Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It's time for a change in our federal government. We need someone with the balls to say it like it is, and do something about it. PP may be too abrasive for some, but I like what he is saying. I see him as a reaction to the sickening state of affairs we have been left with, after 6 years of liberal mismanagement. We need to:

1. maximize the value of our resource economy in order to pay for our services

2. change the tax and over regulated system to encourage foreign investment

3. reduce the layers of red tape

4. more openness and cooperation among provinces

5. more capable and business oriented people in portfolios

6. more transparency in government

7. less political overtones in our newsrooms

8. Etc.

Half of these things a PM cannot do, and the other half are things he will definitely not do.

His railing against "gatekeepers" is just another layer of red tape waiting to be added

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It's time for a change in our federal government. We need someone with the balls to say it like it is, and do something about it. PP may be too abrasive for some, but I like what he is saying. I see him as a reaction to the sickening state of affairs we have been left with, after 6 years of liberal mismanagement. We need to:

1. maximize the value of our resource economy in order to pay for our services

2. change the tax and over regulated system to encourage foreign investment

3. reduce the layers of red tape

4. more openness and cooperation among provinces

5. more capable and business oriented people in portfolios

6. more transparency in government

7. less political overtones in our newsrooms

8. Etc.

PP doesn’t say it like it is, he says it how some people like to hear it.

[Monahammer]

Harper wasn't able to maximize our resource revenue (assuming this means expanding pipeline and refining capacity domestically), what makes people think Pollievre will be able to?

I know it's hard to believe, but federal "red tape" is NOT the only reason we don't have transnational pipelines and open pit mines.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Harper wasn't able to maximize our resource revenue (assuming this means expanding pipeline and refining capacity domestically), what makes people think Pollievre will be able to?

I know it's hard to believe, but federal "red tape" is NOT the only reason we don't have transnational pipelines and open pit mines.

Are you referring to the land ownership issues and how the courts aren’t going to ignore our existing laws so that projects can get the go ahead to proceed?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you referring to the land ownership issues and how the courts aren’t going to ignore our existing laws so that projects can get the go ahead to proceed?

Among myriad other things! Lack of export infrastructure for example. So what, we pipe a bunch of NG to the coast? What then?

Hydrogen is actually worse. You think it's hard to build an LNG terminal on the coast? What about an ammonia shipping terminal?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Harper wasn't able to maximize our resource revenue (assuming this means expanding pipeline and refining capacity domestically), what makes people think Pollievre will be able to?

I know it's hard to believe, but federal "red tape" is NOT the only reason we don't have transnational pipelines and open pit mines.

Well I'm not sure anyone would be able to maximize it, but I'm sure there are a variety of ways to incentivize investment and get stuff to port.

Can we get 20% growth per year in a high demand economy? Why not? Not being able to export LNG is costing us billions right now, considering Europe is paying $200 million per shipment. If we had JUST invested to take advantage of continued demand from Asia, we would be a much better place right now.

Oil & gas aren't our only natural resources.
Hydro Power
Uranium
Lithium
Nickel
Water?
Potash (demand in Sask is strong and they're hiring like crazy)
Etc, etc.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Azure

If we had JUST invested to take advantage of continued demand from Asia, we would be a much better place right now.

Oil & gas aren't our only natural resources.
Hydro Power
Uranium
Lithium
Nickel
Water?
Potash (demand in Sask is strong and they're hiring like crazy)
Etc, etc.

I think the important point is... who is "we" when you say if we had just invested. It all relies on corporations to decide if something is financially feasible or if it's worth it. Can that money make better money somewhere else? Up until now, most decided that. Government restrictions/red tape aren't the only effect here.

I can't even count on two hands how many times I requoted equipment to an EPC firm for a proposed LNG project, only to be told it was deemed economically unfeasible by that public company and it was motherballed again. This is going at least 15 years back. Same reasons we constantly ask why refineries are no longer being built each time we have one go down and there's a shortage, no one is investing in it, but they can surely build one. Then we got caught up in either subsidizing it or letting it die.

The problems with the O&G projects, specifically for transport, is not as simple as saying the government makes it difficult. A big factor in that is the demand to have any project be more profitable than others. I agree there are demands from the government that add cost and time to projects and are perhaps excessive, but perhaps we need to do something and remove that whole massive profit idea from the formula. Perhaps we need to actually nationalize the transportation of key resources, have the government build and own the projects if no corporation thinks they are worth it, and then the benefiting factor is more exports and better GDP. Now we just need a government who will do that, beyond what Trudeau did with TransMountain.

I guess my coles notes is.... if we are going to continue relying on for-profit corporations to build a nations key infrastructure, we will continue to have problems.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Canada only has 2.5% of the world’s lithium deposits with a sizeable amount found in Quebec’s Superior Province. What industry is huge in the Superior Province? Lode gold and Au(-Cu) deposit mining. That’s where the funding goes to. Look at LU and their research and industry investment. it’s mostly all gold. I’m not saying it’s not worth it to invest but it’s not really a sticking point in my eyes.

[Azure]

I get it that LNG is not something that has been in high demand for a long period of time, but I think its quite clear that the political will to build anything relating to continued development of our oil resources has been low.

The Feds don't need to buy the pipeline. They just need to work with the private sector to make sure that as long as they follow the proper regulations and everything is approved, it gets built.

The only thing I would be okay with is the feds creating a transportation corridor to allow pipelines to be built across Canada with provincial agreement.

[accord1999]

LNG projects previously not in high demand in Canada has a lot to do with how fast Qatar and Australia (and now the US) were building their export capacity, and still are.

In 2021 Australia is again likely to rank as the world’s largest LNG exporter, reckons EnergyQuest. “Australia’s 10 LNG projects have total production capacity of 89 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa), the world’s largest. The other major global producer, Qatar, which does not release timely export statistics, currently has lower total capacity of 77 Mtpa,” said the consultancy.

However, “Australia’s ranking is under threat from Qatar and also the USA. Qatar plans to expand its capacity to 110 Mtpa by 2026. New LNG expansion in the USA, is likely to see Australia lose its top producer ranking in 2022, according to the US Energy Information Agency (EIA). This will be an increasing challenge for Australian LNG producers wanting to contract new projects, or extend existing operations,” added EnergyQuest.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...ports-in-2021/

Kind of daunting for potential Canadian LNG projects to see rival countries add 5, 10 million tonnes of capacity every year while you struggle to get even one site built.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Azure

The only thing I would be okay with is the feds creating a transportation corridor to allow pipelines to be built across Canada with provincial agreement.

Should be north, include a highway and a freight rail line, and power infrastructure. TC 2. Time to populate the Canadian north.

Why not a foreign immigration labor program to help build it!

But, that's a massive government infrastructure project. Going to cost billions. Are you ok with that level of government spending?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Should be north, include a highway and a freight rail line, and power infrastructure. TC 2. Time to populate the Canadian north.

Why not a foreign immigration labor program to help build it!

But, that's a massive government infrastructure project. Going to cost billions. Are you ok with that level of government spending?

I don't think that is a high level of government spending. Something like that is exactly what the government should be spending money on.

With the arctic warming up and the potential for more shipping through the North, it would be a good idea.

Why not go north to Alaska?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think that is a high level of government spending. Something like that is exactly what the government should be spending money on.

With the arctic warming up and the potential for more shipping through the North, it would be a good idea.

Why not go north to Alaska?

Why Alaska? Why not build our own mega ports in the Yukon. Hell, the mackenzie river is navigable all the way to inuvik when ice melts.

You and I are in agreement here- so why is no politician today proposing these transformative projects? They're too busy kicking eachother to plan for the future.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Why Alaska? Why not build our own mega ports in the Yukon. Hell, the mackenzie river is navigable all the way to inuvik when ice melts.

You and I are in agreement here- so why is no politician today proposing these transformative projects? They're too busy kicking eachother to plan for the future.

Have you ever been up there? It's really challenging terrain to build anything on. These are not easy cheap quick projects, without a fairly convincing long term prospect of them being full for decades, I just can't see any company spending that kind of money.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Have you ever been up there? It's really challenging terrain to build anything on. These are not easy cheap quick projects, without a fairly convincing long term prospect of them being full for decades, I just can't see any company spending that kind of money.

Not to mention all the problems the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is now having with stabilzation, I can't imagine how many hundreds of billions a new one would take, or what company would even consider it.

Yes weather is warming up and making ports more accessible, but the transportation there will be more difficult as things heat up.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Have you ever been up there? It's really challenging terrain to build anything on. These are not easy cheap quick projects, without a fairly convincing long term prospect of them being full for decades, I just can't see any company spending that kind of money.

Yes, indeed, private investment in constructing a project like this is an absolute fantasy. It would have to be publicly funded and would take a decade or more. The payoff would take place over a generation. The government is the only body capable of rationalizing a project like this.

Yet our government wouldn't even dream of proposing it.

[Azure]

Well that is kind of the problem, right?

Lets not focus on a single idea. Maybe we propose a bunch of ideas in collaboration with the private sector and then decide which would be best?

I don't get our countries inability to think outside of the box and accomplish big ticket projects. We really do suck at it.

Even with LNG, why there aren't 10 proposals getting floated and approved on is beyond me. Surely there has to be some interest with a $200 million USD cost per shipment?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Have you ever been up there? It's really challenging terrain to build anything on. These are not easy cheap quick projects, without a fairly convincing long term prospect of them being full for decades, I just can't see any company spending that kind of money.

Originally Posted by Azure

Well that is kind of the problem, right?

Lets not focus on a single idea. Maybe we propose a bunch of ideas in collaboration with the private sector and then decide which would be best?

I don't get our countries inability to think outside of the box and accomplish big ticket projects. We really do suck at it.

Even with LNG, why there aren't 10 proposals getting floated and approved on is beyond me. Surely there has to be some interest with a $200 million USD cost per shipment?

Open questions persist about how long those prices will maintain. A project, if invested in today, is at minimum 5-6 years from operation because of current laws and regulations. LNG infrastructure cant really be renovated for other purposes... Hydrogen for example requires similar but different engineered infrastructure. Even if we smacked down those regulatory hurdles by breaking apart some pretty widely supported laws, we are still years away from operational infrastructure. Who knows what LNG prices are doing globally then...

But it's still beyond that. We can't even get this #### to the coast for shipping. We have rail carriers that want exorbitant amounts for transporting (or straight up wont insure the rail cars) these and virtually no potential for privately owned pipelines.

[Azure]

Even rail is a head bang into wall for me. Always maxed out, but building new rail infrastructure is slow to happen. Almost as if they intentionally operate like that to keep prices high.

As for LNG, can't you sign long-term contracts and then build from there?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Even rail is a head bang into wall for me. Always maxed out, but building new rail infrastructure is slow to happen. Almost as if they intentionally operate like that to keep prices high.

As for LNG, can't you sign long-term contracts and then build from there?

Sure you can, but you have to have buyers and sellers commit to long term. And with so much uncertainty, no one wants to.