Nate Habermeyer, APR: 0:00

I'm looking at this house, and my, you know, I'm talking to my grandpa. I'm like, yeah, I looked at this house in Toronto. You know, my wife and I are thinking about buying it, and it has a little bit of asbestos in it. He's like asbestos. I got a roll of it sitting right here, like no. Anyways, nice to see you. Maybe he did, maybe you don't know. I don't know.

Albert Brier: 0:31

Yeah, I mean, have you made sure that he's okay?

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 0:34

I mean, he li, he almost lived to 100 so well, at least no touch the asbestos, because that's well in trouble when you touch

Albert Brier: 0:42

it. I mean, you don't get in trouble when you touch it. You get in trouble when it enters your lungs. Alberto fibrosis.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 0:48

Personal health is a priority and very important.

Albert Brier: 0:53

I don't disagree, obviously. And thank you for putting me into one of those very fun rhetorical traps, where you know I'm not allowed to disagree, because if I do, I'm the bad guy. Very, very cool.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 1:02

Yeah,

Albert Brier: 1:04

but no, I mean, you know, there's buildings full of asbestos everywhere in the world that aren't causing people to die spontaneously. The problem is that when you drill a hole in them to put your fancy new 20-first century security camera in, you've officially exposed all the people who work there. You know, I can tell you, have a problem. Yeah,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 1:22

you have a problem.

Albert Brier: 1:23

Yeah, it's not a problem unless it is, right? It's well, those things,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 1:26

you know what I mean. Speaking of problems, I think we're going out west in this episode, and we

Albert Brier: 1:33

are, yeah,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 1:34

and we're talking about a problem,

Albert Brier: 1:36

starting on a confrontational note here.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 1:38

Yes, a confrontation. No, I think it's exciting, actually. Like, we're talking about in a previous episode, we talked about government support, you know, vision, financial support, like it's all really, really exciting. And for our listeners, we're going to be talking about, you know, Alberta, and we're staying in Canada, but also, like, you and I were talking before getting ready for this episode, and yeah, we, we both were both Americans, right, born and raised, yeah, and you and I both subscribe, among other things, to the New York

Albert Brier: 2:14

paper of record, The Gray Lady, The New York Times,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 2:17

New York Times, and this story that we're going to talk about was actually, you know, every every week there's a letter from the New York Times. It comes into your email, it's the Canada letter, right? Yeah, comes into your email, and it's pretty interesting to see the New York Times take

Albert Brier: 2:36

on it.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 2:37

Is Canadian,

Albert Brier: 2:37

like I think it's my favorite of the Times newsletters, like I get two or three of them, and that's probably the one that I read most carefully, honestly.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 2:44

Yeah, and you can either vouch for it or debunk it. It's pretty interesting,

Albert Brier: 2:49

and it's good stuff. Yeah, and it's the time, so it's well researched and tries to present a fairly balanced view, which, if you're a certain kind of person, means that it presents a liberal view, but you know, to me it reads as a, as a factual take on what's going on, and this week it did talk about Alberta, you know,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 3:07

exactly

Albert Brier: 3:08

directly,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 3:08

yeah,

Albert Brier: 3:09

and like a little bit of of confluence of circumstances, like I've also had a couple of posts on LinkedIn do some pretty decent engagement lately

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 3:19

on becoming a bit of an influencer in the project control spaces, I am

Albert Brier: 3:23

not literally

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 3:26

like you two are neck and neck for influencer status. I are we

Albert Brier: 3:30

okay?

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 3:31

I don't know, I mean I'm looking at the numbers and it looks fantastic. So,

Albert Brier: 3:35

well, I'm happy, I'm happy to hear that I've met your high standard, and I now know that I have, I have someone to knife in my good friend Diego. You know, got to figure out how to tank his shadow. I'm gonna get into all of his.. I'm gonna use my.. I'm gonna use one of my subs, my other accounts to go like sub him all the time,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 3:54

copy all of his content, and just..

Albert Brier: 3:57

I was just gonna go put, you know, racist stuff in his comments and see how that does for him, yeah. He's

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 4:01

Brazilian. I don't know, is that.. I don't know if that would work or not. But let's go back to the story, because it was interesting. I mean, it was in the Canada letter, checked out. It's all about Alberta. I mean, there's a lot of, like you said, a confluence of sort of a confluence of storylines, right? Like, there's the Alberta separatist movement. There is Alberta government putting money towards projects. It's all pretty exciting. There's the major projects office, that's, you know, the feds are the federal government in Canada are supporting projects, so there's a lot of action happening in Alberta, and you were based in Alberta, so you have the inside track, right?

Albert Brier: 4:48

And I have been loudly complaining for months about how Alberta seems to be basically excluded from the major projects office, right, like the Kearney kind of nation building projects initiative. That, that, that really was heavily focused on not Alberta, right?

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 5:05

Yeah, the

Albert Brier: 5:06

only thing that that got name dropped within the MPOs kind of mandate when they first released it, it wasn't even one of the, one of the, like, you know, this is a pipeline project, it was just one of the other kind of things, as like a side, side, side hustle, basically, for the MPO was the carbon capture and storage, the what are the pathways project,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 5:24

right? Yep,

Albert Brier: 5:25

so that that pathways project, carbon capture and storage is a bit of a boondoggle, right? So it was almost,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 5:32

yeah,

Albert Brier: 5:33

yeah, like it's not there's there's no example of a successful carbon capture and storage project, like literally none, and I'm talking about success the way we usually measure project success, which is, you know, the three-legged stool. Did it do what it said it was going to do? Did you do it on time, and did you do it on budget? Zero carbon capture projects have hit all three of those targets, literally none.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 5:54

Yep.

Albert Brier: 5:55

Okay. Except maybe at pilot scales, and even then I, I don't know enough about those to say one way or the other, but I would bet that they didn't either.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 6:01

Yeah,

Albert Brier: 6:01

okay. So the Pathways Project is a big one, right? Which means to me, reading the data, it's most likely going to be a big failure, right?

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 6:11

Yeah,

Albert Brier: 6:12

so like there's the separatism movement is ridiculous on its face for an enormous number of reasons. It's also something that Danielle Smith is used as, like, a political springboard, you know, she like a lot of her base are the, you know, the Alberta folks who really wish that Alberta were Quebec, not that it spoke French, but that it just had this kind of special independent status and got to do kind of whatever it wanted to, you know, in certain ways, not to say that Quebec gets to do whatever it wants to, I recognize that there's like, there's a legal framework there, but like the some of the Alberta separatist types literally want it to be its own country, yeah, yeah, not like recognized as independent within Canada, but a whole separate country, you know,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 6:52

Albert is like just to provide a little bit of context, like the sort of mindset behind Albertans wanting to be their own separate company country, like maybe give a little bit of context, like what, what is that for our listeners, like just there's gonna be a lot of listeners that are outside of the US, so like we're going to talk about Alberta, I'd like a little bit of kind of the inside like the mindset was

Albert Brier: 7:14

just just a little bit for two reasons, one like I said, it's kind of ridiculous on its face, I don't want to dignify it with a whole lot of serious discussion, so that's one reason. The other reason is that you know we're here to talk about the pipeline project, and I want to get to that at some point, but, but just to, just to do a little bit of table setting, let's talk about what is the deal with Alberta separatists. Yeah, okay. So, and why is it connected to this whole broad? I'm

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 7:41

timing you, by the way, I'm timing you. This is

Albert Brier: 7:43

a test, okay? All right, how long do I have?

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 7:45

Yeah, you have 13 seconds,

Albert Brier: 7:47

13. Okay, well, I'm gonna blow through that, just saying that I'm saying right now, okay? Go, go, go, okay. All right, so basically it boils down to this, like in in the grand experiment that is Canada, Canada is a federation, right? It isn't like a strong federal government, it's strong provincial governments that are linked by a federation agreement, which is our, you know, constitution. Okay, so in many ways the government that matters most to everyday Canadians is their provincial government, not their federal government, right? So, you know, but some of the things that the federal government does do require them to gather tax revenue from the provinces, right. Among those things that the federal government does is give tax assistance to the provinces, so they do this through something called equalization payments, where relatively wealthy provinces pay into a pool that is then paid out to relatively poorer provinces, and I'm saying relatively here because you know Canada has an extremely high standard of living, considering how low its per capita GDP.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 8:54

Indeed, yes, yeah,

Albert Brier: 8:56

so like you know, as a country we're rather poor, we're just doing okay anyway, and one of the reasons why that's true is because of this equalization scheme. Now, the issue from Alberta's perspective is that the federal government, for the last 10 years or so, like the Trudeau, you know, kind of era, and now the Carney era, has been, relatively speaking, hostile to Alberta's oil and gas interests, right, but they're perfectly happy to spend Alberta's money giving equalization payments to other provinces, mostly the Maritimes. So, like, that's part of the reason why Albertans, in general, and the current Alberta government, in particular, feel like separatism is maybe not, you know, Plan A, but it's at least on the menu.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 9:41

Yeah, right. What is the gist of this issue that you've posted about? And I think you called it right, like you posted on LinkedIn, and then there was a big announcement, like what was that?

Albert Brier: 9:59

Well, so the. First post I made on LinkedIn was about the the memorandum of understanding, right, basically an agreement in principle about how Alberta and Ottawa were going to enable the construction of a major pipeline to the west coast, right, like by the way, doing doing westward facing oil and gas, like midstream stuff, like trying to push oil and gas out to the west coast, is a, is a major, it would be a huge economic win for Canada, because most of the markets that our oil is best suited for are in South and East Asia.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 10:38

That's right, right, yeah,

Albert Brier: 10:39

that's where the spare refining capacity is it's where the markets are right, because, like, our southern neighbor that buys most of our oil right now, the United States of America, refineries are at 90 plus percent capacity. They are already making enough oil to fill those refineries themselves, they just top up from us, right. We're already sending a bunch of oil and gas all over the country using rail and trucking and things like that, so a pipeline is just the natural next step. It's a much more efficient way to move, especially crude oil, but you know, oil and gas product generally across long distances. There are massive, massive socioeconomic and environmental concerns about pipeline construction.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 11:21

Yeah,

Albert Brier: 11:22

are they greater than the exact same concerns when applied to trucking or trains? That's a matter of opinion, analysis, and expertise that I, frankly, don't possess.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 11:30

Yes, yeah,

Albert Brier: 11:32

but the first post that I, that I, that kind of took off a little bit was the about the MOU itself, which was basically like we need to do a handful of things, like we need to get a carbon pricing agreement that applies to Alberta. I mean, nail that down. We need to get the Pathways Project, the Carbon Capture Project. We need to nail that down. We need to get, you know, hit some certain targets about when there will be a federal proponent, sorry, a private proponent, and all this stuff, like, there were like target dates.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 12:01

This is all, like, I mean, let's put aside the environment, like, my own perspective on environment and the environmental impacts that it could have, but, like, it generally is a pretty positive kind of step forward in terms of, like, the economic well-being of Albertans and Canadians overall. No,

Albert Brier: 12:19

it really, it could be, because it signals Ottawa's willingness to incorporate oil and gas into the national energy strategy, you know, in, in, by not just in fact, but also as a matter of law, and like putting its money where its mouth is, basically, or putting it more to the point, putting its mouth where it's money is, because the Trudeau government built a pipeline, you know, just to be clear, like it wasn't like, you know the last 10 years saw no oil and gas development, but it did see a lot of false starts, a lot of stop start stuff, and like the reason why the government had to get involved in building a pipeline in the first place is because of a lot of that, you know, permitting, you know, and consultation stop start stuff that was mandated by the federal government, so you could really make an argument that they, that they caused a problem, which they then had to solve, but fact remains that the Trudeau government paid for a pipeline.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 13:05

Yeah, government causing problems like who to thunk,

Albert Brier: 13:08

which they then have to solve. I know it's a tale as old as time. Great, but this, this kind of, at the very, very, very least. Thank you.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 13:18

Let's not go off on a tangent there, but yeah, at the very least, you were saying,

Albert Brier: 13:22

at the very least, it signals that there is some willingness to change that dynamic, right? Right now,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 13:27

yeah.

Albert Brier: 13:27

So, whether the projects involved are viable or not is actually what I want to talk about today.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 13:33

So, what, what is what, what is the potential, like, size of these projects? What are we talking about?

Albert Brier: 13:42

We're talking about billions,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 13:45

yep,

Albert Brier: 13:45

right, probably double digit billions, depending on how many of these projects there are, and how badly they go over. We could be in triple digit billions, right now. As I said, I don't have enough domain expertise in this, in these specific areas to give you like really solid estimates, and both projects, the pipeline and the pathways project, are so poorly defined at this point that it would be impossible for anybody to come up with anything better than like a plus or minus 100% estimate on them. They're really, really early, but we are talking about billions of dollars of investment, you know, and it's a combination of federal money and provincial money and private money.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 14:26

Yep,

Albert Brier: 14:26

and that last one I think is where the sticking point really is.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 14:29

Yeah, so what is that sticking point?

Albert Brier: 14:31

Well, Alberta and Ottawa can agree on whatever they want to, but when it comes to the project, someone's actually got to go build them, right? Right, like there is at the present time no private proponent for the pipeline, right? The Pathways Alliance exists, right? So the carbon capture project, at least in principle, has a proponent, right? I think it's a paper tiger. I don't think that product is going to go anywhere, and you know, part of the reason why a lot of the press like. By the way, screens were to the second post, there was, then you know, the MOU said you have to do carbon capture or carbon pricing by this date, that date came and went, but then you know they did it right, like they arrived at an agreement in principle on what the carbon pricing scheme would be, and that was the most recent news about it, and that was like, you know, shout it from the rooftops, Alberta and Ottawa agree on something, isn't it amazing, right? And that's sure, that's great. It's a really important step.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 15:25

I sense a but come in. Yeah, there you go. But yeah,

Albert Brier: 15:28

but there's, there's still not a, you know, pathways is still a loser. Sorry, but it is like it's just not going to do what it says on paper. Ottawa explicitly tied the pipeline to pathways, right? Yep, so you know we're pot committed to pathways, whether it's a good idea or not, and nobody has stepped up to say we want to build this pipeline, it should be our pipeline.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 15:50

Why do you think you know the chief executive is of the companies that could build the pipeline? Why do you think, or rather, what's going through their head right now, in terms of should I put my hand up to build this pipeline? I'm maybe I'm not going to right now.

Albert Brier: 16:11

I've got two answers to that question, and the first one rhymes with British Columbia. For those of you who don't know, BC, British Columbia, is the province immediately west of us, us being Alberta, and it is the land through which this pipeline would actually travel. Okay, because once the pipeline exits Alberta, if it's going to get to the Pacific Ocean, unless it's going to go extremely far north through the territories and then cut back down, which it won't. It's going through BC, right? So the BC government's not okay with this

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 16:47

big problem. Yeah,

Albert Brier: 16:48

big problem. Like, you know, well, Alberta and Ottawa, like they clasp hands and they agreed, like, we're gonna do pipeline, and Alberta was like, even if no private proponent shows up to the party, we'll build it as like a provincial project, and I was like, "Oh, wow, okay, all right, but like they got to build it through a third guy's thing,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 17:10

yeah. So, BC is saying, "No way.

Albert Brier: 17:13

Yeah, exactly, because it's like, if you, if you and your neighbor two houses down agreed to string a clothesline between your yards, and the neighbor in between was like, "Hang on,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 17:26

that's a good analogy. Yeah, I like,

Albert Brier: 17:28

yeah, or like a giant slide that goes from one yard to the other.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 17:32

Man, I would love that.

Albert Brier: 17:33

That'd be cool. Yeah, that'd be real cool.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 17:35

Yeah, but yes, so CEOs are the of the owner operators are not putting their hand up, because there's just no viability right now.

Albert Brier: 17:46

At the moment, it's a nonstarter, right? BC has already rejected numerous proposals to build pipelines through their territory. Any oil and gas expansion that impacts the central BC is, is pretty much not taken seriously, you know, right now, and that's a little unfair, like there is some stuff that happens in there, but like a big crude oil pipeline coming from the oil sands, you know, down to the Pacific Coast again, kind of like Vancouver area, and you know, thereabouts, it's just a non-starter right now.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 18:21

What's the second issue?

Albert Brier: 18:21

Yeah, the, the second issue I hesitate to call an issue because it's, it's more like, did everybody say yes? Right, right. So we already said, like, BC said no. Who else is involved in everybody? Nate,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 18:37

is that rhetorical? You want me to answer that question?

Albert Brier: 18:39

Oh, no, no, I think

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 18:39

it's First Nations, yeah,

Albert Brier: 18:43

yeah, it's the indigenous community,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 18:44

and I would say CEOs, executives, you know, project sponsors, you know, they, they know, they know this, and they try hard to engage. There

Albert Brier: 18:57

is sometimes not hard enough, but yes, yeah, it's definitely on their to-do list. Yeah, it's

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 19:01

definitely on their mind. Yeah, with

Albert Brier: 19:04

100%

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 19:04

project.

Albert Brier: 19:05

So, insofar as BC isn't super excited about a pipeline that runs through BC, indigenous groups tend not to be super excited about pipelines that run through indigenous land either.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 19:17

Right

Albert Brier: 19:17

now, that's that's a broad sweeping generalization. It's not true, you know, for certain communities that have been, you know, very supportive of oil and gas development, but it is true in that there will be some that are having already expressed concerns with a, with a Alberta to the West Coast pipeline through BC, that would run through their, their territory in whole or in part, right,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 19:39

right,

Albert Brier: 19:40

so that's that's issue number two, and both of them point to the same, you know, situation, which is that it's just that it's a bit of a nothing burger at the moment. As a project, there's there's no way to build it right, like we're not going to shoot the oil up into the sky and then just hope it comes down in the right spot and just collect it a. Like, funnel, you know, it's like we can't just go

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 20:03

over visual picture right now, is like,

Albert Brier: 20:06

you know, the black rain, you know,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 20:08

so, so, if that's non-starter, isn't like, what, what is like the sort of the next step, what are that's right, I

Albert Brier: 20:15

have no idea, I mean, this is this is the thing that makes this also because the MOU did a few things that I think were strategically very smart for Ottawa. One, it signaled support for a pipeline. Two, you know, it didn't necessarily graduate the Pathways Project to like a first-tier MPO project, but it definitely made it a priority nationally, right, and as my quibbles with the Pathways Project notwithstanding, you and I have talked before about how, like, private or public investment towards the public good, even if the project looks like a failure on paper, may actually be hugely beneficial in the long term, like the extreme long term, you know, so you know, even if it just employs a few 1000 people for 10 years, like that's not nothing, right? So you know the fact that that kind of got graduated into, you know, quote unquote "real boy" status, you know, kind of is a good thing. The third thing it did was it put the onus for getting all of those agreements, like all those stakeholder agreements on Alberta, Ottawa was basically like, you want a pipeline, get everybody lined up, and you can have a pipeline,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 21:29

like it seems like a bit of boundary setting, like Ottawa was like, look, yeah, you go do it, you know, make it happen, go,

Albert Brier: 21:38

yeah, it was basically the, the government document version of you, do you, bro? You know,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 21:44

well, I mean, in a sense, like that, it kind of makes sense, because, like, Alberta, you know, wants to be independent, let's say, like, there are some Albertans that want to be independent, I think, yeah, you know, being able to go and negotiate those, you know, relationships and those sort of pragmatic sort of where the rubber meets the road deals is actually letting Alberta chart its own path. Now it is a lot of work. It's going to be a lot of work, right? And yeah, right now they're hitting some walls with regard to that, those partnerships,

Albert Brier: 22:19

but some totally obvious, extremely well anticipated walls,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 22:25

right? Pray

Albert Brier: 22:26

to so that's well, it's just the same thing that happened the last time Alberta wanted to build a pipeline through BC, like this isn't some kind of new thing, like you could, there are multiple that you could point to, but like the point is that it's this isn't our first bite at this particular apple, right. So, on the one hand, you're right. If Alberta really does want to be the master of its own destiny, it ought to be able to do things like this unilaterally, you know. Now that it has the blessing of the federal government to do so, it's like put up or shut up, right.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 22:56

Yeah,

Albert Brier: 22:57

and like Danielle Smith basically said the same thing in her statement after that, which was like this should be this should signal to people in Alberta who want to be relatively independent of the federal government that this is our opportunity to do exactly that, right? And she was speaking, you know, with.. and that was an extreme paraphrase, but like she was speaking within the bounds of Alberta remaining within Canada, and just having some additional autonomy that the other provinces do not enjoy, because the other provinces are not quite as married to one private industry as Alberta is. Right,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 23:34

Albert, what's your one piece of advice for Alberta when it gets a real proponent to actually build this, like once they get, you know, all the agreements, all the partners, you know, indigenous and provincial in line.

Albert Brier: 23:50

Well, I would actually take a step back. I don't think it's safe to assume that we'll get to that point of having everybody on the same page, you know, the way things currently stand, there's no scope, right, and this was the, this was the topic of my, my follow-up post was like, what's the scope of this pipeline? Like, how much is it going to move, where, you know, we don't know, like, there's no, there's no actual proposal, and my piece of advice would be, one, I'm borrowing this from a keynote that I heard at the CNA a few years ago, where the leader of an indigenous group, name escapes me at moment, feel a little ashamed of that, but it was a really solid keynote, because I remember thinking at the time, like, what could this person possibly have to add to a nuclear conference. Well, here's what she had to add. Okay, she basically said proponents for building new infrastructure feel like they have a great idea that must be executed in exactly the form you know that they have imagined it, and then they take it to indigenous communities, and they are confused why those communities don't just sign off, right? Like, don't just say, 'Oh yeah, this is perfect, right? What they should be doing instead is taking the general idea. Apr to the communities and saying, how can we make this work for you? Right, what is the right way for this to take shape, and for you to feel like you're a meaningful participant, and that you, you have some ownership over the process, and that the scope makes sense for you and your community? Like, invert that from, here's what we're going to do, say yes or no to why don't you tell us what we should be doing right to accomplish this very same goal, because like our goal of meeting Alberta's goal of moving crude oil to the West Coast, so that it can be transported to customers in South and East Asia, is in my opinion a very good goal, right, like, whether we want to decarbonize or not, the customers are out there, we're leaving money on the table by not selling that oil to people who want it, right? And I'm all about decarbonization, but you can do both, right? We can use the receipts from that to pay for green energy, and that's one of the things that's on the table with this MOU, right? That's the reason why it's all married to pathways, even if that's misguided, it's moving in the right direction, right? It came with a carbon, you know what I mean, like it's all pushing in the same direction of like sell the oil right to the customers who want it and use the money to do something good in Canada, right? So shouldn't that start with the most key stakeholders helping to describe what that scope could be, if it were to be a success,

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 26:23

right.

Albert Brier: 26:23

And, like, if I were a private proponent, I might try something like that. I might, because you said it earlier, and you're right. Like, the CEOs and boards of directors for major oil companies, midstream, upstream, downstream, doesn't matter. They all have experience working with indigenous communities to, you know, obtain their approval, but more so just to get engaged with them and understand best how they're, you know, what I mean, like they know how to do this right, like they know how to go have these conversations, at least in principle they do. So I would suggest that anybody who might be interested in building this pipeline, even if it feels a bit like a pipe dream. Thank you. Even if it feels a little bit far out at the moment, right? At least having some idea of what the acceptable scope would be for some of these more, you know, reticent stakeholders, that seems like a really good first step

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 27:20

indeed.

Albert Brier: 27:22

So I I would say my concerns about there not being a scope attached to this are resolved by figuring out what the scope should be, and maybe that should be dictated, at least in part, by the government of British Columbia, the needs of the people who live there, including and especially Indigenous and First Nations communities along the way.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 27:43

Yeah,

Albert Brier: 27:44

let's figure out what they want.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 27:45

Thanks, Albert.

Albert Brier: 27:46

Yeah, man, thank you, Nate.

Nate Habermeyer, APR: 27:48

Thanks, everybody. See you later.

Albert Brier: 27:55

Hey everybody, it's Albert here. Thanks for tuning in to the Risky Planner podcast. We hope today's conversation was informative, and above all else, inspires you to excellence in what you do. If you liked today's episode, don't forget to rate, subscribe, and leave a review. It helps us reach more listeners just like you. I'd also like to thank Thomson Egbo Egbo for letting us use his excellent muzhik on our show. If you like what you hear, check him out@egbomusic.com that's e g b omusic.com Talk to you later.

Unknown: 28:32

Bye.