Oil Investors at Brink of Losing Trillions of Dollars in Assets -Bloomberg

[art-in-the-making]

All sorts of financial and investment heavies weighing the risk of unburnable carbon becoming stranded assets.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-02/oil-investors-may-be-running-off-a-cliff-they-can-t-see.htm...

Germany's biggest utility spinning off fossil fuel generation and focusing on renewables. Storebrand ASA, managing $74 bil of assets, divesting out of 35 fossil fuel companies, including 10 in oil sands. Bank of England governor Mark Carney instructing staff to examine the vulnerability of the entire financial industry.

Looks like the head-in-the-sand policy adopted by Harper could be in a lot of trouble.

[valve37]

Here's your boy Art! Get the facts.

Get facts about oilsands development, says Justin Trudeau during city stop

While urging more research on its impacts, a prominent Liberal MP came out Friday in support of Alberta’s oilsands.
Justin Trudeau said the controversial energy development has become a major factor in Canada’s economic growth, and should be defended when foreign critics call for a halt. So Canadians need factual information about oilsands development.
“We need to understand its impacts,” Trudeau told a press conference in Lethbridge.

What is development doing to the region’s rivers and aquifers? What do we know about chemical emissions and aerosols?
“The science is still unclear,” he said during a tour of a research facility monitoring southern Alberta’s water resources. “If we are doing things wrong, we could fix them.”

But when research shows developers are taking a scientifically sound approach, that should be made public as well.

“So we can defend the industry to the world.”

Trudeau, making his first Lethbridge visit to speak at an Alberta conference for federal Liberals, also recommended income from today’s oilsands production be invested in energy research. That could keep Albertans as key players in the field when newer technologies take over from oil and gas.
“We should plan for a post-fossil fuel future. We need to leverage these profits to find solutions.”

The Montreal MP’s comments came during a briefing at the Alberta Water and Environmental Science research centre at the University of Lethbridge. It’s recruited top-level scientists over the last few years from major universities in Ontario, Quebec and beyond, he learned.

By pulling together researchers from a number of inter-related fields, Trudeau observed, the U of L gains from their “collective” brain-power.

Earlier Friday, the first-term parliamentarian met students at a Lethbridge high school and visited a large medical centre for members of the Blood Tribe. Later, Trudeau was scheduled to address delegates to the federal party’s policy conference — and then to host a karaoke party for young Liberals.

The party’s youth critic in the Commons, Trudeau told reporters many young Canadians are actively concerned about today’s issues so they’re supporting such initiatives as Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Right to Play. But most have little time for
party politics.

“They say, ‘Politics is not a good use of my time and energy. It’s all about the game, and division.’”

That’s why it’s essential that Liberals talk with concerned Canadians of all ages, across the country. For his part, Trudeau said, he frequently comes west to meet Albertans and understand their issues.
Conceding it’s not easy to remain a Liberal in Alberta, he added his family name can be a drawback as well. But that’s also true in his metro Montreal riding, he said.
“Forty per cent of the people in the riding are sovereigntists,” opposed to the strong federalist views of his father Pierre.
But he earns voter support by finding common ground with groups in the constituency, he said, rather than dwelling on what divides them. That same approach could work here, after party members debate policy during their conference this weekend.

http://justintrudeau.liberal.ca/en/facts-oilsands-development-justin-trudeau-city-stop/

[pierrelebel]

Valve I wish you take the time to research properly and show the dates of these old statements you dig.

That was was nearly four years ago, well before he became leader of his party. March 2011 to be exact.

And the fact he said those words four years ago has little to do with the subject of this thread about investors losing billions or trillions on the lower price of oil.  What does your current Prime Minister have to say today about those lost fortunes, those lost jobs?

Do you remember that Conservative Prime Minister walking around with lunch bags containing hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash?  Cash that was not declared to the taxman.  Cash on which no GST was paid.  When was that?

[valve37]

"Looks like the head-in-the-sand policy adopted by Harper could be in a lot of trouble."

My response was to the above Pierre.

All parties have their heads in the oil sands as it produces revenue in federal coffers they would be hard pressed to make up. I doubt Justin's comments are no different today.

This is more recent however illustrates flip flopping. You could conclude Justin's head is in and out of the oil sands. 

"Based in Vancouver, Gibbins believes that Trudeau’s support of Keystone and opposition to Northern Gateway is another example of how he plays different notes to different audiences in order to have the broadest appeal. Notice in his Calgary pitch last fall, Gibbins says, he didn’t voice his objections to the Bruderheim-Kitimat pipeline, even though the informed audience knew full well from previous reports that he would not support it. But out in B.C. or back in Ottawa, Trudeau has said it’s not worth the risk of possibly polluting coastal waters.

Further, even though Trudeau told a cheering Vancouver crowd in August “the Northern Gateway will not happen” if elected prime minister, his energy critic, just two weeks later, told Alberta Oil that Liberals have only made up their minds on the 1,177-kilometre, $6.5-billion project plan in its current state. “This is a case where the social license has not been built,” Regan says. “As far as environmental issues are concerned, there are still many major problems. Whether that can change is another question.”"

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/10/lonely-liberal-justin-trudeau/

[pierrelebel]

"oil sands as it produces revenue in federal coffers"

Maybe it is time for Conservatives to get their head out of the sand. 

Other forms of renewable energy also produce revenue for the federal and provincial governments.  They also employ Canadians who pay taxes, etc... In fact more Canadians are now employed in clean energy than the oil sands.

Nobody is suggesting the oil sands should close tomorrow.  However, looking at the long term for the benefit of your children and grandchildren, all Canadians (regardless of political affiliation) should support efforts towards renewable (clean) energy.

To do otherwise is to keep one's head in the sand, next to Harper and his Cabinet.  Not a pretty sight!

[art-in-the-making]

Probably these are not black and white issues and too important to play petty politics over.

Harper's position on a given pipeline might be 11 on a scale of one-to-ten (i.e. ram it through at all costs, with the result that nothing at all happens because of opposition and distrust generated by his confrontational and greed-based approach), JT's position might be a 7, that is let it through if economically unavoidable, with ample safeguards and corresponding renewables development. Just saying for example.

Nitpicking over every word of this or that speech from years or months ago just trivializes the issue.

The Liberals showed by their green plan years ago that they were ready to act. Stephane Dion was not the ideal salesperson for it and now it would be suicide to campaign on the same sort of thing again.

One thing that concerns me more about the lower oil prices is:  just as it makes tar sands developments less viable - it may also make renewable energy alternatives less attractive.

That would hammer Canada again, as our oil/profit-centred strategy void has neglected renewable energy industries in favour of resource extraction and bulk exports of raw materials. So we'll have to go out and buy renewables equipment on the world market with a reduced dollar.

[pierrelebel]

Art - look at the bright side.  We will most likely have a new federal government at this time next year.  There is hope!

[art-in-the-making]

"a new government"

yes, that does give one much hope!

[valve37]

Two dreamers!

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Harper may squeak through, there is no accounting for what his henchmen may come up with. Whenever I think Harper has gone as low as he can go, he gets a shovel and digs deeper. But squeak through or not one thing is guaranteed, he will never see a majority government again. 

[valve37]

Strange how energy and mining stocks increased yesterday. Guess investors don't believe in lost trillions Art.

Enbridge IncENB	60.04	+10.31%
Enbridge Income Fund Holdings IncENF	33.99	+8.32%
TransGlobe Energy CorpTGL	3.85	+2.94%
Alacer Gold CorpASR	2.39	+2.58%
TransCanada CorpTRP	56.57	+1.85%
Fairfax Financial Holdings LtdFFH	615.08	+1.79%
HudBay Minerals IncHBM	8.49	+1.31%
Innergex Renewable Energy IncINE	11.54	+1.23%
Kinross Gold CorpK	3.56	+1.14%
Dominion Diamond CorpDDC	19.50	+0.78%
At 7:09 AM ET

[pierrelebel]

It would have been more relevant to show ALL stocks based on most active, not selecting only the few who rose in price

Symbol Last Change % Change Volume

ATH:TSX	2.40	-0.18	-6.98%	16,595,963
COS:TSX	10.98	-2.15	-16.37%	12,676,368
TLM:TSX	4.61	-0.65	-12.36%	10,982,946
BBD.B:TSX	4.14	-0.21	-4.83%	8,692,153
PRE:TSX	8.20	-1.78	-17.84%	7,959,427
ENB:TSX	60.04	5.61	10.31%	7,468,470
SU:TSX	35.89	-1.47	-3.93%	7,235,068
TD:TSX	54.03	-2.88	-5.06%	7,081,917
MEG:TSX	17.36	-1.23	-6.62%	5,482,015
PWT:TSX	3.33	-0.48	-12.60%	5,232,309

[pierrelebel]

Summary of trading yesterday (December 4) as provided by the Toronto Stock Exchange:

Toronto market falls hard

Equity markets in Toronto dropped on Thursday as Toronto-Dominion Bank fell after the lender's quarterly results disappointed the market, offsetting a surge in Enbridge after the pipeline company announced restructuring plans and a dividend increase.

The S&P/TSX composite index fell 165.68 points, or 1.1%, to greet noon at 14,588.38

The Canadian dollar moved down 0.06 cents to 87.92 cents U.S.

Enbridge shares shot up 11.1% to $60.49 after the company said late on Wednesday it will transfer its Canadian liquids pipelines business and certain renewable energy assets to an affiliate, and raised its quarterly dividend by a third.

TD reported a weaker-than-expected fourth-quarter profit and said it expects a more challenging operating environment in 2015. The stock shed 3% to $55.21.

Financials, the index's most heavily weighted sector, gave back ground, as Bank of Nova Scotia lost 1.3% to $68.12.

Shares of energy producers declined, with Suncor Energy losing 2.6% to $36.40 and Canadian Natural Resources slipping 2.9% to $37.82.

On the economic front, Western University's Ivey Purchasing Managers Index by the end of October 2014 stood at 51.2, compared to 58.6 for September 2014, and 62.8 for October 2013.

The survey solicits purchasing managers across the country asking whether their purchases during the month were more, less or the same as the month before. A figure above 50 shows an increase while below 50 shows a decrease.

ON BAYSTREET

The TSX Venture Exchange gave back 10.37 points to 711.26

All 14 Toronto subgroups were negative by noon, with energy plummeting 4.2%, while financial and real-estate shares each sank 1.4%

[valve37]

"It would have been more relevant to show ALL stocks based on most active, not selecting only the few who rose in price"

Relavency to the thread subject title and not the overall market. Guess you missed the relationship I was trying to make. 

[pierrelebel]

"Relavency to the thread subject title "

That is correct.  Unfortunately your list was very misleading - on purpose - as it only listed the few winners and ignored the vast majority of energy stocks which went down that day. Canadian energy stocks - with the few exceptions on your list - were big losers.

The way I see it, it is irresponsible to show a few winners leading readers to draw the wrong conclusion when the majority of these energy stocks were down.... in some cases... way down.

Readers should take a look at the trading results of the week ending today (all five days). The losses are in the tens, maybe hundreds of billions.

[valve37]

Not a likely outcome the anti oil sands, anti pipelines anti the establishment relish. 

Why oil prices will bounce back … eventually

In the late 1990s, oil, in nominal dollars, fell to $10 a barrel and the Economist famously predicted that $5 oil was coming, a call that, 25 years later, still haunts the magazine like an obsessed lover from your youth. Of course, the low price stimulated demand and drivers flooded into showrooms to buy rolling, gas-slurping pigs like Ford Explorers. At the same time, the low price choked off exploration and development, constraining supply.

By 2005, oil was at $60 and would more than double again before peaking out and crashing during the financial crisis – just as low prices cure themselves, so do high prices. We don’t know if the current price of $70 a barrel can be considered low, but we do know that prices in the $60-to-$70 range will hurt the high-cost producers, a group that would include the deep-well offshore operators, the oil sands and some of the short-life U.S. shale oil wells (Société Générale says the big American shale plays, such as the Bakken, need about $65 to keep pumping). As capital expenditure budgets get crunched – and they’re getting crunched now – supply will eventually fall. But that may not happen quickly because the big production projects that are already under construction can’t be cancelled or slimmed-down. But rest assured, it will happen.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/why-oil-prices-...

[pierrelebel]

We all agree:

"but we do know that prices in the $60-to-$70 range will hurt the high-cost producers, a group that would include the deep-well offshore operators, the oil sands and some of the short-life U.S. shale oil wells"

[pierrelebel]

Valve wrote a week ago: 'Guess investors don't believe in lost trillions "

Have you changed your mind?  Do you now agree that investors are losing hundreds of billions in their energy investments in the last few months?

[valve37]

I might add investors not invested in oil are losing billions also! Lots of it tax loss selling in addition.