[Frequitude]

1) Agreed. Why should the integrateds pay for MEG’s poor strategy?

2) The integrateds are not “shifting” their profits from the refineries which benefit from the diff (the Edmonton ones) to other jurisdictions. They are paying provincial and federal income taxes on those profits. As for royalties, I don’t follow since royalties have absolutely nothing to do with refining profits. Royalties are bitumen based.

3) The air barrels issue should be addressed. We can’t be losing precious takeaway capacity, the exact thing we’re fighting for more of, to games. It will be easier said than done. You are not correct that it is just those refineries who are to blame. Speaking with friends closer to the game, Cenovus is also a very guilty party in it.

4) You are correct. That’s not the integrated’s fault though. Why should they pay for the sins of the upstream producer who overinvested? What signal does that send to anyone who might want to invest here in the future?

5) My whole argument is that this whole “program” should not exist. So no, I don’t believe the integrateds should prop up any unsustainable failing business.

6) You can’t reap the benefits of foreign investment (jobs, high salaries, royalties, taxes, etc) while at the same time lament the offshoring of their profits.

7) Sounds like capitalism to me. The strong and those who made smart decisions survive. And Husky is buying MEG at a premium to their current market value.

Only 1 of your 7 points are damaging to competition (air barrels). The rest are fundamental aspects of capitalism. You’re incorrectly attributing the consequences of a poor business model (bitumen growth with no takeaway capacity) to uncompetitive markets. A market isn’t uncompetitive just because some participants failed. Again, that’s capitalism.

The market is functioning just fine. It just sucks that it’s kicking many O&G employees, Albertans, and Canadians right in the teeth. Myself very much included.