General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Neolithic Transit Revolution
Energi Media
comments

Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Is Canada secure from a Trump invasion?" video.

Firstly; obviously not. Secondly; this isn't what we have to worry about. We have to worry about Alberta being coaxed into a separation vote, and then joining as a state or territory; and Saskatchewan following. BC would be left entirely isolated, our population would be immediately dramatically older and our economy weaker.
19
Nova Scotia exports 2/3rds of the refined petroleum products it produces. To say it's exporting money is ignoring that it buys most of that oil to resell after adding value. But sure I'll happily agree it would be better getting domestic SynCrude. And you imply NS is dependent of foreign electricity which isn't true. Yes it imports some coal, but we could provide that; and it's only because of delays in connections to the rest of the country.
8
If you can picture this 4X more valuable economy, with Alberta presumably producing a million barrels worth of Carbon fiber, to make a dent, WHY CAN YOU NOT IMAGINE IT BEING PRODUCED IN BC? Please explain, why can't we build a pipeline to the BC coast, and then build Carbon Fiber production there, with immediate coastal access for export? What part of being able to add value to bitumen prohibits it's movement by pipeline?
7
The most crucial part of preventing it happening is keeping Alberta happily in Confederation. We need to build them pipelines. The cost really is not the point. We give Quebec nearly $20 billion a year to stay in the country, we can build a few pipelines.
5
How can you cover America threatening to invade and then argue against a pipeline in the same video? CP rail was built at a loss, to keep BC. Sometimes we build infrastructure because Provinces are demanding it to be in the country. We have domestic Electricity - an entire red herring.
5
@ramastarchild6804 it is maddening that Canadians cannot see the obvious reality that the President talking about the 51st state is not about wanting a bunch of French Democrats
3
@michaelenman9498 you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be.
2
Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI.
2
Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs.
2
Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think Trump, backed by Musk, cares if Ford goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada.
2
And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases.
2
@michaelenman9498 Potash is one of the very few hands we could play. However, the US will retaliate to such an obvious aggressive action. They could go so far as to cut us out of SWIFT or even sanction us which will make any goal of trade diversion impossible. And Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to buy it from Russia. The 25% flat tariff they are applying is almost ambivalent toward us, if they choose to be actively harmful they have the ability. If we cut off Electricity, we also have regional markets that rely on the US. And, 3/4s of Ontario's NG comes from the US, which could be cut off or taxed leaving Southern Ontario with no Alternative for peak power generation. We could Toll the highway, but a lot of our trucking moves through the US as well. If we want international trade, we need to have commodities that can be exported internationally, and realistically that means we need to have coastal pipelines as a part of the solution. The alternative is an enormous drop in exports that took decade to develop. I'm happy to list the areas of manufacturing I would like to see policy toward. But ultimately, I have no way to say definitively what our new export strategy will look like, because it will be determined by government policy choice. I can only say what I think should be done..
2
@trishm9776 idk, fox news? It really doesn't matter if they are right, it matters they can vote. We cannot let the issue of Albertan Seperatism gain momentum while a US president activity wants them to join. We can't let them fall into a recession, one which will drag us all down, over some objection to pipelines. We don't make an economic case for equalization, we do it to provide services. If we can give Quebec $20 billion this year we risk losing some money.
2
I think Manitoba and Saskatchewan is a bit of a thing to say; but I don't really care about Saskatchewan having a coal plant. This is a lot of work for a minimal impact. Alberta and BC is a horse of a different stripe. We just need two HV lines between Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke. And suddenly you have enormous room from renewable growth.
2
@ramastarchild6804 the territories would have no ability to leave, but yes, I think it's crazy Canadians think Trump wants a bunch of French democrats living on a pension to join the US. They are entirely missing the issue.
2
@ramastarchild6804 I think it's more likely the Atlantic provinces seperate and join together, and QC and ON limp along for a while until ON joins in a decade or two. But anyway this game isn't fun for me. I don't understand how so many people can claim they would fight with their lives for this country but draw the line at letting Saskatchewan run a coal power plant or Alberta a pipeline when these are the obvious triggers. Being annexed might be worth it if I thought Americans were any smarter.
2
@ramastarchild6804 I think it's more likely the Atlantic provinces seperate and join together, and QC and ON limp along for a while until ON joins in a decade or two. But anyway this game isn't fun for me. I don't understand how so many people can claim they would fight with their lives for this country but draw the line at letting Saskatchewan run a coal power plant or Alberta a pipeline when these are the obvious triggers. Being annexed might be worth it if I thought Americans were any smarter.
2
@Myart2607 they don't have to take at will. People in Canada need to wake up to the fact that from this moment onwards we are competing with the US to convince Alberta to be in our country. It's not a matter of fair or reasonable, Alberta is legally allowed to leave and depends on the US, and the US wants them, is clearly willing to use economic leverage, and is historically well known for insisting pro American politics. Complacently will cut out country in half.
2
@Myart2607 I agree we don't know. But we need to be actively engaging.
2
The electrical surcharge was stupid but power was not cut off. The US government is actively saying the goal is annexation through economic pressure. Idk how you can separate that from the conversation. But this is much worse than tariffs. Any trade deal better Canada and the US going forward won't seriously be trusted by investors when the president who signed the last one will turn around with 25% tariffs. This makes it basically impossible for us to have free trade in the future as it would lead to complete dominance of the Canadian market without any investment to create sales to the US. Canada has tariffs on a limited number of fields. Is it really a wonder we want to keep our staple food production domestic when our strongest trading partner may unexpectedly turn around and use trade restrictions as leverage? And frankly, the US has a long history of subsidizing agriculture, and has never actually faced any tariff on dairy imports because they have never produced and exported enough that met our health standards. Canada never stole US industry, we have become as reliant on China as you. This is a flour mill blaming the wheat farmer for not buying enough flour. We sell you inputs, we obviously can't buy all your outputs, my TV is not military equipment, my phone is not a car, and my clothing isn't software. We sell 3/4s of our exports to the US, we buy over half our capital equipment from the US. But the very problem is America no longer produces consumer goods. I'm not a fan of Trump, but when he was elected part of me was excited something was finally going to be done about China. Instead Canada faces tariffs twice as high because it's easier to steal what little manufacturing we have left than quit the addiction to cheap Chinese garbage. So you'll forgive me for not thinking these highly targeted tariffs on industrial partnerships built over decades are not a run of the mill tool to generate revenues.
1
@michaelenman9498 you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think Trump, backed by Musk, cares if Ford goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
1
@michaelenman9498 you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think Trump, backed by Musk, cares if Ford goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
1
@michaelenman9498 you need to understand this really isn't true. I am very frustrated at Canadians for not understanding we can in fact be hurt by these policies and Americans largely won't be. Let's look at oil. We have seen during Covid and 2018 what happens when we do not have sufficient take away capacity. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, AB. 600k bbl/d goes south through Keystone to the Gulf Coast refineries. If a selective tariff is placed on Canada, then for our oil to sell in the Gulf where international crude is available, the purchase price, aka the price in Hardisty + the fee for the tariff, cannot be higher than the global price. We will see a discount on oil to accommodate the additional cost purchasers pay in tariff, or else we will lose the 600k bbl/d to international competition, which would be worse for prices. A discount that will be available to all purchases, including the Midwest. We literally saw price movements the day of the tariff taking off an immediate 4% relative to US WTI. Let's look at Aluminum or Iron. What is the alternative market? We will have to ship by rail to the Pacific, and then oversea. That is significant transportation cost. So long as a Tariff does not drive down prices to the point producers are losing revenue, we will adsorb most of the cost in the form of lower profits and capital write downs. Manufacturing and the complex supply chain will be reflected in substantially higher prices. But a new car is not an essential or regular purchase. Auto manufacturers will move production to the US over the next few years, even without a tariff, if this uncertainty continues. Do you think the guy by backed by Musk cares if GM goes under? If they destroy a massive private sector union? Tariffs here will increase prices in the medium term, but that will only make Tesla more competitive in the US and take manufacturing away from Canada. And all of this is going to weaken the CAD. A weaker CAD will suppress our export prices across the board. There may be some level of higher prices on certain goods. But they did the same thing to China in 2018, and the renminbi fell to adsorb almost the entire price difference. And Canada is far more reliant on US trade, and in particular export purchases. We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
1
We cannot fight this trade war if we aren't going to acknowledge the impact. Do you honestly believe these tariffs will have nearly the impact on us it will on them? What do you think happens when our economy crashes? I don't understand how people can believe this Econ 101 nonsense is actually applicable.
1
The importer may literally be the one handing over money, but if the things they are buying are getting proportionally less expensive due to weak demand and weak currency, then it is by any meaningful metric the exporter paying the tariff.
1
@michaelenman9498 look up a user's Guide to Restructuring the global trade system. They released a policy paper on everything they believed was wrong, how they wanted it to be, and what they would do to get there back in November. There have been very few surprises. It's not irrational at all.
1
@Condor1970 @michaelenman9498 look up a user's Guide to Restructuring the global trade system. They released a policy paper on everything they believed was wrong, how they wanted it to be, and what they would do to get there back in November. There have been very few surprises. It's not irrational at all.
1
Realistically, how. NATO has already effectively abandoned us, it's now just European defense. Ukraine went to war with Russia with the highest reserves of air defense equipment in Europe. We can't even see an F-22. Russia was a paper tiger of corruption and rusted out equipment relying on a conscript army that went to war without the Conscripts. America is not. The political trigger of building a military is far more likely to get us invaded than to protect us. We need avoid giving the US the excuse of Alberta Seperatism, which will be the actual goal.
1
I don't mean this rudely, but your Fantasy is in a few points 1) Canada has no military stockpiles 2) The US would have unrivaled air dominance 3) NATO has or will abandon us 4)The portion of Gun owners is going to scew heavily to the people who actually want to join the US 5) The US will use the CIA to create large scale Seperatists movements before tanks roll in
1
@johncanadianfirst Jesus this has nothing to do with Economics. What is the economic cost of Alberta separating? Do you really think you are going to convince Alberta that its best choice is to give up on Oil with Trump on Fox every night saying how rich they would be if they joined the US and could sell oil tariff free? The leader of the world's economy is actively telling them to join the US. Abacus polling says 20% of conservatives want to join the US. IPSOS says 40% of young people want to. What is the youngest, most conservative province? If we lose Alberta, Saskatchewan follows. BC can't survive as an island surrounded by the US. This is so obstinate. Who cares if we lose some money on a pipeline. We're about to lose the country over some pipelines and a coal power plant in Saskatchewan. You understand they are legally entitled to leave, right?
1
@trishm9776 who knows and who cares. They obviously do. A whole bunch obviously watch Fox. And they will only believe it more if we crash their economy over a trade war with their main trading partner and refuse to build the infrastructure that would salvage it.
1
@ryuuguu01 I am sure BC and Alberta could trade power. I believe they should. But clearly a third of their government revenue isn't going to come from renewable energy royalties. Rebuilding their power grid obviously isn't enough to sustain an economy. And even if it could do all of that. Do you think Alberta is going to wait patiently with a ruined economy to slowly rebuild while Trump is telling them all they have to do is vote yes to Seperatism to get it all back, and share none of the revenue with equalization? It doesn't even matter if it's not true. Be honest with yourself. How will Alberta vote. And after that Saskatchewan. This has nothing to do with Economics. If we can give $20 billion to Quebec every year, we can build some pipelines to lift the price of oil and steel.
1
@trishm9776 idk, fox news? It really doesn't matter if they are right, it matters they can vote. We cannot let the issue of Albertan Seperatism gain momentum while a US president activity wants them to join. We can't let them fall into a recession, one which will drag us all down, over some objection to pipelines. We don't make an economic case for equalization, we do it to provide services. If we can give Quebec $20 billion this year we risk losing some money.
1
@ryuuguu01 Connecting Alberta to Manitoba would be a far greater waste of time and money than a pipeline. But yes connecting Alberta and BC would be great; but clearly it's not going to provide the revenue to fund a third of the government or anything approaching the scope of the oil industry in employment. Like 10% of Alberta's oil is used in Alberta, including what they export to BC. Renewables in Alberta aren't going to power the entire US Midwest and Rocky mountains.
1
@ryuuguu01 Connecting Alberta to Manitoba would be a far greater waste of time and money than a pipeline. But yes connecting Alberta and BC would be great; but clearly it's not going to provide the revenue to fund a third of the government or anything approaching the scope of the oil industry in employment. Like 10% of Alberta's oil is used in Alberta, including what they export to BC. Renewables in Alberta aren't going to power the entire US Midwest and Rocky mountains.
1
@dwaynewladyka577 I have never claimed Alberta sends money directly. I am not from Alberta. I am saying the government of Canada sends 10s of billions to Quebec. And yet for some reason we are quibbling over maybe losing $10 billion over 20 years on a pipeline that Alberta will riot over not getting if the US cuts us from their market.
1
not today. But be serious. Do you think Trump has morals? What will happen when he cuts back oil flows and pushes Alberta into recession. When he's on Fox every night saying that Alberta would be rich again if they just Separate. When he has a three letter agency encouraging Separatism and funding Separatist groups. I am not worried about tomorrow. I am worried about 3 years into a trade war. You can't build a pipeline tomorrow. If we start now, we can cut off the issue in 3 years.
1
@gregallard2317 cool comeback bro. What lie?
1
@canada957 not today. But be serious. Do you think Orange man has morals? What will happen when he cuts back oil flows and pushes Alberta into recession. When he's on Fox every night saying that Alberta would be rich again if they just Separate. When he has a three letter agency encouraging Separatism and funding Separatist groups. I am not worried about tomorrow. I am worried about 3 years into a trade war. You can't build a pipeline tomorrow. If we start now, we can cut off the issue in 3 years.
1
@dwaynewladyka577 I said we give Quebec $20 billion. We as in Canadians, since I am Canadian, and am not from nor live in Alberta. Again the point being the Federal government is willing to give away large sums without fear of there not being a return. I don't understand why the spectre of potential unprofitablity is some deal breaker to appeasing another province, when we regularly build infrastructure not expecting any direct return at all.
1
I said we give $20 billion. We as in Canadians, since I am Canadian, and am not from nor live in Alberta. Again the point being the Federal government is willing to give away large sums without free of there not being a return. I don't understand why the spectre of potential unprofitablity is some deal breaker to appeasing another province, when we regularly build infrastructure not expecting any direct return at all.
1
Gregalard, what lies? This is a real risk. We need to keep Alberta happy with being in Canada.
1
@AprilSun-yk3yj I really don't think people are appreciating how the sentiment will evolve under a National depression where Alberta is the Focal point, with the US using all their resources to convince the people of Alberta to leave Canada and become a state.
1
@oldpossum57 unlike BC or Quebec, all land in Alberta was legally acquired through treaties. And again, this isn't a question of if Alberta could; the clarity act already exists, we know provinces already have the ability. I'm sure there would be negotiations with the nations, it would be interesting what that entails, but your nuts if you think the people of Alberta or US federal administration are going to let something like first Nations rights get in the way of what they want.
1
@oldpossum57 I'm sorry but the more I have though of this the more insane it seems that you can see the President of the US questioning the legitimacy of Canada, the second largest country by area in the world with nearly 40 million people, and believe it's impossible because of first Nations land claims.
1
@SteveMenardDesignDXM I disagree, I think a combination of economic leverage and subversive activity to encourage Albertan Seperatism provides a much stronger legal context and delivers the majority of the benefits. Saskatchewan would likely follow.
1
@albertaEd well there is nothing inherently illegal about saying you want another country to join yours. I agree economic pressure will impact all of Canada, but Alberta is by far the most exposed, and has the strongest base of Pro American support. That makes BC untenable and encourages Sask to follow. I don't think they particularly want the French democrats they want the oil rich Republicans.
1
@edgarroste7855 well there is nothing inherently illegal about saying you want another country to join yours. I agree economic pressure will impact all of Canada, but Alberta is by far the most exposed, and has the strongest base of Pro American support. That makes BC untenable and encourages Sask to follow. I don't think they particularly want the French democrats they want the oil rich Republicans.
1
well there is nothing inherently illegal about saying you want another country to join yours. I agree economic pressure will impact all of Canada, but Alberta is by far the most exposed, and has the strongest base of Pro American support. That makes BC untenable and encourages Sask to follow. I don't think they particularly want the French democrats they want the oil rich Republicans.
1
@Myart2607 why don't you think it will happen. Why would the US, whose government is actively suggesting annexation through economic coercion, not attempt to take the demographically young, politically conservative, oil rich province most dependent on their trade, with an already active Seperatist movement?
1
@Myart2607 why don't you think it will happen. Why would the US, whose government is actively suggesting annexation through economic coercion, not attempt to take the demographically young, politically conservative, oil rich province most dependant on their trade.
1
@Myart2607 idk I follow your point
1
@jasonhoy5402 in what regard? A military base along the coast would have kilometers of sight line. Who is fighting them out of the Arctic? What's their logistics, how are they fed, how are they armed, how do they move? Why would one assume the US would send infantry to wander around looking for at most a few hundred people a thousand kilometers from a population center armed with rifles and whatever ammunition they can carry in a backpack?.
1
They aren't just going to storm in. They will cause economic recession, heaviest in Alberta, and then offer the life line of joining the US. At the same time they will encourage pro American agitator groups. They will push for a Seperation vote, and then incorporate Alberta. And after that Saskatchewan. There would only be military action to support this independence, and so they would have the public baking in any occupied region. Sure there would be some opposition but why would they possibly true to control rural Quebec.
1
@MyCanadaForward The US isn't going to roll tanks in randomly. They are going to coax Alberta to Seperate and join them. We need to keep Alberta. Right now the US can turn off all oil flows to Ontario. We need energy security. I would love if we could get France to share deterrence with us. But if you think the US might invade now, just imagine we were going after WMD.
1
@ryuuguu01 there are good business cases for inter ties from Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke. There is absolutely no business case to connect Manitoba and BC. It's not a problem with Smith its a reality about a large portion of Alberta that will only increase in a deep recession. This is not about the economics. This is about making sure the US can't turn off NG and Oil flows to Ontario on a whim and making Alberta feel happy so they don't leave and cut off the Pacific coast.
1
Am I banned from replying?
1
@ryuuguu01 there is certainly no business case to attach BC as far as Manitoba or even Saskatchewan. But yes BC and Alberta need GWs off connection. However, obviously rebuilding the electrical grid will never draw near the economic activity of the oil industry. Not the government revenue or investment or employment. Including RRPs exported to BC, Alberta barely uses 10% of oil output. It's not going to power the US Midwest with renewable electricity.
1
@ryuuguu01 Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade. Also, please stop claiming I am from Alberta. I am not. I am from and in Ontario. I simply do not want to see our country cut in half. I am referring to how much Alberta stands to lose in Oil revenues, how that will push their economy into deep depression, and how the US administration will leverage that toward their stated goal of annexing Canada. You are the person who started referencing Electrical generation as relevant to the discussion I started with oil.
1
@ryuuguu01 Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade. Also, please stop claiming I am from Alberta. I am not. I am from and in Ontario. I simply do not want to see our country cut in half. I am referring to how much Alberta stands to lose in Oil revenues, how that will push their economy into deep depression, and how the US administration will leverage that toward their stated goal of annexing Canada. You are the person who started referencing Electrical generation as relevant to the discussion I started with oil. I was literally calling conversation around electrical generation a red herring to a conversation about oil..
1
@ryuuguu01 Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist. But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth. In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade.
1
Also, please stop claiming I am from Alberta. I am not. I am from and in Ontario. I simply do not want to see our country cut in half. I am referring to how much Alberta stands to lose in Oil revenues, how that will push their economy into deep depression, and how the US administration will leverage that toward their stated goal of annexing Canada. You are the person who started referencing Electrical generation as relevant to the discussion I started with oil. I was literally calling conversation around electrical generation a red herring to a conversation about oil.
1
Okay well Alberta sends a $100 billion in oil south but clearly you don't think there is economic justification for a pipeline. So obviously you understand that we have to figure in the cost of infrastructure to this conversation. Connecting Thomson Manitoba, where the hydro is, to Edmonton is 1000km transmission project. Maybe this makes sense if the BC option didn't exist.
1
But as you point out, Manitoba has a market in the US. If it loses that Market, than Manitoba is drastically over provisioned and doesn't need excess. If it keeps that Market, it doesn't have a lot of spare capacity, and Minnesota isn't exactly primed for growth.
1
In 20 years, if you already have a bipole connecting to the Ring of Fire and Toronto in Ontario, and US demand has grown, and Alberta's need for dispatchable power outgrows what trade with BC could supply, then maybe. Although I would imagine by that time energy storage is good enough that if such transmission is justified it's because we are undamming our rivers, not bilateral trade.
1
@ryuuguu01 sorry I can't seem to reply directly
1
@sorry for the multiple and indirect replies
1
@Hypatia1.618 you can't just build a military in a year. You certainly can't compete with the US.
1