Does Western Alienation exist, and how can we fix it?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The US had a strategic supply of oil when they were importing significant amounts from the Middle East. For obvious reasons.

They still have one--for obvious reasons. We should as well--for obvious reasons.

https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

They still have one--for obvious reasons. We should as well--for obvious reasons.

https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

For what? I mean, if we suddenly got cut off from all supplies, there would be regions of the country under some duress, but would it really be worthwhile for this endeavor?

I suspect Quebec and the East would be calling for one if they felt it was important.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

We always assume everything will be okay and then when we get blindsided we don't have a clue of what to do.

Basically describes our economic, infrastructure, housing, and military policy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Basically describes our economic, infrastructure, housing, and military policy.

Yes we are a complete basket case of a country, ready to be invaded and plundered.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

For what? I mean, if we suddenly got cut off from all supplies, there would be regions of the country under some duress, but would it really be worthwhile for this endeavor?

I suspect Quebec and the East would be calling for one if they felt it was important.

I think Canadians always have it in the back of their minds that our big brother to the south would take care of us, but given how things have gone in the past few years, I'm not sure we can still continue to feel so secure.

Without going into a long story, one of the reasons that Germany wasn't victorious in WWII was that they weren't energy secure (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=78524) - near the end of the war, when their supply chains were cut off, the Luftwaffe did not have enough fuel to keep all their planes in the air, for example. We don't have to go to war for this to matter, it's just an example of how important it can be to not be overly dependent on other nations for our necessities of life (one of which, for the time being anyway, is oil).

Regardless, our natural resources should benefit our own citizens first and foremost, and they can still be a powerful bargaining tool for dealing with other nations, but we need to 'own it'... we shouldn't be making ourselves financially or otherwise dependent on any foreign nation through over-exporting or over-importing to any single one of them. And to 'own it', we have to get together as a nation rather than bickering within our nation.

We certainly shouldn't be in the position of bowing down to China because we assisted the US by detaining a corrupt executive from a company with close ties to the communist Chinese government... but we have put ourselves in that position unfortunately.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think Canadians always have it in the back of their minds that our big brother to the south would take care of us, but given how things have gone in the past few years, I'm not sure we can still continue to feel so secure.

Without going into a long story, one of the reasons that Germany wasn't victorious in WWII was that they weren't energy secure (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=78524) - near the end of the war, when their supply chains were cut off, the Luftwaffe did not have enough fuel to keep all their planes in the air, for example. We don't have to go to war for this to matter, it's just an example of how important it can be to not be overly dependent on other nations for our necessities of life (one of which, for the time being anyway, is oil).

Regardless, our natural resources should benefit our own citizens first and foremost, and they can still be a powerful bargaining tool for dealing with other nations, but we need to 'own it'... we shouldn't be making ourselves financially or otherwise dependent on any foreign nation through over-exporting or over-importing to any single one of them. And to 'own it', we have to get together as a nation rather than bickering within our nation.

We certainly shouldn't be in the position of bowing down to China because we assisted the US by detaining a corrupt executive from a company with close ties to the communist Chinese government... but we have put ourselves in that position unfortunately.

This is a much bigger discussion than oil. Again, we produce enough oil (and food) to feed the country, but rely on international trade to get a better deal.

We can hem and haw over massive east-west pipelines, but they are not required for domestic demand. Eastern Canada can import oil from literally anywhere on earth with a port. The only reason they would have to rely on Alberta oil (which could be supplied via rail in a complete emergency), is if we were cut off not only from the US, but there was a naval blockade of the maritimes.

Let's not compare us to WW2-era Germany, that doesn't have a basis in reality, honestly.

Put differently, what would a domestic-only pipeline cost us, and would your market be willing to pay the premium required to get that supply (including the pipeline construction itself)?

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This is a much bigger discussion than oil. Again, we produce enough oil (and food) to feed the country, but rely on international trade to get a better deal.

We can hem and haw over massive east-west pipelines, but they are not required for domestic demand. Eastern Canada can import oil from literally anywhere on earth with a port. The only reason they would have to rely on Alberta oil (which could be supplied via rail in a complete emergency), is if we were cut off not only from the US, but there was a naval blockade of the maritimes.

Let's not compare us to WW2-era Germany, that doesn't have a basis in reality, honestly.

Put differently, what would a domestic-only pipeline cost us, and would your market be willing to pay the premium required to get that supply (including the pipeline construction itself)?

Yes there have been private proposals for energy East. I’m not sure they’d be willing to now given how TMX went.

And Japan suffered heavily due to logistical problems as well in WW2. America has been pushing for energy independence and has been much more successful at it than I expected.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

They still have one--for obvious reasons. We should as well--for obvious reasons.

https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

No, the reasons are not obvious and do not go without saying.

And how do you define energy independence? No answer you give will make any logical sense, I guarantee. We are much more energy independent than most nations regardless anyway.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This is a much bigger discussion than oil. Again, we produce enough oil (and food) to feed the country, but rely on international trade to get a better deal.

We can hem and haw over massive east-west pipelines, but they are not required for domestic demand. Eastern Canada can import oil from literally anywhere on earth with a port. The only reason they would have to rely on Alberta oil (which could be supplied via rail in a complete emergency), is if we were cut off not only from the US, but there was a naval blockade of the maritimes.

Let's not compare us to WW2-era Germany, that doesn't have a basis in reality, honestly.

Put differently, what would a domestic-only pipeline cost us, and would your market be willing to pay the premium required to get that supply (including the pipeline construction itself)?

Exactly. If push comes to shove, we could transport oil by rail anyway. If we in the type of doomsday scenario where we absolutely had to get oil from one side of the country to the other for military purposes, then the railways wouldn't be transporting sea cans of Canadian Tire crap, and the fuel would be being diverted to military vehicles also rather than civilian. We'd have much bigger things to worry about.

The fact that writing this out sounds so ridiculous shows how stupid the argument for pipelines on the grounds of national defense is.

[misher]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Exactly. If push comes to shove, we could transport oil by rail anyway. If we in the type of doomsday scenario where we absolutely had to get oil from one side of the country to the other for military purposes, then the railways wouldn't be transporting sea cans of Canadian Tire crap, and the fuel would be being diverted to military vehicles also rather than civilian. We'd have much bigger things to worry about.

The fact that writing this out sounds so ridiculous shows how stupid the argument for pipelines on the grounds of national defense is.

We definitely would should upgrade our rail. Our roads and rail are definitely not up to standard.

What upsets me in the West isn’t exactly the whole anti oil thing it’s the anti-business anti wealth rhetoric. Canadians seem to want our economy to crash. Being ranked 35 should be big news but instead it’s been completely overlooked. How can we diversify from our main industries when our government is killing business. I’d be happier with our anti oil anti real estate boner if everything else was doing well and we were ranked higher than most nations. It seems like we want to focus on how to destroy our economy rather than build it. Why are we happy with 2% or less annual GDP growth?

BCBC economist Jock Finlayson pointed to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, which shows Canada has fallen a couple of notches overall.


While it ranked well in some areas, it ranked 35th in terms of its regulatory regime – almost last among the industrialized economies, Finlayson said.

Bill Robson, CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute, said Canada does very well when it comes to things like educational achievement and importing talent through immigration.

Canada scores poorly on per worker investment on things like new plants, equipment, and intellectual property, he said. Whereas the per worker investment in Canada is $15,000, the average in OECD countries is $21,000 and $26,000 in the U.S.

Taxes and regulatory burdens are largely to blame for that lack of investment confidence.

Finlayson said the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada have been pushing for a modernization of Canada’s “increasingly creaky and outdated income tax system.”

[/Reducing red tape is one thing governments could do to give Canadian resource industries a bit more of a competitive edge without it costing them anything.

“We need to streamline our permitting and our regulatory processes, because that is a place where we can find some savings and help us get back to a more competitive position,” Yurkovich said.

Finlayson cited one example of a company, which he did not name, that had planned a $2 billion expansion to an existing facility. He said it is now expected to take nine to 10 years, from start to finish, to get the project through the regulatory process, which will add about $1 billion to the expansion’s capital cost.

“I think it’s very symptomatic of regulatory systems in Canada that just are not working effectively,” Finlayson said.

“And it’s not about lowering standards – it’s designing processes that people can get through and understand what the steps are before they have to retire from their organization or withdraw their projects.”

[milomilo]

I don't think many people are anti business. The economy is a complex thing and many people are narrow minded and think the industry they work in is the only industry that matters, it happens with all industries but resource extraction is the most notable. Why should Canada have as a policy goal of increasing oil production year after year, forever? That is what Albertans want, and it is absurd. It isn't being anti business to not promote putting all our eggs in one basket, we must design policy to balance the needs of all sectors of the economy.

[misher]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't think many people are anti business. The economy is a complex thing and many people are narrow minded and think the industry they work in is the only industry that matters, it happens with all industries but resource extraction is the most notable. Why should Canada have as a policy goal of increasing oil production year after year, forever? That is what Albertans want, and it is absurd. It isn't being anti business to not promote putting all our eggs in one basket, we must design policy to balance the needs of all sectors of the economy.

Yes but shouldn’t we fix most of the problems in our economy and get to the top 10 before we begin targeting sectors of our economy for destruction?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Exactly. If push comes to shove, we could transport oil by rail anyway. If we in the type of doomsday scenario where we absolutely had to get oil from one side of the country to the other for military purposes, then the railways wouldn't be transporting sea cans of Canadian Tire crap, and the fuel would be being diverted to military vehicles also rather than civilian. We'd have much bigger things to worry about.

The fact that writing this out sounds so ridiculous shows how stupid the argument for pipelines on the grounds of national defense is.

What's ridiculous is that you think if there was military conflict that the railroads wouldn't be impacted nor oil production. We definitely need more pipelines for a number of reasons including national defense. No, they would not be totally immune from attack or sabotage but they would be easier to protect than rail lines.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by misher

Yes but shouldn’t we fix most of the problems in our economy and get to the top 10 before we begin targeting sectors of our economy for destruction?

They are not being targeted for destruction. That is ridiculous. If we just talk about the oil industry, we are still producing (almost, due to curtailment) record levels of oil every day. And no economy is ever going to be perfect, we will always be trying to fix the problems we have. The only way we would 'perfect' things is if economic growth was zero and we could just tinker with the status quo.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

What's ridiculous is that you think if there was military conflict that the railroads wouldn't be impacted nor oil production. We definitely need more pipelines for a number of reasons including national defense. No, they would not be totally immune from attack or sabotage but they would be easier to protect than rail lines.

If you want to prioritise national defense (and I do think we neglect our defenses), rather than spend the money on highly inefficient national subsidy schemes for the oil industry as you want, the money would be much better spent just funding the military. If we are in the situation where oil supply on Canadian soil is threatened, that will not be limiting factor in our defense.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They are not being targeted for destruction. That is ridiculous. If we just talk about the oil industry, we are still producing (almost, due to curtailment) record levels of oil every day. And no economy is ever going to be perfect, we will always be trying to fix the problems we have. The only way we would 'perfect' things is if economic growth was zero and we could just tinker with the status quo.

Producing but not letting producers get their product to a world market is close enough to being targeted for destruction. One would have to be blind not to see that whenever this happens in Canada it's always directed at the west. If the auto sector was told they could only sell their output in Canada ON and QC would go nuts.

[milomilo]

Boohoo. You have all the facts, but the narrative you have in your mind is fictional. TMX is under construction right now. Even if the Liberals had done things different and somehow it had not been delayed at all (unlikely, things would have been the same under a Conservative government), it still wouldn't be online right now. What more do you want?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If you want to prioritise national defense (and I do think we neglect our defenses), rather than spend the money on highly inefficient national subsidy schemes for the oil industry as you want, the money would be much better spent just funding the military. If we are in the situation where oil supply on Canadian soil is threatened, that will not be limiting factor in our defense.

Subsidy schemes? You mean the ability to write down equipment that every industry gets? You also think that if our oil supply is threatened that won't be a limiting factor in our defense? Yikes!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Boohoo. You have all the facts, but the narrative you have in your mind is fictional. TMX is under construction right now. Even if the Liberals had done things different and somehow it had not been delayed at all (unlikely, things would have been the same under a Conservative government), it still wouldn't be online right now. What more do you want?

Under construction and operating at full expanded capacity are two different things. You see to have a huge problem with reality and looking at all of the facts.

[milomilo]

So you just ignored what I wrote?