Unresponsive to the questions.
You suggested a pipeline through the US to the Pacific coast. My questions concern the validity of the business case for this suggestion.
It’s really not complicated.
Assuming that this implausible nonsense happens, that Alberta secedes, that a successor to this criminal fascist regime approves a pipeline through the US, the question remains of who will own and control it. Trump will be long gone, but assume that it’s a corrupt, mercenary, oil-loving Trump-like regime. Here’s the simple answer: Alberta would be totally screwed. What a crazy pipe dream, driven by a hatred of Canada and blind faith in a treacherously corrupt self-serving regime whose only myopically perceived virtue is that it’s not-Canada.
No, I’m just not interested in going over the same ground ad nauseum.
Smith asked Carney to remove the regulations that are blocking investments. This applies to all industry, not just oil and gas, but as she is from Alberta she will of course focus in that area. PP has the same message. Carney’s response was to introduce a politically driven central projects office rather than creating a rational and reasonable investment climate and letting the market decide on projects. You wouldn’t invest money in that case so no one else will without heavy government subsidies.
An example of what excessive regulations and taxes has accomplished: Investment in industrial equipment Canada vs US
This is new ground. This is a new thing you brought up. A pipeline from Alberta through the United States. Interesting idea. Let’s discuss.
Answer the three questions about the business case for a pipeline to the Pacific coast throug the United States. Good idea? Or no?
Answer how politically* driven regulations and taxes are killing our competitiveness and driving away investment.
As to pipelines, I’ve answered. Rationalize the regulations, approvals, and taxes and the market will decide. It is not up to me, or you, or former drama teachers, to decide if a market exists or an investment makes sense. Not even former globalist bankers. But to have people say before the discussion even starts that they will ‘veto’ it drives any investor away and kills the opportunity.
*I’ve removed ‘excessive’ as people take that argument to mean ‘no’ regulations. I do not mean ‘no’ regulations and never have, nor does almost anyone (yes there are kooks) making the argument that the current regulatory framework is broken.
Who is saying before discussion starts that they will veto a pipeline from Alberta through the United States? Do you have a cite for this?
You seem to be saying that we don’t have to know if a market exists, or who will pay for this Alberta/US pipeline, or if it can be filled with product. Just “remove regulations” and it will be built. Somehow. Without any of the business case even being looked into. I’m asking if there is a business case to be made for this hypothetical Alberta/US pipeline.
Don’t worry if it’s feasible. Just remove regulations, and the magic will happen.
In my opinion, this is not how the world works.
Is there a crude oil tanker port, refinery infrastructure, or both and with excess capacity currently in the PNW, ideally near / north of Seattle? Serious question and I know I do not know the answer. If not, that will need to be built / expanded too.
I have no doubt that any oil that can be extracted anywhere can be immediately sold for some price to somebody. The question is whether it can be done profitably compared to other producers when you still need to build out a bunch of transport infrastructure. Price at the well-head and price fully inserted into the global distribution / transport system are two different things.
Yes exactly. There needs to be a business case.
Just saying that if you eliminate regulation, it will somehow happen is not entirely logical.
And saying that some mysterious entity is exercising some kind of veto power over an Alberta/US pipeline is just puzzling.
There is a refinery industry - Washington already gets about a fifth of its crude from Canada. Whether it has substantial excess capacity, I’m not so certain. Doesn’t really solve the logistics or politics of the pipeline issue, but the Puget Sound area does have a pre-existing refinery backbone.
Yes exactly. Why do you need to see it? Isn’t that up to the investors, lenders, owners of the pipeline, affected parties asking the route, etc? When Tim hortons opens a shop down the street do you ask for their business case?
The fact that no one has built the business case or will is the whole point.
You’ve slammed the door shut, declared that anyone trying to open it is trespassing and wonder why the girl guides aren’t selling you cookies.
I am asking you. Because you seem to think that it’s possible. Because this is supposed to be a discussion on a forum.
At least we now hear from you that there is no business case being made for one. That says a lot.
I have not slammed any door shut on a pipeline from Alberta through the united states and I don’t know anyone or any entity who has done this. Can you point to something like this?
I’m 90% certain new pipeline related issues are subject to public consultation in the USA. New proposals, regulations, exemptions, permits, etc would likely show up in the Federal Register and give affected parties à chance to submit agreement, opposition, requested modification, etc.
At least, that’s how it works for transportation and I’m pretty sure pipelines are treated similarly. I’m slightly more confident that’s the case in Canada too.
So, any new project would have certain publicly available information disclosed in order to be able to proceed. It’s not left to private industry and business.
And I don’t pay much attention to it, but rezoning and certain other development plans are announced at the municipal level. If a lot with a burned down house was being bought to build a Tim Hortons, I’m fairly sure that commercial rezoning would be subject to public consultation.
Of course it is and should be. But the smugness of people who put in place regulations and rules that make any business case impossible and then crow about how there is no business case is galling.
People who assume that business cases should override all other societal interests are galling.
The mere fact one can “pave paradise and put up a parking lot” profitably does not mean society should agree to do so. Said another way, there are real societal costs that current economic systems fail to capture. Those should not be assumed to be zero, just because they’re not measured in immediately chargeable money.
eg. pollution costs real actual money. It’s just very hard to quantify and very hard to charge the culprits / beneficiaries properly. Choosing therefore to ignore those costs as if they were zero is economically ignorant, not economically wise. But it is economically expedient … for the polluters.
Luckily no one does. A good business case should identify social interests, SDG, ESG, Environmental impact, risk assessments, and a host of other things that someone can then decide on if it makes sense to invest in a project. If they choose to do so THEN the project can start which includes approval processes and other permitting steps and EPC, etc.
Who exactly has put up rules and regulations that make a business case for a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast through the USA impossible?
From the Edmonton Journal:
Rath said that Alberta would need to have its nationhood recognized by not only its American friends, but “like minded” governments in Israel, Argentina and Hungary.
Well that’s a lovely group of “friends”.
He said Alberta would also have a strong deportation program. He decried the fact that many immigrants now work entry-level jobs.
Hmmm I detect a certain similarity in phrasing here. Is “Alberta ICE” in the future?
He went on to claim that kids can’t get jobs at fast food places because "It’s like, ‘no, you don’t speak whatever Southeast Asian language all the rest of our employees speak, so we can’t hire you.’ That’s literally being told to our kids when they apply for jobs at these places.”
Oh, and the folks in the crowd seemed to love the racist bullshit:
Rath’s promise to get tough on immigration resounded with supporters, who cheered his sentiments.
Pam Charlet, the former co-owner of Hathaway’s Diner, an Edmonton dining scene staple, said Canada is being overrun by minority groups.
“The way I look at it, I am most scared of Sharia Law,” said Charlet
Hmmm. Sounds like something the racist asshole at the end of the bar would spew.
A grouping entirely based on the crazy corrupt right wing political personality cults of Trump, Netanyahu, Milei, and Orban. It’s hilariously naked.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent a week ago:
“I think we should let them come down into the U.S., and Alberta’s a natural partner for the U.S.,” he said.
Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee also weighed in late last week.
“I think the people of Alberta would agree with the sentiment that they would prefer not to be part of Canada and to be part of the United States, because we are winning day in and day out,” he said.
The fear mongering and denigrating is in full force. Can’t argue with reasons why we should stay so put down the people.
Rath is a polarizing person, but he is only one person. 4960 people were at the big 4. So of them agreed we should leave. Not all of them agreed with Rath. Best to paint everyone with the brush, though.