Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 101

Thread: Rachel Notley says no to Northern Gateway

  1. #1
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,982

    Default Rachel Notley says no to Northern Gateway

    “Gateway is not the right decision. I think that there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there and I think there’s a genuine concern by the indigenous communities,”
    At least she shows her true allegiances before the election. Alberta's economy under the Socialists will be thrown under the bus to satisfy their special interests every time.

  2. #2

    Default

    Its their land, not ours. They should get to decide what should happen with their lands.

  3. #3
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,133

    Default

    To be clear, she said it wasn't likely to succeed, but does support other routes. Danielle Smith on Twitter:

    @ABDanielleSmith: @syncrodox1 Because she doesn't support Northern Gateway? She supports Kinder Morgan & Energy East which are the 2 most likely to be built.

  4. #4

    Default

    I hope she is flexible because we do need to get our oil to markets outside of North America.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  5. #5
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,982

    Default

    /\ To be clear, she hasn't supported any other routes, from the Journal today :
    "Notley said, however, that the NDP is interested in both the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain line to Vancouver and the proposed Energy East pipeline to Atlantic Canada."
    "Interested in" and supporting are two whole different animals.
    She also said she wouldn't go to the U.S. to promote Keystone XL.
    This appears to me to be absolutely typical, evasive politician B.S..

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,133

    Default

    ^Alberta's premiers have been going to Washington for years to lobby for KXL (including many, many trips by Redford), and it has accomplished nothing. I don't think Notley's wrong for saying it's a waste of time. YMMV, of course.

  7. #7

    Default

    Oil is itself a special interest, and one that has distorted the province's economy and the thinking of its foolish citizens for decades.

    Considering the wasteland we've created in the north, and even more so the layoffs and dislocation that come with every drop in the the price of oil, rthere is literally almost NOTHING more despicable than to pretend that the good of the province requires giving the oil interests whatever they demand.

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    “Gateway is not the right decision. I think that there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there and I think there’s a genuine concern by the indigenous communities,”
    At least she shows her true allegiances before the election. Alberta's economy under the Socialists will be thrown under the bus to satisfy their special interests every time.
    That an NDP leader actually seems to speak positively of 2/3 proposed pipelines should be the bigger news

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,306

    Default

    ^^Yes, that will help us lower wage demands in this province so we can diversify the economy. Who doesn't want a lower wage?
    Last edited by SP59; 26-04-2015 at 12:00 PM. Reason: Adding the reference arrows

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    The politicians don't control the oil industry, the oil companies do. Remember what happened to Stelmach when he tried to tinker with it.

  11. #11

    Default

    That was internal party bickering that got stelmach in trouble, not the industry.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    Northern Gateway is too controversial anyway. They are better off going northern BC to Alaska. KXL will be built, it has already been approved in the Congress and Senate. The day Obama approves or is gone is the day it gets started. Actually parts of it are already done or being worked on. Most people don't know that. Quebec may give some trouble in the east, even though they would benefit indirectly more than we in Alberta would from it.

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,133

    Default

    ^I think Obama is a hard no. Not sure we can expect differently from Clinton, but we'll see. In any event, Alberta's premiers have failed to sway the internal politics of the U.S. on KXL. (And why should we expect them to be able to, anyway?)

  14. #14

    Default

    I shouldn't have to remind you all that the oil companies are extracting OUR oil.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    It's not worth a dime sitting in the ground. It's only the oil companies that make it worth something.

  16. #16

    Default

    I guess it comes down to, who do you want deciding what makes economic sense? Businesses owned by pensioners and run by financial and business experts who invest billions of dollars in the province (creating the jobs that make us one of the highest paid places on earth), or some NDP arts grads?
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-04-2015 at 12:52 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    Talk about dropping the ball two weeks before an election, well done Notley!!

  18. #18

    Default

    At this point I'd rather have an NDP government with no new pipelines than a PC government that pipes all the cash out of this province at record speed.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  19. #19

    Default

    NDP Leader Rachel Notley says that if she becomes premier she would initiate a review of Alberta’s energy royalty system and withdraw provincial government support of the Northern Gateway pipeline.
    But Notley — fresh from a strong performance in Thursday’s leaders debate and looking to build support in Calgary ahead of the May 5 election — told the Herald editorial board Friday that an NDP government would be supportive of an oil and gas industry which “must remain sustainable.”
    “We are an energy economy. That’s what we are, that’s our strength,” she said.
    “So we need to build on that.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...686/story.html

    Notley has said in other articles she does not want to support the NG pipeline as it's too controversial and that the process will take too long and there is way to much opposition by native groups. Why spend millions of dollars on consultants and environmental fees when it's not likely to be built. She would rather concentrate on other pipelines that are more likely to get built. As for Keystone XL, she realizes it is bogged down in U S internal politics and how can we get involved in that. I think she knows it's a waste of time and money while Obama is so opposed to it to send and spend money for her to go there.
    Sounds to me that she is not going to be crossing the continent and the world like Redford did to pad her resume out.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rseven View Post
    Talk about dropping the ball two weeks before an election, well done Notley!!
    Gateway was never gonna happen, anyway. But if a significant portion of the Alberta electorate was hanging onto the idea that it was still viable, Prentice can try to frame Notley as the killer of the goose that's about to lay the golden egg.

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    She was caught out, I don't think she would say yes to any pipelines.NDP kills jobs, yet unions love them

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rseven View Post
    Talk about dropping the ball two weeks before an election, well done Notley!!
    Showing her true colours!!!!!

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    /\ To be clear, she hasn't supported any other routes, from the Journal today :
    "Notley said, however, that the NDP is interested in both the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain line to Vancouver and the proposed Energy East pipeline to Atlantic Canada."
    "Interested in" and supporting are two whole different animals.
    She also said she wouldn't go to the U.S. to promote Keystone XL.
    This appears to me to be absolutely typical, evasive politician B.S..
    There are more Democrats that want this now, than ever before. Obama can't go ahead, not with Hollywood against it.His backers have spoken, he is a puppet
    Last edited by H.L.; 26-04-2015 at 01:53 PM.

  24. #24

    Default

    ^^Well you didn't read the article and your the first unnecessary fear mongering poster on this thread. If you think the PC's are going to govern this province any differently for the next four years feel free to vote for them. If they get in it will be just another four more years of treading water.
    I said in another thread a few weeks ago that I felt I could not be bothered to vote, but after seeing the lacklustre performance of the PC's chosen one (Prentice) I will be casting my vote come hell or high water. Prentice is just a pleasanter version of Redford but he still has the instincts of a snake oil salesman.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    But Notley — fresh from a strong performance in Thursday’s leaders debate and looking to build support in Calgary ahead of the May 5 election — told the Herald editorial board Friday that an NDP government would be supportive of an oil and gas industry which “must remain sustainable.”
    How does she propose to make the oil and gas industry sustainable? Does she expect oil companies to replace the oil they extract, back in the ground again?

  26. #26

    Default

    ^
    They drill for oil every day in Alberta, they could drill tomorrow and find a huge reserve somewhere in the province. Now, I don't know how long Notley thinks the oil is going to be in the ground and I honestly don't think any one really does know, but let's say we are going to be sustainable for the next 50 years. 50 years of billions of dollars going into the economy each year. If you don't think 50 years is long enough to mention the word sustainable then you need an attitude adjustment.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  27. #27

    Default

    I'm not gonna be voting for Notley or anyone else.

    But I'm having a lot of fun reading the sputum of the hard right.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 26-04-2015 at 01:54 PM.

  28. #28
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Boy the right wing filth is slurping today.
    Charming.

  29. #29

    Default

    ^^industry has found, and is continuing with new technology to find, massive reserves at a faster rate than we are extracting. It will never be "sustainable" though (except to the extent that when we are extinct one day, we wil perhaps become oil for some future species), any attempt to make it so, will just make it easier to bring it in on supertanker from places where nobody gives a **** about the environment (eg Saudi Arabia, not many Arab greenpeace activists are there?).

  30. #30

    Default

    ^Well, if you want to think 4,000 or 4 million years ahead in the way of sustainability feel free. Most of us are maybe just thinking past any great grandkids we might have.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Boy the right wing filth is slurping today.
    Charming.
    Yes, we can always count on AShetsen for well rounded, thoughtful, considerate and complementary posts. His musings always seem to add a certain Joie De Vivre to the conversation.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  32. #32

    Default

    ^representative of many left wing people in general. At least Rachel is quick witted even if she is totally wrong, and as much as I might dislike her logic, I'm tired of the PC endless government.

  33. #33

    Default

    ^so your basis for voting for someone is they are totally wrong. I suppose that might work for some.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^
    They drill for oil every day in Alberta, they could drill tomorrow and find a huge reserve somewhere in the province. Now, I don't know how long Notley thinks the oil is going to be in the ground and I honestly don't think any one really does know, but let's say we are going to be sustainable for the next 50 years. 50 years of billions of dollars going into the economy each year. If you don't think 50 years is long enough to mention the word sustainable then you need an attitude adjustment.
    I have mentioned this before however I will mention it again. Alberta has somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion barrels of oil and oil equivalents. Doing some quick arithmetic in my head at our current rate of production that is about 700 to 800 years supply. Sounds sustainae to me.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    She was caught out, I don't think she would say yes to any pipelines.NDP kills jobs, yet unions love them
    They love them because they think they are getting something for nothing. When they realize they are getting nothing for something they will quickly change their tune. This is why socialist governments tend to have a short shelf life once they are elected nothing like the PC dynasty we have witnessed here.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  36. #36
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,469

    Default

    Let's step back and look at the NDP platform. A modest progressive tax, a middle of the pack corporate tax, some increased funding for education. If that is your idea of socialist you are out to lunch. They are firmly centrist in this campaign and that is by design.

  37. #37
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,360
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Oil is itself a special interest,(...)

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.
    ...and replace that revenue with.......what?

    It is a serious question. I'm tiring of the rhetoric of diversify, diversify, diversify yet no one actually spells out the industries and capabilities that will work here.

    Discreet manufacturing?

    Textiles? That's a windfall...

    More Swiss Chalets?

    It is easy to say stop being Oilberta, but the drug is incredibly huge and our other options kind of limited...
    Onward and upward

  38. #38

    Default

    We should diversify and make things that are derived from oil. There are countless products that have oil in them or have an oil base. The PC's talk about it but talking about it does not get it done. If we have oil under or feet instead of diversifying from it we should be manufacturing the things it makes.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  39. #39
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,360
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...we could...

    But that still relies on the extraction of the "dirty" tar sands oil.



    ..most industries have issues too, so the core of my question comes from the rhetoric of killing oil, getting off coal, and other items...

    ...also not saying burn more coal...but it is easy to criticize...harder to execute.
    Onward and upward

  40. #40

    Default

    The factions or people like Neil Young that call it 'dirty oil' are usually backed by rich Saudi's or other groups with deep pockets. Most of us know that oil is no more dirty than any other industry out there. Be it raw sewer getting dumped (literally) into the ocean or electronic goods getting shipped to China, stripped of their components then what's left getting buried in huge landfills. The list of 'dirty industries' is huge. When people hone in on Alberta oil they need a real reality check about the rest of the world.
    Last edited by Gemini; 26-04-2015 at 08:18 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    She was caught out, I don't think she would say yes to any pipelines.NDP kills jobs, yet unions love them
    They love them because they think they are getting something for nothing. When they realize they are getting nothing for something they will quickly change their tune. This is why socialist governments tend to have a short shelf life once they are elected nothing like the PC dynasty we have witnessed here.
    The NDP are not the same NDP they were 10-20-30 years ago. At one time they were called the working mans party. It was perceived that the working class were under paid and downtrodden. Well, when guys working in car plants are getting $36-$40 an hour with fabulous benefits and tradesmen earning as much (or more) as white collar workers the NDP has a new base. A base of better earners, more educated supporters and a engaged electorate. How many times have we heard that the PC's are more Liberal than PC?. The PC's reinvent themselves all the time, it's nothing new in political circles. The provincial NDP are not the same NDP from even 10 years ago.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Oil is itself a special interest,(...)

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.
    ...and replace that revenue with.......what?

    It is a serious question. I'm tiring of the rhetoric of diversify, diversify, diversify yet no one actually spells out the industries and capabilities that will work here.

    Discreet manufacturing?

    Textiles? That's a windfall...

    More Swiss Chalets?

    It is easy to say stop being Oilberta, but the drug is incredibly huge and our other options kind of limited...
    Bank more funds like Norway and Alaska do. Then at one level, diversification is easy. It's "income replacement" just as insurance and retirement savings provide for the day the job runs out.

    Also smooth out oil and gas development (smart debt, etc.) so that we don't attract huge immigration during booms, create massive infrastructure demands and associated debts, only to toss those poor people aside when tough times return. This smooths population growth and ideally prevent dilution of resource wealth ownership by Albertans.

    Then work on forward thinking programs. Entrepreneurship training in school, etc.

  43. #43

    Default

    Anyone who advocates for even a menial tax increase for the ultra rich or the multi-million dollar corporations is socialist.


    This is right wing logic. They are desperate as they know NDP is about to win. Please watch out for more non-issue topics that the right wingers would claim as "blunders" to try and legitimize their failed ideals.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^representative of many left wing people in general. At least Rachel is quick witted even if she is totally wrong, and as much as I might dislike her logic, I'm tired of the PC endless government.
    As opposed to your comment about "poor and useless people". The right wing determines a person's worth simply based on their bank account.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Oil is itself a special interest,(...)

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.
    ...and replace that revenue with.......what?

    It is a serious question. I'm tiring of the rhetoric of diversify, diversify, diversify yet no one actually spells out the industries and capabilities that will work here.

    Discreet manufacturing?

    Textiles? That's a windfall...

    More Swiss Chalets?

    It is easy to say stop being Oilberta, but the drug is incredibly huge and our other options kind of limited...


    I believe there are many ways to diversify. Tourism is one such way we have huge untapped resources of. we should have 10-20 banffs and Jaspers in alberta.. not ~3. Of course we still need oil.. but there are options to diversify the economy.. that are very difficult to get into in many ways.

    (for example SRD speaking out against tourism opportunities that Alberta Tourism supports... departments fighting departments that kill projects and slow diversification)

  46. #46
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    Diversification? How about expanding the following:
    - finance (we have ATB, Servus and CWB - add to this)
    - gaming (Bioware could have spawned an industry here)
    - information technology (I heard NAIT has - or had? - one of the top IT programs in the country)
    - music and film industry (aren't they building a new studio in Cowtown?)
    - medical research
    - biotech
    - nanotech
    - tourism
    - transportation (transport to/from Fort Mac should be spawning some new ideas here)
    - agriculture (are there other things we can produce besides wheat and beef?)
    - waste management (something our Mayors sell all over the world; why not our Premiers?)
    - environmental restoration (another oilsands opportunity)
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  47. #47
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,360
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Finance....one of those 3 happen to be a client...but all 3 don't touch the big charters...and they aren't coming here.

    Gaming....hello Seattle...Cali...etc.

    IT...been pushing that since I got back. I had Accenture gamble on Edmonton...but had a hard time recruiting...and when I brought my partners to town...well...the then EEDC chair couldn't take time out of his luncheon schedule to say hi. There are some successes to be proud of, but when they hit critical mass, often they are sold...and I can't blame a proprietor for doing that.

    Major clusters of IT are Van and TO...with Calgary closing in so...maybe in AB...but their clients are (you guessed it) O&G.

    Tourism...ok...I can bite given the Price is Right FUBAR...but I dare you to propose a new hotel or ski hill or anything in the mountains. Hello red tape.

    Not to be a downer but the premise of bad management has a fundamental flaw...it assumes no one has tried. Let me assure you many have...and then run into the same issue. Others already have the critical mass, the market access, the raw materials, etc.

    So, again and without rhetoric, concrete diversification strategies vs yet another Port Alberta or grabbing industry vertical du jour...one is nice election rhetoric...the other is hard as hell.
    Onward and upward

  48. #48
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^representative of many left wing people in general. At least Rachel is quick witted even if she is totally wrong, and as much as I might dislike her logic, I'm tired of the PC endless government.
    As opposed to your comment about "poor and useless people". The right wing determines a person's worth simply based on their bank account.
    I certainly don't, I never have. Please put away that paint brush

  49. #49
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Finance....one of those 3 happen to be a client...but all 3 don't touch the big charters...and they aren't coming here.

    Gaming....hello Seattle...Cali...etc.

    IT...been pushing that since I got back. I had Accenture gamble on Edmonton...but had a hard time recruiting...and when I brought my partners to town...well...the then EEDC chair couldn't take time out of his luncheon schedule to say hi. There are some successes to be proud of, but when they hit critical mass, often they are sold...and I can't blame a proprietor for doing that.

    Major clusters of IT are Van and TO...with Calgary closing in so...maybe in AB...but their clients are (you guessed it) O&G.

    Tourism...ok...I can bite given the Price is Right FUBAR...but I dare you to propose a new hotel or ski hill or anything in the mountains. Hello red tape.

    Not to be a downer but the premise of bad management has a fundamental flaw...it assumes no one has tried. Let me assure you many have...and then run into the same issue. Others already have the critical mass, the market access, the raw materials, etc.

    So, again and without rhetoric, concrete diversification strategies vs yet another Port Alberta or grabbing industry vertical du jour...one is nice election rhetoric...the other is hard as hell.
    Finance - didn't say anything about bringing Big 6 here, did I? I was thinking more about growth of the local 3, or seeing other entities grow here (hopefully no more Principal Groups).

    In any case - another problem I've witnessed is that there's no venture capital here that I know of. I know one fellow who's had a go at some technological endeavors, but he's had to turn to venture capitalists in Vancouver or the States. Moreover, many of them advised him to move out of Edmonton in order to get that VC, which he refuses to do for various reasons. Startup Edmonton is probably the closest thing we have.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  50. #50

    Default

    Oh. I got another idea.. how about we use the rest of our potential farmland and do a modern homestead system.. we could probably double our agricultural output.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Oil is itself a special interest,(...)

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.
    ...and replace that revenue with.......what?

    It is a serious question. I'm tiring of the rhetoric of diversify, diversify, diversify yet no one actually spells out the industries and capabilities that will work here.
    That is a difficult question. To answer it in a good way means, I think, taking a step back and looking at what the economy is actually there for.

    You have said that financials, IT, tourism are all off the map because the buyers for all of these have other sellers and so we miss the trade.

    That is the point. We have nothing to trade except the energy and to a much smaller extent than before the agriculture. And so a trade-based economy without the energy suffers. Of course.

    But human economy is not there for us to trade anything. It exists basically for us to provide for our own needs.

    Manufacture our own food. Check, we have that.

    Shelter. Check, we have that.

    Clothing. Textiles. Um, we don't have that.

    Material implements, in other words manufacturing of all kinds. Um, we don't have enough of that. We don't make our cars, pencils, or knives. (Think LRT and the Siemens cars.)

    High technology, ie information goods. Um, we don't have enough of that. (Think LRT and the Thales signalling.)

    See where I'm going? Yes. I am protectionist and mercantilist. But in the end that's the only economic system that works in a closed environment. (By the way, that's why I'm not voting. None the parties have the economic platform I want.)

    And why should the environment be closed? Because if it's open and we trade our energy away we get into distortions where the same people earning crazy money in Nisku last year are largely laid off this year.

    Which does them and the larger system no favours at all.

    Given a choice between higher unstable wages and lower stable ones, which would you pick?

  52. #52
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Oil is itself a special interest,(...)

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.
    ...and replace that revenue with.......what?

    It is a serious question. I'm tiring of the rhetoric of diversify, diversify, diversify yet no one actually spells out the industries and capabilities that will work here.
    That is a difficult question. To answer it in a good way means, I think, taking a step back and looking at what the economy is actually there for.

    You have said that financials, IT, tourism are all off the map because the buyers for all of these have other sellers and so we miss the trade.

    That is the point. We have nothing to trade except the energy and to a much smaller extent than before the agriculture. And so a trade-based economy without the energy suffers. Of course.

    But human economy is not there for us to trade anything. It exists basically for us to provide for our own needs.

    Manufacture our own food. Check, we have that.

    Shelter. Check, we have that.

    Clothing. Textiles. Um, we don't have that.

    Material implements, in other words manufacturing of all kinds. Um, we don't have enough of that. We don't make our cars, pencils, or knives. (Think LRT and the Siemens cars.)

    High technology, ie information goods. Um, we don't have enough of that. (Think LRT and the Thales signalling.)

    See where I'm going? Yes. I am protectionist and mercantilist. But in the end that's the only economic system that works in a closed environment. (By the way, that's why I'm not voting. None the parties have the economic platform I want.)

    And why should the environment be closed? Because if it's open and we trade our energy away we get into distortions where the same people earning crazy money in Nisku last year are largely laid off this year.

    Which does them and the larger system no favours at all.

    Given a choice between higher unstable wages and lower stable ones, which would you pick?
    Am I reading this right? Your proposal is create a single isolationist state and create all the required items within it and consume them all within it with very limited import /export and trade used only as absolutely required?

  53. #53
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,306

    Default

    Let's call it Cuba.

  54. #54
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I'm amazed at all the so-called conservatives here promoting the fiscally irresponsible decision of continuing to spend MILLIONS every year doing the dirty work of profitable corporations.

    Why should the taxpayer be lobbying on the behalf of private companies? They can damn well pay for their own lobbyists.

    Even past that, why the hell would we spend millions of dollars fighting a losing battle? Face it, Gateway and Keystone are not happening. The ball is out of our court. Why should the PUBLIC pay to lobby on behalf of PRIVATE companies on a topic that we cannot win?

    Garbage so-called conservative rhetoric has you guys blinded. Completely ridiculous. What you are supporting is corporate welfare and nothing else. Corporate socialism.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Oil is itself a special interest,(...)

    We MUST somehow start moving away from our pathetic oil dependence.
    ...and replace that revenue with.......what?

    It is a serious question. I'm tiring of the rhetoric of diversify, diversify, diversify yet no one actually spells out the industries and capabilities that will work here.
    That is a difficult question. To answer it in a good way means, I think, taking a step back and looking at what the economy is actually there for.

    You have said that financials, IT, tourism are all off the map because the buyers for all of these have other sellers and so we miss the trade.

    That is the point. We have nothing to trade except the energy and to a much smaller extent than before the agriculture. And so a trade-based economy without the energy suffers. Of course.

    But human economy is not there for us to trade anything. It exists basically for us to provide for our own needs.

    Manufacture our own food. Check, we have that.

    Shelter. Check, we have that.

    Clothing. Textiles. Um, we don't have that.

    Material implements, in other words manufacturing of all kinds. Um, we don't have enough of that. We don't make our cars, pencils, or knives. (Think LRT and the Siemens cars.)

    High technology, ie information goods. Um, we don't have enough of that. (Think LRT and the Thales signalling.)

    See where I'm going? Yes. I am protectionist and mercantilist. But in the end that's the only economic system that works in a closed environment. (By the way, that's why I'm not voting. None the parties have the economic platform I want.)

    And why should the environment be closed? Because if it's open and we trade our energy away we get into distortions where the same people earning crazy money in Nisku last year are largely laid off this year.

    Which does them and the larger system no favours at all.

    Given a choice between higher unstable wages and lower stable ones, which would you pick?
    Am I reading this right? Your proposal is create a single isolationist state and create all the required items within it and consume them all within it with very limited import /export and trade used only as absolutely required?
    Yes.

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    ^ The planet as a whole is a naturally closed environment (for the most part), but provinces and countries are not. Barriers to trade don't reduce market distortions, they create market distortions. A true free market that is not manipulated for political reasons would lead to more stable global commodity prices.

  57. #57

    Default

    ^The free market is itself the biggest distortion. Has to do with information imbalances, price power by the largest players, and so on. Let's cut the fake capitalist bullshіt once and for all.

    Our economy is not open because labor is not open. The movement of goods is subject to transport fees that may not necessarily reflect the optimum routing, but price in extraneous events, far-off political and ideological conditions, and all sorts of other crap we have nothing to do with but under your trade-pathology need to deal with.

    Cut the globalist crap already.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ The planet as a whole is a naturally closed environment (for the most part), but provinces and countries are not. Barriers to trade don't reduce market distortions, they create market distortions. A true free market that is not manipulated for political reasons would lead to more stable global commodity prices.
    Yip, Ricardo's comparative advantage, everyone gets wealthier through trade, even if your country isn't as capable as the one you are trading with:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

    Even the most crazy of left wing whacko economists, agree it has some merit (even if they do feel other distoritions make it not fully applicable). We wouldn't even be able to afford computers / internet if we lived in Cuba (but at least the party would be safely in charge). Fundamentally though, its a human rights issue, you either feel the world is full of people like us who deserve a chance at our lifestyles / to sell to us, or you feel everyone is different / should be locked in their own little location.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2015 at 04:30 PM.

  59. #59

    Default

    Anyone who thinks that the point of the economy is to have computers and the internet is so deluded it isn't even funny.

    Take care of food, clothing, and shelter first.

    If you have to import your clothing because you can't make it but you sell bloody rock oil washed out from the sands to get it, you have a problem.

    That's the first of the distortions right there.

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Anyone who thinks that the point of the economy is to have computers and the internet is so deluded it isn't even funny.

    Take care of food, clothing, and shelter first.

    If you have to import your clothing because you can't make it but you sell bloody rock oil washed out from the sands to get it, you have a problem.

    That's the first of the distortions right there.
    Clothing you say? Sure just so those products can be made. Just a short list of fashion and beauty aides. There is a list like this for each sector of manufacturing by the way. http://www.treehugger.com/style/50-s...ure-green.html

  61. #61

    Default

    Drumbunes, you miss my point. I'm not saying oil is useless. What I'm saying is that we should not have an ecoomy where we export oil to get everything else. We should be making more of the stuff here. More as in nearly all of it -- and with heavy import taxes on what we allow in from abroad.

  62. #62
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,306

    Default

    That way we can all be poor together.

  63. #63

    Default

    Not poor. Independent.

    How much crap do you need to buy before you toss it out in a few months because the techno boys have given you something newer to buy?

    How much waste can your wallet eat through each year?

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Not poor. Independent.
    Having you or some government tell me I'm not allowed to buy someting on line in the US, or my vacation somewhere, is not independence for me. Good luck finding a banana republic that follows what you say, even Cuba imports much of its stuff (for example, they don't have enough trees for toliet paper, but heck, per your theory, we shouldn't be allowed to sell them to them, they can just use their left hand).

  65. #65

    Default

    Moatrash, take your useless&poor people and stuff it next to your god-damn arts grads and elites. Your fake indignation about what you can and cannot be told is just too much.

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    ^The free market is itself the biggest distortion. Has to do with information imbalances, price power by the largest players, and so on. Let's cut the fake capitalist bullshіt once and for all.

    Our economy is not open because labor is not open. The movement of goods is subject to transport fees that may not necessarily reflect the optimum routing, but price in extraneous events, far-off political and ideological conditions, and all sorts of other crap we have nothing to do with but under your trade-pathology need to deal with.

    Cut the globalist crap already.
    I'm definitely not a "laissez faire" capitalist. Every market participant will naturally try and subvert the market to serve their own purposes (by doing things like restricting access to information or temporarily selling at a loss to stifle competition), and efficiently functioning markets depend on strong regulation to prevent that from happening.
    Artificial trade restrictions are nothing like good regulations that prevent anti-competitive business practices. Something that prevents you from trading something you have in abundance (that somebody else needs) for something you need (that somebody else has a surplus of) don't help anyone.

    That said, I'm not a huge fan of piping bitumen out of the province as fast as we can extract it. The market for refined products is more stable than the market for raw bitumen, and refined products are easier to transport.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    if we made everything here it would all cost 10 times as much. The cost to manufacture here are too high hence china, india, Bangladesh, mexico etc etc. Now food is being imported from mexico, Honduras, costa rica, nicaragua, china, Vietnam, etc etc. 10 times cheaper to grow it, bake it, cook it, etc etc. I remember buying jeans manufactured at GWG in Edmonton for $30 and $40 thirty and forty years ago, now I buy them at Walmart for $12, made God knows where
    Last edited by Drumbones; 27-04-2015 at 06:35 PM.

  68. #68

    Default

    Yes, things would be more expensive. Some things.

    We would also be quite insulated from outside economic shock, and be quite free to pursue whatever domestic or foreign policy we chose to.

    Can you imagine your country not having to worry about threats of sanction?

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    I have never experienced a threat of sanction in alberta and I am 59

  70. #70

    Default

    Since we're in the club and would pay anything, anything to stay in it we are not threatened by sanctions publicly. Instead we give up national sovereignty one little bit at a time until almost nothing is left.

    By the way, surely your claim is not exactly true. I'm willing to bet you must have felt threatened by the National Energy Program 30 years ago. The fact it came from where it did and the vast majority here foolishly felt the way they did explains basically everything.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 27-04-2015 at 07:47 PM.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Something that prevents you from trading something you have in abundance (that somebody else needs) for something you need (that somebody else has a surplus of) don't help anyone.
    I don't think all oil exports should necessarily be halted altogether. However, I don't know what "abundance" will mean 100 years from now, and whether all the stuff we will have imported to sell what we always thought we had so much of will really have been worth it.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Moatrash, take your useless&poor people and stuff it next to your god-damn arts grads and elites. Your fake indignation about what you can and cannot be told is just too much.
    Lol, good luck in stopping people from importing things / shopping online in other countries, and good luck exporting things when you aren't willing to import. You have no idea how the economy works, but it's a fun read.

  73. #73
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Since we're in the club and would pay anything, anything to stay in it we are not threatened by sanctions publicly. Instead we give up national sovereignty one little bit at a time until almost nothing is left.

    By the way, surely your claim is not exactly true. I'm willing to bet you must have felt threatened by the National Energy Program 30 years ago. The fact it came from where it did and the vast majority here foolishly felt the way they did explains basically everything.
    I hope something got explained somewhere because that last sentence is non-sencical.

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Since we're in the club and would pay anything, anything to stay in it we are not threatened by sanctions publicly. Instead we give up national sovereignty one little bit at a time until almost nothing is left.

    By the way, surely your claim is not exactly true. I'm willing to bet you must have felt threatened by the National Energy Program 30 years ago. The fact it came from where it did and the vast majority here foolishly felt the way they did explains basically everything.
    I hope something got explained somewhere because that last sentence is non-sencical.
    Pretty clear to me.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Moatrash, take your useless&poor people and stuff it next to your god-damn arts grads and elites. Your fake indignation about what you can and cannot be told is just too much.
    Lol, good luck in stopping people from importing things / shopping online in other countries, and good luck exporting things when you aren't willing to import. You have no idea how the economy works, but it's a fun read.
    ASHetsen must think (oxymoron) we should be like Cuba or North Korean. Not much gets in and not much gets out.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Since we're in the club and would pay anything, anything to stay in it we are not threatened by sanctions publicly. Instead we give up national sovereignty one little bit at a time until almost nothing is left.

    By the way, surely your claim is not exactly true. I'm willing to bet you must have felt threatened by the National Energy Program 30 years ago. The fact it came from where it did and the vast majority here foolishly felt the way they did explains basically everything.
    I hope something got explained somewhere because that last sentence is non-sencical.
    Pretty clear to me.
    Good for you. I don't make it to the communist party basement meetings.

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    ^The free market is itself the biggest distortion. Has to do with information imbalances, price power by the largest players, and so on. Let's cut the fake capitalist bullshіt once and for all.

    Our economy is not open because labor is not open. The movement of goods is subject to transport fees that may not necessarily reflect the optimum routing, but price in extraneous events, far-off political and ideological conditions, and all sorts of other crap we have nothing to do with but under your trade-pathology need to deal with.

    Cut the globalist crap already.
    Some enlightening reading... Old but still relevant.

    A few teasers...

    How the World Works

    Americans persist in thinking that Adam Smith's rules for free trade are the only legitimate ones. But today's fastest-growing economies are using a very different set of rules. Once, we knew them—knew them so well that we played by them, and won. Now we seem to have forgotten

    by James Fallows Dec 1993

    "...
    Friedrich List! For at least five years I'd been scanning used-book stores in Japan and America looking for just these books, having had no luck in English-language libraries. I'd scoured stores in Taiwan that specialized in pirated reprints of English-language books for about a tenth their original cost. I'd called the legendary Strand bookstore, in Manhattan, from my home in Kuala Lumpur, begging them to send me a note about the success of their search (it failed) rather than make me wait on hold. In all that time these were the first books by or about List I'd actually laid eyes on."
    ...

    "WHY Friedrich List? The more I had heard about List in the preceding five years, from economists in Seoul and Osaka and Tokyo, the more I had wondered why I had virtually never heard of him while studying economics in England and the United States. By the time I saw his books in the shop beneath the cherry trees, I had come to think of him as the dog that didn't bark. He illustrated the strange self-selectivity of Anglo-American thinking about economics."
    ...
    "To make this more specific: Today's Anglo-American world view rests on the shoulders of three men. One is Isaac Newton, the father of modern science. One is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the father of liberal political theory. (If we want to keep this purely Anglo-American, John Locke can serve in his place.) And one is Adam Smith, the father of laissez-faire economics."...

    "America's economic history follows the same pattern. While American industry was developing, the country had no time for laissez-faire. After it had grown strong, the United States began preaching laissez-faire to the rest of the world—and began to kid itself about its own history, believing its slogans about laissez-faire as the secret of its success."...

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-works/305854/

  78. #78
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Which educated Americans think that free trade rules? As mentioned in the article, the USA has always been and remains to be extremely protectionist. Their economy is anchored by protectionist subsidies, tariffs, and taxes.

    Every highly developed country in the world got there through protectionist policy that allowed their economies to develop. They all remain extremely protectionist as well.

    "Free trade" really means "poor countries don't get protectionist policy". Laissez faire macroeconomics has never existed in real life except to further the extraction of wealth from weak nations.

    This theme of selective history and propaganda is the basis for most supposedly "conservative" ideology in modern times. In reality our "conservatives" aren't conservative at all - they just believe that extreme state control should be shifted to benefit only them instead of everyone. Just look at this pipeline debate. Our supposed "conservatives" want to redistribute wealth by fighting for the benefit of a few private companies. They believe in extreme socialism, just not for everyone - only for their class.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 28-04-2015 at 11:58 AM.

  79. #79
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    ^The free market is itself the biggest distortion. Has to do with information imbalances, price power by the largest players, and so on. Let's cut the fake capitalist bullshіt once and for all.

    Our economy is not open because labor is not open. The movement of goods is subject to transport fees that may not necessarily reflect the optimum routing, but price in extraneous events, far-off political and ideological conditions, and all sorts of other crap we have nothing to do with but under your trade-pathology need to deal with.

    Cut the globalist crap already.
    The only reason Edmonton and Canada exist as they are is globalist exports and trade off finite natural resources . See the fur trade.
    In your version Canada is the land as it was 400 years ago,that's fine except its totally out of touch even a remote sense of what the reality of the current world is.

  80. #80
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    I really don't know why anybody is actually surprised about this person, I'd expect the exact same thing if you voted NDP or Green. You got what you voted for.
    Wildrose calls out NDP after former paid anti-pipeline lobbyist named energy chief of staff
    Turns out the Alberta energy minister’s new right hand man recently worked fighting against Alberta’s pipeline development. The NDP’s first energy minister isn’t able to explain how her chief of staff was hired. ...
    http://www.630ched.com/2015/06/11/wi...hief-of-staff/

  81. #81
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Disappointed, but not really surprised by the minister's non-response. Governments of all flavors seem to be filled with politicians who refuse to answer questions.

  82. #82

    Default

    Too many conservatives just don't get it.

    People voted for the NDP exactly so that the energy administration could no longer be the safe preserve of oil-drinkers.

    Cry if you want to, but face the truth: the big oil is no longer in power. And that is just plain good.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 12-06-2015 at 09:48 PM.

  83. #83
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Disappointed, but not really surprised by the minister's non-response. Governments of all flavors seem to be filled with politicians who refuse to answer questions.
    Some of my friends are already whining about this, its just the start. It's going to be very very long 4 years!!

  84. #84

    Default

    This is extremely embarassing for the NDP. Considering how sensitive and problematic this portfolio is, if they screw it up, we won't see another progressive govt in Alberta for another 40 years.

  85. #85
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    *Edit*
    Wrong Thread

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    It's not worth a dime sitting in the ground. It's only the oil companies that make it worth something.
    Your kids or grandkids may someday take exception to that comment.

    Also, unfortunately for them, decades ago, if not even today, a lot of Alberta farmers took that view and sold off their mineral rights for a song. (Oil was at say $10-20/bbl and many couldn't envision it ever rising to $100-140/bbl.)

    When I say; "if not even today," I imagine a lot of conventional wells that have paid possibly millions in royalties to the land/rights owners for decades have now stopped producing and so farmers have sold off their mineral rights for literally a few hundred bucks thinking the well is depleted, not knowing that many conventional non-producing wells still contain upwards of 50% of the original oil, it's just that the oil companies TODAY "can't make it worth something".

    Just think, Alberta still has a lot of conventional oil in the ground. I would be surprised if 1/4 - 1/3 of all the amount of conventional oil we've already extracted over the last half century or more is still available for future extraction. Maybe some expert can chime in on this someday.

    ~
    Last edited by KC; 13-06-2015 at 08:59 AM.

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I really don't know why anybody is actually surprised about this person, I'd expect the exact same thing if you voted NDP or Green. You got what you voted for.
    Wildrose calls out NDP after former paid anti-pipeline lobbyist named energy chief of staff
    Turns out the Alberta energy minister’s new right hand man recently worked fighting against Alberta’s pipeline development. The NDP’s first energy minister isn’t able to explain how her chief of staff was hired. ...
    http://www.630ched.com/2015/06/11/wi...hief-of-staff/
    So, if we restrain development and export, what happens?

    Job growth slows, fewer people get rich and then export their Alberta-earned wealth to other parts of the world ( retiring to Palm Springs, moving to Vancouver, etc), the oil stays in the ground, future generations receive that oil wealth... Is that so bad? The slow growth in oil exports in the 1980s and 1990s at $10-40/bbl, led to higher exports a decade later at upwards of what? $100/bbl.?

  88. #88
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I really don't know why anybody is actually surprised about this person, I'd expect the exact same thing if you voted NDP or Green. You got what you voted for.
    Wildrose calls out NDP after former paid anti-pipeline lobbyist named energy chief of staff
    Turns out the Alberta energy minister’s new right hand man recently worked fighting against Alberta’s pipeline development. The NDP’s first energy minister isn’t able to explain how her chief of staff was hired. ...
    http://www.630ched.com/2015/06/11/wi...hief-of-staff/
    So, if we restrain development and export, what happens?

    Job growth slows, fewer people get rich and then export their Alberta-earned wealth to other parts of the world ( retiring to Palm Springs, moving to Vancouver, etc), the oil stays in the ground, future generations receive that oil wealth... Is that so bad? The slow growth in oil exports in the 1980s and 1990s at $10-40/bbl, led to higher exports a decade later at upwards of what? $100/bbl.?
    The only thing future generations receive from the tar sands (and for the most part, fossil fuels in general) will be a few paragraphs in a school history lesson.

    Even it's most ardent supporters know in their hearts that it's now(ish) or never with this aging technology.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  89. #89
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    True.
    But the same foresight should warn us that the bigger we let our dependence on the oilsands get, the bigger the bust will be. It would be better to limit growth and bank extra profits, and limit the boom to limit both the cost of the infrastructure we need, and reduce the ultimate population and, in proportion, the size of our infrastructure and obligations when the bottom falls out.

    Because it's when, not if.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    True.
    But the same foresight should warn us that the bigger we let our dependence on the oilsands get, the bigger the bust will be. It would be better to limit growth and bank extra profits, and limit the boom to limit both the cost of the infrastructure we need, and reduce the ultimate population and, in proportion, the size of our infrastructure and obligations when the bottom falls out.

    Because it's when, not if.
    I think that previous governments ( of all colours) tried unsuccessfully to diversify their economies and often created uneconomic and unsustainable ventures.

    Alberta has a specific economic advantage which need to be focused on. Developing the oil sands, natural gas and conventional oil in Alberta needs to be levered into further upgrading and development in industry that thrives in a low oil and gas price environment. Think upgraders, petro-chemical plants and other value added ventures that take advantage of lower input prices. I like the idea of investing in education with the hopes that we create different industries but I think the best opportunities will likely be found by focusing on Alberta's competitive advantage in the oil and gas industry.

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urbantown View Post
    I like the idea of investing in education with the hopes that we create different industries but I think the best opportunities will likely be found by focusing on Alberta's competitive advantage in the oil and gas industry.
    I agree, but just building on that, oil and gas isn't some "dumb" industry, it requires geoligists, and engineers, and various trades, not to mention lawyers, finance/investment bankers, risk managers, insurance, construction, etc, that all require a high level of education. Just having oil and gas doesn't make a place rich like Alberta, it requires the infrastructure and investment in education we have. Oil and gas is high tech, even "basic extraction" without further processing, as anyone who has done work in the industry will know.

    If there were no oil and gas in Alberta, most of us would all be earning on average about 30k per annum less, perhaps even more as many would not be employed (if you don't believe me, look at Montana, the average family makes about 45k less). Diversifying out of oil and gas simply isn't going to happen on a mass scale, because you are starting 30k or so per worker behind before the get go. It can happen in niche / high tech manufacturing / chemical processing, software, pharamceutical, medical and we have some of that already. That's not going to employ the "great unwashed" though in any number anytime soon, if ever. Without oil and gas, Alberta will revert to be something more like Montana population wise, no amount of government "investing" or "brilliance" or "bank funds" will change that.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-06-2015 at 09:07 AM.

  92. #92

    Default

    Oil & Gas might be the main one, but Alberta has other large industries. There is cattle farming, grain farming, logging, and tourism. We are along the CanaMex corridor, have a highly educated population, excellent universities, hospitals, highways, railways, and airports. There is already lots in Alberta and more to build on.

    There are other problems with diversification, whether it's in value-adding our oil & gas sector or our other areas:

    - Any new industry competes with labour from the oilsands, which during good times already struggles to find enough.
    - Alberta is a landlocked province a long ways from a port.
    - There is excess capacity of fuel processing infrastructure in Texas already, and they have ports. It's why the oil industry is pushing so hard for pipelines.
    Last edited by Snake Eyes; 15-06-2015 at 10:00 AM.

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Without oil and gas, Alberta will revert to be something more like Montana population wise, no amount of government "investing" or "brilliance" or "bank funds" will change that.
    That's a simplification. Look at upstate New York compared to southern Ontario. There are other factors at play.

  94. #94
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ...Snip... Without oil and gas, Alberta will revert to be something more like Montana population wise, no amount of government "investing" or "brilliance" or "bank funds" will change that.
    Which will happen, in a couple generations.

    At some point it's worth asking the question whether we want to be a province of 5m or 7m with all the infrastructure and responsibilities to support when there is no longer an economy to support more than 2m people.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post

    At some point it's worth asking the question whether we want to be a province of 5m or 7m with all the infrastructure and responsibilities to support when there is no longer an economy to support more than 2m people.
    Economies are created, not exploited, and more people is a good thing. One of the main reasons the Maritimes is struggling to re-invent their economy is because they are such a rural population.

    Oil has bought us a lot of the infrastructure we have in Alberta. The highways, airports, universities, etc. But if oil disappeared, it's very self-defeating to say nothing could possibly fill that vacuum.

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ...Snip... Without oil and gas, Alberta will revert to be something more like Montana population wise, no amount of government "investing" or "brilliance" or "bank funds" will change that.
    Which will happen, in a couple generations.
    I don't know, its possible, it depends what happens. I suspect there will still be a need for plastic and chemicals, but whether that justifies current extraction, is unclear. All I know is most of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for oil and gas (Montana has agriculture, and similar, you don't need our population to do that well, in fact, less people and bigger farms is better, and the world is going local so export markets are very limited). Its oil and gas that funds our infrastructure, and our universitites. Even there, high tech companies when they mature, often move to locations where people want to live (and like it or not, there are climates more sustainable / popular - e.g. silicon valley for IT). Maybe enough high tech will build up to sustain something better than Montana without that, but certainly won't sustain the average income's we earn now, that's just reality. Times change, who knows what the future will bring, we are all mobile though, just as us or our forebears came here, its possible one day many will see the sense in leaving. Its critical to make the most of what you have where you are, when you are, if you want a good life, not a struggling one.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-06-2015 at 10:30 AM.

  97. #97

    Default

    Behind the scene horse trading, might make BC pipelines a reality. Kinder Morgan is more favored but Notley no more "closed" to Northern Gateway either. I have a healthy dose of cynicism on how politics works, but oh my, taking norther BC electricity generation hostage in exchange for a pipeline to BC makes for a good episode in the House of Cards.

    Finally, on sale tax. I am getting a feeling, NDP will propose a sale tax in the next election campaign perhaps with a promise to merge the carbon tax in it too. Makes you wonder if the introduction of carbon tax was their way of getting ahead of populist rage when they propose sales tax.

    I don't quote any part of the article, as it is all must read material.

    Globe & Mail, 20-Apr.-2016
    Alberta, B.C. discuss deal to swap pipeline for electricity

  98. #98

    Default

    Rachel Notley believes an in-Canada solution to moving Alberta’s bitumen trumps the need to push Washington to renew talks on the Keystone XL pipeline, the premier said Monday.
    Asked if she’d be willing to go to Washington to meet with members of the incoming Donald Trump administration, which has been open to the notion of overturning the U.S. government’s previous opposition to the 1,900-km pipeline that would connect Alberta’s oilsands to Gulf Coast refineries, Notley said she had other priorities.
    “I would argue it’s important to us to do what we can to get pipelines in Canada — Canadian infrastructure to Canadian tidewater — where we have the most control that we can,” she said.
    “For that reason, right now, my focus continues to be on getting Canadian infrastructure to Canadian tidewater.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...932/story.html

    Now that there is someone in the U S in the way of Trump interested in getting XL build Notley seems no longer interested. Apparently Brian Jean is and he is taking a delegation to Washington in the new year. It may not accomplish much but at least he's trying. Between Notley and her crew and Selfie sweet F A will get done in Alberta in the next couple of years in the way of pipelines. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  99. #99
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    It will be TransCanada and the big oil building it, I don't think they need her. TC will get the permit from DC
    Last edited by Drumbones; 15-11-2016 at 10:15 PM.

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    ^ Agreed. The USA is not going to listen to us when deciding the fate of Keystone, so there is no point wasting time and energy lobbying Washington. Much better to focus on reducing opposition in Eastern Canada where we have at least a small possibility of influencing the outcome.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •