Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The other side of the coin is that this, combined with the write-down we saw from Exxon is showing that the super-majors don't see viability here. It's not just today, but over the coming decade that the oilsands aren't economically viable for new production. That is a bit scary to say the least.
|
The write down was pretty much just a mandatory accounting exercise due to the strip price of oil. You should know that. It hardly has anything to do with Exxon's perception of Kearl's viability. If the price of oil rises they will just write it back up.
This has more to do with high cost oil than specifically the Oil Sands. Right in line with Shell selling off all their arctic stuff. They see the future in gas and not oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Wthout knowing the intricate details of oil production, is this a good thing that an international juggernaut like Shell is selling to Canadian firms?
|
It's probably more of a bad thing because it just further solidifies Shell's belief that the future is gas and not oil. Given how heavily favored we are towards the oil sands now, that would be bad. At least we still have a bunch of gas though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
Shell made a bad bet on BG at the wrong time. They seem out of sync with the cycles. CNRL made what I think was a smart bet on the longer time horizon.
|
I think that's a short term view. Shell's thinking 50 years out here, not timing 10-year cycles right. They're betting the future is gas. I'm inclined to believe them.
edit: So ya, I pretty much just said the same thing three times. Poorly structured post...