Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Energi Media" channel.

  1. The fact that the US clearly needs Canadian industry and is acting aggressively should not be seen as some confusing point but as clear evidence that he is serious about annex as a goal.
    29
  2. Firstly; obviously not. Secondly; this isn't what we have to worry about. We have to worry about Alberta being coaxed into a separation vote, and then joining as a state or territory; and Saskatchewan following. BC would be left entirely isolated, our population would be immediately dramatically older and our economy weaker.
    19
  3. I wouldn't support using the Emergencies Measures Act. But this is an Emergency. The US will crush Alberta's economy. And then offer statehood as a solution. There is already strong Anti-Canadian sentiment in Alberta. If we do not meet thier demands, no matter how economically unsound you believe them to be, we will lose Alberta.
    12
  4. I guess that depends on how democratic you feel the US is these days.
    11
  5. But heres the thing; she's right. She still polls well in Alberta. She is representative of her base. Yes, Quebec has tried to Seperate. The US wasn't actively trying to annex Quebec at the time. If we ignore this as just being those annoying Albertans, they are going to end up Seperating. Smith is a consequence of Albertan anger at Canada, not the source. We need to meet Albertan demands to avoid our nation being split in half.
    11
  6. Nova Scotia exports 2/3rds of the refined petroleum products it produces. To say it's exporting money is ignoring that it buys most of that oil to resell after adding value. But sure I'll happily agree it would be better getting domestic SynCrude. And you imply NS is dependent of foreign electricity which isn't true. Yes it imports some coal, but we could provide that; and it's only because of delays in connections to the rest of the country.
    8
  7. Toronto should be investing in "E-Highways" as we see in Germany to allow Diesel trucks to run electrically over high demand sections of road, and with that infrastructure, allow EV trucking with much smaller batteries because they are able to recharge while operating. Montreal and Ottawa should as well, and then with some electrification along the 401, you create a regional network.
    8
  8. If you can picture this 4X more valuable economy, with Alberta presumably producing a million barrels worth of Carbon fiber, to make a dent, WHY CAN YOU NOT IMAGINE IT BEING PRODUCED IN BC? Please explain, why can't we build a pipeline to the BC coast, and then build Carbon Fiber production there, with immediate coastal access for export? What part of being able to add value to bitumen prohibits it's movement by pipeline?
    7
  9. One area of significant methane leakage is the pump stations on pipelines. These should be widely electrified.
    7
  10.  @jhornett  counter point, LNG in Florida definitely came from the Permian, which means it was fracked with considerable Methane leakage.
    6
  11. In terms of Agriculture, and really it's aquaculture, we should be building a Kelp industry. That kelp could be carbon feed stock, animal feed, fertilizer, or chemical input. It would revitalize our coastal waters by adsorpting the nutrients we flush down the st. Lawrence, low acidity, raise oxygen, and increase fish breeding space.
    6
  12. There will be an energy criss when the Americans close line 5
    6
  13. Really hoping now that this hits you stop being so dogheadidly against pipelines Mark. It would be great to have an east coast line before the Americans shut down line 5 and a West coast pipeline for a few 10s of billions to salvage the 100s of billions in Oil sands investment accessing a trillion dollars worth of resources before the US uses the economic depression to boost Albertan Seperatism and cut our country in half..
    5
  14. The most crucial part of preventing it happening is keeping Alberta happily in Confederation. We need to build them pipelines. The cost really is not the point. We give Quebec nearly $20 billion a year to stay in the country, we can build a few pipelines.
    5
  15.  @expfcwintergreenv2.02  on what basis. Do you not see the US is trying to get it? What do you think Annex Canada means? You think Trump likes French people?
    5
  16. How can you cover America threatening to invade and then argue against a pipeline in the same video? CP rail was built at a loss, to keep BC. Sometimes we build infrastructure because Provinces are demanding it to be in the country. We have domestic Electricity - an entire red herring.
    5
  17.  @MisterDaryn  actually, here I disagree with you. A pipeline to the west coast is far better if the goal is market access. The reason we need an East coast pipeline is national security. Right now we rely on Pipelines flowing through the US, which Michigan has been trying to close for years. We need an entirely domestic connection. The only way that an east coast pipeline is a money making venture is if we can get Europe to pay for it or sign a long term purchase contract.
    4
  18. @gledatelj1979  1) Canada doesn't have rulers. 2) what on earth are you referring to
    4
  19. @billestew7535  it may not be that strong today. A year into a national depression where Alberta is hardest hit, with Trump welling them they would be rich on Fox News, it will be far wider. We need to get ahead of this.
    4
  20. That only further hurts the investment in EVs that we can't afford to lose. I'd do a 1 year removal for fleet purchase.
    4
  21. I think everyone agrees the Emergency Act should not be used for this. But i Think almost everyone agrees we should be building new pipelines so Alberta is at least as dependent on Canada as it is the US. And the people who don't are probably being convinced by your oneside arguments. Ei; still quoting a pipeline built over covid as a relevant price, ignoring that Ontario's entire oil supply is reliant on the US not closing a pipeline, the economic cost of a collapse in oil prices, etc
    4
  22. Smith's competence isn't a measure of how well she achieves what you think she should do, its a measure of how well she achieves what she wants done. Its very dangerous to assume a lack of competence from someone doing a very good job at supporting her industry and pushing anti Canadian sentiment
    4
  23. You can see in that first graph where Line 9 was reversed in 2014, allowong Quebec to access upgrader Alberta Syncrude and Bakkan shale oil, pushing down overseas imports, overall imports, and pushing up US imports. Unfortunately for the same reason, today Ontario is 100% reliant on oil coming from pipelines that run through the US. So until this is reversed again, ending Eastern Canada's access to Western Canadian crude, and cutting back Alberta's market, and significantly the market for the Upgraders, any talk of holding back oil from the US is impossible. While Quebec could still access seaborne crude, and supply Ottawa as it already does, the remainder of Ontario, significantly the Golden Horseshoe, could find itself entirely cut off from any oil not provided by rail. At least unless/until we have an east west pipeline..
    4
  24. The east coast pipeline doesn't make direct, economic sense. But then again, neither does the TransCanada highway. The East Coast pipeline does make more sense viewed more holistically, as a matter of national security, as a way to increase the trade surplus, amd as a vector to encourage investment in Alberta, not into producing oil, but into upgrading it or flat out refining in and shipping RPPs east as they are shipped through Transmountain to Vancouver..
    4
  25. Trump first started talking about running for president in 1988 and ran for president under the Reform part in 2000. You voted wrong in 1988, dependence on the US was always dangerous. And you are wrong today to repeatedly ignore the very strong potential for Alberta to Seperate and join the US. We need to build pipelines, which will serve economic and national priorities, but most off all because we must appease Alberta before our country is cut in half.
    4
  26. It's just a bad economic layout. It is a seasonal route. It's a long shipping distance. It has absolutely no infrastructure in place. There are really no markets; Europe has no demand for bitumen, Eastern Canadian refineries have no use for it, basically this is a really complex way to ship to the US Gulf. An east coast pipeline works because it connects to eastern refineries and let's existing SynCrude production stop flowing through US pipelines freeing up capacity and increasing security..
    3
  27. There are roughly 3 million tractor trailers in registered in the US. If everything goes well, in 2026 telsa will displace something like 1.6% of that. Assuming no overall growth. I would call it progress but its certainly not revolution.
    3
  28. On the last episode you were mocking the Western Standard for calling the Emergency Measures Act the War Measures Act. That was whiplash.
    3
  29.  @ramastarchild6804  it is maddening that Canadians cannot see the obvious reality that the President talking about the 51st state is not about wanting a bunch of French Democrats
    3
  30.  @noIDwhatsoever  idk, I'm from Ontario, I have watched Markham for years, but over the last month I have been increasingly frustrated with his stance. It is becoming hard to believe he has any interest beyond closing the oil sands at all cost.
    3
  31. We own an oil pipeline company that actually just finished building an oil pipeline. With a staff of management and engineering, equipment operators, and contractors and suppliers..
    3
  32. Consider the Sturgeon Falls refinery; we can use a barrel of Bitumen to produce a barrel of Diesel or Jet fuel. OPEC can't do that, OPEC has to take a barrel of oil to make half a barrel of Gasoline, and the maybe a quarter barrel of Diesel and a tenth a barrel of Jet fuel. So what actually has the higher emissions intensity? The 10% higher production intensity in the oil sands, or the subsidizing of half a barrel of gasoline to keep it cheap enough to out compete EVs. But I also want lower emissions in the Oil sands. We should be using nuclear reactors at the major SAGD sites and the Upgraders. We should be using Green Hydrogen. The solutions to these things are to invest in the solutions, not try and shut down the industry so that OPEC can flood the market with cheap gas paid for by expensive diesel.
    3
  33.  @bobsacamano1274  do you think Alberta will stay in Canada on the hope the federal government will pay for capping wells? Do you believe that that is a line of thought the people who elect Smith will follow even loosely?
    3
  34. Are you on the con side of this hypothetical debate? Or do you agree that it is a crisis? Because if the later, maybe you should be making a reasonable argument for pipelines so that your followers/views can understand what we should be developing. Because your current approach is a receipt for division and polarization, instead of moderate compromise.
    3
  35. You don't come off as a critic, Markham, because you don't provide constructive criticism. I have never heard you say "I think a pipeline should be built to X, and bitumen at X should be used for Y". The closest you get is a Carbon fiber industry which best case scenario will have 100k bbl/d in demand in a decade. When the only usage you support is a decade away from using 2% of current output, you are arguing again an industry.
    3
  36. Why is an expansion of production a thing I should be against? But regardless, we would probably need 2M bbl/d in coastal pipelines before new production was even in discussion.
    3
  37. We agree with value added use of bitumen. But you can produce Carbon Fiber and activated Carbon and Asphalt Binder in BC. That argument has nothing to do with pipelines. Pipelines move feedstock, they don't determine what happens to it. We should also look at Sturgeon falls. We can turn a barrel of Bitumen into a barrel of diesel. That has a huge value when EVs are cutting out gasoline demand, and half a barrel of conventional oil ends up gasoline.
    3
  38. If you teach Seperation of powers in the Canadian context, I hope you focus is on how our system is designed and not thiers, and the focus is on Federal vs Provincial Jurisdiction not branches of Government
    3
  39.  @jhornett  I mean, a quick look at a 2024 S&P article says about 2% of methane produced is lost in the Permian/155 BCF. But you can find a wide range of estimates, some significantly higher. It's very hard to specifically state how much methane leaks from an area which is intentional fracked to allow gas to flow through the rock.
    2
  40. @jhornett  yes exactly. But we can confidently say LNG in Florida is among the highest emission electrical sources.
    2
  41.  @jhornett  no. My point was we can't say confidentially either way. Whereas you are normally right, an EV in the average grid will be lower emissions, a grid running on Permian LNG is arguably dirtier than coal.
    2
  42. I've emailed you in disagreement. You didn't reply with evidence Inwas wrong.
    2
  43. @michaelenman9498  you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be.
    2
  44. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI.
    2
  45. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs.
    2
  46. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think Trump, backed by Musk, cares if Ford goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada.
    2
  47. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases.
    2
  48. @michaelenman9498  Potash is one of the very few hands we could play. However, the US will retaliate to such an obvious aggressive action. They could go so far as to cut us out of SWIFT or even sanction us which will make any goal of trade diversion impossible. And Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to buy it from Russia. The 25% flat tariff they are applying is almost ambivalent toward us, if they choose to be actively harmful they have the ability. If we cut off Electricity, we also have regional markets that rely on the US. And, 3/4s of Ontario's NG comes from the US, which could be cut off or taxed leaving Southern Ontario with no Alternative for peak power generation. We could Toll the highway, but a lot of our trucking moves through the US as well. If we want international trade, we need to have commodities that can be exported internationally, and realistically that means we need to have coastal pipelines as a part of the solution. The alternative is an enormous drop in exports that took decade to develop. I'm happy to list the areas of manufacturing I would like to see policy toward. But ultimately, I have no way to say definitively what our new export strategy will look like, because it will be determined by government policy choice. I can only say what I think should be done..
    2
  49. There is no contradiction in expanding the O&G sector and developing green electricity and manufacturering like heat pumps and batteries. In fact green energy being cheap for green hydrogen to upgrade bitumen is not just diversitying it's complementary.
    2
  50.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  to be fair Alberta has put a lot into several that have been cancelled. I care less about who pays for the pipeline, particularly TransCanada should be subsidized by the Federal government. What I want to see is Alberta agreeing to save all royalties generated by oil going through the pipeline and invest it into eastern Canada, or at least non-energy infrastructure. Also a new upgrader in Alberta, and ideally to see large oil sands SAGD operations changed to using SMRs or otherwise nuclear steam, and green hydrogen used in upgrading. But it's rather a strategic necessity when we can't trust pipelines running through the US to bring our oil to Ontario..
    2
  51. A month ago you were saying we should see policy to rapidly optimize Transmountain and increase rail shipments to coast, even including the Hudson Bay. Do you still believe Carney should be pushing for this?
    2
  52.  @normabaker5837  I'm not suggesting we give her everything she wants. She is obviously unreasonable. And there is really no chance Alberta is going to vote for Carney, saying because of that it will be their fault when they face a depression isn't going to keep them in Canada. But yes, we have to build some pipelines. Even if they lose money. We need to keep the median Albertan satisfied with being the Conservative province of a more left leaning country. The average Albertan needs to feel Canada is invested in their economic interests. And clearly that means pipelines. It's literally all they ask for. Frankly, discussion around the profitability of a Pipeline is based on current prices for oil. That price could be tanking by the end of April. So the conversation around the economics could be flipped. The cost of not creating an alternative outlet is significant. It's writing off hundreds of billions of assets. But at the end of the day, we pay equalization to other provinces (I am referring to Canada, not Alberta, I am from Ontario) we can afford to risk loosing 10 billion over 20 years to make Alberta happy. Losing Alberta costs a lot more.
    2
  53. @trishm9776  idk, fox news? It really doesn't matter if they are right, it matters they can vote. We cannot let the issue of Albertan Seperatism gain momentum while a US president activity wants them to join. We can't let them fall into a recession, one which will drag us all down, over some objection to pipelines. We don't make an economic case for equalization, we do it to provide services. If we can give Quebec $20 billion this year we risk losing some money.
    2
  54. Batteries will entirely alter the energy landscale by allowing solar to deliver power into the evening and reducing the need for sand by generation for NG plants. However, NG plants will not be extinct. Batteries are not going to be built out with days of reserve power, i would be surprised to ever see more than 16 hours at the most, and i would say we are at least a decade from anything more than 4h of battery storage being common. Unless we decide to bring coal back instead, which would be practical, NG plants will be operating considerably into the future, if at lower frequencies.
    2
  55. I think Manitoba and Saskatchewan is a bit of a thing to say; but I don't really care about Saskatchewan having a coal plant. This is a lot of work for a minimal impact. Alberta and BC is a horse of a different stripe. We just need two HV lines between Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke. And suddenly you have enormous room from renewable growth.
    2
  56. @ramastarchild6804  the territories would have no ability to leave, but yes, I think it's crazy Canadians think Trump wants a bunch of French democrats living on a pension to join the US. They are entirely missing the issue.
    2
  57.  @ramastarchild6804  I think it's more likely the Atlantic provinces seperate and join together, and QC and ON limp along for a while until ON joins in a decade or two. But anyway this game isn't fun for me. I don't understand how so many people can claim they would fight with their lives for this country but draw the line at letting Saskatchewan run a coal power plant or Alberta a pipeline when these are the obvious triggers. Being annexed might be worth it if I thought Americans were any smarter.
    2
  58. @ramastarchild6804  I think it's more likely the Atlantic provinces seperate and join together, and QC and ON limp along for a while until ON joins in a decade or two. But anyway this game isn't fun for me. I don't understand how so many people can claim they would fight with their lives for this country but draw the line at letting Saskatchewan run a coal power plant or Alberta a pipeline when these are the obvious triggers. Being annexed might be worth it if I thought Americans were any smarter.
    2
  59.  @patrickburke7207  so right off the bat, 700x 100 is 70,000. Not 700,000. So let's make that 70 trains. I'm not sure where you came up with 2000 tankers. I also am not going to back check your price, but again it should actually be $6 billion. Assuming a train moved an average of 50/km an hour, which is maybe high for a freight train, and we are taking a 1000km trip over the rockies, which is a shorter than realistic route, it will take 20h to reach port. I think it's reasonable to say that makes it a day to get there, a day to get back, and there is likely a day between unloading and reloading to tag on. Again I would say this is generous. That means for 700k a day, we will actually need 210 trains, or $18 billion. And that is ignoring the fact we have an additional 70 trains running a day. Which is going to have a very notable impact on track requirements. We can imagine there is capacity, but in reality you are going to not only have to twin existing tracks to move all those trains back east, but also build entirely new track for that kind of capacity that allows a 100 car train to go buy 70 times a day, or every 20 minutes, alongside existing freight traffic on what is already a congested route. So $18 billion, which I would argue is considerably more to roughly equivalent to a new pipeline Contrary to Markham's claims, for the cars alone. Making some very optimistic assumptions, and entirely ignoring the safety issues. And also ignoring that we are using much more energy to transport this way, either diesel for the train, or electrical for pumps on a pipeline..
    2
  60.  @JohnRoss1  The question is what value added petrochemicals are we talking about. The Chemical industry in Alberta has seen lots of growth, but that is fueled by Condensate from the shale oil/NG production. Short chain hydrocarbons. Bitumen will be useful for Carbon Fiber, but not at significant quantities in even the medium term. And RRPs won't make very much selling to the US.
    2
  61. @Myart2607  they don't have to take at will. People in Canada need to wake up to the fact that from this moment onwards we are competing with the US to convince Alberta to be in our country. It's not a matter of fair or reasonable, Alberta is legally allowed to leave and depends on the US, and the US wants them, is clearly willing to use economic leverage, and is historically well known for insisting pro American politics. Complacently will cut out country in half.
    2
  62. @Myart2607  I agree we don't know. But we need to be actively engaging.
    2
  63. In terms of Agriculture, we should be looking at Pleistocene Park. We could be converting massive swaths of Tundra to grassland we can use as grazing land to take pressure of rainforests, and in doing so not only make them Carbon Sinks with the Grass, but also lock in permafrost methane by lowering soil temperatures
    2
  64. The oilsands does produce what you are calling ultraheavy sour crude, and what should more accurately be called bitumen, which is then mixed with diluent that is effectively lighter fluid tonflow as DilBit (CSW). And realistically bitumen is no more oil than natural gas is oil. Its steam/water/ice, NG is gasious, oil is a liquid, and bitumen is a solid, which is why you have to super heat heat it. However, we do have around 1 million barrels a day in upgrader capacity, that turns that bitumen into light sweet crude (CSL). Around half of that is used in Alberta, which produces the RRPs for all of western Canada (give or take), and much is exported to eastern Canada. However, some is exported south, which could be sent east given a pipeline. Additionally, most of our growth over the past few years has been conventional crude, albiet still a heavy crude. But that diluent mentioned a moment ago is shale oil from Alberta and BC, and it is light and sweet..
    2
  65. They can't increase the sales price without new pipelines. That's the whole reason for the discount. And the other reply is correct, we need to keep Alberta in Confederation or we lose everything west of Manitoba. The US is going to crash their economy and then extend statehood as a lifeline. Also, Ontario is entirely dependent on oil pipelines running through the US Michigan has been trying to close for years. We need domestic access.
    2
  66.  @nikkispark85  I'm not about to give out gold stars for it, but I agree that getting the tailing cleaned up relies on mining continuing. I agree that if they are abandoned it's going to destroy the Makenzie river.
    2
  67. You did a video two weeks ago saying Marathon was ready to switch over. Keystone brings 600k a day to the Gulf coast where we compete with international buyers, and we will adsorb that tariff as a discount or else be overpriced. The tariff immediately dropped the price of WCS. What are you talking about us having leverage. You know it isn't true. They will eat the capital loss. It was paid off years ago. You can't just handwave away the imports to eastern Canada. They can turn off oil to the GTA.
    2
  68. Yesterday we talked about the US invading, today we talked about how maybe you can nudge an opinion and danced around the idea of Alberta Seperatism. Lets put two ideas together and consider that the US government is going to be actively encouraging Albertan Seperatism if they are genuine about the very public and unequivocal claims of wanting to annex Canada. So then it becomes, are we going to convince Alberta it doesn't need oil quicker than the US can convince Alberta it doesn't need Canada. Or, we can just risk losing some money on a Pipeline to address that feeling of exclusion or oppression. It doesn't matter if you think Conservatives are wrong to feel that way. If Canada can pay $20 billion in equalization to Quebec, it can risk losing a few Billion over a decade on a pipeline to make Alberta happy..
    2
  69. @imacmill  well, I love in Southern Ontario, and I don't love the all of my oil comes through the US, and that most of it comes from Line 5 which Michigan has been trying to shut down for years, and Biden was keeping open for us, and which Trump could choice to have the EPA close tomorrow. Even though I know it would cost some money and isn't directly profitable. Sometimes infrastructure does cost money, I doubt either of us take issue with Transmission lines being subsidized, for example. But more widely as a Canadian, the US is about to collapse our exports if we are serious about fighting back. That will be expressed heavily through enormous declines in oil volume and more over price under a growing discount pushing down value. We could rapidly lose 10% of our exports via oil, alongside collapses in New Brunswick from St. John, Ontario's de industrialization, and a general commodity slump. And since Canada is a trade dependent economy, fewer exports will lower the value of the CAD value over a prolonged period, will mean inflation. And mean that Eastern Canada is exporting Capital for a good we domestically. And on top of all that will probably see a million+ immigrants going home alongside a general Property Market and Financial crash, between bank exposure to oil sands and housing. So I would be largely in favor of risking a financial loss on a pipeline as a hedge against a sudden drop in currency value and energy security, although I think the discount we will see in the future will more than compensate for pipeline costs, and really want to minimize the time it stays that large. And I think it's rather dishonest to quote Transmountain as a reasonable cost estimate given it was built over Covid. Because the biggest Issue is Alberta. Which will be the center of the depression. Fort Mac will be a ghost town, because the Mines will be the first thing to close and if we lost Line 5 that's almost half the market for upgraded syncrude. Weak future prospects will end the conventional drilling even though conventional output will continue at low prices from existing wells. The Government of Alberta will lose half it's revenue, a third in oil royalties alone, because the sliding royalty scale. And have an unemployment crisis of formerly very high wage blue collar workers, again alongside other provinces. And all the while Trump will be on Fox saying Alberta should join the US and they would be rich. With Pro American support already at 10% or higher. If we want to keep Alberta, we need to have more of their oil dependent on Canada than on the US, and right now 80% of their output goes through the US. The US, Trump, doesn't want Quebec. It doesn't want a bunch of democrats and retries. it wants the Conservative, oil rich province, full of young people and with a road to Alaska. That is the biggest point of issue. The Federal government pays Quebec $13 billion in equalization, it can risk losing $20 billion over 20 years to make Alberta happy. It really doesn't matter if you think it's financially or economically unsound, we need to keep Alberta. And we are already in a competition with the US for it. But also more fundamentally, I think Markham speaks in bad faith around the oil sands. Electrification and EVs will decimate demand for Gasoline, but they are having little impact on Diesel and jet fuel, or lubricants. Look at Sturgeon Falls, we can take a barrel of Bitumen and produce a barrel of Diesel. OPEC and conventional oil get like 20-30% a barrel of Diesel from a barrel of oil, and about half a barrel of Gasoline. Which means high prices for heavy RPP are going to support oil production with gasoline sold off cheap and pushing EVs out of markets. High prices we can both exploit to carve out market for value added products. And keeping heavy RPP prices lower, and thereby reducing the profit in refining, and therefore produce less gasoline to dump on the Market. Upgraders provide an excellent industrial customer for Green Hydrogen, and alongside the insitu operations, an industrial customer for SMRs. Frankly once nuclear I would like to see Gasifiers to push out the Shale fracking to the west to feeds LNG. And all that is besides that Fact that Markham perfectly agrees that non combustion uses should be developed. There is no reason not to use a pipeline to deliver bitumen to coastal BC where Carbon Fiber or Asphalt binder can be produced for global export. We can build a pipeline now, and develop industry as demand falls, not that I think it will for heavy oil. I completely agree with adding as much value as possible.
    2
  70. In terms of getting mines of Diesel, there has for many years been conversation around a Great Slave Lake grid. A lot of mining in NWT could be electrified on the east side of the lake if we could get this built. And it would allow for connection to the North of Saskatchewan. We also need to be connecting the West Hudson Bay coast to Manitoba, although idk how much mining is there
    2
  71. China is absolutely increasing domestic Oil production, by something like 10%, annually. It plans on developing its massive shale reserves. I agree with renewables and electrification, I agree China excels at both, but there is no argument to tie out hand behind our back while we adopt new technologies. China built renewables until it just recently started to need less coal, it didn't reduce coal use first.
    2
  72.  @robisverybad75  that's no more realistic than being against oil development. I swear it's like listening to people argue about whether they should eat eggs for breakfast or steak for dinner like there's some dilemma. With Canada's massive Hydro availability, we could very easily run on Wind and Hydro as our only energy source everywhere but Southern Ontario, and even that could be done. And eventually solar will be the dominant source of energy.
    2
  73. @robisverybad75  not to be semantic but, for the sake of clarity, I think you main to say Majority energy source or main energy source. Primary energy source means that it is a net positive generator of energy, vs something like a battery which requires more energy to be produced than it outputs. Solar will be a majority energy source. People think to much about Europe or North East North America. For most of the world, solar is highly reliable But I mainly agree on wind. I would say it could provide up to half a grids power, maybe even push 60%, but you'll never have a grid powered solely by Wind, even with storage.
    2
  74. Mark, you did a video like 3 days ago saying Marathon is willing to switch 300 bbls a day to Bakken light. The Gulf states could change to imports in a snap, in 2 years Keystone could be reversed. You have to stop talking about optimization of US pipelines for 600bbls a day. That's great it if happens. But we have to assume there are no pipelines at going through the states anymore. No one is against Carbon fiber or Value Added manufacturing. But the plant next year isn't taking 100 barrels a day. That's ridiculous. If we build a west coast pipeline, we can build added value manufacturing there. Why would it be cheaper to more carbon fiber? We would want to export it either way.
    2
  75. TransCanada was a terrible plan, all around. Any conversation around it exporting to Europe was as BS as it powering Canadian refineries. It was a DilBit tube, meant to get bitumen to the coast to send it to the US Gulf refineries. 2M barrels a day, with no planned upgrader capacity, could never go anywhere else, Europe can't upgrade bitumen any more than we can. It being cancelled had nothing to do with Trudeau as commonly believed, it was first and foremost because KeyStone XL was approved, making this long circuit redundant. Quebec did act to block it, but for good reason, it wasn't an oil pipeline, it was DilBit pipeline, and spills are very dangerous. The US blocked Keystone XL for the same reason. However, today we do need an East West pipeline. It must be built with complementary upgraders, to send upgraded light crude east. We cannot continue to risk Ontario's oil coming through the US, particularly when Michigan has been trying to close the pipelines for years over environmental concerns, and we have relied on the Biden administration to overrule and keep the oil flowing. It should be built in conversation with europe, who may be willing to provide financing or long term purchase agreements, to allow more upgrader and pipeline capacity to be built and diversify exports. While Europe had no reason to buy in long term in the past, they have now been stung by the Saudis, the Russians, and even the Americans, and may be willing to pay for security..
    1
  76. She isn't trying to sell them in global oil demand being strong. Trump was half elected on drill baby drill. She's trying to convince them they need Canadian heavy crude amd can't live of the shale oil lighter fluid. This isn't growing the market its keeping it.
    1
  77. People need to realize that Smith is no longer alinged to PP or Canadian Conservativism. Her goals are larger, and they are Seperatism.
    1
  78.  @WallyBraun  I don't believe that's true. Cedar LNG is getting additional support in BC, and funds for the port of Churchhill were announced, but I have not seen anything about LNG in Churchill. I can't say I support shipping crude on the great lakes, although I do support an east west pipeline. But eastern Canada does have similar capacity to western.
    1
  79.  @WallyBraun  if you are referencing something like CanPucks, I would agree this should have been a long term priority, and Alberta gets in its own way by demanding pipelines. That said, I disagree with your forecast on oil demand, in that the Bitumen we produce can be upgraded to Diesel and heavy RRPs, which are not being displaced by Renewables and EVs, unlike conventional oil where half a barrel is destined to become Gasoline, which is being displaced. Our very heavy oil is an asset in the evolving economy. I think there is a very reasonable option for an East Coast pipeline rather than risking an oil spill over 20 years of shipping on the great lakes, bringing another 500k bbl/d of refining to use domestic product, and not needing to rebuild all the existing refineries
    1
  80.  @WallyBraun  I fundamentally agree with you, but in reality Alberta innovates puts us a decade away from 100k bbl/d in carbon fiber, which would be about 2% of current output. You cheat on your example by saying all our wood products. The reality is all our oil destined for durable goods are going there. We simply produce a lot more than that. And in reality, the Alberta chemical industry is based mainly on Natural gas condensate and shale oil. Heavy oilsands crude is not used for this. There is no reason not to develop bitumen for fuel usage in the short term, and then build that Carbon Fiber production at the end of those pipelines where the durable product can be shipped globally.
    1
  81. I don't believe that is true. If it is it is a very small fraction, less than 10%. Quebec mainly used oil from Alberta or the US.
    1
  82. The Ontario refiniers run on Upgraded Oil Sands CSL. Why would Irving pay to upgrade to a heavy crude it has no access to?
    1
  83.  @MisterDaryn  yes. Any other form of infrastructure and there would be no question that public finance is relevant.
    1
  84. @bhut1571  How would that get product to Ontario? Who would you sell that to at all? If you're answer is America, that's a really bad answer.
    1
  85. @dwaynewladyka577  while I agree that a Hudson Bay pipeline is a stretch at what is feasible, and I would be against shipping DilBit in the Hudson's Bay at all, the people of Nunavut would not actually have a say in it's construction assuming the normally suggested end point of Churchhill, Manitoba. And Manitoba has allowed a number of pipelines, although the actual town of Churchhill, which relies on ecotourism, is against the project. A line to Cornwall Ontario would be much better, and failing that West Coast pipelines in general, and failing that going through the NWTs.
    1
  86. There was a St. John's refinery. It was shuttered in Covid but still technically exists. I think that's what he's referencing
    1
  87. There was a St. John's refinery. It was shuttered in Covid but still technically exists. I think that's what he's referencing
    1
  88. Almost all diluent used is sourced from Alberta or BC, there is less than 80k in US condensate used on 3M bbl dilBit. Shale oil is useless if you want anything heavier than gasoline. It's net negative on diesel. Shale and oilsands are complementary.
    1
  89. The electrical surcharge was stupid but power was not cut off. The US government is actively saying the goal is annexation through economic pressure. Idk how you can separate that from the conversation. But this is much worse than tariffs. Any trade deal better Canada and the US going forward won't seriously be trusted by investors when the president who signed the last one will turn around with 25% tariffs. This makes it basically impossible for us to have free trade in the future as it would lead to complete dominance of the Canadian market without any investment to create sales to the US. Canada has tariffs on a limited number of fields. Is it really a wonder we want to keep our staple food production domestic when our strongest trading partner may unexpectedly turn around and use trade restrictions as leverage? And frankly, the US has a long history of subsidizing agriculture, and has never actually faced any tariff on dairy imports because they have never produced and exported enough that met our health standards. Canada never stole US industry, we have become as reliant on China as you. This is a flour mill blaming the wheat farmer for not buying enough flour. We sell you inputs, we obviously can't buy all your outputs, my TV is not military equipment, my phone is not a car, and my clothing isn't software. We sell 3/4s of our exports to the US, we buy over half our capital equipment from the US. But the very problem is America no longer produces consumer goods. I'm not a fan of Trump, but when he was elected part of me was excited something was finally going to be done about China. Instead Canada faces tariffs twice as high because it's easier to steal what little manufacturing we have left than quit the addiction to cheap Chinese garbage. So you'll forgive me for not thinking these highly targeted tariffs on industrial partnerships built over decades are not a run of the mill tool to generate revenues.
    1
  90. @michaelenman9498  you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think Trump, backed by Musk, cares if Ford goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
    1
  91. @michaelenman9498  you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think Trump, backed by Musk, cares if Ford goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
    1
  92. @michaelenman9498  you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think the guy by backed by Musk cares if GM goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
    1
  93. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
    1
  94. The importer may literally be the one handing over money, but if the things they are buying are getting proportionally less expensive due to weak demand and weak currency, then it is by any meaningful metric the exporter paying the tariff.
    1
  95.  @michaelenman9498  look up a user's Guide to Restructuring the global trade system. They released a policy paper on everything they believed was wrong, how they wanted it to be, and what they would do to get there back in November. There have been very few surprises. It's not irrational at all.
    1
  96.  @Condor1970   @michaelenman9498  look up a user's Guide to Restructuring the global trade system. They released a policy paper on everything they believed was wrong, how they wanted it to be, and what they would do to get there back in November. There have been very few surprises. It's not irrational at all.
    1
  97. The pipeline companies aren't interested because us, and the US, keep using injunctions and Regulations to kill anything moving bitumen. We can ensure we don't do that, or we can upgrade and ensure its not bitumen
    1
  98. Areas of low carbon service I would like to see 1) Heat pump manufacturering, specializing in low tempature heat pumps. Particularly in Ontario, to help transition an automobile manufacturing sector that was already struggling and is now under attack. It's parts based equipment, not using any unusual chemistry, that can be built with steel and aluminium and tooling. We have a large domestic market, and can leverage that for building an industrial base to sell to Northern Europe, Northern areas in the US, and parts of South America. 2) Fully supply chain Battery production. We need to make mining possible again, but if we can do that, we can use entirely domestic supply chains and low cost electricity to be competitive in a growth sector. 3) Green Hydrogen, we have a number of projects on the East coast for export to Europe. 4) Data Servers, particularly in Labrador, where you are near the Intercontinental data cables, you have low tempatures, and excessive amounts of electricity. Aluminum we already have might also be included. That's definitely not all Canada should be doing. And I would love to see an east West oil pointline and another million barrels a day to the Pacific with an upgraded complex..
    1
  99. The tanker ban was specifically to kill Northern Gateway. I believe we should revole it to allow Northern BC to ship crude, as Asia is the economic market. However, the reason for the ban was fear of Alaskan crude cutting through Canadian waters, which was the defacto agreement, but couldn't be continued if we were shipping dilbit out. Today Alaska isn't so relevant in global oil, and even then a lot more goes across the Pacific, so its less of a concern. But still something to watch..
    1
  100. @vanhamies8512  and with the US having the farthest right government in their history and actively looking to incorporate parts of Canada it seems rather urgent we get our friends out west to tide water
    1
  101. @ChrisR-xs9wp  the 600k a day going the through the states he always brings up is worth absolutely nothing. We're about to be thrown out of the US market. Marathon will switch over and coincidentally OPEC is increasing output. So now CSW will have to be priced low enough to compete at the Gulf refineries against international crude not carrying a tariff. And if it doesn't fall by enough to make it worth using at the Gulf, we lose another 600k right away from Keystone. Which could even be reversed to move oil north. The SAGD operations can't reduce output by very much as Markham knows from Covid. Lower demand will quickly cause a rapid price drop. The government of Alberta is going to lose a third of its revenue while the CAD drops and the oilsands Mines, the main center of employment and entire basis of Fort McMurray, will shut down, which is a majority of actual oil sands blue collar high wage jobs, who will then be on EI. Alberta put billions into Keystone XL. But I'm not suggesting sharing royalies. Alberta owns the investments. That's like saying Norway gave away all the money in their Sovereign wealth fund. If we try to use oil as a weapon, they will shut down line 5 and all the upgraded oil Alberta produces that Ontario needs for their refineries. .
    1
  102.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  they put billions in to Keystone XL. I'm not asking them to share royalties. That's like suggesting Norway is giving away it's Sovereign wealth fund. I'm saying that they should invest those nationally to increase overall Canadian economic activity, reduce Dutch disease, and create stronger economic ties. They keep all the revenue generated. Frankly, the 600k bill/d Markham keeps bringing up doesn't exist. It's nonsense to think they are going to let us use their pipelines to export. They are actively trying to push us out of the market. A year ago I would have agreed but 6 months ago this kind of thinking will destroy us. I'm all for the 300k a day in Transmountain we should be increasing that this very moment, but we need alternative pathways for millions of barrels. In the short term we need to be able to replace marathon's 300k a day and the 600k a day going through Keystone. And within 2 years we will have another million blls a day gone after they reverse Keystone and start sending barges up the Mississippi. And if we try to hold back oil, or curtail to support prices, they will close down Line 5, another 400k a day gone, and completely cut Ontario off from not just Alberta's oil, which will have no alternative market, but all oil by pipeline until we can reverse Line 9, leaving Southern Ontario depending on Rail deliveries. TransCanada should have been treated as a matter of National security and a nation building project, not an economic one. I agree Alberta should have put more effort into CanaPUX and negotiating pipelines by offering capital investment instead of just expecting them built. But we're here now..
    1
  103.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  sorry but my reply keeps dropping
    1
  104.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  they put billions into Keystone XL
    1
  105.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  I am not suggesting the share revenue any more than Norway shares revenue. I'm suggesting they make investments that raise Canada's economy and increase economic connection across the country
    1
  106.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  the 600kbbl/d Markham keeps bringing up don't exist. They will never exist. The US is actively pushing us out of the market. Thinking like this will destroy our nation. We need access to Tidewater through Canada.
    1
  107.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  okay so your last point is what is causing it to drop, but those optimizations will never exist, we need to find away to get millions of barrels out of US pipelines not add more to them.
    1
  108. @ChrisR-xs9wp  okay so your last point is what is causing it to drop, but those optimizations will never exist, we need to find away to get millions of barrels out of US pipelines not add more to them
    1
  109. @ChrisR-xs9wp  who cares? I didn't say it was?
    1
  110. @homerbeer943  I agree entirely with the way being a petrostate has destroyed our productivity. But we have political factors at play. We need to appease the Albertans or the US will offer to. And more importantly, the economic conditions have changed. Markham is frankly not accepting that and wrong. He knows Marathon is ready to switch crudes. He knows from 2018 and Covid that we can't greatly reduce production and that our oil prices have to be low enough to be worth sending to the US Gulf coast and compete against non tariffed oil, or else we lose KeyStone flows, and with marathon that's a million barrels a day. He knows Michigan has been trying to close Line 5 to Ontario for years, another 400k and the ability to hold Ontario hostage. He seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them and that we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, shut down because they are the highest cost barrel and don't need to be operational. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist. And it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific. The only people this is good for is those seperatists, who will drive pro-american sentiment.
    1
  111. @homerbeer943  I agree entirely with the way being a petrostate has destroyed our productivity. But we have political factors at play. We need to appease the Albertans or the US will offer to. And more importantly, the economic conditions have changed. Markham is frankly not accepting that and wrong. He knows Marathon is ready to switch crudes. He knows from 2018 and Covid that we can't greatly reduce production and that our oil prices have to be low enough to be worth sending to the US Gulf coast and compete against non tariffed oil, or else we lose KeyStone flows, and with marathon that's a million barrels a day. He knows Michigan has been trying to close Line 5 to Ontario for years, which would lose another 400k and leave Ontario in a crisis. He seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them and that we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, shut down because they are the highest cost barrel and don't need to be operational. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist. And it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific. The only people this is good for is those seperatists, who will drive pro-american sentiment.
    1
  112.  @homerbeer943  idk why I'm not allowed to reply
    1
  113. @homerbeer943  I agree entirely with the way being a petrostate has destroyed our productivity.
    1
  114. @homerbeer943  We have political factors at play. We need to appease the Albertans or the US will offer to. And more importantly, the economic conditions have changed. Markham is frankly not accepting that and wrong. He knows Marathon is ready to switch crudes. He knows from 2018 and Covid that we can't greatly reduce production and that our oil prices have to be low enough to be worth sending to the US Gulf coast and compete against non tariffed oil, or else we lose KeyStone flows, and with marathon that's a million barrels a day. He knows Michigan has been trying to close Line 5 to Ontario for years.
    1
  115. @homerbeer943  . He seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them and that we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, shut down because they are the highest cost barrel and don't need to be operational. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist. And it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific.
    1
  116. The only people this is good for is Alberta Seperatists looking to join the US
    1
  117. this is what keeps failing Markham seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist.
    1
  118. we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, be closed as the highest cost barrel. it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific.
    1
  119. @jaysmoke3132  I mean, it's largely Alberta, and less so Saskatchewan, that benefit. No one else is getting a third their provinces revenue paid for. There is a very strong argument that the $100+ barrels and high exports of the 2000s destroyed a lot of eastern Canada's manufacturing by pushing up the CAD. The TransCanada pipeline originally pushed would have been a bad deal for eastern Canada, although I have always supported and East West link to end Ontario's dependence on Line 5.
    1
  120.  @Sailorlady1  I mean it could be an unincorporated territory. I'm sure some in Alberta would be happy with that, as it would mean no federal taxes. On the other hand, it means they have no federal representation or constitutional protections. I don't think the US would take issue with either.
    1
  121. I disagree with you but I like your turn of phrase
    1
  122. This will only add to the discount.
    1
  123. Realistically, how. NATO has already effectively abandoned us, it's now just European defense. Ukraine went to war with Russia with the highest reserves of air defense equipment in Europe. We can't even see an F-22. Russia was a paper tiger of corruption and rusted out equipment relying on a conscript army that went to war without the Conscripts. America is not. The political trigger of building a military is far more likely to get us invaded than to protect us. We need avoid giving the US the excuse of Alberta Seperatism, which will be the actual goal.
    1
  124. I don't mean this rudely, but your Fantasy is in a few points 1) Canada has no military stockpiles 2) The US would have unrivaled air dominance 3) NATO has or will abandon us 4)The portion of Gun owners is going to scew heavily to the people who actually want to join the US 5) The US will use the CIA to create large scale Seperatists movements before tanks roll in
    1
  125. You clearly make a point of Bitumen being different from oil. But then when you talk about the future of demand, suddenly its oil demand. EVs are decimating gasoline demand. No doubt. Driven by China, it is happening and won't stop. And half a barrel of oil is unavoidably gasoline. More from shale oil. But Bitumen IS NOT OIL. You can turn a barrel of Bitumen 100% into diesel. Or jet fuel. Or lubricant. EVs aren't impacting this. We can have the oilsands not only thrive, but keep heavy RPP prices lower globally so that OPEC isn't dumping cheap gasoline.
    1
  126. You have to be totally ignorant of the fact Elon Musk, famously owner of Tesla, is guiding policy, and just killed all his domestic competitors. He'll probably end up buying at least one of them.
    1
  127. The St. Johns Refinery in NFL was shut down to be turned into a Biodiesel plant. However, since Biden cut us out of Inflation Reduction Act Biofuel tax credits, I have heard nothing about that moving forward. We also lost a Biodiesel refinery in the west..
    1
  128. @johncanadianfirst  Jesus this has nothing to do with Economics. What is the economic cost of Alberta separating? Do you really think you are going to convince Alberta that its best choice is to give up on Oil with Trump on Fox every night saying how rich they would be if they joined the US and could sell oil tariff free? The leader of the world's economy is actively telling them to join the US. Abacus polling says 20% of conservatives want to join the US. IPSOS says 40% of young people want to. What is the youngest, most conservative province? If we lose Alberta, Saskatchewan follows. BC can't survive as an island surrounded by the US. This is so obstinate. Who cares if we lose some money on a pipeline. We're about to lose the country over some pipelines and a coal power plant in Saskatchewan. You understand they are legally entitled to leave, right?
    1
  129.  @trishm9776  who knows and who cares. They obviously do. A whole bunch obviously watch Fox. And they will only believe it more if we crash their economy over a trade war with their main trading partner and refuse to build the infrastructure that would salvage it.
    1
  130.  @ryuuguu01  I am sure BC and Alberta could trade power. I believe they should. But clearly a third of their government revenue isn't going to come from renewable energy royalties. Rebuilding their power grid obviously isn't enough to sustain an economy. And even if it could do all of that. Do you think Alberta is going to wait patiently with a ruined economy to slowly rebuild while Trump is telling them all they have to do is vote yes to Seperatism to get it all back, and share none of the revenue with equalization? It doesn't even matter if it's not true. Be honest with yourself. How will Alberta vote. And after that Saskatchewan. This has nothing to do with Economics. If we can give $20 billion to Quebec every year, we can build some pipelines to lift the price of oil and steel.
    1
  131.  @trishm9776  idk, fox news? It really doesn't matter if they are right, it matters they can vote. We cannot let the issue of Albertan Seperatism gain momentum while a US president activity wants them to join. We can't let them fall into a recession, one which will drag us all down, over some objection to pipelines. We don't make an economic case for equalization, we do it to provide services. If we can give Quebec $20 billion this year we risk losing some money.
    1
  132.  @ryuuguu01  Connecting Alberta to Manitoba would be a far greater waste of time and money than a pipeline. But yes connecting Alberta and BC would be great; but clearly it's not going to provide the revenue to fund a third of the government or anything approaching the scope of the oil industry in employment. Like 10% of Alberta's oil is used in Alberta, including what they export to BC. Renewables in Alberta aren't going to power the entire US Midwest and Rocky mountains.
    1
  133. @ryuuguu01  Connecting Alberta to Manitoba would be a far greater waste of time and money than a pipeline. But yes connecting Alberta and BC would be great; but clearly it's not going to provide the revenue to fund a third of the government or anything approaching the scope of the oil industry in employment. Like 10% of Alberta's oil is used in Alberta, including what they export to BC. Renewables in Alberta aren't going to power the entire US Midwest and Rocky mountains.
    1
  134. @dwaynewladyka577  I have never claimed Alberta sends money directly. I am not from Alberta. I am saying the government of Canada sends 10s of billions to Quebec. And yet for some reason we are quibbling over maybe losing $10 billion over 20 years on a pipeline that Alberta will riot over not getting if the US cuts us from their market.
    1
  135. not today. But be serious. Do you think Trump has morals? What will happen when he cuts back oil flows and pushes Alberta into recession. When he's on Fox every night saying that Alberta would be rich again if they just Separate. When he has a three letter agency encouraging Separatism and funding Separatist groups. I am not worried about tomorrow. I am worried about 3 years into a trade war. You can't build a pipeline tomorrow. If we start now, we can cut off the issue in 3 years.
    1
  136.  @gregallard2317  cool comeback bro. What lie?
    1
  137.  @canada957  not today. But be serious. Do you think Orange man has morals? What will happen when he cuts back oil flows and pushes Alberta into recession. When he's on Fox every night saying that Alberta would be rich again if they just Separate. When he has a three letter agency encouraging Separatism and funding Separatist groups. I am not worried about tomorrow. I am worried about 3 years into a trade war. You can't build a pipeline tomorrow. If we start now, we can cut off the issue in 3 years.
    1
  138. @dwaynewladyka577  I said we give Quebec $20 billion. We as in Canadians, since I am Canadian, and am not from nor live in Alberta. Again the point being the Federal government is willing to give away large sums without fear of there not being a return. I don't understand why the spectre of potential unprofitablity is some deal breaker to appeasing another province, when we regularly build infrastructure not expecting any direct return at all.
    1
  139. I said we give $20 billion. We as in Canadians, since I am Canadian, and am not from nor live in Alberta. Again the point being the Federal government is willing to give away large sums without free of there not being a return. I don't understand why the spectre of potential unprofitablity is some deal breaker to appeasing another province, when we regularly build infrastructure not expecting any direct return at all.
    1
  140. Gregalard, what lies? This is a real risk. We need to keep Alberta happy with being in Canada.
    1
  141. Our market is shrinking. US tariffs on oil will be and are being adsorbed as discounts. I believe there is a very real chance the Americans reverse Keystone, which will take 2M barrels a day off the market. We have hundreds of billions in capital and a trillion in the ground at risk of being written off, decimating our banking system and the Albertan economy, within as little as two years. Thats why we build. If we wait for our oil price to collapse, and the discount on Canadian oil to justify a pipeline, we wait for a national recession we could avoid by risking the potential loss of less money than Quebec will receive in equalization (I am from/in Ontario, Albertan's don't know this but it is actually I who pay for Quebec, although I don't mine mon amie, I use this number only for scale of what we spend without fear of unprofitablity). And that loss is of course adsorbed over 20 years..
    1
  142. Okay Markham, we both agree the Emergency Act and unilateral forcing of a pipeline through isn't the way to go. Perhaps your next episode should be about how you would like pipelines to be developed? And the oilsands at large? Because we've had a million barrels a day in oil exports drop off over the last 2 weeks, and yes it's spring maintenance, but this is a particular large drop, amd clearly the industry is facing a potential disaster that your guest yesterday said would cost 100s of thousands of jobs.
    1
  143. Even in the 2020s we were importing Russian RRPs via Quebec, albiet nothing to cry about. Must be nice sittting in Vancouver Island where you can assume Trump loves democracy and rule of law wothout gambling your oil access on it.
    1
  144.  @AntonPNym  both sounds good to me
    1
  145.  @teresajurkiewicz8789  ya this is the real answer. If anyone was unclear mine is a joke.
    1
  146. @teresajurkiewicz8789  I'd say they are more likely to close Line 5, however, and turn off the oil to the GTA in response.
    1
  147. @AprilSun-yk3yj  I really don't think people are appreciating how the sentiment will evolve under a National depression where Alberta is the Focal point, with the US using all their resources to convince the people of Alberta to leave Canada and become a state.
    1
  148. @oldpossum57  unlike BC or Quebec, all land in Alberta was legally acquired through treaties. And again, this isn't a question of if Alberta could; the clarity act already exists, we know provinces already have the ability. I'm sure there would be negotiations with the nations, it would be interesting what that entails, but your nuts if you think the people of Alberta or US federal administration are going to let something like first Nations rights get in the way of what they want.
    1
  149. @oldpossum57  I'm sorry but the more I have though of this the more insane it seems that you can see the President of the US questioning the legitimacy of Canada, the second largest country by area in the world with nearly 40 million people, and believe it's impossible because of first Nations land claims.
    1
  150. If you actually believe that Added Value non-combustable uses are the future of Bitumen, then why would you have any issue with pipelines? You can produce Carbon Fiber in BC on the coast. Are you against water pipes? Pipelines moving CO2 or Hydrogen? Either you are using this as a fake argument to block oil sands development, or you really haven't thought about it at all.
    1
  151. In terms of "electrifying" the oil sands, we should be leveraging the enormous demand for hydrogen at the upgraders for green hydrogen development. For the actual extraction of Bitumen, and least insitu like SAGD, I have seen either using dilutant pumped into the reservoir to make it flow or the Microwave technology you reference. Personally, I am strongly preferential to not electrifying and just using SMRs or even larger Nuclear reactors to generate steam instead of NG. This also provides a baseload power generation from coproduction.
    1
  152.  @georgedavidson7986  this is one of the few things we could do within reason that would hurt their industry. We should also mandate a level of SynCrude being mixed into DilBit to keep up demand for the Mines and Upgraders, and displace some dilutent to end the imports of condensate as well. We should also pay to subsidize rail shipments of Upgraded SynCrude or shale oil to Irving. It will reduce imports from the Bakken/Utica and reduce prices for an already declining basin, and increase demand for the upgraders. but more importantly we will want to have those tanker cars in the country if the US ever tried to shut down Line 5 so we can supply Ontario, until Line 9 can be reversed again or a domestic option occurs..
    1
  153. EVs will be the greatest take down of Gasoline, and have some impact on other areas. But for the most part they have not and are not expected to impact diesel or jet fuel demand. Lubricants are still required for many uses, including Wind Turbines. All that to say that, a barrel of oil, which ends up being processed into half a barrel of Gasoline, will inevitably still be produced and the half a barrel of Gasoline sold at a loss to get rid of it and keep selling those other fuels. Or, we could invest in the Oilsands, since a barrel of Bitumen can be turned entirely into Diesel or Jet fuel, as we commercialized at Sturgeon falls. And then we could push out OPEC and keep those cheap barrels of gasoline off the market, increasing the competitive position of EVs. And producing that lubricant for wind turbines.
    1
  154.  @SteveMenardDesignDXM  I disagree, I think a combination of economic leverage and subversive activity to encourage Albertan Seperatism provides a much stronger legal context and delivers the majority of the benefits. Saskatchewan would likely follow.
    1
  155.  @albertaEd  well there is nothing inherently illegal about saying you want another country to join yours. I agree economic pressure will impact all of Canada, but Alberta is by far the most exposed, and has the strongest base of Pro American support. That makes BC untenable and encourages Sask to follow. I don't think they particularly want the French democrats they want the oil rich Republicans.
    1
  156. @edgarroste7855  well there is nothing inherently illegal about saying you want another country to join yours. I agree economic pressure will impact all of Canada, but Alberta is by far the most exposed, and has the strongest base of Pro American support. That makes BC untenable and encourages Sask to follow. I don't think they particularly want the French democrats they want the oil rich Republicans.
    1
  157. well there is nothing inherently illegal about saying you want another country to join yours. I agree economic pressure will impact all of Canada, but Alberta is by far the most exposed, and has the strongest base of Pro American support. That makes BC untenable and encourages Sask to follow. I don't think they particularly want the French democrats they want the oil rich Republicans.
    1
  158. @Myart2607  why don't you think it will happen. Why would the US, whose government is actively suggesting annexation through economic coercion, not attempt to take the demographically young, politically conservative, oil rich province most dependent on their trade, with an already active Seperatist movement?
    1
  159. @Myart2607  why don't you think it will happen. Why would the US, whose government is actively suggesting annexation through economic coercion, not attempt to take the demographically young, politically conservative, oil rich province most dependant on their trade.
    1
  160. @Myart2607  idk I follow your point
    1
  161.  @jasonhoy5402  in what regard? A military base along the coast would have kilometers of sight line. Who is fighting them out of the Arctic? What's their logistics, how are they fed, how are they armed, how do they move? Why would one assume the US would send infantry to wander around looking for at most a few hundred people a thousand kilometers from a population center armed with rifles and whatever ammunition they can carry in a backpack?.
    1
  162. There is no specialization the states can't replicate, except maybe raw aluminum production. They will simply move the equipment from our factories.
    1
  163. @thaboss-d8q  less competitive is the reason for the 25% tariff. My point isn't that it's good for the industry, my point is that there is no reason to believe the Canadian industry is in anyway secure
    1
  164. @PlayChaosVoices  firstly, I'm Canadian. Secondly, why would any of our Auto manufacturing be safe? Fundamentally, except maybe refining aluminium because of the electrical demand, what special advantage do we have. They talk in the video about wether our EV investments will go forward, that's because our special advantage was access to the US market. Without that there is no reason to invest here to build American car parts. Thirdly, don't trick yourself into thinking they need our oil. We have seen a million barrels a day go off line this month. That's seasonal, it's for maintenance, but the US isn't hurting over it, and the question is what happens to prices when it comes back on. 600k bbl/d goes south to the US Gulf, they can get that from seaborne imports if they need a heavy. Marathon has already said they can retool, with that about 300k bbl/d in the Midwest could switch over to light oil from heavy. Within 2 years, if they are serious about hurting us, they could reverse Keystone and bring another million barrels a day north. That's 2M bbl/d lost. The other 2M bbl/d we sell is probably safe. But that still means we have massive over capacity pushing prices to the lowest possible level and bankrupting the mining operations.
    1
  165.  @PlayChaosVoices  1) the question isn't if the oil is more expensive than ours without a tariff, but with a tariff. Our oil discount will absorb the tariff costs, or else it will become more expensive than seaborne crude. The oil tariffs are only applied to us. And as Oil is priced in Hardisty, that will mean all our oil exports fall in price. 2) going from Heavy crude to light crude is not difficult. Sure the gasoline ratio will be higher and overall capacity a little lower. But no retooling is required for the 600k to the Gulf, and 300k bbl/d in the Midwest is entirely achievable. 3) this isn't about what's bad for the US. The US goal is very clearly to harm us. They just launched the auto tariffs. The current administration is clearly willing to accept economic damage if it moves towards their overall goals.
    1
  166. They aren't just going to storm in. They will cause economic recession, heaviest in Alberta, and then offer the life line of joining the US. At the same time they will encourage pro American agitator groups. They will push for a Seperation vote, and then incorporate Alberta. And after that Saskatchewan. There would only be military action to support this independence, and so they would have the public baking in any occupied region. Sure there would be some opposition but why would they possibly true to control rural Quebec.
    1
  167. 9 months to consult, dust off the Northern Gateway plan, we could be building by end of year. That ain't to bad.
    1
  168. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them. But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska..
    1
  169. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them. But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska.
    1
  170. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them..
    1
  171.  @polishtheday  But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska.
    1
  172. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them.
    1
  173. But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska.
    1
  174. Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she is conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them.
    1
  175. It is a planned attempt to destoy the Canadian industry. There is lots of talk here about legacy Autos, where is the talk about Tesla? Because thats the relevant point, the guy who bought the president is destroying his competition. He'll buy Ford.
    1
  176. The conventional is a huge problem and the Oil sands mines are a huge problem. And the fracking is a huge problem. The SAGD wells are not an issue though. We should be putting all our backing into insitu extraction
    1
  177. I'm sure Enbridge would disagree that we are a safe place to invest, given Northern Gateway. And a lot of Renewable companies would say the same due to Smith and Ford before her. So that isn't great
    1
  178. It is starting to seem like that.
    1
  179.  @noIDwhatsoever  The only ideas he has put up are Carbon Fiber, and briefly for like 3 episodes, optimizing Transmountain. He uses a project built over Covid as a reasonable cost estimate for a pipeline built today, plausibily going into a recession. He ignores that at best in 10 years carbon fibre will use 100k/bill a day, 2% of current output. He ignores the level of discontent in Alberta and the need maintain a pro Canadian sentiment, particularly as we are threatened from the south. He ignores that we can do bitumen-diesel, and that while EVs are pushing out gasoline demand, diesel prices are actually rising, meaning we would be pushing out barrels of oil and barrels of gasoline from the market by keeping high RPP prices lower. He ignores that if we go into a trade war, WCS will have an enormous discount, and the pipeline will suddenly be profitable. Or how that hedges our currency risk if we had a massive drop in export values around oil. I could go on..
    1
  180. @noIDwhatsoever  he ignores the cost of Trump closing Line 5 and the GTA being cut off oil..
    1
  181. ​ @IdrisFashan  if your in downtown Toronto with a gasoline vehicle or Beijing 10 years ago you can sell this but I don't think anyone in Timmins is buying that their car is poisoning them. Makes perfect sense to require taxi fleets and Ubers to go EV, and reduce car use in cities in general, hardly an argument we need to push every rural and small town off oil.
    1
  182. America isn't going to stand up because he isn't going to destroy the US economy. They are going to destroy ours. We cannot base our hope on the Americans being rational
    1
  183.  @Rhdlm-yo1tv  I don't care about Smith or her mandate she's an idiot. Her base is full of idiots. But they are allowed to leave Canada, and the US wants them This is not time to rub in their face that they are wrong. We hand over money to a bunch of provinces without expecting a return. We can risk losing money on a pipeline
    1
  184.  @3baxcb  it doesn't matter she is hardly important. The Alberta base is real.
    1
  185.  @symon168  I'm not call Smith a genius I'm not a fan of her at all. That doesn't change she represents a real and large scale stance in Alberta.
    1
  186.  @cubangal1  if I throw a dart randomly at a map, odds are pretty good I hit a country the US installed the government of. I have no idea how you cannot see that, with Albertas entire economy based on US trade, a huge number of Albertans getting their news from Fox, and an existing Seperatists and pro American movement that shut down our capital for weeks, we are at enormous risk of losing the highly conservative oil rich province.
    1
  187. @ericnonya3650 what is?
    1
  188.  @nikkispark85  I really don't know what people think will happen to the tailings ponds if we let the mining operations fail
    1
  189.  @MichaelKennedy-i6o  maybe try offering to use the royalties from oil sold through the line to invest in Eastern Canada's manufacturing industry. Perhaps if other provinces had something to gain
    1
  190. @LauraineHowattpansy2018  west to east is not an economically viable project, but neither is the TransCanada highway. They should both be viewed as strategic necessity. West coast pipelines were what we need for the industry
    1
  191. @vanhoot2234  the turbines that spin to pump the NG. Transmountain uses electrified pump stations.
    1
  192.  @vanhoot2234  the issue is methane physical escaping. Electric pumps use a magnetic system so there is no ability for methane to leave the pipe
    1
  193.  @vanhoot2234  sorry, now that I'm awake, the way NG pump stations normally work is they vent some of the NG from the pipeline into a side compartment. This side compartment also takes in air, to fuel combustion, and just like in a powerplant that combustion spins a turbine, but instead of generating electricity it pressurizes the pipeline. And it does this by spinning a wheel inside the pipeline, again usually, using a physical axel that connects through a hole in the wall between the wheel on the inside of the pipe and the turbine in the pump station. So you have leakage along the turbine, and you have leakage where the NG is taken out of the pipe to the pump station. An electric turbine is usually a closed system. The turbine is driven with an electric motor, and there is no axel going through the pipe. Often a magnetic mechanism may be used so the a motor spinning externally pulls a wheel increasing pressure internally without physical contact. Otherwise the motor may be internal (harder to maintain). But no NG has to be diverted to spin. Don't quote this number but I believe something like 14% of methane leakage from NG is in pipelines mainly at pump stations. Beside the fact that you are burning NG, reducing product moved and releasing emissions, rather than powering the pump with some mix of renewables.
    1
  194. @MyCanadaForward  The US isn't going to roll tanks in randomly. They are going to coax Alberta to Seperate and join them. We need to keep Alberta. Right now the US can turn off all oil flows to Ontario. We need energy security. I would love if we could get France to share deterrence with us. But if you think the US might invade now, just imagine we were going after WMD.
    1
  195.  @ryuuguu01  there are good business cases for inter ties from Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke. There is absolutely no business case to connect Manitoba and BC. It's not a problem with Smith its a reality about a large portion of Alberta that will only increase in a deep recession. This is not about the economics. This is about making sure the US can't turn off NG and Oil flows to Ontario on a whim and making Alberta feel happy so they don't leave and cut off the Pacific coast.
    1
  196. Am I banned from replying?
    1
  197. @ryuuguu01  there is certainly no business case to attach BC as far as Manitoba or even Saskatchewan. But yes BC and Alberta need GWs off connection. However, obviously rebuilding the electrical grid will never draw near the economic activity of the oil industry. Not the government revenue or investment or employment. Including RRPs exported to BC, Alberta barely uses 10% of oil output. It's not going to power the US Midwest with renewable electricity.
    1
  198. @ryuuguu01  Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade. Also, please stop claiming I am from Alberta. I am not. I am from and in Ontario. I simply do not want to see our country cut in half. I am referring to how much Alberta stands to lose in Oil revenues, how that will push their economy into deep depression, and how the US administration will leverage that toward their stated goal of annexing Canada. You are the person who started referencing Electrical generation as relevant to the discussion I started with oil.
    1
  199. @ryuuguu01  Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade. Also, please stop claiming I am from Alberta. I am not. I am from and in Ontario. I simply do not want to see our country cut in half. I am referring to how much Alberta stands to lose in Oil revenues, how that will push their economy into deep depression, and how the US administration will leverage that toward their stated goal of annexing Canada. You are the person who started referencing Electrical generation as relevant to the discussion I started with oil. I was literally calling conversation around electrical generation a red herring to a conversation about oil..
    1
  200. @ryuuguu01  Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade.
    1
  201. Also, please stop claiming I am from Alberta. I am not. I am from and in Ontario. I simply do not want to see our country cut in half. I am referring to how much Alberta stands to lose in Oil revenues, how that will push their economy into deep depression, and how the US administration will leverage that toward their stated goal of annexing Canada. You are the person who started referencing Electrical generation as relevant to the discussion I started with oil. I was literally calling conversation around electrical generation a red herring to a conversation about oil.
    1
  202. Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist.
    1
  203. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth.
    1
  204. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade.
    1
  205.  @ryuuguu01  sorry I can't seem to reply directly
    1
  206. @sorry for the multiple and indirect replies
    1
  207.  @Hypatia1.618  you can't just build a military in a year. You certainly can't compete with the US.
    1
  208. @imacmill  moderate compromise would be Alberta increasing SAGD output with a planned rolldown and cleanup of the mines, and royalties put into an investment fund controlled by Alberta channelled into domestic non-O&G industry I'm exchange for an East coast pipeline and many west coast pipelines. Pipelines solve depressed oil prices, and we're about to see them very low with all the associated economic and political costs. I have to gain or lose our economy.
    1
  209. @davida.1371  Ipsos puts 40% of people under 30. Abacus puts 20% of Conservatives going to 30% if Liberals win. That clearly leans to the higher end in Alberta. And that's before we do something like try and cut back oil production that leaves people unemployed, or the US increases economic pressure and pushes down oil prices. We need to make sure it says a low level opinion in Alberta. Trump will be on Fox every night saying Alberta would be rich if it joined the US, and we won't have an alternative for them. We need to take the risk seriously. The US doesn't want to annex a bunch of French democrats. It wants oil rich Republicans. This isn't the kind of thing we can wait to see how it goes.
    1
  210. @davida.1371  Ipsos puts 40% of people under 30. Abacus puts 20% of Conservatives going to 30% if Liberals win. That clearly leans to the higher end in Alberta. And that's before we do something like try and cut back oil production that leaves people unemployed, or the US increases economic pressure and pushes down oil prices. We need to make sure it says a low level opinion in Alberta. Trump will be on Fox every night saying Alberta would be rich if it joined the US, and we won't have an alternative for them. We need to take the risk seriously. The US doesn't want to annex a bunch of French democrats. It wants oil rich Republicans. This isn't the kind of thing we can wait to see how it goes.
    1
  211. @davida.1371  Ipsos puts 40% of people under 30. Abacus puts 20% of Conservatives going to 30% if Liberals win. That clearly leans to the higher end in Alberta. And that's before we do something like try and cut back oil production that leaves people unemployed, or the US increases economic pressure and pushes down oil prices. We need to make sure it says a low level opinion in Alberta. Trump will be on Fox every night saying Alberta would be rich if it joined the US, and we won't have an alternative for them. We need to take the risk seriously. The US doesn't want to annex a bunch of French democrats. It wants oil rich Republicans. This isn't the kind of thing we can wait to see how it goes.
    1
  212. ​​ @robertcartwright4374 we don't produce oil, we produce bitumen. Oil demand is collapsing because EVs are displacing gasoline. Look at Sturgeon falls, we can produce 100% diesel or jet fuel or lubricant. We can outcompete the Saudis. But again, it's more than economic. I don't care if we lose money. If we can lose $20 billion a year to keep Quebec in the country, we can risk losing $20 billion over 20 years to keep Alberta. Right now the US can close Line 5 and turn off all the oil to Ontario. Michigan has been trying to get it closed for half a decade. Do you want Toronto relying on Trump's good will?.
    1
  213. @lengould9262  seriously who cares about credit to their argument. The US will humor them. If we do not, Canada will be cut in half. And they did put money into Keystone XL. The tax relief point is a red herring, it's a net positive in terms of overall revenue. We should be copying the exploration credits and flow through shares for mineral deployment..
    1
  214.  @imacmill  well, I love in Southern Ontario, and I don't love the all of my oil comes through the US, and that most of it comes from Line 5 which Michigan has been trying to shut down for years, and Biden was keeping open for us, and which Trump could choice to have the EPA close tomorrow. Even though I know it would cost some money and isn't directly profitable. Sometimes infrastructure does cost money, I doubt either of us take issue with Transmission lines being subsidized, for example. But more widely as a Canadian, the US is about to collapse our exports if we are serious about fighting back. That will be expressed heavily through enormous declines in oil volume and more over price under a growing discount pushing down value. We could rapidly lose 10% of our exports via oil, alongside collapses in New Brunswick from St. John, Ontario's de industrialization, and a general commodity slump. And since Canada is a trade dependent economy, fewer exports will lower the value of the CAD value over a prolonged period, will mean inflation. And mean that Eastern Canada is exporting Capital for a good we domestically. And on top of all that will probably see a million+ immigrants going home alongside a general Property Market and Financial crash, between bank exposure to oil sands and housing. So I would be largely in favor of risking a financial loss on a pipeline as a hedge against a sudden drop in currency value and energy security, although I think the discount we will see in the future will more than compensate for pipeline costs, and really want to minimize the time it stays that large. And I think it's rather dishonest to quote Transmountain as a reasonable cost estimate given it was built over Covid. Because the biggest Issue is Alberta. Which will be the center of the depression. Fort Mac will be a ghost town, because the Mines will be the first thing to close and if we lost Line 5 that's almost half the market for upgraded syncrude. Weak future prospects will end the conventional drilling even though conventional output will continue at low prices from existing wells. The Government of Alberta will lose half it's revenue, a third in oil royalties alone, because the sliding royalty scale. And have an unemployment crisis of formerly very high wage blue collar workers, again alongside other provinces. And all the while Trump will be on Fox saying Alberta should join the US and they would be rich. With Pro American support already at 10% or higher. If we want to keep Alberta, we need to have more of their oil dependent on Canada than on the US, and right now 80% of their output goes through the US. The US, Trump, doesn't want Quebec. It doesn't want a bunch of democrats and retries. it wants the Conservative, oil rich province, full of young people and with a road to Alaska. That is the biggest point of issue. The Federal government pays Quebec $13 billion in equalization, it can risk losing $20 billion over 20 years to make Alberta happy. It really doesn't matter if you think it's financially or economically unsound, we need to keep Alberta. And we are already in a competition with the US for it. But also more fundamentally, I think Markham speaks in bad faith around the oil sands. Electrification and EVs will decimate demand for Gasoline, but they are having little impact on Diesel and jet fuel, or lubricants. Look at Sturgeon Falls, we can take a barrel of Bitumen and produce a barrel of Diesel. OPEC and conventional oil get like 20-30% a barrel of Diesel from a barrel of oil, and about half a barrel of Gasoline. Which means high prices for heavy RPP are going to support oil production with gasoline sold off cheap and pushing EVs out of markets. High prices we can both exploit to carve out market for value added products. And keeping heavy RPP prices lower, and thereby reducing the profit in refining, and therefore produce less gasoline to dump on the Market. Upgraders provide an excellent industrial customer for Green Hydrogen, and alongside the insitu operations, an industrial customer for SMRs. We need to develop these industries. Frankly once nuclear I would like to see Gasifiers to push out the Shale fracking to the west to feeds LNG. And all that is besides that Fact that Markham perfectly agrees that non combustion uses should be developed. There is no reason not to use a pipeline to deliver bitumen to coastal BC where Carbon Fiber or Asphalt binder can be produced for global export. We can build a pipeline now, and develop industry as demand falls, not that I think it will for heavy oil. I completely agree with adding as much value as possible.
    1
  215. @Greenspaceservices  I suppose the question then is what do you consider minimal increase in oil infrastructure. Because I would argue that it's important to consider by and large Canada doesn't produce oil, it produces Bitumen. And the wonderful thing about this is that EVs, which are going to displace enormous amounts of oil, are actually displacing almost entirely Gasoline. When the Saudis sell oil, or the Americans sell the lighter fluid they call shale oil, it's almost entirely light light hydrocarbons, at least half of which go to gasoline. Our very heavy bitumen, on the other hand, can be turned entirely into longer chain hydrocarbons, diesel, jet fuel, lubricants, etc. And in doing so, we can push the oil producers, who will otherwise dump gasoline cheap and compete with EVs in-order to sell the small portions of the barrel that are still in high demand, out of the market. And so I will say we should be building at least another million barrels a day, along with expanding Transmountain by 300k, to the Pacific coast, and building the refinery complexes, ideally using Green hydrogen to upgrade, to export that high margin fuel to Asia, along with asphalt and lubricants, and carbon fiber if we can crack it.
    1
  216.  @Greenspaceservices  would you make this argument for a high speed rail line or a regular rail line or a high way or canal or literally any other piece of transportation infrastructure? I think Canada has used regulation in bad faith enough times that the private sector views us as too great a risk to invest. That isn't a reflection of the promise of the pipeline, but whether they believe they will waste a billion dollars before seeing it blocked.
    1
  217. Irving is responsible for almost all oil that doesn't come from North America, and 2/3rd of that is re-exported to the US.
    1
  218. Jesus Markham the Dam idea is nearly an act of War. Its not a negotiation point. What's your argument here, if you invade we can start cutting of irrigation water? The reason they are doing this is Trump has realized we are so vulnerable they can without repercussions. We are being mugged. When you are mugged, you hand over the wallet. The more we fight this the worse it will end up. We need to accept that we are now seeing the cost of our dependence on the US, and reinvest in new making new partners. This kind of talk will get us cut out of SWIFT or worse.
    1