Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Energi Media"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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