More False Assumptions Over Alberta's Royalty Review Report.

Interesting piece in the National Post suggesting the Canadian oil and gas stocks are not “surging” as they apparently are in the US. The blaming is being put on the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review, in part.. It also mentions that the loonies’ rapid rise (more correctly put – the US dollars significant decline) in value being up 20% in 2007 already and breaking parity with the US may have something to do with this.

The Canadian energy sector stock prices have been at or near record price levels before and after the royalty review report. Interesting today that Suncor is trading today over $103.00 – over the record high of $100.00 it enjoyed just before the Royalty Review came out.

People are entitled to their own opinions – they are not entitled to their own facts. In fairness, things are moving pretty quickly in the world these days and everything is so interlinked it is difficult to isolate causes and effects.

That said, it is at best a stretch to blame some minor stock volatility on a review report that has not been commented on by the government yet. Just more scaremongering and political positioning as I see it.

The Chinese Are Coming! The Chinese Are Coming!

ALBERTA ENCOURAGES CHINESE INVESTMENT:
Oct. 1ALBERTA 17, 2007 (China Knowledge) – Canada's Alberta encourages China to increase its investment in the oil province with many oil sand reserves, said a senior official from Alberta on Tuesday. Iris Evans, Alberta's Minister of Employment, Immigration and Industry, revealed in a press meeting at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing, that the more Chinese investments are expected to pour in.

CHINA’S CITIC BIDS FOR BEAR STREANS STAKE: REGULATOR
BEIJING — — China's CITIC Bank Corp. Ltd. is bidding for a stake in Bear Stearns Cos. [BSC-N], a senior Chinese regulator said, in the first official confirmation of media reports that the state-run bank was a potential suitor for the smallest of Wall Street's five big independent brokerages.
Bear Stearns is among the institutions hardest hit by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, and Chief Executive James Cayne said earlier this month it would consider selling a stake to an investor from China or the Middle East if the deal created value.

ALBERTA IS GOING TO BE PLAYING A NEW ROLE IN THE GEOPOLITICAL REALITY AROUND ENERGY SUPPLY AND INVESTMENT: The new normal of globalization on markets and investments and the demand for energy in the developed and developing world will put Alberta's oil sands in the cross hairs of geopolitical strategic issues. We Albertans better beef up our Intergovernmental capacity.

Gary Mar going to be Alberta's guy in Washington is a good step in the right direction. There is lots more to be done and some changes need to be made - including changing the Minister - for us to be ready for this new normal.

More Good Marketplace News in Alberta's Energy Sector "...regardless of what happens with the royalty review."

Oops! More good news from the marketplace on oil sands investments. How could this be happening when there is so many who are warning that the Alberta sky is falling on the energy sector?

Synenco Energy (SYN/TSX) is reported to have had a 13% one day rise in share prices now at $11.37. One analyst tagging it as a player to “outperform” and has a target share price of $15 on this company. Synenco Energy holds a 60% interest in the oil sands play known as the Northern Lights Partnership and they will be the operator of the Northern Lights project. They also hold a 100% interest in another adjacent oil sand project. They are also active in developing an upgrader just outside of Edmonton. These guys are not bit players.

The really interesting info on the Northern Lights Partnership is the other 40% partner. That is the SinoCanada Petroleum Corporation, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Sinopec – the large China based oil company. Again we see more confidence in the Alberta energy sector from non-North American sources. Why is that?

Mr. Bouchard, an analyst with Raymond James is quoted in the Financial Post as saying “Based on our analysis, current trading levels simply don’t reflect the value of the assets – regardless of what happens with the royalty review. (emphasis added.)

Some business writers (including this National Post piece) are still of the opinion that the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review has caused the Alberta energy sector to “have taken a hit.” I presume they are talking share prices mostly. There has been some share volatility, off record or near record highs for most companies since the release of the Royalty Review on September 18. That volatility has been in a relatively narrow range that is more likely tied to oil prices being up and down on a daily basis...and setting new record highs this week.

For some more perspective, I see in the Globe and Mail Report on Business today noted that 4 out of 5 of the TSX Index Lifters are energy companies – all of whom are engaged extensively in Alberta oil sands activity. Curious wouldn’t you say? The sky is not falling. It looks to me like it is raining money.

Marathon Oil is Buying Into Alberta - What Are They Thinking?

So Marathon Oil is clearly out of it. They are buying into the Alberta Oils Sands when the conventional “wisdom” is that the industry should run away from Alberta investment - at least according to some of the existing Alberta energy “players.”

They have been saying they can’t make a go of it with the second largest oil deposits in the world with oil at a record $86 per barrel and having to suffer with a province that imposes a stable democratic government with a strong currency, a skilled work force and located next to the largest market for fossil fuel energy use on the planet. That has to be a tough scenario in which to do business and make it work. Yes sir!

The “smart money” in the Alberta oil patch that is saying it is leaving Alberta and/or no longer investing because royalties will move from 25% of Net Profit to 33% of Net Profit. Yes that is a royalty based on Net Profits, meaning the dollars subject to royalties are not determined until after the projects have first paid all their operating costs including. They say that is 20% increase – which it is – but it really moves up 8 points and is based on net profits before taxes. Give me a break!

Marathon must be a fly-by-night operation run by a bunch of unsophisticated rubes to be going forward and investing in Alberta’s oil sands now of all times. Check out their website to see just how not true that is!

They operate in 18 countries and are engaged in exploration and production, including integrated gas, marketing and transportation and happen to be the 5th largest refiner in the United States. What are they thinking - coming into Alberta?

They should just ask Encana for advice to see how much of a mistake they are making by coming into the Alberta energy sector. Oh yes Encana has the “Our Fair Share” royalty review recommendation’s figured out all right. They are leading the mythological parade out of Alberta due to the Royalty Review which they say is destined to wrought devastation on the energy sector investment market for all Alberta for all time.

Get this. They said they were pulling out a $1B of capital activity in Alberta because of “uncertainty” caused by the royalty review. Get this too. Two weeks later EnCana said they are going to be investing a cool $1B into an oil sands play. Coincidence…I doubt it. Hypocrisy is more like it.

Investment actions speak louder than political intimidations in my book.

Marathon you better think twice about coming into the Alberta energy sector because of enterprises like Encana is allegedly doing the opposite. And whatever you do – don’t talk to Warren Buffett about investing in Alberta’s oil sands…he just may talk you into it.

Oil Sands Project Cost Double and CAPP Accuses the Royalty Review Panel of Using "Incorrect Costs!"

I have done a quick read of the CAPP Technical Review Executive Summary of the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review Report. CAPP is a very professional and respected organization with expertise available in it and to it to do such a Technical Review of the “Our Fair Share” report. I, on the other hand, am just a layman, and have not yet read the full report. However, I do find some representations in the Executive Summary curious.

I don’t know on what basis they say “Flawed Data” and that “The Panel did not take into consideration all of the data made available to them through the review process.” How could they know that, even if it were true? How do they know what was available to the Review Panel and what was not considered? We need a bit more evidence of this allegation, and it may be provided I the body o f the Review. I will definitely be looking for it.

The Panel based their recommendations on “severely understated industry costs.” The accusation is they (the Panel) used as range of between $4 – 6 Billion for a typical oil sands project. CAPP claims, and rightfully so, that such projects are ending up costing between $10 – 11 Billion. However CAPP omits the fact that all of those costs are totally recoverable by the industry during the 1% royalty rate until full project recoupment. In fact this 1% royalty rate until all project productions costs are recovered means less rigour is put on management to review and reconsider a project when costs are doubling as would be the case in a normal business model.

At record oil prices many projects have fully recovered these excessive project cost overruns in as little as 4 years. In any event, it is Albertans who are actually paying for these extreme project cost overages by virtue of our deferred royalties. So why is industry taking issue with this a saying the Panel is making a mistake of using “incorrect costs?”

I am inclined to have such projects that will do not meet presented budget targets in the original EUB process for approval go back to the EUB to show why their original project budget was so inaccurate. It is Albertans, after all, who are paying for these additional costs because of the 1% royalty rate until all such project costs are recovered. Albertans get no say in how much a company decides to pay or overpay in the end, once the proponents have an EUB project approval. That makes little sense.

Why don’t we require such projects to do a study and hold a further hearing to satisfy the EUB on what the cumulative impacts and secondary consequences are from such cost overruns? What do they do to the availability and increased costs of trades, supplies, equipment and materials? What impact will such excessive project overruns have on the costs of other necessary projects like schools, roads and hospitals who have to compete on price with energy companies?

Perhaps a project that is so inaccurately budgeted should have to justify the additional costs and perhaps even have to adjust the timing of the project so they don’t skew the labour and construction costs for other sectors. The astonishing cost escalation of the 23rd Street Overpass in Edmonton to some $250M in less than a year is a case in point on how this behaviour affects other sectors. Property taxes will also have to go up in Edmonton to pay for this inflated overpass project costs. This is because of the increases caused by competition with energy projects for everything from labour, to supplies, equipment and materials.

So the energy projects can blithely pay whatever they wish so long as oil prices stay high and Albertans eventually pay such additional project costs by our deferred royalty regime. The taxpayer gets it in the ear again by increased taxes or borrowing costs for much needed public infrastructure or the local government end up deferring those other very necessary projects hoping prices will come down.

And in the face of this the Technical Review accuses the Panel of using “Incorrect Costs?” Ironic isn’t it!