Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[calgarygeologist]

Regarding pipelines and exporting resources out of Alberta I wonder if these new projects in Manitoba can be fueled with Alberta NG? It also seems like Manitoba is caught between a rock and a hard place because they short on generating capacity and NG is the best and cheapest option but they have also made commitments to decommission their existing NG capacity.

Manitoba Hydro is proposing to spend $1.36 billion on a new fuel-burning station capable of generating 500 megawatts of electricity on demand, in order to stave off a power shortage expected as soon as five winters from now.

On Tuesday, the provincial Crown corporation asked the Public Utilities Board to review a preliminary estimate for a new "dispatchable capacity resource" made up of two 250-megawatt fuel-combustion turbines.

While no decision has been made on the fuel source for the turbines, the least expensive available option would be natural gas — a fuel the province's NDP government has promised to phase out as an electricity source by 2035.

Manitoba Hydro has a generating capacity of 6,120 megawatts when all of its generating stations are functioning and water levels are topped up on Lake Winnipeg, its main reservoir.

In a six-page cost estimate for the proposed new generating station, Hydro warns the province needs to be able to generate more electricity on demand to prevent "sustained winter peak capacity deficits" that could arise as early as 2029-2030.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ants-1.7469200

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by woob

Unfortunately they didn’t factor in the voting public in this province. Albertans essentially told Jim Prentice (RIP) to pound sand when he told them to look in the mirror, and he was a blue conservative. Part of winning an election is knowing your voter base.

They should absolutely called out for the horrible decision to have that in their platform. Keep that policy until budget time or something.

Originally Posted by Slava

Well it just depends on whether you want to win elections or tell everyone that your policy was the right one and people should’ve listened. The NDP went that route, and that’s fine I guess, but that cost them the election. You rollout a corporate tax hike the same day as the debate, knowing full well that this is where the UCP is going to attack you and well…you basically deserve the loss at that point.

In the alternative timeline of not disclosing the plan the retort would simply have been "they haven't told us their plan our how they will pay for anything!"

Because we hold the NDP to an impossible standard, while holding the blue bozos to no standard at all

[Harry Lime]

Removing natural gas is a weird flex, this soon. What's wrong with 2075, Manitoba?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Smith is a treasonous POS.

Smith is terrible, but everything in that tweet is true and relevant. KXL was a good project that shouldn't have been cancelled, and the Trump tarriffs are bad idea.

From the perspective of the premier of Alberta which of those ideas do you think she shouldn't advocate?

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Smith is terrible, but everything in that tweet is true and relevant. KXL was a good project that shouldn't have been cancelled, and the Trump tarriffs are bad idea.

From the perspective of the premier of Alberta which of those ideas do you think she shouldn't advocate?

Might have made sense back then, questionable now.

[Fuzz]

I guess it depends on if we view the US as an ally or an enemy. KXL means the absolute death of any idea of a pipeline FOR Canada, or a pipeline for export to international markets. So if you place great importance on either of those items, KXL is bad. If you think the US is going to go back to valuing us as partner in energy security, it's good. But we really won't get both. Once KXL is a go, there won't be a pipeline company on earth that would invest in other lines, given the added export capacity and economics of building far more expensive pipelines.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

In the alternative timeline of not disclosing the plan the retort would simply have been "they haven't told us their plan our how they will pay for anything!"

Because we hold the NDP to an impossible standard, while holding the blue bozos to no standard at all

See, to me that’s an easy end-around. You put out the first budget and trot out the “those morons left us a huge mess to deal with and we had to get control of the fiscal situation in the province. This was the least painful way and the taxes are still lower than they were before”. Instead, they basically handed the UCP a loaded gun. I have no idea what other outcome they expected at that point.

[PepsiFree]

Smith and the UCP came out and right up front said they would not be discussing/campaigning on some of the more backwards, far right nonsense her party was going to pursue and has pursued. They didn’t even have to lie, they never said they wouldn’t do any of it, they just didn’t want to talk about it so they didn’t.

The NDP not doing the exact same thing with something they knew would be unpopular was a huge blunder.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I guess it depends on if we view the US as an ally or an enemy. KXL means the absolute death of any idea of a pipeline FOR Canada, or a pipeline for export to international markets. So if you place great importance on either of those items, KXL is bad. If you think the US is going to go back to valuing us as partner in energy security, it's good. But we really won't get both. Once KXL is a go, there won't be a pipeline company on earth that would invest in other lines, given the added export capacity and economics of building far more expensive pipelines.

You can probably get close to KXL like incremental capacity through expanding the Enbridge system, existing keystone and express platte. Then you avoid the massive risk of starting a project and not getting it done in this administration.

I’d be looking west for any new pipeline and it will take a repeal of C69, the emissions cap, and a massive indigenous loan guarantee to become significant partners. The government will likely have to be the initial contractor takers as no producer is committing to 25 year plus contracts after TMX. Then the government can either be a shipper themselves or sell the capacity once the project is in service in a “if you build it they will come” approach.

I think if I was doing anything though I’d start with lng.

[getbak]

Alberta premier vows public 'repercussions' if any AHS contract wrongdoing uncovered
"I want to get to the bottom of it just as much as anyone," Smith said

https://calgaryherald.com/news/alber...oing-uncovered

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by getbak

Alberta premier vows public 'repercussions' if any AHS contract wrongdoing uncovered
"I want to get to the bottom of it just as much as anyone," Smith said

https://calgaryherald.com/news/alber...oing-uncovered

"I'm firing the people who know as fast as I can"
Quote not included in the story

[PepsiFree]

UCP voters: “Glad she’s doing the right thing and fighting corruption. I stand against corruption, which is why I will only vote for Smith if her investigation into her own corruption absolves her of any wrongdoing.”

[Locke]

Originally Posted by getbak

Alberta premier vows public 'repercussions' if any AHS contract wrongdoing uncovered
"I want to get to the bottom of it just as much as anyone," Smith said

https://calgaryherald.com/news/alber...oing-uncovered

Haha! That was such a good bit! One of his best!

[Slanter]

Originally Posted by Locke

As U of C alumni I somewhat support that. I do the taxes for some U of C Professors and, suffice it to say that from my my University experience...they are vastly overpaid and when those donations drives start? They dont get a dime from me. They've taken enough of my money.

Out of genuine curiosity, what do you think would be an appropriate salary for U of C professors? And what would be your comparables from other jobs/sectors?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slanter

Out of genuine curiosity, what do you think would be an appropriate salary for U of C professors? And what would be your comparables from other jobs/sectors?

Looks like many earn around $135K?

https://www.ucalgary.ca/hr/work-comp...rency-act/data

[PepsiFree]

Tenure is also notoriously difficult to come by. Making blanket statements like “professors are overpaid” is absurd.

[puffnstuff]

Court ruling expected this morning about the injunction regarding Pike and The Breakdown.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...-over-weekend/

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Tenure is also notoriously difficult to come by. Making blanket statements like “professors are overpaid” is absurd.

One of my favourite U of C profs was a sessional instructor. He got paid about $5,000.00 per course.

No wonder his course load was so large. 5 courses per semester, maybe 2 in the summer. Boom, you've earned 60k....

I dated a girl who had left her banking job to be an instructor at U of C. She made about 100k. Significant discount compared to her private sector job.

EDIT: looking at some of those comps on the sunshine list, and yeah some of them get paid a pretty penny (many are medical doctors) but some of the high profile faculty members are making over 250k. I don't think that's a ridiculous amount of money considering they are experts in their field, i just didnt know.

[Torture]

Back to the budget - reminds me in some ways of Jim Prentice's 'look in the mirror' budget where they added a bajillion fees, just framed a bit differently (and with a massive deficit). Okay, maybe the comparison is a stretch.

We cut your taxes and you'll save $750! But don't worry, we're going to recoup it with 33 new fees so by the end of the year you'll be paying more or less the same...just in a different way. Nice.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Torture

Back to the budget - reminds me in some ways of Jim Prentice's 'look in the mirror' budget where they added a bajillion fees, just framed a bit differently (and with a massive deficit). Okay, maybe the comparison is a stretch.

We cut your taxes and you'll save $750! But don't worry, we're going to recoup it with 33 new fees so by the end of the year you'll be paying more or less the same...just in a different way. Nice.

But they kept their promise, and that's all that matters.