Big pipeline projects require a guaranteed climate terrorist future with world subjugated to dead ender energy for 40 years. Oil use, other than for war, is significantly down in last 2 years. EVs are making a big dent in China and Europe, and South. Desperation to steal public funds to subsidize oil industry was part of funding for Trump’s victory, as a last gasp for industry profit protection.
If Alberta wants to pay for a pipeline east, rest of Canada can be nice about it. Smartest move would be expanded railways through Ontario and Quebec that go a bit norther than existing routes so that more cargo volume can pass through Canada, and be remote enough that accidents don’t kill too many. In a greener future, population around those rail corridors can increase, even as oil use dies off completely, or sufficiently to not have large export markets, that makes oil only infrastructure a bad investment. But even if using existing railways/trucks causes more deaths from accidents, it’s still the smartest/least economic risky path.
Absolutely not under any circumstances, should Federal government submit to Alberta referendum extortion as a reason to invest 1 red cent into Alberta. I’d rather see export tariffs on Alberta oil, with 50% of the revenue set aside to repay Alberta after they set a path towards Canadian unity. I’d rather see very aggressive demands on secessionist movements to allow subregions to vote to either become independent city states or Canadian associated regions.
Big pipeline projects require a guaranteed climate terrorist future with world subjugated to dead ender energy for 40 years. Oil use, other than for war, is significantly down in last 2 years. EVs are making a big dent in China and Europe, and South. Desperation to steal public funds to subsidize oil industry was part of funding for Trump’s victory, as a last gasp for industry profit protection.
If Alberta wants to pay for a pipeline east, rest of Canada can be nice about it. Smartest move would be expanded railways through Ontario and Quebec that go a bit norther than existing routes so that more cargo volume can pass through Canada, and be remote enough that accidents don’t kill too many. In a greener future, population around those rail corridors can increase, even as oil use dies off completely, or sufficiently to not have large export markets, that makes oil only infrastructure a bad investment. But even if using existing railways/trucks causes more deaths from accidents, it’s still the smartest/least economic risky path.
Absolutely not under any circumstances, should Federal government submit to Alberta referendum extortion as a reason to invest 1 red cent into Alberta. I’d rather see export tariffs on Alberta oil, with 50% of the revenue set aside to repay Alberta after they set a path towards Canadian unity. I’d rather see very aggressive demands on secessionist movements to allow subregions to vote to either become independent city states or Canadian associated regions.