I still don't understand your belief that the Midwest, where the vast majority of our heavy crude goes and, with no sizable chemical industry to speak of, is turned into gasoline and diesel, is a safer longterm market than getting access to Asia, where there is much higher demand for petrochemical and asphalt for new countries developing infrastructure.
The EV policy announcement made yesterday is more important to me than any pipeline, and I agree so widely with your views on the energy transition, but I don't see how the oilsands can survive without access to markets in Asia.
Longer term the oil sands should NOT survive. We should transition to an electrified economy as quickly as possible. And government capital investment must never make up for an absence of investor capital (which is always absent for a sound reason). And we must introduce a short timeline for the O&G industry to clean up its legacy messes; it'll never happen otherwise.
I'm sorry but I don't think for a moment that you believe the comment about government capital. I'm sure you wouldn't apply it to healthcare, education, housing, or public transportation; and I'm confident you wouldn't apply it to electrical Transmission infrastructure, power generation, or battery industrial development. Push comes to shove I doubt you'd apply it to the banks.
As to your first point, if your argument is just "I want the industry to fail", then it's a free country. But my point is the logical conclusion if you believe in the energy transition and live in a country producing 5M bbl/d is that you need that to reach a market that isn't using it for energy.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see us developing additive manufacturing very badly (asphalt, carbon fiber, more petrochemicals), but I don't believe we can build that capacity as quickly as I believe Midwest demand will fall. And I don't believe there is a timely solution outside of Tidewater access.
I'd also question why you want the industry to collapse. Is it that you want the government to take over $300B in liabilities that a dead industry will abandon? Or that you want to see the government of Alberta's revenues collapse and have the federal government start paying for that? Or do you just want to fuel the Seperatist? Imo, it would seem you want all these things if you are serious on that stance.
The thing is there is no "short time line" solution. Once you declare an end of the industry, all the investors and creditors pull out, and it collapses financially. We need to start closing the mines, yes, but we need to let the in-situ operations grow to cover that cost.
I want to see electrification. But these are not mutually exclusive things. I am trying to divert the industry to materials. In fact, I'd argue the oilsands can be an important asset in driving that transition.
I want my grandchildren to live in a habitable world when they are my age. Canada is a laggard in its transition to electrification and efforts to reduce carbon emissions. We must treat this an emergency, not as some kind of 'perhaps we will get to it someday' which seems to reflect today's urgency.
I agree entirely but these are not mutually exclusive things. Oil demand will continue to fall whether or not we are in the global market. Our capacity to shift to electrification will not be improved but an economic crisis.
I'd also note that there's an enormous difference between investing public money in hospitals et al and investing in a pipeline. If pipeline economic prospects are not sufficiently attractive to traditional providers of public equity or debt, I'd argue a government investment isn't merited.
Obviously there is a difference, no doubt, my point is that the argument investment is only justified when it's by the private sector isn't one that any one actually believes.
I’d say you're putting forward an impossible catch 22; government investment is only merited if it isn't performed. And again, I don't think it is one that would be applied to any other industry.
Government investment does need to be based on the public good. And it is my belief that money spent supporting the construction of a pipeline today is a far better usage of money than what the cost to government in allowing the industry to fail will be. Not only in monetary terms, but political as well.
We may not like it, but the oilsands has, imo, become to big to fail. And we can either do something now before the collapse, or wait until it happens.
But if we agree that there is going to be a crash in oil demand in 10 years, then the financial crash will be long before that. And I don't see how the Canadian industry will not see all this happen earlier than the global if we are restricted to a regional market using it only for fuel production.
I still don't understand your belief that the Midwest, where the vast majority of our heavy crude goes and, with no sizable chemical industry to speak of, is turned into gasoline and diesel, is a safer longterm market than getting access to Asia, where there is much higher demand for petrochemical and asphalt for new countries developing infrastructure.
The EV policy announcement made yesterday is more important to me than any pipeline, and I agree so widely with your views on the energy transition, but I don't see how the oilsands can survive without access to markets in Asia.
Longer term the oil sands should NOT survive. We should transition to an electrified economy as quickly as possible. And government capital investment must never make up for an absence of investor capital (which is always absent for a sound reason). And we must introduce a short timeline for the O&G industry to clean up its legacy messes; it'll never happen otherwise.
I'm sorry but I don't think for a moment that you believe the comment about government capital. I'm sure you wouldn't apply it to healthcare, education, housing, or public transportation; and I'm confident you wouldn't apply it to electrical Transmission infrastructure, power generation, or battery industrial development. Push comes to shove I doubt you'd apply it to the banks.
As to your first point, if your argument is just "I want the industry to fail", then it's a free country. But my point is the logical conclusion if you believe in the energy transition and live in a country producing 5M bbl/d is that you need that to reach a market that isn't using it for energy.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see us developing additive manufacturing very badly (asphalt, carbon fiber, more petrochemicals), but I don't believe we can build that capacity as quickly as I believe Midwest demand will fall. And I don't believe there is a timely solution outside of Tidewater access.
I'd also question why you want the industry to collapse. Is it that you want the government to take over $300B in liabilities that a dead industry will abandon? Or that you want to see the government of Alberta's revenues collapse and have the federal government start paying for that? Or do you just want to fuel the Seperatist? Imo, it would seem you want all these things if you are serious on that stance.
The thing is there is no "short time line" solution. Once you declare an end of the industry, all the investors and creditors pull out, and it collapses financially. We need to start closing the mines, yes, but we need to let the in-situ operations grow to cover that cost.
I want to see electrification. But these are not mutually exclusive things. I am trying to divert the industry to materials. In fact, I'd argue the oilsands can be an important asset in driving that transition.
WCS has got some competition!
US Gulf Coast refiners seen benefiting from increased use of heavy Venezuelan crude | S&P Global https://share.google/zPCJxIaYsM4oeOpSN
An excellent reason not to find ourselves trapped selling to only one market
I want my grandchildren to live in a habitable world when they are my age. Canada is a laggard in its transition to electrification and efforts to reduce carbon emissions. We must treat this an emergency, not as some kind of 'perhaps we will get to it someday' which seems to reflect today's urgency.
I agree entirely but these are not mutually exclusive things. Oil demand will continue to fall whether or not we are in the global market. Our capacity to shift to electrification will not be improved but an economic crisis.
I'd also note that there's an enormous difference between investing public money in hospitals et al and investing in a pipeline. If pipeline economic prospects are not sufficiently attractive to traditional providers of public equity or debt, I'd argue a government investment isn't merited.
Obviously there is a difference, no doubt, my point is that the argument investment is only justified when it's by the private sector isn't one that any one actually believes.
I’d say you're putting forward an impossible catch 22; government investment is only merited if it isn't performed. And again, I don't think it is one that would be applied to any other industry.
Government investment does need to be based on the public good. And it is my belief that money spent supporting the construction of a pipeline today is a far better usage of money than what the cost to government in allowing the industry to fail will be. Not only in monetary terms, but political as well.
We may not like it, but the oilsands has, imo, become to big to fail. And we can either do something now before the collapse, or wait until it happens.
But if we agree that there is going to be a crash in oil demand in 10 years, then the financial crash will be long before that. And I don't see how the Canadian industry will not see all this happen earlier than the global if we are restricted to a regional market using it only for fuel production.