Energy Sector

[Blake Hampton]

I would love to hear about this from some Canadians:

 

[longlake95]

Canadian here: Alberta isn’t leaving. Full stop. 

[Blake Hampton]

3 minutes ago, longlake95 said:

Canadian here: Alberta isn’t leaving. Full stop. 

No I agree. I just think it’s interesting is all.

 

Everything I’ve read so far makes me think it’s sort of a fringe thing, but I keep seeing it in the paper.

 

edit: both papers*

 

Edited June 16, 2025 by Blake Hampton

[Blake Hampton]

42 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

About 12% of the entire population of Canada?  Hmm..

You don’t think Trump might send the military up there for support?

[Blake Hampton]

This is a conspiracy theory of mine.

[longlake95]

Troops coming to Canada? Not a chance. It's all interesting to watch. Many Canadian are hoping that we, as a country, finally wake-up and and be more bold on the world stage. We have a lot to offer (mostly resources and maple syrup, LOL). Let's see more pipelines out of Alberta. Rare metal mines. Reduced inter-provincial trade barriers and a sovereign wealth fund modelled after Norway. <---- that should have happened 50 years ago. 

[Gregmal]

Half of California has wanted to succeed for a decade. Remember all the libs who wanted to leave if Trump got elected again? And then of course you have the whole northwest part that isn’t at all represented by the wokesters in LA and SF but are being held hostage as well. Seismic shifts life that, just don’t happen, even when folks want them to.

 

Like look at these retards, gonna spend 8 figures largely for show 

 

https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2025-news-releases-and-advisories/Proposed-Initiative-Enters-Circulation-Requires-Future-Vote-on-Whether-California-Should-Become-Independent-Country

[longlake95]

Agreed Greg. We've had 2 referendums in Canada when Quebec wanted to separate. Scotland had 2. It's all noise. Because, it's easy to pound the table, on weak pie-in-the-sky ideals, but when it comes to marking the ballot, people cave. 

[Dalal.Holdings]

2 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

I know Iran likes to bark a lot, but if they really wanted to, they can absolutely cause chaos in energy markets:

• Hit Saudi production

• Hit Iraqi production

• Close the Strait

I’m not saying it’s certain, but if Israel backs them into a corner, they might just go crazy. And you also have to consider their own production. Israel's really putting the heat on their ass; blowing up gas facilities and water plants. Seems like a great recipe for an upset populace.

 

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Blake Hampton said:

I would love to hear about this from some Canadians:

 

No. and we don’t appreciate Americans stoking the separatist fire either. 

 

I don’t get this Western hemisphere fascination and it’s “liberal” needs to splinter things across the globe 

 

Canada is not a conglomerate

[Saluki]

Even if they want to separate, that doesn't mean they want to be part of the US. Greenland doesn't want to be part of Denmark. They want independence, not to be part of the US. Quebec voted in a referendum to leave Canada, but they won't join the US. If Alaska seceded (or California), do you think they would keep the oil (or tech) riches for themselves or decide to be part of Canada?  

[sleepydragon]

26 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt Israel will stop now. What bargain chip iran has, nothing at all. The risk to the oil price to the downside is a regime change. If they end up negotiating their way out, it will only buy more times for the regime who will use oil as leverage which will drive oil price higher —- imo. I am no expert in this.

[Rainier]

55 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Half of California has wanted to succeed for a decade. Remember all the libs who wanted to leave if Trump got elected again? And then of course you have the whole northwest part that isn’t at all represented by the wokesters in LA and SF but are being held hostage as well. Seismic shifts life that, just don’t happen, even when folks want them to.

 

Like look at these retards, gonna spend 8 figures largely for show 

 

https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2025-news-releases-and-advisories/Proposed-Initiative-Enters-Circulation-Requires-Future-Vote-on-Whether-California-Should-Become-Independent-Country

Areas from both sides have wanted to secede in recent years. Liberal California, Conservative Texas. There are still groups that talk about making eastern WA/OR into its own state, combining with ID/UT, or seceding.

 

All a bunch of talk with no remote chance of happening. At least not until the world is completely falling apart.

[Blake Hampton]

Just the way the two governments are positioned financially, I think I’d feel better being part of Canada.

 

Though the U.S. does have one honkin’ military.

[Blake Hampton]

X is not a good source for information, and it very well might be the worst.

 

@ me again when it’s in the WSJ, FT, or NYT.

[gfp]

1 minute ago, Blake Hampton said:

X is not a good source for information, and it very well might be the worst.

 

@ me again when it’s in the WSJ, FT, or NYT.

 

Are you talking about his headline in the WSJ ?

[Gregmal]

24 minutes ago, Rainier said:

Areas from both sides have wanted to secede in recent years. Liberal California, Conservative Texas. There are still groups that talk about making eastern WA/OR into its own state, combining with ID/UT, or seceding.

 

All a bunch of talk with no remote chance of happening. At least not until the world is completely falling apart.

Well, everything is about democracy and the rule of the people until it isn't. Especially when it comes to losing population/representatives/tax revenue...

[Blake Hampton]

15 minutes ago, gfp said:

Are you talking about his headline in the WSJ ?

Yes.

[bizaro86]

5 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

I would love to hear about this from some Canadians:

 

 

Is there something specific you'd like to know? I live in Alberta, and am reasonably well acquainted with folks across the political spectrum and those who are politically active. I've been surprised how quickly separation has gained momentum, even among people I would have thought would be strongly tied to Canada - eg, those who moved from other provinces and have family elsewhere. 

 

The biggest thing is that Canada is objectively an unfair deal for Alberta - nowhere is this more true than in the the division of political power. Alberta has one seat in the house per 134,000 residents, while the average seats per resident nationwide is 117,000 and some provinces have as few as 45,000 people per seat. At least here the other large English speaking provinces are treated approximately equally (BC/Ontario are about 133,000 per seat). 

 

The senate is much, much worse. Alberta has 6 seats, with a population of 4.96 million. The four Atlantic provinces have a combined population of 2.66 million, and have a combined 30 seats in the Senate. Alberta is growing faster, so we'll have double the population and 20% of the seats as the Atlantic provinces within a few years. 

 

And of course the amount of fiscal contribution Alberta makes to the rest of Canada is significant. About 50% more Federal tax is collected in Alberta than is spent here, and the per capital contribution is dramatically more than any other province (the only other net contributors are BC and Ontario, and their per capita contributions are much smaller). 

 

Those are all things that don't make the people of Alberta feel like we're getting a fair deal in Confederation. 

 

With that said, I'd personally vote no, even only for pragmatic reasons. Just because the deal you have now is bad doesn't mean it can't get worse. Essentially all of the oil pipelines we currently have traverse other Canadian provinces. And it's not like we'd have a strong bargaining position to get a new one directly to the USA. It would also be a big issue for many of our big companies outside of oil and gas. EG CPKC and Westjet are headquartered here in Calgary and that would be a huge issue for both. Losing NAFTA access to US markets (and good luck getting that re-negotiated with current US administration) would also be a big issue. We'd have no tax treaties with other countries (and the US one especially is important). All the banks would be foreign.

 

And I'm pretty sure the rest of Canada would want to make sure we took our per capita share of the Federal debt without giving us our pro-rate share of the CPP assets (Alberta's residents being young and rich and mostly contributing after the changes in the 90s has contributed almost the entire balance of the CPP fund). 

 

Alberta has historically had a pretty strong political consensus, but it doesn't right now. I think the prevailing opinion is probably to try and use the threat of separation to try and drive a better deal within Canada, but these things have a way of going off the rails. I'm opposed to even having a vote on it, because I think that will hurt the economy. 

[Blake Hampton]

10 minutes ago, bizaro86 said:

 

Is there something specific you'd like to know? I live in Alberta, and am reasonably well acquainted with folks across the political spectrum and those who are politically active. I've been surprised how quickly separation has gained momentum, even among people I would have thought would be strongly tied to Canada - eg, those who moved from other provinces and have family elsewhere. 

 

The biggest thing is that Canada is objectively an unfair deal for Alberta - nowhere is this more true than in the the division of political power. Alberta has one seat in the house per 134,000 residents, while the average seats per resident nationwide is 117,000 and some provinces have as few as 45,000 people per seat. At least here the other large English speaking provinces are treated approximately equally (BC/Ontario are about 133,000 per seat). 

 

The senate is much, much worse. Alberta has 6 seats, with a population of 4.96 million. The four Atlantic provinces have a combined population of 2.66 million, and have a combined 30 seats in the Senate. Alberta is growing faster, so we'll have double the population and 20% of the seats as the Atlantic provinces within a few years. 

 

And of course the amount of fiscal contribution Alberta makes to the rest of Canada is significant. About 50% more Federal tax is collected in Alberta than is spent here, and the per capital contribution is dramatically more than any other province (the only other net contributors are BC and Ontario, and their per capita contributions are much smaller). 

 

Those are all things that don't make the people of Alberta feel like we're getting a fair deal in Confederation. 

 

With that said, I'd personally vote no, even only for pragmatic reasons. Just because the deal you have now is bad doesn't mean it can't get worse. Essentially all of the oil pipelines we currently have traverse other Canadian provinces. And it's not like we'd have a strong bargaining position to get a new one directly to the USA. It would also be a big issue for many of our big companies outside of oil and gas. EG CPKC and Westjet are headquartered here in Calgary and that would be a huge issue for both. Losing NAFTA access to US markets (and good luck getting that re-negotiated with current US administration) would also be a big issue. We'd have no tax treaties with other countries (and the US one especially is important). All the banks would be foreign.

 

And I'm pretty sure the rest of Canada would want to make sure we took our per capita share of the Federal debt without giving us our pro-rate share of the CPP assets (Alberta's residents being young and rich and mostly contributing after the changes in the 90s has contributed almost the entire balance of the CPP fund). 

 

Alberta has historically had a pretty strong political consensus, but it doesn't right now. I think the prevailing opinion is probably to try and use the threat of separation to try and drive a better deal within Canada, but these things have a way of going off the rails. I'm opposed to even having a vote on it, because I think that will hurt the economy. 

 

This is a really great answer. Thank you.

 

With the way you put it, it definitely seems like a politically raw deal for the people of Alberta. I can see why they're upset, especially if you have a liberal government who's increasingly adverse to your biggest asset; that being your oil and gas of course. It's crazy too because you're province is certainly one of their biggest assets as well.

 

I have one more question: You said "I've been surprised how quickly separation has gained momentum." How much momentum? Would you personally describe it as something fringe or relatively large?

 

Edited June 16, 2025 by Blake Hampton

[bizaro86]

47 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

This is a really great answer. Thank you.

 

With the way you put it, it definitely seems like a politically raw deal for the people of Alberta. I can see why they're upset, especially if you have a liberal government who's increasingly adverse to your biggest asset; that being your oil and gas of course. It's crazy too because you're province is certainly one of their biggest assets as well.

 

I have one more question: You said "I've been surprised how quickly separation has gained momentum." How much momentum? Would you personally describe it as something fringe or relatively large?

 

 

I live in Calgary, the biggest/most economically important city in Alberta. I was at a backyard barbeque recently and someone brought it up. In an upper-middle-class/educated crowd in Calgary it seemed like about 10-20% were strongly in favour of leaving, 30% were open to the idea but had concerns, and 50% were opposed to various degrees. If you'd have asked me 3 months ago I'd have said Alberta separation was a fringe idea. Now I'd say it's becoming mainstream. It definitely isn't a majority opinion but it's becoming more common. Even a year ago people would have looked at you like you promoting the flat earth party if you brought it up, but now its treated as an item worthy of serious consideration by people. This wasn't a far-right/rural group of people either, which is where the idea almost certainly has the most support. 

 

I'm personally very concerned about it. 

[Blake Hampton]

9 minutes ago, bizaro86 said:

I live in Calgary, the biggest/most economically important city in Alberta. I was at a backyard barbeque recently and someone brought it up. In an upper-middle-class/educated crowd in Calgary it seemed like about 10-20% were strongly in favour of leaving, 30% were open to the idea but had concerns, and 50% were opposed to various degrees. If you'd have asked me 3 months ago I'd have said Alberta separation was a fringe idea. Now I'd say it's becoming mainstream. It definitely isn't a majority opinion but it's becoming more common. Even a year ago people would have looked at you like you promoting the flat earth party if you brought it up, but now its treated as an item worthy of serious consideration by people. This wasn't a far-right/rural group of people either, which is where the idea almost certainly has the most support. 

 

I'm personally very concerned about it. 

 

All I can say is wow.

Thanks again for the answers.

[SharperDingaan]

A lot of this is driven by both complacency, and in Alberta ... by  how long the federal conservative party has been out of power. Of course, it's a different song when you're the folks in power! ... and the conservatives have been continuously out of power for a decade plus. When the political parties routinely change places every 1-2 cycles, it becomes pretty fringe.

 

Canada came extremely close to a  break up with the Quebec referendum, and it's largely down to only a handful of people that we still have a Canada today. At the time nobody thought it could possibly happen .... until it was almost too late. 

 

The reality of course is that Canada is ever changing and the North is the new frontier. As the North grows, the separatism dynamics will change as well.

 

SD

 

Edited June 17, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[Blake Hampton]

So the papers make it look like Tehran isn't capitulating and that both the United States and Israel are having issues regarding their interceptor supplies. I believe that Iran has only used about a quarter of their total missles so far, and I also read somewhere that they have a strong production capacity for more.

[Blake Hampton]

"Mr. Albright offers a quick lesson in nuclear science: For uranium to be weapon-grade, it must be enriched to 90%. “Enrichment is a complicated process,” he explains. “If you start with natural uranium and enrich it to 5%, where you’re not even close to 90%, that’s actually 70% of the enrichment effort.” The math, on its face, is misleading. “When you’re at 60%, it may look like you’re 30% short on percentage, but you’re actually 99% of the way in terms of enrichment effort.” In other words, 60% enrichment is only a hair’s breadth from weapon grade—and Iran’s program is brimful with this near-weapon-grade uranium."
 

WSJ: Iran Is Down, but Not Yet Out