Canada: A country in economic denial

Well the market since the S&P downgrade of U.S. debt has been a fun ride huh? Gold continues to set what seem like daily records while stocks are "only slightly higher than a decade ago". But all of these lightning fast developments have not shaken the faith Canadians (and in particular, Albertans) have in the positive outlook on the economy. Canadians still believe that the politicians we call leaders had "no idea" this was going to happen. We are a country in economic denial.

Psychologically it is no different than when a wealthy business man looses their job, their house, and will continue to dress in suits even though they live in a car. This is becoming commonplace amongst the U.S. population whose jobless outlook is bleaker by the day. It is indeed a psychological issue, and is quite prominent amongst our population too.

No one believed the titanic could sink either...

For instance, last week when I tweeted that I had successfully predicted the Bank of Canada interest rate dilemma i received an overly rude message from a fellow Albertan which said "Being essentially the smartest man alive, I'm sure you've turned all your nostradamus like predictions into millions ". This is a typical reaction from someone that is in denial, and finds the topics I write about truly frightening. So frightening that to effectively deal with them he must fantasize about nostradamus like "fortune tellers", which normally are quite crazy to put his mind at ease. For it is simply impossible that Canada is not in the pristine economic shape it has been claiming and anyone with evidence or opinions to the contrary must be crazy.

My prediction wasn't the work of nostradamus. It was a simple conclusion based on a trend being set by current events; the outcome was obvious and I explained briefly the logic to reach the conclusion. All it takes to make such a prediction is to stay current with events, and to think for yourself. The sender of this message obviously hasn't actually read anything I've written, otherwise he would be well aware that millions in fiat money is just what I have been saying it is. Worthless. Why would I want it? I write what I write because it is what I think, and I strongly *hope* that at least a few Albertans and Canadians were inspired to prepare for their futures from my words; that is all, not money, nor twitter followers. I personally don't care if you listen to me or not -- ultimately we are all in charge of our lives, but what we all have in common is that we are on the Canadian economic titanic together. It is your choice whether you want to believe this ship isn't sinkable or not, I surely won't convince you otherwise if you believe it's unsinkable in the first place.

Of course, having provincial and federal governments that also are in denial are not helping matters. Alberta has announced that it's deficit is in better shape than first thought. Of course these numbers are all based on events before the U.S. downgrade during a period where oil was sky-rocketing. As I have reiterated over and over and over again; the oilsands can *ONLY* bring in a profit during large upward moves and it is unlikely with world-wide economic growth outlooks that we will see $120 oil again this year, and it will be rare that we see $100. I predict the price will remain between $80-$100 for the rest of the year. This of course means all of the profit predictions being made by the Alberta government are based on the Q1 run up in oil prices. again as I've explained many times though, input costs take longer to catch up to the price of oil than profits do and once the bar is set for $80-$100 input costs all of those market riding profits are going to dry up. We've already seen this happen once before, remember when $70 was "high and profitable"? Now the government dreads a $70 oil price. It's also a one way road, meaning that input costs don't come down. What happens instead? the projects shut down. The Alberta and Federal governments have been playing Russian roulette with the Albertan (and Canadian) economies with the full support of an uninformed population in economic denial. They are uninformed because an informed populace would have seen the direct connection between Alberta's "growth" in the last few years and the U.S. QE programs. An informed populace would have noticed how in 2008 we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs the moment injections of cash from the U.S. stopped flowing into American businesses in Canada.

As I often say to my friends "if Canada was any other country [without our vast natural resources], we'd be so broke we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves". We may quite possibly be the worst money managers in the first world. We simply don't realize it because theres always more "oil in the ground" or "fish in the sea" to replace the funds we squander and not to mention our number 1 trading partner can (for the moment) print all the money they need to pay us. If Canada properly managed it's resources, we'd all be living like kings. Instead we've opted to "sell the pond, instead of the fish" and at bargain basement rates at that. From the actual issuance of our currency, to the oilsands, to our nuclear industry it is safe to say that Canada is "For Sale" and it is through these bottom basement price sales that Canada has been able to lie about the amount of foreign business we are loosing due to global economic circumstances. At least up until now.

Canada, we are a country in economic denial. Time to face reality.

A conflict over ethical oil

By now anyone who follows energy, economics, or the environment has probably heard the term "ethical oil". If you are not familiar with it; it was coined by Ezra Levant in his book Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands. It also coined a lesser known term "conflict oil".

Recently a new blog came to my attention which was influenced by Ezra's book and it's causing quite the stir amongst environmental groups not sure how to counteract the image being portrayed. This image or argument is essentially that right now society requires oil, so would you rather get this oil from unstable, civil rights violating dictatorships or from friendly democratic Canada. This argument is painted for you in colorful contrasting advertisements which pop up on the blog showing the clear contrast between "life" and "death" (green or orange), along with exaggerated images to reinforce the idealism. A happy worker in a green field for "life", and a destroyed oil excavation site with Hugo Chavez imposed over top for "death" for instance.

Inside the site is scattered with cherry picked statistics, such as the employment statistics for nearby native communities. It is certainly a clever ploy by Big Oil which more or less renders the environmental aspect and argument moot as no matter what anyone says regarding environmental impact the response has become "well would you rather have 'ethical oil' or 'conflict oil'?". Clever indeed.

What the website fails to mention however is that as long as we have dependence on oil the world will always require conflict oil. Lets put this in perspective, here is a chart showing world oil consumption and production. Do you see the spread between European oil usage and production? How about for North America? Never-mind even about Asia-Pacific, but consider it none-the-less. For this argument we will not look at it as we don't need to. So roughly from that chart, you could say that if Europe and North America didn't import (or export), production would need to increase by what? 20million/day? 30million/day? Well according to Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Canada's total production in 2010 was 2.8million barrels / day. By 2025 they estimate 4.3!!! (Keep in mind, this is the oil industries estimates, not the *REAL* numbers.).

So here is what I ask you Ezra, how is your argument for Canadian oil relevant at all? The world doesn't just need oil, the world needs conflict oil. There is no magic bullet to make that not so, and no amount of Canadian ethical oil (rated at 1.5million barrels / day in 2010 (World usage = at least 85 / day)) will change that. Do you know why Ezra? Because unlike ethical oil, conflict oil doesn't need $100 / barrel to pretend a profit is coming in.

The oil sands are environmentally damaging and are not financially viable. We don't even know what the untold costs in environment and water usage are. They will never ever ever add up to more than a drop in the world oil usage bucket, because production is inefficient. It requires too much energy to make a barrel of low-quality "oil" from these projects of last resort. Remember when $70 / barrel was "expensive" and enough to make Alberta a profit? What happened to that? now we need $100. What happened is the input costs caught up with the output costs, and we don't want to know what happens if a sudden market move drops oil well below the input costs as it takes time for those price fluctuations to reach production. In other words the oilsands *only* bring in profit during sudden upward market moves in oil up until the time input costs rise due to the cost of oil. Get it?

Conflict oil vs. Ethical Oil is a straw-man argument. The infinite growth economy doesn't care how many people die to fuel it, or how much of the environment is destroyed. All it cares about is fueling more growth, which needs more resources, or the debt pyramid we've sold our kids into will collapse on our heads. You've been warned.

PS: Here is another reason to not buy into ethical oil vs. conflict oil.

* Updated | 08/08/2011: Well it's Monday now. The U.S. S&P downgrade has taken effect in the market; and what do you know, this appears in my twitter feed. Yea, wow. Amazing I know. Get it yet? The oil sands are a MONEY LOOSER. The price CAN NOT climb forever. What is worse: we are selling our resources short, without our own stock or "strategic petroleum reserve". That's right, we have no SPR.