Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "" video.
-
4
-
Not all oil is equivalent. When China peaks, it will be because of EVs, not heavy products like jet fuel - that means higher demand for Heavy crudes and hurts those other producers who yield gasoline. No other producer yeilds heavy as much as we do. Certainly China isn't the world market.
Where is the discussion on SMRs to further lower those costs. If we can consider Carbon Fiber, we can consider other innovation.
There is uncertainty in every industry.
But we should optimize Transmountain, of course. That can be done much sooner than a new pipeline, but as the Chicago market, where half our oil/dilbit goes, shrinks (because it is (wastefully) used to produce gasoline), we need new outlets to the global market.
I wouldn't require Transmountain ship partially upgraded. But, I do think we should require a Dilutant mixing that reduces the level of condensate and increases SCO over time to increase the use of Bitumen and uncouple it from the Shale NG fracking, while driving upgrader investment. I would also say we should wave or greatly reduce the tariff for RPPs on Transmountain. Finally, I think it would be entirely reasonable to require any new pipelines to ship partially upgraded (or upgraded) bitumen - that is what we should push for, not against new access.
The US Gulf coast is a possibility. I don't trust them not to change the rules on our pipeline access or ban exports in a price shock, however. I don't think KeyStone XL is better than Northern Gateway, but to the extent Canada can optimize KeyStone (a pipeline we don't control) we should.
As for Carbon Fiber, it could be very good. But, you have been arguing for years its near commercialization, and even Alberta Innovates puts it at a decade until they would be using 100k bbl/d, a drop in our production bucket. And even then, only a fraction of the barrel can be used for this. But beyond the domestic market, if Carbon Fiber is feasible, then we should be building an export market. And that can be done at pipeline head to ensure the pipeline sees long term uses, along with being done in Alberta for Domestic use, and even Ontario to export East. We don't have to restrict the use of Bitumen to Alberta..
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ponzi-d4k If this were a serious proposal from, say France or California, i wouldn't fight it. My concern is avoiding mass bankruptcy, if we can do that for doing nothing, I'm not going to fight it!
Logistically, I don't know how it could be done. How Suncor could say "We produced 700k bbl/d, but we didn't produce 1.5M". Particularly since it will be produced by an OPEC member as a result.
As for the price war, if the Saudis engage in price war, it will be against EVs, not us, imo. And they aren't currently doing that, so unless we got to that point of OPEC collapse, I don't know how we could say we are reducing supply.
Also, I do honestly believe in the medium and long term Oilsands is the more carbon conscious supplier. Because there is no gasoline yeild in a barrel of bitumen, we can upgrade to almost entirely deisel or jet fuel. Other oil suppliers, even heavy producers, can't do that. And as a result, they are going to produce gasoline by requirement. Some of that can be cracked for petrochemicals, but a lot of it will be dumped cheap as refiners chase the high margins on jet fuel, and that will fight against EV uptake. So I do believe there are negatives to climate transition in us taking that off the market because we can serve exclusively the hard to abate uses and bring the cost of those RPPs down to push our conventional refiners.
This is the same reason I believe we can maintain market share in the declining market. The market might want some light oil for petrochemical feed stock - but cracking gasoline will probably drive that out. And medium crudes will be less desirable as well as EVs drive out that gasoline demand and it shifts from the main product to a near waste product..
1
-
@ponzi-d4k .If this were a serious proposal from, say France or California, i wouldn't fight it. My concern is avoiding mass bankruptcy, if we can do that for doing nothing, I'm not going to fight it!
Logistically, I don't know how it could be done. How Suncor could say "We produced 700k bbl/d, but we didn't produce 1.5M". Particularly since it will be produced by an OPEC member as a result.
As for the price war, if the Saudis engage in price war, it will be against EVs, not us, imo. And they aren't currently doing that, so unless we got to that point of OPEC collapse, I don't know how we could say we are reducing supply.
Also, I do honestly believe in the medium and long term Oilsands is the more carbon conscious supplier. Because there is no gasoline yeild in a barrel of bitumen, we can upgrade to almost entirely deisel or jet fuel. Other oil suppliers, even heavy producers, can't do that. And as a result, they are going to produce gasoline by requirement. Some of that can be cracked for petrochemicals, but a lot of it will be dumped cheap as refiners chase the high margins on jet fuel, and that will fight against EV uptake. So I do believe there are negatives to climate transition in us taking that off the market because we can serve exclusively the hard to abate uses and bring the cost of those RPPs down to push our conventional refiners.
This is the same reason I believe we can maintain market share in the declining market. The market might want some light oil for petrochemical feed stock - but cracking gasoline will probably drive that out. And medium crudes will be less desirable as well as EVs drive out that gasoline demand and it shifts from the main product to a near waste product.
1
-
@ponzi-d4k If this were a serious proposal from, say France or California, i wouldn't fight it. My concern is avoiding mass bankruptcy, if we can do that for doing nothing, I'm not going to fight it!
Logistically, I don't know how it could be done. How Suncor could say "We produced 700k bbl/d, but we didn't produce 1.5M". Particularly since it will be produced by an OPEC member as a result.
As for the price war, if the Saudis engage in price war, it will be against EVs, not us, imo. And they aren't currently doing that, so unless we got to that point of OPEC collapse, I don't know how we could say we are reducing supply.
Also, I do honestly believe in the medium and long term Oilsands is the more carbon conscious supplier. Because there is no gasoline yeild in a barrel of bitumen, we can upgrade to almost entirely deisel or jet fuel. Other oil suppliers, even heavy producers, can't do that. And as a result, they are going to produce gasoline by requirement. Some of that can be cracked for petrochemicals, but a lot of it will be dumped cheap as refiners chase the high margins on jet fuel, and that will fight against EV uptake. So I do believe there are negatives to climate transition in us taking that off the market because we can serve exclusively the hard to abate uses and bring the cost of those RPPs down to push our conventional refiners.
This is the same reason I believe we can maintain market share in the declining market. The market might want some light oil for petrochemical feed stock - but cracking gasoline will probably drive that out. And medium crudes will be less desirable as well as EVs drive out that gasoline demand and it shifts from the main product to a near waste product..
1