The Oil Drum: Canada

When my talk to the Royal Society of Chemists was first arranged this summer, oil cost over $130 per barrel, and we wondered where the price would be in October. Since then much has happened. The credit expansion bubble was pricked in part by inflation stemming from high energy prices, and the global banking system is teetering on the brink of collapse, reprieved only by the spread of social ownership throughout the OECD.

Last week's log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:

Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.

Andris Piebalgs continues this Friday his blogging on bio-fuels, addressing some of the concerns expressed by the readers of the last blog-entry.

I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient. At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport. It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided.

Before continuing I can't but express once more my joy in seeing EU's leaders having such a close interaction with their citizens. More bio-fuel talk under the fold.

This week European Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, moves the debate onto the key issue of bio-fuels. The comment I left on his blog pursued the theme of EroEI and energy efficiency. If you feel strongly about bio-fuels then PLEASE call by Andris Piebalg's blog and leave him a polite, forceful, well documented message.

Andris Piebalgs drives a Saab 9-5 that runs on bio-ethanol. By my estimation, the energy efficiency of this vehicle is a meagre 5%. Andris no doubt believes he is doing the right thing and I believe he cares a great deal about European energy. And yet he is driving one of the least energy efficient vehicles ever produced - and he is a physicist. How on Earth have these totally bizarre circumstances come about?

Andris Piebalgs is the European Energy Commissioner with responsibility for shaping European Union (EU) energy policy. These policies may then be adopted by the European Parliament and will effectively shape Europe's energy future.

Mr Piebalgs has an informative web site where he has newly installed a blog inviting comments on EU energy policy.

I would like to invite all my fellow bloggers and all citizens to contribute your ideas.

Andris, I would like to thank you for providing us bloggers with this wonderful opportunity to relay our ideas and opinions directly into the heart of the European Parliament. But beware, not all ideas and opinions are born equal.

There's more under the fold.....

On Friday 22nd February, I attended the above conference in Aberdeen. With presentations from the EU Commission, The European Parliament, Scottish politicians and leading academics, this was a high profile event. There follows an account of the key issues raised by the various speakers together with my own observations and opinions on these matters.

Peter Vis

Peter is a member of the cabinet of Andris Piebalgs who is European Commissioner for Energy. He has particular responsibility for climate change targets, renewable energy and bio-fuels.....

Wall Street's ratings agencies are starting to abandon their efforts to hide the real market value of the debts that are ironically still marked as assets in the books of countless institutional investors. To say unpleasant surprises will be revealed would be a tragic understatement. Credit markets are tightening in anticipation, and spreads are set to widen dramatically.

Hedge funds and banks are heavily exposed to the derivatives market, and losses will be colossal and widespread. Increasingly, pension funds look to be the biggest losers of all. The key-word will be 'leverage' - cheap credit borrowed to make 'easy' profits, that will now lead to hard losses.

On the energy scene, Americans are concerned about rising costs, labour constraints and environmental issues in the Alberta oil sands. Combined with increasing Canadian domestic energy demand, this could reduce energy exports to the US just as it was looking to Canada to fill its looming energy supply gap.

Resource ownership and control in Canada continue to be hot issues at the national, provincial, and territorial levels. Alberta looks to carbon trading and Ontario will have to get through a hot summer with a reduced electricity supply.

S&P May Cut $12 Billion of Subprime Mortgage Bonds

Standard & Poor's said it may cut the credit ratings on $12 billion of bonds backed by subprime mortgages, prompting investors to dump the securities....

...."S&P's actions are going to force a lot more people to come to Jesus," said Christopher Whalen, an analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics in Hawthorne, California. "When a ratings agency puts a whole class on watch, it will force all the credit officers to get off their butts and reevaluate everything. This could be one of the triggers we've been waiting for." _{(emphasis added)}

S&P finally says subprime is mostly junk

S&P, one of the three main credit-rating agencies that served as enablers of the subprime-mortgage boom, announced Tuesday that it would lower its ratings on 612 bonds, a small portion of the mortgage-backed securities it had given its seal of approval to.

But the bigger news is that S&P isn't going along with the charade anymore. S&P said it would change its methodology for rating hundreds of billions of dollars in residential-mortgage-backed securities. And it would review its ratings on hundreds of billions of dollars in the more complex collateralized debt obligations based on those subprime loans.
A lot of debt will be downgraded to junk status. A lot of that debt will have to be sold at fire-sale prices. A lot of pension funds and hedge funds that once thrived on the high returns they could get from investing in subprime junk will now lose a lot of money. _{(emphasis added)}

Last week, we learned that Canada’s record on greenhouse gas emissions reductions is the worst of the G8. Worse even than the non-signatory to the Kyoto Accord, the United States. This sets a realistic counterpoint to the much hyped greenwash announcements of the Canadian federal government in previous weeks. The Eco-Energy public relations events were primarily recycled hot air from the previous administration; wrapped in Tory blue paper and tied up with green ribbon. The appearance of action while committing to nothing was assailed by political partisans and pundits, but with no effective or constructive criticism. It was a clear victory of symbolism over substance.

As early as 1984, Canadian companies began merging into much larger trusts, taking advantage of trust-friendly Canadian regulations.

In a Canadian Energy Trust, operating companies are acquired by the trust, usually through equity offerings, using third-party debt and funds in exchange for grants of royalties, debt and shares. The operating company's cash flow from sales (from oil, natural gas, etc.) is transferred to the Trust as distributable cash flow.

This means that the majority of the revenue is able to be paid out as monthly dividends to the Trust's shareholders.

But there's a catch there, if you look hard enough.

The characteristics of the companies these trusts acquire are pretty interesting. Due to the need to provide their investors with a constant cash flow, Canadian Energy Trusts purchase only assets that are mature, low-exploration-risk properties and toll-based energy infrastructure with predictable operational profiles and minimal or at least low capital expenditures.

This assures the trust of a higher drilling success rate than is typical of exploration and production companies.

So companies find themselves in a predicament.

They can either continue to actively spend their incoming money on exploring for new oil or organize into these Canadian Energy Trusts, thereby giving their shareholders bigger dividends.

In light of the argument by some that there is no easy and cheap oil left to find, it's interesting to note that many of these companies have chosen the latter option.

Perhaps they know something about the reality of Peak Oil that we don't.