[DougB]

Calgary has hollowed out on heavy manufacturing too. Not being able to support water intensive industries is a challenge.

Calgary never had substantial heavy industry. What it did have, left long ago:
-munitions plant that is now a strip mall in Douglas Glen - burned down in the 70's
-fertilizer plant that is now a storage location off Barlow (remainder of site is solar farm) - closed in 80's
-fertilizer plant that is now Deerfoot Meadows - closed in 80's
-Imperial Refinery that is now Refinery Park - closed in 80's
-Gulf Refinery that is now Wildlands Park - closed in 80's
-Turbo Refinery that is now a power plant near Stoney and Country Hills - closed in 90's

For manufacturing all the only facilities of note were:
-Nortel Enterprise - made Norstar business phone system and later analog phone and pay phones - closed late 90's
-Nortel Wireless - made TDMA and CDMA basestations - closed late 2000's
-SMED (later Hayworth) - made high end office furniture - closed early 2000's
-Novatel - made cellphones - closed early 90's

Distance from markets is a far bigger obstacle to heavy industry and manufacturing in Calgary than is water.

 

[CBBarnett]

It's not much different here, but also it's something we have been seeing with most cities. Industry moves out to areas with cheaper land, etc.. In Detroit's case the moves were big and over a fairly short period, and so triggered white flight in a big way. Much worse white flight than other cities.

Apologies for a long one, this is an interesting topic for me.

Cars & Highways
I don't think the "white flight" and industrial relocation were as tightly correlated in the way you are suggesting. They occurred within roughly the same time periods but were brought on by somewhat disconnected processes. Like everything it's partially connected, but not tightly causal as you implied.

The automotive storyline is one of consolidation, automation and union/corporate power shifting 1900s - 1970s. The outcome of that was corporate power consolidated into the "big three" which destroyed smaller Detroit-based manufacturers through the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Factories moved to the Detroit burbs and elsewhere in an increasingly regional/continent-wide distribution network - now one with fewer well-paying middle-management jobs and eventually substantially fewer jobs altogether thanks to automation and further international competition by the 1970s and 1980s. In short, Detroit was increasingly not actually the source of manufacturing, however the city was still a huge labour pool to support the suburban industrial processes, many of which still exist today but with a fraction of their original jobs.

Detroit also then layered on the typical American city approach at the time - tear down functioning neighbourhoods to build giant expressways all throughout the city thanks to cheap federal loans. Being the car industry headquarters certainly didn't lead to much meaningful resistance. This had the same effects as elsewhere - remove economically productive areas to be highways, destabilize neighbourhoods along the way.

White Flight
Industrial disruption and federally-backed suburbanization/highway schemes were all well underway before the "white flight" began in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. As for "white flight", I think Canadians underestimate how structural racism was in American at that time in impacting these processes. Populations were rapidly growing in Detroit and it's suburban cities throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but black populations were deliberately (and sometimes violently) blocked from accessing many neighbourhoods through violence, red-lining and restrictions on zoning that prevented sufficient housing.

This and other broader factors led to - and at at risk of dramatically over-simplifying - lots of drama. Detroit saw lots of drama ensured for decades - riots, strikes, racialized violence etc. This cumulated into the 1967 Detroit riots that killed around 50 people and destroyed thousands of businesses. This was no small riot - one of the largest in American history at that time. This was a critical blow and really turned a downturn, into a nose-dive for Detroit - literally hundreds of thousands of people left the city within a few years after, mostly white but some black population too. Collapse of tax base = worse services = less competitive = more people leaving = further collapse in tax base.

Meanwhile, the Detroit region's untouchable economy finally hit the brakes shortly after in the 1970s and 1980s with increasing foreign competition, oil price increases, and the first post-war recessionary periods began. This really meant any urban recovery that was already unlikely, became impossible. The Detroit region continued on with more modest prospects - lots of jobs, produces lots of cars, but it's all incremental growth now. The region is no longer playing the booming economic role that it played for nearly a 75 years in America.

So is Calgary = Detroit? No - it's not possible. While there's lots to learn about discriminatory zoning, industrial job locations, and inter-city competition here, the specific context of Detroit in that time is so vastly different to processes that occurred in our city (and most others for that matter).

If not Detroit, then who? What is Calgary the next version of?
A better example of a "is Calgary turning out like the next _____" is Winnipeg. It's far less dramatic of a place, but has more of the structural similarities and for many decades was Canada's 4th largest city, a role we are now firmly in. Similarities:

• Canadian development context
• Main or major gateway city to the prairies, destined to be the "next big city" (Winnipeg = pre-1915 era, Calgary = 2000 - present)
• Concentration into a few major economic sectors (Winnipeg = logistics, trade and railways, Calgary = oil and gas)
• At risk of major disruption (Winnipeg = Panama Canal opening; Calgary = decarbonization and increasing competition from non-fossil fuels)
• Large obsolete monuments to the era when city was booming (Winnipeg = Exchange district of cool art-deco warehouses; Calgary = 1980s - 2010s tall shiny office blocks)

What happened to Winnipeg is it lost it's competitive edge when the Panama Canal opened and it became increasingly easy to ship to the west coast rather than back east. The prairie population boom turned into a bust as rural populations peaked in the early 1900s and it turns out the prairies were never going to see the kinds of population density that was expected (and Winnipeg would never benefit from being the major city servicing a region of millions and millions of people).

The result a prologued, boring, slow-growth phase, but not a collapse - Winnipeg is big enough to keep on moving along regardless. If someone is a pessimist for Calgary's future, that boring, slower, more stagnant scenario is far more likely than outright collapse like Detroit. Not as exciting, but not bad by global standards for the "pessimistic" outcome.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Apologies for a long one, this is an interesting topic for me.

Cars & Highways
I don't think the "white flight" and industrial relocation were as tightly correlated in the way you are suggesting. They occurred within roughly the same time periods but were brought on by somewhat disconnected processes. Like everything it's partially connected, but not tightly causal as you implied.

The automotive storyline is one of consolidation, automation and union/corporate power shifting 1900s - 1970s. The outcome of that was corporate power consolidated into the "big three" which destroyed smaller Detroit-based manufacturers through the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Factories moved to the Detroit burbs and elsewhere in an increasingly regional/continent-wide distribution network - now one with fewer well-paying middle-management jobs and eventually substantially fewer jobs altogether thanks to automation and further international competition by the 1970s and 1980s. In short, Detroit was increasingly not actually the source of manufacturing, however the city was still a huge labour pool to support the suburban industrial processes, many of which still exist today but with a fraction of their original jobs.

Agreed, it's a bunch factors tied together, I probably should have worded it differently, as not being the main cause, but a quicker cause than many other cities. The race riots of 67 was the event that had the most impact, with almost 200,000 leaving over a two year period, but a number plants opening in the 50's caused a lot of jobs to move. There's a documentary out there somewhere (I can't find it) that talks about how the opening of all the new plants in the 50's was a trigger for the movement. Plants had been built in suburbs in the 30's and 40's also, but there were quite a few popping up in the 50's.
White flight would have happened either way, but Detroit got a head start on most cities. There's another doc out there somewhere that interviews some older auto workers who left the city in the 50's. Basically they didn't want to drive back and forth to their jobs so it was easier to move.
After the riots the flight kept going, and even had a short spike after 2000 when working for the city of Detroit no longer required having to live there. So many contributing factors though, it makes for an interesting topic.

 

[DougB]

There were two main factors for Detroit's drop, and neither really have much, if anything to do with Calgary.
- The auto companies all moved out to the burbs taking the tax dollars and workers with them. They needed to expand manufacturing and Detroit proper didn't have space, plus the taxes were cheaper.
- White flight was a big part of it also, but the catalyst for white flight was the auto makers moving to the burbs. As white people left to live and work in the burbs it fueled more white people leaving. The race riots increased white flight rates, with 173,000 whites leaving in a two year period after the riots.

American automakers stumbled hugely in the 70s and 80s, losing market share to competitors with more fuel efficient products. Prior to the OPEC embargo, few drivers considered fuel economy. The auto industry also had to deal with new emissions and safety requirements as well as militant unions. Their unpreparedness for all of the above resulted in plant closures and workforce reductions.

 

[DougB]

Apologies for a long one, this is an interesting topic for me.

Cars & Highways
I don't think the "white flight" and industrial relocation were as tightly correlated in the way you are suggesting. They occurred within roughly the same time periods but were brought on by somewhat disconnected processes. Like everything it's partially connected, but not tightly causal as you implied.

The automotive storyline is one of consolidation, automation and union/corporate power shifting 1900s - 1970s. The outcome of that was corporate power consolidated into the "big three" which destroyed smaller Detroit-based manufacturers through the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Factories moved to the Detroit burbs and elsewhere in an increasingly regional/continent-wide distribution network - now one with fewer well-paying middle-management jobs and eventually substantially fewer jobs altogether thanks to automation and further international competition by the 1970s and 1980s. In short, Detroit was increasingly not actually the source of manufacturing, however the city was still a huge labour pool to support the suburban industrial processes, many of which still exist today but with a fraction of their original jobs.

Detroit also then layered on the typical American city approach at the time - tear down functioning neighbourhoods to build giant expressways all throughout the city thanks to cheap federal loans. Being the car industry headquarters certainly didn't lead to much meaningful resistance. This had the same effects as elsewhere - remove economically productive areas to be highways, destabilize neighbourhoods along the way.

White Flight
Industrial disruption and federally-backed suburbanization/highway schemes were all well underway before the "white flight" began in earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. As for "white flight", I think Canadians underestimate how structural racism was in American at that time in impacting these processes. Populations were rapidly growing in Detroit and it's suburban cities throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but black populations were deliberately (and sometimes violently) blocked from accessing many neighbourhoods through violence, red-lining and restrictions on zoning that prevented sufficient housing.

This and other broader factors led to - and at at risk of dramatically over-simplifying - lots of drama. Detroit saw lots of drama ensured for decades - riots, strikes, racialized violence etc. This cumulated into the 1967 Detroit riots that killed around 50 people and destroyed thousands of businesses. This was no small riot - one of the largest in American history at that time. This was a critical blow and really turned a downturn, into a nose-dive for Detroit - literally hundreds of thousands of people left the city within a few years after, mostly white but some black population too. Collapse of tax base = worse services = less competitive = more people leaving = further collapse in tax base.

Meanwhile, the Detroit region's untouchable economy finally hit the brakes shortly after in the 1970s and 1980s with increasing foreign competition, oil price increases, and the first post-war recessionary periods began. This really meant any urban recovery that was already unlikely, became impossible. The Detroit region continued on with more modest prospects - lots of jobs, produces lots of cars, but it's all incremental growth now. The region is no longer playing the booming economic role that it played for nearly a 75 years in America.

So is Calgary = Detroit? No - it's not possible. While there's lots to learn about discriminatory zoning, industrial job locations, and inter-city competition here, the specific context of Detroit in that time is so vastly different to processes that occurred in our city (and most others for that matter).

If not Detroit, then who? What is Calgary the next version of?
A better example of a "is Calgary turning out like the next _____" is Winnipeg. It's far less dramatic of a place, but has more of the structural similarities and for many decades was Canada's 4th largest city, a role we are now firmly in. Similarities:

• Canadian development context
• Main or major gateway city to the prairies, destined to be the "next big city" (Winnipeg = pre-1915 era, Calgary = 2000 - present)
• Concentration into a few major economic sectors (Winnipeg = logistics, trade and railways, Calgary = oil and gas)
• At risk of major disruption (Winnipeg = Panama Canal opening; Calgary = decarbonization and increasing competition from non-fossil fuels)
• Large obsolete monuments to the era when city was booming (Winnipeg = Exchange district of cool art-deco warehouses; Calgary = 1980s - 2010s tall shiny office blocks)

What happened to Winnipeg is it lost it's competitive edge when the Panama Canal opened and it became increasingly easy to ship to the west coast rather than back east. The prairie population boom turned into a bust as rural populations peaked in the early 1900s and it turns out the prairies were never going to see the kinds of population density that was expected (and Winnipeg would never benefit from being the major city servicing a region of millions and millions of people).

The result a prologued, boring, slow-growth phase, but not a collapse - Winnipeg is big enough to keep on moving along regardless. If someone is a pessimist for Calgary's future, that boring, slower, more stagnant scenario is far more likely than outright collapse like Detroit. Not as exciting, but not bad by global standards for the "pessimistic" outcome.

Couldn't disagree more. The better models would be other self invented cities like Denver or Dallas that have supplemented their resource based economies with transportation and logistics, tech and business services. Calgary is what it is due entirely to entrepreneurism. As long as it continues to attract ambitious and talented people, it will thrive. It's biggest challenge is not historical ties to oil and gas, but disfunctional federal politics.

 

[darwink]

Denver’s aerospace industry was invented in Washington DC to get ICBM manufacturing away from the coast/a port city. It advanced alongside with metallurgy and nuclear manufacturing due to a nuclear weapon component manufacturing plant built there for a similar reasons: relative isolation but accessible location for making high security high value components which weighed very little.

for each you get suppliers, and regular workforce turnover which creates their own weather.

Can do a lot when tons of outside cash is being dumped into the economy every year. Whether from exports of commodities or sale of very specialized thingies.

In the Canadian context there is nothing the federal government is doing to block similar things. The sooner this myth dies the better. Because pollievre won’t be able to demonstrate doing less blocking. and the myth is more about defeatism than anything.

 

[trtcttc]

Calgary's employed workforce grew by 100K from 2016 -> 2024 going from 699K -> 799K, while oil and gas has shrunk from 56K -> 42K in that same period.

Oil/Gas/Mining 56K -> 42K
Manufacturing from 41K -> 46K
Trade 92K -> 108K
Transportation and Warehousing 45K -> 58K
Finance Insurance Real Estate 42K -> 53K
Technical and Professional scientific 84K -> 100K
Accommodation and food services 34K -> 47K
Educational service 40K -> 54K
Health Care / social assistance 72K -> 89K
Construction 82K -> 60K

Although Technical and Profession Scientific probably includes a few other field, I was under the impression most of this is O&G related employment?

If not Detroit, then who? What is Calgary the next version of?
A better example of a "is Calgary turning out like the next _____" is Winnipeg. It's far less dramatic of a place, but has more of the structural similarities and for many decades was Canada's 4th largest city, a role we are now firmly in. Similarities:

• Canadian development context
• Main or major gateway city to the prairies, destined to be the "next big city" (Winnipeg = pre-1915 era, Calgary = 2000 - present)
• Concentration into a few major economic sectors (Winnipeg = logistics, trade and railways, Calgary = oil and gas)
• At risk of major disruption (Winnipeg = Panama Canal opening; Calgary = decarbonization and increasing competition from non-fossil fuels)
• Large obsolete monuments to the era when city was booming (Winnipeg = Exchange district of cool art-deco warehouses; Calgary = 1980s - 2010s tall shiny office blocks)

What happened to Winnipeg is it lost it's competitive edge when the Panama Canal opened and it became increasingly easy to ship to the west coast rather than back east. The prairie population boom turned into a bust as rural populations peaked in the early 1900s and it turns out the prairies were never going to see the kinds of population density that was expected (and Winnipeg would never benefit from being the major city servicing a region of millions and millions of people).

The result a prologued, boring, slow-growth phase, but not a collapse - Winnipeg is big enough to keep on moving along regardless. If someone is a pessimist for Calgary's future, that boring, slower, more stagnant scenario is far more likely than outright collapse like Detroit. Not as exciting, but not bad by global standards for the "pessimistic" outcome.

I'm curious how much of that is due to sudden shocks that permanently changed the transportation industry. I'm not familiar with Winnipeg, but the Panama Canal opening would've been a sudden shift which starves investment and tax dollars for expansion. The predicted decline (O&G output has grown continuously even during "bust" years) of the energy industry will likely be a slow one, unless we magically discover energy fusion at scale. We already see the city (overall not necessarily city hall) doing a good job diversifying. Not to mention the affordability context which will help us attract young people and entrepreneurs priced out of Vancouver and Toronto.

 

[CBBarnett]

I'm curious how much of that is due to sudden shocks that permanently changed the transportation industry. I'm not familiar with Winnipeg, but the Panama Canal opening would've been a sudden shift which starves investment and tax dollars for expansion. The predicted decline (O&G output has grown continuously even during "bust" years) of the energy industry will likely be a slow one, unless we magically discover energy fusion at scale. We already see the city (overall not necessarily city hall) doing a good job diversifying. Not to mention the affordability context which will help us attract young people and entrepreneurs priced out of Vancouver and Toronto.

One point I am trying to make is that it's incredibly unlikely a Detroit-style collapse would happen in Calgary (or any Canadian city). Winnipeg's "decline" in a sense was not a real drop in anything. Just a relatively decline in importance and growth compared to others. The impact of an event like the Panama Canal opening was gradual too. The city never stopped growing, producing more jobs and economic activity, it just failed to live up to the lofty expectations on growth it once had.

That's a possible scenario for Calgary. A short or long relative decline in a lucrative primary industry would have some dragging effect on growth and expectations. Will we stop growing? Probably not. Could we slow our growth to be less than others and lose relative competitiveness? Possibly, but even that is hard to say. Our current boom has the least to do with oil and gas of any boom we've ever had, and is mostly fueled by high levels of immigration and relative affordability.

Any of these factors can change quite quickly and unpredictably - affordability evaporates, immigration policy dramatically shifts, oil and gas stops markets shift wildly etc. But that still doesn't set us up for a Detroit-style collapse. We are a pretty big place with substantial economic diversity already.

I can see two bookend scenarios for Calgary:

1. Stick on a more rapid growth trajectory for a long while - fueled by favourable affordability, expansionist immigration policies, and a strong and increasingly diversified economy (Canada's big 3 cities become Canada's big 4 as rapid growth pushes Calgary to increasingly act like a major metropolitan hub)
2. Soft-land into a slower growth trajectory eventually - major industry/economic headwinds, isolationist provincial policies and reduced immigration (growth continues, but we no longer keep up with the big metros and end up acting like a large mid-tier, regional city)

Reality is likely somewhere in between either scenario. It's a boring answer I think!

 

[Surrealplaces]

American automakers stumbled hugely in the 70s and 80s, losing market share to competitors with more fuel efficient products. Prior to the OPEC embargo, few drivers considered fuel economy. The auto industry also had to deal with new emissions and safety requirements as well as militant unions. Their unpreparedness for all of the above resulted in plant closures and workforce reductions.

Definitely part if it also, plus race issues were still a big thing in the 70’s.and white flight was still happening.
Detroit’s issues really started in the 40’s with a population peak was 1950 and was all downhill from there.
It’s hard to pinpoint one reason, but if I had to sum it up I would say it was a combination of auto industry moving jobs + auto industry loss of jobs (from automation and competition), race issues, and political factors (bulldozing slums, corruption, restrictive covenants.

This article has a pretty good run down of all the issues.

 

[Cowtown]

I don’t remember this article, but I can’t count how many times over the past 20 years I’ve heard someone say Calgary will be the next Detroit. Lol
Anyone with an ounce of brain power knew it wouldn’t and still won’t.

 

[Surrealplaces]

One point I am trying to make is that it's incredibly unlikely a Detroit-style collapse would happen in Calgary (or any Canadian city). Winnipeg's "decline" in a sense was not a real drop in anything. Just a relatively decline in importance and growth compared to others. The impact of an event like the Panama Canal opening was gradual too. The city never stopped growing, producing more jobs and economic activity, it just failed to live up to the lofty expectations on growth it once had.

That's a possible scenario for Calgary. A short or long relative decline in a lucrative primary industry would have some dragging effect on growth and expectations. Will we stop growing? Probably not. Could we slow our growth to be less than others and lose relative competitiveness? Possibly, but even that is hard to say. Our current boom has the least to do with oil and gas of any boom we've ever had, and is mostly fueled by high levels of immigration and relative affordability.

Any of these factors can change quite quickly and unpredictably - affordability evaporates, immigration policy dramatically shifts, oil and gas stops markets shift wildly etc. But that still doesn't set us up for a Detroit-style collapse. We are a pretty big place with substantial economic diversity already.

I can see two bookend scenarios for Calgary:

1. Stick on a more rapid growth trajectory for a long while - fueled by favourable affordability, expansionist immigration policies, and a strong and increasingly diversified economy (Canada's big 3 cities become Canada's big 4 as rapid growth pushes Calgary to increasingly act like a major metropolitan hub)
2. Soft-land into a slower growth trajectory eventually - major industry/economic headwinds, isolationist provincial policies and reduced immigration (growth continues, but we no longer keep up with the big metros and end up acting like a large mid-tier, regional city)

Reality is likely somewhere in between either scenario. It's a boring answer I think!

That's a good way to put it. Worst case scenario is Calgary ends up like a Winnipeg, or Hamilton, maybe a Windsor, etc.. which is not a bad scenario, and certainly light years away from the next Detroit. I think Calgary will end up more like a Denver Dallas or Houston, where a skilled labour + highly educated pool helped those cities diversify into more than just a resource city. The skilled labour , higher educated workforce is something that cities like Winnipeg, Windsor, Pittsburgh, St Louis etc.. didn't have.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Although Technical and Profession Scientific probably includes a few other field, I was under the impression most of this is O&G related employment?

The 42K figure already includes people who work indirectly for the industry (how that breaks down exactly, I'm not sure). I recall seeing that the number of people who work directly for an oil or gas company is not very high...something like 12K. (maybe someone can confirm this) The numbers do get blurred as many companies that do technical and professional scientific work do it for both oil and gas and other non oil and gas companies. We also have a number of people from Oil and Gas IT/HR/Purchasing/Accounting that were outsourced, but still do work for that same company or other oil companies. Add in the fact that we had a number of HO jobs outsourced out of the city or country. There's jobs in Education and Health etc.. that are tied to the general population and thus partly dependent on Oil and gas. The tracking of who works where and what percentage is tied to oil and gas would be difficult to pin down.

For me it's more about the trend. Out of all the murkiness, it comes down to the fact that Calgary added 100K (699K-799K) in new jobs over the period of2016-2024, while oil and gas jobs had dropped in that period. Those people who were outsourced in that period are still part of the original 699K and were not part of the additional 100,000 jobs. You then factor in some of the outsourcing to other cities or countries and those 100k new jobs look pretty impressive.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Although Technical and Profession Scientific probably includes a few other field, I was under the impression most of this is O&G related employment?

The 42K figure already includes people who work indirectly for the industry (how that breaks down exactly, I'm not sure). I recall seeing that the number of people who work directly for an oil or gas company is not very high...something like 12K. (maybe someone can confirm this) The numbers do get blurred as many companies that do technical and professional scientific work do it for both oil and gas and other non oil and gas companies. We also have a number of people from Oil and Gas IT/HR/Purchasing/Accounting that were outsourced, but still do work for that same company or other oil companies. Add in the fact that we had a number of HO jobs outsourced out of the city or country. There's jobs in Education and Health etc.. that are tied to the general population and thus partly dependent on Oil and gas. The tracking of who works where and what percentage is tied to oil and gas would be difficult to pin down.

For me it's more about the trend. Out of all the murkiness, it comes down to the fact that Calgary added 100K (699K-799K) in new jobs over the period of2016-2024, while oil and gas jobs had dropped in that period. Those people who were outsourced in that period are still part of the original 699K and were not part of the additional 100,000 jobs. You then factor in some of the outsourcing to other cities or countries and those 100k new jobs look pretty impressive.

Okay, I did the deep dive into this. The most detailed industry breakdowns available at the CMA level (304 different industry groups) provide more detail than the higher level summaries often given, which provides a clearer picture of the oilpatch employment. The definition can get as blurry as you want -- what about the company that caters staff meetings at an oil company? what about a place in the food court in The Bow? what about the pizza that an oil worker orders in? what about the bar that the pizza delivery guy goes to after shift to spend the tip the oil worker gave them? I'm trying to be as straight-line as possible; who is working pretty directly on oil & gas exploitation?

There's five specific industries that are clearly oilpatch -- the majority of the mining workers are in a subcategory "2111 Oil and gas extraction" and "2131 Support activities for mining, and oil and gas extraction" (think wellsite servicers and the like. There's also an industry within the wholesale group specifically for petroleum and petroleum products; as well as two industries in the transportation sector representing crude oil and natural gas pipeline transportation. (The four digit numbers refer to the NAICS standard, which has more detail. Each additional digit represents more detail; the first two I mentioned are both within 21 - "Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction", for example.)

But there's another four industries where there's likely a fair number of direct oilpatch workers, but not all of the workers in the industry are actually going to be oilpatch workers. Two of them are in the Professional, scientific and technical services group; the big one being "5413 Architectural, engineering and related services". (I'm going to call this engineering services for short.) Lots of engineering firms doing oilpatch work, not to mention geophysical services and surveying which are also in this group. But, of course, this forum shows that there are lots of architects and engineers designing stuff that isn't oilpatch infrastructure.

So what I did was to calculate a series of synthetic benchmarks; for instance, if you add up the professional services workers in Halifax, Montréal, Québec, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, about 15% of the workers in this group are in engineering services. In Calgary, it's 27%. That implies that about 12% of the professional services workers are "excess" workers that by implication are probably oilpatch workers. Here's the different professional services groups, with six different synthetic benchmarks (looking at different groups of cities, comparing to different totals; the details aren't important) and the actual Calgary employment:

The different benchmarks produce 12-16K workers in engineering services, and Calgary has almost 25K. So that's a substantial excess on the order of 12K. There's also an excess in group 5416 management, scientific and technical consulting services -- which includes environmental consulting services. Probably a few thousand excess workers there.

Obviously there's some uncertainty here; it's actually almost certainly a high estimate given that Calgary also has a more active construction industry than other CMAs (about 8.4% of workers vs about 6.5% of workers in other CMAs) and presumably some of that excess of engineers and architects are serving our busy construction industry. But I suspect it's largely counterbalanced by the legal, accounting/finance and computer systems firms who are also employed by oilpatch companies. (I did a similar calculation for Edmonton; there it's definitely an overestimate because Edmonton has even more construction workers - 10.1% - and doesn't have nearly the head office presence, which is who contracts the technical services. Even if a refinery in Sherwood Park blows up, the lawyers sue the Calgary head office.)

The other two industries where I calculated excess workers are: utility system construction (which includes both the "normal" construction of electrical, sewer and water facilities, but also of oil and gas pipelines, as well as related facilities like pumping stations and refineries), and petroleum and coal product manufacturing (which includes "oilpatch" refining and cracking, but also "normal" things like asphalt paving and roofing materials and motor oil recycling).

I did this for both Calgary and Edmonton, which have very different structures to their oilpatch segments. And I did it for both 2021 and 2006 to get a sense of the longer-term trend. My estimate is that the oilpatch workers have gone from around 67K to 60K (from 10.3% to 7.3% of all workers) here, and the number of oilpatch workers are fairly stable around 35K in Edmonton (dropping from 5.8% to 4.6% of all workers).

Here's a brightly coloured chart showing the different groups:

And a table with all of the details in it:

 

[Surrealplaces]

Thanks for that in-depth analysis @ByeByeBaby. This is great insight into the industry and its trends. Aside from the benefit of more accurate info, it more or less re-enforces that the economy is becoming less reliant on oil and gas. It's still the biggest single industry, but Calgary isn't as reliant as many think. I always hear numbers thrown around like 'Half of Calgary's jobs rely on oil and gas', etc.

One thing I'm curious about is the trend from 2016 to 2021. Up to 2014/15 I can't help but wonder if the industry was still growing up to that point. That's kind of when the wheels fell off, and there were mass layoffs. It'll be very interesting to see in the next census where things are. The oil industry has been busy since 2021, but we keep seeing lots of layoffs. Enbridge, Suncor and TC all had big layoffs this past year.

 

[darwink]

Up to 2014/15 I can't help but wonder if the industry was still growing up to that point.

Took time to finish the last oil sands mega projects and refinery builds authorized before the price collapse.

There was always going to be a decline in new projects, even before widening differentials costs were knocking up against project economics. Then shale enabled companies to be going concerns under accounting rules without actively being in the oil sands and it made no sense for companies with no near term interest in developing to have leases and Alberta footprints.