In short: Named (by the host, endorsed by him) as merely "assisting" Trans Mountain on the West Coast pipeline — "very non-committal… we could walk away at any time," which Waterous reads as the rational response to a project whose economics only work with the federal balance sheet behind them. Structural reference, not a stance.
16:16— So that's interesting, because you're right, the proposal is essentially the proponent is Trans Mountain which is a crown corporation, and then Pembina is going to be assisting, but they're very "we could walk away at any time" and they're very non-committal about the whole thing. I think because of scars in the industry of how much these companies have poured in. But it sounds like you're saying this is a deliberate feature not a bug.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.