Youtube comments of Neolithic Transit Revolution (@neolithictransitrevolution427).

  1. I would really enjoy a similar video on Vietnam, which while not a democratic state, does seem to follow socialism more closely than one would expect. The use of land leases (a back door LVT) and the high prevalence of CO-OPs in the Market place is particularly interesting.
    2800
  2. "The military, which plays a huge role in Egyptian politics, is represented here too" lol, an understatement really
    2600
  3. Something crazy to me is that things like good bikes and buses are often hand in hand with tourism, tourists want to a) get around b) be around locals c) Enjoy the weather. There really isn't an explanation for this except "We 'ended' racism so we really have to double down on classism and make it as hard as possible for anything to change". It's a horror concepts like these, "Cars are for rich people, if I'm not driving I'm worthless", become so internalized to a culutre. Obviously a global phenomenon but I think it does hit traditionally marginalized groups harder because humans naturally want to be seen as equal.
    515
  4. I have seen studies that, due to the number and size of slums in India and Pakistan, the amount of soot and black carbon released in a nuclear war between the two would actually be highly deviating in terms of nuclear winter. And due to the low yield of their mainly fission weapons the fallout would likewise be devastating.
    416
  5. My fear of nuclear war is our total inability to rebuild. There are no more coal deposits without removing mountains, or iron and copper viens at the surface, or even oil without SAGD or off shore platforms. We've used all the easy to access resources, and if our infrastructure crumbles for a decade it will never be rebuilt.
    298
  6. In terms of Europeans creating a society in the south, a few important points. 1. Most of the deadly disease was brought by Europeans, originally from Asia and Africa. Malaria being a key example. 2. For exactly the above reason, the civilization in the south was entirely dependent on African slaves. This wasn't just the white peasantry refusing to be a lower class, they simply died of diseases African slaves were immune to. Without this labour force the european society couldn't survive labouring outdoors, and as such wouldn't have existed. 3. To talk about the south without talking about hook worm is a huge missing segment. A large part of the reason southerns are seen as lazy etc is that they were chronically ill with parasites until the 1950s. Edit: To avoid being misleading, I should clarify that Malaria wasn't prominent enough to be a death sentence for Europeans in the south as it was in Africa. While white settlers could survive (with high mortality rates), the plantation economy, which was a dominant aspect of Southern Culture even for those not working on a plantation, could not. The labour requirements and particular risk for new European immigrants made it unprofitable to use labour from more established sources, such as indentured irish workers or slaves from the Barbary trade. This lead to the preference for African Slaves, setting the stage for the development of the Chattel slavery racial caste system which would later become an entrenched aspect of the society.
    293
  7. It's funny but I've taken people as adults real camping for the first time (not like park a car and melt a marshmallow but long canoe trip) and people have like panic attacks when it's time to leave. I always say "It's crazy how when you keep an animal in a cage for it's whole life and then take them to their natural habitat, they freak out when you try and make them leave" lol
    283
  8. The issue is russia can't afford to build it, because they lack capital and China offers messily rates. China doesn't want to pay for it, because it will bring enormous sanctions, and they think they might not need gas in 10 years.
    269
  9. What really needs to be discussed is how Turkey, both as a direct backer and overt supporter of Sunni Ideology, is to benefit. Oil rights? Water control? Greater influence over Iraq, and through which undermining of Iran?
    266
  10. Take a moment to count all the things around you with Microchips, phones, computers, "birds".
    175
  11.  @Ruiseal  I do mean Land Value tax, and a CO-OP, or cooperative, is a business owned by the employees.
    170
  12. In your difference between rome and American, I disagree with the first, America being far removed while Rome is not. While Geographically America is indisputably farther, in the relevant technological eras the US is closer in many regards. Italy is protected by coast on multiple sides, and mountains on the remainder, putting it in a similar defensive position. Trade by Sea has become more rapid, and advances in land transport mean even inland regions are ultimately a similar distance to the coast.
    143
  13. Ya exactly, it concerns me that Rudy is taking very obvious influencer/manipulators/extractors and listing them as idols. Masculinity is more than working out and getting laid.
    121
  14.  @roejogan2693  Lol you've been cut off from pipelines, and you don't think energy independence is a concern? You must be a German Parliamentarian.
    120
  15. In regards to Arthur, "From Scythian to Camelot" provides an interesting interpretation making him a Roman General, and more importantly his knights as 5,000 Scythiam horsemem who are known to have been brought to the North of Britain. It explains the large divergence from celtic myth, while also explaining main parallels.
    115
  16. I would love to see you cover industrial fishing and biofuels.
    109
  17. Alaska is actually a very small producer in the modern oil economy, mainly only effecting Californias market and the Pacific coast, and mainly doing it just through Washington state refineries.
    107
  18. I believe this is about keeping land in Russia and thereby keeping Russia away from the negotiating table when Trump is in charge. If Ukraine is kicked out of Russia, Putin will agree to a ceasefire, and Ukraine will have to accept or fight without aid. But, since Russia will not give up any Territory, they will be the ones refusing to negotiate, and Ukraine will keep getting support from the US.
    103
  19. Alex did a great job! Just not quite the voice we've come to trust.
    102
  20. Germany's phase out of Nuclear was one of the worst policy mistakes in history. Excluding nuclear produced hydrogen makes no sense, thats the ideal complement to renewables.
    96
  21. The alamite issue is tricky. They were often collaborators in an oppressive government. Not that all were. But to you let Bashir supporters who commited crimes walk away or risk over punishment of a group. Even if you strike the perfect balance, you will be accused of both.
    95
  22. Eggs, whey, protein, fatty fish, beef (and liver), fermented vegitables, fermented dairy, lentils and quinoa are peak food.
    95
  23. Starting off the year with a bang
    94
  24. I'm absolutely sure Russia can construct and has an operational nuclear arsenal. However, almost of of the arenal is likely on Submarines, and a I would be suprised if more than a hundred worked in total. Trinium half life means warheads have a very finite life span, and based on maintaince we've seen on basic military equipment, I hightly doubt the thousands of ICBMs have been seriously maintained.
    88
  25. What can the US provide? There is still lots of Bradleys and Abrams. But even more importantly, lots of F16s. A huge change would be to allow NATO pilots to fly for Ukraine. On the outside chance, US troops in supporting or active roles could appear, or support for Polish or French ones.
    86
  26. ​ @thephoenix215-po2it They make Navy ships still
    81
  27. Thank goodness the video has the fine Polish I've come to o expect.
    79
  28. I'd like to hear more about China's connection to the Cartels (given the fentynal trade), and whether that could be leveraged in a US-China conflict to destabilize or start a civil war in Mexico. The Zapatistas in the south might also play into such a conflict.
    77
  29. The property crash is an intentional result of Chinese policy to lower housing prices and reduce building. Exports and FDI are due to sanctions, and imports being down is in some ways beneficial, the chip war being the main issue. I expect exports to pick back up in the second half of the decade and Chinese solar panels begin being exported. Deflation is again partially intentional. Youth unemployment is not homogeneous, and mainly effects rural uneducated youth and woman who are being pushed to have kids instead of work. I agree China has substantial issues, the aging demographic key among them, but they used the demographic well to create a surplus of infrastructure, housing, and renewable energy going forward. I expect them to enter a recession in the next year, but I don't expect anything near a depression.
    75
  30. It's claimed in the video more territory means needing more defenders. I disagree with this, the former border had to be defended regardless. By moving into Russia, the Ukrainians are able to target the E38 highway, amd weaken Russia logistics in the entire North. They have also taken two layers of Russian trenchs, and are likely to eventually push the Russians out to the Sjem. Overall this more defensable position with greater room to fall back lowers the number of troops required.
    75
  31. I think a great Idea to get into Trump's head would be to take the Russian seized assets, and start giving $1 billion a day from it to Ukraine. Certainly it would rapidly support the Ukrainian financial position, and allow that to find US weapons purchase, but it would also be a strong incentive to Russia to start bargaining sooner than later.
    73
  32. Belarus elections at the end of the month. If Russia can spare military to "help with the election" as in the last election, will Ukraine act? Will Ukraine launch missiles and drones at Russian targets in Belarus to prevent occupation? Could partisans be armed by Ukraine? Would Ukraine ever send a military force into the country to help count the vote?
    63
  33. Cool, if they keep prices intentionally raised that makes taxes on production easier to sell politically. And if they fail, it's still basically a tax on oil production, just the revenue goes to industry/shareholders to reinvest and not the government.
    58
  34. I'm pretty sure the idea is just to shore up control of Ukrainian controled Territory in Russia. When Trump comes in to Office, Ukraine will have to play the part of the willong negotiater to continue getting aid. But Ukraine also needs the war to continue if its going to win in a meaningful sense. That means Russia has to refuse to negotiate. And Putin can't agree to any kind of negotiation or ceasefire so long as Ukraine controls pre-war Russian territory.
    58
  35. Pentagon Wars gave them a bad name, but I'd say Bradleys are possibly the most effective military vehicle in the world right now, which has been highlighted by Ukraine. The MRAPs have been another highlight for minefields, which is interesting because prior to the conflict they were seen as almost useless for peer on peer conflict and NATO members felt they were a liability. Would be nice if they had some armour, though.
    54
  36. I've always been a fan of the modular style, I really appreciate this as a follow up to The Nakagin Capsule Tower. I really enjoy the way multilevel exposed walkways turn the claustrophobic feeling of a hallway into an extension of the space, it's a really inversion of the tight feeling of the pods. The appearance of a growing city, as you said, makes the building feel more full of life and engaging, certainly not the mundane or awkward Commie Tower we are so used to in Ontario. I do think I would enjoy the building more if it were built on a first floor podium of a few stories. Housing some mixed use, particularly first floor commercial, would increase that city feel and create real engagement for residents. At the same time, it would reduce the level of redundancy needed in the modules by lowing the maximum load, potential saving cost. Such a podium could "tease" at modularity with some cut outs, creating a textured place feel for foot traffic, but might make the space feel more inviting by reducing the hidden corners.
    51
  37. At the same time, sprawling north american cities and CBDs surrounded by suburbs make it difficult/impractical to place Public housing outside of certain areas, like near malls or regional rail stations, because otherwise you're forcing people with low income to live a completely car dependent life style.
    47
  38. Tagging onto this clear explanation; Shale oil is predominantly very light hydrocarbons, and much of a barrel ends up as Petrochemical feed stock or gasoline, with very little diesel of heavier oil products being produced. This is part of why in recent years diesel has become more expensive than gasoline. The US lacks the transportation infrastructure to move oil predominantly from the Permian Basin in Texas easily through the country, ie across the Rockies or to the Midwest. The "lack" of infrastructure to refine this relatively sweet and light fuel is really a large amount of very expensive infrastructure to refine very heavy sour blends, particularly in the Midwest where the majority of Canadian Oil sands flows, and it would be an enormous capital loss to write this off and build new, less advanced refineries. You actually could refine shale oil, the issue is you end up running well bellow capacity, producing only light products, and not paying off the expensive Coker units. Shale oil is not an infinite Resource, the Bakken and Eagle Ford are already passed peak production, and the Permian is seeing declining output per foot of well drilled (although foot of well drilled is getting cheaper to compensate).
    46
  39. The actual and sensible alternative to US energy independence is KeyStone LX or a similar pipeline bringing Canadian oil south to the Gulf of Mexico so that a reliable supply (unlike sanctioned Russia or Venezuela or unreliable Mexico) of heavy crude is available to Gulf refineries. I am all for the energy transition. There is really no way Solar won't become the dominant source of electricity over the next decade, which is great. NG will likely be needed in that time, but not in the evening or for load following, which will be done with batteries. It will be needed overnight and seasonally for cloudy periods, where storage is further off. And EVs are going to take over a large chunk of Transportation. But oil won't stop being used for decades, and in that time a secure supply is to the US's advantage.
    46
  40. There is no 10% reserve requirement anymore, they can loan out 100%. But I wouldn't call fractional reserve banking shady.
    44
  41. I don't believe you are looking at this with enough granularity. You talk about the realities of infrastructure and crude characteristics, but then seem to ignore this by the conclusion. There is frankly no way to look at the Midwest and Rockies without them being import dependent - dependent on Canada, sure, and with legal protection and a near monopsony due to pipelines, but more than half the oil consumed is still imported in these regions. California as well simply can't be viewed as anything but energy dependent. The refineries need a heavy crude, there is no pipeline capacity with the continent, and again we see growing Canadian fractions but I say energy independence is to ignore reality. We can only say the US south, from Permian shale and Offshore, is an actual net surplus. And it's an enormous surplus, no doubt. But you can't look at a basement full of people drowning and an 11th floor of people dying of thirst and say there seems to be no issues with water access. Not only is there no way to move Permian shale throughout the country, but it's the wrong "flavor" for almost all the infrastructure it's near. A hypothetical refinery has a pipe a meter in diameter with oil flowing in. Let's say it was built for heavy oil, the oil enters the distillation chamber and is seperated into components according to the size of molecules. The really light molecules, 1-3 carbons (methane, ethane, propane) exit out a 1 inch pipe at the top, another 1inch pipe for butane, a 2 foot diameter pipe for gasoline which is a mix ~10 carbon long molecules, a foot diameter for diesel which is heavier, and then some real heavy stuff out the bottom. And that all works because I know the oil coming in has ratios that break up to fit the pipes going out. If you decide to try and switch that input oil to something light, you have to reduce the amount of oil you're processing, because the fractions have changed. Suddenly that 1 inch pipe at the top is completely full, even though the gasoline take away pipe is half full, and the Diesel is near empty. And shale oil IS light, super light, sometimes even called ultralight. In some cases it's comparable to that 1 inch pipes output, or condensate, or NGL liquids. Which is a huge problem, because that shale oil requires an enormous amount of diesel to access, but gives very little back. You cannot run the US economy on shale oil, I might be able to fill my car, but construction vehicles? Transport trucks? Farm Tractors? Ships, trains, fire trucks etc? That's why we saw Diesel prices skyrocketing after Russia invaded Ukraine. And US refineries, most relevant for this discussion in the Gulf but also in Chicago and California, are built for the heaviest possible oil. Talking about replacing imports with shale oil isn't just getting less diesel out of a barrel, it's talking about using that 1 meter input pipe at half capacity, because your methane outtake and gasoline outtake are full at that point. But, as bad as all that, most of the wasted equipment is related to the really heavy sludge at the bottom. US refineries are the most advanced and expensive, because they have the equipment to upgrade that sludge into something more like regular oil. Gulf refineries actually buy the sludge from other countries refineries, that used to include Russia's. All that equipment goes completely unused is you try to force shale to be used. Which is going to add to gas prices, because those refineries compete by buying cheap oil to make up for their high cost, and shale oil has just about the highest production cost in the world, only beat by strip mining bitumen in Fort McMurray. *All numbers should be taken as examples and not literally.
    39
  42. It's really hard to gauge the lift Improvement since since you weren't lifting before and there is always that immediate improvement with form and muscle memory improving. Do you think you'll stay lifting? Obviously its not worth maintaining a different work out for a possible future video, but it would provide a better comparison baseline.
    39
  43. Real big fan of your research reviews, idk if you care for "requests", but I would be real interested in a review of sleep deprivation's effect on Ketosis (or vice versa) and Protein Starvation. In university I used to not eat or sleep for 2-4 days at a time for big projects/studying. I found I actually had more focus and energy after the first day than when sleeping. I assumed at the time it was related to higher adrenaline from stress, but now think it was probably Ketosis related. I also know that "Rabbit starvtion" is an issue with high to pure protein diet, where you can't gain energy at all because protein needs fat or carbs to be processed. But I can't find much cross research with how this effects ketosis or pushes Gluconeogenesis, weight loss, or other fasting related effects. Thanks if you ever cover any of this, or if you don't. Great info, love most of the videos (although the meat effect on the environment seemed heavily bias in info).
    37
  44. If the Sudanese Government can push the RSF out or take an advantage, there is a real risk rebels will flood west into Chad and destabilize what is currently the only relatively secure country in the Sahel.
    37
  45. It's the latter. China controls the market in Solar panels and they use a lot of coal in production. But even then it's more efficient than burning coal for power, and importantly this isn't inherent to solar.
    36
  46.  @devinreese7704  Well, also yes, particularly under Ramses the 2(?). Also you might want to throw in Sarnians and tumulus cultures or other "sea peoples", although they have less an organized military force. Also india and China, and maybe the srubnaya culture of the western Steppe. Rough times. But I more meant the way in which the military is widely involved in all facets of the economy and political process in modern times. Egypt borders on a stratocracy.
    35
  47. It looks like this foot hold south of the river also cuts off Russian logistics to the North West of the river.
    34
  48. ​ @matanelsiboni9269  Israel did assassinate someone in the "Iranian white house". I can't imagine Israel would have not bombed a country in a similar situation.
    34
  49.  @DrustZapat  I would appreciate the overall comparison. The "Socialism" of each is quite distinct. Venezuela for instance nationalized oil, and then mainly used oil profits to buy goods and sell at subsidized rates. Cuba on the other hand had very limited resources, and under a command control economy focused on intellectual and labour investment through education and healthcare. Vietnam looks like an open market but heavy government intervention and strong CO-OP sector, while China has focused on Government companies and export lead growth. It's quite a diverse range of economic foundations.
    33
  50.  @Julottt  Same government that subsidizes Corn Fructose, ya?
    31
  51. Doesn't matter Ukraine is in Kursk exactly so it can come to the table knowing it's Russia who won't.
    29
  52. The fact that the US clearly needs Canadian industry and is acting aggressively should not be seen as some confusing point but as clear evidence that he is serious about annex as a goal.
    29
  53. The conflict should be viewed in the regional context as much as National. Arab and Islamic malitias have been taking power or leading rebellions across the Sahel, notably the coup belt to the west. Burkina Faso is a center of Islamic terrorism, but the entire region has become a hub. To the North the Lybian civil war, while not as strongly ethnic in context, does have a relevant religious element. Even to the North Egypt has been dealing with Muslem brotherhood rebel groups in Sinai, and of course the Gaza conflict rages on its border. Its easy to condem the military government of Egypt, but important to consider what a democratically elected islamic government could mean for the region. The South Sudan conflict isn't long in the past, and the Potential for south Sudan to be included in the conflict is very real. And Ethiopia to the south is teetering on civil war, with Eritrea likely to be pulled in. And further south of South Sudan, Rwanda ans Uganda are brewing conflict with the Congo. The RSF, along with Lybian mercenaries fought in Yemen under UAE employ, where they were improved in caliber. The UAEs context in pushing these Arab militias should not be understated, nor should Russias role under the Wagner banner in destabilizing the region to access cheap mineral wealth. Africa is at risk of seeing war from The Congo to the Mediterranean and the Rea sea to the Atlantic. And Sudan is at the Center.
    28
  54. Quick correction, Bitumen is cleaned of Clay and Dirt and Water before before shipped by pipeline. Bitumen itself, being very long chain Hydrocarbons, is itself like peanut butter it is so thick. Also, you don't need a Coker for Bitumen, but it is the most common. Hydrocrackers, preferably using green hydrogen, can also be used to break down the molecules.
    27
  55. I really do wish we could put more focus on the connection between what Trump is doing, with talks of annexation, and the Seperatists threat in Alberta. This is how Ukraine got invaded.
    26
  56. If you think this is bad news for Alberta, wait until Trump declares Tariffs on foreign oil to try and push out international compensation and boost domestic prices..
    26
  57. I used to be against Supply Management. It is in fact a cartel that raises prices. But it achieves a lot, that would be very difficult to achieve without it. Right now, it should be very clear why it is important to ensure domestic supply of core food items. Can we really risk depending on our trade partners, frankly the US, to control our food supply when they are willing to weapoize trade? But more than that, it protects small farms. Maybe it doesn't generate the worlds most efficient output. But what is the cost of that? How many rural towns depend on the strong middle class farmers who are protected by supply management, and what is the cost of these towns failing. Im not an animal rights activist, but I don't want to see the 10 thousand cow factories we see in the US. In Canada cows go to pasture. They are able to leave a building and concrete stall. There is a value to knowing there was a level of ethics. And just like we are seeing with avian flue, that protects against disease. More, small farms, mean outbreaks don't destroy production. Its better for the environment, look at the the massive manure waste coming out of us factory farms, smaller operations allow manure to be spread evenly over a field. Look at the health aspect. The antibotics that the cows need to avoid disease. The hormons they are given in the States. I don't want that in my milk. Supply management protects consumers, protects the farmers, and protects the animals. I don't want to have a hand full of factory farms producing chemical laiden milk while rural communities fall apart for milk that costs a few cents less a liter.
    26
  58.  @iactas7892  While my comment is applicable to South America, I was actually refering the the lower South of the US. Also Haiti is poor (French), Jamaica, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago aren't wealthy (English), and Uruguay is certainly quite well off (Spanish). I do agree with your premises, but the type of colonization (Settler, conqueror/extractor, and slave plantation) certainly impacts this as much as the colonizing nation. Likewise, since colonialism has wound down, the willingness of western countries to deal with former colonies in terms of trade or investment is as relevant as the colonization itself. Argentina for example was highly successful until British investment dropped off in WW1, while much of Haitian poverty is due to Western countries treating it as a pariah state since independence.
    25
  59.  @marlonmoncrieffe0728  Central Business District, the typical Noeth American down town/ office building area.
    24
  60. ​ @wenterinfaer1656 that's very much like "everytime Italy has a recession, it ends up with growth later". Very ad hoc review imo. Golden ages have always been while population grew. Saying "things got better a few hundred years after the bronze age collapse" days nothing about the collapse creating the next golden age. It just means eventually things started falling apart. The falling apart bit doesn't help at all.
    24
  61. I don't understand how you can fine someone for a flower pot and live in the same neighborhood as them, ans not have bad things happen to your house.
    24
  62.  @matanelsiboni9269  which was after Israel attacked an Iranian embassy. This is a very long term tit for tat that's been going on for a decade. Between supporting Iran and Israel I'd prefer Israel, but I'd also prefer Israel follow human rights laws and stop expecting unilateral control over the region.
    24
  63. I think leaving our the fact shale oil has never been profitable from a video is akin to posting misinformation. Like I get drumming up business and the second video concept, but in this case you are leaving our that Shale plays have never made a return. And with the average barrel getting light and gassier, and well productivity dropping, that's a worsening issue. NG prices are rock bottom already. Without knowing this or seeing the draw down in DUCs (drilled but uncompleted wells) or decrease in the drilling rig count, you would think that shale oil is a replacement for oil security. But it isn't, it's a very limited resource that only has a few more years of activity before collapse.
    21
  64. Ya I hate that pension funds are generally run without any input from the benefactors, to the point where a unions own savings will be divested from thier company and they lose thier job. Should be a real smoking gun that we live in a "free market" where most people aren't allowed to decide how thier savings are used.
    21
  65. I didn't realize how large a part of the diet bears are, i would love to hear more. I know "bear" is actually derived from the indo European for "brown", the word for the animal appears to have been Taboo. I also know in native American culture Bears are often considered the spirits of Humans. It makes me wonder if this was as much a dietary reason as suggested, or maybe (purely spit balling) something like a fear that one wouldn't be able to reincarnate in a land without Bears. Ancient Egypt never expanded greatly because those who died outside egypt couldn't go to the afterlife. The drive to be able to reach an afterlife make more sense to me than putting a bear in your canoe to eat, particularly when its going to eat the same berrys, nuts, and animals as you would have.
    20
  66. Important to mention the information gap in those volunteer - cash trades.
    20
  67. I actually agree. Not a lot of other conservatives see this, but coming from a small town, living in a city in university, and moving to the suburbs, I can't believe the level of social isolation you see here. It's awful.
    20
  68. I agree this was awful. I saw answers like "well I've never been locked up with a bear, but I don't like men". It would be insulting if it didn't demonstrate the absolute lack of critical thought, instead it's just scary.
    20
  69.  @adamelghalmi9771  but greater control of Syria is greater control of Iraq's water, over oil pipelines, and over a very porous border.
    20
  70. I think we can expect to see large scale investment from Europe into Military procurement since we have low energy costs. And possibly new LNG or oil pipeline under the 1.5% of NATO defensive infrastructure spending. And possibly a major supplier of EVs and EV inputs.
    19
  71. 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
  72. ​ @agitador UAE and Arab Colonialism perhaps, the Sudan was an Egyptian/Ottoman Colony long before Europeans knew you couldn't sail west to Asia
    19
  73. This video ends and goes to black screen for 18 minutes
    18
  74. This video was interesting and I agree with many of the take aways (by the way, as a guy, I want a girl with an hour glass figure and millions of dollars regardless of if I do). But your content seems to be more and more actively courting a further right crowd, and makes me trust you less and less because it creates the appearance marketability is more important than honesty. All im saying is if you want me to trust you, everything you say can't be what I want to hear, because if it is im perfect and have no reason to care about what you say
    18
  75. if the attack isn't real, you don't want Russia knowing very much about European Air Defense
    18
  76. This was a very interesting video, I would like to hear more about yeast based cellular agricultural (for example producing egg white proteins with yeast), and I want to point out that the environmental goals are more than just GHG emissions, land use is by and large the biggest.
    18
  77.  @ConfidentlyUninformed  Definitely a lot of trolls in the comments though
    18
  78. UPVOTE SUPER LIKE THIS^^^^ Higher lifecycle emissions that gasoline, soil loss, fertilizer and pesticide run off, more cost, more expensive food, biodiversity loss. Indonesia aims to run half its liquid fuel on palm oil. Biodiesel and corn ethanol are the most atrocious industries.
    18
  79. I would love to hear more on the relationship with bears. My understanding is ANE ate bears mainly in the winter when facing starvtion, due to the obvious risks involved in hunting. I know "bear" is actually derived from the indo European for "brown", the word for the animal appears to have been Taboo. I also know in native American culture Bears are often considered the spirits of Humans. It makes me wonder if this was as much a dietary reason as suggested, or maybe (purely spit balling) something like a fear that one wouldn't be able to reincarnate in a land without Bears. Ancient Egypt never expanded greatly because those who died outside egypt couldn't go to the afterlife. The drive to be able to reach an afterlife make more sense to me than putting a bear in your canoe to eat, particularly when its going to eat the same berrys, nuts, and animals as you would have.
    17
  80. lol im getting tired of rhe constant special military operation/buffer zone jokes this was a fresh addition
    17
  81. Remember last episode when we learned towers will last forever. Didn't see this twist coming.
    17
  82.  @Micha-qv5uf  it was hardly investing, it was simply maintaining existing facilities. Which were phases almost entirely to coal. Also, the idea of Russian Uranium dependance is a nothing burger, the country shares a boarder with France and has good relations with the US.
    17
  83. You align Aragon to Celtic mythology, based on the similarities to King Arthur, and this is certainly what Tolkien would have thought. However, he may have accidentally drew these theme's from Alanic indo-iranian mythology, if you follow the arguments of From Scythia to Camelot, which I think is an interesting consideration as the Alan's would themselves be culturally very similar to the Rohan, and a people destroyed by the westward expansion of the East
    17
  84. Some reports say Negev airbase and a number of f35s hit, but no way to know this early. Tel Aviv was also hit. No idea on damage
    17
  85. I know you said you had some mitigating factors screwing up your base line going in. Do you think you will repeat this ever, and if so, would you consider fasting or moving into Keytosis immediately after? I am curious how a body would respond with the raised hormon levels.
    17
  86. Afghanistan pull out was terrible and Biden should carry much weight - but holding a past president accountable is only so helpful, and since Trump is in power again, it is important to discuss how his deal with the Taliban influenced what followed, since as the current president being held accountable may have a real impact on future decisions.
    17
  87. I don't think there will be a very large market for shale in 30 years. It's already running out, it's getting lighter every year and is already to light to refine without mixing. And frankly, in 30 years oil demand will be so much lower the cost of fracking won't make sense.
    16
  88.  @Reiber1991  Oh wow all questions answered then.
    16
  89. Unfortunately you should add that the Ukrainian line of defense has been breached in several places. I had expected the line to hold russia until mid September at least, this may be a bad sign.
    16
  90. Russia would have just invaded again in a few years.
    16
  91. This was a wonderful episode and deeply informative
    16
  92.  @viive4107  All fruits are designed to be eaten. Grasses to, although not by humans. Milk is up there.
    16
  93. Trump supporters take him seriously not literally, Trump opponents take him literally but not seriously.. See it in action here folks.
    16
  94. I'm not a huge fan of Solar Energy, but roof based solar is, at least partially, the solution to ACs. That and district heating systems using ocean based cooling
    16
  95. A better way to deal with Tariffs would be not not rip appart a decades old Free trade agreement due to be renegotiate next year
    15
  96. There are two risks to Alberta in this environment. First is government revenue. Royalties are on a sliding scale; this prices drop of $20 will consume the majority of royalties. DilBit and SAGD is cheap as dirt to produce, but that production will sell at the price of dirt. Not only is that going to remove the 1/3rd of the budget that comes from royalties, but it will mean difficulty in raising or refinancing debt. Secondly is the Upgraders produces Canadian Sweet Light, CSL, the other benchmark Canadian crude. These upgraders are largely based in Fort McMurray, and they are fed by the mines in Fort McMurray. These are the highest production cost barrels, maybe in the world. Fort McMurray is known for the oil sands, but it is really the center for Bitumen mining, almost all the SAGD is to the south. In covid we saw see mines shut down almost entirely due to low demand. In a prolonged shutdown, Fort McMurray will see a severe regional depression and unemployment crisis. Syncrude only has mining and upgrading operations. In this low price environment, its minable reserves will be devalued amd written off as no longer economically recoverable, lowing its capital and tanking its debt to asset ratio. It has a real risk of bankruptcy, which will have a major impact across the financial sector and leave the tailing ponds unfunded. That risk exists for the other Oilsands majors, particularly Suncor and CNRL, but Syncrude will go first. This will be an absolutely terrible depression in Alberta if it continues. But it will be Nationally felt, whether through lower imports at our already struggling ports, a weaker CAD, financial market collapse as all oil majors write off reserves, or a growing trade imbalance eating our financial reserves..
    15
  97. Americans taxing Carbon. That would be something.
    14
  98. I think Port Neslon is the obvious choice. Churchill closes in the winter due to ice; not the bay freezing, but river ice pouring in all the way from Alberta. Nelson is dammed and that keeps everything from flowing. Sea ice isn't really an issue, its like the texture of a freezy, and there is no multi year ice in the bay - going past Labrador is a little harder. Also, I don't think the people in Churchill want a huge build out.
    14
  99. And after this, Super Capacitors will change everything. I'm very supportive of building a vertically integrated, full supply chain battery industry in Canada. But this is the main hang up, it's hard to predict the battery chemistry or how long the technology will be relevant.
    14
  100. Last time Iran attacked, Saudi and the UAE helped air defense. I have only seen Jordan as being involved in this round. Iran had previously threaten retaliation against any countries that aoded isreal again. I'm wondering if a second wave of missiles coming could target the Jordanian government and military. Far less protected than Israel. And frankly the Government os gar more supportive of isreal than the Jordanian public. Destabilizing Jordan would potentially create an additional front isreal has to deal with, directly connecting to the West Bank.
    14
  101. Its crazy people think this guy might be okay with Isreal when his chosen name basically means "Take back the Golan Heights". Probably not a great sign for Regional autonomy either
    14
  102. Entirely speculative, but I am wondering if a certain South African born billionaire might be connected to the Rwandan government at the moment. He is becoming quite heavily involved in American and European politics, a small African country seems like small game, and this is going to put Rwanda in charge of some significant battery inputs..
    14
  103. I'd be very interested in a video dedicated to MRAPs. These vehicles were considered basically useless, built for IED attacked in the middle east insurgencies, and donated in huge numbers by militaries who were worried about the cost of scrapping them. But from what I hear, they are perfered over IFVs by the Ukrainians, because they survive mines, and have high road speeds. This, along with limited use of fighter aircraft and drones becoming cheap Rockets, is one of the more interesting take aways from the war imo. Has western military equipment completely forgot about mines, and our useless surplus become the most import asset?
    13
  104. I know its a relatively small market, but more should be said about North South electrical transmission to the territories. Manitoba to Nunavut, and Saskatchewan/Alberta to NWT.
    13
  105. Ya this was an interesting video, but where he normally sites real studies in his videos this is basically unusable (changed work out routine, was sick at baseline, no ongoing blood tests, one participant, etc).
    13
  106. I think the pains Bilbo and Frodo experience that you compare to PTSD are equally strong descriptions of being a recovered addict.
    13
  107. I think a lot of things blamed on Biden, and there is a lit to genuinely blame on Biden, need to also be understood in the context of a House that required Republican support that Trump refused to allow in a number of cases to cause political damage, and in the view of conflicts where aggressors would rather negotiate with Trump than Biden and so prolonged the conflict with that goal.
    13
  108.  @JFox4587  Here I was eating them as a supper food
    13
  109. I think this was largely a success. "Most of the missiles were intercepted" is another way of saying "Iran launched the minimum attack to demonstrate it can overwhelm Israeli defense". This is largely best case for the region, it shows Israel that serious repercussions could come from attacks, while allowing Iran to save face but avoid conflict. It seems that Iran wants to avoid over escalation to maintain logistics to its proxy network, and selling of supplies to Russia. Direct conflict would mean Israeli bombing of factories in Iran, and shut down Iran's current significant source of revenue from Russia trade, while weakening proxies and opening up US and Israeli widescale attacks on proxies. So while I agree "now is as good a time as any" I think "later is probably an even better time", because the longer Iran waits, the stronger it's position in the coalition with Russia is.
    12
  110. My understanding is that the Saudi's heavily funded the production of the Pakistani nuclear program, and had access either through transfer or NATO style sharing if Iran gets access.
    12
  111. So... Somalia is the only non-autocracy? It's not exactly a role model.
    12
  112. Hi Sal, I would love a video on Great Lakes shipping. Being Canadian and with ongoing trade tensions, I would like to know what legitimate issues there may be with Canadian shipping, and what shipping on the lakes looks like overall.
    12
  113. I wouldn't support using the Emergencies Measures Act. But this is an Emergency. The US will crush Alberta's economy. And then offer statehood as a solution. There is already strong Anti-Canadian sentiment in Alberta. If we do not meet thier demands, no matter how economically unsound you believe them to be, we will lose Alberta.
    12
  114. thats for the public, and why we aren't hearing about red lines. Can't have the Russian people know they may actually be effected or their conscripted kids caught in the fighting
    12
  115. Remember, the NK troops basically showed up with no training, no situational awareness, not even a competent core of translators. I would expect going forward to see improvement both as they learn to use modern equipment like FPVs, and are able to fully coordinate thier own actions with a trained Korean speaking officer corps. Russia was unable to make gains for almost 2 years, even losing large amounts of ground. Now, they understand effective tactics, and are grinding forward. The North Korean learning curve will be much faster.
    12
  116.  @Zeromus725  I would suggest just googling it. My links got removed but I quickly see both reliable news sources and Reveiwed journals on the subject on the first page.
    12
  117. Well, in fairness, the alternative is paying Boeing that money, and NASA and the Military both agree that's not worth it
    12
  118.  @anthonyk423  No, most of the refineries are built for heavy, as can be exemplified by the big uptake of Canadian DilBit now that Transmountan is open. California (particularly in the south near LA) has always been a heavier crude. The higher price has more to do with California having very specific fuel emissions standards that only refineries in California and Washington can meet, Californian refineries being older than average, the Rocky mountains cutting off California from the rest of the countries oil infrastructure making shipping more expensive, and consumer taxes in the state.
    11
  119. There is a point made about men not being taught to empathize. But I think it's important to see that woman are allowed and even encouraged to publicly admit and act on a generalized fear of men. That isn't an emotion men are allowed to have. It would be an act of hate speech for me to publicly state a generalized fear and avoidance of a group. And I don't say that to shame women or ask permission to do this; but how do you empathize with a feeling you are banned from?
    11
  120. What will happen to Syrian Army supporters? I have heard they are in Sudan helping set up Russian bases? In the long run will they be the newest group of militants for hire in the Sahara and middle east?
    11
  121.  @nunyabidness3075  Why are they not realisitic. The average living space has decreased over the last several decades, and adults are living with thier parents at higher rates, so if you're accusing them of demanding to much I don't think thats accurate. Also, your stating people won't want to live in social housing when there are literal waiting lists, and Co-op housing is ranked most enjoyable in New York City. I mean what evidence is there Americans won't live in denser urban housing, if law makers really thought they wouldn't they wouldn't have written laws against it.
    11
  122.  @woltertropterus  I agree the reporting here has a pro Ukrainian bias. I don't believe they have been wrong however.
    11
  123. If we were serious about diversifying, we would be doing it. Canada owns a pipeline company, which just finished building a pipeline, with logistics and trained staff and skilled labour and contractors all sitting on their hands. Work should be starting on adding pumping stations to Transmountain as an immediate option and to keep ground workers in projects. We should be starting Projects, which will take years and upfront planning, for another West Coast export pipeline and an Eastern pipeline, ideally getting Europe to agree to invest in the later upfront. With Coastal link complete we should be rapidly permitting the Prince Rupert Gas line to keep works employed and lower costs by keeping those same skills and logistics systems employed. And yes interprovincial trade is important as well. But BC doesn't need GM parts from Ontario, Nova Scotia can't change regulations to import Albertan oil and replace the lost demand. New Brunswick might be able to sell more refined products to Quebec, but at the end of the day that's at Quebec's expense. Our economy is based on exporting commodities and importing consumer goods. If we can't export, making it cheaper to ship internally isn't going to offset. We need to be going full steam to reorient our export infrastructure. Not releasing the same proposal to do a study on high-speed rail we see every year. I supported high speed rail every other year, but right now every dollar we have needs to be invested in exporting east and west..
    11
  124. If you're real; what do you think we're living off your success? Because we trade with you? What do you think will happen to your export industries? We produce oil and you refine it to gas. This is like a wheat farmer selling to a flour mill, and having the flour mill expecting us to buy as much as we sell wheat. It makes no sense. We supply you materials that you turn into your own exports. Canada has the 10th largest trade deficit of anyone you trade with. Why are we receiving higher tariffs than China?
    11
  125. I guess that depends on how democratic you feel the US is these days.
    11
  126.  @Micha-qv5uf  mainly Niger currently? Although also Kazakhstan, which isn't Russia, Uzbekistan also not Russia, and Australia, which I don't believe to be Russia, have each provided roughly a quarter of total imports since 2000. France does trade Uranium with russia, sure, but only reprocessing spent fuel. If you want Russia to leave piles of nuclear waste lying around a soon to be failed state I guess it's your purgative. But overall France exports to Russia, and certainly isn't dependent
    11
  127. I think the emissions cap is silly. If you are right and the future will punish high carbon oil, then the demand for Oil Sands will require it's lower emissions. This seems to be a very industry punitive policy. That said, it shouldn't be an issue. If Alberta would smarten up, they would stop doing everything possible to boost natural gas demand. Build some nuclear plants for the SAGD and the power generators. There is really no excuse for this, if Ontario can run on nuclear, so can Alberta
    11
  128. I believe you are.
    11
  129.  @anubis2814  Was your comment removed? Thats a shame, it was well written.
    11
  130.  @BarberJ95  Also, along side cuba, you may want to add the Kerala State in India to your list. Not a full country, but a very interesting case of a largely successful implementation of socialism on a sub-national level. Amd Bolivia has been so-so.
    11
  131. I agree; although I would suggest this means securing greater access to Canadian crude (which is inexpensive, has long term reserves, and matches existing refinery needs, along with being protected by NAFTA). Shale oil reserves are limited and high quality reserves are largely depleted. Bakken and Eagle Ford both are declining, and Permian appears to be also. Investment is bone dry. Trying to rebuild the industry around a short term and unideal resource would be a waste.
    11
  132. But heres the thing; she's right. She still polls well in Alberta. She is representative of her base. Yes, Quebec has tried to Seperate. The US wasn't actively trying to annex Quebec at the time. If we ignore this as just being those annoying Albertans, they are going to end up Seperating. Smith is a consequence of Albertan anger at Canada, not the source. We need to meet Albertan demands to avoid our nation being split in half.
    11
  133.  @4mulatorza858  friendly, eh? Let's revisit that after you stop threatening 25% tariffs.
    11
  134. We always hear about adding value to our resources, which is excellent when done. I think what gets overlooked is the potential to build the capital equipment to work those mines/forests/drilling operations/construction equipment. We have a temporary but awesome opportunity to transform Ontario's Auto Sector into making Heavy duty vehicles and equipment and moving up the supply chain. If we have a large resource boom, we can make use of both our relatively large portion of the global mining industry, and our unusually harsh conditions, to monopsonize our position with an import quote system to encourage domestic production and create a global provider of cold weather heavy equipment. And from a military perspective, its nice if we can make heavy vehicles..
    11
  135. Belarus has an election in a little over a week. I don't think Russia has the manpower to send in the army to stabilize things as they did in 2021, but if they do, I wonder if any ManPADs will be slipping into civilian hands
    11
  136. Guyana produces a light crude. Not Shale light. But light. Venezuela is a heavy crude that works better for US refiners.
    10
  137.  @GregDeman  am I imagining the part where the Russian military had to go into Belarus after the last election to prop up the government or the part where the Russian military didn't have the man power to prop up Syria and lost its toe hold in the Mediterranean? Or maybe I'm imagining the part where Ukraine is at war with Russia and has a history of creating new fronts (Kursk, Syria, North Africa) to hobble Russia.
    10
  138. I think the clearest indication of this disconnect is Canadian Terrain. We constantly hear that EVs aren't ready because you can't rely on them in -30 (right or wrong) - Most of the world's population will never see a negative temperature, it's entirely inconsequential, and the global market is what shapes our domestic one. Even more concerning is the lack of understanding around solar "intermittency". Leaving aside most of the world's population has never had a stable power supply and would be happy to have power during the day; Solar is very reliable outside Europe and coastal North America. If you are on the Indian subcontinent, and almost a fifth of people are, 8 months of the year there will never be a cloud, everyday from very predictable dawn to very predictable dusk you know exactly what is being produced. The same is true across the middle East and Africa and much of Asia. And, the largest area of demand growth is Air Conditioning in the global south - AC demand and Solar supply are load following. We cannot afford to frame the world as rural northern Canada. We have to understand the context of a majority of the global population who want AC and the ability to charge a phone reliably because they are the center of global growth.
    10
  139. I disagree, any long term slow down of agriculture in the previously USSR countries is easily predictable (as you suggest). But because of this, I think the idea of a global famine due to a slow aging of the work force is nearly impossible. Between the ability of these countries to adsorb immegrants, the slow increase in graon prices that would occur YoY and cause additional investment internationally (huge amounts of US crop land are used to produce Soy/corn for biofuel/animal production). An unexpected famine fue to war, totally possible. But as this has been adverted, I don't think this pathway is reasonable. Maybe an ocean fishery collapses. Big worry. But even in that case, I think globally famine can be controlled. Their are simply to many solutions which are moving forward to aggressively.
    10
  140.  @mohammedsarker5756  A red Vienna type social deal that eveyone is entiled to a small apartment at reasonable cost is certainly a good way to get this result. Just build enough that anyone can live there, and anyone will.
    10
  141. He didn't actually rag on the French though. The title was a little click baity but nothing in the content made fun of French training or professionalism.
    10
  142. With a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, I would be surprised if ships moved north to avoid the US port. Assuming the Ship was going to offload at Washington, pays $3 million, it would have to be under $12 million in the shipment to be a money saving move. That may sound like a boat load of money, but not a ship load of goods
    10
  143. ​ @TexasNationalist1836 Yes, those are the reasons its only 10%. I'd expect mainly thier submarine fleet to hold the operational weapons.
    10
  144. ​ @mohammedahmed1109 Don't be absurd as though the Ottomans hadn't colonized most of North Africa long Before Europeans were sailing or Islam wasn't spread to the region through war and displacement a thousand years ago.
    10
  145. Don't worry, manure and fertilizer run off, Deforestation for Cattle range land and cattle feed, and the energy intensity required to process and refrigerate animal product are still destroying the world, you just watched an interview with someone who professionally supports the meat industry. Notice his argument around the % of emissions from cattle wasn't that its low compared to globally, it was that other things are worse.
    10
  146. You're being a little disingenuous with the California power production point. California is the largest electrical importer in the US at something like a third of total demand being imported. And that is inclusive from coal fired plants in Utah and Nevada, but there is also BC and Washington hydro. But presenting the California generation numbers as what fuels their grid is misleading. I say this not because I don't support renewables but so you can craft stronger arguments. Edited* based on correction below, however, it is my understanding that there is somewhat of a shell game as well where Wyoming will sell coal fired power to western states who at the same time sell renewables, like hydro from the Columbia River, to California. So while California is not importing the coal power, it is directly causing the draw on the electrical system which leads to coal generation occuring
    10
  147. I remain hopeful that Carney will arrange a deal with Smith and Eby to build an Oil pipeline to the NW coast in exchange for rapid Hydro intertie ans wind build out. But this is terribly disappointing, Smith needs to go.
    10
  148. I think the issue is one governing party (Hamas) is committed to the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the other. Meanwhile the other governing party (Israel) definitely is not cough cough committed to the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the other. The closest thing to a moral high ground in this conflict is Israel not saying the quite part out loud.
    10
  149. Iran has considerable control over Syrian militias, a lot of control of Iraqi ones, and a lot of influence over Hezbollah as well. Yemen is more an alliance of convince, and Gaza something between. Toy understanding
    10
  150. I just want to point out while thier are a huge Surplus of units to the population, they are largely shoeboxes. It wouldn't surprise me to see walls ripped out to make 2 units into a single, small unit.
    10
  151. People NEED to stop with the "Consumers pay the tariff" party line. No one buys it. I'm Canadian, if I believed it, I wouldn't be so terrified Ontario's Manufacturering sector and Alberta oil royalties are about to collapse. An economy the size if the US has enormous purchasing power, and a Monopsony can absolutely lower prices. Some of the cost will be faced by customers, but some will in fact be from foreign economies feeling the squeeze of deflation. Hello China. If they don't lower prices, the 4 years of building an industrial base Biden just did is going to out compete them.
    10
  152. There is, lets call it a non 0 chance, that this suggestion ends up in a boondoggle - but I'd say its worth the risk. Government should buy HBC in bankruptcy, keep a few flagstone shops open, open a bunch of small order to locations, and revamp the Bay's Core Business model to be the Canadian Amazon. Then release it from government control and turn it into a customer owned co-op. I would love a large Canadian online retailer, I would love if it were a Co-op, and I am one of those people who would like the bay to hang in there even though I don't use it.
    10
  153.  @TSZatoichi  in all matters I agree manpower in Ukraines greatest limitation. But a few caveats here; Ukraine already has to keep a limited force on the Belarusian border since invasions and threats have come from that direction. Whether that force is on the border or 100km North isn't a change in numbers. Russia is claiming Ukraine is readying to invade between Belgorod and Kursk, which suggests manpower for an offensive. I'm not sure what Russia has to gain overstating Ukrainian capacity. If the Belarusian population is against Russia, Ukraine may not have to fight very hard over much of the area, and may be seen as the liberating force Russia expected to be. And in any even crossing the swampy border area is likely best done in winter. While Russia didn't pull people out of the eastern Front for Kursk, I think Belarus may be another matter entirely. There was no risk of Kursk Oblast, let alone the surrounding, rising up with Ukraine and kicking out Russia. In Belarus a Ukrainian invasion may be seen as a much more permanent risk. And, while there is the Union State, I'm not sure Russian conscripts or North Koreans can be sent to Belarus, which may limit the response to volunteers. And there is an investment aspect. A Ukraine that caused Belarus to flip ~Western might carry more favor with the US or Europe in terms of donations. A Belarus free of Russian occupation may see volunteers joining Ukraine. And a new Government might even be willing to use the Belarusian military against Russian forces in country - or else donate equipment to/ have it seized by Ukraine. But I did list those options in what I view as order of probability, and I agree a manned invasion is least likely - but that could make it most likely. Then again, there is the aspect of nuclear weapons.
    9
  154.  @The_Panther  I agree but Politically I don't think agreeing to a ceasefire is possible for Putin as long as Ukraine is holding Russian Territory, and I think that will be an immediate requirement to entering negotiations with Trump.
    9
  155. I mean you probably should account for a million plus people being expelled from the country will do to the rental market.
    9
  156. It's a funny comment but I don't think it's entirely fair. I mean I don't think Gram is a particularly valuable source he doesn't have a lot of evidence. But two points. First, he may well have been right about the astroid impact. Probably a broken clock, but he claimed for a long time that there was a catalysim at the end of the ice age, and there is decent evidence that this may be true. Second, he's not (necessarily) looking for a Narnia. I mean, he makes ridiculous claims about mental powers. But, the idea that a neolithic civilization may have existed in a coastal area now underwater isn't so crazy as "there might be a world in the furniture", and we do have a lot of coastal area to be studied. It is a major blind spot, even if improving. In fact I'd be shocked if we don't find anything under the sentiment of the Persian Gulf, seeing as every year it expands.
    9
  157.  @aneurindavies5943  What on earth is that meant to mean
    9
  158.  @tastyfalcon1788  I certainly agree, but my point is it's much more difficult to move a thousand men in triremes than on an aircraft carrier. And so the overall effect is to put the the Italian peninsula and North America in a similar position.
    9
  159. Well that simply is untrue.
    9
  160. We need to create a subsidy and regulatory environment themat encouraged a domestic mining boom. But we need to protect manufacturing. As part of this economy, there is battery manufacturing for grid and EVs. We also need to capture the supply line and produce the heavy vehicles for mining/forestry/drilling/construction/Military/trucking uses. As a very large, resource focused economy, we have an unusually large potential market to leverage. This is a life line for Ontario that needs to be thrown. Ideally we should develop a heat pump industry as well. While we have a relatively low population, its generally very cold, and if we specialise in cold weather models we have a very large markey.
    9
  161. If theres one advantage of a one party state, its that the problems are never the last governments fault. If there are two advantages, it's that there are never any problems.
    9
  162. When NATO was first formed the Soviets actually did try to join
    9
  163. This war could be effectively ended by ending the Lybian civial war. This is mot the industrial war of Russia and Ukraine or Irans and Isreal. This is people in pick up trucks with small arms. If the Supply routes for fuel and arms can be cut, the war ends.
    9
  164. Egypt has probably been dealt the worst hand of any country. Literally every one of its neighbors is currently at war, including the Houthis closing the Red sea and Israel and Palestine blocking Natural Gas development. And that's following Covid shutting down tourism and shipping for 2 years, and it's two largest food suppliers going to eat with eachother. You hear a lot about the "risky" mega projects, but realistically most of these were needed. How can you anticipate things going so poorly all outside your domestic control.
    9
  165. that's a pretty gross exaggeration, Islam plays no Part in Ukraine and Russia or the Koreas or Taiwan. Generally the actual religion plays little role in conflicts in the middle east/North Africa as well, but because of porous and somewhat randomly drawn boarders the name of islam is used as a unifying flag for the arab population.
    9
  166. I don't think a chinese "pioneering culture" is necessary important. If even 1% of the population decided to (against cultural norms) it would still be comperable to American colonization. En-mass in the chinese sense could be very few people. The aging point is far more relevant to me. But I think China is happy to control a resource producing Hinderland wothout direct cultural ownership. Whether with Russian or Korean or Pakistani immegrants. So long as the region is Chinese dependent and serves to China's requirements, it can act as a resource colony
    9
  167.  @dan61131  I like you're optimism but not only is that not tactically or logistically possible but it would be political suicide in terms of western support or Russian support or even being big enough to actually lead to a nuclear warhead. It apears with some small fighting along the Sjem aside, the Ukrainians are digging in at this point, not continuing the offensive now that the element of suprised has lost value.
    9
  168.  @Donner906  if you read letters from former slaves, many said they were treated better under slavery than the share cropping that followed, because at least there was a cost to replacing them. That is not an endorsement of slavery, and obviously all slaves were glad to be freed. But it is a comment on the level of substance you can be left with in wage slavery.
    9
  169. Carney is a man who, after leading two seperate central banks, devoted half a decade of his life to convincing banks to invest based on lowering carbon emissions. He has written a book about the risk of financial crisis in carbon intensive industries, and also about his own beliefs on inequality and social equity. You could not ask for someone with either a better understanding of the situation or a better record of demonstrating their commitment. It is always important to be critical of political leaders. But I don't believe the fact investors are excited for his ability to drive investment into our country is reason to accuse him of selling out his life's work.
    9
  170. ​@Nick-b2m7bna, the words you want are "lies" and "conscripts". Even the contract soldiers are immigrants pressed into the military or Conscripts forced to sign a contract at gunpoint.
    9
  171.  @elduquecaradura1468  why do you argue with the trolls. Just feel bad for them. Can you imagine spending your day spreading lies so that rich people can destroy your country a little longer? It would destroy me.
    9
  172. We can still monitor things like changes in night light, we can see imports from China recorded by other countries, and there is only so much you can lie about things like cement or steel production.
    9
  173. Energy efficiency is only relevant in the goal of trying to cut fossil fuel imports- which is fundamentally a different goal than electrification. Electrification is ultimately a pathway to reduce fossil fuel imports as well. But as electrification, particularly solar, becomes widespread, efficiency no longer matters. When you have 1¢ energy, you can afford to be wasteful. I say this because from a Canadian prospective we do not have the concern of Europe. We do not need to rush to end fossil fuel imports; we need to electrify. And that means we really have no need to look at efficiency, we need to look at electrical build out.
    9
  174. ​ @KitKat_2007  Ya, bravo, evidently it was possible... But only a month before literally no alternative was left.
    8
  175. 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
  176.  @kimmogensen4888  Canada is giving money to the Ukraine, above our weight, which is the absolute best possible spending if you reduce Russian military potential. The size of Canada's infantry means nothing in stopping Russia from taking Alert.
    8
  177. This is why it is essential we do not remove tariffs on Chinese EVs. We need to develop domestic supply chains toward battery manufacturing and Wind turbines. Allowing Chinese subsidized manufacturing will only deindustrialize us further and reduce the Value Added activity we perform. It doesn't matter that a solar panel will last for decades; what matters is we will lose the technological capacity to build and be relevant in this equipment..
    8
  178.  @nunyabidness3075  Which portion of American culture do you think clashes with Singapore's public housing scheme? I assumed it was the idea middle income people willingly living in dense multi family housing.
    8
  179.  @muhammadadeel8639  wow. That's a new claim
    8
  180. @NmaeUnavailablesigh  it's been a full month since Trump Jr has made a stupid anti Ukraine joke. I don't think your right.
    8
  181. Efficiency isn't really important when you're using nuclear fuel.
    8
  182. We need a UN Mandate over both Palestinian regions, with a coalition council of Saudi, Egypt, and Jordan (and potentially UAE and Turkey) in charge, and a local Palestinian police force under their Command, and a small IDF rapid reaction force also acting as peace keepers under the councils command. We obviously can't have local rule, Hamas is an example of the danger, and the population is widely radicalized for understandable reason. We obviously can't allow Arab military control of the region, as Israel would never allow it. And we obviously can't have Israel in control. This allows accomodation of all. The mandate should last 20 years, with an off road map allowing local elections for a continuation of mandate, single Palestinian state, two seperate Palestinian states (and a second election for Gaza if it chose unification and West Bank chose to go alone, for example), an option for West Bank to join Jordan, and Gaza to join Egypt, or either to join Israel. That provides skin in the game for all members to aim for successful development. Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Qatar should also be in an advisory role, with potential for the UN to swap them in if a state in the council sees a government direction not amenable. And Israel should be allowed certain veto rights that can be over ridden with UN general vote to address security concerns.
    8
  183. I do worry for the North BC coast. I suggest anyone in BC write thier MP, and say that if that MP feels a pipeline is going to be built regardless, that they should advocate it is carrying SCO, or synthetic upgraded crude, or at least a partially upgraded crude without asphaltenes, or at the very least Bitumen blended into mixtures that won't seperate to the point of a density below water and sink. It may sound like an oil pipeline is an oil pipeline, but trust me, you would much rather risk an oil spill than a DilBit spill. It may also be a way around the tanker ban, if all crude is some minimum percent upgraded, and therefore avoid the Alaskan tankers going through the much longer North-South direction of travel - although thats a lesser problem as Alaska ships more to Asia and Transmountain supplies its old market. And it would elimate many of the toxins which are held in the asphaltenes.
    8
  184. @lif6737 excellent reply.
    8
  185. I am glad to see you are getting on board with this being a real threat to us. But I really need you to get on board with the fact that the real threat to Canada comes from Alberta Seperatism and the prospect of making Alberta the 51st state. At that point we effectively lose BC as well, and Saskatchewan follows. I disagree with you that an oil pipeline is not an economically viable in investment, but that disagreement is not relevant. We simply need to do it politically. Equalization payments don't return value, but they are politically necessary. This is only different in that it is a much greater necessity than appeasing Quebec ever was.
    8
  186. The US army is pretty powerful, but still lost to the Taliban. I'm no fan of Russia but it is one of two militaries that have peer to peer combat experience.
    8
  187. Even in the case with growth, Qatar can take the entire market and be the cheapest option. And with storage coming on line it won't be the case of growth. The only potential projects would be out of Hudson's bay in Manitoba, shale fracking in Quebec (never going to happen). The existing pipeline west exists, so you may as well bring in floating LNG platforms, but another will certainly lose money.
    8
  188. Starting both a diet of 30 raw eggs a day and taking up squating is a risky combo
    8
  189. You should also cover A Users Guide to Restructuring the global trade system. Written by Stephen Miran, Trumps chief economist
    8
  190.  @Ziggletooth  I would suggest Solar can in fact also meet this demand. I don't have a preference between the two. But with 2h of storage, Solar becomes a very low cost base load during the day.
    8
  191. Toronto should be investing in "E-Highways" as we see in Germany to allow Diesel trucks to run electrically over high demand sections of road, and with that infrastructure, allow EV trucking with much smaller batteries because they are able to recharge while operating. Montreal and Ottawa should as well, and then with some electrification along the 401, you create a regional network.
    8
  192. I wish this hadn't been your sponsor... I kind of makes the entire video look like an ad, you literally seem to be selling masculinity. And with some of your recent random posts and videos, the shift from an intelligent and unbias video essayer to a right wing influencer is seeming😢 apparent... Which is to say you look like you're selling out. I've really enjoyed your content and probably will watch your next video, but I no longer recommend you to people.
    8
  193.  @DiamondKingStudios  I'm mainly thinking operating equipment, doing logistics and maintaining, training in Ukraine, and potentially sitting on the Belarus and Moldova/Transnistria border. But what is escalating harder from the Russian perspective? Full mobilization? Tactical Nukes? I feel neither are plausible options for Putin politically either for domestic or international pressures.
    8
  194. This is correct, although both railways are electrified and regularly use electric trains, so being closer to taking out Electrical Transmission in the region would force Russia to find as many diesel replacements as possible, and Ukraine is getting closer to being able to easily strike trains on the more eastern line.
    8
  195. Half your videos now are about how the US is trying to break our country and this is an emergency calling for a rebuild of our infrastructure - unless it's a pipeline. Then there's no emergency at all, it's offensive to suggest there is an emergency even. Why are you so incredibly against oilsands development. And before any one disagrees, have you ever heard him mention Ontario is 100% reliant on US pipelines, and they have been trying to close half that capacity for years, and could do it tomorrow? Have you ever heard him mention Sturgeon falls, and that we can turn Bitumen to Diesel, no gasoline? Because I'm sure you've heard him say EVs are going to push out oil, by which he means gasoline. Do you think he would speak against subsidies to any other infrastructure? You've heard him talk about Trump tariffs hurting oil prices, but is a larger discount on Canadian oil ever mentioned when he talks about the economics of a pipeline? Obviously I am against the Emergency Act being used for a pipeline. But Markham spends all his energy fighting against oil. He has never replied to my emails on counterpoints. He will not acknowledge anything that might challenge his assumption the a pipeline might lose money, or that it might be worth treating a pipeline as infrastructure that isn't expected to generate a profit. .
    7
  196. ​ @edwxx20001 I disagree, cutting oil exports would just put shale oil offline. Shale oil is the most expensive producer, and you would force it to compete in a market it does not match the specification off. It needs the higher price of international oil, existing US refineries are using as much of the super light or ultra light oil they can handle, and they won't be able to retool
    7
  197.  @Blackpilld  Oil prices have no real impact on US foreign policy. Not because of shale oil, but because half of imports come from Canada, which has no alternative market because of pipelines and which cannot reduce oil exports since NAFTA. The remainer being Mexican and Venezuelan crude which is to heavy for most global refineries and has a huge cost advantage to ship to the US. The issue with high oil prices globally is the impact on Europe and Asia and the effect of driving higher input costs of imports. And again, Shale oil plays are dropping in productivity. Bakken and Eagle Ford have already passed their peak output. The issue with shale oil is the first few wells are highly prolific, but after that each new well has declining output, and you need to drill new wells constantly due to short life cycles. You're advocating for the US to only use the most expensive oil and build it's infrastructure around a resource industry doesn't expect to exist in quantity in a decade. Which is why no large refinery has been built in decades. All the whole giving up lucrative exports.
    7
  198.  @skp8748  I don't think its correct to call it a full scale civil war, I would agree its a localized insurgency, amd along witht the Tigray militias what I am referring to by teetering. But if this constitutes a civil war, than Egypt should be said to be in Civil war due to the insurgency in the Sinia, ans I don't think most would agree that Egypt is in civil war. edit: also, when you say for 5 years, you're encompassing two conflicts, which while related, effect different regions and involved differing groups, with Fano backing the government in the Tigray war. But regardless, it doesn't really undermine my point on the stTe of the region.
    7
  199.  @TheActionBastard  oh I'm not advocating supplying Mines. MRAPs are mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. I'm saying that most western equipment is rendered useless by a mine feild, except for these seemingly useless trucks with next to no frontal armour we have thousands of, which militaries were worried about the embarrassment of scrapping so they gave to Ukraine as aid, but it turns out they are the most useful thing. As for cluster bombs, I support US providing them, but not building more. Seems ideal to get rid of the surplus, and the failure to detonate rate is much lower than Russia (4% vs 20%) and Russia is actively using them. But I understand the discomfort.
    7
  200. Its refreshing to hear someone who understands what happened to TransCanada. It was a DilBit tube whose only possible customer on the Atlantic was US gulf, it never offered anything but risk to eastern Canada, and it was cancelled because KeyStone XL looked like it was moving forward and was a more direct route. However, I do have to ask that the member of Parliament's opinion on a line that only carries Upgraded Sweet and light Syncrude would be, as this Transports much safter and can be used by both eastern Canadian refinieries and European. I think its reasonable to believe we could build a new upgrader in the time it takes to build a pipeline
    7
  201.  @TheGrace020  don't underestimate your enemy.
    7
  202. India would never pretend to have beef
    7
  203. I don't think this can be called a low intensity conflict, even contrasting World Wars.
    7
  204. Right off the bat, hyperinflation meams 50% inflation per month. So Just no, your statement is wrong. Russia is in a very powerful global position in the supply chain, with food and energy though. And Asia as a manufacturing hub is in a strong position. But aging will obviously impact Chinese society as the population pyramid inverts.
    7
  205.  @wenterinfaer1656  he didn't say they would achieve it I don't know why people are calling this guy a troll. Do you think Russia would be happy to take the frozen borders and let the rest of Ukraine join NATO while never expanding again lol? Russia, particularly in the last few months, has been aiming for a total victory.
    7
  206. We do need an east coast oil pipeline. Just opening the video, but dollars to donuts you won't mention Line 5, which brings Alberta upgraded syncrude to Ontario through Michigan, could be turned off at any time by the US government, and in fact Michigan has been trying for years. That tariffs that cut demand from the US will crash Oilsands prices, fundamentally changing the economics, and risking a massive recession The general political mood in Alberta, and need to have Alberta at least as dependent on Canadian pipeline as American The impact on our balance of trade and therefore strength of the CAD in reducing Quebec and Irving imports.
    7
  207. I think this also has something to do with undereating being immediately identified as a mental illness. Nobody watches a video of a staving child in X impoverished country and thinks "they look good". People definitely snicker and are rude about undereating, but not generally to your face (in my experience). Being overweight on the other hand is seen as a simple lack of willpower, "we'd all be far if we didn't have better self control". It's explicitly disconnected from mental health and eating disorders in the mind of society, yes it's generally driven by a mental health issue but you can be sure the people commenting won't believe that. Anyone can imagine themselves getting fat. And I think that makes it a scarier thing you want to not conceptualize, driving hatred, and what to believe is avoidable if you are careful, driving lack of acceptance. No one thinks "I might accidentally drop 40 pounds and be near death", which allows them to accept if something is happening, it's not a point of ridicule..
    7
  208.  @jonerzinger9873  why do I always see these comments from people from BC? No one thinks of you as "The West". You're the Pacific province. When people talk about Western Music, they aren't talking about the rap coming out of Compton..
    7
  209. In terms of capacity, you showed there is millions of barrels a day of heavy upgrading in Asia. I also expect those Asian refineries to operate longer into the future than the US Midwest, because the Midwest serves a regional market and can't export RPPs by ship. I really hope Canadians don't settle for more reliance on US pipelines. This was your stance before Trump, and I agreed with it then, but I do not believe it is wise to go forward with this dependence. I don't think Trump is a black swan.
    7
  210.  @regwatson2017  well yes, so far half of cars sold in China this year have been EVs, but, much like the video, I'm talking about Natural Gas, which isn't used for vehicles (although China has a large LNG trucking fleet)
    7
  211. 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
  212.  @richjordan6461  honestly (assuming that message was to me), that's kind of the point. He makes absurd claims, but then backs down to something almost reasonable when cornered, the goes right back to pyramids built with mental power. I was thinking about the debate, but top commenter is right, he makes far more extraordinary claims on a regular basis and goes "well you haven't proved me wrong"
    7
  213. You know the Thor was already from Thor, right? Highlighting it isn't a pun
    7
  214.  @MissRazna We'll be lucky if anything in the ocean does, aside from plastic.
    7
  215. Other great projects for a Nelson Port; A cement plant to feed new Dams on the Nelson and Wind Turbines along the Hudson An Aluminum smelter to take advantage of the Nelsons available and local hydropower Data centers - not really a port thing but still, easy access to import the equipment
    7
  216. What I think is under discussed is the absolute GLUT of oxygen this implies. If electrolysis becomes the norm, oxygen co-produced is going to dwarf modern ASU production, which may make a slew of technologies relevant. Oxycombstion comes to mind, burning NG or Biomass in pure oxygen removes Nitrogen from the flue gas, which makes the products just H20 and C02, and its very easy to seperate water from a gas. In some places, that water might even be a valuable product, like SAGD in the oil sands. Also, Casinos tend to pump in oxygen to make you stay awake feel good and gamble all night. Maybe morally dubious, but I would be interested in seeing if boosting O2 during the mid day in retirement homes had a similar effect.
    7
  217.  @somebody7337  maybe Ukraine has lost land now, but Russia has been entirely crippled in doing so, and Ukraine will walk away with security guarantees.
    7
  218.  @drunkenpumpkins7401  interesting, although I would be surprised if you had similar examples for iron or copper?
    7
  219. I agree with Markham that Smith works for the oil companies and to oush through oil. But I agree with the guest that she personally is interested in greater Provincial independence bordering on Seperatism And I would say she is playing a game where she is fairly happy with either outcome. While she definitely has real support, I think a significant part of Smith's election is that she is elected to tell off the rest of Canada because voters believe no matter how competent the government provincial government is, the rest of Canada will prevent them from prosperity and even the worst provincial government can't do any relative damage.
    7
  220. Only of you bought your house from someone without a mortgage; otherwise its just being handed to another bank. But also if that person keeps the money in a bank same place.
    7
  221. Electrical infrastructure projects they should be seen as National Priority; Edmonton to Site C in BC- over flat land, provides peaking and inertia, and sustained dispatchable power, to Albertas Low cost of production Renewables. Saskatoon to Le Pas - connects Manitobas very expensive Bi Pole 3 along an existing Hydro-corridor to Saskatoon allowing more renewable production. Atlantic Loop Connect Site C to Pacific Northwest - allow build out of Offshore Wind that doesn't correlate to the great plains Manitoba to the West Hudson bay communities - take a large portion of Iqaluit off deisel, lower costs, provide electrical infrastructure for mining etc. Connect Hey River to Yellowknife - NTW has a plan to connect a large portion of thier grid and allow them to buildout thier hydro and take the capital off deisel. Additional connection with Uranium city, SK would also connect them to the Manitoba grid Anything I'm missing?
    7
  222. No matter where you go, people are people. Even slaves revolt. It might be easier to pitch to the North Korean people, but you still need them to go along with it.
    7
  223. To the question of "solar panels wash up on the beech, would we destroy them?" - I wouldn't suggest relying on them if you know the oceans were strategically against you.
    7
  224.  @aakash.sharma  Juice is something squeezed from a fruit/vegitable. I think the reality is they should be called "coffees" since they are water strained through nuts and beans.
    7
  225. The data center/Ai growth should be something Canada is trying to pull, and very specifically Labrador. Labrador is drastically oversupplies with electricity, to the point lack of demand is actually pushing consumer prices up. Its obviously freezing half the year. The intercontental line between europe and North America runs through Newfoundland, allowing ease "access to market". And it has very little in the way of economic opportunity. Newfoundland at the same time gets over a thrid of its entire GDP from oil. Newfoundland should be building itself into a hub of tech.
    7
  226. I believe this is still relativant to anyone who is a vegan. Yes you can probably get enough protein just eating rice because the large amount will cancel the low DAAS score, but you will still fail to adsorb a large amount of the protein due to the unbalanced amino acids. Theres a reasonable amount of research showing you don't want to much protein entering your large intestine because your micro biome produces inflamitory chemical. At the same time, the cure for low protein here is just "Eat more high carb foods" which isn't great on its own. I'm not saying you can get obese eating lentils but white rice has a pretty high glucose index. As a person who is largely plant based, I still try to balance, and not only is it not hard but also my food tastes better.
    7
  227. Ya congratulations you are robbing your neighbors successfully
    7
  228. I feel so dumb for not having thought to look into this
    7
  229. I think the existence of India and even Indonesia somewhat disproves this. I'm not supportive of the PPC, but obviously they have used successfully policies beyond being a big country.
    7
  230. One area of significant methane leakage is the pump stations on pipelines. These should be widely electrified.
    7
  231. I agree, the Trump and Biden China tariffs are good policy. But, how is it good policy to place an especially high tariff on Canada or Mexico, countries Trump negotiated a free trade deal with, himself? Where is the national security angle on that? How will other countries take trade negotiations seriously when Trump is just going to rip them up whenever he wants?
    7
  232. Streamline 😂😂😂
    7
  233. ​ @benjaminbritsch1749 I imagine the Lebanese military is the third.
    7
  234. The loss of Nord stream doesn't make Europe more dependent, the closing of gas lines across Poland and the choice to stop buying Russian gas through Turk Stream and the Ukraine pipeline did. Europe (Germany) made itself dependent on Russia and now is funding new source.
    7
  235. @herdimmunity2507  I think Turkey in all likelihood can work well with Israel. Not being Arab and having a history of dealing with Arabs in a certain way I don't think there is much friction. I also don't think they will necessarily do poorly as the regional power; although I wouldn't suggest the ottoman empire is a useful argument for modern Turkey's ability
    7
  236. ​ @kaizersoze2606 of course most were, most were drones. The point of drones isn't to hit targets, it's to cheaply occupy air defense. Shooting them down costs more than launching them, and defense systems targetting drones aren't targetting the missiles that actually did make it through to the air base.
    7
  237. I think there is some merit to the people who feel Ukraine is getting aid that could go to the border. I support aid to Ukraine strongly, but I can see how they might feel Humvees could be better used by border security, they aren't exactly great in a war zone. That said, when Texas is the strongest economy in the country, its hard to cry to much for them.
    7
  238. @DropkicktheDecepticon That would mean losing out on tax advantages and also a portion of your salary, since employers usually have a 401K that doubles the amout you invest. Government regulations have made it so you really would have to work against your own interests to drop your employers 401k.
    7
  239. Geothermal is great, particularly closed loop which is not covered here. Closed loop offers a great way to continue to use Oil and Gas assets, in almost any geology, which are otherwise potentially stranded. It also allows for peaking as working fluid is super heated when left underground, and that allows higher power production when turned on. And, if a super Critical CO2 loop is used, have negligible water requirements and offer a sequesteration site. Kenya should alsi be covered in regards to conventional Geothermal.
    7
  240. You're correct, but it's even more strategicly important to Russia, and it will be incredibly difficult to retake if possible. It's famously difficult even.
    7
  241. Europe was avoiding long term gas contracts prior to the invasion, with the idea's that Russia had no alternative market and not wanting to be caught buying gas after renewables were built out.
    7
  242.  @xxxBradTxxx  I'm about it, soy is solid (particularly fermentated) as long as you don't go crazy. I'll have to try, I've only had Tempah and tofu.
    7
  243. While I appreciate and identify with your struggles around body acceptance, I think there is an important distinction around intermittent fasting and diet choices in general being physically healthy and mental health issue driving unhealthy behavior. While making choices around social interactions for following dietary practices is difficult, and can definitely be taken to unhealthy degrees, society in general has an incredibly unhealthy relationship with food. And the unhealthy relationship of the majority doesn't mean you're unhealthy in not following it. People are out there thinking donuts are breakfast. And while conflating fat and unhealthy is unfair and incorrect, that doesn't mean conditions like insulin resistance are not driven by preventable actions, in many cases at least.
    7
  244. I want to say the Irish set the precedent. Or maybe Serbia. Could have been Algeria though. Edit: wait was it the US?
    7
  245. @pongyi123 I don't understand why you are arguing with this person. We can do both. We don't have to be against oil and gas to develop our mining and renewable industries, and we can do all of it together easier
    6
  246. Something I think needs to be discussed in Canadian politics is the sale of The Wheat Board to the Saudis. Who supports oil in Alberta? Everyone, but most importantly the Conservatives. Who makes up the conservative base? Largely farmers. Canada, a major competitor to the the Saudis, allowed the Saudis a near monopsony on the sector of our economy which, through politics, arguably has the most influence on our oil industry.
    6
  247.  @shupichii9647  not just because the US was import dependent, but also because the domestic supply was getting increasingly heavy. California for example produces very heavy sour crude.
    6
  248.  @jhornett  counter point, LNG in Florida definitely came from the Permian, which means it was fracked with considerable Methane leakage.
    6
  249. Well, tbf, the current military government is in charge because they kicked out the Muslim brotherhood, and they won't let Gazans in because they are worried it will add to their ongoing insurgency by the Muslim brotherhood in Sinia.
    6
  250.  @Ese_osa  I think that's a slight simplification because the USSR was the legal owner, not Russia, and Ukraine was constituent to it. By the same argument though Lithuania and Tajikistan were nuclear powers. Similar to if Washington state left the US,m and returned Nukes. But some USSR member states like Ukraine had UN seats, so it's again more complex. But according to the Budapest memorandum, all signatories including Russia and the US agrees the Nukes were the legal property of Ukraine prior to transfer.
    6
  251.  @Transit0422  Well it is if you understand municipal finances but like if you're just an idiot who likes the vroom noise I guess its fine.
    6
  252. I tend to agree we aren't strongly competitive in LNG. People need to realize the US has seen major growth because the Permian basin, where Natural Gas comes from, is a few hundred KM from Tidewater, into a region with decades of LNG infrastructure. Canada is a 1000km over a mountain range, or 3000km over Canadian Shield. Qatar basically sticks a straw in the ocean. And on top of all that, unlike oil, there is no global cabal keeping proces high. Its not any better than iron expirts at the end of the day, just a commodity.
    6
  253.  @nunyabidness3075  I think your mistaken about willingness of American culture to change. More importantly, I think you're ignoring the different demographic subcultures that exist in America. The average suburbanite will have a very different view from someone from the inner city, or even thier own children around whats acceptable for a house. And the later groups are the ones more likely to use this housing scheme, so thats particularly relevant.
    6
  254.  @SirMegaManNeoX  why would you want to pay more for gas?
    6
  255.  @bobflimmer88  in part I agree with you, but as I was reminded, Hancock claims things like mental powers moving pyramid stones... And even if that's true, we're not going to find out with Archeology. Keep looking in those Wardrobes for sure, I'm sure there is some cool stuff. But not Narnia.
    6
  256. ​ @sann5146 this is sarcasm ya?
    6
  257. A loop hole, 'Canada' referred to the lower Ontario and Southern Quebec until confederation.
    6
  258. I disagree that Canada can't be the worlds energy super power even in the new economy context. The Battery plants you mentioned are critical to support as part of a full chain industry, but an area we can have a global position in. All of the Atlantic provinces have significant Wind power to Ammonia projects for exporting ammonia. We have significant hydro reserves that can be developed along side Quebecs wind manufacturing industry to power aluminum smelter or data centers or Chip FABs or any energy heavy activity. I think one area we need to be cautious of is Solar. There is no doubt in my mind Solar is on track to be cheapest form of electricity; but it will always be more cost effective somewhere near the equator than Canada. And Canada has really no ability to capture the production market. What I would like to see is a push towards SMRs. Canada is a leader in nuclear technology, and I while this is lower on the S-curve because China has been aggressive on Solar, I would argue its the only alternative to solar for competitive power in the long run. Particularly for large industrial uses that include heat amd steam. We can do in this field as China has for Solar and become a world leader. Geothermal offers another such potential.
    6
  259.  @philjameson292  if India can can it's sh*t together. They are, like China, aiming to use renewables to shoot forward with aggressive plans (in action) to build domestic supply chains. But the issue is they have no manufacturing outside of that, they are more energy import dependent than China, and franking they are still the r@pe capital of the world, outside cities the people are still very... Traditional. Which doesn't make for great social systems in the current era. But if the renewable push works to build a high tech manufacturing sector, they have the world's best location for cheap renewable energy, and could see very low cost manufacturing between energy and labour cost.
    6
  260. We don't need some national electrical grid. We just need to connect Calgary to Revelstoke in BC, and Edmonton to Site C in BC, so that excess wind and solar can trade for hydro. There is no conceivable justification for Ontario to Trade power with even Saskatchewan. Just connecting Alberta to BC fixes 90% of our problems. We should also build north from Manitoba to Rankin inlet, and connect Yellowknife to Hay River and then further the Uranium in Sask and somewhere in Alberta. But those are minor in the scheme of things, and not east west
    6
  261.  @vincentvalerian8716  I don't think they are as easy to purify as you're suggesting. And materials like magnets needed for wind or the very complex processes in solar would be hard to return to. Renewables are only just being developed exactly because they are technically complex and require globalized supply chains integrated processing. Hydro is a bit of an exception but it's also relatively limited and still requires a lot oflf cement in many cases, and a lot of coal to produce that
    6
  262.  @Hession0Drasha  Ya and then those colonies leave you and put up tariffs.
    6
  263. Not to over generalize, but you see the same thing in Israel with the orthodox religious sects popping out bunnies.
    6
  264. Please find someone working with Aluminum Air Batteries, thousands of km per charge, but you have to swap out the batteries. But I'd be willing to drive across the country non stop and then wait for what is effectively an oil change. And if Carbon fiber takes off, Aluminum will need a new usage.
    6
  265.  @neodym5809  combined with Hydrogen production it would have provided the exact peaking energy source needed for renewables. Moreover, renewables are rather terrible at producing process heat, which is a substantial portion of energy requirements.
    6
  266.  @tinymoegaming  to be fair the point was calling out the rest of NATO for saying it wasn't an anti Soviet alliance lol. Not that any of this is relevant right now just thought it was funny.
    6
  267. This is mixed true. Gulf refineries would largely be able to accommodate Canadian oil, and at several points WCS has traded at a premium to other regions in the Gulf, which is why higher cost trains are economic to move it there. The main issue is access without a pipeline. Shale oil is generally to light for Gulf refineries to make full use of, though. You're right oil isn't entirely fungible. But with Trans mountain opening, it's expected much of the heavy crude in California will start switching to Canadian oil.
    6
  268. DilBit on the incredibly isolated frozen sea would be... Iffy. Spills would be impossible to address. LNG our of Nelson would be much better. BCs issue with electrifying the compressors is getting power to the North West. Not a problem at Nelson. Even Churchill, a season port, would work well and balance Canada's lower Summer NG demand. I'd argue LNG by rail, produced in Saskatoon, is best for Churchill, while a pipeline to Nelson would make sense.
    6
  269. There is no advantage to Thorium over Uranium. What the Nuclear Bros are to renewables, Thorium bros are to Nuclear.
    6
  270. ​ @injest1928 While you're correct, particularly in North Africa where Arab and Black african comminies intersect, Islam itself is regularly used as a reason to dehumanize others.
    6
  271. I think we need to be far more flexible in what we provide as public housing. For example, I would like to see publicly opperated dorms with shared kitchens (and potentially washrooms) to provide very low cost rooms offered at a few hundred dollars a month. These would disproportionately be used by students, but it would open up current rentals they occupy. Fannie Mae directly fund construction, and provide loans for coops. Although, tbh, you could solve the majority of the issue with upzoning and shifting taxes off of building value and on to land value to push time property costs and increase return on capital.
    6
  272.  @northernmetalworker  yes but DilBit has no value at the Atlantic coast, except to ship south to the US Gulf. You either need to install Cokers or add upgraders.
    6
  273. I would definitely like to see a carbon price on imports, although based on the digital service tax idk how likely that is. But I think it should be emphasized Carney always ran on strengthening the industrial price. And also that while Europe might care about the electrical mix going into an industry, it doesn't care about what kind of vehicle the employee takes to get to work.
    6
  274. I think a needed conversation is the way deep fakes and revenge porn are going to intersect.
    6
  275. I really don't know how you can call the province leading in both solar and wind a laggard. I get BC and Quebec were lucky enough to have hydro, and Ontario is smart enough to have nuclear 50 years ago, but as far as new green tech goes Alberta is on Canada's cutting edge.
    6
  276. We need to see a shift in the auto sector to mining/construction/drilling equipment. We deregulate resource extraction and use a quota on capital imports to generate domestic demand.
    6
  277. I really liked the Paula Simons interview btw
    6
  278. In terms of Agriculture, and really it's aquaculture, we should be building a Kelp industry. That kelp could be carbon feed stock, animal feed, fertilizer, or chemical input. It would revitalize our coastal waters by adsorpting the nutrients we flush down the st. Lawrence, low acidity, raise oxygen, and increase fish breeding space.
    6
  279.  @popculturereference1147  Ya for sure but I don't have fans to pay for my blood tests and also don't really want to.
    6
  280. He said he'll never do another
    6
  281.  @yakov95000  The first part I agree with entirely, although I do blame Israel for the conditions that allowed Iran to create a proxy in Gaza. To the second point that's entirely true. It doesn't really change that it obviously necessitated an Iranian response.
    6
  282. @RK-cj4oc  South African billionaire being involved in conflict in the Congo is hardly new. I'm not generally into conspiracy, but the richest man in the world being involved in a conflict around resources that he is one of the main consumers of seems more likely than unlikely. For example, Musk gets most of his cobalt from a Congolese mine. Do you really think he's just watching this hands off without care?
    6
  283. There will be an energy criss when the Americans close line 5
    6
  284. I am still failing to understand, if these non combustion uses are viable, why you are concerned about the long term value of pipelines; surely China and others will want Carbon Fiber, EVs still need Asphalt roads.
    6
  285. Only Denmark seems to know the game- putting in an offer to buy America lol. Canada should be doing the same, and they should be working together to publicly (but not really ) be buying Greenland lol.
    5
  286. Mr Breton is absolutely right, we need the downstream aspects to have a successful EV sector. We need the refineries and mining. Not only because it's good for employment, but without that supply chain, we have no advantage in producing batteries.
    5
  287.  @Ray_of_Light62  I agree, but I think oil production from shale will. Shale fracturing for NG will be a long term industry. But Shale oil is a temporary side effect. We can see the Bakken, the first shale plays, is decreasing output annually. Same with Eagle Ford. And the average well productivity in the Permian is declining. "Shale oil" used to refer to using oil shale, and things like the Permian were called "light, tight oil" because it is light, and it's in tight rock formations. The tighter the formation, the lighter the hydrocarbons. The first wells are drilled in the easiest, most productive locations, which have the least tight formation, and therefore the "heaviest" (in quotes because it's still very, very light) oils. As time has gone by, wells in the Permian are shifting to less ideal sites (tighter), and getting lighter, and therefore gassier. So each barrel of oil is actually half a barrel of oil and half a barrel of NG, when it used to be 75/25. And the half that is oil is still getting lighter, more butane and less gasoline. The big issue here is all the pumps run on diesel. But the light shale oil has a smaller fraction of the heavier hydrocarbons, notably those that make diesel. A barrel of Brent (global standard) produces more than twice the diesel you get refining WTI (the oil from the Permian). So even for NG fracking, I think we will need to commercialize a technology to use wet CNG from nearby wellhead to run the pumps, which I've seen in development. The diesel to NG equation just doesn't work. But shale oil has never really worked. Because OPEC exists, and keeps prices at a low enough level for the fracking industry to just barely cover expenses. And if OPEC didn't exist, oil would be so cheap that it never would have made sense.
    5
  288.  @pennymayphilip9646  was that really Belgium's lesson? Would a 2% GDP military in Belgium have been the thing that stopped the Nazis? Or was the leason side with Germany next time?
    5
  289. I watched this. It's heavily cherry picked, only directed at Australia, and chalk full of random unsubstantiated jabs. But more over, it's at least 5 years old. That makes it entirely out of date. Since that time, South Australia, core to her argument, has become a poster child for the achievability of a fully renewable grid. And in any event, she specifically says a high Hydro system, like us, is different than a coal based system.
    5
  290.  @giancarloc1985  No but as I understand the Cartels have significant political power throughout the west and the mountainous regions. If the war on drugs were to escalate I could imagine an Afghanistan like situation. I don't think the Zapatistas would be directly involved in this but if their dealing with gang problems from the south and Mexico is having integrity issues, I could see them declaring independence again.
    5
  291. I'm certainly no creationist, but I do find it funny how, in an era where I play dozens of games/live increasingly in rendered worlds where bones might be placed purely for aesthetics, people laugh more and more at the idea that our own world might be a detailed creation.
    5
  292. How do you think the Harvest season demand for Diesel is going to mesh with the Russian military? Will food inflation be impacted by Kursk being occupied?
    5
  293. I'd love to see him do this because I would say no, its terrible. Oil for Biodiesel drives deforestation in sputh east asia for palm oil, and soy oil in the americas destroys grass lands in SA and is a huge contributor to industrial agriculture in NA.
    5
  294. You say this all the time, what math are you looking for? EVs displace gasoline usage. Our heavy crude is valued for our distillate yield. As Gasoline demand falls disproportionately to heavier RPPs (Diesel, Jet fuel, Base oils, Asphalt), heavier crudes will see increasing demand as light and medium crudes are priced out. China, the worlds first electrostate, buys Bitumen from us. We already see the price of DilBit and heavy synthetic blends at par with WTI. Enbridge mainline carries 3M bbl/s a day to the Midwest market, nearly 70% of our capacity. As EVs displace gasoline, the Midwest market will shrink in gross terms faster than the Pacific market. This is punctuated by the fact Midwestern refineries turn Bitumen into gasoline alongside heavier products, instead of fucusing on heavier RPPs. If there aren't outlets past Chicago, we will see oversupply in a decade. It doesn't matter how much pipeline capacity we have if there is no demand at the other end. That's your whole argument. The necessity is finding where demand will last longest, and that is Asia.
    5
  295. We need to copy Germany's E highway in the GTA so that trucks can by an attachment that lets them run electrically along core routes cutting back diesel use immediately, and allowing short haul trucking to develop along very small batteries regularly recharging on the drive. Proven successful there, it could be built out in Montreal and Ottawa, and with some electrified sections along the 401 and 417 regional trucking could be electrified with relatively small battery vehicles. Ontario has very low oil security, and this would be a great way to keep demand for bulk outputs like iron and aluminum, and nickle and copper.
    5
  296. If we try to join OPEC or cut oil production, aside from the physical difficultly in reducing SAGD outputs, what happens next? Does Trump cut off RRPs to Thunder Bay and cut off the pipelines through Michigan? If we reverse Pipleline 7A to import oil from overseas to southern Ontario, does he blockade the St. Laurent? We're going to throw everything we have at an impluse of Trump's. When does the US Army walk into Alberta?
    5
  297. @Zaydan Naufal But Iceland developed its geothermal when it was a poor fishing country. It was the cheap electricity (also from hydro) that allowed an aluminum smelting industry and general development. Although, there was likely a higher base line home heating cost in iceland than Indonesia uses.
    5
  298. I believe part of the reason for neoms location is it actually gets some rain, and rainfall falls as you go south (although yemen gats water because the mountains collect it, leaving UAE bone dry from the west, same reason the Saudi west coast gets rain)
    5
  299. Agreed, far bigger issue than oil and gas. The only fossil fuel with a similar impact is coal. Not that car centric fossil fuel run civilization isn't a giant problem. It just shows how large of a problem Animal Agriculture represents.
    5
  300. I think the carrots to Alberta have less to do with Freetrade - my understanding is that Alberta removed most exceptions to trade in 2019. As counter intuitive as it may seem, I think this has a lot more to do with climate goals. There is no way for Canada to decarbize the Oilsands or Electricity without Alberta being a willing and engaged participant. If we want to see an impact on emissions, BC and Quebec can't make a difference. Alberta is the major source of emissions, and the last Government spend a decade fighting Alberta and got nowhere. So I believe the new approach is compromising by allowing expansion of oil exports in exchange for greater connection to BC hydro and decarbonization efforts.
    5
  301.  @Cr3stfa113n  While your right on the technical definition of slum requiring impermanent shelters, I don't think OPs use of the term was invalid. After all, we get the term slum-lord from US cities. When referencing North American or Western slums, I think you're referring to a high proportion of renters, deteriorated housing, lower than average sanitary conditions (trash, people using the outdoors as a wash room, needles), a substantial portion of the population engaged in the informal/black market, a high level of policing with a negative effect on the community, and localized alternatives to government services. You also might see little green space, a large number of vice type stores (alcohol, strip clubs, gun stores), a large number of road ways cutting through, and usage to host other activities that are regected by other neighborhoods, including public housing. In many ways, illegal apartments that are put up or space usage from crowded generational housing might even consitute the type of shelter you require. There are also ",suburbs" in places like Detroit where 9/10 houses are abandoned, which some may call a slum. And I think its meaningful to consider that if you move everyone of low income to one area to could create slum conditions. You tie in laws around rights to public housing and another layer of property security along with the realities if American (and other countries) policing systems, with the fact it was likely built in a poorer area and historically have suffered inferior maintenance, and I think outcomes may be less beneficial than spreading out public housing in mixed neighborhoods.
    5
  302.  @redrix3731  Ya I agree I am misschacterizing him to create a more reasonable interpretation. It's hard when they're that nutty.
    5
  303. Really hoping now that this hits you stop being so dogheadidly against pipelines Mark. It would be great to have an east coast line before the Americans shut down line 5 and a West coast pipeline for a few 10s of billions to salvage the 100s of billions in Oil sands investment accessing a trillion dollars worth of resources before the US uses the economic depression to boost Albertan Seperatism and cut our country in half..
    5
  304. I also like Kings and Generals and Task and Purpose.
    5
  305. One of my biggest issues with Rothbard is the aversion to Fractional Reserve banking. Bank deposits are very simply nothing but a call loan. They are a loan made to the bank, which can be repaid at any time, and for that liquidity offer a lower interest rate. Arguing against allowing fractional reserves is simply banning a form of debt and pushing forward that private enterprise should be limited in the financial options it presents. A point about negative interest rates was made. If you require banks to hold full reserves, which is to make them a warehouse, then you will see negative rates, because it costs money to store cash or gold or what have you. If you want to keep your money in a warehouse, feel free to do so. But please don't contrive to use the government from banning me from loaning money to a bank for a positive rate of return.
    5
  306. 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
  307. When he calls Canada a Neo-Colonial economy; we have become Americas gas station. It's entirely undignified. We sell the oil out of the west, Irving, and Newfoundland, we have a mechanics shop selling car parts out of Ontario, and we sell potato chips out of the Maritimes. We absolutely need to move beyond this
    5
  308. Within the context of this conversation, I think it is worth asking how existing assets in the Oil sands, worth hundreds of billions, can avoid being turned into stranded assets. And how investments, such as new pipelines or refineries, might encourage greater economic activity and financial stability that strengthen the sector in the long term. Even if an investment loses $10 billion, if it creates $50 billion in additional investment, it may be worthwhile. I would argue that is how we treat almost all other infrastructure..
    5
  309.  @lolmao500  You are very wrong about the oil situation. The Saudis and Iran sure. I'd love to see you reliably get all your oil from the Persian Gulf if the US navy stopped existing though. The rest of the places you named are not easy. Canada lol, good luck with your bitumen.
    5
  310. The issue isn't failing to see weaning off oil, imo, it's failing to see declining prices. I know that sounds similar, but I'd compare it to the rust belt. The world still needs iron, but you can't run an economy around it. Imo, Alberta needs to push investment into Carbon Fiber produced from Bitumen to create an alternative demand Geothermal, to make use of Drilling and Geological fluid transportation expertise, and to leverage existing equipment. Carbon Capture, which I think is a very limited applicability, but I think Canada is the best in the world at it and nursing the technology now if properly leveraged could put us in a Global position. A new way to move oil. I'd settle for a Keystone XL to the US Gulf, which is probably going to happen now, but what I would really like is an Eagle Spirit type pipeline connecting to North BC with a connected series of refineries to diversify our product and market, or else something like bitumen pucks that can easily be shipped by rail and treated like coal.
    5
  311. Yep. For the past 2 years even. Almost changes the meaning of collapse.
    5
  312.  @NoNtsmiiile  Ya that was my insinuation. While Russian Ruble collapses and they run out of armoured vehicle stores, they gain small amounts of ground. Not that everything is great for Ukraine.
    5
  313. Since most of your viewership is already pro wind, it would be awesome if you did a deep dig on Biofuels. Corn ethanol, and mainly Biodiesel. Discuss how much soy is grown for a truely marginal amount of our energy, the land use and distruption and impact on human food, the impact on Palm oil. Palm oil, unfortunately, is the most land efficient source of vegetable oil, which is why it's so heavily used. And half of it goes to Biodiesel in Indonesia. I think this is the most disingenuously greenwashed industry in the world.
    5
  314. The reason is mainly self sufficiency. Smog and air pollutantion was a huge issue for the CCP because of growing public discontent, but this has largely been addressed by banning coal for heating in cities and switching old inefficient and unfiltered coal plants with Natural Gas and newer coal plants. The growth in EVs is also an ongoing benefit here. But the main thing is shifting the world trade balance. They want to go from an energy importer to exporter, and ideally crash global oil and coal markets in the process, pushing recession on the US, Canada, and Australia.
    5
  315.  @thephoenix215-po2it  they still outclass China in building Nuclear Submarines and i would argue in a peer to peer conflict surface vessels have limited use in modern times. But certainly I agree China builds far more ships, naval and conventional. i was just trying to point out there is an industry in existence to grow on, rather than having to start from scratch
    5
  316. ​ @Evan-D-Joestar depends what you mean by tax the rich. End all income tax, but if you want like a 0.5% wealth tax (something lower than average growth) and tie it to military and police funding, I think we'll find out pretty quickly we actually don't need a huge military industrial complex or police state.
    5
  317. China is absolutely aiming for an entirely Renewable grid. There are several pieces of this, one of which is pumped hydro, another battery storage. China uses coal like North America uses NG to balance the grid, because China has little NG. With battery storage, solar dispatchablilty is measured in hours, not seconds, of warning, meaning coal is able to do the job well. However, I think a country like Canada should learn from China that you don't have to, and shouldn't, hobble fossil industries toward the goal of electrification. These are mutually beneficial. China also increase oil production YoY while EVs stagnate or reduce consumption.
    5
  318. As always; I agree with your concerns around the near term collapse in Oil and Gas. But the best way for us to Mitigate risk to the Oilsands is not trying to forget it exists; it is wide scale investment. EVs are going to create a massive imbalance between supply and demand for RPPs as gasoline demand rapidly declines. This will be felt first and foremost by Conventional oil producers with high gasoline yields and the refineries that refine it. Bitumen, and SCO from bitumen, do not need to be used to produce gasoline - there is no gasoline fraction in bitumen. We need to build upgraders so we can sell low TAN, bottoms free, high middle distillate yield SCO that will continue to be in demand for diesel and jet fuel. We need new outlets for oil so that half our pipelines don't end in Chicago, where Bitumen is largely converted to gasoline, and which unavoidable will shrink in Gross terms faster than the global market. And we need to build refinery complexes; 20% of bitumen can be turned into asphalt, we can sell hundreds of thousands off bpd. With the remaining, "lighter" fractions, we can produce base oils for Lubricants. We can build product upgraders that convert bitumen almost entirely to specific heavey RPPs, Sturgeon Falls does this today producing 80% diesel. We can do the same for Jet fuel which has a much longer demand horizon. By doing this, we can provide a long term base of demand for Bitumen so that the oilsands can continue operating while we force them to pay off their debts and clean up their mess; if the oilsands collapse, the Federal government (mainly with Ontario money) will be paying the bill for all of it. As EVs remove demand for gasoline, we can supply heavy RPPs further driving out our competitors by pushing down the cracking spread on their lucrative products. And in doing so, we can prevent Jet fuel sales from subsidizing a glut of cheap gasoline being dumped on the market that would otherwise push against EVs and Solar panels. It is okay for us to accept that heavy RPPs will be the last fossil fuel in demand, and we are the best positioned country to supply them. That isn't against climate goals. We can see China, the world's first Electo state, increasingly demanding heavy crudes - they buy DilBit (not WCS) from us because it is nothing but light petrochemicals and heavy RPPs. This will become the global trend. And over the decades we can occupy this market, we can build alternative demand like Carbon Fiber and activate carbon.
    5
  319. We need our own government to create a Crown Corporation to engage in minimg.
    5
  320. I understand you are chopping these videos to make them more accessible, but in doing so you forgot to say who Ed Hirs actually is. You should add to the description of possible, or else without context you're just talking to some guy.
    5
  321. A lot of Alaska also depends on tourism
    5
  322. He does, it has nothing to do with the border. The reality is much worse. The shifting goal posts are a distraction and the point is to deindustrialize Ontario to bring that auto manufacturing to the US. And frankly, the constant threat of tariffs is just as bad as the tariffs themselves; worse maybe, because it means we don't retaliate and auto makers don't see higher costs while they decide to derisk and change supply lines.
    5
  323. We need to make a deal with Japan and South Korea for them to pay for a pipeline, and in exchange we buy billions in servers to create a large scale server farm industry to monetize cheap energy and cool tempatures for effectively a global export
    5
  324. I think the NK reinforcements should be taken seriously. The first round had no idea what was going on and no ability to talk to the Russians. Going forward they will be half competent, moving toward competent, as they learn the tactics of the situation
    5
  325. Well A) it's not sovereign territory that's not actually how embassy's work, And 2) that was itself a response to Iranian aggression.
    5
  326. Well the important point to consider is the small portion of Canadians who support Trump are highly concentrated in those very provinces. So to a considerable population what you're saying is a positive.
    5
  327. ​ @chrisvickers7928 No, but Eastern Canada in general does use 1M bbl/d, and id say its essential we get of Line 5. And I would suggesr an east coast pipeline should be required to carry syncrude. It may require upgrader expansion, but we can provide Europe a stable supply under long term purchase contract.
    5
  328. I just wanted to say excellent interview, one of my favorites
    5
  329.  @danielhuynh9368  why do you hate rural communities? Vertical farming might replace some small amount of farming for lettuce or cucumber or maybe even fruits, but it will never be competitive for things like grains.
    5
  330.  @dain6250  the irony with your statement (which is largely agreeable to me) is that the area actually under Israeli occupation (west bank) isn't the source of issue, and the area Israel exited to allow an attempt at Palestinian state hood and independence is where the attacks come from.
    5
  331.  @hmada1222000  you know Israeli jws come from middle easter countries, and the European ones are mainly in New York, right?
    5
  332. What are you suggesting? I can't see how anything short of Russia agreeing to leave territory occupied since 2022 can lead to a peaceful solution, particularly in terms of discouraging conflicts.
    5
  333. And Europeans themselve could be quite picky, Spanish in the South west starving because they refuced to eat ants. Also, the Jewish prohibition on many shellfish had to start somewhere, being over 4k year old. And they would have been in close proximity to the Levant where the Early farmers left from. Idk if thats a real connect but jumped into my head.
    5
  334. Id love to see some Coverage of Japan and Pacific NATO equivalent. Japan appears eager to be more involved in its defense, sharing bases and having equal ownership of US strategy in the region. And Trump wants the Pacific paying for itself. I think America will be able to push a defense alliance of SK, JP, and Taiwan (and itself) since they all have mutually aligned goals and American focused equipment. Which will likely be able to pull in Vietnam and Philippines. Plausibly, Japan and US might be able to pull in the QUAD countries. And France, via New Caledonia (and maybe the UK through Pictan), who is trying to make a play and a Military presence may be willing to join as a Nuclear power and high end arms provider. india, France, or the UK would provide a nuclear umbrella guarantee in the event the US pulls out further, which I'm sure the core members would appreciate. Canada as well (particularly if you've pulled in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) has a Pacific coast and may join as well, albeit offering limited military advantage, may join as it has a Pacific coast. And that may be useful, alongside the US and Australia, for resources and logistics.
    5
  335. He very much sees Ukraine breaking from the Russian sphere as a threat to his financial interests.
    5
  336.  @expfcwintergreenv2.02  on what basis. Do you not see the US is trying to get it? What do you think Annex Canada means? You think Trump likes French people?
    5
  337. In fairness to the public, I think most people believe a renewable grid is possible, although maybe they don't know enough about grids to have ever had a concern to be addressed.
    5
  338. @mignik01  So first, I quite clearly said oil would remain needed for decades for both an energy source and petrochemicals. But nowhere near a quarter of oil is used as petrochemical feed stock. Naphtha is the main feed stock and it's like a tenth of a barrel. By 2050 I'd expect US oil demand to still be a third of what it is today, mainly gasoline being displaced along side a drop in Diesel from some rail and trucking electrification and a drop in fracking which uses large amounts. Maybe that gets replaced by biofuels but I genuinely hope not. But obviously I disagree on the point of solar for Electrical generation. Solar has increased 8 fold over the last decade, even halving that growth rate and it's the majority over the next. And the amount of manufacturing for solar has grown enormously and continues to grow. Look at China's build out of solar. Incredibly and historically rapid. The price solar can be produced for shows a clear market superiority that even Texas embraces. Again, I think existing NG plants used for peaking will be repurposed for combined cycle use to increase capacity and be heavily used over night. I don't think 24 hour storage will be common until 2040. But 2-4 hour storage for use in the evening is already commercialized and growing. And I think Solar with storage that keeps output generally stable through the day, will continue it's rapid growth. I have nothing against nuclear. I think SMRs could be a key part of the energy make up, even large power plants in some large regions. I think industrial heat would likely be best served by SMRs, the Oil sands in Canada, even shipping could be transitioned to SMRs. But in terms of electrical production, excluding certain highly dense Urban regions or particularly cloudy geographies, I don't believe nuclear can compete with solar.
    5
  339. 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
  340. We can replicate that china strategy. We shouldn't aim for Solar, but replace it with SMRs, because we have a better advantage there. And we Should boost heavy construction equipment. But wind, batteries, and EVs we have a strong position in But that isn't an argument against using a Sturgeon Falls style refinety ecosystem to export diesel Globally.
    5
  341. It should also be noted how many LNG projects in South East Asia were cancelled due to new European demand and the 2022 price spike making it clear that the market wasn't reliable
    5
  342.  @cx6847  All cultures being hunters is only true if that includes fishing and gathering Shellfish. Many (maybe most) cultures were historically reliant on sea food. That os of course animal protein but not red meat or the general focus of this video.
    5
  343.  @chaitanyatyagi  not really. Venezuelan imports were actually good for the shale industry because oil produced from shale formations is very light and needs to be mixed with heavy crude. A great irony is 20-30 years ago when all the big refineries were built we were sure there would be no light oil and to much heavy, and instead the world today is desperate for heavy oil to mix with all the light stuff. But shale oil is largely exported because the Permian is right near a coast and the light hydrocarbons are more useful internationally to blend than domestically to refine in refineries built for the heaviest of grades. Actually, the amount of diesel used in fracking, more Venezuelan imports would lower the cost of Diesel and make fracking cheaper.
    5
  344. Pretty much the exact opposite. Musk isn't just spending oil rent lol
    5
  345. That was a great interview
    5
  346. Line 5 running through Michigan makes Canada's energy security very poor. Part of the solution should be a temporary lifting of Chinese EVs for fleet purchase by taxis and companies. That will allow us to quickly ensure we can access transportation if oil is cut off, and provide demand for more charging infrastructure, and be generally good for air quality. However, it is also important we protect our developing EV industry. We can't let China swam out domestic market. Any purchases of Chinese EVs should require a plan to make the next purchase a Canadian EV, and the regular consumer market shouldn't be open to Chinese models.
    5
  347. Unpopular because it was inaccurate. We don't need the price of current houses to drop, we need options that aren't expensive McMansion that cost less
    5
  348.  @moritamikamikara3879  The Romans brought them. And made records of it.
    5
  349. I am very curious how these storage projects will impact; Transmission - is it worth building? NG turbines - if they are no longer providing peaking services, are they economic to provide only monthly backup, and do they have a market to move to combined cycle as start up time becomes less relevant? Solar and Wind - Does commercial storage of 2-8 hours make solar the winner, the sun shines daily, wind is a longer on and off period? Other storage technologies - does 4 hour storage create a larger market for 12 hour storage?
    5
  350. This was a fun and distrupting, if not surprising, interview
    5
  351. Carney wrote a whole book on how fossil fuels are being displaced and the risk associated! Carney is smart enough to understand you don't simply walk away when you're deeply invest.
    5
  352.  @TheChrisLeone  the issue with this counter argument is that it doesn't address the actual concern. People upset about bird deaths are usually referencing raptors or cranes or geese, not small song birds. Turbines can and shoot be sited and built to minimize these issues. But I don't think we should minimize the issue by comparing pigeons to golden eagles.
    5
  353. Salva Ukraine, but I have to disagree that historic Ukraine did include Crimea, or the southern Plains which were only populated by agricultural settlement after Russia pushed out Tatars, and largely by Russians. And I say that as a Canadian, where "Historic Canada" is only the Laurentian water shed. Certainly not a reason for invasion.
    5
  354. Mines need flow through shares and tax deductions, perhaps refundable, for exploration. Environmental assessments are important... In the Rockies and BC. In the Tundra and Boreal forest, the ecosystems evmxist over vast distances with little variations, and is largely green desert in terms of animals or biodiversity. Water has to be protected, we can't have contamination run off, but this area that was under ice for 100s of thousands of years should not be viewed as a pristine and delicate ecosystem; its a system of weeds living on bed rock. Bigger riskes are earth worms and invasive beetles, and we need the government to have money to deal with that. I don't think these American tariffs are going anywhere. I think we should push for having any tariffs on our manufacturing put into the Sovereign wealth fund and invested into Canadian non-energy industries, particularly mining.
    5
  355.  @blondiepianist  This is to true, one thing that is left out of the "eat vegitarian" "eat raw beef" "eat whatever extreme diet" conversation is your body and the microbiome evolve and adapt to what you're eating. If you eat a diet heavy in fiber, your microbiome will convert that down into amino acids and short chain fatty acids, but you'll have trouble creating the bial to break down red meat, and vice versa.
    5
  356.  @TgamerBio5529  both because the population is genuinely supportive of that pro Russian government. There were and still are fears they could push against Ukraine as Russia has a manpower shortage, which is part of why Ukraine hasn't done anything about the Russian troops on their western border. If Hezbollah can be an ally of Iran, Transnistria can be an ally of Russia, even if you don't recognize it as a country.
    5
  357. Alberta and BC need to build hydro transmission between Edmonton and Site C, and Calgary and Revelstoke. We need to connect the North amd South side if Great Slave lake in NWT, and connect them to Uranium City Saskatchewan. We also need to connect the west side of Hudson Bay to Manitoba
    4
  358. Great video, but your title is wrong! It should say, "Electric Heat WILL make Canadian industry more Competitive"
    4
  359. You coukd call the timing issue a trojan horse; it can certainly be used to sneak in other changes. But its wrong to say its a red herring shortening the development cycle is certainly the main goal
    4
  360.  @sweetvictory5643  Im against the bravo to Austria not fighting russia
    4
  361.  @SpaceMarine500  both? Both.
    4
  362. I fully agree with getting NG out of Space heating and stoves. Residential networks are expensive to maintain and leak. But I disagree with the LNG point. China's main alternative is Central Asia and Russia, and Europe's is Russia. Amd beyond the political impact, the leaks associated from production are much higher. As for electrical generation, I think NG is fairly unavailable in the short term, and will probably have a small role in the longer term, although renewables and battery storage are undoubtedly the faster. But in terms of industrial heating there isn't an alternative commercially available or even widely discussed.
    4
  363. I agree, I think we will probably shift to a plug in hybrid mandate instead. But I don't think that will reduce the goal to become an EV exporter or grow a large and competitive EV industry. Although they can go fast. And charging is getting much faster with more destinations having charging.
    4
  364. Idk what it is but something about the presentation seems unpolished.
    4
  365. When the conversation is around new pipelines, you often advocate for Partial Refining. Why do you not frame this as a solution to the limited refining market? Removing the asphaltenes would both create an alternative, non Combustion product (asphalt), and avoid the necessity for coking - certainly the majority of coking capacity, anyway.
    4
  366.  @The_Panther  I agree I just mean the bluff will probably require actually engaging in a ceasefire through the negotiating. And that's a difficult lie to sell
    4
  367. @luigimrlgaming9484  lame and clearly incorrect assesment. If the status quo is Ukraine and Russia not negotiating, and the status quo is Russia winning on the battlefield, then obviously Russia winning on the Battlefield is not an argument Russia must negotiate. You are confusing Tactics with Strategy. Ukraine is losing ground, that is not equivalent to losing.
    4
  368. Why is it Ukraine has struggled so much with building defensive lines when Russia has so quickly built several new layers of defensive lines in Kursk?
    4
  369.  @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
  370. I'm a little disappointed this was the title used, but there was no mention of the risk Southern Ontario's reliance on US pipelines for access to oil, the impact on Canada's overall trade position that removing imports to Quebec City and St John in favour of Oilsands products, or the economic stability/security a new market for SCO in the east would offer to the regional economy of Fort McMurray. And Frankly, the impact it would have polically in easing Western Alienation tensions. Which to me, a guy in Ontario, is worth risking the equivalent of one years worth of equalization payments to Quebec to potentially lose over several decades..
    4
  371.  @thedwightguy  The point about tricinosis is neat, but I'm not sure I got your point. Yes I certainly don't mean to lump all north American traditions, my mistake, or imply hunting didn't occur. But I'm not aware of it being an exceeding large part of an groups diet. To the point you wod want a bear in a canoe crossing the irish sea to hunt them in a few generations anyway.
    4
  372.  @johnbaker1256  That is interesting, as far as I am aware they were rather lithic as well, although with a large amount of ceramics. When you say raise, do you meam in cages? And is this similar to sun bears were it was for "medical" purposes rather than basic food?
    4
  373.  @imrangul6750  MMT argues that the value of a Fiat currency is derived from the acceptance of the currency in payment of taxes. Consider how long you think the USD would last if the IRS switched to only accepting Pesos. Taxes drive demand for a Fiat currency. They are essential to it's function. The stance MMT takes is that because of this, it's okay to spend more USD in a given year than it collects in taxes, as people will save some for future tax payments or to buy things from someone who will have to pay taxes. And as the economy grows in size, ideally due to rapid growth but probably due to inflation, the amount expected to be collected in the future grows, and so more overspending can occur as more money will be saved.
    4
  374. For a long time the Kivalliq power connection has talked about connecting Nunavut to Manitoba, Ontario just conntected most of the Northwest with Watay power, Quebec FN are around hydro projects. I want to see a program with Grants for worker training for maintanance and construction, and Loans for construction of Wind turbines on a long term basis to generate local employment and allow them to own wind farms that supply local power and sell excess to the grid. All the concrete demand around the Hudson Bay would allow for a cement plant at Churchill (or Neslon) and more shipping on the hudson bay in general with every community shipping in the components of 1 or more wind Turbine a year. And you could source the turbines from the Gaspe in Quebec..
    4
  375.  @Silentfire77  Not sure what your point quite is, that there is a lack of supply? The issue is there isn't. As for needing time to reach profitablility, shale oil has never become a profitable enterprise. It only exists because other regions activitely limit production, which means as an industry, particularly of small price takers, it has no ability to reach a price that returns a profit. Leases that aren't in current use don't have an impact on current production, honestly Bidens restriction of new sites (which is quite limited) is more likely to help the industry by limiting supply. As for infrastructure, that represents real costs that have to be included int he life cycle cost of the product. The lack of such infrastructure represents the cost of having to drill a new well every 5 years. Finally, shale oil is different then other oil products. Its mainly lighter hydrocarbons, with heavy amounts for dilutants and condensates, as well as natural gas. Shale oil has never been a profitable industry, before accounting for externalities and future values of the resources. I am quite pro oil, from traditional reservoirs to bitumen, but Light Tight oil shouldn't be exploited and the industry does not need to be supported.
    4
  376. @gledatelj1979  1) Canada doesn't have rulers. 2) what on earth are you referring to
    4
  377. "You Cannot buuld another refinery in Canada. *there is not enough market". You certainly couldn't build a refinery in Alberta or Sarnia. I want to point out this argument is not applicable to a refinery complex at say Vancouver or Prince George built for export.
    4
  378. Along with the extreme technical difficulty, it also has to be remembered that most of the NG Ontario uses for NG power plants in South West Ontario is imported from the US, and they could respond by increasing export tariffs on that. We are far more susceptible to a price increase on our peaking generators than they are to Ontario's overnight surplus Nuclear sales, they have their own NG plants they can run during the night if they need to.. But realistically, Trump wants more coal usage. Cutting off power only helps his case in some ways.
    4
  379. To encourage these Micro vehicles they should be allowed to use bike lanes
    4
  380. If Canada is going to peacefully share north America with the US, and it's really the only way we do share North America, we need to sell them water. I believe we should follow the Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal. Unlike the absurd proposal around Alaska refrenced, this is a partical and low impact option to get access to large quantities of Fresh water.
    4
  381. Ya its such a pain that these terms are so relatively meaningless between poorly informed supporters and poorly informed opponents.
    4
  382.  @jonadabtheunsightly  my mistake, although still good to know that Alaska really only ever sold oil to California, and this was the period California was going from the largest producer state to a long decline.
    4
  383. I really appreciate this discussion
    4
  384.  @f430ferrari5  The biggest problems with what your saying is you're identifying these people as mentally ill or addicts, but then acting as though allowing them to be homeless will solve that. But clearly they don't think like an average person, because they continue to be homeless. It's not a cure. And it's been well established that providing housing costs less then dealing with the fallout of having homeless people on your streets; city sanitation, the cost of policing, the medical costs of violent altercation, the loss of local property values, etc. People aren't going to become heroine addicts because they get a small apartment, normal people don't chose to be addicts and addicts don't prioritize having a house. It also becomes easier to target services to help people when you know where people will be, to help rehabilitation. And its easier to go through rehabilitation when you have a secure, safe environment, which is why rehabs are built to be tranquil, calm environments. Like you said, addicts become intoxicated and can destroy thier place of living. This is one reason I support public housing, instead of a housing vouchet for people to destory some average house, what is needed is houses with plaster or concrete walls you can't break while drunk, and hard floors you can't spill things on and let rot while stoned. The fact they will be harder on housing means harder housing is needed for them. And again, building this is the less expensive option. I would also say by emphasizing this group (which is the majority), you are ignoring that there are mentally healthy people who end up in this situation. And the people who aren't on the street homeless, but living off a relatives couch or something should also be able to have a home. Since it's clear the private market doesn't build the supply needed to lower prices to bring these people in reach, public housing is the most effective tool to add supply.
    4
  385. ​ @Andy-P Thats actually largely true. A lot of the new coal stations are in Chinas West, where yhe coal mines are. Most of the stations built on the coast are either replacing much low efficiency and less regulated old plants, and the Big Chinese push for LNG was in large part to get NG to thier southern coastal cities to take coal plants off line. Alongside that, rhings like burning coal for home heating have been banned in cities. Say what you will, bur CCP saw air quality as likely the greatest threat to their power in the 2010s because of the level of pressure against it from the public, and did take serious action on it. Im not saying Beijing is great, but its certainly improved for the last decade when all the publicity was on it.
    4
  386. Only in the sense that building a new series of refineries and shutting down current ones is to expensive to justify. But the refineries lose money/gas prices go up if you try to use the super light oil from the Permean.
    4
  387.  @SirMegaManNeoX  even in the long run, you've just invested in rebuilding the refineries so you could ship Venezuelan and Mexican oil across an ocean instead of the Texan oil. I doubt you'll see all that much improvement in shipping efficiency overall.
    4
  388. ​ @Sylvie_M be nice poor guy forget to switch accounts
    4
  389. I pretty often disagree with your take on new pipelines and oilsands expansion; but we are entirely aligned on the need to diversify the products made from bitumen as rapidly as possible. I think upgrading to jet fuel and upgrading to SCO should make your list however; only the heavier fractions of the bitumen are useful for Asphalt and Carbon Fiber, we need outlets for the other 80%.
    4
  390.  @bittemeinrammstein  I don't agree. For example, Russia has refused to use conscripts in internationally recognized Ukraine. While "legally" (in Russia) these are Russian territories, the de facto reality and cost of immediately continued conflict make a continued offensive a less than ideal option, imo. I believe Putin would agree to frozen lines within Ukraine so long as no prewar Russian Territory was lost. Buying 5 years to rebuild equipment and train manpower with Ukraine kept out of NATO would be a much stronger long term position. Russia may be winning the tactical war and gaining land. But to say they are winning overall I can't agree; their equipment, financial, and man power losses are all extreme and destabilizing. But there is no way to test this but to remove Ukraine from Kursk. So we will have to disagree, until such a time as Ukraine controls no Russian territory. And obviously such a situation would likely mean many other aspects were changed as well..
    4
  391.  @rodchallis8031  IRL, Canada is still just Windsor to Quebec City, the rest is a colonial possession.
    4
  392. @billestew7535  it may not be that strong today. A year into a national depression where Alberta is hardest hit, with Trump welling them they would be rich on Fox News, it will be far wider. We need to get ahead of this.
    4
  393. Lol, don't worry everyone, look at the guys user name, he DEFINITELY isn't a russian troll 😂😂
    4
  394. What does this mean for future nation building, and particularly relations with Israel? What does this mean for Irans future in the region, and in particular, Hezbollah, if Syria is no longer available as a logistical route? Will this encourage them to be more or less aggressive? Is it possible we'll see a more western aligned government that might join Israel, Jordan, and the Saudis in a Middle east Nati
    4
  395. Hey, that was the US' post war Afghanistan plan. Stop ripping off other peoples homework.
    4
  396. Elaborate?
    4
  397. If we can't electrify a pipeline then this whole conversation is rather moot.
    4
  398. Great coverage. Would love to hear more about SCO
    4
  399. My fear, if the US does what to protect domestic production and push us out, is a reversal of Keystone bringing Texas WTI North to the Midwest and the Express pipeline, which could be reversed to serve the rockies. The rockies in particular do have light oil refineries, although is not an enormous market.
    4
  400. If the Saudis ever decied they want to compete, by definition, OPEC is over. If the Kingdom wants to compete, I'll bet SAGD lasts longer than thier government..
    4
  401. That only further hurts the investment in EVs that we can't afford to lose. I'd do a 1 year removal for fleet purchase.
    4
  402. Pretty much every creator would rather not use YouTube, the issue is we do.
    4
  403.  @007kingifrit  times are very different. For one thing, several Arab states recognize Israel (as would any state in the governing council have to be required to). And unlike the 1940s, most of those Arab countries have seen their own Jewish populations leave to Israel, and I truely don't believe they want to take action that would lead to their return. Israel allowed these countries to deal with their own "Jew problems" without taking action. Also, unlike the previous UN mandate, this would be under an Arab controlled coalition.
    4
  404. We hear a lot about China building coal plants, but what isn't diacussed is the actual plants, which are very large and very efficient critical fluid designs. I think the plant is to hook up SMRs to the boilers in the future, amd turn the expensive capital investment into genertation and transmission equipment into nuclear power stations.
    4
  405. ​​ @peterbutz642 but you understand people from all over Canada work in Alberta. If a guy from Nova Scotia is working in the Oil fields, it's not unfair or strange that his Federal pension or Federal income tax would go to service him and his family out east. Alberta keeps all the Provincially taxed revenue, but the taxes a Canadians pays to Canada aren't tied to the province of employment..
    4
  406. ​ @peterbutz642 so what, any company head quartered in Toronto shouldn't be paying any taxes in Alberta and only pay them to Ontario? I think you'd quickly find that is a mistake. Any provincial taxes paided by someone working in Alberta stay in Alberta. But Federal taxes don't belong to the province you work in, thats ridiculous. No country works that way; if you work in texas, Social security in the states lets you collect it whereever you live. Federal programs aren't meant to trap people in a province.
    4
  407. I'll be honest, to an extent I am supportive of new pipelines specifically because we need the demand for steel. We just saw Hamilton close a plant. But obviously it isn't just a make work project.
    4
  408. I'd say the last time OPEC started a price war was 2020. Ostensibly against Russia, but that was dramatically scary
    4
  409. I think everyone agrees the Emergency Act should not be used for this. But i Think almost everyone agrees we should be building new pipelines so Alberta is at least as dependent on Canada as it is the US. And the people who don't are probably being convinced by your oneside arguments. Ei; still quoting a pipeline built over covid as a relevant price, ignoring that Ontario's entire oil supply is reliant on the US not closing a pipeline, the economic cost of a collapse in oil prices, etc
    4
  410.  @no_rubbernecking  Okay, again, I see your points relevance. But has Latvia been invaded? Are it's people being killed and infrastructure destroyed? NATO is a defensive alliance, not an attack at the first justification alliance. IMO nothing has happened that justifyies a retaliation, and using anti air defenses would only provide information to Russia.
    4
  411. We need to invest in E-Highways as they are developing in Germany. Overhead wires trucks can connect to while they drive. Start on Key GTA corridors, then expand to corridors in Montreal and Ottawa, and then sections of the 401. Not only does this allow existing diesel electric trucks to operate electric for significant portions of trips, but it means far smaller batteries are needed for local, and ultimately regional trucking since they can recharge on those corridors and only need 100km range outside them
    4
  412. Norway's oil extraction is largely offshore in the North Sea, not interior to the mountains and shipped off the coast. But yes it can be done safely
    4
  413.  @lennonzamora5387  The idea hunter gathers got most of their calories from meat is laughably false. Certainly an important source of protein but not the majority of calories or food.
    4
  414. @qjsharing2408  and the profit. But clearly the issue is not enough capital and firms not able to engage on long time lines, both areas a crown Corp can support. When the risk is the government saying no, it seems to be reduced when it's the government trying to say yes.
    4
  415. Yes, but the one thing Russia does have is a capable submarine fleet, and Russia might target critical infrastructure in the European country. However, they haven't done anything to the UK. I do think it's military is near collapse, but I also wonder what a state like Russia might do with all those subs
    4
  416. My biggest fear is that the combination of Trumps Tariffs, lower global demand from Chinas EV push+ economic slow, a return of Russian oil, and a Saudi price war will will plument prices. Alberta will be exporting Bitumen for decades. The Midwest US is built around it. But if the price we're getting is only $30 a barrel, you get no investment, no tax revenue, no good employment. The bigger problem is Fort Mac. Refineries in Alberta can't use Bitumen. So, we upgrade bitumen into lighter SynCrude. Almost all the oil converted to Syncrude comes froma strip mining operation around Fort Mac. And between the mining operations and the upgraders, this is some of the most expensive oil in the world, maybe the most expensive barrel being produced. And unfortunately this is where all the high paying blue collar jobs are. I'm deeply worried about cheap light oil replacing syncrude. A lot of syncrude goes to Ontario and Quebec via US pipelines. But beyond that, oil could move North from Dakota, and my worst fear is a reversal of Transmountain to bring cheap over see light crude to Alberta. If the mining operations shut down, we'll have 10s of thousands of high paying blue collar jobs disappear in Alberta, all centered on Fort McMurray. All going on EI, at the same time as Provincial revenues are being slashed and collapsing Exports are making the CAD plumet. And that will be a national issue. Port cities will struggle with falling imports. Our stock market will collapse if SynCrude (the company) and Suncor write of reserves. CN rail has almost a third of its cargo related to O&G. We desperately and urgently need to diversify our economy. Im worried next year is the point of collapse and Mining will come on line at reduced capacities after defered spring maintenance. We have a regional economy that nearly disappeared during Covid, thats going to drive a provincial depression and national recession if we aren't very skillful with our trade policy over the next few months.
    4
  417. They are running of old Soviet tanks to refurbish.
    4
  418. Property taxes that apply to building values also make it more expensive to build density, whereas land value only taxes make it more expensive to hold undeveloped land
    4
  419. The US Midwest is built around Canadian ultra heavy crude. To be clear, our bitumen is so heavy as to not be a liquid. And the US Gulf is also built around heavy crude; largely Venezuelan and Mexican, but many international refineries actually ship their heavy residue. The California refineries are largely based on heavy crude as well, as California had heavy reserves in the past. However, while these are optimized for heavy crudes, they still demand a lighter blend that oil sands bitumen. They can, and prefer to, accept some bitumen. And Conventional heavy oil (around 1M bbl/d) from Canada is also good. But they don't have the ability Midwestern refiners have to run on our oil. East coast refineries are built for much lighter blends, being based around North Sea and to a lesser extent Gulf oil shipments; though they keep closing. Refineries in the rockies and American West are old and designed for relatively light oil, certainly not Bitumen. And the Washington state refineries are largely designed around light blends, originally from Alaska. The reality is it's much easier to put light oil in a heavy refinery than vice versa. You lose the value of your coking unit, and you will run under capacity because you produce a higher ratio of light products than the pipes are designed for, but it's entirely achievable. A few months ago Marathon was saying it would only take them a month to move over from Canadan heavy to Light Bakken. More importantly, the US exports most of the light, ultra light oil coming out of the Permian fracking, something like half their production. So declining US production lowers exports, but won't really impact US refiners. In reality, this is "oil" in name only, it's basically NGLs. I don't know if it's still true, but it was the case that fracking actually used more diesel than it produced, because diesel is a heavier fraction of the oil barrel. So you can see how that isn't driving the current system; mainly this is used as petrochemical inputs and gasolines. So does that mean the US depends on our oil? I'd say yes, but not as much as we depend on them taking it, they have some flexibility, and their production declines are basically in an entirely different product used for different industries in different national markets than what we sell..
    4
  420. I think there is reason to blame Alberta, but I also think you are being somewhat disingenuous. Alberta has far more renewable capacity than any other Canadian province when you exclude hydro. You compare to texas, but texas has a peak load in the summer, Alberta peaks in the winter, and is farther North, making solar more difficult to use in the winter. California relies on an enormous amount of cross jurisdiction trading; Alberta SHOULD have beyter connection to BC, but does not. If you are referring Denmark or something in Europe, ditto. And China is an entirely Seperate conversation including cheap dispatchable coal, massive transmission, and an industrial policy that goes far beyond installing renewables.
    4
  421.  @drstevej2527  They aren't particularly. Southern Europe has a Mediterranean, dryer environment. Not a tropical to semi tropical environment as you find in Florida or Louisiana or Alabama. Very different, particularly in terms of disease and mosquito population.
    4
  422. We need to jump into full chain battery manufacturering without 5 years of permitting mines and refineries, we need to make ourselves the global expert in Cold Temperature Heat pumps, Heavy Equipment, and Wind turbines, we need to become a leader in Geothermal and SMRs, and we need to take a position in the Oil supply chain to control the global export market for heavy RPPs; asphalt, Lubricants, jet fuel, diesel, and partially upgraded heavy crudes. We are standing still and we're gonna be run over by an EV..
    4
  423. Lol I mean, tbh I'd rather have a ruble than whatever is used in the Congo. I mean, I'd really rather dollars, but if you're from the Congo you aren't so choosy
    4
  424.  @russellrhoades3044  I have to say, I disagree broadly. Solar prices have dropped to the lowest cost of production, particularly on longer timescales. There is a reason Texas of all places builds enormous amounts. I think they are very likely to pull off the heist. Even outside of economics, they have strong strategic incentives, including the above mentioned impact to North American economies. Belt and road certainly had mixed results, but it's given China enormous influence in Pakistan and Africa. And most of the high-speed rail net work does make a profit, only the long distance lines to very rural areas like Tibet or Xinjiang are lose money, but again that has much more to do with strategic policy. As for the last point I think it's quite difficult to argue China consumes more than it produces.
    4
  425. I think the best move is to provide low cost loans to the Provincial Hydro Utilities, and maybe the Canadian Telecoms, to build datacenters on an enormous scale as a way to export low cost electricity. And as part of that, provide subsidies to have geothermal heating/cooling in a the facilities. I think geothermal could get low enough for power, but right now it's most cost competitive for temperature control. And this provides a great way to leverage several of our competitive advantage; low winter temperatures, low cost electricity, a drilling fleet we need to repurpose.
    4
  426. Source? I can't find anything. Strike with what and where?
    4
  427. I'm a fan of it.
    4
  428. In monetary terms it likely already has. In barrels per day, that won't be the case if OPEC has decided they want low prices going forward..
    4
  429. I disagree; but the race is becoming close. Chinese Manufacturing is still heavily focused on what would be called low technology manufacturing, plastic toys and screws. They have been very successful in using Batteries and Solar to move up the value chain into higher technology areas. But US Military equipment is still considerably above Chinese, which is a strong indicator of technical capacity if not overall industrial capacity..
    4
  430. What if this video was made by an AI trying to replicate WIL doing a video about the danger of AI, as so we're all the comments, and it was only seen by you
    4
  431.  @anubis2814  odd I only see it when I look that you @ed me, not in the comments
    4
  432.  @jeffbenton6183  I definitely agreethat an LVT isn't socialist per se, all though I think any reasonable market socialist policy would utilize one (although I think all economic systems would benefit so).
    4
  433. Honestly, they have had 4k casualties amd probably 2K KIA out of 12k. They have probably stopped to regroup or reassign Officers to go train.
    4
  434. Well, it exports aluminum, which is basically the same as batteries. But also, I believe a Cable to the UK is currently being built.
    4
  435. Ya not everything is iron dome lol.
    4
  436. Solar actually correlates very well. Look at heat waves in the South. And in much of the world it's highly reliable. The issue really is the "rich" areas of the world are the worst for Solar.
    4
  437. Smith's competence isn't a measure of how well she achieves what you think she should do, its a measure of how well she achieves what she wants done. Its very dangerous to assume a lack of competence from someone doing a very good job at supporting her industry and pushing anti Canadian sentiment
    4
  438. as others have said this isn't overly decisive for Rockets, bit it does put the E38 highway in artillery and short range rocket distance, which hurts Russian logistics both along the new Sjem line of control ans the Ukrainian Boarder area west of the Sjem.
    4
  439.  @northernmetalworker  right now the goal of Eastern Refineries is mainly to serve Canadian consumer, excluding Irving. All of these would require some level of upgraded Syncrude. If we were to build refineries for European export, I would suggest we focus on Diesel refinering using Sturgeon Falls type upgrader/refineries. Only something like the top 20% heaviest of a barrel can be used for asphalt. So while I don't disagree I'd say it will never be the major product.
    4
  440. Only hope the NDP has imo
    4
  441. eggceptional eggplanation of the eggsperiment. The yolk is that I won't be starting such a crazy diet myself, but I guess the egg is on my face there.
    4
  442.  @MrJameslupien  There is no reason to believe Russia uses Colbolt in their bombs. The only possible exception is the Posidin torpedo at its not at all clear that uses Colbolt or even exists.
    4
  443.  @jeffersonclippership2588  Flat, and small
    4
  444.  @Nick-xt2dx  I agree that social collapse is the issue. But the internet wasn't the cause in the 70s and we were already seeing these problems begin. Sprawl is an exponential issue, in the 50s suburbs and car oriented development was at its very start, and the people grew up accustomed to social interaction. The modern population is raised in suburban isolation and sanitation (in terms of perfect safety that lead to constant fear as an adult) which compound over generations.
    4
  445. I would say the opposite. Heavy crude like bitumen is rich in or can be upgraded to middle distillates, base oils, and asphalt, all of which will be phased out very slowly compared to gasoline or NG for electrical power where battery storage is a commerical competitor with energy security. LNG with trade deals may be of value, but I don't think there is a long term market for it, particularly when Qatar and the US can produce for less..
    4
  446.  @makelgrax  I would rather just see a tax on Advertising budgets/agencies, to cut into the budgets. Even if its for a "thing" I don't really like the constant bombardment or think its good for society.
    4
  447. 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
  448.  @LeftWingNationalist  Interesting, I flip Communism and Socialism, because while countries like China and the USSR have Communist parties and aim toward a communist goal, they are officially Socialist. And Socialist ~ Society so social (government)ownership makes sense, vs communism ~ commune so the local commune (the workers) own the means directly. Why do you use the inverse?
    4
  449.  @LeftWingNationalist  I disagree, the Economic system of Fascism is National Syndicalism with a focus on Autarky (although much like many "socialist" or "capitalist" countries, this may be co-opted into an authoritarian regime not practicing the nominal system). Fascist also seperate people into groups, but this is based on area of economic engagement (agriculture, mining) and not class. However, the national rebirth and historic heroism myths are absolutely core aspects, as you say. Likewise the identification and solution to a "national problem" (although I don't think this problem has to be a population of scape goats). A correction to your comment, hyper inflation in Germany occured due to french occupation of the Rhine land industrial region and subsequent government sponsored strike, which destroyed German industrial output. The hyperinflation was nearly a decade before the great depression, although the economy was still increadibly weak at this time. I find the rightwing left wing labels not super useful, I would agree it generally targets right wing (blue color, lower income workers and rich industrialist) electorate, but remember many of the early fascists were formerly communists. Falange Española de las JONS leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: "[B]asically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile." while arguing that it was a thrid way ideology out side either left or right.
    4
  450.  @Nick-gj6je  no he even mentioned this at the end of the video, investors were not making back money over that last decade. That's why post Covid we saw such refusal to reinvest as high prices finally let share holders cash out. It's the same reason we've see such high consolidation in the last few years.
    4
  451. Also, the vast majority of soy is grow for biodiesel. Soy is seperated into soy oil and soy protein, protein is fed to animals but the planted area couldn't be reduced without reducing Soy oil. I don't want to give the impression that I support the animal agriculture industry as it exists, or that it isn't one of the lead drivers of ecosystem destruction and climate change. Only that biofuels are as well.
    4
  452.  @michaelrch  Yes that is a very annoying piece of misinformation, spread for literally no reason by people otherwise in the right. When they say 77% they mean "of soy products, by mass". This is the Protien seperated from the soy bean, whereas the oil goes to Vegitable oil and biodiesel. I have genuinely no idea who decided to discredit the message by communicating it this way.
    4
  453.  @michaelrch  Yes exactly, they would grow the (nearly) same amount. While soy oil is little of the mass, it is the majority of the revenue (though near equal). But as long as governments are supporting bio diesel, the price for soy oil would just increase to compensate for lower soy meal prices. Soy is not seperately grown for animals, animal feed is a byproduct for the Soy Oil industry. A quarter of soy oil is used for Biofuel. Eliminating animal agriculture might have some price increasing effect on soy oil, and limit demand slightly, but it is not the connection it is made out to be. Similar to if we banned leather but subsized certain beef cuts. Eliminating Biodiesel would have a much larger impact, or at the very least has to be done along side reductions in animal agriculture for a real effect to be felt.
    4
  454.  @WinterXR7  The troops to be sent to hold Kursk were already having to hold the Ukrainian boarder. The distance to be defended has not changed, and the topography has been improved. Ukraine doesn't need to semd more troops now that the assult is over and its moving to a defensive mode.
    4
  455.  @WinterXR7  So to the first poi t we're in complete agreement, obviously the mechanized infantry brigades that led the Kurst assult were not whoever was guarding the border - my point is that now that Ukraine is moving into a defense mode those elite units will be reassigned to return to Pokrovs or a new offensive, and the troops who were previously holding the border will simply move forward to the new defensive lines. Certainly a number of troops were needed for the invasion, but all else being equal the better terrain means fewer units are needed to hold the region than were needed to hold the border. The conscripts captured who will be traded for actual Ukrainian soldiers should also be considered. To your bottom point, I'd suggest it matters very little of the Russians take most of the area leading to Pokrovs this week or in a year. If Trump is elected, a peace deal would almost certainly involve losing Pokrovs regardless, so fighting harder to hold it isn't a gain. If Harris wins, I expect material and political support for Ukraine to be decisive, and while the fighting will enter the city I don't believe Russia will be capable capturing the city. Kurst seems more valuable to in either regard, either as a bargain chip or as a defensive position undermining Putin's authority. I think the most determining factor is whether Ukraine can hold Russia a km or two from Pokrovs until the mud buys time for western equipment amd new troops to arrive and better defensive positions to be built, and also time for the Russian economic and financial position to worsen and public opinion and troop moral to turn. And with the mentioned elite units being pulled out of Kursk to return to defensive actions holding back Russia seems achievable, but the amount of ground lost and the seemingly ineffective Ukrainian fortified positions is disturbing. If Russia makes it into the city before winter it will still take months to capture but but terms are distinctly worse for Ukraine. That said, unless the world is willing to bring nuclear armed russia to the point of a WW1 Germany collapes, Ukraine is forced to take actions which are of greater risk but may offer a winning condition, rather yhan settle for the safer choice and simply lose a year later.
    4
  456. Dr. Holland hits the nail on the head. Trying to compete with China in industries they created is losing the race before running it. We need to copy what China did; revolutionize the industry. That means SMRs, Hydrogen, super capacitors, compressed air storage, geothermal, tidal etc. We have to go to the bottom the S curve and focus on those technologies..
    4
  457. ​ @knutritter461 That's not true. Several of the Hydrogen Hubs in the use from the IRA are focused on ammonia. Canada has all of its commercial green hydrogen plants being built to produce ammonia, in this case specifically as an energy export.
    4
  458. @mignik01  I guess by default I have to agree the share of oil going to petrochemicals will increase since I think the share going to fuel will go down. But I think that 55% number is many because the IEA also sees a global decrease in demand by 2030. And I have to say that 12% is a lot closer to my claim of around 10%. The point to remember is Petrochemical feed stock is generally the lighter end of hydrocarbons. So shale oil from the US, it might actually be nearly half a barrel. Because you can put those small molecules together to make polymers. But you can't just use the entire barrel that way, the heavier end that goes into gas and diesel and jet fuel, until you get back to the really heavy stuff where you make lubricant and carbon fibers. I think short haul trucking will likely be electrified. I agree long haul trucking will remain Diesel. I don't think physics really has much to do with it. I think the shear economy of scale is what is most relevant now. Even without efficiency improvements, the module nature means manufacturering millions of panels and installing millions. The same is true for batteries. These aren't technically complex items. And the manufacturing is growing in the US, in China, and in India and Europe. Look at China, they could built their entire grids worth of capacity in about 5 years. That's just unparalleled. And the US is following suit to avoid being caught with the more expensive energy. Even without improvement solar is the cheapest cost of energy. Again, it costs less than nuclear. That's just the reality. No one is even pretending to have a nuclear power generation system in the range of solar. Sure, nuclear is "denser". And? Roof top solar destructively competes with any utility delivered power, if half a block has solar and a battery, the other half doubles all their transmission and distribution fees, which are already the majority of cost. Solar is highly reliable. The sun rises daily. Utility projects in Texas or the West or south California are in regions where you might have a half dozen clouds for half the year. And solar still works with clouds, just less. And, AC demand is a huge portion of consumer demand, and fits perfectly with solar. Some days you will have lower solar. On those days NG will be run. But you don't run a nuclear plant at night and occasionally, and nuclear doesn't compete in the day. Again, nuclear for process heat with co-generation makes a lot of sense for industrial clusters. Nuclear might make more sense in New York and the surrounding area with an enormous density of people and more regular cloudy conditions. But across the majority of the majority of regions, solar wins. I think it's one of the greater ironies that the US north East and Europe were the two areas to first push solar, when they are likely the two areas worse suited to it. But regardless. No one is building nuclear right now. Not anywhere near the scale of solar. Even if you're right, solar will have won before Nuclear gets to the starting line. And nuclear only works when you have large amounts of unmet demand. If a region has electricity you can't just add a GW of power. That said, my belief is that nuclear is a big part of China's plan. Everyone is always talking about them building coal, but you have to note their coal plants are much more advanced than the ones built in North America or Europe 30 years ago. Anything built in the last 10 years is super or ultra critical. And I think they are working on SMRs so in the 2030s they can rip out the boilers of these coal plants and plug the nuclear reactors in.
    4
  459. Idk if we're an Energy Superpower. Maybe an Energy sidekick, but the US is the Superpower here and we just support them.
    4
  460. I don't think we should view ownership of cultural elements as disqualify. The wheat board is owned by Saudis, until 1970, HBC (RIP) was a British Company. Tim Hortons and Molson Canadian are owned by Brazil. Whistler, Blue Mountain, and Tremblant are all owned by Americans. We lost MEC and the Vancouver Aquarium in the pandemic. Does Irving get to be part of Canadian Culture? Its had an enormous impact, it continues to, and is Canadian owned. We have been utterly irresponsible in owning our Culturally significant industries and activities. But I don't think that eliminates them as cultural components.
    4
  461. I agree Iran's a major problem here... but that's a bit of a strech​ @JeanBod1111 
    4
  462. Alberta has $25 billion in its sovereign wealth fund (Alberta Heritage Wealth fund) after 50 years. It recieved $24 billion in royalties last year. Albertans are almost as bad with thier money as Newfies. What a country we'd have if BC had all the oil sands..
    4
  463. How would you want the government to react
    4
  464. No it's to do all the data processing for Europe and the US where electricity is more expensive. Do you really believe what you said?
    4
  465. "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
  466.  @dontfit6380  Lactose tolerance is a gene that evolved only 5 thousand years ago in the Ukrainian steppe area, and then spread to Europe, Iran, and North Indian ong with domesticated horses. Asian populations and South indians are generally lactose intolerant, same with Arabs (although goat milk is much more easily digestible, and the common milk in the region). Africans in general are also lactose intolerant, although in east Africa a different version of the lactase gene evolved and spread with bantu migrations, although it isn't quite as effective. Cheese and butter are almost entirely lactise free, contrary to popular belief. Lactose is the sugar, butter is pure fat and cheese has bacteria break the sugar down into Protiens and fat. People historically ate these and not milk itself. Another advantage is they last much longer. Which is why we find "bog cheese" and "bog butter" where people would store it for later use.
    4
  467.  @dwaynewladyka577  I am incredibly concerned about the level of influence she will have in conjunction with a 4th Liberal term and an oil price collapse.
    4
  468. 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
  469. Trump first started talking about running for president in 1988 and ran for president under the Reform part in 2000. You voted wrong in 1988, dependence on the US was always dangerous. And you are wrong today to repeatedly ignore the very strong potential for Alberta to Seperate and join the US. We need to build pipelines, which will serve economic and national priorities, but most off all because we must appease Alberta before our country is cut in half.
    4
  470. I think Backward linkages are even more important than the forward linkages. Building EVs is great, refining is great. But I don't think there is a difference between Ontario producing Mining equipment or batteries. Manufacturing jobs are what are important. We should do both, don't get me wrong. But I would actually prefer the focus is on the mining equipment. Everyone in the world will want to buy the minerals and build the battery production capacity. It's much less competitive to try and build the market to manufacture the mining equipment used in Canada. And it can basically be done with the Auto industry we are about to lose with minimal retooling. The upstream supply stream is of less value to us domestically imo.
    4
  471.  @judahmoar2533  They do disclose it? He found it in like 1 google search.
    4
  472.  @tomasbeltran04050  He said it was part of the carbon already in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean it has the same effect. This is one of the issues I had with the video, he says methane only last 12~ years, but then uses the 100 year impact cycle when comparing it as a GHG giving an apples to oranges view of the impact. Methane is short lived, and some argue its a far more dangerous GHG because its a far stronger GHG, the reason we rank it as less relevant is we use a 100 year life period for analysis, when on a 20 year period it is 86 times as powerful. The source of a GHG doesn't have any more effect on the atmosphere than whether the origin wheat you ate has on your body. It's the warming effect that matters and methane is inarguably more potentent than CO2.
    4
  473. As an aside, you should mention in a future video that Europe called everything from Ethiopia to New Guinea "India".
    4
  474. Actually a Petro state
    4
  475.  @markbaker6553  You are missing diesel and jet fuel, along with Base oils for lubricant, in terms of long term hydrocarbon demand. Importantly, these are the large hydrocarbons. All the products you listed are short chain hydrocarbons that are not produced from bitumen, but rather are the result of shale fracking.
    4
  476. I think part of the security requirements may be to get revenue from renewable deployment since it will replace royalties. But clearly not a good policy.
    4
  477. I don't believe the emergency act should be used, and Trump's rhetoric has calmed; but I do think we should consider it an emergency that Ontario's oil relies on US pipelines they could turn off on a whim.
    4
  478. I think it would make a lot more sense to worry about Europe's Carbon Border adjustment mechanism placing a price on oil sands products if any oil sands products went to Europe.
    4
  479. Um, it kinda does. I mean it's not completely empty, there are rocks in there. But you can pretty much stick a straw in the ground and oil comes out in some places.
    4
  480.  @aspiringcaptain  he's one of the largest purchasers of exports from the region through Tesla.
    4
  481.  @terseandtiny1746  Want to elaborate on that?
    4
  482.  @sawa1067  Meat is quite low in vitamin C. But, Glucose is competitive for vitamin C for uptake, so if the people you know are eating no carbs they will be able to use the small amount very efficiently to compensate.
    4
  483. @AprilSun-yk3yj  you didn't even read my post. There is no dirty oil. We produce bitumen. What's dirty is treating that like oil. OPEC turns a barrel of oil into half a barrel of Gasoline, 20% a barrel of Diesel, etc. EVs are killing gasoline. They are not hurting jet fuel or diesel. We can turn an entire barrel of Bitumen into a barrel of Diesel. Demand for our product is going up, not down. If we don't, diesel and heavy RPPs will go up in price, and OPEC will dump gasoline on the market for cheap to sell the more expensive fractions of a barrel.
    3
  484. is this a troll? If so how embarrassing is it for you to have to try an act like Ukraine taking more Russian ground in days than Russia takes in months is a failure?
    3
  485.  @ryuuguu01  you can go to Alberta innovates, but the advantage is that Bitumen is long fibers. The scale of potential production is drastically different. This is also Markham's general argument for not using Bitumen to burn, so it has to have some long term value as something else. I tend to agree that in a few decades, once we are making liquid fuels with captured carbon, material and chemical science will make this the obvious pathway and bitumen will be displaced. Ultimately the value of bitumen is use it or lose it. But currently it does have an enormous advantage.
    3
  486.  @kansasscout4322  I bet that intercept involved information from the RCMP and CSIS
    3
  487. There are some very cool flywheels out there. Very high conversion efficiency as well.
    3
  488.  @saber2802  like the other guy said, Belarus isn't a new name, it's not related to the White Russians who fought the Red Army, I think they have as much right to Rus as the Russians do, maybe more since most of Russia is in fact not in the Rus Homeland.
    3
  489. Technologies might include replacing Diesel with wet CNG in fracking, combining oil production with Geo Thermal power generation, and deeper drilling.
    3
  490. Not all oil is equivalent. When China peaks, it will be because of EVs, not heavy products like jet fuel - that means higher demand for Heavy crudes and hurts those other producers who yield gasoline. No other producer yeilds heavy as much as we do. Certainly China isn't the world market. Where is the discussion on SMRs to further lower those costs. If we can consider Carbon Fiber, we can consider other innovation. There is uncertainty in every industry. But we should optimize Transmountain, of course. That can be done much sooner than a new pipeline, but as the Chicago market, where half our oil/dilbit goes, shrinks (because it is (wastefully) used to produce gasoline), we need new outlets to the global market. I wouldn't require Transmountain ship partially upgraded. But, I do think we should require a Dilutant mixing that reduces the level of condensate and increases SCO over time to increase the use of Bitumen and uncouple it from the Shale NG fracking, while driving upgrader investment. I would also say we should wave or greatly reduce the tariff for RPPs on Transmountain. Finally, I think it would be entirely reasonable to require any new pipelines to ship partially upgraded (or upgraded) bitumen - that is what we should push for, not against new access. The US Gulf coast is a possibility. I don't trust them not to change the rules on our pipeline access or ban exports in a price shock, however. I don't think KeyStone XL is better than Northern Gateway, but to the extent Canada can optimize KeyStone (a pipeline we don't control) we should. As for Carbon Fiber, it could be very good. But, you have been arguing for years its near commercialization, and even Alberta Innovates puts it at a decade until they would be using 100k bbl/d, a drop in our production bucket. And even then, only a fraction of the barrel can be used for this. But beyond the domestic market, if Carbon Fiber is feasible, then we should be building an export market. And that can be done at pipeline head to ensure the pipeline sees long term uses, along with being done in Alberta for Domestic use, and even Ontario to export East. We don't have to restrict the use of Bitumen to Alberta..
    3
  491. The Spanish has the same problem in New Mexico, wouldn't eat bugs.
    3
  492.  @amnont8724  it's not, because the countries you listed aren't actively fighting a war against Ukrainian minorities in their own countries.
    3
  493. @StinkyDog1971  Ontario, but you miss understand me, people need to realize that Alberta Seperatism is going to be boosted by conflict with the US, and that we have to address Western Alienation
    3
  494. It's just a bad economic layout. It is a seasonal route. It's a long shipping distance. It has absolutely no infrastructure in place. There are really no markets; Europe has no demand for bitumen, Eastern Canadian refineries have no use for it, basically this is a really complex way to ship to the US Gulf. An east coast pipeline works because it connects to eastern refineries and let's existing SynCrude production stop flowing through US pipelines freeing up capacity and increasing security..
    3
  495. 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
  496. ​ @rightwingsafetysquad9872  that's true for taxes on buildings, not for taxes on land. A renter won't pay more rent because of their land Lords costs. If land Lords could raise their rents, they would do it regardless, they don't offer a lower price because they have low costs. Taxing buildings on the other hand does get passed on to the renter, because it lowers supply.
    3
  497. I love Bitumen beyond Combustion. But my two questions I feel you never address are; Why can't we produce Carbon Fiber on the West Coast? If this technology is as promising as we both think it is, then there will be an enormous export market. And for that reason, I don't understand your belief that pipelines are going to be losing value and operating below capacity. I also think we need to realize this is going to have a very determimental impact on our and the global aluminum industry, and the extent to which this represents an incumbent that will make development difficult..
    3
  498. @ryuuguu01  well you should absolutely build a commercial plant immediately in Alberta. I'm not suggesting we only produce it in BC. But the economics of moving Bitumen don't change. Moving 500k bbl/d by pipeline to Prince George or Vancouver is going to cost less than moving 500k bbl/d of bitumen turned into fiber by rail. I don't think you will be able to name a major manufacturing hub anywhere near as far inland as Alberta. Also, do we only want battery manufacturers in Southern Ontario? Or to limit wind turbines to Alberta because it's where the best wind is? If this is as promising as suggested I would expect one would want a number of manufacturing centers lifting up a number of regional economies..
    3
  499. Two counter points to consider. Many of the "new wells" or new production is DUCs, drilled but uncomplete wells. To some extent that aligns with your point on drill now, frack later. But it's important to also see that the drill rig decrease is real, it's not (just) the rigs are more efficient, it's that DUCs have been decreasing over the last few years while new wells are drilled at a lower rate. The second point is that the Permian basin is seeing declining productivity in new wells, a situation already affecting Bakken and Eagle Ford, the two other large fracking zones. Shale Basins as a whole see declining productivity relatively quickly, and per well production in the Permian is already falling. This is just compensated with more wells. The last point to consider is the Fracking produces very light oil, nearly NGLs or condensate. Fracking also requires a lot of Diesel. If the US were forced to use its own Fracked oil, rather than sell it abroad, the Gulf refineries it's located near would face the issue of being tooled for heavy oil, and the fact it's difficult to turn light oil into heavy oil products, more so than the reverse. While Gasoline production would remain high, diesel production would find itself very stressed while diesel was in high demand. I have seen proposals to use wet CNG captured at the well head to power the pumps used for fracking. This would be a major improvement on economics - but isn't commercialized.
    3
  500. I think the upgrading for more Bitumen capacity is a ref herring. Most of the pipelines lead to the US Midwest, and even if you could get another million barrels a day there, there is no demand because we already fully serve it. More over, if we are shipping upgraded product, there is no reason for the massive capital investment those Midwestern refineries have made, and the structural demand that exists for Canadian oil disappeares.
    3
  501. The alamite issue is tricky. They were often collaborators in an oppressive government. Not that all were. But to you let Bashir supporters who commited crimes walk away or risk over punishment of a group. Even if you strike the perfect balance, you will be accused of both.
    3
  502.  @genethebean7597  I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't be using oil as a fuel to aggressively in favor of longer term fees stock, though.
    3
  503. "oil might get a little cheaper, but then more expensive, it depends on the market". This is something that irks me, and its very widely looked at this way. There is no "market". There is OPEC. OPEC makes decisions. Unless OPEC collapses, which is possible, prices are a determined thing. And OPEC is setting them to try and cut out EVs, just like they did nuclear in the 1980s. Obviously they aren't going to get rid of EVs, because China. But there is a question of global uptake.
    3
  504.  @sleelofwpg688  When China can land a boat in Taiwan wake me up, in the mean time, ya, geography is everything if the enemy can't even get here. But regardless, the US army is here to defend it through NORAD.
    3
  505.  @pudd66  Guy in video even says it, US has no choice but protecting Canada. In the Same way Russia is invading Ukraine for leaving its orbit, America can't have an aggressive unaligned power on its giant northern Boarder. It also needs the air space to monitor missile launches. Which is why Canada is in NORAD and has US protection outside NATO. The deal is simple, they want to use Canadian air space, they ensure our sovereignty.
    3
  506.  @seanlander9321  yes exactly, and yet China can't invade it, and I'm supposed to be concerned they will cross the Pacific, through the arctic, and invade Canada?
    3
  507.  @aspiringscientificjournali1505  for some reason replies to you keep disappearing, so I replied without ating you
    3
  508. You're forgetting the third option: Jump ahead. I think we can become relevant in EVs. But we should be investing in geothermal, SMRs, and tidal to create alternative systems we don't rely on the Chinese for and can use to undercut Chinese Solar and carve out a global market..
    3
  509.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  No, what MMT is arguing is that when you increase M, you get a rise in P and/or Q. And that you should focus spending on sectors that raise Q. This is widely accepted in QMT, banks increase M1 and M2 by issuing loans, and the productivity of those loans increases Q enough to compensate. But I agree they can't just liquidate all outstanding debt. I would say selling government debt will always be an important anti inflationary tool, in the same way the Fed pays interest on reserve balances. I would like to see public banking with the Fed, so that people can get the same interest rate on savings as commerical banks do. Or likely, lower rates to take more money out of the economy.
    3
  510.  @willnitschke  I think that's rather obviously personal opinion that the government cannot make productive investments, somewhat ironic given your comment around Mosler claiming fiat currency is a tax credit without or inspite of evidence. I don't disagree private banks should play an important role in money creation. But the base money supply is either fiat currency or a commodity. And if it's fiat currency, then the government obviously has a role in its creation.
    3
  511.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  China can produce 13 million EVs a year, today. If we fail, we can replace all cars in 2040 with Chinese imports, literally no loss. In the mean time you can't call for letting China dump subsidized EVs on our market and then blame the premier of the 4th largest province and a foreign leader for the fact we are are becoming nothing but a raw resource producer. Oil is going away. ICE vehicles are going away. If you want to import all these EVs, we need to be exporting something, and we need to be building those industries not undermining them..
    3
  512.  @BarbMacdonald-uv9zd  I agree. But they didn't. And now it is right now.
    3
  513. Maybe superficially, but I think it misses many of the key goals of Fascism; full self sufficiency in an economy, the idea of class conflict being replaced by corporatism (vs simple slavery type conditions), and a nationalistic devotion of the population generally built around a "rebirth" myth (Third Rich, New Roman Empire). Generally you might also see duplication of institutions (brown shirts or other paramilitary groups), populist support, and an extreme comfort with individual violence. State Capitalism is a part of Fascism, but they aren't interchable on my understanding (Although all these terms have been taken, weponized, and re-appropriated so many times as to be nearly meaningless).
    3
  514. This is more than oversimplified; the bitumen for carbon fiber he's discussing comes out of the oilsands. That is almost entirely unrelated to the UN capped wells from conventional drilling.
    3
  515. You regularly say Alberta should act as an owner of the resource; but when the government does, you say they act like an oil company. Either they own the oil and should act to maximize its value, or not
    3
  516. ​ @lucamckenn5932 ya, where Russia or China move into Canada you let me know, M'kay. And then I'll tell the Americans, and they will take care of it, whether or not Canada stays in NATO, because unlike some random former Warsaw country, the US has to keep us safe for their own safety.
    3
  517. Naphtha (the light hydrocarbons distilled at the top of an oil refinery) = Natural Gas Liquids (the light hydro carbons heavier than Natural gas seperated at a Natural Gas purification plant) =Condensate (light hydrocarbons heavier than Natural gas seperated at well head) All three are basically the same mix of chemicals just from different places in the oil and gas infrastructure.
    3
  518. I definitely agree with the issue here, and I think the solution is very simply child subsidies ans cheap housing. But blaiming support to Ukraine is pretty brain dead.
    3
  519. I just wanna say I emailed you a month ago saying we should build data centers lol.
    3
  520. ​ @nick5062 it's meant to be stored for something like a military campaign or embargo; but Biden did use it to smooth the market when Russia invaded Ukraine and then refilled it as prices dropped. So using it to smooth the market may be the new normal. China also has a national oil reserve although it is less public in its activities. But Canada has no such thing which is why the Covid demand collapse was so disastrous
    3
  521. On the last episode you were mocking the Western Standard for calling the Emergency Measures Act the War Measures Act. That was whiplash.
    3
  522. My worst fear Is Canada cuts off oil, in response The US cuts off Enbridge Line 5 through Michigan that supplies oil to Ontario, canada reverses Line 7, to import from the east coast, and the US response is to blockade the St. Lawrence. Absolute worse case scenario that could only escalate.
    3
  523.  @dean_l33  cave into what? There have been no demands beyond stopping a flow of drugs that doesn't exist?
    3
  524. I think the premise of his energy super power vision is; Ability to create foreign influence through energy provision Competitive advantage in international trade being (at least in part) low cost, clean energy Large scale provider of AI processing I would hope the reality is something like: Producer of; major EV and battery, extremely large carbon fiber offshore wind turbines, cold temperature optimized onshore turbines, cold temperature optimized heat pumps, Heavy petroleum products, (Potentially but only with significant long term contracts) LNG And a heavy domestic use driving low cost advantage and technological leadership of; SMRs, Hydrogen, wind, Hydro for peaking, geothermal And of course massive investment into data centers to create a competitive advantage in AI research and export globally not only our low cost electricity, but low cost geothermal drilling and general cool temperatures to a warming world.
    3
  525. I disagree with you're presentation of her experience. I've know white girls (2 very specifically) who go into "liberal" degrees and came out with ongoing anxiety and self hatred for these exact reasons. Identify politics consuming the left is a very real issue that's dramatically damaging social progress and pushing people away from socialism, even if misplaced.
    3
  526. What does 25 to 13 hundred mean exactly? In regards to Hezbollah's rocket launch rate
    3
  527.  @reel1tv587  I don't agree, as a Canadian, in the sense I'm quite sure we will just sell oil at a lower price. Alberta has very limited access to markets outside the US, in the past lack of demand or over supply relative to ability to sell has triggered steep discounts. If refineries need to pay a tariff, I think they will just end up buying cheaper, because if they were to buy less due to the higher overall prices, the Oil sands producers will be forced to drop prices.
    3
  528. @michaelabraham9233  it's important to remember OPEC doesn't act as a market, but as a cartel. And it controls prices by controlling output. Tariffs or no Tariff, the same amount of oil being supplied to the market means the same amount of demand will be needed, and global prices will have to decrease to accommodate. That might lead to some consumer increases in the use for the purpose of paying the tariff, but certainly not the full bill. Now, the Saudis could cut exports and try and reign in supply and raise prices, but that will likely lose them market share at a time they are starting to fight for it.
    3
  529. Did you post the comment calling this a great interview or time deaf first? I agree with your point on wanting good jobs, but they can't all be oil. We need a leader to come in and say to Alberta: You will start putting all your royalties into an investment fund and investing that money in non oil and gas sectors in Canada And say to the rest of the Provinces: you will allow a pipeline or we will pull equalization payments. But this only works if the other provinces get something out of it. You wouldn't let your neighbor store the fuel tank for their gas station under your garden for free. Canada has for a long time had Dutch disease, oil makes the CAD strong and pushes out manufacturering investment. We need our oil revenues going back into Canadian investing so people can get those good jobs.
    3
  530. The arguments for the East and West pipeline differ. It's fair easier to justify an East Pipeline of ~1M bbl/d on National grounds, even if it were to lose money, on the simple necessity to protect oil supply to Southern Ontario. The risk Line 5 represents is almost existential. The West coast pipeline is simply the most economical route into the longest lasting market that reduces our dependence on US markets, both for political reasons and because the energy transition is going to have a far greater impact on the US Midwest than globally in terms of our capacity to sell into it. If we want to avoid national issues like Financial sector bankruptcy or Environmental liabilities of bankrupt companies or dealing with a revenue collapse in Western Canada, we need to have alternative outlets Available.
    3
  531.  @shafsteryellow  you missed Kenya, but I agree it's a bad neighborhood and I'm not saying a dictatorship would make Somalia better. I am saying Japan and Singapore are basically one party dictatorships, and pretty good though.
    3
  532. European countries can absolutely shoot whatever they want down, the concern is that if Russia reacts will NATO countries defend.
    3
  533.  @BL3446  flaring is very annoying.
    3
  534.  @pocpic  well my statement isn't untrue, you're reply is just an example of using it in some form. But you would have to build the infrastructure to do this, I don't know if either term easily should be applied here; the reason shale oil is able to find a higher price internationally is how rich it is in Petro feed stocks. And while gasoline is light, at least a third the barrel is larger than gasoline, and diesel and above is certainly not widely cracked..
    3
  535. You are thinking from to Canadian a perspective. In most of the world, or for most of the population, you are simply wrong. India, Africa, the middle East. Sun rises every day, there are no clouds in the sky. For the majority of the population, solar and storage is a stable and cheaper energy source.
    3
  536. If by Asia you mean China yes, the US is vocally concerned about China.
    3
  537. ​ @JoanneLeon not gonna lie down town Toronto smells gross. I don't think a fully EV car fleet is a possibility in Canada, but anyone driving a car or ride share down town should be using one. Getting out of Union station to dozens of idling taxis stinks.
    3
  538. I have to agree with Smith, additional tariffs on Oil would be detrimental. All oil is priced out of Hardisty. We have 600 bbl/d going to the US gulf, where the refineries can choose between Canadian and Seaborne crude. Because of that, every barrel Canada sells to the US must be cheap enough that Purchase Price + Tariff Cost is less than the Global price. Not only did tariffs not increase, and so widen the discount. But tariffs of 10% were placed on the Saudis. Iraq got nearly 80%. Which actually reduces the discount on Canadian oil, because it increases that global price, and moves the tariff cost more toward the refineries/customers. Honestly, its the first good trade news in months. Because if oil prices collapse, that will out the mining operations, and most people who work in oil, out of the Job. The recession in Alberta would be enormous. And there would be national impacts as our balance of trade declines puts downward presure on the CAD.
    3
  539. I am not entirely optimistic about India, due to cultural issues (particularly around womans treatment and corruption), the service based economy, the migration outflow, and the issie of theft. But, I do think renewables could be a big turning point. India has 8 months a year of entirely cloudless sky, which makes solar far more dependable. The more cloudy monsoon season, on the other hand, brings enormous rains to fill hydro reservoirs and strong consistent wind. And back in the sunny season, wind is largely generated in the evening, so wind build for the Monsson season reduces peaking in the evening of the rest of the year. But maybe most important, India has the worlds largest mountains, which offers enormous cheap pumped hydro storage to save solar energy for night and for weeks of reserves, particularly given how much of the country lives in the Ganges valley in close proximity to both the mountains and Punjab. All of that is to say, of all countries, I believe Indias geography may be the best to access cheap renewables. And this is a huge boon to a country alost entirely dependent on coal and oil imports. At the same time, India has policy in place that appears to be bearing fruit to build Solar and Wind manufacturing domestically. India has an enormous deficit of manufacturing, and if successful this could lay the groundwork for much a larger scale manufacturing industry to be built. The US has also backed this, aiming to replace Chinese solar imports with Indian (alongside domestic). Also, India has significant water security issues. So Solar that allows reservoirs to stay full longer, and placed as floating panels on reservoirs or above canals (as is in work) to reduce evaporation can help strech that water. And given India's broken electrical system, distributed solar has already been a success in spreading access to electricity. The trick may be keeping people from stealing.
    3
  540.  @SirMegaManNeoX  no it wouldn't. No part of rebuilding all the refineries, cutting the country off from cheaper oil, and making it reliant on the most expensive oil is going to bring costs down. Particularly while seeing declining production rates in the 3 major shale oil formations, and given the low ratio of diesel to gasoline, and high diesel requirements, shale oil alone doesn't fit the American market well.
    3
  541.  @bittemeinrammstein  it doesn't really matter that only drone operaters are holding the line, any more than if in WW1 you said only the machine guns were holding the line. The reality of modern industrial scale warfare is that guided, cheap ammunition is the new requirement for effective engagement. But Russia is only winning the tactical battle. And that's probably because Ukraine fights the tactical battle alone. The strategic battle is being fought against the West, and the Russian economy is showing escalating destabilization as inflation increase, exchange values drop, liquid reserves are run down, and sanctions are deeply impacting the ability to sell commodities and recieve the funds, as well as to purchase new capital equipment. Russian Armoured losses are likely the most significant long term loss, having depleted something like 80% of the equipment reserves across most categories, and the remaining is of decreasing value. Naval losses are competitive for this spot, however. And of course Russian demographics have been poor for some time, but manpower losses and recruiting have been difficult to the point of bringing in North Korea. Russia has also taken severe strategic losses in other theaters. Natural Gas leverage over Europe has been lost, Syria was lost which will have significant impacts in North Africa. Armenia is shopping for new partners, Georgia is in protest, and there are real risks of Belarus and Transnistria moving away from Russian influence at the end of the month. And of course Russia has seen an enormous brain and youth drain. That isn't to say Russia is losing. But I don't think it's reasonable to say it is winning either. I don't think we can say who won until a peace deal is made, but it would require a significant change for this to be anything but a pyrrhic victory. Also, on the point of VDV, being impressive isn't being successful. This is a testament to Russians abysmal tactical and strategic leadership at the start of the war.
    3
  542.  @primeministernico944  well they tried but many fled to New Brunswick (which is how Fredericton was founded) and PEI, and afterwards they were allowed to return. Not that its all morally sound or anything
    3
  543.  @icouldnthinkofauser  Lol oh clear now, thanks
    3
  544. You say that European's brought African Slaves south to play act as Nobility, but I think you underrepresent how essential African's were to southern Labour due to natural resistance to Malaria. Also, in regards to the increase in crime in the 1960s, I would suggesting referencing the Lead-Crime hypothesis, as around this time automobiles began filling the air in urban areas with lead potentially causing mass health issues including brain damage.
    3
  545. Even coal is limited, at current consumption they only have like 25 years worth..
    3
  546. I think its very imprecise to say road transport is 45% of oil consumption, because its not as though 45% of barrels of oil go to road transport, but more like 45% of every barrel goes to road transport. Oil is a mix of hydrocarbons, and the gasoline fraction is under discussion. And to that point, the explosive EV growth we see will impact gasoline rich crudes far more than others, in particular the heavy bitumen of Alberta, which can be used to make entirely different products as there is no light fractions.
    3
  547.  @Omer1996E.C  Yes but capital subsidies are far more effective than tariffs. One means a more competitive market, the other less.
    3
  548. Do you here what you're saying? Its like saying a business taking on debt can't invest... thats how they invest.
    3
  549. I think the issue with "being against" NG because "it leaks" is it creates pressure not to invest in NG instead of investing in addressing the leaks. Compression stations for example are actually easily addressed with electrification, and requiring electrification of turbines (instead of burning the NG) would cut nearly a quarter of leaks. And even if we get rid of all the stoves and space heating and power generation, that still needs to be done to address industry high grade heat and exports.
    3
  550. I think we'll see a second strengthing of China as their renewable roll out plateaus and they being exporting massive quantities of Solar and Wind. Cheap Chinese solar will be very powerful across the MENA region and south Asia, and their energy independence will remove a major weakness of the economy.
    3
  551. I like this better than "here's a really basic over view of some country"
    3
  552.  @lanagordon5669  I believe you are under appreciating the scope of what's already happening. For perspective, Canada has 150GWs of electrical generation, Africa in total around 250GWs, China has 1,300GWs of coal fired power. China has the manufacturing capacity to produce 1,000GWs of solar panels a year. Even if you assume solar only works 20% of the time, that's Canada's entire output built in a year, that's replacing all Chinese coal in half a decade. China exported as much solar panel capacity last year as Africa has in total. It's already done. The manufacturing exists, China's entire economic model today is built on it. China produced as many EVs last year as North America made vehicles. And they are going to dump all of that on the global market. I fully appreciate that our food relies on Ammonia made from natural gas (although you technically eat the nitrogen which is from the air). But there are wind to ammonia plants under construction all along the east coast. Plastics and clothing are all NGLs high in light hydrocarbons. Right now, we are seeing low global oil demand expectations due to recessionary fears, we're seeing China push this enormous industrial output globally, and we're seeing OPEC start to increase supply in all that in an effort to go into a price war and knock off global competition. Oil isn't going away any more than iron production left the rust belt; but it's no longer black gold. If we fail to push "green energy" what we are doing is losing to China. We will be a gas station in a world of EVs. This is the priority. It's not about emissions or the environment, it's about China becoming the global energy superpower, both with the cheapest energy at home and exporting, while demand for our products crash. We need to be in the new market China is pushing on the world. China also understands how dependent we are on Oil and Gas, how dependent they are, and the entire focus of their entire economy is to change that. And they are already there in almost all regards. The world was once built in horse, that's why we say horse power, but that dependency didn't stop oil, and our dependency on oil won't stop Solar..
    3
  553. ​​ @ponzi-d4k but that would be false marketing. I mean, if someone wants to pay us not to produce a barrel sure lol. But since oil supply is controlled by a global cartel, and since that cartel will increase production as we decrease it to maintain thier target price, we don't actually have an impact..
    3
  554. Even if Carney were perfect, he would be in an imperfect system in a democracy with imperfect voters. But I would say wanting the perfect is the enemy of the good. And to some extent, he has to deal with the same kind of emotional engagement that you do to create consensus. That said, it's important for journalists to challenge politicians. I just ask you don't say he doesn't understand transition risks.
    3
  555. Well I think the obvious reasons that Alberta boosts NG so aggressively are a number of divergent incentives. I don't believe its baffling if you look beyond electrical costs. Firstly, the Government recieves royalties for NG development. Thats not the case for renewables where land owners take the role. To an extent growing renewables undermines government revenue. And Secondly, condensate is co-produced with NG. If NG drilling were to end, the Oilsands would face rising dilutent prices, which would undermine activity in the sector. This would also cut into government revenue and investment.
    3
  556. How does land literally suffer?
    3
  557.  @willbarnstead3194  most of that imported oil is Canadian, and it has literally no alternative market.
    3
  558. I mean, check the above comment because I like your gumption, but voting does work. That's why people were so upset when Trump got elected and the supreme court was locked in. If algore had gotten literally a few hundred more votes (which... he did) we'd live in a different world. I mean go do whatever you think will help but don't say voting doesn't work.
    3
  559. Step 1: Prorouge Parliament so that its impossible to legislate because it might help your party
    3
  560.  @eca3101  ya it shouldn't be read seriously it ends in "greater Egyptian Military Imperium" lol
    3
  561. I urge people to support removing the emissions cap. Its like the consumer carbon price, its benefit is drastically overshadowed by the political cost; but unlike a carbon price, its not even good policy. Oilsands CO2 isn't worse. And if a cap were the best policy we would have done it with with steel or coal power.
    3
  562. The biggest issue with the Consumer carbon tax was the same thing we are hearing about in regards to the State; the uncertainty. I would argue the Consumer tax was actually undermining the Industrial carbon tax by making a political hot topic. The goal of a carbon price is to drive long term investment. When the consumer carbon tax was creating strong public push back, industry was unable to predict if there would be a price after the next election cycle, and so would not invest.
    3
  563. Overall I'd argue new Pipelines are critical to our medium term survival, but everything you are speaking to is critical to the long term economic success of Canada. We absolutely need to drive investment in these technologies. I would only challenge we can build these same value added activities at the pipeline head for export oriented sales, and that most of them only use the heaviest part of bitumen.
    3
  564. US Banks are allowed in Canada, telecommunications I agree. Grocery store I'm confused by since I've been to Walmart and shop at Costco. But in terms of supply management I disagree. We don't need the good middle class farm jobs that support rural communities being destroyed by hormone laden milk out of a factory farm in the US. I don't want that at all. We allow the US quotas to sell tariff free, and they don't use the quotas, because their milk does not meet health standards.
    3
  565. Why is there never discussion on the deflationary aspects on our exports. Oil prices will collapse if demand is impacted, which means demand must be constant, and therefore prices will decrease 10%. Alberta is going to get cooked.
    3
  566.  @Micha-qv5uf  Sure, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are in Africa and Australia was checks notes famously colonized by the French. But yes France treats its former colonises badly. That's hardly a reason to be against uranium. I wonder how much Natural gas going to Europe is coming from Algeria
    3
  567.  @Croz89  I think renewables have some great advantages. With good interconnections, wind is dirt cheap and very reliable. Solar almost always works on the days AC demand is particularly high. And tbh, the new closed loop deep geothermal technologoes might fix all the other renewables issues. But nuclear is great, particularly if we invested in it enough to have breeders and burners, and probably the best source of process heat. I'd also love to see some nuclear powered oil and cargo ships..
    3
  568.  @1krani  The price is never detached from objective reality; when I pay the price being charged at a given point, I recieved the good or service or stock. Whether the prices are logical isn't relevant. An amount of money exchanged is an objective quantity. How much I want the good and if I think I got a good deal for meeting my needs is entirely a subjective experience. I don't know what your toilet paper point means.
    3
  569.  @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
  570. I am really very glad you have become an overnight success
    3
  571. The pollution did largely move. But charging electric cars? North America certainly doesn't import electricity. Coal is dying, because its stupid and expensive and we've gone past 18th century train tech.
    3
  572. In terms of Energy security, China and Europe are absolutely trying to move off oil for energy security. But, as a producer, we do have differing strategic needs here. And our biggest vulnerability is pipelines running through to US to Ontario
    3
  573. I don't think an east west electrical connection is particularly important or cost effective. I'd argue for the same cost building regional power generation is more effective. The only real purpose I can see is for Manitoba to flip a GW of Capacity between east and west. I think that is a very low capacity and high cost approach to supporring the battery industry we want to build, and something like underwater compressed storage, and SMRs.
    3
  574. Um, in fairness, Algeria, Lybia, and Azerbaijan have all also been known to invade thier neighbors. And as a Canadian I'm not fond of the US making 51st state jokes. Norways seems cool, though.
    3
  575. I have a lot of objections in this. Calling the US one of the lowest cost producers because of shale is... Unusual. You list "Raw crude, NGLs, Condensates". The issue is the US refineries are built for heavier, sour crudes, not the very light Raw crude that comes from Fracking. The US is a very regional system of oil markets. Calling the US energy's independent, first of all you have to be ignoring Canada, because the Midwest runs on oil sands oil, but more importantly the Fracking crudes are concentrated in the south west, where the Gulf refineries that specializes in Venezuelan and Mexican heavys are located. California and the west coast has very impact.
    3
  576. If Europe pays for the pipeline I agree, although unless it's counted as NATO spending, I don't want government money going to the world's largest pipeline who's customer is actively trying to reduce consumption
    3
  577. Well then income tax should be "cost tax", a wealth tax a "less wealthy tax" etc. A VAT is a tax on adding value. It's not a claim that it adds value. However, I will note the obvious that business relies on contracts, and the legal system enforces those, so if we assume VAT were paying for particular government services it wouldn't be wrong to suggest it is adding some value to the product, which otherwise would have cost more in insurance etc to produce.
    3
  578. I agree with the issues you're describing for the oilsands future. I just wish you would talk about solutions - outside Carbon Fiber. I don't see you pushing for us to become involved in the global trade of lubricants or asphalt and building those refineries. I don't see you talking about SMRs in the oilsand, which is clearly our best launch pad industry, to lower those emissions and production costs. You'll mention Upgraders occasionally as a way to reduce pipeline necessity, but never in the context that it provides a bottomsless crude any refinery in the world can handle for heavy RPPs. You have held interviews where its discussed, but you never mention our competitive advantage as an oil producer moving forward as EVs pushout high gasoline yeilding barrels. I get that you don't think we should let big industry get away with bad math. But the Oilsands are To Big To Fail. They are the basis of a provincial economy, they are heavily connected to the financial system, and they have environmental liabilities we don't want them to abandon. We are in the same point we were with the banks in 2007, allowing failure would be disastrous. But where it is different is we are early, we are before the bankruptcies, and we can recapitalize and regulate the industry into something useful at a much lower cost than waiting to bail it out in the future.
    3
  579. ​ @xungnham1388 there was actually a very good chance much of the Keystone oil would be re-exported. East coast access in Canada has been heavily blocked politically by Quebec, and also Ontario's concern with having DilBit traveling along the Ottawa and Saint Laurent rivers. West coast access is difficult because of the mountains (Same reason California imports large amount of oil) makes building pipeline infrastructure very expensive. And it also doesn't get it to the Atlantic side market both in Canada and Europe. Arctic export terminals, including Hudson Bay, has never seriously been pursued because of limited seasonal access and environmental push back.
    3
  580.  @AlanTheBeast100  it's actually a relatively small number of refineries that accept Canadian oil, mainly centered around Chicago and mainly located in the Midwest. But Canada does supply almost all of the Midwest's oil, and they are enormous refineries. But they're also specially built to accept Canadian crude before the Bakken existed. California will be accepting Candian crude soon, Gulf refineries couldn't accept it at the level Midwestern ones do (at least not initially), it's still a huge market. I don't think east coast refineries, for example would be able to use it at all, and the Rockies use very little
    3
  581. It might be true you can't have multiple parties realistically run for President, but Congress could easily absorb more parties.
    3
  582. I think a discussion around the Kivalliq Hydro Fiber Link project would be awesome; although it's only 150MW. Connecting the NWT grid to Uranium City in SK would connect the territories to Manitoba as well. I don't think Manitoba has to cut US exports for this, or that this could take up 500MW, I'd say that's a separate, more political thing..
    3
  583. I agree we don't do a great job, but Canada definitely did try to pair developing the industry with developing the Market. That's why we both have capital tax credits for Manufactures and had the carbon tax.
    3
  584.  @kennethferland5579  I am not. As I pointed out in point one, the diseases were not endemic, they were introduced. Malaria, the main reason Europeans couldn't enter Africa, being included. Arguably about profit sure, it isn't profitable to keep importing indentured irish when they keep dying. Were their African slaves before this? Sure. But the absolute reliance on African slaves is what set the tone for the pseudo scientific racial class structures that emerged, not the reverse.
    3
  585.  @drstevej2527  In case there is some confusion, I will clarify that I'm not claiming the Southern Climate was harder on Europeans and easier on Africans. The peer reviewed claim I am repeating is that the Southern Climate was better for Mosquitoes that carry malaria. And that due to the introduction of Malaria into the area, Malaria immune populations were needed for effective labour, which concluded in demand for certain African populations as forced labour. I suppose there may be diseases, like the flu, which propegate better in cold environments. I have never seen research emphasizing this, but I won't exclude the possibility. By and large however, due to existing genetic immunities, I don't believe there was a particular selection bias (not withstanding vitamin D deficiencies). The Cotton producing states are certainly a driving force for slavery. In terms if creating a market, this is arguably more true in Brazil and the Amazon, where malaria introduction (along side other introduced tropical disease) destroyed nearly the entire native population, and which accounted for the majority of the slave trade. And it is this strong early pressure to form a market on African labour which then led to such strong racial caste structures that perpetuated Black slavery. I'm not going to keep arguing though. I certainly don't mean to ignore cultural factors like Protestant work ethic, I simply think you shouldn't exclude the relevent environmental factors. If you don't find the research convincing, that's fine. Provide any counter evidence you'd like. This is a youtube comment section, not a journal, so I'll let people who read do thier own research and make an opinion.
    3
  586.  @drstevej2527  I was unaware of such research. It's an interesting addition point which perhaps also deserved mention as an environmental factor. If you would like to copy and paste the research limitations, go for it. Again, this is a YouTube comment section. What I said is a legitimate claim that you can provide counter evidence too, but it's certainly not something I've made up or a lie I am spreading.
    3
  587. The IEA modeling isn't disastrous for the oilsands or Alberta. It's disasterous for light and medium crude producers. Every Asian refinery built in the last decade is for heavy crude. The Ultra heavy market may be smaller in Asia, but it will be the longest lasting.
    3
  588.  @tommygun5038  I find it incredulous when people claim this as though a chief goal of NATO from the US perspective wasn't to reduce the European military potential and maintain dominance through dependence. It's only in the last decade a 2% target was set, and the last few years it was made a requirement. But regardless, the situation is what the situation is. The Republicans in Congress chose to grandstand and slow down a bill that they ultimately were always going to pass, and in doing so hurt the US position globally while leaving Ukraine, a nation which has recieved US assurance it's boarder would be respected at the point of its own disarmament, to pay the brunt of the cost in lives and crippled capabilities. And they did it for the benefit of the most prosperous US state. All in all comes off as needless whinny and argumentative.
    3
  589. I think anyone can acknowledge that the US is best to buy CSW for domestic use and sell their WTI from the Permian overseas on economic grounds. But as you addressed, fracking is expensive, and my concern is rather than allow Fracking to be pushed out of the market by OPEC, they will introduce Energy tariffs and keep the domestic price higher. Retooling is expensive, but it's much easier to write off a coking unit than to build one.
    3
  590. You can't ship energy across the ocean with batteries, whereas you can put ammonia on a ship in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or South Australia produced with cheap solar, and ship it to Japan. You also can't heat a furnace to 800 degrees with a battery, so hydrogen is the only real alternative to NG unless you want every plant to have a nuclear reactor. If we ever get cheap enough at producing hydrogen, it might displace batteries all together, because China can't control the supply chain and it has a higher energy density.
    3
  591.  @georgesmith4768  I agree in large part on the first point, and we do have Phosphate batteries already, and Canada has Cobalt as well. But hydrogen would mean an industry China doesn't have a large scale manufacturing and technology lead in, and would remove the need for rare earths and the associated mining the western countries are uncomfortable with. I think industrial heating is more relevant than you realize. The issue with electric furnace is the anodes degrade very quickly. I may be bias toward hydrogen because I've worked in that area, but at least 6 years ago there was no serious scalable electric furnace being proposed outside steel or aluminum recycling. As for the last part, it may simply be cheaper to produce ammonia in Saudi Arabia than solar energy in Germany. The higher resource availability in some regions is a significant discount, particularly if you plan on using some of that energy to create a long term/medium term storage anyway. Additionally, Japan is betting on co-firing Ammonia and coal, and eventually directly in Coal plants, to take advantage of existing infrastructure, and hoping to export that to South Asian countries which also are coal reliant.
    3
  592. Biggest thing - Oil and Energy independence. China is pushing hard, very hard, on building out EVs and renewables and making incredible progress. At the same time, they are increasing oil production yearly. I'm Canadian, and I see this in part as an attack on US and Canadian oil production. A sharp decline in prices from loss of Chinese (and US and EU) demand is going to crash the high production cost oil in Canada and the US, and trigger a recession.
    3
  593. Lol during the election I forgot he'd have to present to know French for the next 4 years. I don't care, but ya, that was bad French
    3
  594. I'm happy to buy a Chinese EV if it's built in a Canadian factory using Canadian inputs. I really don't care if we hit 100% EV sales by 2035, I care about having an EV industry in Canada by 2035.
    3
  595. I agree 3¢ a KW hour is like the low South Korea was approaching. I can only assume it's because they are old plants which have paid down construction like you said.
    3
  596. I mean the Saudis have two regional nuclear armed neighbors who have bombed each other in the last month, and only keep the country together based on incredible military and social spending funded by oil sales. And Iraq doesn't even have that. Realistically this argument is based on OPEC collapsing, or else they can only pull back supply to maintain price. And if OPEC blows up production will drop because some countries will fail, and others like Nigeria are high cost producers as well. And we're an inexpensive producer, and have a particularly heavy, low gasoline yeilding crude, that will be increasingly desired as EVs push out oil.
    3
  597. @M.Wildman  Also, Ontario is currently dependent on oil through Line 5, which runs through Michigan, and which the US federal government has held open against Michigan's attempts to close it. And I greatly dislike that the States can turn off the GTAs oil almost on a whim.
    3
  598.  @Metapharsical  it makes enormous difference to your credibility and therefore your neighbors ability to attract investment even with a new deal.
    3
  599.  @Metapharsical  how can there be a constructive conversation when there has been no conversation other than threats and actions to harm our economy
    3
  600.  @ryuuguu01  ya John hit the points I would have. There is no doubt China has the greater industrial base. But in terms of innovation and technical capabilities I would still give it to the states in most fields.
    3
  601. Excellent and balanced interview.
    3
  602. I genuinely can't imagine something stupider or more harmful to Canada than proroguing government over the period Trump takes the presidency while threatening to place 25% tariffs.
    3
  603.  @BarberJ95  I also appreciate the honesty in the name, If there is one thing being in a democratic country makes you appreciate, its political naming choices that are genuine. Gos a long way to building trust.
    3
  604.  @derunfassbarebielecki  I know it isn't perfect, but I tend to use Socialism to describe an economic system where the government owns the means of production for the benefit of society, and communism to describe a system where the workers own the means directly. I find this fits historical examples, and aligns with the idea of communism following socialism with the withering of the state. The distinction between state capitalism and Socialism then becomes how the output is distributed and the level of worker control in the work place.
    3
  605.  @martinw3621  on the other hand Trump has thrown around the idea of 100% tariffs on any country to leave the dollar.
    3
  606. With 90% of North American Fentanyl originating in China, this is little suprise to me.
    3
  607. Pensions, and in particular the CPP should be more engaged in these long term Canadian projects. The CPP should have to review future CPP tax revenues when selecting an investment, since obviously over seas investments only return profit and no taxes.
    3
  608. I would love to hear more about the potential of LNG out of Manitoba. Its a relatively short line, its a province with pipelines, and domestic demand is highest in the winter, meaning we could export in the non frozen summer. BCs advantage is shorter shipping, snd a good brand name.
    3
  609. @markbaker6553  I am assuming a floating terminal, so sure.
    3
  610. ​​ @albertiwong My belief is they are going to take all those new, 1GW capacity ultracritical cycle turbines, and plug SMRs into the boilers. Mass market for SMR to drive production and no loss of capital, but no more fuel cost. China also uses coal for steel and concrete, but both those industries are likely to slow down. I'd argue coal used for solar manufacturing is coal well spent..
    3
  611.  @lolicantthinkofabettername3437  Yaya I'm sure context makes it pretty clear you're meant to hear it as exactly 1 million and 1 half gallons. It's a very precise thing.
    3
  612. Minor criticism, but you have the 13 original states highlighted, I would suggest extending the highlighting to their territory at the time (ie make Alabama and Mississippi Orange or West Virginia and Kentucky dark blue). Edit:also, you got 14 highlights, Vermont is in there
    3
  613. I'm not sure a starship will ever bring anyone to mars- but I'm sure a few will go there. That said, I think 99% will fall in the category of heavy launch vehicle, orbital refueling tanker, point-to-point earth transport (people will pay 10k to get across the world in 30 min), space station (each has the volume of the ISS~), and moon station (burried in some regolith). I think the starship will have hundreds built over the next decade, and I'm sure a few older ones will be sent 1 way to mars.
    3
  614. Honestly, nothing that large scale is needed. We just need to Connect Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke, and both cities to each other, so that Alberta can access cheap hydro when the wind doesn't blow and BC can buy cheap renewables when it does. Same with the East coast, we just need to match wind with Quebec and Newfoundland hydro. Honestly the biggest thing is somehow getting Quebec to give a fair deal to Newfoundland. (We should also be pushing investment for data processing centers into Labrador like nobodies business). That mostly just leaves Toronto, where I think the answer is Nuclear, but a Bipole line from Northern Manitoba and/or a connection to Quebec could work, it's an extreme distance either way. The last thing is Saskatchewan, who really love their coal power plant, and honestly I'm okay with letting them keep it for a bit it's such a tiny blip in the picture. I'd say ideally they get connected to Manitoba eventually to do the same wind for Hydro Trade as Albert/BC, but it's much greater distances for much smaller markets. But, it would allow them, potentially, to sell solar power to Ontario through Manitobas hydro lines, particularly solar in the evening while Saskatchewan still has sun for an hour or two.
    3
  615. The issue alongside this is the lack of skilled labour and stability. Right now you have active conflict from Gambia to the Port of Sudan and north to Libya, and very hot spots in Ethiopia (which is one of the more successful stories) and Rwanda (also more successful)- Congo. And South Africa, well the issues in the economy there are well known.
    3
  616.  @danielhuynh9368  rural America isn't holding America back, rural America is being destroyed. It faces massive population decline as all the young and educated leave to cities to find work, like I did. The only people left behind are the old, drug addicts, and in many cases the dumb. It's a selection pressure. But it's struggling with many external problems. Monsanto and Tyson monopolizing the farming industry leaving farmers to fail. Opioid epidemic. Banking collapses that the federal government literally just said wasn't a problem because it's just rural America. Walmart and dollar tree destroying local stores and sending the profits to New York. Manufacturing loss destroying areas like the rust belt. Loss of mining that states like Wyoming and West Virginia were built on. Don't blame people for being desperate. The communities need to stop people from leaving and need investment and incomes to stay local. They are treated like trash by the powers that be, and in response you treat them like trash and say we should be rid of them. And then you act like they are the bad guys for hating the system that exploits them.
    3
  617.  @noIDwhatsoever  idk, I'm from Ontario, I have watched Markham for years, but over the last month I have been increasingly frustrated with his stance. It is becoming hard to believe he has any interest beyond closing the oil sands at all cost.
    3
  618. ​ @timothyjones3313  well firstly that is mistaken. The US produces more than 10x the amount of NG it imports from us, and it exports almost as much NG via pipeline to Ontario and the Maritimes as we export to the US. We are simply not a significant source of LNG, most of the LNG capacity comes out of shale fracking, mainly out of the Permian as an oil co product. That is a large component of why they have LNG success, the reserves are near coast. I'm sure Qatar would rather not have competition. But the reality is they can stick a pipe in a shallow sea and produce basically infinite amounts. We need to get over a mountain range. We are really a very high cost producer, and as the market shrinks we will be the least competitive. Carney wasn't installed don't be a knuckle head.
    3
  619.  @malicious-fisheeves  I would push back on the Cats argument as people generally care more about eagles or herons than pigeons. Wind turbines are great, and can be built to minimize the issue, but I don't think the Cats Kill Birds argument is in any better faith than the Wind Turbines Kill Birds argument often is.
    3
  620. Bitumen is referred to as UltraHeavy crude, and our oilsands Bitumen is very sour. But if Natural gas is the gaseous phase, and oil is the liquid, I think it's more intuitive to think of Bitumen as the solid phase. People usually think of coal, or maybe oil shale, but those are really very different geological products. I certainly agree with the value loss in selling raw Bitumen. The DilBit mentioned is like a slushy of bitumen and Bic lighter fluid, and when it spills its terrible. But I don't think it's correct to blame DilBit for the decline of our refiniery industry. Our refineries run on SynCrude, or Canada Light and Sweet, which is treated in an Upgrader to remove sulphur and break down the long hydrocarbons into more gasoline sized ones, on average. And these largely buy from the decades old first phase 1 mining industries, which are operationally labour intensive, which makes them the highest cost oil producer... maybe anywhere. When they were built they believed there would be high demand for light oil. But the shale explosion has driven that market down. These operations are all centered in Fort McMurray, which almost entirely relies on these mines, and represent a majority of all oil sands jobs. Under tariffs, oil prices and production will decline in the oil sands. But the SAGD machines that produce DilBit are Monsters, they will not stop, they'll survive even at negative prices for sometime because thier capital structure is based on decades of operation. These also drive demand for shale fracking in North West Alberta, and even imports from the US, to supply dilutent and Natural gas to melt the Bitumen deep underground so it pumps like oil. I would hope the green party leader would consider supporting a subsidy to CN shipping to move upgraded syncrude from Fort Mac to Irving, which would help support the high employment value adding sector of the oil and reduce imports through Irving, a major employer in St. John at a time when it is going to face significant market challenges as well. It may even be beneficial for the rail companies, as CN and CP rail currently own very considerable assets in the US. But also, it will reserve those rail cars capacity in Canada, so if oil pipelines flowing to Ontario are ever disturbed, rail capacity exists to replace supply rapidly. It may also be beneficial to bring an export mixing requirement, so that if demand for SynCrude ever falls, we can require DilBit mix a little into the slushy, getting rid of condensate imports from the US, and making the refineries in the US pay for some of our upgraded product to get access to our cheap bitumen.
    3
  621. Someone should tell NJB and Citynerd they can do do this also
    3
  622. You're title is highly at odds of the discussion where the economist interviewed, an American at that, very frankly said we need to diversify trade partners and can't trust the US as a customer.
    3
  623. The S curve also applies the SMRs, and in many ways conventional large nuclear reactors, and if we would put our mind to it I'd say SMRs can meet or beat solar. Almost certainly for large industrial heat applications, and probably for any very large power consumer.
    3
  624. There are ceramics dating back 30k years along the Amur river in East Siberia where people were storing fish. I would assume these people share a common history with the Eastern Hunter Gathers through the Ancient North Eurasians.
    3
  625.  @Inaf1987  Small correction, most of it (not including residual/stocks) is used for Ethanol production. After that, animal feed. Corn syrup is the largest portion directly consumed though.
    3
  626.  @VitalVampyr  Sugar cane ethanol in Brazil can claim to have a lower net emissions, but this has been found to be untrue for corn ethanol many times. Thats aside from fertilizer run off, soil depletion, and land use considerations.
    3
  627. ​ @DutchVanderOss Russian warships can launch missiles. And Turkey doesn't allow warships to pass at times of war, so this would not be part of the Black Sea fleet.
    3
  628. When the oilsands (led by more progressive CEOs since turfed) supported the carbon price, they believed there would be a number of pipelines built. Without access to these markets that price carbon, there is no logic in them pricing carbon. And the output growth would have made the carbon price less impactful, both with higher output and lower emissions intensity
    3
  629. The irony, of course, is the SAGD DilBit operations rely on shale fracking for the NG they burn and the dilutent they mix with. But still, fracking for energy that gets multiplier when you use it to power SAGD is good arithmetic.
    3
  630. 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
  631. Also, One caveat I want to call out, and a reason I support Canada Oil sands above other oil, is that a barrel of Gasoline and a barrel of Diesel and a barrel of lubricant are by and large not interchangeable products. They all come from a barrel of oil, but they are different fractions of that barrel. A little under 10% of a barrel is going to be usable in producing Lubricant. So if 10 bbl/s of lubricants are needed, 100 bbls of oil were needed, even if the other components were used for something else. Unless of course, it's from the Oil Sands, where you could turn an entire barrel of bitumen into Lubricant, or Diesel, or gasoline.
    3
  632.  @2MinuteHockey  I think we should be skeptical of using Chinese poor practices as an argument against technology. And since something like 60% of global concrete production is in China that holds on both points. But yes, I definitely think there are points against hydro, particularly on the Columbia River, in terms of fish impacts.
    3
  633. I would like to hear about how Na batteries might impact Canadas ambitions to be a Battery manufacture, and how distributed inexpensive energy will impact Hydro in Canada - are these straded assets?.
    3
  634. Consider the Sturgeon Falls refinery; we can use a barrel of Bitumen to produce a barrel of Diesel or Jet fuel. OPEC can't do that, OPEC has to take a barrel of oil to make half a barrel of Gasoline, and the maybe a quarter barrel of Diesel and a tenth a barrel of Jet fuel. So what actually has the higher emissions intensity? The 10% higher production intensity in the oil sands, or the subsidizing of half a barrel of gasoline to keep it cheap enough to out compete EVs. But I also want lower emissions in the Oil sands. We should be using nuclear reactors at the major SAGD sites and the Upgraders. We should be using Green Hydrogen. The solutions to these things are to invest in the solutions, not try and shut down the industry so that OPEC can flood the market with cheap gas paid for by expensive diesel.
    3
  635.  @bobsacamano1274  do you think Alberta will stay in Canada on the hope the federal government will pay for capping wells? Do you believe that that is a line of thought the people who elect Smith will follow even loosely?
    3
  636. I agree we will never catch up on LNG production. The distance to market is simply to great, and LNG isn't a very high margin market. We can probably expand West Coast exports some, we might be able to export out of Manitoba on the Hudson's bay, if Quebec starts fracking we could export some east. But overall there isn't a lot competitive advantage. However, we could produce more oil than the US. The Permian is not an infinite resource, it will start declining. Whereas the Oilsands may not be infinite, but they are nowhere near an output limitation. And we can produce, raw Bitumen at least, at incredibly low and competitive prices. Sure oil overall will decline, but there is a 100M bbl/d market globally, and we produce some 5M bbl/d. Even if the market collapses we have room to grow.
    3
  637. With a title like this, I'll think its a little negligent if you don't discuss Line 5. Edit: I am disappointed Line 5 was not discussed. We can't call ourselves Trump proof if the entire GTA is entirely reliant on oil coming from the US. I'm happy to hear the electrification solution, but it needs to be addressed.
    3
  638. ​ @hemlock399 I don't believe he has done anything he didn't run on. And as much attention has gone to, particularly from this channel, new pipelines, he has been just, if not more, committal to electrical and green tech projects. Vigilance is important. But it doesn't require fear mongering.
    3
  639. I haven't seen this discussed, so poping it in the wrong conversation, but I think the real reason Putin cancelled the census is that he still has to win elections, and his base is actually the same rural Siberian russians as his cannon fodder. So, between dissatisfaction and fewer people, do you want anyone knowing who actually lives in Siberia?
    3
  640. You should put more focus on heat pump manufacturering as an aspect of our future economy. We will be a relatively small market globally, but a very large market for very cold weather heat pumps. That means we will either be underserved by German and Japanese firms, or we can own this particular market globally
    3
  641.  @PokerKing1993  For the same reason wind is struggling. Solar is just a lot less expensive. And the land area you need can be over a parking lot or roof or in a desert where you can improve grazing.
    3
  642. It's more the Issue that the leader of Iran is equivalent to the Pope, but also the leader of a nationalistic country, and neighbors don't want to recognize the Pope as being in charge of them.
    3
  643. That's a gross mischaracterization. The tailings ponds come from Mining Operations North of Fort McMurray. The growth being discussed is SAGD. Insitu processes do not leave any waste. I think SAGD should be seeing massive expansion. It think the mines should see an actual production (not emissions) cap, with quotas distributed by tailings ponds reductions. But these processes are fundamentally different and should not be conflated. Expanding that SAGD allows the companies the revenue to deal with the mining mess, and lowers the SAGD costs and emissions per barrel. There is no downside here.
    3
  644.  @What-q4n  I hope you are aware that just about everyone in Montreal and West is also using Alberta oil for their gasoline. No one doubts fossil fuel is still required. The critism in this video, which I don't agree in all aspects with, is whether we should invest in a project that won't deliver fossil fuels for 5 years at best, and which would have to continue to for 20 years to pay itself off.
    3
  645. @sylvialoffredo3887  honestly the answer is Because of China. China has put just about the full force of their industry into battery manufacturing and solar panels. They have done this because they are fundamentally energy insecure, and oil, and to a much lesser extent coal, imports are widely seen as their largest strategic weakness. And they have made it insanely inexpensive to produce and store electricity and are continuing to drive costs lower. This will have the triple impact of; cutting oil demand dramatically further empowering OPEC to squeeze our industry, meaning we are no longer a low energy cost jurisdiction, and because China controls supple chains while being a generation of manufacturing ahead of us they will become the global energy exporter. I think we should be investing heavily in SMRs to try and make the magic hot rocks less expensive than the magic crystals that turn sunlight into electricity. And windmills keep the steel and concrete industry alive. But Europe also wants energy independence, and between the two they will create a large enough market that any country can become energy independent for less cost than conventional energy. We need to become a player in the new markets because our traditional markets will be retracting. So to heat specifically the expectation power will be less expensive and because in the 70s heat pumps weren't as developed. Also in the 1980s OPEC flooded the market and the US deregulated natural gas, which undercut the movement to electrify (although that seems to be happening right now, China and seemingly Europe are far more determined to push through this time).
    3
  646. First post (and first upvote, remember to upvote)
    3
  647. A loan has the Benefit of Trump needing Ukraine to win. But also, I'd like to see those Russian assets buying US weapons.
    3
  648. Canada 2050 needs a third component, which is building the things that do the other 3. Ontario's manufacturing sector is not in a good situation. We should be pushing to change it into a heavy equipment manufacturing sector focused on Large vehicles for construction/mining/forestry/drilling etc. We have an enormous market, we can take advantage of that.
    3
  649. ​ @olgaromanova9549 definitely not their armies lol. But ya i guess they're holding their own against some NATO stock surplus. And all its cost them is their entire Soviet inheritance and economy.
    3
  650. ​​ @matthewq4b I agree that heavy oil will continue to see demand and even mild growth, but that will be in the back of a global gasoline glut and falling light and medium output. And eventually, electricity to Liquids will be commercialized. But we have probably 30 years of demand for bitumen, and 50 years of demand for bitumen products if we develop the refining and manufacturing..
    3
  651. I agree to your final points about life style changes, but you're certainly mistaken about the scale of what can be done - if Al gore had been made president America would be a very different country. In regards to environmental pollution, this is much less an issue with Wind than Solar. A massive wind build out does not require very much more than steel and concrete. Nuclear is also an obvious solution. We certainly have the ability to build denser cities that allow walkability and transit, which would dramatically cut oil usage. Geothermal has jumped forward in the last few years, and is nearling a readiness level to be employed literally anywhere as a peaking power source. Thats aside from advances in liquid metal and sodium batteries, compressed air storage, and converting existing hydrodams from base load to peaking roles. Electric Vehicles themselves will work to balance the grid, by chargimg greater prices on windless days. Is it reasonable to think the US could use 0 oil? No. But within a decade the vast majority of the electrical supply could be renewable or nuclear, and the oil usage in transport could be reduced extensively. Don't think small.
    3
  652. 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
  653.  @alexanderthurber4257  I like this phrasing "peak energy return on investment". Although I'd say more of what is driving the issue you mention is loss of manufacturering, US still has very cheap energy, but other countries willing to trash their environment are hard to compete with. I'd also say the type of energy matters a lot. Big issue with Fracking is you need a lot of Diesel to produce a very light oil that may be a net loss of diesel. The Oil Sands also have a lower EROI, but I don't think anyone would care if, instead of burning natural gas for steam, you stuck a nuclear generator at the largest sites.
    3
  654. When you say "if the IEA is right, those could be stranded assets" because of peak oil demand in 2030, I think you are ignoring that regardless our entire oil industry becomes a stranded asset if we face US tariffs. Its a discussion of risking 10s of Billions or writing off 100s of billions. I also would point out that declining global demand doesn't imply Canada can't grow exports, it is a question of competitiveness. I'd suggest we have a very inexpensive barrel, and that barrel is heavy, which is actually what refiners want to produce jet fuel as gasoline demand falls - thats why we see China buying DilBit from TMX and not Syncrude. They want the dilutant for petrochemicals and the Bitumen for heavy RPPs. They don't want the middle barrel as they move off gasoline.
    3
  655. All taxes are going to limit economic growth, the question is what is the tax that has the least impact, because at the end of the day there are going to be taxes. And the answer is a tax on land values, but after that, tariffs are on the better end. But 25% tariffs on Canada? I don't see it as good policy to economically attack an ally. Same is true with mexico but at least there is an argument around lowering wages.
    3
  656. Under a fiat currency the point of the dollar (or euro etc) is to pay taxes. If the federal government said "We will no longer accept USD for paying taxes, from now on only Mexican Pasos will be accepted" people would stop usong the dollar very quickly, and move to the new currency that they cam use to pay thoer taxes and avoid punishment for failing to do so. MMT is saying its okay to spend more of these than you are accepting in a given year, because you are collecting enough to maintain a demand in the market for them.
    3
  657.  @elwood62  Imagine thinking they can't. where do you think food comes from? Adding middle men doesn't add food. I mean, grains sure that's not local. But just about everything else can be.
    3
  658. Idk they have a lot of investment activity both private sector manufacturing and public sector infrastructure.
    3
  659. Are you on the con side of this hypothetical debate? Or do you agree that it is a crisis? Because if the later, maybe you should be making a reasonable argument for pipelines so that your followers/views can understand what we should be developing. Because your current approach is a receipt for division and polarization, instead of moderate compromise.
    3
  660. I think you make a mistake refering to Smith as bad at statecraft. She's making alliances, they are just south of the border. I'm concerned with the success she is having toward her goal of Alberta Seperatism..
    3
  661. A better analogy would be whether the British Provoked Hitler to invade Ukraine
    3
  662.  @BhagatSinghRajguruSukhdevFan  I don't believe they have a great relationship. They are on opposing sides of regional struggles like Armenia and Syria, Turkey is pro Sunni and Iran is Shia, they compete for control of Iraq and have differing approaches to the Kurds, they are competing for influence and weapon sales in Central Asia.
    3
  663.  @cherkovision  to some extent, but not necessarily. The reality is the bottom 20% of people aren't even in the housing market, they certainly aren't in the Single Home market. Creating housing they can afford isn't going to stop the bidding contest of the top half of household incomes to buy suburban houses. Edit: you can see it in the same way condo rents and housing prices have diverged. These shouldn't be viewed as a single market or a market of the same buyers. It's apples and grapefruits. There's some exchange ability, but for the most part cheaper apples aren't going to impact demand for grapefruit.
    3
  664. ​ @markraftis there are no "best drones". The best drones are the cheapest ones. All the drone has to be is armed so that it HAS to be shot down, which costs Israel a lot more than launching the drone, and reduced the ability to hit more expensive missiles.
    3
  665. ​ @lovingpeace9715 I was. They hit targets on an Israeli air base. I read that as "we are not looking to escalate, but we launch a large enough attack at modest cost to overwhelm your defense and hit our targets".
    3
  666. ​ @markcleaver6573 it wasn't 300 missiles. Many of those were drones, and they are expected to be shot down. The warning was that Iran can get past Israeli defenses.
    3
  667. A lot of these comments are talking down Iran for so many being shot down, but it has to be remembered that is the battle doctrine; Russia does the same. Big waves of drone to occupy anti air systems and cost the enemy much more expensive missiles, and fewer missile attacks to hit targets. Iran hit targets. If they launched another 100 missiles, would 100 more get through? No. But a lot more would. Once you saturate anti air defenses, each incremental missile much more likely to get through. This attack was just to demonstrate Iran can saturate the defenses cheaply.
    3
  668.  @lilocapitalT-ix4nz  it's a propeller plane with a bomb strapped to it. The only difference between one and a Kamikaze plane is you replaced the person with a cheap autopilot. That's literally the whole point of drones. You can build one for the cost of a building a car, and have your enemy spend millions shooting it down.
    3
  669.  @lilocapitalT-ix4nz  And yet a minor component in a low technology weapon. Also, if the God Bless wasn't sarcastic, you as well.
    3
  670. @garymellow1185  and this is great. But we need to use that growth to fund a shift in our manufacturing sector. Because we only have a massive growth once.
    3
  671. @garymellow1185  Yes but you can't move Toronto and the GTA to a mining site. We need to provide a policy that keeps the manufacturing sector that's about to be deindustrialized. It's also strategically relevant our nation can build large vehicles.
    3
  672. Another long term infrastructure plan Germany should be celebrated is the electric highway. They have thousands of Km of what are basically trolley/street car overhead wires planned aling highways so the Transport Trucks can operate electrically. That would allow not just long distance electric trucking, but allow it with a small battery that only has to cover 50km to the hoghway, where it van charge as you drive, and then power you 50km to a destination.
    3
  673. I agree completely but I'll throw out that I doubt they had good artillery shells.
    3
  674. I don't understand people that say this. I hate Trudeau for declaring a state of emergency over a protest, but what your answer to every problem now is to destroy people's rights?
    3
  675.  @davidg9927  Okay. If you insist on living in a dictatorship, go move to one. Since I don't have a time machine, I'm going to be against the destruction of our rights, even though and especially because they were infringed on.
    3
  676. You don't come off as a critic, Markham, because you don't provide constructive criticism. I have never heard you say "I think a pipeline should be built to X, and bitumen at X should be used for Y". The closest you get is a Carbon fiber industry which best case scenario will have 100k bbl/d in demand in a decade. When the only usage you support is a decade away from using 2% of current output, you are arguing again an industry.
    3
  677. Why is an expansion of production a thing I should be against? But regardless, we would probably need 2M bbl/d in coastal pipelines before new production was even in discussion.
    3
  678. In the long run, perhaps as part of NATO 5% (or wherever it lands) higher requirements, there is an option to provide funds to other countries military defense, and European countries may be able to place a tripwire force in Ukraine while providing funding for a large Ukrainian military to be the bulkward, similar to the US woth South Korea.
    3
  679. The current era is definitely more straining and more likely to cascade. Obviously you have a land war in Europe with a nuclear power. But you also have Venezuela threatening Guyana, Haiti in Collapse, and a number of gang issues in Central America, which forces the US to add capacity to the Caribbean region to avoid off shore conflict and piracy at the Panama. Then you have Israel, pulling US Navy into the Red sea due to Yemen and a threat of large scale regional war with Iran. The Sahel is basically in a belt of military coups and regional conflict, particularly but not exclusively in Sudan, all of which share the characteristics of Arab militias fighting South Saharan African militaries or civilians. With conflict area extending North to Lybia. That itself borders Ethiopia, which may fall into Civil war with Etria and Somalia likely being pulled in, and Egypt, which is already fighting insurgency in the East in the Sinai. Overall that threatens Arab nationalism driven warfare from Iran through to Gambia. That makes it harder to respond to China and increases the likelihood of a Taiwan invasion. And obviously North Korea is the topic of this video. Every large scale conflict makes the next easier as US military capabilities to shut it down are reduced.
    3
  680. You only discuss the fact Bitumen is very different from conventional oil when you discussing carbon fiber. When you are talking about Combustion uses, suddenly Bitumen is oil, and you ignore that we can make a barrel of Bitumen into a barrel of diesel, no gasoline, and it is if course gasoline demand EVs are shrinking.
    3
  681. We agree with value added use of bitumen. But you can produce Carbon Fiber and activated Carbon and Asphalt Binder in BC. That argument has nothing to do with pipelines. Pipelines move feedstock, they don't determine what happens to it. We should also look at Sturgeon falls. We can turn a barrel of Bitumen into a barrel of diesel. That has a huge value when EVs are cutting out gasoline demand, and half a barrel of conventional oil ends up gasoline.
    3
  682. The US should be viewed as several regions for oil talk. First and easiest is the Mid west. Something like 70% of oil products in the Mid west start as Canadian DilBit from Alberta and largely refined around Chicago. That's Bitumen from the oil sands mixed with very light oil, either imported from NG plants in the US, or from fracking in BC/Alberta. The other 30% is Fracked in the Bakken, ie North Dakota, and mixed with the DilBit at the refinery. Second easiest is the Rockies (not the coast). Again, about 50% of oil is Canadian heavy from Alberta or Saskatchewan (but not generally DilBit), again mixed with Bakken shale oil. I'd say the third easiest to grasp is California, which is an oil producer itself. California has regulation on petrolium products that limit where it can import from, and because it's seperate by mountains no pipeline connection to the rest of the US exosts. LA is known for Tar pits, and that's because there is heavy oil. I believe California was once the largest producer but that may be wrong. Now California meets about a third of its demand, with the rest being heavy crude from south america and the Gulf countries. At one point Alaska was a major supplier, but that is no longer (directly the case). Canada is a growing supplier, with trains of bitumen increasing to California over the last few years, and now a pipeline allowing shipping to California as well. That pipeline connects directly to Washington State, which is the only state able to export to California due to regulations. Washington gets a reasonable amount of Canadian crude, along with Alaskan crude and some Gulf oil. Russian used to be on the menu as well. Bakken light oil was as well, but I believe that has decreased. After that you have the south. Suffice it to say, no one expected the shale revolution, so giant refineries for heavy, sour crude expected from Mexico and Venezuela were built. But with Mexican oil production being a mess and Venezuela collapsing, this hasn't gone to plan. They used to import heavy "unfinished oils" from Russian refineries that couldn't process it. Keystone XL was about getting Canadian DilBit to the Gulf at lower prices than a train. Canada is now the largest provider (500,000 brls a day), mainly by rail I believe, followed by Mexico, Venezuela is about half of Mexico, and Columbia follows that, followed by the Saudis and Iraq, and then a mix to fill it out. Most of the refineries are coastal, so it's a very flexible price driven market (vs the interior where you need pipelines, or the west coast where regulations are at play). Some shale oil is also used as the largest and second largest basin are in the region, and the Off Shore Gulf of Texas oil mainly goes to these refineries. But shale is very light, and not ideal for these refineries due to the high international price and lower output. much of the refinery products in this region are also exported. The Atlantic seaboard is a real shmorgus borg, but there are a few refineries near NY that import from the Bakken or overseas, a large pipeline that connects very thing below NY to Gulf of Texas refineries, and the New England area generally imports oil products refined in New Brunswick Canada, with the oil refined coming from Nigeria and the Saudis. The US then exports a large amount of Bakken shale oil to Canadian refineries in Ontario and Quebec (mostly Quebec) since the refineries are built for light crudes. Much of the Texas produced crude is exported overseas.
    3
  683.  @johndelia9408  Not her, but Warren Mosler (arguably the founder of MMT) has a debate on YouTube against Bob Murphy. It's very good and a much better discussion around the merits and flaws.
    3
  684. Is it true that, because shale oil is so light, and because diesel is used to power all the heavy fracking equipment, shale fracking actually used more diesel than it produces? Or was that only true in the past when they were injecting diesel or when you look at NG fracking plays like Utica?.
    3
  685.  @hammerclench3135  I really hope they build more NWR upgraders. Ya it was a cluster, but it was the first build, I think one of our biggest problems compared to China is giving up after first build instead of calling it learning experience and Doubling down. I'd love to see several more in Alberta to export through Transmountain, or at the wellhead of any new pipelines..
    3
  686.  @mehrshadvr4  awe yes, the age old question of the Middle East, do you support Apartheid against Arabs or Apartheid against Women. Personally I think the Ottomans struck the right balance of Apartheid against both; but who hasn't wanted to see their sister or wife stoned to death by public officials for not wearing a scarf. I take no issue with Islam. But Islam teaches that humans were given free will. I have no tolerance for a state that forces its religious moral codes in spite of the will of God. Edit: your reply appears to have been removed, I think because of your edit, because I saw the original in the thread, and only see the edited version as a reply to me. I would be of the opinion this is a gambit of Iran's to put increased public pressure in the region against western aligned governments, an already existing pressure. And I appreciate your frankness on the Baha'i. And I apologize for the snideness of my original remark. I agree with your characterization of Israel as an apartheid state, but disagree strongly that it is therefore the morally worse of the options in the region.
    3
  687.  @matanelsiboni9269  both states have been fighting a cold war since before I was alive. Acting as though Israel doesn't actively work against Iran is disingenuous. Iran arms proxies who fight against Israel. America arms Ukraine to fight against Russia. But for Russia to attack an American installation would obviously be escalatory.
    3
  688. @arthas640  yes, but the Islamic republic was formed a year after the 1978 Israeli incursion and in the same decade as the Yom Kippur war in which Israel seized significant territory from Arab neighbors (who of course started it, but also had not recognized Israel as a state and saw it as a continuation of earlier conflict, and it could be compared to much of the globes continued recognition of Crimea as Ukrainian when it is defacto Russian). Which is to say it's understandable Muslim opinion was against Israel. Personally I think you're being a little to kind in suggesting Iran is kind to Shia Muslims by default. I don't believe the Ayatollah or revolutionary council really cares beyond increasing the scope of its influence, any more than I believe in the Russian Orthodox church. But I agree that as long as Israel and the Saudis, and Turkey, aim to be the Regional power Iran will act with hostility.
    3
  689. Always excellent, the hazelnuts is very interesting, that they would mass process food. It would have been interesting if you had discussed how cattle breeds changed overtime (meat or milk focused in an era), or if the breed was rather consistent. Did the Indo Europeans originally get cattle through the Eastern hunter gathers?
    3
  690.  @jackdenihan5333  I think you misunderstood me, I agree NATO is "America, protect me from Russia!" club. You told the Canadian guy don't worry about European stuff, as long as Canada and America are cool Canada has nothing to worry about. I'm just saying if we aren't cool, Canada isn't exactly stopping the US military, even with a whopping 2% of GDP going to ours.
    3
  691.  @macmcleod1188  how do you figure a warm water port and control of immense NG reserve, that otherwise would allow competition it it's monopoly market of pipeline gas to Europe, is no longer of strategic importance?
    3
  692.  @danielschwarze781  I meamt specifically in dealling with Russia, which has a larger impact on the market than Norway. But I removed the word actively from my original comment.
    3
  693.  @arsenal4444  Ya, I try to stick to small fish and farmed fish which tend to be fairly low, but it is an issue. I meant in terms of nutrients and bioavailability, but in modern reality fish being toxic is one of the consequences of our damage to the planet.
    3
  694. If you teach Seperation of powers in the Canadian context, I hope you focus is on how our system is designed and not thiers, and the focus is on Federal vs Provincial Jurisdiction not branches of Government
    3
  695. Overall very good discussion of the Tier market. I made a few comments point to points I think you are in error, but in general great interview
    3
  696. Sadly your right - this is one of those wars both sides loses.
    3
  697. I think you're missing industrial heat, but otherwise I agree. NG is a problem, particularly in space heating where it's unneeded and the large distribution networks and home appliances leak aggressively. And we need to address compressor stations in particular by requiring electrification. But LNG is being targetted blindly here, particularly when you look at how Russia and central Asia leak.
    3
  698. And more than a link to stack exchange!
    3
  699. It would also mean they have less to sell to Russia, and would likely have to buy equipment from Russia and NK, a massive turn around in their current balance of payment which itself has been a huge boom given sanctions. On the other hand, a serious Israeli attack may increase support at home. And given the Russian-Ukraine situation and stability issues in the Caribbean, the US can't afford to get involved at the moment or it has no hope of stopping a Chinese invasion.
    3
  700. I think you present valid concerns. To the point of securing dilutent, I believe we should be requiring SynBit mixing to create demand for upgraded product, particularly as domestic demand for gasoline decreases and WTI is low cost. But overall I do think we should be forcing the 4 oilsands majors to be building partial Upgraders, or product upgraders selling something like DieselBit. I agree with your comment on the risk. But I would argue what we are seeing is a literal global conspiracy to push us from the market; in the forms of OPEC price actions, concerns over US market access, and Chinese strategic policy. And I think it is irresponsible and negligent to respond to the foreign state led intentional destruction of our industry in a hands off, laissez faire manner. We would not condemn any other industry, I think it's grossly mistaken to allow such a large aspect of our economy, our financial system, and our exports to be ruined. We need to respond to these actions and address these risks by driving investments that maintain our assets and market access. That should not just mean Pipelines, it should include product upgraders for jet fuel and diesel and refineries for products like lubricants and asphalt we have a clear advantage in producing and can trade globally without the reliance on individual customers our current model requires..
    3
  701. I don't believe Canada has a laser focus on Fossil fuel projects. And I think this would be a false dichotomy regardless. We can invest in many industries, we have a great National credit rating, and investor capital isn't limited.
    3
  702.  @Inez-z2z  the point isn't that we do sell to Asia, it's that we can sell to Asia. TMX does allow us to sell to Asia. Everything that doesn't have access to Transmountain is entirely hostage to US policies. Tariffs will force a discount, regulation could shut down the connection to Ontario. Petrochemicals are entirely unrelated. They use NGLs from condensate and naphtha from Syncrude or shale oil refining. Bitumen is the longest carbon chains, that's what the oil sands are. Your counter point is we should push more shale fracking for light fractions the US is flooding the market with. I'm sure Alberta would be happy to pay if the Federal government assured them it wouldn't be blocked part way through. But I think private industry would be happy to. The issue is entirely the regulatory uncertainty we create. That said, I, a guy in and from Ontario, would be okay with federal subsidies to energy east. Because I don't like that the GTA can basically be turned off tomorrow. And because I would be good for our balance of trade.
    2
  703.  @Inez-z2z  my point with this particular post is Markham is increasingly not a good faith actor who will not comment on anything that might be an argument for a pipeline. It's not about wanting the government to build. No matter what the proposal is, Markham will only attack it. I encourage you to text or email the number they show at the end of every episode and ask if the dependence on Line 5 isn't enough of a concern Transmountain might have some strategic value. I am confident you'll never hear back.
    2
  704.  @Inez-z2z  I'm not suggesting exporting DilBit. Our products are not difficult to market. I don't want a "fossil-fueled vision". But there is a very real risk Alberta's oil industry could be destroyed, and that Ontario could have its oil cut off at any time. It is very worth while to have an entirely domestic line. It should require Syncrude, no DilBit, because Eastern and European refineries couldn't use it anyway. But whatever the reasonable solution is, we need to have one very soon. Oil and Gas should only be a fraction of our economy, but that doesn't mean we have to suppress it. Markham regularly promotes the explosive growth of Chinese renewables. But he fails to acknowledge that they built that on cheap coal, by which I mean they didn't restrain their long term growth for short term emissions gains. If you're reading my posts, you'll know I also support the Mining sector, refining, and EV battery, and also want to see us transform our auto sector into a construction/mining/forestry/drilling equipment sector take advantage of our relatively large portion of the global mining sector. Maybe you don't think this is value added, but I regularly say we should be investing in server farms because it allows us to export electricity, and taking into account our cold weather, we could do a lot more computing, cleaner, and for less. Or that we need two 1-2GW transmission lines between Calgary and Revelstoke and between Edmonton and Site C. But I post that too.. You can look at videos on this channel a year ago I was the only commenter lol. But I generally agree with Markham on anything else. But he is being dishonest about the level of threat to the oilsands or the scale of the economic crisis that will cause. He reported on the prices in Covid, he knows exactly what will happen if US demand drops even mildly. He knows it's the mines that will shut down and the unemployment that will cause, or that Alberta's government revenue will collapse. And he's regularly bring up the USs hostile stance toward us, so he should be able to recognize that we need to prevent any anti Canadian sentiment to develop right now in the most culturally American province with all the oil that the US will buy at full price if they join.
    2
  705. @Inez-z2z  Yes, we should reverse Line 9 and start using rail to bring upgraded Syncrude to Irving, so that if we need the rail cars for Ontario they are available. But it isn't technically a new pipeline, and there is absolutely no reason, short of an unexpected global pandemic, it should take more than 5 years. We should also be building out German Style E-Highways in Toronto along core routes, so that local trucking can be electrified for significant portions of a delivery. Which builds onto allowing local trucking go EV with relatively small batteries. That would have a particular big impact regional diesel demand, and be easy to duplicate going east and allow long distance trucking to electrify as it grows out. But even in 10 or 20 years we will still be using a significant amount of gasoline and diesel, and we need to be able to securely move it. This is an incredibly immediate priority. Like a year ago I literally was arguing against TransCanada having ever been viable. But this is no longer an economic issue, it's like saying having a TransCanada highway isn't important. If we can't depend on the US for our trade, we need a new line. I'm not advocating Emergency Act, but it is a national emergency. They can turn off our oil, and be called environmentalists for it.
    2
  706.  @Inez-z2z  but also, as an energy journalist, don't you find it crazy he hasn't brought line 5 up? Bordering on dishonest? Because I have emailed asking him to cover it. He is absolutely aware, and he was aware when he was arguing we try to shut off oil south. And it seems like a very important energy story, although I suppose might lead some to question his unwavering stance on not having a domestic connection..
    2
  707. There are large windfarms in all Maritimes provinces I think. Certainly NewFoundland and New Brunswick. LNG through the Hudson is probably the only workable LNG route. But the reason West is better for Oil is because the Asian market is much larger and has greater heavy refinering capacity.
    2
  708. ​​@gregmiller4387  That is a 60M bbl/d market that we export 500k bbl/d into. There is enormous room for growth, particularly as EV driven gasoline displacement drives Gasoline into crackers to produce Naphtha and creates an oversupply of both, pushing light and medium crudes out of the market. Even with 80% collapse it will be 12M bbl/d. We have the advantage of having a heavy crude that will see long term demand.  I'm very sceptical of shipping any liquid Hydrocarbons over frozen and isolated sea. More so with icebergs in the straight of Labrador. Certain not bitumen, but if an environmental review found it safe, maybe RPPs. But I'd much rather go through Quebec if Europe is the goal..
    2
  709. ​​ @matthewq4b Idk, Irving is a small market at the end of the day. You get to serve most of the market by just building to Quebec city, although maybe it's better for whales or something to go to St. John. But with 2)3rd of Irving exporting to the US, it's questionable it will still be operating when you finish the pipeline..
    2
  710. Its really annoying Wind doesn't provide inertia seeing as it has to spin at all times.
    2
  711. @JamSessionInMyMind  I disagree strongly he was responsible for meaningful inflation. Do you have some examples?
    2
  712. I am also skeptical of the pirates we have running the oilsands. We need to reign in the industry on a number of fronts. In particular they need to be reinventing their revenue and not paying it all out to shareholders, whether that's in environmental remediation or new investment.
    2
  713. Hey, I love your channel. I also love Peruns. But 2 weeks ago, Perun did a video on this subject, citing largely you're work. Did he get permission to do that, or should I leave a reminding/scolding comment? Because if not, it was a little rude to steal your big conclusion using your notes.
    2
  714. Me as well. I wouldn't put him in Charge of Resources, but I'd make him Minister of Energy. I'd make myself in charge of Industrial policy, of course 😉
    2
  715. It doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the Canada's border.
    2
  716. That is the silver lining
    2
  717. We don't need growing global demand. We only need to be the producer that survives. And we need to be the producer that survives, or the financial system faces bankruptcy, the tailing ponds are abandoned, and the west half of the country becomes a have not province. I agree with literally your entire analysis until you ignore the massive assets already at risk. Canada isn't deciding whether or not to become involved in oil. Its deciding how to handle the decline of an industry that contributes half our exports.
    2
  718. If Ukraine takes possession of it they are responsible, if they were to leave it as nominally Russian then Russia would have to, although I doubt they will leave Russia a staging point south of the River.
    2
  719.  @wesswainson254  I will still argue that turning it into a co-op farmers could opt into, which also buys and sells on an open market, would have been a far preferable option. Selling it to the Saudis for a bigger cash deal was a mistake imo. It also killed any shipping out of Churchill right as we start to discuss opening the Arctic ocean.
    2
  720.  @wesswainson254  the only reason they came to an end was Saskatchewan over paying, no? Plus global wheat prices have been higher since 2010 overall, so that's a confounding factor
    2
  721.  @AL-lh2ht  Arab nationalism and Russian access to cheap gold is a key element to both Sudan and the Sahel coups. I agree the Sudan is an independent conflict, but much like in Mali where the Tuareg separatists were originally trained and operated out of Lybia, the RSF has been heavily impacted by ongoing Lybian civial war as mercenaries. Both conflicts should be seens as the result of the collapse of the Lybian state. The RSF also includes a large number of foreign Tuareg mercenaries from Niger and Mali, as well as Chad and South Sudan. The people in reference are traditionally nomadic and don't necessarily see borders as meaningful. A collapse of the RSF will see these groups returning to other sahel countries where they will likely increase seperatist or rebel activity as they did with the collapses of Lybia.
    2
  722.  @ВасилийЛомовой-я8ь  That's not what the reports from Ukraine say, both that when they hit a mine "a wheel falls off but everyone is okay" and that they out preform western tanks. Of course nothing is 100%. But MaxPreps have very high survival rates for under vehicle explosion.
    2
  723.  @taxirob2248  last year China built more solar than in use across all of Europe. That's the scale of the manufacturing, that it's grown from almost non-existent to 8% of electrical output in 3 years. They have the manufacturing to produce something like 10% of their entire system capacity, the largest energy user in the world, a year in Solar panels. I could not care less about China burning coal today or next year. What I care about is that a third of vehicles sold in China last year were EVs. They haven't done all this as some Psych op. It's literally meant to be the foundation of their economy for the next 30 years. They are absolutely buying enormous quantities of renewables and Electric vehicles. They're doing it because they are afraid of being dependent on energy imports (and only have 30 years of coal reserves), because they want to be the energy exporter, and because collapsing oil demand will destroy American Fracking and Canadian oil sands Mining. And I care because while it will put the US in recession, it's going to send Canada into an absolute depression. Also, a great deal of the hydroelectric growth has been pumped storage to store energy from renewables.
    2
  724.  @aachoocrony5754  bra you've made like a dozen comments all seem to be trolling. I'll take you seriously for one reply but not if you repeat. What are you trying to say? That China won't have an loss of growth? I think given the reigning in of both local government debt and construction debt, the two engines of China, it's very unlikely there isn't at least a technical recession. Frankly, I think it's being well handled and I have a lot of respect for CCP economic policy. I don't think the average person will see loss of quality of life. But the upper middle class and upper class will and are certainly seeing a loss of wealth. Suggesting growth is going to continue as the government actively reigns it in on one hand and the west cuts investment and imports on the other is ideological at best imo.
    2
  725.  @aachoocrony5754  not sure how rising housing prices make me poorer there chief since I own a house. China owned something like 4% of US debt at peak and it's now something like 2% so I think you're flexing a little to hard. Certainly agree the US became reliant on China in the 2000s via trade but now the US has the IRA and China can't get microchips. What's with all the elephants and Pluto's? is that like a Chinese proverb?
    2
  726.  @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
  727. @jhornett  yes exactly. But we can confidently say LNG in Florida is among the highest emission electrical sources.
    2
  728.  @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
  729. Idk man. If you support Andrew Tate, you probably are sexist... I'm a conservative guy, but I'm not a pimp.
    2
  730.  @xiphoid2011  I'm no fan of China, but I think this is somewhat of a misrepresentation. You need to account for the closing of old less efficient coal plants and also declining capacity factors. I think as the storage being built out now becomes operational over the next few years, we will see a fairly rapid drop in coal as plants used for peaking become used only overnight and Solar becomes the dominant source of day time and evening power. I also think, although this is unsubstantiated, that the goal is to use the very large ultra critical Coal plants as nuclear plants in the future, by attaching SMRs to the boilers.
    2
  731.  @jayzbreemo  Look up methane leaks in Yamal. It's the main point of production. Russia has no concerns around mathane or GHG pollution. As for China, the country produces very little NG, it's mainly an importer. But it imports heavily from central Asian. Turkestan in particular may have conventional gas but it pollutes far more than any other country.
    2
  732.  @jayzbreemo  according to IEA, Russia emits 25MT of methane in 2021 vs 30MT for the US, but the US produces 20% more. That would argue intensities are on par (although I'd suggest methane leaks in the arctic circle are a bigger issue all else being equal) Look up this article "Over-polluting and under-reporting: A look inside Russia’s dirty fossil fuel industry"
    2
  733. I've emailed you in disagreement. You didn't reply with evidence Inwas wrong.
    2
  734. Any examples of how your beliefs have changed
    2
  735.  @heronimousbrapson863  also, not enough hand outs may not have caused Quebec's referendum, but it sure was the solution.
    2
  736. The worst part is the railway doesn't work well in the summer on melted ground; well the port doesn't love frozen winter ice. But Nelson is best, no river ice, NG pipelines without muskeg and cheap electricity to liquify. No locals to push back.
    2
  737. I'm skeptical; 1) I don't think its possible for China to move faster than it already was, both domestically and creating exports. 2) I think an oil supply shortage will lead to cost increases throughout the economy, both reducing available wages and increasing interest rates, both hurting capital intensive technologies like solar and EVs. There may be some positive impact in Europe or South America in terms of increase EV demand. I would be surprised if the US response isn't to restrict RPP and Oil exports to stabilize domestic prices. I think low income nations will largely see increased poverty as a result, not increased investment. Edit; should be noted I already favoured a rapid transition to EVs and away from gasoline and NG as the most likely pathway. And I still do. But I don't think there will be significant increase in that speed, some economy's may even be slowed as a result.
    2
  738. Could you lower them please? I have a big drive this weekend
    2
  739. ​ @LevNikolayevichMyshkin  This isn't an argument against LVT, it's an argument against only LVT.
    2
  740.  @LevNikolayevichMyshkin  Oh, I understood you as saying you should have a property tax that includes built structures in your assessment. You were saying LVT is good, but you also need other taxes like corporate taxes or something.
    2
  741. ​ @Dmbyers2002 I think you are right on with the steel point. But I think you are to optimistic on NG by far. While I think a market for our heavy crude will persist for decades, I would say NG, and particularly LNG, will face a much more aggressive competition from renewables, chiefly solar with storage.
    2
  742.  @The_Panther  additionally, the rationality of leaders may not align to the best interest of countries. Putin's political power is highly tied to the outcome.
    2
  743. The question is whether it costs more money to use solar to make hydrogen and ship it from Saudi Arabia, or produce power elsewhere. Saudi Solar is very cheap.
    2
  744.  @freedomfighter22222  if only because the strongest possible Belgium still wouldn't stand a chance.
    2
  745. if Ukraine loses Pokrovs, what would it theoretically be a logistics hub for? Its currently a logistics hub for the defense of the Russian salient, no?
    2
  746. ​ @TheDinty again, that was prior to the damming of the Nelson river. Dams prevent silt flow, this issue is largely mitigated.
    2
  747. Honestly, we have been and are.
    2
  748.  @kapoioBCS  Solar grows at a far higher rate than shale oil output.
    2
  749.  @ryuuguu01  I apologize but you didn't have to spend so much time arguing EVs are going to see explosive growth I entirely agree, it's in fact integral to my belief we are the most competitive producer. Likewise with Chinese electrification. You missed Indonesia aiming to have 50% diesel sourced from Palm oil (around half their production) before 2030. Your mistake is in asking who will buy our oil. Canada is a major oil producer, but only on par with Mexico - we have some 2M bbl/d. This is a common misconception, what we produce is mainly Bitumen, at around 3M bbl/d. The question is largely who will buy that. And while EVs are collapsing gasoline demand over the next decade, they are not impacting jet fuel, which is around 10% of global demand. They are having a more limited impact on Diesel, which is around a quarter. Conventional oil producers like OPEC need to produce half a barrel of Gasoline for each barrel of Oil they produce, because that's simply how the hydrocarbon fractions work. And they'll need to dump that on the market for cents on the Liter to compete with EVs in order to sell the products still in demand. Bitumen is all much larger hydrocarbons. A barrel of Bitumen can produce a barrel of Kerosene or diesel or Base oils, no gasoline fraction at all. And the heaviest 20% can be used for Carbon Fiber or Asphalt or Activated carbon. Or, and ideally, we can produce those products at the coasted head of the pipeline, and export the value added goods. Including petrochemical complexes with gasoline cracking units to deal with the light fractions that are processed. Even our Oil fits well into the transition, being extremely heavy conventional out of Saskatchewan/Eastern Alberta, or else extremely light bordering on NGLs out of Shale fracking in BC/Western Alberta. The heavy oil is particularly useful for those heavy RRPs and has a Bitumen fraction, the shale oil is mixed as dilutent, and feeds petrochemical demand that is expected to continue to grow, largely being smaller than gasoline. Newfoundland is an exception but it's oil industry will be gone in 10 years anyway. There's over 100M bbl/d in oil production globally. We represent 5% of that, and our oil is particularly well suited to the 20% of RRPs that will see demand going forward. And can be upgraded to produce the NGLs as demand instructs. Also, our oil products are also very sour, which may seem like a negative, but with rapidly declining oil demand, Sulphur is actually a very important - the most widely used - chemical product in the world. And there will continue to be demand for it, although it could be mined Separately, I'm not saying oil will be protected by sulphur, just that it advantages sour oil. So my point is we are well positioned to push out the OPEC countries as demand collapses and take their market share, and our bitumen will see global and domestic export drive demand for non combustion products. And if we don't, OPEC is going to produce a 10 barrels of oil to meet the demand for a barrel of jet fuel, and dump cheap gasoline on the market to fight EVs, and I'm skeptical EVs are competitive at 25¢ a liter gasoline, which would still be profitable for the Saudis, let alone when they are willing to lose money on it to chase sales of high priced heavy RPPs.. Edit: we should be moving away from conventional oil by subsidizing and developing a Geothermal industry.
    2
  750.  @oisiaa  Nice, solar is a great thing for improving the sustainability of suburbs. My fear though is that it will make the (electric) car centeric model of suburban planning appear sustainable which it really can't be. If you have ongoing projects, look into Ground Source heating or maybe Solar water heaters. Great ways to further improve your self sufficiency.
    2
  751. .A comment on the opening framing "the energy transition isnt about Oil and Gas, or climate change, its about electro technology [...] Thats better". I agree that it is being driven by technology that is fundamentally better and improving. But this is like saying "Free trade with China isn't about people losing manufacturing job in Pennsylvania, its about imports that are cheaper". Of course it is a story about Oil and Gas, particularly if you're country is one of the worlds largest producers. The industry that pays for a third of the budget of the third largest province by Economy isn't suddenly irrelevant; its future irrelevance is itself relevant. Obviously part of the conversation must be "how to we take most advantage of our existing and established industry, how do we prolong it, how do we avoid being dominated by China's displacement of it".
    2
  752. 78 billion what? I assume USD? For perspective, that's the value of roughly half our oil exports to the US currently, without any value being added. I do think it is an exciting and important industry for us to enter. But I think it's important we have perspective on the level of impact. Even if we controlled the entire global market, by that estimate it would only be a ~quarter of our output
    2
  753. ​ @Lorne.Mccuaig  I agree the $78 billion figure actually seemed quite low. I think there is an awkward time overlap between the amount of time it takes to develop a bitumen to Carbon Fiber industry, and the amount of time until energy to liquids becomes commercialized and bitumen is no longer a key advantage. But alongside Graphite, Lubricants, and asphalt, I do think this can push the life of the oil sands another 20 years - and in that time put us in a leading position in a number of industries that will exist post bitumen. However, I don't think we will be at the point where this contributes significantly to Oilsands demand for another 20 years. And in that middle time we will need to develop markets outside the US for us to maintain market.
    2
  754.  @heinzaballoo3278  we'll switch to renewables certainly, I'll be surprised if Solar isn't the main source of energy on the US by 2035, aside from wind and hydro and NG. And EVs will increase. But I don't think we will end demand for oil for decades. It will certainly drop sharply. But there will remain a long distance trucking sector and trains etc that use diesel. And it's also needed as a petrochemical feed stock.
    2
  755.  @pumfeethermodynamics3286  I'm dubious toward the first point and fully agree with the second.
    2
  756. ​ @richdobbs6595 good answer. I would just add that while shale oil is easier to refine, the products of refining aren't necessarily what the US needs, with the ratio of light components for Petrochemical feed stock and gasoline being much higher, but very little diesel or lubricants etc being produced.
    2
  757. ​ @ssssaa2 I personally think it's more interesting to look at this on a regional level, where you can say California imports considerably more from OPEC members, or that nearly 70% of oil used in the Midwest or half in the Rockies comes from Canada
    2
  758. Two points. The failure of the stock market in 1929 certainly was not the cause of the great depression The collapses of loans to Germany was because of a change of policy and interest rates at the NY fed
    2
  759.  @MrBrock314  I have to emphasize that troops we deploy across the ocean ride a 747. I'd like a better Navy too, and a ship building industry in general, but what would a blue water navy really do?
    2
  760. Its a nice wish list, but 1) how do you secure a trade deal with a guy who is ripping up the trade deal of false terms? 2) 30% of the budget? Simply how. And do you understand how hard it is to fire a government employee? 3) would be nice, but I don't think the Conservatives (haven't been the PCs for over two decades) are going to run a massive deficit 4) again how? And schizophrenia is a weird way to describe high prices. The houses aren't like confused about their prices. 5) AGAIN, how? While cutting the budget back 30% to boot? PP has been pretty clear we won't be meeting 2% spending goal. Honestly, we need to decide what the point of our military even is before you can make it functional. 6) I guess that would be the point of our military? We could build some airfields maybe for the planes we don't have and can't afford. Secure it from who, anyway? Because the only threat to it in reality is the country to our south, and there is no way we are securing it against them.
    2
  761. Useful things the Cons actually can and probably will do 1) get rid of the bogus gun restrictions 2) Get rid of internet censorship Bs meant to give money to legacy media 3) stop the capital gains increase
    2
  762. I think it merits mention that if we are serious in aiming for large scale global exports of Carbon Fiber from Bitumen, we don't need to be concerned with Pipelines as stranded assets. Having a manufacturing center in Prince Rupert would drive long term demand for the pipeline, while providing market access for oil to maintain the industry while we build out this (and other) technologies. And fundamentally, just as it is with oil, it will be less expensive to move the raw material to coast by pipeline then the finished product, and at the same time to access any imported requirements by sea.
    2
  763. You don't need upgraders next to refineries. All our upgraders are very far from refineries. At least 600k/bbl a day exists to go east. And you can build upgraders alongside building the pipeline. But yes we should definitely invest in upgraders, and refineries, alongside an east coast pipeline
    2
  764.  @johnbaker1256  Interesting, I've recently heard that people of the eastern woodlands would keep black bears in pens and eat them for ritual feasting as well. It does make sense, a black bear isn't huge, it can eat garbage, and its a fatty animal. Where you don't have a swine of some sort, I see how it is a strong option. Still, bringing brown bears to Ireland, alongside boars, seems odd to me. Much more dangerous and at the same time less necessary.
    2
  765.  @johnbaker1256  Ya, the original comment in the video was that Brown Bears were introduced to Ireland by Hunter Gathers, who would have brought them across in Canoes. Since Ireland was never part of Doggerland, there was no land bridge. Same reason there are no snakes.
    2
  766.  @johnbaker1256  Yep I understood, I thought you were just giving a parallel example of why people would raise bears for food..
    2
  767.  @MissSchnickfitzel  ANE is Ancient North Eurasians, as in the people who lived in Siberia during 30-10k YBP. You are mistaken about their abundance of food, or at least according to our archeological finds.
    2
  768. Surrendering is difficult, you have to cross a mine field while being shot at from both directions. But I doubt they have to be repatriated. I think South Korea takes them in, because South Korea legally considers them citizens of a single Korea
    2
  769. I don't agree with this idea "Bitumen is to valuable to burn". Firstly, buring it can provide a lot of value as well, we haven't come close to an electric Jet, and today there is a lot of value in my car working. But far more importantly, in 40 or 50s, as a consequence of the effectively free energy of the clean energy revolution, we will simply make carbon fiber, or any carbon molecule, from CO2. There is no future in saving Bitumen. It certainly has an advantage for material science for the next few decades, but long before we run out anyone in the world will be able to use air and sunlight to make any carbon fiber item they want for less than the cost of shipping rhe Bitumen. If you want to argue we aren't cost competitive with OPEC, I disagree. Or that pipelines will be stranded assets from dropping oil demand, I disagree that we can't do added value work at the far end to create demand. But certainly there is no reason to intentionally keep bitumen in the ground to use a century from now..
    2
  770.  @crbondur  I have to say, no good economic policy can shut down the economy and do well. No one would ever suggest the ideal economic policy is printing money to pay people not to work. The entire point is that any printed money should cause real economic growth, and not inflation.
    2
  771.  @pietersteenkamp5241  I don't so much disagree with you as I disagree that this is relevant to what I've said. My statement reflecting MMTs Chartalistic view of money and the role of taxes in driving a currencies circulation, and that foreknowledge of future raised demand by the government creates room for demand above what's immediately needed by the public allowing inflationless deficits. Certainly progressive taxes are... Progressive. Although they also don't impact savings in the way you're suggesting. The pile of money in my bank account is only taxes on the way in, as income.
    2
  772. I'm surprised with the lack of Piracy we see coming out of Venezuela, Haiti, and to a lesser extent Columbia and some of the Central America states. I credot ot with US navy being local, but I think its a constant potential risk.
    2
  773. Those statues are called Venuses, but they are not of Venus and we actually don't know the context in their creation.
    2
  774. @ziploc2000  people argue this like China is a laissez faire economy. Ya, we will have to subsidize industry and use market access restrictions to compete with China..
    2
  775.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  Ontario and the federal government have poured enormous amounts into Batteries and EVs. You can't undermine that with cheap subsidized Chinese models built with lower paid labor and lower environmental standards and then blame Smith..
    2
  776.  @BarbMacdonald-uv9zd  right now, to have new trade partners, would be incredibly difficult and requires an enormous build out of new infrastructure. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to do or the government is doing a good job. But definitely not easily done
    2
  777. @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
  778. 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
  779. 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
  780. 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
  781. 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
  782. @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
  783.  @mikeb5664  WCS is at $45. Alberta royalties are effectively gone. If it drops further, Alberta will soon struggle to refinance debt. I am in Ontario. I'm from a French town. So when I say Yes, I want to be clear. I don't need another province for Ontario to pay for. I would rather lose money on a pipeline then lose money bailing out the banks because they have given the oilsands enormous loans. I would rather lose money on a pipeline than have Fort McMurray send 10 thousand laid off workers to repeat the truckers protest. A pipeline buys Ontario steel and uses Ontario manufacturing. A bankrupt Syncrude means tailing ponds are abandoned. It's really not even a competition. Oil is dead. Oil is no longer black gold. The question today is how do we spend our money to minimize spending our money..
    2
  784. @mikeb5664  WCS is at $45. Alberta royalties are effectively gone. If it drops further, Alberta will soon struggle to refinance debt. I am in Ontario. I'm from a French town. So when I say Yes, I want to be clear. I don't need another province for Ontario to pay for. I would rather lose money on a pipeline then lose money bailing out the banks because they have given the oilsands enormous loans. I would rather lose money on a pipeline than have Fort McMurray send 10 thousand laid off workers to repeat the truckers protest. A pipeline buys Ontario steel and uses Ontario manufacturing. A bankrupt Syncrude means tailing ponds are abandoned. It's really not even a competition. Oil is dead. Oil is no longer black gold. The question today is how do we spend our money to minimize spending our money..
    2
  785. ​ @douwewolters6249 that makes the rest of the alliance the freeloaders off Canada. Not the other way around.
    2
  786.  @DemonZest  That's not a very nice thing to call France.
    2
  787. I agree. Also Geothermal. This report, while interesting for providing a technical pathway, was originally a globally oriented plan. It isn't meant to be Canada's best option, just a demonstration Canada can do it.
    2
  788.  @1panomotion847  Africa is a net food importer which is concerning. There is also potentially for large scale drought across the Sahel regions and in the south. While their are strong agricultural regions, they are generally dependent on imported fertilizer which is problematic.
    2
  789. Lol no, Canada hardly has 2 weeks of storage capacity.
    2
  790. ​ @nick5062 both those are on the much longer list of projects I'd like; although I would argue quite strongly we should not allow DilBit to be shipped on the Hudson's Bay. And as we produce a massive surplus of oil, I would say a reserve is less important than other projects.
    2
  791. I think some questions, like 6, are there to show where support stands. That way Carney can say "we have consensus that environmental reviews in full are a necessity". I don't think you should take a bad faith assumption on what the take aways are, the fact it is such an upsetting question would have been intentional by the polling
    2
  792. @tuckerroy363  i am neither mad nor directing anger, I'm not even American. But if you are looking at Trump's economic impacts on housing and making predictions, this needs to be taken into account. The worst possible outcome is all the talking heads screaming about Trump's tariffs causing inflation only for Americans to find they aren't being hurt by inflation, and sowing more doubt and distrust in academics and media figures.
    2
  793.  @15walkingaway  idk, doesn't matter if there is a housing shortage in 4 years though from a lack of new builds. Trump only needs to keep prices stable for his term and the next president will take any blame, and a big cut in demand for renting will go a long way.
    2
  794.  @dean_l33  cave in to what? There are literally no clear demands beyond shut down a flow of drugs that doesn't exist.
    2
  795.  @rquinn0111  it's more of an Et Tu Brutus, situation, than an upset your bestie situation, except it's Caesar betraying Brutus for absolutely no reason
    2
  796. Moscow
    2
  797. In regards to worrying for those younger, I would say that, even with mis/missing facts, overall his video was more or as informative than years of history in school. I'm not saying we should accept incomplete information, only that the bar was lower previously, in terms of worrying now.
    2
  798. Enjoy the week off
    2
  799.  @arunsadasivan1738  no there is no policy aiming to reduce oil exploitation for the future. The reality is the infrastructure was just built before shale was viable, and so for consumption purposes the US imports heavily because that is what goes with the infrastructure. The US still exports a huge amount, but shale is very light, and much of it goes to Chemical industries as feed stock rather than being used as fuel, and so the markets that buy it have demand accordingly.
    2
  800. As Mark Carney says in Value(s): Plan Beats no Plan.
    2
  801. To question 3, the preface wasn't asking "should we consult", it was making it clear the goal wasn't to avoid consultation. But consulting isn't veto power. No having a Veto doesn't mean concerns or suggestions can't be incorporated into the project however. If the reply is "we want to veto because of concern X", the project can move forward but with greater attention to concern X.
    2
  802. 25 to 30 hundred makes more sense to me, although I think this could have been phrased better.
    2
  803. stable communities exisiting for thousands of years does give the impression they were constantly wiping themselves out, doesn't it/s
    2
  804. There is no contradiction in expanding the O&G sector and developing green electricity and manufacturering like heat pumps and batteries. In fact green energy being cheap for green hydrogen to upgrade bitumen is not just diversitying it's complementary.
    2
  805. HBC, Sears, Nortel, everything that became CN rail. Canada has a long history of companies that were so big as to literal govern parts of the country fading into irrelevance amd bankruptcy. You should be so much less excited that Suncor or CNRL could be on that list. If we let that happen, we will have financial crisis and bank bailouts, we'll be left with tailings ponds, we'll see national recession and deep depression in Alberta with cities becoming ghost towns, mass unemployment and out migration, and budgetary collapse. Alberta moving from NG to wind turbines for electricity doesn't fix this. Fort McMurray needs to be protected while we regulate a responsible shut down of the mines, industry needs supportive investment to keep it competitive and operational, and the conventional drilling fleet needs to be moved to Geothermal drilling to provide dispatchable power and/or heating and cooling for data centers..
    2
  806. The other impact that should be noted is urban jobs serving office workers. Restaurants, shopping centers, transit employees, these may all work in the city along size, and with zoning become focused on the office day worker. With the loss of this demand, we may see the loss of services for the urban population, and a second hollowing out of our urban cores paralleling the loss of residential.
    2
  807. I would like to here about how occupying Kursk shifts overall lines by limiting Russias ability to negotiate and as such increase the support Ukraine is likely to get.
    2
  808. Also, our oil drilling fleet could be pushed into drilling geothermal wells for providing geothermal heating in the winter.
    2
  809.  @hammerclench3135  then perhaps we need to change the economics so that it is more profitable to refine in Canada. Based around export, or course..
    2
  810.  @annmorel580  regarding your statement, I don't mean to be rude, but I think that's ridiculous. You don't build new industry because you think the global market is lacking, you build because you think you can win, bankrupt your competitors, and force them out of the market. Oil is dying, you can't grow the pie, you have to take more of it. That is literally what we are seeing OPEC do right now. That is why the US threatened tariffs on our oil. We are the only major global producer not attempting to manipulate the market to our benefit. It is entirely tone deaf to the reality of the market to believe we should passively waiting for investment while we are under a coordinated global attack. To your question, which is very important, our competitive advantage is upgrader technology. EVs are here, and they are winning. Which means gasoline demand will collapse. Almost half the our competitors output is gasoline; they have no choice, they refine conventional oil, and that is the mix of hydrocarbons in a barrel. We can take a barrel of Bitumen, and upgrade it into a barrel of Diesel, which will be in higher demand. Or jet fuel, which will be around much longer. And of course we should also be building Carbon fiber production and asphalt refineries and refineries to turn base oils into lubricants. Our competitors are working with 30-50 year old equipment, outdated technology built for a different environment. Of course we can drive them offline. But EVs are cutting to global oil market in two. Light Hydrocarbons for petrochemicals, and heavy Hydrocarbons, and we can dominate the later for the next 50 years while OPEC is squeezed from the market..
    2
  811. The bank already had an asset though, the loan against which the property is being foreclosed. This is more analogous to the bank issuing the mortgage, when it creates the money in the account as a liability to itself and an asset to the borrower, and the loan to be repaid as an asset to itself and a liability to the borrower.
    2
  812. Having Jacobson on was very cool, although in terms of the actual dialogue I did prefer your conversation with Brutoco
    2
  813.  @TheGIGACapitalist  so an important thing to understand is that while plastic and gasoline are both oil products, they are not interchangeable; they come from different fractions of the barrel. Plastic is made from the lightest portions of hydrocarbons, gasoline is larger. So to an extent, you could view gasoline as a waste product of petrochemicals, which has to be disposed of or used in some form.
    2
  814.  @caveman314  I know. In another comment I was explicit about this when saying Oil Sands bitumen should be preferred to light oils because it can be cracked to make your preferred product, whether it's jet fuel or diesel or lubricant. But refineries don't do this all the time. Certain refineries have cracking units. Most are just a distillation tower, particularly internationally. Again you could convert to shorter hydrocarbons with the rest of the barrel, but it does add cost, which is why US shale oil which is, in some cases, almost half petrochemical feed stocks is sold internationally for a higher price.
    2
  815.  @sorejack  I have seen technology to use wet CNG in the fracking pumps. That would be rather game changing imo. Thought?
    2
  816.  @caveman314  or maybe we could use less plastic. But we really aren't disagreeing here. I've already said we could the infrastructure.
    2
  817. ​​​ @1KentKent Firstly, Canada has enough hydro for Wind to be stable in the level of an enormous build out. And Secondly, Batteries will push solar output into the evening, and eliminate sudden changes in output from a sheer wind, removing the need for daily peaking and spinning reserve and leaving only 1/7 bad weather days. Many of which will correlate for wind though, and again lots of Hydro capacity for those days. And we need to make it affordable now. We need to offer drilling subsidies, or maybe creating a Crown corp that pays for drilling at data server sites, and gets cheap long-term debt to build data centers using geothermal heating/cooling. Far more energy efficient than just heating/cooling, and better following seasonal energy demand as solar produces more power in the summer when the cooling cost is highest.. But yes I agreed that industrial demand would persist.
    2
  818. @markbaker6553  I don't think so. Alberta will just keep pushing Carbon capture like Saskatchewan does. The federal government pays for 80% of the cost of any Carbon Capture investment. I would much rather we just buy them the SMRs. Then it acts as a large scale incubator for the industry to commericize. The emissions cap is like the Consumer carbon tax. It's a hugely divisive political policy that largely has no positive impact. There are much better policies that don't overtly appear to be again industry. Ontario didn't need a steel emissions cap, the federal government pitched in to help decarbonize..
    2
  819. ​ @ainslieberrafella  He said she loved in the city at a factory. Her life would have certainly improved under Mao. The big famine only affected farmers.
    2
  820. ​​ @MK_ULTRA420 EVs are not a waste of resources. From the perspective of China and Europe, who are strategically reliant on daily oil imports and pay higher fuel coats, EVs are easily justified. The US needs to adopt them because GM and Ford already can't compete on the international market, and because the drop in global oil demand is going to be detrimental to the US economy if it isn't able to produce EVs and Renewables. EVs are going to continue growing in efficiency, theres simply a lot more room for productivity growth compared to internal combustion engines, and the US can't afford to be in a position where China pulls well ahead in the technologies. Also Fwi im also Xi Ping /Canadian
    2
  821. ​ @i6power30 Most of this comment is generally correct, but china does not run its cities on 100% renewables. Coal is still a relevant part of that mix, even if the actual plant in near the Renewable generation in the west and the power is transmissed, and I believe all the large cities have NG plants, many having LNG import terminals toward that. Chinese renewable build out is impressive and growing, but it is no where near 100% renewable to urban populations
    2
  822. When you consider how much of the state acts as an insurance policy, I would say a wealth tax is an entirely reasonable proposition. How does insurance work but to charge more based on high asset value.
    2
  823. Ya. I'm far more optimistic than you in terms of the long term success of such pipelines, but mainly I would agree with all that.
    2
  824.  @RedXlV  ya I agree completely I have a bad habit of rationalizing crazy people to a more reasonable stance. This is what I've always taken him to mean while ignoring silly claims like mind powers building the pyramid or Atlantis being in North America.
    2
  825.  @BranoneMCSG  if you look through the comments, I have readily admitted that Hancock is out of his tree given just how advanced a civilization he posits is. But in terms of your breakdown, I think you disprove your own argument. You start from the "theory rests entirely on the fact that it can't be disproved" to "1. Ancient structure is found". And that was my original point. If we tone down Hancock to a much more reasonable claim like "A Neolithic civilization existed from some point to the end of the ice age, prior to any identified neolithic civilization", I think that's a valid theory. We have data that appears as outlier, but without justification. And we do know that coastal areas tend to be where civilizations form, that there was a global movement in coast lines at the end of the ice age, and that identified neolithic cultures start to form following the recent glacial maximum. The argument isn't "you can't prove me wrong", it's a genuine blind spot in archeology that we don't know what's under the Persian Gulf or the sea of Indonesia, and have very limited knowledge of the Amazon (which we know was a massive and advanced civilization) or the Sahara (which became a desert only contemporary with the first cultures forming around the Nile). So I think the comment is fair, but in the sense that Graham seems to be looking for a genuine Narnia, and coast or wardrobe you aren't going to find it. But the idea that we don't have a serious bias in our interpretation should be considered seriously.
    2
  826.  @DenysBuryi  no, you miss the point. No one argues "lack of evidence so I'm right" the argument is "lack of evidence is causing systematic bias in interpretation". That was my point of contention with the comment. No one believes magic fairy land exists because we haven't checked everywhere. There is, however, good reason to think the culture's in the Green Sahara gave birth to Egypt, or that cultures now under the Persian Gulf gave birth to the Ur civilization. His point isn't "there wasn't a culture there so must be one here", it's that we have sites more advanced then the current model would suggest ("you smell like bananas"), most human centers form on a coast ("you have a banana pocket"), and that we have no done significant research into these coast lines, because the water level shifted at the end of the ice age ("you only looked in laptop pocket"). There is a good chance there is a banana in the banana pocket we didn't check, checking the laptop pocket and not finding a banana is not proof there is no banana. The "evidence" (which input in quotes because it isn't circumspect) for Hancock's "claims" (which I put in quotes because I'm limiting his outrageous claims to a point of reason) is not a lack of evidence, it's the existing sites, oral histories, and cultural similarities. The lack of evidence point is simply that Archeology doesn't have the evidence he's wrong, due to a real and significant bias in research.
    2
  827.  @DenysBuryi  I don't think you're quote is what I've actually said, because at every point I have been sure to say Graham's hypothesis is not reasonable overall and must be taken from a much weaker position. But yes, in the field of Archaeology, I support research into areas that were formerly coastal, where we know the vast majority of human settlement and trade and culture occur. We know as a fact that for 50k years people lived in what is now the Java Sea and South China Sea. We know it was above water and it's how people got to Australia. Such a staggering gap in the historical record should obviously be taken seriously, and the idea that a lack of evidence should imply we don't have reason to study is a confirmation bias. The same is true of the Sahara which became a desert at the same point Egypt was formed, or under the Persian Gulf where we see dozens of settlements appear along the shore synchronic to the flooding of the region's most fertile resource available area, and which progressive sedimentation would have hurried any structures under meters of dirt below the water.
    2
  828.  @mnomadvfx  I will accept this criticism to an extent, with caveats like the exceptional Norte Chico where fishing (and therefore sea access) predates agriculture, or the obvious reliance of the sea of Neolithic Greece or modern era (but stone age technologically) Polynesians. I should have specified not just coastal, but River Delta regions where large rivers meet the sea. And if you'll look through my specified examples, you'll see they match this specification; Under the Persian Gulf (where the Tigris and Euphrates would have merged and flowed as a single river until 8k year ago before meeting the Gulf of Oman), Historic Sauhl under what are now the Gulf of Thailand and Java sea (where Thailand's Chao Phraya river would have flowed an additional 1000 km being fed by the Rivera of East Malaysia, North Borneo and Java before emptying near the Riau Islands), or (and I consider this a less promising location) under the sea of Azov where the Don would have flowed reaching the black sea. I'm not suggesting every random point along a coast is of equal importance. The issue overall being "ancient riverways" are almost inherently low lying land, and are themselves both under modern sea levels and where sea levels advanced inland the farthest. Memphis itself, being 100miles in land, would be under the Persian Gulf had an equivalent been located that distance from the Gulf of Oman, as would the next 600+ miles going upstream. This is also true of Ur, and In fact had sea intrusion been as severe as what's seen in the Persian Gulf, the entire length of the Indus Valley and the associated Harrapin civilization would be lost to the sea. Frankly I can't think of an early neolithic culture so far from the sea an trace above ground would be identified after an event as large as the flooding of the Persian Gulf. I did specifically reference the Culture of the Amazon as being severely under-studied in both age and scope, which is distinctly a river centered culture and not coastal. And the Green Sahara culture(s), (the last point I made agreeing with Hancock as a location in need of study) while understudied to the point of near total ignorance, don't revolve around either rivers or coasts (to our knowledge, which is dammingly near nothing). And again looking at Memphis, it's worth considering the distance to the coast in ancient times rather than modern. Until the Aswan dams construction the Nile Delta was expanding into the Mediterranean in recent times, The sea level rise at the end of the ice age would have reduced the delta, while sedimentation (particularly in the wetter green Sahara period) would have re-enlarged it (the same is true of Ur, which was far closer to the coast before sedimentation started pushing the Persian Gulf back southward, and may I add burying anything there previously). The age of the Nile Delta is a somewhat contentious issue. And likewise, the head of the Delta, where Memphis is located, has itself moved into he past 10k years several times. All to say, I agree, you don't just form a civilization on a coast. But, you do generally form it on a large river and generally near a coast, if only because that is where deltas and therefore the most productive land is. The Persian Gulf I believe almost certainly has a lost culture below it based on the cultures that form on its periphery directly after it fills, and research under the heavy sediment that has since been deposited has not been conducted at any scale. Likewise, what are now the seas around Indonesia were the valleys of some of the largest rivers on earth at the time, and are the land routes used by Native Australians to move south (although Sadly, given the availability of Bamboo, I doubt we will ever find much). The Sea of Azov is potentially interesting, being near civilization near the Trypilian and having neothlic settlements identified below it, and while I doubt findings would be ground breaking, I'd say potentially the wheel was invented here. I'd also say the Modern Adriatic and English channel should be investigated as they were probably far more heavily populated then most of Europe through the ice age based on the rich deltas, but I doubt to find anything more advanced then hunter gathers. And the American West Coast almost certainly holds the answers to the population of the Americas.
    2
  829.  @wenterinfaer1656  I don't know I see your point, my point is "oh good, a down, surely this means an up later" is not critical thinking.
    2
  830. While Ukraine agreed to give over all its nuclear weapons to Russia, it did require Russia to agree that the Nukes were legally Ukraine's until handed over. But in actuality, I don't believe there were any misplaced Nukes when the soviet union colapsed. I understand it to be considered an unexpected success story with no losses.
    2
  831.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  to be fair Alberta has put a lot into several that have been cancelled. I care less about who pays for the pipeline, particularly TransCanada should be subsidized by the Federal government. What I want to see is Alberta agreeing to save all royalties generated by oil going through the pipeline and invest it into eastern Canada, or at least non-energy infrastructure. Also a new upgrader in Alberta, and ideally to see large oil sands SAGD operations changed to using SMRs or otherwise nuclear steam, and green hydrogen used in upgrading. But it's rather a strategic necessity when we can't trust pipelines running through the US to bring our oil to Ontario..
    2
  832.  @robbirose7032  I just hate people getting excited about Thorium lol. It's just a distraction from Uranium with no actual benefit
    2
  833.  @osric1730  I agree, at least in good part, on your stance around the increased intensity leading into the election; although I think this was also Russia aiming to maximize gains before a ceasefire was made available and Ukraine responding. And in the case of Kursk, taking Russian land to make a ceasefire unpalatable and thereby sabotage Russia's efforts by forcing a continuation of attritional war after Russia had made large sacrifices with the goal of a near conclusion. However, if Russia did remove Ukraine from Kursk, I think it is very likely Russia would accept frozen lines that allow them to keep what they have annexed, and I think Trump would see that as a valid conclusion. Further, I don't believe Ukraine would have very much choice but to capitulate, because Russia, being apparently willing to "negotiate" (with the meaning of keep everything they have, and stop fighting) would be in a position to gain even more land if Ukraine were forced to fight not only without US support, but potentially with US sanctions being lifted and European Sanctions and support ended as part of trade and NATO negotiations. For that reason I believe it is absolutely essential, in Ukraine's strategy, to maintain control of Russian land so that Ukraine may play the part of the willing negotiator. And in that case, be eligible for continued international aid while Russia is obligated to remain on the offensive and away from any negotiations. Edit: I mean, there were other goals in the kursk invasion. Tactical goals such as regaining maneuver warfare operations Ukraine excels at, potentially pinning Russians to the Sejm, and taking advantage of suprise and mine free areas. Strategic goals such as greater depth, moving boundaries to the sjem for greater defense, capturing the Nuclear power plant, capturing prisons to trade, and propaganda. But the negotiating chip was always put forward as the chief operational goal.
    2
  834.  @bittemeinrammstein  I don't really want to get involved in your two fighting. But there is a difference between giving up ground for time and being routed. The speed at which Ukraine and Russia have loss territory is significantly different. The Kherson loss by Russia would be very hard to describe as intentional; particularly given the enormous amount of equipment left and recovered by Ukraine. The retreat from Kiev is likely a middle ground, Russia intentionally withdrawing because of impossible logistics (I think in part because Belarus refused to allow Russia to operate through its territory long term), but at the same time you see an enormous amount of material left for Ukrainians to use against Russia. Contrast this to land lost by Ukraine, obviously you have the initial, unintentional losses. But going forward Ukrainian losses have been very slow and intentional to maximize the equipment loss rate of Russia relative to their own..
    2
  835.  @indiandaeng  what does that mean
    2
  836.  @bittemeinrammstein  shame, I thought you were just being critical, this was a good conversation until now. But Idk why I'd need to Cope, I live in Canada, as far as this war goes my biggest impact is that it increases commodity prices and $CAD values. At the end of the day Russia might be able to occupy a country, that, in 2021, I thought was basically just Russia already. And all it will cost is everything they built over 5 decades. If that's winning, it's truely scary that nothing short of a nuke hitting Moscow would be seen as losing.
    2
  837. @terjeoseberg990  lol, yes, that was a joke. SWAT teams against drone operaters, I hope that's included in the history books
    2
  838.  @terjeoseberg990  Like I said earlier there is the propaganda factor for both domestic moral, hurting Russian moral, and encouraging western support. But also it's just kind of hard to count right. Like unless you have a visually confirmed body, you don't know if guy died or not. So soldiers are going to report the shot someone, but after that you're going to bleed into over estimates. Again, the Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk would still be inflicting damage on Russians if they were on other fronts. Ukraine has some of those most capable units in the region, which means there is some opportunity cost elsewhere, and I think indicates the importance to strategy. All I can say for evidence of intensity is that reporters I follow, Deny Davydov, Paul here, William Spaniel, Reporting From Ukraine, etc, all seem to agree the fighting in Kursk is particularly severe. And my understanding is logistics are quite strained due to the distance and exposure to Russian fire. Those same units in say Toresk would be in a strong defensible position, and fighting only Russian volunteers, which I would say impacts Russian losses even greater. I agree that Ukraine is fighting a battle of attrition and that forcing a Russian collapse is the strategy. My point is that in Kursk specially, as part of that strategy, the importance is keeping control of Russian territory, since that increases the likelihood Trump/America will continue to provide the equipment needed for that attritional warfare. Which is why we are seeing an offensive over the past few days, for example, to try and increase the long term defensiblity of the position. Going on the offensive is not to the benefit of attrition directly. But keeping Russia from engaging in negotiations is beneficial to that strategy, and Putin can't negotiate while Ukrainians are in Russia without losing domestic support..
    2
  839. A month ago you were saying we should see policy to rapidly optimize Transmountain and increase rail shipments to coast, even including the Hudson Bay. Do you still believe Carney should be pushing for this?
    2
  840. Kilo Echo Romeo Charly Hotel And 2 more words
    2
  841.  @erickim1739  Thorium reactors are nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors use fission (the break up of atoms) to produce energy. A fissionable (naturally decaying and prone to break up when hit with a neutron) material is placed in a particular shape called a critical mass. Normally these atoms would slowly break up over time, but in a critical mass one atom breaking naturally will release a neutron, which will hit another atom and cause it to break, and lead to a chain reaction. Most reactors now use Uranium 238 and 235 (different isotopes based on number of neutrons). 235 is fissionable, 238 is not (it is fertile). weapons grade or enriched refers to the ratio, the higher the 238 the "better". In a reactor, some of the neutrons will hit the 238, which causes it to become Plutonium, which is fissionable and takes part in the reaction. Thats what fertile means, that it can be turned into a fissile fuel. Thorium is fertile, so non-radioactove. But in a Thorium reactor, some fissile material is included (plutonium) that causes thorium to become Uranium 233, a fissile material. Honestly Thorium is a very "Hype" technology, it offers very few advancement to Uranium, and some new difficulties. The big thing is most thorium reactors are also Molten salt reactors (changes the way the reactor is cooled and the critical mass is controlled) which offer a wide range of advantages.
    2
  842.  @davidty2006  What?
    2
  843.  @michimatsch5862  Well you are what you eat and they are gobbling it up
    2
  844. Well I think there should be a question about whether we should try to undercut countries like Qatar (Or Russia) who don't care about mathane leakage. Yes at face value they are cheaper.
    2
  845.  @normabaker5837  I'm not suggesting we give her everything she wants. She is obviously unreasonable. And there is really no chance Alberta is going to vote for Carney, saying because of that it will be their fault when they face a depression isn't going to keep them in Canada. But yes, we have to build some pipelines. Even if they lose money. We need to keep the median Albertan satisfied with being the Conservative province of a more left leaning country. The average Albertan needs to feel Canada is invested in their economic interests. And clearly that means pipelines. It's literally all they ask for. Frankly, discussion around the profitability of a Pipeline is based on current prices for oil. That price could be tanking by the end of April. So the conversation around the economics could be flipped. The cost of not creating an alternative outlet is significant. It's writing off hundreds of billions of assets. But at the end of the day, we pay equalization to other provinces (I am referring to Canada, not Alberta, I am from Ontario) we can afford to risk loosing 10 billion over 20 years to make Alberta happy. Losing Alberta costs a lot more.
    2
  846. Man your cat is UPSET. You late to feed it dinner or something?
    2
  847. Age restrictions should be illegal, HOAs shouldn't be allowed to enforce them anymore than race laws.
    2
  848. @raphaellagdameo7811  As I said, I have always previously been very supportive of High-speed rail - although frankly Ottawa should be cut out, it increases project cost by an order of magnitude for what could be an easy transfer from Cornwall. But frankly who is making this trip? You aren't going to be running enough trains that people are commuting every day from Kingston to Toronto, certainly not to an extent it impacts housing prices on the lower end. Maybe some executives will choose it over flying but most of them will choose a teams call. And if we are seriously going to try to fight these tariffs, there isn't going to be a lot of money thrown around for tourism. At the end of the day we have rail already, and busses and a Highway for cars. I don't think cars are as efficient as a train, but what's the cost of high-speed rail vs the incremental saving? If our economy is good, and you can say a Canadians time is worth $20 an hour, then it's worth it. But if we're looking at mass unemployment and a collapsing CAD, and suddenly our time is worth half that, it's not worth it. The stimulus impact would be beneficial, but we have better projects that earn us export revenue to support the CAD to choose from. And frankly it's not as though the project is expected to break the ground in the next 5 years in any event..
    2
  849.  @thyrampantpigeon  It does more than the protect the left flank, it gives Ukraine a great deal of control over everything south of the Sejm without having to fight very hard for it. Aside from the advantage of having land for future swaps, Ukraine has had to defend their borders constantly. Having a river along the North will actually free up troops by creating a stronger defensive line. Russian troops are trappped between 3 Ukrainian controlled side and a river with little logistical support, giving Ukraine the ability to capture more POWs. At the same time as long as Russia controls the area, Russian Civilian goods are going to have a hard time entering, creating a negative political pressure. Also, this is an important agricultural area for Russia shortly before the harvest. Unless Ukraine is forced out very soon, farmers won't be able to sell that, unless possibly to Ukraine.
    2
  850. We have more refineries than that. Quebec city and Nanticoke, and Irving is the largest refinery in the country.
    2
  851. ​ @-LightningRod- In that case, I think you meant to say Corunna, not Clarkson. Clarkson is a lubricants plant, I believe it takes its feed stock from base oils refined from the Southern Ontario refineries. Also, there are two Sarnia regineries, Imperial is the bigger one, but Suncors is more than half the size. Also, I think at least the Quebec City refinery would likely be fed by the new pipeline, if done by ship. Irving is a harder sell...
    2
  852.  @polishtheday  Solar on Commercial roof tops, Solar over parking lots, and solar floating or raised over reservoirs or Canals - although idk how floating does when if freezes, so that may not be for Canada. Solar farms for Agrovolactics are also good. The issue is utility scale solar is much less expensive to install, and as panel costs drop, instillation costs become more relevant. Home+battery systems are definitely good, but also definitely not the only part. I think Solar + Geothermal could be revolutionary for the praries. And I think people underestimate how fundamentally 2hs of on site storage change reliability and grid stability.
    2
  853. Airports are one of the areas the US likely wouldn't allow, due to the impact on Russias nuclear arsenal.
    2
  854. Also Libya. Maybe don't be neighbors with Egypt idk. Also Ethiopia isn't looking great. Also Venezuela and Argentina are making noise.
    2
  855. Liquid chemistries don't work in the cold because, well, liquid freezes. Its like trying to use salty ice as a conductor. The dendrites form because preferencial paths form in the slush leading to an uneven ion distribution on the anode.
    2
  856. Since you mentioned the fentynal in Canada, it should be clear Trump is being perfectly rational, he's just lying. He very clearly wants to deindustrialize Ontario and move that industry to the rust belt. And Crash Oil sands prices. And in doing so crash the CAD and make other goods less expensive. If I wear my tinfoil hat, it's possible that once Canada is in an economic depression, the CIA will stir up pro American agitators and some helpful Red/White/Blue men will declare independence in Alberta. But the Fentynal is just a legal excuse to do all this; however, it should be clarified that the amount of fentynal seized at the border is a function of both fentynal smuggling and protection of the border, and while Mexico undoubtedly smuggled more, it's border is also far more monitored..
    2
  857. I'm confused, people are saying Bradley isn't a tank... But I never said it was?
    2
  858. @S9999Frank  oh i see. But to be fair, I said Military Vehicle. And 1 on 1 obviously a Challenger is going to beat a Bradley. I meant more in terms of cost to value ratio, ie if you have me 5 billion for procurement, I'd be buying a lot of Bradleys than tanks. But the point is definitely debatable, I'd feel pretty comfy in a Merkava.
    2
  859.  @TimJBenham  jesus
    2
  860.  @lukeasacher  money is a liquid asset or unit of debt, in which prices are denominated and values are expressed. And all I'm saying is the Government shouldn't create restrictions like 100% reserve requirements. And I don't believe 100% reserve banks would be commercially successful against lending institutions, and that if 100% reserve banks were required economic growth would be severely limited by the contraction of credit and inability for the market to expand the monetary base creating a deflationary environment.
    2
  861. @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
  862. This is exactly why we need tidal access. What benefit is there in keeping it in the ground? This will bankrupt the country, literally, when bank debts can not be repaid.
    2
  863. This would be why Carney has said any West Coast pipeline will have to carry decarbonized oil
    2
  864. Your comments around us being an energy provider to the US and that giving us leverage ignore that Canada's largest population center is Southern Ontario, where Oil supply is dependent on either Canadian or American oil running through US pipelines, and who's electrical supply relies on US NG at peak demand. We only have leverage if you ignore where they have it..
    2
  865. I think we're more likely to see 4 grids, BC-Alberta and Manitoba - Saskatchewan being largely seperate. Long term these may unify but its high hamging fruit, I think Manitoba and Ontario is probably more likely than Manitoba Alberta..
    2
  866. ​ @economicprisoner the issue would be that NG power plants aren't really royalty generating, NG wells are. Royalties only provide economic revenue When they are charged on an export you have a competitive advantage on. Otherwise, they are really just a sales tax or corporate tax. If you try and charge royalties on wind or solar, you either going to push down development or push up consumer electrical prices. Oil royalties work because it's cheaper to sell oil to the US for Alberta than anyone else (is willing to). Wyoming is looking at wind royalties. That might work, because the energy generated is meant to be exported to California, and can be produced cheaper than California can (at the relevant time). Although that is likely meant to be punitive in reality. Maybe it would work if Alberta had enough export capacity, but it's very different from and will almost certainly never scale to the level of O&G royalties.
    2
  867. ​ @lanabulmer6360 interprovincial trade barriers aren't a thing. You are saying time to give more power to the Federal government around regulation, licensing, and infrastructure, and take it away from provinces
    2
  868.  @chickenfishhybrid44  the Protectionism point is saying there are no tariffs. So BC wine can be sold without an Extra BC tax. Whether or no the government owned Liquor store decides to buy BC wine is a seperate concern..
    2
  869. ​ @Withnail1969 that isn't true. Wells were shut in during covid. If there is no where to store the oil, you can't produce it.
    2
  870. The issue is shale gas has become the significant source of oil. And shale wells have very short life cycles with a very high upfront production and quickly dropping off to nearly 0 within 3 years. So in the US, at least, you will see a rapid collapse in production. In fact, we're all ready seeing a collapse in new wells from the Shale industry over the last few years, with most wells being brought online being partially completed wells from prior to covid.
    2
  871. There is no reserve ratio in the use since 2020.
    2
  872. 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
  873. @olafthebear2327  I think the higher chinese tariffs are on specific goods, and the blanket is 10%, I may be mistaken. I'm not sure if the tariffs would stack. I assume so.
    2
  874.  @markbaker6553  I would say the reality is her views reflect a significant population, and there is no democratic way to shut out those views - not should there be, as much as I disagree with them
    2
  875.  @Niclas-ui1fh  It's not perfect (there being no universally accepted definition) but I usually use the term socialism to refer to state ownership of the means of production, and communism to refer to direct worker control. That to me seems to align with what we have seen (USSR and China being "Socialist", Yugoslavia being Communist), along with the historical priorities of communist and socialist political parties, and the view of socialism developing into Communism with the "withering of the state". The line between socialism and State Capitalism I would argue has more to do the exploitive nature of the interaction (the work place organizational structure), the extent to which the workers output is meant for their own (class) consumption vs an administrative class or export, and potentially the extent to which a market is used that attempts to make a profit at sale
    2
  876. Norway isn't considered totalitarian, and I believe the state owns ~80% of non real estate wealth. I don't really disagree that monopoly power structures tend towards authoritarianism, but I don't think this is more true of socialist societies than those with a free and profit driven investment market. I think this apparent trend is really just a result of the fact that societies that have undergone collapse are susceptible to totalitarianism, and many "socialist" states undergo such a collapses leading to the "socialist party's" control.
    2
  877.  @katoyoyo6454  That doesn't align with marxist writing, the goals of historical "Utopian communists", or fit the naming of states (in USSR for example an S stands for socialist, not Communist). I think your distinction mainly aligns with CIA propaganda messaging and the idea countries like Canada are socialist and good, while countries like China and Russia are communist and bad.
    2
  878. Can you provide a source for your regular claim of 10M bbl/d in heavy refinering capacity? I assume this is based on Cokers, but I'm not actually able to find what you are referencing.
    2
  879. I think it's clear they think private companies will pay for them, they just want no regulatory issues. I'm not saying I agree, an east coast pipeline will need direct financial support imo and west coast will still require assistance, but this is a strawman imo..
    2
  880. With a few small Changes I think China's system could constitute a democracy, if of a different form, and I agree with your point
    2
  881. I've heard that the times Russia "took advantage of a troop rotation" what actually has happened was Russia was taking ground previously, but the commander was afraid to tell higher ups they lost ground due to old soviet thinking, so just say everything is good and then when new troops show up and find out they can't get to the position because russians are there "oops, Russia took advantage". Any idea on this?
    2
  882. I regularly hear this bit about Trump not being reliable enough to make a deal with. I don't understand what the comment is really meant to mean. I agree, hes not reliable. But is the point that we them shouldn't negotiate? If so, what do we do? And whatever that is, does it not equally rely on some level of assumpt Trump will act rationally as well?
    2
  883.  @mzee5533  Or a local rebellion against the government.
    2
  884. I think India has remarkable promise here. The Desert in Rajasthan and the world's largest Mountains are 500km apart, which isn't "close", but a perfectly normal distance. And New Delhi is smack dab in the center, so it's really 250km of transmission for either. Enormous solar beside enormous pumped hydro potential. And in the monsoon season, the only period you have concerns of any cloud cover at all, the Hydroreserviors are of course at their fullest. There is probably also some space for wind in the evening or monsoon season, but with solar and hydro India has nearly infinite free energy at its disposal. India isn't the only country like this, though
    2
  885.  @VeniVidiVid  no one is arguing there are no limits. Banks borrow and use that to leverage investments, and increase the money supply while doing so by making loans. But because they make productive investments, this is not inflationary. The point is only that the government can create money to make an investment or fund a program, and the economic growth will expand the tax base enough to collect the created money. That doesn't mean there is an infinite number of productive spending activities. It doesn't mean that the returns will fully cover the program. It just means that if economic activity and the tax base expand because of the spending, the increased demand for dollars can balance out the money creation. Again, as banks do when making loans. The dialogue around MMT is mainly to push the idea that we should focus more on the productivity of our spending programs rather than looking at the deficit or surplus in a tax and spending plan.
    2
  886. I cannot believe how quick you are to advocate being dependent on them for trade flows..
    2
  887. Not related to your video,but you should know of all you tubers, you are the only one I don't skip the little ad. Genuinely funny stuff, makes me smile. You should have a reel of your goat gun or Raycon ads. Or shorts. I'd just watch those sometimes.
    2
  888. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p the three pillars of the stool seem to be cheaper energy, more capital investment, and less expensive housing. But resource development is pretty clearly a priority itsel Edit; I missed AI. Carney has demonstrated high hopes for using AI to greatly reduce costs of both Government and private sectors, but also clearly believes it needs to be used responsibly. To avoid inappropriate videos, but let us do 5 times more.
    2
  889. Ya tariffs on China make sense. But I don't think the US has higher income or corporate taxes than Canada or the US. And if it does, and your right that this is the issue, why would the solution be to declare trade war on the world instead of just passing a sales tax and cutting income taxes?
    2
  890. In your examples of countries not surrendering, you left out North Korea, who's population still hasn't turned on the government because of the impact of hating the Americans caused by this exact form of warfare.
    2
  891. ​ @barrybrand2970 the expensive part of nuclear is building the capacity. It has near 0 marginal cost. So building it to cover peak demand is a massive overbuild. Its far more economical to use storage, ie batteries, to charge overnight and add supply at peak. That is why russia has the most pumped hydro storage in the world. And why Switzerland buys nuclear from france at night for pumped hydro they sell back in the day. Batteries do that but scalably.
    2
  892. ​ @daemenoth I agree Hydrogen for heating homes is a non-starter. But Conversion efficiency doesn't matter in the long over even medium term; energy abundance will make peak output prices inconsequential. Hydrogen can cover a variety of markets, not just niche markets, but the daily duck curve and maybe up to 100h storage will be dominated by batteries. But beyond that Hydrogen may be relevant.
    2
  893. One caveat I want to call out, and a reason I support Canada Oil sands above other oil, is that a barrel of Gasoline and a barrel of Diesel and a barrel of lubricant are by and large not interchangeable products. They all come from a barrel of oil, but they are different fractions of that barrel. A little under 10% of a barrel is going to be usable in producing Lubricant. So if 10 bbl/s of lubricants are needed, 100 bbls of oil were needed, even if the other components were used for something else. Unless of course, it's from the Oil Sands, where you could turn an entire barrel of bitumen into Lubricant, or Diesel, or gasoline.
    2
  894.  @account-369  I wouldn't call the EU an empire in the same sense, but I agree. I'm confused why you're telling OP to cope. The modern Russia to Nazi Germany and modern China to Soviet comparison seems within reason.
    2
  895. Have they tried simply upzoning and moving to a split tax rate/lamd valie tax? I also am supprised to here you say a car dealership generates more revenue than houses per acre. I have my doubts, do you have an example?
    2
  896.  @Michael-vc2cs  I would have the same issue if it were courting left wing, I don't mind political bias, but I don't like when it's framing the conversation, and I really don't like when it looks like the bias is being driven by a desire to sell. In this video the example being selling testosterone pills while talking about men becoming feminized
    2
  897. I've heard people suggest conscription of anyone over 65 in Canada to report their healthcare spending a NATO 2% lol.
    2
  898. 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
  899. Before people from the West are triggered, its not quite the same as the Wheat board. Producers aren't required to sell, it's not a monopoly (monopsony), the Commodity banks would buy on the free market when prices are cheap and sell when high.
    2
  900. If anything she is saying that if spending is disconnected from actual goods and productive capacity inflation is the result, and monitoring that should be the primary concern of government's making spending decisions.
    2
  901. @objectivethinker3225 I would never want to be associated to Stephanie Kelson, but i would point out that Companies don't stop borrowing when things are going well, if anything they borrow and expand more. I don't believe our public infrastructure should be viewed as a make work scheme. I don't see an issue in borrowing to build a new railway school or electrical transmission, whether the economy is in recession or growth. In fact, I think the private sector can react and plan better if infrastructure is planned and built on long time horizons. All of which is to say, I don't think "spend in bad times save in good" is really the best policy in comparison to targetting a decreasing debt to GDP ratio.
    2
  902. ​ @koltoncrane3099 The main argument of MMT is the government should just take over the Federal reserves role, and so there wouldn't be any owners to take advantage of the US government. As for the other comment, I wouldn't blame the EPA, not destroying North America is a good thing. But there should be environmental tariffs on foreign imports.
    2
  903.  @willnitschke  It's important to note that the Hyperinflation in Wiemar was also largely a result of the French Occupation of the Rhine and subsequent mass strike. The government had been printing money and high levels of inflation were the norm, but the hyperinflation with people burning money happened when they printed money while shutting down their economy. But ya I agree the level of power MMT suggests giving a government is a risk. I would only question if it's not significantly worse than the status quo, how it compares to the extent to which Fed policy is already done in league with the Treasury, and if it isn't more transparent.
    2
  904. In some ways this is worse. Now there will be no negative reaction from Canada. But the tariff is only paused. Investors won't invest on that. If it were about the border, this package, released a month ago, would have gotten rid of the problem.
    2
  905. ​ @1krani Value is absolutely subjective. The tenth glass of water is worth less to me than the first 9, and yet worth far more to a person who hasn't drank in days. Iron ore is worth very little to me, without a blast furnace, but worth more ti someone producing steel. Price is Objective. Its the value being asked for. It may be negotiable, but the final price in dollars is the same if I'm the one who bought it, or sold it, or watched the interaction, or am reviewing it decades later.
    2
  906. ​ @Richest_Person_in_the_World Economic arguably isn't a science at all, since you can't run repeatable hypothetical experiments
    2
  907.  @1krani  What? Value is the one that is different to multiple people in differing situations. That's subjective. Price is a number recorded and an amount of currency transferred in an exchange. People may negotiate changes to price, but the price they pay is still an objective amount.
    2
  908. ​​ @peterbutz642 again, Alberta isn't subsidizing CPP. People work in Alberta, and then move to other provinces. Im skeptical Alberta will leave CPP, but ots already been ruled that $300 billion is higher then the due amount. And just like QPP, Alberta would then have to pay people in other provinces.
    2
  909. Why do you want to stop exporting food to the Saudis?
    2
  910.  @jeffnewell1211  probably camel feed in this case. Colorado definitely needs to figure out it's water, but worth remembering alfalfa is all good for the soil, creates a bumper stock for farmers, and reduces fertilizer use.
    2
  911. ​ @fullfrost zero product?
    2
  912. @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
  913.  @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
  914. @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
  915. Yes but not all land is equal. You'd be foolish to think some strech of Siberian Tundra is equivalent to what is some of the key farm land in Russia. The Ukrainian push obviously isn't meant to replace what Russia has taken, but (along with possibly more), it does the following Creates a refugee crisis within Russia, which will not only change the local populations view on the security of the country but as the spread through the country looking for housing disseminate that message widely. And those refugees aren't only from currently held areas, but as discussed anywhere south of the Sjem is now going to have a hard time filling grocery stores if it remains russian held, and people in boardering regions will question staying. Those refugees will not be able to harvest the grain planted in the region, causing a regional depression and hurting Russian exports and food prices The Sjem river offers a stronger defensive position, reducing the cost of defending against border incursions which Ukraine has faced since Russia attempted to create a "buffer zone" Forces Russia to fight on Russian Soil and destroy Russian homes, property, and infrastructure, with the real and political costs associated, potentially including Gas lines running to Europe that Ukraine has left operational for fear of EU response. Cuts off Rail lines to the south and east straining Russian Logistics in boarder attacks and Bolograd - and potentially shut down the Nuclear reactor which would strain the electrified railways that offer logistics in the region. Allows the seemingly painless capture of over 2000 Russian troops who have the political impact of being conscripts from the richer west of Russia, hurting the political support and allowing for Ukraine to trade for more valuable better trained units captured by Russia.
    2
  916.  @solidfoelife  Also, isn't the mighty Russian military supposed to be able to beat NATO? Like in Russian Territory? imagine if there were actual NATO troops involved lol Russia basically only exists because the US wants it to is what you're saying.
    2
  917.  @no_rubbernecking  I understand you're point, but I don't think anyone is actually concerned with a single drone flying briefly over Romania before returning to international waters. It's not a genuine risk to security in any form. If a dozen drines at once were ignored, I think you would have a stronger point. But at the time being I think not using anti air defense is the wise decision.
    2
  918. I agree with the issues you're describing for the oilsands future. I just wish you would talk about solutions - outside Carbon Fiber. I don't see you pushing for us to become involved in the global trade of lubricants or asphalt and building those refineries. I don't see you talking about SMRs in the oilsand, which is clearly our best launch pad industry, to lower those emissions and production costs. You'll mention Upgraders occasionally as a way to reduce pipeline necessity, but never in the context that it provides a bottomsless crude any refinery in the world can handle for heavy RPPs. You have held interviews where its discussed, but you never mention our competitive advantage as an oil producer moving forward as EVs pushout high gasoline yeilding barrels. I get that you don't think we should let big industry get away with bad math. But the Oilsands are To Big To Fail. They are the basis of a provincial economy, they are heavily connected to the financial system, and they have environmental liabilities we don't want them to abandon. We are in the same point we were with the banks in 2007, allowing failure would be disastrous. But where it is different is we are early, we are before the bankruptcies, and we can recapitalize and regulate the industry into something useful at a much lower cost than waiting to bail it out in the future.
    2
  919.  @tallbrian100  Or keep the lights on like a country that has the most advanced deep drilling in the world, or like the country thats had nuclear reactor technology since before my parents were born, or like a country today with the ability to produce massive amounts of wind power on a continental scale for a fraction of the cost of coal. Or several other options. Never forget that 40% of the US is 0% of some of your most populated states. But I guess all the mercury and lead coal releases has gotten to your head.
    2
  920.  @RobertJagersky  SAGD is steam injected into the Bitumen to heat it. Steam is water. The Natural gas is being burnt to turn the liquid water into steam. And that water comes from underground aquifers or recycled from the Bitumen extracted. So in the oilsands, I guess the answer is where the water already comes from. For electrical power, where I think better transmission lines with BC is probably the better answer, the answer is probably a river. Since nuclear plants don't consume water, they just raise the temperature a few degrees before putting it back.
    2
  921. @bhut1571  well, the idea is to convert one of those NG lines to carry oil. I think there is a lot of reason to do this, both lowering our imports and ensuring secure supply from the US.
    2
  922. ​ @PandemoniumMeltDown I mean, that isn't what happened. Well, it is what HAPPENED, but the idea was agriculture would improve, not worsen.
    2
  923.  @jasonito23  gotta mention Nixtamalization when talking corn based diets.
    2
  924.  @lennonzamora5387  I actually hate YouTube because you can't post links, but look up Dan Davis. He has an excellent video on the history of food in Europe, it doesn't go into the iceage (because we don't have the evidence to) but it does explore the pre-agricultural hunter gathers. I genuinely think you'll enjoy.
    2
  925. Importantly, my understanding is that heavy oilsands emissions would be counted toward national emissions, and then a carbon tax rate based on the national emissions would be applied to all Canadian exports. So high oilsands emissions will increase the price of all Canadian goods. And also, a carbon tax won't be accepted as lowering the tariff, it will only be valuable in as much it reduces national emissions
    2
  926. So emissions plays a big role in the potential markets of Asia and Europe, but not in the current market of the US? It's almost as though we are seeing Carney support building new pipelines to these markets to give industry incentive to decarbonize. Almost as though he has explicitly said that any oil in a West Coast pipeline must be decarbonized, and that this is the compromise for decarbonization.
    2
  927.  @markbaker6553  I agree completely. Definitely an area we should develop. This certainly goes to the value added exports we should be pursuing. My point is 2050 should be clearer about actual goals like this, you can't just say Value Added and Renewable energy. Can you name a manufacturer/where they are located, I couldn't find anything.
    2
  928. Agreed and it does. The highly regional effect of leaks I think deserves more attention as well.
    2
  929.  @markbaker6553  yes Carney definitely has the better policy package. I would argue a project only has an opportunity cost in as much as you have a limited budget. I mean if we get to the point we are making so much investment it's increasing wages, good problems to have.
    2
  930. @jesseparrish1993  Okay, but consider that most of the NG being produced, particularly in the South, is a by-product of oil production. Not the goal. Prices would have to rise significantly for that to change. I'm not saying you can't increase both. But I am saying investors won't invest in more production without a clear understanding of take away capacity. Amainly I'm saying is having Permits based on commitment is important. The overall freeze on new permits isn't ideal, but the concern is the currently issued permits that aren't being developed because future supply and demand is unclear. US produces way more LNG than Russia or Qatar already. LNG exports are far less important than rebuilding manufacturing imo. And NG prices impact the average personas heating and electric price, not just Cheniere's profits. Plus, China imports LNG to feed their own manufacturing sector, its imported to their coastal cities for industry. So either you're just making it cheaper for China to compete, or you have a bunch of tariffs and suddenly chinese demand collapses, and LNG prices tank. Or LNG goes to Europe, and when Ukraine and Russia are done killing eachother, Europe is going to start buying some level of Russian pipeline gas again. Definitely not as much as before but again you're pushing down global LNG demand. I just don't think LNG exports are all that valuable compared to bringing back manufacturing and raising standards of living with cheap energy. But again you can do all these things, I'm not against LNG. But you need to know the take away capacity for producers to invest, and having a bunch of Permits but no one building doesn't help anyone. Edit: and the freeze was unfortunate, but you can't say you are rewriting the rules without a freeze, or else you will be flooded with requests for permits under the current system before the new rules kick in, and then no one will apply under the new system and you will have no idea of what the intent of permit holders is.
    2
  931.  @jesseparrish1993  but it's been good talking with you as well, certainly the best YouTube conversation of my day
    2
  932. David Freidman is incorrect in his portrayal of his Father's theory on the driver of the depression; the vast majority of banks that failed were not members of the Fed system or protected as a Lender of last resort. In fact, the criticism of the federal reserve is exactly that it restricted loans to member banks.
    2
  933.  @hammerclench3135  he would definitely be comparing operations. Only Imperial sells PFT Bitumen from a mine. Everyone else upgrades, although there is a CNRL mine with PFT treatment before upgrading. But the new mines are less expensive? And the new mines are the PFT. They run all automatted equipment was my understanding, the old mines having much higher labour costs. Idk, my understanding is that mining and upgrading is about $60 a barrel, and WTI is below that right now. So that would matter.
    2
  934. Markham you are missing the entire context of your conversation. Bitumen has no long term high value future; super abundance of Energy will mean air can produce any material Bitumen can. Bitumen is a use it or lose it resource.
    2
  935. ​​ @beatreuteler In terms of 50 years? I agree.. In terms of the scale of the oilsands resource? If we stopped producing bitumen for fuel, and only used it to produce materials, we would get no where close to depletion. Even using it for fuel and Materials, we will never deplete the resource before fossil hydrocarbons are irrelevant. Remember, none of this is happening because it is economic. It is happening because China refuses to depend on imports. China isn't going to be happy depending on imports for their carbon fiber or activated carbon either; not when they are the center of Energy abundance. The same technology is what is needed for energy to fuel, China will be throwing money at commercializing it for the next decade.
    2
  936. So on one hand I think this may likely be the start of a permanent downturn. While I agree it is not structurally caused, if there isn't some greatly unexpected turn around from the US, this cyclical depression will lead into global structural changes, and while there will be an upswing it won't peak. I think the low price environment will disproportionately hit the first generation bitumen mining operations and upgraders around Fort McMurray and cause permanent closures of production. And that would disproportionately impact employment in the oil sands, since mines are far more labour intensive, and the old mines specific as the last two built are almost entirely automated. So there may be a structural change as a result. And secondarily, conventional producers will be able to keep selling at low prices, but new drilling, which is where the employment is. That will likely swing back in the future, although I'd be surprised if it reaches this level. Although, if we're clever, geothermal could reach this level by then, which would be a very good structural change. On the other hand, I do think Alberta could outcompete OPEC if sufficient capacity were available. And specifically in regard to an Energy east line carrying upgraded syncrude, I would suggest there are benefits to buying domestic for a declining but still critical element of our energy system. Particularly since that Syncrude locks in demand to those mines.
    2
  937.  @johnrickard8512  Oil Sands is the better and longer term solution.
    2
  938.  @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
  939.  @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
  940. Surprised no one has said, but the North Korean army. And if Ukraine were to fail and this is a discussion of a future war, the Ukrainian.
    2
  941. @yodieyuh 3/6)  And perhaps more significantly, Ukrainian equipment is largely outdated or unwanted NATO material. Take all the M113s and Humvees. That's all stuff the US government wanted to write off and while they have some usage are not fit for frontline use. MRAPs have been more of a success, which NATO over built for Afghanistan, and was planning on retiring enormous numbers, and still hold enormous numbers, and they have proven somewhat effective for mine fields, even though they are nearly entirely armoured.
    2
  942.  @cr90captain89  ICBMs are only easy to intercept on the accent stage and there is no missile defense network close enough to Russia for that
    2
  943. ​ @Xazamas  California still imports a fair amount, as the California market is cut off from the country by pipeline due to the mountains, mainly from Iraq I believe. The East coast of the US also imports a large amount of refined product, mainly from New Brunswick in Canadian, which processes Saudi crude.
    2
  944.  @rightwingsafetysquad9872  Bakken crude is exceedingly light, almost lighter fluid. It's the original shale patch and getting old, which means lighter. Very different from Canadian oil sands. Also no problem.
    2
  945. Chinese coal on the better end is probably comparable to US NG on the worse end because their plants are quite a bit more efficient. That said, I still support US production of NG from fracking for supplying LNG exports. But methane leaks need better regulation and enforcement, and one of these easier things that need to be is electrifying the turbines that move gas through pipelines. Not only is burning NG to power those wasteful, is a point of high leakage..
    2
  946. I support nuclear, but I think some of the arguments here are very bias Blaming Germany's coal consumption on shutting down nuclear is unfair when obviously the disruption of Natural Gas is a main player, and coal use today is below where it was when the (admittedly bad) choice was made. The emissions of 2 natural gas plants, which are going to operate off cycle with renewables, is obviously a very lower level of pollution. The US does have absurd laws that make nuclear more dangerous, and plants shouldn't be storing decades of waste on sight.
    2
  947. What I can predict is a shadow fleet tanker crashing into a port or off the coast and creating a massive oil spill
    2
  948. I have also seen claims the Sumerians were a Harrapin colony.
    2
  949. You are exactly right that OPEC is playing for Market Share. We should not let them take it. We should also play for market share. Obviously oilsands company CEOs are going to be risk adverse; they're oil CEOs. We have to make them, carrots or stick, invest regardless.
    2
  950. @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
  951. @Myart2607  I agree we don't know. But we need to be actively engaging.
    2
  952. Everything she said was obviously great, if you have her back I would suggest discussing how urban forests impact humidity. Of all the crazy people, the craziest seem to be people against trees in cities. And I think one of the most common bogus arguments I see is that trees make it more humid and feel hotter. Also, obviously this was heat themed, but on the otherside flooding control can be a huge benefit. Lastly, from the Energy perspective, I would love to hear how this can interact with Biomass.
    2
  953. @River_68  Alberta has been speaking about renewable mandates under multiple governments before Trump was ever elected.
    2
  954. I really like the work Alberta innovates has done. And believe it will provide an advantage in Carbon Fiber production. But in the longer term of 50-100 years, energy abundance from Solar will mean captured CO2 is the basis of any Carbon material. It makes absolutely no semse to save Bitumen in the ground for the future. Use it for beyond combustion, use it for combustion, there will be oil left in the ground when the transition is over its such a large resource; but it is a use it or lose it resource.
    2
  955.  @dianefromcanada  Yes well your user name has Canada in it so you may be bias
    2
  956. I do have to say to the WW3 point, we do in fact have war in Africa, both Lybia and Sudan, the rest of the Sahel saw recent coups, and Ethiopia is a tinder box. We also have war with potential to rapidly escalate in the middle east and Korea.
    2
  957. Just the water bugs and the snails.
    2
  958. ​ @commandercorl1544 ya everyone laughs at Polish cavalry as though they were in chain mail. And it should be noted half the German tanks used had been stolen from the Czechs.
    2
  959. There is no way for Canada to export LNG on the Atlantic coast. The only exceptions would be Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.
    2
  960.  @drstevej2527  The Side Effects of Immunity: Malaria and African Slavery in the United States Elena Esposito
    2
  961.  @drstevej2527  Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana were the main Cotten producers and the most reliant on both slave and African labour. The majority of the south is Humid semi tropical, and that humidity makes it a very different environment from Southern Europe. Citation was in a seperate comment.
    2
  962.  @samuelmorales2344  I am repeating 3 district claims. 1. Malaria was introduced to North America by Early explores. This does not appear to be in dispute. 2. Hook worm made people in general in the south "lazy". Or rather, chronically ill and exhausted. This is well attested to in literature and was well understood in the 1930s when elimination efforts were undertaken (by the government and Rockefeller foundation) to increase productivity in the south. 3. That Malaria disproportionately effected non sub Saharan populations with high mortality rates. This is the point that appears to be under- what is to me a suprising amount of- contention. I have pointed to peer reviewed papers. Malaria being a deadly illness in the South is well attested and led to national erratiction efforts. I'm certainly not saying other disease don't matter, only that Malaria matters heavily, to the point the African interior was a near death sentence for Europeans until a cure was invented. I even refered to another disease, hook worm, in the top comment. Other disease obviously matter, all those you've listed help to explain why Native American slavery was not nearly as predominant as African. In regards to Nigeria, you are nearly arguing my point for me, as it is both in a Malaria zone and the people have a natural immunity. And in regards to natural disaster setting people back...they do? Just because something can be overcome doesn't mean it doesn't have an affect. Idk how, for example, someone could suggest Puerto Rico isn't negatively affected by hurricanes.
    2
  963. In terms of Agriculture, we should be looking at Pleistocene Park. We could be converting massive swaths of Tundra to grassland we can use as grazing land to take pressure of rainforests, and in doing so not only make them Carbon Sinks with the Grass, but also lock in permafrost methane by lowering soil temperatures
    2
  964.  @RichardTaylor1630  exactly, the majority of Republicans still voted against. The real question is why Trump got supportive
    2
  965. Thorium just isn't as good as Uranium. I'd be happy to see Thorium used, CANDUs can use Thorium, but there aren't good Thorium ores, and it's not overly advantageous. Sure, in theory it's harder to make a bomb; but you still have to constantly monitor plants to ensure people aren't slipping in Uranium to make plutonium for a bomb..
    2
  966. Okay, but you are being misleading when you say Suncor paid 47¢ a barrel, because you are averaging what they paid in total over all their barrels and that conflates their SAGD operations and Mining operations. The SAGD operations, because they have been on line for a decade and expanded to over 100k bbl/d, are fairly low emitters. But they produce DilBit exported without any added value to the US, where refineries with Cokers then emit carbon to upgrade the Bitumen into lighter Hydrocarbons. The Mining operations, however, are incredibly high cost barrels, and because they upgrade the Bitumen domestically, far more carbon intensive within the scope of Canadian Carbon pricing. The SAGD operations are monsters that will never stop and will pay people to take our no value added bitumen away if they have to. The Mining operations are the majority of employment, the entire economy of Fort McMurray, pay a much higher price per for carbon emissions while being much more expensive. And it's not as though the bitumen upgraded in the US produces less carbon; that is why they are claiming it makes them uncompetitive..
    2
  967. I don't know, might be a net positive now that the US is a major oil producer/exporter. A war in the Persian Gulf would send us back to hundred dollar barrels.
    2
  968. I think when we talk about the oil sands, we really need to do a better job dividing between the Insitu (SAGD) and Mining operations. When we discuss environmental liabilities, we are discussing almost entirely Tailings ponds. And that is entirely a product of Mining. I would say we need a Production (not emissions) cap on the Mining Sector, with a plan to ramp down and end production over 25 years, with the quotas for production based on tailings reductions. However, to pay for that, we should be encouraging an increase in the SAGD operations. That provides the revenue for the companies to operate and fund reclamation, and doesn't have abandoned wells or tailings waste. SAGD is the main growth vector already. However, it is currently higher emissions, and I do believe we should remove the emissions cap. That is not to excuse them from the industrial carbon price, but oil sands emissions are not wrose than those of other sectors. The point of a carbon price is to reduce the least valuable emissions. And it should be mentioned that per barrel costs and emissions fall as SAGD output grows, a hypothetical doubling of SAGD production would not result in a corresponding doubling of emissions, and would increase competitiveness across fields. I do think focusing to deeply on the domestic emissions of an export oriented sector is a mistake. But more importantly, the solution here clearly must be technology, and specifically, imo, it has to be SMRs. And to decouple Oilsands from NG, and associated fracking emissions, we should be requiring a diluent mixing requirement such that an increasing fraction of dilutent is SCO, reducing the amount of NG condensate used, which is currently the majority of diluent.
    2
  969. @mikesmith-nj1ij  I assume this is sarcasm but I don't know why you think it has to be posted
    2
  970.  @vanhoot2234  I think it's among my best policy ideas. They buy capital for us, and we buy capital from them. Which sounds like BS, but I think it's a pretty achievable sale. I also think we could get Europe to pay for some of a TransCanada line, because we need to build it anyway, and it doesn't double cost to double the size, so they would probably be willing to invest in the upgrade.
    2
  971.  @Dman6779  lol this has nothing with a "petrodollar" it wouldn't matter if we used clam shells as currency, the issue is the US and Canada rely heavily on petroleum exports, and China as the world's largest importer as the dual incentive of cutting demand to improve its trade position and push North America into recession. The price of oil has to do with the profitability of producing it, and shale fracking and oil sands mining isn't cheap. Low oil prices bother the Saudis and Russians but they kill us. I'm not clear where your rant is going at the end. Yes we need to move off oil. We don't need to see the North American industry collapse while low prices push the rest of the world to use more and us to import it. If you want to reduce oil use, you want high prices.
    2
  972.  @Dman6779 I'm going to start by saying Ukrainian bombing of Russian refineries doesn't really impact US oil prices, Biden is more concerned about the appearance as he goes into an election, and of trying to lower global inflation and global oil prices, both to lower the cost of imports and bring supply chain inflation down, and to maintain European support. To your TL;DR, I agree completely, losing energy security is exactly what I'm afraid of, I don't want a crash in prices destroying the North American Oil industries and making us reliant on imports of both oil and Chinese renewables. oil has a massive effect on the economy because it fuels cars and transport, Petro chemicals in the North East and Gulf coast, is a major part of the economy in the South west, and represents 15% of US exports and is a major component to the balance of trade. In Canada it's not only 15% of exports, Alberta is also the region with the highest per capita incomes, and many of those jobs are oil sands related. Our progressive tax system will mean that a very large drop in income tax revenue is at stake, along with a large portion of Albertas government royalties, and Federal revenue for oil. Oil sands mining, where a lot of the good blue collar jobs are focused, is a very regional affair focused in fort McMurray, and those Mining jobs won't survive a year of low prices. So you're looking at a sizable city in complete collapse, a provincial depression as 10s of thousands of the provinces highest earners going on Unemployment and oil taxes disappear, and a national depression as a dollar weaken with our balance of trade, banks (particularly RBC) see massive losses, our precarious property market dies, and our Stock market crashes. But I see what you are saying, and I would like to see a smart wind down of the oil industry toward geothermal (Eavor is a promising company) with fracking and SAGD oil sands in particular being technologies well suited to have investment redirected to digging wells and pumping hot fluid. I'm Canadian, and I really want to see more material manufacturering with bitumen production to diversify the oil sands industry itself. Bitumen has an advantage in producing Carbon Fiber, and I would like to see Alberta become a major producer on the global market. I'd also like to see the NG industry refocus toward hydrogen production, although generally I support the LNG operations in the US Gulf (although Canadian LNG is largely DOA). And of course greater diversity of industry in general in building solar and wind and EVs, and in Canada in particular Mining material for supply chains. But that doesn't just happen. It certainly doesn't happen if the industry collapses and government revenues collapse. You need to develop technologies, build infrastructure, attact or invest in manufacturing. I think this is very urgent, but the times lines to open a mine are still a decade. And China isn't cutting its oil demand because it's worried about climate change, it's trying to beat us in a race that will decide where energy comes from. I'd also like to see a Pipeline Called eagle spirit built to bring another Mbbl/d to the Pacific, although I'm against DilBit exports on the North coast, but I'd like to see a large 100kbbl/d asphalt plant, a 200kbbl/d Diesel specific plant, a 300kbbl/d refinery tuned to Californian standards and that can supply Jet fuel to Vancouver, and a 400kbbl/d partial upgrade to sell a Heavy Syncrude to Asia/California. Which maybe you're not going to love, but right now 90% of our exports go to Chicago, and I'd like to see that getting a better price.
    2
  973. I think this is really a non issue with battery storage becoming commercialized. The 2h units we see being built now deal with the frequency control, which allows them to buy and sell power regularly through the day and provide return on capital. Which also lets you turn off NG plants, and since a 2h reserve into the evening is available, let's you uprate NG plants to Cogeneration. Of course, Storage like this works best with Solar. I think as we see Solar with short batteries grow in capacity we'll see existing NG plants uprated in this way to grow NG capacity for the night periods, while burning less gas overall by not operating inefficiently in the day to load follow and not operating overcapacity in the evening. In terms of wind in Alberta though, the simple solution is connections between Edmonton-Site C and Calgary-revelstoke. Allows you to sell power to BC and California when it's windy (less over supply on the local grid let's NG operate at raised levels constantly), while importing cheap Hydro when it's not to avoid NG plants monopolizing prices. We already have the Calgary - Edmonton connections. On the coal point, particularly in Texas where fracking to produce all the NG has such significant leakage, a critical Coal plant might actually be lower emissions - likewise in Alberta where NG is coming from fracking in the North West. It's what China has been doing since they don't have gas, you hear all about China building coal capacity but it's much more efficient than people realize. The much higher capital cost is the killer, imo, since expectations are storage will drop enough to outcompete, whereas NG has less risk of stranded assets. But I do have to point out most coal stations are not bituminous, and that is more expensive than more common Lignite. I'd also like to see large oil Sands SAGD operations move to Nuclear steam production, and through Cogeneration provide a relatively stable baseload to industry around Edmonton. And I'm very hopeful for the investment that's gone into Hydrogen in Alberta. Hydrogen might be an excellent way to adsorb solar and particularly wind surpluses. If cheap hydrogen can be produced, then you can upgrade any carbon feedstock into synthetic NG. It won't matter if it's from coal, or ideally, bitumen, adding Hydrogen can get you all the petrochemicals and light fuel you need without methane emissions from Fracking. I think the best possible outcome would be an upgrader in BC at the end of Transmountain able to produce oil to order specifications to sell to a premium to refineries who need it to balance other blends bought on the market.
    2
  974. I'm really hoping this is a satirical comment.
    2
  975. I think there is a reasonable chance to seeing an East and West Russia form along the Urals. East Russia as a Chinese puppet state/nuclear enabled paria state similar to North Korea, and West Russia as the majority of the population in a democratic form supported by uprising, Ukrainian/NATO support, and EU patronage. If you start seeing unrest in the West, it isn't a hard sell to imagine Russian leaders fleeing east (they're already in the Urals) and the Chinese stepping in in the east to protect economic assets (oil and gas wells), prevent unrest on the boarder, and of course avoid a western aligned country to thier North. You might also see a few fallout states, Tartarstan, Chechnya, Dagestan form, and Kazakhstan may change its boarders a little bit by short term stabilization operations on its boarder and support to cities like Orenburg, which lead to long term gains to keep a balance between the two Russias.
    2
  976.  @justinaccurate347  Do you have actual opinions/thoughts on this?
    2
  977. Great stuff, but would have been good to talk about how long chain saturated fats are transported in the blood with lipid balls, and how those are impacted and damaged by high blood sugar levels. So butter is much healthier if you get a steak in it and eat a salad than if you make cream sauce for pasta.
    2
  978. Why? By using accurate information?
    2
  979. Its crazy how many times in the last month Ukraine has launched "the biggest attack to date". Clearly drone production is accelerating rapidly. I imagine there is also some "use it or lose it" use of ATCAMs at well in case Trump removes long range approvals. But still the drones are only going to keep coming.
    2
  980. 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
  981. It wouldn't require more refineries as much as a pipeline going east to connect existing ones. Maybe a refinery in Ottawa.
    2
  982. Can you cite where the 10M bbl/d comes from for heavy crude? It seems roughly corrent but I have not been able to track down exactly what is being considered.
    2
  983. ​ @cinnybear9 because it yields middle distillates and base oils, along with bitumen used for asphalt binder and potentially carbon fiber etc. As EVs grow, they will displace gasoline. That will specifically reduce demand for light and medium crudes. Most refineries are designed to be focused on the Gasoline market, those tea pot refineries will be the first to shut down as gasoline prices crash in the glut. Albian heavy synthetic and Western Canadian Access both sell at near the level of WTI, sometimes above it. It will be the heavy refineries that operate longest and long into the future jet fuel and other heavy and irreplaceable products. The Shale ultra light drillers are already shutting down. Shale wells only last a few years, if drilling continues to collapse, it will be over by 2030 taking a few million bbl/d off the market. Gasoline will increasingly be cracked for Naphtha pushing down the value until petrochemical demand is met. Light and medium producers will lose the value from Naphtha and gasoline, and as the lightest increasingly get pushed out taking both the existing Naphtha and gasoline fractions out of supply, that will continue to open up space for more Gasoline produced at a lower ratio from heavier crudes to be diverted to that market. Until eventually energy to liquids technology is developed and commericalized, at which point that will continue to reduce the market for the lightest Hydrocarbons, eating the market for Naphtha, until finally being used for heavy RPPs.
    2
  984.  @ryuuguu01  I think you are mistaken on the low price of EVs. The advantage of EVs has always been low maintenance cost, and the disadvantage high capital cost. While I agreed 2 months ago EVs were more competitive, OPEC always had the ability to decide ICE were less expensive.
    2
  985.  @sebyst7907  that isn't how energy markets work? At all? That's like saying if I buy a Chinese EV I need to charge it with Chinese electricity lol..
    2
  986. I would argue the Carbon tax was definitely part of industrial policy. Not only to encourage investment in industry, but you can see the goal of driving EV adoption and market growth on the consumer side. Trudeau even included payment for difference contracts with EV manufactures if the Carbon tax was later repealed, because it would impact the ability of them to grow.
    2
  987. @MachineMindDesigns  ya I agree. I am just saying the RU military is nothing to sneeze at, the UA military is an incredibly competent and powerful military itself, and fighting on the defensive. I'd say the RU military today is significantly better than 2 years ago, tbh, although 2 years ago I was in the minority that thought it was a paper tiger.
    2
  988.  @Darthdog4957  Donald Trump's incompetency being what it is, the US wasn't exactly winning in Afghanistan prior. I'm just saying. Fighting a war is difficult stuff, even if you're really good at it.
    2
  989. Respect for saying Russia could in fact use a Nuke. I think its unlikely and shouldn't dominate our strategic policy, but I'm tired of most commenters acting like its utterly impossible.
    2
  990.  @ngolong4070  This is interesting to me. I am by no means an expert, and it's been a few years since I was "into" socialist ecomomies. Any interesting articles you'd throw my way?
    2
  991.  @ngolong4070  I didn't think corruption was as big an issue. It's lower than China though, right? I actually kind of like that a fair part of the economy is informal, I would like to see that more in North America (food vendors, small scale farmers). And the resulting tax system. A reasonable amount of revenue also comes from state corperations, no? Thats cool. I know its not perfect, but it's one of the few countries outside the western world I'd consider moving to.
    2
  992.  @derunfassbarebielecki  I don't disagree with your experience or the nature of states such as USSR being corrupt and inequal. I think you miss understand how many union men/strikers died in Western countries over the life of the USSR though. But while the command control economies of eastern Europe were a failure, you do have examples such as Vietnam where the standard of living is higher than neighboring neoliberal states. I'd also consider Norway, as the government owns something like 80% of non real estate wealth through various wealth funds and public corperations. I'm not trying to support Socialism, just to understand it.
    2
  993.  @jeffbenton6183  Hey, reply when ever, I'm always in the mood to discuss these things.
    2
  994. I agree, but also the channel would be smart to space out videos to release one a day instead of occasional dumping 3.
    2
  995.  @John-wg9mb  No, they really aren't. This is very rare. It is generally illegal to enter but it's certainly not sovereign territory
    2
  996.  @BananaMonstaaaa  yes, I'm saying this takes it slightly further, to both make more funds available and to put pressure on Russia. I do think the interest scheme has been a good initial move out of fear off pushing Russia away, but at this point I don't see Russia being willing to negotiate based on lost interest.
    2
  997. 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
  998. They can't increase the sales price without new pipelines. That's the whole reason for the discount. And the other reply is correct, we need to keep Alberta in Confederation or we lose everything west of Manitoba. The US is going to crash their economy and then extend statehood as a lifeline. Also, Ontario is entirely dependent on oil pipelines running through the US Michigan has been trying to close for years. We need domestic access.
    2
  999.  @LucasDimoveo  The only grey area I get squeemish with on that point is should Walmart be allowed to build small apartments for workers on site. I want to say yes but then I remember every book I've ever read
    2
  1000.  @etcetera-9  I wrote boarder and he provided the correct spelling but then repeated it. took me a minute too.
    2
  1001.  @Tree74-b3s  SNC Lavalin was the stupidest scandal ever. Literally attacking our only international company because it bribed someone in Lybia. French companies used to get tax write offs for that..
    2
  1002. Unironically Biden is one of the best Presidents in History and certainly the best is Decades, and this is the main reason. Under his tenure the US has returned to an economic power. It's a shame the next president will get the credit for his national success while he takes the blame for Global issues.
    2
  1003. ​ @matthewq4b thats not necessarily true, you can upgrade Bitumen into just about any product because it is so heavy. It has no preexisting content of gasoline or diesel, what determines out put is coking or hydrogen added. I would argue we shouldn't focus on gasoline however. Being able to specialize in jet fuel or Diesel production has much more use.
    2
  1004.  @dreddykrugernew  I can understand not being convinced that rising temperatures are a threat or worring more about a cooling event. But to any extent that makes you challenge the danger of carbon emissions, I would suggest you think about the impact of increasing Ocean Acidification. I don't think you'll be able to point to a point in time were a mass ocean die off hasn't caused wide scale environmental collapse, and between long term rising ocean temperatures, acidity, (trolling) fishing, and nutrient runoff this is an increasingly real risk. Also, I believe the Persian golf has retreated due to sediment build up the rivers raising the land, not oceans shrinking. Similar to the Adriatic sea.
    2
  1005. When the new leaders name translates roughly to take back the Golan Heights, you have to wonder what will happen with isreal
    2
  1006. This is a very Canadian perspective. But it ignores that the vast majority of the global market will never see snow. That is what dominates the trends of EV uptake and Oil decline.
    2
  1007. The issue the issue, global oil prices will collapse before NA adopts EVs.
    2
  1008. Lsa
    2
  1009.  @Lam-ba-Lam  I would point to two biases in this observation. How many places have good transit as a consequence of running out of space in cities, and therefore build it to deal with unaffordable housing issues. How many of these places, particularly in Europe, see large emigration to the US draining their productivity and population and lowering the number of people to have births and the ability to make an income to raise kids.
    2
  1010.  @claudeyaz  the point here is that car dependent cities mean there is even less space and it's even more expensive to live there. I agree that birth control and planing families has reduced birth rates, although I don't think removing it is in anyway a real solution. We need to make it possible to plan to have kids and not be broke.
    2
  1011.  @gauloise6442  not all small towns are like that, for the record. Many have nice if small downtown's. Afterall, many were built for someone on a horse - or someone arriving on a train.
    2
  1012.  @edjohnson8017  pretty sure that's cause they all moved to Canada
    2
  1013.  @kevChess  it's certainly more than "that difficult".
    2
  1014. I expect that if Russia agrees to a deal, then as part of the EU trade negotiations the EU will be required to accept a certain level of Russian Oil and Gas through pipelines again, but the EU will include a few on that to fund Ukraine. It won't cover all the damage, but I think it's the closest to Reparations we'll get.
    2
  1015. Nuclear ships allow; Higher top speeds, allowing ships to make more transists throughout the year Removal of oil; making ships an almost entorely upfront cost, and opening up the fuel tanks, approximately a third a ships volume, for storage. No Sulfur emissions
    2
  1016.  @SPACEMONKEY288  I don't think communism requires the end of money. Marx didn't suggest eliminating money was possible, and expressly made fun of "Utopian Marxists" who did. I think of communism simply as being the direct worker control, and the freedom of a worker to gain employment as they wish.
    2
  1017. The CEO also sold stock a week before. And whereas most bank exec stock sales are declared months in advance this was not.
    2
  1018.  @hammerclench3135  so does Sturgeon falls, I replied to this, stupid dropping comments
    2
  1019.  @DanDavisHistory  Very excited
    2
  1020.  @CalTX  the 100 year infrastructure is also quite basic, as there was an existing infrastructure near the Permian before the shale boom, and it's very close to the coast relative to the enormous output. I think the Permian will stop being productive long before we stop needing oil as a feedstock, and likely before we stop using it as fuel.
    2
  1021.  @cathjj840  Yes of course, but the Early European farmers can out of Anatolia, and before that the fertile crescent in locations like Jericho. Obviously the jewish Prohibition has extended beyond the dessert lifestyle.
    2
  1022. ​ @polishtheday no, it will also be the people who voted in 2020 but chose not to in 2024, and the people who failed to convince them to
    2
  1023.  @PaulCDehlinger  no one is claiming oil companies are not profitable, but only in the last few years have oil majors had any investment in shale. The idea comes from the fact that revenues have not been providing competitive return on capital. Let me point out that if shale had been profitable over the last decade, Exon and friends would have been buying into earlier.
    2
  1024. China supports NK though. It doesn't do it because it likes the countries, it just won't allow a western aligned government on its border. So it supports Russia out of fear of a Western style government.
    2
  1025. I wouldn't be able to tell them apart from the Hungarians
    2
  1026. Why was it a bad year for nuclear?
    2
  1027.  @Z06Fred  LNG Canada has a take away of about 10% of production. I actually think it's the opposite, Alberta policy is propping up NG demand in the oil sands and Electrical production out of fear the industry won't have a buyer. But I agree people should be considering LNG exports effectively export our advantage of having cheap energy, and that a balance is needed..
    2
  1028.  @BS-vm5bt  I have no issue with nuclear, beyond the fact it isn't really a solution for developing countries who also need power but we aren't going to leave alone with nuclear reactors. I think the cost aspect, and the rapidly falling cost of solar, is the actual problem. In theory nuclear could be built out extensively, but in reality solar is.
    2
  1029. ​​ @matthewq4b  1) wtf are you on about? 2) No it isn't, and I need to buy whatever you are on it you think tailing ponds have relevant collateral put up.
    2
  1030. I agree the title is a little click baity, but the video neither makes fun of the French or sensationalizes. If anything, he was saying the AWOL figures are sensational and don't represent desertions.
    2
  1031. Africa has very limited coal resources outside south Africa making energy expensive High elevations make thier rivers un navigable Bot fly made draft animals impossible France
    2
  1032.  @thanksskeletor4812  I'll need to confirm this
    2
  1033.  @BlackWolf9988  But its not a new front line, by invading Kehrson Russia had already forced Ukraine to treat the entire border as avtive and deploy troops.
    2
  1034. Hot take: Banks Are Evil. Not exactly ground breaking journalism on this one.
    2
  1035. I disagree, there is no shortage of goods for our population, the issue is mainly poor effecientcy. We don't need any population control, we need more plant based foods and dense communities with public transportation.
    2
  1036. There is a difference between 'dishonest' and 'stock footage doesn't exist of prehistoric food'. The difference is he literally says this clarification.
    2
  1037. Okay, but if I'm paying more for whatever, because it's production has been brought back to my country, why did both the price (driven by labour) go up and my wage stayed the same? More high paying jobs mean higher wages.
    2
  1038. Shale oil is dead. The growth we've seen in US output was entirely temporary. The Bakken and Eagle Ford have already passed peak production. In the Permian per well output is already dropping. Reinvestment is very low, many of the "new wells" are DUCs, drilled but uncompleted wells from below Covid being brought online. The rig fleet has halved since 2019, and again, that's while seeing declining well productivity. In your top comment you off handedly say its never made a profit and lost 10s of billions. It will never make a profit. 2022 high oil prices bailed out investors, thats why we see no reinventment. Its the marginal producer against a cabal, fracking for oil in a free market will always expand until reaching its production cost, leaving very small margins of profit even at enormous output. Shale oil basically uses heavy oil/diesel to pull very light oil out of the ground. It's very expensive. If they can use wet wellhead CNG to run the pumps, the economics improve. Because Shale oil co-produce a lot of NG. But NG prices are absurdly low, and LNG exports seem capped at this point. And as the Permian ages, average barrels are getting lighter and gassier. There is a reason Biden can point to all these unused leases - the Russian invasion of Ukraine and sanctions gave the industry a chance to exit the market without a loss it's not expanding, and by the end of 2026 the Permian will be declining and national output will be declining.
    2
  1039. In the interview with CTV two months ago, he defines the goals of being an energy super power as "Being low risk, low cost, and low carbon". Based on Value(s), I would suppose it also includes attracting a lot of investment on that basis into AI and Server farms to drive it. I would think it means being able to impact geopolitics with exports (both of energy carriers and energy technology), having a competitive advantage in energy intensive industry (and low cost of living), and being a driver of AI and data processing.
    2
  1040.  @nikkispark85  I'm not about to give out gold stars for it, but I agree that getting the tailing cleaned up relies on mining continuing. I agree that if they are abandoned it's going to destroy the Makenzie river.
    2
  1041.  @Inaf1987  1. The Congo, the country, has Cobalt. But it's not in The Congo, the jungle/River. It's in the south. There is no reason to be against mining or industry in an undeveloped country. This is no where near the issue of Brazilian beef or surface mining bitumen along the Athabasca. 2. Light and medium duty vehicle are over half of US transport emissions. Medium and heavy trucks about a quarter. So that's just blatantly wrong. 3. CAPITALIZING random words NEVER makes your point more compelling it just makes you come off as an offensive lunatic. Which I'm not saying you are, just a critic of your writing style. 4. I disagree on the farming point, in many ways tractors and farm equipment is quite ideal for electrification. Slow moving short overall distances. Battery weight is the issue. But hydrogen does have a lot of potential for large vehicles, maybe including farm equipment, I agree.
    2
  1042.  @l.d-b3465  there is a deep irony to hoping it will warm up enough for shipping LNG out if the Arctic. But I don't think this will every be a practical solution.
    2
  1043. ​ @docal2 you probably don't mind when you're at an ice rink, which yes is less than large-scale storage, you're at the rink so it's rather moot. But ammonia storage is quite safe. As much so as Natural Gas.
    2
  1044.  @knutritter461  No outside very low mix rates into Natural Gas it's not reasonable for residential distribution, I agree. And even that is questionable. But for industrial heating and electrical production it's practical. When stored as ammonia.
    2
  1045.  @mignik01  to be fair, if that were always true, we would use trains and long distance trucking wouldn't exist to begin with.
    2
  1046. You did a video two weeks ago saying Marathon was ready to switch over. Keystone brings 600k a day to the Gulf coast where we compete with international buyers, and we will adsorb that tariff as a discount or else be overpriced. The tariff immediately dropped the price of WCS. What are you talking about us having leverage. You know it isn't true. They will eat the capital loss. It was paid off years ago. You can't just handwave away the imports to eastern Canada. They can turn off oil to the GTA.
    2
  1047. Na, a Saudi "democracy" would be a theocratic dictatorship in 0.01 seconds. MBS is probably the most progressive element in the entire society.
    2
  1048. Well in the case of Taiwan, China would label it an internal conflict.
    2
  1049. Since we're talking about Energy in Germany, I want to remind/explain to everyone that LNG from Canada was never an option for Germany. LNG has seen enormous growth, both on supply and demand, with Germany (and Europe, but most Germany) obviously needing alternatives to Russian gas in 2022. Regularly you hear that Canada (or the Trudeau government) refused to provide any., maybe for environmental reasons But look where supply comes from. Qatar, where the Gas feild is among the worlds cheapest and colocated with the export terminals. The US, where PNG comes from gas co-produced in the Permean basis in Texas, attached to the Gulf coast by an existing pipeline network, and in many cases repurposing LNG import terminals built before the Fracking boom. Canada was never going to build a cross continent pipeline with a from scratch export terminal on the east coast. It simply can't be done in the market. LNG prices before 2020 were break even low, ans while 2022 saw a massive price spike, low prices are already back. Germany and Europe never desired any long term contracts. They signed a few, but the US ones all allow cancellation, and signing some weakened the desire for any others, because they are betting on Hydrogen. Short of Canada using tax payer money to subsidize European consumers, or calling it NATO military spemding based on Energy security, this was never a real option.
    2
  1050.  @krakenengineer  I support wind, although in the long term Solar will dominate, and I don't think aesthetics should rule energy policy, but I think this kind of retort is disingenuous. I've never seen a coal mine, I've seen many many wind turbines. Contrasting a visual blight that takes place over a square Km with one that's built over hundreds of kilometers is hardly good faith. Id suggest focusing on real advantages.
    2
  1051.  @economicprisoner  this was of course meant to be punitive to the wind industry. But it should be understood the reason for this is that wind turbine construction was almost entirely unrestricted in Alberta, whereas the coal mine and oil resources are owned by the Province and only developed at the Province's decision. The reason wind was being built so rapidly in Alberta to begin with is that it was generally the easiest jurisdiction in North America to build due to that lack of regulation, and obviously no other province or state allowed such unregulated construction.
    2
  1052.  @economicprisoner  we've actually run into eachother before on What the Hell Canada, but it seems my reply disappeared. But the issue with this is that royalties only really work when you have an export that can be produced cheaper than the industry average. If it isn't an export, it basically just becomes a sales tax. If it isn't cheaper than average, it reduces development. Wyoming is setting a tax on wind, which is probably meant to be punitive, but may work anyway because it's high grade wind is well timed and oriented to export to California. Alberta would need export capacity for this to work. Otherwise you're just pushing up the cost of energy..
    2
  1053. ​​ @capnkirk5528 I agree. Main point is Li ion is not going to win grid storage, it's only winning because EVs provided scale. I do think Sodium Ions will win the home energy market, though..
    2
  1054.  @PokerKing1993  far less than I see on roof tops. But you can see examples in Germany and France. Solar can also float on-top of hydro reservoirs, and use the existing transmission infrastructure. And in cases like California reduce water loss.
    2
  1055. @trishmurphy1941 oil cannot compete in the long term with renewables even if I wanted it to. I am saying we need to invest in Tidal, Geothermal, and Nuclear. China saw the global energy system and said "this screws us, we need a better one". We need to do the same, we fundamentally cannot compete with Solar in the equator, we need to develop something less expensive. Wind is good too. Long term I don't believe it will compete with Solar, but it creates a niche we can do well in.
    2
  1056. Do I live in hell, or is a house 16x the normal salary not normal? But I was aware that this city is being built to keep out the poor and use infrastructure to stop protests. Glad B1M included it.
    2
  1057. Slightly off topic, but of all the exciting things about solar, I think the most exciting is likely, at least in the medium term before energy abundance, is the interaction with AC. People will argue the sun doesn't always shine, but its sure shining a lot when its a heat wave. In much lf the global south, this is the quickest area of energy demand growth. And it has enormous positive impact on living standards. But also, roof based solar plays a big part in reducing solar heating on a house, and plays a virtuous cycle. And because AC is such a large load, eoof based solar can have a significant impact on utilities.
    2
  1058.  @Zaeyrus  Well, they're different when they're in your canoe though (even knowing bores are savage)
    2
  1059. Can you provide a source on the 10M bbl/d in global heavy refining Capacity? I haven't been able to find exactly what you are referring to.
    2
  1060. ​ @Withnail1969 Trump/the president does decide which federal lands are available, what subsidies are available, and what regulations are in place. And also, because Fracking produced very light oil with a lot of NG coproduction, what the LNG export capacity is allowed to be and so what prices oil producers get for the gas, and also wether a Keystone XL pipeline with heavy DilBit is built, which requires light oil to balance the heavy bitumen and would allow the US to use more Fracked oil domestically. Also, the president evidently decides whether federal employees work from home or are forced to commute daily, which impacts gas demand.
    2
  1061. If the suggestion here is ICE is better, you're ignoring obvious distortions like the fact cars on the road reflect 20 years of buying or the tariffs that exist.
    2
  1062.  @user-cy9vd7rl4h  If you aren't of Indo-European decent (which would include place like north india and iran), you are most likely lactose intolerant. East Africans are the exception and can drink some lactose.
    2
  1063. @zeldarobinson3382  I agree being able to produce military vehicles is an important consideration as well and one of many reasons we need to protect the Manufacturing sector. Jets I also agree with, I would like to see policy towards that including working with the UK and Skylon toward a reusable space craft, but in general I am less optimistic it will be a value provider like a heavy equipment industry would be. We are not an enormous portion of the global aircraft market, as we are with heavy vehicles,
    2
  1064. @ryuuguu01  this is excellent to hear about, now we just need to expand them, and capture their supply chain lol. But for real this is exactly what I would like..
    2
  1065.  @ryuuguu01  thanks for the YouTube recommendation
    2
  1066. ​ @olgaromanova9549 lol that why he went to North Korea?
    2
  1067.  @HeadiestOne  Again, I don't really think it's about drugs, but I think there is a huge search bias that could be in play. We clearly allow guns across the border, and thousands of stolen cars. I would imagine the small number seized is really because of how easy it is to smuggle across Saskatchewan, even if we are still only 10% of the issue. Not that I think we are 10%, I'm just doubtful the seizure rate is really strong evidence
    2
  1068.  @dontfit6380  Why would animals not have been afraid? I mean depends what your defining early man as, but assuming homo sapiens homo erectus was running around with a spear for millions of years. Dan davis just dropped a great video on early diets.
    2
  1069. No I think this likely had to much protein relative to fat for Ketosis. His body is probably going to Protien gluco-gensis to build carbs to run on and not switching fuels.
    2
  1070. @heronimousbrapson863  the UCP is certainly trying to undermine confidence in new investment. But some of the changes, like on site storage, I think will actually be beneficial in the long run. But even with just existing capacity, Alberta is still the national leader. I'm not trying to defend the UCP. But I do think the rest of Canada is a little hard on Alberta when it's clearly been the leader. I get that hydro is technically renewable, but from a grid operator perspective it's obviously entirely different. And even with all the new restrictions, it's far easier to develop a private wind/solar farm and connect to the grid in Alberta than any other province..
    2
  1071.  @CharlieBam  Okay but the extent to which it is a fast or slow process is heavily based off how the government guides investment. And the point of the Video here was that Exxon has worked hard to avoid any public pressure that would lead to that guidance.
    2
  1072.  @shotelco  If your point is Westerns don't do enough personally, I think everyone agrees. The point of Climate Towns Video was that Mobil oil in particular led a campaign that continues to this day about how Americans don't have to change anything and changing anything would be a worse choice. And this has destroyed the potency of arguments about change.
    2
  1073.  @shotelco  I would say the mere fact that people haven't acknowledged thier responsiblity is proof they won't, all else being equal. Your suggesting climate town is enfantilizing peoples, which makes them not feel responsible. But he's literally doing a series of videos on how large scale corperations take multi faceted action to convince people there is no issue to be responsible for. Your right, of course, Americans are sheep. But being a country of immegrants it's clearly not for genetic reasons. I agree people should think for themselves but the reality is there is billions of dollars spent to make them think a certain way, and there is no way I can comprehend for them to think for themselves with out being informed of and acknowledging that fact To be direct, your taking issue with a hyper consumption culture in a culture thats exposed to constant advertisement to consume. And then points sole blame on the person who consumes, going so far as to be upset that someone would point out the advertiser? I certainly disagree the solution is decentralisation. Large scale nuclear, widely dispersed wind, and deep closed loop geothermal should be giving us nearly free energy in walkable, transit oriented cities. The idea we should spread out and try to garden is wasteful and unnecessarily uncomfortable to me. Sure there will be uncomfortable points, but overall I think its an incorrect line of though that we need to decrease our standard of living rather than simply change how we do it.
    2
  1074. I agree they aren't a proxy in the sense of the Iraqi trained militias with Iranian officers, but Hamas is a proxy in the same sense that Afghan fighters were a proxy for the US against the Soviets.
    2
  1075. I agree. We need to jump into full chain battery manufacturering without 5 years of permitting mines and refineries, we need to make ourselves the global expert in Cold Temperature Heat pumps, Heavy Equipment, and Wind turbines, we need to become a leader in Geothermal and SMRs, and we need to take a position in the Oil supply chain to control the global export market for heavy RPPs; asphalt, Lubricants, jet fuel, diesel, and partially upgraded heavy crudes. We are standing still and we're gonna be run over by an EV.
    2
  1076. But China gives much better deals for building infrastructure. And when you need a few dozen real airports that probably makes a difference.
    2
  1077.  @willnitschke  I would suggest that because YouTube is so difficult to communicate with, replacing an explanation with an assertion is particularly useless. I also have a minor in economics, I don't claim expertise, but implying I have no grasp is a weak character argument. I don't endorse MMT and Kelson is a Hack. But the point around the dollar being a tax credit is a point I agree on. It's a Fiat currency, everyone knows this is a creation of the state. Your reply is equivalent to thinking that wheat isn't grown for food because a farmer could never eat it all themselves; people who don't pay taxes, whether domestic or international users, have a large population of working individuals who do need USD for taxes to trade with. It hardly matters why people think a currency has value, how many people think USD has value because "Petro dollar and US Navy"? No one is trading scarps of unbacked paper because it just feels right. I agree that Fiat currencies compete with each other in part on the basis you are describing. The US dollar is more reliable than the Argentinian dollar undoubtedly. The issues around Argentina spending more than is taxed is widely understood and fits perfectly well within this framing, what good are tax credits when everyone has more than enough to pay taxes. Look again at Canada. In the last decade both the $1000 bill and 1¢ penny have stopped being accepted by the government, neither remain in usage. Look at the French Franc or the German Mark or the Italian Lyra etc. None are accepted by their former government, and so none remain in circulation. Instead the Euro, accepted by all 3 governments, is the currency. I don't understand why it's contentious to you that a Fiat currency, issued by a government, is primarily valued by its acceptance by that government. One can pay for another good with any other currency, or choose not to pay for a good or service. Taxes are required in set currencies, chiefly the national fiat but with exceptions - generally based around accepting USD - and must be paid. Inarguably a government can print currency. Surely you would agree a government that printed currency but refused to accept it would soon find that currency valueless. How is it you disagree then, that accepting a Fiat currency is what drives its value?
    2
  1078. Do the Saudis have a robust economy? Or one that relies on exporting oil produced near the boarder with Iraq, sold through a narrow straight along the Iranian coast, and connected to the actual population via a single road theough a desert. The same goes for UAE. Yes its more diversified, but am I flying through a country that Iran is shooting down planes taking off from, or going on vacation in a city with missile strikes? Im skeptical that a real Iranian attack couldn't Damman, Dubia, and Adu Dhabi with large scale missiles hitting power plants, oil feilds, and desalination plants. Particularly with Iraqi militias in the north east of Saudi and the small distance for fast attack boats to the UAE. If Russia turned out to be a paper tiger I'm hard pressed to believe the Arab peninsula militaries are high functioning.
    2
  1079.  @Lucky_RFMDA  someone else pointed this out I agree it makes sense, but I am wondering if this will turn Jordan into a target.
    2
  1080. The issue is there a few areas that the US relies on exports. Agricultural through the Midwest and Permian basin oil and Gas come to mind, and focus on Red States. When Canada and the US had a trade dispute in Trumps first term, Canada tariffed Florida (not California) Oranges, Kentucky Burbon, and Harley Davidson motorcycles (made in Wisconsin). Very targetted at Trump's base. I expect a similar, but more internal (Canada, EU, China) response to heavily Republican industries.
    2
  1081. Really needs to be clear. We have a coach. Hes just off in the chamge room drinking himself into a coma. He could quit and have someone do this job. He just refuses to.
    2
  1082.  @nebulaone908  As a Canadian More manufacturing capital subsidies More mining subsidies More housing in our cities built densely in existing neighborhoods. Federally coordinated provincial industry policies. There are lots of particular things I'd like to see, but fundamentally we need policy that brings in manufacturing and mining, and lowers the cost of rent/housing without losing the values of existing owners. In particular we need to decouple our economy from the oil sands, although that should not be read as being against the oil sands.
    2
  1083.  @Itchypantz  Yes that rhetoric is exactly why I'm concerned about Poilievre. Many of these industrial credits are useful and needed to compete in the highly subsidized global environment
    2
  1084.  @herdimmunity2507  I would agree with both points; the propaganda available and direction they would prefer for Syria.
    2
  1085. 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
  1086. I think in you next video you should reference Malaria and the reason African slave because the main slave force, which would later provide the "need" for scientific racism. We often overlook evil things as just being evil people, but I think its important to humanize and understand the practical reasons to avoid self righteously copying the behaviour.
    2
  1087. For all the reasons we can push out the US shale producers in a "fair fight" (ie not tariffs keeping us out), I'd suggest we could also push out most OPEC producers. And if we plugged the SAGD into SMRs instead of burning NG, we would have marginal costs of dollars a barrel and no almost no associated emissions.
    2
  1088. Honestly, if I were Poilievre, whenever someone talked about Trump I'd say "who" and then say "This economic policy of the day will be good for our economy whatever some South American Banana republic wants to do"
    2
  1089. I agree, you can't go wrong subsidizing cheap energy. We need a massive electrical build out. Alberta takes a lot of critism for it's renewable pause. And it should. But we should take at least as much issue with every other province for never having a massive build out to begin with. I'm not against Provincial utilities, but BC and Quebec have been terrible for doing anything beyond hydro. Publicly owned utilities should be leading development, not hiding in the back ground while the only province with an open market draws all the attention.
    2
  1090.  @AndrewTheMandrew531  for example, when people are getting a bunch of upvotes in a comment like repeal the 19th amendment based on his video, I find it jarring not to see a negative opinion from Rudy.
    2
  1091. @ryuuguu01  Yes I believe you mentioned it to me previously. It's very impressive and exactly what we should be supporting
    2
  1092. I would say Cattle, particularly beef, is unreasonably targetted. Brazilian beef is an issue, just like Chinese solar panels, but that's not equivalent to beef or solar being bad. Also it's certainly not 25% of GHGs globally it's not even 25% of methane.
    2
  1093.  @DJC-it2sw  I agree, and Particularly in Southern Ontario/the GTA I think we should be pushing EVs more rapidly as it is relatively oil insecure. But also, I care much less about "economical investments in clean electrification" than I do building Canadian industry to provide it. If the choices are replace all cars in 10 years with Chinese EVs or replace half the cars in 20 years at twice the price using Canadian made EVs, I pick the latter. We cannot afford to look at this in terms of immediate costs. We're losing ICE cars, we're losing Oil, we need new industries to export and reduce imports. We've driven ICEs for 100 years, we will muddle through using them for another 20 years if that is the time required to build a domestic industry, we have oil, oil is about to get very cheap..
    2
  1094.  @DJC-it2sw  I am okay with, and want, BYD opening shop in Canada; I am not okay with a token assembly plant so they can flood the market with imports. BYD, or any Chinese EV company, should only be allowed to import EVs at a value equivalent to Exports of Canadian build Chinese EVs to third parties. Also, while initially assembly plants are sufficient, there should be a clear, contractual obligation to increase sourcing of parts from Canadian suppliers over time, and eventually 90% of a vehicle should be Canadian sources. I'm flexible about EU or USA inputs, but China did not reach its position with free trade, and we are under no obligation to treat them fairly in wanting to access our market(s).
    2
  1095. @benholroyd5221  I understand that, but "working" is a relative term. If I only need range to move around Oslo or my local town, that's very different than needing to be able to drive a few hundred km. Obviously batteries work in the cold, it's a question of working well enough to be practical..
    2
  1096. Yesterday we talked about the US invading, today we talked about how maybe you can nudge an opinion and danced around the idea of Alberta Seperatism. Lets put two ideas together and consider that the US government is going to be actively encouraging Albertan Seperatism if they are genuine about the very public and unequivocal claims of wanting to annex Canada. So then it becomes, are we going to convince Alberta it doesn't need oil quicker than the US can convince Alberta it doesn't need Canada. Or, we can just risk losing some money on a Pipeline to address that feeling of exclusion or oppression. It doesn't matter if you think Conservatives are wrong to feel that way. If Canada can pay $20 billion in equalization to Quebec, it can risk losing a few Billion over a decade on a pipeline to make Alberta happy..
    2
  1097. This is an interesting idea. I'd point out two issues. Alberta is likely the worst province for Data Centers; it has a strained grid that is still carbon intensive. You would have to use a heat pump to increase the heat grade to generate steam, that's more electricity and a big temperature jump. I'd suggest SMRs are much better to the task. And in fact, we have a somewhat unique opportunity to develop SMRs because of it.
    2
  1098. But, gas for the commute you won't be doing will be cheaper... I'm just joking of course, I'm Canadian, low oil prices mean my entire country is fucked.
    2
  1099. I don't think you are correct about the Canadian mindset. The vast majority of Canada's generation, Hydro or Nuclear, has always been based on cap ex. The exception is cars, but I don't think that governs people's thinking, and even with cars the CapEx is probably the most significant portion
    2
  1100. 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
  1101. You didn't need the AI, and "Automation" was sufficient 100 years ago.
    2
  1102. @imacmill  well, I love in Southern Ontario, and I don't love the all of my oil comes through the US, and that most of it comes from Line 5 which Michigan has been trying to shut down for years, and Biden was keeping open for us, and which Trump could choice to have the EPA close tomorrow. Even though I know it would cost some money and isn't directly profitable. Sometimes infrastructure does cost money, I doubt either of us take issue with Transmission lines being subsidized, for example. But more widely as a Canadian, the US is about to collapse our exports if we are serious about fighting back. That will be expressed heavily through enormous declines in oil volume and more over price under a growing discount pushing down value. We could rapidly lose 10% of our exports via oil, alongside collapses in New Brunswick from St. John, Ontario's de industrialization, and a general commodity slump. And since Canada is a trade dependent economy, fewer exports will lower the value of the CAD value over a prolonged period, will mean inflation. And mean that Eastern Canada is exporting Capital for a good we domestically. And on top of all that will probably see a million+ immigrants going home alongside a general Property Market and Financial crash, between bank exposure to oil sands and housing. So I would be largely in favor of risking a financial loss on a pipeline as a hedge against a sudden drop in currency value and energy security, although I think the discount we will see in the future will more than compensate for pipeline costs, and really want to minimize the time it stays that large. And I think it's rather dishonest to quote Transmountain as a reasonable cost estimate given it was built over Covid. Because the biggest Issue is Alberta. Which will be the center of the depression. Fort Mac will be a ghost town, because the Mines will be the first thing to close and if we lost Line 5 that's almost half the market for upgraded syncrude. Weak future prospects will end the conventional drilling even though conventional output will continue at low prices from existing wells. The Government of Alberta will lose half it's revenue, a third in oil royalties alone, because the sliding royalty scale. And have an unemployment crisis of formerly very high wage blue collar workers, again alongside other provinces. And all the while Trump will be on Fox saying Alberta should join the US and they would be rich. With Pro American support already at 10% or higher. If we want to keep Alberta, we need to have more of their oil dependent on Canada than on the US, and right now 80% of their output goes through the US. The US, Trump, doesn't want Quebec. It doesn't want a bunch of democrats and retries. it wants the Conservative, oil rich province, full of young people and with a road to Alaska. That is the biggest point of issue. The Federal government pays Quebec $13 billion in equalization, it can risk losing $20 billion over 20 years to make Alberta happy. It really doesn't matter if you think it's financially or economically unsound, we need to keep Alberta. And we are already in a competition with the US for it. But also more fundamentally, I think Markham speaks in bad faith around the oil sands. Electrification and EVs will decimate demand for Gasoline, but they are having little impact on Diesel and jet fuel, or lubricants. Look at Sturgeon Falls, we can take a barrel of Bitumen and produce a barrel of Diesel. OPEC and conventional oil get like 20-30% a barrel of Diesel from a barrel of oil, and about half a barrel of Gasoline. Which means high prices for heavy RPP are going to support oil production with gasoline sold off cheap and pushing EVs out of markets. High prices we can both exploit to carve out market for value added products. And keeping heavy RPP prices lower, and thereby reducing the profit in refining, and therefore produce less gasoline to dump on the Market. Upgraders provide an excellent industrial customer for Green Hydrogen, and alongside the insitu operations, an industrial customer for SMRs. Frankly once nuclear I would like to see Gasifiers to push out the Shale fracking to the west to feeds LNG. And all that is besides that Fact that Markham perfectly agrees that non combustion uses should be developed. There is no reason not to use a pipeline to deliver bitumen to coastal BC where Carbon Fiber or Asphalt binder can be produced for global export. We can build a pipeline now, and develop industry as demand falls, not that I think it will for heavy oil. I completely agree with adding as much value as possible.
    2
  1103. In terms of getting mines of Diesel, there has for many years been conversation around a Great Slave Lake grid. A lot of mining in NWT could be electrified on the east side of the lake if we could get this built. And it would allow for connection to the North of Saskatchewan. We also need to be connecting the West Hudson Bay coast to Manitoba, although idk how much mining is there
    2
  1104. Idk, it is a little tricky. I consider the Auto industry as part of Southern Ontario culture, at least regionally. It would be very hard to say Lumber or Agriculture as an industry isn't a considerable part of regional culture. That said, I feel a lot of Oil Workers are transplants, not long term comminities in the same. But I'm not Albertan. I do want to say its unfair to say something is part of Alberta Culture and not Canadian culture. Canadain Culture is an umbrella.
    2
  1105. I don't know if Geothermal will become cheaper than Solar, but I do believe it will be cheaper than storage in grid operations. Closed loop geothermal allows you to have constant output for base load at a set capacity. But it also allows you to leave water down well to superheat above steady state operations and provide peaking capacity. And because of the low temperature gradients involved, it is able to reach higher efficiencies and outputs in the winter. It's a perfect complement to solar, imo, just as if not better than wind is to Hydro. But we absolutely need to become a heavy player in Geothermal. We should provide subsidies drilling; to Data Centers at any depth, a higher about for any drilling below 2km, an even Higher amount for a few escalating tiers. Beyond just increasing drilling, we would also be creating a long term asset. We should also set up some prize competitions, and join Iceland in their offshore magma drilling project. A perfect opportunity to move conventional drilling into future energy production, and open some 600k bbl/d of production in SAGD oilsands as conventional winds down.
    2
  1106. I really want people to be very cautious around talk of cutting Canadian oil exports to the US. Firstly, the US can cut off oil going to Ontario - arguably more painful for us than cutting off the Midwest is to them. Secondly, we would never get that market back. And third, we have no where for that oil to go. In effect, we are cutting off 20% of our own exports. And moreover, its very hard to turn SAGD off. Thats why they paid negative oil prices in Covid...
    2
  1107. @dm4058  I agree entirely with diverting trade away from the US. That's a very different policy than attempting to rapidly cut energy exports the US relies on.
    2
  1108.  @gregorymalchuk272  I agree the Midwest is the most vulnerable. They can replace the 700k bbl/d going to the east and west coast with relative ease. They can replace the 600k bbl/d on Keystone going to the Gulf. In terms of the Midwest, they take around 3.5 M bbl/d, they can move 200bbl/d by barge on the Mississippi. And retool to use 300k bbl/d Bakken light crude within months. And within a few years reverse Keystone altogether to bring 1M bbl/d North by pipeline. The last 2M bbl/d would be very difficult for them to replace. But at the same time, the 800k bbl/d would be difficult for us to replace, we'd take several years to replace Line 9, meaning years of rationing. And we would face rolling back outs and winter heating issues if NG was cut alongside. And in doing this, we will have caused enormous damage to the oil sands infrastructure, and lost 20% of our exports. And Chicago is not as important a city to the US economy as Toronto is to Canada's. This is a cut off your nose to spite your face option. I'm not saying it's impossible just very poorly thought out. And moreover, there isn't anything to stop the US from just taking the oil..
    2
  1109. I think there are certain extenuating factors. Tariffs aren't inherently bad, but they are bad when they are a shock to the economic system. The WW2 example being Japan suddenly realizing it needed an empire because the US was unreliable. If the tariffs had been planned, this may not be the case. The impact on the great depression was also accentuated by the flat dollar amounts causing the tariffs to increase in percentage terms as deflation kicked off. Consumers pay all taxes at the end of the day.
    2
  1110. ​ @TomPVideo the $85 is only for mining, which every one agrees is down hill. The cost of expanding SAGD was put at $50-40. And no, in 5 years the equipment does not stop operations..
    2
  1111. I don't care that the guy you talked to is Pro Trump. I just want them to realize their policy right now is to deindustrialize Canada so that they can take the industry. I mean I hope they can realize or admit that the successes they are seeing are from ransacking your most dedicated trade partner.
    2
  1112. ​ @TRYCLOPS1 you should add Venezuela and Haiti to the list because they large-scale us military action in the Caribbean, to prevent war and piracy at the Panama. And also the Sahel belt+Lybia+Sudan+Egypt (in the Sinai)+Ethiopia+Rwanda and the Congo threatening to pull the entirety of North Africa into horrific, if lower tech, conflict.
    2
  1113. Lot of people giving the "war is normal reply". Idk if you all have noticed, but large scale industrial war definitely has not been the norm since WW2, only real exception being Iran and Iraq. Even Vietnam was an industrial power fighting guerillas or human waves with barely guns.
    2
  1114.  @jaggeh3340  wow wow wow. Dunk on Quebec all you want, but Ontario is not a sink hole of money we pay for most of the federal government. We got 500 million in equalization last year, less than PEI, after paying 90 billion in federal taxes, almost half of all revenue.
    2
  1115. I'm very supportive of the Industrial emitter tax, but I'd gladly scrap it in exchange for Alberta plugging SMRs into their grid, SAGD operations, Upgraders, and industrial parks. I hate Othering Alberta, but at the end of the day, Alberta is 90% of the problem, and we could fix it by making steam with magic hot rocks instead of burny gas
    2
  1116. China is absolutely increasing domestic Oil production, by something like 10%, annually. It plans on developing its massive shale reserves. I agree with renewables and electrification, I agree China excels at both, but there is no argument to tie out hand behind our back while we adopt new technologies. China built renewables until it just recently started to need less coal, it didn't reduce coal use first.
    2
  1117.  @robisverybad75  that's no more realistic than being against oil development. I swear it's like listening to people argue about whether they should eat eggs for breakfast or steak for dinner like there's some dilemma. With Canada's massive Hydro availability, we could very easily run on Wind and Hydro as our only energy source everywhere but Southern Ontario, and even that could be done. And eventually solar will be the dominant source of energy.
    2
  1118. @robisverybad75  not to be semantic but, for the sake of clarity, I think you main to say Majority energy source or main energy source. Primary energy source means that it is a net positive generator of energy, vs something like a battery which requires more energy to be produced than it outputs. Solar will be a majority energy source. People think to much about Europe or North East North America. For most of the world, solar is highly reliable But I mainly agree on wind. I would say it could provide up to half a grids power, maybe even push 60%, but you'll never have a grid powered solely by Wind, even with storage.
    2
  1119. The Act was rewritten in June, but Smith and gang are saying that yhe changes did not bring the act into compliance with the constitution, and there has been no court test of whether or not the rewrite is sufficient
    2
  1120.  @markbaker6553  I mean, she went to court last time. But in general, ya
    2
  1121. Wait are the words actually connected lol.
    2
  1122.  @Admiral-General_Aladeen  it's the very particular conditions of decades of wood piled up in Dozens of city's by a billion people that create the risk. My understanding is it's not the nuclear weapons per se, but the effect of setting several of the earth's largest and most slummed cities on fire simultaneously. The release of ash and soot is what is so potentially dangerous in terms of blocking sun. Although, given the lower quality of the nukes involved, the updraft created would contain significant radioactive fallout in the form of heavy metals.
    2
  1123.  @hikashia.halfiah3582  a typo
    2
  1124. Two potential things to consider, Nano bots actually getting good enough to greatly increase life spans Space industry getting advanced enough to make O'Neil cylinder tyoe habitats cheap enough for low cost quality of life.
    2
  1125. Lol
    2
  1126. @mehedi1178  I mean I could care less who owns it. I'm just saying all this talk of him being moderate or stabilizing the reason is silly
    2
  1127. Nitrogen Fertilizer also requires the Hydrogen from Natural gas, so beyond generalized increases in energy prices the commodity causing those increases is needed in particular.
    2
  1128. ​ @economicprisoner lol give me a break I am on a phone with a broken screen
    2
  1129. Well yes but even 5 years ago the capacity to actually build renewables was far smaller than today. Texas installed over a quarter of its solar just last year.
    2
  1130. You described some of what Canada gets out of it and completely left out other aspects. That same conversation referenced Alberta taking advantage of Canadas immense hydro power; that can only mean building connection to trade power with BC, likely in the form of an Edmonton Site C connection. That both pushes NG out of Albertas grid and encourages more renewable investment. And as you stated, we gain credibility. We gain a decarbonization of the sector. I honestly don't understand. You are aware of O&GS massive liabilities, in finance and environment. How do you expect those to be paid off? You are aware of Albertas government revenue position, what do you expect to be done if royalties and employment disappear? You complain at length about the cost of industrial policy, what is the cost of not having it? This isn't just subsidies to oil, these technologies build our industries in SMRs and Hydrogen and Carbon capture. Transitioning our economy costs money, I truely cannot grasp your view. It's not as though we are spending $30 billion annually, that is a life time cost paid over decades to not only salvage a key industry but create new ones. I get that you want to "add value" but a nation doesn't get to wake up oneday and decide it's now the global leader in X high end industry. Carbon Capture and Nuclear are industries we actually lead in; subsidizing thier development isn't bad because our most at risk industry benefits. It's like fighting against EVs because our Auto companies will survive as a result.
    2
  1131. How can Trump Arm Ukraine? Lend Lease is one excellent option, and it also puts the US in a position to be invested in a proUkraine outcome even more than they are now. Another is Russia assets. Thats free money for Ukraine that supports American industry.
    2
  1132. It's a shame how polluted oceans have become. Shellfish and seafood were the engines of life, now you're at risk of mercury and micro plastic poison eating them regularly, among others. Even River fish like Salmon carry these fron the Ocean, and the rivers themselves are to often polluted with waste chemicals. The foods that we may have well been best suited to survive on has become a toxin.
    2
  1133. @policyguy3103  Yes I agree. I support requiring all taxis/ride shares operating in Toronto or Vancouver being electric, for example. There are certain areas were full EVs are the solution. And if people want to buy an EV I have no issue, either consumer subsidies or manufacturing subsidies. But I think by and large policy should be encouraging Plug in Hybrids for consumers to build out our infrastructure in a smoother transition. 100% hybrids by 2035 should be the policy.
    2
  1134.  @ramrod9556  Really this is a question about how much of the fracked oil is actually heavy enough to produce diesel..
    2
  1135.  @gregoryvangaya8971  I would say yes and no respectively
    2
  1136.  @gregoryvangaya8971  I'd say it's beyond my ability to answer that anything more than vaugley. We've seen a lot of biodiesel because of fears it will be underprovided and I think EVs will displace gasoline much quicker than diesel, so conventional refineries will shut down due to gasoline oversupply and leave diesel under provided..
    2
  1137.  @matanelsiboni9269  it wouldn't have been Iranian soil even if it was the embassy. That's not actually how most embassies work. Also, Iran doesn't recognize any of it as Israeli soil. This is all pretty meaningless. The point is Israel attacked Iranian assets, Iran responded with a broadly telegraphed show of power. Obviously no one felt this was a true attack against Israel, which is why the Israeli response was de-escalatory.
    2
  1138.  @kurttosczak8544  At the moment it appears that way, although one day and rapidly battery demand will collapse for super capacitors. Not that I'm against Batteries, but I'd argue your comparing technology at different points on the S curve. Also, a big advantage of Batteries is the higher efficiency of energy conversion. But that's only meaningful in expectation that energy is costly; if solar does what is expected and makes electricity like water, then a 30% cycle efficiency for hydrogen has no meaningful cost. There are advantages to Hydrogen. No critical materials that rely on foreign supply chains is enormously beneficial and the reason Japan has been loyal to the technology. Hydrogen also has enormous demand in chemical inputs. And Alberta has very high demand for upgraders; sure it's still oil, but if 10% of a barrel is renewable hydrogen that's a win. Or more broadly, CO2 + H to LNG could remain a relevant export. And we have Hydrogen for export facilities being built in each of the Atlantic provinces. Aerospace also may be a very large industry. Projections around StarShip suggest it could become an enormous LNG user. Hydrogen fueled alternatives could become meaningful fractions of the energy demand.
    2
  1139.  @anmolbrar1293  assuming you are speaking from an MMT perspective, taxation is a took to alleviate inflation, but not the only one. Bill Mitchell argues that deregulation is a solution to inflation, re the deregulation of the natural gas industry leading to an end of stagflation. Warren Mosler argues regulated monopoly can be a solution to inflation, re the deflationary impact of a National Medicare program and elimination of private issuance and the related bureaucracy. Tax simplification and the reduction in accountant demand would be another example. And obviously a very core component of MMT is that Government debt finances spending can be productive, and productivity lowers inflation..
    2
  1140.  @jackdenihan5333  wow wow wow 1. You already send us a shit load of illegals, all those Haitians don't come through Yaktumany, our neighbor to the north. And 2, mostly a lack of better options and savy political work by the Liberals. O'Toole was the only actually better option in 3 elections, and he had to run during Covid with the Liberals at their highest support. Besides, you should be more appreciative, do you know how much more you'd pay for gas if we could get a pipeline built?
    2
  1141. Sal is like watching Hank from Breaking Bad' nerd out over ships instead of rocks.
    2
  1142. @Bert (because YouTube won't let me reply), that is true. But waving around a "Literal" point instead of discussing the reality of the impacts is entirely misleading. China's entire economy is seeing deflation because they can't get exports out, and that's before new tariffs. It's actually infuriating being Canadian, seeing that if these tariffs happen your industrial sector is going to collapse, and having everyone act like the US is just going to pay more.
    2
  1143.  @ObengBash  yes. And rich backers who buy those materials have funded those conflicts for decades
    2
  1144. When if this is true, 2 Iranian missiles cost less than 1 Israeli Arrow. And when you include drones your talking like 1% the cost. I would be/am worried about Iran launching thousands of missiles and drones. Even if half fail.
    2
  1145. @sandorski56  I'm not saying to, but it makes no sense to build an asphalt refinery for export around the Pacific in Calgary when it could be in Prince Rupert.
    2
  1146. He's only destroying the part of the Industry that uses pistons. The Tesla part will be better for the lack of competition
    2
  1147.  @yonahsefchovich5931  Extreme land usage, toxic materials in production. I like it on roof tops - since the AC is on when the sun shines, and your actually using some of that sunlight that was going to heat your house to cool it - and floating (or otherwise above) canals and reservoirs - to avoid water evaporation, take advantage of lower temperature higher efficiency, and since these usually have transmission lines already in place (think hydro dams). In some cases I support it in a dessert, but that always entails hige transmission systems. But if its paired with some plan to encourage arable land expansion thats cool. Also, one day in orbit it will be great.
    2
  1148.  @AlessandroRodriguez  Not really, you just pump deep sea water and release the warmed water to a middle layer. It actually complements aquaculture quite well.
    2
  1149. Mark, you did a video like 3 days ago saying Marathon is willing to switch 300 bbls a day to Bakken light. The Gulf states could change to imports in a snap, in 2 years Keystone could be reversed. You have to stop talking about optimization of US pipelines for 600bbls a day. That's great it if happens. But we have to assume there are no pipelines at going through the states anymore. No one is against Carbon fiber or Value Added manufacturing. But the plant next year isn't taking 100 barrels a day. That's ridiculous. If we build a west coast pipeline, we can build added value manufacturing there. Why would it be cheaper to more carbon fiber? We would want to export it either way.
    2
  1150. I personally don't take issue with the "killing", it's the living that concers me. Which is why I don't eat pork and avoid chicken or otherthings cage raised. Cheese is really the thing I eat I feel worst about. But Organic eggs and local beef I don't think have a moral dilemma, given the amount of nutrition per death and the life the animals are able to live. That said great job, 12 years is impressive, and veganism definitely can be healthy.
    2
  1151.  @linebrunelle1004  What's your point ?
    2
  1152. ​​ @Michaelme-de8zz  first; SAGD doesn't burn LNG. It just buns NG, no one liquifies it first. Which is mostly just a high-level correction, but LNG does have have higher emissions because of the energy to compress to liquid. Secondly, I agree. We need to move the SAGD operations to SMRs. Not only because it reduces emissions, but because it dramatically reduces operations costs and it is the largest market for Canada to commercialize SMRs into. This is an area I would strongly support subsidies toward. It will be framed as an oil subsidy, but it is a huge net benefit to build a long term industry as oil demand falls. But of course, the bast majority of oil emissions, even with SAGD, are down stream, and we are talking about a relatively small amount of emissions in the NG combustion. SAGD is, imo, not only the best source of hydrocarbons nationally but globally. The heavy Bitumen can ne processed to have no gasoline yeild. As long as there is demand for heavy RPPs like jet fuel, oil will be produced, and it is to no ones benefit if that process results in dumping cheap gasoline on the market.
    2
  1153.  @rudycandu1633  who's economy? It's going to destroy the government of Alberta's fiscal position, but I doubt it will significantly impact US oil prices.
    2
  1154. @spormoof423  you could argue the CPC only cares about fossil fuel extraction, I suppose. But then, they aren't the government. So is the interviewee claiming they have Majority backing? Because clearly they don't. I have no issue with government backing of a pipeline, which I say for any clarity of bias. But I also support Battery, heat pump, wind turbine etc manufacturing, and overall I don't see how that's equivalent to saying Canada is Lazer focused on Fossil fuel projects. Obviously you can point to TMX, but you can also point to the active blocking of Northern Gateway; overall I think at best they have been neutral.
    2
  1155.  @Inez-z2z  I do want to be clear. I hate that Canada is a glorified gas station for the US. But the solution is not to allow millions of barrels of already developed oil to go off the market or crash in value and treat that as some free market unavoidable outcome when it is the explicit policy of another country. We have an enormous industry, representing a quarter of our exports, that is going to be destroyed if we don't take action. We can't build a pipeline for tomorrow, but the US can't retool for tomorrow, or reverse Key Stone for tomorrow. If we start now, we can have it almost when we need it. If I come off as fighting for oil, it is only because Markham is fighting against it. Time is of the essence, we don't have time to litigate this on a basis of will it be 100% cost returning. Hopefully it loses money. Because if a new pipeline is able to take advantage of the enormous discount a trade war will cause, that is very bad. You wouldn't suggest Ukrainian tanks should be burning less diesel right now. This is a matter of our country surviving. It is not time for some argument about environmentalism, because if the US takes Alberta, they are going to develop it all anyway.
    1
  1156.  @Inez-z2z  I'm not going to continually harass you, last message I promise, but I'm lingering on you claiming I want a Fossil-fueled future, because that stings and just isn't true. I understand how it may look like that because it looks like I'm regularly posting in support of building some pipelines, but that is only happening because Markham is making bad faith arguments and using his apparent expertise to empower them. There are very real and structural risks to our economy and democracy, which Markham is aware of and drawing attention to, but will utter ignoring if the conversation is around O&G. It is dangerous, and if he wants to call himself an energy journalist he has the responsibility to report on issues even when they may lend credence to a pipeline. I am happy to talk at length about electrification policies I want to see. I regularly make comment of them when they are relevant to a video. Unfortunately, instead of using his time and energy to make a point of all the specific policies and projects we should be engaging in, Markham chooses to spend his time focused on the fact that a pipeline under year old economic projections may not be entirely self funding and is therefore utterly unjustifiable, even though he clearly believes there are many times when infrastructure, even energy infrastructure, should be built even if it is not directly profitable. And so many of my comments end up around what he is intentionally leaving out of the pipeline conversation instead of why he is right we need more serve farms.
    1
  1157. ​​ @gregmiller4387 the Asian market is over 60M bbl/d. If we sent 2M bbl/d, that's less than 5% of current demand. That will exist in several decades, even if 80% of the market collapses and there is only 12M bbl/d. Our long term advantage is that Bitumen is ultra heavy, and EVs are going to displace gasoline, which will shift to being cracked into Naphtha feed stock, which will lower the price of both products, and push out light and medium oil producers. Particularly since lighter crudes typical coproduce more NG, which will be displaced by battery storage. Even as the oil market shrinks, the heavy market will remain stable or even increase to some extent. Maybe shipping RPPs out of Hudson Bay. But between the frozen sea and isolation, and risk of ice Berg's in the Labrador straight, I am very hesitant to ship liquid hydrocarbons through the North. Certainly not bitumen.
    1
  1158. ​​ @gregmiller4387  That is a 60M bbl/d market that we export 500k bbl/d into. There is enormous room for growth, particularly as EV driven gasoline displacement drives Gasoline into crackers to produce Naphtha and creates an oversupply of both, pushing light and medium crudes out of the market. Even with 80% collapse it will be 12M bbl/d. We have the advantage of having a heavy crude that will see long term demand. I'm very sceptical of shipping any liquid Hydrocarbons over frozen and isolated sea. More so with icebergs in the straight of Labrador. Certain not bitumen, but if an environmental review found it safe, maybe RPPs. But I'd much rather go through Quebec if Europe is the goal..
    1
  1159. ​​​@gregmiller4387 That is a 60M bbl/d market that we export 500k bbl/d into. There is enormous room for growth, particularly as EV driven gasoline displacement drives Gasoline into crackers to produce Naphtha and creates an oversupply of both, pushing light and medium crudes out of the market. Even with 80% collapse it will be 12M bbl/d. We have the advantage of having a heavy crude that will see long term demand. I'm very sceptical of shipping any liquid Hydrocarbons over frozen and isolated sea. More so with icebergs in the straight of Labrador. Certain not bitumen, but if an environmental review found it safe, maybe RPPs. But I'd much rather go through Quebec if Europe is the goal.
    1
  1160. ​ @jasonwilliams8016 it is set up to refine heavy crudes. Not DilBit, but certainly SCOs.
    1
  1161. ​ @jasonwilliams8016 yes this is the main issue with construction, not whether a market exists.
    1
  1162. ​ @jasonwilliams8016 TLDR; Not a large market for apshaltene rich bitumen to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately my knowledge of North America is a lot stronger than Europe. But I've never been a strong booster for East Coast exports as I think Europe is a declining market. It's refineries are generally older and built around light crudes, it has no limited domestic supply and falling demand, and regulation and costs are prohibitive. I would go so far as to say Europe is already seeing the gasoline glut the rest of the world will see in the next decade, and that's going to hurt gasoline exports. It's already seeing a lot of refineries going offline and limited runs. Although with the 1.5% NATO infrastructure spending we may be able to find a role as a long term supplier of heavy oil or RPPs. That said, I've always been unclear what Markham is referring to at 10M bbl/d in Ultra heavy crude refining - I think it is coking capacity. The issue with Oilsands bitumen is mainly the asphaltenes, and I do believe that would be a problem with Europe. However, over a Million barrels a day of bitumen is upgraded into SCOs of varying specifications, and Europe would be a market for any of that without issue (it is bottomless, so any refinery can accept it). And partially upgrading would allow refineries to accept it broadly, although wether they can process or the bottoms depends on their capability. Europe has around 7% of world Coking capacity I believe. I remember Antwerp's refinery getting a Coker, and I think Rotterdam's shell refinery, so that's half a million bbl/d heavy. I think there is some real potential in diverting Irving to Europe. Irving focuses on US exports, and produces a lot of middle distillates that feed the home heating fuel oil market in both Canada and New England. That market is shrinking, and Europe is starved for distillates.
    1
  1163. ​​ @matthewq4b Ya it's a small market man. A small market that could disappear. And as it exports 2/3rds to the US, and the majority of its feed stock comes from the US, I've always found it redicoulous and rather underhanded when people act like that's an issue. Assume we convert the NG pipelines to carry 1M bbl/d to Cornwall, that's all going to Eastern Canadian refineries in Ontario and Quebec. If it's a 2M bbl/d, as per energy east, your talking about building a million bbl/d pipeline so that it ends in St. John instead of just building to Quebec city and serving Irving by ship. I'm not against a pipeline to St. John. But the 300k bbl/d as an anchor client in a small level of demand in justifying making the pipeline go so much further..
    1
  1164. I hope the next chapter discusses the Silver based inflation Spain imported, and the way that this silver stolen with slave labor really fueled European trade and expansion.
    1
  1165. No one is tired of empathy, no one looks at at 4 year old walking around and isn't a little happier. We just abuse empathy. We didn't evolve to see thousands of homeless or starving people, we evolved in small kin groups. Empathy isn't meant to make us feel suffering.
    1
  1166. Ya, if the population had any desire, a PM might spend more. But since Canadians get nothing out of NATO, we have little reason to want more spent. I don't think anyone is counting on Canada as their main defender lol. But we certainly aren't counting on them.
    1
  1167.  @negativeindustrial  I truely doubt that, consider what you're saying. Who could and would invade the North of Canada? There are three options, China and Russia are obvious. So China? Not a chance, it is likely at its military apex right now before it's population starts to crash, and it still can't invade an island 100km off the coast full of people who consider themselves part of China. They aren't going to sail through the bearing strait, along the Alaskan coast, into the North. So Russia? Can't invade Non-NATO member along a giant flat plain on its border full of people who speak Russian Russia? Famous single aircraft carrier that breaks down everywhere it goes and is accompanied by a tug Russia? Either of these countries are going to cross an ocean famously frozen throughout the winter, which is just now barely being usable in the summer, to try to beach head along a coast with a single highway (Tuktuyktuk) access point, with -30 temperatures all winter unstable frost or permafrost? In an area of so little economic value that Canada itself doesn't use it? Let alone that, if we left NATO, the US would still protect us under NORAD because the US needs that buffer to stop missiles. And simply isn't going to allow a hostile foreign force on its periphery. Which leaves the only other country that might, and the only one with the logistics to, invade Canada's North, which is the USA. In which case, freaking Estonian isn't going to help us. Germany is not going to declare war on the US. Poland isn't going to risk it's relationship with the country that protects it from Russia for Canada to have some tundra. And the Canadian Military isn't competing with the US's even if it reaches 2%. Maybe you mean China will invade some Valley in BC's north coast. Maybe it could manage a foot hold there for a week, but again, with constant logistical resupply needed it's simply impossible. Even before the US turns them to dust. Maybe Labrador is at risk on the east coast? I refer you back to the freezing temperatures, 0 infrastructure, and 0 economic value. And then our friend the US, who will send whatever rockets are needed. Canada has no enemies that can hurt it. I would like a bigger military. I would like the good international attention. But I'm not going to listen to European countries cry that we aren't spending enough to protect them, when that's all NATO is. Beggars shouldn't be choosers, the fact we put 1% of our spending into an Airforce that is only ever going to operate abroad to support European and world peace should be enough for them. Or kick us out of NATO. It makes 0 difference to us. Only NATO loses, because Canada was simply never going to trigger article 5.
    1
  1168. Canada has to be focused on the supply side. The demand side makes no difference; if EVs are cheaper, they will win globally, we can buy them later. Half our exports are based on oil and gas or ICE vehicles. If we don't focus on the supply side, our trade based economy collapses. It is far better for us to nuture a domestic EV industry and take 10 more years than to abandon our Manufacturing sector for cheap Chinese imports. That has been the global lesson for at least a decade; cheap chinese exports aren't worth deindustrializing. Markham regularly says Canadians have a hewer of wood drawer of water attitude. That might be true out west. The Laurentian corridor is built on Manufacturing. In Ontario, the Conservative government has thrown money at EVs. I don't think you realize it, but one side of you mouth is saying value added, and the other is saying destoy the manufacturing base. If China wants to sell EVs in Canada, BYD can make them in Canada.
    1
  1169. ​ @RyanLIEsAlot please don't use AI generated slop to reply to me. If you don't want to think, at least keep it to yourself
    1
  1170. I agree. Him and Trump are the two best in half a century
    1
  1171. Generally agree with your points but looking at the nature of industrial work in the time Marx was writing I think you're off mark talking about how voluntary work is. You spend the next ten minutes talking about modern western occupations when at best you should be talking about employment opportunities in a country like Bangladesh.
    1
  1172. You shoild add some apple cider vinegar to your diet. But you bloating/ gassyness when vegan sounds like you have a gluten intolerance or were incorrectly preparing legumes.
    1
  1173. ​ @Dave5843-d9m it's not that it's to expensive, Washington state used to import from the Pacific oil export terminals, as did Hawaii. NJ refiners also formerly took Russian crude. And Gulf refineries would take the distillate heavy oil by product from Russian refineries that processed Russian crude as a substitute to heavy oil, particularly after Venezuela tariffs went into effect.
    1
  1174. 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
  1175. 1st Industrial revolution: Coal 2nd Industrial revolution: Oil 3rd Industrial revolution: Natural Gas 4th industrial Revolution: Silicon ^ massive over simplification I would say that the second industrial revolution over the 1920-40s share the most with today. The 1920s saw a peak coal demand that wasn't reached again for 50 years. Massive electrification occured; local transmission companies taking factories off their private coal steam engine, rural areas getting lighting, appliances like fridges replacing Ice blocks and ovens replacing wood/coal stoves. A complete reordering of industry..
    1
  1176. @gregorymalchuk272   1st should include trains and long distance transportation, and the steel plow. Really the Bessemer proceas to make steel, which allowed rails and boilers and plows, which itself was allowed by coal 2nd is pretty spot on but oil plays a key part in the chemical industry and automotive revolution. 3rd should include globalized shipping (container boxes, refrigerated ships, oil tankers), jet aircraft, the green agricultural revolution and fertilizer. Maybe nuclear but that was wasted. Radio should be in the 2nd. 4th is missing all the energy technologies, reusable space craft, additive manufacturing/3D printing, and material science improvments (Carbon Fiber, ceramics, alloys etc with very specific molecular layouts). Maybe nuclear if it's not wasted..
    1
  1177. ​ @UnfollowYourDreams you say "just" like that isn't the most important part.
    1
  1178. It's nice to think impact assessment should be a scientific, non political thing; but what is the scientific value if a pod of killer whales.
    1
  1179.  @markbaker6553  my point is there is no way to weigh the value of 1M bbl/d in oil exports vs an environmental risk. The value you put on the environmental risk is inherently political.
    1
  1180.  @markbaker6553  I'm forced to act what qualifies as an Organism since I think we should be pushing for mass scale kelp agriculture to improve fisheries; and that would mean a lot organisms. But I get this is a figure of speech. But ultimately unless we're all to be jainists, there is going to be an impact to everything. And I fundamentally don't know how you assign a meaningful, let alone accurate, value to elements of nature. That is not to say I don't value them. I just think it's rather utopian to suggest this can all be math. It's ultimately a political question.
    1
  1181. @mwiens3781 and that's a perfectly reasonable stance. It's just not a scientific one.
    1
  1182. When you're talking about 120-140kg CO2 e, which sites are you referring to? I understood the highest emitters were the Mining operations/Upgraders. If these are In-situ numbers, they must be some of the very small 10-30k bbl/d operations, not the 100-200k bbl/d that dominate production, no?
    1
  1183. Im terms of Data Centers, I would add a few points for consideration. 1) This represents an enormous volume of imports, and in the increasing bilateral world of trade, that gives us, as the purchaser, some amount of Leverage to work with Japan or South Korea and say "we'll ensure Canada buys $10 billion a year from you, but in exchange you will buy Canadian LNG, or Japan will work with Hitachi to set up Heavy Machinery assembly that will feed mining, or South Korea will work with Samsung to build more battery plants, or Taiwan will work with TSMC to set up a Chip FAB" etc. 2) This can be used to pivot the oil industry's conventional drilling. Geothermal may not be cost competitive for electricity, but it can provide heating and cooling effectively. Giving Data Centers subsidies for Geothermal will allow us to maintain that workforce and equipment, while lowering electrical consumption, particularly in the summer, allowing us to build more faster. 3) Eventually Canada will be a high cost of energy jurisdiction. We won't compete in 50 years with equatorial countries and solar. But we will still be colder, and so the cooling heavy demand of Data Centers is an area we have a long term advantage. 4) Canada is a trusted jurisdiction. Data Centers are in many ways like banks, and you want your data somewhere you trust not to steal it. This can build on and build our reputation, and make us something akin to a Switzerland of Data.
    1
  1184. 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
  1185. Well he isn't fighting for work from home to stay in place, and instead is pushing for return to work, which does mean more demand and higher prices.
    1
  1186. @squireson  yes that's my point. That's a bad thing when the US produces so much shale.
    1
  1187.  @wgowshipping  but when you say it unquestionably you give it your implied support. The white house gave half a dozen reasons for the tariffs on Canada, the one you repeated is the only one that makes it legal. I'll be honest, you're losing me as a supporter with this kind of talk I'm seeing here and in other comments.
    1
  1188.  @wgowshipping  but that's just not true? At different times the White House named defense spending, the border, and the trade deficit. In another comment I replied to you, you were suggesting it was a problem Canada has a trade surplus, as it leans to far one way (even though it's only the tenth largest). So I find it difficult to believe you are being genuine here. Which is upsetting to be honest because I've really liked your work. But if you're so obviously willing to discredit yourself here to repeat the one claim that would make the tariff legal I don't know I can think of you as reliable.
    1
  1189.  @wgowshipping  I appreciate this. My point also was not to trash Trump, but to point out that Trump himself was unable to give a consistent reason and that repeating the only reason that gave the action a legal basis was, for lack of a term, misleading in a bias fashion. I certainly agree with the dangers of fentynal. But of course, the goal of fentynal smuggling is not to cause death, and I don't think it's responsible to suggest the literal worse case scenario should be attributed to Canada, when frankly it is the US border security's job to guard the border from ingress, and Canada's border security to protect from north bound traffic..
    1
  1190. @wgowshipping  thank you. I appreciate the openness to critic.
    1
  1191. ​ @bipl8989 ya but russia can't sell more oil
    1
  1192. ​ @bipl8989 Russia however can't expand
    1
  1193.  @FutureChaosTV  I confused it with Plutonium 238, thank you.
    1
  1194. @pongyi123 it's most certainly not 100% imported from the Saudis. Is mostly American and Nigerian crude iirc. And something like 2/3rds is exported to the US, so good luck staying at 300k bbl/d. Overall not sure what your point is. I also support an east coast pipeline. But this isn't an argument for one, so idk what it is
    1
  1195. I agree our relationship with the US can never be the same, but that is in fact what they want. I think we can reach an arrangement that is better than no trade deal. It would have to be arranged to create immediate enforcement costs. For example, I think ultimately they will place a lower tariff on our manufacturing, but I believe we could reach an arrangement where all collected revenue goes into Trump's Sovereign Wealth fund and must be invested in Canada. That would give the US a financial stake in maintaining free trade, and would leave them open to asset seizures if relations broke down, while allowing our economy to diversify and have better access to US markets. Obviously that should be alongside trading more with other nations. And that isn't meant to be the whole deal, just an example of an arrangement the US has immediate stake in from both prospectives
    1
  1196. I'm sure Elon Musk's administration will be very heart broken about GM and Ford struggling economically.
    1
  1197.  @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
  1198. @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
  1199. 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
  1200.  @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
  1201. @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
  1202. @LelandWolf-zt4wz  Trump will just hand out Agricultural subsidies.
    1
  1203.  @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
  1204. @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
  1205. You said "all tIMe high" at the start of this video, so I guess my phone skipped the first few seconds, and I opened to "I'm high" lol
    1
  1206.  @SianaGearz  is that in terms of Russia rigging the election or Ukraine responding the Russia pushing a puppet government, and if the later, why? What's Russia going to do, invade Ukraine in response.
    1
  1207. @AplusStrategy  I suppose I disagree that it wouldn't draw Russian troops off the line and that it wouldn't be beneficial propaganda. Noting the context that after the last "election" Russian military assistance was needed, I'd suggest both the people of Belarus largely don't consider their government legitimate and don't desire to be a Russian puppet state, and that the Russians will almost certainly have to divert manpower to Belarus even without Ukrainian involvement - Ukrainian action would simply amplify the extent of Russian military presence needed. The Belarusian have stayed out of the conflict this far because it is widely unpopular and, allegedly, the military command has been clear they are not in a position to go to war and keep the country stable and therefore stood against any involvement. I don't believe Ukraine attacking Russian military targets or arming local forces, or entering the country, would inspire the Belarusian public against Ukraine or change the countries inability to aid Russia. In fact I think it would do quite the opposite.
    1
  1208.  @RealThaler  any reason for that? You think the Russian military came after the last invasion for celebratory vodka? Or is it just your opinion based on Georgia and Syria that the Russian military is available to occupy a country of 10 million people?
    1
  1209.  @Oldsmobility455  I agree, the Tactical nukes they are keeping there are concerning. And the loss of Belarus to Russia would be enormous. But as you've said, very plausible, and potentially very difficult for Russia to recover from..
    1
  1210.  @freedomfighter22222  by all reports the very reason Belarus hasn't joined Russia is that the public would turn on the government and the military would be unable to keep control. I do not see how this basic situation would be changed by Ukraine impeding Russian propping up of that government. I think the chances Belarus needs Russian military support are far greater than Belarus being able to provide military support, based on all evidence of past elections and supposed neutrality to date.
    1
  1211. @wesswainson254  the wheat pool and it's evolution only disappeared because Sak wheat bought it for way more than it was worth and promptly collapsed. Alberta Wheat pool didn't fail in anyway.
    1
  1212.  @AL-lh2ht  My apologies, I don't think I understand you civil war comment.
    1
  1213. I agree with the idea Solar will become the primary power source, but nuclear can certainly have a roll; industrial heat with co-generation being the main one. I don't think wind will see any significant declines in price and honestly by 2050 I think wind power will be declining globally.
    1
  1214. ​ @Jimmeh_B I have to point out that it's obvious recycling could only have recently become a possibility, until recently there wasn't an Industry to recycle. The same is true of storage. There was never going to be commercial storage until Solar was over capacity during the day. And there won't be 12-16 hour over night storage until 2-4 hour evening/frequently modulation services are built out for the same reason. There just is no market.
    1
  1215. Great video
    1
  1216.  @2drealms196  I agree with all this. Again China certainly has issues. And as those prices come down I expect a technical recession and loss of wealth among the middle class. But a Great Depression level slow down is not something I expect
    1
  1217. She isn't trying to sell them in global oil demand being strong. Trump was half elected on drill baby drill. She's trying to convince them they need Canadian heavy crude amd can't live of the shale oil lighter fluid. This isn't growing the market its keeping it.
    1
  1218. People need to realize that Smith is no longer alinged to PP or Canadian Conservativism. Her goals are larger, and they are Seperatism.
    1
  1219. "why would you build your own battery locally when you can import from China" may be the craziest thing I have ever heard. Has the economic story of the 21st century not been "don't trade away manufacturing to become dependent on cheap Chinese imports"?.
    1
  1220. I think conversation misses much of the issues around tariffs. If the international price declines, Trump will protect domestic producers with tariffs.
    1
  1221. If Israel targets Iranian oil fields, does Russia have any capacity to provide oil to Iran? Either via pipeline or across the Caspian?
    1
  1222. I do think there is issue with undervaluing the importance of these short term goals in driving Oil investment. The political situation in Alberta was eating into investment and only going to get worse with, the US tariffs may create economic recession and that will have long term impacts, and failing oilsands operators will reduce or eliminate budgets and potentially cause a financial crisis. If we can't calm the situation, we risk spending far more than $30 billion - ideally much if which is repaid and the majority of investment in which comes from the private, ideally foreign, sector.
    1
  1223. You can stop pumping geothermal, and that allows the fluid in the reservoir to reach temperatures beyond the plants steady state operations. This super heated fluid then can be pumped when peaking energy is needed, and produce above the plants rated output. Geothermal is often sold as base load, but often can be q powerful peaking tool.
    1
  1224. I'm going to say it - humans are the only people that can break rocks
    1
  1225. First?
    1
  1226. I'm not going to harp on this because I always do, but you are aware of the massive stranded asset risk we already face. And you are aware that Chicago is our main customer, and that Gasoline demand will start to rapidly fall at some point. The only chance at salavaging the existing industry is expansion. Expansion of SAGD output that lowers costs of production, and expansion of market access that lets us reach longer term markets. The risk is in not investing in new Oilsands pipelines and facilities. Otherwise we are just watching a wrecking ball hit us. The pipeline buy Political capital from the people who matter. We don't need to buy political capital from the people of Vancouver, they widely support electrification.
    1
  1227. @heronimousbrapson863  I agree with all this expect the implication there is some need for them to be sensible. If we do not humour it, the regular reference of annexation from the country to the south should make it clear the US will. They do not have to worry about global oil decline in the future. They are seeing a decline of the market they are captive to today. And that market is telling them they will either lose the basis of their economy, or join the US. Whether or not they become a have not province is entirely in Canada's control, and we need to make sure they stay a have province before they try being a have not state.
    1
  1228.  @Robert-b4e1v  lol, Ontario pays for Quebec, thank you. But it would be nice if we didn't have to start paying for the Maritimes as well.
    1
  1229. Canada isn't at the top of the cost curve for oil; and thats particularly true if we are talking about maintaining or expanding existing production. And I will argue that demand for Bitumen will be very strong. EVs displace gasoline. There is something like 3.5M bbl/d in global asphalt demand. Do EVs use roads? If gasoline demand is disappearing, and we still need lubricants for wind turbines and jet fuel for planes, then we are going to see a demand shift from conventional oil to heavy to Bitumen. That is why China is buying DilBit from Transmountain, not SCO, not even WCS. China is the leader in displacing gasoline, but they still need the heavy emds of the barrel, so that is what they buy. Also, when you call it tar sands, it is very clear you either don't know what you are talking about, or are actively trying to demonize it.
    1
  1230. In regards to the high efficiency coal plants, my personal, unfounded, belief is that in the 2030s we will see them ripping out boilers and plugging in SMRs to provide a wide scale market to commericize the technology while avoiding the stranded assets of large, new, high efficiency steam generator plants.
    1
  1231. ​ @ub59 Either this conflict has no material impact, in which case either the risk is already factored into China's and others view of energy security, and again I don't think China can "do better" at resetting the global economy and even temporary impacts would have a negative effect on inflation. Or else the war is of material impact, in which case Pars won't survive, the blockade may last years as the Russian invasion has, and Saudi and UAE infrastructure represents a clear target. The energy transition was never dictated by climate concern, it was always a function of energy security concerns, and I don't see how the realization of those concerns could have a beneficial impact..
    1
  1232.  @WallyBraun  I don't believe that's true. Cedar LNG is getting additional support in BC, and funds for the port of Churchhill were announced, but I have not seen anything about LNG in Churchill. I can't say I support shipping crude on the great lakes, although I do support an east west pipeline. But eastern Canada does have similar capacity to western.
    1
  1233.  @WallyBraun  if you are referencing something like CanPucks, I would agree this should have been a long term priority, and Alberta gets in its own way by demanding pipelines. That said, I disagree with your forecast on oil demand, in that the Bitumen we produce can be upgraded to Diesel and heavy RRPs, which are not being displaced by Renewables and EVs, unlike conventional oil where half a barrel is destined to become Gasoline, which is being displaced. Our very heavy oil is an asset in the evolving economy. I think there is a very reasonable option for an East Coast pipeline rather than risking an oil spill over 20 years of shipping on the great lakes, bringing another 500k bbl/d of refining to use domestic product, and not needing to rebuild all the existing refineries
    1
  1234.  @WallyBraun  I fundamentally agree with you, but in reality Alberta innovates puts us a decade away from 100k bbl/d in carbon fiber, which would be about 2% of current output. You cheat on your example by saying all our wood products. The reality is all our oil destined for durable goods are going there. We simply produce a lot more than that. And in reality, the Alberta chemical industry is based mainly on Natural gas condensate and shale oil. Heavy oilsands crude is not used for this. There is no reason not to develop bitumen for fuel usage in the short term, and then build that Carbon Fiber production at the end of those pipelines where the durable product can be shipped globally.
    1
  1235. ​@AGZF1983I think there is a greater intention to bring in European investment for sure.
    1
  1236. Lol Idk the Yuan can be spent on construction, really the only thing.
    1
  1237. Real life lore is kinda known for ripping off other videos. Wenddover productions is similar in format but much higher quality.
    1
  1238. Mushrooms are great, but they have very little protein (although it is a mainly complete Protein) and very little carbs or fat. It's largely irrelevant outside of being tasty, and having a lot of supplemental vitamins and minerals.
    1
  1239. I also have a heat pump. I run it in spring and fall. But you are on Vancouver Island. You aren't exactly representative of a heat pumps utility. How does your unit fit in the crawl space. Is it ground sourced?
    1
  1240. ​ @LevNikolayevichMyshkin encouraging investment is exactly the goal. You can make certain carve outs to protect farmland, but by and large farmland is low value (monetary) per acre.
    1
  1241.  @LevNikolayevichMyshkin  I know what Georgism is of course. OP asked for opinions on LVT or Georgism. I understand being against it as the only tax, or being against Georgism, but you seem to be against a LVT for not taxing the building google built to store servers, in this scenario. I hardly think that if you're goal is to get Google to pay whatever you think it's fair share is, some tax on the building is going to get you there. So I don't see why you are seemingly against an LVT.
    1
  1242. ​ @davidfoster6820 losing your existing share is a quicker one
    1
  1243. ​ @davidfoster6820 losing your existing market share is a faster one
    1
  1244. ​ @davidfoster6820 a quicker way is to lose your existing market
    1
  1245. I don't believe that is true. If it is it is a very small fraction, less than 10%. Quebec mainly used oil from Alberta or the US.
    1
  1246.  @itzikashemtov6045  Iran has 10x the population, is able to launch swarms of missiles and drones that over whelm Israeli defenses at a lower cost then Israel spends to defend, and it's military is composed of Religious extremists. And it controls Proxy forces on 3 of Israel's borders. Tldr; Israel can't deflect Iranian attacks, it can defect a few dozen low speed drones and water pipes full of gun powder fired from Gaza.
    1
  1247.  @drbuckley1  I disagree that sales will be hurt. The western public might be seeing it framed as a failure, but that's really the spin being pushed. In reality the drones performed perfectly as designed, an inexpensive weapon that can easily be shot down, but does have to be shot down because it has a payload, and at the cost of much more expensive missile defense equipment while reducing the availability of defensive infrastructure to strike more expensive ballistic and cruise missiles. It's exactly how Russia has been using them as well, and I highly doubt that will change. And with Russia being the main market, and other buyers being Iranian proxies with no other option to buy drones or missiles, I don't see how sales can be affected.
    1
  1248. Don't do the bs eat the bugz stuff please. Or the getting rid of cars.
    1
  1249.  @MrJonezy541  he's won the election already, and he can't run again. He no longer has to worry about public support, and if he does it won't be for 2 years, if he ends the war that's all that will matter
    1
  1250. I like that you started with "Marxism is wrong for thinking it will eventually just happen" and finished on "For no explainable reason the world seems to have shifted away from Liberalism to Marxist values over the last 20 years". I do wish you would stop saying communist when you mean Marxist though.
    1
  1251.  @adamnesico  the difference is that it's like refering to all Abrahamic religions as Baptist. He refers to explicitly Marxist concepts, like the inevitability of revolution or the materialist view of history, but calls it communist. Anarchists don't believe these things, nor did syndicalists, or people who just push for co-ops. I'm not trying to say any other style of communism would "be the one that worked". It's just cringe that he's so obviously conflating all Communist thought which textbooks Marxism.
    1
  1252. ​ @moritamikamikara3879 South Africa had them so that white Minority government could threaten African countries from trying to invade in support of the black population. The invasion never came, but they only got rid of nukes when getting rid of the White government, so the transfer of power the nukes were meant to prevent did occur.
    1
  1253.  @MrBrock314  I agree completely.
    1
  1254. One area not discussed here, and for good reason, is Wind. Wind energy ultimately has no future. It is certainly effective today, particularly in Canada and similar hydro power economies where it cost effectively maintains water levels in dams longer through the year. But in China or America, wind is really little more than a way to keep the steel and concrete industries operating. Maybe carbon fiber will make longer, lighter blades that are cheaper. But in the long term, at least in my opinion, the module nature of solar panels will lead to a virtuous cycle of more leading to lower cost leading to more production. At least for consumers and commercial activities, Solar will be the future of energy production.
    1
  1255. 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
  1256.  @emilschattner3407  this is entirely correct. We need better port access and better internal mobility for goods and labour.
    1
  1257.  @Willowgirl2015  it sure seems Canadian whenever you want a pipeline built through another province.
    1
  1258. @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
  1259.  @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
  1260. @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
  1261. @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
  1262. @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
  1263.  @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
  1264. I think this is to reduce dollar exposure and find Russia discretely
    1
  1265. @Imbatmn57 idk a lot of the world's gold is owned by central banks, they aren't exactly novice investors
    1
  1266.  @dv9239  that's really interesting.
    1
  1267. You missed Ethiopia, Rwanda, the Sahel belt, Lybia, and Sudan turning the North half of Africa into a massive war zone, Iran launching direct attacks on US bases, and Venezuela attacking Guiana while Hatian Pirates attack Panama shipping.
    1
  1268. ​ @christinegoodings6289 where does it start, and where does the Sask river end
    1
  1269. ​ @christinegoodings6289 The Saskatchewan River does, which then flows into the Nelson
    1
  1270. Seems to me the advantage is the rules are actually enforced why the disadvantage is the rules are enforced. Guess it depends how American and freedom hating you are?
    1
  1271. 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
  1272.  @MisterDaryn  yes. Any other form of infrastructure and there would be no question that public finance is relevant.
    1
  1273. @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
  1274. @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
  1275.  @LauraineHowattpansy2018  you're paying to transport it regardless. The more dangerous chemicals you are referencing are the NGLs Markham regularly references as having a long future for the chemical industry.
    1
  1276.  @ryuuguu01   the numbers are entirely arbitrary, but 500k bbl/d is roughly Northern Gateway, and Alberta innovates claims it could be processing 100k bbl/d in 10 years, so ramping up to 1M bbl/d over severa decades seems reasonable. In reference to Sudbury, all conversation around the ring of fire seems to assume ore will be shipped to Sudbury to be refined, considerably farther than Toronto. But also, refining in this context would be the Bitumen cleaning process, which is obviously still some on site in Alberta. Making Carbon fiber is like making sheet metal. I agree that you want economies of scale and local ecosystems. If we look at the Chinese example in Solar, silicon is produced inland in the West in Xinjiang, but Solar Cells are produced from that material on the Coast in Jiangsu as the major hub, but with other less prominent hubs in other coastal states. I don't know what to say except it is very normal to focus manufacturing in coastal areas for logistics and employment reasons. This is the same as your statement on wind, extract the resource where it's profitable, and then ship it somewhere to use it. The reason to duplicate the economy is for scale and because we have a natural advantage, and producing it in Alberta would be more expensive to export west. But also, I don't think it's sublet in suggesting we could build a pipeline and export oil today while scaling up that manufacturing over the next decades so that we get the benefit of oil exports without the risk of stranded assets.
    1
  1277.  @ryuuguu01  In fairness, I do want to see new pipelines, ideally 2 Northern Gateway to Prince Rupert and 2M bbl/d east to get 3M bll/d out of US pipeline reliance. But my point is that if we believe Bitumen has a future outside fuel, we don't need to fear building pipelines as stranded asset, because that future processing can be done anywhere. So we can sell oil today and build carbon Fiber (for the 20%) and petrochemical industry (for the other 80%) over time to pick up demand as oil sales fall. That said I don't think the only goal is to help Alberta. But I think it's fundamentally good for Alberta to have a national market for Bitumen..
    1
  1278. We most certainly do not have to reduce our energy consumption. Solar will produce energy far in surplus of our current needs.
    1
  1279. ​ @waltershearls the US does have a trade deficit on oil, that is correct. They are a net petroleum exporter, but that includes gas and diesel etc. If you exclude Canada, because the oil trade is protected by physical infrastructure and legal treaties, then you get oil independence. But the entire mid west runs mainly on Canadian oil. California/the west coast runs largely on imports from Iraq and south america, although Canadian oil is increasing there as well.
    1
  1280. Do you have a storage system on site? When you say 100% of home needs is that like on net? Also, out of curiosity, how large an area do you need for solar pannels/how large is your property?
    1
  1281. You're argument against Oil development is predicated on us having limited capital. I don't agree with this. We can support the development of low cost energy and the oil sands; in fact it is the same goal when you realize the energy input needed to produce Bitumen from the oilsands. If that becomes effectively free, oilsands production becomes effectively free. Is the oilsands going to be around in 100 years? No. But will it be a stranded asset in 10 years? That depends on the investments we make today, and we can make investments that keep the industry globally relevant for the next 50 years. We do not have to allow our banks to collapse.
    1
  1282. There is no benefit to us in speeding up the adoption of electrification if it means losing our industry. Chinese EVs undermine our investment in EV manufacturering. Becoming import dependent for our energy is bad policy.
    1
  1283. ​@richi1618 I imagine I'd be using a BlackBerry and we'd still make cellphones. China doesn't believe in free trade, it does not exercise free trade, and free trade is not how it developed its manufacturing, including the EVs you want to buy. Blanket tariffs are obviously bad policy, competition is clearly important, but selective tariffs are an essential element of industrial policy, particularly when China is trying to dump in your market. If you want to end up with a far right radical government, go ahead and kill off manufacturing. Look at Europe, look at the US, deindustrializing yourself for cheap Chinese imports is a clear pathway to destabilizing society. We are about to lose oil, we are about to lose ICE auto. We need this. If you want to be able to import Chinese Evs, we need to have an export.
    1
  1284. ​@richi1618 I imagine I'd be using a BlackBerry and we'd still make cellphones. China doesn't believe in free trade, it does not exercise free trade, and free trade is not how it developed its manufacturing, including the EVs you want to buy. Blanket tariffs are obviously bad policy, competition is clearly important, but selective tariffs are an essential element of industrial policy, particularly when China is trying to dump in your market. If you want to end up with a far right radical government, go ahead and kill off manufacturing. Look at Europe, look at the US, deindustrializing yourself for cheap Chinese imports is a clear pathway to destabilizing society. We are about to lose oil, we are about to lose ICE auto. We need this. If you want to be able to import Chinese Evs, we need to have an export..
    1
  1285. ​@richi1618 I imagine I'd be using a BlackBerry and we'd still make cellphones. China doesn't believe in free trade, it does not exercise free trade, and free trade is not how it developed its manufacturing, including the EVs you want to buy. Blanket tariffs are obviously bad policy, competition is clearly important, but selective tariffs are an essential element of industrial policy, particularly when China is trying to dump in your market. If you want to end up with a far right radical government, go ahead and undermine manufacturing. Look at Europe, look at the US, deindustrializing yourself for cheap Chinese imports is a clear pathway to destabilizing society. We are about to lose oil, we are about to lose ICE auto. We need this. If you want to be able to import Chinese Evs, we need to have an export..
    1
  1286. ​​ @oldmanlearningguitar446  No one is advocating we base our economy on making smart phones. The Federal, Quebec, and Ontario governments haven't invested $10s of Billions into smartphone manufacturing. Smartphones aren't about to wipe out our oil and ICE vehicle exports..
    1
  1287. ​​ @Lorne.Mccuaig  Alberta innovates puts thoer optimistic scenario as using 100k bbl/d of Bitumen for Carbon Fiber 10 years after commercialization. That seems agressive (but reasonable). But it hardly impacts our bitumen production, it isn't even a fifth of our expected output growth over the period. So in the next 20 years, while I think it will become a relevant industry, it hardly impacts oilsands demand. I'm saying that it will only be a significant customer in maybe 30 years, and then for maybe 20 generate demand before the bitumen is more a liability than an advantage. I'd like to see such industries as well, although I'm not sure we are the most competitive in either. Are you calling me a bot?
    1
  1288.  @nromk  I'm not going to argue the CIA hasn't worked with Cartels lol. But there is definitely a connection to China at the moment in regards to Fentyal, you can tell because white people are ODing not just black kids. And I Wonder how quickly that becomes smuggling arms if we have a Taiwan issue flare up.
    1
  1289.  @claesvanoldenphatt9972  It looked wrong to me but my phone didn't underline it. But you are correct I rarely use the word verbally
    1
  1290.  @joeybobbie1  Of course I don't want one? My question is could China create an insurgency type of situation directly on the US border by leveraging Cartel ties and providing funds and weapons. Particularly as conversation around US military intervention has been rising and the new president isn't planing on being as soft of crime, which may cause the Cartels to push for greater autonomy.
    1
  1291.  @moic9704  never really played COD. The US is openly talking about using the military to intervene in Mexico, so I guess same question. But also, I didn't say the Cartels would attach the US, I said they would create a civil war that the US would have to deal with while dealing with a multiple global conflicts. Maybe you use a false flag to start it that's smart. But after that it wouldn't surprise me if China was able to use existing contacts to ship in weapons to support it. Triggering an American Civil war seems harder but yes that would definitely be a bigger issue. Although the Cartels certainly have connections throughout the US. And China is already feeding the cartels Fentanyl, whereas I don't think it has established connections with militias.
    1
  1292.  @stevetypebeats6493  I understand that people in Mexico city and Veracruz are unified, but one of the campaign promises of the newly elected president is to end the hugs not bullets policy and fight the cartels. The cartels do hold political power, and challenging that is inherently not unified. I'm suggesting a Taliban esque insurgency throughout the mountainous west, particularly if US proposals to send their own military in support are followed.
    1
  1293.  @lbs7774  no one claimed there was?
    1
  1294.  @ernestkhalimov1007  see my reply to Steven type
    1
  1295. Is this all in regards to keeping but heavily reforming the Jones act?
    1
  1296. I believe a lot of British revenue was through tariffs, which would effect the average. But I think it's somewhat fair to say it transfered from the nobility.
    1
  1297. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p Ultimately, my reply is What is your point? I would emphasize that; China is the world's largest importer and determined to remove dependence and EVs are rapidly displacing gasoline which is almost half of every barrel of oil - which will demand higher prices for jet fuel or diesel to compensate for dumping gasoline (even in a reduced oil price environment), and so I think this should be seen in the wider context of a strategic move by China cripple the US economy while removing its own main weakness But most importantly, even if oil stays at 100M bbl/d, it will clearly be at a much lower price for the foreseeable future. OPEC is increasing production to try and capture the market and grow a market in Africa, so low prices to drive out Shale oil and EVs are here permanently, or else EVs will increasingly destroy the market. And OPEC will keep prices low, or collapse entirely and lead to a free market based on competition in oil production and truely drive down oil values. Without the supply constraint of OPEC and with the demand destruction of EVs Oil is not the valuable commodity an intentional monopoly has made it appear, and without that market restraint it's not black gold. I think it's very possible oil demand will maintain, and at the very least I think SAGD in the oilsands can increase production in the face of global declines and low prices. But I think the era of oil as printing money has ended, and oil is now just another commodity without considerable royalties or particularly high profits..
    1
  1298. @PeterWitherspoon-x4p Ultimately, my reply is What is your point? I would emphasize that; China is the world's largest importer and determined to remove dependence and EVs are rapidly displacing gasoline which is almost half of every barrel of oil - which will demand higher prices for jet fuel or diesel to compensate for dumping gasoline (even in a reduced oil price environment), and so I think this should be seen in the wider context of a strategic move by China cripple the US economy while removing its own main weakness But most importantly, even if oil stays at 100M bbl/d, it will clearly be at a much lower price for the foreseeable future. OPEC is increasing production to try and capture the market and grow a market in Africa, so low prices to drive out Shale oil and EVs are here permanently, or else EVs will increasingly destroy the market. And OPEC will keep prices low, or collapse entirely and lead to a free market based on competition in oil production and truely drive down oil values. Without the supply constraint of OPEC and with the demand destruction of EVs Oil is not the valuable commodity an intentional monopoly has made it appear, and without that market restraint it's not black gold. I think it's very possible oil demand will maintain, and at the very least I think SAGD in the oilsands can increase production in the face of global declines and low prices. But I think the era of oil as printing money has ended, and oil is now just another commodity without considerable royalties or particularly high profits. And we need to be considerate of that when discussing future investment and outcomes.
    1
  1299. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p idk what to say. We have already seen OPEC drop prices. They are well below $80. In Covid when demand was low, they did flood the market and nearly ruined our producers. Waving off EVs as a small portion of demand means your entirely missing their growth in the Chinese market and how large an importer that is..
    1
  1300. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p If they cannot keep prices low, then OPEC will collapse, and proces will end up even lower. I agree thats possible. But OPECs entire model for the next 50 years is that Africa and the global south will become major customers; that will not happen without cheap energy, and China will take market share with EVs whenever prices rise. OPEC was defined by a lack of competition, it now faces it on several fronts. It doesn't matter if it wants $80 a barrel, it is no longer achievable.. Again, what is your point other than oil was being used? Alberta immediately faced a revenue and debt crisis. We don't produce oil for the thrill of it, if prices are halved it becomes just another commodity..
    1
  1301. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p honestly, in 4/5 of my posts, I'm arguing for the oilsands. I am supportive of the Canadian Oil industry, or at least the SAGD operations in the oilsands. But you are completely missing the reality of the situation. If OPEC could maintain an $80 barrel, they would be. The Saudis have been struggling with members going over quotas while the shale oil producers and offshore south American producers steal market share for the last decade. And now the Chinese market, the largest importer in the world, is collapsing. China is increasing its own production, even if it halves demand imports become inconsequential. And it will halve demand, it is determined, beyond any economic metric, to not depend on seaborne oil imports. It literally produced more EVs last year than North America produced vehicles. Its goal is to distrupt the oil market. Passenger vehicles may be 25% of oil demand. But that is almost entirely gasoline. Gasoline is half of every conventional barrel. If the market for gasoline collapses, that impacts every other market. The 10% of a barrel going to Jet fuel costs a lot more if no one will buy the half that is gasoline. This is literally why I think Canada can be the last producer in the export market. Bitumen can produce all the heavy RPPs (jet fuel, diesel, base oils for lubricants), along with dominating the global asphalt market, without dealing with any unwanted gasoline. But China is not the only country producing EVs. It is not the only country that wants energy independence. the gasoline demand will go away. This is a structural issue. EVs were taking market demand even in South America and South Asia, that is why OPEC has dropped prices, it needs to fight off EVs. And going forward, EVs will only get less expensive with Chinese over capacity, and any attempt to raise prices will lose long term market share..
    1
  1302. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p . honestly, in 4/5 of my posts, I'm arguing for the oilsands. I am supportive of the Canadian Oil industry, or at least the SAGD operations in the oilsands.  But you are completely missing the reality of the situation. If OPEC could maintain an $80 barrel, they would be. The Saudis have been struggling with members going over quotas while the shale oil producers and offshore south American producers steal market share for the last decade.  And now the Chinese market, the largest importer in the world, is collapsing. China is increasing its own production, even if it halves demand imports become inconsequential. And it will halve demand, it is determined, beyond any economic metric, to not depend on seaborne oil imports. It literally produced more EVs last year than North America produced vehicles. Its goal is to distrupt the oil market.  Passenger vehicles may be 25% of oil demand. But that is almost entirely gasoline. Gasoline is half of every conventional barrel. If the market for gasoline collapses, that impacts every other market. The 10% of a barrel going to Jet fuel costs a lot more if no one will buy the half that is gasoline.  This is literally why I think Canada can be the last producer in the export market. Bitumen can produce all the heavy RPPs (jet fuel, diesel, base oils for lubricants), along with dominating the global asphalt market, without dealing with any unwanted gasoline.  But China is not the only country producing EVs. It is not the only country that wants energy independence. the gasoline demand will go away. This is a structural issue. EVs were taking market demand even in South America and South Asia, that is why OPEC has dropped prices, it needs to fight off EVs. And going forward, EVs will only get less expensive with Chinese over capacity, and any attempt to raise prices will lose long term market share.
    1
  1303. @PeterWitherspoon-x4p honestly, in 4/5 of my posts, I'm arguing for the oilsands. I am supportive of the Canadian Oil industry, or at least the SAGD operations in the oilsands.  But you are completely missing the reality of the situation. If OPEC could maintain an $80 barrel, they would be. The Saudis have been struggling with members going over quotas while the shale oil producers and offshore south American producers steal market share for the last decade.  And now the Chinese market, the largest importer in the world, is collapsing. China is increasing its own production, even if it halves demand imports become inconsequential. And it will halve demand, it is determined, beyond any economic metric, to not depend on seaborne oil imports. It literally produced more EVs last year than North America produced vehicles. Its goal is to distrupt the oil market.  Passenger vehicles may be 25% of oil demand. But that is almost entirely gasoline. Gasoline is half of every conventional barrel. If the market for gasoline collapses, that impacts every other market. The 10% of a barrel going to Jet fuel costs a lot more if no one will buy the half that is gasoline.  This is literally why I think Canada can be the last producer in the export market. Bitumen can produce all the heavy RPPs (jet fuel, diesel, base oils for lubricants), along with dominating the global asphalt market, without dealing with any unwanted gasoline.  But China is not the only country producing EVs. It is not the only country that wants energy independence. the gasoline demand will go away. This is a structural issue. EVs were taking market demand even in South America and South Asia, that is why OPEC has dropped prices, it needs to fight off EVs. And going forward, EVs will only get less expensive with Chinese over capacity, and any attempt to raise prices will lose long term market share..
    1
  1304. ​​ @SigFigNewton  i didn't say I have a problem with OPEC. I have a problem with people acting like OPEC doesn't exist.
    1
  1305. That's not really how industries work. For a while you can fill the strategic reserve, as you should, but labour and equipment doesn't just sit around waiting during the dip.
    1
  1306.  @douglasengle2704  you do have to note that includes all the oil "consumed in the US" to export gas and diesel.
    1
  1307. 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
  1308. 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
  1309. US would be much better off trying self sufficiency that includes Canada and Mexico than independent. Its not like Canada or Mexico have any real independence anyway. But ya, of course, the US could manage self sufficiency. Oil would be difficult without Canada, though. And no more fancy fruit.
    1
  1310. If you can make something in China, you can make it in America. There is no technological advantage. It's crazy that you think the US economy will suffer if cell phones have a 10% tariff. If Russia can have cellphones while the world sanctions it, the US will be able to get them while it tariffs the world. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans won't even buy a new Microwave during Trump's term lol.
    1
  1311. Do you really believe the US isn't going to have access to cellphones? Or that a Microwave or AC unit most Americans won't even replace in the next 5 years having a 10% tariff will create hardship?
    1
  1312. I think Biden just built semiconductor production in the US which will be coming on line just in time to save Trump, and more importantly, I think the US will still be able to buy high end Semi Conductors from Taiwan under a 10% tariff, and, Infact, that it will have almost no impact on consumer day to day spending or views of the economy. Cell phones are expensive because of IP, not semiconductors.
    1
  1313. I think Biden just built semiconductor production in the US which will be coming on line just in time to save Trump, and more importantly, I think the US will still be able to buy high end Semi Conductors from Taiwan under a 10% tariff, and, Infact, that it will have almost no impact on consumer day to day spending or views of the economy. Cell phones are expensive because of IP, not semiconductors. @Bert, I don't disagree there will be a price increase on some goods. I'm just irritated by the seeming belief that American consumers will just keep buying everything with a 10% price increase. There will be substitions. There will be less demand. Less demand will cause lower prices. Consumers will pay more for some items. But not necessarily by the entire value of the tariff. There is absolutely an extent to which other countries will "pay the tariff" to the US by lowering prices.
    1
  1314.  @Richest_Person_in_the_World  Money as a tax credit is just Chartalism. MMT also includes discussion around automatic stabilizers (which I support) and a Zero Interest Rate Policy (which I think is in error), and using fiscal policy to combat inflation. It is the blend of Post Keynesian economics and Chartalism that is the basis of MMT.
    1
  1315.  @anydaynow01  I'd like to see Canada develop a maritime focused private military industry, who we could both hire to patrol our coasts as supplemental, and allow to patrol friendly nations coast for low income countries struggling with illegal Chinese Fishing. But I agree SATs and subs are the most effective spending items or arctic waters, I'd add long ranger fighters like super Hornets though
    1
  1316.  @billestew7535  The Ukrainians. I'll worry about having to fight some mythical Russian beach head in territory with 0 infrastructure and half a year of impassible ocean and -40 temperatures when they can take over the non-NATO giant piece of flat land full of Russian speakers they border.
    1
  1317.  @NorthernGuy-v1x  "Northern Guy", you may have a bias in who you talk with, but the Bloc as the opposition is hilarious, and there is still about half the population who want either the Liberals or NDP, so one of them is going to end up in second.
    1
  1318.  @PeachysMom  I'm not, but the creationist are, and I just think it's funny how we ridicule the idea
    1
  1319.  @aspiringscientificjournali1505  we can't really prove all our measurements telling us the age of the world etc aren't based off defined values any more than prove or disprove the "substance" of our reality. I'm certainly not claiming this is all an actual game God is playing like Sims or that other people are NPCs or I'm/you're a brain in a jar. I just think it's funny how attached we are to theories put forward before we even had computers when we live in an era people are afraid of the threats of AI. Like creationist aren't claiming God grabbed a shovel and dug holes and perfectly mixed the ratio of uranium or carbon in each bone to give a right date and then reburied each one with the right stratification. I have no way of knowing whether or not this is a simulation turned on one day with an environment generated to create the illusion of billions of years. When I play Skyrim I don't assume bones I walk by really represent characters who fought whatever before I got there. To me the mockery is uncritical and largely undeserved, even if the basis of the belief (among creationists) lacks reason.
    1
  1320. ​ @aspiringscientificjournali1505  I'm not suggesting the world is literally a game like God is playing Simms or that other people are NPCs or you're/I'm a brain in a jar. My point is only that people jump to mock the idea, as you did, without any critical thought. We're very attached to ideas put forward by people who ran around on sailing ships in an area where AI is an increasing threat. At the end of the day you can't "prove" that any of our measurements are of substance any more than one can prove the world was just turned on one day. Planck's constant seems oddly like bit computation, the universe is apparently 4 dimensional when the math says there should be a lot more, we are literally at the center of the known universe, the Fermi paradox might just mean everything out there is procedurally generated. We still don't have a theory binding gravity to the other 3 forces. We are and probably always will be stuck measuring from an internal frame work of 4 dimensions. The starting point will always be an unprovable assumption of how "real" the universe is, one way or another. Again, I'm not a creationist. But I have no reason to think their wrong, I'm just assuming they. Also I already answered but it isn't appearing so sorry if I did this twice.
    1
  1321.  @PeachysMom  why is it ridiculous though? There's a large number of physicists who think this could all be a simulation. I don't see how replacing the word God with Programmer makes a significant difference from our perspective.
    1
  1322. @Niko C   "I don't care what's simply most efficient, humans are not robots. I care what yeilds the best living standards for people" You some kinda communist then? Would you say you have a similar view on health care or wage laws or taxation of the wealthy for redistribution? But also, does "best living standards" not included lung disease and pedestrian deaths? Or deaths in car accidents more widely? Or time in traffic or commute? I also see you say its an objective fact more crime happens on a public transit, but thats blatantly false. 11,654 people died in car crashes involving just a druck driver, whereas 291 died (in total) on public transit in the US in 2020. By impact on mortality or number of crimes I think its pretty clear public transit is lower. "having to share your personal space with other people, without your concent, is not freedom" I mean, if your personal space is the space you occupy, you are correctly describing rape and its not freedom. But if we're not talking about the space you literally occupy, the. what is "your personal space" Does the UN or the USA or any country have a legal definition of the area around you you legally control? It sounds like you're claiming other people existing is a problem. You also ask why you should build ywo parallel systems? How is two lanes in the same direction not literally that? Because they both use cars? That argument is easily equivalent to saying tall buildings would find it cheaper to build an extra elevator over a flight of stairs, obviously incorrect. And what then makes it a "parallel system"? Can we put a bus on the second lane or is that now redundant. What if we build it just for the bus because of high demand, or is redundant whenever cars can't use something (in which case a bed is "redundant"). And of course saying a bus lane is good but putting tracks on it is bad makes no sense, so I'm really unclear on where the system become parallel and redundant. Last point, your are aware they don't strap you into public transit? And if you don't like who you're near you can move? But yes everyone knows cars take up more than 2 square meters that is the issue- that its impossible to use cars in a dense environment because space is a limitation.
    1
  1323.  @nikoc8968  Lol, Texas alone spends $20 billion a year on roads through just the SHF, and you think the free market decided. Personal space exists but you're being hysterical in acting like it expands to seat across from you. "No one is going to help you", again just silly. I drove past a rolled car on the highway yesterday and did nothing. Being in a car didn't make me help. But to be clear, your definition of redundancy is literally "can a car use it". Which isn't a dictionary definition but hey, when facts like the well known reality of public transit reducing traffic doesn't matter I guess definitions don't stand a chance. And if just 2% of those drunk driving deaths weren't the driver, it would still be higher than everyone killed in public transort. I'm not anti car but your points are obviously rediculous and put forward out of personal preference over any objective reality.
    1
  1324.  @nikoc8968  Road accidents are the leading cause of death from ages 5-29 and that still is definitely not the definition of redundancy.
    1
  1325. I think it's more Likely Putin runs to Siberia and keeps his finger on a couple nukes with some of the military that knows it will face war crimes charges, and China might step in to peacekeep or protect its infrastructure in Eastern Russia. It wouldn't be the first to China cut a country in half.
    1
  1326. Russia will collapses by the end of 2025. They will be out of liquid reserves, man power, tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, etc. The only real question is whether Ukraine collapses first.
    1
  1327.  @scottcincinnatikid9804    I suggest watching a video of Warren Mosler. He's arguably the founder and far more articulate, he even has a debate against Bob Murphy. I suggest the entire argument of MMT is that you should focus on spending that creates real growth rather than deficits. I would agree that MMT leans toward more Government control of the economy than a perfect free market, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a command economy. At least, not by necessity. But I do of course agree with your concern of politicized and ignorant spending from the federal government. I'd suggest a policy of Federal government financing municipal governments and charities to pay for minimum wage full time work. I think that would do a better job at finding useful, if short term, roles for people. The Fed also doesn't use interest to create more reserves. I'm not clear what was meant there.
    1
  1328.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  I suggest watching a video of Warren Mosler. He's arguably the founder and far more articulate, he even has a debate against Bob Murphy. But the point about spending to increase real output and base spending restrictions on inflation rather than deficits levels. I also wouldn't agree this is a command economy, but I do agree it speaks to that argument about the level of cooperation vs competition in the economy. I certainly agree with the concerns around government lacking responsibility. I would like to see the Federal Government fund municipal governments and Charities to hire employees at full time minimum wage. Much better for finding useful work for people to do imo. I'd also let manufacturering firms use it for up to 6 months on the condition they have to pay half of it back if the employee isn't employed there in a year. The Fed also doesn't use internet to create reserves I'm not sure what you mean by this
    1
  1329.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  I mean of course they believe it's going to raise Q as much as M. That's the whole point. Wether they are crazy or not is a seperate point, and I would suggest Stephanie Kelson is the craziest of all because she seems to think you can pay for a rebuild of the national infrastructure by printing money. Before forming to firm an opinion, I suggest watching Bob Murphy (the Austrian Economist in this video) debate Warren Mosler. This provided me with real understanding of a much more reasoned view of what is meant by MMT. I certainly agree with the view of politicians and government lol, but I think you could take meaningful take aways from MMT while maintaining an competitive free market. It's certainly not calling for a command economy. The Fed also doesn't use interest to create reserves, I'm not sure what you mean there.
    1
  1330.  @scottcincinnatikid9804   @scottcincinnatikid9804  I mean of course they believe it's going to raise Q as much as M. That's the whole point. Wether they are crazy or not is a seperate point, and I would suggest Stephanie Kelson is the craziest of all because she seems to think you can pay for a rebuild of the national infrastructure by printing money. Before forming to firm an opinion, I suggest watching Bob Murphy (the Austrian Economist in this video) debate Warren Mosler. This provided me with real understanding of a much more reasoned view of what is meant by MMT. I certainly agree with the view of politicians and government lol, but I think you could take meaningful take aways from MMT while maintaining an competitive free market. It's certainly not calling for a command economy. The Fed also doesn't use interest to create reserves, I'm not sure what you mean there.
    1
  1331.  @willnitschke  I suppose you did not say "never", but you did emphasize "not" when speaking as to whether government should make investment. I would agree pre 2010 China is a strong example of government led investment. I would disagree that governments should not make investment that encourages competitive advantage in sectors a nation specializes in or has strategic interest in. No debt is productive. Spending is productive. The issue at concern is always the value of the spending, and never a question of financing. It's no surprise to anyone, national or international, that the US government funding to the US medial or Military Industrial Complex is not efficient. This is an issue of regulatory capture and lobbying, not of how funds are raised. "That's just empty platitudes" is some pretty empty criticism. I guess you're suggesting fiat currency isn't government driven? Obviously it is.
    1
  1332.  @willnitschke  no... But the fact you would reply only to the last sentence of a two paragraph answer suggests you are.
    1
  1333.  @willnitschke  toward debt servicing, the obvious question is what was the debt itself spent on. Towards entitlements, differing entitlements have differing impacts. Still, I would never acuse the US government of any kind of efficiency. That certainly doesn't go against the claim some money creation pays for itself. Again, Banks do this regularly in making loans. It would be impressive if government money creation never led to real value creation, when the private sector nearly always does.
    1
  1334.  @willnitschke  good dunk bro
    1
  1335. @scottcincinnatikid9804  I think you really need to decide who the "proponents" are. I really suggest listening to Warren Mosler on YouTube. He actually debates Bob Murphy from this video. Bill Mitchell is also worth listening to. They are widely seen as the founders, and I tend to think they are speaking about the correct way the monetary system operates. Then you have Stephanie Kelton here, who seems to actively misrepresent and represent in the most confusing terms possible MMT, and baits people who want certain policies into believing they can be gotten for free. While these people might say they support MMT, I don't believe they actually understand anything other than a vague idea of money creation. While obviously many supporters of MMT do believe some degree of central planning is beneficial, I don't think it's correct to frame MMT in general as being any more supportive of Central Planning than a Central Bank and fiat currency inherently is. The fact that radical elements might misrepresent something to justify spending they, as you point out, were going to justify regardless has no bearing on that initial thing's, here MMT's, validity. But a correction; the Fed doesn't use interest to create reserves. Reserves are created through asset purchases. Interest recieved by the Fed goes to the treasury as general revenue, after subtracting operating expenses. If the balance is negative, the Treasury pays the difference.
    1
  1336.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  idk why but my reply isn't coming through. Long story short, I suggest watching Bob Murphy (from this video) debate Warren Mosler.
    1
  1337. @scottcincinnatikid9804  I don't recall this coming up from either Bob or Warren, I may rewatch and get back to you, but I've seen Warren in several interviews and he's certainly not shy about the reality of government lending or implicitly suggesting the Fed buys all debt. I'd be surprised if Bob had left such an easy point I scored. Sorry if I'm digging something old up, I didn't see myself replying to when I was trying to figure out what the guy replying to me was referencing. In my longer reply, I certainly agreed with the point Kelton isn't being genuine, but that wouldn't post. I do have to say I think it's an entirely ideological point to suggest the government can only achieve a zero sum gain. You could suggest empirically it's rare, and we could debate the point. But I can point to a number of Governments, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, who have very apparently grown wealth.
    1
  1338. @scottcincinnatikid9804  I don't have any strong objections to these points. And your third sentence is non-confrontational. The only thing somewhat nebulous is the fourth sentence, because MMT suggests (and not only MMT) that while the government while take after giving, the giving will create enough benefits it is still worth while. I would say we shouldn't vote off Proverbs, and that the concept of MMT says we should vote for responsible financiers. I guess my main disagreement, I should be clear it is not inherent, is "The borrowing happening now, even if held by the Fed, will require future debt servicing cost, meaning less". You'll never find a successful business afraid to borrow. While technically I agree, borrowing means repayment with interest, I don't agree that implies less. We should expect our elected government to invest well enough that less is not the outcome. A failure in this is a failure in the democratic concept. I would never expect the public sector to invest better than the best of the private sector, but I do believe proper investment into infrastructure and a nation's comparative or strategic advantages leveraged at the relatively low borrowing rates nations face can be advantageous. Honestly, if someone ran on the idea of giving every citizen a savings account funded by national borrowing, where we could only keep the dividend payments, I'd have to think very seriously about what I thought of the lower end of society. The low cost of national borrowing is enticing. "Government spending for the most part is just reclassification of who will consume". Even on this point, between tax and borrowing, I'm not sure tax is the better choice. Taxing means taking away from productive investment, borrowing means taking away from the least productive investments. Does the economy really grow better under an income tax that pays for education than borrowing now in the expectation those educated will grow the economy? I find it hard to square.
    1
  1339. 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
  1340. Honestly I almost feel bad for China. Russia was supposed to be an ally that provided high end rocket and military and nuclear technology and now they are basically a second North Korea China feels like it has to keep on life support
    1
  1341. Idk. Look at the paradox of China; world's largest growing coal fleet and fastest renewable grow out. And I expect they will be cutting coal consumption greatly over to 2030, and coal plants converted to nuclear in the 2030s. The planned approach driven by cheap energy in search of cheap energy has its advantages.
    1
  1342.  Itisokaytobeawhitemale.-mj9kl  do you have any idea how expensive the North is? Grants for people to have jobs will cost us less.
    1
  1343.  Itisokaytobeawhitemale.-mj9kl  this is real basic give a man a fish / teach a man to fish stuff.
    1
  1344. @ChrisR-xs9wp  I am not defending Smith. But we don't have to sell out Ontario's EV industry it has poured government support into to flood the market with cheaper Chinese models. And we certainly can't do it and then blame Smith. She is not running Canada's economic policy. Blaming dilutent is just silly.
    1
  1345.  @muzehack  I do not care about getting off oil. Canada has no strategic dependence on imports, our emissions are not relevant. What matters is the rest of the world does care about getting off oil, particularly foreign oil, and the world's importer is rapidly collapsing their demand. Our economy will not survive as a gas station and Autoparts shop. We can already see the US trying to cannibalize us for share of the shrinking markets. The harm in just accepting these gracious gifts of subsidies from the Chinese is it leaves us with no economy. Their goal is to give a man a fish until he can no longer feed himself and depends on them. If you can't see the harm in letting them take over the manufacturing sector you aren't looking to the south. Trump is what happens when you allow your self to be deindustrialized for cheap imports from a hostile government..
    1
  1346. @muzehack  I do not care about getting off oil. Canada has no strategic dependence on imports, our emissions are not relevant. What matters is the rest of the world does care about getting off oil, particularly foreign oil, and the world's importer is rapidly collapsing their demand. Our economy will not survive as a gas station and Autoparts shop. We can already see the US trying to cannibalize us for share of the shrinking markets. The harm in just accepting these gracious gifts of subsidies from the Chinese is it leaves us with no economy. Their goal is to give a man a fish until he can no longer feed himself and depends on them. If you can't see the harm in letting them take over the manufacturing sector you aren't looking to the south. Trump is what happens when you allow your self to be deindustrialized for cheap imports from a hostile government..
    1
  1347. 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
  1348. @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
  1349. @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
  1350. @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
  1351. 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
  1352. 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
  1353.  @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
  1354.  @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
  1355. ​ @LexYeen  1) the profit from LNG is actually quite low, the market is saturated and the massive 2022 price spike was gone within a year. That's why Biden is creating export permit restrictions is people weren't actually building. 2) I disagree with the core concept, just like I think government provided safe drugs should be available to kick out the cartel or why prohibition was bad 3) Even ignoring that, Russia has far higher emissions for Methane leaks than the US does, and is using the profits to destroy nuclear and hydro plants alongside of course fund a massive war in Europe.
    1
  1356. It sounds like the Scamble for Africa was the OG Moon race. Complete with evil nazi scientists and major technological spin offs.
    1
  1357. Wine vines are actually from North America do to a disease in the Columbus exchange. I believe European grapes are grafted onto them.
    1
  1358.  @Silentfire77  He only banned fracking on federal land. I'm not saying its a clear outlook, I'm only saying Fracking has yet to be a profitable industry. I am okay with a regulatory environment that doesn't support it.
    1
  1359.  @Silentfire77  I would consider environmental assessments and regulations as part of the genuine cost. I'm sure you could output oil less expensive if you ignored water contamination, earthquake, and methane leakage risks. But that wouldn't really save cost it just pushes them around.
    1
  1360.  @PARAN0IDxGERBIL  I disagree with that assessment, and certainly with the comparison to Iraq. From a Global perspective we have seen grain and oil shortages drive up prices. Europe has seen spiked energy prices, and while improved, is seeing a loss of manufacturering largely related to energy costs. The Global Artillery shell market has seen massive inflation showing how this conflict has pulled in a large amount of the world's military production in key fields. Fighting in North Africa; the Sahel, Libya, and Sudan, has been influenced by both sides. The alignment with Iran has greatly increased its funding and ability to fund proxies, it's possible we have even seen Russia arms being delivered to Houthis to use against global shipping. Recent escalatory behavior by North Korea is also obviously connected. I think the amount of material, scale of casualties, and global involvement in supplying both sides makes this far more comparable to the opening years of either world war than to a fast past Maneuver Campaign followed by longer term anti insurgency operation that we have seen since Vietnam. And of course, there is risk of Nuclear weapons being used. It may be low, but at this point two allied belligerents are nuclear powers who both regularity threaten the use of such weapons.
    1
  1361. @PARAN0IDxGERBIL  I disagree with that assessment, and certainly with the comparison to Iraq. From a Global perspective we have seen grain and oil shortages drive up prices. Europe has seen spiked energy prices, and while improved, is seeing a loss of manufacturering largely related to energy costs. The Global Artillery shell market has seen massive inflation showing how this conflict has pulled in a large amount of the world's military production in key fields. Fighting in North Africa; the Sahel, Libya, and Sudan, has been influenced by both sides. The alignment with Iran has greatly increased its funding and ability to fund proxies, it's possible we have even seen Russia arms being delivered to Houthis to use against global shipping. Recent escalatory behavior by North Korea is also obviously connected. I think the amount of material, scale of casualties, and global involvement in supplying both sides makes this far more comparable to the opening years of either world war than to a fast past Maneuver Campaign followed by longer term anti insurgency operation that we have seen since Vietnam.
    1
  1362. Geothermal may be useful globally to reduce power energy storage needs, along alternative batteries like iron or liquid metal. But yes Nickel isn't going anywhere.
    1
  1363. ​ @dennisweidner288 it depends what you value, for quite a while after WW2 the point was to protect Europe while preventing European countries from building problematic militaries. Making Europe hit 2%, while probably a good thing, makes them less dependent on American support, but it also makes them less dependent on American support.
    1
  1364.  @dennisweidner288  maybe against the Soviets, with 2% Europe can certainly defend itself against modern Russia.
    1
  1365. it has nothing to do with the border. But the reality is much worse. The shifting goal posts are a distraction and the point is to deindustrialize Ontario to bring that auto manufacturing to the US. And frankly, the constant threat of tariffs is just as bad as the tariffs themselves; worse maybe, because it means we don't retaliate and auto makers don't see higher costs while they decide to derisk and change supply lines.
    1
  1366.  @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
  1367. I think as a revenue tool a very low rate, something below the average rate of return so that ideal money is still growing, is entirely tenable. Rich people don't mind taxes, they like stability. Switzerland, Luxembourg, all the ultra wealthy hubs use a low wealth tax. As long as they know their money is safe in a market, they will pay a small fee.
    1
  1368. @AFNick  I mean if the fear is over reach, you would need a constitutional amendment anyway for a wealth tax, just put the hard limit in there and it's nearly untouchable. But a .5% wealth tax I think you be quite significant. You were saying 5% would solve the budget, 10% of that revenue would still go a long way. And it has the benefit of being stable, so if you hit a recession and incomes and income tax revenues collapse, you can expect wealth tax revenues to be widely consistent, which means less debt.
    1
  1369. ​ @jyy9624 Not Canada, whether or not we reach 2% spending, we aren't relying on anyone else. We simply aren't at risk of being invaded. Every dollar spent by our military is on the rest of NATOs behalf. NATO does nothing to help us.
    1
  1370.  @jyy9624  and... Be on the other side of an ocean from all our potential enemies, with a seperate defense agreement with the US. I'm not against spending more or improving our military, but the Canadian military is by design purely offensive. We have no need for defense spending.
    1
  1371.  @jyy9624  lol, what do you think, Canadians were in the trenches in WW1 to stop the Germans from invading Canada? Or the North Koreans were coming for our beavers right they took the south? We haven't required international assistance to defend our board mer since 1812, and that was from a current NATO and NORAD member, who not only would steamroll Canada even if it spent 2%, but would steamroll the rest of NATO as well, although I highly doubt Latvia would send us help regardless.
    1
  1372.  @mrow7598  whereas if Russia gets to Belgium, Canada has a decade of US Naval superiority before there's anything at all to worry about domestically.
    1
  1373.  @fuseblower8128  you could say the cheaper they are with the army, the more Dutch they act.
    1
  1374.  @justinpetersen5273  oh look my NATO partners straight up threatening to invade, and then wonder why I don't take NATO seriously for Canada's defense
    1
  1375.  @justinpetersen5273  did China move and no one told me? Pretty sure it's still in Asia.
    1
  1376.  @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
  1377. I still think this engine design has a lot of promises. Its not as effective as StarShip, but if Starship can create an orbital infrastructure, a Jet like this is much friendlier to human traffic.
    1
  1378. @polishtheday  Edmonton has several refineries and an upgrader. Mainly the business reason for shut does has been refineries increasing in size, and total refinery capacity I believe has increased every year for decades, it's just smaller refineries being pushed out of the market when that happens. Basically demand in Western Canada is fully served, and so any new refinery is fighting for a piece of an existing pie.
    1
  1379. ​ @stickynorth thankfully people who think like you aren't incharge of Chinese policy.
    1
  1380.  @1panomotion847  Please prove me wrong! Also concerning is Africa's dependence on Fish for Protiens and the potential for fishery collapses and general heavy metal/micro plastic poisoning.
    1
  1381. ​​ @bipl8989 ​@bipl8989 No, the opposite. Because of the risks to the reservoir of reducing steam injection (water can rapidly form and cause cooling that resolidifies (for lack of a term) the bitumen and traps liquid water with permanent impacts on flow characteristics) it cannot be stopped without enormous cost. And to maintain pressure balance that in turn greatly limits the ability to reduce production. Because OPEC was having a price war "with Russia", demand was exceptionally low, and with really no storage beyond what amounts to a buffer, industry was looking at taking this step as the only choice (short of dumping it in a river). That is why there were reports of negative prices. If you look at output over the period, Mining operations nearly stopped entirely. But SAGD reductions were minimal because of this inflexibilty. If you go into the Vaults of Markham's works he actually did a pretty good piece on this at the time.
    1
  1382. 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
  1383. I do think there is some bad reporting in that the "Russian Casualties" include hundreds of thousands of conscripts drafted from Occupation Ukraine.
    1
  1384. @tuckerroy363  i am neither mad nor directing anger, I'm not even American. But if you are looking at Trump's economic impacts on housing and making predictions, this needs to be taken into account. The worst possible outcome is all the talking heads screaming about Trump's tariffs causing inflation only for Americans to find they aren't being hurt by inflation, and sowing more doubt and distrust in academics and media figures.
    1
  1385. @LordRykard9376  either can be inflationary, and when done responsibility, either can have no effect on inflation while improving economic growth.
    1
  1386. So your argument is the Carbon price is meaningless to us, but a big issue for investors, and that's meant to be a defense? I support the Industrial CT, but that's poorly laid out argument
    1
  1387. It didn't do that though. It didn't even fire 200. It's important not to confuse drones and missiles. The drones are just a cheap smoke screen, Russia does the same thing, there is no expectation they make their target, but Israel is forced to spend millions shooting down a 20k drone, and at the same time can't use the missile against the 20 cruise missiles which actually hit the target.
    1
  1388.  @kennandunn7533  we had passed the border package a month ago, the tariffs are only delayed which is still killing investment with uncertainty. I mean if it was all better now that would be one thing but we're literally just doing what we said we would a month ago and he is threatening us with the same threat as a month ago
    1
  1389. ​ @clemfandango-q1v meaning?
    1
  1390. ​ @clemfandango-q1v  I don't follow
    1
  1391. I wish you had emphasized a little more heavily that the creation of those units never reduced the value of the credits. This is a very clear example of how "Printing money" doesn't lead directly to inflation.
    1
  1392. I'm thinking my man hasn't heard of Miss Frisby or the Rats of NHIM
    1
  1393. @TheCommonS3Nse  I don't know why the reply is always some variation of me wanting the entire economy based on oil, and particularly crude exports. No one is suggesting we base our economic future on pipelines. Was any aspect of your life impacted by the TransCanada expansion? These aren't Soviet 5 year full society plans. We can develop EVs and Refining and mining and manufacturing and Data Farms all at the same time. But the very simple reality is Eastern Canada will be using oil products for decades. They will surely decrease, but we will still need access to them, and having that access controlled by a country being actively harmful and speaking about annexation is beyond foolish. Why on earth would we be more dependent on Alberta revenues. If Ontario sells more cars that isn't bad for PEI. We are looking at a collapse of Canada's largest export industry, and the main industry of a province, not because of any freemarket force, but because of coordinated action from a trade partner. If we allow that industry to collapse, we are allowing hundreds of thousands to go unemployed in Alberta, and many in Saskatchewan. We are allowing the CAD to weaken from low exports. I don't understand how to reach people. I need people to realize today that in 2 years there is a very real possibility Alberta will be deep in recession, resent eastern Canada for blocking pipelines, listen to a US administration actively calling for them to separate and join the US, and do it. We can't start building a pipeline in 2 years. This is so desperately important to our national integrity. If it's an economic conversation, then the conversation needs to be around; the cost of losing oil supply to the GTA, the cost of losing export value to long term high discounts caused by tariffs, and the pipeline returns assuming such a high discount exists. But it really shouldn't be an economic conversation at this point. Go talk to someone from Alberta and don't dismiss them. Look at Abacus and IPSOS polling. This is as politically necessary as building CP rail was. If we want to keep Western Canada, it's vital economic infrastructure cannot be based in our southern neighbor.
    1
  1394.  @TheCommonS3Nse  but to the point of my comment, he didn't discuss any of these things. Markham will not acknowledge any argument that might support a pipeline. He we speak about the US trying to annex Canada; but not if it's based on Albertian anger, ie, the exact way Russia did it. He will discuss the danger of tariffs to oil prices; but not if it's part of the discussion on the economics of a pipeline, which of course is based on the price of oil at the source. He won't mention line 5 at all, even though as an Energy Journalist, you would think the story about Ontario depending on a pipeline the US has been trying to close, and was only held open by the Biden administration, would be significant right now. He is not providing the level of reporting his title requires. His heavy bias against oil development is leading him to actively avoid any topic that might create support. It's dishonest and dangerous, and his audience in Ontario should understand they are dependent on the Trump administration for their energy.
    1
  1395. @TheCommonS3Nse  I have never once advocated for PP and plan on voting for Carney. Again that's just not true. I am taking issue with Markham, and correctly assumed that he would ignore all of those points. Carney has even hinted he would support an East pipeline, or pipelines in general, which Markham has argued against. That does not change the fundamental need to address Albertan alienation, particularly under a 4th liberal government, or the wider merits to an east west pipeline. PP has referred to the danger line 5 creates, if Markham's goal is to demonstrate PP is misinformed, why did he not address this point? My Criticism is not of Carney, it is of Markham, and his lack of integrity in delivering the full context. The pipeline was most certainly not Trudeaus only investment. There were enormous and beneficial capital subsidies that brought EV manufacturing plants to Ontario, moved steel in Ontario to Hydrogen, built Energy to Ammonia plants in the Maritimes, new electrical transmission infrastructure. But certainly I'm not going to argue Trudeau had some brilliant economic policy. The oil industry, the Alberta based, western Canadian oil industry, is under attack. We export 5M barrels a day. We have no ability to process that or use it domestically. If we do not have alternative market outlets, we will simply see declining output and massive price discounts. If we don't provide a new outlet, we are letting the hundreds of billions invested become stranded assets, today, when there is clearly still a global, and American, market we are simply being removed from. After Covid I was terrifed OPEC would see how vulnerable our industry was, I never imagined it would be the US. And it won't be focused on the SAGD monsters melting bitumen to mix and sell raw as DilBit that might spill and destroy a river. It will be the high employment mining sector Fort Mac is based on that upgrades to a higher value Syncrude. The DilBit, the resource extraction you are against, will not stop. They will sell for dollars on the barrel, they'll even pay to have DilBit taken away in the short term. If we do not have sufficient capacity, it is the mines that will close. We saw it in Covid. The Mines and upgraders are the most expensive oil, and they are expensive because they represent all the jobs. A TransCanada pipeline that only carries Syncrude is good policy. It is not something Markham should be using partial information to rally people against. It provides value added to our resources, it provides energy security to the east half of the country, it provides employment that Northern Alberta is almost entirely dependent on. If we don't build an eastern Connection, we are risking 1970s style fuel rationing in the GTA and an economic depression in Alberta from collapsing government revenue and mass unemployment. If Markham wants to call himself an energy reporter, he should be providing full context. Frankly, he should, even if he thinks there is no acceptable scenario, at least lay out what the best possible east coast configuration would be. He should not be treating all pipelines as equal, or all our oil products as equal. I know he knows they are not, because I initially learned a lot of this from him in Covid. He is using this opportunity to try and close the oil sands, and he does it by leaving out facts I've learned from him in order to convince people that there is absolutely no reason to build a pipeline, although his only justification is always using a pipeline built over Covid as the cost basis and assuming domestic oil prices don't see a significant discount, and therefore finding a pipeline must lose money.
    1
  1396.  @TheCommonS3Nse  I am not. I agree China will probably peak this year. And global demand will stagnate or fall going forward. I have been arguing this for years even. A TransCanada pipeline isn't about growing the industry. It is addressing that we will need oil in eastern Canada for decades, and moving that oil off line 5, and expanding upgrader capacity to bring the rest of eastern Canada onto domestic blends. Frankly, none of my points are about expanding the industry, I am saying we need to protect it from a collapse caused by the world's premier super power having an aggressive economic policy meant to hurt it. Even if the $25 billion turns out to be a bad investment, that does not mean $25 billion will be lost. Maybe $10 billion is lost, over 20 years. The federal government transfers $20 billion to Quebec a year, no one worries about the lack of return. No one is against the TransCanada highway for not repaying itself will tolls. Sometimes supporting a provincial economy costs money. Sometimes infrastructure costs money. We can afford to risk potentially losing a few billion a year on protecting the entire economy of Alberta. Also, to the comment I don't address this; We do not produce large amounts of oil. We largely produce Bitumen. Again, Markham knows this, and if the discussion is Carbon fiber, suddenly Bitumen is very different from oil. EVs are driving the decline in oil. What does that really mean? It means demand for Gasoline is falling. What's gasoline? The medium-light fraction of a conventional barrel of oil. There is no gasoline in Bitumen. Bitumen is much larger hydrocarbons. You know what isn't declining globally? Jet Fuel. And Diesel. Look at Sturgeon Falls refinery. We can turn an entire barrel of bitumen into Diesel, because it's all heavier going in. For OPEC to make a barrel of Diesel, they need 5 barrels of oil, which means they'll have to dump 2-3 barrels of gasoline on the market cheap. And that's aside from added value. Markham loves non-combustion uses. But why would we not produce those goods at a coast? If we want to sell asphalt binder to the world, should we not have our refiniery on a coast? Coasts? Or Base oils, to make lubricants? Even Carbon fiber, which I am very excited about, but which is a decade at Alberta Innovates best case scenario from using 100k bbl/d? Our product is not losing demand. Oil is losing demand. And we could be displacing barrels of oil with value added Bitumen to Diesel exports. There are 100M barrels of oil on the global market, you really don't think we could compete for 2-3M in the long term even as demand declines? The rise in EVs mean conventional oil is dead, people either want heavy crudes like ours to make heavy RPPs, or NGLs from fracking for petrochemicals. Treating Bitumen like oil is something the Energy Journalist you are watching knows is wrong and incorrect, and will only do if he is arguing against a pipeline. Watch him. If the topic is not an pipeline, bitumen is not oil. If the topic is a pipeline, oil decline is falling so bitumen is oil.
    1
  1397.  @TheCommonS3Nse  I get it, I don't look like I am regularly promoting the oil Industry. And I certainly don't think a Pipeline would fix all our problems, but it is certainly the solution to a number of them. I'm not sure what you mean by outside the box. CanaPux would be convenient for exporting, although it's very little upgrading. I disagree on the value of an Arctic pipeline. And even the idea of building a pipeline for Europe. Unless Europe has skin in the game, it's not worth investing in a market that is shrinking. I would have excess capacity on energy east if Europe offered some reason to, long term purchases or investment. But I think really what is needed is that connection to eastern Canada, it would be silly to build a pipeline to Churchill, ship oil to Montreal, and then send oil to Ontario via line 9. Also, unlike BC, eastern Canada has land treaties. So I don't think there will be any substantive issues. I'd also say it only really has to cross 4 provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. At least in the first phase. Quebec and NB can ship crude from there. But I think beyond that it really is essential infrastructure and the government should do whatever is needed to expedite it. I'd also like to see another million barrels a day going west, largely following the northern gateway route, although that's a lower necessity.
    1
  1398. Between the short distance and iron dome, I don't think Shahed would be very useful. They also need a run way.
    1
  1399. If that's genuine, in large part it's because OPEC started flooding the market in 2014 when the liberals took power, and then post Covid there has been global economic difficulties - France, Germany, China, the US, literally no one but maybe India has seen significant growth.
    1
  1400. Manufacturing. This is to deindustrialize Ontario and bring the auto manufacturering jobs to the rust belt. It's not about the border or NATO or trade deficits and don't trick yourself into thinking it is. There is nothing we can do to appease him but agree to manufacturering tariffs and try and make a trade deal that accepts it is happening.
    1
  1401. Areas of low carbon service I would like to see 1) Heat pump manufacturering, specializing in low tempature heat pumps. Particularly in Ontario, to help transition an automobile manufacturing sector that was already struggling and is now under attack. It's parts based equipment, not using any unusual chemistry, that can be built with steel and aluminium and tooling. We have a large domestic market, and can leverage that for building an industrial base to sell to Northern Europe, Northern areas in the US, and parts of South America. 2) Fully supply chain Battery production. We need to make mining possible again, but if we can do that, we can use entirely domestic supply chains and low cost electricity to be competitive in a growth sector. 3) Green Hydrogen, we have a number of projects on the East coast for export to Europe. 4) Data Servers, particularly in Labrador, where you are near the Intercontinental data cables, you have low tempatures, and excessive amounts of electricity. Aluminum we already have might also be included. That's definitely not all Canada should be doing. And I would love to see an east West oil pointline and another million barrels a day to the Pacific with an upgraded complex..
    1
  1402.  @aymanhasan-2991  I suppose that depends on your value system. I would say at the least the net benefits are dependent on method of colonization, length, effectiveness of disease, and the colonizing country.
    1
  1403. ​ @kaya051285 your comment appears thought out but you look at thebissue from far to Marco a perspective. You aren't looking at which regions use which heat source; its not generally the case that towns are equally distributed. Communities chiefly isong natural gas will see a greater strain on the grid, and those same communities are iften in colder regions with higher energy demand. I agree we can move off gas, and particularly heating oil on the east coast, to hear pumps and resistance heaters. But we do need to increase grid supply and transmission and distribution capacities.
    1
  1404. ​​ @marktrotter8971 like @johnjennings9043 said, it isn't necessarily better. Tanks are a high value target. It's kinda like putting a sign up saying "shoot me" if you don't think it's going to provide actual benefits. But in this case, you need to train teams to operate the shoot me sign, mechanics to fix the shoot me sign, and logistics to source parts specific to that shoot me sign that aren't used in any other equipment. I'm not saying the tanks aren't valuable. I don't know very much about them. But not every random piece of equipment is necessarily helpful. Now, 500 tanks is a lot, and could be worth setting up a logistical train. It might even be worth half burying them 10km from the current line as defensive positions if Pokrovs, for example, is lost. And putting cages on them isn't very difficult to protect from drones, much easier than building. But on the other hand, being so old and widely retired, parts may be difficult to source , and idk how operational they are.
    1
  1405. ​ @blue-pi2kt I disagree, it is the best available technology for energy transportation and for high temperature industrial processes.
    1
  1406. The good news is South Australia has a large Green Hydrogen plant, Canada has several, built for Germany, being constructed on the East coast to export ammonia, and the US has 7 hydrogen Hubs being developed.
    1
  1407.  @blue-pi2kt  it isn't abandoned in space flight? The SLS is Hydrogen fueled, if stupid overall. Japan has hydrogen rockets, the H3. China's largest rocket, the Long March 5 is hydrogen powered. Vulcan uses a hydrogen upper stage. Arianna rockets in Europe use Hydrogen. Skylon is designed to be hydrogen powered. I think you're literally just looking at SpaceX lol. And I'm not saying they aren't going to win the space race. But that has more to do with building a simple engine. And when we get to the moon hydrogen will be right back on the menu. You ship it as ammonia btw.
    1
  1408. ​ @PaulHodgson-gm6lg yes, well he also made the free trade that made Alberta rich and killed off manufacturing in the east, and which now has our economy at gunpoint. So no one is particularly happy with his work at the moment
    1
  1409.  @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
  1410. Based on the Arab Ethic character of the Rapid response force, I'd suggest it's more like the Montana Militia than the national guard, although only after the general of the Militia ran for and won the presidentcy. You're reference was good though, I just think it fails to capture the racial basis
    1
  1411. Na, Iran is pretty clearly trying to show power without actually getting involved in a conflict. They could have fired repeated waves or targeted population centers. Or not informed the US prior to the attack.
    1
  1412.  @davidleaman6801  so you're saying park a 300k tonne floating ship off a pier, hang it by a crain so that it pulls down as tide fall pulling the cable to produce around 100MW for each meter drop for 6 hours, before pulling against an anchor while the tide rises and doing it all in reverse? Google says the world's strongest crane can do 20k tonnes, so you would need 15 of those, probably 20 to account for maintenance. That sounds expensive but I have no ideal how it scales, and it seems to me like the kind of thing bulk makes rapidly inexpensive. And a ship is only $100M. Idk certainly interesting.
    1
  1413. Save people time, no, its not, its the Nuclear Fusion of Nuclear Fisson. I mean Thorium is technically possible but there is really no advantage. If you want clean Nuclear, use Uranium. If you want to distract people from ever building anything, hype Thorium.
    1
  1414. i think if we tied military and police spending to a wealth tax, we'd find a whole lot of sacings real quick.
    1
  1415. They aren't leapfroggimg natural gas. There is no order of electric generation. North America just happened to have, amd Europe through Russia, cheap natural gas.
    1
  1416. I think 2 things are missing from this discussion; Quebec is used as an example of what cheap energy means for industry, but Canada will not be the lowest cost jurisdiction. India, North Africa, Texas - all will be less expensive. Second, its stated a working hydrodam you keeo even when a coal plant is shut down. I don't believe this. Hundreds of Km of transmission for an asset with an enormous environmental impact should be seen as a stranded asset risk..
    1
  1417. ​ @beatreuteler there is also a resource fee for the water, from the provincially owned operator to the province. It's quite small. But unlike Switzerland, Canada is very large, and so Hydro is often hundreds, maybe a thousand km from the usage. So my concern is more focused on the economics of maintaining transmission then the dam itself.
    1
  1418. ​​ @beatreuteler Data centers are the obvious, but you may still need fiber-optic cable (depending how you feel about satellites). And there is some advantage to have data centers far from population centers, and lots of advantage to them being in the North. But by and large, there is a reason we built transmission rather than industry. If India has less Expensive solar in New Delhi than Canada has Hydro on the James Bay, or comparably prices solar, I'm skeptical anyone would build industry in the place with no population or infrastructure. And in Particular to BC, on the Pacific Coast, once energy is widely inexpensive and low impact, I believe we will start to see Hydrodams treated as environmentally irresponsible and face international pressure to remove them..
    1
  1419. ​​ @beatreuteler I am. Many countries going into the 2000s relied on coal; that didn't stop pressure to change. Once coal and gas are no longer an issue, Hydro will be the least responsible form of generation; and it won't even be less expensive than the alternative..
    1
  1420. ​​ @beatreuteler Again, over the next 20 years I agree. But beyond that, I think you are mistaken to believe storage will be an issue worth consideration. I think nuclear and geothermal have much better chances of success in the long term because they are neither land intensive or restricted in application (refering to closed loop geothermal, not conventional). Not all hydro is equal. There will always be some dams controlling flooding on the Columbia. But there are countries where coal is being added even today; again, that won't stop its phase out. Take a moment and consider what the environmentalists will go after once climate change goes the way of the ozone layer. Massive stretches of the Amazon flooded, fish populations that have been decimated on the pacific coast, methyl mercury released, sediment trapped. Or the simple Economics. Right now, Norway is Europes battery. What happens when importing energy from europe is simply less expensive constantly? What is the argument for keeping the rivers dammed? Or the Geopolitical angle. Dams are both a weapon and a major weakness. Downstream countries don't like being held hostage, and dams within a country are an enormous target. Obviously I can't prove it. I don't think swiss pumped storage is going to be under attack in the same way Gand Coulie or 3 Gorges or Balbina will be. But I do think energy produced from dams will face the same boycott or externality pricing that we see fossil sources face today, particularly as the majority of countries lack considerable hydro and will have access to inexpensive energy..
    1
  1421. Imo, hydro is the next stranded energy asset. It is a multi decade investment, and solar and storage will make it uneconomical to maintain hundreds of km of transmission. I also think once it appears emissions are decreasing rapidly, and without the advantage of being either the lowest cost or least impactful energy source, undaming rivers will become one of the main points of environmentalism and Canada may find itself in a bad light as an energy producer. In particular BC..
    1
  1422.  @macsnafu    The exchange function, and also that it is the unit of account. It is obvious that printing money doesn't create new wealth, but spending that money does lead to production of new wealth. You say like any borrower, the government will have to repay it's loan. But I put forward that large financial institutions don't intend on repaying all their debt, which exist in the form of deposit, and actually aim to increase debt annually. Debt can be a very inexpensive way to access capital. I don't see why we wouldn't want to leverage government spending, with our main concern being growth in the tax base, or Debt to GDP. If you're talking about a crowding out effect, that exists only to the extent interest rates are raised due to borrowing, which itself is a question of inflation. But I would suggest a low crowding out effect is less damaging than taxes in many cases. Taxes are indiscriminate and disincentivize working, interest rates of 3% mean that any investment returning 3% or less won't be made, which means only the least productive will be impacted. In some cases government borrowing can certainly stimulate the economy. When people are afraid to invest they pull capital out of the market. Government debt can pull that back into circulation, and that spending could have a positive multiplier effect. The Guaranteed Job scheme I would support is to have the Federal government fund a program that allows Charities and Municipalities to pay workers Minimum wage for 8 hours a day 5 hours a week, with a basic benefits package. That would keep these jobs from competing with the private market, and I think charities and municipalities are best suited to finding a variety of tasks for differing skills and doing it quickly. I would also extend it to Manufacturering companies for up to 6 months of training, with the requirement the company has to pay 50% of the cost back if the employee isn't working there in a year.
    1
  1423. What about the Company literally owned by the Koch brothers? I'm sure America is hurting deeply receiving all those profits.
    1
  1424. I think the area Markham is probably most of the mark is conversation around efficiency. Efficiency is entirely irrelevant. Solar panels will make energy almost costless, and low efficiency of ICE vehicles isn't meaningful to anyone because the energy is stored in a convenient liquid.
    1
  1425.  @yidavv  ya but how many is that per day? 2,500 to 1,300?
    1
  1426.  @kzazazazk  I think you and the other guy are arguing over semantics. You're quoting Proven Reserve numbers, but proven reserves refers to reserves that can be profitability extracted, not what's in the ground. If Alaska wasn't an empty frozen wilderness, and has existing infrastructure, skilled labor, and logistics chains, it would be less expensive to produce oil, which would increase the proven reserves.
    1
  1427.  @kzazazazk  the other guy said that Alaska would be the biggest oil producer of people lived there. You replied by listed proven reserves. But proven reserves are impacted by the cost of labor and equipment in a region. It's not a counter point.
    1
  1428. @kzazazazk  no I'm not. If you include off shore and Federal lands, there is 40-50 billion barrels. It can't legally or economically be developed, so it isn't included in proven reserves. But there is oil there. Proven reserves are based on economics of extracting the resources. When you have higher operating expenses, you're proven reserves are decreased. Edit: sorry, 23 billion barrels oil, the rest of the 50 in NG equivalent
    1
  1429. @kzazazazk  I did include the estimated amounts on the shelf. You're 3 billion figure is easily sourced and clearly the proven reserves. We agree the rest is not currently economically viable; although, economically viable also includes legal restriction, and with the new government that's open to change. Again, the point of the other guy was that if Alaska had a population density anywhere near the other states average, and if that population weren't focused on the Southern most areas, the economics would be different. I don't know why you are being so aggressive and rude about this. The two of you are disagreeing about different things. He is saying that the economics are bad because Alaska has no infrastructure or, really, economy outside a pipeline. You are debating proven reserves. That's not the same as oil in the ground, which is stated by the Artic Institute, Resource development council of Alaska, and US Department of the Interior to be much higher than the 3.1 figure.
    1
  1430.  @kzazazazk  Well, I'm Canadian, I have no really no care in this so this will be my last message. But Albertas population is like 7 times higher than Alaska, and centered much nearer the oil. And frankly if you were right, Obama wouldn't have had to make it illegal to drill in most of the Alaska offshore. Because no one would have. Except it is viable. But again, you are the one who objected to a hypothetical. The other posted put forward "if" Alaska had a real economy, they would produce more oil. You're right. Alaska does not have a bigger economy with more people. That's a fact. But saying "well these are the proven reserves so your hypothetical is wrong" isn't a relevant or valid argument. There is lots of oil there. Which two messages ago you denied. Clearly being right about this is weirdly important to you, it's a shame you aren't.
    1
  1431. The consumer carbon tax was worse than nothing at all. It created enormous political pushback that made carbon pricing uncertain in the future. This undermined the industrial carbon tax, the more important program, because investers lacked certainty.
    1
  1432. I guess when we make them live in Bangladesh or shutters Florida. But since they all own giant ranches in the US interior... Never?
    1
  1433. As a Canadian, the rest of NATO is lucky we have a military at all. We will never call NATO to our defense, who's going to invade us? Russia? Can't win a land war on flat plains on their boarder. China? Can't invade an island a 100km off their coast. Our NATO ally the US? Probably the best bet, not like NATO will be able to help us or 2% will get us anywhere. All military spending by Canada is to the aid of other countries. Poland would be arming itself without NATO, same with Turkey or most of Europe. They have to.
    1
  1434. ​​ @theowoytowich9959 if coal is so cheap why has Africa not built a grid in the last 100 years? 1) China is one of the few countries that actually have substantial Coal reserves, along with the US and Australia 2) Obviously because China has been building Coal Power plants for 50 years. 3) why do you think China installed 3 times as much solar capacity as coal capacity last year. The existance of coal plants isn't an argument solar isn't cheap. Being reliable doesn't mean solar has constant output. Being able to power the constantly growing demand for AC has enormous value alone..
    1
  1435. ​ @theowoytowich9959 My point is that it is in large part poor because there are no energy resources, namely coal which almost only exists in South Africa. Solar changes that, meaning not only do communities not need to build out a grid, but they have access to the energy inputs. 1) China imports less than 10% of it's coal consumption. This is mainly to ensure a longer term domestic supply. And I believe it's imports are mainly metallurgical, not to run power plants. 2) No one is denying that China is building coal plants. But the reality is Solar is so much less expensive that it's worth building even if you have coal capacity. Solar is the lowest cost source of energy the world has seen, that is the reality. It is going to change the global energy structure.
    1
  1436. It should be mentioned that Coal also is a large source of fugitive methane. If we need to tip the balance back the NG (not that NG isn't a massive issue).
    1
  1437. Do you... Do you understand our economy is based on oil exports? A price war will not only destroy the CAD, it will kill Alberta and Newfoundland. Offshore and oilsands mining operations both nearly died after a month of price war in Covid. It's like you're saying we need more protein in our diet and you want someone to cut off your leg and feed it to you.
    1
  1438.  @Willowgirl2015  well, 1, oil royalties are like a third of Alberta's Government revenue. It's nowhere near 70% of Alberta's GDP that's outlandish. 2) it wouldn't have to change over tomorrow. And anything can be negotiated. But yes I would expect the bulk of revenues to be put into a long term wealth fund owned by Alberta. 3) you might not want it said, but they would get oil out. Not just more oil, but also a higher price for all oil, and investment into more oil. That's more jobs, more government revenue, and more royalties. 4) Alberta would own the investment fund. It isn't giving anything way. It would choose what investments were made, which would give it an enormous amount of influence within Canada. All the profits generated would be Alberta's to reinvest domestically, internationally, or spend. The agreement would simply be that the royalties are invested in Canada. I'm not even saying it has to be invested based on where the pipeline goes. I'm not trying to cut out PEI. I'm saying we pull equalization payments if a province tries to block it. But in exchange for the Federal government using its power to get pipelines built, Alberta uses it's royalties to build up Canada. 5) Alberta wouldn't have to pay so much in equalization if those other provinces had a stronger economy. And the fact is, oil prices drive up the CAD, and that destroyed eastern Canada's manufacturing all through the 2000s. We have Dutch disease. We need to diversify our economy. Frankly, if all of Canada had more investment, the Federal government would be able to lower taxes on everyone, including Alberta, because there would be a much larger tax base.
    1
  1439.  @wilfdarr  well 1, it's crazy that Alberta gets a third of its government revenue from oil and then calls other provinces spoiled. 2, maybe people would be more appreciative of equalization payments if Alberta didn't spend all it's time complaining about paying it. I'm in Ontario, it received less than PEI last year, and nothing the 4 years before, so forgive me for not being appreciative of your generosity. 3, I'm trying to help you. Are you getting pipelines built right now? Even the US federal government under Trump blocked the last one. If you want to build pipelines, maybe consider making it worthwhile. Or, go on not getting pipelines. I'd rather the win-win. But frankly, high oil prices killed Ontario's Manufacturing, so it's no real skin off my back if you can't get it out of the ground.
    1
  1440. I thought most Lithium Ion chemstries had already left Cobalt -Nickle chemistry for Phosphate because of cost and stability.
    1
  1441. In order to help Quebec and Manitoba replace US hydro exports, it may be worth building transmission from both to Southern Ontario. However, I think building our server farms is a far more practical solution. Server farms offer large anchor loads with effectively global export capacity. The major cost is electricty, which we have both cheap and cleanly, but the major component of that electrical demand is for cooling, which we have in even more abundance. In particular, combining a built out of server farms using geothermal heating and cooling would provide an opportunity to move drigging rigs and apply existing industry experience on to geothermal activity, and build our overall geothermal drilling knowledge. With geothermal cooling, we may be able to extend mass servers to renewables on the prairies as well. I think importantly, we should consider the scale of such purchases, and what that kind of customer is worth to a supplier. We'd likely be able to leverage such large purchases against the company or a country to receive an investment deal of some kind. Maybe get a Chip FAB or a pipeline for it. I also think there are strategic advantages to having a considerable server capacity, and other countries may also favour us for apparent rule of law and relatively safe neighborhood. We do have to make sure we don't allow it to price out consumers, but we're a ways away from that. In the meantime, backing our telecom companies to do it may allow them to make more revenue on server sales and lower phone prices, and backing the provincial utilities would allow renewable resource development in more remote locations.
    1
  1442. Counter point on SAGD, you don't have to burn NG, these are enormous operations and SMRs, or in some cases even larger Nuclear plants, would fit very well to provide steam and electricity
    1
  1443. Export tariffs would have no positive impact. They would just destroy demand for our oil, and supply is largely fixed; we certainly don't want it going down, and for the most part as we saw in Covid it can't go down at all. Ultimately it's just pushing down prices on our side of the border, which will largely just reducing Alberta's oil royalties, and reduces our export value/ weaken our trade balance..
    1
  1444.  @jimmyvee8024  I didn't claim that. I'm saying almost the same amount will be demanded, but the producer will see a lower price because demand and therefore refinery prices are largely unchanged. But we send about 300k bbl/d of heavy oil to California and 600k bbl/d of heavy oil to the US Gulf, which is almost 1M bbl/d that can be displaced by alternative imports towards the goal of crashing our suppliers. Marathon also has indicated it is willing to retool in the Midwest for Bakken WTI, which is 300k bbl/d of heavy crude. Lastly, we produce more than Heavy crude. Everything coming out of Fort McMurray is light sweet upgraded product, some of which is exported south. This is highly replaceable with WTI while also being the highest production cost barrels. Displacement of this will shut down upgraders and mining, and cause a regional crisis in Fort McMurray..
    1
  1445. @jimmyvee8024  I didn't claim that. I'm saying almost the same amount will be demanded, but the producer will see a lower price because demand and therefore refinery prices are largely unchanged. But we send about 300k bbl/d of heavy oil to California and 600k bbl/d of heavy oil to the US Gulf, which is almost 1M bbl/d that can be displaced by alternative imports towards the goal of crashing our suppliers. Marathon also has indicated it is willing to retool in the Midwest for Bakken WTI, which is 300k bbl/d of heavy crude. Lastly, we produce more than Heavy crude. Everything coming out of Fort McMurray is light sweet upgraded product, some of which is exported south. This is highly replaceable with WTI while also being the highest production cost barrels. Displacement of this will shut down upgraders and mining, and cause a regional crisis in Fort McMurray..
    1
  1446.  @jimmyvee8024  If the tariffs aren't a long term thing, then why place an export tax at all? Look at it like this. $5/bbl tax on oil exports. The 1M bbl/d of heavy crude going to the Gulf or California compete in the global market. If the refineries had to pay $5 more, they will switch to whatever global competitor is still charging the market price. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, so this will push down prices. We saw in 2018 and 2020 what restricted demand does. The SAGD operations can't turn off, the shale won't stop because it powers the SAGD and dilutes the diluents, conventional won't stop because capping a well is expensive, and prices plummet. And low prices pushes upgraded light oil out of the market, which is the entire economy of Fort McMurray, because Mining is the only thing that has a high operating cost. Canadian Sweet and Light is directly interchangeable with WTI. If you put an export tariff on that there would be no reason at all for the US to import it..
    1
  1447. @jimmyvee8024  If the tariffs aren't a long term thing, then why place an export tax at all? Look at it like this. $5/bbl tax on oil exports. The 1M bbl/d of heavy crude going to the Gulf or California compete in the global market. If the refineries had to pay $5 more, they will switch to whatever global competitor is still charging the market price. All oil is priced out of Hardisty, so this will push down prices. We saw in 2018 and 2020 what restricted demand does. The SAGD operations can't turn off, the shale won't stop because it powers the SAGD and dilutes the diluents, conventional won't stop because capping a well is expensive, and prices plummet. And low prices pushes upgraded light oil out of the market, which is the entire economy of Fort McMurray, because Mining is the only thing that has a high operating cost. Canadian Sweet and Light is directly interchangeable with WTI. If you put an export tariff on that there would be no reason at all for the US to import it..
    1
  1448. Fun Fact: the oil market is a cartel. Increasing oil production will be met with cuts from OPEC to maintain the price, or a glut to push out the much more expensive american oil.
    1
  1449. 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
  1450. Solar I agree with, although I think Wind inherently relies on interconnection amd working alongside hydro (which is non local), and to get the costs down, we will need offshore along side.
    1
  1451. ​ @anythingforabuck I imagine the solar panels are imported. The wind turbines in the Gaspe.
    1
  1452. Industry may move up the value chain before it dies. But Energi Media thinks by 2050 we'll still be at 56M bbl/d. As a country that produces 5M bbl/d, that's quite a market. Better to move up it and die in 40 years than keep ourselves tied to a regional market as a commodity provider and die in 5.
    1
  1453. @Putin you need better trolls this one doesn't speak English
    1
  1454.  @thesimpleanswer2264  So to the first bit, yes it was taken off the market but it isn't technologically difficult to produce. If you told me a war would immediately distribupt production I'd buy it, but the fertilizer industry slowly shutting down due to an aging demographic? Hydrogen and Nitrogen just aren't that difficult to produce. Rising energy costs in Europe will be a short lived phenomenon. Renewables, nuclear refurbishment, and LNG moot this overall. If europe continues a war footing woth Russia it could be problematic, but remember there is access to African pipe lines and the Netherlands could ramp up production in a medium run scenario. Soil fertility is an absolute long run concern. Mono cultures as well. But with fertilizer access I believe grain production is stable, and certainly not something that can be predicted.
    1
  1455.  @thesimpleanswer2264  I was referring to NG, not oil. Oil luckily is a globally traded commodity so a price surge in europe will be global in extent. NG on the other is generally proced Regionally (due to the low levels of NG) so I would have greater concerns about its long run effects. I do feel Renewables offer a medium range solution regardless. Growth is unprecedented. Demand side measures in europe, including insulation and heat pump installation, has been aggressive over the summer, and with a full years preparation I don't doubt efficiency measures will be impressive. And non German response (particularly french) has been more positive, which is positive on whole considering the universal nature of the grid.
    1
  1456.  @adelezakus4795  every one understands it is literally west. Do you think of California as being "Western"? Hawaii is the most west US state, is a hula "Western Music"? "The West", as the term is used, was settled by different people at a different point in time than the port cities on the Pacific coast. If you are from Prince George, sure, parts of BC are Western. Newfoundland, and Quebec, and even Ontario rely on maritime access, but we don't throw a fit when people refer to "The Maritimes"..
    1
  1457. This is true.
    1
  1458. Do you mean Trudeau for not plbuilding pipelines or Harper for killing our manufacturing to build pipelines to to Midwest or both
    1
  1459. I give Transnistria 2 weeks before collapse. No electricity, no heat going into January. Trump is going to come into office after Russia loses Syria and Transnistria, and maybe Georgia, and maybe on the verge of Belarus.
    1
  1460. The good news about the government money that went into getting NG out of the ground is it also went a ling way to advance Geothermal. The bad news is under Trump that money went away as Fracking became profitable.
    1
  1461. I'd rank it up there with the Tumulus culture and Cucuteni-Trypilla, you?
    1
  1462. No, don't do that. You don't have to be an authoritarian to have nice transit.
    1
  1463. Low income doesn't have to mean no consumption or people living in poverty. For example students are by definition low income, but I would like to see dorm style units targetted toward this segment of the population. Providing low cost units would move a great deal of people out of family or other market rentals and increase availability/lower cost. You can also include first floor shops and such given high consumption rates which keeps the area vibrant woth eyes on the street for safety. I think low income towers in general can work as well, but you certainly have to provide transit and green space so that people are able to leave thier box.
    1
  1464.  @nehcooahnait7827  Why is HK housing being connected to a free market issue? Like 40% of people live in public housing, and land available for building housing is tightly controlled by the gov. Also I don't think OP sounds genocidal so much as concerned about social mobility and neighborhood resource availability?
    1
  1465.  @Arjay404  Both Singapore amd Hong Kong offer considerably lower taxes than the US. And a large portion of the "well off" nature of the regions is the affordable transit and housing ensured by the government. Yes the houses are sold, but its at a loss in some cases and the purchase price is spread out over time. The US has had very good experience with social housing based on government build, forms a Co-op, and residents buy in.
    1
  1466.  @jonmce1  I wonder if our aluminum industry will survive, or allow to survive, Carbon fiber.
    1
  1467. ​​ @1KentKent I need to know what you mean by industrial power. I would agree NG will last longer in industrial heat than the electrical grid or home/commercial heating. I think Canada should investing aggressively in SMRs and Geothermal as well. If we don't we will be left behind by less expensive solar. But I don't think India or the Saudis will have any issue powering aluminum smelters with solar..
    1
  1468. My understanding is there is no tariffs on "USMCA compliant oil"... Which seems to be all of it... So I think no tariffs right now, but if we imported dilutent, that would be bad..
    1
  1469. I like the interview and like your podcast in general, but I have to point out the point of a metaphor is to increase clarity, and I think you may be pushing it to far...
    1
  1470. Oil Sands emissions do need to be fixed. I don't think "electrify" is the answer, I think we can keep doing the same steam injection using nuclear reactors. And N-solv technologies seem more promising after that. But the biggest issue here is the Government of Alberta which seemingly will do everything possible to increase domestic NG demand. That said, if the oil sands are going to reduce NG use, we will need more LNG take away..
    1
  1471.  @markbaker6553  fair enough. I think they'd care a lot more about the European market if they had access to the European market, though.
    1
  1472.  @Ben-jq5oo  The issue is this would cause a financial crisis as people went bankrupt from mortgages with a long term value higher than the house which would be a massive financial sector break down along side the drop in demand causing economic recession. And since houses represent retirement plans, we would face the social security crisis boomers represent even more acutely. I'd say its safer to aim to freeze values, maybe target inflation at 4%, and encourage policies like converting a garage or basement into a rental unit, which increases housing availability while providing an alternative income for owners to replace losses.
    1
  1473.  @nunyabidness3075  I don't think you have "Two totally disparate cultures". There are many similarities, perhaps most importantly, in both cultures people value having a house. In regards to making the problems worse and demands greater, I actually agree given the American system. The solution used is housing vouchers, which literally are just money to pay rent and increase "demand", making the problem of housing prices worse. Which is why the solution is more housing, as singapore does. Along with a Land value tax of some form, again, as singapore does.
    1
  1474.  @nunyabidness3075  Not sure which goverment is yours, but Singapore's government is very involved in housing (80% of pop lives in government built housing), which is how they built a supply to match demand. Also, I guess I'd agree its largely semantic since most cultures now are sedintary, but there are lots of nomadic cultures in history and some even today who don't value housing in the same way. So I think it should count as a cultural element.
    1
  1475.  @confusedcynic9073  I don't know why people bother arguing with you when your user name literally says you're both cynical and confused lol.
    1
  1476. I think what you are missing is the sun set in North America will be before the sunset in the Pacific and the point is to keep the industry operational
    1
  1477. Ah yes, the ancient Atlantians
    1
  1478.  @donderstorm1845  For the most part I agree with you, and fear of sanctions may have been reduced in the last few months as the EU and USA ramped up tariffs, but I do believe there is an element of fear that giving Russia 10s of billions of dollars right now will lead to further exclusion from the Western Economies. Which would be correctly founded.
    1
  1479.  @donderstorm1845  it certainly wouldn't be seen that way. Sanctions on Russia have finally pushed a market crash and Gazprom into loss. This would be an enormous life line for a project that, as you point out, China doesn't need. To be clear I'm not saying they wouldn't buy gas from the pipeline, but that they won't fund the gas line. And part of this also is that power of Siberia 2 connects to the European gas pipes, so this would allow gas that's stuck in the ground because of European sanctions to flow, alongside with the employment and revenue, which admittedly would be lower then selling to Europe. Although that's another reason China doesn't want to fund the pipeline, if Russia normalizes relations, it can threaten to sell to Europe and drive up the price, compared to power of Siberia 1 that has no alternative market. POS2 would actually allow POS1 to reach that European market, and potentially drive up prices there as well.
    1
  1480.  @donderstorm1845  It would certainly appear to, and be portrayed as, and in all practical ways be throwing a life to a Russian Economy currently seeing an economic collapse driven by a loss of oil and gas activity. An investment worth 10s of billions into the area of the Russian state most heavily under construction would not be taken kindly by the west, particularly when it could be taken as a reason to weaken China, and the CCP is aware of that. Particularly since, unlike Power of Siberia (POS) 1, this would connect to the existing fields in West Russia which have been pushed out of production by European demand drop, and directly undermine European sanction efforts. To be clear, I'm not saying China wouldn't buy gas from such a pipeline, but rather it won't pay to build it. But this brings an additional point against China wanting the pipe line, which is that POS2 would allow Russia to move NG, even NG from POS1, between the European and Chinese Markets, and drive up their own prices.
    1
  1481. @donderstorm1845  It would certainly appear to, and be portrayed as, and in all practical ways be throwing a life to a Russian Economy currently seeing an economic collapse driven by a loss of oil and gas activity. An investment worth 10s of billions into the area of the Russian state most heavily under sanction would not be taken kindly by the west, particularly when it could be taken as a reason to weaken China, and the CCP is aware of that. Particularly since, unlike Power of Siberia (POS) 1, this would connect to the existing fields in West Russia which have been pushed out of production by European demand drop, and directly undermine European sanction efforts. To be clear, I'm not saying China wouldn't buy gas from such a pipeline, but rather it won't pay to build it. But this brings an additional point against China wanting the pipe line, which is that POS2 would allow Russia to move NG, even NG from POS1, between the European and Chinese Markets, and drive up their own prices.
    1
  1482.  @johnnykey00    A mix of Chinese statements, EIA reports, and analysist. China will replace gas with Domestic gas (China has the world's largest shale reserves they are actively developing in Tarmin and Sichuan), renewables and energy storage (Besides the well known Solar and Wind build out, China also has 60GWs of pumped hydro storage in construction, leads in Global Green Hydrogen production, and has an enormous battery industry with millions of cars that will be retired in a decade providing enormous amounts of low cost storage), domestic coal, and in Northern Cities which use NG for domestic heating heat pumps and solar water heaters (which China leads the world in production and application), alongside demand drop from the long term and potentially sharp decline of cement and steel production (steel being largely produced in the North East were the current major domestic production in and POS1 enters the country). Or maybe China won't. It's unclear. But that lack of clarity makes China less willing to commit to a massive upfront investment. And investment which would be seen as throwing a lifeline to a Russian economy struggling under Oil and Gas sanctions in Europe, and in particular would connect the very gas fields European actions have taken offline to Chinese demand and bring them back into production. This might matter less now than a year ago, because of existing tariffs and the emerging trade war, or it may matter more. But worse yet, from the Chinese perspective, a China-Europe connection would allow Russia to shop between markets for a higher price, and potentially even sell gas from Fields developed specifically for POS1 in Europe, increasing the prices China currently pays. LNG is advantageous for China because it's such an open market. Sanctions from the US? Go the Australia and Canada? More sanctions? Russia and Qatar. The price of LNG has stayed very low, killing investment after 2015, until a price spike caused by Europe in 2022, and even now prices have stabilized near old lows. LNG delivers to the actual population centers, particularly in South East China, that are thousands of Km from Gas fields. In part it's been used to drive NG investment locally so that extending pipelines makes sense and South China Sea oil Associated gas can be economically used, in part it's been part of China's efforts to clean up their air quality in cities and displace Coal, in part it ensures competition in pipeline prices and enerfy security (a lesson learned by Europe), and in part LNG is an alternative fuel for vehicles that China has significant investment in. I mean, China literally created the industry out of nothing. China doesn't want to be Europe on 10 years, relying on the Russians for Gas only to see it used against them. Lowest price doesn't mean lowest cost. As for your last bit of moral mombo jumbo, I don't make the rules, the US government does, and the rules say the US gets to win. What it's done wrong is start to win. But it's a pretty ironic protestation you have "we all have a right to economic growth, why should China be punished for funding a country actively destroying another countries infrastructure and economic base". I mean, be serious.
    1
  1483.  @johnnykey00     A mix of Chinese statements, EIA reports, and analysist. China will replace gas with Domestic gas (China has the world's largest shale reserves they are actively developing in Tarmin and Sichuan), renewables and energy storage (Besides the well known Solar and Wind build out, China also has 60GWs of pumped hydro storage in construction, leads in Global Green Hydrogen production, and has an enormous battery industry with millions of cars that will be retired in a decade providing enormous amounts of low cost storage), domestic coal, and in Northern Cities which use NG for domestic heating heat pumps and solar water heaters (which China leads the world in production and application), alongside demand drop from the long term and potentially sharp decline of cement and steel production (steel being largely produced in the North East were the current major domestic production in and POS1 enters the country). Or maybe China won't. It's unclear. But that lack of clarity makes China less willing to commit to a massive upfront investment. And investment which would be seen as throwing a lifeline to a Russian economy struggling under Oil and Gas sanctions in Europe, and in particular would connect the very gas fields European actions have taken offline to Chinese demand and bring them back into production. This might matter less now than a year ago, because of existing tariffs and the emerging trade war, or it may matter more. But worse yet, from the Chinese perspective, a China-Europe connection would allow Russia to shop between markets for a higher price, and potentially even sell gas from Fields developed specifically for POS1 in Europe, increasing the prices China currently pays. LNG is advantageous for China because it's such an open market. Sanctions from the US? Go the Australia and Canada? More sanctions? Russia and Qatar. The price of LNG has stayed very low, killing investment after 2015, until a price spike caused by Europe in 2022, and even now prices have stabilized near old lows. LNG delivers to the actual population centers, particularly in South East China, that are thousands of Km from Gas fields. In part it's been used to drive NG investment locally so that extending pipelines makes sense and South China Sea oil Associated gas can be economically used, in part it's been part of China's efforts to clean up their air quality in cities and displace Coal, in part it ensures competition in pipeline prices and enerfy security (a lesson learned by Europe), and in part LNG is an alternative fuel for vehicles that China has significant investment in. I mean, China literally created the industry out of nothing. China doesn't want to be Europe on 10 years, relying on the Russians for Gas only to see it used against them. Lowest price doesn't mean lowest cost. As for your last bit of moral mombo jumbo, I don't make the rules, the US government does, and the rules say the US gets to win. What it's done wrong is start to win. But it's a pretty ironic protestation you have "we all have a right to economic growth, why should China be punished for funding a country actively destroying another countries infrastructure and economic base". I mean, be serious.
    1
  1484. @johnnykey00    A mix of Chinese statements, EIA reports, and analysist. China will replace gas with Domestic gas (China has the world's largest shale reserves they are actively developing in Tarmin and Sichuan), renewables and energy storage (Besides the well known Solar and Wind build out, China also has 60GWs of pumped hydro storage in construction, leads in Global Green Hydrogen production, and has an enormous battery industry with millions of cars that will be retired in a decade providing enormous amounts of low cost storage), domestic coal, and in Northern Cities which use NG for domestic heating heat pumps and solar water heaters (which China leads the world in production and application), alongside demand drop from the long term and potentially sharp decline of cement and steel production (steel being largely produced in the North East were the current major domestic production in and POS1 enters the country). Or maybe China won't. It's unclear. But that lack of clarity makes China less willing to commit to a massive upfront investment. And investment which would be seen as throwing a lifeline to a Russian economy struggling under Oil and Gas sanctions in Europe, and in particular would connect the very gas fields European actions have taken offline to Chinese demand and bring them back into production. This might matter less now than a year ago, because of existing tariffs and the emerging trade war, or it may matter more. But worse yet, from the Chinese perspective, a China-Europe connection would allow Russia to shop between markets for a higher price, and potentially even sell gas from Fields developed specifically for POS1 in Europe, increasing the prices China currently pays. LNG is advantageous for China because it's such an open market. Sanctions from the US? Go the Australia and Canada? More sanctions? Russia and Qatar. The price of LNG has stayed very low, killing investment after 2015, until a price spike caused by Europe in 2022, and even now prices have stabilized near old lows. LNG delivers to the actual population centers, particularly in South East China, that are thousands of Km from Gas fields. In part it's been used to drive NG investment locally so that extending pipelines makes sense and South China Sea oil Associated gas can be economically used, in part it's been part of China's efforts to clean up their air quality in cities and displace Coal, in part it ensures competition in pipeline prices and enerfy security (a lesson learned by Europe), and in part LNG is an alternative fuel for vehicles that China has significant investment in. I mean, China literally created the industry out of nothing. China doesn't want to be Europe on 10 years, relying on the Russians for Gas only to see it used against them. Lowest price doesn't mean lowest cost. Edit: importing LNG from the US and western countries also gives China some leverage, particularly in red states. As for your last bit of moral mombo jumbo, I don't make the rules, the US government does, and the rules say the US gets to win. What it's done wrong is start to win. But it's a pretty ironic protestation you have "we all have a right to economic growth, why should China be punished for funding a country actively destroying another countries infrastructure and economic base". I mean, be serious.
    1
  1485.  @johnnykey00   @johnnykey00    A mix of Chinese statements, EIA reports, and analysist. China will replace gas with Domestic gas (China has the world's largest shale reserves they are actively developing in Tarmin and Sichuan), renewables and energy storage (Besides the well known Solar and Wind build out, China also has 60GWs of pumped hydro storage in construction, leads in Global Green Hydrogen production, and has an enormous battery industry with millions of cars that will be retired in a decade providing enormous amounts of low cost storage), domestic coal, and in Northern Cities which use NG for domestic heating heat pumps and solar water heaters (which China leads the world in production and application), alongside demand drop from the long term and potentially sharp decline of cement and steel production (steel being largely produced in the North East were the current major domestic production in and POS1 enters the country). Or maybe China won't. It's unclear. But that lack of clarity makes China less willing to commit to a massive upfront investment. And investment which would be seen as throwing a lifeline to a Russian economy struggling under Oil and Gas sanctions in Europe, and in particular would connect the very gas fields European actions have taken offline to Chinese demand and bring them back into production. This might matter less now than a year ago, because of existing tariffs and the emerging trade war, or it may matter more. But worse yet, from the Chinese perspective, a China-Europe connection would allow Russia to shop between markets for a higher price, and potentially even sell gas from Fields developed specifically for POS1 in Europe, increasing the prices China currently pays. LNG is advantageous for China because it's such an open market. Sanctions from the US? Go the Australia and Canada? More sanctions? Russia and Qatar. The price of LNG has stayed very low, killing investment after 2015, until a price spike caused by Europe in 2022, and even now prices have stabilized near old lows. LNG delivers to the actual population centers, particularly in South East China, that are thousands of Km from Gas fields. In part it's been used to drive NG investment locally so that extending pipelines makes sense and South China Sea oil Associated gas can be economically used, in part it's been part of China's efforts to clean up their air quality in cities and displace Coal, in part it ensures competition in pipeline prices and enerfy security (a lesson learned by Europe), and in part LNG is an alternative fuel for vehicles that China has significant investment in. I mean, China literally created the industry out of nothing. China doesn't want to be Europe on 10 years, relying on the Russians for Gas only to see it used against them. Lowest price doesn't mean lowest cost. As for your last bit of moral mombo jumbo, I don't make the rules, the US government does, and the rules say the US gets to win. What it's done wrong is start to win. But it's a pretty ironic protestation you have "we all have a right to economic growth, why should China be punished for funding a country actively destroying another countries infrastructure and economic base". I mean, be serious.
    1
  1486.  @donderstorm1845  lol, okay. Well the question is exactly who pays for the pipeline. Russia can't afford it monetarily, and China can't afford it politically, or at least not with the returns it provides. But yes, China has other places to buy (LNG) from, and their gas demand will be going down. If you want to deny China has any concern at all for the reaction of its major trade partners I guess go for it, feel free to believe China does as it wishes irregardless of consequences because it is immune to them. The point is the pipeline will never be built.
    1
  1487.  @donderstorm1845    we agree on most points about China maybe not needing it because renewables or whatever. I think it's laughable you think Gazprom is in any position to spend 10s of billions for a pipeline that will be both longer and pay lower returns than any they've built. Particularly when they are struggling to repair oil refineries without access to western equipment. But mainly I'm confused why you think China doesn't have any concern about western reactions. Is it that you truly don't think Europe and the US won't will react to China proving 10s of billions in investment to a sector they are actively trying to ruin, that China wouldn't be affected by sanctions from countries responsible for a 3rd of its exports, or that the CCP literally doesn't think about the consequences of its actions? Like I could understand you saying it's a minor consideration but to deny it's an concern is shocking to me. But also no, I am not making these things up. These are the opinions of analysist, please look it up (not that it sounds like you're in a country google would provide all the results).
    1
  1488.  @MK_ULTRA420  first of all, no one cares about pollution. I don't you don't China certainly doesn't. I don't understand people like yourself when they seemingly know China is a bad actor but then use metrics they obviously couldn't care less about. All that said, it really depends what you mean by pollution, and certainly this has more to do with industry standards than any rule that EVs pollute more in production. Secondly, even if they use more "energy", which is an incredibly imprecise term, they use that energy in forms that China and Europe can access reliably and inexpensively, in comparison to oil that is easily blockaded and under prices set by a cartel. It doesn't matter if a Japanese Sudan has the same lifetime emissions of an EV. Only a hippy cares. What matters is that China, the world's largest oil importer, is rapidly building out EVs and reducing oil demand globally in doing so, while taking over supply chains for a technology with significant room for improvement. The US and Canada have the highest cost oil production in the world, and our ICE car manufacturers are state backed failures. We've already lost most manufacturing and face trade deficits. We simply can't afford to let China control the supply chains and technologies that will dominate the global market.
    1
  1489. The argument around the Turks not moving north seemed under explained.
    1
  1490.  @malonesinclaire9201  you are on a sinking ship someone just shot a cannonball through, and your response is that it was going to sink eventually anyway. We need to patch the hole, so we can get to shore. Because the threat to Alberta isn't the eventual end of oil, it's that their main customer is cutting them out of the market, and that is going to cause a depression in Alberta that will look the 1930s. No one wins if we let that happen. They won't stop shopping DilBit, they'll stop using the upgraded Syncrude, and they'll close the mines and leave us with tailing ponds.
    1
  1491.  @malonesinclaire9201  this has nothing to do with long term industry trends. This is like Covid when oil sands prices went negative. We're talking about a rapid collapse of the industry supplying a quarter of our exports and the majority of the economic activity in a Province. I don't know how you could fail to see it is very good news that Fort McMurray isn't going to have 10s of thousands unemployed who's home values are now nothing. Did you enjoy the Ottawa protests? What do you think the hundreds of thousands of unemployed blue collar oil workers will do if we allow a foreign trade action to utterly destroy their lives.
    1
  1492.  @rossjackson2929  I live in the GTA and my cousin was just layed off, thanks. Why on earth would I want that happening at wide scale across Alberta as well. How does it help us Nationally to have both of our largest export industries ruined.
    1
  1493.  @bhut1571  an export tax on oil would only increase the price discount and lower the royalties industry pays. The way royalty payments are set up, it really wouldn't have any impact..
    1
  1494. @malonesinclaire9201  this has nothing to do with long term industry trends. This is like Covid when oil sands prices went negative. We're talking about a rapid collapse of the industry supplying a quarter of our exports and the majority of the economic activity in a Province. I don't know how you could fail to see it is very good news that Fort McMurray isn't going to have 10s of thousands unemployed who's home values are now nothing. Did you enjoy the Ottawa protests? What do you think the hundreds of thousands of unemployed blue collar oil workers will do if we allow a foreign trade action to utterly destroy their lives.
    1
  1495. @Robert-b4e1v  ya, cursed NEP, boy would I hate if they had built that east coast pipeline instead of selling to the south
    1
  1496. @AFNick  I would rather compromise. Expand scope of the 401k type plans so that people's income that is saved is not subject to income tax. Turn income tax into something more akin to a progressive consumption tax. But obviously I would point out that the people holding the majority of the wealth certainly aren't paying a 50% income tax.
    1
  1497. Why are you so focused on Thorium. Canada has rich Uranium ore and advanced uranium fission experience. Thorium is exciting for countries like India that don't have uranium. There is no advantage, it only reduces our competitive advantage to find the technology.
    1
  1498. I would point out he was calling Canada an Energy Super power in Value(s), so I think its a real belief of his. Certainly more focused on things like AI than oil. Although, some of that book may have been looking ahead at a chance to run.
    1
  1499. As long as Ukraine holds ground in Russia, Putin can't agree to a ceasefire. This will mean Russia will refuse to negotiate, and that will keep American aid flowing to Ukraine.
    1
  1500. ​ @justinbourgeois4685 there is a weird dichotomy where people in this chat understand Alberta is entirely dependent on oil revenues and also think the oil companies aren't sharing a cent.
    1
  1501. What
    1
  1502. Ya he's a real genius, selling oil and gas to pay for military spending. Up there with Saudi Arabia, or maybe even Equitorial Guinea.
    1
  1503. The thing is Biden just spent his last 4 years building an industrial base.
    1
  1504.  @alostkoi  Biden just spent his term building an industrial base, however.
    1
  1505.  @redrix3731  I guess I've seen him in enough contexts (Joe Rogan, that Awful Netflix show, his own presentations) that his claims seems to shift. Obviously when he goes off unhinged about people building the pyramids with mental powers and they came from a North American advanced society, it's Narnia. But he always seems to back peddle to the more reasonable point and since I'm reasonable I accept that as his claim. But fair point he espouses non-sense. But I would say he also encourages reasonable research that is understudied because we have no direct evidence, and QED we have no reason to look for any.
    1
  1506.  @Wooraah  while Hancock's magic and super advanced society is wildly unsupported, I think your wrong about calling it an argument from ignorance falasy. He isn't claiming that it's possible under the clouds of Neptune are purple elephants. There is reasonable a reasonable hypothesis that earlier neolithic societies could have existed at waters edge and been lost; it isn't supported by direct evidence but the lack of that evidence isn't the driving argument. There is a real possibility that we don't have a full understanding of societal evolution, in fact I'd call it a certainty. Looking at the material record, China jumps directly into the copper age with no previous civilization, but we know that that is incorrect and a result of a preference for rapidly degrading bamboo. The onus is on the claimant, but it's equally irresponsible to claim as theory or fact a concept supported only by heavily biased data, and without better investigation of the contental shelves (and in particular, the Persian Gulf and South China/Java sea), the Sahara, and the Amazon claiming an accurate version of events is incredible..
    1
  1507.  @Wooraah  while Hancock's magic and super advanced society is wildly unsupported, I think your wrong about calling it an argument from ignorance falasy. He isn't claiming that it's possible under the clouds of Neptune are purple elephants. There is reasonable a reasonable hypothesis that earlier neolithic societies could have existed at waters edge and been lost; it isn't supported by direct evidence but the lack of that evidence isn't the driving argument. There is a real possibility that we don't have a full understanding of societal evolution, in fact I'd call it a certainty. Looking at the material record, China jumps directly into the copper age with no previous civilization, but we know that that is incorrect and a result of a preference for rapidly degrading bamboo. The onus is on the claimant, but it's equally irresponsible to claim as theory or fact a concept supported only by heavily biased data, and without better investigation of the contental shelves (and in particular, the Persian Gulf and South China/Java sea), the Sahara, and the Amazon claiming an accurate version of events is incredible..
    1
  1508.  @LordVader1094  read commets I've already copped to this. Also Neolithic and beyond anything we've achieved is a paradox. I'm saying we should take the idea, which Hancock spreads, of prior neolithic civilizations that may have existed in the glacial maximum seriously. I've agreed Hancocks claims are being reason.
    1
  1509. @vanhamies8512  and with the US having the farthest right government in their history and actively looking to incorporate parts of Canada it seems rather urgent we get our friends out west to tide water
    1
  1510. @ChrisR-xs9wp  the 600k a day going the through the states he always brings up is worth absolutely nothing. We're about to be thrown out of the US market. Marathon will switch over and coincidentally OPEC is increasing output. So now CSW will have to be priced low enough to compete at the Gulf refineries against international crude not carrying a tariff. And if it doesn't fall by enough to make it worth using at the Gulf, we lose another 600k right away from Keystone. Which could even be reversed to move oil north. The SAGD operations can't reduce output by very much as Markham knows from Covid. Lower demand will quickly cause a rapid price drop. The government of Alberta is going to lose a third of its revenue while the CAD drops and the oilsands Mines, the main center of employment and entire basis of Fort McMurray, will shut down, which is a majority of actual oil sands blue collar high wage jobs, who will then be on EI. Alberta put billions into Keystone XL. But I'm not suggesting sharing royalies. Alberta owns the investments. That's like saying Norway gave away all the money in their Sovereign wealth fund. If we try to use oil as a weapon, they will shut down line 5 and all the upgraded oil Alberta produces that Ontario needs for their refineries. .
    1
  1511.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  they put billions in to Keystone XL. I'm not asking them to share royalties. That's like suggesting Norway is giving away it's Sovereign wealth fund. I'm saying that they should invest those nationally to increase overall Canadian economic activity, reduce Dutch disease, and create stronger economic ties. They keep all the revenue generated. Frankly, the 600k bill/d Markham keeps bringing up doesn't exist. It's nonsense to think they are going to let us use their pipelines to export. They are actively trying to push us out of the market. A year ago I would have agreed but 6 months ago this kind of thinking will destroy us. I'm all for the 300k a day in Transmountain we should be increasing that this very moment, but we need alternative pathways for millions of barrels. In the short term we need to be able to replace marathon's 300k a day and the 600k a day going through Keystone. And within 2 years we will have another million blls a day gone after they reverse Keystone and start sending barges up the Mississippi. And if we try to hold back oil, or curtail to support prices, they will close down Line 5, another 400k a day gone, and completely cut Ontario off from not just Alberta's oil, which will have no alternative market, but all oil by pipeline until we can reverse Line 9, leaving Southern Ontario depending on Rail deliveries. TransCanada should have been treated as a matter of National security and a nation building project, not an economic one. I agree Alberta should have put more effort into CanaPUX and negotiating pipelines by offering capital investment instead of just expecting them built. But we're here now..
    1
  1512.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  sorry but my reply keeps dropping
    1
  1513.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  they put billions into Keystone XL
    1
  1514.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  I am not suggesting the share revenue any more than Norway shares revenue. I'm suggesting they make investments that raise Canada's economy and increase economic connection across the country
    1
  1515.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  the 600kbbl/d Markham keeps bringing up don't exist. They will never exist. The US is actively pushing us out of the market. Thinking like this will destroy our nation. We need access to Tidewater through Canada.
    1
  1516.  @ChrisR-xs9wp  okay so your last point is what is causing it to drop, but those optimizations will never exist, we need to find away to get millions of barrels out of US pipelines not add more to them.
    1
  1517. @ChrisR-xs9wp  okay so your last point is what is causing it to drop, but those optimizations will never exist, we need to find away to get millions of barrels out of US pipelines not add more to them
    1
  1518. @ChrisR-xs9wp  who cares? I didn't say it was?
    1
  1519. @homerbeer943  I agree entirely with the way being a petrostate has destroyed our productivity. But we have political factors at play. We need to appease the Albertans or the US will offer to. And more importantly, the economic conditions have changed. Markham is frankly not accepting that and wrong. He knows Marathon is ready to switch crudes. He knows from 2018 and Covid that we can't greatly reduce production and that our oil prices have to be low enough to be worth sending to the US Gulf coast and compete against non tariffed oil, or else we lose KeyStone flows, and with marathon that's a million barrels a day. He knows Michigan has been trying to close Line 5 to Ontario for years, another 400k and the ability to hold Ontario hostage. He seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them and that we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, shut down because they are the highest cost barrel and don't need to be operational. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist. And it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific. The only people this is good for is those seperatists, who will drive pro-american sentiment.
    1
  1520. @homerbeer943  I agree entirely with the way being a petrostate has destroyed our productivity. But we have political factors at play. We need to appease the Albertans or the US will offer to. And more importantly, the economic conditions have changed. Markham is frankly not accepting that and wrong. He knows Marathon is ready to switch crudes. He knows from 2018 and Covid that we can't greatly reduce production and that our oil prices have to be low enough to be worth sending to the US Gulf coast and compete against non tariffed oil, or else we lose KeyStone flows, and with marathon that's a million barrels a day. He knows Michigan has been trying to close Line 5 to Ontario for years, which would lose another 400k and leave Ontario in a crisis. He seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them and that we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, shut down because they are the highest cost barrel and don't need to be operational. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist. And it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific. The only people this is good for is those seperatists, who will drive pro-american sentiment.
    1
  1521.  @homerbeer943  idk why I'm not allowed to reply
    1
  1522. @homerbeer943  I agree entirely with the way being a petrostate has destroyed our productivity.
    1
  1523. @homerbeer943  We have political factors at play. We need to appease the Albertans or the US will offer to. And more importantly, the economic conditions have changed. Markham is frankly not accepting that and wrong. He knows Marathon is ready to switch crudes. He knows from 2018 and Covid that we can't greatly reduce production and that our oil prices have to be low enough to be worth sending to the US Gulf coast and compete against non tariffed oil, or else we lose KeyStone flows, and with marathon that's a million barrels a day. He knows Michigan has been trying to close Line 5 to Ontario for years.
    1
  1524. @homerbeer943  . He seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them and that we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, shut down because they are the highest cost barrel and don't need to be operational. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist. And it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific.
    1
  1525. The only people this is good for is Alberta Seperatists looking to join the US
    1
  1526. this is what keeps failing Markham seems unwilling to accept the US is never going to let us use their pipelines to compete with them. We have maybe 2M bbl/day we can rely on in the US. They will reverse Keystone. Any capacity over that doesn't exist.
    1
  1527. we are going to see oil prices halve and the Oil Sands mines, responsible for most of the employment, be closed as the highest cost barrel. it will lead to a price crash on our side that will strip Alberta of employment and royalties until we have millions of barrels a day to the Pacific.
    1
  1528.  @miya6008  I'm sure your right. In 30 years we'll live in a Thorium powered paradise. The fact we've had uranium for half a century and can't get a plant built is ... Idk, best to ignore that. But ya, this new super future technology, which still produces nuclear waste and actually has worse ores than uranium, ya it's going to do great.
    1
  1529.  @robbirose7032  I'll save time, they're really aren't. I mean thorium is perfectly feasible. It just has no actual advantage to Uranium. And we have a uranium industry. It doesn't do a dramatically better job in any meaningful sense. Even if you couldn't use a thorium reactor to make a bomb, you could put uranium in one to make plutonium. So you still have to constantly monitor them all. Accept you can use it to make a bomb. So. I used to be really excited about Thorium. But it's just clickbate tech bro Bs
    1
  1530.  @TheOdderlbert  have you heard the term "reinvent the wheel". Until we can build Uranium reactors at a reasonable pace, policy will not allow thorium to be built. Nuclear technology is beyond technically mature, R&D is not the issue. We can make small changes to legislation that provides near infinite amounts of cheap and clean energy, or we ignore the actual issue and celebrate a hypothetical technology we will never actually build. Molten salt reactors are a little exciting. Thorium is just an excuse to not build Uranium. Sure it's cool. If you want to have some government money play with it whatever. Neptunium exists too, better throw money at that. But I really hate when the Internet throws hype at it. I feel the same way about fusion. We don't need a wonderful magical nuclear technology break through. It happened decades before I was born. People's energy should be at changing legislation. That's what actually matters..
    1
  1531.  @Stabacs  I assume that's pointed at me. What advantage are you referring to? As I said, molten salt reactors are exciting. But there is no reason to tie this technology to Thorium. SMRs are promising. But there is no reason to tie this to Thorium. What about Thorium is better than Uranium?
    1
  1532.  @silvermushroom-gamifyevery6430  Thorium can't be used as a nuclear fuel because it is not fissile. All Thorium reactor's rely on breeding Uranium 233 from Thorium. excluding the fact you can make an inconvenient nuclear weapon with Uranium 233, a breeder reactor is a breeder reactor, and you can put Uranium 238 into one to make Plutonium. So any Thorium reactor would have to be monitored just as rigorously as a Uranium reactor, because you can put Uranium in. So what is the advantage if you still have to regulate and monitor as though it can produce a nuclear weapon, because it can.
    1
  1533.  @khaya7272  as I said, this is a strategic movement. Not tactical. The goal is to maximize long time support for logistics. Losing equipment and manpower here is worthwhile if it ensures greater supplies to other fronts.
    1
  1534.  @khaya7272  holding ground elsewhere, today, frankly doesn't matter if; -You think you will have logistical support pulled from you on a month and the enemy is allowed to take it regardless -You are forced to enter negotiations in a month that lose it regardless -You are forced to accept a frozen lines deal today under the understanding the enemy is simply going to rearm and rebuild their economy and take it in 5 years. Ukraine's greatest chance of long term sovereign and control over prewar regions, and even regions claimed but not controlled by Russia, is to force Russia to keep fighting attritionally to the point of economic and military collapse, or ideally Putin's political collapse before the public or military allow the other two options to be reached. To accomplish this Ukraine needs to prolong the war, since they have a lower equipment loss ratio and aren't responsible for (all) their logistical lines. And this requires continuous American support, which in turn means that Russia can't appear willing to negotiate. Since Russia will not negotiate so long as Russian Territory is occupied, this region is the most strategically significant land to maintain control over.
    1
  1535.  @khaya7272  I hate Utube. Deleting comments. But, holding ground isn't worthwhile if; you are going to be forced to give it up in negotiations, you are going to have your logistics cut and the enemy allowed to take the land, you are going to be left with a frozen conflict with insufficient support while the enemy rearms and rebuilds their economy to take the land in 5 years. Ukraine's greatest chance of maintaining sovereignty and potentially even reclaiming land is to maintain the attritional war to the point of Russian military or Economic collapse, or Putin's political collapse from either the public or military not allowing that outcome, since they don't have to maintain their logistics and have lower loss ratios. This requires keeping American support, which means being the party willing to negotiate. Russia will not negotiate so long as prewar Russian Territory is occupied, and so maintaining some control of Kursk is essential to long-term Ukrainian strategy.
    1
  1536. @khaya7272  I hate Utube. Deleting comments. But, holding ground isn't worthwhile if; you are going to be forced to give it up in negotiations, you are going to have your logistics cut and the enemy allowed to take the land, you are going to be left with a frozen conflict with insufficient support while the enemy rearms and rebuilds their economy to take the land in 5 years. Ukraine's greatest chance of maintaining sovereignty and potentially even reclaiming land is to maintain the attritional war to the point of Russian military or Economic collapse, or Putin's political collapse from either the public or military not allowing that outcome, since they don't have to maintain their logistics and have lower loss ratios. This requires keeping American support, which means being the party willing to negotiate. Russia will not negotiate so long as prewar Russian Territory is occupied, and so maintaining some control of Kursk is essential to long-term Ukrainian strategy.
    1
  1537. @khaya7272  1/2 Holding ground isn't worthwhile if; you are going to be forced to give it up in negotiations, you are going to have your logistics cut and the enemy allowed to take the land, you are going to be left with a frozen conflict with insufficient support while the enemy rearms and rebuilds their economy to take the land in 5 years..
    1
  1538. @khaya7272 2/2Ukraine's greatest chance of maintaining sovereignty and potentially even reclaiming land is to maintain the attritional war to the point of Russian military or Economic collapse, or Putin's political collapse from either the public or military not allowing that outcome, since they don't have to maintain their logistics and have lower loss ratios. This requires keeping American support, which means being the party willing to negotiate. Russia will not negotiate so long as prewar Russian Territory is occupied, and so maintaining some control of Kursk is essential to long-term Ukrainian strategy
    1
  1539. @khaya7272 1/1 It isn't worth holding ground on the eastern Front if the wars conclusion, either by force or negotiation, will lose it anyway. I tried to say that several ways but I'm only allowed to keep it really simple it seems
    1
  1540.  @bittemeinrammstein  Clarification, I had meant to say Kharkiv was a rout, not Kherson. Kherson was a tactical retreat. In terms of equipment captures you can reference Oryx. The two large capture events were Kiev and Kharkiv. Regardless of whether Boris pushed Ukraine in the war, earlier you stated Russia would not negotiate if they were winning, but here I have to accuse you of trying to have it both ways. Perhaps without Western aid holding Kiev would have been impossible, but in reality I don't think Russian Logistics allowed the offensive to continue. And to support that I offer the method of Russian attacks in the period being focused on armoured groups and not Battalion size offensives, which I contribute to fuel and parts shortages making larger armoured groups unusable, the infamous armoured convoy not being able to advance (which did not enter through Belarus), and the never repeated usage of Belarus as an attack vector. I have also been following since the start of the war, although I don't know how to work that into the conversation as naturally as you did lol.
    1
  1541.  @terjeoseberg990  Kursk always had multiple operational goals. Tactical goals such as regaining maneuver warfare operations Ukraine excels at, potentially pinning Russians to the Sejm, and taking advantage of suprise and mine free areas. Strategic goals such as greater depth, moving boundaries to the sejm for greater defense, capturing the Nuclear power plant, capturing prisons to trade, cutting of Raillines to the south, and propaganda. Of course drawing troops off other fronts was one. And it can certainly be debated how successful this was, I wouldn't call it a failure, but the extent to which those 38k were repositioned troops vs Conscripts not used in Ukraine, members of other military units not based on the eastern Front, North Koreans, FSB, FIS, and Border control officers limits the gains. But the negotiating chip was always put forward as a chief operational goal..
    1
  1542. @bittemeinrammstein  Clarification, I had meant to say Kharkiv was a rout, not Kherson. Kherson was a tactical retreat. In terms of equipment captures you can reference Oryx. The two large capture events were Kiev and Kharkiv. Regardless of whether Boris pushed Ukraine in the war, earlier you stated Russia would not negotiate if they were winning, but here I have to accuse you of trying to have it both ways. Perhaps without Western aid holding Kiev would have been impossible, but in reality I don't think Russian Logistics allowed the offensive to continue. And to support that I offer the method of Russian attacks in the period being focused on armoured groups and not Battalion size offensives, which I contribute to fuel and parts shortages making larger armoured groups unusable, the infamous armoured convoy not being able to advance (which did not enter through Belarus), and the never repeated usage of Belarus as an attack vector. I have also been following since the start of the war, although I don't know how to work that into the conversation as naturally as you did lol..
    1
  1543.  @racoming1035  because the alternative may be Trump increasing support and removing more restrictions to the detriment of that goal.
    1
  1544. @terjeoseberg990  Kursk always had multiple operational goals. Tactical goals such as regaining maneuver warfare operations Ukraine excels at, potentially pinning Russians to the Sejm, and taking advantage of suprise and mine free areas. Strategic goals such as greater depth, moving boundaries to the sejm for greater defense, capturing the Nuclear power plant, capturing prisons to trade, cutting of Raillines to the south, and propaganda. Of course drawing troops off other fronts was one. And it can certainly be debated how successful this was, I wouldn't call it a failure, but the extent to which those 38k were repositioned troops vs Conscripts not used in Ukraine, members of other military units not based on the eastern Front, North Koreans, FSB, FIS, and Border control officers limits the gains. But the negotiating chip was always put forward as a chief operational goal. Also, Ukraine may be the one to make the final decision. But to think they would want to continue fighting without American logistical support, and potentially in an environment where America is lifting Russian Sanctions and pushing EU countries to end aid and lift sanctions as part of Tariff and NATO negotiations, is just silly..
    1
  1545. @bittemeinrammstein  1/4 Clarification, I had meant to say Kharkiv was a rout, not Kherson. Kherson was a tactical retreat.
    1
  1546. 2/4 In terms of equipment captures you can reference Oryx. The two large capture events were Kiev and Kharkiv.
    1
  1547. 3/4Regardless of whether Boris pushed Ukraine in the war, earlier you stated Russia would not negotiate if they were winning, but here I have to accuse you of trying to have it both ways. Perhaps without Western aid holding Kiev would have been impossible, but in reality I don't think Russian Logistics allowed the offensive to continue. And to support that I offer the method of Russian attacks in the period being focused on armoured groups and not Battalion size offensives, which I contribute to fuel and parts shortages making larger armoured groups unusable, the infamous armoured convoy not being able to advance (which did not enter through Belarus), and the never repeated usage of Belarus as an attack vector.
    1
  1548. 4/4 I have also been following since the start of the war, although I don't know how to work that into the conversation as naturally as you did lol.
    1
  1549.  @terjeoseberg990  I'm not celebrating Russian leadership lol. I'm just saying there wasn't 1 point to invading Kursk. And right now, the key point is holding land to improve the situation if Trump aims to force a negotiation by leveraging US aid. But to 38k casualties being a "huge success", why? Why are casualties a success? Ukraine could carpet bomb Minsk, and create thousand of casualties, but it wouldn't be a success. You need to go beyond casualties to the strategic reasoning. Drawing troops off the Eastern front was the apparent goal. This largely didn't materialize. Now, the large losses do wear down Russian material and manpower from recruiting. But, Russia has been chiefly using wheeled BTRs in Kursk, not the BMPs it uses for the eastern front. And while Russia is suffering recruitment issues, the extent to which it doesn't need Russian Volunteers in Kursk limits the success of hindering Russia in the east, since NKs or Conscripts or literal Police officers were never going to be used there. Russia did pull troops out of the south, which was some advantage to Ukraine. Again I'm not suggesting this has been a failure, but it was by no means the success hoped for. If course no one in government went out and said "the goal of this operation is to make it so we can pretend we want to negotiate and make Russia look like the party unwilling to accept a ceasefire". The term is strategic ambiguity. They can't admit the goal is to draw out the war when Trump is only offering to support them with the aim of ending the war as soon as possible. I don't agree that Ukraine doesn't need the US. We have seen the results of US paralysis and the strategically important losses in manpower and defensive positions. But moreover, US lack of support now would mean an end to long range missile strikes. It might mean a lifting of sanctions to empower Russia. And it might even mean that European Countries, faced with Tariffs and themselves strategically dependent on the US who is clearly aiming to renegotiate NATO, may have to lift some sanctions or cut back aid. US impartiality is not guaranteed, Trump has spoken negatively of Ukraine, and if he interprets Russia as a willing negotiator and Ukraine as pushing for a long war, that would be disastrous. On the other hand, if Ukraine says "we'd love to negotiate" knowing that Russia will absolutely refuse as long as they hold Russian Territory, Trump may frame Russia as the aggressor extending the war (which I don't dispute in reality it is), and increase aid. long range missile. F15s. Abrams. Bradleys. The US could provide hundreds more and utterly turn the tide. It could even pressure South Korea to provide aid directly, millions of shells and tanks and artillery. There is no reason to ignore the reality of the US's leverage. Ukraine is obviously at the greater advantage when the US is supporting them..
    1
  1550.  @terjeoseberg990  1/7  I'm not celebrating Russian leadership lol. I'm just saying there wasn't 1 point to invading Kursk. And right now, the key point is holding land to improve the situation if Trump aims to force a negotiation by leveraging US aid.
    1
  1551.  @terjeoseberg990  2/7 But to 38k casualties being a "huge success", why? Why are casualties a success? Ukraine could carpet bomb Minsk, and create thousand of casualties, but it wouldn't be a success. You need to go beyond casualties to the strategic reasoning. Drawing troops off the Eastern front was the apparent goal. This largely didn't materialize.
    1
  1552.  @terjeoseberg990  3/7 Now, the large losses do wear down Russian material and manpower from recruiting. But, Russia has been chiefly using wheeled BTRs in Kursk, not the BMPs it uses for the eastern front. And while Russia is suffering recruitment issues, the extent to which it doesn't need Russian Volunteers in Kursk limits the success of hindering Russia in the east, since NKs or Conscripts or literal Police officers were never going to be used there. Russia did pull troops out of the south, which was some advantage to Ukraine. Again I'm not suggesting this has been a failure, but it was by no means the success hoped for.
    1
  1553.  @terjeoseberg990  4/7 Of course no one in government went out and said "the goal of this operation is to make it so we can pretend we want to negotiate and make Russia look like the party unwilling to accept a ceasefire". The term is strategic ambiguity. They can't admit the goal is to draw out the war when Trump is only offering to support them with the aim of ending the war as soon as possible.
    1
  1554.  @terjeoseberg990  5/7I don't agree that Ukraine doesn't need the US. We have seen the results of US paralysis and the strategically important losses in manpower and defensive positions. But moreover, US lack of support now would mean an end to long range missile strikes. It might mean a lifting of sanctions to empower Russia. And it might even mean that European Countries, faced with Tariffs and themselves strategically dependent on the US who is clearly aiming to renegotiate NATO, may have to lift some sanctions or cut back aid. US impartiality is not guaranteed, Trump has spoken negatively of Ukraine, and if he interprets Russia as a willing negotiator and Ukraine as pushing for a long war, that would be disastrous.
    1
  1555.  @terjeoseberg990  6/7 On the other hand, if Ukraine says "we'd love to negotiate" knowing that Russia will absolutely refuse as long as they hold Russian Territory, Trump may frame Russia as the aggressor extending the war (which I don't dispute in reality it is), and increase aid. long range missile. F15s. Abrams. Bradleys. The US could provide hundreds more and utterly turn the tide. It could even pressure South Korea to provide aid directly, millions of shells and tanks and artillery.
    1
  1556.  @terjeoseberg990  7/7 There is no reason to ignore the reality of the US's leverage. Ukraine is obviously at the greater advantage when the US is supporting them.
    1
  1557.  @terjeoseberg990  1/7  yes Russian leadership has been terrible, although improved over the last year, at least tactically. I'm just saying there wasn't only a single reason to invading Kursk. At this time, the key point is holding land to improve the situation if Trump aims to force a negotiation by leveraging US aid..
    1
  1558.  @terjeoseberg990  2/7 But to casualties being a huge success, why? Ukraine could carpet bomb Minsk, and create thousands of casualties, but it wouldn't be a success. You need to go beyond casualties to the strategic reasoning. Drawing troops off the Eastern front was the apparent goal. This largely didn't materialize..
    1
  1559.  @terjeoseberg990  4/7 Of course no one in government went out and said "the goal of this operation is to make it so we can pretend we want to negotiate and make Russia look like the party unwilling to accept a ceasefire". They can't admit the goal is to draw out the war when Trump is would only offer to support with the aim of ending the war as soon as possible.
    1
  1560.  @terjeoseberg990  6/7 On the other hand, if Ukraine says we'd love to negotiate, knowing that Russia will absolutely refuse as long as they hold Russian Territory, Trump may frame Russia as the aggressor extending the war (which I don't dispute in reality it is), and increase aid. long range missile. F15s. Abrams. Bradleys. The US could provide hundreds more and utterly turn the tide. It could even pressure South Korea to provide aid directly, millions of shells and tanks and artillery.
    1
  1561.  @terjeoseberg990  sorry I greatly dislike YouTube filters it makes it impossible to see what is being blocked. Edit: number 4 is just that Ukraine can't say that the goal is to look like they are willing to accept a ceasefire while ensuring there won't be one, because it undermines the whole concept.
    1
  1562. @terjeoseberg990  4/7 Of course no one in government went out and made it a stated goal. They can't admit the goal is to draw out the war when Trump is only offering to support them with the aim of ending the war as soon as possible.
    1
  1563.  @terjeoseberg990  I don't think we expected them to recruit NK soldiers, and NK apparently hasn't been comfortable putting people in Internationally recognized Ukraine. I really don't think we expected them to use Federal police or intelligence officers on the front line in the east, but we have seen it in Kursk. And we still aren't seeing young conscripts in internationally recognized Ukraine, but they are in Kursk. These uses do not impact Russian recruitment. The casualties can be replaced with more North Koreans and Forced Conscripts. 38k casualties on the Eastern Front would have a significantly greater impact on recruiting than in Kursk, because many of the people in Kursk don't have to be convinced to volunteer. It is volunteer soldiers Russia is struggling to recruit, and it is volunteer soldiers whose salaries and bonuses are bankrupting Russia. Again, there are volunteers in Kursk. Some new recruits, some from the Southern front, and some from the east. I'm not implying failure. I'm contextualizing the extent of success. Maybe the confusion is the last point. I certainly don't think the goal is to hold Kursk to trade it for a few square Km of land. I'm saying Ukraine wants to hold it because Putin's political power would be undermined by any peace deal that lost any Russian Territory. And so holding the land keeps Russia away from the negotiating table, which will make Trump angry that Putin won't agree to the peace negotiations Trump has said would be easy, and lead to Trump trying to punish Russia by supporting Ukraine further, maybe more than Biden has..
    1
  1564. @terjeoseberg990  I don't think we expected them to recruit NK soldiers, and NK apparently hasn't been comfortable putting people in Internationally recognized Ukraine. I really don't think we expected them to use Federal police or intelligence officers on the front line in the east, but we have seen it in Kursk. And we still aren't seeing young conscripts in internationally recognized Ukraine, but they are in Kursk. These uses do not impact Russian recruitment. The casualties can be replaced with more North Koreans and Forced Conscripts. 38k casualties on the Eastern Front would have a significantly greater impact on recruiting than in Kursk, because many of the people in Kursk don't have to be convinced to volunteer. It is volunteer soldiers Russia is struggling to recruit, and it is volunteer soldiers whose salaries and bonuses are bankrupting Russia. Again, there are volunteers in Kursk. Some new recruits, some from the Southern front, and some from the east. I'm not implying failure. I'm contextualizing the extent of success. Maybe the confusion is the last point. I certainly don't think the goal is to hold Kursk to trade it for a few square Km of land. I'm saying Ukraine wants to hold it because Putin's political power would be undermined by any peace deal that lost any Russian Territory. And so holding the land keeps Russia away from the negotiating table, which will make Trump angry that Putin won't agree to the peace negotiations Trump has said would be easy, and lead to Trump trying to punish Russia by supporting Ukraine further, maybe more than Biden has..
    1
  1565.  @terjeoseberg990    alright, well, if we want to go into the nitty gritty the number you are using is from Zalenski saying "During the kurst operation, the enemy has already lost 38,000 of their soldiers in this direction alone, with nearly 15,000 of these loses being irreversible".  Now, I think it would be reasonable to say Ukraine probably over states the numbers a bit just like Russia or anyone at war does, but taking those values as true, it's only 15k who have been killed or severely wounded. 23k were "casualties" only in the sense they were temporarily wounded, and will be returned to the fight at some point.  One of those two numbers also includes the 860 POWs Ukraine has stated as taking. Which is strategically valuable, since most are probably limited use conscripts and are traded for more experienced Ukrainian prisoners. But either they can be returned to the fight if they are traded, and in any event largely aren't going to represent Volunteers.  And we know at the start of the operation the border was manned mainly with Conscripts. And the FSB was purported conscripting locals to rapidly add to the manpower as an initial response. The area South of the Sjem, which had 2-3k soldiers, would have been mainly Conscripts until Russia broke through, and they were fighting on both the east area of invasion and west border with Ukraine. The story of Conscript Artem Antonov was well publicized after he was shot in the head by his commander for refusing to fight in Kursk. And during the invasion reports were that Akhmet "special forces" were shooting Conscripts who tried to run. However, Russia is trying very hard to hide conscript deaths, so it is very difficult to say how extensive this is.  And, imo, in all likelihood part of why it was referred to as an "anti terrorist operation" by Russia, alongside publicity, was to use police and intelligence officers for manpower. Reports say FSB lost around 100 of their "alpha" and "vympel" SWAT type officers. Obviously a small amount of the 15k, and surely a sign of Russia's very high competence, but also not effecting recruitment.  And in the same interview as mentioned above, it's said NK has 3k casualties. Now I don't know how that breaks down between killed, permanently wounded, and temporary, but from what I have seen/heard, I'd expect it to screw towards the killed end. And, I expect as time goes on, we will see an increase in North Koreans disproportionately.  Now again, obviously there is success here. And all the above can be listed as success, I would simply not consider it as much so as Contract Russian soldiers. And conscript losses also constitute a Propaganda win by hurting Russian support. You may remember at the start of the Kursk operation a HIMARs strike that killed hundreds of Russians coming to stabilize the situation, and they were from the 44th army Corp, a volunteer unit. Mainly because the Russians drive in a convoy like it was February 2022. A very significant loss, if somewhat isolated and early, not directly from the Eastern front, but as you say, they won't be getting there either.  And the 810th and 155th Naval brigades, which have been core parts of the Russian operation to retake Kursk, have been battered. The 155th you may recognize as the unit that has been completely rebuilt several to a dozen times in Vuhledar - although basically the moment the left for Kursk, the Russians captured Vuhledar, so may have been better for Ukraine if they hadn't been repositioned (a joke). And the 810th, (which was heavily involved in defending against both Ukraine's 2022 Kherson, reportedly loosing 85% of strength, and 2023, also taking ruinous casualties, counter offensives), ran into a wall of bullets in November that lost like 800 men in an operation, literally 300-500 in a few hours on the 14th. And also the command post hit on Christmas was the 810th, which is a big deal when you consider the very small percentage of the unit that had survived since the start of the war is likely the kind of people that are in a command post.  I think it's reasonable to expect around 7k Russian volunteers have been removed from the war in Kursk, maybe as high as 11k. But, I have to point out that Ukraine is using very skilled forces like the 83rd. And had they been placed on the Eastern front, I imagine they would have similar numbers. And for that reason, I don't think the long term occupation of Kursk, or in particular the current offensive, is about maximizing casualties (although the direction of attack I do believe is focused on Russian, not Korean, units). I think the same kind of ground for time campaign we see in the east may achieve such a goal better. I believe the reason for the holding and expansion of Kurst holdings is to keep Russia from negotiating.
    1
  1566.  @buckbenelli8  Me? Are you calling me a Traitor? I'm not even Ukrainian lol. But I'm pro Ukraine. I've donated money even. I'm not speaking against Ukraine at all. I'm not even speaking against the Kursk operation. I just don't agree the goal of the Kursk operation is asymmetric manpower and equipment attrition. The 83rd airborne would be merking orcs anywhere you put them.
    1
  1567.  @terjeoseberg990  sorry I thought my reply posted, I will have to try and break it up in a bit and see what isn't sticking
    1
  1568.  @buckbenelli8  are you calling me a Traitor? I'm not even against the Kursk operation, let alone Ukraine. I just don't agree on the strategic goals lol
    1
  1569.  @terjeoseberg990  I mean I can see that's snarky, but just to be clear you did see my reply then and that's all you have to say, and I don't have to try and break it up, ya?
    1
  1570.  @terjeoseberg990  I guess I don't understand the question, but generally it's good for public support not to be losing as many people and creating more casualties than your enemy? Idk do you have like a gotchya answer?
    1
  1571.  @terjeoseberg990  ya I agree on Russia trying to lie about these things for maintaining Volunteers. Tbh I often feel bad for the Russian prisoners who signed up, I can't imagine having less of an idea what you're signing up for than the news you get in a Russian prison... Then I remember what it takes to get put in a Russian prison 90% of the time and feel better about it. Not there there is really anyone left to recruit there. I agree Ukraine is far more honest about their own figures. Although, I think there is something to be said about the 100-200k Ukrainians constricted in the occupied territories reported as Russian Casualties. But I do think there is a moral boosting factor to over reporting Russian losses. And, an impact to the apparent level of success that I'm sure affects western support. I mean, even you were repeating the 38K number like they were KIA, when the KIA number is more like a third of that.
    1
  1572.  @terjeoseberg990  I don't take your point, beyond the obvious lack of respect for the Russian military. Are you saying the 1/3rd number is incorrect? Or just saying Russia lies about it, which obviously I agree with. Technically, particularly earlier in the war, many "Russian Casualties" were PMCs or Separatist Militias, and in fairness we don't include private contractors or Afghan National Military in USA casualties from Afghanistan; although the US didn't purport to annex Afghanistan either, and certainly didn't use military contractors in the same way. But over 2024 it has been very directly Russian Military against Ukraine, and Russia is certainly under-reporting its losses. And sending people on crutches into trenches. And using barrier troops to shoot Storm V or Storm Z soldiers, if you can seriously apply the term to untrained barely armed mobs, when they try to run (this is why I put "special forces" in quotes earlier, what's special is they shoot at Russians instead of Ukrainians). I think the reality is Russia has been getting rid of their own undesirables, and so this hasn't caused friction until recently, as both the recruiting pool of people society wants dead anyway shrinks and the number of people Russia throws grows. I also think we will likely see a full mobilization by March if Trump hasn't taken actions to severely weaken Ukraine; it will be politically unpopular and may destroy Putin, but I don't know how else Russia could continue.
    1
  1573. @terjeoseberg990  I don't take your point, beyond the obvious lack of respect for the Russian military. Are you saying the 1/3rd number is incorrect? Or just saying Russia lies about it, which obviously I agree with. Technically, particularly earlier in the war, many "Russian Casualties" were PMCs or Separatist Militias, and in fairness we don't include private contractors or Afghan National Military in USA casualties from Afghanistan; although the US didn't purport to annex Afghanistan either, and certainly didn't use military contractors in the same way. But over 2024 it has been very directly Russian Military against Ukraine, and Russia is certainly under-reporting its losses. And sending people on crutches into trenches. And using barrier troops to shoot Storm V or Storm Z soldiers, if you can seriously apply the term to untrained barely armed mobs, when they try to run (this is why I put "special forces" in quotes earlier, what's special is they shoot at Russians instead of Ukrainians). I think the reality is Russia has been getting rid of their own undesirables, and so this hasn't caused friction until recently, as both the recruiting pool of people society wants dead anyway shrinks and the number of people Russia throws grows. I also think we will likely see a full mobilization by March if Trump hasn't taken actions to severely weaken Ukraine; it will be politically unpopular and may destroy Putin, but I don't know how else Russia could continue.
    1
  1574.  @terjeoseberg990  You quoted 38k. A third of which is ~12.6k. Zelenskyy only actually listed 15K as KIA or wounded to the point of discharge. So accounting for North Koreans and assuming some of those 15k were in fact discharged and not KIA, a third is, I think, a reasonable upper end value for Russian losses. But that's from the Ukrainian estimate.
    1
  1575.  @terjeoseberg990  Yes, again also accounting for the NKs and that the 15K is also not KIA, but a mix of KIA and permanently wounded. Like I said, I'm happy to use Ukrainian numbers. I imagine they are overestimating by some margin, and international observers like the study in PNAS have said as much. But that isn't uncommon or malicious. The US did it in Iraq. The Ukrainian numbers are certainly far closer to reality than Russia's..
    1
  1576.  @bittemeinrammstein  I mean I know your a troll, but funny enough I just watched Zelenskyy's interview, and Lukashenko literally called Zelenskyy apologizing and saying he didn't know about the rockets... So again, I don't think Russian logistics around Kiev were ever sustainable, because I don't think Belarus was allowing military transit.
    1
  1577. @bittemeinrammstein  lol, well if you know for "certified".
    1
  1578.  @terjeoseberg990  hey, not trying to bug you, I just wanted to tack on - it wouldn't matter if Ukraine were reporting double the real casual rate; it would just mean Russia is reporting double the real recruitment rate. The actual numbers, aside from representing real people, don't actually matter. What matters is that Ukraine is pushing Russian recruitment to and past the limit, with the subsequent effects on military performance and economic pressure. I took that traitor remark from the other guy a little personal, which is dumb. But I don't want you to think I'm against Ukraine. My point is just that the tactics we are seeing in Kursk are very different than the tactics we see on the Eastern front. We aren't seeing a slow pullback to minimize losses, instead we see a priority to hold defensible ground at high cost. And in doing so Ukraine has to fight units that wouldn't be involved if it pulled back to Ukrainian territory. I think this only makes sense if the strategic goal is different from attrition, and Propaganda is part of that, but maintaining international support I think is the larger goal.
    1
  1579.  @benjaminseeman5826  So 1; I don't think it does any good to discredit the VDV members at Hostomel airport. They were clearly very capable soldiers, and what else could you really expect from the very best of Russia 2) discredited or not, they're all dead now 3) there is no point with arguing with him. He's either a Russian troll who is accepting money to allow his countries destruction to go on, a foreign troll taking money to watch to ruin of Russia, or dumb enough to buy Propaganda
    1
  1580. Avangard
    1
  1581. Hey MC, long time no see
    1
  1582. You're campaign needs to be more specific about what those value added exports are. Like its great to say we should add value to electrified exports. But what is it. You always go to Carbon fiber, but why not Deisel?
    1
  1583.  @markbaker6553  diesel and jet fuel are absolutely high value RPPs. Aluminum is great I would never take issue. But very obviously it is not going to come even close to replacing oil exports currently. I mean your comment references that we are hoping to get back our existing market. There is no large aluminum market. I don't disagree at all with adding value. But "adding value" isn't industrial policy. You need to set out what industries your policy is meant to encourage and how they interact..
    1
  1584.  @markbaker6553  the advantage I'm referring to is that Sturgeon falls type upgraders can produce heavy RPPs without any gasoline production. So while EVs cut out gasoline demand, and OPEC/conventional producers have to produce 5 barrels of oil, and 3 barrels of gasoline to produce 1 barrel of Diesel, we can use 1 barrel of Bitumen. Diesel/jet fuel demand is not seeing the same drop as Gasoline as EVs are almost entirely replacing cars. Heavy equipment is not seeing the same transition. I would argue diesel is a coproduct, not a by-product, and increasingly the most relevant fraction of a barrel of oil. Very soon gasoline will be produced and dumped on the market to produce diesel. But yes easy handling in shipping is a necessary component..
    1
  1585.  @markbaker6553  I agree and again, am fully supportive of our aluminum industry. My point is only that there isn't a large global market to easily grow into. Also, if Carbon fiber takes off, it will directly compete with Aluminum
    1
  1586. ​ @chrissmith2114 Obviously I agree about the tank comments because I'm not a bot, but I'm sceptical of the Sarmat failures and think it's quite likely North Korea is just testing their rockets in Russia.
    1
  1587. 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
  1588.  @blakksheep736  Honestly its not even that bad. I mean Coal spews mercury and black carbon and radioactive material, that has to go. And NG (particularly unconventional) might being leaking throughout our infrastructure and dumpimg methane into the atmosphere. But oil? Main problem with oil is we built North America so you're constantly driving, if we fixed development pattern and built nuclear plants in the 1970s after the first oil shock we wouldn't have to worry about oil for decades. Oil Companies on the other hand. Exxon sure did a number.
    1
  1589.  @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
  1590. Why did you make Chat GDP do this
    1
  1591. The other point is having 3 thousand not working nuclear bombs are makes it a lot easier to build 1 thousand working nuclear bombs by cannibalizing parts and nuclear materials. So I imaging they could built up quite quick. But I tend to agree they likely only have a few hundred operational. They're probably still the second largest nuclear holder.
    1
  1592.  @jilbertb  In this case bot is right. At the very least Russia claims to produce nuclear missiles annually, and it certainly has the technology and material to build in surplus. I doubt they have more than a few dozen to a few hundred operational warheads, most are probably forward positioned on subs imo.
    1
  1593. That's not even true. There is already millions in capacity going through Manitoba to Thunder Bay. They have no input where it goes from there.
    1
  1594. ​ @TheBlindPariah No the Enbridge Mainline runs through both provinces. I think we are very unlikely to see a new pipeline to Ontario.
    1
  1595. ​ @TheBlindPariah  i was mistaken about the pipelines reaching Thunder bay, but they do cross both provinces already. I don't think an extension through Manitoba is going to cause issue, particularly as Manitoba is talking about a pipe to Churchill
    1
  1596. ​​ @TheBlindPariah I don't think it is for new pipelines, I think its just to repurpose the existing. Either NG pipelines from Manitoba to Cornwall, or Line 9 to Southern Ontario. I also think a Bitumen pipeline to Churchill would be a mistake. Potentially an SCO pipeline, but still iffy. An NG pipeline for LNG exports I have no issue with, although depends heavily on European buy in.
    1
  1597. ​ @TheBlindPariah even without Nation building, all pipelines crossing provincial borders are inherently under federal jurisdiction. Although, securing oil supply to Ontario is clearly within the nation building realm. Its a new oil pipeline. But it won't be new pipe, it will use the TC Energy Mainline. Unless Quebec is on board, this won't be a massive project for exports.
    1
  1598. ​ @TheBlindPariah nothing directly, but as the North West Pacific pipeline is clearly meant as a redo of Northern Gateway, I wouls be shocked if this isn't being thought of as Energy East take 2. And Energy East was a TC Canada project to reuse thier existing pipelines, and was already twice the estimated cost of Transmountain in 2014 even reusing all that infrastructure. I would think its entirely unrealistic to do this without repurposing the NG lines. There are 4 seperate pipelines as part of TransCanada, so we aren't talking about cutting off our NG supply. And the pipelines only operate at something around a quarter of capacity, so TC Energy has no reason to keep them NG. I think its most likely TC Canada comes forward with a new project, but if not, they will almost certainly sell a pipeline or two, either willingly or required by the government, towards the project. I also think it is very unlikely this is a bitumen pipeline. Smith didn't even say that, just a crony. Ontario and Quebec have very little use for Bitumen, and the goal from Fords preservative is clearly moving what flows on Line 5 to a domestic line, which is not bitumen. Energy East was meant as a Bitumen line, and some bitumen may be included, but I think politically and regulatoraly it will be much easier to push through an SCO pipeline.
    1
  1599. ​ @trishmurphy1941 I agree we may be seeing peak oil, but I don't think we are seeing Peak Heavy crude. And I do think that to avoid a rapid collapse of the Oil sands, we need to have access to global markets, as the Regional US market we are tied to will collapse demand much faster in gross terms.
    1
  1600.  @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
  1601.  @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
  1602.  @davidleaman6801  I understand the idea is to use displacement of the tide to move large masses, but I am still not clear on the mechanism that produces power
    1
  1603. @ryuuguu01  I tend to agree particularly around LNG. But at times you hear ideas that we could alot that to NATO spending to provide secure supply or some such. I'd be open to that. I'm certainly not suggesting we don't build other industries, I think it's an entirely false dichotomy that the world's second largest country in area with 40 million people has to choose..
    1
  1604.  @markbaker6553  as I said in other comments, I don't think West Coast LNG is worthwhile. The only projects I can imagine in Canada are Manitoba seasonally out of Hudson's Bay, Quebec deciding to start fracking on the east coast, or increasing capacity on the existing pipeline west. Fundamentally we have LNG today because China gave us money before LNG got cheap globally. But my point is there is more to the conversation than simply saying Qatar is cheap. Qatar vents enormous amounts and is a slave state. Who's money? Ideally Japan and Korea. Maybe Canadian if it can be justified as limiting net global emissions or if providing reliable supply can count as NATO spending. I don't think this will happen; I think NG will largely be gone from the electrical mix within 2 decades, and reserved for the chemical industry and industrial heat, a much smaller market. But I think it deserves mention in conversation..
    1
  1605. @jaysmoke3132  I mean, it's largely Alberta, and less so Saskatchewan, that benefit. No one else is getting a third their provinces revenue paid for. There is a very strong argument that the $100+ barrels and high exports of the 2000s destroyed a lot of eastern Canada's manufacturing by pushing up the CAD. The TransCanada pipeline originally pushed would have been a bad deal for eastern Canada, although I have always supported and East West link to end Ontario's dependence on Line 5.
    1
  1606.  @Sailorlady1  I mean it could be an unincorporated territory. I'm sure some in Alberta would be happy with that, as it would mean no federal taxes. On the other hand, it means they have no federal representation or constitutional protections. I don't think the US would take issue with either.
    1
  1607. ​ @ctusface lol
    1
  1608. "To maintain thier life style, Canadians must ensure their economy is adopting new technologies like EVs and Heat Pumps" I genuinely don't understand this statement. I fully agree that new technologies like Solar panels are revolutionizing the power sector and will ultimately offer low enough cost electricity to drive out fossil fuels. But your claim appear to be the cart in front of the horse imo. I would argue what Canada needs to be concerned with is yhe supply side of the economy. We are losing oil, we are losing ICEs, together that is nearly half our exports. We need to develop new industries; batteries and EVs, SMRs, etc (happy to name more). But why does maintaining my life style require I move from an ICE to an EV or a NG furnace to a heat pump? My current life style is built on those technologies. I could understand the argument that eventually no one will make ICEs or NG furnaces because of greatly reduced market; but that implies an extremely large market for EVs and Heat pumps, and we can just switch at that point. I simply don't understand the argument it is consumption habits we need to be mainly concerned with. It is industry I fear for the future of. Particularly so long as we are net importers of these new technologies, I would much rather see slower adoption supportive of developing our industry in these areas than rapid adoption at our own expense.
    1
  1609.  @raphaellagdameo7811  I definitely agree with the appeal. But what does it matter if a Toronto to Montreal trip is cut to 3 hours? It's certainly much more convenient but what economic activity does that spur? And what activity does it spur if we assume we're in an economy that's seeing a 10% drop of GDP? I am arguing this is an either or scenario. Again, in the past I wouldn't be. But this isn't Covid or the great recession. The Bank of Canada isn't going to be able to keep rates low without mass sell offs of our US Treasury reserves and that's a very finite amount. Without exports to the US, there is going to be substantially less demand for Canadian dollars internationally, and that means our dollar is going to struggle to purchase the imported consumer goods we rely on, leading to inflation, and the capital equipment we need to build these infrastructure projects. This is very much a shoe string budget we will be on in a way that hasn't traditionally been true. If you follow MMT, then when the discussion is that it's not about dollars available to a government it's about resources available, we are not going to have resources available if we don't have export revenue. We don't need to spend money to keep people employed. We need to spend money that gets us exports. The people who are against pipelines, we can't afford to give them air time. We're talking about Alberta collapsing into a permanent depression. Ontario will be losing its manufacturing sector. And quite frankly I do not have a lot of faith the millions of immigrants in that corridor will be choosing to stick around, or the Ontario's housing sector, or housing and oil sands dependent banking sector, will manage to stay afloat. Very soon Quebec, along with BC, may be two of the few provinces of supplying transfer payments, and it's not because their economy will be getting stronger. We failed to develop our economy when it was possible to build both and when we did have demand for foreign investment. And I don't want to get to the point our competitive advantage is low wages. We simply don't have the fiscal space to borrow and spend if these tariffs happen, and I believe they will, because I think the goal of this is to deindustrialize Ontario and bring that industry to the rust belt it is already integrated into, and in doing so crash the CAD to access our resources cheap. If you want to argue for better rail in general, for more freight capacity east-west or better regional rail to Oshawa or Hamilton or even Niagara, areas people do commute and don't require 10s of billions of dollars for a single route, I think it could be very helpful in lowering cost of living. But right now I'd rather see a light rail/street car from Niagara on the lakes vineyards through Niagara falls to the border at Buffalo that can drive some tourism and help people in Niagara commute than a speed line between two cities that have very little economic integration just because they're big..
    1
  1610.  @adelezakus4795  I agree entirely with reducing our car orientated infrastructure in place or walkable neighborhoods. But high speed rail is that last step to that, not the first, people need to be able to get to work before they can get from Montreal to Toronto, which they already can do with a few extra hours. And more importantly, right now I'm afraid all that congestion is going to go away in the worst possible way if a million immigrants decide Canada is no longer better than their home countries and the middle class can't afford repairs when their car breaks down. We need to be able to afford imports, and that means we need to focus our limited fiscal capacity at reorienting our export infrastructure as quickly as possible and with all priority.
    1
  1611.  @raphaellagdameo7811  efficiency of what? Their trip? How does that make Canada's GDP grow? Really that means about a sixth of the population of the corridor we're talking about made a single there and return trip. If we assume that's all between Montreal and Toronto, we're saying save an average of 6 hours a year for 12% of the population between the two. Europe and Asia have far more cities densely packed, and more importantly, aren't car dependent in their building. You have to start by making cities and neighborhoods survivable without a car for these kinds of benefits. No one decides against buying a car because they can make that one trip a year to Montreal in only 3 hours, they decide not to buy a car because they can get to work conveniently without one. I agree with the point on freight. Although, I would much rather see new freight from North Bay to Ottawa so that we can free up the middle corridor in Toronto and reroute trains through Northern Ontario. But again, a high speed rail that skips Ottawa might make sense if the goal is to free up freight. Frankly, I think dedicated passenger rail would be more cost effective and provide most of the benefits, but if you're building splurge a little I guess. But if you include Ottawa that isn't what it's about at all and you're spending 10 times more on a vanity projects. Again, just because it's well studied, doesn't mean it will help. We need to be generating export revenue. Even if a high-speed rail could be bought at a good price, if it isn't getting us foreign reserves it isn't helping. Even if we bought every part of it domestically, those domestic workers turn around and are buying imported consumer goods, because we don't make consumer goods, and that money is flowing out and having to be bought back by the BoC, and we can't do that for long before rates have to go through the roof or the CAD collapses against international currencies.
    1
  1612. @raphaellagdameo7811  okay. Again, I can agree with the value of Toronto to Montreal. I think most would be realized with simple passenger dedicated rail, but I'm okay with a long term investment. It frees up freight and might make some trips more cost effective. This project is not Montreal to Toronto. It's Montreal to Ottawa to Toronto. Which means that instead of flat farmland and already existing right of way, you're cutting through eastern woodlands, building over the hard rock and bogs of Canadian Shield, and through the Algonquin highlands. For hundreds of Km. Including Ottawa makes the entire project not worth the return. We have a highway for those buses. We have airports for those planes. We aren't talking about entirely new infrastructure. In fact we will probably see those airports struggling when Canadians can't afford to travel and there is no US business to fly and attend to. There is an enormous marginal cost to building a high-speed rail over what exists. What's the goal, just to replace the buses and plains? What's the cost per ticket. Is it really cheaper than the bus, or are those riders going to keep taking the bus because it's what they can afford, today, when the economy is relatively good. Because I'll be shocked if it's cheaper than the current train. And are the execs on those flights going to be flying, or are their companies going to make them do more online calls to save money, when the economy is in recession. Time is money when you're employed. We are facing a mass unemployment crisis. A crisis unlike Covid or 2008, because our central bank will be unable to keep rates low and our government unable to borrow large amounts. And we are talking about maybe an hour a person per year in the region? The GTA won't have a GDP of $450 billion a year if these tariffs are real. When Hamilton and Oshawa and Windsor lose industry, when immigrants decide they don't want to live in a country they came to for economic opportunity that now is facing a decade of recession, that won't be the case. What are people in the GTA going to do with quicker access to Montreal that makes money, and vice versa. From Paris or London I can go to a dozen other cities. You're naming hubs in a network. Our cities are islands; especially if you got there on a train. And they are cities that have public transit outside the downtown. Montreal and Toronto are maybe the best in Canada, but you can't go to the suburbs. I'd much rather see this money spent on building new LRT, or just bus lanes and stop lights timed to bus routes. There is far more time we could be saving for people with the very limited fiscal space we have being put into public transit compared to an HSR. Right now a quarter of the country's exports, which fund a quarter of the country's imports, are oil sands. When the price of that collapses, our dollar can't buy things. I'm not even saying to expand the oil sands. I think we'll probably lose the oil sands mines, a million barrels a day, which you might think is a good thing until you realize it means the tailings ponds along the Athabasca will be abandoned. I'm simply saying we need to prioritize getting what we can out of the country, or else decade and hundreds of billions of investment into the Canadian economy are written off. While Ontario's Manufacturering is written off. We won't be able to afford importing those $200 billion in service if we can't get our exports to market, and you have not given any explanation to how this rail line would internalize those services. And tar is an acidic oxidized carbon residue, you are referring to bitumen..
    1
  1613.  @adelezakus4795  obviously we agree on a lot, most importantly the importance of planning infrastructure on long time lines. There are two things I disagree. First is that HSR is a solution to sprawl or long commutes. No country with HSR treats it as a commuter service. I get the idea but I think the solution has to be developing dense walkable communities within our cities, around existing transit hubs. That's how we reduce long commutes, we reduce the number of long distance commuters, not spend more on subsidizing long distance commuting. And in regard to to tariffs, my point there is that even if all the iron for rails and manufacturing of train cars and equipment used to build is made in Canada, those workers get paid. And when they get paid, they end up buying imports, because almost all of our consumer goods are imported. And buying imports when we don't have exports means the Bank Of Canada has to protect the CAD, either selling reserves or raising rates. I really believe we need to focus everything on salvaging those exports. Any government money spent means capital flight, and if it isn't being invested on getting access to foreign assets, it's wasted. We are in such an incredibly similar situation to Venezuela. Our ace up the sleeve is the US doesn't want a Venezuela on its border. And I don't want to play it..
    1
  1614.  @geofflepper3207  I agree. Including the bias of politicians part, although I think it is equally a case of contractors having no reason to say there is a much easier cheaper route and politicians not actually knowing anything about infrastructure, and that they will have trouble communicating to their base that even though including Ottawa just looks like a different straight line on a map, it's a very different line..
    1
  1615. Covid was ending and people all over the world were starting to travel and commute again.
    1
  1616. They need to do what Japan did, just strike a deal between the Liberals ans NDP to not run in the same ridings. NDP west of Ontario 2:25 , Liberals East on Manitoba, unless you have specific seats. Super easy. Im Sure both leaders will destroy thier parties and let the Conservatives win rather than any level of cooperation. Useless. They can't even act competently to save their own jobs.
    1
  1617. Solar does have the LCOE, and I tend to agree solar will eventually dominate energy production (although wind I think will ne a deqd industry by 2050, but is useful now). And, while I agree China is going full steam toward rebewables and electrification, but that steam is still largely coal fired. And thats because while coal has a higher LCOE, the upfront cost is lower since Solar is all upfront. For budget strapped nations wothout string credit ratings, and in modern high interest rates, and where poor electrical infrastructure is impeding growth, being able to pay for 1GW of coal upfront and worry about payong for fuel as the economy grows, vs only affording 500 MW of solar. And thats more true because of the demands of intermittentcy and need for storage.
    1
  1618. ​ @HuFlungDung2 its important to look at intermittency as a regional issue. Some areas reliability are cloudless for months on end, thats very easy to plan around. I also hold a high hope for closed loop geothermal as being an excellent dispatchable reserve because it has higher efficiency in the winter and can peak in the evening by super heating water during the day. But I expect by 2030 just about every large Solar farm with have 2 hours of battery storage to push service into the 7-9 period when demand is highest and sun is down, as well as provide frequency regulation. Because the short time frame allows multiple purchases and sales a day these have the highest return on investment. I also expect overnight storage to be increasingly common, either using an alternative battery chemistry or compressed air, with commerical scale installation widespread but still not the norm. And these will allow solar to act far more reliably.
    1
  1619.  @davidleaman6801  yes I understand the idea of tying a floating platform to the sea floor and spinning an axel as the platform rises. What I haven't seen as a workable design. But solar, wind, and geothermal are just as abundant and free. You could argue the same of uranium. Even static electricity. The question is how to generate power.
    1
  1620.  @davidleaman6801  you're talking about the company that lifts block correct?
    1
  1621. I disagree with you but I like your turn of phrase
    1
  1622. I don't defend Smith's Renewables moratorium. But we shouldn't spend so much time mocking her ending a renewable boom that we ignore everyother Province blocking their own renewables boom from the start..
    1
  1623. @JamieHumeCreative  I agree with all of that. My point is BC/SaskPower/Quebec Hydro etc all shot their foot before they started the race. And they should get at least as much critism
    1
  1624.  @JamesBrix86  I think you are being far to easy on Publicly owned utilities for failing to develop our renewable energy capacity
    1
  1625. This will only add to the discount.
    1
  1626. I think you are mistaken and perhaps reflecting a Western Canadian view when you say the future energy transformation is unknown in Canada. In Eastern Canada that absolutely isn't the case. Newfoundland has a 3GW wind farm being built to power green hydrogen exports, and all the maritimes have an equivalent. In Ontario even Doug Ford the Conservative Premier is aggressively pushing EVs and Battery manufacturing and EVs, and clean steel. The Ring of Fire is held up as the Ontario oil sands of the future..
    1
  1627. 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
  1628. 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
  1629. Whats going on with Wagner and Ukrainian spec forces in Africa?
    1
  1630. You clearly make a point of Bitumen being different from oil. But then when you talk about the future of demand, suddenly its oil demand. EVs are decimating gasoline demand. No doubt. Driven by China, it is happening and won't stop. And half a barrel of oil is unavoidably gasoline. More from shale oil. But Bitumen IS NOT OIL. You can turn a barrel of Bitumen 100% into diesel. Or jet fuel. Or lubricant. EVs aren't impacting this. We can have the oilsands not only thrive, but keep heavy RPP prices lower globally so that OPEC isn't dumping cheap gasoline.
    1
  1631.  @lesliegweir  do you understand what OPEC does? It doesn't matter if we drill, supply on the market is a predetermined value
    1
  1632.  @DBLt4p  I certainly agree that any blanket statement is never entirely true. And i would agree tariffs have a purpose, but I would suggest they are more valuable in a putative role than as economic policy. A tariff is equivalent to putting international sanctions on you're own country, they protect local industry by eliminating competition and lead to long term stagnation, and they invite foreign countries to put up tariffs in response. The Smoot Hawley tariffs were a key factor in causing both the great depression and the Pacific theater of WW2. Good industrial policy is based on building local value chains that create expertise and provide competitive advantage internationally. Look at Japan or Germany, you want your cars to win in other markets, not be protected in your own. Part of that is building infrastructure in a deliberate manner, and part is making policy that encourages industry to believe investment will be profitable. That's not to say all capital subsidies are best practices. You don't generally want to be picking particular projects, and things like corporate tax deductions don't generally align with real investment. Likewise blanket, fixed dollar tariffs are not as useful as percentage based tariffs on select goods with alternative suppliers and often which are important exports to the targetted country. Overall I would stand by the statement capital subsidies are better economic policy than tariffs, and do a better job at pulling international best practices and technology rather than encouraging the continuous use of older strategys and equipment that can't survive in global competition.
    1
  1633. You have to be totally ignorant of the fact Elon Musk, famously owner of Tesla, is guiding policy, and just killed all his domestic competitors. He'll probably end up buying at least one of them.
    1
  1634. @RockinRonny420  will do!
    1
  1635.  @najibyarzerachic  I was speaking in reference to this video not every liquid
    1
  1636.  @markbaker6553  They offer minimal employment at the plant. They still offer the employment in the drilling sector, or in my ideal world, at gasifiers turning bitumen in NG, and eventually carbon dioxide to Methane. But if a pipeline is going to take 60% of BCs grid, my point is that's an issue with the grid. BC has actually been an awful example for electrification; Alberta gets a lot of trouble for the renewables pause, as they should, but none of the other provinces were ever building nearly as much. We aren't going to be able to create a massive electrified resource extraction and manufacturing sector if we can't power a pipeline. More importantly though, I don't think there really is an opportunity cost. If we can't build generation in the time it takes to build a pipeline we don't have a chance at reinventing our economy, and that's basically evidence we have no choice but to keep exporting raw resources. Obviously that isn't my stance. But it's wrong to say we can't build a pipeline because we couldn't build the electrical capacity, and that's ultimately an argument against the electrified economy, not the pipeline.
    1
  1637.  @anvos658  I think you're considering to small a time scale. You can point to centuries this was true of Rome as well. The only time Washington has been sacked was a fleet that left from Canada with a large number of Canadian regulars.
    1
  1638.  @looseygoosey1349  I doubt he would have crossed the Alps Either
    1
  1639. 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
  1640.  @davipenha  Well this video is heavily about the USA and developed countries eat far more meat per capita.
    1
  1641. @ClimateTown I dare you to demonstrate eating beef is environmentally responsible, over even that the average pork chop or chicken breast could be called ethically acceptible.
    1
  1642.  @Craig-wp3pz  I mean what's an American Air Craft carrier going to do? I don't think the US wants to be involved in this conflict. They have a naval group in the Mediterranean helping with air defense, but a ship in the Persian Gulf wouldn't really help with that against ballistics. Maybe more so against drones though.
    1
  1643.  @lannyconroy9597  I strongly support EV manufacturing as part of battery manufacturing. But I would argue this is not the solution to the Automotive crisis. For that we need the upstream supply chain and building the machines and trucks that engage in mining etc. The construction of EVs is drastically different. That said, our second largest auto company makes things like car doors and convertible roofs etc, and would EVs are part of the solution.
    1
  1644. @lannyconroy9597  I highly doubt negotiations with China would lead to us selling more EVs to them. I'm not a crazy protectionist, but Markham talks about how China has cornered the market and build mass scale EV industry once an episode. If we want to be more than a producer of raw material, we can't give China free access to our market.
    1
  1645. To be fair getting a person to space costs a lot less; but if we're going to keep building SLS then soaceX can goose NASA.
    1
  1646. In another video you said the economics of electric planes would ensure they dominate this market. I guess these VTOL craft will be electric.
    1
  1647. Solar is maybe even problematic imo. On one hand, it fits great on home roofs and parking lots to provide local power and reduce heat islands. On the other, it makes single family homes and parking lots seem sustainable. Solar is best above reservoirs and canals, and should be rolled out as quickly as possible in these settings. Wind and Nuclear are the best mix though I agree. Space based solar might be easier to accomplish and less expensive than fusion though (I have 0 faith or see 0 value in fusion).
    1
  1648.  @lukeasacher  I have no problem with people keeping their money in a warehouse if they want to; but once they realize they will be getting a negative interest rate and they could loan to a healthy banking operation instead, I don't think anyone will - and as far as I know no one ever has.
    1
  1649.  @lukeasacher  I agree, but would add that I support the usage of a Land Value tax, particularly at local/municipal levels, and would be alright with taxing bodies having their own fiat currency such that every city might have a local dollar, and likewise that companies (particularly those involved with retail) should be able to issue currency backed by the fact they accept it. Similar to what we're seeing with points systems- I think it's more likely points systems take over the role of government money for 95% of transactions over any crypto coins. All you have to do is repeal the law on Company Script and Walmart could pay you in part in Walmart points, but it's worth it because you get a better price for groceries etc with the points. Tie in gift cards, denominated your points in dollars and cents. There are companies working on exchanges already. Edit: to my Land Value tax point, I would note that in Atlas Shrugged, the Gulch is expressly said to be funded by the owner collecting ground rent, excluding what they built on the parcel, and used to fund the municipal and defensive functions. Implicitly she agrees that ground rent is the best source of funding a community. To which my only objection to her utopia is that while now the government and the bank split my income quite evenly, I do look forward to the future when it's only the government. And I don't think the form of society she puts forward thrives under a banker owning everyone's property.
    1
  1650.  @lukeasacher  "only gold and silver are money, prove me wrong". Well, what do you define money as? Because if the answer is "gold and silver" I can't price you wrong lol, all I can say is that would not be how either economists or the broad public define it. Unfortunately the infrastructure that serves your house and the services you receive from the government are not free, and don't stop costing money when you reach a certain age. You could argue people over 70 shouldn't have to pay property taxes, although personally I think taxes are already skewed to the benefit of retirees by enough. But again Friedman said that land taxes were the least bad tax, as did Smith. To the extent a government is funded, land taxes should be the significant component imo.
    1
  1651.  @lukeasacher  I just think the market is moving towards using points as a currency far quicker than any crypto. If using points gives you some form of discount, people have a reason to leave the dollar and use more points. Corporations get revenue before seeing expenses and have lower cost of capital. The infrastructure is widely in place and used extensively, and intensively by a small group of consumers. I can check how much I can buy an item of similar quality in multiple points systems, denominated in points. I simply can't do that with crypto or silver. I'm not saying people won't hold gold or that international settlements might be in gold. Maybe even B2B transactions. But if companies continue to raise prices while giving out deals for points users, it might eventually drive uptake.
    1
  1652.  @kasimirfreeman  banks loan deposits. It's what they've always done. They have safety deposit boxes of you want to treat them like a warehouse.
    1
  1653. @connorism69  I disagree that people failing to understand changes anything at all. I've understood this since highschool. It's a call loan loan pure and simple. If you're a grown adult who thinks banks keep all your money in a big vault and pay you interest just to be nice, I have bad news about Santa and the tooth fairy as well.
    1
  1654.  @StephenRoss-po1rp  correct take. This argument is like hearing people debate having eggs for breakfast or steak for dinner like they are some how in competition
    1
  1655. @River_68 to gas comes from oil... Not really. Most oil comes from the oil sands, which use NG not produce it.
    1
  1656.  @StephenRoss-po1rp  here I disagree with you. The transition will be far faster. I believe Canada can be a long term producer, but it will be at much lower prices and pushing out competition. China has 1000GW/year of solar panel manufacturering capacity and produced more EVs than North America produced vehicles last year. China is not the only nation in the market or growing capacity. The speed of the build out will continue to increase and the economics of oil will be rapidly and drastically impacted..
    1
  1657.  @StephenRoss-po1rp  I did include EVs in the same sentence as solar panels. I think it's fairly clear how I am suggesting the two together will impact oil demand..
    1
  1658.  @StephenRoss-po1rp  lol, I like to rationalize it by saying that like a manic pixie dream girl into wicca China has decided to build it's economy around crystals that turn sunlight into energy. I agree with you that oil will exist at scale 50 years into the future. But I think people need to realize it won't be black gold. Much like the rust belt never stopped producing steel, it stopped producing wealth. I think people fail to remember oil is worth what a bunch of Sheikhs on the other side of the world say it is. It's not a free market. I don't say this disparagingly, but of course you made a good living, you worked in the world's most monopolized resource. I also defend our oil industry. I think we can out survive the petrostates of the middle East and grow our production. Heavy crude can be used for jet fuel as gasoline demand falls. But ultimately it must be understood China does not care about economics and will do anything to avoid oil dependence. And as consequence, will dump cheap technology on the world to undermine oil producing countries like ourselves and the US toward the goal of making the world dependent on themselves..
    1
  1659.  @StephenRoss-po1rp   @StephenRoss-po1rp  lol, I like to rationalize it by saying that like a manic pixie dream girl into wicca China has decided to build it's economy around crystals that turn sunlight into energy. I agree with you that oil will exist at scale 50 years into the future. But I think people need to realize it won't be black gold. Much like the rust belt never stopped producing steel, it stopped producing wealth. I think people fail to remember oil is worth what a bunch of Sheikhs on the other side of the world say it is. It's not a free market. I don't say this disparagingly, but of course you made a good living, you worked in the world's most monopolized resource. I also defend our oil industry. I think we can out survive the petrostates of the middle East and grow our production. Heavy crude can be used for jet fuel as gasoline demand falls. But ultimately it must be understood China does not care about economics and will do anything to avoid oil dependence. And as consequence, will dump cheap technology on the world to undermine oil producing countries like ourselves and the US toward the goal of making the world dependent on themselves.
    1
  1660. @StephenRoss-po1rp  lol, I like to rationalize it by saying that like a manic pixie dream girl into wicca China has decided to build it's economy around crystals that turn sunlight into energy. I agree with you that oil will exist at scale 50 years into the future. But I think people need to realize it won't be black gold. Much like the rust belt never stopped producing steel, it stopped producing wealth. I think people fail to remember oil is worth what a bunch of Sheikhs on the other side of the world say it is. It's not a free market. I don't say this disparagingly, but of course you made a good living, you worked in the world's most monopolized resource. I also defend our oil industry. I think we can out survive the petrostates of the middle East and grow our production. Heavy crude can be used for jet fuel as gasoline demand falls. But ultimately it must be understood China does not care about economics and will do anything to avoid oil dependence. And as consequence, will dump cheap technology on the world to undermine oil producing countries like ourselves and the US toward the goal of making the world dependent on themselves..
    1
  1661.  @StephenRoss-po1rp   lol, I like to rationalize it by saying that like a manic pixie dream girl into wicca China has decided to build it's economy around crystals that turn sunlight into energy. I agree with you that oil will exist at scale 50 years into the future. But I think people need to realize it won't be black gold. Much like the rust belt never stopped producing steel, it stopped producing wealth. I think people fail to remember oil is worth what a bunch of Sheikhs on the other side of the world say it is. It's not a free market. I don't say this disparagingly, but of course you made a good living, you worked in the world's most monopolized resource. I also defend our oil industry. I think we can out survive the petrostates of the middle East and grow our production. Heavy crude can be used for jet fuel as gasoline demand falls. But ultimately it must be understood China does not care about economics and will do anything to avoid oil dependence. And as consequence, will dump cheap technology on the world to undermine oil producing countries like ourselves and the US toward the goal of making the world dependent on themselves..
    1
  1662. @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
  1663.  @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
  1664.  @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
  1665.  @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
  1666.  @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
  1667. @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
  1668. @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
  1669. 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
  1670.  @gregallard2317  cool comeback bro. What lie?
    1
  1671.  @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
  1672. @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
  1673. 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
  1674. Gregalard, what lies? This is a real risk. We need to keep Alberta happy with being in Canada.
    1
  1675.  @KathyXie  only the French in the north though. The French in the south were still just french collaborators /s
    1
  1676. ​​ @ponzi-d4k If this were a serious proposal from, say France or California, i wouldn't fight it. My concern is avoiding mass bankruptcy, if we can do that for doing nothing, I'm not going to fight it! Logistically, I don't know how it could be done. How Suncor could say "We produced 700k bbl/d, but we didn't produce 1.5M". Particularly since it will be produced by an OPEC member as a result. As for the price war, if the Saudis engage in price war, it will be against EVs, not us, imo. And they aren't currently doing that, so unless we got to that point of OPEC collapse, I don't know how we could say we are reducing supply. Also, I do honestly believe in the medium and long term Oilsands is the more carbon conscious supplier. Because there is no gasoline yeild in a barrel of bitumen, we can upgrade to almost entirely deisel or jet fuel. Other oil suppliers, even heavy producers, can't do that. And as a result, they are going to produce gasoline by requirement. Some of that can be cracked for petrochemicals, but a lot of it will be dumped cheap as refiners chase the high margins on jet fuel, and that will fight against EV uptake. So I do believe there are negatives to climate transition in us taking that off the market because we can serve exclusively the hard to abate uses and bring the cost of those RPPs down to push our conventional refiners. This is the same reason I believe we can maintain market share in the declining market. The market might want some light oil for petrochemical feed stock - but cracking gasoline will probably drive that out. And medium crudes will be less desirable as well as EVs drive out that gasoline demand and it shifts from the main product to a near waste product..
    1
  1677. ​​ @ponzi-d4k  .If this were a serious proposal from, say France or California, i wouldn't fight it. My concern is avoiding mass bankruptcy, if we can do that for doing nothing, I'm not going to fight it! Logistically, I don't know how it could be done. How Suncor could say "We produced 700k bbl/d, but we didn't produce 1.5M". Particularly since it will be produced by an OPEC member as a result. As for the price war, if the Saudis engage in price war, it will be against EVs, not us, imo. And they aren't currently doing that, so unless we got to that point of OPEC collapse, I don't know how we could say we are reducing supply. Also, I do honestly believe in the medium and long term Oilsands is the more carbon conscious supplier. Because there is no gasoline yeild in a barrel of bitumen, we can upgrade to almost entirely deisel or jet fuel. Other oil suppliers, even heavy producers, can't do that. And as a result, they are going to produce gasoline by requirement. Some of that can be cracked for petrochemicals, but a lot of it will be dumped cheap as refiners chase the high margins on jet fuel, and that will fight against EV uptake. So I do believe there are negatives to climate transition in us taking that off the market because we can serve exclusively the hard to abate uses and bring the cost of those RPPs down to push our conventional refiners. This is the same reason I believe we can maintain market share in the declining market. The market might want some light oil for petrochemical feed stock - but cracking gasoline will probably drive that out. And medium crudes will be less desirable as well as EVs drive out that gasoline demand and it shifts from the main product to a near waste product.
    1
  1678. ​@ponzi-d4k If this were a serious proposal from, say France or California, i wouldn't fight it. My concern is avoiding mass bankruptcy, if we can do that for doing nothing, I'm not going to fight it! Logistically, I don't know how it could be done. How Suncor could say "We produced 700k bbl/d, but we didn't produce 1.5M". Particularly since it will be produced by an OPEC member as a result. As for the price war, if the Saudis engage in price war, it will be against EVs, not us, imo. And they aren't currently doing that, so unless we got to that point of OPEC collapse, I don't know how we could say we are reducing supply. Also, I do honestly believe in the medium and long term Oilsands is the more carbon conscious supplier. Because there is no gasoline yeild in a barrel of bitumen, we can upgrade to almost entirely deisel or jet fuel. Other oil suppliers, even heavy producers, can't do that. And as a result, they are going to produce gasoline by requirement. Some of that can be cracked for petrochemicals, but a lot of it will be dumped cheap as refiners chase the high margins on jet fuel, and that will fight against EV uptake. So I do believe there are negatives to climate transition in us taking that off the market because we can serve exclusively the hard to abate uses and bring the cost of those RPPs down to push our conventional refiners. This is the same reason I believe we can maintain market share in the declining market. The market might want some light oil for petrochemical feed stock - but cracking gasoline will probably drive that out. And medium crudes will be less desirable as well as EVs drive out that gasoline demand and it shifts from the main product to a near waste product..
    1
  1679. @ryuuguu01  How much capacity does Nepal have? Should we build transmission lines there as well? You can get all the benefits with a few GWs in transmission capacity with lines that are only a few hundred km each. Albertas renewables can provide all the imports BC needs, and vice versa. If you're going to build another Manitoba bipole for 1500 km, it would make far more sense to reach for Ontario, although it doesn't really make sense to do at all. I think you are missing the the actual power in Manitoba is in the forest, Site C isn't on the other side of a mountain, Revelstoke is but it also follows the TransCanada highway.
    1
  1680. @jimroth7927  Ya but it's so much more achievable than getting Alberta to trade significantly with Manitoba
    1
  1681. ​ @economicprisoner I do hate when Albertans complain they pay taxes for the whole country when they don't even pay taxes for their own province
    1
  1682. ​ @georgedroyd2020 if your an investor, the threat of tariffs is the something
    1
  1683. ​ @Happycandle7923 that's a fine opinion, as long as you understand you are asking for less provincial rights and a stronger federal government
    1
  1684. Turning oil and gas is low efficiency if you want to make electricity or Kinetic energy. But a lot if the time you just want heat.
    1
  1685. @bhut1571  I agree, NG may last even longer than that in industrial heating, where the only alternatives, imo, are either SMRs or Hydrogen
    1
  1686. ​@qtdcanada Sunshine oil is a peanuts player, at best. It's literally 5k bbls a day. Suncor's Firebag operation is 215k bbl/d. I honestly don't think there is another SAGD operation as small. It likely genuinely does have a terrible financial position SAGD projects don't work at such minute scales, it only exists because it was constructed immediately before the 2014 price crash. But most importantly, my exact fear is widescale bankruptcies. If we both accept the oil industry is facing a permanent decline, the responsible question has to be "how do we minimize our spending". And I would argue it's not by passively allowing mass bankruptcy to collapse our financial system while the government takes ownership of much larger environmental liabilities.
    1
  1687. ​​ @PeterWitherspoon-x4p that is the marginal cost of a SAGD operation. My concern foremost is the collapse of Syncrude, which has a cost closer to $60 a barrel of SCO. My secondary concern is Alberta itself, which receives no royalties under $55 a barrel of WTI. And which struggle to refinance debt at that point. But longer term, without Pacific access, it won't matter if oilsands operators produce for free. The US Midwest demand will decrease, and we don't have anywhere else to send it. That is the stranded asset risk..
    1
  1688.  @cor1nic2col3  so, firstly, at most we bought a single pipeline. But why on earth would we only be able to support one province at a time. There are legitimate arguments again new pipelines, but this reads as the exact kind of looking down on Alberta we're accused of.
    1
  1689.  @mankisito  I believe you're conflating deficits and money creation, but in fairness Stephanie Kelton does as well. But Deficits don't mean a reduction in the populations spending power. As to how much the government misallocates spending, that's dependent on your version of ideal is and should be taken in perspective of how much is poorly vs well allocated.
    1
  1690.  @willnitschke  even if we supposed I agreed that growing national indeptiness was causative to decline in GDP growth, rather than a result as is obviously possible, you aren't disputing my claim of decreasing spending power per unit currency held, only saying that a nation's output is decreasing. The second part is just kinda silly. The suggestion medical care, or Medicare/medicaid, spending doesn't add value to the economy is hard to comprehend. Likewise, the focus on interest payments without looking at what the loans paid for is difficult to take seriously; obviously the interest on my mortgage isn't an asset to me, but the house is. Military spending is a real mixed bag and I'm not going to defend every line item of an audit the department can't write up, but obviously some technological advances have been produced, and the question to some extent is what is the best cost for impact in a strategic sense, rather than expecting a direct return.
    1
  1691. I agree that Israel has the more advanced equipment, that's inarguable. But what we saw here was that Iran can launch enough cheap missiles at once to over whelm Israel, and at a much higher cost to Israel. At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of missiles on the Lebanese border. Alongside that, any escalation will force Israel to pull trips out of Gaza, increasing airstrikes and civilian casualties, and hurting Israel's relations to already tentative western partners. While Israel can operate in Iranian air space, I would say we have a case of mutually assured destruction, and whereas Iran is very big with a large population, significant damage to Tel Aviv would be disastrous for Israel.
    1
  1692.  @RegisteredOffender-r1k  I just don't live in a major city? I mean the whole video was about how nukes actually are only going to destroy urban centers.
    1
  1693.  @TuhljinTampergauge  not in a form that is accessible for a collapsed society though. Horizontal drilling is a new and complex technology. There are very few places you can drill a hole and have oil come out. Also, I'm not sure that your claim is correct.
    1
  1694.  @algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286  some technologies advanced, particularly those related to iron working. Many areas did revert in technical complexity and certainly things that required long distance trade reduced. The Bronze age collapse on the other hand did see the collapse and widescale technological loss..
    1
  1695. 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
  1696. He did, no difference in the before and after.
    1
  1697. EVs displace gasoline. As Gasoline is displaced, it will be increasingly diverted to cracking units to produce petrochemical feedstock. This will have the impact of continuously displacing lighter barrels of oil, until at some point light Hydrocarbon demand is fully served, and gasoline has no alternative market, suppressing prices of gasoline yeilding crudes further. There is long term demand for heavy crudes, particularly bitumen, because there is long term demand for heavy RPPs. Bitumen has no necessary gasoline yield, and will recieve a premium on conventional crudes to supply the increasingly imbalanced heavy RPPs. Looks at Albian Heavy Synthetic, look at Western Access Blend (a DilBit). Already we see these heavy crudes trading at par and even above WTI.
    1
  1698. We can't handle railBit and you know that. You would need to ship the upgraded Syncrude in regular oil cars. And it would never be sufficient. We need to reverse Line 9, and then build TransCanada
    1
  1699. @FischerNilsA  you could say the same thing about solar ten years ago. And yet it's now the cheapest source of electricity in certain situations and posed for growth into a dominate position globally. just look at how much of the LCOE is from capital investment vs from fuel costs. Highly efficient is not highly important when your fuel is cheap. SMRs offer lower capital costs per MWh, which is the real constraint. Also, LCOE for heat and for electricity are different numbers, and while the LCOE for thermal energy is lower than electricity from nuclear energy, it's higher for solar. I maintain fission, in an appropriate regulatory and policy environment, could be the least expensive source of energy for large industrial parks or oil sands extraction that need process steam, contributing to the power mix in high density and population metropolises, powering cargo shipping, and off grid locations. That doesn't mean it will. We don't have very supportive regulation/policy now. But one of solar's key advantages is its incremental nature, it's very rare a 1GW power plant is needed or can be accommodated by the grid. SMRs fix this issue as well.
    1
  1700.  @CraftyF0X  No I don't agree. Breeder and burner reactors and reprocessing greatly reduce any waste. The issue is a lack of scale to support investment, similar to how we had to have enough solar to hear about curtailment being an issue before any storage or solar panels recycling was commercialized. Nuclear fuel repossessing is banned in the US. That's a policy issue not a matter of economic.
    1
  1701. @withnail That was really more a statement about how quickly technical and mass production development can alter economics. But obviously I disagree, I would say you are just looking at it to narrowly. Solar and/or wind always had to grow into a problem for the grid before storage could be developed. That's how markets work. We're now seeing 2h storage operating competitively at frequency control and evening. We won't see any king of over night storage until all sites have about 2h in storage for the same reason. But solar is just so incredibly inexpensive. And it is far more reliable than most people give it credit for, cloud cover being very seasonal and well predicted, and demand like A/C correlating well with production. Add 2h storage and you have no unexpected shut downs or sudden up ramping. And 2h storage is well commercialized and rapidly expanding, so I would say any issues are well addressed, but we won't see over night storage until Solar is covering the majority of day time demand with short term storage, that's relatively easily met with natural gas or coal.
    1
  1702. @withnail, That would only make sense if the owners were losing money, which they are not, or else there wouldn't be hundreds of billions of investment annually in the US. Intermittent isn't the same as unreliable. Knowing you'll have cheap energy all day is very useful, even if more expensive conventional power is needed in the night or on well predicted cloudy days.
    1
  1703.  @alexandriatis2168  It really is. Like he has a degree in economics. Amd he said "10%" so many times.
    1
  1704. The problem with blaming decadence for low child birth rates is your basically saying we should lower our living standards amd opportunity for success to the point where people have nothing to do but have kids. Cities have always been a drain on population because cities were places you could get rich enough you could have a life, and kids weren't free labour you could exploit like a farm. I don't think the solution is making us poor peasents.
    1
  1705. Oh dear. I hate to do it but this is the last piece of misinformation before I unfollow. I don't know where you get off but besmerching Cantaloupe? Shame, channel had such promise.
    1
  1706. I disagree Canada should focus on Solar. We have poor weather for it, and we will not be able to compete in manufacturing. We have a much greater edge in SMRs nuclear technology
    1
  1707.  @ghostlightx9005  yes and now refugees fleeing will spread the word across russia. it will be a major moral blow and blow to Putin's legitimacy in Russia. I'm only saying Putin is trying to postpone that in the hopes this is a raid or can be pushed back before the people of Western Russia notice a tangible impact.
    1
  1708.  @markbaker6553  Ya but that's the whole point of the Bloc also. I agree Smith is not a good Premier. I just don't agree we have anything to address such a leader being elected beyond doing a better job nationally convincing that base they should vote for something else.
    1
  1709. @markbaker6553  my biggest concern on this issue is that the US will apply tariffs on Canadian oil, and then use the removal of tariffs and the offer to build pipelines as leverage for why leaving Canada and joint the US it would benefit Alberta economically. I agree either province as an independent country is not economically sound. I don't know I agree that such an economic point is the most relevant consideration for Seperatists movements. But like I said Original, I think am idiot is being elected on the base's belief they could make Einstein or Carney their Premier, but it would make no difference due to federal policy.
    1
  1710. @markbaker6553  I don't know what you mean by TMX failure.
    1
  1711. @markbaker6553  I disagree with this. I mean certainly it has been used to export to the US, mainly California replacing what was mainly railBit shipments and allowing some expansion. But that's to be expected, the US was our closest ally and California among the world's most over priced markets. What's relevant, if we're talking about new west coast expansion, is that the California Market is only so large, and far more importantly, that even shipments going to California have the ability to go elsewhere. TMX may not always be used to export away from the US, but it always provides the ability to if something like tariffs are applied. And I would say that is in fact if strategic value to Canada. Our issue is the 80% of production that has no alternative.
    1
  1712. @markbaker6553  I am also outside of Alberta, GTA. Although I think you are making to much out of the claim we paid for it; Albertans also pay federal taxes, and it's not as though it was built with the expectation to lose money. Also, there has to be an understanding it was built during a pandemic when we talk about the cost. My point is it does facilitate trade diversion. There are not currently tariffs. But if they do become relevant, which I think is very possible, I do not believe it would work under capacity. In fact, I expect the discount for WCS at Hardisty to cause not only full capacity and be able to charge lucrative tolls, but also to send RailBit shipments west to the Vancouver port. But there is no advantage, or even really mechanism, to market oil across the Pacific instead of the very lucrative market that ships sail from Iraq to reach directly to our south. What is the issue you are saying should be left to Alberta? An oil price discount being caused by a hostile foreign trade action? I don't believe that is any more reasonable than suggesting nothing should be done to support the Auto industry.
    1
  1713. @markbaker6553  I would certainly be against any government funding for Keystone XL. But these are not pipelines to the US. They are pipelines to Tidewater, from which ships go to the US to find the highest price. But those ships can go elsewhere. I guess I don't understand you're necessity oil is not sold to the US. I mean right now, yes, obviously being dependent on US trade is bad. But you seem to be arguing we should have a locked in, infrastructure based dependence out of fear that trade with an option will choose a high price environment that is our historic closest ally. As an aside, I'd like to see a Northern Gateway to those coastal waters without lifting the tanker ban, tbh, since the ban allows Refined Products to be shipped, and that would require industry to build refineries alongside the pipeline. I'd be willing to some funding support for that. If it's a pipeline for crude shipments, then it should be paid for by private industry, or possibly with government support if that is part of a wider trade deal with Pacific allies where we get some reciprocal investment..
    1
  1714. @markbaker6553  Transmountain can carry a little under 900k bbl/d. We have more than a million bbl/d in conventional heavy production in western Canada, something like 1.3M bbl/day of Upgrader capacity for Canada Light and Sweet syncrude, and something like 500k bbl/d in light shale oil. The DilBit shipments to the US aren't going to stop anytime soon. The SAGD will continue for dollars a barrel, they'll pay to have it taken away if they have to, and they will push all other oil out of the pipe to do it. We probably have 2M bbl/d locked in to the Midwest of DilBit that is long term protected. We don't need to find a new market for that. But it's basically worth nothing to us economically. All the work was done at initial investment. All the oil employment is drilling conventional wells and working the oil sands mines. That's what is at threat in a price collapse. And it's what's easily marketed overseas.
    1
  1715.  @markbaker6553  I agree with the rage farming point. My belief is that Canada needs to dispel that rage with positive action. As for if it is treasonous... Probably ya, by definition. But again, no more than the Bloc. If current production is maintained is really the key point here. If prices drop because of American tariffs, new drilling will drop off, I think possibly to very near 0, but the much bigger concern is the mines. The mines will close. And possibly some of the upgraders. That is what we need to avoid, that is what causes the mass unemployment. I think your Burden of requirement is beyond reason; you can't have a proven market without the pipeline. By definition even. I have no issue with Smith pushing for pipelines, my issue is with Smith pushing for referendums. And I really have no issue with the pipelines if they stop the rage farming..
    1
  1716.  @markbaker6553  In terms of West coast pipelines I think that is mainly fair. However, I do think allowance has to be made for the impact of intentional aggressive trade policy of the current market. This isn't a freemarket threat, and I don't think it's reasonable to say it's Alberta's responsiblity to get the freemarket to fix it. And I would say that about any industry. That said, I do think we should be trying to get Japan and South Korea to pay for it in exchange for us buying some absurd amount of Data Servers from them (to build server farms here). Or else it should largely be a private sector venture. But there is room for government support. Particularly if the end of that pipeline is developing a large-scale refinery complex. In terms of an East Coast connection, I think there is reason for the Government to support what is likely non-profitable infrastructure to ensure Canada has a domestically controlled supply..
    1
  1717. If we put all our money in Avocado staging as a society we'll never be able to afford to solve the housing crisis
    1
  1718. I agree the US shift to EVs under Biden is a strategic response to China, and China's EV adoption has been a strategic movement away from import dependence. Climate is no longer part of the conversation on EVs, and we really need to kick it out because it poisons the conversation. For us, the strategic necessity is not to find ourselves in an oil price collapses and becoming importers of Energy.
    1
  1719. I like your work, but I find the perspective on Palestine close minded at least. You even point out the US supplies "equipment for missile defense systems". Isreal is under constant seige from its neighbors, and Iran is actively trying to force an Islamic dictatorship over the region.
    1
  1720. No, because uranium is not toxic without very high diesel, isn't a liquid that leaks, or a gas that leaks, and the amount of fracking would be like a percent of what we do now.
    1
  1721. I thought it was great until you demonstrated you still haven't read Value(s).
    1
  1722.  coolthingy the third  Grey parrots eat only fruit, certainly one of the smartest birds. Comparing bird diets. and our own isn't particularly meaningful. certainly not fish.
    1
  1723. Isreal= Apartheid for Palestinians The rest if the Middle east = Apartheid for woman.
    1
  1724. Smrt
    1
  1725. I still think it's disingenuous to assign anything near equal legitimacy between an elected council and Chief and a hereditary Chief.
    1
  1726. Are there cars in the background of the giy inventing the forst car?
    1
  1727. .I think it's really lost on people, even supporters of the energy transition, just what an incredible magic trick China has pulled. Like a manic hippy dream girl, China is powering it's society with crystals and sunlight. People still talk about energy efficiency when we are on the precipice of effectively free energy.
    1
  1728. Like is said, the 2035 EV target is for industry, not consumers. We absolutely do need these clear guides for industry to invest around. I'd support the GST removal on Canadian EVs. And subsidies for EVs. But I'm against supporting the purchase of Chinese EVs for Consumers. I do think we should lift the tariff temporarily for taxi and corporate fleet purchases of Chinese EVs to create demand for infrastructure, improve city air quality, and reduce oil dependency. But the goal needs to be supporting Canadian EV manufacturing rather than mass consumer uptake of that uptake is Chinese imports.
    1
  1729. Well for one, you can soend days setting up a space lauch, Nuclear missiles are meant to launch a thousand at the oush of a botton. But more importantly its not the rockets that are in question, its the fissional material in the war head and the trinum which have half lives leading to pwriod replacement needs. Russian military equipment maintenance has been notably absent, and it would be suprising if they put the required maintenance into equipment they never planned to use. IMO they still probably have the worlds second largest nuclear arsenal, but certainly not by thousands and likey not by much.
    1
  1730. I'm more supprised by the testosterone tbh.
    1
  1731. What does that mean?
    1
  1732.  @pennyforyourthots  What is waste? I mean if you're saying buring oil instead of making cool stuff like carbon fiber or plastic or medication, sure. Or most gold and diamond mining for fashion/investment. But I don't think a significant amount of material extracted from the planet is used in conspicuous consumption. If anything its mainly labour that is wasted, a yatch isn't all that much material.
    1
  1733. I'm waiting for the Economic and political situation in Egypt to become unstable enough that Egypt either revolts to Muslim brotherhood rule, and launches out on Jihad supporting Hamas to the North, the RSF to the south, the GNA in Lybia to the West and the many islamic groups in the Sahel or the Muslim brotherhood related pressure causes the military to support secular military dictatorships across the same countries and weaken Islamic influence while using the conflict to relave national tensions. In either case if egypt enters Sudan, I wouldn't be suprised to see it backing rebel groups in Ethiopia to ensure control over the length of the Nile. I look forward to the Greater Egyptian Military Imperium and seeing the majority of the Sahara and Sahel under a single entity.
    1
  1734. @sandorski56  well the oil is different in that it's heavy Bitumen, and that is higher emissions to refine into gasoline. But yes the mining industry gives it the bad name.
    1
  1735.  @schwarts10101  the non binding agreement that places absolutely no limits on resource exploration? What a win.
    1
  1736. You're being a little disingenuous with the California power production point. California is the largest electrical importer in the US at something like a third of total demand being imported. And that's heavily from coal fired plants in Wyoming and Nevada, but there is also BC and Washington hydro. But presenting the California generation numbers as what fuels their grid is misleading. I say this not because I don't support renewables but so you can craft stronger arguments.
    1
  1737. @Sylvie_M  I don't agree. It was intended to encourage consumers to invest in EVs instead of ICE vehicles and Heat pumps instead of a gas furnace. Perhaps it made a few people feel too poor to afford a road trip vacation or keep the house a few degrees higher; although this is the very thing that caused the political pressure that nearly tore the system down. Ultimately the consumer price was meant to encourage investment decisions by consumers just as the Industrial price was for industry. But again, the political uncertainty the Consumer price drove undermined both goals.
    1
  1738.  @Sylvie_M  So, in theory, yes. It is conceptually good policy and any smart person would support it. The issue is not everyone is smart, but everyone can vote. But if I think in the next election, the people against the Carbon tax are going to win, I'm not going to invest in a heat pump/EV, because next year gas will be cheap again. So it doesn't actually end up encourage me to reduce my carbon footprint. The goal is a price signal, but that signal isn't reliable. And again, it then undermines industry, who believes the industrial price might be removed, and who is responsible for the majority of emissions.
    1
  1739. You can blame Harper for that one he sold all the gold.
    1
  1740.  @everwinter0  the defects associated with an aircraft carrier are a lot more complex than an oil tanker; one has to float, the other has to float while being bombarded with anti ship missiles and launching aircraft. Again I'm not glorifying the US ship industry. I'm just saying that if it was desired, the US isn't building an industry from scratch, there are supply lines and dock yards and skilled labor to build off.
    1
  1741.  @AmiGanguli  the economics of just building some storage is a lot better than 4000km of transmission
    1
  1742. Efficiency is such a red herring to discuss. No one cares if a heat pump is 300% efficient and NG or heating oil is 100%. They care that NG is cheaper and heating oil is more expensive than the heat pump. The efficiency of conversion is basically meaningless when your discussing different fuels from different sources with different prices. And in the future, when solar abundance is here and everything is electrical, efficiency will still be meaningless. The efficiency of how we use an endless supply doesn't matter.
    1
  1743. I really do think it's important to specify that on the oilsands side, the liabilities are almost entirely from the mining operations north of Fort Mac. Not the Insitu operations that make up a majority of production and expected growth. In all seriousness, what do you want done about these orphan wells and tailings ponds? I want the industry to clean them up, but I can't see how that is possible without a growth in SAGD Insitu output. I want to see a production cap on Mining, that allows growth in output for the next 5 years, and then brings us down to something like 80% of current production by 2040 and ends production by 2050, with supplemental quotas issued based on tailings ponds volume reductions. And over that time, we can diversify Fort Mac, and protect the upgrading facilities by moving to biofeed stock, and increasing SAGD at Firebag, or using DRUbit to supply bitumen. I also want to see the conventional drilling fleet moved to Geothermal, chiefly through depth of drilling based subsidies and subsidies to data center construction that use geothermal. That allows a gradual reduction in production as output falls without new drilling, and keeps the actual companies in operation to service wells they own. But ultimately, for abandoned wells from the industry fund, there needs to be operating profitable business to fund capping. And that will only come from increasing SAGD output and market access.
    1
  1744. ​ @DSAK55 Cost has a lot to do with large scale production. Only South Korea has really achieve low prices, but China is expected to start building out in the 2030s. I expect that because China has so many Coal fire plants, and they are much newer and for the same reason more advanced, and because the majority of a Coal plants cost are capital much nuclear, it will start ripping out coal boilers and pluging in SMRs
    1
  1745. The administration understands perfectly. What people don't seem to get is the administration, in a shocking turn of events, is lying. The tariffs on Canada have nothing to do with fentynal. It is about taking Ontario's manufacturering sector and repatriating it to the rust belt.
    1
  1746.  @wgowshipping  the thing is in Canada's case, it's like a wheat farmer selling to a flour mill, Canada fuels American production and exports. It's not unfair for the wheat farmer to buy less flour than they sell wheat. It wouldn't make sense. Canada sells inputs, and America doesn't sell Consumer goods.
    1
  1747. ​ @johnm2879 this is an incredibly apt framing of examples of the solutions and issue.
    1
  1748. Also Canada has a VAT of 5%? That isn't very high. I certainly don't think it justifies a 25% tariff.
    1
  1749. Okay Markham, we both agree the Emergency Act and unilateral forcing of a pipeline through isn't the way to go. Perhaps your next episode should be about how you would like pipelines to be developed? And the oilsands at large? Because we've had a million barrels a day in oil exports drop off over the last 2 weeks, and yes it's spring maintenance, but this is a particular large drop, amd clearly the industry is facing a potential disaster that your guest yesterday said would cost 100s of thousands of jobs.
    1
  1750. 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
  1751. @wally6193  1) Aluminum air batteries aren't toxic, idk, you said not to say that but it's aluminum... 2) for Lithum and other batteries, You don't dispose of them, you sell them to a power plant. When the battery for EVs stop working, they still work, just not as well. Which is an issue for heavy cars that have to move, but not for stationary batteries 3) eventually you recycle them. And don't say there is no recycling! Of course there isn't yet, recycling comes after you have a lot, you don't build recycling for something that isn't an issue.
    1
  1752. There will definitely be investment into Carbon Capture, which will be a long term industry we are an early mover in. But to decarbonize the oilsands, the answer has to be SMRs.
    1
  1753. ​ @WilsonCC Carbon capture will be an important technology in decarbonizimg other sectors. Our entire economy isn't going to be investment in renewables. We need to invest in more than domestic electrical supply. But there isn't some limit to investing. Our ability to attract renewables investment isn't reduced by carbon capture.
    1
  1754. ​ @WilsonCC Carbon Capture will be an important technology for a number of industries. We are using the oilsands as a launchpad industry so that we can be a leader in the technology. But as I said, ultimately it will not be the solution to Hydrocarbon production emissions. Investments encourage more investment, it doesn't limit it. There is no negative impact on renewables in doing this - the political situation is clearly the opposite, and Alberta is agreeing to renewable investment in exchange for oilsands investment.
    1
  1755. @WilsonCC Carbon Capture will be an important technology for a number of industries. We are using the oilsands as a launchpad industry so that we can be a leader in the technology. But as I said, ultimately it will not be the solution to Hydrocarbon production emissions. Investments encourage more investment, it doesn't limit it. There is no negative impact on renewables in doing this - the political situation is clearly the opposite, and Alberta is agreeing to renewable investment in exchange for oilsands investment.
    1
  1756. We have a lot of very negative head winds. A blanket Tariff of 10% on oil exports is bad on its own. Trump bringing Russia back into the global market will flood Europe and cut Brent prices (also fertilizer, minerals, lumber, gold, diamonds, nuclear power projects, really everything we do but make car parts, which the tariffs are going to kill anyway), the Saudis appear to be maneuvering toward low prices, and with China about to enter a depression oil demand will collapses. My biggest fear, not just for Alberta but Canada, is Fort McMurray shutting down and Transmountain being reversed to import light oil for Alberta's refineries.
    1
  1757. It depends on part where you want to ship it, a greater distance reduces capacity. There is also a differece between capacity to move oil by rail and capacity to Bitumen. My understanding is North America has around 300k bbl/d Rail but between oilsands and Vancouver, and about a million bbl/d in conventional oil. However, the US uses some of that, so it's a question of how many we can get.
    1
  1758.  @JaronSwickle  No, it's really not, they're just approaching the first commercial facility. But I meant to communicate the US uses some of that rail car capacity
    1
  1759.  @TimBee100  The Americans can only move off our oil at such a speed. At worse, in 2-3 years, they could likely kick out ~2M bbl/d (excluding West Coast) by reversing KeyStone. Rail could not replace that. In the Shorter term, they could cut off Line 5 that connects Ontario and Alberta. Rail carrying upgraded oil could replace that. They could also kick out 300-500k bbl/d from the Midwest by retooling, we could replace that with railBit to Vancouver, maybe more rail oil domestically. But we need the cars in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised to see the US mandate oil carrying cars Don't leave the country since they also use them, and in fact are the main user of the oil carrying cars currently..
    1
  1760.  @TimBee100  ordering what? And I don't know I follow your point about US ownership of oil companies.
    1
  1761.  @BrianLacombe-f5l  I didn't think Alberta had significant oil by rail capacity. I thought most of that came out of Bakken, and we mainly had Bitumen cars.
    1
  1762.  @TimBee100  well it's no Secret Imperial is Exon wearing a hat. And maybe you could argue it's interest is cheap exports to US Exon refineries. But otherwise, I do not think American ownership is against diversifying exports. If there is one thing I know about American investors, it's that they don't care about America. Who do you want to order these train Cars? The government of Canada? I think there is definitely good potential for rail cars in the medium term, both to boost Eastern manufacturing and move oil. But long term this is very expensive, dangerous, and will entirely crowd our relatively weak railway infrastructure.
    1
  1763. @ronanKGelhaus Land Value Tax, and no the debt limit
    1
  1764. @ronanKGelhaus then vote for government with good spending platforms. But I would say that's the opposite of true. Governments will happily tax you into the ground, investors won't happily give their money to a government that won't repay it. Countries see debt purchases dry up all the time. No businessman or CEO would ever suggest a debt limit for a company, leveraging debt is just good economics, and that's true in government as well. Debt is cheap and capital is expensive, and the same is true for taxes. -taxes have collections costs at something like 3% of revenue -taxes distort the economy -taxes force costs on businesses for accounting -debt is always taking money from the stupidest person with the least clue of how to invest it, which is why they let someone else do it for a lower rate of return -debt is always a voluntary exchange I'd agree to a debt to GDP or debt to Government revenue cap. But as long as government policy is accommodating economic growth and growth in government revenues, I'm happy to see borrowing increase to drive that growth. As for a land value tax, I'll give you that rich people will game the system, but I hardly think that is unique. It's not like any other tax isn't abused in a way that the rich end up with bigger houses. But to the smaller houses part, that's not true. Let me ask, if you were going to buy a lot for 1 million dollars, but then I told you you would have to pay 1000 dollars a month for owning it, would you still pay 1 million? Of course not, you would pay less so that you found an equilibrium price where you end up paying the same amount over time. And if you're paying the same amount overall, it doesn't change how you were going to use that land. That's the whole point and the reason everyone from Hayek to Smith to Friedman agreed it was the best for of government revenue, it doesn't affect what anyone actually does, it just lowers the upfront cost of land in exchange for higher ongoing costs. It also makes it impossible for land Lords to stay rich just owning land, because they have that ongoing payment to make. It does the opposite of putting all the land into the hands of the rich, which you may notice, is happening quite readily already without an LVT.
    1
  1765. Batteries arguably work best with Nuclear generation..
    1
  1766. That only compounds the pain in Ontario
    1
  1767. Couple that with a 2/3rd reduction in demand though. Hydrogen has a role in green energy, but it isn't a drop in replacement for NG.
    1
  1768. ​ @brettgracey9682 I don't know I follow. The Duck Curve is a function of Solar. By the technology, do you mean Hydrogen? If so, my point was just that, while I believe there will be a large market for hydrogen, I don't think daily balancing if Solar will be part of that market.
    1
  1769. ​​ @brettgracey9682 No I can't agree with this. Much solar, particularly utility, is deployed on moving stands. I can agree that stationary placement has an impact on increasing the duck curve, but fundamentally the sun does set. But even if we lower evening demand significantly, my point wasn't so much the Duck Curve as saying I don't think Hydrogen will have a role in balancing Solar on a day to day basis, where I see Batteries having an advantage. Transmission does certainly reduce the impact, although I think it's probably one of the more expensive ways to do so..
    1
  1770. Are you a real person? I'm seeing a bunch of unnecessarily hateful comments and either you need to cool it or you're a troll trying to make Albertans hate the rest of the country
    1
  1771. ​ @account-369  I may be confused but you look to be arguing against yourself? Germany in the 1930s did invade places with lots of Germans, which is what Russia currently does. The USSR never invaded any country that wasn't part of the former Russian Empire (prior to WW2). As China has in regards to regions its invaded
    1
  1772.  @account-369  so to the first, I can agree that want you are saying about the EU isn't false, if a thin narrative. To the second, obviously any comparison of history is inaccurate. But the dynamics between current China and Russia are reasonable to compare to 1930s Germany and Soviets, in terms of level of alignment and it's very situational nature.
    1
  1773. ​ @thejollygreendragon8394 rapidly expanding coal capacity, but the capacity factor is decreasing annually, and actual coal consumption has been up the last few years, mainly due to drought in the south, but is generally flat since the 2010s. It's important to note that the Chinese coal fleet is a lot more advanced than the American or European coal fleet, because it is newer, and has a higher efficiency being super critical or ultra critical plants operating at higher temperatures. New plants are generally either replacing older less efficient plants or being built alongside renewables to balance the grid, the main reason being China's lack of access to cheap natural gas that the US and historically Europe have had. My belief is that the long term plan is to take the Nuclear SMRs they are working on and plug them into the existing coal plants.
    1
  1774.  @juliane__  in terms of coal power plants, 20 year old tech is advanced, the majority of coal plants in the US and Europe weren't built in the 2000s. But specifically addressing the point that China is building new coal plants, these plants are the high efficiency "ultra critical" designs. China doesn't care about renewables. It cares about energy self sufficiency, and that requires switching to renewables. The point I'm making is that even building new coal plants, the continuous movement away from coal is ongoing, because China only has ~30 years estimated reserves, and renewables are becoming cheaper. But because China doesn't have access to abundant cheap natural gas like North America, and until recently Europe, it needs coal plants to balance the grid.
    1
  1775.  @maxwittman7600  Income tax and sales tax don't really effect the city directly, although I certainly agree a mixed use environment with business and residential is the best for wealth creation. But I highly doubt that the business land is at a higher property valueation, at least on a per acre level. Since most property tax rates are against land and immovable property, a car dealership is generally going to pay a very low rate. Based off what I've seen from Strong towns and Urban3 I would be surprised if a dealership even paid enough property taxes to fund the road and utilities passing in front of it.
    1
  1776. To agree with the expert, I don't believe the Consumer Carbon tax was very well done. And having lived in Ottawa when it was being being implemented, and knowing liberal staffers at the time, the Liberals didn't think so either. Remember, the Carbon tax as most of us became accused to it was meant to be punitive, it was a back stop. The system was meant to be designed by the provinces, and implemented according to local best practice. The Liberals came into power when 90% of the population already had a Carbon tax, and the goal was really to bring the more rural provinces kicking and screaming on board, and ensure the Price was legistlated at two levels so there would be regulatory stability. The Liberals didn't expect Alberta, and Particularly Ontario, to remove thier own carbon price as they implemented federally, and then turn around and launch a lawsuit against it. The goal was never to apply the Carbon backstop. But because of that push back, because the opposite of regulatory clarity came to be the status quo with consecutive elections campaigned on removing the carbon price, I would argue the consumer carbon tax quickly became bad policy amd should have been removed much earler, as it was for home heating in the maritimes. Particularly after the Russian - Ukrainian oil price shock. It created so much political back lash that all climate policy was being called into question, and Industry, the largest emitter, no longer had long term certainty that investments made around the carbon price would pay off. Which means the main goal of the carbon price, industrial pricing, was being negatively impacted by the consumer price. Even consumers, deciding on new vehicles or home heating, had to consider whether or not the next election would make thier choice a mistake, and so it didn't have the impact at that level it was meant to. Edit: this may be a mild blind spot for you, being in a province that did it right, and didn't flop flop, and still maintans the price.
    1
  1777.  @Croz89  most existing hydrogen production methods don't load follow very well and work best at steady state. At the same time, high temperature hydrolysis is much more efficient. Nuclear offers high temperatures and steady state energy inputs, renewables offers neither. So that would be my counter argument. Even if we get load following hydrolysis technologoes in the near future, that process heat will give nuclear a clear advantage.
    1
  1778.  @Croz89  yes, matching supply with demand is certainly the biggest issue. Wasn't sure what blocking high pressure means, but yes you definitely need back up generation. Wind is generally has a higher capacity factor in the winter anyway. You should look at the numbers on the new closed loop geothermal projects they are very strong and decreasing
    1
  1779.  @AntonPNym  both sounds good to me
    1
  1780.  @teresajurkiewicz8789  ya this is the real answer. If anyone was unclear mine is a joke.
    1
  1781. @teresajurkiewicz8789  I'd say they are more likely to close Line 5, however, and turn off the oil to the GTA in response.
    1
  1782. If you are Pro Ukraine, Biden has done a terrible job. If you are anti Russia, Biden has done a wonderful job. The reality is the two countries with the majority of the Soviet inheritance have been convinced to waste that on eachother. Russia as a danger to the west, so long as they are not allowed an advantagous peace deal, is no longer a reality outside a nuclear strike.
    1
  1783.  @lagunax5645  I would add that I can't imagine a worse place to get your news than a Russian Prison. Great answer, although for clarity, I believe the term is "barrier troops".
    1
  1784. @Sewblon  also called barrier troops, they are people who shoot people retreating. Edit: The Akhmet "Special Forces" are an example, as this is their main job.
    1
  1785. On CO2 emissions, there is no doubt that ocean acidification is occuring, and an ocean die off is always followed by a mass extinction. And we can see dead ocean patches occuring more and more frequently.
    1
  1786. N-Solv or other Solvent treatments are basically just making the DilBit underground
    1
  1787.  @JinNani224  Alaska is a fairly small contributor to US oil output, and it basically only effects California.
    1
  1788. @JinNani224  well, if everyone who had lots of offshore oil was producing it, oil wouldn't be worth very much at all.
    1
  1789.  @willnitschke  The hyper inflation was the result of the economic crash with money printing. But you'll never find hyper inflation in a country where there is goods and food on store shelves, people don't start burning money until there is nothing left to buy. MMT definitely understands there are consequences. Whether you can reasonably use taxes to influence inflation is a reasonable cointer point. I would agree that MMT is inherently stateist, I would suggest it's argument lies on the concept that Fiat money is inherently a statist tool/policy, and treating it like a commodity currency is the flawed approach. That said I think there are automatic stabilizers, the form of economic policy usually put forward, that keeps the Federal government at a reasonable distance and avoids the disease that is a command economy. i strongly suggest listening to Bob Murphy (the Austrian Economist interviewed here) debating Warren Mosler (the Founder, so to speak, of MMT). Stephanie Kelton is just awful, and constantly spends her time going on about the minutia of technical details and then seemingly implying absurd outcomes. Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell are both much better. I'm not saying you'll Agree with it, but I'm fairly libertarian i listen to a lot of Reason debates, and while I thought I did, I didn't even understand MMT until listening Mosler.
    1
  1790. @chrisrobinson196  today. Next week do you think Orange Juice sales will be impacted, though?
    1
  1791. ​ @1krani Sex is not inherently moral or immortal. It is Rape at the discretion of the victim or society, and so when sex is immoral, ie rape, it is only so based on a subjective view.
    1
  1792. ​ @atxmaps She's actually only arguing that every dollar in deficit spent into the economy is equal to the debt created for the government to eventually repay. $10 in deficit spending means somewhere someone is holding a $10 treasury note. If anything the greatest weakness in her argument, or at least the portrayal here, is that she failed to discuss that the deficit spending would stimulate economic growth to grow the economy, and increase the tax base to repay that debt or make interest payments on the debt. The question of how much growth is dependent entirely on what it is spent on. When MMT goes on about deficits not mattering, what the focus should be is on how spending does.
    1
  1793. ​ @willnitschke There are two ledgers being discussed. When the government borrows to fund a deficit, there is the created asset in terms of dollars, which are spend, and the created liability in terms of treasury bonds. Those Treasury bonds are the asset for the private sector being reference. I agree that it is generally irresponsible to take out a big loan and spend it on a party. What that money is spent on is the key question. In your example, food stamps likely have a stimulatory effect, which increases the tax base and tax revenues, and provides revenue to pay for the program - probably less than and possibly more than the program cost. One should also consider the impact on the economy raising taxes to fund the program would cause. Cutting taxes alone may create the new activity to pay back the deficit, without the stimulus boost.
    1
  1794. ​ @gelinrefira The point being made is that the national debt is already a commodity, ie Treasury notes and Bonds.
    1
  1795.  @willnitschke    Stimulus policy also is a major component of MMT which is descended from Keynesian economics. I don't disagree that government ROIs in developed economies are generally low, but even a 90¢ return on a dollar in investment is pretty good, it implies you could borrow ~80% of the programs cost and the increased revenue would pay off the debt. Every debt does equal an asset. A debt means I owe someone something, for the other person that is an asset. MMT recognizes the difference between expenses and liabilities, you are mistaken. That isn't something you could really confuse. The Five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. The Theory of Evolution, all but universally accepted as valid, is called a theory - and not considered proven - precisely because it cannot be rigorously tested. And evolution only attempts how things came to be, more akin to Economic History. Whereas economics has no rigorously proven basis, and claims to be predicative. You are right national debt is not literally a commodity. The point being made was that the national debt has already been commodified, and is traded in a free market as a commodity would. I apologize if any other meaning was taken.
    1
  1796.  @willnitschke    Stimulus policy also is a major component of MMT which is descended from Keynesian economics. I don't disagree that government ROIs in developed economies are generally low, but even a 90¢ return on a dollar in investment is pretty good, it implies you could borrow ~80% of the programs cost and the increased revenue would pay off the debt. Every debt does equal an asset. A debt means I owe someone something, for the other person that is an asset. MMT recognizes the difference between expenses and liabilities, you are mistaken. That isn't something you could really confuse. The Five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. The Theory of Evolution, all but universally accepted as valid, is called a theory - and not considered proven - precisely because it cannot be rigorously tested. And evolution only attempts how things came to be, more akin to Economic History. Whereas economics has no rigorously proven basis, and claims to be predicative. You are right national debt is not literally a commodity. The point being made was that the national debt has already been commodified, and is traded in a free market as a commodity would. I apologize if any other meaning was taken.
    1
  1797.  @willnitschke   @willnitschke    Stimulus policy also is a major component of MMT which is descended from Keynesian economics. I don't disagree that government ROIs in developed economies are generally low, but even a 90¢ return on a dollar in investment is pretty good, it implies you could borrow ~80% of the programs cost and the increased revenue would pay off the debt. Every debt does equal an asset. A debt means I owe someone something, for the other person that is an asset. MMT recognizes the difference between expenses and liabilities, you are mistaken. That isn't something you could really confuse. The Five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. The Theory of Evolution, all but universally accepted as valid, is called a theory - and not considered proven - precisely because it cannot be rigorously tested. And evolution only attempts how things came to be, more akin to Economic History. Whereas economics has no rigorously proven basis, and claims to be predicative. You are right national debt is not literally a commodity. The point being made was that the national debt has already been commodified, and is traded in a free market as a commodity would. I apologize if any other meaning was taken.
    1
  1798.  @willnitschke  Stimulus policy also is a major component of MMT which is descended from Keynesian economics. I don't disagree that government ROIs in developed economies are generally low, but even a 90¢ return on a dollar in investment is pretty good, it implies you could borrow ~80% of the programs cost and the increased revenue would pay off the debt. Every debt does equal an asset. A debt means I owe someone something, for the other person that is an asset. MMT recognizes the difference between expenses and liabilities, you are mistaken. That isn't something you could really confuse. The Five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. The Theory of Evolution, all but universally accepted as valid, is called a theory - and not considered proven - precisely because it cannot be rigorously tested. And evolution only attempts how things came to be, more akin to Economic History. Whereas economics has no rigorously proven basis, and claims to be predicative. You are right national debt is not literally a commodity. The point being made was that the national debt has already been commodified, and is traded in a free market as a commodity would. I apologize if any other meaning was taken.
    1
  1799.  @ssuwandi3240  What would you include in that basket, and would firms issuing currency, government or bank, have to hold those commodities the currency represents?
    1
  1800.  @willnitschke  Stimulus policy also is a major component of MMT which is descended from Keynesian economics. I don't disagree that government ROIs in developed economies are generally low, but even a 90¢ return on a dollar in investment is pretty good, it implies you could borrow ~80% of the programs cost and the increased revenue would pay off the debt. Every debt does equal an asset. A debt means I owe someone something, for the other person that is an asset. MMT recognizes the difference between expenses and liabilities, you are mistaken. That isn't something you could really confuse. The Five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. The Theory of Evolution, all but universally accepted as valid, is called a theory - and not considered proven - precisely because it cannot be rigorously tested. And evolution only attempts how things came to be, more akin to Economic History. Whereas economics has no rigorously proven basis, and claims to be predicative. You are right national debt is not literally a commodity. The point being made was that the national debt has already been commodified, and is traded in a free market as a commodity would. I apologize if any other meaning was taken.
    1
  1801.  @willnitschke  Are you arguing against pegging a currency to commodities? Because if so cool, but I was asking the person who wanted a commodity peg what they believe the basket should be. I would say it really does matter, you don't want your currency moving volatilely or face deflation because you tied your currency to iron and it's over supplied or new technology has dropped the price. I agree that the reason for backing your currency with a commodity may be lack of trust in the Fiat currency. But I would argue the only thing that breaks confidence in a currency is the belief the government has issued more currency than it can create demand for.
    1
  1802. ​ @bogdanpopescu1401 no, science is a methode, where you make a hypothesis and then perform repeated tests on the same base line.
    1
  1803. I've always been very skeptical of the economics of LNG in Canada. Crossing mountain range is expensive. If there is hope for Canadian LNG, its in trade deals. How much does Japan and South Korea want to rely on LNG coming out of the Persian gulf which can be cut off, or the US which is fical and relies on the Panama canal. Will Europe pay us a premium to have a secure supply. Even China is willing to pay more for NG to diversify supply. In the medium term, battery storage is going to replace a lot of LNG demand. But Countries like Japan or South Korea may still import some for industrial heat.
    1
  1804. ​ @Wolfcamp555 10/10
    1
  1805.  @BrianLacombe-f5l  I don't mean to be rude, but I have no idea what you're saying. Can I ask for context on; what happened in Ontario and at what time period, what was expensive, what problem are you referring to, who are the 2-3 man PR Proud boys and how were they backed,
    1
  1806.  @BrianLacombe-f5l  I mean I am both Canadian and follow politics. Are you talking about Ford going back on renewable contracts? Is the problem in the system feed in tariffs? I don't have an guess at the last one
    1
  1807. If agriculture is on the table for Energi Media, I would be oh so pleased to see you discuss "Pleistocene Park" and Kelp Aquaculture
    1
  1808. @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
  1809. @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
  1810. @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
  1811.  @mikeklein4949  I would argue this is the wrong concern for a number of reasons. Existing SAGD operations can expand output very easily with little new investment, and many greenfield investments that came online from 2010-2014 never reached expected output due to limited take away keeping prices low. Also, the time it would take to build the pipeline would provide more than enough to to develop new green field investment; but again I don't think that would happen given existing facilities ability to expand. We also take a well known discount on our oil because of the captive market. Outlets to the international market will be preferred to US exports because of the higher internal price, and so a redistribution from existing pipelines would be expected. We see this with Transmountain operating at full capacity. If anything the concern is that new pipeline capacity will draw very little new investment for both reasons. However, for the same reason, that will mean higher royalties for the Alberta government..
    1
  1812. ​ @ryuuguu01 yes, but we've seen access western select and Albian Heavy synthetic selling with a dollar and even above of WTI.
    1
  1813. I don't understand the argument that "funding new customers for a product we've been producing for decades and decades is not the way we want to go". I fully support widescale electrification and ferociously entering the battery industry in all aspects of the supply chain. But McDonald's didn't stop selling fries when it introduced McNuggets. I don't understand why we would shun large domestic industries, that isn't a necessary step to entering new ones.
    1
  1814.  @solidfoelife  Well in that case you must mean North Korea is defeating 50 other nations
    1
  1815.  @solidfoelife  Also, isn't the mighty Russian military supposed to be able to beat NATO? Like in Russian Territory? imagine if there were actual NATO troops involved lol Russia basically only exists because the US wants it to is what you're saying.
    1
  1816. Frankly speaking, in all likelihood yes, they can. Employment in Construction seems to vary most much more than average with recessions. Many recessions are primarily a result of a building collapse, 2007, Savings and Loans Crisis, the Great Depression, etc. But more to the point, you are correct that not every unemployment individual will end up working in construction. But I do support the concept of a Guaranteed Employment scheme. I would suggest keeping the federal government, which responds slowly and bluntly, largely out of the operation. Instead I would have a federally funded program wherein Municipal governments and Charities can pay people minimum wage for 8 hours a day 5 days a week. I would also open it up to Manufacturing companies to cover up to 6 months of training, although half the cost would have to be repaid if the trainee wasn't employed there a year later. Smaller and generally financially strained entities will react much more quickly and efficiently to the available labour pool. They aren't stealing jobs from the private sector because of the limits on hours available and wage. But it would keep employment up in a recession while getting things done.
    1
  1817.  @no_rubbernecking  hmm, the two comments of yours I see are one stating you were referring to Latvia, and an earlier one saying Russia was testing Nato resolve not defense. Both are visible to me now. I'm certain not suggesting NATO should ignore Russia massing military force on Latvia's border's (not that Russia has the troops). But that is not what has occured. My point is that a single drone is not a provocation. They may not know what a single drone will do, but you can state what it can't do, and it can't create a strategic blow. Again, a group of drones representing a clear attack is is a different matter. But a single drone looks to me like a test of NATO's Baltic defenses (or an accident) more than an attack.
    1
  1818. Why can't a cable stayed bridge be built with a central or additional pylons to increase the span length ?
    1
  1819.  @zaxisontherun  I did, and editted the comment. What's the alternative understanding?
    1
  1820.  @Thehusseyin  Okay so it was a project specific consideration to maintain the sea lane? I wasn't sure if the halved width would allow for ships passing with a safety margin, but they made it sound like the maximum span was a general rule so I wasn't sure.
    1
  1821.  @angryanne  What do you mean by "controls" and which part?
    1
  1822.  @deepspacecow2644  Ya do that, and fund Geo Thermal research. We have an entire industry based on drilling into the ground that we need to re-purpose, and in terms of geothermal things are just... heating up
    1
  1823.  @tallbrian100  Probably shouldn't build with 40 year old technology then, eh? Build larger plants. Or build more than 1 a decade so you have a profession and construction industry that understands the requirements, which is how South Korea dropped costs. Because of course, the economy is more than dollar transactions it's industries with build up capital and individuals with aquired expertise.
    1
  1824. @musicmasterplayer4532  where did you read that?
    1
  1825. If you actually believe that Added Value non-combustable uses are the future of Bitumen, then why would you have any issue with pipelines? You can produce Carbon Fiber in BC on the coast. Are you against water pipes? Pipelines moving CO2 or Hydrogen? Either you are using this as a fake argument to block oil sands development, or you really haven't thought about it at all.
    1
  1826. ​ @2x2is22 environmental movements can definitely have this problem but I wouldn't write off entirely.
    1
  1827. PolyMath pinned a top comment pointing out fracking for oil has literally never made a profit and lost 10s of billions. And it is an environment problem for massive methane leaks and ground water contamination. But most importantly, it's barely oil. It's closer to NGLs. If a barrel of Brent crude gets you a third a barrel of diesel, WTI gets you like a 10th. It's far to light to use without mixing with heavy crudes, which is why the US imports heavy crude and exports shale oil to other countries that mix it.
    1
  1828.  @blafonovision4342  This would be much easier to do by simply building a Keystone XL that brings Canadian crude south to Texas. You aren't just talking about retooling, you're talking about hundreds of billions in lost capital cost. Also, shale oils issue is being very light. As a side effect, you end up producing very little in terms of heavy products, like Diesel or jet fuel or lubricants. And the biggest part is shale will be declining by the time you rebuild the entire infrastructure.
    1
  1829. Advanced manufacturing, IT, and commodities like agriculture and oil
    1
  1830. @-LightningRod-  I assume this is claiming nuclear is too expensive to which 1) I'd say you're making the same mistake as comparing solar to coal 20 years ago and comparing something is at an early development stage to something with the full force of the Chinese manufacturing base behind it. When South Korea was building out nuclear they also approach solar LCOE with much higher capacity figures, and I fully expected Chinese SMRs to be produced at incredibly low prices in the mid 2030s. 2) Canada is one of the most advanced nuclear manufacturers in the world, and has no solar manufacturing capacity to speak of. There is value to buying domestic. 3) I actually agree solar will ultimately be the lowest cost of electricity possible. China has done the impossible, and like a hippy manic dream girl is using crystals and sunlight to power society. But 3 of the 4 uses I named were directly for thermal power, to which I do not agree solar is cost competitive with nuclear.
    1
  1831. In terms of "electrifying" the oil sands, we should be leveraging the enormous demand for hydrogen at the upgraders for green hydrogen development. For the actual extraction of Bitumen, and least insitu like SAGD, I have seen either using dilutant pumped into the reservoir to make it flow or the Microwave technology you reference. Personally, I am strongly preferential to not electrifying and just using SMRs or even larger Nuclear reactors to generate steam instead of NG. This also provides a baseload power generation from coproduction.
    1
  1832. I have enjoyed your content for 3 years. This video was so incorrect and misinformatived I have unsubscribed.
    1
  1833. They still do from the owners position, they can lose thier capital/investment. At least as far as FDIC goes. Obviously the government will make up something else.
    1
  1834.  @caireengraham  what deals?
    1
  1835. I think your over simplifying, the vegan diet is about more than nutrition, its also an ethical and environmental stance. And you can be healthy as a vegan, as he says. So the goal to blackpilling isn't that the diet is dumb, its that a small adjustment to their diet can meet their goals with significant health improvements.
    1
  1836.  @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
  1837. Renewables may be more profitable, but they don't generate export revenue.
    1
  1838. @Grant_S_M  Since the entire goal of our government around economic policy became moving away from reliance on the US. We exported under $5 billion in electricity to a single country while being one of the world's largest hydroelectric producers. It is hardly an export industry.
    1
  1839.  @Grant_S_M  Fossil fuel mafia chaos? Are you implying I'm paid? Do you really believe there is some deep conspiracy as the most reasonable explanation someone isn't against oil sands development? But no, look it up, in 2023 Canada exported $4.3 billion in electricity to the US. Sure if you want to call it a load, although, lol, it's actually the opposite of an electrical load. And it's not a significant amount in the scheme of overall exports. I'm just saying renewables are great. I fully support the Clean Energy subsidies and increasing build out, particularly of wind. But that doesn't provide export revenue. You can argue it makes some other industry better and allow more exports. That's great. But then we need policy that talks to that other industry..
    1
  1840.  @markbaker6553  what about wind turbines? Like wind turbine manufacturing? That would be good. I think we could likely dominate the market around cold weather models. I would nominate we should try to grow a manufacturing industry out of Newfoundland. But right now we are a net importer of turbines, by an enormous margin. I don't know there is a single significant manufacturer at all. This is a well established market at this point, and very competitive to enter. We are not going to be seeing a billion in wind turbine exports in the next decade, we'll be luck to have created a domestic industry in that time..
    1
  1841.  @Grant_S_M  what? Canada exported $4.3B in electrical sales to the US last year. Your simply mistaken about the scale/value. And we certainly only export to one country
    1
  1842. 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
  1843. 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
  1844.  @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
  1845.  @oakhauser  Noah was kinda like "what de fuk". He just got to live.
    1
  1846. Carney is right to build a pipeline, in part because he understands what you are almost getting to; this is as much political as economic. Its like supply management. Sure, its not the most effective, but it keeps regional economies alive. Even if the best economic policy is building data centers in Quebec, you can't just allow the Alberta economy to collapse because of a trade war. But moreover, the thing with profitable activities is there is no limit to how many we can do. If data centers are a good investment, we just need a strong policy environment, and we will get global investment from around the world. Building a pipeline won't reduce that. Also, your models that show building a pipeline is economically unfeasible almost certainly don't assume a major price discount in Alberta caused by reduced American imports. The reason the government is supporting this is because of the risk of large tariff caused price discounts. Last years models don't apply.
    1
  1847.  @bhut1571  Albertans are worse with their money than newfies
    1
  1848.  @markbaker6553  I didn't blame anything on Quebec. Important to note that the Bitumen in the oilsands isn't really used for petrochemicals, though. Almost all petrochemical inputs are light weight fractions found in Natural Gas Liquids Bitumen is the opposite end of the spectrum.
    1
  1849.  @markbaker6553  no I was saying the opposite, there isn't some limit to investment. Conversations around "we shouldn't allow investment in X because Y is a better investment" don't have any use, because if Y is a better investment it can be done regardless..
    1
  1850.  @markbaker6553  ya good talk, love to grad a beer sometime 😉. In terms of capital, I am fearful we'll have a glut of a lot of materials like steel. I think we can probably replace most US investment with foreign markets. Would fit the role of such an alliance, although I'm skeptical we'll get buy in.
    1
  1851.  @markbaker6553  I think you're thinking Algoma, but if you mean commitment for oil products from us, I agree we would need either a long term purchase agreement or else they would need to pay for expansion. I would support 1M bbl/d being built to supply Eastern Canada regardless, so I would only expect them to pay for the difference of doubling the capacity.
    1
  1852. I am sure this comment will never be seems, but I would like to hear about how US expulsion of illegal Haitian immigrants played into this.
    1
  1853.  @LornaKortgaard  then they need to offer to pay for the pipeline or make first long term purchase commitments. It's great to want a secure supplier. The issue is they won't pay for it. They want insurance but only when they have an accident -they won't buy our more expensive product when Qatar or the US is selling cheaper. .
    1
  1854. He didn't hault LNG development though. He only required that export facilities be built on a certain timeline for a license to be granted so that NG prices could be forcasted. I could argue he accelerated development. He just wouldn't grant licenses for firms saying "I might want to build an export terminal in the next 10 years".
    1
  1855. @jesseparrish1993  Again, he only refused to grant permits for Facilities which were not being built. Facilities with an actual plan for construction never have any issue. It was just firms who wanted to sit on the fence to maybe build in 5 years with no commitment to do so.
    1
  1856. @jesseparrish1993  no one is talking about months. You had 5 years to begin construction.
    1
  1857. @jesseparrish1993  I do, but do you see how uncertainty here actually makes it harder for people who have a greater willingness to build to do so, because they are unable to predict future Henry Hub prices.
    1
  1858. @jesseparrish1993  I don't work in LNG, but I have worked Canadian Oil sands, and I can tell you how big a deal it is to be over estimating your take away capacity in 5 years time. It makes it impossible for downstream producers to invest and creates long term issues. And the flip side is it you do build a larger amount than expected, it's American energy prices that go up, and American Manufacturers who are seeing higher costs. Whats more important, American industry having an advantage, or exporting as much LNG as possible and driving up the prices consumers pay to heat their homes. I'd say it's a lot better to permit what actually plans on being built and getting some skin in the game than hand out permits and see what happens. Also, the other big part of that Diesel issue is the Shale Oil in the Permian that supplies the NG itself. The oil is so light it converts far less to Diesel, and as it's become more important, it's lowered the diesel to gasoline ratio.
    1
  1859. @jesseparrish1993  That's within reason and I see the concern around creating long-term expectations. Looking briefly at Alberta, where the oil sands are, I would say they did something similar around Renewables, but in a much more damaging way by revoking permits; at least in Biden's case no one lost money on approved projects. But people in very early stages may have been impacted. That said I disagree it was against strategic objectives, since I don't think it actually impacted LNG facilities being built or will impact long term output negatively, and again I think changing those rules to ensure permit requests are based on a desire to actually move towards construction is better over all for the industry by allowing both exporters and upstream producers to better judge long-term supply and demand, and so will encourage investment overall. The freeze was unfortunate, but you can't reasonable say you will be changing the permitting system without doing it, or else you will have a rapid flood of people who want a permit "just maybe in case", and no one will end up using the new permitting regime.
    1
  1860.  @lukeasacher  yes overall a very minor event a year into the depression which failed due to bad mortgage loans and a lesser extent because it was owned and frequented by Jews that Friedman paints as a trigger to a global catastrophe. The Fed didn't fail in its job here, unless you broaden the Feds job as being an insurer rather than a lender of last resort; the Bank of the United States had nothing worth lending against.
    1
  1861.  @lukeasacher  that's cool, not at all what I was saying though? David put forward and answer that doesn't make sense, that people expected the federal reserve to save them. The federal reserve did its job. The vast majority of failures were none member banks the Federal reserve had no mandate to assist. This false expectation he describes, which was statistically true if we're discussing state deposit insurance schemes, was not built around the Fed. Friedman's complaint was that the Federal Reserve should have been more aggressive. I've never seen any record where he claims false expectations created by the Federal Reserves role as a lender of last resort.
    1
  1862. I find it very difficult to believe the Mined SCO value is correct- that looks to me like the cost of Upgrading, alone, not inclusive of Mining. That's based on Suncor's released values for mining and upgrading operating costs; but also, if Mined SCO is less Expensive to produce than Mined PFT (paraffin foam treatment), and as SCO gets a higher price, why would the new operations all be PFT? Or is that just a result of the older upgraders being decades old and paying off capital cost. Even then; why would less upgrading have a higher production p.rice?
    1
  1863.  @hammerclench3135  I get it, that's the mining cost before upgrading. It's excluding the upgrading cost that makes it SCO, it's just the cost of bitumen input... Which is unmarketable without upgrading. It does change the conclusion, because with upgrading, the cost is closer to $60/bbl, and much more at risk from WTI..
    1
  1864. @hammerclench3135  I get it, that's the mining cost before upgrading. It's excluding the upgrading cost that makes it SCO, it's just the cost of bitumen input... Which is unmarketable without upgrading. It does change the conclusion, because with upgrading, the cost is closer to $60/bbl, and much more at risk from WTI..
    1
  1865. I think you undermined Elizabeth May a little when she said Bitumen is to valuable to burn if you look long term, and your counter point was that Bitumen is valueless in the future and its all about NGLs
    1
  1866. ​ @keithstagg1109 I would say there is no real reason to build that line, best connection os La Pas Manitoba for Saskatoon. Connecting Manitoba to Edmonton is completely unnecessary with BC being much closer and having larger capacity.
    1
  1867. Bipole 3 was that distance, so around 10B. Although I think you would actually build from Neslon to Moosnee to power the Ring Of Fire amd connect to James Bay in Quebec.
    1
  1868. ​ @trishmurphy1941 what is the point of doing this, though? Other than to say it's a connected grid. What do these enormous connections do better than a few regional connections and storage?
    1
  1869. ​ @keithstagg1109 How would it diversity? It's still just Prairie wind and Solar backed by hydro. It's entirely correlated, and BC Hydro can provide all the dispatchable power necessary. This is just a regulatory issue of Alberta pushing out competitors for NG, it won't be nicer to Manitoba than BC. You can deal with any synchronization issues easily, much more so than adding grids.
    1
  1870. ​ @torbenalstrup3902 ya Hungry and Austria really squew the numbers.
    1
  1871.  @dougwhitehead-k3m  C 69 was already gutted by the courts. Nothing relevant is left.
    1
  1872.  @ToeKneeOooo  I don't think that's true. CBC and Canada Post obviously haven't monopolized their market. If most crown corps are monopolies I think that has more to do with the fact that you can't really have a competitive market on companies operating the Windsor bridge, for example.
    1
  1873.  @genrihlanevsky6612  you understand the exception is because the US can easily cut exports, yes? He has said both are possible. Demanding exact knowledge of the future isn't going to get far. I don't think Zeihan is all that, but I've been expecting the Saudis to launch a price war for sometime, and it's entirely possible war in the middle east distrupts global production.
    1
  1874. ​ @beatreuteler ya, my point is that the idea we should stop exploitation of the oilsands for fuel because it's worth more if we wait is mistaken. Every barrel we don't pump is ultimately lost money.
    1
  1875.  @josefreding5044  it's a question of cost competitiveness and long term demand. Fundamentally we cannot produce LNG at international prices. East coast is a 4000km pipeline, the Americans need a few hundred km at most, Qatar can stick a straw in the ground. And ultimately, Europe will go back to buying pipeline NG from Russia while continuing to cut their total demand. If Europe wants to pay for a pipeline, I'm happy to let them. But it is fooling to make a $100 billion investment targetting an economy trying to reduce demand for the product without long term purchase commitments, and Europe has not offered this. I'd say we might be able to export LNG to Europe out of Manitoba in the summer. But even that has risk..
    1
  1876. @1voluntaryist  Austrian economics is like Christian rock, lots of good concepts in there, but if you have to use the label you probably aren't any good at communicating them. But I've no idea why you're bringing this up, socialism isn't when another country puts tariffs on you lol.
    1
  1877.  @bhut1571  I'd suggest we should build an east coast pipeline for domestic use, but I agree it's likely at a loss on paper. I'm equally okay with private companies footing the bill to go west as I am foreign ones, though.
    1
  1878. Absolutely it's been a clear goal of Putins government since the Yukos scandal, and avoiding Ukrainian NG production has been a driving force in this conflict since 2014.
    1
  1879.  @Mihayan1  Well Germany shut down nuclear, so theres an obvious one.
    1
  1880. I disagree with this. While that was historically true, conventional oil no longer dominates the market, at least in North America and Europe. Lower oil demand will reduce oil sands demand. Oil sands operations don't coproduce NG, and in fact consume it to produce steam or run upgraders. So in Alberta/Western Canada, I would expect NG prices to fall (although LNG Canada will counteract this). In the US, shale fracking has become dominant, and NG is arguably the driver for much of the activity. Lower oil prices will likely reduce new fracked wells, but existing wells will contention produce and become increasingly gassy as they do. In both cases, the real question is will international LNG demand be high enough to raise NG prices and drive new production. I'm doubtful, but if that is the case, I would expect Qatar, with much lower production costs, to take market share, not for regional NG prices to increase..
    1
  1881. I wish you had discussed the NAIRU and Fed targetting of it, and guaranteed employment programs.
    1
  1882.  @1voluntaryist  have you ever read Klondike? Great book imo. It's in no way a book on economics, but I think it's a great historical lesson. I don't generally support regulation outside of environmental, sometimes labour. I largely agree with the comments on economic growth, situations like the Klondike Gold Rush not withstanding. But I support the government collecting resource and land rents, and I don't have an issue with government owned entities or supported Co-ops operating in a free market and believe it's a net benefit.
    1
  1883. If an Arab Nationalist group like Muslim Brotherhood takes control, I'm calling an alignment with the Rapid Reaction force in Sudan and the Arab governments across the Sahel for the creation of The Greater Egyptian Military Imperium.
    1
  1884. I think Paul and Chris used to share a channel. I'm pretty sure that's how I found Paul.
    1
  1885.  @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
  1886. MMT argues that a dollar is nothing more than a tax credit. Fiat currencies only maintain value because the issuing government accepts only that currency or at least selectively for payment of taxes. Because the government has the monopoly of force and can therefore force you to pay taxes at the consequence of some punishment, you must collect dollars to pay them. This drives demand for the currency in the economy. The argument being made about printing money is that you can create more tax credits in a given year than you collect, because there is expected future demand for them, and so people have some desire to save. Inflation occurs if availability of the currency is greater than current and future expected demand for it from the Government.
    1
  1887.  @willnitschke  Bill Mitchells work on the history of money certainly argues that Fiat currency is ultimately a tax credit. I don't know what empirical evidence to which you are referring. You don't need MMT to admit the government has a monopoly on force. I'm not claiming otherwise. I am saying that the monopoly on force allows the government to collect taxes, which allows them to issue tax credits which serve as currency. We certainly do not have hundreds of years of economic history as MMT applies only to Fiat currencies, for which we have ~100 years of history. Unless your referencing ancient Rome or China? In which case I don't seriously think you can make meaningful comparisons between the modern USA and a slave economy focused on agriculture.
    1
  1888. At 4:17 why is there a penis in the right corner?
    1
  1889.  @NaviRyan  that's what the first bitumen extraction was, but the majority of Bitumen extraction now and the vast majority of exports is from inSitu operations, not mining.
    1
  1890.  @jtjones4081  it usually sells much closer to an $18 discount, the 30 number is from 2018 when there were pipeline capacity issues, it's not the norm. But being cheaper is one advantage. I agree DilBit is nasty stuff, but bitumen and synthetic blends are perfectly good. But they don't "charge you" to refine and upgrade bitumen, that's why the discount exists, and the Midwest regularly has the cheapest gas in the US because of bitumen. More importantly, shale is "easier" to refine, but the products are all NGLs and gasoline. You get very little diesel, jet fuel, and lubricants, anything from the heavy end of the barrel. And with gasoline demand flat or decreasing since 2000, and EVs growing, diesel and the heavy stuff is what you need.
    1
  1891. @markpukey8  less than traditional wells? I would agree there is some over hype on the impacts of fracking, but I don't think it's fair to say ground water contamination or methane emissions are better than conventional.
    1
  1892. @johnrickard8512  I mean, don't drill on a fault line and whatever, small and localized earth quake in some rural area isn't really an issue, it's just a thing that happens.
    1
  1893.  @johnrickard8512  Potato 🥔 But actually, the vast majority of Fracking oil output is from the Permian/Eagle Ford in rural Texas and North Dakotas Bakken, all quite rural. If you want to restrict it around a "city" called "Oklahoma" or "Wyoming" or something that I know means there are no people actually living there, I don't have an issue. But my understanding is the issue here has more to do with waste water disposal than actual fracking.
    1
  1894. Diversifing to Europe is certainly part of Carney's agenda. But so is maintaining and strengthening the industrial carbon price. That has always been the case, it is what he ran on, it's what he's doing. That said, I don't believe Europe is going to charge the carbon adjustment based on how an employee break room is heated; and I'm sure they don't care how employees heat their homes. And in terms of oil, Carney has been pretty clear on new pipelines requiring decarbonized oil.
    1
  1895. ​ @MrTexasDan Trudeau is not responsible for the awful state of our military, and has maintained our involvement in Naval and Airforce programs that keep us relevant where Conservatives want to buy old equipment from countries upgrading.
    1
  1896. ​ @bobbymak6964 They clearly do. They are replacing our entire navy and Airforce. You just can't do that over night, the US military itself takes decades to update it's equipment. We will be seeing the results in the next few years as F35s and AOPS move through teething issues.
    1
  1897. ​ @sleelofwpg688 ​I agree about our bureaucracy, but so is the general population to blame. We have a lot of coast, and our only real job is to defend the artic coast (against who you tell me lol). The reality is this is the first time we've build ships in decades. You need to start somewhere. As for the ridiculous idea Greece could invade us, the reality is not China or Iran or Russia could invade us. Even if we left NATO, the US would have to protect us through NORAD and frankly for their own defense. Let along the fact none of those countries could get across an ocean, most can't even invade neighbors they've claimed for a decade. I want a better military too, but every cent of Canadian military spending is NATO support. Most other countries spend it on domestic security.
    1
  1898. ​ @michaelwang6125  Who is China going to invade with a large northern Winter Forest? Canada, across an ocean when they can't land in Taiwan? Or a certain neighbor that NATO was formed to counter on their boarder? China will never land troops in Canada. Not only can they not get here, not only would they have no infrastructure to move from if they landed anywhere in the north (where they would literally freeze to death without constant cross ocean resupply), but even if we completely disarmed, America could never allow such an occupation. China can watch us defend boreal forest all day. Teaching them to fuck with Russia is only helpful
    1
  1899. ​ @gumpyoldbugger6944 I'd support consumption. You are absolutely right about the man power issue. I'd also support more private military companies, particularly naval ones that third world governments could rent to keep Chinese Fishing boats out. Sell mothballed ships to start the industry+ more sales for new ships to lower cost.
    1
  1900. For decades our country has failed to be serious about defense spending. On the other hand, it's hard to justify when we have absolutely no need for it. Other NATO countries need to reach 2% in case they are invaded. Canada will never be invaded by anyone but a hypothetical US, in which case the 2% gets us no where.
    1
  1901.  @yodieyuh  Ya I would agree that people are looking at what are really dual problems of poor Russian logistics and political motivations to avoid changing the day to day life of the Average Russian, coupled with systemic corruption (ongoing) before the the war leading to incredibly poor ready states and logistics. And at earlier stages in the war, an incredible level of incompetence by Officers. However, learning from Wagner, while death tolls are higher, Russia has become a far more effective advancing corps. However, the equipment loss, particularly in terms of armoured vehicles, and industrial capital loss from sanctions, high output of weapons wear and tear, and strategic strikes, are rather damming for Russia's ability to maintain a campaign, particularly if aggressive, against a NATO coalition, particularly as Europe and the US have taken the clue to increase their own shell production. And perhaps more significantly, Ukrainian equipment is largely outdated or unwanted NATO material. Take all the M113s and Humvees. That's all stuff the US government wanted to write off and while they have some usage, they were never designed for this form of conflict. The MRAPs have been more of a success, but NATO drastically over built these and was planning of retiring enormous amounts, and still hold enormous amounts, and they have proven somewhat effective for mine fields, even though they are nearly uselessly armoured. Given hundreds of Abrams and Thousands of Bradleys, along with all the most recent generation tanks, I think the Russian military would be much harder pressed to hold a line. And more importantly, I don't believe the Russians can see an F22 or F35, and certainly not everywhere and everytime. A strategic air campaign against Russia seems almost unavoidably successful given Ukraine's success with drones. However, Russia has been quick to innovate with and become highly proficient using FPV drone units and advancing infantry movements in ways that no other Military has any reasonable training. Assuming Russian strategic security due to fear of nuclear weapons, and NATO advancement on the ground toward Russia, with Russian internal logistics being much stronger, a much larger conscript force to mount a slow retreat grinding down NATO, and using Ukrainian hardened infantry as Shock troops to maximize casualties against NATO weak positions or maintain critical ground, particularly with continued North Korean Support possibly to the point of opening a new front, would be a horrendous war and Russia would be very difficult to invade. However, I have no idea, outside of Kremlin fears, why NATO would ever try a land invasion of Russia when it is obviously a doomed enterprise. And while limited armoured vehicle access would hinder this defensive action, it would make large scale offensives impossible.
    1
  1902. @yodieyuh  Ya I would agree that people are looking at what are really dual problems of poor Russian logistics and political motivations to avoid changing the day to day life of the Average Russian, coupled with systemic corruption (ongoing) before the the war leading to incredibly poor ready states and logistics. And at earlier stages in the war, an incredible level of incompetence by Officers. However, learning from Wagner, while death tolls are higher, Russia has become a far more effective advancing corps. However, the equipment loss, particularly in terms of armoured vehicles, and industrial capital loss from sanctions, high output of weapons wear and tear, and strategic strikes, are rather damming for Russia's ability to maintain a campaign, particularly if aggressive, against a NATO coalition, particularly as Europe and the US have taken the clue to increase their own shell production. And perhaps more significantly, Ukrainian equipment is largely outdated or unwanted NATO material. Take all the M113s and Humvees. That's all stuff the US government wanted to write off and while they have some usage, they were never designed for this form of conflict. The MRAPs have been more of a success, but NATO drastically over built these and was planning of retiring enormous amounts, and still hold enormous amounts, and they have proven somewhat effective for mine fields, even though they are nearly uselessly armoured. Given hundreds of Abrams and Thousands of Bradleys, along with all the most recent generation tanks, I think the Russian military would be much harder pressed to hold a line. And more importantly, I don't believe the Russians can see an F22 or F35, and certainly not everywhere and everytime. A strategic air campaign against Russia seems almost unavoidably successful given Ukraine's success with drones. However, Russia has been quick to innovate with and become highly proficient using FPV drone units and advancing infantry movements in ways that no other Military has any reasonable training. Assuming Russian strategic security due to fear of nuclear weapons, and NATO advancement on the ground toward Russia, with Russian internal logistics being much stronger, a much larger conscript force to mount a slow retreat grinding down NATO, and using Ukrainian hardened infantry as Shock troops to maximize casualties against NATO weak positions or maintain critical ground, particularly with continued North Korean Support possibly to the point of opening a new front, would be a horrendous war and Russia would be very difficult to invade. However, I have no idea, outside of Kremlin fears, why NATO would ever try a land invasion of Russia when it is obviously a doomed enterprise. And while limited armoured vehicle access would hinder this defensive action, it would make large scale offensives impossible.
    1
  1903. @yodieyuh  Ya I would agree that people are looking at what are really dual problems of poor Russian logistics and political motivations to avoid changing the day to day life of the Average Russian, coupled with systemic corruption (ongoing) before the the war leading to incredibly poor ready states and logistics. And at earlier stages in the war, an incredible level of incompetence by Officers. However, learning from Wagner, while death tolls are higher, Russia has become a far more effective advancing corps. However, the equipment loss, particularly in terms of armoured vehicles, and industrial capital loss from sanctions, high output of weapons wear and tear, and strategic strikes, are rather damming for Russia's ability to maintain a campaign, particularly if aggressive, against a NATO coalition, particularly as Europe and the US have taken the clue to increase their own shell production. And this is combined with the weakened foreign reserve status, although if a freeze was reached where Russia regained its foreign assets, prior to a NATO Russia conflict, that may be less of an issue if Russia internalized it's economy and realigns trade in the interm. And perhaps more significantly, Ukrainian equipment is largely outdated or unwanted NATO material. Take all the M113s and Humvees. That's all stuff the US government wanted to write off and while they have some usage, they were never designed for this form of conflict. The MRAPs have been more of a success, but NATO drastically over built these and was planning of retiring enormous amounts, and still hold enormous amounts, and they have proven somewhat effective for mine fields, even though they are nearly uselessly armoured. Given hundreds of Abrams and Thousands of Bradleys, along with all the most recent generation tanks, I think the Russian military would be much harder pressed to hold a line. And more importantly, I don't believe the Russians can see an F22 or F35, and certainly not everywhere and everytime. A strategic air campaign against Russia seems almost unavoidably successful given Ukraine's success with drones. However, Russia has been quick to innovate with and become highly proficient using FPV drone units and advancing infantry movements in ways that no other Military has any reasonable training. Assuming Russian strategic security due to fear of nuclear weapons, and NATO advancement on the ground toward Russia, with Russian internal logistics being much stronger, a much larger conscript force to mount a slow retreat grinding down NATO, and using Ukrainian hardened infantry as Shock troops to maximize casualties against NATO weak positions or maintain critical ground, particularly with continued North Korean Support possibly to the point of opening a new front, would be a horrendous war and Russia would be very difficult to invade. However, I have no idea, outside of Kremlin fears, why NATO would ever try a land invasion of Russia when it is obviously a doomed enterprise. And while limited armoured vehicle access would hinder this defensive action, it would make large scale offensives impossible.
    1
  1904. @yodieyuh  Ya I would agree that people are looking at what are really dual problems of poor Russian logistics and political motivations to avoid changing the day to day life of the Average Russian, coupled with systemic corruption (ongoing) before the the war leading to incredibly poor ready states and logistics. And at earlier stages in the war, an incredible level of incompetence by Officers. However, learning from Wagner, while death tolls are higher, Russia has become a far more effective advancing corps.  However, the equipment loss, particularly in terms of armoured vehicles, and industrial capital loss from sanctions, high output of weapons wear and tear, and strategic strikes, are rather damming for Russia's ability to maintain a campaign, particularly if aggressive, against a NATO coalition, particularly as Europe and the US have taken the clue to increase their own shell production. And this is combined with the weakened foreign reserve status, although if a freeze was reached where Russia regained its foreign assets, prior to a NATO Russia conflict, that may be less of an issue if Russia internalized it's economy and realigns trade in the interm.   And perhaps more significantly, Ukrainian equipment is largely outdated or unwanted NATO material. Take all the M113s and Humvees. That's all stuff the US government wanted to write off and while they have some usage, they were never designed for this form of conflict. The MRAPs have been more of a success, but NATO drastically over built these and was planning of retiring enormous amounts, and still hold enormous amounts, and they have proven somewhat effective for mine fields, even though they are nearly uselessly armoured.  Given hundreds of Abrams and Thousands of Bradleys, along with all the most recent generation tanks, I think the Russian military would be much harder pressed to hold a line. And more importantly, I don't believe the Russians can see an F22 or F35, and certainly not everywhere and everytime. A strategic air campaign against Russia seems almost unavoidably successful given Ukraine's success with drones.  However, Russia has been quick to innovate with and become highly proficient using FPV drone units and advancing infantry movements in ways that no other Military has any reasonable training. Assuming Russian strategic security due to fear of nuclear weapons, and NATO advancement on the ground toward Russia, with Russian internal logistics being much stronger, a much larger conscript force to mount a slow retreat grinding down NATO, and using Ukrainian hardened infantry as Shock troops to maximize casualties against NATO weak positions or maintain critical ground, particularly with continued North Korean Support possibly to the point of opening a new front, would be a horrendous war and Russia would be very difficult to invade.  However, I have no idea, outside of Kremlin fears, why NATO would ever try a land invasion of Russia when it is obviously a doomed enterprise. Perhaps if Russia quickly stole the Baltics and NATO was fighting through only Poland? But the very act of stealing the Baltics would make the Baltic sea useless the Russia. And while limited armoured vehicle access would hinder this defensive action, it would make large scale offensives impossible.
    1
  1905. @yodieyuh 1/6)  Ya I would agree that people are looking at what are really dual problems of poor Russian logistics and political motivations to avoid changing the day to day life of the Average Russian, coupled with systemic corruption (ongoing) before the the war leading to incredibly poor ready states and logistics. And at earlier stages in the war, an incredible level of incompetence by Officers. However, learning from Wagner, while death tolls are higher, Russia has become a far more effective advancing corps
    1
  1906. @yodieyuh 2/6) However, the equipment loss, particularly in terms of armoured vehicles, and industrial capital loss from sanctions, high output of weapons wear and tear, and strategic strikes, are rather damming for Russia's ability to maintain a campaign, particularly if aggressive, against a NATO coalition, particularly as Europe and the US have taken the clue to increase their own shell production. And this is combined with the weakened foreign reserve status, although if a freeze was reached where Russia regained its foreign assets, prior to a NATO Russia conflict, that may be less of an issue if Russia internalized it's economy and realigns trade in the interm.
    1
  1907. @yodieyuh 3/6)  And perhaps more significantly, Ukrainian equipment is largely outdated or unwanted NATO material. Take all the M113s and Humvees. That's all stuff the US government wanted to write off and while they have some usage, they were never designed for this form of conflict. The MRAPs have been more of a success, but NATO drastically over built these and was planning of retiring enormous amounts, and still hold enormous amounts, and they have proven somewhat effective for mine fields, even though they are nearly uselessly armoured.
    1
  1908. @yodieyuh 4/6) Given hundreds of Abrams and Thousands of Bradleys, along with all the most recent generation tanks, I think the Russian military would be much harder pressed to hold a line. And more importantly, I don't believe the Russians can see an F22 or F35, and certainly not everywhere and everytime. A strategic air campaign against Russia seems almost unavoidably successful given Ukraine's success with drones
    1
  1909. @yodieyuh 5/6) However, Russia has been quick to innovate with and become highly proficient using FPV drone units and advancing infantry movements in ways that no other Military has any reasonable training. Assuming Russian strategic security due to fear of nuclear weapons, and NATO advancement on the ground toward Russia, with Russian internal logistics being much stronger, a much larger conscript force to mount a slow retreat grinding down NATO, and using Ukrainian hardened infantry as Shock troops to maximize casualties against NATO weak positions or maintain critical ground, particularly with continued North Korean Support possibly to the point of opening a new front, would be a horrendous war and Russia would be very difficult to invade.
    1
  1910. @yodieyuh 6/6) However, I have no idea, outside of Kremlin fears, why NATO would ever try a land invasion of Russia when it is obviously a doomed enterprise. Perhaps if Russia quickly stole the Baltics and NATO was fighting through only Poland? But the very act of stealing the Baltics would make the Baltic sea useless the Russia. And while limited armoured vehicle access would hinder this defensive action, it would make large scale offensives impossible.
    1
  1911.  @okanagansummers  the point of the episode was climate change is not the reason at all. And climate change isn't the reason at all. Framing things this way makes necessary economic investment look like charity and undermines the transition. I urge you not to.
    1
  1912. I think there is a bit of a paradox here; you recognize that China has pulled ahead by creating a new Energy Paradigm, but then would have us follow it. I think if we want to be competitive as more than a resource economy, we need to be trying to lead the next revolution. Whether geothermal or SMRs or Tidal etc. But I think its a little fool hardy to believe we will beat China at the Solar game at this point. You talk a lot about the S curve. I think you should spend more time on technologies still at the bottom.
    1
  1913. A few possibilitle un mentioned reasons 1) Capture Russian POWs from consctiped un prepaired battalions to trade for more valuable Ukrainian POWs and create political pressure in Moscow and Petersburg from parents 2) Shut down electrical infrastructure in Kurst which powers the electricfied railways used to provide logistics to Belgorod (not the same as LGOV railway). 3) interfear with the Grain Harvest 4) Push the Northern front to the Sejm river to reduce manpower required to gaurd.
    1
  1914. True, so between the eggs and taking up lifting I'm surprised in the testosterone result.
    1
  1915.  @TexasNationalist1836  There really is no defense to Nuclear ICBMs or Submarine launched missiles. In large part this was because the US and USSR were worried about another expensive arms race with both sides spending enormous amounts on tens of thousands of defensive missiles to only increase the chance a nuclear weapon was actually used. If a Russian sub attacked New York or Houston or any costal city or strategic target there is no defense in place, and the minuet defense in place for ICBMs is useless in comparison to numbers and unreliable at best regardless.
    1
  1916.  @DaReaperZ  Patriot certainly cannot shoot down an ICBM. An ICBM travels at extreme velocities, and Russian designs frequently launch a large number of smaller packages. The only way to stop one is generally on the upward phase, and there are no patriots in range of Russian ICBMs, unless you had laser satellites able to destroy guidance equipment while the missile is out of atmosphere, which have only been considered and not very seriously at that.
    1
  1917.  @Old_Machine_Spirit  THAAD counters intermediate range, medium range, and short range ballistic missiles. It does not should dowm intercontinental Ballistic missiles.
    1
  1918.  @geodkyt  I that a tactical nuke could physically be assembled relatively easily, between access yo material and equipment and existing bombs, but I agree with the rest.
    1
  1919.  @geodkyt  Its a lot more like catching a bullet than a base ball. And the Patriot missile does have to be actively tracking its intercept point, you can't just park it in mid air, and ICBMs are very fast. Only the GMD exists to stop ICBMs in the US,, and by all accounts it doesn't actually work. Also, if you're in a situation were you're hoping Patriots will reach a ICBM on the decent stage its already released multiple warheads. There is no infrastructure to destroy a thousand ballistic missiles with multiple warheads across the US.
    1
  1920.  @cr90captain89  I don't know what you want me to say lol. Patriot missiles are not rated against ICBMs. There is no credible ICBM defensive infrastructure in the US.
    1
  1921.  @cr90captain89  I don't disagree patriot is exceptional at its job, but ICBMs are not its job.
    1
  1922.  @coleball6001  you're correct about it mainly being gas from the Utica and Marcellus plays. Although it's very wet gas, with large amount of ethane, butane, and propane (to the point infrastructure to deal with ethane is beginning to strain overall capacity to transport products out). And the condensate produced is almost comparable to the shale oil coming out of the Bakken.
    1
  1923.  @jacobhatfield4970  Not entirely sure what you mean by opportunity cost here. I certainly agree undeveloped land has no income, to me that is part of the point of the tax - forcing development and avoiding speculation on an area. But certainly the amount if tax should be based on the particular piece of property's value
    1
  1924. You just sold so many copies of that book
    1
  1925. Speaking of Ammonia, there is a Danish company which has produced an electrolysis cell which uses less energy in KW than a state of the art NG to ammonia plant uses in KW (electrical amd thermal) to produce ammonia while producing oxygen. Very interesting
    1
  1926. Actually the exact opposite. Partially anyway.
    1
  1927.  @thomgizziz  Source? The issue is nuclear costs far more and doesn't peak well. Solar on the other hand, where most of the global population lives (the global south, where clouds are rare and Cooling demand high or growing), peaks very well Hydro has very limited expansion available, and can have just as serious an impact as coal depending on where it's built. I have no issue with either and think nuclear will be important. But Solar is by far the cheapest.
    1
  1928. Things change. The DPR and LPR have been drained of Man power and can't be used a fodder anymore. Prisons are empty and can't be used as fodder - Kremlin is now trying to get people awaiting trial. Foreign fighters from Syria and Africa know not to sign up and won't be used as fodder. And immigrants aren't going to Russia anymore knowing they'll be fodder. Losing people know one cares about has no political risk. What's changed is who's dying and how that impacts support for the conflict. Plus, the average age of 50 in new Russian Volunteers isn't ideal for soldiers.
    1
  1929. ​​ @etienne8110 checking Deep state map Ukraine appears to be holding it. But it isn't a "bargaining chip". It's a "Putin will refuse to Bargain and make Trump mad at him" chip.
    1
  1930. But the cost of nuclear scales with MWhs generated?
    1
  1931.  @hewas_chewasky  Just because the cities are doesn't mean the civilization was. Most European countries have a military, but its rare to find hand guns in a home outside the US. Still lots ti discover. But, assuming this isn't the answer, either religious or economic superiority
    1
  1932. I'd assume food and oil for artillery and nuclear and rocket tech for people but I have very little basis for that outside YouTube videos
    1
  1933. Reuters actually did an article on NK imports of Russian petrol products. Russia vetoed the UN body that's been monitoring NK sanctions for decades and then started sending oil products above the UN authorized levels
    1
  1934.  @vic5015  I think you misunderstood me I meant grain was being traded for shells. But also I think the regime would prefer to feed people. Even if they can survive starving them.
    1
  1935. Belarus has elections in a month... Transnistria is about to have the gas that powers it cut...
    1
  1936. China's Industrial strategy is excellent. But you leave out the massive coal build out alongside. I say that not to discredit China, but because a large part of what has allowed them to do this is using existing resources amd technologies and leveraging those for cheap energy to fuel the growth. We can do the same. The oilsands needs to be leveraged, not abandoned. Leveraged to grow SMR, green Hydrogen, and (less so) carbon capture technologies. We can only grow based on where we are, and the reality is we are deeply invested and specialized around oil.
    1
  1937. Perun did a really good video on Ukrainian decoys. My favorite bit hes done, strong recommend..
    1
  1938. 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
  1939.  @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
  1940.  @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
  1941. @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
  1942. 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
  1943. @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
  1944. @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
  1945. @Myart2607  idk I follow your point
    1
  1946.  @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
  1947. You almost have it right, but you're ignoring that the goal is to deindustrialize Ontario and the rest is just excuses.
    1
  1948.  @mikeklein4949  what if we build a clean energy infrastructure that makes the oil industry more competitive
    1
  1949. Egypt needs to sign a deal with China (I only say because they currently have the largest manufacturering base actively look to export in infrastructure programs) to aggressively build out Solar. In recent years they have completely stopped LNG exports, and they struggle with NG supply causing power outages. Large scale solar build out would not only provide power, but in Egypt it would provide reliable daily output given the near equatorial position and limited cloud cover. It provides that power for 12 hours a day, and during the hottest part of the day when Air Conditioning is driving the highest demand. And at night, the NG infrastructure already exists. The solar would provide low and long term fixed cost power, and stretch the NG supply to allow exports of LNG to return and stable overnight output. Solar could also be placed in the Red Sea foot hills to Agrovolactics, and over canals or floating on Lake Nasser (which China in particular has experience with) to reduce water loss.
    1
  1950. Than I guess Canada has enough housing and we can stop talking about it.
    1
  1951. South Korea can build a nuclear power plant in 3 years, and regularly builds them in 5. It doesn't take 10 or 15 years if regulators don't make it impossible. I agree large scale build out of wind and solar in Alberta is necessary. But nuclear will be an important part of this as well, the GTA needs power and we have no hydro to back up the wind.
    1
  1952. ​​ @beyondfossil I agree with the FOAK problem. And that we aren't South Korea.That is why I am very hopeful for SMRs. But I would pin the lack of construction momentum and historical development of SMRs to a poor regulatory environment. And I would argue that while it is picking up again, South Korea's slow down was because of government policy change away from nuclear. Nuclear needs to be safe. That doesn't equate to restrictive regulation.
    1
  1953. ​ @CanadianPatriot-h3x both of those were clearly and previously known dangerous designs. That really isn't a concern with a CanDu or SMR designs.
    1
  1954. ​ @CanadianPatriot-h3x to rapidly simplify, A nuclear reactor is some fissionable material in a layout that allows a fissionable chain reaction, a moderator that makes neutrons move at a speed that allows a fission chain reaction, and a coolent that moves heat away from the core. If a CanDu were to start to over heat, the many horizontal pipes holding nuclear material would overheat and start to sag in the middle, and the shape would no longer allow a sustained reaction, in the worse case. Normally, any power interruption will drop boron rods hung by an electromagnet into the reactor to adsorb neutrons. And failing that, the heavy water is able to convection circulate, so even without pumps it will cool the reaction. And the heavy water is also the moderator, so if it drained or something the reaction would also stop. Chernobyl used a graphite moderator so without cooling, the reaction couldn't be stopped and continued to accelerate. And Fukushima not only couldn't convection circulate the coolent, but had the backup diesel generators for the pumps in a basement below sealevel, so when the tsunami hit there was no way to cool. And the nuclear mass wasn't in a geomatry that would naturally disform. CanDus are the safest design on the planet. Thats why everyone copys them/ they sold so well internationally. They are walk away safe. There has never been anything close to a melt down.
    1
  1955. ​ @CanadianPatriot-h3x to drastically simplify, a nuclear reactor is a pile of fissionable matterial in a certain geometry, a moderator that allows the reaction to occur, and coolant. Normally boron rods on an electromagnetic powered parasiticly would fall and stop the reaction if the power cut off. Failing that, the heavy water can flow convectively, so if pumps fail it won't over heat. If the heavy water drained, the moderator disappears, and the reaction stops. And failing that, the pipes holding the nuclear material would sag, and the shape would no longer allow a reaction. Chernobyl useda graphite block moderator, so once the reaction boiled off the coolent it couldn't stop. Fukushima's geometry was in a block and wouldn't disfigure, and couldn't convectively cool, and the generators for the back up pumps were stored below sea level, so once the wave hit there was no way to cool. And in both cases the danger was previously identified amd ignored. CanDus are walk away safe. Thats why they sell well internationally.
    1
  1956. Ya it's arguably a conservative leaning paper in terms of being pro capitalism. Not in a culture war sense. But this pod cast, which is pretty good imo, arguably leans slightly left.
    1
  1957. @jodyperyk1978  maybe in terms of covering topics relevant to the left but I wouldn't say in terms of content or presentation
    1
  1958.  @hardcoreherbivore4730  I would agree Alberta is very well suited for solar. But Texas is certainly more suited, solar very obviously pairs well with high AC demand. Cold front sheer winds and 5pm sunsets are absolutely issues Alberta faces. I have high confidence in batteries to avoid the need for constant NG backup to cover sudden solar shutdowns and extend into the evening. But Alberta isn't behind the curve on this, batteries only recently became commerical viable and Alberta has hundreds of Mws under development..
    1
  1959.  @heronimousbrapson863  well that's not true, most provinces have more grid connection to another country than another province
    1
  1960.  @hardcoreherbivore4730  I copy and paste into notepad and check if it posted later lol. But also, I find the @ situation is better if you enter the post instead of replying to the reply, if you get my meaning. That said, can confirm I don't pay all that much attention to Smith as she is rock dumb. Calgary has the one connection, and that is used drastically under capacity. A site C to Edmonton line would be good..
    1
  1961. There is no specialization the states can't replicate, except maybe raw aluminum production. They will simply move the equipment from our factories.
    1
  1962. @thaboss-d8q  less competitive is the reason for the 25% tariff. My point isn't that it's good for the industry, my point is that there is no reason to believe the Canadian industry is in anyway secure
    1
  1963. @PlayChaosVoices  firstly, I'm Canadian. Secondly, why would any of our Auto manufacturing be safe? Fundamentally, except maybe refining aluminium because of the electrical demand, what special advantage do we have. They talk in the video about wether our EV investments will go forward, that's because our special advantage was access to the US market. Without that there is no reason to invest here to build American car parts. Thirdly, don't trick yourself into thinking they need our oil. We have seen a million barrels a day go off line this month. That's seasonal, it's for maintenance, but the US isn't hurting over it, and the question is what happens to prices when it comes back on. 600k bbl/d goes south to the US Gulf, they can get that from seaborne imports if they need a heavy. Marathon has already said they can retool, with that about 300k bbl/d in the Midwest could switch over to light oil from heavy. Within 2 years, if they are serious about hurting us, they could reverse Keystone and bring another million barrels a day north. That's 2M bbl/d lost. The other 2M bbl/d we sell is probably safe. But that still means we have massive over capacity pushing prices to the lowest possible level and bankrupting the mining operations.
    1
  1964.  @PlayChaosVoices  1) the question isn't if the oil is more expensive than ours without a tariff, but with a tariff. Our oil discount will absorb the tariff costs, or else it will become more expensive than seaborne crude. The oil tariffs are only applied to us. And as Oil is priced in Hardisty, that will mean all our oil exports fall in price. 2) going from Heavy crude to light crude is not difficult. Sure the gasoline ratio will be higher and overall capacity a little lower. But no retooling is required for the 600k to the Gulf, and 300k bbl/d in the Midwest is entirely achievable. 3) this isn't about what's bad for the US. The US goal is very clearly to harm us. They just launched the auto tariffs. The current administration is clearly willing to accept economic damage if it moves towards their overall goals.
    1
  1965. I don't think they were. I think you are confusing a plan to build powerlines north Baker Lake and Chesterfield inlet. Yellowknife would be very far. NWT does want to connect the Yellowknife and Hay River grids, around the westside of the lake, and connect those communities. And then with that, upsize a hydro station near Saskatchewan and maybe connect to Uranium City. And Uranium city is connected to Manitoba hydro. So in a very round about way what you said is the outcome, but not really the goal and several different initiatives..
    1
  1966.  @dianefromcanada  you need to pay attention to the rhetoric.
    1
  1967. But, OPEC+ would react to this by cutting back production to maintain prices. Which is what they have historically done, and why Russia was so eager to drop prices in Covid and try and put North American producers out of operation.
    1
  1968. These conversations ignore the expected impact on US incomes and Corporate revenues from greater internal economic activity and the subsequent increase in taxes, or that part of the goal is inflation to monitize the debt and lower debt servicing costs.
    1
  1969. I can agree the 70mph is perfectly fine. But I mean "live ruined" like just don't speed. It's a government built highway it isn't an infringement of rights to set a limit.
    1
  1970.  @iagbedejobi  much of the world's crude has also gotten heavier over time, and shale is used by refineries to balance crude to their design specs.
    1
  1971. I believe Gotland is a more likely taget then Poland or the Baltic countries. From there Russia would have control over the Baltics and eastern Baltic sea, and at the same time the target is politically and geographically easier to capture and hold.
    1
  1972. ​​ @mikeray6883 the problem is Site C being on the otherside of a mountain range. You may as well argue we have no issues with oil. We lack the ability to move power west to the coast..
    1
  1973. ​ @mr.battledroid2195  I agree with your comments on horses but disagree with your offhand remarks on drones, unless you specifically mean if it becomes autonomous it is no longer a "drone". But also, we may soon have drones that can reliably replace a horse in the roles you're referencing, which is for the best.
    1
  1974. ​ @lucaskywalkermusic7697 I agree with your comments on drones, and in particular the point about horses requiring bonding. But, hummers don't stop bullets, and the minority that are armoured certainly don't stop land mines. And they require daily maintenance.
    1
  1975. I've said it before, but I don't see the value in connecting BC to Manitoba. I think Manitoba - Sask and BC - Alberta fits the need perfectly at much lower cost.
    1
  1976. Peak oil is driven by EVs. EVs displace gasoline. This will disproportionately impact light and medium crude producers yielding heavy gasoline fractions. This advantages Bitumen, which has no necessary gasoline yields, and can be directly driven into heavy products like diesel and jet fuel and Base oils with much longer demand expectancy.
    1
  1977.  @jtjones4081  I really think discussion around quality is very vague. It's lower sulphur in many cases, so if sweet vs sour is the line maybe. But I certainly don't believe quality should be gauged on heavy or light blends.
    1
  1978. Its so sad none of this matters. Russia is seeing its highest loses a day, ans really all that will mater is if Trump or Harris win the election.
    1
  1979.  @davidedepaiva7104  but for how long and at what price?
    1
  1980. I think you missed an opportunity to discuss potential fisheries collapse with mangrove and coral destruction, increasing anoxic events amid rising ocean temperatures and acidity, increasef hydro dam construction, and over fishing. Fish represent the majority of protein in the developing world and this would trigger crisis.
    1
  1981. Not really. It's like getting a mortgage for a house. If the debt is for a growth, then it's easy to pay back.
    1
  1982. We all experience life in our own personal hallucinations informed as best as it can be by interpretations of light and pressure waves.
    1
  1983. I absolutely agree around the future of oil, but there is reason the oil companies are not concerned. Of the 100M bbl/d on the Global market, some 20M come out of the Arab person gulf petrostates, and 25M if you include Iran. Long term oil demand decline will end OPECs ability to monopolize prices, and prices will fall; or else OPEC will flood the market and push low prices to try and keep EVs out as they did to Nuclear in the 80s. If the petro states have no revenue, they won't remain stable long, and production will fall off a clift. They, and the US shale producers at 10M bbls, will be the first barrels out of the market. The large multinationals have reason to believe they will be long term operators.
    1
  1984. ​​ @jimthain8777 the market for fuel is definitely shrinking, but even Markham puts it at 50% of current levels in 30 years. Thats 10x the size of the Canadian production. And that will mean low prices and less money from oil. But my point is, in that environment, the oilsands can and have to expand to survive. The regional Midwest market will shrink faster than the global, and expansion lowers per barrel marginal cost. long term materials are important, but iver next next decade thier survival depends on west coast access.
    1
  1985.  @drstevej2527  I would ask you stop characterizing these claims as being certain ethinic groups thriving in certain areas. The claim is clearly that certain Neotropical diseases thrive in certain climates, and that some ethnic groups have genetic immunity to those disease. I will start reporting your comments if you keep adding an unsupported racial screw to the conversation when the genuine claim has been repeated made clear.
    1
  1986.  @samuelmorales2344  The parasites that cause malaria don't though. The point isn't mosquitoes its mosquitoes as a vector for disease.
    1
  1987.  @samuelmorales2344  I'm certainly not stating there is no cultural element, simply that there is an environmental element that was ignored. Culture is transmitted, but it needs a population to be transmitted to, and as some populations are more susceptible to certain factors that effects the culture that is transmitted. Not clear on the argument that uneducated=pro slavery. Thomas Jefferson wasn't known for his poor quality of writting. Also not clear on how greek style architecture proves that southern society is purely a reault of Scottish culture. Any way, feel free to disagree. I cited a peer reviewed study, so get publishing I guess. In the mean time I am going to accept the occurrence of a series of diseases that African populations are specifically immune to and the correlation of using these populations specifically and with preference as a forced labour source as a logical causation.
    1
  1988.  @drstevej2527  I mean yes. It's a place where people "comment". Not a place where people conduct research.That would be a peer reviewed journal. Which, of course as a courtesy, I did cite.
    1
  1989.  @samuelmorales2344  Malaria was common in the southern USA until eradication efforts eliminated in the early 1950s.
    1
  1990. Idk if you've changed your advertisement policy but im getting 30 seconds of ads every 5 min, bordline unwatchable
    1
  1991.  @billpetersen298  it's important to understand why China is building coal though. In part it's politics around regional vs central governments, but mainly it's because China doesn't have access to a lot of NG. Coal is used balance the grid in the same way the US uses NG. But China is building an enormous amount of solar and wind, and storage. Now, storage is largely only a few hours, but coal will soon be relegated to mainly serving overnight demand. China builds coal plants, but it also closes coal plants, and the new plants are generally larger and much more efficient, so while you may have more coal capacity, you aren't necessarily building more coal. Actual coal demand in the second half of this year is expected to be lower than the second half of 2023, because the drought in the South seems to have ended bringing hydro back on line. All of that is to say, yes, China still burns coal. But coal consumption has only seen increases in the last few years due to drought, and even then relatively small increases. Actual consumption will likely drop over the next few years quite rapidly because of the solar and storage build out.
    1
  1992. Republicans didn't really, over half voted against it. Speaker Johnson changed how mind, seemingly after getting a briefing that Russia was on the brink of victory. More interesting is why did Trump change, and that's probably voter influence.
    1
  1993.  @tommygun5038  I understand the position, and I'd even go so far as to reject the mainstream opinion that the two aren't at all joined as much of the material (Humvees, MRAPs, small arms, surveillance drones), though not all (Shells, Anti aircraft , armoured vehicles) could be directed to the border - although whether the south of Texas actually wants US surveillance drones overhead their property is questionable. The issue is that you allowed the Ukrainian front to nearly collapse, the military be to severely degraded, and American defense ties to Europe weakened. And frankly, that's a very high cost to take seriously for a political manoeuvre that failed when Texas, the state feeling the majority of the migrant crisis, sees the second highest GDP growth in the country. Particularly when such a bill was passed on the Senate and rejected by Republicans in the house.
    1
  1994.  @mikeb5664  it doesn't really matter if it's 25¢. Suncor puts its Mining operations operating cost at $33.4/bbl, and base plant upgrading operating cost at $25.75/bbl. That's a combined cost of $59.15 dollars. And that's after cutting combined cost almost $15 yoy. And that's just the operating cost. WTI is trading at $59.55 today, it was below $58 yesterday. Before any carbon price, it is under threat of going offline. Syncrude is maybe the most expensive barrel in the world. And if we export the raw Bitumen, it will still be upgraded in the US and release emissions. And for the love of God, don't give me some nonsense about well if it isn't economic I guess it should go off line. Do you want the government taking over the tailponds when Syncrude declares bankruptcy? Do you want to bail out RBC for being over extended? Do you want thousands of people losing their jobs and going on unemployment and Fort McMurray turning into a ghost town and losing all home wealth? This isn't a gas station this is the basis of a regional economy, we don't have to sit back and watch it fail, we certainly don't have to increase its costs. -source of costs: Oil sands magazine, Bigger Trucker, Record Upgrader Utilization Nov 13th 2024.
    1
  1995. @mikeb5664  it doesn't really matter if it's 25¢. Suncor puts its Mining operations at $33.4/bbl, and base plant upgrading at $25.75/bbl. That's a combined cost of $59.15 dollars. And that's after cutting combined cost almost $15 yoy. And that's just the operating cost. WTI is trading at $59.55 today, it was below $58 yesterday. Before any carbon price, it is under threat of going offline. Syncrude is maybe the most expensive barrel in the world. And if we export the raw Bitumen, it will still be upgraded in the US and release emissions. And for the love of God, don't give me some nonsense about well if it isn't economic I guess it should go off line. Do you want the government taking over the tailponds when Syncrude declares bankruptcy? Do you want to bail out RBC for being over extended? Do you want thousands of people losing their jobs and going on unemployment and Fort McMurray turning into a ghost town and losing all home wealth? This isn't a gas station this is the basis of a regional economy, we don't have to sit back and watch it fail, we certainly don't have to increase its costs. -source of costs: Oil sands magazine, Bigger Trucker, Record Upgrader Utilization Nov 13th 2024.
    1
  1996. ​ @stephenoneill245 I think you are in aggressive agreement
    1
  1997.  @drovoseg  lol fair enough, and I'm not here to plug Russia, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'd rather hold Congo than Russian today. With the whole Rwandan thing brewing... But idk the African country these people are from
    1
  1998.  @markrichards6863  no one is saying the Ruble is a strong currency. I'm just agreeing with Paul that it makes sense for these African labourers to want it.
    1
  1999. 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
  2000. It's entirely fair to be upset with Liberals lack of pipelines, but at the same time Alberta has done nothing but smack its head against this wall and no province we be as negatively impacted as Alberta if these tariffs hit.
    1
  2001.  @seventyfive7597  Egypt and Israel had just joined an agreement to develop the Gaza Marine feild, that is what I'm referencing. I'm not referring to safety concerns in Egypt as new, the tourism comment was Covid related. I am referring to the surrounding conflicts as hurting trade and foreign investment, as well as creating refugee issues.
    1
  2002.  @Mark-uh3un  ya ya, what we learned from China is that good happy peaceful democracies decided how many children you have and those policies never destroy your economy in a few decades.
    1
  2003.  @seventyfive7597  again, in referencing the Gaza Marine fields Egypt was expecting to begin development on.
    1
  2004.  @m.streicher8286  well, it is when the flooding that makes it productive is at risk because Ethiopia built a dam.
    1
  2005.  @DAT240Z72  shale from the Permian is like half of US output.
    1
  2006.  @therighteousrighthand  this has been a problem with our politics since NAFTA. If one party can offer more growth, it's going to win, because the electorate didn't see the threat to the south. it's the same reason we don't spend on a military or have conscription.
    1
  2007. @therighteousrighthand  well that isn't necessarily true. Saudi Arabia is obviously an export economy. Russia, Brazil, Venezuela was. The Auto point I think is arguably the opposite. It was used as a way to gain much wider access to the US, and has been our only manufacturing industry to really survive. I think Space and Arms as an industry is a difficult selling point. Both are really just government funded. You may drive some innovation through it, but we are a very small economy and population relative to India or China or the US. Even France with nearly twice the population struggles to have a domestic military that is modern, and long ago gave up an independent space program. That isn't to say we couldn't have more of a military Industrial complex. But these are not things that drive an economy to success unless we are aiming to be a global arms supplier. Although, I do think we could pull German investment for artillery manufacturing to help supply Ukraine..
    1
  2008.  @Alvin-my6wj  Well Canada exports largely the imports to manufactured goods. So we could have a very symbiotic relationship with China if we chose, like a wheat farmer selling to a flour mill. Similar to Australias.
    1
  2009.  @therighteousrighthand  I mean for Auto, we have a small population, historical lly smaller. Like 10 years ago we had maybe 80% the population we have today. A country that small isn't going to have a successful auto industry, either it's protected and so ultimately not very good, or needs access to other market to sell which means other countries will want access in return. Southern Ontario makes parts for cars sold all over the US. That's nearly a 400 million person market when you include us. The economies of scale are very preventative. For space, that's a 60 year investment the US has made that is only just starting to pay off in a way none of the legacy players anticipated or will likely survive. I think we should probably team with the UK and try to develop SKYLON. That could be a competitor. But I don't think it's fair to say we should have been advancing a space industry for the past 30 years. Maybe the last 10 we could have started. Remember, all those innovations were funded by a population 10x the size of our own. Very expensive.
    1
  2010.  @therighteousrighthand  Sweden is a very unusual case, and even they are now partnering internationally for their next generation fighters. And, along with all the big players, we would also be competing against Sweden. In many ways I would prefer to work with Sweden and buy their products than attempt to enter an industry they are struggling in. But I certainly agree with the rest. I just don't agree with your industries. Halifax, Either Vancouver or Prince Rupert, and Southern Ontario should all house massive food processing industries to value add to the enormous amount of food we export raw and in bulk. We need to start allowing mining again. I'm the a cut the red tape type problem solver, and there is lots of other things we should do, but in the case of mining cutting tape is a must do. All the EV manufacturing and batteries were premised on us having the supply chain to keep costs low. Without that, our only advantage was access to the US market. Maybe we can do well in the battery market, and that the main thing for EVs, if we have the supply chains. But I'm not going to support EVs if we aren't creating the inputs. We need to build some pipelines to the West Coast. An east coast pipeline is fine, good for economic security, and we might be able to get Europe to invest in it if they feel the US is unreliable. But we should have massive petrochemical facilities on the West. It's import to understand we don't have all that much oil, we have bitumen it's as different as NG from oil, and the advantage here is that Oil is going to be hurt by EVs kicking out demand for gasoline. Bitumen doesn't have that problem, we can turn it all to diesel, or jet fuel. Or non combustion uses like Asphalt or lubricants or even carbon fiber. And we can have a dominant position in Asia with that. Along with that I'm pretty pro Hydrogen investment. It's unlikely to be relevant for energy, but we can use it in our fertilizer industry, we can use it to upgrade that bitumen to other products, we can use it in industry for heating. And also SMRs, we should be ripping out the boilers in the Oilsands and using nuclear for the steam generation. Likewise for the petrochemical clusters or other industrial clusters or upgraders. In terms of Industry/manufacturing, I'll take whatever the Europeans will invest in us, wether it's artillery or hydrogen/ammonia or an LNG pipeline. If they pay I'm in, the east coast has always been an economic weakness. If I'm using government money, I'll support wind turbines (particularly in NF), mining equipment, and maybe heat pumps and solar cells. Things we need domestically at scale for either cost of living and lowering consumer energy costs or for powering industry, and can find large export markets particularly in Latin America. And I'm okay to throw some money at Additive manufacturing/3D printing random consumer junk but I don't expect it to stick. Last point, agricultural. 3 pillars and 2 add on. 1) we should be trying to pull in Dutch farmers finding land to expensive in the Netherlands to come to southern Ontario and the two food hubs and putting money into a massive greenhouse industry, and building those greenhouses. 2) we should be trying to turn the tundra into a massive grazing land for cattle and some additional animals, domestic muskox for wool and bringing in some Fins for Caribou. 3) we should be subsidizing kelp farming on the east coast to drive employment, increase fish stocks, and use it as biomass for fertilizer, Biogas, and chemicals. And 2 less large scale, creating more markets for berries from the North, and trying to bring in some American farmers from Wisconsin/Minnesota who have been priced out to develop Ontario's sand belt for wheat.
    1
  2011. @therighteousrighthand  Sweden is a very unusual case, and even they are now partnering internationally for their next generation fighters. And, along with all the big players, we would also be competing against Sweden. In many ways I would prefer to work with Sweden and buy their products than attempt to enter an industry they are struggling in. But I certainly agree with the rest. I just don't agree with your industries. Halifax, Either Vancouver or Prince Rupert, and Southern Ontario should all house massive food processing industries to value add to the enormous amount of food we export raw and in bulk. We need to start allowing mining again. I'm the a cut the red tape type problem solver, and there is lots of other things we should do, but in the case of mining cutting tape is a must do. All the EV manufacturing and batteries were premised on us having the supply chain to keep costs low. Without that, our only advantage was access to the US market. Maybe we can do well in the battery market, and that the main thing for EVs, if we have the supply chains. But I'm not going to support EVs if we aren't creating the inputs. We need to build some pipelines to the West Coast. An east coast pipeline is fine, good for economic security, and we might be able to get Europe to invest in it if they feel the US is unreliable. But we should have massive petrochemical facilities on the West. It's import to understand we don't have all that much oil, we have bitumen it's as different as NG from oil, and the advantage here is that Oil is going to be hurt by EVs kicking out demand for gasoline. Bitumen doesn't have that problem, we can turn it all to diesel, or jet fuel. Or non combustion uses like Asphalt or lubricants or even carbon fiber. And we can have a dominant position in Asia with that. Along with that I'm pretty pro Hydrogen investment. It's unlikely to be relevant for energy, but we can use it in our fertilizer industry, we can use it to upgrade that bitumen to other products, we can use it in industry for heating. And also SMRs, we should be ripping out the boilers in the Oilsands and using nuclear for the steam generation. Likewise for the petrochemical clusters or other industrial clusters or upgraders. In terms of Industry/manufacturing, I'll take whatever the Europeans will invest in us, wether it's artillery or hydrogen/ammonia or an LNG pipeline. If they pay I'm in, the east coast has always been an economic weakness. If I'm using government money, I'll support wind turbines (particularly in NF), mining equipment, and maybe heat pumps and solar cells. Things we need domestically at scale for either cost of living and lowering consumer energy costs or for powering industry, and can find large export markets particularly in Latin America. And I'm okay to throw some money at Additive manufacturing/3D printing random consumer junk but I don't expect it to stick. Last point, agricultural. 3 pillars and 2 add on. 1) we should be trying to pull in Dutch farmers finding land to expensive in the Netherlands to come to southern Ontario and the two food hubs and putting money into a massive greenhouse industry, and building those greenhouses. 2) we should be trying to turn the tundra into a massive grazing land for cattle and some additional animals, domestic muskox for wool and bringing in some Fins for Caribou. 3) we should be subsidizing kelp farming on the east coast to drive employment, increase fish stocks, and use it as biomass for fertilizer, Biogas, and chemicals. And 2 less large scale, creating more markets for berries from the North, and trying to bring in some American farmers from Wisconsin/Minnesota who have been priced out to develop Ontario's sand belt for wheat..
    1
  2012. @therighteousrighthand  Sweden is a very unusual case, and even they are now partnering internationally for their next generation fighters. And, along with all the big players, we would also be competing against Sweden. In many ways I would prefer to work with Sweden and buy their products than attempt to enter an industry they are struggling in. But I certainly agree with the rest. I just don't agree with your industries. Sorry I had to break up this to see why it wouldn't post
    1
  2013. Probably the Eastiest thing we should be doing is in food manufacturing. It's relatively low tech , hihh employment, and high value adding. Halifax, Either Vancouver or Prince Rupert, and Southern Ontario should all house massive food processing industries to value add to the enormous amount of food we export raw and in bulk.
    1
  2014. agricultural. 3 pillars and 2 add on. 1) we should be trying to pull in Dutch farmers finding land to expensive in the Netherlands to come to southern Ontario and the two food hubs and putting money into a massive greenhouse industry, and building those greenhouses. 2) we should be trying to turn the tundra into a massive grazing land for cattle and some additional animals, domestic muskox for wool and bringing in some Fins for Caribou. 3) we should be subsidizing kelp farming on the east coast to drive employment, increase fish stocks, and use it as biomass for fertilizer, Biogas, and chemicals. And 2 less large scale, creating more markets for berries from the North, and trying to bring in some American farmers from Wisconsin/Minnesota who have been priced out to develop Ontario's sand belt for wheat.
    1
  2015. We need to start allowing mining again. I'm the a cut the red tape type problem solver, and there is lots of other things we should do, but in the case of mining cutting tape is a must do. All the EV manufacturing and batteries were premised on us having the supply chain to keep costs low. Without that, our only advantage was access to the US market. Maybe we can do well in the battery market, and that the main thing for EVs, if we have the supply chains. But I'm not going to support EVs if we aren't creating the inputs.
    1
  2016. We need to build some pipelines to the West Coast. An east coast pipeline is fine, good for economic security, and we might be able to get Europe to invest in it if they feel the US is unreliable. But we should have massive petrochemical facilities on the West. It's import to understand we don't have all that much oil, we have bitumen it's as different as NG from oil, and the advantage here is that Oil is going to be hurt by EVs kicking out demand for gasoline. Bitumen doesn't have that problem, we can turn it all to diesel, or jet fuel. Or non combustion uses like Asphalt or lubricants or even carbon fiber. And we can have a dominant position in Asia with that.
    1
  2017. Along with that I'm pretty pro Hydrogen investment. It's unlikely to be relevant for energy, but we can use it in our fertilizer industry, we can use it to upgrade that bitumen to other products, we can use it in industry for heating. And also SMRs, we should be ripping out the boilers in the Oilsands and using nuclear for the steam generation. Likewise for the petrochemical clusters or other industrial clusters or upgraders.
    1
  2018. In terms of Industry/manufacturing, I'll take whatever the Europeans will invest in us, wether it's artillery or hydrogen/ammonia or an LNG pipeline. If they pay I'm in, the east coast has always been an economic weakness.
    1
  2019. If I'm using government money, I'll support wind turbines (particularly in NF), mining equipment, and maybe heat pumps and solar cells. Things we need domestically at scale for either cost of living and lowering consumer energy costs or for powering industry, and can find large export markets particularly in Latin America. And I'm okay to throw some money at Additive manufacturing/3D printing random consumer junk but I don't expect it to stick
    1
  2020. Incredible, to think a Canada can have 260 days (No typo im making fun of you accent) (Also I love your work)
    1
  2021. Congratulations on damming your rivers and poisoning the Native peoples. I mean I have nothing against Quebec or using your cheap electricity, but whats the flex?
    1
  2022. ​​​ @Michaelme-de8zz eventually yes. That is the point, to develop an industry that both acts as a long term export and low cost energy advantage, while also creating new long term markets for oilsands operators to switch to selling energy in the long run. But in the short run 1)because of the same reason we burn NG, a positive EROI. Using it to produce Bitumen returns more energy than it consumes, something like 5x as much 2) Nuclear is more efficient for thermal energy than electrical due to conversion loss, of at least 40%, so we'll say it's twice as efficient as producing steam than we are electricity. 3) the products you make from bitumen - heavy RPPs like diesel and jet fuel, Base oils, Asphalt - are very difficult to replace and will take much longer than gasoline. However, they are also very energy intensive and difficult to make with other methods. It easily requires 5x the energy you get out of the process to turn CO2 into long chain Hydrocarbons. So the usefulness of trying to extract bitumen is like 50x higher than corresponding electrical generation to produce liquid fuels. And 10x more efficient than electricity for direct use, and 25x more effective than directly producing fuels without converting to electricity. There aren't that many demand centers the require an SMR, but the oil sands represents an enormous amount of them. That is after all why they are such high emitters currently. and of course we should do Sask Coal plants and possibly Canada LNG at the same time. But the oil sands represents an industry wide customer with long term investment horizons. And SMRs only work with bulk customers and large scale production. It's an ideal Combustion to commercialize. And the fact it will give an industry with $100s of billions in liabilities the opportunity to address them without a financial crisis id say is a major benefit as well. And of course once commercialized and large scale lowers production prices, new uses quickly appear such as electrical generation or Thermal conversion to Hydrogen or powering off grid communities or mines. But because we have a very large existing oil sector that is at risk of competitiveness, because SMRs provide such a disproportionate advantage to that sector than other uses, and because it allows us to deploy the SMRs locally while generating exports, this is a clear pathway forward.
    1
  2023. ​​ @Michaelme-de8zz Your reply isn't appearing undermine, but I'm response; I absolutely agree with the quick oil decline pathway being the most likely. I think EVs will rapidly reduce demand for gasoline. However, that will disproportionately advantage the oilsands and punish Light and medium producers. Bitumen is not oil any more than Natural Gas is, much as NG is the light Hydrocarbons that act as a gas, Bitumen is the heavy Hydrocarbons that are a solid. Because of this, bitumen can be selectively upgraded into specific products. Namely Diesel and Jet fuel, for which not only will there be a much longer demand horizon, but which conventional producers and refiners will struggle to provide due to the high gasoline fraction inherent to their oil. Refineries will not want medium crudes. Even heavy conventional crudes have a gasoline fraction which will be less desirable - although the ratio of heavier RPPs is much better. Bitumen can be converted almost entirely to certain products, Sturgeon Falls upgrades a barrel of bitumen almost 80% to diesel. I don't agree other producers can operate at significantly lower costs, and I would argue that in the medium and long run the WTI premium will reverse. We already see Albian heavy synthetic (an upgraded, bottlemless heavy synthetic oil) and Western Access Blend (a DilBit) trading above WTI. So I don't believe we will have very much issue finding markets. Particularly if SMRs are providing the heat for steam, the main cost of SAGD operations is the NG consumption. In the longer run, we do need to be building things like asphalt refineries and Carbon Fiber, and specializing in areas like Base Oil/Lubricants. And as I said, we should be pushing investment into Upgraders to use as Diluent or sell directly as Heavy SCOs. And, of course those refineries should use nuclear heat, and of course they should use green Hydrogen in upgrading. And longer term, they should look increasingly at Biomass and CO2 inputs. But please consider the cost of allowing the oilsands to fail. The cost of the tailings ponds if the companies declare bankruptcy and abandon them, the impact on the financial system (banks, pensions) when they default on debt, and the cost of the Alberta economy collapsing. Both the economic, and social/political costs. This industry needs to be rebuilt, and we do have a very short time period to do so. But we have several decades in which we can dominate the market for heavy RPPs as EVs make conventional oil producers struggle enormous quantities of gasoline no one wants. If we encourage investment, and not stifle it, we can use it to both fund the future and bring it into the future. If we don't, it will cost us enormously for absolutely nothing in return..
    1
  2024. ​ @Michaelme-de8zz Your reply isn't appearing undermine, but I'm response; I absolutely agree with the quick oil decline pathway being the most likely. I think EVs will rapidly reduce demand for gasoline. However, that will disproportionately advantage the oilsands and punish Light and medium producers. Bitumen is not oil any more than Natural Gas is, much as NG is the light Hydrocarbons that act as a gas, Bitumen is the heavy Hydrocarbons that are a solid.  Because of this, bitumen can be selectively upgraded into specific products. Namely Diesel and Jet fuel, for which not only will there be a much longer demand horizon, but which conventional producers and refiners will struggle to provide due to the high gasoline fraction inherent to their oil. Refineries will not want medium crudes. Even heavy conventional crudes have a gasoline fraction which will be less desirable - although the ratio of heavier RPPs is much better. Bitumen can be converted almost entirely to certain products, Sturgeon Falls upgrades a barrel of bitumen almost 80% to diesel.  I don't agree other producers can operate at significantly lower costs, and I would argue that in the medium and long run the WTI premium will reverse. We already see Albian heavy synthetic (an upgraded, bottlemless heavy synthetic oil) and Western Access Blend (a DilBit) trading above WTI. So I don't believe we will have very much issue finding markets. Particularly if SMRs are providing the heat for steam, the main cost of SAGD operations is the NG consumption.  In the longer run, we do need to be building things like asphalt refineries and Carbon Fiber, and specializing in areas like Base Oil/Lubricants. And as I said, we should be pushing investment into Upgraders to use as Diluent or sell directly as Heavy SCOs. And, of course those refineries should use nuclear heat, and of course they should use green Hydrogen in upgrading. And longer term, they should look increasingly at Biomass and CO2 inputs.  But please consider the cost of allowing the oilsands to fail. The cost of the tailings ponds if the companies declare bankruptcy and abandon them, the impact on the financial system (banks, pensions) when they default on debt, and the cost of the Alberta economy collapsing. Both the economic, and social/political costs. This industry needs to be rebuilt, and we do have a very short time period to do so. But we have several decades in which we can dominate the market for heavy RPPs as EVs make conventional oil producers struggle enormous quantities of gasoline no one wants. If we encourage investment, and not stifle it, we can use it to both fund the future and bring it into the future. If we don't, it will cost us enormously for absolutely nothing in return.
    1
  2025. ​ @Michaelme-de8zz i could not see your reply, do you see mine?
    1
  2026. Your reply isn't appearing undermine, but I'm response; I absolutely agree with the quick oil decline pathway being the most likely. I think EVs will rapidly reduce demand for gasoline. However, that will disproportionately advantage the oilsands and punish Light and medium producers. Bitumen is not oil any more than Natural Gas is, much as NG is the light Hydrocarbons that act as a gas, Bitumen is the heavy Hydrocarbons that are a solid. Because of this, bitumen can be selectively upgraded into specific products. Namely Diesel and Jet fuel, for which not only will there be a much longer demand horizon, but which conventional producers and refiners will struggle to provide due to the high gasoline fraction inherent to their oil. Refineries will not want medium crudes. Even heavy conventional crudes have a gasoline fraction which will be less desirable - although the ratio of heavier RPPs is much better. Bitumen can be converted almost entirely to certain products, Sturgeon Falls upgrades a barrel of bitumen almost 80% to diesel. I don't agree other producers can operate at significantly lower costs, and I would argue that in the medium and long run the WTI premium will reverse. We already see Albian heavy synthetic (an upgraded, bottlemless heavy synthetic oil) and Western Access Blend (a DilBit) trading above WTI. So I don't believe we will have very much issue finding markets. Particularly if SMRs are providing the heat for steam, the main cost of SAGD operations is the NG consumption. In the longer run, we do need to be building things like asphalt refineries and Carbon Fiber, and specializing in areas like Base Oil/Lubricants. And as I said, we should be pushing investment into Upgraders to use as Diluent or sell directly as Heavy SCOs. And, of course those refineries should use nuclear heat, and of course they should use green Hydrogen in upgrading. And longer term, they should look increasingly at Biomass and CO2 inputs. But please consider the cost of allowing the oilsands to fail. The cost of the tailings ponds if the companies declare bankruptcy and abandon them, the impact on the financial system (banks, pensions) when they default on debt, and the cost of the Alberta economy collapsing. Both the economic, and social/political costs. This industry needs to be rebuilt, and we do have a very short time period to do so. But we have several decades in which we can dominate the market for heavy RPPs as EVs make conventional oil producers struggle enormous quantities of gasoline no one wants. If we encourage investment, and not stifle it, we can use it to both fund the future and bring it into the future. If we don't, it will cost us enormously for absolutely nothing in return.
    1
  2027.  @mikeb5664  yes but they are both major oil importers. Japan has all but if ignored EVs. I'm sure they would each be willing to put money into an investment that gives them a little more supplier security in exchange for assurance of major long term server sales. We could probably get a FAB out of it too. And in exchange we provide the world with low cost clear computing.
    1
  2028.  @mikeb5664  yes, although I was thinking to diversify oil sales
    1
  2029. ​ @wheel-man5319 this is like claiming I'm abusing regular Walmart shoppers if I pop in irregularity.
    1
  2030.  @quasa0  Any Idea which? I've watched a lot of them but only over the last month, defininely missed a few.
    1
  2031.  @quasa0  Ya I saw that one. That seemed more about how fasting makes you uncomfortable, or screws up your hormone ques, and interferes with sleep. I'm more curious about the opposite, how brain chemistry changes under both ketosis and sleep deprivation, or how it might influence general body metabolism. So less "ketosis effects sleep like this" and more "not sleeping effects ketosis like that". Definitely after a work out, I used to right down any new words throughout the day and look up definitions after sets and that worked well. I've definitely felt more focused after some alcohol...
    1
  2032. In regards to China drivving the energy Transition, 100%. The most upside argument against electrification is "China burns coal". Wtf cares. We need to avoid allowing China to dominate advanced technology, they will end up with the lowest cost Production and energy, pull back imports if coal and oil, and leave Canada and Australia becoming net importers and reliant on China for energy
    1
  2033. Does the 500 million Israel spent on air defense include Allied/US support?
    1
  2034.  @TimBee100  Let's hope. VW is keeping its mouth shut about its new plant with tariffs, the NordVolt went bankrupt a month ago. But certainly we are in a position to have battery manufacturers. What's really missing is refining.
    1
  2035. Newfoundland should also work with iceland on their seabed geothermal drilling project, because ocean crust is much thinner and you can reach magma.
    1
  2036.  @subirnath4229  it's probably mid tier. I don't cook with it, the part that gives mustard "spice" is a mild allergen for some people and causes inflammation for most people. I know you can run mustard oil on skin to increase blood flow. On the other hand I've heard it's cancer fighting. Overall it's a good Omega 3/6 balance, and largely monostaturated, but the monostaturated fat isn't oleic acid, and in rat studies has been found toxic, but it's probably ~fine for humans.
    1
  2037.  @subirnath4229  actually reading more about Erucic acid which is most of mustard oil, it doesn't seem good for you at all
    1
  2038. Ya but if the US goes to war with China you don't want to realize you were using Chinese shippong
    1
  2039. "Well, what kind of American are you"
    1
  2040. ​ @wgowshipping as you pointed out, they made several simple mistakes (Alaska, missing the word National) and that showed a general trend of sloppiness that you implied would affect their ability to create credible policy. That implication borders on a more general statement about their competence, which is probably what's meant.
    1
  2041. ​ @FrankUxbridge that's a little melodramatic, I think.
    1
  2042. There are also the office jobs people don't think about that can't work from home and will lost; custodians, security, cleaning crews. Typically workers who were more vulnerable to begin with. I'm not suggesting that should be used to force people into the office but it should be noted.
    1
  2043. ​ @aamiradam5879 This is correct, the issue in North Africa is Arab nationalism under the guise of islam
    1
  2044.  @nisrmasry2134  unlike you and your whataboutism, I wasn't comparing anything, I was talking about Sudan. And frankly the only only difference here is Arab expansion didn't spread new diseases.
    1
  2045. American WTI was already selling below brent because it is exported and used for Petrochemical feed stock being so light. It will be interesting to see how coupled the Shale producer sales prices are to brent, and brent oil is used most heavily for energy markets.
    1
  2046.  @DawnaNella  I strongly disagree. With the orange man in office to the south, I think it's very dangerous to let this ferment.
    1
  2047. You're crazy if you think it's about Propaganda. It's about keeping land in Russia so that Putin refuses a ceasefire and Trump keeps arming Ukraine.
    1
  2048. ​​​ @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
  2049. @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
  2050. @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
  2051. 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
  2052. @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
  2053. 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
  2054. ​ @bipl8989 what does that mean. Coking capacity? Or total capacity of refineries with cokers?
    1
  2055. ​ @bipl8989 Is that the coking capacity or the capacity of refineries with coker?
    1
  2056. ​ @Michaelme-de8zz I don't believe it is? Can you name the heading I see nothing about global refinery capacity by grade
    1
  2057. ​ @bipl8989 coking or total capacity of the refineries?
    1
  2058. ​ @bipl8989 if DilBit is 30% Diluent and 20% asphaltenes, does 10M cover the capacity to process DilBit, just the Bitumen fraction, or just the asphaltene fraction? Is this a measure of coking capacity, or of capacity of refineries with cokers?
    1
  2059. ​ @bipl8989 Oil Sands magazine has a break down of US refineries with the largest coking capacity. Even the Midwest refineries we know take 70% or more as DilBit, don't usually have 50% the coking capacity to refining. So I would like clarity on what that 10M represents and how growth specifically out of the oilsands interacts with that.
    1
  2060. ​ @bipl8989 Oilsands magazine has an article on the US regineries with Coking capacity, none have even a third the coking capacity they do refinining. And Friends of the Earth did a review years ago listing many refineries in europe as able to accept Oilsands crude. I'm wondering if this is what Markham means by Marginal and not Competitive barrels in many markets, refineries can't run on high levels but do desire low levels. Based on what I have read able Partial Upgrading, I believe its the asphaltenes that are really the focus the 10M bbl/d limitation. Which implies 2M bbl/d to Asia really only requires 500k bbl/d of ultra heavy processing capacity.
    1
  2061. @bipl8989 Oilsands magazine has an article on the US regineries with Coking capacity, none have even a third the coking capacity they do refinining. And Friends of the Earth did a review years ago listing many refineries in europe as able to accept Oilsands crude. I'm wondering if this is what Markham means by Marginal and not Competitive barrels in many markets, refineries can't run on high levels but do desire low levels. Based on what I have read able Partial Upgrading, I believe its the asphaltenes that are really the focus the 10M bbl/d limitation. Which implies 2M bbl/d to Asia really only requires 500k bbl/d of ultra heavy processing capacity.
    1
  2062. ​​ @karatsurba4791 this completely ignores our existing exposure to the industry. But the same partial upgrading that adds pipeline capacity makes it possible to sell to any refinery. Like I said, OPEC won't let prices get to low. And if OPEC stops existing, several oil producing countries will follow. But even failing that, we sell into the ultra heavy crude market. That may not be the biggest portion, but it is one with little competition.
    1
  2063. ​ @cinnybear9 what do you mean?
    1
  2064. ​​​ @cinnybear9 sure, and that is a travesty. But it doesn't change that heavy oil will remain in demand indefinitely, and that EVs will displace light and medium crudes over the next 30 years. But we certainly should build this industry of refining, petrochemicals, and manufacturing domestically, both in Alberta and Prince Rupert, and also Ontario and the east coast. Carbon Fiber on the north west coast could drive an Offshore giant turbine wind industry. Partial upgrading in Alberta could produce asphalt and ensure oil can be refined at any refinery. But failing this, I'll take a pipeline.
    1
  2065.  @ryuuguu01  ya but I am also not talking about North American cars. The Bajaj Quite is from India and under 3.5k. Suzuki and Tata also have very low price models aimed at the third world. Ultimately I agree, particularly with Sodium Ions that avoid resource scarcity issues, EVs will become the least expensive. But I would not understate OPECs ability to dump gasoline cheaply on the market. If we are still using Jet fuel, that's only 10% of a barrel of oil, and the 40% that is gasoline sized hydrocarbons have to go somewhere. OPEC ruined nuclear in the 1980s this way. I do think it will be successful at slowing the market growth of EVs in the developing world. Africa as a continent has a billion people and not even twice Canada's electrical capacity. China exported almost as much solar capacity last year, and if targeted, China can absolutely rapidly increase that capacity, but I don't know if EV charging is the highest priority usage for national governments when they can still import cheap gasoline. But again, in areas farther inland, I would say local solar panels and EVs will be more competitive than coast cities. I'm not trying to argue oil is going to beat EVs. But I think it would be fooling to ignore the impact of halving the oil price, particularly in regions of the world where electrical capacity is almost non-existent, to slow EV adoption and keep used ICE vehicles on the road for much longer.
    1
  2066. @ryuuguu01  ya but I am also not talking about North American cars. The Bajaj Quite is from India and under 3.5k. Suzuki and Tata also have very low price models aimed at the third world. Ultimately I agree, particularly with Sodium Ions that avoid resource scarcity issues, EVs will become the least expensive. But I would not understate OPECs ability to dump gasoline cheaply on the market. If we are still using Jet fuel, that's only 10% of a barrel of oil, and the 40% that is gasoline sized hydrocarbons have to go somewhere. OPEC ruined nuclear in the 1980s this way. I do think it will be successful at slowing the market growth of EVs in the developing world. Africa as a continent has a billion people and not even twice Canada's electrical capacity. China exported almost as much solar capacity last year, and if targeted, China can absolutely rapidly increase that capacity, but I don't know if EV charging is the highest priority usage for national governments when they can still import cheap gasoline. But again, in areas farther inland, I would say local solar panels and EVs will be more competitive than coast cities. I'm not trying to argue oil is going to beat EVs. But I think it would be fooling to ignore the impact of halving the oil price, particularly in regions of the world where electrical capacity is almost non-existent, to slow EV adoption and keep used ICE vehicles on the road for much longer.
    1
  2067.  @ryuuguu01  OPEC can and yes this going to destroy Alberta's economy. You have replied to me before while I argued we need more pipelines and this has always been my stance. WTI is at $58 today and was at $55 this week. At and below $55, Alberta recieves no royalties. We are on The verge of seeing a revenue and debt crisis in Alberta. And at the same time, $58 is below to production cost of the Upgrader + Mining operations. If oil prices remain low and we don't take action, Fort McMurray will collapses and 10s of thousands will be unemployed with houses worth nothing. We need to take action to support our industry or else we are going to see a national recession at the same time as dealing with the US, and Alberta will enter a multi year depression where it might lose something like 10% of it's GDP. .
    1
  2068.  @Inez-z2z  of course we traded more with California, it's closer and not across an Ocean, and one of the most over prices markets in the world. What's important is it isn't hostage to the US. We need to have at least as much of Alberta's oil depend on Canadian pipelines as they do the US. Right now we're like 1:4. Please imagine what the sentiment will be like if we're 2 years into an oil price crash caused by tariffs alongside a national d Recession. And agent Orange is on the news every night saying Alberta should just join. And after a million immigrants from internationally and the rest of Canada leave Alberta.
    1
  2069.  @dianemccarthy9331  I don't think so. Development east is generally easier that way because land claims are largely established. I don't think I've ever seen first Nations listed as one of the major issues in TransCanada, I'll have to look more into it
    1
  2070. @Inez-z2z  I disagree entirely. Unless Europe pays for LNG, I see no business case going east. TransCanada on the other hand is strategically important to ensure the east half of the country has access, and improves our balance of trade. And then if we decide to build it for 1M bbl/d we can negotiate with Europe to get some assurance of interest or payment to make it 2M, since doubling the size doesn't double cost. I agree Energy East is the least economically viable, but CP rail didn't do great in the books either, sometimes it's good to build infrastructure. And I think we can get a good deal with Europe to cover the expansion cost. I think the cost is quite mild in comparison to the political importance. However, most expansion should go toward Asia. We only need as much east as we need and Europe agrees to preferentially buy into the future and then there is no point.
    1
  2071.  @GM-id9nu  please consider the US government has been regularly saying there is a goal to annex Canada, and how the US has regularly interfered with democracies. And what the sentiment and population make up look like 2 years into a provincial recession. This should not be brushed aside.
    1
  2072. @Inez-z2z  Alberta has seen enormous growth of its chemical industry over the last 10 years. But Chemical inputs are all NGLs and other light fractions from fracking. It's almost entirely Seperate for the oil sands.. There has been development to Carbon Fiber, but it will be decades before we produce as much Carbon Fiber as we do Bitumen today. But, along with a Pipeline, I would like to see Refineries, and in particular refineries modeled on Sturgeon falls, on the coast maximizing diesel exports. EVs are displacing gasoline, but that's a fixed fraction of a barrel of oil, and so while gasoline prices fall diesel will go up, and gasoline will flood the market cheaply. If we can build pipelines to and refineries at the coast, we can push down diesel and jet fuel prices, and keep gasoline prices higher; A million barrels a day of Bitumen-to-diesel would mean taking 2 million barrels of gasoline of the market to produce the same amount of diesel. I'd also like to see more upgraders in Alberta in relation to an easy coast pipeline. Consider we can make multiple investments at once, also. And that there is elements of strategic necessity. Literally tomorrow Agent Orange could cut off half of Ontario's Oil by shutting down line 5 and leave it entirely dependent on US imports. I feel like people pay platitudes to Alberta should do more refining, but there really is no market, and they have a population to resource ratio that says they can get a lot more resources out of the ground than they can add value to.
    1
  2073. I believe we should be building a Northern Gateway and TransCanada pipeline. However, I agree entirely here, LNG has very limited economic potential. We are a very stable democracy, so there is a bit of a premium, and if Europe or Japan want to build a pipeline or lock in long-term contracts, that's awesome. But if you understand the industry, all the growth has been out of the US and Qatar. The US produce all LNG export, functionally, out of the Permian Basin, a few hundred km from Tidewater, over flat land with rather benign weather. Qatar sticks a straw in the ocean and has ships sail up. Canada has to build 1000km over a mountain range or 4000 km east, with extreme weather variations. We will never be a low enough cost producer. LNG isn't oil, there is no cartel keeping the price high. 2022 got a lot of attention, but within months LNG markets were back at the historic lows they entered the 2020s with. It just isn't a high profit activity, it's more like a normal commodity. Again, if people want to build a pipeline, it's no skin off my back. There will be demand for the next hundred years for LNG, even it it's all chemical input. But I can't imagine Canada being competitive. The only real exception is Quebec could develop its shale. I think that's unlikely.
    1
  2074. @ThatOpalGuy  it's not amusing at all, it's discrediting
    1
  2075.  @Metapharsical  your country is threatening and taking actions to deindustrialize my country and tank the economy and your government has provided absolutely no demands
    1
  2076.  @Metapharsical  I'm serious. I was excited to see Trump elected, I thought finally we would see growth in North America as we kick China out of the market. But instead China is facing a lower tariff than Canada, which is your 10th largest trade deficit. And almost all Canadian exports to the US are inputs, like a wheat farmer selling to a flour mill - our exports go into yours. Obviously we can't just buy yours, the whole problem is China stole all the consumer manufacturing. And it's being blamed on something new everyday. How is Canada supposed to negotiate with this? Honestly? How do we make a deal that isn't just deindustrializing us?
    1
  2077. Worth pointing out that workd leaders (including Biden) are pushing for return to work policies, which means more commuting and demand, which does actually increase the price.
    1
  2078.  @wally6193  I think the Japanese a incredibly devoted to being the best at things. I don't think they do a great job at innovating new things all together, tbh..
    1
  2079. Data centers are an excellent opportunity for us, I am glad you've started drawing attention to them. They have many advantages, our cheap hydro formost, but also our cool temperatures allowing winters to be almost free of cost (as most energy use is cooling the center) - more so if built with geothermal heating/cooling systems. They also allow anchor loads in remote areas where generatong potential is high, but market is distant. I think Labrador in particular should be called out here, as a perfect storm, since the Transatlantic fiber-optic cables run off Newfoundland. But Northern BC is great as well, and even Manitoba and Quebec have strong competitive advantages. I would add that if our policy is enormous expansion of data centers, and I think it should be, we can get something for that. Turning to the East Asian Economies, i think its very plausible for us to say "we'll buy $3 billion in servers a year from your country, if you provide an Investment of X in Canada. That might be Chip FABs, it might be a pipeline, whatever it is, we can leverage these large scale purposes, that are beneficial for us, to draw investment from those who want to make the sale. Policy wise, I figure we can either given the Telecom companies a boat load of cheap debt, and hope we bring phone prices down by making it a side business to data processing, or get the Provincial Hydro utilities to do it as a way to develop electrical exports, or both, both is good.
    1
  2080. I appreciate your pointing out the effect of malaria and ringworm in weakening tropical civilisation.
    1
  2081. Ford needs to run for the Liberal Leadership!
    1
  2082. @Black_Sun_Dark_Star China only owns like 2%, maybe another percent secretly in the Bahamas. Japan is something like 5%. I mean it's still a lot of money but I wouldn't say much of it.
    1
  2083. @Commie Monkey I don't disagree, and neither do they, but I think of all the countries which are officially Socialist it has been the most successful and has among the most interesting economic systems.
    1
  2084.  @tecumsehneo2174  Well, I guess, first of all, I don't. I mean, do I learn from YouTube? Sure. But not Geo politics or economics. So why do I care? That's a genuinely interesting question. I suppose it's because I know Vietnam to be an exceptionally well run country. I mean, it's not Western Europe, but given the massive war in the last 50 years, and the state of the government/society prior to that, the success in advancing the nation is rare, to say the least. At the same time (being North American) the extent to which a free market is indoctrinated as the only reasonable course is unsettling at times. I mean, I fully support using a market economy and allowing free enterprise, but I also hate paying taxes. So, examples of countries that are able to demonstrate high GDP growth, with government corperations displacing a portion of tax revenue AND Land value collection displacing another portion is very interesting. I would like the general public to know more about such a system. And to see that competently operated government intervention can push forward that growth. Because the upcoming signs of a recession scare me, and I am well aware the solution to "supply chain shortages" is investing in more supply, not hiking interest rates.
    1
  2085. @DRE_Talks I mean I don't know the creator that well, bur RIP
    1
  2086.  @tecumsehneo2174  I'm no linguist, but I do know some about China's ethic groups and certainly the geography and climate. I'm not trying to say the rise (resurrection) of china has not been impressive. But Vietnam has had at least a similar rise, without a equivalent jump in inequality (which is quite impressive considering it's political goals). And China has not been involved in an equivalent war; yes there was the century of humiliation but that wasn't as physically destructive as two world powers of the 1970s using your country as a battle ground. I will read that paper though.
    1
  2087.  @tecumsehneo2174  Again, I doubt I would learn to much from the video, it's really more about what other people learn. I am not trying to disparage China's economic success, but it does seem to have come at a greater political cost, particularly personal freedoms, than Vietnams. You can say the PRC is 70 years old, but as a nation its thousands of years old, and honestly I think its success is less impressive than the failure of the Ming Dynasty is disappointing. I do think its misleading to say Vietnam had the support of the Chinese/USSR and the Americans though. The support was for killing and buring down the other half of the country, respectively. And after the war, support from both countries was non existent.
    1
  2088.  @tecumsehneo2174  Uuuummmm... I didn't mean to say I could learn more from this channel, I literally only am saying a lot of people do learn from this channel. So I would appreciate if it covered certain topics. Also, the Korean war was brutal. Only half the country has really recovered. The Vietnamese war was brutal also, but, where the socialist half of Korea is disgusting, the socialist half of Vietnam is the entire, beautifully run country. Like it's not a crime against China (not that I would care) to suggest another country has done something better. So you don't have to defend China.
    1
  2089.  @tecumsehneo2174  I mean, even the people who escape tend to confirm the sad reality. And while escaping, they get shot at, which, I mean, even the Amish allow you to compare the two life styles. Cuba has been under sanctions for longer, and I think I would rather live there. In general, if you have to make the people believe you're a god for economic policy to work, I have my concerns. Certainly it's possible North Korea could be successful in a few decades, it would really only take competant management.
    1
  2090.  @thajemm4371  It's when you let people who like driving cars get all the subsidies they want.
    1
  2091. ​ @Willypeterson-qb9jc it probably is and should be. And it's demonstrated that Iran should be afraid as well.
    1
  2092.  @xyz-mx8iy  Well the reality, as unfortunate as it may be, is their opinion may matter, Biden is already at risk of losing Michigan to the Arab demographic.
    1
  2093.  @xyz-mx8iy  Ya you honestly could have copy and paste one of my other comments excluding the last line and the Qatar and Turkey point. But the reality still is these voters matter and have influence regardless of if it's a bad opinion. The reality of the US system and level of polarization is that you can win an election with just a few dozen counties. And the fact Biden courted students with acts like debt forgiveness means he was always going to be in bed with BS political takes (not that white supremisists Trump courts are better). But yes, In generally agree Biden has walked the right line between supporting Israel again Hamas and working to put out embers and stop the fire from spreading, and condemning Israel and working to provide aid. I agree Qatar should generally be condemned, and the reality I think is Qatar could attack labour at market rates if needed. But it is relevant to ask how quickly they would realign with Iran given severe sanctions, and they are currently an important neutral player in the region used to negotiate deals. As for Turkey, I'm concerned about them becoming their own power center with Central Asia, Iraq and Syria, Balkan Europe, and of course Azerbaijan just beat Armenia. And I would rather not see NATOs second biggest military (and only one in the region) break away right before Iran makes a big push for the region.
    1
  2094.  @pasdpasse439  exactly why you take a little bit every day instead
    1
  2095.  @pasdpasse439  it's not a one time trick if you are doing a little bit daily though. That's a full year of opportunity to salvage the remaining funds.
    1
  2096.  @HazyFace_  I'm sure people will instead invest in Rubles where the central bank is freezing assets or China where the CPP will own everything for you. Trump is already threatening 100% tariffs on countries that leave the dollar. And again, by doing this slowly, and years into a war against a country that has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons, I think by and large the risks are manageable.
    1
  2097.  @arturobianco848  it is true it would require European, and I think in particular Belgian, support to go in the long term. The US only has ~5 billion alone so not even a week. Perhaps a billion a week would be a better starting cadence and give a month to get Europe on border to speed things up. It would still make an extreme difference to Ukraine, and show Russia that the rest of the 300 is less safe every day. But Belgium isn't exactly a NATO contributor. Agreeing could be quite a significant bargaining chip in NATO negotiations.
    1
  2098. @luigimrlgaming9484 no they have started taking the interest the assets generate, but none of the Principal has been touched. I'm suggesting slowly taking from the principal.
    1
  2099. 9 months to consult, dust off the Northern Gateway plan, we could be building by end of year. That ain't to bad.
    1
  2100.  @BobLanctot  The scale of electrical sales is very small, both relative to overall trade and US power consumption.
    1
  2101.  @RetroCaptain  we don't sell water to the US. It is Infact illegal to sell bulk water across the Canadian border.
    1
  2102. 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
  2103. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them. But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska..
    1
  2104. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them. But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska.
    1
  2105. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them..
    1
  2106.  @polishtheday  But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska.
    1
  2107. @polishtheday  Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she and the President of the United states are conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them.
    1
  2108. But if you think they don't they will have broad support 2 years into a national recession where Alberta is the hardest hit province and Fort Mac is a ghost town with Trump on Fox everyday saying how right they would be if they joined Canada, idk. We really don't have time for people to take months to realize from this moment on we are competing with the US for Western Canada, with all the most Conservative voters, Oil, and land connection to Alaska.
    1
  2109. Well, we agree she is would sell out Canada for the oil industry. I think what your missing is she is conspiring to do just that, with the full force of the US economy and Fox media behind them.
    1
  2110. Something like 95% of fentyal (either fentyal or the precursors) comes from China through Mexico. China says it's an "accident", but somehow France and Germany and America isn't allowing enormous amounts of restricted chemicals to get to the cartels. And somehow China isn't swimming in it.. Blaming individuals is ignoring that this is a clear operation of the Chinese government to undermine and destabilize western countries. The obvious parallel to the Opium wars isn't some ironic twist of fate.
    1
  2111. ​ @williamduke1756 I am pro legalization of all personal use drugs (ie not roofies), and I am pro arresting anyone caught intoxicated in public. Use drugs if you want, but it better be in private.
    1
  2112. Do you find that having half your videos removed an hour after posting drives rapid uptake?
    1
  2113. I wouldn't call Iran's relationship excellent, and only around 1M bbl/d can reach the red sea via pipeline (I believe)
    1
  2114. @lstone3633  yes, I don't disagree, what I'm saying is when the CPP investment fund makes an investment, that investment should be determined not just by the direct return on capital, but should also take into account the CPP contribution payments that investment would create. Ie; and Investment in Canada with a 3% return but creating a thousand jobs that will max out CPP contributions per year should possibly be select over an investment in country X returning 4%. A pensioner's payments are made largely using current CPP contributions, those pensioners investments shouldn't be undermining Canadian employment opportunities unless the returns are considerably higher.
    1
  2115. @lstone3633  I agree with it's independence and that it isn't a nation build tool. My point is that they currently aren't making the best returns for pensioners because pensioners are paid from both CPP contributions and CPP capital investment returns. They are only looking at the direct return on investment. I would still have the board be independent, I'm simply saying they should be required to consider how an investment in Canada would generate employment, and how that employment would generate CPP payments. At the moment I don't believe they are even allowed to consider this. I'm not suggesting they consider how that employment would fund things like income tax or lower transportation costs or raise employment generally within the country. Only how it would directly increase payments into the fund. The only other comment I would make on CPP independence is a mandate not to invest in certain countries the government lists as a strategic security concern, in part because those assets could be seized in the future..
    1
  2116. @lstone3633  I certainly agree that our country is in a very bad position with trump. I'm not sure I understand your objection on the CPP point, I don't see how this would invite any more political interference than the current system. But in terms of what now I think we desperately need to create investment in export oriented infrastructure. Far more than we can afford capital flight by our own public investments.
    1
  2117. ​​ @d.measor2159 ya? How all them hydrodams impacting your sea life? But anyway, I was commenting on Manitoba. I don't think a new pipeline for NG will ever be built west.
    1
  2118.  @jasonreed7522  Even if the housing is nice though, do I want part of the population living and working in a box store with limited ability to go anywhere else? Plus it gives your employer direct control over your housing which is problematic. Its hard to say I'd rather homeless people then a 100% serf society, but I think I'll say it.
    1
  2119. 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
  2120. On the discussion around tariffs on Chinese EVs, I don't think either is making an argument for why they are bad. Yes, China is going to dominate the global market. But if the Goal is for the US and Canada and Europe to be part of the manufacturing in that global market, China can't also dominate our markets. If we open the flood gates to Chinese EVs and Solar panels, we are resigning ourselves to be nothing but consumers, and probably exporters of raw materials..
    1
  2121. @ryuuguu01  I have no issue with BYD building EVs in Canada. But I am entirely against opening to Chinese imports. But we are learning to make EVs, we have several manufacturers opening shop. I think it's silly to believe only the BYD option can lead to success. Once we have mining and refining, that is our advantage, full supply chain in a jurisdiction. We won't be competitive as long as we are buying our inputs for China for sure..
    1
  2122.  @bobcat8439  Obama is the entire reason shale oil exists and US oil production hit its highest ever under Biden.
    1
  2123.  @billmoretz8718  the issue is that industry sees no market for this, US gasoline demand is decreasing, and at the same time the shale oil plays are seeing lower productivity and declining output in 2 of 3. So the objective is to build refineries to produce a product you don't need using an input that may not be available in a decade. The very light crude makes it more valuable for international refineries to use to balance the heavier than design spec oil available on the market, in comparison to investing in capital that will over supply the market.
    1
  2124.  @classesanytime  Canada's preference doesn't matter, they have only limited pipeline capacity to the Pacific, the vast majority of Canadian pipelines go south, and even much of the oil to the Pacific feeds Washington and California. And since NAFTA, Canada Can't redirect that oil. . The EU may be broken up, or may form a single federation, with the UK gone I think the later is much more likely. I don't believe the US is in a decline.
    1
  2125.  @berardoferrari  Thats true of both actual crude oil in Saskatchewan and Alberta where the S in CHOPS (the method used) standa for sand, and of Bitumen in the oil Sands. Never the less, Canadian oil has a very low levelized cost of Production, particularly bitumen produced in situ in the oil sands. Investment and upfront costs are high leading to low investment outside of high price periods as Oil Companies generally want a fast return on investment, but the life cycle costs are very low because unlike a standard oil well which may only have a few years of high production, SAGD operations last decades with little reinvestment and no declining slope in production. edit: You understand Trump wants yo build the KeyStone XL pipeline to supply the Gulf of texas states need for heavy oil, ya? Because its the cheapest oil available, even with a continent spanning pipeline.
    1
  2126. I really don't care if SNC Lavalin bought a hooker for some Libyans that was the stupidest case of national outrage to punish our only relevant company on the world stage.
    1
  2127.  @northernmetalworker  I think diesel would be, as EVs impact gasoline demand.
    1
  2128. The 10% tariff on USMCA compliant oil is gone; which is everything coming out of Alberta. However, I believe it does still impact Irving in New Brunswick and Varcoe in Quebec City which export refined products to the US, as the oil refined is imported.
    1
  2129. I think Carbon Fiber from bitumen can be one of several important pivots to the oilsands to ensure a lasting market. However, we need to go into this understanding that, eventually, China (whose concerns are fundamentally strategic control over supply chains and domestic energy) will commercialize Energy to Liquids. And it is the same technology to produce jet fuel from renewables as Carbon fiber. We need to leverage the oilsands to not only produce carbon fiber, but create a longer lasting infrastructure and technology advantage. Once solar energy abundance has arrived, countries will be able to use sunshine and air to produce carbon fiber. That's probably ~50 years away. But at that time, it will be nearly impossible to monetize the oilsands in any way, and unless we have found something cheaper than solar (SMRs would be my hope) we will not be a low cost energy jurisdiction, and we will need a reason for other countries to buy Carbon Fiber from us rather than themselves or less expensive equatorial producers.
    1
  2130.  @Butterflies-are-free  New British Empire would be cool, First Global Indian Empire I'm not game.
    1
  2131. I think an NG pipeline to Nelson for an LNG plant is best choice in that direction, and that a Northwest pipeline is needed. But I agree the Bitumen by Rail is best choice to export bitumen out of the Hudson's Bay.
    1
  2132. Lol people believe this though. That we got advanced a hundred thousand years ago and moved there.
    1
  2133. Maybe I'm wrong, but im pretty sure percent of oxygen doesn't matter, whats important is partial pressure.
    1
  2134. It is a planned attempt to destoy the Canadian industry. There is lots of talk here about legacy Autos, where is the talk about Tesla? Because thats the relevant point, the guy who bought the president is destroying his competition. He'll buy Ford.
    1
  2135. The conventional is a huge problem and the Oil sands mines are a huge problem. And the fracking is a huge problem. The SAGD wells are not an issue though. We should be putting all our backing into insitu extraction
    1
  2136. ​ @matthewq4b  Do you find Trump to be an eloquent speaker? If not I don't know what all the random Capitalization is for. You are mistaken. Bitumen is as much oil as Natural gas is. Bitumen is the long chain Hydrocarbons that act as a solid, just NG is the light carbons that are a gas. Bitumen has an API below 10, and is only called a heavy crude when moved as DilBit or upgraded. Oil is a mix of liquid Hydrocarbons with fixed fractions of particular products, like gasoline. Bitumen is not, bitumen is upgraded and cracked, not refined. There are no fixed output characteristics, that os based on the extent of upgrading. Look at Sturgeon falls refinery, over 80% conversion to Deisel, the remainer being VGOs that can be refined in part to diesel. ...wait, you you just agreesively agreeing with me? I'm confused at the second half. I agree that heavy crude demand is rising because it yeilds high RPPs and that bitumens value is in avoiding gasoline which EVs are displacing.
    1
  2137.  @MarcosProjects  Okay but in your example you are actively reducing your meat intake pretty drastically. So you fit the requirement to be an environmentalist, just like you can chose to drive somewhere for fun and be an environmentalist. But you have to accept that just like driving, eating meat has an environmental impact. Chicken is probably the least impactful environmentally, it's a big user of Soy but most soy is grown for human use (Don't beleive the rediculous statistics where 80% of soy is for animal Agriculture, thats by mass, a soy plant is harvested for Soy oil (Vegitable oil) and Soy meal (animal food) which exist in an 80/20 ratio in the plant) and otherwise uses minimal land and food inputs. It is arguably amont the crueler things. And critisizing "environmentists" who want a subsidy for thier roof to have solar panels but then pay someone to burn down some rainforest because they like the flavour is 100% valid.
    1
  2138.  @catkiller395  You could say really the same thing about being anti coal, oil, gas, cars etc. Animal Agriculture, particularily beef, is probably the most impactful and least necessary thing we do. Unlike oil and gas which we actually can't just quite, this is literally a matter of taste. Reducing consumption is a great goal, and a total prohibition is probably a bad idea (regenerative agriculture does exist), but people who strive to be environmentalists should act appropriately to the issue.
    1
  2139.  @catkiller395  I agree, but should we spend more time talking about the Texas produces the most Wind energy (And I think non-hydro renewable energy) is the US, or that it has a huge emphasis on Car centric cities and the oil and gas industry? We should talk about both, the state of Wind energy in Texas should be a model we talk about, but that certainly doesn't mean texas should be immune to criticism.
    1
  2140. Is Jordan in danger? It seems to me it may be as 1) after the first Iranian Rocket attack, Iran told Arab countries that aided Israel they would be seen as targets if they aided again 2) The Jordanian government's stance toward Israel is not popular with the population at large, and targeted strikes on government building/infrastructure could be portrayed as freeing the people for a puppet government 3) hitting Jordan is a lot easier than Tel Aviv 4) it sends a message to the Saudis, and other Arab states in a similar position of government that leans western but more conservatively Muslim populations, to stay away from the conflict 5) Creating a power vacuum in Jordan creates a new issue for Israel, particularly as it lies on the border no only of Israel but of the West Bank.
    1
  2141. What do you think "for show" means? Like is you interpretation they wanted to awe at the fire works?
    1
  2142. Nobody uses Colbolt and its not the enhanse yield it's just to make a dirty bomb that spreads radiation. I think there is some fear about the nuclear torpedo of death they've built (that only a true terrorist state would build and claimed to create a giant tsunami that will level cities and leave them radioactive) is cobolt but Russia has never admitted to it, at the very least, and there's no reason to they've done it previously. There is a good chance such a horrifying weapon is entirely propaganda and has never been built, its obviously never been live tested, but on the flip side if it is real its probably in the small fraction of Russian Nukes that actually do work.
    1
  2143. I think the naval point is more relevant. My understanding is the well known drone operator example was someone the Kremlin wanted dead, and not an " unfortunate allocation of troops" so to speak. But I agree with your point. Russia's biggest problem is they need to run an economy at the same time.
    1
  2144. I'm sure Enbridge would disagree that we are a safe place to invest, given Northern Gateway. And a lot of Renewable companies would say the same due to Smith and Ford before her. So that isn't great
    1
  2145.  @claudeyaz  no one blames the car, but the reason there's no where to go is the car oriented planning. Cars are a wonderful amazing invention, but we'd have the same issue if we insisted everyone should have two horses and a field to feed them in, in even worse ways.
    1
  2146.  @danielhuynh9368  that's because rural communities are facing collapse, the educated young keep migrating out to find work, leaving the poor and (frankly) dumb and drug addicted behind. Look at the opiod crisis. Look at how Monsanto or Tyson foods have taken total monopoly over the food industry and used to to squeeze farmers to death. Look at how manufacturing collapse has left rust belt communites with nothing. Look at how Walmart and dollar tree destroys local small business and sends the profits to shareholders in New York or out of country. Look how small local banks are actively collapsing and the federal governments response is "these aren't the big banks, it won't break the economy so it's okay" when it's the small rural communities how are left without access to loans and local investment. Rural America is being destroyed and depopulated by policies that treat them as trash, and your response is to act like they are trash. We need investment to return and monopolies to stop bleeding them dry, so that people have a reason to stay. Give people hope, they aren't going to be killed willingly.
    1
  2147.  @gauloise6442  Emigration to the US is definitely a problem for Western Europe now, it used to be your rejects and poor, now it's your best and brightest. As for the second part, I agree that's not the point of good transit. I was replying to someone claiming transit didn't really improve living standards, and saying that there is a bias.
    1
  2148.  @hmada1222000  you know most Jews in Israel originated in middle Eastern Arab countries, right? Most of the European Jews are in New York.
    1
  2149.  @hmada1222000  you know most of the Jews in Israel originated in middle Eastern countries, right? Most of the European Jews are in New York.
    1
  2150.  @nicholasjohnson778  well be fair, something like 60% of Gaza is under the age of 18. You find me a population of peaceful teenagers living in abject poverty with a finger to point blame at. Teenagers are angsty, angry, and suicidal at the best of times.
    1
  2151.  @nicholasjohnson778  your stance just shifter from "show me the good Palestinians" to "all Palestinians are rapists and murders". You asked how people can support Hamas, I'm saying 60% of those people are at an age where they at the age American kids shoot up schools.
    1
  2152. It is starting to seem like that.
    1
  2153.  @noIDwhatsoever  The only ideas he has put up are Carbon Fiber, and briefly for like 3 episodes, optimizing Transmountain. He uses a project built over Covid as a reasonable cost estimate for a pipeline built today, plausibily going into a recession. He ignores that at best in 10 years carbon fibre will use 100k/bill a day, 2% of current output. He ignores the level of discontent in Alberta and the need maintain a pro Canadian sentiment, particularly as we are threatened from the south. He ignores that we can do bitumen-diesel, and that while EVs are pushing out gasoline demand, diesel prices are actually rising, meaning we would be pushing out barrels of oil and barrels of gasoline from the market by keeping high RPP prices lower. He ignores that if we go into a trade war, WCS will have an enormous discount, and the pipeline will suddenly be profitable. Or how that hedges our currency risk if we had a massive drop in export values around oil. I could go on..
    1
  2154. @noIDwhatsoever  he ignores the cost of Trump closing Line 5 and the GTA being cut off oil..
    1
  2155. ​ @jasonwilliams8016 tbf, I've made the point many times, so I'm sure I've said others you agree with; I do try to correct seemingly rational people with inaccurate reasons of support for fossil fuel projects as much as the reverse. And I agree with many things Markham says, I just don't make a point of commenting agreement to points already made well. But if I make points you don't agree with, feel free to challenge or ask me to clarify. I don't care about Oil per se; the only development I support is SAGD. I just believe the oilsands are To Big To Fail, I see absolutely no advantage to anyone in us letting them fail, and doing so will cause an enormous depression. I believe we have no choice but to recapitalize and regulate them as we did the banks in 2007, but unlike the financial crash, we have an opportunity to do that before the Bankruptcies are imminent. And if we take that opportunity we can save an enormous amount in the long run and avoid things I really don't want to see, like public ownership of tailings ponds after SynCrude goes under, while getting far more out of that spending. And corresponding I feel Markham is missing that opportunity, either intentionally or by mistake.
    1
  2156. ​​ @jasonwilliams8016 ​ tbf, I've made the point many times, so I'm sure I've said others you agree with but haven't seen; I do try to correct seemingly rational people with inaccurate reasons of support for fossil fuel projects as much as the reverse. And I agree with many things Markham says, I just don't make a point of commenting agreement to points already made well. But if I make points you don't agree with, feel free to challenge or ask me to clarify. I don't care about Oil per se; the only development I support is SAGD. I just believe the oilsands are To Big To Fail, I see absolutely no advantage to anyone in us letting them fail, and doing so will cause an enormous depression. I believe we have no choice but to recapitalize and regulate them as we did the banks in 2007, but unlike the financial crash, we have an opportunity to do that before the Bankruptcies are imminent. And if we take that opportunity we can save an enormous amount in the long run and avoid things I really don't want to see, like public ownership of tailings ponds after SynCrude goes under, while getting far more out of that spending. And corresponding I feel Markham is missing that opportunity, either intentionally or by mistake.
    1
  2157. ​​​@jasonwilliams8016 ​ tbf, I've made the point many times, so I'm sure I've said others you agree with but haven't seen; I do try to correct seemingly rational people with inaccurate reasons of support for fossil fuel projects as much as the reverse. And I agree with many things Markham says, I just don't make a point of commenting agreement to points already made well. But if I make points you don't agree with, feel free to challenge or ask me to clarify. I don't care about Oil per se; the only development I support is SAGD. I just believe the oilsands are To Big To Fail, I see absolutely no advantage to anyone in us letting them fail, and doing so will cause an enormous depression. I believe we have no choice but to recapitalize and regulate them as we did the banks in 2007, but unlike the financial crash, we have an opportunity to do that before the Bankruptcies are imminent. And if we take that opportunity we can save an enormous amount in the long run and avoid things I really don't want to see, like public ownership of tailings ponds after SynCrude goes under, while getting far more out of that spending. And corresponding I feel Markham is missing that opportunity, either intentionally or by mistake
    1
  2158. @jasonwilliams8016 tbf, I've made the point many times, so I'm sure I've said others you agree with but haven't seen; I do try to correct seemingly rational people with inaccurate reasons of support for fossil fuel projects as much as the reverse. And I agree with many things Markham says, I just don't make a point of commenting agreement to points already made well. But if I make points you don't agree with, feel free to challenge or ask me to clarify. I don't care about Oil per se; the only development I support is SAGD. I just believe the oilsands are To Big To Fail, I see absolutely no advantage to anyone in us letting them fail, and doing so will cause an enormous depression. I believe we have no choice but to recapitalize and regulate them as we did the banks in 2007, but unlike the financial crash, we have an opportunity to do that before the Bankruptcies are imminent. And if we take that opportunity we can save an enormous amount in the long run and avoid things I really don't want to see, like public ownership of tailings ponds after SynCrude goes under, while getting far more out of that spending. And corresponding I feel Markham is missing that opportunity, either intentionally or by mistake..
    1
  2159. ​ @ziggyeciggy1890 I would point out that the US, which is being argued has a friendlier atmosphere to LNG, itself hasn't built LNG in Washington state, eben though the Bakkin produces enormous amounts of NG
    1
  2160. ​@jasonwilliams8016 tbf, I've made the point many times, so I'm sure I've said others you agree with but haven't seen; I do try to correct seemingly rational people with inaccurate reasons of support for fossil fuel projects as much as the reverse. And I agree with many things Markham says, I just don't make a point of commenting agreement to points already made well. But if I make points you don't agree with, feel free to challenge or ask me to clarify. I don't care about Oil per se; the only development I support is SAGD. I just believe the oilsands are To Big To Fail, I see absolutely no advantage to anyone in us letting them fail, and doing so will cause an enormous depression. I believe we have no choice but to recapitalize and regulate them as we did the banks in 2007, but unlike the financial crash, we have an opportunity to do that before the Bankruptcies are imminent. And if we take that opportunity we can save an enormous amount in the long run and avoid things I really don't want to see, like public ownership of tailings ponds after SynCrude goes under, while getting far more out of that spending. And corresponding I feel Markham is missing that opportunity, either intentionally or by mistake.
    1
  2161. "in particular, Japan, South Korea, Europe, and the rest of the world". Lol. Great video!
    1
  2162. Please stop claiming no one thinks of the risks of the Energy Transition. PM Carney literally wrote a book about it. He explicitly refrences the S Curve, he spends the majority of the Climate Change Chapter discussing Transition risks and the impact on assets, and the discussion around Covid and the Great Recession are meant to directly lead to the conversation of a Minsky moment in carbon intensive assets. The reason he supports building a pipeline is 1)He understands that for a democratic government to have the legitimacy to create the change we want to see, it needs to be responsive to the public, and an enormous component of the public wants oil development. 2) He understands this isn't a decision to "invest in oil" but a decision on how to handle the existing investment's collapse. The oilsands is not a greenfield industry, its is a very large industry and needs to have a managed decline which includes diversifying the export base and increasing its competitiveness. Please argue the actual points that leadership is working under and don't spread misinformation around our governments actions. I think your work has been excellent in predicting many sectors but you seem prone to a level of hysteria when the conversation is on the oilsands or Alberta I feel lowers the quality of your discussion.. Edit: and to be clear, I have a low opinion on how the oilsands has been handled for decades and the Alberta government.
    1
  2163.  @caffetiel  I don't understand your point. But I think it's reasonable for people to kill about birds on the endangered species list being killed or arguing Altamont pass it a terribly planned region. We should be addressing these things while building new wind farms.
    1
  2164.  @caffetiel  I definitely didn't say any of that. My point was that these are largely different sets of issues, and that calling it all birds is like saying we shouldn't worry about Orangutans dying for palm oil because cats kill so many mice.
    1
  2165. @sandponicsvery last century, hope you're on a vpn
    1
  2166. I would love to see an Episode on Beef, another on Biofuel, and a third on Industrial fishing. Along side coal power stations and the autodependant-suburban development complex, I would call these the top 5 most damaging industries.
    1
  2167.  @indexpictures  Marx never explicitly defined communism or socialism though, and used them largely interchangably.
    1
  2168.  @StetoGuy  I think formally Fascism allows a mix of ownership types, with the important (in terms of labour relations) point being that the government mediates between workers and owners organizations while also influencing investment for national goals.
    1
  2169.  @StetoGuy  I agree, but even large corperations, in my understanding, can be nominally privately owned. The states ability to dicate to them for set goals may exist, but that doesn't mean they are run by state bureaucrats or that the profits all directly go to the state. The state certainly could own these corperations, but fascism might require seperations to the concepts of control of the means of production and ownership of the means of production. I'd also say National Syndicalism is a sub component of Fascism, where fascism also includes a self sufficient Autarky and several other lesser requirements like a national rebirth myth, a cult leader personality, and a strong security state.
    1
  2170.  @StetoGuy    Not all corperations are publicly traded though. Some are entirely owned by one person, others are owned by multiple people but but not on a public exchange. Amd even publicly traded corperations have shares that are privately owned. I understand your point of differentiation though. A society where all corperations are publicly traded, and the majority shares are owned by average people or pension funds is different. I do think the seperation is useful. For example, I own my home, but I can't build a factory or turn the inside into a shop because I'm not in control. I suppose you could strech that and say I don't own it, but I think the argument that any regulation means ownership is impossible quickly becomes meaningless. Likewise, private individuals could own a pharmacompany, but that doesn't mean using the war measures act in the US to meet certain output means they have lost ownership, only control. I still disagree that Fascism is equivalent to National Syndicalism, but I do agree it is highly connected.
    1
  2171.  @LeftWingNationalist  Part of the invasion was to expand Germany East ao that full self sufficientcy could be reached, the infamous elbow room. I'd also quickly argue that the Nazis were not truely Fascist, but rather this was a lable slapped on by the British to mean bad guys. In general the Nazi system did not meet requirements in the Fascists manifesto.
    1
  2172.  @StetoGuy  I believe Dyson is solely owned by James Dyson. I know a corperation is a legal entity, but you can own 100% shares of an LLC. It's just not generally smart to own more than you meed for voting, better to diversify. I hear what your saying about ownership, but I think practically the outcome of that statement is all wealth in the world is owned by the government, because I know of no governments which are explicitly forbidden from passing regulation on usage or raising taxes. Nominal ownership does exist within these systems, and for the most part that means a level of control, and certainly means being allowed to collect a profit from the business operations.
    1
  2173.  @hammerclench3135  I don't know any refineries that do, but the Sturgeon refinery/upgrader that turns Bitumen into Diesel, and the ScottFord Upgrader outside Edmonton do use hydroconversion. They are also the two newest upgraders..
    1
  2174.  @hammerclench3135  I don't know any refineries, but the ScottFord and Sturgeon upgraders, the two newest, do..
    1
  2175. @bipl8989  yes, of course. Or for very short transport, some pipelines are heated
    1
  2176.  @bipl8989  1 minute, let me make more YT accounts so I can give you more upvotes. Very cool. I was thinking of the ~100km ones near Fort McMurray, also continuously heated, I had no idea such a long pipeline existed. I assume Sudan?.
    1
  2177. Notably the population in the America's was so low due to old world disease.
    1
  2178. I think 5 regional grids plays better (more when you consider the Territories) Alberta - BC Sask - Manitoba (Manitoba also connected to the West coast Nunavut, and likely tying in The Northwest Territories with a loop from Hay River to Yellowknife (Which would connect to Uranium City in Sask, but Northern Sask is much more connected to Manitoba than the rest of Saskatchewan) Southern Ontario Quebec & Labrador (and the Ottawa Valley) And Maritimes NewFoundland (island) connects to both Martimes and Labrador. And you would probably also have some connections at New Brunswick -Quebec I don't see a real advantage in large scale Sask-Alberta interconnection. Sask is a much smaller demand center, and the renewables correlate. I think connecting along the existing transmission line from Saskatoon to Le Pas in Manitoba would provide ample hydro - wind trade between the two. Maybe its possible to have some fun and build a Bipole to the ring of fire from Manitoba, and from there Hogh Voltage AC lines could be built to Moosnee. And that could be done from the Quebec side as well, and the existing powerlines to Southern Ontario uprated. That would be the making of a true national grid; but I think its likely far more expensive than just doing SMRs and storage.
    1
  2179.  @hmhmoinsdk  About NZ I agree, it's certainly a minor point there, but with significant American Pressure and the fact NZ realizes on a safe maritime regime largely policed by the US, and the normalization presented by the other Anglo Pacific countries being included in an entirely defensive alliance, I think it's possible. I also agree about India. The point there was there are several countries in the region which could offer a nuclear umbrella. And of course, the India of the last century is not today's, which clearly attempting to be a global power. Add to that the Indian concerns with China and that a defensive alliance might help them ensure no incursions, and that some Indian Client states could be brought in along side, again I think it's possible. I disagree with the point on Taiwan. The US is legally required to support already. Certainly you couldn't have a NATO type requirement on no border disputes, but that wouldn't have worked for a Korea that considers itself the only legitimate government on the Peninsula or a Japan that claims half an apparently Russian island. I agree with your point on SK, but I think American support is far more important, and if the US says they will withdraw it if SK refuses to support wider US strategy in the region, and with the benefit of clear Japanese support against any NK action, I think it would go through.
    1
  2180.  @hmhmoinsdk  so on NZ I agree, and it's a minor point, in terms of what is brought to defense. But I do think it's possible with American pressure and normalization via other Anglo countries joining. Particularly considering how NZ depends on international shipping. In terms of India, I largely agree (as with AUS, I think bringing in QUAD is less likely). However, India today desiring to be more assertive and influential than in the past. And the defensive alliance is largely focused on China; at least from India's perspective. That's a benefit to India and it's client states. Being a nuclear power in such an alliance could be a very relevant and enticing role.. I disagree in terms of Taiwan. SK recognizes itself as the sole government of Korea. Japan has border disputes. Obviously a NATO type requirement for fixed borders wouldn't work. I think US pressure for defense is far more significant. I agree that Japan has far more to be concerned with Taiwan than SK, but I think SK would role over pretty quickly for US defense guarantees.
    1
  2181.  @gwenmader4334  energy isn't some fixed pathway where you have to go from Coal -> Natural Gas -> renewables. China is never going to switch to a high fraction of Natural Gas. Nearly half their energy generated last year was renewables, and they are adding something like 10% of their grid capacity yearly. They haven't built their entire advanced manufacturing base to run for 5 years and shut down; they are going to continue increasing solar and wind and storage to their grid and exporting energy independence globally. Look into how many solar modules they produced last year and the scale of their manufacturing base.
    1
  2182.  @Nick-gj6je  on a one year basis, yes. But in terms of returning all the capital invested over the last decade investors are breaking even or taking a hair cut. Again, that's why we aren't seeing significant reinvestment and high dividends. It's capital fleeing the industry now that, for the first time, there is enough revenue to actually pay some out. It's also we see Exon and industry majors taking over. They have the capital and need to have reserves on books. The low rates of return are worth it to diversify portfolios already including international heavy blends, including Canadian oil sands.
    1
  2183. The celebrities are aimed at people in the third world who don't have the access to thier personality but know thier names, i would think
    1
  2184.  @SBKCanada  you're comparing an existing product pipeline to a very different pipeline carrying a different product. The issue with your argument is that the replacement not only is found but exists at scale. Whether that replacement is the enormous battery manufacturing capacity of China or LNG out of Qatar isn't relevant to Canada. LNG out of Canada simply has no economic promise. Also, there is no LNG pipelines, only NG pipelines..
    1
  2185.  @robertstjean3009  whether or not Net Zero is a fools errand, it is a question of Canada being able to sell LNG. Look at map. We have to build a 1000km over the rockies or 4000km over Canadian Shield or North where we only operate seasonally. Qatar can basically stick a straw into the ocean. All US LNG comes from a few hundred KM at most over flat Texas using existing pipelines. It's like saying Russia built an underwater pipeline to Germany so we should do the same - it entirely ignores the reality of the infrastructure cost..
    1
  2186.  @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
  2187. 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
  2188.  @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
  2189. 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
  2190. @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
  2191. Americans have F22s not Russian built trash. There is no Air Defense system that exists that would help.
    1
  2192. 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
  2193. 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
  2194. Hard to say who is my favorite between himself and Stefan Milo who is my favorite in this area of YouTube, But Davis is an incredible story teller. Idk how many times I've watched the Tumulus culture video (enough I cam spell it lol)
    1
  2195. I think you are ignoring that ICE vehicles are much lower capital costs and EVs competitive advantage is lower long term operating cost. If OPEC is about to halve the price of oil, that will entirely change the comparison.
    1
  2196.  @polishtheday  I'd be fine with BYD setting up shop, but I'm not letting BYD import. But also, your critism is "North America manufacturers paid for R&D, a Chinese company stole it, and now we should reward China"
    1
  2197. Okay but its important to focus on the fact tariffs are going to reduce the price of oil and likely have very little impact on refineries. Particularly if they are applied to Canada and not other nations. Oil production is almost entirely fixed. Oilsands Insitu operations, particularly SAGD, can't cut production without permanently deforming the reservoir. And demand for shale fracking will remain, for dilutent from SAGD operations, NG for LNG and Steam injection into the SAG, and NGLs to Albertas chemical industry. And Conventional production has almost no marginal cost, but with long term price decline expectations, new drilling will come to an end, which is the core of investment and employment in the industry. The only area that can, and will, quickly shut down are the Mining operations, which are focused on Fort McMurray and the focus of Fort McMurray. This is what we saw in Covid, an 80% shit down of mining for the brief period OPEC pushed down prices (ostensibly to fight Russia, although Russia had been calling for a global price war for a decade). The Mining operations are the majority of oil sands employenent, and even then focused on several of the highest cost projects. The Upgraders at the mining operations produce Canada Sweet and Light, and synthetic blend, which is more comparable to American light crude than our heavy sour. However, for the same reason this means it is much more easily displaced by American shale oil. It is also expensive to produce at around $60 a barrel, before transportion. WTI has been trading in the high $50s this week. The unfortunate reality is that the only facilities that can actually reduce production in response to a higher price are the facility that represent the majority of direct Oilsands employment, and cut conventional drilling the core of that areas employment. Its also import to note that declining prices directly impact Alberta oil royalties, Royalties are cut below $55 /bbl. This was a third of Albertas revenue last year, and in Covid the government struggled to raise debt. All that is to say energy tariffs would be very bad for Alberta, and to a lesser extent Saskatchewan.
    1
  2198. @larsrons7937  which country? Sudan?
    1
  2199. Obviously I agree Trump is fundamentally mistaken and trying to get the US to stick its head in the sand. But I do think, for us, there is an opportunity here. GM and Ford have put a lot of money in EV development. If the US is backtracking, we can bring that to Canada to replace ICE vehicle losses and work with these companies, who struggle in foreign markets, to build and export hub.
    1
  2200. And coral/fish populations
    1
  2201.  @Z06Fred  Oh I'm sure they'll find a way to charge you more. But with the carbon price gone, your bills will still be lower - although you won't get any of it back. But also, the NG production is as much about production of light oil to mix with Bitumen for DilBit. As long as there is demand for that, they don't really have a choice but to sell the NG. And also, with battery storage coming on line over the next few years I'd expect domestic demand to drop..
    1
  2202. ​ @noconsent not intentionally, I changed my comment, but the point I would stay still stands that discussing Californian power generation as though it is power consumption is a poorly informed approach.
    1
  2203.  @2MinuteHockey  Yes I agree with not buying Chinese.
    1
  2204.  @2MinuteHockey  I mean I'm not against all concrete, and I think it's wrong to say that the illegal market is because there just isn't enough sand instead of the fact unregulated sand is cheaper. But I would frequently be against new dams yes. In terms of Solar panels, we need to develop domestic supply chains. But I'm not going to be against solar in the hopes that nuclear or geothermal, technologies that have existed for half a century, and were better than the alternative for half a century, will suddenly be built out. Should we build them? Yes. But I'm not holding my breath.
    1
  2205.  @polishtheday  indeed, but they aren't going to diversify in the next few months.
    1
  2206. ​ @theJAFOreport Do you bring up Chernobyl when people talk about nuclear? Has that big EV boat fire off the west coast dumping whatever crazy oxide smoke into the water turned you against EVs? Like if you are saying there is a marketing issue to be addressed, sure. If this is meant to be an argument again an oil pipeline, it isn't.
    1
  2207. I would argue Nickle and even Cobalt will maintain a place in EVs, but only in sports car style vehicles or those with top end distance requirements. As you said LFPs, and Sodium ion, will remove it from the majority
    1
  2208.  @WinterXR7   @winterinvicta   @winterinvicta  I agree that the political situation isn't likely to lead to a coup or force Putin out of the war, but it may lead to peace settlements with more reasonable terms from Ukrainian perspectives. A lot has occured there, while a small fraction of Russian land, until this point the only thing keeping Ukraine out was the prestige of Russia, that is a loss people feel, particularly with a hundred thousand refugees spreading word in the country. Conscripts are in the conflict and taken as POWs in camps Russia paints as Nazi adjacent, until now the core areas of Russia haven't been dealing with the actual conflict, now its visible. Inflation has been very high for some time, now Kursk farmers can't collect thier wheat harvest, and gasoline supplies are constantly at target, which are quite significant costs the lower income. All that is to say that until recently, what has been a foreign conflict in Russia has become a domestic one, which politically is very different. to the second point, the particular units in question are drone operaters I believe, so it doesn't suprise me they are less effective in urban combat. But they will slow the advance to the city, and protect the flanks while other infantry units perform the urban combat. The dightiin Bakhmut obviously was extensive. To the economy, as you point out the ruble is weak, but more over the Ukrainian campaign against oil infrastructure only started 6 months ago. Kursk wheat won't be available, but not only that, diesel is going to be a in competition between farmers and the military in a few weeks. Europe has only recently banned un insured ships from their waters, which is meant to push out black fleet ships from the Baltic sea, a major oil shipment terminal. Inflation has been rising, and is being pressed by both a shorage of goods, and army contracts bidding out the labour supply, an issue only worsening. And Russian foreign currency reserves are almost entirely depleted, with the oil fund now mainly holding infrastructure bonds. The Russian financial position has continually worsen, amd while I'm not suggesting an immediate collapse, I would say stalling several months due to mud is harder on Russia than Ukraine. Also, maybe you mean to claim the GDP PPP growth has been higher in Russia than Germany (which is, frankly, a terribly afflicted economy having taken the brunt of anti Russian economic fall out), but I struggle to believe numbers showing a higher standard of living in Russia than Germany. And I would point out that growth in Russian GDP is driven by defense sector spending, which is dubious in its value should the war come to an end. To your last point, I'd suggest the very thing Ukraine wants is a counter attack in Kursk. Images of Russia flattening Russian towns with Artillery and hundreds of conscripts out of Moscow and Saint Petersburg dying or being maimed daily, or else a weakening of Russian forces elsewhere, are both wins for Ukraine.
    1
  2209. I believe his point is those few people who made money made it on the back of the British tax payer, who otherwise would have been able to invest themselves or otherwise had their wealth extracted and invested.
    1
  2210. Just a joke, Great stuff as always, good sources and calling out the people running the show. I thing tou story franchise should be a more standard unit of currency.
    1
  2211.  @zinithin-8208  Well I'm not going to spend to much time explaining that this was a joke, like the sub comment I wrote says. Although banks don't really "produce" things people use every day. They loan money that is largely invested into Capital goods, which are used to make the products people use. Or less often (or more often depending on your view of mortgages), they provide finance to help people buy already existing products. And also describing the basic idea without talking about all the things they do, Like Wells Fargo, the largest consumer bank in America, opening fake accounts and trapping real people, or massive lobbying efforts by all the banks, is pretty weak. It's like if I said "Sauron is Evil" and you said " Idk why making people sick rings is inherently evil" without noting literally any of the context.
    1
  2212.  @samuelmiensinompe4902  I don't see why slavery would be linked to population size... are you saying its a higher percentage of people or just more in absolute numbers. Obviously slavery is bad. I think a lot about environmental destruction though, but this is driven by specific (stupid) policy goals. Rain forst loss is heavily driven by increased meat consumption (brazil, beef consumption) and bio diesel production (Indonesian Palm oil). Dead zones in the ocean again are largely unrelated to the population size, its an issue of allowing run off and overfishing. Long term resources are mainly recyclable or maybe we'll be in space idk that point is vauge. I support tax breaks for children, I really think we run a greater risk of under populating than over. That said, increasing education in low income countries, particularly for women, has been shown to great reduce birth rates, and I do of course support that.
    1
  2213. Its not hard to come buy. China stole all your industry. You're now deindustrializing what manufacturing your neighbors had managed to hold on to because their industries were lower value inouts built to feed yours.
    1
  2214. ​​ @HyperionLogic  the answer is hardly give up. I'm not saying they aren't going to compete in any race, I'm saying we shouldn't compete in the ones they have already won. .
    1
  2215. ​​ @HyperionLogic My answer is yes we do in all the fields I named. What are you even arguing, China does everything best so we should just take hamd outs from them?.
    1
  2216. ​​ @HyperionLogic I chose the fields I listed because the answer is Yes to all your questions in all cases. If you don't agree, name better fields. But fundamentally we need to have an economy...
    1
  2217. ​ @charliedoyle7824  Batteries are the only area I agree at all with competing against China; and even then it's iffy because we don't know the relevant chemistries. But if we actually pushed and don't spend the next 20 years doing environmental reviews and consultations, we may be able to enter this market using a fully domestic supply chain as the advantage. But there is no benefit to importing batteries from China. I fully disagree with the rest. Obviously things like Geothermal or compressed air storage will be assembled locally; but that doesn't mean we can't produce the equipment or that Canadian companies can do the assembly. We have clear advantages in these sectors, the only Geothermal project in Germany is a Canadian company. I think it's clear the issue is our lack of encouragement, not international willingness to use. SMRs in particular I think we have an opportunity to dominate the market. They only work when you have a large scale market, and that is the Oil sands and Sask coal plants. We can leverage that market to have economies of scale that outcompete. We also have industry experience and fuel. But at the end of the day, if you are right and the result is that every country can easily produce its own generation equipment for nearly free energy, which I think for tidal would be the outcome, that's a win imo. Best case we dominate the market, worse case we destroy Chinas market dominance. I'll take those odds lol. I also think you are over emphasizing Batteries. Eventually EVs will rely on capacitors, and there is no reason to believe grid storage will remain with batteries; certainly it won't be lithium ion. But in any event, an SMR and Battery grid would be far better than a solar Battery one because you have very consistent daily charge-recharge cycles. Solar requires multiple durations of backup, which creates the very technologies that will displace batteries.
    1
  2218. ​@charliedoyle7824 Batteries are the only area I agree at all with competing against China; and even then it's iffy because we don't know the relevant chemistries. But if we actually pushed and don't spend the next 20 years doing environmental reviews and consultations, we may be able to enter this market using a fully domestic supply chain as the advantage. But there is no benefit to importing batteries from China. I fully disagree with the rest. Obviously things like Geothermal or compressed air storage will be assembled locally; but that doesn't mean we can't produce the equipment or that Canadian companies can do the assembly. We have clear advantages in these sectors, the only Geothermal project in Germany is a Canadian company. I think it's clear the issue is our lack of encouragement, not international willingness to use. SMRs in particular I think we have an opportunity to dominate the market. They only work when you have a large scale market, and that is the Oil sands and Sask coal plants. We can leverage that market to have economies of scale that outcompete. We also have industry experience and fuel. But at the end of the day, if you are right and the result is that every country can easily produce its own generation equipment for nearly free energy, which I think for tidal would be the outcome, that's a win imo. Best case we dominate the market, worse case we destroy Chinas market dominance. I'll take those odds lol. I also think you are over emphasizing Batteries. Eventually EVs will rely on capacitors, and there is no reason to believe grid storage will remain with batteries; certainly it won't be lithium ion. But in any event, an SMR and Battery grid would be far better than a solar Battery one because you have very consistent daily charge-recharge cycles. Solar requires multiple durations of backup, which creates the very technologies that will displace batteries. .
    1
  2219. ​​ @charliedoyle7824  .Batteries are the only area I agree at all with competing against China; and even then it's iffy because we don't know the relevant chemistries. But if we actually pushed and don't spend the next 20 years doing environmental reviews and consultations, we may be able to enter this market using a fully domestic supply chain as the advantage. But there is no benefit to importing batteries from China. I fully disagree with the rest. Obviously things like Geothermal or compressed air storage will be assembled locally; but that doesn't mean we can't produce the equipment or that Canadian companies can do the assembly. We have clear advantages in these sectors, the only Geothermal project in Germany is a Canadian company. I think it's clear the issue is our lack of encouragement, not international willingness to use. SMRs in particular I think we have an opportunity to dominate the market. They only work when you have a large scale market, and that is the Oil sands and Sask coal plants. We can leverage that market to have economies of scale that outcompete. We also have industry experience and fuel. But at the end of the day, if you are right and the result is that every country can easily produce its own generation equipment for nearly free energy, which I think for tidal would be the outcome, that's a win imo. Best case we dominate the market, worse case we destroy Chinas market dominance. I'll take those odds lol. I also think you are over emphasizing Batteries. Eventually EVs will rely on capacitors, and there is no reason to believe grid storage will remain with batteries; certainly it won't be lithium ion. But in any event, an SMR and Battery grid would be far better than a solar Battery one because you have very consistent daily charge-recharge cycles. Solar requires multiple durations of backup, which creates the very technologies that will displace batteries.
    1
  2220. @charliedoyle7824  Batteries are the only area I agree at all with competing against China; and even then it's iffy because we don't know the relevant chemistries. But if we actually pushed and don't spend the next 20 years doing environmental reviews and consultations, we may be able to enter this market using a fully domestic supply chain as the advantage. But there is no benefit to importing batteries from China.  I fully disagree with the rest. Obviously things like Geothermal or compressed air storage will be assembled locally; but that doesn't mean we can't produce the equipment or that Canadian companies can do the assembly. We have clear advantages in these sectors, the only Geothermal project in Germany is a Canadian company. I think it's clear the issue is our lack of encouragement, not international willingness to use.  SMRs in particular I think we have an opportunity to dominate the market. They only work when you have a large scale market, and that is the Oil sands and Sask coal plants. We can leverage that market to have economies of scale that outcompete. We also have industry experience and fuel.  But at the end of the day, if you are right and the result is that every country can easily produce its own generation equipment for nearly free energy, which I think for tidal would be the outcome, that's a win imo. Best case we dominate the market, worse case we destroy Chinas market dominance. I'll take those odds lol.  I also think you are over emphasizing Batteries. Eventually EVs will rely on capacitors, and there is no reason to believe grid storage will remain with batteries; certainly it won't be lithium ion. But in any event, an SMR and Battery grid would be far better than a solar Battery one because you have very consistent daily charge-recharge cycles. Solar requires multiple durations of backup, which creates the very technologies that will displace batteries..
    1
  2221. @charliedoyle7824 Batteries are the only area I agree at all with competing against China; and even then it's iffy because we don't know the relevant chemistries. But if we actually pushed and don't spend the next 20 years doing environmental reviews and consultations, we may be able to enter this market using a fully domestic supply chain as the advantage. But there is no benefit to importing batteries from China. I fully disagree with the rest. Obviously things like Geothermal or compressed air storage will be assembled locally; but that doesn't mean we can't produce the equipment or that Canadian companies can do the assembly. We have clear advantages in these sectors, the only Geothermal project in Germany is a Canadian company. I think it's clear the issue is our lack of encouragement, not international willingness to use. SMRs in particular I think we have an opportunity to dominate the market. They only work when you have a large scale market, and that is the Oil sands and Sask coal plants. We can leverage that market to have economies of scale that outcompete. We also have industry experience and fuel. But at the end of the day, if you are right and the result is that every country can easily produce its own generation equipment for nearly free energy, which I think for tidal would be the outcome, that's a win imo. Best case we dominate the market, worse case we destroy Chinas market dominance. I'll take those odds lol. I also think you are over emphasizing Batteries. Eventually EVs will rely on capacitors, and there is no reason to believe grid storage will remain with batteries; certainly it won't be lithium ion. But in any event, an SMR and Battery grid would be far better than a solar Battery one because you have very consistent daily charge-recharge cycles. Solar requires multiple durations of backup, which creates the very technologies that will displace batteries.
    1
  2222. ​​ @SigFigNewton ya ya, you're also arguing we should flood the market with cheap chinese battery imports. Either you want to compete or you don't. I didn't say don't compete, I said do what China did, and revolutionize the market..
    1
  2223. ​​ @SigFigNewton do you understand the entire reason the moron in charge of your country was elected was the willingness to destroy your manufacturing base for cheap Chinese imports? Do you understand China has very high tariffs and that is the reason they were able to develop an EV industry? You are celebrating the success of a country that does not believe in free trade while calling for free trade. Random, unexpected tariffs are obviously bad policy. That does not mean all tariffs are bad policy, particularly if you are trying to develop an industry a large established producer is trying to wash you out of. That's why Europe has tariffs on Chinese EVs. That's why even south Asian countries have tariffs on Chinese EVs..
    1
  2224. ​ @IdrisFashan  if your in downtown Toronto with a gasoline vehicle or Beijing 10 years ago you can sell this but I don't think anyone in Timmins is buying that their car is poisoning them. Makes perfect sense to require taxi fleets and Ubers to go EV, and reduce car use in cities in general, hardly an argument we need to push every rural and small town off oil.
    1
  2225. America isn't going to stand up because he isn't going to destroy the US economy. They are going to destroy ours. We cannot base our hope on the Americans being rational
    1
  2226. Idk, this could be true, could be propaganda. But if Russia cared they would have dug trenches and kept the 2014-2021 status quo, not Conscripted hundreds of thousands to die over kilometers of land.
    1
  2227. But if it is true, I do feel for you, I do believe the eastern Ukrainians are the greatest victims. Either they are genuinely separatists who just want independence and have been attacked for a decade, or they are occupied and being forcefully Conscripted. There is no scenario where I don't feel bad for them.
    1
  2228.  @Donner906  bra I'm not against a free market, I'm just against letting monopolies control investment or land and taking that free market away. My point is just that you don't need the word slavery to have it in practice. There's a reason red necks fought against company stores.
    1
  2229. @sc1338  well, about which part? Because Permian oil is getting lighter. It's starting to lower the value of Brent. As rigs move into less valuable locations in the play, the shale gets tighter, and so the oil gets lighter. And as part of that, the ratio of Natural Gas to oil increases, and wells get less productive. Bakken and Eagle Ford, the second and third largest shake plays and operating before the Permian, are both well below their peak production, although both are very productive gas fields. One of the issues is simply that as wells get gassier, you start having difficulty finding take away for it, and you can flair but your basically burning half your product. And the Bakken is really only holding production something close to stable by using wells drilled before (DUCs) Covid that weren't brought into production. The Shale oil industry didn't make a dollar before 2022. Rigs today are down, even in the Permian (although not as bad as Nationally), new drilling is down, DUCs are down, in 2020 there were over 3000 DUCs in the Permian, by 2023 that was down to 1000, which is still decreasing but slower. I'm not saying the Permian will stop producing oil. It has the advantage of being near the coast and a tonne of infrastructure. Technology is improving, and new wells in the Permian are actual more productive today than in the past, but productivity per lateral foot drilled is declining, which shows the actual resource is depleting. But ultimately Fracking is an amazing technology to produce cheap natural gas - particularly if we can find a way to not use Diesel to run the pumps. Oil is a side product for a limited number of years after the play goes into production.
    1
  2230.  @joelscott5783  We need a wide scale militia. This is not an 1812 joke this is a comment on Ukraine's success points.
    1
  2231. Was this timed to align with WIL, who is currently eating 30 a day to study an anabolic effects?
    1
  2232.  @Rhdlm-yo1tv  I don't care about Smith or her mandate she's an idiot. Her base is full of idiots. But they are allowed to leave Canada, and the US wants them This is not time to rub in their face that they are wrong. We hand over money to a bunch of provinces without expecting a return. We can risk losing money on a pipeline
    1
  2233.  @3baxcb  it doesn't matter she is hardly important. The Alberta base is real.
    1
  2234.  @symon168  I'm not call Smith a genius I'm not a fan of her at all. That doesn't change she represents a real and large scale stance in Alberta.
    1
  2235.  @cubangal1  if I throw a dart randomly at a map, odds are pretty good I hit a country the US installed the government of. I have no idea how you cannot see that, with Albertas entire economy based on US trade, a huge number of Albertans getting their news from Fox, and an existing Seperatists and pro American movement that shut down our capital for weeks, we are at enormous risk of losing the highly conservative oil rich province.
    1
  2236. @ericnonya3650 what is?
    1
  2237.  @nikkispark85  I really don't know what people think will happen to the tailings ponds if we let the mining operations fail
    1
  2238.  @johndoh5182  had you're cake and ate it there, eh? Not that the other guy was right, although ocean acidification is about half caused by shipping to my understanding
    1
  2239. I actually know nothing about carbon pricing in Japan. Elaborate?
    1
  2240.  @MiguelAngel-gn3ht  Why it's true that there are biofuels that aren't awful, waste oils or sugar cane ethanol in Brazil, the vast majority of biofuels currently produced are that waste of farm land. I have hope for algie or cellulose on the future, but realistically it's further away than perfect carbon capture and in the same vein marketed as a way not to change any existing infrastructure. But I hope you're work pays off! I hope one day "town gas" means NG from waste treatment plants.
    1
  2241.  @MilwaukeeF40C  Actually, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is the closest thing to a sustainable biofuel at scale. Unlike beef it's not linked to deforestation.
    1
  2242. Poland wnd q few more words
    1
  2243.  @markbaker6553  idk I these things should be done in pretty tight knit coordination.
    1
  2244. I think this conversation was excellent, but I do think a few points were missed that changes some conclusions; For one, I agree we are currently under investmenting in renewables. But it is not as though we are already seeing new investment in a pipeline. I am very confident Caney intends to drive enormous investment into renewables and AI, it is the core of his argument for the future in Value(s) . And I think the political trade is infact greater access for BC to buy and sell on Alberta's grid, and replace/expand the California market it trades with and get more access to low cost wind and drive largescale investment in Alberta renewables, and drive data center investment to explort low cost electricity and geothermal. And I disagree about Nuclear. It is more than just the current electrical cost, its an advanced and important technology who's cost can be driven down aggressively. I agree the occasional electrical plant SMR is a poor development strategy TLDR, reasons SMRs are well suited to oilsands; aside for some experimental designs to build regulatory and technical capacity). Ultimately I think deployment in the oilsands is the best way to due to the clear advantages (replacing NG and eliminating it from the marginal cost, direct provision of high tempature heat instead of losing energy in conversion, mass quantities for SAGD for commercialization, single technological usage spread out across just 4 companies operating hazardous industrial equipment creates an easy regulatory space, multiple large scale branch off industries (upgraders, refineries, oil sands mines (and from there Mines)) that share the same major operators, allows nuclear output to be directed towards exports, a new energy market for oilsands operators to sell into as part of the transition from oil. Ps, I'm not trying to name drop that I read Values all the time, I'm just trying to give people an idea of what it actually talks about and hopefully get people to read it.
    1
  2245. @lesliegweir  I agree. I said Hudson Bay may allow LNG.
    1
  2246. @polishtheday  I agree it's very unlikely Quebec starts fracking. My point is that that is the only way we will ever export LNG from eastern Canada, unless our or a foreign government are willing to lose money on it.
    1
  2247. ​ @tysi2011 thank you for the comment sense, I don't know how people can act like 3 times the space in the Sahara is equal to farm land or forest. Let alone the higher capacity factors that makes it more like 2 to 1.
    1
  2248. ​ @karmo0o178 there is an ammonia cell that's been demonstrated and is being commercialized in Denmark that has as low an energy as a state of the art Methane to ammonia plant, no Carbon Capture included. It uses more electrical energy, whereas the methane plant uses mainly thermal, and that's arguably less expensive, although peak solar or wind energy prices change that. Now, are likely producing in a Gulf state, for cheapest possible solar energy, so you're competing against very inexpensive NG. Imo it (or something very like it) is going to be one of the top 10 most important technologies of the next 30 years. It would even work alongside something like fusion. One of my biggest questions on the future is what we'll do with all the extra available oxygen. If you're interested, it works by using a solid oxide electrolysis cell to seperate the Oxygen from a mix of steam and air. Oxygen from the air moves across the Membrane, and water breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen, which also crosses the membrane. The mix of hot Hydrogen and the nitrogen still in the air can then directly be converted to ammonia, switch saves money on not requiring an Air seperation unit to remove the oxygen from the air and having to produce green hydrogen seperately to then react converting the operation to a single stage. Look up Haldor Topsoe if interested.
    1
  2249.  @knutritter461  and that may be foolish. But when you say the problem with Hydrogen is storage, you're talking about a specific use case, when it can be and is planned to be stored as ammonia.
    1
  2250.  @mignik01   I don't understand why YouTube clears comments so cavalierly, but I hate to think it's probably because two people talking drives less engagement than 50 people each yelling at 50 people. But always copy anything longer than a sentence now. I think 2 things are important to consider on demand drop. Firstly, I'd say that in urban, developed areas including most of North America, Europe, Asia, and India, we'll see EVs quickly dominate. * See more below. This will lower global oil gasoline demand in particular. Secondly, a barrel of oil is a mix of different sized hydrocarbons, about half of those are in the size range we use for gasoline. All of which means for a refinery to survive, it will be selling very cheap gas, and have to make all its revenue on naphtha feedstock and propane sales, and heavier molecule diesel and jet fuel and lubricants, which means the prices will have to increase. There is some extent to which we can change the ratio, either seperating more out of the gas or cracking it if the demand for petrofeed stock exists. But rebuilding refineries is quite rare in modern day. The point being actual oil demand can't lower significantly if diesel doesn't alongside gasoline, and diesel prices will increase and push away demand. ** On the otherhand, I expect by 2027 declining long-term Chinese demand will trigger an OPEC price war to kill fracking and Canadian oil sands mining (not the SAGD, the strip mines), and likely succeed, probably dumping a lot of cheap gasoline in Africa, particularly the east coast. Or else I expect OPEC to collapses with enormous oversupply the result anyway. Particularly since I think the Ukraine war will have to end by 2026 and Russian oil will return to Europe. So low oil prices might keep diesel and other Petro products cheap at the expense of import dependency for north america. But we know large cut to gasoline demand will occur, and this will ultimately require other uses to decline as well or else dump cheap gasoline somewhere. *China in particular already has half of new vehicle sales as EVs. China represents something like 40% of oil imports? And at the same time has a protected market providing 40% of their oil today. Chinese demand dropping in half over the next few years would be 10 million barrels a day gone alone. While South Korea and Japan might issue tariffs in Asia, I can't see south Korea EVs not growling rapidly. I can't see Indonesia not striking a trade deal to access cheap EVs for cities (while pushing on its horrible Palm Oil biodiesel plan). Europe (EU) is obviously pushing EVs, although only 20% of vehicles are EVs (because they did a terrible job with industrial policy and Germany will collapse if it can't sell cars), but still one of the largest importers cutting demand, and I can't imagine in the next few years Russian oil doesn't return. **There is a bitumen to diesel only plant in Alberta; that works because all the bitumen is larger than diesel and is broken down, shale oils greatest issue is it has so little diesel, shale oil is why diesel prices are no longer cheaper than gasoline and propane is dirt cheap. And I've seen several refineries being turned into biodeisel (which I hate), but that does mean more supply for diesel, although is also a substitute.
    1
  2251.  @mignik01    I don't understand why YouTube clears comments so cavalierly, but I hate to think it's probably because two people talking drives less engagement than 50 people each yelling at 50 people. But always copy anything longer than a sentence now. I think 2 things are important to consider on demand drop. Firstly, I'd say that in urban, developed areas including most of North America, Europe, Asia, and India, we'll see EVs quickly dominate. * See more below. This will lower global oil gasoline demand in particular. Secondly, a barrel of oil is a mix of different sized hydrocarbons, about half of those are in the size range we use for gasoline. All of which means for a refinery to survive, it will be selling very cheap gas, and have to make all its revenue on naphtha feedstock and propane sales, and heavier molecule diesel and jet fuel and lubricants, which means the prices will have to increase. There is some extent to which we can change the ratio, either seperating more out of the gas or cracking it if the demand for petrofeed stock exists. But rebuilding refineries is quite rare in modern day. The point being actual oil demand can't lower significantly if diesel doesn't alongside gasoline, and diesel prices will increase and push away demand. ** On the otherhand, I expect by 2027 declining long-term Chinese demand will trigger an OPEC price war to kill fracking and Canadian oil sands mining (not the SAGD, the strip mines), and likely succeed, probably dumping a lot of cheap gasoline in Africa, particularly the east coast. Or else I expect OPEC to collapses with enormous oversupply the result anyway. Particularly since I think the Ukraine war will have to end by 2026 and Russian oil will return to Europe. So low oil prices might keep diesel and other Petro products cheap at the expense of import dependency for north america. But we know large cut to gasoline demand will occur, and this will ultimately require other uses to decline as well or else dump cheap gasoline somewhere. *China in particular already has half of new vehicle sales as EVs. China represents something like 40% of oil imports? And at the same time has a protected market providing 40% of their oil today. Chinese demand dropping in half over the next few years would be 10 million barrels a day gone alone. While South Korea and Japan might issue tariffs in Asia, I can't see south Korea EVs not growling rapidly. I can't see Indonesia not striking a trade deal to access cheap EVs for cities (while pushing on its horrible Palm Oil biodiesel plan). Europe (EU) is obviously pushing EVs, although only 20% of vehicles are EVs (because they did a terrible job with industrial policy and Germany will collapse if it can't sell cars), but still one of the largest importers cutting demand, and I can't imagine in the next few years Russian oil doesn't return. **There is a bitumen to diesel only plant in Alberta; that works because all the bitumen is larger than diesel and is broken down, shale oils greatest issue is it has so little diesel, shale oil is why diesel prices are no longer cheaper than gasoline and propane is dirt cheap. And I've seen several refineries being turned into biodeisel (which I hate), but that does mean more supply for diesel, although is also a substitute.
    1
  2252.  @mignik01  I think if you're in suburban neighborhoods in California or the Midwest, or even the east coast with some improvement, roof top solar will make sense, and even in cities commercial roof top will provide a considerable amount of power with little to know distance. And Utilities solar is also less expensive nuclear. Again, parts of Europe and New York, megacities in Asia, nuclear is a strong fit. But India, China, the middle east, most of Africa, California to Houston to Chicago, are all going to be cheaper today with solar than using nuclear without a breakthrough in SMRs. I'd say a majority of the world's population and America's population live in regions where cloud cover is easily predictable and very low for seasonal periods. The issue is it's hard to scale up nuclear for 1MW of power. It's very rare the grid needs GWs of power suddenly turned on. Solar is cheap to keep adding incrementally everywhere, Nuclear is cheap to build one really big one, but quickly gets to a point where it's pushing down prices. But again it's kinda moot. I would have been perfectly happy if we did huge amounts of nuclear. But we didn't, and no one is really building it, and solar is still decreasing in cost which means it's suitable in less ideal locations.
    1
  2253.  @mignik01  I think 2 things are important to consider on demand drop. Firstly, I'd say that in urban, developed areas including most of North America, Europe, Asia, and India, we'll see EVs quickly dominate. * See more below. This will lower global oil gasoline demand in particular. Secondly, a barrel of oil is a mix of different sized hydrocarbons, about half of those are in the size range we use for gasoline. All of which means for a refinery to survive, it will be selling very cheap gas, and have to make all its revenue on naphtha feedstock and propane sales, and heavier molecule diesel and jet fuel and lubricants, which means the prices will have to increase. There is some extent to which we can change the ratio, either seperating more out of the gas or cracking it if the demand for petrofeed stock exists. But rebuilding refineries is quite rare in modern day. The point being actual oil demand can't lower significantly if diesel doesn't alongside gasoline, and diesel prices will increase and push away demand. ** On the otherhand, I expect by 2027 declining long-term Chinese demand will trigger an OPEC price war to kill fracking and Canadian oil sands mining (not the SAGD, the strip mines), and likely succeed, probably dumping a lot of cheap gasoline in Africa, particularly the east coast. Or else I expect OPEC to collapses with enormous oversupply the result anyway. Particularly since I think the Ukraine war will have to end by 2026 and Russian oil will return to Europe. So low oil prices might keep diesel and other Petro products cheap at the expense of import dependency for north america. But we know large cut to gasoline demand will occur, and this will ultimately require other uses to decline as well or else dump cheap gasoline somewhere. *China in particular already has half of new vehicle sales as EVs. China represents something like 40% of oil imports? And at the same time has a protected market providing 40% of their oil today. Chinese demand dropping in half over the next few years would be 10 million barrels a day gone alone. While South Korea and Japan might issue tariffs in Asia, I can't see south Korea EVs not growling rapidly. I can't see Indonesia not striking a trade deal to access cheap EVs for cities (while pushing on its horrible Palm Oil biodiesel plan). Europe (EU) is obviously pushing EVs, although only 20% of vehicles are EVs (because they did a terrible job with industrial policy and Germany will collapse if it can't sell cars), but still one of the largest importers cutting demand, and I can't imagine in the next few years Russian oil doesn't return. **There is a bitumen to diesel only plant in Alberta; that works because all the bitumen is larger than diesel and is broken down, shale oils greatest issue is it has so little diesel, shale oil is why diesel prices are no longer cheaper than gasoline and propane is dirt cheap. And I've seen several refineries being turned into biodeisel (which I hate), but that does mean more supply for diesel, although is also a substitute.
    1
  2254.  @timmygoldstein  I agree Germany should not have gone off nuclear, and I don't know about power in Germany as I do shale, but I believe you are misrepresenting the success of renewables. Russian Natural Gas was cut off, forcing the return to coal. German and European wind and solar have continued to grow over this time, and German coal use dropped over 20% this year, 2 years after being entirely cut off from like 3/4 of Gas supply. This was a failure of strategic policy, one so obvious Trump was against Nord steam. This was not a failure of renewables.
    1
  2255.  @mignik01  infrastructure like Pipelines (which I obviously in some cases support) is expected to operate over decades, so even if technology is not yet commercialized, you do have to consider the likely your infrastructure becoming unnecessary.
    1
  2256.  @mignik01  I think you understand how far material science has developed in the last 5 years and how it is improving.
    1
  2257. @mignik01  make progress you say as half of Chinese cars sales are EVs.
    1
  2258. @mignik01  LNG is another fuel that might become common in long haul truck. But I agree with that point, where we disagree is I think it is myopic to only believe that things that have been commercialized can be.
    1
  2259. @mignik01  they truck LNG from BC to Inuvik on the Artic Ocean. It's very easy to store. And Natural Gas is very cheap throughout the US interior, so much so that I think it's entirely reasonable to think a small LNG facilities can distribute across the US. Diesel is only going to keep getting more expensive, the dropping gasoline demand reduces the availability of other refinery products.
    1
  2260. @mignik01  USA gasoline demand was declining the entirety of the 2000s and is still well below Covid levels. Between ethanol, higher fuel efficiency, EVs, and fewer miles drive it's pretty flat at best. LNG is also a liquid. You just have to keep it in a Thermos tank. But it's not difficult to maintain they ship it over seas.
    1
  2261. @mignik01  You can't though. Legally there are lots of regulations on storing diesel. For 4 years before Covid, it was flat. That was under the newly elected president. There's no reason to think it's going to go past that level, and it's only recovered half it's drop in the 3 years since Covid was relevant. Refinery Capacity is also still below Covid. Implying a lack of long term demand on the opinion of investors.
    1
  2262. @mignik01  it doesn't matter why, both have a considerable cost, but LNG is not difficult to store. I do not believe it will return to the 2018 high. Work from home in particular is a huge cut to miles driven. All predictions are for decline by 2030, and there is no evidence a growth trend.
    1
  2263. @mignik01  The record-high level of finished motor gasoline consumption was about 392 million gallons per day in 2018, that's straight from the IEA. I think your quoting petroleum product consumption which is not at all the conversation. Maybe if you looked at the right chart.
    1
  2264.  @mignik01  I said gasoline demand is dropping. You said "you say demand is dropping. I see no evidence". You have to look at specific usage, because oil divides into different products, and so a loss of one product market effects all markets.
    1
  2265.  @mignik01  you can't just look at oil consumption to say you understand a trend, you need to look at the first derivative to make any comments about future rates of growth. Through the 2010s everyone expected US gas demand to sky rocket up, instead it's plateaued for two decades and is expected to fall in the future. Chinese oil imports are expected to drop in 2025 or 2026, and again the rate of growth has already collapsed. If gasoline demand collapses, other uses for oil also have to decrease, because a barrel of oil is a mix of products. Some of that gasoline might be able to shift to diesel, but only a small percentage. More of it will be able to shift to petrochemicals. But as we already established, petrochemicals are only 10% of demand, so the difficulty will be absorbing the half of demand gas now makes up. Which gets us to that 50% of demand to Petro chemicals point. Either oil demand will continue to drop, or Saudis and OPEC will flood the market and kill North American production.
    1
  2266. @mignik01  the evidence repeated put forward is continuously decreasing EV and battery cost, which your saying is about to dramatically end with no evidence yourself and against investor sentiment, direct national policies by the two largest Oil importers in the world to cut consumption, with the largest already selling half of new vehicles as EVs, and a decrease in US gasoline consumption, even prior to covid, including declines in refining capacity and gas stations showing a lack of investor belief in demand. I have been clear. I'm not suggesting the end of oil. But over the next 25 years, the vast majority of urban vehicles will move to being electric, which will create a glut of gasoline, which will create price pressures on other refined products that cause decreasing demand- excluding petrochemicals, because Gasoline can be fractured to increase supply.
    1
  2267. @mignik01  not for Gasoline usgae over the last 5 years, or ten years, or 20 years, which I have been repeatedly clear was the point of conversation. If gasoline demand decreases, then decreases must follow for other refined products.
    1
  2268. @mignik01  no, it doesn't. Energy changes usually grow exponentially, not linearly
    1
  2269. @LauraineHowattpansy2018  the question is how, and within the next year. I'd love to see a German Style E-Highway build out, and a removal of tariffs on Chinese EVs for Taxi companies. But this is an enormous issue. Canada's main population center is dependent on the US for transportation. And I take issue with not acknowledging that.
    1
  2270.  @user-lc8sz2lw8o  I don't think so but they never do
    1
  2271.  @user-lc8sz2lw8o  I don't think so, but they never do.
    1
  2272. Even if this were a war NATO wanted, all Russia would have to do is withdraw. NATO isn't going to support Ukraine taking over Russia lol, it won't even provide long range weapons.
    1
  2273.  @MichaelKennedy-i6o  maybe try offering to use the royalties from oil sold through the line to invest in Eastern Canada's manufacturing industry. Perhaps if other provinces had something to gain
    1
  2274.  @briseboy  I'm not sure I take your meaning...
    1
  2275. @LauraineHowattpansy2018  west to east is not an economically viable project, but neither is the TransCanada highway. They should both be viewed as strategic necessity. West coast pipelines were what we need for the industry
    1
  2276. The simple answer is yes, SAGD can be expanded profitably.
    1
  2277.  @lejhand2067  I'd say it struggles if your population isn't particularly attached to the nation state, particularly in highly tribe or religion oriented societies, of which Saudi is both.
    1
  2278. @terrydengis5405  ya it would be pretty silly to live somewhere reaching -40 relying on nothing but an air source heat pump.
    1
  2279.  @poppyrider5541  I'm not missing the point at all, I'm not suggesting the Chinese military is not a serious threat. I'm just saying that while you regularly hear China apologists say "China doesn't fight offensive wars" suggesting we don't have to worry China will start a conflict, in regards to Taiwan the CCP would not consider it an offensive conflict.
    1
  2280.  @lumpy-porridge  the argument here isn't that a single gas turbine isn't loaded, but that those people have never been within ear shot because so few are needed relative to wind turbines.
    1
  2281. @RealKarlReid  I've long felt the best solution to this, as well as correcting for the Dutch disease oil caused us in the 2000s, is for royalties to go to Albertas wealth fund, and that fund to be invested domestically and in non-oil sectors. If Alberta could say "look we just invested $1 billion in a Chip FAB in BC or a battery plant in Ontario, and we did it with oil money" there would be a lot more appetite in other provinces. But at the same time, it allows Alberta to keep all the direct wealth and no sharing is required.
    1
  2282.  @davidleaman6801  I have no issue with Tidal but I have yet to see an example that can compete with Solar or nuclear imo, at least without destroying the coast. That said I like the idea of floating wind turbines that also generate tidal power.
    1
  2283.  @kurttosczak8544  I certainly don't think Pipelines are THE answer. I think they are an answer to some specific issues and part of the solution overall. I'd argue the time it takes to build are within the timeline we can expect US demand to fall, and we are a low enough cost producer with a product that will maintain relatively high demand compared to conventional oil that we can hold market share in Asia.
    1
  2284. @kurttosczak8544  I agree with that prediction. What I disagree with is viewing bitumen as oil. Oil decline is drive by EVs cutting out gasoline demand. That's leading to more demand for very light oil for petrochemicals, and very heavy oil, like our own, for jet fuel and diesel. I believe we are more competitive than the Saudis for this reason, they will struggle to market conventional oil. I also would disagree with a 10 year time line. 5 years I think is achievable if this is a political goal, particularly since we have pipeline proposals that were well developed before being shelved. You also have to consider existing assets invested. Losing $10 billion on pipelines that saved hundreds of billions of otherwise stranded assets is not something I'm against, particularly in regards to an east coast line.
    1
  2285. @kurttosczak8544  I very much disagree with this stance. I don't think the Emergency act would be required to expedite construction, I think public buy in is available and easily encouraged, and Environmental studies for several routes already exist to allow safe but quick reviews.
    1
  2286. Largely off topic, but has anyone seen the new findings in the Azores? Similar to Passage tombs and maybe dating to 2000BC?
    1
  2287.  @rohacha9iin40  Look up Azores + research gate + passage tombs. BBC also did a video on it "were the azores home to an ancient civilization". Still early in the results, but it looks pretty legitimate.
    1
  2288. I don't believe grid storage will be captured in the long term by LFPs. I think Sodium ions will out compete them as energy density isn't relevant to stationary storage, along with the entirely seperate technologies mentioned. The exception is used EV batteries which will have a second life on the grid.
    1
  2289. 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
  2290.  @test40323  3. Great idea, I agree 2) also could be great play, I would love to see that 1) important to note the difference between oil and DilBit. Most of our exports are DilBit, which frankly is about as different from oil as oil is from Natural gas. That's Quebec's concern. And, European customers and eastern Canadian refineries can't use DilBit, TransCanada was always about getting it to Tidewater to sail it to the US Gulf. Obviously that would not be the objective in any currently discussed project. If Alberta built an Upgrader and sent SynCrude, I think a lot of these issues around pipelines would have been settled years ago..
    1
  2291. It is Infact hilarious people think Canadian LNG is going to displace coal plants in central China 1000km from the coast. China isn't going yo use the coal plants as back up, its going to turn them into nuclear plants.
    1
  2292. @vanhoot2234  the turbines that spin to pump the NG. Transmountain uses electrified pump stations.
    1
  2293.  @vanhoot2234  the issue is methane physical escaping. Electric pumps use a magnetic system so there is no ability for methane to leave the pipe
    1
  2294.  @vanhoot2234  sorry, now that I'm awake, the way NG pump stations normally work is they vent some of the NG from the pipeline into a side compartment. This side compartment also takes in air, to fuel combustion, and just like in a powerplant that combustion spins a turbine, but instead of generating electricity it pressurizes the pipeline. And it does this by spinning a wheel inside the pipeline, again usually, using a physical axel that connects through a hole in the wall between the wheel on the inside of the pipe and the turbine in the pump station. So you have leakage along the turbine, and you have leakage where the NG is taken out of the pipe to the pump station. An electric turbine is usually a closed system. The turbine is driven with an electric motor, and there is no axel going through the pipe. Often a magnetic mechanism may be used so the a motor spinning externally pulls a wheel increasing pressure internally without physical contact. Otherwise the motor may be internal (harder to maintain). But no NG has to be diverted to spin. Don't quote this number but I believe something like 14% of methane leakage from NG is in pipelines mainly at pump stations. Beside the fact that you are burning NG, reducing product moved and releasing emissions, rather than powering the pump with some mix of renewables.
    1
  2295. Na I would be willing to ration power to break Putin.
    1
  2296. I guess your grouping Biden in this to try and bait people into believing Trump would support Ukraine? Biden clearly didn't delay anything. Spot on with Johnson of course.
    1
  2297.  @pin65371  I assume that's a joke, but I don't see how it could help anyone.
    1
  2298. I wouldn't go so far as to compare it with slavery in the America, but certainly there have been cases of slavery that are comparable
    1
  2299. My concern is exactly that it is viable but it makes Canada a high cost Jurisdiction and collapses what little industry we have left. We need a plan that is more than viable. I want to live in a thriving country, not a viable one.
    1
  2300. ​​ @trishmurphy1941 oil cannot compete in the long term with renewables even if I wanted it to. I am saying we need to invest in Tidal, Geothermal, and Nuclear. China saw the global energy system and said "this screws us, we need a better one". We need to do the same, we fundamentally cannot compete with Solar in the equator, we need to develop something less expensive. Edit: wind is good too. But I don't think it can compete with solar long term. But it definitely has a niche worth exploiting.
    1
  2301. Russia really did just take it's biggest customer, jerk them around weaponized their trade and sent them into depression, turned to China and said " want to be next?"
    1
  2302.  @jacquirimown3886  the 100% EV mandate is not going to work. EVs will have issues for quite a while. However, the goal of the policy is to create a domestic market to allow manufacturers to transition and get a foot hold in the global market.
    1
  2303.  @gpsfinancial6988  For the most part, that's like saying Toronto can use EVs. Both are highly Urban countries, with those cities in the southern most coastal area, and in Norway's case, each little town is mainly an island to itself. I agree with a general push to EVs. But I think these examples are disingenuous.
    1
  2304. One reason I feel this is a better design for cities than suburbs is that I feel it is not ideal for Bus usage. In cities roads like this can truely be designed around car motion, because there is walkable shoulders and likely rapid transit. In the suburbs roads should be built for buses as well.
    1
  2305.  @Tom_McMurtry  Toyota has been betting big on Hydrogen because Japan has no access to battery input material. It's based on government policy. Also it's closer to existing engines
    1
  2306. I think it was Boars in the Aegean, not bears.
    1
  2307. Thorium is the tech bro nuclear fission solution. It's just an excuse not to build fission reactors while saying you want fission.
    1
  2308.  @Denver_____  Idk why you're going after bagged milk Canadians aren't Simping for Russia like this guy is
    1
  2309.  @Mrs_Susan  there is a 500 kV line coming south from Moosnee to Sudbury and then Toronto. I'd say the best option is to upgrade that to Quebecs 750 kV standard, and connect Moosnee to the James Bay Hydro stations in Quebec. At the same time, build a 1000km HV DC line from Manitoba to the Ring of Fire in Ontario as part of development there. And Finally another 750 kV line between the Ring of Fire and Moosnee. It isn't exactly a connection because Quebec can't sell to Manitoba. But Manitoba can alternate between selling 2GW east or reserving that power to send west while Quebec sends power to southern Ontario and Ring of Fire. Only works if you have a large load center in the Ring of Fire and actually develop it, though. And relatively soon it will probably be cheaper for everyone to just have their own grid since storage will make transmission balancing less important..
    1
  2310. The data centers should also be seen in an internal context; they effectively allow upvaluing and exporting of Electrical generation, they allow Branding of being a secure and safe data provider, and the large purchases required should be leveraged in trade deal - Canadian LNG isn't overly competitive, but we can agree with Japan to buy servers at the level they buy LNG, for example. Using one export to build its replacement.
    1
  2311.  @patricksullivan3919  solar will be incredibly inexpensive. But I do believe Nuclear is the only technology that may be completive, and we should be pushing SMR development rapidly. We need to force the Oil sands off NG and onto SMRs to create a market. Geothermal and tidal might be cheaper than either, it's hard to say. But, SMRs will be the least expensive option for process heat.
    1
  2312.  @peterchen2643  Thorium is over rated but Molten Salt reactors are the best possible technology to invest it
    1
  2313. @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
  2314.  @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
  2315. Am I banned from replying?
    1
  2316. @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
  2317. @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
  2318. @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
  2319. @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
  2320. 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
  2321. 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
  2322. 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
  2323. 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
  2324.  @ryuuguu01  sorry I can't seem to reply directly
    1
  2325. @sorry for the multiple and indirect replies
    1
  2326. This is silly as more Oil has been produced under Biden than Trump.
    1
  2327. We should probably move this before the San Andreas fault destroys LA.
    1
  2328.  @sylvialoffredo3887  honestly the answer is Because of China. China has put just about the full force of their industry into battery manufacturing and solar panels. They have done this because they are fundamentally energy insecure, and oil, and to a much lesser extent coal, imports are widely seen as their largest strategic weakness. And they have made it insanely inexpensive to produce and store electricity and are continuing to drive costs lower. This will have the triple impact of; cutting oil demand dramatically further empowering OPEC to squeeze our industry, meaning we are no longer a low energy cost jurisdiction, and because China controls supple chains while being a generation of manufacturing ahead of us they will become the global energy exporter. I think we should be investing heavily in SMRs to try and make the magic hot rocks less expensive than the magic crystals that turn sunlight into electricity. And windmills keep the steel and concrete industry alive. But Europe also wants energy independence, and between the two they will create a large enough market that any country can become energy independent for less cost than conventional energy. We need to become a player in the new markets because our traditional markets will be retracting. So to heat specifically the expectation power will be less expensive and because in the 70s heat pumps weren't as developed. Also in the 1980s OPEC flooded the market and the US deregulated natural gas, which undercut the movement to electrify (although that seems to be happening right now, China and seemingly Europe are far more determined to push through this time).
    1
  2329. What's never mentioned is the students in Tiananmen square were hard core communists against market reforms.
    1
  2330. Idk why my comment didn't post, but it's never mentioned the students killed in the square were actually hard line communists against market reforms. The US has killed a few communists to.
    1
  2331. ​ @callmeneutrino7136  ditto😊
    1
  2332. Then you are wrong, as he was better than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. Note how he led the largest rebuilding of American industry since WW2 and didn't sell it to China like the above.
    1
  2333.  @USMC-Goforth  that's just not true, he's likely the second best, although arguably the best was just re-elected
    1
  2334. I don't think you're a China booster, but I do think we need to focus less on their success and more on how to get someone on the ice to break their ankle - they beat us with a new technology, we need to do the same, not compete in their game. That said, I think Canada has an opportunity that is fleeting. We are probably going to lose the big three automakers to the US, that is their core demand. But, we have a strong and long relationship with the Detroit 3, and I think the proposal we should put forward is to become the hub of export model EVs. Export models from the Detroit 3, you ask? Exactly - this is something Canada and the industry both need, can fill the void of lost US market, grow the industry, and contribute to a larger EV and Battery ecosystem we need to build to keep cost down while getting around tariffs against the US for the companies looking to export.. Most of the domestic Canadian car industry builds parts, like doors and roofs, and that EVs still use and so EVs offer a pathway to maintain those supply chains. GM produces the Bright drop EV cargo van in Ingersoll, Stellantis is planning on building the Jeep Compass EV in Brampton and the Chrysler Pacifica EV in Windsor. Honda produces the CR V. Project Arrow also has the APMA working toward an all Canadian EV. This must be supported. Toyota produced the EV RAV4 in Woodstock, Ford was going to produce the Explorer and Aviator in Oakville until changing plans at the start of 2025. We need to get a Tesla Giga factory, and a BYD assembly plant as well. In general we need to establish ourselves as the hub of export oriented EV models to the Atlantic. And most of all, we need to build the entire supply chain. This only works if the competitive advantage is full supply chain integration greatly reducing the transport cost of materials while making a more ethical product. We can't be fighting over land rights or spend 20 years studying a lithium or cobalt mine, it has to be rushed.
    1
  2335. 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
  2336. ​​ @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
  2337.  @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
  2338. This is exactly why we need a west coast pipeline. The Saudis can't play the go lower game against the DilBit SAGD producers. Technically they can; but Alberta and Canada can survive without being reliant on oil revenues, and the Saudi state cannot. They need to maintain at least $30 a barrel to bribe the people or the country and its oil production collapse..
    1
  2339.  @ToniCroX  Yes but there os a "black market"
    1
  2340. I disagree with Markham on the way to move forward with the oilsands, but I have worried about your safety as well. Both with the strong anti Trump stance, and when you had that bike accident.
    1
  2341. Seems off topic but hoping SMRs work. I would like to see them in the Oil Sands.
    1
  2342. As was addressed in the Chevron-Hess video, industry is being liquidated. They are paying out shareholders with all cash flow. We need to stop this, return their revenue into investment, or else their liabilities to assets will eventually get to the point they declare bankruptcy and leave us with the mess. You called the CEOs privates recently, I agree, and this is the piracy.
    1
  2343. You're energy independent because you have a technology to produce oil, but it's an expensive technology
    1
  2344. @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
  2345. I have to disagree, it is common knowledge, these meetings are for show to the internal population Russia: "Economic relief around the corner" China: "We are powerful and energy independent enough we set terms"
    1
  2346. ​ @glennjanot8128 so one one hand, this ignores the deflationary aspect on the Canadian economy and the way lumber prices will decrease, on the other hand, I believe OP was referencing US exports or import substitution.
    1
  2347. I'm not pushing veganism, but any kind of processed fake meat is unhealthy, and having regularly switched between vegan and meat eating can confirm the hotdog or sausage is tbe 1 one thing that can't be replicated. I have never found a not gross one.
    1
  2348.  @drbuckley1  to me the concern is Iran launching a large scale coordinated missile/drone attack and invasion of The Saudi east coast, the UAE, and US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. I think revolutionary guard forces could quite quickly destroy power station and desalination in the UAE and occupy the coastal cities, and secure control over both sides of the straight of Hormuz, which would cut off US resupply to the entire region into Syria and leave the US reliant of Air Resupply. At the same time, Iranian military and Militias could attack oil producing regions in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and block of the few highways to the region, while thousands to 10s of thousands of missiles and drones attack US Naval ships and bases. It would certainly lead to a very large conflict and would have immense negatives to Iran. But, it would push the US out of the middle east entirely to Israel, and commiting to such a conflict would almost certainly lead to China invading Taiwan, which I think is particularly relevant because cutting off middle Eastern oil to China is the main force threatening China. So if it's the worst case regardless and the US is pulled into a massive, trench heavy slow infantry war, alongside supporting Ukraine and threatening Venezuela and Yemen, China will take the opportunity, which means the US can't afford to engage.
    1
  2349. Chinese cycle plant?
    1
  2350. So on one hand, that number is that amount seized, in theory much more could be crossing but ignored because of lax security. But you are right, it has nothing to do with the border. But the reality is much worse. The shifting goal posts are a distraction and the point is to deindustrialize Ontario to bring that auto manufacturing to the US. And frankly, the constant threat of tariffs is just as bad as the tariffs themselves; worse maybe, because it means we don't retaliate and auto makers don't see higher costs while they decide to derisk and change supply lines.
    1
  2351. Im sure Trump and Musk are very worried about dooming ford and GM
    1
  2352.  @TheSNIPEZzz  ya I agree there are broader implications. But I think those are at least talked about, pretty soon there will be huge amounts of porn of you and everyone you know. Society is gonna have to get real cool with some stuff real quickly
    1
  2353. Absolutely great until you called the oil sands easier to extract than Dakota oil. All the conventional deposits in Alberta straddle the US border, Edmonton exists for some of the most difficult oil to produce in the world
    1
  2354. In terms of Mexico, they got a pause on the tariffs today, because policing the south border of Mexico is a lot cheaper than the North border, and Trump wants this done. In terms of Canada, this is simply a mugging, to steal Ontario's manufacturering sector which is already integrated to the Midwest. There is no terms to be met.
    1
  2355. ​ @mikenagy938 The US is getting rid of striker infantry units. I would love a deal where Canada buys those, Canada made them anyway, and takes over some of the UN world policing jobs. But the reality is this has nothing to do with Military spending. Trump just wants to kill Canada's manufacturing sector, built on decades of free trade deals suggested by the US and signed by Trump, to bring investment to the rust belt.
    1
  2356.  @markfinlay422  Interestimg fact about the innuit, they have a genetic mutation that nearly prohibits ketosis. It leads to high infant mortality rates, unfortunately, but allows more efficient glucogenisis. Being maybe the only purely carnivorous culture, this is quite interesting in regards to the health of staying in ketosis (vs intermittent fasting), imo.
    1
  2357. This is a real concern. While I do support oilsands development, we do have to face the reality that in the long term EVs will displace oil, and we should be driving as much investment into EV manufacturing as oil.
    1
  2358. ​ @matthewq4b I didn't say it was for motor oil, I agree it is more desirable than conventional crude, particularly as the gasoline glut forms over the next decade. My point is that within 50 years I expect C02 capture and electrolysis driven by inconsequentially low electricity to basically allow energy to matter conversion by producing hydrocarbons from air. At which point bitumen will no longer be of value.
    1
  2359. ​ @matthewq4b Obviously it is not a star trek replicator. You can stop unreasonably warping my statements. The fact it is not new tech is entirely the point, what is new is the inconsequentially low cost of electricity that makes your point on conversion inefficiency irrelevant. China's entire goal with EVs is to become energy self sufficient. It is not going to accept importing RPPs for diesel and jet fuel, or material uses like motor oil, in the long term. Eventually Energy to Liquids will be widely commercialized, and bitumen will become a liability and not an asset. We have lots of time to prepare for that. But it is coming.
    1
  2360. ​ @matthewq4b  i CAN CAPITALIZE randomLY and withOUT reason TOO
    1
  2361. Knowing where the Ancient Neolithic Farmers originated, I wonder if the lack of shellfish remains aligns in someway with the Jewish prohibition on shellfish. This goes back over 4 thousand years and to before writen records, and fish remains obviously keep in the historical record less reliably than shells.
    1
  2362. 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
  2363. You're from Iraq, would you really prefer to live under Iranian imperialism than American? I'm not particularly fond of the American led global order, but at least Capitalism should eventually lead to communism, right? I'm very skeptical of empowering a theocratic regime to spread Religion as politics type ideology.
    1
  2364.  @markbaker6553  We can and should. The point at issue is Alberta can produce far more than it can turn into Carbon Fiber. And honestly, if I want to move to Alberta, I don't want it to be because I have to for work. I would much rather the bitumen come to Ontario as one of several Carbon fiber production centers and we produce more Carbon fiber overall..
    1
  2365.  @markbaker6553  or if you are suggesting we refine it it Alberta to RRPs, that's fine and they do. But then you still need a pipeline to move the diesel/jet fuel.
    1
  2366.  @markbaker6553  also, I remember when you mark. We obviously disagree, but at least I don't feel it's in the childish contradiction manner. Always enjoy your replies 😊. Also, I agree we should be trying to get foreign governments to pay for it. I believe there are trade deals we could make featuring that. But ultimately I believe if we decided we wanted to be the most ethical and lowest coast producer, we could be. And I don't believe we're going to have a foreign government walk up and demand they be allowed to build a pipeline. So no matter how we go about it, there needs to be a clear long term government policy around the industry meant to strengthen it; and attracting foreign investment is part of that..
    1
  2367.  @markbaker6553  To your second point, we have that pipeline. It will be another reversal of line 9 lol, but it exists, and we should do it. It is priority 1. I'll admit it would be rather tin foil hatty to say we should worry about a blockade of the St. Lawrence. And if it's possible, we aren't very far from a pipeline blowing up. But I think it's worth considering. More importantly though, we're talking about losing an upgrader, losing Canadian production, and increasing importers. And I think all of that is strong argument for a Canadian pipeline - particularly since the plan has always been taking an existing natural gas pipeline and converting it. At the very least, national policy of re-reversing Line 9 should include subsidizing rail shipments of Upgraded SynCrude to Montreal. Also, I'm fine with a negative ROI for an East connection. We pay for a highway. I don't expect free infrastructure. It's like supply management, which obviously I support, buying domestic might not always be the cheapest option. And also, given the manufacturing shut downs were already seeing, even if it loses money, building the pipeline might be good. But I agree we should be actively engaging with foreign partners. I think Japan and Korea would buy us a pipeline if we said we were going to buy $30 billion in server farms from them, which we should do, and I think Europe would pitch in if we said we were going to build East regardless, but would build more capacity if they want it.
    1
  2368.  @markbaker6553  NG is for electric. We build SMRs. But also, 3/4th of Ontario's NG comes out of the US. I care much more about access to oil than NG.
    1
  2369.  @markbaker6553  I don't seem to be allowed to respond in the other video, but I want to clarify what I support in terms of fossil fuels I think LNG projects are almost entirely a waste of time, expect maybe seasonal exports out of Manitoba. I would like to see the Oil sands mining industry come to an end on a set 25 year time line where production quotas are slowly decreased before quickly decreasing, and quotas are allocated based on tail ponds reductions. The mines will close regardless, and I want this to be in a controlled manner that doesn't allow SynCrude (the company) to declare bankruptcy and stick us with their tailings ponds, and in the interim we should support policies that keep the mines operational to ensure this doesn't happen. I would like to see conventional drilling come to an end on a 10 year time line, supported by a massive funding boost to geothermal that maintains the capital and work force and allows us to be a global leader in the industry as China has with solar. I would like to see shale fracking come to an end on a 20-30 year time line, with the real controlling mechanism below; shale fracking provides our dilutant, our Natural gas, and our chemical industry inputs at the moment.
    1
  2370.  @markbaker6553  I would like to see an increase of In Situ SAGD production in the oil sands, potentially to around 5-6M bbl/d. I think this should be a growth industry we support because it is unique to Canada and offers advantages to oil. I think we should be moving SAGD to nuclear steam generators over the next 10 years, cutting NG demand by ~20% of our production. This would make Oil Sands production effectively emissionsless, and make the marginal cost of production almost $0 allowing us to force out OPEC. I want to see the upgraders equipped with Nuclear heating as well, and transitioning to Green Hydrogen as the Alberta grid increases capacity. I want to see a blending requirement meant to increase upgraded Syncrude in DilBit over time to create a market for SynCrude, demand for investment into new upgraders, and push out Dilutent, until we are only selling SynBit, that is again, effectively emissionsless in production. These Upgraders will also act to grow employment in Fort McMurray and avoid a regional collapse from the eventual end of mining. I want to see 2 Northern Gateway pipelines built consecutively, to bring 1M bbl/d to Prince Rupert, for a total of 3M bbl/d reaching the Pacific. And alongside that, I want to see a 300k bbl/d refinery, Bitumen beyond combustion uses such as asphalt and carbon fiber, and a large scale petrochemical industry including Gasoline cracking units to adsorb light fractions without a global market. I want to see a TransCanada line capable of bringing 2M bbl/d east, providing oil security to the 1M bbl/d Eastern Canada uses, and working with Europe to find a long term market for the other 1M bbl/d in East coast exports. I think this line should only be allowed to carry SynCrude, or potentially synCrude with a low blend of Bitumen such that the mix floats.
    1
  2371.  @markbaker6553  Beyond that, I want to see further upgraders that target an even lighter crude that can feed the Chemical industry, pushing out NGLs from shale fracking. I want to see Gasifiers turning Bitumen into Natural gas, supplying NG for LNG exports or power generation or domestic heat. Again, using SMRs for nuclear heat to power the process, creating a continuously expanding domestic market for us to develop as a global leader in SMRs, and meaning that our gasified Bitumen is lower emissions than conventional NG. The time line for this ultimately decides when shale fracking is ended Finally, I want to see Power to Gas slowly worked into this system, which is increasingly dominated by the upgrading process, so that the NG is increasingly reducing emissions, leveraging the existing gasifier and green hydrogen infrastructure. Overtime, as NG demand is met, I want to see that transition to Power to Liquids infrastructure, feeding the chemical industry, and whatever RRP demand is maintained. Eventually, also supplying Asphaltenes for Carbon Fiber and beyond Bitumen uses. I think this point can be reached likely in the 2060-2070 range, and fully converting our petrochemical and NG industries to electrically powered renewable industries; and allowing Alberta to export it's enormous renewable capacity as material and liquid energy products using nuclear heating and cheap green hydrogen..
    1
  2372.  @markbaker6553  I do not want to see a sudden collapse of Canada's largest industry and largest source of export revenue. I do not want to see mines and tailing ponds being abandoned and destroying the Athabasca river. I do not want to see drilling rigs being sold, with a 25% tariff, to the US as the owners write off their value in a low price environment. I do not want to see the Government of Albertas revenue collapse, or mass unemployment centered on Fort McMurray; both because I don't want to see Canadian losing their job and home value, and also because I suspect those particular Canadians will make my life very difficult if they do, either occupying Ottawa or trying to Seperate. I do not want to see us missing an enormous opportunity to leverage our resources and expertise to encourage new industries like nuclear, geothermal, or power to gas that we could take a dominant global position in..
    1
  2373.  @markbaker6553  I would like to see an increase of In Situ SAGD production in the oil sands, potentially to around 5-6M bbl/d. I think this should be a growth industry we support because it is unique to Canada and offers advantages to oil. I think we should be moving SAGD to nuclear steam generators over the next 10 years, cutting NG demand by ~20% of our production. This would make Oil Sands production effectively emissionsless, and make the marginal cost of production almost $0 allowing us to force out OPEC. I want to see the upgraders equipped with Nuclear heating as well, and transitioning to Green Hydrogen as the Alberta grid increases capacity. I want to see a blending requirement meant to increase upgraded Syncrude in DilBit over time to create a market for SynCrude, demand for investment into new upgraders, and push out Dilutent, until we are only selling SynBit, that is again, effectively emissionsless in production. These Upgraders will also act to grow employment in Fort McMurray and avoid a regional collapse from the eventual end of mining.m
    1
  2374.  @markbaker6553  Beyond that, I want to see further upgraders that target an even lighter crude that can feed the Chemical industry, pushing out NGLs from shale fracking. I want to see Gasifiers turning Bitumen into Natural gas, supplying NG for LNG exports or power generation or domestic heat. Again, using SMRs for nuclear heat to power the process, creating a continuously expanding domestic market for us to develop as a global leader in SMRs, and meaning that our gasified Bitumen is lower emissions than conventional NG. The time line for this ultimately decides when shale fracking is ended Finally, I want to see Power to Gas slowly worked into this system, which is increasingly dominated by the upgrading process, so that the NG is increasingly reducing emissions, leveraging the existing gasifier and green hydrogen infrastructure. Overtime, as NG demand is met, I want to see that transition to Power to Liquids infrastructure, feeding the chemical industry, and whatever RRP demand is maintained. Eventually, also supplying Asphaltenes for Carbon Fiber and beyond Bitumen uses..
    1
  2375.  @markbaker6553  I would like to see an increase of In Situ SAGD production in the oil sands, potentially to around 5-6M bbl/d. I think this should be a growth industry we support because it is unique to Canada and offers advantages to oil. I think we should be moving SAGD to nuclear steam generators over the next 10 years, cutting NG demand by ~20% of our production. This would make Oil Sands production effectively emissionsless, and make the marginal cost of production almost $0 allowing us to force out OPEC. I want to see the upgraders equipped with Nuclear heating as well, and transitioning to Green Hydrogen as the Alberta grid increases capacity. I want to see a blending requirement meant to increase upgraded Syncrude in DilBit over time to create a market for SynCrude, demand for investment into new upgraders, and push out Dilutent, until we are only selling SynBit, that is again, effectively emissionsless in production. These Upgraders will also act to grow employment in Fort McMurray and avoid a regional collapse from the eventual end of mining.
    1
  2376.  @markbaker6553  The auto industry is in decline; we have been very active in subsidizing the transformation to EVs. Is that a waste of money? By what metric are we suggesting the Canadian oilsands industry is in decline. We all agree Global oil demand will soon be in decline, but that is not equivalent. Canada produces 5% of global oil, even if 90% of demand were to disappear, in theory we could double production. But more importantly, the extent to which crude oil demand falls doesn't mean we are going to see less demand overall. Those solutions regularly focus on Bitumen beyond combustion. We can build a pipeline to Prince Rupert, sell oil, and as oil demand falls, build Carbon Fiber and petrochemicals for export. I have yet to see any argument that suggests we are risking stranded assets. I have no say in Alberta's provincial politics. I do have a say in federal policy. I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Federal government to assist a province in growing their economy. Again, build all those diversifying energy industries. We don't disagree with that. The question is why that would mean not allowing the oil sands to expand..
    1
  2377. I've wondered for a long time how much of a dogs diet sh!t made up. In cities you feed pigs, but if your a nomadic culture, dogs are better, and it means less feeding.
    1
  2378.  @willnitschke  such a handwoven to say "vastly superior and completely obvious" without actually giving a solution. If the government of Canada stopped accepting Canadian dollars and only accepted USD for tax payment, do you really think anyone would continue to use CAD?
    1
  2379. I would like to hear more about expected future storage costs and how that might impact long term transmission economics
    1
  2380. ​ @aldyendonnelly1033 can you cite a source
    1
  2381. ​ @romanempire7170 the alternative is war?
    1
  2382.  @Hypatia1.618  you can't just build a military in a year. You certainly can't compete with the US.
    1
  2383.  @Carlos12160  great point, it may not be the "allies" were intimidated. But I still am left wondering if Jordan will be a target later today
    1
  2384.  @DisdainusMaximus  I thought those were just debris?
    1
  2385.  @UltraTrev  but just today they helped in Air Defense. I would say the reason they made a show is that the public's view of Israel is very negative. Which is the same reason I would see the strategic aims of trying to take out their government from Iran.
    1
  2386.  @TheBlazersfan22  I have, my point being that the Jordanian public is against Israel, while the government is willing to do more to protect Israel than Europe is willing to aid Ukraine, by directly being involved in air defense. This creates a situation where Iran striking at the Jordanian government may actually create an ally.
    1
  2387. Oh, interesting break out topic. Before watching, I'm betting the answer is Hydro and Wind and some solar in Chile. I do wonder if this will touch on Brazils ethanol industry, or the more touchy aspects of hydro. Looking forward to what I'll be learning!.
    1
  2388. Oil is a mix of Hydro carbons, which have different uses based on length. Canada is not an exceptionally large oil producer. What we produce is bitumen, which can be upgraded into specific products. Plastics generally use short chain Hydrocarbons as inputs, arguably this is not the area bitumen gives us the greatest competitive advantage.
    1
  2389. What aged like milk?
    1
  2390.  @Itchypantz  wtf are you on about? FDI is a good thing. Manufacturing is good for the economy.
    1
  2391.  @cattymajiv  Why don't you like heavy industry? It's the basis of any advanced economy? The majority of public mining companies globally are head quartered to Canada, why should we not allow mining? I'll be frank, I don't know how you can agree with my core point of decoupling while being against anything producing exports or manufacturing the goods we use. I'm against Rent Control, which has never been an effective policy, it only protects existing renters at the expense of those looking for a home. I also agree with concerns around logging but largely support the industry. Logging in BC west of the Rockies should be banned but I have no issue cutting Spruce.
    1
  2392. Its mind numbing that Alberta is trying to restrict renewables while Texas is a leader. Why does Smith hate money.
    1
  2393. @imacmill  moderate compromise would be Alberta increasing SAGD output with a planned rolldown and cleanup of the mines, and royalties put into an investment fund controlled by Alberta channelled into domestic non-O&G industry I'm exchange for an East coast pipeline and many west coast pipelines. Pipelines solve depressed oil prices, and we're about to see them very low with all the associated economic and political costs. I have to gain or lose our economy.
    1
  2394. @DollyRanch  and I expect the practice to expand
    1
  2395. Alberta has several relatively easy steps to move toward a cheaper lower carbon grid. Most importantly, Calgary and Edmonton, in particular, need to be connected to BC, particularly to Revelstoke (Calgary) and Site C (Edmonton). This allows access to not only BCs hydro surplus in the winter, but to Californias Solar surplus through BC, and allows Alberta to sell excess renewable capacity west and south. Secondly, we need to invest in solar with 2-4h storage. Overnight storage is a pipedream, but if storage can provide for the few hours into the evening, existing NG plants built around peaking can be uprated into co-generation facilities with slower load following that can support seasonally low renewables and overnight periods. Wind works with transmission, solar works with storage. And people don't realize how great the solar Resources in Alberta are. The sun still shines in the winter (you may have to clear some snow, but efficiency actually goes up with low temp and you actually get stronger sunlight in the winter, although hours go down), and the biggest thing with solar is cloud cover, where Alberta has clear prairie skys. Lastly, we need money going to Geothermal. We need to find a new market for all the drilling equipment and skilled labour. Geothermal takes care of the winter and lets you peak in in the evening.
    1
  2396.  @timloo6191  So the question was how can we judge Chinese economic activity? And I listed ways.
    1
  2397.  @hk20000  the quote was for houses to be be more affordable they have to cost less. I'm taking that to refer to the vast majority of single family homes, homeowner occupied, that make up the basis of many people's retirement savings and the banking system. Yes, if you make apartments cheaper, then apartments will be cheaper. My point is that will not have an equivalent or potentially a significant impact on SFHs. An adult living with their parents being able to afford an apartment doesn't make the house they were living in less valued.
    1
  2398.  @cspragle561  I agree there is a marginal impact. But for the most part I am saying that these are distinct markets. Some neighborhoods, particularly around universities where single family homes are heavily rented by groups of students, will see more of an impact. But for the most part people being able to afford out of their parents house or afford not to live out of their car are not in the market for SFHs. If only the top half of Canadians can afford to purchase a house at the moment, that implies only the top half of Canadians buying decisions actually impact prices. Only if the people currently looking to buy a home would rather live in a small apartment does that change. And again, looking at the falling condo rents we've seen for years now in the GTA at least, this is not the case.
    1
  2399. ​​ @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
  2400. I understand (African) elephants stand over their dead for long periods, and will pull brush over them. Mammoths may have done the same. Knowing that, ancient cultures may have tried to replicate what they saw as a "death ritual" out of respect.
    1
  2401. Scary to be in Norway. As a Canadian, in constantly heating about how we need to beef up our military or else Russia is going to invade the Arctic... Okay.... Russia can invade some tundra with no infrastructure or ability to transport goods half the year lol. But all that Military build up in the Arctic, that's all aimed at you imo. Let's stop them at Ukraine.
    1
  2402.  @AndrewTheMandrew531  dude I'm fine with "right wing things". I've been following this channel since it did history I've found a lot of the social content in the last few years educational. What I don't like is politics as personality or people feeding into tribalism for profit, it makes the content seem cheap and unreliable.
    1
  2403.  @saisameer8771  I want him to make a living obviously, as he pointed out recently he already makes a good one. What I don't want is to see him sell out into a meme of an influencer who only repeats the same points without review of their own bias.
    1
  2404.  @AndrewTheMandrew531  that's fine (well not really the algorithm sucks eggs but whatever). It would be better if more people saw it with him clearly drawing a line against it than just to float. I appreciate the concept of the video telling me they are right to feel discarded. What I don't like is the general trend if the channel being telling me what I want to hear and making comments to associate himself with influencers. I want discussion not influence..
    1
  2405. @davida.1371  Ipsos puts 40% of people under 30. Abacus puts 20% of Conservatives going to 30% if Liberals win. That clearly leans to the higher end in Alberta. And that's before we do something like try and cut back oil production that leaves people unemployed, or the US increases economic pressure and pushes down oil prices. We need to make sure it says a low level opinion in Alberta. Trump will be on Fox every night saying Alberta would be rich if it joined the US, and we won't have an alternative for them. We need to take the risk seriously. The US doesn't want to annex a bunch of French democrats. It wants oil rich Republicans. This isn't the kind of thing we can wait to see how it goes.
    1
  2406. @davida.1371  Ipsos puts 40% of people under 30. Abacus puts 20% of Conservatives going to 30% if Liberals win. That clearly leans to the higher end in Alberta. And that's before we do something like try and cut back oil production that leaves people unemployed, or the US increases economic pressure and pushes down oil prices. We need to make sure it says a low level opinion in Alberta. Trump will be on Fox every night saying Alberta would be rich if it joined the US, and we won't have an alternative for them. We need to take the risk seriously. The US doesn't want to annex a bunch of French democrats. It wants oil rich Republicans. This isn't the kind of thing we can wait to see how it goes.
    1
  2407. @davida.1371  Ipsos puts 40% of people under 30. Abacus puts 20% of Conservatives going to 30% if Liberals win. That clearly leans to the higher end in Alberta. And that's before we do something like try and cut back oil production that leaves people unemployed, or the US increases economic pressure and pushes down oil prices. We need to make sure it says a low level opinion in Alberta. Trump will be on Fox every night saying Alberta would be rich if it joined the US, and we won't have an alternative for them. We need to take the risk seriously. The US doesn't want to annex a bunch of French democrats. It wants oil rich Republicans. This isn't the kind of thing we can wait to see how it goes.
    1
  2408. ​​ @robertcartwright4374 we don't produce oil, we produce bitumen. Oil demand is collapsing because EVs are displacing gasoline. Look at Sturgeon falls, we can produce 100% diesel or jet fuel or lubricant. We can outcompete the Saudis. But again, it's more than economic. I don't care if we lose money. If we can lose $20 billion a year to keep Quebec in the country, we can risk losing $20 billion over 20 years to keep Alberta. Right now the US can close Line 5 and turn off all the oil to Ontario. Michigan has been trying to get it closed for half a decade. Do you want Toronto relying on Trump's good will?.
    1
  2409. Sweet or sour refers to sulphur, which is one of two characteristics, but you also have API which is the density. Higher density, or heavier, oils tend to produce a higher ratio of heavier petrochemical (more diesel less gasoline). The bigger reason the east coast exports is very light Bakken crudes, whereas the refineries were built for heavier (but not "heavy") Brent oil, so running on Bakken would reduce capacity. It has less to do with Sulphur content. Gulf oil refineries on the other hand are built for the heavy sours of South America, and Midwestern for the even heavier, and less evenly distributed in molecular weight, DilBits from Canada. Which isn't to say you are wrong just adding some color. The other point to remember is that refineries generally have storage, and can mix several different crudes with more or less API and Sulphur, to approximate what your design crude is like.
    1
  2410. @barrybrand2970  I quite clearly said our individual usage of gasoline cars isn't something to care about, what matters is creating an industry that builds and exports electric cars. Because most of the world doesn't care about -35. So either that, or OPEC has just started flooding the market for the next 10 years to try and fight off EVs and will keep oil at $50 a barrel and peak oil has happened in monetary terms. But China isn't going to give up its newfound energy independence so the technology is going to continue at scale and keep a low price pressure and continue to get cheaper and more competitive. I expect India and Indonesia to mainly go electric, but most of coastal Africa to go to gasoline.
    1
  2411. @benholroyd5221  I agree entirely on Hydrogen, the low efficiency conversion is really meaningless in a context where solar is regularly curtailed. But I don't think 6-9 demand, even if it's inflexible, is expensive or non energy abundant. Electrochemical batteries, or a gravity/pressure solution, will offer storage that is only marginally more expensive than effectively free. The only real concern is multiday storage, and if solar is inexpensive enough to install so that it can meet demand on a cloudy winter day, you have absolute abundance. If not, I believe there are other technologies that can put compete solar we should be investing in regardless..
    1
  2412.  @benholroyd5221  I do think using Norway is a disingenuous argument. It's a very different country, it's incredibly urban for used around Oslo, and the remainder is a series of small fragmented coastal towns. It's much more like comparing to Quebec, and even then just the St Lawrence watershed, than to Canada..
    1
  2413.  @benholroyd5221  I generally assume these comments come from people in rural Canada where it isn't uncommon to drive several hundred km for large shopping trips or work.
    1
  2414. @benholroyd5221  common for the average Canadian, no. But for people in rural areas it can be. I have family that has to drive an hour and a half for a Walmart. And it isn't uncommon to work in trades and have to drive 2 hours to a client. Also, it can be scary enough being caught in a blizzard on the side of the road in an ICE vehicle. People would literally fear for their life in some cases. I'm not anti EV. Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver should all require Taxi/ride shares be EV. But I am against 1 rule national policies or treating a liter of gas used in a rural area as equally problematic to one used in the suburbs. Gotta focus on the low hanging fruit.
    1
  2415.  @benholroyd5221  at one point I supported a Carbon tax on Consumers, but it is far more difficult than it is worth, to the point it was a net negative; and there is a legitimate issue with charging people who can't reasonably transition more fuel fuel essential to them. I agree everyone wants to be the exception. But my opinion is mainly that they aren't the lowest hanging fruit if that's their stance, and I don't think it's worth while fighting with them about it. Once we have the 50% of people who are on board driving EVs, then we'll get 25% more people as half the exception group decides EVs are actually workable, etc. I think there is far to much focus on making everyone want to buy an EV right now..
    1
  2416. @benholroyd5221  In Canada it was on industry, and also consumers. The biggest issue was the political outrage it caused. Because that was true for 2 of the last 3 elections, and angry was growing overtime. So industry refused to make 5 year investments thinking the tax would just be gone by then. And even at the consumer level, that affected whether people got heat pumps or EVs, if they didn't believe the CT would last the next election. So between the amount of political support the government spent on this relatively small policy in terms of overall emissions reductions, and the economic uncertainty reducing its value, and more so a greater decrease in the value of industrial reductions expected from the industrial carbon tax - which is also a larger component of emissions reductions. I'd argue it wasn't good policy in reality even though I'm theory it is ideal.
    1
  2417.  @benholroyd5221  Consumer and capital subsidies cost more, but at the same time they should be being directed to grow the economy. And there is a much stronger appetite for subsidies, so even if it's less economically efficient, you get political support to do more. Also, the fear subsides might go with the next government increases demand relative to base line, so it is much more difficult to undermine. You can also craft subsidies to reflect that some areas are low hanging fruit and direct more funds, which is more efficient then a blanket increase in the price of energy in areas that are very high hanging fruit. Edit: although I support industrial carbon pricing. That is an effective policy when stroke of the pen risk isn't involved.
    1
  2418. @lengould9262  seriously who cares about credit to their argument. The US will humor them. If we do not, Canada will be cut in half. And they did put money into Keystone XL. The tax relief point is a red herring, it's a net positive in terms of overall revenue. We should be copying the exploration credits and flow through shares for mineral deployment..
    1
  2419. ​ @dave4deputyZX  firstly, I'd suggest Britain robbed Bangladesh, or Bangal at the time, far more than India, and likewise the millions of famine deaths were also chiefly in Bangal. India as in the current nation may well have been benefited economicly, although most of that to came from Bangladesh. Secondly, I don't think you find any guilt or remorse for Persians, Arabs, Turks, the Chinese, certainly not Japan. Third, Ireland greatly reduced exports during the potatoe famine, and the regions actually undergoing famine did not keep exporting. That's no a defense of the plantations of Ireland but this concept is greatly exaggerated.
    1
  2420. All your examples have interconnected government led industrial policy. I won't say tariffs aren't a part of that, but it's disingenuous to claim that is the difference. If you think the government should run the economy, just say so.
    1
  2421. @johncronin6977  I agree with having industrial policy. I disagree that tariffs alone are a good economic policy. I can give counter examples, Brazil, South Africa, where all tariffs have done is prop up garbage companies and forced people to buy overly expensive junk. If you want tariffs to protect industry, they need to be part of a comprehensive plan that ensures quality, investment, and ongoing development. And frankly, you need a lot of government control in the economy for this to work. Also, most of your examples, the country is focusing it's Policy on some new sector of the economy where it can create a clear advantage, not trying to compete in established industries.
    1
  2422. @johncronin6977  I guess my only "critism" of you point is it's not so much a "tool" as a drillbit, and if you don't have a drill, it's just something to stab your hand with when you reach in. And atm, Trump has talked a lot about tariffs, and not so much about industrial policy overall.
    1
  2423. @johncronin6977  I agree that national policy can create competitive advantage. However, it often comes at the expense of other areas of the economy. And it has to be said, Japan and South Korea may have the worst demographics in the world, definitely if you exclude formerly command Soviet economies, and while they did a wonderful job creating industries, it's questionable how well that has turned out for the actual people. Americans want manufacturing back so they can have 3 kids a dog and a white pick dense around a suburban house. I don't know if that's realistic, but it's certainly not the economic outcome for Japan or South Korea. That said, I'm pretty pro government support for Energy Infrastructure, I don't think you can really screw up subsidies that make energy cheap, and logistical infrastructure, both public rapid transit and national transportation infrastructure. And I would support Manufacturing capital subsidies (in fact it's something Biden did well) and wage subsidies (particularly paying half of wages for training employees, so long as the employee remains with the company for ~5 years).
    1
  2424. I guess my point is it's less of a "tool" and more of a "drillbit", and without a drill, it's just something to hurt yourself with when you stick your hand in. And I haven't seen much talk about the drill itself, just a lot of praise of drillbits. I agree policy can create competitive advantage. But I'd hazard that it often comes at the expense of other areas of the economy. South Korea and Japan have just about the worst demographics of any country that wasn't Soviet. There are strategic reasons to want manufacturing, but I'd wager most Americans want the good middle class jobs that support a family - and that doesn't exactly align with the multigenerational no child houses in your examples. That said, I also support industrial policy. And tariffs are a part of that. I think government backing, or even nationalization, of resource sectors, energy, and transportation can all be very valuable (and frankly hard to screw up unless you create some monolithic monopoly). And in terms of manufacturing, I would love to see Capital investment incentives (which Biden actually did quite well), wage subsidies (particularly training tax credits that pay out over several years so long as the employee stays employees), research hubs for industry (to get rid of R&D tax credits which are useless and increase industry information sharing), and planned industrial parts with centralized power/heat provision and a clear goal for interconnected users. And I think Capital gains taxes should be time sliding, so that the tax rate starts at 100%, but over 20 years falls to 0%, to encourage long term investment..
    1
  2425. They're comparable to WW2 fighters in terms of level of technology.
    1
  2426.  @lilocapitalT-ix4nz  my phone can connect to satellites... My phone isn't advanced military hardware.
    1
  2427.  @mathewferstl7042  I do, and Germany has great trains. Unfortunately, not everything is a train. Sometimes innovation is actually good.
    1
  2428. Oil is like everything else, you can get it cheap from overseas or buy it more expensive but have a domestic industry. So, do you think the lower prices from making China the world Manufacturer were worth it at the cost of American manufacturering and jobs?
    1
  2429. ​ @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
  2430.  @mikeellis9720  lol to many dollars flooding your way?
    1
  2431. I mean, obviously, right? Russia would have a really strong negotiating position if they could overrun Ukraine and had won the war lol.
    1
  2432. It wasn't a competition. He reached out to someone he identified as an expert and then disagreed with them.
    1
  2433.  @katflowfishfisher878  I think they both made great points. I'm just saying when you invite someone on a show for an interview, i think it's problematic if viewers think there is a winner.
    1
  2434.  @davidg9927  if you don't want to Government stepping on our rights, why not say "The Government better not pass anti strike legislation". Instead you cheer for it because you're bitter. And you think I'm naive.
    1
  2435.  @canadiansfor2A  I don't believe that's entirely true. I think it's framed in a way that op can use "its a joke" as an excuse. But I think they want the government to react punitively so they can laugh at some other blue collar workers struggling to make ends meet.
    1
  2436.  @Connor_Roush  okay, but the US has been self sufficient in food for... decades? Ever? I'm not saying it doesn't work I'm just saying it isn't needed.
    1
  2437.  @Connor_Roush  as long as we stress the term "sufficient" and aren't bucking all global trade I agree, or at least NAFTA should be. But my point isn't against self sufficiency, my point is AI doesn't change to equation and "automation" is vauge but the automation needed has been in use since your parents were born.
    1
  2438.  @imacmill  well, I love in Southern Ontario, and I don't love the all of my oil comes through the US, and that most of it comes from Line 5 which Michigan has been trying to shut down for years, and Biden was keeping open for us, and which Trump could choice to have the EPA close tomorrow. Even though I know it would cost some money and isn't directly profitable. Sometimes infrastructure does cost money, I doubt either of us take issue with Transmission lines being subsidized, for example. But more widely as a Canadian, the US is about to collapse our exports if we are serious about fighting back. That will be expressed heavily through enormous declines in oil volume and more over price under a growing discount pushing down value. We could rapidly lose 10% of our exports via oil, alongside collapses in New Brunswick from St. John, Ontario's de industrialization, and a general commodity slump. And since Canada is a trade dependent economy, fewer exports will lower the value of the CAD value over a prolonged period, will mean inflation. And mean that Eastern Canada is exporting Capital for a good we domestically. And on top of all that will probably see a million+ immigrants going home alongside a general Property Market and Financial crash, between bank exposure to oil sands and housing. So I would be largely in favor of risking a financial loss on a pipeline as a hedge against a sudden drop in currency value and energy security, although I think the discount we will see in the future will more than compensate for pipeline costs, and really want to minimize the time it stays that large. And I think it's rather dishonest to quote Transmountain as a reasonable cost estimate given it was built over Covid. Because the biggest Issue is Alberta. Which will be the center of the depression. Fort Mac will be a ghost town, because the Mines will be the first thing to close and if we lost Line 5 that's almost half the market for upgraded syncrude. Weak future prospects will end the conventional drilling even though conventional output will continue at low prices from existing wells. The Government of Alberta will lose half it's revenue, a third in oil royalties alone, because the sliding royalty scale. And have an unemployment crisis of formerly very high wage blue collar workers, again alongside other provinces. And all the while Trump will be on Fox saying Alberta should join the US and they would be rich. With Pro American support already at 10% or higher. If we want to keep Alberta, we need to have more of their oil dependent on Canada than on the US, and right now 80% of their output goes through the US. The US, Trump, doesn't want Quebec. It doesn't want a bunch of democrats and retries. it wants the Conservative, oil rich province, full of young people and with a road to Alaska. That is the biggest point of issue. The Federal government pays Quebec $13 billion in equalization, it can risk losing $20 billion over 20 years to make Alberta happy. It really doesn't matter if you think it's financially or economically unsound, we need to keep Alberta. And we are already in a competition with the US for it. But also more fundamentally, I think Markham speaks in bad faith around the oil sands. Electrification and EVs will decimate demand for Gasoline, but they are having little impact on Diesel and jet fuel, or lubricants. Look at Sturgeon Falls, we can take a barrel of Bitumen and produce a barrel of Diesel. OPEC and conventional oil get like 20-30% a barrel of Diesel from a barrel of oil, and about half a barrel of Gasoline. Which means high prices for heavy RPP are going to support oil production with gasoline sold off cheap and pushing EVs out of markets. High prices we can both exploit to carve out market for value added products. And keeping heavy RPP prices lower, and thereby reducing the profit in refining, and therefore produce less gasoline to dump on the Market. Upgraders provide an excellent industrial customer for Green Hydrogen, and alongside the insitu operations, an industrial customer for SMRs. We need to develop these industries. Frankly once nuclear I would like to see Gasifiers to push out the Shale fracking to the west to feeds LNG. And all that is besides that Fact that Markham perfectly agrees that non combustion uses should be developed. There is no reason not to use a pipeline to deliver bitumen to coastal BC where Carbon Fiber or Asphalt binder can be produced for global export. We can build a pipeline now, and develop industry as demand falls, not that I think it will for heavy oil. I completely agree with adding as much value as possible.
    1
  2439. I think you should have taken a second to emphasize the importance to the US development, like the New York Canal, great lakes, or that all the 13 colonies were on the mouths of rivers with farming to support them inland.
    1
  2440. I don't know, the drones are mostly used by Russia in Strategic basis (civilian infrastructure/Energy infrastructure) not for tactical purposes. I don't think they are so relevant to the war effort, but they are cheap. We saw a long slow down in Rocket attacks early in the war without large-scale lines on maps movement. The bigger issue is shells and that depends on how North Korea is going. But the West also seems to be struggling to get Shells to Ukraine, diversiting some to Israel might be more effective.
    1
  2441. I think it's likely modern Native Americans are descended from Clovis, but I think you are over stating that we know it as a fact.
    1
  2442.  @gregorymalchuk272  within 2 years they could reverse Keystone and bring 1M bbl/d North, they can immediately replace 600k bbl/d going to the Gulf with Keystone, and they can move several 100k bbl/d RRPs on Mississippi barges, and retool to use more Bakken in the Midwest for 300k bbl/d. I'd suggest within 2 months they can replace 1M bbl, and 2 years another 1M bbl/d with relative ease, ignoring the west and east coast which would be another 500k bbl/d. I agree it would be very difficult to replace the last 2M bbl/d going to the mid west. It would be difficult replacing the 800k bbl/d going to Ontario as well. And the NG that powers southern Ontario power stations and home heating, with 75% of all Ontario's NG coming from the US, disproportionately so in the south. I very much don't want to be rationing fuel in Ontario and seeing rolling brownouts because we tried to do the same thing to Chicago. And all that aside, it ignores that it's a much more significant portion of our economy, both Toronto compared to Chicago, and certainly cutting oil exports compared to cutting us off from our own oil. And all that ignores the elephant in the room, if the US decides to take control of those pipelines, it can..
    1
  2443.  @JohnRoss1  I don't believe I understand either of your points..
    1
  2444. I got a bit of whiplash from how quickly you two went from saying we would be leaving money on the table by buring Bitumen because of the incredible value of Carbon fiber to saying in 10 years no one would want our bitumen. Even if they aren't making gasoline or RPPs, will China and the world not want Bitumen for making Carbon Fiber? Will they not want Carbon Fiber we produce in Vancouver or Pronce Rupert at the end of a pipeline?.
    1
  2445.  @ryuuguu01  What does Alberta do with the other 75% of the barrel, though. What are the higher value portions you are referring to, and why can we not produce enough Carbon fiber and those fractions to justify additional capacity? And the dilutent used to move DilBit, around a 3rd of a barrel, is going to see long term demand for petrochemicals being mainly NGLs. If we built another 1M bbl/d to Prince Rupert, that's 330k bbl/d NGLs we can feel safe with, 140k bbl/d Asphaltenes we can sell for non combustion, and around 500 k bbl/d heavy fractions that can be sold for or as jet fuel/diesel/Base oils, or else upgraded to NGLs using cracking units.
    1
  2446. @miraelgato392  okay well as much as I love a Kiwi I wasn't talking about islands which didn't have mammals until a hundred years ago. Lots of Polynesian islands shouldn't have cats. But you aren't going to achieve an eradication of the common house cat from North America.
    1
  2447.  @miraelgato392  if you're from New Zealand, or even Australia, I can agree with that. If you're from the Americas or Eurasia, I think it's neither a necessity nor a reasonable solution.
    1
  2448. Me as well. Although at the same time I am not looking forward to them getting big enough for the comment section to be nothing but First, Bots, insults, and eventually being closed
    1
  2449.  @kadencollins  ethanol or cattle feed, 90% isn't Ethanol alone they are about equal.
    1
  2450. And "gave us the weapons to defend ourselves from the satanic Americans"
    1
  2451. I would love a video on Ground Lease in cities in the Netherlands, both how it raises revenue and aids in planning.
    1
  2452.  @Cba409  are you seriously using Afghanistan as an example of industrial warfare? Point to the tank factories of Afghanistan. None of those countries long spent long periods at stale mate where the respective industrial out was the determining factor. Bagdad was captured in a week, Lybia, iraq and Syria buy all their weapons from Patron states. Korea and Vietnam were literally human waves off people who might not have guns, and that was with Chinese troops and Chinese and Soviet equipment. Ukraine is the closest given the struggles both sides have had to acquire equipment. And it's going on right now, the era that's most dangerous.
    1
  2453.  @ArawnOfAnnwn  what of everyone else? But everyone else is fighting with the surplus arms of the industrial countries than the industrial countries economies focus on war production. However bad things are, if the major players of the world actually wanted war they would be, as you put it, catastrophic.
    1
  2454. @MAGABeard  I don't know how to reply to a guy who's handle is MAGA telling me I'm fed by echo chambers. Do you not recall Trump having Republicans block aid to Ukraine for 6 months? I'm not saying Biden did a great job but Trump was very actively trying to stop him from doing anything even when he wasn't in an elected position.
    1
  2455. Importantly there are ROW hydro lines already going to most of the way.
    1
  2456.  @jaggeh3340  again, Ontario did pay for its own agenda. And then it paid for Quebec's Agenda. We appreciate you're paying for the east coast; although half the people in the oil fields are from the east coast and I'm sure they'd argue they paid for themselves..
    1
  2457.  @F350-k8r  sure buddy, we fund almost half the federal governments budget, but sure
    1
  2458. Data Centers are also soft power; in many ways they are the banks of the future.
    1
  2459. Ya but Qatar basically has to stick a pipe in the ocean and it can load LNG onto a ship. And the US has LNG coming out of Texas a few hundred km inland in areas with long established LNG and Pipeline infrastructure. It's a lot harder for Canada to get to tide water. There is a much higher cost when you need a massive build out of infrastructure.
    1
  2460. Idk, depending on the statistics you accept the methane leakage from national pipelines and fracking may be considerably worse than the combustion of oil. I'm pretty anti-car orientation but I'm not particularly pro EV vs IC cars. Throw a few SMRs onto a SAGD opperation and the refinery and thats just as good repalcing gas peaker plants, but without the practical difficulty. Fracking is the worst, wether its for oil or for NG.
    1
  2461.  @davidbruce5377  your mining cost is based on Kearl. The first generation mines have much higher costs. And those higher costs a significant portion of the jobs in Fort Mac
    1
  2462. @Greenspaceservices  I suppose the question then is what do you consider minimal increase in oil infrastructure. Because I would argue that it's important to consider by and large Canada doesn't produce oil, it produces Bitumen. And the wonderful thing about this is that EVs, which are going to displace enormous amounts of oil, are actually displacing almost entirely Gasoline. When the Saudis sell oil, or the Americans sell the lighter fluid they call shale oil, it's almost entirely light light hydrocarbons, at least half of which go to gasoline. Our very heavy bitumen, on the other hand, can be turned entirely into longer chain hydrocarbons, diesel, jet fuel, lubricants, etc. And in doing so, we can push the oil producers, who will otherwise dump gasoline cheap and compete with EVs in-order to sell the small portions of the barrel that are still in high demand, out of the market. And so I will say we should be building at least another million barrels a day, along with expanding Transmountain by 300k, to the Pacific coast, and building the refinery complexes, ideally using Green hydrogen to upgrade, to export that high margin fuel to Asia, along with asphalt and lubricants, and carbon fiber if we can crack it.
    1
  2463.  @Greenspaceservices  would you make this argument for a high speed rail line or a regular rail line or a high way or canal or literally any other piece of transportation infrastructure? I think Canada has used regulation in bad faith enough times that the private sector views us as too great a risk to invest. That isn't a reflection of the promise of the pipeline, but whether they believe they will waste a billion dollars before seeing it blocked.
    1
  2464.  @Inez-z2z   This is a complete strawman. I'm not against Bitumen beyond combustion. But Alberta innovates puts the 10 year optimistic scenario at 100k bbl/d in production in 10 years-thats 2% of current oils production. That's nowhere near sufficient for the industry to even operate. Likewise almost all of Canada's bitumen asphalt binder comes from 1 plant using like 20k bbl/d. Again, I would strongly support subsidizing new export facilities even if we have to use railBit to reach them. But only the heaviest fractions go to Asphalt binder, something like 20% a barrel of Bitumen, so you still need to use the 80% of lighter fractions (that are still heavier than diesel) That said, I think we should do everything possible to encourage that uptake. But producing diesel and RPPs is adding value. Even upgrading is adding significant value. Frankly, of all hydrocarbons we still use I think it's fairly clear diesel fuel is the most important and has the longest future. As EVs push out demand for gasoline, heavy RPPs will go up in price, and oil producers will sell off the half of the barrel that's gasoline cheaply to keep out EVs in order to produce the expensive fractions. We can produce that, and in doing so keep diesel prices low enough to drive down total oil demand. We can turn one barrel of Bitumen into one barrel of Diesel. Since diesel is only 20% of the fraction of a normal barrel (less for US shale oil) to produce 1 barrel of Diesel you'd need 5 barrels of oil. And as gasoline continues to fall relative to diesel demand because of EVs, the diesel price is going to be what keeps global refineries operating.
    1
  2465.  @Inez-z2z  this is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of my stance. Of course I support carbon fiber, but that's a decade away from being 100k bbl/d, which is like 5% of current bitumen output. Out of 2M bbl/d in refineries, we produce 60k bbl/d in asphalt and lubricants. And that's ignoring that lighter fractions of a barrel still have to go somewhere when you produce these things. The US could block in 2M bbl/d within a few years. We need export capacity immediately or we are risking an enormous collapse to the Industry Alberta is dependent on and which provides a quarter of our exports. If you want to subsidize a whole bunch of Asphalt refineries at the coastal end points of those pipelines, I'm okay with that. But diversifying usage is not a reasonable or even possible solution and is simply a cover for arguing for the elimination of an industry. I am not particularly pro oil. I do not want our economy to be built on oil. But the reality is a significant portion is. We should maximize the value we get from that while diversifying more widely. If we are facing a massive discount to sell to the US, a pipeline that gets us a higher price is adding value, and frankly it's adding an enormous amount for relatively little capital.
    1
  2466. Imagine doing all that and admitting it was a lose
    1
  2467. I agree with the basic feasibility, but I think this leaves out some major concerns. Firstly, if you remove the 25% of energy that goes into mining and fossil fuels...you removed those industries. That's no small economic impact. And there was little consideration for what replacing them with mineral mines would mean. But more broadly, I don't it plays enough into Canada's advantages. Perhaps wind and Hydro will be able to produce energy cheaper than equatorial solar, but if not, then we need to find something less expensive than solar. And that's either SMRs, Geothermal, or Tidal. We need to invest in the next generation of energy production, we can't become consumers of the current. But if energy demand goes down 60%, that would be an enormous failure. I can't believe that includes any of the industrial growth we need to see for the transition, whether it's EVs or Data Centers.
    1
  2468. ​​​ @timshort9692 I'm not missing that, but the entire point of solar is that it will be less expensive than fossil fuels. Obviously we are going to consumer far more energy as a result. Demand for data centers alone will do this. And in the Canadian context, where most electricity is hydro/wind, we have limited waste in electrical. Obviously for cars we will see that net energy reduction. But core to the argument was that nearly a quarter of demand would disappear because the industry as a whole was going to, amd yet there was no accounting for industrial growth we will have to see as a result. Also, as a note, electricity isn't being sold to oil, by and large the primary energy consumption is in the form of burning NG, and electricity isnsold back to the grid. But I don't care where the electricity for your EV comes from, I just care about producing it in a way that is cheaper than Egypt or the Saudis once solar is widespread. And none of my comment references burning anything.
    1
  2469. ​ @stickynorth It is grasping at straws to say that solar is going to cause energy hyper abundance?
    1
  2470.  @markbaker6553  lol I'm sure that will be productive
    1
  2471. US has never been late to a war. They just never join until their allies have no more soldiers to hold to guns they are selling them.
    1
  2472. We need a national industrial policy, but it has to overlap thoughtfully with independent Provincial industrial policy
    1
  2473. While I did enjoy this video, and would argue that there isn't a great deal of study on this concept he could have drawn on outside of the personal experiment, I tend to agree that ~5 months ago and before his content was better researched and more meaningful.
    1
  2474. My understanding is by the end of 2025 Russia will be out of all major equipment, liquid assets to trade internationally, and man power. The war ends by 2026, the question is who collapses first, and the real question is who wins the US election in a month.
    1
  2475.  @evancourtney7746  I'm not refering to dust from the exposion I'm referring to the soot from the subsequent fires caused by air bursts spreading across India's and Pakistans sprawling and largely wooden slums.
    1
  2476.  @evancourtney7746  “A regional nuclear conflict would compromise global food security” Would be the most recent study but there is also "How an India-Pakistan nuclear war could start—and have global consequences" 2019 "Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe" 2019 Micheal mills of the university of Colorado was the research who brought it to my attention in the late 2000s, but while I can find articles pertaining to his work o can't find the original material
    1
  2477.  @robertbobbypelletreaujr2173  it's remarkable to me this doesn't seem to have happened when the USSR fell apart. The number of countries to come out of it, some like Ukraine having every reason to want them for the political power or Lithuania to ensure they don't get invaded, or Turkmenistan to resell, and none seeming to have done so is incredible. At the same time, the gross government corruption, between oligarchs stealing anything of value and generals selling it to them, and nothing displaced in movement. Likewise, South Africa got rid of all of them before handing over power. I'm not suggesting that means a collapsed America will return all nukes to the independent nation of New England, but it's very interesting. Clearly people takes nukes is taken seriously even in a worse case scenario. I'm not sure the risk of aging weapons. I think the triggers tend to break first, meaning they are not a sudden boom risk, more of a dirty bomb risk if just forgten. But I may be wrong.
    1
  2478. @thedarkerknight2188 read through the comments I included namea
    1
  2479.  @spikeshartell4675  it's not the fallout alone, it's the massive amount of wooden slums that surround the cities and that the majority of the year is very dry. The ash of the actual cities and surrounding areas a billion people live in is what studies suggest could cause harm. Also, what made you see this video? In the past two days it seems people are watching it again.
    1
  2480.  @TH-tl6sy  two points, You're misrepresenting how equalization works. Have provinces don't pay in, equalization payments are made using general federal tax revenues. Reserves don't pay Federal taxes, of course, but if they did Fort Mackay wouldn't pay into a pool, individuals in the community would just be making higher incomes and paying more income tax. First Nations can be an issue for developing pipelines in particular, we saw that with Northern Gateway. They are generally amenable to developing resources they control. But pipelines don't create a lot of economic activity once they are built, and they cross much more territory, so it is harder to cut Nations in to their satisfaction. Otherwise great points.
    1
  2481. 1. His climate care measures are the conservatives main running point. 2. Trump is actively ripping up USMCA/NAFTA and Trudeau may be leaving government under some of the highest tariffs in the world. 3. The child tax credit is credible, humane, and needed policy.
    1
  2482.  @Veylon  that assumes it doesn't stop or greatly slow aging, but there is no reason to think we can't build tiny machines to fight that. Evolution managed to fumble into tiny machines that fight that. The second one definitely could. I'm not saying will by any means. But SpaceShip by SpaceX alone has the potential to fundentally change our relationship with space access, and orbital rings or Lastum loops could both drop access to plane ticket levels. If we start mining the moon, we have basically infinite access to aluminum and iron with no environmental impact (reducing costs).
    1
  2483.  @Veylon  not in space it isn't.
    1
  2484.  @Veylon  I mean, that's my exact point of disagreement. If we have a real moon Colony by 2040 (which is easily possible with Starship level launch costs), and mining by 2050, we could absolutely be building space stations en masse by 2075. Colonization happens very slowly then very fast, and it's all based on cost of getting there.
    1
  2485. @golagiswatchingyou2966  it's basically the jihadists signature move, though. Last guy was horrible and he was a Minority. Now that there is a highly religious majority ethnic group in charge, I wouldn't make any positive assumptions given the leaders history
    1
  2486. I think Wind Turbines is a very useful application for Canada in particular to become involved in, particularly as I believe we should be trying to corner the market on Cold Weather models already. Importantly though, along with material constraints, logistics is a limitation on turbine size. Less so for offshore, but they do have to fit on the ship. Onshore, they have to fit under bridges and around corners. That may limit the extent to which Carbon Fiber can be fully utilized here.
    1
  2487. ​​​ @economicprisoner If Alberta were fiscally responsible, they wouldn't need alternative revenue sources, not only because they had that Heritage Fund, but largely because it would mean they had alternative revenue sources already funding their budget and allowing the oil royalties to be saved. But that is not the case, and so the Government, UPC or not, is in a position where renewables will directly harm their government revenue. That needs to be addressed, and it certainly needs to be acknowledged in any reasonable conversation around why Alberta favours fossil fuel development..
    1
  2488. ​ @economicprisoner fair, I did. Edit
    1
  2489. There isn't much to question. This isn't advice, it's a demonstration of technological feasibility. He is publicly against nuclear and fossil fuels on environmental grounds.
    1
  2490. ​ @bobwitmer2492 the idea nuclear is expensive is nonsense. Hiring a thousand people to stand around a nuclear plant doing nothing, that has a cost.
    1
  2491. ​​ @MalcolmRose-l3b I do get frustrated on this point and exaggerate. But nuclear is very obvious inexpensive. It's an incredibly simple low input technology. Giant CanDu reactors, SMRs, it hardly matters if you make it possible to build them. Your PV system is great. But it produces energy cheaper in India than it does Canada, and so it dooms us if we don't invest in something better. I expect PVs will be wide spread residentially and commercially. I don't really care about stepping up the pace of green energy in Canada. Solar and EVs are clearly going to win on a global scale, the Canadian market is irrelevant to climate. Solar is set to grow rapidly regardless. We need to invest in technologies that empower us, or we won't have the exports to generate the foreign currency to buy these systems.
    1
  2492. ​ @5353Jumper you could have said the same thing about solar literally a decade ago. This is a question of regulation and development of the industry. There is so much less material in nuclear than solar. It isn't up for debate that you can power a city from a single plant vs putting solar and batteries in every house and then some - which isn't a critism of Solar, but to suggest there is a material advantage is non sense. The fossil fuel companies spent 50 years putting everything into blocking the development of nuclear. The technology is not expensive, the public reaction is.
    1
  2493. Ya its almost like they have 4 Trillion dollars in Reserves at the fed being paid 0.4% interest they could replace your deposits with, and if that ever failed a Central bank of some sort whose job was to led them money of they couldn't get liquidity.
    1
  2494. Pakistan is a close Chinese, Russian, and American ally. Historically they've been close to the US but they seem to be moving to china. Since independence Pakistan has been a top notch political strategist
    1
  2495. ​ @Thunderbuck  Yes but I wouldn't make this determination until 2040.
    1
  2496. My concern is you believe he sees retoolong as a negative thing, but what he would have heard you say is "I can force companies to invest 10s of billions". I think he is more preoccupied with breaking windows that he can force companies to fix so he can say he drove investment..
    1
  2497.  @Withnail1969  this is a really key point, particularly because Fracking uses a lot of Diesel, but produces very light oil
    1
  2498.  @Withnail1969  if you mean not enough at this very moment, that may be correct, although I think it's more regional since Russian oil is going to very specific markets. With Canadian Transmountain operating this should improve the situation somewhat, at the expense of higher oil prices in the Midwest. But with Venezuela off line and Mexico a mess, and between shale and Guyana, certainly the average barrel has become a lot lighter than anyone expected.
    1
  2499. 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
  2500.  @extragoode  I can't speak to this, i set up American payroll but I'm not actually American so I don't know all the ins and outs of what you can do with it. I do know as a Canadian you can be in a group RRSP (our 401k), and if its a group sponsorship then you can't move the funds at all. But (and not to belittle your point) it does seem like a fair amount of work to do to control only half your savings. Like if for every dollar I use to invest in a shield another of my dollars is being used to buy a sword to fight me with, like it's better than not having a shield but still.
    1
  2501. Something I find interesting is there seems to be no evidence of a religion featuring supernatural deities. Chiefs and ancestors, but no priest or common god idols/carvings. I think that lack of a wide scale common belief system likely aligns with the heavy warfare of the culture.
    1
  2502. @HazyFace_  Trump has already put forward 100% tariffs on any country to leave the dollar, there is no other currency with any value but the Euro which would obviously be involved, and the lesson learned is your assets are safe unless you spend 3 years in a UN condemned war threatening to use nuclear weapons on a regular basis.
    1
  2503.  @HazyFace_  yes obviously China would like to use it's currency and be seen as a global super power. Are you suggesting that if Russian assets are left alone, China will not do this? Obviously not. Any other country is not going to trust the CCP with their money, unless it's NK or Iran or another country that doesn't have money or a population with money. No one with the option to use western banks though. This isn't an arbitrary seizure.
    1
  2504.  @HazyFace_  so your suggesting China will keep using the USD if Russian assets are left alone? Sounds unlikely to me.
    1
  2505.  @HazyFace_  okay. The thing with gold is it's limited; the more central bank's hoard it, the harder it is for anyone else. No one is going to be trading in gold. No one is going to pour investment into China or Russia. No one is going to accept 100% tariffs for privileged of dealing with a currency no one else uses. And no one else, at least with money, is planning a multi-year war of ethnic cleansing. So I don't see this actually impacting anyone but China, who as you've pointed out, is trying to leave the dollar anyway.
    1
  2506. Hey, did you change your ad policy? I mean you're good enough I'll put up with it but this video was interpreted 4 times
    1
  2507. The Social posturing is very annoying from both sides. I think it's very clear Hybrids are best in almost all cases for Canada. ICE engines for cold weather (until 2035 when we have those mentioned batteries) and long distance. Battery for local driving and to do regenerative breaking. Uses our existing manufacturing base while creating a growing demand for a battery industry. But no, it's one side screaming all batteries right now and the other screaming oil only forever. FML.
    1
  2508.  @ramrod9556  shale oil is easier to fractionate, but as Markham said Bakken crude is basically gasoline. I don't know how much of the fraction is actually larger Hydrocarbons that would compose diesel. When I was in school I was taught diesel is consumers on net by fracking, but they were still injecting it down well. That said in NG plays like Pennsylvania I'd be surprised if any Diesel is produced from the condensates. But Heavy crudes certainly produce more. Look at Sturgeon Falls, literally a barrel of Diesel for every barrel of Bitumen in. Heavy crudes require more investment but give enormous control over the product..
    1
  2509.  @mehrshadvr4  which must be why Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and unilaterally pulled out of Gaza. It's goal of expansion was clearly met by giving up control of half the territory under its control and control over the Suez. Frankly the only time Israel can be accused of expansive behavior is it's foundation. The start of the War in Gaza was largely an (currently successful) attempt to prevent an Israeli peace agreement with the Saudis. I have seen no evidence that Israel has any goal of territorial expansion beyond actions like the Golan Heights to secure it's defense from actively hostile neighbors. Also saying the attack was preemptive and therefore the other side started the war is absurd, and frankly the same argument would avail Israel of all responsibility for really any of its actions.
    1
  2510.  @mehrshadvr4  your reply appears to have been removed, I think because of your edit, because I saw the original in the thread, and only see the edited version as a reply to me. I would be of the opinion this is a gambit of Iran's to put increased public pressure in the region against western aligned governments, an already existing pressure. And I appreciate your frankness on the Baha'i.
    1
  2511.  @p3zzer  well said, and over the internet too. If only productive tools came out of these investments.
    1
  2512.  @albertiwong  your theory relies on Electricity being expensive enough to have to ration. You do need high temp for solar panels, but it doesn't have to be coal. And in fact hydrogen burns hotter. Coal is just used because it's all done in China right now
    1
  2513.  @polishtheday  the idea here is to produce hydrogen for export.
    1
  2514.  @DougSteventon  shipping oversea is why we have so much green Hydrogen being built in Atlantic provinces. But energy efficiency isn't really meaningful in the context of a large scale build out of cheap solar.
    1
  2515. Elaborate?
    1
  2516. The irritation is to see Republicans and thier ilk using this as evidence we should increase oil and gas dependency, or acting like oil wells can enter production in a matter of months. I support sourcing oil from the Canadian oil sands, but to act like any investment thier is less than a 10 year project, or the LNG export terminals can just be built, is in bad faith.
    1
  2517.  @DanDavisHistory  I know they are partially descended, but I thought the Indo-European cattle stock had come over the Caucasus mountains and were related to that portion of the ancestory
    1
  2518.  @StuartLawton  lol shut up
    1
  2519. The fish theory really blows my mind. I know the Amur river has stupid long time lines for human settlements and ceramics to store excess fish. People love a river valley, full of fish in the summer and warmer in the winter. And if you have hundreds of fish heads to throw out, that's going to attract wolves.
    1
  2520. Would you ask a business "if profits are good, why take on debt"?
    1
  2521. Its funny you used a Jimmy carry clip cause guy sounds like Jim Carrey
    1
  2522. I think you are missing the Covid period when they tried far more aggressively and nearly destroyed North American production.
    1
  2523.  @jackdenihan5333  and if we aren't cool, Canada spending 2% wasn't going to be the decisive factor
    1
  2524.  @ryanoliver5669  Canada doesn't own the entire artic ocean in anyone's wildest dreams lol, and Russia isn't using Canadas Arctic coast... They have their own, and it's the shorter route.
    1
  2525.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  You know the US is a major oil exporter right? The oil nations need US sponsored freedom because Europe is addicted to Russian and Arab oil
    1
  2526.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  The vast majority of oil imports to the US are heavy crude and come from Canada, to the mid West, in a captive relationship. The vast majority of US oil exports come from the Permian in Texas and are very light. The US exports 4 million barrels a day now, and is Europe's largest source of oil, you're out of your tree if you think they mainly export to Puerto Rico (unless you're correcting calling Europe American Territories 😜). They absolutely don't use 97% of oil they produce, you're looking at a decade old stat from before the fracking boom. And the EU imports 90% of its oil.
    1
  2527.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  I'm Canadian, so that's not true. And you're looking at an old stat from before Europe cut off large amounts of imports of oil from Russia, which is critical. The next year, the US was a net exporter of 1.19 million b/d, as per the EIA. It's the second largest exporter after the Saudis on the global market.
    1
  2528.  @noboislikes2100  Can you imagine how much war would constantly be ongoing on if every country has a military to defend themselves from the US? There has never been a Pax EveryCountryForItself. If article 5 is triggered, you can be sure Canada will come to your defense. But since Canada will never need to defend itself (and the only possible scenerio is the US invading), you can politely accept this is a one way relationship where Europe is free loading of North America, and take what you get.
    1
  2529.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  The EU as a whole imports 90% of its oil. Admittedly, the UK and Norway aren't in the EU. But I don't know how you can seriously argue Europe is dependent on Arab and Russian gas and oil. I do seperate the US by state, btw. They are organized into PADDs. The Midwest and Rocky states rely on Canadian heavy crude mixed with Bakken light, The South relies on a mix of Permian light crude, Gulf offshore, and heavy oils mainly imported from Mexico (and formerly Venezuela), west coast (mainly California) imports mainly heavy oil from west coast South America, along with using Alaska and Californias output, and is the main importer from OPEC countries (Iraq), and is about to get hooked on Canadian oil, and the east coast mostly recieves petroleum products from the South until Jersey, New Brunswick in new England ( which in turn imports a lot from Nigeria and the Saudis, but is a small overall market), and NY area refineries get seaborne shipments from who ever is cheapest, Bakken, and Canadian crude. The US imports heavy oil, mostly and increasingly from Canada, although also seaborne from South America. Because for a long time the world was running out of light crude, and the US invested in more expensive refineries to handle cheaper heavy crude. Then the fracking boom and global oil shortages from OPEC cuts and Russia turned the US into a major exporter of more expensive light crude, mainly to Europe, but also Canada ( in the east) and China. The US is only actually dependent on Canadian imports, but through NAFTA it's illegal for Canada to reduce imports. The only real exception is California, and when transmountan opens I a few months that will no longer be an exception.
    1
  2530.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  very annoyingly, my reply didn't post. Yes Norway and the UK are not in the EU, but Europe as a whole is absolutely dependent on imports, mainly from Arab states and the US, who you are (wrongly) claiming is a net importer, and historically obviously Russia. Quickly put, the US imports heavy crude, mostly from Canada and mostly to the Midwest and Rocky mountains, but also from Mexico to Texas and West coast South America to California, and this is because the world was running out of light oil, so they invested in more expensive heavy oil upgraders to take advantage of cheaper heavy oil. The US exports more valuable light oil, and more barrels of it than it imports, mostly from Permian Basin fracking in Texas. The only country the US is dependent on is Canada, and because of NAFTA, Canada cannot legally reduce our oil exports. The only exception is California, which is the main importer of OPEC oil, and with Transmountan opening that exception is dead. The only other exception is New England, which is a tiny market that doesn't have a single refinery, and imports finished petroleum products from New Brunswick in Canada, which itself imports OPEC oil, mainly Nigerian and Saudi. And again, at times that balance has shifted to mainly US oil. The US is a major oil exporter, second only to the Saudis, and gaining. I think this is a very bad thing, for what it's worth, because it's made the US economy more dependent on oil, and eventually the Saudis will flood the market or OPEC will collapse and flood the market or Europe will be flooded with Russian oil, and the very expensive Fracking oil will be decimated, and the US will see a collapse in output. And that's probably soon.
    1
  2531.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  your numbers are looking at only crude, when the US imports Central American crude (Mexican) to re-export gasoline and petroleum products to central and south America. Or Canadian crude imported to produce products sold in Ontario, Manitoba and BC. You accused the US of "bringing freedom" to oil producers, but the US is actively pulling out of the middle east. My point is it's in no way dependent on the oil of dictatorships, in fact it's in competition with them, whereas Europe is dependent and can't afford for those countries to forget "how free" they are. Russia forgot about being free, look how that's working out. France is talking direct war. Great for US exports, destroying German industry.
    1
  2532.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  Neither Puerto nor Guam nor the US Virgin islands have a single oil refinery. There isn't an oven to "bake the cake". They have no way to consume any crude they recieve; Puerto Rico does have a storage and shipment terminal, any oil sent to Puerto Rico is for re-export. I'm glad to see you are now agreeing they do produce more than they consume. But as you have pointed out, and I've explained, they are also a massive oil importer, largely from Canada, but also Mexico and to a lesser extent OPEC, almost all of which is very heavy crude. You need to count these imports towards their consumption as well as their production, they don't import for fun. And, for all intents and purposes, you can basically consider the Canadian oil theirs (which hurts, as a Canadian)- it's illegal for Canada to reduce oil sales compared to last year due to NAFTA, the companies that extract the oil and own the reserves are mainly American owned, and nearly all pipeline capacity goes to the US. In 2023 they exported some 4 million barrels a day. To be a stickler for semantics, they don't consumer 95% of their production, they consume a little over half, export the rest, and import cheap heavy oil to make up the difference. Again, that's all light Permian Basin fracked crude. And most of it went to Europe (as with most of their LNG), which is why the US is Europe's largest supplier of NG and oil. So I expect them to supply Europe exactly as they are? I don't understand why you seem upset about this. Europe is the one who necessarily buys oil from dictatorships, like Russia.
    1
  2533.  @karl-emilmadsen5032   Neither Puerto nor Guam nor the US Virgin islands have a single oil refinery. There isn't an oven to "bake the cake". They have no way to consume any crude they recieve; Puerto Rico does have a storage and shipment terminal, any oil sent to Puerto Rico is for re-export. I'm glad to see you are now agreeing they do produce more than they consume. But as you have pointed out, and I've explained, they are also a massive oil importer, largely from Canada, but also Mexico and to a lesser extent OPEC, almost all of which is very heavy crude. You need to count these imports towards their consumption as well as their production, they don't import for fun. And, for all intents and purposes, you can basically consider the Canadian oil there (which hurts, as a Canadian)- it's illegal for Canada to reduce oil sales compared to last year due to NAFTA, the companies that extract the oil and own the reserves are mainly American owned, and nearly all pipeline capacity goes to the US. In 2023 they exported some 4 million barrels a day. To be a stickler for semantics, they don't consumer 95% of their production, they consume a little over half, export the rest, and import cheap heavy oil to make up the difference. Again, that's all light Permian Basin fracked crude. And most of it went to Europe (as with most of their LNG), which is why the US is Europe's largest supplier of NG and oil. So I expect them to supply Europe exactly as they are? I don't understand why you seem upset about this. Europe is the one who necessarily buys oil from dictatorships, like Russia.
    1
  2534.  @karl-emilmadsen5032    Neither Puerto nor Guam nor the US Virgin islands have a single oil refinery. There isn't an oven to "bake the cake". They have no way to consume any crude they recieve; Puerto Rico does have a storage and shipment terminal, any oil sent to Puerto Rico is for re-export. I'm glad to see you are now agreeing they do produce more than they consume. But as you have pointed out, and I've explained, they are also a massive oil importer, largely from Canada, but also Mexico and to a lesser extent OPEC, almost all of which is very heavy crude. You need to count these imports towards their consumption as well as their production, they don't import for fun. And, for all intents and purposes, you can basically consider the Canadian oil there (which hurts, as a Canadian)- it's illegal for Canada to reduce oil sales compared to last year due to NAFTA, the companies that extract the oil and own the reserves are mainly American owned, and nearly all pipeline capacity goes to the US. In 2023 they exported some 4 million barrels a day. To be a stickler for semantics, they don't consumer 95% of their production, they consume a little over half, export the rest, and import cheap heavy oil to make up the difference. Again, that's all light Permian Basin fracked crude. And most of it went to Europe (as with most of their LNG), which is why the US is Europe's largest supplier of NG and oil. So I expect them to supply Europe exactly as they are? I don't understand why you seem upset about this.
    1
  2535. @karl-emilmadsen5032  Neither Puerto nor Guam nor the US Virgin islands have a single oil refinery. There isn't an oven to "bake the cake". They have no way to consume any crude they recieve; Puerto Rico does have a storage and shipment terminal, any oil sent to Puerto Rico is for re-export. I'm glad to see you are now agreeing they do produce more than they consume. But as you have pointed out, and I've explained, they are also a massive oil importer, largely from Canada, but also Mexico and to a lesser extent OPEC, almost all of which is very heavy crude. You need to count these imports towards their consumption as well as their production, they don't import for fun. And, for all intents and purposes, you can basically consider the Canadian oil there (which hurts, as a Canadian)- it's illegal for Canada to reduce oil sales compared to last year due to NAFTA, the companies that extract the oil and own the reserves are mainly American owned, and nearly all pipeline capacity goes to the US. In 2023 they exported some 4 million barrels a day. To be a stickler for semantics, they don't consumer 95% of their production, they consume a little over half, export the rest, and import cheap heavy oil to make up the difference. Again, that's all light Permian Basin fracked crude. And most of it went to Europe (as with most of their LNG), which is why the US is Europe's largest supplier of NG and oil. So I expect them to supply Europe exactly as they are? I don't understand why you seem upset about this. Europe is the one who necessarily buys oil from dictatorships, like Russia.
    1
  2536. @karl-emilmadsen5032  Neither Puerto nor Guam nor the US Virgin islands have a single oil refinery. There isn't an oven to "bake the cake". They have no way to consume any crude they recieve; Puerto Rico does have a storage and shipment terminal, any oil sent to Puerto Rico is for re-export. I'm glad to see you are now agreeing they do produce more than they consume. But as you have pointed out, and I've explained, they are also a massive oil importer, largely from Canada, but also Mexico and to a lesser extent OPEC, almost all of which is very heavy crude. You need to count these imports towards their consumption as well as their production, they don't import for fun. And, for all intents and purposes, you can basically consider the Canadian oil there (which hurts, as a Canadian)- it's illegal for Canada to reduce oil sales compared to last year due to NAFTA, the companies that extract the oil and own the reserves are mainly American owned, and nearly all pipeline capacity goes to the US. In 2023 they exported some 4 million barrels a day. To be a stickler for semantics, they don't consumer 95% of their production, they consume a little over half, export the rest, and import cheap heavy oil to make up the difference. Again, that's all light Permian Basin fracked crude. And most of it went to Europe (as with most of their LNG), which is why the US is Europe's largest supplier of NG and oil. So I expect them to supply Europe exactly as they are? I don't understand why you seem upset about this. Europe is the one who necessarily buys oil from dictatorships, like Russia.
    1
  2537.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  Also I would imagine the higher value of oil imported vs exported in 2022 has to do with the fact oil production was down in 2021 and 2020, the Russian invasion caused a massive price jump, and as US oil production increased, global prices lowered and stabilized. So the higher production levels at the end of 2022 and in 2023 were at lower dollar values than the imports when the US was seeing lower production at the start of the year.
    1
  2538.  @karl-emilmadsen5032  yes but you're numbers are crude oil exports, which are not consumption products.
    1
  2539. @jakehansen3418  na WW3 is when China goes to war. To be a world war both sides have to be equal powers.
    1
  2540.  @louiscypher4186  If Russia were able to invade through Belarus I would argue they would already be doing it. I don't disagree that NATO forces in Ukraine would be considered legitimate targets. But I don't know how Russia would consider itself at war with NATO meaningfully. Some strong statement? For Propaganda purposes Russia already claims to be at war with NATO. I don't think there has ever been a risk of NATO or Ukraine rolling over Russia, and without meaningful attempts to take land in Russia I don't see the Russian public accepting mobilization. I think we can certainly say NATO is helping without direct involvement. Obviously I would like to see NATO pilots allowed to volunteer for Ukraine, but that would still not be direct NATO involvement.
    1
  2541.  @macmcleod1188  I don't see your other half. But Russia would rather see it on Fire than in the hands of any other nation. It's a dagger pointed at the Caucuses, offers air superiority over the Black sea, and determines a monopoly on Energy. I certainly can't understand the claim it's no longer important.
    1
  2542. @angrydog, no, it involves the US producing products at a lower cost than foreign countries + tariffs, ie the whole point. Biden just spent his term on the biggest reindustrialization project since WW2. The countering point to lower buying power for US citizens is the Income tax cut and increased employment that go alongside tariff policy. The US economy is a enormous. You could put a monkey in charge and growth would continue.
    1
  2543. @Bert, I don't disagree there will be a price increase on some goods. I'm just irritated by the seeming belief that American consumers will just keep buying everything with a 10% price increase. There will be substitions. There will be less demand. Less demand will cause lower prices. Consumers will pay more for some items. But not necessarily by the entire value of the tariff. There is absolutely an extent to which other countries will "pay the tariff" to the US by lowering prices. An easy example is Oil Sands exports from Canada. Oil isn't going to be more expensive for the refineries. Canada has almost no alternative market because of pipeline constraints, and the US does have domestic supply. Nearly the entire tariff will be eaten by oil sands producers who will have to accept lower prices.
    1
  2544. @Bert the character of the 2021-2023 was not related to tariffs. Why didn't we see high inflation in the US while Trump was putting tariffs on Canadian lumber and aluminum and Chinese products? Trump's tariffs aren't going to cause global shortages of goods like China shut down on Covid or Russian sanctions. They're going to cause global surpluses.
    1
  2545. You can show a temporary price spike. I'm not saying tariffs don't add cost ever. But the lumber tariff never went away, in fact Biden increased it, and yet lumber prices were returned to the pre tariff level within a year. And overall CPI didn't have an issue. Sure 10% tariffs will probably make fancy fruit expensive, or mean appliances that people buy every decade might go up a little. My issue is that I have absolutely no belief US consumers are going to feel negatively affected by inflation under tariffs. The only outcome at the end of this will be Trump looking smart and "the media" and "experts" looking like fools. In fact, housing is such a big part of inflation, the immigrant removal may entirely offset anything caused by tariffs. Add to that the seeming likely hood of mass government layoffs, I don't think prices will be increasing meaningfully. I do think country who trade with the US, principally it's NAFTA neighbors, are going to be economically destroyed unless we can get exceptions. Because the tariffs hurt us far more than the US consumers, and so our governments will make concessions.
    1
  2546. Yes and I do not believe Americans will feel $200 a month poorer. Even ignoring reductions in house prices from a reduced population or overall demand declines due to Federal workers being made unemployed or higher purchasing power from reduced income taxes. The simple reality of the trade situation is Canada and Mexico have no alternative markets. We will either end up selling at a lower price or losing industry. China is already seeing this effect from Trump and Biden's earlier tariffs. Americans may be paying a little more in tax, but the actual items are dropping in price alongside.
    1
  2547. @Bert, man, I'm the Canadian in the situation. You don't have to say I told you so, you already win. We're going to go into a depression, and you're going to make us work like Mexicans. You really don't need to be smug or talk to me about the pinch of being down $100 a month. You don't seem to understand how our economies interact. Mexico and Canada buy everything from you, and sell you raw resources or car parts. You buy those things, if it happens to be the cheapest option in the immediate area. Canada only sells you a fraction of your timber or iron, but it's all of our timber and iron exports, and all the equipment for industrial activity is bought from you. Yes tariffs cost money. Most taxes cost you a lot more money. This isn't going to cause an economic collapse *for you*. If you were spending $140 on imports a week, you're going to end up paying $14 in taxes and $150 overall, because everyone else needs access to your markets. Edit: like, do you understand how quickly Canada is going to implode. Russia being allowed to sell oil is going to kill oil prices, they'll flood the market with literally everything Canada sells (minerals, timber, fertilzer, iron, aluminum, nickle etc) they've been stockpiling because they can't sell, and our biggest trade partner is going to cut our trade with a goal of getting us to sell cheaper or deindustrialize, all while we fight a seperate trade war with the world's second largest economy you dragged us into. All because moderate or progressive Americans didn't show up to vote. And you want brag f off
    1
  2548. @Angry, what doesn't make sense. Do you not understand his whole policy is basically to mug his neighbors. That's who he is saying will pay the tax. He's openly saying his plan is to end the war by letting Putin keep what he has. That means Russia will no longer be sanctioned, and will flood the market with massive quantities like a country who hasn't been allowed to sell many things, like Nickel, and stored output, and is also desperate for income. Literally everything Canada produces. Expect car parts. Which we sell to you and don't in any way have leverage through, and US about to tariff and kill with a goal of stealing the industry. Our currency value will collapse, and our wages. Unless Trump doesn't follow through on the tariffs, Canada is going to have a massive industrial and housing crisis. And our wages will collapse. And we'll sell you resources cheaper. I obviously don't support his plan but you're entirely blind to the political and economic might of America in a way that frankly only Liberal Americans can be if you don't see that exports will have to react with lower prices. What exactly do you expect to be driving up prices? How much of it do you buy regularly? If washing machines double in price, I probably won't notice for a decade. Groceries people can't avoid thinking about. Biden just built an industrial base. I was actively saying he was among the best presidents in history for his success in rebuilding American industry.
    1
  2549. @Angry, what doesn't make sense. Do you not understand his whole policy is basically to mug his neighbors. That's who he is saying will pay the tax. He's openly saying his plan is to end the war by letting Putin keep what he has. That means Russia will no longer be sanctioned, and will flood the market with massive quantities like a country who hasn't been allowed to sell many things, like Nickel, and stored output, and is also desperate for income. Literally everything Canada produces. Expect car parts. Which we sell to you and don't in any way have leverage through, and US about to tariff and kill with a goal of stealing the industry. Our currency value will collapse, and our wages. Unless Trump doesn't follow through on the tariffs, Canada is going to have a massive industrial and housing crisis. And our wages will collapse. And we'll sell you resources cheaper. I obviously don't support his plan but you're entirely blind to the political and economic might of America in a way that frankly only Liberal Americans can be if you don't see that exports will have to react with lower prices. What exactly do you expect to be driving up prices? How much of it do you buy regularly? If washing machines double in price, I probably won't notice for a decade. Groceries people can't avoid thinking about. Biden just built an industrial base. I was actively saying he was among the best presidents in history for his success in rebuilding American industry.
    1
  2550. @Angry, what doesn't make sense. Do you not understand his whole policy is basically to mug his neighbors. That's who he is saying will pay the tax. He's openly saying his plan is to end the war by letting Putin keep what he has. That means Russia will no longer be sanctioned, and will flood the market with massive quantities like a country who hasn't been allowed to sell many things, like Nickel, and stored output, and is also desperate for income. Literally everything Canada produces. Expect car parts. Which we sell to you and don't in any way have leverage through, and US about to tariff and kill with a goal of stealing the industry. Our currency value will collapse, and our wages. Unless Trump doesn't follow through on the tariffs, Canada is going to have a massive industrial and housing crisis. And our wages will collapse. And we'll sell you resources cheaper. I obviously don't support his plan but you're entirely blind to the political and economic might of America if you don't see that exports will have to react with lower prices. What exactly do you expect to be driving up prices? How much of it do you buy regularly? If washing machines double in price, I probably won't notice for a decade. Groceries people can't avoid thinking about. The US just built an industrial base.
    1
  2551. @angry in not going to write an essay explaining every point I've made. Give an example of something you think is wrong, and I'll happily discuss. Trump is a disaster for Canada, he's going to return Russia to the global market while putting tariffs on us. Our weaker economy will lower wages and savings, and force us to work more for less.
    1
  2552. It's actually scary that you don't understand the influence and power of the US. It's like a kid playing with a gun.
    1
  2553. This is certainly true; but with smart policy we have decades we can be exploiting the oilsands. The build out of renewables is stunningly rapid. But today, the continent of Africa has as much electrical capacity as Canada. If, globally, there is sufficient solar for energy availability, let alone abundance, in the next 20 years it would be a miracle. And beyond that the energy to transition all vehicles to EVs. And AI driven data center demand. Home heating. And beyond that the infrastructure and energy to produce liquid fuels at scale. And once we can do this, it will be the lightest Hydrocarbons, NG and NGLs, that are built out first. Bitumen is the longest chain Hydrocarbons. Heavy liquid Hydrocarbons (jet fuel, diesel) will be the last form of fossil energy to be displaced. Lubricants and asphalt later than that, and next generation non combustion used like carbon fiber and activated carbon after that. Global electrification and coming energy abundance must be part of the conversation around the Oil sands if we are to responsibly develop and exploit the resource, but it does not mean we should allow the oil industry to undergo a rapid collapse because of poor understanding of its market..
    1
  2554. ​​ @grizzlycanuk8622  It isn't even a matter of needing fossil fuels. Coal, gasoline, even NG will be largely displaced in the 20 years. It's literally just the heavy hydrocarbon liquid fuels that will take much longer to displace. I would argue we need to be moving the conventional drilling fleet away from oil and to geothermal as rapidly as possible. It's only the Bitumen in interested in, it is the perfect source of those heavy Hydrocarbons, it has alternative non Combustion uses to grow over the same period, and as it increases production the costs continuously fall. And keeping it inexpensive also offers a large scale market to deploy SMRs, green Hydrogen, and carbon upgrading technologies to develop our own energy to liquids technology..
    1
  2555. ​ @grizzlycanuk8622 small correction, NG will last longer in industrial heating. I meant 20 years in energy generation, it (or methane from some source) will be used as feed stock and heat for another 30-40, imo
    1
  2556.  @GeldUndKokaine-kc1hp  my Goodness I'm not claiming it's true.
    1
  2557. OPEC isn't just playing for room against the shale producers, this is a fight with EVs and China. If gasoline is ¢50/L, ICE vehicles are cheaper than EVs again..
    1
  2558. The issue is 1) Alberta innovates puts carbon fiber production at 100k bbl/d in 10 years. We produce millions of barrels a day today 2) we can do added value work at the pipeline head. You can make carbon fiber in BC. This isn't really a solution in the next 20 years or an argument against a pipeline
    1
  2559.  @00JamesMoody00  agree to disagree but I don't live in Ketosis and thier aren't many better carbs in terms of Protien, fiber, minerals, etc. I would take quinoa and lentils over pork or even chicken.
    1
  2560.  @dumdum8880  I would love to get into Raw milk. Hard to find though, and depending on your back ground the lactose intolerance might cancel out the benefits.
    1
  2561.  @picolete  Maybe to humans but all fruit evolved to disperse seeds by being consumed by an animal. That's the whole point.
    1
  2562.  @KrommyMusic  Like it has insoluble fibers but it's not irritating to the gut.
    1
  2563.  @picgmr1575  Yes but I don't believe "easier" translates to "healthy" here.
    1
  2564.  @picgmr1575  Well it's more digestible, but for people lacking the genes to digest lactose the lactase won't entirely compensate, so they will still have bacteria ferment the sugars in their gut and the sugars will irritate thier intestinal lining.
    1
  2565.  @sawa1067  This actually works because Vitamin C competes for the same uptake path in digestion as glucose, so high protein/fat dieta allow to to scavenge the tiny amounts of Vitamin C much more efficiently. It's not that there are meaningful amounts in meat, just that what would normally be only a few percent of the daily requirement is used far more efficiently.
    1
  2566.  @sawa1067  I'm not disagreeing, but if you eat that meat with fruit, it no longer would provide the nutrients you need. I was just explaining why meat both has very little Vitamin C and also enough.
    1
  2567.  @sawa1067  Fair point, bread then, or rice. I'm just trying to say if you eat meat with anything with significant glucose, you will no longer be able to get vitamin C from meat.
    1
  2568.  @terrorbilly3722  I think someone else said that, and I agreed, although only really if you are of European or related decent since most populations don't have a lactose gene. Plus raw milk I hard to find. But when I was a kid my neighbors were dairy farmers and I do like raw milk.
    1
  2569. Its important to discuss the deflationary impact of the tariffs by cutting demand. In particular to Canadian oil, look at how pipeline limits in 2018 or Covid demand crashed demand. US tariffs that displace Keystone imports to the gulf woth overseas shipments will cause a glut in the oilsands, lowering prices to the Midwest and rockies.
    1
  2570.  @adamg7984  lol I'm not a trump supporter but very obviously he lies so I don't see how I'm the immature one for not acting incredulous when he does it..
    1
  2571. @luigimrlgaming9484 you said do do🤣
    1
  2572.  @zipperpillow  just a joke.
    1
  2573. Idk, I still think its possible to have an "Atlantis", either in the north of the black sea, south Morocco, ice age islands in the mouth of the Mediterranean, or random greek islands, or the Persian gulf I doubt "atlantis" is real, but a neothilic society a few thousand years before any recorded such society seems plausible. That likely got exadurated in oral legend. Its always struck me as odd Egypt was founded at the end of the green Sahara. It's like saying New York was founded in the middle of the black death by hunter gathers. Edit: to be clear Hancock is at best a broken clock.
    1
  2574. To be clear, Cenovus has no mining operations
    1
  2575. that's heavily dependent on the geology of the location.
    1
  2576.  @patricksullivan3919  what do you mean cold natural gas
    1
  2577. I think the points here are well made, but I don't think the issue is insurmountable; Red water saw cost overruns, but I would attribute much of that to delays in decisions moving forward. I think one of the biggest things to avoid such overruns is a larger scale build out; in the same way North American transit projects so often go over price. We need to build on experience and take the learnings of these builds. I would say that of course North America is well served, it is the Asian market we need to grow into. And if course Asian and US refiners dominate, we don't have any. But ultimately government actions are can help. An agreement to build pipeline capacity to Prince Rupert but not lift the crude oil ban on shipping would create a pressure to build refineries. And I do think there are areas government subsidies would be valid; capital subsidies on refineries to lower cost, and very high subsidies for green hydrogen to use in upgrading and SMRs to power the facilities, while benefiting oil, would be powerful in bringing our industry into the future. Ultimately, demand for certain products is falling much faster than others, and again looking at Red water we can specialize in those specific products. Edit: also, Transmountain has 500k bbl/d of Refined product capacity, and that's on the the original, paid off line. I would argue, as the government owns it, we should allow refined products to travel free if tolls to both limit crude shipments to the coast and so push up the value of that capacity, and incentivize refining in Alberta, which ultimately moves more product to coast. Also not addressed in the video, I believe DilBit exports should have an SCO mixing requirement into the dilutant that increases with time to lower demand for condensate and increase demand for SCO, both to preserve existing upgraders and drive demand into new.
    1
  2578. I think Stephen Miran's paper, 'A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System' should be discussed by the two of you in the future as I see it as heavily influential to the US administration.
    1
  2579. I hope you revisit this, it seems Ukrainians prefer these (or more the Canadian MRAP) to Bradleys as IFV, sending them directly aside tanks, and even infront of tanks to fly past Russian positions and flank while the tanks come from behind to clean up. Mine resistance and speed is more important than fire power or tank armor it seems, at least where the roads are paved.
    1
  2580. Russia occupies most of its allies
    1
  2581. There is a Pipeline from Montreal to Sarnia already. It would make much more sense to go to Cornwall for a new line.
    1
  2582. @sharonoddlyenough  a whole lot less than other cars, it will be relatively good for it in the market.
    1
  2583. what resources are you suggesting Russia might fight for? I mean outside Ukraine where getting water to Crimea and blocking it from selling Natural Gas to Europe. I guess Japan over that island with oil or maybe China stealing all of Siberia (or rip Russia in half and keep some military dictator in charge in the East to keep the West off their border, as they did with Korea and Vietnam). Or by resources do meam manufactured goods and advanced technology and capital goods?
    1
  2584. ​ @rhapsody85  The term concentration is important to the concept. Denisty of people in Germany never approached a concentration camp, whereas Gaza is at the very least comparable to the closed Ghettos.
    1
  2585. ​ @shastrachakshu108 a concentration camp is not a death camp. We're at 1942 before the final solution was put in motion in 43.
    1
  2586.  @rhapsody85  in this case, I would say the reason exaggerated comparisons are dangerous is that they make us callous to these terms, and make us disbelieve these situations can happen.
    1
  2587.  @harlowida  kinda a moot point but I think the Navajo have a support group you could join.
    1
  2588. I expect Trump will likely push a "peace Deal" that gives Russia the desires oblasts, and will probably require Europe to lift sanctions and buy Russian Oil & Gas as part of Trade/Tariif negotiations. However, that will probably include a significant fee to rebuild Ukraine. However, Putin may not be will to accept Ukraine getting future western Support. And Trump doesn't want to look bought. So he may increase aid. Overall I'm of the opinion that to best deal with China, Russia needs to meaningfully lose, or else China will think it can throw some few million people at Taiwan and ultimately end up with it.
    1
  2589.  @gogl0l386  I'd suggest doing some basic research around organic eggs and make up your mind on the industry as a whole, not trying to talk you out of veganism, but I have switched back and forth and, being lazy, I can feel the difference.
    1
  2590.  @daddad8707  really emphasizes the logistical stress Russia is under, from increasesed trade with China needing more trains to move cargo to Ukrainian sabotage.
    1
  2591. Ultimately the seller will always pay the tax, but having a higher rate when merging in the same market could be a good signal to invest more in competing and less in buying the competition​ @AFNick 
    1
  2592. I think you are highly reliable in terms of global change, although I don't understand why you don't believe demand for heavy crudes will grow as demand for gasoline collapses. The only areas I disagree with you are (some) of your prescriptions for how to manage the decline of our oil industry, and the urgency you see to put on Canadian consumers adopting EVs (separate from investing in becoming a producer)
    1
  2593. ​ @richdrumlang idk, I don't think most liberals are competent enough to understand how China is changing the global energy market, and while Carney does, this guy clearly isn't here to support him. He probably has an environmental agenda he tries to hide, but outside the Green Party i don't think he has any political relationships
    1
  2594. The SAGD being discussed does not produce tailings ponds. That is only the mining. The SAGD does not produce abandoned wells, that is conventional drilling.
    1
  2595. ​ @gmw3083 i believe he has blocked my emails lol, although I do try to be polite
    1
  2596. ​ @rdyjur obviously you are right, but since most emissions, even oilsands, are down stream, I think there is more nuance here. As Gasoline demand falls with EVs, being able to selectively produce products like jet fuel mean that less gasoline is produced in the refining, which would otherwise be effectively subsidized by high prices gor certain products and dumped on the market cheaply.
    1
  2597. ​ @rdyjur Ya I understand that. And at the upsteam end, I agree. But I'm adding that on the downstream end, other crudes with high gasoline yeilds will effectively subsidize gasoline as EVs displace demand to sell the higher value RPPs, and so create emissions. Particularly if carbon is priced throughout the supply chain, gasoline being taxed and not just a border adjustment mechanism, we may not be at the disadvantage that it would appear.
    1
  2598. @bipl8989 Sometimes is the wrong word; diluents are continuously imported from the US. However, the vast majority of Dilutent is domestic. One of the the worlds largest gas reserves is in North East Alberta/North West BC. The SAGD installations need to continuously produce and inject steam; and burn NG to produce it. The fields that produce the NG also produce the dilutent - although only about 20% of the NG goes to the oilsands, vs all the shale oil. So to the extent they are seperate problems, the solution to the dilutent was arguably necessary before the SAGD could have been exploited. I think the Venezuelan fields actually inject diluent down well, no? I imagine that requires more than simple transportation needs. But as I said, I believe we should be requiring and increasing level of Bitumen upgrated into SCO in the dilutant mix over time with a goal of eventually only exporting SynBit (or something like DieselBit) or partially upgraded heavy crude. Which would eliminate the need for both imports and domestic shale fracking.
    1
  2599. ​​ @bipl8989  I believe most of the NG comes out of the Montney, and is shale yes.. BC used to be a large conventional NG producer but I don't believe that's as relevant today - but I may be mistaken. Certainly some of it is condensate, but it is also tight liquids pumped. An "issue" the oilsands has had is that as dilutent is increasingly Domestic, it has been getting heavier and need a higher ratio of dilutent, largely because of the shale oil. I imagine some is also NGLs seperated at plant, but these also feed the Petrochemical industry that has been growing in Alberta, I don't know split between uses - it may be that more NGLs going to petrochemicals is also a part of increasing diluent API, my understanding is most NGLs go to petrochemicals, but I don't have metrics. I think Alberta may be the only market in the world the shale oil sells at a premium because of the SAGD demand; with the blow up in Bakken after 2010 I'm not sure how Midwest refineries have delt with the excess in light fractions; I've always assume the Dilutant in DilBit is a big part of why Bakken crude is struggles to find a market in the Midwest though. That said, I assume the Cokers aim to output a range of hydrocarbons that complement, and the mix of condensate and tight oil is probably less problematic then the flood of condensate coming out of the Permian (although I've also found it very hard to find the composition of Permian output). To the point on producing what sells; I'd make 3 points. One, from an environmental standpoint, I do not think we should encourage fracking: ground water, methane emissions, abandoned wells. I've made the point before but I think we should be pushing the oilsands to nuclear heating. Two, DilBit sells, but I don't believe the diluent is responsible. As you point out, it's actually a considerable issue, it just happens to be a necessity to access the Bitumen. Three, Today's market isn't tomorrows market, I believe EVs will destroy demand for gasoline, and further weaken demand for tight oil; whereas middle distillates will increasingly be under supplied. Even today I would suggest most Midwest refineries would rather bitumen and middle distillates, and mix Bakken as needed, then the tight oil/condensate/NGL dilutent they are forced to take. And to be clear, when I say Upgrade to Bitumen, I am talking about the Sturgeon falls upgrader. I think beyond selling DilBit, Canada should be using the Oilsands as a launching platform for SMRs and Green Hydrogen, and upgraders create a market for both. I also think little happens today in Venezuela; I know they invented the CSS/huff and puff that Coldwater later stole before SAGD started. And I believe Chevron was doing a solvent wash with exported US condensate.
    1
  2600. ​@bipl8989  I believe most of the NG comes out of the Montney, and is shale yes. BC used to be a large conventional NG producer but I don't believe that's as relevant today - but I may be mistaken.  Certainly some of it is condensate, but it is also tight liquids pumped. An "issue" the oilsands has had is that as dilutent is increasingly Domestic, it has been getting heavier and need a higher ratio of dilutent, largely because of the shale oil. I imagine some is also NGLs seperated at plant, but these also feed the Petrochemical industry that has been growing in Alberta, I don't know split between uses - it may be that more NGLs going to petrochemicals is also a part of increasing diluent API, my understanding is most NGLs go to petrochemicals, but I don't have metrics. I think Alberta may be the only market in the world the shale oil sells at a premium because of the SAGD demand; with the blow up in Bakken after 2010 I'm not sure how Midwest refineries have delt with the excess in light fractions; I've always assume the Dilutant in DilBit is a big part of why Bakken crude is struggles to find a market in the Midwest though. That said, I assume the Cokers aim to output a range of hydrocarbons that complement, and the mix of condensate and tight oil is probably less problematic then the flood of condensate coming out of the Permian (although I've also found it very hard to find the composition of Permian output).  To the point on producing what sells; I'd make 3 points. One, from an environmental standpoint, I do not think we should encourage fracking: ground water, methane emissions, abandoned wells. I've made the point before but I think we should be pushing the oilsands to nuclear heating. Two, DilBit sells, but I don't believe the diluent is responsible. As you point out, it's actually a considerable issue, it just happens to be a necessity to access the Bitumen. Three, Today's market isn't tomorrows market, I believe EVs will destroy demand for gasoline, and further weaken demand for tight oil; whereas middle distillates will increasingly be under supplied. Even today I would suggest most Midwest refineries would rather bitumen and middle distillates, and mix Bakken as needed, then the tight oil/condensate/NGL dilutent they are forced to take.  And to be clear, when I say Upgrade to Bitumen, I am talking about the Sturgeon falls upgrader. I think beyond selling DilBit, Canada should be using the Oilsands as a launching platform for SMRs and Green Hydrogen, and upgraders create a market for both.  I also think little happens today in Venezuela; I know they invented the CSS/huff and puff that Coldwater later stole before SAGD started. And I believe Chevron was doing a solvent wash with exported US condensate.
    1
  2601. ​ @bipl8989 my understanding is phase 1 will allow about 10% of Albertas current production to be exported as LNG, which may allow some expansion of production, but I think ultimately is going to allow lower use in electrical production (about 20% of Alberta production), and in the short term lower exports to the US. Where did you get the info on Bakken having less condensate? Not that I don't believe it, Bakken does seem prefered (for example rail going to irving as you said over ships from Texas), I just have not been able to find anything reliable; and Bakken being older I'd expect to be lighter. But I'm not suggesting there is no market for Bakken, just that you might expect the Midwest refineries to be bigger buyers being close, and that the dilutent is competing against that pushing down the value of both. To be clear, I'm not suggesting requiring exports be SCO, im suggesting the dilutent should be. I understand the market is for Bitumen. But DilBit does use condensate, both from the Montney and, as you point out, something like 80k bbl/d are imported. It just also uses the tight oil.
    1
  2602. Jesus Markham the Dam idea is nearly an act of War. Its not a negotiation point. What's your argument here, if you invade we can start cutting of irrigation water? The reason they are doing this is Trump has realized we are so vulnerable they can without repercussions. We are being mugged. When you are mugged, you hand over the wallet. The more we fight this the worse it will end up. We need to accept that we are now seeing the cost of our dependence on the US, and reinvest in new making new partners. This kind of talk will get us cut out of SWIFT or worse.
    1
  2603.  @markbaker6553  I have to question that you understand you have just stated you are against wide scale building of Server Farms. But fundamentally Canada's long been considered to have a foremost issue in productivity; and you are arguing against investments that increase productivity. Most importantly, labour is domestic, but capital is international; to the extent either is limited, labour is far more. It doesn't make sense to try and limit investment. And to the extent labour is limited, we're saying that investment will have the unfortunate side effect of raising wages and pulling people out of low wage low skill jobs. Development land being limited is maybe a regional issue. I certainly don't think there is any land availability issue with Northern Gateway or TransCanada (where a pipeline already exists). In terms of a secure market being Essential, Carbon Fiber is not a commercial process. Should we be pulling all investment? Should we stop supporting EV and Battery manufacturing? I widely agree LNG is a white elephant, of course. I don't think there is a basis for use to build a 1000km pipeline to try and compete against Qatar sticking another straw into the ocean. But this particular argument against LNG doesn't hold water..
    1
  2604.  @markbaker6553  I promote a wide variety of projects. Admittedly, on this channel, it may appear I disproportionately advocate for fossil fuels, but that is only because other projects are directly discussed and I don't have anything else to contribute - and when I do, I most certainly add it. Since we've spoken a few times, let me clearly lay out what I want; I think LNG projects are almost entirely a waste of time, expect maybe seasonal exports out of Manitoba. I would like to see the Oil sands mining industry come to an end on a set 25 year time line where production quotas are slowly decreased before quickly decreasing, and quotas are allocated based on tail ponds reductions. The mines will close regardless, and I want this to be in a controlled manner that doesn't allow SynCrude (the company) to declare bankruptcy and stick us with their tailings ponds, and in the interim we should support policies that keep the mines operational to ensure this doesn't happen. I would like to see conventional drilling come to an end on a 10 year time line, supported by a massive funding boost to geothermal that maintains the capital and work force and allows us to be a global leader in the industry as China has with solar. I would like to see shale fracking come to an end on a 20-30 year time line, with the real controlling mechanism below; shale fracking provides our dilutant, our Natural gas, and our chemical industry inputs at the moment. I would like to see an increase of In Situ SAGD production in the oil sands, potentially to around 5-6M bbl/d. I think this should be a growth industry we support because it is unique to Canada and offers advantages to oil. I think we should be moving SAGD to nuclear steam generators over the next 10 years, cutting NG demand by ~20% of our production. This would make Oil Sands production effectively emissionsless, and make the marginal cost of production almost $0 allowing us to force out OPEC. I want to see the upgraders equipped with Nuclear heating as well, and transitioning to Green Hydrogen as the Alberta grid increases capacity. I want to see a blending requirement meant to increase upgraded Syncrude in DilBit over time to create a market for SynCrude, demand for investment into new upgraders, and push out Dilutent, until we are only selling SynBit, that is again, effectively emissionsless in production. These Upgraders will also act to grow employment in Fort McMurray and avoid a regional collapse from the eventual end of mining. I want to see 2 Northern Gateway pipelines built consecutively, to bring 1M bbl/d to Prince Rupert, for a total of 3M bbl/d reaching the Pacific. And alongside that, I want to see a 300k bbl/d refinery, Bitumen beyond combustion uses such as asphalt and carbon fiber, and a large scale petrochemical industry including Gasoline cracking units to adsorb light fractions without a global market. I want to see a TransCanada line capable of bringing 2M bbl/d east, providing oil security to the 1M bbl/d Eastern Canada uses, and working with Europe to find a long term market for the other 1M bbl/d in East coast exports. I think this line should only be allowed to carry SynCrude, or potentially synCrude with a low blend of Bitumen such that the mix floats. Beyond that, I want to see further upgraders that target an even lighter crude that can feed the Chemical industry, pushing out NGLs from shale fracking. I want to see Gasifiers turning Bitumen into Natural gas, supplying NG for LNG exports or power generation or domestic heat. Again, using SMRs for nuclear heat to power the process, creating a continuously expanding domestic market for us to develop as a global leader in SMRs, and meaning that our gasified Bitumen is lower emissions than conventional NG. The time line for this ultimately decides when shale fracking is ended Finally, I want to see Power to Gas slowly worked into this system, which is increasingly dominated by the upgrading process, so that the NG is increasingly reducing emissions, leveraging the existing gasifier and green hydrogen infrastructure. Overtime, as NG demand is met, I want to see that transition to Power to Liquids infrastructure, feeding the chemical industry, and whatever RRP demand is maintained. Eventually, also supplying Asphaltenes for Carbon Fiber and beyond Bitumen uses. I think this point can be reached likely in the 2060-2070 range, and fully converting our petrochemical and NG industries to electrically powered renewable industries; and allowing Alberta to export it's enormous renewable capacity as material and liquid energy products using nuclear heating and cheap green hydrogen. I do not want to see a sudden collapse of Canada's largest industry and largest source of export revenue. I do not want to see mines and tailing ponds being abandoned and destroying the Athabasca river. I do not want to see drilling rigs being sold, with a 25% tariff, to the US as the owners write off their value in a low price environment. I do not want to see the Government of Albertas revenue collapse, or mass unemployment centered on Fort McMurray; both because I don't want to see Canadian losing their job and home value, and also because I suspect those particular Canadians will make my life very difficult if they do, either occupying Ottawa or trying to Seperate. I do not want to see us missing an enormous opportunity to leverage our resources and expertise to encourage new industries like nuclear, geothermal, or power to gas that we could take a dominant global position in. And I truly detest the excessive concern with carbon emissions related to the Oils sands in the near term. Canada is not a meaningful portion of global emissions, and the oil industry is a controlled supply market - we are incapable of adding to global emissions with a higher oil supply because OPEC will adjust their supply to control prices. China did and is not developing its next generation technology by worrying about emissions in the near or medium term. We should not either. We can be far more beneficial to the world by actually planning on responsibly developing our resources instead of absurd political signals like an emissions cap or some belief that closing the oilsands will somehow benefit anyone. This is politically and economically dangerous.
    1
  2605.  @markbaker6553  but I don't agree there is an opportunity cost in any meaningful sense, I don't believe for a moment building Northern Gateway limits the development of the Ring of Fire or Battery manufacturing or Wind Turbine production in Gaspe or data serve farms etc. In fact I believe these are all beneficial to each other. Low employment is another term for highly productive. I have seen no argument there are bad economics, certainly not that the economics are worse than allowing the status quo where the US can turn off the oil supply to Canada's largest population center or push down the price of oil as it desires. I agree Smith is the AntiTrudeau. They are the two worst politicians in Canada imo, followed probably by PP. Nothing but virtue signals and blind devotion to particular industries to the point of needlessly attacking others. I don't mean to be disingenuous. I am simply trying to highlight you are holding fossil fuel development to a different standard than other projects, and that I don't believe it is on economic grounds, and I don't believe it is good policy from any perspective. And my top comment was also along these lines, the fact people don't want the industry representing a quarter of our exports entirely at the mercy of an economically hostile government is not a lazer focus. Canadians have not stopped wanting wind and battery development. Any political support for the oil sands is not to the detriment of other industry. Again, we agree with each other that LNG is a poor investment. The main political benefit is it allows Alberta to decarbonize without shutting down the drilling industry which is the governments fear.
    1
  2606.  @markbaker6553  my reply was evidently to long so I'm breaking it up;   I promote a wide variety of projects. Admittedly, on this channel, it may appear I disproportionately advocate for fossil fuels, but that is only because other projects are directly discussed and I don't have anything else to contribute - and when I do, I most certainly add it. Since we've spoken a few times, let me clearly lay out what I want; I think LNG projects are almost entirely a waste of time, expect maybe seasonal exports out of Manitoba. I would like to see the Oil sands mining industry come to an end on a set 25 year time line where production quotas are slowly decreased before quickly decreasing, and quotas are allocated based on tail ponds reductions. The mines will close regardless, and I want this to be in a controlled manner that doesn't allow SynCrude (the company) to declare bankruptcy and stick us with their tailings ponds, and in the interim we should support policies that keep the mines operational to ensure this doesn't happen. I would like to see conventional drilling come to an end on a 10 year time line, supported by a massive funding boost to geothermal that maintains the capital and work force and allows us to be a global leader in the industry as China has with solar. I would like to see shale fracking come to an end on a 20-30 year time line, with the real controlling mechanism below; shale fracking provides our dilutant, our Natural gas, and our chemical industry inputs at the moment..
    1
  2607.  @markbaker6553  I would like to see an increase of In Situ SAGD production in the oil sands, potentially to around 5-6M bbl/d. I think this should be a growth industry we support because it is unique to Canada and offers advantages to oil. I think we should be moving SAGD to nuclear steam generators over the next 10 years, cutting NG demand by ~20% of our production. This would make Oil Sands production effectively emissionsless, and make the marginal cost of production almost $0 allowing us to force out OPEC. I want to see the upgraders equipped with Nuclear heating as well, and transitioning to Green Hydrogen as the Alberta grid increases capacity. I want to see a blending requirement meant to increase upgraded Syncrude in DilBit over time to create a market for SynCrude, demand for investment into new upgraders, and push out Dilutent, until we are only selling SynBit, that is again, effectively emissionsless in production. These Upgraders will also act to grow employment in Fort McMurray and avoid a regional collapse from the eventual end of mining. I want to see 2 Northern Gateway pipelines built consecutively, to bring 1M bbl/d to Prince Rupert, for a total of 3M bbl/d reaching the Pacific. And alongside that, I want to see a 300k bbl/d refinery, Bitumen beyond combustion uses such as asphalt and carbon fiber, and a large scale petrochemical industry including Gasoline cracking units to adsorb light fractions without a global market. I want to see a TransCanada line capable of bringing 2M bbl/d east, providing oil security to the 1M bbl/d Eastern Canada uses, and working with Europe to find a long term market for the other 1M bbl/d in East coast exports. I think this line should only be allowed to carry SynCrude, or potentially synCrude with a low blend of Bitumen such that the mix floats..
    1
  2608.  @markbaker6553  Beyond that, I want to see further upgraders that target an even lighter crude that can feed the Chemical industry, pushing out NGLs from shale fracking. I want to see Gasifiers turning Bitumen into Natural gas, supplying NG for LNG exports or power generation or domestic heat. Again, using SMRs for nuclear heat to power the process, creating a continuously expanding domestic market for us to develop as a global leader in SMRs, and meaning that our gasified Bitumen is lower emissions than conventional NG. The time line for this ultimately decides when shale fracking is ended Finally, I want to see Power to Gas slowly worked into this system, which is increasingly dominated by the upgrading process, so that the NG is increasingly reducing emissions, leveraging the existing gasifier and green hydrogen infrastructure. Overtime, as NG demand is met, I want to see that transition to Power to Liquids infrastructure, feeding the chemical industry, and whatever RRP demand is maintained. Eventually, also supplying Asphaltenes for Carbon Fiber and beyond Bitumen uses. I think this point can be reached likely in the 2060-2070 range, and fully converting our petrochemical and NG industries to electrically powered renewable industries; and allowing Alberta to export it's enormous renewable capacity as material and liquid energy products using nuclear heating and cheap green hydrogen..
    1
  2609.  @markbaker6553  I do not want to see a sudden collapse of Canada's largest industry and largest source of export revenue. I do not want to see mines and tailing ponds being abandoned and destroying the Athabasca river. I do not want to see drilling rigs being sold, with a 25% tariff, to the US as the owners write off their value in a low price environment. I do not want to see the Government of Albertas revenue collapse, or mass unemployment centered on Fort McMurray; both because I don't want to see Canadian losing their job and home value, and also because I suspect those particular Canadians will make my life very difficult if they do, either occupying Ottawa or trying to Seperate. I do not want to see us missing an enormous opportunity to leverage our resources and expertise to encourage new industries like nuclear, geothermal, or power to gas that we could take a dominant global position in. And I truly detest the excessive concern with carbon emissions related to the Oils sands in the near term. Canada is not a meaningful portion of global emissions, and the oil industry is a controlled supply market - we are incapable of adding to global emissions with a higher oil supply because OPEC will adjust their supply to control prices. China did and is not developing its next generation technology by worrying about emissions in the near or medium term. We should not either. We can be far more beneficial to the world by actually planning on responsibly developing our resources instead of absurd political signals like an emissions cap or some belief that closing the oilsands will somehow benefit anyone. This is politically and economically dangerous..
    1
  2610. @markbaker6553  I promote a wide variety of projects. Admittedly, on this channel, it may appear I disproportionately advocate for fossil fuels, but that is only because other projects are directly discussed and I don't have anything else to contribute - and when I do, I most certainly add it. Since we've spoken a few times, let me clearly lay out what I want; I think LNG projects are almost entirely a waste of time, expect maybe seasonal exports out of Manitoba. I would like to see the Oil sands mining industry come to an end on a set 25 year time line where production quotas are slowly decreased before quickly decreasing, and quotas are allocated based on tail ponds reductions. The mines will close regardless, and I want this to be in a controlled manner that doesn't allow SynCrude (the company) to declare bankruptcy and stick us with their tailings ponds, and in the interim we should support policies that keep the mines operational to ensure this doesn't happen. I would like to see conventional drilling come to an end on a 10 year time line, supported by a massive funding boost to geothermal that maintains the capital and work force and allows us to be a global leader in the industry as China has with solar. I would like to see shale fracking come to an end on a 20-30 year time line, with the real controlling mechanism below; shale fracking provides our dilutant, our Natural gas, and our chemical industry inputs at the moment. I would like to see an increase of In Situ SAGD production in the oil sands, potentially to around 5-6M bbl/d. I think this should be a growth industry we support because it is unique to Canada and offers advantages to oil. I think we should be moving SAGD to nuclear steam generators over the next 10 years, cutting NG demand by ~20% of our production. This would make Oil Sands production effectively emissionsless, and make the marginal cost of production almost $0 allowing us to force out OPEC. I want to see the upgraders equipped with Nuclear heating as well, and transitioning to Green Hydrogen as the Alberta grid increases capacity. I want to see a blending requirement meant to increase upgraded Syncrude in DilBit over time to create a market for SynCrude, demand for investment into new upgraders, and push out Dilutent, until we are only selling SynBit, that is again, effectively emissionsless in production. These Upgraders will also act to grow employment in Fort McMurray and avoid a regional collapse from the eventual end of mining. I want to see 2 Northern Gateway pipelines built consecutively, to bring 1M bbl/d to Prince Rupert, for a total of 3M bbl/d reaching the Pacific. And alongside that, I want to see a 300k bbl/d refinery, Bitumen beyond combustion uses such as asphalt and carbon fiber, and a large scale petrochemical industry including Gasoline cracking units to adsorb light fractions without a global market. I want to see a TransCanada line capable of bringing 2M bbl/d east, providing oil security to the 1M bbl/d Eastern Canada uses, and working with Europe to find a long term market for the other 1M bbl/d in East coast exports. I think this line should only be allowed to carry SynCrude, or potentially synCrude with a low blend of Bitumen such that the mix floats. Beyond that, I want to see further upgraders that target an even lighter crude that can feed the Chemical industry, pushing out NGLs from shale fracking. I want to see Gasifiers turning Bitumen into Natural gas, supplying NG for LNG exports or power generation or domestic heat. Again, using SMRs for nuclear heat to power the process, creating a continuously expanding domestic market for us to develop as a global leader in SMRs, and meaning that our gasified Bitumen is lower emissions than conventional NG. The time line for this ultimately decides when shale fracking is ended Finally, I want to see Power to Gas slowly worked into this system, which is increasingly dominated by the upgrading process, so that the NG is increasingly reducing emissions, leveraging the existing gasifier and green hydrogen infrastructure. Overtime, as NG demand is met, I want to see that transition to Power to Liquids infrastructure, feeding the chemical industry, and whatever RRP demand is maintained. Eventually, also supplying Asphaltenes for Carbon Fiber and beyond Bitumen uses. I think this point can be reached likely in the 2060-2070 range, and fully converting our petrochemical and NG industries to electrically powered renewable industries; and allowing Alberta to export it's enormous renewable capacity as material and liquid energy products using nuclear heating and cheap green hydrogen. I do not want to see a sudden collapse of Canada's largest industry and largest source of export revenue. I do not want to see mines and tailing ponds being abandoned and destroying the Athabasca river. I do not want to see drilling rigs being sold, with a 25% tariff, to the US as the owners write off their value in a low price environment. I do not want to see the Government of Albertas revenue collapse, or mass unemployment centered on Fort McMurray; both because I don't want to see Canadian losing their job and home value, and also because I suspect those particular Canadians will make my life very difficult if they do, either occupying Ottawa or trying to Seperate. I do not want to see us missing an enormous opportunity to leverage our resources and expertise to encourage new industries like nuclear, geothermal, or power to gas that we could take a dominant global position in. And I truly detest the excessive concern with carbon emissions related to the Oils sands in the near term. Canada is not a meaningful portion of global emissions, and the oil industry is a controlled supply market - we are incapable of adding to global emissions with a higher oil supply because OPEC will adjust their supply to control prices. China did and is not developing its next generation technology by worrying about emissions in the near or medium term. We should not either. We can be far more beneficial to the world by actually planning on responsibly developing our resources instead of absurd political signals like an emissions cap or some belief that closing the oilsands will somehow benefit anyone. This is politically and economically dangerous..
    1
  2611.  @markbaker6553  Like you're implying I have some support for Smith. That's just not true and it's my point. Any support for the oil industry isn't synonymous with wanting Canada to be a gas station or supporting the farthest right government in the country. I've never said anything positive about Smith. I am not treating our largest export industry as a piece of culture war. And I am critical on this channel because I believe it does and supports that with cherry picked information.
    1
  2612. @markbaker6553  Do you believe in the potential of bitumen beyond combustion? Because again, we can do those processes on a coast. If there isn't demand for WCS, and I think it's quite evident there is since Transmountain ships half it's oil to Asia and operates at full capacity, we can upgrade and sell light sweet (which I don't think there is demand for). We can upgrade and sell jet fuel, which I am sure there is demand for. And I believe these project deserve all the attention of value adding we give any other resource. And I would add that a TransCanada line is very clearly a highly strategic project. Also, you can criticize the government of Alberta all you want. I can't do anything about it lol. All I would point out is that Smith is a reaction in Alberta to a belief the rest of the country is oppressing their industry; pipelines, emissions caps that only impact them, a complete rebuild of their electrical system, a supply management system for agriculture that doesn't benefit their main sector of beef, a tax on natural gas for home heating which they widely rely on without alternative, etc. She was elected to be against Canada because, even if they vote NDP, they believe Canada will not support them. If we take the stance that Alberta is on its own and we are going to let it's largest private industry and main source of government fail, we will get more like Smith, not less..
    1
  2613. I'm not able to reply here
    1
  2614. @mark if we take the stance that Alberta is on its own, we will only get more people like Smith. I think TMX has shown very clear demand for WCs. And if not, we can do added value processes on the coast.
    1