I don’t know if energy east was more cost effective than TMX and shipping. It’s certainly close. The only reason energy east could have been economical is the scarcity of pipelines. If the argument is make pipelines easier to build so capital is the only barrier no one builds energy east.
The regulatory environment is what made Energy east viable and why you had a high level trans Canada person volunteering on JTs campaign.
If we want energy security as a value the government would need to subsidize it. The market will not get you there.
The market case will change if exports to the US gets shut down / hampered significantly and reality sets in.
Energy East isn't in serious reconsideration because Bill-C69 exists and Quebec opposition is fierce. Both of these make it a non starter for any company and there is no capital available.
So yes, you are correct that most likely the government would need to subsidize it at this point and pretty much lead the project (much as it had to do with TMX after pissing off Kinder Morgan to the point they bailed on the project). That is the cost of alienating infrastructure investment but you still need that infrastructure.
The market case will change if exports to the US gets shut down / hampered significantly and reality sets in.
Energy East isn't in serious reconsideration because Bill-C69 exists and Quebec opposition is fierce. Both of these make it a non starter for any company and there is no capital available.
So yes, you are correct that most likely the government would need to subsidize it at this point and pretty much lead the project (much as it had to do with TMX after pissing off Kinder Morgan to the point they bailed on the project). That is the cost of alienating infrastructure investment but you still need that infrastructure.
I think you are missing my point.
East west shipping doesn’t make sense economically. From grain to oil to manufacturing. Distances NorthSouth are shorter.
Clearly Cappy knows better than the gas and petroleum industry building all these silly costly pipelines instead of boats...on land.
We don't use boats to get oil from the Alberta oil sands to the Gulf refineries...because we have pipelines in between. Shortage in capacity causes us to need more pipelines (why we needed Keystone XL). Alberta has this silly inherent problem of being land locked where boats don't work and we have this mass of land between two oceans.
We don't send oil from the Alberta oil sands to the Saint John refineries...because we don't have pipelines in between and it's more cost effective for Irving Oil to buy from Saudi Arabia (the whole ship thing). There's of course other factors at play, but to dumb it down to lol 15th century Ottoman sultans use boats is quite inept when we are a country with a large land mass
If the goal is being energy self reliant across the country, we need pipelines across the country to make transportation cost effective on land versus going by boat through the Panama Canal because current infrastructure does not exist. It's absolutely better in the long run.
Ok man, my response was to Jason Kenney's tweet which tried to simplify energy easy and 40 years of Canadian Oil and Gas transportation to: look how far boats have to go. over land much shorter.
So, im sorry, Jason Kenney's tweet was dumb.
With respect to the pipelines in the graph, those are in the US, which is operating under an entirely different regulatory framework, and the majority of those lines were built decades ago, prior to changing environmental regulations.
Building a pipeline in todays climate is risky and expensive. i don't think you would disagree with this, no?
Shipping materials by ship is cheaper and establishing new shipping routes is arguably easier than building a pipeline, no?
if you agree with those two statements, then we can agree that Kenney's tweet was disingenuous and dumb, which i post here, again:
Quote:
Imagine if Canada had a way to get our #EnergyEast, maximizing its value and moving to greater 🇨🇦 energy security.
Instead, companies will ship oil on foreign tankers, through the Panama Canal, and around the continent.
Makes a lot of sense.
That was the entirety of my comment. Kenney's tweet makes no sense. Further, if we take his tweet at face value, we could've maximized the value of Alberta oil shipping it on pipelines to NB. Instead, it now has access to BC ports and is being shipped by tanker. It has greater access now than it would have under Energy east.
In response to the first bolded part: no ####, sherlock. that was my point.
In response to the second bolded part: no #### sherlock, that was my point; however, the main issue here is that the free market/private enterprise has cheaper and easier options to ship oil, and has been doing this for decades.
So what do we do about that? does private enterprise pony up the cost to increase production, profit, and energy security?
Or is it on the government to build pipelines like TMX to make sure these things happen.
If its the first one, how do you convince them?
If its the second one, then maybe we should look at some type of Energy Program that is National in scope. An EPN or something like that....
####, this is exactly what we need in the immediate future:
Quote:
The federal government is planning a stimulus package to help businesses and Canadians if U.S. President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian goods, but the scale of the relief will depend on the scope of the tariffs, sources tell CTV News.
The sources also say that the aid could reach pandemic-level relief, but the response will be contingent on how big Trump’s tariffs are. Specific programs also have yet to be designed, according to sources.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had already signalled that the federal government will step in to support Canadians should the tariffs move ahead.
At a caucus retreat last week in Montebello, Que., Trudeau acknowledged that a trade war would negatively impact Canadian consumers.
“There will be costs for Canadians if we move forward on tariffs to the United States, and that’s why we will be there to support and compensate Canadians and Canadian businesses, depending on the response we have,” Trudeau said.
The sources also say that any aid package does not need to happen on the first day tariffs are imposed and will address economic impacts as they become apparent.
So are there provisions in these trade agreements where we can sue the #### outa America for breaching all their agreements? Or do they just get to do whatever they want at this point, since laws no longer matter?
Ok man, my response was to Jason Kenney's tweet which tried to simplify energy easy and 40 years of Canadian Oil and Gas transportation to: look how far boats have to go. over land much shorter.
So, im sorry, Jason Kenney's tweet was dumb.
With respect to the pipelines in the graph, those are in the US, which is operating under an entirely different regulatory framework, and the majority of those lines were built decades ago, prior to changing environmental regulations.
Building a pipeline in todays climate is risky and expensive. i don't think you would disagree with this, no?
The key is in this portion of your quote. You're assuming the above is a necessary assumption in your argument, when the entire argument is actually based on this.
The whole crux of the issue is that everyone agrees that "building a pipeline in todays climate is risky and expensive", but you can't just accept this as an unchangeable fact. It's definitely self-inflicted and Canada could be doing so much more to help bolster investor sentiment in the expense and risk profiles, rather than whatever the #### it is we've seen the last 10 years.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ThePrince For This Useful Post:
lol. now we know why Pierre the Pomeranian doesn't want security clearance....
Quote:
Agents of the Indian government allegedly attempted to derail Patrick Brown's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2022, according to sources who spoke to Radio-Canada.
Brown's national campaign co-chair, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, allegedly was pressured to withdraw her support for Brown in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership race, confidential sources told Radio-Canada.
The sources provided specific examples of what they said was pressure exerted by Indian consular agents in Canada to harm Patrick Brown's candidacy.
Sources said campaign workers were told by representatives of the government of India to stop supporting Brown, not to sell membership cards for him and not to invite him to certain events.
Radio-Canada granted the sources confidentiality because they say they fear for their safety.
The RCMP announced in October they have evidence that agents of the Indian government were involved in serious criminal activity in Canada, including murders and extortion.
The key is in this portion of your quote. You're assuming the above is a necessary assumption in your argument, when the entire argument is actually based on this.
The whole crux of the issue is that everyone agrees that "building a pipeline in todays climate is risky and expensive", but you can't just accept this as an unchangeable fact. It's definitely self-inflicted and Canada could be doing so much more to help bolster investor sentiment in the expense and risk profiles, rather than whatever the #### it is we've seen the last 10 years.
I dont accept it as an unchangeable fact, but its certainly not an easily changeable fact. Cost of materials, cost of land, Provincial opponents looking at their own bottom line, environmental assessments. These all need to be reduced - not easy.
I propose two alternatives, free market and Government intervention (perhaps there is a third, PPP).
My issue was with the original assertion that we are where we are based on government / regulatory regimes of the past 20 years. I merely proposed the free market is also at blame - albeit because they merely chose the cheapest solutions which was increased US trade.
TMX expansion was a good step, and something I do not oppose the government doing - as long as they don't choose to sell the pipeline off for pennies and actually bring in cash.
NDP also had the same idea for Oil by Rail contracts that were cancelled or sold off by Kenney (i can admit my knowledge on these agreements is limited)
I dont accept it as an unchangeable fact, but its certainly not an easily changeable fact. Cost of materials, cost of land, Provincial opponents looking at their own bottom line, environmental assessments. These all need to be reduced - not easy.
I propose two alternatives, free market and Government intervention (perhaps there is a third, PPP).
My issue was with the original assertion that we are where we are based on government / regulatory regimes of the past 20 years. I merely proposed the free market is also at blame - albeit because they merely chose the cheapest solutions which was increased US trade.
TMX expansion was a good step, and something I do not oppose the government doing - as long as they don't choose to sell the pipeline off for pennies and actually bring in cash.
NDP also had the same idea for Oil by Rail contracts that were cancelled or sold off by Kenney (i can admit my knowledge on these agreements is limited)
I mean, two of the four things you listed (provincial issues and environmental assessments) are something that are directly influenced and controlled by the federal government, and what we’ve seen over the last decade is that the government has had no interest in alleviating these burdens (eg. Bill C-69).
You can throw your hands in the air and say it’s difficult to change these things, but step 1 is having a government in place that is willing to prioritize them. I think until you see some changes on that front, it’s harder to say that the free market is to blame, and it’s especially difficult to put blame on the free market when it has behaved exactly as the free market is intended to. Only by completing step 1 first can you actually argue that the free market is to blame.
I mean, two of the four things you listed (provincial issues and environmental assessments) are something that are directly influenced and controlled by the federal government, and what we’ve seen over the last decade is that the government has had no interest in alleviating these burdens (eg. Bill C-69).
You can throw your hands in the air and say it’s difficult to change these things, but step 1 is having a government in place that is willing to prioritize them. I think until you see some changes on that front, it’s harder to say that the free market is to blame, and it’s especially difficult to put blame on the free market when it has behaved exactly as the free market is intended to. Only by completing step 1 first can you actually argue that the free market is to blame.
I don't know if the Feds can influence provincial government issues; but the environmental issues are a balance.
I'm not going to sit here and say damn all environmental assessments, build baby build - nor do i think most Canadians would.
On the provincial side, Some premiers like Clark in BC and what's his face in Quebec were purposefully being antagonistic to demand better deals for their provinces. Ill call bull#### on that, but i guess DS has adopted the same technique. Plus, when Alberta asking other provinces to take on the environmental burden (among other burdens) of a pipeline while simultaneously trying to take their ball and go home by arguing for no equalization payments, i can see why certain provinces say #### you.
A fed government entering that fray could be a constitutional crisis, but i only took Constitution law 101 and was done after that.
We could try and make Canada a more unitary state - but i can name 2 provinces that would balk at that.
Was that an ad for RBC or the conservatives? Maybe both. Start with a guy blaming the government and saying our country sucks then wrap it up with an RBC advisor suggesting people speak to a financial planner for help. Yes. That will solve everything for people living paycheck to paycheck. Go into your local RBC and ask for help. Great advice.
Was that an ad for RBC or the conservatives? Maybe both. Start with a guy blaming the government and saying our country sucks then wrap it up with an RBC advisor suggesting people speak to a financial planner for help. Yes. That will solve everything for people living paycheck to paycheck. Go into your local RBC and ask for help. Great advice.
Personally I enjoyed that it’s a story about people struggling and they couldn’t find one streeter who was actually struggling, so they went with a guy who hates everything and a lady whose biggest issue is that she feels bad for people too often.
It's mostly shocking that Global didn't involve Franco Terrazzano and his Canadian Taxpayers Federation somehow
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is rejecting the terms of a briefing from Canada's spy agency regarding foreign interference because it won't enable him to act on the information, his office says.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) said in December that it was looking to share "some information to the leader of the Official Opposition through a threat reduction measure."
But a spokesperson for Poilievre said Tuesday that the Conservative leader wouldn't be able to act upon the information he received from the CSIS briefing.
"[Poilievre] would be legally prevented from speaking with anyone other than legal counsel about the briefing and would be able to take action only as expressly authorized by the government, rendering him unable to effectively use any relevant information he received," spokesperson Sebastian Skamski said in a statement to CBC News.
Either get your ####ing security clearance, or explain to Canadians why you can not get it. Enough of this bull####. And he thinks he should be Prime Minister. What a pathetic little #### weasel.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
