The cost of building a pipeline that no private company will commit to.
(I known, I know… "but but but the unspecified regulations )
Are you claiming that approvals have gotten easier since then?
Are you claiming that an independent Alberta will be able to override regulations from Canada or the provinces?
Energy East would have reduced natural gas transportation to the east coast in favour of bitumen, how would that have cuts down on LNG importation to Eastern Canada.
Again, it’s the Shrodinger’s pipeline. It carries the material that will give you the biggest complaint against the federal government.
Because there can only be one pipeline, correct? That was an example of regulations and politics causing a company to stop building a project. The product being carries was irrelevant. Please provide your business case that transporting LNG across the globe is better economically or environmentally than building a pipeline within the country to do so? How many billions of dollars have left Canada (and Alberta) for the east to buy petroleum from other sources because we weren’t allowed to deliver it ourselves? How many billions of dollars has the west sent to Ottawa for them to distribute to those provinces that are buying those products from foreign countries rather than within Canada? IF there ever was a case for a government funded pipeline this would be it. At least the money would be cycled within Canada.
You mean a Shrodinger project? If it fits your narrative then it proves your point. If it doesn’t then you ignore it. You asked for regulations that the government implemented that caused or blocked a project. I gave you a project where the proponents pulled out due to regulations and politics. And now you move the goal post. But I’m pretty sure any amount of evidence won’t shake your narrative.
Unfortunately, I can only point to projects that were stalled and cancelled AFTER they started the approval process. I can’t point to all the projects that never materialized due to a company not wanting to start that process. From the school of Eby: there is no business case for an oil pipeline to the west coast. Ignoring the fact that it is illegal for tankers to pick up that oil even if the pipeline was pre-existing. So, yes, when it is illegal to do something, there is no valid business case to do it, nor funny enough, do companies create business cases for untenable projects. The logic is astounding. That’s Bill C-48. A regulation that prevents large tankers from loading oil in northern BC. Oil is the product that Alberta wants to move and that law specifically targets that industry.
Please provide a business case why it makes sense to spend up to $14B to convert an existing NG pipeline to a diluted bitumen pipeline and then spend more $XB to build a new NG pipeline.
And I rest my case as to why Alberta needs to leave this madhouse.
Because reality won’t conform to your desires and complaints.
Got it.
Because you can’t admit, for whatever reason, that over regulation prevents investors from wanting to invest in Canada even when Carney’s actions confirm this.
You can’t even acknowledge that Alberta has legitimate gripes. Even a basic acknowledgement that Alberta contributes more to confederation than it gets out. Let alone that shipping LNG across the world makes no sense when the west, or even Quebec, could provide it locally and that by doing so it is just another sign of disrespect.
What keeps you, and the other people in this thread, from acknowledging this basic stuff?
First Nations don’t think much of the proposal
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/first-nations-chiefs-alberta-non-confidence-vote-9.7109712
Before we invest more in the O&G industry, I’d like to know when existing companies and former users are going to clean up their abandoned wells and mines?
When the taxpayers cover the bill.
They already do but that’s a general observation for almost every extraction industry.