Canada's Uncivil Oil War : 78% of Voters Cite *Energy* as the Top Issue

Pay attention to the levels of extreme voter dissatisfaction which resulted in Trump getting elected in the U.S. a couple years ago, and the Australian election this week, where the biggest issue was the "Climate Change" issues and taxes, which were roundly rejected by Australian voters:

 

Anyway, in Canada, a similar backlash against the "Climate Change" scaremongering and its jacked-up taxes, and Canada's persistent attempts to kill off its own domestic oil & gas industry (I'm looking at you Trudeau, Quebec, B.C. ...) is heating up. 

And I fully expect the "Climate Change" scaremongering cum anti-oil & gas politicians will be largely voted out in the upcoming Canadian federal elections in October later this year.  Good riddance.

May I suggest reading the article in full below, an excerpt is provided:

Canada's uncivil war

People in Canada's oil-producing province of Alberta are mad as hell—at most of the rest of the country—and they aren't going to take it anymore.

That is the message premier-elect Jason Kenney is sending to all comers after securing a convincing win in the province's general elections. Kenney, a firebrand Conservative populist, took 63 of 87 seats to secure a commanding majority in the provincial legislature.

Given that Alberta is North America's second largest oil producing region at some 3.5m/bl- making Canada the world's fourth or fifth-largest oil producer after the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia and, dependent on sanctions, Iran-the vote has national as well as international repercussions.

The result, although it was widely expected, was surprising in its size and scale. Kenney's United Conservative Party (UCP) garnered half of all ballots cast, or more than a million votes, representing a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the energy policies of the federal government in Ottawa.

Kenney's opponent in this match was not so much the well-regarded Rachel Notley, but Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau and what Albertans increasingly see as discriminatory environmental and regulatory policies against the broader oil sands industry in general- and pipelines to both coasts in particular. Indeed, public opinion polls suggested fully 78% of voters cited energy as the top issue in the campaign, ahead of public works projects such as schools and hospitals.

...

 

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when an article author does not know the nation state of IRAQ exists .... leads one to believe the elevator does not reach the top floor for this author...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Well, when an article author does not know the nation state of IRAQ exists .... leads one to believe the elevator does not reach the top floor for this author...

I don't understand your comment, what are you referring to?  The author clearly mentions the country of Iraq:

"... His national experience showed on 16 April when Kenney gave his acceptance speech in both official languages- English and French-which is unheard of for a provincial politician in Alberta. Speaking in near flawless Français Canadien, he delivered some particularly direct words for both the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec: "There is a deep frustration in this province, a sense that we have contributed massively to the rest of Canada, but that everywhere we turn we are being blocked in and pinned down… those days are over."

The negative reaction from other provinces was immediate and swift. "There is no social acceptability for a new oil pipeline in Quebec," said Quebec premier Francois Legault, in a particularly blunt assessment of Kenney's win. About half of Quebec's oil comes Alberta; the rest is imported from the US and the Atlantic basin, including countries with less than savoury environmental and social records such as Iraq, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

At least in the USA, one cannot really say that people elected this administration because they received their position without the popular vote. What you can say is that republicans seem to have arranged the system nicely so that they can win without the support of the people. Rejecting action means little in terms of lowering overall cost. People will undoubtedly pay either way only the bill will be multiple times higher. Of course, if you're not the one to pay it who cares right? Let other generations deal with it if they can. I'm sceptical that future generations will manage to maintain relative global order/stability under such pressure especially after having seen what has happened so far.

Just to make this absolutely clear, rejecting action on the issue simply means rejecting the "American dream" for any generation that is born today and especially ones born in 20 years and beyond. If we're going to act in this way, then let's not pretend otherwise.

Edited by David Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I don't understand your comment, what are you referring to?  The author clearly mentions the country of Iraq:

"... His national experience showed on 16 April when Kenney gave his acceptance speech in both official languages- English and French-which is unheard of for a provincial politician in Alberta. Speaking in near flawless Français Canadien, he delivered some particularly direct words for both the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec: "There is a deep frustration in this province, a sense that we have contributed massively to the rest of Canada, but that everywhere we turn we are being blocked in and pinned down… those days are over."

The negative reaction from other provinces was immediate and swift. "There is no social acceptability for a new oil pipeline in Quebec," said Quebec premier Francois Legault, in a particularly blunt assessment of Kenney's win. About half of Quebec's oil comes Alberta; the rest is imported from the US and the Atlantic basin, including countries with less than savoury environmental and social records such as Iraq, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. ..."

You quoted the WRONG section.  USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, (should say Iraq, but it doesn't), then IRAN for where Canada ranks for global oil producers.  Not 4th or 5th, but in reality: 6th trying for 5th and now sanctions are active, Canada is 5th. 

PS: American here who lives on border and pays attention to my great white northern friends politics.  We swap humorous stories about how pathetic our politicians are and why the best politician(wind bag) is someone without power.  From what I read, and what my northern neighbors say, Kenney is a fraud, but it is all they have so... you go with what you have at hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, David Jones said:

At least in the USA, one cannot really say that people elected this administration because they received their position without the popular vote. What you can say is that republicans seem to have arranged the system nicely so that they can win without the support of the people. Rejecting action means little in terms of lowering overall cost. People will undoubtedly pay either way only the bill will be multiple times higher. Of course, if you're not the one to pay it who cares right? Let other generations deal with it if they can. I'm sceptical that future generations will manage to maintain relative global order/stability under such pressure especially after having seen what has happened so far.

Just to make this absolutely clear, rejecting action on the issue simply means rejecting the "American dream" for any generation that is born today and especially ones born in 20 years and beyond. If we're going to act in this way, then let's not pretend otherwise.

Tyranny of the majority is a piss poor system.  Our forefathers got that one 110% correct.  And if you could read a history book, you would know neither the Republicans nor Democrats had anything pertaining to the electoral college which protects states rights from the giant populous states as neither party existed at the beginning.  Frankly need to rescind the 17th amendment and make Senators elected by state legislators again which will give more power to the states and take power away from the Feds. 

50 options for getting something right/wrong is a Vastly superior solution to 1 set of rules regulations, tyranny, corruption, ferreting out corruption, etc.  More options is always superior to fewer.  Ultimately government will become fully corrupt.  It is human nature.  I would far rather have 50 options than only one.  Only one option is Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, China, Mexico, Cambodia, Japan, Turkey, Rome, Athens, Iran Caliphates, Mongols, etc etc etc(every nation that has existed throughout history).  Hopefully USA will not be added to that list, but if history shows us anything, it most certainly will be added.  The only question is when.

Edited by Wastral
clarity
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

47 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Tyranny of the majority is a piss poor system.  Our forefathers got that one 110% correct.  And if you could read a history book, you would know neither the Republicans nor Democrats had anything pertaining to the electoral college which protects states rights from the giant populous states as neither party existed at the beginning.  Frankly need to rescind the 17th amendment and make Senators elected by state legislators again which will give more power to the states and take power away from the Feds.

So you believe that a minority should rule over a majority. The rule of a few over the many is part of the definition of tyranny and a core aspect of the origin of the word. It seems you are the one who failed to read a history book which has led you to be seemingly unaware of why the Greek actually developed democracy in the first place.

In case it wasn't clear, states are not people. You could have many states each with a few thousand people deciding the fate of millions and this would not be democracy. It would be tyranny. The same is true of corporations, they are not people either. They control the power of many but their decisions and actions are formed by a few. Recognizing corporations as people was a major step towards tyranny in the USA

Edited by David Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw the states, one person one vote is the only way to avoid unfair ”tyranny” for at least Federal presidential elections. The 48 states with winner take all representation in the electoral collage was a power grab from day one. The common man's voice was twisted and neutered.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, David Jones said:

So you believe that a minority should rule over a majority. The rule of a few over the many is part of the definition of tyranny and a core aspect of the origin of the word. It seems you are the one who failed to read a history book which has led you to be seemingly unaware of why the Greek actually developed democracy in the first place.

In case it wasn't clear, states are not people. You could have many states each with a few thousand people deciding the fate of millions and this would not be democracy. It would be tyranny. The same is true of corporations, they are not people either. They control the power of many but their decisions and actions are formed by a few. Recognizing corporations as people was a major step towards tyranny in the USA

The "minority" rarely win the electoral college.  If it happened often, then I would be in agreement with you.  It does put a cap on the influence of very large states though.  Same reason you have a Senate. 

And I agree regarding the bogus ruling; corporations as people was a major step towards tyranny. Now there are different types of corps, but for sure LLC should NOT be categorized as people as the people in question made said LLC PURPOSEFULLY to get away from liability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Anyway, in Canada, a similar backlash against the "Climate Change" scaremongering and its jacked-up taxes, and Canada's persistent attempts to kill off its own domestic oil & gas industry (I'm looking at you Trudeau, Quebec, B.C. ...) is heating up. 

Tom, to get a more in-depth analysis and discussion of where Alberta is coming from, I would both suggest and recommend this attached article in MacLean's,  a Canadian publication that is more upscale and in-depth than what you would typically find.  It is a bit dated  (January 2016), but quite relevant as the oil bust of that time still continues in the trough of depressed prices today. 

Alberta has been the swaggering, boisterous Texas of Canada, and has been the magnet for workers jettisoned by the collapse of manufacturing and service industries such as the railroads and shipyards of the coasts.  Now it has collapsed; its workers are heading back "home," to the have-not provinces, as Alberta no longer has anything for them.  It has been Alberta that has held that country together (financially speaking(, as the oil flowed out and the big bucks flowed in.  Now, there are no bucks flowing, and Alberta is seriously hurting.  That is the incendiary for a really big fire. 

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-death-of-the-alberta-dream/

What I suggest readers take away from all this is that the collapse of Alberta oil industry and the flood of oil workers heading "back home" is that those unemployed will become a strain on the social-services budgets of the have-not Provinces, adding to costs, deficits, and provincial debts that those Provinces cannot handle.  This is a large problem already, and becoming a huge problem.  And this is why I continue to set forth that Canada is going to have to institute a forced closed oil market, where the refineries of the East will be obliged to process the oil of the West and from offshore Newfoundland.  Would that increase the retail cost of gasoline?  Probably  (assuming that various taxes remain the same).  Would that destabilize the country?   Probably not;  import replacement, on the scale of billions of dollars, will act as a huge injection into the Alberta economy and thus by extension into the entire country.  Will it rejuvenate the manufacturing sector of southwestern Ontario?  No, it won't; that needs a more tactile approach, one that is not likely in the next generation, although ironically it might have happened, had the Trump tariffs remained  (those tariffs are coming off, so steel and aluminum from Canada will start to flow back into the USA, bringing Canada back to its ho-hum days of mediocrity in manufacturing).  

These are complex issues, and it will take talented, nuanced leadership.  Can you get that leadership from people and Parties that are obsessed with ideas of CO2 and global warming?  Of course not.  Bad days ahead. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Anyway, in Canada, a similar backlash against the "Climate Change" scaremongering and its jacked-up taxes, and Canada's persistent attempts to kill off its own domestic oil & gas industry (I'm looking at you Trudeau, Quebec, B.C. ...) is heating up. 

And I fully expect the "Climate Change" scaremongering cum anti-oil & gas politicians will be largely voted out in the upcoming Canadian federal elections in October later this year.  Good riddance.

 

 

Yes Randy won, but it's not like all of AB turned on the NDP - they won almost every seat in the capital (Edmonton) and had a huge chunk of the popular vote. There really is only 3 "ridings" in Alberta: Edmonton, Calgary, and Farmers - Randy got the last 2.

J.T. will likely lose unless Sheer opens his mouth and inserts his foot.  The Cons just have to not embarrass themselves while J.T. loses popularity on his own. If Sheer jumps on the Pro-life resurgence, or something else stupid,  J.T. has a chance. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albertans are finally well aware that the Tides Foundation and other NGOs were paid to kill the oilsands beginning over a decade ago.  Their goal was strictly to stop competition and keep their oil prices as high as possible.  Their paid for demonstration organizers may not have known the intent of the big money backers (they just needed a job).   Gerald Butts easily fooled Prime Minister Trudeau (a drama teacher who repeats lines fed to him).  Well intentioned enviros found it easy to follow, only focused on their issues. We should all give a hoot and not pollute.

I see the ice caps melting.  But what are the climate targets of OPEC?  Sell the most at the best price!  Canada is shooting itself in the foot losing their primary source of export revenue.  UN says population growth is the main driver of energy demand growth.  Reduce immigration to cold climates to reduce energy needed for heating.

National Energy Board of Canada (NEB) website has energy stats by province.  I am happy that BC and QC have lots of hydro.  QC sells electricity to ON at twice the cost to QC and four times to New York.   QC overcharges Newfoundland. So it makes sense that most QC homes are heated electrically per the NEB. Good for them.  Too expensive in the prairies beyond the reach of distribution lines. (What would they charge even if it was technically possible?)  In AB and SK, natural gas is cheaper. Coal is being phased out but Albertans must pay 1.2 billion for their stranded assets.  Also our prairies are much colder by "degree days" than other major cities and we must use nat gas.  Therefore carbon axes are unfairly  paid here when we have little choice for home heating. The tax will not help the climate.  Carbon taxes will not be refunded to households exceedig $110k income.  This is just a sneaky way to increase our highest marginal tax rates (32.5% or 42.5% in AB incl provincial).  Yes, poorest get a full rebate with scaled amount between. 

QC has received over $100 billion in equaiization payments thanks to oil from the west. QC has free college. We don't.  Not compliant with our Charter of Rights.  QC has a budget surplus. AB debt spirals upwards. AB has 8% unemployment.

Yes, Albertans are upset.  Please let QC be independent. AB and SK can join the oil friendly US and annex a bit of BC to create a pipeline corridor to Alaska.  Hear me President Trump!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Alberta has been the swaggering, boisterous Texas of Canada, and has been the magnet for workers jettisoned by the collapse of manufacturing and service industries such as the railroads and shipyards of the coasts.  Now it has collapsed; its workers are heading back "home," to the have-not provinces, as Alberta no longer has anything for them.  It has been Alberta that has held that country together (financially speaking(, as the oil flowed out and the big bucks flowed in.  Now, there are no bucks flowing, and Alberta is seriously hurting.  That is the incendiary for a really big fire. 

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-death-of-the-alberta-dream/

Thanks for that article, Jan.

The oil crash in 2016 was a bloodbath, extreme price rollercoastering.

From the 40,000 foot view, 2018 and 2019 have so far been overall pretty good.  Canada is left behind though, by deliberate anti-oil & gas policies by Trudeau and his incompetent, economy-killing ilk.

I can see quite clearly that Trudeau and his Climate Change Cult + Carbon Taxes ilk will get decimated in Canada's October 2019 Federal Elections, in much the same way the Australia voters got rid of the Climate Change Cult politicians in last week's federal elections.

 

● In 2018, Brent averaged $71.  (My ad nauseum predictions last year for 2018 were for $65 Brent.  Better than I predicted.)

● In 2019, Brent so far seems to be averaging in the vicinity of $70 again, although the year is only half over so far. 

● My ad nauseum predictions this year for 2019 are for $70 Brent, and so far oil prices are generally following the price arc I predicted months ago: sub-$70 Brent in the beginning of this year, then oil prices overheating to around $80 Brent by this Summer, and then Brent dropping back down in the Fall, to end up with a net annual average of $70 Brent this year.

 

If my Brent Oil price arc prediction for this year is correct, about the same time that Canada will be having their federal elections in October will be around the same time that overheated oil prices from this Summer ($80+ Brent) will start dropping back down, and Canadians in general will likely be furious that they missed out on this Summer's oil price boom due to Trudeau and his oil & gas hating, Climate Change Scaremongering + Carbon Taxing political ilk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Trudeau and his oil & gas hating, Climate Change Scaremongering + Carbon Taxing political ilk.

OK, Tom, by now we all know your feelings on the matter!

Yet, I would suggest your analysis is not correct.   I get the impression that you think Justin Trudeau is skilled, competent, and able - just not pointed in the oil and gas direction.  I think that is in error.  You seem to overlook yet another possibility, that Premier Trudeau is incompetent. 

If someone is incompetent, then all the analytical errors that are creating so much angst in Canada become plausible.  I conclude that J.T. is simply not intellectually up to the job, that he has no clear understanding of power or energy density or the carbon cycle or much of the scientific stuff, so he has flowed along with the noisiest faction in the Liberal Party - that crowd that, so tiresomely, keep haranguing that the earth is going to implode and doomsday is around the corner.  If you don't really understand what you are doing, then making right choices or wrong choices in leadership is largely a matter of happenstance - maybe it works out, and maybe not.  Unfortunately for Canadians, he has moved to making wrong choices, not out of some malevolence, as you would suggest, but rather out of plain-vanilla incompetence.  

Are there incompetent people out there in positions of authority, totally screwing things up?  But of course.  Look at any large organization and you have incompetent people all through the structure.  Whether it is a large public union, or Jared out there thinking he is going to resolve the issue of Gaza, incompetence is constantly on display.  The reason most structures work is because the competent people figure out clever ways to work around the incompetent, do their work in addition to their own, and keep the organization from self-destruct.  In Canada, that has been the history of just about every organization in the country, additional to the country itself.  All you have to do is look at the recent history of the premier large corporation in Canada,  Bombardier, and its just about bankrupting everything in order to go build the "C-series" aircraft, and after spending some $6 billion it did not have, goes and sells it to Airbus for one dollar. (It is now the A-220).   Or their decision to go buy up all those rail manufacturers in Europe to dominate the rail industry - and end up being barred from bidding on interurban cars for Montreal Transit, or subway cars for New York City, all due to quality and delivery failures. In a word, incompetence. 

Viewed in this light, the "carbon tax" is nothing more than an expression of management failure and institutional and personal incompetence. And you get that out there.  The BP representative on that drill rig out in the Gulf of Mexico that ordered the drill brought up with pieces of rubber from the blow-out preventer coming up in the drill mud, which even a total dummy like me would have figured out is an indicator of equipment failure down below - so stop everything - simply carried on, and BP wrote a check to the US for $25 Billion for that stupidity. And that is what happens when you have incompetent people on deck.  Because so much of society is incompetent, we don't see incompetence for what it is, and look to some malevolent motive.   But it is just stupid people being incompetent.  Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Yes Randy won, but it's not like all of AB turned on the NDP - they won almost every seat in the capital (Edmonton) and had a huge chunk of the popular vote. There really is only 3 "ridings" in Alberta: Edmonton, Calgary, and Farmers - Randy got the last 2.

 J.T. will likely lose unless Sheer opens his mouth and inserts his foot.  The Cons just have to not embarrass themselves while J.T. loses popularity on his own. If Sheer jumps on the Pro-life resurgence, or something else stupid,  J.T. has a chance. 

 

NDP won Edmonton because most are government workers. Edmonton receives more cash from government than Calgary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, WayneMechEng said:

NDP won Edmonton because most are government workers. Edmonton receives more cash from government than Calgary.

Most? Maybe a few more due to the government center -try harder.  Edmonton is actually closer to most of the oil than Calgary.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is no nationalization of Canada's crude oil resources, Canadians do not get a break on the price of crude oil fuels and products even though Canada is an exporter of crude oil. Instead, they have to pay the full market prices and compete with others who want to buy crude oil from Canada. Petro-Canada was an attempt at this but has since been sold off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites