[HN Gopher] TC Energy scraps Keystone XL pipeline project after ... ___________________________________________________________________ TC Energy scraps Keystone XL pipeline project after Biden revokes key permit Author : pseudolus Score : 121 points Date : 2021-06-09 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | protomyth wrote: | Oil is all going to get transported by rail or truck. BNSF stock | going up should please Buffet. | newacct583 wrote: | Or... maybe the market will react to higher oil prices and | choose other fuels? Might be wanting to hodl TSLA and not rail | stocks. | ArkanExplorer wrote: | The more fossil fuel infrastructure we build out, the harder it | will be to make the transition to clean energy. Adding costs to | fossil fuels is not a bad thing. | sixothree wrote: | Imagine if we seized property and gave it to a private | company to build wind farms. I'm sure the response would be | worse than what happened here. | eagsalazar2 wrote: | Who is downvoting you? Why? Your comment is perfectly on | point IMO. | bigbillheck wrote: | Why do we have to do the 'g[i]ve it to a private company' | part? | toomuchtodo wrote: | Absolutely. We should be exploring ways to financially | disadvantage refineries and fueling stations as well. Have to | find every weak point in fossil infra to exploit towards a | failure mode. This drives the cost up, making electrified | options (that don't emit carbon) more competitive sooner. | hogFeast wrote: | Must be nice to be so rich that you can choose to pay more | for things. | [deleted] | toomuchtodo wrote: | I don't have a solution for the species constantly | borrowing from the future. The bill comes due eventually. | If you think being poor sucks now, wait for water | shortages and crop failures. I get it, everyone wants the | benefits without the costs. | | Obligatory "we should have carbon taxes and cap and trade | to help make the transition fair and equitable". I'm | aware the wealthy are culpable for higher per capita CO2 | emissions, and as such they should bear a greater burden | in this regard. | make3 wrote: | Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Energy is a money | game. | fighterpilot wrote: | Adding costs due to adding inefficiency in the supply chain | is definitely a bad thing, since you could easily achieve | the exact same outcome with a tax instead. | Analemma_ wrote: | > Oil is all going to get transported by rail or truck. | | ... which is more expensive than transporting by pipeline, thus | increasing the cost of oil, cutting the development of | marginally-viable oil exploration projects, and hastening the | point at which it is uncompetitive with renewables and killed. | This is working exactly as intended. | vetrom wrote: | You could also stretch and call it an indictment of | externalizing oil production costs. I'm aware that building | and running a refinery is an extremely expensive operation, | to the point where it isn't economical to either mobilize a | refinery, or base them at the site of extraction. | | That said, running a refinery also has local costs that are | usually externalized, in terms of local pollution and | populace movement. Canada itself though has a fairly large | amount of space, but perhaps a surfeit of people. Why doesn't | TC energy (or other Canada producers) build a refinery | somewhere in Canada and transport to there? | dblohm7 wrote: | I don't know about your second sentence, but your first | sentence is absolutely correct. | | I am an Albertan who lives in Calgary, where TC Energy is | headquartered. I am by no means a shill for Big Oil and am | thankful that I do not work in that industry. | | Having said that, I do not think that blocking the supply side | of the equation helps as much as certain parties believe that | it does. As long as the demand for oil exists, the suppliers | will find a way. | | This also has side effects that some parties do not consider: | Railroads have finite capacity, and when more of that capacity | is absorbed by oil shipments, there is less capacity for the | transportation of other goods, like grain. | admax88q wrote: | Demand is partly driven by how cheap oil is. | | There is demand for energy. Cheap oil is a great source. If | oil gets more expensive because it now has to be shipped with | more risk in smaller quantities via rail/truck, then | renewables can compete even better. | | I don't think there's any realistic policy option to reduce | energy demand as a whole, but if we can reduce demand for | certain types of energy we might have a shot. | jlmorton wrote: | No doubt this is true, but it sure would be nice if we | could instead tax the oil and raise revenue for the public | good, rather than deliver profits to private railroad | companies. | [deleted] | panny wrote: | Biden lifted sanctions on Russia to allow an undersea oil | pipeline, | | https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674 | | I don't think demand reduction was an objective with | Keystone. | skeeter2020 wrote: | this is only kind of true. WHile rail IS more expensive you | can't compare a barrel in a pipeline with a barrel on a | train. Pipelines need to carry diluted oil products to make | them flow and then sometimes return that back to the | source, so there's extra flow. Pipelines use far LESS | energy to transport which is kind of ironic; and they are | way, way safer. | | I don't see this as an environmental move based on the | political signalling it buys and other moves made by the US | administration. If we agree that we want to reduce demand | for certain types of energy than the first thing we should | do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, | highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over | the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world | dictators with no environmental controls. | toss1 wrote: | The track system of course has finite capacity, but how close | to that finite capacity are they running, and how much of | that capacity is the new oil demand? | | If new new oil demand makes the capacity go from 9% to 12% | that is one thing, and quite another going from 68% to 98%... | dimes wrote: | The alternative methods of transport will be more expensive, | which will lead to a decrease in demand. | fighterpilot wrote: | Why not tax the pipeline to simulate that cost increase? | Isn't that the best of all worlds? | skeeter2020 wrote: | that pipeline that now will never exist was substantially | owned by the Canadian and ALbertan government. If it was | built we would see a very efficient transfer of profit | directly to new initiatives. Now we're no further ahead | AND we own a pipe-less pipeline project. | lettergram wrote: | Yeah, I'll just not drive to work... | | This has never been true for consumers. The only "demand" | it impacts are companies, who then move their jobs to China | where they can use coal powered plants. | | There is no world where this artificial increase in prices | is good. | | Green energy is improving, nuclear is improving. It's | improving because it has to compete with alternatives, like | oil. Green energy is not cheap or widespread enough today | for consumers or industry. So it's only the people of the | country that lose. | gpm wrote: | This has always been true of consumers. | | - Let's buy a smaller/more efficient car instead of the | bigger/less efficient one | | - Let's move closer to work | | - Let's carpool | | - Let's not buy our teenager a car just yet | | Etc, etc. Cost of ownership effects all sorts of choices, | always has, always will. | skeeter2020 wrote: | Except I doubt everyone is going to walk to work, eat only | locally grown produce in the winter (hope you like | potatoes), feed the world without fertilizer and replace | plastics with ... what, smug self-satisfaction? | ayngg wrote: | I think it is a case of popular politics but poor policy. It | appears like Canada has decided that they do not want to be in | resource extraction for environmental purposes, but in their | bid to be socially responsible, they are for the most part | ignoring the potential political and social fallout of such a | policy. Sure, it will make oil and gas operations more | untenable in Canada, but ultimately that probably wont matter | much since other producers that already dictate the price | through cartels will quickly fill demand to their own benefit. | | Whether or not people want to think about it, Canada exports a | lot of natural resources, and if they want to stop, which is | fine, they better have a real plan for transitioning those | industries, and have an idea of what they will do in lieu of a | that huge chunk of their exports going away. Its really easy to | say something like "just transition away from oil" but history | has shown that it is very difficult to do, especially for a | province beholden to federal policy. | | These costs are massive but are largely being ignored, or just | offloaded as only Alberta's problem. They are running the risk | of hollowing out a huge portion of the economy without any real | plan which has pretty severe consequences as seen in places | like the rust belt, which will end up sowing the seeds of | populist resentment amongst communities that will feel used and | abandoned, especially in places that already feel largely | ignored by federal politics like western Canada. | Romanulus wrote: | Like it or not, all the oil in the ground is coming up and out | sooner or later. | ineedasername wrote: | How does that work? | | I mean, putting aside the political & scientific issues around | clean energy etc. | | How does the government get to revoke a permit after significant | work and money was already spent based on getting the permit in | the first place? Does the government pay compensation? Does the | company have to file a lawsuit? | maxerickson wrote: | The text of the permit included a clause that said it could be | revoked solely at the discretion of the president. So all it | takes is the president deciding to revoke it. | | I'm kind of fascinated that people see such a breezy permit as | an important factor in the decision to build something or not. | Of course they need the permit to construct the border | facility, but they aren't going to make the investment decision | just based on the existence of the permit. | toyg wrote: | Government gonna govern. Unless there are specific appeal | clauses in the relevant permission processes, most governments | can (and will) do what they want on this sort of issue. You can | interpret it as a prevarication over the private | individual/company, or as a reaffirmation of society's right to | change its mind. | | This sort of scenario is precisely why private interests lobby | so hard to add arbitration rules to international free-trade | agreements, btw; they want to protect their investments against | changes in political winds, by moving judgements on | compensation to a dodgy world of ad-hoc pseudo-legal | structures. | bpodgursky wrote: | I don't like the oil economy at all, but revoking permits after a | company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted | permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth. | | It seems like bad precedent for the assumption to be that the | federal government will pull the carpet out from under your feet | (losing you your entire investment) whenever the political winds | shift. | | Today it's an oil pipeline, but tomorrow it could be for a solar | installation in a nature reserve, or new hydropower, or a nearly- | complete nuclear power plant. | ARandumGuy wrote: | Are you proposing that governments should be unable to revoke | permits? Because that's really the only way to prevent permits | being revoked after a company has spent billions of dollars. | | I think the more pragmatic answer to these companies is "don't | invest billions of dollars in controversial projects that can | be undone if your permits are revoked" | fallingknife wrote: | Governments should only be allowed to revoke permits in | narrowly defined circumstances laid out in the permit at the | time it is granted. Governments should have as much (I would | say even more) of an obligation to keep their word as any | other party doing business in the economy. | trixie_ wrote: | You contradict yourself arguing that the government should be | able to revoke any permit, and then saying, don't invest in | projects with permits which can be revoked. | | Any project can be 'controversial' depending on who is in | power. The real pragmatic answer is that the government | should be liable for investments lost by revoking a permit. | grecy wrote: | > _revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying | pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste | in my mouth._ | | I agree that it's not ideal, but we have to remember things are | changing rapidly, and we need to take decisive action if we | have any hope of minimizing the most severe impacts of climate | change. | | With the rapid price decline in solar and batteries, the shift | to EVs and so many other things going on, we have to remember | that anyone who invests in the "old way" is taking a huge risk. | In this case their risk did not pay off. | | They could have chosen not to take that risk, or invest in | something less risky. | dlp211 wrote: | Investments have risks. This is a risk. I'm so tired of how we | constantly frame things in terms that investments can't go bad. | Analemma_ wrote: | The Keystone XL permit was originally denied, then (illegally) | approved by Executive Order. The nature of Executive Orders is | that they can be, and frequently are, tossed out by the next | guy in office. This isn't a big secret, so I don't have a ton | of sympathy for anyone who "spent billions laying pipes" under | a permit granted by EO. If they wanted a lower risk of losing | everything, they should've waited for the standard permit | process, instead of gambling on the EO and that Trump would win | another term. | defaultname wrote: | It was originally denied by political decree. | | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama- | re... | | It was political from end to end, and was never denied on | fundamental grounds, but instead has been governed by | protectionism. What made it particularly farcical is that at | the same time Obama was pontificating about the horror's of | Alberta's oil and turning an environmental new leaf, US shale | oil exploration (just as bad in every dimension) was growing | at a staggering pace, and is now multiples the output of | Alberta's oils ands. | | The quicker we transition to renewables the better, but the | farce of Keystone was always just politics. | zbrozek wrote: | This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the | government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in | the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the | worst possible outcome. | mschuster91 wrote: | > I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, | but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible | outcome. | | Why? | | It was obvious from the start of the planning that this | project was at risk from political intervention given the | continuous protests and the general political landscape | (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with | Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision). | | It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading | towards ecological conservation, that international treaties | limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go | downwards given the rise of viable electric car models. | | The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if | they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of | not accounting for _obvious_ risks, I don 't shed any tears | for them. They were aware, never forget that. | zbrozek wrote: | The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key | thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously | have been far better not to permit it in the first place. | Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and | an opposing government wins the next election - now there's | precedent to just pull the plug. | | Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won | permission to build a house and a new city council is | elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to | trust your government after that? | | It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. | "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..." | | If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or | don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke | permits of projects you've approved! | fallingknife wrote: | You missed some details there. It was approved under the | Obama administration before it was rejected by the state | department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the | national interest." The state department was only involved | since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with | close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a | formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government | capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years | in the making because of political pressure. | sixothree wrote: | Taking people's property and giving it to a private company | erodes trust as well. | panny wrote: | It certainly does, | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London | yongjik wrote: | If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to | allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an | absolute win. | bpodgursky wrote: | Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for | your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that | I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are | playing semantic games and don't actually believe this | argument. | yongjik wrote: | Sure, it's convenient that I agree with the decision now, | but why would that be intellectually dishonest? | | If the government overturns a previous decision and | blocks an oil pipeline, I'll be happy. If the government | overturns another previous decision and blocks a wind | farm, I'll be angry. There's nothing contradictory about | this. Arguably, reducing it into "the government changed | its mind on something; imagine it does on (something | different)" _is_ also playing semantics. You can 't take | decisions out of real-world context: there's always | context. | cryptoz wrote: | A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust | than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting | the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an | untrustworthy government. | | A government needs to be able to change its mind and always | act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline | because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane. | | Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but | the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American | tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in | what gets built? And that it is likely that the early | construction was done without full understanding by those | groups impacted directly? | happytoexplain wrote: | >revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome | | It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst | possible outcome. | munk-a wrote: | I think it's important to also realize that Canada | domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed | to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder | Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been | multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime | provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider | the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a | effort of last resort - every direction except south wants | nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political | winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this | project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain | profitable. | | I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being | withdrawn without warning when literally every other route | open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your | dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along | with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by | the same basic facts. | | 1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of | the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the | additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the | environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost | several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C | 3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic- | crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada. | | 2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as | pointed out by the comment below | mig39 wrote: | Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going | ahead? | | Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the | pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for | any delays caused by other governments? | munk-a wrote: | Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the | NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been | up and down so many times now I'd lost track. | dragonwriter wrote: | > It erodes trust in institutions | | So the sequence of events here was: | | Permit denied in normal administrative course. | | Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations | without sufficient support by subsequent administration, | resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the | courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation | after the initial decision. | | Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the | environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in | the previous approval being revoked. | | Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous | order. | | Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in | institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for | that criticism is...bizarre. | ryanong wrote: | I would not have been revoked if it wasn't illegal. | bpodgursky wrote: | That's... a wild contortion of what it means to be legal. | When the government grants a permit for me to do something, | the sane thing is to assume that it is a legal thing to do. | | You can redefine, or re-interpret the law later to make | something _now_ illegal, but that absolutely does not mean it | was illegal at the time. That's 1984-style history rewriting. | takeda wrote: | Previous permit was also revoked by court. The analogy | someone else already provided is apt. | | Kid asked dad if he can get a candy after mom said no. Then | started crying when mom came and said it's not allowed. | JuettnerDistrib wrote: | > or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant. | | Nah, that would never happen. | | "Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished | but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the | Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2 | plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in | which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up." | | [1] | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Pl... | ikiris wrote: | They should have known going in it was a sham permit. When you | take advantage of one of the most corrupt and inept | administrations in modern times, you get what you pay for. | maxerickson wrote: | Revocation is one of the first terms in the permit: | | https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06... | | (in that permit, it comes right after revocation of an earlier, | similar permit) | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Yeah. Would you put private money into infrastructure in the US | after this? I wouldn't. | | That leaves just government-funded infrastructure, with all the | efficiency that usually brings... | nielsbot wrote: | The pipeline wasn't for public use, so I don't think talking | about public infrastructure applies here. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | From dictionary.com: "The fundamental facilities and | systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation | and communication systems, power plants, and schools." In | this sense, pipelines are infrastructure. | [deleted] | eagsalazar2 wrote: | Live by the sword, die by the sword. These companies have been | playing politics and lobbying all along themselves. And they | only _got_ the permit to begin with because of political winds | shifting. This is the risk they take (like drilling in the | arctic) when you make big bets on things that are extremely | politically controversial and arguably not in the public | interest (certainly not in the interest of the people whose | lives are being turned upside down by eminent domain to make | this possible). | | So in that sense your solar installation example isn't | appropriate because generally solar installations aren't that | controversial, aren't built on the broken backs of people who | lived there, aren't against the public interest, and don't | require millions in lobbying $$ to manipulate politicians to | get it done to begin with. | frankydp wrote: | Or more micro, the reversion of your homes building permit and | HVAC as the unit you installed is now out of code, and some | force of the government would be used to enforce your | compliance, such as taxes or fines. | eloff wrote: | As a Canadian, born in Calgary, Alberta, I'm saddened to hear | this. But it seems to be part of the platform of the Democrats. | | As a citizen of Earth, I'm of mixed feelings. On the one hand | heavy crude from the tar sands, which is some of the most | polluting oil on the planet, because it requires so much energy | to extract, will keep shipping by rail to the United States. That | involves more spills than a pipeline and burning yet more fuel. | That's bad. | | On the other hand that makes the prices higher and both | constrains the volume of output and the price at which it's | profitable to extract. Both things that mean more of that tar | sands oil will stay in the ground. That's good. | | On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the | ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from | politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil | the US otherwise would have imported from Canada. That's | potentially bad. | | I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the | world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any | accurate idea either. | | Edit: and the downvotes are because you disagree with my economic | analysis? Or because you think any of those politicians actually | have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional | consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's | why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party | lines. Actually judging by the downvotes, I think it was a smart | political move. I really wish HN would require a comment with a | downvote, even if it's only visible to the OP. | gautamcgoel wrote: | Yeah. My first reaction is that this is great news, but as you | say, the oil may now come from Brazil, Iran, etc. On the whole, | I think it's a win for the environment, but I would like to see | a detailed analysis of the predicted effects of this decision | on oil exploration, extraction, and consumption. | | I do feel a bit sympathetic for the company driving this | project. They invested billions of dollars and over a decade of | time only to see the project killed at the last minute. This is | a consequence of our erratic and unpredictable political system | - every four years we seem to completely change energy policy. | It's the price of our democracy, but I'm sure it's frustrating | for CEOs. | | Edit: It's frustrating to see the parent comment get downvoted. | If you disagree, explain why in a comment - no need to bury a | perfectly reasonable perspective. | pseudolus wrote: | It's hard not to be sympathetic to those Albertans whose lives | will be impacted by this decision. However, for too long Canada | has relied on extractive industries leading to a mild case of | Dutch disease. Perhaps the loss of Keystone will jump-start | Alberta's nascent start-up scene and other non-polluting | sectors of its economy. | eloff wrote: | Alberta fundamentally has to shift gears - just like Saudi | Arabia. The world will move on from fossil fuels and they had | better have a plan to transition. | | Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably | intelligently. | jgon wrote: | Norway is an entire country that has just slightly more | people than the province of Alberta, which is to say that | is it much smaller than Canada, while having oil reserves | equal to or greater than those in Alberta. Alberta should | obviously have been more diligent in saving up oil revenues | generated, but this ignores the fact that a huge amount of | oil revenues generated in Alberta have gone to help the | rest of the country develop as well. Roughly 250-300 | billion dollars from Alberta has transferred to the rest of | the country since Alberta's discovery of oil, which would | essentially give funding equivalent to the Norwegian | sovereign fund. So when people say "where did all the money | go?" the answer is that it went to hospitals in Chicoutimi, | roads in Neepawa, schools in Battle Harbor, etc, etc. | Trying to compare sovereign Norway, with a single province | in a confederation is always going to give a skewed view of | what Alberta should or should not have done with its | resource wealth. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably | intelligently. | | How so? Oil production is ticking back up and is higher | than any time since about 2010. | munk-a wrote: | Most of Canada, outside of Alberta, has long transitioned | away from extraction dominant industries. There still is a | whole bunch of it around - but, in BC it accounts for 5.7% of | the economy and in Canada at large all natural resource | extraction only accounts for 10% of the economy. The majority | of Canada's economy is now service oriented. | jgon wrote: | This claim is nominally true, but leaves out a metric boat- | load of context, in the classic "the truth, the _whole | truth_ , and nothing but the truth" sense. BC only has | resource extraction take up 10% of it economy, but it is | more dependent on real estate (aka flipping houses) as a | percentage of its economy that Alberta is dependent on Oil | and Gas. Flipping real estate isn't exactly a great | foundation for an economy, but sure it has transitioned | away from extraction. | | Secondly, the majority of Canada's economy is service | oriented, but due to the way Canada is structured, the | super-majority of the transfer payments that the federal | government makes to the various provinces comes from | resource extraction generated revenues. | | The following statements are not meant to be value | judgements, they are just simple statements of fact that | should give color to the context that is missing from the | parent comment. For non-Canadian HN users, in order to | guarantee a relatively equal standard of living for | Canadian citizens regardless of where they happen to live, | the federal government distributes billions of dollars | every year to various provinces, taking from the more | wealthy provinces and helping shore up the budgets of the | less wealthy provinces. These revenues have been generated | in overwhelmingly large part by resource extraction, and | the service oriented economies of other provinces show 0 | possibility of taking up the slack for these revenues | should resource extraction end, they simply don't generate | enough surplus on a per-capita basis. Without these | revenues large portions of Canada would face absolutely | devastating cuts to government revenues and thus services, | and frankly no government has really put forth any sort of | solution to this, outside of larger deficits on a temporary | basis. How Canada navigates this difference between its | aspirations, a service oriented non-resource economy, and | the reality on the ground, an absolute dependence on | resource revenues for current quality of life, is probably | the biggest question it will face in the 21st Century. | munk-a wrote: | At least when it comes to BC and Ontario we've got some | insanely high margin businesses kicking around now in the | form of tech companies and banking and investment - I am | quite skeptical of your assessment that these industries | would fail to carry the homesteading supplements and, | honestly, I'm not really certain how much sense those | supplements continue to make. I don't know if they're | significantly impacting Canada's ability to project | territorial claims at this point - most border issues | outside of underwater resources and transportation | control (i.e. the northwest passage for shipping) seem | pretty well settled. Does supporting population living in | such inhospitable areas really make economic sense to | Canada? | | For non-Canadians, if you live in certain economic | development zones the Canadian government effectively | pays you a bunch of money annually (Northern Residents | Deduction) to just keep living there. We just saw how | vulnerable these communities are to natural disasters | like a pandemic - they also often suffer food security | problems during blizzards and rail outages[1]. If there's | an economic reason to support communities up there I'm | all for it, but I really don't see why we want to go out | of our way to subsidize that life choice. | | Also specifically on the topic of BC real-estate-as-a- | service - it's pretty fucking insane and I have no idea | why this market is sustaining itself at this point, we're | all due for a shock one of these days that will hurt | really bad. That said - BC's economy is still only ~20% | driven by the real estate market and, if we saw a price | drop, we'd likely see a lot more labour market | accessibility go along with it. | | 1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill- | rail-servi... | munk-a wrote: | > On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the | ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from | politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil | the US otherwise would have imported from Canada. | | This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it | will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given | supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from | other sources. | | Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average | production price of that good is increased (assuming there is | an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the | removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands | extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely | unnoticeable dip in supply. | | Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have | recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary | as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a | lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, | while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. | It is not a feasible long term revenue source. | eloff wrote: | > This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that | it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, | given supply and demand, it will result in less additional | oil from other sources. | | Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally | less. | | > Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average | production price of that good is increased (assuming there is | an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the | removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands | extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely | unnoticeable dip in supply. | | I think we're saying the same thing? | | > Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands | have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in | Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. | There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs | to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition | their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source. | | Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the | economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town. | People sure aren't there for the weather. | munk-a wrote: | Hrm, my wording might have been a bit off itself but I | mostly just wanted to highlight and rebut what could be | worded in your original statement as a sort of fatalist | "Even if we reduce what's coming from Canada it won't | effect overall production". I do agree that the impact | won't solve global warming or potentially cause a | reflection in gas pump prices, but the supply is definitely | elastic and while the demand is inelastic in the long term | short term price fluctuations do actually cause short term | fluctuations in demand so there is a fair bit of elasticity | there as well. | | People will find ways to reduce their car commute when | prices spike and, especially, oil power plants will defer | operation to cheaper (possibly less clean :sigh:) | alternatives. | eloff wrote: | Given how large the oil market is and how generally | inelastic the demand is, I would wager any overall | reduction in demand will be marginal. There won't be no | effect, but I don't see there being a large effect | either. | verelo wrote: | The oil from the tar sands isn't clean, there's no great | reasons for it to come from Canada (I'm Canadian too before | anyone jumps on that). Sure, it's extracted under better | working conditions than many places in the world, but the | damage to the environment is substantial, it's a very energy | intensive process and furthermore it is much worse in terms | of impact and energy use than almost all other means of | obtaining oil. | | Alberta seems to be expecting this oil thing to keep the | province going forever; it is over. Diversify, try new | things, for your sake and the sake of the rest of Canada. | Please stop expecting this to get better. 2015 was a warning, | it's now officially ending and the time to start moving on | has passed, every day not diversifying the economy of Alberta | is just a day of economic procrastination. | | Edit: Sure energy security, keep some for us, but let's not | make it the backbone of our economy. | eloff wrote: | > there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada | | Energy security, not propping up authoritarian regimes with | terrible human rights records, not requiring military | interventions to protect a stable supply of oil. | | Maybe not good enough reasons to change the balance, but | reasons nonetheless. | hilbertseries wrote: | The US is the largest oil producer in the world. | YarickR2 wrote: | Yet Russia is the largest oil supplier to the US | nielsbot wrote: | Alternative: phase out oil. Also solves those problems. | verelo wrote: | This. To me it's like being a paper form printing company | when computers were just becoming mainstream. Your days | are numbered, deal with it and survive or don't and you | wont. | munk-a wrote: | A lot of innocent people are going to feel a lot of pain | when that happens (along with completely guilty people of | course) - I don't think it's avoidable myself but I can | definitely sympathize with the people fighting to try and | cushion the transition. | eloff wrote: | Right, while you wave your magic wand to try and | accomplish that, the world will keep using oil. | | Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow | transition not a switch we can flip. | munk-a wrote: | I think that economies are stubborn beasts, if they can | avoid change they will. I don't think it's reasonable to | expect any sort of energy transition to occur gracefully | while oil is in supply. As the price goes up we'll see | some industries priced out and over time we'll see early | adopters convert but we're not going to see a smooth | transition for the populace at large. | SECProto wrote: | > Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow | transition not a switch we can flip. | | And trains lend themselves much better to slow declining | transition than a new pipeline. Can be used for other | cargo; are a bit more expensive so they are a mild | financial disincentive; the contaminated material (tanker | cars) are by definition mobile and therefore easier to | deal with at EOL. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Do you trust the Kenney government to diversify properly? | All we've seen so far is them waste a bunch of money on | Hydrogen. | munk-a wrote: | I trust them more than I trusted Clark, but that's not | saying much. | eloff wrote: | Not as far as I can throw them. | jgon wrote: | The economy of Alberta depends less on revenues from oil | and gas than the economy of neighboring British Colombia | depends on real estate (aka flipping houses), and is | roughly as diversified as Ontario (in terms of % of economy | coming from various sectors) which is the other heavy | weight economy in Canada. | | People keep saying that Alberta needs to diversify as | though this is some sort of epiphany that the province | refuses to have, but it honestly just reveals the ignorance | of the person making that claim regarding the current | economic state of Canadian provinces. | eloff wrote: | Yet Alberta is feeling economic pain in a way that | Ontario and BC do not seem to share. | | They aren't diversified enough. | jgon wrote: | Yeah because housing hasn't crashed (yet). Also Alberta | is feeling economic pain only in comparison to the crazy | boom years prior. It is still literally the highest | GDP/capita of any province, its unemployment rate ranks | it 5th amongst Canadian provinces, its government is | still the least indebted on a per-capita basis of any | province, it has the highest labor force participation | rate of any province, etc, etc. The fact that Alberta is | still paying federal transfer payments to the rest of | Canada should be sufficient shorthand to convince you | that the economy is not as dire as you would think when | viewing it from the outside. | whatever1 wrote: | Not sure why they are downvoting you. People here seem to not | get the concept of supply and demand. Specially when the demand | is inelastic in the short-medium term | tamersalama wrote: | Coincidentally, four major Canadian producers are uniting in an | alliance for net-zero by 2050. The four are responsible for 90% | of oil-sands production [1]. To me, this makes Canadian energy | a more responsible source compared to many US-based and other | international producers. [2] | | [1] https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/major-canadian-oilsands- | producers... | | [2] https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies- | net-... | eloff wrote: | Well, I don't think we can take all the credit. Suncor is a | US company, my dad used to work there during the takeover | when it was Petro Canada. | | Edit: I take that back, it's always been a Canadian company. | I'm thinking about something else, there was another takeover | or merge with a US company back before 2000. That's before | the Suncor merger. | | Very heartening to see though. | cmehdy wrote: | Net-zero amongst companies is often a matter of paying a tax | on what you still emit or shifting the accounting of | emissions to not fully measure the entirety of your emissions | (or to offload that onto other parts of society). | | It's fine to encourage companies to try and do things like | that, but it's also important to keep that congratulatory | tone in check when it comes to a world that still | incentivizes profits singularly and doesn't necessarily put | the price of ecologic externalities that they might deserve. | | Net-zero sounds perhaps cool but there should be some | important education done for everybody to understand that | it's far from Gross-zero (or near zero), which would be much | closer to what we actually need to avoid some pretty | cataclysmic collapses sooner than most people realize. | kokanator wrote: | > and the downvotes are because.... | | The downvotes are because they disagree with your politics. | | The tough part is all your statements hold truth. We must face | that if we want to find real answers. | | Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has no | relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your | statements must be part of the conversation. | | [ upvoted ] | | ( instantly downvoted ) | WalterGR wrote: | _Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has | no relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your | statements must be part of the conversation. | | [ upvoted ] | | ( instantly downvoted )_ | | This site's guidelines: "Please don't comment about the | voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes | boring reading." | eloff wrote: | It's odd because I'm all over the place on the political | spectrum, and I didn't even take a side here other than to | discuss how it makes me feel thinking about the place of my | birth, which will suffer, and expressing my uncertainty in | whether this is a good or bad thing overall - which is more | honest than what any of those politicians have done. | | Maybe people don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in | black and white where it agrees or disagrees with their | views. I don't like to believe that's true, but it probably | is in general. | happytoexplain wrote: | It seems unfair and unnecessarily hostile to speculate | about a subset of people you just addressed ("Maybe people | don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in black and | white") when the only thing you know about them is that | they disagreed with you for some reason. It is of course | natural to be annoyed by downvotes, but the urge to start | painting yourself as a victim and the anonymous mass as | unthinking tends to create a really bad atmosphere for | discussion. | | Now, if you wanted to criticize the downvote mechanism in | general, maybe it would be considered off topic by HN | rules, but it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable. | | Edit: Also, perhaps some of your downvotes are due to your | commenting on your own downvotes. Personally, I always | downvote those kinds of comments (including the self- | fulfilling-prophecy version: "I'll be downvoted/flagged for | this, but..."), _even_ if I find the rest of the post | interesting, or completely agree with them. But I have no | idea if other people do that. | eloff wrote: | Other reasons I might speculate about are just as | uncharitable. Such as, they have no understanding of | microeconomics as applied to a good with inelastic | demand. Or they just read the first sentence and down | voted and moved on. | | At best I think one could argue I phrased things such | that it rubbed people the wrong way. Possibly the last | comment about politicians. | rcurry wrote: | I agree - it's a well reasoned post and I enjoyed reading it. | raclage wrote: | > I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or | the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had | any accurate idea either. | | > Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a | solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional | consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, | that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based | on party lines. | | Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what | "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably | rational but different decisions? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not | sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a | worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified. | eloff wrote: | > Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about | what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making | reasonably rational but different decisions? | | Yes, that's basically what politics is about in a nutshell, | making different tradeoffs based on values. I'm not sure any | of them actually had a sufficiently detailed analysis or | model to justify having any certainty in their decision. | | > But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those | presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you | do is justified. | | Don't get me wrong, I don't understand the issue either. I'm | just honest about that fact and merely espoused why it's a | complicated dilemma. This is all unintentional consequences | and it's not clear which was the best call for the | environment, the countries involved, or the world at large. | | I would have liked to see an in-depth study of the tradeoffs | and a rational decision based on that rather than a political | decision, which seems to be what we got all three times. | tachyonbeam wrote: | We all need to transition to renewable energy. It's not good | for Canada to become more invested in the oil economy, just as | electric cars, trucks and renewables are starting to boom. It's | neither good for you environmentally or economically if you | have a 10+ year horizon. | eloff wrote: | I think you just read the first sentence of my comment. | treeman79 wrote: | So we continue prop up terrorist regimes for the next few | decades. | | Electric is approaching winning on its own merits. Giving | billions to horrible people in the mean time is not an | acceptable solution. | | Oil independence is great for America and Canada. | Independence "from" oil is a separate if related matter. | | A half way point is to allow drilling and pipeline and add | taxes to local oil and major tariffs on external oil. | | We get oil independence, alternative tech will be encouraged | to replace expensive oil. Only losers are people that use | oil. | tachyonbeam wrote: | Isn't the US already a net exporter of oil at the moment? | treeman79 wrote: | https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41754 | | That is a recent thing. It can easily go the other way | again. | edoceo wrote: | I only downvote cause of your comments about voting. Like the | guidelines say "that shit boring". | | Your other points were creative even if a little /edgy/ and | could(will?) get conversation on their own. | marricks wrote: | Our current government structures seem incapable of planning | more than 1 year out. Without radically higher oil prices it | seems unlikely we'll see the large scale changes needed. | | Shut down as many pipelines as we can, stop producing oil, | build solar farms, build wind farms, build nuclear, everything | should be on the table and done simultaneously if we want our | grandchildren to have a live remotely similar to ours. | | The framing of governments and media seems like only half steps | are possible, but those steps will still kill us. | throwaway316943 wrote: | I wish we had a more informed perspective on oil. Yes it's | very important that we move individual and public | transportation to electric now that we have the batteries to | do so. Yes we need to switch energy production to renewables | and zero carbon generation. Yes we need to get as much heat | generation as possible for homes, commerce and industry | switched to electric. All of these have in common the fact | that we should not be burning oil. But, and this is a big | but, we still need oil to produce a vast array of materials | and compounds that our civilization depends on. Medicine and | agriculture are two huge users that we cannot do without. We | can't shut down all oil production and drive the cost through | the roof without destroying healthcare and creating famine. | Please argue rationally, frame combustion of oil as wasteful | while lionizing responsible usage that does not contribute to | atmospheric CO2 and improves the human condition. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Alberta oil sands oil is the most expensive and dirtiest | oil source on the planet. So when oil demand drops, the | Alberta oil sands will be the first place to stop | operating. Plastic will be made from the cheapest oil. | | It's also possible that eventually we'll make plastic using | CO2 as the feed-stock rather than oil. | marricks wrote: | The lack of productivity in the conversation comes from | voices like yours which compromise themselves internally | before even facing the opposing side. | | Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today | human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would | never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style | alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external | pressure, would be gradual. | | That's why one must always advocate for the position purely | and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down | the next one that comes up. Etc etc. | | "Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all | in the past 50 years. | | ========== | | EDIT: | | One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil | industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase | in production, great subsidies. How did they do this? | | Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was | caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it | publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their | position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so | nothing should change" | | It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face | of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure | grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was | acting like they're already doing everything they can. | | Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't | compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is | at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly | state truths and what should happen. | stale2002 wrote: | > That's why one must always advocate for the position | purely and without compromise. | | If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to | compromise with you in return. | | You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in | the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the | one you are giving. | | You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the | middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing | arguments, or address points of criticism. | | If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to | lose to status quo bias, from people who would just | choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme | position. | epigen wrote: | That sums up the dilemma. | | Killing the pipeline will help but not in a vacuum. Continued | policy/pressure needs to be applied to move away from oil, | which is probably best for the sake of the world. | koolba wrote: | This is a disaster, fiscally, environmentally, and politically. | It's a waste of all the money spent thus far, it will lead to an | increase of statistically more dangerous transportation methods, | and raise the price of other foreign oil imports to compensate. | All around just bad policy. | krastanov wrote: | Oil being less convenient and more expensive is a win if you | are a green energy absolutist (like me). It makes other energy | sources that much more enticing. | fighterpilot wrote: | It's simply ridiculous that there's going to be oil brought | in on trucks which will be significantly less efficient than | a pipeline. | | The only sensible thing would be to have a pipeline, with | zero trucks doing that work in its place, plus a carbon tax | on top of that oil to adjust the price. | | The carbon tax could be applied uniquely to oil brought on | the pipeline so as to equalize the cost of that oil with that | which will instead be brought over on trucks. | | Which means no misaligned incentives to increase oil | consumption but also no inefficiency from trucks doing the | work in its place. That tax revenue is effectively new wealth | since it represents the saved inefficiency of the alternative | of having no pipeline. | InTheArena wrote: | Here is your Friday afternoon, dump it when no one things we are | looking. | | I do believe that we should be doing alternative energy at this | point - but it's also clear that this particular decision has a | lot of negative side-effects (including greater exports over | trains and trucks, and increased dependency on oil-fracking and | bad middle eastern regimes). | ineedasername wrote: | What do you mean Friday/no one's looking? | | I understand traditionally that's when you break bad news, but | this is the middle of the week. | newacct583 wrote: | I don't know that that's so clear at all. It's an oil pipeline | to import canadian oil for domestic refiners. Domestic refined | petroleum consumption peaked in 2018 and has been going _down_ | (and of course has cratered during the pandemic). | | There's actually no good case to be made for this thing at all | from current data. You have to project an increase in demand | that doesn't seem to be coming. | | Bottom line: this pipeline was proposed in the middle of the | post-peak-oil boom in oil prices. It made sense in an imagined | world of ever rising oil prices and ever largers SUVs. The | world kinda moved on. | | Also: | | > increased dependency on oil-fracking | | This is tar sand oil. While not every drop necessarily | qualifies, depending on your definition, this is process- | extracted secondary petroleum. It's very much in the same | category as "fracked" oil in terms of extraction efficiency. | jonas21 wrote: | It's Wednesday. | [deleted] | invisible wrote: | There is no mention in the article about the previous permit | being revoked by the court for being illegal. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Could you supply some specifics/citations for the previous | permit being revoked for being illegal? | invisible wrote: | Sure. | | https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts- | keystone... | | Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national- | environmental-policy-... | kokanator wrote: | It doesn't say it is illegal rather that the analysis | wasn't as thorough as necessary. | | >In Thursday's ruling, Morris wrote that the State | Department's analysis of potential environmental effects | fell short of a "hard look" on the effects of current oil | prices on the viability of Keystone, cumulative effects of | greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and potential | oil spills. | dragonwriter wrote: | > It doesn't say it is illegal | | Yes it does. | | > rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as | necessary. | | It was revoked because it was illegally issued (in | violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and | thr Administrative Procedure Act) because the analysis | was not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for | issuing it. | maxerickson wrote: | https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential- | action... | | Section 6 doesn't say any of that. (b) talks about an | exhaustive review, but it just says it would be bad for | the climate and economy. | | The text is the same in the Federal Register. https://www | .federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01... | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-09 23:00 UTC)