Carney's Sucker Punch to Alberta - Any pipeline MUST include carbon capture

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

You mean like Canada current climate plan....It's there it does not do much but it fools most Canadians into thinking the liberals are on the case..

And yet it is STILL better than any the Tories have come up with with in two decades. And better than the march backwards into the future plan of Pierre Pitifull's current crowd of copycats.
Got a better idea? Do tell us!

[CdnFox]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You mean like Canada current climate plan....It's there it does not do much but it fools most Canadians into thinking the liberals are on the case...

Yup. 

'Pretend they're not there:' Canada won't submit new 2030, 2035 climate targets, but won't commit to meet them | National Post

15 hours ago, herbie said:

And yet it is STILL better than any the Tories have come up with

Nope.  In fact emissions went down under harper more than any other prime minister. 

Harper did more to help the environment with his gst rebate on home upgrades than the liberals have done in the last 11 years. 

And yet twats like you still vote liberal  "for climate change"

[BeaverFever]

On 10/15/2025 at 5:09 PM, CdnFox said:

And there it is. 

Carney has already floated a few 'deal killers' for pipelines, he's always been anti pipeline, 

And here's his deathblow.  Pipelines can only be built with appropriate levels of carbon capture, 

Which makes them too expensive for the private sector to be interested in as a rule. 

Carney is PRETENDING to be on board with pipelines and infrastructure but in reality is throwing up roadblocks and speedbumps. 

How long till alberta gets pissed?

 

 

 

Private sector hasn’t been interested in an oilsands pipeline in over a decade.  There has been ZERO interest from industry, since then, none. Oilsands crude is prohibitively expensive to refine and transport EXCEPT during brief periods of extraordinarily high prices from temporary oil shortages, which was eliminated for the foreseeable future by the advent of fracking around 10 years ago. 
 

And the carbon capture requirement isn’t a new revelation he’s been speaking about it for a while, it was one of the big “nation building” projects recently announced. 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Private sector hasn’t been interested in an oilsands pipeline in over a decade.

Right, when did the libs come to power again? 

Quote

There has been ZERO interest from industry, since then, none.

Well not quite none.  There was this little thing called northern gateway. And it was progressing,right up till 2018 or so when the libs basically killed it's permits and passed the tanker ban which would make development pointless and let it die. 

But yes other than that multi billion dollar thing, that the liberals squashed, silence. 🙄🙄🙄

And in fact the industry has noted that there is a demand for the oil, they just don't have any interest given the 'regulatory environment".   So yeah, complete bullshit on your part.  There's markets and there's private sector interest... IF the laws were different. There's zero interest when the laws completely make it impossible

 

[BeaverFever]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Right, when did the libs come to power again? 

AFTER the bottom fell out of the oilsands market. 
 

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So yeah, complete bullshit on your part

Nope, I know you conservatives have the memory of a goldfish so let me repost an article I shared back in February 

Why Canada’s Oil Sands Aren’t Coming Back

I used to be an oil executive. Here’s how market forces, not politics, killed the oil boom—and why new pipelines won’t save the country.
 

Ross Belot is an energy and climate change columnist who worked for Imperial Oil before retiring in 2014.
 

https://macleans.ca/economy/why-canadas-oil-sands-arent-coming-back/
 

But I know you don’t read either so I’ll limit my hope that you’ll suddenly be able to put reason above emotion. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

AFTER the bottom fell out of the oilsands market. 

So then why was embridge willing to spend billions to build a new pipeline after that before the libs squashed it?
 

Quote

Nope, I know you conservatives have the memory of a goldfish so let me repost an article I shared back in February 

Embridge and others say they'd be interested if the regulations were different. You're posting an article from a magazine that is know to be wrong to begin with and is from a source that is terrible.  Maclains is trash. 

 

So i know you lefties like to lie to yourself every way possible to protect your tribe and confirm your bias but no, everything you said was shit.  There WAS interest in  pipelines in the last decade, there would be now if we didn't have the pipeline killing regulation. 

 

 

[ExFlyer]

"Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government supported and funded carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology

. While opponents criticized his environmental record, the Harper government consistently positioned CCS as a key strategy for reducing Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly from the energy sector. 

 

Key examples of the Harper government's support for carbon capture include:

 

• Boundary Dam Project: In 2008, Harper repeated his support and announced federal funding for the Boundary Dam CCS project in Saskatchewan. The $1.4-billion pilot project aimed to capture carbon dioxide from a coal-fired generator, with the federal government contributing significantly to the endeavor.
• Clean Energy Fund: The Harper government's Economic Action Plan created a $1-billion Clean Energy Fund to support CCS initiatives. In 2009, funding from this program was distributed to eight different carbon capture projects in Western Canada.
• Oilsands investment: In 2013, Harper committed $82 million to fund clean-energy projects, including those researching more efficient ways to capture carbon dioxide from the Alberta oilsands. He argued that CCS was a "practical and responsible way of developing the oilsands".
• World leader status: In 2009, Harper expressed the belief that Canada could be a world leader in carbon capture and storage technology. Official communications from his government referred to Canada as a global leader in CCS research and development. 

•  

However, some critics viewed the Harper government's emphasis on carbon capture as a way to avoid stronger climate action and regulations for the oil and gas industry. Environmental Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, a member of a later government, stated that under Harper, "carbon capture got a very bad reputation... because it was pointed to as the way to solve climate change," rather than part of a broader strategy. 

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

"Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government supported and funded carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology

 

Sure, which i note Carney is betting all his marbles on right now as well. Carbon capture is an interesting tech. We'll see if they can make it work. 

So there you go, Harper did believe in climate change stuff, he just didn't believe you could wipe it out with a tax. 

in fact the did more to reduce emissions with his 'gst rebate', which also strongly stimulated the economy during the recession. 

Too bad the Libs didn't carry on with ideas like that and instead tried to line their pockets with a carbon tax. 

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Private sector hasn’t been interested in an oilsands pipeline in over a decade.  There has been ZERO interest from industry, since then, none. Oilsands crude is prohibitively expensive to refine and transport EXCEPT during brief periods of extraordinarily high prices from temporary oil shortages, which was eliminated for the foreseeable future by the advent of fracking around 10 years ago. 
 

And the carbon capture requirement isn’t a new revelation he’s been speaking about it for a while, it was one of the big “nation building” projects recently announced. 

To be honest do you think our current policies around oil and gas are ...and pipelines has anything to do with that....i know we don't talk about Justin any more, but his policies still rule...I'm only guessing but remove those and i think we could have interest in Canadas oil and gas sector...

And while bitumen is hard to refine it is still one of the leading industrial inputs to our GDP...And yes there is a price in which refining becomes a negative but Alberta, Sask produce other oils as well 

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So then why was embridge willing to spend billions to build a new pipeline after that before the libs squashed it?

Because the Northern Gateway proposal was already well advanced by the time fracking had disrupted the market and Enbridge already had hundreds of millions in sunk costs on the project and had cleared some of the regulatory hurdles. Northern Gateway was conceived in the early 2000s and filed for regulatory approval in 2010, well before fracking was a thing. So naturally in those first few years Enbridge was less willing to cut and run at first and more willing to try and see it through in the hope of longshot viability or break even by selling what they can to China. But that’s a chapter that’s been closed for nearly a decade now

And should we really be selling more energy to China and becoming more economically dependent on them? You know they’re not the good guys right? Look what they’re doing to our Canola right now. 

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Because the Northern Gateway proposal was already well advanced by the time fracking had disrupted the market and Enbridge already had hundreds of millions in sunk costs on the project and had cleared some of the regulatory hurdles

The same was true of transmountain and they walked away from that no problem  

Kid, your lies are getting silly.  They knew there was money in it, that's why they proposed it a few years earlier and that's why they wanted to continue it   

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

fracking had disrupted the market

Fracking hasn't' disrupted the market. Sorry that's a lie the ignorant tell.  The chinese are buying up our oil in mass amounts and would buy up more if we could affordably get it to coast. That's happening. 

Fracking oil isn't even the same oil. Most of the us refineries can't even use it, and that's true of many refineries around the world.  You've been lied to, 

45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And should we really be selling more energy to China and becoming more economically dependent on them?

Sure we should sell them more, and we should sell more to europe and everybody else. that reduces dependency on any ONE country like we have now, improves our prices that we get and would result in a lot of revenue that could be put towards all kinds of things to make our economy more diverse and self sustaining in other areas. 

Any other questions kiddo?   

 

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Sure, which i note Carney is betting all his marbles on right now as well. Carbon capture is an interesting tech. We'll see if they can make it work. 

So there you go, Harper did believe in climate change stuff, he just didn't believe you could wipe it out with a tax. 

in fact the did more to reduce emissions with his 'gst rebate', which also strongly stimulated the economy during the recession. 

Too bad the Libs didn't carry on with ideas like that and instead tried to line their pockets with a carbon tax. 

Typical deflection for a conservative LOSER LOL

Don't ya just hate it when your hero gets outed as much a scuzzbag as the one you whine about all the time??HA HA HA

Edited October 22, 2025 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

18 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Typical deflection for a conservative LOSER LOL

Don't ya just hate it when your hero gets outed as much a scuzzbag as the one you whine about all the time??HA HA HA

Deflection? YOU were the one who pointed it out? You're mad at your OWN observations now? 

LOL i get it when you disagree violently with ME, but when you do it with yourself you just look bad   

[herbie]

BC Conservative leader John Rustad spoke in favour of lifting the tanker ban and building an oil pipeline to Prince Rupert. Said he didn't understand the fuss as Alaskan tankers are already travelling down BC's coast.

Perhaps the inability to comprehend
A: the difference between the BC Coast that tankers from Prince Rupert will have to travel through and International Waters off the coast where tankers and even Russian subs can travel through.
B: That all the towns and Bands along the pipeline route already rejected such an idea, even his home riding which would not see a nickel of benefit after a little bit of money when construction passed through at their own permanent risk.
C - why 5 members of his Party have bolted and his own leadership has tanked worse than PP LePew's.