Carney seals the pipeline deal, and his energy minister touts a $43-billion taxpayer bailout as a good investment. Would you buy a used “energy superpower” strategy from these guys?
NO. I would not buy this energy superpower strategy from ‘these guys’, or anyone else. I think they’re the ones that have been ‘sold’, or perhaps they have just ‘SOLD 🇨🇦OUT’.
Betrayal and the willingness to destroy life as we know it are never the foundations for TRUST. Those of us with a heart and integrity can no longer expect our governments to “do the right thing”. The people, not the multimillionaires, must take the lead and act on behalf of future generations.
Michael thanks for the extensive coverage of the game Carney plays . A very sad and discomforting occasion for Liberals to experience . This double speak as Orwell called it will be soon apparent .
That private capital isn’t interested in the project says everything about it’s fiscal viability. More telling is that TMX is planning operational improvements that will increase capacity in a meaningful way, as are other pipelines. Not sure there is even demand for this.
Between the $30b for TMX and another $40b for a new pipeline, that starts to be real money… and don’t forget the cost to taxpayers to dredge 2nd narrows in Vancouver harbour as a project cost too. Gonna take a lot of revenue per barrel just to break even. The math isn’t mathing as the kids say.
We absolutely don't know yet whether Carney's strategy and navigation on this will pay off — that takes years to measure. What we do know is that it's already created some breathing room, and taken wind out of the sails of those who'd like to see Canada end.
On timing and cost: worst case, highest cost estimate, and no oil is ever pumped through the new line; no fees, no royalties, no taxes, no multiplier effect - the annualized cost is 0.3% of the federal budget. That's the math. Realistically some oil gets pumped, so the cost would be less than that. Run the realistic worst case instead; highest cost, highest interest rates, lowest demand, all the real risks realized, and the line would need to average about 85% capacity over 30 years to fully pay for itself. So it's not risk- or cost-free, but it's not the drain on government some characterize it as.
So the compare-and-contrast you're accidentally pointing to is that:
* A plan to quickly ramp up heat pumps, home energy efficiency, electric vehicle charging, rooftop solar, balcony solar, utility-scale solar and wind, and energy storage would deliver far faster, more predictable results.
* The program would actually deliver the solutions people want, and confront energy poverty rather than exposing Albertans and all the rest of us to the volatility and unpredictability of fossil fuels.
* Investing more than $40 billion to get it done would be just a blip on the federal budget or the national GDP, as energy transition modellers and analysts have been insisting for half of forever.
* Building renewables in Alberta might restore the province, or at least bring it closer, to being Canada's leading jurisdiction for new solar and wind before the province dropped a moratorium on that activity three years ago, then buried the industry in regulation. Investors are now looking elsewhere, as they should under the circumstances, and exactly as the Smith government hoped and expected they would. Lifting the freeze and actually doing something practical to help Alberta was supposed to be part of the MOU deal, but you haven't heard much about that lately, have you?
* Investing $40 billion _would mean investing $40 billion_, rather than watching helplessly as costs increase and crucial deadlines are missed, just the way it happened with Trans Mountain.
* Investing in the right stuff, rather than the wrong stuff, would mean *not* emitting another (very rough estimate) 164 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
So sure, knowing all that, let's go ahead and make the mistake anyway. It's just a blip, isn't it?
I wasn't clear and this context matters. I was referring specifically to the comparison made in the post implying that this is throwing money away that could address today's affordability crisis. That is not accurate. I was trying to put that claim in context.
I agree with most of your points in a way (especially around the lost opportunities for renewables leadership due to the authoritarian and compromised provincial government in Alberta) but I also recognize that there are well reasoned and yet differing opinions on many of the other points.
Fair, and apologies for snarking at you. The problem with any revenue plan for the pipeline and the LNG terminals is that it assumes enough demand for Canadian oil and gas, over a long enough time span of years or a couple of decades, to cover the likely ballooning costs of the projects. Or even just to cover the costs they're projecting today.
Granted, it isn't impossible. But it's an exceptionally risky bet, which is why there was some comfort in the previous pledge to hold out for a private investor, rather than committing taxpayers' dollars. It's telling that, with all of Carney's and Hodgson's international contacts and all of Smith's ideologically-driven urgency, the only one they could find was as hedged and equivocal as Pembina Pipeline.
The energy-importing countries that are home to about 74% of the world's population were pivoting to cheaper, cleaner options before the Hormuz crisis. The IEA was projecting that demand for all three fossil fuels would peak this decade before going into permanent decline. And the notion that the last shipments sold will be Canadian is PR for the hometown audience, not anything based in evidence or likelihood. The shift has been accelerated by the latest energy price shock -- particularly in Asia, the region hardest hit by the closure of the strait, and that Canada is touting as its prime market.
So, no, it isn't absolutely, utterly impossible. But if you had $40 billion to spend, particularly if you had a public duty to spend it wisely, would you go for the long shot or the far surer bet?
I agree... with my trademark fence sitting. How do we respond to the extortion and disharmony from the provincial government? We are a federation and a democracy. A lot of people support this and Smith and Co. will make Canada the villain. I hate it when the terrorists win but I feel the conflict that Carney and Co. have to deal with here. Your approach is more aligned with what I expected from Carney.
Oh, yes. We've given a lot of air time -- on the Weekender and in our regular news digest -- to the sovereignty threat Carney is staring down on behalf of all of us, and the added clout it hands to Smith. Other countries, as well as international agencies like the IEA, are up against their own versions of the same political dynamics. I still have confidence that Carney _thinks_ he's doing the right thing and the best thing in the circumstances. But along the way, he's crossed most of the red lines that gave the MOU the slightest shred of credibility.
NO. I would not buy this energy superpower strategy from ‘these guys’, or anyone else. I think they’re the ones that have been ‘sold’, or perhaps they have just ‘SOLD 🇨🇦OUT’.
Betrayal and the willingness to destroy life as we know it are never the foundations for TRUST. Those of us with a heart and integrity can no longer expect our governments to “do the right thing”. The people, not the multimillionaires, must take the lead and act on behalf of future generations.
Michael thanks for the extensive coverage of the game Carney plays . A very sad and discomforting occasion for Liberals to experience . This double speak as Orwell called it will be soon apparent .
Thanks, Lloyd. And thanks to you, too, for your recent post on how nature always gets even.
https://lloydaxworthy.substack.com/p/mother-nature-gets-even
That private capital isn’t interested in the project says everything about it’s fiscal viability. More telling is that TMX is planning operational improvements that will increase capacity in a meaningful way, as are other pipelines. Not sure there is even demand for this.
Between the $30b for TMX and another $40b for a new pipeline, that starts to be real money… and don’t forget the cost to taxpayers to dredge 2nd narrows in Vancouver harbour as a project cost too. Gonna take a lot of revenue per barrel just to break even. The math isn’t mathing as the kids say.
We absolutely don't know yet whether Carney's strategy and navigation on this will pay off — that takes years to measure. What we do know is that it's already created some breathing room, and taken wind out of the sails of those who'd like to see Canada end.
On timing and cost: worst case, highest cost estimate, and no oil is ever pumped through the new line; no fees, no royalties, no taxes, no multiplier effect - the annualized cost is 0.3% of the federal budget. That's the math. Realistically some oil gets pumped, so the cost would be less than that. Run the realistic worst case instead; highest cost, highest interest rates, lowest demand, all the real risks realized, and the line would need to average about 85% capacity over 30 years to fully pay for itself. So it's not risk- or cost-free, but it's not the drain on government some characterize it as.
So the compare-and-contrast you're accidentally pointing to is that:
* A plan to quickly ramp up heat pumps, home energy efficiency, electric vehicle charging, rooftop solar, balcony solar, utility-scale solar and wind, and energy storage would deliver far faster, more predictable results.
* The program would actually deliver the solutions people want, and confront energy poverty rather than exposing Albertans and all the rest of us to the volatility and unpredictability of fossil fuels.
* Investing more than $40 billion to get it done would be just a blip on the federal budget or the national GDP, as energy transition modellers and analysts have been insisting for half of forever.
* Building renewables in Alberta might restore the province, or at least bring it closer, to being Canada's leading jurisdiction for new solar and wind before the province dropped a moratorium on that activity three years ago, then buried the industry in regulation. Investors are now looking elsewhere, as they should under the circumstances, and exactly as the Smith government hoped and expected they would. Lifting the freeze and actually doing something practical to help Alberta was supposed to be part of the MOU deal, but you haven't heard much about that lately, have you?
* Investing $40 billion _would mean investing $40 billion_, rather than watching helplessly as costs increase and crucial deadlines are missed, just the way it happened with Trans Mountain.
* Investing in the right stuff, rather than the wrong stuff, would mean *not* emitting another (very rough estimate) 164 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
So sure, knowing all that, let's go ahead and make the mistake anyway. It's just a blip, isn't it?
I wasn't clear and this context matters. I was referring specifically to the comparison made in the post implying that this is throwing money away that could address today's affordability crisis. That is not accurate. I was trying to put that claim in context.
I agree with most of your points in a way (especially around the lost opportunities for renewables leadership due to the authoritarian and compromised provincial government in Alberta) but I also recognize that there are well reasoned and yet differing opinions on many of the other points.
Fair, and apologies for snarking at you. The problem with any revenue plan for the pipeline and the LNG terminals is that it assumes enough demand for Canadian oil and gas, over a long enough time span of years or a couple of decades, to cover the likely ballooning costs of the projects. Or even just to cover the costs they're projecting today.
Granted, it isn't impossible. But it's an exceptionally risky bet, which is why there was some comfort in the previous pledge to hold out for a private investor, rather than committing taxpayers' dollars. It's telling that, with all of Carney's and Hodgson's international contacts and all of Smith's ideologically-driven urgency, the only one they could find was as hedged and equivocal as Pembina Pipeline.
The energy-importing countries that are home to about 74% of the world's population were pivoting to cheaper, cleaner options before the Hormuz crisis. The IEA was projecting that demand for all three fossil fuels would peak this decade before going into permanent decline. And the notion that the last shipments sold will be Canadian is PR for the hometown audience, not anything based in evidence or likelihood. The shift has been accelerated by the latest energy price shock -- particularly in Asia, the region hardest hit by the closure of the strait, and that Canada is touting as its prime market.
So, no, it isn't absolutely, utterly impossible. But if you had $40 billion to spend, particularly if you had a public duty to spend it wisely, would you go for the long shot or the far surer bet?
I agree... with my trademark fence sitting. How do we respond to the extortion and disharmony from the provincial government? We are a federation and a democracy. A lot of people support this and Smith and Co. will make Canada the villain. I hate it when the terrorists win but I feel the conflict that Carney and Co. have to deal with here. Your approach is more aligned with what I expected from Carney.
Oh, yes. We've given a lot of air time -- on the Weekender and in our regular news digest -- to the sovereignty threat Carney is staring down on behalf of all of us, and the added clout it hands to Smith. Other countries, as well as international agencies like the IEA, are up against their own versions of the same political dynamics. I still have confidence that Carney _thinks_ he's doing the right thing and the best thing in the circumstances. But along the way, he's crossed most of the red lines that gave the MOU the slightest shred of credibility.