'Big Oil' can't threat

[ddj]

I thought each of you would be interested in hearing that the press releases by oil and gas companies are not necessarily “threats”, as coined by the media, but rather a regulatory requirement under National Instrument 52-101 “Continuous Disclosure Obligations” as published and enforced by the Canadian Securities Administrators

http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/...02_con-dis.pdf

In addition, COMPANION POLICY 52-101CPTO NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 52-101 FUTURE-ORIENTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION governs the disclosure requirements of publicly-traded companies, specifically growth prospects and capital spending http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/...52-101_pcp.jsp

I recognize that many, including myself, originally thought these press releases were political posturing…and some companiesmay in fact be using them for dual purposes. However, the media’s use of “threats” ismisleading… by the very same rules, companies are obligated to update their forecasts and future actions, based on a variety of outcomes… it’s the law…it’s about fulfilling a governance requirement and the obligation to disclosure… a important point that is easily overlooked.

The media has INCORRECTLY identified these press releases as threats, when in fact companies/officers/directors must issue the press release to the public as to the effect of pending legislation or proposalsmay have on their previously released guidance. If they don’t, they run the risk of being sued and being held personally liable for not properly disclosing the impact a change may have on their business.

[ddj]

Isn't it funny how everyone is told by the media that these are threats and there is no way big oil will pull out of Alberta. Follow this link to a Big Oil company who hasn't threatened us but actually did it without waiting for the review
http://www.quattroenergy.ca./Crescent%20Point.pdf

[ben voyonsdonc]

Could you please re-format your post? As it stands, it is virtually incomprehensible.

[ddj]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Could you please re-format your post? As it stands, it is virtually incomprehensible.

Sorry That better

[ben voyonsdonc]

Yes! Thanks.

[urban1]

??

Originally Posted by ddj

I thought each of you would be interested in hearing that the press releases by oil and gas companies are not necessarily “threats”, as coined by the media, but rather a regulatory requirement under National Instrument 52-101 “Continuous Disclosure Obligations” as published and enforced by the Canadian Securities Administrators

http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/...02_con-dis.pdf

In addition, COMPANION POLICY 52-101CPTO NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 52-101 FUTURE-ORIENTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION governs the disclosure requirements of publicly-traded companies, specifically growth prospects and capital spending http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/...52-101_pcp.jsp

I recognize that many, including myself, originally thought these press releases were political posturing…and some companiesmay in fact be using them for dual purposes. However, the media’s use of “threats” ismisleading… by the very same rules, companies are obligated to update their forecasts and future actions, based on a variety of outcomes… it’s the law…it’s about fulfilling a governance requirement and the obligation to disclosure… a important point that is easily overlooked.

The media has INCORRECTLY identified these press releases as threats, when in fact companies/officers/directors must issue the press release to the public as to the effect of pending legislation or proposalsmay have on their previously released guidance. If they don’t, they run the risk of being sued and being held personally liable for not properly disclosing the impact a change may have on their business.

[Azure]

Big oil WILL put out of Alberta if they can't make the money they can make elsewhere.

Isn't it funny how ignorant some people are of the issue?

[BlackArcher101]

I work in the industry and I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. The oil companies have already priced themselves out of Alberta since the cost of services is just too high compared to elsewhere. They are just using the potential increase in royalties as an alibi to fund elsewhere.

They have people that heavily rely on the industry by the balls, and when you say you will move money elsewhere it's called a threat. It's too bad the money they threaten to pull out of Alberta actually doesn't go towards public infrastructure but instead go to projects that they will gain from.

[REDVAN]

All I know is that I am trying to enter the oil industry and this situation is a huge problem. Some companies are unwilling to hire new grads until it gets sorted out.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I see the angle you're trying to take but there's a big difference between routinely updating your investors on CapEx for next year, and saying "well... if these go through, thousands will be unemployed!!!"

Look at this map of Crescent Point areas:

http://www.crescentpointenergy.com/o...ing_areas.html

Lessee... gas is in the dumper...so forget the "red" dots. Stands to reasons they'd pump cash in to the area with 4.5 green dots, and not the one with 1.0 - regardless of the royalty review. Perhaps its not so much to do with royalties....

You are correct - companies press release on their planned capital spending routinely. What isn't routine is something like CNRL's vague threat (yes, it is a threat - nothing clear and defined here).

If the Panel’s proposals are adopted, many oil and natural gas activities in Alberta would be rendered uneconomic. Canadian Natural would have no choice but to reduce activity and, via our contractors, would result in an
estimated 3,900 less direct jobs and 16,000 less indirect jobs for Albertans.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I work in the industry and I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. The oil companies have already priced themselves out of Alberta since the cost of services is just too high compared to elsewhere. They are just using the potential increase in royalties as an alibi to fund elsewhere.

They have people that heavily rely on the industry by the balls, and when you say you will move money elsewhere it's called a threat. It's too bad the money they threaten to pull out of Alberta actually doesn't go towards public infrastructure but instead go to projects that they will gain from.

How much can you expect one industry to take?

First they removed the Alberta Royalty Tax Credit.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/07/12/oil-credit.html

We did not speak out.

Then there was Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on
Land Management and Resource Development September 1, 2006
http://www.international.gov.ab.ca/documents/Albertas_Consultation_Guidelines.pdf

We did not speak out.

Then they imposed a carbon tax.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=8c3c9760-7cbe-4fab-b00c-1c77243903b6

We did not speak out.


The current government has made it more and more difficult to operate in Alberta. It is losing it “advantage”. Yet, they and many in the general public say it is the “big oil” that cannot manage its business. The reality is they have been staying above water due to good management; yet many want to see how far they can stretch the limits.

[Kjesse]

This is a hot political issue. Pointing to securities regulations and then saying these companies are obligated to make these statements is foolhardy, IMHO.

Its not just what they say, its how they say it, and how far they go. If someone is taking the position the oil companies are simply telling "The Truth", as "required by law", please, give me a break.

I've read several of the press releases (and tend to ignore the media reports, though some of them have made good reading), and its clear the oil companies are doing whatever they can to pressure the government... and as a shareholder in several oil companies, that's what I expect them to do to represent my shareholder interest.

The government is trying to be a little quieter about this but also don't have all their facts straight.

Still, the oil companies have been making record profits and have created their own problem... which is, they've accelerated the local economy to the point that costs are heavy, and we're all feeling that. If oil prices retreat, look out Calgary. Those who have kept their credit lines low will reap benefits, while those who extended themselves to the limit will quickly become over-extended. Just like every other economic cycle.

The royalties in place are so out of date it was time for a review. The royalty economics are totally out of line with $80 barrels of oil. And quite frankly, if we slow the expansion of extraction so future generations have a little more, that's not a bad thing.

Royalties will increase to become more in line with current economic realities. Nothing is going to stop that now. It also won't be the mega-increase everyone fears-- and some grandfathering or phasing-in is a prudent and fair approach.

And I'm saying all this as someone with a direct interest in the health of the industry. Its time to stop the fear-mongering.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The royalties in place are so out of date it was time for a review.

As "someone with a direct interest"; you should be aware the royalty reviews are conducted every year.

http://tinyurl.com/3xg9xl

Problem is the PC's have continually swept it under the rug and not addressed the issue.

Royalties will increase to become more in line with current economic realities. Nothing is going to stop that now. It also won't be the mega-increase everyone fears-- and some grandfathering or phasing-in is a prudent and fair approach.

And I'm saying all this as someone with a direct interest in the health of the industry. Its time to stop the fear-mongering.

What has created the atmosphere of fear is the panels position that the review must be accepted "all or nothing". No one is saying there is not room for improvement, but to implement the review in it's entirety would be foolhardy.

Stelmach has been spending a lot of time in Calgary the past two weeks, which indicates to me he may be meeting with some of the companies most effected by this.... but until he decides the industry is left to make a stand for itself and the people of Alberta.

[Reggie Dunlop]

LOL. Because petroleum companies know what's best for Joe and Jane Citizen.

Oh wait...

[Kjesse]

Firstlady,

I agree with what you've said in your reply, though your first post smells too much like pumping a political agenda for my liking. I also back off from nothing I've said, though I can't imagine that anyone would really think the government would somehow feel obligated to accept a committee's recommendations carte-blanche. Maybe I'm not using precise language, but "review" suggests a truly critical analysis at the decision-maker level, and that hasn't happened for some time, especially with Ralph conducting the government train. Stelmach has the issue in his sights and he's certainly in the position to make a decision so we'll see how this goes.

Its also interesting that the new "review" reaches a widely different conclusion from reviews past, no? What a difference a year makes!

Not to disparage the committee that deals with writing their "Royalty Review" each year, but there are plenty of government committees writing plenty of reports all the time. It doesn't mean those reports matter. I'd also suggest those reviews have lots of external influences that aren't spoken about -- and that's a knock on both the industry and on the government.

Implementing the "new" report would be political suicide, and not very fair to those who had no idea it was coming, but now the issue is being looked at seriously. Whether its being looked at properly is a whole different debate.

After all, there are Ferrari's driving around that aren't yet paid off.

I just noticed the OP seems to have signed on just to pump a political issue on a hockey board, so I think I'm just going to bow out of this thread now. (Though your point that there is always an annual "review" is well taken, I'm not so trusting of the governmental process).

Lol, yet another edit: You are pumping a political agenda (someone emailed me a link). I'm bowing out now for sure, good luck with the rally!

[Reggie Dunlop]

See, here's the thing. When exactly has the Alberta government(s) not catered to the oil industry? You really think they're a bunch of dummies?

I figure the Alberta Alliance Party (or whatever the hell it calls itself by next year) ought to go back to their traditional voodoo doll, namely Ottawa, who keeps sending homosexuals and French-speaking people out west to stir up the good bible-fearin' Albertans.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I just noticed the OP seems to have signed on just to pump a political issue on a hockey board, so I think I'm just going to bow out of this thread now. (Though your point that there is always an annual "review" is well taken, I'm not so trusting of the governmental process).

Lol, yet another edit: You are pumping a political agenda (someone emailed me a link). I'm bowing out now for sure, good luck with the rally!

I agree 100%

The OP has an agenda to spread this info to the general public, and I would be willing to wager that this isn't the only message board he has signed up to to post this. I don't know what exactly qualifies as spam, but...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

See, here's the thing. When exactly has the Alberta government(s) not catered to the oil industry? You really think they're a bunch of dummies?

I figure the Alberta Alliance Party (or whatever the hell it calls itself by next year) ought to go back to their traditional voodoo doll, namely Ottawa, who keeps sending homosexuals and French-speaking people out west to stir up the good bible-fearin' Albertans.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by First Lady

How much can you expect one industry to take?

First they removed the Alberta Royalty Tax Credit.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/07/12/oil-credit.html

We did not speak out.

Then there was Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on
Land Management and Resource Development September 1, 2006
http://www.international.gov.ab.ca/documents/Albertas_Consultation_Guidelines.pdf

We did not speak out.

Then they imposed a carbon tax.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=8c3c9760-7cbe-4fab-b00c-1c77243903b6

We did not speak out.


The current government has made it more and more difficult to operate in Alberta. It is losing it “advantage”. Yet, they and many in the general public say it is the “big oil” that cannot manage its business. The reality is they have been staying above water due to good management; yet many want to see how far they can stretch the limits.

I don't know if I would go that far, but your message is clear...

Nice one Reg.

Here is a question. Who deserves the money? The corporations and their investors and employees? The federal government? The provincial government? As far as I am concerned, the corporations are the only people actually going out and getting the stuff for us to profit off of - to sit there and say that the people of the province deserve more is a load of crap... what the hell are we going to do with it just sitting in the ground?

Have any of you ever heard of the experiment where one person is given $10 and has a choice to offer any whole dollar amount to a second person? Anywhere from 1 - 10 dollars. The second person can either accept the money or refuse it. Most people on the accepting end have a poisoned view that anything less than $5 is not 'fair' and therefore they will not accept the money. The ideal solution to this is not what you think it would be, and it underlines the fact that the concept of "fair" is not true. The best offer the person can make is $1 because they get to keep $9. The $1 that the other person accepts is still greater than the $0 they had before. To sit there and hold out because you don't think the offer is fair will get you nowhere in life.

Invest, work for the company, or start your own company and get after it yourself if you want to reap the benefits. Either that, or kick those who do operate out of the province if you don't want them here 'ruining' our environment. Urge the province to stop selling mineral rights and develop the resource as the province if you want more of the profit. Oh, what is that? The government couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag, so how could they expect to run a well managed oil and gas company that spanned all the assets in Alberta? That's what I thought.

The more money that gets into government hands, the more that gets absolutely wasted. And specifically speaking, the more money that Mr. Stelmach puts into his pocket, the easier it will be for the likes of Ontario and a few other provinces to hold out their hand saying "NOT FAIR". We'll have no choice but to share because we got the tax revenue from being the exact same kind of crybaby. Is that what you want?

I am sick of this argument. People are missing the point fighting over scraps. More money in the system will not solve our problems.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Firstlady,

Its also interesting that the new "review" reaches a widely different conclusion from reviews past, no? What a difference a year makes!

Where and how did you draw that conclusion? The past reports have been censored; had you read the article I posted you would be aware of that. For all we know they did reach the same conclusion.

Not to disparage the committee that deals with writing their "Royalty Review" each year, but there are plenty of government committees writing plenty of reports all the time. It doesn't mean those reports matter. I'd also suggest those reviews have lots of external influences that aren't spoken about -- and that's a knock on both the industry and on the government.

The committee that do this one are new people every year. In this case Ed made it a hot issue by using it during his leadership campaign. He went further by giving them the mandate of "Are Albertans getting their fair share". The panel themselves say they had a hard time giving a "balanced" report.

Implementing the "new" report would be political suicide, and not very fair to those who had no idea it was coming, but now the issue is being looked at seriously. Whether its being looked at properly is a whole different debate.

The industry was leary and speaking out before the report was delivered; no one was listening.

I just noticed the OP seems to have signed on just to pump a political issue on a hockey board, so I think I'm just going to bow out of this thread now.

In some ways it is a political issue for sure; one that effects everyone.... even hockey fans.

(Though your point that there is always an annual "review" is well taken, I'm not so trusting of the governmental process).

Thank you. I don't trust the current government either. I thought I made that pretty clear when I joined this board..

Lol, yet another edit: You are pumping a political agenda (someone emailed me a link). I'm bowing out now for sure, good luck with the rally!

If a political agenda is standing up for one believes and helping defend others against the current governments potential action; then yes, that is me.

I have never made any sectret of who I am or what I am about.