this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
22 points (89.3% liked)

Canada

7659 readers
575 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Description: As U.S. President Donald Trump continues to propose absorbing Canada, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe disregards the threat β€” but says Canada needs to prioritize energy and food security to avoid putting itself in a 'vulnerable position,' and criticizes a 'lack of leadership' from the federal Liberal government.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll preface this by admitting that I'm far far far from an expert, but if I recall correctly, the issue is that the oil that is left in Alberta (Tar Sands) is largely dirty, bitumen layers that require so much refining that it's not cost effective to the point where no other province really wants to bother building the rather expensive refineries necessary to do it.

It's more cost effective to ship it to places that already have such refineries and then buy it back.

Though my understanding on it is very very limited, so please if someone can explain it differently to me, please do. I'm always open to learning.

[–] Breve@pawb.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've definitely heard the whole rationale that bitumen needs special refineries that we don't have, but I'm perplexed if that would somehow be a net economic loss.

Sure, maybe it would take a large investment and a long time to recoup, but to take a play out of the capitalism playbook: think of all the jobs it would create not only building but also operating these refineries in addition to the national security of having these domestically.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 3 points 20 hours ago

Agreed.

Especially perplexing is why the hell isn't Alberta doing it itself? Bitumen is quite difficult to transfer as it needs to be kept hot to be liquid enough to transport, yet they went so far in for the keystone XL pipeline that had to be heated its entire way to Texas.

Not to mention that our trade deals with the US has them selling their oil far below world market prices, so refining it locally would massively raise their profits and they can even start producing plastics, not just fuels. The number of industries they could put together and attract US money over the decades is countless, yet they've been so satisfied selling their resources to the lowest bidder this entire time.

Makes me wonder where the loyalties of Albertian premiers over the decades lie, especially when they keep cutting local services while blaming the rest of the country why their people keep suffering.