Or they tell you to pound sand.
Then the Albertans call in the (US) Marines to come in and show the Natives who is boss. They will totally, absolutely positively, leave after accomplishing that limited mission. No doubt whatsoever.
They have chosen option 1. Simple
Trump toadies mobilizing MAGA in relation to Alberta separatism. I guess Carney’s China wheelings/dealings and Davos has them a tad annoyed.
“I think we should let them come down into the U.S. and Alberta’s a natural partner for the U.S.,” he said.
“They have great resources. The Albertans are very independent people,” Bessent said, adding there’s a “rumour that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”
When asked if he knew something about it, Bessent said, “People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. has got.”
Organizers of the Alberta independence movement have repeatedly claimed they have had meetings with members of the Trump administration, although they have not disclosed any names. Their message has started to spread among MAGA influencers online, and among Republicans broadly.
Yes we should build a pipeline through the US to the west coast. It makes far more sense and will cut decades off any approval process. It will also prove to Albertans that we don’t need Canada to get things to market and confirm to everyone that Carney is all talk about making Canada more competitive.
Some people will support Alberta being independent, some will not. Some will want us to join the US, some will not.
Quoting from the same article:
Mitch Sylvestre, who is spearheading the petition for a referendum, said Friday he doesn’t think anyone in his movement wants to join the U.S.
“People want sovereignty, and that’s what people in the U.S. have, but we want sovereignty independent of the U.S,” he said.
Sylvestre said he thought Bessent was pointing out the obvious by calling Alberta and the U.S. “natural partners,” given the amount of trade they exchange.
Sylvestre said U.S. officials should be paying attention to what’s happening in Alberta — but he’d rather they didn’t comment on his push for independence.
“Alberta on its own will do very well,” he said. “A free-trade agreement with the U.S. would probably be good for both sides. Good for us, for sure.”
Go right ahead. Fill your boots.
- Who is the customer? Do you have that lined up yet?
- Who is the proponent? Who’s going to pay to build the pipeline?
- What is the situation with supply? Do the Corporations who mine for oil sands have the economic plan in place to increase supply?
Answer these three questions with specific, definitive answers, and you’re on your way. Go for it I say.
Everyone knows you can just build a pipeline through the US without worrying about it getting tied up with environmental regulations or regulatory red tape. That’s why Keystone XL has been such a tremendous success.
If there’s truly “no market” for Canadian resources or oil, then answer three questions clearly and definitively:
-
Where is global oil demand going over the next 20–30 years?
-
Why are pipelines being built and expanded in the U.S., Guyana, Brazil, and soon Venezuela?
-
Why do Canadian projects routinely take 10+ years to approve while comparable projects elsewhere do not?
The Liberal government put in place regulatory frameworks that make large-scale projects economically and politically unattractive, then their supporters turn around and claim “the market doesn’t exist.” Investors don’t avoid Canada because there’s no demand, they avoid it because approvals are uncertain, timelines are political, and capital hates risk. That’s why we now have a centralized projects office managing outcomes instead of fixing the rules themselves. We’ve traded a free market for a centralized management framework.
There will be a market for Venezuelan oil once they sort themselves out. How will they get it to market? With access to ports, predictable approvals, and competitive fiscal terms. Canada has the resource, the proximity, and the demand, but has chosen to make itself uncompetitive through taxes, regulatory delays, and political veto points.
I’m not re-litigating this again. Capital isn’t leaving Canada because of Trump or because the world doesn’t want our products. It’s leaving because of choices we make domestically. Until that’s acknowledged, the investment drought will continue and Alberta will keep questioning why it should tie its future to policies that actively undermine its economy.
A simple question: Do you even know why Alberta oil sands oil is needed? The US has had a boom in oil production, but why does it need Alberta’s oil so much and why is Trump willing to give oil a break on tariffs?
Here’s the part that keeps getting missed: Alberta oil sands crude is needed because it can be refined into diesel and other fuels that actually run the economy along with a myriad of other products: diesel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, and heavy distillates remain essential for decades.
Light oil and EVs don’t run heavy equipment. They don’t power long-haul trucking at scale, aviation, marine shipping, mining, agriculture, or military logistics. They also don’t replace asphalt, lubricants, fertilizers, plastics, medical products, or industrial feedstocks.
That’s why serious long-term energy outlooks still show substantial oil demand well past 2050. The market isn’t short-term speculation it’s structural. The only real question is whether Canada supplies that demand, or whether we voluntarily hand it to jurisdictions with lower standards and fewer constraints. But Canada won’t be supplying that demand because of short-sighted politicians and their supporters. Alberta needs to leave these people behind to stew in their own mediocracy and socialist utopia. Actually, find an Australian show called ‘Utopia’. Swap Canada for Australia and this is how rational people perceive Canada now.
Another politically motivated cancellation after it had been approved, so what’s your point? That democrats and liberals can’t be trusted?
Approved? There was never a fully approved route through Nebraska, that well known Democratic bastion. It was never going to be built. Biden’s order was a mercy killing.
By then, Alberta could have ocean front property with no need to build a pipeline. Just ship it!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/keystone-xl-pipeline-nebraska.html
Confirmed Nebraska’s approval of the pipeline.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter. It was cancelled due to political reasons. People don’t like oil and gas while driving their big pickup trucks to the 7-11. Nimbyism at its finest.
My mistake, there was indeed a period of a few months when Keystone had a legal route in Nebraska, before a court case in Montana nixed the route there.
My point is, your comment about routing a pipeline through the US “will cut decades off any approval process” isn’t borne out by the experience of Keystone XL, which spent 15 years lurching between lawsuits before finally being shut down.
You are entitled to believe that the world’s ecological destruction is inevitable and that we are therefore morally obligated to profit as much as possible by contributing to said destruction. You are not entitled to have the rest of us agree with you.
BTW, the NYT link is paywalled.
What “the US has got” is a strong union of 50 states where anyone seeking to break up that union would be accused of treason.
Depends partly on how quickly climate change becomes undeniably catastrophic. Most likely global oil demand is going into the toilet. The global market for electric vehicles is absolutely booming, new battery technology may be just around the corner, and Canada is planning to phase out all sales of new gas-powered cars in just a few more years.
Because some people are engaged in wishful thinking and/or are so myopic that they can’t see past the ends of their own noses.
Why do some jurisdictions care about the environment and the welfare of their indigenous peoples while others do not?
Again, don’t really care about those that made agreements for pipelines and suffer when cancelled, do you?
You seem to be entitled to think you are allowed to block us. Why is that?
Think of the benefits if Alberta leaves. Canada can make its climate targets. Not one barrel less of oil will be produced, but you’ll be able to make that claim. And Alberta will decide on what environmental targets it hits, just like all those countries out there that currently sell oil and gas to eastern Canada. Oh, and the natives in Alberta will be better off by getting a share of all the money not being sent back east to buy votes there.
The people on whose land you wish to build a pipeline are entitled to block you from building on their land. That’s called “property rights” and it’s something that most conservatives profess to hold dear.
@Uzi may have a point that during trump’s criminal regime currently destroying the USA, it will be easy to get US Federal approval for a pipeline from the Alberta/US border to the US west coast. Which at bare minimum is ~500 miles.
They’ll have to run roughshod over at least some US states’ objections, but that seems at least plausible in a dictatorship.
The problem is trump’s legit term has 3 years to run, his time in charge may be longer if his Fascist takeover succeeds, but his time on Earth may be somewhat more or less. Even magicking away 100% of the red tape, getting a 500 mile pipeline designed and built before trump is out of the picture remains an impossible dream. Even the Chinese can’t build 500 miles of pipeline across difficult terrain in their own country in just a few years.
My bottom line:
A clever master plan that depends on joining forces with a Fascist regime for its success is probably not a plan that works out as well as the proponents wish.
I think you mis-read. I never said there is no market for Alberta oil, and everyone knows that Alberta oil sands crude is a fine product that is useful. And I’m sure there is substantial demand for it.
My questions that you entirely failed to answer, although you used many words was about the specific, very specific economic rationale for your proposed pipeline through the United States: I’ll try to make it clearer for you:
-
Who is the specific customer for this specific oil going through this hypothetical pipeline? Do you have that lined up yet? Or is this just “build it and someone will buy”?
-
Who is the specific proponent for the Alberta-USA pipeline to the coast? Who’s specifically is going to pay to build the pipeline?
-
What is the situation with supply to get oil into this hypothetical pipeline? Do the Corporations who mine for oil sands have the economic plan in place to increase supply to fill this pipeline as well as the current ones?
When you bolt the door shut and block the hallway, you don’t get to argue that no one wanted to go through it.