And that suggests higher oil and gasoline prices in coming months – perhaps as much as 50% – 70% higher, or more – particularly if a U.S. economic recovery is truly in the offing.

To really see what I’m talking about, let’s start with a close look at consumption. I’m asked about this frequently in my global wanderings, most recently at the Las Vegas Money Show last week.

For months we’ve been hearing about a drop in global demand. It’s a popular story and one that sounds credible: After all, it seems logical to assume that during economic chaos, consumers and businesses alike will rethink their budgets and ratchet back their spending.

For consumers, the continued economic malaise will mean fewer trips to the store, less-ambitious vacations, and car-pooling to school or work . For businesses, the cutbacks by consumers will clearly translate into canceling trips where conference calls will suffice and using lower-cost shipping alternatives for the decreased sales volumes most U.S. companies will experience.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil consumption fell by nearly 50,000 barrels a day throughout 2008. According to the latest figures, the EIA suggests that global oil demand may slump to 83.4 million barrels a day in 2009 – nearly 2.4 million barrels below 2008 consumption levels. On a percentage basis, that’s almost a 3% drop. I have my doubts that we’ll actually see a decline of this magnitude, but if it does occur, it will be the first time ever that consumption has declined for two straight years. That alone is pretty noteworthy in this era of cohesive and powerful global growth.

The reason I have my doubts about such a steep decline in demand is this: While overall consumption is dropping in such developed economies as the United States, Europe and Australia, it’s being at least partially offset by continued growth in China, the Middle East and Latin America. Because the data produced there is less than transparent, I can’t help but think that analysts are underestimating the growth we’ll be seeing in those markets, where consumption is accelerating strongly. And it’s entirely possible that growth in those markets will outstrip any fall here in the developed world.

Even if the growth in the emerging markets doesn’t quite offset the decline in their developed brethren, analysts seem to be forgetting that oil prices are a function of two variables – consumption and production. And it’s the change in production that’s going to catch a lot of people by surprise.

After a run of record high oil prices punctuated by frantic resources development, we’re now seeing the opposite scenario. The long period of lower than anticipated oil prices following oil’s meteoric rise last year means that the entire industry is no longer making the investments needed to sustain production capacity or actual production.

And not many folks recognize this fact.

For instance, direct project investment in drilling may be down as much as 20%, while the number of drill rigs in operation in America alone has dropped by more than 40%. Various estimates from the EIA and private sources suggest that actual U.S. production may fall by as much as 320,000 barrels a day. While the amount is a matter of debate, the fact that production is declining is not.

More than 20% of total U.S. oil production comes from tiny wells located in remote areas that were marginally profitable producers when crude oil was trading at $100 a barrel. With oil currently at about $61 a barrel, those producers are practically worthless now.  So the “mom-and-pop” shops that own them are actually abandoning entire fields and equipment without a moment’s thought.

To be fair, at least part of the drop in demand can be attributed to increased reliance on methanol, ethanol and other types of biofuel, but that’s hard to quantify at the moment because the long period of low oil prices has eroded the economic viability of alternative fuels – at least for now.

The story is much the same with new exploration projects being cancelled left, right and center. The trend is particularly apparent in the Canadian oil sands that were everybody’s fancy only 24 months ago. Now we’re seeing Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE ADR: RDS.A, RDS.B), StatoilHydro ASA (NYSE ADR: STO) and Petro-Canada USA (NYSE: PCZ) each backing away from multi-million dollar investments that were to bring online an estimated 500,000 barrels a day.

Russian, Saudi and Mexican producers are reporting the biggest production drops seen in 50 years. Even Venezuelan leader President Hugo Chavez – the perennial motor mouth and longtime U.S. critic – is eating crow. He’s begrudgingly invited (read that to mean “is begging”) the oil companies whose assets he nationalized only a year ago to “come back” into the market.

He has no choice. Venezuela’s oil production is already below its 1997 levels, and many analysts say that output could fall even more since Chavez has done such a thorough job of alienating the big foreign oil companies that actually possess the technology needed to extract crude oil from that country’s hard-to-reach reserves.

Chavez’s Chavez’s government seized the assets of 60 foreign and domestic oil service companies after conflict erupted over nearly $14 billion in debt owed by the country’s state-owned energy company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). PDVSA accumulated the debt as oil prices took a dramatic slide from over $147 a barrel last July to less than $35 a barrel in February.

Then there’s simple shrinkage. This is an oil industry term for declining output. The EIA recently released data suggesting that production at more than 800 oil fields around the world is going to decline by about 9.1%. It doesn’t matter whether the decline is prompted by depletion, war, or simple neglect. The fact is that this shrinkage will take an estimated 7.6 million barrels per day out of the system.

I could go on but I think you get the picture.

Now imagine what could happen to oil-and-gasoline prices when normalized demand resumes. Not only will there be less oil in storage, but virtually the entire industry – exploration, production, refining and sales – is going to be caught sitting on its heels when the world needs it to be zooming along in high gear. And that means the companies that make up this industry will have to ramp up again to meet the newly increased consumption demands.

This whole process could take two years – or even longer – to play out.

As for prices, history is replete with examples of what happens when there are major shortages of key commodities.

In the Energy Crisis of 1973-74, for example, I can still remember the numbingly long gas lines and waiting in the car for hours to get a fill-up. My father and grandfather vividly remember that prices quadrupled in a matter of months. I’m sure you do, too.

Only a few years later, in 1979, we got another oil shock when prices quadrupled again. Because it was coupled with stagnant economic growth and virulent inflation (stagflation), this period was an economic disaster for the United States.

For those who had learned from the earlier crisis, however, it was a mondo- profit opportunity.

The same can be said for 2007-2008, when the huge spike in oil prices that I predicted contributed to the bear market in stocks, tight credit and recessionary conditions that led to the current malaise that continues to grip the U.S. economy. As much as anything else, high oil prices contributed to the carnage we’ve seen in the auto-making and airline industries, and to the financial crisis that started here before spanning the globe.

Which brings us full circle.

Many investors will refuse to believe we’ve arrived at this new energy nexus, especially given all the hype we’ve seen surrounding alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles and the new “green” mentality that’s taken hold here in this country. If you listen to some of the real believers, they’ll tell you that we could be living in a petroleum-free Nirvana – as early as tomorrow.

While I personally would like that, too, it’s a misleading argument if for no other reason than there are millions of consumer items we use – from plastic bags to makeup – still created using petroleum. And there are still more than 60,000 manufacturing processes that depend on petroleum, and even the most aggressive estimates suggest that it will take the world decades to shift away from them.

We’re in much the same situation when it comes to hybrid vehicles. There isn’t a mass-produced electric vehicle available today that could offset the coming rise in recovery-driven demand for oil and gasoline. There’s a strong effort underway, but I’m not aware of a single company ready to field the solution in cost-affordable quantities by 2010 – which is when most analysts say a recovering economy will stoke demand for oil.

Of course, U.S. President Barack Obama’s much-lauded efficiency and greenhouse-gas-standards mandate will help significantly, but that’s like bolting the barn door after the horses have run for the fields. The irony of watching auto executives “applaud” his press conference was almost too much to watch with a straight face. But that’s a story for another time.

The bottom line is this: Our society will be highly dependent on oil for many years to come and investors should plan accordingly.

If governments around the world really want to get serious, they could collectively work to eliminate the fuel subsidies that are part of the price paid for gasoline in Asia or sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. We could also stop our own energy pork barreling. But given the complete lack of transparency that surrounds this issue – not to mention the influence wielded by vested industry interests, and the scores of well-paid lobbyists that patrol the halls of power in our nation’s capital – I don’t think we’ll see any big changes anytime soon.

So I’m left with one inescapable conclusion, at least in the intermediate term. Every investor needs to have at least some sort of energy strategy – preferably one that includes a range of drillers, producers and suppliers to cover the spectrum from wellhead to consumer.

That way, we can profit from an increase in energy prices that we can only hope rise fast enough to jump-start the oil industry’s production arm but not so fast that it snuffs out the badly needed economic recovery.

Editor’s Note: Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald is the editor of the new Geiger Index trading service. As the whipsaw trading patterns investors have endured this year have shown, the ongoing global financial crisis has changed the investment game forever. Uncertainty is now the norm and that new reality alone has created a whole set of new rules that will help determine who profits and who loses. Investors who ignore this “New Reality”will struggle, and will find their financial forays to be frustrating and unrewarding. But investors who embrace this change will not only survive – they will thrive. With the Geiger Index, Fitz-Gerald has already isolated these new rules and has unlocked the key to what he refers to as “Golden Age of Wealth Creation” The Geiger Index system allows Fitz-Gerald to predict the price movements of broad indexes, or of individual stocks, with a high degree of certainty. And it’s particularly well suited to the kind of market we’re all facing right now. Check out our latest report on these new rules, and on this new market environment.

Source: With Oil Prices Poised to Jump as Much as 70%, Every Investor Needs an Energy Strategy

After all, the economies in both China and India are apparently continuing to grow at a fairly rapid pace, and those countries’ demand for transportation and other forms of energy are thus likely to keep pace. For some minerals, the period of high prices from 2005 to 2008 has produced a surplus. But no such effect has been seen in the oil market, as large new discoveries are hard to find.

If we’ve learned anything in the last few years, it’s that political risk is very important in oil investments. It’s not just a question of outright nationalization – as is true in Venezuela. Other greedy countries, like Nigeria, boosted the royalties payable when oil prices were high, and have shown little willingness to reduce them again now that they have declined.

Hence, it’s once again time to look at investments in the one important energy source whose friendliness to the United States and decent quality of governance can be assured.

I’m speaking, of course, about Canada.

Canadian oil-and-gas investments are attractive for three reasons.

• Canada’s political stability makes it a buffer against turmoil from less-stable oil sources.
• The country’s conventional oil-and-gas sources add substantial capacity at reasonable prices to U.S. domestic oil production; these sources are profitable at almost any plausible oil price.
• And Canada’s tar sands in the Athabasca region represent a potential source of oil, with approximately 1.6 trillion barrels of theoretically recoverable reserves. That’s potentially larger than the Middle East, but with two major problems: The cost of production is high and the environmental impact could be substantial.

That last point – and the two major problems it identifies – is key. At low oil prices, both factors make tar sands problematic; it is politically more difficult to overcome environmentalist objections if secure oil sources do not appear a priority. However, at high prices, environmentalist problems go away, although they may add to extraction costs. However, if prices escalate rapidly, extraction costs also tend to escalate, so oil-shale-producers reaped less of a bonanza than they might have in 2007-2008.

Now that oil prices have stabilized, the cost increase has slowed, so that (for example) Suncor Energy Inc.’s (NYSE: SU) tar-sands-production costs in this year’s first quarter rose only 6% from the previous year, hitting $28 per barrel. Since oil prices are currently around $58 a barrel, that leaves plenty of profit margin.

The Canadian oil business is still rather more entrepreneurial than the international majors – Calgary is that kind of place. I remember an instance when I was working as a banker back in the 1980s. I’d spent the weekend in New York with my girlfriend, and then turned up for a scheduled Monday lunch with some oilmen at the Ranchmen’s Club. Not thinking, I’d ordered my normal urban cocktail, an Apricot Sour. This was quite rightly treated with great derision, and I was firmly presented with a bullshot (vodka and beef bouillon) – in a pint beer mug!  Got the deal, I’m proud to say, but was pretty worthless for the rest of the day.

The message: Investing in Calgary oil is a little like dining at the Ranchmen’s Club; you have to have certain qualities of fortitude and stamina!

Canadian oil companies you might look at include the following (when looking at earnings, the first quarter of 2009 is a good guide; 2008 is all over the place because of the bizarre behavior of oil prices):

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (NYSE: CNQ): Primarily a conventional oil producer, this company’s operations are centered on Western Canada, the North Sea and offshore West Africa (Gabon), though it is also building an oil sands plant north of Fort McMurray, Alberta. It is trading at about 14 times earnings when you strip out misguided risk management, and about 80% above book value. It’s over-leveraged, too. Conclusion: A decent company, but pricey.

EnCana Corp. (NYSE: ECA): North America’s largest natural gas producer and conventional oil producer, with operations in Western Canada, offshore Nova Scotia and the Western United States. It is a leader in oil recovery through steam-assisted natural drainage. Based on first-quarter earnings, its Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio is about 9, and its Price/Book (P/B) ratio is about 1.7. It has only moderate leverage. Conclusion: This one looks like a decent value; it even pays a semi-respectable dividend, yielding 2.8%.

Imperial Oil Ltd. (NYSE: IMO): Majority-owned by ExxonMobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM). Even though it’s now headquartered in Calgary, Imperial is the least Calgary-ish of Canada’s oil majors. It owns 25% of Syncrude Canada Ltd., the oldest tar sands project, and also explores for and produces conventional oil in Western Canada and in the offshore Atlantic provinces. Imperial also refines and markets petroleum, owning a chain of service stations and convenience stores, and produces petrochemicals. It experienced a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings, its P/E based on the lower first-quarter results is about 40, with the stock trading at four times book value. Conclusion: Overpriced.

Nexen Inc. (NYSE: NXY): The former Canadian arm of Occidental Petroleum Corp. (NYSE: OXY), it owns 7% of Syncrude and another (Long Lake) start-up tar sands project, and has oil producing operations in Yemen, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, Colombia and offshore West Africa. Its P/E is about 20 based on first-quarter results and it is very over-leveraged. Conclusion: Given the non-Canada risk, not very attractive.

Suncor Energy Inc. (NYSE: SU): A major tar sands play, Suncor has now agreed to merge with Petro Canada (NYSE: PCZ), a deal that’s expected to close in the third quarter. Suncor also produces natural gas in Western Canada and operates refineries. Petro Canada has tar sands, natural gas, pipeline and retail operations. It is priced at about 30 times annualized first-quarter operating earnings, but oil prices are up about $10 since then (which should boost its earnings), and its tar sands production is ramping up. Conclusion: At 2.3 times book value, with a respectable balance sheet, it’s a decent bet on oil’s growth sector.

Talisman Energy Inc. (NYSE: TLM): The former BP Canada (NYSE ADR: BP), it was spun off in 1992, grew through acquisitions, and now has a diversified portfolio of holdings. It’s active in Western Canada, the Western United States, the United Kingdom (including a wind-farm operation), Norway, Colombia, Peru, Algeria, Tunisia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia and Qatar. It has sold $2.5 billion worth of operations to raise cash. Talisman has a P/E ratio of about 8, based on its first quarter, or 11, based on continuing operations in that quarter. It has a P/B ratio of about 1.4, and only moderate leverage. Conclusion: An iffy company in terms of quality, but cheap, and is thus worth a look.

Source: The Six Ways to Play Canada’s Oil Sector

[Editor's Note: When it comes to banking or global economics, there's literally no one better than Money Morning Contributing Editor Martin Hutchinson - a former investment banker with more than a 25 years experience. Hutchinson has proven himself to be a market maven and he is currently offering investors an opportunity to make $4.201 in cash in just 12 days. You can also subscribe to Martin's new investment service, The Permanent Wealth Investor, byclicking here .]

UTS Energy shareholders have rejected the C$1.75 cash per share offer tabled by Total E&P Canada. As a result, Total has terminated the offer. UTS ended the session down C$0.06 at C$1.52.

Petro-Canada (NYSE:PCZ), which is in the midst of merger with Suncor (NYSE:SU), reported a first quarter loss of $47 million or $0.10 per share. Petro-Canada ended the day up C$0.07 at C$37.65.

NovaGold Resources (AMEX:NG) tabled a feasibility study for its 50 percent owned Donlin Creek project in Alaska. The study envisions a 53,500 tonne per day operation producing 1.6 million ounces of gold at a cash cost of $394 per ounce over the first five years of a 21 year mine life. At $900 per ounce for gold, the net present value at a 5 per cent discount rate is $1.5-billion with an internal rate of return of 9.4 per cent. NovaGold ended the day up C$0.05 at C$3.29.

Timminco managed to tack on C$0.19 to close at C$1.77 after the solar silicon supplier inked a financing deal with its controlling shareholder, AMG Advanced Metallurgical Group N.V. Under the proposal, AMG will purchase about 7.4 million common shares at a price of C$2.02 per share for a cool C$15 million.

Western Canadian Coal announced that it has secured enough sales contracts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010 to continue mining operations at the Wolverine operation and Brule mine in British Columbia. Western added C$0.18 to close at C$0.96.

Romarco Minerals failed to get a lift despite hitting more goodies at its Haile mine project in South Carolina. The latest included 5.1 grams gold per tonne over 54.9 metres. Romarco ended the session down C$0.02 at C$0.53.

The junior board failed to stay above the 1,000 point resistance mark and with the summer doldrums fast approaching trading volumes should start declining. We shall see what Wednesday trading has in store.

Source: Resource Stock Roundup: Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (NYSE:POT) tabled first quarter earnings of $308.3 million or $1.02 per share down from the $566 million or $1.74 per share tallied in the first quarter of 2008. Prices for potash actually rose during the quarter but demand fell by 86 per cent. Potash ended the day down C$2.91 at C$97.49.

Suncor Energy (NYSE:SU) reported a first quarter loss of C$189 million or C$0.20 per share with output hitting 278,000 barrels per day during the first three months of the year. The second-largest oil sands producer, which is in the midst of a merger with Petro Canada (NYSE:PCZ), added C$0.86 on the day to close at C$30.33.

Fortress Minerals came out with an inferred resource of 5.975 million tonnes grading 2.43 grams gold per tonne at its Amy prospect on the Svetloye gold project in the Russian Far East. Fortress ended the day up C$0.075 at C$0.315.

Upstart gold miner Avion Resources produced 6,211 ounces of gold during the six weeks since beginning production in Mali. The cash cost per ounce of gold for the year is currently projected to be $505 per ounce. Avion ended the session up C$0.005 at C$0.30.

Shares of Chariot Resources added C$0.005 to close at C$0.295 after the company reported a positive feasibility study for the Mina Justa project located on its 70-per-cent-owned Marcona copper property in Peru. Using $2 per pound for copper, the pretax net present value comes in at $616.2 million at a discount rate of 8 per cent. The internal rate of return is 19.9 per cent and the cash operating cost over the life of the mine is $0.885 per pound of payable copper.

A stock to watch is beaten-down nickel player Belvedere Resources. Shares in the company were halted pending news at C$0.12.

The market is defying all the economic data and without verification that the earnings picture will improve, a selloff is in the cards at some point. We shall see what Friday trading has in store.

Source: Resource Stock Roundup: Friday, April 24th, 2009

More importantly for the future of both companies, the combined portfolio boasts the largest oil-sands resource position, a vital but difficult source to mine.

“It’s a good opportunity for Suncor to snap up some good assets at fairly depressed prices,” Greg Smith, managing director of London-based investment adviser Fat Prophets U.K. Ltd., told Bloomberg. “Oil sands are the legitimate solution to the long-term energy problem but it’s a lot more costly to get the oil out of the ground.”

The merged company will also feature:

• A resource base with approximately 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of proved (developed and undeveloped) and probable reserves, on top of an estimated contingent resource base of approximately 19 billion boe.
• A Strong cash flow from current crude oil and natural gas production of approximately 680,000 boe per day.
• A position in every major oil development project on Canada’s East Coast.
• Low-cost international crude oil and natural gas production from the North Sea, North Africa and Latin America.
• A strong Canadian retail brand.

Also, Suncor expects the merger to save $1.3 billion through the elimination of redundant spending and by targeting capital budgets on high-return, near-term projects.

“This merger creates a made-in-Canada energy leader with the assets, cost structure and financial strength to compete globally,” Rick George, President and Chief Executive Officer of Suncor, said in a news release. “The combined portfolio boasts the largest oil sands resource position, a strong Canadian downstream brand, solid conventional exploration and production assets, and low-cost production from Canada’s east coast and internationally.”

Ron Brenneman, Petro-Canada’s president and chief executive officer, said the merger reduces capital requirements, increases operating efficiencies and integrates already complimentary company operations.

“The increased scale provides more stability in volatile markets, plus the financial and organizational capability to successfully take on large-scale projects in the future,” said Brenneman, who will take the role of executive vice chairman in the merged company.

The all-share deal values Petro-Canada shares at a 25% premium, and gives Petro-Canada shareholders 1.28 common shares of Suncor for every share they own. Shareholders of both companies have to approve the merger, and both companies expect the merger will be completed in the third quarter.

Source: Suncor Buying Petro-Canada for $15 Billion, Consolidating Canadian Energy Industry

This from Investor’s Daily Edge:

Strange things are going on in the oil patch. They could help make Obama look good. But what’s good for Obama may ultimately give the U.S. its biggest energy headache yet.

As oil continues its dizzying fall, cheap energy and gas will allow Americans to spend more on other things. But oil companies aren’t happy and are reacting in different ways.

Some, like ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), are continuing their spending plans. For ExxonMobil, that would be a tidy $25-30 billion a year. Most of the other oil majors are cutting back – especially on spending in higher cost and/or non-conventional oil development initiatives.

Having just enjoyed another quarter of record or near-record breaking profits, these companies certainly have the money to spend. Oil companies may not be as vulnerable to the economic crisis and credit crunch as car manufacturers, but the good ol’ days are rapidly coming to a close.

Oil for the year is still averaging over $100 a barrel. So on the surface, oil companies are doing fine. But dig a little deeper, and some cracks begin to show. Until recently they’ve been fighting rising costs. Costs of raw materials like steel and cement have now fallen back to earth. But labor and drilling remain stubbornly high.

And production in existing fields is declining faster than expected. For example, oil is flowing from the North Sea at a clip of 1.7 million barrels per day. By 2030, it’ll drop to only 500,000 barrels. Production from existing fields in Alaska, Russia and Mexico are also suffering faster-than-expected declines.

A new report from the International Energy Agency says that oil companies will have to spend $360 billion per year just to keep this rate of decline at 6-7 percent over the next two decades. Otherwise, rates will climb over nine percent.

That’s a lot of money to spend on a losing battle. All that spending won’t reverse rates. It will just slow down falling production.

The same agency noted that oil output outside of OPEC countries has plateaued already. And it will begin to drop in a few years.

There will be individual companies in the West that will be increasing production – especially companies working the smaller oil plays. But the future for the bigger oil companies and for western oil companies as a group is grim.

With each passing quarter, their ability as a whole to maintain production levels will come under increasing pressure. Raising production is simply off the table. Ain’t gonna happen.

---

INTERNAL ENDORSEMENT Most People Don’t Even Know this Powerful Strategy Exists…! One senior analyst told Bloomberg that companies which issue this “Red Flag” might as well “hold up a sign that says liquidity problem”. And nearly every time a corporation does this for the first time in a bear market, their stock price plummets within the next 90 days. Just understand that what you’re about to see could have predicted with 92% accuracy that a stock in the S&P 500 index would fall within 90 days. And you could’ve banked gains of 187%, 134%, even 291% as the stocks drop. So what is this ‘Red Flag’? Why does it lead to lower stock prices? And how can you find out which companies may be on the verge of doing it? I’ll Explain Everything to You Here.

---

It would seem that Obama’s unfriendly stance toward oil companies (like plans to tax windfall profits) is particularly backward-looking. Oil companies are in a heap of trouble. Oil companies haven’t figured out how to counteract declining prices combined with declining production.

What can they do? They could follow Royal Dutch Shell and put more money into developing non-conventional oil resources, like the vast reserves of oil sand in Canada. Shell (NYSE:RDS.A / RDS.B), along with Suncor (NYSE:SU), Petro Canada (NYSE:PCZ), Imperial Oil (AMEX:IMO) and a half-a-dozen other companies are delaying new projects or cutting back on their spending in Canada, though.

The problem? Some of these oil companies swear it’s more a concern over rising costs than the falling price of oil. But c’mon. The Canadian oil sands are a big money-maker when oil was at $145 a barrel. It would be a profitable operation even with oil at $100.

But at $65? Or $55? That’s cutting it far too close for comfort.

Here’s the kicker, though. Any increase of oil production will have to come from OPEC countries. Countries in the West – including the U.S., of course – will be more dependent than ever on OPEC to satisfy their oil thirst.

And there’s not a thing an Obama presidency can do about it.

Even if he pushes hard on energy conservation and using more alternative energy resources, it’s not going to change the fact that availability of our most important fuel will depend on OPEC countries making timely decisions on raising output.

Over the long run, moving away from oil is a good move. But there’s only one thing that will keep the price of oil down in the short run and that’s a deep and prolonged global recession. Once countries like China and India (where most of the growth in oil demand will come from) start to bounce back, the price of oil will begin a long climb up.

And given that oil companies in the meantime will be making much less money and, as a result, spending much less money on developing new production, a new round of oil shortages will develop…

That is, unless OPEC countries raise production enough to keep prices low. And that’s a non-starter if I ever saw one.

So expect oil to climb to new heights after a 2-3 year pause that has just begun. It’ll easily pass the previous high of $147 reached this July. It should hit $200 and could go higher.

The big oil companies in the West will benefit greatly, even if their production is flat-to-falling. And those big bets that companies like Suncor, Nexen (NYSE:NXY), Opti Canada (TSE:OPC), and Petro Canada have made in the Canadian oil sands will be looking a lot better.

You may want to keep in mind that among the super-majors, the company with a big lead in non-conventional oil development is Royal Dutch Shell. It’s not the best-looking super-major now. But by the time Obama is campaigning for a second term, that could well change.

Source: Can Big Oil Find Ways to Grow?

Strong oil exports helped to boost Canada’s trade surplus in June. The trade surplus increased to $5.4 billion (C$5.8 billion) from $4.8 billion (C$5.2 billion) in May, the national statistics office announced earlier this week. But a large part of that increase was due to higher prices, not higher volumes. Oil reached a record of $147 per barrel on July 11. Since then, oil has dropped to below $115 a barrel.

The drop in oil prices coupled with a curb in demand from consumers who are fed up with high prices at the pump have put pressure on all of the oil majors, causing share prices to fall. But Canadian oil companies have one huge advantage over both their southern rivals in the United States and European competitors.

Many Canadian oil company holdings are in stable geopolitical regions, free from threats of state seizure or terrorist attacks. Government seizing of assets in Venezuela and Russia and the volatile political unrest in areas such as the Nigerian Delta have plagued oil majors such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDS.A, RDS.B). But Canadian oil companies that mainly operate in North America and Northern Europe are free from such hassles.

Also, companies that operate in less-developed nations are often subject to production-sharing agreements with the local governments, which can quickly eat into the oil majors’ bottom line.

Barron’s reported that Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit wrote in a recent research note that “high oil prices are not good for Exxon’s business as they increase government take in royalties and taxes, strengthen national oil companies, limit access to resources, but, above all, depress the share price.”

But without the burden of similar agreements, Canadian oil companies are set to profit from any future spike in oil prices.

On the flip side, compared to other countries, many Canadian oil reserves are in tar sands or shale oil, which are harder and more costly to refine. At a certain price point, these deposits become less viable as they can cost upwards of $30 per barrel to refine into a finished product.

This would be cause for concern if oil were set to continue its recent decline. But the current pullback in oil prices is likely to be short-term and improved technology is making such reserves more affordable to extract and refine.

Over the long-term, oil will be on the rise again due to shrinking global reserves and increased demand from emerging markets. Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald has a $225 per barrel price target for oil due to a variety of factors including the fact that members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have been misrepresenting their reserve capabilities for years.

Two Canadian Energy Profit Plays

With the appropriate investment time horizon, this could be the perfect time to scoop up some Canadian energy stocks at affordable prices.

Here are two to consider:

Talisman Energy Inc. (TLM) is a well-positioned Calgary-based oil and gas company with 95% of its production in the relatively stable areas of North America, the North Sea and Southeast Asia. Talisman shares are well off their 52-week high of $25.71, closing yesterday (Wednesday) at $17.34. However, the lower share price has brought this Canadian energy stock’s Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio down to a more affordable level of 10.13, with a yield of 1.09%.

Talisman is a bit of a speculative play, with so many of its assets concentrated on so-called “unconventional programs.” But late last month, Talisman boosted its 2008 capital-spending budget to $5.5 billion due to a “very promising start” to its North American unconventional natural gas programs.

“Its new push to develop unconventional natural gas and oil may be tricky, but we are optimistic Talisman is taking the right steps to unlock significant value from these assets,” Morningstar analyst Kish Patel said in a recent research report.

Petro-Canada (PCZ) is another Calgary-based oil and gas firm that has become rather affordable due to recent price pressures. But Tom Guinness, co-manager of Guinness Atkinson Global Energy (GAGEX), feels this is one oil company that will profit even if oil drops down to $100 per barrel in the short-term. Petro-Canada is trading at a P/E ratio of 5.98, with a yield of 1.69%. Shares closed at $44.39 yesterday and have traded between $40.56 and $62.78 over the past 12 months.

Petro-Canada is fully integrated with both production and refining capabilities, making it Canada’s second-largest refiner. And while the firm has had some refining problems of late, a $2 billion overhaul of its Edmonton-based plant – which will be capable of processing 135,000 barrels a day from its Alberta oil sands holdings – will soon be completed.

The drop in oil prices might hurt Petro-Canada on the production side, but should only help on the refining side as lower gas prices spur consumer demand and lead to more fill-ups at the pump.

Source: Bargain Hunting in the Canadian Energy Market