income resulting from the resource, would help the people (the province as a whole). Private companies be damned.
The capital to build it is capital that has been reallocated from the private sector. That's capital that would have been deleted deployed more effectively elsewhere.
I've never understood why Governments, be it provincial, municipal or federal don't buy and build way way more housing, it's the one thing that a Government will always need, pays for itself and over time doesnt lose value
Housing production is already going full tilt here. There were 24,369 housing starts in Calgary in 2024. That's enough to house 63,000 people. Problem is, the population of Calgary grew by 100,000... 44,000 of whom were additional temporary workers.
This one was at least understandable, as it’s an extremely simple logo so the chances of it being close to something is high.
The ones where they take the actual logo and just change the colour are really bizarre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy83
The fundamental difference between them and you, is you seem to need the explanation 12 times, and often you still don't get it. I have no desire to go back and forth on this particular subject with you any longer. We have gone over it all over and over. We will never agree.
You seem to think I'm talking in circles and don't know what I'm talking about.
I think, as what seems to be your MO, your only real interest is getting up on your soapbox and yelling louder, being a sarcastic, disingenuous prick. Over the years, im certain I've seen plenty of people call you out on it.
If I believed you had any honest intentions of having a possibly productive, yet hostile conversation, I'd happily engage and answer anything you wanted to ask me.
But that's not likely to happen. It's ok. Get over yourself.
Over the years, Dec 2024?
My only real interest is in your answers to the questions I asked. Probably would have taken you two minutes but instead you’re on, what, paragraph 30 of calling me names after starting the conversation off that way and acting grief stricken and victimized because I know how to return a serve? Pretending you’re not going to engage, all the while writing up response after response? You know what “engage” means, right?
Sorry you got banned and you’re still hung up about it, hard to imagine why. I’m guessing this will be a short run and it’ll be all someone else’s fault then, too.
Or you can just be an adult and answer simple questions with simple answers. Or keep going on multi-post rants to avoid answering them, which answers a very different, uglier question.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The capital to build it is capital that has been reallocated from the private sector. That's capital that would have been deleted deployed more effectively elsewhere.
You seem to be talking about something other than taxes.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
This one was at least understandable, as it’s an extremely simple logo so the chances of it being close to something is high.
The ones where they take the actual logo and just change the colour are really bizarre.
Over the years, Dec 2024?
My only real interest is in your answers to the questions I asked. Probably would have taken you two minutes but instead you’re on, what, paragraph 30 of calling me names after starting the conversation off that way and acting grief stricken and victimized because I know how to return a serve? Pretending you’re not going to engage, all the while writing up response after response? You know what “engage” means, right?
Sorry you got banned and you’re still hung up about it, hard to imagine why. I’m guessing this will be a short run and it’ll be all someone else’s fault then, too.
Or you can just be an adult and answer simple questions with simple answers. Or keep going on multi-post rants to avoid answering them, which answers a very different, uglier question.
You realize this is a public form ya? You should be able to come to the conclusion that people have the ability to read for as long as they want without registering or posting. That said, the thing with insufferable dbags is they tend to stick out like sore thumbs.
Once again, you show your reading comprehension skills are poor, at best. I've said I'm not going to rehash the same points endlessly because I don't get the feeling we will ever see eye to eye. I've stated my view, you don't agree. You've stated your view, I don't agree. Cool. No need to continue on the same subject. Continuing down the same road, on the same subject is like playing pigeon chess. You will flap your wings, knock over all the pieces, #### all over the board and go back to your buddies claiming glorious victory. I'm sure, as the authority on being an adult, you can see the futility of this exercise. Get over it. Either come with something new we can disagree on, and start the whole process over, or piss off.
The Following User Says Thank You to Andy83 For This Useful Post:
72 criminal convictions by the age of 32? Serve this guy some bullet soup.
His name is George, so I’m assuming he’s white. Apologies in advance if it turns out he’s not and suddenly what I said above makes me a racist.
He's almost certainly Black or native. Only way to get bail with that rap sheet is through Gladue or the Liberals' post Geroge Floyd (hmm) bill that made it hard to revoke bail for blacks.
You realize this is a public form ya? You should be able to come to the conclusion that people have the ability to read for as long as they want without registering or posting. That said, the thing with insufferable dbags is they tend to stick out like sore thumbs.
Once again, you show your reading comprehension skills are poor, at best. I've said I'm not going to rehash the same points endlessly because I don't get the feeling we will ever see eye to eye. I've stated my view, you don't agree. You've stated your view, I don't agree. Cool. No need to continue on the same subject. Continuing down the same road, on the same subject is like playing pigeon chess. You will flap your wings, knock over all the pieces, #### all over the board and go back to your buddies claiming glorious victory. I'm sure, as the authority on being an adult, you can see the futility of this exercise. Get over it. Either come with something new we can disagree on, and start the whole process over, or piss off.
Didn’t realise I was talking to a super fan who spent years religiously reading this forum without ever participating, all the while paying attention to who was posting what and coming up with entirely one sided grudges and decided just a week ago to finally work up the courage to express them.
That’s… cool…
Anyways here are the questions again:
- How will others tariffs, but just not this one little one that Alberta cares about, “strengthen the relationship?”
- Explain how our pension and the RCMP are harming Alberta.
- Explain how the federal government giving money to municipalities in Alberta is harmful to Alberta.
- In a negotiation, how is one person who is not authorized to make any sort of terms going against the wishes of the people responsible for that negotiation and advocating for themselves not “undermining” the position?
I've never understood why Governments, be it provincial, municipal or federal don't buy and build way way more housing, it's the one thing that a Government will always need, pays for itself and over time doesnt lose value
You're British right? English?
See...lately I've been somewhat under the impression that Canada might need to consider taking a page out of 'Colonial Daddy's' playbook.
Row Housing. Council Housing. Etc.
Cheap, affordable housing that allows people to work, not spend too high of a percentage of their income on housing and that allows them to become educated and get ahead.
I think its a really good idea but I think that Canada missed the boat on it.
The thing is...its kind of like the USA and Universal Health Care. You kinda had to do way, way back because in the meantime its turned into a nightmarish spider-web of money and everything else.
If Canada were to turn around and say..."We're going to flood the market with inexpensive, affordable Government housing" the entire Country would scream bloody murder.
The developers would go nuts, politicians would be held at gunpoint and, I dont know, a HUGE number of Canadians would either be furious or bankrupt.
Because if you flood the market to make some affordable housing then everyone suffers the drop in value and lots of people are literally banking on that. That value secures mortgages, loans, HELOCS, even credit cards and those values are being counted on for retirement, etc.
So, in true fashion there seems to be a solution. We're just not going to like it.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Housing prices is one of the biggest political topics right now, from huge discussion points like the affordability of living in major cities to people literally complaining about their property value going up.
Nobody is going to be furious or hold politicians at gun point for doing what all of them are already running on anyway.
I've never understood why Governments, be it provincial, municipal or federal don't buy and build way way more housing, it's the one thing that a Government will always need, pays for itself and over time doesnt lose value
Because it’s eye-wateringly expensive. And government budgets are already under extreme pressure trying to fund core entitlements like health care, public transport, education, and pensions.
When it comes to bang for the public buck, $121 million for a 127 unit apartment complex doesn’t look great. And that’s just the up-front construction cost, never mind lifetime maintenance and repairs, or the loss of tax revenue from that property.
Maybe it is money well spent in the long run. But the public dollars just aren’t there to scale it up to the thousands of units a year a major city would need to build to make appreciable gains in affordability. Not without substantially increasing taxes, which is political suicide.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-19-2025 at 08:56 AM.
