Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

of course they are, but that's the job of the opposition isn't it, especially on the budget, to point out the problems with the budget.

The NDP are the government, they're putting out a budget and its going to be grim, my concern is with the fundamentals of the budget.

Whether they like it or not the government is going to have to make serious cuts to how they do business, the previous government should have done it, the NDP are going to have to eat a big poop sandwich when it comes to dealing with their support base in the unions.

Its time that the government starts to look at how they're spending money.

And no a continual jacking up of taxes isn't the answer.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And no a continual jacking up of taxes isn't the answer.

Given past precedent, it appears to be the NDP's answer.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so does it make sense for me to buy oil by the barrel and store them in self storage units?

Someone had a similar question and decided to find out what it would be like.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...some-crude-oil

[Frequitude]

The Alberta budget is going to be paiiiiinful. Any oil sands project in post payout for royalty purposes pay 25%-40% of net profits (compared to 1%-9% of gross revenue pre payout). 25% of nothing is nothing.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Originally Posted by peter12

Man, Ralph Klein was a champ.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-80s-1.3397053

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...into-this-mess

Excessive cuts do not help in the long term.

We've spent years making up for Ralph Klein's infrastructure deficit and still experience high costs due to infrastructure shortages, particularly in healthcare. The worst part is that the cuts were done to eliminate 8 billion dollars in debt, an amount that only takes the province two years to accumulate in a downturn as the oil royalties diminish.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

of course they are, but that's the job of the opposition isn't it, especially on the budget, to point out the problems with the budget.

The NDP are the government, they're putting out a budget and its going to be grim, my concern is with the fundamentals of the budget.

Whether they like it or not the government is going to have to make serious cuts to how they do business, the previous government should have done it, the NDP are going to have to eat a big poop sandwich when it comes to dealing with their support base in the unions.

Its time that the government starts to look at how they're spending money.

And no a continual jacking up of taxes isn't the answer.

Yeah I get that. It just feels like some of them are cheering for failure, and that's distasteful.

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...into-this-mess

Excessive cuts do not help in the long term.

We've spent years making up for Ralph Klein's infrastructure deficit and still experience high costs due to infrastructure shortages, particularly in healthcare. The worst part is that the cuts were done to eliminate 8 billion dollars in debt, an amount that only takes the province two years to accumulate in a downturn as the oil royalties diminish.

Yeah Ralph was a magician. I mean sure, taxes were higher back then and everyone is against that today, but he balanced the budget and that's all anyone remembers.

[Frequitude]

403 Debt Free

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

403 Debt Free

780 debt free? Hell no

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah Ralph was a magician. I mean sure, taxes were higher back then and everyone is against that today, but he balanced the budget and that's all anyone remembers.

On the back of $10, $20 oil also, Ralph was the people's champion.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

On the back of $10, $20 oil also, Ralph was the people's champion.

Right, and taxes were higher. Lets not miss that critical fact.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, and taxes were higher. Lets not miss that critical fact.

Which taxes? All taxes were not higher, if you want to talk about critical facts.

[calf]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So at what point will we see further movement at the pump?


The price has been "stuck" at $0.82(ish) for some time.

Depends on if the dollar keeps declining or not.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, and taxes were higher. Lets not miss that critical fact.

And gas was the main driver back then too so $10 didn't hurt that much either. The point is attitude is everything.

When Joe Ceci in his budget speech said those already high forecast deficits will be revised if situation called for it, he and his party have an attitude problem.

Not respecting the budget limit you set, why set a budget in the first place?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Which taxes? All taxes were not higher, if you want to talk about critical facts.

Well business taxes, income taxes were both higher for starters. Which taxes were lower?

[Ironhorse]

Interesting article that evaluates Saudi Arabia's market share, which apparently hasn't really eroded all that much at all since 1994, and explores the idea that OPEC's decision has hugely backfired on them:

I suspect if Saudi Arabia were able to travel back in time to OPEC’s November 2014 meeting, the oil markets would look very different today. Because at that meeting the group made a decision that has thus far proven to be very costly to OPEC members.

Was this a miscalculation on the Saudis’ part, or is there a deeper strategy at play? I firmly believe they failed to anticipate how sharply oil prices would drop. I think they believed that oil prices could fall somewhat below $75/bbl for a short period of time, and that would be enough to bankrupt a lot of the shale oil companies and allow OPEC to recapture market share. Instead, the shale oil producers slashed costs, and while some producers have gone bankrupt — and other bankruptcies are undoubtedly on the way — shale oil production has proven to be much more resilient than the Saudis and OPEC expected.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/...iscalculation/

[Resolute 14]

^I recall reading an article from a few months ago that noted when the Saudis began this power play, shale oil was considered viable at around $80/bbl, so cutting the price to below $75 is in line with that thought process. Problem for the Saudis though is that the Americans managed to find so many ways to improve the process that it quickly became viable at $50. And possibly even lower now. So not only has the plan backfired on the Saudis, all they have done is make shale oil's position even stronger when prices recover.

[polak]

Well and potentially killed off/set back the Alberta Oil Sands....

[Frequitude]

The real victim of this price war is not the US shale industry. Those plays are just too variable and quick payout to ever be truly killed off (this trait does put a pretty firm ceiling on the price of oil for the forseeable future). They were just the short term victims (again, because of their variable nature).

The real victims are the mega projects that once running don't stop and take decades to pay out. That would be the Alberta oil sands and deep offshore plays. If I'm a capital dollar looking for a home, Saudi's actions have driven my risk premium on these long term mega projects way up. Which means my discount rate on their future cash flows has gone way up. Which means their net present value has gone way down.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Interesting article that evaluates Saudi Arabia's market share, which apparently hasn't really eroded all that much at all since 1994, and explores the idea that OPEC's decision has hugely backfired on them:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/...iscalculation/

Not the greatest article in my opinion. Technology unlocked a ****tonne of oil in the US and production was climbing rapidly.



What was to stop it from continuing up and eroding Saudi market share. The author's premise is based on an assumption that US production levels were flatlined and that the Saudis were trying to push them lower.

The Saudis aren't trying to push them lower. They are trying to stop them from climbing even higher.

The $1T "mistake" the author references was really just an inevitable loss of value caused by a technological shift in drilling. They just chose to take that loss early on the chin in an effort to bankrupt as many of the highly levered shale guys as possible. But those guys will pop up again once prices hit ~$80. It's a game of whack a mole that will keep a pretty firm ceiling on prices until demand grows significantly.

Technology is such a disrupter to markets. It's facinating to watch.

[flamesfever]

I think there may be many other factors at play which are influencing the Saudi's decision to lower the price of oil:

1. The ongoing friction between the Sunnis and #####es

2. The attempt to put a damper on Putin's aggressiveness

3. To make oil more economic in view of the accelerating move to solar, wind etc. energy.

4, To jumpstart the world economy