Alberta Population Growth
 

Since any time Alberta's population is mentioned in the Canada section, it usually starts a hell-fire of bullshit from the rest of the country, so I figured maybe if we had one here, it wouldn't be so bad.




I am looking at some government projections and came across some pretty interesting statistics about our growth over the next 37 years. Between 2013 and 2041, our population is expected to grow by over 2 million people (medium growth scenario), meaning our population will be at least 6 million by that census year.

Source: http://www.finance.alberta.ca/abouta...rojections.pdf

The components of our growth are what I found most interesting. Of the 2 million people, only 330 000 will be interprovincial immigrants, while 1 050 000 will be international immigrants. The rest will be a natural increase of 32.2%, an absolute increase of 676 000 (assuming an absolute total growth just over 2 million). I find these numbers pretty compelling, since so much of what you hear is "Alberta is taking every other province's population" even though interprovincial migration doesn't even account for 17% of our total growth over the next 37 years.

The high growth scenario is even more compelling, with our population growing to around 7 million within 37 years. I'm not sure how feasible this is, but then again, I'm not a statistics expert.


What are your thoughts?

That looks about right. No place in Canada is really going to see huge numbers of interprovincial growth. All of the four provinces that have large growth numbers (BC, AB, Ont, Que) are getting it mostly from international immigration.

Well even still, that is quite a huge number for interprovincial growth, just not as big as what people would expect, I think... which is quite refreshing, really.


I just calculated the absolute growth for all provinces and territories for the 2.5 year period between April 1, 2011 and October 1, 2013... the numbers are quite interesting...


322343 - Ontario

270528 - Alberta

166854 - Quebec

107236 - British Columbia

47821 - Saskatchewan

35187 - Manitoba

2427 - Newfoundland and Labrador

1749 - Nunavut

1288 - Yukon

1257 - Prince Edward Island

180 - New Brunswick

22 - Northwest Territories

(3902) - Nova Scotia


West + Territories = 463 831
East = 489 159
National = 952 990




If that maintains as average over the next 35 years, the growth of Alberta will be 3 787 392. Now, I obviously don't expect that to happen, but it does make one think what is possible if boom times don't bust for an extended period. 35 years isn't really a long time. Alberta has been booming for basically 20 years straight as of this year... so who knows...

So, does that include people that work in Alberta but live elsewhere? I have friends and family that work there, but call BC home. Technically they eat sleep and shit alberta for 3 weeks every month, but they come back home and spend their money.

Sorry, but no way no how will Alberta continue the boom for another 35 years. Wishful thinking but I'll be back in 35 years to say, "told you so"

The industry Alberta is grounded upon is not going anywhere for the next 35 years. This province is going nowhere but up for the next 35 years. After that things get more iffy.

People need to realize that Oil is used for far more than just diesel and gasoline. This industry will never go away, it will just get smaller. That being said, Alberta energy companies would be wise to invest in alternative energies so as to be relevant once demand starts to decrease.

Important to note that an entire economy can't switch directions on a dime either. It has taken 40 years to transition to better forms of energy after we have figured out a cheaper way to fuel our society. I don't expect the next transition to be much faster.

delete

I believe this is already underway in earnest. Just not a noticeable factor yet, since O&G is still the global player.

I have no doubt that we will hit 6 million or higher by 2041, the question is... what happens after that? I believe if we continue to diversify and play on Alberta's strengths (largest solar and wind potentials in the country, I believe), tourism, and manufacturing, we will come out of the oil dominated economy quite strong. That's the thing about having survived on a boom-bust economy for nearly a century(well-over a century by 2041)... we know how to handle a bust and pick it back up.

The Alberta solar potential is overstated in its usefulness, unless energy storage becomes so cheap that we can store energy for months.

The next transition has already started, but until electric vehicles become far more convenient, gasoline and diesel will be king. For rail, air and sea transport I don't think there will be an alternative for a long, long time.

Unless we develop viable fusion reaction technology that can power said ships. Or unless companies want to risk putting nuclear fission reactors on board commercial ships.



Hmmm, why do you say that?

Regarding the 35 year number, I agree that in 35 years the oil sands will still be very much in operation but what people keep forgetting is what pushes change is GROWTH. There will come a point soon where the growth will slow and we will reach a mature extraction market. Nothing bad will happen, Alberta will still foster great jobs and high wages, but the growth will slow and the economy will enter a more mature phase. What that means for us though is that construction/pop growth will table out too and return down to a more stable long term rate.

The key here is that much of the current jobs in oil sands and their support jobs in Cal/Edm are development/construction of the operations, not running them. Once the bulk of the major projects are up and running the growth will slow as the manpower required to kickstart the projects decreases and the jobs remaining are all in operations.

Gasoline/petroleum isn't going anywhere, in that you are quite correct. Only issue is that Alberta's extraction methods are very expensive, so if demand drops, even slightly, the price of oil will drop and one of the first operations to get hit around the world is the oilsands, as it will be one of the first to lose out on profitability. I see Calgary/Alberta to continue to boom and don't see a drop happening any time soon, but it needs to be kept in mind while discussing long term viability.

:previous: Absolutely... but what about with new methods being developed, such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage? Apparently that will not only reduce production costs significantly, but will also allow us to tap into the majority of our 1.7 trillion barrels of oil reserves, rather than just the current 10% that we have access to.

I think having our economy slow down to more manageable levels will be a good thing. The frenetic pace of development here is causing a lot of problems and growing pains.

Sounds pretty fancy. In all honesty I have no knowledge on the technical engineering side of the business, I'm a real estate guy and only really know the overt and latent demand drivers in the markets I operate, one of which happens to be Alberta.

I fully anticipate innovation in the sector to reduce per barrel costs, however I can't envision a scenario where they are able to compete dollar for dollar with basic well extraction so I would still think demand shock will continue to disproportionately effect the oil sands. That said I don't see demand going anywhere but up in the next decade with your standard dips and boosts along the way of course.

It may be sunny in the winter, but the amount of energy making it to the ground is low. Our demand profile in Alberta is very baseload heavy, we don't swing nearly as much as lets say Ontario and California. And our highest demand days are in the winter, and the highest demand hours are after the sun goes down.

Even after the price per kilowatt hour for solar reaches grid parity it isn't worth installing, because you need to pay for the capital cost of the backup power supply to meet the same demand, but producing power over less of the year. Solar with storage to have grid parity you need to reduce generation costs by a fair bit again.

That's one thing that bugs me tremendously. It has been designer, photosensitive oil-derived chemicals that have allowed for the miniaturization of the transistor (ie: made the process of photolithography possible). The wide gamut of cheap and effective pharmaceuticals that have improved quality of life and life expectancy has oil-derived feedstock to thank. The multiple order-of-magnitude growth in agricultural productivity over the last century is at least partially due to high-performance oil-derived fertilizers and other engineered agricultural chemicals like Roundup. High-performance synthetic fabrics from athletic wear, to bullet- and stab-resistant clothes, to fire-resistant cloth. High-performance materials like CRP, CRC, fiberglas, and so on. High-performance adhesives, lubricants, photo-sensitive and other optical coatings. The list goes on and on.

We take the most valuable, versatile, and finite chemical feedstock on the planet, and what do we do with half of it? We burn it for heat. It seems so juvenile.

Yes but all those other uses don't make petrol worth $100 a barrel.

If it wasn't used for energy it would be worth a couple bucks a barrel and Ft Mc Murray wouldn't even exist.