We fare poorly on these metrics (especially when stacked against Australia, which I found to be extremely expensive both times that I have visited). At the same time, I dislike seeing city-states represented, as they do not have hinterlands to support, which almost always bring down the national figures. Luxembourg is not a city-state, but very nearly so. Singapore? Come on. Qatar has no residents (only a tenth of its population are citizens: the population of Qatar is 2.6 million, with only 313,000 of them Qatari citizens and with the other 2.3 million as expatriates).

There is also a massive disparity across different rankings by different outfits. The overall size of Canada's economy has apparently surpassed that of Italy, despite the latter having 19 million more people (not a trivial rounding error!).

Yeah I would be inclined to agree, sure you can always look at the Luxembourgs, Monacos and Liechtensteins and think "what are they doing right?" but realize almost no country can replicate those metrics with their geography. Also, fun fact, but I would wager most wouldn't think Iceland was significantly smaller (by population) than Luxembourg given relative popularities of these countries.

It's really something like the Nordic European countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark), a couple of western European countries (Switzerland and Netherlands), USA and Australia that I would say have some clear economic advantages over Canada. That's more than a handful, sure, but it isn't vast swaths of the world, even the Western world by any means. And among those, I personally only think Australia, and only if you're in the top 30% of income earners, USA, would bring a higher QOL.

Inflation at 2.9% for January, below economists' consensus.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inf...2024-1.7119796

Let's take a look at what that's built on:
1) lower gas prices (notoriously volatile)
20 lower flights: news that Flair & Lynx might merge and AC worrying about the cost of a new pilot labour agreement mean that won't be low for long
3) that leaves lower clothing costs

The cost of wage increases has barely begun to ripple through the economy but housing pimps are desperately anxious to say lower rates are just around the corner!

The price of soup and bacon dropped too! Actually, it's an unexpected pleasure to see the rate of food inflation slowing down.

Even if they drop the rates some, prices won't go higher that much. The BOC will react once again when the economy will stall this summer. They will sharply drop the rates in 2025-2026. We know that it takes 2 years to feel the effects of a rate change. In Quebec most new projects are rentals. Every city in Southern Quebec is now looking to density its territory.

Province of Quebec (urban centers of at least 10,000) SFH (construction projections)

2023 : 6,187 (new record) low
2024 : 6,800
2025 : 7,500

population change from 2023 to 2025, probably 500,00 - 600,000

So about 1 SFH built for every 25-30 new people. Be ready to see rental towers going up everywhere across the province.

On the surface, these arguments seem valid but on closer inspection they don't hold up. The vast majority of Canada is urban. Per capita income in Ontario/Quebec should mirror what we see in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. but it's massively lower. Same goes for Vancouver vs Seattle.

Our hinterlands are vast but very few Canadians live in places like that. It also bears mentioning that many of these isolated places have GDP per capita (nominal) far higher than the national average. They bring the Canadian figure up, not down. NWT, Nunavut, Yukon, and Newfoundland sit well above the national average. Northern Ontario does as well actually.

Canadian GDP per capita (2022 and CDN$)

NWT: $124,740
Nunavut: $117,402
Alberta: $101,818
Yukon: $89,511
Newfoundland & Labrador: $76,601
British Columbia: $73,785
Canada: $72,249
Ontario: $69,215
Quebec: $62,913
Manitoba: $61,221
Prince Edward Island: $56,801
New Brunswick: $54,969
Nova Scotia: $53,034

Canada used to sit far higher up these tables. In 1970, Canada ($4,100) had GDP per capita (Nominal) higher than Switzerland ($3,925). In 1977, our figure ($8,813) was more than double that of the UK ($4,138). Over the last 40 years, Canada has consistently fallen down these tables. Our manufacturing sector imploded, but unlike the US, we've been unable to replace those high paying jobs with high paying tech jobs. Our productivity (dollar output/hour worked) is abysmal and has not kept pace.

I do agree that Canada surpassing Italy is an accomplishment but shouldn't we be comparing ourselves to best in class rather than one of the economic laggards of western Europe? California (similar population to Canada) has an economy larger than that of the UK.

We shouldn't be making excuses about vast geography when the vast majority of us live in fairly dense compact regions. The Windsor - Quebec City corridor, the Lower Mainland, and the Edmonton - Calgary corridor (actually quite wealthy). As a highly urbanized country, there's no reason Canada ($53,247 per capita in 2023) couldn't attain similar GDP per capita as California ($100,038 in 2023). We should, at the very least, be able to get close to that figure instead of the gargantuan gulf that currently exists.

Tech, tv/film, tourism, professional services, aerospace. These are the industries that create wealth in California but they're also industries Canada has a strong foundation in. Moving up these tables requires us to properly exploit them. We need more companies like Shopify and Bombardier and the creation of homegrown versions of Tesla, Nvidia, Google, and Disney. This is where we fall down.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...mestic_product
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._1970_and_1979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itories_by_GDP

I'm not denying that a large chunk of GDP growth in the US has come from large tech firms capturing value around the world and transferring that money to the US, but I don't think that this money was spent on tech worker salaries. Tech workers are paid well relative to to other professions, but there aren't many of them.

We may create a few unicorns in niche applications and even another company on the scale of a Shopify, but we will never create a Canadian competitor to Google. Much larger advanced economies like Japan and Germany have not pulled this off, either. There really are only two countries that have been able to support powerful tech giants: the United States and China.

Quite the analysis there. Forgive me if I trust the experts like Tombe over you.

Wasn't sure which tread this fit under, but why not here?

Do office wellness programs work? A new study suggests they're not helping staff

Mixed feedback on the study, but it's findings don't surprise me.

No surprise there. I know I'd be a lot happier at work if either I had less of it with the same pay or the same amount of it with more pay. I've attended a few of these seminars and it's generally common-sense stuff like:

1) Eat healthy - I generally do, though that's getting more expensive to do so
2) Exercise - I cycle-commute 9 months a year and ride and hike outside of that. Aside from stress I'm 5x healthier than my dad was at my age, easy. He'd had 2 attacks by now!
3) Get lots of rest - Haha. I would GET lots of rest if work/economics didn't keep me awake, lol.

Live feeback to the presenter from one of my (more blunt) co-attendees in the last virtual one I participated in (last week: "how to avoid burnout") was "What made you assume we don't exercise or eat healthy? The problem is those aren't cutting it anymore!"

A lot of the suggestions are really "what can the employee do to become tolerant of burn out?" as opposed to "how can we change our work culture so we stop burning people out?"

Agreed that hinterlands can bring down certain national figures, but in a country like Canada they actually provide a lot of the resource wealth that sustains the impressive figures of major urban cities.

A significant chunk of Toronto's wealth, for example, comes from resource-based industries that are churning it out in remote regions thousands of km from the CN Tower.

Yup, those workshops or initiatives are all bullshit, and are meant to cover the asses of the execs and the board by transferring the guilt and responsibility onto regular workers.

It took me many years in the corporate world, but the two things I learned to maintain work-life balance are:

1. Be firm with your boss about how many projects you can take on, and stick to it. If you're being triaged to take on a very important project that just came up and needs you, tell them immediately that you have to drop one of your other ones.

2. Companies allocate more budget room for new hires than they do for compensation of existing workers, so always negotiate your salary when you're hired rather than wait for a pay raise that will never come.

"Employee well-being" programs are mostly bullshit.

Ultimately all that matters is:

1. How much does your skillset contribute to the success of the organization, in dollars?

2. How much are you getting paid for your skillset relative to how much it provides to the organization?

3. Could your current skillset be sold for more to another organization who is able to package it in a more profitable way (and therefore justifying a higher salary for you)?

Also some other important things to remember:

When you're an employee you're really just selling your skills. Your skills are the product and your employer is the customer. The one holding the money generally gets to dictate the terms.

If your skills are easy to replace, then your employer gets to call the shots.

If your skills are hard to replace, then you get to call the shots (and the organization would be smart to make you a partner).

If you're not happy with how much you have to work vs how much you're getting paid, and you are unable to get paid more dollars/hour somewhere else, then the onus is on you to improve your skills so that you can become more valuable to organizations you wish to work for.

Andrew Coyne today on Canada's continued economic decline:

[B]Canada is no longer one of the richest nations on Earth. Country after country is passing us by[/B]
ANDREW COYNE
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGO

...If you took a poll, I suspect you would find most Canadians still think of us as one of the richest countries on Earth: maybe fifth or sixth. And at one time we were. As late as 1981, Canada ranked sixth among OECD countries in GDP per capita, behind only Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, the United States and Denmark.

But we’re not any more. As of 2022 we were 15th. Over the 40-odd years in between, Canada’s per capita GDP grew more slowly than that of 22 other OECD members. Countries that used to be poorer than us – Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, Germany, Belgium, Finland – are now richer than we are.

And over the next 40 years? You may recall that arresting chart in the 2022 budget, projecting Canada would have the slowest growth in per capita GDP among OECD countries out to 2060. We need to fully comprehend what this means. We are no longer one of the richest countries on Earth. Among the richer countries, we are on course to being one of the poorer....

....Simply put, our workers are less productive than other countries’ workers because they have less capital to work with. As recently as a decade ago, gross fixed capital formation per worker in Canada was within striking distance of the United States: about 95 per cent. It has since declined to roughly two-thirds. A similar decline has been observed relative to the OECD generally....

...Disaggregate investment into its component parts, and you find a striking, and potentially troubling, trend.

Since around 2000, while business investment in residential structures has roughly doubled as a percentage of GDP, investment in machinery and equipment has roughly halved. Could this go some way to explain why our relative productivity growth fell off so sharply after then? Have we been so busy capitalizing on rising housing prices that we neglected to invest in the sorts of things that make it possible to afford a house?...(bold mine)


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...country-after/

I don't dispute the theory but how does it explain a country like Australia?

Employee well-being programs are seen by many companies as a way to improve the value employees see in their compensation package (and therefore retention) without costly wage increases, or with less costly wage increases.

Unabashed exploitation of natural resources without all the handwringing.

I was gonna say. Australia simply makes decisions that are different from ours.

A better question is: what's preventing Canada from being more like Australia, and if we could, would doing that come at too high a price in terms of downsides?

According to the OECD, Canada's Corporate spending puts us last as a proportion of GFCF (Gross Investment), at 45.4% in 2022. It's slightly up over the past two years, and it's been generally around or below 50% in the past 20 years.

Australia has the third lowest Corporate investment at 47.1% in 2021 (the most recent data) and has been as high as 61.8% in 2012, but has been on a generally downward trajectory in the past 10 years.

So we've had consistenly low Corporate investment for many years, and theirs has been steadily worsening, and is now pretty much the same as Canada. I'm not sure we want to be 'more like Australia' in corporate investment terms.

I don't care too much about corporate investment (at least not in isolation) unless it has a tangible impact on people's standard of living.

Even GDP per capita isn't always a good metric but nonetheless when I look at Australia's it's a good 10 000 USD above Canada's. Generally 64 000 whereas we are at 54 000.

Their jobless rate is about 1.5% lower than ours but their poverty rate is slightly higher than ours.

Housing prices in Sydney are at Toronto and Vancouver levels of insanity but after that it drops off and even Melbourne is in the range of Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary.

Using nominal GDP and per capital income does not consider cost of living. Using purchasing power parity (PPP) is more reflective of living standards.

New numbers have just been released. Australia's GDP (PPP) in Intl. Dollars (USD) is $1.780 trillion compared with Canada's $2.472 trillion.

The population of Australia is 26.6 million compared with 40.8 million for Canada.

This gives a GDP per capita (PPP) of $66,900 for Australia and $60,600 for Canada, a difference of about 10%. This would imply that living standards are relatively similar in both countries but what exemplifies Canada's relative economic decline is that in 1970 Canada had more than twice the economic output of Australia and a per capita product about 25% higher. The only advanced economy against which Canada has relatively improved is Argentina, which is the only country to have achieved developed
status and slipped back to developing.

Generally, prices co-relate to wages, except where there is an abnormality in the local economy, such as in a location with an economy dominated by tourism. Australia has a slightly higher cost of living than Canada but wages are correspondingly higher. Items that tend to be more expensive are clothing, beer, tobacco, transport and energy, items less costly are wine, internet service, cel phone service and dairy products. Housing prices are similar to slightly higher in Australia depending on location. Keep in mind that Australia has a more concentrated population, with close to 65% of the population in the five largest cities, the corresponding figure for Canad is about 40%. Australia has 19 urban areas with >100,000 population compared with 42 in Canada.

The numbers are quite dire really and infuriatingly are largely ignored not only by the national media but by the politicians (even the official opposition). Canada has moved from relative decline to absolute decline at this point, and whatever the media might say, five consecutive quarters of decline in per capita product is a recession.

The U.K. ($58,700) and France ($58,600) have really narrowed the gap and at current economic and population growth rates will overtake Canada by 2026, and neither can be described as a high growth economy. Also both were economically devastated by two World Wars, particularly the U.K. which in 1945 was largely bankrupt.

Spain has overtaken Canada in total output (PPP). It had an economy less than half the size in 1970. As another poster stated, In 1981 Canada was 6th in the world in per capita income, in 1970 it was 4th, behind only the United States, Sweden and Luxembourg.

At what point does this become something that causes people concern? There are implications for national unity as well. A relationship enduring economic struggles is much more likely to dissolve esp. when the raison d'être for the union is no longer quite as apparent, and as it might apply to Canada, most especially as the country slips further and further behind the United States, always the national obsession.

I feel like top bank economists and talking heads have been sounding the alarm over this for a few years at this point, but political apathy likely stems from the fact that most voters care can’t reconcile these facts with their own personal net worth having ballooned due to the housing/asset bubble. It’s all esoteric as long as we’re all paper millionaires.

This is an interesting question.

Australia seems to be more 'free market' in its economic orientation. Which can produce benefits in terms of nominal output. One sheds industries that require subsidies, or that have low value-add.

Australia is far away from manufacturing supply chains and has a limited population to draw from. Manufacturing and technology development require much more investment in a remote (relatively speaking) region. It's easier to move tech-inclined Aussies to Silicon Valley than start Silicon Valley in Australia. Even relatively mature industries like automaking couldn't cope with the extreme supply chain distance. Once Holden (GM) announced their intent to cease automobile manufacture in Australia after being unsuccessful in petitioning government for more funding, the whole house of cards collapsed. The automaking supply chain there failed as the critical mass needed to support it fell apart. Ford and Toyota closed their assembly sites soon after.

In the short-term, there was a benefit as loss-making enterprises were removed from the Australian economy. No more government support needed for automakers. In a country riding high on resource prices, the inflated Aussie dollar made auto exports a non starter. Labour could be repurposed to the high-flying resource industries.

The risk of this? Australia is dependent on non-renewable resource export (iron, coal, gold, petroleum) to a degree that makes Canada look downright tame comparatively. Nobody thinks the Qataris are geniuses - it's a small population sitting on a pile of easily obtained oil. To somehow not make money under those circumstances is more the accomplishment.

When one thinks of value-added Australian companies or products, it's a short list. A handful of Holden-GM developed cars that made it overseas. The Boeing E-7 Wedgetail - a product of Australia's defence industry. Some mining conglomerates.

Canada's historical value-add industrial legacy is much larger and wasn't always a product of free-market enterprise. Much of it is, but there were substantial sectors that were defined by government intervention during our history. Canada has the advantage of retaining more manufacturing due to our proximity to North American supply and talent chains.

Can Canada emulate Australia moreso? We're certainly trying, but our cultural complexity and location in the world probably fate us to being part of the North American supply chain with its various regional quirks. Investissement Québec retains stakes in Québec-based companies for cultural reasons. Ontario and the federal government have retained a political interest in automaking. Our strongest 'free market' drives come from our most resource-oriented provinces. It's part of the tension of our federation.

Strategically, the advantage of a more well-rounded rounded economy should mitigate the up-and-down cycles of resource-based industries.

IMO: The Aussies are choosing a higher risk, higher short-term reward strategy. Admittedly, not necessarily completely by choice due to the sheer effort needed to go against the grain for them. I do not think Canada should pursue such a strategy, but it likely will moreso in the long-term due to a strategic disinclination to develop an industrial policy that can survive government change. About the only thing we can really learn from the Aussies is how to more seriously position ourselves as a strategic defense partner in a more tense world.

More Canadian businesses are closing than being started: https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-...pace-startups/

Recessions cleaning out the crap. Capitalism at work.

Very long overdue recession.

A lot probably were able to stagger on for the last few years thanks to Covid programs.

Spent a couple days researching this, here my findings. (Not trying call you out acottawa, just responding to these articles, and sharing some additional findings of my own.)

This one makes sense. Europe's economy is much more directly tied to both Ukraine and Russia.

There is one single sentence in that entire article that mentions Ukraine, and they don't share any data about the war in this article. Also, the Bank of Canada printed $600B over two years (adding 30% to our money supply), which is the obvious source of most of our inflation. They would never admit that they caused the inflation, and have every incentive to point to any other source that could've contributed to inflation to make themselves look less guilty. So this one I don't agree with.

In this article they shared this map, which shows how exposed each country's economy is to the war in Ukraine. As you can see Canada is quite low - appears to be around 5-10%, vs Europe which is 80-100%. Here is their description of what this chart represents:

"This chart depicts the exposure of a country to the Russia-Ukraine war, calculated using the share of firms’ earnings calls mentioning the Russia–Ukraine war, based on the country where the firm is headquartered. Earnings calls’ share is calculated for countries with at least 10 earnings calls between March 1, 2022, and May 13, 2022. Countries with no earnings calls or with less than 10 earnings calls are shown in gray. White indicates that no firm mentions concerns related to the conflict, while deep red indicates 100 percent of firms mentioning concerns related to the conflict."

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econr.../fig5-3141.png

This article was published on March 15, 2022 and is entirely forward looking / speculative. All their language is about what they thought the war will do, rather than studying what happened afterwards.

---------

Finally, we must look at the global commodity bubble of late 2021-2022. This was pretty universal across the globe and industries, especially food products. This included both food that is grown in Ukraine/Russia, and food that isn't grown in Ukraine/Russia.

The general trend is that there was a massive runup in 2021 across the board, and it peaked in 2022.

Here are some interesting examples.

Canola - Canada is the top producer, Ukraine is about 4%. Peak came in the winter.

https://i.ibb.co/LtCFL41/Canola.png

Rapeseed - this is related to canola, Canada is again the top producer, and Canada has virtually all the rapeseed reserves. Not sure why, but other countries ship their rapeseed to Canada, and Canada stores it. Seeing as the peak came in the winter, I don't think this had anythign to do with Ukraine.

https://i.ibb.co/QKMGxf8/Rapeseed.png

Coffee - also peaked in early 2022 after a long runup. Coffee is not grown in Ukraine/Russia.

https://i.ibb.co/3yJ4XQX/Coffee.png

Corn - Ukraine produces around 3.5% of the world's corn. Not the leader, but not nothing either. However compared to how much other commodities went up over this stretch, it doesn't stand out that much. In fact the peak in 2021 reached a similar height.

https://i.ibb.co/b7xvMtJ/Corn.png

Lumber - this was a classic bullwhip effect from the pandemic. Nothing t odo with Ukraine. Peak happened at the exact same time as others though.

https://i.ibb.co/Sr9rXMf/Lumber.png

Wheat - this one is interesting, and might have something to do with the war. Ukraine only produces 2.5% of the world's wheat, but the peak is eerily close to when access to the sea returned.

https://i.ibb.co/j4WG47p/Wheat.png

Oat - Russia is the biggest oat producer in the world.

https://i.ibb.co/PC4NzY3/Oat.png

Steel - this is more of a Russia comment, since Russia is a big producer of steel. However, steel actually peaked in mid 2021. There was a runup in steel in 2022, but as far as I can tell, the biggest cause of that was China's lockdowns that they were still carrying out during that time. Russia probably did have an effect on that though.

https://i.ibb.co/v1MRPjf/Steel.png

Potatoes - this one I think is being caused by the war. Ukraine and Russia are the 3rd and 4th largest producers in the world. The curve is completely different than all the other charts.

https://i.ibb.co/q52dwyx/Potatoes.png

So a whole bunch of commodities where Ukraine is a major exporter shot up after the start of the war, and went down once Russias were pushed out large parts of Ukrainian territory and was able to resume exports.

So what do you think happens if Putin conquers the rest of Ukraine, which seems to be the outcome you want.

The impact of the war in Ukraine was studied by the economists at the Conference Board of Canada. They calculated that for the economy of the country, the war didn't have an overall impact one way or another. Canada produces some of the same goods as Ukraine and Russia (they produce 30% of the world's wheat, we grow 12% for example), so the price of some imports went up, but the economy here benefited from higher prices. Alberta went from a deficit budget to a surplus as government revenue from oil went from $3bn to $16bn in a year.

However, it did add to inflation in 2022. "Overall, the Conference Board of Canada estimates the war in Ukraine accounted for a 1.2-per-cent rise in the inflation rate" [Montreal Gazette]

Nothing will cause the political left in this country to self-combust more than if First Nations start rejecting degrowth and become participating industrialists.

B.C. First Nation and Western LNG partner to purchase natural gas pipeline project
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...id=socialshare

If they ever give the OK to harvest an old growth forest David Suzuki might implode.

The enviro-weenies did such an implosion on Vancouver Island at Fairey Creek.

....There’s just one problem, and it’s creating what Jones calls a “very uncomfortable” situation. The Pacheedaht First Nation’s elected leadership — and Frank Queesto Jones, the Hereditary Chief recognized by the Nation — have asked, several times, for the protesters to leave, saying the nation does not welcome or support unsolicited involvement or interference by others. On June 28, as a heat dome settled over the Pacific Northwest and temperatures near Fairy Creek soared to 40 degrees Celsius, the Nation again called on protesters to leave, citing the increased risk of human-caused wildfire that could threaten the Pacheedaht First Nation community. The neighbouring Ditidaht and Huu-ay-aht First Nations which, together with the Pacheedaht, form the most southern branch of the Nuu-chah-nulth people, support the Pacheedaht. They, too, have requested that anyone interfering with legally authorized forestry operations leave their territories.....

https://thenarwhal.ca/pacheedaht-fai...ek-bc-logging/

Rather damning condemnation of the gerontocracy.

• Video Link

Interesting retrospective on Trans-Mountain....


The BC NDP tried to use every tool in the tool box to stop the pipeline. However all the experts told them their tools were not as good as the federal government.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...tarted-pumping

My understanding is Trans-mountain is already starting to pay off even if not fully on-line yet. The price of Canadian crude is already up and the discount it traditionally trades at is narrowing.

I have mixed felling about it. I think the Liberals did the best thing in moving forward with the pipline project when the private sector walked away. While at the same time being concerned about the negative environmental risk that BC is taking on by hosting the pipline. A risk where as a province we are getting marginal payback.

It had always been suspected that being able to build more pipelines to tidewater within our own borders was going to help narrow the WTI-WCS differential. This is the first time we have had a major expansion in entirely domestic crude export capacity since the initial construction of TMX in 1951. The Line 9 reversal unfortunately didn’t help us because any products for export get transported from Montreal through the US to Maine.

There is always going to be risk with hosting projects like this, but I am personally of the opinion that pipeline projects are almost always worth the risk, especially if they are domestic only, unlike KXL. I would personally like to see Energy East get resurrected someday, but I will concede that it is wishful thinking.

Energy East is probably too much money to spend at this point for a sunset commodity. It is a damn shame we didn't built it though - it would have been a hugely valuable asset to have in 2022 when the EU was cut off from Russian oil.

There's a lesson here. Make hay while the sun shines. Don't let opportunity pass us by.

Please stop bothering Quebec with your dirty energy proposals they only do sophisticated emission-free industries:

https://bombardier.com/sites/default...eg_044047.jpeg

I think there is still a lot of value in oil. Maybe less so now that construction costs have exploded since the mid-2000s when all of these other pipelines were conceived of, but value nonetheless. Moving towards electrification in cars, public transportation, and power generation is a good thing, but I don’t think it will be able to penetrate other fuel-heavy sectors like heavy industry, construction, agriculture, and aviation for a very long time. There will also always be value in using oil-derived products for synthetic materials.

Even just having a greater capability for export is beneficial even if we reach peak oil. Demand for fuel imports in Asia, Africa, and Europe is not going away anytime soon (as evidenced by oil production ramping up immediately to fill TMX), and as long as Russia/the Middle East remain unstable, Canadian oil will always have a value proposition, especially in the era of sanctions and friendshoring.

Can’t forget that Quebec also operates the third and fourth-largest refineries in the country. I can respect the pushback, but Quebec’s opposition didn’t really mean much (they can complain all they want but pipelines are federal jurisdiction) when it was the conflict of interest situation between the NEB and TransCanada/Jean Charest that ultimately killed the project.

A prominent economist confirming that the Canadian dollar's link to the price of oil is broken:

Posthaste: This 'important driver' of the Canadian dollar is broken, economist says
The loonie appears to be a 'petro-currency' no longer
https://financialpost.com/news/canad...iver-is-broken

The Calgary-based economist said there was a clear break in the relationship between currency and commodity starting in 2016 that has “become acute over the past year.”

Recall that in 2007, just prior to the Great Recession, U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) rose to about US$140 per barrel, pulling the Canadian dollar above parity with the greenback. Leap ahead to 2022, and a WTI rise above US$100 failed to have a similar effect — in fact, the loonie moved in the opposite direction

He estimated that oil producers reinvested about nine per cent of revenue ($17 billion) into operations over the past year, down from 25 per cent ($28 billion) in 2014.

It’s not so much the drop in reinvestment that is detrimental to the loonie as the fact that most oil majors in Canada hold debt and savings in U.S. dollars since oil is priced in that currency. Declining reinvestment in operations means companies are converting less of the U.S. holdings into Canadian money.

A weaker link between the price of oil and the Canadian dollar doesn’t just stop with the currency but will feed into higher inflation as the loonie receives less of a boost from rising oil prices.

It could also have implications for the Bank of Canada and interest rate policy.

“Higher oil prices will be, in general, more inflationary and could lead to the BoC being more sensitive to energy prices when setting monetary policy,” he said.

Um, sunset commodity?

Suncor earns $1.6B in first quarter, breaks all-time oilsands production record
By The Canadian Press
Posted May 7, 2024

CALGARY — Suncor Energy Inc. says it earned $1.61 billion in the first three months of 2024, down from $2.05 billion a year earlier.

The Calgary-based energy giant says its first-quarter earnings amount to $1.25 per common share, compared with $1.54 in the first quarter of 2023.

On an adjusted basis, Suncor says its operating earnings of $1.82 billion in the first quarter of 2024 were comparable to $1.81 billion in the prior year’s quarter.

The company attributed its results primarily to higher oilsands sales volumes and refinery production, partially offset by lower price realizations and increased oilsands royalties.

Suncor reported record upstream production of 835,000 barrels per day during the quarter, including all-time high oilsands production of 785,000 barrels per day....

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/05/...uction-record/

The Trudeau government is doing wonders for the oil industry. :haha:

As a Suncor shareholder, I thank him. :tup:

Suncor Energy Inc. says it earned $1.61 billion in the first three months of 2024, down from $2.05 billion a year earlier.

Yep, sounds like it's not declining at all.

So, I think the strategic impact going forward is clear. To avoid this volatility we need to have a plan to transition off oil as a major energy source in Canada. We can continue to export it, that is ok, the rest of the world can still be dependent on it. But at the same time lets reduce Canada use and dependance. We have a clear alternative, clean green electricity. Hydro, nuclear, wind and solar.

I know. The Liberals were trying to be pragmatic at moving forward with the pipeline. They had to compromise on their commitment to protect the environment.

While it likely was the correct decision for the country, we should be cognitive that a close eye will be needed to ensure the operator is diligent in protecting the environment.

To lithium and beyond! Screw the tar sands we need more lithium mines! Cause that’s so much better! lol

Yes, it is.

Yes. Sunset doesn't mean no revenue at all or even that there won't be additional revenue growth.

It absolutely is. Oil will always be around for synthetics, but that's less than half of global demand. It will be just one of many commodities that exists in the market, but not a dominant one anymore. Kind of like how the whole world geopolitical trading system used to revolve around black pepper & cinnamon. We still eat black pepper & cinnamon, but it's not a central commodity to the global economy anymore.

Huge pipeline projects are investments that take decades to pay off. Maintaining that bull run until 2050 is a big risk to take if you're looking at 10 figure construction costs.

That's actually one of the reasons why oil & gas stocks are paying such big dividends. There's not much else for them to spend their profits on.. other than giving it out to their shareholders.

We also don't necessarily define the length of time the sun takes to set. Eventually, someday, if human civilization makes it there, we will probably stop using fossil fuels to power the bulk of society.

But the O&G industry isn't going away in "net-zero" year 2050. Not even in 2100.