It's concerning that Oil and Gas companies seem to have a collective mindset of the Global South waiting for and welcoming their traditional products. I sat in on a session with Vicki Hollub, CEO of Occidental a month ago who stated something to the effect that it is Occidental's responsibility to enable the development of Global South economies by supplying traditional Oil and Gas products. In my product innovation experience. no countries want old technology, they want the emerging technology to enable them to leap frog the current state.
Yes, environmentalists (and not just environmentalists) need to talk about electrification and restructuring Alberta's economy etc. but we're up against it on the ideological front. The promoters of "drill, baby, drill" ideology are well paid and those that pay them are thinking long-term about how to maximize their profit and extract as much from Canadian tax payers as possible - before they go bust. Advertisers, PR firms, lobbyists are out there successfully linking the Canadian economy to oil and gas, laying the ideological groundwork for the years ahead. And the corporate media is, as you note, so thoroughly captured by the oil and gas industry. Countering this, with a pittance of the budget of those promulgating it, is a huge challenge.
Absolutely, Anne, thanks. That's why I thought Markham made such an important point about the positioning that (some, though not all) climate groups have taken in their response to the MOU.
My own take is that the moral and ethical arguments matter, they need to be made, and climate organizations have to continue giving voice to people who put those concerns first. *And* I'm convinced -- can attest from first-hand experience -- that the climate community can extend those arguments and build the wider "bubble" of support they so obviously need by taking onboard the economic and geopolitical arguments Markham puts forward.
Some groups in the CAN-Rac community, for example, have done that, and I think they're doing it very well. Some other voices....not so much. I'm not going to second-guess anyone else's in-house strategy, but I'll flag a missed opportunity when I think I see it.
Yes of course, groups are trying to do the impossible with not nearly enough resources (same as it ever was). But if the everyday imperative is to stretch those resources as far as they'll go, why wouldn't an organization look for common ground and common interests, not just among adjacent "progressive" communities but far beyond?
Thanks Mitchell, and agree with you on the moral and ethical arguments, especially when over a half a million people are now dying annually from extreme heat. (Lancet Countdown 2025.) Also agree climate orgs need to be looking for common ground and making our case in ways that connect with the interests of different audiences. Markham makes good points, I think, for addressing those who are actually interested in economic arguments, but I think the broader public take in Pathways ads showing pipelines as the backbone of our economy and they're none the wiser. Which is the point. Sigh. Not giving up!
I heard that Mark Carney went back to China and came back with the idea that China has an "insatiable" desire for our tar sands crude. How did he get that impression? Were the Chinese leaders just being polite?
It's all so bizarre, and yes, highly reminiscent of lemmings. I'm not just worried about climate change anymore. I'm also worried that our oil industry, together with our corporate-captured government, is going to impoverish the country.
China’s petrochemical demand for heavy crude oil is expected to rise by several million barrels per day by 2050. What the PM never mentions is that road transport demand is expected to fall by 10-12 million barrels per day because China is rapidly electrifying its transportation sector.
How likely is it that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela will simply walk away from that market and cede market share to Alberta?
Or is it more likely that those producers will shift from road transport to petchem and compete to retain that market?
The rest of Asia, but particularly SE Asia, is also rapidly electrifying.
Don’t listen to politicians’ anecdotes. Listen to the data, energy demand modelling, etc.
Vivian, just jumping in briefly with the first part of the reply because I'm three time zones ahead of Markham. Yes, for a while now, the assumption has been that petroleum-based chemicals and plastics are the last remaining lifeboat for fossil fuel production. I'll defer to Markham for any further specifics on demand in China and the rest of Asia.
This is probably more information than you wanted. lol
China’s petrochemical industry is expanding rapidly: by 2025, ethylene capacity alone is expected to reach around 50 million metric tonnes per year. Much of the output is oriented toward plastics and polymer resins — polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, PET — driven by demand in packaging, consumer goods, construction, textiles, automotive, and more. Alongside commodity petrochemicals, China increasingly invests in aromatic-based chemicals and higher-value specialty chemicals to serve advanced manufacturing and downstream industries.
* **Ethylene**
* China’s largest petrochemical segment by revenue; foundational feedstock for plastics and polymers.
* **Propylene**
* Critical feedstock for polypropylene and other plastics; capacity and output expanding rapidly.
* **Benzene**
* Key aromatic used for resins, dyes, fibres, rubber, and a wide array of industrial chemicals.
* **Methanol**
* One of China’s fastest-growing petrochemical products; feedstock for formaldehyde, acetic acid, fuels, etc.
* **Xylenes (including p-xylene)**
* Major aromatic hydrocarbons used in polyester, plastics, and solvents; capacity growth driven by textile and packaging demand.
* **Polyethylene (PE)**
* High-volume plastic resin made from ethylene; used widely in packaging and consumer goods.
* **Polypropylene (PP)**
* Derived from propylene; a dominant resin used in packaging, textiles, and automotive manufacturing.
* **Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)**
* Widely used in construction materials like pipe, siding, and window profiles, as well as packaging.
* **Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)**
* Essential for polyester fibres and beverage bottles; linked to China’s large textile and packaging industries.
* **Other major aromatics and olefins (e.g., butadiene, specialty intermediates)**
* Support industries such as synthetic rubber, coatings, adhesives, and advanced materials.
If you want, I can expand this into **a fuller top-20 list**, or **rank by estimated production volume**.
It's concerning that Oil and Gas companies seem to have a collective mindset of the Global South waiting for and welcoming their traditional products. I sat in on a session with Vicki Hollub, CEO of Occidental a month ago who stated something to the effect that it is Occidental's responsibility to enable the development of Global South economies by supplying traditional Oil and Gas products. In my product innovation experience. no countries want old technology, they want the emerging technology to enable them to leap frog the current state.
Yes, environmentalists (and not just environmentalists) need to talk about electrification and restructuring Alberta's economy etc. but we're up against it on the ideological front. The promoters of "drill, baby, drill" ideology are well paid and those that pay them are thinking long-term about how to maximize their profit and extract as much from Canadian tax payers as possible - before they go bust. Advertisers, PR firms, lobbyists are out there successfully linking the Canadian economy to oil and gas, laying the ideological groundwork for the years ahead. And the corporate media is, as you note, so thoroughly captured by the oil and gas industry. Countering this, with a pittance of the budget of those promulgating it, is a huge challenge.
Absolutely, Anne, thanks. That's why I thought Markham made such an important point about the positioning that (some, though not all) climate groups have taken in their response to the MOU.
My own take is that the moral and ethical arguments matter, they need to be made, and climate organizations have to continue giving voice to people who put those concerns first. *And* I'm convinced -- can attest from first-hand experience -- that the climate community can extend those arguments and build the wider "bubble" of support they so obviously need by taking onboard the economic and geopolitical arguments Markham puts forward.
Some groups in the CAN-Rac community, for example, have done that, and I think they're doing it very well. Some other voices....not so much. I'm not going to second-guess anyone else's in-house strategy, but I'll flag a missed opportunity when I think I see it.
Yes of course, groups are trying to do the impossible with not nearly enough resources (same as it ever was). But if the everyday imperative is to stretch those resources as far as they'll go, why wouldn't an organization look for common ground and common interests, not just among adjacent "progressive" communities but far beyond?
Thanks Mitchell, and agree with you on the moral and ethical arguments, especially when over a half a million people are now dying annually from extreme heat. (Lancet Countdown 2025.) Also agree climate orgs need to be looking for common ground and making our case in ways that connect with the interests of different audiences. Markham makes good points, I think, for addressing those who are actually interested in economic arguments, but I think the broader public take in Pathways ads showing pipelines as the backbone of our economy and they're none the wiser. Which is the point. Sigh. Not giving up!
I am wondering where is the pilot plant for carbon fibre from bitumen?
Lots of money for corporate settlements, law suits and the unproven CCS.
Why none for this more than promising material....the market for carbon fibre shows phenomenal growth.
We are, as usual, like BC, selling logs instead of furniture!
...evidently there is some movement:
Alberta spins up its carbon fibre industry - Alberta Innovates https://share.google/Vz0VlWjYXLfwharnz
The Alberta government cut funding by 30%.
I heard that Mark Carney went back to China and came back with the idea that China has an "insatiable" desire for our tar sands crude. How did he get that impression? Were the Chinese leaders just being polite?
It's all so bizarre, and yes, highly reminiscent of lemmings. I'm not just worried about climate change anymore. I'm also worried that our oil industry, together with our corporate-captured government, is going to impoverish the country.
Hi Vivian
China’s petrochemical demand for heavy crude oil is expected to rise by several million barrels per day by 2050. What the PM never mentions is that road transport demand is expected to fall by 10-12 million barrels per day because China is rapidly electrifying its transportation sector.
How likely is it that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela will simply walk away from that market and cede market share to Alberta?
Or is it more likely that those producers will shift from road transport to petchem and compete to retain that market?
The rest of Asia, but particularly SE Asia, is also rapidly electrifying.
Don’t listen to politicians’ anecdotes. Listen to the data, energy demand modelling, etc.
Hi Markham, when you say petrochemical demand, do you mean, for purposes other than burning for fuel? Making plastics for example?
Vivian, just jumping in briefly with the first part of the reply because I'm three time zones ahead of Markham. Yes, for a while now, the assumption has been that petroleum-based chemicals and plastics are the last remaining lifeboat for fossil fuel production. I'll defer to Markham for any further specifics on demand in China and the rest of Asia.
Hi Mitch and Vivian
This is probably more information than you wanted. lol
China’s petrochemical industry is expanding rapidly: by 2025, ethylene capacity alone is expected to reach around 50 million metric tonnes per year. Much of the output is oriented toward plastics and polymer resins — polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, PET — driven by demand in packaging, consumer goods, construction, textiles, automotive, and more. Alongside commodity petrochemicals, China increasingly invests in aromatic-based chemicals and higher-value specialty chemicals to serve advanced manufacturing and downstream industries.
* **Ethylene**
* China’s largest petrochemical segment by revenue; foundational feedstock for plastics and polymers.
* **Propylene**
* Critical feedstock for polypropylene and other plastics; capacity and output expanding rapidly.
* **Benzene**
* Key aromatic used for resins, dyes, fibres, rubber, and a wide array of industrial chemicals.
* **Methanol**
* One of China’s fastest-growing petrochemical products; feedstock for formaldehyde, acetic acid, fuels, etc.
* **Xylenes (including p-xylene)**
* Major aromatic hydrocarbons used in polyester, plastics, and solvents; capacity growth driven by textile and packaging demand.
* **Polyethylene (PE)**
* High-volume plastic resin made from ethylene; used widely in packaging and consumer goods.
* **Polypropylene (PP)**
* Derived from propylene; a dominant resin used in packaging, textiles, and automotive manufacturing.
* **Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)**
* Widely used in construction materials like pipe, siding, and window profiles, as well as packaging.
* **Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)**
* Essential for polyester fibres and beverage bottles; linked to China’s large textile and packaging industries.
* **Other major aromatics and olefins (e.g., butadiene, specialty intermediates)**
* Support industries such as synthetic rubber, coatings, adhesives, and advanced materials.
If you want, I can expand this into **a fuller top-20 list**, or **rank by estimated production volume**.
Wow. No, that's OK. This is enough. They'd better stop dumping the stuff in the ocean then. Thanks Mark, and Mitch.