Oil, Alberta, and events in Venezuela and Iran
Many people, assuming events in Venezuela and Iran end well for the people there, think that the presence of enormous and easily accessible oil reserves in those two countries bodes ill for Alberta's ability to sell its hydrocarbons on world markets. They're wrong - badly wrong.
First, it will take over a year before governments in those two countries achieve the stability needed before the risk associated with investing in either country falls to the level needed for private sector resource commitment.
Secondly, it will take ten or more years to repair or replace the infrastructure and develop or rehabilitate the people needed to produce and bring to market much beyond token quantities of either oil or gas.
And, thirdly but most importantly, markets for hydrocarbons will, over the next ten years, either grow dramatically or political collapse in China and/or India will make shipping hydrocarbons by sea prohibitively dangerous.
The reason stability in China or India will grow the markets for oil and/or natural gas is that these economies are deeply dependent on coal - and that won't be politically sustainable if their economies grow and their people start to enforce environmental change. If, on the other hand, these economies collapse there are going to be some fairly embittered nasties left out - and hijacking tankers while in port, particularly LNG tankers, is going look pretty attractive to them for both political and financial reasons.
The bottom line is simple: in a world of uncertainty we need to get Keystone II in place - because the security of land based infrastructure in energy supply, whether for American consumption or export through well managed gulf ports, will become increasingly valuable.
Why Trump Wins
(This is an edited version of a comment written in response to an essay by Steven Hayward (https://stevehayward.substack.com/p/claremonsters-stalking-the-land/comments.)
As a Canadian affected by American elections but unable to vote in them, my 2016 reactions to Trump came in three distinct phases: "God no; the guy thinks presidents reign, shouldn't be allowed near The Whitehouse"; "at least he's not Hilary - or Jeb!"; and, by September: "Go MAGA! Go!".
When he won in 2020 I couldn't believe Americans let Soros et al get away with it (but, of course, today I can't understand why the French and the Brits haven't started slitting throats, so what do I know?)
All that aside, I think I can offer an answer to a question lots of people don't seem to articulate all that well: "how can an apparently ego driven showman like Trump succeed first in politics and then in statecraft against the nearly unanimous opposition of experts in both fields?"
Consider, in this context, what I think of as the "men in suits" problem. Imagine, please that you are a former highschool teacher with some experience on the county board of education who's been newly elected as a member of the provincial legislature here in sunny Alberta - and there's been a change in party leadership so you are also now the Minister of Public Works with responsibility, among other things, for a $500 million government data center. The bureaucrats have a $100 million provincial network proposal they want you to approve and there's a meeting ...
You got elected in part on a promise to cut costs; your orders from the premier are to rein in spending; and your constituent advisor has shown you that this proposal is technically twenty years out of date; wildly over-priced; unlikely to succeed; unauthorized in law; and part of a process through which the bureaucracy hopes to regain control of a provincial liquor distribution system that had been privatized five years earlier. The meeting was convened by your deputy minister - a professional bureaucrat who looks and sounds pretty good: knows his stuff, many years of experience, acting very much on your side - to brief you on the issues. He's assembled a team of experts: ten or so nice suits; several of whom flash colorful big league consulting company business cards; and a couple of remarkably good looking women who appear to have some role or other.
They're all highly credible, smooth, friendly, experts-in-their-fields who understand where you're coming from but are eager to share their expertise -all utterly independent, of course; just sign here.
Know what it takes to tell them where to shove it? a giant ego. a conman's understanding of other conmen, and years of experience in dealing with lawyers and other shady operators.
(My guy wasn't Trump; on quick review over twenty years later, it appears that they spent around $200+ million and then wrote off the project.)
Leftist Protesters and ICE
Redstate.com had an article yesterday by Ward Clark that included this:
It's been a certainty for quite some time that many of the "protestors" tearing up the streets in Minneapolis and Portland, just to name a couple of (leftist) cities, were being paid to be there. Shadowy figures behind the scenes, who may or may not be named Soros, are funneling cash and strangely professional-looking signs into these riots. Ever notice how fast those strangely specific, professionally printed signs turn up? That can't be cheap.
I asked perplexity.ai "who funds environmental and political protest in the US - datarepublican" and got this search summary:
DataRepublican, a platform tracking government grants and nonprofit funding flows, reveals connections between federal money and organizations involved in US protests, including political and potentially environmental ones. It highlights taxpayer-funded nonprofits linked to events like the 2025 NoKings rally, though specific environmental protest data emphasizes broader patterns. George Soros' Open Society Foundations frequently appear in funding trails for left-leaning protest groups, alongside federal grants via USAID and EPA programs.Key Funders
Major sources include philanthropic donors and government grants channeled through 501(c)(3) nonprofits:
George Soros and Open Society: Millions to organizers like MoveOn.org and Tides Foundation, which support protest activities.
Federal Grants (EPA, USAID): Billions in "environmental justice" grants to activist groups like Climate Justice Alliance, often ideological.
Other Philanthropies: Gates Foundation, Rockefeller, and Tides fund environmental and protest-linked entities.
DataRepublican Insights
The site maps federal grant flows to nonprofits, estimating indirect taxpayer funding and enabling searches by EIN or name. It exposes patterns in political protests (e.g., NoKings) and Soros-linked officers in NGOs, but environmental-specific trackers focus on conservative green groups too. Tools like Sankey diagrams visualize money trails from grants to protest-involved orgs.
I don't know about American law - but I think it's broadly similar, in this context to the law here in Alberta and ours says is that the employer is responsible for the consequences of actions the employee is directed to take.
Here, if I pay someone to protest and they use the sign I provide to smash a police windshield, that's going to be on me - and I'll bet first that its not much different in the U.S. and, second, that the funding agencies behind these rioters are about the find that out.
- Log in to post comments