Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "How OPEC ate Danielle Smith's brain" video.

@jhornett counter point, LNG in Florida definitely came from the Permian, which means it was fracked with considerable Methane leakage.
6
@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
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
@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
@jhornett yes exactly. But we can confidently say LNG in Florida is among the highest emission electrical sources.
2
@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
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
@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
@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
@MisterDaryn yes. Any other form of infrastructure and there would be no question that public finance is relevant.
1
@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
@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
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