Now we're fast-tracking energy projects? PLUS: new podcast episode
Hi folks. I'm as surprised by some of the claims that get tossed around here as anyone, but I'm also quite sure personal insults don't improve matters. It's best if you use these comment boards to make your own statement rather than trying to police others.' My preference and my intention remain to do almost nothing to police comments -- consistent with the comments not being a snakepit of insult and recrimination. Most days we're nowhere close to that. So most days, I'm happy not to intercede.
Freeland is starting to remind me of a teacher telling her students on how it is, and Trudeau sounds like he's giving a sermon most of the time he speaks. Being a long time Liberal I'm getting tired of being talked down to when I hear these two. I know this is not the time for more carbon taxes to further lower the standard of living for so many, and I think we should have offered LNG to Germany at a critical time in their need. The Liberal gov't is losing touch with the masses quite quickly in my opinion, and Poilievre is looking better. Time for change.
I don't like the condescending remarks of the readers against each other in this post. What is going on in this country that we cannot agree to disagree without personal attacks? Leave it to the US and Trumpists.
To Paul - thank you for your insights and hard work.
Anybody who thinks you can "fast track" a huge pipeline project, much less an LNG terminal, in 8 months must never have participated in a large engineering project. My humble experience is the comparatively simple 1-metre water pipelines for the City of Calgary - mere $15M projects that still had to start two years out from ground-breaking, setting up contracts and, above all getting the land, which was the most-frequent source of delay. (We are not China, cannot just seize land.)
There are so many specialized trades, so much specialized equipment that is tightly-scheduled, often flown around the globe doing it's part in 10 pipelines a year. So are the people. Here's a mental exercise: watch ALL of the credits for a Star Wars or Marvel movie, the whole 10 minutes of fine print: then imagine snapping your fingers at Disney and saying "speed it up from 3 years to 2".
I find myself in an odd position on oil and climate: I advocate for great expense and sacrifice to migrate as quickly as possible away from carbon - but also give a pass to ongoing oil fossil infrastructure projects, save the most-stupid and damaging. That's because I read Vaclav Smil, and am realistic about the timelines. Until we have at least carbon-free *options* for steel, concrete, fertilizer, and construction work, Smil will continue to be correct that "every wind turbine is made of steel smelted with coal, in a foundation of concrete baked by natural gas, dug by a backhoe running on diesel".
In this case, we need to beat Russia *now*, and we don't have the green infrastructure to beat them with, so we need the fossil simply for Europe to live their lives, and to build green infrastructure with. And I'm afraid it will be 10 years before any of that changes.
Interesting--and intriguing analysis. So we have Trudeau's anti-Alberta stance, Guilbeault's residual-radical environmental posturing, and Freeland's apparent energy realism all in play. The long quote from Freeland's speech is a bonus as I don't have to listen to her patronizing kindergarten-teacher voice...
Tell me it isn't somewhat strange, speaking of energy security, that in the face of an intransigent Saudi regime which has allied itself to Russia because it recognizes a common country when it comes to human rights, the President of the US whose country faces huge deficits in oil shipments from the Saudis, will not say that nearly 8 hundred thousand barrels of crude could flow to his refineries from western Canada if only he would authorize the completion of Keystone? Yet in a recent interview he stated that the US will be taking a different tack in its relations with Saudi Arabia. What does that mean? At the end of the day America is still reliant upon Saudi oil. Canada is financing a share in the Ukraine fight for survival. Canadian oil will help pay for that. Let the Saudis support Russia without the money earned from their shipments of oil to the US. Then there is the problem with oil supply to the east coast. Oh, well if one unties one knot, another one is tied. Tough decisions will be needed.
In the current Canadian political state of affairs 'fast-tracking' something simply means you talk about it more until people forget about it again.
We have a government of talkers rather than doers. I don't see Freeland doing much except talk. If she was a real leader she would have fired the incompetent civil servants in Ottawa and hired people who got things done.
Wayne she speaks down to people, it’s condescending. This is not a misogyny issue it is he tone. So does her Boss. Some how the concept that we hired them as employees to work for us seems to have been lost. Always voted with them but not again
I think sometimes Ms Freeland is talking to the rest of the world, not Canada. She is after after all looking for a position on the international scene where she would feel more comfortable.
She speaks to Canadians as if we were all children who need to have everything spelled for them..she becomes so boring, she gets turned-off by most listeners ..BTW she also dances behind Trudeau when he pontificates. How odd is this?
I haven't read elsewhere, the implication that Freeland was taking chances, advocating positions that were ahead of the rest of the government. That can be very career-limiting.
But if so, it's not been much-discussed how Vladimir Putin has just made certain that Freeland is the party's next face. There aren't many better things you can do for a political career than to take a chance that others will not and turn out to be right.
Never mind the others in her party that were softer, most of the leaders of Europe were putting their heads on Putin's chopping block, while she cried warning.
Thank you for your comment Paul. I am concerned this post will end up twitter=like. I joined you to receive information not quibble.
Freeland is not actually contradicting Guilbeault, because he is only promising meaningless stuff. "Standards will not be lowered" he assures us. But the LNG prospects have all of their federal approvals, and the pipeline approval process was stripped back by Harper... while Trudeau conveniently forgets the 2015 and 2016 to put a climate change lens into the pipeline application process.
Steven Guilbeault is just the ventriloquist's dummy.
All that said, Freeland only has a mandate to push her Liberal Hawk vision. The government may or may not buy in.
I liked the observation about Ms. Freeland getting out over the Government skis. Regarding the serious need for improvements to the regulatory process and license issuing for the export of natural resources, let’s hope that Trudeau, Wilkinson and Guilbault get some ski wax for Christmas and catch up.
After 7 years punishing the oil and gas industry into submission, we have a lot of catching up to do.
Russia attacked Ukraine on February 24. That is almost 8 months and nothing from the Canadian government about "fast tracking" anything. If they really thought it was a crisis they could have started to build some pipelines and LNG facilities on the east coast by now. Maybe not completed, but started. The Canadian government and all the other Western governments talk like this a war and a crisis, but they sure don't act like it.