February mid-month round-up: Greece burns, Alberta gambles & Canada trades soul for Pandas

Well it would appear that China has finally found a spot to park it's unwanted USD. That would be here in good old Canada and all it cost them was leasing us two Pandas. What a deal! Back in 2011 I wrote a quick post about why Canada's economy is good, bad and bullshit. A key portion of this post was that China was dumping the USD - but one year later with multiple countries such as Russia, India, and Iran writing off the USD as well one has to wonder, who exactly is taking it? Well it would appear the answer is Canada.

Now not only are we trading resources to the U.S. for a devaluing USD, no no.. now we will accept them from China as well. Many people are probably looking at our new trade relations with China and say to themselves: "well thats good isn't it? We're diversifying from dependence on the U.S. economy" - but this isn't really the case. Whether we are receiving USD from China, or USD from the U.S. it is still USD which is directly tied to the health of the U.S. and global economy. So are we breaking our dependence on the U.S.? When it comes to the actual physical trade: yes. When it comes to the value we receive for what we trade: no.

Are you a big coffee drinker? Have you noticed anything happening to the price of coffee? How about other imported foods? If you are conscious about your grocery bill you will probably have noticed it's gone up quite a bit. This is a direct result of piggybacking the CAD off the USD. Many analysts now claim the CAD is directly tied to resources now. They indicate that when resources go up, the CAD goes up, and when resources go down, the CAD goes down. However, the target for comparison always happens to be the USD. You may notice that if the CAD does exceed the USD, it's not by very much and not for very long. This is because while resource prices influence our dollar, a 1:1 ratio with the USD at most (approximately) is essential not just for continuing trade with the U.S. but also to continue trade with any country who trades using USD. The number of countries is large, albeit dwindling. It is really a match made in heaven: MAny countries around the world are looking for a place to dump their USD and Canada's valuable resources are "open for business". As most of our politicians are heavily involved in the U.S. stock market, they also have a vested interest in keeping the USD alive, even if the cost of food and gas for you and your family becomes unaffordable. This is the new measure for economic health, this is why the Euro was rising even as Greece was burning. On paper accepting austerity is great, but in reality it is destroying what's left of their physical economy. You know; the economy that feeds people, not HFT.

On top of Canada's "everything must go" fire sale policy it appears that we also are in a bit of a huff about proposed changes to the U.S. banking system. The take away paragraph from this article is:

The source of concern is a new U.S. regulation meant to deter deposit-taking institutions that receive backstopping from Washington from engaging in speculative trading for their own—not their clients’—profit, a practice known as proprietary trading. Risky trades by global banking giants were central to the banking crisis that compelled former U.S. president George W. Bush to launch a $700-billion bailout of Wall Street in 2008.

Translation: our banks engage in the same practices as in the U.S.

It goes on further:

“I think the impact could be very, very negative,” said Canadian Bankers Association President Terry Campbell. “If you interfere with the ability of governments and corporations to fund themselves, if you interfere with liquidity in the marketplace, which is necessary for funding, then you could have a very severe impact on our economy.”

Translation: Governments and Corporations fund themselves using risky and sometimes fraudulent banking practices and if we try to change that now then our "financial stability" is put at risk. Canada's complaints about these changes should confirm for all Canadians that our banks ARE NOT anymore stable than the U.S. or European banks. When you combine this fact with a world that uses the USD and a U.S. whose financial system is mostly dependant on foreign countries providing goods for that USD it should be no surprise the Fed's crisis fund bailed out non-US banks including Canada's TD.

The crisis in Greece is a preview of what's to come for all countries that engage in these practices as their ponzi economies rely on ever-increasing returns while peak oil ensures returns will be ever diminishing. It is the shortfall between leveraged value and real wealth which has Canada concerned as without riskier and riskier ways to leverage funds: profits dry up. For proof of this look no further than Alberta's latest budget which depends on a predicted 40% increase in oil revenue to meet expenses and bring Alberta out of a deficit (yet again).

Alberta's entire budget is based on a "bet" and betting is a feature of gambling. So Alberta's budget isn't really a "budget" at all now is it? When I budget for the month, I do not assume that sometime during that month I'm going to win the lottery and I certainly do not factor my theoretical lottery winnings into my budget. After you win the lottery and have the money in your hand then it is safe to include that in your budget. Now of course the odds of predicting oil price are a lot better than winning the lottery, but the cost of failure is the same.

Back in 2008, no energy analysts and no economic experts predicted a drop in oil price from $147/barrel to $38/barrel. No experts predicted that there would be a scooter revolution due to the price of gas at the time. Alberta has spent the last decade convincing Albertan's the oilsands were making them rich and yet wheres the money? The sustainability fund has been drained, infrastructure is crumbling or 20 years behind, the heritage fund in leu of their olympic train, $25m rebranding effort, and $2B for carbon capture is hardly sufficient to account for all of the resources given away in Albertan's names. With the latest budget and Alberta's continued campaign to pretend it has more money than it does - I expect a repeat of the 2008 situation in Alberta within the next 2 years.

Remember, at $147/barrel - and with cheap credit everywhere - debt could not be sustained. This time around all of that cheap credit has been used up and I believe the ceiling on oil demand is a lot lower. There is no more debt people (Americans) can get into to subsidize their ever-increasing cost of living. If oil hits Albertas targets and without some external crisis (Iran), it's highly unlikely it will be sustained any longer than the time it takes for those price changes to show up in the cost of consumer goods.

Further Reading: The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%: Forbes

In a war of ideology, everyone loses

Not long ago a naive younger version of myself decided he would be ‘left-wing’.  For many years I subscribed to this ideology. I amongst many others took part in partisan flame-wars on news article comments. “Everyone on the right doesn’t have a clue”, I told myself.

Five years later, my perspective has changed considerably. I no longer identify with any ideology. Today I rarely even bother to look at what our politicians are saying, because I already know what they are saying. They are promoting whatever ideology they have subscribed to. They will paint today’s issues with a partisan brush and explain how only their ideology can work. It seems that no matter what sort of problem society encounters all it will take to solve it is a subscription to a specific ideology.

Reality tends to dictate though, that whatever your plan is unforseen circumstances will likely screw with it. This is why life on this planet is adaptive. Life adapts to the circumstances of which it finds itself in. In the last 100 years, with the advent of the petroleum based society which arguably for the first time in human history has provided more surplus than we know how to handle a new problem emerged. How do we control and distribute these resources? It is from this question that the modern left and right ideologies formed. Free market vs. Communism.

Today the world faces vastly different problems than it did 100 years ago and yet  we continue to frame all debates within these two very limited views on society. These views are not adaptive, they do not acount for unforseen circumstances. No one who subscribes to these views truly lives by either of them 100%. Many of those on the right are all too happy during a natural disaster to have governmental disaster relief. Take for instance the recent fire in ultra-conservative Alberta. Even though the government is giving money for rebuilding efforts no one is saying this defies the free market response. Albertans have been accepting of government intervention in this unforseen circumstance.

When push comes to shove in society, ideology goes out the window in favour of critical thinking. The rules of our virtual ideologies do not apply when the “greater good” is deemed imminently threatened. When a crisis is occurring most people are focused on what needs to be done, not who and how they are going to do it. These considerations do not matter in a crisis, there’s a job to be done and someone’s got to do it.

Yet when the crisis subsides the ideologies take hold again. The petty arguing between citizens resumes over petty issues. Who they think should provide health care, the government or corporations for instance. Both sides overlook the fact they both want the best healthcare to be provided, and that should be the primary concern or ‘root’ problem to solve.

Anyone who has ever debated me in politics may or may not have noticed that I refuse to use political labels. When I discuss issues you will not hear the words socialism, capitalism, etc, etc. I don’t use them because they don’t really mean anything when there is a problem to solve.

Since I’m a programmer, I will explain this using a programming analogy. Many people today have a favorite O/S of which you can find flame wars all over the internet debating which is “better”. Few of these arguments though put the phrase “better” in a circumstance.

IE:

“Windows is better for new users.”

“Linux is better for security professionals.”

“Android is better for embedded devices.”

Instead most of these discussions are absolutes, “Windows is better.”

When I’m approached for a development contract, my first question is always “what is the exact problem you are trying to solve?”. I don’t ask what their favorite O/S is, or if they have a preferred language. The reason? The preferred language or platform may not be the best choice for the particular problem. You might want a desktop app to manage your database, but I insist a centralized corporate website is better!

I can tell them what is the best solution to their problem because I evaluate all tools available without bias. Just because I do not like Windows does not mean I automatically rule out Windows as a tool to solve problems. This is the approach that is needed today in politics. As a society we must learn to address the root problem, and use all tools available to do it. Just as Linux is not the best O/S for every situation, the left (or right) is not always the best ideology for a given situation.

What we need to do to solve today’s problems is focus on critical thinking first and foremost. Not until all available tools are given equal weight will a true solution to our problems emerge. I don’t just mean left and right either, as I mentioned before these ideologies are mostly about resource distribution. None of the mainstream ideologies account for things like “finite resources”, instead opting for infintie growth. These ideologies were developed at a time when things like oil production and consumption might have been a sidenote on someone’s napkin at best. They were developed at a time when the majority of economic activity took place within a countries borders. We need to fully step back and address today’s problems without bias. We need to be open to modern technology, and the infinite amount of tools available to us. We need to understand that today’s world is neither socialist, nor capitalist.

A rundown on Alberta's future

So the deed is done, the U.S. has now officially been rated AA+ for an entire trading day during which the S&P took the ratings axe to many U.S. institutions. Many people who have read this blog probably look at it with an overly negative outlook. Please now look back at all of my posts and notice they revolve around two themes. The price of oil & the collapse of the USD.

I've been clear about three things in particular:
1) The USD will collapse.
2) The price of oil will not rise continually enough to sustain the oil sands developments, and the failing America's will not be able to afford it.
3) Alberta's failure will be due to lack of diversification or having all of our eggs in a failing market.

They are really not complex principles. Hard to believe maybe.. back in April, or March. Or if you followed me on Facebook before I moved to twitter/this blog for the two years on there in Canadians for an Energy Revolution. But are they hard to believe now?

I have to tell you all, I'm pissed. I do not write about these issues to be a "downer". I write about them because NOBODY is discussing them. I don't *want* Alberta to fail, but it WILL fail unless we address these issues now, TODAY. For over two years I have been posting news, writing blogs, emailing the legislature and parliament, and nobody wants to address a U.S.A. failure and the implications on Canada.

I don't have solutions for you. I'm not going to lay out any plans for you to follow. This is a job for the community to do. The communities around Alberta collectively need to discuss the very real and imminent problems in the economy that will be caused by maintaining the oil sands projects. They need to figure out how to adapt their economies away from an industry that puts multiple projects on hold if the price drops. This "stop and go" mentality is my main reasoning for my negative outlook on oil sands production capacity along with the three points above.

Extreme oil price volatility will be a fact of life now until 1 of 2 things happen:
1) U.S.A. stabilizes (won't happen)
2) USD is dropped as the reserve currency of the world. I've written a bit about this scenario here.

And Edmonton, for god's sake stop bothering with the stupid arena project already. Does our city counsel not understand that the world has big problems on it's doorstep? Canada is not invincible, it may seem so now but as I've said before we will be near the bottom of the list of countries affected. This is because we won't see a massive drop in revenue until our trade partners can't afford the costs involved. At this point, we will be hit fast and hard.

A chain-reaction is happening right now, as I write this. The last support in the U.S.A. economic house of cards has fallen and the debt collapse I spoke of on Friday is underway.

* Update | 08/09/2011: Seems that OPEC has now revised it's oil demand outlook downward once again. One of the reasons cited is the cost of oil hampering economic growth. Look back to point 2, The price of oil will not rise continually enough to sustain the oil sands developments, and the failing America's will not be able to afford it.

* Update | 11/09/2011: MSM articles about Canada's U.S. dependent economy are starting to emerge ( article1, article2 ). It's only a matter of time now before the truth is obvious and in our faces.

* Update | 17/09/2011: Will Canadian oil go to China instead of the U.S.? What Stefan doesn't understand in this interview is that it is not "individuals" from China investing in oilsands. It is the government of China investing. All oil in China is state run.

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.

Capturing carbon or public support? The 2 billion dollar conversation

The Sleipner A project injects carbon dioxide into saltwater aquifers deep beneath the sea floor off the Norwegian coast. (Credit: Statoil) / sciencedaily.com

Carbon capture has been a hot topic in Alberta for a few years now. It's pretty well been the government's pre-canned response to any criticism of the environment related to the oil sands. For example:

As such, he cites committing $2 billion to carbon capture and storage - touted by industry and government as a way to green oilsands development.

Alberta's media has been flooded with references to this 2 billion dollar deal as a successful solution to oil sands carbon pollution. For the record, I don't think oil sands carbon pollution is really all that bad in comparison to the tailings, acid rain, or impact on the water table but for the sake of this post let's assume that is the top priority. So lets have a look at whether or not CCS is really a "solution" to the problem. Here is the problem:

How can we generate more power and produce more goods without increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere while keeping energy just as affordable, if not more affordable?

 I think that pretty well describes the problem CCS is being touted as a solution for but if you disagree please comment. Now looking at that picture there -- I think it's reasonably safe to say that cost is not cheap. Obviously that's the Norwegian offshore way but just recently their CCS program was in the news as being set back considerably.

A Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) facility at the Mongstad oil refinery in western Norway was originally planned to be in place by 2014 but has been delayed several times.
"An investment decision could be taken latest in 2016," the Norwegian oil and energy ministry said in a statement. In May it had said a decision on investments would be postponed to 2014.
CCS may cut the contribution of coal and gas-fired power plants to global warming by trapping and burying carbon dioxide (CO2), but it is untested on a commercial scale.

The most interesting part I find from this exert is "coal and gas-fired power plants", not oil sands. The oil sands are large and spread out. CCS itself uses enormous amounts of power which Alberta is already the top consumer in Canada of largely in part to the oil sands. This would make CCS ideal for Coal or Gas plants in Alberta but what does that have to do with making the oil sands cleaner? Well in my last article I demonstrated that the majority of our new power consumption is from the oil sands itself so in a sense yes CCS would "make them cleaner"; so why isn't the government explaining it that way? I'm guessing they would prefer Albertans not look at how much demand the oil sands are themselves creating.

Anyway, back to the topic of CCS. As I was mentioning that CCS itself is energy intensive, the equipment must be built, it takes huge amounts of energy to compress the carbon, and the storage theories for carbon capture certainly have some safety concerns. Further, no oil sand related companies have as of yet stepped up to the plate with the implementation of CCS in oil sands development. Why? My guess is as with anything oil sands, it simply is not cost productive to do as producing them in their current state is only cost productive by socializing losses.

The only conclusion I can be left with is P.R., 100% P.R. We'll probably never see it implemented, and I wouldn't count on the 2 billion set aside for it to still be there either (but that is another conversation all together). It's likely gone with the 25 million wasted on a website and that shitty slogan no one can remember. Public relations change instead of real change because the truth is we can't afford the real change without the big business on top "taking a hair cut".

What was that slogan again? Freedom to exploit, spirit to believe?