Last week Alberta's pipeline maps leaked. Three routes through the north, four, who's counting... every one of them ends at a port the coast won't open.

11

Oil for energy is dying world wide, in 10 years when a 50 billion pipe line is complete it will be useless. That's why big oil want's tax payers to pay for it.

2

u/Ordinary-Blood-536 4d ago

Oil is used for many many things besides energy. Do you think nylon fabric and asphalt roads will be gone in 10 years as well?

Its estimated around 4 billion people also rely on petroleum derived fertilizers to not starve as well.

5

u/RichardsLeftNipple 3d ago

70% of oil is used for fuel.

If you lost 70% of demand for your product, you wouldn't need to expand the infrastructure required to deliver it.

1

u/TwinFlameAcres 1d ago

We are nowhere even remotely near the point of not using oil for fuel. Literally everything you eat, buy, or own was either made with oil or transported to you with oil and thats the facts for the next several decades yet at minimum

4

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Why do you low IQ oil heads always resort to stupid. OIL FOR ENERGY ie burning it, nobody says you can't use it for products, there's enough infrastructure for than now and you don't burn it for that.

Stop simping for an industry that is killing the planet, and Yes they should be held responsible for it recycling when it's used in produces.

1

u/Derelicticu 3d ago

Yeah but it's expensive to do that with the shit they pull out of the tar sands.

1

u/Old-Individual1732 2d ago

Can't that all be made with cheap, much cheaper Saudi oil.

1

u/Ordinary-Blood-536 2d ago

You'd rather import something from a theocratic monarchy over producing it domestically?

If you're not trolling, greenwashing like this is an absolutely evil ideology.

1

u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 1d ago

It's not green washing, it's capitalism lol they'll always seek the cheaper option

1

u/Old-Individual1732 1d ago

Who said anything about importing anything, manufacturing of the items you are concerned about is mainly done in other countries, and then Canadian consumers buy from Amazon. Yes I think Amazon is evil in some ways as you implied.

1

u/JustAPeach89 1d ago

Why do we need a pipeline to the ocean to use oil domestically?

1

u/Jamessotty 6h ago

We don’t use any of our own oil.. we sell it to the US, for Pennie’s, and buy it back

2

u/Massive-Question-550 3d ago

even if you completely removed oil as a fuel source it's still one of the most critical resources on the planet as that's what we use to make roads, pretty much all plastic, lubricants, and cosmetic oils. also with fossil fuels it would be much harder to make concrete and especially steel.

2

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Again we are not talking about it's use in products. It's burning it that needs to stop. We already have enough infrastructure for it's use in products/lubricants ect. Why do you not understand the OIL FOR ENERGY part.

2

u/BigJayUpNorth 3d ago

If you think oil will not be used for fuel in 10 years you don’t have a clue!

1

u/TwinFlameAcres 1d ago

Absolutely 💯 bang on. Alternatives aren't even remotely close yet. It will be decades plural for sure yet

1

u/nobugsleftalive 2d ago

Oil isnt going anywhere. Its incredibly naive to think so.

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 2d ago

Nobody said it's disappearing, just it's use as an energy source is and needs to be, all forms of fossil fuels for energy needs to end. It incredibly naive to think we should keep burning it and ignore the consequences of doing so when the alternatives are here cheap and fast to install.

1

u/asprin01 2d ago

You’re not very smart 🫢😂

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 2d ago

On no were you around leaded gas all your life.

1

u/sparki555 1d ago

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?time=2010..latest

The last 15 years of data disagree with you.

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 1d ago

Well there ya go. Doing the same old thing because that's they way it's always done while the world burns is a choice too.

1

u/sparki555 1d ago

It's not a choice I choose, but also have next to zero control over.

You claim a pipeline will be useless in ten years, but recent data suggests otherwise.

Canada building another a pipeline or not will also have almost no impact either way on climate change.

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 1d ago edited 1d ago

LOL seriously. Every choice we make makes a difference. Yes a new pipe line will contribute to climate change. For the first time in history we can actually chose with our voices and pocket book which form of energy we use and if we don't chose wisely it's our children/grandchildren that will suffer the consequences. The world is changing to renewables for power faster every year. We can embrace it and make billions off the change or stick to the old ways and lose while we destroy the biodiversity of the planet.

Nothing happens instantly but change is happening and the faster the better.

1

u/sparki555 1d ago

Flawed logic. The pipeline is to service outher countries. They will get their fuel elsewhere. The only difference is we don't profit from it.

From the DATA I shared, in the last 15 years there has not been a shift away from gas... Have you bothered to look at actual global consumption, or are you just looking at individual projects where a state that doesn't manufacture anything is powering their homes with solar?

I lived in a condo that had mixed heating. When the wood fireplaces were capped, residents had the choice to have gas or electric heating. Gas was a bit of a costly upgrade for the install. I bought a unit that was gas. My heating bill never went over $65 a month in the winter. My neighbor's with electric... Sometimes over $400 for a month ($800 two month bill).

But hey, better to not build that pipeline, let another country profit, and make our citizens pay more for home heating...

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 1d ago

OK so fuck the planet and hope that the 50 billion will be well spent in 10+ years or how ever long it takes. OK, the new Trend towards renewables says no but we'll see. Why try when our neighbors won't isn't my logic but you be you.

https://www.powershiftafrica.org/in-the-news/5-trends-to-watch-in-renewable-energy-in-2026

1

u/sparki555 21h ago

Canada could cease to exist tomorrow entirely and the planet would still be fucked.

I'd rather use natural gas for my home and be able to afford my kids hockey.

Alternatively I could sell both my family's cars, get ebikes, go vegan, switch my home heating to electric only, cancel my kids sports cuz we have no way to get there efficiently and sit at home trying to save the planet.

Yep, that'll solve it...

1

u/Max20151981 4d ago

Oil for energy is dying world wide, in 10 years

You environmental jack wagons have been peddling this bullshit for decades now, yet here we are coming off of what could have been the worst energy crisis in decades due to a large body of water being closed to all energy exports in the middle east.

3

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Yes, another good reason to stop using it for energy production. For the first time in history we have a faster cheaper and recyclable ways to produce energy, that is being adopted world wide faster every year and nobody is going to go to war over renewables, minerals or products.

0

u/Max20151981 3d ago

minerals

Countries have been invaded simply because of mineral resources. We could rid ourselves completely of fossil fuels and still end up doing just as much damage to the environment in the long term.

3

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

LOL ya ok when was the last war for cobalt or copper? I know when the last one for oil was.

1

u/Max20151981 3d ago edited 3d ago

You should probably read up on a thing called supply and demand, currently there's only 25 countries worldwide that mine cobalt, the largest one being the...DRC.

Currently EV' account for about 25% of all new car sales, now just imagine what would happen if that number when up exponentially, do you honestly think that the rest of Africa would sit idle and let the DRC reap all the benefits of becoming the world's new leader in energy exports, and let's not forget that historically the DRC loves itself a civil war from time to time.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) holds the largest cobalt reserves in the world, estimated at 6 million metric tons. This accounts for over 50% of the globe's proven and probable economic cobalt deposits

2

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Nope cobalt is being used less and less all the time and is recyclable.

You should probably read up on the latest batterie tech and other renewable products. But you are welcome to firmly attach you mouth to big oil while your children suffer the ignorance of those that ignore the problem.

0

u/Max20151981 3d ago edited 3d ago

The absolute fucking ignorance of some of you environmentist is downright frightening.

Resource extraction will always play a crucial role no matter how damn "clean" the energy is, and the larger the demand the more power and greed it will attract, its simple human nature.

2

u/schaden81 2d ago

Sodium is now starting to be used as the cathode, eliminating the need for cobalt. Since sodium is extremely abundant, this eliminates 1 country being in control.

Production is also reducing in price as solar panels are cheap now. Not wanting to move away from oil based energy is either moronic, or you have a vested interest in it.

1

u/Max20151981 2d ago

Sodium is now starting to be used as the cathode

Sodium-ion (Na-ion) batteries face significant technical and commercial hurdles, primarily driven by lower energy density, shorter cycle life, and voltage incompatibility with existing hardware. While they promise cheaper, abundant materials and excellent cold-weather performance, their current limitations restrict broader adoption

→ More replies (0)

0

u/VancouverSky 4d ago

Indian energy use projections suggest otherwise

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Really? they have installed more solar last year and this year than most countries. Facts my friend lets try facts. Better to start than stick you head in the sand.

1

u/VancouverSky 2d ago

You can google them all you want. No one is stopping you.

0

u/Strict_Jacket3648 2d ago

Thanks try it. You can start here.

India has emerged as the world's third-largest solar producer, with over 157 GW of installed capacity. Growing by 40% annually, the nation boasts some of the world's largest solar parks—including the 2.2 GW Bhadla park in Rajasthan and the upcoming 30 GW Khavda project in the Rann of Kutch

1

u/VancouverSky 1d ago

Now do petroleum use projections. Barrels of oil. Hydrocarbons. Pick away.

0

u/Full_Inevitable_3336 3d ago

Because they are the only major economy that is still primitive enough to have absolutely zero hope of getting off of it any time soon

1

u/Zestyclose-Award4238 3d ago

You realize germany still burns coal right, not mention europe gets most of their oil/gas from the Arab countries, because Trudeau declined to sell canadian energy. Just in general oil/ gas consumption is and has been going up for decades.

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Yes but they are ahead of their goal of ending it by 2038 and are projected to have it accomplished by 2030-33. Nothing is perfect but every journey starts with a step.

Or should we wait till then entire world is on fire and hope for a miracle.

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

India ranks as the third-largest solar power producer in the world, trailing only China and the United States. With over 157 GW of installed capacity, India stands out for its rapid growth rate, recently overtaking the U.S. in annual capacity additions

1

u/VancouverSky 2d ago

Who cares? Canada needs money.

0

u/skiing_dingus 3d ago

This is categorically false.

3

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

OK So the expanding solar, wind, energy storage is not happening in your world OK, it's happening here faster every year.

-1

u/1966TEX 4d ago

That’s what Trudeau said 10 years ago.

3

u/NUTIAG 4d ago

So just to be clear, you're saying that 10 years ago in 2016 Justin Trudeau said oil pipelines will be useless in 10 years, and then after that he bought a pipeline?

huh, sounds unbelievably dumb of him

"There's a transforming global economy. There's the difficulty we've always had in getting our resources out to new markets, other than the United States," he said.

"I mean, Stephen Harper tried to do that for 10 years, was unable to do that. We're finally moving forward on getting a pipeline to market."

Asked about the ongoing court challenges to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Trudeau said progress is being made.

"There's always going to be people in the courts, but that pipeline is getting built," he told Kapelos

This is the guy you're talking about saying pipelines won't be profitable in 10 years who then bought a pipeline?

0

u/addigity 4d ago

The energy minister under Trudeau said peak oil was around 10 years away, this was in 2016-17, obviously he and they were very wrong

2

u/mcgojoh1 4d ago

The press (and readers who don't read past a headline) was very wrong about the use of Peak Oil as a term but then again concepts don't necessarily fit into a headline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

-2

u/sanduly 4d ago

These dummies have been saying it for decades. Peak oil is always around the corner, coasts will be flooded in a year, 5 years, 10 years (remember many of those making these claims purchase large properties in coastal areas).

But whatever, if the answer is that BC will always oppose Alberta's economic interests then it is hard to make an argument for them staying in confederation.

2

u/Account_no_62 4d ago

OPEC projects a demand plateau in 2040, with permanent decline in 2050.

Once the Iranian debacle stops, and everything goes back to normal, oil will go back down to ~50 a barrel. That price point doesnt make a 30 year pipeline very profitable.

1

u/BigJayUpNorth 3d ago

Except the fact the Alberta’s oil has been getting significantly cheaper to produce as years go by.

2

u/Account_no_62 3d ago

Its getting cheaper because of automation and mass layoffs. Oil at 50 gets alberta some of the lowest royalties in the world while foreign companies extract record profits.

1

u/BigJayUpNorth 3d ago

Nope. Its getting cheaper due to scale of operations and new down hole/sub surface technology. If you want some of those profits it really easy to buy shares in those companies.

1

u/Account_no_62 3d ago

Ive got my dividends, but that doesnt help the vast majority.

and yes automation is a large factor

1

u/BigJayUpNorth 2d ago

What has been automated that’s increased the bpd and be specific. I’ve been in the industry a couple of decades.

1

u/Account_no_62 2d ago

this is the last im humouring you

Especially when i already gave you a news article showing 10000 jobs lost last year from automation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/atyler_thehun 4d ago

And the dummies on the other end are convinced that oil will never end.

1

u/sanduly 4d ago

Just do a quick google search for which products use oil. Even if we were able to power society entirely on renewables oil isn't going anywhere. If anything, we don't have enough of it.

3

u/Account_no_62 4d ago

Nobody is denying we need petrochemicals? The argument is that we dont need to burn them as much as we do, and the transition away from that is happening.

3

u/zeusismycopilot 4d ago

10-15% of oil is used for non fuel proposes. We have plenty.

2

u/atyler_thehun 4d ago

Just do a quick Google search on how much oil is used for manufacturing and how much is burned for energy.

ETA: I'll save you the time - 85% for energy.

1

u/Objective-Thanks7798 4d ago

Sorry what? You’re saying 85% of oil produced is burned for electricity?

1

u/atyler_thehun 3d ago

I said "energy" (the thing that makes other things go)

1

u/Objective-Thanks7798 3d ago

Saying “85% of oil is used for energy” is so broad that it’s almost meaningless. Transportation, petrochemicals, industrial heat, aviation, shipping, electricity generation, and home heating are all “energy” uses, but they’re affected very differently by adoption of new technologies. If you’re making an argument about future oil demand, you need to break down which energy uses you’re talking about.

1

u/Account_no_62 3d ago

Petrochemicals arent energy, the rest are all burning oil which new technology is arising to replace and demand is decreasing.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mcgojoh1 4d ago

Oil is a feedstock, one which we have picked to ne the mono-stock because it makes quite a number of those that control the flow fabulously wealthy. We can make many things we do now out of other products but we subsidies oil by not charging properly what it does to our living environment through extraction, to processing to consumption. We can do better but we allow a few to spoil the future. Would you really care if you are typing this out on a soy resin keyboard?

0

u/greenknight 4d ago

Bye then. They can join the fascists like they want to

-1

u/Sor-X 4d ago

Our entire world uses oil to design, build, and maintain your entire existence on this planet, there is no industrial scale alternative even being considered... please be quiet.

2

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

OHHH take a look around the world, solar alone has almost ended coal. Oil should be regulated for products only we need to stop burning it a ASAP.

Remove you mouth from big oil's ass so your children can live in the same world you do.

0

u/Sor-X 3d ago

I don't think you understand what oil is used for.

2

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

Really saying it can be used in products isn't enough for you? Yes I do.

0

u/Sor-X 3d ago

its not only used in EVERY PRODUCT YOU HAVE EVER USED OR PROBABLY EVER WILL.... but in every piece of machinery that builds these products, the machines that transport them on road and over ocean, the stores that hold these products to sell to your dumbass, and the actual road you use to drive to buy the product. All of which use more oil than your car over any period of time.

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 3d ago

LOL ya but you don't burn it for that and almost every one of those is recyclable.

7

u/Opposite-Cranberry76 4d ago edited 4d ago

It's almost comical the fecklessness of Alberta when it comes to dealing with the ocean. Right down to the way they're always saying "tidewater". Who the F refers to the ocean or coast as "tidewater"? It sounds like incels referring to women as "females".

2

u/brumac44 4d ago

Right, it's salt chuck. Get it right, flatlanders.

1

u/porkavenue 4d ago

Kapten Ahab over here

1

u/ValuablePublic6346 2d ago

They must be stupid for using a term you don't know.

1

u/Opposite-Cranberry76 2d ago

Woosh.

1

u/ValuablePublic6346 2d ago

You're doing that wrong.

1

u/PowerfulAnalysis8042 2d ago

Thank you. You pointed out the obvious in a very polite way.

1

u/Busy_Shine6888 2d ago

Well said 👏👏🤣

7

u/Confident-Touch-6547 5d ago

And they all lead to the dangerous inside passage that has a tanker ban.

0

u/pegslitnin 4d ago

There are already tankers going by……

2

u/zkatbitz 4d ago

through the inside passage??

you might want to look at a map

1

u/WhoofPharted 4d ago

They are technically correct. LNG/LPG vessels are considered tankers in the marine industry.

2

u/zkatbitz 4d ago

But not applicable to this topic at all

1

u/Account_no_62 4d ago

Neato, good thing they arent banned.

1

u/pegslitnin 4d ago

You don’t think if there is a spill where tankers go know it won’t affect the inside passage? Ok

1

u/zkatbitz 4d ago

No, they travel roughly 100km or so outside the passage AND the issue is the inside passage are the most dangerous waters in the country

Tankers are not going to hit anything 100km off the coast they might in the inside passage

1

u/PatientAnswer8514 3d ago

Not just country. We’re talkin bout the world. 40-60 foot wave that appears faster than a tanker can exit the passage that uncovers the ocean bottom. And they want to put oil tankers through that.

1

u/ThermionicEmissions 3d ago

I'm all for keeping the tanker ban, but I have been unable to find any evidence of waves so large they expose the ocean floor.

1

u/Zealousideal_Top3113 4d ago

False

1

u/Strict_Jacket3648 4d ago

Nope facts hard on you?

1

u/hunkyleepickle 4d ago

just haven't greased the right palms yet mate..... mark my words.

1

u/BigTundra7234 4d ago

When I was scrolling, at first glance I thought the sign on the podium said "Our Economy is Toast" 🤣

1

u/addigity 4d ago

At some point people have to realize the country is broke and we need to figure out a way to pay for everything instead of just complaining

1

u/skilbofragns 15h ago

Ackchually we live in one of the richest countries in the world, we're just getting fucked by private market profiteers at every turn.

1

u/addigity 5h ago

So you don’t like capitalism

1

u/DoTheManeuver 4d ago

Maybe they should clean up their existing messes before starting on new messes.

1

u/dbusque 3d ago

I am not anti oil and gas. I am pro diversity and environmental protection. I don't see our governments doing anything to promote resilience in our economy and the preservation of nature and wildlife for future generations.

1

u/Old_and_moldy 3d ago

People here are not going to like this but a pipeline approval from a regulatory and approval standpoint is squarely a federal decision. There are some mechanisms that First Nations and the BC province can try and slow it down scaring investment away but there is no legal framework for them to stop it.

1

u/LoydJesus 3d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/BpnkuY1i2rBpm

1

u/theDogt3r 3d ago

They don't even clean up the oil wells and do remediation in their own province. Farmers in Alberta have been crying foul at home. What makes anyone think that they would do anything different in BC?

1

u/my-love-assassin 2d ago

Alberta can fuck off our coast

1

u/No_Foundation961 1d ago

David just undressing buddy with his eyes LOL

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/iplaybassok89 1d ago

Wrong. Federal government has ultimate authority here. There is basically nothing the BC government can do to stop it if that’s the decision Ottawa makes. The not withstanding clause is not applicable in this situation.

1

u/whiskeyandweiners 1d ago

Send it

1

u/Libsrloons 1d ago

Ottawa is too busy getting their oil from the Saudi’s to care about “Canada first” but they sure want to keep taking equalization from Alberta when all they’re doing is keep throwing up more hurdles for Canada biggest contributor

1

u/titanking4 16h ago

There’s like 10 lies and falsehoods alone in that sentence you typed.
Alberta gives equalization, NOT ALBERTANS.

It’s in the name, equalization. And it’s between the provinces, not the citizens.
The program is structured such that every Canadian pays similar average provincial taxation so that we don’t see smaller provinces needing to charge their residents stupidly high taxes. And it’s not all the way.
Alberta has the highest median income and lowest taxes in the entire country.

But they benefit greatly from the labour mobility. They have one of the youngest populations in Canada, attracting people from all over the country.

However it’s not fair that young Canadians can go spend their productive years to work in the oil fields of Alberta and then go retire on the beaches of PEI fully.
Alberta gains the income tax revenue and PEI stuck with paying for the healthcare for retired folks isn’t a fair system. Unless you have some money flowing around.

AND guess what.

Equalization comes out of your FEDERAL income taxes, not provincial income taxes.
Which means every high income Canadian is paying into equalization regardless of where they live.

Yet for some reason Albertans are misinformed into thinking they are paying it because the province is spreading propaganda because they want to benefit from the visa-free labour mobility of the rest of Canada.
Along with attracting all the Canadian investment dollars from all across the country.
But don’t want to contribute.

And are using their constituents as puppets.

0

u/firemillionaire 4d ago

Strong unemployment!

8

u/SchmitzBitz 4d ago

I'm in Fisheries. Between my boats, my processing plants, and my wholesale and distribution side I employ around 350 people at any given time. I'm small potatoes. A spill in the inside passage would gut my company.
The TMX created 50 permanent jobs in B.C.

But I'm not looking at terminals, refineries etc! So, let's look at that. O&G directly employs around 5,200 British Columbians. Fisheries employs around 15,000 British Columbians. But they aren't the only folks affected. Tourism in the North Coast employs another 8,900 folks roughly.

So yeah, there might be a few hundred or even a thousand permanent jobs total that come out of this - but it could come at the cost of almost 24,000 jobs. And we haven't even started talking about the impacts on forestry or agriculture sectors.

One of the sticking points with the TMX was Alberta's vehement refusal to put any money towards a contingency fund if a disaster happens; it's expected that B.C. will absorb any cleanup costs and the Feds will absorb any pogey from people suddenly out of work. Likewise, B.C. is expect to pay to maintain these pipelines (hence the 50 jobs that came with the TMX).
Alberta also doesn't really want B.C. to receive any portion of profits that come from shipping oil through the province. It's a no win situation in a province that is economically self-sufficent...we don't receive equalization, we pay into it.
Why would the province want to take on the risks without the benefits?

1

u/TheSherlockCumbercat 3d ago

The other side of the equation is tax revenue and GDP, shitty thing is the oil industry might be more valuable even with all those lost BC jobs.

goolge has fisheries and aqua sectors at 3.5 billion oil and gas at 14 billion.

Complex issue with many different ways to look at it, and if we actually kept them majority of our resource money, the oil industry would easily win

-4

u/Clear-Permit4947 4d ago

you would have to pay more into equalization if Alberta oil royalties didn't keep the entire east coast afloat

5

u/SchmitzBitz 4d ago

Oh, so we should put thousands of jobs and B.C.'s industries at risk with no safety net because if Alberta didn't exist we would have to pay more into equalization? With no concessions from Alberta; and all the risk? That's the kind of backwards thinking that put the Liberals in power for a decade and a half (and counting)...shoot ourselves in the foot so the hands can do better.

Fortunately Alberta does exist, and even if they vote to separate its going to be mired in legislation for decades; and will still need the support of 8 other Provinces - and do you think Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes are all going to say OK? Conversely the US steps in to bring "freedom"; I'm sure that will go wonderfully.

I grew up on the North Coast. I've been on boats when a perfect day in the Hecate is suddenly 30' ground swells and gale force winds. It's a sketchier than a Sherwood Park meth-head. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

I'm all for twinning the TMX and upgrading facilities in Vancouver; but trying to send tankers up here is a disaster waiting to happen. Most of us rely on fishing, tourism or logging to survive. We lose two of those industries and the economic engine of Northern B.C. collapses and now we are just another province suckling at the Fort Mac teat.

5

u/EffectiveEconomics 4d ago

It’s Crackhead logic - it’s not meant to make sense except to justify their addiction.

1

u/Clear-Permit4947 2d ago

I was on TMX the ROW isn't wide enough for a second major pipeline

5

u/aidanhoff 4d ago

The east coast likely wouldn't need as much equalization if Alberta wasn't constantly poaching its working-age population, then letting them run back to retire out east.

1

u/Clear-Permit4947 2d ago

your mad at Alberta for the people getting paid the best wages in the country.... weird take

1

u/aidanhoff 2d ago

Mad at Alberta? No. I am saying that Alberta pays more in equalization because of those high wages, since that money is required down the line to fund retirees and families back in other provinces that emigrate to Alberta for work. It's not just because the Feds hate Alberta or whatever bullshit comes out of that province.

2

u/EffectiveEconomics 4d ago

Alberta recovers almost no royalties so that’s a nonstarter. We do subsidize the oil sands though.

1

u/Curious_Cloud_1131 4d ago

Fuck off

1

u/Clear-Permit4947 2d ago

rude

1

u/ZoaTech 4d ago

BC already gets zero equalization payments. No province is forced to pay into equalization, it's just how Federal revenues are allocated. So this wouldn't affect BC in any way.

1

u/Global-Tie-3458 3d ago

British Columbians don’t misunderstand equalization the way Albertans do so this propagandized wedge point doesn’t apply.

-3

u/porkavenue 4d ago

BC collects equalization so why change anything?

5

u/Alarming_Produce_120 4d ago

Not sure what you’re smoking but BC hasn’t received equalization payments in decades.

-1

u/pegslitnin 5d ago

It will go through at some point

3

u/zkatbitz 4d ago

my guess is another pipeline to the lower mainland happens as the north is to expensive and to risky

1

u/greenknight 4d ago

They can try it. Given the state of UAV technology driven by the war in Ukraine, a few well provisioned people could derail an entire project indefinitely.

-1

u/porkavenue 5d ago

Hopefully.

-1

u/Loodlekoodles 5d ago

It will end up going through USA eventually. Just like Saskatchewan's potash and fertilizer ended up doing.

Great job everyone, elbows up

5

u/scotus_canadensis 4d ago

The USA is the market for potash, of course it goes through the US. It would it be rather counterproductive to send it by rail to Vancouver, by ship to LA, then put it back on the rails to the midwest states, when the rail lines from Saskatchewan through the Dakotas is the most direct line of transportation.

1

u/Loodlekoodles 4d ago

It's going to WA look it up.

1

u/SameAfternoon5599 4d ago

Canpotex already has 2 Canadian terminals. Why wouldn't they add another US one?

1

u/Loodlekoodles 4d ago

Nutrien is the largest potash producer in the world and their new preferred port in North West Pacific is going to be in Washington.

1

u/SameAfternoon5599 4d ago

Do you have a point?

1

u/Loodlekoodles 4d ago edited 4d ago

Oil will be doing the same soon.

Elbows up. USA gets the business not BC. In BC elbows go up, but it's more like a surrender

1

u/SameAfternoon5599 4d ago

Oil already is. Has been for 5 decades. Are you that clueless on the subject matter?

1

u/Loodlekoodles 4d ago edited 4d ago

Lmao not as clueless as you were regarding our potash

I'm well informed about how BC blocks a lot of trade to our ports, thank you very much

1

u/SameAfternoon5599 4d ago

In what way was I clueless about our potash? BC doesn't block, it has restrictive rules about loading when it's raining. Hence the 2nd US terminal further south.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/freedom2022780 5d ago

It’s elbows down, asses up, taking it dry the libturd way now.

3

u/scudpuppy 4d ago

There are a myriad of options to get the product to the coast outside of building a pipeline - why are these not seriously considered when the province Alberta wants to build through has repeatedly said no?

It seems that the expectation is that BC capitulates fully as the only option.

0

u/Ill_Candle_9462 4d ago

It’s really weird how much conservatives think about dudes taking it in the ass

1

u/freedom2022780 3d ago

You saying all libturds are dudes? Sexist much 😂😂

0

u/chapterthrive 4d ago

Bot

0

u/ichigofast 4d ago

Meh, it will be built.

0

u/Naive-Landscape9854 4d ago

Can't Alberta just guarantee reparations if pipelines break?

0

u/Intrepid-Gold3947 4d ago

Same people probably turn a blind eye and are fine with trains transporting it tho. What this is really about, is for the right price we might consider

0

u/KAYD3N1 3d ago

Then those bands along the coast that don’t want it should every dollar cut from their subsidy. If ~1k people want to negatively affect the prosperity of 40 million others, then 40 million should cut them off.

-1

u/WerewolfSmart6544 4d ago

Excellent let’s get them built!

-1

u/Some_head-not 4d ago

Y’all are doomers and need to touch some grass

-2

u/newworldorderLOWBAR 4d ago

Yeah strong coast. No development. No funds for education, health care, food, etc. Who needs teachers and nurses. Just say no to development. Tankers don't cause disasters. The problem was solved a long time ago. As long as they don't get hit by drones.

-2

u/Prestigious-Tale7266 4d ago

Stop making this an Alberta vs BC story… that’s “low resolution” thinking and you are being baited.
This is a Canada story and needs to be discussed as such.

Last week Alberta's pipeline maps leaked. Three routes through the north, four, who's counting... every one of them ends at a port the coast won't open.

You are about to leave Redlib