Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "What Trump’s tariff plan means for Canada" video.

"A 25% rise in Oil Prices" is not going to be the reality. We supply half their oil, but the vast majority goes to the midwest theough Enbridge Mainline system. And we have no alternative market at all for these 4M bbl/day. Whats going to happen will be generally consistent prices paid by US refineries, kept relatively high by Bakken crude from North Dakota and Barges bringing crude from Texas up to Mississippi, and some increased imports from the Atlantic through Pennsylvania pipelines if our output drops. Our output won't significantly drop, however, because the SAGD operations that feed the US can't be turned off without long term damage (In Covid, Mining production was down some 40%, insitu output was nearly unchanged) and because they have low operating costs, and producers will accept lower prices. The real loaer will be the Government of Alberta, because Royalities are on a scaled system, and lower profits have a much more dramatic effect on Albertas budget. The other big issue is the oil mines themselves. They are very expensive to operate and ultimately produce a light oil product, and competitive with US shale oil. If its price is increased, refiners are likely to displace it. To some extent this can be offset by having Ontario and Quebec refiners buy more Syncrude and reduce Bakken imports, and a competent policy might include requiring exports to mix Syncrude into DilBit at some level. But this is the biggest risk point, shutting down the oil mines would kill Fort McMurray and destroy an enormous amount of high wage blue collar employment.
4
If we don't rapidly fix this, and ensure industry that we can maintain trade ties, Canadian Auto Manufacturing is dead. This alone could be terrible for any long term prospects, just the idea of tariffs. Labling this as Americans will pay 25% more for cars is wrong. First of all, the majority of Americans won't buy a new (to them) car in the next 4 years. Many of those will be used cars. America has existing parts manufacturing, and lots of time to create manufacturing before an impact is felt by the public, and most importantly we're only talking about parts, the entore car would never see such a drastic price increase. Canada needs to address this rapidly. Any tariff exposure here will rapidly kill off an industry which has been hesitant to remain in Canada to begin with and as a long term prospect is unlikely to grow
3
@tdpay9015 who would hurting Quebec's and BCa electrical sales to Democrat leaning states help us? Even if it hurt certain Americans, it would only hurt Democrats, and Trump isn't going to change policy for them.
1
@Buzzable, the Americans are the one starting the trade war. America let's more drugs and immigrants into our country than the reverse. This isn't Mexico. I don't know how you can expect the solution to an issue clearly not based on facts to be fixing problems that don't exist.
1
Elastic in Demand doesn't just mean Uranium prices. Trump would probably love to see Nuclear and BC/Quebec hydro more expensive to justify more Coal generation. Just another way to label lower CO2 power as expensive. And again, we can hurt California and New York all day. Trump isn't going to change policy over it, that isn't his base. Potash is better. But at the same time Trump will be forcing a peace deal on Ukrainian and lifting Russia Sanctions, who will be flooding the market with Potash.
1
@tdpay9015 Elastic in Demand doesn't just mean Uranium prices. Trump would probably love to see Nuclear and BC/Quebec hydro more expensive to justify more Coal generation. Just another way to label lower CO2 power as expensive. And again, we can hurt California and New York all day. Trump isn't going to change policy over it, that isn't his base. Potash is better. But at the same time Trump will be forcing a peace deal on Ukrainian and lifting Russia Sanctions, who will be flooding the market with Potash.
1
@Buzzable, the Americans are the one starting the trade war. America let's more drugs and immigrants into our country than the reverse. This isn't Mexico. I don't know how you can expect the solution to an issue clearly not based on facts to be fixing problems that don't exist.
1
@LelandWolf-zt4wz Trump will just hand out Agricultural subsidies.
1
@tdpay9015 in terms of Potash, I believe the US will just end up buying from Russia if we did this, and because Trump intented on returning Russia to the world market seemingly 1 way or another, Russia will end up swamping the global markets. This is true for many of our commodities on a global market. In regards to Uranium, I think the global market, quantity and value of imports needed, and ability to reprocess waste currently illegal that could be easily brought on line of the US was short on energy make this a very weak threat. And the fact that coal plants (which Trump strongly supports because it generates Domestic coal production in red states) are ideally suited to replacing nuclear will see higher demand will be a policy goal.
1
@tdpay9015 in terms of Potash, I believe the US will just end up buying from Russia if we did this, and because Trump intented on returning Russia to the world market seemingly 1 way or another, Russia will end up swamping the global markets. This is true for many of our commodities on a global market. In regards to Uranium, I think the global market, quantity and value of imports needed, and ability to reprocess waste currently illegal that could be easily brought on line of the US was short on energy make this a very weak threat. And the fact that coal plants (which Trump strongly supports because it generates Domestic coal production in red states) are ideally suited to replacing nuclear will see higher demand will be a policy goal.
1
@emilschattner3407 this is entirely correct. We need better port access and better internal mobility for goods and labour.
1
@Willowgirl2015 it sure seems Canadian whenever you want a pipeline built through another province.
1
@jodyperyk1978 have you ever considered that the reason no one wants a DilBit pipeline built through their province is Alberta refuses to share any of the revenue? If half of that funded the Federal government, Alberta would see more revenue, because the rest of Canadians would see a benefit and not just a risk. But we did just build you that nice new pipeline over a mountain. And for the record I support Keystone XL, although I think it's a far from ideal project. Mass Commercialization of those bitumen pucks that can be loaded and shipped like coal, or the Eagle Spirit pipeline for large-scale upgraded oil to the Pacific, would be better. Keystone cements our role as a 0 value added exporter of crude bitumen focused entirely on the US, which will ultimately end in us facing steep price discounts when Russian volumes return to Europe. But competition between Chicago and Texas refiners is better than no competition at all, and we might be able to export some internationally, or even domestically to Irving and Quebec, from the Gulf.
1
@Willowgirl2015 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. Like I said, we should find ways to ship it safely enough other jurisdictions will accept it and diversify sales. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadian across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create. Alberta would sell more oil, and make more money. This is a case of being greedy to the point of losing money.
1
@jodyperyk1978 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. Like I said, we need to process it into something safe enough to handle other jurisdictions will allow it so we can diversify our markets. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadians across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create.
1
@jodyperyk1978 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. Like I said, we need to process it into something safe enough to handle other jurisdictions will allow it so we can diversify our markets. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadian across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create.
1
@jodyperyk1978 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. Like I said, we need to process it into something safe enough to handle other jurisdictions will allow it so we can diversify our markets. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadian across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create.
1
@Willowgirl2015 again, you are literally just talking about income and corporate income tax. Everyone pays federal income taxes. Alberta just has a high average wage. You don't pay at a different scale, high income earners in Ontario pay just as much, and royalties mean you pay far less in provincial income taxes. But If Ontario stopped paying income tax it would be felt by all Canadians lol. I don't know what you're looking for. That is not the same as royalty sharing. Nobody thinks about how Alberta's economy actually works, I think that's obvious from policy. If Alberta said "Every barrel to go through your province, we'll give you 10% of the Royalties" they would get a lot further. Alberta does the same our/your flip when it's convenient. I don't know what your so upset about you get to keep all the royalties.
1
@clydemifflin3600 I agree, but doubling soft wood to 20% is still lower than the baseline on all products being put forward by Trump. There is no reason to support Keystone if we aren't making money on the oil we sell.
1
@geofflepper3207 the issue with this line of reason is Trump's clear desire to end sanctions against Russia, which will flood the European market with many of our exports, from metals and minerals to oil to timber to fertilzer.
1
@Ratbiker the problem with this "solution" is there is nothing to comply to. There isn't a genuine underlying problem. Trump just wants to appear powerful to his electorate and bully us into trade concessions. If it were really about immigration or drugs, it would have been directed at Mexico alone. Last time Trump was in power, he found reasons to start a trade war with us. If we "comply" he'll just find new, made up reasons.
1
@angies.7689 not to be rude, but this take is like watching a hurricane come toward you and hoping it will just go away. Trump launched trade wars last time. Even against us. He got elected on the basis of Trade wars this election. There is every reason to believe he's going to tariff us, and we need to have a plan.
1
Why did you make Chat GDP do this
1
@RocketRon7779 except for the fact Trump is going to quickly force an end to the Ukraine Russia war, and Russia will be flooding the market.
1
@RocketRon7779 I disagree, I don't believe you are considering Trump's plans towards Russia and Ukraine. I think he will almost certainly force a stalemate that leaves Russia with land it has gained, and in Trade negotiations forces Europe to accept Russian trade again to ensure a unanimous end to the war as part of free trade agreement with the US. And as part of that, and along side a depressed China, we will see lower prices for most commodity markets.
1
Again, a 25% tariff on oil won't hurt KeyStone. US refineries won't pay any higher a price, they'll just oil sands producers less. But this is probably part of the negotiation and we will probably build KeyStone as a result. Edit: recent attention to Venezuela may actually indicate no KeyStone. Chevron already has sanctions exemptions I'm sure they'll be tariff exempt, and technically their condensate for heavy crude swaps don't count as buying and selling oil, and growing Venezuelan output serves a number of political goals as well as increasing regional demand for US light oil, which in many ways is lighter than the market has demand for, particularly in the light of Trump ending support for a Ukraine war and Russia returning to the European market and lowering global prices.
1
No, the US has far more flexibility in supply than Canada does markets. Oil sands producers are quite clearly price takers from the historical example. Refiners aren't going to pay 25% more for oil that's unprecedented. Oil sands producers charging a third less is common. Even the smallest drop in US demand would cause a price collapse on the Canadian side as it regularly has. The Alberta royalties are based on a scaled system. Revenue drops much faster than oil prices. Canadians may not pay the tax, but Albertans will when their provincial revenue collapses. All of that is most true of the Mining Operations, which are the largest area of employment and could see closures as the US does not need our light SynCrude.
1
@geofflepper3207 I see when I click your avatar (you replied in another video and I thought I recognized the name, is it actually your name or meant to look like deaf leopard? I think it's pretty solid if the later lol), but you replied to me about the experts saying I'm wrong and that got deleted. But I don't believe they do say that. Ultimately, every barrel of Canadian Western Select is priced in Hardisty outside Edmonton. Regardless of where it ultimately ends up, pipelines may have differing fees, but all oil is sold at the same price. We have some 600k a day flowing down Keystone to the US's Gulf Coast refineries. Which means every barrel in Hardisty needs to be competitive with the price those refineries buy at. The price of CWS+the tariff + pipeline fees (which are a small component, but Keystone is already the more expensive) has to equal the global price, or else the Gulf refineries will switch. Which means every barrel of CWS, including those going to the Midwest, has to subtract the cost of the tariff from their current price. Any tariff will show up as a discount on our oil. If the Gulf refineries stop buying, then we have an immediate oversupply, which will force prices down as producers have no where to store significant quantities and will lose more money stopping production al together where that is even possible. Also, Marathon is already saying it can switch over it's refineries to run on Bakken. That's another 300k a day. It isn't actually hard for the US refiners to move away from Canadian Crude, it just means they lose a bunch of investment. But within 2 years Keystone could be reversed, and add barges on the Mississippi, you can bring another million barrels a day north from the Gulf, and push out another million barrels a day from the Midwest. And frankly, especially if we try to retaliate and reduce supply like we did in 2018 to support prices, I think they will cut Line 5, which Michigan is already trying to do, under EPA order. That's another 300k barrels a day, and half of Ontario's pipeline supply gone. I'm not even mentioning the Washington refineries or California refineries currently taking our product because in theory we can ship anything that reaches the Pacific by sea, but in reality that is a very congested waterway and adding so many super tankers will be difficult, particularly initially because they generally aren't floating around the Pacific coast and will take weeks to arrive after needing an economic incentive to leave their normal clients..
1
@kevinwills6218 Oil sands producers will simply lower the price they sell at, and reduce royalty payments to Alberta. And Alberta would never allow an export tariff on oil.
1
@BobLanctot The scale of electrical sales is very small, both relative to overall trade and US power consumption.
1
@RetroCaptain we don't sell water to the US. It is Infact illegal to sell bulk water across the Canadian border.
1
What? What water do you think we're giving away? We don't own the great Lakes, and there are clear rules for water usage from them.
1
@Butterflies-are-free New British Empire would be cool, First Global Indian Empire I'm not game.
1
@A__SB Russians overrunning Canada. How absurd. The only possible military threat to Canada is the US itself. Canada doesn't have a poor record of defense, the only way we've ever lost was following the American's to Afghanistan
1
The US doesn't have an air defense system for ICBMs either, and no adversary is close enough to hit Canada with anything else.
1
@A__SB defending from who? It's laughable to think someone is going to sail across the Atlantic or Pacific, into the Arctic, and try and land an armed force in the Tundra. Literally no one but the US has any capacity to invade or otherwise occupy Canada.
1
Ya, exactly. The only threat to Canada is the US. The only reason for Canada to build a Military is to fight the US. We don't need America protecting us from hoards of Russians. What a joke. We just need America not to invade its peaceful and Democratic neighbors. What's gone wrong in America that this is suddenly a big ask?
1
@potato, we are in violent agreement. I agree the US could invade us. The point is they are the only country capable of invading us. We don't need them protecting us from Russia, we just need them not to act like Russia.
1
Americans have F22s not Russian built trash. There is no Air Defense system that exists that would help.
1
Mr Potato Head, are you actually suggesting Canada, a country with the world's largest land border, which is with the US, and a population 10% of the US, should seriously develop a capability to combat the US military? Do you understand this is an impossible goal? And given that it's genuinely not plausible, there is no alternative military threat to justify a Canadian Military outside of long range power projection in support of NATO operations.
1
By this definition anyone but maybe China is a client state. But also I never disagreed with this statement. I think it's dumb to be upset about Canadian military spending. All our spending is to support NATO allies. And we do a very good job of it.
1
@joelscott5783 We need a wide scale militia. This is not an 1812 joke this is a comment on Ukraine's success points.
1
This conversation doesn't even account for the fact that Trump is likely going to force Ukraine to surrender and end Russian Sanctions, and Russia will then flood the market with stock piles of Minerals, lumber, oil, and fertilizers it has built up, all of which are our core exports..
1
@jeffDwyer1 I wish this were true and it may be so in the case of some Chinese consumers goods, but the rate at which Americans purchase new appliances, or specifically cars in the case of Canada, is slow infrequent that even if CPI figures increase, Americans won't feel it in their expenses even over the term of a Presidency. Some fancy fruit will increase in prices, but Republican voters won't notice that. Rents will decrease with immigration expulsions, most US food products are domestically produced, all the pain points of inflation will be largely mitigated.
1
@LelandWolf-zt4wz what is the question why oil meant to mean? Why am I talking about it? Why use it? Why sell it? I'm talking about how this will play out in the Canadian economy this has nothing to do with a preference for oil.
1
If car prices go up, fewer Americans will buy a new car. Inflation through car prices isn't going to be top of mind, it isn't rent or food or a regular expense, and the higher income individuals who buy new cars aren't going to be nearly as cash strapped. I suppose is a 25% tariff were triggered each time the car recrossed the border that would be extreme -but why would it be set up like that when even a 10% tariff would steal our manufacturering. I don't believe Canada has a monopoly on any part. But even if we did, 25% on a part is just a part, it doesn't mean a 25% price increase for the consumer, the mechanics labour isn't going up. The point is this is far more damaging to Canadians than Americans. The idea "Americans will just pay higher prices" is as ludicrous as saying that they will go ten years without buying a new car. They will scrap existing cars for parts, keep cars longer, and buy more American parts. Russia managed to survive about 2 years with sanctions on car parts from Europe before they starded to see increasing cat prices. A 25% tariff is far easier to navigate. There will be some short term price increase. And frankly, Trump may just slap on a subsidy to hide the impact. the plan is to steal our industry, it most certainly will work, and it won't take 10 years. any level of trade war will likely kill and rebuild on the American side most of our manufacturing before Trump's term ends.
1