14
Canadians appear ready for pipelines, including Quebec (www.mainstreetresearch.ca)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When asked if they would support pipeline expansion of either LNG or oil to get Canadian resources to markets other than the US, 7 in 10 Canadians said they approve. (70.3%) with a near majority strongly approving. (49.2%). This includes clear majority approvals in every region of Canada, highest in Alberta (80%) and lowest in the Prairies (61%).

Interesting findings by Mainstreet. Especially abt QC.

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

The issue is integration with the US and as much as I hate fossil fuels and want us all off asap, until we don't need it, we are at a strategic risk because we can't independently power ourselves coast to coast. Why canada imports oil at all should be viewed as a problem after the middle east trouble.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2024/market-snapshot-crude-oil-imports-rose-slightly-2023-first-time-since-2019.html

Even Quebec, who have the easiest time fully electrifying still have massive fossil fuel consumption. If they aren't ready, no one else is even close.

Canada has to amp up full electrictrification efforts, but that will take decades. In the mean time we need to protect our energy supplies for domestic consumption and diversify our customer base for exports.

Edit: This also includes supporting europe's strategic needs. The must get off fossil fuels. Until they do, they need to stop being a customer of Russia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It's worse than that. We move oil through the US in order to reach our refineries. That said I'm very skeptical this gov't would address this vulnerability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    This is what they have been trying, but politically they have not been able to. No doubt with US influence. They like us like this when they got us by the balls with Cushing our only customer and our industrial heartland dependent on them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago

    It's not totally irrational to expect lower gas prices. I think many people who don't know much about the details of how the system works think - more domestic oil production - lower gas price. And that can absolutely be true under a national infrastructure policy where enough of this infrastructure is under gov't control so that domestic gas supply can be decoupled from international markets. I think people implicitly assume this would be a part of the deal. Of course that could only happen under a leftist government which is not what we've got. I don't think people make that connection, cause it would mean they have to face that the gov't (many of them voted for) doesn't represent their interests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    AB to ON might make sense. Churchill MB seems to want one. Expanding capacity of TMX might make sense if westward demand really is there (current TMX is only at rated capacity due to the Hormuz shock, and IMO the future doesn't seem to call for that much more crude oil).

    The north coast pipeline makes no sense to me at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Churchill MB seems to want one.

    Logistically challenging, but if there's an actual market for a new pipeline, it might be a better option than doing through the Rockies and negotiating with First Nations that simply aren't interested. Manitoba seems to have buy-in from a lot of Indigenous communities, at least at this early stage of the game (so early that you could argue it's not really a "stage" at all).

    But there's also a significant possibility that despite whatever letters of understanding we have with Germany or whoever, the market simply isn't there, or won't be within a few years. Asia is steadily moving to renewables, and Europe probably isn't too far behind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Exactly, it's a big if. I don't think the best way to allocate public infrastructure resources should be to a pipeline, but with well-researched justification, I could be open to a proposal.

    Problem is that the AB government and media seem fixated on continually suggesting the one pipeline pathway that no other province or First Nation wants at all...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Talk about spin!

    I'm skeptical of their conclusion given the current sentiment towards the US from Canadians, its more likely that people would rather we export elsewhere. As in

    When asked if they would support [getting] Canadian resources to markets other than the US, 7 in 10 Canadians said they approve.

    Making these findings less about pipeline approval and more about resource export diversification.

    It will be interesting to see if the rest of the media start talking positively about pipelines in the coming months.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    The bullshit is Oil cos can afford to build these things themselves, if they really want to. they've got permission, but they won't throw down the money, because it wouldn't be profitable for them. So why would it be profitable for Canada to do it?

    It might create a few construction jobs short term, maybe. But realistically, the oil and gas industry relies pretty heavily on automation, and most of the companies involved are not even Canadian.

    But you can still imagine convincing poeple to say they support the construction of a pipeline. "Do you think Canada needs to be more of a producer and net exporter of energy? Do you think energy production is leverage we can use to defend ourselves? Given that the petrol industry has significantly boosted Canada's economy, and unemployment is above 6%, do you think we need these big expensive government projects to give people jobs? Do you worry about the resilience of the CPP given Canada's dwindling manufacturing sector, or the decline of Canadian tech innovators?" etc etc etc

    if you ask right (or arguably wrong) questions, you'll get a yes. it may not reliably measure sentiment towards overreliance on the oil and gas industry.

    or maybe it does, what do I know

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent