This just in from the “strange-bedfellows” department:
When it comes to the Trans Mountain pipeline, Jason Kenney, BC premier John Horgan and Green Party leader Elizabeth May are singing from the same song sheet.
They all agree that the federal government’s decision to buy Trans Mountain changes nothing.
Who knew that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project would create such strange bedfellows.
Trans Mountain has carried crude oil and other products from Edmonton to Burnaby since 1953. It’s been transporting diluted bitumen since 2004. Kinder Morgan brought an application to expand the pipeline in 2013. The NEB and federal government approved the expansion in 2016. The expansion will triple capacity and increase Kinder Morgan’s tanker traffic off the BC coast sevenfold. (Note: this increased vessel traffic will amount to 4.6% of all Port Metro Vancouver traffic by 2026).
Numerous court challenges have been filed to stop the expansion. Kinder Morgan won 16 legal challenges to date, leading one to assume that at least as far as the courts are concerned Kinder Morgan, the NEB and the federal government followed all the rules.
However, on Apr 7, Kinder Morgan advised the federal and Alberta governments that it would walk away from the Trans Mountain expansion unless it received greater certainty that the project would not be inordinately delayed by court challenges. The two levels of government had 50 days to come up with an acceptable solution before the May 31 deadline.
After reviewing a number of scenarios Kinder Morgan decided to sell Trans Mountain (the existing pipeline and the expansion project) to the feds for $4.5 billion.
After months of demanding the Notley and Trudeau governments do something, Kenney was caught off guard when they did something.
Kenney needed to respond to a solution that would see the feds bearing the political risk of buying the pipeline and the Notley government getting the credit for pushing the feds into asserting their jurisdiction, getting construction back on schedule and putting 15,000 Albertans and Canadians back to work.
Kenney had a choice. He could say, “good job, Rachel” and move on, or he could denigrate Notley’s success by parroting criticisms made by John Horgan and Elizabeth May who wanted to see Notley and Trudeau fail.
He chose to parrot Horgan and May. Consequently, his criticisms are all over the map. Kenney says:
- Kinder Morgan simply transferred the “risk” to Canadian and Alberta taxpayers. Kinder Morgan’s “risk” was that a delay in construction would make Trans Mountain less profitable. The federal government’s “risk” was that a delay would (1) undermine its jurisdiction, (2) imperil its carbon tax policy, and (3) damage Canada’s reputation as a safe place for investment. The feds reduced these risks by transferring Trans Mountain to a federal crown corporation that would proceed with construction notwithstanding ongoing litigation (which the feds are comfortable will be resolved in their favour).
- The purchase is a “huge taxpayer bailout”. Unlike Harper and Kenney’s $9 billion bailout of the Ontario auto industry, an equity injection of zero to $2 billion in a pipeline project supported by large-scale energy producers who’ve agreed to pay a regulated rate of return is not a “bailout”, it’s a smart “investment.”
- Notley should have kept the pressure on BC by continuing the wine embargo and implementing the “turnoff the taps” legislation. Why? This would undermine BC residents’ support for Alberta and the pipeline and have no impact on the real issue which is federal jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines.
- Things should never have gotten this far and it’s all Notley and Trudeau’s fault because they ignored the threat posed by the BC NDP. This is a reiteration of the wine embargo/turn off the taps argument and is supported by no specific suggestions other than Kenney saying Trudeau should pass Senate Bill S-245 which would declare Trans Mountain to be “a work for the general advantage of Canada”–a suggestion that’s garnered little support from legal scholars and does nothing to knock BC’s court challenges out of the docket.
- Notley is “celebrating” Kinder Morgan’s decision to pull out. This is ridiculous coming from the man who failed to offer one concrete suggestion that would have given Kinder Morgan greater certainty. The best response to Kenney’s spurious allegation comes from Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman who said, “Every party needs a pooper”.
One can’t fault Elizabeth May for making her arguments; her position is based on her conviction that climate change is endangering the planet and any expansion of the oils sands (however insignificant on the global scale) must be stopped.
One has less sympathy for John Horgan who maintains his hold on power by bucking the rule of law and mounting spurious legal challenges.
But one really has to question the judgment of Jason Kenney, an Alberta politician who is so busy trying to score political points that he’s become utterly incoherent and now finds himself aligned with John Horgan’s NDP and the Greens.
I’m going to pick a nit: Horgan is technically following the rule of law. His govt followed legal advice that it could not stop TMX. When Alberta protested his proposed regulation to restrict dilbit shipments through BC, his govt submitted a reference case to the BC Court of Appeal. The BC govt regularly releases a list of where TMX approvals are at in its system, making the point that it is not impeding them. BC has done everything by the book. The issue here is that BC is trying to expand its jurisdiction over inter-provincial pipelines. That’s the crime. Notley has a good handle on what Horgan is doing and regularly calls him on it. But she, too, makes the mistake (in my opinion) of accusing him of not respecting the rule of law. Horgan is cleverly using the rule of law against Alberta. But it’s legal fair game, is it not?
Thanks Markham, you make an interesting point. BC and others litigants have the right to challenge the NEB process and have done so unsuccessfully 16 times. BC’s AG said it launched the reference because “We are seeking to ensure that we have adequate environmental protection to prevent a spill in the event there is an expansion in the shipment of heavy oil, and also if there is a spill, to clean it up….it is not to stop the pipeline.” According to the AG the proposed legislation is aimed at spill prevention and clean up in the event of an expansion, not a concern with the dilbit in the pipe. Spill prevention and clean up were considered and addressed by the NEB (they form part of the 157 conditions imposed by the NEB on TMX). If BC thinks the NEB did an inadequate job here then BC should file a lawsuit challenging the NEB’s decision as opposed to trying to stop an expanded TM from transporting dilbit into BC under the guise of environmental legislation.
BC’s legislation is exactly what you’ve described: an attempt to expand its jurisdiction over an inter-provincial pipeline. Federal jurisdiction over inter-provincial pipelines has paramountcy over provincial jurisdiction over the environment, however it may have been an overstatement for me to say BC was bucking the rule of law. Perhaps a better description would be that BC has launched a frivolous and vexatious reference in order to kill TMX by introducing uncertainty and delay.
PS: I follow you on Twitter and find your commentary very insightful. 🙂
Things is, it matters not one whit whether TMX is owned by K-M, or by the Government of Canada, or by Santa Claus. Opponents won’t step back just because PMJT bought the line.
I suspect if you asked Elizabeth May, Andrew Weaver, Gregor Robertson (Mayor of Vancouver), or Derrick Corrigan (Mayor of Burnaby) what, if anything, could be done to transform their ‘No’ on TMX to a ‘Yes’, their answers would all be the same: nothing will ever change—their opposition to the project is implacable and unwavering.
So, there is no compromise to be found. Either the pipeline goes through, which to opponents is simply intolerable, or it gets stopped, which is equally intolerable to Alberta. I don’t know how we ever get to ‘Yes’ on this, no matter what the courts say.
Jerry, you’re right that the fact the feds own TMX won’t decrease the opposition from environmentalists and I’m sure the feds know this. Their objective was to keep the project alive once KM announced it was going to bail. I suspect we’ll see massive demonstrations along the pipeline route and hundreds of protesters being carted off to jail just like we saw in the 1990s in the protests against logging in Clayoquot Sound. Interestingly Elizabeth May said while she’ll continue to protest she won’t do so in the area protected by the injunction. She accepted the judge’s comment that she can continue to legally protest outside of the protected zone. May is taking a responsible position, hopefully she can convince other protestors to follow her lead.
Great post, Susan! Thank you!! I am hoping that Albertans are seeing Kenney for who he is.
Thanks Jane. In addition to being completely out of touch with Albertans on social issues Kenney doesn’t understand the value of keeping one’s powder dry when it comes to negotiations. He’d have blasted BC and Trudeau with everything he had on Day 1 and then wonder why BC residents refused to support Alberta and Trudeau was uninterested in helping out. It’s mind boggling how unprepared Kenney is for leadership.
There’s a method to Jason Kenney’s political madness.
These days Jason Kenney and the UCP are looking at any means possible to shift the narrative from Alberta’s current successful economic recovery and to downplay the adverse, well-documented media scrutiny of their own anemic legislative performances.
Any manufactured thread of negativity, including scapegoating a pipeline purchase, are designed to undermine NDP efforts and paint the government as incompetent socialists to Kenney’s red meat base. This kind of odious political discourse was imported from the USA by way of Donald Trump. Seems Jason Kenney has perfected the Donald — look for the “fake news” mantra to follow any day now.
J.E. you nailed it. Kenney continues to mislead Albertans about things like the equalization formula (that he and Harper put in place) in order to fuel this idea of “Western alienation”. He says Albertans are victims who’ve “helped the federation pay the bills, we’ve played by the rules, we haven’t really complained about it, and yet we’re getting royally screwed here….The hypocrisy in this country is driving a level of alienation here I haven’t seen in my whole life”. I don’t know how he’s going to twist the “poor me” narrative after Trudeau saved Alberta’s energy industry by buying TMX, but I’m sure he’ll come up with something.
Jason Kenney stands for nothing of substance. Sitting on the fence most of the time is typical PC/WCP policy.
Gordon I agree, Kenney is quick to lay blame but has yet to come up with any solutions. Actually if anyone is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in it’s the energy companies. Jean Chretien was pushing for an energy corridor across Canada in the 1970s. If the energy producers had listened we wouldn’t be captive to the US as our customer. Peter Lougheed wanted to see slower development of the oil sands and upgrading here in the province. Again the energy companies ignored him and we’re going at it hammer and tongs with BC trying to get them to accept dilbit. Kenney keeps saying the private sector does business better than the government but if the private sector had listened to Chretien and Lougheed we wouldn’t be at this juncture today.
Well we have to disagree to some extent on this one.
First of all I think that including the most trusted MP and a person that has made a great difference in the lives of Canadians in general in the same group with Jason Kenney and to a lesser extent John Horgan is to me astonishing.
Secondly the fact that you wrote
‘The expansion will triple capacity and increase tanker traffic off the BC coast sevenfold’
without seeming to concern you and for the sake of 15000 jobs is to me an indication that you do not have the level of concern for the natural world as some of us do. We can easily get that number of jobs by investing 4.5 billion dollars on projects that would benefit us now and in the future of our kids. You should use some of your time to read more about what is really happening in the ocean due to our greed and disrespect for what is one of the marvels of this planet. A seven fold increase in traffic, noise and pollution from the boats alone could cause the total collapse of for example Whales species. This especially when we have a choice is to me criminal.
Finally you also have this sentence
‘ (however insignificant on the global scale) ‘
which I am sorry to say but it is used only by right wing extremists like Jason Kenney. You included this to emphasize that whatever is done in Canada is insignificant in global scale. Well if every country thought so we would do nothing. Furthermore the consequences at Canadian level are tremendous and I am surprised you could ignore the facts mentioned above plus the increase on the tailing ponds and that Alberta already has the highest levels of ASMA and other respiratory diseases in Canada. Never mind the pollution of rivers adjacent to the tailing ponds.
To close I just say that I know that most Albertans agree with you because we in general still have not reached a level of care for this planet that I personally believe is necessary for us to move in a different direction and not just have money and greed as a number one priority in all of our financial decisions. The example is the 4.5 billion the Federal Government came up with without any trouble in order to save something that 15 years ago may have been crucial but that now is purely a political and ideological decision and Rachel Notley to me should not have championed this decision even if it meant her losing the elections because there is way more here than just a political or financial battle.
Taking in consideration articles, at least, two already written about the fact that there will not be demand from our oil from Asia to justify this pipeline I am not surprised Kinder Morgan gave the ultimatum and sold it. They were already looking for a way out.
In the end I am not sure this will be built, but if it is I think it will be the whitest elephant of Canadian modern era.
This is my honest opinion about this issue. I will be more than happy to continue discussing it.
Carlos, I’m glad you raised these points. Let me try to address them.
Re: Elizabeth May, I agree that she’s one of the most principled politicians around, that’s why I said one can’t fault her for taking the position she’s taken. I mentioned May to highlight Kenney’s hypocrisy. He’s making the same argument May made but he’s doing it for political expediency whereas she’s doing it out of principle.
Re: the expansion tripling capacity and increasing tanker traffic off the BC coast sevenfold. I am concerned about the impact this will have, but BC is being hypocritical when it raises this point. Within 8 years Port Metro Vancouver will process 6,500 vessels/year, the additional 300 TMX tankers/year represent only 4.6% of this traffic. BC is offering rebates to support Shell’s $40B LNG project which Horgan says poses “significant potential risks” (he’s confident the industry will address them). Also BC is fine with the consortium of commercial airlines who are building a tank farm to store jet fuel that will be brought in from Asia on 65,000 tonne ships.
You’re right that we will never get ahead of this problem if we say our contribution is insignificant, let someone else go first. However if Notley failed to get this pipeline we’d be stuck with Kenney in 2019 and he, like Trump, will do significant damage to our society. So I’m taking a chance on an iffy situation (TMX) to avoid a certainty that will be a lot worse (Kenney).
I’ve read all sorts of predictions about the end of oil, I’m sure it’s coming but I’m not sure when. While it’s great that politicians pass policies to deal with climate change the people need to get serious and reduce their consumption of fossil fuels to make it unprofitable for corporations to continue to produce them. And that’s a huge task.
You’re absolutely right that we need to do better and the only way to do better is to elect politicians who want to do better, but as Alex Himelfarb said, politicians don’t make brave decisions until the public makes it safe for them to do so.
Thank you Carlos for your thoughtful comments, I appreciate the feedback and am happy to discuss this further, particularly the idea of how we, the people, can make it easier to elect politicians who care about the planet and about all the people on it.
So, I’m not an economist, although I took one lone first-year level Econ course way back in the 1970s. But really, you only need an elementary understanding of economics to understand the laws of supply and demand, and as far as I know, supply doesn’t normally drive demand, only vice-versa. Shipping more widgets to a widget store than demand can support, simply builds up inventory and increases costs for the widget store proprietor a small they then have to pay for storage, etc. The only way demand might increase is if the seller cuts prices to clear that excess inventory, causing some end-users to buy more widgets than they might at the original price.
So, similarly, increasing the flow of an oil or gas product, by increasing pipeline capacity, won’t increase demand for that product. What it can do, is offer the seller, in this case the collective Alberta oil & gas industry, access to more potential buyers than it has currently, giving it the potential to increase the price earned. But if there are no buyers, then there will be no increase in shipments from the port or increase in tanker traffic.
If the world were truly “getting off of fossil fuels”, nobody would want our product. But it isn’t, at least not yet, and the world wants this product from our American competitors, who are able to deliver it. But we aren’t. So, until the world is ready to stop using this product, why can’t we work to supply the market that continues to exist, contributing billions to our GDP and supporting hundreds of thousands of working families in the process?
good blog, Susan… thanks!
one point of clarification… when you write “The expansion will triple capacity and increase tanker traffic off the BC coast sevenfold.”, it’s a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic for *KM* product, and KM traffic is a small percentage of total traffic. it’s an important point to be made, as opponents to TM expansion “conveniently” forget about that fact
Steve, that is an excellent clarification. I’ll fix the reference in the blog. Thanks!
One of the things I mentioned to a rabid conservative the other day is that Trudea has little or nothing to gain from the AB electorate on this issue. That is one of the things that really made me think of this pipeline as being in the national interest.
Conservatives won’t suddenly start voting Liberal in the next federal election because most are simply too entrenched.
They may get votes from AB federal NDP supporters who feel abandoned, if not shunned, by their party. But I doubt it. So what’s in it for Trudeau?
I think he is looking at what is good for Canada. I am not a liberal, so I say this grudgingly, but I think it is true.
Stephanie, many of my friends in the oil patch wondered whether Trudeau would come through for the energy industry, pointing out as you did, that there’s no upside for Trudeau to step in. They are pleased he took action, not because they want to see the feds own a pipeline (even if it’s only for a few months) but because he really had no other choice once KM said they were walking.
I would like to offer a comment in response Carlos’s earlier comment that says, “for the sake of 15,000 jobs”. The number of jobs that will be created or maintained with the completion of the TMX will be far greater than 15,000. I really have no idea how many jobs are directly created by the pipeline itself or the oil sands expansion, but much of Alberta’s economy is related to or affected by the oil patch.
The network of ties to the oil patch is a crazy spider web of co-dependence. I am a graphic designer. I have clients. Some of those clients have clients in the oil patch. When they suffer, I suffer (or have to scramble to find other clients). So my business, which directly has nothing whatsoever to do with oil, can be negatively or positively affected by the economics elsewhere in the province. So there are countless businesses/employers/jobs tied to the success of the TMX. Not to mention that our provincial revenue is so royalty dependent, that without it, a politician can only do one of two things. Make severe cuts and risk diving us into another recession or raise our tax burden significantly, which is essentially political suicide.
I am of a mind that this pipeline – hopefully – helps us keep the progressive government we have now. If we want a “greener” future sooner rather than later the NDP and Premier Notley are the ones to get us there. It took an aggressive climate change plan to get the pipeline expansion approved, and in return, we have more revenue from those fossil fuels to help speed us toward an alternative energy future. I know that some in BC detest this argument because they feel it’s at THEIR expense, but from an Albertan’s point of view, it’s valid. Kenney delays a better future. Notley brings it on sooner and she’s proving it.
I fully understand your point and I agree with what you are saying but there are issues that are not discussed enough. One of them is that we do not need to expand the oils sands anymore. When we produced something like 500 thousand barrels a day we enjoyed the boom times during Peter Lougheed Government. Then the neo liberal garbage came in and we started giving oil for free to the oil companies. Now we produce 3 million barrels and we have a deficit of 10 billion – ask yourself why? and maybe you will understand and agree with some of my points.
“neo liberal garbage”??? you make some valid points, but when you stoop to silly phrases such as that, you lose me as a listener. our high deficit reflects the simple fact that O&G revenue has dropped significantly because of world prices, and that we continue to spend much more than we collect in revenue
I am sorry you did not understand my point and the phrase ‘neo liberal garbage’ was not in reference to what you said.
What I meant is that when Peter Lougheed was premier he charged what was in my opinion what royalties should be (as high as 65%) then neo liberalism became the dominant ideology and especially during the Klein era he reduced royalties to almost nothing and lowered taxes. He was lucky at the time that a year into his government we had the highest prices of oil at the same time as the highest ever prices of gas creating a bubble that covered all the cuts he had made.
Now after the cuts and after the drop in oil prices of course we have a deficit. Our royalties are around 4 – 10 % and the taxes are not high enough too cover all the expenses. In other words this deficit is not just a result of bad oil prices but it is a reflection of all the cuts that were done years ago.
You are right that we collect way less than we spend but it is due to the fact that we reduced royalties to almost nothing. So the increase in production is necessary because we refuse to get the royalties we should be getting. If we did, this increase in production would not be necessary.
Ms.Notley certainly does bring it on sooner, and no error.
I bet there is a RUnning joke in the NDP caucus:
“Yeah I was on my way to the TMX protest eh and right around Edson a funny thing happened, my truck she ran outta gas.”
Oh well you know – old 1930s truck with small gas tank
GoinFawr and Carlos…I enjoyed this exchange 🙂 It reminded me of something Notley said when she was asked for her opinion of Andrea Horwath, Notley said she was sure Andrea would act in the best interests of her province because that’s what a premier should do.
Ourgeogie, I’m agree with you 100%. In 2019 Albertans will have a stark choice: Rachel Notley or Jason Kenney. A vote for Notley takes us forward on many fronts including climate change; a vote for Kenney drags us back into the past. There are no other alternatives.
It gets stranger and stranger, not only strange bedfellows, but Kenney is still continuing to go around singing his turn off the taps line. Now, to give credit where credit it due, he might have been the original author of this idea, so perhaps he desperately wants all the credit. However, as I recall the purpose for turning off the taps was if construction was stopped on the pipeline. With the recent purchase of the pipeline, construction is set to resume soon, so what would be the purpose of turning off the taps now?
It seems Kenney is still singing the same song, not realizing the verse has changed and he now sounds terribly out of tune. What might have made sense before, now makes no sense at all.
It is called repetition or brainwashing. Parties use this process a lot because they know people only read catch words. ‘Turn off the tap’, ‘Cut taxes’, ‘No deficits’ as examples are some of the ones he has used and he knows it works. It is very sad and disturbing realizing this is what politics is all about today – catch words, repetitions, lies, and on and on.
Democratic Renewal, good discussions, a more realistic voting system…they all seem unnecessary to politicians in order to win elections. This is the reason for the so called populism which in reality just means rich people pretending to be from the ‘people’.
As far as Jason Kenney singing the same song, I think it is because he does not know any better. Like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. Brain is not an organ he has been able to develop. I know this is offensive but unfortunately it is true , one just has to watch him in action. More unfortunate is that we as a society do not seem to be doing any better.
David, I find it interesting that conservative politicians who constantly preach that businesses are better at running things than the government have failed to learn anything about effective negotiation. I worked in the energy sector for decades and learned that good businessmen are strategic negotiators. They don’t use up all their bargaining chips at once and they certainly don’t throw them on the table AFTER the need to use them has passed. If this is how Kenney plays politics even I could beat him at poker.
You can beat him at politics too – you just have to try.
Jason wished he had a third of your brain 🙂
Carlos you made a good observation about populism. Why is it that people are prepared to support populist politicians on faith? When Jason Kenney lectured the Legislature on the need for the BC wine embargo he couldn’t resist saying he was more of a beer man himself. When he was driving around Alberta looking to win the PC leadership race he did it in a big blue pickup truck. If being a “beer man” and driving a blue pickup truck and promising to restore the mythical “Alberta Advantage” without telling us HOW he’s going to do it is all Kenney needs to win in 2019 we’re in big trouble because what he’s selling is anger, anxiety and victimhood when we need creativity, hope and optimism.
Yes I fully agree with you but the lack of nurturing our political system, in my opinion, brought about the situation we are facing now.
They can say whatever they want but the facts, for those that like me, have paid attention, is that this is not an accidental situation. We chose to ignore the negative signs the system has been expressing through us and maintained the status quo for convenience sake. Parties want power to serve their constituents which along the years have changed from the public in general to organized interest groups that are powerful enough to control them and by osmosis the government. This has in a way always been the case but now it has reached a point of threatening the stability of the system itself and the creation of even worse pseudo democratic systems.
The blue trucks and the ‘beer man’ is just the visual representation of a failing system and even worse a leader that does not seem to have a clue of much except to grab power because in the end that is what he understands as the political system. It use to be called dictatorship but we will find better terms so we can embrace it.
The example of Harper supporting the quasi dictatorship in Hungary is a clear example of how even in Canada and an ex prime minister are now looking at democracy to serve them rather than a democracy to serve the public interest.
Carlos, I think you’re correct when you say the problem runs deep. Many young people I’ve talked to think a political system that creates rampant inequality has run its course, what’s unclear to me is how they want to change the status quo. Some want more representative government (we’ll see whether BC achieves that in the next PR referendum and if it doesn’t whether the Greens will withdraw their support for the NDP); others are prepared to elect autocrats on the assumption the autocrat will change the world in a way that suits them. Whatever happens we’re in a time of change and those who were happy under the status quo are becoming more vocal about where they really stand, your example of Harper supporting Orban’s government in Hungary is a perfect example of this.
I agree with what you are saying and BC referendum will have some effect but changing the voting system alone is not enough. Our political narrative is to say the least an abhorrent mess and in some instances very undemocratic.
By the way I am reading a very interesting book that I suggest to those that are interested in this subject.
The People vs Democracy by Yascha Mounk
I am enjoying it because it has clarified some of my questions and I agree with him specially on the reasons why this is happening. So it is a biased opinion but if you like to read this kind of subject is worth a try.
Albertans who enjoy beer and Dodge pickups are unlikely to be regular finger bowls users. Mr Kenney’s passion in attacking the Prime Minister took him off his message that he is an average fella. It also creates the possibility of nicknaming him “finger bowl” Kenney.
The TransMountain pipeline seems to be taking up a great deal of oxygen, more than necessary I would think. A refreshing perspective was published recently that is worthy of consideration regarding a speech that the PM never gave: http://theenergymix.com/2018/06/05/justin-trudeau-the-speech-he-never-gave/
Ted, thanks for bringing this link to our attention, but I think this is an issue we’ll have to agree to disagree on. It happens sometimes.
Of the list mentioned, only Elizabeth May has been charged with a crime.
You’re correct Harce. Elizabeth May pleaded guilty to criminal contempt for violating an injunction at a Kinder Morgan work site in Burnaby. May’s decision to violate the injunction troubled me greatly for the reasons the judge listed: as an MP she is in a position of influence and as a lawyer she has a responsibility to obey the injunction. She could have could protested without breaking the law by simply protesting outside the injunction bubble zone. I hope the people who support Alberta’s bubble zone laws around abortion clinics understand that the same logic applies to supporting the BC court imposed bubble zone around the Kinder Morgan work site.
Well we do not have to worry anymore – Douggie was elected. He will now stop the carbon tax, rip all solar installations from provincial buildings and shuts down the wind farms and subsidizes coal – just like in the good old days. I cannot wait for the duels with Justin Trudeau !
All good Ontarians had their choice and I respect it – good for them – hopefully it will work out for them
🙂 🙂 🙂
And the next to go is Notley in Alberta, and Premier Kenney who will abolish the carbon tax, repeal Bill 6, and bring back the Alberta advantage! Less than a year away.
I am genuinely curious… what is this mystical “Alberta Advantage”? it seems mystical in nature; a rallying call. Kenney mentions it frequently–he’s appealing to the masses, of course–but what does it mean? lower taxes? less regulatory oversight? don’t give a shit about the environment? workers’ safety isn’t important?
and i’m really curious re how it works with severely-depressed oil and gas prices. Kenney hasn’t laid out a fiscal plan, so perhaps you can tell us what it means
This is the third article, this time with research from Holland about this issue of oil demand.
I wonder what Rachel Notley and those that approve the pipeline are reading. I have not seen one other than articles written by people that want to return to the so called Alberta Advantage.
Carlos, the articles I’ve seen are written by people like Peter Tertzakian, an economist and managing director of ARC Financial, who says oil companies are becoming more efficient (for example Shell intends to reduce its production by 50% by 2050) but renewables won’t completely replace fossil fuels for quite some time. I suspect that’s why the Notley government is moving more slowly to transition to renewables than some would like. Here’s the link: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/What-Big-Oil-Can-Learn-From-Typewriters.html
I agree with you, Steve and others that the so called Alberta Advantage is nothing but nonsense. .