Canadian Federal Election

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

They would be treated like North Dakota.

Small town government. Some small business, all the corporate HQ are somewhere else and its where they have some locals to look after the oil wells and do some farming. Maybe built a few KFCs and a Walmart.

Saskatchewan and Alberta have done well being part of Canada. Saskatoon is the Canadian centre of gravity for uranium and potash as well as having a major university. Calgary is the centre of gravity for the oil sector and well have an impressive list of national companies with HQ jobs there.

I struggle to understand how Alberta would compete with places like Delaware for incorporation, or Texas for HQ jobs. And politically, they'd be down to 2 Senators and 5-6 Congressmen. That's less influence than they have on Canada. And it's not like the US immune to federal politics cancelling pipelines. See Keystone XL.

Thankfully, I think most Albertans are level headed enough not to fall for this.

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The only reason private money won't build it is because our broken system means it would take a decade to do something we can do in 18 months with political will and it will cost 3X what it should. Especially for Northern Gateway which was already approved. Now it was approved with all sorts of expensive and delaying conditions. We should buy the project from the developers. I am sure it would be cheap and aim to complete it in 2 years. Also triple it's capacity so we can export if needed a huge portion of our oil by tanker and thus not be dependent on the US. We would also need to remove the oil production cap.

Agree Carney is being purposely vague. His previous record (as a climate ideologue) would suggest that is to win over the soft oil voters without committing but I don't think any of them are really accessible Liberal voters so more likely he knows he will need to do something on oil and gas but doesn't want to alienate the much larger group of accessible voters in places like Vancouver Island and the general suburban woman who wants to support climate change on vibes but doesn't want to pay for it. (thus easiest way is punish the oil industry and continue to pay for social programs from the money tree) ( the imaginary money tree not the real money tree that oil and gas is for Canada)

The main reason why it won't be built is if your Enbridge, today your charging a toll on oil to the US using a paid for asset, likely making a good profit. Why would spend billions building a new pipeline, abandon the one that is paid for to move the same product through an asset your will now need to spend a decade paying off.

The only way it makes sense is if its net new production and the existing pipeline remains in service.

Is anyone going to invest in expanding oil sands operations at the scale needed to justify a new pipeline with the current price of oil? Probably not.

Best option is Canada buys a fleet of rail tankers (similar to what it does with grain) makes it available to the oil companies. Builds up demand on the route to Prince Rupert. Once there is sufficient volumes to justify a pipeline it moves forward with the project.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

CGL is delivering 2Bcf/d and has the potential capacity to deliver 5Bcf/d. Exactly how much capacity do you think we need for export?

200bcf per day.

Total displacement of global coal to natural gas will create ~400-500bcf per day of demand. Some of us want to capitalize on that instead of staying poor.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Here's my prediction:

LPC: 43% (176 seats)
CPC: 41% (132 seats)
NDP: 8% (8 seats)
BQ: 6% (24 seats)
GRN: 1% (2 seats)
PPC: 1% (0 seats)


And to add to that, in Atlantic Canada:

LPC: 55% (25 seats)
CPC: 38% (7 seats)
NDP: 6% (0 seats)

On one hand I'm really bullish on the CPC in rural NL, on the other hand I just want to take the easy way out and predict 7 LPC seats. Sticking to my gut feeling in those rural districts has done me well in the past, so I'll do it again. I really want to give Terra Nova-The Peninsulas to the CPC as well, but I suspect they may lose it by a very slim margin.

I'm predicting something more like this... Maritime voters are very pragmatic, as are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I think people in the maritimes already get that they get slightly more representation than we "deserve" for being one of the first provinces, and they see the greater benefit of sending MPs who are going to be part of the sitting government to Ottawa, rather than members of the opposition.

New Brunswick sure won't be doing itself any favours sending four of its ten MP's to Ottawa as members of the opposition. Here in my riding of Saint John-St. Croix, voting for the CPC's John Williamson would essentially be the dictionary definition of voting against the interests of the riding, as international trade is vital to the economic prosperity of this riding. We'd be much better served sending a member of the government to Ottawa to represent our interests. For my riding, all I can do is hope that Fournier's projection is wrong, which was somewhat the case with 338 and the 2024 NB Election... he just doesn't have nearly enough data to accurately predict locals races in New Brunswick, so I think the riding is still in the realm of flippable.

[LikesBikes]

If the US had voted for Kamala in their election there wouldn't be anybody out west talking about joining the US. It's so blatanly partisan and shows how the Trump cult is so powerful that it even overtakes people's (idiots if we're being honest here) patriotism/national identity because they love him so much and hate his "enemies".

While I hate the idea of Quebec leaving, they have a fair argument as their culture, politics and language are very different from the rest of Canada. Alberta and Saskatchewan? Not so much.

[FactaNV]

Honestly if Quebec is going to be an issue, cut them out. Export from Churchill, Port Nelson and the West Coast. It'll take time and money but we have the technology and increasingly, the world's largest fleet of icebreakers to facilitate this.

[casper]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

If the US had voted for Kamala in their election there wouldn't be anybody out west talking about joining the US. It's so blatanly partisan and shows how the Trump cult is so powerful that it even overtakes people's (idiots if we're being honest here) patriotism/national identity because they love him so much and hate his "enemies".

While I hate the idea of Quebec leaving, they have a fair argument as their culture, politics and language are very different from the rest of Canada. Alberta and Saskatchewan? Not so much.

The US President just passed an executive order requiring all truck drives to be able to speak English at some minimum level based on his earlier executive order that the US has only one official language and that is English.

Quebec is as Canadian as the rest of Canada. While language is different, they share the same history and culture. Metis across western Canada trace their heritage back to fur traders from Quebec. We share the same sports, we share the same business practices.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by casper

Best option is Canada buys a fleet of rail tankers (similar to what it does with grain) makes it available to the oil companies.

Yes, people are sleeping on rail.

-Roughly 14 trains per day are required to move 1 million barrels of oil (1,430 cars).
-Roughly 4 trains per day to move 1bcf of LNG equivalent (378 cars).

So LNG plants at the well, and rail cars to move it make great sense. Also, rail lines are versatile. They can carry oil, gas, grain, biomass, cargo, etc. A pipeline can carry only 1 thing. And, rail will possibly be even more socially acceptable to build than pipes.

If we go rail, at least 5 twinned rail lines to Kitimat would be needed. Just to get us started.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

200bcf per day.

Total displacement of global coal to natural gas will create ~400-500bcf per day of demand. Some of us want to capitalize on that instead of staying poor.

200? Come on dude. How much can we actually produce reasonably?