"Cataclysmic Year"

[Hamloc]

Reading in the national post and the Royal Bank of Scotland is advising it's investors that stock markets could lose up to 20% of their value and WTI crude could bottom out at 16 USD. It is going to be a "cataclysmic year" according to the bank. The last time the banks outlook was this negative was before the Lehman crisis in 2008.

On a lighter note I was reading in the star the former Dragon Kevin O'Leary in a radio interview was begging Premier Notley to resign. He said he would invest 1 million in energy if she would quit. He feels her government is a disaster and her policies are costing Canada thousands of jobs. I can't say that I always agreed with his viewpoint but this did make me smile:-)

[sumdumguy]

This is not the first time oil tanked. The oil economy is the most volatile, cyclical industries on the planet and banks should know that. Agriculture not far behind. In our farming lives, we saw $100 land go to $1300, back to $700 then $300, up again to $1000 and then $2500. Quite a range in forty years, I'd say.

[binthere]

thats funny. i did not know notley was telling the saudis to sell oil at rock bottom prices.

[15444]

Ready for the reset button. Wish they would just push it already. Maybe waiting for spring - better time of year for evictions and foreclosures?

[TOM4CWB]

OUCH...... .7003 the low... so far this morning,,,

USD/CAD Technical Analysis: Multiple Major Targets Hit This Morning
DailyFX By Tyler Yell, CMT
1 hour ago


Talking Points:

USD/CAD Technical Strategy: On Hold after 3 Upside Targets Were Hit
1.4275 Was a Key Upside Level That Was Taken Out on January 12, ST Downside in Focus
1.3811 January 4th Low to Act as Swing Support
The move in USD/CAD since July ‘14 has been in lockstep with the move lower in WTI Crude Oil. The recent ascent from May of 2015 has seen few retracements as it marched toward levels not seen since 2003. Now, Oil is approaching a key level of $30/bbl, which may find some support and the CAD-negative sentiment remains stretched. Looking across the board, it seems like USDCAD has little intention of slowing down whether looking at momentum via RSI, Crowd Sentiment Continues to Favor USD/CAD Gains, or trend following indicators like moving averages. On the sentiment chart below, you will also notice how stretched sentiment has become as traders have tried to push this pair lower in a futile manner.

USD/CAD Speculative Sentiment Index as of 1/12/2016

View gallery
.USD/CAD Technical Analysis: Multiple Major Targets Hit This Morning
However, we have hit three separate targets at the 1.4265/75 zone, which keep us on the lookout of a reversal. A reversal is rare, and often it is best to expect the extension as opposed to a reversal. The reversal can be short-term or long-term in nature, but either way, it would be difficult to get excited about CAD strength if USD-CAD remains above 1.3800. By focusing on the 1.3800 support level, we can take ourselves out of the 81% of retail traders fighting this move. Specifically, the most important support is the January/ YTD low of 1.3811 that was also the December 28 low. Because USDCAD has been in a 1.38/1.40 range for three weeks, we can look to that sideways move as a correction suggesting the trend is resuming impulsively higher again. When a trend is as strong as USD/CAD has been, we want a safe distance between spot and a key support level so that we’re not sucked into selling a small dip in a strong uptrend.

The zone of 1.4265/75 combines three upside trend-targets that were hit his morning and is why you may be picking up a twinge of hesitation in my voice about upside continuation. We shared with you the targets at 1.4265/75 recently. 1.4265/75 is the top of the channel drawn from the late August high and is 100% of the initial move off the mid-May low projected higher from 1.2831. Additionally, a key Elliott Wave Target was hit, where wave ‘i’ and wave ‘v’ are equal, which is shown via the Fibonacci retracement tool added to the chart drawn from the YTD low of 1.3811. Not wanting to fight a trend, and not wanting to buy a trend can happen simultaneously, and if you don’t have exposure on USDCAD upside now, it’s likely too expensive to start.

I will leave you with a quote from Howard Marks of OakTree Capital

“No asset is so good that it can’t become a bad investment if bought at too high a price. And there are few assets so bad that they can’t be a good investment when bought cheap enough.”

[TOM4CWB]

This has not happened in Canada YET... but isn't far off... especially here in Alberta...

Further news on US water issues...

"WOTUS Rule Outlook
Legal Fight Creates Uncertainty, Delays

Todd Neeley DTN Staff Reporter
Bio | Email
Tue Jan 12, 2016 06:44 AM CST
OMAHA (DTN) -- As more than 30 states, numerous agricultural and other industry groups launched a multi-faceted legal battle in 2015 to turn back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, the little-discussed reality is the rule could be fully implemented long before a court addresses the law's validity.

American Farm Bureau Federation has cautioned farmers to be careful when using sprayers and spreaders near water. With the new WOTUS rule, farmers run the risk of triggering a discharge into waters of the United States even while engaging in exempted ag activities. (DTN/The Progressive Farmer file photo by Jim Patrico)
The chances of changing the rule in 2016 may seem akin to picking the right lottery numbers because a presidential election year likely stands in the way of Congress fixing the rule defining jurisdictional waters.

The waters of the United States rule redefines waters considered to be jurisdictional through the Clean Water Act. It was designed to provide more detail and clarity as to which waters may be subject to federal permitting.

Agriculture groups pushed for a legislative fix in 2015, but the efforts were unsuccessful in the face of a politically charged environment and a presidential administration standing firmly behind the rule.

If it ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, it could be eight to 10 years before it is resolved, said Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. "If the agency is able to implement the rule by then, think of the damage it causes. It is why we pushed to make Congress fix it."

There are some 50 to 100 parties involved in multiple lawsuits. A district court in North Dakota last year rebuked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ahead of granting a stay to 13 states to prevent the rule's implementation. That was followed by a national stay issued by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio -- all in an effort just to determine jurisdiction.

This warns of how long it could take to go through the legal fights: The courts consumed nearly half of 2015 only on the question of jurisdiction and not on the legal merits of the rule -- something that will be far more complex.

Courts already have declared the rule may be illegal in a variety of rulings issued last year, though judges' comments were made as part of rulings that had nothing to do with the actual legal merits of the rule.

"If the Sixth Circuit decides that it has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the claims, it will most likely keep the national stay (on the rule) in place --- through most, if not all, of 2016 until the cases are completely disposed of," said Paul Beard, a Clean Water Act attorney with Alston and Bird, LLP based in Los Angeles, who successfully argued a wetlands permits case before the United States Supreme Court.

ISSUES AT HAND

The issues argued in court center primarily on whether EPA violated the Administrative Procedures Act in developing the rule. The high court may at some point be asked to focus on broader constitutional questions with the Clean Water Act.

Although the legal fight appears to be long-term, Beard said the Supreme Court might consider a petition for certiorari even this year to hear the case. Although the waters of the United States rule may be of national importance, the odds are long for the Supreme Court to agree to hear cases. According to Findlaw.com the Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for certiorari every year, but only hears about 80 of them.

"The WOTUS rule has a better-than-average chance of getting to the Supreme Court," Beard said. "The reason is that the rule has significant, national implications for every landowner in the country. The issues the court might consider include whether the Clean Water Act authorizes the rule -- and, if so, whether the act exceeds Congress' powers under the commerce clause. It is conceivable that the court could consider a petition to the challenge in its 2016-2017 term -- even in the fall of 2016."

There also may be procedural issues about how the Corps and EPA formulated and adopted the rule, he said. That could dispose of the legal challenge "even without any consideration of the substantive merits" of the rule, Beard said.

PROTECTING FARMERS, RANCHERS

Perhaps the best tact farmers and ranchers can take is to assume the new rule already is in effect. This means landowners should seek professional advice on what may or may not be considered waters of the United States on their land.

Officials with the American Farm Bureau Federation told DTN/Progressive Farmer they are telling members to pay particularly close attention to three areas of concern with the rule.

That includes being careful when using sprayers and spreaders near water. With the new rule, farmers run the risk of triggering a discharge into waters of the United States even while engaging in exempted ag activities.

Second, EPA has implied agriculture exemptions are limitless, but AFBF officials say they are specific. Corps agents from district to district can interpret exemptions differently than their counterparts. For example, the new rule exempts plowing in the upper 12-inch root zone. Even that can be questioned by the agency, AFBF's Parrish said.

Third, farmers can be subject to the Clean Water Act if they change land use in any way. The new rule leaves wiggle room for federal agencies to interpret actions taken on the farm.

For example, if a producer changes crops from wheat to corn production on a tract of land, federal agencies may interpret and have interpreted that as a change in land use subject to CWA determinations.

Another concern is even if farmers invest in professional engineers to complete Clean Water Act determinations they are good for just five years -- increasing the long-term costs to do business on the farm.

"We would probably encourage producers to know before they ask (federal agencies)," Parrish said. "Call some consultants -- although it is not cheap."

Beard said it is imperative to resolve the legal status of the Clean Water Act.

"The state of the act is in disarray," he said. "The most important aspect of that law -- which waters are actually covered -- is utterly confused and mired in a major legal battle. The act fails adequately to define the limits of the Corps' and EPA's jurisdiction, let alone in a constitutionally sufficient way -- i.e., within the bounds of the commerce clause. Taking advantage of the vagaries of the statute, the agencies bestowed upon themselves substantial discretion to decide, on a case-by-case basis, which waters they'd assert jurisdiction over and which they wouldn't."

Farmers, ranchers and other landowners, Beard said, "must tread very carefully" to minimize their exposure to the Clean Water Act.

In some cases, he said, a landowner could benefit from a jurisdictional determination from the Corps. "In every case, if there is even the slightest doubt, the landowner should consult a land-use attorney specializing in Clean Water Act permitting," Beard said.

If the new rule is allowed to stand, he said future administrations may be left to clarify jurisdictional waters.

"This, of course, would require a new administration that is significantly more sensitive to the limitations set forth in the Constitution and the act itself," Beard said, "as well as the impacts of regulation on farmers, ranchers and other landowners."

Danielle Quist, senior counsel for public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said a close examination of Clean Water Act enforcement in the years to come will reveal more about how the new rule affects private property owners.

"With enforcement actions and permits we'll see what words mean," she said. "In the end the government decides jurisdiction. Take a look at the activities. With the uncertainty of it all farmers can't plan. It is a broad and vague rule."

Outgoing AFBF President Bob Stallman didn't mince words when he spoke about the WOTUS rule in his final address Jan. 10 to members at the annual convention being held in Orlando, Florida. He called it "one of the worst examples of over-regulation."

"When rainwater runs across a farm field is all it takes to allow federal agencies to tell you that you cannot use your land, that is government regulation run amok," Stallman said.

To see how one California farmer has been affected by the Clean Water Act and ended up in multiple federal lawsuits, check out http://bit.ly/….

**

[TOM4CWB]

UNFATHOMABLE...

""When rainwater runs across a farm field is all it takes to allow federal agencies to tell you that you cannot use your land, that is government regulation run amok," Stallman said. "

AND WE THINK WE HAVE PROBLEMS...

Outgoing AFBF President Bob Stallman didn't mince words when he spoke about the WOTUS rule in his final address Jan. 10 to members at the annual convention being held in Orlando, Florida. He called it "one of the worst examples of over-regulation."

"When rainwater runs across a farm field is all it takes to allow federal agencies to tell you that you cannot use your land, that is government regulation run amok," Stallman said.

To see how one California farmer has been affected by the Clean Water Act and ended up in multiple federal lawsuits, check out http://bit.ly/…

SEE THE TOPIC here BELOW
vernal pools that collect water a few times a year..."wetlands"

[TOM4CWB]

This low spot in a California wheat field... is at issue in a law case against this farmer by the US federal Gov.

<a href="http://s142.photobucket.com/user/tom4cwb/media/Calif%20wheat%20Field%20wetland_zpsljtjpijz.jpg.ht ml" target="_blank"><img src="http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/tom4cwb/Calif%20wheat%20Field%20wetland_zpsljtjpijz.jpg" border="0" alt="Wetland in Wheat Field California 2016 photo Calif wheat Field wetland_zpsljtjpijz.jpg"/></a>