Post #3788625
2026-07-10 18:05 UTC
@johnefrancis@cosocial.ca a big part of the article is how
This is not economic for the industry, so this will be taxpayer-funded. And there’s no certainty about demand for this hypothetical oil that the industry does not seem willing to produce, although Smith has alluded to doing whatever she can to stimulate further oilsands production with additional provincial support
in other words, even at current prices, this project's national economic impact is negative, no matter who pays; the actual projects completions are unlikely without heavily publicly subsidized greenfield expansion, which is the scenario with the greatest losses and harms done.
Replies (2)
-
@johnefrancis@cosocial.ca 2026-07-10 18:16
@datum@zeroes.ca yep. And the most recent pipeline is non-economic. Even when the federal govt. took on the $40B financing risk, when it came to set the usage tariffs, they were set far below what is necessary to pay back the $40B over 50 years. So Canadians pay to extract the oil at a loss, pay to export it at a loss, and yet when it comes to us buying fossil fuels...we pay "full global market price".
-
@ipsquiggle@sunny.garden 2026-07-14 02:38
@datum@zeroes.ca @johnefrancis@cosocial.ca Since I assume the argument at the end of the day boils down to "job creation", if they're gonna blow the money anyways, I'd rather they just give it directly to albertans, a huge free ride, and just see what happens 🤷🤣