Honestly it won't surprise me if that gains some serious traction. If it ever came to a vote I could definitely see it being higher than 20%. A lot of Albertans have already left and moved to the US with a lot of people traveling back and forth as well. Americans sure have no problem getting their oil to market.

Yeah I saw that this morning and shook my head as well. I have no interest in succeeding and joining the USA. We already have a Trumper running our ruining our province.

I will also download a run the App once it is available in Alberta Which no one has a clue when that will happen . Is there a stat on how many Ontario folks have downloaded it?

For those of you that think Canadian oilsands is doomed because it is far to expensive to extract. In CNRL's Q2 report their cost per barrell is 12$.

Does that specify what type of oil it is?

Their heavy crude oil is ~12$, light crude is ~10$, Thermal in-situ is ~8$. They are a gigantic company with a lot of operations but overall they reported an average cost of 12$/BBL for all of the their operations. Averaging ~450k barrels a day.

Im skeptical on that number as well. I thought the number was in the high $40 range. If it was $12 Teck would have never pulled their project

As for not having a clue . Here are Kenney's mistakes in my opinion:

• 5.9 billion dollar corporate tax cut. Its not bringing in jobs or investment
• Not collecting the carbon tax 1.9 billion a year that he could have directed to carbon capture technology and green projects which create jobs
• 7.5 billion I think he committed to Keystone. Reality if Biden wins that pipeline is gone and maybe his investment
• His payrokk for his team.

Alberta needs to face the cold hard facts and here are my suggestions:

• Cancel Kenneys Corporate tax cuts to the original level. They were competetive
• 5% sales tax
• Collect the carbon tax better you control how its spent than Justin spending it on his friends
• bring back AHC premiums
• Have one public school system and eliminate the Catholic system
• Like Notley was trying Diversify

Be skeptical all you want. It's all right here: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...r-Results.html

The most innovative industry of the last century is going to find ways to cut costs, I don't think any of the majors are above 30$/bbl.

Good to know the industry has massive profit margin. Makes it easier to, oh I dunno, quadruple the carbon tax.

This is not a sustainable cost per barrel. They slashed their budget huge, no turnarounds that quarter, wage cuts. It will be back up again. But yes, cnrl knows how to make oil cheap

Heck why not 10 times and destroy every aspect of the economy and do absolutely nothing to save the planet. Yes I do believe in Climate Change but it is a world problem and sadly I think technology will have to solve it as greed always wins

Though I am using cardboard water bottles just like our PM

https://youtu.be/Nv58LBiy7OI

You guys can't have it both ways. It can't both be $12-30/barrel but "destroy every aspect of the economy" to increase the carbon tax. And like sure, tech will likely play a big role, but a massive incentive for the tech is precisely changing the pricing structure with things like carbon taxes.

You do realize that if they could process Tar sands at $12 a barrel nothing is gonna stop it from coming out of the ground. Heck they be carrying it on the backs of Albertans to get it to market.

Massive incentive for what tech? Is taking over the biggest market on the planet (oil) not incentive enough?

http://angusreid.org/federal-politic...ber-2020/?s=09

Libs and Conservatives tied in this latest poll. Only 1 week into actually having a leader for the conservatives. Is it October yet?

The costs of production of big oil do not accurately reflect the true costs. When oil companies report 12/bbl, this doesn't include the marginal future costs to the planet from that barrel of oil. This a standard tragedy of the commons problem. The result is that the inaccurate pricing of oil is currently more competitive than other forms of producing energy.

You think Electric Cars are 100 % clean. They need power for the batteries and all the elements for those batteries is mined. As well the disposal of lithium batteries.... Its like the compact fluorescent yes it saved power but all that mercury when you disposed of them.

Climate Change must be a world initiative and needs the USA/China and India all onboard. Though for the amount of folks living in Canada and the land mass we do contribute alot of carbon

What on earth in my post implied that I think this? You sometimes have the most bizarre misreads.

Both correct and irrelevant. We have a moral responsibility to act, even though it is trivially obvious that our actions alone don't magically solve every single thing.

Yet no moral obligation not to sell military vehicles to Saudi Arabia or give money to african nations that ban being gay to buy a UN seat. I could make a large list yet they all are from greed. The same applies to climate change.Greed usually wins

The positives from a barrell of oil far out weigh the marginal future cost to the planet. But even if you don't believe that, how does a carbon tax creat more incentive to replace oil (when naturally there already is one) and what technology do you think is going to replace it because of the carbon tax?

You do this type of tactic a lot, and it is such a weird way of talking about issues. Like we are on topic X. You don't seem to really disagree with topic X that much. Instead you respond by throwing out completely unrelated topics Y and Z.

The only real consistency seems to be that you have a seething hatred for our PM, and are taking a sort of throw-****-at-wall-see-what-sticks approach to random topics to bring up about it. It's a very poor tactic.

Well I, unlike you, believe in markets. I believe they respond to prices. I believe they can innovate. In response to pigovian taxes that make certain products more expensive and others relatively cheaper, the market will react. The exact mechanisms are left to the future, but it is easy to imagine at least some of it with more renewable energy sources developed, more energy efficiencies created, etc. Ultimately, the less barrels of oil we pump out of the ground the better it will be for climate change. This is pretty basic stuff.

No its about consistency in government. Your argument is its a moral requirement for Canada as a country to do its part about climate change. The problem is if you expect your government to act morally than it should be consistent in what it does and act morally on everything.

As for my hatred of Trudeau. Well there is a lot to hate about the man but when he does the odd good thing I point those out as well.

Stop that. Pay attention. You are doing this all the time - it is a consistently flaw in the way your approach discussions - and it is WELL beyond time you grew out of it.

We are talking about a specific topic, namely climate change. I say we have a moral responsibility to act. There are a million ways you could agree or disagree with my claim while talking about climate change. But look at what you did. You pivoted to....of all things......expenditures in the bid for a UN seat??? Seriously? That is your response?

No, you don't get to be like "but but but morals they are connected". No. You should be able to have a conversation about a topic that actually vaguely stays on that topic and isn't just complete non sequiturs.

Ok you fail to see that I agree with you that climate change is a huge issue.

I just saying that unless the world takes it serious than why should we destroy our economy to do what amounts to next to nothing

Carbon tax has not reduced the amount of miles folks drive or the type of vehicle they select. I see the carbon tax as a job creation tax and a subsidy for green initiatives

Why do you think this? I was criticizing you for a totally random pivot to bring up donations to african countries during the SC run. How on earth did you get from that completely random tangent back to thinking this? I know you've said things like this before, I haven't forgotten.

Ok. Do you have to use "destroy our economy" so often? I'm not proposing that. Is anyone?

Uh the price elasticity of industrial products that produce carbon is obviously not zero. Do you not believe in markets? Prices go up and demand decreases. Price elasticity is a measure of that ratio. You can argue that for one industry or another it is less or more, and there is some economic analysis one needs to do, but it definitely isn't zero. These are admittedly hard to "feel" on a day to day level. Nobody says "I'm not going on that road trip because price is now 1% higher than it was last week". However, the accumulated economic effect of rising prices is decreased demand. And conversely, lowered prices increases demand (think subsidies for electric cars, say).