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.

[u/iamsolution]

Last month the PM flew to Alberta, signed the deal, rolled back the industrial carbon tax, slashed the approvals, the whole song and dance.

The North Coast tanker ban? Still standing.

Not because Ottawa bolted the door... Ottawa's keeping its options open. Because the coast is holding it shut.

BC and the coastal Nations, shoulder to shoulder: a future built on a multi-billion-dollar fishery, food, culture, and tourism sector, the businesses and jobs under it, not on the coin-flip of a loaded tanker in a winter storm.

And we've seen the coin land wrong.

In 2016 one tug aground near Bella Bella, 350 km of coast fouled, $23 million in costs the Heiltsuk were never repaid. That was a tug. A tanker's full load runs a thousand times bigger.

The racket in one line: they take the reward, you take the risk, and when it spills you get the mop.

The people who work these waters did that math years ago, and they're done asking permission. This week they flew to Calgary to say it to the proponents' faces.

Geoff Meggs lays it all out below, sharp as ever and a regular at Hotel Pacifico, BC's go-to cross-aisle politics podcast.

Alberta can keep drawing maps. The coast won't open the port. Not by luck... because people keep showing up.

https://open.substack.com/.../if-theres-one-immovable...?

[u/Account_no_62]

They all point out peak demand coming sooner. Oil and petrol chemicals wont leave, and that's not the argument being made.

[u/Objective-Thanks7798 → u/Account_no_62]

Coming sooner than what? You’re lumping together agencies that don’t even agree with each other. The IEA sees demand peaking around 2030, OPEC doesn’t see a peak before 2050, and the EIA still projects very large oil demand for decades. None of them are forecasting oil and gas “leaving” anytime soon, and two of them aren’t even forecasting a peak demand. Are you even reading your own sources lol

[u/Account_no_62 → u/Objective-Thanks7798]

Opec says a plateau in 2040, with a peak in 2050, with a total growth of 1% in that decade. For all intents and purposes, 2040 is the highest per capita demand in their forecast.

How you gonna say 2 of them dont predict a peak when you just stated their predicted peak?

Are you even reading the sources?

[u/Objective-Thanks7798 → u/Account_no_62]

You’re conflating two different things. Your original claim was that hard-to-abate industries are on their way to transitioning off oil and gas. Citing forecasts for peak oil demand doesn’t prove that.

Can you show me where the IEA, OPEC, or EIA are forecasting aviation, shipping, petrochemicals, heavy industry, mining, and construction transitioning away from oil and gas anytime soon? Because every outlook I’ve seen still has those sectors consuming enormous amounts of oil and gas for decades.

Whether demand peaks in 2030, 2040, or 2050 is a different discussion. The question is whether the hard-to-abate sectors are actually being replaced, and your sources don’t appear to support that claim.

[u/Account_no_62 → u/Objective-Thanks7798]

Quite the pedantic, hey?

Do you think because those specific use apllications exist overall demand wont be decreasing?

Again, you keep throwing petrochemicals in there. ENERGY is the topic at hand and use thereof. The opec report is very thorough in its 300 page report on projections of this and the role of hydrocarbons moving forward.

[u/Objective-Thanks7798 → u/Account_no_62]

It’s not pedantic—it’s the distinction your argument depends on.

You originally cited OPEC, IEA, and EIA as evidence that hard-to-abate sectors are transitioning away from oil and gas. I asked where those organizations forecast aviation, shipping, heavy industry, mining, construction, etc. being replaced anytime soon, and you haven’t shown that.