Originally Posted by Oakvillian

Teck has investors to keep on side. I'm very unsurprised that they were saying the project was viable, right up to the point that they have to actually commit to building it.

Kenney said that the Alberta government had complied with every "demand" of the Federal government in terms of reporting and commitments to carbon offsets etc, in order for the project to be given the go-ahead. The joint committee that spent all that time on the environmental and economic impacts of the project had said, in their report, that the economic benefits outweighed the environmental challenges. It didn't appear that there were any significant grounds for the Feds to deny permission for the project to go forward.

I don't expect you to acknowledge that Mr Kenney's comments were at all counterproductive, but I'll leave you with Rachel Notley's view: she blamed Kenney for making the project a "political football" and said his aggressive approach to supporting the province's oil and gas sector is to blame for the end of Frontier. "My message to the premier is this: yelling at other people does not create jobs, except maybe for Tom Olsen," she said, taking a shot at the chief executive officer of the Canadian Energy Centre.

"In this case, it cost us jobs, at least 7,000. Albertans cannot afford more of this. Step up before our province gets left behind."

I agree that the current mess is off-putting to foreign inward investors. I may differ from you, though, in the reason they are likely to be put off. The Conservative policies espoused by Alberta, especially, are those that are out of step with the rest of Canada. In case you hadn't noticed, the Conservative party failed to score (on an effectively open net, given the mis-steps of the incumbent Liberals) in the last general election. Alberta, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, is a little bit of a lone voice, sticking to its guns of non-renewable resource extraction when the opportunity for diversification into renewables is plain for everyone else to see. If it's a united voice you're after, I'd suggest campaigning for your province (and its eastern neighbour) to emerge from its blinkered "drill, baby, drill" approach to join most of the rest of the country in addressing the climate crisis would be a good place to start. [edited to add] I should acknowledge that Trudeau is not helping either. His desire to be all things to all people has left him looking weak and indecisive on the pipeline issues as well as many other contentious debates among and between Canada's multilayered jurisdictions. The current cluster***** with the Wet'sowet'en protests being a prime example.

Where I suspect we do agree, though, is that the Fed govt needs to provide a great deal more support to Alberta in order to effect that change. When the heavy manufacturing base in southern Ontario fell to pieces (and what's left continues to struggle, with the recent closure of the Oshawa GM plant, for example), provincial and federal governments of assorted political stripes worked together to provide transitional services and facilities to the affected workforce. Decades on, the scars are still visible, in some areas of cities like Hamilton, London and Windsor; but there's a lot more to look forward to than a bleak post-industrial wasteland. Alberta needs economic help to diversify away from a fossil fuel economy; but the Provincial government really needs to engage in a constructive dialogue, rather than a shouting match, with Ottawa to make that happen. And vice-versa, of course

Originally Posted by scilly

The fact that the project was no longer really viable has been mooted by many commentators, who know much more about the economics that I do. But my immediate thought was that Teck was using Trudeau to blame for pulling the project when in fact it really was a company decision that it was no longer viable ESPECIALLY if they were ordered to undertake much fuller enviromental impact studies and much better consultation with all First Nations.

I've seen more than one report that indicated those two aspects were likely to receive the same order to re-do as did the oil pipeline.

FWIW ... the process began in 2008. An abbreviated time line after that is below ..........

Teck submitted applications for the mine to the Alberta regulator in 2011.

Federal Environment Minister announced independent panel to review the project

Joint review panel of the Alberta Regulator and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency announce May 2016

Joint panel granted an 8 month extension in November 2017

Alberta Regulator and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency recommends approval July 2019

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

I can't really disagree with most of what you have said here, and I accept that you do not like Kenny.

I still don't see why it is not preferable for the refineries in the east and the west not to refine oil from Canada, as they wish to, rather than import it from other countries and for AB and SK to get that oil to those refineries via pipelines, rather than rail as, surely, that would reduce the transportation's carbon footprint. I had to laugh when Horgan was using the Courts in an attempts to stop Alberta's oil going to BC on the one hand, while simultaneously using the Courts to compel Alberta to keep sending oil to BC.

Alberta's economy is not simply oil and gas and I agree that, once the rest of the world has moved away from those resources, they should be left in the ground, but I fail to see why, when the rest of the world still needs it and will use it, Canada shouldn't be selling it to those customers, at the best possible price.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian

But I believe all of that is a separate issue to yesterday's announcement by Teck. My suspicion that Teck's announcement was as much about economic conditions for development as it was about the political landscape seems to reflect what a number of commentators have said through the day yesterday. The counter argument is that there is a lot of expertise and manpower sitting idle in Alberta right now, so although the oil price is lower than Teck's planning number, the cost to develop the new mine would also be lower. I still maintain, though, that it was as much a commercial as a political decision to abandon the application.