Possibly and I don't disagree with you. But politics is optics, if he approves it, even if Teck doesn't build it, he's going to feel heat on his side. If he kills it he feels heat from the West.
If he kills it and sends a check, he's going to have to be aware of the size of the check.
Yea, but if comes to any sort of a vote or confidence motion, the Conservatives would vote with the government on approval of the project. There is really no direct political risk.
Is anyone really going to be surprised when the Feds cancel the Frontier project the same way they did Northern Gateway? This government has already shown that it is willing to pick and choose winners and losers at the 11th hour of our decade long approval process. While I don't agree with it, the precedent is already set and investors for these major projects have already left Canada for greener pastures.
Approval or not, I don't see any capital showing up to fund a new pipeline project or a greenfield oil sands mine in Canada other than those that are currently underway. New investment for oil sands mines is far from economic in today's environment of $50 - $60/bbl WTI and projections for peak oil demand in the 2030's. Teck is in no position to fund Frontier itself and the only likely partners (Suncor, CNRL, Imperial) have their own projects that can be expanded at a much lower cost.
I think the best case scenario for Alberta is to get some significant capital injected from the Feds into a reclamation/abandonment fund even if it comes at the expense of the Frontier approval. Abandonment programs can get the oilfield back to work in the short term and start to chip away at the massive liabilities that are overhanging the province. A Frontier approval, on the other hand, could mean a whole lot of nothing if there is no line of sight to the project getting sanctioned.
The Following User Says Thank You to Brewmaster For This Useful Post:
Is anyone really going to be surprised when the Feds cancel the Frontier project the same way they did Northern Gateway? This government has already shown that it is willing to pick and choose winners and losers at the 11th hour of our decade long approval process. While I don't agree with it, the precedent is already set and investors for these major projects have already left Canada for greener pastures.
Approval or not, I don't see any capital showing up to fund a new pipeline project or a greenfield oil sands mine in Canada other than those that are currently underway. New investment for oil sands mines is far from economic in today's environment of $50 - $60/bbl WTI and projections for peak oil demand in the 2030's. Teck is in no position to fund Frontier itself and the only likely partners (Suncor, CNRL, Imperial) have their own projects that can be expanded at a much lower cost.
I think the best case scenario for Alberta is to get some significant capital injected from the Feds into a reclamation/abandonment fund even if it comes at the expense of the Frontier approval. Abandonment programs can get the oilfield back to work in the short term and start to chip away at the massive liabilities that are overhanging the province. A Frontier approval, on the other hand, could mean a whole lot of nothing if there is no line of sight to the project getting sanctioned.
And torch any chance for future investment. Some good hand to mouth thinking.
Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.
The ramifications of a no vote will be palpable in this province and the pitch forks will be out.
Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yoho For This Useful Post:
Any bailout would have to be far larger then money to cover reclamation because a no vote whether Teck wants to build or not will have a blow torch effect on future investment.
If the Feds do an aid package which is just for covering that, then it becomes a nothing aid package. And its by killing it and killing investment there will not only be a shock wave across Alberta as companies throw up their hands and give up, but the rest of Canada.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
We should not be agonizing over every regulatory approval. We should have a carbon tax that progressively increases over time, and allow the market to operate in that environment. I think Albertans are stupid to oppose a carbon tax. It’s the only thing, at this point, that could conceivably give government political cover to be approving projects on an ongoing basis.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
If the rumours of it being tied to net zero emissions commitment by Alberta are true is that a reasonable deal? Would Kenney sign up for anything like that?
Because you sign up for 2050 or 2070 net zero and then do nothing. It’s been global environmental policy for years. Either the economics of net zero tech win out or they don’t. That, not a government commitment will move the needle.
We should not be agonizing over every regulatory approval. We should have a carbon tax that progressively increases over time, and allow the market to operate in that environment. I think Albertans are stupid to oppose a carbon tax. It’s the only thing, at this point, that could conceivably give government political cover to be approving projects on an ongoing basis.
The Tier program for large producers does this. And avoids just rewarding geology. Kenny just messaged it wrong.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
It’s a strategic error to “federalize” these protests and bring in professional protestors, if anything public opinion will coalesce around moving forward with these projects as long as the RCMP is polite about removing protestors. The police should take a hard line but do it in a nice way.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flamenspiel For This Useful Post:
“I have a firm grasp of the obvious,” Kenney said in a later interview. “There is no reasonable person that can deny that in the decades to come we will see a gradual shift from hydrocarbon-based energy to other forms of energy.”
