Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Big Oil thugs want to use Emergency Act to force pipelines on Canadians" video.

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
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
On the last episode you were mocking the Western Standard for calling the Emergency Measures Act the War Measures Act. That was whiplash.
3
@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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
@AntonPNym both sounds good to me
1
@teresajurkiewicz8789 ya this is the real answer. If anyone was unclear mine is a joke.
1
@teresajurkiewicz8789 I'd say they are more likely to close Line 5, however, and turn off the oil to the GTA in response.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
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
It is starting to seem like that.
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
@noIDwhatsoever he ignores the cost of Trump closing Line 5 and the GTA being cut off oil..
1
@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
@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