The Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding is finally out. I’m certain that it was created with the very best of intentions, but I had serious doubts that anything here will have any impact on the economic and structural problems Canada faces. Well, at least not in most of our lifetimes.
That economic development has to go through the process of political blackmail and shakedown to theoretically circumvent a regulatory environment that chases away investment, confirms that Nutrien made the right choice in going through Washington State for an export facility.
I'm picturing a hyperventilating David Eby laying down in the path of a bulldozer, or trying to sever BC from AB with a big handsaw, a la Bugs Bunny and Florida.
But yeah, this won't happen in my lifetime. Canada will continue it's slow motion implosion.
Cynical optimist that I am, I see the feds pitting the various first nations against each other by dangling monetary incentives in front of the willing host/ co- owner. Money talks.
Interesting possibility. Although that does assume the prime minister is genuinely committed to the process and not just doing all this to make it look like he's doing something.
Why not have Alberta cover those costs? The benefits mostly accrue in one province while the risks are shared and are arguably more acute at the transfer location.
Could a form of royalty share work to entice approvals? Could a royalty funded trust for potential spill cleanup offer some assurances (with the investment returned after decommissioning)?
I would have no trouble associating both up-front and long-terms costs with potential benefits. But I really don't think any of that will ever happen, because the multiple layers of regulatory blocks and political vetos will, no doubt, stop any projects dead in their tracks long before the first oil, potash, or natural gas travels anywhere. And a big part of the reason is that no commercial investor would invest anything in a project that's almost doomed from the start to be blocked.
The talk I've been hearing about building pipelines through the U.S. and bypassing BC altogether seems to make the most sense.
Shifting cost liabilities won't have any impact on the rigid opposition of the BC government and various interest groups. So how is that a "policy solution"?
I disagree with your assumption that money, or the potential economic impact of a spill, isn't a motivating factor for many people within the various groups.
I obviously can't prove my assumption. But from the way various players are posturing, I would imagine that coming up with the "right number" through the course of years of protracted negotiations would probably involve a lot more money - and time - than it would take to get product moving through existing Washington State infrastructure. And, right now, time is not something Canada's economy has a lot of.
For whatever it's worth, I would say that if the First Nations are onside **and** if public opinion starts noticeably swinging towards strong support for the projects, then it might be harder for the BC government to keep up their campaign.
That economic development has to go through the process of political blackmail and shakedown to theoretically circumvent a regulatory environment that chases away investment, confirms that Nutrien made the right choice in going through Washington State for an export facility.
I'm picturing a hyperventilating David Eby laying down in the path of a bulldozer, or trying to sever BC from AB with a big handsaw, a la Bugs Bunny and Florida.
But yeah, this won't happen in my lifetime. Canada will continue it's slow motion implosion.
Yeah. And I'm not sure how young someone have to be a bit more confident about what they'll see in their lifetimes.
Cynical optimist that I am, I see the feds pitting the various first nations against each other by dangling monetary incentives in front of the willing host/ co- owner. Money talks.
Interesting possibility. Although that does assume the prime minister is genuinely committed to the process and not just doing all this to make it look like he's doing something.
Why not have Alberta cover those costs? The benefits mostly accrue in one province while the risks are shared and are arguably more acute at the transfer location.
Could a form of royalty share work to entice approvals? Could a royalty funded trust for potential spill cleanup offer some assurances (with the investment returned after decommissioning)?
I would have no trouble associating both up-front and long-terms costs with potential benefits. But I really don't think any of that will ever happen, because the multiple layers of regulatory blocks and political vetos will, no doubt, stop any projects dead in their tracks long before the first oil, potash, or natural gas travels anywhere. And a big part of the reason is that no commercial investor would invest anything in a project that's almost doomed from the start to be blocked.
The talk I've been hearing about building pipelines through the U.S. and bypassing BC altogether seems to make the most sense.
Why try creative policy solutions when giving up is so much easier haha
Shifting cost liabilities won't have any impact on the rigid opposition of the BC government and various interest groups. So how is that a "policy solution"?
I disagree with your assumption that money, or the potential economic impact of a spill, isn't a motivating factor for many people within the various groups.
I obviously can't prove my assumption. But from the way various players are posturing, I would imagine that coming up with the "right number" through the course of years of protracted negotiations would probably involve a lot more money - and time - than it would take to get product moving through existing Washington State infrastructure. And, right now, time is not something Canada's economy has a lot of.
For whatever it's worth, I would say that if the First Nations are onside **and** if public opinion starts noticeably swinging towards strong support for the projects, then it might be harder for the BC government to keep up their campaign.