Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "" video.

If we believe it's going to built, we should fight for it to carry Upgraded or Partially upgraded crudes. That's a good story; safer to ship, wider market, higher value, more investment in Alberta. Ideally build some refining and manufacturing in Prince Rupert to create a domestic demand.
2
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Smith's statement that Alberta will focus on 4 projects BC agrees with while waiting for a private sector investor for a pipeline to come forward; Transmountain optimization, LNG, electrical interties, Ammonia. Is this positive progress in your opinion? I think it at least shows an ability to prioritize, and while LNG is maybe a mistake imo, the rest is highly needed.
2
You have had a couple of interviews recently with economists in the feild who have had very different takes; Edy Hirs saying Canada needs to diversify away from the US, and Kevin Burn point out Canada as being far more competitive at low prices. I don't understand why you remain so entirely pessimistic about our ability to market 1.5M bbl/d of crude to Asia for the foreseeable future. It's a 60M bbl/d market, even with a drop off it's a very large market relative to our share. And we have a heavy crude which will be in demand as EVs create a gasoline glut pushing down value of lighter crude. We already see Access Western Select trading near par with WTI and European simple refineries rapidly shutting down; it's the advanced heavy refineries that make up the long term market.
2
How we make money without fossil fuels is an important question we need to be addressing today, because industries take decades to build, and at most we have decades where there is a market. I have lots of thoughts on what those industries should be. But no one disagrees losing this industry is an issue, but we can't change that. Whether or not Canadians drive EVs is largely irrelevant.
1
It depends what that help is. When the help is investment, it can be done on debt and increase revenue to pay for itself.
1
It's about more than jobs; Regionally, particularly in Fort McMurray, it is about jobs. But it's also about Export revenues. Almost half of Canada's foreign exchange revenue comes from oil exports, and it's important we have access to that. It's largely about long term stability for the industry. Creating an outlet to the much larger pacific market ensures a longer term customer, which avoids financial collapse.
1
@matthewq4b that's not at all accurate. We can see Albian Heavy Synthetic is one of our highest priced grades. And partially upgrading just means reducing asphaltenes the which have no benefit to your points and greatly restrict the number of refineries able to handle the crude. Edit; that isn't to say we shouldn't sell any bitumen. But we should be selling SynBit, not DilBit. That both increases the value of the product by maximizing the amount of distillates and heavy RPPs buyers receive, and ensures a supply of dilutent that can grow to scale. I would suggest a requirement that 5% of dilutant used is Upgraded Bitumen in 2026, with an increasing fraction over time. That both ensures demand for existing upgraders as domestic demand falls, and encourages investment in either upgraders, or partial Upgraders to avoid any dilutent. And we can also ship bitumen safely by rail. So if it is Bitumen specifically that market wants, we can move a few hundred thousand bbl/d to coast alongside lower asphaltene pipeline shipped products. We can also ship the asphaltenes that were Seperated in partial upgrading by coal cars and export for Asphalt, or I guess refineries could add it to their oil, but outside some Midwest refineries I don't think there is demand for that.
1
@matthewq4b really this is several points 1) Does industry want upgraded crude. To which I would argue the answer seems yes, and Albian Heavy synthetic is one of our highest value crudes. Heavy refineries want bitumen to coke, I agree, but bottlemless heavies with high distalite can be used by any tea kettle refinery, which will otherwise be struggling with an excess of light products. I tend to agree the Upgraded crude market is somewhat limited. And that a large market exists for heavy bitumen to be specifically upgraded. However, I think we should be requiring that as of 2026, 5% of dilutent (perhaps on a credit trading system) is SCO, with an increasing ratio over time towards to goal of replacing DilBit exports with SynBit. That not only increases value added activities and improves distillate yields for purchasers, it also avoids the limitations on oilsands growth from dilutent. 2) Does industry want partially upgraded crude? I think the answer here is a yes. Partial upgrading increases, not decreases, the amount of bitumen per barrel, as to your point on where demand is. What is removed is asphaltenes, which drastically increase the amount of dilutent needed and pipeline volume, seperate and sink in a spill, and greatly restrict the quantities refineries can accept. We can sell the asphaltenes by rail as well, either for Asphalt, or if there is demand (which I don't believe exists) to add to crude at refineries. 3) to the extent industry wants raw, pure Bitumen, we can ship by rail several 100k bbl/d safely and with minimal cost increase. That can be blended into DilBit or at refineries. Bitumen alone cannot be moved by pipeline regardless.
1
@matthewq4b really this is several points 1) Does industry want upgraded crude. To which I would argue the answer seems yes, and Albian Heavy synthetic is one of our highest value crudes. Heavy refineries want bitumen to coke, I agree, but bottlemless heavies with high distalite can be used by any tea kettle refinery, which will otherwise be struggling with an excess of light products. I tend to agree the Upgraded crude market is somewhat limited. And that a large market exists for heavy bitumen to be specifically upgraded. However, I think we should be requiring that as of 2026, 5% of dilutent (perhaps on a credit trading system) is SCO, with an increasing ratio over time towards to goal of replacing DilBit exports with SynBit. That not only increases value added activities and improves distillate yields for purchasers, it also avoids the limitations on oilsands growth from dilutent.
1
2) Does industry want partially upgraded crude? I think the answer here is a yes. Partial upgrading increases, not decreases, the amount of bitumen per barrel, as to your point on where demand is. What is removed is asphaltenes, which drastically increase the amount of dilutent needed and pipeline volume, seperate and sink in a spill, and greatly restrict the quantities refineries can accept. We can sell the asphaltenes by rail as well, either for Asphalt, or if there is demand (which I don't believe exists) to add to crude at refineries. 3) to the extent industry wants raw, pure Bitumen, we can ship by rail several 100k bbl/d safely and with minimal cost increase. That can be blended into DilBit or at refineries. Bitumen alone cannot be moved by pipeline regardless.
1
@matthewq4b really this is several points 1) Does industry want upgraded crude. To which I would argue the answer seems yes, and Albian Heavy synthetic is one of our highest value crudes. Heavy refineries want bitumen to coke, I agree, but bottlemless heavies with high distalite can be used by any tea kettle refinery, which will otherwise be struggling with an excess of light products.
1
1.5) I tend to agree the Upgraded crude market is somewhat limited. And that a large market exists for heavy bitumen to be specifically upgraded. However, I think we should be requiring that as of 2026, 5% of dilutent (perhaps on a credit trading system) is SCO, with an increasing ratio over time towards to goal of replacing DilBit exports with SynBit. That not only increases value added activities and improves distillate yields for purchasers, it also avoids the limitations on oilsands growth from dilutent. And in the event Upgraded crude demand weakens, for example with falling domestic demand, ensures a prolonged life for not only the upgraders, but also the mining operations they heavily draw from, and Fort McMurray as a result.
1
The PM has literally written a book about how that heating is the greatest threat to humanity, and the economy. He is actively pushing electrification. Oil pipelines may be this channels focus, but it's only a side project in the overall development plan.
1
Most plastics and chemical production is from short Hydrocarbons that you get from light or shale oils. Oilsands bitumen isn't really an input to the chemical industry. But I disagree with the premise of your statement, that investment in one prohibits investment in the other, in this case I would say they are even self encouraging
1
@matthewq4b While your right about the potential for upgrading, I am absolutely correct in saying the majority of petrochemical feed stock is light NGLs or Naphtha. The petrochemical industry in Alberta does not run on bitumen. Edit; but, if your point is we should be building petrochemical upgraders to convert bitumen to petrochemical inputs, I absolutely agree.
1
@Tammyangel64 That is the current status. But I think it's quite promising that even Smith is now focusing on projects with immediate value. Optimization of Transmountain and electrical tie ins are projects Markham regularly argues to be under discussed. I'm hoping these announcements might make him a little less pessimistic about the future. And maybe give him some confidence the Climate Activists Hedge fund managing central banker we have put in charge of developing our economy actually has a plan.
1
@terryarmbruster9719 I mean your whole argument makes no sense when you know there is 3M bbl/d of UltraHeavy refining in Asia and we sell less than 500k bbl/d into the market, and a third of that is dilutent. There is very clearly lots of room to grow, every large refinery built in Asia in the last 10 years is for heavy crude. Other than that it's just "OPEC scary", which, sure, good luck to the Saudis when oil prices crash I hope they liked their government while it lasted.
1