Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Red

Why do you assume that I didn't know about the review being a few weeks late?

I assume because you nonchalantly said it was "a few weeks late", when it was more like, "We're doing a royalty review", to "Well, we'll do it in a few months", to "Whoops, it's a few weeks late again", to "Holy #### turns out that was a bad idea that we never saw coming no royalty review for another two years. Carry on".

[nik-]

Oh man, delaying the royalty review for a couple years would be another disaster.

Unless they push it 10+ years out, they can't put it on hold.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Red

Why do you assume that I didn't know about the review being a few weeks late? I am quite aware of how it got pushed and then delayed. That's why I thought of your comments as ignorant. You assume that people that have a different option than you do so because they don't know as well as you do. Newsflash, I live this every day as much as you do, so yes, different opinions.

Either way. I still stand by my opinion that the current government is not to be blamed for what's happening here right now. Carbon tax may be a big burden in 2020, but that's just speculation on what will happen and how it will affect us.

Realistically it's unlikely that the NDP will get reelected so the whole thing will likely be scrapped. Corporations account for that. They will take the bump in the road here and there and wait for next election. They aren't that short sided.

So again, not saying that the NDP is doing anyone any favours, but at the same time, they haven't done much damage at the moment if at all. That's why I asked the question on what they have done to date to hurt us so badly. Because people are freaking out and blaming them for last years layoffs etc.

Dude, people are telling you in no uncertain terms that the royalty review is absolutely having an impact on capital decisions, and therefore jobs in this province.

You can call it your opinion all you want, but saying things like the one above in bold, are objectively wrong, specifically the "If at all" part. We can debate all we want how large the impact is, and your definition of "done much damage", I've even conceded that it's very difficult to accurately quantify it, but to imply that it's possible that they've not had any hand in making things worse, is flat out wrong.

You want to debate the size of the impact? Fill your boots.
You want to argue whether they've had an impact? Either take your head out of the sand, or stop implicitly calling some of us liars.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Red

Either way. I still stand by my opinion that the current government is not to be blamed for what's happening here right now. Carbon tax may be a big burden in 2020, but that's just speculation on what will happen and how it will affect us.

Who in this thread is blaming them outright? Anything I've read says they're not helping the cause.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by nik-

Oh man, delaying the royalty review for a couple years would be another disaster.

Unless they push it 10+ years out, they can't put it on hold.

They just did though. Status quo until 2017. Don't think that's really a bad thing. At least it's more certain than now. They would have been better off saying no royalty review while we're in office however.

Sorry, to be clear, they didn't delay, they said no increases until 2017. The line however I find blurry.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

They just did though. Status quo until 2017. Don't think that's really a bad thing. At least it's more certain than now. They would have been better off saying no royalty review while we're in office however.

Sorry, to be clear, they didn't delay, they said no increases until 2017. The line however I find blurry.

Yeah, none of the changes will come into effect until then. But if they scrap it to revisit it in a few years, that just fires up the uncertainty.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Red

Why do you assume that I didn't know about the review being a few weeks late? I am quite aware of how it got pushed and then delayed. That's why I thought of your comments as ignorant. You assume that people that have a different option than you do so because they don't know as well as you do. Newsflash, I live this every day as much as you do, so yes, different opinions.

Either way. I still stand by my opinion that the current government is not to be blamed for what's happening here right now. Carbon tax may be a big burden in 2020, but that's just speculation on what will happen and how it will affect us.

Realistically it's unlikely that the NDP will get reelected so the whole thing will likely be scrapped. Corporations account for that. They will take the bump in the road here and there and wait for next election. They aren't that short sided.

So again, not saying that the NDP is doing anyone any favours, but at the same time, they haven't done much damage at the moment if at all. That's why I asked the question on what they have done to date to hurt us so badly. Because people are freaking out and blaming them for last years layoffs etc.

Exactly zero people are blaming them for last year's layoffs.

I welcome you or anyone to provide a logical arguement against the following statement:

Higher corporate taxes, higher carbon taxes, royalty framework uncertainty, and campaigning against pipelines all have directionally negative consequences on the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

[Frequitude]

I would like to formally backtrack on my proposal that capping oil sands emissions is certain to be directionally negative for the industry. It is not a certainty. It is possible that doing so may lead to a higher likelihood of KXL proceeding, resulting in a net benefit for the industry.

That's probably why Suncor, Shell, Cenovus and CNRL stood beside Notley when it was announced. It's great for them. They're already producing. It's the guys with undeveloped leases that got boned there.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, none of the changes will come into effect until then. But if they scrap it to revisit it in a few years, that just fires up the uncertainty.

Very true. I could be way off base but personally I think certainty for a year is at least better than we've had however.

Is it the best solution? No, but I think it's better than the last 6 months at least. If nothing else it indicates they're not drawing their line in the sand as previously expected.

Maybe not. Maybe it has the exact opposite effect.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sorry, but what do statements like this actually mean?

money.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

I assume because you nonchalantly said it was "a few weeks late", when it was more like, "We're doing a royalty review", to "Well, we'll do it in a few months", to "Whoops, it's a few weeks late again", to "Holy #### turns out that was a bad idea that we never saw coming no royalty review for another two years. Carry on".

From what I recall of the major milestones, it was:

May 5 - NDP gets elected, confirm to proceed with royalty review as election promise despite economic situation/concerns
June 26 - Panel lead designated amidst continued public concerns. NDP asks and is quoted "Are we getting our fair share?"
July 29 - NDP says royalty review is on track and coming soon.
August 28 - NDP now says no actual changes until end of 2016. No details about review yet.
December 10 - NDP announces delay until early January (less than a month out?)
January 11 - NDP announces additional delay again - a few weeks (maybe?)

Am I missing anything major?

Just going through it though, I can imagine how companies are wondering what the hell is going on and have a lot of uncertainty about what to plan for; nevermind investment that has moved on.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Am I missing anything major?

No that's about it, except for today's announcement.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Dude, people are telling you in no uncertain terms that the royalty review is absolutely having an impact on capital decisions, and therefore jobs in this province.

You can call it your opinion all you want, but saying things like the one above in bold, are objectively wrong, specifically the "If at all" part. We can debate all we want how large the impact is, and your definition of "done much damage", I've even conceded that it's very difficult to accurately quantify it, but to imply that it's possible that they've not had any hand in making things worse, is flat out wrong.

You want to debate the size of the impact? Fill your boots.
You want to argue whether they've had an impact? Either take your head out of the sand, or stop implicitly calling some of us liars.

Seems like I ruffled some feathers here. It's not cool to defend the NDP, should have known better. Especially when facing an angry mob of unemployed oil workers.....dude, projects were getting shelved and people getting laid off before Prentice even called an election. Heck, the recession is the reason he is not the premier. Some of you have very short memories.

Look at my original post here, it was a response to someone putting blame on the NDP for a lot more than just perhaps having some hard to define impact. Thats why I asked what exactly they did to ruin Alberta already. They are an easy target. I bet if the PCs were in power we would be blaming them for everything too....such creatures we are. But let's get real here. As of today, this government had little to do with Alberta's recession.

But what do I know...NDP did it....

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Red

It's not cool to defend the NDP, should have known better.

Defend all you want, just have an actual defence.

Companies have come out and directly said they're not investing (or deferring investment) dollars in Alberta due to the uncertainty of the royalty review.

Apologies for quoting the Sun, but it's the first link that came up and I'm not going to spend a bunch of time on someone that's being purposefully obtuse.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/11/12...royalty-review

[chemgear]

I think we're being trolled.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Exactly zero people are blaming them for last year's layoffs.

I welcome you or anyone to provide a logical arguement against the following statement:

Higher corporate taxes, higher carbon taxes, royalty framework uncertainty, and campaigning against pipelines all have directionally negative consequences on the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

What now?

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-all-canadians

[Red]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Defend all you want, just have an actual defence.

Companies have come out and directly said they're not investing (or deferring investment) dollars in Alberta due to the uncertainty of the royalty review.

Apologies for quoting the Sun, but it's the first link that came up and I'm not going to spend a bunch of time on someone that's being purposefully obtuse.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/11/12...royalty-review

That's not politically motivated, right?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Red

What now?

Ah yes, the quote the back-pedalling from everything she said during and immediately after the election.

Originally Posted by Red

That's not politically motivated, right?

Never said it wasn't. But that doesn't make it incorrect either.

[Red]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Ah yes, the quote the back-pedalling from everything she said during and immediately after the election.


Never said it wasn't. But that doesn't make it incorrect either.

Ah, ok then...

[GP_Matt]

Does anyone know the extent of Husky's Cold Heavy Oil with Sands unit. If this shut down is accurate will it be detrimental?

http://oilpro.com/post/21484/exclusi...l-production-d

And, to keep things on topic, the article does mention that Husky is shutting in Alberta assets and developing assets in Saskatchewan. I don't think the NDP is wholly responsible for that decision but it is on topic.