alexmccloy.bsky.social
63 posts
30 followers
27 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
People said the same things about Ukraine resisting Russia. I'm not arguing for isolationism, quite the opposite. I want Canada to shift and diversify our trading partners. If anything our reliance on the US has isolated us from the rest of the world.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for the chat. I learned some stuff and enjoy conversing about large important issues.
comment in response to
post
KXL doesn't diversify export capacity away from the US, which is much more important now. Since TMX began operating about 50% of marine export capacity has gone to Asia, with the balance to US West Coast. I don't know where exactly Here is the best article Ive seen
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
comment in response to
post
So for discussion sake, if your closest ally is attempting to crush you economically in order to annex you(and stated this publicallynay times), the Emergencies Act could be applied.
comment in response to
post
Actions undertaken pursuant to the Emergencies Act are still subject to The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's meant to allow the government to act to protect Canada's sovereignty.
comment in response to
post
We've seen federally approved projects delayed because municipalities won't issue building permits as a way to try and block the project. Declaring something in the national interest or using the Emergencies Act could remove these obstacles.
comment in response to
post
Do you know them? I know the people who work at these companies and not a single person I know is looking to "dismantle" environmental regulation. These companies want to get a yes or no quickly, and if they get a yes they want certainly that the goal posts won't continuously move.
comment in response to
post
Increased market access for all natural resources should improve the ability of companies to sell their products at the highest price, which should then increase the financial capacity of the industry to accelerate well cleanups.
comment in response to
post
Not sure what you mean by back tax. Municipal or county back taxes? Abandoned wells is another can of worms that has nothing to do with large scale energy infrastructure. Unless you want to tie reclamation targets to approval of new export pipelines, which I think could work.
comment in response to
post
All sources of greenhouse gas emission in the Canadian energy industry are more heavily scrutinized than anywhere else on the planet. Are they perfect, no, but they are miles better than anyone else. The measuring and reporting done here is intense.
comment in response to
post
I think you massively underestimate the cost of CC. Requiring it o my in Canada will simply push production to other jurisdictions with Nonsuch requirement. I also never argued against the emissions cap.
comment in response to
post
If the only major producer with a carbon tax is Canada then all you are doing is creating economic conditions for capital to flee to jurisdictions with no carbon tax. Canada does not exist in a vacuum.
comment in response to
post
The process of removing acid gas already exists and is required for sales. The process of scavenging C02 is newer and has no economic benefit outside a carbon price environment. I understand and like the mechanism of carbon pricing, but it only really helps if the entire world does it.
comment in response to
post
I am totally fine never listening to anything with Jordan Peterson.
comment in response to
post
I'm not saying those places are home to evil people, so you can get off that. But without a doubt those political regimes are evil. Buying a product from them which we manufacture here is beyond stupid. Saying it will foster discourse and lead to change has also proven wholly untrue.
comment in response to
post
Canada has the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, with or without a carbon tax. Limiting our own industry and buying oil from evil regimes is next level hypocrisy.
comment in response to
post
You're missing the point.I never said the Federal government didn't have the right to issue the tanker ban, I merely stated it was part of killing Northern Gateway. You are the one who compared the requests in the CEO letter to that of the current US presidency, which are not comparable.
comment in response to
post
Because growth grew to the export capacity that was allowed. If Northern Gateway wasn't killed I would suggest there would have been more production growth.
comment in response to
post
Other than Canada Less than 2% of world oil production is subject to a carbon tax. Making things harder here pushes production to other places, who not only don't have a carbon tax, but their environmental rules (flaring, methane) are non existent.
comment in response to
post
Project like Energy East and Northern Gateway are massively beneficial to Canada. A government using regulations to block them (North BC tanker ban???) has only abdicated our responsibility to produce ethical energy and made way for the worst of the worst evil world regimes.
comment in response to
post
Fair, I thought it was clear I meant the regimes who these petroleum sales benefit. But that is a good clarification. If you haven't seen investment absolutely flee Canada, primarily to the US over the last 15 years you haven't been paying attention. It's not a threat, it's a fact.
comment in response to
post
You are assuming the original plan for EE would remain unchanged. When it was developed the US was not an adversary. Plans for new NG infrastructure and line 5 would have to be changed to reflect the current geopolitical conditions.
comment in response to
post
Comparing what that letter requested (using powers granted under the Constitution) to Trump literally dismantling portions of the US government, ignoring the US constitution, demeaning immigrants without due process is crazy hyperbole.
comment in response to
post
I'm talking about legit evil countries that we buy oil from. I think that is a much larger problem than a typo (or misinformation) in a mail out. Did you email your MP about this? Unlike these other countries you are free to complain and actually find the correct and uncensored information.
comment in response to
post
Regarding that CPC snip. That appears to be a typo that should have read millions instead of billions. Pretty careless mistake. But I usually atteibute incompetence to these things over malice. But let's not compare that with human rights atrocities which occur at the hands of competing countries.
comment in response to
post
Excess products shipped could be exported. It's estimated the TMX expansion generated $10billion CND in extra revenue in 2024 by opening markets and shrinking the differential. Energy East could supply Canadian refineries and export.
comment in response to
post
Hi Andrzej, these are excellent questions. I believe Energy East would operate in the same manner as TMX. This means products would be sent down the line in batches, which includes crude oils, semi refined and refined products. This would provide eastern refineries with the crude type they need.
comment in response to
post
While Marginal tax rates were lowered on the bottom end of the income band, many middle class tax credits were removed. Most costly was the removal of income splitting. Middle class tax burden has increased under Trudeau. Not sure I would call it crushing though.
comment in response to
post
Fully agree, massive stimulus was required, but there was quite billion of poorly spent money that didn't help anyone. See CBC "the Big Spend". Your assertion about taxes is incorrect though.
comment in response to
post
Peak oil demand does not equal no oil demand. Oil will hkld a huge part of the energy mix for decades to come. Would you rather it's produced in Canada or Saudi Arabia?
comment in response to
post
So 24% is okay? This is a Terrible take. Human rights violations, zero environmental standards, funding of terrorism...but it's only 24%. And you may want to look at what conditions in the US are like. EPA rollbacks, a massive degradation of womens rights, slipping democracy.
comment in response to
post
Is even a single major world economy meeting it's Paris climate commitments? Other than a handful of smaller countries the world is behind. To me saying the most credible path forward is everyone catches up is not reasonable. I'm not saying anything is impossible, but that seems unlikely.
comment in response to
post
I should add, I never said I had my own math, I'm not an energy modeler. I read IEA and OPEC and think STEPS and OPEC are the bookends. Likely closer to STEPS. Why do I think STEPS is aggressive? It relies on all major economies meeting their commitments on time and then some.
comment in response to
post
I will.
comment in response to
post
I would love to see the math. Perhaps I am too stuck on countries missing past targets to believe they will all meet their 2050 targets.
comment in response to
post
Even STEPS takes into account policy that is still being developed and has not been enacted. And as we are seeing (USA) these policies can and do sometimes take wild swings backwards. There is definitely a wide range of outcomes. But stating 57mln bpd as most likely seems very aggressive.
comment in response to
post
OPEC's outlook (Sept 2024) predicts 2050 demand at 120mln bpd and they breakdown demand regionally in great detail. There is no perfect answer here, but assuming all countries meet their ambitious targets on time, with no policy support currently in place is a huge stretch.
comment in response to
post
I don't think it's pointless, if anything I believe it exposes both of our biases towards the spectrum of outcomes. I'm curious why you believe the Stated Policies Scenario is least likely. If anything APS seems less likely as it's based on ambitions, not enacted policies.
comment in response to
post
I'd also say who knows if this is a 4 year problem. We don't know what the future will hold in the US. But we do know they are willing to economically attack their closest allies, and that is something we should not forget in 4 years.
comment in response to
post
The IEA report you referenced estimates 2050 oil demand around 100mln bbls/d and is basically flat from 2030 on. When is true demand destruction going to occur? This will be a required product for a very long time, and I would rather it be produced here than anywhere else.
comment in response to
post
Predicted growth in renewables doesn't destroy oil demand, it may stop growth and it definitely displaces coal though. The question is who do we want to supply the 100mln bbls/d of oil the world will need in 2050 and beyond?
comment in response to
post
The markets are there, long term demand is there. We can produce here or cede that production to other horrible jurisdictions.
comment in response to
post
I disagree. Nobody wins in a trade war, least of all the most economically vulnerable people. Peak oil is a red herring. When is there true demand destruction for heavy oil? It will be used for a very long time. Heavy oil Markets? 50% of TMX exports go to Asia which people claimed would not happen.
comment in response to
post
The ultimate solution is not a temporary export tax, it's to significantly increase export capacity and make the US compete to buy our oil forever.
comment in response to
post
Kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face though. Not sure we have any other options right now, but the ultimate protection is expanded export capacity to other counties (and Ont/Quebec).
comment in response to
post
I guess my other point would be, even if this is solely Alberta's fault, is the point of Confederation not that the provinces/territories help one another? Do we only help others if they have zero responsibility in causing their own problems?
comment in response to
post
That is absolutely what has occurred. But I think the history of how it happened is not as simple as Alberta expanded too quickly. You could argue it's all Alberta's fault, but that would ignore events that occurred outside of Alberta which negatively impacted its ability to control its destiny.
comment in response to
post
Good clarification. I should have said expanding capacity.