• grte@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 个月前

    You’ll notice there’s a premier missing who’s province is going to have to be involved in this. Also, how do you all feel about selling off our ports and airports to buy Danielle Smith another pipeline? Because,

    There is no private sector proponent or route for a possible pipeline. The Alberta government says it will act as the project’s proponent in submitting the proposal to the federal government’s major projects office.

    that “Sovereign Wealth Fund” will definitely be financing this.

    • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 个月前

      Convinced if someone does a Scooby-Doo mask pull on Carny, it will have been Stephan Harper all along.

    • Slowy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 个月前

      Does that mean it will be like a crown owned pipeline? Not that privatizing ports is worth a provincial pipeline but that would be an interesting outcome.

      • grte@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 个月前

        Potentially, depending on how they choose to finance it. The Trans Mountain pipeline is fully government owned through a crown corp, they could do something similar. Or they could go with a P3 model where they use government funds to make investment more attractive to a private corporation resulting in a privately owned pipeline or shared ownership depending on the specifics of the agreement.

        • John@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 个月前

          it will be a public funded, money-losing pipeline that subsidizes the profits of the foreign companies that extract 70% of Alberta oil.

          Just like TMX.

    • ValueSubtracted@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 个月前

      A private backer was a requirement in the original MoU, and I can’t tell from the article whether that’s still the case.

      If so, the whole thing may well be a non-starter.