Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

so the NDP royalty review permanently scared capital away from Alberta? Perfect excuse! Alberta did nothing wrong, the conservatives in power of this province for 50 or whatever years did nothing wrong, case closed! It was Notley and the NDP.

Spectacular.

Originally Posted by nik-

Your post is bad because you don't know what you're talking about.

I'll just let nik's post there do the talking.

[username]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

so the NDP royalty review permanently scared capital away from Alberta? Perfect excuse! Alberta did nothing wrong, the conservatives in power of this province for 50 or whatever years did nothing wrong, case closed! It was Notley and the NDP.

Spectacular.

Honestly, you're like a child ruining an adult conversation. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Being on track for nearly $1B Canadian in net income for a year is far from "effing brutal". There are not many companies in the country outside of the big banks turning above those numbers and those companies are in a league of their own.

We should all raise a glass and be glad fat boy subsidized yet another highly profitable company that is leaving or will ultimately lay off hundreds shortly.

I know the numbers sound big to naive wide-eyed simpletons like yourself, but if things are so great why are they moving? Why are they laying people off as you suggest? How much of that was generated in the States? If that billion of profit (revenue-expenses) was generated off a billion capital invested (which it probably was), that leaves you zero return. Just because numbers sound big doesn't mean the ROCE incentivizes any kind of investment in this country. I love it when leftists think they get to decide how much profit is enough for companies based on no understanding of economics or business, just juvenile reasoning of "wow hundreds of millions thats a lots of monies!" a few people in this thread have already done it. They won't care that investment and companies are leaving but then cry about the public budget being cut 2% and act like those aren't connected at all.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by username

Honestly, you're like a child ruining an adult conversation. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I know the numbers sound big to naive wide-eyed simpletons like yourself, ...

Fantastic.

[Roughneck]

Whatever the take, can't we all find some common ground that Ovintiv is just an awful, awful name?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Makarov

From the Calgary Herald article:

Most of their operations are in the US. Also cherry picking an earnings number lacks context. Companies can have 'accounting profits' but lack sufficient returns to justify their capitalization. In Encana's context you should look at their 5yr stock chart to get an idea of how things have really been going.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I know the numbers sound big to naive wide-eyed simpletons like yourself,

Is this really the style of discourse we need to be having in this thread? This is why our political discussions suck in this country, because people choose to approach conversation, education on topics, and different viewpoints in this manner. The amount of insults and aggressive tone being thrown around here towards posters is incredible.

I think everyone is keen to hear from all sides, but it can be done in a respectful and educational manner.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Is this really the style of discourse we need to be having in this thread? This is why our political discussions suck in this country, because people choose to approach conversation, education on topics, and different viewpoints in this manner. The amount of insults and aggressive tone being thrown around here towards posters is incredible.

I think everyone is keen to hear from all sides, but it can be done in a respectful and educational manner.

The personal attack may have been a little over-the-top, but based on that poster's recent comments, they don't seem entirely off the mark either... The posts have come off as wide-eyed naivety, and honestly, simplistically incorrect, demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of corporate and investment functions.

Political discourse has been equally hampered by giving people that don't have a clue what they're talking about a louder and louder megaphone. It's not about differing opinions - which are fine and important - it's about being wrong and insisting on screaming it from the rooftops as if they're right (or at least based on reality).

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Is this really the style of discourse we need to be having in this thread? This is why our political discussions suck in this country, because people choose to approach conversation, education on topics, and different viewpoints in this manner. The amount of insults and aggressive tone being thrown around here towards posters is incredible.

I think everyone is keen to hear from all sides, but it can be done in a respectful and educational manner.

I think Dirac's tone is in response to posts such as "feckless conservatives" and others claiming people are peddling Rebel Media talking points.

You can't have a discussion with people who think you will always be morally wrong.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I know the numbers sound big to naive wide-eyed simpletons like yourself, but if things are so great why are they moving? Why are they laying people off as you suggest? How much of that was generated in the States? If that billion of profit (revenue-expenses) was generated off a billion capital invested (which it probably was), that leaves you zero return. Just because numbers sound big doesn't mean the ROCE incentivizes any kind of investment in this country. I love it when leftists think they get to decide how much profit is enough for companies based on no understanding of economics or business, just juvenile reasoning of "wow hundreds of millions thats a lots of monies!" a few people in this thread have already done it. They won't care that investment and companies are leaving but then cry about the public budget being cut 2% and act like those aren't connected at all.

You are an adult right?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I think Dirac's tone is in response to posts such as "feckless conservatives" and others claiming people are peddling Rebel Media talking points.

You can't have a discussion with people who think you will always be morally wrong.

I am not sure how decent conversation can progress if there is constant name-calling, antagonizing, and marginalization based on if something is wrong. This applies to both sides.

If one person makes an assertion, the onus is on them to back it up with facts and explain their position, and the person with the counter argument should back up what they say with facts and explain their position. Respect the other's position if they don't agree or see it the other way. Attempt to educate in a polite manner but respect differences of opinion.

Resorting to conjecture, hyperbole, and insults takes away from decent conversation. I'm not a saint on this either in past threads but this is really getting out of control in this particular conversation, not unlike we've seen in other politics and O/G discussions.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I think Dirac's tone is in response to posts such as "feckless conservatives" and others claiming people are peddling Rebel Media talking points.

You can't have a discussion with people who think you will always be morally wrong.

I edited out the feckless part a minute after I posted it. and rebel media talking points isn't a personal attack, it's commentary on the kind of drive by insults you will find here. Of which there are plenty.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I am not sure how decent conversation can progress if there is constant name-calling, antagonizing, and marginalization based on if something is wrong. This applies to both sides.

If one person makes an assertion, the onus is on them to back it up with facts and explain their position, and the person with the counter argument should back up what they say with facts and explain their position. Respect the other's position if they don't agree or see it the other way.

Resorting to conjecture, hyperbole, and insults takes away from decent conversation. I'm not a saint on this either in past threads but this is really getting out of control in this particular conversation, not unlike we've seen in other politics and O/G discussions.

No disagreements. I'm just saying I understand Dirac's frustration.

I've been very lucky over these last five years. I know many people who haven't been.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

so the NDP royalty review permanently scared capital away from Alberta? Perfect excuse! Alberta did nothing wrong, the conservatives in power of this province for 50 or whatever years did nothing wrong, case closed! It was Notley and the NDP.

Spectacular.

It's funny that your attempt at being sarcastic would have actually been your best post to show you understood the situation if you weren't sarcastic.

What's frustrating with the 4 years of Notley was, we all saw it coming when they tried to up the royalties and taxes on companies to try to generate more money. Companies left, so a higher percentage of zero is still zero. It's like they couldn't understand grade school math, or cause and effect. Those 4 years plus BC screwing us with TMX really did a number to Alberta's economy. And it's all self inflicting.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I edited out the feckless part a minute after I posted it. and rebel media talking points isn't a personal attack, it's commentary on the kind of drive by insults you will find here. Of which there are plenty.

OK, so to get this back on track -

You give off the impression that you are not very familiar with the basic principles and functions of investment capital - is this a fair characterization?

I say this because you don't seem to acknowledge or understand the concept of capital fluidity, meaning (as explained by others in this thread) that investment capital is finite and as such, with take the path of least resistance to generate returns. This isn't (only) Canadians investing in the O&G sector... This is Korean hedge funds, British private equity firms, American pension funds, and regular citizens from all over the world... There is literally no limit to where and in what any of these investment entities could choose to deploy their capital.

If your job is to manage other people's money, and you have $100 to deploy, do you invest in a jurisdiction that is already downtrodden, has recently undergone an unprecedented change in government and that new government has campaigned on a promise to review a royalty structure - because they think they deserve more - that has a direct impact on your investment returns?

Or do you invest your money in a different jurisdiction, with a stable regulatory environment, stable and expanding access to markets and certainty with regards to government intervention in your investment return (i.e. carbon taxes and royalty reviews)?

You don't invest in the first because a) there are better options and b) you don't have to.

Everyone can acknowledge there are a number of issues facing the O&G sector in Alberta, some of which are in our control, some of which are not... But the last thing the industry needed was the government further contributing to those issues...

If I've misread your understanding of capital investment and corporate decision making, I apologize. Please feel free to provide an explanation of why you feel things like the royalty review don't really influence the decisions of investors.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...struction.html

I thought I'd sprinkle in some good news.

[_Q_]

So the royalty review in 2015 permanently drove business away because it was done by the NDP. The royalty review in 2007 did nothing long term because it was done by the conservatives.

Likewise, increasing taxes by Notley is permanently driving away business. The tax reduction by Kenney will do nothing.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by _Q_

So the royalty review in 2015 permanently drove business away because it was done by the NDP. The royalty review in 2007 did nothing long term because it was done by the conservatives.

Likewise, increasing taxes by Notley is permanently driving away business. The tax reduction by Kenney will do nothing.

You realize Stelmach had to completely reverse every single change to royalties he ever made right? Like everything he ever touched turned to such garbage that BC and Sask out paced our investment for like four years. So yes, the conservative royalty review was even dumber. Just the way Stelmach kept saying "a larger piece of a bigger pie" in his hillbilly dumb accent still sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Sorry, let me rephrase my post:

Thanks again Notley.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by you&me

OK, so to get this back on track -

You give off the impression that you are not very familiar with the basic principles and functions of investment capital - is this a fair characterization?

I say this because you don't seem to acknowledge or understand the concept of capital fluidity, meaning (as explained by others in this thread) that investment capital is finite and as such, with take the path of least resistance to generate returns. This isn't (only) Canadians investing in the O&G sector... This is Korean hedge funds, British private equity firms, American pension funds, and regular citizens from all over the world... There is literally no limit to where and in what any of these investment entities could choose to deploy their capital.

If your job is to manage other people's money, and you have $100 to deploy, do you invest in a jurisdiction that is already downtrodden, has recently undergone an unprecedented change in government and that new government has campaigned on a promise to review a royalty structure - because they think they deserve more - that has a direct impact on your investment returns?

Or do you invest your money in a different jurisdiction, with a stable regulatory environment, stable and expanding access to markets and certainty with regards to government intervention in your investment return (i.e. carbon taxes and royalty reviews)?

You don't invest in the first because a) there are better options and b) you don't have to.

Everyone can acknowledge there are a number of issues facing the O&G sector in Alberta, some of which are in our control, some of which are not... But the last thing the industry needed was the government further contributing to those issues...

If I've misread your understanding of capital investment and corporate decision making, I apologize. Please feel free to provide an explanation of why you feel things like the royalty review don't really influence the decisions of investors.

This is a very good, well-written and respectful post, of what Ozy was getting at. No resorting to attacks and hostile / aggressive text here. Good job you&me.