Trudeau Makes Good on Ethical Energy to Germany

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,334
8,703
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
How much would infrastructure to move LNG to the eastern ports cost, and how long would it take to put it in, and how long would the Europeans buy it?

These are the important questions. I think the Ukraine war has taught anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot that multi-sourcing essential supply is critical. But so is an accurate evaluation of the cold numbers.

"I hate True Dope" isn't really a factor.
The cost, if the regulatory system just won’t allow it to happen, becomes irrelevant, as does the timeframe for its implementation.

If LNG conversion plants are usually placed close to the sources of natural gas, & the Fed’s need to look at the possibility of LNG plants on the East Coast (?) in order to ease the regulatory burden facing project proponents (?), doesn’t this seem a little off already? Why on the East Coast instead of near the source to ease the regulatory burden? The full weight of the burden is only for refining this commodity at or near its source? Isn’t that interesting?

If….if the ability to produce Natural Gas, & refine it into Liquid Natural Gas at or near its source, and ship it to the East Coast, was already in place….would the Germans & other Europeans be considering as an alternative to Qatar or others? If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle? The last seven woke years have made these questions irrelevant.

If the infrastructure was already in place (in the national interest), and Europe utilized this commodity now….does that mean that someone else in that whole Atlantic Basin wouldn’t need it tomorrow? Nobody else in Europe or West Africa or the Caribbean or the East Coasts of the Americans would need/want access to LNG? Nobody else would want access to a reliable source of LNG from the 5th largest producer on the planet assuming access was a thing that existed?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,334
8,703
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Naturally, I expect Ezra Levant to be his #1 cheerleader.


Trudeau is set to sign an energy development agreement largely focused on hydrogen with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz during Scholz's visit to Canada next week.

Europe, and Germany in particular, are heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas and are desperately seeking both short and long-term alternatives.

Trudeau says Canada has increased its oil and gas outputs but cannot realistically do much to change the energy crunch in the short term.

But longer-term, he says Canada's hydrogen and critical minerals strategies are aimed at making the country one of the world's biggest net-zero energy suppliers.

Honestly, did anything really happen here? An agreement towards something that doesn’t exist yet, ignoring a solution that exists now even though it would have to be shipped out to Germany & others through American ports due to Woke optics, etc…

What was this really about? Piggybacking on Canada being in NAFTA (or USMYMCAETC…) regarding the US decision on electric vehicles so that Volkswagen and other German auto manufactures can assemble electric cars in Canada for the US market. The Hydrogen hypothetical agreement is the smoke & mirrors to the above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,738
7,674
113
Washington DC
The cost, if the regulatory system just won’t allow it to happen, becomes irrelevant, as does the timeframe for its implementation.

If LNG conversion plants are usually placed close to the sources of natural gas, & the Fed’s need to look at the possibility of LNG plants on the East Coast (?) in order to ease the regulatory burden facing project proponents (?), doesn’t this seem a little off already? Why on the East Coast instead of near the source to ease the regulatory burden? The full weight of the burden is only for refining this commodity at or near its source? Isn’t that interesting?

If….if the ability to produce Natural Gas, & refine it into Liquid Natural Gas at or near its source, and ship it to the East Coast, was already in place….would the Germans & other Europeans be considering as an alternative to Qatar or others? If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle? The last seven woke years have made these questions irrelevant.

If the infrastructure was already in place (in the national interest), and Europe utilized this commodity now….does that mean that someone else in that whole Atlantic Basin wouldn’t need it tomorrow? Nobody else in Europe or West Africa or the Caribbean or the East Coasts of the Americans would need/want access to LNG? Nobody else would want access to a reliable source of LNG from the 5th largest producer on the planet assuming access was a thing that existed?
Of course it's off. You've got an ideologue in the Big Chair. But the way to make progress for as long as he's there is to marshal your facts, construct indisputable arguments, and present them clearly. Could peel away some MPs. Even if it don't, you'll have all the data you need in place for when the worm turns and you get a better PM.

Work the problem.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,738
7,674
113
Washington DC
All valid questions and for sure it's not a simple equation. There's an even more challenging one - what about the first nations lands that the pipeline would cross and the political issues?

There's been some talk about doing a terminal in manitoba on hudson's bay and shipping from there, which would resolve many political issues. But i suspect there is indeed a business case. either way. The evidence is that europe will be using natural gas for a very long time as they transition. In either case, it's a safe bet Trudeau isn't interested in looking to see if there really is one. Leave it to industry and let them decide and get out of their way if they say yes.
Meh, partly. I agree with most of what you said, but industry tends to have a "cheapest this week" mindset. That's a big part of what got Germany single-sourcing LNG in the first place. As I said, multi-sourcing critical materiel is vital, as the current flap in Europe demonstrates. That often requires government action to overcome the "cheapest this week" attitude.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
That often requires government action to overcome the "cheapest this week" attitude.
To a degree but what we're discussing specifically is the business case. And there's no better group to examine the viability of the business case than business :)

If business looks at it and says 'yeah, we'd be interested but here's what we'd need in the way of assurances and assistance to make it happen, but at that point it would be viable", then the gov't can take a look and see if it makes sense to get involved. But they shouldn't be the ones saying there's no business case at this point. Let business figure that out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,334
8,703
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Meh, partly. I agree with most of what you said, but industry tends to have a "cheapest this week" mindset. That's a big part of what got Germany single-sourcing LNG in the first place. As I said, multi-sourcing critical materiel is vital, as the current flap in Europe demonstrates. That often requires government action to overcome the "cheapest this week" attitude.
But how much would infrastructure to move LNG to the eastern ports cost, and how long would it take to put it in, and how long would the Europeans buy it?
The cost, if the regulatory system just won’t allow it to happen, becomes irrelevant, as does the timeframe for its implementation.
1661261427235.jpeg
Working the problem as a working guy outside of the political sphere is creating an awareness that this is happening, I hope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,738
7,674
113
Washington DC
To a degree but what we're discussing specifically is the business case. And there's no better group to examine the viability of the business case than business :)

If business looks at it and says 'yeah, we'd be interested but here's what we'd need in the way of assurances and assistance to make it happen, but at that point it would be viable", then the gov't can take a look and see if it makes sense to get involved. But they shouldn't be the ones saying there's no business case at this point. Let business figure that out.
"To a degree but what I'm discussing specifically is the business case."

Fixed that fer ya.

And in any enterprise more complex than a lemonade stand, government regulation and subsidy is part and parcel of the "business case."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,738
7,674
113
Washington DC
Well i suppose that's easier than presenting an actual argument :)


Sure. But that's something business factors in. It's what they do. They're more suited to it than the gov't.
"Factoring in" is part of building the business case.

What the hell are we even arguing about? Obviously, businesses will do what is profitable. Equally obviously, if government wants business to do this or that, it will have to sweeten the pot, by raising revenue, lowering costs, or both. A "pure business case" is a starting point (though not as easy to cost out as you may think), but the analysis must consider government "contributions."
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
What the hell are we even arguing about?
Does it matter? It's not like we come here to agree with each other :)

Joking aside in this case the issue is whether or not the gov't (in this case justin) should be the one to determine whether or not there's a business case or whether he should be leaving that up to the industry to determine and then supporting their decision.

When he says there's no business case he shuts down the discussion for the most part. Why would a business even try if the gov't is saying don't bother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,709
11,980
113
Low Earth Orbit
Does it matter? It's not like we come here to agree with each other :)

Joking aside in this case the issue is whether or not the gov't (in this case justin) should be the one to determine whether or not there's a business case or whether he should be leaving that up to the industry to determine and then supporting their decision.

When he says there's no business case he shuts down the discussion for the most part. Why would a business even try if the gov't is saying don't bother.
$15B project in NL coming soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,738
7,674
113
Washington DC
Does it matter? It's not like we come here to agree with each other :)

Joking aside in this case the issue is whether or not the gov't (in this case justin) should be the one to determine whether or not there's a business case or whether he should be leaving that up to the industry to determine and then supporting their decision.

When he says there's no business case he shuts down the discussion for the most part. Why would a business even try if the gov't is saying don't bother.
With you on that. Basically promising to be damn sure there WON'T be a business case by the time he gets done with it.
 
Last edited:

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,334
8,703
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Whirly gigs in NL and a port to export hydrogen to be announced this afternoon.
$15B project in NL coming soon.
Wouldn't shock me entirely - they vote solid red and he'll want to keep it that way.
This doesn’t surprise me as Trudeau has been pre-election campaigning with our dollars since before Parliament was hung up for the Summer…
A hydrogen port is a hydrogen port that can have pipes to rail terminals on the mainland. The whirlygigs are a smoke screen.
Smoke screen on the German Auto Manufacturers which I think is the actual story here (see Inflation Reduction Act just unrolling in the US & the response from GM & Ford).

Ahead of the Inflation Reduction Actextending the tax credit of up to $7,500 for purchases of new electric and hybrid vehicles, Ford and General Motors announced price increases at similar rates.

Last week, Ford announced price hikes between $6,000 and $8,500 for most of its lineup for F-150 Lightning electric vehicles, while General Motors upped its electric Hummer cost by $6,250 last month. Both companies blamed higher production costs for the price increases.

The Inflation Reduction Act extends the consumer tax credit of up to $7,500 for new electric vehicles until 2032 and adds another credit of up to $4,000 for purchases of a used electric vehicle. The measure includes a cap of $55,000 on purchases of new retail electric cars and a cap of $80,000 for electric trucks, vans, and SUVs. It also includes more stringent requirements on sourcing and production in order for vehicles to be eligible for the credit.

The Inflation Reduction Act, expected to clear the House Friday, includes additional restrictions on eligibility for the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit, including new sourcing requirements for battery materials, as well as an assembly rule requiring electric vehicles to go through the final stages of manufacturing in North America. Ta-Dah!!

Is Germany also announcing something about sourcing materials for electric cars from Canada in this “Energy” deal??
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,334
8,703
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz observed the signing ceremony in Toronto at an event hosted by the Canadian-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

In a release, Ottawa said these agreements will “help secure Canada’s position as a leading centre of excellence for the manufacturing of electric vehicles and batteries.”
Smoke screen on the German Auto Manufacturers which I think is the actual story here (see Inflation Reduction Act just unrolling in the US & the response from GM & Ford).

Is Germany also announcing something about sourcing materials for electric cars from Canada in this “Energy” deal??
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,334
8,703
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Ive been going on about it for over a decade.

We dont have electricity to do electrolysis to release hydrogen from water so well go the other route and get from NG which is 80% more efficient.
Obviously, the efficiency isn’t a concern as much as the optics and shoring up Liberal votes pre-election.

The Canadian and German governments have signed a deal to co-operate on exporting hydrogen fuel to Europe, setting an ambitious target of 2025 to begin shipments from Eastern Canada – where a single hydrogen production plant has yet to be built.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz signed the agreement in the western Newfoundland town of Stephenville, near the site of a proposed wind farm project that would power the production of hydrogen from electrolysis.

The joint declaration of intent makes clear the agreement is not legally binding and stipulates it will be up to Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources and Germany’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action to keep track of whether it’s making progress on its goals.

I am still thinking this is a smokescreen for the Automotive industry in Germany to get a toehold on the North American electric vehicle announcement in the US in the last week….sourcing Materials for the batteries out of Canada and final assembly in this market for US exposure and subsidies.

“The participants aim to closely collaborate on all aspects necessary to kick-start the hydrogen economy and to create a transatlantic supply chain for hydrogen well before 2030, with first deliveries aiming for 2025,” the agreement says. Etc…
The Canadian-German agreement sets no targets for volumes of hydrogen produced and contains no commitments of new money to help commence exports to Europe by 2025.

Mr. Trudeau, who wants to reduce use of fossil fuels, on Monday cast doubt on the business case for exporting natural gas directly from the East Coast or Quebec to Europe, saying locations for plants to convert the fuel to liquefied natural gas are too far from Western Canadian sources to be economical???

But the Canadian Gas Association, which represents the natural gas delivery industry, said this week that the biggest obstacle to building LNG facilities on the East Coast is regulatory uncertainty. The association said investors can’t be sure when or if the federal government will approve the necessary pipeline infrastructure.

Then mentioned almost like an afterthought….

In view of impending shortages of important raw materials for battery production, Volkswagen wants to rely more on Canada. The automaker and the Canadian government signed a memorandum of understanding on Tuesday to secure access to Canadian raw materials for batteries in electric vehicles. The letter of intent was signed on Tuesday by outgoing VW CEO Herbert Diess and Canadian Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne.

Just an afterthought, nothing to see here, move along. The real story is the non-binding hydrogen shipping powered by windmills in Stevenville. It’ll START producing something moderately in maybe three years.

Even though we’re the world’s fifth largest producer and sixth largest exporter of natural gas, Canada lacks the pipeline and Liquid Natural Gas infrastructure to ship LNG from Canada’s east coast to Europe on ocean-going tankers. Go figure.

The most we could do is up our natural gas output slightly to the U.S. — where almost all of it goes — given that the Americans have the ability to do what we can’t.

The fact we’re a captive market to the U.S. means our natural gas has to be sold at a discount, costing our economy an estimated $9 billion annually.

It’s the same for oil — exports of which Putin is also curtailing to Europe — where we’re the world’s fourth-largest producer and third- largest exporter.

There, the economic hit we take because of having to sell it at a discount is estimated at $15 billion annually.

Even if we were to start construction of natural gas infrastructure to Canada’s east coast immediately (or even better being back in 2015 ‘cuz it was 2015!), the Trudeau government says it would take three years to get it running….so…Given Canada’s Byzantine regulatory structure for approving fossil fuel projects and the lack of clarity about the future of the sector, which would have to foot the bills, don’t count on it.

Trudeau said he’s willing to look at streamlining the regulatory process regarding natural gas exports (but only if it’s refined into LNG in Eastern Canada) questions whether it’s economically feasible right now….regardless of what industry states.

The most worrisome thing is that Scholz and Trudeau are doubling down on the thinking that created the energy crisis in the first place, with Germans facing rising prices for natural gas to heat their homes this winter, as well as possible rationing.

Both say the message from the energy crisis provoked by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is to move away from fossil fuels to wind and solar power faster.

That’s not the message.

The message is that when a country trades reliable energy (oil and gas) for unreliable energy (wind and solar power at their current levels of technology) it forfeits its energy security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,738
7,674
113
Washington DC
Trudeau said he’s willing to look at streamlining the regulatory process regarding natural gas exports (but only if it’s refined into LNG in Eastern Canada) questions whether it’s economically feasible right now….regardless of what industry states.

The most worrisome thing is that Scholz and Trudeau are doubling down on the thinking that created the energy crisis in the first place, with Germans facing rising prices for natural gas to heat their homes this winter, as well as possible rationing.

Both say the message from the energy crisis provoked by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is to move away from fossil fuels to wind and solar power faster.

That’s not the message.

The message is that when a country trades reliable energy (oil and gas) for unreliable energy (wind and solar power at their current levels of technology) it forfeits its energy security.
This may go down in history as THE moment that was the start of worldwide change for the better.

But I ain't betting the rent on it. Looks more like a mutually-beneficial way for two PMs to do the easy. . . promise great things in the future and dodge the problems of right now, and of the middle term.

A probably vain attempt to get the Twucktards and the Trutard's insane overreaction.