There are growing indications of an American recession on the horizon. The smart surviving American investor will be looking for secure investment alternatives. The Kiplinger Letter is advising Americans to invest in Alberta based energy income trusts.
Here are some key quotes that some in the Alberta based Big Oil would see as heresy because they are good news about the future of the energy sector in Alberta even considering a royalty increase.
"The trusts have recovered nicely from a big drop last year after Canada enacted legislation that would have the effect of forcing many income trusts to reorganize as corporations, effective in 2011. Currently, Canadian trusts operate similarly to U.S. royalty trusts and real estate investment trusts. As long as the trust passes through most of the income it generates to shareholders, it avoids or defers income taxes."
"Meanwhile, current yields on many of these trusts read like those of a roster of junk bonds issued by companies in bankruptcy: Harvest Energy (HTE), 17%; Canetic Resources Trust (CNE), 15%; Penn West Energy Trust (PWE) 13%, and Enerplus Resources (ERF), 11%. High yields generally suggest big risks, but how high can the risk be for trusts that own proven energy reserves?"
"There is optimism galore. And, frankly, there should be. Until the price of oil and gas starts to fall sharply, something that's unlikely unless there is a global recession, or Canada restricts investment in the energy sector, these investments offer about the best ratio of reward to risk that one can imagine. "
Albertans should not be terrorized or deterred from demanding a fair share of resource royalties. The doom and gloom rhetoric in some media is mostly a self-serving fear campaign coming from the Burghers in the Bubble of the Calgary Beltline.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
More Industy Absurdity on Albertan's Resource Ownership and the Royalty Review
Hey Alberta, if you were unsure of the unvarnished corporate attitude about whose oil is it anyway, well Terence Corcoran’s column in the Financial Post today should clarify things for you.
Corcoran is a seasoned business writer and I have always seen him as Canada’s Milton Friedman. But if his observations today reflect the corporate lens and values as to who owns Alberta’s natural resources, then citizens and customers better wake up to what is on the horizon and assert our ownership rights through our government -as our TRUSTEE!
If Corcoran's comments represent Big Oil's attitude that is they who should ultimate owns and control the energy resources of Alberta then they need a reality check. Last guy who tried to assert inappropriate power over the citizens of Alberta's birthright to our natural resources was Pierre Trudeau and the NEP. Who do these Big Oil guys think they are - the reincarnation of Pierre Trudeau?
Corcoran’s final paragraph is the ultimate reduction of logic to the absurd. He alleges that “the real problem with the royalty issue is the degree to which the panel reinforced the legitimacy of the idea that Albertans collectively ‘own’ the resources through there government.”
Read the Canadian Constitution Mr. Corcoran, Section 92A (1) to be exact. Let me save you some time in looking it up. Here is the text:
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.
Corcoran is a seasoned business writer and I have always seen him as Canada’s Milton Friedman. But if his observations today reflect the corporate lens and values as to who owns Alberta’s natural resources, then citizens and customers better wake up to what is on the horizon and assert our ownership rights through our government -as our TRUSTEE!
If Corcoran's comments represent Big Oil's attitude that is they who should ultimate owns and control the energy resources of Alberta then they need a reality check. Last guy who tried to assert inappropriate power over the citizens of Alberta's birthright to our natural resources was Pierre Trudeau and the NEP. Who do these Big Oil guys think they are - the reincarnation of Pierre Trudeau?
Corcoran’s final paragraph is the ultimate reduction of logic to the absurd. He alleges that “the real problem with the royalty issue is the degree to which the panel reinforced the legitimacy of the idea that Albertans collectively ‘own’ the resources through there government.”
Read the Canadian Constitution Mr. Corcoran, Section 92A (1) to be exact. Let me save you some time in looking it up. Here is the text:
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.
Do these guys who think this way not understand the Rule of Law?
His second absurd point is an extension of the first. He equates Albertan’s collective ownership to other counties in the world with state owned resources and tier history of “…an ugly record of plunder, nationalization and monarchical control at the expense of property rights and economic freedom.”
How out of touch is this fellow? To compare Alberta with Nigeria, Venezuela, Bolivia and Kazakhstan, as he and some other pillars of industry and commerce, including have recently done, is untrue and insulting to all Albertans. It shows how dangerously out of touch with Albertan and Canadian values some of these people really are.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Who and What is "www.getitrightalberta.ca"?
We see the energy industry pushing the slogan “Get it Right” in some much of their comments and communications. We now see a website that has a similar name…http://www.getitrightalberta.ca/home.asp Coincidence? Perhaps!
Is this really an independent group of concerned citizens who are behind the site? Or is there something else going on here? Watch the video on the site of the news interview. The “guest” is clearly vague about the pointed questions as to who these folks and what this “citizens initiative” is about.
This may be an old school and popular American PR technique very often used by big business interests. Big Tobacco and (Big Oil?) have been notorious for using this tactic. They form these “ghost sites” and phony organizational fronts to try and create an impression that there is a grassroots concerned citizen’s movement. That movement just happens to be 100% aligned with the cause and claims of the business or industry sector.
It is kind of like the Quebec police who were caught masquerading as protesters at the recent meetings between Harper and Bush. The keystone kops were clearly trying to incite a riot so their comrades could move in with full force to “quell” the “uprising.” At least they got caught and eventually “fessed up!”
I don’t know if that is the case with this website but my Liberal friend Davberta has done some digging as to who is behind this site and he asks some critical questions. Visit him and follow the links through the site – then make up your own mind as to who is pulling the strings on this puppet.
More respect and credibility is being forfeited here by the energy sector if they are using these misleading and manipulative tactics on trying to avoid paying a reasonable and fair share royalty amount.
They would be better advised to set up a Facebook group in support of their cause. It would show some creativity and integrity too.
Is this really an independent group of concerned citizens who are behind the site? Or is there something else going on here? Watch the video on the site of the news interview. The “guest” is clearly vague about the pointed questions as to who these folks and what this “citizens initiative” is about.
This may be an old school and popular American PR technique very often used by big business interests. Big Tobacco and (Big Oil?) have been notorious for using this tactic. They form these “ghost sites” and phony organizational fronts to try and create an impression that there is a grassroots concerned citizen’s movement. That movement just happens to be 100% aligned with the cause and claims of the business or industry sector.
It is kind of like the Quebec police who were caught masquerading as protesters at the recent meetings between Harper and Bush. The keystone kops were clearly trying to incite a riot so their comrades could move in with full force to “quell” the “uprising.” At least they got caught and eventually “fessed up!”
I don’t know if that is the case with this website but my Liberal friend Davberta has done some digging as to who is behind this site and he asks some critical questions. Visit him and follow the links through the site – then make up your own mind as to who is pulling the strings on this puppet.
More respect and credibility is being forfeited here by the energy sector if they are using these misleading and manipulative tactics on trying to avoid paying a reasonable and fair share royalty amount.
They would be better advised to set up a Facebook group in support of their cause. It would show some creativity and integrity too.
Not Everyone In the Oil Patch is Threatening to Leave Alberta
It appears that the energy industry is not of one mind when it comes to the impact of increased royalties recommended in “Our Fair Share” review report.
The Calgary Sun is reporting that Enbridge is not following the herd using the same speaking points in the news releases that have recently been promulgated by some energy industry doomers and gloomers.
Interesting in this same Calgary Sun story is comments that clarify (sic) Talisman’s position. They are now repositioning their attempts to punish Alberta. Now they believe “…that public opinion isn’t fully informed.” They say “One of the reasons for Jim’s letter is to educate and inform – it’s important for the public to be aware.” “Jim” I believe is a former Talisman CEO. Shareholders must be wondering why is he still speaking for Talisman instead of the current CEO?) Could there be a difference of opinion between them?
So are we to understand that, as a public service, Talisman issued a news release saying they are pulling $500m of investment out of Alberta because of the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review Report. Of course that is the reason. What else could it be?
Yes, upon reflection, I do feel much more “educated and informed.” I have a much more educated and informed. Now, thanks to Talisman tactics, I am much more capable of forming an “opinion.” I have a much clearer and more committed opinion of the kind of company Talisman is and how they “communicate.”
They say Talisman’s vow to divestment “is not meant to be threatening.” I don’t feel threatened. I feel insulted. And I think the recent polls showing 88% of Albertans - who actually own the oil and gas - and who believe the oil patch should pay more – are all also insulted.
Citizens of Alberta have never been so focused, so furious,at so many levels and in so many ways over their government's incompetence and the arrogance and intimidation efforts by some energy industry players.
The Calgary Sun is reporting that Enbridge is not following the herd using the same speaking points in the news releases that have recently been promulgated by some energy industry doomers and gloomers.
Interesting in this same Calgary Sun story is comments that clarify (sic) Talisman’s position. They are now repositioning their attempts to punish Alberta. Now they believe “…that public opinion isn’t fully informed.” They say “One of the reasons for Jim’s letter is to educate and inform – it’s important for the public to be aware.” “Jim” I believe is a former Talisman CEO. Shareholders must be wondering why is he still speaking for Talisman instead of the current CEO?) Could there be a difference of opinion between them?
So are we to understand that, as a public service, Talisman issued a news release saying they are pulling $500m of investment out of Alberta because of the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review Report. Of course that is the reason. What else could it be?
Yes, upon reflection, I do feel much more “educated and informed.” I have a much more educated and informed. Now, thanks to Talisman tactics, I am much more capable of forming an “opinion.” I have a much clearer and more committed opinion of the kind of company Talisman is and how they “communicate.”
They say Talisman’s vow to divestment “is not meant to be threatening.” I don’t feel threatened. I feel insulted. And I think the recent polls showing 88% of Albertans - who actually own the oil and gas - and who believe the oil patch should pay more – are all also insulted.
Citizens of Alberta have never been so focused, so furious,at so many levels and in so many ways over their government's incompetence and the arrogance and intimidation efforts by some energy industry players.
Please appreciate this public opinion poll result is not intended to be threatening to Talisman or the Government of Alberta. It is meant to be a clear message that things are about to change. Those changes will be in royalties, revenues and relationships with both our government as our trustee and the energy sector as our tenants.
Petro-Canada Send a "Cooler Heads" Letter to Stelmach.
Petro-Canada is the next company to get in line to respond to the “Our Fair Share” Royalty review report. They have sent a “cooler heads” letter to the Premier seeking a “compromise solution.” They have acknowledged “that at higher oil and natural gas prices, it is reasonable for Albertans to expect higher revenues from royalties.”
They also believe the analysis of the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Report “contains material flaws.” They say; “If the report were enacted as is, we believe investing in Alberta would be severely impaired given prices today and those reasonably expected in the future. The result would be less total return to Albertan in both short and long term.”
According to the Auditor General we would already have a royalty revenue upside on the existing regime if we merely had a Department of Energy doing its job on the collection and calculation side. Albertans would be up some $6Billion. But that did not happen! There will be consequences no doubt.
The Hunter Royalty Review Panel used the GOA's the most current industry supplied and independent consultant’s numbers available in thier analysis. Royalties are not volatile like interest rates, currency rates or share prices. They are an economic rent concept embedded in a much larger context.
So what if “given prices today and those reasonable expected in the future” makes for a different set of end industry return calculations. The price of oil could crater or skyrocket base on geo-political forces alone not just markets. The Canadian currency exchange dynamics are just that dynamic. We are seeing central banks all over the world putting in billions of dollars to bolster the mortgage and some banks due to the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. They are also adjusting interest rates in response to this stupidity as well.
That volatility and risk assessment is the business of business. But no where in the energy producing world are the circumstances, everything considered, more stable and favourable, than in Alberta.
The business of our government as our trustee is to get us citizens a competitive and fair return from the exploitation of our natural resources in the form of taxes and royalties as well as environmental enhancements and in ways that these assets can be used in the service of the greater good.
Oil companies like all private enterprises have to worry about satisfying shareholder’s expectations at the end of the day. The amass resources like oil and gas leases, equipment, technology, expertise and employees to help serve those ends. But it is only the shareholder who votes in the Board of Directors who in turn hire the corporate managers and leadership. We citizens share the business risk with these managers and shareholders because we calculate royalties on net profits. We Albertans therefore only want quality companies with good corporate citizenship cultures and strong ties to our communities to be developing our resources.
The royalty payments are for access to the owner’s resources and they are rents - not taxes. They do not depend on income nor usually are they based on profits. In Alberta we risk share with the oil sands industry by only applying our royalty returns as a percentage of net profits. Albertans depend on these enterprises being profitable so we can get any royalty payment at all.
They also believe the analysis of the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Report “contains material flaws.” They say; “If the report were enacted as is, we believe investing in Alberta would be severely impaired given prices today and those reasonably expected in the future. The result would be less total return to Albertan in both short and long term.”
According to the Auditor General we would already have a royalty revenue upside on the existing regime if we merely had a Department of Energy doing its job on the collection and calculation side. Albertans would be up some $6Billion. But that did not happen! There will be consequences no doubt.
The Hunter Royalty Review Panel used the GOA's the most current industry supplied and independent consultant’s numbers available in thier analysis. Royalties are not volatile like interest rates, currency rates or share prices. They are an economic rent concept embedded in a much larger context.
So what if “given prices today and those reasonable expected in the future” makes for a different set of end industry return calculations. The price of oil could crater or skyrocket base on geo-political forces alone not just markets. The Canadian currency exchange dynamics are just that dynamic. We are seeing central banks all over the world putting in billions of dollars to bolster the mortgage and some banks due to the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. They are also adjusting interest rates in response to this stupidity as well.
That volatility and risk assessment is the business of business. But no where in the energy producing world are the circumstances, everything considered, more stable and favourable, than in Alberta.
The business of our government as our trustee is to get us citizens a competitive and fair return from the exploitation of our natural resources in the form of taxes and royalties as well as environmental enhancements and in ways that these assets can be used in the service of the greater good.
Oil companies like all private enterprises have to worry about satisfying shareholder’s expectations at the end of the day. The amass resources like oil and gas leases, equipment, technology, expertise and employees to help serve those ends. But it is only the shareholder who votes in the Board of Directors who in turn hire the corporate managers and leadership. We citizens share the business risk with these managers and shareholders because we calculate royalties on net profits. We Albertans therefore only want quality companies with good corporate citizenship cultures and strong ties to our communities to be developing our resources.
The royalty payments are for access to the owner’s resources and they are rents - not taxes. They do not depend on income nor usually are they based on profits. In Alberta we risk share with the oil sands industry by only applying our royalty returns as a percentage of net profits. Albertans depend on these enterprises being profitable so we can get any royalty payment at all.
So to have some of them threaten to leave the province if we charge a competitive rent for our resources tells me something about their character and judgement. I, along with other Albertans, will start to wonder if they are the kind of enterprises we need to be doing business with in the first place. I am not tarring everyone in the Patch with this brush. I know and have worked for many oil companies who are amongst the very best operations and people I have ever met. But there are some who have forgotten who owns the resource and how it is supposed to work. That is mostly the fault of our past government the way I see it. An that has to be changed and straightened out real fast.
The energy industry is no doubt beavering away at their economic models and the impact the full implementation of the “Our Fair Share” would have. They are going to resist change because it is not in THEIR best interest. Government is about finding the balance – not the compromise – that best serves all of our interests.
The “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review is by far the best option for government to choose when all things and everyone’s interests are considered.
The energy industry is no doubt beavering away at their economic models and the impact the full implementation of the “Our Fair Share” would have. They are going to resist change because it is not in THEIR best interest. Government is about finding the balance – not the compromise – that best serves all of our interests.
The “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review is by far the best option for government to choose when all things and everyone’s interests are considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)