News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

... and the recent residential construction boom that we have seen since 2020 (still nowhere near 2013-14 levels though) is going to come to an end. Higher interest rates will do that and although it was aimed at cooling down Toronto and Vancouver, Calgary and other markets will be victims too.
 
Interest rates should cool it down a bit, but we are the only province forecast to see growth next year, so maybe it won't. Calgary is still growing and we need housing to satisfy that growth...
Calgary will probably do better over the next few years than almost every other city in the developed world. Even so, real estate prices will likely decline substantially. Interest rates have reverted closer to their mean, now that central banks can no longer suppress them. Capital cities will feel the most pain as governments undergo the double austerity of balancing their budgets while also absorbing increased debt servicing costs.
 
Irish financial tech firm to set up first Canadian office in Calgary
"The Irish-based firm, a cloud-based provider of share plan management software, will immediately begin to establish an office in Calgary and create 100 jobs, said Rick Christiaanse, chief executive of Invest Alberta, the province’s economic development corporation."
 
Toronto is home to the large Canadian banks and financial institutions but Calgary is becoming the hub/ home for the financial tech institutions, plus RBC is setting up their financial tech lab in Calgary.
And good to see that Danielle Smith is not scaring investments away as we were told by the media 😁
 

Not sure what he is whining about. I don't recall any agreement with the federal government that oil & gas companies were going to invest some of their profits into climate change initiatives. I think most of the main players have already said they will invest in 'carbon capture' techniques. That should be the extent of their responsibility. After being 'slapped down' with bill C69 that limits any industry growth, why would those companies volunteer any more profits?
 
Last edited:
Just another politician pandering to someone at the expense of someone else...
He also conveniently omits all of the additional tax revenue that the federal government is raking in on account of higher oil & gas prices. That could be going to climate change initiatives. A lot more of that could be available too if we had more infrastructure (i.e pipeline, LNG plants etc)
 
Last edited:

Not sure what he is wining about. I don't recall any agreement with the federal government that oil & gas companies were going to invest some of their profits into climate change initiatives. I think most of the main players have already said they will invest in 'carbon capture' techniques. That should be the extent of their responsibility. After being 'slapped down' with bill C69 that limits any industry growth, why would those companies volunteer any more profits?
They asked for the tax credit. And got it. Now say they’ll do carbon capture, but none are even advanced to even start feed studies to my knowledge, and the companies are asking the government for continual operating subsidies.

The government is asking the companies to live up to their commitments—not just run ads about the commitments on the radio.
 
They asked for the tax credit. And got it. Now say they’ll do carbon capture, but none are even advanced to even start feed studies to my knowledge, and the companies are asking the government for continual operating subsidies.

The government is asking the companies to live up to their commitments—not just run ads about the commitments on the radio.
Classic! Do you work in the PMO? 🤣

What about a company like WCP? 100% net-zero carbon production yet they get no credit from the ESG crowd and trade at essentially the same multiple as any other Canadian oil company. What's the point in making these investments if there's no economic rationale to do so?

If Canadians think it is a positive to be investing in CCS projects (which there is a rational argument for) then they should buck up and incentivize those investments. As a shareholder in several mid and large caps, I would much rather these companies return capital to me through buybacks and dividends as opposed to allocating capital to negative NPV CCS projects.

Our honourable environment minister is certainly a buffoon, but fortunately cabinet ministers in our current government have essentially zero decision making power as we've seen in recent years. He's just echoing the rhetoric coming out of the Biden administration of late as they try to distract from their energy policy failures.
 
What's the point in making these investments if there's no economic rationale to do so?
Avoiding increasingly stringent carbon market charges, ensuring they're a going concern to maintain stock market listing. Whitecap should have increasingly comparatively better performance overtime all other things being equal.
I would much rather these companies return capital to me through buybacks and dividends as opposed to allocating capital to negative NPV CCS projects.
And that is valid. The question is whether you'd rather have a company exist in 2050, or just slowly wind down operations. Or wait until the NPV is positive and technology is far more common (like past the 50% adoption on the curve).

The large companies need to start moving today on some projects to enable the wider adoption later.
If Canadians think it is a positive to be investing in CCS projects (which there is a rational argument for) then they should buck up and incentivize those investments.
60% tax credit isn't enough?
 
as they try to distract from their energy policy failures.
As for this: The USA is going to hit an all time high in oil production next year, surpassing prepandemic levels. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...th-to-slow-in-us-next-year-as-inflation-bites

Natural gas production in the USA is also at a record level. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2A.htm

We shouldn't blame domestic policies for the result of a war, and the disruption caused by a major drought on the great plains.

I think you might need a little less Fox News in your news diet.
 
Avoiding increasingly stringent carbon market charges, ensuring they're a going concern to maintain stock market listing. Whitecap should have increasingly comparatively better performance overtime all other things being equal.

And that is valid. The question is whether you'd rather have a company exist in 2050, or just slowly wind down operations. Or wait until the NPV is positive and technology is far more common (like past the 50% adoption on the curve).
Why would they wind down operations by 2050? Oil and gas consumption is expected to increase for the foreseeable future and most companies are capital budgeting enough spending to maintain existing production or grow slightly.
60% tax credit isn't enough?
Evidently not if you're not seeing adoption. Although the credit was only announced last spring so you may start to see more CCS investments as budgets for next year are announced.
 
Why would they wind down operations by 2050? Oil and gas consumption is expected to increase for the foreseeable future and most companies are capital budgeting enough spending to maintain existing production or grow slightly.

Evidently not if you're not seeing adoption. Although the credit was only announced last spring so you may start to see more CCS investments as budgets for next year are announced.
Because even the Harper government committed to 80% reductions by 2050. So either you reduce emissions, or you shutter operations.

The government signal is for those investment budgets. It is time to put up, or don't be surprised if the government switches to 100% a stick instead of mostly a carrot.
 

Back
Top