Why has Norway built, and continues to build, a healthy future for its citizens; whereas Canada is stupidly living in the past!

Nationalizing the sector would help, for starters.

If Canada were to nationalize oil production, so that the sales of oil to the rest of the world filled the public coffer like in Norway, what would be the totally safe way that this oil would make it to market? 

The simple answer is that Norway is a sovereign nation that works toward progressive solutions ( such as paying relatively high taxes while saving its energy bounties) while Canada is a collection of non-sovereign entities populated by narcissistic, deluded ignoramuses who are more interested in playing spiteful sillybuggers than in working toward progressive solutions.

The US didn't invade Mexico when Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized Pemex. If you think Trump's got the political capital and spare soldiers to invade Canada in the midst of the forthcoming war with North Korea, over Canada taking control of its own natural resources, then why are we even bothering to have political debates? Let's just call Washington and get a list of what policies Trump will allow without invading. It's nice to know the parameters of the field.

Quote:

We already have both. Alberta could build its own refineries and nationalize them just like Quebec nationalized Hydro Quebec.

And then ship gasoline by rail, which is OK since gasoline isn't flammable.  Or, by pipeline.  Again, not flammable.

I guess I'm just saying you can't make it safer by making it more explosive.

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

For Canada to do the same would require pipelines, tanker ships, or both.

You in?

We already have both. Alberta could build its own refineries and nationalize them just like Quebec nationalized Hydro Quebec.

Successive Alberta governments have concluded that it doesn't make economic sense (and cents) to build government owned refineries. 

cco wrote:

Yes, clearly it makes far more sense to pipe the oil to Texas, have it refined there for Exxon's profit, then sold back to Albertans.

Isn't most of the oil used in Alberta refined in Alberta?

The appropriate analogy would be if the (former) Canadian Wheat Board decided to ship all its wheat to Arizona to be baked, because Canadians protested the establishment of domestic bakeries on the grounds that those supported bread culture, while continuing to buy and consume bread at rapacious rates.

This, in a nutshell, is what bothers me about much of the current Canadian environmental movement: whack-a-moleism. Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

I basically agree.  With the smugness of a voluntary non-driver, mind you.

..bullshit to both of you. the alta ndp gov could have tried to leverage a deal for dilbit refineries. this could have been part of the fed ndp platform as well instead the ndp feds prioritized pipelines only. manitoba ndp signed on to that as well when in power with the other provinces. no one was calling for refineries because big oil didn't want that.

..also it isn't only enviromental movements calling for no pipelines, it's indigenous folk, it's que & bc citizens with many others across the country. you scapegoat because it's easier than facing the enormous work that needs to be done to change the political/financial systems. stopping pipelines is what can be done now while building alternatives and forcing political change. this is on all activists..all folks living in this country.

..i also use the populations of que and bc, that does not mean all of them either. having said that it's indigenous folk on the front line and playing a leadship role in struggles like no pipelines and site c.

JKR wrote:

In hindsight it would have been better if Canada's constitution had placed royalties from resources under federal jurisdiction.

In fact when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the Federal government retained ownership of the natural resources. They were turned over to these provinces circa 1930 for free I believe, perhaps as a form of aid as both provinces were in dire financial straits.

When PET patriated the Constitution he added a clause affirming provincial control of natural resources to get the provinces to agree. This horse left the barn long ago and it's pointless to advocate massive goverment investment today in a resource that's on its way out.

NorthReport wrote:

Well said

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:

In hindsight it would have been better if Canada's constitution had placed royalties from resources under federal jurisdiction.

In fact when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the Federal government retained ownership of the natural resources. They were turned over to these provinces circa 1930 for free I believe, perhaps as a form of aid as both provinces were in dire financial straits.

When PET patriated the Constitution he added a clause affirming provincial control of natural resources to get the provinces to agree. This horse left the barn long ago and it's pointless to advocate massive goverment investment today in a resource that's on its way out.

I agree. Even the aircraft industry is developing electric passenger planes. The price of oil is likely headed for a long term decline so governments are not going to invest in a losing proposition.

Looking back, it seems that Canada and Alberta will have little lasting benefit from the huge amount of money made from oil during the last forty years. Most of the money from the oil boom went to Alberta to have no provincial sales tax, the lowest corporate taxes, and the highest costing provincial programs. None of the huge windfall seems to have been invested for the future as has been done in Norway. I think our federal system is a majour reason why Canada and Alberta failed to progressively benefit from the huge windfall from the oil sands.

epaulo13 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

I basically agree.  With the smugness of a voluntary non-driver, mind you.

..bullshit to both of you. the alta ndp gov could have tried to leverage a deal for dilbit refineries. this could have been part of the fed ndp platform as well instead the ndp feds prioritized pipelines only. manitoba ndp signed on to that as well when in power with the other provinces. no one was calling for refineries because big oil didn't want that.

..also it isn't only enviromental movements calling for no pipelines, it's indigenous folk, it's que & bc citizens with many others across the country. you scapegoat because it's easier than facing the enormous work that needs to be done to change the political/financial systems. stopping pipelines is what can be done now while building alternatives and forcing political change. this is on all activists..all folks living in this country.

NOPE! I personally know of an insider close to Mulcair that was pro pipelines east because of the refineries in eastern Canada would be using the resources from Alberta and further developing expanding different productions. Mulcair at a private speech at a union meeting at the OFL building on Gervais drive Toronto even stated this! This was and still is a tricky fine line issue for the NDP because there is a lot of labour and wealth that can be generated within Canada by developing our resources within Canada. This goes for any raw material Canada produces. And this falls under developing infrastructure.

WWWTT wrote:

NOPE! I personally know of an insider close to Mulcair that was pro pipelines east because of the refineries in eastern Canada would be using the resources from Alberta and further developing expanding different productions. Mulcair at a private speech at a union meeting at the OFL building on Gervais drive Toronto even stated this! This was and still is a tricky fine line issue for the NDP because there is a lot of labour and wealth that can be generated within Canada by developing our resources within Canada. This goes for any raw material Canada produces. And this falls under developing infrastructure.

..i have a different understanding. all of the refineries in the east are built to process a lighter oil and not the heavy tarsand.  more over the plan from alberta big oil was always to export without refining here.

..the other issue is that because of the nature of dilbit it needs to be refined at source. so pipelines were a no go refinery in the east or not. same with the talk about building one on the west coast.

Pondering wrote: 

It's not unions the NDP has to please it's voters most of whom don't belong to unions.

I don't know if we'd really want this to be the operational model for the NDP from here on in. "Who cares what the unions want! Just go with whatever the voters say!"

It's true that most voters don't belong to unions. Most voters aren't lgbqt either, but the NDP does currently have a de facto policy of not compromising on lgbqt issues, which I don't think should be curtailed in the event of discovering that "the voters" disagree with the party on some particular equality issue.

cco wrote:

Let's stop a given pipeline, or refinery, or a hydro dam that'll serve the tar sands, or even all domestic oil production, and then we can feel like we've done something for the climate, without addressing consumption. Meanwhile, Montréal drivers burn Saudi oil, which works out well for the Saudis, but does precisely zilch for the environment.

Why do you claim that no one is addressing consumption? What do you think electric vehicles are about? Hydro Quebec among others is developing them. During transition of course we will continue using oil. It makes no sense to build massive new infrastructure for something that we are transitioning away from.

Quebec recieves very little oil from the Saudis and it is unlikely bitumen would replace it because our refinieres don't handle bitumen. Alberta oil will never displace Saudi oil anywhere on the planet because it is way cheaper to produce. The pipeline is for export not for Quebec. The notion that Saudi oil will not be used if Alberta oil is used is simply false. If we didn't buy it someone else would.

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think our federal system is a majour reason why Canada and Alberta failed to progressively benefit from the huge windfall from the oil sands.

No that is 100% on Alberta. To nationalize we would have had to force it down their throats. A few years ago Fort McMurray tried to switch to a 4 day school week to save money on school-busing. Parents had a fit because most work 5 days a week. Alberta is anti-government. It's a wonder they accepted medicare long enough to figure out it's a good thing.

I'm not clear how supporting a five-day school week(whatever the merits of that idea) means you are anti-government. Wouldn't the anti-government position be "Yeah, let's cut down on government spending by reducing transportation costs and school hours"?

And, apart from that, I wouldn't make generalizations about what Albertans have always been like as far as government goes. Alberta nationalized a bank in the 30s(still public), and an airline in the 70s(no longer public). And it was the second province(after Quebec) to create a separtate Ministry Of Culture, with per capita funding of the arts under Lougheed being the second highest in Canada(again, after Quebec).

But yes, widespread nationalization of the oil sands would almost certainly have been unpopular in Alberta.

http://tinyurl.com/yc7xv27c

This was going to be a huge infrastructure project requiring tens if not hundreds of billions over many years investment. Giving Canada huge energy independence!

..yet this plan never was never made public. why is that do you think?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Yes, clearly it makes far more sense to pipe the oil to Texas, have it refined there for Exxon's profit, then sold back to Albertans.

That's as illogical as a wheat farmer buying bread!  He grows wheat, ships it somewhere so that someone else can mill it (for lucre) and someone else can bake it (for lucre) and then they sell it back to the farmer!

Wouldn't this be called "outsourcing"?

And if piping that crude to Texas is what they do, is your theory that they're doing it to waste money/support Exxon (as opposed to, say, it being more cost effective in some way)?

It's more cost effective for Exxon because Exxon already has available refinieres. They have no motivation to build refineries in Alberta. Alberta would make a larger profit if it refined oil in place and have a lot less trouble exporting it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And then ship gasoline by rail, which is OK since gasoline isn't flammable.  Or, by pipeline.  Again, not flammable.

I guess I'm just saying you can't make it safer by making it more explosive.

How do you think fuel gets to gas stations? No matter where it's refined it still gets transported. I'm fairly certain that once oil is fully refined there is a lot less of it. Gasoline doesn't sink the way bitumen does but in any case I am not speaking from an environmental perspective.

I'm saying that Alberta has solutions available but prefers to leave everything in the hands of oil companies because free enterprise is best in their collective view. So instead, they want the federal government to bully other provinces into accepting the pipelines.

What Alberta still doesn't seem able to understand is that regardless of law their is a limit to how far the feds will go to force a pipeline through against the will of the people. They had to give up on EE because without either Quebec or Ontario it is impossible to win an election. BC has far fewer voters but they too can only be pushed so far.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the oil companies are just going through the motions to keep stock prices up as long as possible.

Here's another tid bit of info/facts to throw into the mix.

Texas is a warmer climate. From my understanding, this makes refining fuels more cost effective/cheaper. Also it's geographic location. On an ocean coast for shipping and physically closer to more markets make cheaper transportation. So in a way, there is less carbon emited in production in Texas gulf coast refineries.

Pondering wrote:

Why do you claim that no one is addressing consumption? What do you think electric vehicles are about? Hydro Quebec among others is developing them. During transition of course we will continue using oil. It makes no sense to build massive new infrastructure for something that we are transitioning away from.

Electric cars are good. There are currently about 8,000 of them on Québec roads. That's admirable for those who drive them, but it's chipping away microscopically at the scale of the problem.

If we're really transitioning away from fossil fuels, instead of symbolically, our strategy might include:

Making it easier for people not to drive at all. That means massive new infrastructure for transit (maybe 25 new metro lines over the next 10 years) and also affordable housing on the island (so people are incentivized to live in high-density neighbourhoods instead of buying the only place they can afford in Vaudreuil).

A full commitment to eliminate non-renewables from the electrical grid. Goodbye coal and gas, hello hydro (including, perhaps, Site C), solar, wind, tidal, and in some places, nuclear.

Electrifying Canada's freight railways and incentivizing their use over trucking.

Support for less carbon-intensive diets (test-tube meat, a transition away from farming). Good luck selling that to the ranchers.

Pondering wrote:

Quebec recieves very little oil from the Saudis and it is unlikely bitumen would replace it because our refinieres don't handle bitumen. Alberta oil will never displace Saudi oil anywhere on the planet because it is way cheaper to produce. The pipeline is for export not for Quebec. The notion that Saudi oil will not be used if Alberta oil is used is simply false. If we didn't buy it someone else would.

OPEC supplies a third of Canada's oil imports, with the main supplier countries being Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Nigeria. The #1 supplier of imported oil, much to my surprise, is the United States, at 54%. I'm not sure how much sense it makes for both the US and Canada to be each other's largest oil supplier.

"If we don't buy from them/sell to them, somebody else will" is a specious argument that was also used when it came to selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Somebody will buy from ISIS, too, and yet Canada's not keen to be first in line. Canada shouldn't condition good behaviour on every other country on the planet doing the same thing. And as far as Saudi oil being cheaper forever (I saw someone upthread claim the price of oil would continue to decline throughout our lifetimes), I imagine that whole argument will go out the window the minute war breaks out between Saudi Arabia and Iran. With the Persian Gulf a war zone, Canada at odds with Russia, and Donald Trump and the "America Firsters" ruling in Washington, there just [i]might[/i] come a time when it's useful for Canada to have energy sovereignty and self-reliance.

..exactly pogo. everything must change extraction, production, transportation and usage. not a simple task that can be achieved but imposible using the current political and economic systems. 

..i say that the transition has already started though. agree with it or not it's going forward and this must be supported.