Great article Dierdre - A thought experiment- imagine, just for once, Albertans didn’t pull a lever for the conservative MP in their constituencies and actually looked at where the election was trending and threw their support to the likely national winner.
In other words, acted strategically, like the erstwhile Quebec Federal voter. Imagine then what would happen in subsequent elections, when political parties realize they have to work for a vote in Alberta. And they could be rewarded for that effort.
Imagine the possibilities. But no. That will never happen because Albertans are politically naïve, lazy and hidebound. It is this tradition of locking on the conservative vote that is holding Alberta back.
The Tory voter parking their vote with the UCP provincially and the federal conservatives only have themselves to blame for their continual self-imposed political marginalization.
Many thanks, Lee. I’m watching 338 every day and just hoping to see Alberta decide they’ve had enough of being in opposition and just letting these representatives do nothing in Ottawa.
This life-long Albertan has been doing just that; voting strategically, and for the common good, not some right wing ideology. It is just SO hard and frustrating to see others vote along tribal lines. But I refuse to move and I am determined to dilute the “crazy” by staying here and using my voice and vote in a sane way.
I'm in Calgary and I do the same, checking the votewell site before voting to try and shift this UCP wave. Voting Liberal this year despite being a card carrying NDP member. My neighbourhood is full of conservative signs and I have learned that some of my nicest neighbours think Danielle Smith is a rational, effective leader and it depresses the hell out of me.
I’m very clear—if it comes up—where my allegiances are. I did post an NDP yard sign in my yard in the last election and I still have neighbours who won’t speak to me because of it. I figure if they still support her, it’s a lost cause, sadly
It’s a bit of a common misnomer that we sell Canadian crude to the US “at a discount”. Crude pricing is generally reflective of “refining value”, which is essentially the innate yield of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel that only has to be distilled and minimally treated to final product specs. What reduces the price a crude can fetch is the amount of contaminants to be removed (e.g. sulfur) and severe processing required to convert low value inherent components (e.g. asphalt) into high value fuel products. Synthetic crudes have their own refining challenges that lower their market price. So saying we sell crude at a discount is analogous to saying Corolla’s are sold at a discount when compared to BMW’s. How unfair! No, it’s that they are simply lower value cars. Their price reflects their value.
However, transportation costs can contribute to the “discount”. This discount is real, but not everpresent, and was lessened by TMX. It would have been further lessened by Keystone, Line 5, etc. More shipping options means less chance of what is called “stranded” pricing. How much and whether this discount exists at all is complex.
Ha! No, not at all. Hopefully, my comment only clarifies that the perceived “discount” we sell at is not a matter of us getting ripped off or benevolent stupidity, as many believe. It’s a matter of innate chemistry and, at times, transportation options.
Oh yeah, it was very helpful! I jumped ahead to the end with that last reply lol.
Your explanation was helpful because it made me realize that I was using Smith’s words (“discount”), and that she was spinning it (based on what you wrote), and the way I used it (“Alberta was pouting bc Trudeau wanted us to sell to Canada at a discount but we showed them by selling to the U.S. at a discount instead”) totally weaponized her spin 😏
It’s not necessarily wrong to refer to it as a “discount”, it’s more about Smith’s and others’ use of the word to suggest something nefarious. Expanding to “quality discount” or “transportation discount” is a bit more reflective and transparent of what it actually is to the layperson. Getting into WCS differential or light/heavy differentials is another layer of pricing complexity….
As always, happy to gently clarify industry fundamentals.
Can you clarify why we don't refine the WCS in Alberta and ship upgraded, value added products....we could cut back production, meet emission targets, make more money and keep stuff in the ground for future generations to use, or not.
Building those refineries here would give Albertans something to do... and we could sell non tariffed Canadian products to the rest of Canada, at a discount yet, and still make money!
"We’re still pouting over that time Pierre Trudeau wanted us to sell oil to the rest of Canada for less than market rates.
We got back at him and the rest of the country by selling our oil to the U.S. for less than market rates. Yes, we did."
Good question and it’s a relatively simple answer.
Remember that WCS is one of many grades of oil that’s produced. We produce WCS, Pembina, Bow River, Kearl, etc, etc, etc. Each of these grades of crude has its own chemical properties, contaminants, and expected yields of fuel products. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, each of those variables influences the price. Despite these differences, each of these grades of crude oil can be shipped via the same pipeline without worrying about contamination issues. Crudes are shipped in batches down a pipeline (e.g. TMX) and each is routed to a different tank(s) at the other end. Nothing physically separates these batches from each other so there is some contamination between crudes but it’s tolerable.
With fuel products, however, this cross contamination is absolutely intolerable if one wants to keep products on spec. We can’t ship a batch of gasoline down a pipeline, then follow immediately with diesel, then followed by jet fuel. The contamination of each batch would ruin the tight sales specifications for all of them. To solve this, you’d need at least 3 pipelines. One for each of gasoline, jet, and diesel. As well as pipelines for other byproducts products that still need to find a home. Obviously, the cost would be outrageous. So we send crudes by pipeline and not products.
We also produce far more than what we could refine for our own use. So byproducts like sulfur, asphalt, fuel oil, coke, etc would also need a pipeline (or some other more practical method). Shipping those byproducts in raw crude is far easier than after they’ve been separated after processing.
This is not what energy expert told Pamela Wallin recently (YouTube video - it's really good!) She said the discounted price had to be applied b/c AB had no option but to sell to the USA as only north-south pipelines existed. Further she said the price increased dramatically when AB had the use of the TMX pipeline and an alternative buyer. For the first time I understood why TMX was worth the enormous investment.
What you are describing is what I said is the discount portion attributable to limited transportation options. As I am also an expert, I know this expert would no doubt agree with the quality discount I describe, but he appears to have omitted that part. The price change associated with TMX you describe is also what I said. So I’m confused what you disagree with.
Interesting information as the "at a discount" is getting tossed a lot lately. I'm realtively uninformed about the nuances of the market. Please explain the matter of royalties and the claim the Albert's royalties rate are a generous gift to the industry. If so, are Albertans being played? Also the stranded oil rigs ... from a distance, I know the terms but not the reality on the ground.When you put all this together, what the hell does it all add up to?
Royalties are certainly not a gift to the industry. It’s essentially Albertan’s share of the profit for giving the oil company the rights to extract the oil from the ground. For every barrel of oil that a company extracts from the ground, Alberta receives a royalty payment. Every jurisdiction has a royalty structure with different tiers and rates. Saskatchewan has historically had the highest royalty rate and Alberta the lowest. This means that Sask takes a larger share of the profit on every barrel than what Alberta would take. But of course, it’s a fine balance as the higher the royalty rate is, the lower the profit is for the company, and the less overall investment there will be. Simple economics.
Thank you for your detailed explanations and insights into what has become cliche slogans.
Could you pls explain the history and costs of closing down an oil well once the company who is doing the pumping decides it is no longer profitable to continue? I believe many such sites have been abandoned, taxes unpaid, contaminants unrestrained. I think that might be what was meant by the earlier question about stranded oil wells.
Thanks for the explanation. I was referring to the low royalty rate in Alberta being a "gift" since my understanding was they could (should?) charge more.
Again, I don't know as much as I should. The "rig" was term for the abandoned wells which I understand the province is on the hook for. What's the story on that?
Abandoned and orphaned wells are often referred to as the same thing. They aren’t. “Abandoned” wells have been plugged below the surface with several layers of redundancy and physically proven with testing to not be at risk of ever leaking. As an engineer, I fully trust this process. Orphaned wells have simply been walked away from without proper abandonment. Not plugged, not maintained, with no one with any legal responsibility. This happens when a company goes bankrupt or when these wells are sold off as assets to another company as a way of avoiding the environmental liability. Who they’re sold to may indeed go bankrupt and that’s legal but certainly an ethical problem. The problem is that there is nobody left to go after. But it certainly shouldn’t be the taxpayer.
You’re absolutely right about the people we send to Ottawa. Ironically, when they have power, as in 10 years of Stephen Harper, they don’t actually do anything positive for Alberta with it. Within Alberta, the conservatives have a serious legacy problem for most of our existence. We have been ruled by a rural based Conservative party. While the people living in Alberta have to deal with fast population growth and poor management of our healthcare, the Conservatives want nothing more than to return to the days William Aberhart, telling us how to raise our kids and what lifestyles are permitted.
This is was a great piece. As an Albertan who has never once voted blue (federally or provincially) I find the party allegiance really baffling. I admire Blanchet (and Duceppe before him) for the exact reasons you lay out here — they're in the room to represent their constituents. If they don't do the work, they don't get a seat. The notion that to deviate from one party even when that party stops serving you is, frankly, weird. Super weird and myopic and we're paying for it the way we always do. I hope enough of us get out on election day and break the pattern.
This was an interesting read. I’m in Northwest BC and I’ve often rolled my eyes when the likes of Preston Manning (who might as well be from Mars, or even Texas) whinges on about “western” alienation. Apparently BC is somewhat more “west" and also a “have Province”, yet I’ve never felt a jot of alienation from Canada, and know few people who have. I lived in Quebec for 5 years, and down in SW Alberta for a short stint, before moving back to BC, but I’ve never had much understanding of the Alberta perspective and your comments help me to understand a bit better the nuances and background.
The hardcore Con voters in BC (there are many) are more of the “F*ck Trudeau” ilk - but I don’t think their contempt is rooted in the same sense of oily entitlement that today’s CPC elites are using to threaten unity. I’m not sure. Anyway I hope that Albertans (let’s say “the midwest”?) can come to see more value in being part of Canada, and dump those politicians who’ve been manipulating them into a kind of pouty isolation.
All said, I’m a bit surprised that PP immediately leaned towards a ‘unity’ message after Manning’s comments. Curious to know your thoughts on why that might be?
Poilievre is in trouble, basically. I’m currently writing one that will go into some more detail on the problem I think they have, but from what I see, because Poilievre has a credibility issue on Trump, he necessarily has a credibility issue on Canada — at the worst possible time.
Even look at your own response; “surprised” he would lean toward unity. You’re absolutely not the only Canadian Poilievre’s pivot is not landing with.
I’m originally from Calgary and recently learned a piece of oil sands history that seems to get conveniently ignored. Anyone ever hear of the Winnipeg Agreement of February 1975?
Basically, the first Oils Sands development, Syncrude, was going bankrupt because one of the American oil companies that had invested, decided to pull out and invest in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska instead.
At the last minute, the federal government, the Ontario government and the Alberta government agreed to invest public money to save project.
I was surprised that the Ontario provincial government invested in Syncrude as part of the deal. Trying to imagine the Alberta government investing in Northern Ontario’s Ring of Fire….
I only knew because I looked hard into the backstory once— probably when they were complaining that no one supports O&G like Alberta. The surprising part to me was actually that they got shares and it wasn’t just a handout like they seem more willing to do today.
Interesting to learn about what is going on in Alberta. By the way two french newspapers (La Presse and Le Devoir) are now the property of social trusts. It gives them more liberty to say what they want.
Your piece reminds me of that bible story of Lucifer being given the choice of either serving in heaven or ruling in hell… except in this case, Alberta keeps choosing to *serve* in hell. 🥴
I am an Albertan and cannot wait to vote for Carney! It may help that I do not work in O&G. I do hope for green tech/energy/growth. I am also constantly amazing at how an “energy powerhouse” can only survive/create on form of energy? I know as a province we can do better. I would say, don’t be suprised if you see us vote Liberal this time around. I belive our culture is shifting.
You're not alone, I'm doing it too! My husband is a new Canadian and I'm excited to say he's going to vote for the first time here. Let's hope we can make a difference.
Great work. I learned a lot. Living in NS I am so far from understanding Alberta/Albertans. I always got the idea they were just plain mad at the rest of Canada, that they opined we are all a bunch of thieves riding on the back of that province. I’ve not understood it, and I’ve never had nor ever heard anyone even infer Alberta wasn’t a part of our identity. It’s always felt like we’re being punished but we aren’t quite sure how to fix it. Your article explains it, we simply never know because there are no voices in the room to do so.
I'm tired of Alberta politics. It’s provocative, yet boring as hell.
The conservative circle jerk keeps spinning like a scratched Nickelback CD nobody asked for. Crude oil this, energy sector that—blah blah blah. It’s the same tired gang of land-raping greed goblins jerking each other off in the name of "economic growth," while Indigenous voices and environmentalists get steamrolled under a rig the size of their collective ego.
These clowns aren’t fighting for Canada. They’re not fighting for Indigenous reconciliation. Hell, they're not even fighting for their own damn souls. Just a greasy, never-ending grab for more cash and less conscience. And when anyone with a molecule of critical thought dares to speak out—boom! Out come the red-faced rage boners, frothing at the mouth about “liberal agendas” while they deep-throat the oil industry like it’s communion.
Do minds like this ever change? Not a chance. Not when the holy trinity is oil, money, and denial. Profiteering is the point. Long-term damage? That’s just an inconvenient truth they’ll let the grandkids shovel.
Now yeah, maybe I’m lumping good Albertans in with the bad ones. Is that fair? Probably not. But if the boot fits and the boot votes Conservative every damn time, what the hell am I supposed to think?
Anyway, I’m bored. I’ll check out the rest of the country, see where actual progress is happening. Maybe somewhere that isn’t run by oiled-up conservative dicks trying to hump the land into a coma.
Great article Dierdre - A thought experiment- imagine, just for once, Albertans didn’t pull a lever for the conservative MP in their constituencies and actually looked at where the election was trending and threw their support to the likely national winner.
In other words, acted strategically, like the erstwhile Quebec Federal voter. Imagine then what would happen in subsequent elections, when political parties realize they have to work for a vote in Alberta. And they could be rewarded for that effort.
Imagine the possibilities. But no. That will never happen because Albertans are politically naïve, lazy and hidebound. It is this tradition of locking on the conservative vote that is holding Alberta back.
The Tory voter parking their vote with the UCP provincially and the federal conservatives only have themselves to blame for their continual self-imposed political marginalization.
Many thanks, Lee. I’m watching 338 every day and just hoping to see Alberta decide they’ve had enough of being in opposition and just letting these representatives do nothing in Ottawa.
Insert “Saskatchewan” and “Sask Party” and this commentary applies equally to my home province! Come on people, we need to work smarter, not harder!
This life-long Albertan has been doing just that; voting strategically, and for the common good, not some right wing ideology. It is just SO hard and frustrating to see others vote along tribal lines. But I refuse to move and I am determined to dilute the “crazy” by staying here and using my voice and vote in a sane way.
Doing it too but it is very frustrating to see the very useless conservative candidate win again and again and again.
I'm in Calgary and I do the same, checking the votewell site before voting to try and shift this UCP wave. Voting Liberal this year despite being a card carrying NDP member. My neighbourhood is full of conservative signs and I have learned that some of my nicest neighbours think Danielle Smith is a rational, effective leader and it depresses the hell out of me.
I am with you. Hope that our strategy works. 🇨🇦🙏
Do you ever try to explain her flaws and negative actions and alignment with Tucker Carlson and alike or are you just quiet and hope for the best? 🇨🇦
I’m very clear—if it comes up—where my allegiances are. I did post an NDP yard sign in my yard in the last election and I still have neighbours who won’t speak to me because of it. I figure if they still support her, it’s a lost cause, sadly
Thank you
🙏
It’s a bit of a common misnomer that we sell Canadian crude to the US “at a discount”. Crude pricing is generally reflective of “refining value”, which is essentially the innate yield of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel that only has to be distilled and minimally treated to final product specs. What reduces the price a crude can fetch is the amount of contaminants to be removed (e.g. sulfur) and severe processing required to convert low value inherent components (e.g. asphalt) into high value fuel products. Synthetic crudes have their own refining challenges that lower their market price. So saying we sell crude at a discount is analogous to saying Corolla’s are sold at a discount when compared to BMW’s. How unfair! No, it’s that they are simply lower value cars. Their price reflects their value.
However, transportation costs can contribute to the “discount”. This discount is real, but not everpresent, and was lessened by TMX. It would have been further lessened by Keystone, Line 5, etc. More shipping options means less chance of what is called “stranded” pricing. How much and whether this discount exists at all is complex.
Wait… are you saying that I inadvertently weaponized Danielle Smith’s spin?
Ha! No, not at all. Hopefully, my comment only clarifies that the perceived “discount” we sell at is not a matter of us getting ripped off or benevolent stupidity, as many believe. It’s a matter of innate chemistry and, at times, transportation options.
Oh yeah, it was very helpful! I jumped ahead to the end with that last reply lol.
Your explanation was helpful because it made me realize that I was using Smith’s words (“discount”), and that she was spinning it (based on what you wrote), and the way I used it (“Alberta was pouting bc Trudeau wanted us to sell to Canada at a discount but we showed them by selling to the U.S. at a discount instead”) totally weaponized her spin 😏
It’s not necessarily wrong to refer to it as a “discount”, it’s more about Smith’s and others’ use of the word to suggest something nefarious. Expanding to “quality discount” or “transportation discount” is a bit more reflective and transparent of what it actually is to the layperson. Getting into WCS differential or light/heavy differentials is another layer of pricing complexity….
As always, happy to gently clarify industry fundamentals.
Can you clarify why we don't refine the WCS in Alberta and ship upgraded, value added products....we could cut back production, meet emission targets, make more money and keep stuff in the ground for future generations to use, or not.
Building those refineries here would give Albertans something to do... and we could sell non tariffed Canadian products to the rest of Canada, at a discount yet, and still make money!
"We’re still pouting over that time Pierre Trudeau wanted us to sell oil to the rest of Canada for less than market rates.
We got back at him and the rest of the country by selling our oil to the U.S. for less than market rates. Yes, we did."
Good question and it’s a relatively simple answer.
Remember that WCS is one of many grades of oil that’s produced. We produce WCS, Pembina, Bow River, Kearl, etc, etc, etc. Each of these grades of crude has its own chemical properties, contaminants, and expected yields of fuel products. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, each of those variables influences the price. Despite these differences, each of these grades of crude oil can be shipped via the same pipeline without worrying about contamination issues. Crudes are shipped in batches down a pipeline (e.g. TMX) and each is routed to a different tank(s) at the other end. Nothing physically separates these batches from each other so there is some contamination between crudes but it’s tolerable.
With fuel products, however, this cross contamination is absolutely intolerable if one wants to keep products on spec. We can’t ship a batch of gasoline down a pipeline, then follow immediately with diesel, then followed by jet fuel. The contamination of each batch would ruin the tight sales specifications for all of them. To solve this, you’d need at least 3 pipelines. One for each of gasoline, jet, and diesel. As well as pipelines for other byproducts products that still need to find a home. Obviously, the cost would be outrageous. So we send crudes by pipeline and not products.
We also produce far more than what we could refine for our own use. So byproducts like sulfur, asphalt, fuel oil, coke, etc would also need a pipeline (or some other more practical method). Shipping those byproducts in raw crude is far easier than after they’ve been separated after processing.
I'd like to learn about that as well, as I recently learned that Europe also does not have capability to refine Alberta's oil.
And I thank you for it :)
This is not what energy expert told Pamela Wallin recently (YouTube video - it's really good!) She said the discounted price had to be applied b/c AB had no option but to sell to the USA as only north-south pipelines existed. Further she said the price increased dramatically when AB had the use of the TMX pipeline and an alternative buyer. For the first time I understood why TMX was worth the enormous investment.
What you are describing is what I said is the discount portion attributable to limited transportation options. As I am also an expert, I know this expert would no doubt agree with the quality discount I describe, but he appears to have omitted that part. The price change associated with TMX you describe is also what I said. So I’m confused what you disagree with.
Interesting information as the "at a discount" is getting tossed a lot lately. I'm realtively uninformed about the nuances of the market. Please explain the matter of royalties and the claim the Albert's royalties rate are a generous gift to the industry. If so, are Albertans being played? Also the stranded oil rigs ... from a distance, I know the terms but not the reality on the ground.When you put all this together, what the hell does it all add up to?
Royalties are certainly not a gift to the industry. It’s essentially Albertan’s share of the profit for giving the oil company the rights to extract the oil from the ground. For every barrel of oil that a company extracts from the ground, Alberta receives a royalty payment. Every jurisdiction has a royalty structure with different tiers and rates. Saskatchewan has historically had the highest royalty rate and Alberta the lowest. This means that Sask takes a larger share of the profit on every barrel than what Alberta would take. But of course, it’s a fine balance as the higher the royalty rate is, the lower the profit is for the company, and the less overall investment there will be. Simple economics.
Not sure what the rig question means.
Thank you for your detailed explanations and insights into what has become cliche slogans.
Could you pls explain the history and costs of closing down an oil well once the company who is doing the pumping decides it is no longer profitable to continue? I believe many such sites have been abandoned, taxes unpaid, contaminants unrestrained. I think that might be what was meant by the earlier question about stranded oil wells.
Many thanks for your explanations!
Sorry - I now see you have addressed this, and I missed it.
Thanks for the explanation. I was referring to the low royalty rate in Alberta being a "gift" since my understanding was they could (should?) charge more.
Again, I don't know as much as I should. The "rig" was term for the abandoned wells which I understand the province is on the hook for. What's the story on that?
Abandoned and orphaned wells are often referred to as the same thing. They aren’t. “Abandoned” wells have been plugged below the surface with several layers of redundancy and physically proven with testing to not be at risk of ever leaking. As an engineer, I fully trust this process. Orphaned wells have simply been walked away from without proper abandonment. Not plugged, not maintained, with no one with any legal responsibility. This happens when a company goes bankrupt or when these wells are sold off as assets to another company as a way of avoiding the environmental liability. Who they’re sold to may indeed go bankrupt and that’s legal but certainly an ethical problem. The problem is that there is nobody left to go after. But it certainly shouldn’t be the taxpayer.
Thank you.
You’re absolutely right about the people we send to Ottawa. Ironically, when they have power, as in 10 years of Stephen Harper, they don’t actually do anything positive for Alberta with it. Within Alberta, the conservatives have a serious legacy problem for most of our existence. We have been ruled by a rural based Conservative party. While the people living in Alberta have to deal with fast population growth and poor management of our healthcare, the Conservatives want nothing more than to return to the days William Aberhart, telling us how to raise our kids and what lifestyles are permitted.
Excellent summary!
“Resurrect” is le mot juste re Manning: he’s the Cryptkeeper of Western grievance.
This is was a great piece. As an Albertan who has never once voted blue (federally or provincially) I find the party allegiance really baffling. I admire Blanchet (and Duceppe before him) for the exact reasons you lay out here — they're in the room to represent their constituents. If they don't do the work, they don't get a seat. The notion that to deviate from one party even when that party stops serving you is, frankly, weird. Super weird and myopic and we're paying for it the way we always do. I hope enough of us get out on election day and break the pattern.
This was an interesting read. I’m in Northwest BC and I’ve often rolled my eyes when the likes of Preston Manning (who might as well be from Mars, or even Texas) whinges on about “western” alienation. Apparently BC is somewhat more “west" and also a “have Province”, yet I’ve never felt a jot of alienation from Canada, and know few people who have. I lived in Quebec for 5 years, and down in SW Alberta for a short stint, before moving back to BC, but I’ve never had much understanding of the Alberta perspective and your comments help me to understand a bit better the nuances and background.
The hardcore Con voters in BC (there are many) are more of the “F*ck Trudeau” ilk - but I don’t think their contempt is rooted in the same sense of oily entitlement that today’s CPC elites are using to threaten unity. I’m not sure. Anyway I hope that Albertans (let’s say “the midwest”?) can come to see more value in being part of Canada, and dump those politicians who’ve been manipulating them into a kind of pouty isolation.
All said, I’m a bit surprised that PP immediately leaned towards a ‘unity’ message after Manning’s comments. Curious to know your thoughts on why that might be?
Poilievre is in trouble, basically. I’m currently writing one that will go into some more detail on the problem I think they have, but from what I see, because Poilievre has a credibility issue on Trump, he necessarily has a credibility issue on Canada — at the worst possible time.
Even look at your own response; “surprised” he would lean toward unity. You’re absolutely not the only Canadian Poilievre’s pivot is not landing with.
Yeah, fair point.
And let us not forget the ideological idiocy of Albertamerica’s little cousin, Saskatchewan.
I’m originally from Calgary and recently learned a piece of oil sands history that seems to get conveniently ignored. Anyone ever hear of the Winnipeg Agreement of February 1975?
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/05/archives/canada-to-invest-14billion-to-save-tarsands-oil-project-canada.html
Basically, the first Oils Sands development, Syncrude, was going bankrupt because one of the American oil companies that had invested, decided to pull out and invest in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska instead.
At the last minute, the federal government, the Ontario government and the Alberta government agreed to invest public money to save project.
Note: Prime Minister of the day was a guy named….
I do remember that story. And it’s partially why the feds decided to create Petro Canada, which Alberta hated, of course.
I was surprised that the Ontario provincial government invested in Syncrude as part of the deal. Trying to imagine the Alberta government investing in Northern Ontario’s Ring of Fire….
I only knew because I looked hard into the backstory once— probably when they were complaining that no one supports O&G like Alberta. The surprising part to me was actually that they got shares and it wasn’t just a handout like they seem more willing to do today.
That should have said “… when the AB govt was complaining no one supports O&G like Alberta”
Excellent insight and a lesson for the naysayers; let’s hope some minds open up.
Interesting to learn about what is going on in Alberta. By the way two french newspapers (La Presse and Le Devoir) are now the property of social trusts. It gives them more liberty to say what they want.
I love this!
Your piece reminds me of that bible story of Lucifer being given the choice of either serving in heaven or ruling in hell… except in this case, Alberta keeps choosing to *serve* in hell. 🥴
I don’t get this. Manitoba was smart enougn to elect Wab Kinew. How in the name of everything are they supporting the CPCs?
Did they have a collective stroke?
I am an Albertan and cannot wait to vote for Carney! It may help that I do not work in O&G. I do hope for green tech/energy/growth. I am also constantly amazing at how an “energy powerhouse” can only survive/create on form of energy? I know as a province we can do better. I would say, don’t be suprised if you see us vote Liberal this time around. I belive our culture is shifting.
You're not alone, I'm doing it too! My husband is a new Canadian and I'm excited to say he's going to vote for the first time here. Let's hope we can make a difference.
Same here! And that is also my hope.
Great work. I learned a lot. Living in NS I am so far from understanding Alberta/Albertans. I always got the idea they were just plain mad at the rest of Canada, that they opined we are all a bunch of thieves riding on the back of that province. I’ve not understood it, and I’ve never had nor ever heard anyone even infer Alberta wasn’t a part of our identity. It’s always felt like we’re being punished but we aren’t quite sure how to fix it. Your article explains it, we simply never know because there are no voices in the room to do so.
I'm tired of Alberta politics. It’s provocative, yet boring as hell.
The conservative circle jerk keeps spinning like a scratched Nickelback CD nobody asked for. Crude oil this, energy sector that—blah blah blah. It’s the same tired gang of land-raping greed goblins jerking each other off in the name of "economic growth," while Indigenous voices and environmentalists get steamrolled under a rig the size of their collective ego.
These clowns aren’t fighting for Canada. They’re not fighting for Indigenous reconciliation. Hell, they're not even fighting for their own damn souls. Just a greasy, never-ending grab for more cash and less conscience. And when anyone with a molecule of critical thought dares to speak out—boom! Out come the red-faced rage boners, frothing at the mouth about “liberal agendas” while they deep-throat the oil industry like it’s communion.
Do minds like this ever change? Not a chance. Not when the holy trinity is oil, money, and denial. Profiteering is the point. Long-term damage? That’s just an inconvenient truth they’ll let the grandkids shovel.
Now yeah, maybe I’m lumping good Albertans in with the bad ones. Is that fair? Probably not. But if the boot fits and the boot votes Conservative every damn time, what the hell am I supposed to think?
Anyway, I’m bored. I’ll check out the rest of the country, see where actual progress is happening. Maybe somewhere that isn’t run by oiled-up conservative dicks trying to hump the land into a coma.