The data center/Ai growth should be something Canada is trying to pull, and very specifically Labrador. Labrador is drastically oversupplies with electricity, to the point lack of demand is actually pushing consumer prices up. Its obviously freezing half the year. The intercontental line between europe and North America runs through Newfoundland, allowing ease "access to market". And it has very little in the way of economic opportunity. Newfoundland at the same time gets over a thrid of its entire GDP from oil. Newfoundland should be building itself into a hub of tech.
missing in this discussion is the price of oil and alberta's budget surplus vs deficit. oct. 24, smith said the next projected surplus of $367mil was dependent on $74 wti. trump's goal for oil is $50. does this mean smith will cut budget in a growing population, go into debt, raise taxes?
We have a lot of very negative head winds. A blanket Tariff of 10% on oil exports is bad on its own. Trump bringing Russia back into the global market will flood Europe and cut Brent prices (also fertilizer, minerals, lumber, gold, diamonds, nuclear power projects, really everything we do but make car parts, which the tariffs are going to kill anyway), the Saudis appear to be maneuvering toward low prices, and with China about to enter a depression oil demand will collapses. My biggest fear, not just for Alberta but Canada, is Fort McMurray shutting down and Transmountain being reversed to import light oil for Alberta's refineries.
Would like to hear about the capacity of the electrical connections in Alberta (to BC, Montana, Idaho). In Texas, there is practically no connections as Texas is its own grid. Being able to pull from other areas would be a good grid stabilizer.
Something I think needs to be discussed in Canadian politics is the sale of The Wheat Board to the Saudis. Who supports oil in Alberta? Everyone, but most importantly the Conservatives. Who makes up the conservative base? Largely farmers. Canada, a major competitor to the the Saudis, allowed the Saudis a near monopsony on the sector of our economy which, through politics, arguably has the most influence on our oil industry.
@@wesswainson254 I will still argue that turning it into a co-op farmers could opt into, which also buys and sells on an open market, would have been a far preferable option. Selling it to the Saudis for a bigger cash deal was a mistake imo. It also killed any shipping out of Churchill right as we start to discuss opening the Arctic ocean.
@ we had the Wheat Pools and UGG and they couldn’t compete. Markets have been better for grain farmers since the demise of the CWB. You can argue all you want but nearly no one will hear you.
@@wesswainson254 the only reason they came to an end was Saskatchewan over paying, no? Plus global wheat prices have been higher since 2010 overall, so that's a confounding factor
My biggest fear is that the combination of Trumps Tariffs, lower global demand from Chinas EV push+ economic slow, a return of Russian oil, and a Saudi price war will will plument prices. Alberta will be exporting Bitumen for decades. The Midwest US is built around it. But if the price we're getting is only $30 a barrel, you get no investment, no tax revenue, no good employment. The bigger problem is Fort Mac. Refineries in Alberta can't use Bitumen. So, we upgrade bitumen into lighter SynCrude. Almost all the oil converted to Syncrude comes froma strip mining operation around Fort Mac. And between the mining operations and the upgraders, this is some of the most expensive oil in the world, maybe the most expensive barrel being produced. And unfortunately this is where all the high paying blue collar jobs are. I'm deeply worried about cheap light oil replacing syncrude. A lot of syncrude goes to Ontario and Quebec via US pipelines. But beyond that, oil could move North from Dakota, and my worst fear is a reversal of Transmountain to bring cheap over see light crude to Alberta. If the mining operations shut down, we'll have 10s of thousands of high paying blue collar jobs disappear in Alberta, all centered on Fort McMurray. All going on EI, at the same time as Provincial revenues are being slashed and collapsing Exports are making the CAD plumet. And that will be a national issue. Port cities will struggle with falling imports. Our stock market will collapse if SynCrude (the company) and Suncor write of reserves. CN rail has almost a third of its cargo related to O&G. We desperately and urgently need to diversify our economy. Im worried next year is the point of collapse and Mining will come on line at reduced capacities after defered spring maintenance. We have a regional economy that nearly disappeared during Covid, thats going to drive a provincial depression and national recession if we aren't very skillful with our trade policy over the next few months.
This is a big concern for Alberta and Canada. The UCP has literally has their heads in the sand. Their recent party review meeting, they all voted unanimously that that CO₂ was an essential nutrient! They also proclaimed that CO₂ was at alltime lows which is total BS as it's at all time *high* in millions of years. They also said that we need to pump _more_ CO₂ into the environment! This was an official party vote too! They're making Alberta look like a bunch of uneducated hicks to the entire world.
"...depression and national recession if we aren't very skillful with our trade policy..." - Yes, socialism creates economic disaster. Capitalism creates prosperity. The explanation has been put in hundreds of books by The Austrian Economic School, while no economic defense of controlled markets is possible. You must choose the free market, the uncontrolled (unregulated) decisions based on the right to own property OR interference based on the deadly threats by politicians with uncontrolled and secret interests. The less of that immoral politics, the better for humanity. See the historical evidence if you can't follow the economic theory.
@1voluntaryist Austrian economics is like Christian rock, lots of good concepts in there, but if you have to use the label you probably aren't any good at communicating them. But I've no idea why you're bringing this up, socialism isn't when another country puts tariffs on you lol.
The only ones who see a future without oil and gas is the Liberals in Canada and the climate alarmists. You go to Africa and tell them sorry we know your just getting going and all and no longer cooking with dung but the future says no oil or gas. Enjoy whatever you have 😂. We can adjust and move forward with technology and for the most part afford it but developing countries can not.
The issue isn't failing to see weaning off oil, imo, it's failing to see declining prices. I know that sounds similar, but I'd compare it to the rust belt. The world still needs iron, but you can't run an economy around it. Imo, Alberta needs to push investment into Carbon Fiber produced from Bitumen to create an alternative demand Geothermal, to make use of Drilling and Geological fluid transportation expertise, and to leverage existing equipment. Carbon Capture, which I think is a very limited applicability, but I think Canada is the best in the world at it and nursing the technology now if properly leveraged could put us in a Global position. A new way to move oil. I'd settle for a Keystone XL to the US Gulf, which is probably going to happen now, but what I would really like is an Eagle Spirit type pipeline connecting to North BC with a connected series of refineries to diversify our product and market, or else something like bitumen pucks that can easily be shipped by rail and treated like coal.
Canada needs a transCanada transmission line to share 10,000 MW of low cost wind, solar PV, hydro etc back and forth among our provinces together with distributed grid batteries...especially now that oil prices and oil revenue is falling. Wind in Alberta is powering 30% of the grid right now.
Honestly, nothing that large scale is needed. We just need to Connect Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke, and both cities to each other, so that Alberta can access cheap hydro when the wind doesn't blow and BC can buy cheap renewables when it does. Same with the East coast, we just need to match wind with Quebec and Newfoundland hydro. Honestly the biggest thing is somehow getting Quebec to give a fair deal to Newfoundland. (We should also be pushing investment for data processing centers into Labrador like nobodies business). That mostly just leaves Toronto, where I think the answer is Nuclear, but a Bipole line from Northern Manitoba and/or a connection to Quebec could work, it's an extreme distance either way. The last thing is Saskatchewan, who really love their coal power plant, and honestly I'm okay with letting them keep it for a bit it's such a tiny blip in the picture. I'd say ideally they get connected to Manitoba eventually to do the same wind for Hydro Trade as Albert/BC, but it's much greater distances for much smaller markets. But, it would allow them, potentially, to sell solar power to Ontario through Manitobas hydro lines, particularly solar in the evening while Saskatchewan still has sun for an hour or two.
Alberta and Texas have differing approaches to "clean energy" because their politicians have different motives . When politicians are excluded from controlling other people's property, the most efficient usage will be quickly found. Why? It won't be based on short-term, destructive, hidden agendas of politicians/crony interests. But, less control does NOT mean freedom, rights. It only means less disruption, less corruption, less economic failure. A totally freed up market would generate extreme wealth, undreamed of by advocates of socialism. So, what do you want, perpetual broken political promises or Capitalist prosperity? It's your choice to "live & let live" or ask others to force everyone to obey their dictates. Think carefully. It's your life but you can give it to others and trust them not to sacrifice it for their own benefit.
@@1voluntaryist have you ever read Klondike? Great book imo. It's in no way a book on economics, but I think it's a great historical lesson. I don't generally support regulation outside of environmental, sometimes labour. I largely agree with the comments on economic growth, situations like the Klondike Gold Rush not withstanding. But I support the government collecting resource and land rents, and I don't have an issue with government owned entities or supported Co-ops operating in a free market and believe it's a net benefit.
It's not the percentage of wild AC the public power grid is having to support from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity that is substantially important, but its fuel savings, which is little to non. In the US the advertised fuel savings for supporting the wild AC from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity by the electric utility grid is 1% each. That number is likely rounded up significantly. Texas lacks high quality coal, but has internally produced natural gas in great qualities. State politicians want to favor resources from their own state even when they cost substantially more. To have a wind turbine generator farm behave as a scheduled power station it typically has to be backed up instantly 100% with natural gas turbine generators running at high availability 70% fuel consumption making little electricity and unable to effectively use a second steam cycle made from the hot exhaust that adds 50% higher efficiency. A natural gas combined cycle plant might actually use the same amount of natural gas making all the electricity able to run the gas turbines at high efficiency 85% output and able to make full use of steam cycle adding 50% more efficient. Electric utilities prefer natural gas over coal because natural gas is easy. As long as people are OK with paying three times the fueling costs for natural gas over a new modern ultra supercritical clean coal plant burning high BTU bituminous coal, they are fine with using natural gas. It is scientifically impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. Before Al Gore became US vise president in 1992 earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect was taught in US public education. All the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth is completely absorbed in earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface adding 5.55°C (10°F) to earth’s average temperature. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into to each other. The Arctic region is warming the rest of the world is not. Global warming mysteriously pause at about 1°C in 1992. In 2022 global warming was officially reported at 1.06°C. The cause of global warming is not known in 2024 despite decades of scientific studies. Arctic warming is proving to be from warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating more frequently and deeper into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. The warmer Arctic Ocean is causing a few less weeks of reflective snow and ice cover creating more solar heat gain to the region.
I think this is really a non issue with battery storage becoming commercialized. The 2h units we see being built now deal with the frequency control, which allows them to buy and sell power regularly through the day and provide return on capital. Which also lets you turn off NG plants, and since a 2h reserve into the evening is available, let's you uprate NG plants to Cogeneration. Of course, Storage like this works best with Solar. I think as we see Solar with short batteries grow in capacity we'll see existing NG plants uprated in this way to grow NG capacity for the night periods, while burning less gas overall by not operating inefficiently in the day to load follow and not operating overcapacity in the evening. In terms of wind in Alberta though, the simple solution is connections between Edmonton-Site C and Calgary-revelstoke. Allows you to sell power to BC and California when it's windy (less over supply on the local grid let's NG operate at raised levels constantly), while importing cheap Hydro when it's not to avoid NG plants monopolizing prices. We already have the Calgary - Edmonton connections. On the coal point, particularly in Texas where fracking to produce all the NG has such significant leakage, a critical Coal plant might actually be lower emissions - likewise in Alberta where NG is coming from fracking in the North West. It's what China has been doing since they don't have gas, you hear all about China building coal capacity but it's much more efficient than people realize. The much higher capital cost is the killer, imo, since expectations are storage will drop enough to outcompete, whereas NG has less risk of stranded assets. But I do have to point out most coal stations are not bituminous, and that is more expensive than more common Lignite. I'd also like to see large oil Sands SAGD operations move to Nuclear steam production, and through Cogeneration provide a relatively stable baseload to industry around Edmonton. And I'm very hopeful for the investment that's gone into Hydrogen in Alberta. Hydrogen might be an excellent way to adsorb solar and particularly wind surpluses. If cheap hydrogen can be produced, then you can upgrade any carbon feedstock into synthetic NG. It won't matter if it's from coal, or ideally, bitumen, adding Hydrogen can get you all the petrochemicals and light fuel you need without methane emissions from Fracking. I think the best possible outcome would be an upgrader in BC at the end of Transmountain able to produce oil to order specifications to sell to a premium to refineries who need it to balance other blends bought on the market.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s a shame more people have not listened to this.
The data center/Ai growth should be something Canada is trying to pull, and very specifically Labrador. Labrador is drastically oversupplies with electricity, to the point lack of demand is actually pushing consumer prices up. Its obviously freezing half the year. The intercontental line between europe and North America runs through Newfoundland, allowing ease "access to market".
And it has very little in the way of economic opportunity. Newfoundland at the same time gets over a thrid of its entire GDP from oil. Newfoundland should be building itself into a hub of tech.
missing in this discussion is the price of oil and alberta's budget surplus vs deficit. oct. 24, smith said the next projected surplus of $367mil was dependent on $74 wti. trump's goal for oil is $50. does this mean smith will cut budget in a growing population, go into debt, raise taxes?
We have a lot of very negative head winds. A blanket Tariff of 10% on oil exports is bad on its own. Trump bringing Russia back into the global market will flood Europe and cut Brent prices (also fertilizer, minerals, lumber, gold, diamonds, nuclear power projects, really everything we do but make car parts, which the tariffs are going to kill anyway), the Saudis appear to be maneuvering toward low prices, and with China about to enter a depression oil demand will collapses.
My biggest fear, not just for Alberta but Canada, is Fort McMurray shutting down and Transmountain being reversed to import light oil for Alberta's refineries.
Would like to hear about the capacity of the electrical connections in Alberta (to BC, Montana, Idaho). In Texas, there is practically no connections as Texas is its own grid. Being able to pull from other areas would be a good grid stabilizer.
Something I think needs to be discussed in Canadian politics is the sale of The Wheat Board to the Saudis.
Who supports oil in Alberta? Everyone, but most importantly the Conservatives. Who makes up the conservative base? Largely farmers.
Canada, a major competitor to the the Saudis, allowed the Saudis a near monopsony on the sector of our economy which, through politics, arguably has the most influence on our oil industry.
We need to remember the Steven Harper caused the failure and sale of the wheat board.
@@Appolo-s2ewe must remember most farmers in Alberta wanted the Wheat Board gone
@@wesswainson254 I will still argue that turning it into a co-op farmers could opt into, which also buys and sells on an open market, would have been a far preferable option. Selling it to the Saudis for a bigger cash deal was a mistake imo. It also killed any shipping out of Churchill right as we start to discuss opening the Arctic ocean.
@ we had the Wheat Pools and UGG and they couldn’t compete. Markets have been better for grain farmers since the demise of the CWB. You can argue all you want but nearly no one will hear you.
@@wesswainson254 the only reason they came to an end was Saskatchewan over paying, no? Plus global wheat prices have been higher since 2010 overall, so that's a confounding factor
The money is driving this. If you have the option to select 100% green power plan from your provider, do it. It pushes the budgets to make it happen.
My biggest fear is that the combination of Trumps Tariffs, lower global demand from Chinas EV push+ economic slow, a return of Russian oil, and a Saudi price war will will plument prices.
Alberta will be exporting Bitumen for decades. The Midwest US is built around it. But if the price we're getting is only $30 a barrel, you get no investment, no tax revenue, no good employment.
The bigger problem is Fort Mac. Refineries in Alberta can't use Bitumen. So, we upgrade bitumen into lighter SynCrude. Almost all the oil converted to Syncrude comes froma strip mining operation around Fort Mac. And between the mining operations and the upgraders, this is some of the most expensive oil in the world, maybe the most expensive barrel being produced.
And unfortunately this is where all the high paying blue collar jobs are. I'm deeply worried about cheap light oil replacing syncrude. A lot of syncrude goes to Ontario and Quebec via US pipelines. But beyond that, oil could move North from Dakota, and my worst fear is a reversal of Transmountain to bring cheap over see light crude to Alberta.
If the mining operations shut down, we'll have 10s of thousands of high paying blue collar jobs disappear in Alberta, all centered on Fort McMurray. All going on EI, at the same time as Provincial revenues are being slashed and collapsing Exports are making the CAD plumet.
And that will be a national issue. Port cities will struggle with falling imports. Our stock market will collapse if SynCrude (the company) and Suncor write of reserves. CN rail has almost a third of its cargo related to O&G.
We desperately and urgently need to diversify our economy. Im worried next year is the point of collapse and Mining will come on line at reduced capacities after defered spring maintenance. We have a regional economy that nearly disappeared during Covid, thats going to drive a provincial depression and national recession if we aren't very skillful with our trade policy over the next few months.
This is a big concern for Alberta and Canada. The UCP has literally has their heads in the sand. Their recent party review meeting, they all voted unanimously that that CO₂ was an essential nutrient! They also proclaimed that CO₂ was at alltime lows which is total BS as it's at all time *high* in millions of years. They also said that we need to pump _more_ CO₂ into the environment! This was an official party vote too! They're making Alberta look like a bunch of uneducated hicks to the entire world.
"...depression and national recession if we aren't very skillful with our trade policy..." - Yes, socialism creates economic disaster. Capitalism creates prosperity. The explanation has been put in hundreds of books by The Austrian Economic School, while no economic defense of controlled markets is possible. You must choose the free market, the uncontrolled (unregulated) decisions based on the right to own property OR interference based on the deadly threats by politicians with uncontrolled and secret interests. The less of that immoral politics, the better for humanity. See the historical evidence if you can't follow the economic theory.
@1voluntaryist Austrian economics is like Christian rock, lots of good concepts in there, but if you have to use the label you probably aren't any good at communicating them.
But I've no idea why you're bringing this up, socialism isn't when another country puts tariffs on you lol.
Yes lets sell our souls for oil
Fascinating reportage, thank you!
Clean energy starts with a large carbon footprint and the end result winds up in the landfills.
Alberta might as well invest in buggies and whips, seeing as they fail to see a future that involves weaning off of oil.
The only ones who see a future without oil and gas is the Liberals in Canada and the climate alarmists. You go to Africa and tell them sorry we know your just getting going and all and no longer cooking with dung but the future says no oil or gas. Enjoy whatever you have 😂. We can adjust and move forward with technology and for the most part afford it but developing countries can not.
The issue isn't failing to see weaning off oil, imo, it's failing to see declining prices. I know that sounds similar, but I'd compare it to the rust belt. The world still needs iron, but you can't run an economy around it.
Imo, Alberta needs to push investment into
Carbon Fiber produced from Bitumen to create an alternative demand
Geothermal, to make use of Drilling and Geological fluid transportation expertise, and to leverage existing equipment.
Carbon Capture, which I think is a very limited applicability, but I think Canada is the best in the world at it and nursing the technology now if properly leveraged could put us in a Global position.
A new way to move oil. I'd settle for a Keystone XL to the US Gulf, which is probably going to happen now, but what I would really like is an Eagle Spirit type pipeline connecting to North BC with a connected series of refineries to diversify our product and market, or else something like bitumen pucks that can easily be shipped by rail and treated like coal.
Canada needs a transCanada transmission line to share 10,000 MW of low cost wind, solar PV, hydro etc back and forth among our provinces together with distributed grid batteries...especially now that oil prices and oil revenue is falling. Wind in Alberta is powering 30% of the grid right now.
Honestly, nothing that large scale is needed. We just need to Connect
Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke, and both cities to each other, so that Alberta can access cheap hydro when the wind doesn't blow and BC can buy cheap renewables when it does.
Same with the East coast, we just need to match wind with Quebec and Newfoundland hydro. Honestly the biggest thing is somehow getting Quebec to give a fair deal to Newfoundland. (We should also be pushing investment for data processing centers into Labrador like nobodies business).
That mostly just leaves Toronto, where I think the answer is Nuclear, but a Bipole line from Northern Manitoba and/or a connection to Quebec could work, it's an extreme distance either way.
The last thing is Saskatchewan, who really love their coal power plant, and honestly I'm okay with letting them keep it for a bit it's such a tiny blip in the picture. I'd say ideally they get connected to Manitoba eventually to do the same wind for Hydro Trade as Albert/BC, but it's much greater distances for much smaller markets. But, it would allow them, potentially, to sell solar power to Ontario through Manitobas hydro lines, particularly solar in the evening while Saskatchewan still has sun for an hour or two.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 Sign me up for that plan.
Alberta and Texas have differing approaches to "clean energy" because their politicians have different motives . When politicians are excluded from controlling other people's property, the most efficient usage will be quickly found. Why? It won't be based on short-term, destructive, hidden agendas of politicians/crony interests. But, less control does NOT mean freedom, rights. It only means less disruption, less corruption, less economic failure. A totally freed up market would generate extreme wealth, undreamed of by advocates of socialism. So, what do you want, perpetual broken political promises or Capitalist prosperity? It's your choice to "live & let live" or ask others to force everyone to obey their dictates. Think carefully. It's your life but you can give it to others and trust them not to sacrifice it for their own benefit.
@@1voluntaryist have you ever read Klondike? Great book imo. It's in no way a book on economics, but I think it's a great historical lesson.
I don't generally support regulation outside of environmental, sometimes labour. I largely agree with the comments on economic growth, situations like the Klondike Gold Rush not withstanding.
But I support the government collecting resource and land rents, and I don't have an issue with government owned entities or supported Co-ops operating in a free market and believe it's a net benefit.
Success of ‘green’ energy is mostly delusional. Trains ARE the future, (if there is one)
Canada don’t deserve Alberta branch of as American with vote poll
Propaganda
It's not the percentage of wild AC the public power grid is having to support from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity that is substantially important, but its fuel savings, which is little to non. In the US the advertised fuel savings for supporting the wild AC from wind turbine and solar voltaic generated electricity by the electric utility grid is 1% each. That number is likely rounded up significantly.
Texas lacks high quality coal, but has internally produced natural gas in great qualities. State politicians want to favor resources from their own state even when they cost substantially more.
To have a wind turbine generator farm behave as a scheduled power station it typically has to be backed up instantly 100% with natural gas turbine generators running at high availability 70% fuel consumption making little electricity and unable to effectively use a second steam cycle made from the hot exhaust that adds 50% higher efficiency.
A natural gas combined cycle plant might actually use the same amount of natural gas making all the electricity able to run the gas turbines at high efficiency 85% output and able to make full use of steam cycle adding 50% more efficient.
Electric utilities prefer natural gas over coal because natural gas is easy. As long as people are OK with paying three times the fueling costs for natural gas over a new modern ultra supercritical clean coal plant burning high BTU bituminous coal, they are fine with using natural gas.
It is scientifically impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. Before Al Gore became US vise president in 1992 earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect was taught in US public education. All the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth is completely absorbed in earth's water vapor saturated greenhouse effect by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface adding 5.55°C (10°F) to earth’s average temperature. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into to each other.
The Arctic region is warming the rest of the world is not. Global warming mysteriously pause at about 1°C in 1992. In 2022 global warming was officially reported at 1.06°C. The cause of global warming is not known in 2024 despite decades of scientific studies. Arctic warming is proving to be from warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating more frequently and deeper into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. The warmer Arctic Ocean is causing a few less weeks of reflective snow and ice cover creating more solar heat gain to the region.
I think this is really a non issue with battery storage becoming commercialized. The 2h units we see being built now deal with the frequency control, which allows them to buy and sell power regularly through the day and provide return on capital. Which also lets you turn off NG plants, and since a 2h reserve into the evening is available, let's you uprate NG plants to Cogeneration. Of course, Storage like this works best with Solar. I think as we see Solar with short batteries grow in capacity we'll see existing NG plants uprated in this way to grow NG capacity for the night periods, while burning less gas overall by not operating inefficiently in the day to load follow and not operating overcapacity in the evening.
In terms of wind in Alberta though, the simple solution is connections between Edmonton-Site C and Calgary-revelstoke. Allows you to sell power to BC and California when it's windy (less over supply on the local grid let's NG operate at raised levels constantly), while importing cheap Hydro when it's not to avoid NG plants monopolizing prices. We already have the Calgary - Edmonton connections.
On the coal point, particularly in Texas where fracking to produce all the NG has such significant leakage, a critical Coal plant might actually be lower emissions - likewise in Alberta where NG is coming from fracking in the North West. It's what China has been doing since they don't have gas, you hear all about China building coal capacity but it's much more efficient than people realize. The much higher capital cost is the killer, imo, since expectations are storage will drop enough to outcompete, whereas NG has less risk of stranded assets. But I do have to point out most coal stations are not bituminous, and that is more expensive than more common Lignite.
I'd also like to see large oil Sands SAGD operations move to Nuclear steam production, and through Cogeneration provide a relatively stable baseload to industry around Edmonton.
And I'm very hopeful for the investment that's gone into Hydrogen in Alberta. Hydrogen might be an excellent way to adsorb solar and particularly wind surpluses. If cheap hydrogen can be produced, then you can upgrade any carbon feedstock into synthetic NG. It won't matter if it's from coal, or ideally, bitumen, adding Hydrogen can get you all the petrochemicals and light fuel you need without methane emissions from Fracking.
I think the best possible outcome would be an upgrader in BC at the end of Transmountain able to produce oil to order specifications to sell to a premium to refineries who need it to balance other blends bought on the market.