Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Canada is not importing \"dictator oil\"...well, not much of it" video.

I guess that depends on how democratic you feel the US is these days.
11
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
9 months to consult, dust off the Northern Gateway plan, we could be building by end of year. That ain't to bad.
1
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