Alberta Bitumen Bubble and The Canadian Economy: Revisiting My Industry Analysis Case Study

Bitumen prices are low because the province has ignored at least a decade of warnings.

Over five years ago now, March 11, 2013, I published this mayo615 blog post on the Alberta bitumen bubble, and the budgetary problems facing Alberta Premier Alison Redford, and the federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty at that time, both of whom were surprisingly candid about the prospect for ongoing long-term budgetary problems for both the Alberta and Canadian national economies. Fast forward five years to today and the situation has essentially worsened dramatically.  The current Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is facing another massive budget deficit, just as Alison Redford predicted years ago, and was forced to call a new election. My most glaring observation is that despite years of rhetoric and arm-waving, almost nothing has changed. Meanwhile, the Canadian economy is on the precipice of a predicted global economic downturn which could easily become a global financial contagion.

READ MORE: Alberta Bitumen Bubble And The Canadian Economy 

Today, the Tyee has published an excellent article detailing how and why this trainwreck of Alberta fossil fuel-based economic policy developed, and has persisted for so long without changing course.

Source: Alberta’s Problem Isn’t Pipelines; It’s Bad Policy Decisions | The Tyee

In 2007, an Alberta government warned that bitumen prices could eventually fall so low that the government’s royalty revenues — critical for its budget — would be at risk. Photo via the Government of Alberta. 

 

The Alberta government has known for more than a decade that its oilsands policies were setting the stage for today’s price crisis.

Which makes it hard to take the current government seriously when it tries to blame everyone from environmentalists to other provinces for what is a self-inflicted economic problem.

In 2007, a government report warned that prices for oilsands bitumen could eventually fall so low that the government’s royalty revenues — critical for its budget — would be at risk.

The province should encourage companies to add value to the bitumen by upgrading and refining it into gasoline or diesel to avoid the coming price plunge, the report said.

Instead, the government has kept royalties — the amount the public gets for the resource — low and encouraged rapid oilsands development, producing a market glut.

With North American pipelines largely full, U.S. oil production surging and U.S. refineries working at full capacity, Alberta has wounded itself with bad policy choices, say experts.

The Alberta government and oil industry is in crisis mode because the gap between the price paid for Western Canadian Select — a blend of heavy oil and diluent — and benchmark West Texas Intermediate oils has widened to $40 US a barrel.

Some energy companies have called on the government to impose production cuts to increase prices.

The business case for slowing bitumen production was made by the great Fort McMurray fire of 2015.

The fire resulted in a loss of 1.5 million barrels of heavy oil production over several months. As a result, the price of Western Canadian Select rose from $26.93 to $42.52 per barrel.

Premier Rachel Notley has appointed a three-member commission to consider possible production cuts, something Texas regulators imposed on their oil industry in the 1930s to help it recover from falling prices due to overproduction.

Oilsands crude typically sells at a $15 to $25 discount to light oil such as West Texas Intermediate. It costs more to move through pipelines, as it has to be diluted with a high-cost, gasoline-like product known as condensate. According to a recent government report, it can cost oilsands producers $14 to dilute and move one barrel of bitumen and condensate through a pipeline.

And transforming the sulfur-rich heavy oil into other products is more expensive because its poor quality requires a complex refinery, such as those clustered in the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast.

But the growing discount has cost Alberta’s provincial treasury dearly because royalties are based on oil prices.

Earlier this year, an RBC report pegged the loss at $500 million a year, while a more recent study estimates the losses could be as high as $4 billion annually.

While a few oilsands companies such as heavily indebted Cenovus say they are losing money due to the heavy oil discount, others are making record profits and say no market intervention or change is necessary.

The difference is those companies heeded the decade-old warnings and invested in upgrades and refineries to allow them to sell higher-value products.

Canada exports about 3.3 million barrels of oil a day. About half of that is diluted bitumen or heavy oil.

And the current dramatic price discount has divided oilsands producers into winners and losers.

The winners invested in upgrades and refineries, while the losers are producing more bitumen than their refinery capacity can handle or the market needs.

During Alberta’s so-called bitumen crisis, the three top oilsands producers — Suncor, Husky, and Imperial Oil — are posting record profits.

All three firms have succeeded this year because they own upgraders and refineries in Canada or the U.S. Midwest that can process the cheap bitumen or heavy oil into higher value petroleum products.

Imperial Oil, for example, boosted production at its Kearl Mine to 244,000 barrels in the most recent quarter but refined and added value to that product.

As a result, its net income for the quarter doubled to $749 million.

CEO Rich Kruger said that the collapse in bitumen prices was not a concern.

“Looking ahead, in the current challenging upstream price environment, we are uniquely positioned to benefit from widening light crude differentials,” he stated in a press release.

Suncor also reported that most of its 600,000-barrel-a-day production is not subject to the price differential because it upgrades the junk resource into synthetic crude or refines heavy oil into gasoline.

In its most recent business report, Husky reported a 48-per-cent increase in profits as cheap bitumen has fed its refineries and asphalt-making facilities.

The Alberta government knew this was coming.

A technical paper on bitumen pricing for Alberta Energy’s 2007 royalty review warned the province about the perils of increasing production without increasing value-added production.

“Bitumen prices, when compared to light crude oil prices, are typified by large dramatic price drops and recoveries,” it noted. Between 1998 and 2005, “bitumen prices were 63 percent more volatile than West Texas Intermediate prices,” it said.

Two things are apparent from the bitumen (BIT) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price series shown above. First, bitumen prices, when compared to light crude oil prices, are typified by large dramatic price drops and recoveries. In fact, over the period shown, bitumen prices were 63 percent more volatile than WTI prices. Image from 2007 Alberta government report.

The analysis added that “for bitumen to attract a good price, it needs refineries with sufficient heavy-oil conversion capacity.”

The province’s push to develop the oilsands quickly increased the risk, the report said. “Price volatility for bitumen, especially the extremely low prices that have been witnessed several times over the past several years, is the most obvious risk.”

And the report noted that increasing bitumen production posed “a revenue risk for the resource owner” — the people of Alberta. When the differential widens, Alberta makes less money on its already low royalty bitumen rates.

Companies can compensate for the price risk by buying or investing in U.S. refineries; securing long-term pipeline contracts; investing in storage or using contracts to protect them from price swings.

Many oilsands producers, including Suncor, Imperial, and Husky, have lessened their vulnerability to bitumen’s volatility by doing all of these things.

But the provincial government is more exposed to price swings, the report said.

“For the province, the variety of risk mitigation strategies that can be pursued by industry is generally not available. Therefore Alberta is absorbing a higher share of price risk, particularly where royalty is based on bitumen values.”

In 2007 Pedro Van Meurs, a royalty expert now based in Panama warned the government that its royalty for bitumen was way too low in a paper titled “Preliminary Fiscal Evaluation of Alberta Oil Sand Terms.”

Van Meurs noted that upgrading considerably enhances the value of bitumen and would generate more revenue for the province.

But that did not appear to be the policy the government was pursuing, warned Van Meurs in his report to the government.

Low royalties “raise the issue whether it is in the interest of Alberta to continue to stimulate through the fiscal system such very high-cost production ventures,” wrote Van Meurs, a chief of petroleum developments for the Canadian government in the 1970s.

Charging higher royalties would not only slow down production and avoid cost overruns in the oilsands but also encourage “upgrading projects with higher value-added opportunities,” he wrote.

But Alberta succumbed to sustained oil patch lobbying in 2007 and ignored Van Meurs’ advice.

As a result oilsands royalties remained low and there was little incentive for companies to add value or build more upgraders and refineries.

In 2009 the province’s energy regulator said in an annual report on supply and demand outlooks that low bitumen prices were a direct consequence of overproduction.

Planned additions for upgrading and refining would resolve the problem in the future.

But after the 2008 financial crisis, planned upgrades in Alberta did not materialize.

With no provincial policy encouraging value-added processing, the industry took a strip-it-and-ship-it approach on bitumen and depended solely on pipelines to deal with overproduction.

Robyn Allan, an independent B.C. economist and former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, says the 2009 report by the energy regulator clearly shows the Alberta government knew the risks of overproduction.

“It won’t matter how many pipelines are built if oil producers continue to increase the amount of low-quality product they pump from the oil sands. Pipelines do nothing to improve quality and with new regulations on sulfur content, the world is telling us the downward pressure on heavy oil prices will only get worse,” said Allan.

In 2017, only 43 percent of the bitumen produced was actually upgraded in Canada while 57 percent was shipped raw to U.S. refineries.*

Sorry Alberta, BC Will Not Pay for Your Bungling

READ MORE 

As bitumen prices plunged this year, U.S. refinery margins jumped to record levels.

According to a Nov. 6 article in the Wall Street Journal, Phillips 66, a major buyer of cheap Canadian bitumen, ran its refineries at 108 percent of capacity and was “earning an average $23.61 a barrel processed there.” Profits jumped to $1.5 billion, an increase of 81 percent over last year.

“U.S. refining has really gone from being a dog to being a fairly attractive business model,” one consultant told the Wall Street Journal. “I don’t think that’s going to change any time soon.”

Another beneficiary of Alberta’s no-value-added policy has been the billionaire Koch brothers.

They own the Pine Bend refinery in Minnesota, which turns more than 340,000 barrels of Canada’s crude into value-added products every day.

A widening of the price discount of heavy oil by just $15 adds an additional $2 billion in windfall profits a year for Koch Industries, one of the most powerful companies in North America.

The risks of Alberta’s policy of shipping raw bitumen to U.S. refineries was outlined again during the province’s 2015 royalty review, which like the 2007 report, resulted in little change due to successful industry lobbying.

In 2015, Barry Rogers of Edmonton-based Rogers Oil and Gas Consulting warned the government that low royalties for bitumen simply encouraged the industry to export the heavy oil to U.S. refineries with no value added in Canada.

“By not charging a competitive fiscal share Alberta is, in fact, subsidizing the industry. This gets government directly into the business of business and removes the benefits of market-priced signals — leading to reduced innovation, higher costs, reduced competitiveness, a transfer of economic rent from resource owners to industry and reduced economic diversification.”

Rogers added that the current policy might benefit a few powerful companies but was “a disaster for the overall industry, and, therefore, a disaster for Alberta — both for current and future generations.”

Alberta Bitumen Bubble and The Canadian Economy: Industry Analysis Case Study

Over two years ago now, March 11, 2013, I published this mayo615 blog post on the Alberta bitumen bubble, and the budgetary problems facing Alberta Premier Alison Redford, and the federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty at that time, both of whom were surprisingly candid about the prospect for for ongoing long term budgetary problems for both the Alberta and Canadian national economies. Fast forward two years to today, and the situation has essentially worsened dramatically.  The current Alberta Premier Jim Prentice is facing another massive budget deficit, just as Alison Redford predicted two years ago, and has been forced to call a new election. The most glaring difference in my mind is that there is no Jim Flaherty, and there is no candid talk coming from the current Finance Minister, Joe Oliver, or anyone in the Harper government, on this issue or when a new federal budget may be expected. Meanwhile, according to the Bank of Canada’s most recent report, the Canadian economy continues to plummet into a black hole.

READ MORE: Alberta Bitumen Bubble And The Canadian Economy

Originally posted March 11, 2013:

The Canadian media (CBC, Globe & Mail, Canadian Business) have been buzzing with analyses of Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s  pronouncement last month that the “Bitumen Bubble,” is now crashing down on the Alberta economy, and potentially the entire Canadian economy. The Alberta budget released last Thursday, March 7, acknowledged a multi-Billion dollar deficit from this year, and “even larger declines in the next several years,” due to forecasts for significant price decreases for “Western Canada Select“ (WCS), the market term for the Alberta oil sands. This is contrasted with “West Texas Intermediate“ (WTI) which is also known as the standard for “light sweet crude,” which is much cheaper to refine.   Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty echoed the impact of reduced oil sands revenue on the federal budget, by warning of significant cutbacks in federal spending as well.  The impact of this sudden change in the prospects for the Canadian petroleum industry and for government oil tax revenues, will likely also have serious implications for the BC economy, jobs growth, business investment, consumer spending: essentially the Canadian economy as a whole will suffer.

As an Industry Analysis case study for Management students, how did this happen, why was it not foreseen?  Why weren’t foresighted  policies put in place, and what are Alberta and Canada‘s strategic options now?

The June 25th, 2006, CBS News 60 Minutes report by senior CBS News Correspondent Bob Simon, can be taken as a convenient departure point for this analysis.

Video (1min 52 sec.) CBS 60 Minutes: 6/25/2006: The Oil Sands

The so-called “proven reserves” of oil in the Alberta oil sands are estimated to be 175 Billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia’s estimated 260 Billion barrel reserve. In the CBS video, Shell Canada CEO, Clive Mather estimates that the total may be as large as 2 Trillion barrels, or eight times that of Saudi Arabia. The CBS 60 Minutes report at the time in 2006, was considered so positive, that it was eventually shown in an endless loop in the foyer of Canada’s Embassy in Washington D.C., at Canada House in London, and elsewhere around the World.   The Alberta oil sands were seen as the harbinger of a great new era of Canadian economic progress and wealth.

Since that time a variety of external market factors, and long-standing failures of Canadian government policy have converged like Shakespeare’s stars, to turn this Pollyanna scenario into the national disaster it has become for Canadians.

Perhaps the single most important point in this discussion is that Canada has historically been a natural resource based economy, which has led to complacency and neglect of investment in innovation.  Innovation is the most important determinant of business competitiveness and economic prosperity in a world of global markets and rapid technological change.  Canada’s overall investment in R&D in science and technology has been below the OECD average for decades, and continues to decline year to year.  As a consequence, Canada has also fallen sharply behind the United States in productivity.  Essentially, there has been a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” mentality in Canada with regard to investment in the future of the Canadian economy. So long as we can simply dig a hole and ship the rocks or oil overseas we are doing just fine, thank you very much!

In a serendipitous coincidence, the current events in Venezuela have provided a parallel to the petroleum industry issues in Canada. Yesterday, the HBR Blog Network published a post by Sarah Green. Ms. Green interviewed Francisco Monaldi, Visiting Professor of Latin American Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School. Professor Monaldi is a leading authority on the politics and economics of the oil industry in Latin America.

During the HBR Blog interview, Professor Monaldi referred to the “resource curse” of Venezuela, also citing Canada and Saudi Arabia as suffering from the same malaise. Venezuela has done all the wrong things under Chavez, and consequently the Venezuelan economy is in shambles. Monaldi cited Chile, who also had a natural resource boom, but are creating a national stabilization fund by not putting all of the money back in the economy at once, a counter cyclical policy almost unheard of in Latin America. A similar scenario of reinvestment in innovation has occurred in New Zealand, whose government has sought to reduce its vulnerability to over-reliance on natural resource exploitation.

A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview March 7th on The Current with oil industry expert Robert Johnston, and CBC business columnist Deborah Yedlin, revealed that the Venezuelan Orinoco crude is actually very similar to Alberta WCS, but it does not require massive destruction of the land. Transportation routes to U.S. refineries designed to deal with extra heavy crude have been up and running for years.  The U.S., despite the political tensions with Venezuela, is currently the single largest customer for Venezuelan extra heavy crude.  In The Current interview yesterday, both Johnston and Yedlin admitted that the Alberta oil industry was ” very uneasy”  about their competitive situation vis-a-vis Venezuela.  Yedlin also underscored Canada’s “resource curse” and the failure to diversify Canada’s investment in innovation and technology.

Listen to the CBC interviews: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/03/07/the-future-of-venezuelas-oil-industry-and-what-it-means-for-albertas-oil-patch/

Alberta oil sands, by contrast, are completely land locked, and the Alberta producers are in the midst of an unsavory political wrangle over two pipelines, which has brought undesired attention to the other problems with Canadian bitumen.  Without at least one pipeline, the Alberta oil sands industry is in a questionable state. Should the United States elect not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico, Canada’s only viable remaining option would be to sell the oil to China.  Some Canadians are taking the position that Canada “should” sell the oil to China.  The Harper government is now hypersensitive to China’s interest in the oil sands. Others have suggested that we should refine the oil ourselves, but it is cheaper to send it to Texas than to build refineries in Canada. According to Yedlin, Canada is now locked into the urgent need for the pipelines, with no other options or strategy.

The argument can be made that Canada should have been implementing policies like those in Chile or New Zealand years ago, anticipating the boom and bust of the global petroleum market, and socking away money to deal with it.

The most recent 2012 OECD Economic Survey of Canada also serves to underscore the urgent need to change our national policies with regard to natural resource exploitation and investment in innovation to improve our performance in global productivity.

As the oil boom and high value of the loonie have pushed wealth westward, Canada’s productivity growth has been relatively flat in recent decades, and has actually dropped since 2002. Meanwhile, as the OECD observes, productivity growth south of the border has risen by about 30 per cent in the last 20 years — a gap that is causing Canada to lose competitive ground.

“Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources. But it needs to do more to develop other sectors of the economy if it is to maintain a high level of employment and an equitable distribution of the fruits of growth,” study author Peter Jarrett, head of the Canada division at the OECD Economics Department, said in a press release.

Meanwhile, yesterday, Friday, March 8th, the Globe & Mail published a scathing criticism of federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver for characterizing the Alberta oil sands industry as the “environmentally responsible choice for the U.S. to meet its energy needs in oil for years to come.”  G&M Journalist Tzeporah Berman wrote, “At a time when climate change scientists are urgently telling us to significantly scale back the burning of fossil fuels, having a minister promote exactly the opposite really does feel like being told that two plus two equals five.”

Our most respected national journal simply reached the end of its patience with Canadian government “doublespeak.”  Every independent study, including one from the U.S. Department of Energy, has found that the oil sands are one of the World’s dirtiest forms of oil, producing three times more emissions per barrel produced and 22 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil (when their full life cycle of emissions, including burning them in a vehicle are included).  The problem is simple: the massive “energy in versus energy out” equation simply does not work for oil sands.  Large amounts of natural gas and water are required simply to prepare the bitumen for transport to refineries. Yet our government continues to wave its arms in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the facts, rather than to deal with the facts. One would think that our national government by now would have a reality-based strategy to deal with major economic and political issues of this scale.

This discussion has barely touched on the opposition to the two pipelines, Keystone XL and Enbridge Gateway, attempting to move the landlocked tar sands out of Alberta. This is a strategic market issue that should have been addressed years ago, but was not.  The thorny issues of both pipelines are now a rod for Alberta’s own back. Considering the market competitor Venezuela, with comparably unattractive “extra heavy crude,” but having existing transport, the prospects for Alberta are not favorable, and it has finally sunk in for Alberta oil executives.

The long awaited U.S. State Department Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) on the Keystone XL pipeline, released early this month, was written by oil industry consultants which have raised significant concerns of a serious conflict of interest in their findings. The Executive Summary of the State Department DEIA took a decidedly neutral position, saying that the pipeline would have “no effect” on the development of the Alberta oil sands. But buried in the report were findings that argue against the need for the pipeline.  The recent developments in Venezuela and the increasing energy independence of the United States were not factored into their findings.

The DEIA specifically evaluated what would happen if President Obama said “no” and denied Keystone XL a permit. It concluded that not building the pipeline would have almost no impact on jobs; on US oil supply; on heavy oil supply for Gulf Coast refineries; or even on the amount of oil sands extracted in Alberta. If these findings are accurate, then one must ask why it is necessary to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

So in conclusion, how could the Canadian federal government not have foreseen this calamity, and prevented it?  Could it have been the giddy euphoria of the 2006 CBS 60 Minutes report?   The only best solution, investing government oil revenue into innovation and technology R&D, may no longer be a viable option.

In such a situation, what would you do to address this crisis for the Canadian economy?

Bank of Canada & OECD See Ever Widening Economic Impact of Oil Collapse

The Bank of Canada’s Spring 2015 Business Outlook Survey (link to complete report below) released this week, gives more reason for serious concern regarding the economic prospects for all Canada, and the widening impact of Canada’s “natural resource curse”: it’s fossil fuel based economy. The report points to a significant increase in business pessimism about the economy as a whole, well beyond the oil economy, which is causing business to significantly reduce plans for capital spending and hiring. As I pointed out previously, the impact of the oil economy collapse is likely to reverberate throughout the Okanagan. The BofC report suggests that the impacts will be even deeper and more diverse. The report also looks to greater macroeconomic impacts: longer term weakness and volatility of the loonie. With Canadian interest rates at an all time low there is even the prospect of deflation. The report’s optimistic expectations for some upside from a robust U.S. economy have vanished this week, with projections of zero growth in the U.S. economy in 2015.

Bank of Canada survey shows oil dimming business confidence

Read the complete Bank of Canada Report here: Business Outlook Survery – Spring 2015

Read about OECD Composite of Leading Indicators: OECD marks slowdown in Canada, even as other economies recover

Hiring intentions drop to lowest since 2009 in central bank’s quarterly scan of big companies

REBLOGGED from the CBC:  Pete Evans, CBC News Posted: Apr 06, 2015 11:46 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 06, 2015 9:29 PM ET

The Bank of Canada says cheaper oil prices are hurting sales forecasts and starting to hit confidence in industries far beyond the energy sector.

In its quarterly Business Outlook Survey, the central bank surveyed 100 representative companies across various Canadian industries and found that broadly speaking, cheaper oil has reduced sales expectations and cut into confidence in doing things like investing in new equipment and machinery, and possibly hiring new staff.

“More businesses than in previous surveys anticipate an outright decline in sales volumes,” the report said.

The survey interviewed business owners between the middle of February and the middle of March. The ongoing slump in oil prices had been underway for several months at that point, but it’s worth noting that Monday’s report is the first such survey since the central bank surprised markets with a rate cut at the end of January.

‘The oil price collapse is taking a toll’– TD Bank’s Leslie Preston

The survey “showed that firms are quite pessimistic about expanding their capacity over the next year,” TD economist Leslie Preston said. “The oil price collapse is taking a toll on Canada’s economy.”

The Bank of Canada’s quarterly survey suggests that gloom in the oil patch is starting to spread into different parts of the overall economy, potentially affecting hiring and purchases of new equipment. (Todd Korol/Reuters)

Although it remains in a range the bank calls “positive,” the outlook for hiring has dropped to its lowest level since 2009, when the world economy was in recession just about everywhere following the credit crisis.

Forty of the companies surveyed said they expect to hire more people in the next 12 months than they did in the previous 12. Another 40 said they expect to hire the same amount, with the remaining 20 saying they expect to hire less.

Good news?

If there’s a source of strength, it’s that the bank’s report suggests companies with strong ties to the U.S. economy are more upbeat. The U.S. is benefiting more from cheap oil than most economies, because it is the most diverse economy on earth and cheaper energy is good news for virtually every other sector.

“Firms’ outlook for the U.S. economy is generally strong, with the majority expecting this strength to support their future sales,” the report says. Cheaper oil has also hurt the loonie, which exporters to the U.S. cited as another reason for cautious optimism about sales from here on out.

Several firms reported foreign demand had increased thanks to the weakened Canadian dollar, but “while many firms outside the energy sector characterize the effects of lower oil prices and the weaker Canadian dollar as favourable for their business outlook, they expect some of the benefits to unfold only gradually in the future,” the report says.

Plummeting Oil Prices Set To Continue As Canada Cringes

 

 

Regrettably, this week’s events in the oil market, provide further evidence of the dire consequences ahead for the Canadian oil economy.  Oil industry bulls who have been betting on a quick rebound in oil prices are likely to get severely burned, and the prospects for the local tourism based economy are only worsening.

In the same week that local gasoline prices mysteriously spiked up nine cents per liter, blamed on the weakening Canadian dollar, and a refinery fire in Los Angeles (of all places), the Wall Street Journal reported that the global oil glut has consumed more than 80% of the available storage capacity. The WSJ report went on to state that with production levels still not likely to decline, oil supply would continue to grow well beyond demand, driving prices into another sharp decline, perhaps as low at CitiBank‘s forecast of $20 per bbl.   Now the International Energy Agency has corroborated the WSJ forecast with its own dire oil market forecast. Both do not see any early end in sight. Crude prices plunged Friday on this news, to below $45 per bbl.

 

Oil Prices Tumble After IEA Warning
Energy watchdog warns that recent rebound in prices may not last

REBLOGGED from the WSJ

By TIMOTHY PUKO And BENOÎT FAUCON
Updated March 13, 2015 5:09 p.m. ET

The benchmark U.S. oil price tumbled to a six-week low Friday, thwarting hopes for a sustained recovery after an influential energy watchdog said U.S. production growth is defying expectations and setting the stage for another bout of price weakness.

Investors and oil producers should brace for further declines in oil prices, the International Energy Agency said in a monthly report. Prices haven’t fallen far enough yet to cut supply, and some signs of rising demand are just temporary—bargain buyers using cheap oil to fill up stockpiles, the agency said.

That outlook weighed on sentiment in the oil-futures market, which has stabilized in recent weeks following a seven-month selloff that saw the benchmark price on the New York Mercantile Exchange plunge 59%. Behind the selloff, which by some measures was the steepest in decades, was a global glut of crude spurred by rising production in the U.S. and Libya.

“This IEA report today confirmed a lot of things bears had been talking about,” said Todd Garner, who manages $100 million in energy commodity investments at hedge fund Protec Energy Partners LLC based in Boca Raton, Fla. “It is a big deal.” His fund is slowly adding to a bet the growing supply will keep bringing down gasoline futures, he said.

The IEA’s report echoed growing concerns in the market that the amount of available oil storage is dwindling, which potentially could weigh further on prices if output continues unabated.

Many barrels are building up in U.S. storage tanks and behind drilled but idled wells. That overhang can flood the market any time prices rise, acting as a cap on prices, Mr. Garner and others said.

Light, sweet crude for April delivery fell $2.21, or 4.7%, to $44.84 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract closed within 40 cents of the 6-year low closing price of $44.45 a barrel set on Jan. 28.

Brent, the global benchmark, fell $2.41 a barrel, or 4.2%, to $54.67 a barrel on ICE Futures Europe. Both Brent and U.S. oil had their biggest one-day percentage losses in about two weeks.

Oil prices fell sharply Friday. Late last year, workers on a Texas drilling rig grappled with equipment.
Financial markets have been closely watching oil prices, which had recovered to more than $60 a barrel for Brent crude. Oil prices had traded in a fairly narrow range for about a month, raising the question of whether the market had stabilized after a historic collapse.

Rig counts, one closely watched metric, fell for a 14th straight week, Baker Hughes said Friday. The U.S. oil-rig count fell by 56 to 866 in the latest week.

That is down 46% from a peak of 1,609 in October, but hasn’t led to a commensurate cut in production because producers are still completing previously drilled wells and focusing on the highest producing areas to trim costs. Rig counts in the country’s biggest three shale oil fields, the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian, haven’t fallen nearly as fast, according to Citigroup Inc.

Today’s oil industry compares to the natural-gas bust of 2011 and 2012 when a dramatic price collapse led to massive cuts in rig activity, but no slowdown production, the bank said in a note this week. Producers got more efficient and left a backlog of wells to connect later. Prices fell by half and took more than a year to fully rebound. Citi expects U.S. oil production this year to grow by 700,000 barrels in 2015 under almost any scenario, it said.

“If you don’t complete wells now, that just means you have more later,” Citi analyst Anthony Yuen said. “When the price is supposed to get high, it will just get dampened” when the uncompleted wells get tapped.

The IEA said U.S. oil production was up 115,000 barrels a day in February, some of it going into bulging storage inventories whose capacity may soon be tested. “That would inevitably lead to renewed price weakness,” the report said. The IEA called the appearance of stability a “facade.”

“Production’s through the roof,” said Tim Rudderow, who oversees $1.6 billion at Mount Lucas Management in suburban Philadelphia. “You’re going to fill up every jar and bottle from here to Europe.”

As oil prices consolidated in recent weeks, Mr. Rudderow bought options that would pay off if June futures fell back to a range between $43 and $50 a barrel, he said. He has about 15% of a $600 million fund on oil bets and might add to it if oil keeps falling, potentially setting off a panic, he added.

Another oil-market contraction could spell good news for motorists, who had begun feeling rising crude prices in higher costs at the pump in the past two months. The average retail cost of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. was $2.49 this week, compared with $2.04 on Jan. 26, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Front-month gasoline futures closed down 2.6% to $1.7623 a gallon. Diesel futures closed down 3.7% to $1.7130 a gallon.

Others on Friday echoed the IEA’s view, saying that, in the short term, the oil market is fundamentally weak. “U.S. production growth has not yet slowed enough to balance the oil market,” Goldman Sachs said in a note to investors.

Investors did take heed in the week ended Tuesday, pulling back on a bullish bet on oil prices, according to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Hedge funds, pension funds and others added to their short positions, or bets on lower prices, by 4,763 and added to their long positions, or bets on rising prices, by just 731. It pulled back the net bullish position by 2.5% to 160,278.

Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund Drops Coal and Tar Sands Investments

World’s biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies

Norway’s giant fund removes investments made risky by climate change and other environmental concerns, including coal, oil sands, cement and gold mining

The world’s richest sovereign wealth fund removed 32 coal mining companies from its portfolio in 2014, citing the risk they face from regulatory action on climate change.

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), worth $850bn (£556bn) and founded on the nation’s oil and gas wealth, revealed a total of 114 companies had been dumped on environmental and climate grounds in its first report on responsible investing, released on Thursday. The companies divested also include tar sands producers, cement makers and gold miners.

As part of a fast-growing campaign, over $50bn in fossil fuel company stocks have been divested by 180 organisations on the basis that their business models are incompatible with the pledge by the world’s governments to tackle global warming. But the GPFG is the highest profile institution to divest to date.

A series of analyses have shown that only a quarter of known and exploitable fossil fuels can be burned if temperatures are to be kept below 2C, the internationally agreed danger limit. Bank of England governor Mark Carney, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim and others have warned investors that action on climate change would leave many current fossil fuel assets worthless.

“Our risk-based approach means that we exit sectors and areas where we see elevated levels of risk to our investments in the long term,” said Marthe Skaar, spokeswoman for GPFG, which has $40bn invested in fossil fuel companies. “Companies with particularly high greenhouse gas emissions may be exposed to risk from regulatory or other changes leading to a fall in demand.”

She said GPFG had divested from 22 companies because of their high carbon emissions: 14 coal miners, five tar sand producers, two cement companies and one coal-based electricity generator. In addition, 16 coal miners linked to deforestation in Indonesia and India were dumped, as were two US coal companies involved in mountain-top removal. The GPFG did not reveal the names of the companies or the value of the divestments.

Advertisement

“One of the largest global investment institutions is winding down its coal interests, as it is clear the business model for coal no longer works with western markets already in a death spiral, and signs of Chinese demand peaking,” said James Leaton, research director at the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which analyses the risk of fossil fuel assets being stranded.

A report by Goldman Sachs in January also called time on the use of coal for electricity generation: “Just as a worker celebrating their 65th birthday can settle into a more sedate lifestyle while they look back on past achievements, we argue that thermal coal has reached its retirement age.” Goldman Sachs downgraded its long term price forecast for coal by 18%.

On Wednesday, a group of medical organisations called for the health sector to divest from fossil fuels as it had from tobacco. The £18bn Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest funders of medical research , said “climate change is one of the greatest challenges to global health” but rejected the call to divest or reveal its total fossil fuel holdings.

In January, Axa Investment Managers warned the reputation of fossil fuel companies were at immediate risk from the divestment campaign and Shell unexpectedly backed a shareholder demand to assess whether the company’s business model is compatible with global goals to tackle climate change.

Note: The first line originally said 40 coal mining companies had been dropped, instead of the correct number of 32. A further eight companies were dropped due to their greenhouse gas emissions: five tar sand producers, two cement companies and one coal-based electricity generator.

Preparing For The Long Term Consequences In Texas And Western Canada

UPDATE: January 20, 2015. Target announced this week that it will be closing all 133 stores in Canada, including the Vernon and Kelowna stores. eliminating at least a couple of hundred local $10/hr jobs and a handful of slightly better paid management jobs. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Target’s 17,000 + Canadian layoffs of low income workers will be the largest in Canadian history.

OPEC Report Downgrades Demand for Its Oil as Prices Fall Again

The growing downturn in the fossil fuels industry has extraordinary implications globally.  While some are proposing theories that this downturn will be short-lived, there simply isn’t much evidence to support an optimistic forecast.  Saudi Arabia is openly executing a long term strategy to squeeze “high cost oil producers,” using its unquestioned leverage and the lowest production costs in the World.  Europe is facing potential deflation, and the current European recession is forcing the European Central Bank to begin “quantitative easing,” beginning this week, essentially printing money.  The Russian economy is in shambles as the ruble weakens, something Putin did not plan on occurring.  The Chinese economy has weakened sharply and will likely remain weak into the near foreseeable future. Meanwhile Canada is at the mercy of these global forces, with little in the way of economic reserves to defend its economy, having bet the entire Canadian economy on oil. Somehow Joe Oliver promised he would balance the Canadian budget in 2015, and then the next day, Oliver ate crow, and walked back his promise.  In a surprise move, The Bank of Canada then reduced the lending rate to 0.75%, causing the loonie to plummet below 81 cents. Things are not what the government wants us to believe.

There are significant hedge bets in the market that oil will soon return to $100 per barrel. A prominent optimistic theory suggests that Saudi Arabia and the United States are collaborating to squeeze Putin and the Russian oil economy, and oil will bounce back within 90 days. However, most economists and oil industry analysts are projecting a much longer and deeper petroleum industry recession than in the 1980’s, for example.  The predominant view is that it will persist for at least five years or longer.

In Texas, Hunkering Down for the Oil Bust

Reblogged from The New York Times

By CLIFFORD KRAUSSJAN. 19, 2015

MIDLAND, Tex. — With oil prices plummetingby more than 50 percent since June, the gleeful mood of recent years has turned glum here in West Texas as the frenzy of shale oil drilling has come to a screeching halt.

Every day, oil companies are decommissioning rigs and announcing layoffs. Small firms that lease equipment have fallen behind in their payments.

In response, businesses and workers are getting ready for the worst. A Mexican restaurant has started a Sunday brunch to expand its revenues beyond dinner. A Mercedes dealer, anticipating reduced demand, is prepared to emphasize repairs and sales of used cars. And people are cutting back at home, rethinking their vacation plans and cutting the hours of their housemaids and gardeners.

Dexter Allred, the general manager of a local oil field service company, began farming alfalfa hay on the side some years ago in the event that oil prices declined and work dried up. He was taking a cue from his grandfather, Homer Alf Swinson, an oil field mechanic, who opened a coin-operated carwash in 1968 — just in case.

Photo

Homer Alf Swinson, left, an oil field mechanic, opened a coin-operated carwash in 1968 — just in case oil prices declined. CreditMichael Stravato for The New York Times

“We all have backup plans,” Mr. Allred said with laugh. “You can be sure oil will go up and down, the only question is when.”

Indeed, to residents here in the heart of the oil patch, booms and busts go with the territory.

“This is Midland and it’s just a way of life,” said David Cristiani, owner of a downtown jewelry store, who keeps a graph charting oil prices since the late 1990s on his desk to remind him that the good times don’t last forever. “We are always prepared for slowdowns. We just hunker down. They wrote off the Permian Basin in 1984, but the oil will always be here.”

It’s at times like these that Midland residents recall the wild swings of the 1980s, a decade that began with parties where people drank Dom Pérignon out of their cowboy boots. Rolls-Royce opened a dealership, and the local airport had trouble finding space to park all the private jets. By the end of the decade, the Rolls-Royce dealership was shut and replaced by a tortilla factory, and three banks had failed.

There has been nothing like that kind of excess over the past five years, despite the frenzy of drilling across the Permian Basin, the granddaddy of American oil fields. Set in a forsaken desert where tumbleweed drifts through long-forgotten towns, the region has undergone a renaissance in the last four years, with horizontal drilling and fracking reaching through multiple layers of shales stacked one over the other like a birthday cake.

But since the Permian Basin rig count peaked at around 570 last September, it has fallen to below 490 and local oil executives say the count will probably go down to as low as 300 by April unless prices rebound. The last time the rig count declined as rapidly was in late 2008 and early 2009, when the price of oil fell from over $140 to under $40 a barrel because of the financial crisis.

Unlike traditional oil wells, which cannot be turned on and off so easily, shale production can be cut back quickly, and so the field’s output should slow considerably by the end of the year.

The Dallas Federal Reserve recently estimated that the falling oil prices and other factors will reduce job growth in Texas overall from 3.6 percent in 2014 to as low as 2 percent this year, or a reduction of about 149,000 in jobs created.

Midland’s recent good fortune is plain to see. The city has grown in population from 108,000 in 2010 to 140,000 today, and there has been an explosion of hotel and apartment construction. Companies like Chevron and Occidental are building new local headquarters. Real estate values have roughly doubled over the past five years, according to Mayor Jerry Morales.

The city has built a new fire station and recruited new police officers with the infusion of new tax receipts, which increased by 19 percent from 2013 to 2014 alone. A new $14 million court building is scheduled to break ground next month. But the city has also put away $39 million in a rainy-day fund for the inevitable oil bust.

“This is just a cooling-off period,” Mayor Morales said. “We will prevail again.”

Expensive restaurants are still full and traffic around the city can be brutal. Still, everyone seems to sense that the pain is coming, and they are preparing for it.

Randy Perry, who makes $115,000 a year, plus bonuses, managing the rig crews at Elevation Resources, said he always has a backup plan.

“We are responding to survive, so that we may once again thrive when we come out the other side,” said Steven H. Pruett, president and chief executive of Elevation Resources, a Midland-based oil exploration and production company. “Six months ago there was a swagger in Midland and now that swagger is gone.”

Mr. Pruett’s company had six rigs running in early December but now has only three. It will go down to one by the end of the month, even though he must continue to pay a service company for two of the rigs because of a long-term contract.

The other day Mr. Pruett drove to a rig outside of Odessa he feels compelled to park to save cash, and he expressed concern that as many as 50 service workers could eventually lose their jobs.

But the workers themselves seemed stoic about their fortunes, if not upbeat.

“It’s always in the back of your mind — being laid off and not having the security of a regular job,” said Randy Perry, a tool-pusher who makes $115,000 a year, plus bonuses, managing the rig crews. But Mr. Perry said he always has a backup plan because layoffs are so common; even inevitable.

Since graduating from high school a decade ago, he has bought several houses in East Texas and fixed them up, doing the plumbing and electrical work himself. At age 29 with a wife and three children, he currently has three houses, and if he is let go, he says he could sell one for a profit he estimates at $50,000 to $100,000.

Just a few weeks ago, he and other employees received a note from Trent Latshaw, the head of his company, Latshaw Drilling, saying that layoffs may be necessary this year.

“The people of the older generation tell the young guys to save and invest the money you make and have cash flow just in case,” Mr. Perry said during a work break. “I feel like everything is going to be O.K. This is not going to last forever.”

The most nervous people in Midland seem to be the oil executives who say busts may be inevitable, but how long they last is anybody’s guess.

Over a lavish buffet lunch recently at the Petroleum Club of Midland, the talk was woeful and full of conspiracy theories about how the Saudis were refusing to cut supplies to vanquish the surging American oil industry.

“At $45 a barrel, it shuts down nearly every project,” Steve J. McCoy, Latshaw Drilling’s director of business development, told Mr. Pruett and his guests. “The Saudis understand and they are killing us.”

Mr. Pruett nodded in agreement, adding, “They are trash-talking the price of oil down.”

“Everyone has been saying `Happy New Year,’” Mr. Pruett continued. “Yeah, some happy new year.”

To See The Future Of The Western Canadian Economy Look To Texas

UPDATE: May 21, 2015.  Goldman Sachs has just released an oil price forecast suggesting that North Sea Brent crude will still be $55 in 2020, five years from now.  As Alberta’s Western Canadian Select (WCS) bitumen is valued lower on commodity markets this is extremely bad news for Canada. Further, the well-known Canadian economic forecasting firm, Enform is predicting that job losses across all of western Canada, not only Alberta, could reach 180,000. 

UPDATE: January 15, 2015. Target announced today that it will be closing all 133 stores in Canada, including the Vernon and Kelowna stores. eliminating at least a couple of hundred local $10/hr jobs and a handful of slightly better paid management jobs. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Target’s 17,000 + Canadian layoffs of low-income workers will be the largest in Canadian history.

To Understand Alberta’s Future, Look to Texas

Brace yourself. I haven’t gotten the sense that the coming economic bust in western Canada has yet sunk in with all Canadians. The problem is centered in Alberta, but radiates throughout western Canada, and even well beyond in complex ways. If you want to get a credible sense of what we are facing, you need only look to journals like The Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, Bloomberg and many others to get the evidence you may seek.  Kelowna Now‘s recent story on jobs in Kelowna noted a key issue locally: many of the employed in Kelowna work up north in the oil patch. Then there is the matter of the Nova Scotia workers in Fort MacMurray and their future. Closer to home than Texas, we should also consider the radiant job loss effect in places like North Dakota and Wyoming.  SF Gate has also reported 700 layoffs by a Canadian oil company in Bakersfield, California.  The “pollyanna’s” who are denying that this is happening are “whistling in the graveyard.”

Reblogged from The Wall Street Journal Blog:

Plunging Oil Prices Test Texas’ Economic Boom

Downturn Has Many Wondering How Lone Star State Will Weather a Bust

Oil tankers are loaded with crude in Corpus Christi, Texas, in December. The area has prospered in recent years due to the energy boom in the Eagle Ford shale formation, but falling prices could test that.

Retired Southwest Airlines co-founder Herb Kelleher remembers a Texas bumper sticker from the late 1980s, when falling energy prices triggered an ugly regional downturn: “Dear Lord, give me another boom and I promise I won’t screw it up.”

Texas got its wish with another energy-driven boom, and now plunging oil prices are testing whether the state has held up its end of the bargain.

The Lone Star State’s economy has been a national growth engine since the recession ended, expanding at a rate of 4.4% annually between 2009 and 2013, twice the pace of the U.S. as a whole.

The downturn in energy prices now has triggered a debate over whether Texas simply got lucky in recent years, thanks to a hydraulic-fracturing oil-and-gas boom, or whether it hit on an economic playbook that other states, and the country as a whole, could emulate.

One in seven jobs created nationally during the 50-month expansion has been created in Texas, where the unemployment rate, at 4.9%, is nearly a percentage point lower than the national average.

But a big dose of the state’s good fortune comes from the oil-and-gas sector. Midland, which sits atop the oil-rich Permian Basin, had the fastest weekly wage growth in the country among large countries: 9% in the 12 months ending June 2014.

Now that oil prices have plunged nearly 51% from their June peak to $52.69 a barrel, some Texans sobered by memories of past energy busts are bracing for a fall. The argument among economists and business leaders isn’t whether the state will be hurt, but how badly.

Mr. Kelleher is among the Texans predicting this won’t be a replay of the 1980s oil bust and banking crisis, which drove the state unemployment rate to 9.3%. As evidence, he and others cite a more cautious banking sector, a tax and regulatory environment favorable to business, and a state economy less dependent on energy and other resources.

“Texas has become a well-rounded state,” Mr. Kelleher said. “People did remember not to overextend themselves.”

Michael Feroli, a New York-based economist at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., is one of the skeptics of the “this-time-is-different” camp. Although the oil-and-gas industry today makes up a smaller share of Texas’ workforce than it did in the mid-1980s, it accounts for roughly the same share of its economic output, he said. So a decline in oil prices similar to the plunge of more than 50% seen in the mid-1980s, he said, could have a similar result: recession.

“If oil prices stay where they are, Texas is going to face a more difficult economic reality,” Mr. Feroli said.

Oil exploration companies already are scaling back drilling plans for next year. Oil-field-service companies that provide labor and machinery, such as Halliburton Co. andSchlumberger Ltd. , are laying off workers. The number of oil and gas rigs in Texas, which had grown 80% since the start of 2010, has been dropping over the past few weeks. The rig count in the state stood at 851 at the end of December, down from 905 in mid-November, according to oil-field-services firm Baker Hughes Inc., which compiles the data. Meanwhile, yields on junk bonds tied to energy companies have soared as investors brace for financial fallout from the oil-price bust.

Yet Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher likens the J.P. Morgan report to bull droppings. He noted that sectors including trade and transportation, leisure and hospitality, education and construction all have produced more new jobs in recent years than energy. Houston has experienced fast growth in the medical sector, Austin in technology.

“This is a test,” Mr. Fisher said. “Is Texas indeed as diversified as people like me say it is?”

ENLARGE

Analysts at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimate that a 45% decline in the price of oil—from $100 a barrel to near $55—will reduce Texas payrolls by 125,000, all else being equal. Payrolls were up 447,900 in November from a year earlier, or 3.9%. The Dallas Fed estimate implies growth of more than 300,000, or nearly 3%, even with a lower oil price, still faster than the national average of 2%.

Pia Orrenius, a Dallas Fed regional economist, sees the price bust washing through the Texas economy in both positive and negative ways. It could help the booming petrochemicals sector and manufacturing by lowering costs. A construction boom centered on petrochemical plants is already under way along the Gulf Coast, a source of blue-collar jobs. Yet the price bust will hurt sectors like construction, transportation and business services that have expanded to serve the oil industry, and consumer spending more broadly as workers lose their jobs.

“We will see significant spillovers,” Ms. Orrenius said.

Nowhere is the evolution of the Texas economy more apparent than in Houston, the nation’s fourth-largest city, with 2.2 million people.

After oil-and-gas prices crashed in the mid-1980s, energy companies in the city laid off thousands of petroleum engineers and other well-paid industry workers, and the real-estate market crumbled, helping trigger a regional-banking collapse. One in six homes and apartments in Houston stood vacant at the beginning of 1987, and the county tax rolls dropped by $8 billion, according to a history of the bust by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. That prompted civic leaders to push for an expanded medical sector and more diversified economy.

Today, the Texas Medical Center is the world’s largest medical complex, with more than 20 hospitals, three medical schools and six nursing schools, employing 106,000 people. Health-care and social-services companies made up 10.4% of jobs in the greater Houston area in 2013, compared with 5.9% in 1985, according to Labor Department data. Roughly 4.3% of jobs in the county were in the oil-and-gas industry last year, down from 5.9% in 1985.

Still, most of the 26 Fortune 500 companies based in Houston are in energy, includingPhillips 66 , Halliburton and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. , and energy employees flush with cash recently spurred a run-up in real-estate prices in the region that has raised red flags among some economists. Fitch Ratings recently declared that Houston home prices were the second-most overvalued in the country, behind Austin, when compared with historical averages, and that current prices may be unsustainable, citing the current oil-price drop.

The energy boom has strengthened the state’s budget. Revenues are expected to take a hit with falling levies on oil and natural gas production, but less than previously. The levies accounted for 9.4% of state tax revenue in 2013 compared with 20.2% in 1985, according to data from the Texas state comptroller’s office.

Texas banks also appear to be in better shape to handle a shock than they were in the 1980s. Between 1986 and 1990, more than 700 Texas banks and thrifts failed. During the worst of the last financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, seven Texas banks failed, according to the FDIC. Fewer than 1% of state banks have high measures of nonperforming loans now, compared with 20% in the late 1980s, according to the Dallas Fed.

Texas is the only state that limits home-equity borrowing to 80% of a home’s value, a provision enshrined in its state constitution. The rule helped keep Texas homeowners from piling up debt against their homes during the national real-estate boom of the 2000s. Only 10% of nonprime mortgages were underwater in 2011 in Texas, compared with 54% in the rest of the U.S., according to the Dallas Fed.

“Even though we saw our banking brethren in other states doing these crazy deals, we refused to do so because we remembered the ’80s,” said Pat Hickman, chief executive of Happy State Bank, a community bank in the Texas Panhandle. “We learned lessons.”

Texas has something else going for it: A bounty of resources other than oil and natural gas, most notably, land and people.

The state’s population grew 29% between 2000 and 2014, more than twice as fast as the U.S. as a whole, according to the Census Bureau. The median age in Texas was 34 last year, 3 1/2 years younger than the nation overall. Growth has come from a combination of migration from other states, immigration and a higher birthrate than the national average.

The U.S. economy has been restrained in recent years by slow labor-force growth. Texas, on the other hand, has more young people entering their prime working years and fewer elderly residents, as a percentage of the population, than does the nation overall. That has given its economy a solid foundation of available workers.

Workforce and land were two factors that drew Firefly Space Systems, a manufacturer of low-orbit rockets, to the Austin area earlier this year. The firm needed a place to launch test rockets and chose Texas over Los Angeles for an expansion. It found a supply of tech-savvy workers in the Austin area and plentiful land.

“It was the geography, and it was making sure our employees were comfortable there,” said Maureen Gannon, the firm’s vice president for business development. The firm plans to hire 200 people in coming years.

Okanagan Economy And Jobs Market Likely To Worsen Next Year

Alberta Oil Economy Crash Reverberates in B.C.

2015 Seasonal Okanagan Economy Likely To Suffer:

Apparently all we need are more Temporary Foreign Workers

BC Business low ranking of Kelowna jobs market only adds to the problem

Future Shop, The Sequel

UPDATE: January 15, 2015. Target announced today that it will be closing all 133 stores in Canada, including the Vernon and Kelowna stores. eliminating at least a couple of hundred local $10/hr jobs and a handful of slightly better paid management jobs. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Target’s 17,000 + Canadian layoffs of low income workers will be the largest in Canadian history.

Just this week, Kelowna Now reported that B.C. Business ranked Kelowna 17th in B.C. for the quality of its jobs market. Seven key economic indicators were used to help reflect the health of a city’s job market including: income growth, average household income, population growth, unemployment, labour participation, the percentage of people with degrees and taking transit.  This came as no surprise to many. As if to underscore the issue, the comments on Kelowna Now’s Facebook page were in overwhelming agreement with the poor ranking, sprinkled with scathing criticism of the local jobs market, local government, and the local establishment, who seem not to be interested in the local economy.

In a jaw dropping display of callous indifference to the local economy and jobs market, local Kelowna community leaders, including UBCO Deputy Vice Chancellor, Deborah Buszard, met to discuss local employment. Coming on the heels of the B.C. Business report, Kelowna Now reported the discussion at the meeting. The main theme in this reported discussion was how can Kelowna get more cheap TFW labour for tourism. Apparently there was no higher level discussion about the recent B.C. Business ranking of Kelowna at 17th in jobs. No discussion of the local Target closures, or the lack of economic development, and denial of impending oil economy crash. This is why Kelowna is going nowhere fast.

READ MORE: Kelowna Business Community Calls For More Temporary Foreign Workers

As if to make matters worse, the plummeting price of Western Canadian Select, essentially Alberta refined bitumen, and dire global oil economy forecasts, have cast a dark cloud over the Okanagan economy’s prospects in 2015. Our largely seasonal tourism and service industry economies are likely to suffer serious shocks from Alberta’s problems.  The sightings of those red numbered license plates are likely to decline next summer. Both The Wall Street Journal and CNN Money are forecasting a recession in Texas in 2015, which mirrors the situation in Alberta, and is a wake up call to Kelownan’s.  At the same time, CBC’s The National has been broadcasting a discussion series this week on The Politics of Oil, and how Canada has bet the entire economy on oil rather than diversifying and investing in the future.

Read more: Kelowna’s Low Jobs Ranking

Read more: WSJ: Texas Heading for Oil Recession

Neil Young Confronts Canada’s “Natural Resource Curse” Head On

Canadian Neil Young Stands Up For Canada

Years ago, when Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia, on May 1, 1970, four unarmed students demonstrating against the war were essentially murdered by the Ohio National Guard.  David Crosby, Graham Nash, Steven Stills and Canadian Neil Young were driven to record the song “Ohio,” in a rushed recording session. The song went viral before “viral” was even a concept. The Internet did not exist. In less than 24 hours “Ohio” was being played on FM radio stations all across the United States.  That CSNY song, IMHO played a crucial role in Nixon’s demise, and accelerated the end of the Vietnam War. I see Yogi Berra’s “deja vu happening all over again” with Neil Young and the tar sands.

Neil Young has essentially done it again, with his extraordinary stand  this week against the Alberta tar sands, and in support of the First Nations Court action against Shell Oil’s plan to expand the destruction to the boreal forest. He has attracted criticism like Manitoba mosquitos in August. I doubt Neil cares much.

Like in the previous Vietnam War instance, Young is being criticized in the establishment Canadian press. But as with the Vietnam War, I believe the turning point may have been reached with the Alberta tar sands.  Two separate polls in Alberta, one by the Edmonton Journal, and the other by the Huffington Post, have come out overwhelming in support of Neil Young’s opposition to the tar sands. What? How could that be in Alberta? These people depend on tar sands jobs?  An amazing 63% of Albertans polled by both journals approved Neil Young’s actions this week. This may explain the virulent attacks on him in the press, a la the Vietnam War. Corporations and Harper hate losing.

Read more: Alberta Bitumen Bubble and the Canadian Economy

Neil Young is normally a very low key person. I have been fortunate to have met him once, and to have lived in a community he frequented on the coast just south of San Francisco. He has lived there for nearly 40 years with his family.  Since the recording of “Ohio” I cannot recall a time when he has stood up publicly on an issue, and risked his reputation.  Despite all the attacks on him this week, I think Young has gotten it dead right, and time will prove him right.

Industry Analysis: High Anxiety Harper Gov’t Now Openly Denies Climate Change Science

This is another post in my Industry Analysis series on the Alberta Bitumen Bubble and The Canadian Economy, and Canada‘s strategic options.

In a clear sign that the Harper government‘s anxiety over the tars sands is increasing exponentially, the rhetoric from the Conservative government has become ever more shrill and less rational in tone. Rumors have abounded for some time that Harper himself is in fervent denial of climate change, but his PR handlers have cautioned him not to personally come “out of the proverbial closet” on climate change because it would cost Conservatives votes, the thing they care most about.  But this stance appears to be changing, as Canada’s “natural resource curse“, consequent economic downturn, Canada’s failure to invest in innovation, and national productivity crisis converge on the Harper government.  An ominous parallel can be drawn with South African President Thabo Mbeki‘s official denial that HIV did not cause AIDS, which became an international embarrassment for South Africa.  The implications for all Canadians are immense.

Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa Denies HIV Causes AIDS

Joe Oliver, Canadian Environment Minister Denies Climate Change Science

Mel Brooks, Writer, Director and Producer of the 1977 comedy film “High Anxiety”

Over the last few years, the Conservative government has quietly made a number of domestic and international policy moves that give clear evidence of its denial of climate change science.  However, Harper himself  has remained largely silent on these issues, providing him with just enough political cover to avoid being personally tarred for denying science.  Now, over the last few weeks, Harper’s Environment Minister, Joe Oliver, has been making statements on climate change and the tar sands that have led the national Canadian media to react with disbelief, and sharp criticism in print.  By allowing his Cabinet Minister to speak out so brazenly suggests that Harper needs to turn up the volume on climate change denial, again without overtly risking making such statements himself, though it clearly underscores that denial of science is the official Canadian government policy.

“I think that people aren’t as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees,” Oliver said in an editorial board interview with Montreal daily newspaper, La Presse. “Scientists have recently told us that our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated.” Meantime, a newly-published peer-reviewed study by Canadian and Chinese scientists has linked fossil fuels to rising temperatures in China. For his part, Oliver was not able to identify which scientists he was using as a source, the newspaper reported. Canada is the only country in the world to have pulled out of the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Two weeks ago, Oliver was proclaiming that  the Alberta oil sands industry was the“environmentally responsible choice for the U.S. to meet its energy needs in oil for years to come.”  Globe & Mail Journalist Tzeporah Berman wrote in response, “At a time when climate change scientists are urgently telling us to significantly scale back the burning of fossil fuels, having a minister promote exactly the opposite really does feel like being told that two plus two equals five.”

The logical conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that Harper’s national economic policy centered on the tar sands, is coming apart at the seams. The Conference Board of Canada (now led by former UBC Sauder Business School Dean, Daniel Muzyka), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a United Nations body, and leading Canadian media have all reported data that are extremely disconcerting for the Canadian economy.

Tragically, we are observing Canada increasingly losing its reputation as a World leader in humanitarian ideals and sensitivity for the Earth, not to mention Canada’s global competitiveness, as exhibited by Harper government policy that is nothing less than reactionary anti-intellectualism, which makes Canada a pariah to the community of nations. Canada’s strategic options to reverse its economic woes are dwindling.  

What would you do in this situation?

Read more: http://mayo615.com/2013/03/11/alberta-bitumen-bubble-and-the-canadian-economy-industry-analysis-case-study/

Read more: Stephen Harper’s energy minister denies climate change science | canada.com.