Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Northendzone]

^ that seems like a brilliantly simple idea

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The Government of Canada should pre approve 3 export port locations on each coast. Then sell them to the highest bidder with all regulatory approvals already in place.

I don't think that's how the system works. I know pipelines, not export port facilities but a lot of the regulatory approvals are set around site specific design, including location requirements.

I don't trust/want the Government of Canada commencing on a pre-FEED design to start flushing out the regulatory issues at hand for a given project.

Not to mention per-approval of regulatory requirements would put a slap in the face of Justin's overhaul of the regulatory framework which requires more stakeholder input then before on the project (again for pipelines, but I assume similar here) - and stakeholders need more info then just a export facility will be at location B to be informed enough to provide feedback.

That said, I am sure there is a number of things the Feds could be doing to help promote and expedite this kind of investment. I bet there is some sort of mechanism in place to say its vital national interest which would reduce the regulatory and stakeholder review (but not remove stakeholder input altogether as that would be a terrible idea).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The Government of Canada should pre approve 3 export port locations on each coast. Then sell them to the highest bidder with all regulatory approvals already in place.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

I get why most think the regulations are too complicated, but there are legitimately a lot of different stakeholders, levels of governments and competing interests. The export facilities themselves are probably the easy part. The 1000's of kms of pipelines are more difficult. Any time a government/industry player tries to short-cut the process, they end up making things worse as the issues roll through the courts.

Sadly, we missed the golden opportunity when Australia/Qatar/US got the jump. I think there is still some potential in Canada, but I can't imagine how we'll become the white knight saving Europe from itself.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A portion? Which existing US facility wasn't originally built as a regasification facility? Freeport was, Sabine Pass was, Cove Point was, Hackberry was, Elba Island was, and Cheniere's Corpus Christie facility started construction as a regasification terminal. Maybe Kenai? But the export capacity of that one is basically nothing.

So they currently have 7 facilities, and at least 6 of them (which make up about 98-99% of their export capacity) were existing LNG import facilities that they were able to repurpose relatively quickly. Sure, there's a huge amount of work required to make that happen, but the site already exists, most of the permits/approvals would be relatively simple, and there would virtually always already be some kind of pipeline in place to the site (or somewhat close to it). That removes a significant number of hurdles that allows these facilities to get going much more quickly and provide a better return on investment. There's a reason why none of the planned purpose-built LNG export facilities have come online in the US yet.

The source I found said there were 5 facilities in 2006 designed for import but now they have 8 for export with 3 under construction currently. So that's why I said a portion, and then there's much more granular measurements you could in to looking at capacity expansion etc. In the end, it's not really more than an interesting footnote. It did give the US a bit of a boost but it's hard to separate that from the macro fact that it's just straight up easier to build stuff in the US, period. Does anyone seriously think that Canada would have been able to build regas sites in the 2000's? Not that we would have needed them obviously, but if we had we wouldn't have built those either. So I really don't think it's relevant to comparing the respective performance between countries. Especially when the score is a complete blowout at ~13 Bcf/d to 0, and maybe three years from now it'll be 17 to 2. And Australia and Qatar also racing in front of us. Inexcusable.

The inability to build critical infrastructure in a reasonable timeframe is a Canada wide problem too. A lot of the blame lies at the feet of the Liberals because they took over at probably the exact worst time for both oil and gas but conservative governments before them could have made an effort to better this process and didn't. And if O'Toole had won the election I highly doubt he'd be doing what needs to be done in this spot and I'd be raging at him just as hard for that. As a total country we need a complete attitude readjustment about building and keeping Canada competitive and in a position to be relevant and a force for good, not the clown show we've become.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

The RCMP have repeatedly removed protestors and enforced injunctions to facilitate coastal gas link.

Please keep your facts out of this discussion. They distract from the narrative.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The source I found said there were 5 facilities in 2006 designed for import but now they have 8 for export with 3 under construction currently. So that's why I said a portion, and then there's much more granular measurements you could in to looking at capacity expansion etc. In the end, it's not really more than an interesting footnote. It did give the US a bit of a boost but it's hard to separate that from the macro fact that it's just straight up easier to build stuff in the US, period.

Of the 8 current LNG Export terminals Kenai, Corpus Christi, and Cameron Parish are Greenfield LNG. However Kenai has been mothballed with plans to convert to import. About of a quarter of US LNG export capacity is Greenfield.

Does anyone seriously think that Canada would have been able to build regas sites in the 2000's?

Canaport LNG was built in 2008.

So I really don't think it's relevant to comparing the respective performance between countries. Especially when the score is a complete blowout at ~13 Bcf/d to 0, and maybe three years from now it'll be 17 to 2. And Australia and Qatar also racing in front of us. Inexcusable.

The inability to build critical infrastructure in a reasonable timeframe is a Canada wide problem too. A lot of the blame lies at the feet of the Liberals because they took over at probably the exact worst time for both oil and gas but conservative governments before them could have made an effort to better this process and didn't. And if O'Toole had won the election I highly doubt he'd be doing what needs to be done in this spot and I'd be raging at him just as hard for that. As a total country we need a complete attitude readjustment about building and keeping Canada competitive and in a position to be relevant and a force for good, not the clown show we've become.

LNG facilities are extremely expensive so if you don't sign up long-term customers then you're not going to get market investment. That said nothing stopping the Alberta or BC government from paying for it themselves.

[opendoor]

So just to summarize the US LNG export facilities:

Kenai: Built as an import/export facility, but it has almost no capacity for liquefaction and hasn't been used for export in almost a decade

Sabine Pass: A regasification facility that opened in 2008. It was later converted to a bidirectional facility to allow export.

Cove Point: A regasification facility that opened in 1972. It was later converted to a bidirectional facility to allow export.

Hackberry: A regasification facility that opened in 2009. It was later converted to a bidirectional facility to allow export.

Elba Island: A regasification facility that opened in 1978, closed in 1980, and then reopened in 2001. It was later converted to a bidirectional facility to allow export.

Freeport: A regasification facility that opened in 1978. It was later converted to a bidirectional facility to allow export.

Corpus Christi: Originally permitted and planned as an import facility, but as the market changed they revised the project to allow for export capabilities as well. It is the only currently operating export facility that wasn't converted from an existing LNG facility. Though this project did have several things in its favor, namely that it had already gone through the planning and permitting process as an import facility. It also only required a ~35km pipeline for gas supply that was able to follow the path of an existing pipeline.

So there's a bit of a theme there. Easy pipeline access and virtually all of their terminals were conversions of existing LNG facilities. Both those things make investing far more attractive and significantly speed up the process. And any comparisons to Qatar are kind of pointless. The entire country is only about 10x the size of Calgary and they use what is essentially slave labor for many of their projects.

[Azure]

Easy pipeline access.....hmmm, you are a right, there is a bit of a theme there.

You know, if we could at least get our gas to American ports for export. That would be a great start.

[opendoor]

Well yeah, obviously it's a lot easier when your pipelines and many of your producers are already right near the coast. There's a reason why none of the planned West Coast LNG export terminals in the US (that would have needed pipelines that were 4-500 km long to supply them) ever got off the ground despite years of attempts and the fact that they'd be useful for supplying Asia.

Anyway, be thankful we don't live in the UK. With their new utility price caps, they'll be able to charge up to about $60 CAD per GJ for gas.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-islamic-state

Ottawa is accused of covering up its handling of a double agent who smuggled British teenagers into Islamic State territory to join the terror group while he was spying for Canada.

Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, did not deny Ottawa’s work with an operative smuggling Western children to a dangerous battlefield, as outlined in a new book, saying that Canada’s spy agency must “be flexible and be creative” in the war against terrorists.

A book about Western intelligence agencies says that while police in Britain were searching for three schoolgirls who left their homes in London in 2015, Canadian intelligence and diplomatic officials withheld information about where they were and how they got there.

Canada then worked with British authorities to cover up its role, according to allegations on this long-percolating controversy in The Secret History of the Five Eyes by Richard Kerbaj, who was the security beat reporter for Britain’s Sunday Times from 2010 to 2020.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Mull

I don't think that's how the system works. I know pipelines, not export port facilities but a lot of the regulatory approvals are set around site specific design, including location requirements.

I don't trust/want the Government of Canada commencing on a pre-FEED design to start flushing out the regulatory issues at hand for a given project.

Not to mention per-approval of regulatory requirements would put a slap in the face of Justin's overhaul of the regulatory framework which requires more stakeholder input then before on the project (again for pipelines, but I assume similar here) - and stakeholders need more info then just a export facility will be at location B to be informed enough to provide feedback.

That said, I am sure there is a number of things the Feds could be doing to help promote and expedite this kind of investment. I bet there is some sort of mechanism in place to say its vital national interest which would reduce the regulatory and stakeholder review (but not remove stakeholder input altogether as that would be a terrible idea).

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Yeah, that's not how it works.

I get why most think the regulations are too complicated, but there are legitimately a lot of different stakeholders, levels of governments and competing interests. The export facilities themselves are probably the easy part. The 1000's of kms of pipelines are more difficult. Any time a government/industry player tries to short-cut the process, they end up making things worse as the issues roll through the courts.

Sadly, we missed the golden opportunity when Australia/Qatar/US got the jump. I think there is still some potential in Canada, but I can't imagine how we'll become the white knight saving Europe from itself.

Y'all I know it's not how it works today. I am literally working on a portion of this exact project for another type of facility design. This absolutely CAN be done if we change a few small regulatory considerations. It's not about full pre approval, but getting everything not requiring exact design approval up to regulatory snuff and just requiring the design portions for the last 15 yards. This is achievable. Alternately, you can pre approve a range of design options.

We can't just say "this is not how it works". Yes, it's not how it currently works. But how it currently works doesn't actually work, and that's what we need to fix.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1565354318056034309

[Azure]

For Trudeau to cave would be to admit that is entire schtick was wrong, and he's never going to do that.

Instead he'll double down on some pie in the sky idea like Hydrogen and try to tell people Canada really cares about millions of people who are going to be majorly affected by our stupidity.

[Superflyer]

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister

According to a press release obtained by the National Post ahead of release, Conservative leadership front-runner would pass the law to require government publications use the “fewest and simplest words needed” to state information but also require legal drafters to write laws as simply as possible.
It would also make plain language skills a job requirement for new hires who are expected to write for the government and make sure bilingual language training for public servants teaches “language that ordinary people speak, not academic or bureaucratic jargon.”

As an example, it points to the government’s online content style guide, which recommends that the word “obtain” should be replaced by “get” to make it simpler. But a search of the government’s website turns up more than 441,000 results for the word “obtain.”

If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

[opendoor]

I'm sure environmentalists wish Trudeau was 1/10th as strong on the environment as critics claim he is. Somehow a Prime Minister who is trying to shut down the oil industry has seen oil exports go up from 3 million barrels a day to 4 million under his watch and has also bought a pipeline to ensure that exports can expand even further.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister





If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

Well his base has about a grade 5 level of education.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'm sure environmentalists wish Trudeau was 1/10th as strong on the environment as critics claim he is. Somehow a Prime Minister who is trying to shut down the oil industry has seen oil exports go up from 3 million barrels a day to 4 million under his watch and has also bought a pipeline to ensure that exports can expand even further.

As an environmentalist I would be super pissed. The good thing is that the Libs know they don't really have anywhere else to turn.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister

If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

Language, particularly for laws, needs to be precise. You can't just "round down" words and maintain their meaning. What a moran.

[opendoor]

Poilievre is right. Why waste time say lot word, when few word do trick?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister





If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

What could go wrong?