Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
“Significant improvements”
I’ll need some citiations for that.
It was generally accepted the review did more damage than any “improvement” that may have come out of it, by hurting investor confidence.
Also good governance by waiting till actually seeing everything then listening to what everyone was saying? Ok I guess...
|
Depends how you measure significant
- The 5% royalty cap until capital was paid off on new conventional wells based on industry average rather than actual capital costs was a significant improvement to the previous regime. Long term the change here will improve investment. Tertzakian, who was on the committee, was quite passionate about these changes.
Who “generally accepted” this? I know the Wildrose was spinning that naritive. If you want to see a generally accepted bad royalty disaster go back and review the Stelmech one. (I’m not trying to be partisan here but just to compare what bad looks like). I think the statement that the royalty review had little affect in the macro economic climate of Alberta that year would be reasonable but overal in my opinion it improved the structure for the long term.