The A to Z of the oil crash

The impact of the oil crisis is so widespread you’d need an encyclopedia to figure it all out. Well, we have one right here.



It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. In the months and years immediately after the end of the Great Recession, Canada’s economy was the envy of the world. Our banks were safer. Our house prices were higher (and rising!). Global investors couldn’t get enough of Canadian stocks. And people were lined up at Canadian job fairs across Europe and the U.S., hoping for a chance to come and experience Canada’s economic exceptionalism for themselves. Good times.

Good times, it’s now clear, that were too good to last. The speed with which the cracks in Canada’s economy have spread and broken apart is remarkable. Economists have been left scrambling to downgrade their forecasts for GDP growth, the job market has showed troubling signs of deterioration, and exports have continued to slide. When the Bank of Canada cut its overnight lending rate by 25 basis points to 0.75 per cent last week, a move that stunned markets, it was a tacit admission of how bad the outlook for Canada’s economy has become.

There are many reasons why this is happening now, but the key factor that has set everything else in motion is the stunning 60 per cent plunge in the price of oil in just seven months. The oil crash is—to borrow a phrase from Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, which may become a signature of his tenure—“unambiguously negative” for the Canadian economy.

True, there are benefits for certain segments of the economy. Ontario exports are smiling, as are drivers at the gas pumps. But oil’s wild ride has exposed fissures that have been deepening for years, such as Canada’s overreliance on household debt and real estate for growth, as well as imbalances in trade and the labour market.

The factors driving down the price of oil are complex, as are the repercussions, some of which are being felt now. Some may only take recognizable shape years from now.

Because there really is no beginning or end to a story like oil, we have taken a different approach to telling it here. Starting below you will find an A to Z encyclopedia of the oil crash and what it means to the economy—from real estate, the job market and stocks to government finances and the 2015 federal election.

We explore the root causes of the oil collapse, including booming U.S. shale production and Saudi Arabia’s decision to sell cheap oil rather than slash its output. There are stories of real people who have headed west for a better life, and the apprehension they now face about their future. And there’s analysis of key turning points in the development of the oil sands, crucial to understanding what is unfolding in Alberta. Because Alberta’s oil—the world’s third-largest crude reserve—is what sets it apart within Canada. And it makes the province the only place to start this alphabetized survey. Read through from A to Z to discover why Alberta’s fear must now be Canada’s, too.


  • OIL_8
    A is for Alberta, Ali Al-Naimi
  • OIL_10
    B is for: Bakken, banks, barrels, bitumen, boom, Brent crude
  • OIL_12
    C is for: Costs, carbon, celebrity commentary




The A to Z of the oil crash

  1. One has to wonder how much of this “crisis” (lots of oil is a good thing) is political. I would suggest that MOST of it is.

    The saudi’s maintain production, and it will hurt their economy, but not as much as it will hurt the economy of their biggest enemy, Iran.

    It hurt Russia, which is payback for Crimea and Ukraine.

    Canada and the USA are just casualties of someone else’s politics. The OPEC countries want to make exploration of alternative sources too expensive. Oil sands are more costly to mine, and high prices are the only reason it is viable. If countries can make the proposd pipelines non-economically feasible, then the Saudi’s and other middle eastern countries will benefit in the future.

    All politics….supply isn’t the issue.

  2. The entry by Andrew Leach for U – Upgrading and Refining is wrong.

    A mistake he has often repeated (previously on twitter and in an opinion piece in the G&M Dec 11, 2014) about the cost of the NWU. Here he states:

    But the details of what must be done in order to secure an upgrading project—such as the government guarantee of $63-per-barrel payments involved with one new refinery—

    This is a flawed calculation. Andrew took the total of $26 billion from a Dept of Energy annual report prepared by accountants. It is the sum of forecast processing fees etc inflated at 2% over 30 years. Book Value. And the sum is at the end of 30 years.

    To do the calculation that he has done, he would first have to discount all forecast expenditures back to present day before averaging out the costs against total throuighput (over 30 years). This is Finance 101.

    Summary here: https://twitter.com/NetworkCitizen/status/560468836638416896

Sign in to comment.